DEVARIM

DEVARIM: How And Why the Book of Devarim Differs from the Rest of the Torah
Authorship and Arrangement
The unique style and presentation of the book of Devarim, a lengthy account of Moshe’s
departing discourse to the Jewish people, has exercised the minds of scholars for many years.
How is its status viewed by Jewish tradition, and does its unique style and presentation
convey any significant meaning when contrasted with the four preceding books?
On a basic level, all five books of the Torah are considered equally to be the word of God
recorded by Moshe.1 A Gemara2 teaches that one who claims that even one verse of the Torah
was written by Moshe on his own accord and not as instructed by God forfeits his share in the
World to Come. While it is clear therefore that the divine origin of Devarim is a non-
negotiable tenet of faith, there are significant sources which indicate that the composition and
structure of this fifth book are not identical to that of the previous four.
According to a Gemara3, while the Tannaic sage R' Yehudah would generally not derive
halachot from the order of the verses in the Torah (semuchin), he made an exception when it
came to the book of Devarim. R’ Betzalel Ronsburg 4 cites the explanation of Ravan 5 that this
is because Devarim was arranged and structured by Moshe with the intent that its structure be
expounded, rather than being dictated word-for-word by God. What arises from this
fascinating idea is that the composition of Devarim is different from the uniform composition
of the other books of the Torah. As the Vilna Gaon 6 puts it: the first four books were God
speaking via the throat of Moshe, whereas Devarim was a prophecy recorded subsequently,
when Moshe was no longer 'under the influence' of the prophecy which he had experienced
earlier.
Deciphering the Divine
What does the Vilna Gaon mean when he states that Hashem dictated the four books 'through
Moshe's throat'?
I believe that the key to understanding this phrase lies in a Midrash which describes how,
when God spoke at Mount Sinai, the Ten Commandments were uttered simultaneously in one
indecipherable outpouring of sound.7 This was a corollary of the fact that neither God nor His
'speech' are governed by the passage of time. 8 In order to make the Divine communication
capable of being understood by humans, however, this sound had first to be diverted through
a human interface, represented here by “Moshe’s throat”. This process enabled the otherwise
indecipherable communication to be formed into words and commandments that an ordinary
human could discern.

1
This is discussed further in our final chapter on parashat Vezot Haberachah and appears to be the position of
Rambam in his 13 principles of faith at the end of his Introduction to Chelek.
2
Sanhedrin 99a, codified by Rambam in Hilchot Teshuvah 3:8 (and in the eighth principle of faith listed in his
Introduction to Chelek, where he explicitly includes verses from Devarim in his discussion).
3
Yevamot 4b.
4
Hagohot Maharav Ronsburg, Yevamot 4a.
5
R’ Eliezer ben Natan (an early Rishon, Tosefist and Halachist). Shut Siman 34.
6
As explained by his friend and student, Ya’akov ben Ze’ev Kranz, the Dubner Maggid in his book Ohel
Ya’akov.
7
This point is also made by Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 2:33, on his understanding that the word “kol” in the
Midrash means “voice”, rather than “sound”.
8
This concept is expanded upon in our chapter on parashat Bo and in our second essay on parashat Vayeshev.

