Daf 93a (Art Scroll 93a2 discusses the three options regarding what happened to Chananiah, Mishael, and Azariah after Hashem saved them from the furnace.
Rav says they died through the "evil eye".
Note 14 discusses the idea of ayin hara based on the Chazon Ish, Maharal, Rabbi Dessler in Michtav MeEliyahu, and Rabbi Avigdor Miller. The basic idea is that the evil results can be triggered by good things that cause anguish to other people. This means that
Sanhedrin daf 93 a (Art Scroll 93a2) discusses the fate of
Chananiah Mishael and Azariah after they were saved from the
furnace.
Rebbi Eliezer (tanna) and Rav (amora) say they died from ayin
hara.
Note 14 discusses the idea of ayin hara based on the Chazon Ish, Maharal, Rabbi Dessler in Michtav MeEliyahu, and Rabbi Avigdor Miller. The basic idea is that the evil results can be triggered by good things that cause anguish to other people. This means that when the people saw that the test could be surmounted the anger and grief that they felt for failing was turned on the three of them, This is what we see nowadays in those who resent the
fact that "orthodox" Jews actually follow the torah and Hashem as
well as those who push the BDS and ant-semitic and anti-Israel
agenda while claiming to be "Jewish". This is like what Rabbi
Akiva said about his attitude towards talmidei chachamim
(scholars) when he was still an am ha'aretz (ignorant).
A modern story (I think about Rabbi Twerski) is told that he was once sitting next to a not (yet) religious Jew who castigated him for his dress and beard and following the old fashioned customs and behaviors of Judaism. When he turned and said *I am Amish*, the person fell all over himself saying what respect he has for the Amish because they maintain their traditions.
Rebbi Yehoshua (tanna) and Shmuel (amora) say "they drowned in
spittle" (as explained in note 15). Earlier the daf explains that
when the three came out of the furnace unharmed, the goyim spit on
Bnai Yisrael, saying how could you have bowed to the idol when you
have such a powerful G0d. This shows the reaction of those not
subject to the test when seeing people fail it. The humiliation of
this was felt by the three of them because they felt it as if it
was their humiliation and injury. Nowadays, it is like those who
have contempt for the non-religious and anti-religious Jews. Indeed, it is the left who show their anti-Semitism and contempt for the Jews who try to deny their Judaism and join them in their activities.
The chachamim (tannaim) and Rav Yochanan (amora) say that they
went to Eretz Yisrael, married, and raised their families. This is
from the viewpoint of the heroes themselves. They did not regard
themselves as having done anything extraordinary, but just did
what they were required to do. As a result, they continued their
lives in the same way, raising their children to continue in the
same way. This is like the bracha Hashem gave Avraham when he said
that Avraham would continue and teach his children how to live. It
is why the Bnai Yisrael at Sinai are described as everyone who
would be born in the future is treated as having accepted the
torah. It is the way the "orthodox" built frum communities after World
War II and are continuing in our current day.
This is what we see in the shuls and yeshivahs of the current day and the way that the "Orthodox" are increasing while the non-religious and anti-religious groups are dwindling.
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Friday, July 07, 2017
How Bil'am tried to foment a war by adding one letter
Balak told Bi'am that הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם, while Bil'am reported the conversation to Hashem as
הִנֵּה הָעָם הַיֹּצֵא מִמִּצְרַיִם
Rashi, reports on the other obvious strengthening of the words of the report in order to inflame matters, but we see that just changing one letter can cause the impact of the report to be completely different.
According to Rav Hirsch, Balak said the main situation was not that this was a particular people, but that a people who had been completely submerged in the power of the Egyptian Empire had wrested themselves free and were now going to completely destroy the surrounding nations (even if they are not going to attack Moav directly).
Balak 22:5
הִנֵּה הָעָם הַיֹּצֵא מִמִּצְרַיִם
Rashi, reports on the other obvious strengthening of the words of the report in order to inflame matters, but we see that just changing one letter can cause the impact of the report to be completely different.
According to Rav Hirsch, Balak said the main situation was not that this was a particular people, but that a people who had been completely submerged in the power of the Egyptian Empire had wrested themselves free and were now going to completely destroy the surrounding nations (even if they are not going to attack Moav directly).
Balak 22:5
הִנֵּה עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם The repetition of הִנֵּה shows that with עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם a separate thought is given for his consideration. The fact that עַם יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם, that a mass of people politically and socially submerged in the power and nationality of Egypt could go out of Egypt as a socially united people to freedom and independence, marks this people as something unique. And it is to the cause which could have effected this remarkable unheard-of event which your mind must concentrate on, if you are willing to help my purpose to be achieved.On the other hand, Bil'am knew who they were and what was occurring as a result of Hashem's specific will. He knew that it was not some random people showing the breakout from Egypt, but was the people, the specific people that Hashem had taken out גוי מקרב גוי and the answer to Balak's request as asked would be Tell Balak not to worry, they are moving at my explicit command and will not invade you. Bil'am, on the other hand wanted to see them destroyed and actually tried to get Balak to fight them. As Rashi says on Balak 22:11
curse it: Heb. קָבָה לּי. [This expression used by Balaam] is stronger than אָרָה לּי [used by Balak in verse 6], for it specifies and details [the curse]- [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]Thus, Bil'am referred to this people in order to avoid any possibility of it being someone or something other than Bnai Yisrael as well as to avoid the possibility of being told to reassure Balak that they would not invade Moav and would not need to be fought off.
and drive it out: of the world. Balak said only, “and I will drive him out of the land” (verse 6). [His intention was:] I want only to get them away from me, but Balaam hated them more than did Balak. — [Mid. Tanchuma Balak 5, Num. Rabbah 20:9]
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Why does Hashem show different reactions while Balaam insists on going to Balak
Rav Hirsch among others explains that if someone insists on trying to disobey Ahashem's will, Hashem will allow him to destroy himself. For example, in the explanation of Balak 22:12-13 Rav Hisrch points out
As a result of this,
As a result of Balaam attempting to work around Hashem, Hashem says, that if it for your personal honor that they came for you, go ahead and try to go with them. However, do not forget that you were categorically forbidden to curse the Bnai Yisrael, even though you hid that from Moav.
20
As we see, Hashem is telling Balaam that if he insists on going, he will only be able to convey the blessing, the exact opposite of what Balak intends.
The question now arises, why was Hashem angry? The reason given by Rav Hisrsch is that while Balaam was given permission to go with the messengers (אתם) he actually went with the intention to somehow bring about their purpose.
22
As a result, the מלאך is sent to point out the result of what he is attempting to do. It is actually a final attempt to show mercy to Balaam and get him do do teshuvah.
12
Now had Balaam been a prophet of the Truth he would faithfully have transmitted this declaration of Hashem to the envoys of Balak and the purpose of Hashem's intervention would have been achieved without the whole following episode. Balak, andMoav, instead of fearing the attacking and conquering might of this People, would have been induced to know the moral factor which was innate in it to which Hashem had promised His blessing and to befriend them to their own advantage. But
13
Balaam suppressed the second part, the really essential part of Hashem's warning. He just speaks in general terms מאן השם, which forthwith allows it to be understood tat he himself would be pleased to curse the people, only מאן השם לתתי להלוך עמכם, the Hashem Whose prophet I am does not finnd it befitting for me to go with *you*. After all, they were only, as remarked above, זקני מואב not שרי מואב, only plebeans, not really princes.
As a result of this,
Balak knew his man and did not let himself be put off from his by the first refusal
As a result of Balaam attempting to work around Hashem, Hashem says, that if it for your personal honor that they came for you, go ahead and try to go with them. However, do not forget that you were categorically forbidden to curse the Bnai Yisrael, even though you hid that from Moav.
20
We have already remarked on verses 16 & 17) that Balak's request had two points (a) that Balaam come at his invitation and (b) that he curses Israel. For the first part he was given permission, regarding the second part, whic constituded the real intended purpose of Balak, it had in verse 12, already at the first mission had been peremptorily denied to him.
As we see, Hashem is telling Balaam that if he insists on going, he will only be able to convey the blessing, the exact opposite of what Balak intends.
The question now arises, why was Hashem angry? The reason given by Rav Hisrsch is that while Balaam was given permission to go with the messengers (אתם) he actually went with the intention to somehow bring about their purpose.
22
no כי הלך that he went with Balak's messengers, ... But he did not just go with them, הולך הוא, he was "goer" with them, one striving to reach his own end. In spite of the definite warning he had received from Hashem, his mind was still obscured by the obsession that he would be able to achieve the purpose so desired by Balak and himself.
As a result, the מלאך is sent to point out the result of what he is attempting to do. It is actually a final attempt to show mercy to Balaam and get him do do teshuvah.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Modern Politics and the meraglim
When the meraglim came into Kena'an, Hashem caused a number of deaths so that the meraglim would be ignored. A possible suggestion about the political turmoil throughout the world is to keep the nations so stirred up that they cannot focus their attention on Eretz Yisrael.
Also as a result of the terrorist actions, the nations are being forced to fight against those who would otherwise be actively attempting to destroy us.
Also as a result of the terrorist actions, the nations are being forced to fight against those who would otherwise be actively attempting to destroy us.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
A Bonus Gematriah for Purim
A Bonus Gematriah for Purim
1) 500 people were killed in Shushan, everywhere else, they killed 75,000 people
2) Achshveirosh ruled over 127 countries and if we assume Shushan was one of them, then it comes out that in the remaining 126 countries, they killed 75,000 people.
3) If you do the math (175,000/126), we see each country killed 595 people , which equals 74,970.
4) In Shushan they killed 500 + Haman. Haman is gematriah 95. So in every other country they needed to kill 595 to match what happened in Shushan.
5) You still have to account for an extra 30 people killed. (75,000‐74,970=30). The Medrash says Haman had 30 sons. 10 were hung, 10 were killed and 10 were beggars. We know a poor person is like a dead person. In order to make up the 30 sons killed, an extra 30 people were killed.
