The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Numbers

Here is a table showing all the verses in Numbers and which source they are from. Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.

Here's information about the table.

F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.

Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other

Here's the table.

Documentary Hypothesis
Chapter	Friedman	Driver	Difference?	Notes
Numbers
1:1 - 2:34	P	P
3:1	R	P	*
3:2 - 9:14	P	P
9:15-23	R	P	*
10:1-12	P	P
10:13	R	P	*
10:14 - 27	P	P
10:28	R	P	*
10:29 - 33	J	JE	*
10:34	J	P	*
10:35-36	J	JE	*
11:1-11	E	JE	*
12:1-15	E	E
13:1-16	P	P
13:17a	R	P	*
13:17b-20	J	JE	*
13:21	J	P	*
13:22-24	J	JE	*
13:25-26a	P	P		to "Paran"
13:26b	P	JE	*
13:27-31	J	JE	*
13:32a	P	P
13:32b	P	JE	*
13:33	J	JE	*
14:1-2	P	P
14:3	P	JE	*
14:4	J	JE	*
14:5-7	P	P
14:8-9	P	JE	*
14:10	P	P
14:11-25	J	JE	*
14:26-30	P	P
14:31-33	P	JE	*
14:34-38	P	P
14:39-45	J	JE	*
15:1-31	R	P	*
15:32-41	P	P
16:1a	P	P		to "son of Levi"
16:1b-2a	J	JE	*	to "in front of Moses"
16:2b-11	P	P
16:12-14	J	JE	*
16:15	P	JE	*
16:16-24a	P	P
16:24b	R	P	*	"Dathan and Abiram"
16:25-26	J	JE	*
16:27a	P	P
16:27b	R	P	*	"Dathan and Abiram"
16:27c-32a	J	JE	*	to "and their households"
16:32b	P	P
16:33-34	J	JE	*
16:35	P	P
17:1-27	P	P		Note: Jewish 17:1-15 are numbered in Christian bibles as 16:36-50. Jewish 17:16-28 are numbered in Christian Bibles as 17:1-13
18, 19	P	P
20:1a	R	P	*	to "in Kadesh"
20:1b	P	JE	*
20:2	P	P
20:3a	P	JE	*
20:3b-4	P	P
20:5	P	JE	*
20:6-13	P	P
20:14-21	J	JE	*
20:22	R	P	*
20:23-29	P	P
21:1-3	J	JE	*
21:4a	R	P	*	F: to "Edom"; D: to "Mt Hor"
21:4b-9	E	JE	*
21:10-11	R	P	*
21:12-35	J	JE	*
22:1	R	P	*
22:2	J	E	*
22:3-21	E	E		F: except for 4 "to the elders of Midian" (R), 5 "and he sent messengers" (J), 7 "and Midian's elders" (R), 15 "And Balak went on again" (J)
22:22-35a	E	J	*	F: except for 26 "to turn right or left" (J)
22:35b-41	E	E
23, 24	E	JE	*
25:1-5	J	JE	*
25:6-19	P	P
26:1-7	P	P
26:8-11	R	P	*
26:12-65	P	P
27	P	P
28,29	R	P	*
30:1	R	P	*
30:2-17	P	P
31	P	P
32:1	J	JE	*
32:2	P	P		D: part may be JE
32:3	J	JE	*
32:4	P	P		D: part may be JE
32:5	J	JE	*	F&D: except for "let this land be given to your servants for a possession" (P)
32:6	P	JE	*
32:7-12	J	JE	*	F & D: except for 12 "and Joshua son of Nun" (R); D: except for 11 "from 20 years old and upward" (P)
32:13-24	P	JE/P	*	D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:25-27	J	JE	*
32:28-32	P	JE/P	*	D: mainlly JE with some P additions
32:33-42	J	JE	*
33:1a	O	P	*	F: list of travels that R used to organize the wilderness episodes chronologically
33:1-2	R	P	*
33:3-49	O	P	*
33:50-56	P	P
34, 35, 36	P	P

Read More...

Summary only...

Children and the Torah Service

I have been thinking about the problem of smaller children and the Torah service. The basic problem is that children can easily get bored and be disruptive at a Saturday morning service. There seems to be several ways of handling this problem, and I was wondering what other synagogues did.

1. Synagogues can let children attend, expect a certain amount of disruption, and simply try to minimize it or live with it.

2. Synagogues can provide some kind of age-appropriate activities for children: day care, singing, children's services, Saturday religious school, etc. Smaller children simply go to their activity, and the adults go to the service. This had the advantage (especially important in more liberal synagogues) of having younger children see adults go to services, even when there is no bar- or bat-mitzvah.

3. Synagogues can provide "family services" that the whole family can attend. The advantage is that this allows the family to attend services together. But the disadvantage, as a friend of mine noted, it that there really is no such thing as "family services." There are only "children's services." Adults get very little out of them (other than watching their children), and children get the subtextual message that Judaism is geared for children. This is an especially bad problem if the only services the parents attend are "family services."

