Maimonides on Free Will, Divine Omniscience and Repentance

Ben Zion Katz

The problem of reconciling the notions of man’s free will and Divine omniscience is an ancient one. As early as Mishna Avot 3:15 Rabbi Akiva states that “everything is known [by God] but permission (i.e. free will) is given [to people]”. Maimonides begins to tackle this question in his Laws of Repentance (הלכות תשובה) from Book One (The Book of Science סּפּר המדע) of the Mishnah Torah. In chapter 5 paragraph 5 Maimonides brings up the conundrum of Divine Omniscience vs human free will: How can people have free will if God knows the future? Maimonides insists that one who claims that God does not know people’s (future) actions is a heretic (Chapter 3 paragraph 8). He also claims that there is no doubt that people have free will (מעשה האדם ביד האדם) and that there are clear philosophical proofs (ראיות ברורות מדברי החכמה) for this. So how can these two competing concepts be explained? Maimonides insists that there is an answer, but that it is quite complicated/long (תשובת שאלה זו ארוכה). In the Mishnah Torah itself Maimonides only hints at a possible solution, stating that God’s knowledge is different (כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם; Isaiah 55:8).

To pursue this matter further, one must turn to the Rambam’s philosophical masterpiece, The Guide of the Perplexed, where in Book Three, Chapter 20 Maimonides explains this idea further: that God’s knowledge is different from human knowledge because ”His knowledge is His essence and His essence is his knowledge” (Shlomo Pines, Moses Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed, University of Chicago Press, 1963, hereafter “Pines”, p. 481). The reason for this is that “His knowledge is not a thing … outside of His essence” (Pines, p. 482). In simpler terms, for people, knowledge is separate from their being, but this is not true for God. A consequence of this idea, according to Maimonides is that “His knowledge concerning what will happen does not make this possible thing quit its nature” (Pines, p. 482). In other words, if human nature includes free will, the fact that God knows what will happen does not in any way abrogate that free will. Stated differently, if an event has two possible outcomes, “God’s knowledge…does not bring about the actualization of one of the two possibilities” (Pines, p. 483).

Several examples are often given to explain this difficult concept. The first is that if one is atop a mountain and sees two trains at right angles hurtling towards each other, foreknowledge of the impending collision does not in any way effect the outcome. The second, more philosophical approach is that for God who does not change, time is meaningless; future and past are equivalent. Therefore, just as one’s knowledge of the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo does not affect its outcome, so too God’s knowledge of future events does not affect their outcome. Thus God can be omniscient in a way we cannot fully comprehend, man can have free will, people have the capacity to repent and God can still punish evildoers.

This question of free will vs God’s omniscience comes up again in a different way in chapter 6 of the Laws of Repentance, paragraph 3, where Maimonides discusses the difficult question of the stiffening of Pharoah’s heart, a common trope in the story of the Exodus (see Exodus 4:21 and the discussion therein in Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus, Jewish Publication Society, 1991, p. 23). Here again, the question is: if God stiffens Pharoah’s resolve, why was Pharoah deserving of God’s punishment? It seems as if Pharoah had no free will in the matter. Maimonides also discusses the fact that God prophesied to Abraham that Abraham’s descendants (the Israelites) will be oppressed by the Egyptians (Genesis 15:13). If this oppression was pre-ordained, how could God then exact punishment upon the Egyptians (Genesis 15:14) since seemingly God’s omniscience rules out free will on the part of the Egyptians? Maimonides answers the latter question in paragraph 5 of chapter 6 of the Laws of Repentance by explaining that God’s prophecy concerned the Egyptians as a nation but not individual Egyptians. Thus, presumably only those Egyptians who chose to torment the Israelites would be punished. Maimonides answers the first question regarding the stiffening or hardening of Pharoah’s heart by explaining that after Pharoah repeatedly sinned, part of his punishment was God’s withholding from Pharoah the latter’s ability to repent.

