The Jps Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy – A Review Essay

THE JPS TORAH COMMENTARY: DEUTERONOMY – A REVIEW ESSAY

By Rabbi Robert Pilavin

The following article originally appeared in Cornerstone Volume 2 (1997), a publication of UTJ.

Since 1989, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) has published modern commentaries to each book of the Torah.  Previous contributions are Nahum Sarna’s Genesis and Exodus, Baruch Levine’s Leviticus, and Jacob Milgrom’s Numbers [Editor’s note: A complete line of JPS Commentary series can be found on Amazon here].  In June 1996, this project was concluded with the publication of Jeffrey Tigay’s Deuteronomy.  Like his distinguished predecessors in this series, Tigay is an ordained rabbi and noted biblical scholar. Tigay currently serves as the Ellis Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literature and Chairman of the Jewish Studies Program at the University of Pennsylvania. His massive (500+ pages) commentary includes the traditional Hebrew (Masoretic) text alongside the 1962 JPS English translation.

According to the JPS 1996 Fall Catalogue (page 5), “Tigay links the final book to the previous books of the Torah, especially Exodus and Numbers, pointing to continuities and discrepancies with other accounts recorded in these biblical books. Tigay’s premise is that Deuteronomy has an integrity and polemic that is internally consistent; he is neither apologetic nor judgemental.  He uses literary analysis, comparative semitics, citations from earlier commentators such as Maimonides and Abravanel, intertextual commentary with other biblical books, linguistic analysis, and evidence from modern archaeological discoveries to fashion a commentary that is reverential without sacrificing scholarly honesty.”  While JPS is not an unbiased source, this summary of Tigay’s effort does not exaggerate.  We now turn to Tigay’s extensive introduction (xi-xxxi).

Tigay begins by reviewing the work’s most ancient titles (Sefer Devarim, Sefer ve-‘elleh ha-devarim), as well as its rabbinic title of Mishneh Torah (“the repetition of the Torah). The Greek translation of the latter – Deuteronomion – accounts for the current English designation.  Tigay notes that Deuteronomy’s text “was copied with extreme care and …is among the best preserved in the Bible” (xi).  Tigay prefers the paragraph divisions of the Masoretes to the more conventional divisions into chapter and verse: “Since interpretation depends on context, and division of the text helps define context, it is important to get as close as possible to the way ancient readers divided the text” (xi).

“The Character and Structure” of Deuteronomy consists of “farewell discourses and poems that Moses delivered to Israel in the last weeks of his life, and brief narratives about his final activities: commissioning Joshua as his successor, writing down the discourses, and Moses’ death” (xii).  Tigay outlines the books as follows: 1:1-5 is a heading; the “Prologue” (first discourse) covers 1:6-4:43; the “covenant made in Moab” (second discourse) ranges from 4:44 through the end of chapter 28; “exhortations to observe the covenant made in Moab” (third discourse) are contained in chapters 29-30;

“Moses’ last days” (the epilogue) are described in chapters 31-34.

Tigay discerns fourteen themes which are “unique to Deuteronomy, or receive greater emphasis in it than in any other book of the Torah” (xii-xxiv). We consider them in detail:

1. monotheism: “The preceding books of the Torah also recognize only Him as God, but they concentrate on prohibiting Israel from worshiping other gods, not on refuting belief in their existence” (xii).
2. loyalty to the Lord: “No other book demands such a vehement campaign to prevent Israelites from worshipping other gods…” (xiii)
3. the concept of God: “Deuteronomy emphasizes God’s transcendence…[and] also describes God in less physical terms than do the earlier books of the Torah” (xiii)
4. covenant: “Deuteronomy emphasizes this metaphor so frequently that it was later referred to (in 2 Kings 23:2) as ‘the Book of the Covenant’ ” (xiv).
5. love: “the bond between God and Israel…can be described in terms normally used of romantic love” (xv).
6. Israel: “God chose Israel for a special relationship with Him…[although] this relation-ship is not conceived in chauvinistic terms” (xv).
7. Israel and the nations: “Because of Israel’s election…only she worships the true God. Other nations worship His subordinates or insubstantial idols” (xvi).
8. the Land: “All of Deuteronomy looks toward Israel’s life in the promised land…but Deuteronomy regularly iterates that possession of the land is conditional” (xvi).
9. law: “Israel’s welfare depends on maintaining a society governed by God’s social and religious laws, as presented in chapters 12-26. These laws are a divine gift to Israel, unsurpassed in their justice and their ability to secure God’s closeness” (xvi).
10. centralization of sacrificial worship: “Sacrificial worship may take place only in a single sanctuary…Apparently, Deuteronomy perceived worship at multiple sites as inherently pagan” (xvii).
11. desacralization: “The limitation of sacrificial worship…would inevitably remove a sacral dimension from the life of most Israelites. Most people lived far from the Temple and could not visit it often.” Such consequences “do not seem to have been viewed by Deuteronomy as undesirable” since “Deuteronomy’s aim is to spiritualize religion by freeing it from excessive dependence on sacrifice and priesthood” (xvii).
12. intellectual orientation: “All Israelites must learn the Teaching and teach it to their children (4:9;6:7,20-25;11:19)…[it] must be read to the entire nation publicly every seven years (31:11-13) and the king must make a personal copy to study from (17:18-19)… The book regularly refers to what Israel learned from personal experience” (xvii)
13. humanitarianism: “The Torah’s humanitarianism is most fully developed in Deu-teronomy’s legislation and exhortations on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged” (xviii).
14. style: “The most notable feature of Deuteronomy’s style is its exhortatory, didactic, sermonic character…[Moses] constantly goes beyond the immediate subject to point out its religious and ethical implications and to appeal for faith and obedience” (xviii). Most suggestive is the following assertion: “Underlying this style is the realization that people must be persuaded to obey the laws” (xviii).

