LENGTHY/DETAILED POST
Ami Shavuos Feature, 2014
I
Introduction
Many of us may recall the first time as children observing a weekly parsha that begins in the middle of a perek and wondering why this was so. Our respective rebbeim would have likely informed us that the perakim are ‘nisht fun unzerer’ –not from Jewish sources.
(We should note that the division of the parshios as well is of non-Sinai origin, and were only accepted by all of klal yisroel –along with a yearly Simchas Torah –about 800 years ago. However, as opposed to the perakim, the division of weekly parshios were chosen not just by Jews but our chachamim. Cf. Ohr Zarua hilchos Shabbos siman 45, Meiri, Kiryas Sefer maamer 5 perek 1, and Tanchuma Ki Sisa 3 where views are brought suggesting that even our present-day divisions were taught from Moshe or from Ezra. For the complete history of our reading of the Torah each Shabbos and the yearly completion see “Toldos Simchas Torah’.)
Many, myself included, left it there. Sure, we continue to use the division of chapters and verse as a reference point, but that is where it ends.
However, and as we shall see, there are blatant blunders in basic pshat – and in emunah pshuta – that one can make should one view these chapter divisions as anything accurate or m’sinai.
While nobody disputes the strange origin of the chapter divisions found in Tanach, nevertheless some continue to see these perakim as something spiritual. They explain that once something becomes accepted and used by bnei Torah it can take on a new kedusha. (See Likutei Sichos, chelek 16 p. 229, and Oberlander quoted below)
The Chabad chumash for instance (Gutnick, p. 1339) explains that parshas Ha’azinu begins in, and spans, the 32nd chapter of Devarim. This represents, they explain in quoting the last rebbe of Chabad, the ‘lev/‘heart’ (32=lev). Furthermore, the Torah itself , they continue, begins and ends with ‘lev/32’: the beis of ‘Berieshis ‘and the lamed of the last word of the Torah, ‘Yisroel’.
Even in standard editions of chumash we find at the end of sefer Bereishis a listing of the number of verses in that sefer and their significance…as well as the number of perakim (50) and their significance! (On this last source, see Ayin HaSofer, ad loc)
Stranger still is when it comes to sefer Tehillim. Our editions have 150 chapters, the gemara (see Yerushalmi, Shabbos, Kol Kisvei, Tosphos to Pesachim 117a, and Meseches Sofereim,) had 147 – corresponding to the years of Yaakov – and the Meiri (peirush on Tehillim) even had 151!
In this monograph, and in honor of Shavous, we will delve into this complex and intriguing history and how it effects halacha and hashkafa. We will explain the divisions that came from Sinai and how over time they have become seemingly eclipsed in common usage by the ‘Chapter and Verse’ system found in all chumashim. While we simply do not have room to get deep into everything, the goal here is to give a basic primer.
II
Twenty-Four Sifrei Tanach
Our mesorah is infused with the idea that there are but twenty-four sefarim comprising all Tanach, Torah, Neviim, Kesuvim.
- The gemara (Bava Basra 14-15) lists the books of neviim and kesuvim, as well who composed each. All one has to do then is to add the chamisha chumshei Torah and we have a total of 24 sifrei Tanach.
- The gemara (Taanis 8a) explicitly gives us this number: “Rav Adda bar Ahava reviewed his studies twenty-four times corresponding to Torah neviim and kesuvim…”
- The numbers 12 and 24 (double 12) repeat over and over again, from the 12 months, to the 12 shevatim, the 12 hours in day or night, to 24 hours in a full day cycle, and the 24,000 who died by baal peour, and that same number in the days of Rebbe Akiva. Based on the this, the Midrash (Bamidbar Rabba 14:18), in a long discussion of the numbers relating to the nissi’ims’s gifts to the mishkan quotes that pasuk (Bamidbar 7:88) “and all the cattle for shelamim equaled 24 oxen”… and adds, “corresponding to the 24 books [of Tanach]”.
- In Koheles Rabba, the midrash, in commenting on the pasuk (Koheles 12:12) “More than these, my child, beware…”, teaches us that Shlomo was referring to learning as sacred anything beyond “the 24 books [of Tanach]” (cf. Targum ad loc) (see also Tanchuma Vayelech 3, Shmos Rabba 41:5,. Cf. Targum to Koheles 12:12)
The above information is critical for our discussion because it is not just the perakim that is ‘nisht fun unzerer’, but some of the divisions we find in modern sifrei Tanach as well.
I was in 7th grade when I first visited eretz yisroel. I remember very little of the trip –or of the many tours our family took. I do, however, remember a joke one of the tour-guides made. As we were driving up a hill he said, “If you look out your window to your right will see the kever of Shmuel aleph, and to your left that of Shmuel beis.”