4. Synagogues can provide "family services" at times other than Saturday morning that are less lengthy. They can provide a family service Friday evening or a family havdalah service Saturday evening. Children are better able to sit through a shorter service. However, this still leaves the adults with a problem for Saturday morning services.

5. Synagogues can not allow children (or at least not tolerate occasional interruptions well) and not provide activities at the synagogue for the children. This leaves the parents with several options.

- One of the parents can watch the children at home, and the other can go to services. This tends to work in Orthodox or more traditional synagogues where families and synagogues have adopted more traditional gender roles. It also works in more liberal or moderate synagogues where one spouse (regardless of gender) is interested in attending services and the other is not. But this results in separating one spouse from the other spouse and kids.

- The parents can hire a babysitter. This is costly and results in separating the parents from the children.

- Both parents can simply stay home. This keeps the family together, but also keeps them out of the synagogue on Saturdays.

How does your synagogue handle this problem, what do you and others do, and how is it working?

Read More...

Summary only...

The Avot Prayer and Barack Obama's Speech

Barack Obama invoked a powerful image in his victory speech in Chicago. He mentioned 106-year-old Ann Nixon Cooper, who "was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn't vote for two reasons -- because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin." He then summarized the great progress that had occurred in her lifetime, and mentioned several historical events, culminating with the following: "And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change."

After tracing progress through the last century, Obama looked forward to the next. "So tonight, let us ask ourselves -- if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? [¶] This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment."

Obama presented a powerful way of thinking about history and the importance of the present moment. He remembered the great achievements of the past, and looked forward --- with his own children specifically in mind --- to even better improvements in the future.

This is exactly how I think about the first prayer of the Amidah, the Avot.

After praising the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob for loving kindness, the last sentence (from the Conservative Siddur Sim Shalom) is "You remember the pious deeds of our ancestors and will send a redeemer to their children's children because of Your loving nature."

In other words, we start the prayer by recalling the Patriarchs of the distant past and their pious deeds. We then think forward from their time, noting how God will redeem "their children's children" (livnei v'neihem) because of his loving nature. The referent of "their" is of course the Patriarchs, and so their children's children include all of our ancestors, us, and our children.

During prayer, I do not find it helpful to think about God as an active supernatural force that magically changes the world while I sit passively on the sidelines. Instead, I primarily think of prayers like the Amidah as a reminder to me of specific aspects of godliness that I should be helping to bring into the world. With all this in mind, I tend to conflate the different parts of the Avot: acts of loving kindness, our ancestor's pious deeds, redemption, and a loving nature. After all, my children and future descendants will hopefully think of my acts as part of their ancestors' pious deeds. And so one key question that I think about when I say the Avot (or at least try to think about - it's too easy to get distracted) is what can I do to help "their children's children": my immediate family, my extended family, and others in my community.

And so --- like Barack Obama --- I look backward to the past, think of great deeds of loving kindness and pious ancestors, and then focus on what I can do along the same lines for the next generations. This places the present solidly between the past and the future, not only in time, but along a continuum of progress and good deeds. Not a bad way to start the day.

Read More...

Summary only...

Amusing Posts on the Flood

The attempts to reconcile science and a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis (the creation stories, Noah's flood, Tower of Babel) are quite silly. When I was in my teens and early 20s, I was intrigued by this debate. But now in my 40s, I am now amazed that this debate even occurs, especially by otherwise intelligent and serious people.

I understand why young people might be interested in this problem. Just out of childhood, they face the conflict between a childish literal view of these stories and some newfound knowledge about science. They thrash about a bit trying to resolve this conflict, and derive some silly theories along the way: maybe if this verse is read that way, and there was only a small miracle here, and days don't mean literal days, and some of the animals on the ark were in some sort of suspended animation, and dinosaurs were more dense than mammals and sunk faster, and ....

What I don't understand is why serious grown-ups would take on this issue. Dr. Harvey Babich (who appears to be a serious grown up - a professor of biology at Stern College with some impressive credentials) wrote a silly piece along these line, entitled How Many Animals Were There On The Ark?. In short, he argues that perhaps Noah simply took a set of each "kind" of animal, rather than a set of each species. These "kinds" then rapidly diversified after the flood and --- dare I say --- evolved into all the species were see today. Voila! This solves the problem of how Noah fit so many animals into a too-small ark.

My reaction is simply to roll my eyes. There are lots of problems with this specific argument, and this general approach, none of which I particularly want to discuss. Some other bloggers have already taken a whack at those. See XGH (in his most recent incarnation): YU on the Mabul with Hagaos Hagodol and Frum Heretic: Dang, He Busted My Mabul Crapometer! My questions is why would a serious biologist write such a piece?

