Indicators of Achronology

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Explicit Achronology

Achronology is sometimes explicit in the text, as evidenced by dates, relative ages, or even geographical data.1

Dates

Achronology is most explicit when an event is dated2 and appears out of order. A few examples follow:

  • Shemot 16:35  – Shemot 16 is dated to the first year of the Wilderness period, yet mentions the eating of manna throughout the forty years of the nation's journey to Canaan (Shemot 16:32-35).
  • Bemidbar 1-9 – Bemidbar 1 is dated to the second month of the second year in the Wilderness, yet Bemidbar 7and 9 explicitly backtrack to the first month.3 
  • Sefer Yirmeyahu – The prophecies and events of Sefer Yirmeyahu are also explicitly achronological, switching back and forth between the reigns of Yehoyakim and Tzidekyahu.4

Ages

Sometimes, even though no calendar date is given in the text, the timing of an event can be determined through knowledge of people's relative ages as provided by genealogy lists, time markers,5 or birth and death notices. Calculations might then point to achronological ordering. For example:

  • Terach's death – Terach's death is mentioned at the end of Bereshit 11, before we read of Avraham's departure from Charan, but based on his age at death and Avraham's age when he left for Canaan, one can calculate that Terach first passed away 60 years after Avraham's departure.6 
  • Avraham's death – Avraham's death is mentioned in Bereshit 25:7, before the text shares the story of Yaakov and Esav's birth. However, one can calculate, based on everyone's relative ages, that he only passed away 15 years afterwards.7
  • Yitzchak's death – Yitzchak's death is recorded in Bereshit 35:28, before the stories of Yosef and his brothers are discussed, yet one can determine (knowing various character's ages at different events) that he first passed away 12 years after the sale.8

Geographical Data

At times, geographical data can point to achronology:

  • Laws of sacrifices in Vayikra 7 – R. D"Z Hoffmann notes that Vayikra 7 closes by stating that the laws just stated were given on Mt. Sinai, while Vayikra 1 opens by stating that its laws were relayed in the Ohel Moed.  Given that once the Tabernacle was constructed, laws were issued from there, the laws given on the mountain were presumably relayed beforehand, suggesting that the chapters are achronological.
  • Vayikra 25-27 – These chapters, too, were said to have been commanded on Mount Sinai,9 suggesting that they were relayed before the Tabernacle was built, and thus before most of the rest of the laws of Sefer Vayikra (which are relayed from the Tent of Meeting).

Headings

"וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" – General Approaches

Variations of the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" (at that time)‎10 appear 18 times in Torah (with 15 of these appearing in Moshe's speeches in Sefer Devarim) and 49 times in the rest of Tanakh. What does the heading imply about the timing of the story that follows it; does it occur simultaneously with the previous story, right after it, or at some previous point? When is "at that time"?

  • Consecutive stories – Some11 suggest that the phrase means that the story about to be narrated chronologically follows that which preceded it. Why, though, would this be necessary to share?
    • Connotes immediacy – Cassuto12 suggests that the phrase serves to highlight that the story about to be told occurred immediately after the preceding one, "בעת ההיא עצמו".
    • Highlights causal relationship – NetzivBereshit 38:1About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin claims that the words highlight a "cause and effect" relationship between the two stories. 
    • Marks appendices – S. Loewinstam13 suggests that, at least in Sefer Devarim, the words serve to mark off sections that act as appendices or tangents to the main story line.
  • Marker of achronology – Others suggest that the phrase is employed specifically when two stories do not directly follow one another:

"וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" – Specific Cases

Following are many examples where the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" appears and commentators take one of the above approaches in understanding what it connotes:

  • Bereshit 21:22 – The account of the covenant of Avimelekh with Avraham is recorded after the story of Yitzchak's banishment and opens "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא":
  • Devarim 1:9 – Moshe's opens his speech in Devarim 1 with Hashem's command to leave Mt. Sinai during the second year in the wilderness. He then recounts the story of the appointment of judges.
  • Devarim 3:23 – Devarim 3 speaks of the conquest of Og, Moshe's  encouragement to Yehoshua regarding future conquests, and then Moshe's plea to enter the land. Both of the last two events are introduced with the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא".
  • Devarim 5:4-5 – After telling the nation that Hashem spoke to them "face to face" at Mt. Sinai, Moshe continues, "אָנֹכִי עֹמֵד בֵּין י״י וּבֵינֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִוא לְהַגִּיד לָכֶם אֶת דְּבַר י״י".
  • Devarim 10:8 – Devarim 10:8 speaks of the selection of the Levites which occurred in the second year. Yet, the immediately preceding verses speak of events of the fortieth year.
    • R. Avraham b. HaRambamBereshit 21:22About R. Avraham Maimonides (elaborating on his father), thus, points to this verse as evidence that the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" need not refer to the immediately preceding narrative but might relate back to an event discussed earlier.  In this case it refers back to the discussion in Devarim 9-10:5 regarding the Sin of the Calf.25
    • The NetzivBereshit 38:1Devarim 10:8About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, disagrees, suggesting that the events are chronological and "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" implies continuity. This leads him to suggest that the Devarim 10:8 refers not to the initial selection of the tribe, but to their being chosen in the fortieth year to act as teachers of Torah.
  • Yehoshua 5:1-2 – Yehoshua 5 opens with the narrator announcing that the miracle of the splitting of the Jordan induced fear in the hearts of the Canaanites.  The next verse shares that "at that time" Yehoshua was commanded to circumcise the nation.  Since Yehoshua 5:1 is parenthetical, momentarily shifting the reader's focus from the Israelites (the subject of Chapter 4) to the Canaanites, the text employs the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" to bring the reader back to the events happening in the Israelite camp.   
  • Yehoshua 6:26 –  Yehoshua 6:24 speaks of the burning of Yericho and sanctifying of its booty to Hashem. The following verse shifts focus, sharing how Rachav and her family became a part of Israel "until this day". Verse 26 then states that "at that time" Yehoshua cursed all those who would rebuild the city.  Due to the intervening achronological remark "until this day", verse 24 employs the formula "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" to resume the original narrative and bring the reader back to the timing of verse 24.
  • Yehoshua 11:7-12 – After sharing how Yehoshua smote the Northern confederation, verse 10 states, "וַיָּשׇׁב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּעֵת הַהִיא וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת חָצוֹר וְאֶת מַלְכָּהּ הִכָּה בֶחָרֶב". 
  • Yehoshua 11:21 – After summarizing how Yehoshua fought the Canaanites over "many years", verse 21 shares that "at that time" Yehoshua killed the giants of Chevron. RalbagYehoshua 11:10Yehoshua 11:21Shofetim 4:4Bereshit Beur HaParashah 38:1Bereshit Beur HaParashah 38:1About R. Levi b. Gershom asserts that this occurred during the years of conquest and not afterwards.  As such, the term "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" points to simultaneity or overlapping events, not to two consecutive stories.
  • Shofetim 4:4  – Shofetim 4 tells how the nation cried out to God in face of the Canaanite oppression and then continues "And Devorah was the judge at that time". RalbagYehoshua 11:10Yehoshua 11:21Shofetim 4:4Bereshit Beur HaParashah 38:1Bereshit Beur HaParashah 38:1About R. Levi b. Gershom suggests that the phrase comes to highlight that Devorah became the judge not during the initial oppression, but specifically when the nation cried out to Hashem.27  Since the text had tangentially mentioned the oppression, though, it employs the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" to connect her judging back to the nation's cries.
  • Melakhim I 11:29 – Verses 26-28 speak of Yerovam's rebellion against Shelomo and then the text shares that "at that time" Yerovam encountered Achiyah who prophesied about the tearing of the kingdom.
    • RadakBereshit 38:1Melakhim I 11:26About R. David Kimchi claims that despite the order in the text, Achiyah prophesied before Yerovam rebelled.  If so, the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" might be an indicator of achronology here as well.
    • One might alternatively suggest that the verses are chronological, and that it was specifically Yerovam's rebellion that merited Yerovam the throne. The phrase might then come to highlight the cause and effect. See Yerovam's Rebellion for how the two possibilities might affect one's reading of the rebellion as a whole.

"אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה"

Variations of the phrase "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה"‎28 appear 13 times in Tanakh.29   R. Avraham b. HaRambamBereshit 21:22Bereshit 38:1About R. Avraham Maimonides points out that in contrast to the term, "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" this heading always refers to a story which chronologically follows that which preceded it.30  If so, though, one may question why it is necessary to share the fact.  As the default ordering in Tanakh is to recount events chronologically, it would seem to be redundant.  Commentators raise several possible answers::

  • Chronological connector – R. Huna in Bereshit Rabbah44:5About Bereshit Rabbah and RashiBereshit 4:1Bereshit 15:1Bereshit 21:1Shemot 24:1Devarim 3:23Shemuel II 3:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki31 suggest that the phrase "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" tells the reader that the coming event happened immediately after whatever preceded it,32 while the variant "אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" suggests that the upcoming event only occurred after a significant amount of time had elapsed.33 Elsewhere (when no heading is included) the recorded events follow each other, but neither immediately nor significantly later.
    • This supposition is somewhat difficult to test as the only chronological marker given for many of these stories is the heading itself. Nonetheless,in most of the cases, the theory can can feasibly work with the surrounding content, even if it cannot be proven.34
    • However, in the one case where dating is included, Ezra 7:1, the theory appears mistaken. The chapter opens with "וְאַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה", implying, according to these sources, that it immediately follows the events of the previous chapter.  Yet, while Ezra 6 takes place during the reign of Darius, the events of Ezra 7 first take place in the seventh year of Artachshasta.
    • In addition, in contrast to this theory, in at least two cases where the longer "אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" appears, Bereshit 48:1 and Yehoshua 24:29, the text implies that a long time did not elapse after the previous story.  In both cases, the previous chapter speaks of the the main protagonist (Yaakov / Yehoshua) getting old and standing close to death while the following stories speak of their death or deathbed announcements.35 
  • Content connector – Rashbam alternatively suggests that the phrase "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" is used to relate the content (rather than timing) of two stories, perhaps to show a causal relationship or the like. Several examples follow:
  • Turning Point  – R. HirschBereshit 15:1Bereshit 22:1Bereshit 48:1About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch suggests that, often, the phrase "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" is used to mark a major turning point in someone's life or in the plot of a given story. 
    • He suggests that, therefore, the two most seminal events in the Avraham narratives, the covenant between the pieces (Bereshit 15) and the Akeidah (Bereshit 22) both open with  "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה".
    • Bereshit 48:1 - Yaakov's giving firstborn status to Yosef is similarly introduced with "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" as it, too, marks a significant change.
    • Divrei HaYamim II 32:1:1 – Sancheriv's campaign against Yehuda opens with "אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים וְהָאֱמֶת הָאֵלֶּה".  This, too, can be explained as marking a new era or turning point, being one of the most significant events in Judean history.

"וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם"

Variations of the phrase appear 40 times in Tanakh.37 The phrase appears to function in one of two ways:

    • Melakhim II 10:31-32 – The verses share that Yehu began to stray away from Hashem and that "בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם הֵחֵל י״י לְקַצּוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכֵּם חֲזָאֵל בְּכׇל גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל".  The chronological marker "בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם" might come to to highlight that it was specifically when Yehu veered that the nation was attacked.
    • Melakhim II 20:1/ Yeshayahu 38:1– See Seder Olam Rabbah23About Seder Olam Rabbah who suggests that Chizkiyahu's illness and cure did not follow the campaign of Sancheriv, but rather overlapped with it. Modern scholars go further to suggest that it might have preceded the campaign altogether.38 According to both, the heading "בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם" might allude to the achronology.
  • Contrast two eras – In other cases, the phrase might come to contrast two eras, pointing out that something that was true or occurred in one time period, might not have been true of others.
    • Shofetim 17 – The phrase "בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם אֵין מֶלֶךְ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל" serves as a refrain throughout the stories of the idol of Michah and the concubine of Givah, highlighting how in that era, as opposed to later, there was no monarch in Israel.  It was this that caused the atrocities of the era.
    • Shofetim 20:27-28 – These verses perhaps stress how "in those days" the ark was in Beit El and Pinechas was the priest, since this was not true of other eras. 
    • Shemuel I 3:1 – This verse emphasizes "וּדְבַר י״י הָיָה יָקָר בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם" to teach that, in contrast to many eras in Tanakh, at the time of the story of Shemuel, prophecy was not prevalent.

וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן

Grammatical Markers

עבר מהופך

Tanakh normally expresses the past tense by using the vav conversive form of the verb followed by the subject (וַיֵּלֶךְ אַבְרָם or וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה ) . Every so often, though, Tanakh employs the past perfect form (עבר מהופך), beginning with the subject and following with the simple form of the verb (וְהָאָדָם יָדַע or וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלְכוּ). What is the difference in meaning between the two forms?  When Torah employs the past perfect, what is it trying to convey? 

  • Indicator of achronology – Several commentators39 suggest that this form is used when Tanakh wants to express that an action took place in the more distant past, prior to the events being discussed.40 As such, its usage might be an indicator of achronology.
    • Bereshit 4:1 - Bereshit 4:1 places the conception and birth of Kayin and Hevel after the expulsion from Eden. RashiBereshit 4:1Bereshit 15:1Bereshit 21:1Shemot 24:1Devarim 3:23Shemuel II 3:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki suggests that the past perfect form "וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ" in the unit's heading hints to the fact that the birth took place beforehand, while Adam and Chavvah were still in the Garden.
    • Bereshit 11:10-23 – After recounting the story of the Tower of Bavel, Bereshit 11:10ff lists the descendants of Shem. The first few verses of the list follow a similar format "‎..וְפלוני חַי... וַיְחִי פלוני".  With the birth of Peleg in verse 17, however, the pattern shifts and we no longer see the past perfect but instead, "...וַיְחִי פלוני... וַיְחִי פלוני".  According to Seder Olam Rabbah, it was in Peleg's time period that the story of the Towel of Bavel and dispersal took place.  If so, the initial verses which employ the past perfect might be hinting to achronology; all those descendants were born before the Tower was built, and in a purely chronological narrative would have been mentioned beforehand. 
    • Bereshit 18:17 –  After discussing Avraham's interactions with the 3 angels, Bereshit 18:17 speaks of Hashem's decision to share His plan to destroy Sedom with Avraham: "וַי״י אָמָר הַמְכַסֶּה אֲנִי מֵאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה".  R. D"Z Hoffmann Bereshit 18:17Devarim 1:9About R. David Zvi Hoffmannsuggests that the past perfect from teaches that Hashem had already decided to share His plans with Avraham.  This was not a decision which was made only after Avraham's hospitable actions.
    • Bereshit 21:1-2 – Sarah's conception and pregnancy with Yitzchak is described in Bereshit 21. However, RashiBereshit 4:1Bereshit 15:1Bereshit 21:1Shemot 24:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Bereshit 21:1Tzeror HaMor Bereshit 21:1About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor), and MalbimBereshit 21:1Bereshit 21:1About R. Meir Leibush Weiser maintain that Sarah had conceived before or in the middle of the story of Avimelekh's taking of Sarah described in the previous chapter (Bereshit 20), as indicated by the past perfect, "וַה' פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה".
    • Bereshit 25:29-34 – After discussing how Esav sold his birthright to Yaakov, the verse shares, "וְיַעֲקֹב נָתַן לְעֵשָׂו לֶחֶם וּנְזִיד עֲדָשִׁים".  HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBereshit 4:1Bereshit 25:34About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg suggests that the past perfect of "וְיַעֲקֹב נָתַן" implies that the food was provided before the sale. According to his reading, Yaakov did not pay for the birthright with a pot of soup, but with money.41  See Sale of the Birthright – A Fair Deal for elaboration of this position.
    • Bereshit 39:1 – The chapter opens with the past perfect "וְיוֹסֵף הוּרַד" to clarify that Yosef had already been taken to Egypt (i.e. before many of the events of Chapter 38, and not afterwards as the verse's placement might have suggested).42
    • Bereshit 45:16 – After Yosef's revelation to his brothers and his suggestion that they uproot to Egypt, verse 16 shares, "וְהַקֹּל נִשְׁמַע בֵּית פַּרְעֹה לֵאמֹר" and proceeds to tell of Paroh's invitation to the family to come to "the best of Egypt".  This echoes verse 2 which had stated, "וַיִּשְׁמַע בֵּית פַּרְעֹה" and might suggest that the two incidents are one and the same; the past perfect hints that the true timing of the event is back in verse 2.43  According to this reconstruction, as soon as Yosef revealed himself, Paroh heard, invited the family, and only then did Yosef reiterate the invitation to the brothers.