1) 500 people were killed in Shushan, everywhere else, they killed 75,000 people
2) Achshveirosh ruled over 127 countries and if we assume Shushan was one of them, then it comes out that in the remaining 126 countries, they killed 75,000 people.
3) If you do the math (175,000/126), we see each country killed 595 people , which equals 74,970.
4) In Shushan they killed 500 + Haman. Haman is gematriah 95. So in every other country they needed to kill 595 to match what happened in Shushan.
5) You still have to account for an extra 30 people killed. (75,000‐74,970=30). The Medrash says Haman had 30 sons. 10 were hung, 10 were killed and 10 were beggars. We know a poor person is like a dead person. In order to make up the 30 sons killed, an extra 30 people were killed.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Count of Pesukim in each Parsha
The counts were taken from the Art Scroll Chumash notes at the end of each parsha. Note that while the masoretic count of Tzav is 96, A physical count of Pesukim shows 97.
Pekudei does not have a note at the end of the parsha but the Art Scroll commentary says the edition of the Chumash printed with the Malbim's commentary.gives it as 92 (which matches the physical count in the chumash)
Yisro appears to use the taamei elyon count (10 pesukim) instead of the taamei tachton count (13 pesukim) for the total given at the comment at the end. This is based on comparing the note to the physical count as printed in the Chumash.
The mesorah note for Vayeilech of 70 appears for the combined parshiyos of Nitzavim and Vayeilech. This means 40 in Nitzavim and 30 in Vayeilech
The Art Scroll Chumash on the page right after Vzos Haberachah give the total count according to the Mesorah for each sefer and for the total number of pesukim in the Torah.
However, These numbers do not appear to match the totals calculated from the numbers given at the end of each parsha
It appears that the difference in Shmos is the Aseres Hadibros in Yisro between the Taamei Elyon and Taamei Tachton (3 pesukim) The difference in Vayikra is the mesorah note in Tzav and the physical count in Tzav. Vaeschanan starts the Taam Tachton at 5:6 and ends at 5:18, also for a count of 13. This accounts for the three total difference. However the mesorah count at the end says 118 while the printed count shows 7+49+30+25+11 = 122 However, the sefer total differs by 3 rather than 4 so there must be another difference in the sefer.
Double AA points out: In an answer on judaism.stackexchange.com I show that the correct mesorah note in old manuscripts for Vaeschanan is 119 which solves the issue in that parsha, but the book total issue remains for Artscroll. However, in Mechon Mamre's edition based on the old manuscripts, Yisro has only 74 verses and Vaeschanan has only 121 verses (counting both with taamei tachton, unlike how the individual parsha mesorah does) which gives the correct traditional book totals below of 1209 and 955. So the individual parsha mesorah uses the taamei elyon while the book total uses the taamei tachton, and there are no issues remaining when we use the manuscript versions.
I found a blog at eSefer - Aseres Hadibros which discusses the differences and has a comment
all bible texts published by mosad harav kook are based on the edition prepared by r. mordechai breuer
on breuer, see http://agmk.blogspot.com/2007/02/r-mordechai-breuer-ztll-master-masoret.html#links
he explains the trop to the first two pesukim in depth in his "dividing the decalogue into verses and commandments" in The Ten Commandments In History and Tradition, ed. Ben Zion Segal (1990), pp. 291-330.
Note that following the link gives a message
This blog is open to invited readers only
http://agmk.blogspot.com/
and
The Kesav Ve'hakabalah has a fascinating discussion of the different verse totals of the Decalogue reflected in the various masoretic notes. He claims that there are actually four versions of the division of the decalogue into verses: a) 12 verses - our tahton b) 9 verses - our elyon c) 13 verses - our tahton but with anochi and lo yiheh split into two d) 10 verses - our elyon but with anochi and lo yiheh combined into one. He maintains that the four masoretic totals (end of yisro, end of shemos, end of va'es'hanan and end of devarim) actually reflect the four versions; do the arithmetic and you'll see that he's apparently correct. [I first came across this dicussion of his in an issue of the Ihud Be'hidud weekly ...] Note that this is at the end of the sefer after Devarim.
Another difference is that the mesorah count at the end of Parshas Bo shows 105 pesukim. However the count of the numbers in each perek (29+10+51+16) shows 106. However, it is possible that based on the trop for Bo 13:1, that the first pasuk was counted with the second pasuk leaving the last perek with 15 pesukim so that 29+10+51+15 = 105.
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר
Note that the English translation ends that pasuk wit a comma and not a period.
Pekudei does not have a note at the end of the parsha but the Art Scroll commentary says the edition of the Chumash printed with the Malbim's commentary.gives it as 92 (which matches the physical count in the chumash)
Yisro appears to use the taamei elyon count (10 pesukim) instead of the taamei tachton count (13 pesukim) for the total given at the comment at the end. This is based on comparing the note to the physical count as printed in the Chumash.
The mesorah note for Vayeilech of 70 appears for the combined parshiyos of Nitzavim and Vayeilech. This means 40 in Nitzavim and 30 in Vayeilech
The Art Scroll Chumash on the page right after Vzos Haberachah give the total count according to the Mesorah for each sefer and for the total number of pesukim in the Torah.
| Bereishis | 1534 |
| Shmos | 1209 |
| Vayikra | 859 |
| Bamidbar | 1288 |
| Devorim | 955 |
| Total | 5845 |
However, These numbers do not appear to match the totals calculated from the numbers given at the end of each parsha
| Bereishis | 1534 |
| Shmos | 1206 |
| Vayikra | 858 |
| Bamidbar | 1288 |
| Devorim | 952 |
| Total | 5838 |
It appears that the difference in Shmos is the Aseres Hadibros in Yisro between the Taamei Elyon and Taamei Tachton (3 pesukim) The difference in Vayikra is the mesorah note in Tzav and the physical count in Tzav. Vaeschanan starts the Taam Tachton at 5:6 and ends at 5:18, also for a count of 13. This accounts for the three total difference. However the mesorah count at the end says 118 while the printed count shows 7+49+30+25+11 = 122 However, the sefer total differs by 3 rather than 4 so there must be another difference in the sefer.
Double AA points out: In an answer on judaism.stackexchange.com I show that the correct mesorah note in old manuscripts for Vaeschanan is 119 which solves the issue in that parsha, but the book total issue remains for Artscroll. However, in Mechon Mamre's edition based on the old manuscripts, Yisro has only 74 verses and Vaeschanan has only 121 verses (counting both with taamei tachton, unlike how the individual parsha mesorah does) which gives the correct traditional book totals below of 1209 and 955. So the individual parsha mesorah uses the taamei elyon while the book total uses the taamei tachton, and there are no issues remaining when we use the manuscript versions.
I found a blog at eSefer - Aseres Hadibros which discusses the differences and has a comment
all bible texts published by mosad harav kook are based on the edition prepared by r. mordechai breuer
on breuer, see http://agmk.blogspot.com/2007/02/r-mordechai-breuer-ztll-master-masoret.html#links
he explains the trop to the first two pesukim in depth in his "dividing the decalogue into verses and commandments" in The Ten Commandments In History and Tradition, ed. Ben Zion Segal (1990), pp. 291-330.
Note that following the link gives a message
This blog is open to invited readers only
http://agmk.blogspot.com/
and
The Kesav Ve'hakabalah has a fascinating discussion of the different verse totals of the Decalogue reflected in the various masoretic notes. He claims that there are actually four versions of the division of the decalogue into verses: a) 12 verses - our tahton b) 9 verses - our elyon c) 13 verses - our tahton but with anochi and lo yiheh split into two d) 10 verses - our elyon but with anochi and lo yiheh combined into one. He maintains that the four masoretic totals (end of yisro, end of shemos, end of va'es'hanan and end of devarim) actually reflect the four versions; do the arithmetic and you'll see that he's apparently correct. [I first came across this dicussion of his in an issue of the Ihud Be'hidud weekly ...] Note that this is at the end of the sefer after Devarim.
Another difference is that the mesorah count at the end of Parshas Bo shows 105 pesukim. However the count of the numbers in each perek (29+10+51+16) shows 106. However, it is possible that based on the trop for Bo 13:1, that the first pasuk was counted with the second pasuk leaving the last perek with 15 pesukim so that 29+10+51+15 = 105.
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֶל־משֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר
Note that the English translation ends that pasuk wit a comma and not a period.
