8 Contradictions in the Torah Text

In fact, the Torah text itself contains much evidence suggesting that it was probably not written down under the circumstances we believe it to have been. Though we believe that the Written Torah should be understood in the light of its interpretation by the Oral Torah, we nevertheless consider the Torah text to be comprehensible, on a plain level, in and of itself. In dozens of places the Talmud says, "The Torah spoke in human language" (see e.g. Yevamot 71a, Sanhedrin 67b, etc.); we find the Rishonim interpreting the Torah according to the plain meaning of its verses in the Hebrew language and considering such interpretations no less legitimate than the exegesis brought in the Talmud and the Midrash (see e.g. Rashi on Genesis 33:20 and Nachmanides on Leviticus 27:29). Sometimes the commentators even rejected the Midrashic homilies on the Torah verses and adhered instead to the plain meaning of the verses in the Hebrew language (see e.g. Rashbam on Genesis 37:2, and Ibn Ezra on Genesis 25:1 vs. Bereshit Rabbah, section 61). The Torah text has its own meaning and may be read and understood on its own by a person familiar enough with the Hebrew language.

But the Torah text seems to support the idea that it was written by different people in different times, and leads to the conclusion that it was finished many years after the Israelites established their control over Canaan. First, the Torah text contains clear contradictions. In the first chapter of Genesis we are told that on the third day of Creation G-d created the flora, on the fifth day the sea fauna and the birds, and on the sixth day He created the animals, the beasts, the vermin which live upon the land and, finally, the first person -- more precisely, the first couple: "So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d created He him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).

But in Genesis 2 we have a quite different picture:

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, on the day that the Lord G-d made the earth and the heavens. And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord G-d had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord G-d planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord G-d to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food... And the Lord G-d said, it is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmate for him. And out of the ground the Lord G-d formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helpmate for him. And the Lord G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord G-d had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her to the man."

(Genesis 2:4-22)

That is, first Adam (the male only) was created, then flora was planted ("a garden eastward in Eden"), then -- when G-d considered the first man's loneliness to be bad for him -- He created the beasts and the fowl, and when Adam did not find a helpmate for himself amongst them, G-d created the first female, Eve.

To the neutral reader it would seem that these two accounts are completely contradictory. Of course our commentators tried to explain this matter, but their exegesis seems tenable only if one has a pre-conceived commitment to the text's truthfulness. Rashi on Genesis 2:5 says that "on the third day [of Creation], when it is written 'Let the earth bring forth grass,' [the plants] were standing just under the ground until the sixth day... and when Adam, who knew that the world needs it [rain], came and prayed for it, it started raining, and trees and grass started growing." But this seems to contradict the plain meaning of verses of Genesis 1:12-13: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after its kind: and G-d saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day," that is, on the third day -- three days before the creation of Adam -- the earth had already brought forth grass (Hebrew: vatotze haaretz deshe -- the verb vatotze, in perfect form, means that the grass had actually come out of the ground).

Another explanation Rashi gives about the order of creation of man and animals is (on Genesis 2:19): "'And out of the ground [the Lord G-d] formed [every beast of the field] -- this 'formation' is the 'making' described above [in Genesis 1:25], 'And G-d made the beast of the earth after his kind...'" But Genesis 2 says explicitly that G-d wanted to make Adam "a helpmate," and then He created all the beasts and fowls and brought them to Adam; this is the order of the events the Torah itself tells us, and if we break the order apart, the story of Genesis 2:4-22 would lose any consistency. Rashi himself must have noted it, for he says in his commentary (on Genesis 2:19-21), "And also we learn from here that when they [the beasts and the birds] were created, [G-d] immediately, on that very day, brought them to Adam, so that he would call them names... And when [G-d] brought them [to Adam], He brought them to him by couples, so [Adam] said: 'They all have a counterpart, and I have not'." Only then, according to Rashi, when Adam understood that he lacked a spouse, did G-d create Eve -- so that Adam would appreciate G-d's charity to him.

But this means that the birds and beasts were created on the same day as Adam. This sets up an inconsistency between Genesis 2 and Genesis 1, where the birds are said to have been created on the fifth day and Adam on the sixth.

