Chronological and Thematic Order/2

Chronological and Thematic Order

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

Though the Biblical text sets chronological order as the norm, in several instances it nonetheless veers from the true order of events. Often, the displacement is somewhat technical and it is only a secondary component of a story which is out of chronological order. A minor detail might be moved from its proper chronological place elsewhere to complete the central narrative (להשלים את הענין), serving either as an introduction in the beginning of a unit or as an epilogue at the end. In other instances, an otherwise intrusive piece of a story is moved away from the core unit to serve either as a prologue or an appendix where it won't interrupt the main storyline (לא להפסיק את הענין).

In a second category of cases, chronology is sacrificed for thematic unity.  This is especially evident when Tanakh recounts two stories which overlap in time.  Rather than interweaving the two stories, Tanakh will focus on each individually, speaking of the same overall time period from different vantage points.  It might distinguish between protagonists, a figure's personal and political role, or differing literary genres. Even when two units do not overlap in time, Tanakh might prefer to arrange certain units thematically, grouping together similar events, related laws or the like.

A third goal of achronology might be to impart homiletical messages.  By juxtaposing material which would otherwise not be linked, lessons regarding proper behavior, Biblical characters, or Hashem's ways can be learned.

Thematic Arrangement: Parallel Units

Tanakh will often prefer thematic ordering over strict chronology, juxtaposing related material even if this means not adhering to a historical timeline. In these instances, both the displaced and chronological components of a unit tend to be of equal import.

Overlapping Stories

A preference for thematic ordering is often evident when components of two independent stories overlap in time. Tanakh will focus on each story individually, recounting them in parallel units, rather than constantly switching back and forth between the two. As such, the same overall time period might be discussed from different vantage points in the textual equivalent of a split screen, with material grouped by varying protagonists, realms of life, literary genre or other factors.

Figures

Tanakh will often focus on one individual protagonist at a time, even if this means compromising on chronological order.

Births of Yaakov's children (Bereshit 29-20) – A simple reading of Bereshit 29-30 might imply that Yaakov's twelve children were born consecutively.  Yet, as this would seem to leave just a little over 6 years for the births of all 12 children,¹ several commentators suggest that some of the births must have overlapped.² Tanakh, though, prefers to separate the stories of each mother, listing each of their births together and only then moving on to the next mother. See opinions in The Births and Relative Ages of Yaakov's Children for elaboration and other approaches.

• Placement in Tanakh – Bereshit 29-30 lists the births of Yaakov's children, first discussing the births of Leah's eldest four sons, then the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, the other children of Leah, and finally the birth of Yosef. A simple reading of the text implies that the twelve children were born consecutively.
• Possible chronological place – Several commentators, however, suggest that some of the births must have overlapped.³
• Motivation for positing achronology – As the text appears to leave only seven years for the births and pregnancies,⁴ it would be impossible to fit 12 consecutive full term births into such a small time frame.⁵
• Reason for displacement – Tanakh might prefer to separate the stories of each mother, listing each of their births together and only then moving on to the next mother. See opinions in The Births and Relative Ages of Yaakov's Children for elaboration and other approaches.

Yehuda vs. Yosef (Bereshit 37-39) – The story of Yehuda's marriage and children (Bereshit 38) takes place over many years and parts of it likely overlapped with the stories of both Yosef's sale (mentioned beforehand in Bereshit 37) and Yosef's stay in Egypt (mentioned afterwards in Bereshit 39 and on).⁶  Tanakh, though, separates the narratives of the two figures, placing the entire Yehuda tale together so as not to have to constantly interweave the two story lines.⁷ [See The Births and Relative Ages of Yaakov's Children and Purpose of the Yehuda and Tamar Story for more.]

• Placement in Tanakh – The story of Yehuda's marriage to Bat-Shua, births of his children, and the episode with Tamar is recounted in Bereshit 38, after the sale of Yosef and before the stories of Yosef's stay in Egypt, suggesting that it took place then.
• Possible chronological place – Ibn Ezra, Ralbag and Shadal, however, claim that at least the beginning of Chapter 38 took place before the sale, while the rest of the story likely overlapped with the rest of the Yosef narrative.
• Motivation for positing achronology – As the story stretches over many years, it is impossible for it not to overlap with at least some of the Yosef story. The suggestion that it began before the sale is motivated by Bereshit 46:12 which shares that at the time of the descent to Egypt, Peretz (Tamar and Yehuda's son) had already sired two children. As Yehuda had relations with Tamar only after his own sons were of marriageable age, if Yehuda's marriage to Bat-Shua first took place after the sale of Yosef, this would leave only 22 years for Yehuda to produce three generations worth of progeny - his own sons, Tamar's children, and Peretz's sons!
• Reason for displacement – Despite the achronology, Tanakh separates the narratives of the two figures, placing the entire Yehuda tale together so as not to have to constantly interweave the two story lines.⁸ [See The Births and Relative Ages of Yaakov's Children and Purpose of the Yehuda and Tamar Story for more.]

The nation and elders at Revelation (Shemot 19 and 24) – According to the first opinion in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael19:1021:1About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot⁹ and RashiShemot 19:11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, the account of the covenant and ceremony marking the acceptance of Hashem's laws described in Shemot 24:1-11 took place during the three days of preparations for Revelation discussed in Shemot 19.¹⁰  Despite this, the stories are distinguished because they have distinct foci; while Shemot 19 highlights the role of the nation and laymen, Shemot 24 focuses on the elders.

• Placement in Tanakh – The account of the covenant and ceremony marking the acceptance of Hashem's laws is described in Shemot 24:1-11, suggesting that it took place after receiving the Decalogue.
• Possible chronological place – According to the first opinion in Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael19:1021:1About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot¹¹ and RashiShemot 19:11About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,¹² however, the ceremony took place during the three days of preparations for Revelation discussed in Shemot 19.
• Motivation for positing achronology – These sources are likely motivated by the many parallels between the two chapters, most notably the nation's announcement in each, "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' נַעֲשֶׂה".‎¹³
• Reason for displacement – Despite having overlapped in time, the stories are distinguished because they have distinct foci; while Shemot 19 highlights the role of the nation and laymen, Shemot 24 focuses on the elders.

Bilam and Israel – See Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam for those who suggest that the interactions between Bilam and Balak in Bemidbar 22-24 take place at the same time as the story of the Sin of Baal Peor in Bemidbar 25.  Here, too, the same time period is discussed from two vantage points, one focusing on what was occurring among Israel's enemies and the other on what was happening in the Israelite camp itself.
Placement in Tanakh – The story of Bilam and Balak is described in Bemidbar 22-24 while the Sin of Baal Peor is recounted in Bemidbar 25, suggesting that the two episodes were consecutive.
Possible chronological place – See Why Was Hashem Angry at Bilam for those who suggest that the interactions between Bilam and Balak in Bemidbar 22-24 take place at the same time as the story of the Sin of Baal Peor in Bemidbar 25.
Motivation for positing achronology –
Reason for displacement -

Yehoshua's spies – As there would not seem to be enough time for the story of the sending of Yehoshua's spies and their escape to take place between Yehoshua 1 and 3, some have suggested that it overlaps with the events of Chapter 1.¹⁴ Tanakh, though, opted for thematic order, first telling of Yehoshua's interactions with the nation and then focusing on the two spies.
Placement in Tanakh –
Possible chronological place –
Motivation for positing achronology –
Reason for displacement -

The Shofetim – The book of Shofetim presents the tenures of each judge as being consecutive, yet, due to the dating given in Shofetim 11:26, there is reason to suggest that they actually overlapped¹⁵ and that parts of the book are achronological.¹⁶  Here, too, Tanakh prefers thematic order, opting to tell the story of each judge individually.
Placement in Tanakh –
Possible chronological place –
Motivation for positing achronology –
Reason for displacement -

Shaul and David – Shemuel I 30 and 31 appear to occur at the same time. David returns to Ziklag and fights the Amalekites while Shaul and the Israelite army are being defeated by the Philistines on the Mountains of Gilboa.¹⁷ As Tanakh cannot describe both events at once, and prefers not to interweave the various events of each story line by line, it focuses on one protagonist at a time.
Placement in Tanakh –
Possible chronological place –
Motivation for positing achronology –
Reason for displacement -

Reigns of the Judean and Israelite kings – The book of Melakhim alternates between the reigns of the kings of Yehuda and Yisrael, focusing on only one kingdom at a time, even though this means that certain elements are told out of order.
Placement in Tanakh –
Possible chronological place –
Motivation for positing achronology –
Reason for displacement -

Prophecies of Yirmeyahu – See Structure – Sefer Yirmeyahu for a discussion of how the prophecies of rebuke in Chapters 1-25 might be ordered based on the audience receiving the prophecies rather than when they were relayed.  Yirmeyahu focuses first on the nation as a whole, then turns to the kings, then to the false prophets and finally to the other nations.

Realms of Life

When a protagonist's interactions in two realms of his life (such as the personal / familial realm vs. the political /national realm) overlap, Tanakh will often separate the two strands of the story rather than constantly switching back and forth.

Banishment of Yishmael and covenant with Avimelekh (Bereshit 21) – R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 6:3Commentary Bereshit 11:31Commentary Bereshit 24:22Commentary Bereshit 24:29About R. Saadia Gaon, R"Y KaraBereshit 21:22About R. Yosef Kara and RashbamBereshit 21:22About R. Shemuel b. Meir imply that the story of the covenant with Avimelekh took place after Yitzchak's birth but before (or in the middle of) the story of Yishmael's banishment.¹⁸  Tanakh might have relayed the events achronologically as it preferred to group the episodes that touch on Avraham's personal family life separately from those which relate to his interactions with outsiders.¹⁹

Yitzchak stories (Bereshit 25-26) – Bereshit 25 tells of Yitzchak's marriage, the birth of Yaakov and Esav, and their upbringing. These events likely overlapped with those of Bereshit 26, with the first half of Bereshit 26 (the wife-sister story) occurring before the birth²⁰ and the second half (the covenant with Avimelekh) taking place later on.  Rather than interweaving the various elements of each story as a strict chronology would dictate, Torah separates the personal and political strands of the Yitzchak narrative.