| Parsha | Count | Sefer Total | Total | Secular Year |
| Breishis | 146 | 146 | 146 | |
| Noach | 153 | 299 | 299 | |
| Lech Lecha | 126 | 425 | 425 | |
| Vayera | 147 | 572 | 572 | |
| Chayei Sara | 105 | 677 | 677 | |
| Toldos | 106 | 783 | 783 | |
| Vayetzei | 148 | 931 | 931 | |
| Vyishlach | 154 | 1085 | 1085 | |
| Vayeshev | 112 | 1197 | 1197 | |
| Miketz | 146 | 1343 | 1343 | |
| Vayigash | 106 | 1449 | 1449 | |
| Vaychi | 85 | 1534 | 1534 | |
| Shmos | 124 | 124 | 1658 | |
| Vaeira | 121 | 245 | 1779 | |
| Bo | 105 | 350 | 1884 | |
| Beshalach | 116 | 466 | 2000 | |
| Yisro | 72 | 538 | 2072 | |
| Mishpatim | 118 | 656 | 2190 | |
| Terumah | 96 | 752 | 2286 | |
| Tetzaveh | 101 | 853 | 2387 | |
| Ki Sisa | 139 | 992 | 2526 | |
| Vayakhel | 122 | 1114 | 2648 | |
| Pekudei | 92 | 1206 | 2740 | |
| Vayikra | 111 | 111 | 2851 | |
| Tzav | 96 | 207 | 2947 | |
| Shmini | 91 | 298 | 3038 | |
| Tazria | 67 | 365 | 3105 | |
| Metzora | 90 | 455 | 3195 | |
| Acharei Mos | 80 | 535 | 3275 | |
| Kedoshim | 64 | 599 | 3339 | |
| Emor | 124 | 723 | 3463 | |
| Behar | 57 | 780 | 3520 | |
| Bechukosai | 78 | 858 | 3598 | |
| Bamidbar | 159 | 159 | 3757 | 1 CE is 3761 |
| Naso | 176 | 335 | 3933 | 173 |
| Beha'aloscha | 136 | 471 | 4069 | 309 |
| Shlach | 119 | 590 | 4188 | 428 |
| Korach | 95 | 685 | 4283 | 523 |
| Chukas | 87 | 772 | 4370 | 610 |
| Balak | 104 | 876 | 4474 | 714 |
| Pinchas | 168 | 1044 | 4642 | 882 |
| Mattos | 112 | 1156 | 4754 | 994 |
| Masei | 132 | 1288 | 4886 | 1126 |
| Devarim | 105 | 105 | 4991 | 1231 |
| Va'eschanan | 119 | 224 | 5110 | 1350 |
| Eikev | 111 | 335 | 5221 | 1461 |
| Re'eh | 126 | 461 | 5347 | 1587 |
| Shoftim | 97 | 558 | 5444 | 1684 |
| Ki Seitzei | 110 | 668 | 5554 | 1794 |
| Ki Savo | 122 | 790 | 5676 | 1916 |
| Nitzavim | 40 | 830 | 5716 | 1956 |
| Vayeilech | 30 | 860 | 5746 | 1986 |
| Ha'azinu | 52 | 912 | 5798 | 2038 |
| Vezos Habrachah | 41 | 953 | 5839 | 2079 |
Monday, May 18, 2015
Bechukosai: Seven sins Six punishments
Rashi in Bechukosai shows seven steps of degradation leading to complete destruction. Rav Zalman Sorotzkin in אזנים לתורה (Insights in the Torah) in his commentary on Bechukosai 26:15 connects the seven steps of transgression to the sections of the Tochacha. Rav Hirsch shows how each of the terms that prededed this pasuk show an increasing level of sin. Abarbanel and Alshich go into detail and expand on this point showing how each of the punishments fit midah k'neged midah. Alshichshows how each group consists of seven types of suffering and how eac type of suffering is midah k'neged midah.
Punishment: The first level begins with pasuk 16 "I will assign upon you panic" and ends with verse 17. "you will flee with no one pursuing you".
Transgression 2: He did not perform
Punishment: Pasuk 18 - 20, "... I will break the pride of your might ..." through "... the tree of your land will not give its fruit."
Transgression 3: He disapproves of others who do perform.
Punishment: Pasuk 21 - 22 "... I will incite the wildlife of the field against you ... and your roads will become desolaye"
Transgression 4: He hates the Sages
Punishment: Pasuk 23 - 26. " ... I will bring upon you a sword ... you will eat and not be sated."
Transgression 5: He prevents others [from performing mitzvos]
Punishment: Pasuk 27 - 40. "... You will eat the flesh of your sons ... the land of your foes will devour you ... the will disintegrate.
Pasuk 40 appears to be a statement of teshuvah. The question is why is this treatedas part of the fifth level of punishment and not even part of the beginning of the sixth level (as a restatement of the levels of transgression as seen with the previous punishments).
Many meforshim do indeed regard this pasuk as part of the next set of punishments.
Rav Hirsch translates this as a command ("Until they confess") and not a statement of action ("They will confess"). Thus until they confess properly, and acknowledge what they have been doing (traeting Hashem and the Torah as a secondary consideration) Hashem, will continue to treat them in a "off hand" manner.
See the comment on 26:40 - 41 in the Art Scroll Stone Chumash.
Chizkuni states that this is not really a sincere repentance but is actually just going through the motions in order to cover all the bases, just in case. [my comment] I would consider it like someone going to Yom Kippur services and "repenting" and then going to a nonkosher dinner/dance afterwards.
Vilna Gaon (Aderes Eliyau) says that while it might be sincere at the moment, it is not complete and would not cover the sins of the past. [my comment] It might be sufficient to cover the current set of sins, but it will not be sufficient to raise them back up to the previous levels.
Ohr Hachaim explains that both pasuk 40 and 41 are part of the confession and list the truths that must be acknowledged. One of the problems is that while people may acknowledge that they have sinned, they would continue in the "tradition" of their ancestors and think that the sins of the previous generation were in fact correct actions. [my comment] consider the idea of driving to shul on shabbos. Someone may admit that driving to the mall or a baseball game is incorrect, but think that driving to shul is correct. Similarly, some people have acted as if "resting on the Sabbath"includes painting pictures, going to concerts, etc.
Transgression 6: He denies [that] the mitzvos [were commande by Hashem]
Punishment:Pasuk 41 - 43 "I, too, will behave towards them with casualness, ... because their spirit rejected My decrees."
Rabbi Sorotzkin states that the "remembrance of the Avos is given in reverse order in order to state that Hashem will still accept the teshuvah even itf it its on a lower level. The three pillars of the world are תורה ועבודה וגמילות חסדים which corresponds to the Avos in the order given in the Pasuk. Rabbi Sorotzkin explains that Avraham was faced with a world of uncontrolled idolators. He could only reach them through chesed. It was impossible to begin teaching them about the service of Hashem much leass Torah. Yitzchak had people who knew about Hashem via Avraham and were ready to learn about the next level. Yaakov was able to teach the students of Avraham and Yitzchak, and was able to teach them the highest level of knowledge of Hashem and His existence.
Transgression 7: He denies Hashem's existence.
Rabbi Sorotzkin asks "Where, the, is the sevenths set of punishments? This matter is rather puzzling.
Answer: Rabbi Sorotzkin points out that the transgression as stated in the parsha is "to annul My covenant". The corresponding punishment (by midah k'neged midah) would, G-d forbid, be the annulment of Hashem's covenant with us and the total destruction of the Jewish people. After all, if we attempt to deny Hashem's existence, noting will happen. It is like someone jumping off a cliff and trying to fly through denying the law of gravity. The person will still fall to his death. However, what Hashem decrees is what happens. What Hashem denies cannot exist.
As Hashem said to Yechezkel (20:32-33):
Thus the Torah does not say the appropriate punishment for sinking to the seventh level of sin, for this is impossible. Instead pasuk 44 says
After he wrote this comment, he found a nearly identical interpretation in Divrei Chaim, a commentary on the Chumash by his grandfather Rav Chayim Sharin , זצ"ל
in verse 18, the Torah states, "I shall punish you further, sevenfold for your sins", and Rashi explains: "Seven punishments [will be given] for the seven transgressions mentioned above." Rashi is referring to seven sets of punishment, each set consisting of seven types of suffering. In the course of the section on curses, Rashi points out several more times that the punishments come in groups of seven.Transgression 1: He did not study
...
After contemplating these passages, I found that although there are seven transgressions, The Torah only mentions six levels of punishment.
Punishment: The first level begins with pasuk 16 "I will assign upon you panic" and ends with verse 17. "you will flee with no one pursuing you".
Transgression 2: He did not perform
Punishment: Pasuk 18 - 20, "... I will break the pride of your might ..." through "... the tree of your land will not give its fruit."
Transgression 3: He disapproves of others who do perform.
Punishment: Pasuk 21 - 22 "... I will incite the wildlife of the field against you ... and your roads will become desolaye"
Transgression 4: He hates the Sages
Punishment: Pasuk 23 - 26. " ... I will bring upon you a sword ... you will eat and not be sated."
Transgression 5: He prevents others [from performing mitzvos]
Punishment: Pasuk 27 - 40. "... You will eat the flesh of your sons ... the land of your foes will devour you ... the will disintegrate.
Pasuk 40 appears to be a statement of teshuvah. The question is why is this treatedas part of the fifth level of punishment and not even part of the beginning of the sixth level (as a restatement of the levels of transgression as seen with the previous punishments).
Many meforshim do indeed regard this pasuk as part of the next set of punishments.
Rav Hirsch translates this as a command ("Until they confess") and not a statement of action ("They will confess"). Thus until they confess properly, and acknowledge what they have been doing (traeting Hashem and the Torah as a secondary consideration) Hashem, will continue to treat them in a "off hand" manner.
See the comment on 26:40 - 41 in the Art Scroll Stone Chumash.
Chizkuni states that this is not really a sincere repentance but is actually just going through the motions in order to cover all the bases, just in case. [my comment] I would consider it like someone going to Yom Kippur services and "repenting" and then going to a nonkosher dinner/dance afterwards.
Vilna Gaon (Aderes Eliyau) says that while it might be sincere at the moment, it is not complete and would not cover the sins of the past. [my comment] It might be sufficient to cover the current set of sins, but it will not be sufficient to raise them back up to the previous levels.
Ohr Hachaim explains that both pasuk 40 and 41 are part of the confession and list the truths that must be acknowledged. One of the problems is that while people may acknowledge that they have sinned, they would continue in the "tradition" of their ancestors and think that the sins of the previous generation were in fact correct actions. [my comment] consider the idea of driving to shul on shabbos. Someone may admit that driving to the mall or a baseball game is incorrect, but think that driving to shul is correct. Similarly, some people have acted as if "resting on the Sabbath"includes painting pictures, going to concerts, etc.
Transgression 6: He denies [that] the mitzvos [were commande by Hashem]
Punishment:Pasuk 41 - 43 "I, too, will behave towards them with casualness, ... because their spirit rejected My decrees."
Rabbi Sorotzkin states that the "remembrance of the Avos is given in reverse order in order to state that Hashem will still accept the teshuvah even itf it its on a lower level. The three pillars of the world are תורה ועבודה וגמילות חסדים which corresponds to the Avos in the order given in the Pasuk. Rabbi Sorotzkin explains that Avraham was faced with a world of uncontrolled idolators. He could only reach them through chesed. It was impossible to begin teaching them about the service of Hashem much leass Torah. Yitzchak had people who knew about Hashem via Avraham and were ready to learn about the next level. Yaakov was able to teach the students of Avraham and Yitzchak, and was able to teach them the highest level of knowledge of Hashem and His existence.
Therefore, when this verse speaks about the beginning of return to Hashemin this verse, it promises that if the Bnai Yisrael in their repentance achieve the level of Torah study, then certainly "I will remember my covenant with Yaako", the covenant I made with him over the Torah. And even if they reach only the level of service and there are people who know how to servce Hashem among Israel, even though they havenot yet reached the level of Torah-study, Hashem will redeem them on the merit of the covenant He made with Yitzchak: "An also My covenant with Yitzchak." And if they do not reach either of these levels but there are people among the them who know how to do kindness, then Hashem will redeem them on the merit of the covenant He made with Avraham: "And also My covenant with Avraham will I remember."No further punishments are mentioned in this parsha
Transgression 7: He denies Hashem's existence.
Rabbi Sorotzkin asks "Where, the, is the sevenths set of punishments? This matter is rather puzzling.
Answer: Rabbi Sorotzkin points out that the transgression as stated in the parsha is "to annul My covenant". The corresponding punishment (by midah k'neged midah) would, G-d forbid, be the annulment of Hashem's covenant with us and the total destruction of the Jewish people. After all, if we attempt to deny Hashem's existence, noting will happen. It is like someone jumping off a cliff and trying to fly through denying the law of gravity. The person will still fall to his death. However, what Hashem decrees is what happens. What Hashem denies cannot exist.
As Hashem said to Yechezkel (20:32-33):
That which has come into your minds shall certainly not be, for you say: 'We shall be like the nations ... to servewood and stone. By My life, says Hashem Elokim, I swear that with a strong hand I shall rule over you."
Thus the Torah does not say the appropriate punishment for sinking to the seventh level of sin, for this is impossible. Instead pasuk 44 says
But despite all this, while they will be in the lands of their enemies, I will not have been revolted by them nor will I have rejected them to obliterate them, to annul My covenant with them - for I am Hashem their G-d
After he wrote this comment, he found a nearly identical interpretation in Divrei Chaim, a commentary on the Chumash by his grandfather Rav Chayim Sharin , זצ"ל
Friday, May 15, 2015
Rabbi Leibtag shiurim: The Hebrew Calendar and its Missing Years- Parts 1 - 3
from:
Kol Torah Webmaster
to:
Kol Torah
date:
Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:06 PM
subject:
Kol Torah Parashat Shemini 2015
The
Hebrew Calendar and its Missing Years- Part One
by
Reuven Herzog (‘13) and Benjy Koslowe (‘13)
Kol
Torah is enormously proud to present a landmark article written by
TABC alumni Reuven Herzog '13 and Benjy Koslowe '13, themselves
former Kol Torah editors-in-chief. This article was originally
delivered as a Shiur at TABC's summer of 2014 Tanach Kollel.
The
article presents an intriguing solution to a very well-known issue
regarding the compatibility of Chazal's Seder Olam and the commonly
accepted historic chronology. Although dozens of articles address
this issue, we believe that this article is the best article written
on this subject published to date.
This
article is based on a series of Shiurim given by Rav Menachem
Leibtag at Yeshivat Har Etzion.
I.
Introduction
The
Hebrew calendar counts the current year as 5775 Anno Mundi[1].
However, many adherents to this calendar may not realize that this
year stems from Seder Olam Rabbah, a late Tannaitic work. Detailing
important dates and years in Jewish history, Seder Olam establishes a
timeline from Adam HaRishon to the end of the Bar Kochba revolt, and
it became the ubiquitous dating convention in the Jewish community
around the turn of the second millennium CE.
A
challenge regarding the Hebrew calendar is that the year 5775 may not
be so precise. Seder Olam records that the time between the
destructions of the two Batei Mikdash lasted 490 years. However,
secular history records that the Churban of the first Beit HaMikdash
took place in 586 BCE, and that the Churban of the second Beit
HaMikdash occurred in 70 CE; this leaves us with a period of 655
years[2]. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 165 years between Seder
Olam and secular history!
The
“missing years” are a puzzling element of the Jewish Mesorah.
They beg the question of what happened to them and whether Seder Olam
was intended to be a definitive history or something else entirely.
In
this article, we intend to follow Seder Olam’s chronology and
explain how it reaches its conclusions, using an internally
consistent methodology. Beyond this, we hope to demonstrate how Seder
Olam’s inconsistency with outside sources is not a flaw; rather, it
serves a tremendous purpose in the Rabbinic period.
II.
Seder Olam’s Count
Seder
Olam Rabbah is a Tannaitic work generally attributed to the mid-2nd
century Tanna Rabi Yosi ben Chalafta. A Midrashic commentary on
Jewish history, it chronicles and exegetes the stories of Tanach and
a little beyond, using the historical narratives as a springboard for
Chazal’s teachings and messages, similar to other Midreshei
Aggadah. In fact, Seder Olam can be thought of as similar to the
Midrash Rabbah collection, a “History Rabbah[3],” in that its
goal is not to explicitly comment on historical facts, but rather to
use stories as an educational tool.
In
building its timeline, Seder Olam uses two primary sources, both
stemming from the Tanach. The first and dominant source is explicit
references from the books of Tanach to specific years and periods of
time, combined via simple arithmetic intuition. These references are
plentiful and clear enough to write the timeline almost entirely,
from Adam HaRishon to the Churban of the first Beit HaMikdash. (The
dating of Malchut Yehudah is slightly cloudier; we will deal with
this later.) The second source is implicit references and inferences
used to fill in the gaps where Tanach is more ambiguous. These are
primarily used in the works post-Churban HaBayit, where dates of
certain events are given, but there are no large blocks of time
recorded.
II-A.
From Adam HaRishon until the Beit HaMikdash’s Destruction
The
first section of the timeline is incredibly easy to construct, taken
almost directly from lists found in Sefer BeReishit. After the
conclusion of the Gan Eden narratives there is a list of Adam’s
descendants, including how long they lived, and more significantly
how old they were when the next child on the list was born. As an
example (BeReishit 5:12-14):
“VaYechi
Keinan Shiv’im Shanah VaYoled Et Mahalaleil. VaYechi Keinan Acharei
Holido Et Mahalaleil Arba’im Shanah UShemoneh Mei’ot Shanah
VaYoled Banim UVanot. VaYihyu Kol Yemei Keinan Eser Shanim UTsha
Mei’ot Shanah VaYamot.”
“And
Keinan lived 70 years, and he gave birth to Mahalaleil. And Keinan
lived 840 years after giving birth to Mahalaleil, and he gave birth
to many children. And all the days of Keinan were 910 years, and he
died.”
The
only relevant information for us in this paragraph is how long Keinan
lived before the birth of his son; everything afterwards is overlap
and therefore does not help to create a contiguous timeline.
Such
Pesukim are repeated almost verbatim for the entire line of Adam to
Noach, ten generations in all (plus the birth of Noach’s children,
the eleventh generation). The result of this timeline is a simple
calculation of dates for when each person was born:
Name
|
Father’s
age at time of birth
|
Year
of birth
|
Adam
|
N/A
|
0
|
Sheit
|
130
|
130
|
Enosh
|
105
|
235
|
Keinan
|
90
|
325
|
Mahalaleil
|
70
|
395
|
Yered
|
65
|
460
|
Chanoch
|
162
|
622
|
Metushelach
|
65
|
687
|
Lemech
|
187
|
874
|
Noach
|
182
|
1056
|
A
very similar list exists in Perek 11, after the Mabul and Migdal
Bavel stories, listing the generations from Sheim to Avraham:
Name
|
Father’s age at time of
birth
|
Year of birth
|
502
|
1558
|
|
Arpachshad
|
100
|
1658
|
Shelach
|
35
|
1693
|
Eiver
|
30
|
1723
|
Peleg
|
34
|
1757
|
Re’u
|
30
|
1787
|
Serug
|
32
|
1819
|
Nachor
|
30
|
1849
|
Terach
|
29
|
1878
|
70
|
1948
|
After Avraham’s birth, the points of
reference in the Torah are
more spread out, and often these references describe large blocks of
time rather than individual lifespans. The Torah informs
us that Avraham was 100 years old when Yitzchak was born (21:5).
After Yitzchak’s birth, there are 400 years until Yetziat
Mitzrayim. This is based on Seder
Olam’s derivation from the Berit
Bein HaBetarim that the 400 years of Avraham’s descendants dwelling
in a foreign country begin with the birth of Yitzchak[6].
Thus, Yetziat Mitzrayim took place in year 2448 of Seder
Olam.
The next block of time is from Yetziat
Mitzrayim until the start of construction of the first Beit
HaMikdash, a period Sefer Melachim informs us was 480 years (Melachim
I 6:1). We can therefore establish that the Beit HaMikdash began its
time in year 2928 of Seder
Olam.
In order to calculate the duration of the first
Beit HaMikdash, Sefer Melachim records the length of each king’s
reign. Adding up the reigns of the kings from Shlomo – in whose
fourth year as king the Beit HaMikdash’s existence began – to
Tzidkiyahu – in whose reign it was destroyed – we have a total of
433 years[7].
However, because the dating system then was focused on the king and
not on an absolute, continuous calendar (as we mentioned above), the
final partial year of a king’s rule was counted as a full year, and
the rest of that year was also considered to be a full year for the
next king. Therefore, we can conclude that there was an extra year of
overlap recorded for each king. Accounting for the 19 rulers7 and
therefore 19 years of overlap, our total reduces to 414 years. We
also need to remember that construction began in the fourth year of
Shlomo’s reign. We therefore remove four years to give the final
count of 410 years for which the first Beit HaMikdash stood. Thus,
the Beit HaMikdash was destroyed in year 3338.