Thus, as has been pointed out by many others, Maimonides had a single philosophical program running through all of his major works (see e.g., Herbert Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Works, Oxford University Press 2005, pp. 303-4). By reading about similar themes both in the Mishnah Torah and the Guide of the Perplexed, one can obtain a better idea of Maimonides’ contributions to Jewish thought. Using this approach we have shown that Maimonides was able to retain expansive concepts of Divine omniscience and man’s free will, and demonstrate the importance of repentance even if God “knows” whether or not you are actually going to repent.

The Missing Nun Verse in Ashrei[1]
Ben Zion Katz
Northwestern University

There are several alphabetic acrostics in the book of Psalms. These acrostics are found in Psalms 25, 34, 37, 111, 112, 119 and 145. Only three of these are complete acrostics – i.e., acrostics in which every letter of the alphabet is represented. Psalms 111 and 112 begin each half verse with the succeeding letter of the Hebrew alphabet following the psalm’s first word (Halleluyah). Psalm 119 is an eight-fold alphabetic acrostic with 176 verses. Psalm 34 is portrayed as a complete alphabetic acrostic in the ArtScroll siddur[2]; however, that is a misrepresentation as there is no verse that begins with the letter vav; the letter vav appears in the last half of verse 6, as it does in the last half of verses 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 23, and is therefore not part of the acrostic. Psalms 25, 37 and 145 are also defective acrostics, in that they are missing at least one letter each (and may also have other irregularities). For example, Psalm 25 begins each verse with a succeeding letter of the Hebrew alphabet except for the letters bet (although the second word of verse 2 starts with a bet), vav and kuf (possessing a second resh verse instead). Psalm 37 begins every other verse with a succeeding letter of the alphabet, except that the daled and heh verses immediately follow each other, there are two vav and chet verses, there is no ayin verse, the peh verse follows immediately after what should have been the ayin verse (instead of skipping a verse), and the tav verse begins with a vav. Finally, Psalm 145 is famously missing a nun verse.

Psalm 145 is better known as Ashrei, because of the way it appears in the siddur. Ashrei is said thrice daily (twice in shacharit, the morning service, and once at minchah, the evening service) and is always preceded by two verses from Psalms (84:5 [whose first word, Ashrei, gives the prayer its popular name] and the last verse of the preceding Psalm [144:15]) and concludes with another verse from Psalms (115:18).

Probably because of its popularity and the prominent absence of a verse with the letter nun, the Talmud has the following discussion (Berachot 4b; my loose translation):

Rabbi Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Avina: Whoever says Psalm 145 thrice daily is assured of a place in the world to come. Why? Is it because it is an alphabetic acrostic? But Psalm 119 is an eight-fold alphabetic acrostic. Perhaps it is because of the verse (verse 16) “You open Your hands and provide sustenance for all life as they require?” But Psalm 136:25 states “He gives food to all flesh” (expressing a similar sentiment)? [The reason is because Psalm 145] has both qualities (an alphabetic acrostic and the notion of God sustaining all life).

Rabbi Yochanan asked: Why does Psalm 145 lack a verse with a nun? Because that verse alludes to the downfall of (lit., the enemies of)[3] Israel, as it says: “Fallen, she will rise no more, the virgin of Israel” (Amos 5:2; the verse continues “She is cast out over her land, none can raise her up”). In the West (i.e., Israel, by placing the comma differently)[4]  they read the verse thus: “Fallen, (and) she will not (continue to) fall any more, rise O virgin of Israel”. Said Rabbi Nachman the son of Isaac: Even so, David prophetically alluded to this [missing] verse with the next verse [following]: “God supports all of the fallen”.

The preceding Talmudic discussion raises at least two related questions: Does the Talmud really mean that a verse in Amos should have been part of Psalm 145? And isn’t that verse (Amos 5:2) completely out of character with the rest of the Psalm, which praises God throughout? In the remainder of this paper I will propose a rationale for the approach of the rabbis of the Talmud in this case (which will have implications for other similar rabbinic speculations as well), and then proceed with a historical discussion of the missing nun verse.