    • Shemot 11:10 – The unit of plagues closes with the past perfect formulation, "וּמֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן עָשׂוּ אֶת כׇּל הַמֹּפְתִים הָאֵלֶּה" since the verse serves to summarize what has already transpired in the past.44
    • Shemot 14:27-29 – The verses speak first of the Egyptians drowning and then of the Israelites walking through the sea on dry land, perhaps implying that they were still in the midst of crossing the sea when the Egyptians died. However, the past perfect "וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלְכוּ בַיַּבָּשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּם" might indicate that the nation had already walked through the sea by the time the Egyptians died. [See RashbamBereshit 21:22Bereshit 22:1Shemot 14:29Reconstructed Bereshit 15:1About R. Shemuel b. Meir.]
    • Shemot 24:1 – The chapter describes the covenant at Sinai and opens with the past perfect formulation, "וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה".  This might support RashiShemot 24:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki's assertion that the chapter is achronological and its events took place before revelation, overlapping with those of Chapter 19.45
    • Bemidbar 16:32-35 – After sharing that Datan and Aviram were punished by being swallowed in the earth, the chapter concludes: "וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵאֵת י״י וַתֹּאכַל אֵת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ ".  The past perfect form might hint that the two events were simultaneous (and not consecutive) and that all the rebels were punished at the same time.
    • Devarim 33:1 – Ibn EzraDevarim 3:23Devarim 5:5Devarim 31:1Bereshit First Commentary 38:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra claims that Moshe's blessings to the nation in Devarim 33 are recorded achronologically and really were relayed in Devarim 31, when Moshe encouraged the nation in face of his upcoming death. If so, the past perfect heading, "וְזֹאת הַבְּרָכָה אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַךְ מֹשֶׁה" might hint to this.
    • Shemuel I 28:3-7 – The story of Shaul and Ba'alat ha'Ov opens by telling the reader, "וּשְׁמוּאֵל מֵת".  The past perfect formulation indicates that this happened already (as mentioned in Shemuel I 25:1).  [It is mentioned again only as a necessary introduction to the revival of the prophet later in the chapter.]
    • Shemuel II 1:1 – The chapter opens: "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי מוֹת שָׁאוּל וְדָוִד שָׁב מֵהַכּוֹת אֶת הָעֲמָלֵק".  Since the previous chapters had spoken of two simultaneous events, both Shaul's death and David's battle against Amalek, the chapter employs the past perfect "וְדָוִד שָׁב" to clarify that the events of this chapter happened after both Shaul's defeat and David's victory.
    • Shemuel II 3:12-19 – The chapter speaks of Avner's proposal to make a covenant with David.  He tells David that he will sway the nation being ruled by Ishboshet to accept David as their king in his stead. David makes the plan contingent on Ishboshet's returning of Michal. After the condition is met, the verses share "וּדְבַר אַבְנֵר הָיָה עִם זִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר גַּם תְּמוֹל גַּם שִׁלְשֹׁם הֱיִיתֶם מְבַקְשִׁים אֶת דָּוִד לְמֶלֶךְ עֲלֵיכֶם".  RashiBereshit 4:1Bereshit 15:1Bereshit 21:1Shemot 24:1Devarim 3:23Shemuel II 3:17About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki suggests that the past perfect "הָיָה" implies that he had already spoken with the nation beforehand.  [If so, it was perhaps the recognition that all was already lost, that led Ishboshet to comply to David's request.]
    • Melakhim I 20:1-4 – The chapter describes the war between Aram and Achav.  The past perfect form in the heading, "וּבֶן הֲדַד מֶלֶךְ אֲרָם קָבַץ אֶת כׇּל חֵילוֹ" might imply that the story is achronological and really took place earlier, during the years of drought brought by Eliyahu.46
