Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a 26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50
THE SECOND VERSION OF THE MARRIAGE OF AVI-MELECH
In which various stories concerned with Av-Ram and with Av-Raham and with Avi-Melech are repeated, here attributed to Yitschak. As before the tale is borrowed from the Egyptian "Tale of the Two Brothers", and the first version found Av-Ram and Sarai in Mitsrayim (Genesis 12); the second, like this, was with Avi-Melech (Genesis 20), though the Avi-Melech here may be his son, Ben-Melech.
26:1: VA YEHI RA'AV BA ARETS MILVAD HA RA'AV HA RI'SHON ASHER HAYAH BI YEMEY AV-RAHAM VA YELECH YITSCHAK EL AVI-MELECH MELECH PELISHTIM GERARAH
וַיְהִי רָעָב בָּאָרֶץ מִלְּבַד הָרָעָב הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָיָה בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם וַיֵּלֶךְ יִצְחָק אֶל אֲבִימֶּלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ פְּלִשְׁתִּים גְּרָרָה
KJ (King James translation): And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
BN (BibleNet translation): And there was a famine in the land (besides the first famine, the one at the time of Av-Raham), and Yitschak went to Avi-Melech king of the Pelishtim in Gerar.
MILVAD...AV-RAHAM (אברהם...מלבד): as if to say, yes we know you are going to think this is the same story all over again, but we insist the whole incident really did happen twice. Which in one sense it did, because these fertility and rain-making ceremonies (and it may be that we are witnessing both) were annual events. One error though, Genesis 12 says Av-Ram, not Av-Raham.
RA'AV: Av-Ram and Sarai also went to Egypt because of a famine; and Ya'akov will go for the same reason later on.
AVI-MELECH MELECH PELISHTIM GERARAH (אבימלך מלך פלשתים גררה): the name of the king is the same, but it may be a descendant - in which case, why can’t there have been several Av-Rahams etc, on the principle that there have been eight Edwards and eight Henrys on the English throne, and countless John Pauls in the Vatican? Yet another Avi-Melech will appear in Judges 9 as a son of Yeruv-Va'al (Gideon).
In terms of plot, what takes place here is slightly confusing: Yitschak leaves Be'er Sheva (or possobly Be'er Lechi Ro'i, based on the last chapter?) for Gerar, but we don't hear of Avi-Melech's answer until several chapters later; also YHVH says "go where I will tell you", but then doesn't tell him anywhere, and four verses later Yitschak is now settled in Gerar, so maybe YHVH did tell him but the Redactor forgot to include it in the text. From a purely literary point of view this is not very good story-telling.
Did Ya'akov and Esav go too? Or is this an earlier story, misplaced chronologically? We were told that the couple were married twenty years before she finally had the twins, so can we assume that this is early in the marriage?
26:2: VA YERA ELAV YHVH VA YOMER AL TERED MITSRAYEMAH SHECHON BA ARETS ASHER OMAR ELEYCHA
וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה וַיֹּאמֶר אַל תֵּרֵד מִצְרָיְמָה שְׁכֹן בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ
KJ: And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
BN: And YHVH appeared to him, and said, "Do not go down into Mitsrayim; dwell in the land which I shall tell you of...
Why not Mitsrayim (Egypt)? Generally, in times of famine in the Fertile Crescent, Egypt was the one place where you could still expect to find corn, because of the priest-controlled silo system which was in place for centuries, though the Tanach will ascribe its invention to Yoseph. If the famine was in Egypt too, then Gerar would have been as bad a choice as staying home or going to Egypt anyway. No, we have to assume that Mitsrayim is proscribed because the writer does not want to confuse the matter still further, when it comes to the next famine, and Ya'akov takes the entire tribe to Mitsrayim then.
And why did YHVH think he was going down to Egypt anyway, when we have just been told he went to Gerar, and YHVH had said he would tell him where to go? (Though we will recall that, in analysing the text, we concluded that Av-Ram's journey was also to Egypt, though he stopped briefly with Avi-Melech.) Otherwise we have to change our understanding of the covenant; that whenever a people moves by necessity, and finds somewhere they can settle, they confirm it to themselves by saying it was beshert - and beshert is described in the form of a covenant with a god who has given them this particular land. This would in part nullify the covenant with the State of Israel, but it would also add covenants in relation to Borough Park, Forest Hill, Aventura, Pikesville, St Kilda, Golders Green...
26:3: GUR BA ARETS HA ZOT VE EHEYEH IMCHA VA AVARCHECHA KI LECHA U LE ZAR'ACHA ETEN ET KOL HA ARATSOT HA EL VA HAKIMOTI ET HA SHEVU'AH ASHER NISHBA'TI LE AV-RAHAM AVIYCHA
גּוּר בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְאֶהְיֶה עִמְּךָ וַאֲבָרְכֶךָּ כִּי לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת כָּל הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת הַשְּׁבֻעָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ
KJ: Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
BN: "Dwell in this land, and I will be with you, and will bless you; for to you, and to your descendants, I will give all these lands, and I will expedite the oath that I swore to Av-Raham your father...
GUR BA ARETS HA ZOT: meaning the land he is in before he sets out for Gerar, or Gerar itself? By the order of the narrative, he is already in Gerar when he is told this, which adds weight to the beshert theory above.
EHEYEY: Word-play, coincicence, or prefiguration? When Mosheh meets up with YHVH at Chorev later on, and asks him his name, EHEYEH ASHER EHEYEY is the name he will be given: "I am whoever I choose to be" (which is not really a very helpful reply, now that I come to think of it).
HA EL (האל): shortened form of HA ELEH (האלה) and no connection with EL (אל) as a god-name. This has been questioned before; here it seems to be a fairly good proof-text for the grammar being anomalous but correct.
SHEVU'AH (השבעה): not BERIT (ברית) on this occasion. An oath, but not a full covenant.
Or is it possible that there were many tribes, or clans of the same one tribe, who all followed the same god or sheikh, but lived in different places? We know that Lot separated; perhaps another part of the tribe did too. Or this may even be another tribe altogether, quite unconnected to Av-Raham, but their story added to his later on (the comparable example that comes to mind is the telling of Anglo-Saxon history, as though there were only these two groups that came to ancient Briton, when in fact there were at least four, but tales of the Jutes and the Fresians were absorbed into those of the Anglo-Saxons).
26:4: VE HIRBEYTI ET ZAR'ACHA KE CHOCHVEY HA SHAMAYIM VE NATATI LE ZAR'ACHA ET KOL HA ARATSOT HA EL VE HITBARACHU VE ZAR'ACHA KOL GOYEY HA ARETS
וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְנָתַתִּי לְזַרְעֲךָ אֵת כָּל הָאֲרָצֹת הָאֵל וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ
KJ: And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
BN: "And I will make your descendants as many as the stars in the heavens, and I will give your descendants all these lands; and through your descendants all the nations of the Earth shall count themselves blessed...
ARATSOT (ארצת): again the plural is used.
HA EL (האל): Note again the changed plural, which should be Ha Eleh (האלה). Ha-El could be a deliberate pun, making it the lands of El (אל); but I think this is unlikely.
Note that again this is a fertility covenant; and that it is being made at a time of famine, which is to say land-infertility.
I would like to say more about the expedition of the last part of this oath, but alas the historical evidence is lacking.
26:5: EKEV ASHER SHAMA AV-RAHAM BE KOLI, VA YISHMOR MISHMARTI MITSVOTAI CHUKOTAI VE TOROTAI
עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֹתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי
KJ: Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
BN: "Because Av-Raham listened to my voice, and followed my instructions, my commandments, my statutes and my laws."
EKEV: Once again, those who read this in English, simply cannot know what they are missing. EKEV! Meaning "because", and like EHEYEH it just happens to be the word the writer chose to use, when several synonyms were available. EKEV, meaning "because". Why does it mean "because"? No one knows, and nothing in the etymology so much as provides a suggestion. Yet it means "because", and is used as such in Numbers 14:24, Deuteronomy 7:12 and Amos 4:12. But it is also the same root that provides the name YA'AKOV.
