Literary:Indicators of Achronology/0

Indicators of Achronology

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Explicit Markers

Dates

The most obvious indicator of achronology is when an event is dated¹ and explicitly appears out of order. 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.² 
• Sefer Yirmeyahu – The prophecies and events of Sefer Yirmeyahu are also explicitly achronological, switching back and forth between the reigns of Yehoyakim and Tzidekyahu.³

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,⁴ 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, even though one can calculate that he first passed away 60 years after Avraham's departure.⁵
• Avraham's death – Avraham's death is mentioned in Bereshit 25, before the text shares the story of Yaakov and Esav's birth, even though one can calculate that he only passed away 15 years afterwards.⁶
• Yitzchak's death – Yitzchak's death is recorded in Bereshit 35, before the stories of Yosef and his brothers are discussed, yet one can determine that he first passed away 12 years after the sale.⁷

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.  As 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, suggesting that they were relayed before the Tabernacle was built, and thus before most of the Sefer.

Headings

"וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" – General Approaches

Variations of the phrase "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" (and it was at that time)‎⁸ appear 18 times in Torah (with 15 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 – Some suggest that the phrase simply means that the story about to be narrated chronologically follows that which preceded it. Why, though, would this be necessary to share?
• Connotes immediacy – Cassuto 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 adds that the words might further highlight a "cause and effect" relationship between the two stories. 
• Marks appendices – S. Loewinstam⁹ 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.
• Undefined time – R. Avraham b. HaRambamBereshit 21:22Bereshit 38:1About R. Avraham Maimonides and R. Yosef ibn KaspiBereshit 21:22Bereshit 38:1About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, instead, claim that "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" refers to an undefined time, and thus often indicates that the narrative which is about to be told does not directly follow the events which were just recounted, but might have occurred at some point before them.
• Overlapping – RalbagBereshit Beur HaParashah 38:1About R. Levi b. Gershom¹⁰ suggests that the words indicate that two consecutive stories overlapped in time, with the second story happening literally "at that time" - during the preceding events. 
• Resume previous narrative – At times, the phrase appears to function as an indicator that the text is resuming a narrative that had been interrupted with a parenthetical or achronological statement. In other words, it refers back to the events right before whatever had just been recounted.

"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:

• R. Hirsch assumes that the stories are consecutive and that it was specifically the banishment of Yishmael that prompted Avimelekh to ally himself with Avraham. The phrase "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" serves to connect the two adjacent stories both chronologically and thematically, highlighting how one event led to the next.
• R. Saadia Gaon, R"Y Kara, and RashbamBereshit 21:22About R. Shemuel b. Meir, however, claim that the covenant was made before the expulsion,¹¹ right after Yitzchak's birth.  It was the miraculous nature of the birth that prompted Avimelekh to approach Avraham. The story opens with the words "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" to hint to the achronology.
• Bereshit 38:1-3 –  The story of Yehuda and Tamar follows that of the sale of Yosef.
• R"Y Kara, R"Y Bekhor Shor and Radak,¹² following Chazal, assert that the stories are chronological and follow one another. Yehuda separated from his brothers right after and as a result of the sale. The opening "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא"‎¹³ comes to highlight this cause and effect.
• Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 38:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, Ralbag and ShadalAbout R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, however, claim that the two stories overlap, with the beginning of Chapter 38 occurring before the sale and the other events happening later. The heading "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" serves as an indicator of achronology.