Name
|
Length of Reign
|
|
Shlomo
|
40
|
2924
|
Binyan Bayit Rishon 2928
|
||
Rechav’am
|
17
|
2963
|
Aviyam
|
3
|
2979
|
Asa
|
41
|
2981
|
Yehoshafat
|
25
|
3021
|
Yehoram
|
8
|
3045
|
Achazyah
|
1
|
3052
|
Atalyah
|
6
|
3052
|
Yeho’ash
|
40
|
3057
|
Amatzyah
|
29
|
3096
|
Uziyah/Azaryah
|
52
|
3124
|
Yotam
|
16
|
3175
|
Achaz
|
16
|
3190
|
Chizkiyahu
|
29
|
3205
|
Menasheh
|
55
|
3233
|
Amon
|
2
|
3287
|
Yoshiyahu
|
31
|
3288
|
Yeho’achaz
|
3 months
|
3318
|
Yehoyakim
|
11
|
3318
|
Yehoyachin
|
3 months
|
3328
|
Tzidkiyahu
|
11
|
3328
|
(Total)
|
433 (including overlap)
|
3338
|
II-B.
Galut Bavel and the Second Beit HaMikdash
After the Beit HaMikdash’s destruction, the
records become much less comprehensive. There is no book that details
a continuous history or provides dates in a larger context. All of
the post-Churban Sifrei Tanach (like many of their earlier
counterparts) give exclusively regnal dates. Nothing informs us how
long a king ruled, or even who directly succeeded him.
When the second Beit HaMikdash begins to be
built in the second year of the Persian king Daryavesh, Zecharyah
retrospectively references a period of 70 years (Zecharyah 1:12).
This refers to the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash and Yerushalayim
and the subsequent exile (with no mention of Babylonian rule, as this
prophecy comes many years after the Babylonian empire fell)[9].
Therefore, the second year of Daryavesh and the beginning of the
construction of the second Beit HaMikdash was in year 3338+70=3408
of Seder
Olam. Construction took four years
(Ezra 6:15),
finishing in Daryavesh’s sixth year, year 3412.
From this point on everything becomes much
murkier. There are no “anchor dates” like in Yirmiyahu 25[10].
The few dates mentioned after the construction of the second Beit
HaMikdash are only in reference to the king of the time, and we do
not even know for sure the order of succession, much less for how
long each Persian king ruled.
The latest date recorded in Tanach about
Daryavesh is his sixth year, the year in which the second Beit
HaMikdash was completed. The next date we have is that of Ezra’s
Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael, in the seventh year of king Artachshasta
(Ezra 7:7). Seder
Olam assumes
that these two names refer to the same king, so these two events are
only one year apart[11].
The last reference we have to Daryavesh/Artachshasta is during the
governorship of Nechemyah, in his 32nd year
(Nechemyah Perek 12). This can be calculated to be year 3438 of Seder
Olam.
This is the latest concrete date that can be
found in Tanach. However, a hint to later events can be found in a
vision of Daniel. In Perakim 10 and 11, in the third year of
Koresh[12],
Daniel receives a long, prophetic, colorful, and obscure description
of much of the future political history from an angel. At the
beginning of the history the angel states, “Hinei
Od Sheloshah Melachim Omedim LeParas,” “Behold,
three more kings will stand for Persia” (Daniel 11:2); the fourth
of the line[13] will
be tremendously rich, and he will be conquered by an extremely
powerful king of Greece[14]. Seder
Olam assumes
this king to be Alexander the Great, and thus the king succeeding
Daryavesh/Artachshasta is Alexander. In addition, Seder
Olam twice
references that the Persians ruled over Israel for 52 years, which
leads to the deduction that Daryavesh/Artachshasta ruled for 36
years. (This extra time is hinted at in Sefer Nechemyah, where
Nechemyah mentions that he was in Persia during Artachshasta’s
32nd year,
and he took leave to return to Israel after a long period of time
(Nechemyah 13:6).) Koresh took control in 3390; hence, Alexander’s
reign over the Persian Empire begins in year 3442 of Seder
Olam.
Seder Olam follows
Alexander’s reign with a summary of the rulership until the Second
Beit HaMikdash’s destruction (and then to the Bar Kochba (alt. Ben
Koziba) Revolt) in a succinct teaching of Rabi Yosi[15]:
34 years of Persian rule during the existence of the Beit HaMikdash,
180 years of Greek rule, 103 years of the Chashmona’i dynasty, and
103 years of the Herodian dynasty – totaling 420 years. Bar
Kochba’s rebellion was 52 years later.
In the second installment of this essay, we
will bring light to issues that arise when comparing Seder
Olam’s account of Bayit Sheini
chronology with the conventional account of history. We will then
hopefully explain how Seder
Olam’s account consistently
employs the methodology of Chazal to successfully arrive at its
conclusions, regardless of outside chronologies.
[1] Lit:
Year After Creation. This title is slightly misleading, as Seder
Olam begins
its chronology with Adam HaRishon and makes no mention of Beri’at
HaOlam.
[2] The
Gregorian calendar does not include a year 0; year 1 BCE is succeeded
immediately by year 1 CE.
[3] Though
this would be an apt title for the work, its real title does not
denote any connection. The “Rabbah” suffix merely means “big,”
distinguishing it from a later chronological work also titled Seder
Olam (Zuta).
[4] The
Pesukim are not entirely clear here, stating only that Noach was 500
years old when he gave birth to Sheim, Cham, and Yefet. However, in
the list from Sheim to Avraham, Arpachshad is stated as being born
when Sheim was 100 years old, two years after the Mabul (11:10);
therefore, we can deduce that Sheim was born 98 years before the
Mabul. The Mabul is said to have been when Noach was 600 years old
(7:6), in year 1656; thus, Sheim was born in year 1558.
[5] BeReishit 11:27 states
that Terach was 70 years old when he gave birth to Avraham, Nachor,
and Haran. It is assumed that Avraham was the oldest brother.
[6] This
Derashah is based on the usage of the word “Zera,” offspring, in
the Berit (15:13): “Yado’a
Teida Ki Geir Yihyeh Zar’acha BeEretz
Lo Lahem VaAvadum VeInu Otam Arba Mei’ot Shanah,” “Know
well that your offspring will
be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them
and torture them four hundred years.” This “Zera” is identified
by Seder
Olam to
match with the Pasuk (21:12), “Ki
VeYitzchak Yikarei Lecha Zara,” “For
in Yitzchak offspring will
be called for you.”
[7] Yeho’achaz
and Yehoyachin each ruled for three months, and are not even given
credit for an entire year.
[8] The
chronology in this table is based on a simple read of Sefer Melachim.
The chronology is actually more complicated, but this is beyond the
scope of this paper. For further reading, see Edwin Thiele’s The
Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (1st
ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1951).
[9] Zecharyah’s
reference is not explicitly about the Beit HaMikdash’s destruction,
but from context it is clear that he is referring to the destruction
of the Temple, Yerushalayim, and all of Yehudah.
[10] See
section IV (Editor’s Note:
This will appear in next week’s installment).
[11] Seder
Olam uses
the ambiguous language of “Hu Koresh Hu Daryavesh Hu Artachshasta”
to show that sometimes multiple names refer to the same king. The Gra
explains this specific reference to be that Daryavesh is named as
Koresh, the “Meshiach Hashem,” by Yeshayahu; Daryavesh is awarded
these extra titles because he rebuilt the Beit HaMikdash. (This
association of Koresh and Daryavesh might be another element of
Chazal’s “hiding” of the disappointing Shivat Tziyon-era Navi
at the end of Sefer Yeshayahu. By identifying “Koresh,” who is
prophesied to rebuild the Beit HaMikdash, as Daryavesh, who actually
did, the author removes the problem of a false prophecy. See section
V-B for a further explanation of the “hidden Navi.”)
Interestingly,
the Gra writes that there were three separate kings of Persia:
Koresh, Daryavesh, and Artachshasta. However, he makes no mention of
Achashveirosh, whom Seder
Olam explicitly
includes, and makes no attempt to identify him with one of the three
aforementioned kings! Perhaps the Gra means only that all three of
these kings, though Midrashically identified as one by Seder
Olam,
are separate rulers in their own right, in
addition to
Achashveirosh. This would pose a problem, though, with Daniel’s
vision (found in Perakim 10-11 of Sefer Daniel) of the four Persian
kings (including Daryavesh HaMadi).
[12] The
vision begins in Perek 10 and continues in Perek 11, according to the
explanation of Da’at Mikra.
[13] Presumably
this includes a king before Koresh, so the fourth king in total is
the third remaining. Perhaps this earlier king refers to Daryavesh
HaMadi, who conquered Bavel for Persia. (Daryavesh HaMadi’s
identity itself is very unclear; perhaps this is a reference to the
general Gobryas who governed over Bavel for a few weeks after
conquering it.) The result is that the four kings are Daryavesh
HaMadi, Koresh, Achashveirosh, and Daryavesh/Artachshasta.
[14] A
similar vision, though less detailed, can be found in Perek 8 of
Daniel. Seder
Olam cites
Pesukim from both visions.
[15] The
fact that this history is entirely Tannaitic and not derived from
Tanach is incredibly significant. After the mention of
Alexander, Seder
Olam writes, “Ad
Kan Hayu Nevi’im Mitnab’im BeRuach HaKodesh; MiKan VeEilach Hat
Oznecha UShma Divrei Chachamim,” “Until
here Nevi’im would prophesize with Divine spirit; from here and
onward listen to the words of the Sages.” This marks the end of the
period of Nevu’ah and a monumental transition in the nature of
Judaism. The short section following even has the feel of an appendix
to the primary history, that which is relevant to Tanach.
from:
Kol Torah Webmaster
to:
Kol Torah
date:
Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 6:16 PM
subject:
Fwd: Kol Torah Parashiyot Tazria-Metzora
The Hebrew Calendar and its Missing Years-
Part Two
by
Reuven Herzog (‘13) and Benjy Koslowe (‘13)
Last
week we presented the work of Seder
Olam Rabbah and
went through its chronology from Adam HaRishon until
Alexander the Great, highlighting important events along the way.
This week we will bring light to issues that arise when
comparing Seder
Olam’s
account of Bayit Sheini chronology with theconventional [BK1] account
of history. We will then hopefully explain how Seder
Olam’s
account consistently employs the methodology of Chazal to
successfully arrive at its conclusions, regardless of
outside chronologies.
III.