1
DEVARIM

Notwithstanding Moshe’s separating out of the single supernal sound into its distinct
individual components, there remained a strong aspect of ein mukdam ume'uchar9— a lack of
sequential order as between the disentangled passages — in the text of these four books. This
is because each individual passage is essentially a component of the divine 'unified' word, or
as Ritva puts it:10
“In the rest of the Torah there is no clear indication [of a semuchin], because there is
no sequential order, it is all like a single passage; and in Mishneh Torah [the book of
Devarim] it is implicit to him [R’ Yehudah] that it is written in an order.”
These components cannot therefore be expected to conform to a sequential order 11 – a
concept and phenomenon only produced by man's inability to grasp and process transcendent
expressions of absolute divine unity. It was because of this relative 'lack of order' in the first
four books that R' Yehudah would not derive halachot from semuchin, the arrangement of
verses. The book of Devarim however was composed on the basis of a standard form of
prophecy received by Moshe,12 which he subsequently arranged and transcribed. Since this
methodology involves human organisation and arrangement, it could be subject to the same
treatment as that of regular prophecy. Therefore, according to all opinions, 13 halachot can be
derived from the order of the resulting verses.
The principle that the book of Devarim was composed on the basis of the standard type of
prophecy forms the basis for Ibn Ezra’s explanation 14 for the many discrepancies between the
Torah’s initial account of the Ten Commandments in parashat Yitro and its subsequent
recording in parashat Va’etchanan. The version which appears in Yitro constitutes a word-
for-word account of the Ten Commandments as revealed by God. Its repetition in
Va’etchanan however, writes Ibn Ezra, is presented and structured by Moshe, containing
elements of his own commentary.15 Support for this distinction is brought from a close
reading of the verses: while the Yitro version is introduced with the phrase: “And God spoke
all of these words…”, the version in the book of Devarim by contrast declares simply that
“these words God spoke”.
Ibn Ezra seems to be taking the principle of Ra’avan further; that Moshe’s contribution to the
book of Devarim was not simply structural, but that he also interpreted and added
commentary in order to maximise the understanding of those to whom he was recounting the

9
The principle that certain passages in the Torah are arranged to maximise their moral message rather than to
reflect their chronological order.
10
Yevamot 4a.
11
See also our chapter on parashat Bo, where we discuss how time and its passage pertain only to physical
phenomena.
12
Even with regard to the 'regular' form of prophecy, Moshe received a clearer perception than other prophets
—'peh el peh' in contrast with the interpretation of dreams and visions (this is discussed further in our chapters
on Miketz and Vezot Haberachah). Presumably this is why we can make a gezeirah shavah (a proposed halachic
connection between different laws based on similar wording) between words used in the book of Devarim and
those found in the four earlier books, since the precise words of God's communication were clear to Moshe.
13
There is a dispute concerning semuchin in the first four Books, but all commentators agree they can be applied
in Devarim.
14
Shemot 20:1.
15
For example, in the initial version of the Commandments, the command not to covet first mentions the
neighbour’s “house” and only then the neighbour’s “wife”. This is the proper sequence in terms of the
progression of a person’s correct order of life priorities: first to establish a house and then to marry. Moshe
however switches the order for didactic reasons, on the basis that the temptation and coveting of a neighbour’s
wife naturally begins earlier in a person’s life than jealousy of his house. See our Vayakhel chapter for a
discussion on the different reasons offered for Shabbat in the two versions of the commandments).

2
DEVARIM

prophecy.16 It follows from this idea that the book of Devarim consists of a more standard
form of prophecy which requires the prophet to interpret and transcribe the prophecy he has
received. This is in contrast to the previous four books 17 which were transmitted through a
form of word-for-word prophecy unique to Moshe “mouth to mouth I speak to him in a clear
vision”.18
An acceptance of the notion that the book of Devarim is the product of a lower level of
prophecy helps us explain how Yehoshua could have completed the final eight verses of the
Torah.19 Were it not for this acceptance, it would be far harder to assert that these final verses
were completed on the basis of a significantly inferior level of prophecy, since Yehoshua
received Divine communication only of the 'standard' prophetic type.
That a more standard form of prophecy was used to transmit the book of Devarim can also
explain why the tochachah in parashat Ki Tavo is referred to 20 as 'Moshe's', in contrast to that
contained in parashat Bechukotai. This is because the standard level of prophecy required
Moshe to interpret and formulate the content himself, rather than simply record God’s words
(as he had done in the previous Bechukotai tochachah).
“Crash-Course” Content
The question remains: why did God choose to make the fifth book of the Torah different from
the previous four?
R' Hirsch explains that the book of Devarim has a specific function: to teach or review all of
the mitzvot and information most necessary for the Jewish nation’s imminent entry into the
land and establishment of civil society.21 The presentation of the laws of the festivals in the
book of Devarim,22 which differs significantly from that of the earlier books of the Torah, is
examined in detail by R’ Hirsch and subsequently serves as a prototype for the application of
his theory.
According to R’ Hirsch, this review of the festivals only includes Pesach, Shavuot and
Sukkot – the three whose meaning and application would be significantly altered by the
nation’s entry into Israel. Unlike the other four 23 festivals not repeated in the book of