It appears that the rabbis, in realizing that the nun verse is missing from Psalm 145, took a cue from the verse immediately following, as Rabbi Nachman alluded to in the Talmudic discussion above. The verse following where the nun verse should be begins: Somech Adonai lekhol ha-noflim – God supports all of the fallen. The rabbis couldn’t help but notice that the word fallen, noflim, begins with a nun, and if the verse following the missing nun verse states that God helps the fallen, the preceding may very well have started with the verb nafal. The rabbis likely then searched the Bible for such a verse, and found that there are only two verses in the entire Hebrew Bible that begin with the verb nafal – Amos 5:2 (above) and Lamentations 5:16 (“The crown of our heads is fallen, woe unto us for we have sinned”).[5] While neither are great choices from a literary perspective to precede the verse of God supporting the fallen, the verse from Amos, especially as it was reinterpreted in Israel, is less objectionable. It is possible that the rabbis meant that the verse from Psalms was somehow moved to Amos, but more likely the rabbis meant that David (prophetically) knew the verse was destined to be prophesied by Amos, did not wish to include it in Psalm 145 and instead merely alluded to it with the verse immediately following about God supporting the fallen.

There are two historical witnesses as to the text of the missing nun verse of Ashrei. The first is the Septuagint, the Greek translation of Scripture that was begun in the mid-third century BCE, in which there is an extra line in Psalm 145 where the nun verse should be, that reads: “Faithful is the Lord in his words, and holy in all his works”.[6] Scholars have long recognized that the Hebrew word “Ne-eman” means faithful or trustworthy, and could have been the Hebrew word beginning the verse from which the Septuagint translators worked. The reconstructed Hebrew verse then might have read: Ne-eman elohim bechol devarav, ve-kadosh bechol ma-asav.

The second witness is the Dead Sea scrolls, among which is a large Psalms scroll that contains parts of Psalm 145 with a refrain after each verse. See Fig. 1A, where Psalm 145 begins after the break in the column. Note that this text is written in modern, square Hebrew script, except for the Tetragrammaton, which is written using the ancient paleo-Hebrew script, perhaps as a sign of added reverence.

There are minor differences between the psalm as it appears here and in current (Masoretic) Bibles. For example, the first words in line 1 are Tefilah Le-David, a prayer of David, instead of our text, which reads Tehilah Le-David, a psalm of David[7] The first verse (line 1) also contains two names of God (although the first, the Tetragrammaton, missing in current texts, is dotted, perhaps signifying an uncertain reading).[8] A characteristic of the Dead Sea texts are that many words are spelled more fully (i.e., with more vowel letters such as aleph, heh, vav and yud) than is even seen in late Biblical Hebrew,[9] to the extent that the final heh in many instances appears awkward).[10] Notice the scribal corrective technique of adding missing words above the line[11] and the garbled line beginning with the letter kuf, where the scribe appears to have misread a few words.[12] Most noticeable is that each verse is followed by a refrain: Baruch adonay uvaruch shemo leolam vaed – Blessed is God and blessed is His name forever. Finally, there is a nun verse, (beginning the last word of line 9) similar to what it was postulated to be from the Septuagint: Ne-eman Elohim bedvarav ve-chasid bechol ma-asav – Faithful is the Lord in His words and gracious in all His works.

Now that we have seen the two ancient witnesses of the nun verse in Ashrei, several questions arise. First, why does this extra verse use Elohim (Lord) instead of God (the Tetragrammaton), which is the name of God used almost uniformly throughout the psalm? Second, the Greek text implied the word “holy” (kadosh), not “gracious” (chasid)? And finally, if this verse is authentic, why did it drop out?