Yosef in Egypt (Bereshit 42-47) – After narrating the story of Yosef's interactions with his brothers in Bereshit 42-46, Chapter 47 speaks of how the Egyptians themselves fared throughout the famine. If Bereshit 47:18's mention of the "שָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית" refers to the second year of the famine²¹ (rather than two years after the family's arrival in Egypt), then the events of the chapter overlap with those of the previous ones. Here, too Torah portrays the same time period from two perspectives, the personal and political, first focusing on Yosef and his family and then on Yosef and the Egyptians.

Search for a harpist (Shemuel I 16-17) – See Chronology of Shemuel I 16 – 17 for an approach which suggests that the search for a musician to calm Shaul when overtaken by the "evil spirit" described in Shemuel I 16 took place in the middle of the war with the Philistines described in Chapter 17.²²  Tanakh, though, tells of each event alone, with Chapter 16 focusing on events relating to the personal life of Shaul, and Chapter 17 focusing on those that relate to Shaul in the national realm.

David's sin and the war with Ammon (Shemuel II 11-12) – The story of David's sin with Batsheva and its aftermath spans Shemuel II 11-12 and takes place over at least two years.  The events likely overlapped with the end of the war against Ammon described in 12:26-31, yet the two episodes are told as independent stories with Tanakh focusing on the personal and national spheres separately.

Shelomo's internal enemies – Melakhim I 2 describes how Shelomo took care of his internal enemies: Yoav, Shimi and Evyatar. Though it is likely that some of these stories overlapped with events that took place later,²³ they are grouped together in one unit as they all relate to the same aspect of Shelomo's reign, the securing of his throne.  Sefer Melakhim preferred to separate its discussion of events related to Shelomo's kingdom's security from those which relate to Shelomo's administration.²⁴

Chizkiyahu's illness – Seder Olam Rabbah23About Seder Olam Rabbah asserts that Chizkiyahu's sickness in Melakhim II 20 overlapped with Sancheriv's attack described in Melakhim 19-20. [They suggest that the incident took place three days before Sancheriv's defeat.]²⁵  If so, it is likely that the story is told achronologically to separate the events relating to Chizkiyahu the person from those relating to Chizkiyahu the king.

Individual vs. Universal

When an incident has both a universal and individual aspect to it, Tanakh will focus on one at a time.

Two stories of Creation – The achronology found in the two accounts of Creation can be explained by positing that Tanakh is telling the same event from two perspectives, starting with the universal and then narrowing in to focus on the creation of Adam. For further discussion, see Two Accounts of Creation.

Literary Genre

Torah often separates material of different genres. Thus, even if a unit of laws was relayed over a period of time and other events occurred simultaneously, Torah might group the legal and narrative material separately. Similarly, when a book contains both prophecies and history, each might be grouped alone even if this creates achronology.

Yitro's arrival (Shemot 18) – RashbamShemot 18:13About R. Shemuel b. Meir posits that all of Chapter 18 (Yitro's arrival, advice and its implementation) occurred after receiving the Decalogue but before the construction of the Tabernacle.²⁶  It is placed earlier in order not to break up the continuity of the legal sections of Shemot 20-24 with an unrelated narrative.  See Chronology – Shemot 18 for more.

Request for an intermediary at Revelation (Shemot 20:14-17) – R. Yehoshua in Shir HaShirim Rabbah1:2:2About Shir HaShirim Rabbah suggests that Shemot 20:14-16, which describes the people's request that Moshe act as an intermediary rather than Hashem speaking to them directly, actually happened in the midst of Hashem's relaying of the Decalogue (after the second commandment) and not afterward where it is written.  ChizkuniShemot 20:14About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach explains that it is recorded out of order so as not to interrupt the Decalogue, thereby allowing the commandments to appear in one continuous list.  For further discussion and the implications of this reading, see The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe.

"הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם" (Shemot 12:1-3) – ChizkuniShemot 12:1About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach claims that the command of "הַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם" in Shemot 12 was given before the warning about the Plague of Firstborns in Shemot 11,²⁷ but was recorded only afterwards since Torah wanted to group the narrative of the plagues together and the laws relating to the month of Nissan together.

Sefer Yirmeyahu – Some of the explicit achronology of Sefer Yirmeyahu might be explained if one posits that the book groups prophetic and history/narrative separately, first recording a series of prophecies and then returning to discuss relevant historical narrative.   See Structure – Sefer Yirmeyahu for elaboration.

Speech vs. Action

When an action occurs in the middle of a conversation, or an extended conversation occurs in the midst of a list of several actions, Tanakh might distinguish between the two.

Giving of jewelry (Bereshit 24:22-25) – RashbamBereshit 24:22About R. Shemuel b. Meir suggests that in reality the giving of the jewelry to Rivka took place in the middle of the servant's conversation with her (after asking her who she was but before she invited him to stay). The narrator, however, places it beforehand so as not to interrupt the conversation. For elaboration and how this understanding of the verse relates to the disagreement regarding what qualities the servant was looking for when searching for Yitzchak's wife, see A Wife for Yitzchak.

Entry into Rachel's tent (Bereshit 31:33-35) – Though the opening of Bereshit 31:33 implies that Lavan went straight from Leah's tent into that of the maidservants, several commentators²⁸ claim that really he went from Leah's tent into Rachel's tent and only then into the tent of Bilhah and Zilpah.²⁹  However, due to the lengthy exchange between Lavan and Rachel, Tanakh preferred not to interrupt the initial list and left the description of the interaction for the end.

Non-overlapping Stories

Even when two stories do not overlap in time, Tanakh might prefer thematic unity over a strict chronological recounting. This might be motivated by a desire to group together texts which share similar themes, laws which are relevant to the same time period, or content written by the same author.

Thematically similar units

At times, closely related events might be grouped together, even if this creates achronology.³⁰

Masa U'Merivah (Shemot 17) – R"Y Bekhor ShorBemidbar 20:8About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor uniquely suggests that the story of Masa U'Merivah in Shemot 17 is identical to the story of Mei Merivah in Bemidbar 20.  Even though it is elaborated upon in its chronological place when discussing the events of the fortieth year, it is mentioned earlier in Shemot as well since the Torah wanted to group the various examples of miraculous sustenance in the Wilderness together.

Covenant of the Pieces (Bereshit 15:7-20) – Seder Olam Rabbah1About Seder Olam Rabbah, RashiBereshit 15:13Vayikra 8:2Bemidbar 7:1Bemidbar 9:1Bemidbar 20:1Yehoshua 8:30Shofetim 11:26Shofetim 17:1Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, and RashbamReconstructed Bereshit 15:7About R. Shemuel b. Meir all assume that the Covenant of Pieces occurred when Avraham was 70, before the events of Bereshit 12.³¹  Rashbam suggests that the story is written out of order in order to juxtapose the promise of land with the promise of progeny mentioned in the first part of Chapter 15. As the two promises are integrally related (as evidenced by Hashem's words at the end of the chapter, "בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כָּרַת י״י אֶת אַבְרָם בְּרִית לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת"), they are placed one after the another. See Bereshit 15 – One Prophecy or Two.

Blessings and curses (Vayikra 26) – Ibn Ezra maintains that the blessings and curses of Vayikra 26 were originally part of the covenant of Shemot 24 and relayed then.³²  He suggests that they were, nonetheless, written only at the end of Sefer Vayikra so as to group together "תנאי הארץ", the various warnings and conditions for living in the Land of Israel.³³ [The blessings/curses, thus, also serve as a natural segue into Sefer Bemidbar which opens with the intended entry into the Land.] See Blessings and Curses – Over Which Commandments for more.³⁴

Rebellion of Korach (Bemidbar 16) – According to Ibn EzraBemidbar 16:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,³⁵ Korach's rebellion is not found in its chronological place and actually occurred earlier, soon after the Levites were chosen to replace the firstborns in the aftermath of the Sin of the Golden Calf.³⁶ If so, it is possible that it is placed later in Sefer Bemidbar in order to group it with the other rebellions of the book.³⁷ For elaboration and a discussion of how various understanding's of the rebel's grievances affect commentators' dating of the chapter, see Korach's Rebellion.

David's offensive wars (Shemuel II 8) – Shemuel II 8 lists David's various wars against external enemies.  It is likely that not all the battles were consecutive and that some might have occurred at other points in David's reign. For example, the battle against Aram Tzova described in Shemuel II 8:3-5 might be identical to that mentioned in Shemuel II 10:6-19. Tanakh nonetheless groups all the wars together for thematic unity.

Yeshayahu' initiation (Yeshayahu 6) – According to several commentators,³⁸ Yeshayahu 6 constitutes Yeshayahu's initiation into prophecy,³⁹ and as such, it should have opened the book. It is possible that here, too, thematic order takes precedence over chronological order.⁴⁰ Chapters 1-5 describe the nation's sins, while Chapter 6 through 12 focus on their punishment. Even though Chapter 6 might have been relayed first, it is grouped with the other prophecies of punishment.⁴¹ See Yeshayahu's Mission in Chapter 6 for further discussion.

"לדורות" / "לשעה"

Tanakh might group laws which are relevant only for a specific time period (לשעה) separately from those which are relevant for all future generations (לדורות).