Another example: in Genesis 15:13 G-d says to Abraham, "Know surely that your seed will be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them; and they shall enslave them and make them suffer for four hundred years." But Exodus 12:40 says: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years." This contradiction still can be solved by claiming that 400 years is the duration of the enslavement and suffering only while 430 years is the whole duration of the exile, or that 400 years is only a round figure while 430 years is the precise one (as Nachmanides says). Yet we have Kohath the son of Levi among those who came to Egypt with Jacob (Genesis 46:11). Amram was Kohath's son, and Moses was Amram's son. Kohath lived 133 years, and Amram 137 (Exodus 6:18-20). Moses is said to have died at the age of 120 (Deuteronomy 34:7), after the Israelites wandered in the desert 40 years. So at the time of the Exodus Moses was 80 and the total duration of the Egyptian captivity therefore cannot exceed 133+137+80=350 years. If this were not enough, Rabbinic tradition reduced the time of the Egyptian captivity to 210 years (Midrash Seder Olam, chapter 3) and interpreted the verse of Exodus 12:40 as referring to the time from the Covenant between the Pieces to the Exodus from Egypt (Rashi ibid.). This exegesis contradicts the verse itself, which speaks of "the sojourning of the children of Israel." Israel is another name for Jacob (Genesis 32:29). The Covenant between the Pieces is said to take place well before Israel (Jacob) himself was born, let alone his children.

Some of the contradictions in the Torah text even bear clear marks of different historical epochs in the ancient Near East. Thus, in Exodus 20:23 we read G-d's command: "Do not ascend My altar by steps, so that your nakedness not be revealed on it." The Torah is careful to ensure that priests serving before G-d not occasionally expose their genitals and therefore forbids building an altar to G-d with steps leading to it. However, this problem has yet another solution: demand that the priests wear pants when serving at the altar. And the Torah speaks of this, too: "Make for them [for the priests] linen pants to cover their nakedness, reaching from their waists to their thighs" (Exodus 28:42). But if the priests wear pants, what danger is there of an exposing priests' nakedness?

Art historians note that pants first appeared in the Middle East in Achaemenid Persia in the 6th century BCE (S. David Sperling, The Original Torah, p. 116). Before that time people in the Middle East -- both men and women -- wore kiltlike garments, which made the occasional exposure of nakedness when ascending steps indeed possible. This seems to lead to the unavoidable conclusion that the author of Exodus 20:23 lived before pants were introduced by the Persians, while the author of Exodus 28:42 was already acquainted with the latest fashion -- and we of course know that Jews were living under Persian rule only after the Babylonian exile.

These are only three examples of contradictions between different Torah verses, and there are many more. Isn't it now far more logical to conclude that we are dealing with multiple authors who lived in different epochs?

I must confess that I disagree with your original premise.

It’s abundantly evident, even with relatively little study, that the Torah has many obscure passages, as well as redundancies and contradictions. Add to that the relative ease in interpreting the text to support a whole range of agendas. There is clearly a self-evident need for clarifying interpretation.

If the Torah was non-Divine, then it would only seem appropriate for us to attempt to glean the correct interpretation through our own understanding. But once one comes to the conclusion that the Torah is Divine, as is understood from the proofs for Judaism I elaborated on earlier, one doesn’t have the luxury anymore of taking that approach. After all, from where can I, a mere mortal, have any conviction that I have correctly understood the Divine intent?

For this reason, Jews have traditionally looked to Tzaddikim for guidance. We look to the Rishonim, not only because they were clever people, but mainly because they were holy men, people who were truly on the level that G-d would reveal His intent to them. And as before, once we know that people on that level have actually lived in our generation, we do not have the comfort of assuming that people that great have not lived in previous generations as well.

Accordingly, the Rishonim that offer alternative explanations to those mentioned in the Talmud, do not disagree with the other interpretations, as they clearly state themselves. Rather, as there are often many layers to the Divine intent, they chose rather to focus on the layer of interpretation that is more aligned to the overall focus of their own commentary.

To be clear, I have no problem if one attempts to learn the verses on their own, and try to understand their meaning, but I really can’t see how one can have, on their own, the conviction that they have truly uncovered the Torah’s Divine intent.

Additionally, the meaning of “the Torah spoke in human language” is usually understood to refer exclusively to those verses where Torah repeats the same word, or the same phrase, twice. There is a difference of opinion if that means that the extra word should be expounded, to include new laws, or rather, that the Torah uses this style of speech to reinforce its message, similar to the style in which humans speak. Maimonides, however, in the Laws of the Torah Foundations 1:12, understands the meaning of “the Torah spoke in human language”, to also mean that when the Torah uses phrases that imply physical attributes to G-d, it is only to make it easier for us to understand, to bring it down to a level that we can relate to. Accordingly, rather than implying that we should judge the meaning of the Torah only at face-value, we are to understand that, many times, the concepts are much more lofty than they seem.

Perhaps you have more in mind, the dictum that “a verse never loses its literal meaning”. However, Nachmanides explicitly clarifies that: “we have [both] the exegesis and the literal meaning, and neither of them are rejected, as the verse contains all of [those meanings], and both [meanings] are true.” (Commentary to Maimonides’ Sefer HaMitzvot)

The well-known contradiction between the two first chapters of Genesis, is explained by Rashi, as you have pointed out. As for the question you end off with, that Rashi seems to imply that the birds were created on the sixth day, which would contradict the Torah’s account – this is addressed by the Siftei Chachamim, the chief commentator on Rashi, who comments on Rashi’s statement, “that when they were created, immediately, on that very day, [G-d] brought them to Adam,” and writes, “seemingly this only refers to the creation of the animals, which was on the sixth day, to the exclusion of the birds, which were created on the fifth day.”

The contradiction between the two verses giving the different lengths, of 400 and 430 years respectively, is robustly explained by the Sefer HaChinuch, among other Rishonim, who writes in the introduction to his book: “Thus it is written in the Torah, the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years (Exodus 12:40). Yet we find that Kohath the son of Levi was among those who went down [from Canaan to Egypt] (Genesis 46:11), and if you count all the years of his life and the years of his son Amram’s life, and the eighty years of Moses [Amram’s son] – for he was eighty when he stood before Pharaoh to speak to him to send the Israelites out of Egypt (Exodus 7:7) – they will all total no more than 350 years. The explanation given for this, however, is that from the time Abraham was told Know, O Know that your progeny will be alien sojourners in a land that is not theirs (Genesis 15:13), the reckoning of the 430 years was begun. Then the meaning of the verse is this: the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt and in other lands – i.e. [from the time] that they began to be exiled – was four hundred and thirty years. For from the time Abraham was told that you progeny will be alien sojourners, etc. the pain [of this edict] began for him; and so the beginning of the reckoning is from that point. Nor should it be a difficulty for you that the verse states, “the children of Israel: for it is asserted in the Midrash, “Abraham was called Israel, for it is stated: the time that the children of Israel dwelt.” Scripture’s words “the children of Israel” denotes the Israelites and Israel [Jacob, their ancestor]; but because the anguish began for the Patriarch [Abraham] with the [Divine] prediction of the exile of the children, Scripture used this expression particularly to allude to him. As to the phrase “in Egypt,” it is not meant rigorously, exclusively, but in the sense of exile. The reason for conveying the entire [exile] by the term “Egypt” is that there the main part of the exile was spent, and the whole is included under the main part, always being called by its name.”

As for the final contradiction, concerning the priests’ ascendance to the Altar, Rashi on Exodus 20:23 explains, based on the Mechilta: “Because due to the steps, you must widen your stride, although it would not be an actual exposure of nakedness, for it is written: “And make them linen pants” (Exod. 28:42). Nevertheless, widening the strides is close to exposing the nakedness [of the one ascending the steps], and you behave toward them [the stones] in a humiliating manner. Now these matters are a kal vachomer [a fortiori] conclusion, that if [concerning] these stones – which have no intelligence to object to their humiliation – the Torah said that because they are necessary, you shall not behave toward them in a humiliating manner. [In contrast,] your friend, who is [created] in the likeness of your Creator and who does object to being humiliated, how much more [must you be careful not to embarrass him]!”