In the light of
the previous post, we have a daring question. How can
מִצְוֹתַי et cetera, not be in the dictionary of H, if it was in the dictionary of EJ? In other words, could it be that the Mitzvot are edited into EJ?
In more detail, given that
מִשְׁפָּטַי and
מִצְוֹתַי sound similar, could it be that in Shemot 15:25-26,
שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט, וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ. וַיֹּאמֶר אִם-שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע לְקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְהַאֲזַנְתָּ לְמִצְוֹתָיו לְמִשְׁפָּטָיו, וְשָׁמַרְתָּ כָּל-חֻקָּיו--כָּל-הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר-שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם, לֹא-אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ, כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה, רֹפְאֶךָ
the word לְמִצְוֹתָיו should be read as לְמִשְׁפָּטָיו, especially in the light of the foregoing חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט? It has been argued by some that Shemot 15:26 as a whole might be an insertion of D. Again looking at חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט, we think this is unlikely. Rather, D must have edited it, so that the first two
Dtn insertions, especially the second, Devarim 13:18-19, sound like citations of Shemot 15:26.
Could the same "mistake" also have happened at the only two other cases of Mitzvot in EJ, Shemot 20:6 and Bereshit 26:5? That is, are the following two Tikkunim
וְעֹשֶׂה חֶסֶד, לַאֲלָפִים--לְאֹהֲבַי, וּלְשֹׁמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָי מִשְׁפָּטָי
עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי; וַיִּשְׁמֹר, מִשְׁמַרְתִּי, מִצְוֹתַי מִשְׁפָּטָי, חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי
also correct? The verse in Bereshit 26:5 is a reflection of Shemot 15:26. Devarim 13:5 and 13:18-19 sound like citations of Bereshit 26:5 as well as of Shemot 15:26.
So, Bereshit 26:5 could share the fate of Shemot 15:26, as indicated above. Alternatively, it could be that the whole verse was added by "the editor:"
עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי; וַיִּשְׁמֹר, מִשְׁמַרְתִּי, מִצְוֹתַי, חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי
as in it context it is quite superfluous. In any case, it should be noted that it definitely is not a J phrase.
I think is likely that Shemot 20:6 should share the fate of Shemot 15.26, as was indicated above. Indeed, it would be the only verse in EJ with the word Mitzvot in it, which makes little sense. The editing would have been done, by D, no later than the writing of the Devarim 5:10, a copy of Shemot 20:6.
Is it a coincidence that D can be said to refer to all three Pesukim, Shemot 15:26, Shemot 20:6 and Bereshit 26:5?
Only if EJ had no instances of Mitzvot, it is natural that it was not in the dictionary of H!
The above suggests together with
the previous post that
the replacement of
וְאֶת-מִשְׁפָּטַי by
וְאֶת-מִצְוֹתַי in Vayikra 26:3 was not an arbitrary editing act of P, but rather the consequence of some strategy.
My hypothesis is that in the work of RJE and H, the promotors of Mitzvot (D,P) wrote certain instances of
מִשְׁפָּטַי or
מִשְׁפָּטַיו at the end of a word as
מִצְוֹתַי or
מִצְוֹתַיו, respectively, so that it would appear that Mitzvot existed also before the time of promotion. It was Hora'at Sha'ah. The permission was found in the words. One would barely hear the difference! The Psak Din was D's, but P used it when he was
changing Vayikra 26.
Therefore, the ancient, non-Priestly, Torah, that is, EJ plus H plus an initial version of D, plus the contents of P
E that are not in EJ, was free of the word Mitzvot. There is one Mitzvah, and that is to say the truth regarding the Torah. I regard this as a very major Tikkun.
Addendum:
I judge the hypothesis to be strong enough for me to perform a minimal substitution in the Torah's basic sources; my version of
Sefer Bereishit, and the
Torah Kedumah, and
this blog, though it should be kept mind that עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר-שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי; וַיִּשְׁמֹר, מִשְׁמַרְתִּי, מִשְׁפָּטָי, חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי
is likely to be removed altogether.
