Post-Mosaic Additions to the Torah?

Post-Mosaic Additions to the Torah?

Post-Mosaic Additions to the Torah?

Marc B. Shapiro

In his post here, Ben Zion Katz deals with medieval rabbinic views regarding post-Mosaic additions to the Torah. Katz refers to The Limits of Orthodox Theology, and I have mentioned many additional sources in Seforim Blog posts. (A couple of people have commented that in a few recent publications on this topic it seems that the authors used my writings without any acknowledgment. I would only say that I don’t have a copyright on any sources. Once I discuss the sources publicly, then anyone is free to make use of them. It would, however, be appropriate for these authors to at least mention my book and posts if that is how they learned of these sources.)

In Limits, pp 109-110, I mention that the Tosafist R. Avigdor Katz cites interpretations found in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary to the Torah both with regard to post-Mosaic additions to the Torah and about material being removed from the Torah and placed in the book of Psalms. (While R. Avigdor only refers to one chapter [Psalm 136] being removed from the Torah, R. Judah he-Hasid speaks of this and all other anonymous Psalms written by Moses.) R. Avigdor does not mention R. Judah he-Hasid, and regarding the removal of the chapter from the Torah and placing it in the book of Psalms, before citing this interpretation he states, “I have heard.” Thus, I think it is fair to say that the “critical” interpretations he mentions were “in the air.”

H. J. Zimmels published the two passages from R. Avigdor just mentioned,[1] but there is another comment that appears as a note to R. Avigdor’s manuscript. It has recently been published by Miriam Weitman,[2] and states:

וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה פי‘ לא על יעקב אמ‘, אל‘ משה רבינ‘ שם ראש דגל אפרי‘ לפני מנשה בעבור שיעקב אמ‘ ואחיו הקטן יגדל ממנוויהושע או אנשי כנסת הגדול‘ כתבודאי משה כתבו אם היה לו [צל היה לו לומראני שמתי כמו שאומ‘ אחרכ‘ ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך

This interpretation, speaking of a post-Mosaic addition to the Torah, is also found in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary. 

In a previous post, available here, I mentioned R. Shlomo Fisher’s rejection of R. Moshe Feinstein’s view that R. Judah he-Hasid’s “biblical criticism” is a forgery. As R. Fisher put it, R. Moshe assumed that R. Judah he-Hasid has to accept Maimonides’ Principles, but that is not the case, and when it comes to the issue of complete Mosaic authorship, R. Judah he-Hasid disagrees with Maimonides. R. Uri Sherki has apparently also discussed this matter with R. Fisher, as he cites R. Fisher as stating that the issue of whether post-Mosaic additions are religiously objectionable is a dispute between the medieval Ashkenazic and Sephardic sages. See here.

What this means is that in medieval Ashkenaz it was not regarded as heretical to posit post-Mosaic additions, while the opposite was the case in the Sephardic world (and this would explain why Ibn Ezra could only hint to his view). I am skeptical of this point, particularly because Ibn Ezra’s secrets are, in fact, explained openly by people who lived in the Sephardic world.[3] Yet Haym Soloveitchik has also recently made same point, and pointed to differences between Jews living in the Christian and Muslim worlds. His argument is that since medieval Ashkenazic Jews were not confronted with a theological challenge of the sort Jews had to deal with in the Islamic world, where Jews were accused of altering the text of the Pentateuch, there was no assumption in medieval Ashkenazic Europe that belief in what we know as Maimonides’ Eighth Principle was a binding doctrine of faith.

Here is some of what Soloveitchik writes (the emphasis does not appear in the original):

One tanna had stated, simply and with no ado, that the last eight verses were of Divine origin but not of Mosaic authorship, and R. Yehudah he-Hasid added that there were several more verses that were not penned by Moses. Was such a position seen as being thoroughly mistaken? Most probably. Was it viewed as odd and non-conformist? Undoubtedly; though hardly more eccentric than R. Yehudah’s view that King David, to flesh out his book of Psalms, lifted from the text of the “original” Pentateuch many anonymous “psalms” that Moses had penned! Were these strange and misguided views, however, perceived as being in any way heretical or even dangerous? At that time and place, certainly not. They contained no concession to the surrounding culture, opened no Pandora’s Box of questions. Indeed, one can take the religious temperature of R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s explanation by the matter of fact way European medieval commentators (rishonim) treated the passages in Menahot and Bava Batra where the tannaitic dictum of Joshua’s authorship is brought.[4] In their world, these words did not abut any slippery slope of a “documentary hypothesis” or of “Jewish forgery”. No need, therefore, to reinterpret this passage or to forfend any untoward implications. What concerned R. Yehudah he-Hasid’s contemporaries, the Tosafists, in this statement were its practical halakhic implications for the Sabbath Torah readings, not its theological or dogmatic ones, for to them, as to R. Yehudah, there were none.[5] 

One of the biggest theological changes in Orthodoxy in the last decades—perhaps the sources collected in Limits were significant in this regard—is the acknowledgment that asserting limited post-Mosaic additions to the Torah is not to be regarded as heretical.[6] In Limits and subsequent blog posts I have recorded around thirty-five rishonim and aharonim who claim that Ibn Ezra believed in post-Mosaic additions. When you throw in R. Judah he-Hasid, R. Avigdor Katz, R. Menahem Tziyoni, and other sources I referred to in Limits, it is hard to convince people this is a heretical position, despite what Maimonides’ Eighth Principle states. It is also hard to convince them that this matter has been “decided” in accordance with Maimonides’ view. R. Mordechai Breuer states flatly that the legitimacy of Ibn Ezra’s opinion cannot be denied.[7] 

אין אני יודעאם רוח חכמים נוחה מהדברים האלהמכל מקום הם יצאו מפי אבן עזראושוב לא נוכל לשלול את הלגיטימיות שלהם

Yet fifty years ago, speaking about these opinions would have been regarded as incredibly controversial, if not heretical in many eyes. Today, it seems like it is no big deal, and I have in mind not just Modern Orthodox circles but in the intellectual haredi world as well. It is significant that it its affirmation of Torah mi-Sinai, the Rabbinical Council of America did not deny the existence of views that speak of small additions to the Torah, but instead noted the great difference between these views and modern critical approaches. Here is the relevant paragraph (the entire statement can be seen here).

