Og's Bedstead - Shadal

In parashat Devarim, on the following pasuk [Devarim 3:11], Shadal responds to those who assert that the pasuk is an editorial insertion:

יא  כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים--הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל, הֲלֹה הִוא בְּרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:  תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת רָחְבָּהּ--בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ.

11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל -- "Moshe elaborates a bit in the telling of the greatness of the victory which 
Hashem granted them, for He gave into their hands two mightly kings, Sichon and Og. And all this is to strengthen the nation's heart, so that they would trust in Hashem to give them the land of Canaan. And this is [in line with] what he sums up [in pasuk 21-22] 'so shall the LORD do unto all the kingdoms whither thou goest over. Ye shall not fear them; for the LORD your God, He it is that fighteth for you.'

And with this same intent (to engrave in their hearts the greatness of the salvation which Hashem performed for them) he said earlier [pasuk 4-5] 'there was not a city which we took not from them; threescore cities... All these were fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars...'

And with this same intent he added here that Og was of the Refaim, whose strength and great height was well known in their days, such that they would frighten all who saw them. And he added here as well the matter of his bedstead, which was well-known in their days, and which was kept in Rabbat Benei Amon, for (just as Mendelssohn said) the Amonim kept his bed as a remembrance of their [own] might, when they were victorious over him and took his land. All this was to strengthen the image of the salvation which Hashem granted to Israel.

And there is not here any this which cannot rightly be said that Moshe wrote it. And behold, it is logical that, also in Ashterot, Og had a bedstead of iron, but Moshe did not command to keep it, for it was not his way to place a hand[hold?] within his nation for the kings of the nations, who were idol worshipers, for his Torah still required strengthening, since it was new. However, King David believed that the Torah's roots had already taken root in Israel and required no further strengthening. Therefore, when he took Rabbat Benei Ammon, he did not hold back from taking the crown of their king [מלכם] from upon his head so that it would be upon the head of David [II Shmuel 12:30]. And if the bedstead of Og was still there, it seems to me that he would have undoubtedly brought it to Yerushalayim. And this that this fact isn't mentioned in sefer Shmuel, one can understand that in the span of 400 years, it was already broken and / or lost and was no longer there.

And [so] it is not possible that this pasuk [in Devarim about Og's bedstead] was added in the days of David, as is the position of those who hold themselves clever. And I would ask them: who added it, and from where was it added? Behold, even if you just seek to say that what was added was כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים -- 'For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim', since the remembrance of the Refaim was already forgotten in the days of David, then that Og remained from the remnants of the Refaim was something that was quite old in his [David's] generation, and it is far-fetched that it would arise in someone's mind to add this matter in a sefer, which wouldn't aid or benefit.

Besides this, David and his friends, it would have been better for them to erase these words from sefer Yehoshua [12:4 -- וּגְבוּל, עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, מִיֶּתֶר, הָרְפָאִים and 13:12 -- הוּא נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים] and not to add them in the Torah. For behold, David and his servants smote the children of Rafah [II Shmuel 21:22, I Divrei Hayamim 20:4]. And would it not be for greater honor to David and his servants were it said that they were the ones who slew the remnants of the Refaim. And for what cause would the people of that generation relate to a later generation that only Og remained from the remnants of the Refaim, in such manner that the children of the Rafa could not be from this trunk famed for its might and great height?

Now if it is granted that the words כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים are not added, but were rather written by whoever wrote the sefer, behold I will ask: is it possible that this was the language of the author [with the words above included as those of the initial author but with other words allegedly by an editor missing]?

י  כֹּל עָרֵי הַמִּישֹׁר, וְכָל-הַגִּלְעָד וְכָל-הַבָּשָׁן, עַד-סַלְכָה, וְאֶדְרֶעִי--עָרֵי מַמְלֶכֶת עוֹג, בַּבָּשָׁן.	10 all the cities of the plain, and all Gilead, and all Bashan, unto Salcah and Edrei, cities of the kingdom of Og in Bashan.--
יא  כִּי רַק-עוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן, נִשְׁאַר מִיֶּתֶר הָרְפָאִים--הִנֵּה עַרְשׂוֹ עֶרֶשׂ בַּרְזֶל, הֲלֹה הִוא בְּרַבַּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן:  תֵּשַׁע אַמּוֹת אָרְכָּהּ, וְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת רָחְבָּהּ--בְּאַמַּת-אִישׁ.	11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of the Rephaim; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbah of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.--

יב  וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת יָרַשְׁנוּ, בָּעֵת הַהִוא...

12 And this land we took in possession at that time...

Then what connection and what relation is there to the middle pasuk [11] with what precedes and with what follows?"

__________

I have some thoughts on this, but will keep them for (hopefully) a follow-up post.

Could Devarim be subjective? Or is this theologically treif?

In a previous post, I explained how apparent differences between Devarim and the rest of Torah might be due to the agenda of author.

For example, in Shemot, in a narrative section about Yitro, it makes sense to mention Yitro's input into setting up the court system. Whereas, in Devarim, where the authorial agenda is placed elsewhere (e.g. movement of power from Moshe to others), there is no purpose in mentioning Yitro, and so he is not mentioned. Yitro is simply irrelevant, and his omission is not a contradiction. Since this is a retelling, rather than a first telling, and the audience already is expected to be familiar with the Torah, there is no fear that Yitro's role will be lost to posterity, and so the author of Devarim can focus on what he wants. Devarim is thus an agenda-driven interpretation of the previous text, rather than a dry Biblical history based on otherwise unknown sources.

