Intro to DH Post I of II

There are two purposes to this series. Firstly, several readers have asked me to do a post which is a general introduction to DH. Secondly, some commenters on this blog, most notably, Hencoop, and Rabbi Maroof, have argued that DH is circular reasoning. In this post, I hope to both give a general background to DH and respond to this circular reasoning argument. I will not actually go through all of the specific arguments that support DH, but will give a general background, stating the sort of arguments out there, without articulating them specifically. The nitty gritty can be found in past and future posts.

The structure of the post will be divided into 4 parts. Parts I and II will appear in this post. Parts III and IV will appear in my next post. Here are the ground rules, in this post, you can only respond to Parts I and II. Any response to III and IV will not be tolerated until I do the next post.
Part I - I will attempt to establish that the Torah is of composite authorship. This does not mean that the DH’s division of sources is accurate, but only that the book did not all come from one hand.
Part II - I will show that the verses described by DH as “D” carry a distinctive color to them. This does not mean they were written by a separate author, but only that they are special. For example, that specialness may be because they have a common theme. Moreover, at this point, it will still be possible to argue that what makes them unique is that they were written by Moshe. But, the point is, they are special.
Part III, I will attempt to show that D is indeed a separate author and the distinction is not merely between God and Moses.
Part IV, I will attempt to show that P is likewise a separate author.

Part I – Multiple authorship of the Torah

There are chiefly three arguments that support this theory.

1. The Torah contradicts itself numerous times. As an example, see this post on Moseirah. There are many more. The contradictions are very numerous. It is not logical one author would contradict himself so many times

2. Duplicates. The Torah repeats many stories more than once. I am not referring to saying the same thing twice, but to submitting two versions of the same story. Why? Those who are skeptic of DH argue that it is not repetition of the same story, but two similar stories. This however can not be for the following three reasons.

a. In some cases, the stories are so similar it is completely impossible for two stories, so similar, to have both happened. See for example, my post on the lineage of Kain.

b. In some cases, it is not possible for two stories that are very similar to happen twice because once it happened once, it could never happen again. As an example, see my post discussing the fact that Avraham was shocked to hear that God predicted the birth of Yitzchak. This could not have happened twice, for the second time, the shock would be uncalled for.

c. In some cases, it is implausible an event took place twice. For example, see my post on creation. It is not possible that God created man twice.

However, these duplicates are easily explained if we assume that the Torah has multiple authors.

3. Many sentences in the Torah are choppy and do not read well. They make abrupt turns that do not make sense. For example, see my post on mechirat Yosef. By dividing the verses into different authors, the choppy turns are better understood.

While each and every example I have cited may not be conclusive in its own right, the important thing to notice is that these issues are ubiquities in the Torah, to an extent that the traditional view can not be accepted. Anyone interested in more examples can peruse my blog. More examples will be forthcoming in the future.

However, I have not yet established what or who the authors are.

Part II – D is a unique section of the Torah.

D is a certain section of the Torah that is localized primarily in Deut 1:4 – 32:47 though it does contain other verses and not all of that section is D. In this section, I will establish that this section is more unified than the rest of the Torah, but I will refrain from commenting on if that unity is a result of it being written by a common author.

The section called D has many characteristics that unite it. It contains a unified purpose, nomenclature, view of the law, view of history, ideology, theology, sociology, political science and more. In short, there are many phenomenon that appear again and again in D but do not appear elsewhere in the Torah, or appear with less frequency. Moreover, there are phenomenon absent in D that are common in the rest of the Torah. I can not go through all of them in this post, but let us take two examples.

1. The word Anoki. The Torah switches off usage between Ani and Anoki, using Ani 182 times and Anoki 141 times. Yet, in D, Anoki is used 53 times and Ani is used twice.

2. The Circular Inclusio. This sentence structure appears once in D and at least 121 times outside of D ( I am aware of 121 times, but I can’t be sure if there are more since there’s no way to check for this in Bar Ilan. .

How convincing is that? Unfortunately, our minds are puny enough that we can not accurately intuit just how unlikely that is to happen. First, let’s assume we already take the division of D as a separate source as a given, what would be the probability of Anoki being used 53 times? The probability of any one occurrence being an Anoki is 44%. The probability of having 53 or more Anoki’s is 55*54* (.44)^53*(.56)^2/2 + 55*(.44)^54*(.56) + (.44)^55 which is equal to 6 times 10 to the negative 17th. Since we would be equally surprised at a consistent use of Ani, we should really double that, so it’s 2 x 10^-16. In any event, that number is very small. It’s 2 out of 10,000,000,000,000,000. It’s 2 out of 10 quadrillion. (That’s 2 out of 10,000 trillion.)

