According to the gemara on 14b the order of the Nevi'im is Yirmiyah, Yechezkel, Yeshaya and yet in the Tanach as we have it today the order is not so?
Baruch Weinstein, London, England
The order in the Gemara is the order in which the Nevi'im must be written on a single scroll. In order to associate Churban with Churban and Nechamah with more Nechamah, Yeshayah is saved for last.
The printers of current day Nevi'im were not required by Halachah to follow this order (since they were not writing Nevi'im on a scroll). Since people who study Nevi'im prefer to learn them in their chronological order, they were printed in that order, with Yeshayah first (since it is first chronologically, as the Gemara says).
M. Kornfeld
Shkoyach. I found someone in my Beis Hamedrash who has found something on this from the introduction of The RaDaK on Sefer Yirmiyahu, printed in any of the standard Tenach Mikroos Gedoilos. He asks why we do not compile the Nevi'im in the order of the Gemoro and just says Af Al Pi Kayn........Sidrom, Lefi Zmanom.
But we can see from this that even in the RaDaK's time, about 800 years ago, this order seems to have been the accepted Minhag, regarding the Seder of these 4 Sifrei Tenach.
Kol Tuv, Boruch Kahan, London England
1. We may add to the source that you quote that the Abarbanel, in his Hakdamah to the Nevi'im Achronim, before he begins his commentary on Yeshayah, writes at great length why in all of the Sefarim that he had seen from his times (which was later than the Radak but was also about 700 years ago) Yeshayah always came before Yirmeyahu. He writes about the Sefarim of his time that "I see that their words are upright and perfect."
The Abarbanel adds (also in the beginning of the Hakdamah to Nevi'im Achronim, in DH ha'Bechinah ha'Rishonah) that the order of the Nevi'im based on the reasoning of "Churbana next to Churbana, and Nechamta next to Nechamta," is "Einah Mechuyeves." The Abarbanel apparently means that the order that Chazal gave is not a Chiyuv. He then proceeds to present, at great length, five major reasons for why Yeshayah should be the first of the Nevi'im Acharonim.
2. We see that the Arbarbanel agrees that the order is Yeshayah then Yirmeyahu, and that the origin of this order is Jewish. This contrasts with what the Abarbanel writes elsewhere about the organization of the Chumash and Tanach into chapter sections, which is not of Jewish origin. About fifteen years ago, a Rabbi in Stamford Hill published an edition of the Chumash according to genuine Jewish division of the chapters. I saw this Chumash at the time in the Lederman's Shul in Bnei Brak. I recall that in the introduction to the Chumash, the Abarbanel is cited as writing that the chapters we have nowadays in our Chumashim are not of Jewish origin. Now that I see what the Abarbanel writes about the order of the Nevi'im, there seems to be a difference, because he agrees with the order of the Nevi'im but not with the chapter division. It seems, however, that the latter matter is out of our control now that we are in Galus.
3. Incidentally, I will give one classic example of how the chapter division in the Chumash is not original. This is from Vayikra 26:1. Rashi explains that the Eved Ivri sold to the Nochri should not say that since my master serves Avodah Zarah, then I also can. This is why the Torah says at that point that one must not worship Avodah Zarah. Accordingly, there is no reason for why verse 1 and 2 should be part of a new chapter, as those verses are a continuation of chapter 25. It is obvious that the chapter division there was not made by the Jews.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Rebbe,
It is well known that the chapters in all of Tanach were invented by the Christians in the early 13th century. The chaperization was done by Archbishop Stephen Langton. It is obvious that he had no idea of the significance of the setumos and pesuchos since he arbitrarily numbers his chapters according to his own reasoning without noticing them, starting in Bereishis and continuing throughout Tanach.
The introduction to the Koren chumash makes note of this. What the Koren does is maintain the Perakim but also refers to the natural Torah breaks in their Tanach.
The question that we must answer is that if we all know that the perakim were invented by the Christian church why do we maintain them?
The answer given is that since when they forced us into theological debates and they gave citations such as chapter 6 verse 3 we wouldn't be able to answer since we'd have no idea what they were talking about unless we had their chapters and verses.
After a while we got used to the perakim as they were set up by the church so we just kept them that way.
It would be terrible, however, if people actually thought that these perakim were "MiSinai."
B'kavod,
Sam Kosofsky
I asked the Rav again that since the printers nowadays are Jewish, unlike the original printers of Tanach, why do we not revert to the correct order of Nevi'im which is stated in the Gemara?
He answered that since the Poskim, when they refer to Tanach, always cite the references according to the order of printing that we possess now, it is impossible to change this.
According to this, the way our Tanach is printed is not the correct one but it is impossible to change it because it would cause too much confusion since, for centuries, references in Tanach have been given based on what is in print.
I would just add to this that even though one might argue that it would not cause so many problems merely to change the order from Yeshayah, Yirmeyahu, Yechezkel, to the correct order of Yirmeyahu, Yechezkel, Yeshayah, nevertheless there is an additional and more pervasive problem that we have with the printed Tanach. These are the chapter numbers which are not of Jewish origin. An attempt to change this would cause great confusion. Since one cannot change this very basic aspect it might not be meaningful merely to change the order of the Nevi'im.
Dovid Bloom
For the sake of accuracy that you are striving so much for, it must be noted that the Abarbanel lived during the expulsion from Spain and his years were 1437-1508, which means that only 574 years elapsed since his birth.
b'Brachah,
Mordechai Schwimmer Brooklyn NY
Now that Tisha B'Av is over I wonder what you think of the following HeOroh on this subject.
B.H. I was Zoycheh to go through Medrash Rabbah on Eichah from start to finish over the Tisha B'Av period I started Shabbos Chazon and finished Tsha B'Av afternoon and found what might be called a "Semach" or 3 for our Shittoh of having Yeshaya before Yirmiya in the Seder of the Seforim
1. Parshah Aleph Possuk Aleph "3" "Nisnabu Bilshon Eichah" and the order is Moshe,Yeshaya,Yirmiya ie Yeshaya before Yirmiya.
2. Parshah Aleph Oys Kaf Gimmel "Shekol Nevuos Koshoh Shenisnabeh Yirmiyah Al Yisroel HIKDIM Yeshaya VeRipon" Look at that Yishaya comes first because he is the "Refuah" before the "Makkoh" of Yirmiya.
3.Parshah Aleph Oys Lamed Ches it talks about 4 Neviim and again it lists Yeshaya ,Yirmiya,Yechezkel ,Tzefaniah
So hopefully you can see 3 Hoychochos from the Medrash that Yeshaya should be before Yirmiya
Any thoughts?
Baruch Kahan, London England
Reb Baruch, Mazal Tov on learning the whole of Eichah Rabah, a wonderful achievement, and thank you for sharing those insights with us!
1. I do not think there is a strong proof from the order of "Moshe, Yeshayah, Yirmeyah," because the Midrash is merely mentioning them in their chronological order. The Gemara in Bava Basra (14b) also knew that this was the chronological order, which is why the Gemara there asked that since Yeshayah came before Yirmeyah and Yechezkel in time, his Sefer should also come first in the order of the Sefarim. The Gemara answered that even though our order does not fit with the chronological order, nevertheless the Inyan of Semichus of Churban to Churban and Nechamta to Nechamta is more important.
2. This is a beautiful support that you have brought from 1:23 that "Hikdim Yeshayah v'Ripon"! This shows that the "Hikdim" of Yeshayah was not only chronological but also was in terms of the Refu'ah. However, an argument against this support could be made as follows. The point is that, l'Ma'aseh, the Makah -- the blow -- came first and afterwards came the Refu'ah. This is demonstrated by the first example Eichah Rabah gives, wherein Yirmeyah laments (in Eichah 1:1) how lonely Yerushalayim has become, and Yeshayah says (49:21), "Who gave birth to this great multitude that have come to me?" Yeshayah is referring to a future Nevu'ah after the first Churban which had not yet happened at the time that Yeshayah had the Nevu'ah. Therefore, perhaps the opposite of your logic applies: Yeshayah comes last because his prophecies came true later in chronological order, even though he made the Nevu'os earlier in chronological order. Because Yeshaya's comforts came about in the end, therefore Yeshayah is the last in the order of the Sefarim.
3. The support you cite from 1:38 could be refuted in a similar way, but it can be refuted in the same way your support in (1) above can be refuted, namely, that the Midrash is merely going in chronological order. However, this Teirutz would work for "Yeshayah, Yirmeyah, and Yechezkel," but you will have a Kashya on me when it comes to Tzefanyah, because Tzefanyah lived at the same time as Yirmeyah and before Yechezkel. Therefore, I could bring a proof for you from here and say that this Midrash is going specifically according to the order in which the Sefarim should be arranged (and it is not because of the chronological order), which is why Yechezkel comes before Tzefanyah (i.e., Tzefanyah is one of the 12 smaller Sefarim which come after Yechezkel, as the Gemara here says).
However, I want to give a different reason for why this Midrash mentions Tzefanyah after Yechezkel. It is because the Madregah of Yechezkel was higher than that of Tzefanyah. For example, he saw the Ma'aseh Merkavah, which Tzefaniah was not Zocheh to see. This is why the Midrash mentions Yechezkel earlier, even though Yechezkel was later in time. According to this, we do not have a support for our Minhag from this Midrash.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
1. Rav Schwimmer, thank you very much for supplying us with those correct dates for the Abarbanel.
2. Following our discussions, I asked a Gadol why we do not change nowadays the way Tanach is printed. He replied that because our literature constantly refers to the chapters and verses of Tanach according to the editions that are in print, even though the origin of this numbering system is not Jewish it is impossible to change this because it would cause too much confusion.
3. Having said that, I will mention that about 15 or 20 years ago, Rabbi Posen from London published a very fine Chumash according to the Jewish Mesorah of the chapters. I saw this in the Lederman's Shul in Bnei Brak (of which Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit'a is the Rav). I was told at the time that there was a discussion in the Shul concerning the importance of this idea, but in my opinion such enterprises are to be encouraged for the reason that R' Sam mentioned: that people should be aware of the fact that these Perakim delineations are not of Jewish origin. Even though we may not be able to change the general practice on this matter, it is valuable to possess a more accurate Tanach which can be consulted by those who are more particular about these issues.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom