Degraded E-version

Here is an outline of the E-version of the story of Avraham that was rightly degraded and suppressed, yet given through Remez, by RJE.

Four wives did Avraham have, Sarah, Hagar, Rivka, and Ketura. Hagar and Ketura, the concubines, gave birth to Ishmael, and to Zimran, Yokshan, Medan, and Midian. Sarah gave birth to Yitzchak. Avraham gave everything he had to Yitzchak. But Yitzchak did not survive the Akeida, leaving behind his wife, Rivka, who was barren. Through Yibum, she became a wife of Avraham. Then, the womb of Rivka was opened and she gave birth to Ya'akov. Finally, she gave birth to Esav. Avraham gave gifts to his sons Ishmael, Zimran, Yokshan, Medan, and Midian, and sent them to the East, and he gave Seir to Esav. To Ya'akov he gave everything that he had previously given to Yitzchak. He sent Yaakov to Lavan, and Ya'akov returned from there to Eretz Yisrael, with his four wives.

Somewhere along the line, probably just before his sending of Ya'akov to Lavan, and his very reason for this sending, G-d spoke to Avraham: "Know with certainty that your offspring shall be aliens in a land not their own, they will serve them, and they will oppress them four hundred years. But also the nation that they shall serve, I shall judge, and afterwards they shall leave with great wealth. As for you - you shall come to your ancestors in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And the fourth generation shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite shall not yet be full until then."

Ya'akov, then, is a son of Avraham, but is seen as a son of Yitzchak, the first-born son of his widow Rivka. This explains expressions like אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם וּפַחַד יִצְחָק , "the G-d of my father, the G-d of Avraham and the Awe of Yitzchak" (Bereshit 31:42), and again אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם וֵאלֹהֵי נָחוֹר, יִשְׁפְּטוּ בֵינֵינוּ--אֱלֹהֵי, אֲבִיהֶם; וַיִּשָּׁבַע יַעֲקֹב, בְּפַחַד אָבִיו יִצְחָק, "Let Avraham's G-d and Nahor's G-d, their father's G-d, judge between us. And Ya'akov swore by the Awe of his father, Yitzchak" (Bereshit 31:53).

The names of the final two sons of Ketura (Bereshit 25:2), יִשְׁבָּק and שׁוּחַ, hold a secret. The first one sounds like Yitzchak, and through substitution of ע becomes יִעבָּק, the letters of Yaakov. The second name, through a similar substitution, becomes שׁוּע, the letters of Esav. Hence, the final two sons of Ketura, are actually Rivka's sons, Ya'akov ben Yitzchak and Esav ben Avraham.

The Falsehood of P

Regarding P, it has been noted already in what sense P is Lo-Ammi. Importantly, P is directly responsible for the second Churban, as detailed below in the secret of Kamtza and Bar-Kamtza, the famous story of Cbazal (Gittin 55b-56a) [my comments in bold between square brackets]:

A man was organizing a Seuda [of "Chaverim"] and wanted to invite the Chaver Kamtza. His servant, however, by mistake brought the non-Chaver, Bar-Kamtza. [The "Chaverim" is code for people that have the Chumrah to always eat ritually pure food in a state of ritual purity. Ritual purity is a complicated concept of P.] When the host realized the mistake, he went to Bar-Kamtza and demanded that he leave [so that he would not spoil the Chumrah of the Chaverim, as Bar-Kamtza, the non-Chaver, was ritually impure, and the food he touched would become impure.]. Embarrassed, Bar-Kamtza offered to pay for his food and his drink in the hope that he could stay, and when that did work, to pay for half the Seuda, and at the end even for the whole Seuda. But the host threw him out. [He had to throw him out because of this Chumrah, shared by all attendants, all "lovers" of P who totally lost the way in the laws of P.]

Bar-Kamtza said, “Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him from embarrassing me, this shows that they agreed with him. I will go and inform against them to the government.” [The Rabbis totally lost the way, in the laws of P, Lo-Ammi.]

He went and said to the emperor, “The Jews are rebelling against you.” Said the emperor, “How can I know that this is true?” “Send them an offering,” said Bar Kamtza, “and see whether they will offer it on the altar.” So he sent with him a fine calf. While on the way he made a blemish on its upper lip (or as some say, on the white of its eye)—in a place where we count it a blemish but they do not.[The Issur to offer animals with a blemish is a concept of P.]

The rabbis were inclined to offer it in order not to offend the government. Said Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas to them: “People will say that blemished animals are offered on the altar.” They then proposed to kill Bar Kamtza so that he should not go and inform against them, but Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas said to them, “Is one who makes a blemish on consecrated animals to be put to death?” Rabbi Yochanan thereupon remarked: “Because of the scrupulousness of Rabbi Zechariah ben Avkulas our House has been destroyed, our Temple burnt, and we ourselves exiled from our land.”[He was scrupulous in the laws of P, Lo-Ammi. P is to blame directly for the second Churban, not E, not J, not D.]