• Bemidbar 22
• 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.
• R"Y Bekhor Shor, RambanDevarim 1:9About R. Moshe b. Nachman and R. D"Z Hoffmann all assert that Moshe is backtracking to speak of events of the first year and that the story refers to the appointment of judges advised by Yitro in Shemot 18. The phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" serves to clue the reader into the fact that this event occurred before the preceding story.
• Others, however, claim that Moshe is speaking of the appointment of officers described in Bemidbar 11, which took place in the second year.  If so, "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" refers to the time period mentioned right beforehand in Devarim and indicates that the two stories are consecutive events. See Appointing Moshe's Assistants for elaboration.
• Devarim 3:23 – Devarim 3 speaks of the conquest of Sichon and Og, Moshe's  encouragement to Yehoshua regarding future conquests, and then Moshe's plea to enter the land. Rashi and Ramban¹⁴ assume that Moshe's prayer is recorded achronologically. It is preceded by the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" to teach that the event occurred not where written (after the encouragement to Yehoshua),¹⁵ but after the conquests of Sichon and Og¹⁶ mentioned earlier in the chapter.¹⁷
• Devarim 5:5
• Devarim 10:1
• 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.
• The Rambam, thus, points to this verse as evidence that the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" need not refer to an event which directly follows the preceding narrative, and that it in fact might imply the exact opposite.
• The Netziv, 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:
• Yehoshua 6:26 –  Yehoshua 6:24 speaks of the burning of Yericho and sanctifying of its booty to Hashem.  The following verse shares how Rachav and her family became a part of Israel "until this day", while verse 26 tells of Yehoshua's cursing all who rebuild the city. It is possible that the text employs the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" in verse 26 due to the intervening achronological remark, "until this day". It serves as a narrative resumption, bringing the reader back to the timing of verse 24.
• Yehoshua 11:10 - After sharing how Yehoshua smote the Northern confederation, verse 10 states, "וַיָּשׇׁב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּעֵת הַהִיא וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת חָצוֹר וְאֶת מַלְכָּהּ הִכָּה בֶחָרֶב".  According to Ralbag, this occurred previously, as part of the conquest described in verse 10. The words "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" come to highlight the simultaneity.¹⁸
• 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. Ralbag 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". Ralbag 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.¹⁹  Since the text had tangentially mentioned the oppression, though, it employs the phrase "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" to connect her judging to the nation's cries.
• Melakhim I 11:26-32 - Verses 26-28 speak of Yerovam's rebellion against Shelomo and then the text shares that "at that time" Yerovam encountered Achiyah who prophesies about the tearing of the kingdom.
• Radak 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.

אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה

Variations of the phrase "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה"‎²⁰ appear 13 times in Tanakh.²¹   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.²²  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.  Commentaors raise two possible answers::

• Chronological connector – R. Huna in Bereshit Rabbah44:5About Bereshit Rabbah suggests that the phrase "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" tells the reader that the coming event happened immediately after whatever preceded it, while the variant "אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" suggests that the upcoming event only occurred after a significant amount of time had elapsed. Elsewhere (when no heading is included) the recorded events follow each other, but neither immediately nor significantly later.²³
• Content connector – Alternatively, one might suggest that the phrase is used to relate the content (rather than timing) of two stories and show how they are a cause and effect or the like.

וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם

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 commentators²⁴ 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.²⁵ As such, its usage might be an indicator of achronology.
• Marker of contrast – In other cases, the form serves to contrast two subjects or actions.  For example, in Bereshit 4 when contrasting the professions of Kayin and Hevel, the verse writes, "וַיְהִי הֶבֶל רֹעֵה צֹאן וְקַיִן הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה".

Below are many examples where commentators posit that the form indicates achronology:

• Bereshit 4:1 - Bereshit 4:1 places the birth of Kayin and Hevel after the expulsion from Eden. Rashi suggest that the past perfect form "וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ" 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 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 Saba, and Malbim, maintain that Sarah had conceived before or in the middle of the story of Avimelekh and 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.  See Sale of the Birthright – A Fair Deal for elaboration of this position.
• Shemot 14:27-29 – The verses speak first of the Egyptians drowning and then of the Israelites walking through the sea on dry land. 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 Rashbam.]
• 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 19.²⁶
• Shemuel I 28:3-7 – The story of Shaul and Ba'alat ha'Ov opens by reminding the reader, "וּשְׁמוּאֵל מֵת".  The past perfect formulation indicates that this happened already (as mentioned in Shemuel I 25).  It is mentioned again only as a necessary introduction to the revival of the prophet later in the chapter.
• 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 and 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".  Rashi 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.]
• Melakhim I 20:1-4 –

Literary Phenomena

Resumptive Repetition

Masoretic Markers

¹ This can be a calendar date or a relative date (years to a ruler's reign or years from some seminal event.)

