“Rabbi Yitzchok said, ‘there was no need to write the Torah (whose primary purpose is to teach us the laws that G-d wants us to follow, see Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh, etc.) from anywhere but “this month is for you” (Sh’mos 12:2, the first mitzvah given to the nation). And what was the reason [the creation story] was written [in the Torah]? To inform [us] of His might, as it says (T’hillim 111:6), “the strength of His actions He told to His people to give them the inheritance of nations.’” This Midrash (Tanchuma Yoshon, B’reishis 11) is quoted by Yalkut Shimoni (Bo, #187) by Midrash Lekach Tov (B’reishis 1:1) and, most famously, by Rashi as his very first comments on the Torah. [Rashi adds to the original Midrash, combining it with R’ Levi’s opening remarks (B’reishis Rabbah 1:2) in order to explain why the last part of the verse in T’hillim is quoted.] Rabbi Yitzchok’s question and answer (or statement made in the form of a question/answer) is quite puzzling, as evidenced by the amount that has been written throughout the centuries to try to explain it. Can we imagine the Torah as just a book of laws, with no historical background, without any perspective on how we got to the point of being chosen (or being given the opportunity to choose) to fulfill G-d’s mission? How could we pray to “the G-d of Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov” without really knowing who they were? And, as some commentators point out, if the Torah doesn’t need to include these narratives except to share the information with us (rather than being an integral part of the Torah), why not just include them in a separate book? In short, if the non-law sections should be considered “Torah” (which they obviously should, since they are in the Torah), then there is no room for Rabbi Yitzchok’s question (or his opening “assumption” which led to his question), and if these sections should not be considered “Torah” why are they included in the Torah? Rabbi Moshe Shamah (“Recalling the Covenant”) discusses the similarities between the covenant enactment that took place at Sinai, as well as the covenant renewal that took place at the Plains of Moav, and the covenant enactments and renewals that took place in the Ancient Near East–specifically covenants between the king of a powerful empire and the king of a smaller country. Rabbi Shamah references the work of Rabbi Joshua Berman in this area (tinyurl.com/kw4yy2s; see also tinyurl.com/kwdhnye), and quotes (pg. 1054) the description of the Harper’s Bible Dictionary regarding Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties of the 14th and 13th centuries B.C.E. — “The main elements of the Hittite treaty…are: the identification of the treaty-maker (i.e. the great king); a historical introduction (prior beneficial acts done by the great power on behalf of the smaller one); the stipulations (the primary demand is for loyalty); a list of divine witnesses; and blessings and curses. The treaty was recited, a ceremonial meal eaten, and the treaty deposited at the feet of the idol.”

The similarities are striking and undeniable. Whether G-d chose to use a similar format because He thought, in His divine wisdom, that it was the most effective way of enacting a covenant with us, or because He thought it would be the most effective way to do so during that time period, the bottom line is that this seems to be the basic format He used. (Keep in mind that since a covenant is, by definition, an agreement between two parties, the perspective and perception of both parties is vital.) Either way, once we recognize that this was the context within which the covenant at Sinai was made and then renewed at the Plains of Moav, certain elements take on a new perspective. This is especially true for things that are part of the historical introduction, which is designed to explain how the two parties reached the point of wanting to enact the covenant (or to continue it, such as when a new king takes over, thereby necessitating a restatement of intent to maintain the covenant).

In the case of the covenant renewal at the Plains of Moav, Moshe recounted the nation’s history after the original covenant was already in place and it was time to start preparing for the trip to the Promised Land (see D’varim 1:6). The “prologue” to this covenant renewal was meant to explain why a renewal was necessary: Moshe was about to die, and it was important to demonstrate that the covenant would still be in effect under the new leader (Y’hoshua), as well as under all future leaders (the commandment to gather the nation every seven years served as a regularly-scheduled covenant renewal, see D’varim 31:10-13); the nation was about to enter a new phase of its existence when it entered the Promised Land, and it had to be made clear that the covenant still applied there (having the “blessings and curses” phase occur after entering the land, see 11:29-32, was quite helpful in this regard); and the nation hadn’t always acted (or reacted) properly, so had to be made aware that the covenant would still be upheld by G-d even if they didn’t always keep their end of the bargain (informing them of this allowed for a return to G-d, see 30:1-10).