The reaction, by some, was that this would not be palatable to an uber-frum audience. [This is somewhat beyond the point, because my main thrust was that from an academic perspective, this theory is more nuanced, and the competing theory is simplistic and non-nuanced. Further, who says we care about this uber-frum audience.] But, I am not so convinced that this would not be so palatable to a frum audience.

Let us look at some of the objections people raised:

Charedi TMS [ed: Torah miSinai] means that everything was given to Moses. It would be impossible to say that Moses had some fancy intent to explain why he made certain choices.

I can simply point to a pasuk from last week's parsha, in a perek from which many apparent differences came, Devarim 10:12-13:

יב  וְעַתָּה, יִשְׂרָאֵל--מָה ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ:  כִּי אִם-לְיִרְאָה אֶת-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בְּכָל-דְּרָכָיו, וּלְאַהֲבָה אֹתוֹ, וְלַעֲבֹד אֶת-ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ.	12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul;
יג  לִשְׁמֹר אֶת-מִצְו‍ֹת ה, וְאֶת-חֻקֹּתָיו, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, הַיּוֹם--לְטוֹב, לָךְ.	13 to keep for thy good the commandments of the LORD, and His statutes, which I command thee this day?

Yeah, that's all Hashem wants. No biggie!

Turn to Berachot 33b:

R. Hanina further said: Everything is in the hand of heaven except the fear of heaven,²⁵  as it says, And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee but to fear.²⁶  Is the fear of heaven such a little thing? Has not R. Hanina said in the name R. Simeon b. Yohai: The Holy One, blessed be He, has in His treasury nought except a store of the fear of heaven, as it says, The fear of the Lord is His treasure?²⁷  — Yes; for Moses it was a small thing; as R. Hanina said: To illustrate by a parable, if a man is asked for a big article and he has it, it seems like a small article to him; if he is asked for a small article and he does not possess it, it seems like a big article to him.

In other words, Moshe said this from his own, subjective, perspective. This idea should not be earth-shattering. It is a pasuk, that this is a report of Moshe's speech. Devarim 1:5:

ה  בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב, הוֹאִיל מֹשֶׁה, בֵּאֵר אֶת-הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת לֵאמֹר.

5 beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, took Moses upon him to expound this law, saying:

Or, for example, in Devarim 1, we see that a blessing Moshe gave the Israelites was his own blessing, rather than a blessing from Hashem.

May the Lord God of your forefathers add to you a thousandfold as many as you are, and may He bless you, as He spoke concerning you!		יא. ה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵכֶם יֹסֵף עֲלֵיכֶם כָּכֶם אֶלֶף פְּעָמִים וִיבָרֵךְ אֶתְכֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָכֶם:
May… add to you a thousandfold as many as you are: What is [the purpose of] repeating further [in the verse]: “And He will bless you, as He has spoken concerning you?” They [the Israelites] said to him, “Moses, you are limiting our blessings [i.e., our numbers being multiplied only a thousandfold]. The Holy One, blessed is He, already promised to Abraham (Gen. 13:16), 'so that if a man will be able to count [the dust of the earth, so will your seed be counted]!’” [Moses] replied to them: “This [blessing of a thousandfold] is mine, but He will bless you as He spoke concerning you!” (Sifrei)		יוסף עליכם ככם אלף פעמים: מהו שוב ויברך אתכם כאשר דבר לכם, אלא אמרו לו משה אתה נותן קצבה לברכתינו, כבר הבטיח הקב"ה את אברהם (בראשית יג, טז) אשר אם יוכל איש למנות וגו', אמר להם זו משלי היא, אבל הוא יברך אתכם כאשר דבר לכם:

Were this all Moshe merely speaking Divine speech, this distinction would make no sense!

Another example of Moshe having fancy intent when making certain choices in presentation is the distinction Chazal make between Devarim and the rest of the Torah in interpreting juxtapositions:

The Gemara (in several place, e.g. BT Yevamot 4a) notes that although there is a dispute among the Tannaim as to whether or not it is appropriate to make contextually-driven inferences (known as "S'mukhin") in the Torah, this dispute only obtains in reference to the first four books of the Torah. In other words, whether we can infer details of one law from a "neighboring" law simply by virtue of their juxtaposition is subject to debate among the scholars of the Mishnah. This is, however, not true with regards to Sefer D'varim - there is a consensus that juxtaposition is meaningful in D'varim and that such inferences are valid. This principle is known as "Darshinan S'mukhin b'Mishneh Torah" - we allow for juxtapositionally-driven inferences in "Mishneh Torah" (D'varim).

(Of course, that does not mean that one cannot darshen in Devarim, which then reflects Divine word choice. Also, who says that Moshe's authorial intent did not reflect Hashem's will?)

Another objection, from a chareidi perspective (or from non-chareidim attributing this to chareidim) is that any imprecision is theologically unpalatable, since it would be a falsehood. For instance, in response to the idea that Moshe is giving a quick summary of the masaot after Har Sinai, to show that Aharon died elsewhere, but that the reader is expected to know that of course Aharon died at Hor Hahar, the following comment:

That would be fine with a human writer living in the 7th century BC, yet i find this hard to reconcile with the concept of torah min hashamayim. What sort of a God is this, who doesn't care about creating accurate historical recounts of the past? isn't he the one who is supposed to have said "midvar sheker tirchak"?

Or, in response to the general idea of changed wording or details, e.g. the omission of Yisro's role:

1. Given that our tradition views the Torah as very precise document i.e. every single word and maybe even every letter is not supposed to be redundant, so whether one says different traditions or applies your suggestion, the question remains how does our traditional view allow for conflicting details of narratives. Was Moishe being disingenuous? Did Moishe never hear of “ha-omer dover b’shem omro”? or did he simply forget details? I really don’t see how this works.