² Bemidbar 7 is dated to the "day that Moshe finished erecting the Mishkan" which Shemot 40:17 teaches took place on the first of the first month.  Bemidbar 9 similarly opens "בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן"

³ Chapters 22, 25, 26, 35-36, and 45-46 take place during the reign of Yehoyakim while chapters 21, 24, 28-29, 32-34, 37-39 and 51 mention Tzidkeyahu.

⁴ Tanakh will sometimes date an event to a certain year in an individual's life.  For example, Avraham's departure from Charan is dated to his 75th year and Moshe's encounter with Paroh when he brings the sign of the tanin is dated to his 80th year.

⁵ This can be derived from the fact that Terach bore Avraham at the age of 70 (Bereshit 11:26), that Avraham departed from Charan at 75 (Bereshit 12:4), and that Terach died at the age of 205 (Bereshit 11:32).

⁶ Given that Avraham bore Yitzchak at the age of 100 (Bereshit 21:5), that Yitzchak bore Yaakov at the age of 60 (Bereshit 25:26), and that Avraham died at the age of 175 (Bereshit 25:7), one can determine that he first died 15 years after the births of his grandchildren.

⁷ Yitzchak was 60 when he bore Yaakov (Bereshit 25:26) and Yaakov was 108 at the sale (), making Yitzchak 168 during the incident. He died at 180, 12 years later.

⁸ In most of the occurrences, the text states simply "בָּעֵת הַהִוא" but in four verses (Bereshit 21:22, Bereshit 38:1, Melakhim I 11:29 and Tzefanya 12:1), the fuller "וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא" appears.

⁹ See: ש. ליונשטם, "הנוסחה ״בעת ההיא״ בנאומי הפתיחה של ספר דברים", תרביץ  ל"ח (תשכ"ט): 99-104.

¹⁰ See his comments to Bereshit 38.  He does not set this as a general rule, but he does appear to read the phrase this way in his comments to several verses.

¹¹ R. Avraham b. HaRambam goes further to suggest that the opening might indicate that the story might have taken place even before the birth.

¹² See also Cassuto.

¹³ See Netziv: "יבואר שהעת גרם לענין הבא" .

¹⁴ See also Ibn Ezra.

¹⁵ The explain that Moshe's encouragement to Yehoshua implies that he already recognized him as the new leader, which would suggest that Moshe's plea to enter the land had already been turned down.

¹⁶ Rashi implies that Moshe hoped that if he participated in the initial conquests, this was a sign that he could participate in future ones as well.

¹⁷ Ramban also raises the possibility that it refers to an even earlier event, not mentioned at all in the chater, when the decree was first issued.

¹⁸ The word "וישב", though, is somewhat difficult for this reading, as it implies that he returned to do something which had not previously been done.

¹⁹ It was she who prompted their repentance.

²⁰ The phrase "אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" appears 4 times, in Bereshit 15:1, Esther 2:1, Esther 3:1 and Ezra 7:1.  The longer variation "וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" appears 5 times, in Bereshit 22:1, 39:7, 40:1 and Kings I 17:17 and 21:1. The similar וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים" הָאֵלֶּה" appears in Bereshit 22:20, 48:1 and Yehoshua 24:29.  Finally, the phrase " אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים וְהָאֱמֶת הָאֵלֶּה" appears just once, in Divrei HaYamim II 32:1.

²¹ Six of these are in Torah, all in Sefer Bereshit, the rest are divided between Yehoshua, Kings, Esther, Ezra and Chronicles.

²² See, though, When Did Yaakov Bless Ephraim and Menashe for an opinion that Bereshit 48 (the story of Yaakov's blessing of Ephraim and Menashe) is achronological and that the opening phrase points not to the immediately preceding events of Bereshit 47, but those of Bereshit 46.

²³ R. Yuden makes the same distinction, but in the opposite direction, suggesting that "אַחֲרֵי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה" signifies that the two events directly follow each other.

²⁴ See examples below.

²⁵ It would be translated as "he had done..." rather than "he did".

²⁶ According to Rashi, the verse shares that Hashem had told Moshe to go up to the mountain, not after the Decalogue was given but earlier, during the days of preparation before Revelation.