The first two questions are less difficult than the third. Psalm 145, even in the current Masoretic version, has the word Elohy in the first verse, so it is not as if the form Elohim for God is absent entirely from Psalm 145 as it has come down to us. Also, the fact that the Dead Sea psalm has both names of God in verse 1 (even though one is dotted) provides a possible second usage for the form Elohim for God’s name in this psalm in antiquity. The second question is a matter of near synonyms. The third question is more profound. Perhaps because the last half of the nun verse in the Dead Sea text was exactly the same as the last half of the current verse that begins with the letter tazdi allowed it to be less memorable and more likely to be skipped or forgotten by a scribe. Recall how most of the verse beginning with the letter kuf is missing in Figure 1B (lines 17-18); if the next copyist who saw that manuscript did not know this psalm by heart, the few remaining, extraneous words from the kuf verse might very well have been deleted in the next manuscript version and the kuf verse could have been lost from the psalm as well.

One cannot prove that the nun verse(s) uncovered are original to the Hebrew Psalm 145. What can be said is that the ancient translators of the Greek Bible used a text very similar to that found in Qumran in making their translation. The rabbis, of course, did not have the Dead Sea scrolls available to them; while they did have the Septuagint and were aware of some differences between the Septuagint translations and their Hebrew text(s), the rabbis attributed most of the differences to tendentious translations performed purposefully by the Greek translators.[13]

Regarding the missing nun verse, the rabbis very cleverly tried to deduce, based on the evidence available to them, how the missing verse may have read. Whether the rabbis would have made use of the Dead Sea Scrolls had they been known in antiquity is uncertain. Whether that should prevent us from doing so is a question of hashkafah. For the more traditionally minded, any source not used by previous generations is questionable at best. For the more modern, any valid source (such as using knowledge of the ancient near East to understand the Bible) is not only useful but desirable.

Figure 1A. Psalm 145, verses 1-5. From Scrolls From the Dead Sea: An Exhibition of Scrolls and Archeological Artifacts from the Collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority, A Sussman and R Peled, Library of Congress Washington, 1993 in association with the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Field Museum, 2000, cover and second inner flyleaf, © the Field Museum. Used with permission.

Figure 1B. Psalm 145, verses 13-19. From Scrolls From the Dead Sea: An Exhibition of Scrolls and Archeological Artifacts from the Collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority, A Sussman and R Peled, Library of Congress Washington, 1993 in association with the Israel Antiquities Authority, the Field Museum, 2000, cover and second inner flyleaf, © the Field Museum. Used with permission.

Transcription of Fig. 1A, beginning after the paragraph break, the 1^st 7 lines that are completely legible:

תפלה לדויד ארוממכה יקוק אלוקי המלך 1.

ואכרכה שמכה לעלם ועד ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו 2.

לעולם ועד ברוך יום אברככה ואהללה שמכה לעלם ועד 3.

ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד גדול יקוק ומהולל מאדה 4.

לגדולתו אין חקר ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד 5.

דור לדור ישבחו מעשיכה וגבורתיכה יגידו ברוך יקוק 6.

וברוך שמו לעלם ועד הדר כבוד הודכה ודברי נפלאותיכה 7.

Transcription of Fig. 1B, beginning at the top of the column, the 1^st 13 lines that are completely legible:

וברוך שמו לעלם ועד מלכותכה מלכות כל עולמים וממשלתכה 8.

בכל דור ודור ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד נאמן 9.

אלוקים בדבריו וחסיד בכול מעשיו ברוך יקוק וברוך 10.

שמו לעלם ועד סומך יקוק לכל הנופלים וזוקף לכול 11.

הכפופים ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד עיני 12.

כל אליכה ישברו ואתה נותן להמה את אוכלמה בעתו 13.

פותח אתה את ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד 14.

ידכה ומשביע לכל חי רצון ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו 15.

לעלם ועד צדיק יקוק בכל דרכיו וחסיד בכול 16.

מעשיו ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד קרוב יקוק 17.

וברוך שמו לעלם ועד יקראוהו באמת ברוך יקוק 18.

וברוך שמו לעלם ועד רצון יראיו יעשה ואת שועתמה 19.

ישמע ויושעם ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד 20.

Key: italics = dotted word

Underlined = letter or word above the line

Notes: The Tetragrammaton is spelled יקוק, and every heh in other names of God is replaced with a kuf.

[1] I thank my brother, Edward N. Katz, MD, for inspiring me to write this paper.