When critical approaches to the Torah’s authorship first arose, every Orthodox rabbinic figure recognized that they strike at the heart of the classical Jewish faith. Whatever weight one assigns to a small number of remarks by medieval figures regarding the later addition of a few scattered phrases, there is a chasm between them and the position that large swaths of the Torah were written later – all the more so when that position asserts that virtually the entire Torah was written by several authors who, in their ignorance, regularly provided erroneous information and generated genuine, irreconcilable contradictions. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, none of the above mentioned figures would have regarded such a position as falling within the framework of authentic Judaism

Without getting into the content of this statement which I believe is generally correct,[8] what is important for our purposes is that I do not believe such a statement would have been issued even fifty years ago, as it acknowledges the existence of “remarks by medieval figures” that are at odds with  Maimonides’ Eighth Principle.[9] 

What are we to make of the approach to Torah mi-Sinai in R. Judah he-Hasid’s “school”? Weitman suggests a few possibilities, one of which is that they believed in the existence of a “continuing revelation,” namely, that the Torah continued to be revealed even after the initial revelation to Moses. This would be an extension of the talmudic view that the last eight verses of the Torah were written by Joshua. While some might find this approach quite provocative, I think it is actually the meaning not just of R. Judah’s “school” but of Ibn Ezra and pretty much everyone who believed in intentional post-Mosaic additions. That is, they believed that these were added by prophets, as they would have regarded as completely unacceptable, indeed heretical, the notion that the Torah contains non-prophetic verses.

One of the most important sources in this matter is R. Judah he-Hasid, as he is a universally recognized rishon who pointed to post-Mosaic additions. Not surprisingly, his opinion is often quoted, and the censorship of his commentary has also been widely discussed. R. Judah he-Hasid’s words have been read in the exact same way by the greatest Torah scholars as well as the greatest academic scholars, and yet, what if everyone is mistaken? This is the claim of Eran Viezel, who in a recent article has argued that the passages in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary that point to post-Mosaic additions were actually written by R. Judah he-Hasid’s son, R. Moses Zaltman, a figure who does not have the religious authority of his famous father.[10] Since Viezel feels that he has removed the veil of “Bible critic” from R. Judah he-Hasid, he also wonders if R. Moses, and not R. Judah he-Hasid, should be identified as the source of the claim that texts were removed from the Pentateuch and placed in the Psalms. In this case, however, he acknowledges that there is no evidence to support his suggestion.

I have gone through Viezel’s arguments, and while I agree that it seems that R. Moses is the author of the “critical” comment to Leviticus 2:13, I don’t see this when it comes to the other passages. More importantly, none of the scholars I have consulted in this matter accept Viezel’s argument, so I don’t think we need to revise all the discussions about R. Judah he-Hasid and substitute his son, R. Moses. I would also add that it is precisely the other two passages in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary that speak of post-Mosaic additions, as well as the passage that speaks of Psalms being removed from the Torah, that appear as well in R. Avigdor Katz’s commentary (with the difference noted above that R. Avigdor only speaks of one Psalm having been removed). In other words, what we have here is not some radical individual view advocated by R. Moses, but a position that was shared by others and no doubt well known.

It is noteworthy that while earlier editions of Otzar haChochma included the censored version of R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary, the current edition includes the uncensored text. Otzar haChochma is careful not to include anything heretical on its site, so this can be seen as a “koshering,” as it were, of the uncensored commentary of R. Judah he-Hasid. Also significant is that in the new Otzar ha-Rishonim on Torah, two of the four “critical” comments in R. Judah he-Hasid’s commentary are included (Lev. 2:13, Deut. 2:8). Here is the page that includes the commentary to Deuteronomy 2:8.

As far as I know, no one has placed the Otzar ha-Rishonim in herem for including R. Judah he-Hasid’s comments. 

There is one other thing that is noteworthy about this edition of the Humash. Here is a page where you can see something called Targum Yerushalmi ha-Shalem.

This is not found in the regular Mikraot Gedolot Humash. There you only have a fragmentary Targum Yerushalmi. In academic circles, the complete Targum Yerushalmi is known as Targum Neofiti, and it was only discovered in 1949. You can read about it in Wikipedia here. The Wikipedia entry states that Neofiti is “the most important of the Palestinian Targumim, as it is by far the most complete of the Western Targumim and perhaps the earliest as well.”[11] 

Returning to Viezel, I want to now offer  some valuable information which in my opinion not only shows that Viezel’s argument is lacking, but is significant in its own right. From this point on, when speaking of important medieval Ashkenazic sages who believed that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah, in addition to R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Avigdor Katz, we have to add R. Judah he-Hasid’s student, the great R. Elazar of Worms. This at least is Amos Geula’s identification of the author of an unpublished medieval commentary on the Torah, and for the purposes of this post I will assume Geula is correct.[[12] 

In his commentary to Genesis 36:1, R. Elazar writes:[13] 

ואלה המלכים [בראשית לולאלפי הפשט עזרא כתב ואלה המלכים עד שאולאו משה כתבו ברוח הקדשכבלעם שכתב מעשה אגג ומשיח . . . לפני מלוך מלך בישר[אל] אילו המלכים מלכו קודם שאול המלך כי כשהומלך שאול הכניע אדום כי נלחם באדום ובעמלק עד זמן יהורם שכת‘ ומלך אין באדום נצב מלך [מלא כבמח] . . . ואלה שמות אלופי (אדום) [עשו] [ברלוממזמן שאול עד יהורם

אלה המלכים המלכים היו קודם האלופים שהרי מנה אותם תחילהאלופים [מלכיםאילו קודם שמלך דוד שנ‘ לפני מלוך מלך לבני ישר[אלואין לך לומר לפני משה שהרי לא מצינו שמלך משהואין לומר ויהי בישורון מלך [דב‘ לג,המשה

R. Elazar explains that according to the peshat, Genesis 36:31-39, which gives the list of kings “that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel,” was written by Ezra. He offers another suggestion that Moses wrote this prophetically, but as you can see from the rest of his comment, this is not the approach he adopts, as he assumes that these verses, as well as Genesis 36:40-43, are post-Mosaic.

This interpretation is already found in R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Avigdor Katz, who think that these verses were written in the days of Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah. According to a medieval Tosafist collection of Torah commentaries, this view was also held by R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam).[[14] It is thus obvious that this was a common interpretation in medieval Ashkenaz, and as more medieval manuscripts are published we will no doubt find more such “critical” interpretations.

As Geula notes, in the published version of R. Elazar Rokeah’s commentary on the Torah,[15] which was apparently written not by him but by one of his students,[16] we also find the view that Genesis 36:40-43, in addition to Genesis 36: 31-39, are post-Mosaic.