Four key words appear in this verse for the first time, and all of them together: MISHMARTI ("charge"), MITSVOTAI ("commandments"), CHUKOTAI ("statutes") and TOROTAI ("laws") - the translations are far from precise, but let us leave that until we reach the Mosaic section. More important at this moment is the fact that Av-Raham is being accredited with keeping all of them, even though these charges, commandments, statutes and laws have not actually been given yet; that will only happen with Mosheh at Sinai, about four hundred years hence, by Biblical chronology.
In addition, we know from the tales that Av-Raham didn't keep the Mosaic laws - the story of the non-kosher food when visited by the angels in Genesis 18 is the obvious example. So what we actually have is a piece of post-exilic propaganda, with that other key word SHAMA (a hint of SHEMA YISRA-EL... the opening of the credo in which the keeping of precisely these charges, commandments, statutes and laws is remembered, not less than three times every day, if you are an observant Jew). What is clearly happening in these texts is a process of both atavistic ancestor worship (a kind of idolatry akin to our latter-day regard for Churchill or Thomas Jefferson), and of retroactive validation of beliefs and practices instituted somewhat later.
And in very brief, because I know you want to know:
MITSVOTAI (מצותי): laws dictated by moral sense, e.g. robbery, bloodshed etc.
CHUKOTAI (חקתי): laws ordained by YHVH e.g. kashrut.
TOROTAI (תורתי): customs and traditional ordinances orally transmitted. Such is the threefold definition given in the Midrash, so who am I to argue?
MISHMARTAI, the one that appears here but is not included in the Midrashic definition, are laws relating to ceremonies, rites and festivals.
End of first fragment, no Pey or Samech break.
26:6: VA YESHEV YITSCHAK BI GERAR
26:6: VA YESHEV YITSCHAK BI GERAR
וַיֵּשֶׁב יִצְחָק בִּגְרָר
KJ: And Isaac dwelt in Gerar:
BN: And Yitschak dwelt in Gerar
26:7: VA YISH'ALU ANSHEY HA MAKOM LE ISHTO VA YOMER ACHOTI HI KI YAR'E LEMOR ISHTI PEN YAHARGUNI ANSHEY HA MAKOM AL RIVKAH KI TOVAT MAR'EH HI
וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֲחֹתִי הִוא כִּי יָרֵא לֵאמֹר אִשְׁתִּי פֶּן יַהַרְגֻנִי אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם עַל רִבְקָה כִּי טוֹבַת מַרְאֶה הִיא
KJ: And the men of the place asked him of his wife; and he said, She is my sister: for he feared to say, She is my wife; lest, said he, the men of the place should kill me for Rebekah; because she was fair to look upon.
BN: And the men of the place asked him about his wife, and he said, "She is my sister", for he was scared to say "my wife" "lest the men of the place should kill me for Rivkah, because she is fair to look upon."
The second repetition from Av-Raham. What is fascinating about this is the sociology - as her brother they will leave him alone, as her husband they will kill him; either way they are going to have Rivkah, and there is not much that Yitschak can do about it - cf Lot's daughters in Sedom as well. Either there was little respect for the status of marriage, or indeed of women at all, in that time and place, or again we need to read the tale as something different from what it appears.
For example, if the hierodule practices were in place here, then Rivka would be expected to take her turn as "May Queen" at some point; but might be exempt if she were married, and probably would be exempt if she already had children, as the "miracle" birth to a "virgin" or a "barren woman" could not result from her participation. But the status of being May Queen was significant, so Yitschak - assuming this is early in their marriage, before the birth of the twins - could have passed her off as his virgin sister... but the chronology of the narrative does not allow that: she is late 30s and has twin sons.
Or, for a second example, given that we are close to Egypt here, this could have been connected with the Hor-Eshet-Osher ceremonies, at some point of their annual cycle, where Osher (Osiris) is both husband and brother of Eshet (Isis)...
For example, if the hierodule practices were in place here, then Rivka would be expected to take her turn as "May Queen" at some point; but might be exempt if she were married, and probably would be exempt if she already had children, as the "miracle" birth to a "virgin" or a "barren woman" could not result from her participation. But the status of being May Queen was significant, so Yitschak - assuming this is early in their marriage, before the birth of the twins - could have passed her off as his virgin sister... but the chronology of the narrative does not allow that: she is late 30s and has twin sons.
Or, for a second example, given that we are close to Egypt here, this could have been connected with the Hor-Eshet-Osher ceremonies, at some point of their annual cycle, where Osher (Osiris) is both husband and brother of Eshet (Isis)...
Might Yitschak have been told the story by his father - after all, it was a major tribal story, important enough to get into the Bible! Do we learn nothing from the lessons of History? Or is there more to it than just a story? The same story. The same ceremony of the Fisher-King and the fertility rites.
There are some small differences however. With Av-Raham, there might have been a small element of truth in claiming Sarah as his sister (see the notes to Genesis 20); not so with Yitschak and Rivkah. There is also the difference that Sarah had no children, and was still quite young, whereas Rivkah has grown up twin boys.
PEN YAHARGUNI: Torah scrolls do not include vowels or punctuation; the speech-marks here are an add-on by the publishers of later versions. Nor is there any need for these words to be placed in speech-marks, because Yitschak didn't actually say them; they are a statement of what he might have said, but was scared to. So why do all texts since mediaeval times put them in speech-marks? We can only assume that something or someone is being quoted, and again it isn't Yitschak: really the Yehudit text should say "lest the men of the place should kill him - which would be YEHARGUNO (), which then leads me to wonder if in fact it does say that, and that we have yet another of those occasions when the Vav has been unintentionally foreshortened so that it looks like a Yud. To answer that, we need to look at a paleo-Hebrew version, a written text from before the time of the Yehudit alphabet that we know today. And the answer is:
No question that it is indeed a Yud. And then look at verse 9, which adds Yitschak's personal confirmation.
Did Av-Raham use these words? No, though the statement of Rivkah's good looks echoes the narrator of the other version. Then does it belong to the original liturgy from which this story has quite likely been borrowed?
26:8: VA YEHI KI ARCHU LO SHAM HA YAMIM VA YASHKEPH AVI-MELECH MELECH PELISHTIM BE AD HA CHALON VA YAR VE HINEH YITSCHAK METSACHEK ET RIVKAH ISHTO
וַיְהִי כִּי אָרְכוּ לוֹ שָׁם הַיָּמִים וַיַּשְׁקֵף אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מֶלֶךְ פְּלִשְׁתִּים בְּעַדהַחַלּוֹן וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה יִצְחָק מְצַחֵק אֵת רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּוֹ
KJ: And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out at a window, and saw, and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.
BN: And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that Avi-Melech king of the Pelishtim looked out at a window, and saw, and there was Yitschak, sporting with Rivkah his wife.
How long is a long time? Days, weeks, months, years? And if it was the same Avi-Melech as before, did he not remember the father, and therefore suspect the son? And if it is a descendant, and again this story was important enough to become a folk-tale, did he not remember the father, and therefore suspect the son? And what level of "sporting" were they doing, so publicly, that a king could see it from his window (or was he watching voyeuristically, like King David when Bat Sheva was parading herself deliberately in an adjacent courtyard? - 2 Samuel 11 if you want to read it). "Sporting" is unlikely to mean back-yard volley-ball or badminton, so does this not make him register that "sister" may be slightly disingenuous? Remember that "sporting" (YISCHAK) is the variant name for Yitschak that occurs in Yesha-Yahu and elsewhere (see note in previous chapter, and below), so there is also the obsessive need of the Redactor to create a story that provides a basis for that version of his name; and clearly this is it. Or almost it, because...