In this context, some of the anomalies contained in Moshe’s historical overview can be better understood. For example, in recounting the instituting of the system of judges (D’varim 1:9-17) there is no need to mention that Yisro had originally suggested it, as Moshe’s point was that they needed, and would continue to need, a structured judicial system; who came up with the idea was beside the point. (In any case, G-d obviously had a plan for how His system of law should be administered. The Torah may give Yisro credit for thinking of a plan similar to the one G-d had intended, but unless Yisro thought of a better plan than G-d’s–which is obviously not possible–the plan that was put into action was what G-d had always intended; there is no need to pretend it was Yisro’s idea once he had gone back home.) Similarly, whereas it is important to know that G-d gave His permission for the scouts to go on their mission (Bamidbar 13:1-3), when explaining as part of the historical prologue to the covenant renewal why it took 40 years to get to the Promised Land, the part that is most relevant is that the original request came from the people (D’varim 1:22). Along the same lines, that the people didn’t want to go despite all the scouts agreeing that the land was good (Bamidbar 13:27, D’varim 1:25) is highlighted more than the fact that 10 of the 12 scouts were afraid to try to conquer it (Bamidbar 13:28-29 and 31-33, D’varim 1:28). Although historically accurate (if incomplete), the focus of this historical overview is its relevance to the renewal of the covenant, not giving a complete history. [The above perspective regarding the historical overview Moshe presented would be similar even without positing that such a prologue was necessary for covenant protocol, since one of Moshe’s primary focuses was to rebuke the nation before he passed away (see Rashi on D’varim 1:1).]

Until now I’ve discussed the historical overview prior to the covenant renewal that took place at the Plains of Moav. What about the historical overview of the covenant enactment that took place at Sinai? “And he (Moshe) took the Book of the Covenant and he read it to the nation” (Sh’mos 24:7). What was this “Book of the Covenant”? “From the creation story until the giving of the Torah, and the mitzvos that were commanded at Marah” (Rashi, based on Mechilta, Yisro, BaChodesh 3). In other words, all of Sefer B’raishis, the entire exodus story as told in Sefer Sh’mos, as well as the narrative of the nation’s travels in the desert until they reached Mt. Sinai was all written down and read to them before they heard the Ten Commandments from G-d (and before Moshe’s first 40-day stay atop Mt. Sinai). It would therefore seem that the historical prologue for the covenant enacted at Sinai encompassed all of Sefer B’raishis (which is primarily narratives) and a good portion of the narratives (and laws) at the beginning of Sefer Sh’mos. (The mitzvos commanded at Marah are mentioned separately since they do not appear in the text of the Torah, and would otherwise not be understood to be included.)

[Interestingly, the other opinion in the Mechilta (see also Chizkuni on Sh’mos 24:7) is that “the Book of the Covenant” refers to the blessings and curses at the end of Sefer Vayikra (which the Torah says explicitly were given at Mt. Sinai, see 26:46, despite its placement after Moshe started receiving laws in the Mishkan), which is another prominent feature of Ancient Near East covenants. It would seem that both were part of the process of covenant enactment, and theoretically both could have been included in “the Book of the Covenant” Moshe wrote down and read to the nation. It is also theoretically possible that the narratives had already been committed to writing prior to the nation’s arrival at Sinai (bear in mind that there wasn’t that much time once they got there before Moshe went up the mountain for 40 days and nights). G-d had already told Moshe at the burning bush that He would give the nation the Torah on that very same mountain (see Sh’mos 3:12), so instructions to start preparing what was necessary for the covenant protocol could have already been given. It is even possible that the early narratives were earlier texts studied in the Yeshivos of Shem and Ever (and then in the Yeshivos set up by our forefathers, including the one set up by Yehudah at the behest of our forefather Yaakov before he moved his family to Egypt), which G-d then told Moshe to include in “the Book of the Covenant” as the historical overview. Obviously, since it was for the covenant being established between G-d and the Children of Israel, and presented to the latter on behalf of the former, nothing could be included that wasn’t directly approved by G-d; as Midrash Lekach Tov (at the beginning of Sefer B’raishis) puts it, Moshe wrote the creation story

“through “Ruach haKodesh, by the mouth of (read: based on the instructions of) the Mighty One (G-d).” Just as the bulk of Sefer D’varim is Moshe’s words which attained the status of “Torah” when G-d subsequently told Moshe to include them in the Torah (see Abrabanel’s introduction to Sefer D’varim), even if the historical overview of the Sinai covenant included texts that were written earlier, they attained the status of “Torah” when G-d told Moshe to include them in “the Book of the Covenant” and to include it the Torah.]When Rabbi Yitzchok discusses the theoretical possibility of the Torah containing only the mitzvos, he was teaching us that the Torah could have been just the stipulations of the covenant between us and G-d, i.e. the commandments themselves, but because G-d wanted to give us the historical perspective within which the covenant was enacted (including why it was enacted only with us and not with all of humanity), G-d included, as part of the Torah, the historical perspective He presented to the nation when the covenant was first enacted. “The strength of His actions He told to His people,” i.e. the creation story, mankind failing several times, Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov reintroducing G-d to the world, the exodus from Egypt, etc., “to give them the inheritance of nations,” i.e. the role of fulfilling G-d’s purpose for creation, which could have been shared by all the nations, but instead became the responsibility of the Chosen Nation.