From a chareidi perspective where every word or letter is meaningful to the extent that this answer would be a problem, the question does not even start. That same chareidi perspective has midrashic explanations, based on these slight divergences. And one uses these meaningful extra letters as a basis for a parallel Oral tradition which answers up any contradictions.

From a less extreme perspective, for the frum perspective I was never saying that these accounts were sheker, or that Moshe was being disingenuous. I was simply saying that he focused on what he focused on, and spoke in the language of man. Dibra Torah kilshon benei adam.

For an example from Midrash, let us consider the manna. As I discussed in a previous post, the Torah says that it became wormy and rotten:

20. But [some] men did not obey Moses and left over [some] of it until morning, and it bred worms and became putrid, and Moses became angry with them.

כ. וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל מֹשֶׁה וַיּוֹתִרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר וַיָּרֻם תּוֹלָעִים וַיִּבְאַשׁ וַיִּקְצֹף עֲלֵהֶם מֹשֶׁה:

Rashi writes regarding this as follows:

and became putrid: This verse is transposed, because first it became putrid and later it bred worms, as it says: “and it did not become putrid, and not a worm was in it” (verse 24), and such is the nature of all things that become wormy. — [from Mechilta]

ויבאש: הרי זה מקרא הפוך, שתחלה הבאיש ולבסוף התליע, כענין שנאמר (פסוק כד) ולא הבאיש ורמה לא היתה בו, וכן דרך כל המתליעים:

And that Mechilta:

וירם תולעים ויבאש - הרי מקרא זה מסורס. וכי מרחיש ואח"כ מבאיש, אלא מבאיש ואח"כ מרחיש, כענין שנאמר: ולא הבאיש וגו'. 

The driving force behind this midrash is a belief in spontaneous generation. Obviously, first something must become putrid and only afterwards become wormy.

One might well ask regarding this midrash:

What sort of a God is this, who doesn't care about creating accurate historical recounts of the past? isn't he the one who is supposed to have said "midvar sheker tirchak"?

The answer is that the transposed order is not "sheker" and it is not an "[in]accurate historical [ac]count". Rather, it is a way of speaking, a dibra Torah kilshon benei adam. See how many times Rashi writes that something is mikra mesuras or is mikra katzer.

Deuteronomy based on a different Biblical tradition? Simple vs. Simplistic

In a recent article, by Rabbi Zev Farber, Ph.D., this summary appeared:

Despite [ed: Deuteronomy] sharing many details with the desert story as told in Exodus and Numbers, there appears to be no way to make the two versions work with each other without unreasonably stretching the meaning of the texts. The simplest literary approach is the academic one which posits multiple authors with multiple traditions. How such an approach meshes with traditionalist belief requires serious thought but it is necessary to start by recognizing the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach.

Finally, it appears to me that being able to accept that there are contradictory perspectives expressed in the Torah allows us to offer meaningful interpretations of each and to address significant tensions in the text without feeling the need to create hollow apologetic explanations. Think of our other holy texts, the Mishna and the Talmud, for instance. They are filled with debates about Torah principles, and yet we say that eilu ve-eilu divrei Elokim chayim – each position is the word of the Living God. We are a religion that loves incongruity and debate and our Torah study thrives on the productive tension inherent in multivocality and conflicting perspectives. 

I have always thought that this academic approach was rather silly, as it applies to Devarim vs. the rest of Torah. For the academics, it is as if the only tool they have is a hammer, and so to them, everything looks like a nail. And then, since it is the "academic" approach, everyone considers it to be the most simple and straightforward. Thus, any discrepancy between Devarim and the rest of the Torah arises from a different tradition.

If I disbelieved in Torah miSinai and believed in multiple authorship, I would say something like the following, which I think is much simpler and straightforward. And nowhere near as silly.

Sefer Devarim was obviously written for an audience who were already familiar with the Biblical narrative, and the author wishes to exploit it for its own ends. That is, Numbers ends the desert experience, and particularly Numbers 32 is the end of the narrative. The remainder of Numbers is summary -- 33 as a helpful accounting of all the stops in the wilderness, 34 and 35 as the command and parameters of inheriting the land, and 36 as it applies to the tribes staying on this side of the Jordan. Thus, Numbers ended the Torah.

Now some author wants to take advantage of the Torah's popularity, and penned a sequel, as a first person recounting of the Bible from the perspective of Moshe. Call this author Moshe, call this person Yehoshua, call this person Chilkiyahu, Ezra, or even Fred. It does not matter. Someone would do this with a particular religious or political agenda.

That is why there are so many references to what "you have seen with your own eyes" in Deuteronomy -- 3:21, 4:9, 11:7, etc. The author knows his audience already knows this -- from the Torah they have -- and he is building upon it.

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. If he mentions Datan and Aviram but not On ben Pelet, the role of On is not going to be lost to posterity. If he introduces a slight change to the narrative that still works with the narrative, it is possible -- in some cases, likely -- that the author did this to further his agenda. If he introduces discrepancies in arcane points, it is possibly simply an error from the human author, rather than an accurate reporting of an alternate tradition.

Meanwhile, from the traditional standpoint, it is easy to say that it was Moshe Rabbenu as the author, with the agenda of exhorting to Israelites prior to their entering their next stage of existence. That other explanations exist which the article-writer considers "hollow apologetic explanations" does not mean that one cannot offer this extremely straightforward answer with a twist. Meanwhile, it also does not mean that alternative explanations (I'd have to see them) are indeed a davar reik. In many cases, these explanations of textual discrepancies simply function on a different plane of existence, in a midrashic universe where minor textual features are carefully analyzed and creatively interpreted. If so, this is standard midrashic discourse, rather than a hollow apologetic answer.