הַעַל אֵלֶּה לֹא אֶפְקֹד נְאֻם יְהֹוָה אִם בְּגוֹי אֲשֶׁר כָּזֶה לֹא תִתְנַקֵּם נַפְשִׁי. שַׁמָּה וְשַׁעֲרוּרָה נִהְיְתָה בָּאָרֶץ. הַנְּבִיאִים נִבְּאוּ בַשֶּׁקֶר וְהַכֹּהֲנִים יִרְדּוּ עַל יְדֵיהֶם וְעַמִּי אָהֲבוּ כֵן וּמַה תַּעֲשׂוּ לְאַחֲרִיתָהּ

(Yeremyahu 5:29-31)

The Falsehood of D

Regarding D, let me show that it is false. We have seen the case of Akeidat Yitzchak. Clearly, E learned from the story of Bereshit 20 that Yitzchak was a "Mamzer," and therefore Elohim commanded that he had to die.

Now, RJE inserted the material Bereshit 22:11-16, with the name HaShem, saving Yitzchak from death, as it were. But RJE did not change the text of Bereshit 20, the text that deals with Sarah and Abimelech. In particular, he left Bereshit 20:14-16 (from E), in which sex is traded for money and goods (according to E).

RJE changed only the death verdict, not the analysis of E, that Yitzchak was a Mamzer. If Yitzchak was a Mamzer, and if we accept the Tikkun of J, are not all of Yisrael "Mamzerim?"

How then can Devarim 23:3 state that a Mamzer cannot come in the community of HaShem?

The Shita of E that Yitzchak was a Mamzer is accepted by RJE as legitimate, but in D it becomes unthinkable. Moreover, the law of D is obviously not ethical: the Mamzer's verdict, for a misdeed of one of his forefathers, is virtual exile.

It is not a coincidence that the law of D is in contradiction with RJE. This is a very deep issue, which shows the Divine background of the Torah of RJE. D is confirmed to be Lo-Ruchamah; she has no pity (Devarim 13:9, 19:21, 25:12), for the Mamzer. But Lo-Ruchamah is a spiritual "Mamzer" herself, and is not suitable for the community of HaShem, using language of D. And when the community of HaShem nevertheless accepts this "Mamzer," the proper verdict is exile.

As long as we keep D as Torah, we, all of Yisrael, rightfully have the status of "Mamzerim." We are judged, as it were, according to the Shita of E. Understand it well.

Ephraim has surrounded Me with falsehood. and the House of Israel with deceit. (Hoshea 12:1)

A sad, and bitter, voice

A sad, and bitter, voice arises from heaven. People do not listen to it, do not hear it. It raises its voice, it tries to raise its voice, but it is not heard, in the thundering face of Dinunim and Pa'apuphim, the tiny details of the laws of D and P. But exactly D and P are the problem, and not only its fine little details.

D caused the first Churban. D, and especially P, caused the second Churban. E caused the fall of the Northern kingdom. Only J, the Torah of Beit David, together with a transformed E, remains standing.

עלי אן?

The Pesukim ask a question:

אכתוב-לוֹ--רִבְּוּעַ , תּוֹרָתִי: כְּמוֹ-זָרַע, נֶחְשָׁבוּ

וְאָנֹכִי תִרְגַּלְתִּי לְאֶפְרַיִם, לְקָחָם עַל-זְרוֹעֹתָיו; וְלֹא יָדְעוּ, כִּי רְפָאתִים

וְעַמִּי תְלוּאִים, לִמְשׁוּבָתִי; וְאֶל-עַלִי, יִקְרָאֻהוּ--יַחַד, לֹא יְרוֹמֵם

אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ אֶפְרַיִם, אֲמַגֶּנְךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל
אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ כְאַדְמָה, אֲשִׂימְךָ כִּצְבֹאיִם

נֶהְפַּךְ עָלַי לִבִּי, יַחַד נִכְמְרוּ נִחוּמָי

"The Highest, where is He?", עַלִי אָׁן? It is the shouting of third Pasuk, a cry in the face of danger, referred to by the fate of the cities of Admah and Tzevoim. They don't know that, by shedding the Klipot of D and P, they can bring the Geula. They don't know that it is HaShem who healed them. The healing is right there, before their eyes, and they do not see it.

The answer then, to the question, is given by simply putting two Vavim in place, as in

אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ אֶפְרַיִם, ואֲמַגֶּנְךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל
אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ כְאַדְמָה, ואֲשִׂימְךָ כִּצְבֹאיִם

leading to the answer עַלִי אוֹן, or, assuming the knowledge of HaShem, as in

אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ אֶפְרַיִם, וְאֲמַגֶּנְךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל
אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ כְאַדְמָה, וְאֲשִׂימְךָ כִּצְבֹאיִם

leading to the name עליון.

שיר עליון

אכתוב-לוֹ--רִבְּוּעַ , תּוֹרָתִי: כְּמוֹ-זָרַע, נֶחְשָׁבוּ

וְאָנֹכִי תִרְגַּלְתִּי לְאֶפְרַיִם, לְקָחָם עַל-זְרוֹעֹתָיו; וְלֹא יָדְעוּ, כִּי רְפָאתִים

וְעַמִּי תְלוּאִים, לִמְשׁוּבָתִי; וְאֶל-עַלִי, יִקְרָאֻהוּ--יַחַד, לֹא יְרוֹמֵם

אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ אֶפְרַיִם, וְאֲמַגֶּנְךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל
אֵיךְ אֶתֶּנְךָ כְאַדְמָה, וְאֲשִׂימְךָ כִּצְבֹאיִם

נֶהְפַּךְ עָלַי לִבִּי, יַחַד נִכְמְרוּ נִחוּמָי

I will write him a square, My Torah, and they are counted as seed.
It was Me who reared Ephraim, who took them into his arms, and they did not know that I healed them.
My people waver about their relationship to Me: and they shout at Him, to the Highest; what is the response, would He not raise them up?
How can I give you up, Ephraim, and how can I hand you over, Israel?
How can I give you up like Admah, and how can I make you like Tzevoim?
My heart turned inside me, that is the response, My compassion has been kindled.