The laws of Vayikra 6-7 – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the laws of sacrifices in Vayikra 6-7 were given together with those of Shemot 29, before the erection of the Tabernacle,⁴² and not together with the laws of Parashat Vayikra which were commanded in the Ohel Moed. They are nonetheless placed in Sefer Vayikra because all the laws of the Parashot of Tzav and Vayikra share a a common denominator; they are relevant for all future generations, while those of Shemot were pertinent only for the generation of the Wilderness.⁴³  For further discussion, see Relationship Between Vayikra 1-5 and 6-7.

Two Authors

If a book has multiple authors, each author's material might be grouped separately even if this means that some content is relayed achronologically.

David and Golyat (Shemuel I 16-17) – R. Shemuel b. Chofni GaonBereshit 48:8About R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon suggests that the story of David and Golyat might have preceded the story of Shaul's search for a musician.⁴⁴ R"M Leibtag⁴⁵ explains that the achronology might result from the fact that Sefer Shemuel was written by multiple authors⁴⁶ whose works were then combined. He suggests that since Shemuel was Shaul's prophet, he wrote Chapters 1-16, which concern the two of them, whereas Gad, David's prophet, wrote the units relating to David, beginning with his rise to power in Chapter 17.  This, though, resulted in small sections of overlapping, slightly inconsistent, and achronological content.⁴⁷  For a full discussion, see Chronology of Shemuel I 16 – 17.

Simultaneous Actions

When a unit contains but one element, the entire unit might not just overlap with but actually occur totally simultaneously with another event.  In such cases, Tanakh does not have a choice but to tell one event before the other, even though this does not represent the reality.

Giving of jewelry (Bereshit 24:22-25) – ShadalBereshit 24:22About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto⁴⁸ suggests that the servant gave the jewelry to Rivka as he asked her about her lineage. Tanakh states one action before the other only since it cannot relay both facts at once.

Moshe and Zipporah (Shemot 4:20-26) – According to R. Saadia, Shemot 4:20 serves as a dual introduction to the following verses, telling the reader where each of Zipporah and Moshe were headed: Moshe put Zipporah and family on the donkey to head back to Midyan, while he then, alone, returned to Egypt. The text then continues as a split screen, first recounting the prophecy received by Moshe as he embarked on his mission (verses 21-23), and then relating the simultaneous incident which occurred to Zipporah at the lodge (verses 24-26). See Mystery at the Malon for elaboration and how this reading affects one's understanding of the story.

Speech of Michah and his mother (Shofetim 17:2-4) – R"M Sabato⁴⁹ suggests that the awkward syntax of the verses might be partially explained if one posits that Michah and his mother were speaking at the same time.  He suggests that the words "וְעַתָּה אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ לָךְ" in verse 3 are really the words of Michah (and belong in the middle of verse 2), but are placed later at the end of his mother's speech to show that these words overlapped with hers. ⁵⁰

Technical Displacement: Minor Details

In many cases, the majority and core of a given story is recorded in its proper chronological place and it is just one or two secondary components which are displaced. The displaced unit might be moved from elsewhere to join and thereby complete the central story ("להשלים את הענין") or it might be separated from the main narrative so as not to interrupt the story line ("לא להפסיק את הענין"):

Preludes and Epilogues: "להשלים את הענין"

A subordinate component of a story might be moved from its proper chronological place so as to complete a central narrative. This might take the form of a prelude or heading before the main story or an epilogue or summation at the end.

Preludes

An event which occurred earlier is displaced to serve as an introduction and/or provide necessary background to a later story.

Birth of Kayin and Hevel (Bereshit 4:1)

• Placement in Tanakh – The birth of Kayin and Hevel is mentioned in Bereshit 4:1, after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.
• Possible chronological place – R. Yochanan b. Chanina in Bavli Sanhedrin,⁵¹ nonetheless, asserts that the birth took place beforehand, while Adam and Chavvah were still in the Garden.
• Motivation for positing achronology – The anomalous past perfect form, "וְהָאָדָם יָדַע", might be an indicator of achronology.  A second motivation might be polemical in nature.  As Christians suggest that the sin in the Garden of Eden is what led to sexual desire, this position might want to stress that such desire existed even beforehand.
• Reason for displacement - The birth is mentioned at the opening of Chapter 4 because it is necessary to open the Kayin and Hevel story.

The command of "לֶךְ לְךָ" (Bereshit 12:1)

• Placement in Tanakh  – Hashem's command to Avraham to leave his family and head to Canaan opens Bereshit 12 and, as such, would appear to be relayed to Avraham only after he had left Ur Kasdim, arrived in Charan, and settled there.⁵²  
• Possible chronological place –  R. SaadiaCommentary Bereshit 11:31About R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn EzraBereshit Second Commentary 11:32Bereshit First Commentary 12:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, and RadakBereshit 12:1About R. David Kimchi, however, suggest that the command's proper chronological place is at the end of Bereshit 11, before Avraham departed from Ur Kasdim.⁵³ 
• Motivation for positing achronology – In the story of the Covenant of the Pieces in Bereshit 15, Hashem tells Avraham, "אֲנִי י״י אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאוּר כַּשְׂדִּים".  This implies that Hashem's command of "לֶךְ לְךָ" was given to Avraham in Ur Kasdim rather than in Charan, and must have taken place before his initial departure described in Bereshit 11:31.⁵⁴
• Reason for displacement – Despite it occurring earlier, the command is first mentioned at the beginning of Bereshit 12 to introduce the Avraham narrative and the completion of his journey to Canaan.⁵⁵  For further discussion, see Avraham's Aliyah.

Sarah conceives (Bereshit 21:1-2)

• Placement in Tanakh – Sarah's conception and pregnancy with Yitzchak is described in Bereshit 21 right before the story of Yitzchak's birth, weaning, and the expulsion of Yishmael..
• Possible chronological place – RashiBereshit 21:1Shemot 31:18Bemidbar 9:1Yehoshua 8:30Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Avraham SabaTzeror HaMor Bereshit 21:1About R. Avraham Saba (Tzeror HaMor), and MalbimBereshit 21:1About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, however, maintain that Sarah had conceived before or in the middle of the story of Avimelekh and Sarah described in the previous chapter (Bereshit 20).
• Factors supporting achronology – Achronology might be hinted to in the text's employment of the past perfect form "וַה' פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה" rather than the form "ויפקוד ה'".‎⁵⁶
• Reason for displacement – Despite having occurred earlier, the conception might be recorded first in Bereshit 21 to introduce the story of Yitzchak's birth.

Marriage of Amram and Yocheved (Shemot 2:1)

• Placement in Tanakh – Amram and Yocheved's marriage is mentioned in Shemot 2, right before the story of Moshe's birth.
• Possible chronological place – R"Y Bekhor ShorShemot 2:1About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, however, maintains that Amram and Yocheved had married before the decree of Paroh to kill all baby boys discussed in the previous chapter (Shemot 1:22).
• Motivation for positing achronology – If the marriage had occurred only after the decree, one would have expected that there should have been an attempt to hide not only Moshe, but also Aharon and Miryam, his older siblings. Since no such attempt is mentioned, it is assumed that that the marriage (and the births of Miryam and Aharon) occurred before the decree.
• Reason for displacement –  The marriage is mentioned later to properly open the story of Moshe's birth and its aftermath.

"וַיֹּאמֶר י״י אֶל מֹשֶׁה עוֹד נֶגַע אֶחָד אָבִיא עַל פַּרְעֹה" (Shemot 11:1-2)

• Placement in Tanakh – The verses present Hashem as commanding Moshe regarding the last plague while he was standing in front of Paroh, after the Plague of Darkness.
• Possible chronological place – Ibn EzraShemot Second Commentary 12:50Devarim 31:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,⁵⁷ however, suggests that this statement refers to Hashem's earlier informing of Moshe of the Plague of Firstborns when en route from Midyan in Shemot 4:22-23.⁵⁸
• Motivation for positing achronology – RalbagShemot Beur HaMilot 11:1About R. Levi b. Gershom explains that if the verse occurred where written this would mean that Moshe received prophecy while in the middle of a conversation, and moreover, that he prophesied while standing in an idolatry-filled palace! 
• Reason for displacement – The command is repeated here to introduce Moshe's statement to Paroh "כֹּה אָמַר י״י כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם. וּמֵת כׇּל בְּכוֹר", to remind the reader that this plague was indeed already announced by Hashem.

Pesach (Bemidbar 9)

• Placement in Tanakh – Bemidbar 9 opens with a description of the first Pesach brought by the Israelites in the Wilderness, dating this to the first month.  It then proceeds to speak of the petition of the impure who could not participate in the rite.
• Explicit achronology – In this case, achronology is explicit in the text. Bemidbar 1 opens in the second month, while Bemidbar 9 backtracks to speak of events of the first month.
• Reason for displacement – AbarbanelBemidbar 9About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel suggests that the Pesach of the first month is mentioned in the beginning of Bemidbar 9, not because it occurred there, but only to serve as a prelude to the main story of the unit, Pesach Sheni (brought in the second month). Without the background of the events of the first month, the request of the impure would not make sense to the reader.  For elaboration, see Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10.

Ceremony on Har Eival (Yehoshua 8:30-35)

• Placement in Tanakh – The ceremony on Mount Eival (including the writing on the stones, setting up of the altar and recital of the blessings and curses) is described in Yehoshua 8, after the battle against the Ai.
• Possible chronological place – R. D"Z Hoffmann, however, suggests that though most of the ceremony took place where written, the preparation of the stones (8:32), began much earlier,⁵⁹ immediately after the nation crossed the Jordan. 
• Motivation for positing achronology – The directive regarding the ceremony in Devarim 27 mandates that the stones be set up on the day that the nation crosses the Jordan ("בַּיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר תַּעַבְרוּ אֶת הַיַּרְדֵּן"), and Yehoshua 8:32 states that Yehoshua did as commanded.  However, if the story is in its proper chronological place, then Yehoshua did not do as commanded.⁶⁰  R. Hoffmann, thus, suggests that the initial preparation of the stones (the plastering and writing) did indeed begin on the day of the crossing.
• Reason for displacement – The writing on the stones is mentioned in Yehoshua 8 to fill in the beginning of the main story, providing the details of the preparatory stage of the ceremony.  See When Did the Ceremony on Mt. Eival Occur for elaboration and other approaches regarding the timing of the ceremony.