16
This approach is also taken by R’ Chaim ben Attar (Or Hachaim) in his opening comments to Devarim.
17
In our final chapter we examine the possibility that other parts of the Torah were also received by Moshe
through the more standard form of prophecy.
18
Bemidbar 12:8.
19
Also according to the Tanna, R’ Yehudah, in Baba Batra 15a. This point is also discussed in our chapter on
parashat Vezot Haberachah, in the context of our examination of Maharal’s understanding of Rashi, that even
parts of the first four books are based on a lower level of prophecy.
20
Megillah 31b.
21
The parshiyot of Shofetim and Ki Teitze in particular deal with the establishment of institutions which would
be necessary in order to govern the land effectively. R’ Hirsch also suggests that the emphasis on tithes and
providing for the poor, which also features heavily in the book of Devarim, would take on particular
significance with entry to the land. Until that point, the miraculous sustenance of the Jewish people in the desert
had made provision for the poor unnecessary. In his commentary on the book of Devarim, Abarbanel
consistently seeks to show how each apparently new commandment is merely an extension of a primary mitzvah
previously recorded in the first four books — an extension intended specifically to relate to the new challenge of
entering and settling Israel. Entire bodies of law such as torts and sacrificial law, which were to remain largely
unchanged after entering the Land, do not feature in Devarim.
22
16:1-17.
23
R' Hirsch includes Shabbat in the list of four festivals whose application and laws are the same after entering
the land. This appears to follow the Torah’s inclusion of Shabbat in the passage of festivals (Vayikra 23:2)
“Mo’adei Hashem asher tikre’u otam mikro’ei kodesh” (“God’s festivals which you are to designate as holy
convocations”) But Shabbat is not repeated in the list of festivals in Re’eh (above).

3
DEVARIM

Devarim, the meaning of which derive entirely from the relationship between the Jewish
people and God, the festivals chosen for review contain an additional dimension that
specifically relates to the land and its seasonal cycle. In addition, Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot
include the commandment for the whole nation to make a pilgrimage to the Mikdash in
Jerusalem. It was therefore specifically these three festivals which were selected for review
by Moshe on the Plains of Moav in preparation for entry to the land.
Style and Statutes
A crucial aspect of this transition from being nomadic tribes to citizens of a regular country
was the creating and maintaining of a less-centralised judicial system, described in detail in
the opening section of our chapter on parashat Shofetim.24
In the desert, any dispute or uncertainty in halachah could be easily clarified by consulting
Moshe, who had a divine ‘hotline’ - as seen in the cases of the gatherer of wood, 25 the
blasphemer26 and the daughters of Tzelafchad. 27. After entering the land of Israel, there would
be no more prophetic interference with or clarification of the Torah. 28 Halachah was to be
decided and enforced by the judicial authorities in each city and, if necessary, sent to the
national court. All serious disputes29 would thus be ruled upon by the Sanhedrin, as the
ultimate arbiters of Torah law.
It can be argued that, in keeping with this function of the book of Devarim, it was appropriate
for these mitzvot to be arranged by Moshe. This human-implemented arrangement would
ensure that the main body of halacha, which was necessary for the new era in the land of
Israel, would be compiled into a structure more accessible to the new judges and legal
system. An exercise of this nature would help to establish more smoothly the 'rule of law' of
the Torah in the new land, and minimise any disputes or lack of clarity. The reduction of
divine influence over the composition of the book of Devarim manifests itself in a more
expansive style and sequential order – an arrangement which leads even R’ Yehudah to
accept the use of semuchin to derive halachot from the order of its text.
From face-to-face to interface
A similar idea can be found, albeit with a more mystical dimension, in the Likkutei Sichot of
R’ Menachem Mendel Schneerson.30 Having identified the distinction between the book of
Devarim and the four preceding books in terms of Moshe’s greater involvement, R’
Schneerson explains that this unique book represents an interface between the four divinely
dictated books on the one hand, and the Oral Law on the other. R’ Schneerson cites the
Zohar, which labels the book of Devarim “Oral Law”, in describing how it plays a more
explanatory role, sometimes expanding upon mitzvot which had previously been recorded
only in shorthand.