How about for the circular inclusion? If the entire Bible has one author, each CI was the same, each CI would have a 20% chance of appearing in D. The chance that only one or less would appear in D is .8^122 + 122*.8^121*.2. That’s 4 x 10 to the negative eleventh. Again, we should double it, yielding 8 out of 100,000,000,000. that’s 8 out of 100 billion.

But, what is even more remarkable is what happens when we consider the probability of both of these events occurring. The odds of two events, each with a likelihood of one in a billion to occur, is not one in two billion, not one in a trillion, not one in quadrillion, but one in a quintillion because you need to multiply the two numbers. The odds that both of the two events described above would occur is 2 out of 10 to the negative 26. That is equal to 2 out of one hundred septillion, or 2 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

What is even more remarkable is that I only have given two examples so far. In S. R. Driver’s Introduction to the Pentateuch, he has around 120 words that are not common to all authors. In JE Carpenter’s book he has over 500. Of course, most of them are not as good as the examples I have presented, but it is quite clear that the case is convincing. And, there are also the unified purpose, view of the law, view of history, ideology, theology, sociology, political science and more. I’ve just touched the tip of nomenclature. Anyone interested in more examples should peruse my blog archives or stay tuned for future blog posts.

Now, the skeptics will say that that is circular reasoning. I’ve just taken every CI and assigned it to someone besides D. But, is that so? There are essentially two components to the circular reasoning arguemnt.

1. There are so many words in the Torah. There’s got to be at least some that are going to do unexpected things.

2. I’ve specifically assigned the chapters in order to make the theory work.

First, to point 1. How many words are there in the Chumash? I don’t actually know, but here’s a rough estimate 189 chapters x 25 verses per chapter, x 20 words per verse. That’s 94,500. However, we don’t want to know how many words there are, but how many unique words. Obviously, many of those are repeats. Moreover, some words, like those appearing only once would not be suitable for the DH. Let’s assume the avg word appears 200 times (because some words, like et, appear many more times) then there’d only be 473 words. That seems low. Maybe it’s 1,000 or 2,000. Since CI is actually a sentence structure, I’ve got to throw those in, but there aren’t too many of those. Let’s pick 2,000 as the magic number. That means if I want to choose 2 examples of words, I have 2 million choices. Now, that’s a big number, but it is hardly relevant compared to the hundred septillion we faced before.

Moreover, it should be clear in that in reality, the correct number to think about is much less than 2 million. While in total there are 2 million sets of words I could have chosen, it should be clear that these sets are not all independent, since each set shares at least one word with 4,000 other sets. Thus, once one set is found to be lacking, it immediately implies that another 4,000 sets will be lacking. I don't have even have the choice to consider all 2,000,000 choices. But, even if I did, we would not be close to our number of one hundred septillion

The next question is, but didn’t I just assign the verses to D in order to make my theory work? That’s harder to answer. But, let’s look at it. The first issue is that I chose Deut, I could have just as easily chosen Gen, Exodus etc. True, but I only had 5 choices and by choosing one of them I wound up with a phenomenon whose probability was on in a hundred septillion. Another argument might be that there are some chapters that don’t follow the Deut = D rule. This is harder to quantify because there is disagreement amongst scholars. But, here is the view I generally use when tabulating tables for D. Ex 20:1-13 is D Deut 1:3, 14:3-20, 32:48-52, 34:1a, 5b, 7-9 is P. Deut 27:5-7a, 31:14-15, 31:23, 34:1b-5a, 6, 10 is JE. Deut 33 is a separate source. Deut 32:1-43 was incorporated by D from a seperat source. Otherwise, the rule generally holds, with a few verses here and there that are exceptions. Now, we have the following exceptions to the rule
1. Ex 20 is an exception
2. Deut 14 is an exception
3. Deut 32:1-34:10 is an exception
4. We have several verses here and there that are exceptions.

