Parsha Insights - Vayishlach 2006
Gen 26:
לד וַיְהִי עֵשָׂו, בֶּן-אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, וַיִּקַּח אִשָּׁה אֶת-יְהוּדִית, בַּת-בְּאֵרִי הַחִתִּי--וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת, בַּת-אֵילֹן הַחִתִּי. לה וַתִּהְיֶיןָ, מֹרַת רוּחַ, לְיִצְחָק, וּלְרִבְקָה. {ס}
Gen 28:
ט וַיֵּלֶךְ עֵשָׂו, אֶל-יִשְׁמָעֵאל; וַיִּקַּח אֶת-מָחֲלַת בַּת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן-אַבְרָהָם אֲחוֹת נְבָיוֹת, עַל-נָשָׁיו--לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. {ס}
Gen 36:
ב עֵשָׂו לָקַח אֶת-נָשָׁיו, מִבְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן: אֶת-עָדָה, בַּת-אֵילוֹן הַחִתִּי, וְאֶת-אָהֳלִיבָמָה בַּת-עֲנָה, בַּת-צִבְעוֹן הַחִוִּי. ג וְאֶת-בָּשְׂמַת בַּת-יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֲחוֹת נְבָיוֹת. ד וַתֵּלֶד עָדָה לְעֵשָׂו, אֶת-אֱלִיפָז; וּבָשְׂמַת, יָלְדָה אֶת-רְעוּאֵל.
These p’sukim obviously don’t agree with each other, in really any way at all. Traditional DH though is no help since all 3 are P . Hence, we’ve got three choices
1. Posit some extension to DH such as different strands of P to answer the questions. I, personally, am not a fan of this approach, because I think there is scant evidence for it.
2. Argue against DH that in reality Biblical texts were taken from many sources, not the 4-5 traditional ones. There is a weakness here as well because it seems clear, at least within each document according to DH, that these must be from one author due to tremendous amount of unity in the text.
3. Argue that all the above verses came from one hand and that one of the apologetic answers is in fact correct. This is weak as well because apologetics are always week.
So, I’ve got a good question and 3 bad answers. If we pick answer 3 though, DH has a huge problem because this would establish that even it must recognize the validity of apologetics which would rob of it of much of its evidence. Hmm..... Don't know what to conclude here. I originally had written this post as a scathing critique of DH but then blogger crashed on me and I lost it all and had to rewrite. I think God was trying to tell me something.
A gut shabbos to all
posted by littlefoxlings at 10:50 PM
6 Comments:
why does the torah repeat in the span of 15 psukim the names of abilimahs sons?
why does the torah all of sudden tell us the name of rivkas maidservant.
its never mentioned earlier.
12/09/2006 11:52 PM
Two excellent questions for which I have no good answers, but here's a try: As to the 2nd one, first let me note that the Torah generally is quite repetitive, so it may be an unfair question. The fact is, like it or not, the book is repetitive. It may be wrong to answer the question on a case by case basis when that is indeed the consistent style of the book. But, perhaps we could suggest that Gen 36:1 - 8 is the story of Esav the person and Gen 36:9 - 19 is the story of Esav's family. In P, the word תֹּלְדוֹת denotes a section break. See my post here
http://littlefoxling.blogspot.com/2006/11/blog-post.html
for a complete listing.
A similar structure would be the juxtaposed lineage of Noach and Shem in Gen 10-11
As to the first question, first there is some discussion amongst scholars if perhaps the original text was about Rivkah and not Devorah as we don't ever hear about Rivka’s dieing and that would seem to be the more important story.
I believe Noth might also speak about this problem, but I don't have his book on me now and I forgot what he says. But, his general approach would seem to be very relevant here either way. Noth's basic approach is to see the Torah's stories as legends that grew out of place or people legends often trying to explain the etymologies of sacred grounds. Eventually, the stories were amalgamated in to the epic story that is the Bible. But, often, a given story about a given place might have evolved into various manifestations. For example, he notes that Bilam Ben Be'or sounds like Peor. Hence, he suggests that perhaps there was a legend around the place Peor that developed into the story of Bilam, the sorcerer of Peor but that that story took on many forms and hence in the Torah we see many stories about Bilam and Peor. E.g. Nu. 23:26 25:5.