METSACHEK (מצחק): Yet another occasion when you need the Yehudit to catch all the word-play. Because "sporting" here is not in fact MESACHEK, but METSACHEK, which is taken from the same root as his name (Yitschak/מצחק), but understood by virtually every religious and secular commentator throughout history as "sporting", in the sense of physical contact of some kind, and never translated, though surely it ought to be, as "laughing with Rivkah", a perfectly respectable form of behaviour, and one which would confirm that meaning of his name as given throughout the Av-Raham stories. Even Rashi, that most prurient of Rabbinic commentators, accepts the sexual reading, quoting Genesis Rabbah: "that Abimelech… looked, etc: He saw him engaging in marital relations. [Genesis Rabbah 64:5]" - though interestingly the Chabad website from which I am quoting the Rashi gives "jesting with Rebecca" as its own translation (click here).
"Engaging in marital relations" means coition, and not mere "sporting", which is rather more "kissing and cuddling", or at most "making out", and might simply be "frollicking", or even the merest public display of affection. But the link is there to his name. If he is the laughing god, then a ceremony of this order is the right time for him to be laughing, and sporting is then a mistranslation; or if it is a correct translation, then it is one that transforms him from the laughing god into the phallic god, a male version of the fertility cult, some kind of Beney Yisra-Eli Priapus. And if he is that, then coition would indeed have been taking place: the great father as the great fatherer; which would confirm once more the link to Ouranos. And if this is correct, then it matters little whether his correct name is Yitschak or Yischak, as both lead to the same mythological understanding.
But what evidence is there, anywhere else in this tale, for this being correct? If modern Chabad, than which it would be hard to get more traditionalist, more keen to support early Midrashic and Talmudic readings, is rejecting "marital relations" in favour of "jesting"...
And how come they are in Avi-Melech's vicinity anyway - not his territory, his vicinity? The king's window isn't usually in the desert, or by the well, where Yitschak kept his sheep. Did Yitschak the tent-dweller move into the city of Gerar and become sedentary for a while among the Pelishtim - another echo of King David, from his time in Tsiklag (1 Samuel 27-30), if he did? And for the king to look through a window and see them "sporting" - were they living in the palace or merely its environs? Windows in the biblical world are not to be passed over lightly.
26:9: VA YIKRA AVI-MELECH LE YITSCHAK VA YOMER ACH HINEH ISHTECHA HI VE EYCH AMARTA ACHOTI HI VA YOMER ELAV YITSCHAK KI AMARTI PEN AMUT ALEYHA
וַיִּקְרָא אֲבִימֶלֶךְ לְיִצְחָק וַיֹּאמֶר אַךְ הִנֵּה אִשְׁתְּךָ הִוא וְאֵיךְ אָמַרְתָּ אֲחֹתִי הִוא וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו יִצְחָק כִּי אָמַרְתִּי פֶּן אָמוּת עָלֶיהָ
KJ: And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him, Because I said, Lest I die for her.
BN: Then Avi-Melech summoned Yitschak and said, "Now I see that she is your wife. So why did you tell me, 'She is my sister'?" And Yitschak said to him, "I said it that way, lest I die because of her."
If they had simply been playing, or laughing, it could have been brother-sister; so they must have been engaged in something of a sexual nature, even if it wasn't full coition; so, again, why, and how, was Avi-Melech watching, or why were they doing it so publicly (they weren't exactly teenagers partying after all; Yitschak is turning 60 at the very least) unless it was a public ritual of consummation, the annual rite of sacred marriage - and as such the "vicinity" becomes easily explained. This bears too close a similarity to the David and Bat Sheva story not to explore the parallels and the texts more closely.
One additional thought: Yitschak was 40 when he married Rivkah, who is described as betulah and then almah, so around 14 or 15, young enough to be his daughter. Is the source of his anxiety that they will mistake her for his daughter, and think her marriageable, and then be upset when this endogamist will not allow his "daughter" to marry out? Or perhaps they would kill him out of envy that a man his age should have so young a wife?
At least the good Avi-Melech did not have the baseness to suggest that Yitschak sporting with his sister was incestuous. The theme is nonetheless present, picking up again from No'ach and Lot previously, and with Yehudah and Tamar, and then Amnon and Tamar (2 Samuel 13), still to come.
I apologise if my irreverence takes hold again, but "Then Avi-Melech called Yitschak" makes it sound like a telephone conversation, or a man shouting down from an upstairs window. What we can assume happened is that "Avi-Melech summoned Yitschak".
26:10: VA YOMER AVI-MELECH MAH ZOT ASIYTA LANU KIM'AT SHACHAV ACHAD HA AM ET ISHTECHA VE HEV'E'TA ALEYNU ASHAM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ מַה זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ לָּנוּ כִּמְעַט שָׁכַב אַחַד הָעָם אֶת אִשְׁתֶּךָ וְהֵבֵאתָ עָלֵינוּ אָשָׁם
KJ: And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldest have brought guiltiness upon us.
BN: And Avi-Melech said, "What is this that you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us."
Which version is the original? Knowing the Levitical priesthood, probably the Av-Raham version, though even that has probably been toned down: so little happens in this version it hardly seems worth the telling.
What is interesting is that this time it was not the king but ACHAD HA AM (אחד העם), "one of the people", who nearly slept with her (how do you "nearly sleep" with someone? But that is the literal translation of KIM'AT SHACHAV; the one given above makes better meaning but is not strictly accurate). Nearly wooed her, nearly made a pass at her, nearly asked for her hand, might have been chosen as May King to her May Queen - ah yes, that latter would be "nearly slept with"? If someone simply came, like Eli-Ezer, to put the chattle rings on her, Yitschak could either sell her, as Av-Raham did, or reveal the truth.
Because the only imaginable circumstances where "nearly slept with her" could happen, is where a woman who is a ritual priestess is about to be visited at the shrine by a chosen May-King, or where the priestess is serving in ritual prostitution as a hierodule, assumed to be a virgin because the ritual required a virgin, but now discovered not to be, and the sin upon the man who slept with her, and then upon the whole community because of the abominating of the rite. In which case, what is really being stated in this tale is that Rivkah, as a married woman, even without children (we are again assuming that this tale comes from the first twenty years of their marriage, before they had any children, and is mis-placed chronologically in Genesis), is no longer eligible to serve at the shrine, and yet apparently is doing so - a blasphemy in pagan circles that would have been seen as a breach of the fertility contracts and therefore a very serious offense (look at the Shema, paragraph 2, in Deuteronomy 11:13-17 - to see the strength of this). The punishment is usually... famine and drought, precisely the reason why Yitschak has moved to Gerar, precisely the reason why Av-Raham moved to Egypt via Gerar in the two previous versions, and precisely, we can assume, the fertility ceremonies in which Yitschak and Rivkah were "sporting" when Avi-Melech saw them.
26:18: VA YASHAV YITSCHAK VA YACHPOR ET BE'EROT HA MAYIM ASHER CHAPHRU BI YEMEY AV-RAHAM AVIV VA YESAT'MUM PELISHTIM ACHAREY MOT AV-RAHAM VA YIKRA LAHEN SHEMOT KA SHEMOT ASHER KARA LAHEN AVIV
2 Chronicles 20:35-37 gives the first of those two: the son of Ach-Av (Ahab) and Iy-Zevel (Jezebel), he was the eighth king of Yisra-El, who reigned from 896-895 BCE.
ACHAD HA AM: (but spelled AHAD HA AM in English even though it is spelled in Yehudit with a Chet and should therefore be Achad) was the pen-name of Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (1856-1927), essayist and early Zionist. I mention it because these coincidences, these sources, interest me.
26:11: VA YETSAV AVI-MELECH ET KOL HA AM LEMOR HA NOG'E'A BA ISH HA ZEH U VE ISHTO MOT YUMAT
וַיְצַו אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶת כָּל הָעָם לֵאמֹר הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּאִישׁ הַזֶּה וּבְאִשְׁתּוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת
KJ: And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man or his wife shall surely be put to death.
