REVIEW: Ahat Dibber
Yehuda Rock, Ahat Dibber: Rivud Sifruti ba-Torah: Bereshit-Noah (2024), 815 pages
Rabbi Mordechai Breuer (1921-2007) was one of the most creative and provocative figures in modern religious Tanakh study. He posited that the proposed divisions of one version of the Documentary Hypothesis are essentially correct, and he agreed with the critics that no one person could have composed the Torah. However, he disagreed with the critics most fundamentally by insisting that no person wrote the Torah. God revealed it to Moses in its complex form so that the multiple aspects of the infinite Torah could be presented in different sections. Since we are limited as humans, we cannot simultaneously entertain these perspectives, so they appear to us as contradictory. The complete truth emerges only when one takes all facets into account. In this manner, Breuer accepted the text analysis of critical scholarship while rejecting its underlying beliefs and assumptions. Breuer named his approach the Theory of Aspects (Shitat ha-Behinot).[1]
Breuer’s commitment to the readings of one version of the Documentary Hypothesis as “science” detracted from his work.[2] To be fair, however, he developed his theory at a time when the Documentary Hypothesis was the regnant theory in academic Bible study (his earliest writings on this began in 1959). By now, scholarship has exposed a number of fundamental weaknesses in the Documentary Hypothesis, forcing scholars either to appreciably modify its conclusions, or to develop alternative theories. Regardless, Breuer’s fundamental premise, that the Torah presents aspects of truth in different places, has meaningfully influenced the next generations of scholars.[3]
For many, Breuer’s approach has become one tool among many when learning Tanakh. In contrast, one of Breuer’s students, Rabbi Yehuda Rock, has attempted the monumental project of updating Breuer’s entire methodology while avoiding the major deficiencies that beset the Documentary Hypothesis and with it the Theory of Aspects.
One of the central features of the Documentary Hypothesis is positing the Torah’s being originally composed of four separate documents, called J (which favors using the name Hashem, recall the tetragrammaton begins with a J when rendered in English), E (which favors the name Elokim), P (the priestly document, i.e., Leviticus), and D (Deuteronomy). The scholars who proposed these readings used the Torah’s usage of God’s names and perceived stylistic and ideological differences, in addition to apparent contractions and redundancies, to separate out the putative documents. Breuer essentially adopted these readings as correct, but reinterpreted them on theological grounds. In his theory, the Torah conveys aspects of complex truths all revealed by God to Moses.
Rock creates his own original “Hashem” and “Elokim” (J and E) aspects on a global level throughout the book of Genesis. He rejects stylistic variation as a criterion for identifying aspects, unlike the Documentary Hypothesis. As contemporary scholarship has demonstrated, all good literature varies in word usage and other elements.[4] Additionally, Rock rejects using God’s two primary names, Hashem and Elokim, as arbiters of where layers should be identified. Instead, he relies on the content of the narratives, and divides them into different layers based on inconsistencies and redundancies. Rock develops complex readings and composite messages derived from the text alone.
Rock’s J aspect highlights the God-human relationship, whereas the E aspect highlights God’s role as Creator. E forms a continuous narrative, whereas J sometimes contains fragments that supplement the E story line. The J aspect contains Hashem’s Name as the default choice, and uses Elokim when necessary for some exceptional purpose. Therefore, those usages must be explained in context. The E aspect uses Hashem’s Name only in 17:1, which Rock explains as a bridge between the two macro-layers of Genesis.
After explaining his global view of the book of Genesis, Rock provides a detailed analysis of Genesis chapters 1-11. In addition to the Genesis-wide aspects, Rock also subdivides each narrative into two further layers, with each contributing a dimension of meaning. Rock’s erudition and attention to the tiniest details in Genesis shine forth on every page of this volume.
Rock explains why the aspects-layers approach to the Torah is superior to the Documentary Hypothesis and its heirs on purely scholarly grounds. The allusive references between the various layers demonstrate an overall unity in the Torah. Similarly, it is more likely that the contradictions and redundancies are a deliberate literary strategy of the Torah to teach its messages. Why would a later redactor weave together disparate earlier documents but still retain many contradictions and redundancies? Finally, there are no known examples from ancient Near Eastern literature where disparate contradictory texts are woven together by a redactor.