24
As discussed in our chapter on parashat Shofetim.
25
Bemidbar 15:32.
26
Vayikra 24:10.
27
Bemidbar 27:2.
28
According to Rambam in his Introduction to Commentary on the Mishnah.
29
As discussed in our chapter on parashat Shofetim.
30
Vol 4 pp 70-71, Vol 36 pp 42-43 (I have combined ideas from two separate pieces).

4
DEVARIM

An important question remains, however. In light of the apparent advantages of the book of
Devarim having been transmitted by means of a lower level of prophecy, why did God not
choose to transmit the entire Torah in this manner?
The answer requires an appreciation of the unique miraculous dynamic which formed the
basis of the Jews’ relationship with God during their years in the desert. Throughout their 40-
year journey through the desert, the Jewish people were sustained and accompanied by a
steady stream of miracles, from the manna to Miriam’s well. Such a direct encounter with
God’s providence is described by R’ Schneerson as “direct exposure to the Divine Light”.
In our chapter on parashat Beshalach we discussed how such a constant and concentrated
exposure to God’s Presence was necessary in order to provide the recently-freed Jewish
slaves with a crash course in spirituality and divine providence. It was not however a basis
through which humanity could achieve its highest aspirations of struggling to recognise and
perceive the divine, and applying God’s laws to sanctify an otherwise physical existence.
Upon entering the Land of Israel, the Jewish people would no longer relate to God in this
direct manner, rather they would be required to fulfil the purpose of creation by “building a
home for God in the physical world” — relating to Him through His natural order.
This shift in the mode of relationship between God and the Jews was to be mirrored in a shift
in the style and dynamics of the Torah: the rules which govern this relationship. Thus, with
the Jews on the threshold of entering the Land, the direct “face-to-face” style of prophecy
which had formed the basis for the first four books was replaced with the final book in which
Moshe not only recorded what God had dictated, but was also involved in structuring and
explaining its content. This introduction of human involvement in its final book served as an
interface to ease the transition and underscore the legitimacy of the greater focus on the Oral
tradition which was to take on increased significance 31 for the Jews upon entry to the Land of
Israel.
Devarim’s revision of earlier narrative
We have considered thus far how many traditional commentaries distinguish the book of
Devarim from the previous four books of the Torah both in terms of Moshe’s greater role in
its formulation and also as to the specific functions it fulfilled. In the opening section of this
chapter we noted how the book of Devarim departed from the pattern of the four previous
books for which the role of Moshe was simply to transcribe the word of God. The strongest
expression of this principle emerges from the commentary of Ibn Ezra, 32 who addresses the
discrepancies between the accounts of the Ten Commandments in Yitro and Va’etchanan by
explaining that in the latter Moshe was providing his own accompanying commentary of
God’s earlier command (thus “God spoke these words” instead of “all of these words God
spoke”).
Having established that Moshe possessed a greater measure of freedom in terms of the
structure and content of Devarim, we drew upon the commentary of R’ Hirsch in order to
demonstrate which mitzvot – and components of mitzvot – were suited for inclusion in this
final book. Using the account of the festivals in Devarim as a paradigm example, R’ Hirsch
develops an overarching theory which suggests that the overwhelming focus of this final
book – Moshe’s closing speeches to the Jewish people – were part of the final preparation for

31
See our first essay on parashat Shofetim.
32
Commentary to Shemot 20:1.

5
DEVARIM

entering the Land of Israel. The laws recorded in Devarim are those which pertain primarily
to the nation’s imminent transition from nomadic desert wandering to a sovereign nation with
religious, political and judicial institutions. Particular emphasis is also placed upon the
uncompromising rejection of any semblance of Canaanite idol worship, the dangerous
temptations of which awaited them across the Jordan river.33
It is within this context that we must assess the opening eleven chapters of Devarim, and
Moshe’s retelling of Jewish history from the previous 40 years. The events which Moshe
recounts can be seen as a fitting introduction to the theme of Devarim. We discussed in an
earlier chapter34 how the desert years were designed as a crash course in order to train the
Jewish people to maintain faith in God in matters of both national security and sustenance.
This theme feature strongly in the narratives of the opening parshiyot of Devarim, which
emphasise how faith in God is an indispensable requirement for achieving military success,
while the miraculous provision of mannah is also recounted. 35 Crucially, these chapters are
not solely concerned with recalling the events of the past 40 years, but are interspersed with
religious messages to be drawn from these recent experiences, and how such messages should
be applied when entering the land.36 The Jews are not simply told of the miraculous provision
of mannah but are taught:

“He afflicted you and let you hunger, then He fed you the mannah … in order to make
you know that not by bread alone does man live, rather by everything that emanates
from God’s mouth … For Hashem your God is bringing you to a good land…”.37

Similarly, the lengthy accounts of the Jews’ military encounters in the desert are punctuated
regularly by criticism of the Jews’ lack of faith, and God delivering military success as
promised. In chapter 11, Moshe concludes this narrative section by stating that his audience,
as witnesses of God’s miraculous demonstrations, bear particular responsibility to maintain
loyalty to God; loyalty and obedience which will promote success in the land for generations
to come.
Reading the opening narratives of Devarim in this context may also address a number of
discrepancies between the way in which the first four books of the Torah describes various
events which took place in the desert and how they are subsequently related in the book of
Devarim. These inconsistencies, such as the apparent shifting of blame to the nation for
initiating the episode of the spies and for their culpability in Moshe being denied entry into

33
See the endnote to our chapter on parashat Va’etchanan.
34
See the analysis of R’ Hirsch, cited at the start of our chapter on parashat Beshalach.
35
The recounting of the Ten Commandments can presumably be explained as recalling the basic covenant
between the Jews and God. The episode of selecting judges — which emphasises the need for honest and non-
corrupt judges — appears to relate more to the legal sections of the book of Devarim which detail the
establishment of judicial institutions in the Land.
36
As R’ Hirsch puts it: “These introductory orations that comprise the first eleven chapters of Devarim convey
the basic attitudes towards God and His Torah that are expected of Israel, and the general duties that Israel is
expected to fulfil as a result. All these are expounded here on the basis of a general survey of the past in which
God revealed Himself to Israel, a past that has now come to a close”.
37
8:3-7. See also 6:16: “Do not test Hashem your God as you did in Massah” [where a lack of water led the
Jews to question whether God was among them].

6
DEVARIM

Israel, are not simply to be explained by the fact that the events are being retold from
Moshe’s subjective perspective. Rather they fulfil a didactic role 38 by highlighting the
underlying shortcomings39 and lack of faith within the nation which contributed to the sins of
the spies and set the stage for Moshe’s sin of hitting the rock for which he was prevented
from entering the Land.40
What R’ Hirsch appears to have achieved with his approach, is a single theme through which
to address the distinctive features of both the narrative and legal portions of the book of
Devarim. Moshe’s parting words as leader of the Jewish nation were carefully selected and
designed in order to reinforce the lessons taught by God in the desert, and prepare them for
the imminent challenges of nationhood which would meet them in the Land of Israel.

38
See n 16 above where, in a similar manner, Ibn Ezra explains inconsistencies between Devarim and Shemot
by suggesting that Moshe made didactic additions in the book of Devarim.
39
See Rashi on Bemidbar 13:2, Devarim 3:26.
40
This approach explains why the only pattern for the inconsistencies between the narratives of Devarim and
earlier accounts is that Devarim typically views the nation more critically. It also explains why the book of
Devarim makes frequent references (1:36, 4:3, 9:20 24:9) to passages and events related in the previous four
books. Both of these phenomena pose difficulties to academic theories which depict the book of Devarim as the
work of a rival revisionist historian (see also our chapter of parashat Chaye Sarah, particularly n…, and Rabbi
Dr Joshua Berman’s article at https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/09/kippah-and-gown-i/).