Hoshea 8:12, 11:3, 11:7, 11:8.

It Will Be

The final phrase of this week's reading is:

הֲשֹׁפֵט כָּל-הָאָרֶץ, לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט

a big Chidush about HaShem. This Chidush is the Heter to so radically change the text of Akeidat Yitzchak, of E. We want that HaShem does Tzedek here on Earth, not only in the Heavens, not only like אלֹהִים.

And because we want it, it will be.

Hoshea's Awareness

Hoshea refers three times to J, in 9:10, in 12:13, and in 2:20. He refers three times to E and J together, in 12:4, in 12:5, and in 4:3.

The verse 12:7 contains a hint to E (בֵּאלֹהֶיךָ תָשׁוּב) including the name Elohim, but this is in the context of 12:6, which clearly proclaims the name Hashem,

וַיהוָה, אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת--יְהוָה, זִכְרוֹ

It seems to be on purpose, 12:6-7 is a hint to וְהָיָה יְהוָה לִי, לֵאלֹהִים, which is from E, but an explicit separate reference to E, and to E alone, does not seem to exist in Hoshea. Especially, what follows in E, וְהָאֶבֶן הַזֹּאת, אֲשֶׁר-שַׂמְתִּי מַצֵּבָה--יִהְיֶה, בֵּית אֱלֹהִים, is only hinted at (perhaps) by Beth-El. An explicit reference to what existed in Beth-El, the Matzevah, is off limits to Hoshea. It can be seen as a sign of Hoshea's awareness, that the time of E, and its Matzevot, which had made the people of Israel misunderstand (11:7), is over (10:1,2 and 3:4), and that E and J must go together.

Hoshea has Sources

An earlier verse of Hoshea, 2:20, reads:

וְכָרַתִּי לָהֶם בְּרִית, בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא, עִם-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְעִם-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְרֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה; וְקֶשֶׁת וְחֶרֶב וּמִלְחָמָה אֶשְׁבּוֹר מִן-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִשְׁכַּבְתִּים לָבֶטַח

In the light of 4:3 it is clear that עִם-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְעִם-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם comes from Bereshit 2:19. The words of the third item, רֶמֶשׂ הָאֲדָמָה, come from Bereshit 6:7:

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶמְחֶה אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה, עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם: כִּי נִחַמְתִּי, כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם

which is from J also.

It was P who rephrased Hoshea 2:20 to every beast, fowl, and creeping thing (Bereshit 1:30). Likewise, it was P who combined Hoshea 2:20 and Hoshea 4:3, to every beast, fowl, creeping thing and fish (Bereshit 9:2), and to fish, fowl, and every creeping thing (Bereshit 1:28).

In summary, Hoshea has sources in E and J, while P is sourced in Hoshea and possibly in D - Melachim (I) 5:13 and Devarim 4:17-18, which seem to derive from Bereshit 6:7 and Hoshea.

Another Citation of E and J

The verse Hosea 4:3

עַל-כֵּן תֶּאֱבַל הָאָרֶץ, וְאֻמְלַל כָּל-יוֹשֵׁב בָּהּ, בְּחַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם; וְגַם-דְּגֵי הַיָּם, יֵאָסֵפוּ

is sometimes seen as containing a citation of Bereshit 1, in reverse order. If this would be true, it would be a case of a citation of P, which therefore would have existed in the days of Hoshea. This, however, is not the case. The verse contains a phrase taken from

כָּל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וְאֵת כָּל-עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם

that is, from Bereshit 2, from J, followed by a phrase taken from

אִם אֶת-כָּל-דְּגֵי הַיָּם יֵאָסֵף לָהֶם

that is, from "BaMidbar 11," from E. It is another indication that Hoshea had E and J before him, and that he purposefully used them in a unified way. The proof is the word יֵאָסֵף, which is copied to the verse Hosea 4:3.

This is similar to the verses Hosea 12:4-5:

בַּבֶּטֶן, עָקַב אֶת-אָחִיו; וּבְאוֹנוֹ, שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים. וַיָּשַׂר אֶל-מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל, בָּכָה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן-לוֹ; בֵּית-אֵל, יִמְצָאֶנּוּ, וְשָׁם, יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ

Both verses combine E (שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים and וַיָּשַׂר אֶל-מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל) and J (בַּבֶּטֶן, עָקַב אֶת-אָחִיו and בֵּית-אֵל, יִמְצָאֶנּוּ and יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ).

