Ein Mukdam U’Me’Uchar BaTorah – The Relationship Between the Order of the Parshiyot in the Torah and the Order of Events
וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה:
And they shall take for Me a portion. (Shemot 25:2)
The Principle
Our parshah which deals with the Mishkan and its keilim, together with the following parshah, Tetzaveh, which deals primarily with the bigdei kehunah, leads us to investigate the sugya of “אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה — ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah,” which states that the order the parshiyot are written in the Torah does not always correspond with the chronological order in which those events happened. This statement, one which is well-known to anyone who learns Torah, requires both definition and explanation. Although this statement comes from Chazal, there are still differing approaches among the Rishonim regarding how and when to apply it. Moreover, although Chazal formulated this principle, the principle per se can be derived clearly from the Torah itself, as we will see.
Rashi on the Chronology of the Chet Ha’Egel and the Mishkan
Let us first turn our attention to “Parshandata,” that is, Rashi, regarding the order of the events of these parshiyot (31:18, s.v. vayiten):
אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה. מעשה העגל קודם לציווי מלאכת המשכן ימים רבים היה, שהרי בי"ז בתמוז נשתברו הלוחות, וביום הכפורים נתרצה הקב"ה לישראל, ולמחרת התחילו בנדבת המשכן והוקם בא’ בניסן.
Ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah — The episode of the Egel preceded the command to build the Mishkan by many days. For the Luchot were broken[1] on the Seventeenth of Tamuz, and on Yom Kippur, HaKadosh Baruch Hu was reconciled with Yisrael, and the next day they began to give donations for the Mishkan, and on the first of Nissan it was set up.[2]
We should note that while Rashi states that the Egel preceded the command to make the Mishkan, he only identifies the day after Yom Kippur as the day they began to donate to and construct the Mishkan! It is clear that, according to Rashi, these two things are inseparable; if we only find Bnei Yisrael donating to the Mishkan after Yom Kippur, that means that the command to do so was also given at that time. For Rashi, the entire idea of making the Mishkan was a result of the Chet Ha’Egel, and hence he sees this as an example of the concept of “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah.”
Explicit in the Torah
As mentioned above, the idea itself that certain parshiyot in the Torah may be written out of chronological sequence is not a chiddush of Chazal, for it is indicated by the Torah itself. Probably the most famous example is in the beginning of Chumash Bamidbar, where the events of perek 1 (counting Bnei Yisrael) are introduced as taking place “בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי — on the first day of the second month (Iyar),” while the events of perek 9 (korban Pesach) are described as taking place “בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן — in the first month (Nissan)”! Thus, when Chazal state “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah,” that is not something they are asserting to be true, rather, it is something explicit in the Torah to which they are drawing our attention.
Approaches among the Rishonim to “Ein mukdam Ume’uchar BaTorah”
We have seen that in spite of the numerous ways through which we could understand the parshiyot as being written in their chronological sequence, Rashi chose instead to invoke the concept of “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah.” Similarly, elsewhere with regard to the Mishkan, we find Rashi applying this principle, this time in the beginning of Chumash Vayikra (8:2, s.v. kach):
פרשה זו נאמרה שבעת ימים קודם הקמת המשכן, שאין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה.
This parshah[3] was said seven days before the setting up of the Mishkan,[4] for “ein mukdam ume’uchar ba’Torah” — the Torah does not always follow the chronological sequence of events.
However, not all Rishonim agree with Rashi’s approach. Commenting on these words of Rashi, the Ramban asks, in his unique style, “ולמה נהפוך דברי אלקים חיים — why should we invert the words of the living God?”
Here, the Ramban is expressing his view that wherever possible the parshiyot of the Torah should be seen as being written in chronological sequence. Similarly, elsewhere (Bamidbar 16:1), commenting on the words of the Ibn Ezra who explains that the machloket of Korach happened before the sending of the Meraglim [thereby invoking “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah,”] the Ramban comments:
This is the approach of R’ Avraham (Ibn Ezra), who states in many places “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah.” But I have already written[5] that in my opinion the entire Torah is written in (historical) order, unless the pasuk itself specifies otherwise, and even then it is to serve some purpose and for good reason.
The Ramban has made his position very clear. In order to invoke “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah” there needs to be a very compelling reason. This is in contrast to the Ibn Ezra, who uses “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah” relatively frequently and without the demanding condition that the Ramban attached to it.