[2] Sherman N. The Complete ArtScroll Siddur: Weekday/Sabbath/Festival. Mesorah Publications, Ltd. Brooklyn, NY. First edition. 1984. P. 376.

[3] Literally the Talmud states that the verse deals with the downfall of the enemies of Israel, but this is a euphemism; the Talmud does not wish to actually say the downfall of Israel. See for example, M Simon. Berakoth. The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Zeraim. The Soncino Press. London. 1948. P. 15. N. 7 and A Ehrman. Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud. Tractate Berakhoth. El-Am. Israel. 1965. P. 66.

[4] Ibid.

[5] A Even-Shoshan. A New Concordance of the Bible. Kiryat Sefer Publishing House, Ltd. Jerusalem. 1990. Pp. 769-770 (Hebrew).

[6] Slightly modified from SCL Brenton. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. Samuel Bagster & Sons, Ltd. London. 1851. Reprinted Hendricksen Publishers. Peabody, MA. 1987. P. 785; this is not a scholarly edition of the Septuagint, but is popular and readily available. There is also not one single authoritative text of the Septuagint, so the expression “the Septuagint” is somewhat of a misnomer.

[7] Psalms 17 and 86 also begin with the words Tefilah Le-David, while Psalms 90 and 102 also begin with the word Tefilah.

[8] See Katz BZ. A Journey Through Torah: A critique of the documentary hypothesis. Urim. Jerusalem and N.Y. 2101. Pp. 54-55.

[9] David is spelled daled vav daled in Samuel but daled vav yud daled in Chronicles, for example.

[10] E.g., At the end of lines 4 and 19 and towards the end of line 13.

[11] Indicated by a word or letters that is/are underscored in (the transcriptions in) Fig. 1.

[12] The words אשר לכל קוראיו לכל should be in place of the first four words of line 18. It is not clear exactly how the scribe might have made this error. This is in contrast to the use of ברוך instead of בכל at the beginning of the bet verse in line 3 which could easily be explained as a scribal error due to the psalm’s constant refrain of ברוך יקוק וברוך שמו לעלם ועד; as the verse now stands (beginning with the word ברוך in line 3) it makes little sense. A scribal error might also be the cause of the repetitious את אתה in the peh verse at the end of line 14. There is one more small difference between this psalm and the received text: the absence of a vav at the beginning of line 5.

[13] E.g., Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Megillah 9a-b.

Shnei Zeitim: Two Olive Branches

Piyut by Solomon Ibn Gabirol

Translated & Annotated by Ben Zion Katz[1]

Two[2] olive branches[3] cut down in the garden[4] will again produce fresh, pure olive oil[5],

For the leaders of the Kohatites[6] and the Ephratites[7] will be crowned as one[8].

They will shine[9] like candles on the holy Menorah[10]-

There in the camp opposite the menorah, they shined![11]

The son of Ephrat[12] whose ornament[13] was cut off and then dried up[14]

Has now become the anointed one[15] for those who were laid low and directionless[16].

Recall the vision of Zachariah[17] –

As you remembered it, you were saved[18] by the hand of Zerubabel[19],

Their generation remembered and were saved[20], and that year[21] was called a Jubilee Year!

They were resettled[22] in the place of their forefathers where they were given sovereignty[23]

And from the oppression[24] of the hunter[25] they were spared[26], and

There in the camp opposite the menorah, they shined![27]

The interrupted[28] kingship was returned to the city of Zion,

The honored daughter[29], after much work, was brought back to her mother’s home (i.e., Israel),

The Kingship[30], the [beautiful] diadem[31] was placed back on David’s head,

The covered turban[32] was [re]established on the head of Aaron[’s descendants],

The daily sacrifice was reinstated and the meal offering [again] raised up [to the Lord]

The anointing oil[33] that was being used[34] hadn’t been seen in quite a while![35]

The fires are lit [again] in the menorahs by the descendants of Aaron,

There in the camp opposite the menorah, they shined[36]

[Regarding] the depressed and the thirsty who complain to You constantly –

Put your trust[37] in the son of the beloved[38] who is called ruddy[39]

Enter the garden of spices (i.e., Israel)[40] whose canopy is glorious[41]

And lead them, rule over them in Mt Zion and in the Galilee,

[Whence] just laws will be issued[42] with harp and flute.