Dinunim and Pa'apupim

We have to fight, with Chochma, the Dinunim and the Pa'apupim (Pa'aphuphim, Pa'apuphim), the nonsense of D and P. We must, רִיבוּ בְאִמְּכֶם, רִיבוּ, in the hope that וְתָסֵר זְנוּנֶיהָ מִפָּנֶיהָ וְנַאֲפוּפֶיהָ מִבֵּין שָׁדֶיהָ, some will listen. Hear Yisrael!

The Torah of Hoshea

Even if Hoshea is not RJE, the Torah of RJE is his Torah. The innovations of D are later, and are called "Lo-Ruchamah", after Miriam, female. The innovations of P are yet later, and they are called "Lo-Ammi", after Aharon, male. The fast of "17" Tammuz is today. The reason is "Lo-Ruchamah", no pity.

Then we enter the three weeks until Tisha B'Av, The reason for Tisha B'Av is "Lo-Ammi", not My People. Some say both "Lo-Ammi" and "Lo-Ruchamah". You are not My People and I will not be yours. Yet, it will happen that instead of "Lo-Ammi" they will be called "Children of the living God". That is why you are fasting.

But the fasting is only a means towards a goal, and the goal is to "seek out HaShem their God, and David their king", and to "tremble for HaShem and for His goodness in the end of days." (Hoshea 3:5)

Jezreel, finally, is the father of "JE", and of the reconstructed version. A reconstruction of JE is certainly tainted by contamination from D and P: Jezreel has the same "Yichus" as Lo-Ruchamah and Lo-Ammi. There is something similar. Nevertheless, JE is incomparably greater than D and P, like Moshe is greater than Miriam and Aharon.

Those who think that there is an intended relationship between my version of JE, and "the reconstructed version", let him, of her, think twice. Better still, let him come with his own proposal. If only all of Israel would start making their own proposals.

The Missing Letter

The Pasuk Hoshea 8:12

אכתוב-לו רבו תורתי כמו-זר נחשבו

seems to be missing something. The strange word רבו is traditionally read as רבי, multitudes, or as רבוא, myriad. Consequently, the Torah of HaShem is seen as constructed of out of multitudes, or of a myriad, ten thousand items. I would like to hypothesize the reading רבוע, a square. The square would be 160 times 160 words. The words רבו and זר are almost equal in Gematria, and therefore it makes sense that רבו is counted like זר. If we add a letter to one, we have to add the same letter to the second, רבוע is counted like זרע. Hence, in my view, the Pasuk must be read:

אכתוב-לו רבוע תורתי כמו-זרע נחשבו

"When I write My Torah for him as a square, they will be considered like seed."

It fits the prophetic context, and more or less answers the question, which we did not ask, why it says "for him." But, the Pasuk gives an answer to another question, which asks itself in the face of the utter destructon of the ten tribes of Yisrael. And the answer is "When I write My Torah for him as a square," and it is clear to who grasps it.

This would mean that "My Torah" is the combination of E and J, that we have called (my version of) the Torah Kedumah. This fits Hoshea, who in 12:4-5 refers to concepts of both E and J, and who in 9:10 refers to the J-story of Baal Peor (Hat-tip Friedman, though Hoshea 9 seems a later insertion, just as Hoshea 13:1-11). Moreover, fragments like 2:2 and 12:1 place Hoshea in the middle of E and J. See also this. He could have been RJE, as may be suggested by the Pasuk Hoshea 8:12.

Financial Darkness

Almost two years ago, I wrote a call to prepare for the darkness that will start to cover the world at the end of 5775. We now entered the last quarter of 5775. The darkness of financial chaos is almost upon us. That darkness is to temporarily stop the nations of the world, led by the US and Europe, in their track of imposing a "democratic solution" on Israel.

Tikkun of Moshiach

Why does Yishmael exist? To force, through war if needed, Aharon to merge with Moshe. Why does Edom exist? To force, through war if needed, Moshiach ben Yosef to merge with Moshiach ben David. By "merge" we mean self-cancellation in view of the Truth, the Tikkun of Moshiach.

And if one would argue that this would leave us with eight Sephirot, let him count Keter double, and let him count Da'at. Thus, in the world after the Tikkun of Moshiach, Atik Yamim is on top, above Arich Anpin, above Da'at, above Yisrael/Tiferet, above Moshe, above Moshiach ben David. These six sephirot are accompanied by Chochmah and Binah, and by Chesed and Gevurah/Din.

Dangling Berachah

As promised, the dangling Berachah , which is in fact well-known:

וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָהָם, יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי-גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם, וַעֲבָדוּם, וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם--אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה. וְגַם אֶת-הַגּוֹי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲבֹדוּ, דָּן אָנֹכִי; וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן יֵצְאוּ, בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל. וְאַתָּה תָּבוֹא אֶל-אֲבֹתֶיךָ, בְּשָׁלוֹם: תִּקָּבֵר, בְּשֵׂיבָה טוֹבָה. וְדוֹר רְבִיעִי, יָשׁוּבוּ הֵנָּה: כִּי לֹא-שָׁלֵם עֲו‍ֹן הָאֱמֹרִי, עַד-הֵנָּה

RJE did not want to lose this final Berachah from E, from the account that could not be given, and made it part of J's "promise" of the Brit Bein HaBetarim. The bold italic sentence, a variant of the statement before the "dangling Berachah", seems to be added by RJE.