Now, how many other equivalent ways could I have divided it up? Given that I can tolerate these 4 exceptions, how many other ways could I have divided it up? First, let’s look at #’s 1-3. This is 3 exceptions. I could choose to put them anywhere in the Torah. It’s sort of hard to quantify exactly how many different places I could put them, but, since there are 189 chapters, the number 189 appeals to me. This means I have around 100,000 choices of how to divide up the Torah. Again, a high number, but very little compared to one hundred septillion. What’s more, that number ignores the fact that I did not randomly choose these chapters as exceptions but was forced into doing so. The only reason I choose to assign Ex 20:1-13 to D is because that section of the Torah is repeated verbatim in Deut 5. The only reason I choose to assign Deut 14 to P is because that section is repeated verbatim in Lev 11. Thus, I did not randomly choose the assignments that helped my case. I choose the assignments I was forced to because I could not possibly maintain any specialness of Deut 14 as compared to Lev 11 since they are the same. In reality, I had only 189 choices regarding Deut 32-34. But, even that is just silly. Clearly, you can not argue that assigning Deut 8-9 to P would be no less damaging to the theory than reassigning Deut 32-34. Deut 32-34 are the last three chapters, so they don’t break up the flow. The only thing that remains to be considered is number 4. The total number of verses included here is just 6.5 This is hardly relevant in the scheme of things. And, they are also not random verses. For example, note that Deut 1:3 is towards the beginning.

The point is, that while I do have some freedom of choice, it doesn’t explain the one in a hundred septillion chance of the phenomenon happening by chance. And, I’ve only used 2 words! Imagine if I used all 500 of Carpenter’s. Or, worse, imagined if I considered contradictions, theological orientation, purpose etc.

Of course, I’ve not proved it’s a different author. It could be that these phenomenon result from a different theme. Or, maybe it is a different author and that author is just Moses. Those arguments will be considered in the next post. In that post, we will also begin to consider P.

Parsha Insights V'uerah - Bo 2007

The plagues are not the DH most compelling section, but it is one of the most fascinating. Moreover, it has the advantage of being a self contained unit so you can really analyze this chapter without having to be concerned too much with how what we say here relates to the rest of Chumash. On the other hand, it’s a bit uglier, more complex, and less convincing than usual, so forgive me for the verbose and complex post. The bottom line is that when you look at the verses assigned to P and those assigned to JE in the plagues, you notice a distinctively different color to the words. Exactly what this color is very difficult to articulate. I will try my best to do so here. But, I would recommend, when you are done reading, that you open a chumash and look at the verses inside and decide for yourself if there is indeed a different writing style to the P section I would recomend doing this during laining).

טו כִּי עַתָּה שָׁלַחְתִּי אֶת-יָדִי, וָאַךְ אוֹתְךָ וְאֶת-עַמְּךָ בַּדָּבֶר; וַתִּכָּחֵד, מִן-הָאָרֶץ.
טז וְאוּלָם, בַּעֲבוּר זֹאת הֶעֱמַדְתִּיךָ, בַּעֲבוּר, הַרְאֹתְךָ אֶת-כֹּחִי; וּלְמַעַן סַפֵּר שְׁמִי, בְּכָל-הָאָרֶץ

This passuk appears right before the plague of Barad. The question is, why, specifically, is Dever singled out? After all, hadn’t God smite the Egyptians with many many plagues? Why pick on Dever? If you remember from 6th grade, the order of the plagues are

Dever
Shechin
Barad

According to DH, Dever and Barad are JE and Shechin is P. So, in the original JE document Barad followed immediately on the heals of Dever. Hence, it made good sense for Moshe to say, behold, I have just smote you with Dever, for that was the plague imminently preceding Barad.

From the plagues, the following passages are assigned to P (from 7:1 to 12:1)


Chapter 7 1-13, 19-20a 21b-22, chapter 8: 1-3, 12-15, chapter 9:8-12, chapter 11:9-10.

In short, P only has the plagues dam, frogs, kinim and shechin. JE has everything except for kinim and shechin. So, the first 2 are in both sources. I have placed the P section of the plagues at the bottom of the post for all those who are interesting. In addition to the problem I raised above, the division of the plagues according to DH answers another problem as well. Here’s a quote from chapter 7:

כ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיֵּהָפְכוּ כָּל-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר, לְדָם. כא וְהַדָּגָה אֲשֶׁר-בַּיְאֹר מֵתָה, וַיִּבְאַשׁ הַיְאֹר, וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ מִצְרַיִם, לִשְׁתּוֹת מַיִם מִן-הַיְאֹר; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

Notice that the phrase וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם is extremely awkward and out of place. What is it doing there?

However, it fits quite nicely after 20a where DH puts it. The original P read as follows:

כ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם.