As a 7th grader I though this was the funniest thing I have ever heard. However, as I got older I realized how deep this silly joke is. This is due to the fact that not only is there but one Shmuel hanavi in both books (of course!), but there is really no such thing as two books of Shmuel!
The pasuk (II Divrei Hayamim 29:29) and the gemara (Bava Basra 14b) tell us the Shmuel wrote the sefer (singular) that bears his name.
In fact, the pasuk referenced above from Divrei Hayaim was from ‘II’ Divrei Hayamim, yet Divrei HaYamim too was initially only one sefer!
The same goes for Melachim –now, oddly, in two parts.
Indeed, based on our current counting of books we have far more than twenty-four sifrei Tanach!
Strangest of all is the ‘books’ of Ezra and Nechemia. Not only is sefer Nechemia not mentioned in the listing found in Bava Basra, but in another gemara (Sukka 37a) a pasuk in Nechemia is mentioned as being from sefer Ezra (Nechamia 8:15)!!
This is because there is no Sefer Nechemia, rather it is to be the second half of Sefer Ezra! (See Yad Yosef to Ein Yaakov, Sanhedrin 93b)
In fact, a member of my shul (R’ Fruchter) kindly checked on his Bar Ilan search tool how many times Rashi references a pasuk in Nechemia by referencing it as if it was from Ezra. He left a list on my desk of more than ten occurrences, explaining that there were still many, many more he left off!
(I saw a bold claim in the Artscroll Ezra [p. 59] where they suggest –to answer an unrelated question – that Rashi already saw Ezra and Nechemia as two separate books. Their proof is from a Rashi to Sanhedrin 93b. It seems to me, however, that this assertion may be based on a faulty reading of this Rashi, not to mention the countless other times Rashi implies the opposite of their conclusion.).
So how did it come to be that today we divide the one long sefer Ezra into two books, Ezra and Nechemia?
Further complicating matters is another gemara (Sanhadrin 93b). The gemara outright asks why Nechemia, who said much of the book of ‘Ezra’ (the original version) was not zoche to have the book named after him. The gemara explains that this is a punishment for the fact that Nechemia took too much credit for all that he accomplished.
What comes out of this is not just a problem of splitting Ezra into two books (a problem we have with Shmuel, Melachaim, and Divrei HaYamim as well) but of splitting Ezra and then naming the second book ‘Nechemia’ when the gemara explicitly tells us not to name a book after him!!
To this last question, Rav Reuvien Margilios (Margolios Hayam) quotes the Chida as explaining that chazal did not mean that Nechemia’s punishment was to be indefinite, as certainly, at a certain point in history, he would become absolved. This is why Hashem, later, allowed the division of ‘Ezra’ into two books and for the latter to indeed be called ‘Nechemia’.
Interestingly, although Christians have also divided trei asar into separate books (making a total of 39 book to Tanach!), this has not entered most editions of Tanach.
I say ‘interestingly’ because this fact carries a hint of irony, for this is one instance where new divisions would make the most sense. The gemara informs us that the twelve sefarim that make up trei asar are/were indeed separate books, and rather because of the small size of each of these sefarim (Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Ovadia, Yona, etc.) there was a fear that if we would leave them as individual sefarim that they may become lost (Bava Basra 13b, 14b, with Marahsha who posits that this is the case with all twelve books and not just Hoshea).
III
How Did It Happen? Part 1
Parsha vs. Parsha
Both the additions of chapters as well as the separation of certain books entered into klal yisroel at about the same time.
To understand how this happened, and when, we must start at the beginning.
A sefer Torah is divided by ‘parshios’ (not to be confused with what we colloquially call the weekly parsha). These are breaks inside the Torah scroll that represent a new subject, event, or simply the pause that Moshe was given when he was being taught by Hashem (see Rashi to Vayikra 1:1 with Toras Kohanim).
Even Nach (Neviim and Kesuvim) has such breaks (although, sometimes, what/where those are up for vociferous debate).
There are two types of these breaks:
- Pesuchos (represented in most standard printed chumashim as a letter pei)
- Setumos (represented in most standard printed chumashim by the letter samech).
Between these parshios, the Torah will leave a space. This space will consist of an area the size of nine letters.
So that a ‘stumah’ refers to when a break between the end of one parsha and the start of a new one happens on the same line, but with a nine- letter space in between them, while a pesucha reffers to the end of a parsha on one line with the new parsha starting on the next (also having a break of nine letters).
Any sefer Torah that is missing even one of these breaks is deemed pasul.
In any event, historically, in order to reference a pasuk, a person would have to be proficient in these pesuchos and setumos.
All of this began to change at two distinct points in Jewish history. In this section we will discuss the first step.