The nation that loves Your Name and who abandon false prophets, nothingness and idols.

The nation that toiled[43] will now be so blessed, that it will be obvious to all who gaze upon them[44], that

There in the camp, opposite the menorah, they shined![45]

Figure. Synagogue motif quoting Zacharia 4:2-3 with olive branches, from India. Photo courtesy Michael R. Stein.

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.  

Don’t Oppress the Ger

Ben Zion Katz

The Torah in Motion blog by Rabbi Jay Kelman[1] discusses the daily daf as well as the parashah of the week. When reviewing Baba Metzia 59, Rabbi Kelman mentioned that the Talmud stated that there were 36 or 46 places where the Torah commands not to oppress the stranger/convert[2] (ger), but that he was not aware of any list of the verses in question.  This paper is an attempt to generate such a list.

We will begin with the Talmudic discussion itself, which is not completely straight forward. The gemara (Bab Metzia 59b) begins (my translation): “Our rabbis taught: One who oppresses a stranger/convert verbally (from the root aleph-nun-heh) violates three negative commandments, and one who oppresses a stranger/convert financially (from the root lamed-chet-tzadi)[3] violates two negative commandments.”

One would expect the Talmud now to bring three prooftexts for the former and two for the latter statement.  Instead, the Talmud brings three prooftexts for each, the third in each case not even using the word ger!

The three prooftexts for the first statement are Exod. 22:20, Lev. 19:33 and Lev. 25:17.  All three verses use the root aleph-nun-heh, but only the first two use the word ger; the third verse uses the word amito, which could be translated as his fellow citizen.  The Talmud excuses the latter anomaly by claiming that certainly a ger is a fellow citizen!

The three  prooftexts for the second statement are (again) Exod 22:20 (this verse uses the verb lamed-chet-tzadi as well as the root aleph-nun-heh, so it can be used as proof for both statements), Exod. 23:9 (which uses the root lamed-chet-tzadi) and Exod. 22:24 which again is missing the word ger (and also does not use the root lamed-chet-tzadi) – the verse simply states You shall not be a usurer to him, the Talmud again stating that the ger is included in the generic “him”.  The Talmud then concludes that with either type of oppression (financial or verbal) one is actually violating three negative commandments.

The Talmud then continues: “We learned in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer the Great stated: Why did the Torah warn us 36 times, and some say 46 times, about the ger?”  Before analyzing the verses referred to by Rabbi Eliezer the Great, we will conclude the Talmud’s discussion of the ger.  The Talmud answers Rabbi Eliezer’s question by saying “because their inclination is bad.”[4]  The most charitable way to explain this seemingly harsh response is that the convert has more temptations to sin because he or she wasn’t brought up with Torah values and/or has no religious family for support, so it is easier for them to backslide; consequently we must be especially careful in our dealings with them.  The Talmud then asks one final, obvious question: Why are we reminded not to verbally or financially oppress the convert because we were strangers in the land of Egypt?  Why is our being strangers in the land of Egypt thousands of years ago a reason for not oppressing a convert today?  The answer is taken from a baraita of Rabbi Nathan, which explains that one should not gloat about a past defect in yourself that is (still) present in another.  Presumably Rabbi Nathan felt that converts may feel like strangers even after their conversion.  The Talmud then concludes this discussion with a reminder not to offend anyone even inadvertently.[5]