The only thing I can think of is a slippery-slope problem. If people believe the creation stories and the flood are not literally true, the argument goes, then maybe they will believe the revelation at Sinai is not literally true either. So we need to draw the line at the former.

The tactical problem is that this argument is likely to backfire. If people start to think that Orthodox Judaism believes that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a global flood that killed everyone in the world except 8 people on a boat in 2300 BCE, they are more likely, not less likely, to conclude that the revelation at Sinai did not occur.

If anyone else has any thought on why otherwise serious people take these positions, leave a comment.

Read More...

Summary only...

How to Undermine Jewish Education

Many Conservative and Reform synagogues do an admirable job of Jewish education, but sometimes these synagogues and their members unintentionally undermine all their efforts by committing one of the most serious errors I know of in Jewish education: conveying the message that Judaism is only for children and that serious adults should not take it seriously.

Take the following overexaggerated description of this problem.

A set of parents have only a minimal level of Jewish knowledge or practice. They never go to services on shabbat or holidays other than (say) Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. They do not daven or study or have Jewish books in their home or think about or talk about Judaism. The message the parents implicitly and perhaps unintentionally convey to their children is that serious adults do not have any serious involvement with Judaism.

The parents decide that their child should know something about Judaism and "get bar-mitzvahed." So they join the local synagogue and enroll their childen in the after-school Hebrew school. The Hebrew curriculum consists of learning basic Hebrew words and pronunciation. The religious curriculum consists of simplistic descriptions of, and activities about, the Torah and the holidays. (Lots of songs and arts-and-crafts projects.) The kids never (or at most rarely) read original texts. The only Torah stories are the most myth-like: creation, garden of Eden, Noah's flood, the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai. The ethics consist of simplistic universal rules, albeit with a few Hebrew words thrown in (don't steal, be nice, give "tzedakah"). These lessons are conveyed with big smiles and a tone of talking down to small children.

There are many significant issues in the child's life that serious Judaism speaks to but that are avoided altogether: God, death, the holiness of life, sexuality (for the older kids), assimilation, how (and why) to be Jewish in a non-Jewish America, how to read a complex and ancient text.

The message implicitly conveyed by all of this is that Judaism is for children. It covers things that children might consider fun and interesting (arts-and-crafts, songs, simple stories, simple ethics) but nothing that adults would find meaningful or important.

Eventually, the child begins bar- or bat-mitzvah training, which consists in memorizing a bunch of Hebrew. The child may be required to attend a specified number of Saturday services. Again, this is not something that adults do in the normal course of things; it is something that children do to prepare for a bar- or bat-mitzvah.

Finally, the child has a bar-mitzvah. Adults never attend services or read from the Torah; the only people who do so are 13-year-olds celebrating a bar- or bat-mitzvah. (At some synagogues, there is no Saturday service if there no bar-mitzvah.) So the child completes his coming-of-age ritual, reads from the Torah, and then joins the ranks of adults who never have to go to services again.

Once the child internalizes this message of Judaism-for-children, that's pretty much it. The child is unlikely to want to participate in anything Jewish or learn anything about Judaism again. This is worse than an ignorance of Judaism. It is based on the (now) young adult's actual knowledge, based on years of experience, that Judaism has nothing important to say about life and in fact is childish and silly.

This scenario is obviously an over-exaggeration, but in some cases, it is not very much of an over-exaggeration. Contrast that scenario with life at an Orthodox synagogue. Adults regularly go to synagogue on shabbat and often for daily minyan; if not, they often daven at home. The adults observe Jewish rituals at home, study Judaism, are knowledgeable about Judaism, and discuss Judaism with their children. The children's Jewish education is serious; it consists in large part of reading from original sources. And the bar-mitzvah boy leads the service and reads from the Torah as part of his entry into the adult world of participating in services and reading from the Torah. Whatever the problems are with Orthodoxy (and I think there are many), one problem that does not exist is conveying the message that Judaism is for children. Instead, Orthodox Judaism conveys the message that Judaism is important and serious adults take it seriously.

Liberal and moderate Jews can avoid conveying the implicit message Judaism is for children by participating in it in a serious adult way as adults. The obvious particular ways are noted above (go to synagogue on at least some Saturdays, observe Jewish rituals, have Jewish books, discuss Jewish ideas).

But here are a few less obvious ideas for parents and synagogues.

1. Take Judaism seriously. Having children see that adults treat Judaism seriously may be the most important lesson they learn.

2. Develop a knowledgeable and (largely) self-sufficient laity. This does not just require adult education programs at synagogues and members who attend. More importantly, it requires a decentralized model of adult eduction. Rather than have the rabbi lecture on some topic, the synagogue should facilitate smaller discussion groups or study groups that work through some topic on their own. (They can always call in the rabbi for tough questions.)

