The Breadth of Rabbinic Opinion Regarding Mosaic Authorship of the Torah in the Middle Ages

By Ben Zion Katz, MD

Arguably, Orthodox theology today is much narrower than what was acceptable in the Middle Ages.  For example, ArtScroll is editing Rashbam’s (Rabbi Samuel ben Meir, ca 1080 -1174) more radical comments out of their new edition of the Rabbinic Bible (Mikraot Gedolot).[1]   In this paper, I will discuss a dramatic example of Biblical exegesis, which could even be considered within the realm of so-called “higher Biblical criticism”, and the implications of this exegesis re medieval Jewish theology.[2]

Numbers 21:1-3 describes a war between Israel and the King of Arad and involves a city named Hormah.  The verses from Numbers read as follows (my translation): (21:1) When the Canaanite King of Arad who dwelt in the Negev heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atarim, he fought Israel and took some of them prisoner.  (21:2) Then Israel made a vow to God saying “If You deliver this people into our hands, we will destroy their cities”. (21:3) God heeded Israel’s call and handed the Canaanites over, and they and their cities were destroyed, so that place was called Hormah (destruction).  

However, there is evidence from later in the Bible that Hormah was not conquered by Israel until after the time of Moses.  Joshua 12:14 states that the King of Hormah was defeated by Joshua (cf. Josh 12:7). In addition, Judges 1:17 states that the tribes of Judah and Simon defeated the Canaanites of Tzefat and renamed that destroyed city Hormah.  

Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164) on Num 21:1 comments that “many believe that [therefore] Joshua (emphasis mine) wrote this passage [in the Torah]”, citing the text of Josh. 12:14 as proof.  However, Ibn Ezra goes on to refute that opinion by claiming that the Hormah mentioned in the book of Joshua and the Hormah mentioned in Numbers 21:1-3 are two different places on opposite sides of the Jordan River.  His proof is that the city West of the Jordan was originally called Tzefat (citing Judges 1:17), unlike the city mentioned in Numbers 21:3 (although the original name of Hormah is not given in Numbers 21:3).  Note that Ibn Ezra does not refer to any dogma or theology in relation to the previously cited opinion re Joshua’s authorship of three verses of the Torah; he simply refutes the argument via logic and the prooftext from Judges 1:17.       

Ramban (Nachmanides, 1194-1270), as is his wont, has a longer comment (on Num. 21:1) than Ibn Ezra.  After addressing the historical problem, he writes (my loose translation, with parenthetical comments and emphases):  “And it seems to me that this King of Arad lived in the Negev West of the Jordan in Canaan in the area of the (future) territory of Judah near Hebron.  The King of Arad heard from afar that the Israelites were coming by way of Atarim to do battle, and that is why the text emphasizes that the King dwelt in the Negev in Canaan (see also Num. 33:40) because he had to travel to do battle from his country to where the Israelites were presently located (in the desert on the East side of the Jordan).   And the Israelites made a vow (that should God allow them to succeed in battle against the King of Arad that the Israelites would consecrate all of the King of Arad’s territory to God) … and the Israelites fulfilled (or at least began to fulfill) their oath because they defeated the enemy in the days of Moses … and consecrated the booty in a sacred storehouse.   And the text of the Torah concludes the matter here by saying that the Israelites also consecrated Arad’s cities in Canaan after Joshua died as proof that they ultimately fulfilled their vow, and then they renamed [Arad’s destroyed city] Hormah (destruction) as it says in the book of Judges (1:17) … And that’s where the oath was completely fulfilled.  But the Torah wanted to conclude the matter here (aval hishlim hakatuv [emphasis mine; see below] lehazkir ha-inyan be-kaan).”  

Ramban goes on to add that there are two other places in the Torah where summary statements are made regarding matters that took place after the death of Moses. The first of these relates to how long the Israelites ate manna.  Exodus 16:35 states that the manna didn’t cease until the Israelites crossed into Canaan (as recounted in Josh. 5:12), which was after the death of Moses.  The second such instance according to the Ramban where an event that occurred after the death of Moses was included in the Torah for completeness was when the Bible stated “These are the names of the people who will divide up the land [of Canaan] for you…” (Num. 34:17-29); this too didn’t occur until after the Israelites crossed the Jordan.  