    • Melakhim II 8:1-3 – The chapter opens with a flashback "וֶאֱלִישָׁע דִּבֶּר אֶל הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר הֶחֱיָה אֶת בְּנָהּ לֵאמֹר קוּמִי וּלְכִי...  כִּי קָרָא י״י לָרָעָב".  The chapter shares that before the famine discussed in chapters 6-7, Elisha had told the woman to flee. [The point is mentioned here only to introduce the aftermath of the story.]
  • Marker of contrast – In other cases, the past perfect form might serve to contrast two subjects or actions.  Several examples follow:
    • In Bereshit 4:2, when contrasting the professions of Kayin and Hevel, the verse writes, "וַיְהִי הֶבֶל רֹעֵה צֹאן וְקַיִן הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה". A similar contrast appears two verses later, "וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה... וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם הוּא".‎47
    • Bereshit 14:17-18 - N. Lebowitz suggests that these verses employ the past perfect to contrast the King of Sedom with Malkitzedek.  While the former simply goes out, asking to receive something (" וַיֵּצֵא מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם"), the latter offers food (" וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן").
    • Bereshit 31:47 – The variation in grammatical form in Bereshit 31:47 similarly sets up a contrast between Lavan and Yaakov and their naming of the site of their covenant, " וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ לָבָן יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא וְיַעֲקֹב קָרָא לוֹ גַּלְעֵד".
    • Bereshit 33:16-17 – The verses employ the past perfect to contrast the paths taken by Yaakov and Esav, highlighting their parting of ways: "וַיָּשׇׁב "בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עֵשָׂו לְדַרְכּוֹ שֵׂעִירָה while "וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה".
    • Bereshit 39:1 - The past perfect "וְיוֹסֵף הוּרַד" might be meant to parallel "וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה" of the previous chapter.  The text thus calls on the reader to contrast the two leaders and compare their stories.
    • Bereshit 41:1 – Or HaChaim suggests that in Bereshit 41:1 the past perfect "וּפַרְעֹה חֹלֵם" serves to contrast Paroh's dream with that of the butler and baker ("וַיַּחַלְמוּ חֲלוֹם שְׁנֵיהֶם") in the previous chapter.
    • Shemot 24:1 – According to RashbamBereshit 21:22Bereshit 22:1Shemot 14:29Shemot 24:1Reconstructed Bereshit 15:1About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R. Avraham b. HaRambam and RambanShemot 2:23Shemot 24:1Devarim 1:9Devarim 3:23Devarim 5:5About R. Moshe b. Nachman who claim that Shemot 24 is in its chronological place, the past perfect opening "וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר" serves to contrast the previous set of commands which were aimed at all of Israel ("וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם") with this one which is aimed at Moshe alone.
    • Bemidbar 16:32-35 contrasts the punishment of Datan and Aviram and the 250 men, sharing "וַתִּפְתַּח הָאָרֶץ אֶת פִּיהָ... וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה".  Here, too, the grammatical change in form highlights the contrast in punishment.
    • Melakhim I 12:29 – This verse similarly uses the perfect/past perfect pattern to contrast the locations of the two calves.set up by Yerovam: "וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הָאֶחָד בְּבֵית אֵל וְאֶת הָאֶחָד נָתַן בְּדָן"
  • Continuous action - The past perfect might further be used when the text wants to indicate that an action is done continuously.
    • Shemuel I 1:3 – The past perfect, "וְעָלָה הָאִישׁ הַהוּא מֵעִירוֹ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה" expresses that Elkanah would go up to Shiloh annually.
    • Bereshit 37:2 – The text shares that Yosef "הָיָה רֹעֶה אֶת אֶחָיו בַּצֹּאן וְהוּא נַעַר אֶת בְּנֵי בִלְהָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה", expressing what was generally done. [The text is not sharing what happened once when Yosef shepherded, but what would happen all the time.]
    • Bemidbar 9:19-21 – In describing the travles of the nation, the text sates, "וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן מֵעֶרֶב עַד בֹּקֶר וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן בַּבֹּקֶר וְנָסָעוּ אוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה וְנַעֲלָה הֶעָנָן וְנָסָעוּ". Here, too, the text employs the past perfect to express a continuous pattern of behavior.