וקרב אתם אחד אל אחד לך לעץ אחד והיו לאחדים בידך

הנה אני לקח את עץ יוסף אשר ביד אפרים ושבטי ישראל חבריו ונתתי אותם עליו את עץ יהודה ועשיתם לעץ אחד והיו אחד בידי

Teshuva

RJE made a historic document, a divinely inspired document, that is superior to its sources, in particular to J and E, and their sources. A document that is superior to what came after it, to D and P, and anything based on D and P.

Superior, just as Moshe's level of Nevuah in incomparable to the level of Miriam, or of Aharon. This is not a simple matter. If Miriam and Aharon had only appreciated the true greatness of Moshe. But they did not understand. This is not a simple matter at all. Despite the existence of the story of Miriam and Aharon, the story of D and P occurred, later, because D and P did not understand.

And because D and P did not understand what they could not understand, we were exiled from the Land. First, D caused Galut Bavel, like Miriam was exiled for limited time, and then P caused our current exile, Galut Aharon.

At the end of this exile, we need to understand what is the reason for it. Suddenly, it will be clear why it is called Galut Aharon, when Hashem will tell us, and we will be ashamed, so terribly ashamed. And we will do Teshuva, like Miriam, like Aharon.

Not so is my servant Moshe
in all my house he is faithful
Mouth to mouth I shall speak through him
with vision and not in riddles

You can read my version of the document of Moshe, with a translation, once a week, 160 times 160 words, for three years.

משה אמת ותורתו אמת

A Story Without End

This is what the sons of Aharon, P, did. They spoke out against the Midianite background of Zipporah, the wife of Moshe. I refer to Bamidbar 25 and Bamidbar 31, where, in the name of Hashem, the Midianites are blamed, rather than Moabites, and destroyed. Further, they demoted Zipporah by splitting up the account of the Brit Milah, effectively replacing it by Bereshit 17. They did all of this to Zipporah, in order to denigrate Moshe, and to elevate themselves. And Moshe, extremely humble, did not utter a word in protest.

And they, "the priests," convinced a great percentage of Jews, that their contributions to "Torah" are Torah. But, yet, the story does not end here. The story did not end just yet. I am not going to say how it will end. If you want to know, E gives an excellent impression, in Bamidbar 12.

Not so is my servant Moshe
in all my house he is faithful

Moshe's Son(s)

According to J, Moshe had one son, Gershom (see Shemot 2:22). According to E, he had two sons, Gershom and Eliezer (see Shemot 18:4). It says in Shemot 4:20 that Moshe took his wife and sons, plural. As this is from J, it likely originally said son, instead of sons, and it was RJE who made this small change, which is even smaller in Hebrew, בָּנָיו, rather than בָּנָו.

Brit of Zipporah

We let the dangling Berachah dangle for now. Don't worry, it will fall into its place. First, I would like to discuss another editor. Consider the passage Shemot 4:24-26:

It was on the way, in a lodging place, that Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him. So Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to his feet; and she said, "You caused my bridegroom's bloodshed!" So he released him; then she said, "A bridegroom's bloodshed was because of circumcision."

This is very strange indeed. The excessive use of pronouns, with no antecedents, suggest that the passage is not in its proper context. Looking for the proper context, there is only one candidate. It must be after Shemot 2:21-22:

Moses desired to dwell with the man; and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses. She gave birth to a son and he named him Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign land."

and before the phrase "And it was after many days". Therefore, it must be right after "Shemot 2:21-22", yielding:

Moses desired to dwell with the man; and he gave his daughter Zipporah to Moses. She gave birth to a son and he named him Gershom, for he said, "I have been a stranger in a foreign land." It was there, in the land of Midian, that Zipporah took a sharp stone and cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to his feet; and she said, "You are being a bloodshed to Me!" And Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him, and He released him; then she said, "A bridegroom's bloodshed was because of circumcision."

In this passage, the antecedent of the pronouns in "It was on the way, in a lodging place, that Hashem encountered him and sought to kill him" must be Gershom, the latest person mentioned by name. As for the editor that created the split, we must suspect that who added P to the Torah, wanted to enhance "his" Bereshit 17, the competing passage of the Brit Milah. By splitting the paragraph, and so introducing many problems of interpretation, the J-passage of the Brit Milah is automatically demoted. And, in the eyes of the editor, Avraham would surely be a better mohel than Zipporah, for the generations. And, for the generations, would the Brit of Abraham not seem to be more elevated than the Brit of Zipporah? But know the truth: the Brit of Zipporah, the Brit of "foreskin for life," of Chatan Damim, is the (much) older one.

The phrase "It was on the way, in a lodging place", was changed to "It was there, in the land of Midian", וַיְהִי שָׁם, בְּאֶרֶץ-מִדְיָן in Hebrew. Mutatis Mutandis, and Gershom was named also after the Brit Milah.

More On RJE

A problem arose for RJE, when he reached

Abraham proceeded and took a wife whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran and Jokshan and Medan amd Midian and Ishbak and Shuah, Jokshan begot Sheba and Dedan, and the children of Dedan were Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. And the children of Midian - Ephah and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah; all these were the descendants of Keturah.

