9

Sometimes we say that things in the Torah are not in chronological order. What are the parameters for this? do you need to have a mesorah (particular tradition) for this? Is there a list of all 'officially non-chronological events' that are agreed upon by all?

Isaac Moses
  • 48,026
  • 13
  • 119
  • 333
upupdowndownleftrightleftright
  • 91
  • 1

1 Answers1

3

In a nutshell, no, there is no "official" list. See this short essay on the topic.

Basically, it seems that Rashi and Ramban disagree as to how to apply this rule (Rashi considers it a blanket rule which can be applied wherever it makes sense, and Ramban considers it a tool for last resort; incidentally, this is the reverse of what I thought their Shittoth were, but I defer to R' Leibtag), and they don't necessarily agree on when to apply it, either.

Seth J
  • 41,606
  • 7
  • 85
  • 245
  • Also (perhaps surprisingly), Ibn Ezra sides with Rashi on this one. [If I have time later, maybe I'll write a more detailed answer.] – jake Jun 21 '12 at 16:13
  • And, on the subject, Abarbanel follows Ramban. He quotes a very interesting ibn Ezra on this parshah (Korach) and then knocks it out because it follows ein mukdam umeuchar batorah. (He does offer a similar explanation, though.) – b a Jun 21 '12 at 18:17
  • @ba, Abarbanel does not follow Ramban. In general, Abarbanel believes that the Torah is in chronological order (within reason, of course). – jake Jun 21 '12 at 18:52
  • That's what Ramban says, too. – b a Jun 21 '12 at 21:50
  • @jake: "Ain mukdam u'meuchar" is a statement in the Talmud, so none of the commentaries disagree with it. The question is how liberally it can be applied. I once heard a shiur that contrasted Rashi and the Ramban's view to the whole Sefer Shemot, and it turned out according to Ramban only two verses were out of order (as opposed to Rashi who says the whole Sefer pretty much jumps around). It's fascinating because this causes a huge divergence in the story according each of the commentaries. – Menachem Jun 21 '12 at 22:22
  • @jake: The Shiur is from Rabbi Paltiel. http://www.insidechassidus.org/winter/219-parshas-yisro/1081-parsha-classes-yisro.html - He gives two shiurim, one where he goes through the whole sefer Shemot according to Rashi, the other according to the Ramban. – Menachem Jun 21 '12 at 22:29
  • @Menachem, "Ain mukdam u'meuchar" is a statement in the Talmud, so none of the commentaries disagree with it. This is false. Since when do commentaries never disagree with anything written in the Talmud? Rashi and Ramban, as you and SethJ already noted, do agree with this statement, but that does not mean that everybody does. – jake Jun 21 '12 at 23:44
  • @jale: it probably would have been more correct to say, "Ain mukdam u'meuchar" is a statement in the Talmud, *and* none of the commentaries disagree with it. - Are you aware of any commentaries that disagree with the statement. – Menachem Jun 21 '12 at 23:48
  • @Menachem, As I've already noted, In general, Abarbanel believes that the Torah is in chronological order (within reason, of course). – jake Jun 21 '12 at 23:55
  • @jake: "within reason", means there are some places where he says that it is out of order. Why? Ain Mukdam etc. (Which, as pointed out above, is what the Ramban holds) – Menachem Jun 22 '12 at 00:33
  • @Menachem, According to Abarbanel, the Torah is written as a narrative from a historical perspective. Therefore, just as a historical piece of literature should be in chronological order, the Torah is in chronological order. Period. However, there are circumstances where even a history book would present things seemingly out of order to make them more understandable to the reader. For example, to present a narrative in the general sense and then present the details of a particular part of the above narrative (e.g. Bereshis 1-2). [cont.] – jake Jun 22 '12 at 02:40
  • [cont.] Another example: to give the details of how a particular story line finishes even if it happened much later relative to the timeline at hand (e.g. Shemos 18:27). Another example: To give background information relevant to the story at hand even if the information happened much earlier (e.g. Bamidbar 9:1). This, for Abarbanel, is not a breach of chronological ordering and it's not even considered an invocation of "ein mukdam etc." – jake Jun 22 '12 at 02:41
  • @seth: I think this is the same article in english: http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/yitro.htm , is that the case? – Menachem Jun 22 '12 at 03:51
  • @jake: Perhaps it is just semantics, but it sounds like you're saying that according to the Abarbanel, the Torah is generally written in chronological order. Sometimes however, things are placed out of order in order to clarify. It is not considered going out of order because it is there to clarify the narrative. - that sounds like "ein Mukdam u'meuchar" to me. He's not saying the Torah is just a mixture of out of order topics, but follows a narrative, which sometimes requires moving things around. - compare that with these statements from here: http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/yitro.htm .... – Menachem Jun 22 '12 at 03:57
  • ..."Rashi's opinion, "ein mukdam u'm'uchar", should not be understood as some 'wildcard' answer that allows one to totally disregard the order in which Chumash is written. Rashi holds that the mitzvot in Chumash are organized by TOPIC, i.e. thematically, without regard to the actual chronological order in which God gave them to Moshe Rabeinu." and "Ramban argues that until there is 'clear cut' proof otherwise, one must always assume that the even the mitzvot in Chumash are recorded in the same order as they were given." – Menachem Jun 22 '12 at 04:00
  • @jake: -- However, if you have a source where the Abarbanel says he explicitly doesn't hold of ein mukdam, I'd like to see it. – Menachem Jun 22 '12 at 04:01
  • @Menachem, For starters, here's where he disagrees with Chazal to claim that the parsha of pesach sheni is in fact in its proper chronological place. (This is where Chazal "derive" the principle of ein mukdam from in the gemara.) – jake Jun 22 '12 at 05:10
  • let us continue this discussion in chat – Menachem Jun 22 '12 at 06:12