Let us examine a few of the ten discrepancies the article-author has offered. (Please note that this is not intended as an attack on him. It is rather a careful analysis of the ideas which don't originate from him, I think, but from other Biblical scholars. The author of the article has accepted this approach as the most simple and straightforward, and moves on from there. And there is much to praise in his intellectual honesty and willingness to expose himself to the slings and arrows that will inevitably result, given his position in life. But it is the ideas I am analyzing here.)

The first discrepancy I would like to consider is this one:

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.

In Exodus 18, the focus is on 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 Moses to others, in this cases, lower judges.

Another one:

3. The Scouts

According to Deut. 1:22, it was the people’s idea to send scouts to get a feel for the land before the invasion. However, according to Numbers 13:1-2 it was God who first commanded that scouts be sent.

Which serves the author's agenda better in Deuteronomy, that the Israelites were uncertain and thus wanted a feel for the land, or that God initiated it? See how the Samaritans work it out, blending the two texts such that they asked, Moshe was pleased with the idea, asked God, and God approved. (Forget about the focus on "lecha" in shelach-lecha which is either apologetics or finding further midrashic support for an already apparent resolution.)

This was the author of Deuteronomy filling in additional details, that they were uncertain and requested it. He fully knows that in Shelach, God commanded it, but would interpret this as a command in response to the request. In this way, he stresses the Israelites prior uncertainty about taking the land, which is part of his agenda.

4. The Panic

According to Deut. 1:25-26 the Israelites react with panic at the idea of conquest, even after the scouts say positive things about the land.² However, according to Numbers (13:26-14:3) the panic of the Israelites follows upon the negative report of the scouts.

Emphasis mine. In Number 13:27, the spies indeed say positive things about the land. That ten of them also say negative things, while two of them argue, is beside the point. That is not part of Deuteronomy-author's agenda, which is a mussar shmuess. His point is that once the Israelites heard these positive things, they should have moved forward.

In a footnote, the article-author acknowledges that even in Deuteronomy there is mention of spies saying negative:

² They do eventually say that the scouts frightened them (v. 28), but this is only after their initial panic and rebellion and the narrator/Moses never makes it clear that this in fact occurred.

Is he seriously suggesting that the Israelites simply made up a fact that the narrator / Moses disagrees with? And this made-up fact just so happens to correspond with a tradition in Numbers? This is "the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach"?!

My own "academic approach" answers this in a more straightforward manner. Earlier, it did not serve the author's agenda (or Moses' agenda) to emphasize the negative portion of the spies' report. Now, where Moses is about to dismiss the Israelites' concern in this regard, it does serve the author's agenda.

Another one:

5. The Loyal Scout

God references only Caleb in Deuteronomy 1:36 as the loyal scout who survives the punishment of the desert generation due to his loyalty. Although this parallel’s Numbers 14:24, it contradicts God’s claim in Numbers 14:30.

Actually, while only Caleb is mentioned in Deuteronomy 1:36, we hear that Joshua will go in immediately thereafter, in Deuteronomy 37-38.

Not as a loyal spy. That was not said explicitly, I readily admit. Instead, it is because Joshua is to take the reigns of leadership from Moses. Which is a huge part of the Deuteronomy-author's agenda.

If you look at Numbers 14, this can be interpreted as consistent as well. Numbers 14:24 singles out Caleb as the loyal spy who will survive. Numbers 14:30 also mentions Joshua, but does not give a explicit reason for Joshua. And Deuteronomy 1:38 steps into that void, sees the opportunity, and provides a different reason for Joshua. (Though obviously if he had been a rebellious spy he would not have been an allowable replacement. And of course he would have been spared anyway, but the focus was on his being Moses' replacement, and that just as the Israelites would not enter, so would Moses not enter)

Could you see why, in retelling, an author with an agenda might shift focus, and so, while not writing direct contradictions, reframing the narrative in such a way to advance his agenda?

This is not (necessarily) a result of Deuteronomy's author relying on a separate tradition, and being unaware of our Biblical text.

I could do the same for most of the objections people raise. And I would not do it as apologetics.

I think that many academics of Bible are good at finding discrepancies in the text but lousy at reading literature and divining authorial intent. And as a result, they don't see how an author might be reinterpreting a text rather than not knowing it. And it would be a real pity if we "recogniz[e] the simplicity and straightforwardness of the academic approach", and not recognize how simplistic it is.

Why did Moshe translate the Torah into 70 languages?

In parashat Devarim, the following pasuk and Rashi:

On that side of the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses commenced [and] explained this Law, saying,

ה. בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב הוֹאִיל משֶׁה בֵּאֵר אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת לֵאמֹר:

explained this Law: He explained it to them in seventy languages. [from Midrash Tanchuma 2; Gen. Rabbah 49; see Sotah 32a). Hakethav Vehakabbalah explains this to mean that Moses gave them seventy interpretations to every passage.

באר את התורה: בשבעים לשון פירשה להם:

It is not only Chabad's translation that refers us to HaKsav veHakabbalah. See also Ateres HaMikra:

Q: Didn't the Israelites only understand Hebrew, and perhaps some of them also Egyptian? If so, why explain the Torah in 70 languages? 