The text was to be the introduction to the birth of Esav and Yaakov, according to E, which is alternative to the story of Yitzchak, who died according to E. The alternative account could obviously not be given. Instead, RJE wrote a text, to do away with the children of Avraham:

Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. But to the concubine-children who were Abraham's, Abraham gave gifts; then he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he was still alive, eastward to the land of the east.

But the account that could not be given, still had a Berachah in it which Abraham received at the end of his life. It was possible to save this dangling Berachah, and RJE did this in an ingenious way.

RJE

The transformation of

וּבְרֶדֶת הַטַּל עַל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, לָיְלָה, יֵרֵד הַמָּן, עָלָיו. וְהַמָּן, כִּזְרַע-גַּד הוּא; וְעֵינוֹ, כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח; וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ, כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן. שָׁטוּ הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ וְטָחֲנוּ בָרֵחַיִם, אוֹ דָכוּ בַּמְּדֹכָה, וּבִשְּׁלוּ בַּפָּרוּר, וְעָשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עֻגוֹת

into

וְהַמָּן, כִּזְרַע-גַּד הוּא; וְעֵינוֹ, כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח. שָׁטוּ הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ וְטָחֲנוּ בָרֵחַיִם, אוֹ דָכוּ בַּמְּדֹכָה, וּבִשְּׁלוּ בַּפָּרוּר, וְעָשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עֻגוֹת; וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ, כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן. וּבְרֶדֶת הַטַּל עַל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, לָיְלָה, יֵרֵד הַמָּן, עָלָיו

was work done by "RJE", the editor that combined E and J. He did so in an exceptionally brilliant way, taking the story line of J as baseline and taking as much as possible from E without interfering with the story of J. Taking from E involved also transformations as above. Note that no words seem to be lost, only the order has changed, according to their (new) context. For another example of the liberty of RJE, see this or this, where RJE takes an E-text, writes a new end according to J, and so rewrites the story without changing the E-text itself.

E's Number?

The passage "BaMidbar 11", which we moved to here, consists of three paragraphs. The following is the first:

ַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים, רַע בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוָה; וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָה, וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ, וַתִּבְעַר-בָּם אֵשׁ יְהוָה, וַתֹּאכַל בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה. וַיִּצְעַק הָעָם, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, וַתִּשְׁקַע הָאֵשׁ. וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, תַּבְעֵרָה: כִּי-בָעֲרָה בָם, אֵשׁ יְהוָה. וְהָאסַפְסֻף אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבּוֹ, הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה; וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ, גַּם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר. זָכַרְנוּ, אֶת-הַדָּגָה, אֲשֶׁר-נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם, חִנָּם; אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים, וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים, וְאֶת-הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת-הַבְּצָלִים, וְאֶת-הַשּׁוּמִים. וְעַתָּה נַפְשֵׁנוּ יְבֵשָׁה, אֵין כֹּל--בִּלְתִּי, אֶל-הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ. וְהַמָּן, כִּזְרַע-גַּד הוּא; וְעֵינוֹ, כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח. שָׁטוּ הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ וְטָחֲנוּ בָרֵחַיִם, אוֹ דָכוּ בַּמְּדֹכָה, וּבִשְּׁלוּ בַּפָּרוּר, וְעָשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עֻגוֹת; וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ, כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן. וּבְרֶדֶת הַטַּל עַל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, לָיְלָה, יֵרֵד הַמָּן, עָלָיו. וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם, בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו--אִישׁ, לְפֶתַח אָהֳלוֹ; וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה מְאֹד, וּבְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה רָע. וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ, וְלָמָּה לֹא-מָצָתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ: לָשׂוּם, אֶת-מַשָּׂא כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--עָלָי. הֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי, אֵת כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--אִם-אָנֹכִי, יְלִדְתִּיהוּ: כִּי-תֹאמַר אֵלַי שָׂאֵהוּ בְחֵיקֶךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת-הַיֹּנֵק, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָיו. מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר, לָתֵת לְכָל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי-יִבְכּוּ עָלַי לֵאמֹר, תְּנָה-לָּנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכֵלָה. לֹא-אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי כָבֵד, מִמֶּנִּי. וְאִם-כָּכָה אַתְּ-עֹשֶׂה לִּי, הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וְאַל-אֶרְאֶה, בְּרָעָתִי

It can be split into three paragraphs itself, as follows:

וּבְרֶדֶת הַטַּל עַל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, לָיְלָה, יֵרֵד הַמָּן, עָלָיו. וְהַמָּן, כִּזְרַע-גַּד הוּא; וְעֵינוֹ, כְּעֵין הַבְּדֹלַח; וְהָיָה טַעְמוֹ, כְּטַעַם לְשַׁד הַשָּׁמֶן. שָׁטוּ הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ וְטָחֲנוּ בָרֵחַיִם, אוֹ דָכוּ בַּמְּדֹכָה, וּבִשְּׁלוּ בַּפָּרוּר, וְעָשׂוּ אֹתוֹ עֻגוֹת

וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים, רַע בְּאָזְנֵי יְהוָה; וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוָה, וַיִּחַר אַפּוֹ, וַתִּבְעַר-בָּם אֵשׁ יְהוָה, וַתֹּאכַל בִּקְצֵה הַמַּחֲנֶה. וַיִּצְעַק הָעָם, אֶל-מֹשֶׁה; וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, וַתִּשְׁקַע הָאֵשׁ. וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא, תַּבְעֵרָה: כִּי-בָעֲרָה בָם, אֵשׁ יְהוָה

. וְהָאסַפְסֻף אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבּוֹ, הִתְאַוּוּ תַּאֲוָה; וַיָּשֻׁבוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ, גַּם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וַיֹּאמְרוּ, מִי יַאֲכִלֵנוּ בָּשָׂר. זָכַרְנוּ, אֶת-הַדָּגָה, אֲשֶׁר-נֹאכַל בְּמִצְרַיִם, חִנָּם; אֵת הַקִּשֻּׁאִים, וְאֵת הָאֲבַטִּחִים, וְאֶת-הֶחָצִיר וְאֶת-הַבְּצָלִים, וְאֶת-הַשּׁוּמִים. וְעַתָּה נַפְשֵׁנוּ יְבֵשָׁה, אֵין כֹּל--בִּלְתִּי, אֶל-הַמָּן עֵינֵינוּ. וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם, בֹּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו--אִישׁ, לְפֶתַח אָהֳלוֹ; וַיִּחַר-אַף יְהוָה מְאֹד, וּבְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה רָע. וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-יְהוָה, לָמָה הֲרֵעֹתָ לְעַבְדֶּךָ, וְלָמָּה לֹא-מָצָתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ: לָשׂוּם, אֶת-מַשָּׂא כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--עָלָי. הֶאָנֹכִי הָרִיתִי, אֵת כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה--אִם-אָנֹכִי, יְלִדְתִּיהוּ: כִּי-תֹאמַר אֵלַי שָׂאֵהוּ בְחֵיקֶךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת-הַיֹּנֵק, עַל הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתָיו. מֵאַיִן לִי בָּשָׂר, לָתֵת לְכָל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי-יִבְכּוּ עָלַי לֵאמֹר, תְּנָה-לָּנוּ בָשָׂר וְנֹאכֵלָה. לֹא-אוּכַל אָנֹכִי לְבַדִּי, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-כָּל-הָעָם הַזֶּה: כִּי כָבֵד, מִמֶּנִּי. וְאִם-כָּכָה אַתְּ-עֹשֶׂה לִּי, הָרְגֵנִי נָא הָרֹג--אִם-מָצָאתִי חֵן, בְּעֵינֶיךָ; וְאַל-אֶרְאֶה, בְּרָעָתִי

The first of the these three has the exact same words as the bold section in the original text, but is reordered so that it now is an (alternative) introduction of the Manna. This would have been the introduction of Manna of E.

If the reordering is accepted, the third paragraph would be of E also, and that would set the stage of the next two paragraphs, which would be E and not J. In summary, all of "BaMidbar 11" would be E, including the italic section.

Hence, the 600 Elef Ragli, would have been E's number. The mention of "Ohel Moed" would be another sign of E, as it does not appear in any part of J.

And the conclusion would have to be that the two solutions to the problem that Moshe could not handle the people by himself, would both be from E; the Sanhedrin and the solution of Yitro.

And the question how many people stood at "Har Sinai," would finally receive an answer, from E. There were 600 Elef Ragli, minus the result of the Macah Rabah Meod, minus 3,000.

J's Number: 600 Walking Troops

Regarding J's number of 600,000 people, it may be read as 600 "Elef Ragli", 600 walking troops. This interpretation is explored in an article for P's later census numbers also. It seems to me that the explanation, in the article, of the numbers of the Levi'im and the first-born, must be applied elsewhere in the same way. The implication is that a "walking troop" would be about 30 people. So the people, the 600 Elef Ragli, were about 18,000, before a large multitude died. It would be 36,000 if one assumes that only men are counted.

Why The Shabbat?

Why do we keep the Shabbat? Let the sources speak:

E: Six days you shall do the things you do, and on the seventh day you shall cease, so that your ox and your ass will rest, and your maid's son will be refreshed. (Shemot 23:12)
J: Six days you shall work, and on the seventh day you shall cease. In plowing time and in harvest, you shall cease. (Shemot 34:21)
D: Observe the Shabbat day, to make it holy, as HaShem, your G-d, commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, and the seventh day is a Shabbat to HaShem, your G-d. You shall not do any work, you and your son and your daughter and your servant and your maid and your ox and your ass or any animal and your alien who is in your gates - in order that your servant and your maid will rest like you, and you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Mitzraim and HaShem, your G-d, brought you out from there with a strong hand and an outstretched arm. On account of this, HaShem, your G-d, has commanded you to do the Shabbat day. (Devarim 5:12-15)
P: Remember the Shabbat day to make it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, and the seventh day is a Shabbat to HaShem, your G-d. You shall not do any work, you and your son and your daughter, your servant and your maid and your animal and your alien who is in your gates. Because for six days HaShem made the skies and the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day. On account of this, HaShem blessed the Shabbat day and made it holy. (Shemot 20:8-11)