BN: And Avi-Melech instructed all the people, saying, "Anyone who touches this man or his wife shall be put to death."
Why does he not just throw him out, as with Av-Raham previously? Or is there treaty still in force, and inherited by Yitschak? We need to break this down piece by piece.
First, NOG'E'A. "Touching" Rivkah is obviously intended sexually, whether as part of the rites or simply because she was believed to be single and of late but still marriageable age; but touching Yitschak can only infer someone very angry over what has now been uncovered, and seeking to prove his own machismo by way of a response - the tradition of muruwah, very similar to the Beney Yisra-El concept of go'el, which existed in the Arab world for millennia, and which Mohammed heartily opposed.
Second, MOT YUMAT, which seems at first reading improbable, because it appears to protect the villain of the peace against the justifiably angry (Yitschak has done wrong, but gets protected. Is he that wealthy, that powerful, that important? Or is something else going on in this text?) We would expect Avi-Melech to do as he, or his father, did to Av-Raham, which is to point out which road led to the nearest border, and recommend he follow it; and perhaps this edict, like the Mark of Kayin, was a warning to others to let him leave the realm unscathed.
But the next verse finds Yitschak still living in the region, and if anyone can be said to have come out of the famine better than he went in, if anyone can claim to have the goodwill and personal support of the fertility gods, it is clearly Yitschak. Read on and see.
26:12: VA YIZRA YITSCHAK BA ARETS HA HI VA YIMTSA BA SHANAH HA HI ME'AH SHE'ARIM VA YEVARACHEYHU YHVH
וַיִּזְרַע יִצְחָק בָּאָרֶץ הַהִוא וַיִּמְצָא בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִוא מֵאָה שְׁעָרִים
KJ: Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him.
BN: And Yitschak sowed crops in that land, and found in the same year a hundredfold; and YHVH blessed him.
ME'AH SHE'ARIM (מאה שערים): There is, in modern Yeru-Shala'im, a quarter known as the Me'ah She'arim, written exactly as it is here, which means "the hundred gates"; for many centuries the most religiously orthodox Jewish quarter in the land. How does the latter name evolve from the former? Probably the original use of the root SHA'AR was as a "division" or a "cleft", from which it came to be used as a form of measure; all geometry after all is based upon dividing a large space into manageable smaller ones, whether centimetres or inches, feet or yards et cetera. That is the use in this verse, whereby ME'AH SHE'ARIM becomes a measure of one hundred. But the concept of division is not only numeric and geometric; it can also be physical, and nothing better divides the inner space of a house or town from its outer space, than the presence of a gate; which gives us the latter usage.
It is also worth noting that, without the pointing, She'arim (שערים) is indistinguishable from Se'irim (שערים) = goats (and also connects to Mount Se'ir) = Esav (Esau). Given that "found a hundredfold" doesn't really make all that much sense, is the verse in fact describing the increase in his flock, and not the scale of his success (which is unlikely in this desert region anyway) at agriculture?
In the midst of a famine he sows a hundredfold! Verily indeed was he blessed by YHVH! And no wonder Avi-Melech was so concerned. The threat to his power of such a wealthy nomad becoming sedentary on his territory, and within his capital city, would have caused considerable consternation.
But if this were a fertility rite, then the May-King sowing one and reaping a hundredfold would symbolise the success of the rite.
Probably there are key fragments of the ritual missing - can we amalgamate the three versions and make one complete composite out of the bits we have? Can we assume that, originally, there was an Egyptian tale of the corn-god Osher and the fertility-goddess, his sister-wife Eshet, reduced to mere folk-tale in these three variant versions - the parallel reductions in England are Robin Hood and Guy Fawkes and Ned Ludd, but the same process is true of Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and Rapunzel, King Arthur and Saint Patrick, every one of them a god and/or goddess myth in their original forms.
End of second fragment; no pey or samech break indicated.
26:13: VA YIGDAL HA ISH VA YELECH HALOCH VE GADEL AD KI GADAL ME'OD
וַיִּגְדַּל הָאִישׁ וַיֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ וְגָדֵל עַד כִּי גָדַל מְאֹד
KJ: And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great:
BN: And the man became wealthy, and increased it more and more until he became very wealthy.
Not quite the multiplication the covenant intended, but multiplication for all that; and again multiplication following such a ceremony is as it should be. In Av-Raham's case he waxed great because Avi-Melech gave him immense gifts, which perhaps, on reflection, strengthens the case for Avi-Melech as the god rather than the king, and as such a variant form of Av-Ram and Av-Raham. How does Yitschak become great? By sowing a hundredfold? I suspect we may in fact be able to argue that Av-Raham's was a fertility cult of a different order from Yitschak's - perhaps different points of the year, but also different forms of agriculture: Av-Raham was rich in flocks and herds, but Yitschak is rich in crops. Av-Raham's is child and coronation related, therefore New Year; Yitschak's is crop related, therefore either Spring or Autumn; or indeed we may be seeing both ends of the cycle, at spring and autumn. On the other hand, taking my alternate reading of SHE'ARIM, look now at the next verse.
26:14: VA YEHI LO MIKNEH TSON U MIKNEH VAKAR VA AVUDAH RABAH VA YEKAN'U OTO PELISHTIM
וַיְהִי לוֹ מִקְנֵה צֹאן וּמִקְנֵה בָקָר וַעֲבֻדָּה רַבָּה וַיְקַנְאוּ אֹתוֹ פְּלִשְׁתִּים
KJ: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him.
BN: For he possessed flocks, and herds, and a substantial household; and the Pelishtim were envious of him.
This modifies the previous comment, because here are the flocks and herds as well, or quite possibly instead;making Yitschak considerably wealthier than Av-Raham, but also most unusual at that time, because the flocks and herds were generally owned by nomadic people – of necessity, because this was desert and scrub and they would have had to go wandering to find grazing land when the beasts finished what was there, whereas crop-growers were sedentary.
Or was it a ceremony of anointment of a tribal sheikh, hence the great wealth he has afterwards that he didn't have before? In which case it makes sense to witness the story more than once.
26:15: VE CHOL HA BE'EROT ASHER CHAPHRU AVDEY AVIV BI YEMEY AV-RAHAM AVIV SITMUM PELISHTIM VA YEMAL'UM APHAR
וְכָל הַבְּאֵרֹת אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ עַבְדֵי אָבִיו בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו סִתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיְמַלְאוּם עָפָר
KJ: For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth.
BN: Now all the wells which his father's servants had dug in the days of Av-Raham his father, the Pelishtim had bunged them up them, filling them with earth.
And nothing happened to them as a consequence, despite the proclamation in verse 11, that anyone who troubles Yitschak in any way would die for it! There is a hint of defamation in this line which requires some evidence.
APHAR: See various previous notes on the subject of EPHER, EPHRON and APHAR; here it is dusty earth, possibly with a touch of whiteness, but definitely not a young calf or a fawn gazelle.
26:16: VA YOMER AVI-MELECH EL YITSCHAK LECH ME IMANU KI ATSAMTA MIMENU ME'OD
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶל יִצְחָק לֵךְ מֵעִמָּנוּ כִּי עָצַמְתָּ מִמֶּנּוּ מְאֹד
KJ: And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we.
BN: And Avi-Melech said to Yitschak, "Leave us, for you are far mightier than us."
This is precisely what we expected Avi-Melech to do in verse 11, after the discovery of Rivkah's true status. But the reason now is very different, and answers my bracketed question in the note to verse 11. He is not being sent away as a punishment for doing wrong, but is being asked to leave because the local yokels just can't handle his... wealth, power, greater success, higher status with the gods... whichever of these it might be, it has already led to trouble, and Avi-Melech suspects it will lead to more, even with his protection order. So, again, it is to protect Yitschak.