A: (HaKsav veHakkabalah) The 70 languages are '70 intentions', as Chazal say, there are 70 facets to the Torah. (Midrash Rabbah, Bemidbar 13:15) 

A: (Ateres) Perhaps we can explain that Moshe transmitted to them secrets of the Torah as is brought (Aggadas Bereishis 15:1) 'Sod Hashem Liyrei'av', סו"ד is the gematria of 70.

haKsav vehaKabbalah

You can read HaKsav veHakkabalah inside here. It is interesting that he assumes that the Israelites are the only possible targets, rather than the other nations of the world. And then, based on lack of any simple explanation of this midrash, this passage becomes cryptic, and becomes either metaphorical or mystical. Seventy can refer to 70 facets, even though elsewhere there is a tradition of 70 nations and 70 languages. (Haksav veHakkabalah connects the two, citing a Raya Mehemna that the Sanhedrin knowing 70 languages as the 70 facets of Torah.)

While this is plausible, and works well with the word באר, a good alternative approach is to scour Chazal to see whether they themselves give an explanation. And they do. In the Yerushalmi to the aforementioned Mishna in Sotah, we read:

דף לב, א פרק ז הלכה ה משנה  ואח"כ הביאו את האבני' ובנו את המזבח וסדום בסיד וכתבו עליהם את כל דברי התורה הזאת בשבעים לשון שנאמר (דברים כו) באר היטב ונטלו את האבנים ובאו ולנו במקומן: 

דף לב, א פרק ז הלכה ה גמרא  תני על אבני המלון נכתבו דברי רבי יודה.  רבי יוסי אומר על אבני המזבח נכתבו.  מאן דמר על אבני המלון נכתבו בכל יום ויום אומות העולם משלחין נוטריהון ומשיאין את התורה שהיתה כתובה בשבעים לשון.  מאן דמר על אבני המזבח נכתבו לא לשעה היו ונגנזו.  עוד הוא מעשה נסים.  נתן הקב"ה בינה בלב כל אומה ואומה והשיאו את התורה שהיתה כתובה בשבעים לשון.

Or, in the Tosefta, also on Sotah:

ח,ה  ר' יהודה אומר על אבני [המזבח כתבום אמרו לו] האיך למדו [אותם] עובדי כוכבים את התורה אמר [להם] מלמד שנתן [המקום] בלב כל אומה ומלכות והשיאו את הכתב מגבי האבנים בשבעים לשון באותה שעה נתחתם גזר דינן של עובדי כוכבים לבאר שחת ר"ש אומר על הסיד כתבו כיצד כידוהו וסידוהו בסיד וכתבו עליו את כל דברי התורה בע' לשון וכתבו [מלמטה] (דברים כ) למען אשר לא ילמדו אתכם וגו' אם אתם חוזרין בכם אנו מקבלין אתכם.

In both cases, we see that the gentiles, the umos ha'olam could be recipients of the Torah.

We have a much easier time nowadays finding these obscure sources. It is a simple Snunit search, or following a reference to the Mishna in Sotah and deciding to check out what the Bavli, Yerushalmi and Tosefta have to say about it.

I wonder also if there is a mental block in place, in which the assumption would be that any translation would be directed inward, towards the Jews, rather than outward, as a light unto the nations.

Perhaps see Rabbi Jonathan Sacks recent essay, A Judaism Engaged With The World.

Certainly see also the Tanchuma, which reads a different interpretation into this feat of Moshe, as showing a transition from Moshe as not an ish devarim.

_____

Here is another idea. It might not match the intent of the author of the midrash, but it sort of bridges these two explanations. Translation is interpretation. Here is a recent interview with Robert Alter that makes that point:

Every great work of literature – and there’s much great writing in the biblical Hebrew – has a mastery of means in its own language. It’s not only the kind of perfect word choice and subtle shifts from one level of the language to another, but also the rhythms, the lengths of words, etc. When you’re translating, you can’t possibly get all of those, while all the different features come together in perfect harmony in the original language. In most cases, you decide what’s less important and you sacrifice something: maybe you don’t focus on the order of the words in order to achieve some other effect of the original that’s important; maybe I can get the rhythm of the language but not quite the English equivalents that have the exact same resonance as the original.

Multiple translations might do a better job at capturing the nuance.

Posts so far for parshat Devarim

These are the bees, of which
 Moshe spoke to all of Israel..

2012

1. Devarim sources, 2012 edition. Further improved.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon -- Rav Chaim Kanievsky asks how the Sifrei can contrast a statement by Shlomo professing inability to judge with a statement that he was wisest of all men. After all, the context of each statement reveals that the former is prior to his request for Hashem for wisdom, and the latter is after Hashem's granting of his request! He answers that Shlomo was wise beforehand, and must have had some level of wisdom in order to merit the subsequent level of wisdom.

3. Running commentary on parashat Devarim, part i.

4. How does the trup parse אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם? Against Rashi, it seems, such that חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים are a unit. But that is acceptable.

5. YUTorah on parashat Devarim.

2011

1. Devarim sources, 2011 edition. Links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. This is quite expanded over previous years. For instance, there are many more meforshei Rashi here. Here is the 2010 edition, and the 2009 edition.
   .
2. Two places named Chatzeros -- Rav Chaim Kanievsky considers whether there were two places named Chatzeros, such that the one at the start of Devarim, in Ever Hayarden, is not the same as the one in themasaot, which is the one mentioned in Behaaloscha, where Miriam was punished with leprosy. I consider his words, and use it as a jumping off point. Plus, the Sifrei darshens a Samaritan text!
   .
3. Did Moshe lose out Eretz Yisrael due to the chet hameraglim?! Why does Moshe relate Hashem's anger, his losing out on entering the Land, and Yehoshua leading them in, as early as the chet hameraglim? Ibn Caspi answers based on essential and incidental causes, as well as free will coexisting with Divine foreknowledge. But I suggest ain mukdam, or that in fact Mei Merivah did occur much earlier.
   .
4. Justice in the murder of Ibn Gabirol -- Was R' Eleazar HaKallir killed by a scorpion in the sandal, planted by his jealous teacher Yannai. Was Ibn Gabirol such a good poet that he was murdered by a jealous Arab poet, who was caught by miraculous means of early-ripening figs? And what impact this has on how one should regard piyutim. This appears in Kav Hayashar on Devarim.
   .
5. YU Torah on parashat Devarim.