Now we will analyze the purported 36 or 46 verses to which Rabbi Eliezer the Great (Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus – a second generation tanna[6]) referred.  The word ger appears in the Torah 68 times in 61 verses according to the Evan Shoshan concordance.[7]  Six verses can be eliminated from consideration because they are either referring to Israelites, they are in a narrative and not a legal context or there is simply no oppression of any kind mentioned or implied in the verse.  For example, when Abraham is attempting to purchase a burial plot for his recently departed wife Sarah from the people of Chet he says to them “I am a stranger and a sojourner with you” (Gen. 23:4).  A second verse using the word ger unrelated to Rabbi Eliezaer’s statement is when God says to Abraham that his children will be strangers in a land not theirs (Gen. 15:13)[8].  Moses says twice he is a stranger in a strange land (Exod. 2:22 and 18:3).  God warns us of strangers rising up against us if we disobey the Torah (Deut. 28:43).  Finally we are told not to sell property forever because all land belongs to God and we are merely strangers and sojourners before Him (Lev. 25:23).

Of the remaining verses, 9 specifically state to be good to the stranger/convert because we were strangers in the land of Egypt.[9]  These 9 verses (or sets of verses) are the three to which the Talmud already called our attention (Exod.  22:20, Lev. 19:33-34 [these two adjacent verses make a single point, so they will be counted as a single instance] and Exod. 23:9), as well as Deut. 5:13-15 (the Sabbath commandment in the second set of the Ten Commandments,[10] which commands that even the stranger/convert needs to rest on the Sabbath because we [lit. you] were slaves in Egypt), Deut. 10:18-19 (commands to love the stranger because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt), Deut. 16:11-12 (the stranger should rejoice on Shavuot because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt),[11] Deut. 23:8 (don’t hate the Egyptians because you were once strangers in his land) Deut. 24:17-18 (don’t pervert judgment against the stranger because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt), and immediately following, Deut. 24:19-22 (crops that should be left for the stranger [and others] because we [lit. you]  were strangers in Egypt.  (These last 3 verses list three types of crops to be left for the stranger, but give a single reason at the end, so are counted as a single reference.)

The next set of 6 verses or sets of verses parallel the ones just brought, but omit the reason (because we [lit. you] were strangers/slaves in Egypt) presumably because the rationale was already stated in the parallel verse.  For example, in the first set of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:10) the stranger/convert is also commanded to rest, but a different reason is given (because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, although as Ibn Ezra points out [long commentary on Exod. 20:1] that is not a specific reason why the stranger/convert should rest; only the reason given in Deut. explains that part of the command.)  Another verse also commands to allow the stranger/convert to rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 23:12).  Lev. 19:10 mirrors Deut. 24:21, but again sans raison.  Lev. 23:22 parallels Deut. 24:19-21 in idea, but without the reason or the linguistic parallels of the previous example.  Two verses/sets of verses parallel Deut. 16:11-12 re the stranger being joyous on holidays: Deut. (16:13-14) command the stranger to be happy on Succot and Deut. 26:11 reiterates the command for the stranger to be joyous on Shavuot; in both of these cases, however, the reason (because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt) is lacking.  This brings the total number of verses or sets of verses warning not to oppress the stranger to 15.

Six more verses remind us to be good to the ger in different situations, or warn us not to oppress the ger, without the reason being given anywhere: Lev. 25:35 (do not lend money with interest even to a ger), Lev. 25:47 (redeem the property of a ger as you would a kinsman), Deut. 14:29 (regarding a tithe that includes distribution of benefits to the ger), Deut. 24:14 (you may not withhold anyone’s wages, including those of the ger), Deut. 26:12-13 (the declaration given when the tithe from Deut. 14:29 is brought to Jerusalem), and Deut. 27:19 (a curse for someone who subverts the rights of the ger).  This brings the verse count to 21.