Yet the story suggests that it was Avi-Melech who made him so rich and powerful. And how do you get rid of someone who is mightier than you if he doesn't wish to leave? And why should he wish to leave when he came here to escape a famine and is having such success? (And since when did Av-Raham dig wells in Gerar, unless the region of Gerar includes Kadesh and Shur?)
One interesting possibility to consider: we know the Beney Yisra-El were comprised of innumerable different tribes and peoples, from across the Middle East, and brought the tribal myths and legends with them, ultimately to be aggregated into a single text: this one. Can we read into these 3 tales (and others - Dan and Shimshon for example) the absorption of Philistine elements into the Beney Yisra-El. Was Yitschak, perhaps, at his earliest stage, a Philistine tribe, primordial settlers from the first invasion after the destruction of Knossos (somewhere around 1375 BCE), who became too successful as a nomad cattle rancher for the sedentary town-dwellers and therefore moved east to make a new life for himself, the reopening of Av-Raham's wells being part of the process both of migrating and of assimilating into the Beney Yisra-El groups? We will witness this process of constant encroachment and push-back throughout the Bible stories, right through to the wars of King Sha'ul, and if we think how the northern Vikings gradually encroached south into the Anglo-Saxon kingdom, merging through inter-marriage in the Yorkshire and Derbyshire Dales, Middle Aenglish evolving as effectively a new language in the process... the evidence of the tribe of Dan endorses this possibility, both through its obvious Dana'an interconnections, and through those of its tribal legends that we know, every one of which is also a Philistine and a Dana'an legend (the Shimshon-Herakles tales being the most obvious). If Yitschak were a Danite legend originally... look at the tribal map, after the move to La'ish, and you will see just how close Dan came to Padan Aram and the family of Nachor; as close as its "original" location on the coast of Sharon was to the lands occupied by the colonising Pelishtim.
26:17: VA YELECH MI SHAM YITSCHAK VA YICHAN BE NACHAL GERAR VA YESHEV SHAM
וַיֵּלֶךְ מִשָּׁם יִצְחָק וַיִּחַן בְּנַחַל גְּרָר וַיֵּשֶׁב שָׁם
KJ: And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there.
BN: So Yitschak departed from there, and camped in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there.
But he is already living in Gerar, as we know from the opening verses of this chapter. The geography of this tale, and the chronology of its narrative, is about to become very confusing.
But he is already living in Gerar, as we know from the opening verses of this chapter. The geography of this tale, and the chronology of its narrative, is about to become very confusing.
 |
| with thanks to Bible History online |
26:18: VA YASHAV YITSCHAK VA YACHPOR ET BE'EROT HA MAYIM ASHER CHAPHRU BI YEMEY AV-RAHAM AVIV VA YESAT'MUM PELISHTIM ACHAREY MOT AV-RAHAM VA YIKRA LAHEN SHEMOT KA SHEMOT ASHER KARA LAHEN AVIV
וַיָּשָׁב יִצְחָק וַיַּחְפֹּר אֶת בְּאֵרֹת הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר חָפְרוּ בִּימֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיו וַיְסַתְּמוּם פְּלִשְׁתִּים אַחֲרֵי מוֹת אַבְרָהָם וַיִּקְרָא לָהֶן שֵׁמוֹת כַּשֵּׁמֹת אֲשֶׁר קָרָא לָהֶן אָבִיו
KJ: And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them.
BN: And Yitschak dug again the water-wells, which they had dug in the days of Av-Raham his father; for the Pelishtim had bunged them up after the death of Av-Raham; and he gave them back the names that his father had given them.
This seems to belong with verse 15, to be the fuller detail of what we were told there, and which led to verse 16. Or has the same thing happened again, after he has moved to a different part of Gerar, his separation from Avi-Melech then being identical to Lot's separation from Av-Raham.
This seems to belong with verse 15, to be the fuller detail of what we were told there, and which led to verse 16. Or has the same thing happened again, after he has moved to a different part of Gerar, his separation from Avi-Melech then being identical to Lot's separation from Av-Raham.
SHEMOT: what names did he give them: are we here talking about Be'er Sheva and Be'er Lechi Ro'i? See verses 20 ff for several of the names.
There is a revealing moment in the film Lawrence of Arabia, which has its origins in Lawrence's memoir "The Seven Pillars Of Wisdom", when T.E's guide out of Cairo is killed by Prince Ali for daring to drink from a well that doesn't belong to his tribe. Water is a vital commodity for those who inhabit the desert and the significance of this passage cannot be overestimated.
26:19: VA YACHPERU AVDEY YITSCHAK BA NACHAL VA YIMTSE'U SHAM BE'ER MAYIM CHAYIM
וַיַּחְפְּרוּ עַבְדֵי יִצְחָק בַּנָּחַל וַיִּמְצְאוּ שָׁם בְּאֵר מַיִם חַיִּים
KJ: And Isaac's servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water.
BN: And Yitschak's servants dug in the valley and found a spring of fresh water there.
26:20: VA YARIYVU RO'EY GERAR IM RO'EY YITSCHAK LEMOR LANU HA MAYIM VA YIKRA SHEM HA BE'ER ESEK KI HIT'ASKU IMO
וַיָּרִיבוּ רֹעֵי גְרָר עִם רֹעֵי יִצְחָק לֵאמֹר לָנוּ הַמָּיִם וַיִּקְרָא שֵׁם הַבְּאֵר עֵשֶׂק כִּי הִתְעַשְּׂקוּ עִמּוֹ
KJ: And the herdmen of Gerar did strive with Isaac's herdmen, saying, The water is ours: and he called the name of the well Esek; because they strove with him.
BN: And the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Yitschak's herdsmen, saying, "The water is ours". And he named the well "Esek", because they quarreled with him there.
Once again, this verse seems to be in the wrong place in the text; these are the rows that caused Avi-Melech to ask Yitschak to leave.
VA YARIYVU: Is this not the same story that we heard with Avi-Melech and Phichol in Genesis 21? Which means that both parts of the Av-Raham/Avi-Melech story have found their way into the Yitschak/Avi-Melech story. Now see below, verses 26 ff.
The aetiological explanation links back to before verse 18.
RO'EY GERAR: RO'IM are always shepherds, while cattle herdsman usually have the MIKNEH referenced; the tale has indicated that Yitschak was rich in both sheep and cattle, but the translation needs to say "shepherds" if it wishes to be accurate.
ESEK (עשק): the explanation as given does not fit the language used to describe it; this is a case of (i) finder's keepers (ii) What's mine is mine and what's yours is now mine also; and (iii) Yitschak is the big boss around these parts so mess with him if you dare. The root word means "to persecute" or "to extort" or "to treat someone badly". Today it is used to mean "business", which is generally much the same thing.
VA YIKRA (ויקרא): presumably refers to Yitschak.
26:21: VA YACHPERU BE'ER ACHERET VA YARIYVU GAM ALEYHA VA YIKRA SHEMAH SITNAH
וַיַּחְפְּרוּ בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת וַיָּרִיבוּ גַּם עָלֶיהָ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ שִׂטְנָה
KJ: And they digged another well, and strove for that also: and he called the name of it Sitnah.
BN: And they dug another well, and they fought over that one too; and he gave that well the name "Sitnah".
SITNAH (שטנה): from the same root that gives SATAN (שטן) = "adversary" or "contention", but not Satan in the sense that it has come to be understood in the Christian world. The only problem, and the ט is the key to this: the word is not Yehudit, and it probably didn't enter the Yehudit language until the Babylonian exile, many centuries after Yitschak. Nevertheless, the current obsession of the Redactor, which is to find a meaning for everything that is ever named (TheBibleNet confesses to suffering from the same affliction), manifest yet again in this verse, and several more to follow.