On what basis can the DH string together all of these various verses? What do they share in common? The following is only a partial list. It contains both themes that are present in P (and not JE) throughout the Torah and themes that are limited to the P plagues, but are not in the JE plagues.

1. Referring to the Jews as God’s צִבְאֹתַי (7:4)
2. The term שְׁפָטִים (7:5)
3. The phrase וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה (7:5), also frequent in Ezekel which is close to P.
4. Obsession with ages (7:6)
5. The sorcerers (7:11), (7:22) (8:3), (8:13), (9:11)
6. A circular inclusion (7:6)
7. Aaron alongside Moses as close to an equal (in JE he is either not present or an on-looker, never an active participant). (7:1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19, 20, 8:1, 2, 12, 9:8, 11:10)
8. the phrase וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה, 7:13, 7:22, 8:15, 9:12, 11:10

It is true that the phrase וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה, also appears in JE, 9:35, 10:20, 20:27, but the point is that P only uses this phrase while JE alternates between this and וְהַכְבֵּד אֶת-לִבּוֹ .

The following is a list of JE words in the JE plagues:

1. Anoki (7:17, 7:27, 8:24, 8:25)
2. The aversion of the word Korban, using zevach or avodah instead (8:21-24, 9:8-11, 25)
3. SKL for stoning (8:22)
4. Terem (9:30, 10:7)
5. Adamah (8:17, 10:6)
6. Finding favor in the eyes of (11:3)
7. Israel with no binei in front of it (11:7)

But, on top of this, there is a distinctive color to the P verses. Let’s analyze the last 8 plagues. If we look at the Kinim and Sheching plagues, they have the following things in common that the other plagues do not:

1. Primacy of Aaron. In JE, Moses does everything, Aaron either stands silently or is not present.
2. No warning from Moses (warning is in every plague in JE, except choshech)
3. The plague is not ended by Moses, but by itself. (in JE, Moses ends them all except for dam, dever, choshech
4. The language is much shorter and to the point. No waxing eloquent on the extent of the plague
5. The fact that the Jews are separated is not mentioned, a frequent theme of JE (mentioned in every JE plague except for dam, and frogs).
6. The sorcerers are mentioned (they are never mentioned in JE).
7. In JE, there is frequently negotiation between Moses and Pharoh. Moses demands that the people go and there is negotiation of who exactly is going (in the plagues frogs, arov arbeh, choshech) . That never appear in P.

In reality, numbers 2, 3, 6, 7 are all related. P sees the plagues as a way of proving God’s primacy. As such, the sorcerers are mentioned to say God is more powerful then they. On the other hand, JE sees the plagues as a way to pressure Pharoh into letting the Jews go. But, single authorship is not able to explain why there should be a correlation in which in the “proving” plagues, we also see the primacy of Aaron, a more concise writing style, and no mention of the Jews’ separateness. These items would seem to be uncorrelated. Moreover, for single authorship, it would be difficult to explain why there is a sudden switch from plague to plague in the purpose of the plague.

When it comes to the first two plagues I can make them correlate with minimal editing. On top of that, that editing, at least in the case of the blood plague, is justified in that the text as we now have it does not read well at all. And, to make matters worse, the JE/P division here is further substantiated by the general language division of P/JE throughout the entire Bible.


A gut shabbos to all.