Debate and Concordance
(For a thorough review of the details of this forthcoming discussion see yarchon Sinai, 42, article by Rav Shmuel Weingarten; Sicha L’Sefer Hoshea, Rav Yehudah Eisenberg; Minhag Avoseinu B’Yadeinu, Rav Gedelia Oberlander, and Rav Finfer’s sefer mentioned below, et al.)
It all began in the early 13th century. Although the church started to divide Tanach in this fashion for about one hundred years prior –likely begun by either Bishop S. Langton of England or Hugh of Saint-Cher of the Dominican Order –it would still take some time for it to catch on, as this was well before the printing press.
By the late 1200’s the first translated concordance was composed, and utilized by many Jews.
A concordance is a listing of all the words –and where to find them –in all of Tanach.
(I remember the first time I saw an English concordance thinking that they borrowed the word ‘concordatzia’ from the Yiddish! But in fact it is the other way around; for whatever reason the Christians were the first to put such a book together)
Already by 1330 we find our own chachamim utilizing this system, with Rav Shlomo ben Yishmoel wrote in his side-notes:
“These are the chapters of the nations –which they call ‘kapittalash’ -, each of the 24 books in their language and copied from them so that one may be able to answer their questions quickly, those [questions] which they ask [us] each and every day on matters that relate to our faith and our holy Torah…”
In addition these reasons, many of our greatest leaders had to publicly debate priests and other Christian leaders. The only viable way to prepare for these events was to first become familiar with their new system of division so that they don’t look the part of the ‘fool’ when sources are thrown out.
Whatever the reason for these concordances finding their way into our midst, once there, it was hard not to take advantage of their easy chapter divisions.
Then, in 1448, the first Hebrew concordance was written by Rav Yitzchak Nasson Kalonymos.
In fact, one may be surprised to learn that that the word ‘kappitel’ is not Yiddish nor ‘Yeshivish’, rather it is derived from the Latin word for chapters, ‘kapittalash’. Rav Shimon Krasner quotes Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky as explaining that in order to show that these chapters were not from Sinai or chazal we purposefully choose to use the non-Jewish term as a constant reminder of this fact! (Nachalas Shimon, Shmuel, chelek 1, as quoted in Oberlander p. 374).
The dates above may explain why the Meiri, who died sometime after 1300, had a different division of Tehillim than did chazal, as mentioned in Part II above.
(See, however, shu’t Teshuva M’Ahava siman 112 and the response of the Noda B’Yehudah where it would seem that Tosphos also had more than 147 chapters of Tehillim, as did, perhaps, chazal; see Obalander, p. 383ff for a thorough discussion of the division of Tehillim)
Note that all of the above took place before mass-publication was even possible, so that even if many Jewish scholars utilized this new system it had yet to totally enter our nomenclature.
That would not happen until the early 1500’s.
Yet, before we explain how that came to be, we must draw our attention to another issue: nefarious motives or blatant errors in their new divisions.
IV
Manipulating The Divine
Even before the rise of Christianity, many gentiles wished to separate themselves from the Jewish system, such as beginning their week on Mondays and ending on Sundays. For Christians too, it was anathema to follow the Jewish Sabbath, and in order to continue their Monday-Sunday week they toyed with the chapter divisions.
How?
Well, open up a Torah to parshas Bereishis. The Torah begins with a description of each day of creation, culminating with Shabbos.
The next section begins (see first mishna to the 4th perek of Taanis), “Eilah toldos shomayim v’aretz” along with the story of gan eden and Adam.
Yet, like magic, the Christians placed a new chapter (chapter 2) not before this verse, rather before Shabbos, after the sixth day, making it as if the concepts of Shabbos and Creation are less symbiotic!
Chapters two and three of sefer Bereishis are not much better.
In the Torah these are to be one ‘parsha’ (a setuma). Yet the Christians did something peculiar. Smack in the middle, after we are told that Adam and Chava were unclothed and not ashamed, they start a new chapter (chapter 3)! Chapter 3 then begins with the nachash (snake). Isn’t this part of the verses, story, and ‘chapter’ before?!
Why would they do such a thing?
The answer reflects the very nature of Catholicism and their principles, ‘Original Sin’ (hameivin yavin).
There are other, even more painful, examples. The worst of which come from sefer Yeshayahu and Hoshea that relate directly to their beliefs regarding bnei yisroel and inyanei d’moshicha.
For example, after Hoshea uses very harsh language to reprimand the nation (see Pesachim 87 and Ibn Ezra from Hoshea chapter 2 onward), the phophet concludes by issuing an entreaty for us to return:
“Israel, return to Hashem your Gd, for you have stumbled in your iniquity…”
This is a clear break from the prior tone. This embracing and sweet tenor continues until the end of the sefer.