Literary Phenomena

Resumptive Repetition

Resumptive repetition is a literary technique where the text resumes an earlier narrative (which has been broken off by another story or parenthetical comment) by repeating the last sentence of the original story in similar or identical language.  In several of these cases, the technique might imply that the intervening story overlapped with the original:48

  • Bereshit 37:36 and Bereshit 39:1 - Bereshit 37 closes by sharing that Yosef was sold to Potiphar. Bereshit 38 switches focus, telling the story of Yehuda and Tamar and then Bereshit 39:1 resumes the Yosef narratives, repeating the fact of his sale. The literary technique might express that the two stories overlapped in time.49
  • Shemuel I 2:11-18 – The chapter alternates between descriptions of Shemuel's youth and the actions of the sons of Eli. Verse 11 shares, "וְהַנַּעַר הָיָה מְשָׁרֵת אֶת י״י", then the narrative switches in verses 12-17 to focus on the sons of Eli, with verse 18 resuming the original story, "וּשְׁמוּאֵל מְשָׁרֵת אֶת פְּנֵי י״י ". The pattern hints to the simultaneity of the two story lines.
  • Shemuel I 14:1-6 – The chapter switches off between the actions of Yonatan and the rest of the Israelite camp.  Here, too, the verses hint to the simultaneity by employing narrative resumptions.  Verse 1 states, "וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל אֶל הַנַּעַר נֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו לְכָה וְנַעְבְּרָה אֶל מַצַּב פְּלִשְׁתִּים", the next few verses focus on Shaul and the Israelites, and then verse six repeats, "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹנָתָן אֶל הַנַּעַר נֹשֵׂא כֵלָיו לְכָה וְנַעְבְּרָה אֶל מַצַּב הָעֲרֵלִים הָאֵלֶּה".
  • Shemuel I 28-29 – Chapter 28 opens with the Philistines gathering for battle (וַיִּקְבְּצוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם), but then cuts off to tell the story of Shaul and Ba'alat Ha'Ov.  The original narrative is resumed in Chapter 29, echoing "יִּקְבְּצוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת כׇּל מַחֲנֵיהֶם".  It is likely that here, too, the technique indicates that the two stories overlapped in time, with Sefer Shemuel alternating between events related to Shaul and those related to David.
  • Shemuel II 13:34-37 – Shemuel II 13:34 tells of Avshalom fleeing after having murdered Amnon. The point is repeated in verse 37. Sandwiched in between the two verses is a description of what is simultaneously going on in the palace when word of the murder arrives.

Masoretic Markers

At times, masoretic markers, such as a break in the middle of a verse, might also indicate achronology, telling the reader that the two events mentioned in the verse do not really follow one another:

  • Bemidbar 26:1 - The verse opens, "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַמַּגֵּפָה", presumably referring to the plague of Ba'al Peor which was just mentioned.50 This is followed by a break in the verse after which Hashem commands the nation to take a census.  It is possible that the break hints that the census is not related to and does not follow the plague but took place at some earlier point.  It was perhaps commanded previously, after the events of Bemidbar 21, when the conquests of Sichon and Og paved the way for entry into and inheritance of the land.51
  • Yehoshua 4:1 – The verse states that the nation finished crossing the Jordan.  This is followed by a break in the text and then Hashem's command to appoint 12 people to take stones from the feet of the priests.  Here, too, the break might come to disconnect the two events and hint that they are not consecutive. Hashem's command regarding the stones might have taken place earlier, as suggested by the fact that already in Yehoshua 3:12, Yehoshua commands, "קְחוּ לָכֶם שְׁנֵי עָשָׂר אִישׁ מִשִּׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אֶחָד אִישׁ אֶחָד לַשָּׁבֶט" (see RadakBereshit 38:1Yehoshua 4:1Melakhim I 11:26About R. David Kimchi).52 [It is mentioned again here, since the fulfillment of the rest of the command is about to take place.]
  • Shemuel I 4:1 - The verse opens by declaring "וַיְהִי דְבַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל" but does not continue with the content of Shemuel's speech.  Instead there is a masoretic break in the verse and then the story of the Philistine battle. It is possible that the break hints to the reader that Shemuel's speech is not connected to the Philistine battle mentioned right afterwards, but to Shemuel's later call to repentance in Chapter 7:3.53 If so, chapters 4-7 might be viewed as parenthetical background to the speech, explaining why the nation needed to repent.
×