In discussing the date and background of Deuteronomy, Tigay asserts the following:   “Whereas the predominant view in Judaism is that God dictated the entire Torah to Moses, ever since talmudic times there have been sages and scholars who held that the matter was more complex than that.  Deuteronomy has provided some of the most important evidence in the discussion” (xix).  Several rabbinic sources (Bava Batra 15a, Menachot 30a, Sifrei Devarim 357 and parallels) are cited as proof that the Rabbis did not consider Deuteronomy to be exclusively Mosaic.  Moreover, “in the Middle Ages, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1164) and others noted…verses in the Torah that could not have been written in Moses’ lifetime” (xix). In 1670, Baruch Spinoza expanded on Ibn Ezra’s comments and claimed that Ezra the Scribe (5th century B.C.E.) compiled  Deuteronomy.  The Bible (2 Kings 22:8,11: 23:24,25) refers to “the book of Teaching”  discovered in the Temple (622 B.C.E.) by Hilkiah the High Priest during the renovation of the Temple.  This book inspired King Josiah to launch a religious reformation.  Many scholars, Tigay included, identify this book as Deuteronomy.  Indeed, “modern scholars since W. M. L. DeWette (1805) have argued cogently that several of the Deuteronomic prescriptions that Josiah carried out were actually created for the first time shortly  before he did so…In other words, Deuteronomy was composed many centuries after Moses, closer to the time when it was discovered in the Temple in 622 B.C.E.” (xx).

Tigay believes that “the civil laws of Deuteronomy go back to a time in the United Monarchy or the early Divided Monarchy – the tenth and ninth centuries B.C.E.” (xxii).

Having discussed when the book was written, Tigay analyzes who wrote it. Since Deuteronomy instructs Israel “to proceed directly upon entering the land to Mounts Gerizim and Ebal” for ceremonies “reaffirming their covenant relationship with God” (11:26-32; chap. 27), Tigay suggests that “the core of the book was actually composed in the north” (xxiii).  This theory is buttressed by “Deuteronomy’s affinities with the language and teachings of the northern prophet Hosea” (xxiii).

Tigay notes several critical theories in discussing “the composition and history of Deuteronomy.”  Much recent scholarship attempts to distinguish between the “original book” and “subsequent revisions” (xxv).  Tigay asserts that “in principle this is a plausible approach” (xxvi).  However, “in this commentary, we have not suggested analyses of this sort…out of a conviction that our task here is primarily to explain the text ‘holistically,’ as it has come down to us” (xxvi).  Nevertheless, Tigay asserts that “there is a sense in which the book is Mosaic” (xxvi).  He cites Menachot 29b, which recounts how Rabbi Akiba’s lecture was unintelligble to his predecessor Moses, on whose teachings it was ostensibly based.  Deuteronomy, claims Tigay, is “Mosaic” in the same sense that Rabbi Akiba could claim that his teaching was “a law given to Moses at Sinai.”

Tigay’s Introduction concludes with a fine discussion of “Deuteronomy in the ongoing Jewish tradition.”  In addition to its disproportionate influence on later Jewish worship, Deuteronomy “is the source of the idea that religious life should be based on a sacred book” (xxviii). Deuteronomy “plays a major role in Jewish theology, since it is the book of the Bible that deals most explicitly with matters of belief and practice”  – indeed Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (“itself named after Deuteronomy”) “cites Deuteronomy far more often than any other book of the Bible” (xxviii).