That all said, the book’s pitfalls are considerable. The exceptional length of each individual analysis, the tedious division (to this reader’s mind) of each passage into sub-layers, and the mechanical application of the same methodology throughout Genesis chapters 1-11 make the book very difficult to wade through. Whereas Breuer’s original Theory of Aspects and now Rock’s updated layers method certainly prove beneficial as one tool among many, some may find it far less appealing when it is the predominant method we should use in our learning.
Rock’s brief insights provide more valuable contributions than his lengthier analyses. To use his own representative example in the book’s introduction (9-10), Rock cites Exodus 14:3-4, where God informs Moses that He will have Pharaoh pursue Israel so that God will be glorified:
Pharaoh will say of the Israelites, “They are astray in the land; the wilderness has closed in on them.” Then I will stiffen Pharaoh’s heart and he will pursue them, that I may gain glory through Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord.
There is no reason for Moses to be frightened as the Egyptians approach; he knows from the outset that God will rescue Israel. Only Israel is terrified, and Moses assures them:
As Pharaoh drew near, the Israelites caught sight of the Egyptians advancing upon them. Greatly frightened, the Israelites cried out to the Lord…. But Moses said to the people, “Have no fear! Stand by, and witness the deliverance which the Lord will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today you will never see again. The Lord will battle for you; you hold your peace!” (14:10, 13-14).
Suddenly, however, the narrative presents a different picture, where Moses himself cries out to God, and only then does God assure him that He will rescue Israel:
Then the Lord said to Moses, “Why do you cry out to Me? Tell the Israelites to go forward. And you lift up your rod and hold out your arm over the sea and split it, so that the Israelites may march into the sea on dry ground. And I will stiffen the hearts of the Egyptians so that they go in after them; and I will gain glory through Pharaoh and all his warriors, his chariots and his horsemen. Let the Egyptians know that I am Lord, when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen” (14:15-18).
Rather than accepting the various harmonizing approaches of our classical mefarshim, Rock submits that the first part of the narrative (14:1-14) highlights the aspect of God’s punishing Egypt and teaching them that God is the Master of the universe. From that perspective, God reveals His plan to Moses from the outset, and Moses encourages the nation. Then, Torah shifts its focus to God’s salvation of Israel, where Moses cries out to God and then God rescues the nation (14:15-18).
Rock’s greatest contribution is that he forces readers to rethink the tendency to smooth over bumps in the narrative. He exploits these bumps as signposts to divide and then subdivide each text into complex facets of the divine message of the Torah. In the final section of his book, Rock surveys approaches of classical interpreters to many of these questions and explains why he considers their solutions inadequate—thereby vindicating his own readings. It remains up to each reader to discern which tools to apply to each narrative.
Rabbi Hayyim Angel, a member of TRADITION’s editorial board, is the National Scholar at the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals and serves on the Bible Faculty, Yeshiva University.
[1] For analysis of Breuer’s method, see, e.g., Amnon Bazak, Ad HaYom HaZeh (Yediot Sefarim, 2013), 109-139; Shalom Carmy, “Concepts of Scripture in Mordechai Breuer,” in Jewish Concepts of Scripture: A Comparative Introduction, ed. Benjamin D. Sommer (New York University Press, 2012), 267-279; Meir Ekstein, “Rabbi Mordechai Breuer and Modern Orthodox Biblical Commentary,” TRADITION 33:3 (1999), 6-23. For a collection of Breuer’s articles on his methodology, and important responses to his work, see The Theory of Aspects of Rabbi Mordechai Breuer [Hebrew], ed. Yosef Ofer (Tevunot, 2005).
[2] See the criticisms of Breuer’s position by Shalom Carmy, “Introducing Rabbi Breuer,” in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, ed. Shalom Carmy (Jason Aronson Inc., 1996), 157; and Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Response to Rabbi Breuer,” 181-187.
[3] See especially Yoel Bin-Nun, “Teguva le-Divrei Amos Hakham be-Inyan Torat ha-Te’udot ve-Shittat ha‑Behinot,” Megadim 4 (Tishri 1987), 91; Shalom Carmy, “Concepts of Scripture in Mordechai Breuer,” op. cit.
[4] Cf. Christine Hayes: “Some of the criteria invoked by early source critics to separate documents were later shown to be based on an ignorance of ancient literary conventions: Repetition can serve a rhetorical function and variant terms may be a literary and aesthetic choice”; Introduction to the Bible (Yale University Press, 2012), 63.