א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. ב אַתָּה תְדַבֵּר, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּךָּ; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ יְדַבֵּר אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וְשִׁלַּח אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ. ג וַאֲנִי אַקְשֶׁה, אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה; וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת-אֹתֹתַי וְאֶת-מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. ד וְלֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵכֶם פַּרְעֹה, וְנָתַתִּי אֶת-יָדִי בְּמִצְרָיִם; וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶת-צִבְאֹתַי אֶת-עַמִּי בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, בִּשְׁפָטִים, גְּדֹלִים. ה וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי-אֲנִי יְהוָה, בִּנְטֹתִי אֶת-יָדִי עַל-מִצְרָיִם; וְהוֹצֵאתִי אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִתּוֹכָם. ו וַיַּעַשׂ מֹשֶׁה, וְאַהֲרֹן--כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֹתָם, כֵּן עָשׂוּ. ז וּמֹשֶׁה, בֶּן-שְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה, וְאַהֲרֹן, בֶּן-שָׁלֹשׁ וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה--בְּדַבְּרָם, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה. {פ}
ח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר. ט כִּי יְדַבֵּר אֲלֵכֶם פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר, תְּנוּ לָכֶם מוֹפֵת; וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קַח אֶת-מַטְּךָ וְהַשְׁלֵךְ לִפְנֵי-פַרְעֹה--יְהִי לְתַנִּין. י וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, וַיַּעֲשׂוּ כֵן, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה; וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת-מַטֵּהוּ, לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה וְלִפְנֵי עֲבָדָיו--וַיְהִי לְתַנִּין. יא וַיִּקְרָא, גַּם-פַּרְעֹה, לַחֲכָמִים, וְלַמְכַשְּׁפִים; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ גַם-הֵם חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם, בְּלַהֲטֵיהֶם--כֵּן. יב וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אִישׁ מַטֵּהוּ, וַיִּהְיוּ לְתַנִּינִם; וַיִּבְלַע מַטֵּה-אַהֲרֹן, אֶת-מַטֹּתָם. יג וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם: כַּאֲשֶׁר, דִּבֶּר יְהוָה. {ס}
יט וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן קַח מַטְּךָ וּנְטֵה-יָדְךָ עַל-מֵימֵי מִצְרַיִם עַל-נַהֲרֹתָם עַל-יְאֹרֵיהֶם וְעַל-אַגְמֵיהֶם וְעַל כָּל-מִקְוֵה מֵימֵיהֶם--וְיִהְיוּ-דָם; וְהָיָה דָם בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, וּבָעֵצִים וּבָאֲבָנִים. כ וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה, וַיָּרֶם בַּמַּטֶּה וַיַּךְ אֶת-הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר בַּיְאֹר, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה, וּלְעֵינֵי עֲבָדָיו; וַיְהִי הַדָּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. כב וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן חַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם, בְּלָטֵיהֶם; וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב-פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא-שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה


א וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן נְטֵה אֶת-יָדְךָ בְּמַטֶּךָ, עַל-הַנְּהָרֹת עַל-הַיְאֹרִים וְעַל-הָאֲגַמִּים; וְהַעַל אֶת-הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. ב וַיֵּט אַהֲרֹן אֶת-יָדוֹ, עַל מֵימֵי מִצְרָיִם; וַתַּעַל, הַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ, וַתְּכַס, אֶת-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. ג וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן הַחַרְטֻמִּים, בְּלָטֵיהֶם; וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת-הַצְפַרְדְּעִים, עַל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

יב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, אֱמֹר אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, נְטֵה אֶת-מַטְּךָ וְהַךְ אֶת-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ; וְהָיָה לְכִנִּם, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. יג וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן, וַיֵּט אַהֲרֹן אֶת-יָדוֹ בְמַטֵּהוּ וַיַּךְ אֶת-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ, וַתְּהִי הַכִּנָּם, בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה: כָּל-עֲפַר הָאָרֶץ הָיָה כִנִּים, בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. יד וַיַּעֲשׂוּ-כֵן הַחַרְטֻמִּים בְּלָטֵיהֶם לְהוֹצִיא אֶת-הַכִּנִּים, וְלֹא יָכֹלוּ; וַתְּהִי, הַכִּנָּם, בָּאָדָם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה. טו וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּם אֶל-פַּרְעֹה, אֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים הִוא; וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב-פַּרְעֹה וְלֹא-שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה. {ס}

ח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קְחוּ לָכֶם מְלֹא חָפְנֵיכֶם, פִּיחַ כִּבְשָׁן; וּזְרָקוֹ מֹשֶׁה הַשָּׁמַיְמָה, לְעֵינֵי פַרְעֹה. ט וְהָיָה לְאָבָק, עַל כָּל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם; וְהָיָה עַל-הָאָדָם וְעַל-הַבְּהֵמָה, לִשְׁחִין פֹּרֵחַ אֲבַעְבֻּעֹת--בְּכָל-אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. י וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת-פִּיחַ הַכִּבְשָׁן, וַיַּעַמְדוּ לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה, וַיִּזְרֹק אֹתוֹ מֹשֶׁה, הַשָּׁמָיְמָה; וַיְהִי, שְׁחִין אֲבַעְבֻּעֹת, פֹּרֵחַ, בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה. יא וְלֹא-יָכְלוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּים, לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה--מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁחִין: כִּי-הָיָה הַשְּׁחִין, בַּחַרְטֻמִּם וּבְכָל-מִצְרָיִם. יב וַיְחַזֵּק יְהוָה אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא שָׁמַע אֲלֵהֶם: כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה. {ס}

ט וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, לֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה--לְמַעַן רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. י וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, עָשׂוּ אֶת-כָּל-הַמֹּפְתִים הָאֵלֶּה--לִפְנֵי פַרְעֹה; וַיְחַזֵּק יְהוָה אֶת-לֵב פַּרְעֹה, וְלֹא-שִׁלַּח אֶת-בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאַרְצוֹ.