The Evolution of a Chag

How do we celebrate Chag HaPesach? Let the sources speak:

E: There is one day of Pesach. A sheep is to be slaughtered and eaten, and leavened bread is not eaten, because we left Mitzraim in haste. This day is not a Chag in the technical sense.
J: There are seven days of Chag HaMatzot. Unleavened bread is eaten as a reminder of the Manna that fell in the Desert. The seventh day is a Chag to HaShem.
D: There are seven days of Pesach/Chag HaMatzot. The first day, the Pesach sacrifice is brought, in the place that HaShem will choose (the Temple in Yerushalayim). It is eaten in the night of the first day. There are daily sacrifices for each of the seven days. Unleavened bread is eaten, to commemorate that we left Mitzraim in haste. The seventh day is a day of convocation, and we do not work. (Devarim 16:1-8)
P: There are seven days of Pesach/Chag HaMatzot. The first and the seventh day are days of holy convocation, and we do not work. The Pesach to HaShem is eaten in the night of the first day. We eat unleavened bread for seven days, because it is Chag Matzot. There are daily sacrifices for each of the seven days. (Vayikra 23:4-8, Shemot 12:1-11)

D seems to be the first to combine Pesach and Chag HaMatzot, and the first to prescribe daily sacrifices in the Temple. Only P prescribes that there is a chag on the first day, the chag of HaShem's Pesach proper. Regarding Chag HaMatzot, the Halacha is that Chag HaMatzot is according to J.

How Many Jews?

How many Jews were in the exodus from Mitzraim? Again, let the sources speak.

E: Unknown, but a multitude in the eyes of Moav (Bamidbar 22:3).
J: 600,000 people had to be fed by Moshe, upon exit of Mitzraim. But then, quite immediately, Am Rav, a large multitude, died. How many remained is unknown.
P: 600,000 men, age 20 to 60. So, presumably, at least 2,000,000 people.
D: Like the stars of the skies, for multitude (Devarim 1:9). Significantly, he did not mention the number 600,000. He knew of the large multitude that died, according to J. And he did not know P.

You guessed it: The Halacha is according to J.

Why Did Moshe Die?

Moshe died, and did not enter the land. Why? Let the sources speak:

E: "Here, your days to die have come close. Call Yehoshua..." (Devarim 31:14). No specific reason is given.
J: He reached the maximum age of 120. (Devarim 34:5-7)
D: He was sentenced for Chet HaMeraglim. Caleb was not the only exception to the sentence. Yehoshua, the successor of Moshe, was the other. There were no more exceptions. It definitely was Chet HaMeraglim. (Devarim 1:37)
P: The Chiddush we accept, in part: Yehoshua is an exception next to Caleb. But Moshe is an exception also. Rather, he had to die because, at the waters of Meriva, while he was commanded to speak at the rock, he hit the rock. (BaMidbar 20:8-13)

If someone asked me what is the truth, I would avoid the question, by saying that the Halacha is according to J.

Some Devarim

In chapter 9 of Sefer Devarim we find the Pasuk 22:

וּבְתַבְעֵרָה, וּבְמַסָּה, וּבְקִבְרֹת, הַתַּאֲוָה--מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם, אֶת-יְהוָה

The Pasuk explains the background why HaShem was so angry, as He was angry at Aharon (Pasuk 20) for making the Golden Calf. But what follows, in the Pesukim 23, 24 is mindboggling:

וּבִשְׁלֹחַ יְהוָה אֶתְכֶם, מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לֵאמֹר, עֲלוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם; וַתַּמְרוּ, אֶת-פִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם, וְלֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם לוֹ, וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלוֹ. מַמְרִים הֱיִיתֶם, עִם-יְהוָה, מִיּוֹם, דַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם

First of all, this is a repetition of kinds of chapter 1. Why is this brought up again? Second, note the slight differences between 1:22 and 9:23, it looks that 9:23 comes from the priestly version. Third, this happened after the Golden Calf, so it surely is not a reason for HaShem being angry here.

The key to the solution is the realization that Pasuk 9:22 has the third problem also. The places Taberah and Kibroth Hattaavah are places of Divine anger, but this takes place in BaMidbar 11, also after the Golden Calf. It is only in the Torah Kedumah that the text is restored, and the event in these places are indeed next to Masah, before the Golden Calf.

We conclude that a late editor, probably the redactor R, added the Pesukim 9:23,24, to hide that he was the one that moved material to BaMidbar 11, as explained.

In the same chapter, verse 10 is very (too) elaborate, and uses the expression בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים, an expression of P. I propose that it is an addition too, by the redactor R to make us believe that D "knew" P.

And now that we are at it, the verse 1:39:

וְטַפְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם לָבַז יִהְיֶה, וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרָע--הֵמָּה, יָבֹאוּ שָׁמָּה; וְלָהֶם אֶתְּנֶנָּה, וְהֵם יִירָשׁוּהָ

should be, in terms of D:

וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרָע--הֵמָּה, יָבֹאוּ שָׁמָּה; וְלָהֶם אֶתְּנֶנָּה, וְהֵם יִירָשׁוּהָ

The difference is a citation of P, presumably by R, or even later.