3. Kids sports on Sunday? One of the biggest practical obstacles to attending services on Saturday for the non-shomer-shabbos crowd is kids sports programs with games on Saturdays. Perhaps one option is for many synagogues to work together and form sports leagues that play on Sunday (and that are not limited to Jews). Certainly Jews would be one of the larger constituencies, and church-going Christians (who are otherwise occupied on Sunday mornings) would be unlikely to participate. But there must be many non-Jews who for personal and idiosyncratic reason prefers games on Sunday.

Those are my initial thoughts. (I will be posting more in the future on Jewish education in general.) If anyone has any ideas about what would help convey the message that Judaism is not just for children, I would like to hear your thoughts.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Leviticus

No need for a table here. The whole book is P, more or less.

Friedman and Driver (and many others) noted that Leviticus 17-26 is a "Holiness Code" (called H) which is quite similar to P in many respects but has some distinctive characteristics in both substance and language.

Friedman notes that Lev. 23:39-43 (an expansion of the laws of Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret) is a later addition by R; Driver agrees that this was a later insertion but from H.

Friedman notes that Lev. 26:39-44 are a later addition by R. Driver does not discuss this.

That's it; pretty simple.

Read More...

Summary only...

Shemini Atzeret, Simchat Torah, Death, Rebirth, and Poetry

The holidays of Shemini Atzeret and Simchat Torah have subtle and sometimes overlooked themes of death endings, followed by rebirth and new beginnings. And the Velveteen Rabbi has captured this theme nicely in a recent poem.

Death and endings run through these holidays. One common way of thinking about the four species of sukkot is as a body: a spine, heart, eyes, and mouth. But we don't wave the lulav and etrog on Shemini Atzeret: the body is at rest. We also have no special mitzvot or blessings for Shemini Atzeret, even though it is the eighth day of sukkot outside of Israel. The traditional term for a dead body, niftar, comes from the same root PTR in the word "patar", meaning exempt (from mitzvot). A dead person is someone exempt from mitzvot, and on Shemini Atzeret, we are exempt from the mitzvot of sukkot. And by Shemini Atzeret, the schach on the sukkah is turning brown (at least if you use palm fronds, not bamboo mats like I usually do); it is starting to look dead.

As we turn to Simchat Torah, we start off by reading the very end of the Torah, the death of Moses. We end the book, and the theme is death.

But another theme emerges: rebirth and new beginnings. The chazzan prays for rain on Shemini Atzeret, a sign of rebirth of plants. And of course once we finish the Torah and the death of Moses, we being it all over again, and read about God creating the world. A new beginning.

The Velveteen Rabbi writes poems about each parsha. Most are good; some are quite good. And this week, she penned Mobius (V'zot Ha-Brakha), about the last parsha of the Torah, Simchat Torah, and the annual repeating cycle. She picks up on some of these themes. She begins:

I want to write the Torah
on a mobius strip of parchment

The poem is short, clever, and worth the read.

These two holidays represent the culmination of the long process that began at the beginning of Elul. May we all become the better people we wish to be.

Read More...

Summary only...

Same-Sex Marriage, Jewish Law, and American Law

California (my state) will vote on Proposition 8 in November. This initiative, if passed, would overrule the California Supreme Court's recent ruling that denial of marriage to same-sex couples is unconstitutional.

There are many political points to be made on both sides of this issue, almost all of which I would like to ignore here. There are also many halachic points to be made (including the recent changes in the Conservative movement's position on homosexuality), almost all of which I would also like to ignore here. Instead, I would like to focus very narrowly on the issue of when Jews should support or oppose an American law of general applicability that is not in accordance with halacha (however defined).

In all 50 states, Jewish law and American law differ on the definition of marriage. Under Jewish law, a valid marriage requires a ketubah, kiddushin, the sheva brachot, etc. But of course American law has no such requirement. And under Jewish law, a divorce can occur only if the husband gives his wife a get. Again, there is no such requirement under American law. And no one seriously argues that American marriage law should be modified to bring it into conformity with Jewish law. Thus, we already support American law that allows both marriage and divorce (even among Jews) that would not be recognized under Jewish law.

So couples can be unmarried, married, or divorced under American law, unmarried, married, or divorced under Jewish law, and the two do not necessarily overlap. An Orthodox rabbi once told me that his son and future daughter-in-law were civilly married during her senior year in college so that she could could live in married-student housing (as opposed to a co-ed dorm), even though they did not consider themselves "Jewishly" married and did not act as a married couple. (They were married under Jewish law after she graduated.)

Should we support civil same-sex marriage, even though traditional halacha forbids it? I think we should.

Take another example. Jewish law strictly condemns l'shon hara, or true negative gossip where the listener does not have an important need to know the negative information. But such speech is solidly within the scope of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Most Jewish Americans (and certainly me) would oppose an American law that would allow fines or a tort suit for true negative gossip. (In fact, truth is a defense in defamation cases.) Thus, we are willing --- and in fact pleased --- that at least in this case, American law permits what halacha forbids. We rightly view such matters as matters of personal ethics, outside the scope of government enforcement.