The next set of 23 verses/sets of verses state that the ger should be treated the same as an Israelite and has similar obligations and punishments.  Exod. 12:19 forbids the ger from consuming leaven on Passover (Hag HaMatzot).  Exod. 12:48-49 commands that a circumcised ger can share in the paschal offering and then states more generally that one set of laws (torah achat) should apply to the circumcised ger and us (lit. you).  Num. 9:14 in the discussion of the second Passover, parallels both the specific command regarding the stranger celebrating the pesach offering and equality before the law (chukah achat), although the requirement for circumcision is lacking, likely because it is understood.  Lev. 16:29 includes the ger in the Yom Kippur commemoration.  Lev. 17:8 equates the obligations of two kinds of sacrifices (the olah and zevach) for the ger and Israelite, while verse 17:9 commands the ger too upon the proper, applicable sacrificial procedure.  Verses 17:10-12 enjoin the ger as well as the Israelite from consuming blood.  Verse 17:13 instruct the ger and Israelite how to hunt.  Verses 17:14-16 again forbid the consumption of animal blood but add prohibitions for both Israelite and ger about how the meat must be consumed and what to do if the meat is not consumed properly.[12]  Lev. 22:18 equates the ger and Israelite regarding freewill offerings.  Num. 15:14-16 in general equates the sacrificial laws for Israelites and gerim.  Lev. 20:2 forbids a certain kind of idolatry (Molech worship) equally for gerim and Israelites.  Lev. 18:26 and 24:22 again make general statements about equality under the law for gerim.  Lev. 24:16 enjoins both ger and Israelite from blasphemy.  Num. 19:10 and 35:15 equate Israelite and ger regarding the exculpatory ceremony of the red heifer (for an unsolved murder) and cities of refuge (for one who commits accidental homicide).  Num. 15:26 includes the ger in the communal sin offering ritual, while Num. 15:27-29 includes the ger in the individual sin offering ritual.  Num. 15:30-31 includes the ger in the punishment (karet) meted out for the willful violation of commandments.  Deut. 1:16 commands that judges treat gerim as they would their (Israelite) brethren.  Deut. 29:19 includes gerim in the second covenant between God and the Israelites at the end of the forty years of desert wandering, while Deut. 31:12 includes gerim in the obligation to hear the public recitation of the Torah every seven years on Sucot (Hakhel).

This brings the total verse/set of verses count to 44.  Presumably, there were some Rabbis who were “lumpers” and may have included some of the duplicate verses above as single instances when interpreting the list of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, making the list total 36, while others were “splitters” and divided some of the verses above considered a set, making the total 46.   In any event, I submit that the list of verses generated above is likely similar to the one compiled by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.

[1] TIM.org

[2] While ger (plural gerim) is usually translated as stranger or foreigner, in Rabbinic parlance it often means a convert.  I will use the term ger or translate as either stranger or stranger/convert unless it becomes obvious from the context (see below) that the Talmud is referring to a convert.  See also below, footnote 12.

[3] Probably because both roots are found in the same verse (Exod. 22:20 – see below) the Rabbis assumed they referred to different types of oppression.  These two definitions are already found in the Tannaitic literature (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. JZ Lauterbach, vol. 3, Jewish Publication Society, 1935, 1961, p. 137).

[4] Here it is obvious the Talmud is referring to a convert.

[5] The expression used in the Talmud is not to mention to someone to “hang something up” if someone in that person’s family had been hung.

[6] M Margolioth. Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature. Joshua Chachik. Tel Aviv. 1970. vol. 1. Pp. 92-101 (Hebrew).

[7] Avraham Even Shoshan.  A New Concordance of the Bible.  Kiryat Sefer, Jerusalem.  1990, 1997.  Pp 242-3.

[8] While clearly this verse provides the moral basis for not oppressing the ger, since it is referring to descendants of Abraham, it cannot be part of a list warning not to oppress the “other”.

[9] Based on the Talmudic discussion, it is surprising there aren’t more verses such as these in the Torah.

[10] Ten Statements is probably a better translation for the way the expression is used in the Torah (e.g., Deut. 4:13).

[11] Perhaps because the pilgrimage festivals all are tied in to leaving Egypt, strangers also need to rejoice on those festivals, for we too were also once strangers (although it is odd that this injunction is not found in relation to Passover, only for Shavuot and Succot – see below).

[12] Deut. 14:21 is not included in this list, because this verse allows a ger to eat certain types of prohibited meat, unlike Lev. 17:15, presumably because the two verses are dealing with different types of gerim.