הרי אילו יא אלופים היו בימי ח‘ מלכי ישראל לכן נקרא אלוף תמנע כי מנעו מהםמלך אין באדום נצב מלך (מלכים א כבמחכנגדם העמידו ישראל יא שפטים יהושע עד שמואלובימי השפטים העמידו מלכים באדום

From all we have seen of how members of this “school” explained this chapter of Genesis, it is clear that this commentary does not mean that the names of the chiefs or the kings were written prophetically.

Another comment from R. Elazar pointing to a post-Mosaic addition is on Genesis 47:26: “And Joseph made it a statute concerning the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth.” This refers to the produce given in Egypt to the Pharaoh. But what do the words “unto this day” mean? R. Elazar sees these words as a post-Mosaic addition.[17] 

ושם אתה יוסף לחוק למשפטעד היום הזה עד שהגלה נבוכד נצר [!] ובימי משה שכתב את התורה עדיין היה חוק

On this verse, R. Menahem ben Solomon (12th century), in his Midrash Sekhel Tov,[18] writes:

עד היום הזה אלו דברי הסדרן

Geula understands the “sadran” to be a post-Mosaic author, and at first glance this would seem to make the most sense. However, Richard C. Steiner has studied the use of the term “sadran” in various medieval works, and he believes that it could also be used with reference to Moses.[19] 

Returning to R. Elazar of Worms’ commentary, we find something interesting in the manuscript, although we have no way of knowing what the original text was.[20] The copyist wrote:

וכתב שדהו במשנה תורה [דב‘ היחלפי שכבר סמוך שייכנסו לארץ [וי]היה להם שדות

However, this was corrected to read:

לפי שכבר נכנסו לארץ והיה להם שדות

The question is why in the version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy 5:18, in the commandment against coveting, does it include coveting your neighbor’s field while this point is missing from the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:13. According to the second reading in the manuscript, the word שדהו was added after the Israelites entered the Land of Israel. Geula rightly asks, was this a “correction” of a reader of the manuscript, or was he returning the text to its original form?

With all the evidence that we now have, and as mentioned more will no doubt be forthcoming as additional manuscripts are published, it is clear that the viewpoint that there are limited post-Mosaic additions in the Torah was considered acceptable in medieval Ashkenaz (and thus it is hard to see how it can be regarded as an unacceptable view today[21]).

Regarding R. Judah he-Hasid, the following is also worth noting. Here is his commentary to Deuteronomy 2:8.

In the middle we see the following words:

שהוא נמצא כמו מרשיילא או פנדייא שעוברים דרך שם לעכבו כך לא היו יכולין לילך אחר הזהב אם לא היו באין לעציון גבר מתחילה

What does לעכבו mean? Viezel translates as follows: “For it was located like Marseille or Pontoise [place names], as a way station en route [to the gold] so that they were not able to go after the gold unless they came to Etzion Geber first.” (His identification of פנדייא as Pontoise must be correct, and in medieval times Pointoise was an important commercial center.)

Zev Farber in his article here translates the passage as follows: “For it is situated like Marseilles or Pandaya[22] such that people must pass through there to stop in, so that they could not get to the gold if they did not stop first in Etzion-geber.”

I have underlined the words that Viezel and Farber use as translations of לעכבו. Yet both of them overlooked what I pointed out in Limits, p. 109 n. 136, that the parallel text of R. Avigdor Katz allows us to see that the word לעכבו is a mistake and it should actually read לעכו, “to Acre”, which for almost two hundred years was part of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.[23] Now the passage makes perfect sense.

Let me make three final comments about the text of the Torah.

A. In Limits I discussed those who understand Tikkun Soferim literally. To the list of the authorities I mention, we can add R. Pesah Finfer,[24] R. Isidore Epstein, and R. Joseph Messas.


R. Finfer was a dayan in Vilna and considered the expert on masoretic matters in Lithuania.[25] In his Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im (Vilna, 1906), p. 6, he writes:

ראוי הי‘ עזרא שתנתן התורה על ידו . . . והוא ונחמי‘ עשו תיקון סופרים וכינויי סופרים.

R. Epstein, Judaism (Baltimore, 1959), pp. 195-196, writes:

The spiritualization of the conception of God is reflected already in certain changes known as Tikkune Soferim (Corrections of the Scribes), which, ascribed to Ezra, were introduced into the Biblical text in order to tone down certain anthropomorphic expressions.

R. Messas, Minhat Yosef (Jerusalem, 2012), vol. 4, p. 40, writes:

וזה אחד מתקוני סופרים בתורה לכנוי ולתקון לשון עכ”ל. ענין זה מפורש בתנחומא פרשת בשלח על הכתוב וברוב גאונך, ובעץ יוסף שם, ובערוך ערך כבד . . . והעולה מכלם הוא, כי בי”ח מקומות בתנ”ך תקנו הסופרים שהם אנשי כנה”ג איזה תקונים בהם

B. One of the greatest Moroccan rabbis of the last two hundred years was R. Raphael Berdugo (1747-1821), known as המלאך, who wrote important responsa and biblical and talmudic commentaries. In his Mesamhei Lev on Joshua, chapter 5, R. Berdugo calls attention to verse 12 which shows us that even after entering the Land of Canaan, the Israelites were still fed for a time with manna. “And the manna ceased on the morrow, after they had eaten of the produce of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.”

R. Berdugo points out that Exodus 16:35 states: “And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.” The problem is obvious. The verse in Exodus is written from the perspective of when the Israelites were no longer eating the manna, yet we see from the book of Joshua that they continued eating the manna even after Moses’ death. So who wrote the verse in Exodus?

R. Berdugo acknowledges that one can say that it was prophetically written by Moses. Yet he doesn’t think that this makes sense, namely, to write a verse prophetically so that it appears to be written about an event that happened in the past. Therefore, he says that Joshua wrote the verse. It seems that that this does not raise any theological issues for him, and he compares it to the dispute about the last eight verses in the Torah where one tanna holds that Joshua wrote these verses because they refer to events after Moses’ death. Here, too, R. Berdugo states that since the verse refers to something that took place after Moses’ death, it makes sense to say that it was written by Joshua.[26] 

ויאכלו מעבור הארץ ולא היה עוד לבני ישראל מן וגומשמע שאחר שבאו לארץ כנען היו אוכלים מןומש בתורה את המן אכלו עד בואם אל קצה ארץ כנען הוא סמוך ליריחו אחר מות מרעהואכ צע מי כתב אותו פסוק בתורהואף כי אין מעצור לומר כי מרעה כתב זה ברוח קדשו ידע העתידות ושישראל יאכלו המן אחר מותו מכל מקום לשכל קשה זה וכש שיאמר אותם בלשון שכבר נעשוולכן העיקר שיהושע כתבו אחרי מות מרעהוכן מצאנו שנחלקו רזל בפסוק וימת שםשר‘ יוסי אמר שיהושע כתבו וכו‘.