Addressing Problems with Gaps
The
calendric calculation of Seder
Olam,
which we have seen, becomes dubious when compared to the accepted
conventional history. These historic accounts are supported by the
vast majority of historians. Steles and other archaeological findings
from both Persia and Greece, who were classically enemy empires, as
well as works from Ptolemy and other Egyptian sources, all support
the following account of history:
Name
|
Start
of Reign
|
End
of Reign
|
Cyrus
II the Great
|
550
BCE
|
530
BCE
|
Conquest
of Babylonia and Cyrus Proclamation 539 BCE
|
||
Cambyses
II
|
530
BCE
|
522
BCE
|
Darius
I the Great
|
522
BCE
|
486
BCE
|
Xerxes
I
|
485
BCE
|
465
BCE
|
Artaxerxes
I
|
465
BCE
|
424
BCE
|
Xerxes
II
|
424
BCE
|
424
BCE
|
Sogdianus
|
424
BCE
|
423
BCE
|
Darius
II
|
423
BCE
|
404
BCE
|
Artaxerxes
II
|
404
BCE
|
358
BCE
|
Artaxerxes
III Ochus
|
358
BCE
|
338
BCE
|
Artaxerxes
IV
|
338
BCE
|
336
BCE
|
Darius
III
|
336
BCE
|
330
BCE
|
There
are three main points of disagreement between Seder
Olam and
the accepted conventional history. These variances, taken all
together, generate forSeder
Olam roughly
165 “missing years” during the Second Temple period.
1. Seder
Olam describes
the chronological order of kings as Koresh, followed by
Achashveirosh, followed by Daryavesh. In fact, Daryavesh is said to
be the son of Achashveirosh and Esther. Secular sources disagree,
instead placing Darius chronologically before Xerxes[1] (as well
as recording a king, unnamed in Tanach, between Cyrus and Darius).
Historians
believe that the Persian king who took control over the Babylonian
empire was Cyrus. After him ruled Cambyses, then Darius, and then
Xerxes. Cyrus is consistent with Koresh from Tanach, both narratively
– the Cyrus Cylinder is clear evidence for the Biblical Koresh’s
proclamation – and linguistically – the names are very similar.
Likewise, Darius is naturally identified to be Daryavesh. Pinpointing
the character of Achashveirosh is trickier.Seder
Olam describes
that Achashveirosh was king in between Cyrus (Koresh) and Darius
(Daryavesh). However, the name Achashveirosh sounds nothing like
Cambyses, whom historians say was the second king of this Persian
line.
Of
all the kings mentioned, Xerxes is the likeliest candidate to be
Achashveirosh. The name “Xerxes” is a Greek translation of the
Persian name “Chashyarsha” (“חשיארש”)[BK2] .
Interestingly, at the end of Megilat Esther (10:1), Achashveirosh’s
name is spelled with a Keri UKetiv (a word that is spelled
differently than it is read) that is written as though it should be
read like “Chashirash” (“אחשרש”)[BK3] .
There
is additional evidence from Sefer Ezra as to Achashveirosh and Xerxes
being one and the same. In Ezra 4:5-6 we have a list of Persian
monarchal genealogy. Pasuk 5 mentions Koresh and Daryavesh, after
which Pasuk 6 mentions Achashveirosh. The simple read of the Pesukim
indicates that Achashveirosh was king after Daryavesh. This also
suggests that Achashveirosh is Chashirash/Xerxes.
Thus,
while conventional history places Achashveirosh as
king after Daryavesh, Seder
Olam places
Achashveirosh as king before Daryavesh.
This is one discrepancy.
2. Seder
Olam writes
that Daryavesh and Artachshasta are the same person. This claim is
based on Sefer Ezra. In Perakim 1-6 the king is Daryavesh, whose role
in the story ends during his sixth year when the Second Temple is
built (Ezra 6:15). In the next Perek the Persian king is called
by the name “Artachshasta,” and it is his seventh year as king
(Ezra 7:7). It is in this year that Ezra arrives in Israel and
emerges as the leader of his generation. Seder
Olam claims
that Daryavesh and Artachshasta are the same person – this king
sees the completion of the Temple construction in his sixth year, and
then Ezra arrives in Israel in his seventh.
Seder
Olam’s
account differs very much from conventional history. Conventional
history shows that Artaxerxes (i.e. Artachshasta) was crowned king
more than 20 years after the death of Darius. In between
Darius and Artaxerxes is the king Xerxes (whom we identified above as
Achashveirosh). This is another discrepancy between the two
calendars.
3. Both Seder
Olam and
conventional history agree that Alexander the Great defeated a
Persian king named Darius. However, Seder
Olam and
conventional history disagree as to which Darius this was. According
to Seder
Olam,
this king was the Darius who saw the construction of the Second
Temple (and who was alternatively called “Artachshasta”).
According to conventional history, this king is identified as Darius
III, who lived 150 years after Darius I (the character in
Tanach). Conventional history identifies several Persian kings in
between Darius I and Alexander’s defeat of Darius III. Seder
Olam skips
them all.
Because Seder
Olam moves
Xerxes, morphs Darius with Artaxerxes, and equates Darius I with the
king who was killed by Alexander the Great, Seder
Olam winds
up with roughly 165 fewer years of history than the
conventional account.
Another
challenge with Seder
Olam is
that the Chanukat HaBayit-Ezra jump (achieved by identifying
Daryavesh with Artachshasta) seems to clash with the narrative of
Sefer Ezra. When Ezra arrives in Israel, the entire Jewish population
is intermarried with the local idol-worshipers. This would be a truly
stunning turn of events only a year after the dedication of the
second Beit HaMikdash. Furthermore, Chaggai and Zecharyah, the two
central Nevi’im during the construction of the Beit HaMikdash, are
nowhere to be found during Ezra’s time; if this is only a year
later, as Seder
Olam claims,
what happened to them? Furthermore, would they have not stopped the
people from intermarrying? It seems clear that there must have been a
long period without leaders between the two events.
In
summary, as we see from the timeline of conventional history, it is
commonly deduced that the [BK4] Persian kings ruled for a
total of 220 years. This contradicts the Seder
Olam account,
which assumes 52 years of Persian rule under only three (or
four) kings. This is a discrepancy of approximately 165years (this
approximation is due to slight differences in calculations, which can
be explained based on overlapping kings’ years). These are
the missingyears.
IV.
How Seder Olam is Internally Consistent
We
will attempt to resolve this conflict by showing how Seder
Olam,
a Midrashic adaptation of history, is internally consistent. By
following its own rules,Seder
Olam creates
an inclusive and precise, if not externally accurate, calendar.
Tanach
is not always crystal clear about chronology. Seder
Olam,
though, uses exact dates to chronicle the Jewish story[2]. Seder
Olam’s
modus operandi for deciding a date when there is ambiguity is
minimalism. We see this minimalist tendency of Chazal as well
regarding character identification. For example, in Shemot Perek 2 we
encounter two anonymous Jewish men who witness Moshe killing an
Egyptian, forcing Moshe to flee (Shemot 2:13-14). TheMidrash
Tanchuma identifies
these men as Datan and Aviram, two men who appear in Parashat Korach
as leaders of an insurgency against the leadership. Chazal make this
identification so as to minimize the amount of characters in the
grand story (as well as to teach a lesson about long-time rivalries
and their origins).
Similarly,
and more relevant to our topic, Seder
Olam is
minimalist regarding chronology. For example, Avraham is told that
his descendants will be slaves for 400 years (BeReishit 15:13).
However, the Chumash never explicitly identifies when
these years begin. Being minimalist and decisive, Seder
Olamidentifies
the 400 years of slavery as beginning from the birth of
Yitzchak. This minimalism is evident as well by Seder
Olam’s
morphing of Daryavesh and Artachshasta. The text of Sefer Ezra is not
absolutely clear as to what happens between the sixth year of
Daryavesh and the seventh year of Artachshasta, so Seder
Olam makes
an absolute decision and says that Daryavesh and Artachshasta are the
same person. Seder
Olam makes
a similar decision by skipping from Darius I to Darius III –
instead of having two separate characters, it is possible to say that
they were the same person. While these decisions are not consistent
with conventional history, they work within the methodology of Seder
Olam.
Like Seder
Olam’s
alterations with Darius, we can show as well how its misplacement
of Xerxes is internally consistent within its methodology.
The
Perek that unlocks much of the post-Churban calendar actually
precedes the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. Yirmiyahu Perek 25 is
important in that it contains two critical details that together
allow for an explanation of the timeline of Galut Bavel and the
return to Israel. First, the Perek opens with a double date. The
Nevu’ah is introduced, “HaDavar
Asher Hayah El Yirmiyahu Al Kol Am Yehudah BaShanah
HaRevi’it LiYhoyakim [BK5] Ben
Yoshiyahu Melech Yehudah, Hi HaShanah HaRishonit LiNvuchadretzar
Melech Bavel,” “The
word which came to Yirmiyahu concerning all the people of Yehudah, in
the fourth year of Yehoyakim son of Yoshiyahu, king of Yehudah, which
was the first year of Nevuchadretzar, king of Bavel” (Yirmiyahu
25:1). Since all reference points from the Babylonian exile and
onward are dated to foreign kings, the synchronization found here
between the Judean years and the Babylonian yearsallows
for the shift.
The
other key found in this Perek is the message of the Nevu’ah itself,
the famous 70 years of Babylonian rule. Yirmiyahu here
tells Bnei Yisrael that as a result of the people’s refusal to
change its evil ways and serve Hashem properly, Hashem will
bring Bavel to rule over them for 70 years. After this time is
up, Bnei Yisrael will return to independence. (This refers to a
period of subservience to Bavel, and does not mean a period of exile.
Exile ensues as a punishment and a message since Bnei Yisrael rebel
against Bavel and do not accept their lighter punishment of
subservience.)
Sefer
Ezra begins with the Persian king Koresh’s proclamation allowing
the Jews to return to Eretz Yisrael and to rebuild the Beit
HaMikdash. This is dated,“UViShnat
Achat LeChoresh Melech Paras Lichlot Devar Hashem MiPi
Yirmiyahu,” “In
the first year of Koresh, king of Persia, at the conclusion of the
word of Hashem spoken by Yirmiyahu.” The only relevant speech of
Yirmiyahu is Perek 25. Seventy years of Babylonian rule
have expired[BK6] and, as prophesied, Bavel is no longer
controlling anyone; Persia is now in charge.