Tigay’s Introduction is but a prelude to the bulk of his opus – a commentary and notes (1-413) followed by 33 excursuses and notes (415-548).  As noted earlier, Tigay is an ordained rabbi as well as a professional Bible scholar. This dual competency serves him well.  Tigay’s commentary routinely blends the insights of classical Jewish exegetes with those of modern biblical scholars.

What role can this commentary play in the intellectual life of a modern, traditional Jew?

Many Jews lack an intellectually nuanced approach to critical bible study.  As a result, two major positions have evolved.  Non-traditional Jews simply accept the findings of modern scholars uncritically.  Given their theological premises, little is at stake.  At the other end of the religious sprectrum are sectarian Jews who accept certain hypotheses of the talmudic sages uncritically. Given their theological premises, everything is at stake. Such Jews view critical study as both heretical and religiously subversive. For the latter, the only pretext for consulting Tigay’s volume would be (Avot 2:14): “Know how to respond to heretics.”  Believing Jews, as an act of “self-defense,”  may acquire basic familiarity with non-traditional claims in order to refute them.  By definition, such Jews would ascribe no intrinsic value to Tigay’s commentary, which calls into question the traditional Jewish belief in the divine origin and authority of the Torah.

In between these two extremes is a third position we may call “selective engagement.”

Thus, recent Israeli Bible commentaries sponsored by Mosad HaRav Kuk incorporate the insights of modern research “to the extent that the results of such studies do not contradict Jewish tradition.”  This approach is also the method of choice among many modern Orthodox bible scholars.  [Please note Rabbi Sanford Davis’ review of the Orthodox Forum’s latest volume:  Modern Scholarship in the Study of the Torah.]

The position of this reviewer is that a traditional Jew may embrace critical bible study – even accepting some of its key assertions – for the following reasons:

1) We must not overstate the theological claims of the classical Jewish tradition.

The UTJ’s Rabbi David Novak distinguishes between the dogma of “Torah min ha-shamayim” (“The Torah is from God” – Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1) and the similar idiom “Moses received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it” (Mishnah Avot 1:1). The latter refers to the “process of transmission and interpretation” as opposed to the precise content of revelation (“A Non-Fundamentalist Traditionalism,” Cornerstone 1:1, 1988)

In Torah Min HaShamayim – a comprehensive study of the doctrine of Revelation –

Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel describes multiple schools of thought as to how the Torah was given.  Of particular interest is the Talmudic suggestion (Gittin 60a) that the Torah “was given in installments.”  In the absence of an authoritative consensus, traditional Jews are free to study or to advance critical views as to how and when each of the Five Books of Moses became “the Torah.”

2) “Critical study,” properly understood, is a legitimate form of Torah learning.

The Talmud thrice reminds us (Shabbat 63a, Yevamot 11b and 24a) that “ein mikra yotzei midei peshuto” – no biblical text can be deprived of its original context. [See Prof. David Weiss Halivni’s Peshat and Derash, pp. 54-61.]  Most traditional commentators study the Bible “vertically” – i.e, they offer a chronological survey of what traditional predecessors have said about a particular word, phrase, or verse.  Modern exegetes, by contrast, tend to study the Bible “horizontally” by asking what these words meant to Biblical man and his contemporaries in the ancient Near East.  If the Talmud insists that “original context” matters, we have permission – if not a religious mandate – to avail ourselves of commentaries such as Prof. Tigay’s.

3) There is no such thing as a “non-kosher” commentary or commentator.

In the forward to his “Eight Chapters,”  Maimonides cautions us to “accept the truth from whatever source it emanates.” Claims made by scholars such as Tigay are to be judged on their merits; they cannot be dismissed because the reader has a quibble with Tigay’s theology or personal piety.  In his “Laws of Sanctifying the New Moon” (17:25), Maimonides is not averse to preferring the mathematical calculations of non-Jews over those of Jews if the former offer more convincing reasoning. Maimonides’ logic would certainly encompass the views of Jews whose ideological convictions differ from ours. A metaphysical claim (e.g., God exists) must not be confused with a “factual” one (e.g., the world is 5,757 years old).  The former is a statement of faith which can neither be demonstrated nor refuted.  The latter, however, is empirically verifiable and is subject to revision should new and compelling evidence become available.

