Authorship of the Torah

Found 17 Search results

Composition of the Torah according to Tanakh and Jewish Tradition
Part 2
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
From the description that appears in the Torah itself and in the Books of the Prophets, there is no way of knowing how, when, and by whom the Five Books of the Torah were committed to writing and transmitted to the Jewish People. However, in the later books the picture changes somewhat, and we find explicit mention of the existence of a "Book of the Torah" that is more extensive than just the book of Devarim. This Torah is clearly identified with "God's Torah" in Nehemia, when the Jewish people commits, at the ceremony of the covenant, "to follow God's Torah, which was given by the hand of Moshe, God's servant."
Composition of the Torah according to Tanakh and Jewish Tradition
Part 3
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
There are two main approaches to understanding the way in which Moshe wrote the Torah. According to one approach, exemplified by certain midrashim and the Ramban, God dictated the Torah to Moshe, word for word, and Moshe served merely as a scribe, having no influence on a single word in the Torah. The other approach appears in the works of medieval Ashkenazi commentators such as Rashbam, R. Yosef Bechor Shor and R. Yehuda he-Chassid, as well collections of midrashim such as Lekach Tov and Sekhel Tov. It can be summarized in a general way as follows: God conveyed the contents of the Torah, and authorized Moshe to formulate at least some of the text in his own style, or to arrange the materials as he saw fit.
Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date: The Phenomenon and its Ramifications
Part 1
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (and similarly other medieval commentators) maintained that throughout the Torah there are verses which, like the final verses of Devarim, were written after Moshe's death, either by Yehoshua or by one of the other prophets. Rabbi Yosef ben Eliezer explains that this in no way contradicts our faith, since the entire text was written through prophecy, and it therefore makes no difference whether a certain verse was written by Moshe or by a different prophet.

It would seem, therefore, that according to the Ibn Ezra, the Torah was not given as a fixed text with no possibility of future additions. Even after the Torah was completed by Moshe, it was still open to some limited degree, and in instances where it was of great importance to add certain comments into the text, as clarification or to add depth of meaning, the prophets were not prevented from introducing them.
Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date: The Phenomenon and its Ramifications
Part 2
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
There are three instances where Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid attributes verses of the Torah to the Men of the Great Assembly. While some claim that these writings are a forgery and the publications of these writings aroused great controversy, there is much evidence to the contrary and these writings represents a school of thought amongst his students.

It should be pointed out that Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid’s approach is far more extreme than the approach of Ibn Ezra. The most startling aspect of these latter sources is that while Ibn Ezra wrote his view in very cautious and concealed language, the pietists in Germany expressed the same ideas quite openly and explicitly, and even in places where suggesting such interpretations was not the only way of addressing a textual problem. We may therefore state that the assertion that there are later verses in the Torah, based on an objective look at the simple, literal text, has support in the view of some medieval commentators, who did not regard this view as representing any contradiction or denial of faith in the Divine origin of the Torah.
Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date: The Phenomenon and its Ramifications
Part 3
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Among the medieval commentators there are two different approaches concerning the verses that appear to have been added at a later time. The more widely accepted approach attributes them to Moshe, who wrote them in a spirit of prophetic foresight. The other approach, advocated by Ibn Ezra and some of the sages of Germany, maintained that the Torah contains verses that were added by prophets at a later stage.
Verses Added to the Torah at a Later Date: The Phenomenon and its Ramifications
Part 4
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Certain places mentioned in the Torah are called by names that are only given to them many years after the death of Moshe. Spinoza claimed that such examples indicated that the Torah as a whole was written at a much later date than is traditionally assumed. Medieval commentators make several suggestions to solve this question.

In modern times Yehuda Elitzur suggested a different approach. In many places the Torah alludes to the fact that the division of the land existed and was known in general form from ancient times, going back to the blessings of Yaakov. Therefore, the familiarity of the writer of the Torah with the division of the land, which would only occur later on, cannot serve as proof of later authorship of the Torah, since the division of the land is frequently presented as ancient knowledge.
Duplication and Contradiction
Part 1
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
The awareness that the Torah contains many instances of duplication, as well as contradictions between different sources, has always existed. Chazal address these phenomena in many places, and note them. Many contradictions have been debated over the generations and various explanations have been proposed. However, in many instances the solutions are less than satisfactory, since they interpret the text in a manner that does not sit well with the plain meaning; one who seeks to understand the literal meaning of the text has trouble reconciling the various explanations with the plain meaning. Additionally, it is necessary to address this phenomenon from a broader and more all-encompassing perspective and not merely answer each case individually.