יִשְׂרָאֵל

In my recent post about Eidah, Rabbi Maroof requested more information about ways the Torah refers to the Jewish people. One very common word that is used is יִשְׂרָאֵל. I wish to consider the usage of this word. Firstly, let me make it clear what I am considering. I do not wish to consider usage of the word referring to the person Yaakov, but only to the nation. Moreover, I will ignore usage of the word in phrases such as Ziknei יִשְׂרָאֵל, Elokei יִשְׂרָאֵל, Shivtei יִשְׂרָאֵל, Eish יִשְׂרָאֵל, or Yisroeli, where we are not speaking of the nation but only using the word to refer to some other body. Moreover, I exclude usages of the word that begin with a prefix letter such Miyisroel, LiYisroel etc.

After the exceptions are removed, the word appears 481 times in chumash. It can take 4 forms as follows

1. בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל as in וַיִּלֹּנוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן, כֹּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
2. Kehal, Adat, or Beit Yisroel
3. כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, as in אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּעֵבֶר, הַיַּרְדֵּן
4. יִשְׂרָאֵל alone as in וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּשִּׁטִּים; וַיָּחֶל הָעָם, לִזְנוֹת אֶל-בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב.

What are the distribution of these three disparate usages between the 3 books, JE, P, & D? The following chart displays the results:




























Update: Some readers have informed me that they could not see the chart. I am therefore including the data again here in text format. In accordance with my general format, (314, 42, 10) means 314 times in P, 42 times in JE, and 10 times in D.

Bnei Yisroel (314, 42, 10)
Kehal/Adas/Beis etc Yisroel (16, 0, 1)
Kul Yisroel (0, 2, 15)
Yisroel alone (1, 32, 15)

When it comes to overall usage of the word, P is the clearly dominant writer, using 85% of the total occurrences. We therefore would have expected to see similar dominance in all of the subgroups. Yet, כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל is used 17 times in the other sources and never in P and יִשְׂרָאֵל alone is used 47 times in the other sources and only once in P. Said differently, JE uses יִשְׂרָאֵל alone 42% of the time it wants to use the word Yisroel, while P uses it less than ½ of 1% of the time it wants to use the word. . כָּל-יִשְׂרָאֵל, is never used by P, although P has over 85% of the total usages of the word Yisroel. Had יִשְׂרָאֵל been a rare word, this could be attributed to chance. But, the law of large numbers precludes that possibility for such a common word.
The above evidence should be seen in conjunction with my earlier post regarding Eidah. Another thought to consider is the word “Am.” My sense is that this word is favored by JE and shunned by P, but I have never counted the occurrences of this word and so I have no data at this time.

עֵדָה

The word עֵדָה appears 110 times in chumash, all of which are in P. The occurrences are as follows:

Ex. (12:3) (12:6) (12:19) (12:47) (16:1) (16:2) (16:9) (16:10) (16:22) (17:1) (33:31) (35:1) (35:4) (35:20) (38:25)

Lev (4:13) (4:15) (8:3) (8:4) (8:5) (9:5) (10:6) (10:17) (16:5) (19:2) (24:14) (24:16)

Nu. (1:2) (1:16) (1:18) (1:53) (3:7) (4:34) (8:9) (8:20) (10:2) (10:3) (13:26) (14:1) (14:2) (14:5) (14:7) (14:10) (14:27) (14:35) (14:36) (15:24 x 2) (15:25) (15:26) (15:33) (15:35) (15:36) (16:2) (16:3) (16:5) (16:6) (16:9 x 2) (16:11) (16:16) (16:19 x 2) (16:21) (16:22) (16:24) (16:26) (17:5) (17:6) (17:7) (17:10) (17:11) (19:9) (20:1) (20:2) (20:8 x 2) (20:11) (20:22) (20:27) (20:29) (25:6) (25:7) (26:2) (26:9) (26:10) (27:2) (27:3 x 2) (27:14) (27:16) (27:17) (27:19) (27:20) (27:21) (27:22) (31:12) (31:13) (31:16) (31:26) (31:27) (31:43) (32:2) (32:4) (35:12) (35:24) (35:25 x 2).