Also of interest is R. Berdugo’s comment to Deuteronomy 34:10, where in speaking about verses at the end of the Torah written after Moses’ death, he attributes them to כותבי התורה rather than just to Joshua.[27] 

C. In the very interesting book, Derekh Sihah, which records conversations with R. Hayyim Kanievsky, the following questions and answers appear (vol. 1, pp. 323- 324):

שאלה: באור החיים הק‘ (לדכטכתב ממדרש שקרני ההוד נעשו עי שיור הדיו שנתן על ראשווהכוונה כי משה מרוב ענוה לא כתב והאיש משה עניו עם יודולכן נשאר דיווזה פלא וכי כתב איך שירצההרי כל אות היתה בנבואה

תשובה: כיוצא בזה כתב בעל הטורים (ריש ספר ויקראשכתוב אלף זעיראכי רצה משה לכתוב ויקר“, אמר לו הקבה כתוב עם אלףאבל ממ כתב אותה בזעיראוכנראה שזה לא נמסר לו איך לכתוב.

שאלה: שאלתי להרב שליטא עד דברי האור החיים” הק‘ שכתב כי קרני הוד של משה משיירי קולמוסשהיה צריך לכתוב עניו” עם יודוכתב בלא יודוכי זה נתון לדעתוואמר הרב שלא אמרו לו כיצד לכתובוחזינן שאמרו רק התוכןוגם כאן כן הוא.

תשובה: שם זה היה על התיבה הזאת בלבד שלא אמרו לו איך לכתובאבל פעם שאלתי מהגר גדליה נדל שליטא שרואים בחזל טענות על נביאים כיצד אמרו בלשון מסוייםכגון במסכת פסחים (סוב‘) כל המתייהר אם נביא וכו‘ מדבורה דכתיב חדלו וכו‘, וזה היה בנבואהוכן במסכת מגילה ידב‘ “כרכושתא כתיב בה אמרו לאיש ולא אמרה אמרו למלך“, ושם מלכים (ב‘ כבטוכתוב כה אמר ה‘, חזינן מזה שיש פעמים שהשאירו הבחירה ביד הנביא אלו תיבות לומר

R. Kanievsky states that Moses on his own decided to leave out the yud in the word ענו in Numbers 12:3. R. Kanievsky supports this position with the comment of the Baal ha-Turim on Leviticus 1:1 who states that Moses on his own wrote the final aleph in the word ויקרא in small print. (I did not cite this comment of Ba’al ha-Turim in Limits, as I don’t see it as in opposition to Maimonides’ Eighth Principle. The Principle speaks of the letters of the Torah themselves, not whether they are regular size or small.[28]

Despite the citation of Ba’al ha-Turim, I am sure that some will regard R. Kanievsky’s position as inappropriate, or even in opposition to the Eighth Principle which states that the entire Torah found in our hands is of divine origin, for R. Kanievsky states that Moses had the authority to determine if the word ענו should be written with a yud or not.[29] It is true that in the Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:8, Maimonides defines a heretic as “One who says that the Torah, even one verse or one word, is not from God.” Maimonides here does not include one who says that a single letter is not from God. However, in the Eighth Principle he does not make such a distinction. Presumably, R. Kanievsky would say that the words of the Eighth Principle must be understood in line with what appears in the Mishneh Torah. Nevertheless, it is significant that R. Kanievsky regards as theologically legitimate the notion that Moses independently determined how a word in the Torah should be written, as the standard view is that all such matters were determined by divine command.

R. Kanievsky further supports his position with a striking insight. He points to Pesahim 66b and Megillah 14b where statements of Deborah and Hulda are criticized by the Sages for being boastful. Yet both these statements are actually part of a prophecy, so how could the Sages find problems with these words if they came from God? R. Kanievsky concludes from this that while the prophetic message comes from God, there are times when the actual words originate in the prophet’s mind, and this explains how the Sages can regard these words as problematic. Although Moses’ prophetic level was above that of all other prophets, R. Kanievsky believes that on at least one occasion Moses was allowed to choose how a word in the Torah was written.

***********

My Torah in Motion classes are now being placed on Youtube. Those who are interested can view them here.

***********

[1] Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes (Vienna, 1933), pp. 259, 261.

[2] “Hedei Parshanuto shel Rabbi Yehudah he-Hasid be-Kitvei Talmidav – Hemshekh Mul Tzimtzum,” Megadim 55 (2014), p. p. 77.

[3] In Limits and subsequent blog posts I listed numerous rishonim and aharonim who understood Ibn Ezra’s hints to mean that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah.  Here is another important text, a comment by Tosafot (Tosafot ha-Shalem, ed. Gellis, to Gen. 12:6 [p. 14]:

והכנעני אז בארץ . . . ואם איננו כן יש לו סודכי כוונתו שזה לא כתבו משה אך נכתב אחר שנכבשהוכן דעתו בהרבה פסוקים

Tosafot rejects this opinion, stating:

ואנחנו לא ניאות בזה הדעת שכל התורה כתבה משה מפי ה’ בלא חילוק ושנוי

It is significant that Tosafot does not refer to Ibn Ezra’s interpretation as heretical. For another source that assumes that Ibn Ezra believed that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah, see R. Aharon Friedman, Be-Har ha-Shem Yeraeh (Kerem be-Yavneh, 2009), p. 30.

[4] I am aware of no evidence that the rishonim in the Islamic world interpreted these passages in a fundamentally different way than the Ashkenazic rishonim. As noted in Limits,  pp. 104-105, R. Joseph Ibn Migash openly accepted the viewpoint that Joshua wrote the last eight verses of the Torah. One point which I did not make in Limits is that while the Talmud attributes to individual tannaim the view that the last eight verses in the Torah were written by Joshua, in Sifrei, Devarim, piska 357, this opinion is cited anonymously, apparently signifying that it is the view of the Sages as a whole, which is then challenged by R. Meir.