An overview of Documentary Hypothesis, a theory that views the authorship of the Torah as a combination of different sources, is presented. According to this theory, the Torah is neither Divine, nor authored by Moshe.
Duplication and Contradiction
Part 2 - Historical Claims of Documentary Hypothesis
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
The prevalent view in academic circles, has been that the major part of the Book of Devarim was written in the 7^th century B.C.E., as part of the battle waged by Chizkiyahu and Yoshiyahu for centralized ritual worship. This assertion is based mainly on the argument that Devarim is the only Book of the Torah which speaks of the selection of a single location for Divine service, and rejects worship outside of this location. A series of questions and proofs are brought against this theory, leading to the conclusion that the central argument for the claim of late authorship of Devarim has multiple and serious flaws.
Duplication and Contradiction
Part 3 - Historical Claims of Documentary Hypothesis and Linguistic Layers of the Tanakh
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Another argument that is central to Wellhausen's approach, and which was contested by many in the previous generation is the dating of the Priestly source to the Second Temple Period.

In terms of subject matter, it is difficult to understand why the Priestly source, which includes major sections of Shemot and Bamidbar and almost all of Vayikra, would include laws that have no connection with the Second Temple Period.

In light of archaeological finds from the ancient Near East, it became clear that phenomena such as a multitude of ceremonies and sacrifices existed even hundreds of years prior to Israel's entry into the land.

In general, the study of the development of biblical Hebrew provides a very strong indication that the Chumash predates not only the later Books of Tanakh, but also the Books of the Prophets. This is shown most strongly when we contrast the language of the Chumash with the Books of the Prophets where, despite the general similarity between them, we find a number of motifs that appear exclusively in one but not the other.

The absence of common expressions from the Torah, found in the Books of the Prophets and variant spellings of the same words would suggest that the Torah’s Hebrew is a more ancient stage of the language than that which is found in the Books of the Prophets. Had some parts of the Torah been written from the period of the monarchy onwards, there would be no reason for these discrepancies.
Duplication and Contradiction
Part 4 - Breuer's Aspects Theory
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
A revolution in the attitude of Jews who believe in the unity of the Torah towards the research by biblical scholars was brought about by Rav Mordekhai Breuer who developed the "aspects approach.” The principal innovation of the approach was to acknowledge and utilize the claims of the documentary hypothesis which saw the Torah as made up of multiple and frequently contradictory texts, while maintaining that these differences and contradictions were nevertheless Divinely authored and intended, rather than a combination by a later editor of multiple human authors and traditions.
Duplication and Contradiction
Part 5 - Breuer's Aspects Theory
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Rav Breuer’s fundamental insight should be seen as highlighting the Torah's tendency to express the complexity of various concepts and narratives through repetition, ambiguity, and contradiction.

In light of this, there is no need to appeal to the "aspects approach" when discussing the contradictions between Devarim and other parts of the Torah, for it would be unwarranted to expect that a story told from an objective standpoint would be identical to a subjective account offered by someone who was part of that story.
R. Avraham ibn Ezra
Part 3
Dr. Avigail Rock
Ibn Ezra believes that it is inconceivable for the Sages’ halakhic tradition to contradict the peshat of the verses. On this point, he argues with the Rashbam, who goes as far as to explain the halakhic verses against the tradition of the Sages. As we have explained in the previous lessons, Ibn Ezra supports the view of philological pashtanut and exerts great effort to explain the verses in accordance with the rules of grammar and topical logic. However, when there is a contradiction between the peshat and the Sages’ tradition in Halakha, ibn Ezra pushes the simple meaning of the words so that it will fit with the Sages’ view, while striving to have it dovetail with the rules of grammar and language.

Despite these words of Ibn Ezra expressing the unquestionable authority of the Sages in Halakha, many times ibn Ezra veers in his interpretation from the interpretation of the halakhic ruling.

· It may be that ignorance of the halakhic ruling – due to poverty and wandering - is what causes him to interpret verses differently than the Sages.

· Alternatively, while the ibn Ezra sees himself as bound by the Sages’ legal authority, the Sages themselves do not believe that this is the verse’s intent, but they tie the law to the verse.

While ibn Ezra had a profoundly negative view of the Karaites, it is important to note that he does not hesitate to cite their interpretations if he believes they are correct. According to his view, the truth of the Oral Torah may be established not only by finding its laws in the verses of Written Torah, but by confronting the reality of the absence of many laws in the Written Torah. These exigent rules are only found in the Oral Torah, and without their existence there is no significance at all to the laws of the Written Torah.

Ibn Ezra was aware of Rashi’s status in France. Therefore, in his commentary to the Torah, ibn Ezra keeps his silence despite the fact that he disagreed with him.

Ibn Ezra conceals issue in his commentary; he embraces the phenomenon of "sod" with regard to deep concepts, issues regarding the authorship of Torah and sins of great Biblical figures.
Who wrote the Torah?
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Author of the last verses of the Torah
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Authorship of Devarim
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Breuer’s Aspects Theory part 1
Rabbi Amnon Bazak
Breuer’s Aspects Theory part 2
Rabbi Amnon Bazak