Shemuel's death (Shemuel I 28:3)

• Placement in Tanakh – The death of Shemuel is mentioned in Shemuel I 25, before the story of David and Naval, and repeated in Shemuel I 28 before the story of the Ba'alat Ha'Ov.⁶¹
• Possible chronological place – It is assumed that Shemuel died in Shemuel 25, where the death is first mentioned and elaborated upon.
• Motivation for positing achronology – As the event is mentioned twice, it is obvious that one of the two mentions is out of place. The past perfect form of "וַיָּמׇת שְׁמוּאֵל" in Chapter 28 hints to the reader that the event occurred previously and is only being referenced here..
• Reason for displacement – The death of Shemuel is repeated in the beginning of the story of the Ba'alat Ha'Ov even though it occurred earlier as necessary background to understand the revival of the prophet later in the story.⁶²

Epilogues

A component of a story which is only to occur later is moved earlier to provide closure to the main unit.

Death notices – The deaths of the various characters in Sefer Bereshit are recorded already when they fade from the scene,⁶³ rather then in the middle of later narratives when they chronologically occurred.⁶⁴ The achronology is motivated by a desire to provide closure to each protagonist's individual story.⁶⁵

The manna (Shemot 16:32-35) – Shemot 16 tells the story of the manna's initial arrival in the first year in the Wilderness, but it also mentions its later preservation near the Ark in the second year or later⁶⁶ and its being eaten throughout the forty years of wandering. Despite the fact that these added details occur only later, they are placed here to close the unit.⁶⁷  [For a spectrum of opinions regarding the specific timing of the events mentioned in the epilogue, see Epilogue to the Manna Story.]

Recording the battle of Amalek (Shemot 17:14)

• Placement in Tanakh – Right after Amalek is defeated in the nation's first year in the Wilderness, Shemot 17 tells how Hashem commanded Moshe to record the battle for posterity in "the book" and to speak to Yehoshua about wiping out Amalek.
• Possible chronological place – Despite the placement of the directive,  Ibn EzraShemot First Commentary 17:14About R. Avraham ibn Ezra posits that it was first commanded in the fortieth year.
• Motivation for positing achronology – Ibn Ezra is motivated by the fact that it is only in the fortieth year that it was known that Yehoshua alone was to head the Conquest and that he would be the one to fight Amalek, and it was only by then that "the book," the Sefer Torah, was extant.⁶⁸
• Reason for displacement – The directive is recorded in Shemot only so as to conclude the narrative of the battle.

Yitro's departure (Shemot 18:27) – ShadalBereshit 11:32Bemidbar 8:7Bemidbar 20:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto⁶⁹ posits that the story of Yitro's arrival, advice, and its implementation all occurred where found, in Shemot 18 before the Revelation at Sinai, but that Yitro's departure took place only later, in the second year. As Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro ((see Yitro – Names), he identifies his departure there with what is described in Shemot 18.⁷⁰ He explains that the fact is, nonetheless,  recorded already in Shemot to "complete the story" [See Chronology – Shemot 18 for elaboration and for those who maintain that other parts of the story, too, might only be mentioned here to "finish the narrative".]

• Placement in Tanakh – Yitro's departure back to Midyan is described in Shemot 18, after recounting the story of his advising Moshe and before the account of the Revelation at Sinai.
• Possible chronological place – ShadalBereshit 11:32Bemidbar 8:7Bemidbar 20:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto,⁷¹ however, posits that Yitro's departure took place only later, in the second year in the Wilderness.
  
• Motivation for positing achronology – Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro (see Yitro – Names), and therefore he identifies the departure described there, in the second year, with what is described in Shemot 18.
• Reason for displacement –  Yitro's leaving is recorded already in Shemot to complete the main story of Yitro.⁷²
  

Incense altar  (Shemot 30:1-10) – See the discussion in Purpose and Placement of the Incense Altar⁷³ for the possibility that the directive to build the Mishkan preceded the Sin of the Golden Calf, but that the Incense Altar was commanded only in its aftermath.⁷⁴  If so, the proper placement of the command should be after the sin in Shemot 34, but it is mentioned earlier to close the unit on the vessels of the Mishkan.⁷⁵

• Placement in Tanakh – The directive to build the Incense Altar is found in Shemot 30, at the end of the discussion regarding the construction of the Tabernacle and its vessels and before the account of the Sin of the Golden Calf.
• Possible chronological place – Some scholars,⁷⁶ however, have suggested that the Incense Altar was commanded to be built only after the sin. If so, the proper placement of the command would be Shemot 34.
• Motivation for positing achronology – This position views the Incense Altar as playing an important role in atonement and, thus, suggests that it was first commanded only when Yom HaKippurim was instituted, in the aftermath of the Sin of the Calf.
• Reason for displacement –The directive is mentioned earlier to close the unit on the vessels of the Mishkan.⁷⁷

Erecting the Tabernacle (Shemot 40) – According to those who maintain that the Days of Consecration of the Mishkan (described in Vayikra 8-9) began on the 23rd of Adar,⁷⁸ the description of the erection of the Mishkan on the first of Nissan (described in Shemot 40) is out of place. One might suggest that it is mentioned here only to serve as an epilogue to the unit of chapters discussing the building of the Mishkan.⁷⁹

• Placement in Tanakh – The erection of the Tabernacle is described in Shemot 40, where it is explicitly dated to the first of Nissan.
• Proper chronological place – According to those who maintain that the Days of Consecration of the Mishkan described in Vayikra 8-9 began on the 23rd of Adar,⁸⁰ the Mishkan's erection should be recounted only afterwards (in Vayikra 10).⁸¹
• Reason for displacement – One might suggest that the Tabernacle's erection is mentioned already in Shemot to serve as an epilogue to the unit of chapters discussing the building of the Mishkan.

Clouds on the Mishkan (Shemot 40:36-38) – After discussing the erection of the Tabernacle in Shemot 40, the final verses of the chapter speak of the Cloud of Glory descending on the Tabernacle and the role to be played by the cloud as an indicator of when to travel.  The verses conclude by pointing out that this was a constant throughout the nation's journeys in the Wilderness (ie. throughout the forty years). Though this refers to what is to occur in the future, it is mentioned here as a conclusion to the discussion regarding the Cloud of Glory.

Conquest of Canaanite cities (Bemidbar 21:3) – RambanBemidbar 21:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that the conquest of the Canaanite cities mentioned here occurred first in Shofetim 1:16-17.⁸²  It is mentioned already here, though, to complete the story, telling the reader how the nation's vow was fulfilled.

• Placement in Tanakh – Bemidbar 21:3 describes the conquest of Canaanite cities by Israel, in fulfillment of their vow after the victory over the King of Arad.
• Possible chronological place – RambanBemidbar 21:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that this first took place after Yehoshua's death in the period of Judges, and is identical to the conquest described in Shofetim 1:16-17.
• Motivation for positing achronology – As both the verses in Bemidbar and in Shofetim speak of conquering the Canaanites and calling the conquered place "חרמה", it seems that they are speaking of the same event.
• Reason for displacement – The story is mentioned already here, despite the achronology, to complete the story, telling the reader how the nation's vow was fulfilled.

Conquests of Machir (Bemidbar 32:39-42)⁸³ – RalbagBemidbar 32:39About R. Levi b. Gershom suggests that the conquests of Menashe mentioned here really took place during the war against Sichon discussed in Bemidbar 21.⁸⁴  A student of R. Saadia Gaonפירוש תלמיד רס״ג דברי הימים א ב׳:כ״ב goes even further to suggest that these cities had been conquered by the tribe of Menashe already during the era of Yosef's reign in Egypt.⁸⁵  According to both, the event is mentioned here only to complete the story and explain why Menashe, too, got land on the eastern bank of the Jordan.  For further discussion, see Menashe Joins Reuven and Gad.

• Placement in Tanakh – After discussing the petition of Reuven and Gad and Moshe's giving them and half of the tribe of Menashe lands on the eastern bank of the Jordan, Bemidbar 32 describes the conquests of Menashe's descendants in the area.
• Possible chronological place – RalbagBemidbar 32:39About R. Levi b. Gershom suggests that the conquests really took place during the war against Sichon discussed in Bemidbar 21.⁸⁶  A student of R. Saadia Gaonפירוש תלמיד רס״ג דברי הימים א ב׳:כ״ב goes even further to suggest that these cities had been conquered by the tribe of Menashe already during the era of Yosef's reign in Egypt.⁸⁷
• Motivation for positing achronology – A possible motivation of R. Saadia's student is the fact that the verses mention Machir, Yair, and Novach, the sons and grandsons of Menashe. These figures should no longer be alive if the conquests took place in the fortieth year.
• Reason for displacement – Despite occurring earlier, the event is mentioned here to complete the story and explain why Menashe, too, got land on the eastern bank of the Jordan.  For further discussion, see Menashe Joins Reuven and Gad.

Headings

An event which is soon to be discussed in the text is mentioned already in the heading of the unit, not because it takes place then, but to let the reader know what is to come.  This phenomenon often takes the form of "כלל ופרט", a general formulation followed by details.

"וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ" (Bereshit 24:29-30) – Bereshit 24:29-30 reads, "וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ... וַיְהִי כִּרְאֹת אֶת הַנֶּזֶם וְאֶת הַצְּמִדִים...  וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָאִישׁ".  R. SaadiaCommentary Bereshit 24:29About R. Saadia Gaon and others claim that, despite the order of the verses,  Lavan only ran after seeing the jewelry on Rivka. Shadal Bereshit 24:30About R. Shemuel David Luzzattoexplains that the verses are not really achronological, but rather verse 29 is a general statement which is explained by verse 30.⁸⁸

"וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה" (Bereshit 28:10) – Bereshit 28:10 tells the reader that Yaakov went to Charan ("וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה"), then proceeds to speak of his dream in Beit El, and then repeats that he headed to Charan in Bereshit 29:1 (וַיֵּלֶךְ אַרְצָה בְנֵי קֶדֶם).  R. Avraham b. HaRambamBereshit 28:10About R. Avraham Maimonides⁸⁹ explains that this is a "כלל ופרט"; the story opens with a general heading sharing that Yaakov went from Beer Sheva to Charan, then steps back to explain what happened along the way.⁹⁰

"וַיָּשֶׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶת דִּבְרֵי הָעָם אֶל י״י" (Shemot 19:8-9) – In the story of the preparations for revelation, we are told twice that Moshe relayed the people's words to Hashem, in Shemot 19:8 and 19:9. RashbamShemot 19:8-9About R. Shemuel b. Meir suggests that the repetition is another example of the Torah being "כולל ואחר כך מפרש".‎⁹¹

"וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר יַם סוּף" (Shemot 13:18) – Shemot 13:8 speaks of Hashem "turning the people around" towards Yam Suf.  It is possible that this, too, is simply a heading for the unit and does not refer to Hashem's leading the people towards Yam Suf but to the "about-face" described in  Shemot 14:2, when He commands, "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָשֻׁבוּ וְיַחֲנוּ לִפְנֵי פִּי הַחִירֹת".

"וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי י״י וַתֹּאכַל עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ" (Vayikra 9:24) – Vayikra 9:24 describes a Divine fire consuming Aharon's offerings of the Eighth Day of the Consecration ceremony, and would appear to have occurred before the story of Nadav and Avihu that follows in Vayikra 10:1-2. According to RashbamShemot 19:8-9Vayikra 9:24Vayikra 10:2About R. Shemuel b. Meir, though, the verse is a heading for the story of Nadav and Avihu and not a statement of what happened already in Chapter 9. In other words, the Divine fire did not consume Aharon's offerings before the story of Nadav and Avihu, but rather in the middle of it.  According to his reading, the fire of Vayikra 9:24 and 10:2 (" וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי י״י וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי י״י") are identical; en route to consuming Aharon's offerings, the fire killed Nadav and Avihu.  For elaboration and the ramifications of this reading for understanding the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, see Why Were Nadav and Avihu Killed.

Service of Yom Hakippurim (Vayikra 16) – In the description of the cultic service of Yom HaKipurrim in Vayikra 16, there is a dual doubling. Twice the chapter mentions the sacrificing of Aharon's sin-offering of the cow (in verses 6 and 11) and twice it mentions the sacrificing of the nation's sin-offering of the goat (in verses 9 and 15).  It is possible that the offerings are really first sacrificed in verses 11 and 15 and that verses  6-9 are simply an abstract of what is to come.  They introduce the sacrifices and atonement to be achieved and then the verses backtrack to provide the details of the procedure.

"וַיָּשֶׁב אֶת אֶלֶף וּמֵאָה הַכֶּסֶף לְאִמּוֹ" (Shofetim 17:3:4) – In both Shofetim 17:3 and 17:4 the verses speak of Michah returning the money he stole to his mother. RashbamShemot 19:8-9About R. Shemuel b. Meir suggests that verse 3 is a general statement of what took place, while the following verse backtracks, providing the details.⁹²

Summaries

An episode which occurred and was explicitly mentioned earlier in Tanakh is repeated in order to serve as a summary to a unit.

"לֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה" (Shemot 11:9)

• Placement in Tanakh – In Shemot 11:9, after Moshe warns Paroh of the upcoming Plague of Firstborns, Hashem tells Moshe, "לֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה"
• Possible chronological place – RashbamShemot 11:9About R. Shemuel b. Meir⁹³ asserts that the statement is not a warning that Paroh will harden his heart now, after the Plague of Firstborns, but rather a statement referring to what happened in the previous nine plagues.
• Motivation – Rashbam is likely motivated by the fact that after the last plague Paroh does not refuse to let the nation go, but instead actively chases them out.
• Reason for displacement – Though Paroh's earlier refusals have already been shared, the fact is repeated here as a summation (together with verse 10) for all the plagues.

Esav's move to Seir (Bereshit 36:6-8)

• Placement in Tanakh – Bereshit 36:6-8 describes Esav's uprooting from Canaan and moving to Edom "מִפְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב אָחִיו", suggesting that this first happened only after Yaakov had returned from Charan and settled in Canaan.
• Possible chronological place – Hoil MosheBereshit 32:4About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi, however,  suggests that the move actually took place earlier, while Yaakov was still in Charan.
• Factors supporting achronology – Hoil Moshe points to the fact that Esav appears to have already been living in Seir in Bereshit 32, where we are told that Yaakov sent messengers to Esav in Seir.
• Reason for displacement – Despite its having occurred earlier, Esav's move might be mentioned (and elaborated upon) in Bereshit 36 only as part of the closing summary of the Esav story where Torah describes his descendants and land.

Prologues and Appendices: "לא להפסיק את הענין"

Secondary narrative components might be moved to form a prologue at the very beginning of a unit or an appendix at the end because setting them in their proper chronological place in the middle of the central unit would otherwise break the flow of the main narrative . The episode or topic which is displaced is either irrelevant to the main theme or message of the unit, of lesser import, or of a different literary character.

Prologues

An event is moved from its correct chronological place later in the text and placed at the very beginning of the unit where it will not disrupt the main topic.

Bemidbar 1-6

• Placement in Tanakh – The opening chapters of Bemidbar describes the census of the nation, which is explicitly dated to the second month (Bemidbar 1:1-3). This is followed by several undated legal sections.
• Possible chronological place and motivation – As Bemidbar 7 and 9 are dated to the first month, and Bemidbar 10 describes the nation's departure from Mount Sinai in  the second month, it would seem that the census occurred between the events of these two chapters and should have been recorded there.
• Reason for displacement – It is possible that placing such an extensive list of numbers there would break up the main narrative of the book. As such, the Torah might have preferred to incorporate the non-narrative material of Chapters 1-6 as a prologue to the book where it would not interrupt the stories of the Wilderness journey. See Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10 for elaboration.

Appendices

An episode is moved from its correct chronological place earlier in the narrative and placed at the very end of the unit where it will not disrupt the main topic.

Marriage to Keturah (Bereshit 25:1-6)

• Placement in Tanakh – Avraham's marriage to Keturah (and the birth of their children) is described at the very end of the Avraham narratives, suggesting that these events took place at the end of his life, after Sarah's death and Yitzchak's marriage.
• Possible chronological place – Shadal, however, asserts that the marriage occurred before Sarah's death and not where it is mentioned in the text.
• Motivation – The suggested reordering is motivated by rationalist concerns over the age of Avraham when siring children. Since Avraham's siring of Yitzchak was already considered surprising, the fact that he could bear six more children 40 years later would be even more unnatural!
• Reason for displacement – Since the story is tangential to the main narrative which focuses on the formation of the Nation of Israel, it is put as an appendix to the Avraham stories rather than in its proper chronological place. [For elaboration and dissenting opinions, see Avraham's Many Wives]

Genealogy lists (Bereshit 25, 36) – The genealogies of Yishmael and Esav are listed as appendices to the Avraham and Yitzchak stories respectively.⁹⁴ Even though it is likely that some of their of their descendants were born during the lives of their grandparents and in a strict chronological account should have appeared earlier in the narrative,⁹⁵ the list is mentioned only at the end of the entire cycle of stories so as not to interrupt the main narrative which focuses on the chosen rather than rejected lines.

Laws of the Red Heifer (Bemidbar 19)

• Placement in Tanakh – The laws of the red heifer appear in Bemidbar 19, after all the rebellions, complaints and other events of the second year in the Wilderness have been told.
• Possible chronological place – ShadalBemidbar 8:7Bemidbar 20:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, however, suggests that the laws were really given at some point before the purification of the Levites described in Bemidbar 8.
• Motivation – His suggestion is based on logical conjecture; if the Levites underwent a process of purification, it would make sense that the laws of purification from the dead would have been taught beforehand.
• Reason for displacement – It is possible that the laws first appear in Bemidbar 19 as an appendix to the stories of the second year so as not interrupt the earlier storyline.

End of Sefer Shofetim (Chapters 17-21)

• Placement in Tanakh – The stories of the "Idol of Michah" and the "Concubine of Givah" are told in Shofetim 17-21, after the stories of all the Judges, suggesting that they occurred only after the tenure of Shimshon (the last Judge of the book).
• Possible chronological place – Several commentators,⁹⁶ however, assume that the two episodes occurred much earlier in Sefer Shofetim.⁹⁷
• Motivation for positing achronology – Regarding the idol of Michah, Rashi notes that the verse states that the idol was "in Shiloh all the days" suggesting that it existed from the very beginning of the Shiloh period (and, thus, that the episode took place in the beginning of Sefer Shofetim). In addition, the story of the Concubine of Givah highlights the role of Pinechas, the grandson of Aharon. If the story is told in its chronological place, this would make him hundreds of years old!
• Reason for displacement – It is possible that the two stories are set apart and moved to the end of the book since they deviate from the cycle of sin, oppression, return, and salvation that marks the core of the book.

End of Sefer Shemuel

• Placement in Tanakh – David's song thanking Hashem for saving him from enemies and the feats of his elite warriors are recounted at the end of Sefer Shemuel, in chapters 22-23.
• Possible chronological place – Some have suggested that these events, nonetheless, took place much earlier in the book.⁹⁸
• Motivation – The opening line of the song says that it was composed as praise for David's salvation from Shaul, suggesting that it was composed either during Shaul's lifetime or soon after his death, and the warrior list includes people (such as Uriah the Hittite and Amasa) who are no longer alive at the end of the book.
• Reason for displacement – Here, too, the displacement might be due to the distinct nature of the material (poetry / list) and unique focus (David's men rather than David) which set them apart from the narrative of the rest of the book.