Yirmiyahu
25 occurs in the fourth year of Yehoyakim’s reign. Working
backwards from the Beit HaMikdash’s destruction (year 3338),
Tzidkiyahu ruled for 11 years, and Yehoyakim also ruled for
11 years[3]. Accounting for a year of overlap, Yehoyakim’s
first year was 21 years before the Churban HaBayit. Thus,
his fourth year (i.e. the first year of Babylonian rule) was
18 years before the destruction, which comes out to be year
3338-18=3320 of Seder
Olam.
Seventy years later, the first year of Koresh’s rule, was
in year 3390 of Seder
Olam.
In
fact, there are two different periods of 70 years relating
to the end of Bayit Rishon. The first is prophesied by Yirmiyahu as
70 years of Babylonian rule with no mention of exile. The
second, which we previously discussed[4], is a retrospective
reference by Zecharyah to the time between the destruction of the
first Beit HaMikdash and the construction of the second Beit
HaMikdash.
The
difference in time between the first 70 years and the
second is easily calculable. The Babylonian conquest of Israel, the
beginning of Yirmiyahu’s 70years, occurred in the fourth year of
Yehoyakim’s reign. We have already established that this was
18 years before the Churban Beit HaMikdash, the start of
Zecharyah’s 70 years. Logically, this difference between the
beginnings of the two blocks holds for the ends of the two blocks as
well. The first year of Koresh’s reign – the end of Yirmiyahu’s
prophecy – would therefore precede the second year of Daryavesh’s
reign – the end of Zecharyah’s 70 years – by 18years.
As
just demonstrated, there are 18 years between Koresh’s
declaration, in the first year after his conquest of Babylonia, and
the construction of the Beit HaMikdash, in Daryavesh’s second year.
Historical sources point to a nine-year reign of Cyrus over
Babylonia, and then another king ruling for eight or nineyears,
followed by Darius. However, the latest mention of Koresh in the
Tanach is his third year (Daniel 10:1). This leaves a large gap until
the next date, the second year of Daryavesh – a gap of
fourteen years. According to Megilat[BK7] Esther,
Achashveirosh ruled for at least 12 years – the primary
events all occur then (Esther 3:7). Preferring not to leave a gap in
the timeline, Seder
Olam moves
the reign of Achashveirosh/Xerxes into the gap following Koresh,
fitting him snugly between Koresh and Daryavesh.
Interim
Conclusion
In[BK8] the
final installment of this essay, we hope to suggest two reasons
for Seder
Olam’s
intentional deviation from conventional chronology, one looking
toward the past and one looking toward the future.
Footnotes
[1] Who
are equated with Daryavesh and Achashveirosh, respectively, as will
be explained. [2] Despite Seder
Olam’s
interpretation as such, it is possible that numbers in Tanach (and
particularly lengths of time) are not entirely precise. Certain
repetitions of number in short spans give an impression of rounding
and usage of more typological numbers. As an example, five Shofetim
and kings in Sifrei Shofetim and Shmuel are said to have each ruled
for 40 years, with another Shofeit ruling for 80 years,
twice 40. The number four symbolizing completeness (encompassing all
directions), 40 years can simply connote “a long period
of time.”
We
can therefore also suggest that the dates mentioned in Tanach are not
intended to be completely exact, but rather are sometimes meant to
carry meaning. Due to this, some imprecision of numbers can be
allowed. [3] Yehoyachin,
in between these two, did not rule for a significant period of time.
[4] See
section II-B.
from:
Kol Torah Webmaster to: Kol Torah
date: Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 8:40 PM
subject: Kol Torah Parashiyot Acharei Mot-Kedoshim 2015
The
Hebrew Calendar and its Missing Years – Part Three by Reuven
Herzog (‘13) and Benjy Koslowe (‘13)
In
the last two weeks we presented Seder
Olam Rabbah and
its chronology. We showed how its approach to texts and history
reveals a consistent methodology, if it does not match conventional
dating. With all that we mentioned above, there still must be a
reason why Seder
Olam skipped
so much. While it is a minimalist work, there still should be
justification for this course of action. Several suggestions are
given, and we will present two that seem to be the most compelling.
V. Purpose of Seder Olam V-A. 1,000 Years since Yetziat Mitzrayim
The
first answer has to do with Minyan Shetarot, also known as the
Seleucid era or the Anno
Graecorum (“Greek
year”). This is the dating system that Jews accepted in the latter
half of the Second Temple period. This count began in what we today
refer to as 312 BCE. During this year was fought the Battle of Gaza,
leading to Seleucus’s successful conquering of Babylonia. The
Greeks decided that this year would be “Year One.” Along with the
Seleucid Empire and other Hellenistic civilizations, the Jews adopted
the system. Throughout the Talmud there is evidence of documents
being dated with respect to this year.
At
first glance the year 312 BCE is not especially significant for
Jewish history. The Vilna Gaon points out, though, that as per
the Seder
Olamcalculation,
313 BCE (the effective “Year Zero”) is found to be exactly 1,000
years after Yetziat Mitzrayim (2448)! Because of Seder
Olam,
the Seleucid year was effectively sanctified. A document dated with
this count to the 45th year,
for example, suddenly became synonymous with 1,045 years since
Yetziat Mitzrayim. Support for this can be found in the line at the
end of Seder
Olam, “UVeGolah
Kotevin BiShtarot LeMinyan Yevanim ‘Alfa,’” “And
in the exile they write on Shetarot of the Greek count (Minyan
Shetarot) ‘One Thousand.’”
One
may notice that even so, a slight gap exists in Seder
Olam’s
chronology. The Macedonian conquest is calculated to have occurred in
3442[1], yet Minyan Shetarot begins in year 3448!
This
can be explained by a Gemara in Mesechet Avodah Zarah (10a),
discussing Minyan Shetarot and its inherent connection to Yetziat
Mitzrayim:
ההוא
שטרא דהוה כתיב ביה שית שנין יתירתא,
סבור
רבנן קמיה דרבא למימר:
האי
שטר מאוחר הוא,
ניעכביה
עד דמטיא זמניה ולא טריף,
אמר
רב נחמן:
האי
ספרא דוקנא כתביה,
והנך
שית שנין דמלכו בעילם דאנן לא חשבינן להו,
הוא
קחשיב ליה,
ובזמניה
כתביה;
דתניא,
ר'
יוסי
אומר:
שש
שנים מלכו בעילם,
ואח"כ
פשטה מלכותן בכל העולם כולו.
מתקיף
לה רב אחא בר יעקב:
ממאי
דלמלכות יונים מנינן?
דלמא
ליציאת מצרים מנינן,
ושבקיה
לאלפא קמא ונקטיה אלפא בתרא,
והאי
מאוחר הוא!
אמר
רב נחמן:
בגולה
אין מונין אלא למלכי יונים בלבד.
There
was [produced in court] a document which was dated six years ahead.
The Rabbis who were sitting before Rava were of opinion that it
should be pronounced a post-dated document, which is to be deferred
and not executed until the date which it bears. Whereupon Rav Nachman
said: This document must have been written by a scribe who was very
particular and took into account the six years of the Greek Reign in
Eilam which we do not reckon. The dating is therefore correct, for we
have learnt: Rabi Yosi said, Six years did the Greeks reign in Eilam
and thereafter their dominion extended universally. Rav Acha
b. Ya’akov then put this question: How do we know that our Era [of
Documents] is connected with the Kingdom of Greece at all? Why not
say that it is reckoned from the Exodus from Egypt, omitting the
first thousand years and giving the years of the next thousand? In
that case, the document is really post-dated! — Said Rabi Nachman:
In the Diaspora the Greek Era alone is used.[2]
Seder Olam mentions
that Alexander ruled for 12 years. However, it is unclear if this
refers to his complete rule or only to his rule over the
former-Persian Empire. Though historically inaccurate, this Gemara
implies that those 12 years are his total reign, of which six were
only in Greece and six were following the conquest of Persia. These
six years are from 3442 to 3448 of Seder
Olam,
achieving the desired goal of 1000 years after Yetziat Mitzrayim.
So
how did Seder
Olam achieve
this desired date? Seder
Olam’s
biggest jump is the Darius skip, which we have demonstrated is
achieved by equating Daryavesh with Artachshasta, and by skipping
from Darius I to Darius III. This jump accounts for the vast majority
of the missing years. It was well known that Alexander the Great came
to power by killing a Persian ruler named Darius. This fact, coupled
with the motivation of giving significance to the date of Minyan
Shetarot, was good reason to make this skip and shorten an
inconveniently-long history[3]. V-B. No Progress is No History
Another
apparent justification for Seder
Olam’s
skipping over 165 years is the assumption that years without Jewish
progress, particularly in the context of the second Beit HaMikdash,
are effectively removed from Jewish history, as they are not worthy
to have existed. This notion can explain the three sets of years
which we have shown to be skipped over by Seder
Olam.
Before
demonstrating how Seder
Olam approaches
this nadir of Jewish performance, it is worth discussing Sefer
Yeshayahu tangentially. Modern academic and a growing number of
Jewish scholars suggest a theory that after Perek 39 of Sefer
Yeshayahu, a new author takes over. This claim has several bases,
including the dramatic shift after Perek 39 from rebuke and
destruction to visions of comfort (see Yeshayahu 40:1), the explicit
mention of King Koresh (44:28 and 45:1), and the explicit call for
Bnei Yisrael to leave Bavel (48:20). Additionally, Yeshayahu is named
in the first half of the book 15 times, whereas in the second half he
is not mentioned even once. The conclusion is that this anonymous
second author, referred to as Yeshayahu HaSheini or Deutero-Isaiah,
was a prophet hundreds of years after the Yeshayahu of middle-late
Bayit Rishon.