The Sefer HaChinuch’s Explanation
An important statement regarding what might constitute “serving some purpose and for good reason” may be found in the brief introduction of the Sefer HaChinuch to Chumash Devarim. He writes:
Chazal have mentioned in numerous places that “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah.” The basis of this idea, it seems, is that the Torah includes all areas of wisdom, aside from its sweet presentation of matters on a simple level, and the firm foundations of its mitzvot. And it is possible that it is due to this that its parshiyot and letters need to be in the places that they are, and all is arranged from the Master of wisdom, Blessed is He, and this is a sufficient and satisfactory explanation.
In other words, when it comes to the Torah, we are not dealing with just a historical book or a collection of halachot. Rather, the Torah contains within it the sum total of the wisdom of the Creator that is capable of being transmitted to human beings. This is done through pshat, drash, remez, and sod (פרד"ס), or, to put it differently, through the “שבעים פנים לתורה,” the seventy “faces” (approaches) to Torah.[6]
Summary
We have dealt briefly with the words of three Rishonim (Rashi, the Ramban, and the Ibn Ezra), whom we have seen represent three different approaches regarding the application of the principle of “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah”:
1. According to the Ibn Ezra, this represents the general rule in the sense that it may be used to shed light on many situations[7] unless, of course, the pesukim themselves indicate that they are written in historical order.
2. According to the Ramban, this is a possibility which applies to cases that are exceptional to the rule. In other words, the general rule in Torah is “yesh mukdam ume’uchar — the parshiyot are written in chronological order,” unless there is compelling reason to conclude that they were written out of order.
3. Rashi, as we have seen, uses this principle more frequently than the Ramban, but less so than the Ibn Ezra, limiting himself to situations where saying “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah” has a basis in Chazal.
However, we should not over-simplify matters by looking upon this as a “machloket Rishonim” in the general sense of the word, since, as we have seen, all agree that the idea exists; their machloket lies in the area of when to apply this principle given to us by Chazal. We have seen that even in a case where the Ramban agrees that “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah” should be used, he will still insist on trying to understand why the parshiyot were written out of order. Thus, for example, the Ramban (Shemot 18:1) quotes a machloket within Chazal as to whether Yitro came to join Bnei Yisrael before Matan Torah or afterward. In that instance the Ramban actually sides with the opinion that he came afterward, even though his arrival is written beforehand, and then concludes, “If so, we will need to provide a reason why the Torah brought this parshah earlier and wrote it here.”
Similarly, Rashi himself writes (Bamidbar 9:1), “פרשה שבראש הספר לא נאמרה עד אייר, למדך שאין סדר מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, ולמה לא פתח בזה וכו' — the parshah at the beginning of the Sefer[8] wasn’t said until Iyar, which teaches you that the Torah does not always follow the chronological order of events, and why did (the Sefer) not open with this (parshah)?...”
The peirush Be’er Yitzchak to Rashi (Shemot 31:18) sums up the underlying principle to this approach by saying, “כי יש סדר מוקדם לסדר הזמני — for there is an order which takes precedence[9] over the chronological order.”
And thus we see that while there is no machloket among the mefarshim as to the existence of “ein mukdam ume’uchar baTorah,” there is yet room to dispute firstly when to apply it, and secondly how to explain why the order was not followed in that situation, each case according to its specific nature, and each parshan according to his unique methodology in understanding and explaining Torah.
[1] As a result of the Chet Ha’Egel.
[2] Rashi here does not elaborate regarding how we know the timing of these events. See Rashi further on 33:11 (s.v. veshav), where he discusses these dates at length.
[3] Of preparing Aharon and his sons for the kehunah, which took place on the last seven days of Adar.
[4] That is, the final setting up, which took place on Rosh Chodesh Nissan. It turns out that, according to Rashi, the first seven perakim of Chumash Vayikra (which describe all the categories of korbanot that were brought in the Mishkan) were said after perakim eight and nine of that Chumash.
[5] In the beginning of Parshat Yitro regarding whether Yitro’s journey to Bnei Yisrael in the Midbar occurred before Matan Torah or afterward, and see also Parshat Mishpatim 24:1.
[6] As referred to in the Midrash Bamidbar Rabbah (13:15, 16) on the words “שבעים שקל בשקל הקודש,” although it is worthwhile pointing out that this expression is not found elsewhere in Chazal — Talmud Bavli, Yerushalmi, Mechilta, Safra, Sifrei — which is quite remarkable!
[7] As we saw, for example, how he applied this principle to the episode of Korach, explaining that it took place before that of the Meraglim.
[8] Chumash Bamidbar.
[9] Playing on the use of the word “מוקדם.”