Yet Christians make this opening verse the second verse of chapter 14! They begin this chapter with Hoshea’s last, harsher tone, “Samaria will be laid to waste...”, so as to support their wild claim that Israel as we know it was already declared lost, R’l.
In addition, some of their divisions were based on utter foolishness (see, eg., the opening to parshios Bechukosei, Mattos, etc.).
V.How Did It Happen? Part 2
Guttenburg & Bomberg
Up to this point (1300-1500), while many Jewish scholars took advantage of the Christian concordance, it had yet to hit the mainstream.
Then came the printing press.
Between the years of 1511-1517 Gershom Soncino published a version of Tanach that followed the Torah divisions only.
In addition, he –being a Jew –kept Shmuel, Melachim, Divrei HaYamim, Ezra, all as one book each.
But then came along a gentile publisher, Daniel Bomberg, perhaps the most important and influential person in the history of Jewish publishing (ironically).
Even the gemara that we use today is based on his versions.
It was he who created the gold standard of chumash printing:
The Mikroas Gedolos Chumash of 1517, and, more prominently, of 1525.
The 1517 edition was riddled with errors, and had on as an editor a priest who was a born Jew. While the 1525 was much improved,it was still far from perfect.
Regardless, imagine what a breakthrough this was!
All of a sudden Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Targum, etc. were available to all!
Up until the printing press few owned such holy writings, and if they did they kept them chained to a wall so as not to be stolen, as these were all hand written.
Although well meaning, Daniel Bomberg was also a Christian, and used the Christian chapters as well as their divisions of certain books within Nach in his publication of Mikoras Gedolos.
In fact, Rav Yaakov ben Chaim, whose manuscripts were used for tis publication, asks forgiveness in his introduction for utilizing the chapter divisions. Yet he goes on to explain that these divisions will make it easier to reference pesukim, etc. (cf. Rav Yitzchak Hutner’s letter regarding Otzar Meforshei HaTalmud).
The proverbial cat was now out of the bag. Due to the popularity of this work these chapters soon entered our lexicon and learning.
The popularity of the Mikroas Gedolos was fueled by other matters as well. Until that point in time there was much debate as to the proper nikud and spelling of certain words throughout Tanach. Bomberg worked with a team of skilled rabbanim and medakdim to arrive at a more perfect text of Tanach.
While this search for the most accurate text would go on in earnest until the 1620s – with the publications of Ohr Torah and Minchas Shei – for about one hundred years, Bomberg’s was the Tanach, the one with the most precise and accurate text.
Immediately after Bomberg’s Mikroas Gedolos came out new sefarim on dikduk, as well new Jewish concordances and new commentaries, would be published –all following these new divisions.
So ingrained were these chapters that by the late 1700′, when the Vilna Gaon desired to write Nach on klaf, many were at a loss as to where the proper setumos and pesuchos should be placed. Some would even claim that the idea of steumos and pesuchos in (certain parts of) Tanach were an invention of the Vilna Gaon! On March 11 1783, the Vilna Gaon’s Nach was completed, with pesuchos and setumos where he felt the mesorah demanded. Alas, the full story of the Gaon’s Nach will have to wait for another post, iy”H.
In 1903 Rav Pesach Finfer the rav of Vilna published a sefer titled Mesoras HaTorah V’Haneviim where he bemoans the fact that we have come to accept the Christian chapter divisions. The Aderes, in his haskama, is equally perturbed.
The Pardes Yosef (Shimini) states, rather matter of factly, that the chapters are not from Jews and that simply by chance do we utilize them.
Bear in mind that, aside for the obvious concerns, by adopting the Christian standard we have ceased to be aware/knowledgable of our own divisions (setumos and pesuchos). This leads to horrible mistakes, for example when someone suggests an “ein mukdum u’meuchar b’Torah” incorrectly (as this principal can never be true within a parsha itself)
To their great credit, some editions of the Koren chumash goes so far as to ignore the Christian divisions all together.
We have certainly reached a point in our history, and our level of learning, that the aid that these chapters provide is priceless. In addition, as Jews in a world of communication, knowing how others divide our holy Torah has much value.
However we mustn’t forget that these divisions do not represent Torah M’Siani.
This is not to dispute some who give these chapters a spiritual power –as explained in Part I –rather, even if that is true, we must be aware of its limits, and disingenuous errors.
While much wisdom went into these chapters, they also demonstrate, in certain places, bad reading and, worse, nefarious motives. In addition, the Twenty-Four books of Tanach must not be forgotten.
The fact that some readers learned here for the first time that sefer Nechemia does not even trully exist on its own in our mesorah demonstrates Rav Finfer’s fears.
However, the silence from many, if not most, of our leaders throughout the generations supports our continued usage of these divisions…so long as we know the truth.
Puk CHazi Mah D’Ama Devar
Shul Chronicles 
Leave a comment