26:22: VA YA'TEK MI SHAM VA YACHPOR BE'ER ACHERET VE LO RAVU ALEYHA VA YIKRA SHEMAH RECHOVOT VA YOMER KI ATAH HIRCHIV YHVH LANU U PHARIYNU VA ARETS
וַיַּעְתֵּק מִשָּׁם וַיַּחְפֹּר בְּאֵר אַחֶרֶת וְלֹא רָבוּ עָלֶיהָ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמָהּ רְחֹבוֹת וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי עַתָּה הִרְחִיב יְהוָה לָנוּ וּפָרִינוּ בָאָרֶץ
KJ: And he removed from thence, and digged another well; and for that they strove not: and he called the name of it Rehoboth; and he said, For now the LORD hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.
BN: And he moved on from there, and dug another well; and over this one there was no quarrel. So he named it "Rechovot", and he said, "At last YHVH has found a place for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land."
What we probably have here are folk-tales about the sources of the wells, nice literature which got written down and kept, and then needed to be placed somewhere, so they put it in the Yitschak story, because frankly there are no other stories about Yitschak - and quite rightly too, if, as I believe, the Yisra-Eli trimurti reflects the Hindu: Av-Raham/Brahma as the creator god, the source of all this rich fertility; Yitschak/Vishnu as the sustainer god, maintaining or remaking all the sources of fertility. Most likely, like most folk-tales, the names of the wells, and the explanations of the aetiology, came after, not before. Several more wells will be named in similar manner during the Mosaic wanderings in the wilderness, most famously Masah (Exodus 17:7) and Meriyvah (Numbers 20:13), though those two may actually be the same well.
Somehow this enables us to recognise the covenantal blessing as the wishful-thinking that it really is: I am a nomad and I need a place to settle; perhaps if I settle here my god will be good to me, and I can raise children and flocks and herds and not be chased away by jealous enemies; and who knows, perhaps I will stay here for good, and give up wandering - this a rephrasing of the actual covenantal wording.
But clearly from the above the Beney Yisra-El at this time were still very much a nomadic, even a Bedouin people, who lived in the Negev desert, and the Aravah, and wandered across the Yarden into Edom and Mo-Av and Midyan, or through the Sinai towards Mitsrayim; they lived by their flocks, were principally shepherds, and stayed out of the towns except in times of famine and drought and war; their oases were crucial, and much time and energy was taken up by disputes over the scant sources of water; there are suggestions (Josephus for example) that the Yitschak well-conflicts may have been with a Nabatean group, or even that Yitschak was himself a Nabatean whose tribe later assimilated into the Beney Yisra-El, and whose tribal legends thus became part of Beney Yisra-El history.
What is significant is that it was central to the strategy of Nebuchadnezzar II, when he built his empire in Babylon in the 6th century BCE, to remove people from their own land, and to install them in a land to which they had no allegiance nor ancestral links nor emotional bonds nor roots, and therefore no incentive whatsoever to rebel against the civil authority in the name of liberation. While the Redactor is explaining the aetiology of certain place-names, he is also, more subtly, reinforcing the significance of those places in people's minds, re-racinating them, giving them a history and a land about which they will feel strongly because they will feel it personally, and thereby engendering a wish to return and rebuild. At the most basic psychological level then, this seemingly trivial detail is in fact a key facet of the Zionist strategy.
RECHOVOT (רחבות): means "broad places" and today is used to mean "streets"; there is a well called Ruhaibeh 20 miles s.w. of Be'er Sheva which may be intended here. There is also a modern town named Rechovot, situated more or less where this verse indicates, about 20 miles south of Tel Aviv.
End of third fragment; no pey or samech break indicated.
26:23: VA YA'AL MI SHAM BER SHAVA
וַיַּעַל מִשָּׁם בְּאֵר שָׁבַע
KJ: And he went up from thence to Beersheba.
BN: And from there he went on to Be'er Shava.
Returning, or for the first time?
Once again the Masoretic pointing renders this as Shava rather than Sheva. And is there not a grammatical fault here as well? Should there not be a dative form, a final Hey, or the prefix el, even a prefix Hey as in ha-Sadeh in verse 5 of the next chapter?
26:24: VA YERA ELAV YHVH BA LAILAH HA HU VA YOMER ANOCHI ELOHEY AV-RAHAM AVIYCHA AL TIRA KI IT'CHA ANOCHI U VERACHTIYCHA VE HIRBEYTI ET ZAR'ACHA BA AVUR AV-RAHAM AVDI
וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אָבִיךָ אַל תִּירָא כִּי אִתְּךָ אָנֹכִי וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ בַּעֲבוּר אַבְרָהָם עַבְדִּי
KJ: And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father: fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham's sake.
BN: And YHVH appeared to him that same night and said, "I am the god of Av-Raham your father. Have no fear, for I am with you, and will bless you, and multiply your descendants for the sake of my servant Av-Raham."
Again we could paraphrase this: whenever they move, they receive the reassuring covenantal blessing; it is really just an expression of pious hope made in the midst of uncertainty. Ya'akov's dreams belong in the same tradition. But we are demonstrably in error if we treat these covenants literally, if only because each one contradicts the last; which ever land they are moving to becomes the land the deity is giving them forever - but forever only lasts until the next move, and then it turns out to have been the next land that the deity intended.
ELOHEY AV-RAHAM... (אלהי): the same or a different god (and actually ELOHEY is plural, so "gods") than the one(s) Yitschak follows?
AVDI (עבדי): the first time Av-Raham has had this appellation. Does it mean "servant", as given in the translations - or "worshipper"?
There is an importance here which is reflected in the opening verse of the Pirkei Avot, the sense of continuing commitment through history. YHVH supports Yitschak because he is Av-Raham's son, regardless of personal merit; because his covenant was to the man and to his future generations. So the chain of Smichah in the Avot. So the call in the opening paragraph of the Amidah. What the Redactor is establishing here becomes a fundamental tenet of Judaism forever afterwards, and is best explained as a form of ancestor-worship.
26:25: VA YIVEN SHAM MIZBE'ACH VA YIKRA BE SHEM YHVH VA YET SHAM AHALO VA YICHRU SHAM AVDEY YITSCHAK BE'ER
וַיִּבֶן שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ וַיִּקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וַיֶּט שָׁם אָהֳלוֹ וַיִּכְרוּ שָׁם עַבְדֵי יִצְחָק בְּאֵר
KJ: And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there: and there Isaac's servants digged a well.
BN: And he raised an altar there, and called on the name of YHVH, and pitched his tent there; and Yitschak's servants dug a well there.
MIZBE'ACH (מזבח): as ever, the altars are built to YHVH not to Elohim; as ever the altars accompany the process of moving on. The equivalent, perhaps, of the prayer for setting out on a journey (Tephilat ha-Derech) based on Talmud Berakhot 29b.
BE'ER (באר): is the altar for the dedication of a well? and is the well the original well of Be'er Sheva? If so, yet again the story has been positioned out-of-chronology for literary rather than historical purposes.
Yitschak's life is very different from Av-Raham's; this is very much the pastoral where Av-Raham's was war-filled and adventuresome.
VA YET SHAM AHALO: We asked, above, whether Yitschak had become a city-dweller, and if not, how was Avi-Melech seeing him through his window. Here, he is clearly still a nomad, a country-dweller, living in his tent beside a well, tending his sheep.
26:26: VA AVI-MELECH HALACH ELAV MI GERAR VA ACHUZAT ME RE'EHU U PHIYCHOL SAR TSEVA'O
וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ הָלַךְ אֵלָיו מִגְּרָר וַאֲחֻזַּת מֵרֵעֵהוּ וּפִיכֹל שַׂר צְבָאוֹ
KJ: Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath one of his friends, and Phichol the chief captain of his army.
BN: Then Avi-Melech came to him from Gerar, and Achuzat his friend, and Phiychol the captain of his fighting men.
ACHUZAT (אחזת): the word rings a bell; have we met him before? Yes, we have, but not as a person's name; and we will encounter it again, very many times, because it is a key word in the conversations between the deity and Mosheh, and then between the deity and Yehoshu'a, from the Exodus to the incompletion of the conquest. ACHUZAH (אחזה) = "possession", and is used primarily for land and fields. Thus Leviticus 27:16 (also 27:21 to 24); Genesis 23:4; 49:30, for a burial place; Numbers 27:7 and 35:2; for slaves see Leviticus 25:45/6.