וימת שם משה איפשר שמת משה וכותב וימת שם משה אלא עד כאן כתב משה מיכן ואילך כתב יהושע רבי מאיר אומר הרי הוא אומר ויכתוב משה את התורה הזאת איפשר שנתן משה את התורה כשהיא חסירה אפילו אות אחת . . .

See Nahum Bruell in Beit Talmud 2 (1881), p. 15.

[5] “Two Notes on the Commentary on the Torah of R. Yehudah he-Hasid,” in Michael A. Shmidman, ed. Turim (New York, 2008), pp. 245-246. Ephraim Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz (Detroit, 2013), p. 32, writes: “The availability of this kind of interpretational freedom and variety also allowed Hasidei Ashkenaz to be comfortable with Ibn Ezra’s stipulation of verses that may have been added to the Torah after the revelation at Sinai.”

[6] See my “Is Modern Orthodoxy Moving Towards an Acceptance of Biblical Criticism?” Modern Judaism 37 (May 2017), pp. 1-29, where I also discuss Modern Orthodox thinkers who go beyond this and have accepted the assumptions of modern biblical scholarship regarding source criticism. See also my post here. In my article, I neglected to mention R. Michael Abraham who also sees no religious objection to post-Mosaic additions to the Torah, or even that the Torah is composed from different sources (as posited by the Documentary Hypothesis). See herehereherehere, and here.

[7] Shitat ha-Behinot” shel ha-Rav Mordechai Breuer, ed. Yosef Ofer (Alon Shevut, 2005), p. 311. The standard view is that Ibn Ezra believed that the post-Mosaic additions are from later prophets, but R. Breuer seems to understand Ibn Ezra to mean that these additions are simply readers’ notes, which would not be prophetic (p. 312):

והואיל ואין כל ודאותשנוסח הרוב הוא גם הנוסח הנכוןכבר אפשרי הדבר שספר התורה שבידינו כולל דברים שנוספו לו אחר כך על ידי סופרים טועיםאך מעולם לא היו בספר שנמסר למשה מפי הגבורה.

והאמור בטעויות סופרים אמור גם בתוספות של תלמידיםשהרי הדבר ידועשדרכם של קוראים להוסיף את הערותיהם בגיליון הספר – ואחר כך באים תלמידים טועים” ומוסיפים את ההערות האלה בגופו של הספרואין לך ספר שאיננו כולל הוספות או גלוסות כאלהואבן עזרא סבורכנראהשגם ספר התורה לא יצא מכלל זהוהוא כולל אפוא גם דברים שלא נכתבו על ידי מחבר הספראלא נוספו לו אחר כך על ידי הלומדיםאבל מובן מאליושהוא יכול היה לומר את הדבר הזה רק על אותם מקומות מועטיםשתוכנם מעיד עליהם שהם הוספות מאוחרות.

[8] I say “generally correct” because the assumption that medieval figures only referred to “the later addition of a few scattered phrases” is not accurate if one includes explanations offered by commentaries on Ibn Ezra. In this post as well I give examples which refer to more than a few scattered phrases”

[9] R. Yehoshua Enbal, who often presents original perspectives, has a very strange passage in his Torah she-Ba’al Peh (Jerusalem, 2015), p. 685:

הטענה שכל התורה שבידינו היא המסורה למשה רבינו עליו השלום“, אינה באה בנימוק הגיוני שלא יתכן שאירעה איזו טעות בימי יהושע בן נון ונוספה אות ו‘ באיזו מלהכאשר בזמן משה לא היתה קיימת אות זוטכנית אולי הדבר ייתכןואף יש חילופי נוסח זעומים בפועל בין העדותאלא שמי שמחזיק בדעה כזועם כל הכבוד וההערכהוהנימוקים ההגיוניים שאולי יצרף לדבריואינו חלק מהדת שלנושכן ויתור על אות אחתהינו ויתור על הטקסט כולושאינו אלא סך של אותיות.  אם נוותר על א‘ ועל ב‘ ועל ג‘, איננו מאמינים בכלוםהקישור בין כלל זה לבין נימוק הגיונימעקר את הכללאין העיקר קובע שהגיוני מאד שלא אירע שום שינוי ואף מנסה לשכנע אותנושכן נימוק הגיוני אין כחו יפה בהכרח כנגד נימוקים שיבואו מולואו מחקרים אחרים שיבואו ביום מן הימיםהעיקר קובע שרירותית את גבולות הדתהדת מוקירה ומעריכה כל שימוש בהגיוןואף יכולה להביע הערכה להברקות מקוריותאבל המחזיק בדעה שלא כל התורה מפי הגבורהחוצה פורמלית את הגבול שבין דת להעידרה.

R. Enbal’s declaration that one who expresses doubt about the authenticity of a vav in the Masoretic text is to be regarded as a heretic cannot be taken seriously, especially as he himself notes, there are differences in this regard between different communities. In fact, before the printing press, there were widespread variations among Torah scrolls when it came to minor spelling differences, and the Talmud, Midrash, and medieval commentators often preserve different readings than the Masoretic text. See Limits, ch. 7. And what is one to make of his statement that העיקר קובע שרירותית את גבולות הדת? Principles of faith are to be determined arbitrarily without regard for truth? Earlier on the page he writes (emphasis added):

באוקיינוס של דעות מתפשטותשהתחיל כבר בזמן הרמבםוכמובן בזמננומבלי גבול שרירותינישאר רק עם טקסט.וכמובן גם הטקסט עצמו זקוק להגנה שרירותיתשכן ניתן לטעון שחלקים ממנו אינם מקוריים.

I can’t imagine that this approach, which sounds like it comes from Isaiah Leibowitz, will find many backers. R. Breuer obviously had a different perspective. See “Shitat ha-Behinot” shel ha-Rav Mordechai Breuer, p. 74:

אף על פי שרק נוסח המסורה ראוי להיקרא נוסח המקרא” – שהרי רק הוא נתקבל על ידי ההלכה – עדיין רשאים אנחנו לשאול אם זהו גם הנוסח המקורי של המקרא

[10] Viezel, “R. Judah he-Hasid or R. Moshe Zaltman: Who Proposed that Torah Verses were Written After the Time of Moses?” Journal of Jewish Studies 66 (Spring, 2015), pp. 97-115.

[11] In R. Menahem M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah, beginning with parashat Ki Tissa, vol. 2, this Targum is included. R. Kasher was very excited by the discovery of this Targum and wrote about it in a number of places, in particular in Torah Shelemah, vol. 24, which is devoted to the Targumim. One of the most fascinating points he makes is as follows (Torah Shelemah, vol. 24, pp. 22ff.).