Should this apply to same-sex marriage? For those of us at the more liberal end of Judaism, this is not much of an issue, since we either are not concerned about halacha or are willing to modify halacha to permit such relationships, and presumably such marriages. For those of us at the more conservative end of Judaism, this is an issue, since halacha does forbid such sexual activity and such marriages. But we do not base free speech law on l'shon hara, and we do not even base opposite-sex marriage law on the halachic definition of marriage. We should not oppose civil same-sex marriage merely because it differs from halacha.

There are two aspects of marriage that need to be considered here.

There are the legal rights bestowed upon married couples: the right to make medical decisions for the spouse in the absence of a medical power of attorney, the right to inherit intestate, the right to community property, the right to own property jointly in certain legal forms, etc. Most (but not all) of these can be granted by some type of contract or agreement. And almost all of them are available under civil union law. This aspect of marriage is not at issue in the same-sex marriage debate.

Instead, only the social approval or "holiness" aspect of marriage is at issue. There is no doubt that same-sex couples exist, live together, have children together (through adoption, sperm or egg donors, etc.), and need and to a large degree can have the bundle of legal rights that marriage bestows. The issue is what type of social approval does the government providing the label "marriage" for such couples signify? There are two theories here, and both weigh in favor of marriage.

At one extreme, the label can mean very little. It might simply be a shorthand designation for the bundle of legal rights that the government bestows on a married couple. (This is in fact my belief.) It conveys no imprimatur of approval. The government may issue a corporation a corporate charter, but there is no sense that the government (or the people collectively) approve of the products or services the corporation sells. The government may issue a driver's license, but there is no sense that the government approves of where the driver is driving. And merely because the government considers two people to be married does not mean that the government in any way approves of their relationship. This can be seen most clearly by the fact that we do not impose any sort of quality requirements on married couples. Spouses can be physically, sexually, and psychologically abusive, have no pleasant interactions, be intimate with others, and be downright horrible people, and they remain married nonetheless. In what sense does the government "approve" of their marriage? I do not think that a civil "marriage" does or should indicate anything more than the married people now have certain rights and duties towards each other and towards the world.

At the other extreme, the label can mean a great deal. It could mean that the people as a whole, acting through the government, have determined that any marriage (no matter how horrible in fact) has some sort of collective social approval. I think this is wrong, but I certainly agree that it has this significance, at least to many people. But if that is the case, then we as a society should offer marriage as broadly as possible. Merely because an individual opposes a marriage of type X is not a sufficient reason for the government to prohibit marriages of type X. Instead, we as a society should be as inclusive as possible. We live in a pluralistic society. There are those that support same-sex marriage and those that oppose it. Our society is largely based on the premise that for people of widely diverse beliefs to function in the same society, we should permit the greatest amount of personal freedom possible. Where there is a lack of moral consensus, we should be as pro-choice as possible.

Of course, this does not mean that Jews (and others) who oppose same-sex marriage should abandon their religious beliefs. To the contrary: such Jews are not only free to maintain these beliefs, but are free to use them for all personal purposes, and in fact should do so. A shomer-mitzvot Jew would consider a civilly-married couple to be halachically unmarried if they did not abide by halacha in getting married. He or she would consider a halachically-married couple to be still halachically married if they obtained a civil divorce but the husband did not give a get. He or she would consider a person who speaks l'shon hara to be in violation of halacha (and in a pretty bad way), even if such speech is protected by the First Amendment. And he or she would consider a same-sex couple to be unmarried under halacha, even if they were considered married by the state they lived in.

In short, the rules of halacha and the rules of American states operate under completely separate domains. Simply because something is forbidden under halacha is no reason at all to think that it should be forbidden under American law.

* * *

Update: Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy linked to this post here, and there is an interesting discussion going on in the comments section.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Documentary Hypothesis In Detail - Exodus

Here is a table showing all the verses in Exodus and which source they are from. (The Genesis table is here; the rest is coming.) Again, I have used two separate classifications: Richard E. Friedman's from The Bible With Sources Revealed (2003) and Samuel Driver's from Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (9th ed 1913). I have also marked the verses with an asterisk where they differ, and finally included some explanatory notes by Friedman and Driver.

Like Genesis, the versions differ primarily in the classification of E and J. Friedman argues that the "bias" in favor of J over E might be justified in Genesis, but is not necessarily justified in Exodus. Accordingly, he classifies many more Exodus verses as E than Driver does, and in doing so seems to reduce the number of multiple-verse stories.

Here's information about the table.

F - Friedman
D - Driver
Diff - Different. * if Friedman and Driver are difference; nothing if they are the same.