Homiletical Juxtaposition

Achronology might stem from a desire to relay a message through the juxtaposition of two stories which otherwise would not follow one another. The message might be a lesson in proper behavior, a showcasing of Hashem's attributes, or a means of highlighting (or hiding) a character's strengths or faults.

Proper Behavior

Two nonconsecutive stories might be juxtaposed to teach a lesson in proper behavior.

"וַי״י פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה" (Bereshit 21:1) – Rashi Bereshit 21:1Yehoshua 8:30Shofetim 11:26Shofetim 17:1Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchakisuggests that Sarah's conception is mentioned only after the story of Avimelekh, despite it having occurred beforehand,⁹⁹ to teach that if one prays for his neighbor when he himself is similarly in need, he will be answered first.

Parashat Mishpatim – About R. Shelomo Yitzchakihe NetzivShemot 21:1About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin suggests that Parashat Mishpatim was actually relayed before the Decalogue, but it comes right after the announcement "אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ" (Shemot 20:20) to teach that all who abide by the judicial system (המשפטים) similarly bring blessing to the world. Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot21:1About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot instead suggests that the unit is juxtaposed with the command to build the altar to teach that one should set up a Sanhedrin (court of law) in the Mikdash.

Hashem's Attributes

Achronology might serve to link stories so as to highlight Hashem's ways and attributes.

Commands regarding the Tabernacle – Sifre Devarim1About Sifre Devarim, TanchumaTerumah 8About the Tanchuma, and RashiShemot 31:18About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki claim that the directive to build the Mishkan does not appear in its chronological place as it was first given in the wake of (and as a result of) the Sin of the Golden Calf.¹⁰⁰  R. Bachya suggests that it appears beforehand to teach an important lesson about Hashem's attributes, that He provides a cure even before an illness arises (מקדים תרופה למכה).¹⁰¹  See Purpose of the Mishkan for more.

David's offensive wars – The commentary attributed to R"Y Kara Shemuel II 8:1About Attributed to R. Yosef Karaimplies that not all of David's wars listed in Shemuel II 8 occurred where written.¹⁰² However, they are placed after Chapter 7 in which Hashem promised David, "וַהֲנִיחֹתִי לְךָ מִכׇּל אֹיְבֶיךָ" to highlight how Hashem keeps His promises, as evidenced by the fact that David was indeed able to vanquish his enemies.

Character

Juxtaposing stories that otherwise would not follow one another can help a reader compare and contrast different figures, often highlighting their merits or faults.

Yehuda and Tamar (Bereshit 38) – Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 38:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and RalbagBereshit Beur HaParashah 38:1About R. Levi b. Gershom suggest that the Yehuda story is placed in the middle of the Yosef story, even though parts of it preceded it,¹⁰³ because Tanakh wanted to contrast how the two brothers reacted to sexual advances.  While Yosef passed the test, Yehuda did not.

Yitro's arrival (Shemot 18) – Ibn EzraShemot First Commentary 18:1Shemot Second Commentary 18:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra suggests that though the story of Yitro's arrival and advice described in Shemot 18 first occurred in the second year after the construction of the Tabernacle,¹⁰⁴ it is purposefully juxtaposed to the story of Amalek's attack to highlight the contrast between Yitro and Amalek. Yitro's goodness is all the more appreciated when seen on the backdrop of the evil Amalek.  See Chronology – Shemot 18 and Yitro & Amalek for further discussion.

Laws of the Red Heifer (Bemidbar 19) – R. Ami in Bavli Moed KatanMoed Katan 28aAbout the Bavli asserts that the laws of the red heifer first appear in Bemidbar 19, rather than before the purification of the Levites in Bemidbar 8, so as to juxtapose the laws with Miriam's death (recounted in Bemibdar 20). This teaches that just as the red heifer atones for one's sins, so does the death of the righteous.

Defense of Avot

Achronology might be a means of obscuring a fault or sin of the Avot or nation.

"וַיָּמׇת תֶּרַח בְּחָרָן" (Bereshit 11:32) – Bereshit Rabbah39:7About Bereshit Rabbah suggests that Terach's death is mentioned before Avraham leaves Charan, despite it occurring only afterwards, to obfuscate the fact that Avraham's departure meant that he could no longer properly honor and care for his father.

Pesach in Bemidbar 9 – Bemidbar 9 recounts the first Pesach in the Wilderness( which took place in the first month) before the events mentioned in Bemidbar 1 (which take place in the second month).  RashiBemidbar 9:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki explains the displacement, noting that Hashem did not want to open the book with the a description of the Pesach since this would cast Israel in a negative light.  Since this was the only Pesach observed by the nation throughout the forty years, its mention is disparaging.¹⁰⁵ See Chronology of Bemidbar 1 – 10 for elaboration.

¹ undefined

² Lekach TovBereshit 29:32About R. Toviah b. Eliezer suggests that Bilhah and Zilpah's pregnancies overlapped with those of Leah, while Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 30:23About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and SefornoBereshit 30:8About R. Ovadyah Seforno suggest that it was Bilhah's and Zilpah's pregnancies which overlapped. Ibn Ezra also raises the possibilities that Zevulun and Dinah were twins.

³ Lekach TovBereshit 29:32About R. Toviah b. Eliezer suggests that Bilhah and Zilpah's pregnancies overlapped with those of Leah, while Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 30:23About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and SefornoBereshit 30:8About R. Ovadyah Seforno suggest that it was Bilhah's and Zilpah's pregnancies which overlapped. Ibn Ezra also raises the possibilities that Zevulun and Dinah were twins.

⁴ The chapter implies that Yaakov married Leah after completing his first seven years of labor for Lavan and that Yosef, his twelfth child, was born at the end of his second seven year stint.  This leaves just 7 years for the births and pregnancies.

⁵ Seder Olam Rabbah, who attempts to read the verses as being totally chronological, therefore suggests that each birth was premature and that each pregnancy lasted only seven months.

⁶ Bereshit 46:12 shares that at the time of the descent to Egypt, Peretz (Tamar and Yehuda's son) has already sired two children. As Yehuda had relations with Tamar only after his own sons were of marriageable age, if Yehuda's marriage to Bat-Shua first took place after the sale of Yosef, this would leave only 22 years for Yehuda to produce three generations worth of progeny - his own sons, Tamar's children, and Peretz's sons!  This leads Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 38:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RalbagBereshit Beur HaParashah 38:1About R. Levi b. Gershom and ShadalBereshit 38:1About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto  to claim that at least the beginning of Chapter 38 took place before the sale.
On the other end, as the rest of the Yehuda story stretches over many years, telling of the growth of his children and their own marriages, it is likely that some of these events took place after Yosef was already taken to Egypt.

⁷ This, however, does not explain why Torah did not place the Yehuda story before the sale, which would have allowed all the Yosef stories to run consecutively.  It is possible that the placement in the middle serves to clue the reader in to the fact that the stories overlap.

⁸ This, however, does not explain why Torah did not place the Yehuda story before the sale, which would have allowed all the Yosef stories to run consecutively.  It is possible that the placement in the middle serves to clue the reader in to the fact that the stories overlap.

⁹ It is not clear what R. Yose B. Rabbi Yehuda there maintains.  He writes, "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם נֶעֱשׂוּ כָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים" which could either mean that he thinks the ceremony of Shemot 24 took place on the morning of revelation, before Shemot 20 (in which case, he, too, agrees that the chapters are achronological), or that is occurred only in the afternoon, after the Decalogue was received (in which case the chapters are chronological).

¹⁰ See also Lekach TovShemot 24:1About R. Toviah b. Eliezer and R"Y Bekhor ShorShemot 24:1Shemot 24:12About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.  These sources are likely motivated by the many parallels between the chapters, most notably the nation's announcement, "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה' נַעֲשֶׂה" . Shemot 24's opening past perfect formulation, "וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר", and the lack of a named speaker there might further indicate achronology.  Cf. NetzivShemot 24:1Bemidbar 19:1About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin who suggests that all of Parashat Mishpatim, as well, was said before the Decalogue.

¹¹ It is not clear what R. Yose B. Rabbi Yehuda there maintains.  He writes, "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם נֶעֱשׂוּ כָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים" which could either mean that he thinks the ceremony of Shemot 24 took place on the morning of revelation, before Shemot 20 (in which case, he, too, agrees that the chapters are achronological), or that is occurred only in the afternoon, after the Decalogue was received (in which case the chapters are chronological).

¹² See also Lekach TovShemot 24:1About R. Toviah b. Eliezer and R"Y Bekhor ShorShemot 24:1Shemot 24:12About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.  Cf. NetzivShemot 24:1Bemidbar 19:1About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin who suggests that all of Parashat Mishpatim, as well, was said before the Decalogue

¹³ Shemot 24's opening past perfect formulation, "וְאֶל מֹשֶׁה אָמַר", and the lack of a named speaker there might further indicate achronology.

¹⁴ The spies were perhaps sent after Hashem encouraged Yehoshua in the first part of the chapter, but before Yehoshua spoke to the officers and the 2 1/2 tribes at the end of the chapter. The spies' escape and stay in the mountains likely overlapped with these conversations and the days in which the people prepared to cross the Jordan.

¹⁵ In Shofetim 11:26, Yiftach asserts that 300 years passed from the conquest of the lands of Sichon until his own time period. However, if one calculates all the years of oppression and quiet in Sefer Shofetim plus the years of the Conquest and division of the land, one reaches more than the 300 years allotted. [There were 8 years of oppression by Kushan and 40 years of quiet under Otniel, 18 years of servitude to Eglon and 80 of quiet under Ehud, 20 years of oppession by Canaan and 40 years under Devorah, 7 years of trouble by Midyan and 40 of quiet under Gidon, 3 years in which Avimelekh reigned, 23 years of Tola, 22 years of Yair and 18 years of oppression by Ammon before Yiftach. This alone amounts to 321 years and does not include the years of the Conquest and Inheritance.]

¹⁶ See Prof. Elitzur's comments to Shofetim 11:26 in Da'at MIkra, Sefer Shofetim (Jerusalem, 1976): 127. Cf. Seder Olam Rabbah12About Seder Olam Rabbah and RashiShofetim 11:26About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, though, who maintain that the judges were in fact consecutive, and that some of the years of oppression overlapped with the years that the judges were said to rule, allowing for a shorter time period. This is difficult, though, because the text employs the language of "and there was quiet for "x" amount of years". Quiet implies that the nation was not oppressed at the time.

¹⁷ The chapters allude to the fact that chronologically Chapter 31 directly follows Chapter 29, by opening Chapter 31 with a resumptive repetition, " וּפְלִשְׁתִּים נִלְחָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל", letting the reader know that the story is resuming from where it left off earlier. As Rashi says, "כאדם האומר נחזור לענין ראשון".

¹⁸ The opening words of the unit, "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא", imply that the story does not follow what took place beforehand but overlaps with it.

¹⁹ In this case, the tight connection between the stories of the birth and expulsion would further motivate grouping them together.

²⁰ Otherwise it is very difficult to understand how Avimelekh did not know of Rivka and Yitzchak's marital status.

²¹ See Rashi, Ma'asei Hashem and Netziv.

²² According to this theory, the "רוּחַ רָעָה" that plagued Shaul wasn't a purely supernatural phenomenon, but rather a natural reaction to stress. As Golyat continuously threatened the nation, Shaul's anxiety grew, leading to the search for a musician. This theory solves a number of difficulties in the text such as how Shaul has no idea who David was in Shemuel I 17:55-58.  According to this reading, Shaul first met David when he volunteered to fight Golyat, so there is no expectation that Shaul should have already known him.

²³ The story of Shimi, for instance, takes place over more than three years, and likely overlapped with Shelomo's setting up of his administration described in Chapters 4-5.

²⁴ One might alternatively suggest that really all the events in the chapter are chronological with the exception of the few verses which speak of Shimi's offense and punishment.  If so, this is not a case of parallel overlapping units but rather an epiolgue which comes to complete the story.

²⁵ This achronology is suggested by the storyline.  During Chizkiyahu's illness, Yeshayahu promises the king salvation from Assyria, implying that they had not yet been saved.  Yet this salvation is described in the previous chpater. The opening words of the story, "בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם חָלָה חִזְקִיָּהוּ" might further hint that the event described overlapped with the preceding story.
Yeshayahu's second promise to the king, that Chizkiyahu's life will be prolonged by 15 years, might set the story even earlier. As Chizkiyahu reigned for 29 years, this promise would suggest that Chizkiyahu's illness occurred in the 14th year of his reign, right when Sancheriv attacked (See Melakhim II 18:13).  See Sancheriv's Campaign and Assyrian Sources for more about this latter possibility.

²⁶ He is motivated, in part, by the fact that Shemot 19 speaks of the initial arrival of the nation a Mount Sinai, while Shemot 18 presents the nation as already camped there.

²⁷ He assumes that the warning was given soon before the plague was to arrive (as Moshe says, "כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא בְּתוֹךְ מִצְרָיִם"), while Chapter 12 had to be given by the beginning of the month.

²⁸ See RashbamBereshit 31:33About R. Shemuel b. Meir, R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 31:33About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RadakBereshit 31:33About R. David Kimchi and RambanBereshit 31:33About R. Moshe b. Nachman.

²⁹ This is alluded to in the verse when it states, "וַיֵּצֵא מֵאֹהֶל לֵאָה וַיָּבֹא בְּאֹהֶל רָחֵל". Cf. Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 31:33About R. Avraham ibn Ezra's first explanation who instead claims that Lavan went into Leah's tent twice.

³⁰ This is especially true when the events are presented as a list.

³¹ Bereshit 12 presents Avraham as being 75. The motivation for this dating is the discrepancy between the accounts of the length of the Egyptian exile in Bereshit 15:13 (400 years) and Shemot 12:40-41 (430 years). This position maintains that the 400 years started from the birth of Yitzchak, while the 430 count began thirty years earlier, at the Covenant of the Pieces. Since Avraham was 100 when Yitzchak was born, the Covenant must have occurred when he was 70.

³² Alongside the Revelation at Sinai, Hashem made a covenant with blessings and curses on all the laws that were commanded until that point.

³³ Vayikra 26 sets expulsion as the punishment for transgressing the laws of Shemittah, while earlier chapters warned that those who violate sexual prohibition will be similarly "spewed forth" from the land.  [However, the fact that many other laws are sandwiched between those of sexual prohibitions and Shemittah, none of  which are explicitly punished by exile, significantly weakens Ibn Ezra's argument.]

³⁴ See the opinion of Rashbam there who also maintains that the blessings and curses are not recorded in their chronological place, but does not explain why.

³⁵ This, at least, is how he is understood by Ramban.

³⁶ This chronology is motivated by an understanding that the rebellion was mainly a reaction to this switch.  It led to much resentment, especially on the part of the firstborns, and as such< Ibn Ezra claims, the firstborns made up the bulk of the rebels.  See Korach's Rebellion for more.

³⁷ The new placement also enures that it does not disrupt the cultic discussions in the earlier chapters.

³⁸ See Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, RashiYeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Ibn Ezra, Rid, and Shadal.

³⁹ They point to the fact that Hashem ajks, "אֶת מִי אֶשְׁלַח... וָאֹמַר הִנְנִי שְׁלָחֵנִי".

⁴⁰ Shadal alternatively explains that though Chapter 6 was the first prophecy that Yeshayahu received, it was only relayed later.  According to him, then, the book is not really achronological.

⁴¹ A second factor motivating the book's ordering might have been its future audience. When speaking to his contemporaries, Yeshayahu could open with a prophecy of doom since they were well aware of their misdeeds. Yet, when ordering his prophecies for future generations, it made sense for the prophet to begin with the nation's sins, giving the reader background to understand why the decree of destruction was deserved.

⁴² He deduces this from the summary of the unit which declares, "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה לַמִּנְחָה וְלַחַטָּאת וְלָאָשָׁם וְלַמִּלּוּאִים וּלְזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים. אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה י״י אֶת מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינָי".  The verse suggests that the laws were commanded at Mount Sinai rather than in the Ohel Moed, implying that they were given before the construction of the Tabernacle.

⁴³ The laws of Shemot 29 deal exclusively with what was to take place during the Days of Consecration. As such, they appear in the midst of the directive to build the Mishkan.

⁴⁴ See above that one of the motivations for suggesting achronology is the fact that Shaul seems to have no idea who David is in Shemuel I 17:55-58. If the events had occured in the order in which they are written, Shaul should have already known David well as he had already been appointed as a harpist and arms-bearer.

⁴⁵ See his article, "עד היכן דברי שמואל?", in Alon Shevut 122 (1988). Cf. Hoil Moshe.

⁴⁶ See Bavli Bava Batra 15a that Sefer Shemuel was written by the three prophets Shemuel, Gad and Natan.

⁴⁷ Shemuel ended his story with Shaul's losing his kingship to David, and the description of the spirit of Hashem deserting him (highlighted in the story of the search for a harpist). Gad, though, chose to begin his tale with an earlier event, David's first heroic act, the killing of Golyat. These decisions resulted in the achronology.

⁴⁸ This is one of two possibilities brought by him.

⁴⁹ See his article, "ועתה אשיבנו לך", in Alon Shevut 72.

⁵⁰ According to this reading, Michah revealed his theft to his mother saying, "הִנֵּה הַכֶּסֶף אִתִּי אֲנִי לְקַחְתִּיו". As he continued to tell her, "וְעַתָּה אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ לָךְ", his mother cut him off, simultaneous saying "בָּרוּךְ בְּנִי לַי״י".  This suggestion, though, does still not adequately explain the doubling of the fact that the monies were returned, nor why the last few words of Michah's speech would not appear at the beginning of verse 3.

⁵¹ See also Bereshit Rabbah22:2About Bereshit Rabbah and RashiBereshit 4:1Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki.

⁵² These events are all described in Bereshit 11:31.  From Bereshit 12:4, which recounts that Avraham departed to Canaan at age 75, one might further conclude that he was 75 when Hashem appeared to him.

⁵³ These sources posit that Avraham was 70 at this point.  [The fixing of Avraham's departure from Ur Kasdim at this age specifically is motivated by a desire to solve the discrepancy between the accounts of the length of the Egyptian Exile in Bereshit 15:13 (400 years) and Shemot 12:40-41 (430 years). These sources maintain that the 430 year period is dated from Avraham's personal exile, while the 400 years is dated from the birth of Yitzchak (when Avraham was 100). If so, Avraham must have been 70 when he left Ur. For elaboration, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.]

⁵⁴ R. Saadia further points to the wording of Hashem's command, "לֶךְ לְךָ מֵאַרְצְךָ וּמִמּוֹלַדְתְּךָ", pointing out that if the word "מולדת"  means birth place, and Avraham was born in Ur Kasdim, then Hashem must have spoken to him while he was still there.

⁵⁵ One could have alternatively suggested that the achronology stems from a desire to place all the events relating to Terach together, and all those relating to Avraham together. [See R. Saadia.]

⁵⁶ These sources might further be motivated to say that Sarah conceived before the incident with Avimelekh so that no one could possibly mistakenly question whether Avimelekh was the father.