Deut. 24:3 states: וכתב לה ספר כריתות. Each of the three Targumim translates this passage differently.

Onkelos: ויכתוב לה גט פטורין

Neofiti: ויכתוב לה אגרא דשיבוקין

Ps. Jonathan: ויכתוב לה ספר תירוכין

Mishnah, Gittin 9:3 states:

גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל גֵּטהֲרֵי אַתְּ מֻתֶּרֶת לְכָל אָדָםרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵרוְדֵין דְּיֶהֱוֵי לִיכִי מִנַּאי סֵפֶר תֵּרוּכִין וְאִגֶּרֶת שִׁבּוּקִין וְגֵט פִּטּוּרִיןלִמְהָךְ לְהִתְנְסָבָא לְכָל גְּבַר דְּתִצְבַּיִן

The Gemara offers no reason for the text of the get that R. Judah requires. Why would one need to repeat the same thing in three different ways? (Contemporary gittin differ from R. Judah’s text, but still include the three terms: פטרית ושבקית ותרוכית) Later rabbinic authorities offer all sorts of forced explanations for this. R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, She’elot u-Teshuvot, no. 21, writes:

גט פטורין כמו שתרגם אונקלוס על גט כריתות אבל תרוכין ושבוקין ושאר הדברים שהם דברי עצמו אשר לא כתוב בספר

R. Ashkenazi recognizes that the words גט פטורין appear in Onkelos, but he thinks the other two words are original to R. Judah. (This shows that R. Ashkenazi did not have access to Targum Ps. Jonathan).

According to R. Kasher, R. Judah was simply using the Targumim known to him. He required inclusion in the get of the three different words that explain the term כריתות so that everyone would understand its meaning. In other words, he was including every possible translation of כריתות that was prevalent among the Aramaic speaking Jews, and this would ensure that a get written this way would be accepted by all who used these Targumim.

[12] Geula, “‘Le-Fi ha-Peshat Ezra Katav . . . O Moshe Ketavo be-Ruah ha-Kodesh’: Hearot al Hibbur ha-Torah be-Ferush Hadash le-Torah mi-Ketav Yad Vatican,” in Avigdor Shinan and Yisrael Y. Huval, eds.,Divrei Hakhamim ve-Hidotam (Jerusalem, 2018), pp. 89-114.

[13] Geula, pp. 91, 92. The verse is cited as מלוך מלך instead of מְלָךְ, but that is to indicate the pronunciation, as the first lamed has a kamatz katan. We find examples of this in our text of the Talmud (although we would have to check manuscripts to see how far back this goes). For example, the word כּׄתֶל, if you put a suffix on it, the holam then becomes a kamatz katan:  כָּתְלנו, as we see in Song of Songs 2:9. Yet throughout the Talmud we find the form כּותליinstead of כָּתְלי. The same thing happens if you put a suffix on the word צׄרֶך. Thus, in II Chron. 4:15 we have צָרְכך not צורכך. In the Talmud, however, you have the form צורכי (as well as צרכי). This was noted by R. Bentzion Cohen, Sefat Emet ((Jerusalem, 1997), p. 167.

[14]  See the text published by Isaac Lange in Ha-Ma’yan 12 (Tamuz, 5732), p. 83.

[15] Perush ha-Rokeah al ha-Torah (Bnei Brak, 1979), p. 258; also in Tosafot ha-Shalem al ha-Torah, vol. 3, p. 287,

[16] See Geula, p. 90.

[17] Geula, p. 96.

[18] Ed. Buber (Berlin, 1900), p. 298.

[19] “A Jewish Theory of Biblical Redaction from Byzantium: Its Rabbinic Roots, Its Diffusion and Its Encounter with the Muslim Doctrine of Falsification,” Jewish Studies Internet Journal 2 (2003), pp. 123-167.

[20] Geula, p. 100.

[21] On the other hand, R. Zvi Yisrael Tau, Tzaddik be-Emunato Yihyeh, pp. 281-282, rejects the legitimacy of this opinion in favor of Maimonides’ principle. He further states that allowing such a view, that there are limited post-Mosaic additions, will open the door to all forms of Higher Criticism and the consequent rejection of Torah min ha-Shamayim. As such, he does not believe that future teachers should be exposed the views of Ibn Ezra, R. Judah he-Hasid, and the others we have discussed.

מדוע חשוב לו כל כך לומר את זהלמה כל כך חשוב למרצה הזה שהמורה העתידי יידע את זההתשובה היא כי אחרי שעוברים את המחסום הזהנעשים פתוחים לכל ביקורת המקרא ולכל הדעות האוניברסיטאיות.

[22] Farber’s note: I do not know what city פנדייא is or even how to transliterate it properly.

[23] See Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes, 259.

[24] This is the proper spelling, not Pinfer. See Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im, p. 119.

[25] R. Finfer wished to publish a Tanakh that would replace the Christian chapters we have become accustomed to with the Jewish divisions. In Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im, p. 118, he published a letter from R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim agreeing with him in this matter and calling this a “mitzvah gedolah. However, it is reported that the Hazon Ish disagreed, as the Ein Mishpat on the Talmud refers to the Christian chapters, and we have become so attuned to this that any change now would cause more problems than it is worth. See R. Reuven Elitzur, Degel Mahaneh Reuven, p. 363. (The Hazon Ish was the older brother of R. Finfer’s son-in-law, R. Moses Karelitz.) R. Finfer had a small success in that Koren’s divisions are based on R. Finfer. See R. Eliyahu Katz, Be’er Eliyahu (n.p., 2002), p. 151.

R. Finfer reports that the Vilna Gaon brought back the practice of reading the haftarah from a scroll, and that this then spread throughout Lithuania. See Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im, p. 114.

Also of interest is that it was R. Finfer who published the famous mysterious letter of the Vilna Gaon. Often reprinted, the letter first appeared in the Jerusalem journal Torah mi-Tziyon 3 (Tishrei 5658).

Regarding unknown materials from the Vilna Gaon, I recently found a letter from Shirley Feuerstein to Yaacov Herzog that I think readers will find of interest. It is located in the Yaacov Herzog Archives at the Israel State Archives, available here; old file no.: 4068/21-פ, new file no.: 000zl9r.