According
to this theory, Deutero-Isaiah was a prophet for Bnei Yisrael when
Koresh announced that the Jews could return to Israel. This Navi,
alongside the leadership of Zerubavel, called on the people to return
and to not give up hope (see 40:9 and 40:29). He tried to show how
Hashem still desired the nation and had not abandoned them (see
41:8-10), and how He was willing to give the people a new start
(44:22). But, as is clear from Sefer Ezra, the Jews at large fail to
answer the call.
Shivat
Tziyon was a period of tremendous hope and excitement in Jewish
history, yet it ended in utter disappointment. The feeling of the
time, as presented by the Nevi’im, was that this is the ultimate
Redemption and Renewal. This time, the Jewish people would properly
serve God as an entire Nation in the Land of Israel; they would
correct the mistakes and sins of Bayit Rishon. Zecharyah prophesizes
a reversal of Yirmiyahu’s prophecies of torture, of God returning
to His people, and telling Bnei Yisrael that they should finally
fulfill the destiny of the Jewish people, to be a nation of Tzedek
and Mishpat, of Emet and Shalom. Malachi consistently makes allusions
to Moshe, implying that the Covenant is being renewed and Bnei
Yisrael are starting again on their journey to God. However, as is
tragically depicted in Sefer Ezra, this does not occur. The return to
Israel is miniscule and the Beit HaMikdash itself is much smaller.
Furthermore, for the vast majority of the time the Jews are
leaderless, both politically and spiritually, and they assimilate
into the surrounding society. Not until Shimon HaTzaddik, during the
period of Alexander the Great, do we learn of a religious revolution,
and even then it was a different approach of scholar-based Judaism
and not a fulfillment of the original path of Bayit Rishon.
Politically, too, Bayit Sheini did not achieve its potential. For two
and a half centuries, the Jews were ruled by a foreign power with no
known strong leader. The Chashmona’im’s revolution did not last,
and the last stand against the Romans was doomed by sectarian splits
and infighting. Bayit Sheini was the great hope of the Jewish people,
but ended as a failure.
We
have stated that years of the second Beit HaMikdash without Jewish
progress are effectively removed from Jewish history. This explains
why Deutero-Isaiah was hidden, as it were. Although an ambitious
Navi, Deutero-Isaiah was unable to convince Bnei Yisrael to return to
Israel. The result? Deutero-Isaiah was made to be an appendix to
Sefer Yeshayahu. Like his local message, Deutero-Isaiah’s real name
is forever lost in the annals of history[4].
This brings us back to our discussion of Seder
Olam and
the missing years. Modern historians tells us that Cyrus II the Great
allowed the Jews to return to Israel in 539 BCE and that the Second
Beit HaMikdash was completed in 516 BCE. As we have shown, these two
decades marked a low-point in Jewish history. A mere 42,360 Jews
heeded the call to return to Israel (Ezra 2:64), and internal strife
led to a “building freeze” (4:24). Chazal therefore hid the
prophet Deutero-Isaiah.
Moving
slightly forward in history, modern history reveals that the Purim
story probably took place after the Second Beit HaMikdash was already
built. The main events of the Megilah take place in the 12th year
of Achashveirosh’s reign. Though this fits in Seder
Olam’s
count, assuming Koresh ruled only three years after his conquest of
Bavel, if we assume that Koresh ruled for nine, and that the
construction of the Beit HaMikdash took place 18 years after Koresh’s
proclamation, even a 12-year reign of Achashveirosh cannot possibly
occur between Koresh and Daryavesh.
Rather
than leaving the exile even after the Beit HaMikdash’s
construction, Jews were living and thriving in Shushan HaBirah. The
Pasuk “Ish
Yehudi Hayah BeShushan HaBirah UShemo Mordechai,” “There
was a certain Jew in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordechai”
(Esther 2:5), should be read with shock rather than with pride.
Mordechai is a leader in Persian politics when his nation has the
ability to return to Israel. Even his name is derived from the
Persian deity Marduk![5]
For
the same reasons why Chazal hid Deutero-Isaiah, Chazal adjusted the
years of Achashveirosh’s reign. By moving Achashveirosh from after
Daryavesh to before Daryavesh (see previous installments to
understand how this was possible), the years of Jewish history when
the Jews failed to return to Israel were effectively erased from the
count.
Even
well after the Mikdash was built, though, Jewish history failed to
significantly progress toward the Divine goal. The Mikdash is
completed in Year 6 of Daryavesh (Ezra 6:15), after which Jewish
life was weak and leaderless for several decades until Ezra’s
ascent in Year 7 of Artachshasta (Ezra 7:7). For thematic reasons,
the book of Ezra closes the gap on these years in which there was no
progress. Seder
Olam takes
the next step and makes it that these years never existed. Seder
Olam puts
these two dates immediately next to each other, thus skipping nearly
60 years of history. Again, the purpose of this skip was to
demonstrate that years in which Jewish history stalemated are not
worthy to have existed. According to Seder
Olam,
they effectively did not.[6] VI. Conclusion
Seder
Olam’s
goal may not be primarily to give a comprehensive and precise history
of all time, but rather to use history as a tool for teaching. The
book assumes that its readers were aware of history. Likely, they
knew when exactly the Purim story happened. Given this, it does not
need to match up with secular dating. On the contrary, its adjusting
of chronology not only remains loyal to the literal sense of the
canonized texts, it also yields two tremendous benefits – making
Yetziat Mitzrayim be the point of reference for all Jewish dating,
and (on a more subtle level) teaching an important lesson about
Ge’ulah and the goals of the Jewish future, what needs to happen
next. Appendix
|
Calculation
of Years According to Seder
Olam: |
||
|
Event |
Time
Elapsed |
Total
Years |
|
Birth
of Adam |
0 |
0 |
|
Birth
of Avraham |
1948 |
1948 |
|
Birth
of Yitzchak |
100 |
2048 |
|
Yetziat
Mitzrayim |
400 |
2448* |
|
Binyan
Bayit Rishon |
480 |
2928 |
|
Churban
Bayit Rishon |
410 |
3338 |
|
Binyan
Bayit Sheini |
70 |
3408 |
|
Macedonian
Conquest |
34 |
3442 |
|
Begin
Minyan Shetarot |
6 |
3448* |
|
Churban
Bayit Sheini |
380 |
3828 |
|
Present
Day |
1947 |
5775 |
|
Seder
Olam’s
Timeline of Galut Bavel and Shivat Tziyon |
|||
|
Year
of Bavel |
Event |
Regnal
Year |
Year
of Persia |
|
1 |
Nevuchadnetzar’s
conquest of Middle East |
4
Yehoyakim |
|
|
7 |
Galut
Yehoyachin |
11
Yehoyakim |
|
|
18 |
Churban
HaBayit |
11
Tzidkiyahu |
|
|
70 |
Cyrus
Proclamation |
1
Koresh |
1 |
|
|
Achashveirosh’s
Party (Esther Perek 1) |
3
Achashveirosh |
6 |
|
|
Miracle
of Purim |
12
Achashveirosh |
15 |
|
|
Binyan
Bayit Sheini |
2
Daryavesh |
18 |
|
|
Aliyat
Ezra |
7
Artachshasta |
23 |
|
|
Aliyat
Nechemyah |
20-36
Artachshasta |
36-52 |
|
|
Closing
of Tanach |
1
Alexander the Great |
52 |
[1] See end of section II-B. [2] Translation by Soncino. [3] Additionally, Seder Olam’s skip allowed for a simple explanation of a rather esoteric prophecy in Sefer Daniel, which we described in last week’s installment. By combining Artachshasta with Daryavesh and skipping from Darius I to Darius III, Seder Olam is able to present a history that indeed involves three Persian kings and then an even greater Greek king, as per the prophecy. [4] It is worth explaining that Deutero-Isaiah is not merely “hidden” in a random book of Tanach. Rather, his Nevu’ot form a perfect second half to the earlier Nevu’ot of Yeshayahu, and the book certainly should be read as a single, unified work. Though the majority of Yeshayahu’s prophecies discuss Pur’anut, suffering and destruction, the general structure of the book reveals that this suffering will always be followed by Nechamah, comfort and reconstruction of Bnei Yisrael’s relationship with Hashem. In this vein, Deutero-Isaiah could not be a more appropriate conclusion to Yeshayahu, his Nevu’ot discussing the Nechamah that was so long waited for after the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash. [5] Much more can be said about the ironic undercurrent of Megilat Esther, as a harsh criticism to the Jews who stayed in Bavel at the time. [6] It is worth mentioning Mitchell First’s Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy between Rabbinic and Conventional Chronology(1st ed.; New Jersey: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1997). The bulk of the work presents several lists of Jewish figures and how they addressed the discrepancy in calendars. His lists begin chronologically with Azariah de Rossi who, in 1574, accepted conventional history both because of the many testimonies from different historians, as well because of inconsistencies between Tanach and Seder Olam. For example, he points to Nechemyah 12:10-11, a list of succession of high priests that spans many more years than prescribed by Seder Olam’s chronology. First’s research is full and informative and can serve as useful further reading for those who want to continue learning about the topic of our essay and how it was addressed over the years. Most relevant to our essay is First’s evaluation of the responses that he details, as well as his conclusion. While he raises the “1,000 Years since Yetziat Mitzrayim” explanation and the general tendency of Chazal toward minimalism, Mr. First, for reasons that he elucidates, prefers another answer to the dilemma. Daniel 9:24-27 vaguely describes a period of 490 years, and the author of Seder Olam was interested in presenting this prediction as having come true. Thsse author of Seder Olam assumed that the beginning of the first exile and the end of the Second Temple, respectively, began and ended this period (much can be said about this interesting assumption, which is reasonable but certainly not self-evident). Additionally, he knew that there were 380 years from the onset of Minyan Shetarot until Churban Bayit Sheini. Left with only 40 years for the beginning of the Bayit Sheini under Persian rule, as well as sufficient room to use the text as support, Seder Olam recorded a significantly altered version of Persian history. For more details, see Part IV (pp. 113-137) of Jewish History in Conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)