Now, דְבוֹרָה is not a very common name, nor are women common the Bible, but we have two דְבוֹרָה's and with much commonly. Firstly, both are associated with בֵּית-אֵל. (Judges 4:5) (Gen. 35:7 ). Moreover, both are associated with trees (Judges 4:5) (Gen:8). I'm guessing Noth would argue that there was a legend around the place of Beth El having to do with a women named Divorah. He might even say there was a specific tree that was associated with this legend. For Noth, place legends are the older tidbits in the Bible. It is possible that the association with Rivkah was an after thought. In any event, I am sure Noth could say it better than me, and I will IY"H look it up. As I mentioned, I'll be away this week, but look back in a week or two and I'll hopefully have something better for you.
12/10/2006 12:24 AM
I am assuming above that Alon in Gen 35:8 means tree and not plane which is by no means certain but at the same time is a possibility. Anyway, a problem like that would not stop Noth who would just say that if it means plane it is a corruption. Of course, by (Gen:8) I meant (Gen 35:8).
12/10/2006 12:31 AM
lf
thanks.
my question about esav chidren was missing the point that its repeated three times. you got two covered.
re devorah.
it seems really out of place. are there traditional meforesh bothered by it?
12/10/2006 9:51 AM
Again, I would say that 36:10 - 14 is the familial line of Esav and 36:15 - 28 are the princes of Esav. I realize that is very weak, but as I said before, I don't have a good answer. DH is no help here since this is all P. Other critical options are to view this as two strands of P or to chuck the DH and just argue that chumash is a compellation from many different sources. In that case, the repetition could be because this is from two different sources both of which have a version of the tradition of Esav's lineage.
Re: Deborah. I believe Rashi says that it is from this verse that we find out that Rivkah died or something. But, I am away now and don't have access to any books so I can't look it up. I'll look into it more when I get back. I agree with you. It is very weird and out of place.
12/10/2006 10:13 AM
I finally got around to doing my homework:
Rashbam: The Torah is just listing all of Yaakov’s travels
Rashi #1: Rivka had sent Deborah to pick of Yaakov and so the Torah recounts the fact that she died in transit.
Rashi #2: The Torah means to inform us that Rivka had died.
I find all of these very weak from many stand points. I was correct about Noth. He draws a parallel to this Devorah and the Devorah in shoftim on the grounds I stated. Though he does not raise the issue, implicit in the analysis is the assumption that Alon means tree. While I am no Biblical Hebraist, I do not think this is at all obvious, as the translation plane seems to generally fit better to me. Though, I should note that both Rabbenu Saadya Gaon and the Ibn Ezrah discuss this word in Gen 12:6 and Rasag says it means an area of plantings and Ibn Ezrah raises several possibilities among them field and orchards/tree related terms. Noth also suggests a possible linkage to I Samuel 10:3 where there is Alon Tavor, also near Bet El (not sure what he is getting at as the jump from Tavor to Bachut is large. Though, in Shoftim, Deborah is also associated with Tavor.)
In order to understand Noth’s point of view, it is important to understand his view of the Bible. To him, local traditions, usually around places, that were unconnected, developed. Later, tradition melded them into one saga, but the original pieces were independent stories. Thus, to him, there originally was a Bet El story that actually had nothing to do with Yaakov. The association with Yaakov only grew because with time Yaakov became associated with Rachel and Rachel was associated with Bet El. He suggested that perhaps originally our verse was referring to Rachel instead of Rebecca.
In any event, Noth’s view here is intimately connected to his larger view of the Bible. I would like to spend more time discussing his view, which I find both fascinating and far fetched, but not for now.
12/17/2006 10:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home