[26] Mesamhei Lev (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 296, called to my attention by Rabbi Yitzhak Churaqi. R. Berdugo offers a different perspective in his Mei Menuhot (Jerusalem, 2009), vol. 2, p. 917:

שלא יחובר לתורתו של משה רבינו ע”ה שום נבואה אחרת כללת כי מסלוק משה רבינו ע”ה נחתמה התורה . . . כי לא קם ולא יקום מי שיוסיף על התורה אפילו אות אחת

[27] Mesamhei Lev, p. 150.

[28] See Pithei TeshuvahYoreh Deah 274:7, who cites R. Jonah Landsofer, Benei YonahYoreh Deah 274:20,  that if a letter is mistakenly written large or small it does not disqualify the Torah scroll.

[29] See R. Nahum Abraham, Darkhei ha-Ma’amarim (n.p., 2017), pp. 146-147 (first pagination), who states that what appears in Derekh Sihah is heresy, and therefore he denies that R. Kanievsky could have said it. 

image_pdfimage_print
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

36 thoughts on “Post-Mosaic Additions to the Torah?

  1. In Rabbi Elazar Rokeach’s commentary, it is hard to understand how one would interpret his comments to Genesis 47:26 as referring to a post-Mosaic insertion. He seems to be saying that Moshe wrote those words as of his time (when they were correct), and that this law lasted until the time of Nevuchadnetzar. Where is it implied that these were a later addition? He explicitly writes that Moshe wrote them!

  2. Regarding the point of Rav Chaim Kanievsky regarding Devorah – doesn’t the Gemra say that Yeshyahu and Yehezkel had the same vision – but their subjective positions caused them to report it differently?

    1. Yes, indeed all post-Mosaic prophets insert subjectivity into the prophecies according to the Rambam (only Moses being the exception). What I found striking in R. Kanievsky is that he claims that the Sages found a problem that arose from Devorah’s subjectivity and criticized it. I don’t think anyone else has ever mentioned this.

      1. Isn’t Nechemia criticized for inserting his own views into Tanach? Not quite the same thing, but still.

    2. the subjectivity of the navi and its effect on the report is the difference between all other neviim (aspaklarya sheaina me’ira ) and nevuas moshe –see maharil diskin end of sefer al jhatorah from parashas balak quoted in full in rav shach avi ezri yesodei hatorah
      we are commanded by moshe to heed the neviim ailav tishmaoon eventhough some may be the navis influence see rambam yesodei hatorah

  3. I wonder how the Rashban, Rav Shlomo Tzvi Shick, fits in to R. Yehuda HaHasid’s contention that some things were taken out of the Torah. Rashban suggests (apropro of this week’s parsha) that Parshat Balak was written by Moshe but wasn’t included in the Torah until after Israel settled the land of Israel.

    His comments can be found here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=6507&st&pgnum=166

      1. Can you provide a page number possibly? The index doesn’t have him and I don’t see his name come up in the chapter.

  4. About twenty or so years ago a Mikraot Gedolot was issued- it was called Something Rishonim, if I recall correctly- that included a lot of the perushim that didn’t “make it” into the “standard” version, like Da’at Zekeinim and the like. It included the whole Neofiti, I think even under that name. Of course R’ Kasher and others published it as well.

    Just to clarify, would you say that someone saying that Ibn Ezra meant X is not necessarily agreeing with X himself? (Even if saying that X is a legitimate view.) That might make the list a bit smaller, no?

    1. When I say that 35 rishonim and acharonim interpret Ibn Ezra this way, I don’t mean that they all agree with him. Some of them strongly disagree. (See Limits)

  5. Regarding the neviim given leeway in how they wrote their seforim, here is what the Abarbanel writes in his introduction to Yirimyah

    אחשוב אני שלא היה ירמיהו שלם מאד בסדור הדברים ויפוי המליצה, כמו ישעיהו הנביא וגם נביאים אחרים, ומפני זה תמצא בדברי ירמיהו פסוקים רבים שלפי דעת המפרשים כולם יחסרו להם מלה או מלות, עם היות שאני אשתדל לישבם כאשר הם, ותמצא בדבריו פעמים רבות מאד מאד מלת על תשמש במקום אל, והזכר בלשון נקבה והנקבה בלשון זכר, והרבים בלשון יחיד והיחיד בלשון רבים, ועבר במקום עתיד ועתיד במקום עבר, ודבור אחד בעצמו פעם לנכח ופעם לנסתר, ותמצא בדבריו גם כן המוקדם מאוחר והמאוחר קודם

  6. Have you dealt with Dr. Moshe J. Bernstein’s Letter to the Editor of The Jewish Week (“Defending Ibn Ezra”), published on p. 8 of the August 26, 2016 issue (online August 24, 2016, at https://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/defending-ibn-ezra/)? For those who haven’t seen it, its text follows.
    *****************************
    Defending Ibn Ezra
    By MOSHE J. BERNSTEIN
    August 24, 2016, 4:04 am
    Poor Abraham Ibn Ezra! In Jewish discussions of the authorship of the Pentateuch, in particular of the Book of Deuteronomy (Devarim), this great 12th-century commentator and linguist has been so often misquoted, misinterpreted and misunderstood.
    In his “Sabbath Week” column, “Who Wrote Devarim?” (Aug. 12), Rabbi Lawrence Hoffman continues that unfortunate tradition.
    Ibn Ezra, like the virtually entire tradition of classical Jewish biblical interpretation, believed that the Torah was substantially complete upon the entry of the Israelites into Canaan. He in no way anticipates so-called higher biblical criticism or the Documentary Hypothesis, although since the time of Spinoza he has been cited as advocating such views by Jews who searched within earlier Jewish tradition for support of their untraditional views.
    In fact, Ibn Ezra’s view on the authorship of the last verses in the Pentateuch differs from one of the views in rabbinic literature only in the number of verses that are deemed to be written by Joshua. In several other passages, Ibn Ezra suggests that a few words each in several verses in Genesis and in Deuteronomy are non-Mosaic, but that is all. When it comes to an only slightly larger unit of text, he fulminates against one Yitzhaki, identified by many with the 11th-century Yitzhak ibn Yashush, who claimed that the list of Edomite kings in Genesis 36 was written long after Moses. In a remark at the end of the introduction to his commentary on Psalms, Ibn Ezra writes, “There is no doubt among the Israelites that our Master, Moses, peace be upon him, wrote the Book of Genesis, for that is the tradition of our holy ancestors, even though it does not say at the beginning, ‘the Lord Spoke.’”
    Modern Jews have the luxury of accepting or rejecting traditional views of issues such as “Who wrote Devarim?” but it is clearly inaccurate to claim that a modern nontraditional view was held by a medieval exegete whose writings make it quite clear that he would have disagreed vehemently with it.
    Moshe J. Bernstein
    Professor of Bible and Jewish History
    Denenberg Chair in Biblical Studies
    Yeshiva University

  7. What is there to deal with? Everything Bernstein says is correct. Look at Krinsky’s Mechokekei Yehudah who already cites Shadal who mentions Spinoza’s fraudulent assertion about Ibn Ezra and Deuteronomy.