As we will see in the verses that follow, Avi-Melech has come to discuss a land-treaty with Yitschak, determining who will have rights over which wells, and who over which pastures, so that the animosities between their tribes do not escalate. In other words, he has come to agree ACHUZAT. And therefore we have to ask whether Achuzat on this occasion is a textual error - and if not, then why do parents give such odd names to their children? Or is there a secondary meaning for Achuzat? And indeed, there may very well be.
Nechem-Yah (Nehemiah) 11:13 gives ACH-ZAI (אחזי), which is probably an error for ACHAZ-YAH (אחזיה), or even ACHAZ-YAHU (אחזיהו), and I strongly suspect this is closer to the man's name than Achuzat.
2 Chronicles 20:35-37 gives the first of those two: the son of Ach-Av (Ahab) and Iy-Zevel (Jezebel), he was the eighth king of Yisra-El, who reigned from 896-895 BCE.
2 Kings 8:26 has the second of these, ACHAZ-YAHU (אחזיהו), though 2 Chronicles 21:17 renames him Yeho-Ahaz (יְהוֹאָחָז); he too was a king, in his case the son of Yehoram.
1 Chronicles 4:6 also has ACHUZAM (אחוזם) as a descendant of Yehudah.
In this sense then, Achuzat (אחזת) is probably not a person's name but an official title: the minister of state for rural affairs, in today's parlance.
To add weight to that, neither ACHAZ-YAH nor ACHAZ-YAHU are likely Pelishtim names, because they wouldn't have added Yah or Yahu; so maybe that's how it gets changed to what would have to be pronounced ACHAZAT rather than ACHUZAT - just speculating. Whereas PHIYCHOL is definitely a title, not a man's name.
PHIYCHOL (פיכל): as noted when we met him previously, the name means "spokesperson", though his title is given as "captain of the host" - but then a "Secretary of State" doesn't type letters or answer the telephone, so the title is not everything. The oddity of the repetition of names a generation later is difficult to avoid, though of course this could be the previous Avi-Melech's son, or even grandson. Can we reckon that the name Avi-Melech is simply a hereditary title, and Phiychol simply means "spokesman"? If it is liturgical and ceremonial, then it really doesn't matter if it is the same tale, or a second, similar tale.
But why are they coming to fight with him now anyway, given that they resolved their differences, and he moved away? The answer: this is a piece of dramatic technique. The answer will be provided two verses forward.
26:27: VA YOMER AL'EHEM YITSCHAK MADU'A BA'TEM ELAI VE ATEM SEN'ETEM OTI VA TESHALCHUNI ME ITCHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יִצְחָק מַדּוּעַ בָּאתֶם אֵלָי וְאַתֶּם שְׂנֵאתֶם אֹתִי וַתְּשַׁלְּחוּנִי מֵאִתְּכֶם
KJ: And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you?
BN: And Yitschak said to them, "Why are you coming to me, seeing that you hate me and have sent me away from you?
Where was this hatred stated? In fact Avi-Melech was quite diligent for his well-being. But clearly what Yitschak says here was the case. This is immensely strong language and suggests a very deep rivalry between the peoples, akin to that between Yisra-El and Edom.
26:28: VA YOMRU RA'U RA'IYNU KI HAYAH YHVH IMACH VA NO'MER TEHI NA ALAH BEYNOTEYNU BEYNEYNU U VEYNECHA V NICHRETAH VERIT IMACH
KJ: And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee;
BN: And they said, "We saw plainly that YHVH was with you, and we said, 'Let there now be an oath between us, even between us and you, and let us make a covenant with you'".
ALAH: We have seen SHEVU'AH for "oath" several times previously, and BERIT for "covenant" will come again at the end of this verse; ALAH is new, and comes with multiple uses, but "oath" is certainly one of them, as we find it in 1 Kings 8:31 with this meaning unmistakeable, and in 1 Samuel 14:24 Sha'ul makes his men swear an oath, using the same root as a verb, YO'EL (יֹּאֶל); [which of course is also a man's name, Joel in English, though in fact the Yehudit is not the same; Yo-El links the names of two deities, probably Yah and El, possibly a forehortened YHVH and El - יוֹאֵל]. Nehemiah 10:29 uses both ALAH and SHEVU'AH, the former here being translated as "a curse"; probably incorrectly; the distinction is rather between promising not to do something negative (ALAH), and promising to do something positive (SHEVU'AH). Ezekiel 17:13, Deuteronomy 29:11 and elsewhere use it specifically in the context of the divine covenant, the ALAH being the oath to keep it on the human side, the SHEVU'AH being the promise to keep it by the deity.
This has nothing to do with the OLAH sacrifice, which is spelled with an Ayin (ע), where this is spelled with an Aleph (א), though there would need to have been an Olah, as in sacrifice, for the celebratory meal in verse 30.
NICHRETAH: A word that will come up again and again through the Tanach, most notably in the prophecies of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah), but also when the anger of the deity is aroused against the Beney Yisra-El during the Exodus. In all those circumstances there were will be a sense of "destruction" connected to the word, the precise opposite of its meaning here. An essay about this word is currently in preparation.
26:29: IM TA'ASEH IMANU RA'AH KA ASHER LO NEGA'ANUCHA VE KA ASHER ASIYNU IMCHA RAK TOV VA NESHAL'ECHACHA BE SHALOM ATAH ATAH BERUCH YHVH
KJ: That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art now the blessed of the LORD.
BN: "That you will do us no harm, as we have not touched you, and as we have done nothing to you but good, and have sent you away in peace. And may YHVH give this his blessing."
They are more scared of his god than of him; but are the facts as clear-cut as they state? "We have done nothing to you but good". What about the mud-blocked wells? What about the fact that they have sent him away? What hurt is he likely to do them?
Note also that, like the difference between the human ALAH and the divine SHEVU'AH above, like the difference between the positive and double-negative of the Nechem-Yah above, here too a subtle distinction is being made, one which reflects monistic Yetser ha Tov versus Yetser ha Ra rather more than it does the dualistic Good v Evil of the Christian world: you will not do us any harm, is not precisely the same as we have only done you good. Rabbi Hillel's two exegeses of "Love your neighbour as yourself" in Leviticus 19:18 come from the same school: in one, do unto others as you would want them to do unto you; in the other, do not do unto others what would be objectionable if they did it to you."
Atah..atah (אתה עתה) is a particularly nice word-play, if somewhat inevitable. The first with an Aleph (א), the second with an Ayin (ע).
End of fourth fragment; no pey or samech break indicated.
26:30: VA YA'AS LAHEM MISHTEH VA YO'CHLU VA YISHTU
26:28: VA YOMRU RA'U RA'IYNU KI HAYAH YHVH IMACH VA NO'MER TEHI NA ALAH BEYNOTEYNU BEYNEYNU U VEYNECHA V NICHRETAH VERIT IMACH
וַיֹּאמְרוּ רָאוֹ רָאִינוּ כִּי הָיָה יְהוָה עִמָּךְ וַנֹּאמֶר תְּהִי נָא אָלָה בֵּינוֹתֵינוּ בֵּינֵינוּ וּבֵינֶךָ וְנִכְרְתָה בְרִית עִמָּךְ
KJ: And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee;
BN: And they said, "We saw plainly that YHVH was with you, and we said, 'Let there now be an oath between us, even between us and you, and let us make a covenant with you'".