7
DEVARIM

Centralisation of worship and the book of Devarim: A critique of a popular theory in

secular bible scholarship
In the previous chapter we referred to an accusation made against King Chizkiyahu by his
opponents, that his efforts to enforce the prohibition against bamot was fuelled by a political
motive to centralise control over his kingdom’s religious worship. This allegation, which is
mentioned in the commentary of Radak, 41 foreshadowed an argument which would later
become popular among bible critics concerning Chizkiyahu’s great-grandson, King Yoshiya,
and the religious revolution he instigated.
Yoshiya’s Torah scroll: fraudulent or found?
Yoshiya ascended the throne at the tender age of eight, 42 against the backdrop of his father
Menashe’s determined initiative to uproot Jewish loyalty to God and the Torah. So thorough 43
was Menashe’s destructive campaign that, when a Torah scroll was discovered during the
course of repair work on the Mikdash, 44 its contents shocked the young king into leading a
national repentance during which pagan temples and bamot alike were outlawed in favour of
Mikdash worship.
The claim put forward in a variety of forms by critics 45 is that Yoshiya’s religious revolution,
which attempted to eradicate idolatry and bamot, was driven by the desire to consolidate
power and assert control over the nation’s religious worship. Yoshiya’s advisors, it is alleged,
fraudulently46 composed the scroll and claimed to have found it hidden in the Mikdash. 47 The
unique structure and content of the book of Devarim — which we will examine in the next

41
At Melachim II 18:22.
42
Melachim II, 22:1.
43
Melachim II 21 reports that Menashe rebuilt the bamot that his father Chizkiyahu had destroyed, placed idols
in the Mikdash and shed much innocent blood.
See also Divrei Hayamim II 33.
44
According to Divrei Hayamim II 34:14, this scroll had been handwritten by Moshe. In our chapter on parashat
Ki Tavo we discuss the transmission of the Torah’s text and tradition during these sinful periods.
45
Initially by Julius Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels (“History of Israel”), 1878 and W. M. L De Wette,
Dissertatio Critica, 1805 in the 19th century, although the theory has subsequently reappeared with numerous
variations.
46
Some have theorised that is was Chizkiyahu and his advisors who committed the fraud, and that it was their
scroll of Devarim which was discovered (as also identified by Rashi to Divrei Hayamim 34:14).
47
From Joshua to Josiah: Turning Points in the History of Israel from the Conquest of the Land Until the Fall
of Judah, by M. Weinfeld (Magnes Press: The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1992), at p 177, cited in Ad
Hayom Hazeh.

8
DEVARIM

chapter from sources in Jewish tradition— together with its injunctions not to offer sacrifices
on the private bamot, are taken by these critics to be evidence in support of this theory. While
this idea has enjoyed widespread popularity among secular bible scholars, powerful questions
against its credibility are frequently overlooked.48
Places of preference
The first challenge questions the assumption that Judaism before the time of Yoshiya lacked
any notion of centralised worship, and that no religious laws restricted private sacrifice.
Support for this assumption is often premised on a verse shortly after the first recording of the
Ten Commandments, which is taken to approve sacrifices in any place of the worshipper’s
preference. A more careful reading of the verse however shows that this approval of
sacrifices is limited to a place “asher azkir et Shemi — where I [God] allow My name to be
mentioned”, which clearly implies a limitation. Furthermore, the Hebrew text contains a
subtlety which does not translate easily and is therefore often overlooked. In the phrase
“bechol hamakom asher azkir et shemi” the word makom (“place”) is prefixed by the heh
hayediah (the Hebrew equivalent of the definite article, i.e. “the place”) which means, in
effect, “any specific place in which I allow My name to be mentioned”.49
In fact, many biblical sources point strongly to an earlier prohibition against the performance
of sacrifices in private non-centralised locations. The details of the construction of the
Mishkan in the desert are related at length by the Torah, as are the details of Shlomo’s
construction of the first Mikdash. The extent to which, in each instance, detail is recorded is
an indication of the importance played by the establishment of a place of centralised sacrifice
in the nation’s consciousness and focus. 50 This is underlined by the prohibition 51 of the
performance of any sacrifice (and at times even regular slaughter) outside the Mishkan’s
perimeters. Shlomo’s Mikdash, completed several centuries before Yoshiya’s campaign, was
constructed from materials obtained through a levy that was placed on the entire nation. This
too demonstrates a clear recognition of its significance as a national place of worship.
This role of the central place of worship as representing a religious focus for the entire nation
significantly precedes the royal building of a magnificent Beit Hamikdash. Shortly after
helping their brethren to conquer the land of Israel, the Transjordanian tribes return to their
tribal territory and greatly alarm the mainland tribes by building a large altar on the East bank
of the Jordan facing Israel. This perceived early threat to the unified national worship at the
Mishkan of Shiloh provokes the mainland tribes to take up arms declaring:

“do not rebel against God and do not rebel against us by building for yourselves an
altar other than the altar of Hashem our God”.52

48
This discussion includes ideas from the notes published in the Hertz Chumash notes and Amnon Bazak’s “Ad
Hayom Hazeh” (cited in our chapter on parashat Beshalach).
49
This prefix may well be the source of Rashi’s commentary to this verse, which understands it as alluding to
the Mishkan in all of the temporary locations which it occupied between the Jews’ entry into the land of Israel
and the building of the first Mikdash.
50
See our chapter on parashat Chayei Sarah on this point, where we discuss how the amount of text dedicated to
a point is indicative of its importance.
51
Vayikra 17:1-9.
52
Yehoshua 22:19.

9
DEVARIM

Civil war is only averted when the Transjordanian tribes declare their loyalty to the
centralised national service reassuring their compatriots that:

“Far be it from us to rebel against God and to turn away this day from following God,
by building an altar for burnt offering, meal offering and sacrifice other than the altar
of Hashem our God, which is before His Sanctuary”.53

This early emphasis on centralised worship is also evident at the start of the book of Shmuel,
which tells of events preceding the building of the Mikdash by a century, we find Shmuel’s
family, Elkanah and Chanah, making repeated visits to the national Mishkan in Shiloh in
order to offer sacrifices. 54
God’s dwelling — destination unknown?
An additional objection to the assertion that the book of Devarim was written long after the
Mosaic era, with the intent of aiding the king’s politically motivated centralisation of worship
to the Mikdash in Jerusalem, is that, within the entire book of Devarim there can be found not
even a single instance of any mention by name of the capital city which is the focus of this
alleged power grab. If anything, the text appears delicately and deliberately to step around the
word “Jerusalem”, substituting in its place the verbose and vague phrase “in the place in
which God shall choose that His name shall dwell there” – a phrase which appears
approximately 20 times throughout the book. While this phenomenon can be seen to support
the tradition of the oral law55 that the Mikdash was just the latest and most impressive of the
places of centralised worship, it deals a weighty blow to the claim that a primary aim of the
book of Devarim was to focus on the central importance of this specific place.
Additionally, despite the existence of several mentions of the prohibition to sacrifice outside
the permitted place(s), it is far-fetched to imagine that it constitutes the primary or even a
central theme of the book of Devarim. 56 Indeed, the term bamot as a reference to private
altars, while prevalent in the later books of the Prophets, 57 does not make a single in the five
books of Moses in the context of an altar that is utilised for private sacrifice. Instead, the text
of the book of Devarim places far greater emphasis on avoiding the temptations of idolatry,
the establishment of effective institutions in the Land and appropriate preparations for
upcoming battle with the Canaanite nations. Neither does removal of the private bamot
appear to be an important focus of Yoshiya’s campaign: the first section of the chapter 58

53
Ibid., 22:29.
54
Shmuel I, 1:3.
55
Zevachim 14:4-8.
56
A book which notably makes specific allowance for sacrifice on Har Gerizim and Har Eval. See 27:1-7.
57
See the commentaries of Radak and Malbim to Yechezkel 20:28-29, who note that descriptions in the Torah
of worship in high places (denoted by geva’ot, not bamot) refer exclusively to idolatry. It was only upon entry
into the Land of Israel, when the Jews witnessed the Canaanite practice of worshipping their gods at ‘high
places’, and mimicked this practice, which therefore became popular even in authentic Divine worship. Radak
writes that during this period, ‘high places’ became synonymous with religious worship to such an extent that
the biblical text even refers to Mishkan at Givah as “bamah” (Kings I 3:4).
58
Melachim II, 23.