⁵⁷ See also RalbagShemot Beur HaMilot 11:1About R. Levi b. Gershom and Or HaCHayyimShemot 11:1About R. Chayyim b. Atar.

⁵⁸ According to him, the verse should be read as if written, "And Hashem had said".

⁵⁹ He assumes that this writing was a lengthy process and might have taken time to finish.

⁶⁰ Based on the simple reading of Yehoshua, the ceremony did not take place n the day of the crossing, but after two battles!

⁶¹ In contrast to most of the other examples brought, in this case the displaced event has already been explicitly mentioned earlier in the text and is repeated here (rather than first being mentioned here). As such, one might think of this as a "flashback" rather than a simple introduction.

⁶² The past perfect form, " וַיָּמׇת שְׁמוּאֵל" might hint to the reader that the event occurred previously.

⁶³ For examples, see the mention of the death of Noach in Bereshit 9:29, Terach in Bereshit 11:31-32, Avraham in Bereshit 25:8, and Yitzchak in Bereshit 35:29.

⁶⁴ Using the genealogy lists and birth / death notices to calculate the ages of various characters, it becomes apparent that Noach lived for 52 years after Avraham's birth, Terach first died 60 years after the command of "לך-לך", Avraham died when Yaakov and Esav were fifteen, and Yitzchak died twelve years after the sale of Yosef. Yet, all of the deaths are recorded before these points.

⁶⁵ See R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 11:31About R. Saadia Gaon, Ibn EzraBereshit Second Commentary 9:29Bereshit Additional Commentary 11:32About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and RambanBereshit 11:32About R. Moshe b. Nachman who all note this.

⁶⁶ The verse's statement, "וַיַּנִּיחֵהוּ אַהֲרֹן לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת לְמִשְׁמָרֶת" suggests that Aharon placed the manna near the Ark (the "testimony"), an act which could have first occurred in the second year, after the Ark was built.

⁶⁷ See Ibn Ezra Shemot Second Commentary 12:50About R. Avraham ibn Ezraand RambanBemidbar 21:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman who both point to this as the classic example and prototype of the many cases in Torah where the text appends information which happened only significantly later so as to complete a story.

⁶⁸ Cf. RashiShemot 17:14Shemot 31:18Vayikra 8:2Bemidbar 7:1Bemidbar 9:1Yehoshua 8:30Shofetim 11:26Shofetim 17:1Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki who disagrees and maintains chronological order, asserting that already here, Hashem hinted to Moshe that he was not to enter the land and that Yehoshua was to lead after his death.  Alternatively, one might suggest that Yehoshua is mentioned due to the role he played in the present battle, and not because of his future position of leadership.

⁶⁹ This is one of two possible reading of the story raised by Shadal.

⁷⁰ Shadal identifies "חֹבָב בֶּן רְעוּאֵל הַמִּדְיָנִי חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה" mentioned in Bemidbar 10 with Yitro (see Yitro – Names), and assumes that his departure there is what is mentioned briefly at the end of Shemot 18. [In Shemot the text quickly mentions the fact to close the story, but leaves the details for Bemidbar when the departure actually took place.]

⁷¹ This is one of two possible reading of the story raised by Shadal.

⁷² Shadal suggests that in Shemot the text only quickly mentions the fact of Yitro's leaving to close the story, but leaves the details for Bemidbar when the departure actually took place.

⁷³ See also R"M Speigelman's article, "פרשת ויקהל (שקלים) - המשכן לאחר חטא העגל".

⁷⁴ This position views the Incense Altar as playing an important role in atonement, and suggests that it was first commanded only when Yom HaKippurim was instituted, in the aftermath of the sin.

⁷⁵ However, to highlight that the Incense Altar was not part of the original command, the directive appears after the unit's concluding verses.

⁷⁶ See the discussion in Purpose and Placement of the Incense Altar and see R"M Speigelman's article, "פרשת ויקהל (שקלים) - המשכן לאחר חטא העגל".

⁷⁷ However, to highlight that the Incense Altar was not part of the original command, the directive appears after the unit's concluding verses.

⁷⁸ See Sifre Bemidbar7About Sifre Bemidbar and RashiVayikra 8:2Bemidbar 7:1Yehoshua 8:30Shofetim 11:26Shofetim 17:1Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and RambanVayikra 8:2About R. Moshe b. Nachman in its wake.  This suggestion is partially motivated by the desire not to have the Days of Consecration overlap with the Dedication of the Altar which, according to a simple reading of Bemidbar 7:1 (וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם כַּלּוֹת מֹשֶׁה לְהָקִים אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן) began on the first of Nisan.

⁷⁹ One could have alternatively formulated that it is the chapters in Sefer Vayikra which are out of place and need explaining.

⁸⁰ See Sifre Bemidbar7About Sifre Bemidbar and RashiVayikra 8:2Bemidbar 7:1Yehoshua 8:30Shofetim 11:26Shofetim 17:1Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki and RambanVayikra 8:2About R. Moshe b. Nachman in its wake.  The dating of the Days of Consecration is disputed.  This suggestion is partially motivated by the desire not to have the Days of Consecration overlap with the Dedication of the Altar which, according to a simple reading of Bemidbar 7:1 (וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם כַּלּוֹת מֹשֶׁה לְהָקִים אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן) began on the first of Nisan.

⁸¹ One could have alternatively formulated that it is the chapters in Sefer Vayikra which are out of place and need explaining.

⁸² As both verses speak of conquering the Canaanites and calling the conquered place "חרמה" it seems that they are speaking of the same event.

⁸³ This example is exceptional in this category in that it refers to an event which occurred earlier that is only mentioned later to complete the unit (איחור להשלים את הענין) rather than the opposite.

⁸⁴ Shadal suggests that the words "וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצוֹ" in Bemidbar 21:1 include these conquests.

⁸⁵ Cf. AbarbanelBemidbar 32About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel who brings a similar opinion that Yosef had bought these lands in the time of the famine. A possible motivation of R. Saadia's student is the fact that the verses mention Machir, Yair, and Novach, the sons and grandsons of Menashe. These figures should no longer be alive if the conquests took place in the fortieth year.

⁸⁶ Shadal suggests that the words "וַיִּירְשׁוּ אֶת אַרְצוֹ" in Bemidbar 21:1 include these conquests.

⁸⁷ Cf. AbarbanelBemidbar 32About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel who brings a similar opinion that Yosef had bought these lands in the time of the famine.

⁸⁸ The words "וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָאִישׁ" are basically equivalent to "וַיָּרׇץ לָבָן אֶל הָאִישׁ" in the first verse. Cf. the Tur (long commentary) who brings the alternative possibility that the Lavan actually approached the servant twice. He first ran, looking for Rivka, and then when he saw the jewelry on her, he once again approached the servant, this time to welcome him graciously.

⁸⁹ See also R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 28:10About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and RadakBereshit 28:10About R. David Kimchi who explain similarly but without the formulation of a "כלל ופרט".

⁹⁰ Cf. Bavli Sanhedrin 95b which chooses not to read these words as a heading and instead suggest that Yaakov had indeed gone all the way to Charan and then returned to pray at Beit El.

⁹¹ See Rashi, in contrast who suggests that actually the verses refer to two different responses of the nation.  Verse 8 refers to their statement "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י״י נַעֲשֶׂה" while verse 9 refers to the nation's desire to hear Hashem directly (a response not mentioned explicitly in the text).

⁹² According to Rashbam, Michah's mother first told him that she had dedicated the moneys to making an idol and only afterwards did he return them.  Cf. RadakShofetim 17:3About R. David Kimchi and RalbagShofetim 17:3About R. Levi b. Gershom, in contrast, who understand that Michah returned the monies twice.  First he gave them to his mother who then returned them to him to make an idol, but since he did not want to be bothered to deal with the sculptor, he gave them back to his mother so she could take care of the matter.

⁹³ See also Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 30:21Shemot Second Commentary 11:9Shemot First Commentary 17:14Bemidbar 21:1Devarim 31:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra and R"Y Bekhor ShorShemot 11:9About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.

⁹⁴ Alternatively, one may view them as prologues to the stories of Yitzchak and Yaakov's descendants.  Before moving to speak at length about the chosen line, the main focus of the text, the Torah quickly reviews what happened to the rejected line.

⁹⁵ There are also descendants (such as the kings which emerged from Esav) mentioned that were only born much later.  These are included to complete the list.

⁹⁶ See Seder Olam Rabbah12About Seder Olam Rabbah, RashiShofetim 17:1Yeshayahu 1:1About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, and RalbagShofetim 17:1About R. Levi b. Gershom.

⁹⁷ This, in part, is motivated by the fact that Pinechas, the grandson of Aharon, appears in the story of the Concubine of Givah.  If the story is told in its chronological place, this would make him hundreds of years old! Rashi adds that regarding the idol of Michah the verse states that it was "In Shiloh all the days" suggesting that it existed from the very beginning of the Shiloh period.

⁹⁸ See, for example,

⁹⁹ See the above note that the past perfect form of "וַה' פָּקַד אֶת שָׂרָה" might be an indicator of achronology.

¹⁰⁰ It seems that their understanding of the chronology of the events is directly related to their understanding of the role of the Tabernacle as either a means of atoning for the sin or a sign of forgiveness.

¹⁰¹ See Lekach Tov who also notes this, but suggests that Hashem actually did issue the command prior to the sin (thus providing the cure before the sickness arose).

¹⁰² It is possible that they occurred at various points throughout his reign.

¹⁰³ See the discussion above.

¹⁰⁴ See the discussion above regarding the motivations for this achronology.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. SefornoBemidbar 9:1About R. Ovadyah Seforno who similarly suggests that the goal of the ordering was to cast the nation in a positive light, grouping four of the nation's meritorious actions together.