2009

1. Is kesufim a comment on anashim or chachamim? Understanding Rashi, in light of the original words of the Sifrei.
   .
2. Is there an extra yud in our Torah in parshat Devarim? And what Rashi means when he says that the word is chaser yud. Or perhaps chaser aleph.
   .
3. Siryon or Shiryon, and whether the Targum Yonatan reveals an alternate vocalization. I do not think it does.
   .
4. The parsing, and meaning, of Et Kol Ir Metim. Shadal asserts that it is a dispute between Targum and trup.
   .
5. Known to your tribes -- and how Rashi's midrashic interpretation is against the trup.
   .
6. Considering Ibn Ezra and the secret of the 12 pesukim. The position is well known, but the discussion about it is interesting.
   .
7. The cubit of Og, and how we can understand it on the level of peshat and in line with derech hateva.
   .
8. And as a followup, Mizrachi tries to explain Rashi based on the midrashim in the gemara, and how Rambam regards literal interpretation of those midrashim.
   a
9. A fun story of bribery in Sefarad.

2008

1. The slew of place names -- and the approach of different meforshim. Are they one place, multiple places, one speech, multiple speeches, etc.

2007

1. Did Moav or Israel begin the hostilities? With a Rashi suggesting that we did, in a permissible manner.
   .
2. A mote in the eye or a sliver between the teeth? The idiom, in its various variants.

2005

In Parsing Devarim 1:1, I discuss the omnisignificant midrashic approach towards the first pasuk of Devarim, which gives each place name an import, positive or negative.

In Parsing Yeshaya 1:5, I discuss how trup and dikduk interact, and seem to suggest a different parse of the pasuk than the one Ibn Ezra gives.

In Yeshaya 1, I discuss Yeshaya's initiation prophecy, sacrificial offerings vs. prayer, and some practical derashot of Chazal on some of the pesukim in this perek.

In Why Begin Here?, I suggest a motivation for the recounting of conquering of various nations by others, similar to the motivation cited by Rashi for beginning the Torah with Bereishit.

2004

• Moshe: Not a Man of Words?
• Devarim is a six month long oration, or at least consists of several long speeches. Did Moshe not protest earlier, in Shemot 4, thatלֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי - " I am not a man of words?" One could see his development as a leader. (According to midrashim that take this as a reference to a physical malady, one can claim this was healed at Har Sinai. On a pshat level one might say that in Hashem's response, He says that He will be with Moshe's mouth.)Rabbi Tanchuma answers this with a mashal, contrasting speech as viewed by the Creator of speech as opposed to how it is viewed by other humans. To Hashem, who created the mouth and speech, Moshe is not a man of words, but to others, his words are words, just as inferior argaman {purple dye} to a king is not argaman, but to others, it is. Then, a note on why someone would deny to the king that he was selling argaman.
• Believe in Hashem, Become Like Hashem?
• An interesting, daring midrash, based on a pasuk in Hallel and another in Yirmiyahu. כְּמוֹהֶם, יִהְיוּ עֹשֵׂיהֶם-- כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-בֹּטֵחַ בָּהֶם. If idolators are like idols, then one who serves Hashem, all the more so. To bolster the case,  a pasuk in Yirmiyahu, parsed midrashically and with the end lopped off:בָּרוּךְ הַגֶּבֶר, אֲשֶׁר יִבְטַח בַּה' וְהָיָה ה!

2003

• Parshat Devarim - Perverting the Mikra? An Open vs. Closed Canon Approach
• I analyze Chazal's approach to the first verse in Dvarim:

אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן: בַּמִּדְבָּר בָּעֲרָבָה מוֹל סוּף בֵּין-פָּארָן וּבֵין-תֹּפֶל, וְלָבָן וַחֲצֵרֹת--וְדִי זָהָב.

"These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab."

Rashi presents one side, in which all the place names convey some hidden meaning, but there is another view, that of R' Yosi ben Dormaskit, that these are in fact actual geographical locations. This argument takes place on other verses in Tanach as well. I categorized the approaches as open vs. closed canon, and suggested that this might give an insight into Chazal's attitude towards the meaning of pshat and drash.

• Is Devarim rebuke? Or a pep talk?
• I presented two approaches - the classic one that Dvarim is a rebuke of the Israelites. Then I suggested that it can be viewed as an encouragement, or pep talk, to the Jews at the end of their long stay in the Wilderness. That is, the only reason they had not inherited the land previously was that Hashem did not want it, because of various sins, but now, they would enter the land, under the leadership of Yehoshua. To that end, Moshe also details other groups that inherited the land Hashem wanted them to, even though the previous inhabitants were giants.
  It is good reading, and I hope you enjoy it.

to be continued...

Posts so far for parshat Devarim

These are the bees, of which
 Moshe spoke to all of Israel...

2012

1. Devarim sources, 2012 edition. Further improved.

2. The Wisdom of Solomon -- Rav Chaim Kanievsky asks how the Sifrei can contrast a statement by Shlomo professing inability to judge with a statement that he was wisest of all men. After all, the context of each statement reveals that the former is prior to his request for Hashem for wisdom, and the latter is after Hashem's granting of his request! He answers that Shlomo was wise beforehand, and must have had some level of wisdom in order to merit the subsequent level of wisdom.