10
DEVARIM

dedicated to describing Yoshiya’s efforts focuses entirely on the removal of pagan rites and
worship from the Mikdash.
Agendas and anachronisms
A broader look at the book of Devarim reveals that, if its composition was dated to the era of
the later kings, this would render much of its content both anachronistic and absurd. The
entire context and tone of the book of Devarim is fundamentally suited to a nation being
addressed by Moshe on the cusp of its entry into the Land of Israel. Politically, the book of
Devarim regards the nation of Edom favourably, as a ‘brotherly’ nation not to be “rejected”. 59
The reality in the era of Yoshiya, however, was that Edom had become a bitter enemy of the
Jewish people, with whom it had fought several severe battles. It is indeed hard to imagine a
book composed in Yoshiya’s times viewing the nation of Edom in such a positive light;
however, this position is entirely consonant with the more peaceful attitude towards Edom
displayed by Moshe in Bemidbar,60 where God instructed him to detour rather than trespass
and provoke the Edomites.
The wars of conquest which are envisaged and legislated for in the book of Devarim 61 are
well suited to a nation posed to embark on an invasion. Such descriptions, however, are
profoundly incongruous with the political reality of Yoshiya’s era in which, it is alleged, they
were composed — an era in which the tiny Judaean state was struggling to exist alongside the
regional Assyrian and Babylonian superpowers. Furthermore, there is no hint in the entire
book of Devarim of the serious rupture which had taken place among the Jewish people,
splitting it into two separate kingdoms, one of which had recently been defeated and exiled.
The fundamental incompatibility of the content of much of the book of Devarim with
Yoshiya’s era has been conceded by a recent prominent critic, 62 who considered that: “The
laws of war in the book of Deuteronomy, therefore…suggest an early, nonmonarchic point of
view”.
Finally, if the primary agenda motivating the composition of the book of Devarim was truly
to expand the authority of the monarch by centralising religious worship in Jerusalem, it is
extraordinary that this scroll in fact limited monarchy in a way which was unique among
ancient cultures. As we explain elsewhere 63 regarding the passage in Devarim which
delineates the prerogatives of a Jewish king, 64 the concept of a limited monarchy was a
contradiction in terms in ancient Eastern cultures. It is an unfathomable proposition that a
king, setting out to compose a fraudulent document in order to broaden his power, would
include such a passage – which sets limits to his glory and places him within rather than
above the law as was the norm in Yoshiya’s era.
A perspective on academic biblical scholarship
While the theory which originated with Wellhausen and De Wette concerning the
identification of Yoshiya’s scroll as a fraudulently composed book of Deuteronomy initially

59
23:8.
60
20:14-21.
61
See eg 20:10.
62
Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? p 120. Friedman also argues that the type of conscripted
armies described in Devarim had been entirely replaced by professional armies by the time of the later kings
such as Yoshiya.
63
See our second essay in our chapter on parashat Shofetim.
64
17:14-20.

11
DEVARIM

enjoyed widespread popularity, it no longer appears to be the consensus position of biblical

scholars. This shift highlights an important principle to bear in mind when examining critical
evaluation of biblical texts: that the hypotheses produced remain firmly in the domain of
speculative theory rather than proven fact.65
Scholarly interpretation of biblical texts is commonly informed by an understanding of the
historical and cultural context, which is itself premised on speculative conclusions that have
been formed from available archaeological findings and other ancient sources. A strong
illustration of the flimsiness of this entire edifice was the unintended archaeological
discovery in 1994 of an ancient reference to the House of David at Tel Dan. This discovery of
a proclamation by the king of neighbouring Aram necessitated a fundamental re-evaluation of
that biblical era, since scholars had previously been highly sceptical as to the existence of
King David and his early unified kingdom.
The theories advanced often represent intelligent and highly sophisticated efforts to
reconstruct antiquity from the few available sources. Nevertheless, particularly when dealing
with early biblical history, their attempts can perhaps be compared to a prediction of what an
entire jigsaw puzzle might look like on the basis of the few random pieces that happen to be
available.

65
See further our chapter on parashat Chaye Sarah.

12