4) “Critical” methods of study have antecedents in ancient and medieval Judaism.

In Tigay’s second excursus (422-429), he compares Deuteronomy 1-3 with other biblical accounts of the same events.  He contrasts the “harmonistic” approach of traditional commentators with the “critical” approach, which explains discrepancies by positing the existence of several authors. Tigay prefers the latter and notes that “multiple authorship was assumed by the rabbis to explain inconsistencies within the Mishnah” (429).

5) There is no such thing as a “non-kosher” method of studying the Bible.

Even if modern methods of Bible study were Jewishly unprecedented, it does not follow that they are Jewishly unacceptable.  Few Jews in this century were as learned or as pious as the late Rabbi Saul Lieberman, who frequently emphasized the great extent to which the Rabbis were receptive to aspects of Greek culture.  In his essay on “Rabbinic Interpretations of Scripture,” Prof. Lieberman declared that “it goes without saying that any thinking person who was acquainted with Greek logic and who heard something of the nature of rabbinical exegesis of the Bible would be inclined to associate it in some way with the former” (Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, page 57).

6) Halachah (Law) and Aggadah (Theology) are interdependent, but not identical.

Opponents of critical study often ascribe legal significance to aggadic passages. Thus,  the statement that “he has despised the word of the Lord” (Numbers 15:31) refers to “one who maintains that the Torah is not from heaven [or] that a certain verse was not dictated by the Holy One, blessed be He, but is from Moses himself” (Sanhedrin 99a)

This passage, widely cited by those who wish to discredit the entire enterprise of critical study, does not appear in any of the standard Jewish codes.

7) A comprehensive commentary is, frequently, a “superior” commentary.

In the introduction to his Yam Shel Shlomo, the 16th-century sage Rabbi Solomon Luria (Maharshal) adopts the following strategy: “my method will be to cite every opinion – ancient, medieval, and modern.”  He was concerned about the potential criticism that ‘Luria would surely have ruled differently had he been aware of so-and-so’s opinion.’  It is not unreasonable to claim that scholars such as Tigay are the spiritual descendents of Luria.  Rashi, for example, seeks to establish homiletical links between three family laws in Deuteronomy: marriage with a female captive of war (22:10-14), the right of a first-born in a polygamous family (22:15-17), and the punishment of an insubordinate son (21:18-21).  Tigay, by contrast, provides a lengthy excursus (446-459) on the arrangement of all the laws in Deuteronomy – covering chapters 12 through 26! Tigay concludes that “in addition to logical, topic-based arrangement of laws, it was also considered acceptable to arrange laws by the association of topics and of features such as a shared idea or theme, a word, a phrase, or a formula” (451).  Tigay documents his thesis with 65 footnotes examining the arrangement of genres as diverse as   Mesopo-tamian omen literature, Aramaic proverbs, rabbinic literature, and college term papers!

Earlier we noted fourteen themes which, in Tigay’s estimation, receive special emphasis in Deuteronomy.  Tigay also highlights the nuances of specific texts. Deuteronomy 26 describes the prayer recited by a farmer upon bringing his first fruits.  Tigay notes: “The shift of the focus of a religious ceremony from exclusive attention to the role of God in nature to an emphasis on His role in history is one of the most important and original features in the Bible” (238)

Even the “parochial” Jewish reader will find much of interest in Tigay’s commentary.

Tigay has excursuses on such topics as the Shema (438-441), tefillin and mezuzot (441-444).  Even potentially technical discussions are enlivened by Tigay’s footnotes.

Thus, in reviewing “regulations about admission to the assembly of the Lord” (23:2-9),

Tigay discusses conversion and marriage (477-480).  A discussion of the “broken-necked heifer” (21:1-9) inspires a fascinating examination of rituals associated with the Ten Days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (472-476).  His analysis of “the writing and reading of the teaching” (31:9-13), includes a succinct discussion of the deeper significance of the contemporary Torah service (498-502).

Space limitation have not allowed us to dwell on Tigay’s interpretations of specific verses.  Suffice it to say that Tigay provides a thorough discussion in a most readable prose.  Both scholars and interested laymen will profit from his erudite analyses.  For all of Tigay’s secular, academic credentials, he consistently refers his readers to a wide range of Jewish sources from Sifrei Devarim – the earliest rabbinic commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy – to the latest researches of contemporary Jewish scholars.

Traditional Jews and professional Bible scholars will undoubtedly quibble with sundry points made by Tigay.  Both will undoubtedly concede that Tigay’s commentary is nothing less than a watershed in the history of Deuteronomy scholarship.