Sources:
J - J
E - E
RJE - Redactor of J and E
P - P
R - Redactor
O - Other

Here's the table.

Chapter	Friedman	Driver	Difference?	Notes
Exodus
1:1-5	R	P	*
1:6	J	J
1:7	P	P
1:8-12	E	J	*
1:13-14	P	P
1:15-20a	E	E
1:20b	E	P	*
1:21	E	E
1:22	J	E	*
2:1-14	J	E	*
2:15-23a	J	J
2:23b	P	P
3:1	E	E
3:2-4a	J	J
3:4b	E	E
3:5	J	J
3:6	E	E
3:7-8	J	J
3:9-15	E	E
3:16-18	E	J	*	F: identification uncertain
3:19-22	J	E	*	F: identification uncertain
4:1-16	E	J	*
4:17-18	E	E
4:19-20a	J	J
4:20b-21a	E	E		Up to "in front of Pharoah"
4:21b	R	E	*
4:22-23	E	J	*
4:24-26	J	J
4:27-28	E	E
4:29-31	E	J	*
5:1-2	J	E	*
5:3	E	J	*
5:4	E	E
5:5-23	J	E	*
6:1	E	J	*
6:2-10	P	P
6:12-13	R	P	*
6:14-25	O	P	*	F: Book of Records
6:26-29	R	P	*
6:30	P	P
7:1-13	P	P
7:14-15a	E	J	*
7:15b	E	E
7:16	E	J	*
7:17	E	J&E	*	D: see notes
7:18	E	J	*
7:19-20a	P	P		F&D: to "had commanded"
7:20b	E	E		D: to "servants"
7:20c-21a	E	J	*	D: to "from the river"
7:21b	E	P	*
7:22	P	P
7:23-25	E	J	*
7:26-29	E	J	*	Note: D uses KJV numbering
8:1-3a	P	P
8:3b	E	P	*
8:4-11a	E	J	*	F&D: to "heart heavy"
8:11b	R	P	*
8:12-15	P	P
8:16-28	E	J	*
9:1-7	E	J	*
9:8-12	P	P
9:13-21	E	J	*
9:22-23a	E	E		D: to "earth" (or ground)
9:23b	E	J	*
9:24a	E	E
9:24b	E	J	*
9:25a	E	E
9:25b-34	E	J	*
9:35	R	R		(See footnote in D)
10:1-11	E	J	*
10:12-13a	E	E		D: to "Egypt"
10:13b	E	J	*
10:14a	E	E		D: to "Land of Egypt"
10:14b-15a	E	J	*	D: to "darkened"
10:15b	E	E		D: to "left"
10:15c-19	E	J	*
10:20	R	E	*
10:21-23	E	E
10:24-26	E	J	*
10:27	R	E	*
10:28-29	E	J	*
11:1-3	E	E
11:4-8	E	J	*
11:9-10	R		*
12:1-20	P	P
12:21-27	E	J	*
12:28	P	P
12:29	E	J	*
12:30	E		*
12:31-36	E	E
12:37a	R	P	*
12:37b-39	E	E
12:40-41	P	P
12:42a	P	E	*
12:42b-50	P	P
12:51	R	P	*
13:1-2	E	P	*
13:3-16	E	J	*
13:17-19	E	E
13:20	R	P	*
13:21-22	E	J	*
14:1-4	P	P
14:5a	J	J		F: to "had fled"
14:5b	E	J	*
14:6	J	J
14:7	E	J	*
14:8	P	P
14:9a	J	P	*	F: "and Egypt pursued them"
14:9b	P	P
14:10a	P	J	*	F: "And Pharaoh came close"
14:10b	J	J		F: to "very afraid"
14:10c	P	E	*
14:11-12	E	J	*
14:13-14	J	J
14:15-18	P	P
14:19a	E	E
14:19b	J	J
14:20a	E	J	*
14:20b	J	J
14:21a	P	P		F & D: to "over the sea"
14:21b	J	J		F & D: to "dry ground"
14:21c-23	P	P
14:24	J	J
14:25	E	J	*
14:26-27a	P	P		F & D: to "over the sea"
14:27b	J	J
14:28-29	P	P
14:30-31	J	J
15:1-18	J	E	*	F & D: Song was earleir source
15:19	R	J	*
15:20-21	E	E
15:22a	R	J	*
15:22b-25a	J	J
15:25b-26	E	J	*
15:27	R	J	*
16:1	R	P	*
16:2-3	P	P
16:4-5	J	J
16:6-24	P	P
16:25-30	P	J	*
16:31-35a	P	P
16:35b	J	P	*
16:36	P	P
17:1a	R	P	*
17:1b	R	J	*
17:2	E	J	*
17:3-6	E	E
17:7	E	J	*
17:8-16	E	E
18:1-27	E	E		F: except for "after her being sent off" in 18:2, which is RJE
19:1	P	P
19:2a	R	P	*
19:2b-3a	E	E
19:3b-9	E	J	*
19:10-11a	J	E	*
19:11b-13	J	J
19:14-16a	J	E	*	F: to "when it was morning"
19:16b-17	E	E
19:18	J	J
19:19	E	E
19:20-25	J	J		F: except for "you and Aaron with you" in 19:24, which is R
20:1	R	E	*
20:2-10	O	E	*
20:11	R	E	*
20:12-17	O	E	*
20:18-26	E	E
21:1-37	E	E
22:1-30	E	E
23:1-33	E	E
24:1-2	E	J	*
24:3-8	E	E
24:9-11	E	J	*
24:12-14	E	E
24:15a	E	P	*
24:15b-18a	P	P		F&D: to "cloud"
24:18b	R	E	*	and went up into the mountain"
24:18c	J	E	*
25:1-40	P	P
26:1-37	P	P
27:1-21	P	P
28:1-43	P	P
29:1-46	P	P
30:1-38	P	P
31:1-18a	P	P		D: to "testimony"
31:18b	P	E	*
32:1-8	E	E
32:9-14	E	J	*
32:15-24	E	E
32:25-34	E	J	*
33:1-4	E	J	*
33:5-11	E	E
33:12-23	E	J	*
34:1a	J	J		F&D: to "tablets of stone"
34:1b	RJE	RJE
34:2-28	J	J		F&D: except for v. 4 "like the first ones" (RJE)
34:29-35	P	P
35:1-35	P	P
36:1-38	P	P
37:1-29	P	P
38:1-31	P	P
39:1-43	P	P
40:1-38	P	P