3. Running commentary on parashat Devarim, part i.

4. How does the trup parse אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם? Against Rashi, it seems, such that חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים are a unit. But that is acceptable.

5. YUTorah on parashat Devarim.

2011

1. Devarim sources, 2011 edition. Links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, plus to many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. This is quite expanded over previous years. For instance, there are many more meforshei Rashi here. Here is the 2010 edition, and the 2009 edition.
   .
2. Two places named Chatzeros -- Rav Chaim Kanievsky considers whether there were two places named Chatzeros, such that the one at the start of Devarim, in Ever Hayarden, is not the same as the one in themasaot, which is the one mentioned in Behaaloscha, where Miriam was punished with leprosy. I consider his words, and use it as a jumping off point. Plus, the Sifrei darshens a Samaritan text!
   .
3. Did Moshe lose out Eretz Yisrael due to the chet hameraglim?! Why does Moshe relate Hashem's anger, his losing out on entering the Land, and Yehoshua leading them in, as early as the chet hameraglim? Ibn Caspi answers based on essential and incidental causes, as well as free will coexisting with Divine foreknowledge. But I suggest ain mukdam, or that in fact Mei Merivah did occur much earlier.
   .
4. Justice in the murder of Ibn Gabirol -- Was R' Eleazar HaKallir killed by a scorpion in the sandal, planted by his jealous teacher Yannai. Was Ibn Gabirol such a good poet that he was murdered by a jealous Arab poet, who was caught by miraculous means of early-ripening figs? And what impact this has on how one should regard piyutim. This appears in Kav Hayashar on Devarim.
   .
5. YU Torah on parashat Devarim.

2009

1. Is kesufim a comment on anashim or chachamim? Understanding Rashi, in light of the original words of the Sifrei.
   .
2. Is there an extra yud in our Torah in parshat Devarim? And what Rashi means when he says that the word is chaser yud. Or perhaps chaser aleph.
   .
3. Siryon or Shiryon, and whether the Targum Yonatan reveals an alternate vocalization. I do not think it does.
   .
4. The parsing, and meaning, of Et Kol Ir Metim. Shadal asserts that it is a dispute between Targum and trup.
   .
5. Known to your tribes -- and how Rashi's midrashic interpretation is against the trup.
   .
6. Considering Ibn Ezra and the secret of the 12 pesukim. The position is well known, but the discussion about it is interesting.
   .
7. The cubit of Og, and how we can understand it on the level of peshat and in line with derech hateva.
   .
8. And as a followup, Mizrachi tries to explain Rashi based on the midrashim in the gemara, and how Rambam regards literal interpretation of those midrashim.
   a
9. A fun story of bribery in Sefarad.

2008

1. The slew of place names -- and the approach of different meforshim. Are they one place, multiple places, one speech, multiple speeches, etc.

2007

1. Did Moav or Israel begin the hostilities? With a Rashi suggesting that we did, in a permissible manner.
   .
2. A mote in the eye or a sliver between the teeth? The idiom, in its various variants.

2005

In Parsing Devarim 1:1, I discuss the omnisignificant midrashic approach towards the first pasuk of Devarim, which gives each place name an import, positive or negative.

In Parsing Yeshaya 1:5, I discuss how trup and dikduk interact, and seem to suggest a different parse of the pasuk than the one Ibn Ezra gives.

In Yeshaya 1, I discuss Yeshaya's initiation prophecy, sacrificial offerings vs. prayer, and some practical derashot of Chazal on some of the pesukim in this perek.

In Why Begin Here?, I suggest a motivation for the recounting of conquering of various nations by others, similar to the motivation cited by Rashi for beginning the Torah with Bereishit.

2004

• Moshe: Not a Man of Words?
• Devarim is a six month long oration, or at least consists of several long speeches. Did Moshe not protest earlier, in Shemot 4, thatלֹא אִישׁ דְּבָרִים אָנֹכִי - " I am not a man of words?" One could see his development as a leader. (According to midrashim that take this as a reference to a physical malady, one can claim this was healed at Har Sinai. On a pshat level one might say that in Hashem's response, He says that He will be with Moshe's mouth.)Rabbi Tanchuma answers this with a mashal, contrasting speech as viewed by the Creator of speech as opposed to how it is viewed by other humans. To Hashem, who created the mouth and speech, Moshe is not a man of words, but to others, his words are words, just as inferior argaman {purple dye} to a king is not argaman, but to others, it is. Then, a note on why someone would deny to the king that he was selling argaman.
• Believe in Hashem, Become Like Hashem?
• An interesting, daring midrash, based on a pasuk in Hallel and another in Yirmiyahu. כְּמוֹהֶם, יִהְיוּ עֹשֵׂיהֶם-- כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-בֹּטֵחַ בָּהֶם. If idolators are like idols, then one who serves Hashem, all the more so. To bolster the case,  a pasuk in Yirmiyahu, parsed midrashically and with the end lopped off:בָּרוּךְ הַגֶּבֶר, אֲשֶׁר יִבְטַח בַּה' וְהָיָה ה!

2003

• Parshat Devarim - Perverting the Mikra? An Open vs. Closed Canon Approach
• I analyze Chazal's approach to the first verse in Dvarim:

אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן: בַּמִּדְבָּר בָּעֲרָבָה מוֹל סוּף בֵּין-פָּארָן וּבֵין-תֹּפֶל, וְלָבָן וַחֲצֵרֹת--וְדִי זָהָב.

"These are the words which Moses spoke unto all Israel beyond the Jordan; in the wilderness, in the Arabah, over against Suph, between Paran and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Di-zahab."

Rashi presents one side, in which all the place names convey some hidden meaning, but there is another view, that of R' Yosi ben Dormaskit, that these are in fact actual geographical locations. This argument takes place on other verses in Tanach as well. I categorized the approaches as open vs. closed canon, and suggested that this might give an insight into Chazal's attitude towards the meaning of pshat and drash.

• Is Devarim rebuke? Or a pep talk?
• I presented two approaches - the classic one that Dvarim is a rebuke of the Israelites. Then I suggested that it can be viewed as an encouragement, or pep talk, to the Jews at the end of their long stay in the Wilderness. That is, the only reason they had not inherited the land previously was that Hashem did not want it, because of various sins, but now, they would enter the land, under the leadership of Yehoshua. To that end, Moshe also details other groups that inherited the land Hashem wanted them to, even though the previous inhabitants were giants.
  It is good reading, and I hope you enjoy it.

to be continued...

How does the trup parse אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם?

Summary: Against Rashi, it seems, such that חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים are a unit. But that is acceptable.

Post: Towards the start of parshas Devarim, we encounter this pasuk:

13. Prepare for yourselves wise and understanding men, known among your tribes, and I will make them heads over you.

יג. הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם וַאֲשִׂימֵם בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶם:

Rashi

Note that Judaica Press translates it in accordance to Rashi, taking וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם as a unit, meaning "known among your tribes".


Here is how Rashi, channeling the Sifrei, puts it:

well-known among your tribes: Men whom you recognize, for if one were to come before me wrapped in his tallith, I would not know who he is and of what tribe he is, and whether he is suitable. But you know him, for you have raised him. Therefore, it says,“well-known among your tribes.” (Sifrei)

וידועים לשבטיכם: שהם ניכרים לכם, שאם בא לפני מעוטף בטליתו איני יודע מי הוא ומאיזה שבט הוא ואם הגון הוא, אבל אתם מכירין בו, שאתם גידלתם אותו, לכך נאמר וידועים לשבטיכם:

Compare with JPS which makes it a measure of their knowledge:

יג  הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים, וִידֻעִים--לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם; וַאֲשִׂימֵם, בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶם.

13 Get you, from each one of your tribes, wise men, and understanding, and full of knowledge, and I will make them heads over you.'

Ibn Ezra does not explicitly treat viyduim lishivteichem as unit, as Rashi does, but he does interpret viduim in like manner:

וידועים -שהם היו ידועים שיכירום הכל.

That they are known, that all recognize them.

(After all, it is the passive verb.) The Ramban writes:

יג): וידעים לשבטיכם - 

שהיו ניכרים לכם, שאם בא לפני מעוטף בטליתו איני יודע מי הוא ומאי זה שבט הוא, אבל אתם מכירים אותו שגדלתם אותו, לשון רש"י מספרי (דברים יג). ג

ואם כן, יהיה "לשבטיכם" קשור עם "וידועים".  י

אבל על דרך הפשט טעמו, הבו לכם לשבטיכם אנשים חכמים. 
ועל דעתי, טעם "וידועים" שהם ידועים לשופטים, כלומר שמעלתם ידועה ונכרת למנותם בה שופטים. וכלל מעלות השופטים במלת "וידועים", כי השופטים צריכין להיות אנשי חיל יראי אלוהים אנשי אמת שונאי בצע כאשר אמר יתרו, ואלה היו ידועים לשופטים מתחלה כי היו הכל אומרים ראוי זה להיות שופט:

That is, he first cites Rashi and states that if so, the word לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם is connected with וִידֻעִים. He continues:

"However, on a peshat level, its import is {via reordering the words} 'Get yourselves, for your tribes, wise men.' {J: and so 'your tribes' is not associated with yeduim at all.}

 And in my opinion, the meaning of yeduim is that they are known to be judges, that is to say, their greatness is known and recognized, to appoint them judges for it. And it encompasses the various positive traits of judges in the word וִידֻעִים, for the judges need to be אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים, אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת--שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַעת, as Yisro said {J: such that there is harmonization between Devarim and parashat Yitro in sefer Shemot}. And these were known to be 'judges' from the beginning, since all would say that this one is fit to be a judge.

In this way, I'll stress once more,  לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם is not connected with וִידֻעִים on a peshat level according to the Ramban.

Vilna Gaon

The Vilna Gaon writes, in Aderes Eliyahu:
לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם. לא קאי ידֻעִים בלבד אלא על כל הד׳ דברים שיהא מכל שבט ושבט

"'to your tribes' -- it does not apply only to וִידֻעִים, but rather to each of the four [sic; three; unless anashim counts, as righteous men, as in the Sifrei, in which case ignore three later in Gra, as well as his supercommentator in the link] things, that they should be from each and every tribe."

haKsav vehaKabbalah

Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mechlenburg, in his sefer Haksav veHakabbalah, discusses how trup fits into this picture. He cites the Gra, and then writes:


כי לפי נגינת הטעם מלת וִידֻעִים מתחברת עם חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים


"For according to the trup, the word וִידֻעִים  is connected to חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים." 


This is precisely correct. Let us examine the trup on the pasuk:

The one trup symbol appearing which subdivides an etnachta is the tipcha on וִידֻעִים, such that it is the first item knocked off. All the other trup symbols divide the clause ending in the tipcha. Thus, it is:


הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים
לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם

Can Rashi (and Ibn Ezra perhaps) give an interpretation against the trup? Yes. But even without that, we already have Ramban aligning peshat vs. the non-peshat (so I suppose derash) in Rashi based on different parsings. Noting that the trup is like the peshat parsing does not necessarily do away with the derash, even if we took trup as dispositive.