One possible retort to this is that somehow the P verses are thematically connected to the word עֵדָה. The problem with this is that this word is generally used in the stories about the nation of Israel in the desert. There are such stories in all of P, JE, & D, yet the word עֵדָה only comes up in the P stories. One would have to invent some sort of distinction between two types of such stories, in which the nation assumes different names, but such distinctions are very thin and stand dangerously close to just reformulating the P/JE/D distinction but just in traditional words (e.g. Moshe didn’t like the word עֵדָה and it’s thus not used in Devorim)

Another possible retort is the circular reasoning argument: passages are assigned to P on the basis of the word עֵדָה. This, in turn, is in reality two arguments. Firstly, once could argue that the P passages are assigned to P on the grounds of the word עֵדָה. Secondly there are some passages, such as the M’raglim or Korach, that are thought to be composite. Perhaps, one might argue that the P verses in those passages are assigned to P on the grounds of the word עֵדָה. To the first point, I would reply that most of the time there is much, much evidence to assign a passage to P, and even without the word עֵדָה, we would not change our mind. Moreover, this answer does nothing to explain the P vs D divide. To the second, I say, again, this does not explain the P vs. D divide, it does not explain the whole passages that are assigned entirely to P or JE, and, even in cases of composite passages, such as the spies, the passages assigned to P are generally so assigned for several reasons, not just the word עֵדָה. Finally, even if one feels that P passages are assigned to P solely on the basis of this word, its ubiquitiesness in some passages and disappearance in others is itself suspicious. For example, Nu. 14:11-25 is part of the JE account of the spies. One may argue that we have only so assigned it on the basis of the word עֵדָה not appearing therein, which would be wrong, but even if it were so, the lack of the word עֵדָה in this passage, coming in the midst of a story where the word is heavily utilized is itself suspicious.

P List

Here's a list of P words we've done so far. This list will be continuously update and a link to it will appear on the side bar. The format is the following. (61 P, 0 JE, 1 D ) means the word appears 61 times in P, 0 times in JE, and once in D. Words are included in this list if they are rare in at least one of J E or D.

Elokim
(innumerable P, innumerable J, innumerable E, innumerable D)
קָרְבָּן
(235 P, 0 EJ, 0 D)
אָנִי
(123 P, 51 EJ, 2 D)
Circular Inclusio
(119 P, 2 EJ, 1 D)
עֵדָה
(110 P, 0 EJ, 0 D)
B'toch
(65 P, 16 EJ, 2 D)
הוֹלִיד
(61 P, 0 JE, 1 D )
Min (species)
(30 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
Ani Hashem Elokeichem/hen
(30 P, 0 JE, 1 D )
תוֹלְדוֹת
(28 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
Sheretz
(27 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
P'ru ur'vu
(10 P, 1/2 JE, 0 D )
Fell on His Face
(8 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
l'ochla
(7 P, 0 JE, 0 D )
Becoming a (great) nation
(7 P, 1/2 JE, 0 D )
Kel Shakai
(5 P, 1 JE, 0 D )

Parsha Insights Vayichi 2006

Reading through the parsha, it just jumps at you that Yaakov is buried twice. First, we read (in chapter 50)
ד וַיַּעַבְרוּ, יְמֵי בְכִיתוֹ, וַיְדַבֵּר יוֹסֵף, אֶל-בֵּית פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר: אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֵיכֶם--דַּבְּרוּ-נָא, בְּאָזְנֵי פַרְעֹה לֵאמֹר. ה אָבִי הִשְׁבִּיעַנִי לֵאמֹר, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵת--בְּקִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר כָּרִיתִי לִי בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, שָׁמָּה תִּקְבְּרֵנִי; וְעַתָּה, אֶעֱלֶה-נָּא וְאֶקְבְּרָה אֶת-אָבִי--וְאָשׁוּבָה. ו וַיֹּאמֶר, פַּרְעֹה: עֲלֵה וּקְבֹר אֶת-אָבִיךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר הִשְׁבִּיעֶךָ. ז וַיַּעַל יוֹסֵף, לִקְבֹּר אֶת-אָבִיו; וַיַּעֲלוּ אִתּוֹ כָּל-עַבְדֵי פַרְעֹה, זִקְנֵי בֵיתוֹ, וְכֹל, זִקְנֵי אֶרֶץ-מִצְרָיִם. ח וְכֹל בֵּית יוֹסֵף, וְאֶחָיו וּבֵית אָבִיו: רַק, טַפָּם וְצֹאנָם וּבְקָרָם--עָזְבוּ, בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן. ט וַיַּעַל עִמּוֹ, גַּם-רֶכֶב גַּם-פָּרָשִׁים; וַיְהִי הַמַּחֲנֶה, כָּבֵד מְאֹד. י וַיָּבֹאוּ עַד-גֹּרֶן הָאָטָד, אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וַיִּסְפְּדוּ-שָׁם, מִסְפֵּד גָּדוֹל וְכָבֵד מְאֹד; וַיַּעַשׂ לְאָבִיו אֵבֶל, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים. יא וַיַּרְא יוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אֶת-הָאֵבֶל, בְּגֹרֶן הָאָטָד, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, אֵבֶל-כָּבֵד זֶה לְמִצְרָיִם; עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ, אָבֵל מִצְרַיִם, אֲשֶׁר, בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן

Immediately following this, also in chapter 50, we read of the whole story a second time.
יב וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בָנָיו, לוֹ--כֵּן, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּם. יג וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֹתוֹ בָנָיו, אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן, וַיִּקְבְּרוּ אֹתוֹ, בִּמְעָרַת שְׂדֵה
הַמַּכְפֵּלָה: אֲשֶׁר קָנָה אַבְרָהָם אֶת-הַשָּׂדֶה לַאֲחֻזַּת-קֶבֶר, מֵאֵת עֶפְרֹן הַחִתִּי--עַל-פְּנֵי מַמְרֵא

With a superficial reading, we get the impression that this is all one long saga. There was

fist a ceremony in גֹרֶן הָאָטָד, followed by a ceremony in me’rat hamachpela. However, on further inspection, that is not the case, for the following reasons:

1. Goren Ha’atad is in Kinaan (50:11), and yet, the story in verse 13 implies that when they departed, they were not yet in Canaan. If the departure was from Goren Ha’atad, that would not be accurate.

2. In verse 4-11, Yosef takes the lead. In verse 12-13, the brothers take the lead. Why the switch?

3. If the Yaakov was not buried in Goren Ha’atad, what was the purpose of the ceremony?

Before I continue bringing support for the DH here, I will mention a vort I heard from Rav Binyamin Tabori attempting to answer this question from a traditional point of view. He suggested (from the S’fas Emes?) that Yosef had only permission to go to the edge of Israel. Once they got to Goren Ha’atad, which was on the border, Yosef had to return to Egypt, and so the brothers continued the job. Not very convincing, but cute.

In any event, DH would suggest that verses 4-11 are JE and 12 – 13 are P. This fits in very well in the following ways:

1. The command of burial from Jacob to his sons is also repeated twice (which is also a support for the DH). Once in P (49:29-33) in which the brothers are commanded and once in JE (47:29-31), in which Yosef alone is commanded. Thus, in the execution of the command, the JE account contains only Yosef, but the P account contains the brothers as a unit.

2. The following P words in the P sections.
1. A circular inclusio in verse 49:28
2. מְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה הַמַּכְפֵּלָה (49:29, 49:30) (50:13)
3. גְוַע (49:33)
4. וַיֵּאָסֶף (49:33)
5. אֲחֻזַּ (49:30, 50:13)
6. קָנָה (49:30, 49:32, 50:13)

Numbers 5 & 6 are somewhat weaker than the others, as to be discussed in other posts. Some might argue that the term “b’nei chet” is also unique to P. I’m not so sure about that. I’ll have to do a post on that question as well. In any event, note that there are 11 P words in just 6.5 P p’sukim compared to zero P words in the eleven JE p’sukim concerning this matter. Coincidence?

3. The following JE words in the JE sections
1. מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ (47:29)
2. אָנֹכִי (47:30) (50:5)
3. אִם-נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֵיכֶם (50:4)

With this, I conclude, temporarily, my analysis of Genesis. I will now commence with an analysis of Exodus. I will return to my analysis of Genesis when we return to laining Genesis next year, if my blog is still around then.

A gut shabbos to all