There is no chronological order in the Torah (Hebrew: אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, literally "There is no early and late in the Torah") is an expression used by many Bible commentators when they encounter events which are out of chronological order. In rabbinic analysis, the issue of chronological order is related to the issue of semichut parshiyot (whether one can learn from one section of the Biblical text about another section which is adjacent to it).

Sources Seemingly, the expression was first used in the Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules, which is traditionally attributed to Eliezer ben Jose (a 2nd-century tanna).Baraita on the Thirty-two Rules, rules 31 and 32. This work is printed after Kitzur Klalei HaTalmud at the end of Tractate Berachot in the Vilna Shas. However this teaching is historically dated to the tenth century.Moshe Zucker, "LePitaron Baayat 32 Middot uMishnat R' Eliezer", PAAJR 23 (1954), p. 1-39 The term first appears in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael (c. 3rd century),Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael, Shirah 7 and also in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon,Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon chapter 15 Sifre on Numbers,Sifre on Numbers, Behaalotecha 64 and the Jerusalem Talmud.Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 7a and elsewhere

The Babylonian Talmud proves that "There is no chronological order in the Torah" from the fact that Numbers 9:1 occurred on the first day of Nisan, while the earlier verse Numbers 1:1 occurred on the first day of Iyyar, a month later. In the ensuing discussion, Rav Pappa limits the application of the rule to cases of different matter, but within a single topic he says the Torah's narrative must be chronological.Pesachim 6b Later commentators disagree over the definition of a "matter": Rashi defines it as a parashah, while Rabbeinu Hananel defines it as a single topic of discussion.

The first Bible commentator to use the term was Rashi, who used it frequently, as did Ibn Ezra and the Torah Temimah. In contrast, Nachmanides argued that the Torah's order is generally chronological. Raavan argued that the principle only applies in the Torah, and not in the Nevi'im or Ketuvim. Yoel Bin-Nun argued that the Torah is chronological except where it specifies otherwise.היום השמיני ויום הכיפורים, footnote 3

Examples The commandments in Leviticus 25 are stated as being given to Moses "on Mount Sinai", seemingly earlier in time than the ritual commandments of Leviticus chapters 1–24. Ibn Ezra explains that Leviticus 25 was indeed given before the ritual commandments, but was recorded later due to its thematic connection to the passages around it (Leviticus 18 and 26). In contrast, Nachmanides asserts that the passage is in chronological order, as only at this point did Moses relay to the people the commands he had previously been given on Mount Sinai.

Shimon Bar Yohai and the Sifre Zuta The footprint of Shimon bar Yohai's influence in this territory--though elaborated in continuations, redactions and compilationsLieberman, Saul. SIFRE ZUTTA. New York, Jewish Theological Seminary of America. 1968. --is especially pronounced within the commentaries out of whom this hermeneutic principle about chronology arises and crystallizes. Bar Yohai's esoteric influence on how the Torah is transmitted and received within the tradition surfaces more apparently (and less precisely)Bar Yohai's influence on the Sifra and early Midrash is largely anonymous but formally apparent, whereas in the Zohar it is in 'nominal' in the special sense that is openly and repeatedly invoked by name in the text. The character of the Zohar is maximal and elaborate whereas earlier sources and traces in the commentary (such as in the Sifra) are much more precise and focused but later on require specialist study in order to read with understanding of their connotations., according to popular apprehensions, later on: In particular, when his name reappears as the main voice who speaks from the text of the Zohar. But the reputation which leads to his election in the Zohar's efflorescence is established at this prior layer within the stratigraphy of the commentary.

Late developments

The influence of cognitive dexterity demanded and built-up by this kind of reading manifests, also, in later doctrines of space and time represented (by their negation, synthesis or semi-symmetrical mirror-inversion) in theoretical physics during the early twentieth 20th century up to the present.

In conversation with Gershom Scholem in 1916, Walter Benjamin remarks on the fusion of these developments in theology, historical memory and physical theory in a 'difficult remark,' saying, "The years can be counted but they cannot be numbered."Peter Fenves, "Benjamin and Scholem in the Summer of 1916." Reflexão, vol. 33, núm. 94, julio-diciembre, 2008, pp. 161-171

In the same year Benjamin elaborates this cryptic comment in a notebook, writing: "Historical time is infinite in all directions and unfulfilled at every moment. [...] For empirical events, time is nothing but a form. More importantly, as a form, it is unfulfilled.[...] We should not think of time as merely the measure that records the duration of a mechanical change. Although such time is indeed a relatively empty form, to think of its being filled makes no sense. Historical time, however, differs from this mechanical time. It determines much more than the possibility of spatial changes of a specific magnitude and regularity-that is to say, like the hands of a clock-simultaneously with spatial changes of a complex nature [...] This idea of fulfilled time is the dominant historical idea of the Bible: it is the idea of messianic time. Moreover, the idea of a fulfilled historical time is never identical with the idea of an individual time."Benjamin, Walter. "Trauerspiel und Tragödie." 1916. Gesammelte Schriften, vol. II, no. 1, edited by Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhäuser, Suhrkamp, 1991, pp. 133-37.

References