Read More...

Summary only...

Building a Sukkah - Some Practical Issues

My sukkah is a simple frame of bolted 2x4s, with plastic outdoor blinds for the walls. But after seven years and too many warped 2x4s (now with some extra holes), I decided to design and build a new sukkah this year. Two other families I know were interested in building their first sukkahs, and so I helped them with the design. We have cut and drilled our boards, and we are going to put all three up on Sunday.

Many people simply buy a sukkah kit. But I really enjoyed building my own from scratch, and I know that others do as well. I ran into several practical issues in designing and building both my last sukkah and this one, and I though I would blog about it in the hopes that it might be of some help to someone else who was actually constructing a sukkah from scratch. (Insert any joke about Jews and power tools here.) If you have any practical advice or questions, please add a comment.


1. Plans. This is critical. Draw the plans first and label everything. If you make changes on the fly, change the plans.

2. Size. You need to think about the maximum and minimum sizes for your sukkah. Not the halachic sizes, but the practical sizes. If you are going to put a table or tables in the sukkah, measure those first and add a few feet to each side (for chairs and people and things). That's the minimum size. And then figure out where it will go and how much space you have there. That's the maximum size.

3. Height. The fake-bamboo blinds for the walls are 6' tall. I cut my vertical 2x4s to 7'. That leaves about 1' of vertical space not filled by the blinds. But my horizontal 2x4s are each 1/2" from the ground or the top, so that uses an inch. A 2x4 is actually 1.5 x 3.5. So I use 1" in space at the very top and bottom and 7" in space for the two 2x4s, for a total of 8". That leaves 4" of extra space, or 2" at the top and bottom of the blinds, well within acceptable limits. BTW, I cut off all the strings on the blinds and simply tie them to the top and bottom 2x4s with twine.

4. L-straps. I connect each vertical and horizontal 2x4 with bolts and an "L strap" (available at Home Depot, Lowes, and other similar stores). These give it plenty of strength and prevent racking.

The bolts make it easy to disassemble and reassemble next year. Using screws or nails is a bad idea because after a few years the wood will get torn up.

Each 2x4 gets two holes. The corner of the L-strap goes through both 2x4s where they meet. The other hole in the vertical part of the L-strap gets bolted to the vertical 2x4, and the other hold in the horizontal part of the L-strap gets bolted to the horizontal 2x4. The L-strap goes between the two 2x4s (like a sandwich).

5. Bolt sizes. The L-strap I use (the smallest one available) takes a 3/8" diameter bolt. The length of each bolt is the length of the board or boards it goes through, plus 1". I need a total of 4 sizes (remember that a 2x4 is really 1.5" x 3.5").

- 2.5" - through the thin side of a single 2x4 - (1.5" + 1")

- 4" - through the thin side of two 2x4s - (1.5" + 1.5" + 1")

- 4.5" - through the wide side of a 2x4 - (3.5" + 1")

- 6" - through the wide side of a 2x4 and the thin side of a second 2x4 (1.5" + 3.5" + 1")

You simple need to draw the sukkah first and count the number of each type of bolt you need. Since the bolts are the same diameter, you can use the same nuts for all the bolts.

6. Washers. I use two 1.5" diameter washers per bolt.

7. Cutting the 2x4s. Make sure you are set on the size of the sukkah and then cut all your 2x4s first.

8. Labeling and orientation. The biggest problem in re-assembling the sukkah each year is remembering which board goes where and how it is oriented. In the past, I would somehow get one or two boards wrong each year, and that required some trimming or drilling an new hole. But this year, I have developed and idiot-proof system that will work even with me. (I am hoping to disprove the maxim that when you develop an idiot-proof system, someone will invent a better idiot.)

Everything is orientated to the front left corner of the sukkah.

The first thing to do is uniquely label each vertical board. I call the boards on the left side of my sukkah L1, L2, etc., and on the right side R1, R2, etc. (L1 and R1 are in the front). If the long side of your sukkah is the front, you can call the front vertical 2x4s F1, F2, etc. and the back ones B1, B2, etc. I write the number on each board with a thick black permanent felt pen.

I label each horizontal 2x4 with the number of the two vertical 2x4 that it runs between. So the board that goes from L1 to L2 is called L1-L2. Since there are two of these (one at the top, the other at the bottom), I also add an U (for "up") and a D (for "down") label. (You can't use B because it also stands for "back").

That uniquely identifies each 2x4. But it still has to be oriented correctly. To do this, I made a small mark on the top and left side of each board (neat the top left corner) and then slightly beveled those two edges. (I started with a router and a chamfer bit, but then realized it would be easier with a compound miter saw.) For an edge on the long side of the 2x4, I just beveled the last few inches to the corner.

If you don't have access to these tools, you could always cut a notch in these sides, mark them with a thick felt pen, or do anything else that will clearly identify this edge. The important point is to know where these edges are.

That should do it. When you put each 2x4 in, simply make sure that the beveled (or marked) edges are on the top and left sides. Now each board is in the right place and oriented correctly.

9. Pre-drilling and drilling. I pre-drilled 3 out of the 4 holes: the 2 holes on the vertical 2x4, and the one corner hold on the horizontal one. (I will drill the final hole during assembly - see below.)

To make this easier, I made six marking templates.

I used a thin piece of wood that was the width of a 2x4 and about 8" long. I drew a line across the template 1/2" from the bottom. (This is the extra space at the top and bottom.) I then drew another line 3.5" above that. This is where the horizontal board will go. I then marked the center of this and drilled a small hole, just big enough for a pencil to fit through.

I then put the L-strap in place and marked where the top hole will go and drilled that.

This template marks where the vertical 2x4 will be drilled. Once you make this, it is easy and fast to mark the holes on the vertical 2x4s. Simply put the template over the top or bottom of the 2x4, hold it in place, and make a pencil mark through the two holes. If you are going to be drilling a lot of holes, spending a few minutes making this template will speed things up a lot. (We were making three sukkahs this year.)

Vertical boards in the center of a sukkah wall can hold two horizontal boards (one from the left and one from the right). Simply flip the template over and measure and mark these 4 hole using the same method above on the other end of the template. Then you can use the other end to mark these vertical 2x4s.

Once everything is marked, drill the holes. The best bit for drilling a 3/8" hole in a 2x4 is a spade bit.

* * *

You need to make another template to drill through the long side of the 2x4. IMPORTANT: make sure these holes are about 1" above the holes on the other side. If they are at the same level, the bolts will bump into each other and it won't go through.

* * *

Finally, you need to make templates for the horizontal boards showing where the holes go.

* * *

If you really don't want to make the templates, you can mark everything with the L-straps as you go. That works, but it will take a little longer and not be as consistent.

10. Assembly. Once you have everything cut, marked, and drilled, you are ready to assemble. Pick a side. You should have four 2x4s (two vertical, two horizontal).

The first thing to do is make the whole thing square. If you can, lay everything down flat. Put the 2x4s in place (horizontals on the outside) add the L-strap, and add the two bolts for the vertical 2x4s. At this point, the L-strap should be solidly in place against the vertical 2x4s (since it is held in by two bolts), but the horizontal 2x4s are only held in place by 1 bolt. As a result, the whole contraption can "rack" and turn into a parallelogram. That's exactly what we want at this point.

The trick here is to get the whole thing square before drilling the final hole. And the way to do that is to measure the two diagonals (either from bolt to bolt, or from corner to corner, but be consistent). If they are equal, the thing is square. If not, simply move the two long corners closer to each other, remeasure, and re-adjust, until they are equal.

Once it is square, carefully mark the wood through the hole in the L-strap. Move the L-strap out of the way (don't try to drill through the hole!), drill the holes, move the L-strap back in place, and bolt it all together. You now have a side.

Repeat the process for the other sides. The frame is up.

That's the hard part. It's clear sailing from here. Add the walls, some lights, decorations, and the schach, and your sukkah is up!

* * *

Update: I have added pictures and some additional suggestions here.

Read More...

Summary only...