ALAH: We have seen SHEVU'AH for "oath" several times previously, and BERIT for "covenant" will come again at the end of this verse; ALAH is new, and comes with multiple uses, but "oath" is certainly one of them, as we find it in 1 Kings 8:31 with this meaning unmistakeable, and in 1 Samuel 14:24 Sha'ul makes his men swear an oath, using the same root as a verb, YO'EL (יֹּאֶל); [which of course is also a man's name, Joel in English, though in fact the Yehudit is not the same; Yo-El links the names of two deities, probably Yah and El, possibly a forehortened YHVH and El - יוֹאֵל]. Nehemiah 10:29 uses both ALAH and SHEVU'AH, the former here being translated as "a curse"; probably incorrectly; the distinction is rather between promising not to do something negative (ALAH), and promising to do something positive (SHEVU'AH). Ezekiel 17:13, Deuteronomy 29:11 and elsewhere use it specifically in the context of the divine covenant, the ALAH being the oath to keep it on the human side, the SHEVU'AH being the promise to keep it by the deity.
This has nothing to do with the OLAH sacrifice, which is spelled with an Ayin (ע), where this is spelled with an Aleph (א), though there would need to have been an Olah, as in sacrifice, for the celebratory meal in verse 30.
NICHRETAH: A word that will come up again and again through the Tanach, most notably in the prophecies of Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah), but also when the anger of the deity is aroused against the Beney Yisra-El during the Exodus. In all those circumstances there were will be a sense of "destruction" connected to the word, the precise opposite of its meaning here. An essay about this word is currently in preparation.
26:29: IM TA'ASEH IMANU RA'AH KA ASHER LO NEGA'ANUCHA VE KA ASHER ASIYNU IMCHA RAK TOV VA NESHAL'ECHACHA BE SHALOM ATAH ATAH BERUCH YHVH
אִם תַּעֲשֵׂה עִמָּנוּ רָעָה כַּאֲשֶׁר לֹא נְגַעֲנוּךָ וְכַאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂינוּ עִמְּךָ רַק טוֹב וַנְּשַׁלֵּחֲךָ בְּשָׁלוֹם אַתָּה עַתָּה בְּרוּךְ יְהוָה
KJ: That thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace: thou art now the blessed of the LORD.
BN: "That you will do us no harm, as we have not touched you, and as we have done nothing to you but good, and have sent you away in peace. And may YHVH give this his blessing."
They are more scared of his god than of him; but are the facts as clear-cut as they state? "We have done nothing to you but good". What about the mud-blocked wells? What about the fact that they have sent him away? What hurt is he likely to do them?
Note also that, like the difference between the human ALAH and the divine SHEVU'AH above, like the difference between the positive and double-negative of the Nechem-Yah above, here too a subtle distinction is being made, one which reflects monistic Yetser ha Tov versus Yetser ha Ra rather more than it does the dualistic Good v Evil of the Christian world: you will not do us any harm, is not precisely the same as we have only done you good. Rabbi Hillel's two exegeses of "Love your neighbour as yourself" in Leviticus 19:18 come from the same school: in one, do unto others as you would want them to do unto you; in the other, do not do unto others what would be objectionable if they did it to you."
Atah..atah (אתה עתה) is a particularly nice word-play, if somewhat inevitable. The first with an Aleph (א), the second with an Ayin (ע).
End of fourth fragment; no pey or samech break indicated.
26:30: VA YA'AS LAHEM MISHTEH VA YO'CHLU VA YISHTU
וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם מִשְׁתֶּה וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ
KJ: And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink.
BN: And he made them a feast, and they ate and drank.
26:31: VA YASHKIYMU VA BOKER VA YISHAV'U ISH LE ACHIV VA YESHALCHEM YITSCHAK VA YELCHU ME ITO BE SHALOM
KJ: And they rose up betimes in the morning, and sware one to another: and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace.
BN: And they rose up in the morning, and swore their mutual oath; and Yitschak sent them away, and they went peacefully.
Essential to look again at the previous version and draw the strands together.
26:32: VA YEHI BA YOM HA HU VA YAVO'U AVDEY YITSCHAK VA YAGIDU LO AL ODOT HA BE'ER ASHER CHAPHARU VA YOMRU LO MATSANU MAYIM
KJ: And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water.
BN: And it came about that same day, that Yitschak's servants came and told him about the well that they had dug, and said to him, "We have found water".
26:33: VA YIKRA OTAH SHIV'AH AL KEN SHEM HA IR BE'ER SHEVA AD HA YOM HA ZEH
KJ: And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.
BN: And he named it "Sheva". And this is why the town is named Be'er Sheva to this day.
As with so many of the names of places for which we are given the aetiological story, they appear to have had the name already long before the story. The only explanation that makes sense is that it is logical to speak about a place with the name that it has at the time of speaking, even if that was not the original name. So, for example, if we speak about Myanmar in the 1930s, do we say Burma or do we say Myanmar? When we speak of Russia in the 1950s, do we say Russia or the Soviet Union? When we speak of the development of New York in the early 1800s, do we call it New Amsterdam? I believe that we need to keep this thought in mind when Kiryat Arba is also Chevron and Beit-El is also Luz, et cetera.
Is there also an implication from this verse, that the discovery of the well was a divine reward for the making of the covenant with Avi-Melech? It would confirm everything that the latter has said about him.
Samech break.
Why does the chapter not end here, in the Christian translations? There are two more verses, but both relate to Esav, not Yitschak, and both belong with the following chapter. The Yehudit text of course had no chapters, but only sedarim, and this samech break is a logical moment to have one in the middle of the sedra.
26:31: VA YASHKIYMU VA BOKER VA YISHAV'U ISH LE ACHIV VA YESHALCHEM YITSCHAK VA YELCHU ME ITO BE SHALOM
וַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ בַבֹּקֶר וַיִּשָּׁבְעוּ אִישׁ לְאָחִיו וַיְשַׁלְּחֵם יִצְחָק וַיֵּלְכוּ מֵאִתּוֹ בְּשָׁלוֹם
KJ: And they rose up betimes in the morning, and sware one to another: and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace.
BN: And they rose up in the morning, and swore their mutual oath; and Yitschak sent them away, and they went peacefully.
Essential to look again at the previous version and draw the strands together.
26:32: VA YEHI BA YOM HA HU VA YAVO'U AVDEY YITSCHAK VA YAGIDU LO AL ODOT HA BE'ER ASHER CHAPHARU VA YOMRU LO MATSANU MAYIM
וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא וַיָּבֹאוּ עַבְדֵי יִצְחָק וַיַּגִּדוּ לוֹ עַל אֹדוֹת הַבְּאֵר אֲשֶׁר חָפָרוּ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ מָצָאנוּ מָיִם
KJ: And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water.
BN: And it came about that same day, that Yitschak's servants came and told him about the well that they had dug, and said to him, "We have found water".
26:33: VA YIKRA OTAH SHIV'AH AL KEN SHEM HA IR BE'ER SHEVA AD HA YOM HA ZEH
וַיִּקְרָא אֹתָהּ שִׁבְעָה עַל כֵּן שֵׁם הָעִיר בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּ
KJ: And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day.
BN: And he named it "Sheva". And this is why the town is named Be'er Sheva to this day.
As with so many of the names of places for which we are given the aetiological story, they appear to have had the name already long before the story. The only explanation that makes sense is that it is logical to speak about a place with the name that it has at the time of speaking, even if that was not the original name. So, for example, if we speak about Myanmar in the 1930s, do we say Burma or do we say Myanmar? When we speak of Russia in the 1950s, do we say Russia or the Soviet Union? When we speak of the development of New York in the early 1800s, do we call it New Amsterdam? I believe that we need to keep this thought in mind when Kiryat Arba is also Chevron and Beit-El is also Luz, et cetera.
Is there also an implication from this verse, that the discovery of the well was a divine reward for the making of the covenant with Avi-Melech? It would confirm everything that the latter has said about him.
Samech break.
Why does the chapter not end here, in the Christian translations? There are two more verses, but both relate to Esav, not Yitschak, and both belong with the following chapter. The Yehudit text of course had no chapters, but only sedarim, and this samech break is a logical moment to have one in the middle of the sedra.
No comments:
Post a Comment