Surprisingly, Isaac Abrabanel (1437 – 1508) read Ramban as saying that these passages (Numbers 21: 1-3 and probably Exodus 16:35 which he also quotes [he does not quote Numbers 34:17-29) were written after the time of Moses, rather than conventionally understanding them as being prophecies.[3]  Abrabanel begins by stating that Ibn Ezra believed that Numbers 21:1-3 was authored by Joshua, even though Ibn Ezra’s conclusion (cited above) was that this was not the case.  Abrabanel then quotes the words of the Ramban: hishlim hakatuv (my emphasis again; see below) lehazkir kaan ha-inyan, but according to Abrabanel, this phrase does not mean that “the Torah wanted to conclude the matter here”, but rather that “he completed the matter here” with “he” referring to Joshua.  According to Abrabanel, Ramban did not explicitly state who the “he” was who completed the Torah because it was not Moses (Vehiniach hadavar bestam shehakatuv hishlimo, aval lo zachar mi hayah hakotev (my emphasis; see above), keyvan shelo hayah Moshe).  Abrabanel expresses strong condemnation that Ramban would say that Joshua wrote these verses (kelimah kastah panav = “embarrassment [should] cover his face”), but Abrabanel nevertheless believed that Ramban held this opinion, which Abrabanel believed Ramban borrowed from Ibn Ezra. 

Many things are astonishing here, some of which were already alluded to and most of which are pointed out by Chavel in his annotated edition of Ramban on the Torah.[4]  First is that Abrabanel believed that Ramban meant that a few verses of the Torah were not authored by Moses.  Second is that this does not seem to be the meaning of what Ramban actually wrote. It is of course possible that Abrabanel had a different text of Ramban, but the words he quotes (hishlim hakatuv lehazkir kaan ha-inyan) do match our text nearly exactly; perhaps he read the Ramban text as hakotev instead of hakatuv (see underlined words above), and some of the adjoining words (which he did not quote) also differed, making Abrabanel’s reading more plausible.  Finally, Abrabanel concluded that Ramban agreed with Ibn Ezra that Joshua wrote these verses. However, as noted, Ibn Ezra ultimately rejected the opinion that Joshua wrote these verses.  

Regardless of how plausible Abrabanel’s reading and understanding of Ramban and Ibn Ezra may be, Abrabanel does conclude that two great medieval rabbinic figures, Ibn Ezra and Ramban, both believed that Joshua added a few verses to the Torah in Numbers and probably (at least) in Exodus as well (16:35).  Abrabanel does express surprise at Ramban’s opinion, presumably based on dogma related to Mosaic authorship of the Torah, but he does not dismiss the opinion as theologically untenable (as did Rabbi Moses Feinstein in the 20th century when he was asked about the Torah commentary of Rabbi Yehudah Hachasid).[5]  Abrabanel does not express surprise for the similar opinion he ascribes to Ibn Ezra, perhaps because Abrabanel held Ramban in higher regard.  

It appears therefore that it was (still) acceptable in the late 15th – early 16th century (although perhaps no longer “mainstream”) to believe that Joshua could have added several verses to the Torah (besides possibly the last eight; see Baba batra 14b and my Journey Through Torah, chapter 4), and that great earlier Rabbinic figures could have held that opinion as well.  Truth be told, Ibn Ezra and others did share this view, although not concerning these verses in Numbers 21.[6]  This is all notwithstanding Maimonides’ eighth principle of faith that the whole Torah as we have it today was authored by Moses.[7]  Abrabanel again offers no explanations or excuses for Ibn Ezra and Ramban, although he is disappointed that Ramban hinted at such a position.   

The implication of this view and other similar arguments[8] (which may have been minority opinions in the Middle Ages but still seem to have been within the pale) is that there existed a greater breadth of acceptable Jewish theology regarding the authorship of the Torah at the end of the 15th – beginning of the 16th century than existed in rabbinic circles in the 20th century and that is present in many Orthodox circles today.  This is unfortunate as it tends to stifle what might be otherwise legitimate intellectual debate. [9]  

[1] MB Shapiro.  Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History.  Oxford.  Portland, Oregon.  2015. P. 59.
[2] This paper was first presented in a different form as part of a talk entitled “A Traditional Yet Modern Approach to Torat Moshe MiSinai” at the Herzl Institute 19 June 2017, Jerusalem, Israel, as part of a conference “What Does Torah From Heaven Mean?”  See also my A Journey Through Torah: A Critique of the Documentary Hypothesis. Urim.   Jerusalem.  2012. P. 85, n. 8. 
[3] Y Shaviv.  Peirushay HaTorah LeRabeinu Yitzchak Abrabanel.  Vol. 4 (Bamidbar).  Horeb. Jerusalem. 5768 (2008).  p. 181 (Hebrew).
[4] HD Chavel.  Peirushay HaTorah LeRabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban).  Vol. 2 (Vayikra-Bamidbar-Devarim). Mosad HaRav Kook. Jerusalem. 5729 (1960).  Pp 281-283 (Hebrew).
[5] See my Journey Through Torah, Chapter 7. 
[6] See my Journey Through Torah, pp. 76-85 and 91-98.
[7] See MB Shapiro The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles Reappraised.  Oxford. 2004. Chapter 7.
[8] See note 5.
[9] See my Journey Through Torah, Chapter 9.