  8. Thank you! Please excuse the unfortunate term “dealt with”. “Cited” or “quoted” might have been more appropriate. Again, many thanks!

  9. “However, Richard C. Steiner has studied the use of the term “sadran” in various medieval works, and he believes that it could also be used with reference to Moses.[19] ”

    If the term refers to Moses, why would R. Menahem ben Solomon need to write, “These are the words of Moshe?” Was he attempting to argue against the contrary opinion?

      1. Yes you are correct, that was a slip up in my word choice. Thank you. But essentially the question remains the same. Why would he be saying “These are the words of the sadran” (If “the sadran” refers to Moshe) – What would be his purpose in specifically saying those words in particular are from Moshe (aren’t all the words, generally speaking, from Moshe?). Unless this is polemical comment specifically directed against the view which claims otherwise?

        1. Unless someone has a good explanation here, it would seem that Geula’s interpretation of the comment is valid, and Steiner’s explanation (if he’s indeed claiming it in the specific case of this comment) or someone’s use of Steiner’s overall thesis regarding the use of this word by rabbis to refer to Moshe, is not applicable to this comment.

  10. Dr. Meir Levin attempts to support R. Moshe’s teshuvah regarding R. Yehudah Hachasid in a 2005 “Midrash and Method” article on Parshas Balak excerpted below. My questions are: what is the name of Prof. Ta Shema’s article he refers to, who was R. Shlomo ben Shmuel Hatsarfati, and is Dr. Levin correct(in a 2005 Avodah discussion,”Startling historical beliefs”, Levin writes similarly and also quotes R. Shlomo’s understanding of the Ibn Ezra on Azazael)?

    “This assumption of R. Moshe that an unknown heretic ascribed these views to the reknown R. Yehuda Hachasid received unexpected (and unintended) support when Professor I. Ta Shema published an article in which he identified a little known student of R. Yehuda Hachasid (1240-1160) who apparently held views similar to the ones ascribed to R. Yehuda Hachasid in the manuscript under discussion. He discovered in a manuscript of R. Shlomo ben Shmuel Hatsarfati, a student of various Ashkenazic rabbis in the generation after R. Yehudaj Hachasid and an author of various works extant primarily in manuscript form. In a series of notes on Chumash, he offers similar views in the name of R. Yehuda Hachasid.”

    R. Chayim Soloveichik of Ramat Beit Shemesh, in a shiur on YU Torah last November titled “Limits of Inquiry”, says(42:45) that even if the Ibn Ezra etc. is understood correctly about those specific items being post-Mosaic additions, one can’t stretch it further(in this respect, similar to R. Yitzchak Blau’s “Flexibility With A Firm Foundation” and the “RCA Statement on Torah Min HaShamayim”). His shiur seems to have been given in response to a November, 2019 Haaretz article about TheTorah.com(26:30).
    –Shades of Gray

    1. I did not see Levin’s article so I can’t say for sure what he actually cites but I’m assuming the reference is to the piece published in Knesset Mehkarim vol. 1 ch. 19.

  11. See Limits where I discuss this commentary.

    He offers his views independently. He does not quote R Yehudah heChasid

    I don’t see how anyone can say that Rav Moshe’s position received support from Ta Shma’s article. Just the opposite (obviously). In truth, today everyone, including haredi scholars, realizes that it is authentic and that is why it was put up on Otzar Hachochma.

  12. In terms of the Ibn Ezra and Higher Criticism and Lower Criticism, Rabbi Raphael Mazuz here: https://www.ykr.org.il/question/15271 acknowledges that Ibn Ezra held that certain verses are post Mosaic that are not mentioned by Chazal (specifically the last verses of the Torah) and he adds that this does not contradict Rambam’s principle, as Rambam referenced Moshe adding independently, while Ibn Ezra held that the additions were written with ruach hakodesh.
    Rabbi Mazuz himself does not espouse this view of Ibn Ezra, but he clearly thinks it is not heretical.

  13. Are there actually any people in the world for whom the existence of, say, <200 verses added to the Torah after Moshe's death is the sticking point which determines whether or not they can adhere to orthodoxy? Are there any people who actually believe the opinion held by Yehuda heHassid is true?

  14. I would have expected a post of such thought provoking theological implications to have hundreds of comments. That there are only 26 replies implies a particular apathy people have about minority-held non-normative views held even by great Rishonim. The Rambam’s opinion has prevailed throughout Jewish history to the extent that the minority view has been relegated to a “Beit-Shammai” status.

    1. Or the opposite. The idea that there are minor post-Mosaic additions is so well accepted by now that people don’t even feel a need to comment.

  15. 1) many of the prophets use their own words see http://www.daat.ac.il/he-il/tanach/maamarim/klali/hakohensh-lesignon.htm

    2) R Benny Lau claims that Yirmahu 27:1 that mentions Yehyakim should be Tzidkiyau as the prophecy fits the time of Tzidayahu and further Tzidkiyau is mentioned explicitly in pasuk 3 (Rashi explains that it is a prophecy about what would happen in the future)
    Also the visions of Isiah and Amos about the future world are very different

    3) Joshua Berman has a recent book Ani Maamin with a different viewpoint about how to read the Torah that it has to be read in light of contemporary society of the ancient middle east, The second part deals with Maimonides 13 principles (he quotes Limits ) and discusses the references in this post. He claims that in the 19th & 20th century the Orthodox world accepted the Rambam as a reaction to the reform movement and is now undisputed

  16. Great post – as usual!

    I would like to suggest that the Rishonim who maintain that various pesukim are post-Mosaic are not necessarily at odds with R’ Meir’s opinion. It could be that there is a difference between the closing words of the Torah (which R’ Meir insists must be part of the Torah that Moshe wrote, as otherwise it would not be a Sefer shalem) and words in the middle of the Torah. See Orach Chaim 690:3 in Mechaber and Rema for this distinction regarding the Megillah.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *