Parsha Insights - vayerah 2006 (Gen 18:1-19:28 is J )
I’ve always found the story at the opening of the Parsha to be difficult to understand.
1. The section about Sarah’s laughing (Gen 18:12 – 18:15) seems to place an unfair amount of emphasis on Sarah’s lack of faith, to the exclusion of Avraham. God says to Avraham, why did Sarah laugh, implying he is not at fault. Avraham and Sarah debate the matter, implying Avraham is the righteous one, Sarah the sinner. This is odd since Avraham had the same exact reaction when he heard about the birth of Yitzchak (Gen 17:17)
2. Why was it necessary for the angels to inform Avraham of the birth, when God had only just done so? (both stories happened exactly one year before Yitzchak’s birth (Gen 17:21 18:10)
3. Taking 2 a step further, why, when the angels made their prediction was it greeted with any degree of astonishment if God had only just made the same prediction?
4. Why was Yitzhak called Yitzchak? It’s not far fetched to suggest it’s cause Sarah laughed (18:12). But, it’s also seems it might be because of the “tz’hok” in (21:6). These two laughing seem superfluous. 17:19 makes it sound like a divine decree, but of course, it’s possible that that is merely a prophecy of the laughter. Nonetheless, 18:12 and 21:6 certainly rival each other.
There are some easy answers to all of these questions. Perhaps the prophecy was so amazing it needed to be repeated. Perhaps every time Sarah heard it she was aghast. But, these are very weak answers. For the DH hypothesis, these questions don’t even exist. Chapt 17 is P. 18:1-19:28 is J and 21:6 s E.
To the contrary. These repetition are a good thing for the DH. The DH argues that multiple authors, basing themselves off of one single tradition composed many texts. Thus, if we see the same story again and again, it might just be two versions of the same original story, the story of the promise of the birth of Isaac. Names and there explanations are a very basic part of traditions, and it's quite possible that the commonality of these traditions is rooted in the need to explain the etymology name Isaac.
The greatest weakness to this argument is the supposition that 21:6 is E and chapter 18 is J. Generally, there is very little grounds for the division of J and E and this case is a prime example of that division being made on little evidence.
This portion can also be assigned to JE on the basis of linguistic evidence, such as the use of the phrae v'nivr'chu vo (18:18), and the use of Anoki
(18:27, 19:19), terem (19:4), adamah (19:25)
This portion can also be assigned to J on the basis of the divine name of J (18:1, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22, 26, 33, 19:13 (twice) 24, 27)
A gut shabbos to all
posted by littlefoxlings at 8:34 PM
11 Comments:
a note on your point 2, that both stories happened exactly one year before Yitzchak's birth.
see my post here, in which I argue that in fact Genesis 18 happened three months later, 9 months before Yitzchak is born.
Indeed, in Anchor Bible Genesis, Speiser says the same thing, citing Ehrlicht.
At issue is how one translates "kaEt chaya," which I would translate as "the period of pregnancy," chaya meaning a pregnant woman.
if so, they are coming to say that Sarah is in fact now going to be pregnant, in fulfillment of Hashem's previous promise.
11/13/2006 6:58 AM
also, while certainly these may be used to bolter DH, one might note that other features can also be explained in other ways.
For example, as for (1). From my perspective, the text is capable of very deep levels of nuance, such that slight differences in ways of describing things are meant for dramatic effect. For example, Lot/Avraham parallels in greating the two angels.
Note that when Avraham laughs, he falls on his face and laughs *out loud*, and *says* in his heart this statement. This laughter may (though need not necessarily) be then understood as laughter of joy, accompanied by his falling on his face before God in thanks. The statement may be internal uncertainty of doubt -- thus, he says to God לוּ יִשְׁמָעֵאל יִחְיֶה לְפָנֶיךָ -- but also may be taken as wonder at the nature of this promised miracle.
Meanwhile, Sarah's laughter in internal וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר.
So this might be read as contradiction (certainly!), but also might be read as deliberate nuanced contrast of reactions.
In terms of (4) -- why is he called Yitchak? Well, because:
a) Avraham laughed (perek 17)
b) Sarah laughed (perek 18)
c) Sarah said "All who hear will laugh for me" (perek 21)
d) Yishmael was seen being "metzachek" with Yitchak (perek 21)
e) Avimelech sees Yitzchak "metzachek" with Rivkah (perek 26)
A common feature of the Biblical text is wordplay. One *need* not (though one can) see rivalry here.
Kol Tuv,
Josh
11/13/2006 7:23 AM
Josh,
First of all, thank you for being an excellent comp sci teacher so I could know enough programming to start a blog.
Secondly, your answers are good, but I can’t help wonder if they are more likely than multiple authorship.
Avraham says “can one who is 100 years old give birth, and Sarah, can she give birth at 90 (17:17)? “ You could render this a joyous statement, wow! I’m going to give birth at 100! But, that’s a very tough sell. As you note yourself, the ensuing conversation about Yishmael implies that Avraham didn’t believe God. If he was in wonderment, why ask about Yishmael? Your answer to this seems forced. Similarly, your understanding of “laughter” has little textual basis as you could have just as easily understood it as disbelief.
This is not to argue that your answers are not possible, but only to say that multiple authorship is the more likely. Moreover, multiple authorship is further bolstered by other arguments such as the linguistic ones I am trying now to develop. I realize that the linguistic arguments I have presented thus far are scanty at best, but I intend to add more in coming posts.
11/13/2006 10:00 AM
As to your understanding of kuet chaya:
1. Even if Gen 17 happened 3 months prior to Gen 18, it still does not explain why Sarah was so surprised to learn about the birth. Had she forgotten what God told her 3 months ago? Did Avraham not tell her?
2. If kuet chaya means 9 months, presumably that implies that Elisha also made his prediction 9 months before the birth of the child (Kings II 4:17). In that case, what is meant by “moed haze” (this time) in that verse? If kuet chaya means 12 months, the THIS in “this time” means that it was the same time of the year. But, if it was 9 months before the birth it should have said “moed hahu” that time
11/13/2006 12:51 PM
hi. glad to be of help. ;)
I don't intend here to go into a detailed argument for or against DH in general or in specific, and thus won't present something as more or less likely. I will also try not will I get into reasons for thinking that there is a specific unity of the text here, because I don't really have the time to get into prolonged discussion. DH certainly *has* going for it that it is the same answer in each instance of real or apparent contradiction, but that does not necessarily mean it is *the* answer in each place. If I segment any problematic text into multiple sections, of course many contradictions will disappear.
For example:
3 angels appear to Avraham. Only 2 appear to Lot. If I could divide these on DH grounds (note that I can't in this instance because both would be J), I could eliminate the contradiction rather than *perhaps* correctly surmising that one of the three "men" is in fact Hashem.
Moving on, because my goal here is *not* to discuss the merits of DH, but rather the linguistic merits:
1) I do not consider this a forced answer -- in fact, not an answer to any problem at all -- but rather close reading of the text, all the more so because of contrast (and, come to think of it, would consider it a factor in favor of the narrative's *unity* instead). By Avraham, the phrasing is וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָהָם עַל-פָּנָיו, וַיִּצְחָק followed by וַיֹּאמֶר בְּלִבּוֹ
while by Sarah the phrasing is וַתִּצְחַק שָׂרָה, בְּקִרְבָּהּ לֵאמֹר. Though Speiser does decide in favor of Avraham smiling *as* he said to himself, I see deliberate nuance here. That is not to say he did not harbor doubts, but those doubts were not necessarily of the type that one would mock/laugh about, and thus Hashem's reaction was not as harsh.
Speiser (a big DH promoter, BTW) also stated in his notes that Yitzchak can refer to a wide range of meanings, including "to rejoice over, smile on (a newborn child)."
Also, from the perspective of trup (not that this should be viewed as conclusive proof, but just bolstering in that others apparently saw the pesukim that way as well), the etnachta is on the word vayitzchak in terms of Avraham, thus logically dividing the verse in two in accord with the logical divide presented above.
But again, my focus in general is close reading of text, on both peshat and derash level, and so I always saw this interpretation as close reading of text, rather than an answer to anything. I would likely have suggested this about Avraham even had Sarah not laughed in the next perek.
(Thus, the trup and the contrast in phrasing that divides speaking from "to his heart" is my "textual basis.")
2) In terms of "kaEt chaya":
I have a better answer to your second objection. But anyhow:
a) We do not see Avraham telling her this. And one could imagine plausible practical reasons for this, including that who says that he wants to stir up problems with Hagar, or who said he was permitted to reveal a private prophecy, or not getting Sarah's hopes up (if he himself didn't trust it), or not having opportunity to do so (if we go with the 3 days after milah bit, with rushing about doing circumcisions and then recuperating).
Also, just to play devil's advocate, DH would assume the basic falsity of at least one of the narratives, so if we want, let us assume the basic falsity of the united story. If so, practical realistic concerns such as "why did Avraham not tell Sarah" do not necessarily come in to play at all.
Of course, I don't have all the answers. I do have a better answer for part b, though.
b) Hey, even Speiser agrees with me in this case. :)
And I give this interpretation not because of any issues of DH, but based on linguistic concerns, as I got into in my post.
In terms of laMoed, moed means "appointed." Thus, Ohel Moed is always translated consistently as "Mishkan Zimna," Tent of *Appointment* (/meeting). I could translate as "at this appointed time ... *which* Elisha had said unto her."
Indeed, JPS at Mechon Mamre, which is fairly scholarly, takes kaEt chaya as "when the time came round" (rather than "the amount of time of pregnancy) just as it does locally, *yet* they translate לַמּוֹעֵד הַזֶּה כָּעֵת חַיָּה, אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אֵלֶיהָ אֱלִישָׁע as "and bore a son at that season, when the time came round, as Elisha had said unto her."
Note they translate as "at *that* season," rather than "at *this* season."
(Note also that locally, Hashem says both laMoed and kaEt chaya, which I would suggest is meant at bringing in both promises - the one in 18 as well as the one in 17, where Moed was used instead - thus, "in 9 months, at the (previously) appointed time.")
Kol Tuv,
Josh
11/13/2006 4:11 PM
another point or two occurred to me after sending in the previous comment, besides the fact that JPS translated pasuk 17 as "at that time."
a) Indeed, even JPS translates "this time" one verse earlier. Even if we take it as "at this time," meaning this time of year, thus after twelve months, it could mean "at this time of year in 12 months time, *after* the time of gestation of 9 months had passed." There would be no proof that kaEt chaya meant 12 months.
b) A stronger point: It is the narrator speaking in this verse. So if we expect hahu, we would expect hahu even in if it *was* 12 months. You could say zeh when in the moment, but not as an outside observer many years later! When we have similar things in Torah like "ad hayom hazeh," commentators get excited.
I'd like to check up what Anchor Bible says about that verse in Melachim.
11/13/2006 4:22 PM
oops:
(Thus, the trup and the contrast in phrasing that divides speaking from "to his heart" is my "textual basis.")
"speaking" should be "laughing"
11/13/2006 4:24 PM
Josh,
All great points. Two questions though.
1. According to your reading of “moed haza” you are forced to assume that the phrase has completely different meaning between Kings II (The appointed time) and Gen 17 (this time). Not impossible, but unlikely due to the similar context.
2. You say “Also, just to play devil's advocate, DH would assume the basic falsity of at least one of the narratives, so if we want, let us assume the basic falsity of the united story. If so, practical realistic concerns such as "why did Avraham not tell Sarah" do not necessarily come in to play at all.”
I don’t know. If it’s one author, whether or not it’s factual, why wasn’t the author attuned to this problem? If it’s two authors however, they were not attuned to the problem because the problem didn’t exist until the work was combined. By then, they were out of the picture.
11/13/2006 4:51 PM
i think i'll leave it as this for now (papers to write and all that), but I actually do read "moed hazeh" in Genesis 17 as "appointed time" just as I do the one in Genesis 18:11.
Indeed, in both Genesis 17 and 18 JPS translates "set time," with "set" meant to convey "appointed."
You are correct that there *is* the additional connotation of "this set time" being the same time of year as it being spoken in Genesis 17, which then would indeed be different - though perhaps on could argue that this implication is carried by the absence of any other time reference but the informative בַּשָּׁנָה הָאַחֶרֶת...
The appointed- this appointed time, con nest year as well"
11/13/2006 5:20 PM
ah... can't resist.
looked up Shadal to see if he agreed with me in anything.
http://www.tora.us.fm/tnk1/jdl/MefarsheyTanach001-17.htm
one Avraham's laughter, he agrees and says ויצחק : תנועה בלתי רצונית כשאדם שומע טובה נפלאה אעפ"י שמאמינה
on keEt chaya, he disagrees with me and writes:
כעת חיה : נמצאה המליצה הזאת גם למטה פסוק י"ד, וכן במלכים (ב' ד' ט"ז ) למועד הזה כעת היה את חבקת בן, ובפסוק שאחריו ותהר האשה ותלד בן למוצר הזה כעת חיה ; ולא אדע עיקר המליצה ופירושה בדיוק, בדרך שתתישב בכל המקומות אשר מצאנוה, ואין ספק כי הכוונה כמו בשנה האחרת ; ואולי ענינה כדעת אחדים, כשתחיה ותתחדש הצת הזאת, וכן כה לחי ( שמואל א' כ"ה ו' ) אולי ענינו ככה תהיו שמחים לזמן המתחדש, כלומר לשנה הבאה, ואולי כן היא ג"כ דעת רד"ק בשורש חיה
11/13/2006 5:25 PM
oops
"The appointed- this appointed time, con nest year as well" should not be there at all.
11/13/2006 5:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home