Marbeh Ḥokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz 9781575063614

Citation preview

Marbeh Ḥokmah

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

Marbeh Ḥokmah Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East in Loving Memory of

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

edited by

S. Yona, E. L. Greenstein, M. I. Gruber, P. Machinist, and S. M. Paul

Winona Lake, Indiana

Eisenbrauns 2015

Copyright © 2015 Eisenbrauns All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marbeh Hokmah : studies in the Bible and the ancient Near East in loving memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz / edited by S. Yona, E. L. Greenstein, M. I. Gruber, P. Machinist, and S. M. Paul.     pages cm Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-415-4 (volume 1, cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-57506-416-1 (volume 2, cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-57506-333-1 (2-volume set, cloth : alk. paper) 1.  Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc.  2.  Semitic philology. ​3.  AssyroBabylonian literature—History and criticism.  I.  Hurowitz, Victor, honoree. ​ II.  Yona, Shamir, editor. BS511.3.M3266 2015 221.6—dc23



2015029479

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48–1984.♾™

Contents

About the Editors and Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   x Preface and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xvii Personal and Academic Biography of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz . . . . . . . .   xix Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  xxv English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   xl Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xlviii Maqlû Tablet II: Its Literary Frame and Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    1 Tzvi Abusch Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah in the Throne-Room Vision of Isaiah 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   13 Shawn Zelig Aster Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   43 Gary Beckman Psalm 132: A Prayer for the Restoration of Judah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   65 Adele Berlin Josiah in Bethel: An Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled . . . . . . . . . . . . .   73 Mordechai Cogan The Well-Attested BH-Akk. Simile ‫( כראים‬Ps 92:11) / ‫כמו בן־ראמים‬ (Ps 29:6) = Akk. kīma rīmi/rīmāniš and Its Semantic Equivalent ‫( ְ ּכא ִַבּיר‬Isa 10:13 [Kethiv]) in the Speech of the Assyrian King . . . . . . . .   83 Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen The Pastoral Idea of Hesed and the Symbolism of Matzo and Hamets . . . . . .   111 Sol Cohen The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9): Problems of Interpretation and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   139 John Day Human Tribulation and Transience in Job: The Metaphor of the Moth . . . . . . 161 Tova Forti

v

vi

Contents

Did Ezra Create Judaism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Lisbeth S. Fried Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Uri Gabbay Two New Cultic Inscriptions from Seventh-Century b.c.e. Ekron . . . . . . . . . 221 Seymour Gitin and Shmuel Aḥituv Reflections on the Intersection between “Song” and Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 David A. Glatt-Gilad To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help in the Old Babylonian Period? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Shirley Graetz Finding One’s Way in Proverbs 30:18–19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Edward L. Greenstein ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Mayer I. Gruber A Sumerian Incantation for the Lavatory and Neo-Assyrian Eschatology . . . . 283 Wayne Horowitz Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 Jacob Klein and Nili Samet How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 Yigal Levin From Accountability to Commandment: Trends in the Evolution of the Ancient Near Eastern Ritual Genre . . . . . . 339 Baruch A. Levine Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop . . . . . . . . 349 Diana Lipton Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution: The Biblical Tabernacle (ʿōhel môʿēd/miškān) and the Akkadian qersu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369 Natalie N. May “Your Father Is an Amorite and Your Mother a Hittite” (Ezekiel 16:3) . . . . . . 389 Bustenay Oded Vain Imprecations on Having Been Born in Job 3 and Mesopotamian Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 Shalom M. Paul

Contents

vii

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription: “I-Style,” Intonation Units, and Oral Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 Frank H. Polak Anointing Documents with Oil and Sacrificing before Them . . . . . . . . . . . 429 Barbara N. Porter Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah . . . . . . . . . . . 435 Gary A. Rendsburg Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives . . . . . . . . . 465 Jack M. Sasson The Question of David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27 . . . . . . 479 Mark S. Smith Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 Claudia E. Suter Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 Marvin A. Sweeney The “Holiness School”—Creativity and Editorial Activity in the Book of Joshua: The Case of Joshua 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 Ada Taggar-Cohen Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah and the Geographical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559 Shmuel Vargon Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape . . . . . . . . . . . . 587

Joan Goodnick Westenholz ‫ל‬′′‫ז‬ Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans in the Inscriptions of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur of Suḫu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap, Isaiah’s Vision, and Iron Age Bones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 Ziony Zevit Indexes Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 657 Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669

Hebrew Section

The “Blessings” of Reuben (Gen 49:3–4; Deut 33:6; Judg 5:14): Their Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1* Yitzhak Avishur

viii

Contents

Towns with Changed Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   35* Israel Ephʿal The Episode of Naboth the Jezreelite: A Crucial Clash between Ahab’s Policy and the Patriarchal Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47* Zafrira Ben-Barak Priests and the Cult in the Book of Malachi in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73* Jonathan Ben-Dov A New Reading of Deuteronomy 17:2–7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  91* Shalom Eliezer Holtz Wordplays in the Visions of Amos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101* Nili Wazana Repeated Passages and Their Significance for the Composition of the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Historiographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123* Zipora Talshir The Alleged Dependence of the Abraham Narratives in Genesis on the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151* Jonathan Yogev and Shamir Yona Between Men and God in the Hebrew Bible: On Seeing, Self-Restraint, and Loyalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161* Rimon Kasher Editing and Authorship in Proverbs 22:17–23:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185* Michael V. Fox The Corrections by Rashi to His Commentary on Hosea . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197* Jordan S. Penkower The Fall of Samaria: Between History and Historiography . . . . . . . . . . . . 229* Danʾel Kahn Here Today and Gone Tomorrow: The Story of Merab, the Daughter of Saul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241* Orly Keren and Hagit Taragan The Justification of the Lord’s Verdict: Textual and Literary Interventions in Samuel and Kings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261* Alexander Rofé “An Abomination to the Egyptians”: New Light on an Old Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271* Nili Shupak Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295*

About the Editors and Contributors

Tzvi Abusch is Rose B. and Joseph Cohen Professor of Assyriology and Ancient Near Eastern Religion at Brandeis University. His primary fields of research and publication are Mesopotamian religion, magic, literature, and thought as well as biblical and Babylonian interconnections. Among his publications is Mesopotamian Witchcraft. Shmuel Aḥituv is Professor Emeritus of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. He is founder and general editor of the Encyclopaedia Miqraʾit Library, co-founder and editor of the Mikra Le-Yisraʾel (Bible for Israel) commentary series, general editor of the Beer-Sheba monograph series, and author of books on ancient Hebrew epigraphy as well as commentaries on Joshua, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Israel Prize Laureate in Biblical Research for 2015. Shawn Zelig Aster is Senior Lecturer in Land of Israel Studies at Bar-Ilan University. His major areas of research include the history of biblical Israel’s relationship with Assyria and the ways in which biblical prophecy responds to Assyrian imperialism. Among his publications is The Unbeatable Light: Melammu and Its Biblical Parallels (2012). Yitzhak Avishur is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Hebrew Language at the University of Haifa. He has written numerous studies on the Bible, its literature, language, and style. He has also published on ancient Near Eastern languages and on Middle Eastern Judeo-Arabic. Gary Beckman is Professor of Hittite and Mesopotamian Studies at the University of Michigan. He has published widely on Hittite religion and on Hittite social organization and diplomacy. The focus of his current research is the reception and adaptation of Syro-Mesopotamian culture by the Hittites. Zafrira Ben-Barak is Senior Lecturer Emerita in the Departments of Jewish History and Bible at the University of Haifa. She has written widely on the social, political, and legal aspects of ancient Israel and the ancient Near East. Among her publications is Inheritance by Daughters in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Jonathan Ben-Dov is Senior Lecturer and George and Florence Wise Chair for Judaism in Antiquity, in the Department of Bible at the University of Haifa. With S. Sanders, he co-edited Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature (Institute for the Study of the Ancient World and New York University Press, 2014). His research interests are ancient Near Eastern literature, the Hebrew Bible, the Book of Enoch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Adele Berlin is Robert H. Smith Professor Emerita of Biblical Studies at the University of Maryland. Her interests are in the literary analysis of the Hebrew Bible and in ancient and modern interpretation. Among her publications are commentaries on Esther, Lamentations, and Zephaniah and books on biblical poetry.

ix

x

About the Editors and Contributors

Mordechai Cogan is Professor Emeritus of Biblical History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research focuses on the contacts between ancient Israel and the great empires of ancient Mesopotamia. He has authored commentaries on the books of Kings and Obadiah. Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen is Professor of Biblical Hebrew and Ancient Semitic Languages at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His main area of research is Biblical Hebrew philology in light of the ancient Semitic languages. Among his publications is a recent book on comparative method in Semitic philology. Sol Cohen was Professor of Semitic Languages and Cuneiform Literature at Dropsie College. He is presently Associate Visiting Scholar and resource person at the Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania. Much of his research and publication involves the integration of Sumerology with Semitic and biblical Studies. John Day is Professor of Old Testament Studies in the University of Oxford, and Fellow and Tutor of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. He has written widely on the Hebrew Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context. Among his publications is God’s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea. Israel Ephʿal is Professor Emeritus of History of the Jewish People and of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Among his many publications are The Ancient Arabs; The City Besieged; and Aramaic Ostraca of the Fourth Century b.c. from Idumaea (with J. Naveh). Tova Forti is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. She received her academic training at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her principal areas of research are ideational and esthetic aspects of biblical wisdom literature, animal imagery in biblical literature, and the Septuagint of Proverbs. Michael V. Fox is the Jay and Ruth Halls-Bascom Professor Emeritus in the Department of Hebrew Language and Semitic Studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Author of several commentaries, he specializes in the wisdom literature and thought of the Hebrew Bible and also works in Egyptian literature and its relation to biblical literature and in the ancient Greek and Syriac translations. Lisbeth S. Fried is Visiting Scholar at the Frankel Center for Judaic Studies and the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan, and is Associate Editor for Ancient Near Eastern Religions of the Routledge Dictionary of Ancient Mediterranean Religions. Her recent books include The Priest and the Great King: TemplePalace Relations in the Persian Empire, and the edited volume Was 1 Esdras First? Uri Gabbay teaches Assyriology at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. His main research interests are the corpus of the Sumerian Emesal prayers, and Babylonian commentaries. Seymour Gitin has been Director (from 1980) and Dorot Director (from 1994) and Professor of Archaeology (from 1979) at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. Together with Trude Dothan, he has directed the Tel Miqne–Ekron Excavation and Publication Project and authored many of its publications.

About the Editors and Contributors

xi

David A. Glatt-Gilad is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His research interests include biblical historiography in its ancient Near Eastern context, the Deuteronomistic literature, and the early Second Temple period in prophecy and historiography. Shirley Graetz studied with Prof. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz from 2003 to 2012 and wrote, under his supervision, an M.A. thesis on women in the Old Babylonian period and a Ph.D. dissertation, “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help? The Agent in Old Babylonian Letters.” Edward L. Greenstein is Professor of Bible and Head of the Institute for Jewish Biblical Interpretation at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He has edited the Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society since 1974, served two terms as editor of the Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies series, and has published widely in biblical and ancient Semitic studies. Mayer I. Gruber is Professor Emeritus of Bible, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His major publications concern Semitic lexicography, women in the biblical world and in early Judaism, medieval Hebrew biblical exegesis, prophecy, and the book of Job. Shalom Eliezer Holtz is Associate Professor of Bible at Yeshiva University. He is the author of Neo-Babylonian Court Procedure (Brill, 2009) and of Neo-Babylonian Trial Records (SBL Writings from the Ancient World, forthcoming). Wayne Horowitz is Professor of Assyriology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He wrote his Ph.D. dissertation under W. G. Lambert in Birmingham on Mesopotamian cosmic geography, the basis of a published book. His research interests include cuneiform astronomical texts and the cuneiform tablets from the land of Israel. Danʾel Kahn received his doctorate from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Egyptology and the study of the ancient Near East. His research centers on the history and cultures of the ancient Near East. Kahn teaches in the Departments of Bible and Jewish History at the University of Haifa. Rimon Kasher is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Bible at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan. He has published articles and books on a variety of subjects, including Aramaic translations of the Bible, the book of Ezekiel, the books of Haggai and Malachi, miracles in the Bible, and biblical ethics. Orly Keren is Chair of the Department of Bible at Kaye College of Education in BeerSheba. Her research interests include biblical narrative, the formation of biblical literature, and realia in the Bible. Jacob Klein is Professor Emeritus of Assyriology and Bible, Departments of Hebrew and Bible, at Bar-Ilan University. His many publications include a Hebrew anthology of ancient Mesopotamian literature. Klein is a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Yigal Levin is Senior Lecturer in the Israel and Golda Koschitzky Department of Jewish History at Bar-Ilan University, where he teaches the history of Israel in the biblical and early Second Temple periods. He publishes on a variety of subjects in his field.

xii

About the Editors and Contributors

Baruch A. Levine is Professor Emeritus of Bible and the Study of the Ancient Near East at New York University. He specializes in ancient Israelite religion and the study of Semitic languages. His many publications include the Jewish Publication Society commentary on Leviticus and the Anchor Bible commentary on Numbers. Diana Lipton is Visiting Lecturer at Tel Aviv University and also teaches at the Hebrew University’s Rothberg International School. Her publications include Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis and Longing for Egypt and Other Unexpected Biblical Tales. Her coauthored reception history commentary on Lamentations is forthcoming. Peter Machinist is Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages at Harvard University, serving since 1991 both in the Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and in the Harvard Divinity School. His work lies in the intellectual and cultural history of the ancient Near East, focusing on the ideology of imperialism and other forms of group identification; ancient historiography; mythology; prophecy; Assyrian history; and the history of modern biblical and Near Eastern scholarship. Natalie N. May is an Assyriologist and art historian of the ancient Near East who received her doctorate under Victor Hurowitz’s direction. She has edited Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond: Papers from the Oriental Institute Seminar Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, April 8–9, 2011 (Oriental Institute Seminars 8), Chicago. Bustenay Oded is Professor Emeritus at the University of Haifa in the Departments of Jewish History and Bible. He has published books and articles on the history of the people of Israel and of the land of Israel in biblical times and on relations of the people of Israel with other peoples and kingdoms during the period of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Shalom M. Paul is Professor Emeritus of Bible, former chair of the Bible Department, and holder of the Yehezkel Kaufmann Chair in Bible Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is also Chairperson of the Dead Sea Scrolls Foundation. He has published widely in biblical and ancient Near Eastern studies, including detailed commentaries on Amos and Second Isaiah. Frank H. Polak is Professor Emeritus of Bible, Tel Aviv University. Author of Biblical Narrative: Aspects of Art and Design, he has published widely on the Septuagint, discourse and conversation analysis, stylistics, and the periodization of biblical narrative. Barbara N. Porter is director of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute and a research associate of the Harvard Semitic Museum. She specializes in the religion, politics, and art of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Jordan S. Penkower is Professor in the Department of Bible at Bar-Ilan University. His publications focus on three areas: (1) the transmission of the Hebrew Bible and the Masorah in manuscripts and printed editions; (2) the Bible in rabbinic interpretation; and (3) Jewish biblical exegesis in the Middle Ages (especially Rashi). Gary A. Rendsburg is Blanche and Irving Laurie Professor of Jewish History in the Department of Jewish Studies at Rutgers University. He publishes widely on literary and linguistic aspects of the Hebrew Bible and cognate texts.

About the Editors and Contributors

xiii

Alexander Rofé is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. An editor of Textus, he has published widely in biblical studies. His books include Stories of the Prophets (1984, 1986), Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy (1988), Introduction to Biblical Literature (1996, 1997), and Angels in the Bible (1979, 2012). Nili Samet is Lecturer in the Department of Bible at Bar-Ilan University. Her research and publications are in the areas of Assyriology, Sumerology, and Hebrew Bible with an emphasis on the wisdom literature of the Bible and the ancient Near East. Jack M. Sasson is Mary Jane Werthan Professor of Jewish Studies and Hebrew Bible as well as Professor of Classics at Vanderbilt University. A past president of the American Oriental Society and of the International Association for Assyriology, he has published widely in ancient Near Eastern and biblical studies, including commentaries on Ruth and Jonah. Nili Shupak is Professor of Biblical Studies and Ancient Egypt in the Bible Department of the University of Haifa. She specializes in comparative research on the Bible and ancient Egypt and on ancient wisdom literature, and she has published books and articles on these and other subjects in biblical studies. Mark S. Smith is Skirball Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at New York University, a position that he has held since 2000. He has authored 13 books, including a commentary on the Ugaritic cycle of myths about Baal and, most recently, Poetic Heroes: The Literary Commemoration of Warriors and Warrior Culture in the Early Biblical World. Claudia E. Suter studies ancient Near Eastern images and texts. Among her interests are visual and verbal communication, cultural identities, and ideologies of ruling classes in premodern societies Marvin A. Sweeney is Professor of Hebrew Bible at Claremont Lincoln University and Claremont School of Theology and Professor of Tanak and Faculty Chair at Academy for Jewish Religion, California. He is the author of 13 volumes, including Tanak: A Theological and Critical Introduction to the Jewish Bible and Reading Prophetic Books: Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Post-Biblical Literature. Ada Taggar-Cohen is Professor of Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Studies and Head of the Jewish Studies program in the Faculty of Theology of Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan. She did her graduate studies at Ben-Gurion University, where her mentors were Victor A. Hurowitz and Theo J. P. van den Hout. She is the author of The Hittite Priesthood. Zipora Talshir is Professor in the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Her areas of research and publication are the textual and literary-historical criticism of the Hebrew Bible; the Septuagint; the biblical scrolls from Qumran; and ancient and late biblical historiography. She has edited a two-volume Hebrew introduction to biblical studies. Hagit Taragan is Teaching Fellow in the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and Lecturer at Kaye College of Education in Beer-Sheba. Her research interests include biblical poetry,

xiv

About the Editors and Contributors

rhetorical and stylistic aspects of biblical literature, the thought of Deutero-Isaiah, and medieval Jewish biblical exegesis. Shmuel Vargon is Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Bar-Ilan University, RamatGan, where he served several terms as chair of the department. He is currently Head of Jewish Creative Activity and the Basic Jewish Studies Division of Ashkelon Academic College. His publications include a commentary on Micah, S. D. Luzzatto: Moderate Criticism in Biblical Exegesis, and In the Bible Lands: Studies in Biblical Prophecy, History and Historiography. Nili Wazana is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Bible and the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Her research and publications deal with the historical, literary, cultural, and ideological relationships between the Bible and the ancient Near East. Joan Goodnick Westenholz, of blessed memory, was Chief Curator of Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem for two decades and was awarded the Curator’s Prize by the Israeli Ministry of Culture. She authored books and articles in Sumerology and Assyriology and contributed many entries in various volumes of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Jonathan Yogev is a doctoral student of Shamir Yona in the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheba. Yogev specializes in the Ugaritic texts and has published several articles in this field. Shamir Yona is Associate Professor and Department Chair, Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. His publications treat the poetics of ancient Near Eastern literature; the wisdom literature of the Bible, the ancient Near East, and rabbinic literature; biblical prophecy and narrative; Ugaritic language and literature; and Semitic lexicography. K. Lawson Younger, Jr., is Professor of Old Testament, Semitic Languages, and Ancient Near Eastern History at Trinity International University Divinity School (Deerfield, Illinois). He publishes widely in Assyriology, West Semitic epigraphy, and Hebrew Bible and is co-editor of the three-volume source book, The Context of Scripture. Ziony Zevit is Distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature and Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures at the American Jewish University, Los Angeles. His research and publications focus on Classical Hebrew lexicography and linguistics, Israelite religion, and archaeological bibliology.

Preface and Acknowledgments

These two handsome volumes were meant to comprise a Jubilee Volume or Festschrift in honor of our esteemed colleague, Professor Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, of blessed memory. Alas, in the course of our completing the process of collecting the essays and signing a contract with Eisenbrauns, Avigdor was called to the Academy on High, and this collection of scholarly essays became a Memorial Volume. The five members of the editorial board of Marbeh Ḥokmah (Prof. Shamir Yona and Prof. Mayer I. Gruber of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Prof. Edward L. Greenstein of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan, Professor Peter Machinist of Harvard University, and Professor Shalom  M. Paul of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), admiring colleagues of Victor who cherish his memory, spared neither time nor effort in their labors to bring these two volumes to fruition. The editors of Marbeh Ḥokmah express their sincere gratitude to Professor Rivka Carmi, President of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; Professor Zvi HaCohen, Rector of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev; and Professor David Newman, Dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at BenGurion University of the Negev for their enthusiastic response to the request by the editor-in-chief for partial subventions to offset the cost of publishing Marbeh Ḥokmah, without which it would not have been possible to produce the two beautiful volumes. Special thanks are due to Shomrei Torah Synagogue of West Hills, California, and its former assistant rabbi, Erez Sherman (now of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles; he is also the son of Victor Hurowitz’s sister, Leah Sherman), and to Seymour J. Rosenbloom, Distinguished Service Rabbi of Congregation Adath Yeshurun in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, for their generous contributions to the cost of publishing Marbeh Ḥokmah. The editors express their gratitude also to a number of distinguished scholars who bestowed anonymous gifts from their personal and/or research budgets to subsidize the publication of Marbeh Ḥokmah. The editors express special thanks to Jim Eisenbraun, the President of Eisenbrauns, and to the following people at Eisenbrauns who worked with our authors and editors: Andrew Knapp, acquisitions and marketing; Beverly McCoy, editor; Pamela Nichols, production manager; Andy Kerr, art and cover xv

xvi

Preface and Acknowledgments

design; Gabriel Eisenbraun, file and font conversion; Gina Hannah, shipping and administration; and Kathy Young, index. Special thanks are also due Dr. Hagit Taragan of the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev for her tremendous help in editing the Hebrew section of Marbeh Ḥokmah and relating to many other aspects of the preparation of this book. We are most grateful to Dr. Ann Roshwalb Hurowitz, widow of Avigdor, for supplying us with the picture of Avigdor she photographed that appears opposite the title page. We also thank Dr. Hurowitz for her painstaking work in helping us edit Victor’s list of publications and his biography. We extend our sincere thanks to Mr. Patrice Kaminsky for his generous help in formatting and enhancing a number of illustrations that appear in Marbeh Ḥokmah. A very special word of appreciation is expressed to Ms. Sefi Sinay for her tremendous effort in formatting the Hebrew section of this collection of essays. And, as we say in Hebrew, the last mentioned are especially dear: 55 contributors, including teachers, colleagues, and students of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz from Israel and from around the world, who responded most enthusiastically to the editors’ invitation to what was to have been the Victor Avigdor Hurowitz Festschrift. May all these authors be blessed. The Victor Avgidor Hurowitz Memorial Volume comprises two sections, one in English and the other in Hebrew. Each of the Hebrew articles has an English abstract for the benefit of scholars who are less fluent in Modern Hebrew. We anticipate that these two volumes of seminal essays in the study of the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East will be considered a major contribution to the fields of biblical and Near Eastern studies for many years to come. —On behalf of the editors and contributors Shamir Yona Purim 5775 – February 2015

Personal and Academic Biography of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz (born Victor Benedict: in Hebrew, Avigdor Benjamin) was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on April 19, 1948, to parents who were both educators. He was raised in a Conservative Jewish home, later adopting Modern Orthodoxy. Victor married Ann Roshwalb on August 23, 1976, at Temple Torah in Little Neck, New York. Ann is a distinguished scholar in her own right, having completed a Ph.D. at the Institute of Archaeology, University of London, and she currently serves as Series Editor of the Israel Antiquities Authority Reports. Ann and Victor have one son, Daniel Hurowitz, who is married to Dafna Presler, and they have one son, Aviʿad (Isa 9:5). Victor proudly displayed on the wall of his office the B.A. diploma he received in 1965 from Central High School in Philadelphia, the only public high school in the United States that was authorized to grant a bachelor’s degree to students who maintained a high scholastic average. During his high school years, Victor also attended the Hebrew High School at Temple Har Zion in Philadelphia. Upon graduation from Central High, he enrolled at Temple University as a pre-med student but subsequently decided to switch to Judaic Studies. While at Temple University, he also studied at Gratz College of Jewish Studies and the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia. He spent his junior year of college in Jerusalem at the Hebrew University as well as the Hayyim Greenberg Institute in Jerusalem, where he was influenced especially by Dr. Gabi Cohen to adopt a literary approach to the Hebrew Bible. He completed his B.A. in Hebrew Language and Literature at Temple University in 1969. Upon graduation from Temple University, Victor settled in Israel and began his graduate studies in Bible and Assyriology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He was awarded the M.A. in 1975 for his thesis “Temple Dedication Ceremonies in the Bible in the Light of Extra-biblical Materials,” written under the direction of Professor Menahem Haran. Victor earned his Ph.D. in 1984 under the supervision of Professor Menahem Haran and Professor Aaron Shaffer. He often reminded us that he was especially influenced by his mentors, the late Professors Moshe Greenberg, Menahem Haran, Aaron Shaffer, Hayim Tadmor, and Moshe Weinfeld, as well as Professor Shalom M. Paul. xvii

xviii

Biography of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

During his years as a doctoral student, Victor also began teaching at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he served at first as a teaching assistant to Shalom M. Paul, and at Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva. In 1986, he was appointed Lecturer in the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University. In 1994, he was promoted to the rank of Associate Professor, and then, in 1999, to Full Professor. During the 1991–92 academic year, he was a Fellow at the Annenberg Institute in Philadelphia, and in the 1997–98 academic year he was again a Fellow at the same institution, now called the Center for Advanced Jewish Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He also served with distinction on the editorial boards of Olam Ha-Tanakh, Moʿed, Bet Mikra, Shnaton: An Annual for Biblical and Ancient Near East Studies (vol. 37), and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press. In 2012, he was selected as Israel’s representative to the International Association of Assyriology. As a founding member of the Israel Association for Assyriology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, he was proudly a member of its Board of Directors from its inception in 1997 until his untimely death, serving as its chair in 2001–2, 2006–7, and 2011–12. Victor was also a member of the Israel Association of University Bible Teachers, the American Oriental Society, the Association for Jewish Studies, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Orion Center for Dead Sea Scroll Studies, the International Association for Assyriology, the Society for Old Testament Study, and the American Schools of Oriental Research. In 1986, Victor received the Biblical Archaeology Society Publication Award for one of the three most significant articles relating to some aspect of archaeology or the Bible. His study was entitled “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle” (Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 [1985]: 21–30). In 1991, he received the A. Z. Shkop Prize awarded by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Department of Bible for his article “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources” (Hebrew Union College Annual 60 [1989]: 39–89). In 2000, he was runner-up for the 1998–99 “Best of Bible Review” biennial award for outstanding articles in Bible Review, and in 2006–7, he received a prestigious grant from the Israel Science Foundation in support of his Commentary on the Book of Proverbs for the Mikra LeYisraʾel series (see below). In addition, he was listed in Marquis Who’s Who in the World and in Who’s Who in Biblical Studies and Archaeology. A full-length personal and academic biography was published in Wikipedia. Victor was chair of the Department of Bible, Archaeology, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva from 1999 to 2001. Together with Theo P. J. van den Hout of the University of Chicago, he supervised Ada Taggar-Cohen’s doctoral dissertation, “Hittite Priesthood in Anatolia of the Second Millennium b.c.e., according to Hittite

Biography of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

xix

Texts and in Light of Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Texts.” With Gunnar Lehmann of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, he supervised Natalie Naomi May’s dissertation, “Sacral Functions of the King as Represented in Neo-Assyrian Art (Ninth–Seventh Centuries b.c.e.).” He also directed Shirley Graetz’s dissertation, “Law and Justice as Reflected in Letters of Women from the Old Babylonian Period: The Mediator in Letters from the Old Babylonian Period.” All three of these scholars who completed their doctoral studies under Victor’s supervision proudly dedicate articles to his memory in this volume. Together with Nili Shupak of the University of Haifa, who also has a contribution here, he began to supervise, just before his death, David Shapira’s dissertation, “Solomon’s Temple in the Light of Egyptian Temples.” Victor investigated cultic worship in the Hebrew Bible in the light of documents from Mesopotamia. His doctoral dissertation, subsequently revised and significantly expanded, was the subject of his first book, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and North-West Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992). In this work, he analyzed the account of the building of Solomon’s Temple in 1  Kings 5–9, demonstrating that the biblical account was modeled after Mesopotamian literary accounts of building projects. In addition, he elucidated notions relating to temple construction, such as the need for divine approval of a building program, the dedication ceremony, and the reward the king receives from the deity for his efforts. He then went on to publish a series of articles on the subject of his first book. Among these were the following: “Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 422 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 63–110; “Solomon’s Golden Vessels (I  Kings 7:48–51) and the Cult of the First Temple,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. D. P. Wright et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 151–64; “‘Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It’: Building the First Temple according to the Book of Kings,” in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Boda and J. R. Novotny, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 281–302; and “Yhwh’s Exalted House Revisited: New Comparative Light on the Biblical Image of Solomon’s Temple,” in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May, 2010, ed. G. Galil et al., Alter Orient und Altes Testament 392 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 229–40. Victor shed new light on the Bible by connecting it with both epigraphic and iconographic materials from the ancient Near East. Thus, he demonstrated that the Temple was conceived of as both God’s dwelling place and a kind of Garden of Eden. He was planning on compiling articles in this vein for a

xx

Biography of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

full-length book on this topic (see http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_ wdesc.php?rec=556 or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qivc_4-Avor). Victor’s work on Mesopotamian building narratives led him to undertake literary analyses of various royal inscriptions from the Old Babylonian (Samsuiluna), Middle Babylonian (Simbar-Shipak), Middle Assyrian (Tiglathpileser I), and especially Neo-Assyrian kings (Sargon II, Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal). He showed that the accounts of temple building in many of these inscriptions were ancillary to the writing of the history of a king’s reign and exploits. Thus, these inscriptions turned into important sources for the history of ancient Mesopotamia. Victor also studied the so-called boundary stones, actually land grants (kudurru), including a book-length literary analysis of the famous one from the reign of King Nebuchadrezzar I, Divine Service and Its Rewards: Ideology and Poetics in the Hinke Kudurru, Beer-Sheva 10 (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1997). In it, he showed that the elaborate literary structure of the text was designed to convince various deities that they should honor a particular priest to whom the king had granted real estate and tax exemptions. Similarly, he examined from his unique literary perspective the prologue and epilogue of the Laws of Hammurabi, in his book Inu Anum ṣīrum: Literary Structures in the Non-Juridical Parts of Codex Hammurabi, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 15 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994). In this volume, he showed that the main purpose of the famous inscription was to glorify Hammurabi’s achievements rather than to establish justice. In “Hammurabi in Mesopotamian Tradition,” published in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Y. Sefati et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 497–532, Victor looked at the esteem in which Hammurabi was held after his death, a subject that had not previously been investigated in depth. Other articles that Victor wrote include “Old Babylonian Bawdy Ballad,” published in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Z. Zevit et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 543–58; and “In Search of Resen (Genesis 10:12): Dūr-Šarrukin,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 2 vols., ed. C. Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 511–24. Victor’s publications include many commentaries on biblical chapters and verses in the Olam ha-Tanakh series and important studies on Semitic lexicography and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among his other significant studies are works on divination, the function of the cult statue in the worship of the

Biography of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

xxi

gods in antiquity, and ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. Several of his contributions to this field include: “Advice to a Prince: A Message from Ea,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 12 (1998): 39–53; “Literary Observations on ‘In Praise of the Scribal Art’,” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27 (2000): 49–56; “The Wisdom of Šūpê-amēlī: A Deathbed Dialogue between a Father and Son,” in Wisdom, Her Pillars Are Seven: Studies in Biblical, Postbiblical and Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature, ed. S. Yona and V. A. Hurowitz, Beer-Sheva 20 (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2011), 109–24. This last article also appeared in an English version in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel, edited by Richard J. Clifford, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 37–51. It was to this last subject, Wisdom Literature, that Victor devoted his longest publication and the last he lived to see in print, his monumental, two-volume Hebrew commentary on the biblical book of Proverbs, which appeared in the Mikra LeYisraʾel series, edited by S. Aḥituv (Tel Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: Magnes) in December 2012, just two weeks before Victor suffered the massive stroke from which he did not recover. His commentary summarizes more than two thousand years of scholarship on the book of Proverbs in a variety of languages and highlights, for both the lay reader and the scholar alike, heretofore unnoted parallels between the wisdom of ancient Israel and the wisdom of ancient Western Asia. No less precious to Victor than his biblical and Assyriological scholarship was his delight in serving as Torah reader and ḥazzan in synagogues in Israel and abroad, as well as at improvised Sabbath services held at the annual meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature and the American Schools for Oriental Research. Victor often said that more important to him than the distinguished rank of Full Professor at an Israeli university was the honor of reading from the Torah in the synagogue. He also passed on this highly honed skill to others, including his son and Ben Zion Paul, son of his mentor, Shalom M. Paul. Victor was the first to arrive at the office in the morning (around 7 a.m.) and the last to leave at night (around 6 p.m.). Through the thin walls at Ben-Gurion University, one could hear him either reading Akkadian cuneiform (listen to his recitation at http://www.soas.ac.uk/baplar/recordings/the-epic-of-gilgamestandard-version-tablet-xi-lines-8-44-read-by-victor-hurowitz.html) or practicing the reading of the Torah portion for the next Sabbath morning. It should also be emphasized that the high esteem in which Victor was held by his peers, owing to his many high-quality publications and international stature, was instrumental in the promotion and tenure of colleagues at BenGurion University. Victor struggled with medical issues throughout most of his life, and yet that never impeded his scholarship. Indeed, it seemed that each time he emerged from a hospital stay, it was with a new article or book review completed—an

xxii

Biography of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

achievement that never failed to astonish his family and colleagues and a testimony to the energy, commitment, and passion that he put into his work. Victor, who became one of the world’s most distinguished scholars in the field of Bible and the ancient Near East, enriched us all by his penetrating insights and wisdom-imparting erudition. He may be likened to King Ashurbanipal: ša nēmeqi Ea . . . kullat ṭupšarrūti iḫrusu karassu, “His mind understands the wisdom of Ea (the god of wisdom), the entirety of the scribal craft.” He was, in the term that he coined for himself, an exemplary “cuneobiblicist,” of whom we can say (by altering the last line of Jer 52:34): “Your wisdom is permanently wise. It has been granted to us as a daily allotment all the days of your life, until the day of your death.” Victor’s self-categorization as a “cuneobiblicist” referred to his being an Assyriologist who put his research in the service of clarifying and interpreting the Hebrew Bible. Sadly, for the world of scholarship and for his colleagues who have collaborated on this volume, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz passed away at the age of 64 on January 20, 2013. May his memory be for a blessing. —The Editors of Marbeh Ḥokmah

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

Books 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 115; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament / American Schools of Oriental Research Monograph 5. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Inu Anum Ṣīrum: Literary Structures in the Non‑Juridical Parts of Codex Hammurabi. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund of the Babylonian Section of the University Museum 15. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1994. Divine Service and Its Rewards: Ideology and Poetics in the Hinke Kudurru. Beer-Sheba 10. Beer-Sheba: Ben‑Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1997. Commentary on the Book of Proverbs. Mikra Le-Yisraʾel. 2 vols. Tel Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2012. [Hebrew] Ḥōq = Parṣu: Ancient Near Eastern Religious Practice in Biblical Garb—Collected Studies by Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, forthcoming. [Hebrew]

Books Edited 1. 2. 3.

4.

Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. [co-edited with Michael V. Fox, Avi Hurvitz, Michael Klein, Baruch Schwartz, and Nili Shupak] “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2004. [co-edited with Yitzhak Sefati, Pinhas Artzi, Chaim Cohen, and Barry L. Eichler] Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. [co-edited with Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, Y. Muffs, Baruch Schwartz, and Jeffrey H. Tigay] Wisdom, Her Pillars Are Seven: Studies in Biblical, Post-biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba, 9 Shevat, 5763, 12 January, 2003. Beer-Sheba 20. Beer-Sheba: BenGurion University of the Negev Press, 2011. [co-edited with Shamir Yona]

Essays in Collected Volumes

 1. “Scents and Incense: A Response.” Pages 262–66 in Biblical Archaeology Today 1990: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June– July 1990. Edited by A. Biran and J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993.  2. What Did Balak’s Messengers Bring to Balaam?” Pages 83–86 in Avraham Malamat Memorial Volume. Edited by Shmuel Aḥituv and Baruch A. Levine. Eretz Israel 24. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993. [Hebrew]  3. “Temporary Temples.” Pages 37–50 in Kinattūtu ša dārāti: Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Edited by Anson F. Rainey, A. Kempinski, Marcel Sigrist, and David Ussishkin. Tel Aviv Occasional Publication 1. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Institute of Archaeology, 1994.

xxiii

xxiv

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

 4. “An Old Babylonian Bawdy Ballad.” Pages 543–58 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Edited by Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.  5. “Solomon’s Golden Vessels (1 Kings 7:48‑51) and the Cult of the First Temple.” Pages 151–64 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 1995.  6. “Three Biblical Expressions for Being Merciful in Light of Akkadian and Aramaic.” Pages 359–68 in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.  7. “Menahem Haran’s Scholarly Contribution.” Pages xiii–xxii in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran. Edited by Michael V. Fox, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Avi Hurvitz, Michael  L. Klein, Baruch J. Schwartz, and Nili Shupak. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996.  8. “Spanning the Generations: Aspects of Oral and Written Transmission in the Bible and Ancient Mesopotamia.” Pages 11–30 in Freedom and Responsibility: Exploring the Dilemmas of Jewish Continuity (Gratz College Centenary Volume). Edited by R. Mintz Geffen and M. B. Edelman. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 1998.  9. “Ascending the Mountain of the Lord: A Glimpse into Solomon’s Temple.” Pages 215–23 in Proceedings of “Capital Cities”: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions. International Symposium, May 27–29, 1996 at Bible Lands Museum, Jerusalem. Edited by Joan Goodnick Westenholz. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum, 1998. 10. “Alliterative Allusions, Rebus Writing, and Paranomastic Punishment: Some Aspects of Word Play in Akkadian Literature.” Pages 63–87 in Puns and Pundits: Word Play in Ancient Near Eastern Literatur. Edited by S. Noegel. Potomac, MD: CDL, 2000. 11. “The Temple of Solomon.” Pages 131–54 in The History of Jerusalem (Sepher Yerushalayim), vol. 1: The Biblical Period. Edited by A. Mazar and S. Aḥituv. Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 2000. [Hebrew] 12. “Thirty (?) Counsels of Knowledge: Structural and Exegetical Notes on ‘The Words of the Wise’ (Proverbs 22,14–24,22).” Pages 146–60 in Teshura Li-Shmuel: Studies in the Biblical World in Honor of Shmuel Aḥituv. Edited by Daniel Sivan, Zipora Talshir, and Shamir Yona. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2001. [Hebrew] 13. “Expelling the Bible from the Biblical Period.” Pages 47–51 in The Controversy over the Historicity of the Bible. Edited by L. I. Levine and A. Mazar. Jersualem: Yad Ben-Zvi and The Center for Eretz Israel Studies, Dinur Center for the Study of Jewish History, 2001. [Hebrew] 14. Blessing the Sacrifice (I Samuel 9:13): An Overlooked Allusion to Ancient Israelite Extispicy (?).” Pages 182–93 in Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume: Studies in Archaeology and Related Disciplines. Edited by Eliezer Oren and Shmuel Aḥituv. Beer-Sheba 15. BeerSheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2002. 15. “The Sun-Disk Tablet of Nebobaladan King of Babylon (BBSt 36).” Pages 91–109, 286* in Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume. Edited by I. Ephʿal, A. Ben-Tor, and P. Machinist. Eretz Israel 27. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2003. [Hebrew] 16. “Babylon in Bethel: A New Look at Jacob’s Dream.” Pages 103–9 in Teshurot LaAvishur: Studies in the Bible and Ancient Near East, in Hebrew and Semitic Languages: Festschrift Presented to Prof. Yitzhak Avishur on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday. Edited by Michael Heltzer and Meir Malul. Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications, 2004. [Hebrew] 17. “Paradise Regained: Proverbs 3:13–20 Reconsidered.” Pages 49–62 in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume. Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran,

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

18.

19.

20. 21.

22.

23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

29.

xxv

and Postbiblical Judaism. Edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. “Hammurabi in Mesopotamian Tradition.” Pages 497–532 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Edited by Yitzhak Sefati, Pinhas Artzi, Chaim Cohen, Barry L. Eichler, and Victor A. Hurowitz. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005. “Opening of the Conference” [with a note on Deut 32:8b]. Pages 1–4 in On the Border Line—Textual Meets Literary Criticism: Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Alexander Rofé on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Zipora Talshir and Dalia Amara. Beer-Sheba 18. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2005. [Hebrew] “Yhwh’s Exalted House: Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple.” Pages 63–110 in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel. Edited by John Day. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 422. London: T. & T. Clark (Continuum), 2005. “The Woman of Valor and a Woman Large of Head: Matchmaking in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 221–34 in Seeking Out the Wisdom of the Ancients: Essays Offered to Honor Michael V. Fox on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Ronald L. Troxel, Kelvin G. Friebel, and Dennis R. Magary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. “Assurbanipal’s Library: Monument to Mesopotamian Literature, Cornerstone of Assyriology.” Pages 33–47 in Sifriyot ve-Osfey Sefarim: Proceedings of “Libraries and Book Collections,” Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Israel Historical Society Held at the Van Leer Institute, Jerusalem, 26–29 June, 2000. Edited by M. Sluḥovsky and Y. Kaplan. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2006. [Hebrew] “`Proto-canonization’ of the Torah: A Self-Portrait of the Pentateuch in Light of Mesopotamian Writings.” Pages 31–48 in Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought: Proceedings of an International Conference Held at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba, 17–20 Sivan 5764 (6–9 June, 2004) by the Goldstein-Goren International Center for Jewish Thought and the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba. Edited by Howard Kreisel. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006. [Hebrew] “Babylon in Bethel: New Light on Jacob’s Dream.” Pages 434–46 in Orientalism, Assyriology, and the Bible. Edited by Steven W. Holloway. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. [revised English version of no. 16] “What Goes In Is What Comes Out: Materials for Creating Cult Statues.” Pages 3–23 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion. Edited by Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis. Brown Judaic Series 346. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006. “An Allusion in the Šamaš Hymn to The Dialogue of Pessimism.” Pages 33–36 in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel. Edited by Richard J. Clifford. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. “The Biblical Arms Bearer (‫)נושא כלים‬.” Pages 344–49 in “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin. Edited by Sidnie White Crawford, Amnon Ben-Tor, J. P. Dessel, William G. Dever, Amihai Mazar, and Joseph Aviram. Jerusalem: Albright Institute and the Israel Exploration Society, 2007. “Finding New Life in Old Words: Word Play in the Gilgamesh Epic.” Pages 67–78 in Gilgamesh and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21–23 July, 2004. Edited by Joseph Azzize and Noel Weeks. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. “The Wisdom of Šūpê-amēlī: A Deathbed Debate between a Father and Son.” Pages 37–51 in Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel. Edited by Richard J. Clifford. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series 36. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007.

xxvi

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

30. “Towards an Image of Beer-Sheva in the Bible: Administrative and Religious Lines.” Pages 291–302 in Beer-Sheba-Metropolin Be-Hithavut. Edited by Yehuda Gradus and Esther MeirGlitzenstein. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2008. [Hebrew] 31. “‘Shutting Up’ the Enemy: Literary Gleanings from Sargon’s Eighth Campaign.” Pages 104–20 in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʿal on his 70th Birthday. Edited by M. Cogan, D. Kahan, and H. Tadmor. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008. 32. “Tales of Two Scribes: Towards an Image of the ‘Wise Man’ in Akkadian Writings.” Pages 69–94 in Sages and Seers: The Sage in the Eastern Mediterranean World. Edited by Leo Perdue. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments 219. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. 33. “Shalom Paul: Scholar, Teacher, Friend.” Pages ix–xviii in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by C. Cohen, V. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, Y. Muffs, B. Schwartz, and J. Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. 34. “In Search of Resen (Genesis 10:12): Dūr-Šarrukīn?” Pages 513–26 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday.Edited by C. Cohen, V. Hurowitz, A. Hurvitz, Y. Muffs, B. Schwartz, and J.  Tigay. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008. 35. “Towards an Image of the Mesopotamian God.” Pages 1–34 in Ancient Gods: Polytheism in Eretz Israel and Neighboring Countries from the Second Millennium bce to the Islamic Period. Edited by Menahem Kister, Joseph Geiger, Nadav Naʾaman, and Shaul Shaked. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2008. [Hebrew] 36. “The Divinity of Mankind in the Bible and the Ancient Near East: A New Mesopotamian Parallel.” Pages 263–74 in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay. Edited by Nili S. Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilead and Michael J. Williams. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009. 37. “Tenth Century bce to 586 bce: The House of the Lord (Beyt Yhwh).” Pages 14–35 in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade. Edited by Oleg Grabar and Benjamin Z. Kedar. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi; Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2009. 38. “A Monument to Imperial Control: Literary Observations on the Thompson Prism of Esarhaddon (Nineveh A.).” Pages 121–65 in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded. Edited by Gershon Galil, Markham J. Geller, and Alan Millard. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 39. “Fort Sargon, Dūr-Šarru-ukīn: A Portrait of the Royal Builder.” Pages 25–52 in Royal Assyrian Inscriptions—History, Historiography and Ideology: A Conference in Honour of Hayim Tadmor on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 20 November 2003. Edited by Israel Ephʿal and Nadav Naʾaman. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences, 2009. [Hebrew] 40. “Er, Son of Shelah (I Chronicles 4:21) and the Performance of Levirate Marriage.” Pages 99– 104 in Or LeMayer: Studies in Bible, Semitic Languages, Rabbinic Literature, and Ancient Civilizations Presented to Mayer Gruber on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday. Edited by Shamir Yona. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2010. [Hebrew] 41. “Mesopotamian Temple Names: From Cultic Landscape to Cosmic Order.” Pages 63–86 in Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch. Edited by Jeffrey Stackert, Barbara Nevling Porter, and David  P. Wright. Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2010. 42. “‘Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It’: Building the First Temple according to the Book of Kings.” Pages 281–302 in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. Edited by M. J. Boda and J. R. Novotny. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010.

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

xxvii

43. “Name Midrashim and Word Plays on Names in Akkadian Historical Writings.” Pages 83– 100 in A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz. Edited by W. Horowitz, Uri Gabbay, and Filip Vukosavović. Biblioteca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo 8. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2010. 44. “The Wisdom of Šūpê-amēlī: A Deathbed Dialogue between a Father and His Son.” Pages 109–24 in Wisdom, Her Pillars Are Seven: Studies in Biblical, Post-biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba, 9 Shevat 5763, 12 January 2003. Edited by Shamir Yona and Victor Avigdor Hurowitz. Beer-Sheba 20. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2011. [Hebrew version of no. 29]. 45. “Wisdom, Her Pillars Are Seven: Introduction to the Conference and the Volume.” Pages 7–12 in Wisdom, Her Pillars Are Seven: Studies in Biblical, Post-Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Wisdom Literature. Proceedings of a Conference Held at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba, 9 Shevat 5763, 12 January 2003. Edited by Shamir Yona and Victor Avigdor Hurowitz. Beer-Sheba 20. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2011. [Hebrew] 46. “The Return of the Ark (1 Samuel 6) and Impetrated Ox Omens (STT 73:100–140).” Pages 177–85 in All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren. Edited by Mayer I. Gruber, Shmuel Aḥituv, Gunnar Lehmann, and Zipora Talshir. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 255. Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012. 47. “Yhwh’s Exalted House Revisited: New Comparative Light on the Biblical Image of Solomon’s Temple.” Pages 229–40 in The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10th Centuries bce: Culture and History. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the University of Haifa, 2–5 May 2010. Edited by Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa, Aren M. Maeir, and Danʾel Kahn. Alter Orient und altes Testament 392. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012. 48. “What Can Go Wrong with an Idol?” Pages 217–68 in Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, 8–9 April 2011. Edited by Natalie Naomi May. Oriental Institute Seminar 8. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2012. 49. “The Baal Is Busy, Do Not Disturb! A New Look at 1 Kings 18:27.” Pages 155–64 in Teshura Le-Zafrira: Studies in the Bible, the History of Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by Mayer I. Gruber, Athalya Brenner, Moshe Garsiel, Baruch  A. Levine, and Menachem Mohr. Beer-Sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2012. [Hebrew] 50. “‘An Heir Created by Aššur’: Literary Observations on the Rassam Prism  (A) of Ashurbanipal.” Pages 223–68 in Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature: Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist. Edited by David S. Vanderhooft and Abraham Winitzer. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. 51. “Temple.” Pp. 2012–21 in The Jewish Study Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Brettler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 52. “The Temple of Jerusalem in Biblical Israel.” In Cambridge World History of Religious Architecture. Edited by Richard A. Etlin and Steven Fine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 53. “‘For Instruction Shall Come Forth from Zion’: Biblical and Mesopotamian Temples as Palaces of Justice.” In Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature: The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond. Edited by Roy E. Gane and Ada Taggar-Cohen with Edwin Firmage, Elaine Goodfriend, Christine Hayes, Michael Hildenbrand, Moshe Kline, David Stewart, David P. Wright, and Ziony Zevit. Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015. 

xxviii

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

Articles in Journals

 1. “The Golden Calf and the Tabernacle.” Shaton 7/8 (1984): 51–59. [Hebrew] Reprinted in abridged form on pp. 187–89 in Olam Ha‑Tanakh: Exodus. Tel Aviv: Davidson & Ittay, 1993. [Hebrew]  2. “Literary Structures in Samsuiluna A.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36 (1984): 91–205.  3. “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 105 (1985): 21–30. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/601537.pdf.  4. “Another Fiscal Practice in the Ancient Near East: II Kings 12:5–17 and a Letter to Esarhaddon (LAS 277).” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45 (1986): 289–94. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/pdfplus/544205.pdf.  5. “Salted Incense: Exodus 30:35; Maqlû, VI 111–113, IX 118–120.” Biblica 68 (1987): 178–94.  6. “How Were the Israelites Counted? Numbers 1:2 and the Like in Light of a New Ostracon from Tel ʿIra.” Beer-Sheva 3 (Moshe Held Memorial Volume; 1988): 53–62.  7. Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources.” Hebrew Union College Annual 60 (1989): 1–52.  8. “The Etymology of Biblical Hebrew ʿayin ‘Appearance’ in Light of Akkadian šiknu.” Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 3 (1990): 90–94.  9. “LKA 63: A Heroic Poem in Celebration of Tiglath‑pileser I’s Muṣru-Qumanu Campaign.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42 (1991): 1–50. [Coauthored with Joan G. Westenholz] 10. “‘His Master Shall Pierce His Ear with an Awl’ (Exodus 21.6): Marking Slaves in the Bible in Light of Akkadian Sources.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 58 (1992): 47–77. 11. Reports on Dead Sea Scrolls research in S. R. Wolff, “Archaeology in Israel.” American Journal of Archaeology 95 (1991): 538; 97 (1993):162–63; 98 (1994): 481–519. 12. “Some Literary Observations on the Šitti‑Marduk kudurru (BBSt 6).” Zeitschrift für die Assyriologie 82 (1992): 39–59. 13. “The Expression uqsamîm beyadam (Numbers 22:7) in Light of Divinatory Practices from Mari.” Hebrew Studies 33 (1992): 5–14. 14. “Urim and Thummim in Light of a Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137).” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 21 (1992): 95–115. [Co-authored with Wayne Horowitz] 15. “Joel’s Locust Plague in Light of Sargon II’s Prayer to Nanaya.” Journal of Biblical Literature 112 (1993): 615–21. 16. “ABL 1285 and the Hebrew Bible: Literary Topoi in Urad‑Gula’s Letter of Petition to Assurbanipal.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 7 (1993): 9–17. 17. “Joseph’s Enslavement of the Egyptians (Genesis 47:13–26) in Light of Famine Texts from Mesopotamia.” Revue Biblique 101 (1994): 355–62. 18. “Eli’s Adjuration of Samuel (I Samuel 3:17–18) in Light of a Diviner’s Protocol from Mari (AEM I/1, 1).” Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994): 483–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ pdfplus/1535108.pdf 19. “The Cult of Ancient Israel in History, Tradition and Commentary: Review Article of J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 19 (1994): 213–36. http:// www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1486623.pdf. 20. “Mesopotamian Myth in Biblical Metamorphosis.” Sevivot 34 (1995): 52–62. [Hebrew] 21. “Thou Shalt Make Thyself an Idol.” Beit Mikra 40 (1995): 337–47. [Hebrew] 22. “The Form and Fate of the Priestly Tabernacle: Remarks on a Recent Proposal.” Jewish Quarterly Review 86 (1995): 127–51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1454824.pdf. 23. “Kesep Ober Lassoher (Genesis 23.16).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 (1996): 12–19.

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

xxix

24. “A Forgotten Meaning of Nefeš (Isaiah lviii 10).” Vetus Testamentum 47 (1997): 43–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1535308.pdf. 25. “Reading a Votive Inscription: Simbar-Shipak and the Ellilification of Marduk.” Revue d’assyriologie 91 (1997): 39–47. 26. “Notes on a Recently Published Administrative Document.” Israel Exploration Journal 48 (1998): 132–35. 27. “Emar GARZA and Hebrew Terms for Priestly Portions.” N.A.B.U. 1998, no. 3 (September): 67–68. 28. “True Light on the Urim and Thummim: Review Article of C. Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel.” Jewish Quarterly Review 58 (1998): 263–74. 29. “Even Maskit: A New Interpretation.” Journal of Biblical Literature 118 (1999): 201–8. 30. “Zolelah = Peddler/Tramp/Vagabond/Beggar: Lamentations I 11 in Light of Akkadian zilulû.” Vetus Testamentum 49 (1999): 1–4. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1585416.pdf. 31. “Canon and Canonization in Mesopotamia: Assyriological Models or Ancient Realities?” Pages 1*–12* in Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Bible and Its World (1999–2000). Edited by R. Margolin. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999. 32. “Nursling, Advisor, Architect? Amon and the Role of Wisdom in Proverbs 8,22–31.” Biblica 80 (1999): 391–400. http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl80/Ani09m.htm. 33. “Huqqot Haʿammim Hebel Huʾ (Jer. 10:3) in Light of Akkadian parṣu and zaqīqu Referring to Cult Statues.” Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (1999): 277–90. [Co­authored with Sol Cohen] 34. “An End to Flying Cats: Epistle of Jeremiah 22 Reconsidered.” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 20 (1999): 93–95. 35. “Burial in the Bible.” Beit Mikra 45 (2000): 121–45. [Hebrew] 36. “Two Terms for Wealth in Proverbs 8 in Light of Akkadian.” Vetus Testamentum 49 (2000): 252–57. 37. “Who Lost an Earring? Genesis 35:4 Reconsidered.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62 (2000): 28–32. 38. “Advice to a Prince: A Message From Ea.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 12 (1998): 39–53. [appeared in 2000] 39. “Menahem Haran: Israel Prize Laureate 5760—His Life and Scholarly Contribution.” Beit Mikra 45 (2000): 193–99. [Hebrew] [Coauthored with Shmuel Vargon] 40. “An Often Overlooked Alphabetic Acrostic in Proverbs 24:1–22.” Revue Biblique 106 (2000): 526–40. 41. “Splitting the Sacred Mountain: Zechariah 14,4 and Gilgamesh V ii 4–5.” Ugarit-For­ schungen 31 (1999): 241–45. [appeared in 2000] 42. “Proverbs 29.22–27: Another Unnoticed Alphabetic Acrostic.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 92 (2001): 121–25. Electronic abstract—http://www.shef-press .co.uk/4contdets.cfm?ref=2100&jref=4611&aref=461106&f=jsot. 43. “The Seventh Pillar: Reconsidering the Literary Structure and Unity of Proverbs 31.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 113 (2001): 209–18. http://www.degruyter.de/ journals/zaw/2001/pdf/113_209.pdf. 44. “Literary Observations on ‘In Praise of the Scribal Art.’” Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 27 (2000): 49–56. [appeared in 2001] 45. “Splitting the Sacred Mountain: Zechariah 14,4 and Gilgamesh V ii 4–5.” Beit Mikra 46 (2001): 304–9. [Hebrew version of no. 41, above] 46. “‫ אכל‬in Malachi 3:11: Caterpillar.” Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002): 327–36. 47. “‫ רוקמה‬in Damascus Document 4Qde [4Q270] 7 I 14.” Dead Sea Discoveries 9 (2002): 34–37.

xxx

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

48. “Additional Elements of Alphabetical Thinking in Psalm XXXIV.” Vetus Testamentum 52 (2002): 326–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1585056.pdf. 49. “Review Essay of Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd rev. ed.” Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2002): 497–505. 50. “The Autobiography of Lady Wisdom: The Firstborn Daughter of Yhwh, the Creator.” Al Ha-Pereq 19 (2002): 111–23. [Hebrew] 51. “Restoring the Temple: Why and When?—Review Essay of Peter Ross Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 93 (2003): 581–91. 52. “The Jehoash Inscription.” The Bible and Interpretation 2003. http://www.bibleinterp.com/ articles/Report9.htm. [ET of report submitted to the Israel Antiquities Authority committee for determining the authenticity of the so-called Jehoash Inscription] 53. “The Mesopotamian God-Image: From Womb to Tomb—Review Article of Christopher Walker and Michael Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123 (2003): 147–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ pdfplus/3217848.pdf. 54. “The Jehoash Inscription under a Magnifying Glass.” Beit Mikra 49/1 (The Origin of Israel: Biblical Tradition and Modern Research; 2004): 89–102. [Hebrew] 55. “The Look of the Priest: Towards the Image of the Ideal Priest in Ancient Israel and the Ancient Near East.” Moʿed 14 [n.s. 2] (2004): 19–35. [Hebrew] 56. “Healing and Hissing Snakes: Listening to Numbers 21:4–9.” Scriptura 87 (Yehoshua Gitay Festschrift; 2004): 278–87. Repr. with slight revisions in Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes 8 (2006): 13–23. [See below, no. 59] 57. “dNarru and dZulummar in the Babylonian Theodicy (BWL 88:276–277).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124 (2004): 177–78 [appeared in 2006]. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/pdfplus/4132118.pdf. 58. “An Overlooked Allusion to Ludlul in Urad-Gula’s Letter to Assurbanipal.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 14 (2002–5): 129–32. [appeared in 2006] 59. “Healing and Hissing Snakes: Listening to Numbers 21:4–9.” Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes 8 (2006): 13–23. [Slightly revised version of no. 56] 60. “Finding New Life in Old Words: Word Play in the Gilgamesh Epic.” Pages 67–78 in Gilgamesh and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21–23 July 2004. Edited by Joseph Azzize and Noel Weeks. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. 61. “As His Name, So Is He: Word Play in Akkadian Writings.” Language Studies 11–12 [Avi Hurvitz Festschrift; 2008): 69–88. [Hebrew] 62. “The Joseph Stories and Mesopotamian Writings: Enslaving the Egyptians (Genesis 46:13– 26).” Beit Mikra 55 (The Joseph Stories in the Bible and throughout the Generations; 2010): 94–106. [Hebrew] 63. “Can Two Walk Together? A Look at a New Akkadian Companion to the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Bible—Review Article of Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew: Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on Biblical Aramaic.” Leshonénu 72 (2010): 359–82. [Hebrew] 64. “Is Ludlul bēl nēmeqi Wisdom Literature? Review Article of Amar Annus and Alan Lenzi, Ludlul bēl nēmeqi: The Standard Babylonian Poem of the Righteous Sufferer.” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11 (2011). www.jhsonline.org. 65. “‘Better a Bereaved Bear Meet a Man’: Undesirable Characters in the Book of Proverbs in Light of Mesopotamian Writings.” Beit Mikra 57 (Proceedings of “Wisdom Literature in the Bible and the Ancient Near East” Conference at the University of Haifa, 26 December 2011; 2012): 92–105. [Hebrew]

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

xxxi

66. “What Was Codex Hammurabi and What Did It Become?” Maarav 18/1–2 (Law and Diplomacy in the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean World: The Raymond Westbrook Memorial Volume; 2011): 89–100. [appeared 2013] 67. “An Underestimated Aspect of Enki/Ea.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 13 (2013): 3–10. 68. “Unsavory Personalities in the Book of Proverbs in the Light of Mesopotamian Writings.” Hebrew Studies 54 (2013): 93–106. 69. “The Inauguration of Palaces and Temples in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.” Orient 49 (2014): 89–105.

Book Reviews

 1. “R. E. Friedman, The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomic and Priestly Works.” Israel Exploration Journal 34 (1984): 67–69.  2. “B. Halpern, The Emergence of Israel in Canaan.” Israel Exploration Journal 38 (1988): 200–202.  3. “P. L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible.” Israel Exploration Journal 40 (1990): 319–20.  4. “M. Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactic Structures.” Hebrew Studies 32 (1991): 156–62. [Hebrew version in Shnaton 11 (1997): 327–31]  5. “J. Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament.” Israel Exploration Journal 42 (1992): 119–21.  6. “J. Weinberg, The Citizen‑Temple Community (trans. D. L. Smith‑Christopher).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 115 (1995): 118–19.  7. “H. I. H. Prince Takahito Mikasa, ed., Cult and Ritual in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 115 (1995): 315.  8. “G. A. Andersen, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion.” Jewish Quarterly Review 86 (1995): 217–21.  9. “W. I. Toews, Monarchy and Religious Institution in Israel under Jeroboam I.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 116 (1996): 548–49. 10. “R. A. Henshaw, Female and Male: The Cultic Personnel. The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East.” Association for Jewish Studies Review 21 (1996): 369–72. 11. “J. Licht, A Commentary on the Books of Numbers [XXII–XXXVI], ed. Shmuel Aḥituv.” Jewish Quarterly Review 86 (1996): 462–63. 12. “J. M. Sprinkle, The Book of the Covenant: A Literary Approach.” Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1996): 188–91. 13. “F. H. Cryer, Divination in Ancient Israel and Its Near Eastern Environment: A Socio‑Historical Investigation.” Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 416–20. 14. “R. J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible.” Jewish Quarterly Review 87 (1997): 412–15. 15. “B. Schramm, The Opponents of Third Isaiah: Reconstructing the Cultic History of the Restoration.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 117 (1997): 605–6. 16. “E. K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel’s History in the Book of Hosea.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118 (1998): 138–39. 17. “L. L. Grabbe, Priests, Prophets, Diviners, Sages: A Socio‑Historical Study of Religious Specialists in Ancient Israel.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 118 (1998): 139–40. 18. “O. Pedersen, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 bc.” Library History 16 (2000): 71–74. 19. “S. B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 120 (2000): 261–62.

xxxii

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

20. “M. B. Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 121 (2001): 485–86. 21. “G. A. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369.” Jewish Quarterly Review 92 (2002): 604–8. 22. “P. V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122 (2002): 84–87. 23. “J. C. Greenfield, ʿAl Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield on Semitic Philology, vols. 1–2.” Israel Exploration Journal 53 (2003): 261–66. 24. “W. L. Moran, The Most Magic Word: Essays on Babylonian and Biblical Literature.” Journal of Biblical Literature 123 (2004): 352–53. http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail .asp?TitleId=2998. 25. “E. C. LaRocca-Pitts, ‘Of Wood and Stone’: The Significance of Israelite Cultic Items in the Bible and Its Early Interpreters.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 123 (2004): 654–55. 26. “S. L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lĕšakkēn šĕmô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East.” Journal of Hebrew Scripture 5 (2004). http://www .arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review157.htm. 27. “H. Vanstiphout, Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta.” Review of Biblical Literature 10 (2004). http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4071_3946.pdf. 28. “When Assyria Comes into Our Land: A New Anthology of Historical Inscriptions from Mesopotamia—Review of M. Cogan, Historical Texts from Assyria and Babylonia: 9th–6th Centuries bce.” Shnaton 15 (2005): 309–13. [Hebrew] 29. “K. E. Slanski, The Babylonian Entitlement narûs (kudurrus): A Study in Their Form and Function.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 124 (2004): 183–85. 30. “From Nineveh to Jerusalem and from Historiographic Writing to Historical Reality: Review of H. Tadmor, Assyria, Babylonia and Judah: Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East.” Qathedra 127 (2008): 181–85. [Hebrew] 31. “M. E. Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and Economic Life of Ancient Israel.” Toronto Journal of Theology 24 (2008): 117–18. 32. “Bernhard Lang, ed., International Review of Biblical Studies 52 [2005–6].” Moʿed 18 (2008): 163–65. 33. “K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible.” Jewish History 24 (2010): 195–203. http://www.springerlink.com/content/664110l3q115t727/ Friday, January 08, 2010. 34. “N. B. Levtow, Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 130 (2010): 107–9. 35. “He Has the Appearance of a Body and He Is a Body: Review of Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel.” Beit Mikra 55 (2011): 148–60. [Hebrew] 36. “Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 130 (2010): 674–79. [Abridged, rev. English ed. of no. 35]

Encyclopedia Articles

 1. “Temple.” Pages 975–78 in Illustrated Dictionary and Concordance of the Bible. Edited by Geoffrey Wigoder. New York: Macmillan, 1986.  2. “Commentary and Comparative Exposition of I Kings 5:11–9:9 (Solomon’s Temple).” Pages 60–86 in I Kings. Vol. 10 of Olam Ha-Tanakh. Tel Aviv: Davidzon-Ittay, 1994. [Hebrew]  3. “Commentary and Comparative Exposition of II Chronicles 3–4 (Solomon’s Temple).” Pages 20, 26–38, and passim in II Chronicles. Vol. 22 of Olam Ha-Tanakh. Tel Aviv: Davidzon-Ittay, 1995. [Hebrew]  4. “Commentary and Comparative Exposition of Psalms 120–134, 145–150.” Pages 218–40, 267–80 in Psalms 2. Vol. 16/2 of Olam Ha-Tanakh. Tel Aviv: Davidzon-Ittay, 1996. [Hebrew]

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

xxxiii

 5. “Commentary and Comparative Exposition of Job 26–31 and 38–42:6.” Pages 144–69, 198–217, and passim in Job. Vol. 18 of Olam Ha-Tanakh. Tel Aviv: Davidzon-Ittay, 1996. [Hebrew] 6.–10.  Entries: “Census” (pp.  152–53), “Oracles” (pp.  511–12), “Temple” (pp.  680–81), “Temple Vessels” (pp. 682–83), and “Tsitsit” (p. 707) in The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Geoffrey Wigoder. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. 11. “Assyria.” Pages 68–69 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 12. “Babylon.” Pages 75–76 in vol. 1 of Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. 13. “Babylonia: The Image of Babylonia in Judaism of the Second Temple and Hellenistic Period.” Pages 321–24 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. 14. “Babylonian Judaism.” Pages 326–28 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. 15. “Berossus of Babylon.” Pages 924–27 in vol. 3 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Hans-Josef Klauck et al. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. 16. “Cult: Ancient Near East.” Pages 1140–42 in vol. 4 of Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. Edited by Dale C. Allison Jr. et al. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. 17. “Wisdom Literature, Ancient Near East.” In Encyclopedia of Ancient History. Oxford: John Wiley, 2012. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.

Translations of Ancient Texts

 1. “A Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (1.127) [LKA 137].” Page 444 in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. Leiden: Brill, 1997.  2. “A Hymn Celebrating Assurnasirpal II’s Campaigns to the West (1.139) [LKA 64].” Pp. 470– 71 in The Context of Scripture, vol. 1. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. Leiden: Brill, 1997.  3. “The ‘Sun Disk’ Tablet of Nabû-Apla Iddina (2.135) [BBst 36].” Pages 364–68 in The Context of Scripture, vol. 2. Edited by William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Articles and Reviews in Popular Journals

 1. “When Did God Finish Creation?” Bible Review 3/4 (1987): 12–14. [Reprinted in Bible Review: Explore the Genesis Story Back Issue Collection]  2. “Inside Solomon’s Temple.” Bible Review 10/2 (1994): 24–37, 50. http://www.bib-arch.org/ br494/inside.html.  3. “Did King Solomon Violate the Second Commandment?” Bible Review 10/5 (1994): 24–33, 57.  4. “P: Understanding the Priestly Source.” Bible Review 12/3 (1996): 30–37, 44–47. http:// www.bib-arch.org/brj96/p.html.  5. “Picturing Imageless Deities: Iconography in the Ancient Near East—Review Article of Izak Cornelius, The Iconography of the Canaanite Gods Reshef and Baʿal: Late Bronze and Iron Age I Periods [ca. 1500–1000 bce]; and Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context.” Biblical Archaeology Review 23/3 (1997): 46–51, 68–69. http://www.bib-arch.org/barmj97/picturing.html.  6. “From Storm God to Abstract Being: How the Deity Became More Distant from Exodus to Deuteronomy.” Bible Review 14/5 (1998): 40–47. [Winner of “Best of Bible Review” award]. http://www.bib-arch.org/bro98/storm.html.

xxxiv

Publications of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz

 7. “Wish Upon a Stone: Discovering the Idolatry of the even maskit.” Bible Review 15/5 (1999): 30–33, 51. [Winner of “Best of Bible Review” award]. http://www.bib-arch.org/ bro99/stone.html  8. “Review of Olof Pedersen, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 bc.” Archaeology Odyssey 3/1 (2000): 56–57. http://www.bib-arch.org/aojf00/reviews.html.  9. “Kevod Yhwh.” Daf Shevui of Bar-Ilan University for Parashat Pequdey, 11 March 2000, pp. 3–4. [Hebrew]. English version in Parashat Vayaqhel-Pekudei 5761 / March 24, 2001, Parashat Hahodesh. http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Eparasha/vayakhel/hur/html. 10. “Whose Earrings Did Jacob Bury?” Bible Review 17/4 (2001): 31–33, 54. http://www .bib-arch.org/br801/earrings.html. 11. “Review of Jean Bottéro, Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Archaeology Odys­sey 5/4 (2002): 50–51, 53. http://www.archaeologyodyssey.org/bswb_AO/bswbAOReviews.html. 12. “The Golden Calf: Made by Man . . . or God?” Bible Review 20/2 (2004): 28–32, 47. 13. “Review of P. R. S. Moorey, Idols of the People: Miniature Images of Clay in the Ancient Near East.” Biblical Archaeology Review 31/1 (2012): 58–59. 14. “The Genesis of Genesis: Is the Creation Story Babylonian?” Bible Review 21/1 (Twentieth Anniversary Issue; 2005): 37–48, 52–53. 15. “Solomon’s Temple in Context.” Biblical Archaeology Review 37/2 (2011): 46–57.

Other Popular Publications

 1. Herod’s Temple: God’s House and Jewish Spiritual Center. Pamphlet for On the Mountain of the Lord exhibition at Goldman Art Gallery, Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington, May 22–June 19, 1998.

Obituaries

 1. “Obituary for Dan Urman (1945–2004).” Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society Bulletin 22 (2004): 83–85. [Coauthored with S. Dar]  2. “Dan Urman (1945–2004) Studied Synagogues and the Golan.” Biblical Archaeology Review 30/4 (2004): 13.  3. “Obituary for Hayim Tadmor.” American Academy of Jewish Research Obituaries, December 15, 2005. http://www.aajr.org/obituaries.html. [Coauthored with Jeffrey Tigay]  4. “Professor Abraham Malamat (26.1.1922–21.1.2010).” Archiv für Orientfor­ schung 52 (2011): 410–11. [Coauthored with Shmuel Aḥituv]

Internet Publications

 1. “The Epic of Gilgameš, Standard Version, Tablet XI, Lines 8–44, Read by Victor Huro­ wtiz.” SOAS, University of London, voice recording. 2007. http://www.soas.ac.uk/baplar/ recordings/the-epic-of-gilgame-standard-version-tablet-xi-lines-8-44-read-by-victorhurowitz.html.  2. “Quest for the Lost Ark.” Instant video recording of U.K. television documentary, March 14, 2008. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1226682/.  3. “Heaven on Earth: A Tour of Solomon’s Temple through Near Eastern Eyes.” YouTube video and a separate transcription of a U.S. Library of Congress Webcast. June 25, 2012. http:// www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=5568 or https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=8qivc_4-Avor.  4. “King Solomon’s Tablet of Stone.” Transcription of BBC Science and Nature panel discussion/interview. September 14, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio  /programmes/ horizon/solomon_trans.shtml.

English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays

Yitzhak Avishur “The ‘Blessings’ of Reuben (Gen 49:3–4; Deut 33:6; Judg 5:14): Their Historical Background” In my contribution to Marbeh Hokma, the blessings of Reuben in Jacob’s deathbed blessing of his sons (Genesis 49), and in Moses’s farewell blessing of the tribes of Israel (Deuteronomy 33) are treated as texts that describe the tribe of Reuben at a given historical time without any connection whatsoever to the blessings of the other tribes in those two chapters of the Bible and without any connection whatsoever to their present literary framework. The greatness and the importance of Reuben is referred to in the first verse of the blessing of Reuben in Jacob’s deathbed blessing (Gen 49:3) while the decline is reflected in the second verse of this text. I argue that the original text of Moses’s farewell blessing described Reuben at his height, while the present version describes Reuben in the period of his decline. Likewise, the references to Reuben in the Song of Deborah originally referred to Reuben’s days of glory, while the changes that were later introduced reflect the period of Reuben’s decline. Reuben’s preeminence continued into the 11th century b.c.e., as is now clear from the Qumran version of 1 Samuel 11 and from Josephus’s account. Reuben’s war with Ammon and Moab in the 11th century and with the Hagrites in the days of Saul sapped Reuben’s power and depleted Reuben’s population. Apparently, the positive attitude toward Reuben reflected in the reconstructed original versions of Moses’s blessing and the Song of Deborah stem from Israelite temples in Transjordan and from Levitical circles. When, however, the traditions reached the Kingdom of Judah and the Priestly circles in Jerusalem, the negative assessment of Reuben was expressed in order to prepare the way for the ascendancy of the tribe of Judah, leading in turn to legitimizing the Davidic Dynasty and preparing the way for the priests of the House of Zadok, who established the Jerusalem priesthood. Zafrira Ben-Barak “The Episode of Naboth the Jezreelite: A Crucial Clash between Ahab’s Policy and the Patriarchal Tradition” The Naboth episode features the notorious trial of Naboth, which is commonly considered to be a fictitious and slanderous account. In the common interpretation, when Naboth, a citizen of Jezreel, refused to sell his ancestral inheritance to King Ahab, a show trial was held in which Naboth was falsely accused of a mutinous attitude toward the king. As a result of this slander, Naboth was executed and his property confiscated by the crown. In contrast, my essay offers a reanalysis of the narrative that supports a different conclusion. The narrative is a reliable representation of a real court case, which prosecuted

xxxv

xxxvi

English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays

Naboth for a real offense against the king. This new analysis is based not only on the biblical text (1 Kgs 21:1–29; 2 Kgs 9:1–10:27) but also on extrabiblical sources: two trials for treason against the king, one from Egypt and the other from Babylon, as well as on an Assyrian document from the days of Sargon II. In addition, it rests on the rich archaeological finds from D. Ussishkin’s excavation at Tel Jezreel. The new analysis reveals the following true and comprehensive intent of the narrative. A mutiny broke out as a result of Ahab’s policy, which aimed at transforming Jezreel into a central army post facing Aram and the Assyrian forces, while rendering Israelite land an object of trade. The mutiny was led by Naboth, with the participation of the citizens of Jezreel, the army general Jehu, and the prophets led by Elijah. It opposed the royal policy, especially its attempt to obstruct the traditional values of patriarchal control and the Jezreelite way of life. The mutiny was successful inasmuch as the House of Ahab was obliterated. This led to horrible bloodshed and harsh uprisings throughout the kingdom. The uniqueness of the Naboth episode is manifest in two surprising ways. First, it shows the deterioration of the kingdom of Omri and Ahab—a strong military and economic superpower—as the result of internal pressure rather than external military threats. This deterioration ultimately led to its destruction by Aram and Assyria. Second, it underscores the highly exceptional case of a popular uprising against the king. Jehu ben Nimshi, Ahab’s usurper general, became head of state as a result of the mutiny. He was elected by the priests who led the mutiny, and he acted according to their commands. The prophet’s famous verdict, “Have you murdered and also taken possession?” expresses the power of the patriarchal tradition, represented by the prophet. Anyone who aims to compromise the people’s two sacred principles—sanctity of life and sanctity of land—will be obliterated. Jonathan Ben-Dov “Priests and the Cult in the Book of Malachi in the Light of Neo-Babylonian Sources” Among all prophetic books, in fact among all biblical books, Malachi stands out for its critical involvement with the function of the priests. In this book, the priests are admonished for presenting blemished animals for sacrifice and for defiling “God’s table” and “God’s food.” As part of the yearning to restore the former days, the prophet draws an ideal picture of a past priest and rebukes contemporary priests for impairing it. A vision for the future sees an angel enacting a purification of the priests, similar to the purification of the people in Isa 1:21–26. The late Victor Hurowitz offered a preliminary parallel between priests in Malachi and in the vast textual sources about the Babylonian cult in the first millennium b.c.e. This essay seeks to advance the comparison using recent finds about the cult in the Neo-Babylonian period. The paradigms developed at this time remained influential throughout the subsequent history of Mesopotamian cult. A final section of the article suggests connecting Malachi’s criticism of the priests with the paradigms of society-building, which was really their place in the Neo-Babylonian discourse. This may prove helpful in assessing the role of Malachi’s criticism in later Jewish literature, when the criticism of the Hasmonean clan became a cornerstone for various Jewish circles.

English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays

xxxvii

Israel Ephʿal “Towns with Changed Names” The changing of place-names and sometimes also of other geographical features (such as mountains and rivers) usually takes place following the emergence of a new population whose language and/or beliefs and ideas differ from those of the former population. It may also happen at the initiative of the ruling authorities (especially when new rulers assume power). Different names for settlements in border regions testify to a struggle over or at least a claim to the same place by several political or ethnic entities. Changed place-names occur under various circumstances. This essay deals with three occurrences of towns with changed names: in the Assyrian Empire, in the course of the settlement process of the ancient Israelites in their land, and in the state of Israel during its first years. Michael V. Fox “Editing and Authorship in Proverbs 22:17–23:10” The author-editor who composed Prov 22:17–23:11 from passages in the Instruction of Amenemope proceeded in a simple, logical fashion that was appropriate to the medium he used—a scroll. He began early in the book, then literally scrolled through it toward the end. He scrolled backward and forward for varying distances. He did this in five passes or “sweeps,” each time picking up material of interest to him and reshaping it in accordance with his own goals. Reading Prov 22:17–23:11 while tracking the sequence in Amenemope gives one insight into the goals of the author-editor. The details of the revision are described in this essay. The general message comes to light in a double inclusio that approximately brackets the unit, as Prov 23:11 points back to 22:19 and 22:23. These verses call for trust in God the judge and defender of the oppressed. In this way the entire passage, though sometimes considered utilitarian, has a religious message—one that characterizes Amenemope as well. Shalom Eliezer Holtz “A New Reading of Deuteronomy 17:2–7” The division between the protasis and the apodosis of the law in Deut 17:2–7 has implications for the interpretation of the law’s purpose. This essay proposes, in light of inner- and extrabiblical evidence, to divide the law at the beginning of v. 4. Thus, the law mandates, not only “hearing” and “investigation,” but also a formal report on the apostasy. Danʾel Kahn “The Fall of Samaria: Between History and Historiography” The episode of the fall of Samaria has been dealt with in research many times, based on the biblical and Mesopotamian sources, which do not co­incide. It is the purpose of this essay to reinvestigate the stages of the siege, the imprisoning of Hoshea, the last king of the Kingdom of Israel (732/1–724/3 b.c.e.), and the date of the conquest of Samaria. I contend that a closer look at the composition of 2 Kgs 17:3–6 may shed light on these events.

xxxviii

English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays

Rimon Kasher “Between Men and God in the Hebrew Bible: On Seeing, Self-Restraint, and Loyalty” Avigdor once asked, “What is an ilu?” In this essay, I try to answer his question—if only partially. Biblical literature contains explicit distinctions between human beings and God, such as: “God is not man to be capricious, or mortal to change his mind” (Num 23:19); “For the Egyptians are man, not God” (Isa 31:3); and “Have you an arm like God’s?” (Job 40:9). In this article, I focus on two qualities that distinguish God and human beings: (1) the special ability of God to see, based on the following passages: “For not as man sees [LXX + “does the Lord see”]; man sees only what is visible, but the Lord sees into the heart” (1 Sam 16:7); “Do you have the eyes of flesh? Is your vision that of mere men?” (Job 10:4); and Job 28; and (2) the self-restraint and loyalty of God, based on Hos 11:9: “I will not act on My wrath, / Will not turn to destroy Ephraim. / For I am God, not man.” These topics are examined not only according to the immediate contexts of the above mentioned verses, but also against the background of Biblical literature as a whole. Orly Keren and Hagit Taragan “Here Today and Gone Tomorrow: The Story of Merab, the Daughter of Saul” Merab, Saul’s older daughter, is first mentioned in the genealogy of the royal family: “Saul’s sons were: Jonathan, Ishbi, and Malchishua; and the names of his two daughters were Merab, the older, and Michal, the younger” (1 Sam 14:49). Merab’s name returns only twice after that, in the short episode of her proposed betrothal to David in 1 Sam 18:17–19. Merab’s fleeting appearance here may lead us to wonder about her life and character. At first, she is presented as a princess and potential bride for David, the heroic warrior; in the end, she is the wife of Adriel, the Meholathite. Merab, present yet absent, is not the only character in this scene. Also involved are the two men who in reality govern her destiny: Saul and David. Hovering above the voices of these two men, as they haggle over her fate, is Merab’s silence, a silence that was not broken even when “she was given in marriage to Adriel the Meholathite” (1 Sam 18:19). Merab is just one more item on the list of conditions that Saul proposes to David in their dialogue; however, Saul intends this condition to be a death-trap for him. Nowhere in this proposal of marriage is there any reference to her feelings or emotions. Both Merab and her husband, Adriel, are enveloped in silence, ostensibly uninvolved in the events linked to the House of Saul. This essay examines the figure of Merab, daughter of Saul and wife of Adriel, the Meholathite. At the core of the discussion are questions about her place in the story and even the need for her to appear in it. Jordan S. Penkower “The Corrections by Rashi to His Commentary on Hosea” In this essay, I analyze 13 hagahot (corrections or additions) to Rashi’s commentary on Hosea that are found in the manuscripts. The majority of them are found in the printed editions. However, there is no indication in the printed editions that they are hagahot. In four of the hagahot, there are notes in the manuscripts ascribing them

English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays

xxxix

to Rashi: two notes in the text, one note in the margin, and one note partially reconstructed. In 9 hagahot, there are no notes ascribing them to Rashi. Nevertheless, based on an analysis of the manuscripts, there is room to conjecture that these hagahot also originated with Rashi. An examination of 46 manuscripts shows that the evidence in the manuscripts with respect to the hagahot can be divided into three basic types: 1.  Some of the manuscripts present one opinion (original), and some of the manuscripts present an alternate (corrected) opinion, replacing the original. The majority of manuscripts belong to these two groups, and each group constitutes a substantial percentage of the manuscripts.

2.  Some of the manuscripts present one opinion (original), and some of the manuscripts present the original opinion as well as an additional opinion; the additional opinion begins with the heading ‫א = דבר‬′′‫ד‬ ‫אחר‬, “another opinion.” The majority of manuscripts belong to these two groups, and each group constitutes a substantial percentage of the manuscripts. One should emphasize that the heading ‫א‬′′‫ ד‬does not necessarily present a later correction in Rashi’s commentary; it is possible that we have a second opinion that was part of the original commentary. However, when the manuscripts divide into two groups, each group represents a substantial percentage of the manuscripts, in one group ‫א‬′′‫ ד‬is missing, and in the other group ‫א‬′′‫ ד‬is present—then, one may assume that ‫א‬′′‫ ד‬is the heading of a hagahah. 3.  Some of the manuscripts provide no explanation for a given word or expression, and some of the manuscripts present a new explanation but the new explanation is not preceded by the heading ‫א‬′′‫( ד‬because the word or expression was never explained in the original commentary). The majority of manuscripts belong to these two groups, and each group represents a substantial percentage of the manuscripts.

In all of the above three types, I must emphasize, the manuscripts can be divided into two main groups, with each group constituting a substantial percentage of the manuscripts. These conditions increase the probability that the particular case is a hagahah by Rashi himself. In other words, it is not likely that an anonymous hagahah would appear in a large group of manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary. On the contrary, a hagahah that is not by Rashi would only be likely to appear in a small minority of the manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary. For example, the hagahah by R. Joseph Qara in example 11 appears in only 3 manuscripts (7%) while Rashi’s own hagahah there (with respect to the source of derashah: Midr. Tanḥuma) appears in 51% of the manuscripts. I should also emphasize, however, that if there is a hagahah in the manuscripts and there is also an explicit note ascribing it to Rashi, then, even if the hagahah is found in only a small number of manuscripts, one should rely on the evidence and ascribe the hagahah to Rashi. Only in cases where there is no ascription should one look for a substantial percentage of manuscripts in order to ascribe the hagahah to Rashi (based on the three types noted above).

xl

English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays

Thus, the printed editions do not accurately reflect the hagahot of Rashi to his commentary on Hosea. Even though the majority of the hagahot in Rashi’s commentary on Hosea are found in the printed editions, there is no note that these are hagahot. Furthermore, in two cases (examples 7 and 10), the printed text reflects a complex combination of the original text and the corrected text, without any consecutive order. In all of these cases, only an examination of the manuscripts reveals what was the original commentary and what was the corrected version. Alexander Rofé “The Justification of the Lord’s Verdict: Textual and Literary Interventions in Samuel and Kings” The justification for God’s punishments and the confession of Israel’s sins are a feature of late orations in Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and the Qumran writings. The same feature can be found in the book of Chronicles, which often explains the ill fortune of Judean kings as a consequence of their previous sins. Evidently, the outlook of late biblical writers was dominated by theodicy. Thus, one finds late textual corrections motivated by this tendency in the earlier historical books. In MT 1 Sam 14:47, a verb relating that Saul triumphed everywhere was corrected to say that he sinned everywhere. In this way, Saul’s persistent sins explain his terrible end. In MT 1 Sam 2:22, adultery was attributed to the sons of Eli in order to justify their subsequent death and the capture of the ark by the Philistines. Bordering on textual criticism is a case of interpolation in 1 Kings 22: verses 17–18 were added to the exchange between the prophet Micaiah and King Ahab in order to depict the king as an unfaithful shepherd, thus justifying the Lord’s enticement of Ahab to his fall in Ramoth-gilead. Nili Shupak “‘An Abomination to the Egyptians’: New Light on an Old Problem” The phrase “abomination to the Egyptians” appears a total of three times in the Hebrew Bible—all three instances in narrative texts (Gen 43:32, 46:34; Exod 8:26). Its meaning is disputed, and it is rendered in various ways—none of which takes into account the numerous recent studies examining the sense and usage of the parallel Egyptian term bwt. In this essay, I seek to identify the nature of the activity or entity referred to by the biblical author, by comparing it with these new findings. I also analyze the relevant information provided in Egyptian sources regarding early Egyptian eating customs and attitudes toward domesticated animals. Opening with a discussion of biblical interpretation, I then review the relevant Egyptian material and compare it with the biblical texts, concluding with a presentation of the findings. The Egyptian evidence, complemented by classical sources, indicates that the “abomination to the Egyptians” refers to the lamb—a meaning appropriate to all three of the biblical occurrences of the phrase of which it forms a part. The lamb is consumed by the Israelites and sacrificed as an offering to their God—acts that were offensive to the Egyptians who, in worshiping it, refrained from eating it. Thus, another case is added to the many other biblical hermeneutical cruxes that cannot be solved on the basis of intrabiblical interpretation alone but require knowledge of ancient Near Eastern culture to illuminate their meaning. In this example, literary, artistic, and material findings attest ancient Egyptian practices, ordinances, and beliefs that serve to explain the meaning of the biblical phrase.

English Abstracts of the Hebrew Essays

xli

Zipora Talshir “Repeated Passages and Their Significance for the Composition of the Deuteronomistic and Chronistic Historiographies” Processes of composition, redaction, and transmission apparent in the Hebrew Bible display a variety of devices, one of which is highlighted in this essay. I refer to the repetition of entire passages. Authors, redactors, compilers, and tradents repeat short and even long passages in order to draw borders between units, signal connections between separate compositions, and open or close circles in the course of the narratives they design. These repetitions are of different qualities and are not limited to particular stages in the history of a work. They occur within the Deuteronomistic History and beyond, in the edition of the book of Kings as preserved in the Septuagint, as well as in the larger scope of the Former and Latter Prophets. They stand out also in the Chronistic History, unmistakably joining together Ezra and Nehemiah, on the one hand, and Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles, on the other. I maintain that the repeated passages offer significant evidence regarding the very existence of these large frameworks. Nili Wazana “Wordplays in the Visions of Amos” Amos 7:1–9 and 8:1–3 present a series of four connected visions, arranged in two pairs: two self-explanatory dynamic visions, followed by two static pictures elucidated by God. The text abounds in textual difficulties: hapax legomena, unusual syntax, and the unconventional use of particles in the given context, leading to many suggestions for emendation. I argue that the use of antanaclasis (namely, repetition of the same word with a different meaning) and other forms of wordplay can provide a key to deciphering the formulations and meanings of these visions. Amos’s impressive command of poetic devices building on double entendre is particularly suited to the presentation of the visions in pairs in order to reinforce the prophetic message. Jonathan Yogev and Shamir Yona

“The Alleged Dependence of the Abraham Narratives in Genesis on the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat” From the time that they were discovered beginning in 1929, the Ugaritic texts have attracted a great deal of attention from biblical scholars because of the similarity between biblical literature and Ugaritic literature with respect to language, literary style, literary motifs, references to a shared mythology, and more. This essay reexamines the repeated claim that the patriarchal narratives in the book of Genesis are dependent on the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat. We present the arguments in favor of the claim that the biblical authors knew, to some extent, the story of Aqhat and his father, Danilu. Then we examine the motifs that are shared by the patriarchal narratives and the Epic of Aqhat in light of the history of research concerning this topic. Next, we show that these particular motifs are also shared by other biblical texts and by other literatures from the ancient Near East, Greece, Rome, the Hittites, Ugarit, and ancient Egypt. We conclude that there is no direct dependence of the patriarchal narratives in Genesis on Aqhat. Rather, we show that the common motifs can be accounted for by the similarities among cultures in the Mediterranean world in antiquity.

Abbreviations

General A. Akk. ANE Aram. b. BH ED Ee ET fem. Gen. Rab. Heb. jb kjv LBH LXX m. MB Midr. mng. MT nab nasb neb niv njb njps nrsv n.s. OB

Siglum for cuneiform tablet from Mari Akkadian ancient Near East Aramaic Babylonian Talmud Biblical Hebrew Early Dynastic period Enuma Elish English translation feminine Genesis Rabbah Hebrew Jerusalem Bible King James Version Late Biblical Hebrew Septuagint Mishnah Middle Babylonian Midrash meaning Masoretic Text New American Bible New American Standard Bible New English Bible New International Version New Jerusalem Bible New Jewish Publication Society Version New Revised Standard Version new series Old Babylonian

obv.

obverse

xlii

Abbreviations

Om. pl. Q reb rev. rsv rv SB SP Sum. t. TH Tg. Ug. var. WS y.

Omits plate; plural Qumran Cave number Revised English Bible reverse Revised Standard Version Revised Version Standard Babylonian Sumerian Proverbs; Samaritan Pentateuch Sumerian Tosefta siglum for cuneiform tablet from Mari targum Ugaritic variant West Semitic Yerushalmi, i.e., Jerusalem Talmud

Museum Sigla A AO BM Bogh1

CA, CB CBS CTMMA EA Geers Heft IM K. M. MLC RS Sm. UM VAT YBC

tablets in the collections of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago tablets in the collections of the Musée du Louvre tablets in the collections of the British Museum siglum of texts from Boghazköy sigla for Gudea’s Cylinder Inscriptions tablets in the collections of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art El Amarna text siglum unpublished copies of tablets in the British Museum by F. Geers tablets in the Iraq Museum tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum siglum of the Mari cuneiform tablets Morgan Library Collection sigum of texts from Ras Shamra siglum of tablets in the British Museum University Museum, Philadelphia siglum of tablets in the Vorderasiatsches Museum Yale Babylonian Collection

xliii

xliv

Abbreviations

Reference Works AAA AAAS AB AbB ABD ABIM ABL

ADPV AEAD AEM AfO AfOB AHw AJA AJSL AKA ALASP ALCBH AMT ANEP ANET AnOr AOAT AoF AOTC ARAB ARM ArOr AS ATD

Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes Anchor Bible Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung D. N. Freedman et al., eds. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1992 A. al-Zeebari. “Altbabylonische Briefe des Iraq Museums.” Ph.D. dissertation. Münster, 1964 R. F. Harper, ed. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collections of the British Museum. 14 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1892–1914 Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Simo Parpola. Assyrian-English-Assyrian Dictionary. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 2007 Jean-Marie Durand. Archives épistolaires de Mari. 2 vols. ARM 26. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1988 Archiv für Orientforschung Archiv für Orientforschung: Beiheft W. von Soden. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1965–81 American Journal of Archaeology

American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature E. A. Wallis Budge and L. W. King. Annals of the Kings of Assyria. London: Longmans, 1902 Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens Hayim ben Yosef Tawil. An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV, 2009 R. C. Thompson. Assyrian Medical Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923 James Pritchard, ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994 James Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Analecta Orientalia Alter Orient und Altes Testament Altorientalische Forschungen Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries David Daniel Luckenbill. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926–27 Archives royales de Mari Archiv Orientální Assyriological Studies Das Alte Testament Deutsch

Abbreviations

xlv

AuOr AYB BA BaghM BaghM Beih. BAM

Aula Orientalis Anchor Yale Bible Biblical Archaeologist Baghdader Mitteilungen Baghdader Mitteilungen Beiheft F. Köcher. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963– BAR Biblical Archaeology Review BAR Int. Series British Archaeological Reports International Series BASOR BASORSup BBR BBR BBRSup BBVO BCSMS BDB BETL BHL BHQ BHS Bib BibInt BibInt BibOr BIN BJS BJSUCSD  BKAT BN BO BSOAS BWANT BWL BzA BZAW CAD

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Supplements H. Zimmern. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion. 3 vols. Leipzig: Hinrichs,1896–1901 Bulletin for Biblical Research Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderer Orient Texte Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Harold R. (Chaim) Cohen. Biblical Hapax Legomena in the Light of Akkadian and Ugaritic. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978 Biblia Hebraica Quinta K. Elliger and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983 Biblica Biblical Interpretation Biblical Interpretation Series Biblica et Orientalia Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies Brown Judaic Studies Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Orientalis Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament W. G. Lambert. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960 Beiträge zur Assyriologie Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. 21 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956–2010

xlvi

CAH CANE CB CBC CBQ CBR CDA CDOG CHANE CHD

ChS CM CMAwR COS CPU CRAIBL CRRAI CT CTH CTMMA CTN 3 DCH DCCLT

DEUAT DJD DJPA DNWSI DOG DULAT

Abbreviations

Cambridge Ancient History. 14 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 J. Sasson, ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York: Scribner, 1995 Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Cambridge Bible Commentary Catholic Biblical Quarterly Currents in Biblical Research Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate, eds. A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999 Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Culture and History of the Ancient Near East H. G. Güterbock, H. A. Hoffner Jr., and Theo P. J. van den Hout., eds. The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980– Corpus der hurritischen Sprachdenkmäler. Rome: Multigrafica, 1984– Cuneiform Monographs T. Abusch and D. Schwemer. Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Rituals. Leiden: Brill, 2010 William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2002 Jesús-Luis Cunchillos, and Juan-Pablo Vita. Concordancia de Palabras Ugaríticas en morfología desplegada. Madrid: CSIC, 1995 Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres  Compte rendu de la Recontre Assyriologique Internationale Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum E. Laroche. Catalogue des textes hittites. Paris: Klincksieck, 1971 Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York S. Dalley and J. N. Postgate. The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser. Cuneifrom Texts from Nimrud 3. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1984 D. J. A. Clines, ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic and Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2014 Digital Corpus of Cuneiform Lexical Texts. Directed by Niek Veldhuis of the University of California at Berkeley, 2003–. http://psd.museum.upenn.edu/ dcclt Aicha Rahmouni. Divine Epithets in the Ugaritic Alphabetic Texts. Translated by J. N. Ford. HO. Leiden: Brill, 2008 Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Michael Sokoloff. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 2nd ed. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002 Jacob Hoftijzer and Karen Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1995 Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartin. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 2003

Abbreviations

EM EncJud EPE

ePSD ErIsr ETCSL ExpTim FAOS FAT FB Flandin 1849 FM FOTL FRLANT Ges18

GKC GLH HALAT HALOT

HALOT 2001, 2002 HAR HKAT HO HS HSAO HSM HSS HTKAT HTR HUCA IBoT IBT

xlvii

Encyclopaedia Miqraʾit (Encyclopedia Biblica). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1950–88 [Heb.] C. Roth et al., eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 16 vols. Jerusalem: Keter, 1972 Bezalel Porten with J. Joel Farber et al. The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change. Documenta et monumenta Orientis antiqui 22. Leiden: Brill, 1996 psd.museum.upenn.edu/epsd/nepsd-frame.html Eretz-Israel Jeremy Black et al., eds. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature. http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk Expository Times Freiburger Altorientalische Studien Forschungen zum Alten Testament Forschung zur Bibel Paul E. Botta and Eugène Flandin. Monument de Ninive, vol. 1/2: Architecture et Sculpture. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849 Florilegium Marianum Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Wilhelm Gesenius. Hebräisches und Aramäisches Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament. 18th ed. Edited by Rudolph Meyer and Herbert Donner. Berlin: Springer, 1987–2010 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 2nd ed. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910 E. Laroche. Glossaire de la langue hourrite. Paris, 1976–77 Ludwig Koehler et al., eds. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1967–95 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm et al. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and ed. M. E. J. Richardson. 5 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1994–2000 L. Koehler et al. Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Vols. 1–5 on CD-ROM. Leiden: Brill, 2001 (Windows), 2002 (Mac) Hebrew Annual Review Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Handbuch der Orientalistik Hebrew Studies Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Studies Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzelerinde Bulunan Boğazköy Tabletleri Interpreting Biblical Texts

xlviii ICC IDB IEJ IOS Jacobsen, Harps That Once . . . JANER JANES JAOS JBL JCS JEOL JESHO JNES Joüon-Muraoka JPOS JQR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAI KAR KAT KAV KB KBo KHAT KHC KTU

KUB KUSATU LAPO 16–18

Abbreviations

International Critical Commentary G. A. Butrick, ed. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962 Israel Exploration Journal Israel Oriental Studies Thorkild Jacobsen, ed. and trans. The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987 Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Cuneiform Studies Jaarbericht ex Oriente Lux Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Journal of Near Eastern Studies P. A. Joüon. Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Trans. and rev. T. Muraoka. 2 vols. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1991 Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplements Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies H. Donner and W. Röllig, eds. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 3 vols. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, 1966–69. 5th ed., 2002– Erich Ebeling, ed. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1919–23 Kommentar zum Alten Testament Otto Schröder, ed. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1920 E. Schrader, ed. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek. 6 vols. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1889–1915 Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi

Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartin, eds. Die Keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. AOAT 24. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976 Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi Kleine Untersuchungen zur Sprache des Alten Testaments und Seiner Umwelt Jean-Marie Durand. Documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. Vols. 1–3. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 16–18. Paris: Cerf, 1997–2000

Abbreviations

LAS LCL LHBOTS LKK LKU Mandl MARI MC MDOG MDP MHH MSL NABU NCB NEAEHL

NH NIBC NICOT NPN OBO OBT OECT OIP OIS OLA OLP Or OTL Parker, UNP PEFQS PEQ PG PL PNA

xlix

S. Parpola. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. 2 vols. AOAT 5. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1970–83 Loeb Classical Library Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies H. L. Ginsberg. The Legend of King Keret. BASORSup 2–3. New Haven, CT: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1946 A. Falkenstein. Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk. Berlin: Vorderasiatische Abteilung der Staatlichen Museen, 1931 S. Mandelkern. Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atque chaldaicae. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sepher, 1967 Mari: Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires Mesopotamian Civilizations Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse Menaḥem Zevi Kaddari. A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew. Ramat-Gan: BarIlan University Press, 2006 Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon Nouvelles assyriologiques breves et utilitaires New Century Bible Ephraim Stern, ed. New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993 E. Laroche. Les noms des hittites. Paris: Klincksieck, 1966 New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the Old Testament I. J. Gelb, P. A. Purves, and A. A. MacRae. Nuzi Personal Names. OIP 57. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943 Orbis biblicus et orientalis Overtures to Biblical Theology Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Oriental Institute Publications Oriental Institute Seminars Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Orientalia Old Testament Library S. Parker, ed. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Translated Mark S. Smith. SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997 Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina H. D. Baker and K. Radner. The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. 3 vols. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1998–2011

l

PSBA PSD

PTMS R. RA RB RCU RGTC RIH RIMA RIMB RIME RINAP RlA RTU SAA SA 1

SAAB SAACT SAAS SAOC SBH SBLDS SBLEJL SBLMS SBLSymS SBLWAW ScrHier SED Sem SJOT SK SMEA SMSR

Abbreviations

Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology Åke W. Sjöberg et al., eds. The Sumerian Dictionary of the University Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Babylonian Section of the University Museum, 1984– Princeton Theological Monograph Series H. C. Rawlinson, ed. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia. 5 vols. London: Published by the author, 1861–1909 Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archaéologie orientale Revue biblique Dennis Pardee. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. SBLWAW. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002 Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes Dennis Pardee. Les textes rituels. 2 vols. Ras Shamra-Ougarit 12. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 2000 The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Babylonian Periods The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1928– Nicholas Wyatt. Religious Texts from Ugarit. Biblical Seminar. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998 State Archives of Assyria Jesper Eidem and Jørgen Læssøe. The Shemshāra Archives, vol. 1: The Letters. 2 vols. Historisk filosofiske Skrifter 23. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 1992–2001 State Archives of Assyria Bulletin State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts State Archives of Assyria Studies

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization G. A. Reisner. Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafelen griechischer Zeit. Berlin: Speman, 1896 Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Scripta Hierosolymitana Alexander Militarev and Leonid Kogan. Semitic Etymological Dictionary. AOAT. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000–2005 Semitica Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Sumerische Kultlyrik Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni

Abbreviations

SpTU SSN StOr SubBi TAD

TAPS TCL TDOT

li

Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk Studia Semitica Neerlandica Studia Orientalia Subsidia Biblica Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, eds. Textbook of Aramaic Documents. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Department of the History of Israel, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1986–99 [Hebrew] Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Textes cuneiforms du Louvre G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, trans. J. T. Willis et al. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,

1974–2006 TDP TOTC TSSI TUAT UAVA UBC 2 UET UF UT

R. Labat. Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux. 2 vols. Paris: Académie internationale d’histoire des sciences, 1951 Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries John C. L. Gibson. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. London: Oxford University Press, 1971–82 Otto Kaiser, ed. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1984– Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie M. S. Smith and W. T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 2. VTSup 114. Leiden: Brill, 2009 Ur Excavations: Texts. 9 vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, 1928– Ugarit-Forschungen Cyrus H. Gordon. Ugaritic Textbook. AnOr 38. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965 Vorderasiatiche Bibliothek Vorderasiatische Abteilung Tontafel. Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Die Welt des Orients Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

VAB VAT VT VTSup WBC WMANT WO YOS ZA ZABR

Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte

ZAH ZAW ZDMG ZDPV

Zeitschrift für Althebraistik Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins

Maqlû Tablet II: Its Literary Frame and Formation

Tzvi Abusch Maqlû, “Burning,” is the longest and most important Mesopotamian text concerned with combating witchcraft. 1 Maqlû comprises eight incantation tablets in which the text of almost 100 incantations is recorded and a ritual tablet in which the incantations are cited by incipit together with appropriate ritual directions. The present form of Maqlû seems to be a creation of the early first millennium b.c.e. This standard lengthy text developed from an earlier short form by means of a series of sequential changes. Among the latest additions to the series is Tablet II. 2 Author’s note:  I first met Avigdor Hurowitz when he served as my assistant in Jerusalem in 1973–74; since then I have been honored to watch Avigdor grow into a superb scholar of Bible and Assyriology. I hope that my advice to Avigdor over the years has generally been good, but I have been especially delighted to discover how misplaced my concern regarding his interest in comparative studies was: his work serves as proof of the productive results that his approach to comparative studies of the Bible and Mesopotamia can achieve and as an example and standard of excellence for future work. It was a real pleasure to write this study in honor of Professor Avigdor Hurowitz, and now, with great sadness, I rededicate it to his memory. Yehi zikhro barukh! I am grateful to my student Bronson Brown-deVost for reading several drafts of this paper and for his helpful suggestions. 1.  I cite the text (and line count) of Maqlû from my forthcoming edition. For a translation, see T. Abusch and D. Schwemer, “Das Abwehrzauberritual Maqlû (‘Verbrennung’),” in Omina, Orakel, Rituale und Beschwörungen, ed. B. Janowski and G. Wilhelm, TUAT n.s. 4 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 2008), 128–86. 2.  For the nature of Maqlû and its calendrical setting, see my “Mesopotamian Antiwitchcraft Literature: Texts and Studies, Part I—The Nature of Maqlû: Its Character, Divisions, and Calendrical Setting,” JNES 33 (1974): 251–62 = Abusch, Mesopotamian Witchcraft: Toward a History and Understanding of Babylonian Witchcraft Beliefs, Ancient Magic and Divination 5 (Leiden: Brill / Styx, 2002), 99–111. For the historical development of Maqlû, see especially my “Early Form of the Witchcraft Ritual Maqlû and the Origin of a Babylonian Magical Ceremony,” in Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T. Abusch et al., HSS 37 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 1–57 = Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 113–62; and idem, “Ritual Tablet

1

2

Tzvi Abusch

The purpose of this essay is to point to the existence of a literary frame in the first and last incantations of Tablet II that encircles the tablet and gives it form, to study the formation of these incantations and of the frame, and to examine some of the compositional implications suggested by these two incantations and the frame that they embody. Frame The incantations recited and ritual acts performed in Maqlû II center on burning representations of the witch. Some of the incantations are addressed directly to the god Nuska (1–17) and to the fire-god Girra (19–75; 77–103; 105–25; 127–34; 136–48); all the others, with one exception (150–59), 3 contain descriptions of burning and requests to Girra to burn the witches (181; 191–92, 201–3; 218–24). The tablet opens with an address to Nuska (1–17) and concludes with an incantation (205–25) in which demons, gods, and Girra, the god of fire, are invoked against the witch. Actually, these two incantations contain a literary frame around Tablet II, thus presenting the tablet as a ritual or liturgical unit. 4 The frame is evident from and made explicit by the final three lines of each of the two incantations, for they are nearly identical with each other: 5 15 qumi kaššāpī u kaššāptī 16 ša kaššāpiya u kaššāptiya [a]rḫiš ḫanṭiš napištašunu liblēma 17 yâši bulliṭannima narbîka lušāpi dalīlīka ludlul (var.: + én) 15 Burn my warlock and my witch, and Rubrics of Maqlû: Toward the History of the Series,” in Ah, Assyria . . . : Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, ed. M. Cogan and I. Ephʿal, Scripta Hierosolymitana 33 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 233–53 = Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 163–83. For Tablet II as a late addition, see my “Ritual Tablet and Rubrics,” 233–53 = Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 163–83. 3.  But note that the rubric (II 160) and the corresponding ritual instructions (Ritual Tablet 38′) of this incantation are similar to those of the other incantations and center on burning a representation of the witch. 4.  I earlier noted the existence of a frame in “Early Form,” 29 n. 50 = Abusch, Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 138 n. 50. 5.  The variations between the two sets of lines include: the presence of kaššāpī u kaššāptī in line 15, but the absence of kaššāpī in line 223 (but note the occurrence of both kaššāpī and kaššāptī in line 224) and concurrently the occurrence of two additional imperatives for burning, qulî ḫummiṭī, in line 223 (thus kaššāpī may have been deleted to maintain the poetic line length). There are some internal variants for lines 223–25: namely, the transposition of arḫiš ḫanṭiš and kaššāpiya u kaššāptiya in BM 38010 obv., which contains only an excerpt of Tablet II, and the accidental omission of lušāpi dalīlīka in BM 44144 rev.; but these are insignificant for the recognition of the frame. For a discussion of the variants, see below, n. 11.

Maqlû Tablet II

3

16 May the lives of my warlock and my witch quickly and speedily be extinguished,a 17 Thereby save me myself so that I may declare your great deeds and sing your praises. 223 ka[ššāpt]ī qumî qulî ḫumm[iṭī] 224 arḫiš ḫanṭiš ša kaššāpiya u ka[ššāptiya] (var.: [ša kaššāpiya u kaššāptiy]a arḫiš ḫanṭiš) napištašunu li[blēma] 225 yâši bulliṭannima narbîka lušāpi [d]alīlīka ludlul [t]u6 én 223 Burn, scorch, burn up my witch. 224 Quickly and speedily, may the lives of my warlock and my witch be extinguished, 225 Thereby save me myself so that I may declare your great deeds and sing your praises. tu6 én

a.  A more rigid translation of lines 16 and 224 is: “. . . of my warlock and my witch, . . . may their lives be extinguished.”

Lines 15–17 and 223–25 of the first and last incantations of Tablet II are a framing device; they define the tablet as a liturgical and ritual entity. That a Maqlû tablet may form a ritual or literary entity (rather than simply being a scribal division) is already evident from a rather unique notice in the Ritual Tablet. Following the incipits and ritual instructions for Tablet VI (Ritual Tablet 96ʹ–123′), lines 124ʹ–26′ read: 124ʹ qutārī ša én (var.: omitted) dEnlil qaqqadī 125ʹ mala ana (var.: ina) riksī šaṭrū 126ʹ ištēniš taballalma tuqattaršu én dEnlil qaqqadī imannu 124ʹ The fumigants for the Incantation(-tablet): “Enlil is my head,” 125ʹ as many as are prescribed for the ritual arrangements, 126ʹ you mix together and fumigate him. He recites the Incantation(-tablet): “Enlil is my head.”

én dEnlil qaqqadī refers not simply to the opening incantation of Tablet VI but to the whole tablet. Here, Tablet VI, cited by the opening words of its opening incantation, is treated as a ritual entity. (We return to the incantation dEnlil qaqqadī [VI 1–15] again below.) Formation of Incantations and Frame Thus it is not particularly surprising that Tablet II is more than just a scribal division. But while lines 15–17 and 223–25 do create a frame around the tablet,

4

Tzvi Abusch

this frame does not seem to be original, for neither set of lines seems wholly original to its incantation. Accordingly, we must examine the first (1–17) and last (205–25) incantations in Tablet II to illustrate how neither set is wholly integrated within its incantation (that is, that the lines in their present form do not fully fit the incantations in which they are embedded) and to see how the sets were actually formed. We shall examine each incantation in turn, beginning with the opening one, and then sum up some of our results. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

én dNuska šurbû mālik ilī rabû[ti] pāqid nindab[ê] ša kala dIgīg[ī] mukīn māḫāzī muddišu parakkī ūmu namru ša qibīssu ṣīrat sukkal dAni šēmû pirišti dEnlil šēmû dEnlil māliku šadû dIgīgī gašru tāḫāzu ša tībušu dannu d Nuska āriru mušabriq zayyāri ina balika ul iššakkan naptanu ina Ekur ina balika ilū rabûtu ul iṣṣinū qutrinnu ina balika dŠamaš dayyānu ul idâni dīnu ḫāsis šumeka teṭṭer ina dannati tagammil ina pušqi anāku aradka annanna mār annanna ša ilšu annanna dištaršu annannītu asḫurka ešēka bašâ (var.: bašâka) uznāya šapalka akmis qumi kaššāpī u kaššāptī ša kaššāpiya u kaššāptiya [a]rḫiš ḫanṭiš napištašunu liblēma yâši bulliṭannima narbîka lušāpi dalīlīka ludlul (var.: + én) Incantation. O Grand Nuska, counselor of the great gods, Provider of cereal offerings to all the Igigi, Establisher of sanctuaries, renewer of shrines, Radiant light, whose command is preeminent, Minister of Anu, confidant of Enlil,a The one who listens to Enlil, (who is) the counselor, (and) the mountain of the Igigi,b Powerful battle, whose onslaught is overwhelming, Blazing Nuska, who strikes down the enemy with lighting. Without you a meal would not be set out in Ekur, Without you the great gods would not smell incense, Without you Šamaš, the judge, would not render judgment. He who mentionsc your name you rescue from hardship, you save from distress.

Maqlû Tablet II

5

13 I, your servant, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, whose god is so-and-so, whose goddess is so-and-so. 14 I turn to you, I seek you, my ears are directed to you, I kneel at your feet. 15 Burn my warlock and my witch, 16 May the lives of my warlock and my witch quickly and speedily be extinguished, 17 Thereby save me myself so that I may declare your great deeds and sing your praises. a.  Lit., “who hears the secret of Enlil.” b.  The text has māliku šadû dIgigī, which translates literally, “the counselor, the mountain of the Igigi,” and seems to refer to Nuska. But sense suggests that šadû refers to Enlil and māliku to Nuska, resulting in the translation “Nuska . . . , the counselor of the mountain of the Igigi” and the emendation māliku šadî dIgigī. However, the full title, māliku šadû dIgigī, appears in this form in Abusch and Schwemer, CMAwR vol. 1, text 8.13, line 27 (p. 366), where it clearly refers to Enlil (cf. p. 371). Accordingly, the title is a frozen form, and our line should probably be translated “the one who listens to Enlil, (who is) the counselor, (and) the mountain of the Igigi.” Compare with II 137: “Offspring of the pure one, the exalted Šalaš.” c.  Perhaps, better: “He who calls your name.”

This Nuska incantation is a typical incantation of the šuilla type. Lines 1–12 form a hymnic introduction. In lines 13–14, the speaker identifies himself and states that he is seeking the god and presenting himself before him. In lines 15–16, he asks the god to destroy the witch. The last line (17) contains an ending common to many general and specific šuillas: a promise of praise, should the god save the petitioner. Actually, lines 15–16 do not fit with the rest of the incantation and belong to a different register, for besides the request of the god to consume the witch in these two lines, no mention has been made of the witch or of her actions against or effects on the speaker. Rather, the incantation focuses on Nuska: it presents a description of his qualities and roles among the gods of Ekur and ends on a promise of future praise. On the face of it, the mention of witchcraft is a secondary feature of the text. 6 The incantation dNuska šurbû (II 1–17) was originally not concerned with witchcraft and made no mention of it. It was addressed to Nuska, who originally was not a god of destruction but, rather, a god of light. But when the incantation was introduced into Maqlû, it was adapted to the concerns of witchcraft and ritual destruction by fire. This was accomplished by introducing an approximate imitation of lines 223–24 between lines 14 and 17. Lines 15– 16 // 223–24 surely state very succinctly and expressively the central themes of this section of Maqlû. 6.  If the source of the incantation was not simply a matrix, it is possible that another evil was mentioned in the text.

6

Tzvi Abusch

The repetition of lines 223–24 in the newly adapted opening incantation as lines 15–16 certainly contributed significantly to the creation of the frame and the articulation of the tablet as a ritual and liturgical entity. But for the frame to be fully formed, the last incantation also had to be changed and an imitation in the reverse direction was necessary. This was necessary since lines 223–24 originally formed the end of the final incantation and of the tablet. Thus, in order that the two incantations might end in the same way, the redactor had to draw upon the first incantation and append its last line (17) to the end of the final incantation (225). In order to understand the original context of lines 223–24 and to see how the last line of the frame 17 // 225 was formed, we must examine the final incantation of the tablet. Accordingly, we now turn to lines 205–25. They read: 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

én attīmannu a kaššāptu ša tubtanaʾʾînni b ana lemutti tešteneʾʾînni ana lā ṭābti tassanaḫḫurīnni ālki ul īde bītki ul īde šumki ul īde šubatki ul īde c šēdū libaʾʾûki d utukkū lišteʾʾûki eṭemmū lissaḫrūki bennu lā ṭābu eliki limqut rābiṣū lemutti likillū rēški d Lu[gal]i[rra u dMeslamta]ea linārūki [dEnli]l(?)e bēl šīm[āti(?) šumk]i lipšiṭ d [N]in[u]rta lā pādû [lišānk]i(?) lissuḫ [dG]ula azugallatu rabītu l[ē]tki(?) limḫaṣ f d Girr[a] ezzu zumurki liḫmuṭ ut[ū]nu elletu mārat dAni rabītu ša ina lib[b]iša nanḫuzat išat qabri [ina lib]biša dGirra qardu g irmâ [šub]assu [ina] n[apāḫiš]a(?) šamāmī ikšudū nabl[ūša]

a. Var.: att[āmannu]. b.  Thus the citation of the incipit in Ritual Tablet 41 (túb-ta-na-in-ni). The text of Tablet II has túb-ta-ni-⸢in⸣-ni, perhaps: tubtan(a)ʾʾinni. However, since double ʾalep does not allow the phonetic change a + i > î, perhaps the form in Tablet II is the result of syncope of aʾʾ (= tubtanînni). For similar cases of syncope, see M. Luukko, Grammatical Variation in Neo-Assyrian (SAAS 16; Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2004), 122–23. c.  Var.: either line 209 or 210 is absent or omitted. d.  Var.: pronominal suffix -ka instead of -ki in lines 208, 209 (or 210), 211, 213, 214, and 218. e.  Given the Nippur association of the gods in the surrounding lines, it is more than possible that [dx  ] x here should be restored [den.lí]l. f.  Var.: [liš(?)]lup. g.  Var.: qarrādu.

Maqlû Tablet II

7

223 ka[ššāpt]ī qumî qulî ḫumm[iṭī] 224 h- arḫiš ḫanṭiš ša kaššāpiya u ka[ššāptiya] -h napištašunu li[blēma] i 225 yâši bulliṭannima narbîka j- lušāpi [d]alīlīka -j ludlul [t]u6 én 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225

Incantation. Whoever you are, O witch, who keeps seeking me, Who keeps searching for me with evil intent, Who keeps looking for me to no good purpose. I do not know your city, I do not know your house, I do not know your name, I do not know your dwelling. May spirits seek you, May demons search for you, May ghosts look for you, May not good bennu-epilepsy befall you, May lurkers for evil attend to you, May Lu[gal]i[rra and Meslamta]ʾea kill you, May [Enli]l, lord of dest[inies], erase you[r name], May merciless [N]in[u]rta tear out you[r tongue], May [G]ula, the great doctor, strike your ch[ee]k, May raging Girr[a] inflame your body. O pure ov[e]n, great daughter of Anu, In whose ins[i]de the fire of the grave flares, [In] whose [ins]ide Girra, the warrior, set down his [dwel]ling, [Whose f]lame [when] ig[nited] reaches heaven, Burn, scorch, bur[n up] my w[itch]. Quickly and speedily, may the lives of my warlock and [my wit]ch be [extinguished], Thereby save me myself so that I may declare your great deeds and sing your [p]raises. [t]u6 én

h–h.  Var.: [ša kaššāpiya u kaššāptiy]a arḫiš ḫanṭiš. i.   Var.: li-bi-e-ma, corruption for liblēma. j–j.  Var.: accidentally omitted.

In its present form, the incantation serves as an apt ending to the second tablet of Maqlû. Following the opening lines of the incantation in which the activities of the witch are depicted, a series of demons and gods are invoked; the incantation then turns to a description of the fire of destruction in what seems to be a netherworld context and ends with a request that the fire consume the witch. The sections of this incantation seem to be quite distinct. Let us, therefore, see how the incantation was pieced together. In lines 205–7, the first three lines of the incantation, the victim of witchcraft describes how the witch is constantly seeking out her victim, the speaker. In lines 209ff., the speaker then requests of various demons and gods that they

8

Tzvi Abusch

seek out, afflict, and kill the witch (209–18). A close study of the opening lines is quite revealing with regard to the composition of the incantation. 7 More specifically, lexical and grammatical features found in lines 205–11 provide a clue to the composition of this text. The first three lines describing the witch’s activities use verbs in the iterative tan form exclusively. Immediately following, the first three lines of the invocation of demonic forces against the witch make use of the same three verbs in the same order: attīmannu kaššāptu ša tubtanaʾʾînni : šēdū libaʾʾûki ana lemutti tešteneʾʾînni : utukkū lišteʾʾûki ana lā ṭābti tassanaḫḫurīnni : eṭemmū lissaḫrūki

We notice, however, that the verbs in the invocation of demons and the matching verbs in the earlier part of the incantation are in different verbal stems, for in contrast to the verbs used to describe the witch’s activities, those in the invocation do not make use of the iterative tan form. 8 Thus, the sets of lines are not parallel in terms of form, and the two sections correspond only in part. The composer started with an invocation of demons and gods; he then created his opening description of the witch on the basis of the first three invocations but repeated these verb forms in iterative form rather than in the forms in which they occurred in the invocation. Thus, rather than the text having been composed linearly from beginning to end, it appears that the curse section centering on the demons and gods generated the text. In order to introduce the witch and have some correspondence between her actions and her punishment, the composer focused on “seeking,” the first of the three actions of the demons (seeking; attacking; killing), and drew only on the first three lines of the invocation. But why has he invoked a group of demons and gods and created a correspondence between demon and witch? The answer is provided by the statement in line 208 that the victim does not know the location or identity of the witch. Thus, the demons are asked to seek out the witch precisely because the victim does not know her location or identity, while they do, for demons like gods are part of the supernatural world, have become servants of the gods, and can accomplish things that mere humans cannot. Following the invocation of the demons, several gods are invoked: in lines 214–17, Lugalgirra, Meslamtaʾea, Enlil(?), Ninurta, and Gula are invoked, and in line 218 the list ends with the invocation of Girra. This invocation of demons and gods is the nucleus of the incantation. The invocation of Girra in line 7.  For a fuller description and analysis of II 205–11 as well as for a discussion of the relationship of demons and witches in Maqlû and of the place of II 205–25 in the spectrum of treatments of the witch, see my “Witches and Demons in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 77 (Demoni mesopotamici; 2011): 342–56, esp. pp. 353–55. 8.  Thus, instead of three iterative tan forms, we have a D (libaʾʾûki) followed by what is either a Gt or Gtn (lišteʾʾûki), followed by an N (lissaḫrūki) in the invocation.

Maqlû Tablet II

9

218 then serves as a bridge to the next section of the incantation, the address to the oven, the daughter of Anu. After a description of the infernal character of the oven 9 and a statement that Girra dwells in her midst, the oven is asked to burn the witch. It should be noted that no mention had been made of fire and burning prior to this section of the text (with the exception of the transitional line 218); but even though fire and burning had not figured earlier in the incantation, they are central to this last section of the incantation. Precisely for this reason, the last section (219–24) should be considered an addition to the incantation. These lines would have been added on to the invocation of the demons and gods in order to adapt the incantation to the burning ritual of Maqlû and, specifically, to the addresses to fire that are the focus of Tablet II. 10 As with II 1–17, the final incantation in Tablet II seems originally not to have dealt with witches or with burning. But with its adaptation for Maqlû, the first and last sections of this final incantation were joined to the curse section: the address to the witch (205–7) was added to the original invocation of demons and gods in order to direct the invocation against witches, and the address to fire (219–24) was added to the invocation in order to describe and give expression to the very theme of fire of destruction and to direct the fire against witches. Lines 223–24, the first two lines of our three-line frame (15–17 // 223–25), are part of the added section centering on fire and now fit nicely into the context of the present incantation attīmannu kaššāptu ša tubtanaʾʾînni (205–25). On the other hand, line 225, the final line of our three-line frame, does not fit into this incantation, for yâši bulliṭannima narbîka lušāpi [d]alīlīka ludlul is a closing line that occurs at the end of a general or specific šuilla and not at the end of an incantation that centers on the destruction of the witch by means of demons, gods, and fire. Line 225 is simply an imitation of line 17 and is repeated here at the end of the last incantation. Thus, just as the opening two lines of the frame (15–16 // 223–24) do not fit the first incantation and came from the last one, so the closing line (17 // 225) does not fit the last incantation and came from the first one. Before moving on to the final part of our paper, let us first sum up some of the observations made thus far, especially those observations regarding the lines that form a frame for Tablet II: The concluding three lines (15–17) of the 9.  This oven has a netherworld setting and character, for it is described as one “in whose ins[i]de the fire of the grave flares,” a description paralleled elsewhere by mention of the great oven that is lighted inside the netherworld; see P. Lapinkivi, The Neo-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s Descent and Resurrection, SAACT 6 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2010), 44–45. The infernal quality of the oven here lines up very nicely with the central part of the incantation. 10.  As mentioned above, line 218 serves as a bridge to this last section. It seems to me that the line was part of the demon-god section, but it is not impossible that it was added on to the incantation together with lines 219ff.

10

Tzvi Abusch

first incantation together with the concluding three lines (223–25) of the last incantation of Tablet II articulate a secondary frame (15–17 // 223–25) for the tablet entity. The scribe drew lines from each incantation to create the frame. While the first two lines (15–16 // 223–24) were originally part of the last incantation and were borrowed from there and repeated in the first incantation, 11 the last line of the frame (17 // 225) was originally part of the first incantation and was borrowed from there and repeated in the last incantation. Compositional Implications We should now try to ascertain when and in what redactional contexts these adaptations were made. Certainly, II 1–17 appears to be an addition to our tablet. This incantation was among the latest additions to the series. It belongs to what I have termed elsewhere the Ekur/Enlil Tendenz or layer of Maqlû. 12 No wonder that this incantation alone, from among the incantations of Tablet II, is addressed to Nuska and not to Girra. This Nuska incantation reflects an Ekur/Enlil frame of reference and, in this respect, shares features with VI 1–15 and VII 47–54, VI 119′′–26′′, and Ritual Tablet 134ʹ–35′. Note, for example, the incantation attī ṭabtu (VI 119′′–26′′) 13—especially the address in the first four lines— which is set in the context of the household and pantheon of Enlil, a milieu comparable to that of dNuska šurbû (II 1–17). 119′′ én attī ṭabtu ša ina ašri elli ibbanû 120′′ ana mākālê ilī rabûti išīmki dEnlil 121′′ ina baliki ul iššakkan naptan ina Ekur 11.  The identity of II 16 with a variant text of II 224 suggests that II 16 was modeled on the variant. The dependence of II 16 on the variant does not necessarily prove which of the two readings of II 224 is more original, though it does suggest that the variant (although found in an excerpt) might represent the original reading of II 224, which would then have been changed to the reading preserved in the standard text. 12. Cf. Abusch, “Early Form,” 55–56 = Abusch, Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 161; idem, “Ritual Tablet and Rubrics,” 252–53 = Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 182–83; idem, “The Demonic Image of the Witch in Standard Babylonian Literature: The Reworking of Popular Conceptions by Learned Exorcists,” in Religion, Science, and Magic in Concert and in Conflict, ed. J. Neusner et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 47–50 = Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 22–24. 13.  On this incantation, see T. Jacobsen, “Mesopotamia,” in The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East, ed. H. Frankfort et al. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946), 130–31; V. A. Hurowitz, “Salted Incense: Exodus 30, 35; Maqlû VI 111–113; IX 118–120,” Bib 68 (1987): 178–94; T. Abusch, “Blessing and Praise in Ancient Mesopotamian Incantations,” in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 1–14, esp. p. 9; J. Stackert, “The Variety of Ritual Applications and the Maqlû Salt Incantation,” in Gazing on the Deep: Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch, ed. J. Stackert et al. (Bethesda: CDL, 2010), 235–52.

Maqlû Tablet II 122′′ 123′′ 124′′ 125′′ 126′′

ina baliki ilu šarru kabtu u rubû ul iṣṣinū qutrinnu anāku annanna mār annanna ša kišpī ṣubbutūʾinni upšāšê leʾbūʾinni pušrī kišpīya ṭabtu pušširī ruḫêʾa upšāšê muḫrīnnima kīma ili bānîya lultammarki

119′′ 120′′ 121′′ 122′′ 123′′ 124′′ 125′′ 126′′

Incantation. You, Salt, who were created in a pure place, For food of the great gods did Enlil destine you. Without you a meal would not be set out in Ekur, Without you god, king, noble, and prince would not smell incense. I am so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, whom witchcraft holds captive, Whom machinations hold in (the form of a skin) disease. Release my witchcraft, O Salt, dispel my spittle, Take over from me the machinations so that I may constantly praise you as (I praise) my creator god.

11

These incantations represent a special group; they are among the very few in Maqlû that are oriented to Enlil and his circle and in which that god plays a leading role. (Contrast the numerous mentions of Ea and his circle.) These incantations were added, I believe, during the Sargonid period, when Nippur had been taken over by the Assyrians and was being restored and developed by them. In this context, the Nuska incantation dNuska šurbû was added to the beginning of Tablet II in order to recontextualize, in an Enlil/Ekur setting, the incantations of that tablet that centered on Girra and burning. 14 This addition is related to and is part of the same redaction as the addition of the Enlil incantation dEnlil qaqqadī (VI 1–15) to the beginning of Tablet VI. As noted above, the latter addition lent the material a new orientation and subsequently defined Tablet VI as a ritual entity. Turning back to the issue of the frame, we would now imagine that the literary frame, lines 15–17 // 223–25, was formed when the opening incantation of Tablet II (1–17) was added to Maqlû as part of an Enlil/Ekur layer of revision; that is, the frame was created at the same time that dNuska šurbû was introduced into Tablet II to serve as its opening. The redactor responsible for the introduction and adaptation of the opening incantation in Tablet II probably thought of the tablet as forming a whole 15 and therefore took over material 14.  I mean to include here not only II 19–148 but also the rest of the tablet and perhaps even the first incantation(s) in Tablet III. Very possibly, the Nuska incantation II 1–17 also served as a link to the three incantation in I 73–143, especially dNuska annûtu ṣalmū ēpišiya, I 73–121, an incantation originally addressed to Šamaš but then readdressed to Nuska. 15.  Note the similar way of formatting ritual instructions that was employed in the Ritual Tablet for all the incantations of Tablet II.

12

Tzvi Abusch

from the last incantation for his new opening in order to create a frame for the tablet. However, we must now note that this formulation and conclusion assume that the final incantation of the tablet (II 205–25) was already part of Maqlû when the Nuska incantation was added and the frame created. 16 But we have now seen that this last incantation is also a composite in which the textual segments characteristic of Maqlû, the sections dealing with the witch and fire, were added to a nucleus invoking demons and gods. This type of invocation is rather unique in Maqlû. Actually, all the gods mentioned in II 214–18 are also members of the Enlil circle in Nippur. 17 Thus, rather than forming part of the Maqlû text to which II 1–17 was added, it is much more likely that II 205–25 also belonged to the Enlil/Ekur group. This incantation would probably have been adapted and added to Maqlû at the same time that II 1–17 was added. If so, both II 1–17 and II 205–25 were part of an Enlil/Ekur layer of revision and were added to the series to form the opening and closing of the ritual segment that became Tablet II. The frame, then, would probably have been formed when these two incantations were added to Maqlû. The addition of II 1–17 and II 205–25 to the beginning and end of Tablet II, then, is similar to the phenomenon observable in the creation of division two of Maqlû (VI 1–VII 54) 18 by the addition of the Enlil incantations, dEnlil qaqqadī (VI 1–15) and dEnlil qaqqadī (VII 47–54), and the formation thereby of the second division. 19 16.  Actually, this was what I thought when I first noticed the frame. 17.  Of course, several of these gods also belong to, even originate in, other localities. (For the Temple of Girra in Nippur, see recently J. Tudeau, “‘Girra [god]’, Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses,” Oracc and the UK Higher Education Academy, 2011, http://oracc .museum.upenn.edu/amgg/listofdeities/girra/ [accessed May 15, 2012].) 18.  For the divisions of Maqlû, see my “Mesopotamian Anti-witchcraft Literature: . . . The Nature of Maqlû,” 251–62 = Mesopotamian Witchcraft, 99–111. 19.  The creation of the second division should not be confused with the creation of Tablet VI and its designation as qutārī ša én dEnlil qaqqadī. That development would have taken place later than the introduction of the the two Enlil incantations, dEnlil qaqqadī (VI 1–15) and dEnlil qaqqadī (VII 47–54).

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah in the Throne-Room Vision of Isaiah 6

Shawn Zelig Aster In 1989, Prof. Hurowitz published “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” 1 a detailed and important study in which he pointed out the particular difficulty of the phrase “a man of impure lips” in Isa 6:5. He noted that “the act of purifying the lips still remains remarkable and unparalleled in the Bible” and therefore argued that “there is room to examine extra-biblical sources and call upon practices known from neighboring cultures, to the extent that relevant customs are attested.” 2 In this essay, I delve further into extrabiblical sources that provide parallels to other unparalleled elements in the throne-room vision of Isaiah 6. The vision is a consummate piece of artistry, drawing on a wide range of phenomena known to us from Mesopotamian sources. The imagery of the Assyrian throne-rooms of Author’s note:  It is an honor to contribute to this collection in memory of Avigdor. I was fortunate to serve as a Kreitman Postdoctoral Fellow under Avigdor’s direction from 2005 to 2007, during which time I worked on the Assyrian influence on Isaiah and delivered a paper to our department seminar, which developed into this essay. For many reasons, this is an appropriate essay for this collection. It is part of the “cuneio-biblicist” tradition with which Avigdor identified, it develops ideas he published, and at its center lies the “pivot relief” (produced below as fig. 1) that Avigdor hung on the door of his office in Beer-sheba, where he wrote so much of his important work. On one of his afternoon forays around the corridors of the department, Avigdor found me at work on this essay. Since I believed the planned Festschrift to be a surprise, I quickly tried to hide the computer screen on which appeared the first paragraph with his name in it. We all knew Avigdor as a friendly colleague and great researcher, but at his funeral, I was privileged to hear Daniel speak of what a wonderful father Avigdor had also been. ‫ ויהי חלקי כמהו‬,‫יהי זכרו ברוך‬. This essay benefited substantially from editorial changes suggested by my student Gilad Barach, and I am grateful for his help. All biblical translations in this essay are my own. 1.  V. A. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” HUCA 60 (1989): 39–89. 2.  Ibid., 46.

13

14

Shawn Zelig Aster

the 8th century parallels many of the visual elements in Isaiah 6 that lack other parallels. Comparing many of the metaphors of the Divine with the visual elements of Assyrian throne-rooms led me to conclude that the former is based on the latter. This derivation of the Divine throne room is central to the message of Isaiah 6. Isaiah’s vision is fundamentally a polemic against the omnipotence that Assyrian imperial ideology attributed to the Assyrian king and that the Assyrian throne rooms sought to convey. However, like every good polemic, it not only offers a counterargument but advances a clear agenda: it presents Yhwh as transcendent, while emphasizing His power within the world. As Hurowitz has noted, Isaiah 6 consists of three distinct scenes. Different pairings of the three characters or character-groups (Yhwh, the prophet, the seraphim) appear in each scene: a.  Verses 1–4, a description of Yhwh in the divine throne room and the attendant seraphim. The prophet observes but does not act. b.  Verses 5–7, the interaction between the prophet, who claims to be “a man of impure lips,” and a seraph who purifies him. c.  Verses 8–13, the dialogue between the prophet and Yhwh. The three scenes form a single coherent act, since the characters in each scene appear in at least one other scene, and the setting of the throne room remains constant throughout the 13 verses. Interpretive Questions The challenges of interpreting the unique features and imagery in each scene and correlating each scene with the next turn the chapter into one of the most difficult in the Hebrew Bible. Below, I identify some of the key questions in each scene. Isaiah 6:1–4 ְ ‫מֹות ַה ֶּמל‬-‫ׁשנַת‬  -‫ּכּסֵא ָרם ְו ִנּשָׂא ְוׁשּולָיו ְמל ִֵאים אֶת‬-‫ַל‬ ִ ‫דֹנָי יֹׁשֵב ע‬-ֲ‫א‬-‫ֶראֶה אֶת‬ ְ ‫ע ִּזּיָהּו ָוא‬ ֻ ‫ֶך‬ ְ ‫ ִּב‬ ‫א‬ ‫ׁשּתַ יִם‬ ְ ‫ּוב‬ ִ ‫ׁשּתַ יִם ְי ַכּסֶה ָפנָיו‬ ְ ‫ָפים ע ֹ ְמ ִדים ִמ ַּמעַל לֹו ׁשֵׁש ְּכנָ ַפיִם ׁשֵׁש ְּכנָ ַפיִם ְל ֶאחָד ִּב‬ ִ ‫ׂשר‬  ְ ‫ַההֵיכָל׃ ב‬ ‫ ְצבָאֹות ְמלֹא‬′‫זֶה ְו ָאמַר ָקדֹוׁש ָקדֹוׁש ָקדֹוׁש ה‬-‫ו ָק ָרא זֶה אֶל‬ ְ ‫ׁשּתַ יִם יְעֹופֵף׃ ג‬ ְ ‫ּוב‬ ִ ‫ְי ַכּסֶה רַ ְגלָיו‬ ‫ָׁשן׃‬ ָ ‫ ַוּיָנֻעּו אַּמֹות ה ִַּס ִּפים ִמּקֹול הַּקֹורֵ א ְו ַה ַּביִת ִי ָּמלֵא ע‬ ‫ ָה ָארֶץ ְּכבֹודֹו׃ ד‬-‫כָל‬  (1) In the year of King Uzziah’s death, I saw the Lord sitting upon a high and raised throne, and His train filled the temple. (2) Seraphim were standing above Him, each having six wings. With two, each covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two, he flittered. (3) One called to the other and said, “Holy, holy, holy is Yhwh of Hosts, His Presence fills all the earth.” The door base shook because of the voice of the caller, and the house filled with smoke.

The imagery in this scene raises the following questions: 1.  The Term “Seraphim.”  Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Num 21:6–8; Deut 8:15; Isa 30:6), ‫ שרף‬refers to a snake inhabiting the desert and is

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

15

used to emphasize the difficulties of desert life. In Isa 14:29, it refers to a snake without reference to the desert but, rather, as a symbol for the Assyrian king who will replace Tiglath-pileser III, the oppressor of Philistia. Nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible does this term refer to divine attendants. Why are the divine attendants in Isaiah 6 called seraphim? 2.  The Appearance of the Seraphim.  The multiple wings of the seraphim and their position “above” the throne of Yhwh are also unique, especially in comparison with the cherubim, who have two wings and upon whom Yhwh sits enthroned (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15; Ps18:11//2 Sam 22:11). Isaiah 6:5–7 ְ ‫ּוב‬   ‫טמֵא ְׂשפָתַ יִם אָנ ִֹכי יֹוׁשֵב׃‬-‫ַם‬ ְ ‫תֹוך ע‬ ְ ‫ׂשפָתַ יִם אָנ ִֹכי‬-‫ֵא‬ ְ ‫ֵיתי ִּכי ִאיׁש ְטמ‬ ִ ‫ִדמ‬ ְ ‫נ‬-‫לי ִכי‬-‫אֹוי‬ ִ ‫וָאֹמַר‬ ‫ה‬ ְ ‫ ַה ֶּמל‬-‫ִּכי אֶת‬ ‫ֶלקַ ַחיִם‬ ְ ‫ּוביָדֹו ִר ְצּפָה ְּבמ‬ ְ ‫ְר ִפים‬ ָ ׂ‫ ַהּש‬-‫ ַוּיָעָף ֵאלַי ֶאחָד ִמן‬ ‫בָאֹות ָראּו עֵינָי׃ ו‬-‫ ְצ‬′‫ֶך ה‬ ‫אתךָ ְּתכֻּפָר׃‬ ְ ‫ַּט‬ ָ ‫ָתיךָ ְוסָר עֲו‍ֹנֶךָ ְוח‬ ֶ ‫ׂשפ‬-‫ַל‬ ְ ‫ּפי וַּיֹאמֶר ִהּנֵה נָגַע זֶה ע‬-‫ַל‬ ִ ‫ ַוּיַּגַע ע‬ ‫לָקַ ח ֵמעַל ה ִַּמ ְז ֵּבחַ׃ ז‬ (5) I said: “Woe is me, for I am destroyed, for I am a man of impure lips and I dwell within a people of impure lips, yet my eyes have seen Yhwh of Hosts. (6) One of the seraphim flew to me with a coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from upon the altar. (7) He touched my mouth and said “Behold, this has touched upon your mouth, so that your guilt will be removed, and your sin will be atoned.”

Isaiah’s dialogue seems disconnected from the scene that follows and integrates questions of purity with those of seeing Yhwh in a manner unparalleled elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. More specifically: 1.  How is Isaiah’s impurity incompatible with seeing Yhwh? Elsewhere, prophets evince fear of seeing Yhwh (Exod 3:6), and the penalty for seeing Yhwh at certain moments is said to be death (Exod 33:20, Jud 13:22–23). But the prohibition on seeing Yhwh inheres in all of humanity: “[F]or ‫ אדם‬may not see Me and live” (Exod 33:20) and is not restricted to those who are impure. 2.  Why does the prophet describe both himself and the people as having ‫ ?טמא שפתים‬As Hurowitz noted (on p. 44), “[T]he expression is a unique one. Furthermore, the cultic or religious terms ,‫ טהור‬,‫טמא‬ ‫ טהרה‬,‫ טומאה‬are used nowhere else in the Bible to describe the lips, the tongue, or the mouth.” 3.  The specific designation of the people as having ‫ טמא שפתים‬is unusual and unrelated to the context of the rest of the chapter, in which the people are not mentioned. The prophet may deem himself unworthy of seeing Yhwh, but why does he equate himself with the people?

16

Shawn Zelig Aster 4.  The apparent lustration of the prophet by the seraph in v. 8 is unparalleled. As Hurowitz asked (on p. 44), “[S]ince when can a person be purified or absolved of sin by purifying his mouth?” 5.  Why is the seraph the one to remove impurity?

Isaiah 6:8–13 ְ ‫ּומי יֵל‬  ‫וַּיֹאמֶר ל ְֵך‬ ‫ׁש ָל ֵחנִי׃ ט‬ ְ ‫לָנּו וָאֹמַר ִה ְננִי‬-‫ֶך‬ ִ ‫ֶׁשלַח‬ ְ ‫מי א‬-‫ֶת‬ ִ ‫דֹנָי אֹמֵר א‬-ֲ‫קֹול א‬-‫ֶׁשמַע אֶת‬ ְ ‫ָוא‬ ‫ח‬ ְ�‫ ָהעָם ַהּזֶה ְו ָאז‬-‫ַׁשמֵן לֵב‬ ְ ‫ה‬ ‫ּתֵ ָדעּו׃ י‬-‫ּוראּו ָראֹו ְואַל‬ ְ ,‫ּת ִבינו‬-‫ַל‬ ָ ‫ׁשמֹו ַע ְוא‬ ָ ‫ׁש ְמעּו‬ ִ ‫ְו ָאמ ְַר ָָּת ָלעָם ַהּזֶה׃‬ ‫וָאֹמַר‬ ‫ב—ו ָרפָא לֹו׃ יא‬ ְ ‫ָׁש‬ ָ ‫ָבין ו‬ ִ ‫ּולבָבֹו י‬ ְ ‫ִׁשמָע‬ ְ ‫ּוב ָא ְזנָיו י‬ ְ ‫י ְִראֶה ְבעֵינָיו‬-‫נָיו ה ְַכּבֵד ְועֵינָיו הָׁשַ ע ּפֶן‬ ‫ֲדמָה ִּתּשָׁאֶה‬ ָ ‫ָדם ְו ָהא‬ ָ ‫ָּתים ֵמאֵין א‬ ִ ‫ָרים ֵמאֵין יֹוׁשֵב ּוב‬ ִ‫ׁשאּו ע‬-‫ם‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ִא‬ ֶ ‫דֹנָי וַּיֹאמֶר עַד א‬-ֲ‫מָתַ י א‬-‫עַד‬ ‫ׁשבָה‬ ָ ‫ֲׂשִרּיָה ְו‬ ִ ‫ועֹוד ּבָּה ע‬ ְ ‫יג‬  ‫ָדם ְורַ ּבָה ָהעֲזּובָה ְּב ֶקרֶב ָה ָארֶץ׃‬ ָ ‫ ָהא‬-‫ אֶת‬′‫וִרחַק ה‬ ְ ‫ׁש ָממָה׃ יב‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ְּבׁשַ ֶּלכֶת ַמ ֶּצבֶת ּבָם זֶרַ ע ק ֶֹדׁש ַמּצ ְַב ָּתּה׃‬ ֶ ‫ְתה ְל ָבעֵר ָּכ ֵאלָה ְו ָכאַּלֹון א‬ ָ ‫ְו ָהי‬ (8) I then heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send and who shall go on our behalf?” And I said “Behold me! Send me!”(9) And He said, “Go, say to the people: ‘Hear indeed, but do not understand; see indeed and do not know.’ (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and their eyes plastered over, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and their heart will understand, and they will return and be pardoned.” (11) And I asked, “Until when, O Lord?” And He said, “Until cities are emptied, with no inhabitants, and houses with no people, and the land will lie waste. (12) God will distance humans, such that there will be many abandoned fields 3 in the midst of the land. (13) And if a tenth remains, it will return and be burned. Just like the terebinth and the oak when they drop (their leaves) their trunk remains, the holy seed is like the (tree’s) trunk.”

The most famous difficulty about this scene, and indeed in the whole chapter, relates to vv. 9–10: Why does Yhwh tell the prophet to prophesy while preventing the intended result of this prophecy? But the manner in which Isaiah is delegated also raises important questions: 1.  Isaiah is sent on a mission in 6:8, but the manner in which he is designated is unparalleled. 4 Why does Yhwh not initiate this designation, as He does in Exodus 3, Judges 6, 1 Samuel 3, and Jeremiah 1? Why is it necessary for Isaiah to volunteer to act as emissary in v. 8? 2.  How does the prophet’s volunteering (v. 8) relate to the previous scene in which he is purified? 3.  The word ‫ עזובה‬designates forsaken land, as in Isa 17:9. I believe it was my late student, Ilan Tokayer ‫ל‬′′ ‫ז‬, who called this reference to my attention. 4.  It is unnecessary to engage the well-known question of whether this is Isaiah’s “prophetic call,” and whether this is his first prophecy. A sequence in which Yhwh asks someone to volunteer as an emissary and in which a prophet volunteers is clearly unique in literary prophecy. The only possible parallel is the satiric narrative in 1 Kings 22, which is discussed below.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

17

The multiple questions raised by the unparalleled imagery and unusual interactions among Yhwh, the prophet, and the seraphim suggest that a larger solution that addresses all of these questions may be needed. In searching for such a solution, I first explore a biblical parallel to this vision and then examine the parallels to the Assyrian throne room. It is the latter, and more specifically the experience of the Judahite ambassadors in such throne rooms, that provides the unifying continuum around which the chapter is structured. The theological argument of this chapter engages with and responds to the imagery of these throne rooms. Parallels to the Throne Room Vision of Micaiah ben Imlah In searching for biblical parallels to the apparently unique motifs of Isaiah 6, scholars often cite the vision of Micaiah b. Imlah in 1 Kgs 22:19–23. This is the only other biblical passage that describes a divine throne room with its attendants. In both, God is portrayed in the image of a human king: seated on his throne and surrounded by attendants. In both, He seeks a volunteer to communicate His message to humans. This image of God is alleged to reflect a literary tradition of the enthroned God in biblical narratives of the prophetic call. 5 But it is important to remember that the vision of Micaiah is a satire constructed to highlight the false nature of the encouraging prophecy. The “spirit” in Micaiah’s vision who volunteers to communicate God’s message offers to serve as a “spirit of falsehood in the mouth of all of his prophets.” The parallels between the visions suggest that Isaiah’s vision may also be a satire, constructed to highlight a false view of omnipotence. The formulation of Micaiah’s vision in 1 Kgs 22:19–23 is governed by its context: two previous attempts (1 Kgs 22:15b and 22:17) by Micaiah to convince Ahab to desist from his military plans fail. In the first attempt (v. 15b), Micaiah uses thinly veiled sarcasm, giving Ahab a positive oracle, one Ahab immediately perceives to be false. Ahab requests a true oracle, and the true oracle (v. 17) Micaiah delivers predicts the death of Ahab. Ahab then complains (v. 18) of Micaiah’s negative predictions, and Micaiah then delivers a final response, which coats the truth of the oracle in v. 17 in satire to make it more palatable. The portrayal of Yhwh enthroned with the hosts of heaven before him in 1 Kgs 22:19–22 is clearly linked to the portrayal of Ahab and Jehoshaphat enthroned at the gate of the city with false prophets before them (1 Kgs 22:10). The vision in vv. 19–22 is an attempt to concretize the prophet’s message of 5. J. Vermeylen notes these similarities in arguing against postdating Isaiah 6. He sees Isaiah 6 as an intermediate step between “le récit ancient de l’envoi en mission du prophète Michéee fils de Yimlah (I Rois xxii 19–22) et celui de la vocation d’Ezéchiel (Ez. i–iii). Les motifs de la royauté et de la sainteté de Yahve remontent sans doute à une tradition liturgique ancienne du sanctuaire de Jérusalem” (Du Prophète Isaïe à l’Apocalyptique [Paris: Gabalda, 1977], 188).

18

Shawn Zelig Aster

doom for Ahab by describing the point of origin of the message (the divine throne room) as similar to its point of delivery (the city gate). Yhwh is portrayed as a figure parallel to Ahab himself, enthroned with his retainers before Him. Just as Ahab seeks among his retainers one who will deliver the message he seeks to hear and cannot find such a retainer, so also Yhwh seeks among His retainers one to deliver the decree of doom to Ahab. Among all of Yhwh’s retainers, only the “spirit of falsehood” is willing to lead Ahab to his doom. This vision, Micaiah’s third attempt at delivering the message of doom, is clearly successful in convincing Ahab of Micaiah’s candor and probity, and Micaiah is punished, thus sharing the fate of all honest messengers (1 Kgs 22:26). Micaiah’s vision, therefore, ought to be seen as a response to a particular exigency, rather than as a reflection of an old tradition of divine portrayal or as an image of God deeply ingrained in biblical theology. If Micaiah’s vision is not part of a longstanding biblical tradition of call narratives but simply a response to a particular exigency, Isaiah 6 cannot legitimately be seen as part of such a tradition, since it would be the sole exemplar of it. We ought to explore the possibility that the image of Yhwh enthroned in Isaiah 6, like that in 1 Kgs 22:19–22 is satirical, is a reference to a particular human king, and that this unusual portrayal is designed to add poignancy to the message that Isaiah 6 conveys. Kings Enthroned: Yhwh versus Assyrian Kings of the Late Eighth Century Unlike the narrative of Micaiah’s vision, which in 1 Kgs 22:10 clearly describes the visual setting in which the vision of 1 Kgs 22:19–22 is delivered, there is no explicit portrayal in Isaiah 6 of the image of a human king. But three verses in Isaiah 6 clearly allude to the activities of a particular human king, the king of Assyria: The clearest such verse is 6:12, which contains a clear description of the impending exile: “God will distance humans, such that there will be many abandoned fields in the midst of the land.” Like the description of abandoned homes in 6:11, the “distancing” of humans in 6:12 can only be understood as a reference to exile. The palpable force that created this exile in Syria–Palestine in the late eighth century was the Assyrian army. In literary descriptions, it is the Assyrian king who stands as a metonymy for the army. Thus, Yhwh is here described as the author of actions committed by the Assyrian king. The trisagion in 6:3 describes Yhwh as having a Presence that fills the world. While a similar description is found in Num 14:14, its use in Isaiah 6 in conjunction with the descriptions of Assyrian actions in Isa 6:11–12 suggests a contrast to the universal scope of kingship claimed by Assyria’s kings. 6 6.  The contrast between the universal rule of Yhwh and the claim of Assyria’s king to this rule is ubiquitous in Isaiah and finds particular expression in Hezekiah’s prayer in Isa 37:15 and in the campaign prophecy in Isa 2:5–22. See my studies of these chapters:

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

19

These allusions direct us to investigate similarities between the vision of the enthroned Yhwh and the throne room of the Assyrian king. We find a striking similarity between the scene described in Isaiah 6 and the scene in one particular throne room known from excavations in Assyria. The throne room of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah was built in the ninth century and therefore tends to be ignored in studies of the period of Isaiah. But this throne room was profoundly relevant to Judahites in the late eighth century, because it was in use during much of the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (reigned 745–727 b.c.e.). Possibly as early as 743 b.c.e. and certainly by 738 b.c.e., ambassadors from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, like those from other kingdoms who submitted to the resurgent Assyrian Empire headed by Tiglathpileser III, were received in this throne room. 7 They were received as part of an annual ceremony of tribute remission, attended by high-ranking ambassadors from many submissive kingdoms, who were gathered together in the palace in use by the reigning Assyrian king. 8 The ambassadors (ṣerrāni) were either kings of the submissive kingdoms or, more frequently, high-ranking members of their courts. The purpose of the ceremony was not simply the conveyance of tribute, a purpose which could have been more efficiently achieved by the various kingdoms bringing the commodities to the Assyrian provincial governor closest to them. 9 Assyria insisted that tribute be brought to the capital, “The Image of Assyria in Isaiah 2:5–22: The Campaign Motif Reversed,” JAOS 127 (2007): 249–78; and “‫ לעיבוד המקורות האשוריים בסיפור הנבואי‬:‫ שתים זו שמע הנביא‬,‫אחת דיבר סנחריב‬ ‫ ”על מלחמת סנחריב ביהודה‬in Shnaton 19 (2009): 105–24. 7.  For a discussion of the date of Menahem’s first tribute, see Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1994), 274–76; and Mordechai Cogan, The Raging Torrent (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), 54. 8.  A ceremony of this sort is recorded in a letter from the governor of Calah to Sargon. The letter states that “the emissaries from Egypt, Gaza, Judah, Moab and Ammon entered Calah on the 12th of the month with their tribute” (ND 2765 [IM 64159]), published by Simo Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part 1: Letters from Assyria and the West, SAA 1 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1987), text 110, line rev. 4. Based on this and other documents, Israel Ephʿal describes the ceremony as follows: The tribute-bearing ambassadors arrived at the capital in a caravan, which grouped together ambassadors from several countries. From the reports of their arrival all together, it appears that they were told to arrive at a specific time, during which the tribute would be remitted in a royal ceremony. Their journey to the capital of Assyria was ab imperial event in every way. They maintained contact with the administration along the way and were probably under their supervision and care. They travelled on the route leading from Carchemish via Gozan and Nisibis to Assyria. The journey of such a caravan from the land of Israel, at a rate of 30 km/day, took not less than two months in each direction.

(“The Significance of Assyrian Imperial Rule According to Administrative Texts Relating to Ebir Nari,” in ‫ תולדות ותעודות‬:‫ישראל וארצו‬, ed. Z. Talshir, Beer-sheba 19 [Beer-sheba: Ben-Gurion University Press, 2010], 58–59 [ET mine]). 9.  John Nicholas Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire, Studia Pohl Series Maior 3 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1974) discussed these ceremonies

20

Shawn Zelig Aster

and the primary goal of the visit was the transformation of these ambassadors into loyal Assyrian vassals who would ensure the continued loyalty of their kingdom to Assyria. One key means of achieving this goal was exposing them to the carefully developed art program of the palace, at whose center was the throne room. This program was a well-thought-out propaganda exercise designed to impress upon the vassal why he should maintain his allegiance to the empire. Thus, the visual experience in the throne room was an important part of the reason for bringing the ambassadors to Assyria. Other aspects of their reception in the palace are discussed below, but it is first important to demonstrate the visual similarities between the throne-room scene in this palace and that in Isaiah 6. 10 The Israelite or Judahite ambassador visiting this throne room would be confronted with a scene visually similar to the scene in Isa 6:1–4. 11 The entrance to the throne room was located along the long northern wall. Opposite the entrance, a detailed carved relief reproduced here as fig. 1 was displayed. 12 The ambassador would then turn to his left and view the very same relief once again, since it was reproduced almost identically on the upper portion of the eastern wall of the throne room. 13 Because of its repetition and strategic positioning, the relief “thus becomes the pivot point of the entire room, orienting the viewer immediately upon entrance, and reorienting him as he turns ninety

in detail. He notes that, since many of the tribute-paying kingdoms were located at some distance from the Assyrian capitals, and the provincial governors’ residences were more proximate centers of Assyrian governance, delivering the commodities to the Assyrian capital was inefficient and cumbersome. 10.  It is also relevant to note that this palace served as a model for later palaces constructed by Tiglath-pileser III and by Sargon II, so that the date of abandonment of this palace (ca. 729 b.c.e.) need not serve as the terminus ad quem for Isaiah 6. John Malcolm Russell, Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 7. 11.  The art of the palace and the ideology it reflects have been carefully described by Julian Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. Mogens Trolle Larsen (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 329–43; Irene Winter, “The Program of the Throneroom of Assurnasirpal II,” in Essays on Near Eastern Art and Archaeology in Honor of Charles Kyrle Wilkinson, ed. Prudence O. Harper and Holly Pittman (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983), 15–30; Barbara Parker Mallowan, “Magic and Ritual in the Northwest Palace Reliefs,” in ibid., 31–39; John Malcolm Russell, “The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II,” AJA 102 (1998): 655–715; and by Barbara N. Porter, “Intimidation and Friendly Persuasion: Re-Evaluating the Propaganda of Ashurnasirpal II,” ErIsr 29 (Stern Volume; 2008): 179–91. Porter also discusses the experience of the ambassadors in the courtyards and waiting areas leading up to their turn to enter the throne room. 12.  BM 124531, known as slab 13, was “placed directly opposite a major doorway in the north wall of the room (which) . . . was the major entrance to the throneroom from Court D.” (Winter, “The Program,” 17.) 13.  Known as slab 23, it was located “immediately behind the throne base, at the eastern end of the room, the base on which the king himself would have been seated” (ibid.)

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

21

Figure 1.  Carved relief on wall opposite the entrance to the Assyrian throne room of Tiglath-pileser III (BM 124531). Drawing reproduced from Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda,” fig. 15. © Trustees of the British Museum. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

degrees to face the king on his throne and the identical relief above.” 14 The relief is organized as a sort of mirror image, in which the two outer figures are repeated for emphasis both on the left and on the right, flanking the center of the image. Thus, the ambassador would perceive the Assyrian king seated on a throne. Above him, on the relief hung on the wall, were two genii with four wings each. Each genie flanked another image of the king, who faced inwards toward a sacred tree, above which was the winged sun-disk representing the god Assur. From the point of view of the ambassador, the king thus exists both on the throne on the ground and in the images higher up on the wall, with multiwinged creatures suspended above the real king on the ground and flanking the images of the king in the relief. The image of a seated king who exists both in the throne room and in the space above the throne with multi-winged creatures above him forms an obvious parallel to the image of Yhwh enthroned, flanked by six-winged seraphim, with the bottom of His raiment in the ‫היכל‬, and the remainder of His person presumably in the celestial sphere. 15 14.  Ibid. 15.  The word ‫היכל‬, widely used in the Hebrew Bible for the temple, derives from the Akkadian word for palace, ekallu, and any Israelite who was in contact with the Assyrian Empire would know the meaning of the Akkadian word. For further discussion of the use of this term to designate “palace” in periods of Israelite contact with Assyria, see my article “The Function of the City of Jezreel and the Symbolism of Jezreel in Hosea 1–2,” JNES 71 (2012): 39.

22

Shawn Zelig Aster

Like the vision of Micaiah in 1 Kgs 22:19–22, that in Isaiah 6 is based on a specific scene of an enthroned human king, with retainers surrounding him and emissaries before him. Each is a dramatic and imaginary enactment in the divine sphere, intended to parallel a real scene enacted in the human sphere, and designed to deliver a practical message about political events. In Isaiah 6, the retainers are represented by the seraphim, while the prophet is one of the emissaries who stand before him. (The multiple unmentioned emissaries are suggested by the question and answer in v. 8.) Just as Micaiah’s vision derives from the narrated experience of Ahab sitting enthroned with the prophets before him, Isaiah 6 derives from the real-life experience of the ambassadors in the Assyrian throne room. Just as Micaiah satirizes the scene of Ahab and the prophets in provoking Ahab to rethink the reality he has experienced and to reconsider whether the prophets are describing truth, Isaiah satirizes the scene of the ambassadors in the Assyrian throne room in order to call into question the “truths” they have experienced as part of their visit. Satirizing a scene that a person has experienced allows him to reprocess that scene cognitively and to approach it from a different perspective. 16 Like Ahab, the ambassadors are reluctant to accept the alternative truth Isaiah offers, and so satire, “the lie that tells the truth,” helps them reprocess their own experience. However, to understand the need for such satire, we must consider the experience of the ambassadors as well as the propaganda it was designed to convey. This experience is the key to understanding the interactions among Isaiah, the seraphim, and Yhwh described in Isaiah 6, because these interactions satirize the interactions of the ambassadors, the palace art, and the Assyrian king during the ambassadors’ visits to Assyria. The Reception of the Tribute-Bearing Ambassadors in the Assyrian Throne Room The ritual of receiving the tribute-bearing ambassadors was an important part of the Neo-Assyrian imperial framework. Tribute was brought to the Assyrian imperial capital by ambassadors of kingdoms that had declared their loyalty to Assyria. The proximate goal was often to avoid an impending Assyrian incursion, but the empire required that the tribute then be brought annu­ally. 17 Within Assyrian imperial ideology, the bringing of tribute was understood as 16.  An excellent example of providing a new perspective to a known scene in order to convey new ideas about this scene is Lupin’s treatment of Neville’s mental image of Snape (J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azbakan [New York: Scholastic, 1999], end of chap. 7). 17.  One example attesting the expectation of annual tribute is the mention in Sargon’s annals that Judah “brought tribute and gifts” to Assyria until Yamani (Yadani) of Ashdod incited them to cease doing so. The text (K 1668) is published by A. Fuchs, Die Annalen des Jahres 711 v. Chr, SAAS 7 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998), 46, lines 25–28. Another example is 2 Kgs 17:4.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

23

an act of submission to Assyrian sovereignty, and failure to bring tribute was understood as an act of rebellion. The bringing of tribute was ritualized, in the sense that it required a specific series of actions, rather than the simple transfer of wealth. Designed largely for the tribute-presenters’ eyes, the assembly of emissaries from various corners of the ancient Near East increased the empire’s prestige and conveyed to them the sense that it was truly a universal empire. 18 This ideology was conveyed both through exposure to palace art and communication with palace officials, and both means were used during the audience with the king in the throne room, which was the culmination of the visit. The king and his officials would use these opportunities to impress on the vassal the very same arguments presented in the palace art. These arguments would have included the main elements of Assyrian imperial ideology (as we know them from art and texts), principally: a.  the “heroic principle of royal omnipotence” and b.  the universal reach of the Assyrian empire. The “heroic principle of royal omnipotence,” a patent fiction, holds that the king himself is an invincible hero who personally defeats and massacres the enemy and who can personally traverse the most difficult terrain in military campaigns. 19 Similarly, the principle of the universal reach of the Assyrian Empire was not so much a description of a reality as a guiding belief that it was both legitimate and mandatory for Assyria to dominate every land or territory. The universal reach of the empire expressed the universal reach of the god Assur, who was both chief of the pantheon and a deification of the Assyrian state. “In the imperial ideology, it was Ashur who sent the king against the unsubmissive enemy to conquer foreign lands and constantly expand the territory of Assyria.” 20 The assembly of ambassadors from all reaches of the empire was aimed to show tribute-bearers that universal domination was a driving force in Assyrian ideology and that the empire possessed the means to effect this domination. Several of the reliefs in the anterooms outside the throne room also conveyed a similar message by portraying tribute-bearers from obviously exotic destinations bringing monkeys as tribute. 21 18.  Several of the points presented here are taken from a study I undertook, at Hurowitz’s insistence, during my postdoctoral fellowship. It appeared as the article “Transmission of Neo-Assyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century bce,” HUCA 78 (2007): 1–44; the relevant paragraphs here are taken from p. 8. 19.  See further in Hayim Tadmor, “Propaganda, Literature, History: Cracking the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997), 325–38, especially pp. 326–27. 20.  Ibid., 327. 21.  See slabs D-7 and D-8, published in Porter, “Intimidation and Friendly Persuasion,” 185*.

24

Shawn Zelig Aster

The ambassadors were expected to transmit this ideology to their countrymen upon their return to their homelands, and they were given personal incentives to ensure that they would become effective proponents of Assyrian ideology, that they would convince their kingdoms to remain loyal to Assyria, and that they would bring their kingdoms’ tribute the next year. These lavish gifts were a key part of the experience of the ambassadors, and understanding the “incentivization” of the ambassadors is necessary in order to understand Isaiah’s satire. Postgate has detailed these incentives based on the administrative texts: They were fed at the state’s expense. They were also given presents of clothing and of shoes for their journeys. The practice of rewarding the loyal—or bribing the potentially loyal—by presenting them with rich garments and other gifts is not restricted to ambassadors. . . . Not only the ambassadors themselves were presented with gold or silver rings, but even “their servants who were with them” or “who brought the tribute” received smaller rings of the same kind. Quite apart from the usual traditions of hospitality, such gifts would have been a real incentive to the poorer states to be punctual with their tribute, and must have encouraged those who actually made the journey to undertake it again. And of this the Assyrians were well aware. 22

In other words, if the Assyrian palace personnel did their job well, Judah’s tribute-bearers would return to Jerusalem as loyal proponents of royal invincibility and Assyrian omnipotence. The Conflict with Assyrian Ideology and the Need to Subvert It The Assyrian ideology propagated by the returning ambassadors stood in stark conflict with that of the “Yahweh-alone party,” of which the author of Isaiah 1–39 was a primary exponent. Part of the conflict derives from the relatively simple question of the identity of the universal sovereign: Yhwh or Assur? But a more profound element of the conflict derives from the sharp distinction monotheism draws between human and God. In Kaufmann’s formulation, “There is no bridge between the created universe and God.” 23 Thus, humans cannot be invincible, and the portrayal of the Assyrian king as such becomes a sort of fulcrum or practical point of contention in a larger ideological conflict. Isaiah 6 uses the experience of the tribute-bearers as a means of attacking Assyrian ideology. The vision builds on the imagery experienced by the tribute-bearers and subverts its meaning, arguing for the omnipotence of Israel’s 22.  Postgate, Taxation and Conscription, 127–28. 23. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans. and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 77.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

25

God and undermining the principle of royal invincibility and, by extension, the notion of Assyrian omnipotence. Without reference to the Assyrian throne room, Isaiah 6 clearly argues in favor of the universal reach of Yhwh. Verse 3 does this explicitly, and the attribution to Yhwh of actions committed by the Assyrian king in v. 12 implies a similar message. 24 But many of the more obscure images in the chapter, and especially the questions I noted above, are formulated to argue implicitly against the heroic principle of royal omnipotence and in favor of the unfathomable distance between Yhwh and even the most powerful of all men. I now turn to a detailed discussion of the art program of the throne room, highlighting both the ideology and the artistic elements that Isaiah satirizes. The Art Program of Assurnasirpal’s Throne Room The “pivot relief” discussed above, found opposite the entrance and above the throne (reproduced as fig.  1), is intended to highlight the king’s role in maintaining the cosmic balance of the state in relation to the divine. It “seems to show the king in some relationship with powers of the earth and sky, for whose favour he as high priest and shepherd of his people was primarily responsible.” 25 At its center is the god Assur within the winged disk, above the sacred tree representing the world, and more specifically, the fertility and abundance in the Assyrian Empire that the king was responsible for ensuring. 26 Hailing him on either side is the king himself, who is flanked by genii with four wings. Each genie caries a bucket and raises an oval object toward the king. These implements have allowed art historians to correlate the images to magical figures known from Assyrian texts and thus to understand the function of these genii. These functions are key to my conclusion that Isaiah developed the seraphim as a satirical version of the genii. The similarities between the seraphim and these creatures resides not only in their multiple wings and their placement above the king but in the lustrative function of these creatures. The two genii in the pivot relief are part of a much larger set of multi-winged genii carrying similar purification buckets, who are ubiquitous in this and in other Assyrian palaces. The genii in the pivot relief cannot be interpreted in isolation from those that flank the sacred trees in the corners of Assurnasirpal’s 24.  As discussed above, v. 12 is clearly a description of exile, an innovation of the Assyrian conquerors. The agent for the exile is here the Lord, but these verses attribute to the Lord an activity carried out by the Assyrians. Attributing this action to Yhwh indicates His control of the conquest. 25.  Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art,” 336. 26.  The motif “may well have served as the formal statement of the king’s role in achieving the desired abundance for the land, concretizing thereby the ideal prosperity alluded to in the royal texts” (Irene J. Winter, “Ornament and the ‘Rhetoric of Abundance’ in Assyria,” ErIsr 29 [Stern Volume; 2008]: 253).

26

Shawn Zelig Aster

throne room and frequently flank doorways in the palaces of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II. 27 All of the genii in a given palace would have been viewed by the ambassadors, and their function would have been explained to them. Similar genii, also carrying buckets and oval objects, usually with the heads of birds, appear throughout Ashurbanipal’s palace. They appear most frequently at the doorways of rooms. Figures 2–3 present bird-headed genii with multiple wings and a similar purification bucket (BM 98064 and Metropolitan Museum 31.72.3). 28 On the basis of Late Assyrian ritual texts published by Wiggerman, which describe figures that can “block the entry of the enemy into someone’s house,” Mallowan, Russell, and Porter have clearly identified the genii and these implements. 29 The texts . . . list an “apkallû” (sage), described as a “guardian” with the face and wings of a bird, holding in its right hand a mullilu, or “purifier,” and in its left a banduddu, or “bucket.” This must be the bird-headed guardian figure of the doorways of Assurnasirpal’s palace, which always holds a bucket in his left hand and a pinecone-shaped object, evidently the purifier, in his right. Wiggerman has plausibly identified the action depicted here as sprinkling—the purifier is dipped in the bucket, which contains holy water, and then held aloft and flipped forward with a sharp snap of the arm and wrist, throwing a shower of droplets outward onto whatever is to be purified. 30

Porter identified the apkallû as “ancient sages who had become minor divinities by (Neo-) Assyrian times.” 31 The apkallû with their buckets and purifiers were only some of the many types of apotropaic figures placed at the gates of

27.  Russell, “Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II,” 689–90. 28.  Mallowan (“Magic and Ritual in the Northwest Palace Reliefs,” 33) discusses the origins of griffin-headed figures. 29.  The relevant apotropaic texts were published by F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts, CM 1 (Groningen: Styx, 1992). Most of the texts Wiggerman discusses “give directions for making clay and wooden figurines to be buried in strategic spots underneath the doors of the house to exorcise it or protect it from evil” (Mallowan, “Magic and Ritual in the Northwest Palace Reliefs,” 32). But some refer to similar figures “drawn in the corners,” or “drawn in the gate.” On this basis, Russell concludes that each of these figures “could exercise its apotropaic function whether it was executed in two dimensions or in three” and that the texts in Wiggerman’s collection can be used to identify the genii in the palaces. Russell notes that his views, which he published in “Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II” (especially pp. 674–82), were “inspired by the excellent work of Mary M. Fulghum” (unpublished seminar paper, cited by Russell, ibid., 674 n. 102). Mallowan (“Magic and Ritual”) published similar conclusions several years earlier, and Porter accepted these views in “Intimidation and Friendly Persuasion,” 191* n. 36. 30.  Russell, “Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II,” 674. 31.  Porter, “Intimidation and Friendly Persuasion,” 191.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

27

Figure 2.  Birdheaded genius with multiple wings holding a purification bucket (BM 98064). © Trustees of the British Museum. All rights reserved. Used by permission.

the palace and at doors within the palace; Russell notes several varieties of doorway figures in Assurnasirpal’s palace. 32 As is evident from their equipment, the apkallû are not only protective and apotropaic figures. They protect by means of their lustrative function: this is evident from the name of the implement they carry: mullilu (“purifier”). The 32.  The principal entrance to the East Suite from the courtyard nearest the throne room was guarded by a pair of colossal, human-headed, winged lions, “whose function was evidently both to guard the door and to draw attention to it” (Russell, “Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II,” 675). Other anthropomorphic figures make a gesture of greeting or blessing with one upraised hand (karābu) and hold either a mace or a branch in the other. Other figures hold a goat or deer in one hand and a palmette in the other (ibid). The goat has been identified by Mallowan as the mašḫultuppu (scapegoat) used in Assyrian rituals to avert evil, and Mallowan has also discussed the apotropaic value of the palm frond (aru) in Assyrian texts (Mallowan, “Magic and Ritual in the Northwest Palace Reliefs,” 38).

28

Shawn Zelig Aster

Figure 3.  Birdheaded genius with multiple wings and a purification bucket (Metropolitan Museum 31.72.3). Used with the permission of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

forces of evil are associated in some undefined way with impurity, and by means of the mullilu the apkallû are able to ward off these forces. It is for this reason that they are placed at the doors of the palace: to create a sort of “safe zone,” protecting those who enter the palace from these evil forces. Their position in the pivot relief seems to be similar: they raise their arms toward him, purifying him. They are responsible for guarding the king and ensuring that no evil befalls him and that he will not fall victim to the evil forces threatening humanity. Their lustrative function thus parallels the function of the lone seraph in Isa 6:5–7, who is responsible, in an entirely unexpected way, for purifying the prophet by touching an object to his mouth. The similarities between the ‫שרף‬

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

29

in Isaiah 6 (a multiple-winged creature that attends a throne and purifies an individual) and the genii of the Assyrian palace (multiple-winged creatures that attend a throne and purify spaces) are unique. Moreover, the fact that the seraphim described in Isaiah 6 are unparalleled elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible strongly suggests a sort of literary borrowing from art in that the description of the vision in Isaiah 6 borrows from the experience of the tribute-bearing ambassadors. (The question of why Isaiah calls these creatures ‫שרפים‬, a term that elsewhere refers to snakes, is discussed in the appendix to this essay.) The Apkallû and Isaiah 6:1–7 This understanding of the source of the seraphim allows us to explain the satirical function of the seraphim in the first two “scenes” of Isaiah 6 (vv. 1–4 and 5–7) and provides entrée into the critique of the Assyrian throne-room scene in this vision. The First Scene (Isaiah 6:1–4): The Seraphim and Yhwh In the first scene in Isaiah 6 (vv. 1–4), the seraphim attend Yhwh but do not assist Him or protect Him in any way. According to v. 2, they recoil at His presence, covering their faces (to prevent themselves from seeing Him) and their legs (to cover their nakedness). Their inability to protect or assist Yhwh thus contrasts sharply with the behavior of the apkallû in the palace and elsewhere in the throne room, whose primary task is precisely to protect the king. The contrast is intentional: it is designed to encourage the tribute-bearers to engage in a sort of cognitive reprocessing of their experience and to question whether the art program to which they were exposed effectively argues for the invincibility of the king and omnipotence of his empire. The authors of the art program would have viewers believe that the king’s ability to command the protection of magical as well as human creatures demonstrates his power. Isaiah encourages the viewers to question this proposition: by protecting the king, the apkallû demonstrate his frailty and need for protection. By satirizing the apkallû, Isaiah highlights the king’s vulnerability. In contrast, the seraphim that surround Yhwh recoil because they recognize His transcendent nature. He needs no protection: He is on an entirely different level than they, and they are unable to approach Him. Both their actions and the declaration they make in v. 3 highlights his transcendence. They affirm the universal reach of Yhwh in v. 3b, but first they emphasize that He is holy, that He is removed and separate from the world. The goal of vv. 1–4 is to give voice to the silent attendants beside the throne. The seraphim are satirical representations of the apkallû, and Isaiah has the seraphim act and speak so as to emphasize the transcendence of Yhwh. By causing the ambassadors to compare their own relationship to Yhwh with that of the apkallû to the Assyrian king, they highlight the humanity and vulnerability of the Assyrian king and thus undermine the notion of his royal omnipotence.

30

Shawn Zelig Aster

The Second Scene (Isaiah 6:5–7): The Seraph and the Prophet In the second scene, the prophet addresses the apparent inconsistency between the refusal of the seraphim to view Yhwh and his own bold statement in v. 1, “I saw the Lord.” Because of this act of lèse-majesté, he indicts himself. Thus, the inappropriateness of humans approaching Yhwh and the distance between man and God remain the central motifs in this scene. Three interpretive questions relate to the formulation used in v. 5: 1.  Why does the prophet phrase his self-indictment by referring to his impurity? 2.  Why does he refer specifically to impurity of the lips? 3.  Why does he mention that the rest of the people also have impure lips? One clear reason for the use of impurity in this scene is to spur the seraphim to action. Just as the apkallû have a lustrative function, so do their satirical representations, the seraphim. A single seraph responds by purifying the prophet with an object taken from the altar. This act of lustration by the seraph evokes the lustrative actions of the apkallû and emphasizes the difference between the occupant of the throne attended by the apkallû and the Occupant attended by the seraphim. While the vulnerable Assyrian king is in need of purifying attendants, transcendent Yhwh is completely removed from such impurity, and His attendants purify only human beings. The impurity of these human beings only becomes apparent when they are confronted with the antithesis of impurity: Yhwh. The action of the seraphim thus emphasizes the distance between humans and Yhwh, and in this way, the second scene forms an ideological complement to the first scene. Impurity serves to make explicit the distance between humans and God, which was implicit in the first scene. The concept of purity and impurity used in this scene seems to differ from the concept used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Here, impurity is destructive: the result of the prophet’s action is that he becomes “destroyed” (‫)נדמיתי‬. 33 The notion that impurity endangers physical existence is found in Mesopotamia: it underlies the use of the term mullilu (“purifier”) in reference to an object, which according to the texts Wiggerman cites, is used to ward off destructive forces. The nexus between impurity and destruction found in Isa 6:5, unparalleled in the biblical corpus, seems to be derived from the Assyrian notion. The localization of the impurity in the lips, a concept unparalleled in the Hebrew Bible, is also derived from Assyrian and Babylonian sources, as Hurowitz demonstrated in his study of this chapter. In surveying the textual evi33.  The verb is difficult but has parallels in Hos 10:15 and Zeph 1:11. Both the parallels and the context support the meaning “destroyed.” Hurowitz translates, “I am destined for perdition.”

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

31

dence for the washing of the mouth and for declaring the mouth to be pure, he noted that speaking with a pure mouth (pû ellu) tended to be a divine characteristic. In contrast, ritual performers who wished to achieve purity of mouth had to undergo preparatory rites, the goal of which was not to prepare them for speech. Rather, it appears that the washing of the mouth or the purity of the mouth has independent significance as a characteristic granting or symbolizing special divine or quasi-divine status to the person or object so designated. The pure mouth enables the person or object to stand before the gods or to enter the divine realm, or symbolizes a divine status. 34

Hurowitz described in detail the process required in cuneiform texts to achieve purity of lips, which usually involved washing, bathing, and sacrificing. But it appears to me that, for the interpretation of Isaiah 6, understanding the process of purification is less important than understanding the symbolic significance of the status of pure or impure lips. To the extent that Isaiah loses his status as “a man of impure lips” in this chapter, he does so by means of a seraph’s touch, a process without parallel in the texts that Hurowitz cited. However, the texts he cited effectively “unpack” the symbolic meaning of the localization of impurity in the lips. Noting that a man (or a people) possess impure lips is a way of highlighting the nondivine nature of the individual and his or her nation. In Mesopotamian texts, this characteristic indicates that the individual is unable to enter the divine realm. Isaiah 6 adopts this symbolic meaning from Mesopotamian texts and uses this characteristic to emphasize the distance between the prophet and his people on the one hand and God on the other. Thus, the impure lips of the prophet and people mentioned in v.  6, like the act of lustration mentioned in v. 7, emphasize the distance between humans and God. Verse 6 thus adopts the Mesopotamian symbolic significance of “a man of impure lips,” while v. 7 subverts the lustrative function of the apkallû found in palace art. The vision draws on various Mesopotamian concepts in conveying to the ambassadors the distance between human beings and God. The Third Scene (Isaiah 6:8–13): Yhwh and the Prophet In this third and final scene of the vision, the seraphim are absent. Having emphasized the distance between God and human beings by satirizing palace art, the prophet shifts the focus of his vision to the interaction between the throne’s Occupant and those viewing the scene in the throne room. He thus causes the ambassadors to reflect on their own interaction with the Assyrian king and his court. In vv. 1–7, the prophet functions as a silent viewer of the scene; in v. 8, he shifts to volunteer as an active participant. The transition from viewer to active propagator of a message mirrors the transition that the ambassadors underwent. 34.  Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips,” 54.

32

Shawn Zelig Aster

Just as the tribute-bearers began by viewing the art program and imbibing the messages of the palace and were then transformed into active proponents of imperial ideology, so also the prophet is here transitioning into a bearer of the message dictated by the Occupant of the throne. 35 The prophet thus becomes a satirical representation of the tribute-bearers, just as the seraphim are a satirical representation of the apkallû, and Yhwh is portrayed as the image of the human king in the Assyrian throne room. The overall goal of the scene is to encourage the ambassadors and the elite of Judah to whom they direct their message to engage in cognitive reprocessing and to question and undermine the doctrines of royal omnipotence and Assyrian power to which they have been exposed, both in the art program and in their verbal interactions with Assyrian officials. In vv. 1–7, he has argued that the doctrines are false; he has presented in words an alternative visual experience that argues for Divine omnipotence and transcendence. After asking ambassadors to consider this critique, he presents the dialogue between Yhwh (representing the Assyrian king) and the prophet (representing the ambassadors) as a highly transparent attempt to propagate falsehood to Judah. Verses 9–10 should be understood as a parody or satirical reenactment of the instructions the Assyrian king issues to the tribute-bearers. In v. 9, he demands of them that they convey their experiences in the Assyrian palace to their countrymen without reflecting on their true meaning: “Hear indeed, but do not understand; see indeed and do not know.” In v. 10, he demands that they deny their countrymen the faculties needed for cognitive reprocessing, for thoughtful cogitation on the scenes they experienced: “Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and their eyes plastered over, lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and their heart will understand.” For if they were to reflect on the scenes they saw and appreciate the emptiness of Assyrian claims of omnipotence and invincibility, they would recognize in Yhwh the true possessor of these traits. They would then “return and be pardoned” (v. 10b). The phrase ‫“( ושב ורפא לו‬return and be pardoned”) requires clarification. “Return” (‫ )שב‬is used in Isa 10:21 to mean “return to Yhwh,” and the context (10:20–21) clearly contrasts “return” with previous “reliance on the one who smites them”—that is, Assyria. “Return,” therefore, indicates reestablishing a relationship of reliance on Yhwh after a period of reliance on Assyria. In this use of “return,” Isaiah follows a pattern of usage in Hosea, found most notably in Hos 14:2–5. In Hos 14:2–3, the prophet adjures Israel to return to Yhwh, and this is justified by the statement “Assyria cannot save us” in Hos 14:4. As in Isa 6:10b, the return to Yhwh is followed by His performing the action of ‫רפא‬: 35.  His volunteering to convey the message may perhaps be contrasted to the mercenary willingness of the tribute-bearers to transform themselves into propagators: their willingness was purchased by the gifts they received, but the prophet volunteers without remuneration or coercion.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

33

‫ׁשב א ִַּפי ִמּמֶּנּו׃‬ ָ ‫ְדבָה ִּכי‬ ָ ‫הבֵם נ‬ ֲֹ ‫ָתם א‬ ָ ‫ֶרּפָא ְמׁשּוב‬ ְ ‫(ה)א‬ I will heal their rebellion, I will love them freely, for My anger has abated from them.

Yhwh causes His anger to abate (‫)שב‬, “heals” (‫)רפא‬, and freely loves Israel. Yhwh’s healing, however, does not respond to a physical malady but to rebelliousness. 36 In light of the previous verses, this rebelliousness must refer to Israel’s relying on Assyria and “healing” rebellion means pardoning Israel. 37 So also in Isa 6:10b, ‫ רפא‬means to pardon Israel’s rebellion, and it is only Yhwh—to whom Israel must return—who can issue the pardon. It is precisely this type of “return” and “pardon” that the Assyrian king seeks to avoid by means of the ritual of the tribute-bearing ambassadors and their exposure to the palace art program. Return to and reliance on Yhwh in Isaiah’s view is incompatible with acknowledging the fundamental claims of Assyrian power, including the principle of royal omnipotence. In the parody of the Assyrians in vv. 9–10, the prophet portrays them as attempting to prevent Israel from returning to rely on Yhwh. Rather than functioning as an attempt to convince tribute-bearers of Assyrian claims of power, Isaiah argues that the palace art program actually aims to prevent Israelites from recognizing the omnipotence and invincibility of Yhwh (which are the direct result of His transcendence) and from relying on Him. 38 A dramatic shift in the drama takes place at the end of v. 10. The last three verses of the vision (vv. 11–13) function as a sort of epilogue or soliloquy at the end of the play, in which the actors remove their masks and speak honestly to the audience. 39 The core of this epilogue is God’s answer in vv. 11b–13, which is elicited by Isaiah’s request for a terminus ad quem for Israel’s refusal to return to Yhwh, a refusal that causes Yhwh to withhold pardon. Yhwh 36. On ‫משובה‬, see Jer 3:22. 37.  The use of ‫( שב‬v. 2 and v. 5) and the context of loyalty further substantiate this understanding of ‫רפא‬. Successful acts of repentance lead to forgiveness; in a context of possible punishment, forgiveness means pardon—that is, remitting punishment. The use of ‫רפא‬ here seems to be influenced by the Akkadian bulluṭu. The root in the G-stem can mean “to become well after an illness,” but in the D-stem, it is used to refer to a sovereign’s remitting of punishment deserved by a disloyal vassal. One such example appears in Tadmor, Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, 176–77 and 282. The use of the collocation ‫ רפא‬and ‫ שב‬is the subject of a forthcoming paper by Abraham Jacob Berkovitz and me, and this excerpt is used with his kind permission. 38.  It is highly unlikely that the Assyrian Empire had any interest in Israelite religion or in the theology of Yhwh. Mordechai Cogan has shown that Assyrian attempts to impose cultic worship of Assyrian gods on conquered kingdoms were rare and that no such attempts are attested in the case of Judah. (In “Judah under Assyrian Imperialism: A Reexamination of Imperialism and Religion,” JBL 112 [1993]: 403–14, he reviews the evidence and convincingly defends this thesis.) But Isaiah’s reinterpretation of Assyrian intentions does not need to match the historical reality. As in Isa 37:24–25, Isaiah sees Assyrian imperial propaganda as a direct attack on the sovereignty of Yhwh, regardless of whether the Assyrians intended it as such. On these verses, see further my “‫ שתים זו שמע הנביא‬,‫אחת דיבר סנחריב‬.” 39.  As in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

34

Shawn Zelig Aster

replies by describing a vision of destruction consistent with the result of an Assyrian invasion and deportation (vv. 11b–12). 40 But these abandoned cities, houses, and plots whose owners have been deported are described in v. 12, not as the result of Assyrian actions, but as the result of actions by Yhwh: ′‫ְוִרחַק ה‬ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫ ָהא‬-‫אֶת‬, “Yhwh will distance man.” These last three verses thus form the capstone of the argument. Just as the attributes of omnipotence and invincibility are denied to the Assyrian king and are attributed to Yhwh, so also the ability to determine the fate of Israel is denied to the Assyrian king. Israel will indeed suffer exile, not because of disloyalty to Assyria, but because of disloyalty to Yhwh, who alone has the power to remit Israel’s punishment (‫)רפא‬. And it is Yhwh who will effect the exile. The final verse (v. 13) reverts to the topic of holiness exposed in the first scene: holiness will inhere in those who withstand the exile, the “trunk” of the tree whose branches have been chopped off. This “holy seed” forms an unexpected answer to Isaiah’s question in v. 11a. The prophet asks for a time limit on Israel’s refusal to recognize the false nature of Assyrian claims. God does not set a time limit: He affirms that Israel will suffer exile as a result of its refusal to repudiate Assyrian claims of power and its refusal to rely on Yhwh. Rather than a time limit, Yhwh replies by limiting the extent of the destruction. Many will be exiled, but a certain percentage will remain on the land, and this remnant is represented by the trunk and described as a “holy seed.” Conclusion: Politics and Theology The theological argument presented in this vision is linked in vv. 11–13 to a political argument: the Israelites’ impending exile derives not from their disloyalty to Assyria but from their refusal to acknowledge Yhwh as omnipotent and to rely on Him. The position that Israel can only lose through loyalty to Assyria is exposed in greater detail in Isaiah 7 and in parts of Isaiah 8, which clearly relate to the period of the Syro-Ephraimite crisis in 738–733. Isaiah counsels Judah to remain aloof, to refuse to join either the Syro-Ephraimite alliance or those countries loyal to Assyria (7:3–9). Implicit in his argument is the conviction that submitting to Assyria will inevitably result in the burden of tribute becoming unbearable, and the subsequent refusal to remit tribute will be interpreted by Assyria as rebellion. This “rebellion” will cause an Assyrian invasion. Thus, the only way to remain secure is to remain aloof from any alliance or submission and to maintain the sort of neutrality that Judah (along with Edom, Moab, and Ammon) maintained until 734. The political argument against what appears to be an initial submission to Assyria suggests that Isaiah  6 should be dated to the reigns of Ahaz and Tiglath-pileser—more precisely, to the period surrounding the initial submis40.  More precisely, these are consistent with the results of an Assyrian one-directional deportation, of the sort done by Tiglath-pileser III in Galilee in 733–732. Under Sargon II, after 720, Israel suffered bidirectional deportations.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

35

sion of Judah in 734. This correlates with the centrality of the ambassadors’ experience in the formulation of this vision. In the period surrounding 734, the experiences of Judahite ambassadors visiting Calah (and being received in the throne room built by Ashurnasirpal II) would have been novel. Their experiences would have excited discussion among the political elite of Judah upon their return. The throne-room vision of Isaiah was directed in the first instance to this political elite, who made key political decisions about Judah’s alliances. Through a variety of channels, 41 the members of this elite would have been profoundly familiar with Assyrian imperial propaganda. Like the political arguments in Isaiah 7–8, the vision of Isaiah  6 was directed to this group.
However, the distinguishing mark of great literature is its classic nature. Although Isaiah 6 was directed against Assyrian imperialism, the death of the Assyrian Empire does not detract from its relevance. It remains a polemic for Divine transcendence and majesty, and it is not limited by the absence of the antagonist against whom the polemic was initially directed. Its enduring relevance is attested by the many Jewish prayer rites developed long after Assyria’s demise to introduce the daily kedusha prayer, the first line of which is taken from Isa 6:3. The Ashkenazi prayer rite that Hurowitz loved (perhaps because it is so rare in Beer-sheba) reads Isa 6:3 as such a polemic and introduces the verse by affirming that our declaration of God’s universal nature and holiness parallels such declarations in heaven: ‫ כשם שמקדישים אותו בשמי מרום‬,‫נקדש את שמך בעולם‬ We will sanctify Your name in this world, just as they declare it holy in the heavenly sphere.

The motivation for the affirmation is ontological rather than empirical: it does not derive from contemplating God’s indwelling presence in this world but from our modeling ourselves on celestial beings. Like them, we recognize that only a transcendent being can be universal. Other Jewish prayer rites make explicit the idea of affirming Divine Sovereignty, an idea that runs as a hidden thread throughout the vision in Isaiah 6: ‫ קבוצי מטה‬,‫ עם עמך ישראל‬,‫ מלאכים המוני מעלה‬,‫לקינו‬-‫ א‬′‫ ה‬,‫כתר יתנו לך‬ ‫יחד כלם לך קדשה ישלשו‬... The angels, who are the upper multitude, will give you a crown, O Lord our God, together with Your people Israel, gathered below. Together they will all sanctify you thrice.

41.  Some of which I discussed in “Transmission of Neo-Assyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century bce.”

36

Shawn Zelig Aster

Figure 4.  Seal from Nimrud (ND 7049). Drawing reproduced from Huxley, “The Gates and Guardians in Sennacherib’s Addition to the Temple of Assur,” fig. 11, based on photo in Barbara Parker, “Seals and Seal Impressions from the Nimrud Excavations 1955-58,” Iraq 24 (1962): pl. 19, fig. 2. Reproduced courtesy of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq (Gertrude Bell Memorial).

Another introduction to Isa 6:3 found in Jewish prayer connects this verse to Isa 8:12–13, which contrasts the popular perception of human kings to the idea of Divine Supremacy, to which the prophet is to hold fast. While the people fear a human king or kings (certainly Rezin, possibly Tiglath-pileser as well), Isaiah and his students must know that visible might is not indicative of ultimate power. Only a transcendent being can possess ultimate power, and thus the verses connect holiness to supremacy: (6) Do not designate “conspiracy” everything that this people designates “conspiracy,” and do not fear or consider to be overawing that which it fears. (8) You shall declare Yhwh of Hosts to be holy; he is your fear and the one you ought to consider to be overawing. 42

The following introduction from the Ashkenazic version of the Sabbath and festival Mussaf prayer uses phrases drawn from Isa 8:12–13. By correlating Isa 8:12–13 and Isaiah 6, the prayer contrasts a human king with Yhwh: ‫ המקדישים שמך בקדש‬,‫נעריצך ונקדישך כסוד שיח שרפי קדש‬ We will consider you to be overawing and holy, as in the speech of the gathering of holy seraphim, who declare Your name holy in the holy place.

However, the prayer that most clearly reads Isaiah 6 as a contrast between a human king and a divine king is the stirring introduction to the kedusha of the High Holidays. Written in the medieval period, it explicitly contrasts the eternal supreme king (‫ )מלך עליון‬to the ephemeral human king (‫)מלך אביון‬, thus evoking the contrast around which Isaiah 6 was originally composed. 43 42.  On the translation of ‫תעריצו‬, see my article “The Image of Assyria in Isaiah 2:5–2,” 263. Throughout Isaiah, the root ‫ ערץ‬tends to be used in contexts where Yhwh is compared or contrasted to a conqueror. 43.  This composition can be found in any Ashkenazi prayer book for the High Holidays, including The Kasirer Edition Machzor M’soras haRav Rosh Hashana Nusach Ashkenaz, ed. Arnold Lustiger (New York: K’hal, 2007), 364–69.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

37

Appendix: Why the Apkallû are Called Seraphim It is important to recognize the similarities between the physical appearance of the apkallû and that of the seraphim in Isaiah’s vision. At first blush, it might appear that there are no similarities between the term ‫שרף‬, which usually refers to a snake in Biblical Hebrew, and the human-headed and bird-headed apkallû. But the comparison Isaiah evokes relates to the whole class of these figures, and many of the apkallû figures do not have the heads of either humans or birds. Mallowan has noted that texts from Assur describe apkallû both as “clad in the skin of a fish” and as having “bird faces clad in wings.” 44 Reade notes that the bird figures are “traditional Assyrian types which subsequently become less frequent.” 45 The association between the apkallû, who are magical guardians, and the water-god Ea/Enki, the master of magic, leads to their portrayal as fish-headed. 46 Figure 4 presents a pair of flying fish-men on a seal found at Nimrud. Note the pail held by the fish-man that is similar to that held by the birdheaded apkallû. Fish-men functioned as entrance guardians at the Temple of Nabu at Calah. 47 A similar fish-man holding a similar bucket appears at one of the doors in Sennacherib’s southwest palace at Nineveh. 48 Only the bottom half of the relief has been preserved, but we can clearly see the scaly fish-skin, the tail, and the bucket he holds. An inscription of Tiglath-pileser III records the placement of such fish-men as guardian figures around his palace:

Figure 5.  Limestone relief from the Northwest Palace at Nimrud (AO19850). Drawing reproduced from M. Huxley, “Gates and Guardians in Sennacherib’s Addition to the Temple,” Iraq 62 (2000): fig. 7; based on photo in A. Green, “Note on the ‘Scorpion-Man,’ ” Iraq 47 (1985): pl. 8. Courtesy of the British Institute for Study of Iraq (G. Bell Memorial, www.bisi.ac.uk.)

44.  Mallowan, “Magic and Ritual in the Northwest Palace Reliefs,” 33. 45.  “They are joined, and largely replaced, by others borrowed not only from Babylonia, the traditional home of wisdom and magic, but also from the western provinces, which contributed the sphinx” (Reade, “Ideology and Propaganda in Assyrian Art,” 335). 46. Margaret Huxley, “The Gates and Guardians in Sennacherib’s Addition to the Temple of Assur,” Iraq 62 (2000): 122 n. 69. 47.  Ibid., 122. 48.  The relief appears as fig. 22, on p. 37 in Russell, Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival.

38

Shawn Zelig Aster

Figure 6.  From the Southwest Palace. Reproduced from R. D. Barnett and M. Falkner, The Sculptures of Assur-Nasir-Apli II (883–859 b.c.), Tiglath Pileser III (745–727 b.c.), Esarhaddon (681–669 b.c.) from the Central and South-west Palaces at Nimrud (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1962), pl. 112, p. 164, courtesy of the British Museum.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

39

Figure 7.  Egyptian Uraeus. Reproduced from Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, Stuttgarter Bibelstudien 84/85 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Biblewerk, 1977), fig. 50, courtesy of Othmar Keel. © Foundation BIBLE+ORIENT, Fribourg, Switzerland.

u ṣalam abni maṣṣar šūt ilāni rabûti binût apsî kiššu ušasḫirma puluḫtu ušarši And I fashioned statues, the guardians of the great gods, creatures of the deep (i.e., fish-men), and placed them around the supporting wall, thus I endowed (it) with puluḫtu (i.e., terror caused by an appearance of overwhelming strength). 49

They are also portrayed as scorpions. A limestone relief from Assurnasirpal’s palace, reproduced here as the drawing in fig. 5, portrays a figure that Huxley identifies as a “scorpion man.” He has wings identical to those of the apkallû in figs. 1–3, and his left arm is in the same position for carrying a bucket as theirs (although the portion of the relief containing the bucket itself has been eroded). Clearly, then, the guarding genii who carry purifiers and buckets are not all bird-headed or human-headed: some had fish-like scales and tails, and some were designed to resemble scorpions. In addition, there is a good indication that erect snakes appeared in reliefs containing these genii. A snake of this sort is found in one relief from the southwest palace of Esarhaddon at Nineveh. 50 Austen Henry Layard, who excavated the Calah palaces in the 19th century, described this figure as “a dragon with the head of an eagle and the claws of a bird.” His description of the figure as a dragon highlights the fact that it is unparalleled in the natural world. Layard’s use of imaginary terms to describe these genii shows how difficult it must have been for foreigners visiting the palace in Assyrian times to describe its imagery: like Layard, they found that their own experience of the natural world did not provide them with the terms needed to describe these 49.  Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath Pileser III, 175, summary inscription 7, line 31 (parenthetical remarks are mine). 50.  It is preserved in a drawing by Layard, which contains three registers of figures. In the palace, it was located adjacent to a pair of winged bulls who guarded entrance B. Reproduced here as fig. 6, the main figure on the top register looks quite like an erect snake with arms, and he is clearly followed by a guarding genie bearing the bucket (note the musculature of the genie’s calves, similar to those seen in figs. 1–3).

40

Shawn Zelig Aster

fantastical creatures. Confronted with a wide variety of genii, 8th-century ambassadors from the land of Israel could easily have focused on the winged, flying scorpion or winged, flying fish and assimilated all of the apkallû they saw to these forms. In returning to the land of Israel, they may have referred to the various fantastical winged apkallû as flying snakes and described them in this way to Judahites in Jerusalem. There would have been a particular reason for them to do so: the image of the winged erect serpent (uraeus) known from Egyptian art, would have been familiar to them. One example, from an Egyptian seal, appears in fig. 7. Images of uraei were clearly known in the land of Israel in biblical times. 51 “It is precisely in the eighth century, at the time of Isaiah, that the presence of such flying snakes is best represented in Judaean iconography.” 52 The term ‫ שרף‬may have been used to refer to these figures, and by extension, to the apkallû. Because the Egyptian uraeus forms one of the closest visual parallels to the seraphim in Isaiah 6, scholars who did not consider the Assyrian throne-room imagery have argued that the seraphim in Isaiah 6 are modeled on these winged serpents. 53 Such uraei often appear in proximity to symbols of Pharaoh and seem to have been responsible for protecting him. 54 Thus, they have a function similar to the Assyrian genii. There are two difficulties with the suggestion of seeing the Egyptian uraei as the basis for the seraphim, without reference to the Assyrian genii. The first is the numerical and positional difference between the uraei and the seraphim. In Egyptian art, multiple uraei do not surmount the royal throne as do the seraphim in Isaiah 6. Roberts has cited two images (reproduced as figs. 8a–b) that show a single uraeus hovering above the symbol of the pharaoh and notes 51.  They appear both in Egyptian seals found in the land of Israel (Karen R. Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” JBL 86 [1967]: 412–13) and in Judean seals that imitate Egyptian styles (Jimmy J. Roberts, “The Visual Elements in Isaiah’s Vision in Light of Judaean and Near Eastern Sources,” in From Bible to Babylon: Essays on Biblical History and Literature in Honour of Brian Peckham, ed. Joyce Rilett Wood et al. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2006], 205–6). Furthermore, Roberts has identified a figure of an erect winged serpent mounted on a pole embossed on a bronze bowl that formed part of the hoard of booty taken back to Assyria by Tiglath-pileser III from his campaigns to Syria–Palestine. He hypothesizes that this figure might have been the Nehushtan of the temple mentioned in 2 Kgs 18:4 and suggests that Isaiah may have drawn on the presence of such an image in the temple in formulating his vision. But it is also possible that the image of the erect winged serpent mounted on a pole was a Judean imitation of an Assyrian battle-standard. A standard of this sort is discussed below, n. 56. 52.  Roberts, “Visual Elements in Isaiah’s Vision,” 207. 53.  Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” 410–15; J. de Savignac, “Les Seraphim,” VT 22 (1972): 320–25; Roberts, “Visual Elements in Isaiah’s Vision,” 198–213. 54.  Joines, “Winged Serpents in Isaiah’s Inaugural Vision,” 412; and Roberts, “Visual Elements in Isaiah’s Vision,” 207.

Images of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal II at Calah

41

Figures 8a (left) and 8b (below).  Drawings reproduced from Othmar Keel, Jahwe-Visionen und Siegelkunst, figs. 48–49, with permission. © Foundation BIBLE+ORIENT, Fribourg, Switzerland.

that pairs of winged cobras appear on armrests of the throne of Tutankhamon and possibly in a Phoenician sanctuary. 55 But the fact remains that, in the 8th 55.  Ibid., 206.

42

Shawn Zelig Aster

century, there is no evidence for depictions of multiple Egyptian uraei surmounting a royal throne. A second and more significant difficulty with this suggestion is that positing the uraei as the background to the vision in Isaiah 6 does not provide an overall solution to the many vexing problems presented by this vision. As Hurowitz demonstrates in his study, an interpretation of the visual imagery ought to lead to a larger interpretation of the vision’s message. No interpretation of this sort has been proposed on the basis of the Egyptian uraei, but such an interpretation can be proposed on the basis of the similarity between the apkallû and the seraphim. It is therefore preferable to consider the Assyrian apkallû as the source for the seraphim in Isaiah 6. Using the term ‫ שרף‬to describe all of the different forms of apkallû seems to be the result of knowledge of the Egyptian uraei, which had become an element in Judahite art. Just as Layard described the standing snake as a dragon (a figure taken from medieval legend, known in Victorian England), 8th-century Israelites may have described the protective genii in the Assyrian throne room, in their various forms (bird, fish, or scorpion) by referring to the uraei known to them. The prophet may also privilege the ‫ שרף‬as a way of referring to the apkallû over these other forms because he sees the snake as a symbol of Assyria, a point that is evident in Isa 14:29. This symbolism may result from the use of snakes in Assyrian battle-standards. Such standards appear in a sculpture from Calah that portrays cultic scenes, including one depicting a pair of serpents impaled on a pair of poles in front of an altar, behind which a pair of worshipers raise their hands. The impaling of the serpent on the pole suggests that this is a portrayal of the “weapon of Assur,” which seems to include a lance or spear as its primary component. 56 Either way, the similarities between the seraphim of Isaiah 6 and the apkallû strongly suggest that the latter is the source of the former. The similarities are so unique and the images in Isaiah so lacking in parallel elsewhere in the biblical world that this is a clear case of literature borrowing from art. 56.  The image appears in John M. Russell, “Sennacherib’s Palace without Rival Revisited: Excavations at Nineveh and in the British Museum Archives,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, ed. Simo Parpola and Robert M. Whiting (Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997) 302. Original publication in Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains, 2 vols. (New York: Putnam, 1849), 2:469. I discuss this in “The Transmission of Assyrian Claims of Empire to Judah in the Late Eighth Century,” 27 n. 86.

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

Gary Beckman When I first made his acquaintance during our year together at the Center for Advanced Jewish Studies at the University of Pennsylvania in 1997–98, my friend Victor Hurowitz had already long been interested in the treatment of the divine image in the cultures of the ancient Near East. 1 It is with profound sadness that I contribute to his memorial volume this study of a Hittite ritual of Hurrian background in which the deity IŠTAR (here the Hurrian Šauška) of Nineveh is given a bath. This composition was first studied by Maurice Vieyra 2 and later discussed in some detail by Ilse Wegner, 3 but neither scholar made use of the extensive duplicates, many of which had indeed not yet been published. 4 It represents a composition from the era immediately preceding the rise of the Hittite Empire under Šuppiluliuma I, a period the textual production of which is referred to by Hittitologists as Middle Hittite. Indeed, the text cannot predate this time, since the introduction of the cult of Šauška into Hittite lands—from Kizzuwatna (later Cilicia) via the southeastern town of Šamuḫa—seems to have taken place only under Tudḫaliya I, great-grandfather of Šuppiluliuma. 5 1.  Abbreviations employed here are those listed in The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (CHD). Raised er indicates erasures made by the ancient scribes. See Hurowitz’s “What Goes in Is What Comes out: Materials for Creating Cult Statues,” in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. Gary Beckman and Theodore J. Lewis (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2006), 3–23. This volume, although delayed, grew out of the conference that concluded that year’s work at the Center for Advanced Jewish Studies. 2. M. Vieyra, “Ištar de Ninive,” RA 51 (1957): 83–102, 130–38. 3. I. Wegner, Gestalt und Kult der Ištar-Šawuška in Kleinasien, AOAT 36 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 126–31. 4. The Konkordanz der hethitischen Keilschrifttafeln of S. Košak and collaborators (http://www.hethport.uni-wuerzburg.de/hetkonk/) also lists for this text group KBo 40.92, 46.247, and 52.207–8, but none of these may be placed with any certainty in this composition. 5.  Located at the modern Turkish site of Kayalιpιnar on the upper reaches of the Kιzιl Irmak? See S. de Martino, “Šamuḫa,” RlA 12.1–2; Jörg Klinger, “Der Kult der Ištar von Šamuḫa in mittelhethitischer Zeit,” in Investigationes Anatolicae: Gedenkschrift für Erich Neu, ed. J. Klinger, E. Rieken, and C. Rüster (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 153–67.

43

44

Gary Beckman

The main manuscript of Text 1 (A) preserves slightly less than half of the original contents of the tablet, but since we find ourselves in the middle of the third day of activities, the composition must have had at least one preceding tablet, as yet unidentified. 6 Duplicates 1.B–G each present 10–20 lines of text and may belong to as few as two duplicate exemplars. 7 In date, most, if not all, fragments of Text 1 represent Middle Hittite manuscripts, 8 but its ductus indicates that Text 1.A was inscribed in the early empire period (NH). 9 Text 2 is an abridged version of part of the ceremony covered in Text 1, with more-concise formulation of the activities and the frequent insertion of paragraph strokes. Text 3 (New Hittite script) is a shelf label that may refer to this composition, among others. 10 The place of Text 4 (New Hittite script) within the group is uncertain, 11 but there is no doubt that it is concerned with the same deity. The Texts 1A. KUB 27.16 (ChS 1/3–1, no. 35)  B. KBo 34.238 (ChS 1/3–1, no. 36)  C. KBo 43.215  D. KBo 57.210  E. KBo 40.34 + KBo 40.263 + KBo 35.245  F. KBo 43:212  G. KBo 34.240 (ChS 1/3–1, no. 36) 2. KUB 10.27 (ChS 1/3–1, no. 37) 3. KUB 30.76 4. KBo 54.223 + KUB 47.66 (ChS 1/3–1, no. 42)

6.  Although up to ca. 30 lines have been lost at the beginning of 1.A i, it is unlikely that two days of activities could have been covered in this space alone. 7.  This judgment is based on the fact that 1.B and 1.D overlap in their coverage, as do 1.G and 1.F. Texts 1.C and 1.E duplicate only parts of 1.A. Any possible direct joins would have to be “sandwiches” between 1.C and 1.E and other fragments. Of course, only inspection of the original fragments will allow certain conclusions about this question. 8.  1.C and 1.D are too small for evaluation. 9.  The CHD (P 254, sub pē ḫark-) describes the manuscript as “MH/MS” (Middle Hittite in contemporary script), while the Konkordanz (sub CTH 714) lists it as “jh” (New Hittite). Examination of the photo shows neither characteristic Middle Hittite sign shapes nor any very late forms. It should therefore be assigned to the early decades of the empire period. 10.  Among the preserved Hittite ritual material, at least CTH 715 and 716 are also directed to Šauška of Nineveh. On the cult of this goddess in general, see Vieyra, “Ištar de Ninive”; Wegner, Gestalt und Kult; Beckman, “Ištar of Nineveh Reconsidered,” JCS 50 (1998): 1–10; and M.-C. Trémouille, “Šauška,” RlA 12.99–103. 11.  Note that the offerant here is not the queen, as throughout Texts 1 and 2, but the EN.SÍSKUR, “ritual patron” (Text 4 i 3).

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

45

Text 1 (about one-third of column lost) 1.A i   1′. [nu ke]-e-ez k[e-e-ez-zi-ya . . .] §1′  2′. [nu L]ÚAZU GIŠB[ANŠUR AD.KID? da-a-i?]  3′. [na]m-ma pí-ra-an [. . .]  4′. [n]u A-NA ŠA-PAL [. . .]  5′. še-er-ra-aš-ša-an 1 NINDA.ÉRIN.ME[Š da-a-i]  6′. nu-uš-ša-an še-er DINGIR-LUM [da-a-i] §2′  7′. [nu] A-NA DINGIR-LIM-ma pí-ra-an ka[t-ta a-a-bi?]  8′. i-ya-an nam-ma-at ga-li-ša[-an-zi? ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ] §3′  9′. [n]am-ma GIŠIN-BIḪI.A kar!-ap-pí-ya-an[-zi] 10′. nu ma-a-an ḫa-me-eš-ḫa-an-za na-at mi-ya-an[-ta? ar-ḫa?] 11′. [ka]r-ša-an-da ma-a-an gi-im-ma-an-za-ma 12′. na-aš-šu zé-e-na-an-za na-at IŠ-TU GIŠ[IN-BIḪI.A] 13′. ḫu-e-el-pí-it GEŠTIN-it GIŠḪAŠḪUR-it mi-ya[-nu-an-zi] 14′. na-at A-NA DINGIR-LIM ke-e-ez ke-e-ez-zi-ya 15′. [iš-ki-š]a-az-zi-ya EGIR-an ti-an-zi 16′. kat-ta-an-ma-aš-ma-aš ú-e-el-ku ki-it-ta-r[i] 17′. na-at-kán an-da a-pí-ya pa-aš-kán ú-e-el-ku-⸢i?⸣[-ma-kán?] 18′. an-da IM-pát pád-da-an §4′ 1.A i 19′. [m]a-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma MUNUS.LUGAL PA-NI DINGIR-LIM a-ri na-aš 1.E  1′. [ ]-⸢ma⸣ [ ] 1.A i 20′. ḫi-in-ga-zi nu GIŠBANŠUR ku-it ⸢LÚ.MEŠ?⸣[. . .] 1.E   2′. / [ -g]a!‑zi n[u! ] 1.A i 21′. pé-e ḫar-kán-zi na-at PA-NI DINGIR-LIM ti-an-zi 1.E   3′. / [pé]-⸢e ḫar!⸣-kán-zi n[a- ] 1.A i 22′. nu LÚAZU DINGIR-LAM da-a-i nu wa-a-tar ku-it 1.E 4′f. / [ L]ÚAZU DINGIR-LAM da-a-i nu w[a!- ] / [Š]A 7 wa-at-ru 1.A i 23′. IŠ-TU 7! DUGKU-KU-UB ḫar-kán-zi nu MUNUS.LUGAL DINGIR[(-LAM)] 1.E 5′f. IŠ-TU ⸢7⸣ DUGKU-KU[- ] / [nu] MUNUS.LUGAL DINGIR-LAM 1.A i 24′. a-pé-e-ez ú-e-te-na-az a-ar-ri kat-ta-an[(-ma-aš-ši)] 1.E 6′f. a-pé-e-ez-za ú-i-te[- ] / [ ]-ar-ri kat-ta-an-ma-aš-ši

46

Gary Beckman

1.A i 25′. DUGGÌR.GÁN ḫar-kán-zi na-aš-ta DINGIR-LAM an-da 1.E 7′f. DUGGÌR.KIŠ! [ ] / [n]a-aš-ta DINGIR-LAM an-da 1.A i 26′. A-NA DUGGÌR.GÁN a-ar-ra-an-zi ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma DINGIR[(-LAM)] 1.E 8′f. A-NA DUGGÌR.K[IŠ ] / [m]a-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma DINGIR-LAM 1.A i 27′. ar-ru-ma-an-zi zi-in-na-an-zi na-an IŠ-TU Ì 1.E 9′f. ar-ru-ma-an-z[i] / [z]i-in-na-i na-an MUNUS.LUGAL IŠ-TU ⸢Ì⸣.D[ÙG.GA] 1.A i 28′. er iš-ki-ya-zi na-an-ša-an 1.E 11′. / [i]š-ki-ez-zi na-an-ša-an EGIR[-an] 1.A i 29′. A-NA GIŠBANŠUR AD.KID da-a-i 1.E 11′f. [A-N]A GIŠ[ ] / da-a-⸢i⸣ §5′ 1.A i 30′. DINGIR-LIM-ma-kán ku-e-da-ni A-NA DUGGÌR.GÁN an-da 1.E 13′. / [DING]IR-LIM-ma-⸢kán⸣ ku-⸢e!-da⸣[-ni A-NA DUGGÌR.KI]Š an-da 1.A i 31′. ar-ra-an-zi na-aš-ta wa-a-tar ku-it A-NA DUGGÌR.GÁN 1.E 14′. / [ar-r]a-an-zi [ ] ku-it A-NA DUGGÌR.KIŠ 1.A i 32′. an-da na-at A-NA PA-NI DINGIR-LIM a-pé-e-ez-pát 1.E 15′. / [ ] ⸢a⸣-pé-e-za-pát 1.A i 33′. IŠ-TU DUGGÌR.GÁN da-a-i ŠA [ ◦ ◦ (-ma-aš-ša-an ku-iš)] 1.E 16′. / [ DUGGÌR].KIŠ da-a-⸢i⸣ Š[A ◦ ]x-ma-aš-ša-an ku-iš 1.A i 34′. 7 NA4pa-aš-ši-la-aš A-NA NINDA.ÉRIN.MEŠ [k(i-it-ta-ri)] 1.E 17′. / [ -a]š-ši-la-aš A-NA NINDA.ÉRIN.M[EŠ k]i-it-ta-ri 1.A i 35′. A-NA 7 DUGKU-KU-UB-ma-kán [(ku)-i-e-eš? . . .] 1.E 18′. / [ K]U-KU-UB-ya-kán ku-[ ◦ ◦ ◦ ] x x x [. . .] 1.A i 36′. TÚL-aš an-da ki-ya-⸢an⸣[(-ta na-a)n(-) . . .] 1.E 19′. / [ ]-ta! na-a[n(-) ] 1.A i 37′. na-aš MUNUS.LUGAL A-NA [PA-NI DINGIR-LIM da-a-i?] §6′ 1.A i 38′. na-aš-ta LÚAZU A[-NA MUNUS.LUGAL GIŠERIN? pa-a-i] 39′. na-aš EGIR SÍSK[UR ti-ya-az-zi nu 1 MUŠEN] 40′. am-ba-aš-ši-ya [1 MUŠEN ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦] 41′. du-wa-ar-ni-ya [1 MUŠEN ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ] 42′. [1] MUŠEN ši-ir-ti-ḫi-y[a wa-ar-nu-an-zi] (gap of entire column) §7′ 1.A iii   1.

NAR DINGIR.MEŠ k[a-lu-ti-ya-an-zi]

LÚ.MEŠ

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

47

§8′  2. nu-za MUNUS.LUGAL a-da-an-na ú[-e-ek-zi nu NINDA a-a-an?]   3. NINDA.KU7.ḪI.A-ya ku-i-ú-uš ⟨. . .⟩ UZUNÍG.[GIG UZUŠÀ]   4. TU7.ḪI.A-ya ku-e zi-ik-kán[-zi]   5. na-aš-ta ku-e-ez-zi-ya t[e-pu d]a-aš-kán-zi   6. nu-uš-ša-an A-NA PA-NI DINGIR-⸢LIM ⸣ EGIR-pa zi-ik[-kán-zi] §9′   7. nu MUNUS.LUGAL a-ku-wa-an-na ú-e-ek-zi   8. nu dIŠTAR URUNi-nu-wa dNi-i-na-at-ta dKu-li-i[t-ta]   9. 2-ŠU e-ku-zi 2 NINDA.SIG-y[a] pár-ši-ya na-aš-ša-an 10. EGIR-pa GIŠBANŠUR da-a-i na[m-m]a dIŠTAR URUNi-nu-wa 11. dNi-i-na-at-ta dKu-li-it-ta DINGIR.MEŠ-na 12. ḫé-e!-⟨ya⟩-ru-un-na aš-tu-uḫ-ḫi-na e-ku-zi 1 NINDA.SIG pár-š[i-ya] 13. na-at-ša-an LÚAZU PA-NI DINGIR-LIM EGIR-pa da-a-i t[a ḫa-li-ya?] §10′ 14. nu MUNUS.LUGAL dIŠTAR URUNi-nu-wa I-NA UD.3.KAM ki-iš-ša-an 15. mu-ke-eš-ki-iz-zi ma-aḫ-ḫa-an-ma I-NA UD.3.KAM KASKAL[-ši] 1.A iii 16. EGIR-pa ú-iz-zi na-aš-ta ma-aḫ-ḫa-an I-NA É[.DINGIR-LIM] 1.C ii 1′. [ -t]a m[a- ] 17. am-ba-aš-ši-iš kar-ap-ta-ri 1.C ii 2′. [ -r]i §11′ 1.A iii 18. na-aš-ta 1 GU4ÁB.NIGA 2 UDU.NÍTA.MEŠ an-da u-un-ni-ya-a[(n-z)i] 1.C ii 3′. [ -un-ni-an-z[i] 1.A iii 19. nu-kán 1 UDU 1 GU4 A-NA dIŠTAR ke-el-di-ya zu-z[u-ma-ki-ya] 1.C ii 4′. [ -e]l-di-ya ⸢zu⸣-zu[- ] 1.A iii 20. ši-pa-an-ti 1 UDU-ma-kán dNi-i-na-at-ta dKu-li[(-i)t-ta] 1.C ii 5′. [ -a]t-⸢ta⸣ d[K]u-li-i[t- ] 1.A iii 21. ši-pa-an-ti nu ŠA GU4 Ù ŠA 2 UDU.ḪI.A-ya 1.C ii 6′. [ -y]a

48

Gary Beckman

1.A iii 1.C ii

22. UZUNÍG.GIG UZUŠÀ IZI-it za-nu-wa-an-z[i] 6′. ⸢UZUNÍG⸣.G[IG ]

§12′ 1.A iii 23. ŠA GU4-ma UZUku-du-úr SAG.DU UZUGAB-y[a ŠA 2 UDU.ḪI.A-ya] 1.C iii   1. [ -d]u-úr SAG.DU [ 1.A iii 24. UZUGAB.ḪI.A 2 UZUku-du-úr-ra UZUTI.ḪI.A [(an-da)] 1.C iii 2f. [ G]AB.ḪI.A 2 UZUku-d[u- ] an-da 1.A iii 25. ki-na-an na-at IŠ-TU DUGÚTUL za-nu-wa-an-zi DU G 1.C iii   5. [ ] ÚTUL za-nu- -an-z[i] 1.A iii 26. [nam-m]a ú-da-an-zi 1.C iii   6. [ ] §13′ 1.C iii   7. [

]

] x ki-⸢iš⸣[-ša-an ] (gap of one-half column)

1.A iv 1′. [nu ma-aḫ]-ḫa-an x [. . .] §14′ 2′. MA-KAL-TI-uš x [. . . na-aš A-NA DINGIR-LIM pa-ra-a] 3′. ú-da-an-z[i] §15′ 4′. ÚTUL!.ḪI.A-ya ḫu-u-ma-an-da ku-i[t-ta pa-ra-a o ]-gur? 5′. ku-it-ta pa-ra-a NINDA.LÀL x [ ◦ ◦ ◦ ku-it-t]a pa-ra-a 1.A iv 6′. GIŠIN-BIḪI.A-ya ḫu-u-ma-an ḫa-a-da-an ḫu-e-el-pí 1.D:1′f. [ Ḫ]I.A ⸢ḫu!⸣[- ] ḫu-el![-pí] 1.A iv 7′. ku-it-ta pa-ra-a na-at ú-da-an-zi na-at PA-NI DINGIR-LIM 1.D:2′. [ ] 1.A iv 8′. ti-an-zi nu EGIR-an-da 1 NINDA.SIG A-NA aḫ-ru-uš-ḫi 1.B 12:3′. [ ] / nu EGIR-an-d[a ] 1.D:3′. [ -r]u-uš-ḫi 1.A iv 9′. pár-ši-ya na-at-ša-an LÚAZU ḫu-up-ru-uš-ḫi da-a-i 1.B:3′. [ ] / na-at-ša-an L[Ú ] 1.D:3′f. pár-š[i- ḫ]u-up-ru-uš-ḫ[i ] 13 12.  The first two lines of B cannot be placed: 1′. ⟨⟨ke-e-da⟩⟩[-ni ] 2′.  ḫa-az-zi-t[a ] 13.  No paragraph stroke in B and D.

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

49

§16′ 1.A iv 10′. EGIR-ŠÚ-ma 1 NINDA.SIG A-NA dŠar-ri-na-ša pár-ši-ya na-at d 1.B:5′. [ ] / 1 NINDA.SIG Šar-ri-n[a- ] 1.D:5′. [ ]-ši-ya na-at 1.A iv 11′. A-NA DINGIR-LIM pí-ra-an kat-ta da-a-i nu-za MUNUS.LUGAL QA-TI-ŠU 1.B:6′. [ ] / da-a-i nu-za MUNUS.LUGAL [    ] 1.D:6′. [ .LUG]AL   QA-TI-ŠU 1.A iv 12′. šu-up-pí-ya-aḫ-ḫi LÚAZU-ya-az QA-TI-ŠU šu-up-pí-ya-aḫ-ḫi 1.B:6′. [ ] 1.D:6′. [ ] 1.A iv 13′. 1 NINDA.SIG dŠa-a-ú-ri a-bu-ú-bi pár-ši-ya 1.B:7′. / 1 NINDA.SIG A-NA dŠ[a- ] 1.D:7′. [ ] ⸢a⸣-bu-ú-bi p[ár- ] 1.A iv 14′. na-at A-NA DINGIR-LIM ZAG-az da-a-i nu-za MUNUS.LUGAL QA-TI-ŠU 1.B:8′. [ ] ZAG-az erda[- ] 1.D:7′. [ -a]z d[a- ] 1.A iv 15′. šu-up-pí-ya-aḫ-ḫi LÚAZU-ya-az QA-TI-ŠU šu-up-pí-ya-aḫ-ḫi 1.B:9′. [ ] / LÚAZU-ya-az šu-u[p- ] 1.D:9′. šu-up[- ] 14 §17′ 1.A iv 16′. 1.B:10′. 1.A iv 17′. 1.B:11′.

1 DUGGAL GEŠTIN-it šu-un-na-i na-an PA-NI DINGIR-LIM [ ] / šu-un-⸢na⸣-i na-a[n ] da-a-i DINGIR.MEŠ-ma LÚ.MEŠNAR ka-lu-ti-ya-an-zi [ ] / DINGIR.MEŠ [ ]

§18′ 1.A iv 18′. nu MUNUS.LUGAL a-da-an-na ú-e-ek-zi nu NINDAa-a-an 19′. ku-e pár-ši-ya-an-na-i TU7.ḪI.A-ya ku-e 20′. zi-ik-kán-zi na-aš-ta ku-e-ez-zi-ya te-pu 21′. da-aš-kán-zi nu-uš-ša-an LÚAZU PA-NI DINGIR-LIM 22′. EGIR-pa zi-ik-ki-iz-zi nu a-ku-wa-an-na pí-ya-an-zi 14.  No paragraph stroke in B and D.

50

Gary Beckman

§19′ 1.A iv 23′. nu IŠ-TU NINDA.SIG.MEŠ ku-i!-uš 15 DINGIR.MEŠ ka-lu-ti-iš-kán-zi 1.G 16 rev. 1′. [ ] ka-lu-ti-iz!-zi 1.A iv 24′. a-ku-wa-an-na a-pu-u-uš-pát DINGIR.MEŠ ir-ḫa-a-an-zi 1.G rev. 1′. a-ku- -an-na-ya a-pu-u-uš-p[át ] 1.A iv 25′. nu ma-a-an A-NA MUNUS.LUGAL ZI-an-za nu DINGIR.MEŠ an-da 1.G rev. 2′. ← omits → [ ] 1.A iv 26′. [(ḫar)]-pí-iš-ki-iz-zi nu-uš DINGIR.MEŠ ḫar-pa-an-du-uš 1.G rev. 2′. ḫar-pí-iš-ki-iz-zi nu-uš an-da ḫar-pa-an-du-u[š] 1.A iv 27′. [ak]-ku-uš-ki-iz-zi 1.G rev. 2′. [ ] 17 §20′ 1.A iv 28′. [ma-a-a]n-ši a-aš-šu-ma nu ḫa-an-ti ḫa-an-ti DINGIR-LAM 1.G rev. 3′. [ -m]a nu-uš ḫa-an-ti ḫa-an-ti DINGIR-LUM 1.A iv 29′. [(ak-ku-u)]š-ki-iz-zi dŠar-ri-na!-ša dŠa-ú-ri 1.G rev. 3′. ak-ku-uš-ki[- ] 1.A iv 30′. [(a-bu-ú-b)]i-ya Ú-UL e-ku-zi 1.F:1′f. ⸢a-bu-ú-bi-ya⸣ / [ ] 1.G rev. 4′. [ ]-⸢ú⸣-bi-ya Ú-UL e-ku-zi §21′ 1.A iv 31′. [GIM-a]n-ma DINGIR.MEŠ a-ku-wa-an-na ir-ḫ[a-(a-iz-zi)] 1.F:3′. [ ]-iz-zi / 1.G rev. 5′. [ ]-a-iz-zi 1.A iv 32′. [(ta a-a)]p-pa-i nu MUNUS.LUGAL GIŠBANŠUR [(kur-ak-zi)] 1.F:4′. [ ] kur-ak-zi/ 1.G rev. 5′. ta a-ap-pa-i MUNUS.LUGAL-ša GIŠBANŠUR ŠA [ ] 1.A iv 33′. [LÚ.M]EŠNAR-ma 1 DUG KAŠ pí-y[a-an-zi? . . . (GE6-an)] 1.F:5′. [ ]-an 1.G rev. 5′f. [ / ] GE6-an 15.  Cf. 2 v 6. 16.  At the top of G rev. are four lines running over from the lost obverse that cannot be placed: 1′.  [ aḫ-ru-u]š?-ḫi ḫu-u-up-ru-uš-ḫi-ya pár-ši-y[a ] 2′.  [ n]a?-aš pí-ra-an ⸢kat-ta⸣ da-a-⸢i⸣ [ ] 3′.  [ ] x pár-ši-ya [ ] x [ ] 4′.  [ ]xx[ ] 17.  No paragraph stroke in G.

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

51

1.A iv 34′. [(la-ak-nu)]-an-zi SÌR-RU-ya [(ma-aḫ-ḫ)a-an-ma ] 1.F:5′f. la-ak-nu-an-zi / [ ] 1.G rev. 6′. la-ak-nu-an-zi SÌR-RU-ya maer-aḫ-ḫ[a-an ] 1.A iv 35′. [na-aš-]ta I-NA UD.4.KAM [(DINGIR-LUM ša-ra-a)] 1.F:6′f. [ -t]a I-NA UD.4.KAM / [ ] 1.G rev. 7′. [ ] DINGIR-LUM ša-ra-a 1.A iv 36′. [(t)]a-an-zi pé-di[(-ma-aš-ša-a)n . . . (-kán ar-ḫa Ì.DÙG.GA)] 1.F:7′f. [ -a]n-zi pé-e-ti-ma-aš-ša[- ] 1.G rev. 7′f. da-an-zi pé-e-di-ma-aš-ša-a[n / ] x-kán ar-ḫa Ì.DÙG.GA 1.A iv 37′. [(pé-e)]š-ši!-an-zi 1.F:9′. [ ]-zi 1.G rev. 8′. pé-eš-ši-ya-an-zi §22′ 1.F:10′. [ -t(a)]-ri nu-za ḫu-u-ma-an 1.G rev. 9′. [ -t]a-ri nu-za ḫu-u-ma-an 1.F:11′. [(LÚAZU da-a-i) k]u-it IŠ-TU ⸢7⸣ DUGKU-KU-UB 1.G rev. 9′f. LÚAZU da-a-i / [ ]KU-KU-UB 1.F:12′. [(wa-a-tar I-NA UD.3.KAM píd-da-an-zi nu DING)]IR-LUM ku-it ar-aš-kán-zi 1.G rev. 10′. wa-a-tar I-NA UD.3.KAM píd-da-an-zi nu DINGIR-LUM ku!-i[t ] 1.F:13′. [ (lu-u)]k-kat-ta[(-m)]a 1.G rev. 11′. [ lu-uk-kat-ta-ma 1.F:14′. [(ka-ru-ú-wa-ri-wa-ar ša-ra-a) ]-zi 1.G rev. 11′. ka-ru-ú-wa-ri-wa-ar ša-ra-a [ ] 1.F:15′. [ (a)]n-da up-pí-iš-kán-zi 1.G rev. 12′. [ ] x an-da up-pí-iš-kán-zi 1.F:16′. [(nu DINGIR-LUM I-NA U)D.4.KAM ar-ra-an?-z]i 1.G rev. 12′f. nu DINGIR-LUM I-NA U[D.4.KAM ] 1.F:17′. [. . . (wa-a-tar QA-TAM-MA-pát iš-ša-an)]-z[(i)] 1.G rev. 13′. wa-a-tar QA-TAM-MA-pát iš-ša-an-zi 1.F:18′. [ -(z)i] 1.G rev. 14′. [ ]-z[i ] Text 2 2 i   1. [ ] §1   2. [ ] §2   3. [. . . d]a-a-i   4. [. . .] da-a-i

52

Gary Beckman

  5. [nu-za MUNUS.LUGAL še-ḫe-el]-li-ya-aš   6. [we-e-te-ni-it a-a]r-ri §3   7. [nu LÚḪAL ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ú?]-iz-zi   8. [nu-uš-ša-an A-NA] GIŠBANŠUR   9. [DINGIR-LUM] še-er da-a-i §4

10. n[u MUNUS.LUGAL]-ma pí-ra-an kat-ta 11. [GIŠIN-BIḪI].A GIŠGEŠTIN ḪÁD.DU.A 12. [GIŠZ]É-ER-TUM ku-it-ta te[-pu] 13. [la]-ḫu-u-wa-a-i

§5

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

§6

19. ma-a-an ḫa-me-eš[-ḫa-an-ti] 20. nu GIŠal-k[i-i]š[-ta-a-nu-uš] 21. mi-ya-a[n-du-uš kar-aš-zi]

§7

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

ma-a-an z[é-e-ni-m]a na-aš-ma [gi-im]-ma-an-ti nu GIŠal-ki-⟨iš-⟩ta-a-nu-uš ḫu-el-pí-it IŠ-TU ⟨GIŠ⟩IN-BI mi-ya-nu-zi ku-it-ta pa-ra-a da-a-i

§8

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

nu ši-ḫe-el-li-ya-aš ku-it wa-a-tar na-at IŠ-TU DUGKU-KU-BI ú-da-an-zi an-da-ma-kán šu-u-wa-ru tar-na-a-i nam-ma DUGKU-KU-UB I[Š-T]U GADA an-da ka-a-r[i-ya-a]n-zi

nam-ma-kán ŠA GIŠIN-B[IḪI.A] GIŠ al-ki-iš-ta-a-nu-uš ku-it-ta pa-ra-a te[-pu da-a-i] na-at LÚḪAL A-NA DINGI[R-LIM] iš-ki-ša-aš EGIR-an [da-a-i]

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714) §9

34. traces (large gap)

2 iii   1. 1 NINDA.SIG! dTa-a-a[r-ru] §10′   2. dTa-a-ki-du KI.M[IN] §11′   3. [1] NINDA.SIG DÉ.A dDAM.[KI.NA]   4. KI.MIN §12′   5. 1 NINDA.SIG dA-ya dUTU-g[i] §13′   6. 1 NINDA.SIG DINGIR.MEŠ-na   7. at-ta-ni-wii-na   8. dIŠTAR-wii-na   9. aš-ḫu-ši-ik-ku-un-ni-ni-wii[-na] §14′

10. 1 NINDA.SIG dIš-ḫa-a-ra

§15′

11. 1 NINDA.SIG dAl-la-a-ni

§16′

12. 1 NINDA.SIG dUm-bu dN[IN.GAL]

§17′

13. 1 NINDA.SIG dUr-šu-u-i

§18′

14. traces (large gap)

§19′ 2 iv   1′. [

]

53

54

Gary Beckman

§20′   2′. A-NA 1 NINDA.SIG-m[a-aš-ša-an]   3′. NINDA EM-ṢÚ ku-it[-ta]   4′. pa-ra-a pí-ra-an   5′. te-pu pár-ši-ya-an-n[a-i]   6′. na-at-ša-an dḫu-up[-ru-uš-ḫi]   7′. da-a-i §21′   8′. EGIR-pa-ma 1 NINDA.SIG   9′. dŠar-ri-na-aš-ta 10′. pár-ši-ya §22′ 11′. na-at LÚAZU PA-NI [DINGIR-LIM] 12′. da-ga-a-an d[a-a-i] §23′ 13′. nu-za MUNUS.LUGAL [ŠU.MEŠ-ŠU] 14′. šu-up-pí-y[a-aḫ-ḫi] §24′ 15′. EGIR-pa-ma 2! [NINDA.SIG] d 16′. Ša-ú-ri [a-bu-ú-bi pár-ši-ya] 17′. na-at LÚAZ[U] 18′. A-NA PA-NI DINGIR-LI[M] 19′. ZAG-az da-a-i §25′ 20′. nu-za MUNUS.LUGAL ŠU.[MEŠ-ŠU šu-up-pí-ya-aḫ-ḫi] 2 v   1. nu-ká[n ku-e-ez-zi-ya te-pu] §26′   2. da-aš-ki[-iz-zi]   3. ta-aš-ša-an A-[NA PA-NI DINGIR-LIM]   4. EGIR-pa zi-ik-ki-i[z-zi] §27′   5. nu a-ku-wa-an-na ú-e[-ek-zi]   6. nu DINGIR.MEŠ ku-i-uš 10 NINDA.SI[G.MEŠ]

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

55

  7. ka-lu-ti-e-ez-zi   8. a-ku-wa-an-n[a]-ya a-pu-u-uš DINGIR.ME[Š]   9. ir-ḫa-a-iz-zi §28′ 10. nu ma-a-an A-NA MUNUS.LUGAL a-aš-šu 11. nu DINGIR.MEŠ [ḫa-a]n-ti ḫa-an-di-pát 12. ak-k[u-uš-ki-i]z-zi §29′ 13. traces 2 vi   1. DUB.1.KAM! ma-a-an MUNUS.LUGAL colophon   2. A-NA dIŠTAR URUNe-i-nu-wa   3. KASKAL-ši EZEN.ITU i-ya-zi   4. QA-TI Text 3 3  1. ṬUP-PAḪI.A EZEN.ḪI.A   2. ŠA dGAŠAN URUNi-i-nu-wa Text 4 4 i 18 §1  1. [ ◦ ◦ ◦ ] x-pa x [. . .] ⸢az?⸣ [. . .]   2. [ ◦ ◦ ◦ ] A-NA dIŠTAR [da]-⸢a?⸣-i nu ⸢ku-it⸣[-ma-an]   3. [EN.SÍS]KUR zi-in-z[a-pu]-uš-ši-ya wa-aḫ-nu-u[z-zi]   4. [LÚNAR(.MEŠ)-ma k]i-i SÌR SÌRRU §2   5. [ ◦ ◦ -n]a?-wa-a-ḫi za!-⸢az⸣-za-al-li-ma a-li   6. [a]-li-⸢i!-mi⸣-e za!-al-la dNi-na-at-t[a]   7. ⸢d⸣Ku-⸢li⸣-it⸢-ta⸣ [(z)]a-az-za-al-li-ma a-l[i]   8. [(a-l)]i-i-mi-e ⸢za-a⸣-al-la §3   9. [(i)]-⸢e⸣(-)pa-a-ru-u-waa a-⸢al⸣[(-l)]a-⸢i⸣ [za-az-za-al-li-ma] 10. [a-l]i a-li-i-mi-e [(za-al-l)a d . . .?] 11. [(za-a)]z-za-al-li-ma ⸢a⸣[-li a-li-i-mi-e za-a-al-la] 18.  Readings from copy improved from photo. Restorations drawn from parallel, KUB 47.67 (ChS 1/3-1, no. 43).

56

Gary Beckman

§4 12. [(mMa-a)]-du-u-ya 19 m[(Pa-lu-u)-ya za-az-za-al-li-ma a-li] 13. [(a-li)]-⸢i⸣-mi-⸢e⸣ z[(a-a-a)l-la] 14. [ú-(šu-ú)]-d[(a-a-ḫi) za-az-za-al-li-ma a-li] 15. [a(-li-i-mi-e) za-a?-al-la] Translation Text 1 §1′ (A i 1ʹ–6′) [Then], on either side [. . . Then] the seer [places(?) a table of wicker(?)]. Furthermore, in front [. . .] and beneath [. . . (s)he sets] one ration loaf thereupon and [places] the goddess upon it. §2′ (A i 7ʹ–8′) [Then] down in front of the goddess [an offering pit(?)] is prepared, and furthermore [they] cover it up(?). §3′ (A i 9ʹ–18′) Furthermore, they pick (branches of) fruit. If it is spring, they are cut while bearing fruit; if it is winter or fall, [they] freshen them with fresh fruit—grapes and apples. They place them on either side of the goddess and behind her back. Turf is placed beneath them, and they are stuck into it. Clay is mixed (lit., “dug”) into the turf. §4′ (A i 19ʹ–29′) When the queen arrives in the presence of the goddess, she bows. They set before the goddess the table that [the . . .-men(?)] hold ready. Then the seer takes the goddess, and the queen bathes the goddess with the water 20 they have in the seven jugs. They hold a tub beneath her (the goddess), and they bathe the goddess in the tub. But when they 21 finish bathing the goddess, then she anoints her with [fine] oil 22 and places her 23 on the wicker table. §5′ (A i 30ʹ–37′) They set before the goddess the water that is in the tub, using the very tub in which they bathe the goddess. The queen [sets(?) before the goddess] whatever seven pebbles of [. . .] lie on the ration loaves (and) [whatever . . .] lie in the seven jugs in the spring. §6′ (A i 38ʹ–42′) Then the seer [gives cedar(?) to the queen], and she [takes responsibility] for the ritual. [They burn one bird] for the burnt-offering, [one bird for . . . , one bird] for duwarni, [one bird for . . . , and one] bird for širtiḫi. (gap 24) §7′ (A iii 1) The musicians [worship] the gods [jointly]. 19.  KUB 47.67:6′: -e. 20.  E:5′ adds: of seven springs. 21.  E:10′: she. 22.  E:10′f.: Then the queen anoints her with [fine oil]. 23.  E:11′ adds: back. 24.  See comment on Text 2 below.

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

57

§8′ (A iii 2–6) Then the queen [asks for] food offerings, and they take a little of [the warm loaf(?)] and the sweet loaves that ⟨. . .⟩, and the liver, [heart], and the soups that they put in place, and set them before the goddess. §9′ (A iii 7–13) Then the queen asks for drink offerings. She toasts twice Šauška of Nineveh, Ninatta, and Kulitta, breaks two unleavened breads, and sets them back on the table. Again, she toasts Šauška of Nineveh, Ninatta, and Kulitta, and all the female deities. She breaks one unleavened bread, and the seer places it back before the goddess. Then [he kneels(?)]. §10′ (A iii 14–17) Then the queen evokes Šauška on the third day—whether she is returning and on the road on the third day, or whether the burntoffering is concluded in the temple—as follows: §11′ (A iii 18–22) They drive in one fattened cow and two rams, and she sacrifices one sheep and the one bovine to Šauška for well-being and zuzumaki. She sacrifices one sheep to Ninatta and Kulitta. Then they roast the liver and heart of the bovine and the two sheep. §12′ (A iii 23–26) The leg, head, and brisket of the bovine [and] the briskets, two legs, and ribs [of the two sheep] are minced and they cook them in a pot. [Afterward] they bring (them) in. §13′ (C iii 7) [. . .] as follows [. . .] (gap) §14′ (A iv 1ʹ–3′) [And] when [they . . .] the bowls, they bring [them out before the goddess]. §15′ (A iv 4ʹ–9′) They bring in all the soups—a bit of each, [. . .]—a bit of each, baklava [and . . .]—a bit of each, and all the fruit—a bit of each, dried (or) fresh, and place them before the goddess. She breaks one unleavened bread at the censer and the seer sets it in the crucible. §16′ (A iv 10ʹ–15′) Afterward, he breaks one unleavened bread for the Divine Kings and sets it down before the goddess. Then the queen purifies her hands and the seer purifies his hands. He breaks one unleavened bread for the Weapon of the Deluge and sets it to the right of the goddess. Then the queen purifies her hands and the seer purifies his hands. §17′ (A iv 16ʹ–17′) He fills one beaker with wine and sets it before the goddess, and they worship the gods jointly. §18′ (A iv 18ʹ–22′) Then the queen asks for food offerings, and they take a little of each of the warm loaves that she breaks and the soups that they put in place, and the seer sets (them) back before the goddess. Then they distribute the food.

58

Gary Beckman

§19′ (A iv 23ʹ–27′) Then she finishes toasting those deities whom they worship 25 jointly with the unleavened breads. And if it seems appropriate to the queen, then she aggregates the gods and toasts them in their aggregation. §20′ (A iv 28ʹ–30′) But [if] she prefers, she toasts (each) deity individually. However, she does not toast the Divine Kings or the Weapon of the Deluge. §21′ (A iv 31ʹ–37′) But [when] they finish toasting the gods, then (the ceremony) is over, and the queen retains the table. 26 The musicians [provide(?)] one vessel of beer, knock over a black [. . .], and play. [But] when [. . . , then] on the fourth day they take up the goddess. But on the spot [. . .] they dump out the fine oil. §22′ (F:10ʹ–18′) [. . .] The seer takes everything (left over from the rite) for himself. Because they bring water in seven jugs on the third day and bathe the goddess, [. . .] early the next day, [they . . .] up [and] send in [. . .] Then on the [fourth] day [they bathe(?)] the goddess. They treat the water in exactly the same way [. . .] (text breaks off) Text 2 §1 (i 1–2) [. . .] §2 (i 3–6) [. . .] takes(?) [. . .] places(?). [Then the queen bathes herself with the water] of purification. §3 (i 7–9) [Then the seer] comes(?) [and] places [the goddess] on the table. §4 (i 10–13) Then [the queen] pours out [fruit], raisins, and olives—a little of each—in front (of it). §5 (i 14–18) Furthermore, [she takes] branches of the fruit trees—a little of each—and the seer [places] them back behind the goddess. §6 (i 19–21) If it is spring, then [she cuts the branches] when they are bearing fruit; §7 (i 22–27) but if [it is fall] or winter, then she freshens the branches with fresh fruit and takes a bit of each. §8 (i 28–33) Then they bring in the water that is for purification, and he drops the šuwaru therein. Further, they cover up the jug with a linen cloth. §9 (i 34) [. . .]

25.  G rev. 1′: (s)he worships. 26.  G rev. 5′: table of [. . .].

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

59

(gap) §10′ (iii 1–2) Likewise (she offers?) one unleavened bread to Tarru and Takidu. §11′ (iii 3–4) Likewise [one] unleavened bread to Ea and Damkina. §12′ (iii 5) One unleavened bread to Aya and Šimegi. §13′ (iii 6–9) One unleavened bread to the paternal deities of Šauška and of the ritual patron. §14′ (iii 10) One unleavened bread to Išḫara. §15′ (iii 11) One unleavened bread to Allani. §16′ (iii 12) One unleavened bread to Umbu [and Nikkal]. §17′ (iii 13) One unleavened bread to Uršui. §18′ (iii 14) [. . .] (gap) §19′ (iv 1′) [. . .] §20′ (iv 2ʹ–7′) She crumbles a little bit of sourdough bread before each unleavened bread and places them in the crucible. §21′ (iv 8ʹ–10′) Afterwards, she breaks one unleavened bread for the Divine Kings. §22′ (iv 11ʹ–12′) And the seer places it on the ground before [the goddess]. §23′ (iv 13ʹ–14′) Then the queen purifies [her hands]. §24′ (iv 15ʹ–19′) Afterwards, [she breaks] two [unleavened breads] for the Weapon [of the Deluge], and the seer places them to the right before the goddess. §25′ (iv 20′) Then the queen [purifies] her hands. §26′ (v 1–4) Then she takes [a little of each] and places them back [before the goddess]. §27′ (v 5–9) Then she asks for drink offerings and finishes toasting those deities whom she worships jointly with the ten unleavened breads. §28′ (v 10–12) And if the queen prefers, she toasts the deities individually. §29′ (v 13) [. . .] colophon (vi 1–4) One tablet. When the queen performs the monthly festival for Šauška of Nineveh on the road. Complete. Text 3

(shelf label) Festival tablets of Šauška of Nineveh.

Text 4 §1 (1–4) [. . .] sets(?) by Šauška. And while the ritual patron waves the dove-shaped vessel, [the musician(s)] play this song: §2–4 (5–15) (as yet unintelligible Hurrian song)

60

Gary Beckman

Commentary 1.A i 2′: For restoration, cf. 1.A i 29′. 1.A i 6′: The cult image here is small and light enough to be lifted by a single individual and supported by a wicker table. For descriptions of such portable deities, see C. G. von Brandenstein, Hethitische Götter nach Bildbe­ schreibungen in Keilschrifttexte (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1943); H. G. Güterbock, “Hethitische Götterbilder und Kultobjekte,” in Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Kleinasiens: Festschrift für Kurt Bittel, ed. R. Boehmer and H. Hauptmann (Mainz: von Zabern, 1983), 203–17; and Joost Hazenbos, The Organization of the Anatolian Local Cults during the Thirteenth Century b.c. (Leiden: Brill/ Styx, 2003). 1.A i 7′f.: For the use of iya-, “to make,” with ayabi-, cf. KBo 7.62:4: . . . a-a-bi DÙ-zi. The verb kališ-, to be distinguished from kalleš-, “to call, summon,” is obscure. Aside from several fragmentary and thus unhelpful attestations (KUB 32.108 obv. 3′; KUB 45.39 ii? 10; and KBo 22.122 iv 14′), I know of only two additional occurrences of the word: 27 1.  KBo 31.25 i 10′ (catalog entry, CTH 280):  9′. ma-a-an LUGAL-uš É-TAM ú-e-t[e-ez-z]i LÚS[ANGA-ma?] 10′.  [GI]M-an ⸢É-TAM⸣ ka-li-⸢ša⸣-an-zi TI8MUŠEN-⸢ya-kán⸣[. . .] 11′.  ma-aḫ-ḫa-an ḫar-pa-li e-ša-ri When the King builds a structure, [and] when [the priest] k.-s 28 the structure, and when an eagle [. . .] alights on the grain pile.

2.  IBoT 2.80 vi 4 (ritual of the state cult, CTH 645):  1. na-aš-ta ták-na-aš dUTU-aš  2. ḫa-at-ti-eš-šar dḪal-ki-ya-aš-ša  3. ḫa-at-ti-eš-šar še-er  4. ka-li-iš-ša-an-zi Then (s)he k.-s up the pits of the Sun-goddess of the Earth and of the Grain Deity.

There are not many things one can do to a preexisting hole in the ground, other than place something in it, fill it with something, or cover it. The absence of any object or material in the passage IBoT 2.80 vi 1–4 suggests the final alternative, which I have tentatively adopted for my translation. In KBo 31.25 i 10′, perhaps the priest provides a temporary screen against the elements for

27.  Thanks are due to Richard Beal, who checked the files of the Chicago Hittite Dictionary for me concerning this lexeme, and to Theo van den Hout, who allowed me to make use of this resource. 28. The rendering of Paola Dardano (Die hethitischen Tontafelkataloge aus Ḫattuša [CTH 276–282] [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006], 234), “anrufen,” which of course rests on an interpretation of the form as from kalleš-, does not make good sense here.

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

61

the building in the course of construction, a process interrupted by the ominous appearance of an eagle. 1.A i 9′: For emendation, see CHD L–N 45. The translation “pluck, pick (fruit)” is suggested by Alwin Kloekhorst, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 453. 1.A i 16ʹ–18′: The sod here is intended simply as a matrix in which the sprigs of fruit can stand upright. 1.A i 19′ff.: §4′ has been transliterated and translated in Volkert Haas, Materia magica et medica hethitica (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 153–54, 194. 1.A i 22′: In the phrase appearing only in the duplicate 1.E:5′, wa-at-ru is a pseudo-ideogram. For the syncopated stem in place of the more usual wattaru-, cf. KUB 8.41 ii 3: wa-at-ru-aš (gen.); and see Joseph J. S. Weitenberg, “Die hethitischen U-Stämme” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 1984), §§479–82. The participation of the LÚAZU, lit., “seer,” does not imply any divinatory aspect to the rite, for the practitioner designated by this term performs many other functions in the Kizzuwatnaen cult; see Daliah Bawanypeck, Die Rituale der Auguren (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 2005). 1.A i 28′: One of the few significant orthographic variants among the duplicates is between the pre-NH spelling [i]š-ki-ez-zi in 1.E:11′ and iš-ki-ya-zi in our somewhat later main manuscript. 1.A i 30ʹ–36′: Edited, without duplicate, by Anna Maria Polvani, La terminologia dei minerali nei testi ittiti (Florence: Elite, 1988), 77–78. The reconstruction here is not quite certain due to the poor condition of the duplicate 1.E:13ʹ–19′. 7 NA4paššilaš is an example of the use of a singular noun with a numeral (see H. A. Hoffner and H. C. Melchert, Grammar of the Hittite Language, 2 vols. Languages of the Ancient Near East 1 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008], §9.21). For the addition of seven stones to purificatory water, see Haas, Materia magica et medica,193–95. 1.A i 38ʹ–40′: Restored by Haas, ChS 1/9, 162–63. 1.A i 41ʹ–42′: These particular Hurrian offering terms, here in the essive case, are infrequently attested and consequently poorly understood. Laroche, GLH 275, glosses duwarni as “lieu cultuel(?),” while Volkert Haas and Gernot Wilhelm (Hurritische und luwische Riten aus Kizzuwatna AOAT 3 [Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974], 96–97) list šerdeḫi among the “Heilsbegriffe.” 1.A iii 9: For DN eku-, lit., “to drink a god,” as indicating an act like modern toasting, see Petra M. Goedegebuure, “Hattian Origins of Hittite Religious Concepts: The Syntax of ‘To Drink (to) a Deity’ (Again) and Other Phrases,” JANER 8 (2008): 67–73. 1.A iii 12: For Hurrian ḫeyari, “tout,” see Laroche, GLH 101. He includes the unemended form from this line, ḫé-pa-ru-un-na, as a “graphie aberrante.” 1.A iii 19: For additional attestations of zuzumaki, see Laroche, GLH 310. 1.A iv 23′: For emendation, cf. Text 2 v 6.

62

Gary Beckman

1.A iv 26′: On ḫarp-, see now H. C. Melchert, “Hittite ḫarp(p)- and Derivatives,” in Investigationes Anatolicae: Gedenkschrift für Erich Neu, ed. J.  Klinger, E.  Rieken, and C. Rüster (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 179–88. Text 2: §§3–9 here are parallel to §§1ʹ–4′ of Text 1, while §§20ʹ–28′ correspond to §§15ʹ–20′ of Text 1. 29 The two texts match so closely that we may confidently assume that the content of Text 2 iii, with its successive offerings of unleavened bread to deities of the Hurroid pantheon, approximates that of the lost column ii of Text 1. 2 i 31: For šuwaru-, an implement for sprinkling a liquid—perhaps a bit of foliage—see Oǧuz Soysal, “Zum Nomen šuwaru-,” in Novalis Indogerma­ nica: Festschrift für Günter Neumann zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. M. Fritz and S. Zeilfelder (Graz: Leykam, 2002), 465–74. 2 iv 16′: On Šauri abūbi, the divinized power of the primeval flood, see Wegner, Gestalt und Kult, 85–86. 2 vi 3: KASKAL-ši here cannot mean “zum ersten Mal,” as rendered by Wegner, ibid.,127. Such a meaning would require the insertion of ⟨ḫa-an-teez-zi⟩ (see CHD P 76), and this is made unlikely by the absence of the adjective in 1.A iii 15. From that passage it is clear that KASKAL-ši stands in contrast to the deity’s temple and must therefore mean “on the road, en route.” 4 i 5: Volkert Haas (Hethitische Literatur [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006], 286), restores the beginning of this line from context as [Savos]ka, but the join piece KBo 33.151, to which he did not have access, shows that this is incorrect. 4 i 5ff.: Our knowledge of Hurrian is not yet sufficient to allow translation of this song. However, an analysis of its structure may be useful. Each of the three paragraphs contains two occurrences of the identical—if incomprehensible—sequence zazzallima ali alimie zalla. 30 Preceding this construction, we find the following forms: §2 (a)  [ ◦ ◦ -n]a?-wa-a-ḫi (b)  dNi-na-at-t[a] ⸢d⸣Ku-⸢li⸣-it⸢-ta⸣ §3 (a) [(i)]-⸢e⸣(-)pa-a-ru-u-waa a-⸢al⸣[(-l)]a-⸢i⸣ (b)  [. . .] §4 (a) [(mMa-a)]-du-u-ya m[(Pa-lu-u)-ya] (b) [ú-(šu-ú)]-d[(a-a-ḫi)]

Where intelligible, these terms designate personages, perhaps evoking them: Šauška’s attendant goddesses (2b); “ The . . . Lady” (3a ), possibly referring to Šauška herself; and two otherwise unknown human males 31 (4a). I suggest that 29.  Text 2 §26′ diverges somewhat from Text 1 §§17ʹ–18′. 30.  This also seems to be the Leitmotif of col. i of KBo 2.3++ (ChS 1/3–1 no. 41). 31.  Cf. only Pallu, NH no. 918, as well as the Nuzi anthroponyms Palušše (NPN 111) and Matu (NPN 97).

Bathing the Goddess (CTH 714)

63

the remaining elements likewise indicate recipients of ritual attention, 2a and 4b, through unclear epithets. 32 Discussion As far as they are preserved, the ritual proceedings in Text 1 consist of the bathing of the image of Šawuška followed by several sets of offerings: [0.  Drawing of water? 33] I.  Bath and burnt offerings to Šauška (§§1ʹ–6′) [II.  Offerings to individual deities?—see comment on Text 2 above] IIIa.  Food offerings (§8′) IIIb.  Toasting (§9′) IIIc.  Burnt offerings to Šauška (§§10ʹ–12′) (gap) IVa.  Food offerings (§§14ʹ–16′) IVb.  Toasting (§17′) Va.  Food offerings (§18′) Vb.  Toasting (§§19ʹ–20′) VI.  Cleanup (§§21ʹ–22′)

The act of bathing itself is straightforward: Upon arrival at the ritual site where the divine image has already been prepared, the queen first bows to show her respect. Then, with the assistance of the augur, she washes the goddess in a tub, being careful to catch the special water employed. Next, the image is anointed and set upon a wicker stand; the waste water, its pebbles, and the water jugs are placed before the statuette, and several birds are incinerated in its presence. Unfortunately, a gap in the text obscures the ultimate disposal of the ritual materials. In Text 1 §22′, we find a brief mention of the fourth day’s activities, where “They treat the water in exactly the same way.” Since it seems that the water is employed here solely for the deity’s bath, we may conclude that Šauška will then be given another cleansing. Perhaps the goddess is bathed at the beginning of each day of the festival. At any rate, this procedure appears to be a simple hygienic measure—washing before meals, analogous to proper human etiquette—and not a special process to activate the image as a home for the essence of the goddess. 34 32.  Nominal derivatives in -(ḫ)ḫe? See Ilse Wegner, Hurritisch: Eine Einführung, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 54. 33.  On the fetching of well/spring water as a preparatory step in Kizzuwatnaen ritual, see Haas, Materia magica et medica,143–44. 34.  Compare the elaborate ceremony performed to inaugurate the new image of a deity in KUB 29.4++ and dupls. (CTH 481), which I have translated in full in “Temple Building among the Hittites,” in From the Foundations to the Crenelations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Boda and J. Novotny (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010) 71–89.

Psalm 132: A Prayer for the Restoration of Judah

Adele Berlin I am saddened that this essay, originally written to honor my friend and colleague Victor Hurowitz, must now be dedicated to his memory. ‫צר לי עליך‬, Victor. You were a wonderful scholar and person. Our comfort is in knowing that your scholarship lives on in all of us. One small example is how your work on temple-building has influenced my understanding of Psalm 132. In his monograph on ancient temple-building texts, I Have Built You an Exalted House, Victor Hurowitz observed that Psalm 132, more than any other psalm is “associated with temple building in general and the dedication of the temple in particular.” 1 This observation is the point of departure for my discussion of this psalm and how the idea of temple building informs its two major foci: Zion (and the temple) and the Davidic Dynastic promise. Modern scholars have duly noted the prominence of both of these themes. Form critics, however, tend to categorize the two themes under different genres—the first as “Zion songs” and the second as “royal psalms” or “messianic psalms,” with the result that Psalm 132 is often considered to belong to both genres. For example, Erhard S. Gerstenberger labels it “Zion Psalm, Messianic Hymn,” and Erich Zenger calls it “both a ‘royal psalm’ and a ‘psalm of Zion.’” 2 Because form critics associate the themes of Zion and the Davidic Dynasty with separate genres, they generally privilege one or the other of them in their interpretations of the psalm. Classical form critics focused on the temple aspect, hypothesizing an annual ritual replaying God’s entrance into the temple (marking the inauguration of a temple), replete with processions of the ark. While this hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, some commentators still give pride of place to the Zion theology of the psalm. Among them is 1.  Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, JSOTSup 115 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 260 n. 1. 2.  Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations, FOTL 15 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 363; Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3, trans. Linda M. Maloney, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 457.

65

66

Adele Berlin

Zenger, who, distancing himself from Hans-Joachim Kraus’s preexilic dating and his idea of a royal Zion festival celebrating the election of Zion and the election of David and his Dynasty, states that the psalm “is not about building the Temple but about the institution of the Temple liturgy.” 3 Zenger dates the psalm to the postexilic period (which I and many others accept) and sums up its message as: “Zion is here presented . . . as a dwelling place chosen by Yhwh in the midst of the people: it is to be a place of righteousness and care for the poor. At the same time it is the place where the promises to David continue to live.” 4 My point here is that Zenger focuses on Zion, giving it precedence over the dynastic promise. Others, such as Gerstenberger and Jean-Luc Vesco, see the dynastic promise as the primary message. They see the psalm as a postexilic prayer for the reinstitution of the Davidic monarchy. 5 Both views are valid; Zion and the dynastic promise both figure importantly in the psalm. My argument here is that the choice between “royal/messianic psalm” and “Zion psalm” (or the compromise position that opts for the double label) arbitrarily separates themes that are part of the same temple-building topos, as Hurowitz has shown. 6 The dynastic promise is part and parcel of Zion and the temple in Deuteronomistic thought. As Sara Japhet says: “[T]he city and the dynasty are two aspects of one comprehensive promise.” 7 2 Chr 6:6 explicitly links them when Solomon quotes God as having said: “I chose Jerusalem for my name to abide there, and I chose David to rule my people Israel.” (The counterpart in 1 Kgs 8:16 is defective. ) Immediately following the dedication of the temple, God renews the Davidic promise to Solomon (1 Kgs 9:3–5), as Solomon requested (1 Kgs 8:25–26). Ps 78:68–70 expresses the same double promise: “He chose the tribe of Judah, Mount Zion which he loved. He built his sanctuary. . . . He chose David . . . to tend his people Jacob.” In the logic of Psalm 132, temple-building is crucial to the dynastic promise. The link between the two is common in ancient Near Eastern temple-building 3.  Ibid., 459. Kraus’s discussion is found in Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60–150: A Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 472–83. Zenger is right to reject Kraus, but he goes too far in saying that the psalm is not about temple building. It is precisely the temple-building topos that underlies the psalm’s argument. See my discussion below. 4.  Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalms 3, 468. 5.  While I agree with Gerstenberger’s dating and explanation of the psalm’s purpose, I note that his form-critical approach obliges him to posit a ritual occasion for the psalm: “[O]ne can imagine Zion and David festivals in situations of resurging hopes . . . for a powerful restoration of the lost monarchy” (Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations, 369). I demur that not every prayer needs a festival, or even a cultic setting. Jean-Luc Vesco, Le psautier de David: Traduit et commenté (Paris: Cerf, 2006), 2.1243. 6.  Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 294–99. 7. Sara Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 589.

Psalm 132: A Prayer for the Restoration of Judah

67

literature, where the builder of the temple receives a divine blessing for dynastic stability. The idea appears in the Bible as well, although in a less quid pro quo manner. The promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 can perhaps be seen as a reward for his offer to build a temple, even though the actual building was deferred to his son. When Solomon builds and dedicates the temple, he collects on this promise, as it were, asking God to honor it (1 Kgs 8:25; 2 Chr 6:16) now that the building is complete. Psalm 132 is even more direct in making the connection between David’s building the temple and receiving the dynastic promise, for, more than the narratives, it portrays David as the temple builder and implies that he therefore merited the promise of a dynasty. 8 Although that promise had lapsed with the Babylonian conquest of Judah, our psalm contends that God owes it to David to reinstate his promise. The psalm is a prayer for the reestablishment of the Davidic monarchy along with the rebuilt temple, the two elements that define Judean identity. Their reinstatement would complete the restoration of Judah to the way it was before the destruction. The psalm formulates its message by rehearsing earlier traditions, which it reconceptualizes for meaningful use by the postexilic audience. It also engages with ideas from its own time, sometimes echoing them and sometimes giving them a different twist. Thus it contributes to the fashioning of the ideology and identity of the Judean community, as many psalms do. It has long been recognized that Psalm 132 draws on the story of the ark’s installation in Jerusalem and David’s wish to build the temple, found in 2 Samuel 6–7, with echoes of 1 Samuel 6 and perhaps 2 Sam 24:18–25. The story is reformulated in 1 Chronicles 13–17. The inconsistencies among these texts have been variously explained. 9 For me, they provide a window into the ways that the psalmist and the chronicler reshaped earlier traditions and ideas, each in his own way, for his own purpose. At the same time, our psalm and Chronicles, both products of the postexilic period, share some conceptual points in a constellation of ideas surrounding David, the ark, the temple, and the dynastic promise. The intersections among some of these points are already evident in Samuel and Kings, while others represent later developments. Two related ideas form the core of Psalm 132’s argument: (1) the ark and the temple are one 8. See Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 299, for the idea that ancient Near Eastern monarchs, who did a favor for the gods by building temples for them, expected and deserved the blessing of a dynastic stability, whereas the Bible stops short of this view, for the building of the temple did not benefit God. Psalm 132, it seems to me, comes closest to saying that David indeed deserved the promise, although it does not say that God benefited from David’s actions—only that God’s plan and David’s plan were the same: to make a special place for God in Zion. 9.  For a brief summary of the possible relation of the Samuel material to Psalms 89 and 132, see A. A. Anderson, “Psalms,” in It Is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture—Essays in Honour of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 57–59.

68

Adele Berlin

and the same, and (2) David was the temple builder. These two ideas are joined by the third component, the dynastic promise, which, as noted, is a corollary of temple building. Taken together, this complex of ideas permits the psalm to imply, in a way that the sources in Samuel did not, that God owed the dynastic promise to David and is obliged to maintain it. The psalm opens with a call to God to remember to David’s credit all his “hardship” in connection with his oath to build a dwelling-place for God—that is, a permanent place for the ark. The word ‫עֻּנֹותֹו‬, the Pual infinitive of ‫ענה‬, is difficult. The root means “to be afflicted, degraded.” 10 In the context of the verses that follow, David’s affliction is his self-imposed refusal to sleep, an act that is absent in other biblical passages. 11 But, as Hurowitz discussed, a king’s depriving himself of sleep until he has built a new temple is a known motif in Mesopotamian temple-building literature. 12 So by presenting David as denying himself rest until he has found a home for the ark, along with other motifs commonly found in temple-building texts, the psalm implies that David, like all good ancient Near Eastern kings, was engaged in building a temple for his God. Ah, but David did not build the temple; in fact, according to 2 Samuel, his offer to do so was denied, a point that our psalm conveniently omits. Chronicles, for whom David is the hero par excellence, the ideal king, had the same problem—how to make David into the temple builder, as an ideal king should be. Chronicles solved the problem by having David do all the preparatory work for the temple, making David the brains behind the operation. Even in the course of the ark story he established the Levitical orders (‫)משמרות‬, assigned the songs and musical instruments to the Levites (1 Chr 15:16; 16:4; 2 Chr 7:6), and staffed the ark with personnel (1 Chr 16:37–42). And because Solomon was young and inexperienced, David prepared for the building of the temple before his death; he selected the site, provided building materials, and chose craftsmen (1 Chr 22:1–5). He instructed Solomon to build the temple (1 Chr 22:6) and gave him the plan (‫ )תבנית‬for the structure and the interior décor (1 Chr 28:11–19). Our psalm takes a slightly different tack, accomplishing the same goal by different means. It uses the installation of the ark in Jerusalem, clearly attributed to David in earlier traditions, as a stand-in for building the temple. Of course the ark is not exactly the temple, but the site that David selected for the ark is the site of the temple (cf. 1 Chr 22:1). So David gets credit for selecting the right location for the temple, the divinely destined spot, according to 10. Delbert Hillers (“Ritual Procession of the Ark and Ps 132,” CBQ 30 [1968]: 48–55) suggests “piety” as a translation, based on the use of ʿnh in the inscription of King Zakir. The LXX renders “his humility.” 11.  The same root is used for another form of physical self-denial commanded for Yom Kippur in Lev 23:27, 29, understood as fasting; cf. Isa 58:3. 12.  Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, 324–25.

Psalm 132: A Prayer for the Restoration of Judah

69

vv. 13–14. Both Chronicles and Psalm 132 come from an interpretive milieu whereby David is glorified by closely associating him with the building of the temple—he is made into a virtual temple builder, as it were—in contrast to Samuel’s account of David’s halting transfer of the ark and its portrayal of David as a “wanna-be” temple builder, whose request was not accepted. 13 What is more, the psalm implies that the installation of the ark in Zion is equivalent to building the temple. The ark and the temple are merged together, as if they are one and the same. This is done, first, through overlapping vocabulary. The word ‫משכנות‬, “dwelling-place” (v. 5) appears in the same form, feminine plural (of majesty), in Ps 43:3 and 84:2 in reference to the sanctuary (understood as the temple). Footstool (v. 7) may be a reference to the temple (Ps 99:5; Isa 60:13; Lam 2:1 [and cf. Ezek 43:7]) or to the ark (1 Chr 28:2). Ps 132:8, ‫ למנוחתך אתה וארון עזך‬′‫קומה ה‬, pictures God along with his ark, or God’s presence manifest in the ark, entering his “resting-place,” that is, his temple. In other words, this verse anticipates the temple, with the ark inside it, even though it is ostensibly describing the pre-temple ark. The temple is more clearly in sight in vv. 13–14, where God chose Zion (David’s chosen site for the ark and the site of the temple) as his permanent seat and resting-place. Additional correspondences that collapse the distinction between the ark and the temple are forged by enlisting motifs found in Mesopotamian and biblical temple-building texts, such as 1 Kings 8, in retelling the story of the ark. The motifs include: a divine promise or blessing (vv. 15–17), which is often conveyed in the first-person words of the god; the expectation of a reward for building a temple in the form of dynastic stability; the idea that a god’s temple is also the god’s place of rest. 14 Our psalm is not alone in conflating the ark and the temple; in fact, it is typical. Even within Samuel–Kings, the ark and the temple converge, for the story of the ark in 2 Samuel 6 bears a striking similarity to the dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8. 15 Both stories involve a procession of the ark (into its new location or into the temple), carried by priests, surrounded by crowds of people. Using overlapping motifs for the ark and the temple is perhaps inevitable, given the close association between the two. This makes it easy for our psalm to move seamlessly from one to the other. The trend continues in Chronicles, where the dedication of the temple in 2 Chr 6:41–42 is a literary parallel to 1 Chronicles 16, the story of David’s bringing the ark to Jerusalem. Indeed, 2  Chr 6:41–42 contains a slightly altered version of Ps 132:8–10, added to Solomon’s temple-dedication prayer (lacking in 1 Kings 8). In our psalm, these verses refer to the ark as it moves to Zion but in the Chronicles passage they 13.  Some Mesopotamian monarchs were likewise denied their request to build a temple; see ibid., 164. 14.  Ibid., especially pp. 260 n. 1, 298, 330–31. 15.  Ibid., 269.

70

Adele Berlin

refer to the ark as it moves into the temple. When it adapted the psalm’s verses into a new context, Chronicles made explicit an idea that is implicit in the psalm—by moving the ark into Zion, into what would be its permanent place, David is in effect moving it into the (future) temple. In a strictly chronological sequence, the movement of the ark into the temple is the final step in the journey of the ark (1 Kgs 8:20–21; 2 Chr 6: 10–11); the penultimate step is its relocation by David to Zion. Psalm 132 telescopes these two steps. Given the correspondence between ark and temple in earlier literature and the way our psalm adds to it, we may assume that a postexilic audience would have understood the ark as a cipher for the temple. 16 But this is not the end of our interest in the word ‫ ענותו‬and the troubles of David. There are traces in the Bible that the root ‫ ענה‬was used, not to refer to David’s denying himself sleep, but to refer to the difficulties David encountered in transporting the ark to Jerusalem. These difficulties, although not the root ‫ענה‬, are recorded in 2 Sam 6:8–11 and 1 Chr 13:13–14, where, it is told, after Uzzah died from having touched the ark, David was reluctant to continue transporting it to his city and left it at the home of Obed Edom for three months. Only when it appeared safe did David continue with the transport. An apparent reference to this incident crops up in 1 Kgs 2:26, where Solomon mentions that Abiathar carried the ark and shared in the hardships (this time using the root ‫ )ענה‬that David endured. 1 Chr 22:14 spins this ‫ ענה‬tradition more positively by having David say that, through deprivation (‫)ענה‬, he gathered the money and building materials for the temple. This is an added touch to Chronicles’ portrayal of David as the temple builder. Our psalmist raises the stakes of the ‫ ענה‬interpretation even higher by transforming David’s difficulty with the ark into voluntary self-denial, thereby making David into a fervent temple builder, on the model of ancient near eastern temple builders, in contrast to the practical temple builder in the Chronicles account. This portrait of the passionate, single-minded, and instantly successful David is helped by the psalm’s omission of all of the intervening episodes in the Samuel narrative (presented in slightly different form in Chronicles). In the psalm’s retelling, the story jumps immediately from David’s desire to bring the ark to its proper place, to the notice that it was in the fields of Yaʿar (that is, Kiriath-jearim; v. 6), to its procession to Jerusalem. Our psalm offers no hint that David had any difficulty in accomplishing his goal and evinces none of the negativity or ambivalence about David’s actions found in Samuel (minimized but still present in Chronicles). The ark story is recast into the story of David’s devotion to the ark (= God) and his initiative and determination to bring the ark to its 16.  Corrine L. Patton, “Psalm 132: A Methodological Inquiry,” CBQ 57 (1995)‫ ׃‬643–54, observes, from a comparison of the descriptions of the temple in Ezekiel and Chronicles, that the traditions of tent and temple become more intertwined in the postexilic era than they had been earlier.

Psalm 132: A Prayer for the Restoration of Judah

71

rightful home. The psalm’s larger purpose is to show how much David merited the divine dynastic promise and, hence, how right it is for God to maintain it. By the way, by intimating that David and his followers took the ark from Kiriath-jearim, the psalm is again playing in the same interpretive ballpark as Chronicles. According to 1 Sam 7:1–2, the ark remained in Kiriath-jearim for 20 years after the Philistines returned it, but according to 2 Sam 6:2, David retrieved the ark from Baale-Judah and there is no mention of Kiriath-jearim. 1 Chr 13:5–6 harmonizes: “And David and all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jearim, which belongs to Judah, to bring up from there the ark of God.” The message of Psalm 132 is that the hope for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy is fully justified because tradition, or more precisely, a certain postexilic understanding of that tradition, demanded it. The dynastic promise is a corollary of the building, or rebuilding of the temple. I cannot be certain, but it seems to me that this psalm was written after the temple had been rebuilt, or at least when its rebuilding was not in question. 17 Verses 6–9 conflate the past, David’s procession with the ark, and the postexilic community’s presence in the temple, when the priests don their clerical garb and the people sing praise to God. The rebuilding of the temple is conceptualized as the transfer of the ark to Jerusalem by David and his followers. The psalm may implicitly include a plea for the restoration of the temple, but the emphasis is squarely on the restoration of the dynasty; the psalm begins and ends with David. What is the significance of the idea of the Davidic Dynasty for the audience of this psalm? It surely had political implications, but I think it goes beyond a political movement to gain independence from Persia. The Davidic Dynasty had already become a symbol for the continuity of the Kingdom of Judah. The post-Solomonic reiteration of the promise to David is concerned less about royal succession (the principle had been well established) and more about the survival of Judah. The promise is not so much about the king as about the kingdom. 18 God preserves the Kingdom of Judah for Rehoboam for the sake of the dynastic promise, and the same promise is the reason that God refrained from destroying Judah in the time of Joram (2 Kgs 8:19). 1 Kgs 9:4–7 warns that, if the king disobeys God, the dynasty and the kingdom will be lost and the temple destroyed. From such passages, it is clear that temple, kingdom, and dynasty 17. So Gary N. Knoppers, “David’s Relation to Moses: The Context, Content and Conditions of the Davidic Promises,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East:  Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 111. Patton sees the psalm as supporting attempts to rebuild the Temple, which took precedence over the reinstitution of the monarchy (“Psalm 132,” 653–54). 18. So Knoppers, “David’s Relation to Moses,” 97–98: “The Davidic promises engage . . . much more than the issue of royal succession. In the united monarchy they have much to do with Israel’s fate and national well-being.”

72

Adele Berlin

form an indivisible nexus. But in the postexilic period, the Judeans were faced with an anomalous situation. The temple presumably had been or would soon be rebuilt, but the kingdom and its royal dynasty had not been restored. It is this point that Psalm 132 is addressing. The kingdom with its royal dynasty must be restored along with the temple, for the two together were divinely ordained. How could the Judeans have their temple without also having their Davidic monarchy? They would soon come to understand that the heretofore anomalous situation of postexilic Judah, with its temple but without its monarchy, was to be the new order of things, and in the course of time the hope for the renewal of the Davidic Dynasty would be deferred to the ever-distant future. 19 19.  I agree with Susan Gillingham that the term “messianic psalm” is anachronistic, both in the composition of individual psalms and in the compiling of the Psalter. See Susan E. Gillingham, “The Messiah in the Psalms: A Question of Reception History and the Psalter,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, JSOTSup 270 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 209–37.

Josiah in Bethel: An Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled

Mordechai Cogan Surely the story of the man of God from Judah and his adventures—perhaps better put, misadventures—in Bethel as related in 1  Kings 13 is one of the most puzzling in the book of Kings. This trait has led commentators to view it as belonging to a number of different genres, among them, “the first extensive case of midrash in the historical books,” 1 “prophetic legend,” 2 “prophetic parable” with a moral lesson, 3 one of the “‘prophetic authorization narratives’ of the word-fulfillment type,” 4—each classification dependent on the message perceived to be embedded in the story. In my commentary on Kings, I presented the view that 1 Kings 13 is a two-act, “north Israelite prophetic tale” that was incorporated into Kings by the Deuteronomistic historian after minimal editing. 5 In the present inquiry, I return to the question of the position of 1 Kings 13 within the overall perspective of the book of Kings, 6 considering Author’s note: Dedicated to the memory of Avigdor Hurowitz, a “cuneo-biblicist” (his personal coinage) whose creative approach to biblical matters that drew on the rich store of the ancient Near East will most assuredly be missed. I presented the salient idea of this study at the annual meeting of the Association of Jewish Studies in Washington DC, December, 2008. I thank Dr. Amitai Baruchi-Unna, my colleague and friend, for his cogent comments on an early draft. 1.  J. A. Montgomery and H. S. Gehman, The Book of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), 260. 2.  Among others, J. Gray, I and II Kings, 2nd ed., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970), 318–20; B. O. Long, 1 Kings, FOTL (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 150–51; E.  Würthwein, 1. Könige 1–16, ATD (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 170; G. N. Knoppers, Two Nations under God: The Deuteronomistic History of Solomon and the Dual Monarchies, 2 vols., HSM 53 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 2.55. 3. A. Rofé, The Prophetical Stories (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988), 170–81. 4.  S. J. De Vries, 1 Kings, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 168–70. 5. M. Cogan, I Kings, AB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 373–75; cf. earlier M. Noth, Könige, BKAT 9 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1968), 295. 6.  This corresponds to the third of three contextual levels—identified by Walsh—in which 1 Kings 13 operates, the first two levels being that of the “self-contained narratives”

73

74

Mordechai Cogan

its historiographic context and purpose in light of a cuneiform text roughly contemporary with early Deuteronomistic writing; this will also reflect on the discussion of the story’s genre. 1 Kings 13: A Story in Two Acts As presently constituted, 1 Kings 13 divides neatly into two acts, each embracing independent messages. 7 The first act, 1 Kgs 12:33–13:10, tells of the confrontation between the man of God and Jeroboam, son of Nebat, regarding the altar at Bethel; the second one, 1 Kgs 13:11–32, relates how the man of God was duped by the old prophet of Bethel and the severe consequences he suffered because of his noncompliance with the command of the Lord that he had personally received. The first act—the fate of Jeroboam’s altar—is my main text, because it contains the kernel that ties the whole to Kings. The scene is set in 12:33, a précis of the preceding unit (12:26–32), which explained that Jeroboam had built a cult center—the bamah—at Bethel, set up golden calf images there and at Dan, and appointed non-Levite priests to serve there, all in his attempt to solidify the independence of the secessionist Israel from Jerusalem. The inauguration of the Bethel shrine took place on the 15th of the 8th month, a month later than the Sukkoth Festival celebrated in Judah (cf. 8:2), with Jeroboam personally officiating at the altar. 8 This is the point of departure for the confrontation depicted in 1 Kings 13. 9 During the inauguration ceremonies, an anonymous man of God from Judah burst out of the assembly and proclaimed the word of Yhwh: “O altar, O altar. Thus said Yhwh: ‘A son shall be born to the House of David, Josiah by name, and he shall slaughter upon you priests of the high places who offer sacrifices upon you, and human bones shall be burned upon you’” (13:2). Jeroboam’s call to seize the man of God was cut short; the king’s hand became leprous (v. 4), and the altar split apart (v. 5). Overwhelmed and overawed, Jeroboam begged for forgiveness from the man of God, whose entreaty of God brought Jeroboam back to full health (v.  6). In an act of submissiveness, Jeroboam invited his accuser to dine with him but was rebuffed by the man of God, and the history of Jeroboam; see J. T. Walsh, “The Contexts of 1 Kings XIII,” VT 39 (1989): 355–70. 7.  Noth, Könige, 291–92, takes 1 Kings 13 as the work of a single author, in two acts, with Act One concluded much later in 2  Kings 23. On the etiological motif in Act Two, anchored in the grave of the two prophets at Bethel, see G. H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings, 2 vols., NCB (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984), 1.268. 8.  Of note is the emphasis in v.  33 on the fact that the altar at Bethel was built by Jeroboam, a fact not mentioned earlier in v. 32, and that the festival was his own invention. 9.  Though 12:33 ties the story to the rest of the history of Jeroboam, it is integral to 13:1–10 as it sets the scene for all that follows. Of all Jeroboam’s innovations, the altar and the new holiday are highlighted in this verse. In the present context, it was not necessary to repeat the king’s name, as Würthwein asserts, and for which the king was anonymous in the original prophetic legend (Könige 1–16, 169).

Josiah in Bethel: An Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled

75

who departed for home (vv. 7–10). The fulfillment of the prediction appears, as could be expected, in the history of Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:15–20. 10 There it is told that, after completing his reform of the cult in Judah, Josiah moved into Samaria, where his first act was the demolishment of the bamah and the altar of Jeroboam at Bethel, still in place after the years of war and deportation that had befallen the Kingdom of Israel (v. 15). 11 Reference is made to words of the man of God concerning the altar (v. 17) and confirming their fulfillment, despite the fact that Josiah seems not have been aware of them and the role he was to play. 12 The message of this first act of the anti-Bethel story is Janus-like, one face to the present, the other to the future. In the present, Jeroboam had been taught that Yhwh’s messengers were sacrosanct, and no matter how offensive their pronouncements, they were under the protection of Yhwh. As to the future, though the action was set in a distant time, Jeroboam (as well as the story’s hearers/readers) grasped that, by naming Josiah, divine punishment had been decreed and would surely be accomplished. 13 In Deuteronomistic terms, the actions of Josiah closed the circle: the sinful ways of Jeroboam that had hung as a pall over the Kingdom of Israel from the day of its inception were now eliminated. But one facet of the story, the specification of Josiah and his future pursuits—from a modern perspective, no doubt an ex eventum report—sets it off as unique among the many prophetic predictions in the book of Kings, in which future penalties and punishments are mostly formulated in general terms (cf., e.g., 1  Kgs 14:10–11; 16:3–4; 21:21–24). 14 An examination of similar specific predictions in extrabiblical sources sharpens our understanding of the Jeroboam-Josiah pericope. Ancient Prophecies in the Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal Prism A (Rassam), one of the latest of the annal inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria (669–626 b.c.e.), summarizes the king’s 25-year rule up to 643, the date of its composition. The king’s heroic feats and the support 10. For Rofé, the verses in 2 Kings 23 are “an appendix” (Prophetical Stories, 171). 11.  The multiple actions against the site—tearing down, burning, turning it to dust—and then the defilement by burning bones on the altar echo Josiah’s actions in Judah (cf. 2 Kgs 23:4–14). 12.  On this aspect of the story, U. Simon observed: the “ultimate fulfillment [of the word of God] is not conditioned on the consciousness of the one who fulfills it; centuries may pass, but in due time fulfillment will come”; see U. Simon, “I Kings 13: A Prophetic Sign—Denial and Persistence,” HUCA 47 (1976): 81–117 (esp. p. 112). 13.  Cross is certainly correct in his appreciation of 1 Kings 13 “as preparing the reader’s mind for the coming climax”; see F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 280. 14.  See the early but still useful study by G. von Rad, “The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in I and II Kings,” The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 205–21.

76

Mordechai Cogan

given him by the great gods are set out in nine military campaigns that range from Egypt in the far west to Babylon and Elam in the east. The extensive descriptions of Assyria’s wars with Elam conclude with the campaign of 646/645 against Ummanaldas, the disloyal Elamite king; the Assyrian army reached the Elamite capital, Susa, 15 on which they inflicted vast devastation, in particular to the city’s palaces and temples. Rich booty was taken, including the images of the Elamite god Shushinak and 18 other gods and goddesses, all of whose names the scribes duly recorded. The concluding item of this section of the report, the recovery of the image of the Babylonian goddess Nanaya, 16 looks like a footnote, but it is hardly so. The account as it appears in the annals reads: Nanaya ša 1,635 šanāti tašbusuma talliku tušibu qereb māt Elamti ašar lā simātiša u ina ūmēšuma šī u ilāni abbēša tabbû šumī ana bēlūt mātāti tayyarat ilūtiša tušadgila pānua umma Aššur-bāni-apli ultu qereb māt Elamti lemneti ušēṣânnima ušērabanni qereb Eanna amāt qibīt ilūtišun ša ultu ūmē rūqūti iqbû enenna ukallimû nišē arkūti qātē ilūtiša rabûti atmuḫ ḫarrānu išertu ša ulluṣ libbi taṣbata ana Eanna ina araḫ Kislimu ūmu 1 qereb Uruk ušēribšima ina Eḫilianna ša tarammu ušarmēši parak dārāti 17 The goddess Nanaya, who had been angry for 1,635 years, and who had gone and dwelt in Elam, a place not suitable for her, now, in these days, when she and the gods, her fathers, named me for the rulership of the lands, 18 she entrusted to me the return of her divinity, with the words: “Ashurbanipal shall bring me out of wicked Elam (and) shall bring me into (the temple) Eanna.” The spoken word of their divinities, which they had uttered in days of the remote (past), they now revealed unto the people of later days. The hands of her great divinity I grasped and she took the straight road to Eanna with joyful heart. In the month of Kislev, the first day, 19 I brought her into Uruk (Erech) and had her to take her place on an eternal pedestal in (the shrine) Eḫilianna, which she loves. 20 15.  See the thorough analysis of all of the Elamite wars by P. D. Gerardi, “Assurbanipal’s Elamite Campaigns: A Literary and Political Study” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1987). 16.  For the reading Nanaya, rather than the older rendering, Nanâ, see M. Stol, “Nanaja,” RlA 9.146, with bibliography. 17.  Annal editions: F v 72–vi 11; A vi 107–24; cf. T v 9–32 (R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1996], 57–58). This episode, as well as the two following episodes discussed below, was subjected to a thorough literary analysis by A. Baruchi-Unna, “Genres Meet: Itineraries, Prayers and Divine Messages in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions” (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009), 262–74. 18.  The clause referring to the action of Nanaya and the gods does not appear in all the manuscripts of edition F; see note in Borger, Beiträge, 57, to A vi 110. 19.  The date does not appear in editions F and T. 20.  Compare the older translation in ARAB 2, §§812–13.

Josiah in Bethel: An Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled

77

Ashurbanipal’s return of the image of Nanaya from Elam, which the goddess had chosen as her place of exile, 21 was not incidental to his victory; his very designation to the kingship was linked to this task long ago and fulfilled in his days. A second text, a fragmentary dedicatory inscription to the gods Nergal and Laṣ, fills in the historical background of Nanaya’s departure from Uruk; her image had been carried off in an Elamite raid on Babylonia led by Kudur-Naḫḫunte. 22 Kudurnanḫundi Elamû ša nīš ilāni rabûti lā [iṣṣuru] ša ina šane ṭēme ana emūq ramānišu [  ] ana ešrēti māt Akkadi qātāšu iddûma ušalpitu māt [Akkadi  ] ūmē imlû ukkipa adannu ilāni rabûti epšetē[šu  ] ana 1,635 šanāti šalputtim Elamê [ ] iati Aššur-bāni-apli rubû pāliḫšun ana sapāḫ m[āt ] umaʾʾirūinnima kakke lā pādû [  ] . . . [ina qi]bīt Aššur Bēl Nabû Nergal ša utakkilūin[ni] qātē Nanaya Uṣur-amassa Arakai[tu] ušērib ušēšib ina Eanna 23   Kudur-Naḫḫunte, the Elamite, who did not keep the oath (sworn) by the great gods, who in (his) madness [trusted] in his own strength, brought his hand against the sanctuaries of Akkad and ruined the land [of Akkad ]. . . . The days were fulfilled, the appointed time drew near. The great gods saw [these] deeds. For 1,635 years [they left unavenged] the destruction of the Elamite. Me, Ashurbanipal, the prince who fears them, they sent to lay waste [to Elam] and an unsparing weapon [they put into my hand]. . . .   At the command of Ashur, Bel, Nabu, and Nergal, who inspire me with trust, [I took] the hands of Nanaya, Uṣur-amassa, Arakaitu (and) brought them into (and) had them take up their abode in Eanna. 24

In this version of the story, Ashurbanipal’s mandate was to revenge the ancient wrong as well as to return Nanaya to her proper abode. Yet a third text (K. 1364), composed on the occasion of the dedication to Nabu of a bowl fashioned of red gold, deals with Elam and Nanaya’s image; it reports that the primary motive for the Assyrian campaign was the

21.  For a study of the motif of divine abandonment that explained the god’s exile as resulting from his anger at his worshipers, see M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion, SBLMS 19 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1974) , 9–21. 22.  The reference to Kudur-Naḫḫunte is far from clear, because there are a number of Elamite kings who bore this name. Compare the review of F. Vallat, “Le Kutir-Nahhunte d’Assurbanipal,” NABU 31 (1993): 25–26; Baruchi-Unna, Genres Meet, 264 n. 647. 23.  K. 2631+ // K. 2654, lines 12–18, 69–71; see Borger, Beiträge, 82–85. 24.  Ibid., 83–85, lines 12–18, rev. 13–15; cf. ARAB 2, §923.

78

Mordechai Cogan

non-response of the Elamite Ummanaldas to Ashurbanipal’s request for the return of Nanaya to Uruk (rev. 7–8). 25 Taken together, these texts indicate the great importance attached to Nanaya’s repatriation and certainly promoted Ashurbanipal’s esteem in Uruk after the long years of Assyria’s struggle in Babylonia. 26 In retaliation for an earlier sacrilege carried out by Kudur-Naḫḫunte against Babylonia, Ashurbanipal oversaw the destruction and pillage of Susa and its sacred places and freed Nanaya from her long exile. 27 In Prism A, this event acquired a distinguished standing: the return of Nanaya was announced in an ancient oracle in which Ashurbanipal’s designation to the kingship of Assyria embraced the fulfillment of the divine plan in the distant future. Now the violation of sancta was not the common practice in Assyrian warfare, and only in highly contested battles were the temples of the enemy destroyed and their gods forcibly exiled. 28 The parade example is, of course, Sennacherib’s destruction of Esagila, the central Temple of Marduk in Babylon, and the exile of Marduk’s image, which his son Esarhaddon took pains to explain. 29 It was the god Marduk himself, wrote Esarhaddon’s scribes, who in his anger decreed the city’s fate and then left for Assyria! Now with reference to Ashurbanipal’s actions in Susa, a similar unprecedented desecration of holy places was rationalized as fulfilling an ancient divine decision, the time of which had come due. 30 25.  See M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige, VAB 7 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916), 174–75, lines 6–8; ARAB 2, §919. 26.  The return of the ancient image would have revitalized the cult of Nanaya that had continued over the centuries with a replica of the exiled image; it, too, had a history of deportation and return; see, e.g., its pillage by Sennacherib (D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924], 87, line 31) and the return by Esarhaddon (E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria [680–669 bc], RINAP 4 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011], 276, lines 11–15). Beaulieu is overcautious in this regard; see P. R. Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period (Leiden: Brill; Boston: Styx, 2003), 182–89. 27.  A new interpretation of the so-called Uruk Prophecy suggests that Ashurbanipal be identified with the unnamed king (King X) who made “the traditional protective goddess of Uruk . . . dwell in Uruk, in her sanctuary” after years of being moved about to various cities in Babylonia and Elam. See J. Scurlock, “Whose Truth and Whose Justice? The Uruk and Other Late Akkadian Prophecies Re-Revisted,” in Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible, ed. S. W. Holloway (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 449–67. 28.  Cogan, Imperialism, 22–41; S. W. Holloway, Aššur Is King! Aššur Is King! CHANE 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 109–51. 29.  Cf. J. A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 b.c. (Philadelphia: Babylonian Fund, 1984), 67–74. 30. H. Tadmor held that the old prophecy was, in fact, a “cultic apology . . . rooted in the sacrilegious acts of the preceding year (646)”; see H. Tadmor, “Autobiographical Apology in the Royal Assyrian Literature,” in History, Historiography and Interpretation: Studies in

Josiah in Bethel: An Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled

79

There is a second instance in Prism A of an ancient prophecy fulfilled in the days of Ashurbanipal. It is less dramatic than the Nanaya prophecy in that the Assyrian king is not directly involved, though he benefits from its outcome. This prophecy appears within the context of Assyria’s wars with the Manneans, the mountain-dwelling tribes to the east and northeast of Assyria. 31 The campaign against Aḫsheri, king of the Manneans, is depicted as a rout, with the Assyrian army recovering many border cities that had previously been lost to Mannaea. As a result, Aḫsheri flees his capital, but after the continued Assyrian advance, he loses his life in a revolt. Aḫšeri lā pāliḫ bēlūtiya ina amāt Ištar āšibat Arba-ilu ša ultu rēši taqbû umma anāku mītūtu Aḫšeri šar māt Mannaya kī ša aqbû eppuš ina qātē ardānišu tamnūšuma nišē mātišu siḫu elišu ušabšû ina rebīt ālišu šalamtašu iddû indaššarū pagaršu 32 Aḫsheri, who did not revere my lordship, by the word of Ishtar, who dwells in Arbella, which she had spoken in earlier times: 33 “I will bring about the death of Aḫsheri, king of Mannai, as I have spoken.” She gave him over into the hands of his servants. The people of his land instigated a revolt against him; they threw his body in the city square and abandoned his corpse.

A third example of the “ancient prophecy” topos is attested in another Ashurbanipal text, Prism T, which stands outside the annal tradition. Prism T is a six-column inscription (colophon date: 646 b.c.e.), the predominant theme of which is the king’s care and repair of the temples of his land and to which more than half the text is devoted; it also includes a short précis of the campaign against Ummanaldas and the story of Nanaya (as incorporated three years later in Prism A). Among the temples rebuilt was Eḫulḫul, the Temple of the moongod Sin and Nusku in Harran. adi adini abi lā immalladu ummi ālitti lā banata ina libbi ummiša ana epēš Eḫulḫul izkur nibīt šumiya Sin ša ibnānni ana šarrūti umma Aššur-bāni-apli ēkurru šuātu ippušma qerebšu ušarmānni parak dārāti amāt Sin ša ultu ūmē rūqūti iqbû enenna ukallim nišē arkūti bīt Sin ša Šulmanu-ašarēdu mār Aššur-nāṣir-apla šarru pani maḫriya ēpušu labariš ušālikma ušadgila pānua ēkurru šuātu ša labariš illiku ina amāt Sin Nusku anḫūssu adkê eli ša ūme pāni šubassu urappiš Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983), 50; cf., similarly, Gerardi, “Assurbanipal’s Elamite Campaigns,” 205–6. 31.  Grayson dates these battles to ca. 660 (CAH 3/2.146). 32.  Prism A iii 4–9; cf. Borger, Beiträge, 35. 33.  In the introduction to Prisms F i 3 and A i 3, the phrase “in distant days” (ina ūmē rūqūti) refers to Ashurbanipal’s being called to kingship while still in his mother’s womb; to distinguish this prenatal announcement from the Aḫsheri prophecy, Prism A uses the phrase “earlier times” here. See n. 35 below.

80

Mordechai Cogan ultu išdišu adi gabdibbešu arṣip ušaklil . . . qātē Sin u Nusku aṣbat ušērib ušēšib ina parak dārāti 34 Before my father was born, my mother who bore me was not yet created within her mother, Sin, who created me for royalty, called me by name to rebuild Eḫulḫul; 35 saying: “Ashurbanipal shall rebuild that shrine and have me take up permanent residence within it.” The word of Sin, which he had proclaimed in days of old, he now revealed to people of later days. The temple of Sin, which Shalmaneser, son of Ashurnasirpal, a king (who reigned) before me, had built, became old, and he (Sin) entrusted me with the task. In compliance with the word of Sin and Nusku, I cleared away the dilapidation of that temple, which had become old; I enlarged its base. From its foundation to its pinnacle I built and completed (it). . . . I took the hands of Sin and Nusku, I brought them in and had them take their place on an eternal pedestal.

Ancient Prophecies Newly Fulfilled The topos “Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled” appears for the first time in Assyrian royal inscriptions during the reign of Ashurbanipal, and its recurring use suggests that a need was felt to justify several of the king’s controversial actions; the answer found was predetermined divine sanction. Two of three instances discussed above concern cultic matters, the return of Nanaya’s image and the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul. These events, which were potentially open to criticism—in the case of Nanaya, the capture and destruction of temples in Susa; in the case of Eḫulḫul, the lavish attention given to a temple outside the Assyrian heartland 36—were presented as ancient prophecies that specified Ashurbanipal’s kingship over Assyria. 34.  Prism T ii 29–iii 14 // Prism C i 71–98 (Borger, Beiträge, 141–43). The account of this undertaking is also preserved on a very fragmentary tablet (K. 3065), the purport of which is nevertheless clear: “To rebuild Eḫulḫul, Sin, who had created me for royalty, called me by name, saying: ‘Ashurbanipal shall make me live for all time to come in the midst of that temple which he has rebuilt.’ The word of Sin, which from days of old he had proclaimed, he now revealed to the men of a later day. The hands of Sin . . . . . . (I grasped) . . .” (Streck, Assurbanipal, 216–17; ARAB 2, §938). 35.  The prenatal selection of Ashurbanipal also appears in the opening paean of praise in annal Prism F i 3–4: “Sin, from days of old, (while he was still) in the womb of his mother, named him (Ashurbanipal) to shepherd Assyria”; compare with the variation in Prism  A i 3–4: “whom Ashur and Sin, lord of the tiara, from days of old, named for kingship, and (while he was still) in the womb of his mother, created to shepherd Assyria.” 36.  The unique position of Harran and its god Sin within the statecraft of the Sargonid kings is amplified by S. W. Holloway, “Harran: Cultic Geography in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Implications for Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to Hezekiah’ in 2 Kings,” in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for G. W. Ahlström, ed. Steven W. Holloway and Lowell K. Handy, JSOTSup 190 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 276–314.

Josiah in Bethel: An Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled

81

Beyond the Ashurbanipal texts, this topos is suggestive for understanding the Deuteronomistic presentation of Jeroboam’s altar and Josiah’s assignment to carry out the divine word against it. 37 It appears that this altar, of all the cultic appurtenances at Bethel, symbolized the break of the Northern Kingdom with Jerusalem. Not even the vilified golden calves deflected from the altar’s position as the focal point of the bamah at Bethel. Tradition held that its pedigree reached back to Jacob, Israel’s forefather, who had built the original altar at Bethel (Gen 35:7), the “gate of heaven” (Gen 28:18–22). Jeroboam’s choice of Bethel as the main sanctuary of his new kingdom, rather than some other holy site in northern Israel, for example, Shechem, was surely prompted by this popular belief. For only Bethel and its altar could effectively compete with the arriviste standing on Mt. Moriah. 38 Behind the Deuteronomistic polemic stands the fact that in the late seventh century b.c.e., the Bethel bamah was a functioning shrine, serving Israelites who had avoided Assyrian deportation as well as Samaria’s newcomers. 39 Divine sanction given in ancient times for the destruction of the bamah and its altar removed any question of Josiah’s culpability for his action. 40 Before I conclude, a word of reservation is in order. The typological similarity I have suggested concerning the use of the “ancient prophecy” topos found in 1 Kings 13 and in the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal in no way implies that 1 Kings 13 has a genetic relation to the cuneiform texts. Of late, many studies have argued that Israel’s exposure to Assyrian propaganda and literature during the period of Assyrian domination over the land of Israel (mid-8th through mid-7th centuries b.c.e.) left its imprint on Deuteronomic thought and its formulation. As summarized by Thomas Römer: “An important number 37.  From a literary point of view, the biblical use of the topos is most striking in that Josiah is presented as naïve, while the Assyrian king proceeded fully aware of the ancient prophecy. 38. See my remarks in I Kings, 359 ad 12:29, and 361–63. 39. Van Seters also thinks “that the story is a vilification of the Bethel temple” but ascribes it to a late date, either to the exilic or postexilic periods, “a fairly crass piece of antiSamaritan religious propaganda”; cf. J. Van Seters, “On Reading the Story of the Man of God in 1 Kings 13,” in The Labour of Reading, SBL Semeia Studies 36 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999), 225–34 (esp. p. 233). However, nowhere in the story is reference made to settlers brought to Samaria by the Assyrians or to the repatriated Israelite priest who took up residence in Bethel (2 Kgs 17:24–33). If the bamah at Bethel was still operating in Josiah’s days, as we assume, the implication seems to be that Israelites who were not exiled from the northern kingdom after the Assyrian conquest (cf. 2 Chr 30:6) were involved in this ongoing sin. Compare my remarks in “A Slip of the Pen? On Josiah’s Actions in Samaria (2  Kgs 23:15–20),” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, ed. C.  Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S. M. Paul (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 3–8. 40.  As to the historicity of Josiah’s move into Samaria, possible only after Assyria’s withdrawal from the province of Samerina, see for the present the cautious assessment of J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, 2nd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006), 459.

82

Mordechai Cogan

of literary forms, which occur in the books of Deuteronomy to Kings, are imitations[s] of Assyrian conventions.” 41 Be that as it may, in the present case, the idea that God had determined a future action at some time in the distant past is not a uniquely Assyrian idea. The book of Kings is rife with examples of prophecies that tell of divine actions in the future; after all, prediction is the very essence of prophecy. 42 What is unique in the Jeroboam-Josiah episode as developed by the Deuteronomist is its pinpointing of Josiah to carry out the divine judgment against the venerable Bethel shrine and its altar. He added the reference to Josiah in 1 Kgs 13:2 and coordinated the story with 2  Kgs 23:15–20, creatively using the topos of “Ancient Prophecy Newly Fulfilled.” 43 41.  See T. C. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 105. 42.  However, the priestly family that will replace the House of Eli (1  Sam 2:35) and the son of David who will build the temple (2 Sam 7:13) are unspecified. The prediction that is closest to Josiah’s designation is the post factum addition to the Elijah cycle (1 Kgs 19:15–17) that corrects an earlier prophecy. 43.  The concluding verses of 1  Kings 13, vv.  32–34, are also Deuteronomistic; v.  32 closes the second act of the man of God story by referring back to v. 2, but this time with a look ahead to 2 Kgs 23:17 and 19; vv. 33–34 tie the story to rest of the history of Jeroboam. Cf. Knoppers, Two Nations under God, 2.207–12.

The Well-Attested BH-Akk. Simile ‫כראים‬ (Ps 92:11) / ‫( כמו בן־ראמים‬Ps 29:6) = Akk. kīma rīmi/rīmāniš and Its Semantic Equivalent ‫( ְ ּכא ִַבּיר‬Isa 10:13 [Kethiv]) in the Speech of the Assyrian King

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen Although kīma iṣṣūri/iṣṣūriš, “like a bird,” is undoubtedly the most famous Akk. animal simile cited in modern biblical scholarship as a result of its usage in the Annals of Sennacherib with reference to the third Assyrian military campaign against Judah in the year 701 b.c.e., 1 there is no BH equivalent to this Akk. simile in the corresponding biblical historiographical rendition of the events of 701 b.c.e. On the other hand, in the present essay I will demonstrate that there is another Mesopotamian animal simile, also widely attested in the Neo-Assyrian annals and elsewhere, referring to the extraordinary heroic strength of both Mesopotamian gods and kings, which also appears three times in BH, including Author’s note:  I dedicate this essay to the memory of my good friend and long-time colleague at Ben-Gurion University, the late Prof. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, ‫ל‬′′ ‫ז‬, who contributed so much to both the fields of pure Assyriology and modern biblical studies. In fact, Avigdor to my mind was the optimal combination of a scholar who excelled in both of these fields. Naturally, many of Avigdor’s most important contributions to biblical studies were based on philological comparisons between Akk. and BH, and that is the nature of the present study as well. For the abbreviations of primary Akkadian and Ugaritic sources used in this essay, see CAD U/W vii–xxix; DULAT xxi–xliv, respectively. 1.  šâšu kīma iṣṣūr quppi qereb Ursalimma/u āl šarrūtišu ēsiršu, “Himself (Hezekiah), I locked up like a bird in a cage inside Jerusalem, his capital city” (OIP 2 33:27–29; 70:28– 29). For this and a few other occurrences of this simile in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, see especially David Marcus, “Animal Similes in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” Or 46 (1977): 98; and more recently CAD Q 308; Hayim Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 79. Note that this simile occurs in a slightly different form as the most widely quoted animal simile in the Amarna letters (all seven times in the Rīb-Haddi correspondence). See David Marcus, “A Famous Analogy of Rib-Haddi,” JANES 5 (1973): 281.

83

84

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

even once as part of a speech of a Neo-Assyrian king; however, because of some minor textual problems, this attestation has been usually misinterpreted and remains largely unrecognized in modern biblical scholarship. 1.  The BH Usage of the Simile ‫ כמו בן ראמים‬/ ‫כראים‬, “Like a (Young) Wild Bull” 2 The BH animal name ‫ראֵם‬,ְ “wild bull/wild ox,” 3 occurs 9 times 4 in BH: twice as a simile, specifically including the preposition ‫ּכמֹו‬, ְ “like” (‫כמו בן‬ ‫ראמים‬, “like a young wild bull,” Ps 29:6) or the prepositional prefix ‫ּכ‬ְ “like” (‫כראים‬, “like [that of] a wild bull,” Ps 92:11); twice in early Israelite poetry as part of a compound simile referring to God (‫כתועפת ראם לו‬, “whose [divine strength] is like the strength [lit., horns] 5 of a wild bull,” Num 23:22; 24:8); 2.  The earliest documentation for the usage of this sort of comparison is apparently iconographic. It appears in the ancient Egyptian Narmer Palette, commemorating the reign of a king with the Horus name of Narmer, who is considered the last predynastic ruler ( just before ca. 3050 b.c.e.). In the lower register of the reverse side of the palette, the conquering power of the king, symbolized by a wild bull, is directed against a walled and fortified town. See, e.g., Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt (London: Routledge, 1989), 42; William W. Hallo and William Kelly Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History, 2nd ed. (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, 1998), 198, 202–4. 3.  The technical designation is Bos primigenius. For a zoologically informed discussion in Modern Hebrew of the BH usage of the term ‫ראם‬, see especially Yehuda Feliks, “‫ראם‬, ‫תאו‬, and the Wild Ox,” Lešonénu 44 (1980): 124–30 [Heb.]. The most important philological discussions of the BH usage of the term ‫ ראם‬may be found in the following BH dictionaries: BDB 910; HALOT 1163–64; DCH 7.364–65, 611; Ges18 1206; TDOT 13.243–47; MHH 977. See also EM 7.296–97; ALCBH 351; SED 2.248–50 (#186). 4.  According to Yehuda Feliks, there is a 10th occurrence of ‫ ראם‬in Ps 95:4, where his suggested vocalization is ‫ותֹועֲפֹות ָהרֵים לֹו‬,ְ “He has the strength of the wild ox,” instead of MT ‫ָרים לֹו‬ ִ‫ותֹועֲפֹות ה‬,ְ “the sharp (lit., horned) peaks of the mountains are His.” He compares the usage of ‫)ראֵם =( רֵים‬ ְ three times (Ps 22:22; Job 39:9, 10 [see n. 6 below]) and the twice attested phrase ‫כתועפת ראם לו‬, “whose (divine strength) is like the strength (lit., horns) of a wild bull” (Num 23:22; 24:8). See Yehuda Feliks, “‫ראש ולענה; תועפות הרים‬: On the Exegesis of Two Biblical Expressions,” Lešonénu 53 (1989): 33 [Heb.]. This suggestion is unacceptable, however, because of the clear parallelism in Ps 95:4: ‫מחקרי ארץ‬, “the depths of the earth“ (cf. Jer 31:37; Job 38:16) // ‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ותֹועֲפֹות ה‬,ְ “the sharp (lit., horned) peaks of the mountains” (see also n. 5). 5.  The BH term ‫תֹועֲפֹות‬/‫( ּתֹועָפֹות‬occurring 4 times only in the fem. pl.) is best understood as having the following three meanings: (a) “strength (lit., horns),” Num 23:22; 24:8—both times in the phrase ‫ּכתֹועֲפֹת ְראֵם לֹו‬, ְ “whose (divine strength) is like the strength (lit., horns) of a wild bull,” which can hardly be separated from the very similar phrase referring to the massive strength of the tribe of Joseph (‫קרני ראם קרניו‬, “his horns are the horns of the wild bull,” Deut 33:17); (b) ‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ותֹועֲפֹות ה‬,ְ “sharp (lit., horned) peaks of mountains” (Ps 95:4) according to the parallelism discussed at the end of n. 4 above; (c) “treasure” < “strength” (= meaning a above) in Job 22:25 in the unique phrase ‫ ֶּכסֶף ּתֹועָפֹות‬, “treasure of silver.” This analysis is also based (succinctly) on the following evidence: (1) The usage of both the regular BH and Akk. terms for “horn” (BH ‫ = קרן‬Akk. qarnu) includes the meaning “strength, power” (mng. a above). See, e.g., (in addition to Deut 33:17 and Ps 22:22 quoted

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

85

once in early Israelite poetry as a similar metaphor referring to the massive strength of the tribe of Joseph (‫קרני ראם קרניו‬, “his horns are the horns of the wild bull,” Deut 33:17); twice in Job 39:9, 10 (cf. also v. 11–12) referring rhetorically to the human inability to tame and domesticate this powerful and strong-willed wild animal (as opposed to, for example, the domesticated bull/ ox), with the implication that only God would be capable of such a feat (‫היאבה‬ ‫רים עבדך‬, “would the wild bull agree to serve you?”; ‫התקשר רים בתלם עבתו‬, “could you attach the wild bull by ropes to the furrow?”); 6 and twice in above), 1 Sam 2:1, 10; 2 Sam 22:3 = Ps 18:3; Jer 48:25; Ps 89:18, 24–25; 92:11; Lam 2:3, 17; and especially Ps 75:11: ‫אגַּדֵ ַע ְּתרֹומ ְַמנָה קַ ְרנֹות צ ִַּדיק‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ִעים‬ ָ ‫“ ְוכָל קַ ְרנֵי ְר‬All the ‘horns’ of the wicked I will cut off; (but) the ‘horns’ of the righteous will be exalted.” Note in the last passage the equivalent use of the fem.-pl. construct ‫ קַ ְרנֹות‬and the masc. (dual)-pl. construct ‫קַ ְרנֵי‬, which serves as a precedent for the fem.-pl. (construct) ‫תֹועֲפֹות‬/‫ּתֹועָפֹות‬. Here it should be emphasized that the actual symbol of strength in all the above BH passages is not the ‫ראם‬, “wild bull,” itself but, rather, its horn(s). It is for this reason that it is in only three of the above passages (Deut 33:17; Ps 22:22; 92:11) that the term ‫ ראם‬actually occurs. This is also the reason that it is in only three of the above passages (Deut 33:17; Ps 22:22; 75:11) that the term ‫ קרן‬occurs in the plural or dual form. BH ‫ קרן‬in the singular form has already taken on the extended meaning of “strength, power” from Archaic Biblical Hebrew (ABH: e.g., 1 Sam 2:1, 10; 2 Sam 22:3 = Ps 18:3) on. For this usage of Akk. qarnu, see CAD Q 136 (mng. 1b) and 140 (mng. 6). (2) For mng. b above, “sharp (lit., horned) peaks of mountains” (only in Ps 95:4), see the usage of BH ‫“ קַ ְרנֹות ה ִַּמ ְז ֵּב ַח‬horn-like projections at the corners of the altar” (26 times; e.g., Exod 27:2; Amos 3:14; cf., e.g., BDB 902). More important are the following Akk. parallel uses: of qarnu as the uppermost protruding “horns” of a ziqqurratu—temple tower (CAD Q 139 [mng. 5c]) and the uppermost protruding “horns” of gods’ crowns (CAD Q 139 [mng. 5d]; cf. the use of ‫ תועפות ראם‬in the text of ms B of Ben Sira 45:7, which may well refer “figuratively to the very tall head-dress of the high-priest” [HALOT 1706, §B, 2d]); of zaqtu, “pointed, sharp,” said of horns (BzA 10/1 125 no. 46:4–5; CAD Z 63 in lexical section) together with zuqtu, “peak, ridge (of a mountain)” (CAD Z 166); and of ṣipru, meaning both “excrescence (on an animal’s head)” (CAD Ṣ 204 [mng. 1d together with qarnu] and “summit (of a triangle)” (CAD Ṣ 204 [mng. 1c]). 3) For mng. c above, “treasure” < “strength,” see especially (regarding Job 22:24–25) Naftali Hertz Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1967), 347–48; with the correctives of Amos Hakham (regarding v. 24) in Amos Hakham, Book of Job, Daʿat Miqraʾ (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1984), 178 [Heb.]. For this semantic development in general, see my “‘False Friends’: Regular Meanings of Words in Modern Hebrew Which Originated Erroneously,” in Shaʿarei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, ed. Aharon Maman et al. (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2007), 32–36, esp. p. 34 n. 23 (referring to the precedents ‫ חֹסֶן‬,‫ חָסֹן‬,‫ בצר‬,‫ זמרת‬,‫ כח‬,‫[ )חיל‬Heb.]; cf. also MHH 1163. 4) While the above semantic analysis best fits the semantic evidence, it should be emphasized that until an appropriate etymology is found for the term ‫תֹועֲפֹות‬/‫ ּתֹועָפֹות‬in BH or in another ancient Semitic language, the specific meanings and usage of this term remain somewhat open. Any suggested etymology, however, must be in tandem with the aforementioned semantic evidence. One possible etymology is the usage of the Ug. form ʿp//qrn, “horn, strength,” in KTU2 1.10 II 21–23 as translated and discussed in n. 14 below. 6.  On vv. 9–12, see especially Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, The Book of Job, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), 1.340–42; 2.316–17; Hakham, Job, 302–3 [Heb.]; and most recently, David J. A. Clines, Job 38–42, WBC (Nashville: Thomas

86

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

Isa 34:7 (‫וירדו ראמים עמם ופרים עם אבירים‬, “Wild bulls shall fall with them, 7 young oxen with mighty steers”) and Ps 22:22 (‫רֵמים‬ ִ ‫ּומּקַ ְרנֵי‬ ִ ‫הֹוׁשי ֵענִי ִמ ִּפי א ְַרי ֵה‬ ִ ‫ִיתנִי‬ ָ ‫עֲנ‬, “Save me from a lion’s mouth; from the horns of wild bulls may You Nelson, 2011), 1123–24. Here it is important to note that not only is the physical strength of the ‫=( ֵרים‬ ‫;ראֵם‬ ְ see, e.g., GKC §23e) emphasized but also his free wild nature, love of freedom, and refusal to submit to human domestication. The following is the classic summary of vv. 9–12 (Driver and Gray, Job, 1.340): Ass and ox are constantly associated as domesticated animals and beasts of burden (Exod 21:33; 23:4, 12; Deut 22:10; Isa 1:3; 32:20; Luke 13:15); and so from his contrast of the wild (‫ )פרא‬to the domestic ass (‫)חמור‬, the poet now passes to contrast the wild ox (‫)ראם‬ with the domestic ox (‫)שור‬. The great strength of the wild ox (v. 11) might make him a suitable servant of man, if he would serve; but he will not (v. 9a): no manger (9b) will entice him to tolerate servitude and to endure, like the domestic ox, being harnessed (v. 10a) to the plough or the harrow (v. 10b); but even if he should so submit, man would never have any confidence that his innate love of freedom and his strength would not make him break loose and cause loss (vv. 11–12) to his employer.

To this, Amos Hakham (p. 302) appropriately adds that the implicit comparison here between the wild strong-willed ‫( ראם‬whom man is unable to domesticate) and the relatively docile domestic ‫ שור‬is precisely the same as what is previously implied (vv. 5–8) about the wild donkey or onager (BH ‫ערוד‬//‫פרא‬, v. 5) in comparison with the relatively docile domestic donkey (BH ‫)חמור‬. Here it may be added that the BH term ‫ערוד‬, “onager,” which occurs nowhere else in the MT is also to be read in Isa 32:14 in the plural form !‫עֲר ִֹדים‬, “onagers” (// ‫פראים‬, just as in Job 39:5) instead of MT ‫ֲדִרים‬ ָ ‫ע‬, “flocks.” For this emendation (metathesis), see, e.g., Godfrey Rolles Driver, “Isaiah 1–39: Textual and Linguistic Problems,” JSS 13 (1968): 52; BHS 723 n. 14d; and most recently Yisraela Nili, “Hapax Legomena in the Akkadian Language” (Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2004), 184 ( see my note cited there as well); SED 2 #37. Finally, note that this term also occurs in Akk. in but one lexicographical context, MŠ 5:39, as a WS loanword in the form arādu (a WS non-Canaanite form; see my aforementioned note), where it is equated with sirrimu/serrēmu, “wild ass, onager” (CAD S 318–9; CDA 321), the Akk. semantic equivalent of BH ‫פרא‬. The corrected reading arādu of the former Akk. term (instead of the previous reading, [ḫ]arādu—see, e.g., CAD Ḫ 88; MSL 8/2, 74: line 39) is based on the unpublished fragment CBS 8538; lines 14–16 from the University Museum in Philadelphia, for which, see CAD A/2 212; P 145; and most recently Ivan Hruša, Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru, AOAT 50 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 112–13: line 39, 253, 398. 7.  Note that it is unnecessary to emend the BH preposition ‫עּמָם‬, ִ “with them,” in Isa 34:7 to !‫עם ְמִרים‬, ִ “with fattened calves” (for !‫יאים‬ ִ ‫)עם ְמִר‬, ִ as first suggested by Bernhard Duhm (comparing Ezek 39:18). For this suggested emendation, see, e.g., John Skinner, Isaiah Chapters 1–39, Cambridge Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 271; Hans Wildberger, Isaiah 28–39, CC (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 313–14 n. 7a; njps, note c–c to Isa 34:7 translation. 1QIsaa (the only Isaiah ms that includes this verse) is identical here with the MT. The suffix could certainly be referring to the smaller cattle in the previous verse, which would then provide a nice parallel to the next phrase, ‫ופרים עם אבירים‬, “young oxen with mighty steers,” in reverse chiastic order! Those who leave the MT intact include, e.g., Amos Hakham, Book of Isaiah 1–35, Daʿat Miqraʾ (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1984), 354 [Heb.]; Willem A. M. Beuken, Isaiah II: Chapters 28–39, Historical Commentary on the OT (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 279, 295 n. 31; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, rev. ed., WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 519 n. 7a.

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

87

rescue 8 me”), metaphorically designating strong enemies annihilated by God as part of His ‫זבח‬, “sacrifice” // ‫טבח גדול‬, “great slaughter,” in Edom (Isa 34:6) and representing powerful enemies who are threatening the petitioner pleading for divine salvation (Ps 22:22). These last two verses are excellent examples of the BH metaphorical use of strong animals to symbolize leaders, nobles, and warriors as well as powerful enemies. 9 The specific BH usage of the ‫ראם‬, “wild bull, wild ox” simile in the two aforementioned verses is as follows: Ps 29:6: ‫ ְו ִׂש ְריֹן ְּכמֹו בֶן ְרא ִֵמים‬// ‫ ַמ! ְּכמֹו ֵעגֶל ְלבָנֹון‬-‫ַוּי ְַרקֵד‬ He made Lebanon dance like a calf, Even Siryon like a young wild ox. 10

On this usage of ‫ בֶן ְרא ִֵמים‬for the purpose of rhythmic compensation and as evidence for the occurrence of enclitic-mem in this verse, I have claimed elsewhere the following: 11 Here may be added the additional evidence of ‫ בֶן ְרא ִֵמים‬in the second clause (instead of just ‫)רא ִֵמים‬. ְ For just as ‫( ִּכ ְבנֵי צֹאן‬rather than just ‫)ּכצֹאן‬ ְ is used in Ps 114:4, 6 in the second stich to help compensate rhythmically for the verb ‫רקדו‬/ ‫תרקדו‬, which occurs in the first stich but stands for both stichs, so ‫ בֶן ְרא ִֵמים‬is used in Ps 29:6. But this would only occur if the second stich would otherwise be shorter than the first, a situation that exists only if -!‫ ַמ‬-‫ ַוּי ְַרקֵד‬is read with encliticmem.

As for the correct understanding of this simile in its present context, the most convincing interpretation is Adele Berlin’s: 12 The question is: are two animals mentioned or only one; is the calf the same as the young wild ox, or is the calf understood to be the young of domesticated cattle. It seems likely to me that most translators intend the second option: a 8.  See the njps. The literal translation is of course “may You answer me.” God’s positive answer to such a dramatic prayer by a life-threatened petitioner may itself be translated in the sense of “rescue.” Cf., e.g., Ps 118:5. 9.  See Patrick D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 2 (1970): 177–86. The classic example is of course Exod 15:15. The present examples of ‫ראם‬ are not specifically mentioned in Miller’s article because the use of ‫ ראם‬in both Isa 34:7 and Ps 22:22 is to symbolize enemies (see ibid., 187 n. 2). See also §4 and n. 91 below. 10.  For this translation and reading of ! ‫ ַמ‬-‫( ַוּי ְַר ֵקד‬with enclitic-mem instead of MT ‫ ַוּי ְַר ִקידֵ ם‬, “and He made them dance”), as first suggested by H. L. Ginsberg in 1936, see my essay “The Enclitic-mem in Biblical Hebrew: Its Existence and Initial Discovery,” in Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld Jubilee Volume, ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom Paul (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 237, 256–57 (#13). 11. See ibid., 257. 12.  See Adele Berlin, “Rams and Lambs in Psalm 114:4 and 6: The Septuagint’s Translation of X // ‫ בן‬Y Parallelisms,” Textus 24 (Text Criticism and Beyond; 2009): 114–15 (and the additional bibliography cited there).

88

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen calf and a young ox. However, I construe this parallelism in the same way as I construe ‫ אילים‬// ‫ בני צאן‬in Ps 114:4—as an animal and its species. . . . Ps 29:6 is describing the movement of a calf of the wild ox species—one animal, not two— ‫עגל בן ראמים‬, analogous to ‫ עגל בן בקר‬in Lev 9:2. . . . I propose that Ps 29:6, like the Job passage [i.e., Job 39:9–12 as discussed above—C.C.], is picturing a wildly moving animal, not capable of being restrained. God makes the Lebanon and the Sirion move like a wild ox calf. Ps 92:11: ‫ׁשמֶן רַ עֲנָן‬ ֶ ‫ו ַָּתרֶם ִּכ ְראֵים קַ ְרנִי ּבַּל ִֹתי ְּב‬ You raised my “horn” high like that of a wild ox; I am soaked 13 in freshening oil (as a sign of my divine salvation). 14

The key evidence for a correct interpretation of this verse (including the simile ‫“ ִּכ ְראֵים‬like [that of] a wild ox”) is the semantic division of the 12 BH attestations of the idiom ‫ לרום קרן‬/ ‫להרים‬, “to have / display / grant superior (military) power (over enemies); to bestow honor” (the latter meaning only once in the latest occurrence in 1 Chr 25:5). These 12 occurrences may be divided into the 13.  There is no need to emend MT ‫“ ּבַּל ִֹת‬I am soaked” to the form ‫“ !ּבַּלֹתַ נִי‬You (God) have soaked me” as alluded to by both the Syriac and the periphrastic Targumic translations (see, e.g., BHS 1175 n. 11b; Charles Augustus Briggs, The Book of Psalms, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907], 2.285–86). While the finite verb ‫ בלל‬does not occur elsewhere with this intransitive meaning, the most common use of this verb is the passive form ‫ַּׁשמֶן‬ ֶ ‫ּבלּולָה ּב‬/‫ָלּול‬ ְ ‫ּב‬ “soaked in oil” (38 of the 42 occurrences of this verb, e.g., Num 7:13, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79). For this understanding of MT ‫ּבַּל ִֹתי‬, “I am soaked,” see already Rashi and Menachem ben Saruq as noted in Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 585, 587 n. 12. See also Radaq’s commentary to this verse. 14.  This is the best understanding of the parallelism in Ps 92:11. See the above discussion concerning the correct interpretation of this verse. Note that the often cited comparison between this verse and the Ug. text KTU2 1.10 II 21–23 is unacceptable. For this comparison, see, e.g., Dennis Graham Pardee, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,” UF 7 (1975): 358; idem, “The Preposition in Ugaritic,” UF 8 (1976): 252; Samuel. E. Loewenstamm, “‫ׁשמֶן‬ ֶ ‫ּבַּל ִֹתי ְּב‬ ‫רַ עֲנָן‬,” UF 10 (1978): 111–13; idem, “An Additional Remark upon Ps 92:11b,” UF 13 (1981): 302; Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51–100 (WBC; Dallas: Word, 1990), 460, 462–63 n. 11a, 467 (and the bibliography cited there); MHH 106 (sub ‫ בלל‬I). The Ug. text KTU2 1.10 II 21–23 reads as follows: qrn.dbʾatk.btlt.ʿnt 22qrn.dbʾatk.bʿ l.ymšḥ 23bʿ l.ymšḥ.hm.bʿ p Your powerful horns, O maiden Anat! Your powerful horns, let Baal anoint, May Baal anoint them with strength. 21

As opposed to the idiomatic BH usage of the term ‫ קרן‬in the phrase ‫ להרים קרן‬in Ps 92:11 (see above), this Ug. text is undoubtedly speaking about the physical horns (in the plural–note the term hm “them” in line 23 and cf. n. 6 above) of the assumed form of the goddess Anat. Other Ug. passages which mention physical horns as part of the divine anatomy include KTU2 1.12 I 30–33 (see §4 below); 1.101:6; 1.114:20. See DULAT 710–11. On the other hand, in my opinion, the last word in the above quoted Ug. passage bʿp which I have translated “with strength” does seem to provide an appropriate etymology for the BH term ‫ תֹועֲפֹות‬/ ‫ּתֹועָפֹות‬ (see the end of n. 5 above).

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

89

following two groups: (a) Six contexts clearly alluding to the divine granting of superior (military or personal) power (often in parallelism with ‫עז‬, “military strength”) in order to triumph over enemies (often specifically mentioned): 1 Sam 2:1 (‫אויבי‬, “my enemies,” in same verse); 2:10 (‫מריביו‬, “His [God’s] foes,” in same verse; ‫ וירם קרן משיחו‬// ‫ויתן עז למלכו‬, “He will bestow strength on His king // He will grant superior military power to His anointed one”); Ps 89:18 (// ‫כי תפארת עזמו אתה‬, “for You are their strength in which they glory”); 89:25 (‫ ומשנאיו‬// ‫צריו‬, “his adversaries // his enemies,” in previous verse); 92:11 (‫איביך‬ // ‫כל פעלי און‬, “Your enemies // all evil doers,” in v. 10; ‫בקמים‬ ‫עלי מרעים‬, “of the evil ones who rise up against me,” in v. 12); and one case in which God grants superior military power to Judah’s enemies—Lam 2:17 (‫ הרים קרן צריך‬// ‫וישמח עליך אויב‬, “He [God] has let the enemy rejoice over you // has exalted the might of your enemies”). (b) The other six contexts which are not concerned with superior (military or personal) power (Ps 75:5, 6, 11; 112:9; 148:14; 1 Chr 25:5). 15 It is the first group of verses that provides important semantic evidence for properly understanding the parallelism in Ps 92:11 (see the translation above). The divine granting of superior (military or personal) power in these verses is twice accompanied by expressions of joy as a result of triumph over the enemies or personal salvation (1 Sam 2:1; Ps 89:16–17) and in one case this expression of joy is the main basis of the parallelism in the verse (Lam 2:17; see the translation above). In the same way, the parallelism in Ps 92:11 is based on a similar manifestation which is connected to rejoicing over a military victory or personal salvation—namely, the anointing of the body or head with oil (Ps 23:5; cf. Qoh 9:7–8; Psalm 133). 16 In light of this understanding of the parallelism in Ps 92:11, it should be clear that the use of the simile ‫ּכ ְראֵים‬, ִ “like [that of] a wild ox,” in this verse does not imply that the term ‫ קרן‬should be taken here literally as “horn” 17 but, rather, the author here is simply emphasizing the enormity of the ‫קרן‬, meaning in this context “power, strength” granted by God, but originally meaning “horn.” 18 15.  Ps 75:5, 6, 11 refers to the superior power of the wicked (vv. 5–6) and of God’s cutting off the power of the wicked and exalting the power of the righteous (v. 11; see n. 5 above). Ps 112:9 states that the power of the righteous man is exalted in honor (‫ )בכבוד‬to the chagrin of the wicked (v. 10). Ps. 148:14 states that God has exalted the power of His people Israel for the glory of all His faithful ones (‫)תהלה לכל חסידיו‬. 1 Chr 25:5 (see in the text above) is a completely different use of this idiom, apparently meaning “to bestow glory (on God).” For other possible interpretations of this late usage, see Gary N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, AB 12 (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 843, 845. 16.  For this interpretation, see already Amos Hakham, Psalms 73–150, Daʿat Miqraʾ (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1985), 182 [Heb.]. 17.  See n. 14 above. 18.  This is the regular BH usage of ‫ ראם‬as both a simile and a metaphor. See n. 5 above.

90

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

2.  The Akk. Usage of the Simile kīma rīmi / rīmāniš, “Like a Wild Bull” Any discussion of the Akk. usage of the simile kīma rīmi / rīmāniš, “like a wild bull,” should begin with the following excellent survey of this usage in the Assyrian royal inscriptions by David Marcus from 1977: 19 Another animal symbolizing might and great strength is the wild bull (rēmu). Shalmaneser III literally bulldozes around on enemy territory (ina kiṣir zikrūtiya massu kīma rēmi adīš “With my heroic troops I trampled down his land like a wild bull”—KB 1, 166:52). Sennacherib leads his troops once like a fierce wild bull (anāku kīma rēmi ekdi pānuššunu aṣbat—OIP 2, 36:2; 71:39, cf. 65:39), and another time like a huge wild bull (kīma rēmi gapši maḫrīt ummānātiya aṣbat—OIP 2, 50:19). Because of its familiarity with mountain areas the wild bull is also used in a couple of similes involving traversing difficult mountain regions. Sennacherib roams about on foot over difficult terrain like a wild bull (ašru šupšuqu ina šēpēya rēmāniš attaggiš—OIP 2, 26:71; 58:21; 67:10), and Esarhaddon marches over steep mountains like a wild bull (šadê marṣūti rēmāniš aštamdiḫ—Borger, Esarh. 112:11).

To this may be added the following three points based on the extensive, up-todate entries on rīmu and rīmāniš published in the CAD in 1999: 20 (a) These two CAD entries list no less than 23 different contexts beginning with the OB period for the use of the simile kīma rīmi (19 contexts) / rīmāniš (4 contexts), “like a wild bull,” While five of these contexts are from the NA annals and have been well summarized by David Marcus in the aforementioned quotation, the other 18 may best be characterized as follows: (1) There are 8 bilingual (Sum.-Akk.) contexts where the Sum. parallel term is AM. 21 Three of these contexts are from the bilingual literary composition Lugale (lines 36, 429, 440). 22 For example, Lugale 36—ina birišunu kīma rīme rabê qarnāšu ittanašši, “among them (the plants), like a huge wild bull, he keeps tossing his horns.” The other adjective referring to rīmu in these 8 bilingual texts besides rabû, “huge” (attested in all 3 Lugale texts) is ekdu, “fierce”: ša . . . ina mātāti kīma rīmi ekdu rabṣu, “(Enlil) who . . . reclines in the lands like a fierce wild bull.” 23 The most unusual usage among these 8 bilingual texts is the following passage comparing the configuration of the deity’s royal dais to the posture of 19. See Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 87–88. 20.  CAD R 355, 359–63. 21.  CAD R 360 (bilingual texts section). On the Sum. use of this simile in these and other Sum. texts, see Wolfgang Heimpel, Tierbilder in der sumerischen Literatur, Studia Pohl 2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 79–121. 22.  See Jan J. A. van Dijk, LUGAL UD ME-LÁM-bi NIR-G̃ÁL, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1983), 1.56 (line 36), 106 (line 429), 107 (line 440). 23.  4R 27, no. 2.19–20. See also CAD E 62. The adjective ekdu, “fierce,” is often used to describe rīmu, “wild bull,” in non-simile contexts as well. See the passages listed in CAD E 62–63.

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

91

a reclining wild bull: parak šarrūtiya ša . . . kīma rīmu rabṣu, “my royal dais which lies couchant like a wild bull” (RA 12 75:37–38). (2) There are 4 contexts from the Gilgamesh epic with this simile (1 with rīmāniš and 3 with kīma rīmi), 24 the latter 3 of which CAD R 361 lists among “comparisons and metaphors—ref. to ferociousness.” 25 In the first 2 contexts (I 64, 212), 26 Gilgamesh himself is compared to the rīmu, “wild bull,” when he is first introduced at the beginning of the epic (I 64) and then later when his character is described to and by Enkidu (I 212, 219). In both of these passages, the verb used to describe Gilgamesh’s wild bull-like actions is ugdaššar(u), meaning “he demonstrates his superior strength.” 27 For example, Gilg. I  64 reads as follows: ugdaššar rīmāniš šaqû rē[šu], “like a wild bull he demonstrates his superior strength, [head] held high.” In Gilg. IV  201, the reference is to the battle between Gilgamesh and Enkidu against the monstrous Ḫumbaba, guardian of the cedar forest in which all the protagonists are said to have “locked horns” (itkupū) 28 “like a fierce wild bull” (kīma rīmu kadri) In Gilg. VII 174, it is the creature in Enkidu’s dream who comes to kill him who is described as kīma rīmi dan[ni], “like a mighty wild bull,” undoubtedly once again indicating superior strength. (3) The other 6 contexts 29 include 2 from OB as follows: šumma tīrānu kīma rīmim, “if the coils of the colon look like a wild bull” (YOS 10 11 vi:16 [liver omen]); 30 uzzum illaka rīmāni (var. rīmāniš), “arousal comes upon me like a wild bull” (TIM 9 72:1 [sexual arousal]). 31 Like the second context, the third 24. See CAD R 355, 361 (§c). The context with rīmāniš is Gilg I ii 53 (= George, Gilg. I 64 [pp. 542–43]). The three contexts with kīma rīmi are Gilg. I iv 39, 46 (= George, Gilg. I 212, 219 [pp. 550–51]); Gilg. IV v 47 (= George, Gilg. IV 201 [pp. 598–99]); and Gilg. VII iv 23 (=  George, Gilg. VII 174 [pp.  642–43]). See also George’s notes to Gilg I 212 on p. 800; and to VII 174 on p. 849. 25.  These 3 Gilgamesh contexts are in addition to the other 3 contexts including kīma rīmi in this section from the Assyrian annals (3R 8 ii 52 [Shalmaneser III]; OIP 2 36 iv 2, 71:39 [Sennacherib]; OIP 2 50:19 [Sennacherib]) already quoted above in the quotation from Marcus’s article. 26.  See n. 24 above. 27. See CAD G 56 with other passages with this usage noted and translated there. In my opinion, “he demonstrates his superior strength” is a more fitting translation for all of the passages concerned than George’s translation “he lords it over” (see n.  24 above and George’s note to Gilg. I 212 in George, Gilg. 800). 28. See CAD N/1 157 (§2) for this and other passages with this usage of itkupu. 29. See CAD R 355 (1 OB passage with rīmāniš), 361 (§c 2′; 5 passages with kīma rīmi). 30.  For 2 other occurrences of this context, see CAD R 361 (beginning of §c 2′). For other animal comparisons (similes) in omen texts with regard to the shape of the tīrānu, “the coils of the colon,” see CAD T 424 (§1a 2′: kīma kalbi / kīma zuqāqīpi, “like a dog / like a scorpion”). 31.  For this translation, see especially CAD U/W 395 (mng. 2); Jerrold S. Cooper, “Magic and M(is)use: Poetic Promiscuity in Mesopotamian Ritual,” in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. Marianna E. Vogelzang et al., CM 6 (Groningen: Styx,

92

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

context also deals with sexual desire in a ŠÀ.ZI.GA potency incantation as follows: . . . [rāmanni kīma] šaḫî 14-šu kīma rīmi 50 kīma a[ya]li 50 “. . . [make love to me, and like a] pig 14 times, like a wild bull 50 (times), like a s[ta]g 50 (times)!” (Biggs, Šaziga 30.19). 32 The 4th and 5th contexts deal with the comparison of the shapes of such amorphous items as spills of water and one’s shadow to that of the wild bull: šumma mû ina bāb bīt amēli tabkūma kīma rīmi amēlu dannata immar, “If water is spilled in the doorway of a man’s house and (its shape is) like a wild bull, (then) the man will experience hardship” (CT 38 21:4 [house omen—SB Alu]); 33 šumma ṣillašu kma rīmi inaṭṭal, “If he looks at his shadow (and its shape is) like a wild bull” (CT 51 147 rev. 23). 34 The 6th and final context returns to the theme of the superior strength of the wild bull, but in its most prevalent form in both BH and Akk.—namely, with respect to the horns. In the present unusual case, the latter are compared to the scorpion’s extended pincers: barbar urši nēši abussi tarṣā qarnāša kīma rīmi šadê turrat zibbassa kīma nēši gašri, “Wolf in the bedroom, lion in the larder; its (the scorpion’s) pincers are extended like (the horns of) a wild mountain bull; its tail is brought forward like (that of) a mighty lion” (CT 38 38:59–61 [SB namburbi]). 35 (b) The existence of a separate term rīmāniš, “like a wild bull,” for an animal simile (in this case alongside the regular phrase kīma rīmi) is exceedingly rare. Of the more than 250 Akk. animal names, 36 I found only the following 24 separate simile terms (approximately 10%) with the adverbial suffixes -iš/-āniš (the number of different contexts is indicated in parentheses after each term): 37 1996), 54; Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses, 3rd ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 186. Contrast the translation in, e.g., CAD R 355 (sub rīmāniš). 32.  For this reconstructed context and translation, see especially Robert D. Biggs, ŠÀ.ZI. GA: Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations, Texts from Cuneiform Sources 2 (Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1967), 30–31 (no. 12, line 19, and note to that line). 33.  For this context and translation, see especially Sally M. Freedman, If a City Is Set on a Height, Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum, 1998), 1.230–31, line 4. 34.  For this context and a previous translation, see CAD R 361 (§c 2′–text only); CAD Ṣ 189 (§1 a—text and translation). CAD R 361 also lists two duplicate texts—Kraus Texte 13.1 and 15.1. The above translation is based on the similar nature of the previous text (the fourth text) as translated above (see n. 33). 35.  For full discussion of this passage and all relevant bibliography, see the excellent article by James Natan Ford, “The Verb tqnn in RS 1992.2014,” UF 33 (2001): 206–8. 36.  The most comprehensive and up-to-date list known to me is the 2005 Akk. list of terms in the “Index of Words and Forms Quoted” in SED 2 355–58, which lists 271 Akk. terms. A general perusal of this list indicates that almost all of the 271 terms are indeed names of animals. 37.  Other much less frequently used Akk. adverbial suffixes have not been taken into consideration above. The following is a partial listing of those terms: adrû, “ibex-like” (CDA  5; CAD A/1 130–31); asānum, “bear-like (PNs only)” (CDA 25; CAD A/2 345 [discussion section]); ašqūdānum, “like an asqūdu-rodent” (CDA 28; CAD A/2 452 [PNs

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

93

anzâniš, “like the Anzû lion-headed eagle” (1); 38 arâniš, “like eagles” (1); 39 asliš, “like sheep” (8); 40 būṣiš, “like the būṣu-bird” (2); 41 dabûiš, “like a bear” (1); 42 eribîš, “like locusts” (3); 43 erîš, “like an eagle (1)”; 44 gammališ, “like a camel” (1?); 45 iṣṣūriš, “like a bird” (4); 46 kalbāniš, “like a dog” (2); 47 kalūmiš, “like lambs” (2); 48 kulbābāniš, “like ants” (1); 49 kulbābiš, “like ants” (1); 50 labbiš, “like a lion” (6); 51 lalāiš, “like kids” (1); 52 nāliš, “like a roe deer” (1); 53 rīmāniš, “like a wild bull” (4); 54 summāniš, “like a dove” (1?); 55 summiš, “like a (male) dove” (2); 56 ṣerrāniš, “like a snake” (1); 57 šaḫapiš, “like a wild only]); kurkatta(m), “like a goose” (CDA 168; CAD K 561); puršatta, “like a flea / fleas” (CDA 279; CAD P 524); rīmāni/u/û, “like a wild bull” (CDA 304; CAD R 355); zībû, “vulture-like” (see my note [§3], apud Nili, “Hapax Legomena,” 230; contra CDA 447; AHw 1525; CAD Z 105 [zibû]). The two terms kakkišatti, “like a weasel” (CDA 141), and pušḫatti, “like a rat” (CDA 280), have been removed from this list in light of their reading and interpretation as the regular Akk. fem.-pl. terms kakkišāti, “weasels,” and pušḫāti, “shrews,” referring metaphorically to Esarhaddon’s conspiring domestic adversaries in the text SAA 9 #1 V 3–7: kakkišāti pušḫāti ša idabbabūni ina pan šēpēšu ubattaqšunu, “I will cut to pieces the ‘weasels’ and ‘shrews’ who have been conspiring against me at his feet” (see already CAD K 50 and the bibliography cited there; Parpola in SAA 9, p. 9 in his translation and notes to this passage; CAD P 541). Note, finally, that even this short list includes rīmāni/u/û, “like a wild bull.” 38.  CDA 19; CAD A/2 152. 39.  CDA 22; CAD A/2 231. 40.  CDA 26; CAD A/2 336–37. 41.  CDA 50; CAD B 348. 42.  CDA 53; CAD D 17. 43.  CDA 78; CAD E 258. 44.  CDA 78; AHw, 241; not listed in CAD E 298. 45.  Listed only in CDA 89. The reference is presumably to a single SB text published after 1981 (the date of the additions by von Soden to AHw in Lieferung 16, where this term is not present on pp. 1552, 1592). 46.  CDA 132: CAD I/J 209. 47.  CDA 142; CAD K 67. 48.  CDA 143; CAD K 105–6. See also Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 93–94. 49.  CDA 165; CAD K 501. 50.  CDA 165; CAD K 501. See also Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 99. 51.  CDA 174; CAD L 23. See also Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 87. 52.  CDA 176; CAD L 46. See also Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 94. 53.  CDA 234; CAD N/1 202. See also Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 89–90. 54.  CDA 304; CAD R 355; see above as well. See also Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 87–88. 55.  Listed only in CDA 327. The reference is presumably to a single SB text published after 1984 (the date of CAD S, where this word is not listed on p. 378). 56.  CDA 328; CAD S 380. 57.  CDA 336; AHw 1092. This word is missing from CAD Ṣ (published in 1962) and is not listed there among the derivatives of ṣēru B, “snake” (p. 148). Its sole context is in STT 136 I 32–33, first published in Oliver R. Gurney and Peter Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets II (London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1964), pl. 148 (cf. p. 2, #136). AHw 1092 notes that this context also occurs in an unpublished duplicate text: K 8939 II 8. This context is translated in CAD N/2 54 (§1a) as follows: taššukī ṣērāniš tazqutī zuqaqīpāniš,

94

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

boar” (1); 58 šēlabiš, “like a fox” (1); 59 šurāniš, “like a cat” (1); 60 zuqaqīpāniš, “like a scorpion” (1). 61 Of these 24 terms, only asliš, “like sheep” (8) and labbiš, “like a lion” (6) occur more often than rīmāniš, “like a wild bull” (4), while iṣṣūriš, “like a bird” (4), occurs the same number of times. Besides the 23 aforementioned contexts in which kīma rīmi / rīmāniš, “like a wild bull,” is attested as a simile, the animal name rīmu, “wild bull,” is attested in dozens of additional contexts in many different kinds of texts from OAkk. on, including such diverse genres as lexicographical texts, literary texts, NA annals (including descriptions of several royal hunts), letters (e.g., Mari and ABL), and administrative economic texts. 62 Therefore, it is certainly impossible to accept the following recently suggested rationalization: 63 The prominence of the poetic and metaphoric usage of the reflexes of *riʾ m in Syro-Mesopotamian area likely suggests that the respective terms denoted a semi-mythical rather than a real animal (cf. Feliks 1980 127 about Hbr. reʾē m).

In fact, it is the opposite conclusion that is warranted by the aforementioned copious textual evidence for both the poetic and everyday usage of this term throughout the history of the Akk. language—namely, that Akk. rīmu, “wild bull,” indeed referred to a real animal that was well known and appreciated throughout the history of ancient Mesopotamia. (c) It is instructive to compare the usage of additional Akk. similes based on other terms translated “bull” (besides rīmu) in the modern Akk. dictionaries. Of the 9 terms of this sort, only 3 are used as similes: 64 kī(ma) alpi, “like “you (šimmatu disease) have bitten like a snake, you have stung like a scorpion.” The first 37 lines of this incantation (STT 136 I 1–37 together with duplicates) against the šimmatu paralysis disease were edited with a German translation in Wolfram von Soden, “Duplikate aus Ninive,” JNES 33 (1974): 341–44. Note, finally, that this is also the sole Akk. context in which the simile zuqaqīpāniš, “like a scorpion,” occurs as well (see n. 61 below). 58.  CDA 346; CAD Š/1 78–79. 59.  CDA 365; CAD Š/2 268. See also Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 88. 60.  CDA 387; CAD Š/3, 339. 61.  CDA 450; CAD Z 163; AHw, 1538. For this context and its translation, see also n. 57 above. 62.  See all the contexts in CAD R 359–63. 63.  Quote is taken from SED 2 249. Cf. also Leonid Kogan, “Animal Names in Biblical Hebrew: An Etymological Overview,” Babel und Bible 3 (2006), 278–79. 64.  For the ten terms translated “bull” in the three modern Akk.–English dictionaries (CAD, CDA, and AEAD), see Mark E. Cohen, An English to Akkadian Companion to the Assyrian Dictionaries (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2011), 29 (including of course rīmu). The other six terms not used as similes are as follows: bīru, gudnagadû; gugallu; gumāḫu; mīru, and ullu. Note that on page 130 under the heading “mammals” Mark Cohen lists only nine terms for “bull,” omitting (apparently unintentionally) the last term ullu for which see CAD U/W 82 (ullu C).

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

95

a bull” (12 contexts); 65 kīma lê, “like a bull” (5 contexts); kīma šūri, “like a bull” (1  context). Only the 5 contexts of the simile kīma lê, “like a bull,” 66 are somewhat reminiscent (although much less frequent) of the usage of the aforementioned 23 simile contexts of kīma rīmi / rīmāniš. On the other hand, as already correctly emphasized by David Marcus, the usage of the two similes kī(ma) alpi and kīma šūri in the NA annals is completely different: 67 The picture of an ox being led by ropes attached to nose-rings is the basis for two similes in the annals involving oxen. Tiglath-Pileser I reports that he led captured enemy kings to Assyria by placing ropes in their noses like oxen (ina appīšunu kī(ma) alpi [ṣerrē]ti attadi—AKA 118:9). Similarly, Sennacherib uses the same imagery to ridicule the Elamite nobles who wore bracelets which he likens to the rings inserted in the noses of fat oxen to facilitate leading them (ina šemirē aspi ḫurāṣi ruššî rukkusā rettīšun kīma šūrī marûti šummannu “Their arms are bedecked like fat oxen with bracelets, slings of reddish gold, to which guideropes are attached—OIP 2, 45:86–88).

Thus, while the similes with rīmu often symbolize “might and great strength,” especially with respect to such heroic figures as the NA kings as depicted in their own aggrandizing annals and Gilgamesh in the Gilgamesh epic (as demonstrated above), two of the other three terms for which there are “bull” similes (namely, alpu and šūru) are so used only with reference to the docile, cowardly nature of the NA king’s enemies once he has captured them. 68 65.  The 12 contexts of kī(ma) alpi “like a bull” may be found in CAD A/1 364–65. The first six are among the Sumerian-Akkadian bilingual texts in the final sub-section of the lexicographical portion of this entry, pp. 364b–365a. The latter six contexts are in §1a) 1′, p. 365ab. 66.  The 5 contexts of the simile kīma lê, “like a bull,” may all be found in CAD L 227– 28. They may be characterized as follows: 3 of the 5 contexts are in bilingual Sumerian— Akkadian texts, two of them from Lugale (cf. the similar situation regarding the kīma rīmi / rīmāniš similes discussed above in §2a, paragraph 1); the 4th context is the most famous of all, occurring 3 times in the Atrahasis epic (66 I 354, 72 II I 3, 94 III iii 15): mātum / abūbu kīma lî išappu, “The land/the flood was bellowing like a bull” (see also CAD Š/1 488 [§1b]); while only the 5th context (ZA 61 52.57; see also CAD N/1 305 [sub naplaqu]; P 51 [§1]; R 116 [§a) 2′]; Š/2 413 [sub šigmiš]; Foster, Before the Muses, 622:57) evinces the same docile, cowardly nature portrayed by the kīma šūri and kīma alpi similes discussed immediately above: kīma lê ša ina naplaqu palqu irammum šigmiš, “he (the wretched penitent of the god Nabû) bellows loudly like a bull being slaughtered with a butcher’s knife.” 67. See Marcus, “Animal Similes,” 91. 68.  For the opposing nature reflected in these similes between “wild” (usage of rīmu) as opposed to “docile” (usage of alpu and šūru), see the parallel opposing usage in BH as extensively discussed in n. 6 above. Here it may be added that, figuratively, BH ‫ שור‬has both a “wild” usage and a (much more common) “docile” usage. For the former, see especially Deut 33:17, which also refers figuratively to the ‫( ראם‬see §1 and n. 5 above). For the latter, see especially n. 6 above and the sole simile in Prov 7:22 (referring to what befalls the man who follows the ‫ אשה זרה‬thoughtlessly): ‫כשור אל טבח יבוא‬, “(he follows after her) like an ox going to the slaughter.”

96

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

3.  The Ug. Evidence: The Parallelism ʾibr // rʾum; the Two Similes krʾumm and km ʾibrm, “like (Wild) Bulls”; and the Two Alleged Meanings of Ug. ʾibr-, “(Wild) Bull” and “Stallion” (a) The 11 occurrences of rʾum, “wild bull /ox” in Ug. literature are in 7 different clear contexts. 69 The 1 context with the clearest parallelism that seems to appear twice (with slight variations) is the following with the parallelismʾibr // rʾum: k.ʾibr.lbʿ l yld 36wrʾum.lrkb ʿ rpt For a (wild) bull is born to Baʿal // even a wild ox to the Rider of Clouds  (KTU2 1.10:3 35–36) 35

ʾibr.tld [lbʿ l] 21wrʾum.l[rkb ʿ rpt] A (wild) bull she bore to Baʿal // even a wild ox to the Rider of Clouds  (KTU2 1.10:3 20–21 [restored]) 70 20

(b) Both the terms rʾum, “wild ox,” and ʾibr, “(wild) bull,” are clearly attested in Ug. poetry in similes krʾumm, “like wild oxen,” and km ʾibr(m), “like a (wild) bull / like (wild) bulls,” as follows 71: yngḥn 18krʾumm.mt.ʿ z.bʿ l 19ʿ z ynṯkn.bṯnm 20mt.ʿ z.bʿ l ʿ z They gore each other like wild oxen, Mot is fierce, Baʿal is fierce; They bite each other like serpents, Mot is fierce, Baʿal is fierce. (KTU2 1.6:6 17–20)

69.  For the Ug. term rʾum (with plural form rʾumm), see especially DULAT 723–24, where all 7 clear contexts are translated. For the listing of all 11 occurrences in order and according to genre, see CPU 1802 (for the 2 occurrences of the singular rʾum) and 1803 (for the 9 occurrences of the plural form rʾumm). 70.  For this almost-certain restoration, see, e.g., UNP 185; RTU 159 (translation). 71.  Note that there seems to be 1 more occurrence of krʾumm, “like wild oxen / like a wild ox (with enclitic-mem),” in KTU2 1.133:6–8, for which, see especially the translations, comments, and additional bibliography in UNP 177; RTU 426; RCU 212. This attestation has not been included here both because the context is not completely clear (the aforementioned translations are quite different from each other) and because there is general agreement that this text is but an excerpted variant from the standard text in KTU2 1.5:1 16–17, where rʾumm, “wild oxen / a wild ox (with enclitic-mem),” indeed appears in line 16 but not the simile krʾumm. Finally, note that the possibility of understanding both of these variants (rʾumm and krʾumm) as singular forms plus enclitic-mem appears to be preferable because the parallelism here in both texts with the form ʾaylt, “hind” (which could of course theoretically be singular or plural) finds its precedent in the very similar parallelism in the two previous stichs (in both texts) lbʾim //ʾanḫr, “lion (plus enclitic-mem) // dolphin.” Here ʾanḫr, “dolphin,” can only be masculine singular, implying that the parallel term lbʾim is best understood as “lion (with enclitic-mem).”

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

97

bhm.qrnm 31km.ṯrm.wgbṯt 32km.ʾibrm They will have horns like (wild) oxen, 72 humps 73 like (wild) bulls.  (KTU2 1.12:1 30–32) 30

kn.npl.bʿ l 54km ṯr.wtkms.hd 55km ʾ ibr. So Baʿal has fallen like a (wild) ox, Haddu has buckled 74 like a (wild) bull.  (KTU2 1.12:2 53–55)

(c) Regarding the two alleged meanings of Ug. ʾibr-, “(wild) bull” and “stallion,” we should emphasize first that these are precisely the two clearly attested 72.  As is occasionally the usage with respect to BH ‫( שור‬see n. 68 above), the Ug. term ṯr is often used (see, e.g., DULAT 930 for many cases) with the meaning “(wild) ox/bull,” especially as a component in several Ug. divine epithets (see DEUAT 318–19 [and the additional note by James N. Ford appended there to n. 3], 379 [component 128]) and in various comparisons relating to Ug. deities as in the above-quoted simile. 73.  For Ug. gbṯt, “hump” (DULAT 293–94) = BH ‫( דבשת‬Isa 30:6), see BHL 132 n. 64 and the bibliography mentioned there; contra Joaquín Sanmartín, “Glossen zum ugaritischen Lexikon (II),” UF 10 (1978): 349 and n. 2 (translating “Körperfülle” and comparing only Akk. gipšu, “uprising, welling-up,” and gipšūtu, “fullness, numerousness” [for both, see, e.g., CDA 93]). The key comparison was first suggested between BH ‫ דבשת‬and Talmudic Heb. ‫גבשושית‬, “mound, pile” (b. Šabbat 73b and 152a; note also the same term in Targumic and Jerusalem Talmud Aramaic, for which, see Jastrow 209 and DJPA 120) by the 19thcentury Italian biblical scholar Samuel David Luzzatto, who went so far as to emend BH ‫ דבשת‬to !‫ גבשת‬based on the assumed semantic development that “the camel’s hump [i.e., in Isa 30:6—C. C.] is like a mound on its back as is also the case with respect to Latin gibbus.” See Morris B. Margolies, Samuel David Luzzatto: Traditionalist Scholar (New York: Ktav, 1979), 121 and 133 n. 99; and especially my “Elements of Peshaṭ in Traditional Jewish Bible Exegesis,” Immanuel 21 (1987): 41–42. The above Ug. text now provides confirmation for this pioneering suggestion and the clear usage there with the meaning “hump” (as parallel to qrnm, “horns”) now provides a clear precedent for this meaning in Isa 30:6 (without need to resort to the above “logical” explanation for an assumed semantic development!). Finally, note that already in 1936, shortly after this Ug. text was first published (and without referring to Luzzatto’s earlier suggestion), Harold Louis Ginsberg independently suggested the same comparison with Isa 30:6 but correctly claimed that there was no need for textual emendation because of several precedents for a ‫ד‬/‫ ג‬interchange (which he claimed “may represent a spontaneous variation, not uncommon in Greek”), namely Aram. ‫ גונבא‬alongside the more common ‫דונבא‬, “tail” (reflecting original ḏ–cf. BH ‫)זנב‬, and Talmudic Heb. Greek loanword ‫דלוסקמא‬, alongside more original ‫גלוסק(ו)מא‬, “chest, coffin, box” (this second precedent was already mentioned by Luzzatto). See Harold Louis Ginsberg, “Baʿlu and His Brethren,” JPOS 16 (1936): 143–44 n. 14; see also BHL 132 n. 64. 74.  As correctly noted in DULAT 446 (see also the bibliography listed there), the form tkms is best analyzed as a tD qtl form “has buckled” // npl, “has fallen.” This usage may be compared to the II/2 (reflexive) form of Akk. kamāsu B, “to kneel,” for which see, e.g., CAD K 120 (mng. 4); CDA 144. Finally, note that, while the usage of the simile in this Ug. text is tkms . . . km ʾibr, “has buckled like a (wild) bull,” a comparable Akk. simile (albeit in a different context) occurs in a Sum.-Akk. bilingual text (see also §2, part a1 above) with the cognate verb kamāsu B, “to kneel,” and rīmu, “wild bull,” as follows: kīma rīmu . . . lukmissu, “like a wild bull, . . . let me kneel before him” (SBH no. 25:13f.—cf. CAD K 117b; R 360a).

98

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

meanings of ‫ א ִַּביר‬in BH. 75 Therefore, this surely could potentially be the situation in Ug. as well. 76 On the other hand, the usage of this term as a Northwest Semitic loanword in Egyptian texts is only with the meaning “stallion.” 77 The only Ug. context in which the meaning “stallion” might fit 78 is KTU2 1.14:3 16–17 (cf. 5 8–10): 79 lqr.ṯʾigt.ʾibrh 17lql.nhqt.ḥmrh for the sound of the bellowing of his bulls; for the noise of the braying of his donkeys. 75.  See §4 below. 76.  This is in fact the opinion expressed in DULAT 10–11. For a listing of all 9 attestations of the Ug. term ʾibr presently being discussed, arranged according to form and genre, see CPU 183 (ʾibr—only the last 5 occurrences and add KTU2 1.9:16 = 1 occurrence; ʾibrh—2 occurrences), 184 (ʾibrm—only the second occurrence = 1 occurence). Of the 5 clear contexts, 3 have been translated and discussed above, while the 1 from the Krt epic will be discussed immediately below. The 5th context reads as follows: ʾibr y 30bʿl.nšqdš.mḏr bʿ l 31 nmlʾu, “A bull, O Baʿal, we shall sanctify; a vow, O Baʿal, we shall fulfill” (KTU2 1.119:29– 31). Here it should further be noted that, as is common in the case of BH ‫( א ִַּביר‬see §4 below), some scholars claim that Ug. ʾibr did not at all refer to any specific animal(s) but instead (especially based incorrectly on Akk. abāru B, “strength”—see §4 below), could refer to any “stocky male animal.” In fact, this is the basic underlying definition in DULAT 10 (which is then followed by the animals thought to be so designated in the extant Ug. texts: “1] ‘bull’; 2] ‘horse’”). Thus, this Ug. term (like its BH cognate; see §4 below) was sometimes unjustly excluded from lists of ancient Semitic animal names. Note especially its absence from SED 2 6 (contrast SED 2 248, where the aforementioned parallelism ʾibr // rʾum is discussed, and the term ʾibr is specifically translated “bull”). 77.  Thus, it is surely possible that Ug. ʾibr may refer to only one animal as well. For the 2 occurrences of this term as a Northwest Semitic loanword in Egyptian *ʾabira, “stallion” (18th Dynasty), and *ʾabirāya, “stallions” (19th Dynasty), see most recently James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 18–19 and all the bibliography cited there. Add Daniel Sivan and Zipora Cochavi-Rainey, West-Semitic Vocabulary in Egyptian Script of the 14th to the 10th Centuries bce, Beer-sheba 6 (Beer-sheba: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1992), 77. As noted especially by Hoch (Semitic Words, 18–19), the meaning “stallion(s)” is virtually certain because of the following semantic contextual evidence: (a) Both immediate contexts are clearly referring “specifically to horses.” In the first context (from the 18th Dynasty), the term ʾ⸗bi⸗ra (Urk. IV 663, 10) is written with a final horse determinative (Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed. [London: Oxford University Press, 1957], 459 [sign list E6; this term is specifically mentioned there]). (b) The meaning “stallion” is especially clear from the first context, “a list of booty from Megiddo,” where “the horses are thus categorized by sex and maturity”: mares, fillies, ʾ⸗bi⸗ra, colts. 78.  See n. 76 above. The following are among those who translate the term ʾibr in this context as “stallion,” “horse,” or the like: DULAT 10–11 (“horse”); LKK 39 (“stallion”); ANET 144 (“stallion”); UNP 16 (“stallion”). The translation “bull” or the like in this context is accepted by, e.g., the following: COS 1.335; RTU 194; and most recently with complete discussion, Oswald Loretz, Hippologia Ugaritica, AOAT 386 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 28 (§2.1.1), 50–51 (§2.1.1.2). 79.  The only significant difference between these two occurrences of the present context is ṯʾigt in KTU2 1.14:3 16–17 vs. ṯʾiqt in KTU2 1.14:5 8–10. In fact, in the latter passage, the q of ṯʾiqt is written over a g. See, e.g., KTU2, p. 39 and n.1; UNP 44 n. 45.

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

99

A proper philological analysis of this passage must especially emphasize the parallelistic structure whereby the use of the root ṯʾg (only in this context in Ug. literature) 80 must typify the natural sound of the ʾibr in this context, just as the parallel root nhq, “to bray,” typifies the natural sound of the ḥmr, “donkey.” Now in BH, the only animal associated with the cognate root ‫שאג‬, “to roar,” is the lion (e.g., Judg 14:5; Amos 3:4, 8; Ps 104:21; Zech 11:3), which surely cannot be the meaning of ʾibr in this context. While this root does not exist in Akk., much can be learned from its Akk. semantic equivalents. The verbs translated “to roar, bellow” in the major Akk. dictionaries are as follows: 81 ḫadādu, labû, naʾāru, nadāru, nagāgu, ragāmu, ramāmu, raṣānu, šagāmu, and šapû. Of these 10 verbs (including derived nominal, adjectival, and adverbial forms), only labû, nadāru (+ derived verbal adjective nadru), nagāgu, ramāmu, rigmu (noun derived from ragāmu), šagāmu (+ derived adverbial form šigmiš), and šapû are used for emitting the sounds of either the (wild) ox/bull or the horse. Six of the 7 are associated with the (wild) ox/bull, excluding rigmu, which appears only (once) with the horse, while nagāgu and šagāmu (+ derived adverbial form šigmiš) occur with both. 82 Moreover, it should be emphasized that the contextual use of the aforementioned phrase ṯʾigt ʾibrh in the Krt epic as part of a literary motif dealing with interruption of sleep finds its precedent in ancient Semitic literature with the similar usage of the “bellowing of the bull” (but never “the neighing of the horse”) as a simile in the Atrahasis epic referring to the loud noise made by humanity that causes the chief Mesopotamian god Enlil to be deprived of sleep and in response, ultimately, to order the destructive cosmological flood. 83 In summary, there seems to be no good reason 84 80. See DULAT 891: ṯʾigt / ṯʾiqt; CPU 2090, 2091. 81.  See M. E. Cohen, English to Akkadian Companion, 179. The Akk. verb šapû, “to bellow,” was added from CAD Š/1 488b (§1b). 82.  For passages with the (wild) ox/bull, see, e.g., the following references: with labû, “to bellow” (+ alpu, KAR 379.5 [CAD L 35a]); with nadāru, “to rage” (+ rīmu: CT 40 41a:3 [CAD N/1 60b]); with nadru, “raging” (+ rīmu: Streck Asb. 54 vi 60 [CAD N/1 65b]); with nagāgu, “to bray” (+ alpu: CT 40 32: rev. 24–25 [CAD N/1 105b]); with ramāmu, “to bellow” (+ kīma alpi, “like a bull”; e.g., KUB 1 16 I 14 [CAD R 116b]; + kīma lê, “like a bull”: e.g., last passage quoted in n. 66 above); with šigmiš, “loudly” (+ kīma lê, “like a bull”; cf. last passage quoted in n. 66 above); with šapû, “to bellow” (+ kīma lê, “like a bull”; e.g., the first 3 passages quoted together from the Atrahasis epic in n. 66 above). For passages with the horse, see, e.g., with nagāgu, “to neigh” (+ sīsû: CT 40 36:56 [CAD N/1105b]); with rigmu, “neighing“ (+ sīsû; BWL 178: rev. 19–20 [CAD R 330b]); with šagāmu, “to neigh” (+ sīsû: CT 41 28:27 [CAD Š/1 64b]). 83.  See the wider contexts of the first two of the three references to the Atrahasis epic quoted in n. 66 above, namely, 66 I 352–359; 72 II 1–8. Note that the same motif of sleep deprivation of the older gods as a result of the noise made by the younger gods (but without the animal simile) occurs in Enuma Elish I 21–25, 35–40 as the ultimate reason for the battle between Marduk and Tiamat which led to the creation of the world according to Mesopotamian cosmology. See, e.g., the translation by Benjamin R. Foster in COS 1.391 and n. 2. 84.  Only H. L. Ginsberg attempted to justify his translation “the neighing of his stallion” (LKK 16, 19; ANET 144, 145) as follows (LKK 39):

100

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

why the Ug. phrase ṯʾigt ʾibrh should be translated “neighing of his stallions” rather than “bellowing of his bulls,” understanding the Ug. term ʾibr in this context as “(wild) ox/bull” just as in all the other aforementioned Ug. contexts in which it occurs. 85 Thus, as opposed to the 4 BH contexts in which ‫ א ִַּביר‬must be understood as “horse,” 86 all occurrences of Ug. ʾibr should be translated “(wild) ox/bull.” 4.  The BH Use of ‫ א ִַּביר‬Including the Two Occurrences of ‫א ִַּבירֵי לֵב‬, the Ten Occurrences Meaning “(Wild) Ox/Bull” (together with Human Metaphors), the Six Occurrences of MT ‫ יעקב‬/ ‫ֲביר ישראל‬ ִ ‫א‬, “(Wild) Ox/Bull of Jacob/Israel,” as an Epithet of the God of Israel, and the Four Occurrences Meaning “Stallion” (Excluding the Simile ‫ּכא ִַּביר‬, ְ “Like a Wild Bull,” in Isa 10:13 [Kethiv]) (a) As opposed to most modern BH dictionaries, which list the basic meaning of ‫ א ִַּביר‬as “mighty, strong, powerful,” 87 this BH term (like its Ug. and Egyptian cognates) almost always refers basically to a specific animal and has no other basic meaning. 88 While Ug. ʾibr means only “(wild) ox/bull,” and Egyptian *ʾabira means only “stallion,” BH ‫ א ִַּביר‬is used with both of these meanings, referring to the two animals, respectively, in different pasTo judge by the Hebrew, Ugar. ʾibr might signify either ‘bull’ (so in IV AB 3: 36–37) or ‘stallion’. The first meaning would in a sense duplicate l. 122, and on the other hand horse and donkey naturally go together (cf. 2 Ki 7:7, 10, also 1 Ki 18:5); so I have given the preference to the second one. (By the way, that is just the sense in which our word was borrowed by the Egyptians; Burchardt, Altkan. Frw. II no. 20.)

When this comment was first published in 1946, several of the other 7 aforementioned occurrences of Ug. ʾibr were not yet known. 85.  This is precisely the opinion expressed quite eloquently in Loretz, Hippologia Ugaritica, 50–51 (§2.1.1.2). 86.  See §4. 87.  See, e.g., BDB 7; DCH 1, 106–7; HALOT 6; Ges18 7; TDOT (rev. ed., 1977) 1.42–44; MHH 5; NIDOTTE 1.232–43; TLOT 19–21. 88.  See immediately below. The only occurrence of ‫ א ִַּביר‬that may not be derived from the name of an animal is Isa 46:12, 1 of the 2 occurrences of the idiom ‫אבירי לב‬, in this case meaning “stubborn ones.” See the extensive discussion below in subsection (b). It is of course quite likely that ultimately all the relevant terms from Akk., Ug., BH, Old Aram., and Egyptian discussed in this and the previous section may be derived from a Semitic root ʾbr, “to be strong.” Other animal names are naturally derived from such roots: e.g., the BH animal names ‫ ַאיִל‬, “ram,” and ‫ ַאּיָל‬, “stag, deer,” which are both often derived from the root ‫אול‬ II, “to be strong” (e.g., HALOT 40ab; cf. SED 2 34–40), from which is also derived the 2 BH substantives ‫איָל‬ ֱ , “strength” (Ps 88:5), and ‫איָלּות‬ ֱ , “strength (Ps 22:20) (on the meaning “strength” for these two substantives and not “help,” see especially the excellent detailed discussion in the doctoral dissertation of my former student, Talia Ditchi-Barak, “All the Epithets of the God of Israel in Biblical Hebrew” [Ph.D. diss., Ben-Gurion University, 2007], 117–18 [Heb.]). But as opposed to Akk. abāru, “strength” (see n. 89), and Old Aram. ‫אברו‬, “strength” (see n. 90 below), the extant texts in Ug., BH, and Egyptian know almost exclusively only the aforementioned animal name, ‫א ִַּביר‬, designating either the “(wild) ox/bull” (Ug.), the “stallion” (Egyptian), or both (BH).

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

101

sages (see below). The often cited etymological connection with Akk. abāru, “to be strong,” leads nowhere because the Akk. usage is completely different and specifically restricted. 89 Old Aram. ‫אברו‬, “strength,” occurs twice in but 1 context, also with completely different usage. 90 In fact, at the present time, it may be said that in the languages in which the root ʾbr is used as an animal name (Ug., BH, and Egyptian), it is usually not used with the verbal meaning “to be strong,” as a substantive meaning “strength,” or as an adjective meaning “strong, powerful”; on the other hand, in the languages in which there is such a general usage (Akk. and Old Aram.), the animal name ‫ א ִַּביר‬is not extant! 91 89.  It should first be emphasized that the often cited Akk. adjectival form abru(m) I allegedly meaning “strong, robust” and designated as being cognate to BH ‫( אַּביר‬AHw 7; and without any appreciable change in 2000, in CDA 3) was almost certainly nonexistent! The majority of attestations cited for this term in AHw 7 are of the alleged fem.-pl. form of this adjective abrātu(m) meaning “humanity.” For the correct analysis of this term as a poetic synonym (pluralis tantum) of unknown etymology for the regular term nišū, “people, mankind,” see CAD A/1 62. There, in the discussion section, it is specifically mentioned that “there is no cogent reason to assume that it should be connected with an adjective abru.” For the remaining 3 occurrences attributed to abru(m) in this article in AHw 7 (usage 1), see the much more likely explanations of all 3 attestations in CAD A/1 63 (sub “abru [or apru] adj.”). The only extant functionally adjectival phrase from this root in Akk. is ša abāri, meaning literally, “one of strength,” but its usage is only the idiomatic meaning “wrestler” (CAD A/1 38) and occurs only in lexical lists together with the regular Akk. term for “wrestler,” muštapṣu (CAD M/2 285). In fact, both the phrase ša abāri and the noun abāru, “strength” (CAD A/1 38)—the only two extant forms from this root—are completely restricted B-words in Akk., rarely occurring without the parallel A-words ša umāši (CAD U/W 98) and umāšu (CAD U/W 97–98) with the same meanings, respectively. Note already the following statements concerning this restricted usage: in CAD A/1 38 (sub abāru B): “Note that abāru only occurs in conjunction with its synonym umāšu or in the expressions bēl abāri or gamir abāri”; and in CAD A/1 38 (sub ša abāri): “Note that ša abāri is attested in lex. and bil. texts only, while the synonym ša umāši (ša ḫumuši) is attested in context too.” Note, finally, that as opposed to the restricted usage of the B-word abāru, the A-word umāšu, “strength,” is also well attested with a completely separate meaning, “a kind of tool or weapon” (CAD U/W 98). The findings in the present note are also intended as a response especially to the imprecise analysis of the usage of this Akk. root in the article of Nahum M. Sarna, “The Divine Title ‫אביר יעקב‬,” in Essays on the Occasion of the 70th Anniversary of the Dropsie University (Philadelphia: Center for Jewish Studies, 1979), 395. See also §4f below. 90. See KAI 214.15, 21 (‫ויסעד אברו‬, “and maintains power”)—referring in this 8th-century b.c.e. Old Aram. inscription (on a colossal statue to the deity Hadad) to the fervent hope of King Panammu I that one of his sons would succeed him and maintain his kingdom. Almost all commentators correctly compare the usage of BH ‫ סעד‬in 2 similar contexts concerning the maintenance of royal administrative authority in Isa 9:6 and Prov 20:28. No passage including the BH term ‫ֲביר‬ ִ ‫א‬/‫ א ִַּביר‬was ever compared with Old Aram. ‫ אברו‬in the discussion of this context because the usage of the 23 occurrences of the BH term (22 attestations are discussed in the present section while the 23rd occurrence is the subject of §5 below) is completely different from that of the Old Aram. term. See, e.g., KAI 2.219; TSSI 1.66–67, 72; DNWSI 7; COS 2.36:157 (plus note f). 91.  The sole possible exception to this rule is the phrase ‫א ִַּבירֵ י לֵב‬, “stubborn ones,” in Isa 46:12 (already noted by Miller—see the quote in subsection b below and the extensive

102

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

(b) The key to a proper understanding of the usage of BH ‫ א ִַּביר‬is the following insightful claim made by Patrick D. Miller already in 1970, but mostly ignored in modern biblical research: “Every usage of ‫ א ִַּביר‬in Hebrew can be understood either as referring to bulls or horses or as a metaphorical designation for soldiers, princes, or leaders, except possibly for the idiom ‫א ִַּבירֵי לֵב‬, and even that may be analogous to the contemporary idiom ‘bull-headed’.” 92 For the 2 occurrences of the idiom ‫א ִַּבירֵי לֵב‬, “stubborn ones; most courageous ones” (Isa 46:12; Ps 76:6), it should first be noted that this MT version of Isa 46:12 (meaning “stubborn ones”) 93 is supported by no less than 3 additional ancient Hebrew witnesses (1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 4QIsad; this part of the verse has not been preserved in 4QIsac). On the other hand, the version reflected by the reconstructed Vorlage of the LXX—namely, ‫א ְֹבדֵ י לֵב‬, “those who have lost heart” 94—has no ancient Hebrew textual support whatsoever and is even unattested as an idiom in the OT (the closest parallel is Jer 4:9 with different usage). While the contextual use in Isa 46:12 clearly refers to those among the exiles who stubbornly refuse to believe that the divine redemption from Babylon is near, the use in Ps 76:6 (meaning “most courageous ones”) 95 refers to the enemies of Israel who are most courageous in battle (// ‫ )כל אנשי חיל‬but who cannot militarily withstand the awesome force of God’s wrath as He carries out His judgment against Israel’s enemies. The latter usage finds its closest parallel in 2 Sam 17:10 as follows: ‫ֲׁשר ִלּבֹו ְּכלֵב ָהא ְַרי ֵה ִהּמֵס ִיּמָס‬ ֶ ‫ְוהּוא גַם ּבֶן ַחיִל א‬ ‫ֲׁשר ִאּתֹו‬ ֶ ‫ּובנֵי ַחיִל א‬ ְ ָ‫ָביך‬ ִ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ִּכי ִגּבֹור א‬ ְ ‫ּכי יֹדֵ ַע ּכָל י‬: ִ “and even if he is a brave man with the heart of a lion [= lion-hearted], he will be shaken, for all Israel knows that your father and the soldiers with him are courageous fighters.” The parallel phrase in both verses is ‫אנשי חיל‬/‫בן‬, “brave, courageous person/people,” corresponding to ‫ אבירי לב‬in Ps 76:6 and ‫ לבו כלב האריה‬in 2 Sam 17:10. As for the former usage of ‫אבירי לב‬, “stubborn ones,” in Isa 46:12, the best precedent is the consistent use of the root ‫חזק‬, “to be strong,” together with ‫לב‬, “heart,” as a verb (Exod 4:21; 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:12, 35; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:4, 8, 17; Josh 11:20) and as a compound adjectival expression ‫( חזקי לב‬Ezek 2:4), both always meaning “(to be) stubborn (ones).” 96 Isa 46:12 would then be the only case of the use of ‫( א ִַּביר‬here as part of an idiom) with the meaning “to be strong” without any clear reference to an animal name. While Miller’s suggesdiscussion there), but not the other occurrence of ‫א ִַּבירֵי לֵב‬, “most courageous ones,” in Ps 76:6 (see the discussion in subsection [b]). 92. See Miller, “Animal Names,” 180–81. See also n. 9 above. 93.  See, e.g., Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 2 vols., Mikra LeYisraʾel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008), 1:249 [Heb.]; Jan L. Koole, Isaiah 40–48, Historical Commentary on the OT (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1997), 516–17. 94.  See, e.g., BHS 748 n. 12a. 95.  See especially Paul, Isaiah 40–66, 1.249. 96.  See also n. 91 above.

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

103

tion of a semantic development such as “bull-headed” is interesting and would allow for the regular meaning of ‫ א ִַּביר‬as “wild ox/bull” in this occurrence as well, there seems to be no precedent for such a semantic development in BH or the other ancient Semitic languages. (c) The 8 occurrences in which ‫ א ִַּביר‬is used metaphorically referring to “warrior, champion, chief officer” are as follows: 1 Sam 21:8; Isa 34:7; Ps 22:13; 68:31; 78:25; Job 24:22; 34:20; Lam 1:15. For Isa 34:7 and Ps 22:13, in which ‫ אביר‬is used metaphorically to designate fierce enemies annihilated by God as part of His ‫זבח‬, “sacrifice” // ‫טבח גדול‬, “great slaughter,” in Edom (Isa 34:6) and representing powerful enemies that threaten the petitioner pleading for divine salvation (Ps 22:13), see the detailed discussion in §1 above concerning the identical metaphorical use of ‫ראֵם‬,ְ “wild bull,” in Isa 34:7 and Ps 22:22.  97 The same metaphorical use of ‫ אביר‬is also present in the other six verses listed above but with respect to the warriors, champions, and leaders of Israel rather than to Israel’s enemies. In 1 Sam 21:8, Saul’s official, Doeg the Edomite, is designated by the appellative ‫אביר הרועים‬, which is best translated “the chief officer of the shepherds.” Although many scholars do indeed recognize the aforementioned metaphorical use of ‫ אביר‬in this official title, there is less agreement concerning the meaning or even the correct reading of the second element ‫הרועים‬, “the shepherds.” 98 It is here suggested that this title be compared with Akk. utullu, “chief herdsman,” one of whose main functions was “supervising lower ranked shepherds and herdsman.” 99 As for the other 5 aforementioned passages in which ‫ אביר‬is used metaphorically with respect to the warriors, champions, and leaders of Israel, the following summary of Miller from 1970, with regard to 4 of these 5 passages is still to the point: 100 97.  See also n. 9 above. Isa 34:7 and Ps 22:13 are in fact mentioned in passing by Miller, with respect to the metaphorical usage of ‫אביר‬, “to convey strength or to describe enemies.” See Miller, “Animal Names,” 181. 98.  See, e.g., Miller, “Animal Names,” 181 (“chief of Saul’s herdsman”); P. Kyle McCarter, I Samuel, AB 8 (New York: Doubleday, 1980), 348 (“the chief of Saul’s runners” [reading !‫ ;)]אביר הרצים‬and more recently David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 532–33 (“the chief leader”—lit., “the mighty one of the shepherds”). Although, this part of 1 Sam 21:8 is not extant in 4QSamb (the one biblical Dead Sea scroll that includes this verse), this did not prevent the editors of 4QSamb from suggesting the emendation !‫אביר העבדים‬, for which (as they in effect admit) there is not one shred of textual evidence! See Frank Moore Cross et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4, XIII, DJD 17 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2005), 239 (reconstructed variant to 1 Sam 21:8). 99. See CAD U/W 342–44 (“herdsman, manager of herds”) and especially the contexts cited for usage c on p. 343 entitled “supervising lower ranked shepherds and herdsman.” See also Hartmut Waetzoldt, “Das Amt des utullu,” in ZIKIR ŠUMIM: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. KRAUS on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. G. van Driel et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 386–97. In this essay, I have preferred the translation “chief herdsman,” taken from CDA 430. 100. See Miller, “Animal Names,” 181.

104

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

Thus ‫ אבירים‬in Job 24:22; 34:20 (referring to kings, nobles and princes) and Lam 1:15 (// to ‫“ בחורי‬young warriors”) may be such an animal name designation. . . . Another place where ‫ אבירים‬clearly means bulls but refers to human leaders or rulers of some sort is in Ps 68:31, which speaks of rebuking “the assembly / herd of bulls (‫ )עדת אבירים‬with the calves (‫ )עגלי‬of the peoples.” Although the meaning of the verse is not altogether clear, it would appear that the bulls and calves are nobles or princes, i.e., some class of leadership or status among or over the people.

To this succinct analysis, I add that, in Job 24:22a, the subject of ‫ומשך אבירים‬ ‫ בכחו‬can only be God, as part of Job’s complaint against God and response to Eliphaz (see especially Job 22:8: ‫—)אביר = איש זרוע לו‬namely, that only God is capable of restraining such powerful individuals (compare the use of ‫משך‬ in Job 40:25 and of ‫ רים = אביר‬in Job 39:9–10) 101 and causing each one in the parallel clause in Job 24:22b: ‫יקום ולא יאמין בחיין‬, “that he may live but without any assurance of survival” (cf. Deut 28:66). But instead of meting out such punishment to the wicked, claims Job in the next verse, “(God) gives him the security on which he can rely, and keeps watch over his affairs.” In Lam 1:15, the special Masoretic sensitivity to even the remotest association between God and the term ‫אביר‬, “wild ox/bull,” even when used metaphorically to refer to human beings is abundantly clear in this verse as a result of the placement of the ‫( פסק‬vertical line) between God’s name and the previous term ‫אבירי‬-‫כל‬, “all my (Judah’s) warriors” (with conjunctive Masoretic accent ‫—)מהפך‬namely, ‫אבירי | אדני‬-‫כל‬. The purpose of this ‫ פסק‬was to instruct the reader to pause before reading God’s name (as if the previous Masoretic accent was a disjunctive) and thereby cause a dissociation with the objectionable previous term ‫אבירי‬-‫כל‬. 102 The 1 remaining verse in which ‫ אביר‬is used metaphorically with regard to the warriors, champions, and leaders of Israel is Ps 78:25. Here the phrase ‫ֶל ֶחם‬ ‫ירים‬ ִ ‫ ַא ִּב‬is best rendered “food of (or befitting) champions/warriors/heroes” 103 101.  Note that the parallel usage cited above for both ‫ משך‬and ‫ רים‬is with respect to the animals, which makes the metaphorical usage here even more poignant. On the usage of ‫רים‬ (twice) in Job 39:9–12, see the extensive discussion in n. 6 above. 102.  For the ‫ פסק‬in general and this specific “religious” usage in order to prevent the direct connection of one of God’s names with what was perceived as an inappropriate, objectionable prior term without a disjunctive Masoretic accent, by causing a separation between the two words (i.e., a pause as if the first word did indeed have a disjunctive Masoretic accent), see especially Israel Yeivin, The Biblical Masorah (Jerusalem: Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2003), 180–81, and the bibliography listed there [Heb.]. See also Lea Himmel­farb, “The Exegetical Role of the Paseq,” Sefarad 58 (1998): 243–60, especially p. 244 n. 6. As we will see in subsection (f) below, this same Masoretic sensitivity actually resulted in the changing of the vocalization from ‫ א ִַּביר‬to ‫ֲביר‬ ִ ‫ א‬in 6 other verses in which a similar problem existed for the Masoretes but where the use of the ‫ פסק‬was not a viable option. 103.  See, e.g., njps.

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

105

as praising the food quality and abundance (see the parallel clause in v. 25b) of the manna rained down from heaven (‫ירים‬ ִ ‫ ֶל ֶחם ַא ִּב‬// ‫ׁש ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ ְדגַן‬// ‫מָן‬: see vv. 23–24), rather than the more common translation “food of angels.” 104 The latter translation is based on an early midrashic interpretation found already in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the periphrastic Targum on Psalms, and in early talmudic exegesis (R. Aqiba in b. Yoma 75b). It was one of the interpretations accepted here by the Jewish medieval commentator Rashi, who understood ‫ אבירים‬as referring to “angels” (‫)מלאכים‬. 105 This interpretation is based on a literal understanding of ‫ׁש ַמיִם‬ ָ ‫ ְדגַן‬in Ps 78:24 as “wheat of heaven” (i.e., “food of angels”) rather than “wheat from heaven” (as clearly indicated by the parallel clause ‫ ַוּי ְַמטֵר עֲלֵיהֶם מָן ֶלאֱכֹל‬, “He rained manna down upon them as food,” by v. 23, and by Ps 105:40). 106 This interpretation is still accepted by many modern scholars (who also often cite Ps 103:20), 107 but it surely must be considered midrashic rather than the plain original meaning of the text. Nowhere else in BH is the term ‫ אביר‬ever associated with “angels,” and nowhere else in BH is the term ‫מלאך‬, meaning “angel,” ever associated with any type of food. (d) The two verses in which ‫ אביר‬must be understood literally as “(wild) ox, bull” are Ps 50:13 and Jer 46:15. In Ps 50:13 (the first verse), the phrase ‫ּבׂשַ ר‬ ‫ א ִַּב ִירים‬must be rendered “the flesh of bulls” in accordance with the parallelism ‫ּבׂשַ ר א ִַּב ִירים‬, “the flesh of bulls” // ‫ַּתּודים‬ ִ ‫דַ ם ע‬, “the blood of he-goats,” because ‫א ִַּביר‬, “bull,” in this verse replaces ‫ּפָר‬, “bull,” in the previous parallelism, ‫ּפָר‬, “bulls” // ‫ַּתּודים‬ ִ ‫ע‬, “he-goats,” in 50:9 in the same wider context. Like ‫ּפָר‬, “bull,” ‫ א ִַּביר‬in this context must also be an animal that was regularly sacrificed. The overall context (Ps 50:7–15) has rightly been labeled “the true meaning of sacrifice.” 108 As opposed to the regular purpose of sacrifice in the ancient Near East, 109 the God of Israel does not require the offering of sacrifices in order to satisfy His hunger or quench His thirst (vv. 12–13) but instead as an indication that man is paying up his vows to God and honoring the Lord who has rescued him (vv. 14–15). 104.  See, e.g., Tate, Psalms 51–100, 278; BDB 7; TDOT 1.43; HALOT 6. 105.  Note especially the summaries of this exegesis in Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, 518, 524 n. 26; Hakham, Psalms 73–150, 48–49 and n. 29. 106.  In fact, the figure of “raining down manna as wheat from heaven” is intended to emphasize the abundance of manna (cf. Ps 78:25b) that was miraculously available to the Israelites on each day throughout their wanderings in the desert, with a double portion on Friday to provide for the Sabbath as well (Exod 16:4–5, 35; cf. Deut 8:16; Neh 9:20–21). This figure of “raining down wheat from heaven” as an indication of the abundance of wheat that would become available for consumption is also found in the Akk. epic of Gilgamesh XI 46–47, 88, 91 (= George, Gilg., pp. 706–9; see also, e.g., CAD Š/1 349). 107.  See, e.g., the commentaries and dictionaries cited in n. 104 above. Add Hakham, Psalms 73–150, 48–49. 108.  See Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 365–66. 109.  See, e.g., Gilgamesh XI 157–63 (= George, Gilg., pp. 712–13).

106

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

As I have shown in detail elsewhere, 110 Jer 46:15 (the second verse) must be read with the Septuagint and be translated as follows (the first word ‫מַּדּו ַע‬ stands also for the second clause): ‫ֲדפֹו‬ ָ ‫ ה‬′‫ירךָ! לֹא ָעמַד ִּכי ה‬ ַ ‫מ‬ ְ ‫ַּדּוע נָס! חַף! א ִַּב‬ Why has Apis fled? / Your bull not stood firm? / Because God has thrust him  down.

This reading and translation require reading the term ָ‫ירך‬ ְ ‫א ִַּב‬, “your bull,” in the singular (as opposed to MT ָ‫ א ִַּבירֶיך‬in the plural) and translating this term “your bull” as an epithet of the Egyptian god Apis (see below) rather than “your warriors” for MT ָ‫א ִַּבירֶיך‬. The main evidence for this reading and interpretation (briefly summarized) is as follows: 111 1.  Once the MT’s ‫ נסחף‬is divided into two words, ‫נס חף‬, the connection between the reconstructed divine name ‫ חף‬and the Egyptian god Apis in the Septuagint to this verse is based on the Egyptian name of this deity, ḥpw (written with the Egyptian bull determinative, which corresponds of course to the emended BH epithet ָ‫ירך‬ ְ ‫א ִַּב‬, “your bull,” in this verse) 112 and the corresponding Aramaic divine name ‫ חפי‬referring to the Egyptian god Apis. This divine name is attested in the Aramaic inscription KAI 268.2, 4, dated to the5th–4th centuries b.c.e. and discovered in 1855 in the famous Serapeum of Memphis, the Temple of Osiris–Apis. In this temple were found the remains of 64 holy, mummified bulls, each one in its period representing the Apis in the ancient Egyptian cult from the time of Amenhotep III (ca. 1387–1350 b.c.e.) to the threshold of Christianity. 113 2.  The most significant textual evidence indicating that the Septuagint version of Jer 46:15 must be considered preferable to the MT is the resultant occurrence of the negative parallelism ‫ לא עמד‬// ‫נס‬, “fled // did not stand firm,” in this verse only if MT ‫ נסחף‬is divided into the two words ‫ חף‬+ ‫נס‬, as in the Septuagint version. This is particularly

110. See my article “The Phenomenon of Negative Parallelism and Its Ramifications for the Study of Biblical Poetry,” Beer-sheva 3 (1988): 92–93 (appendix 1) [Heb.] and all the bibliography cited there. This research will be briefly summarized and somewhat updated in the present essay (especially in the remaining notes to this section, beginning with n. 112). 111. See ibid., 92 (paragraphs 1 and 2). 112.  For this bull determinative, see Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 458 (sign list E1). 113.  For an up-to-date discussion concerning the Egyptian god Apis, see the article by Richard L. Vos, “Apis—‫חף‬,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons, ed. Karel van der Toorn et al., 2nd ed., (Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999), 68–72 and all the bibliography cited there.

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

107

significant because the only other occurrence of this negative parallel pair in BH is in Jer 46:21 in the same wider context! 114 (e) The 4 verses in which ‫ אביר‬must be understood as “stallion” 115 are Judg 5:22; Jer 8:16; 47:3; 50:11. 116 The main BH internal semantic evidence justifying this translation (which is present only in these four occurrences of ‫)אביר‬ is as follows: 117 (1) the parallelism or association with the regular term ‫סּוס‬, “horse” (Judg 5:22; Jer 8:16); (2) the usage with the verb ‫דהר‬, “to gallop” (Judg 5:22); (3) the usage with the verb ‫צהל‬, “to neigh, whinny” (Jer 50:11), and the noun ‫מצהלה‬, “neighing, whinnying” (Jer 8:16); (4) the usage with the noun ‫רכב‬, “chariot” (Jer 47:3). (f) The 6 verses in which ‫ אביר‬occurs as the first element of two divine epithets of the God of Israel are Gen 49:24; Isa 49:26; 60:16; Ps 132:2, 5 (all ‫ֲביר יַעֲק ֹב‬ ִ ‫ ;)א‬and Isa 1:24 (‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ֲביר י‬ ִ ‫)א‬. It should be emphasized that, just in these 6 occurrences, the Masoretes saw fit to vocalize, not ‫א ִַּביר‬, but ‫ֲביר‬ ִ ‫א‬. Some scholars see this Masoretic vocalization as original, reflecting a different nominal form (*‫ָביר‬ ִ ‫ )א‬derived from an original verbal root ‫אבר‬, “to be strong” (as equivalent to Akk. abāru), with both derived nominal forms existing “side by side from the beginning”—“the sacred epithet ‫ֲביר יַעֲקֹב‬ ִ ‫ א‬and the secular dagheshed form.” The existence of these two forms in the MT then “cannot be the artificial product of late pietism.”  118 The main evidence for 114.  See also my “Phenomenon of Negative Parallelism,” 84 (§12:5). This crucial connection between the Septuagint version of Jer 46:15 and the MT of v.  21 was apparently first seen by Dominique Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, vol. 2: Isaie, Jeremie, Lamentations, OBO 50/2 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986), 763–64 (especially p. 764, paragraph 3) and subsequently mentioned in, e.g., William M. Holladay, Jeremiah 2, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 326; and most recently in Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 457 note k. Aside from my aforementioned study, no one seems to have noticed that this BH parallel pair is found only in these two verses (C. Cohen, “Phenomenon of Negative Parallelism.” 92 [paragraph 2]). 115.  For the comparative etymological and semantic Egyptian evidence for the meaning “stallion” just in these 4 verses in BH, see the extensive discussion in n. 77 above. For the discussion disqualifying this meaning for Ug. ʾibr, see §3c above. 116.  Note that other than the disputed case of ‫ כאביר‬in Isa 10:13 (see §5 below), the only other simile attested with the noun ‫ אביר‬is Jer 50:11 (‫)ותצהלו כאבירים‬. For this simile, see especially the metaphor with ‫סוסים‬, “horses,” in Jer 5:8. The simile in Jer 50:11 is not really relevant to the present study because it does not mean “like a (wild) ox/bull.” 117.  This meaning for ‫ אביר‬has been accepted in most modern BH dictionaries with respect to the 4 aforementioned verses. Only in BDB 7 do we find Judg 5:22 incorrectly listed with the meaning “men.” 118.  See especially Sarna, “‫אביר יעקב‬,” 389–96; the quotations are from p. 396. This article was reprinted in Nahum M. Sarna, Studies in Biblical Interpretation (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2000), 3–11. Others who accept the MT vocalization as original in these 6 verses include BDB 7; DCH 1.106.

108

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

this conclusion is the comparison with the use of Akk. abāru, “to be strong,” based on the assumption that this sort of overall Akk.-BH comparison is justified both etymologically and semantically. 119 As I have noted previously in the present study and elsewhere, 120 this comparison is semantically unacceptable because the Akk. use of this verbal root is quite limited and specifically restricted to a small number of phrases (without a derived animal name equivalent to BH ‫ א ִַּביר‬or Ug. ʾibr), while on the other hand, as we have also seen, almost all of the BH uses “can be understood either as referring to bulls or horses or as a metaphorical designation for soldiers, princes, or leaders.” Thus, the correct analysis is to read !‫ א ִַּביר‬instead of MT ‫ֲביר‬ ִ ‫ א‬in these 6 verses and to understand these 6 occurrences of 2 divine epithets of the God of Israel in the metaphorical sense of “Warrior/Champion/Hero of Jacob/Israel.” These 2 divine epithets may then be compared with other BH divine epithets extolling God as “the supreme warrior, who supports Israel militarily,” such as ‫איש‬ ‫ צבאות‬′‫ ה‬,‫ גבור מלחמה‬,‫ אלהי מערכות ישראל‬,‫ אל גבור‬,‫מלחמה‬, and many others. 121 The later change of vocalization to ‫ֲביר‬ ִ ‫ א‬is best considered a result of the same “special Masoretic sensitivity to even the remotest association between God and the term ‫א ִַּביר‬, ‘wild ox/bull,’ even when used metaphorically.” 122 While in Lam 1:15, the Masoretes solved this problem by adding the ‫ פסק‬after the term ‫אבירי‬-‫כל‬, this option was not available to them in the 6 aforementioned verses 123 because the term !‫ א ִַּביר‬here is always in the construct state, and the name of God is not specifically mentioned after it but is instead replaced by the two-word epithet. 5.  The 23rd Occurrence of ‫ א ִַּביר‬in BH: The Simile ‫ּכא ִַּביר‬, ְ “Like a Wild Bull” (Isa 10:13 [Kethiv]), in the Speech of the Assyrian King The only occurrence of ‫ ְּכא ִַּביר‬as a simile meaning “like a wild bull” 124 is in Isa 10:12–13, which quotes the speech of the Assyrian king as follows: ְ ‫ִפקֹד! עַל ְּפִרי גֹדֶל ְלבַב ֶמל‬ ‫ֶך ַאּשּׁור‬ ְ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם י‬ ָ ‫ּוב‬ ִ ‫ אֶת ּכָל ַמעֲׂשֵ הּו ְּבהַר ִצּיֹון‬′‫ְו ָהיָה ִּכי ְי ַבּצַע ה‬ ‫ָסיר ּגְבּולֹת ע ִַּמים‬ ִ ‫ֻנֹותי ְוא‬ ִ ‫ָתי ִּכי ְנב‬ ִ ‫ָכמ‬ ְ ‫ּובח‬ ְ ‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫ָדי ע‬ ִ ‫ְועַל ִּת ְפ ֶארֶת רּום עֵינָיו׃ (יג) ִּכי ָאמַר ְּבכ ֹ ַח י‬ ‫יֹוׁש ִבים׃‬ ְ ]‫אֹוריד ְּכא ִַּביר [= כתיב‬ ִ ‫ֲתידֹותֵ יהֶם [= כתיב] ׁשֹוׂשֵ ִתי ְו‬ ִ ‫ ַוע‬/ ]‫ַועֲתּודֹותֵ יהֶם [= קרי‬ 119.  The acceptance of this conclusion was apparently the reason for the recent inclusion of this semantically inappropriate comparison in ALCBH 3. 120.  See especially n. 89 above. See also my “‫מידי אביר יעקב‬,” in World of the Bible: Genesis, ed. Moshe Weinfeld (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1982), 253 [Heb.]; Chaim Cohen apud Ditchi-Barak, “Epithets,” 190 n. 519. 121. See ibid., 197–209 (group five listing 31 divine epithets). In fact, Ditchi-Barak included ‫ אביר יעקב‬and ‫ אביר ישראל‬among the 37 epithets in group four entitled “The Lord God, the great, mighty, exalted and supreme God” (pp. 185–96). 122.  See the discussion about Lam 1:15 in subsection (c) above. 123.  See n. 102 above. 124.  See n. 116 above.

The BH-Akk. Simile . . . in the Speech of the Assyrian King

109

But when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He 125 will punish the arrogant boasting of the Assyrian king and his haughty pride; (13) for he has stated: “By the might of my hand have I achieved this, and through my creative skill, for I am clever; I remove the boundaries of nations and plunder their treasures; and like a wild bull I exile inhabitants.”

The Neo-Assyrian background to this passage (especially regarding the words ‫ָסיר ּגְבּולֹת ע ִַּמים‬ ִ ‫וא‬,ְ “I remove the boundaries of nations,” in Isa 10:13b) has been fully established in two excellent articles by Peter Machinist and Nili Wazana. Machinist writes as follows: 126 Significant here is the first line, which recalls a frequent image in the NeoAssyrian royal inscriptions—precedents for which exist already in Middle Assyria—about the incorporation of a conquered land into the Assyrian realm, often with a rearrangement of population.

To this, important additional information has been more recently supplied by Wazana as follows: 127 International border shifts during the period of Neo-Assyrian territorial expansion were, therefore, not a component or an application of the general Assyrian mode of rule. They displayed an assimilation of local cultural influence, linked to the former Hittite system of government through a process of continuity and transformation. This tool of control is yet another manifestation of the wellknown Neo-Hittite and West-Semitic cultural impact on Assyrian society that has been demonstrated in works by Hayim Tadmor.

The use of the simile ‫ּכא ִַּביר‬, ְ “like a wild bull,” in the Neo-Assyrian king’s speech in Isa 10:13 translated above is certainly the closest BH semantic equivalent to the Akk. simile kīma rīmi/rīmāniš, “like a wild bull,” especially as found 5 times in the Neo-Assyrian annals (see §2 above). This specific literary semantic equivalence of similes has not been noted or appreciated in modern scholarship for two main reasons: (a) The uncertainty in the reading of the MT 125. Read ‫ִפקֹד‬ ְ ‫י‬, “He will punish,” for MT ‫ֶפקֹד‬ ְ ‫א‬, “I will punish,” in accordance with the Septuagint (see BHS). 1QIsaa (the only Isaiah scroll that includes this verse) reads with the MT. 126.  See Peter Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” JAOS 103 (1983): 725. 127. See Nili Wazana, “‘I Removed the Boundaries of Nations’ (Isa 10:13): Border Shifts as a Neo-Assyrian Tool of Political Control in Ḫattu,” ErIsr 27 (Tadmor Volume; 2003): 110–21 [Heb.]. The quotation is taken from the English summary of the article on p.  286*. Isa 10:13 is dealt with specifically on pp.  114 and 120 n. 63. To the discussion there about the technical terminology used in Sennacherib’s royal inscriptions regarding the severing off of captured lands and their subsequent annexation to the Assyrian Empire (or presentation as a gift to an ally of Assyria) should be added my own more recent article: “Two Misunderstood Verses in the Latter Prophets: Jer 9:24; Amos 1:13,” in An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Yitschak Sefati et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 695–706.

110

Chaim (Harold R.) Cohen

(‫ּכא ִַּביר‬, ְ “like a wild bull” = Kethiv; ‫ּכ ִַּביר‬, “strong, mighty” = Qere) led many scholars to prefer the Qere reading ‫ ּכ ִַּביר‬erroneously and thus to eliminate this simile in Isa 10:13 altogether. 128 (b) Even those who preferred the Kethiv, ‫ּכא ִַּביר‬, ְ “like a wild bull,” often understood this term metaphorically “like a Mighty One,” as though the Assyrian king were comparing himself to God. 129 In any case, very few correctly read and translated ‫ּכא ִַּביר‬, ְ “like a wild bull,” 130 and no modern commentary, translation, or BH dictionary makes the semantic comparison with the Akk. simile kīma rīmi/rīmāniš with the same meaning. Thus, the BH animal simile ‫( כראים‬Ps 92:11) / ‫־ראמים‬‎‫( כמו בן‬Ps 29:6) has a well-attested etymological equivalent in Akkadian kīma rīmi/rīmāniš, “like a wild bull.” From the standpoint of usage, however, all the comparative evidence from Akk., BH, Ug., and even ancient Egyptian indicates that the real BH semantic equivalent to this Akk. simile is the Kethiv ‫ ְּכא ִַּביר‬in Isa 10:13. 128.  For these Kethiv/Qere variants in Isa 10:13, see especially Robert Gordis, The Biblical Text in the Making, 2nd ed. (New Jersey: Ktav, 1971), 151 (in list 81 entitled “Q equal in value to K”). Gordis himself interprets the Kethiv ‫ ְּכא ִַּביר‬incorrectly as “like a mighty one” (p. 201 n. 540). Most significant is the article by Gary Rendsburg on the use of the term ‫ּכ ִַּביר‬, “strong, mighty,” in BH. See Gary A. Rendsburg, “‫ ּכ ִַּביר‬in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for Style-Switching and Addressee-Switching in the Hebrew Bible,” JAOS 112 (1992): 649–51. There (p. 650 n. 14), Rendsburg states the following concerning the attestation in Isa 10:13: “I accept the reading of the Qere here. The Ketiv has ‫ּכא ִַּביר‬. ְ In either case, the meaning is about the same. But only if the Qere is accepted is Isa 10:13 germane to our discussion.” See also the translation of this verse in the njps. 129.  See, e.g., John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1–39, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 265–67. Those who translate metaphorically “like a mighty one/ hero” (not referring to God) include Otto Kaiser, Isaiah 1–12, 2nd ed., OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983), 229; Hakham, Book of Isaiah 1–35, 115; Brevard S. Childs, Isaiah, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 88; TDOT 1.43; Ges18 7. 130.  See, e.g., BDB 7; DCH 1.106; Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1–39, AB 19 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 252; John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, 2nd ed., WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 184–85.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed and the Symbolism of Matzo and Hamets

Sol Cohen Observations and Statement of Problems The fastidious manner in which many Jews across the religious spectrum adhere before, during, and after Pesach to the prescriptions and proscriptions of hamets, or leavened products, is singular among the hallmarks unifying Jews. The widespread practices of total removal and renunciation of ownership of hamets as well as abstaining from eating or deriving any benefit from it are unique. This annual custom, in addition to the observance of the ceremonial dinner, the Seder, has bonded Jews, both religiously and culturally, over the millennia. 1 This scrupulous observance of the regulations surrounding hamets is undoubtedly rooted in the Torah’s repeated stern and absolute prescriptions and proscriptions. For example: Moses said to the people, “Commemorate this day, [as the time] you went free from Egypt, the place of slavery, when with a mighty hand God has freed you Author’s note:  I am indebted to the editors for inviting me to participate in this volume dedicated to the fond memory of Professor Avigdor Victor Hurwitz, a former colleague who with his integrity and scholarship raised the levels of biblical and cuneiform studies. 1.  Arutz Sheva, 17/03/10: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/136569; www.ynet.co.il, 28/03/11; Yahadut: “Techagegu baPesach”; www.ynet.co.il, 06/04/11: “82% Mehachilonim: naʾaroch Seder Pesach.” See also: Almost two-thirds of the Israelis holding the ceremonial meal [= Seder] do so on the grounds of family values, Jewish culture or tradition, a new survey released on Sunday revealed. One in five new olim wonʾt be attending a Seder. (wwwjpost.com. [accessed 10 April 2011]) How can I forget the special Passover customs, as they were observed by nonreligious people like my family in Karditsa for whom Passover was one of the rare occasions in which they connected with Jewish ritual, as do the Jewish men and women remaining today in the city of Ioannina? (R. Bonfil, “Memories, Identities, Histories,” JQR 100 [2010]: 756 n. 25)

Finally, see appendix 1 for the prayer of concentration camp inmates at Bergen-Belsen asking God’s forgiveness for eating hamets on Passover.

111

112

Sol Cohen

from it: no leaven shall be eaten. . . . Seven days shall you eat matzo, ‘unleavened bread,’ and on the seventh day there shall be a festival for God. Since matzo must be eaten throughout the seven days, hamets-leaven may not be seen in your possession, nor may any seʾor-leaven be seen in all your territories.” (Exod 13:3, 6–7) 2

The amazing extent to which the Torah goes in enjoining Jews not only to abstain from eating but also to purge their dwellings of hamets leaves us wondering why. What is it in the nature of hamets that during the week of Passover the Torah obliges a Jew to be rid of it so absolutely? Moreover, the severity of the penalty of “being cut off (divinely) from Israel” (Exod 12:15, 19) for eating man’s basic staple, leavened bread, strikes us with profound astonishment. Furthermore, God enjoins Moses to “avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites; (only) then you shall be gathered to your kin” (Num 31:2). Why, we must ask, were the Israelites commanded to destroy the Midianites utterly— people who in all likelihood were fellow–pastoral nomads? Finally, the following harsh regulation forbidding the entrance of an Ammonite or Moabite into the Assembly of God—though allowing for the possibility of an Egyptian—troubles biblical scholars to the present day. Tigay, for example, comments:   The first clause is problematic for two reasons: [Deut] 2:28–29 states that the Moabites did provide the Israelites with food and water, and 2:37 states that Israel bypassed Ammonite territory and gives no indication that they even asked the Ammonites for supplies. . . .   It is hard to understand why, just a few decades after the Exodus, the Egyptian oppressors would have been viewed more benignly than Ammon and Moab, and why the latter two peoples’ relatively minor offenses of inhospitality and attempted cursing should have justified harsher treatment than generations of enslavement. 3

Compounding the dilemma is the understanding that, according to Deut 2:28, the Israelites did indeed want to purchase food and water from them: No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the Assembly of God; none of their descendants, even in the tenth generation, shall ever be admitted into the Assembly of Hashem, because they did not greet you with food and water on your journey when you left Egypt. And because they hired Balaam son of Beor, from Pethor of Aram-Naharaim, to curse you. . . . You shall never concern yourself with their welfare as long as you live. (Deut 23:4–7) 2.  English translations of Scripture in this essay are mine. The prohibition is first mentioned in Exod 12:15 and is repeated in 12:19, 20; 13:3, 7; Deut 16:3. 3.  See J. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 212, commentary to v. 5; and excursus 21, pp. 477–78. The solution to Tigay’s dilemma is found below on p. 131.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

113

Solution and Methodology In this essay, I will attempt to answer the above questions by explaining the patriarchal “Hesed Code of Conduct.” Basing my study on the concreteness and internal consistency of this code of conduct, I aim to retrieve and clarify as much as possible the messages that the texts wish to convey. However, I do not investigate antiquity in order to refashion that past or recreate ancient Israelite history. My working hypothesis in this interdisciplinary study is that the examined pentateuchal texts, especially Genesis, are fully nuanced and written with subtle sophistication. Furthermore, the subtlety and nuance differ from the linear style of Classical Greek works or most ancient Near Eastern compositions. 4 Consequently, linear readers of biblical texts cannot fully appreciate the multi­ dimensional interpretations such as are found in this study. First, I posit that the absolute prohibition on hamets was already rooted in the preparation and eating of the paschal sacrifice in Egypt, when God required the Israelites to make an immediate 5 and complete break with Egyptian urban mores by reconnecting with their idyllic patriarchal, seminomadic roots. In other words, freedom from Egyptian bondage, pedut, 6 “emancipation,” and 4.  See also E. Auerbach, Mimesis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974), 7–12. 5.  This is the significance of bəḥipāzōn, “in haste,” in Exod 12:11. 6.  Pêdûṯ, literally, “separation,” is derived from the root pdy, “to separate,” which belongs to a family of roots with the same basic meaning, where the first stop is a labial and the second a dental. Since Semitic and Sumerian possessed the same root, bad/badd, “to separate,” “to divide,” and pronounced the dental as an approximant /r/, that is, as a flap (or tap) allophone of a poststress, presyllabic alveolar stop. This approximant often sounded like a flap t or a short d, or more precisely, like the quick, hard r sound heard in some languages, for example, in Spanish pero and Polish teraz. This pregnant phoneme led to the development of secondary Semitic roots such as: bdr/l, btr, pṭr, prd, all semantically related, and brʾ, “to form something by cutting.” It also occurs in other words such as: hōḏ > hāḏār, “radiance.” For a description of the flap allophone, see P. Ladefoged and I. Maddieson, The Sounds of the World’s Languages (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1996), 7.3, 230–32. See also A. Murtonen, Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 2.77: “The fact that according to Tib[erian] reading tradition, /r/ cannot—normally at least—be geminated makes the assumption of a tap or flap most natural for it.” S. Morag, The Hebrew Language Tradition of the Yemenite Jews (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1963), 30 [Heb.], describes the pronunciation of Hebrew resh among most Yemenites as “a flap consonant—that is a phoneme which is articulated solely by a single tap of the apex of the tongue against the palate” (ET mine). For the flap phoneme /r/ [= d r ] in Sumerian, see P. Attinger, Eléments de linguistique sumérienne (Friburg: Editions Universitaires, 1993), 143. The expanded Semitic roots cited above are witnesses to the presence of a /d r / phoneme in Semitics and Sumerian. Hence, the denial of its presence in Sumerian by M. Yoshikawa (“For a Better Understanding of Sumerian Grammar,” BO 45 [1988]: 501) and A. Black (“The Alleged ‘Extra” Phonemes of Sumerian,” RA 84 [1990]: 111, 3.4) is untenable.

114

Sol Cohen

geʾulah, 7 “redemption” (and even “repristination”) were predicated on the immediate return to the Israelites’ ancestral pastoral nomadic customs and mores. These customs included: (1) instituting the lunar calendar as opposed to the Egyptian solar calendar; (2) the apotropaic use of blood on the doorposts; (3) partaking of a typical pastoral nomadic meal that consisted of roasted (not cooked) lamb, together with flat bread and undomesticated, bitter Romaine lettuce; (4) circumcision of all household males—following the patriarchal practice—as a prerequisite for partaking in the Paschal sacrifice. In conjunction with the week-long celebration of the Israelite exodus from Egypt, God commands the Israelites to rid themselves—albeit temporarily— of the fundamental dynamics of the Egyptian sedentary, urban lifestyle. 8 That lifestyle featured the solar calendar and a diet based on bread, cooked meat, and many varieties of vegetables. 9 By abandoning this lifestyle, the Israelites would reorient themselves to the positive traits exhibited by their seminomadic forefathers. The Social Code of Hesed: A Contrast between Seminomadic Semitic and Urban Egyptian Cultures This essay demonstrates that, without precise knowledge of the importance of hesed, a social and moral code of conduct, dispersed among ancient Near Eastern pastoral nomadic and seminomadic societies, the plain reading and intended understanding of the patriarchal narratives will be insufficiently appreciated, and their literary aim and purpose will be distorted. Failure to recognize the significance of this code of conduct also leads to a flawed understanding of the integrity of the Genesis narratives and lack of a full appreciation of Israel’s relationship with God. While the expression (ve-)eleh toledot forms the skeleton of Genesis, 10 its narratives are fleshed out and pulsate with the leitmotif of hesed as a code of conduct. This study, however, deals primarily with the Abrahamic narratives and concludes with that of Joseph and his brothers. Since a written and formal social contract of hesed never existed, because it was not customary among nomads or seminomads, we must deduce the particulars of that code from the texts themselves and formulate it based on our knowledge of other ancient Near Eastern texts. We now proceed with a review 7.  The root gʾl, lit., “to roll back to a previous status,” “to redeem,” is secondary and is derived from the primary root, gwl, “to roll (back).” For middle w > ʾ in verbs, see P. Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, rev. ed. (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2006), 199, §80k. 8.  This is reinforced by the commandment to reside in sukkot, “tabernacles,” during the fall. 9.  See below, p. 129 with n. 52. 10.  Gen 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2;

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

115

of the pertinent Genesis narratives, including the Deuteronomic didactic-law, 11 and demonstrate how they were based on this ideal patriarchal code. Although the doctrinal narrative 12 in Genesis provides a summary statement introducing Noah with the formulaic ve-eleh toledot and his relationship with God as: “Here is the narrative of Noah: Now Noah found favor in the eyes of the L-rd . . . (he) was a righteous man—he was blameless in that age; Noah walked with God” (Gen 6:8–9), this is not the case with Abraham. His narrative begins in medias res, which raises immediate questions: Who is this Abram/Abraham? What justifies God’s special relationship with him? Just listen to the following series of narratives, the Torah seems to say, and you will find out at the end. 13 Abram, later Abraham, the father of the Israelite nation, was born into the clan of Terah, which was beset with adversities. Unlike most of Shem’s descendants, who fathered children at a young age and were blessed with many children and longevity, Terah fathered a son at the late age of 70. His son Haran died during Terah’s lifetime in the city of Kasd; 14 his daughter-in-law, Sarai, later Sarah, is barren and without child—even by proxy (see Gen 16:1–3). Moreover, another member of the clan is given the unseemly name of Lot, which in their particular vernacular, Aramaic, meant “cursed.” 15 11. By didactic-law, I mean law that was written not only for the professional jurist but also for the layman, to be used as an instrument for instruction. 12.  A narrative is doctrinal when it is viewed, not only as theological truth, but moral or spiritual instruction as well. See Robert Alter, “Literary Approaches to the Bible,” in Reading Genesis, ed. Ronald Hendel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), 13. 13. See B. Jacob, Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin: Schocken, 1934), 332. There he deals only with the omission of the ʾeleh toledot superscription. This style of beginning in medias res has its parallel in the Sumerian epic Lugalbanda and Anzud, which will be discussed below. This style repeats itself in the Genesis narrative of Joseph and his brothers. One must wait for the end to answer the question “why did Jacob give Joseph the foreign ‘striped tunic,’ a nonpastoral garment that indicated nobility, if not royalty?” Rabbi Soloveitchik presented this dilemma in the following way: The story of Abraham’s early years—how he found God—is not recorded in the Bible. His biography is very fragmentary; only certain episodes of his life are singled out. Abraham is the one who recognized God and proclaimed to the world a new doctrine, a new moral code. We would have liked the Humash to tell us about his sleepless nights when he was struggling with himself, when he began to rebel against pagan society, when he left that society. But we know nothing about him until his mature age. The Midrash fills in some of the blanks, and Maimonides made use of them to compile a biography of Abraham, to project his image, his profile. (Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Abraham’s Journey: Reflections on the Life of the Founding Patriarch [Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2008], 19)

14.  I assume that the -īm ending on Kasdīm is a genitive and not a plural ending. Another example of the -īm genitive is tiḏʿal meleḵ gōyīm, “Tidal, king of Goy” = “Tudḫaliya, king of Quwe,” in Gen 14:1. The use of Heb. Gōy for Quwe is also found in Isa 14:32. 15.  See, for example, M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (RamatGan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 620, s.v. lwṭ.

116

Sol Cohen

Terah, hoping to change his circumstances for a better fate and fortune, decided to move to the land of Canaan, but he traveled only a day’s journey from Urfa (ancient city of Kasd), 16 managed to reach nearby Haran, and died there. 17 Furthermore, unlike the later patriarchs, Terah’s household was not particularly large or wealthy.  18 After this terse and sordid introduction, in lieu of any normative, sage counsel or customary send-off blessings by elders, 19 Abram was directed, guided, and blessed by God alone to leave Aram Naharayim. 20 16.  In a forthcoming article, I argue that Urfa < *Urpā < *urbā, “the city” = Ur-Kasdim, “city of Kasd.” The earliest Syriac chronicler to identify Orhay with Ur of the Chaldees appears to be the Jacobite Metropolitan, Basil bar Shumana, the friend of Zangi, who conquered Edessa in the twelfth century. And we may note that if Ur of the Chaldees were Orhay, the first stage of the migration of Terah and Abraham, one of the most significant migrations of antiquity, would then be reduced to a journey of fifty [/forty-five] kilometers, almost to the status of a Sabbath-day walk. (J. B. Segal, Edessa: “The Blessed City” [Oxford: Clarendon, 1970], 3)

Segal uses the term “Sabbath-day walk” to indicate “on foot” and not in the standard usage of Sabbath-day walk—namely, “the distance from Jerusalem to the Mount of Olives,” a distance of about three-quarters of a mile. On a National Geographic map, the distance between Urfa and Harran is about 25 mi. as the crow flies. 17.  The contrasting conclusion of the Abrahamic series of narratives is found in Gen 25:1–11. 18.  Compare Gen 11:31 with 12:5, 13:2, 32:6, and 46:6. 19.  The institution of begging leave, counseling with, and receiving blessings from the assembly—usually elders—before embarking on a journey or expedition was commonplace in antiquity, both in the Aegean Basin and in the Near East. This is based on the common assumption that “[a]ll journeys are presumed to be dangerous” (y. Ber. 4.4) and Elijah the prophet’s advice, “Take counsel with, and beg leave of your Creator and then depart” (b. Ber. 29b). The earliest record of this practice is in the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic; see A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 1.569, lines 260ff.; 574–75, lines 1–12 = 584–85, lines 215ff. In Homer’s Odyssey II 6ff. Telemachus, son of Odysseus, on the advice of Athene meets with the assembly of the elders before embarking on his journey to find his father, Odysseus. There, instead of seeking the counsel and blessing of the assembly, he bids the wooers of his mother, Penelope, to leave her alone. Then he scatters the members of the assembly, each to his own house. Athene, on the other hand, counsels and blesses him. In addition, as with Abraham, this motif of divine guidance is found again with: Isaac in Gen 26: 2–5; Jacob in Gen 28:13–15, 46:2–4. It is absent with respect to Abraham in Gen 12:10ff, and hence, he suffers consequences. This practice, which is cited in later rabbinic literature, b. Ber. bottom of 3b, continues in some communities even into the modern period; see Ateret Zeqenim on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim ch. 110: ‫נוהגין ליטול רשות מהגדולים ומתברכים כשהולכים בדרך‬, “It is customary to beg leave from the [rabbinic] dignitaries and receive [their] blessings upon undertaking a journey.” Similarly, Gilgamesh’s uttering a wayfarer’s prayer prior to his trip is paralleled by Jacob in Gen 28:20–22 (this was pointed out to me by my student, Samuel Cardillo) and later in b. Ber. 29b–30a. 20.  For Aram Naharayim as the area enclosed by the Khabur, Baliḥ, and Euphrates Rivers, see J. J. Finkelstein, “Mesopotamia,” JNES 21 (1962): 78–79. Speiser’s position (E. A.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

117

Ephraim Speiser once remarked that Abraham made a “sharp historical right-angle turn,” and thereby broke completely with its (Aram Naharayim’s) mercantile, urbanized society and mores. In doing so, Abram formed a hesed relationship with God and followed Him with trusting blindness 21 to the land He would show him and wherein he would be blessed. 22 “That destination where Abram will rendezvous with God,” as Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik once described it, turns out to be the very same land to which his father intended, unsuccessfully, to migrate. But now, having formed and been motivated by an intimate relationship based on absolute love and trust in God, Abram followed Him blindly, thereby practicing a distinctive characteristic of the Hesed Code of Conduct. The institution of journeying with divine guidance is also present in the “Lugalbanda and the Anzud Bird Epic,” lines 290–96: There in his established and just assembly In the center of the grand edifice, settled on the ground like a great mountain, Did Enmerkar, son of the sun-god Utu, Malign the goddess Inanna: “There and then did my noble sister, radiant Inanna, Choose me by name in her holy heart and, from the Shupar Mountain, 23 Indeed bring me into the brick-walled city of Kulaba.”

Abram, in contrast to his grandson Jacob (both Arameans, the former by birth, the latter by choice), left Aram Naharayim under different circumstances: Abram, the grandfather, emigrated voluntarily; Jacob, the grandson, left under duress from his father-in-law, Laban. Therefore, in the folk Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964], 80) and that of most other students of the Bible and Semitists (especially Aramaicists) that “[t]he Chaldeans, moreover, are late arrivals in Mesopotamia, and could not possibly be dated before the end of the second millennium. Nor could the Aramaeans be placed automatically in the patriarchal period” is no longer tenable. In a forthcoming article, I aim to demonstrate that the Arameans left their imprint already in the Sumerian lexicon. 21.  This blind trust in the Hesed Code of Conduct was repeated by Abraham’s descendants as expressed by God through Jeremiah (2:2): I accounted to your (Israel’s) favor The hesed-bond of your youth, Your love as a bride— How you followed Me in the wilderness, In a land not sown.

22.  Even Lot, whose name means “cursed,” is blessed on account of Abraham; see Gen 13:5. 23. Shupar is biblical Sephar, “the Eastern Mountain” of Gen 10:30, which is also known as Subartu. For Subartu, see J. J. Finkelstein, “Subartu and Subarians in Old Babylonian Sources” JCS 9 (1955): 1–7. In the subsequent lines of the epic, Enmerkar continues his speech in which he maligns Inanna publically. For the Sumerian text and the connection between Kulaba and biblical Kalneh in Gen 10:10, see my forthcoming study.

118

Sol Cohen

memory of Israel only Jacob is referred to as “My ancestor was a displaced Aramean” (Deut 26:5). The founding forefathers of the Jewish people, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were pastoral seminomads, a lifestyle common to Mesopotamia and Canaan from the earliest period of available ancient Near Eastern history. 24 Their pasture-dependent occupation required periodic migration and mobility. One of the anthropological hallmarks of this pastoral seminomadic culture featured again and again in Genesis is the centrality of hesed. This code of conduct is much more than, as Feldman put it, “an attitude, a demeanor, a sensitivity, and a worldview, as well as acts of kindness themselves.” 25 It is a doctrine of voluntary, quasi-religious, bonded fidelity, 26 mutual and “fierce loyalty” 27 of one person to another. As part of an unwritten social code, it brought blessings and rewards when kept, and punishment when broken. In other words, compassion became an essential element that demanded total involvement rather than detachment—not a person-object relationship but a person-to-person relationship—even in relationship to one’s personal god. Therefore, Cain’s evasive and shameless reply, “Am I my brother’s caretaker?” is the very antithesis of the basic principle of the Hesed Code of Conduct. It is perhaps no accident that Cain became the first urbanite. In addition, since Genesis first introduced the hesed code with Abraham and not with Adam, the implication is that this code was not considered to be universal. Nevertheless, it was practiced in the ancient Near East. For example, in the Sumerian epic “Lugalbanda and Anzud,” the hero Lugalbanda (lit., the wise king) abandons his heritage and voluntarily places 24. J. Zarins, “Early Pastoral Nomadism and the Settlement of Lower Mesopotamia,” BASOR 280 (1990): 31–65. 25.  For this recent definition, see D. Z. Feldman, Divine Footsteps: Chesed and the Jewish Soul (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2008), 1. Similarly, the definitions given in the latest edition of Gesenius’s dictionary do not satisfy fully this code of conduct: Güte, Liebe, Freundlichkeit, Wohlwollen, Barmherzigkeit, Gunst von Menschen untereinander (Positive, gemeinschaftsgemäße Verhaltensweise). See W. Gesenius, Hebräisches und Ara­ mä­isches Handwörterbuch, 18th ed. (Berlin: Springer, 1995), 375–76. 26.  In ancient Israel, as well as in ancient Arabia, a mutual relationship of rights and duties existed among the members of a family or among those who believed themselves to be of similar tribal ancestry. The family and tribal bonds were of primary importance. The members of a family or a clan were totally dependent upon one another. They lived in a relatively closed circle. . . . Such members enjoyed common rights and they had to fulfill mutual obligations. Their whole existence was governed by this concept of reciprocity. (N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, trans. A. Gottschalk [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967], 38) 27.  One of the most essential functions of the tribe has been its role in conditioning the loyalty of the child. Among the tribes of Western Asia this was mostly on the basis of putative kinship. Loyalty to the tribe came first, loyalty to the state a poor second. . . . It was the tribesman’s fierce loyalty to the tribe which enabled the latter to function as a primitive political institution within the sovereign state. (M. B. Rowton, “Autonomy and Nomadism in Western Asia,” Or n.s. 42 [1973]: 251)

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

119

his full trust in Mount Zabu. 28 There, he builds a shelter for Anzud’s fledgling and feeds it. The provision of both shelter and food is the hallmark of the hesed code. In addition, he embraces Anzud’s mate and makes the fledgling and Anzud’s mate his father and mother, respectively. Finally, he completes his bonding with them with a festive meal. Thereby, Lugalbanda underwent the first conversion in literature by adopting the pantheon and religion of Anzud. It is no wonder that Anzud advised Lugalbanda not to reveal to his (Lugalbanda’s) kinsmen and fellow-Urukites what transpired on Mount Zabu. The hesed code was informal and only ethically and morally binding, in contrast to the formalized berit, the “treaty or covenant,” which (albeit not always written) was contractual and legally binding. The informal hesed code was based, rather, on passionate, mutual attractiveness, nonphysical love, and absolute trust: it was a voluntary bond. It was more powerfully binding than its legal, formalized, at times documented and often worthless counterpart, the berit. 29 Hence, God’s ambivalent reaction when a patriarch who was in a hesed relationship with Him found it necessary to enter into a berit with a human being. While God tolerated Isaac’s finalizing a berit with Abimelech with a vow (Gen 27:28–31), and Jacob with Laban, Abraham on the other hand incurred divine disfavor 30 when he entered, at first, into a berit with the Amorites Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre and, later on, with Abimelech. 31 Abraham’s berit with human potentates, albeit rational and customary, nevertheless raised the question of dual loyalty, if not a wavering trust in God. This necessitated the trial by ordeal to test Abraham’s absolute non-rational loyalty, or absolute blind faith, by “the binding of Isaac” episode in Genesis 22. The request to sacrifice Isaac contradicted God’s earlier promise to Abraham and most certainly contravened the Hesed Code of Conduct. Hence, while this episode, “the binding of Isaac” is “compact,” and “homogeneous,” it is not an independent literary piece as commonly understood and expressed by Alster. Alster writes: “Literary readings of compact episodes, such as Auerbach’s reading of the Binding of Isaac in Genesis 22, are probably the most comfortable to execute because they do not involve issues of possible continuities or discontinuities in a large narrative sequence.” 32 Genesis 22 was intended and must be taken as an integral part of the Abrahamic narrative 28.  See appendix 3 below. 29.  On the flimsiness of treaties in the Bible, see n. 29. An additional illustrative example is the case of Isaac in Gerar. True, there was a famine in the land. God, however, instructed Isaac to remain in the land of Canaan and not to head toward Egypt. In the light of his mother’s experience, Isaac should have avoided Gerar. However, he depended on the treaty between his father and Abimelech, which offered him no protection at all. 30.  The uncommon means, ba-maḥazeh, “in a vision (of the night),” that startled Abraham indicated God’s disfavor. 31.  On the latter treaty, see Rashbam on Gen 22:1. 32.  Alter, “Literary Approaches to the Bible,” 19.

120

Sol Cohen

cycle. Finally, it must be stressed that the “trial by ordeal (to ascertain the degree) of Abraham’s loyalty” is the primary motif of Genesis 22, and not the “binding of Isaac,” which is secondary. Urban centers and sedentary societies, such as those of ancient Egypt, the established superpower, are archetypes of urban indifference and xenophobic apathy, and Gerar, Sodom, Gomorrah, and Shechem—in stark contrast to seminomadic pastoral societies—are described and alluded to in Genesis as rejecting the Hesed Code of Conduct as an element of their social norms. The seminomadic patriarchs with their families were threatened, harassed, and experienced danger and adversity in these urban societies. For example, extending hospitality and protection to the traveling stranger is a basic act of hesed. Abraham’s treatment of the three travelers in Genesis 18 is contrasted with their treatment by the urban Sodomites in Gen 19:4ff. However, the exception to the above negative description of Egypt is the behavior of the pharaoh of the Joseph narrative. Speiser’s comment about him is therefore pertinent: No appreciable progress has been made in the effort to establish the historical setting of the [Joseph] episode, and with it the identity of the Pharaoh “who knew Joseph.” A faint hint, but no more than that, may be contained in vs. 39, which has Pharaoh refer to God with obvious reverence. An Egyptian ruler of good native stock would not be likely to do so, since he was himself regarded as a god. When the Pharaoh of the Oppressions speaks of Y-H-W-H in Exodus, he does so in defiance, or in extreme straits, but never in sincere submission. The attitude of the present Pharaoh, therefore (barring an oversight on the part of the author), might conceivably suggest that he was not a traditional Egyptian ruler; and such a description would fit best some member of the foreign Hyksos Dynasty (ca. 1730–1570). It has long been assumed on other grounds that the Hyksos age offered the best opportunity for the emergence of someone like Joseph. Nevertheless, the narrative before us furnishes too slender a basis for historical deductions. 33

It is also highly unlikely that a xenophobic, indigenous, ruling Egyptian would treat Joseph so warmly and kindly and welcome the shepherding Jacob clan, especially in a period of famine. The Torah already reveals this striking cultural difference between the seminomads of Canaan and the urbanites of Egypt in the lifetime of Abraham. Because of her beauty, Sarah was taken 34 from Abraham twice by local rulers, 33.  Speiser, Genesis, 316. 34.  As David Berger has explained, “Most medieval [and modern] Jews were understandably sensitive about ascriptions of sin to the patriarchs, and the situation was rendered even more delicate by the fact that the issue of patriarchal morality often arose in a highly charged context in which Jews were placed on the defensive in the face of a Christian attack” (“On the Morality of the Patriarchs in Jewish Polemic and Exegesis,” in Understanding Scripture, ed. C. Thoma and M. Wyschogrod [New York: Paulist Press, 1987], 49). It must be emphasized that the charge of improper moral conduct on the part of the patriarchs in the

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

121

with two very different outcomes that reflected the mores of their respective regents and locale. In the first encounter, famine drove Abraham to descend—without divine authorization and guidance—to Egypt. Suspecting that the immoral Egyptians would seize his beautiful wife and fearing for his own life, Abraham urged Sarah to do an act of hesed on his behalf and identify him as her brother rather than her husband. After Sarah was seized and taken to Pharaoh, his household was stricken. When the truth was divinely revealed, Pharaoh hastily dispatched Abraham and banished him from Egypt in the midst of the famine. “He commanded his people regarding him, and they sent him, his wife, and all that was his away” (Gen 12:20). The second time Sarah was taken was in Canaan, when Abimelech, a Canaanite Semite (by virtue of his name), king of Gerar (the gateway to Egypt), seized Sarah after she again identified Abraham as her brother. Then Abi­melech and his household were also stricken. This time when the truth was revealed, however, Abimelech welcomed Abraham and his family to settle in his lands after showering Abraham with livestock, slaves, and other riches. Abimelech took sheep, cattle, servants and maidservants and he gave them to Abraham, and he returned to him Sarah, his wife. And Abimelech said, “Behold my land is before you; settle where you most find favor.” (Gen 20:14–15)

Thereafter, Abimelech searched out Abraham to forge a treaty with him. Abi­ melech did not seek out Abraham simply to create a strategic alliance. Rather, as the impetus for making this treaty, Abimelech cited the Hesed Code of Conduct as a befitting exchange for the loyalty that he had demonstrated to Abraham earlier: Now, swear to me by Elohim that you will not deal falsely with me, my grandchildren, and great-grandchildren; like the hesed I have done to you, you shall do to me and to the land in which you have sojourned. (Gen 21:23)

Later on, Abraham, in accordance with the Hesed Code of Conduct, which stipulates primary concern for “the other,” allowed Lot first pick of the grazing land (Gen 13:5–12); retrieved Lot from captivity (14:14–17); provided hospitality for itinerant guests; 35 and finally, interceded on behalf of the citizens sister-wife narratives was both irresponsible and baseless. I also stress that, as in the case of Rebekah and later on with Esther, the text states specifically that the women “were taken” and never were sent or went voluntarily for any profit or gain. Acts of hesed, on the other hand, did produce reward and blessings. This is the message of the Torah! Nachma­nides’ charge of “a grave sin” in his commentary on Gen 21:12 was made when he was being coerced into disputations with the Church and was enduring baseless accusations. 35. Compare all the similar meanings of Arabic ḥašada in E.  W. Lane, An ArabicEnglish Lexicon (London: Williams & Norgate, 1863), 1/2.574. This was already noticed by Glueck, Ḥesed in the Bible, 106–7.

122

Sol Cohen

of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18). It appears from the detailed description of Abraham’s extending hospitality to itinerants that hospitality was one of the most—if not the most—important article of the hesed code. Not just the hospitality of travelers, but their protection as well (which was demonstrated by Lot and the “old man” of Gibeah [Judges 19]) was an essential element of this moral code. The Benjaminite violation of the law of hospitality led to catastrophic consequences for the clan. 36 Paralleling the hospitality episode is the equally detailed narrative of the unwavering and unreciprocating hesed present in Abraham’s effort to purchase the cave in the Makhpelah field for Sarah’s burial. As a resident alien and a seminomad in a sovereign city-state, Abraham was not entitled to own real estate among the Indo-European Hittites. Rejecting both an outright offer of free burial rights and then the gift of a choice grave site for Sarah, and insisting on a bona fide sale, he overcomes the legal obstacle. However, Abraham pays an exorbitant price so that Sarah will not be laid to rest on alien soil. Hesed as a driving social code of conduct for these seminomads appears yet again in the case of Abraham’s loyal and devoted servant, Eliezer (the unsung hero of Genesis) 37 who, as a meṧeq (= Sumerian maṧkim), “deputy,” is sent on a mission to choose a worthy wife for Isaac from the city of Naḥur, 38 in AramNaharayim, Abraham’s ancestral homeland. 39 Whereas Abraham had administered an oath (an element totally absent and unnecessary in the hesed code) to Eliezer, his chosen servant, steward, and deputy, the latter invokes this code in his humble plea to God: “Be with me today and grant hesed to my master Abraham” (Gen 24:12). When God answers his plea, Eliezer, in accordance with the hesed protocol, declares his gratitude, giving thanks and expressing his indebtedness: The man bowed low and prostrated himself to God. He said, “Blessed be God, who has not withdrawn the steadfast hesed that He grants to my master. Here I am, still on [my] mission, and God has led me to the house of my master’s close relatives!” (Gen 24:26–27) 36.  For Lot, see Gen 19:1ff.; for the concubine of Gibeah, see Judges 19–21. 37. See my forthcoming article “Studies in Semitics and Sumerian Lexicography II” for more discussion on Eliezer. 38.  Nahor/Naḫur was located in the Upper Balikh River region (near Tell Abyad = Laban?); J. Bottéro and A. Finet, Répertoire Analytique des Tomes I à V, ARM 15 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1954), 130. 39.  The Talmud (b. Yoma 28b) already recognized this by interpreting his former slave name Damesek as an acrostic meaning “One who drew up and gave to drink to others of the edifying waters of instruction given by his Teacher (Abraham).” The interpretation is cited by Rashi in his Pentateuch commentary at Gen 15:2; for translation, see by M. Rosenbaum et al., Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary Translated into English and Annotated, 5 vols. (London: Shapiro Valentine, 1932; repr. Jerusalem: Silbermann, 1973), 1.59.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

123

Eliezer is then invited to dine with Rebekah’s family. Although the food has already been placed before them, he makes a remarkable and emphatic statement: “I will not eat until I have spoken my piece” (Gen 24:33). He then presents a lengthy narrative in which he thanks God for his intervention in the episode. Eliezer thereby observes another article of the hesed code: he converts an ordinary dinner into an obligatory meal of thanksgiving. The reason is that haggadah, “a narration of events,” is an essential element of a thanksgiving meal and must always precede it. The Torah goes on to describe how Eliezer, after relating what had miraculously transpired between him and Rebekah at the well, implores her family to perform hesed as the motivator to send Rebekah back to Canaan with him to be a wife to Isaac: Now tell me if you will deal with steadfast hesed toward my master, and if not, then tell me as well, and I will turn away right or left. (Gen 24:49)

Laban and Bethuel answer: It is something from God. We cannot say anything to you, good or bad. Rebekah is right here in front of you. Take her and go. Let her be a wife for your master’s son, as God has spoken. (Gen 24:50–51)

When Eliezer, Abraham’s most trusted servant, hears these words—as in hearing good tidings—again in accordance with the hesed protocol he prostrates himself on the ground to God in thanksgiving. 40 Two generations later, Jacob’s sons violate the hesed code by first abandoning their brother Joseph in a pit and then, at Judah’s suggestion, selling him as a slave to an Egyptian. In Egypt, he is later placed in a dungeon, based on false charges made by his master’s wife. In the dungeon, it is God—not an Egyptian—who bestows hesed on Joseph: God was with Joseph and He extended hesed to him, giving him favor with the warden of the dungeon. . . . God was with [Joseph], and God granted him success in everything he did. (Gen 39:21–23)

Afterwards, having favorably interpreted the chief steward’s dream, Joseph has but one request: But when things go well with you, just remember that I was with you and shared the same experience; do an act of hesed and say something about me to Pharaoh. Perhaps you will be able to get me out of this place. Furthermore, I was originally kidnapped from the land of the Hebrews, and when I came here, I did not do anything to deserve being thrown in the dungeon. (Gen 40:14–15)

40. See Rashi here and on Exod 12:27.

124

Sol Cohen

But alas, the chief steward, true to Egyptian form, “did not remember Joseph. He simply put him out of his mind” (Gen 40:23). While the leitmotif in Genesis 37–50 is the Joseph-and-his-brothers narrative, an unnoticed second motif of equal importance is the personal behavior and conduct of Reuben, the firstborn, and Judah vis-à-vis the Hesed Code of Conduct. Reuben violates the hesed code of morality by sleeping with his father’s concubine, Bilhah. This offense cost him his birthright. His attempt to regain it by going along only halfway with the brothers in their conspiracy against Joseph (by saving his life) did not avail Reuben in regaining his birthright as the leader. Judah also breaks with the hesed code in several ways. First, he persuades the brothers and participates in handing over a tribal member, Joseph, to a foreign group, then exacerbates the situation by facilitating his sale into slavery. Second, he physically detaches himself from his kin, the pastoral clan, thereby avoiding their fate; then he seeks a better lifestyle by neighboring with an urban Canaanite of Adullam, Hirah. The third way in which Judah breaks the hesed code is by intermarrying with the daughter of another Canaanite, Shua. The fourth and final act of Judah’s departure from the Hesed Code of Conduct may be seen in his breaking his promise to Tamar about allowing her to marry Shelah in order to keep alive the name of her deceased first husband, Er. Judah, by relinquishing the hesed code with its lifestyle, we are informed, is beset by tragedies: the death of his two sons, Er and Onan, during his lifetime. 41 However, it was from the tenacious fidelity of his daughter-in-law Tamar that he relearned and returned to the Hesed Code of Conduct, when he made the famous pronouncement, “She is more righteous than I!” 42 This is the turning point in the Joseph-and-his-brothers narrative. Repenting and asking forgiveness is indeed part of the hesed code. Similarly, when Joseph’s brothers confess to him upon Jacob’s instructions, “O please, kindly forgive the spiteful deed of your brothers and their sin for they have done you evil; so now please forgive the spiteful deed of the servants of your father’s God.” This binary formulation “to you and to God” appears in later Judaism’s formal confession, the vidūy. 41.  Later, Moses spells out the essential elements of seminomadic society and the maintenance of its integrity, He does so in his reply to Pharaoh’s query, “Who are the ones to go?” and remarks, “We will all go, young and old: we will go with our sons and daughters, even our flocks and herds.” Thereupon, Pharaoh attempts to break up the tribal integrity by declaring, “The Lord be with you the same as I mean to let your children go with you! Clearly you are bent on mischief,” Exod 10:8–11. Pharaoh later makes another attempt and orders, “Go worship the Lord! Only your flocks and your herds shall be left behind; even your children may go with you,” to which Moses replies, “Our own livestock, too, shall go along with us—not a hoof shall remain behind!” 42.  Not “she is more in the right than I (am),” or “she is more innocent than I.” See already, Jakob, Das erste Buch, 719.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

125

From Tamar’s absolute fidelity to “[keeping] the name of Er her deceased husband alive,” Judah is made aware of and makes amends for his earlier intolerable breach of the hesed code. It is now Judah who says to Joseph (who has yet to reveal himself to his brothers), “What can we say to my lord? How can we plead? How can we clear ourselves? The Divine Sovereign has discovered the crime of your servants. Here we are all slaves of my lord, both we and also the one with whom the cup has been found” (Gen 44:16). Judah hereby restores the “bond of brothers” that he had severed with his suggestion of selling Joseph as a slave. The tribes, with Joseph’s revelation to them, now indeed have restored “the bond of brothers.” When Jacob and his family, many years later, make the fateful and historic journey from Canaan to Egypt (where Joseph reigns as viceroy—Pharaoh’s mashkim [= Akk. “deputy”]), 43 which leads to the Israelites’ enslavement for 210 years, the stark contrast between the two different socioeconomic models is seen once again. Jacob and his family represent the seminomadic culture of Canaan, while Joseph and Pharoah represent the established, permanent state that is Egypt: an urban nation-state with defined borders governed by a central authority. Indeed, this contrast is apparent in the way that Jacob and his sons introduce themselves to Pharaoh. When introduced by Joseph, the brothers describe themselves to Pharaoh as “shepherds, as were our forefathers” (Gen 47:3–4); and Jacob describes his life (Gen 47:9) as one of sojourning and not of fixed habitation. The absence of hesed as part of the social code of conduct in Egypt is again evident later when Jacob, sensing his impending death, calls for Joseph. Jacob then conveys to him his wish to be returned to and interred in his ancestral burial plot at Meʾarat Hamachpelah in Canaan. Here, however, we find something puzzling: first, Jacob implores Joseph to bury him in Canaan as a hesed imperative, an act of loyalty: “[H]e said to him: ‘If I have found favor in your eyes, place your hand under my thigh and do for me steadfast hesed: do not bury me in Egypt,’ . . . and he said, ‘I will do as you have requested’” (47:29–30). But Jacob is not satisfied: he thereupon abjures Joseph to keep his word. “And he said to him, ‘Swear to me,’ and he swore to him” (Gen 47:31). Why did Jacob require additional assurance, when Joseph had readily acceded to Jacob’s request? This was because Jacob, having lived in Egypt for 17 years and witnessed the absence of hesed as part of Egypt’s social code, sensed that hesed would not move Pharoah to permit Joseph to keep his word to his father. Accordingly, Jacob imposes an oath, knowing fully that only the legal obligation of an oath would force Pharoah to permit Joseph and his brothers to return to Canaan to 43.  See cognate verb yiššaq for passive yuššaq, “will be governed by a deputy/viceroy” in Gen 41:40.

126

Sol Cohen

bury their father. Indeed, when Joseph speaks to the court of Pharaoh, he omits the subject of hesed and says merely: “If it pleases you, give the following personal message to Pharaoh: My father bound me by an oath . . .” (Gen 50:5). A poignant motif appears in Genesis and also in the beginning of Exodus: the heroic, if not superhuman, acts of hesed. These occur not only with biblical heroes but with a heroine as well. These were the acts—not those of prowess on the field of battle—that helped biblical heroes and heroines find proper mates. Eliezer asks for God’s assistance and intervention to find the proper mate for his master’s son Isaac. Rebekah appears on the scene, descends to the spring, fills her jug, and ascends. Eliezer runs toward her and says, “Let me sip, if you please, from your jug” (Gen 24:17). Rebekah replies, “Drink, my lord, and quickly she lowered her jug to her hand and gave him to drink” (24:18). However, when she finishes giving him a drink, she adds, “I will draw water even for your [ten] camels until they have finished drinking” (24:19). So she hurries and empties her jug into the trough, keeps running to the well to draw water, and draws for all the camels. No wonder Eliezer was astonished at the sight: The capacity of a kad, “jug,” is about 5 gallons. 44 A camel can drink from 30 to 40 gallons in ten minutes. 45 Eliezer’s caravan consisted of ten camels, which makes a total of 300–400 gallons. If not miraculous, it certainly was heroic. Similarly, Jacob goes to Aram Naharayim—now referred to as the Land of the Easterners—to find a mate. There at a well in a field, he meets shepherds who tell him that they must wait for additional shepherds to arrive. Since the rock on the well was large, it would take the combined efforts of all the shepherds to remove it. However, when Rachel, a shepherdess, arrives on the scene, Jacob heroically performs an act of hesed and single-handedly removes the rock. The third occasion of heroic hesed is found in the case of Moses’s flight from Egypt to Midian. There, as well, our scene takes place at a well. Sit44.  J. R. Beard, The People’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2 vols., 3rd ed. (London: Simkin, Marshall, 1847–50), 2.352–53. E. Mukasa-Mugerwa, The Camel (Camelus Dromedarius), A Bibliographical Review Ilca Monograph (Adis Ababa: International Livestock Research Institute, 1981), 44, 3.3.2 (I thank Dr. Bruce Nielsen for informing me of the last two references). See also Camel Pictures and Facts: Arabian Camels, http://fohn.net/camel-picturesfacts/arabian-camels-2.html, p. 3. For another assessment, see: [B]ut after weeks in the desert, each of Eliezer’s camels needed at least 100 liters (26 gallons) of water, or about 20 buckets of the size you have just drawn. A camel can lose 120 liters (32 gallons) of water—up to 30% of its body weight—and make up the loss in ten minutes of intensive drinking. Since Eliezer was traveling with 10 thirsty camels, Rebecca’s offer meant hours of hard work—evidence that she was not only beautiful but kind, gracious, and generous (as well as strong). (www.neot.kedumim.org.il)

For the etymology of kad and its cognates, see my forthcoming article “Studies in Semitic and Sumerian Lexicography II.” 45.  Mukasa-Mugerwa, The Camel, 44, 3.3.2.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

127

ting there, Moses notices that the seven daughters of Reuel, who were shepherdesses, drew water to fill the troughs for their flocks. When the shepherds came, they chased them away. Moses heroically gets up, comes to their defense and then to their aid, also watering their sheep. Arriving home early this time, Reuel asked his daughters, “How is it that you have come back so soon today?” (Exod 2:18). To this they reply, “An Egyptian man saved us from the shepherds, and he even drew water for us and watered the sheep” (2:19). One can well imagine the perplexed expression on his face: an Egyptian man doing hesed? Reuel then admonishes his daughters, “Then where is he? Why did you leave the man? [Acts of hesed must be rewarded!] Invite him and let him dine (with us)! And Moses joined up 46 and lived with the (distinguished-)man” (2:21). In contrast to all of the above, the human indifference and complete personal detachment as part of the social norm characterized by Pharaoh, and more largely by the Egyptians, is not so unknown in our own times. On a grand scale, the total detachment from and abandonment of human beings by Western culture, religion, and civilization during the Holocaust period bears witness to it. By way of example, we recall the tragic murder of Kitty Genovese, a young woman who was killed on a street in Queens, New York, in March 1964. An estimated 40 households witnessed the murder and heard her cries for help. They did nothing to come to her aid, did not even bother to call the police. Their shocking indifference and silence, a phenomenon known as “the detached American,” was heard loudly round the world and became a symbol of the apathy that plagues urban life. 47 Although the Hesed Code of Conduct originated with the patriarchal semi­ nomads, it continued to be practiced in sedentary Israel. In the Book of Ruth, the heroine receives blessings for her deeds of hesed. It is God who is implored by Naomi with Orpah and Ruth and is blessed for not having forsaken his hesed (1:8 and 2:20), but it is at first the two daughters-in-law, and then Ruth especially, who carry out that hesed (1:8 and 3:10). God is present and active throughout the Ruth Story, especially in the way in which the people behave toward one another. God it is who brings about shalom in the context of this 46.  The Hebrew wa-yōʾel alludes to—if not being derived from—the same root as Akkadian eʾēlu, “to tie up.” Similarly in 1 Samuel 24, wa-yōʾel Shaʾūl, “Saul banned the people.” The root is the same: “to ban” is, literally, “to tie up.” See further in my “Studies in Semitic and Sumerian Lexicography II.” 47.  More-recent examples are: (1) in April 2010, in Philadelphia, the family of 68-yearold Leonard Sedden, who was found dead on a SEPTA bus after a trip across the city, questioned why he was left to die from a drug overdose without medical attention; (2) in April 2010, Alfredo Tale-Yax, a 31-year-old good Samaritan from Guatemala came to a woman’s rescue and was stabbed repeatedly, and was left to die on the pavement in Queens, NY, while passersby merely stared at him.

128

Sol Cohen

town, among these people, through the caring responsibility of human beings for one another. 48 Furthermore, Ruth’s voluntary sexual forwardness—on the advice of Naomi—to rendezvous with Boaz in order to obtain a levirate marriage and thereby continue her deceased husband’s line was also an act of hesed. 49 The following are biblical antecedents: Potiphar’s wife sought mere sexual gratification with Joseph; Tamar’s affair with her father-in-law, Judah, on the other hand, was to continue the line of her late husband, Er; Lot, however, perverted the hesed code when he offered his daughters to protect his guests; the daughters of Lot were sexually forward with their father in order to continue the human race; they assumed that all of mankind had perished together with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is interesting that the descendant of all the above women, David, became God’s favored king of Israel. Pesach: A Celebration of the Exodus from Egypt and Its Influences The Festival of Pesach not only celebrates the Jewish exodus from enslavement but also honors the total abhorrence of the larger detrimental influences of ancient Egyptian city-life. Indeed, according to the midrash, the Jewish people were prematurely redeemed from bondage because the deleterious influence of Egyptian culture threatened the moral fabric of the Israelites. Redemption is predicated upon the Jews’ leaving Egypt as they entered it: as seminomads with their patriarch Jacob and practicing the Hesed Code of Conduct. This redemption begins by reverting to the ancestral seminomadic Semitic calendar 50 and abandoning the Egyptian system of reckoning time. It is therefore no surprise that the exodus from Egypt took place on the 15th of Nisan, when the moon is full. This period is ideal for seminomads, allowing them to travel in the coolness of the night with full visibility.

48. E. Campbell Jr., Ruth, AB 7 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 29; see further discussion on “Covenant and Law” there, pp. 30–31. 49.  On this subject see also Soloveitchik, Abraham’s Journey, 176–82. 50.  The Egyptian solar year began on 11/12 September with the heliacal rising of a bright star called Sirius, ‘Canis Major,’ ‘the Dog Star,’ at the dawn of the eastern horizon. The day on which the heliacal rising of Sirius occurs marks the first day of the year. The first day coincides with the arrival of the highest point of river Nile flood at Memphis, south west of Cairo, the capital of Egypt during the early dynastic period of the old kingdom. (“The Coptic Calendar of Martyrs,” http://www.copticchurch.net/easter.html#Historic)

See also the Lexikon der Ägyptologie, ed. S. Helck and E. Otto, 7 vols. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980), 3.297. On the other hand, “[T]he oldest recognizable ancient calendars are lunar calendars. Common among nomadic peoples and those without written language” (R. Pogge, “An Introduction to Solar System Astronomy, Lecture 11: The Calendar,” http:// podbay.fm/show/192740136/e/1159976134?autostart=1).

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

129

Second, the apotropaic use of blood was first demonstrated by Zipporah, the shepherdess, who married Moses (Exod 4:24–26). As a modern biblical critic stated: We are left with but one important piece of evidence, the apotropaic rites of Arabs like that of Passover. Modern observers attest the anointing of doors, tents, animals with blood to ward off evil spirits. . . . Moreover these rites are especially characteristic of nomadic Arabs and not entirely in accord with their Mohammedism. In view of this . . . it is not unreasonable to see this blood rite as part of the culture of proto-Semitic nomads. 51

There is also very early evidence for this apotropaic rite in the following sequence in a Sumero-Akkadian lexical text, of all places: [k i - u r ì]- n a = a-šar ni-ṣir-[ti], “place of protection” [ k i - u r ì]- n a = a-šar da-a-mi, “place of blood” [k i - u r ì]- n a = a-šar na-ṣa-a-a-r[i], “place kept under guard” k i -[u r ì]- n a = a-šar zaq-pa-a-[ti], “place of the verticle (doorpost)” k i - [u r ì]- n a = aš-ru na-[aṣ-rum], “a protected place” 52

The redemption was further manifested in the Israelites’ diet. One hallmark of urban life is marked by its basic food staple—bread. Indeed, bread is often used collectively and synonymously to describe all of man’s sustenance: “He gives bread [nourishment] to all flesh, for his kindness endures forever” (Ps 136:25). The permanence of city living provides its residents with the leisure to prepare food, particularly bread, which requires time to rise and bake. Hamets, leavening, in other words, symbolizes urban living. To the mind of the Israelite who was leaving Egypt, hamets was synonymous with Egyptian life. Indeed, the initial complaint of the Israelites in the desert was, “If only we had died by God’s hand in Egypt! There at least we could sit by pots of meat and eat our fill of bread!” (Exod 16:3). Later on, they again recalled the highlights of their Egyptian diet compared with their droll desert diet: “We fondly remember the fish that we could eat in Egypt at no cost, along with the gourds, the melons, leeks, onions, and garlic” (Num 11:5). 53 51.  D. J. McCarthy, S.J., “The Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice,” JBL 88 (1969): 173– 74 with footnote; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, trans. J. McHugh (New York: McGraw Hill, 1961), 489. 52.  MSL 13.239 (Kagal) 45–49 (modified). See further my dissertation, “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta” (University of Pennsylvania, 1973), 196–98 (the use of blood on the doorpost was replaced by the mezuzah). For the nomadic Israelites at the exodus, the first month was the spring month of Aviv (Exod 12: 1–2 and Exod 13:4). 53.  For a similar list of vegetables on the Cairo Ostracon 25678, ḥ ḏ wꜢḏ, ḫi⸗ṯi2⸗na wꜢḏ, sšp, dng, “fresh onions, fresh garlic, cucumbers, sweet-melons,” see J. E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994) , 253–54.

130

Sol Cohen

Seminomads the world around, on the other hand, from time immemorial to this day subsist on the limited diet of what is immediately available to them. They do not have the time or the luxury to bake bread from dough that has risen. Instead, their traditional diet consists of (ēš) faṭīr, an unleavened pita/ matzo, or flat bread, a staple made of quickly mixed flour and water, which is prepared instantly—not more than eight minutes—on a heated metal plate, ṣāǧ, often a metal barrel lid, which is placed on a three-stone tripod/trivet, ʾaṯāfi, and over an open fire.  54 In celebration of the exodus from Egypt—from its servitude and culture— God mandated that Jews divorce themselves even for just one week from bread and leavening, the staple that symbolizes urban living. Instead, God commanded the Jews to recall the goodness that was tied up with the semi­nomadic lifestyle of their forefathers: the impermanence and transience of man’s existence and a reliance on the Hesed Code of Conduct. Accordingly, Jews are commanded to eat only the traditional staple of their seminomadic forebearers: matzo and unleavened bread. When the temple was in existence, in addition to the matzo, the roasted—not cooked as in the flesh-pots of Egypt—paschal lamb or sheep was offered and eaten, as the Bedouin of today eat zarb, 55 to54. G. Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1935), 4.114, 131. On preparing feteer, see National Geographic Magazine, March 2009, 112. See Abraham Rand, “On the Meaning of the Word maṣṣā [from nḍʾ ‘to rush forward],’” Lešonénu 22 (5718 = 1958): 81–82 [Heb.]. For nḍʾ, “to rush forward,” see J. Barth, Wurzeluntersuchungen zum hebräischen und aramäischen Lexicon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 190), 2, 31. 55.  On the preparation of roasted zarb, see Dalman, Arbeit, 4.33–34:   Doch kann das Schaf auch nach Abtrennung der Unterschenkel ganz gelassen warden, wie man mir in jaṭṭa erzälte. Dann nimmt man Magen und Eingeweide heraus, lässt übrige darin, näht den Leib wieder zu, legt das Tier so mit dem Kopf in der zirb, schliesst die vordere Öffnung (bāb) desselben mit einem Stein und überschüttet ihn ganz mit Erde, so dass keine Luftöffnung (nafs) bleibt. Nach etwa drei Stunden ist dass Fleich gar. So bei den taʽāmire-Beduinen in der judäischen Wüste. Aber auch in einen Erdhang hinein kann der zarb, gegraben warden, wie ich es bei bētǧāla sah, als man mich zu solchen Braten geladen hatte. Verwandt ist das Braten der Passahlämmer an Holzspiessen in einer tiefen Grube, wie es die Samaritaner heute noch üben (  ) und die Juden einst vollzogen (  ). Doch gehört diese Bratgrube zum Backgerät tannūr und ist unter G 3 zu besprechen.   [“However, the sheep can also be left whole after separating the lower segment of the leg as I was told in Yatta. Then one removes the stomach and intestines, leaving the rest inside and sews back the skin, places the animal so that the head is in the zirb, closes the front opening (bāb) of the same with a stone and covers it completely with soil so that no airhole (nafs) remains. After about three hours the meat is cooked. Thus it is with the ta`āmireBedouin in the Judean Desert. But also into an earthen incline/slope can the zarb be dug, as I saw it at bētjāla, when I had been invited to such a roast. Related to this is the roast of the Pascal lamb on wooden spits in a deep hole, as is still practiced today and the Jews at one time carried out. However, this roasting hole belongs with the roasting equipment tannūr, which is to be discussed in G 3.”]

On the depiction of the Paschal lamb as being offered in the form of a cross, see J. Tabory, “The Crucifixion of the Paschal Lamb,” JQR n.s. 86 (1996): 395–406.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

131

gether with the bitter, wild, romaine lettuce, 56 all of which made up the ancient seminomads’ traditional dinner meal. This also served as a reminder of the semi­nomadic lifestyle of the Israelite patriarchs. Clinton Bailey, a respected anthropologist who studied the Sinai Bedouin closely, spent four decades among the tribes and lists among other factors that contribute to their bleak future: “The diet is no more traditional.” 57 He summarizes, “Egyptians have never embraced desert-dwelling tribes. Nile culture is agrarian, suspicious of nomadic wandering.”  58 Finally, 59 the Deuteronomic law proscribing the intermarriage with an Ammonite or Moabite has been correctly clarified by Hofmann in his commentary on Deut 23:4–7: “We are forced to say that the sin of the Moabites [and Ammonites] was that they did not greet their kinsmen, the Israelites, with basic food, as was the custom in welcoming those who were battle-weary; see Gen 14:18 and Isa 21:14.” 60 In other words, as kinsmen they were expected to observe a very basic article of the Hesed Code of Conduct. Egyptians, on the other hand, behaved as was their norm. Hence, Deuteronomic law was lenient in their case. Somewhat similar is the case of “avenging the Israelite people on the Midianites.” The Midianites were also a pastoral, seminomadic people, but they were ruled by elders and not by a king, as in Moab (Num 22:3–4). Their forming a confederation and collaborating with Moab to corrupt, mislead, and confront their fellow seminomads, the Israelites, so that they would relinquish their trust in God was considered a blatant breach and betrayal of the pastoral Hesed Code of Conduct. Therefore, “avenging the Israelite people” (Num 31:2) was both necessary and justified. 56. For marōr and merōrīm, see: ‫חזרת השדה‬, Judeo-Arabic ‫אלכיס אלבררי‬, N. Aloni, “ ʾAl-Fāẓ ʾAl-Mišneh le-Rasag,” Lešonénu 22 (5718 = 1958): 2–3, 163 [17] [Heb.] and CAD M/2 218: “murāru, with lex. sect., ‘bitter [romaine] lettuce.’” See also “ḥazėret, pal. ḥassīn, Maimonides ḫass, also Lactuca scariola, var. sativa, eine angebaute Salatart mit sehr viel rauheren Blätern als unser Kopfsalat, den Europäer in Palästina anbauen, abereinstimmend mit dem Salat der alten Ägypter” (L. Keimer, Gartenpflanzen im alten Ägypten [2 vols.; Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe, 1924–1984], 1.1–3). Note further, “Die Samaritaner verwenden für das Passahmahl nach meiner Ermittelung die wildwachsende bittere Lactuga Saligna, die arabisch ḫass ḥamīr oder ḳūb, in nāblus ḫmēše genannt wird” (Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, 1.346). “Die Samaritaner gebrauchen zu ihrem Passahopfer den weiden-blättrigen Lattich, Lactuca saligna L. [= willow lettuce] die sie murrēr nennen” . . . “Der geschicht­lichen Entwicklung sich verschliessend, halten die Samaraitaner am ursprünglichen wilden Salat für ihr Pessaḥopfer fest” (I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden, repr., 4 vols. [Hildesheim: Olms, 1967], 1.428). 57.  Matthew M. Teague, “A Separate Peace,” National Geographic 215, March 2009, 115. 58.  Ibid., 112. 59.  See p. 112 above and Tigay, Deuteronomy, for the problem. 60.  David Z. Hoffmann, Sefer Devarim (Tel-Aviv: Nezach, 1961), 2.446; ET mine.

132

Sol Cohen

Moses, however, having enjoyed Midianite hospitality and having married a Midianite, did not participate in the battle. He delegated the task to Phinehas, son of Eleazar, the high priest. The most severe instance of utter retaliation for the breach of the Hesed Code of Conduct was that of the Amalekites. As kinsmen, their attack on the helpless itinerant Israelites was not only never to be forgiven and forgotten but was also to be avenged eternally (Deut 25:17–19). Thus, the Passover rite was and is to remind both the ancient Israelite and the contemporary Jew annually that “urbanization entails a break with the tribal system, since urbanization brings with it the neutralization of the feelings of internal solidarity of the tribe.” 61 Appendix 1: Concentration Camp Inmates’ Passover Prayer in Bergen-Belsen ‫לפני אכילת חמץ יאמר בכונת הלב׃‬ ‫אבינו שבשמים הנה גלוי וידוע לפניך שרצוננו לעשות‬ ‫רצונך ולחג את חג הפסח באכילת מצה ובשמירת איסור‬ ‫חמץ אך על זאת דאבה לבנו שהשעבוד מעכב אותנו‬ ‫ הננו מוכנים ומזומנים‬.‫ואנחנו נמצאים בסכנת נפשות‬ ‫ ולזהר משום‬.‫לקיים מצותך וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם‬ ‫ על כן תפלתנו לך‬:‫הישמר לך ושמור נפשך מאוד‬ ‫שתחיינו ותקיימנו ותגאלנו במהרה לשמור חוקיך‬ ‫ אמן‬.‫ולעשות רצונך ולעבדך בלבב שלם‬

Appendix 2: Abraham’s Trial by Ordeal: Genesis 22 1.  Consequently, 62 God, the Sovereign, 63 submitted Abraham to an ordeal. 64 He summoned him, “Abraham!” 65 And he answered, “Here I am.” 61.  N. P. Lemche, Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 5. 62.  This is a reference to Abraham’s treaty with Abimelech in Genesis 21; similarly in Gen 15:1, “consequently” means “as a consequence of the Amorite treaty.” 63.  ʾElohim is artfully used to indicate God’s role as the author and judge of the universe’s ethical, moral, and legal code of conduct. 64.  Abraham had now repeatedly given the impression that he did not have absolute trust in God by resorting to a second treaty with Abimelech, Gen 21:32; a treaty with Mamre, the Amorite; and a treaty with his brothers Eshkol and Aner, Gen 14:13. This was the “Amorite sin” being referred to in Gen 15:16. 65.  Not “Abraham! Abraham!” as in v. 11. The repetition of the name in v. 11 has significance and is contrastive with the single “Abraham!” in this verse. In the opening verse, it indicates displeasure with Abraham, while in v. 11 it indicates endearment, not anxiety.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

133

2.  And He said, “Please take your son, your special one, whom you love, to the land of Moriah, and then offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights to which I will direct you.” 66 3.  He then rose early, with the daybreak; he [himself] saddled his ass, and then took with him his two servants and his son Isaac. He split the wood for the burnt offering and set out for the place to which God, the Sovereign, had commanded him. 4.  On the third day, Abraham searchingly raised his eyes and saw the site from afar. 5.  Then Abraham said to his squires, “You stay here in the company of the ass. 67 But with this youth I will go up there; we will bow in obeisance and we will return to you.” 6.  Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and put it on his son Isaac. He himself took the firestone 68 and the [slaughtering-]knife; and the two walked off in solitude. 69 7.  Then Isaac said to his father Abraham, 70 “Father!” And he answered, “Here am I! My son.” And he said, “Here is the firestone and the wood; but where is the sheep for the burnt offering?” 8.  And Abraham said, “As for the sheep for the burnt offering, my son, may Elohim select (it) for himself.” 71 And the two of them walked off in togetherness. 66.  This command is paradoxical: it begins with warm, emotional compassion, whereas concludes with a cold, stern, mind-boggling order. “To which I will direct you” echoes “to the land that I will show you” (Gen 12:1). 67.  This expression, “with the ass,” is pregnant, intimating a dismissal in the form of a slighting remark. For this nuance of Biblical Hebrew ʿ῾im, see HALOT 839–40. See the contrastive ‫הלך עם‬, “to go along in the company of,” joining them; and ‫הלך את‬, “to go with,” without joining them, in Num 22:12, 20–21. Balaam’s eagerness to join the company of Moabite dignitaries is further demonstrated by saddling the female donkey himself rather than having one of his servants do it, which was the common practice. 68.  Literally, “fire.” 69.  Biblical Hebrew yaḥdāw is used here as “alone,” excluding the two servants. See M.  Cogan, 1  Kings, AB 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 8, 193–94: “[W]e were alone (Hebrew yaḥdāw), no outsider was with us in the house.” Similarly, in Ps 4:9, “In peace, alone (yaḥdāw), let me lie down and sleep, For You, Hashem, will set me down by myself in security (yaḥdāw//ləḇāḏāḏ).” And in Ezra 4:3, where yaḥaḏ has the meaning “alone.” 70.  The seemingly unnecessary insertion of “Abraham” at this point is to dramatize, ironically, the allusion to “ ʾaḇ hamōn gōyīm,” “the father of a multitude of nations.” 71.  Following a Second Temple prayer cited in m. Taʿanit 2:4: “He who answered Abraham on Mount Moriah will answer you and hear the sound of your cry this day.” In addition, Jacob (Das erste Buch der Tora, 497) comments on this verse, “Schliesslich kann es (Ralbag) auch ein Wunsch und Gebet sein: möchte sich Gott das Lamm ausersehen!” Finally, since the sacrifice of Isaac would have violated the hesed code, it was imperative that Abraham should pray for Isaac.

134

Sol Cohen

9.  They arrived at the site of which God, the Sovereign, told him. Abraham built an altar there; he laid out the wood; he bound his son Isaac, he laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10.  And Abraham put out his hand and grasped the butchering-knife to slaughter his son. 11.  Thereupon, a ministering-angel of God 72 called out to him [affectionately] from heaven: “Abraham! Abraham!” And he answered, “Here I am.” 73 12.  And he said, “Donʾt do anything bad to the boy, not even a token maiming. For now I realize that you are one who fears Elohim, since you have not withheld your son, your favorite one, from Me.” 13.  Searchingly, Abraham raised his eyes and saw a subsequent ram 74 caught in the thicket by his horns. So Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son. 14.  And Abraham named that site “God sees/provides”; whence, the present saying, “On God’s mountain is one to be seen/provided for!” 75 15.  The ministering-angel of God called out to Abraham a second time from heaven. 16.  He said, “By myself I have sworn, as a declaration by God, that because you have acted thus, that is, 76 you have not withheld your son, your special one, 17.  so I will indeed bless you, and surely I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and as the sand-grains that are on the seashore. Your descendants shall take possession of the gates of their enemies. 18.  Through your descendants, all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you obeyed my voice.”

72.  Here Yhwh is used to indicate the personal God of Abraham. Its usage is reserved for Abraham and his lineage through Isaac. 73.  Verses 11–18 should be contrasted with 21:17–20. There, Elohim, the “Divine Sovereign,” through his ministering-angel answers the wailing prayer from wherever it comes; whereas, in chap. 22, the ministering-angel of Yhwh (the personal God) responds to Abraham’s sacrifice on Mount Moriah, indicating that this is the sole suitable site for future sacrifice and prayer in order to receive God’s blessings. 74. Compare ʾaḥar with Akkadian cognate aḫarrû, “later” (CAD A/1 170); aḫarrum, “danach(?),” opposite of pānānum, “früher” (AHw 1.18); and Gen 17:7–8: ‫)ו(לזרעך אחריך‬, “subsequent descendants.” 75.  See Exod 23:17; 34:23; Deut 16:16; Ps 84:8. Since Abraham had prayed for Isaac, v. 8, he realized his prayer was answered when the angel ordered him to stop. He therefore had to search for “the subsequent lamb” as the substitute for Isaac. 76. Waw-explicativum.

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

135

19.  Abraham returned to his squires. They now eagerly set out all together 77 for Beer-sheba. Abraham settled in Beer-sheba. 78 Appendix 3: Lugalbanda and Anzud, “Conversion and Providing Food and Shelter” 1.  lugal-ban3-da kur ki sud-ra2 gal2-la ba-ni-in-dag 2.  iši za-bu ki-a nir ba-ni-in-gal “On a mountain, there in a faraway land, Lugalbanda abandoned (his) heritage (lit., status). In the conversant Zabu, he put his fidelity.” The opening two lines form a distich. The results of my word study on gal2-la dag indicate that it means basically “to terminate a status.” Sumerian iši is cognate with Hebrew ʾešeḏ, “versant.” 50.  lugal-ban3-da gal in-zu in-ga-an-tum2-mu 51.  ninda mu-ud-gi digir-re-e-ne-ke4 52.  sag-sig10-ga-ba sag-sig10 ba-an-taḫ 53.  ninda gi-ze-eš-ta-ba lal3 ba-an-du8-du8 lal3 ba-an-taḫ-taḫ 54.  amar-gud3 amar anzudmušen–da-ka igi-bi-še3 mu-un-gar 55.  amar-e uzusul2 bi2-in-gu7 uzui3-udu bi2-in-peš5 56.  ninda-i3-de2-a ka-bi-še3 sa2 bi2-in-dug4 57.  amar an zudmušen-da-ka gud3-ba mi-ni-šeg11 58.  igi-bi šim-bi-zid-da mi-ni-gun3 59.  sag-ba gišerin bar6-bar6 bi2-in-du3-du3 77.  Yaḥdāw is used artfully in three nuances in this chapter: (1) “alone,” “solitude” in v. 6; “in togetherness” in v. 8; and “all together” in v. 19. 78.  I follow B. Jacob’s understanding of this verse: The narrator’s skill is proven to the very end. Of course Isaac also returned, but only Abraham is named. It should not be simply reported that they returned, which is self-evident, but rather, how one such as Abraham, who is crowned with the highest blessings from God’s summit which are still echoing in his soul, steps down and back into (mundane) life. Other­wise, the chapter would have ended with God’s address, as in chs. 14, 15, 16 and in 21:34. Now all the clouds have vanished, and the entire traveling party is one serene unit. (Das erste Buch der Tora, 505 [ET mine])

In my opinion, similar decrescendo closures that conclude narratives that peak with a crescendo religious experience (but the encounter is sustained for Moses alone) appear in the Sinai convocation in Exod 24:11: “Yet He (God) did not raise his hand against the leaders of the Israelites; for while they beheld God, they still ate and drank”; and in Deut 5:27, where God instructs Moses after the Sinai convocation: “Go say to them, ‘Return to your tents.’” In our narrative, we are told that even heroic Abraham was unable to sustain the Mount Moriah experience. Beer-sheba is mentioned in the conclusion to remind the reader that it was there that Abraham had made the berit with Abimelech that necessitated the immediate trial by ordeal to ascertain his, Abraham’s, unwavering trust in and allegiance to God.

136

Sol Cohen

60.  mu-du-li-a šu gur-gur-ra-bi sag-bi-še3 mu-un-gar 61.  gud3 anzudmušen-da-ka ba-ra-zig3 62.  ḫa-šu-ur2-ra nu-zu kur-ra-ka ki-gub mu-un-na-ak-en Translation 50.  Lugalbanda is skilled and also achieves mighty deeds: 51.  On the sweet cakes of the gods 52.  He added care upon care. 53.  He smeared the sacred cakes with honey; he added more honey to it. 79 54.  He set them before the young nestling, before the Anzud chick. 55.  He fed the chick salted meat, and spread upon it sheep fat; 56.  The fatty cakes he put forth to its beak. 57.  He now settled the Anzud chick in its nest. 58.  He then painted its eyes with kohl. 80 59.  Over its head he fashioned white cedar; 60.  This rolled shade he placed for its head. 81 61.  He (then) withdrew from the Anzud nest. 79.  gi-ze-eš-ta is cognate with Aramic; ‫קדושתא‬, “sanctity.” 80. See b. Šabb. 10b: ‫ מאי עביד ליהז אמר אביי שאיף‬.‫אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הנותן פת לתינוק צריך להודיע לאמו‬ .‫ליה משחא ומלי ליה כוחלא‬ One who gives bread to a child must inform [the child’s] mother. What does he do? Abaye said, He rubs oil on him (between his eyes); or, applies kohl around his eye.

81.  mu-du-li-a is cognate with Aramaic ‫מטליא‬, “shades.” The “buchstaben dienst” translation that was offered: “Dabbed its head with cedar scent” is “foul,” and the translation “set out spicy sausages at its head’ is “un-kosher”!

The Pastoral Idea of Hesed

137

Acknowledgments This essay and investigation could and would not have been brought to fruition without the devoted and unselfish support and encouragement from a number of individuals. My primary expression of gratitude goes to my son, Michael Cohen, Esq., who first heard the above essay in outline form in an oral presentation on the second night of Passover a few years ago. After the holiday, he transcribed it, made valuable suggestions, and continued to edit it until its completion. For further assistance in editing, I am indebted to my devoted student from Dropsie College days, Samuel J. Cardillo, presently Administrator at the Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, who provided me with his editorial expertise and suggestions in the above research. I am equally indebted to another skilled student of mine, Dr. Andrew Berns, Asst. Prof. of History, University of South Carolina, for editing this article as well. Their notes and comments have been gratefully incorporated. Karen Schnitker of the Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies applied her editorial expertise to most of this article. Dr. Susan B. Zeelander was also kind enough to read and note her comments on this article. I would like to express my gratitude to the former Director of the Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Dr. David Ruderman, Joseph Mayerhoff Professor of Modern Jewish History, for his patience and unselfish support at the Center. I have a deep sense of gratefulness to the faithful staff of the Van Pelt Library and of its branch at the Center; above all, my thanks goes to “The Angel of the Van Pelt Library,” Hilda Pring, former Faculty and Patron Liaison, for her total devotion to scholars and scholarship, not only on campus at the university but at the Center as well. I am equally indebted to the unselfish and committed staff members at the Center: Marcus Johnson, Computer Manager; and Administrative Assistants Etty Lassman and (last but certainly not least) Carrie Love.

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9): Problems of Interpretation and Background

John Day Introduction The famous story in Gen 11:1–9 is constantly referred to as that of “the tower of Babel.” Curiously enough, this precise phrase never occurs anywhere in the narrative, though it certainly refers to the building of a particularly high tower as well as a city in Babel. What is a little peculiar is that in our English Bibles the word “Babel,” a simple transliteration of the Hebrew, is used here to denote the place, whereas elsewhere the word is rendered appropriately as Babylon (a form of the name derived from Greek). The only other exception is in the previous chapter, Gen 10:10, where English Bibles similarly tend to use Babel rather than Babylon to denote one of the Mesopotamian king Nimrod’s cities. This curiosity of the English Bible goes back many centuries and is attested at least as far back as the Wycliffe Bible in the 14th century. The same distinction is also found in translations into other European languages (apart, of course, from those for which Babel is the regular term for Babylon anyway). For whatever reason it started, we must assume that the phrase “tower of Babel” so caught on that it became normative in English and some other languages to render it thus rather than “tower of Babylon.” As mentioned, the narrative actually speaks of a city as well as a tower being built in Babel (Gen 11:4, 5), while Gen 11:8 mentions simply the city, stating, “and they left off building the city,” though a fortiori work on the tower would also have ceased. 1 Years ago, Hermann Gunkel argued that our narrative Author’s note: This essay has been reproduced in John Day, ed., From Creation to Babel: Studies in Genesis 1–11 (London: Bloomsbury T.  &  T. Clark, 2013), 166-88, courtesy of Eisenbrauns. 1. The Samaritan and LXX versions also include the tower in Gen 11:8, but this is due to later harmonization, as shown by the fact that the very next sentence continues, “Therefore it was called Babel.”

139

140

John Day

in Gen 11:1–9 is made up of what were originally two different stories, one about a city and the other about a tower.  2 He saw the story of city building in vv. 1, 3a, 4aαγ, 6aα, 7, 8b and 9a, and the account of tower building in vv. 2, 4aβb, 5, 6aβb, 8a, and 9b. There seems, however, no solid reason to follow this speculation, and it is now generally rejected. The story reads perfectly well as it stands and has none of the contradictions, doublets, or other inconsistencies characteristic of composite narratives. Although vv. 5 and 7 both speak of Yahweh’s coming down, these are not mere doublets but speak of successive events in God’s purposes, first to see the city and tower that the men have built, and then in order to confuse the language of the people. Moreover, vv. 8a and 9b would constitute an awkwardly repetitive ending for the tower story, so Gunkel was forced to interpolate between them a hypothetical passage in which the tower was said to be named Pîṣ (Dispersion)! More recently, Klaus Seybold proposed an alternative view of the redactional growth of Gen 11:1–9. 3 According to Seybold, the original story is contained within vv. 2–4a, 5–6aαβ, 6aδ–7, and 8b–9aα. This was followed by a first redaction from J, which saw the addition of vv. 1, 6aγ, and 9aβ concerning the confusion of tongues. Finally, a second redaction saw the addition of vv. 4b, 8a, and 9b, where the dispersion of humanity is referred to. Again, however, this appears to be all too speculative, without solid evidence. Moreover, there is an inconsistency in Seybold’s analysis in that the motif of the confusion of tongues is already mentioned in v. 7, part of his original story, so there is no need to assign the other allusions to it to a later redactor. Most scholars now accept that there is no reason to doubt the essential unity of Gen 11:1–9. Within this unified narrative, there is a clear division between vv.  1–4, which focus on the human building of the city and tower, and vv. 6–9, which concentrate on the divine reaction. Verse 5 clearly constitutes the turning point between the two halves, in which Yahweh comes down to observe the city and the tower. Now within Gen 11:1–9, there is a simple concentric structure as follows:  4 2. Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, 3rd ed., HKAT 1/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), 92–97; ET Genesis, trans. M. E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 94–99. Over the years, a number of scholars, especially in the German-speaking world, followed Gunkel. Although this view has now gone into serious decline, versions of it were still followed by Lothar Ruppert (Genesis, I: Gen. 1,1–11,26, FB 70 [Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1992], 485–94), who thought a city recension was supplemented by a tower recension; and Christian Rose (“Nochmals: Der Turmbau zu Babel,” VT 54 [2004]: 223–38), who maintained the reverse. 3. Klaus Seybold, “Der Turmbau zu Babel: Zur Entstehung von Genesis xi 1–9,” VT 26 (1976): 453–79. 4.  Noted, e.g., by Yehuda T. Radday, “Chiasm in Tora,” Linguistica Biblica 19 (1972): 12–23 (here p. 15); Isaac M. Kikawada, “The Shape of Genesis 11:1–9,’ in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler, Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 1 (Pittsburgh: Pickwick), 18–32 (here p. 19); Walter

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

141

A.  Vv. 1–2  Narrative B.  Vv. 3–4  Direct Speech C.  V. 5  Narrative Mid Point Bʹ.  Vv. 6–7  Direct Speech Aʹ.  Vv. 8–9  Narrative

The narrative in Aʹ represents a reversal of the situation in A, with humanity now having many languages instead of one, and scattered over the whole earth instead of being in one place. Similarly, within the B and Bʹ direct speech of the humans and God, in vv. 3–4 and 6–7, respectively, we can detect a certain symmetry, since both include speech in the cohortative form preceded by “Come.” On all this, there can be no disagreement. However, there have been various attempts to spell out a more detailed and precise concentric structure. Thus, Jan P. Fokkelman, followed by Gordon J. Wenham, has argued for the following structure: 5 Now the whole earth had one language A  (v. 1) there B  (v. 2) to one another C  (v. 3) Come, let us make bricks D  (v. 3) Let us build for ourselves E  (v. 4) a city and a tower F  (v. 4) The Lord came down to see X  (v. 5) the city and the tower Fʹ  (v. 5) which the men had built Eʹ  (v. 5) Come . . . let us confuse Dʹ  (v. 7) one another’s speech Cʹ  (v. 7) from there Bʹ  (v. 9) (confused) the language of all the earth Aʹ  (v. 9)

This structure appears quite striking at first sight. However, on closer observation we notice flaws in the scheme. For example, v. 6, which is rather a long verse, does not form part of the structure at all. Again, we notice that there is nothing from v. 8, and the important theme of the scattering of the people, which features there (8a) as well as in vv.  4b and 9b is excluded. One also notes that the only parallel in v. 2 is the word “there.” Pierre Auffret was able Brueggemann, Genesis, Interpretation (Atlanta: Westminster John Knox, 1982), 98; Christoph Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine Rede”: Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11,1–9), OBO 101 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 300–301; Bernhard W. Anderson, “The Tower of Babel: Unity and Diversity in God’s Creation,” From Creation to New Creation, OBT (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 165–78 (here pp. 169–70); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-Creation, Re-Creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1–11 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 164–65. 5.  Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, repr. Biblical Seminar 12 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 11–32 (here pp. 22–29); Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC 1; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 235.

142

John Day

to improve on this by pairing “let us make” in v. 4 with “to do” (same verb) in v. 6, as well as “there” in v. 2 with “from there” in v. 8. 6 However, even then, vv. 2, 6, and 8 have only one Hebrew word each in the scheme, so there is still much content that is excluded. Prior to Fokkelman, Radday had set out a more detailed concentric structure, which attempted to include all parallels between the two halves of Gen 11:1–9, but some of the parallels proved not to be in appropriate equivalent positions. 7 All this just goes to show that, though there is indeed a broad concentric structure within Gen 11:1–9, it does not encompass everything. It has also been proposed by Kikawada that there is a sequential parallelism between the two halves of the narrative as follows: 8 A. B. C. D. E. F.

(v. 1)  one language (v. 2)  there (v. 3)  each other (v. 4)  let us build a city (v. 4)  a name (v. 4)  lest we be scattered over the face of all the earth

Aʹ. (v. 6)  one language Bʹ. (v. 7)  there Cʹ. (v. 7)  each other Dʹ. (v. 8)  from building the city Eʹ. (v. 9)  its name Fʹ. (v. 9)  he scattered them over the face of all the earth

Again, at first sight this looks fairly impressive, but it is to be observed that not everything is included. Only the word “there” is used from v. 2, and only “each other’ from the whole of v. 3, which is a lengthy verse. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the striking parallel between “Come” + cohortative in vv. 3 and 4 and “Come” + cohortative in v. 7 do not form a parallel in Kikawada’s scheme. Alternatively, a slightly different sequential structure has been proposed by Fokkelman: 9 A. (v. 1)  One language and the same words B. (v. 3)  Come + cohortative  (× 2) C. (v. 4)  Let us build D. (v. 4)  Let us make a name E. (v. 4)  otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth Aʹ. (v. 6)  they are one people, and they have all one language 6. Pierre Auffret, La sagesse a bâti sa maison: Études de structures littéraires dans l’Ancien Testament et spécialement dans les Psaumes, OBO 49 (Fribourg: Editions universi­ taires; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 74. 7.  Radday, “Chiasm in Torah,” 15. 8.  Kikawada, “The Shape of Genesis 11:1–9,” 26. This is followed by Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 235. Cf. Auffret, La sagesse, 74–80. 9.  Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis, 20–22.

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

143

Bʹ. (v. 7)  Come + cohortative Cʹ. (v. 8)  and they left off building Dʹ. (v. 9)  its name Babel Eʹ. (v. 9)  the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth

Once again, however, we find that this does not encompass everything. Whereas (unlike Kikawada’s) this sequential scheme is able to include the parallelism between “Come” + cohortative in vv.  3 and 7, this is at the cost of having to omit the parallelism between “each other” in these same verses. Also, unlike all the other verses in the first half, v. 2 is not paralleled at all in the second half of the narrative. The Tower as the Ziggurat at Babylon According to Gen 11:2, Babel is set in a plain in the land of Shinar (cf. Herodotus, History, 1.178, where Babylon is similarly said to lie “in a great plain”). We read that the inhabitants of the earth reached it by apparently journeying eastward (bənosʿām miqqedem). Translators vary according to whether they translate miqqedem “from the east” (kjv, Moffatt, rsv, nrsv, njps) or “eastward(s)” (jb, njb, niv), “east” (rv), or “in the east” (neb, reb, nab). The problem is the particle min. Although this most commonly means “from,” and “from the east” is indeed followed in all the ancient Versions, scrutiny of the Hebrew Bible indicates that elsewhere miqqedem can mean “eastward(s)” (Gen 13:11), “in the east” (Gen 2:8) or “on the east” (Zech 14:4). The closest analogy appears just two chapters later in another J narrative, in Gen 13:11, which similarly uses the verb nsʿ with miqqedem, and here the meaning is indisputably “eastward(s),” since it is used of Lot’s journeying toward the plains of the Jordan in contrast to Abram’s settling in the land of Canaan (v. 12). A strong case can therefore be made that people journeyed eastward to Shinar in Gen 11:2. Compare the passage paralleling Gen 11:2 in Jub. 10:19, “For they departed from the land of Ararat toward the east into Shinar.” 10 As for the land of Shinar, it is generally agreed that this refers to Babylonia, since not only did it include the city of Babylon in our passage (Gen 11:8) and the cities of Babylon, Erech, and Accad in Gen 10:10, but it was also the place where Nebuchadrezzar II deported the king of Judah and the Jerusalem temple vessels in Dan 1:2 (cf. Isa 11:11, where Shinar is likewise one of the places of exile in a list that otherwise excludes Babylonia). Other references to Shinar are also compatible with this location (Gen 14:1, 9; Josh 7:21; Zech  5:11), and there is also considerable support in the ancient Versions for the equation of Shinar with Babylonia. Although at one time it was thought that the name Shinar was somehow connected to that of Sumer, this is difficult to defend 10.  Cf. Emil G. Kraeling (“Miqqedem in Genesis XI 2,” JQR 38 [1947–48]: 161–65), who defends the translation “eastward(s),” as do BDB, KB, and the new Gesenius dictionary. Contrast HALAT (HALOT) and the Sheffield Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, which prefer “from the east.”

144

John Day

philologically. 11 It is more satisfactory, as Ran Zadok has argued, to see it as equivalent to Akkadian Šanḫara and Egyptian Sngr, a name that appears to have originated in the Kassite period as a designation for Babylonia by those living west of the Euphrates but that was not employed in Mesopotamia itself. 12 Many scholars accept that the tower of Babel is a reflection of the ziggurat at Babylon, which was by far the most impressive high building there, standing out above everything else. A ziggurat (a word ultimately deriving from Akkadian zaqāru, “to be high”) was a high temple tower constructed of several stories and was conceived as a staircase for the gods to use in ascending and descending between heaven and the earth or underworld, with the deity’s dwelling at the top. Over 30 ziggurats are known from ancient Mesopotamia and its environs (mostly in modern Iraq, but also extending into Iran and Syria), the best preserved today being that at Ur. 13 The idea that the tower of Babel was a ziggurat is not simply a notion of modern scholarship. For many centuries, both local and Jewish tradition identified the tower with the ziggurat at Borsippa called Birs Nimrud (known as Ezida in Akkadian and dedicated to Nabu), which is 11 miles southwest of Babylon. Doubtless, this site was preferred to that of Babylon because the remains of the ziggurat at Borsippa were much more impressive, as they still are today. 14 In its time, the ziggurat at Babylon would have been impressive, but owing to quarrying over the years only its base is left today. 15 But over the last century, it has become common for scholars to accept that the tower of Babel was a reflection of the ziggurat at 11.  Archibald H. Sayce, “Assyriological Notes: No. 1,” PSBA 18 (1896): 173–74 (here p. 173) mentions that the Sumer view was originally proposed by “Dr. Haigh.” This must be Daniel Henry Haigh (1819–1879), who occasionally wrote on ancient Near Eastern topics, even though he was primarily an authority on Anglo-Saxon antiquities, history, and literature. This view was later defended by Anton Deimel, “Šumer = ‫ש ְנעָר‬,” ְִ Bib 2 (1921): 71–74. 12.  See Ran Zadok, “The Origin of the Name Shinar,” ZA 74 (1984): 240–44; similarly, Gernot Wilhelm, “Šanḫara,” in RlA 12.11–12. This equation was first made by Archibald H. Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine (London: SPCK, 1895), 67–68; idem, “Assyriological Notes: No. 1,” 173–74. 13.  For detailed studies of ziggurats, see André Parrot, Ziggurats et tour de Babel (Paris: Albin Michel, 1949); T. A. Busink, “L’origine et l’évolution de la ziggurat babylonienne,” JEOL 21 (1970): 91–142. There is also some useful information about ziggurats generally in John H. Walton, “The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications,” BBR 5 (1995): 155–75, in spite of its flawed conservative theological perspective. For an annotated map of over 30 ziggurat sites, see Martin A. Beek, Atlas of Mesopotamia, trans. D. R. Welsh, ed. H. H. Rowley (London: Nelson, 1962), map 21. 14.  That the Borsippa ziggurat was in view in Genesis 11 was still maintained by Emil G. H. Kraeling, “The Tower of Babel,” JAOS 40 (1920): 276–81; John P. Peters, “The Tower of Babel at Borsippa,” JAOS 41 (1921): 157–59. 15.  On the ziggurat at Babylon, see Evelyn Klengel-Brandt, Der Turm von Babylon: Legende und Geschichte eines Bauwerkes, 2nd ed. (Leipzig: Koehler & Amelang, 1992); Hansjörg Schmid, Der Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon, Baghdader Forschungen  17 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1995); Wilfried Seipel, ed., Der Turmbau zu Babel, 2 vols. (Vienna:

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

145

Babylon, in view of the fact that the name Babel undoubtedly denotes Babylon elsewhere in the Bible. Moreover, J clearly had some accurate knowledge about the ziggurat at Babylon, for Nabopolassar (626–605 b.c.e.) gives some strikingly similar details in his account of the renovation of the ziggurat at Babylon, Etemenanki, “House of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth.” Just as Gen 11:3 highlights the typically Babylonian and un-Palestinian use of bricks and bitumen in the building (“they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar”) and Gen 11:4 refers to it as “a tower with its top in the heavens,” so Nabopolassar refers to the ziggurat of Babylon as having its top in the heavens and being made of baked bricks and bitumen. He states: At that time my lord Marduk told me in regard to Etemenanki, the ziggurat of Babylon, which before my day was (already) very weak and badly buckled, to ground its bottom on the breast of the netherworld, to make its top vie with the heavens. . . . I had them shape mud bricks without number and mould baked bricks like countless raindrops. I had the river Arahtu bear asphalt and bitumen like a mighty flood. 16

However, a few scholars, including Otto E. Ravn, Claus Westermann, and Christoph Uehlinger have questioned the connection of the tower of Babel with the ziggurat at Babylon on the grounds that nothing is implied about a religious or cultic role for the tower in Genesis 11. 17 It is certainly true that the Yahwist presents the construction of the tower as a grandiose act of hubris and symbol of strength (Gen 11:4), so the view that Gen 11:1–9 is a direct piece of polemic against Babylonian religion or an attack on the futility of idolatry is to be rejected. 18 However, that does not mean that the Babylonian ziggurat does not lie behind our story. As already noted, the ziggurat stood out as Babylon’s most impressive high building, the Yahwist clearly had good knowledge of the Babylonian building materials, and his statement that the tower was planned to have its top in the heavens reflects language actually used of the ziggurat, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2003), vol. 1; Andrew R. George, “The Tower of Babel: Archaeology, History and Cuneiform Texts,” AfO 51 (2005–6): 75–95. 16.  This translation of Nbp 1 I 30–ii 11 is taken from George, ibid.,” 83–84 (with minor orthographic changes). 17.  Otto E. Ravn, “Der Turm zu Babel,” ZDMG 9 n.s. 16 (1937): 352–72 (here p. 369); Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11, BKAT 1/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974), 720–21; ET Genesis 1–11: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion (London: SPCK, 1984), 541; Uehlinger, Weltreich, 231. 18. For these two views, see Horst Dietrich Preuss, Verspottung fremder Religionen im Alten Testament, BWANT 92 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971), 51–52; Robert B. Laurin, “The Tower of Babel Revisited,” in Biblical and Near Eastern Studies: Essays in Honor of William Sanford LaSor, ed. Garry A. Tuttle (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 142–45. It should also be noted that rabbinic sources envisaged an idol on the top of the tower; cf. Targums Neofiti, Ps.-Jonathan on Gen 11:4, and Gen. Rab. 38:8.

146

John Day

ultimately going back to its religious function as a link between heaven and earth. In addition to the argument just rejected, Uehlinger claims that the writer should have used an Akkadian loanword if a ziggurat were in mind. 19 But it may be argued that this was unnecessary when a perfectly good Hebrew word, migdāl, was available. Uehlinger’s above claims are part of a massive work presenting a radically new thesis about Gen 11:1–9 as a whole, which we must now consider. On his understanding, the original narrative, dating to ca. 700 b.c.e., consisted only of Gen 11:1a, 3aα, 4αβγδ, 5, 6, 7, and 8b and referred not to Babylon but to Sargon II’s incomplete new capital city at Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), which Uehlinger claims was abandoned after his death. In the original story, therefore, the narrative described Yahweh’s judgment on this Assyrian imperial building project. 20 Uehlinger argues that the reference to the people as having one speech originally did not allude to their having one language but instead reflected Neo-Assyrian political rhetoric that spoke of the people as having “one mouth” (pû ištēn), implying their unity under the Assyrian world ruler. 21 For Uehlinger, it was only in a second redaction (which added Gen 11:1b, 3aβγ, 4aα, 9a), dating to the exile in the 6th century b.c.e. after the death of Nebuchadrezzar II, that references to Mesopotamian building materials and Babylon were added, thereby relating it to the building works there, though he is undecided whether the Babylonian ziggurat Etemenanki was specifically intended by the “tower” in this redaction. It was also in this redaction that “one speech” now came to mean one language. 22 Then, in a third redaction, when the story was taken up into J’s Primeval Narrative, but before its union with P, Gen 11:2 was added, making the story an episode in the early history of humanity. 23 Finally, in the Persian period, the passages about the scattering of the people in Gen 11:4b, 8a, and 9b were inserted. 24 What are we to make of all this? Uehlinger’s book is certainly the most thorough study in existence of the story of the tower of Babel and its background, and we must be grateful for the voluminous information and references that it provides on a host of matters. However, the book’s central thesis, just delineated, resembles the tower of Babel itself, a magnificent construction but seriously doomed to failure. 25 Among the objections that may be made are, first, that the whole thesis of a complex fourfold redaction of Gen 11:1–9 seems 19.  Uehlinger, Weltreich, 233. 20.  Ibid., 514–36. 21.  Ibid., 406–513. 22.  Ibid., 546–58. 23.  Ibid., 558–62. 24.  Ibid., 572–83. 25.  For critical reviews, see Ronald E. Hendel, review of Uehlinger, CBQ 55 (1993): 785–87; Peter J. Harland, “Vertical or Horizontal: The Sin of Babel,” VT 48 (1998): 515–33 (here pp. 517–19); H. Seebass, Genesis, vol. 1: Urgeschichte (1,1–11,26), 3rd ed.

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

147

highly speculative and based on flimsy evidence, since Gen 11:1–9 very much reads like an artistically constructed unity, as noted above. Uehlinger’s case for seeing different redactions is dependent on finding “incoherences” in the text, which have generally failed to convince. 26 Second, Uehlinger’s comparison of the people’s having “one lip” in Genesis 11 with Akkadian “one mouth” is unconvincing, since in Neo-Assyrian sources the latter is used with regard to the enforced unity of the people under the world-ruling king and occurs in military contexts, both of which are completely lacking in Genesis 11. We should therefore assume that “one lip” meant “one language” from the start, employing a meaning for “lip” well attested elsewhere in the Old Testament (cf. Isa 19:18; 33:19; Ezek 3:5, 6). Third, having rejected the notion that the migdāl was an appropriate term to use for a ziggurat, Uehlinger is inconsistent when he leaves open the possibility that the word may have designated the Babylonian ziggurat after all in the 6th-century redaction of the story. Fourth, since Sargon’s building works at Dur-Sharrukin began only in 706 and ceased shortly afterward, at his death in 705 b.c.e., it would be surprising if the people of Judah were very aware of them; moreover, it does not appear that Khorsabad was actually abandoned after Sargon’s death, contrary to Uehlinger’s statement. 27 In recent years, it has become somewhat fashionable in certain circles to suppose that the story of the tower and city of Babel dates to the period of the 6th century, when Babylon was at the height of its power and when the Jews in exile would have become familiar with Babylon. 28 However, although superficially plausible, there is a problem with this view that I have not previously seen noted. This is the fact that the story in Genesis 11 appears to be an etiological account of Babylon at a time when the city and its tower were in an incomplete state. This stands in stark contrast to the exilic period, since by then Nebuchadrezzar II had completed the rebuilding of Babylon and its ziggurat Etemenanki, and both were in their full splendor. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2009), esp. pp. 280–81. See also the works cited in n. 26. 26. Even van der Kooij, who is one of the few scholars to accept Uehlinger’s thesis that Gen 11:1–9 has anything to do with Sargon II’s building works at Dur-Sharrukin, finds Uehlinger’s textual “incoherences” invalid and maintains the unity of Gen 11:1–9. See Arie van der Kooij’s lengthy review of Uehlinger, “The Story of Genesis 11:1–9 and the Culture of Ancient Mesopotamia,” BO 53 (1996): 28–38; and his article “The City of Babel and Assyrian Imperialism: Genesis 11:1–9 Interpreted in the Light of Mesopotamian Sources,” in Congress Volume: Leiden 2004, ed. André Lemaire, VTSup 109 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1–17 (here pp. 8–11). 27.  On Khorsabad’s continuing existence, see John A. Brinkman, Prelude to Empire: Babylonian Politics and Society, 747–626 b.c., Occasional Papers of the Babylonian Fund 7 (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1984), 54 n. 254. I am grateful to Stephanie Dalley for drawing this to my attention. 28.  E.g., John Van Seters, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 180–85, with notes on 186–87.

148

John Day

John Van Seters notes that the name Etemenanki is first mentioned in the Erra epic (1.128). 29 The precise date of this epic is debated—Wilfred G. Lambert and Luigi Cagni, for example, dating it to the first half of the 9th century b.c.e. and Wolfgang von Soden (followed by Van Seters) to ca. 765 b.c.e. 30 However, von Soden goes on to speculate that the tower was constructed in the time of Nebuchadrezzar I (ca. 1126–1103 b.c.e.), though, as Andrew George has argued, Babylon probably had a ziggurat much earlier in the second millennium b.c.e. 31 Anyway, Enuma Elish 6.62–64, dating to no later than 1100 b.c.e., does already attest the presence of a ziggurat in Babylon at that point. It states, “They raised the head of Esagila on high, the counterpart to Apsu, they built the upper ziggurat (zi-qur-rat) of Apsu, for Anu-Enlil-Ea they founded his . . . and dwelling.” 32 It will be noted that the allusion in Enuma Elish suggests that the term Esagila (which means “the house whose head is lifted”) originally referred to the ziggurat of Babylon or, alternatively, to the entire temple complex that included the ziggurat; Etemenanki was probably a later designation for the tower. It seems to be going too far, however, to follow Ephraim  A. Speiser in thinking that Genesis 11’s reference to the tower of Babel is specifically dependent on this passage of Enuma Elish. 33 Although Enuma Elish (6.58, 60) has just previously referred to bricks, it makes no mention of bitumen, which Gen 11:3 correctly mentions (cf. Naboplassar), suggesting firsthand knowledge of the tower rather than merely literary borrowing from Enuma Elish.

29.  Ibid., 182. 30.  Wilfred G. Lambert, “Review of F. Gössmann, Das Era-Epos (Würzburg: Augustinus, 1956),” AfO 18 (1957–58): 395–401 (here p. 400); idem, “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors,” JCS 16 (1962): 59–77 (here p. 76); Luigi Cagni, L’epopea di Erra (Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente dell’Università, 1969), 37–42; idem, The Poem of Erra, Sources from the Ancient Near East 1/3 (Malibu, CA: Undena, 1977), 20–21; Wolfgang von Soden, “Etemenanki vor Asarhaddon: Nach der Erzählung vom Turmbau zu Babel und dem ErraMythos,” UF 3 (1971): 253–64; repr. Hans-Peter Müller, ed., Bibel und alter Orient: Alt­ orientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden, BZAW 162 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985), 134–47; Van Seters, Prologue to History, 182. 31.  Von Soden, “Etemenanki vor Asarhaddon”; contrast George, “The Tower of Babel,” 87–88. 32. The translation is from Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 471. The context clearly implies that the ziggurat was intended for Marduk. As Foster (p. 471 n. 3) explains, the reference to “Anu-Enlil-Ea” implies the syncretism of Marduk with these deities, and we may compare tablet 7, lines 136 and 140, where Marduk is explicitly given the names of Enlil and Ea. 33.  Ephraim A. Speiser, “Word Plays on the Creation Epic’s Version of the Founding of Babylon,” Or 25 (1956): 317–23; repr. in Oriental and Biblical Studies: Collected Writings of E. A. Speiser, ed. Jacob J. Finkelstein and Moshe Greenberg (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967), 53–61

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

149

Sennacherib claims to have torn down the ziggurat, but his successors Esarhaddon and Ashurbanibal began rebuilding it. This was continued by the Babylonian king Nabonidus and finalized by his successor, Nebuchadrezzar II. 34 According to Herodotus, History, 1.181, the tower at Babylon still existed in his day (ca. 460 b.c.e.), and he gives the following description, though he speaks of it rather as a series of towers: and in the midmost of the other [division of the city] is still to this day the sacred enclosure of Zeus-Belus, a square of two furlongs each way, with gates of bronze. In the centre of this enclosure a solid tower has been built, of one furlong’s length and breadth; a second tower rises from this, and from it yet another, till at last there are eight. The way up to them mounts spirally outside all the towers; about halfway in the ascent is a halting place, with seats for repose, where those who ascend will sit down and rest. In the last tower there is a great shrine; and in it a great and well-covered couch is laid, and a golden table set hard by. But no image has been set up in the shrine, nor does any human creature lie therein for the night, except one native woman, chosen from all women by the god, as say the Chaldaeans, who are priests of this god. 35

However, there are certain errors in this account: the length and breadth of the ziggurat are grossly exaggerated, it did not have a spiral staircase, and it had seven, not eight stages. Many scholars doubt that Herodotus had actually ever visited Babylon himself. 36 Just before Herodotus’s time, it appears that Xerxes I had disabled the ziggurat in 484 b.c.e., while later the site was leveled by Alexander the Great and his successors with a view to rebuilding, though this never took place. 37 Even later, after the tower lay in ruins, Diodorus Siculus, Universal History, 2.9 still knew that it had been high and built of bitumen and bricks, but Strabo, Geography 16.1.5, who likewise knew it had been high, built of baked brick, and ascended by a stairway, mistakenly referred to it as the tomb of Belus. For authentic information in Akkadian, we are dependent on the so-called Esagila tablet. 38 This was written ca. 229 b.c.e. but is a copy of an older text found at Borsippa. According to this, Etemenanki was 91 m square at the base, which corresponds closely to what archaeological excavations have revealed. The Esagila tablet also tells us that it was 91 m high and consisted of seven 34.  See references and discussion in George, “The Tower of Babel,” 79–86. 35.  The translation is taken from Alfred D. Godley, Herodotus Books I–II, rev. ed., LCL (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926), 225–27. 36.  See, for example, Robert Rollinger, Herodots babylonischer Logos (Innsbruck: Verlag des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 1993). Contrast Otto E. Ravn’s earlier study, Herodotus’ Description of Babylon (Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk Forlag, 1942), which concluded that Herodotus did go to Babylon. 37.  See references and discussion in George, “The Tower of Babel,” 89–92. 38. I say “so-called,” since it is primarily concerned with Etemenanki. For text and commentary, see Andrew R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, OLA 40 (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 109–19, 414–34.

150

John Day

stages. Interestingly, a fairly recently discovered Neo-Babylonian stele, now in the Schøyen Collection, depicts a king (almost certainly Nebuchadrez­ zar II) standing before a seven-staged ziggurat called “Etemenanki, ziggurat of Babylon.” 39 The Confusion of Languages and Scattering of Humanity The Genesis 11 account begins in v. 1 with the sentence “Now the whole earth had one language and the same words” and concludes in v. 9 with the confusion of the languages of all the earth and the associated scattering of the nations. This makes clear that the writer saw the change from one-world language to many languages as the central theme of the story. However, as has often been observed, one problem posed by Genesis 11 is that the multiplicity of nations and languages is already presupposed in Genesis 10 (cf. vv. 5, 20, 31, 32). Some attempt to get around this problem by claiming that the account in ch. 11 is a flashback to the time before Genesis 10, while others note that the references cited above implying a multiplicity of languages and nations in Genesis 10 are from P, while Gen 11:1–9 is from J. Both points are surely true. In the final form of the text, we may indeed suppose that Gen 11:1–9 is intended to describe events prior to Genesis 10. At the same time, it is the case that the above-mentioned references in Genesis 10 come from P, who appears to have had a different concept of the origin of many languages from J, as he did in some other matters. P in Genesis 10 even uses a different word for “language” (lāšôn, lit., “tongue”) from the word that J uses in Genesis 11 (śāpâ, lit., “lip”). Moreover, whereas in the J account in Genesis 11 humanity’s dispersion throughout the world is a divine reaction to the building of Babylon and its tower, in P the dispersion of humanity in Genesis 10 is a natural consequence of obedience to the divine command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (cf. Gen 9:1, 7, reiterating Gen 1:28). Not all of Genesis 10 is from P, however. The insertion about Nimrod in Gen 10:8–12 is from J and presupposes that Babylon already exists (alongside some other Mesopotamian cities; Babylon and the other cities of v. 10, unlike the Assyrian cities of v. 11, are not stated to have been built by Nimrod). This stands in contrast to Gen 11:1–9, which describes the building of Babylon as a new event, thus further indicating that Genesis 10 follows 11:1–9 chronologically. Possibly the redactor wished to end the Primeval Narrative on a negative note in order to set the scene for the new beginning with Abram in Genesis 12. Originally in J’s narrative, however, Gen 11:1–9 would have followed fairly soon after the flood. This would interestingly cohere with Berossus who, following the landing of the ark in Armenia, recounts, “When these people came 39.  See Juan-Luis Montero-Fenellós, “La tour de Babylone, repensée,” in Babylone, ed. Béatrice André-Salvini (Paris: Hazan and Musée du Louvre, 2008), 229–30; George, “The Tower of Babel,” 76.

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

151

to Babylon, they dug up the writings at (the city) of the Sipparians and founded many cities and rebuilt shrines and founded anew Babylon.” 40 It could well be that Berossus and J were dependent on a common Babylonian tradition. However, whereas J was speaking of the foundation of Babylon for the first time, Berossus was envisaging the restoration of a city that had previously existed before the flood (cf. Enuma Elish 6.57–68, where it was founded by the Anunnaki just after the creation of the world). A suggestion of Cyrus H. Gordon and Victor P. Hamilton that attempts to avoid seeing tension between Genesis 10 and 11:1–9 is that the latter is merely implying that there was a common lingua franca (which they suppose to be Sumerian) rather than literally one language in the world and that it was this that now ceased. 41 This, however, is forced, reading into the narrative something that is not there. Moreover, it is at Gen 11:9 that the scattering of the people over the earth begins, so there is still a tension with Genesis 10, where this division of nations already exists. Gen 11:9 contains a marvelous pun, in keeping with J’s penchant for such things (cf. Gen 4:1, 25; 5:29; 9:27), but unfortunately most English Bible translations fail to represent it adequately in their renderings, generally translating “Therefore it was called Babel (bābel), because there the Lord confused (bālal) the language of all the earth,” or suchlike. The obvious way of representing the pun is curiously followed by only two of the major English Bible translations, the neb and reb, in addition to Moffatt and the little-known God’s Word translation, which all render something like “the Lord there made a babble of the language of all the world.” 42 Scholars often state that the name Babylon actually means “gate of God” (bab-ilim). However, what is less often observed is that Assyriologists believe that this latter may itself be a popular etymology and that the original meaning of the name, possibly Babil, is uncertain. 43 40. The translation is from Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus, Sources from the Ancient Near East 1/5 (Malibu, CA: Undena, 1978), 21. 41.  Cyrus H. Gordon advocated this in various places, including “Ebla and Genesis 11,” in A Spectrum of Thought: Essays in Honor of Dennis F. Kinlaw, ed. Michael L. Peterson (Wilmore, KY: Francis Asbury, 1982), 125–34 (here pp. 129–30); Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1–17, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990), 350–51. 42.  In fact, one might have imagined that the word “babble” derived from “Babel,” but James A.  H. Murray et al., The Oxford English Dictionary ([Oxford: Clarendon, 1933], 1.604) states that “[n]o direct connexion with Babel can be traced; though association with that may have affected the senses.” Rather, it concludes: “Probably formed (with frequentative suffix -le; cf. prattle) on the repeated syllable ba, ba, one of the earliest articulate sounds made by infants, fitly used to express childish prattle.” 43.  Cf. Ignace J. Gelb, “The Name of Babylon,” Journal of the Institute of Asian Studies 1 (1955): 1–4. Already much earlier, Gunkel (Genesis, 95; ET Genesis, 97) had suggested that Bab-ili, “gate of God,” might be a folk etymology. On a different track, Franz M. T. Böhl (“Die Etymologie von ‘Babel’, Genesis 11 9,” ZAW 36 [1916]: 110–13) thought that a popular Babylonian etymology from babālu (= abālu), “to scatter,” might lie behind

152

John Day

The Sumerologist Samuel N. Kramer argued in 1968 that we have a Sumerian precursor to Genesis 11’s multiplication of languages in the epic known as “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta.” 44 For him, part of lines 144–55 reads, “The whole universe, the people in union (?), to Enlil in one tongue . . . Enki . . . the leader of the gods . . . changed the speech in their mouths, [brought (?)] contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.” In Kramer’s view, this implies that all humanity originally spoke the same language (Sumerian), until Enki changed people’s speech. However, Bendt Alster argued that the text was actually envisaging a future time when all humanity would speak the same language. 45 On this understanding, the text should instead read: “The whole universe, the well-guarded people—May they all address Enlil together in a single language! . . . Enki . . . the expert of the gods . . . shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one.” 46 Although the interpretation of the text is difficult, Alster’s view does seem more natural. The words form part of a passage seeking the submission of the foreign lord of Aratta (in Iran) to Enmerkar of Uruk, so the narrative flow makes it more likely that the tense is future: if all nations are to bow down to Enlil and speak Sumerian, the lord of Aratta will have to do so as well. This passage would then provide an interesting parallel not to Gen 11:1–9 but to Zeph 3:9, which similarly envisages a future time when all nations will worship Yahweh in a common language (Hebrew). We there read, “At that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call on the name of the Lord, and serve him with one accord.” Overall, Gen 11:1–9 provides multiple etiologies: not only for human beings’ having many different languages but also for the dispersal of humanity throughout the earth and for the origin of the place-name Babel. This offering the Hebrew text, which J had to change to bll, “to confuse,” because the former verb did not exist in Hebrew. See also Speiser, “Word Plays,” 60–61; repr. in Biblical and Oriental Studies, 323. 44. Samuel N. Kramer, “The ‘Babel of Tongues’: A Sumerian Version,” JAOS 88 (1968): 108–11. Cf. Jan J. A. van Dijk, “La confusion des langues: Notes sur le lexique et sur la morphologie d’Enmerkar, 147–55,” Or n.s. 39 (1970): 302–10; Catherine Mittermayer, Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata: Ein ungleicher Wettstreit, OBO 239 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009), 57–62, 122–23. 45. Bendt Alster, “An Aspect of ‘Enmerkar and the Land of Aratta,’” RA 67 (1973): 101–9. This view was subsequently followed by Hartmut Schmökel, in Religionsgeschicht­ liches Textbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. Walter Beyerlin, Grundrisse zum Alten Testament 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 112–13; ET Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1978), 87; Herman Vanstiphout, Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta (SBLWAW 20; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 65; Jeremy Black in The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature, http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk. I wish to thank Andrew George—who, on balance, favors this view—for discussing this passage with me. 46.  Translation taken from the ETCSL.

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

153

of multiple etiologies in one story is characteristic of the Yahwist in the Primeval Narrative, as also is the wordplay in Gen 11:9 previously noted. Also characteristic, of course, are: the use of the tetragrammaton for the divine name, its being a story of crime and punishment, the fact that the divine intervention is accompanied by divine words before the judgment is inflicted (Gen 11:6–7; cf. 3:22; 4:9–12; 6:3), that this includes a first-person-plural address to the divine council (Gen 11:7; cf. 3:22), the fact that the narrative ends with an expulsion (Gen 11:8–9; cf. 3:22–24; 4:11–16), the anthropomorphic depiction of God exemplified by his coming down to see the tower (Gen 11:5, 7; cf. 2:7, 8; 3:8; 7:16b), and the way in which the story is concerned with the transcending of boundaries (Gen 11:4, 7; cf. 3:22; 6:2–3). 47 Further typical of J are the use of the verb ḥll, “begin,” in Gen 11:6 (cf. 4:26; 6:1; 9:20; 10:8), of the noun šēm, “name,” in the sense of “reputation” in Gen 11:4 (cf. 6:4; 12:2), and of the interjection hēn, “behold,” in Gen 11:6 (cf. 3:22; 4:14). There seems no good reason, therefore, to deny this narrative to the Yahwist. 48 The Yahwist’s Perspective: A Story of Pride and Punishment or Something Else? The traditional interpretation of the narrative about Babel in Gen 11:1–9 is that it is a story of hubris and the divine punishment that comes upon it. This interpretation is already found, for example, in Jubilees and the Sybilline Oracles (for more on which, see below), and then in the rabbis and Church 47.  Regarding the transcendence of boundaries, Jack Sasson (“The Tower of Babel as a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History [Gen. 1.1–11.9],” in The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, ed. Gary Rendsburg et al. [New York: Ktav, 1980], 211–19 [here pp. 218–19]) has claimed that the redactors have organized Genesis 1–11 into two parallel sections, Gen 1:1–6:8 and 6:9–11:9, with the Babel story in Gen 11:1–9 corresponding to Gen 6:1–8. However, although both of these passages do involve the transcendence of boundaries (in opposite directions), Sasson’s overall structure is unconvincing, since his parallels are too general, the garden of Eden story is left without a parallel in the second half, and the ten generations after the flood (Gen 11:10–32) are left out, although they provide a clear parallel to the ten antediluvian generations in Gen 5:1–32. The latter (together with Gen 4:17–26) is instead made parallel to Genesis 10 in Sasson’s scheme. 48.  However, David M. Carr (Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996], 248; idem, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction [New York: Oxford University Press, 2011], 459–60), Markus Witte (Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschicht­ liche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11,26, BZAW 265 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998], 87–99), and Jan Christian Gertz (“Babel in Rücken und das Land vor Augen: Anmerkungen zum Abscluß der Urgeschichte und zum Anfang der Erzählungen von den Erzeltern Israels,” in Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, ed. Anselm Hagedorn and Henrik Pfeiffer, BZAW 400 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009], 9–34) see the non-P material in Gen 11:1–9 as a later supplement to the text. All three scholars see the other transcendingof-boundaries passages in Gen 3:22, 24; 6:1–4 as also being redactional. All this seems arbitrary to me, but quite apart from these parallels, there are sufficient other parallels to J in Gen 11:1–9 noted above to justify the attribution of the passage to this source.

154

John Day

Fathers through the reformers and right up to the present day in many works. This view is suggested by the reference to the people of Babel (the human race as it then was) wishing to build a city with a tower having its top in the heavens so as to make a name for themselves (Gen 11:4). In recent years, however, this interpretation has been questioned by scholars such as Ellen van Wolde and Theodore Hiebert. 49 Van Wolde prefers to see the story as being about the dispersion of humanity in reaction to the tower builders’ desire to stay in one place, as opposed to being a story of human hubris. But surely these two elements are both true and not mutually exclusive: the people of Babel do wish to stay in one place, but at the same time their desire to build a tower with its top in the heavens is an act of hubris. Van Wolde’s approach succeeds in completely flattening the tower! Again, Hiebert maintains that the multiplication of languages is not depicted as a judgment on human hubris but, rather, reflects Yahweh’s preference for cultural diversity. But it is difficult not to regard God’s extreme alarm at the danger of humans getting out of control in v. 6 as being inspired particularly by the building of the tower previously mentioned in v. 4. 50 The people there declare, “Come let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves. . . .” The heavens were where God was believed to dwell, so attempting to encroach on that exalted realm would surely have been seen as an act of hubris. The attempt to reach heaven is thus meant literally (contrast the hyperbole of Deut 1:28; 9:1), and so still reflects something of the original Babylonian understanding of the ziggurat as a link between heaven and earth. Moreover, the scattering over the earth that the builders of Babel feared (Gen 11:4)—something that ironically came upon them—must have been from God himself, since the inhabitants of Babel at that point constituted the whole world (Gen 11:1), and there were no other humans to fear. This therefore implies a note of defiance toward God in their attitude. The traditional interpretation involving hubris is also favored by observing the striking parallels between Gen 11:1–9 and the story in Genesis 3, in both of which divine disapproval is expressed at humans transcending the divine/ 49. Ellen van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies in Genesis 1–11, BibInt 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 84–89; idem, Stories of the Beginning: Genesis 1–11 and Other Creation Stories, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1996), 162–69; Theodore Hiebert, “The Tower of Babel and the Origin of the World’s Cultures,” JBL 126 (2007): 29–58; idem, “Babel: Babble or Blueprint,” in Reformed Theology: Identity and Ecumenicity, II: Biblical Interpretation in the Reformed Tradition, ed. Wallace N. Alston and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), 127–45. 50.  See also the critiques in John T. Strong, “Shattering the Image of God: A Response to Theodore Hiebert’s Interpretation of the Story of the Tower of Babel,” JBL 127 (2008): 625–34; André LaCocque, “Whatever Happened in the Valley of Shinar? A Response to Theodore Hiebert,” JBL 128 (2009): 29–41; idem, The Captivity of Innocence: Babel and the Yahwist (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2010), 30–31, 67.

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

155

human boundaries, and God makes reference to the heavenly court by speaking in the first-person plural (Gen. 3:22; 11:7). Moreover, in both of these God expresses the fear of worse if the humans continue along their current course, with common use of hēn . . . wəʿattâ. Compare Gen 3:22, “Behold (hēn), the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil; and now (wəʿattâ), lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” with Gen 11:6, “Behold (hēn), they are one people, and they all have one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and now (wəʿattâ) nothing that they propose to do will be impossible for them.” 51 Peter Harland concedes that for J Gen 11:1–9 is indeed a story about human hubris vis-à-vis God but claims that, if we read it as part of Genesis 1–11 in its final canonical form, it is now to be understood as illustrating disobedience to God’s command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7). In response, one might argue that, as sophisticated final-form readers, we might care to read it that way, but is there really any evidence that the redactor of Genesis  1–11 so intended it? After all, the hubristic elements within Gen 11:1–9 are still there, and indeed were emphasized by the earliest Jewish interpreters, while the commands to fill the earth are set within the context of humanity’s being fruitful and multiplying, something that there is every reason to believe the people of Genesis 11 had been doing in view of their apparently large numbers so soon after the flood (Gen 11:1). On another track, Wolfgang von Soden, Klaus Seybold, Hubert Bost, and Gunther H. Wittenberg have all envisaged the account of the tower of Babel as containing an implied critique of Solomon’s building works, a view bound up with the dating of J to the 10th century, which is now out of favor. 52 This understanding was elaborated in most detail by Wittenberg, who not only interpreted the tower of Babel narrative as containing an implicit attack on Solomon’s 51.  There is a striking parallel with Job 42:2 in terms of both vocabulary and idea here. Just as God says of the people of Babel, “[N]othing that they propose (yāzəmû) to do will be withheld (yibbāṣēr) from them,” so Job declares to God, “I know that no purpose (məzimmā) of yours can be thwarted (yibbāṣēr).” Edward L. Greenstein regards the words of Job as a deliberate parody or mimicry of Gen 11:6. See his article “The Problem of Evil in the Book of Job,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffrey H. Tigay, ed. Nili S. Fox, David A. Glatt-Gilad, and Michael J. Williams (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 333–62 (here pp. 358–59). 52. Wolfgang von Soden, “Verschlüsselte Kritik an Salomo in der Urgeschichte des Jahwisten?” repr. in Bibel und alter Orient: Alt­orientalische Beiträge zum Alten Testament von Wolfram von Soden, ed. Hans-Peter Müller, BZAW 162 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1985), 174–86 (here pp.  182–83); Klaus Seybold, “Der Turmbau zu Babel: Zur Entstehung von Genesis 11,1–9,” VT 26 (1976): 453–79 (here p. 469); Hubert Bost, “La tour de Babel: Gen 11,1–9,” in La ville dans le Proche-Orient ancien, Les cahiers du CEPOA 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 1983), 231–38 (here pp. 235–36); Gunther H. Wittenberg, King Solomon and the Theologians (Pie­ termaritzburg; University of Natal Press, 1988), 16. This view is rightly rejected by Van Seters, Prologue to History, 186 n. 32.

156

John Day

oppressive building works but also saw the division of the peoples as mirroring the division of the kingdom following Solomon’s death. However, it seems bizarre to suppose that the foreign city of Babylon would be employed to symbolize the Israelite Solomon, and the division of the kingdom into two is quite different from the scattering of the peoples all over the world. Also, this reading leaves no role for the confusion of languages, which is so central to the story, something that Wittenberg unconvincingly supposed symbolized the growth in misunderstanding between social groups in Israel. Moreover, although Babylon is condemned for its oppressive acts in certain prophetic passages (cf. Isaiah 47; Hab 1:12–17), this is not the emphasis of the Yahwist in Gen 11:1–9, for whom there were no other people around on the earth at the time to be oppressed, and the building of the tower represented, rather, a direct act of hubris toward Yahweh himself. The Nachgeschichte of the Story Finally, we shall discuss the Nachgeschichte of this story. First, is it the case that the story of the tower of Babel is referred to anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible? It is possible, though not certain, that there is an allusion to it in Jer 51:53, where we read in the course of this exilic oracle against Babylon, “Though Babylon should mount up to heaven, and though she should fortify her strong height, from me destroyers would come upon her, says the Lord.” Interestingly, the verb bṣr occurs in both Gen 11:6 and Jer 51:53, which might appear to support a connection, but on the other hand the verb’s meaning is clearly different in each case, the former being in the niphal, “be withheld,” and the latter in the piel, “fortify.” If the occurrence of this verb is a coincidence, Jer 51:53 must be explained without reference to Genesis 11 as simply a development of Isa 14:12–15, an oracle about the shining one, son of the dawn (symbolizing the king of Babylon), who seeks to rise up into heaven but is subsequently cast down to Sheol. 53 Yair Zakovitch has claimed that the account of Jacob’s dream at Bethel in Genesis 28 in which angels ascended and descended on a staircase between heaven and earth reflected knowledge of the story of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11. 54 However, this seems unlikely. What is true and cannot have been deduced from Genesis 11, is that the staircase (not ladder) in Jacob’s dream seems to reflect the form and function of a Mesopotamian ziggurat up and down which gods and goddesses ascend and descend between heaven and earth (for sullām, compare Akkadian simmiltu), though it is now a case of angels rather 53.  On the myth in Isa 14:12–15 and the historical situation alluded to, see my discussion in Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, JSOTSup 265 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000; repr. London: Continuum, 2002), 166–84. 54. Yair Zakovitch, Through the Looking Glass: Reflection Stories in the Bible (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1995), 60–62 [Heb.].

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

157

than deities. 55 Victor Hurowitz has further suggested that Genesis 28 is dependent specifically on the ziggurat at Babylon. 56 Among other things, he points out that the term “gate of heaven” (Gen 28:17) recalls the name Babylon as “the gate of god.” Genesis  11 does not say that God destroyed the tower of Babel, merely that work on building the city of Babel ceased following God’s intervention to disperse the people. Nevertheless, the notion that God destroyed the tower did arise in antiquity. Thus, according to Jub. 10:18–26, Sib. Or. 3:97–109, and Josephus, Ant. 1.4.3 (who quotes the Sibyl), God overturned the tower with a great wind. Further, in Midr. Tanḥ., Noah 18, it is stated that one-third of the tower was burned, one-third swallowed up, and one-third was left standing. Interestingly, by conflating the references to Babel in Genesis 10 and 11 the view later came about among the Jews that Nimrod was involved in the building of the tower and city of Babel—indeed, was its instigator. This idea, already found in Philo, QG 2.81–82, and Josephus, Ant. 1.4.3, was later taken up by the Talmud and Christian sources and is reflected in the Arabic name of the ziggurat at Borsippa, Birs Nimrud, which as noted earlier was long considered the site of the tower of Babel. In contrast, according to Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 10:11, Nimrod actually opposed the building of the tower. It is not surprising that the rabbis thought that the original language of humanity implied by the story of the tower of Babel was Hebrew (Tg. Neofiti and the Fragment Targum on Gen 11:1; y. Meg. 1.11; Midr. Tanḥ. 28a). However, according to the 9th-century Muslim historian al-Ṭabari in his History of the Prophets and Kings, it was instead Syriac, a notion already found in the Syriac Cave of Treasures (W) 24. Coming to the Qurʾān, it is possible that Surah 28.38 contains a garbled allusion to the tower of Babel, where we read that in the time of Moses Pharaoh instructed his minister Haman to kindle a fire, bake mud, and build a high tower in order that he might see Moses’s god, whom he suspected was a liar. There is a similar passage in Surah 40.36–37 that speaks of this tower reaching the heavens. It is generally accepted by critical scholars that Muhammad has here confused Pharaoh’s minister with Haman, minister of Ahasuerus in the book of Esther, so there is no reason why he should not similarly inadvertently have transplanted the tower of Babel from Babylon to Egypt. 55. Cf. Alan R. Millard, “The Celestial Ladder and the Gate of Heaven (Genesis xxviii.12, 17),” ExpTim 78 (1966): 86–87. 56.  Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, “Babylon in Bethel: New Light on Jacob’s Dream,” in Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible, ed. Steven W. Holladay, Hebrew Bible Monograph 10 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006), 436–48. An earlier version of this article was published in T eshûrôt laAvishur—Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, in Hebrew and Semitic Languages: Festschrift Presented to Prof. Yitzhaq Avishur on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. Michael Heltzer and Meir Malul (Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publications, 2004), 184–94 [Heb.].

158

John Day

As for the tower of Babel within Christianity, there is no reference to it in the New Testament. Nevertheless, it has often been supposed that the events of the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, in which visitors from various nations could all understand the apostles’ words, are to be understood as a reversal of the story of Babel in Gen 11:1–9, in which languages are multiplied and people scattered. 57 However, although this is a popular Christian notion up to the present time, there is little evidence that Luke himself consciously intended this in Acts 2, because there is no obvious reference back to Genesis 11 in the text. Most scholarly New Testament commentaries on Acts 2 fail even to mention Genesis 11, and the few that do dismiss the influence of this text for lack of evidence. 58 It appears instead that this idea was simply an imaginative creation of the early Church Fathers. Although this has sometimes been attributed to Origen, it was actually Acts 4:32 that he contrasted with Gen 11:1–3, where the early Church is said to have been of one heart and spirit; cf. Origen, Comm. Gen., c. 1 (PG 12.112). The earliest of the Fathers to relate Genesis 11 specifically to Acts 2 that we know of was Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 41, 16 (PG 36.449), and this idea was subsequently followed by John Chrysostom, Homily 2 on Pent. 2 (PG 50.467), and others such as Augustine, Narration on Psalm 54, verse 11 (PL 36.636), and Serm. 271 (PL 38.1245) and Gregory the Great, Homily on the Gospels, Book 2, Homily 30, 4 (PL 76.1222). Later, in Christian Europe, the depiction of the tower of Babel became common in art as a symbol of the nemesis of hubris. 59 The most famous is one of two extant paintings on this theme by the 16th-century Flemish artist Peter Bruegel the Elder, now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. 60 At the front left of this painting, there is a depiction of a king, with typical anachronism wearing the royal regalia of a later age, who is inspecting the building of the tower, which clearly reflects the tradition (possibly derived by Bruegel from Josephus) that Nimrod was the instigator of the tower. 61 Even in our own era, the story of the tower of Babel lives on in the popular consciousness: some decades ago George Steiner chose to give his famous 57.  E.g. John G. Davies, “Pentecost and Glossolalia,” JTS 3 n.s. (1952): 228–31 (here pp. 228–29). 58.  Cf. I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 68; C. Kingsley Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994), 112. 59. See Parrot, Ziggurats et tour de Babel, 169–93; Michael J. Seymour in Babylon: Myth and Reality, ed. Irving L. Finkel and Michael J. Seymour (London: British Museum Press, 2008), 132–41. 60.  Bruegel’s second painting (the “Little” Tower of Babel) is in the Museum Boijmans van Beuningen, Rotterdam. He also painted a third picture of the tower of Babel, but it is no longer preserved. 61.  This painting has often been reproduced on the Internet. Cf. Parrot, La tour de Babel, where it is depicted on the front cover; or the ET, The Tower of Babel, where it appears as the frontispiece.

The Tower and City of Babel Story (Genesis 11:1–9)

159

book on language and translation the title After Babel, 62 and just as I write Babel is the name of a rock band’s album riding high in the U.K. charts. Victor Hurowitz was a most stimulating and erudite scholar, whose contributions have greatly enriched the study of the Bible in its ancient Near Eastern context. But for me he was also a good friend, whose warm company and lively interactions I have greatly appreciated over the years. It is a great sadness to me that the life of one who still had so much to contribute has been tragically cut short. May he rest in peace and his work continue to be an inspiration to others! 62. George Steiner, After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). For a critical review of this work by a noted Semitist, see Edward Ullendorff, BSOAS 39 (1976): 403–20.

Human Tribulation and Transience in Job: The Metaphor of the Moth

Tova Forti Introduction Biblical literature abounds with imagery, metaphors, similes, and other turns of phrase taken from the world of nature—such as the flora, fauna, climate, and geography—with which the authors were familiar. These analogies reflect the influence our environment exerts on our emotional and intellectual perception of the world. When crafted into a similitude, an object arouses our senses, visual perception, memory, and imagination, evoking both conscious and subconscious emotional symbolism—all of which processes assist the listener or reader in internalizing the message being conveyed. 1 Herein, I analyze the literal and figurative significance of the image of the moth in Job 13:28: ‫והוא כרקב יבלה כבגד אכלֹו עש‬, “Man wastes away like a rotten thing, like a garment eaten by moths.” 2 Comparing this verse with Ps 39:12 and other allusions to the moth in Psalms and Isaiah and Hosea, I outline some of the discursive and cognitive functions of this simile and its contextual and intercontextual features alike. Simile, Metaphor, and Cognition The distinction between simile and metaphor can be traced back to Aristotle, who regarded metaphor as a “genus” and simile as one of its “species.” Author’s note:  With my deepest sentiments of sorrow, I dedicate this paper to the memory of my long-time friend and mentor Avigdor (Victor) Hurowitz‫ז‬′′‫ ל‬, whose wisdom and knowledge of the biblical and ancient Near Eastern texts continue to guide me at every step. 1.  See J. Bronowski, The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978), 10–18; L. Ryken, J. C. Wilhoit, and T. Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998), 271. T. Forti, “Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs,” in The Interpretation of Wisdom Literature, ed. L.  G. Perdue, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 1–10. 2.  All quotations are from the njps unless otherwise noted, and the verse numbering thus follows the Hebrew text.

161

162

Tova Forti

Speaking of the “natural pleasure” people gain in “learning quickly words which denote something,” he claims that, being “a metaphor with a preface,” a simile is thus “less pleasing because it is more lengthy; nor does it affirm that this is that; and so the mind does not even inquire into the matter” (Aristotle, Rhet. 3.4.1406b). 3 Some modern scholars have extended this “pleasure principle” to the human conceptual system as a whole, arguing that it is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. The concepts that govern our thought are not just matters of the intellect. They also govern our everyday functioning, down to the most mundane details . . . what we perceive, how we get around in the world, and how we relate to other people ... the way we think, what we experience, and what we do every day is [therefore] very much a matter of metaphor. 4

Adducing the cognitive sources of metaphor, Earl MacCormac asserts that “[t]hrough brain processes the human mind operates hierarchically to juxtapose widely disparate semantic concepts which produce metaphors that can be comprehended,” thereby mediating between minds and culture. 5 While not focusing on the multidisciplinary debate this question has engendered, the present discussion reflects the scholarly trend of treating figurative expressions as linguistic devices, the origin and meaning of which derive from cognition. 6 The Image of the Moth in the Hebrew Bible The term ‫עׁש‬, signifying “moth,” appears seven times in the biblical texts— three times in Job (4:19, 13:28, 27:18), three times in the Prophets (Isa 50:9, 51:8; Hos 5:12), once in Psalms (39:12), and once in Sirach (42:13 ms B). 7 In 3.  See A. Russell and M. Winterbottom, eds., Ancient Literary Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 119–20. Over subsequent generations, this definition has been reversed, the simile now generally being considered the genus, and metaphor one of its species: see William Stanford, Greek Metaphor (Oxford: Blackwell, 1936), 25–30. 4. G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980). 3. 5.  E. R. MacCormac, A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1985), 2–3. For an excellent anthology of studies on the nature and function of metaphor in language and thought from the perspectives of the philosophy of language and science, linguistics, cognitive and clinical psychology, education, and artificial intelligence, see A. Ortany, ed., Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). 6.  See E. Greenstein, “Remarks on Some Metaphors in the Book of Job,” in Studies in Bible and Exegesis, ed. S. Vargon et al. (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2009), 9.231–41 [Heb.]; A. Weiss, “A New Approach to Metaphor in Biblical Poetry,” in Mishneh Todah: Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment in Honor of Jeffry H. Tigay (ed. N. S. Fox, D. A. Glatt-Gilad, and M. J. Williams; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 475–86. 7.  LXX Job 27:18 parallels the moth with the spider: ἀπέβη δὲ ὁ οἶκος αυτοῦ ὥσπερ σῆτες καὶ ὥσπερ ἀράχνη, “And his house is gone like moths, and like a spider’s web.” The English versions of MT Job 27:18 render ‫ עש‬in various ways: “moth” (kjb), “spider” (nasb), and “bird” (jps); the nrsv omits the word entirely. The reading ‫ עכביש‬for ‫ עש‬in 27:18 is

Human Tribulation and Transience in Job

163

Hos 5:12 and Job 13:28, it occurs as a synonym for ‫ָקב‬ ָ ‫ר‬, a “rotten thing/rottenness”; and in Isa 51:8 and Sir 42:3 (M) as a parallel to ‫סָס‬. 8 In Job 13:28; Isa 50:9, 51:8; and Sir 42:13, it is explicitly adduced in relation to ‫בגד‬, “clothing.” Isaiah describes how the prophet’s antagonists will “disintegrate”: “They shall all wear out like a gar­ment, the moth shall consume them” (50:9); “For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, the worm shall eat them up like wool” (51:8). In Sirach, the imagery is reversed, moths being said to be the “product,” as it were, of clothing, and forming an “etiological” argument: “For as moths come from garments, so a woman’s wickedness comes from a woman” (Sir 42:13). On analogy with Gen 27:25 (‫חמֻדֹת‬ ֲ ‫בגדי עשו בנה הגדול ַה‬, “Then Rebekah took the best garments of her elder son Esau”), Ps 39:12 (‫ ָעו‍ֹן‬-‫ְּבתֹוכָחֹות עַל‬ ‫ָדם‬ ָ ‫א‬-‫ו ֶַּתמֶס ָּכעָׁש חֲמּודֹו א ְַך ֶהבֶל ּכָל‬ ‫ )ִיּס ְַר ָּת ִאיׁש‬should perhaps be rendered: “You chastise a man in punishment for his sin, consuming his precious garment like a moth,” interpreting ‫ חֲמּודֹו‬as a metonym for a garment. 9 All of these verses adduce the evidently well-known deleterious effect of exposing clothing to moths, thereby creating the conventional metaphorical concept of “transience” and “vanity.” 10 All seven incidents occur with the comparative -‫כ‬,“like” or “as,” identifying the imagery as a simile. 11 The fact that comparison may also be marked by many other indicators, such as the verbs ‫ נדמה‬and ‫“( נמשל‬seem/resemble”), as in Isa 1:9b: ‫ּכ ְמעָט ִּכ ְסדֹם ָהיִינּו ַלעֲמֹרָה ָּד ִמינּו‬, ִ “we would have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah,” suggests that, syntactically, a simile forms an analogy rather than a discrete form of comparison. 12 Lacking such comparative preferable, given the association between the spider and its house/web: cf. Isa 59:5; Job 8:14. On the various renderings of ‫ עש‬in the ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible and among medieval commentators, see E. Bilik, “The Moth in the Bible,” Beit Mikra 7 (1962), 53–56 [Heb.]. 8.  The word ‫ ָר ָקב‬occurs most frequently in reference to bones: cf. Hab 3:16; Prov 12:4, 14:30. When associated with trees (cf. Isa 40:20; Job 41:19 [‫)]רקבון‬, it may allude to the tree worm. Scholars who follow the LXX reading of Job 13:28a (ἴσα ἀσκῷ, “like a leathern bottle”) suggest that the MT ‫ָקב‬ ָ ‫ ר‬should be emended to ‫רֹקֶב‬: see E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 195. The Masada scroll of Sir 42:13 reads ‫“( סס‬moth”) in place of the ‫ עש‬in ms B. The Syriac reads ‫ססא‬, the LXX σὴς. 9. Cf. ‫חמֻדֹות‬ ֲ ‫ ֶלחֶם‬, “treasured bread” (Dan 10:3), and ‫חמֻדֹות‬ ֲ -‫איׁש‬, ִ “beloved person” (Dan 10:11). The moth is also related to cloth in the descriptions of the netherworld (Sheol) in the Gilgamesh Epic (12.252–53). 10.  For conventional metaphors, see J. Grady, “A Typology of Motivation for Conceptual Metaphor,” in Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. R. W. Gibbs and G. J. Steen (Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1999), 79–100. For moth damage in the ancient world, see C. Michel, “‘Les Mites d’Assyrie’: Moths in the Assyrian Texts of the Second Millennium b.c.,” JAOS 118 (1998), 325–31. 11.  The sole exception is Isa 50:9, where the moth “shall consume” the prophet’s adversaries; the simile only occurs in the first half of the verse. 12. Cf. ‫ דמה‬// ‫( משל‬niphal) in Ps 49:13, 21; ‫( משל‬hithpael) in Job 30:19; ‫( דמה‬piel/qal) // ‫( שוה‬hiphil) // ‫( משל‬hiphil) in Isa 46:5. The proper distinction is between an illustrative

164

Tova Forti

markers, metaphor—defined as “a figurative expression, in which a word or a phrase is shifted from its normal uses to a context where it evokes new meanings”—is customarily understood to constitute an implicit rather than explicit comparison. 13 Practically speaking, the various tropes all serve the same function—namely, to create an analogy between two disparate things that, under normal circumstances, would not be brought into conjunction. 14 On the semantic level, the correspondence between the discrete fields evoked by the simile parallels that evinced by the metaphor. Thus, despite the grammatico-literal structural disparity between the “fusion” of the metaphor and the “explicit comparison” of the simile, both expressions juxtapose otherwise unrelated items whose congruity—deriving from both the creator’s imagination and cultural heritage—generates new connotations and associations. In comparing Job 13:28 and Ps 39:1–13, I hope to elucidate the cognitive significance of the moth imagery for the “theodicy” debate. Both of these texts are forensic in form and adduce the motifs of human suffering and brevity of life as grounds for God’s intervention in favor of the petitioner’s plea. Job 13:28–14:3 Let me begin my analysis of Job 13:28 with a general remark regarding the literary composition of the book as a whole. It is widely accepted that any understanding of the literary framework of the poetic dialogues in the overall structure of the book demands meticulous investigation of its thematic units. Consequently, I shall first devote my attention to defining the relevant pericopes, giving priority to the immediate context and the linguistic usage of the wider literary framework. With respect to the specific verses under investigation, I shall focus on the features that contribute to an understanding of the nuances of meaning and thought conveyed by the poet’s creative synthesis of theological ideas and literary techniques. 15 simile (the sun likened to a golden ball, for example) and a modeling simile/metaphor (light is a wave). See J. Soskice, Metaphor and Religious Language (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 58–61. 13. W. Martin, “Metaphor,” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ed. A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 760–66. See G. Miller, “Images and Models, Similes and Metaphors,” in Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 357–400. 14.  See J. Vaught Brogan, “Simile,” in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, ed. A. Preminger and T. V. F. Brogan et al. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), 1149–150. 15.  See in this regard N. C. Habel’s study, which is devoted to identifying the “unique way in which forms, poetic patterns, structures, and language are transformed and made subservient to the governing design or focus of a particular unit,” including a wide range of literary features which illuminate the central ideas and veiled subtleties of a text. These literary features include the surface structures or patterns in each unit. . . . Attention is given to framing techniques, envelope constructions (inclusio), chiasm, adap-

Human Tribulation and Transience in Job

165

While Job 12–14 constitutes Job’s reply to Zophar’s first speech, only part of this unit is addressed to his friends (12:2–13:19); 13:20 marks Job’s direct appeal to God. 16 Chapters 12 and 13 both open with Job’s assertion that he is not inferior to his friends (‫נֹפֵל אָנ ִֹכי ִמּכֶם‬-‫)לֹא‬, having a measure of wisdom equal to what they profess to have been given (12:3, 13:2). His first statement adduces sapiential arguments evincing God’s sovereignty over nature (12:7–11, 15, 22) and human society (12:12–14, 16–21, 23–25). Pleading for an opportunity to state his case, he expresses his confidence that God will not dispute his righteousness, urging Him to recognize his blamelessness and indict his friends on account of their false accusations. The dominant idea is that Job is unwilling to confess (to) a sin he has not committed. 17 In his second statement, Job justifies his alacrity in challenging his friends’ dogmatic declarations and avowing the fallacy of their words (13:3–12). This step induces him to address his case directly to God (vv.  13–19) and plead with Him to reveal his sins to him (vv. 20–24), hoping thereby to rationalize his agony. At the same time, he accuses God of hiding His face from him (cf. Ps 27:9) and regarding him as His enemy, describing his sense of fragility by comparing himself to a driven leaf / dry chaff oppressed and pursued—by God Himself (v.  25). In a triple parallel poetic verse, he likens God to a sadistic prison guard: “You put my feet in the stocks and watch all my ways, hemming in my footsteps” (v. 27). 18 His metaphorically depicted incarceration is the consequence of an unjust conviction on the basis of “the iniquities of my youth” (v. 26). On the “trial” that he calls for (13:18–14:3), which is framed by technical terms (‫משפט‬, “lawsuit” [13:18, 14:3]) and phrases (‫דרכי אוכיח‬, “argue my tation of traditional forms or formulae, wordplay, double entendre, and irony. Especially significant are the various ways in which repetition is employed to frame a unit, highlight a recurring motif (leitmotiv), focus on a pivotal image, or affect verbal irony. (The Book of Job, OTL [London: SCM, 1985], 23–24).

16.  Job 12:7–25 most likely constitutes a wisdom poem depicting God’s sovereignty in nature and history. J. Gray argues that a wisdom hymn was adapted by the sapiential poet who composed Job’s speech; its setting serves “to indicate Job’s familiarity with the orthodox faith and morality which he criticizes” (The Book of Job, ed. D. J. A. Clines [Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010], 213). Job’s invitation to God to engage with him (13:3, 13, 15, 20–27; 14:3) moves the drama toward the decisive dialogue (38:1–42:6): see idem, Job 1–20 (WBC 17; Dallas: Word, 1982), 288. 17.  For the legal metaphor in Job as one of the major theological motifs and literary devices structuring the book, see H. Richter, Studien zu Hiob: Der Aufbau des Hiobbuches, dargestellt an den Gattungen des Rechtslebens (Berlin: Evangelische Verlag, 1958); S. Huberman Scholnick, “The Meaning of Mišpat in the Book of Job,” JBL 101(1982): 521–29; J. B. Frye, Legal Language in the Book of Job (Ph.D. diss., University of London, 1990); M. Dick, “The Legal Metaphor in Job 31,” CBQ 41 (1979): 37–50. 18.  This poetic usage is repeated by Elihu (Job 33:11) in an ironical response to Job’s lament in which the third parallel stich, “guarding the soles of my feet,” is omitted.

166

Tova Forti

case” [13:15], ‫ערכתי משפט‬, “prepare a case” [13:18; cf. 23:4a], and ‫יריב עמדי‬, “challenge me” [13:19]), three arguments stand out: (a) God ignores the sufferer’s integrity (13:23–24); (b) human life is fragile and ephemeral (14:1), a fact that is symbolized by the windblown leaf, blighted straw (13:25), withered flower, and passing shadow (14:2); 19 and (c) divine providence is unjust, wrongfully imprisoning the innocent (13:27). The moth simile—“and he wastes away like a rotten thing, like a garment eaten by moths” (v. 28)—appears at the end of ch. 13, posing syntactic and thematic problems alike. 20 Because the third-masculine-singular pronoun ‫הוא‬, “and he,” appears after a consecutive wāw, it is difficult to ascertain its identity, a difficulty that is reflected in the translations. 21 This follows a sentence in direct speech, which makes the transition between the two verses awkward as well. Likewise, the image appears to have little if any relation to the preceding forensic context. 22 The image corresponds far more closely to the contemplative declaration in Job 14:1: “Man born of woman is short-lived and sated with trouble.” However, its most natural thematic affinity is with the flower simile in 14:2, both sets of imagery alluding to the ephemerality of human existence. The brevity of human life is adduced by additional figurative expressions: ‫ּכ ִציץ יָצָא ַו ִּיּמָל‬, ְ “a withered bud” (14:2a); ‫ִברַ ח ַּכּצֵל ְולֹא יַעֲמֹוד‬ ְ ‫ ַוּי‬, “a passing shadow” (14:2b); and ‫ׂש ִכיר יֹומֹו‬ ָ ‫ּכ‬, ְ “a hired laborer” (14:6). Psalm 39:12: “You chastise a man in punishment for his sin, consuming his precious gar­ment like a moth” (my translation) Having determined that the moth simile is better placed after Job 14:2, I now turn to Ps 39:12. As I have discussed elsewhere, I believe Psalm 39 to 19.  The idiom ‫עלה נדף‬, “a driven leaf,” also occurs in Lev 26:36; ‫קש‬, “straw,” recurs in Job 41:20–21 as a symbol of the slight and insignificant (cf. Nah 1:10): see Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, 191. As Dhorme notes, “Nothing is so ephemeral as the flower, nothing so fugitive as the shadow” (p. 194). The parallel use of the synonyms ‫ מלל‬and ‫נבל‬ for “wither, fade away” appears in Ps 37:2: ‫ׁשא יִּבֹולּון‬ ֶ ‫ּוכיֶרֶק ֶּד‬ ְ ‫ָציר ְמה ֵָרה ִיּמָלּו‬ ִ ‫ּכי ֶכח‬, ִ “for they soon wither like grass, like verdure fade away” (cf. Job 18:6). 20.  See S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977), 87. J. Gray claims, “Verse 28 is obviously incongruous with its context in ch. 13 and is displaced from after 14.2, and 14.5c is probably displaced from after v. 27c” (The Book of Job, 221). R. Gordis suggests additional alternatives: (1) the verse forms the conclusion of the question raised in v. 25, vv. 26–27 constituting a rather long parenthesis; or better, (2) it modifies or describes ‫ אדם‬in 14:1 (The Book of Job [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1978], 146–47). For the introduction of a new subject via the third-person pronoun (‫)הוא‬, see Job 8:16, 24:5. 21.  The LXX inserts the relative pronoun “who /which” here, reading: “which waxes old like a leathern bottle or like a moth-eaten garment”; see n. 8. 22.  For the importance of context for metaphor, see J. Stern, Metaphor in Context (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

Human Tribulation and Transience in Job

167

belong to the category of “wisdom psalms”—as attested by its affinities with sapiential concepts and terminology. 23 It may also be classified as a “prayer of the individ­ual,” in which the psalmist appeals to God (v. 13), verbalizing his pain and distress. Perceiving this to be divine punishment for his sins, he believes that only God can remove his affliction (vv. 9–12). He opens with a personal confession, immediately “muzzling” his mouth to prevent himself from voicing his complaint, lest he sin by speaking against God in the presence of the wicked (vv. 2–4a). His emotional bridling being too much to bear, he turns his prayer into an appeal to /against God for a (theological and philosophical) explanation of human suffering; his argument that God should sympathize with human suffering (vv. 5–11) derives from his contemplation of the transience of human life (v. 6) and the vanity of possessions (v. 7). 24 The moth image in v. 12 thus concludes an eight-verse unit (vv. 5–12) in which the psalmist moves from stifling his inflamed complaints to a meditative justifica­tion of God’s intervention. The image of the moth follows his entreaty to God to heal his malaise, “Take away Your plague from me” (v. 11), functioning as a concrete illustration of his existential crisis. Lying between the theodicy of the first clause (“You chastise a man in punishment for his sin,” v. 12a) and his assertion of human nihilism in the third (“No man is more than a breath,” v.  12c), it serves to define suffering as the consequence of divine retribution (compare “it is Your doing” [v. 10b]; “Your plague . . . Your blows” [v. 11]). 23. See my essay “The Moth Image: A Window on a Wisdom Psalm (39),” in Homage to Shmuel: Studies in the World of the Bible (ed. Z. Talshir, S. Yona, and D. Sivan; Jerusalem: Ben-Gurion University Press / Bialik Institute, 2001), 319–31 [Heb.]; idem, “A New Criterion for Identifying ‘Wisdom Psalms,’” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom  M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. C. Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 1.365–79. For the literary types in the book of Psalms, see H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, trans. J. D. Nogalsky (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998); K. Kuntz, “Continuing the Engagement: Psalms Research since the Early 1990s,” CBR 10 (2012): 321–78. Numerous scholars, such as Mowinckel, Eissfeldt, Murphy, and Luyten diverge from this classification; H.-J. Kraus classifies it as didactic poetry (Psalms 1–59, trans. H. C. Oswald [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1998], 58–60, 417). 24.  The psalm as a whole is permeated by ‫הבל‬, “breath” (vv. 6, 7, 12), thereby declaring the “vanity” of human life by stressing that its length is no more than a handsbreadth and its essence no more substantial than a penumbra (“a partial shadow” or eclipse, an “area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree,” or an “outlying surrounding region; a periphery” [American Heritage Dictionary]). The word ‫ הבל‬is, of course, one of the key terms in Qoheleth and appears there 40 times. It also appears on 5 occasions in Job, which proclaims, “I am sick of it. I shall not live forever; let me be, for my days are a breath” (Job 7:16).

168

Tova Forti

Vanity and Theodicy In comparing Job 13:28 and Ps 39:12, we find that the moth simile is related to a set of images conveying the concept of human transience. Both texts embody the idea that human life appears and vanishes like a shadow: ‫ִברַ ח ַּכּצֵל ְולֹא‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫יַעֲמֹוד‬, “He flees like a shadow and does not endure” (Job 14:2b). 25 Although the term ‫ צל‬does not occur in Ps 39:7, it is recalled in the noun ‫צלם‬: ‫ּב ֶצלֶם‬ְ ‫א ְַך‬ ְ ‫איׁש‬ִ ‫ִת ַהּלֶך‬ ְ ‫“( י‬Man walks about as a mere shadow”), as in Ps 144:4: ‫ָדם ָל ֶהבֶל‬ ָ‫א‬ ‫“( ָּדמָה יָמָיו ְּכצֵל עֹובֵר‬Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow”). 26 The wordplay accentuates the disparity between humans as being created in God’s “image” (Gen 1:26, 27) and their status as passing “shadows.” 27 Both verses also denote human ephemerality by adducing transient social classes, the ‫גר‬, “alien”; ‫תושב‬, “temporary resident”; and ‫שכיר‬, “hired hand”: ‫ִּכי גֵר אָנ ִֹכי‬ ְ ‫עּמ‬, ‫ֲבֹותי‬ ָ ‫א‬-‫ּתֹוׁשב ְּככָל‬ ָ ‫ָך‬ ִ “for I am a sojourner with You, an alien resident like all my forebears” (Ps 39:13); ‫ׂש ִכיר יֹומֹו‬ ָ ‫ּכ‬, ְ “a hireling” (Job 14:6). 28 Conclusion The simile of the moth in Job 13:28 and Ps 39:12 serves not merely as a descriptive device but also as a metaphor conveying information beyond its literal content. 29 Our concrete experience of the destruction by moths of garments that are otherwise usable allows us to construct a highly abstract and 25. S. Glucksberg and B. Keysar argue that “metaphors are not implicit comparisons but indeed are assertions of categorization” (“How Metaphors Work,” in Metaphor and Thought, ed. A. Ortony [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 401); the moth metaphor embodies the idea of death via the image of the consumed body. 26.  Cf. Ps 102:27: ‫ִבלּו‬ ְ ‫ֲליפֵם ְויַחֲלֹפּו ְוכֻּלָם ַּכ ֶּבגֶד י‬ ִ ‫ּכ ְַּלבּוׁש ּתַ ח‬, “[T]hey will all wear out like a garment. You change them like clothing and they pass away,” a usage symbolizing the ultimate victory of the righteous over the wicked, as in the prophetic passages: “They shall all wear out like a garment, the moth shall consume them” (Isa 50:9; cf. 51:8). Here also the simile appears to be foreign to its context, appearing within a public thanksgiving (vv. 13– 29). The verb ‫ בלה‬in Sir 14:17a is applied to garments worn out by use, the metaphor forming part of a meditation on the enjoyment of life, work and toil, gain and portion, and the limited life-span of human beings: ‫( כבגד יבלה חוק עולם גוע יגועו‬ms A). See P. C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew, VTSup 68 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 43. 27.  Cf. Ps 102:12; Job 8:9, 17:7; Qoh 6:12. Although HALOT (2.1029) adduces Akkadian ṣalāmu, “to be dark,” the mêm in ‫ צלם‬may be enclitic: see C. Cohen, “The Meaning of ‫‘ צלמות‬Darkness’: A Study in Philological Method,” in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to M. Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 287–309, esp. pp. 294–95 n. 28. 28. See also the conceptual linkage between ‫תושב‬/‫גר‬, “sojourner/transient,” and “shadow” in Ps 39:7a, 13b. Cf. 1 Chr 29:15:—‫ ַּכּצֵל‬ ‫אֲבֹתֵ ינּו‬-‫תֹוׁש ִבים ְּככָל‬ ָ ‫אנ ְַחנּו ְל ָפנֶיךָ ְו‬ ֲ ‫גִֵרים‬-‫ִּכי‬ ‫ ָה ָארֶץ ְואֵין ִמ ְקוֶה‬-‫יָמֵינּו עַל‬, “For we are sojourners with You, mere transients like our fathers; our days on earth are like a shadow, with nothing in prospect.” For the ‫גר תושב‬, “resident alien,” see Gen 23:4; Lev 25:23. 29.  See L. G. Perdue, “Metaphorical Theology in the book of Job: Theological Anthropology in the First Cycle of Job’s Speeches (Job 3; 6–7; 9–10),” in The Book of Job, ed. W. A. M. Beuken, BETL 114 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1994), 129–56.

Human Tribulation and Transience in Job

169

elaborate concept of the untimely ending of human life. Thus, “a garment eaten by moths” becomes a mental picture of human mortality and transience within a contemplative-religious discussion regarding human existence and God’s omnipotence. The occurrence of this simile in the wisdom texts in Job and Psalms reflects a theological inquiry into divine providence and the conditions of human existence, forming a basis for urging God to respond to human suffering.

Did Ezra Create Judaism?

Lisbeth S. Fried Frei’s Theory of the Imperial Authorization of Local Norms Biblical scholars today tend to regard the transformation of Torah Law into a legally binding law code for Jews and, indeed, the creation of Judaism itself, as the result of Persian imperial power. This is largely due to their acceptance of Frei’s theory of Persian imperial authorization of local norms. 1 Frei began by asking to what degree local communities within the Persian Empire had the authority to regulate their own interests. He assumed that, “since [imperial] ruling classes were not in a position to quickly build a complex and efficient administration that could be managed by its own members, . . . it was imperative to concede administrative responsibilities to the conquered.” 2 After a survey of several Persian period inscriptions, Frei concluded that the Achaemenid Empire created a process by which “not only were the norms [that were] established by a local authority approved and accepted by the central authority, but [they were] adopted as its own.” 3 That is, according to Frei, laws freely proposed by members of the local population were legitimated and enforced by the central government. In this bottom-up theory, imperial authorization was not essential or obligatory but was desired by local communities, since through it, “the legal norms of a local body with subordinate status were elevated to the status of imperial legislation.” 4 The most that the central authority did was Author’s note:  I offer this in loving memory of my teacher and my friend, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz. This essay is based in part on my “Ezra in Modern Scholarship,” Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2014), 148–70, and is reproduced with permission. 1. Peter Frei, “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie im Achämenidenreich,” in Reichs­ idee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich, ed. P. Frei and K. Koch Frei (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag, 1996), 8–131; idem, “Persian Imperial Authorization: A Summary,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. J.  W. Watts, SBLSymS 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 5–40. 2.  Ibid., 6. 3.  Ibid., 7. 4.  Ibid., 38.

171

172

Lisbeth S. Fried

to order local communities to codify their laws and norms and so make them known for authorization and enforcement. In this way, locally determined laws and customs became imperialized. Frei bases his theory largely on Darius’s so-called codification of local Egyptian laws, 5 on the Trilingual Inscription from Xanthus, 6 and on the socalled Elephantine Passover Letter. 7 Each of these is examined below. He also bases it on an inscription recording Droaphernes’ donation of a statue to a Temple of Zeus in Sardis 8 and on the record of a border dispute between Miletus and Myus. 9 I discuss each of these in my book The Priest and the Great King, and there is no need to discuss them further here. Frei also bases his theory on Artaxerxes’ letter in Ezra 7. 10 In fact, Ezra 7 is a major pillar of his theory that the Achaemenid mandate for the Pentateuch as the law code for all Judeans living in the satrapy of Beyond the River (Ezra 7:14, 25, 26) is what created Judaism. 11 Wellhausen and Meyer Redux As is obvious, the theory is not new. Frei’s treatment of Ezra 7 rephrases Wellhausen’s and Meyer’s old argument that it was the Persian Empire that authorized, publicized, and mandated Torah Law in Judah and that without it Judaism would not have been created. To quote Wellhausen (1878): “The man who made the Pentateuch the constitution of Judaism was the Babylonian priest and scribe, Ezra.” 12 According to Wellhausen, Ezra came from Babylon in 458, at the head of a company of “zealous” Jews and was “provided with 5.  Idem, “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie,” 16–18, 47; W. Spiegelberg, Die sogenannte demotische Chronik des Pap. 215 der Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1914); A. T. Olmstead, “Darius as Lawgiver,” AJSL 51 (1935): 247–49. See also my chapter on Egypt and on the impact of Darius in my book The Priest and the Great King: Temple Palace Relations in the Persian Empire. Bibilical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 10 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 49–107, esp. pp. 75–86. 6.  Frei, “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie,” 12–16, 39–47; Henri Metzger et  al., Fouilles du Xanthos VI: La stèle trilingue du Létôon (Paris: Klincksieck, 1979). See also my Priest and the Great King, 140–54. 7.  Frei, “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie,” 18–20, 48–49; TAD A4.1; B.  Porten et al., The Elephantine Papyri in English: Three Millennia of Cross-Cultural Continuity and Change, 2nd ed. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), B13. 8.  Frei, “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie,” 24–26, 90–96. See my discussion in The Priest and the Great King, 129–37. 9.  Frei, “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie,” 96–97. See also my discussion in The Priest and the Great King, 119–29. 10.  Ibid., 20–22, 49–61. 11.  This was picked up recently in Joseph Blenkinsopp’s recent book Judaism: The First Phase. The Place of Ezra and Nehemiah in the Origins of Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009). 12. J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (ET: New York: Meridian, 1957).

Did Ezra Create Judaism?

173

a mandate from the Persian king empowering him to reform, according to the Torah, the congregation of the temple. 13 Even if the letter from Artaxerxes in Ezra 7 is spurious, Wellhausen suggests it must still reflect the views of the author’s [Persian period] contemporaries. Wellhausen states further that “the expression taken from Ezra’s own memoirs (7:27) leaves no doubt that he was assisted by Artaxerxes in the objects he had in view,” namely, to install the Priestly Code as law in Judah. 14 He waited 13 years actually to promote it because he needed the backing of the Persian governor, and this he did not have until the arrival of Nehemiah, the Jew, who was cupbearer to the king. 15 Wellhausen argues further that, “as we are accustomed to infer the date of the composition of Deuteronomy from its publication and introduction by Josiah, so we must infer the date of the composition of the Priestly Code from its publication and introduction by Ezra and Nehemiah” and conclude that codification of the temple ritual only took place in the postexilic period. 16 Wellhausen denies that Ezra is the author of P and asserts only that Ezra was the real and principal editor of the entire Hexateuch (Genesis–Joshua). 17 Following closely on Wellhausen’s heels was Eduard Meyer, who argued in Die Enstehung des Judentums (1896) that Judaism was a creation of the Persian Empire. Without the Persian Empire, Meyer argues, there could have been no Judaism. Moreover, Ezra did not simply bring the Pentateuch, nor did he simply edit it, as Wellhausen proposes, but Meyer states that Ezra was the one who authored at least the Priestly law code. Meyer states:   Ezra is commissioned by the king and his ministers with a mission to Judah and Jerusalem. He is to investigate the situation in the community living there and to organize it on the basis of the law book of the law of God which he [= Ezra] had written.   This law has binding power over the Jews in Abar Nahara. Ezra is to install judges who are to judge according to this law, and if they do not know the law to teach it to them.   This determination is indispensable for the entire edict. The law book of Ezra is by this introduced as a binding law for the Jewish community. Whoever will not join will be out of the community, their belongings confiscated. This law is not a private agreement among members of a religious gathering, but a legally binding basic law of the state for a recognized community. The introduction of this type of law book for a certain circle of subjects is only possible if it is sanctioned by the state. This is expressly stated in v. 26. Although it is said to apply to all the people in Abara Nahara, it really only applies to the Israelite people. 18 13.  Ibid. 14.  Ibid., 406 n. 1. 15.  Ibid., 407. 16.  Ibid., 408. 17.  Ibid., 409 n. 1. 18. E. Meyer, Die Entstehung Des Judentums (Hildesheims: Olms, 1965), 66. Translation and emphasis mine.

174

Lisbeth S. Fried

Thus from almost the beginnings of biblical criticism, Ezra with the Persian Empire behind him is credited with transforming Torah Law into law and, with it, the creation of Judaism. Modern Scholarship In its form revived by Frei, the theory has received a great deal of support among biblical scholars. Blenkinsopp maintains that “the combination of the P history with Deuteronomy, resulting in a narrative from creation to the death of Moses, and the concentration of all the legal material within this narrative framework, cannot be explained exclusively in terms of circumstances, exigencies, and events intrinsic to the Jewish community.” 19 The combination of P and D required an outside force—that is, the Persian Empire. Blenkinsopp claims that “one aspect of this imperial policy [by which local norms were authorized] was the insistence on local self-definition inscribed primarily in a codified and standardized corpus of traditional law backed by the [Persian] central government and its regional representatives.” 20 Blenkinsopp sees Ezra’s mission and the Letter of Artaxerxes as historical and as authorizing Ezra to establish the “laws of your god and the laws of the king” in Judah and to set up judicial proceedings to enforce compliance. Thus again, the impetus for Judaism was external and came from the Persian king. Crüsemann also asserts that, even if we regard Artaxerxes’ Letter as pure invention, we “must acknowledge that it asserts a kernel of historical reality.” 21 He continues: “While skeptical about the Artaxerxes decree, we must accept the important statement in Ezra 7:25, which equates the laws of God and of the Persian king as both legally applicable and juridically binding.” 22 Both Crüsemann and Blenkinsopp base their conclusions on Frei’s theory of Imperial Authorization of Local Norms. Albertz argues similarly: “Even if the socalled Ezra decree is hardly authentic in the form which has been handed down to us, it nevertheless reflects a Persian legal practice which can also be demonstrated from other sources and which Frei calls ‘imperial authorization.’” 23 Albertz opines that “the imperial authorization offered the Jewish people a unique chance of claiming the support of the Persian imperial organization in securing its cultural and religious identity. But it could only seize this chance if it finally formulated a text which was binding on all its members, and which 19.  Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 239. 20.  Ibid. 21. F. Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law, trans. Allan W. Mahnke (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 336 22.  Ibid. 23. Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol. 2: From the Exile to the Maccabees, trans. John Bowden, Old Testament Library (Westminster John Knox, 1994), 467.

Did Ezra Create Judaism?

175

it could present to the Persian authorities for approval and authorization.” 24 Thus, again, without Persian pressure the various documents that made up the Torah would not have been combined. Moreover, it would not have become authoritative for Judeans, and it would not have become the source for Jewish law. Konrad Schmid has also recently defended the theory against some recent detractors. 25 Schmid calls for the separation of two distinct issues: (1) whether there was or was not such an institution in the Achaemenid Empire as “imperial authorization of local norms,” and (2) whether the completion of the Torah was connected to it. Schmid does not discuss the first question but assumes it: There is no reason to deny that at least some local laws indeed were authorized by higher authorities such as the satraps. This is the unavoidable minimal interpretation of the trilingual inscription of Xanthus, which prompted Frei to develop his theory. 26

Schmid asks further, “[H]ow can we best describe processes whereby Persian authorities created local autonomy—processes that can only be expected and that can be substantiated beyond any doubt?”  27 Based on the Xanthus Inscription (to be discussed below), Schmid concludes that “we must assume processes whereby local norms were authorized by the Persian Empire.” 28 Schmid asserts further that Ezra 7 shows that the formation of the Torah must have had something to do with this process. “This basic assumption [of imperial authorization of local norms] is made clear,” he says, “by the Artaxerxes decree in Ezra 7, completely independent of whether the text is authentic or not or whether it is Persian or Hellenistic. Ezra 7 shows us that the author of this text was familiar with processes of authorizing local norms and that he described Ezra’s presentation of the Torah to his readers in this context.” Thus Schmid argues that Ezra 7 can be used to prove the theory, even if it is late and even if it is entirely fiction. David Carr also credits the Persians with creating the circumstances whereby the Torah became legally sanctioned public law. He suggests that it was “recognition probably by local Persian authorities (albeit in the name of the king) of locally produced texts as valid Persian law” that impelled the various strands of the Torah known from scribal education to gain the force of law. 29 According to Carr, without external imperial support, the Torah would 24.  Ibid. 25. Konrad Schmid, “The Persian Imperial Authorization as a Historical Problem and as a Biblical Construct: A Plea for Distinctions in the Current Debate,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 23–38. 26.  Ibid., 27. 27.  Ibid. 28.  Ibid., 33. 29.  David M. Carr, “The Rise of Torah,” in ibid., 39–56; quotation on p. 54.

176

Lisbeth S. Fried

never have been moved from its place as part of scribal education to its role as local law. Of course, his evidence for this claim that Torah Law had actually become law in Judah is the book of Ezra itself, and if the text is fictive, which most admit, then in what way is it evidence? Anselm Hagedorn also agrees that Ezra 7 is fictive but that “this author uses formulations and information known in the Persian period, so a certain knowledge of Persian imperial structures can be assumed.” 30 According to Hagedorn, “this knowledge is independent of any actual date of the Ezra narrative. . . . even if one favors a Hellenistic composition of the Ezra narrative . . . the context provided by the biblical documents themselves still remains Persian.” 31 Thus, even though the text is fictional, the fact that the story is set in the Persian period, means that it must accurately describe Persian behavior. This is strange reasoning. The stories of Abraham are placed in a Bronze Age nomadic setting, but few scholars today would argue that the author had accurate knowledge of what Bronze Age nomadic life was like. How can it be assumed that an author writing in the Hellenistic period would accurately describe Persian period administrative procedures? The arguments are circular: because Ezra 7 is assumed to describe Persian administrative practices, the author must have known how the Persians administered their Empire. Thus, it is claimed, the text can be used to understand Persian administrative practices. The Fallacy behind Frei’s Theory of Imperial Authorization Frei’s theory of imperial authorization of local norms encountered criticism in the essays of Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, edited by James W. Watts, 32 in Jean Louis Ska’s Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, 33 and in my Priest and the Great King: TemplePalace Relations in the Persian Empire. 34 In fact, there was no concept of a law code in the Achaemenid Empire, and no local autonomy anywhere in it. None of Frei’s arguments adduced to support it can stand. 35 I examine each of them in turn: 30.  Anselm C. Hagedorn, “Local Law in an Imperial Context: The Role of Torah in the (Imagined) Persian Period,” in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Lake, IN.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 57–76; quotation on p. 71. 31.  Ibid. 32.  James W. Watts, Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001). 33. Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, trans. Sr. Pascale Dominique (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 218–25. 34.  Fried, The Priest and the Great King. 35.  I have repeatedly tried to show this: Lisbeth S. Fried, “’You Shall Appoint Judges:’ Ezra’s Mission and the Rescript of Artaxerxes,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts, SBLSymS 17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 63–89; idem, The Priest and the Great King; idem, “What

Did Ezra Create Judaism?

177

The So-Called Demotic Chronicle The first pillar of Frei’s theory is Column C of the so-called Demotic Chronicle, from which Darius’s putative codification of Egyptian laws is derived. 36 Column C includes a report of Darius’s so-called codification of Egyptian law. As Redford points out, however, there were no laws in Egypt for Darius to codify. 37 Nor could whatever was codified have been local sentencing guidelines, since these were never recorded and not tracked. 38 What Darius most likely did was to codify and put into Aramaic a copy of cadastral land surveys to indicate the borders of the great landed estates of the various institutions for purposes of taxation. 39 Thus the so-called Demotic Chronicle actually refers to the codification of the procedures, mechanisms, and titles of personnel involved in running the Egyptian institutions, such as the temples, that were productive of wealth. 40 These enabled the Persian satrap and the provincial governors to know, for example, who among the temple personnel were responsible for the management of the finances and who would be responsible for the temple’s payment of taxes. Darius’s collection of this type of data is also revealed in the Murašu archives of Babylonia. 41

the Aramaic Documents Tell Us about the Achaemenid Administration of Empire,” in Arshama’s Peoples, ed. J. Ma and C. Tuplin (Oxford: Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents, Oxford University Press, in press); idem, “Artaxerxes’ Letter and the Mission of Ezra—noch einmal,” in Studies in Honor of Charles Krahmolkov, ed. Philip Schmitz, David Howard, Robert Miller II, AOAT (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, in press); and idem, “Implications of 5th and 4th Century Documents for Understanding the Role of the Governor in Persian Imperial Administration,” in Aramaic, Biblical, and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Bezalel Porten, ed. A. F. Botta, CHANE (Leiden: Brill, in press). 36.  Frei, “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie,” 16–18; 47. 37. Donald B. Redford, “The So-Called “Codification” of Egyptian Law under Darius I,” in Persia and Torah: The Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, ed. James W. Watts (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001), 135–59. See also Josef Wie­ se­höfer, “‘Reichsgesetz’ oder ‘Einzelfallgerechtigkeit?’ Bemerkungen zu P. Freis These von der achaemenidischen ‘Reichsautorisation’,” ZABR 1 (1995): 36–46. 38.  Redford, “The So-Called ‘Codification’ of Egyptian Law.” 39.  Ibid. 40. Eugene Cruz-Uribe, “The Invasion of Egypt by Cambyses,” Transeuphratène 25 (2003): 9–60; esp. pp. 47–50. See also my “What the Aramaic Documents Tell Us.” 41. Amélie Kuhrt, “Babylonia from Cyrus to Xerxes,” in CAH, vol. 4: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c. 525–479 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 112–38, esp. p. 132; Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White, “Xerxes’ Destruction of Babylonian Temples,” in Achaemenid History, vol. 2: The Greek Sources, ed. Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and Amélie Kuhrt (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987), 69–78, esp. p. 76; M. Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murašû Archive, the Murašû Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1985); F. Joannès, “Pouvoirs Locaux et Organisations du Territoire en Babylonie Achéménide,” Transeuphratène 3 (1990): 173–89, esp. pp. 179–80.

178

Lisbeth S. Fried

The Xanthus Inscription The second pillar of Frei’s theory is the Xanthus Inscription. The Xanthus Stele relates the supposed free desire of Lycians to install a cult to a foreign Carian god in the middle of the Lycian sanctuary to their own gods, a decision that was then “ratified” by their newly-appointed Carian satrap Pixadarus. This inscription thus does not deal with local laws at all but merely with Lycian acquiescence in setting up a shrine to a foreign Carian god within their own sanctuary. Schmid declares that the Carian satrap of Lycia is said to publish the decision of the people of Xanthus as his own decree. 42 To Frei, Schmid, and others, this implies “evidence of the elevation of local legislation to [the level of] imperial legislation.” 43 Debord asks, however, how great the margin of maneuverability would have been for people under a Carian satrap, a Carian archon (governor), and a Carian epimeltes (garrison commander) with his certainly Carian garrison to refuse to establish a Carian god in their sanctuary. 44 It is not likely that the Lycians could have refused to accept the Carian god. Rather than implying satrapal ratification of a local decision, this decision implies satrapal coercion, the ramming of a foreign cult down the throat of a conquered people. The establishment of a cult to the Carian god was not for the benefit of the local Lycians. It would have been only for the benefit of the Carian soldiers who composed the garrison installed there. The decision symbolizes Carian power over Lycia. The fact that the Xanthus Stele reports the establishment of this foreign cult as the idea of the Lycians is typical of inscriptions of conquered Greek cities that pretend to be free and independent. 45 The So-Called Passover Letter The so-called Passover Letter, dated to the 5th year of Darius II, 419–418 b.c.e., is also used to support Frei’s theory but should instead be understood in the same vein as the Xanthus Stele. The Passover Letter is an Aramaic letter to the priesthood of a foreign temple on the Nile island of Elephantine. Again, the temple to the foreign god was erected for the benefit of the members of the Persian garrison installed there, not for the benefit of the local population. Instead of Carians, this garrison was composed of Judeans, however, and the temple was dedicated to the foreign god Yhw. Rather than the installation of the foreign god (which happened many years before), the letter authorizes the garrison to follow the precepts of this god’s foreign rituals. Due to the fragmentary nature of the letter, scholars cannot determine if it included instructions for the traditional Passover sacrifice, the sacrifice of the Pascal lamb, 42.  Schmid, “Persian Imperial Authorization,” 27. 43.  Ibid. 44. Pierre Debord, L’Asie mineure au IVe siècle (412–323 a. C.): Pouvoirs et Jeux politiques (Bordeaux: Ausonius, 1999), 67. 45.  A. H. M. Jones, The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 95–112 [original, 1940].

Did Ezra Create Judaism?

179

coincidentally the icon of the local god Khnum, but we do know that nine years later the garrison commander agreed to the demands of Khnum to destroy this foreign temple (TAD A4.7, 8). Authorization of the customs of Persian garrisons that are billeted throughout the empire cannot be considered authorization of local laws. These customs authorized by the Empire on behalf of their own garrisons may indeed have actually contradicted the local norms of the subject populations. Artaxerxes’ Letter to Ezra As noted above, a major pillar of Frei’s theory is Ezra 7 of the biblical text. 46 Frei writes that “Ezra was sent by the Persian ruler to Judah. His mission included among other things [promoting] a religiously founded law book. The introduction of this lawbook by an empowered commissioner was not possible without the license of its contents by the central administration.” 47 Even though Frei admits that this text may be fictional, he asserts that “real institutions can be introduced in fictive documents.” 48 Frei and most biblical scholars assume that the lawbook that Ezra brought was the Torah and that the Persians authorized it as the operative body of law, the constitution for Judeans living in the satrapy of Beyond the River. They assume this to be the case, even though they also allow the possibility that the entire text of Ezra is fictional! As Ska points out, however, the Pentateuch could not possibly have been the basis of a legal code, nor would it have been authorized by the Persian imperial administration. The Pentateuch is not a legal document; rather, its laws are embedded in a narrative. Further, the laws often disagree. 49 Exodus 21, for example, refers to male and female Hebrew slaves. Males are to be released after six years, but not females. According to Deut 15:12, however, female slaves must also go out in the seventh year, whereas, according to Lev 25:39, 40, people should not enslave their fellow Hebrews at all; they should serve only as hired laborers. These laws thus conflict and cannot form the basis of a law code. Perhaps more serious, the narrative includes a promise to the descendants of Abraham of a grant of land extending from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River (Gen 15:18). Why would the Persian authorities validate that? The Pentateuch is actually a subversive document which claims that the land belongs to Yhwh, not to any earthly king (Lev 25:33). Indeed, it is possible for a fictional document to reflect real institutions, but the fictional element cannot be used without other proof of the reality behind it. Unfortunately, none of the proofs that Frei and others have presented to support this reality withstand historical scrutiny. 46.  Frei “Zentralgewalt und Localautonomie,” 20–22, 49–61. 47.  Ibid., 20. 48.  Ibid., 52. 49.  Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, 222.

180

Lisbeth S. Fried

Q: How and When Did Torah Law Become Legally Binding? A: It Never Did If the Persians did not mandate Torah Law, how and when did it become legally binding on Jews? The answer is that it never did, except perhaps for the 100 years between 164 and 63 b.c.e., when the Maccabees held political power in Judah, and even this is doubtful. The question rests on a profound confusion between taboos and venerable ancestral customs, on the one hand, and laws, on the other. Customs are socially, not legally, enforced. The ancient Israelite avoidance of pork, for example, is “widely known and well-established” as an “important cultural and even ethnic trait in Iron Age Israel. 50 Did this pork taboo require a written law code with judges to enforce it? I think not. Reliefs of Judeans from Lachish being escorted from their homes by Assyrian soldiers show the people wearing long garments with fringes on the hem (cf. Num 15:38). 51 The wearing of fringes also required no written law code to enforce. Faust exploits biblical and sociological evidence to suggest that the Israelites began to circumcise themselves in the Iron I period as an ethnic marker to distinguish themselves from the “uncircumcised” Philistines. 52 Other ethnic markers also appear in the archaeology of Israel—for example, the ubiquitous four-room house and unpainted pottery. None of these customs would have needed to be enforced legally. Custom and taboo, not judges and magistrates, controlled Judean life even in the Persian period. If we search for the word tôrâ in what is considered the authentic portions of Nehemiah’s memoir (i.e., the first-person accounts: Neh 1:1–3, 11c; 2:1–7:4; 11:1–2; 12:27–43; 13:4–31) dated to the mid-fifth century and the reign of Artaxerxes I, we see that it never appears. 53 The historical Nehemiah, governor of Judah under Artaxerxes I, knows nothing about either a Torah or a law code. He does not refer to any law code when he reprimands the Judean nobles for demanding interest from their own kin or for selling them abroad (Nehemiah 5). He does not refer to a law code when he refuses to enter the temple (Neh 6:11), when he expels Tobiah from his rooms at the temple compound (13:8), when he remonstrates with temple officials for not ensuring that the Levites received their tithes (13:11), when he chastises the merchants for selling their wares on the Sabbath (13:17), and not even when he contends with Judean nobles for marrying non-Judeans (13:25). He knows about Solomon (13:26) but not about Moses. Scholars have been able to find numerous parallels between Nehemiah’s activities and the written Torah, 54 but Nehemiah 50. Avraham Faust, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion, and Resistance (London: Equinox, 2006), and references cited there; quotation from p. 35. 51. David Ussishkin, private communication. 52.  Faust, Israel’s Ethnogenesis, 85–91. 53. Henri Cazelles, “La mission d’Esdras,” VT 4 (1954): 113–40. 54.  Ibid. See also the commentaries.

Did Ezra Create Judaism?

181

himself refers to no written law code or to Moses. Although he exhibited familiarity with many Judean customs and traditions, he was not familiar with the concept of a written code of law. The historic Nehemiah thus did not know Ezra’s law-reading. This lends support to those who date Ezra to the seventh year of Artaxerxes II and 398 b.c.e. If Ezra had indeed read the Torah then, Nehemiah would not have known about it. Nevertheless, Nehemiah did not need a written law code to tell him what right and wrong were; he simply took it upon himself to enforce long-held Judean customs and taboos. In order for laws to be legally binding, judges need to enforce them, and sanctions need to be applied—hence, the reliance on Ezra 7:25–26 to support Frei’s theory. In fact, however, judges throughout the Persian Empire were ethnically Persian: they were either brought from Persia themselves, or they were sons of Persian judges who had been brought in previously to serve as judges. They would not have known Judean customs let alone enforced them. Greek authors testify that the Persian kings sent Persians into the conquered countries to serve as judges. 55 According to Herodotus (3.31): Royal judges are men chosen out from among the Persians to be so until they die or are detected in some injustice. It is they who decide suits in Persia and interpret the established customs (θεσμός) of the land; all matters are referred to them.

These royal judges served throughout the Empire, not just in Persia proper. This is seen in the Egyptian Aramaic papyri, Babylonian tablets, and the Elamite texts from Persepolis, all of which testify to the presence of both royal and provincial judges (databara in Old Persian) throughout the Empire. These judges were all ethnically Persian. 56 Immediately after the Achaemenid occupation of Babylon, for example, local judges were replaced by Persians. 57 A tablet from Nippur in Babylon refers to the Persian Ishtabuzanu, “judge of the canal of Sîn,” a position that was later inherited from him by his son Humardātu. 58 The receipt of a loan by the Babylonian Marduk-naṣir-apli of the house of Egibi was registered in the Babylonian city of Nippur in the presence of the Persian judge Ummadātu, son of Udunātu. Indeed, in both the Elephantine archives and the Arsames letters as well as the new archive from Bactria, nearly every named judge was Persian. 59 There 55. M. Dandamayev and V. Lukonin, The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 122. 56.  Ibid., 118 n. 12, 122. 57.  Ibid., 122–23. 58.  Ibid., 123. 59.  Examination of the Aramaic documents from Hermopolis and Elephantine reveals only one Egyptian who gave his son a Persian name: Bagadata, son of Psamshek (TAD B4.3:24; B4.4:20); one Aramean: Varyzata, son of Bethelzabad (TAD B3.9:11); and one Jew: Arvaratha, son of Yehonatan (TAD B 4.4:21). Also, if Ostanes is the physical brother of an ʿAnani in Judah (TAD A 4.7/8:18), then a second Jew had an Iranian name. H. Lozachmeur

182

Lisbeth S. Fried

were no Egyptian judges for the Egyptians or Jewish judges for the Jews. 60 These judges were either royal appointees (called “judges of the king”) 61 or satrapal appointees (called “judges of the province”). 62 Except for one Babylonian, they were all Persian. 63 Besides the ethnic identity of the judges, the entire Persian nature of the judicial system is revealed in two letters from occupied Egypt. The first is a letter to the leaders of the Judean garrison in Elephantine, late 5th century (TAD A4.2) ‫אל מראי ידניה מעוזיה אוריה וחילא עבדכ[ם‬ ]‫ישאלו בכל עדן שלם לן תנה כענת בכל יום זי‬ ]‫הו קבל פתיפרסן חד זיוך הו קבל פטיפרס א‬ ] ‫איתי לן בזי מצריא שחד להן יהבן ומן זי‬ ‫זי מצריא קדם ארשם להן גנבית עבדן אף‬   To my lords Jedaniah, Mauziah, Uriah and the garrison, [yo]ur servant. [May all the gods] seek after [the welfare of our lords at all times. It is well with us here.

(“Un nouveau grafito araméen provenant de Saqqâra,” Sem 48 [1998]: 147–49) reports a graffito on a stone block that was 3.5 m above the pavement of the funerary temple of Queen Mother Ankhesenpépy II, southwest of the monument of her husband, Pépy I. The inscription reads ‫לבגת בר חורי‬, “to Bagadāta son of Ḥori.” Thus, a second Egyptian gave his son a Persian name. This is out of thousands of names, strongly implying that those with Persian names were ethnic Persians (B. Porten, private communication). 60.  Most situations that we would consider “legal” did not involve a judge. Sales and inheritances of goods, land, and offices were handled through contracts written by Egyptian or Aramean scribes writing in Aramaic. See E. Seidl, Ägyptische Rechtsgeschichte der Saitenund Perserzeit (Glückstadt: Augustin, 1968); and Yoḥanan Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine (Leiden: Brill, 1998). 61.  TAD B5.1:3 62.  TAD A5.2:4, 7. The distinction between royal and provincial judges refers to the mechanism of appointment. There is no mention of satrapal judges among the Egyptian archives. According to Herodotus (3.31), “royal judges are a picked body of men among the Persians, who hold office till death or till some injustice is detected in them.” The judges for the satrapy are judges appointed by the king; provincial judges are appointed by the governors. In Babylonia, beginning with Hammurabi’s rule, judges for the major Babylonian cities and the areas around them were appointed by the king. They were called “judges of the king,” and their seals titled them “servant of King NN.” Judges for the smaller cities were appointed by the royally appointed provincial governors. See R. Harris, “On the Process of Secularization under Hammurapi,” JCS (1961): 117–20; J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History (London: Routledge, 1992), 277. 63.  “Judges” appeared regularly in the contracts as one of the three parties before whom a complainant might bring a suit or register a complaint, the other two being lord and prefect (TAD B2.3:13, 24; B3.1:13, 19; B3.2:6; B3.12:28; B4.6:14; B7.1:13). In a case involving an inheritance, they were called “judges of the king” (i.e., royal judges) (TAD B5.1:3), and in a petition seeking redress of grievances, they were called “judges of the province” (TAD A5.2:4, 7). When named, they were always Persian: Pisina (TAD A3.8:2), Bagadana (TAD A6.1:5–6), Damidata (TAD B2.2:6), Bagafarna and Nafaina (TAD A 5.2:6); and once, Babylonian: Mannuki (Porten, EPE, 136 n. 19).

Did Ezra Create Judaism?

183

  Now, every day that . . . he complained to the investigators (patifrasaya). One Zivaka complained to the investigator (patifrasa). . . . we have, inasmuch as the Egyptians gave them a bribe. And from the . . . which the Egyptians before Ar­ sames, but they act thievishly.

The word translated “investigator” here is the Persian word patifrasa, meaning “investigator,” “examiner.” The second is the text of a judicial request, 410 b.c.e. (TAD A4.5:8–10): ‫הן אזד‬ ‫יתעבד מן דיניא תיפתיא גושכיא זי ממנין במדינת תשטרס‬ ‫יתי[דע] למראן לקבל זנה זי אנחנה אמרן אף פרישן אנחנה‬ If inquiry (azad) be made of the judges, police (typatya), and hearers (gaushkia) who are appointed in the province of Tshetres, it would be [known] to our lord in accordance to this which we say.

These are the last two lines of a judicial request in Egypt. The word used here for “inquiry” is azad and is Persian; the word for “police,” typatyaʾ, is from the Old Persian *tipati-; the word for “hearers” is goškiaʾ, from the Old Persian *gaušakaʾ. These latter are the “king’s ears” (or eyes)—that is, the intelligence officers (Greek episkopoi) known from classical sources. 64 The use of Persian loanwords throughout reveals a completely Persian judicial system, with Persian investigators, judges, police, and intelligence officers, all appointed by Persian satrapal officials or by royal envoys. The imposition of a Persian judicial system on the Egyptian people, with Persians filling all the judicial roles, cannot imply that Egyptian norms and customs were enforced or even known. Rather, it indicates that Persian norms, Persian edicts, and Persian concepts of right behavior were what were validated and authorized. A Persian judicial system imposed from without on a subject population cannot indicate local autonomy or Persian respect for local norms. Why the Story of Ezra and the Law? If the story of Persian authorization of Ezra’s law code is not historic, if it is not consistent with Persian norms and behavior, when was this story written and why? The story of Ezra was created by biblical writers who were writing, not from the perspective of the Persian period (to which we date the historical Ezra 65), but from the perspective of the Hellenistic period. References in Neh 12:22 to the High Priest Jaddua (who according to Josephus [Ant. 11:326–33] 64.  Porten, EPE, 136 n. 20; idem, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968), 50 n. 83. 65. For my conception of the historical Ezra, see my “You Shall Appoint Judges,” and also ch.  2 of my Ezra in History and Tradition: Inquiries into God’s Justice, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, forthcoming).

184

Lisbeth S. Fried

was visited by Alexander the Great) and to the last Persian king, Darius III, establish a Hellenistic date for Ezra–Nehemiah as a whole. 66 Written under the Ptolemies or the Seleucids, as seems likely, the story of Ezra’s describing a Persian mandate for Judean Torah customs was created in the face of Ptolemaic or Seleucid religious persecutions. It was thus probably written in an attempt to provide literate and influential Judeans with the proof that these very norms for which they were being persecuted had earlier received the imprimatur of the Persians and thus were legitimate, valid, and vital. 66. On the idea that the Darius mentioned in Neh 12:22 is indeed Darius III, see James C. VanderKam, “Jewish High Priests of the Persian Period: Is the List Complete?” in Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel, ed. G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan, JSOTSup 125 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), 67–91; and idem, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 43–111; Lisbeth S. Fried, “A Silver Coin of Yohanan Hakkôhen,” Transeuphratène 26 (2003): 65–85, pls. 2–5. That Ezra–Nehemiah is indeed one book, and thus the information in Neh 12:22 applies to both books (Ezra and Nehemiah), see Sara Japhet, “The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah,” in Congress Volume: Leuven 1989, ed. J. A. Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 298–313; and my “Who Wrote Ezra–Nehemiah, and Why Did They?” in Unity and Disunity in Ezra–Nehemiah, ed. M. J. Boda and P. Redditt, Hebrew Bible Monograph 17 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2008), 75–97. For all the varying views of whether Ezra and Nehemiah are one book or two, see the discussions in Boda and Redditt, Unity and Disunity.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

Uri Gabbay I. Introduction A cultic act appears in several rituals from the first millennium b.c.e.: whispering into the ears of a participant in the ritual. 1 This act is best known from the ritual for the initiation of the cultic image (mīs pî)—our understanding of which has been much enhanced by the contribution of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz 2—in which the incantation-priest (āšipu) whispers incantations into the ears of the cultic statue toward the end of the ritual. The act of whispering is also associated with animals, such as for example, in the ritual for the covering of the lilissu kettledrum, in which incantations are whispered into the ears of the bull whose hide will be used for the drumhead before its slaughter. Ritual whispering into the ear is known from the three main cultic institutions of Mesopotamia: the repertoires of the incantation-priest (āšipūtu), the lamentation-priest (kalûtu), and the haruspex (bārûtu). A close look at the known occurrences of cultic whispering into ears (usually the ears of animals or statues) reveals that this was a systematic ritual act that had a special significance and religious role. As I argue in this essay, whispering into the ear occurs at crucial points in rituals—namely, at the points when a transition in the state of the entity being whispered to occurs. In this article, I present and analyze all known occurrences of this cultic act 3 and then discuss them in their ritual and theological framework. Author’s note: I would like to express my thanks to Dr. Claus Ambos, Prof. Mark Geller, and Prof. Nathan Wasserman for reading and commenting on a previous version of this article. Special thanks go to Dr. Sam Mirelman, who besides reading and commenting on the article, also sent me digital photographs of some of the tablets in the British Museum and, most importantly, referred me to the unpublished texts Sm. 998 and K. 4733+, which are treated below (§II.2.3.2). 1.  Note that any abbreviations in this essay that are not defined in the list of abbreviations in the front of this volume may be found in the abbreviation lists of the CAD. 2.  See, e.g., V. A. Hurowitz, “The Mesopotamian God Image, from Womb to Tomb,” JAOS 123 (2003): 147–57. 3.  The ritual descriptions are provided here in transliteration; many are quoted from collation of tablets that appear in digital photographs (some taken by me, some sent to me

185

186

Uri Gabbay

II.  The Occurrences II.1. Statues II.1.1.  Cultic Statue: mīs pî Ritual The mīs pî ritual was a two-day procedure during which the mouth of the new or restored statue of the god created in the workshop was washed several times 4—14 times according to a Late Babylonian ritual tablet, and most likely 7 times according to the ritual tablet in the Nineveh tradition. 5 At the end of the ritual, the statue was ready to act as a divinity worthy of cult in its sanctuary. The ritual took place in a few main locations through which the statue passed, beginning in the workshop of its creation, proceeding to the river bank and the garden beside it, and ending with a procession in which the statue was brought to the temple. Most of the ritual took place in the garden, where the statue spent the night between the two days of the ritual. Before the procession headed back to the temple for the completion of the ritual process with the final (7th or 14th) mouth-washing of the statue, 6 the next-to-last mouth-washing (6th or 13th) took place in the garden, followed by a whispering in the statue’s ears. 7 This whispering is mentioned very laconically in the Babylonian Ritual Tablet: by S. Mirelman and D. Shibata, and others are available through the British Museum online database). In order to avoid textual apparatus, I indicate variants in parentheses within the transliteration. 4.  For an edition and studies of the mīs pî ritual, especially when performed by the incantation-priest (āšipu), see C. Walker and M. B. Dick, “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīs pî Ritual,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. B. Dick (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 55–121; idem, The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual, SAA Literary Texts 1 (Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki, 2001); A. Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth: The Consecration of Divine Images in Mesopotamia,” in The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. K. van der Toorn, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 45–72; A.  Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik, OBO 162 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998); Hurowitz, “The Mesopotamian God Image”; M. B. Dick, “Pīt pī und Mīs pī (Mouth-Opening and Mouth Washing of Statu­e[tte]s),” RlA 10/7–8.580–85. For similar rituals related to the kalû, see W. Mayer, “Seleukidische Rituale aus Warka mit Emesal-Gebeten,” Or 47 (1978): 443–58; Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image, 227–45; W. Farber, “Singing an eršemma for the Damaged Statue of a God,” ZA 93 (2003): 208–13. 5. Cf. Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image, 65 n. 112. 6.  For the washing of the mouth as a marker of the last stage of a ritual, see V. A. Hurowitz, “Isaiah’s Impure Lips and Their Purification in Light of Akkadian Sources,” HUCA 60 (1989): 55–57. 7.  Actually, there is one more cultic act that occurs in the garden before the statue is headed back to the temple, but it is not performed directly on the statue. This is the removal of responsibility for building the statue by the artisans who came in contact with it, by proclaiming that they have not built the statue but, rather, the craft gods (all manifestations of Ea), and by going through a symbolic hand-cutting to emphasize this; see Walker and Dick,

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

187

⸢li-iḫ-šu⸣ ⸢tu-làḫ-ḫaš⸣ ⸢te⸣-[re]-qam-ma You whisper a whisper; you retire. 8

In the Nineveh Ritual Tablet, the passage is much more elaborate, and this passage is duplicated in Incantation Tablet 3 of the same series: 9 ana ŠÀ GEŠTUII šá DINGIR BI ki-a-am (var. kam) DUG4.GA KI DINGIR.MEŠ ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ka ma-na-ta ana ŠÀ GEŠTUII 15-šú tu-làḫ-ḫ[aš] ul-tu u4-me an-ni-i NAM.MEŠ-ka (var. š[i-ma-ti-ka]) a(-)na DINGIR-ti lim-[ma-nu]-⸢ma⸣ [i]t-ti DINGIR.MEŠ ŠEŠ.MEŠ-ka ta-at-tam-nu [ana] LUGAL mu-di-ši!-ka ku-ru-ub ⸢a⸣-na ⸢É⸣-ka [(. . .)?] ku-ru-ub [a]-⸢na⸣ KUR tab-nu-ú nap-še (var. -ši)-er [a-na] ⸢ŠÀ⸣ GEŠTUII GÙB-šú tu-làḫ-ḫa-aš You say this into the ears of that god: “You are counted with the gods, your brothers!” You whisper (the above) into his right ear. “From this day may your destinies be cou[nt]ed for godship! You have been counted with the gods, your brothers! Bless the king, your renewer! 10 Bless your temple [(. . .)?] Be reconciled toward the land which . . . !” 11 You whisper (the above) in[to] his left ear. The Induction of the Cult Image, 50 (= 65–66).173–86, 73 (= 76).49–52. See also n.  42 below. 8.  Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image, 73 (= 76).49. 9. Ritual Tablet: ibid., 50 (= 65):164–72  // Incantation Tablet: ibid., 146–47.6–14; compare with corrections by R. Borger, “Textkritisches zu ‘Mundwaschung’: Zu Walker and Dick, Induction,” BO 62 (2005): 402. 10.  For the reading mu-de-ši-ka rather than the older reading mu-de pi-ka, “who knows your mouth” (Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image, 147.11, 153), see Borger, “Textkritisches zu ‘Mundwaschung’,” 402 (confirmed by digital photograph of Sm. 290). Contra Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image, 65 (but see the transliteration in 147.11–12), I do not understand the verb as an imperative of qerēbu, “to approach” (qú-ruub). Rather, I prefer to see this as the imperative of karābu, “to bless,” with the accusative marked with ana (a common grammatical feature in the first millennium b.c.e.). Note that a parallel ritual instruction for the kalû for the restoration of the statue of a god from Seleucid Uruk prescribes the following recitation, which shares some similarities with our passage and uses the imperative kurub with ana: “Go ahead, lord, go ahead, lord! Go ahead, lord, so that we see you! Go ahead, lord, watch over your city! Turn to your House, turn to your city! Bless the king who reveres you (bára ki?-x-zu šùd ĝá-ĝá // a-na šar-ri pa-li-ḫi-ka ku-ru-ub), make peace for his people!” (Mayer, “Seleukidische Rituale,” 446.38–43). 11.  Walker and Dick (The Induction of the Cult Image, 65, 153) translate: “to the land where you were created be reconciled.” However, the G-stem of banû should have a transitive sense, hence: “Be reconciled toward the land which you created,” or referring as a literary feminine form to the land: “Be reconciled toward the land which created (you)”

188

Uri Gabbay

The recitations whispered into the ears of the statue emphasize the fact that the statue is now a full god, who is counted among his fellow brothers, and may even be asked to bless the king, the patron of his creation or renewal, and the temple that he is approaching. He is also asked to be reconciled toward the land, since he will soon be sitting on his throne, the place of divine rest. Nevertheless, the ritual has not ended yet. There are still some offerings and incantations to be performed once the god is seated on his throne, of which the most important is the last mouth-washing. Only then is the god truly worthy of his own cult. The whispering, then, occurs just before the statue has been fully transformed into a divinity with its own cult. II.1.2.  Statue of Dumuzi: Cultic Act on 27th of Tammuz A Neo-Babylonian cultic calendar text from the Eana temple in Uruk provides instructions about various ritual activities during several months. The following is prescribed for the 27th of Tammuz: 12 U4 27.KAM . . . ALAM ddumu-zi uṣ-ṣa-am-ma . . . a-na IGI dGAŠAN šá UNUGki ul-te-reb . . . lúGALA imŠU.ÍL.LA!(“KU”) 13 a-na GEŠTUII ZAG-šú a-na GEŠTUII GÙB-šú ú-la-⸢aḫ⸣-[ḫaš (. . .)?] On the twenty-seventh day (of Tammuz) . . . the statue of Dumuzi comes out . . . he is introduced in front of the Lady-of-Uruk. . . . The kalû whis[pers] a Šuilaprayer into his right ear and into his left ear.

Although these ritual actions are quite laconic and obscure and the content of the Šuila prayer recited in the ear of the statue of Dumuzi is unknown, 14 the passage may be understood with the help of other texts. Several Neo-Assyrian (see Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder, 453.171: “[Dem Land, das dich sch]uf, sei wohlgesonnen!”; but in “Washing the Mouth,” 63, Berlejung translates as Walker and Dick). Admittedly, the translation by Walker and Dick (The Induction of the Cult Image, 65, 163) and Berlejung (“Washing the Mouth,” 63) makes more sense in the context, and so perhaps emend the text to ana KUR tab-⟨ba⟩-nu-ú (the verb is preserved only in one manuscript, Sm. 290, collated). 12.  LKU 51.28ʹ–31′; see P.-A. Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period, CM 23 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 373–74.28ʹ–31′; see my “Three Emesal Compositions Mentioned in Rituals,” NABU (2005): 65. 13. See ibid., which was already anticipated by J. A. Scurlock, “K 164 (BA 2, p. 635): New Light on the Mourning Rites for Dumuzi?” RA 86 (1992): 58 n. 43. According to D. Shibata (“Die Šuilla-Gebete im Emesal” [Ph.D. dissertation, Heidelberg, 2005], 39), it is possible that the last sign need not be emended and that it is the phonetic complement -ku —that is, imŠU.ÍL-ku (= šuilakku). 14.  There are two Emesal Šuilas to Dumuzi cited in the Nineveh catalog of kalûtu 4R2, 53+, iv 12–13, but unfortunately, only the assignment to Dumuzi is preserved, while the incipits themselves are not. It is possible that the nature of this Šuila was different from the usual Emesal Šuilas, which are usually associated with processions and may be similar to other Šuilas that were performed in Seleucid Uruk during rituals (such as the lilissu ritual and building ritual); see Shibata, Die Šuilla-Gebete, 265–83.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

189

letters and other ritual texts deal with the cult of Dumuzi that occurred between the 26th and 28th of Tammuz (or in other traditions, between the 27th and 29th of Tammuz). The 27th day, mentioned in our text, was known as the day of the “release”—that is, the day in which Dumuzi was temporarily released from the netherworld and came up to the land of the living (before returning a day later). 15 The whispering, then, occurred on the day that Dumuzi came up from the land of the dead to the land of the living. II.2. Animals II.2.1.  Horse: Oracle Query and Ritual for a Horse Pulling Marduk’s Chariot Four tablets deal with the ritual procedure for choosing a horse to pull Marduk’s chariot, probably during the New Year’s festival. First, an oracle query (tamītu) about the suitability of the horse to pull Marduk’s chariot is recited to the gods Adad and Šamaš over the hair of the horse. 16 This query, like other queries, was probably accompanied by extispicy (or less likely, a different divinatory method), which revealed the divine consent for the query. After the oracle query, the text continues with a recitation which should be whispered into the horse’s ear, in the presence of the fringe from the garment of the horse’s master, probably the king himself: 17 at-ta ANŠE.KUR.RA bi-nu-ut KUR.MEŠ (B: šá-di-i) KÙ.MEŠ šar-ḫa-ta-ma i(-)na kal za-ap-pi GIM dTIR.AN.NA (D: [  ] x AN-e) ina (D: om.) 18 AN-e es-ḫe-e-ta 15. Cf. Scurlock, “K 164 (BA 2, p. 635),” 58–61; M. M. Fritz, “. . . und weinten um Tammuz”: Die Götter Dumuzi-Amaʾušumgalʾanna und Damu (AOAT 307; Münster: UgaritVerlag, 2003), 339–341. 16.  See W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 80–83. 17.  Ibid., 82, no. 9.15–26, no. 10.8–11. A = K. 3340 (Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions, pls. 36–37); B = K.  6163!+ (not K.  6136; Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions, pl. 38; collated from digital photograph); C = VAT 8953 (KAR 218 and Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions, pl. 39); D = 80–7–19, 142 (ibid., pl.  37; collated from digital photograph). Although Lambert (ibid., 82) considers no.  10 (text  D) to be a “widely divergent recension,” differing from no. 9 (texts ABC), and therefore treats them separately, I consider them to be quite similar, although with some variants: no. 10.1 = no. 9.[8]?; no. 10.2 = no. 9.9–[10]; no.  10.3 = no. 9.11; no. 10.4 = no. 9.12a (text A); no.  10.5  = no. 9.[12b]?–13; no.  10.6 different final supplication (cf. e.g., Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions, 92, no. 13.2); no. 10.7 = no. 9.14; no. 10.8 = no. 9.15–[16]; no. 10.9 = no. 9.17? (see n. 18 below); no. 10.10 = no. 9.18–19 (cf. n. 19 below); no. 10.11 = no. 9.20 (text B). 18.  I consider text D, which reads: [  ] x AN-e ⟨ina⟩? AN-e [ ], to be in agreement with kīma dTIR.AN.NA ina šamê in the other manuscripts (but the sign ina is missing [collated]; note that ina šamê may be omitted in text C). This would indicate that, at least in text D, the logogram dTIR.AN.NA for “rainbow” was not read dmanzât but as a construction in which the second element (AN.NA) was rendered šamê, perhaps qišti šamê or qašti šamê; cf. Šurpu VIII 20 (R. Borger, “Šurpu II, III, IV und VIII in ‘Partitur’,” in Wisdom, Gods and

190

Uri Gabbay

ta-ʾ-al-da(m)-ma ina KUR.MEŠ (D: KUR-i) KÙ.MEŠ ta-ta-nak-ka-la (B: GU7.MEŠ, D: ta[k?-kal?]) 19 šimLI el-la A.MEŠ kup-pi ta-šat-ta-a (C: tal-ta-na-[a]t-ti) ša(2) KUR-i (AB: šá-di-i)   ḫur-sa(-a)-ni 20 šar-ka-ta-ma a(-)na gišGIGIR EN GAL-i dAMAR.UTU it-ti (C: KI) DINGIR ma-na(-a)-ta 21 a-na (B: ina) ṣa-ma-di u pa-ṭa-ri (B adds: ana DIN[GIR . . .]; A adds:   [. . .] ⸢é?-saĝ?-íl⸣) ša NENNI(KU!.KU!) EN SÍG túgSÍG an-ni-i GÌR.NÍTA-šú qí-bi da-me-eq-ta-šú DÙ-uš a-bu-us-su Text C: KÌD.KÌD.BI ina giSAG.KUD GI DÙG.GA ÉN 3-šú ana ŠÀ GEŠTUII ANŠE.KUR.RA ša 2,30 tu-làḫ-ḫaš [m]uḫ-ḫu-ru GIM DINGIR.MEŠ ina IGI-šú tu-šam-ḫar Text B: [KÌD.KÌD.BI ina gi]SAG.KUD G[I DÙG.GA] [ana ŠÀ GEŠTUII] ⸢ANŠE⸣.KUR.RA šá GÙB 3-⸢šú⸣ [tu-làḫ-ḫaš (?)] [ ]-eš?-ka ta-ḫaṣ-ṣa-aṣ [  ] [(vacat)?] GIM DINGIR maḫ-ḫu-ra ana IGI-šú tu-maḫ-ḫar You, horse, creature of the holy mountains, You are magnificent among all the Pleiades, You are assigned in the sky like the rainbow. You were born in the holy mountains, You always eat pure juniper, You (always) drink spring water of the mountains and hills. You are given for the chariot of the great lord Marduk, Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, ed. A. R. George and I. L. Finkel [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000], 78.20), where both dtir-an-na and dman-za-át are mentioned, indicating a different reading for the former (cf. R. Borger, Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon, AOAT 305 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2003], 378, ad no. 587, who points out this difficulty). W. G. Lambert (“A List of Gods’ Names Found at Mari,” in Miscellanea Babylonica: Mélanges offerts à Maurice Birot, ed. J.-M. Durand and J.-R. Kupper [Paris: Recherche sur les civilizations, 1985], 187, ad 148–50) supposes that TIR may stand for original qaštu, “bow,” and not qištu, “forest,” which agrees with the regular (Semitic and other) association of the rainbow with a bow. 19.  Or D perhaps: t[a]!?-[ ]. 20.  For text C, see collation in Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions, pl. 39, contra Lambert’s own transliteration in 82, ad 20. 21.  A: [m]a-na-a (ras.)-⸢ta!⸣; contra Lambert (Babylonian Oracle Questions, 82, ad 21), this is not an extra line but a dividing of the line in C into two lines (as text B).

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

191

You are counted with the gods for hitching up and unhitching. 22 Of so-and-so, owner of this woolen fringe, his governor, Order his favor, intercede for him! Text C: Its ritual: You whisper the incantation three times into the left ear of the horse through a tube of sweet reed. You set offerings before it as to gods. Text B: [Its ritual: You whisper(?) into] the horse’s left [ear through] a tube of [sweet re]ed. You . . . your [. . .]. 23 You set offerings before it as to a god.

In ancient Mesopotamian perception, Marduk, the king of the gods, had a chariot pulled by a horse in the mythological realm, but since Marduk also existed in the cultic realm as a statue, the mythological horse should also be represented in the cultic realm when the divine statue of Marduk rode a chariot in procession in the New Year’s Festival. 24 This horse, which participated in such a significant religious event, could not remain a simple natural horse but must undergo some cultic act to transform it into a divine entity. And indeed, the incantation whispered into the ears of the horse noted that the horse was counted as a divinity (at least for this special task), emphasizing the origin of the horse. The very origin of the horse in the natural world which provides the cultic substances (pure water, juniper for incense) is already potentially divine in itself. In the cosmological realm, the horse is represented by a constellation, 25 a divine symbol in itself as well. Lastly, the incantation indicated the cultic task that would be performed for this godly horse and asked the horse to intercede 22.  See transliteration above. Perhaps text C is shortened, and texts AB add an extra phrase regarding the god(s) of Esaĝil. 23.  The verb ḫaṣāṣu is usually used for breaking up reeds (cf. CAD Ḫ 131b; AHw 331b, 1560a), which perhaps implied that the reed tube was to be destroyed after the whispering. However, the [  ]-eš-ka preceding the verb is difficult to interpret (perhaps [né-pe]-eš-ka, referring to the ritual tool? Or should the text be emended to [giSAG.K]UD!-ka? But according to the copy and photograph this would be unlikely). Another possibility is to read: ta-ḫazza-az, from the rare verb (ḫ)azāzu (cf. AHw 92b, 1546b, 1560b, perhaps related to the verb azû? cf. CAD A/2 529a), which relates to some sort of sound. In this case, tulaḫḫaš, “you whisper,” should perhaps not be restored in the previous line, and the verb taḫazzaz would refer to the whispering action ([li?-ḫe?]-eš-ka ta-ḫaz-za-az? Or: [né ?-pe?]-eš-ka ta-ḫaz-za-az, referring to the ritual text whispered in the ears? Admittedly, both restorations are not very elegant). 24.  Compare with the evidence collected by M. Weszeli, “Pferd.A.I,” RlA 10/5–6.477–78. 25.  Compare with Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions, 81.

192

Uri Gabbay

in favor of its owner, most likely the king. 26 After the incantation was whispered into its ears, the horse was indeed treated cultically as a god. II.2.2.  Bull: Ritual for Covering the lilissu Kettledrum The “covering of the lilissu” ritual (arāmu ša lilissi) dealt with the preparation of the drumhead of the bronze lilissu kettledrum from the hide of a bull. Since the drum is deified, the structure of the ritual is similar to that of the mīs pî ritual. 27 According to two tablets from Seleucid Uruk, a pure bull is chosen prior to the ritual from the hide and sinew of which the drumhead will be prepared: 28 GU4 šuk-lu-lu (B: ŠU.DU7) GI6 šá SI.MEŠ ù gišU[MBIN].MEŠ (B: šá ⸢gišUMBIN⸣. MEŠ u SI.MEŠ-šú) šal-⸢mu⸣ (B: ⸢-me!?⸣) TA SAG.DU-šú EN ap-pi KUN-šu(2) lú UM.ME.A mu-du-ú it-ta-nap-la(-as)-su-ma šum-ma zu-mur-šú (B: SU-šú) SÍG (A: GIM ESIR) GI6 a-na par-ṣi (B: ⸢GARZA⸣) u KI.DU(.DU)-de-e il-leq-qé (A: -qú) šum-ma 7 SÍG BABBAR(-tu4) GIM (B: ki-ma) MUL ta-kip ina gišNÍG.PA ma-ḫi-iṣ ina qin-na-zi (B: -zu) la-pit a(-)na par-ṣi (B: GARZA) u ki-du-de-e ul i-leq-qé (B: TI-qé) A knowledgeable scholar will inspect an uncastrated black bull whose horns and hooves (var. hooves and horns) are intact, from its head to the tip of its tail. If its hide/body is (= consists only of) black hair (var.: If its body is black like pitch), it will be taken for rite and ritual. If it is spotted with seven white tufts resembling a star, has been stricken with a stick, (or) touched by a whip, it will not be taken for rite and ritual.

There are two phases to the ritual. First, the bull is deified, including the washing of its mouth. Then the bull is slaughtered, the lilissu drum is covered with the bull’s hide, and it is deified as well by washing its “mouth.” Between these two phases, just before the bull is slaughtered, 29 incantations are whispered into its ears. The ritual texts name the incipits of these incantations: 30 26.  Compare the incantation whispered into the ears of the statue in the mīs pî ritual, where the god is asked to bless the king; see §II.1.1 above. 27.  For the sources of this ritual, see F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris: Le­ roux, 1921), 1–33; and now conveniently M. J. H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice, CM 25 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 252–82 (also Mayer, “Seleukidische Rituale,” 432–37). 28.  A = TCL 6 44 i 2–6 (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 10; Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 252) // B = BaghM Beih. 2 5.2–7 (Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 270). 29.  In TCL 6 44 ii 12–16 (Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 253 ii 12–16), cultic acts, including the singing of a Ritual Eršema and the recitation of a Šuila, are performed between the whispering and the slaughtering. The same Eršema is prescribed to be sung prior to the whispering in the earlier text, KAR 60.3 (Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 263.3; see my Review of Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, Or 77 [2008]: 427). 30.  A = KAR 60.10–13 (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 20; Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 263.10–13); B = TCL 6 44 ii 9–12 (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens,

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

193

én gu4 gal gu4 maḫ ú ki-ús kù-ga 31 ina giSAG.KUD GI DÙG.GA a(-)na ŠÀ(-bi) GEŠTUII ZAG (B: 15)-šú tu-làḫ-ḫaš(3) (C adds: EGIR-šú) ÉN GU4 i-lit-ti (BC: -tu4) an-zi-i at-ta-ma ina giSAG.KUD GI DÙG.GA a-na (A: ina) ŠÀ(-bi) GEŠTUII GÙB-šú tu-làḫ-ḫàš “Incantation: Great bull, exalted bull, treading on the pure meadow!” you will whisper into its right ear through a tube of sweet reed. (Following it:) “Incantation: Bull, you are the offspring of the Anzu-bird,” you will whisper into its left ear through a tube of sweet reed.

The full incantations are provided in another text from Nineveh: 32 gu4 gal gu4 maḫ ú ki-ús kù-ga  GU4.GAL-lu4 GU4.MAḪ-ḫu ka-bi-is ri-te KÙ-tì šà-túm dib-dib-a ḫé-ĝál daĝal-la   ib-ta-ʾa qer-bé-ti mu-kil ḪÉ.GÁL-li d du7-šár-ra uru4-a a-gàr ḫi-li-a  e-ri-iš dNISABA mu-šáḫ-li-lu A.GÀR šu-ĝu10 dadag-ga igi-zu bal-bal-e  qa-ta-a-a KÙ.MEŠ iq-qa-a ma-ḫar-ka INIM ABZU šá ŠÀ GEŠTUII GU4 šá ZAG šá LILIZ ZABAR a-ra-mi ina giSAG.KUD GI DÙG.GA tu-làḫ-ḫaš GU4 i-lit-ti an-zi-i at-ta-ma a-na par-ṣi ki-du-de-e na-šu-ka a-na da-riš dnin-ĝiš-zi-da ib-ri-ka a-na DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ GIŠ.ḪUR.MEŠ ú-ṣu-ri ⸢a⸣-na DINGIR.MEŠ ḫa!-me!-em 33 par-ṣi ⸢šá⸣ AN-e ù KI-tì [G]U4 an-nu-u ana dBALAG lip-pa-qid-ma [r]i!-gim!-šú ṭa-a!-bu! a-na d+EN liq-ṭa-ʾ-iš [INIM A]BZU šá ŠÀ GEŠT[UII G]U4 šá GÙB šá LILIZ ZABAR a-ra-mi

12; Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 253 ii 9–12); C = BaghM Beih. 2 5.19–21 (Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 270–71.19–21). 31.  Text C contains some corruptions in this line. It omits the signs gu4 and ús of gu4 maḫ ki-ús, respectively, and adds the signs UŠ.KU (= GALA) after kù-ga. 32.  K. 4806 (4R2 23 1) + K. 9421.9–26 (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 26; Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 275; cf. Gabbay, Review of Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 427; collated from photograph). 33.  Linssen (The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 275, 281) reads: mu(?)-ši-im (cf. also Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 26), but the first sign is certainly not MU, and the Winkel­haken of what he read as ŠI is actually the end of the sign ḪA, followed by ME (collated from photograph). The phrase parṣu ḫamāmu is well attested in divine epithets; cf. CAD Ḫ 59a and CAD P 200.

194

Uri Gabbay

“Great bull, exalted bull, treading on the pure meadow! He walks across the pastures, holding (Sumerian: spreading) abundance, Sowing the grain, making the fields thrive, My pure hands made an offering before you!” Word-of-the-Abzu 34 of the right ear of the bull for the (ritual of the) covering of the lilissu. You whisper (it) into its right ear through a tube of sweet reed. “Bull, you are the offspring of the Anzu-bird, You were raised for the rites and rituals, Forever Ninĝišzida is your friend! For drawing the designs for the great gods, 35 For the gods who gather 36 the rites of heaven and earth, May this bull be entrusted to Lumḫa, May its good voice be presented to Bēl!” 37 Word-of-the-Abzu of the left ear of the bull for the (ritual of the) covering of the   lillisu.

Another text presents similar ritual instructions (on the reverse) but assigns them to a different incantation (on the obverse). The incantation is preserved on two Neo-Assyrian tablets and one unpublished Late Babylonian tablet: 38 én gu4 maḫ za-dím-ma diĝir gal-[gal-e-ne]   at-ta gu-um-ma-ḫu bi-nu-ut [DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ] dím-me-bi kíĝ-ma diĝir gal-gal-e-ne tùm-ma   tab-ba-ni-ma a(-)na ši-pir DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ tab-ba-bal an alam ĝarza da-nu-um-ke4 ĝar-bi an-ta-bi  ina AN-e ṣa-lam-ka a-na pa-ra-aṣ da-nu-tu4 šá-kin e-la-tu

34.  For this genre of incantations, see A. Löhnert, “Reconsidering the Consecration of Priests in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Your Praise Is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends, ed. H. D. Baker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi (London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 2010), 189. 35.  Thureau-Dangin (Rituels accadiens, 27) and Linssen (The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 278, 280) understand ú-ṣu-ri as the imperative “guard” (for uṣur). However, the verb eṣēru in the G- and D-stems occurs frequently with uṣurtu, and therefore I prefer to understand it here as the infinitive of the D-stem of this verb, syntactically used in an infinitive construction. 36.  See n. 33 above. 37.  For this line, see my Review of Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 427. 38.  A = KAR 50.1–17 rev. 8–9 (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 22–25; Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 267.1–17 rev. 8–9); B = K. 6060+ K. 10820.1ʹ–7′ rev. 4–5 (Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 340.1ʹ–7′ rev. 4–5; collated from photograph); C = BM 33343.1–18 rev. 7–8 (unpublished; from photographs).

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

195

u4 an (C: da-num) den-líl (A adds: -lá) den-ki dnin-maḫ nam diĝir gal-gal-e-⸢ne⸣   x x-⸢tar?⸣  i-nu da-num d+en-líl u! dé-a u dbe-let-ì-lí (A: dMIN dMIN dMIN u dMIN) ši-mat   (A: -mit) DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ [i-ši-mu] kuš-zu sa ḫal-ga diĝir gal-gal-e-ne nam tar-tar-[e]-ne   ma-šak-ka ši-ir-an-ka ana pi-riš-ti DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ iš-⸢šá?-mu⸣ u4-ḫal diĝir-bi u4 da-rí (A: ir)-eš(2) za-gi-na 39   ina pi-riš-ti DINGIR BI (BC: šá-a-šu(2)) ana U4.MEŠ da-ru(-ú)-ti (A: -tú) ku  ú-ni alam diĝir ki šeš-bi nam tar-tar-e-ne   ṣa-lam šu-ú it-ti DINGIR.MEŠ ŠEŠ.MEŠ-šú ši-mit ši (C: liš) 40-mu diĝir-bi zag-gu-la-bi (B: ul-la-bi, C: zag-gul-la-bi) mu-un-sikil mu-un-dadag    (C adds: -ga)  DINGIR šu-ú (C adds: ina) e (C: a)-šèr (B: -šér)-ti-šú li-lil li-bi-ib eme ḫul-ĝál bar-šè hé-en (C: -em)-ta-gub   li-šá-nu le-mut-tú (C: -tu4) ina a-ḫa(-a)-ti li-iz-ziz 41 . . . a(-)na ŠÀ GEŠTUII 15-šú (BC add: u 2,30-šú) 3.TA.ÀM tu-làḫ-ḫàš “Incantation: You are the exalted bull, creation of the great god[s], You were created and brought for the work of the great gods, In heaven, your image is present for the rites of the Anu-ship above. When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninmaḫ [decreed] the fate of the great gods, Your hide and your sinew have been assigned to the secret of the great gods, Be present in the secret of that god for eternity! That image is decreed (C: May that image be decreed) with the gods, his  brothers! That god—may his sanctuary be pure, be clean! May the evil tongue stand aside!” . . . You whisper (the above incantation) three times into his right (and left) ear.

As mentioned above, the whispering is done after the first stage of the ritual is completed (the mouth washing of the bull which transforms him into a god), and before the second and final part of the ritual begins, making the lilissu kettledrum itself appropriate for cult, by covering it with the divine bull’s hide. 42 The incantations emphasize that the bull was raised in the natural world by the 39.  In text B, the sequence of the following two lines is reversed. 40.  This seems to be what the signs in text C indicate, even though the form is ungrammatical. 41.  Text A omits the Akkadian translation of this line. 42. In KAR 60 rev. 3–4 (see Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 263), after the whispering and slaughtering, the kalû is released from his responsibility for the cultic act, as in the release of the artisans’ responsibility after the whispering in the mīs pî ritual (see n. 7 above).

196

Uri Gabbay

gods, and thus may serve as a divinity himself, but also that the fate of this bull will be cultic, a fate which will be achieved only at the end of the ritual. II.2.3. Sheep II.2.3.1.  Lamb: Oracle Query (tamītu) Prior to Extispicy Divination through the inspection of the liver and other internal parts of a sacrificial sheep (extispicy) is documented in numerous texts, including omens and oracle queries (tamītu). 43 Two duplicate texts from Nineveh indicate the recitation of the tamītu into the ears of the lamb before it is slaughtered for extispicy, and it is most likely that these indications hold true for all oracle queries through extispicy. 44 Following are the ritual instructions: 45 SILA4 KÙ qud-du-šá (B: -šú) šá mi-na-tu-šú šal-m[a TI-qé(?) t]a-mit ŠÀ-ka ina gišERIN ina GEŠTUII 150-š[ú K]A.KA-ub

[u]du

[You take(?)] a pure consecrated lamb, whose limbs are intact. [You] recite the oracle inquiry (tamītu) of your choice (lit., your heart) with cedar 46 into i[ts] left ear.

In extispicy, the sacrificial lamb or ram is regarded as carrying the message of the god, which is to be read and interpreted by the diviner. The turning point from an ordinary living animal to a carrier of the divine message in cult (and hence, a somewhat divine being) occurs at dawn, just before its slaughter, when the divination gods Šamaš and Adad place the divine message in the body of the animal (while still alive). 47 Now that the lamb is carrying the message, the diviner proceeds to slaughter it, just after sunrise, and then reads and interprets 43.  See now conveniently S. M. Maul, “Omina und Orakel, A: Mesopotamien,” RlA 10/1–2.69–82. 44. See ibid., 77; J. C. Fincke, “Ist die mesopotamische Opferschau ein nächtliches Ri­ tual?” BO 66 (2009): 554 with n. 171. 45.  BBR 98–99.7–9; A = K. 8168.8′–10′ (BBR 98; collated from digital photograph), B = Sm. 771 rev. 5ʹ–6′ (BBR 99). 46. With CAD E 277a, the cedar is the cedar used earlier by the bārû and not a tube of cedar; see S. M. Maul, Die Wahrsagekunst im Alten Orient: Zeichen des Himmels und der Erde (Munich: Beck, 2013), 46 and 333 n. 98. For the use and significance of cedar in the act of extispicy and the rituals accompanying it, see pp. 44–46. 47. Cf. Fincke, “Ist die mesopotamische Opferschau ein nächtliches Ritual?” 544–45. An extispicy commentary explicitly states that the placing of the ominous sign in the sheep occurs while it is still alive; see U. Koch-Westenholz, Babylonian Liver Omens: The Chapters Manzāzu, Padānu and Pān tākalti of the Babylonian Extispicy Series Mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library, Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies 25 (Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen Press, 2000), 136, no. 19.26: UZU.KIN ina ŠÀ UDU.NÍTA TI.LA ki-i GAR-tu-ni, “when the ominous sign is placed in the living ram.” The last signs stand for šaknatūni, a feminine stative form referring to the feminine noun têrtu (UZU.KIN), with an Assyrian subjunctive marker; contra the understanding by Koch-Westenholz, ibid., 136– 37; and E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries: Origins of Interpretation, Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 174 n. 816.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

197

the divine message by inspecting the lamb’s liver and other internal organs. 48 The whispering takes place just before the transition of the lamb from a natural being into a divine message, and the content of the whispered words—that is, the oracle question (tamītu)—indeed requests that the divination gods Šamaš and Adad activate this transition and place the divine message with the positive or favorable answer to the oracle inquiry in the inner organs of the lamb: 49 SILA4 an-[n]a-a 15 DÙ-uš 15 ⸢a-kar-rab⸣ ina 15 kit-tu4 lib-ši This lamb I treat with the right hand, with the right hand I bless, let there be truth in its right.

The same idea is found in a different formulation: 50 ka-am SILA4 N[E-a] TA S[I] SAG a-na KUN 15 DÙ-u[š] 15 a-k[a]r-rab 15 UZU.MEŠ lu-ú šal-m[u] I thus treat this lamb with the right hand, from the horns to the tail I bless with the right hand, that the omens on the right may be favorable.

A Late Babylonian tamītu tablet contains the beginning of a different formula regarding the extispicy of a ram: 51 i(-)na ŠÀ-bi UDU.NÍTA NE-i Within this ram . . .

This can be restored based on the concluding formula of Neo-Assyrian queries to Šamaš: 52 i-na ŠÀ-bi UDU.NÍTA [an-ni]-i GUB-za-am-ma an-na GI.NA GIŠ.ḪUR.MEŠ SILIM.MEŠ UZU.MEŠ ta-mit SIG5.MEŠ SILIM.MEŠ šá SILIM-tì šá KA DINGIR-ti-ka GAL-ti šuk-nam-ma lu-mur UGU DINGIR-ti-ka GAL-ti dUTU EN GAL-ú lil-lik-m[a ḪU]R.BAD li-tap-pal Be present within [thi]s ram, place (in it) an affirmative positive answer, favorable designs, propitious and favorable omens of the oracular query (tamīt) of favorable nature by the command of your great divinity, so that I may see (them)! May (this query) go to your great divinity, O Šamaš, great lord, and may an [or]acle be given as an answer.

The tamītu ends with a request for Šamaš (and Adad) to place the oracular answer in the flesh of the sheep. Thus, the liver of the lamb or ram was considered 48. Cf. Fincke, “Ist die mesopotamische Opferschau ein nächtliches Ritual?” 545. 49.  Lambert, Babylonian Oracle Questions, 28–29, no. 1.93–94. 50.  Ibid., 30–31, no. 1.157–59. 51.  Ibid., 124–25, no. 23.10, 21, 32. 52.  E.g., I. Starr, Queries to the Sungod: Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria, SAA 4 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki, 1990), 26, no. 20.10–13 (cf. p. xxviii).

198

Uri Gabbay

to be a written message from the gods, sometimes even referred to as a tablet. 53 But at the same time, the divination gods are expected to be present themselves in the extispicy procedure. Cosmologically, this is achieved in the last stages of the extispicy, which occur at sunrise, 54 when Šamaš appears as the sun itself. 55 He may rise with the help of Adad, who was manifest in ancient thought as the blowing wind that is in charge of the sun’s movement. 56 But the tamītu also requests the actual presence of the divination god(s) in the lamb or ram, because the message itself was also considered to be the divine manifestation of Šamaš (and Adad) in the sacrificial animal. 57 The same perception is found in an Old Babylonian ritual text for the diviner: 58 i-na ši-ik-na-at i-li ra-bu-tim ina tu-up-pi ša i-li ta-ka-al-tum li-ši-ib In the manifestations of the great gods, in the tablet of the gods, let a “pouch” (takaltum) 59 be present. 53. Cf. CAD T 62a; Maul, “Omina und Orakel,” 76–77; P. Steinkeller, “Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy,” in Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William M. Moran, ed. A. Gianto, BibOr 48 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2005), 30 with n. 43. 54.  Ibid., 11–47 (especially pp. 12–13 with n. 1); Fincke, “Ist die mesopotamische Opferschau ein nächtliches Ritual?” 545. 55.  The divine manifestation through extispicy is connected to the cosmological manifestation of the sun (at sunrise) already in an inscription of Gudea (Cylinder A xi 16–19): máš bar6-bar6-ra šu mu-gíd-dè / máš-a šu ì-gíd máš-a-ni ì-sa6 / gù-dé-a šà dnin-ĝír-su-ka / u4-dam mu-na-è, “He (= Gudea) inspects the (liver of a) white goat. The (liver of the) goat was inspected, and his (omen within the) goat was favorable. The intention (lit., heart) of Ninĝirsu appeared for Gudea as Day”; see D. O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, RIME 3/1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 76. 56.  Steinkeller, “Of Stars and Men,” 43–45. 57.  See A. Winitzer, “The Divine Presence and Its Interpretation in Early Mesopotamian Divination,” in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, ed. A. Annus; Oriental Institute Seminar 6; Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010), 177–97 (especially pp. 180–82). 58.  YOS 11 23:16; I. Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 12; Malibu, CA: Undena, 1983), 30, 37.16. 59.  For discussions on takaltu, see W. G. Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” JCS 21 (1967): 133; Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner, 53–56; Steinkeller, “Of Stars and Men,” 14 n. 14, and 30 n. 43; Winitzer, “The Divine Presence,” 180–81 n. 14. In my opinion, the use of this word in lexical texts in the construction takalti qan-tuppi, “bag for the stylus” (cf. references in CAD Q 79b), although disregarded in our context (cf. Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner, 54), could perhaps be of relevance (cf. CAD T 62a). It is possible that the “pouch,” takaltu, in YOS 11 23.16 should be understood as the bag for the stylus of the gods, who are asked to manifest themselves in the lamb and write their oracular decision on the liver, their tablet. While the liver is the tablet on which the gods write, the “pouch” is part of the stomach or other organs adjacent to it that impress the markings on the liver and are therefore associated with the stylus. Thus, the three elements of the act of writing, namely, the scribe, the stylus and the tablet are found in this line in relation to the gods.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

199

The lamb is not only transformed into a divine message but is transformed into a manifestation of the divination-gods Šamaš and Adad themselves. Therefore, the ritual text indicates that the lamb must be pure and intact, as in the lilissu ritual for the bull (see §II.2.2). By coming from the natural realm, the lamb already has the potential mythological divine presence, which can be transformed into the cultic divine realm. II.2.3.2.  Ram: Prayer (ikribu) Prior to Extispicy The ritual process that ended with extispicy included several prayers (ikribu). One of these prayers, which was most likely addressed to Šamaš, was followed by a rubric indicating that it was to be recited into the ears of the ram (which would later be slaughtered for extispicy). The prayer is preserved in two unpublished tablets: 60 [  ] x-ni(m) 61 mi-gir da-nim [  ]x-mi (B: -me) mu-šak-lil ḪUR.BAD.ME[Š] [  d]i?-ni ana UN.MEŠ a-pa-a-ti [  šarru(?) i-te]-reš-ka di-nu (B: -ni) x x (x) DUMU NUN i-te-reš-ka ur-tu [ik?-t]e?-mi-is (A: -[m]is)-ka MAŠ.EN.GAG ana di-ni kit-tú (B: de-e[n kit-t]i)  da-⸢a⸣-nu [a-la]k?-ta-šu(2) li-mad-ma di-in-šú di-(i-)n[i] u4-um (B: -mu) i-ziz-za-am-ma ši-tem-mi (B: -me) zi[k]-ru?-ú?-⸢a?⸣ ik-rib un-nin(-ni) šá GEŠTUII UDU.NÍTA 62

This is also related to the transmission of the divinatory knowledge from father to son by taking an oath over a tablet and stylus (see Lambert, “Enmeduranki and Related Matters,” 132.20–21; idem, “The Qualifications of Babylonian Diviners,” in Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994: tikip santakki mala bašmu, ed. S. M. Maul, CM 10 [Groningen: Styx, 1998], 149.20–21; cf. also BBR 1–20.14, and note Šurpu II 112; cf. Borger, “Šurpu II, III, IV und VIII in ‘Partitur’,” 27). This refers to the textualization of the divinatory knowledge, associating the divine writing tools with the scholarly tools. Note also the unpublished tablet BM 38681.5–11, a bārûtu commentary text, equating the various cultic repertoires with the styli of the cultic personnel associated with these rituals (I thank Sam Mirelman for referring me to this tablet, sending me digital photographs of it, and discussing it with me). 60.  A = Sm. 998.2ʹ–10′ (Geers Heft D 51; collated from photograph); B = K. 4733+ K.  6070+ K.  19864: 12–21 (Babylonian; Geers Heft B 27: K.  6070; Geers Heft D 49: K.  4733; collated from photograph). The text is cited in CAD I/J 63a (but incorrectly restored; see n. 62 below). I am most grateful to Sam Mirelman for alerting me to this text and for sending me digital photographs of Sm. 998. 61.  Restore perhaps (text B): [dUTU EN d]i-ni. 62.  UDU.NÍTA is preserved in text B, while text A preserves only the sign UDU, which was read as lu by CAD I/J 63a, and incorrectly restored as lu[ḫḫuši].

200

Uri Gabbay

[  ] favorite of Anu, 63 [  ] who perfects the omens, [  judg]ment(?) to the numerous people. [(. . .) the king(?) re]quested a judgment from you, . . . , the son of the nobleman requested an order from you, A commoner [kn]elt before you to judge a true judgment. Learn his [wa]ys, 64 judge his judgment, Oh Day, be present by me! 65 Listen carefully to my words! A prayer of supplication of the ears of a ram.

The prayer recited into the ears of the ram is addressed to Šamaš. It does not explicitly refer to the transition that the ram will soon undergo, but as in the case of the tamītu recited into the ears of the lamb discussed above (§II.2.3.1), here too the prayer asks Šamaš to be present. The fact that this request is whispered into the ears of the ram implies that the ram will soon be regarded as a vehicle for the divine presence of Šamaš. The presence of Šamaš in this text, as in the case of the lamb discussed above, is also cosmological, in the guise of the rising sun. The last line of the prayer begins with a direct address to Šamaš to appear as the coming daylight at sunrise: “Oh Day (or: at day), be present by me!” The whisper into the ear of the ram connects this cosmological manifestation of Šamaš with the more concrete cultic manifestation within the body of the ram that will be revealed with the extispicy at sunrise. II.2.3.3.  Ewe: Ritual for a Woman Having Difficulties in Pregnancy A tablet from Late Babylonian Uruk contains a collection of rituals and incantations for a woman having difficulties with her pregnancy and delivery. 66 Two of the rituals in the tablet involve a magical substitution of the difficult pregnancy and delivery of the woman with the easy ones of a ewe or a donkey. As explained by M. Stol: “The ewe and the donkey who easily become pregnant and give birth so smoothly, are by magical means forced to exchange their pregnancy (mērû) for her difficult delivery (lā mušēšerūtu).” 67 The ritual with 63.  This epithet occurs once with Šamaš; see C. D. Gray, The Šamaš Religious Texts Classified in the British Museum Catalogue as Hymns, Prayers, and Incantations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1901), pl. 10, K. 12000.4. 64.  Or: “Grant him an (oracular) [decisi]on”; see I. T. Abusch, “Alaktu and Halakhah: Oracular Decision, Divine Revelation,” HTR 80 (1987): 15–42. 65.  Text B perhaps: “Be present by me at day!” 66. E. von Weiher, Uruk: Spätbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat U 18, 5 vols. (Mainz: von Zabern, 1993–98), 5.58–65, no. 248. For a short description of the tablet, see M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting, CM 14 (Groningen: Styx, 2000), 133; D. Schwemer, Abwehrzauber und Behexung: Studien zum Schadenzauberglauben im Alten Mesopotamien (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2007), 37. 67.  Stol, Birth in Babylonia, 133.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

201

the ewe involves two phases, the second of which contains a whisper into the ear of the ewe: 68 ana SAL NU SI.SÁ SI.SÁ DÙ.DÙ.BI ana IGI dgu-la NÍG.NA ŠIM.LI GAR-an mi-iḫ-ḫa BAL-qí-ma kam DU11.G[A] nin-kar-ra-ak-a GAŠAN [šu]r-bu-tu AMA reme-ni-⸢ta!⸣ 69 im-mer-tú šá dGÌR u ⸢d⸣dumu-zi mé-ra-a-a lim-ḫu-ra-an-ni-ma mé-ra-šú lid-di-na la mu-še-ši-ru-ti lim-ḫu-ra-an-ni-ma mu-še-ši-ru-sa lid-di-na d

3-šú DU11.GA-ma ina š[e-r]im ana IGI dUTU ina UGU SIG4.ḪI.A ab-ra MÚ-aḫ giš ŠIM.LI DUB-aq [G]ANAM PEŠ4 mu-šal-lim-ti ana IGI MAN DU10.GAM-si-ma 2 [ ]X.MEŠ 70 i-na-aš-šú ù MUNUS.PEŠ4 ana   ŠÀ PIII GANAM PEŠ4 kam DU11.GA im-mer-tú šá dGÌR [u] ⸢d⸣dumu-zi mé-ra-a-a tab-li-ma mé-ra!-a!-ki 71 bi-la la mu-še-ši-ru-t[i t]ab-li-ma mu-še-ši-ru-ut-ka bi-la ana ŠÀ PIII ki-lal-⸢le⸣-e 3.TA.ÀM ŠID-nu ki-ma ŠID-ú ina šap-la-an GANAM   uṣ-ṣi u! ina! 7-i È-šá ana [1]5 IGI.MEŠ-šú NIGIN-ma ÚḪ-su ana KA GANAM  ŠUB-ma ana EDIN È-ma TAG4-šú In order to make a “not-delivering” woman (i.e., a woman having difficulties in pregnancy and giving birth) deliver—its ritual: You set a censer with juniper in front of Gula, you libate miḫḫu-beer, and she(?) says thus: “Ninkarak, great lady, merciful mother, May the ewe of Šakkan and Dumuzi accept from me my pregnancy and May she give me her pregnancy! May she accept from me my “non-delivery”   (i.e., difficult delivery) and May she give me her (easy) delivery!”

68.  Von Weiher, Uruk: Spätbabylonische Texte, vol. 5, no. 248 rev. 12ʹ–24′. 69.  Von Weiher (ibid., 5.59, 62, 166) copies and reads the last sign as -ka, but this must be a mistake since second person does not make any sense here, and since a feminine form is expected. 70.  Perhaps restore and emend the copy here: 2 S[ÌLA!? Š]E!?.NUMUN!?; see line 5 of the text (and also compare lines rev. 37ʹ–38′). 71.  Von Weiher (Uruk: Spätbabylonische Texte, 5.60) reads: mi-ḫir-ki. My emendation is based on the context and the similar phrases in the previous incantation above, although one cannot entirely exclude the original reading here.

202

Uri Gabbay

Three times she(?) says (this) and in the morning you(?) kindle a pile of brushwood on bricks 72 in front of Šamaš; you(?) sprinkle juniper; you(?) have a pregnant ewe, ready to give birth, kneel in front of Šamaš(?); he/she raises(?) two [. . .], and the pregnant woman says thus into the ears of the pregnant ewe: 73 “Ewe of Šakkan and Dumuzi, take away my pregnancy and bring me your   pregnancy! Take away my “non-delivery” (i.e., difficult delivery) and bring me your (easy)  delivery!” She recites (this) three times into both ears. As she recites, she comes out under the ewe, and in her seventh coming out, she faces [righ]t 74 and she casts her spittle into the mouth of the ewe and they go out to the steppe and he/she leaves it (= the ewe).

In the ritual, two incantations, similar in nature and containing many identical phrases, are recited, but while the first incantation is directed to the heal72.  For bricks in the context of birth, see Stol, Birth in Babylonia, 117–22. 73.  Kneel in front of Šamaš(?): Von Weiher (Uruk: Spätbabylonische Texte, 5.59) reads the signs of the first half of the line differently (ana IGI nis-ḫi lis-si-ma) and translates on p. 62: “‘Trächtiges, gesund gebärendes Schaf’ soll sie vor dem auserwählten rufen’.” But nisḫu is not expected here, and lissīma does not fit in the context either lexically (qabû is used in such a context) or grammatically (a present-future form, not a precative is expected); compare line 9 of the text. DU10.GAM is the usual writing for kamāsu (cf. CAD K 117–20). The addition of -si indicates an Š-stem with an accusative suffix. The syntax seems to indicate that it is the ewe that is made to kneel, and so I translated it this way, but the verb kamāsu is rarely attested with animals (for some exceptions, see CAD K 118), and in addition, the pregnant woman is expected to kneel, since she will soon be passing under the ewe. If the pregnant woman is made to kneel here, then there is a verb missing with regard to the pregnant ewe in the previous line (unless it was TI, standing for leqû, omitted through haplography with -ti ending mu-šal-lim-ti). Regarding the beginning of the line: ana IGI MAN for ana pān Šamaš fits the context well (see references in CAD K 118–19), but the use of MAN here for Šamaš is unexpected (otherwise, the text uses the regular dUTU). Another possibility is to emend the text to ana IGI SAL!, “in front of the (pregnant) woman,” if the sheep is made to kneel, or ana IGI-šú!, “(a pregnant ewe, ready to give birth)—you make her (i.e., the pregnant woman) kneel in front of it (i.e., in front of the ewe).” He/she raises(?) two [. . .]: For a possible restoration, see n. 70 above. 74.  The first part of the line was not understood by von Weiher, Uruk: Spätbabylonische Texte, 5.60, 62. My understanding of the signs fits the copy well. The incantation is recited three times in each ear. According to the following sentence, the woman passes beneath the ewe seven times, implying that each of the first six passings is accompanied by a whispering at the side she has passed. Since the recitation always ends in the left ear (i.e., in this instance, it had to begin in the right ear as in the other instances that involve whispering into both ears, see §§II.1.1, II.1.2, II.2.2, II.2.4.2, II.3.1; when the recitation is whispered in only one ear, it is done in the left ear and thus obviously ends in the left ear, as in the rest of the cases; see §§II.2.1 and II.2.3.1), the sixth recitation in this ritual ends in the left, and therefore in the seventh passing the woman faces right; see also the pregnant woman’s passing under (ḫalāpu) the she-ass three times later in the text (lines rev. 35ʹ–37′).

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

203

ing-goddess Ninkarak 75 and addresses the ewe in the third person, the second incantation, whispered into the ears of the ewe, is directed to the ewe in the second person. Similar to other exorcistic actions involving whispering into the ears of a goat that is being used as a scapegoat (see §II.2.4 below), the sheep here acts as a “scape-sheep,” a substitute for the problem of the patient—the difficult delivery of the pregnant woman. In the ritual, the ewe is transformed from a regular lively, pregnant ewe into a vehicle that carries the difficult pregnancy to the steppe, which is associated with death and the netherworld. As in other rituals, the whispering emphasizes the divine association of the ewe (“ewe of Šakkan and Dumuzi”), an association that is often connected to the netherworld. 76 The whispering appears here, as in other rituals, in the second stage of the ritual, as the next-to-last cultic action, just before the final substitution act involving spittle. 77 II.2.4. Goats II.2.4.1.  Goat: Scapegoat in the bīt mēseri Ritual The prophylactic ritual bīt mēseri contained various cultic actions involving figurines and standards, after which the ritual involving a goat took place. The goat was tied next to the head of the bed-bound patient and was probably slaughtered later. 78 This occurred just before the final stage of the ritual, when the house was conjured, and incantations were recited to the lamp-god Nuska. During the time that the goat was tied up to the patient and before the goat was slaughtered, an incantation was whispered into its ear. This is indicated in the Ritual Tablet of the series: 79 [ MÁŠ] ina SAG LÚ.GIG KEŠDA [   ana ŠÀ] GEŠTUII-šú tu-làḫ-ḫaš [  ] You tie [a goat] at the head of the patient; you whisper [   ] into its ears.

75. See J. Goodnick Westenholz, “Ninkarrak: An Akkadian Goddess in Sumerian Guise,” in Von Göttern und Menschen: Beiträge zu Literatur und Geschichte des Alten Orients—Festschrift für Brigitte Groneberg, ed. D. Shehata, F. Weiershäuser, and K. V. Zand, CM 41 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 377–405. 76.  For the association of Šakkan (Sumuqan) with fertility, representing the male animal herds, and also with the netherworld, connected to his life in the steppe, see F. A. M. Wiggermann, “Sumuqan,” RlA 13/3–4.308–9. 77.  For spittle in substitution rituals, see S. M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrisch Löserituale (Namburbi), Baghdader Forschungen 18 (Mainz: von Zabern, 1994), 77–78 78.  The instruction to slaughter the goat is not preserved in the Ritual Tablet, but it is implied in the context as well as in the content of the incantation whispered in its ears; see below. 79.  Bīt mēseri I (Ritual Tablet); see K. 6390+ v 1–2 (AMT 34 2 ii 1–2); see R. Borger, “Die Beschwörungsserie bīt mēseri und die Himmelfahrt Henochs,” JNES 33 (1974): 188; and F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts, CM 1 (Groningen: Styx, 1992), 111.

204

Uri Gabbay

The same instruction is found in the Incantation Tablet, including the content of this whisper: 80 GIM an-nam ŠID-ú ana ŠÀ GEŠTU MÁŠ šá ina SAG LÚ.GIG KEŠDA-su ki-a-am tu-làḫ-ḫaš ÉN tum(3)-mu É EGIR-šú ŠID-nu [én árhu]š? ĝar-ra [ka ba-ab-d]u8 : šá pi-it pi-i-šú ana dum-qí GAR-nu 81 [an-é-ta nam-šub ba-an-ĝ]ar : ina bi-ti šá šip-tu in-na-du-ú [tu6-du11-ga nam-šub ba-an]-ak : ina MIN šá šip-ti uš-ši-⸢pu?⸣ [en zag-meš šu zíl-zíl]-⸢bi?⸣ ⸢e?⸣ ĝar-NE : be-lu4 meš-re-ti-šú ana ⸢du!?⸣-u[m!?  mu?-qu?] [en zu-dè l]ú-tu-ra-šè : be-lu4 ana la-mad [mar-ṣi] [gaba-ri ĝiš-nú-d]a-a-ni máš saĝ lú-tu-ra [kéš-da-a-ni]  [ana mi-iḫ-ri-it e]r-ši-šú ú-ri-ṣú ina re-eš ma[r-ṣi ir-ku-us] [gi-urì-gal saĝ-ĝ]á-šè mu-un-da-gub-gub-bu :!? MIN!? [ina re-ši-šú ú-zaq-qip] [ì áb kù-ga ga áb]-šilam-ma šu u-me-ti : ša[m-ni ár-ḫu el-le-tú ši-zib la-a-tú   le-qé-e-ma] m[áš ĝi6 udu-á-dar]à múš [igi gùn-gùn-nu-bi]  ⸢ú⸣-[ri-ṣa ṣal-ma im-m]er ad-r[e-e šá zi-mu-šú ti-it-a-ru] zi-bi d[u11-ga] b[í?-in-dé máš kù du10-ga ugu-na ba-da-nú] 82  [na-piš-ti il-pu-ut iq-qí-ma ú-ri-ṣa el-lu ṭa-biš e-li-šú šu-né-el-ma] umuš dnin-ḫur-s[aĝ-ĝá-ke4 máš ĝi6-ra tu11-du11-ga pa-è bí-in-ak]   ina ṭe-em dbe-⸢let-ì⸣-[lí ú-ri-ṣa ṣal-mu ina šip-ti ú-šá-pi-ma] ka kù maḫ-di nam-[šub eriduki-ga-ke4 den-ki lugal abzu-ke4]   ina pi-i el-li [ti-iz-qa-ri ši-pat eri-du10 šá dé-a MAN ap-si-i] lú-u18-lu dum[u diĝir-ra-na] 80.  Texts and sigla according to Borger, “Die Beschwörungsserie bīt mēseri,” 190–91; and Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits, 111: text n = 81–2–4, 282.7ʹ–9′ (4R2, additions and corrections, 5, ad 21, 1B); text u! (Wiggermann erroneously has “text i”) = K. 8008 (AMT 6/2).1–13 (+) K. 2560+ K. 5293 (unpublished; collated from photograph). The incantation is restored from its occurrence in the series Udug-ḫul; see M. J. Geller, Evil Demons: Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations, SAACT 5 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki, 2007), 164–65, 241–42, Tablet 12.154–70. 81.  The incipit of the incantation was read as én zil-zil(NUN-NUN) ĝar-ra by Wiggermann (Mesopotamian Protective Spirits, 111), but Geller (Evil Demons, 164) reads it as én árhuš(NUN.LAGAB×SAL) ĝar-ra. The line is partially preserved in BIN 2 22.186, K. 5338.10′ (BA 10/1 37), and K. 4871 (CT 16 36) + K. 4625 (AAA 22, pl. 14) rev. iv 44 ( joined by M. Geller; I thank M. Geller for sending me his transliteration score for this line). Geller (Evil Demons, 164) reads the Akkadian equivalent of this word as íp-qí (Geller has ip-qí, but as he confirmed in personal communication, this is a typographical error for íp-qi, which appears in the tablet), which is usually read dum-qí. I prefer to read the word dumqi, since ipqu appears only in personal names from the third and second millennia b.c.e. In any case, the meaning (of both the Sumerian and the Akkadian) would be similar. 82. I assume that the two lines, which appear separately in the series Udug-ḫul (cf. Geller, Evil Demons, 165.163–64), were treated here as one. Another possibility is that our text contained only the first part of the line (i.e., line 163 of Udug-ḫul) and that the order of the two lines (163 and 164 in Udug-ḫul) was reversed in this text (i.e., that line 164 of Udug-ḫul preceded line 163 in our text), in which case restore the previous line accordingly.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

205

 [a-me-lu mar i-li-šú] an-gin7 ḫé-[en-kù-ga ki-gin7 ḫé-en-sikil-la]  [ki-ma ša-me-e li-lil ki-ma er-ṣe-ti li-bi-ib] šà an-gin7 [ḫé-en-daddag-ga eme ḫul-ĝál bar-šè ḫé-em-ta-gub]  [ki-ma qé-reb ša-me-e lim-mir li-šá-an le-mut-ti ina a-ḫa-a-ti li-iz-ziz] Once you have recited this (= the previous incantation), you whisper this (= the following incantation) into the ear of the goat which is tied at the head of the patient. Afterwards, you recite the incantation “The house is conjured.” 83 [Incantation]: He whose mouth-opening was set for favor! 84 In the [(top of the)] house where the incantation was recited, Through the incantation formula that activated the spells, So that the lord improve (the state of) his (= the patient’s) limbs, So that the lord learn about the sick man, [He (= the incantation priest) tied (Sumerian: Tying)] a goat to the patient’s head    [at the front of ] his bed, He set up [a standard at the (patient’s) head]. [After he? has taken (Akkadian: Take) the [cream of a pure cow] and cow’s   [milk]. [A black] go[at and a] hor[ned sheep whose] appearance [is colored], [He touched] its throat, [and sacrificed it. He laid out (Akkadian: Lay out [im    perative]) the pure goat properly above him]. 85 According to the command of Ninḫursaĝ/Bēlet-ilī, [he made manifest the black    goat through the incantation formula], According to the pure and famous mouth, the incan[tation of Eridu of Enki/Ea,    lord of the Apsu]. As for the man, so[n of his god], May [he become holy] as heaven, [clean like earth]! [May he become pure] as the midst of heaven! [May the evil tongue stand aside]!

The goat in the ritual and incantation functions as a scapegoat, carrying away the evil that afflicted the patient. 86 After receiving the protection of the confined patient with the help of prophylactic figurines and standards, the evil that 83. Cf. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits, 111–12. 84.  The translation of this line is uncertain. It is based on the Akkadian version, while the Sumerian has: “He whose favor was set (or: who is set with favor) opened the mouth.” Geller (Evil Demons, 241) translates: “That which comes out from his mouth is intended for protection.” The line may imply a mouth-opening ritual, but if so, it is not certain on whom this act was performed, because it could refer to any of the three participants in the text: the goat, the incantation-priest, or the patient (for mouth-opening and mouth-washing rituals on animals, priests and patients, see Dick “Pīt pī und Mīs pī,” 580–85). 85.  See n. 78 above. 86.  For the scapegoat in Mesopotamian religion, see Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 98; and A.  Cavigneaux, “MÁŠ-ḪUL-DÚB-BA,” in Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens: Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, ed. U. Finkbeiner, R. Dittmann, and H. Hauptmann; Mainz: von Zabern, 1995), 53–67; compare the other scapegoat incantations in Udug-ḫul 12.1–153 (Geller, Evil Demons, 157–64, 236–41).

206

Uri Gabbay

caused his sickness can now be entirely removed, or transferred from patient to goat. The incantation whispered into the ear of the goat describes in a literary way what is cultically performed, notifying the goat about its cultic role, thereby turning it into a scapegoat. After this is achieved, the house in which the patient was confined can be purified and conjured, following the concluding incantations to Nuska at the end of the ritual. II.2.4.2.  He-Goat: Fumigation Ritual for a Sick Person The qutāru series deals with ritual fumigations for medical and exorcistic purposes. A tablet from Seleucid Uruk, paralleled by a fragment from Nineveh, deals with a fumigation involving the slaughtering of a goat for the treatment of epilepsy. Before the goat is slaughtered and used in the fumigation prescription, an incantation is recited in its ear: 87 [DIŠ AN.T]A.ŠUB.BA dlugal-ùr-ra ŠU DINGIR.RA ŠU dINNIN.NA [ana] LÚ GÁL-ši ana ZI-ḫi 88 DÙ.DÙ.BI MÁŠ.ZU TI-qé [ina GE]ŠTUII-šú šá 15 u 150 ÉN lem-nu MIN ŠID-nu 89 KUD-is . . . [If ] stroke, epilepsy (Lugalura), Hand-of-the-God disease, or Hand-of-the-Goddess disease befall a man, in order to remove it, its ritual: you take a he-goat; You recite [in] its right and left ear the incantation: “Evil ditto (= Evil, evil).” 90 You slaughter it. 87.  TCL 6 34 i 1–3 (M. J. Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice [Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010], 173–75; M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia, CM 2; Groningen: Styx, 1993], 107; variants from AMT 35 3 in the following notes). 88.  AMT 35 3.1′: [. . . ŠU?.GIDIM?.M]A? ŠU.dINNIN la-az-zi ZI-ḫi (cf. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia, 106 n. 65). 89.  AMT 35 3.2′: [    ] GEŠTUII-šú ZAG u GÙB ÉN 3-šú ŠID. 90.  Stol (Epilepsy in Babylonia, 107 with n. 74) understands this differently: “[Y]ou recite into its right and left ear the incantation: ‘Evil ⟨Utukku-ghost⟩’, two times,” with reference to the incipit in F. Köcher, “Die Ritualtafeln der magisch-medizinischen Tafelserie ‘Einreibung’,” AfO 21 (1966): 17.35 (cf. B. Böck, “‘When You Perform the Ritual of Rubbing’: On Medicine and Magic in Ancient Mesopotamia,” JNES 62 [2003]: 6.34): udug ḫulĝál gidim idim kur-ra (for this incantation, see now Geller, Evil Demons, 127–28), performed with the fumigation of a he-goat as part of a rubbing (muššuʾu) ritual (for the nature of this ritual, see Böck, “When You Perform the Ritual of Rubbing,” 1–16; idem, Das Handbuch Muššuʾu “Einreibung”: Eine Serie sumerischer und akkadischer Beschwörungen aus dem 1. Jt. Vor Chr., Bibiloteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 3 [Madrid: CSIC, 2007], 71–78). But this is not likely. Note also that, in the other occurrences, the incantations are usually whispered once or three times, not twice into the ears (so also in the Nineveh version of this ritual; see n. 89 above). Geller’s interpretation of the sign MIN as a ditto sign seems prefer­able in my opinion (Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine, 175; so also I. L. Finkel, “Muššuʾu, Qutāru, and the Scribe Tanittu-Bēl,” AuOr 9 [1991]: 103), and the incipit probably refers to an incantation that is known to have been recited during fumigation before the incantation referred to by Stol; see Finkel, “Muššuʾu, Qutāru, and the Scribe Tanittu-Bēl,” 101 (ad c: ÉN lem-nu lem-nu, followed by d: [ÉN udug ḫul-ĝál] ⸢gidim⸣ idim kur-ra), 103.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

207

The incantation “Evil, evil” recited in the ear of the goat can probably be identified as the Akkadian translation of the incipit of the last incantation of Tablet 16 of the series Udug-ḫul. 91 If so, the following would have been the incantation whispered into the ears of the goat in this ritual (perhaps only in Akkadian and not in bilingual form): 92 én lú ḫul lú ḫul lú-bi lú ḫul   lem-nu le-mun a-me-lu šu-ú le-mun lú-bi nam-lú-u18-lu lú ḫul lú-bi lú ḫul   a-me-lu šu-ú ina ni-ši le-mun MIN MIN [šà]-tur nam-lú-u18-lú muš gú-gilim du11-ga   ina šá-sur ni-ši MUŠ ú-kán-ni-nu lú-bi nam-lú-u18-lu gu sùḫ sa-a lá-e   a-me-lu šu-ú ina ni-ši qa-a e-šá-a ana še-e-ti tar-ṣu ní-bi-a gú-dù-a gù-dé-a-ni-ta uš11 lú-ra sù-sù   pu-luḫ-ta-šú za-ʾ-i-rat ri-gim-šú im-tú LÚ i-sal-laḫ ki gig-ga-bi ḫul-a ì-du7-du7 šà-bi guru5-uš mu-un-bú[r-búr]   a-šar ma-ru-uš-ti-šú lem-niš i-sa-ar ŠÀ-ba-šú i-kàṣ-ṣa-aṣ d alad igi ḫul diĝir ḫul [ ]   še-e-du šá p[a]-ni lem-na i-[lu lem-nu ] tùr-ra bí-íb-dib t[ùr ]   tar-ba-ṣa i-b[a-ʾ tar-ba-ṣa ] amaš-a bí-íb-dib a[maš ]  [su-pu-ra i-ba-ʾ su-pu-ra ] á-bi lú nu-na-[me ]   x x (x) ma-an-[ma ul ] šà-bi-a dutu ba-ra-[an-du11-ga]  ana ŠÀ-bi-šú dUTU ul i-qab-bi d utu ne-e-ta šu-[ni ḫé-b]u-ra-àm  d UTU ina an-ni-ti qat-su li-is-suḫ lugal-ĝu10 den-ki-ke4 sa6-ga zíl-zíl-le-bi za-a-kám  [be-li dé-a bu-un-nu-ú du-um-mu-qa ku-um-mu] ka-inim-ma diĝir ḫul ku5-ru-da-kám Incantation: The evil one is evil, that man is evil, The man among people is evil, that man is evil, A snake (who) coils up in the human womb. That man among people is a tangled thread stretched into a net, His fearsomeness is hated; his speech spatters man with poison. Wherever his distress revolves grievously, it gnaws at his innards, 91.  Cf. n. 90 above. 92.  CT 16, pl. 23.329–58; Geller, Evil Demons, 186–87.200ʹ–213′.

208

Uri Gabbay

The spirit with an evil face, an evil god [. . .], It passed through the fold, it [. . .] the fold, It passed through the pen, it [. . .] the pen. No one can [restrain] its might. Utu/Šamaš will not consider the matter, So let Utu/Šamaš remove his hand from this. It is for you, my lord Enki/Ea, to act graciously and benevolently. It is an incantation to turn away an evil god.

After it is slaughtered, parts of the goat along with other drugs are used for a fumigation treatment of the patient. The incantation whispered into the ears of the goat transforms the goat into the god who caused the sickness (indeed, the epilepsy is caused, according to the first line of the ritual, not by a demon but by a god: Lugalura, Hand-of-a-God, or Hand-of-a-Goddess), and this god is then used to treat the very condition he caused, through fumigation. II.3. Humans II.3.1.  Human Patient: Treatment of a Person with Roaring in His Ears Caused by a Ghost A magical-medical treatment formula for a person who is seized by a ghost and consequently suffers from roaring in the ears 93 mentions four incantations recited into the patient’s ears. Three of these incantations are in unintelligible, garbled language, including Elamite elements, with the following prescriptions: 94 No. 1: 95 [KA.INIM.MA GEŠTUII-šú i-šag-g]u-ma 3-šú [ana ŠÀ GEŠTU ZA]G-šú 3-šú  ana ŠÀ GEŠTU GÙB-šú SAR 96 [An incantation (for when) his ears roar]. You whisper(?) (it) three times [into] his [righ]t [ear] and three times into his left ear. 93. Cf. BAM 503 i 17′ (J. A. Scurlock, Magico-Medical Means of Treating GhostInduced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia [Ancient Magic and Divination 3; Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2006], 388, no. 136a.1); for the connection between ghosts and ear conditions in Babylonian perception, cf. also Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries, 74 with n. 355. 94.  The garbled incantations are not cited here. 95.  BAM 503 ii 18 (Scurlock, Magico-Medical Means, 381, no. 132). 96.  SAR is difficult to comprehend here, and singing the incantation, ŠÌR(“SAR”), is not expected in this context. It could either be an error due to influence by other passages in this text where fumigation (SAR = qutturu) is applied to the ears (e.g., BAM 503 i 32′, 37′ and parallels; cf. Scurlock, Magico-Medical Means, 394, no. 139a, and 399, no. 142) or due to the fact that the copy is not accurate, and the signs should be emended to tu!-laḫ!-[ḫaš] (not collated).

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

209

No. 2: 97 KA.INIM.MA GEŠTUII-šú i-šag-gu-ma ana ŠÀ GEŠTU ZAG-šú li-iḫ (B: liḫ,  E: lìḫ)-šú An incantation (for when) his ears roar; a whisper into his right ear. No. 3: 98 [KA.INIM.MA] GEŠTUII-šú i-šag-gu-ma ana ŠÀ GEŠTU GÙB-šú li-iḫ  (B: liḫ)-šú [An incantation] (for when) his ears roar; a whisper into his left ear.

A fourth incantation is in Sumerian and is also known (in bilingual form) from the exorcistic series Udug-ḫul: 99 én níĝ-è níĝ-è níĝ-nam-ma ús-[su13?] 100 ki-a dím-ma-bi a-ri-a an-na-k[e4] sig7-alan-bi níĝ an-gin7 šu nu-te-ĝ[á] ḫur-saĝ-gin7 gul-gul sig7-alan-bi zi-ir-zi-ir-e-d[a] [ní]ĝ udug ḫar-ra-an níĝ udug kaskal-àm [ní]ĝ ní-zu mu-un-ši-in-ĝen-na níĝ ní-zu mu-un-ši-in-ĝen-na 101 d nin-urta lugal ĝištukul-ke4 gaba-zu hé-en-⸢ĝá⸣-ĝ[á] ḫul-dúb zi an-na ḫé-p[à z]i ki-a ḫé-pà ka-inim-ma DIŠ NA GEŠTUI[I-šú i-šag-gu-ma] 3-šú a-na GEŠTU 15 (B: [Z]AG)-šú 3-šú ana ŠÀ GEŠTU GÙB-šú ŠID Watchful watcher who always pursues something, Fashioned in the netherworld, spawned in heaven, Nothing, like heaven, can come close to its form. So that its form be flattened like a destroyed mountain— Whatever demon of the path, whatever demon of the crossroad, 97.  A = BAM 503 ii 33′; B = BAM 506.34′; D = BAM 508 iv 31; E = CT 51 199.17 (Scurlock, Magico-Medical Means, 384, no. 134). 98.  A = BAM 503 ii 36′; B = BAM 506.37′; C = BAM 507.12′ (Scurlock, MagicoMedical Means, 386, no. 135). 99. A = BAM 508 iv 18ʹ–27′; B= BAM 503 ii 27ʹ–30′ (Scurlock, Magico-Medical Means, 382–83, no. 133). For the incantation, see Geller, Evil Demons, 124–25.142–50. 100.  Restore either BU (su13), as in the first millennium Udug-ḫul incantation, or -bi, as in the Old Babylonian version (M. J. Geller, Forerunners to Udug-Hul: Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations, FAOS 12 [Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1985], 40.377). For another similarity with the Old Babylonian version, see n. 101 below. 101.  In the first-millennium Udug-ḫul incantation, the second verb is mu-un-ši-in-gi4-gi4. The version here is more like the Old-Babylonian text; Geller, Forerunners to Udug-Hul, 42.38: níĝ n[í-zu] mu-un-ši-DU-en-na [níĝ ní-zu] mu-un-ši-DU-en-na.

210

Uri Gabbay

You who go out on your own to him (= to the patient), who go out on your own   to him, May Ninurta, king of the weapon, rebuff you! O Evil one, may you be adjured by heaven, may you be adjured by earth! Incantation for when a man’s ear[s roar]. You recite (it) three times in his right ear (and) three times into his left ear.

The incantation is addressed to the demon, here described as a “watcher” (an epithet associated with demons and ghosts), 102 who is commanded to leave the patient with the help of Ninurta. According to Scurlock, 103 the recitation of the incantation in the ears serves to trap the ghost inside the patient’s body, blocking the entrances (or exits) of the body, so that he may be subdued. However, in my opinion, the recitation in the ear should probably be attributed to the ear or hearing condition of the patient, since the treatment is for a person suffering from roaring in the ears. The recitation is therefore intended either for the patient, who cannot hear the incantation unless it is recited in his ears, or for the demon present in the person’s ears who causes the roaring. II.4.  Literary Allusions to Whispering to Gods II.4.1.  A Whisper to Marduk(?): Love Lyrics The so-called divine love lyrics are a series of recitations addressing the love of Marduk and Ištar of Babylon that were used in a ritual for a certain month. One of the passages in this collection describes whispering, probably by Ištar of Babylon, into the ears of Marduk. 104 e ba-ru-ú ina ŠÀ e-bé-eḫ ak-ka-a-a-i áš-kun-ka ṭe-e-mu ina šá-pa-ḫu-ti-ka ina ŠÀ GEŠTUII-ka ú-làḫ-ḫiš ana É.KUR.MEŠ šá KUR šá ta-ma-ku-ú mi-ki-ma ana šá-a-šú la ta-me-ka-a-šú ana É.KUR é-tùr-kalam-ma 102. So Geller (ibid., 108), who considers níĝ-è to be a demon from the netherworld police force; contra Scurlock (Magico-Medical Means, 120 n. 512), who regards the watcher as Ninurta. The Akkadian translation of this epithet, preserved in the first-millennium version of Udug-ḫul is [ḫa]-a-a-ṭu ḫa-a-a-i-ṭu (Geller, Evil Demons, 124.142), which is known from other incantations as well, where it appears with other sicknesses and demons (e.g., I.  L. Finkel, “Nos. 30–33: Documents of the Physician and Magician,” in Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium b.c., ed. I. Spar and W. G. Lambert, CTMMA 2 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2005], 158, no. 30.7). In some texts, it may indicate a fit or seizure, often caused by a ghost; see Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia, 42–46. 103.  Scurlock, Magico-Medical Means, 59. 104.  W. G. Lambert, “The Problem of the Love Lyrics,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 118–21, Group III, col. A 12– 18. A new source for this passage, with some significant variants, appeared too late to be incorporated into the transliteration and discussion below; see J. Fincke, “Another Fragment of the ‘Love Lyrics’ from Babylon (BM 47032),” NABU (2013): 76.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

211

É.KUR DINGIR-šú ma-gir-šú ana ŠÀ-bi-šú mit-gur KI.MIN šu-tu-ma EN KÁ.DINGIR.RAki dAMAR.UTU Oh, seer, on (mount) Ebeḫ, What were the instructions I gave you? In your . . . 105 I whispered into your ears: “Neglect whichever of the temples of the land you wish, But do not neglect this one, the temple Eturkalama!” The god of the temple is favorable to it, and its lord is also favorable to it. Ditto. He is Marduk, lord of Babylon.

The section portrays Marduk as a watcher on the mountain, 106 approached by the goddess (Ištar of Babylon), who reminds him of her whisper into his ear not to neglect her temple Eturkalama. The context of this passage (and the entire “love lyrics” passage in which it appears) is not entirely clear, but the whispering in this case should probably be seen as an intimate act between the divine lovers, used here by the goddess for the benefit of her temple and the people of her city. 107 II.4.2.  A Whisper to the Goddess of the Netherworld(?): The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince The Neo-Assyrian composition describing the gods and demons of the netherworld according to the vision of an Assyrian prince named Kummâ may mention his whisper, accompanied by a ritual, to the goddess of the netherworld before she reveals herself to him in a dream. However, there is no indication that this was whispered into her (or her statue’s) ear, and the reading of the passage itself is not clear: 108 [  N]ÍG.NA ŠIM.LI iš-kun-ma? li-iḫ-ši? ú?-[laḫ?-ḫiš?] . . . He set up a censer of juniper and he [whispered(?)] a whisper(?) . . .

III.  Discussion and Analysis III.1.  Typology of Rituals Involving Whispering Excluding the literary passages (§II.4), there are two cultic contexts in which whispering occur. The first is the temple cult or rituals related to objects 105.  The meaning of šá-pa-ḫu-ti-ka is unknown (cf. CAD Š/1 412a). Could it be derived from the verb šapû C, “to be silent” (cf. CAD Š/1 490–91; AHw 1177b), i.e., ina šapaʾūtika? The silence, then, could be related to the following whispered words. 106.  For the image of the god watching (over) the world and his people, see references in CAD B 116. 107.  Note that intimate whispering into the ear is also found in a proverb describing the words of the horse to the she-ass while mating; see W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960), 218, rev. iv 15–18 (repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996). 108. A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, SAA 3 (Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, University of Helsinki, 1989), 70, no. 32.29.

212

Uri Gabbay

in the temple cult, and the second is exorcism (see discussion of §II.2.3.3 below). The common element in most occurrences in both categories is that the whispering occurs when the animal or the object that is whispered to in the ritual is just about to undergo the transition from one state to another. 109 III.1.1.  Rituals Related to the Main Temple Cult This category involves all three main cultic repertoires of ancient Mesopotamia—namely, the lore of the “lamentation priest” (kalûtu), “incantation priest” (āšipūtu), and haruspex (bārûtu). In all occurrences in this category, the whispering occurs during the transitional point in the ritual, after which the object or animal that was whispered to is deemed to exist in a state that differs from its original state (sometimes with the help of a final cultic act). This transition is usually but not exclusively from object or animal to a god participating in cult or a being that serves as a vehicle for the divinity or his manifestation. In the mīs pî ritual, the whispering occurs before the statue has fully become a god worthy of cult, when just one mouth-washing is left (§II.1.1). Similarly, the whispering into the ear of the horse occurs in the transitional point between the gods’ approval through divination that the horse is worthy to be used for the wagon of Marduk and the offerings presented to him as a god (§II.2.1). The whispering into the ear of the sacrificial sheep before extispicy also occurs at the turning point between the state of an ordinary sheep and the state of being the carrier of a divine message (and even the locus of divine manifestation of the oracle gods; §II.2.3.1–2). In the same manner but somewhat more complex is the whispering into the ear of the bull in the lilissu ritual (§II.2.2). Here, the bull has already become a god through mouth-washing, but this god, or at least parts of him (namely, his hide and sinew) are now to be used for the creation of a new god used in the cult, the lilissu kettledrum. The content of the whispering in these occurrences is usually related to their specific context. When preserved, the whispers are mostly in the second person. The incantations whispered into the ears of the statue in the mīs pî ritual (“You are counted with the gods, your brothers”; see §II.1.1) and into the ears of the horse in the ritual for choosing the horse for Marduk’s chariot (“You are counted with the gods for hitching up and unhitching”; see §II.2.1) emphasize that they are now regarded as full divine beings. In the ritual for the bull whose hide and sinew will be used for the lilissu kettledrum, the incantations emphasize how the bull will become part of the full image of the god, i.e., the divine lilissu kettledrum (“May this bull be entrusted to Lumḫa [= the god in charge 109.  Exceptions are the whispering into the ear of the patient suffering from roaring in the ears (§II.3.1), for discussion of which, see below; and the two literary occurrences: the unclear context of the underworld vision (§II.4.2), for which see n. 112 below, and the whispers in the literary description in the love lyrics (§II.4.1). This last occurrence refers to an intimate whispering into the ears of a lover, used as a means to intercede for the sake of man, and probably has no cultic implications.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

213

of the lilissu kettledrum],” “Your hide and sinew have been assigned to the secret of the great gods! Be present in the secret of that god [= the divine lilissu kettledrum] for eternity! That image [= the divine lilissu kettledrum] is decreed with the gods, his brothers!”; see §II.2.2). In the tamītu and ikribu whispered into the ear of a sheep before it is slaughtered, although it is not addressed to the sheep in the second person, a wish is expressed for the manifestation of the gods or their message in the sheep before it is slaughtered (see §II.2.3.1–2), and therefore the whispering is a moment of transition as well. The incantations whispered to the horse and the bull both share in common the mention of the natural and cosmic origins of the animal. Thus, the horse is mentioned both as originating in the holy mountains, where it ate juniper and drank spring water, and as a constellation in the sky (see §II.2.1). Similarly, the two known versions of the incantations that are to be whispered in the bull’s ears (although not appearing together) emphasize the natural and cosmic origin of the bull (see §II.2.2). In the first version, the bull is described as coming from the meadows and as an offspring of the mythical Anzu bird which is associated with the mountains. The second version of the incantation also emphasizes its presence as a constellation (“In heaven your image is present for the rites of the Anu-ship above”). The ritual instructions for the lamb and bull also emphasize that they should be pure and, in the case of the bull, also intact and untouched by man—that is, containing only their natural elements (see §§II.2.2, II.2.3.1). 110 Similarly, although not part of the group of whispers related to the temple ritual, the incantation whispered in the ear of the ewe in the ritual for the pregnant woman emphasizes the divine natural origin of the ewe, by mentioning its association with the gods Šakkan and Dumuzi (see §II.2.3.3). The basis of all this is the belief that animals are already potentially divine, since they originate in the same place as all other cultic substances and materials used for the concrete representation of the divine—that is, the natural world of the mountains, outside civilization. Thus, the animals have been in direct contact with the pure spring water and juniper in the mountains and are therefore pure and potentially ready to be used as divine elements. 111 Even 110.  Note, however, that one of the incantations is not entirely silent about how humankind may benefit from the bull: “Sowing the grain, making the fields thrive”; see §II.2.2. 111. Similarly, in the mīs pî ritual, although not said so specifically in the whispers recited into the ears of the statue, a Šuila incantation recited just before the washing of the mouth that precedes the whispering emphasizes the origin of the statue, made of wood and stone, in the pure mountains; see Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image, 138–39.55–58 (cf. Borger, “Textkritisches zu ‘Mundwaschung’,” 401): alam-ne-e an-šár kišár-ra-ta dím-ma // ṣal-mu an-nu-u(2) ina kiš-šat AN(-e) u KI(-ti(3)) ib-ba-ni / ⸢alam⸣-[n]e-⸢e⸣ ĝiš tir ĝišḫa-šur-ra-ta mu-un-è-a // ṣal-mu a[n-nu]-⸢ú⸣ ina qiš-ti ḫa-šur ir-bi (var.: ⸢ib-ba⸣-ni) / ala[m-n]e-e ḫur-saĝ ki kù-ga-ta è-a // ṣal-⸢mu⸣ [an-nu]-u [i]š-tu(2) KUR-i aš(2)-ri el-li (var.: KÙ) ú-ṣa-a / [a]la[m níĝ-dí]m-dím-ma diĝir lú-u18-lu-ke4 // [ṣa]-⸢lam⸣ [bu-un-n]a-né-e šá

214

Uri Gabbay

cosmically, they are already represented by divinities in their guise as constellations. Thus, while these beings are already potentially divine, there is one more aspect of the divinity in Mesopotamian perception: the concrete aspect in the cultic world. This aspect can only be achieved after the whispering and the completion of the ritual. A somewhat different case relates to the whispering into the ear of Dumuzi (§II.1.2). This action does not involve a transition from statue or animal to god, but does involve a transition into a new sort of existence, as in the other whisper rituals. On the 27th of Tammuz, Dumuzi comes up from the netherworld into the land of the living, and this transition from death to life is marked by whispering into his ear. 112 III.1.2. Exorcism In three cases, the whispering is connected to exorcism, and in all three, incantations from the series Udug-ḫul are whispered. In the fumigation ritual (§II.2.4.2), the sickness believed to be caused by a god is treated through a goat, into whose ears an incantation is whispered before it is slaughtered and used for the fumigation as part of the treatment of the patient. The whispering occurs just before the transition of the goat from an ordinary animal to a manifestation of the divine cause of the disease, which will be used for its treatment. In the bīt mēseri ritual (§II.2.4.1), as in the previous example, the whispering marks the transition point from an ordinary animal to a scapegoat that takes on the evil (divine, demonic, and medical) of the patient. In the magico-medical text for the treatment of the roaring in the ears of a patient caused by a ghost (§II.3.1), the ghost is exorcised by whispering an incantation into the patient’s ears, where the ghost took possession of him. This case is exceptional because it contains no direct transition 113 and, unlike all other instances, is directed at a human being (or at the ghost present in this human being). 114 Therefore, the whole cultic act in this case is probably only coincidentally similar to the other instances, since the significance of whispering into the ears here is connected to the condition of the ears from which the patient suffers. DINGIR(.MEŠ) u LÚ, “This statue was fashioned in the entire heaven and earth; this statue grew up in the forest of the ḫašur-tree; this statue came out from the mountain, a pure place; this statue is the form of gods and humans.” 112.  Is the whispering to Allatu in the underworld vision of the Assyrian prince (§II.4.2) intended to bring her up to the land of the living as well? 113.  Besides the obvious transition of the ghost from the patient, but this is common to all exorcism. 114.  Note that, in the Jewish magical composition “The Sword of Moses” (ḥarba dəmošeh) from Late Antiquity, whispering into the ears of a patient occurs in some treatments of illnesses caused by ghosts (not necessarily related to ears or hearing conditions); see Y. Harari, The Sword of Moses: A New Edition and Study (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1997) , 37, XV 9–10; and 41, XIX 9–11 [Heb.].

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

215

The incantations whispered in the exorcistic occurrences are not directly related to the transition undergone by the object of the whispering. In all occurrences, the whispers are standard exorcistic incantations taken from the series Udug-ḫul and are not recitations related exclusively to the specific cultic situation. Nevertheless, in the bīt mēseri occurrence (§II.2.4.1), the incantation describes the ritual that is actually undergone—that is, the scapegoat ritual. In the instance of the fumigation ritual (§II.2.4.2), the address to the goat as a human-like malevolent being (lú, lú-u18-lu) may be related to the transition that the goat undergoes through the whispering: from animal to personified god (see below). The ritual for the pregnant woman (§II.2.3.3) is somewhat exceptional but could still be ascribed to the broader context of the exorcistic rituals. As in the case of the scapegoat in the fumigation ritual and the bīt mēseri ritual, the ewe in the ritual for the pregnant woman acts as a substitute for the misfortune of the sufferer by taking the cause of the misfortune upon itself or actually being considered a manifestation of it. In the scapegoat cases, this misfortune is demonic. In the ritual for the pregnant woman, although not directly addressed in the whisper, the cause of the misfortune is witchcraft and the sins imposed by sorcery, as indicated in other rituals and incantations preserved on the same tablet. 115 This malevolent force driven out of the woman into the ewe can be compared to the demonic force that is transferred to the goat in the exorcistic instances. 116 The ewe itself is transformed through this ritual from a fertile animal, related to the gods Šakkan and Dumuzi, to an infertile being carrying the malevolent force that caused the pregnant woman’s problems. It is driven into the steppe, which represents the netherworld. III.2.  The Whisper as a Marker of Cultic Transition Besides the literary occasions and the case of the roaring in the ears, which, as explained above, is an exception due to its special circumstances, the whispers are performed on an animal or on a statue—that is, on a non-human entity. In Sumerian, a grammatical distinction occurs between the category of humans (including individual human beings and gods) on the one hand, and the category of non-humans (including objects, animals, and groups of humans) on the other hand. 117 The distinction, then, is not between living beings and 115. See von Weiher, Uruk: Spätbabylonische Texte, vol. 5, no. 248.14, 22–24, 39–40, 42–44, rev. 5′, 8ʹ–9′. 116.  For the witch as a demonic force, see T. Abusch, “The Demonic Image of the Witch in Standard Babylonian Literature: The Reworking of Popular Conceptions by Learned Exorcists,” reprinted in T. Abusch, Mesopotamian Witchcraft: Toward a History and Understanding of Babylonian Witchcraft Beliefs and Literature, Ancient Magic and Divination 5 (Leiden: Brill; Boston: Styx, 2002), 3–25. 117.  This distinction is sometimes also referred to as animate versus inanimate, or personal versus impersonal. For discussion and preferring to refer to this distinction as human

216

Uri Gabbay

objects but between entities that have volition or intention, and consequently consciousness, and those that do not. While humans and gods (who were perceived anthropomorphically) have a conscious state that governs intention or volition, objects certainly do not. Animals also act through impulse and instinct but not through volition or intention. 118 In the case of the whispers connected to the temple cult, the whispering occurs just before the non-conscious entity is turned into a conscious being. This entity, especially in the cases related to the temple cult, will soon be treated and conceived as a conscious divinity in cult, but before this is apparent to those associated with the cult, the entity itself, be it statue or animal, must be aware of this transition. The whisper introduces intention and volition into the non-human entity by first making it aware of its own consciousness. This is done intimately, in the presence of only the priest in charge of the ritual and the entity about to be transformed. Only then can this entity be regarded by others as a god that is present for humans in cult. In the exorcistic instances as well (excluding the hearing condition), the whisper marks the transition of the goat or ewe from a natural being to a cultic being with a supernatural role, as either representing the divine cause for the physical misfortune or as a vehicle by which this misfortune is removed. The whisper is intended first to explain this transformation to the goat or ewe itself, which must be conscious of its new state. In the case of the bīt mēseri whisper, the incantation emphasizes that the cause of the evil is “human” (“The man [lú] among people [lú-u18-lu] is evil”; see §II.2.4.1), which may be explained as part of the non-human-versus-human distinction. This is the case for the transition from statue or animal to god, demon, or divine-related entity, but the same holds true for the transition of Dumuzi from the land of the dead to the land of the living (§II.1.2). As a resident of the netherworld, Dumuzi is to some extent considered a dead god and thus lacks consciousness or intention. Before coming back to the land of the living (that is, to his state as a living god who has consciousness and intention), he must first be notified about this by the whisper, thereby arriving at an awareness of his own consciousness and intention, later to be known cultically. Nevertheless, the transition from a nonconscious to a conscious being does not imply that the former is not divine and the latter is. In fact, these two categories are also two different categories of the divine, distinguishing between the divine cosmic and natural world and the divine existence within the human world—that is, cult. As noted, the incantations emphasize the natural and cosmological origin of the entities that are about to go through the transition. This and non-human, see recently A. H. Jagersma, “A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian” (Ph.D. dissertation, Leiden, 2010), 102–4, http://hdl.handle.net/1887/16107 (accessed April  4, 2012). 118.  For this perception in Sumerian grammar, see C. Woods, The Grammar of Perspective: The Sumerian Conjugation Prefixes as a System of Voice, CM 32 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 207.

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

217

emphasis reflects the perception that, as part of the untouched natural world, they are already divine beings in some aspects. The divine potential of the natural world untouched by man is also the reason why the bull for the lilissu kettledrum must be unblemished, including not having been castrated or struck by a stick or whip—acts done by humans (see §II.2.2). But, although somewhat divine, the statue and animals still lack another aspect of the divinity: the cultic existence. The statue in the mīs pî was created in the mountains from stones and wood. 119 What remains now is for it to be used in ritual, since this is its fate in the noncosmic or nonnatural world—that is, the world of humans. This is done through the whisper. 120 Similarly, in the lilissu ritual, the bull already exists as a constellation in the divine cosmology. What remains now is for it to be used in cult. And this is also the case with the horse for the chariot of Marduk. In its divine cosmological essence, it is present as a constellation; and as a natural being, it was raised in the mountains, where it ate pure substances. But its cultic fate in the civilized world of humans has not yet been activated. This cultic activation is done through the whisper. The goat in the fumigation ritual may already be associated with the divine evil that caused the epileptic condition of the patient, 121 and the whisper makes it worthy for ritual use in the treatment. Similarly, according to the incantation whispered in the ear of the scapegoat in the bīt mēseri ritual, there may have been a ritual use of the goat after its slaughter, and the slaughtering may not have been the last, critical point of the ritual: “He touched its throat, and sacrificed it. He lay out the pure goat properly above him (= the patient)” (see §II.2.4.1). 122 The whisper, then, could have served here also as the marker for the transition from a natural divine being to a cultic state. III.3.  Whispering into the Ears: Secrecy, Intimacy, Mediation The association of incantations with whispering is due to the secrecy of the powerful magical act and its wondrous consequences, and the knowledge of this power should be kept only among specialists. 123 Therefore, it comes as no surprise that in West Semitic languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic) the root lḫš, “whisper,” is regularly used for incantations. In Akkadian, the noun šiptu is used for “incantation,” and the verb is usually manû, “recite,” while the noun 119.  See n. 111 above. 120.  Compare the similar observation already noted by Berlejung, “Washing the Mouth,” 63 (cf. idem, Die Theologie der Bilder, 236): “The whispered prayer of the priest suggests that the transfer of the image’s perceptive and vital functions, and its integration into the divine community have now been completed. What still has to be done is the determination of the statue’s destiny and its contact with its future partner [= the king—U.G.] and realm.” 121.  Stol (Epilepsy in Babylonia, 149–50) points out the association of epilepsy and other sicknesses and demons with the goat in ancient Mesopotamia and elsewhere. 122.  But see n. 78 above. 123.  I thank Mark Geller for discussing this issue with me. For secrecy in Mesopotamian religion, see A. Lenzi, Secrecy and the Gods: Secret Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical Israel, SAAS 19 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 2008).

218

Uri Gabbay

liḫšu and the verb luḫḫušu are used only in the occurrences discussed in this article. These cases may point to the secrecy that was associated with these cultic acts. One of the recitations into the ears of the bull in the lilissu ritual states that this divine transition is “secret,” that is, something set aside (pirištu) from human understanding: “When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninmaḫ [decreed] the fate of the great gods, your hide and your sinew have been assigned to the secret of the great gods! Be present in the secret of that god for eternity!” (see §II.2.2). Similarly, some rituals in which whispering takes place are considered esoteric knowledge, which should only be transmitted through initiates. 124 The transition from one state to another in the rituals in which whispering was performed touched on the very notion of the divine and included a direct and awesome encounter with it. The recitations that were specifically targeted during this incomprehensible transition were considered secret knowledge and were therefore whispered into the statue or animal that underwent this transition. The transmission of this secret knowledge also reveals another aspect of this cultic act: intimacy. Whispering into the ear of someone else, apart from the secrecy involved in it, reflects a close connection between the two participants of this act, sharing together a certain knowledge. The priest in charge of the ritual act is the only person who knows that a theological transition will soon occur, and the statue or animal to which he whispers must be aware of the transition it is about to undergo, before it is known to anyone else. 125 The whispering into the ear has another meaning in this context, besides secrecy and intimacy. 126 The cultic whispering into the ear in the religious context in which it occurs also reflects mediation. While secrecy and intimacy are connected to the two physical participants in the ritual, mediation is connected to three participants: the priest, the god, and the vehicle of the god. While the statue and animal are identified with the deity itself, or at least one aspect of the deity, they are also perceived as a vehicle in which the deity is present. This is certainly true in the case of extispicy, where the sheep is not seen as the god Šamaš himself but as a vehicle for his presence and message (see §II.2.3.1–2). But in other cases as well, the statue or animal can be understood as a vehicle for the divine presence. Thus, the whisper in the ears of this vehicle serves to reach the deity within it (or the deity to whom it is directed), and the animal 124. The mīs pî ritual: Walker and Dick, The Induction of the Cult Image, 73.66 (Babylonian Ritual Tablet). The lilissu ritual: TCL 6 44 iii 29–33 (Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens, 16; Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 254), KAR 60 rev. 15 (Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon, 263). 125.  In the ritual for the pregnant woman (§II.2.3.3), it is the woman herself who whispers in the ears of the ewe, not the priest, and represents the intimacy between the two females (human and animal) who share the experience of pregnancy. 126.  Note that although most of the occurrences in this article use the verb luḫḫušu or the noun liḫšu, a few use other verbs of speech (dabābu, §II.2.3.1; manû, §II.2.4.2; qabû and manû, §II.2.3.3).

Ancient Mesopotamian Cultic Whispering into the Ears

219

or statue (and even the human patient; see §II.3.1) acts as the mediator for this communication. 127 IV.  Conclusion: The Theological Role of Cultic Whispering into Ears The whispering into the ear of an object that was about to go through a transition, usually from a natural to a divine entity, was an intimate act that involved the object itself and the person in charge of this transition, the priest. This wondrous transition was regarded as an awesome, inconceivable secret. The Mesopotamian conception of gods included (at least) three main aspects: natural and cosmological, metaphysical (including mythological), and cultic. The divine being was manifest as a natural or cosmological entity, such as water, stones, sun, or stars—entities that, although they had divine attributes (even in cult), 128 were also regarded as natural beings acting in nature without conscious intention. The intention was found in the manifestation of the divine being as a mythological, usually anthropomorphic entity, in a metaphysical conceptual stratum that exceeded that of the natural world. Finally, the divine being also existed in cult as an object, often anthropomorphic but not always so, and was thus concretely manifested in civilization, the human world. Rituals such as those described in this essay aimed to associate the three aspects of the divinity, connecting the cosmological and mythological aspects and associating them with the cultic aspect through the transition undergone by the divine image. They connected the non-human aspects of the divinity found in nature, in its manifestation as a statue or an animal lacking volition or intention, with the human, conscious aspect of the mythological divinity. 129 But this was not enough. The rituals further brought this non-human, natural aspect of 127.  The same view, but the other way round, is found in the epic of Atrahasis where Ea reveals to Atrahasis the gods’ plans to send the deluge. This is done by addressing the reed fence of the hut in which Atrahasis lay, thus using the hut as a vehicle between the speaker and the listener inside the vehicle; see W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard, Atra-Ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), 88, III 20–21 (repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999; I thank Prof. Shalom Paul for alerting me to the relevance of this passage). Another relevant case is found in the Babylonian Talmud, b. Yoma 82b, where a pregnant woman who smelled food on Yom Kippur (when eating is forbidden) and felt she must eat was treated by whispering to her (note that Rashi explains that the whispering is into her ear), but actually to the fetus inside her that it is Yom Kippur (that is, the pregnant woman served as a mediating vehicle between the whisperer and the fetus inside her). 128.  Thus, for example, ritual acts directed to Šamaš and (divine) stars could be performed in front of the sun or stars themselves and not necessarily in front of these divinities’ statues or symbols. For this issue and its problems, see Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung, 49 (with n. 19). 129.  In the case of the whisper into the ear of Dumuzi (§II.1.2), the whisper connected the non-human, non-conscious aspects of death, when Dumuzi was in the netherworld, with the conscious human aspects of life, when Dumuzi came up to the land of the living.

220

Uri Gabbay

the divine into the concrete world of human beings by making it part of cult, the way that the divine manifests itself in the civilized world. The connection between the three divine aspects was not self-evident, and their association always leaves some logical gaps and paradoxes. The practical characteristic of ritual concealed the awesome and incomprehensible nature of the divine transition, but this nature was acknowledged in the incantations whispered into the entities going through this transition. The whisper into the ear of the entity going through the transition was the peak of the awesome phenomenon of this divine transition, finalizing the connection between the three aspects of the divine being before it was perceived and treated by others as a full divinity consisting of all three aspects. The whisper recited only into the ears of the divine entity was intended to make this entity realize that it was not only a natural divine being, lacking consciousness, but that it was now connected to its mythological aspect and to its cultic aspect. It was this activation of the consciousness of the animal or statue that was regarded as awesome and incomprehensible, and hence, secret. Only when the divine entity itself became aware of its new existence through the whisper could it also be regarded as such by others, ready to be displayed and used in cult.

Two New Cultic Inscriptions from Seventh-Century b.c.e. Ekron

Seymour Gitin and Shmuel Aḥituv Introduction The two new cultic inscriptions presented below were found in the course of material-culture processing in the postexcavation phase and are part of the assemblage of 26 inscriptions excavated at Tel Miqne–Ekron. 1 The most important is the 72-word Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription, the “smoking gun” that confirmed that Tel Miqne was the location of Philistine Ekron and cited the names of two of its kings known from the Neo-Assyrian Royal Annals, thus establishing its 7th-century b.c.e. dating as well as providing multiple insights into the cultic practice of the Philistines in this period. 2 The other 25 inscriptions are composed of 1 or 2 words, for the most part written on sherds from storage jars. Twenty-three are in black ink, 1 is incised, and 1 is lightly scratched on the sherd. All were found in Stratum IB of the last quarter of the 7th century b.c.e. Nine inscriptions, with the 2 discussed below, are cultic, 7 identify contents, 5 relate to volume, and 4 include names. 3 Authors’ note:  We dedicate this study to our late good friend and colleague, Avigdor Hurowitz, of blessed memory, whose career benefited so many in the fields of Bible and ancient Near Eastern studies. ‫"( נחל נובע מקור חכמה‬A flowing stream, a fountain of wisdom," Prov 18:4). His absence will be sorely felt. The copyrights of all figures appearing in this essay belong to Seymour Gitin. 1.  The Tel Miqne–Ekron Excavation and Publications Project is a joint endeavor of the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, directed by Trude Dothan and Seymour Gitin. Fourteen field seasons were conducted between 1981 and 1996. To date, 9 field reports have been published, and 4 are in preparation. Figure 1 is by J. Rosenberg, figs. 2a and 3a are by Ada Yardeni, and figs. 2b and 3b by Zeev Radovan. The authors thank Edna Sachar for her meticulous copy-editing of the manuscript. 2. S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, “A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” IEJ 47 (1997): 1–16; S. Gitin, “Temple Complex 650 at Ekron: The Impact of Multi-Cultural Influences on Philistine Cult in the Late Iron Age,” in Temple Building and Temple Cult: Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant (2.–1. Mill. b.c.e.), ed. J. Kamlah, ADPV 41 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 223–56, esp. pp. 238–39. 3. S. Gitin, “Seventh Century bce Cultic Elements at Ekron,” in Biblical Archaeology Today, 1990: Proceedings of the II International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,

221

222

Seymour Gitin and Shmuel Aḥituv

Figure 1.  Ekron Building Plan: Temple Building Complex 654, Rooms a–f.

The two most recently identified cultic inscriptions came from Room e in Building 654, one of the five Temple Auxiliary Buildings in Field IV Lower in Ekron’s elite zone (see fig. 1). The building yielded seven additional cultic inscriptions in Rooms a, b, and d, found either on the floors beneath a thick layer of destruction debris or in the destruction debris itself. The destruction is dated to the 604 b.c.e. campaign of Neo-Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. 4 Jerusalem, ed. A.  Biran and J. Aviram (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 248–58, esp. pp. 250–52; idem, “Israelite and Philistine Cult and the Archaeological Record in Iron Age II: The ‘Smoking Gun’ Phenomenon,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W.  G. Dever and S. Gitin (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 279–95, esp. pp. 288–90; idem, “Temple Complex 650,” 226–27; S. Gitin and M. Cogan, “A New Type of Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron,” IEJ 49/3–4 (1999): 193–202; S. Aḥituv, Echoes of the Past: Hebrew and Cognate Inscriptions from the Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Carta, 2008), 335–45. 4.  Gitin, “Temple Complex 650,” 246–47.

Two New Cultic Inscriptions from 7th-Century b.c.e. Ekron

223

Among these inscriptions are ‫( לאשרת‬lʾšrt), “to the sanctuary” (from Room a), and ‫( קדש לאשרת‬qdš lʾšrt), “dedicated to the sanctuary (the holy place)” (from Room b). 5 Room d—probably a pottery dump or favissa—yielded five inscriptions: two with ‫( קדש‬qdš), “holy” or “dedicated”; 6 and one each with ‫למקם‬ (lmqm) and a ‫ ט‬with three horizontal lines below it, 7 “for the sanctuary (holy place), 30,” meaning 30 units of some type of produce set aside for use in the sanctuary; ‫ קדש לחק קדש‬8 (qdš lḥq qdš), “holy” or “dedicated according to the rule of sanctity”; 9 and ‫לש‬, “for” or “belonging to Š.” 10 The Two New Cultic Inscriptions ‫ב‬ 1. ‫( מערב‬fig. 2a–b) The inscription was written in black ink by an untrained hand. The letters are crude, with the heads of the ‫ ב‬and ‫ ר‬forming irregular trapezoids and the ‫ ע‬represented by a triangle with a tail. These are not the standard forms in the 7th-century b.c.e. lapidary or in other cursive scripts at Ekron or in the 7thcentury Hebrew and Phoenician cursive scripts, where they appear as circles and triangles. 11 5.  Ibid., 226–27. In the course of the Iron Age, Asherah disappeared from the Phoenician pantheon, and the word instead designated a place, as in the Akkadian eširtu and Aramaic ‫( אתר‬ʾtr). For a detailed discussion, see S. Aḥituv, E. Eshel, and Z. Meshel, “The Inscriptions,” in Kuntillet ʿAjrud (Ḥorvat Teman): An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border, by Z. Meshel (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2012), 73–142, esp. pp. 130–32. 6.  Object nos. 7797–98 in S. Gitin, Y. Garfinkel, and T. Dothan, “Chapter 1: Occupational History—Stratigraphy and Architecture of Stratum Pre-IC and Iron Age IIC Strata IC, IB, and IA,” in Tel Miqne–Ekron Excavations 1985–1988, 1990, 1992–1995: Field IV Lower—The Elite Zone, Part 2: The Iron Age IIC Late Philistine City, by S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and Y. Garfinkel, Tel Miqne–Ekron Final Field Report 9/2 (Jerusalem: Albright Institute, in press). 7.  In Phoenician, three horizontal lines indicate the number 30; see A. van den Branden, Grammaire phénicienne (Beirut: Libraire du Liban, 1969), 42. 8.  Gitin, “Israelite and Philistine Cult,” 289–90, in which it was suggested that the ‫ט‬ could stand for ‫( טבל‬ṭebel), referring to produce set aside for tithing. This word, however, is Mishnaic Hebrew of unknown origin and etymology, and it is therefore best to forgo this interpretation. Nevertheless, the ‫ ט‬must refer to something used in the sanctuary; see further J. Naveh, “Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions,” in Excavations at the City of David 1978–1985, Directed by Yigal Shiloh, VI: Inscriptions, ed. D. T. Ariel, Qedem 41 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 2000), 1–14, esp. p. 5. 9.  For Frank Cross’s alternative reading of this inscription as “holy according to the prescription of Qudšu,” see Gitin, “Cultic Elements,” 256 n. 24. Contra Cross’s suggestion, however, the goddess Qudšu is attested only in Ramesside period Egypt and is not mentioned elsewhere. 10.  Object no. 9506 in Gitin, Garfinkel, and Dothan, “Chapter 1: Occupational History.” 11.  For a comparison with the lapidary and other cursive scripts at Ekron, see Gitin and Cogan “Dedicatory Inscription,” 200, fig. 4.1–3; Gitin, “Temple Complex 650,” 227, fig. 2.1b; for a comparison with Hebrew and Phoenician cursive scripts, see J. B. Peckham,

224

Seymour Gitin and Shmuel Aḥituv

Figure 2a–2b.  Drawing and photo of the inscription ‫במערב‬.

The mem has a large crude head with the appearance of a three-pronged rake and is roughly attached to its shaft/handle. Its crude form bears no resemblance to examples in the 7th-century lapidary and other cursive scripts from Ekron, 12 or to examples in 7th-century Hebrew inscriptions. 13 It does, however, resemble some of the less elaborate mems in the Karatepe inscription of the last half of the 8th century 14 and also exhibits some affinity with the mem in the Ur Box Phoenician inscription of the 7th century. 15 The two-line inscription appears on a scoop rim fragment. 16 It has a bet above the last letter of the word ‫( מערב‬mʿrb). The enigmatic presence of the The Development of the Late Phoenician Scripts (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1968), pls. 7–8; J. Renz, Handbuch der althebräischen Epigraphik 1995–2003, vol. 3: Texte und Tafeln (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995), pls. 19–28. 12.  Compare with lapidary examples in the Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh, “Royal Dedicatory Inscription,” 10) and with those in cursive script on a ceramic vessel from the site (Gitin, “Temple Complex 650,” 227, fig. 2.2). 13. See Renz, Texte und Tafeln, pls. 19–28. 14.  See W. Röllig, “Appendix I: The Phoenician Inscriptions,” in Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 2: The Inscriptions—Facsimile Edition, by H. Çambel (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 50–81, esp. pp. 80–81, pls. 5–51. 15. See Peckham, Late Phoenician Scripts, pl. 7.9. 16.  Whole examples of Iron IIC scoops from Ekron will be published in S. Gitin, “Chapter 13.5: The Iron Age IIC in Philistia,” in The Ancient Pottery of Israel and Its Neighbors

Two New Cultic Inscriptions from 7th-Century b.c.e. Ekron

225

bet above the word may represent an abbreviation, but it cannot be an abbreviation for the bath-measure, since the scoop is a small vessel that was not used as a container. 17 It also cannot indicate the numeral 2, since the use of letters as numbers is not attested in Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic, or Greek inscriptions prior to the Hellenistic period. 18 Inscriptions on vessels may indicate ownership, dedication, destination, or contents; however, since the inscription is not written on a vessel used for transport or storage, it could neither indicate destination nor contents. Although ‫ מערב‬may derive from the root ‫ערב‬, “to mix,” this usage is unattested in the context of food and beverages prior to its occurrence in Mishnaic Hebrew. This leaves the possibilities that the word designates ownership or is a dedicatory inscription. The former is less plausible, since ‫ מערב‬as a name is not attested in West Semitic onomastica. The presence of the guttural ʿayin precludes a “Philistine” name, which would either be of Indo-European or Anatolian origin. On the other hand, ‫ מערב‬is a well-known term in West Semitic and is attested in Biblical Hebrew—for example, ‫( ַמעֲרָב‬maʿărāb), (imported) “merchandise,” in Ezek 27:9, 12–13, 33—but this makes no sense in the context of the Ekron inscription. Thus, we are left with the explanation that this is a dedicatory inscription. Although this usage of the term ‫ מערב‬is unattested in the Iron Age, it is supported by a Persian period Phoenician inscription on a bronze drinking bowl. The inscription reads: ‫קבעם אנחן || ערבת למרזח שמש‬, “2 cups we offer (fem.) to the marzeăḥ of Shamash.” 19 The word ‫ערבת‬, “offer” (1st fem. pl.), is derived from the root ‫ערב‬, “to enter,” which in Ugaritic also has the meaning “to bring in” or “to offer” and in Old South Arabic “to offer” (gifts to a god). 20 2.  ‫תשרים‬ In contrast to the above inscription, the letters of the second inscription, ‫תשרים‬, which were lightly scratched on a krater after the vessel was fired, were written by a trained, fluent hand. This is clearly seen in the execution of the letters ‫ ת‬and ‫מ‬. The word ‫ תשרים‬should be equated with the Hebrew ‫תשורה‬, from the Iron Age through the Hellenistic Period, ed. S. Gitin (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, forthcoming), pl. 13.5:2–3. 17. For bet as an abbreviation for the bath-measure, see Gitin, “Cultic Elements,” 251; Aḥituv, Echoes of the Past, 90. 18. J. Naveh, “Dated Coins of Alexander Janneus,” IEJ 18 (1968): 20–25, esp. p. 24; Aḥituv, Eshel, and Meshel, “Inscriptions,” 82. 19. N. Avigad and J. C. Greenfield, “A Bronze phialē with a Phoenician Dedicatory Inscription,” IEJ 32 (1982): 118–28, esp. pp. 119–21. 20.  Ibid., 124; Avigad and Greenfield’s proposal that ‫ לא יערבו לו זבחיהם‬in Hos 9:4 should be interpreted following Old South Arabic usage, however, is contradicted by ‫וזבחיהם‬ ‫לא ערבו לי‬, “And your sacrifices are not pleasing to Me,” in Jer 6:20, and ‫וערבה ליהוה מנחת‬ ‫יהודה וירושלם‬, “Then the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the Lord,” in Mal 3:4. The context also does not fit their proposed interpretation that the antithesis to ‫יערבו‬ is ‫כלחם אונים להם‬, “It should be for them like the food of mourners,” in Hos 9:4.

226

Seymour Gitin and Shmuel Aḥituv

“an interview fee,” 21 a hapax found only in 1 Sam 9:7 in the context of Saul’s complaint that he does not have ‫ תשורה‬to bring to Samuel. The best explanation of the derivation of ‫ תשורה‬is that it is from the root ‫שור‬, “to see, look,” and can be interpreted as a “visiting gift.” 22 While ‫ תשורה‬is feminine, the usage in the Ekron inscription, ‫תשרים‬, is masculine, but there are other examples of a masculine form derived from the feminine ‫תשורה‬, as in Hos 13:2, ‫תבונם‬, “their skill,” with the regular noun being the feminine form ‫ תבונה‬but ‫ תבונם‬being derived from the masculine form ‫*תבון‬. 23 Another example is the word ‫תענוג‬ (taʿănûg), “pleasure,” which has both masculine and feminine plurals: ‫תענוגים‬ (taʿănûgîm) in Song 7:6 and ‫( תענוגות‬taʿănûgôt) in Qoh 2:8. Because internal matres lectionis were not used in 7th-century-Hebrew orthography and certainly not in Phoenician, ‫ תשרים‬cannot be a plural form. It should therefore be read as a dual: ‫( ְּתׁשֻרַ יִם‬təšurayim), “a double gift.” The question is whether the meaning of double gift refers to its value or to two cups, such as those offered for the marzeăḥ of Shamash. 24 It can be argued that Phoenician orthography was adopted at 7th-century Ekron, as reflected in the Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription of King Ikausu (Achish), and thus, the plene orthography ‫ תשרים‬would not be expected but, rather, the defective orthography ‫תשרם‬, as in the Phoenician ai diphthong contracted to ē. The ‫ תשרים‬inscription, however, is not an official inscription, as demonstrated by the script and context, and thus it reflects Judean influence instead, as indicated by the forms of the letters in the Ekron inscriptions. 25 Conclusion The two cultic inscriptions discussed above complement the other seven dedicatory inscriptions written on storage jars that were excavated in Build21.  S. M. Paul, “1 Samuel 9:7,” Divrei Shalom: Collected Papers of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East, 1967–2005 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 95–97. 22.  HALOT 2001, 1802, s.v. ‫ תשורה‬. 23.  Some commentators propose emending ‫ תבונם‬to ‫תכונם‬, derived from *‫תכון‬, with the regular form being the feminine ‫תכונה‬, “property.” 24.  Avigad and Greenfield, “Bronze phialē,” 119–21. 25.  While this is the consensus regarding the script, Naveh qualifies his view by stating that “the cursive traditions of the various [Philistine] city-states in the eighth and seventh centuries continued to absorb Hebrew elements and at the same time introduced new elements of their own” (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh, “Royal Dedicatory Inscription,” 14). Cross has a similar position, proposing that, while the scripts of the Philistine cities “share some common traits that distinguish them from Hebrew and/or Phoenician,” the scripts and their orthography stem “primarily from Hebrew and not Phoenician”; see F. M. Cross, “Inscriptions in Phoenician and Other Scripts,” in Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985– 2006), ed. L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 333–72, esp. p. 338. While this may apply to the script of the Ekron cursive inscriptions and possibly the lapidary script of the Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription, however, it is not supported by the orthography and other features of the inscriptions, which reflect Phoenician influence (Gitin, “Temple Complex 650,” 226–27).

Two New Cultic Inscriptions from 7th-Century b.c.e. Ekron

227

Figure 3a– 3b. Drawing and photo of the inscription ‫תשרים‬.

ing 654. The inscriptions indicate that their contents, some type of produce, was dedicated for a cultic purpose, which was most likely related to the shrine. The scoop with the inscription ‫מערב‬, “offer,” could have been used to transfer the contents of storage jars as required for some religious practice or purpose related to the cult. The term ‫תשרים‬, “a double gift,” written on a krater, could have designated the vessel as a container for preparing a special gift of food related to cultic praxis. Thus, these two inscriptions indicate the cultic function of the vessels on which they were written.

Reflections on the Intersection between “Song” and Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible

David A. Glatt-Gilad Was the biblical book of Proverbs set to music? Highly unlikely. However, the opportunity to honor the memory of Avigdor Hurowitz, a wise scholar whose discernment extended to his appreciation of good music, beckons me to explore the points of overlap between wisdom and “song” in the Bible. “Song” for the purposes of the following investigation is used to refer either to the equivalent of biblical ‫שירה‬/‫ שיר‬1 or to the poetic ‫ משל‬that on occasion was recited to musical accompaniment (e.g., Psalms 49, 78). My focus in this brief tribute to Prof. Hurowitz is on the various aspects of wisdom that are inherent in “song.” An intriguing starting point is the sole biblical context in which ‫ משל‬and ‫ שיר‬appear in parallel stitches. In describing Solomon’s unrivaled wisdom, the author of the book of Kings states: “He composed three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered one thousand and five. He discoursed about trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; and he discoursed about beasts, birds, creeping things, and fishes” (1 Kgs 5:12– 13 [ET 4:32–33]). The presumed content of Solomon’s proverbs and songs is a matter of dispute among commentators. Some scholars see the verse as analogous to the traditional attribution of the biblical books Proverbs and Song of Songs to Solomon. Viewed in this light, Solomon’s “songs” would be referring to love poetry. 2 Cultic songs can also not be ruled out if one adopts Albright’s suggestion that ‫כלכל‬, with whom Solomon is favorably compared in v. 11 [ET 4:31], is to be related to Kulkul of Kurkur, a 13th-century b.c.e. female singer for the god Ptah, ruler of Ashkelon. 3 However, given the elaboration 1.  Aside from within the book of Psalms, ‫ שירה‬is the more prevalent term for a song/ poem for which specific content is recorded. Although ‫שיר‬, like ‫שירה‬, can refer to a particular song/poem, it also has the wider meanings of “singing” and “music.” See G. Brunet et al., “‫ שירה‬,‫שיר‬: OT Use,” TDOT 14.616–19. 2.  See J. Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, 2nd ed., OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 148. Cf. D. J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 96. 3.  Cited in M. A. Sweeney, I & II Kings: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007), 121.

229

230

David A. Glatt-Gilad

found in v. 13 referring to Solomon’s sayings about plant and animal life, the most likely subject of Solomon’s proverbs and songs alike is the natural world. 4 As Provan states cogently, “Careful observation of the natural world and how it works is one of the ‘normal’ ways people gain wisdom in the Old Testament (cf. for example, Job 38–41; Prov 30:15–31), as in the New Testament (e.g. Matt 6:25–34).” 5 Thus Solomon’s proverbs and songs do not differ in terms of content but apparently only in terms of their literary complexity. While it is true that the biblical ‫ משל‬encompasses a large variety of literary forms, from pithy folk maxims to larger artistic compositions, 6 the fact that the verse attributes a larger (typological) number to Solomon’s proverbs than to his songs makes it more likely that the proverbs refer here to shorter wisdom sayings, such as similes, metaphors, and riddles, whereas the songs refer to somewhat longer compositions, much as if one were to say that Prof. Hurowitz authored 150 articles and 5 books. 7 In any event, it is clear from 1 Kgs 5:12–13 that Solomon’s songs, along with his proverbs are viewed as works reflecting his internationally recognized wisdom, a theme that is spelled out in the very next verse: “Men of all peoples came to hear Solomon’s wisdom, [sent] by all the kings of the earth who had heard of his wisdom” (5:14 [ET 4:34]). 8 A prominent area of intersection between song and wisdom in the Bible is the specialized knowledge attributed to those who are skilled in singing or in 4.  In this respect, many commentators follow the lead of Alt, who saw Solomon’s proverbs and songs as stemming from the type of lexical lists of plants and animals known from Egypt and Mesopotamia. See A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte Israels (Munich: Beck, 1953), 2.90–93; he is followed more recently, among others, by J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings, Berit Olam (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1996), 91. 5.  I. W. Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, NIBC (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 60–61. 6.  Scholarly discussions of the nature of the biblical ‫ משל‬are as numerous as they are inconclusive. For a brief sampling, see J. Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 181, 196; B. A. Levine, Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 102–3; M. V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 54–55; V. P. Long, “On the Coherence of the Third Dialogic Cycle in the Book of Job,” in Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon, ed. G. Kahn and D. Lipton, VTSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 120–21. 7.  On the typological nature of the numbers of Solomon’s proverbs and songs, see Walsh, 1 Kings, 91. 8.  Provan, 1 and 2 Kings, 60, makes the interesting observation that Solomon’s ‫משלים‬ represent the wisdom that enabled him to rule (also from the root mšl; see 1 Kgs 5:1) over Israel and to win the acclaim of many nations. The question of whether the type of wisdom attributed to Solomon in these verses is part of the original text or redactional need not detain us here. See further R. B. Y. Scott, “Solomon and the Beginnings of Wisdom in Israel,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Presented to Professor H. H. Rowley, ed. M. Noth and D. W. Thomas, VTSup 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 262–79.

“Song” and Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible

231

playing musical instruments. Such specialists are most often found within the context of the palace or the temple. The best known figure of this type is David, whose qualifications for performing in Saul’s court included his being a ‫ידע‬ ‫ נגן‬as well as a ‫( נבון דבר‬1 Sam 16:18). David’s musical skills were recalled by the eighth century prophet Amos (Amos 6:5). David employed professional musicians (‫ )שרים ושרות‬in his own court (2 Sam 19:36), as did his son Solomon (1 Kgs 10:12; cf. Qoh 2:8). Moreover, David is celebrated throughout the books of Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles as the originator and/or sponsor of the liturgical temple music (Ezra 3:10; Neh 12:46; 1 Chr 15:16; 25:1, 6; 2 Chr 8:14; 23:18; 29:25–27; 35:15). It is in the Chronicler’s depictions of the temple cult that one finds the most explicit references to singing and playing musical instruments as specialized skills. Thus 1 Chr 25:6–8 states: “They [the 17 children of Heman, the Levite] were all under the direction of their father in the music in the house of the Lord with cymbals, harps, and lyres for the service of the house of God. . . . The number of them along with their brethren who were trained in singing to the Lord (′‫)מלמדי שיר לה‬, all who were skillful (‫כל‬ ‫)המבין‬, was two hundred and eighty-eight. And they cast lots for their duties small and great, teacher and pupil alike.” 9 This passage provides a fascinating insight into the music education program of the Levitical guild, which had its own internal hierarchy. The use of terms derived from the roots lmd and byn clearly point to the specialized understanding necessary for attaining musical proficiency. 10 Similarly, 2 Chr 34:12 mentions the Levites, “all who were skillful with instruments of music” (‫)כל מבין בכלי שיר‬. 11 The technical term ‫משכיל‬, which appears in the headings of 13 psalms, 12 may also be relevant to the present discussion. Mowinckel defined the term as “a song sprung out of and containing supra-normal insight and effect.” 13 It is certainly intriguing that, in Psalm 32, the very first ‫ משכיל‬psalm, there is a 9.  The translation follows S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 436. 10.  It is not surprising that the domain of Ea, the Mesopotamian god of wisdom, also extends to the musical arts. See A. D. Kilmer, “Music and Dance in Ancient Western Asia,” in CANE 4.2605. In general, musicians were highly regarded in ancient Mesopotamia. See N. Ziegler, “Music, The Work of Professionals,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, ed. K. Radner and E. Robson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 288–89, 305–7. 11.  Another passage that probably categorizes the Levites in this way is 2 Chr 30:21–22, which juxtaposes the Levites’ praising of God, presumably through loud singing (reading the text as ‫ בכל עז‬. . . ′‫)ומהללים לה‬, with their demonstration of good skill in the service of God (′‫)המשכילים שכל טוב לה‬. A more equivocal example in Chronicles is 1 Chr 15:22. Although Chenaniahu the officer of the Levites is described as an expert (‫)כי מבין הוא‬, it is unclear whether his expertise lies in the area of music or of transport. See G. N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 10–29, AB 12/2 (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 609. 12. Psalms 32, 42, 44–45, 52–55, 74, 78, 88–89, 142. 13. S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1962), 2.94.

232

David A. Glatt-Gilad

reference to teaching and instruction (‫אשכילך ואורך‬, v. 8), and that Psalm 53, which is located within a concentrated collection of ‫ משכיל‬psalms (52–55), contrasts the fate of the fool (‫ )נבל‬with that of the wise person (‫)משכיל‬. Nevertheless, no single proposed rendering of the title ‫ משכיל‬that relates it to wisdom, such as “sapiential instruction,” “meditation,” or “didactic poem,” appears to suit the context of all the psalms so labeled, and it may be preferable to view the title as simply reflecting the skill and precision necessary to perform the composition (i.e., a form of artistic wisdom). 14 Although the referent of the ‫ משכיל‬composition remains inconclusive, there can be no doubt that various other poetic texts in the Bible that fall under the rubrics of ‫ שירה‬or ‫ משל‬clearly intend to convey a didactic message. These texts make use of wisdom elements that serve to express the overall rhetorical purpose. In Deut 31:19, Moses is commanded to write down the text of the ‫ שירה‬that he will be delivering and to teach it to the Israelites. 15 The song itself opens with an appeal for attention (‫ ותשמע‬. . . ‫ )האזינו‬reminiscent of the wise teacher’s exhortations to his son/pupil in Prov 4:1, 20; 5:1 (cf. Ps 49:2; 78:1, below). 16 The poet goes on to invoke the prestige of the elders, who possess the knowledge that comes with experience (Deut 32:7). The people who reject God and spurn his many favors are destined to be given over to a “nation of fools” (32:21), a veritable “folk void of sense, lacking in all discernment” (32:28). At the basis of the enemy’s foolishness is the failure to attribute victory over Israel to the intervention of Israel’s God. Implicit in the enemy’s lack of understanding is Israel’s own failure to comprehend the consequences of its backsliding. So the two foolish peoples, oppressor and victim, deserve each other, so to speak. The envisioned tragic situation is the opposite of that expressed in Deut 4:6, where Israel’s devotion to God and his laws serves to highlight Israel’s wisdom in the eyes of the nations. 17 14. David Qimḥi, in his commentary to Ps 4:1, regards ‫ משכיל‬as referring to a melody suited to a particular type of musical instrument, much like the titles ‫עלמות‬, ‫מכתם‬, or ‫שגיון‬. Each instrument required specialized wisdom in order to perform the melody appropriate to it. 15.  Deut 31:16–22, as well as the closing v. 30 are clearly meant to be linked to the song that follows in ch. 32. See R. D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 357. Cf. V. A. Hurowitz, “Spanning the Generations: Aspects of Oral and Written Transmission in the Bible and Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Freedom and Responsibility: Exploring the Challenges of Jewish Continuity, ed. R. M. Geffen and M. B. Edelman (New York: KTAV, 1998), 21–22. 16.  Nelson, Deuteronomy, 369. 17.  Notwithstanding the use of wisdom elements that I have been discussing, von Rad overstates the case when he says: “We must look for the origin of the poem [Deuteronomy 32] in the sphere of Wisdom literature” (G. von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. D. Barton, OTL [London: SCM, 1966], 200).

“Song” and Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible

233

Psalm 49 is perhaps the clearest instance of a didactic ‫ משל‬set to music. 18 The poet invites the widest possible audience, rich and poor alike, to listen to his universal message, which will be expressed through the sounds of the lyre. The psalm’s main theme regarding the ultimate futility of earthly wealth corresponds to a number of sayings in Qohelet (e.g., 2:11–16; 6:1–6), though it appears more likely that Qohelet is written from the wealthy person’s perspective and Psalm 49 from the poor person’s perspective. In any case, Psalm 49 fits well within the wisdom tradition as a candid reflection on the human experience. Psalm 78 is not a wisdom psalm per se, although its lengthy historical retrospective is framed as a poetic ‫משל‬. The opening call in v. 1 to heed the poet’s words is similar to the opening of Psalm 49 (and to Deut 32:1 and related verses in Proverbs 4–5, as noted above), though in Psalm 78, the target audience is national rather than universal, as in Psalm 49. The latter difference is readily explainable due to the particular didactic purpose of Psalm 78, which focuses on the fate of the nation. Another blatant parallel between the two psalms is the use of the word pair ‫חידה‬/‫( משל‬Ps 49:5; 78:2), though unlike Psalm 49, Psalm 78 contains no specific reference to musical accompaniment. Psalm 78 essentially defines itself as a didactic ‫משל‬. 19 As in Deut 32:7, Ps 78:3 refers to ancient traditions imparted by the generation of elders. For Psalm 78, the content of these traditions is none other than the detailed salvation history spelled out in the body of the psalm. Each successive generation is expected to transmit the historical narrative to its descendants, so that the younger generation can learn from the mistakes and pitfalls of the forefathers and remain faithful to God (vv. 4–8). Thus the message of this poetic ‫ משל‬is quintessentially educational, albeit with a strong Davidic, anti-northern bias. 20 A curious mix of song and parable appears in the famous vineyard passage of Isa 5:1–7. The opening phrase, in which the speaker declares his intent to 18. G. von Rad (Wisdom in Israel [Nashville: Abingdon, 1972], 203) regards Psalm 49, as well as Psalms 37 and 73, as didactic wisdom poems. 19.  As M. Witte (“From Exodus to David: History and Historiography in Psalm 78,” in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook 2006: How Israel’s Later Authors Viewed Its Earlier History, ed. N. Calduch-Benages and J. Liesen [Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006], 25) notes: “The terms used in vv. 1–2 are essentially derived from Old Testament wisdom and mark the speaker as a teacher of wisdom.” Witte also touches on the significance of the parallels with Deut 31:30–32:1 for the poet’s self-understanding. 20.  For the educational aspect, see B. J. Schwartz, “Getting It Right the Second Time Around: An Aspect of Intergenerational Responsibility in Biblical Thought,” in Freedom and Responsibility: Exploring the Challenges of Jewish Continuity, ed. R. M. Geffen and M. B. Edelman (New York: KTAV, 1998), 39–43. For the polemical aspect, see R. P. Carroll, “Psalm LXXVIII: Vestiges of a Tribal Polemic,” VT 21 (1971): 133–50. In the present context, I refrain from dealing with the possible historical backgrounds of the polemic.

234

David A. Glatt-Gilad

sing a song for (or about) 21 his intimate friend concerning the friend’s vineyard, leads the audience to expect to hear a love ballad 22 that has no wider purpose for the listeners than its sheer entertainment value. But this rhetorical strategy quickly turns out to be a ruse through which the speaker lures his audience into acknowledging the justice of what is essentially an indictment aimed at the audience itself. The love song, which sputters out in the course of v. 2, thus acts as a rhetorical springboard toward what is rightly seen by a growing number of commentators as a judicial parable that is employed as an indictment on the unsuspecting listeners. 23 One can even argue that, in the present form of the text, the song ends up being amalgamated into the judicial parable. 24 In other words, the term ‫שירת דודי‬, although initially intended to conjure up an association with love poetry, in fact ends up encompassing the whole of the text and represents a song of judgment against the beloved. 25 One cannot help but be struck by the rhetorical tour de force of the unexpected turn of events, from would-be praise of an anonymous lover to converting the ‫ שירה‬into a literary form (i.e., the judicial parable) that has some relation to the thought patterns known from wisdom literature. Our brief sketch of points of contact between “song” and wisdom would not be complete without reference to the ironic use of the term ‫ שיר‬when attributed to the fool. Qoh 7:5–6 reads: “It is better to listen to a wise man’s reproof than to listen to the praise of fools (‫)שיר כסילים‬. For the levity of the fool is like the crackling of nettles under a kettle.” In this passage, ‫ שיר כסילים‬is used sarcastically to refer to the empty flattery of the fool, which unlike the wise person’s rebuke, serves no constructive purpose. In this way, the chatter of the fool resembles the thrashing sound of nettles under a pot—a sound that produces a lot of noise without actually providing much fuel. 26 The more subtle irony of the use of the term ‫ שיר‬when referring to fools is that “song,” when employed by the wise, can serve as a literary vehicle to enlighten and teach, as we have seen above. It is worth reiterating in pun-like style that “song” and wisdom in the Hebrew Bible often act in concert! Solomon, the wisest of all men, is singled out 21.  See J. A. Emerton, “The Translation of Isaiah 5,1,” in The Scripture and the Scrolls: Studies in Honour of A. S. van der Woude on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. F. García Martínez et al., VTSup 49 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 18–29. 22.  Perhaps similar to Song 8:11–12. 23.  See H. G. M. Williamson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Isaiah 1–27, ICC (London: T. & T. Clark, 2006), 1.327–28 with references. 24.  G. A. Yee, “A Form-Critical Study of Isaiah 5:1–7 as a Song and a Juridical Parable,” CBQ 43 (1981): 30–40. 25.  See in particular G. R. Williams, “Frustrated Expectations in Isaiah V 1–7: A Literary Interpretation,” VT 35 (1985): 459–63. 26.  See J. L. Crenshaw, Ecclesiastes: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987), 135.

“Song” and Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible

235

for composing a large number of proverbs and songs reflecting on the didactic lessons to be learned from the observation of natural phenomena. Other people in the Hebrew Bible, including known figures such as David and Heman the Levite as well as anonymous Levites and other professional singers, are praised for their specialized knowledge of the musical arts. Finally, a string of poetic compositions with a didactic message, referred to as ‫ שירה‬or ‫משל‬, appear in all three major parts of the Hebrew Bible, Torah (Deuteronomy 32), Prophets (Isa 5:1–7), and Writings (Psalms 49, 78). The latter two texts were probably even set to music as a form of musical words for the wise.

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help in the Old Babylonian Period?

Shirley Graetz To whom could a person in the Old Babylonian period turn if he discovered that he had been wronged by his business partner, the authorities, or anyone else, or if for some reason he could not deal with the wrongdoer himself? Who would help him receive justice or advise him about his rights? Scholarly studies about the legal system 1 of the Old Babylonian period do not recognize a trade such as lawyer or jurist in the sense of a person who needed to learn the law and was then allowed to practice as an attorney. Scholars still debate questions such as whether the law was written or oral, as­ sembled into one compendium or scattered in many smaller corpuses, without having reached a clear conclusion. Some terms and expressions in the Akkadian language, however, refer to a person who interceded or helped another in coping with his affairs. Author’s note:  This article is based on the research I conducted for my doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Prof. Avigdor (Victor) Hurowitz ‫ל‬′′‫ז‬, and for which I was awarded a Ph.D. from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in June 2013. This essay contains only a few of the analyses and results discussed in the dissertation. Here, I focus mainly on highlighting my findings, and I exclude the long, detailed discussions of former studies presented in my dissertation. I dedicate this essay to the memory of Prof. Hurowitz ‫ל‬′′‫ז‬, who died just as my dissertation was accepted by the university senate. It was a great honor and pleasure to study under him, and my loss is beyond words. 1.  There are many studies on the Old Babylonian legal system and various aspects of the Old Babylonian law. For the main general studies and additional references, see Moses Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozeßtechts (Hildesheim: Olms, 1913); Arnold Walther, Das altbabylonische Gerichtswesen (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1917); Julius G. Lautner, Die richtliche Entscheidung und die Streitbeendigung- im altbabylonischen Pro­ zessrechte (Leipzig: Weicher, 1922); G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, The Babylonian Laws, vol. 1: Legal Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1952); Fritz R. Kraus, Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-Saduqa von Babylon (Leiden: Brill, 1958); Eva Dombradi, Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrages in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1996); Eckart Otto, Altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte-Gesammelte Studien (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008); Raymond Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook (Leiden: Brill, 2003); idem, Law from the Tigris to the Tiber: The Shared Tradition (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009).

237

238

Shirley Graetz

The CAD translates the term rābiṣum as “an official representative of and commissioned by a higher authority, attorney.” 2 Most examples cited in this entry are from the Old Akkadian period, especially from the Old Assyrian period. The related term, rābiṣūtum, 3 is translated: “office of attorney, representative,” with even fewer examples, mostly from the Old Assyrian period. One reference is to the payment received by the rābiṣum: “x silver is the wage of PN for his acting as attorney.” 4 The Akkadian term rābiṣum corresponds to the Sumerian word, MAŠKIM, a person mentioned in records of litigations as a commissioner who receives a special payment. 5 M. T. Larsen writes: This institution (of the rābiṣum) has its roots in the practices known from the time of the Ur III administration, where we find that the maškim-officials appear in scores of texts of the so-called ‘ditilla-type,’ i.e., documents recording legal decisions. The ‘attorneys’ or ‘commissars’ or ‘bailiffs,’ as they have been called, were officials who were appointed by the governors in the various cities of the empire in order to take charge of the preliminary investigation of a case. In at least two instances this official was appointed as the result of an appeal from a plaintiff, and it seems likely that this was in fact the usual procedure. In the Old Babylonian texts we find occasional references to such officials, called either rābiṣum or rābi dajjani ‘commissar of the judge,’ but their role is somewhat obscure. 6

Furthermore, despite extensive writing about legal procedures (e.g., trials and courts) 7 and specific rights in the Old Babylonian period, little has been written about the early stages of the conflict, when a person came to the realization that he had been wronged and wanted to seek justice. Most studies on the legal system are based on information derived from trial records 8 or on other types of legal documents, and therefore do not address this topic. The only 2. See CAD R 20ff., s.v. rābiṣu. 3. See CAD R 23–24, s.v. rābiṣūtu. 4.  See TCL 4 24.5; see CAD R 24, s.v. rābiṣu. 5.  See Claus Wilcke, Early Ancient Near Eastern Law: A History of Its Beginnings (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 39ff. See also a discussion by Rivkah Harris (Ancient Sippar: A Demographic Study of an Old-Babylonian City 1894–1596 b.c. [Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1975], 129), who states that his function is not disclosed by the texts. See also Sophie Démare Lafont, “Considérations sur la pratique judiciare en Mésopotamie,” Rendre la justice en Mésopotamie, archives judiciaires du Proche-Orient du 3e au 1er millénaire Av.  J.-C., ed. F.  Joannes (Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 2000), 20–21. 6.  See Mogens T. Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies, Mesopotamia 4 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1976), 184. Also see Harris, Ancient Sippar, 129; and Walther, Das Altbabylonische Gerichtswesen, 169–73. 7. See Dombradi, Die Darstellung; Walther, Das Altbabylonische Gerichtswesen; and Westbrook , A History, and Law from the Tigris to the Tiber. 8.  These mostly begin with the judge’s examination or the institution of the trial (dīnam šūḫuzu).

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

239

legal source to address the question seems to be a passage from the epilogue of the Hammurabi Stele. 9 Let any wronged man who has a lawsuit come before the statue of me, the king of justice, and let him have my inscribed stela read aloud to him, thus he may hear my precious pronouncement and let my stela reveal the lawsuit for him; may he examine his case, may he calm his (troubled) heart, (and may he praise me), saying. . . . 10

According to this text, a person who has been wronged need only approach the stele and read (or have someone read for him) the laws in order to know his legal rights and to receive justice. But is this what actually happened, 11 even 9.  The nature of the writing on the stele has been debated by many scholars, and there is no consensus about the daily use of the text on the stele in the Old Babylonian period. For a discussion, see Fritz R. Kraus, “Ein Zentrales Problem des alt-mesopotamisches Rechtes: Was ist der Codex Hammu-rabi?” Geneva 8 (1960): 283–96. For additional discussions about the Hammurabi “Law Code,” see Driver and Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 1.27–53; Jean Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 156–84; Dominique Charpin, “The Writing, Sending and Reading of Letters in the Amorite World,” in The Babylonian World, ed. G. Leick; New York; London: Routledge, 2007), 400–417; idem, Writing Law and Kingship in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 71–82. Whether the provisions were “laws,” as was claimed initially, or verdicts, as most scholars understand them today, the main question still being discussed is whether the Laws of Hammurabi were used by courts, judges, and those wronged seeking to know their rights as a source of law in day-to-day conduct. For a bibliography and a short discussion of this topic, see Dominique Charpin, Dietz O. Edzard, Martin Stol, Mesopotamien- die altbabylonische Zeit, OBO 160/4 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2004), 654–58; also Martha T. Roth, “The Law Collection of King Hammurabi: Toward an Understanding of Codification and Text,” La codification des lois dans l’antiquité (Paris: Boccard, 2000), 9–31; Raymond Westbrook, “Codification and Canonization,” in ibid., 33–47; Sophie Démare Lafont, “Codification et subsidiarité dans les droit du Proche-Orient ancient, ” in ibid., 49–64; Johannes Renger, “Noch einmal: Was war der ‘Kodex’ Hammurapi—ein erlassenes Gesetz oder Rechtsbuch?” Script Oralia 66 (1994): 27–58. 10.  Transliteration and translation: Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 134. For a literary discussion of this passage, see Victor A. Hurowitz, Inu Anum ṣīrum: Literary Structures in the Non-Juridical Sections of Codex Hammurabi (Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1994); and Martha T. Roth, “Hammurabi’s Wronged Man,” JAOS 122 (2002): 38–45. 11.  Scholars are not in agreement about the use and validity that the Laws of Hammurabi may have had in day-to-day legal conduct or how they applied to the individuals who were responsible for the justice system or to those seeking justice. Even if the Laws of Hammurabi did not have legal force comparable with the laws of today or even to the mīšarum acts in the OB period, there is no question that they had an influence on the population because they were copied and studied a great deal during the time of Hammurabi and even long after his death. See Jacob J. Finkelstein, “Some New Misharum Material and Its Implications,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, ed. Hans J. Güterbock and Thorkild Jacobsen, AS 16 (Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,1965), 233–46; Klaas R. Veenhof, “The Relations between

240

Shirley Graetz

if the stele was hypothetically available for inquiries by those who suffered an injustice? And did a wronged man (awīlum hablum) 12 always have the ability to understand what was read to him? What if he could not come to the stele physically because he lived in one of the villages outside the city, or did not have the means to travel, or was not allowed to leave his duty? What if the specific crime was not mentioned on the stele, or he was born before the stele was erected? In other words, did the wronged man really come to consult the stele when he wanted to learn about the law in order to face his wrongdoer?  13 Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’ of the Old Babylonian Period, ” Jaarbericht van het Voor­ aziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 35–36 (1997–2000): 50–53. Hurowitz stated: “[I]t may be said with certainty that even if Hammurabi’s laws were in force, their practical application was minimal” (Victor A. Hurowitz, “Hammurabi in Mesopotamian Tradition,” in An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Yitschak Sefati et al. [Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005], 503). For a discussion of the topic, see also Roth, “The Law Collection”; and Westbrook, “Codification and Canonization.” Others, such as Charpin and Harris, argue the opposite and maintain that there are several indications that the Code of Hammurabi was indeed applied as a guideline, despite not having been referenced in texts of the time. Charpin (Writing, 80–81) notes: It is true that examples of explicit references to the Code of Hammurabi are rare. Nevertheless, two pieces of evidence need to be introduced. Let me remark, first, that though we do not possess any quotations from the Code of Hammurabi in legal documents, we also possess very few from any royal edicts which we are nonetheless certain were applied. In addition, the situation must be linked to divinatory practices in the age of Hammurabi. When they rendered a verdict, judges never cited the code, but the diviners of the time also never explicitly cited a compendium of omens to support their predictions, contrary to what is attested for the first millennium.

See also Rivkah Harris, “The nadītu Laws of the Code of Hammurapi in Praxis,” Or 30 (1961): 163–69; and Klaas R. Veenhof, “The Development of Law in the Ancient Near East: ‘In Accordance with the Words of the Stele’—Evidence for Old Assyrian Legislation,” 70 Chicago-Kent Law Review 1717 (1995): 1–33. Lafont claims that the Laws of Hammurabi contained actual laws, but their enforcement was subsidiary, and that in day-to-day matters it was the common law that was mostly used. Only in certain cases, such as when the wronged person believed that he was not able to obtain justice by means of the common law, would he ask to apply the written, royal law. See Lafont, “Codification et subsidiarité,” 54. 12.  Roth (“Hammurabi’s Wronged Man,” 38–45) discusses the term awīlum hablum and concludes: These selected citations show that the “wrong” falls into two groups. First, there are the wrongs that result when a person of greater power or authority misuses his position and deprives those dependent on him (or on the king) of their due. . . . Second, there are those wrongs that result when the proper legal channels are followed and a defendant or plaintiff is cleared by undergoing the ordeal by oath. . . . He (the wronged) can appeal only to the highest authority of the gods for remedy.

13.  See Jacob. J. Finkelstein, “Ammiṣaduqa’s Edict and the Babylonian ‘Law Codes,’” JCS 15 (1961): 103: These “law codes” with their stylized prologues and epilogues of purely “historical” religious import must be viewed in the first instance as royal apologia and testaments. Their

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

241

Thus, even if the Stele of Hammurabi had some kind of use for courts, judges, and even some individuals, 14 it seems that, for most wronged people, seeking the aid of the stele in their attempt to receive justice was not the answer. Was there another way that a wronged person could receive preliminary help in confronting the injustice that was inflicted on him? An Intermediary Advances the Case of the Wronged Person by Means of Letters Letters offer an insight on the actions of the wronged person. Letters from the Old Babylonian period in the Altbabylonische Briefe (AbB) corpus describe actions and events from daily life, including official business and private correspondence dealing mostly with agriculture, business, legal disputes 15 (e.g., property, inheritance), as well as administrative and family matters and disputes. Generally, the letters are written by one or more specific persons to one or more other persons. 16 Charpin states that letters differ from legal and economic texts in that the latter are “essentially formulaic,” whereas letters “are much more lively.” 17 In an article about Old Babylonian letters, K. de Graef mentions the topic of the intermediary. De Graef briefly discusses some steps taken in the letters toward “solutions and ways to deal with conflicts” 18 and notes that in a large number of letters the complaints and claims are communicated to the responsible authority through an intermediary, preferably a high-ranking person. In other words, most letters about personal conflicts seek a solution through mediation. De Graef acknowledges that conflicts could have been solved directly between the parties or before a judge; therefore, they are mentioned in the letters primary purpose was to lay before the public, posterity, future kings, and above all, the gods, evidence of the king’s execution of his divinely ordained mandate: to have been “the Faithful Shepherd” and the šar mīšarim; it is significant that never is there any adjuration of judges and officials to pay any heed to these codes.

14.  See AbB 10 6, written by a nadītu. She quotes a law, very similar to the words of the stele of Hammurabi. 15. De Graef distinguishes six types of conflicts expressed in OB letters: (a)  disputes concerning real estate and other property; (b) protests about unfulfilled deliveries and obligations; (c) compensation claims for damages caused; (d) juridical affairs; (e) theft; and (f) family matters. See Katrien de Graef, “Enemies . . . A Love Story: Personal Warfare in Old Babylonian Letters,” Akkadica 129 (2008): 182. 16.  See the studies on letters by Matthew L. Jaffa, “The Old Babylonian Letters: An Examination of Communication in Babylon, Larsa, Mari and Assyria” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1982); and by Walther Sallaberger, “Wenn Du mein Bruder bist, . . .”: Interaktion und Textgestaltung in altbabylonishen Alltagsbriefe, CM 16 (Groningen: Styx, 1999). 17. See Charpin, “The Writing, Sending and Reading,” 402–3. 18. See de Graef, “Enemies, ” 191ff.

242

Shirley Graetz

only “when a person seeks the help of a higher authority” or “when a third party reports on them to someone else, in many cases also a higher authority.” 19 De Graef provides the following examples of such interventions: (a) interventions by the king or another higher authority; 20 and (b)  solving conflicts through an intermediary. The second category refers to letters in which one person acts as an intermediary between the complaining party and the person who can solve the problem. De Graef concludes that “it was very important in Old Babylonian society to know not only many persons but specifically the important and high-ranking persons who were able to sort out one’s affair and solve one’s problems, even outside the judiciary or above it.” 21 De Graef’s assumptions are correct but partial. Wronged people approached not only important or high-ranking persons to function as intermediaries but also family members, employers, and various types of “specialists.” My research includes letters from the AbB that are written according to a specific schema. 22 The contents of these letters differ, but the schema of communication remains the same: an intermediary intercedes on behalf of a person who has suffered an injustice. The letters are written according to the following schema: a-na PN1 qí-bí-ma um-ma PN2 (followed by blessings) aš-šum PN3 23 To PN1 say, thus (says) PN2 (followed by blessings) concerning PN3.

After the first lines (identifying the writer, the addressee, and the wronged person), a narrative of the entire problem is presented, 24 followed by various types of data. The writer may provide helpful facts about the wronged person, criticize, warn of future consequences, or flatter the recipient. Next, the writer states his demand—for example: to return property that has been taken or to institute a lawsuit. This sequence is not always adhered to, and the writer may first demand something and later provide information to reinforce his request. The writer may also add another blessing at the end of the letter. 19. See ibid., 192. 20.  The reference is to the letters in which Hammurabi writes to his local officials about a case or a complaint; and to letters written by high- and low-ranking officials, on behalf of other people, to persons who had the power to settle both large issues and small incidents. 21. See de Graef, “Enemies,” 193. 22.  There are hundreds of letters in AbB in which a wronged person deals by himself with the injustice inflicted on him by addressing his perpetrator and demanding that he remedy the wrong or by addressing a higher official who may be able to help him in some way. We are interested in the situation in which the victim turns to someone for help in dealing with the problem. 23.  The third part shows greater variance. At times, the writer narrates the PN3’s injustice directly or adds: PN3 ki-a-am ú-lam-mi-da-an-ni. 24.  Not in all letters.

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

243

To illustrate the general pattern of the letters, in the subsequent discussion I assign a “tag” to each actor who appears in the letter, according to his function. The tag describes the actor’s action in the letter, ignoring specific names, places, and the details of the complaint. I use this procedure to emphasize the similarities and the differences between the letters.  25 PN1 is the addressee of the letter, referred to here as the Recipient. PN2 is the writer of the letter, referred to as the Agent. PN3 is the wronged person, referred to as the Victim.

The model follows the pattern: The Victim

The Victim has a Problem. The Victim turns to the Agent.

The Agent The Agent writes to the Recipient (Rw, Rh, Rj) asking for help with the Victim’s problem. Recipient

The Recipient receives the letter.

The main corpus of the letters can be divided into three categories, according to the role of the Recipient. 1.  In the first category, the letters are addressed to the person who wronged the Victim, the Recipient-wrongdoer. The Agents ask the Recipient-wrongdoer to undo the injustice he has inflicted on the Victim (e.g., return the property he has unjustly taken from the Victim). 2.  In the second category, the letters are addressed to the Recipienthelper. He is characterized by holding some type of influential position and may be a judge, 26 an official of the king, or some other influential person. He is being asked by the Agent to help the Victim solve the injustice. 27 3.  The third category includes letters addressed to the Recipient-judge. 28 In these letters the Agent requests of the Recipient-judge to provide a 25.  Although some of the people mentioned are known persons, for example, Šamašhāzir, most of the people cannot be identified in the current state of the research. Furthermore, the identity of the people is not always given in the letter. 26.  In this category, the Recipient-helper may be a judge, but because he is not asked to institute a trial or to pronounce a verdict, he is not included in the third category of letters, which are letters sent to a Recipient-judge. 27.  By, for example, investigating the case or talking to the wrongdoer. 28.  The position of judge could have been held by many types of people. See Raymond Westbrook,“Judges in the Cuneiform Sources,” Maarav 12 (2005): 27–39; Sophie Démare

244

Shirley Graetz judicial solution to the problem by instituting a lawsuit or pronouncing a verdict for the Victim.

The People Whom the Wronged Person Approaches for Help In the present essay, I focus mainly on the question of the relationship between the Agent and the Victim. The more we know about the relationship or about the position held by the Agent, the better we understand to whom the wronged person turned for help. One difference in types of Agents can be gleaned from references in the letters in which the Agent states his relationship to the Victim. Based on this information, Agents can be divided into two types: personal Agent and impersonal Agent. The personal Agent is clearly defined: he was chosen by the Victim as his Agent based on their personal relationship. The smallest number of Victims chose to ask a family member to act as their Agent. 29 Some people turned to acquaintances or business partners. 30 The largest group of people chose an Agent who was in some way responsible for them, such as an employer, owner, or overseer. 31 Table 1 shows the distribution between the personal and impersonal Agents. It shows that, usually when the Victim approached a familiar Agent, it was a person from his “work” surroundings or someone who was responsible for the Victim in some circumstance. This may indicate that a feeling of mutual responsibility existed between employer and employee. The employer, master, or overseer may have felt the need to intercede on behalf of a subordinate, and the Victims may have felt that they could approach their employer, overseer, or master with their personal problems. The fact that, in more than half the cases in which the Victim chose a personal Agent, he chose his employer, overseer, or master rather than a family member or acquaintance to intercede on his behalf may imply that the main factor in determining the Victim’s choice of an Agent was the Agent’s ability to influence others and thus obtain justice. The employer, overseer, or master may have had a higher social status and therefore greater knowledge and ability to influence the wrongdoer or the authorities than did the Victims’ family and friends. Thus, the employers, overseers, or masters were in a better position to serve as an Agent for the Victim and advance his cause.  32 Lafont, “Judicial Decision-Making: Judges and Arbitrators,” in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (ed. R. Radner and E. Robson; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 342–43. 29.  AbB 11 5; AbB 1 120; AbB 10 149. 30.  AbB 4 134; AbB 10 3; AbB 9 38; AbB 7 78. 31.  AbB 9 236; AbB 9 198; AbB 10 1; AbB 1 58; AbB 10 151; AbB 11 32; AbB 9 6; AbB 12 2; AbB 12 7; AbB 12 9; AbB 1 129. 32.  As Miki Y. Ishikida (“The Structure and Function of the Dispute Management in the Public Administration of Larsa under Hammurapi,” Orient 33 [1998]: 70) states: “However,

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

245

Letters Sent to

Table 1.  The Division of Letters Written by Personal and Impersonal Agents RecipientWrongdoer

Impersonal Agent

Personal Agent

family

—

RecipientJudge

Various Letters in Connection with the Agenta

AbB 10 149

AbB 1 120 AbB 11 5

—

AbB 7 78 AbB 9 38

AbB 13 143

—

AbB 1 129 AbB 9 236 AbB 9 198 AbB 10 1

AbB 1 58 AbB 10 151 AbB 11 32

AbB 9 6

AbB 12 2 AbB 12 7 AbB 12 9

AbB 2 131 AbB 3 82 AbB 5 144 AbB 7 51 AbB 7 59 AbB 7 67 AbB 10 13 AbB 13 125

AbB 4 73 AbB 7 186 AbB 11 7 AbB 11 90 AbB 11 119 AbB 12 22 AbB 14 190

AbB 6 71 AbB 6 138 AbB 6 142 AbB 7 85 AbB 7 135 AbB 10 161 AbB 11 78 AbB 11 101 AbB 11 159 AbB 11 183 AbB 14 184

—

acquaintances, AbB 4 134 business AbB 10 3 partners employers, owners, overseers

RecipientHelper

a.  Additional letters used in my dissertation (not written according to the schema stated above) provide information about the Agent’s influence on the Recipient and his ongoing communication with the Victim and Recipient. See my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help? The Agent in Old Babylonian Letters” (Ph.D. diss., Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2012), ch. 4.

The impersonal Agent is characterized by the fact that he does not mention his relationship to the Victim (if a relationship existed). But the lack of evidence about a personal relationship between the Victim and the Agent does not mean that some sort of relationship did not exist. 33 We assume that some of the Agents labeled impersonal may in fact have had a personal relationship with the Victim. Nevertheless, when no personal relationship between it must be remembered that many disputes and claims were settled unofficially by a personal arbitrator, usually a disputant’s work supervisor or an honored person such as the head of an extended household, before they made it to the public forum.” 33.  In 18 letters, both Victim and Agent are named. It is not possible in the framework of the current research or the current state of prosopographical research to achieve a profound understanding of each Agent-Victim pair. But I believe that the Agent-Victim pairs that can be determined correlate with one of the types of personal relationship that we have found in other letters written by personal Agents.

246

Shirley Graetz

the Agent and the Victim is mentioned in the letters, we must ask who these Agents might have been. The Agent Is a “Person of Authority” One way to comprehend the position of the Agent is to examine the titles of the Agent (e.g., king, judge, overseer) or known names, if any are given. One type of impersonal Agent is the “person of authority” who acts as an Agent. A person of authority is a person (or group of people) within whose power it is to solve the injustice perpetrated on the Victim by means of an investigation, trial, and verdict or by directly ordering the wrongdoer to undo the wrong he has committed. 34 The person of authority can be the king, officials of the crown or temple, individuals in the position of judges, 35 or other people holding strong positions of influence. 36 In some cases, however, a person of authority may decide not to handle the Victim’s case but to remit it to another person of authority, of either lower social status 37 or higher social status (a person more capable then himself to handle the problem), thus acting as an Agent for the Victim and advancing his cause. The Agent Is a Person of High Social Status Another category of people that could act as impersonal Agents was individuals of high social status. From the context of the letters, some of these men held a high social position and, by using their status, they were able to help a wronged person deal with his injustice. In the OB period, the terms kabtum and rabûm seem to have been used to designate individuals who had social power 34.  For example, return property that he appropriated, free a person who was unjustly captured, or undo a wrongly imposed tax or service. 35.  For example, the king, judges, mayors, or elders of the city. 36.  For example, an important landowner who may have had the power to solve the problem of one of his workers. See Ishikida, “The Structure and Function,” 70. 37.  Such as the king, who is the highest authority and can try the case himself but remits the case to local officials, thus acting as the Victim’s Agent. See W. F. Leemans, “King Hammurapi as Judge,” in Symbolae Ivridicae et Historicae: Martino David Dedicatae, ed. J. A. Ankum, R. Feenstra, and W. F. Leemans, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 2.107–29. Leemans’s main observations are that, “if a litigant brought his case before the king, the case could be investigated and judged in three different ways: 1. The king tried the case himself and gave the final judgment. 2. The king gave a decision on a point of law and remitted the case for a decision on questions of facts to the local judges or authorities. 3. The king remitted the entire case to local judges” (see Leemans, “King Hammurapi as Judge,” 110). In a great number of letters in the AbB corpus (especially AbB 2 and AbB 4), either Hammurabi or his high official Lu-Ninurta write to Šamaš-hāzir, instructing him to deal with a Victim’s problem that they had heard about. In the current study, AbB 6 142 may fall in this category. The letter is written by Agents who are judges, asking the Recipient-judges, “the mayor and the elders of the city of Bulum,” to investigate the Victim’s case and institute a lawsuit on his behalf.

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

247

and who sometimes acted as Agents for weaker individuals. Both kabtum 38 and rabûm 39 appear to have had some type of authority and the power to change the situation of others. 40 Another type of individual with a high social status is the abi ṣābim. 41 In AbB 6 212, the writer of the letters complains to the Recipient that he (the recipient) has not given him what he should have. The writer of the letter warns or threatens the Recipient that, if he does not give him what he demands, šaka-an a-wi-le-e a-bi erim.meš qú-ur-ru-ub, “the installation of the abi ṣābi officials is at hand.” 42 Warning or threatening to involve the abi ṣābim is meaningful only if the office of the abi ṣābim is powerful. It may be unpleasant for the wrongdoer if the abi ṣābim becomes involved. Although we have only a vague understanding of the functions of people who bear such titles as kabtum, rabûm, or abi ṣābim, we can note some of their common characteristics. They all had high positions in society, and in some 38. See CAD K 27, s.v. kabtu (§4). Not all references are letters, but from the situations described we can gain additional insight about the kabtu and rabû. 39. See CAD R 36, s.v. rabû (§7). 40.  See YOS 8 39.12, YOS 8 15.9, YOS 8 56.8, YOS 8 19.10; ABIM 22. In AbB 3 52, the writer blames the recipient for ruining his family. At the end of the letter, the writer states: a-na a-wa-tim an-né-tim [š]a iḥ-ḥa-aṭ-ṭì-a-am ma-har ka-ab-tim a-pa-lam ú-ul te-le-i,“as to this affair, which was neglected, you will not be able to justify (yourself) to a kabtum!” (lines 38–39), implying that, if the Recipient were to approach the kabtum, he could not justify his actions. Kabtum here is someone who can be approached and asked to examine a matter, someone to whom people must justify themselves or their actions. In AbB 6 145, a person who has a dispute with another person rejects the use of an outside person, who may have been a kabtum; a-wa-t[u]-ni ú-ul ša kab-ti ú-ul ša [d]a-a-a-ni ša bi-rị-ni-i-ma, “Our legal matter (concerns) neither an influential man nor a judge. (It is) between us” (lines 20–22). 41. See CAD Ṣ 51, s.v. abi ṣābi. In AbB 12 9, one Agent asks the Recipient to approach the abi ṣābim so the complaint of the Victim can be investigated: be-lí ki-ma ra-buti a-na a-wi-lim a-bi ERIM l[i-i]q-bi-ma da-ba-[a]b-šu [l]i-in-na-me-[er],“May my lord in accordance with (your) high position speak to the honorable personnel manager so that his complaint may be investigated” (lines 14–15). The abi ṣābim may have been a high-ranking official in the army. See also Harris, Ancient Sippar, 102–3. She states that the abi ṣābim may also have served as an arbiter in disputes arising over military matters. The abi ṣābim may also have functioned as a judge. See TCL 1 164, l.14: “[T]he case has been pleaded before the honorable abu ṣābim-officials, and they decreed the replacement of the bulls for them” (see CAD D 8, s.v. dabābu). See also AbB 2 104, AbB 11 108. In TCL 1 164, letters were sent by an abi ṣābim to a PN concerning three thieves who have stolen oxen. The abi ṣābim instructed the PN to send the thieves to Babylon, where the thieves made a statement before the abi ṣābim and were ordered to return what they had stolen. One of the stolen oxen was found in the hands of one of the thieves and given directly to the ṭupšar ṣābim (the scribe of the abi ṣābim). From the text above, we understand that the abi ṣābim can function in various capacities. He holds a powerful position that enables him to investigate and handle claims, have thieves come to him for interrogation, make wrongdoers correct their ways, warn them, or threaten them. See also Schorr, Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozeßtechts, text 309. 42. See CAD Ṣ 51, s.v. abi ṣābi.

248

Shirley Graetz

cases they had the power to interfere in legal matters, to offer protection, and to function as judges and arbiters. They were known to be people one could turn to when wronged. It seems that merely mentioning their name could carry a warning or even a threat to the wrongdoers. The Agent’s Familiarity with Legal Terminology Another way of determining who may have acted as an Agent is by examining the writing style of the letters. The letters addressed to the Recipientwrongdoer (the person who wronged the Victim) 43 and the letters addressed to the Recipient-helper (a person of authority who can help the Victim) 44 are somewhat similar in their use of persuasive arguments and writing style. They provide the Recipient with information about the Victim or about his property or use other persuasive arguments such as warnings, threats, allusion to the legal rights of the Victim, or conversely, flattery. 45 A different style appears in the letters addressed by the Agent to a Recipientjudge 46 requesting a trial or a verdict for the Victim. Unlike the letters mentioned above, these are concise and formalized, and the same legal phrases (dīnam kīma ṣimdati šuḫuzu/qabû) appear in most of the letters. In some of these letters addressed to the Recipient-judge, the Victim’s injustice is not even specified. In general, plaintiffs approach the presiding judge in their vicinity directly and put their cases before him. 47 After briefly examining or hearing the claims of the parties, the judge decides whether or not to institute a lawsuit. Thus, most plaintiffs and their opponents approach the judge directly, solving the dispute, and producing a written document such as a trial record, or leaving no written evidence at all. But when the judges are not approachable directly, for reasons having to do with the judges or the Victims, one approaches them by letter. To illustrate further the different styles and meanings that the letter might have, I compared the letters addressed to Recipient-judges that were written by Agents with letters addressed to Recipient-judges that were written directly by the person wronged. In the AbB, 15 letters were written by Agents to a judge requesting a legal procedure, and only 4 letters were written directly by the Victim to the judge. 48 43.  See my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” ch. 1. 44. See ibid., ch. 2. 45.  This applies to both personal and impersonal Agents. 46.  See my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” ch. 3. 47.  See AbB 11 7: a-na ṣe-ri-ja a-na di-ni-im il-l[i-k]u-nim-[m]a, “they came to me for judgment” (line 10). 48.  By “legal procedure,” I mean instituting a lawsuit, issuing a verdict, or judging a case. I do not include other letters that contain general requests for justice for the Victim. For further discussion, see my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” ch. 2. The 4 letters that were written directly by the Victim to the judge are: AbB 1 34, AbB 7 153, AbB 13 66, AbB 14 75.

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

249

Table 2.  Comparison of Letters Written to the Recipient-Judge by Agents and by Victims Main Characteristics of the Letters

Letters Written by Agents to Recipient-Judges

Letters Written Directly by Victims to Recipient-Judges

Number of letters in AbB

15

4

Average number of lines per letter

17 lines

34.75 lines

Amount of detail explaining the Victim’s complaint

Very little information (if any) about the Victim’s complaint is given

In each letter, the problem is described at length

Formulation of the request

A repetitive formula using 1.  di-ni di-in the phrase dīnam kīma 2.  di-in . . . li-di-na-an-ni-ma ṣimdati (šuḫuzu or qabû) 3.  dīnam qabû The phrase dīnam kīma ṣimdati is not used

Tone of the letter

Formal, matter-of-facta

Personal, expressing anger and criticismb

a.  Criticism is voiced in two letters. In AbB 11 5, which is written by a personal Agent (the brother of the wronged person), the Agent criticizes the Recipient-judge harshly for neglecting to judge his sister and for slighting her. In AbB 11 183, the writer (impersonal Agent) criticizes the conduct of the Recipient and asks him whether he knows the law, then states that law. b.  In AbB 1 34, the writer complains that the person who wronged her treated her as though she were not a servant of Šamaš and wronged her in a way that is not seen in the land. In AbB 7 153, the writer reminds the king of his obligation to protect the weak before the mighty and perhaps even warns him that this behavior will lead to the city’s seeing that the mighty has injured the weak (a portion of the last line is missing). In AbB 13 66, the writer tells the recipient not to neglect the words that he writes to him (lines 21–22). In AbB 14 75, the writer complains that he did not receive answers to his letters and criticizes the recipient: aš-šu i-ni-i ša a-na ia-ši-im id-di-nu-ni-im i-na bi-ti-ia i-le-eq-qú-ú- a š[a i]-na bi-ti-ia il-qúú a-na ia-ši-im la ú-ta-ar-ru-n i-im-[da]-tum a-na ia-ši-i a-i-ta-a ša-ni-a-at ki-ma a-a-am ù qè-er-ba-am [l]a-i-šu-ú ep-š 20-e-ku [aš-šu]m wa-ar-ka-nu-um da-ba-bi-ia, “Why is it that they take from my house what one has given me and do not return to me what they take from my house? Do different rules apply to me, as a special case? I have been treated as somebody who has neither brother nor relative! Notify them in the presence of witnesses what will be the sequel to my complaint” (lines 24–34).

The first major difference between the two groups of letters is the number of letters written by the Agent and by the Victim. The difference is even more marked if we compare it with the number of letters written directly by the Victim to the Recipient-wrongdoer and the Recipient-helper. In the AbB corpus, there are far more letters written to wrongdoers directly by the Victim than by an Agent, and there are numerous letters written by the Victim directly to the Recipient-helper requesting his help.

250

Shirley Graetz

The second difference 49 is the strong contrast between the styles of the letters. Letters written by the Agents contain sparse details, if any, are matter-offact in “tone,” 50 use repetitive phrases, and their primary persuasive argument is a reference to the law that entitles the Victim to receive a trial. 51 By contrast, the letters written directly by the Victim are long, rich in detail, and descriptive of their unjust treatment. They have a much more personal tone. The persuasive argument and allusion to the Victim’s legal rights dīnam kīma ṣimdati (according to the law), 52 which appear repeatedly in the letters written by the Agent (and may have been generally part of the spoken language, as appears in other sources as well), 53 are not mentioned even once in the letters written directly by Victims to judges. Comparing two groups of letters, one suspects that the Agents who wrote or dictated them may have had something in common beyond functioning as middlemen, as noted above. The authors of these letters seem to belong to a “circle” of individuals who used the same or similar short formulas in their letters when writing to judges on behalf of the Victims. This characteristic is absent from the four letters written by the Victims themselves. This circle may be characterized by the writers’ use of a concise style. But the style is not limited to a specific location, because there are cities mentioned from the far north of Mesopotamia to the south. 54 The knowledge and use of the legal terminology is clearly noticeable in the formulaic and impersonal style of the letters written by the Agents. 55 Who are the people who may have belonged to these circles? Judges and scribes were among individuals who were not connected by geography but could have held a position in society that enabled them to know and use similar legal terminology and style, who had knowledge of the law, and who could act as Agents for Victims.

49.  In contrast, AbB 11 5, which is written by a personal Agent (the Victim’s brother), contains features similar to the letters written by the Victim himself. The Agent criticizes the judge, and the tone of the letter is very personal. 50.  That is, the atmosphere of the letters. For a discussion of this topic, see A. Leo Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), 54–67. 51.  See the discussion in the excursus below. 52.  See the discussion of kīma ṣimdati in the excursus. 53.  See the language used in various documents in Karel V. Lehrerg and Gabriela Voet, A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-Abiešuh, Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 8 (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2009). 54.  Sippar, AbB 1 120; Babylon, AbB 7 135; Nippur, AbB 11 159; Larsa and Bulum, AbB 6 142. 55.  Another letter demonstrates the legal acumen of the Agent in addition to knowledge of legal terminology, as he informs the Victim about the court procedure and the law that prevails in different places; see AbB 1 92. For a discussion of this letter, see my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” §VI.1.

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

251

Judges The first group (already discussed above) that had knowledge of legal terminology consisted of judges. In several sources, personalities who functioned as judges wrote letters using the legal formula of dīnam kīma ṣimdati šuḫuzu/ qabû. 56 This legal terminology was used by judges, not only for remitting a case to another person of authority but also for describing their own actions. The position of judge could have been held by several types of individuals in addition to those mentioned explicitly as judges, including: the rabiānum (mayor), the šāpirum (overseer), the šakkanakkum (high official), the puḫrum (assembly or counsel), the ālum u šībūtu (city and elders), the bābtum (quarter of the city), the awīlū (people), and the kārum (the community of merchants). 57 Whoever served in the position of a judge must have had basic knowledge of the legal terminology required for writing a trial record or any other document that included legal phrases. Thus, in certain cases, when the person was approached by the Victim, not as a presiding judge but as a consultant, he may have served as an Agent for the victim. This type of request is seen in AbB 11 106, in which a woman asks an Agent for advice about a debt slave she holds. She further asks him to “write to the honorable judges, your colleagues (ana a-we-le-e DI.KUD.MEŠ ah-hi-ka), who have heard about my case, and let them tell Abazi to send me that barley so that I may dispatch the debt slave to him” (lines 24–29). The Agent is considered by the Victim to know the judges, “your colleagues” (ah-hi-ka). Perhaps this Agent had presided as a judge before or holds a high office with the crown or at court. In sum, people who serve or have served as judges may have the connections and the knowledge of legal terminology to approach other judges in brief formulaic letters on behalf of Victims who come to them for help. Scribes Another major group of people who possessed legal knowledge was the scribes. Scribal education incorporated literary texts, historical inscriptions, omens, mathematical tablets, and lexical lists. 58 Students were trained in writing letters, contracts, and all types of documents needed for participating in the workforce of the temple, of the palace, or in city business. 59 The possibility 56.  In AbB 6 142, written by judges, and AbB 11 159, written by the mayor and elders of Isin, we see the use of dīnam šuḫuzu (with further additions); AbB 10 1. 57. See Dombradi, Die Darstellung, 247–48; and Lafont, “Judicial Decision-Making,” 340–41. 58.  See, for example, Ana-Ittišu, which contains many legal phrases. 59.  See Yoram Cohen, The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age, HSS 59 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 48, and his references to additional literature on the subject. See also Alexandra Kleinerman, Education in Early 2nd Millennium bc Babylonia: The Sumerian Epistolary Miscellany, CM 42 (Boston: Brill, 2011); and Åke W. Sjöberg, “The Old Babylonian Edubba,” in Sumerological Studies in Honor of

252

Shirley Graetz

that the scribes belonged to the circle of Agents is clear. They had the requisite knowledge of legal terminology, because it was part of their curriculum, and they were not restricted by geography. 60 Could a scribe, under certain circumstances, have become an Agent to someone who came to him for help, writing a letter in his own name? The answer lies not in the profession of the scribe but in his social position. Certain scribes held special titles, the exact function of which is not always clear. 61 One of these titles was “scribe of the judge” (DUMU.É.DUB.BA ša dajjāni). Although the scribal curriculum incorporated legal phraseology as well, 62 according to Sjöberg, this material was not studied as part of training to become an attorney per se, but use of the legal phraseology may indicate the student’s future profession as “the scribe of the judge.” 63 According to Harris: “Whether this reference 64 [is] to a specific office or simply a title given to any scribe serving in this capacity is not clear.” 65 Harris shows that in one text a scribe may be named “the scribe of the judge,” whereas in another he is simply called “scribe,” causing her to question whether the person titled “the scribe of the judge” held these offices “consecutively or concurrently.” 66 Could some of the Agents who wrote the letters addressing the judges have been scribes connected with the courts? Could they have been some sort of “petition writer” known to both judges and the general population? In addition to writing what was dictated to them and coaching on the problem they heard in legal terms, they may also have functioned as mediators between the illiterate and those unfamiliar with the law, on one hand, and the courts, on the other—advising those who sought to know their legal rights and petitioning the courts on their behalf. Their knowledge of the law may have been gained through their scribal education and familiarity with legal terminology, but more important were their connections with the courts and judges through their Thorkild Jacobson on His Seventhieth Birthday, June 7, 1974, AS 20 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974) 159–179, for a discussion of the scribal curriculum. 60. See Roth (“The Law Collection,” 18–19), who discusses the distribution, circulation, and publication of the Laws of Hammurabi: “Not only was the composition copied and circulated in scribal centers, but it was also interpreted, as we see from commentaries and bilingual Summerian-Akkadian excerpts.” And also: “Most of these copies and manuscripts almost certainly had their place in the schools and scribal centers” (ibid., 19). 61.  Deaf writer (a copyist), field scribe, mathematician, inscriber of the stone, and so on. And see Laurie E. Pearce, “The Scribes and Scholars in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in CANE 4, ed. J. Sasson, repr. in 2 vols. (Peabody, MA : Hendrickson, 1995), 2272, for more examples. 62. See Sjöberg, “The Old Babylonian Edubba,” 164. 63. See ibid., 165. 64.  DUMU. É.DUB.BA ša dajjāni. 65. See Harris, Ancient Sippar, 130. 66. See ibid. This question is also briefly discussed by Walther, Das Altbabylonische Gerichtswesen, 179–80.

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

253

scribal work. 67 Furthermore, because there was always a chance that the plaintiff’s lawsuit would be rejected by the judge, 68 when a judge received a petition for a legal procedure from a scribe/Agent whom he knew, he may have been more willing to grant the request. This is shown clearly in AbB 1 92, in which the division of a field was delayed until the arrival of the Agent, and in AbB 3 21, where the judge held off instituting a trial until the Agent’s “client” arrived. This may explain why there are more letters written by Agents to judges on behalf of Victims than letters written directly by Victims to the judges. In sum, the scribe may have served as an Agent, especially when the Victim needed help dealing with a legal issue and wanted to address a judge in writing. Conclusion The writings of the Old Babylonian period are rich in materials about the legal system. A large quantity of various sorts of legal documents—including trial records, contracts, wills, lexical lists, and others—afford a broad understanding of the law in daily life. The Old Babylonian rulers, specifically the king and the temple, had created a legal system of courts and judges that provided an apparatus for wronged individuals to raise claims for injustices they suffered. But the legal system may not have been accessible to every wronged person and may not always have been able to provide justice for the weak. At times, injustices were inflicted on the weak by officials of the crown (e.g., in the case of taxation and wrongful land allocation). Occasionally, weaker individuals, such as slaves and servants, were unable to handle their own affairs and settle their dispute with their wrongdoer. Others were not able to do so with their peers (business partners, buyers, sellers, heirs) or to confront those of higher social status and power (overseers, state officials, judges). In these cases, the wronged individuals depended on the help of others, such as an intermediary/Agent who acted on their behalf. Usually the intermediaries were in a higher, stronger social position than the Victim and had more ability to influence the perpetrator. Enlisting an Agent was for some individuals the only way to achieve justice. A “social system” of this type, in which the weak approached the stronger with a request for help in dealing with an injustice or a problem caused by a wrongdoer was supplementary to the judicial system provided by the “state.” It was a system built primarily on connections and familiarity between the weak and the more influential. A person who had been wronged may have 67.  Some scribes may have held a high position in society, so that the Victim may have chosen to turn to them, not only because they were scribes, but because of the social status they held. See Martin Stol, Review of Late Old Babylonian Documents and Letters by Jacob J. Finkelstein, JCS 25 (1973): 222. A certain Utul-Ištar is first mentioned as a scribe and later as an abi ṣābi; see Harris, Ancient Sippar, 103. 68.  AbB 7 186.

254

Shirley Graetz

approached a personal Agent, who could be a family member, an acquaintance, or an individual he knew from work (lord, employee, overseer, or business partner). In some cases, the wronged person may have approached someone he was not necessarily close to or familiar with on a personal level: an impersonal Agent. This could have been a person of authority who was remitting the case (either to a lower or higher authority); an individual of high social status (e.g., kabtum, rabûm, abi ṣābim); a person who occasionally presided as a judge and thus had knowledge and connections within the judicial system; or a scribe, as evidenced especially in letters written to a judge. The wronged person who decided to ask an Agent for help needed to choose a person whose abilities would guarantee that he obtained justice. The choice may not have been entirely the Victim’s; it depended on who the Victim was and, most important, whom he knew. 69 I have shown that, although there were no professional “lawyers” in the Old Babylonian period, certain people in society functioned as Agents and helpers for people who had been wronged. In this capacity, they provided a service similar to that provided by present-day lawyers. Thus, the official legal system that the king advertised on his stele, “in order that the mighty not wrong the weak,” 70 was supplemented by a system in which the weak approached those with more social status, power, and influence to help them obtain justice. Excursus: kīma ṣimdati In most of the letters written by Agents addressed to the Recipient-judges, 71 the request for a verdict or a trial for the Victim, “dīnam šuḫuzum or qabûm,” is supplemented by the phrase kīma ṣimdatim. 72 Why did the Agent add the phrase kīma ṣimdatim? He could have simply asked the judge to institute a lawsuit without adding kīma ṣimdatim. 73 To answer this question, I briefly discuss the term ṣimdatum in the context of its use in the letters. The term ṣimdatum has been addressed in many studies and articles. 74 Taking into account the 69.  In some letters, there are two Agents between the Victim and the Recipient, indicating that, if a Victim did not know an Agent who was powerful enough to advance his cause, the first Agent could approach another Agent, asking him to help the Victim by writing to the Recipient. See my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” ch. 2, for further discussion. 70.  Transliteration and translation: Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, 133–34. 71.  For discussion, see my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” ch. 3. 72.  At times alone or with further additions. 73.  See also CAD A/1 178, s.v. aḫāzu (šuḫuzu), with dīnu: “to take to court, to try a case.” 74. The CAD translates ṣimdatu as: (1) royal decree; (2)  (a specific) royal regulation (CAD Ṣ 194ff., s.v. ṣimdatu). Scholarly opinion about the term falls into two main categories: (1) ṣimdatu is assumed to be a general term for justice; see Benno Landsberger (“Die Babylonische Termini für Gesetz und Recht,” in Symbolae ad Iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentes:

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

255

scope of the present article, I focus on K. R Veenhof’s article “The Relations between Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’ of the Old Babylonian Period.” 75 Veenhof understood ṣimdat šarrim as a law, regulations, or decrees of different types. He distinguished between various types of ṣimdat šarrim. The first type consists of the royal mišarum-acts, the chief aim of which “was to restore equity (mišarum) by the cancellation of certain private, consumptive debts and by remitting arrears of various servants of the crown, in order to strengthen the tributaries (of the crown) and bring relief to debt-ridden subjects.” 76 Paulo Koschaker Dedicatae, ed. Theunis Folkers et al. [Leiden: Brill,1939], 227), who was of the opinion that in various texts (legal and nonlegal) the word ṣimdatu did not refer to the written or oral laws and was not a term for a specific law but, rather, a general term he called “Recht,” which embraced all prerequisites available to a judge to make a right and valid ruling; (b) understanding ṣimdatu in a more practical sense, as law, regulations, or decrees. Julius G. Lautner (Altbabylonische Personenmiete und Erntearbeiterverträge [Leiden: Brill, 1936], 180–81) stated that the general phrase kīma ṣimdāt šarrim should be understood as: “Vorschriften prozessualer Natur” (regulations of a procedural nature). Driver and Miles (The Babylonian Laws, 1.17ff.) disagreed with Landsberger and stated that “ṣimdātum is a concrete term denoting certain definite ordinances and does not mean abstract law of justice.” They stated that “ṣimdāt šarrim or ṣimdātum, as they are sometimes simply called, are ordinances issued from time to time by a ruler to deal with some special matter.” Fritz R. Kraus (“Akkadische Wörter und Ausdrücke,” RA 73 [1979]: 62) agreed with Driver and Miles and explained that ṣimdatu had developed in the Old Babylonian period and thus has two meanings: (1) the first, older meaning was “königliche Maßregel” (royal regulation); (2) the second, more-recent meaning was: (a) when the word appears in a judiciary type of text, in the phrase kīma ṣimdat šarrim, the meaning is “königliche Verfahren” (royal procedure); (b) when the word appears in sources with the expression ana (pī)/ kīma/ ṣimdat šarrim, the meaning is “vorliegende königliche Bestimmung” (the present royal regulation). Maria de J. Ellis (“Ṣimdatu in the Old Babylonian Sources,” JCS 24 [1972]: 78) discussed the term thoroughly and offered the following understanding of ṣimdatu: “We will get farth­est by seeing ṣimdatu with or without modification by šarrim not as a specific, prescribed rule of law (or tariff), but as referring to general legal custom, which may have or may not have been formalized into written form, and which may include tariffs as well as more customary types of legal prescriptions.” She added, “Rather, it and other rules like it make up the ṣimdat šarrim and the clause in the contracts must be interpreted as ‘in accordance with the requirements of the ṣimdat šarrim.’” She concluded that ṣimdat (šarrim) “is a term of general application and can refer to corpora of prescriptive rules such as are represented by the code of Hammurabi, to edict enactments, or to general legal usage” (see Ellis, “Ṣimdatu in the Old Babylonian Sources,” 82). She did not mean that the Laws of Hammurabi were that corpus, because she clearly stated that “we do not know how far the Old Babylonian legal corpus was formulized into writing and how far it depended on orally transmitted knowledge and instruction” (ibid., 81–82). See also a new discussion by Charpin, Writing Law and Kingship, 71ff. 75. See Veenhof, “The Relations between Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’.” 76.  Ibid., 49. For a different opinion, see Sophie Démare Lafont, “Ancient Near Eastern Laws: Continuity and Pluralism, ” in Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development, ed. B. M. Levinson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 96–97. There, she states, “mišarum edicts are part of the royal activities, but they are not legal rules in the technical sense of the term.”

256

Shirley Graetz

The second type of ṣimdat šarrim are “regulatory provisions of a more traditional nature, by means of which a king lays down liabilities in connection with certain transactions and especially penalties and compensations for various types of breach of contract or other violation of the law.” 77 Further, he explained that, in contrast to the mišarum acts, which were time sensitive, this second sort of royal decree may have been restricted to one issue or legal problem, without reference to a restriction in time. 78 According to Veenhof, it was “a special type of source of normative, positive law,” 79 and although these decrees have not been found yet, they are known from references in a variety of contracts and letters that usually include the statement “in accordance with the decree of the king” (kīma ṣimdati šarrim) or, in a more general form, kīma ṣimdatim. In his article, Veenhof asked which type of ṣimdat šarrim is meant when the reference is to kīma ṣimdati šarrim: the mišarum acts or the second type of royal decree? Although some of these references may have been to the first type of royal decree, a substantial number of sources referred to the second type. Veenhof assumed that a large number of this sort of royal decree existed and played an important role in the administration of justice. 80 They instructed officials and judges “not so much whether a case was to be accepted for trial, but what verdict they had to pass for the plaintiff and which penalty to impose on the culprit.” 81 This explanation of kīma ṣimdati šarrim is highly plausible, as Veenhof showed in his article, but in the context of the letters it raises several questions and certain doubts. I agree with the scholars according to whom the ṣimdat(u) (šarrim) decrees function as “laws.” Whether these decrees were propagated in the form of letters or in other ways cannot be stated with certainty. 77. See Veenhof, “The Relations between Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’,” 53. Similarly, Driver and Miles, The Babylonian Laws, 1.20: “ṣimdāt šarrim or ṣimdātum, as they are sometimes simply called, are ordinances issued from time to time by a ruler to deal with some special matter.” 78.  Concerning the origin of the second type of royal decree, Veenhof presents the example of the letter of King Samsu-iluna, who was informed of the troubles of the nadītu in Sippar. To address this problem, the king wrote a letter containing two rulings, one for each complaint presented to him. The letter could serve as one of the examples of such a royal decree. Veenhof assumed that the distribution of these letters was a way of “publishing” them. These decrees or regulations may have clarified, supplemented, or corrected existing laws. This letter is published as CT 52 111, and later as AbB 7 111, and is discussed at length by C. Janssen, “Samsu-iluna and the Hungry Nadītums,” in Northern Akkad Project Reports, 19991, ed. L. de Meyer and H. Gasche, Mesopotamian History and Environment: Northern Akkad Project Report 5 (Ghent: Recherches et Publications, 1991), 3–39. See also a discussion by Lafont,“Ancient Near Eastern Laws,” 97ff. 79.  Veenhof, “The Relations between Royal Decrees and ‘Law Codes’,” 53. 80.  Ibid., 56. 81.  Ibid., 55.

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

257

The request of the Agent to dīnam kīma ṣimdati (šuḫuzu or qabû) for the Victim expresses his wish for legal involvement by the Recipient and for justice for the Victim. But there appears to be no difference between asking a judge to institute a lawsuit (dīnam šuḫuzu) and asking him to institute a lawsuit according to ṣimdatum (dīnam kīma ṣimdati šuḫuzu); 82 they are the same. The result of the long and short requests is also the same: the institution of a trial or the pronouncement of a verdict. If ṣimdatum are decrees or laws, 83 what does the Agent gain by adding kīma ṣimdati? Is it possible that the Agent suggests to the person who is acting as judge that he “institute a lawsuit according to ṣimdatum” in order to remind him to judge according to the law? This does not make sense, for how else could the judge arbitrate the case? Could the Agent have been accusing the judge of favoritism toward the other party and subtly reminding him that he should judge according to the law and not according to his personal biases? This understanding is improbable because it implies that almost every Agent in this group of letters 84 thought that the judges were prejudiced. 85 In Veenhof’s theory, in each letter ṣimdatu refers to a particular law that deals with the specific problem raised in the letter. For example, in AbB 6 124, the Victim bought an orchard, and the city took it away. The Agent’s use of ṣimdatim would refer in this case to the specific decree that deals with the city’s taking away the property of a citizen. This understating is theoretically plausible, but in the context of the letters in this particular study, it has several flaws: 1.  The argument that ṣimdatu is a reference to a specific law or decree implies that an Agent must know each and every one of the laws or decrees of the ṣimdatu. 86 2.  In five letters, the problem at hand is not described at all, which means that the judge could not learn about the specific problem from the letter until he met the Victim. 87 Therefore, it is unlikely that the Agent was referring to the specific law dealing with the injustice since he did not introduce the problem in the letter. 82.  Or the pairs dīnam qabû and dīnam kīma ṣimdati qabû. 83.  Either collected in a legal corpus (M. de J. Ellis) or individual decrees (Veenhof). 84.  See my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” ch. 3. 85.  By contrast, in AbB 11 183, the Agent clearly criticizes the Recipient-judge by asking him whether he knows the law; see lines 21–23. 86.  In AbB 11 183, the Agent raises concerns about the conduct of the recipient in a matter concerning the Victim and asks: ú-ul ti-de-a ki-ma i-na ṣi-im-da-at be-lí-ja a-we-TUM a-na pí-i ka-an-ki-šu 1 sila3 še-a la iḫ-ḫa-ab-ba-lu-ú, “Do you (pl.) not know that, according to the law of my lord, a man should not be deprived of (even) one quart of barley (that he is entitled to), according to the wording of his sealed documents?”(lines 21–23). In this letter, it is possible that the Agent is actually quoting a specific law or regulation. 87.  Or in another letter, which may have been sent at a different time.

258

Shirley Graetz

3.  In some letters, there are additional references to terms other than ṣimdatim as the ground for the judge’s verdict. 88 Table 3 shows that in most letters written by the Agent to the Recipientjudge 89 the problem is not specified, and therefore it is doubtful that in these letters ṣimdatu references are to the specific law that deals with the Victim’s problem. 90 If the Agent does not explain the Victim’s problem and does not clarify his status or that of the property in question, as Agents do in letters written to Recipient-wrongdoers and the Recipient-helpers, on what grounds does he base his requests? What persuasive arguments, if any, does he make to strengthen his request being made to the Recipient-judge? What statement would compel the judge to grant the Victim a trial and a solution? The answer to these questions lies in the term ṣimdatu. I have argued earlier that, when the Agent uses the term ki-ma ṣi-im-da-tim, he does not mean the precise law relating to the specific case he is presenting to the judge. 91 Nevertheless, I suggest that the use of ṣimdatu does refer to a precise law (decree, common, or statutory) of another nature—namely, the law that grants the right to be judged, to receive a trial and a verdict. 92 We have no reference to such a specific decree or law in the Laws of Hammurabi or in any other law code of the Old Babylonian period. 93 However, in 88.  In AbB 1 120, the Agent refers to a document in the Victim’s possession as the primary basis on which his verdict should be decided: a-na pí-i ka-ni-ik DI.KUD.MEŠ ká.DINGIR.RAki ša PN na-šu-ú [di-nam ki-ma] ṣi-im-da-tim qí-[b]i-a-šu-nu-šim, “in accordance with the wording of the sealed document of the judges of Babylon, that PN holds, pronounce for them a [verdict according] to the law”(lines 10–14). In AbB 7 135, the Agent also refers to a tablet in the possession of the victim as the basis for the verdict: a-na pí-i tup-pí di-nim ša na-šu-ú [d]i-nam ki-ma ṣi-im-da-tim qí-bi-a-šum, “in accordance with the wording of the tablet of the decision that he carries, a verdict according to the law pronounced for him” (lines 9–10). In both letters, the Agent explicitly states that the verdict should be given based on the Victim’s tablet, that is, the (a) words of the judges of Babylon or the (b) words of the tablet containing the decision. This tablet could stipulate some type of decision or evidence that was produced at an earlier stage and given to the victim. 89.  See my “To Whom Does a Wronged Man Turn for Help,” ch. 3. 90.  For comparison: in cases involving a Recipient-wrongdoer, the Victim’s problem is stated in all of the letters (see ibid., ch. 1); in cases involving a Recipient-helper, the Victim’s problem is stated in 11 out of 12 letters (ibid., ch. 2). 91.  This law changes from letter to letter, because the injustices suffered by the Victim are different. 92.  Dombradi understood that the expression dīnam kīma ṣimdati šuḫuzu refers only to accepting a case for trial—hence, to judicial procedure: “Der Adressat soll. . . . und den ṣimdatu Verordnung entsprechend ein Prozess-verfahren gewähren” (see Dombradi, Die Darstellung, vol. 2, n. 2065). 93.  Evidence that such a custom/law (i.e., to render judgment) may have existed is found in Isaiah’s preaching, when he demands that the fatherless and the widow (the individuals in society) should receive judgment:

To Whom Can a Wronged Person Turn for Help?

259

Table 3.  Letters in Which the Problem Is or Is Not Specified in Cases Involving a Recipient-Judge Problem Specified AbB 1 120; AbB 6 142; AbB 7 85; AbB 11 101; AbB 11 159; AbB 11 183

Problem Not Specified AbB 6 71; AbB 6 138; AbB 7 135; AbB 9 6; AbB 11 5; AbB 13 143; AbB 11 78; AbB 14 184

Uncertain: Tablet Unclear AbB 10 161

light of Veenhof’s argument about the possibility of existing decrees that have not yet been found, based on references in contracts and letters, there is no reason to doubt the existence of this sort of law, which may have been a common law or a law pronounced by the king. 94 It is reasonable to argue, therefore, that the legal system allowed people to turn to the courts for judgment and that people were aware of this right. The population, or a portion of it, knew that they had a choice of going before a judge if they were wronged, and in this way obtaining justice. 95 Nevertheless, there was always a chance that a lawsuit would be rejected by a judge without pronouncing a verdict. 96 It seems that “dīnam kīma ṣimdati šūḫuzu (qabû)” is a request to grant the Victim a lawsuit or verdict in accordance with the ṣimdatu, the decree or law that grants every person the right to a court procedure—the right to be tried. Thus, the term ṣimdatu (with or without further specifications) refers not to a law relevant to the specific matter at hand ‫ ִריבּו א ְַל ָמנָה׃‬,‫ׁש ְפטּו יָתֹום‬ ִ ;‫ ַאּשְׁרּו חָמֹוץ‬,‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫ִל ְמדּו הֵיטֵב ִּד ְרׁשּו ִמ‬ Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. (Isa 1:17)

He complains that the judges do not judge the weak but prefer to judge those who can pay them a bribe for their work. ְ ‫ׂשרַ י‬ ‫ ְוִריב א ְַל ָמנָה לֹא־יָבֹוא‬,‫ִׁשּפֹטּו‬ ְ ‫ ְורֹדֵ ף ׁשַ ְלמֹנִים; יָתֹום לֹא י‬,‫ָבים—ּכֻּלֹו אֹהֵב ׁשֹחַד‬ ִ ‫ ְוח ְַברֵ י ַּגּנ‬,‫סֹורִרים‬ ְ ‫ִך‬ ָ ‫אלֵיהֶם׃‬ ֲ

Your princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; everyone loves bribes and follows after rewards; they do not judge the fatherless, and the cause of the widow does not come before them. (Isa 1:23)

94. Marc van de Mieroop (“The Government of an Ancient Mesopotamian City: What We Know and Why We Know so Little,” in Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East, ed. K. Watanabe [Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1996], 145) writes, “A Mesopotamian seems to have had the basic right to be judged by his or her peers.” 95.  Whether this law was known in oral or written form does not matter. It was a law or regulation known to at least those who appear in trial records and in other sources dealing with courts and lawsuits. See especially AbB 10 6; AbB 7 135. 96. See Dombradi, Die Darstellung, 98ff.; and see AbB 6 138.

260

Shirley Graetz

but to a decree or law stating that a person is entitled to receive a trial or verdict from the courts. 97 In most of the letters addressed to the Recipient-judge, the Agent bases his request on this law. 98 The Agent implies to the judge that his request is based on the rights of the Victim to due process (trial, verdict) as guaranteed by ṣimdatu. 97.  Not to the specific matter at hand: With the exception of AbB 11 183, in which the Agent may be referring to a specific law. A decree or law regarding one’s right to a trial: Written or oral, whether included in a corpus of laws or not. 98.  Rather than on information about the Victim, as in the letters sent to the Recipientwrongdoer or to the Recipient-helper.

Finding One’s Way in Proverbs 30:18–19

Edward L. Greenstein Over the sea, over the sea— O birds, do you know the way there? —H. N. Bialik

Numerical sayings are by their very nature like a riddle. 1 A number of things are presented as a set, and the question is: what have they to do with one another? There is one graded numerical saying in Prov 6:16–19 (six, no seven things that Yhwh detests) and a series of four numerical sayings, all but one of them graded (three–four), in Proverbs 30 (vv. 18–19/20, 2 21–23, 24–28, 29–32). 3 The most enigmatic of these is the “riddle” 4 about four types of “ways, paths, courses” (‫ )דרך‬that are enumerated in Prov 30:18–19: ‫ִפ ְלאוּ ִמ ֶמּנִּי ְוא ְַר ָבּעָה   לֹא יְדַ ְע ִתּים׃‬ ְ ‫שׁה ֵהמָּה נ‬ ָ ֹ ‫שׁל‬ ְ ְ ‫ַשּׁ ַמיִם ֶדּר‬ ְ ‫ֶדּר‬ ‫צוּר‬-‫ֶך נָחָשׁ עֲ ֵ֫לי‬ ָ ‫ֶשׁר בּ‬ ֶ ‫ֶך ַהנּ‬ ְ ‫יָם ְו ֶדר‬-‫א ִניָּה ְבלֶב‬ ְ ‫ֶדּר‬ ‫ֶך ֶגּבֶר ְבּע ְַלמָה׃‬ ֳ -‫ֶך‬ 1. Harry Torczyner [Tur-Sinai], “The Riddle in the Bible,” HUCA 1 (1924): 125–49, esp. p. 135; James G. Williams, Those Who Ponder Proverbs: Aphoristic Thinking and Biblical Literature (Sheffield: Almond, 1981), 39; James L. Crenshaw, “Wisdom,” Urgent Advice and Probing Questions: Collected Writings on Old Testament Wisdom (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1995), 45–77, esp. pp. 54–55. I deeply regret that this contribution written to honor my old friend and dear colleague, Victor Hurowitz, now honors his memory. I have delivered a Hebrew version of this study as a memorial to him at Ben-Gurion University (April 2013) and an English version at a session memorializing him at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (Baltimore, November 2013). The memory of the righteous is a blessing. This essay was written before Victor’s two-volume Hebrew commentary on Proverbs appeared; there, he adopts one of the more conventional interpretations of the passage that I treat. 2.  For the discreteness of Prov 30:20, see below. 3.  On the graded numerical sequence in the Hebrew Bible, see W. M. W. Roth, Numerical Sayings in the Old Testament: A Form-Critical Study, VTSup 13 (Leiden: Brill, 1965). 4.  See T. A. Perry, “Wisdom Begins in Wonder: The Riddle of Proverbs 30:18–20,” God’s Twilight Zone: Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 157–73; cf., e.g., Roth, Numerical Sayings, 22. 5. The Kethiv ‫ וארבע‬is insignificant for our purposes.

261

262

Edward L. Greenstein

There are three things beyond me, 6 And four I cannot understand: The way of an eagle in the sky, The way of a snake on a rock, The way of a ship in the heart of the sea, And the way of a man in (or: with) a maiden.

What is so mystifying, or wondrous, about the four phenomena that are mentioned is “uncertain.” 7 Reckoning with the meaning is left to the reader. 8 Before examining the prevalent interpretations and then suggesting a somewhat different reading, we should take stock of the more salient rhetorical features of the passage. First, there is the pattern of a graded numerical sequence. Three things are delineated and then a climactic fourth. The first three items are preliminary to the last. 9 It is unclear, however, whether the fourth item clarifies the first three or vice versa, or whether they are all mutually clarified by some common denominator. Commentators have observed an ascending hierarchical pattern to the four phenomena: from the locomotion of two animals to the navigation of a human construction to a purely human behavior put in human terms. 10 Some commentators see in the “way of a man in (or: with) a maiden” a phenomenon of a completely different order. 11 This judgment, however, is founded on a particular pre-understanding of the unit. 12 In the interpretation 6.  In the sense of “beyond comprehension”; Roth, Numerical Sayings, 22; cf., e.g., William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 657; Roland Murphy, Proverbs, WBC 22 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 235. Or “mysterious” to me; cf. Meir Malul, Knowledge, Control, and Sex: Studies in Biblical Thought, Culture, and Worldview (Tel Aviv–Jaffa: Archaeological Center Publications, 2002), 264. Others prefer “wondrous” or “wonderful”; e.g., Crawford H. Toy, Proverbs, ICC (New York: Scribner’s, 1916), 531; Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs Chapters 15–31, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 490–91; Perry, “Wisdom Begins in Wonder,” 158; Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 10–31, AYB 18B (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 870. See further below. 7.  R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs, CBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 177. 8.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 870. 9. See Roth, Numerical Sayings, 6; cf., e.g., Perry, “Wisdom Begins in Wonder,” 160– 61. 10. E.g., Otto Plöger, Sprüche Salomos (Proverbia), BKAT 17 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984), 363–64; Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 266; Tova L. Forti, Animal Imagery in the Book of Proverbs, VTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 126–27. There is a tendency to regard the ship in the sea as a natural phenomenon rather than a human one; but both the ship’s construction and its navigation are clearly human, and one can find in this item a bridge between animal and human experience. 11. E.g., Forti, ibid., 127; Perry,“Wisdom Begins in Wonder,” 161. 12.  On “pre-understandings,” see esp. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 235–74.

Finding One’s Way in Proverbs 30:18–19

263

presented below, I do not share this pre-understanding; I consider the fourth phenomenon to be of a piece with the preceding three. The most outstanding rhetorical feature of the unit, of course, is that each line is formulated as the “way” (‫ )דרך‬of the subject of the line—the eagle, snake, ship, or man. 13 However, most commentators regard the fourth “way” as different in kind—metaphorical rather than literal—involving a change in meaning. 14 It is some behavior of the man (and possibly the young woman), rather than the physical course he takes (they take) that is meant. This exegetical move is necessary in order to advance the prevalent interpretations of the verses, even though each of these interpretations is beset by difficulties and inconsistencies. In the present discussion, I do not assume that the fourth use of ‫ דרך‬must be understood differently. To the contrary, the fact that ‫ דרך‬is the common element in each of the phenomena is taken here to be the most fundamental aspect of the unit—the primary key to solving the riddle. The following verse (v. 20), which is attached to the numerical sequence in vv. 18–19 by means of the catchword ‫“( דרך‬way”), 15 is not an integral part of the unit. 16 It is not included within the graded numerical pattern of three and four that structures vv. 18–19. 17 The disjunction between vv. 18–19 and v. 20 must be appreciated because the interpretation of v. 19d—“the way of a man in (or: with) a maiden”—is often influenced by the assumption of a semantic connection with v. 20, 18 which describes how an adulterous woman removes any trace of her transgression—she “eats”—a metaphor for having sex—and then “wipes her mouth (clean).” 19 13.  See, e.g., Whybray, Proverbs, 177; Murphy, Proverbs, 235; Plöger, Sprüche, 363. 14. E.g., McKane, Proverbs, 657; Whybray, Proverbs, 177; Clifford, Proverbs, 266; Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, 490; Forti, Animal Imagery, 127. 15.  So, e.g., W. Frankenberg, Die Sprüche, HAT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1898), 163; R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, AB 18 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), 181; McKane, Proverbs, 658; Whybray, Proverbs, 177. 16.  So too, e.g., W. O. E. Oesterley, The Book of Proverbs, Westminster Commentaries (London: Methuen, 1929), 277; Murphy, Proverbs, 235–36; Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 870; contrast Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, 490; Perry, “Wisdom Begins in Wonder,” 168. 17.  Cf., e.g., Plöger, Sprüche Salomos, 364. Forti (Animal Imagery, 127–28) makes another argument based on language: v. 20 opens with ‫כן‬, “thus,” a comparative expression that is often preceded by a clause, or clauses beginning with the comparative kaph (e.g., Prov 10:26; 23:7; 26:1, 2, 8, 19). However, there are several comparisons or conclusions drawn in Proverbs using ‫ כן‬that are not preceded by clauses beginning with kaph; e.g., Prov 1:19; 6:29; 24:14. 18.  See, e.g., Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, 490–92. This is especially true of the traditional Jewish interpreters (see below). 19.  For the figuration of sexual activity as eating and food, see, e.g., W. G. Lambert, “Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love,” in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East (ed. M. Mindlen, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough; London: School of Oriental and African Studies, 1987), 25–39; Shalom M. Paul, “The Shared Legacy of Sexual Metaphors and Euphemisms in Mesopotamian and Biblical Literature,” in Sex and Gender

264

Edward L. Greenstein

Indeed, one of the most venerable interpretations of the four ways in Prov 30:18–19 is that (like the adulterous woman of v. 20) each movement—of the eagle, snake, ship, and man—does not leave a trace behind. This understanding predominates among the traditional Jewish interpreters (e.g., Saadia Gaon, Joseph Qimḥi, Menaḥem Ha-Meiri, Joseph Kaspi, Isaiah of Trani, Gersonides, Malbim) 20 and is favored by some moderns as well. 21 Moderns often point to a possible thematic parallel in Wis 5:9–12: All those things have vanished like a shadow, And like a rumor that passes by; Like a ship that sails through the billowy water, And when it has passed no trace can be found, No track of its keel in the waves; Or as, when a bird flies through the air, No evidence of its passage is found; The light air, lashed by the beat of its pinions And pierced by the force of its rushing flight, Is traversed by the movement of its wings, And afterward no sign of its coming is found there; Or as, when an arrow is shot at a target, The air, thus divided, comes together at once, So that no one knows its pathway. (nrsv)

In this passage, the common element is expressly the lack of a trace. In Proverbs 30, however, there is no mention of a trace or the lack of a trace. Moreover, in the Wisdom of Solomon, there is nothing of the human sphere among the examples, and the examples are meant in context to represent the ephemeral. The parallel is far from decisive; there is a partial resemblance that may have no bearing whatsoever on the meaning of the passage from Proverbs. More important, the difficulty with this understanding of Prov 30:18–19, as some commentators have observed, is that the applicability to the human situation—“the way of a man in (or: with) a maiden”—is strained. 22 One must assume that the “maiden” of whom the sage speaks “has already experienced in the Ancient Near East : Proceedings of the 47th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Helsinki, July 2–6, 2001, ed. S.  Parpola and R.  M. Whiting, CRRAI 47 (Helsinki: NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project, 2002), 489–98; Malul, Knowledge, Control, and Sex, 249; Yael Avrahami, The Senses of Scripture: Sensory Perception in the Hebrew Bible, LHBOTS 545 (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2012), 102. 20.  The commentary of Saadia is taken from the Hebrew edition by Yosef Kapaḥ; the commentary of the Malbim from the standard rabbinic Bible containing his commentary; and the other commentaries from the CD edition of Miqraʾot Gedolot “Ha-Keter,” ed. Menaḥem Cohen (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press). 21.  E.g., D. G. Wildeboer, Die Sprüche, KHAT (Freiburg: Mohr, 1897), 87–88; Tor­ czyner, “Riddle,” 136; Plöger, Sprüche Salomos, 364. 22.  See, e.g., Toy, Proverbs, 531; Scott, Proverbs, 181; Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 871.

Finding One’s Way in Proverbs 30:18–19

265

intercourse” 23—an unlikely assumption when one considers that the term “maiden” (‫ )עלמה‬routinely denotes a young woman who is not known to have had sexual relations. 24 Accordingly, several modern commentators understand the shared theme of the phenomena enumerated in Prov 30:18–19 to be the uncanny way in which the various types of movement take place. 25 It is amazing that a snake can travel without feet, that a bird can defy gravity, that a ship can float, and that a man and a maid can couple and reproduce—or, if taken metaphorically, that a man and woman can bond. There are at least two problems with this interpretation. For one thing, if the unit is about motion, it is curious that there is not a single verb in any of the descriptions; each movement is formulated as a nominal phrase. The emphasis is placed not on the motion but on the path or course it takes (see above). For another thing, “the way of a man in (or: with) a maiden,” even if it does indicate the sexual act, 26 is not particularly analogous to the movements of a bird, snake, or boat. If one does not insist on a strict analogy among the four movements described in the unit, one can suggest, as many do, that it is all about the wonder and mysteries of nature—the snake’s legless locomotion, the bird’s graceful glide, the ship’s amazing ability to navigate, “the marvelousness of human love which irresistibly drives the sexes to each other.” 27 To support this understanding one can, of course, appeal to the use of ‫נפלא‬, “beyond, wondrous,” in v. 18 to characterize all of the following phenomena. While such an interpretation is feasible and, on account of its generality, it does not suffer from the objections to other interpretations that were raised above, its very vagueness may be seen in tension with the fourfold anaphoric repetition of ‫דרך‬, “way, path,” in v. 19. The fact that the unit lays the rhetorical and, one may infer, the thematic stress on ‫ דרך‬may be deduced from the fact that v. 20 was, as mentioned above, attached to v. 20 precisely because of the significance of ‫ דרך‬in the passage. In my interpretation, the prominence and consistency of the use of ‫ דרך‬serve as the point of departure. What do the paths or courses of the eagle in the sky, 23.  Perry, “Wisdom Begins in Wonder,” 163. 24. See Waltke, Proverbs 15–31, 491–92. 25.  E.g., Moses Qimḥi; Frankenberg, Die Sprüche, 162–63; Oesterley, Proverbs, 276– 77; McKane, Proverbs, 657–58. 26.  See, e.g., Frankenberg, Die Sprüche, 163; Arnold B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur hebräischen Bibel, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1913; repr.: Hildesheim: Olms, 1968), 6.172; Clifford, Proverbs, 266; Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 872; cf. Toy, Proverbs, 531; Perry, “Wisdom Begins in Wonder,” 165; cf. Barbara Böck, “Proverbs 30:18–19 in the Light of Ancient Mesopotamian Cuneiform Texts,” Sefarad 69 (2009): 263–79. It should be noted that Böck does not offer a coherent interpretation of the entire series of four items. 27.  Roth, Numerical Sayings, 22–23; cf., e.g., Frankenberg, Die Sprüche, 162–63; Toy, Proverbs, 531; Oesterley, Proverbs, 276–77; Scott, Proverbs, 181; McKane, Proverbs, 658; Murphy, Proverbs, 235; Luis Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, SubBi 11 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1988), 98; and esp. Forti, Animal Imagery, 126–27.

266

Edward L. Greenstein

the snake on the rock, the ship in the sea, and the man in (or: with) the maiden have in common? A clue in the direction I am pursuing is provided by Rashi (ca. 1100): they all disappear from sight. 28 Rashi underscores the fact that the snake, the eagle, the ship, and the man in/with the maiden remove themselves from the sight of any observer. Their paths cannot be retraced, “their course is not recoverable.” 29 Rashi’s interpretation conveys a different nuance from the more typical traditional exegesis, according to which the movements of the four leave no trace (see above). His understanding makes sense in a general way, but it does not appear to take into account all the details—in particular, the course of the snake “over a rock” and not through the brush or across the ground, and the course of a man with a young woman, which would in most circumstances take place out of the sight of other people. I therefore propose a different understanding or solution to the riddle of the four ways. In each case, the subject departing on a course of movement cannot see the desired destination and yet reaches that destination. The eagle flies high and far; it cannot see its destination at the time it takes flight; and yet it reaches its destination anyway. The snake, on one side of a rock, starts out on its slithering path without being able to see the other side of the rock, and yet it seems to know instinctively where it is going. The ship sets its course with only imperceptible guides, and yet it manages to reach its final harbor successfully. And what of the man’s way in/with the maiden? When he begins the act of love-making and during most if not the entire course of it, he cannot see the object of his desire; and yet he somehow knows where it is and how to find his way there. The genitalia are in many cultures, and in the Hebrew Bible as well, conceived as hidden and/or secret parts. This is particularly so of the female genitalia, which are recessed—“hidden, secret, and dark.” 30 One’s wife is figured as a “cistern” (‫ )בור‬and “well” (‫ )באר‬in Prov 5:15, and it is possible that there is a metaphorical analogy to the vagina in the image of the deep cavity. 31 In Sumerian literature, as well, the “well/cistern” (pú) 32 can represent the female organ. 33 In any event, the genitalia are known in Hebrew as the “nakedness” (‫ ;ערוה‬cf. the Akkadian cognate ūru), 34 which are exposed in the act of sex (‫גלה‬ 28.  ‫ שממהרין להסתר מן העין‬,‫ ואיני יודע להיכן הלכו‬,‫נכסו משחלפו מעיני‬, “Once they pass out of my sight they are concealed, and I donʾt know where they have gone, as they are quickly hidden from my sight.” 29.  Murphy, Proverbs, 235. 30.  Malul, Knowledge, Control, and Sex, 340; cf. pp. 334, 339. 31. So Paul, “Shared Legacy,” 498; but others see only a general analogy between the woman and the water-source, like the garden pool in Song 4:12, 15; see, e.g., Clifford, Proverbs, 71; Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, AB 18A (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 199–200. 32.  John A. Halloran, Sumerian Lexicon (Los Angeles: Logogram, 2006), 217. 33.  Paul, “Shared Legacy,” 498. 34. See CAD U/W 265–66.

Finding One’s Way in Proverbs 30:18–19

267

‫ )ערוה‬35 but ordinarily concealed—for they are the private parts, unseen. An inauspicious exposure of the “nakedness” or “pudenda” is meant to be “covered” (‫ ;כסה ערוה‬e.g., Gen 9:23; Ezek 16:8; Hos 2:11; cf. Akk. katāmu, kuttumu). 36 The seraphim in Isaiah’s vision “cover” (‫ )כסה‬their “feet” (‫—)רגלים‬a euphemism for their genitals 37—with two of their wings (Isa 6:2). The point with regard to Proverbs 30 is that the maiden’s pudenda cannot be seen by the man who engages her in sexual relations—it is customarily out of sight—and yet the man finds it by his nature. What is the import of the passage? Wolff offers this interpretation: “Here the writer describes four paths that have not been previously pioneered and are therefore not discernible in advance.” 38 This comes close to what I want to suggest, but I would not highlight the initiative, or pioneering spirit, of the animals and the people since, to my way of understanding, what is amazing is the innate knowledge of the subjects to find their destinations without any direct sensory perception of them. I suggest that the wonder that is being celebrated in the passage of the four ways is that of natural instinct. An appreciation of natural instinct is not at all common in ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature, nor is it, so far as I can tell, very prominent in biblical literature. Contrast, for example, this excerpt from the Egyptian Instructions of Any: Do not go out of your house, Without knowing your place of rest. Let your chosen place be known, Remember it and know it. Set it before you as the path to take; If you are straight you find it. 39

In this metaphor of the journey of life, the choice of a route toward a foreknown destination is deliberate and planned. The examples in Prov 30:18–19 evince no forethought; they represent instinctive behavior. Although the idea of natural instinct is rare in the biblical world, in some of the thought reflected in the Hebrew Bible nature has a life of its own. The 35. See BDB 788–89; HALOT 2001, 1.882; cf. Paul, “Shared Legacy,” 497. 36. See CAD K 298–303. There is a use of Akk. puzru, “secret place,” in the Assyrian Dream Book for which the CAD (P 556) suggests a possible reference to the female genitals; see A. Leo Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream Book, TAPS 46 (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1956), 337, rev. 7; trans. on p. 294a. However, we would do well to follow Oppenheim’s caution: “It is uncertain whether puzru is here used as a euphemistic expression or not” (p. 294 n. 185). 37. See BDB 920a. 38.  Hans Walter Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 43. 39. Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2: The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), 138.

268

Edward L. Greenstein

created world may be dependent on the deity, but life is suffused throughout it. 40 Accordingly, a well of water can be addressed and bidden to rise on its own (Num 21:17–18). Balsam trees whispering in the breeze convey a message to David (2 Sam 5:23–24). The sky talks to the earth, and the earth to the grain (Hos 2:21–22). The notion of animal instinct, however, is most closely echoed in some of the verses following ours in Proverbs 30. The unit in vv. 29–31 indicates four animals, including a human monarch, who walk “with a stately gait.” 41 This is little more than an observation, however, apparently intended to cast a somewhat cynical glance at the king. We find similar observations of characteristic animal behaviors elsewhere in wisdom literature, as, for example, in Sir 27:9–10, in which the facts that “birds roost with their own kind” and “a lion lies in wait for prey” (nrsv) function as points of comparison to human conduct for the purpose of drawing a moral. The unit in Prov 30:24–28, dealing with four animals that are “small but wise,” 42 comes closer to evincing the concept of instinctive behavior. Verse 25 remarks on the ants that, in spite of their seeming frailty, gather food for winter in the summer. They do not need to think and plan—they just do it. And v. 27 expresses admiration for the locusts, who swarm without any apparent leadership (“king”) to organize them; yet they fly in an orderly formation. This, too, is instinct. A sort of synthesis of these observations on the ant and locust is made in Prov 6:7–8: the industrious ant stores up its food instinctively without needing, or receiving, instructions from a supervisor. 43 As Waltke puts it, “[T]he ant possesses a God-given wisdom to work and, just as significantly, to order it wisely.” 44 A God-given trait is, by another name, instinct. The importance of natural instinct as a feature of creation is expressed only subtly in such verses. Each of these verses has a different point to make— each serves as an object lesson or wry observation. The industriousness of the ant, for example, is meant to serve as an example to a lazy young man (Prov 6:6). The riddle-like passage on the four ways—of the eagle, snake, ship, and man—in Proverbs 30, however, uniquely focuses, in my interpretation developed here, on the theme of instinct—an idea that might otherwise elude our attention. And so, while the concept may be entailed in other verses in Proverbs and elsewhere, in Prov 30:18–19 it comes into focus and full expression—for those who pursue the riddle. 40.  See Henry Wheeler Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946), 12–16. 41.  Fox, Proverbs 10–31, 880. 42.  Ibid., 878. 43.  Cf. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 216, for the association with 30:27. 44.  Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs Chapters 1–15, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 337.

ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew

Mayer I. Gruber It is widely accepted that Phoenician distinguishes between the particle ʾyt, which appears before the direct object, and the preposition ʾet, which denotes “with.” 1 Biblical Hebrew, on the other hand, employs the single particle ʾet both to signal an approaching definite direct object and as a preposition meaning “with.” 2 Readers and commentators must decide with the help of Author’s note:  I express my deep gratitude to Prof. Shamir Yona, editor of this volume, for his sage counsel during the many years of discussion of the subject of this essay. I also thank Dr.  Hagit Targan, who supplied me with photographs of the commentaries cited in the final section of this essay, which were unavailable to me in Olinda, Pernambuco, Brazil, in December 2012, when one day Gen 41:9 almost jumped off the page and told me that I had better add to this article a note about that anomalous verse. I also acknowledge the sage counsel of an outside reader who made a number of useful suggestions for the reorganization and clarification of the material in this article. 1. See, inter alia, Johannes Friedrich and Wolfgang Röllig with Werner  R. Mayer, Phönizisch-Punische Grammatik, 3rd rev. ed. by Maria Giulia Amadasi Guzzo with Werner Mayer, AnOr 55 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1999), 250 #271; 255 #184; and see also pp. 96–97 #275, noting that in late Phoenician and late Punic the accusative particle is also written ʾet without the medial yod as in Biblical Hebrew and that still later in Phoenician and Punic the accusative particle is represented by the single phoneme t. See also Stanislav Segert, A Grammar of Phoenician and Punic (Munich: Beck, 1976), 162, 164, entries 56.31, 56.51, and 56.52; see also KAI (1969) 3.2, 4. Such was the state of knowledge at the end of the 20th century. However, Charles R. Krahmalkov (A Phoenician-Punic Grammar [Leiden: Brill, 2001], 281–84) shows that, while the aforementioned distinction between ʾyt, the nota accusativi, and ʾet, a preposition denoting “with,” appears consistently in Punic and NeoPunic; Phoenician, on the other hand, employs the form ʾt as the nota accusativi before a noun carrying a possessive pronoun, and uses the longer form ʾyt in all other cases. 2. BDB 84–87, however, distinguishes between ʾet I, designated “the mark of the accusative” and ʾet II, designated a “prep. with”; similarly HALOT 1.100–101 designates the former lexeme as “acc. particle in prose and later language” and the latter as a preposition denoting “with,” to which it compares Akk. itti, Ethiopic enta, and Tigri ʾet. The same distinction is made by Ges18 1.113b–114b, 114b–115a; and by Clines, DCH 1.439–44, who refers to the former lexeme as the “object marker” and the latter as the “prep. with.”

269

270

Mayer I. Gruber

dictionaries, previous commentators and translators, and common sense which of the meanings is appropriate in any given occurrence of the particle ʾet in Biblical Hebrew. Indeed, Mandelkern distinguishes most clearly between ʾet, which I have designated the nota accusativi, 3 and ʾet II, a preposition with the primary meaning of “with.” 4 However, a rare dialect in Biblical Hebrew that is attested in parts of the Standard Hebrew text of the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel employs the suffixed form ʾōtĕkâ, which in Standard Biblical Hebrew should mean “you” (singular direct object). 5 These data suggest that we should not be surprised to find that at least in some dialects of Biblical Hebrew the two lexemes, which are most clearly separated in Punic and to a lesser degree in Phoenician, might be treated as a single lexeme with a variety of nuances including but not limited to the nota accusativi and the preposition “with.” All of this information must be kept in mind in order to appreciate the fact that the merged lexeme ʾet in its two etymologically distinct nuances of nota accusativi and the preposition “with” can, on 3 or maybe even 4 occasions be replaced by the proposition ʾel, which normally means “to.” One scholar recently asked me why 3 or even 4 examples out of a total of 4,369 examples 3.  Mandl, 159 c. 4.  Ibid., 160 c. 5.  The examples in which the consonantal text includes waw, indicating the long vowel ō, include the following: Jer 12:1; 19:10; 38:9; examples where the standard Hebrew text is vocalized with ō but there is no mater lectionis include the following: Ezek 2:6; 16:8; and 44:5. In fact, Ezek 3:22, 27, both of which speak of God as it were force-feeding the prophetic word to the prophet, may represent not a rare dialect in which ʾōtĕkā is employed to mean ʾittĕkā but instead a subtle way of reinforcing the idea wholly unique to Ezekiel 3. This is that the prophetic word is not so much spoken to the prophet, who serves as a free agent of God, but inserted into the prophet’s digestive system to be delivered to one or another portion of humankind at a later time to be determined by the deity. Even were we to assume that some or all of these texts in which ʾōtĕkā seems to be substituted for ʾittĕkā reflect a peculiar dialect, we would need to be most cautious in assuming that such a dialect reflects the Hebrew of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. These texts may only reflect the language of the persons who transcribed parts of what came to be the standard text of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. A most informative parallel can be found in many peculiar spellings in the standard Hebrew text of Job, on the basis of which David Noel Freedman (“Orthographic Peculiarities in the Book of Job,” ErIsr 9 [Albright Volume; 1969]: 35–44, esp. p. 43) wanted to conclude “that Job was a product of the (North) Israelite disapora some time in the seventh or early sixth century b.c.” In view of the abundant evidence of the recycling in Job of materials from Isaiah 40–66, one must constantly be prepared to distinguish between relatively archaic spellings in the standard Hebrew text of the Bible and relatively archaic texts within Hebrew Scripture. Concerning the influence of Isaiah 40–66 on the book of Job, see, inter alia, Arthur S. Peake, Job, Century Bible (London: Caxton, 1910), 37–39; E. Dhorme, A Commentary on the Book of Job, trans. Harold Knight; London: Thomas Nelson, 1967), cliv–clv; contrast R. H. Pfeiffer, “The Priority of Job over Isa. 40–55,” JBL 46 (1927): 202–6. See also the discussion in Samuel Rolles Driver and George Buchanan Gray, The Book of Job, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), lxvii–lxx.

ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew

271

of the preposition could possibly constitute a distinct lexeme. This is indeed a good question. I personally am not aware of a principle in Northwest Semitic dialectology according to which the number of occurrences of a given juxtaposition of two or more consonants in Biblical Hebrew is a factor in whether there are homonymous uses of that group of consonants. The parade example is, of course, the noun ḥesed, “kindness” (77 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible), and its homonym “abomination,” which is attested perhaps 3 times in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 20:17; Prov 14:3; and possibly Job 6:14). Indeed, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda notes, “It is a little difficult that a single word . . . is used in these two distinct meanings.” 6 Indeed, the recognition of distinct meanings of words that look alike is of the essence in biblical and Semitic lexicography, a field of study to which Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, of blessed memory, contributed a great deal. In the case of ḥesed, centuries of Bible commentaries and translations preserved the tradition of two distinct meanings, suggesting two distinct homographic homonyms. In the case of the lexeme discussed in this essay, it is the rather consistent attempt of commentators and translators to emend the Hebrew text that reveals that, in the three instances at hand, we may be face-to-face with a distinct and generally unrecognized lexeme. Were these cases simply additional examples of the common word ʾel, meaning “to,” there would have been no reason for the commentators’ tendency to emend ʾel to ʾet. I am certain that, under the influence of this study (which is an expanded version of a paper presented some time ago at the Society of Biblical Literature), other scholars will find more examples of the phenomenon examined here. Another important question that has been raised by an outside reader of this article is the following: “Why do alternate explanations not suffice?” The accepted alternative to my proposal to recognize ʾel as meaning ʾet in the three cases is to emend ʾel to et. The burden of proof should, in fact, be on those who cannot make sense of the three biblical texts without both emending and cross-referencing them. If there were a better alternative, I would have been happy to investigate it. It is well known that in many cases Heb. ʾel, the basic meaning of which is “to,” 7 can mean “upon, concerning,” 8 while Heb. ʾal, which usually means “on, concerning,” 9 can also mean “to.” 10 Consequently, Clines is able to state 6. Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (Jerusalem: Ben-Yehuda HozaaLaʾOr, 1949), 3.1663 n. 3 7.  Clines, DCH 1.260–64; similarly, HALOT 1.50; and so already BDB 39–41. 8.  HALOT 1.50; so also Ges18 1.58; BDB 40; for examples of Heb. ʾel meaning “concerning,” see, inter alia, 1 Sam 1:27: “It was concerning [Heb. ʾel] this boy that I prayed”; Jer 40:16: “For what you are saying about [Heb. ʾel] Ishmael is false”; Ezek 19:4: “Nations heard about [Heb. ʾel] him.” 9.  Clines, DCH 6.385a–387b; Ges18 4.962b–964b; HALOT 2.825b; BDB 752–55. 10.  Clines, DCH 6.187; HALOT 2.826b; Ges18 4.964b–965a; see, e.g., Gen 4:13: “He restored me to [Heb. ʿal ] my position”; 1 Kgs 2:26: “Go to [Heb. ʿal ] your fields at Anatoth.”

272

Mayer I. Gruber

that ʾel is the preposition “to” as well as a variation (corruption of) ʾal. 11 Not surprisingly, however, Clines does not mention that another rare usage of ʾel as a variation of ʾet is attested in Exod 23:17; Jer 25:9; and Hos 12:5. The reason that even the most modern dictionaries of Biblical Hebrew have failed to note this thrice-attested usage is, I discovered, rather simple. While, on the one hand, it is widely agreed that in each of these verses one or the other of the two common meanings of ʾet is required by the context, these verses are treated in isolation by the standard critical commentaries of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. Moreover, the standard critical commentaries do not bother to cross-reference their treatment of any of the three verses with the treatment of the other two in the standard critical commentaries. In Exod 23:17, we read as follows: šlš pʿmym bšnh yrʾh kl-zkwrk ʾl pny hʾdn Yhwh, “Three times in the year, all your males shall appear before the Lord GOD.” It is well known that this text has two famous parallels in Exod 34:23 and Deut 16:16, which read, respectively: šlš pʿmym bšnh yrʾh kl-zkwrk ʾt pny hʾdn Yhwh ʾlhy yśrʾl, “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel”; šlwš pʿmym bšnh yrʾh kl-zkwrk ʾt Yhwh ʾlhyk bmqwm ʾšr ybḥr, “Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God at the place that He will choose.” It is widely accepted that the Hebrew idiom rāʾâ ʾet pĕnê ʾêlohîm/Yhwh means, literally, “to see the face of God” and that it corresponds semantically to Akk. pāna DN/RN dagālu, which means, literally, “to see the face of a deity/ king,” but it is an idiomatic expression meaning “to appear before the deity or king.” There is a vast literature on this fascinating subject, and only a small selection of this literature can be referred to in a note here. 12 What disturbed me 11.  Clines, DCH 6.387. 12.  It is frequently pointed out that in Akkadian, the expression* dāgil pāni RN, “one who sees the face of the king,” designates a royal official who is on especially intimate terms with the monarch. Thus see, for example, Mordecai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, II Kings, AB 11 (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 320: “The term [‘those who see the king’s face’ in Jer 52:25; 2 Kgs 25:19; Esth 1:14] is a calque formation of the Akk. dāgil pāni, ‘subject, servant’, lit. ‘one who beholds the king’s face’ (A. L. Oppenheim, “Idiomatic Accadian,” JAOS 61 [1941]: 258, and CAD D 23).” Strange to relate is the fact that Oppenheim (at the place cited in the Anchor Bible Second Kings commentary) makes no reference to such an idiomatic expression in Akkadian but, rather, to several verbal idioms: pān NN dagālu, lit., “see the face of NN,” idiomatically, “wait on” and “wait for.” Obviously, the implication of the title that the Anchor Bible authors found in Oppenheim’s famous study is that the status of a person who bears this title corresponds functionally to the status of the very closest advisers of heads of governments in recent times. As for the Hebrew expression “those who see the king’s face” in 2 Kgs 25:19, Jer 52:25, and Esth 1:14, the latter two texts mention “the seven persons who see the king’s face,” while 2 Kgs 25:19 mentions only five. Lewis Bayles Paton (Esther, ICC [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908], 153) notes that, “according to Her. [referring to Herodotus, Hist. 3.31, 84, 118], these seven chief nobles [mentioned in Esth 1:14] who see the face of the Persian king had access to the king at all times, except when he was in the company of his wives.” It is tempting to suggest that both the literal meaning

ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew

273

was the fact that outstanding commentators such as A. B. Ehrlich, Brevard S. Childs, J.  Philip Hyatt, Nahum Sarna, Ronald E. Clements, A.  H. McNeile, and Umberto Cassuto have not bothered to note that, if indeed, as the standard translations indicate, there is no difference between ʾel pĕnê attested in Exod 23:17 and ʾet pĕnê attested in Exod 34:23 and Deut 16:6, it follows that Exod 23:17 employs a rare lexeme ʾel, which corresponds in meaning to the accusative particle ʾet attested in Exod 34:23 and Deut 16:6. Nor have any of these famous commentators suggested that, in fact, ʾel in Exod 23:17 should be emended to ʾet, which is attested in the two parallel passages, Exod 34:23 and Deut 16:16. A rare exception is Stanley Gevirtz, who already pointed out in 1968: “In classifying the uses of the particle [ʾet], however, insufficient attention has been given to its function as a precise equivalent of the preposition ʾel.” 13 Rather exceptional is the proposal by S. R. Driver that, first of all, in Exod 34:23 and Deut 16:6, the vocalization in the standard pointed text of the Hebrew Bible yērāʾeh, meaning “he [the pilgrim who goes to the sanctuary] will be seen,” was introduced in response to an objection to “seeing the face of God” literally. After all, according to Exod 33:20, “a person cannot see Me [God] and live.” Moreover, Driver suggests with all due caution, “and perhaps, in Ex. xxiii 17, I S. i 22, even the consonantal text was altered so as to express the idea of ‘appearing before God’.” 14 Driver’s interesting proposal regarding the appearance of the preposition ʾel in Exod 23:17 but not in Exod 34:22 or Deut 16:6 leaves open the possibility that there may be an alternative interpretation of the preposition ʾel in Exod 23:17 and that Driver, like many other commentators, has nothing but silence to offer on this score. The proposal offered in the present article accounts for more than one anomaly with respect to the single particle ʾel in Hebrew Scripture. Driver’s tentative proposal attempts to account at one and the same time for two distinct phenomena. The first of these is the anomalous ʾel in Exod 23:17, and the second is the verb wĕnirʾeh followed by the accusative particle ʾet in 1 Sam 1:22. Driver suggests that an original ‘he will see the face of the Lord’ (Heb. wĕrāʾâ) has been altered to ‘he will be seen ʾet face of the Lord’. The verb is thus understood to be a third-personsingular perfect consecutive conveying a future sense. This interpretation appears already in Tg. Jonathan. An equally plausible interpretation advocated of the Hebrew expression “see the face of God/the Lord” in Exod 23:7, 34:23; and Deut 16:16 and the halakic exegesis of the expression seek to turn every male Israelite who is not visually impaired (see below, n. 16) into a member of God’s personal entourage. Additional discussion of the relevant biblical passages that employ the late Hebrew expression “those who see the king’s face” can be found in Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, AB 21C (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 529; William McKane, Jeremiah xxvi–lii, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 1379–80. 13. Stanley Gevirtz, “A New Look at an Old Crux: Amos 5:26,” JBL 87 (1968): 275. 14.  Samuel Rolles Driver, Exodus, CB (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), 243.

274

Mayer I. Gruber

by numerous scholars is that the consonantal text of 1 Sam 1:22 was meant to convey the cohortative Qal meaning, literally, “we shall see,” and that change from an original “see the face of God” to “appear before the face of God” did not affect the consonantal text. 15 If so, then it is all the more unlikely that the appearance of the preposition ʾel in Exod 23:17 should be accounted for as a single example of a change in the consonantal text in what McCarthy calls an “unofficial scribal correction,” which is to say a conjectured ancient emendation that does not appear in any of the lists of so-called scribal corrections appearing in Tannaitic midrashim and medieval lists appended to medieval biblical manuscripts. 16 In fact, classic rabbinic texts that are commonly regarded as tannaitic—the Mekilta deRabbi Ishmael, Mekilta deRabbi Simeon, and Sifre Deuteronomy— do not refer to the vocalization of the active verb “he will see” as “he will be seen” in Exod 23:17, 34:34; and Deut 16:6 as a correction. On the contrary, they refer openly to the supposed (according to modern scholars) theologically problematic reading as referring to important theological doctrines (aggadah) and behavioral norms (halakah). 17 15.  See the extensive discussion in Carmel McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, OBO 35 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 197–200. 16.  Ibid., 197–200. 17.  As explained by Max Kadushin (Worship and Ethics [Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1964], 163–66; idem, The Rabbinic Mind, 3rd ed. [New York: Bloch, 1972], 230–61), the theological belief is that people who came to worship at the holy temple in Jerusalem could experience a physical manifestation of the deity that the rabbis called Gilluy Shekinah. The halakic norm is that people who are blind are exempt from the precept of festival pilgrimages because they are understood to involve not only appearing before the deity but seeing (a manifestation of the deity). Thus, notwithstanding the likelihood that (1)  originally “to see God/king” was a metaphor meaning “to appear at the temple/royal palace,” and (2) the oral tradition (eventually preserved in the relatively late medieval innovation of vocalized texts) that biblical references to the requirement of “seeing the face of God” are read both publicly (in the synagogue lection) and privately as though they meant “appearing before” in effect treated the accusative particle ʾet in Exod 34: 23 and Deut 16:6 as a nuisance; however, official rabbinic aggadic and halakic literature preserved the original meaning of the consonantal text, in which the accusative particle was certainly not superfluous. It is all the more likely, therefore, that the particle ʾel found in Exod 23:17 is, as it must be also in Jer 25:9, a rare synonym of the necessary accusative particle ʾet found in Exod 34:23 and Deut 16:6. With respect to the understanding of the three aforementioned verses in the Pentateuch that refer to the festival pilgrimage, the understanding “seeing” rather than “appear” is reflected in m. Peʾah 1:1, which calls the offering presented by a person who participates in the rēʾāyôn, “seeing.” Moreover, Moses Maimonides in his Code of Law, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Festival Offering, ch. 1 refers to the obligation to come to the sanctuary three times a year as rĕʾāyâ, “seeing.” Furthermore, there in Halakah 2, Maimonides explains why blind men are exempt from the precept in the following words: “Just as they come to appear before God, so they come to see the glory of his holiness and the

ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew

275

An interesting but flawed proposal is offered by Propp in his Anchor Bible commentary on Exodus. There, he argues that in fact in Exod 23:17, ʾet is not the definite object marker but is ʾet II, with the meaning “with, at, by,” and that ʾet-pĕnê here is synonymous with the more common lipnê, “before.” Propp failed to notice, however, that in Exod 23:17 we find neither ʾet I nor ʾet II but instead ʾel, and thus he too fails to deal with the interchange of the two particles ʾet and ʾel in Hebrew Scripture in general and in the three-times repeated injunction that all the males in Israel appear before the Lord three times a year. 18 No more helpful is Jack R. Lundbom’s comment in his Anchor Bible commentary on Jeremiah. He states concerning the appearance of the particle ʾel in Jer 25:9, where the expression wĕʾel precedes Nebuchadrezzar just where we might have expected wĕʾet (that is, conjunctive waw followed immediately by the sign of the accusative): “Hebrew wĕʾel (‘also to’) before Nebuchadrezzar does in fact read poorly.” 19 As we shall see, the intellectual poverty is to be found not in the words of the book of Jeremiah but in the failure of generations of biblical commentators and lexicographers to note that, just as ʾel and ʿal share meanings and can be exchanged in Biblical Hebrew (to the chagrin of elementary students, who assume that ʾel must always mean ‘to’ and that ʿal must always mean ‘on/about/concerning’), so also the particles ʾel and ʾet can be exchanged. Thus, there is no need to emend ʾel to ʾet in Jer 25:9 or to gloss over the particle ʾel in Exod 23:17 as though it were a mistake. In Jer 43:10, we read as follows: “I am going to send and take [Heb. hinenî šōlēaḥ wĕlāqaḥti ʾet] my servant King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. . . .” The parallel verse in Jer 25:9 reads: “I am going to send and take [Heb. hinenî šōlēaḥ wĕlāqaḥtî ʾet] all the tribes of the north, says the Lord, and ʾel Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant. . . .” For Yehezkel Kaufmann, the latter verse marks a turning point in the career of Jeremiah the Prophet and in the Book of Jeremiah. Until now—the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, the first year of the reign of Nebuchadrezzar II of Babylon (according to Jer 25:11)—Jeremiah had said that God would punish Judah through the agency of some mythical, mysterious nation from the far reaches of the north, whose language Judah would not recognize (Jer 5:16). 20 Now in Jeremiah 25, the prophet summarizes what he has been saying for abode of his divine presence, thus excluding [from the obligation] a blind person who does not see, as well as a person who is blind in only one eye for, after all, his sight is incomplete.” 18.  See William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, AB 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 135. 19.  Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, AB 21B (New York: Doubleday, 2004), 247. 20. Yehezkel Kaufmann, History of the Israelite Religion, 8 vols. (Jerusalem: Bialik; Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1964), 6–7.411–12, 415, 421–23, 424–28 [Heb.]; idem, The Religion of Israel, trans. and abridged by Moshe Greenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 412–13. Theodor H. Gaster (Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 647) argues that Israel’s enemy’s being designated “the northerner” in Joel 2:20 reflects “a widespread belief that the north is the natural habitat of such [evil]

276

Mayer I. Gruber

23  years, and he adds that something new will happen: God will send both mysterious tribes from the north and (from the east) Nebuchadrezzar. As Kaufmann points out, from this point on until the defeat of Judah by Nebuchadrezzar, Jeremiah never again mentions the nation/families from the north. However, at the time of the defeat of Judah by Nebuchadrezzar (Jeremiah 51), Jeremiah informs us that it is peoples from the far north who will, in the fullness of time, serve to punish Babylon. 21 According to Kaufmann’s thesis, Jeremiah distinguishes all along between a nation/tribes from the north, on the one hand, and Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. Consequently, the employment of the clause wĕʾel Nebuchadrezzar, “and Nebuchadrezzar,” is a crucial element in Jeremiah’s description of the turning point that corresponds to 604 b.c.e. Not surprisingly, commentators who were reluctant to recognize the distinction in Jeremiah between the respective roles of Babylon and the nation/tribes from the north sought to create an ad hoc rendering of wĕʾel as “that is,” making Nebuchadrezzar synonymous with the tribes from the north. 22 More common, however, is the tendency of commentators simply to emend ʾel to ʾet,  23 as though they were not aware from the three pentateuchal verses cited above that, indeed, it is commonly taken for granted in translations and commentaries on Exod 23:17 that the interchangeability of ʾel and ʾet is so obvious as not even to be worthy of comment. A rare exception is the obscure Medieval Hebrew exegete R. Josef ibn Nachmias, who argues that in Jer 25:9 the particle ʾel is a synonym of the common accusative particle ʾet. Moreover, he cites in support of his view, which clearly anticipates mine, Ps 2:7: ʾasappĕrâ ʾel ḥōq, “Let me recite the decree.” 24 Not surprisingly, the interpretation of Ps 2:7 advocated by Nachmias centuries ago is advocated independently by the highly imaginative Mitchell Dahood. 25 spirits.” Among the numerous parallels that Gaster cites from all over the world, noteworthy is the 15th-century central European folk belief “that devils live in Norway.” 21.  Kaufmann, History of the Israelite Religion, 6–7.467–68. 22.  So J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 510, without so much as a word of explanation for this ad hoc rendering of the preposition ʾel. 23.  So, for example, Yair Hoffmann, Jeremiah: Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Am Oved; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 1.494 [Heb.]; Jack Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, AB  21B [New York: Doubleday, 2004], 247) remarks, “Hebrew wĕʾel (‘also to’) before Nebuchadrezzar does in fact read poorly,” suggesting that wĕʾet might be preferred. 24.  M. L. Bamberger, ed. (Commentar zu dem Buche Jeremias von Rabbi Josef ibn Nachmias zum ersten Male herausgegeben nach dem Karlsruhe Handscrift Cod. Reuchlin Nr. 12 [Frankfurt am Main: Golde, 1913], 75), commenting on Jer 25:9. According to the editor of the latter edition, R. Josef was a student of the famous halakist, R. Asher b. Jehiel (ca. 1250–1327 c.e.), who headed the rabbinic academy at Toledo from 1350 c.e. until his death. For extensive bibliography, see Bamberger’s introduction, pp. 6–7. 25. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 1–50, AB 16 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 6; however, Dahood does not comment on this interpretation.

ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew

277

Similarly, Kraus renders “I will announce,” noting that the preposition ʾel is unusual.  26 Indeed, the Biblical Hebrew particle ʾel as an equivalent of Biblical Hebrew ʾet in two of its meanings (“with” and the sign of the accusative) is unusual within the entire corpus of the 24 books of Hebrew Scripture. However, it is not unique to Exod 23:17, Jer 25:9, or Hos 12:5, and not even to Ps 2:7. Werner E. Lemke, noting that the reference to Nebuchadrezzar in Jer 25:9 is missing from the Old Greek version of Jeremiah, explains the presence of the clause as “an interpretive gloss by a subsequent hand that identified the originally unnamed enemy from the North with Nebuchadrezzar.” 27 In fact, this is not the meaning of the clause in Jer 25:9. Both Jer 25:9 and the rest of the references to a nation or families from the north in the Hebrew recension of Jeremiah make explicit the difference between the nation/families from the north and Nebuchadrezzar. Indeed, the fact that throughout the Hebrew book of Jeremiah we can distinguish clearly between the enemy from the north, on the one hand, and Nebuchadrezzar, on the other, proves beyond a shadow of doubt that no interpretive glosses equating the enemy from the north with Babylonia are present in the Hebrew version of Jeremiah. Janzen also points out that the entire clause “I shall summon Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon” is missing from the Old Greek version of Jeremiah. However, unlike Lemke, Janzen suggests that the purpose that the added clause serves in the Hebrew version is to make more explicit the identity of Judah’s impending foe (especially in chs. 21–22, 25). In fact, here Janzen has missed altogether Kaufmann’s brilliant observation that the Hebrew version of Jeremiah exhibits five stages in the use of the expression “nation/families from the north.” In stage one, exemplified by Jer 1:14; 3:18; 4:6; 6:1, 22; 10:22; 13:20; 15:12; and 16:15, the nation/families from the north are not identified with any specific historical threat to the people of Judah; on the contrary, they represent unnamed peoples emanating from a domain that, as we have noted, designates a folkloristic realm of evil on earth. In the second stage of Jeremiah’s warning the people of Judah of impending disaster in Jer 25:9, the prophet suggests that punishment will be administered by a combination of the nation/families of the north and the Neo-Babylonian Empire headed by Nebuchadrezzar II (only in Jer 25:9). In stage three, Jeremiah mentions only Babylon as the source of punishment, while in stage four, exemplified by Jer 46:10, 20, 24; and 47:2, forces from the north will again play a role in the ultimate defeat of God’s enemies in all places, while in stage five, exemplified by Jer 50:9, 41; and 51:48, the nation/families of the north are the agent that God sends to punish 26. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1–59: A Continental Commentary, trans. Hilton C. Oswald (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 129 27.  Werner E. Lemke, “Nebuchadrezzar My Servant,” CBQ 28 (1966): 45–50; so also William McKane, Jeremiah, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 1.625; J. G. Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 54.

278

Mayer I. Gruber

Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon for their excesses during the brief period when it replaced the nation/families of the north as an instrument to punish Judah. Significantly, translators and commentators who fail to reckon with the existence of the accusative particle ʾel = ʾet in Ps 2:7 are required to resort to rendering the particle ʾel as meaning “of.” 28 Not surprisingly, however, critical commentators on Hos 12:5 also react with amazement to the appearance of the preposition ʾel where the preposition ʾet meaning “with” would seem to be appropriate. Consequently, without mentioning either Exod 23:17 or Jer 25:9, they commonly also emend ʾel to ʾet here. The verse reads as follows: wayaśar ʾel mal ʾak wayyûkal He strove with an angel, and he prevailed.

Indeed, the interpretation of ʾel in Hos 12:5 to mean “with” is not only taken for granted by modern translations such as the njps and nrsv, but also it is attested in LXX, Aquilla, and Theodotion. Not surprisingly, numerous modern critical commentators emend ʾel to ʾet without mentioning that this same emendation is widely suggested with respect to Jer 25:9 or that ʾel in the sense of ʾet is found also in Exod 23:17. 29 So what happened? What happened is that a single lexeme ʾel with two of the distinct and wellestablished meanings of ʾet is attested in Exod 23:17, Jer 25:9, and Hos 5:12. With respect to the first case, parallel passages in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 16, and with respect to Jer 25:9, a parallel passage in Jeremiah 43 confirm the meaning as being the same as ʾet, the marker of the accusative. With respect to the Hosean passage, ancient translations confirm the meaning “with.” Why are 28. See, e.g., the njps at Ps 2:7; Moses Buttenwieser, The Psalms: Chronologically Treated with a New Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 791; Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1–50, WBC 19, 2nd ed., with supplement by Marvin E. Tate (New York: Nelson Reference, 2004), 7. For ʾel meaning “of,” see Clines, DCH 1.268; Ges18 1.59; BDB 40; Kaddari, MHH 39; however, HALOT 51 suggests emending to ʾēlî, “my God,” in Ps 2:7 29. Karl Marti, Das Dodekapropheton, KHAT 13 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1904), 95; D. W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten, HKAT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 75; William Rainey Harper, Amos and Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), 381; A. A. Macintosh, Hosea, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), 481. The following commentators do not comment on the problem at all: Sidney Lawrence Brown, The Book of Hosea (London: Methuen, 1932), 107; Ernst Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch, KAT (Leipzig: Scholl, 1929), 122; Ferdinand Hitzig, Die Zwölf kleinen Propheten, Kurzgefastes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1863), 53; Douglas Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 187; however, Stuart’s rendering “with” (there, p. 185) supports the thesis of the present study. On the other hand, Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman (Hosea, AB 24 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980], 609–13) suggest revocalizing the particle ʾel as the noun ʾēl meaning “God.” However, this emendation requires them to make a long series of additional emendations to make sense out of the verse.

ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew

279

none of these usages recorded in the standard dictionaries and commentaries? The answer is that they were waiting for this essay to explain it to them. Obviously, the gut reaction of many readers will be: “If all of these great people never noticed the observation proposed by Gruber, it must be wrong.” Jonah, perhaps, thought that the people of Nineveh would react that way. He set sail for Tarshish, the other direction. 30 However, the king of Nineveh and the people of Nineveh rose to the challenge of new information—only five words in Hebrew—and they saw the light. Hopefully, biblical scholars will also see the light and enter into the biblical lexicon the lowly and rarely attested ʾel II, which is the equivalent of ʾet in both of its Hebrew meanings: (1) marker of the accusative in Exod 23:7 and Jer 25:9, and (2) a preposition meaning “with” in Hos 12:5. The result will be no more emendations in Jer 25:9 and Hos 12:5 and no more commentators on Exod 23:17 who go silent when it comes to dealing with the lowly particle ʾel. 31 I am pleased to note that, in fact, at least one other author, the editor-in-chief of this volume, has anticipated my observation concerning the possibility of the interchange of ʾel and ʾet in a small number of biblical texts. In his doctoral thesis, Yona discusses the various attempts to emend Gen 49:25, where we read: mʾl ʾbyk wyʿzrk wʾt šdy wybrkk 30. Hans Walter Wolff, Dodekapropheton, vol. 3: Obadja und Jona, BKAT 14/3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977), 78–80; Jack M. Sasson, Jonah, AB 24B (New York: Doubleday, 1990), 78–81. 31.  When I had completed this article and was about to hand it over to the coeditors of this volume in honor of my esteemed colleague Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Shamir Yona urged me to look at a discussion of matters related to the theme of this article in a collection of studies written in Hebrew on various aspects of Qohelet and Proverbs: M.  Elyoeinay, Studies in Ecclesiastes and Proverbs (Jerusalem: Kiryat-Sefer for Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1977), 118 [Heb.]. The author of this relatively obscure but very important and useful collection of studies was none other than Meir Kantarovitz Elyoeinay (b.  Zagare, Lithuania, 1906; d. Ruzayevka, Kazakhstan, 1981). This author was a Labor Zionist leader and a researcher in linguistics and Hebrew Scripture. From 1941 on, Elyoeinay lived in one Soviet labor camp after another. With limited access to books and journals other than the few that were smuggled to him from the United States and Israel, Elyoeinay managed to publish important studies in Beit Mikra and other Hebrew journals on the religion of the Jews of ancient Elephantine, etymologies, and other subjects. See idem, Biblical Studies from the Soviet Exile, intro. by B. Uffenheimer (Jerusalem: Public Committee for Publication of the Research of Elyoeinay—his Students and his Admirers, 1984) [Heb.]. As noted by Uffenheimer in his introduction (on p. 8), Elyoeinay wrote his studies “in the valley of the shadow of death of the Soviet exile.” Consequently, Elyoeinay’s brilliantly original interpretation of the use of the particle ʾel in Exod 23:17, which is, in fact, a mirror image of my own interpretation offered as a tribute to Victor Avigdor Hurowitz shows what brilliant scholars might achieve if they did not have the convenience of simply copying out what has been said again and again and again.

280

Mayer I. Gruber

It is widely held that, here, the particle ʾet at the beginning of the second clause is a scribal error for El and that here we originally had one more instance of the common divine epithet El Shadday, which is commonly rendered “God Almighty.” Yona points out to me (personal communication) that, since there is no graphic similarity between taw and lamed in any stage of the Canaanite and Aramaic alphabets, the best way to account for the substitution of weʾet for weʾel would be to reckon with the possibility that ancient copyists had anticipated a small number of scholars, including the author of this article and a number of other scholars whom he quotes, in treating the interchangeability of ʾel and ʾet as a matter of course, which indeed led to the reading in the standard Hebrew text of Gen 49:25 that makes no sense. 32 We have seen evidence of a rare dialect preserved in Jeremiah and Ezekiel in which the expression dibbēr ʾōtĕkā, on the face of it “he (subject) spoke you (object),” seems to be the equivalent of dibbēr ʾittĕkā, “he spoke with you.” No less intriguing is the case of Gen 41:9, “The chief cupbearer spoke ʾetPharaoh, saying, ‘I recall today my offenses.’” The structure of the sentence at hand is so similar to that of the almost ubiquitous “Yhwh spoke to Moses, saying . . . ,” that one might be inclined to emend the particle ʾet to ʾel were it not for the demonstration above that, in fact, in a small number of cases the two particles ʾet and ʾel are interchanged in the Hebrew Bible. In fact, the Samaritan Pentateuch reads ʾel here in Gen 41:9 instead of MT’s ʾet. Either reflecting a Hebrew Vorlage that read ʾel or anticipating our demonstration that in some cases the two Hebrew particles ʾet and ʾel are interchangeable, the LXX reads προς, meaning “to.” Among modern commentators, Westermann prefers the reading of the Samaritan Pentateuch, “to.” 33 On the other hand, Tg. Onqelos, followed by modern and contemporary commentators such as Hamilton and Wenham, 34 renders ʿim, interpreting Heb. ʾet in Gen 41:9 as an example of ʾet as a preposition meaning “with.” Speiser, on the other hand, renders “addressed Pharaoh,” 35 while the njps renders “Then the chief cupbearer spoke up and said to Pharaoh. . . .” One suspects that the circumlocutions of both Speiser and the njps in Genesis (of which Speiser was a principal editor and translator) are attempts to wrestle 32.  For this interpretation, I am indebted to Shamir Yona, “Expanded Repetition Patterns of Roots and Words in Biblical Poetry” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998), 331 n. 3; cf. also idem, The Many Faces of Repetition (Beer-Sheva: BenGurion University of the Negev Press, 2013), 74 n. 186. 33. Claus Westermann, Genesis 37–50: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion,  S.J. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 84. 34. Victor P. Hamilton (The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50 [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995], 489) supplies no comment to his rendering “with.” Gordon J. Wenham (Genesis 16–50, WBC [Waco, TX: Word, 1994], 386) renders “with,” while in a note on p. 387 he indicates that the Samaritan Pentateuch reads “to.” 35.  Ephraim A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964), 309.

ʾel = ʾet: An Unrecognized Lexeme in Biblical Hebrew

281

with the use of an anomalous ʾet where the repeated literary pattern of “he spoke ʾel name-of-person + the infinitive ‘to say’” would lead us to expect the particle ʾel. The simplest explanation for the anomaly, which Speiser and the njps allude to by means of circumlocution, is acknowledgment of yet another example of what we have demonstrated with special reference to Exod 23:17, Jer 25:9, and Hos 5:12—that is, the rare interchangeability of the particles ʾel and ʾet in Biblical Hebrew.

A Sumerian Incantation for the Lavatory and Neo-Assyrian Eschatology

Wayne Horowitz Chicken Little: “Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!”

Truth be told, I wrote the outline of this essay years ago and then decided to save it for the day when I would have an opportunity to write for the Festschrift of my good friend and once-academic-roommate in the LandsbergerFinkelstein Collection at The Hebrew University, Avigdor Hurowitz. From Avigdor, I learned a great deal about ancient Near Eastern studies but even more about enjoying the world we enter when we read ancient cuneiform. It is to my deep regret and sorrow that time failed us and that Avigdor did not live long enough to enjoy this article in this world. I now dedicate this piece to his memory. 1.  The Background In ch. 9 of my Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 1 I presented a group of incantations that may or may not relate to a Mesopotamian tradition of Seven Heavens and Seven Earths, something akin to the seven superimposed heavens and earth known from Hebrew and Arabic cosmographies. There, the main difficulty was in understanding the second line of the incantation me.šè ba.da. dal, which reads: an 7 ki 7 IM 7 IM.gal 7, there translated as invoking the Seven Heavens and Seven Earths to exorcize unnamed demons: O “seven heavens,” “seven earths,” “seven winds,” “seven great winds” Author’s note: Standard Assyriological abbreviations below are as in the CAD (Chicago Assyrian Dictionary). I thank Mark Geller for discussing with me some of the issues raised in this article. Of course, all responsibility for any remaining foolishness is entirely my own. This essay was submitted for publication before the appearance of W. G. Lambert’s Babylonian Creation Myths, MC 16 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013). 1.  W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, MC 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1998), esp. pp. 210–11.

283

284

Wayne Horowitz

Similar formulations were also presented from the incantation hé.daddag. ge an den.líl denki dnerigal (an.7.bi ki.7.bi), the incantation an.7.bi ki.7.bi.da, and in incantations with strings of 7 AN-signs and 7 KI-signs. 2 My problem in studying these incantations for Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography was one of interpretation. How were these formulations understood by ancient Mesopotamians? Did they know a tradition of seven superimposed levels of heaven and earth, or, in a Judeo-Christian context seven levels of heaven and seven levels of hell? Alternately, was the number 7 here simply formulaic for “all, in its entirely,” that is, all of heaven and all of earth, like our “seven seas”? Or were the formulas an.7 ki.7 and the like interpreted to mean something else entirely—not a multiplicity of cosmic regions but a multiplicity of disease-bearing demons from heaven and earth? 3 After years of consideration, I was unable to reach any firm conclusion regarding how the ancients would have understood the formula and incantations discussed above, 4 but upon reflection, it now seems to me unlikely that all readers understood these incantations in the same way at all times and in all places. Below, we encounter a similar problem in an incantation on a tablet from Nimrud (Fort Shalmaneser). However, in this case, we also find a piece of contemporary evidence that sheds light on how the incantation was to be understood by a least one user: none other than the king of Assyria. This provides me with an opportunity to digress on the issue of eschatology in Mesopotamian thought. 2.  The Text Among the various administrative documents edited by S. Dalley and J. N. Postgate in CTN 3 is a small tablet numbered 27 that preserves a seven-line Sumerian incantation on its obverse. 5 The reverse of the tablet then gives four lines of an accompanying Akkadian instruction for the recitation of the incantation in the bīt musâti, the lavatory (CAD M/2 234–35). The main issue in this essay is how to understand the first five lines of the incantation. Below, I provide a transliteration of the entire tablet, followed by a translation and philological commentary for the end of the incantation, lines 6–7, and for the ritual on the reverse. Additional discussion, with two possible solutions for understanding lines 1–5 completes the article. 2.1.  Text Edition obverse 1. ÉN an šub šu.ub 2. an ba.šub

ki šub ki ba.šub

2.  Ibid., 212–15; with an additional reference in the 2nd printing with corrections and addenda (2011), on p. 414. 3.  Ibid., 216–20. 4.  Ibid., 220 5.  Cuneifrom Texts from Nimrud III = S. Dalley and J. N. Postgate, The Tablets from Fort Shalmaneser (Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1984).

Sumerian Incantation, Neo-Assyrian Eschatology

285

3. an ba.za.aḫ ki ba.za.aḫ 4. an ba.za.aḫ.ḫa ki ba.za.aḫ.ḫa 5. lú.du 8.e za.aḫ.ḫa 6. inim.dingir.[r]e.e.ne.ke 4 7. kìd šub šu.ub [T]U 6.ÉN reverse 1. an-na-a 3-šú ŠU.[S]I-šú ana mu[ḫ-ḫi . . .] 2. i-tar!-⟨⟨ṣa⟩⟩-aṣ-ma i-x-BU [. . .] 3. ina bīt mu-ṣa-a-t[i] 4. A.MEŠ ina muḫ-ḫi i-x-x-(x) 2.2.  Text Translation obverse 1–5. See below 6 6. It is the command of the go[d]s. 7. Ritual, [incan]tation, spell. reverse 1. This (incantation). Three times his fin[g]er towar[d . . .] 2. he will point! and he will . . . [. . .] 3. In the lavator[y], 4. water, on (him/it), he will . . . 2.3.  Philological Commentary Rev. 1–2: The mention of the finger in line 1 seems to demand a form of tarāṣu, “to extend the finger, to point,” in line 2, with the object that the finger is pointing at to be restored at the end of line 1. Thus, we follow Deller apud Magen, who deletes the sign ZA and thus takes rev. 1–2 (= his lines 8–9) as below: 7 8. 9.

an-na-a 3-šu ŠU.SI-šú ana mu[ḫ-ḫi ] i-tar-{ṢA}-aṣ i-⸢x⸣-b/pu-[ ] Diese (Beschwörung ) dreimal. Seinen Finger streckt er gegen . . . aus . . .

However, the reading of Dalley and Postgate in CTN 3 77, i-haṣ-ṣa-aṣ, from haṣāṣu, cannot be excluded. Two meanings for this verb are given in the dictionaries: “to build a reed hut” (such as a huṣṣu) and “to cut/snap off reeds,” which must be done countless times when building a reed hut. AHw 331, and CDA 110 following AHw, take these as separate verbs, although both are of the a/u type. CAD H 130–31 takes both meanings from the same verb. Either 6.  For full translations with both understandings of lines 1–5, see the appendix below. 7. U. Magen, Assyrische Königsdarstellungen: Aspekte der Herrshaft, Baghdader Forschungen 9 (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1986), 104.

286

Wayne Horowitz

meaning could fit the context of a ritual to be performed in a lavatory—that is, building a reed structure or implement of reed of some sort for use in the ritual, perhaps even a reed hut to represent the lavatory itself. If this reading i-haṣ-ṣa-aṣ is correct, then we must restore a different verb for the act of the finger at the end of line 1. Rev. 3: Bibliography for plumbing, washrooms, bathrooms, lavatories, toilets, and so on in the ancient Near East is sparse. This is a topic worthy of study in its own right, but it is beyond the scope of this paper. 8 Rev.  4: Dalley and Postgate suggest either i-ra-muk, “he shall wash,” or i-šap-pak, “he shall pour.” As copied, the traces do not match either reading but may allow for i-⸢šap⸣-p[a]-a[k]. Given the uncertainties of reading, I prefer to leave my options open for now but acknowledge that context demands an act of cleansing with water. 3.  Interpretation: First Thoughts The text follows the standard format of a ritual instruction for the recitation of an incantation: the text of the incantation to be recited first, followed by directions for the ritual acts meant to accompany the incantation. Lines 1–5 of the obverse form the main body of the incantation, with the man in line 5 presumably being the party for whom the ritual with its incantation is performed. Lines 6–7 then close the incantation in typical form, with an indication that the spell is not that of the priest or other officiary who recites the incantation but of the gods, and a formula for closing the incantation. The ritual on the reverse begins with what I restore as an instruction to point at something and recite the incantation three times, and ends with a reference to the lavatory and an act performed with water. We may hypothesize that the ritual ends with the priest and/or patient cleansing himself, as one should when leaving the lavatory. 4.  Interpretation of Lines 1–5 The main issue at hand in this article is how to interpret the first five lines of text. Unfortunately, as above with the incantations with what might be Seven Heavens and Earths, no single, all-inclusive, definitive interpretation emerges. One clue for understanding the scribe’s intent is the gloss šu.ub for this common Sumerian reading of RU as a verb. The fact that such a simple reading needs to be glossed seems to indicate that the scribe himself was not altogether familiar with Sumerian and/or that he himself had some difficulties in understanding the gist of the incantation that he was writing. Thus, it is possible that our scribe or his reader (the king) understood this incantation very differently 8.  For now, see K. K Nemet-Nejat, Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1998), 110–11; and R. Biggs, “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient, Mesopotamia,” in CANE 1911–24.

Sumerian Incantation, Neo-Assyrian Eschatology

287

from its original authors. This is important to our deliberations because two very different interpretations can be offered for the incantation on the basis of two different meanings of šu b: (1) šub = nadû, with the sense of “to abandon,” and (2) šub = maqātu, with the sense of “to fall.” 9 4.1.  šub = nadû If one understands the incantation along the lines of šub = nadû, “to abandon,” 10 one may take the verb šub as transitive, with the subject being an implied, unnamed demon, who is inflicting the problem that the incantation is meant to resolve. Heaven and Earth then become the object of the verb. In this case, the second verb in the incantation, za.aḫ in lines 3–5 should also be considered transitive and may be understood in this context as zaḫ = ḫalāqu, 11 with its meaning “to flee, to escape”: 1.  Incantation: (The demon) abandoning Heaven, abandoning Earth 2.  It has abandoned Heaven, it has abandoned Earth 3.  It has fled Heaven, it has fled Earth 4.  Having fled Heaven, having fled Earth 5.  Having fled into (the body) of a loose man. In this interpretation, the demon’s performance of the action of the verb šub, the abandonment of one cosmic region for another, is the same as that of the goddess Inanna at the very beginning of the Sumerian tale Inanna’s Descent to the Underworld: n i n . m u a n m u . u n . š u b k i mu . u n . š u b k u r. ra ba .e .a .dè d i n a n n a a n m u . u n . š u b k i mu . u n . š u b k u r. ra ba .e .a .dè (Inanna’s Descent 4–5) My lady abandoned Heaven, abandoned Earth, descended to the Underworld. Inanna abandoned Heaven, abandoned Earth, descended to the Underworld.

Thus, we may understand our incantation to refer to a demon who has left Heaven or Earth and moved into the body of a man, causing some illness related to the toilet. This illness in fact may be identified by the sign du8 in line 5, which appears to serve as an adjective indicating the condition of the man. Given the location of the recitation of the incantation, the lavatory, and the general meaning of the verb du8 (= paṭāru), “to untie, undo, loosen, dissolve, disperse, unpack, release . . . ,” we may suggest that the incantation was meant to cure a problem relating to undoing, unpacking, releasing, loosening of the bowels—namely, a touch of constipation, or perhaps diarrhea. As to the identity of the unnamed demon, he is most likely Šulak, the demon of the 9.  Of course, other interpretations may be possible as well. 10.  This interpretation is based on a suggestion by M. Geller. 11.  Here realized syllabically rather than zá or zà, for which, see the dictionaries.

288

Wayne Horowitz

lavatory, who is known from a number of sources that are collected in a short study of this deity by M. Krebernick, which is now available in the Reallexikon der Assyrio­logie (RlA). 12 Here, for example, we find a reference to Šulak in The Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince (Šulak was a lion, standing constantly on his hind legs), 13 to diseases caused by Šulak, and to an Akkadian-Sumerian exegesis of the demon’s name found in the late-Uruk medical commentary SpTU I 47: 4–5: Sumerian šu la k ù, explained in Akkadian as qa-tu4 la-a el-lu, “the one whose hands are not clean.” This is good evidence for ancient knowledge that poor hygiene in the toilet led to disease. 14 Šulak is also explicitly placed in the lavatory elsewhere in this same text (SpTU I 47: 3, 15), in hemerologies, and with reference to the disease: qāt dŠulak rābiṣ bīt musâti, “Hand of Šulak, 15 the commissar of the lavatory.” 16 Thus our incantation may be understood to protect the user of the lavatory against the demon Šulak and/or other harmful forces to be found there. 4.2.  šub = maqātu This meaning of šub 17 has the general sense of “to fall down,” including the things that come down from the sky in Akkadian, for example, fire, lightning, snow, fog, and falling stars. From this, one might understand šub as intransitive in our incantation, with Heaven and Earth as the subject—that is, Heaven and Earth are what are falling. If so, zaḫ = halāqu also would be intransitive, with a possible meaning in this context of “to vanish, to disappear”:   1.  Heaven fall!   2.  Heaven has fallen

Earth fall! Earth has fallen

12.  I thank the editor of the RlA, M. Streck, for making this entry available to me while it was still in proofs. 13.  SAA 3, p. 72, no. 32, rev. 6. 14.  M. J. Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine: Theory and Practice (Oxford: WileyBlackwell, 2010), 147–48. See also M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia, CM 2 (Groningen: Styx, 1993), 76 for the perceived dangerous nature of the bathroom in premodern times, both before and in the Middle Ages. For a warning against infectious disease in the early second millennium at Mari, see E. Neufeld, “The Earliest Document of a Case of Contagious Disease in Mesopotamia (Mari Tablet ARM X, 129),” JANES (1986): 54–55, with the same passage also quoted in “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient, Mesopotamia,” 1922. 15.  See again CAD M/2 234. For the “Hand of Šulak” disease and its treatment, see also Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia, 76–77; and N. P. Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik, AOAT 43 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 337. 16.  I understand rābiṣu here in both of its meanings, as given in CAD R 20: an official and a demon. Šulak is both the divine official in charge of the lavatory and the demon of the lavatory. Perhaps Šulak, described as a lion standing on his hind legs (see above), was pictured as a demonic version of a bathroom attendant standing on his watch in the lavatory, with rābiṣu being used in this context with an ironic twist. 17.  This was the original understanding of Dalley and Postgate in CTN 3 77, who translated: “Fall heaven, Fall earth. Fallen heaven. Fallen earth. Heaven vanished. Earth vanished. Heaven vanished. Earth vanished. Opponent(?) vanished.”

Sumerian Incantation, Neo-Assyrian Eschatology

289

  3.  Heaven has vanished Earth has vanished   4.  Heaven is vanished Earth is vanished   5.  (so too may it) be vanished from the (body) of a loose man. We may compare Sumerian an šub in our incantation with the Sumerian writing, AN.TA.ŠUB/AN.TA.ŠUB.BA, for the Akkadian disease miqtu (CAD M/2 103–4). This may also be connected with the disease that is rendered in Akkadian as miqit šamê, “fallen from Heaven,” in TDP 234.25 (see CAD M/2 104), which in fact could be an Akkadian rendering of the Sumerian logogram. 18 The question we must ask of our second interpretation, then, is whether an ancient Mesopotamian individual living in the Neo-Assyrian period might have perceived our incantation in this light—that the Heavens and Earth could fall. The answer to this question seems to be “Yes!” A case in point is SAA 10 295, a short communication from the king in answer to a previous query by Urad-Gula, who was most likely the same man as the exorcist who was active late in the reign of Esarhaddon: 19  1. a-bat ⸢LUGAL⸣  2. a-na mARAD-dGu-la  3. DI-mu a-a-ši ŠÀ-ba-ka

A word of the King to Urad-Gula: I am well, you can be

18.  The only other example known to me of an.šub in what might be a related context occurs in the obscure opening passage of the hymn to Nisaba for Išbi-Erra (Išbi-Erra E), most recently published in a full edition in D. Reisman, “Two Neo-Sumerian Royal Hymns” (Ph.D. diss, University of Pennsylvania, 1969), 103-46. 1.  bur.š u.ma.g a l [  ] g a r. g a r. r a 2.  ki ba.te.a.ni [h i . l i] í b . d u8.d u8 3.  dnis aba ki.š u b . b a d ù. d ù [u r u . š u b . b a] g a r. g a r 4.  an.š ub.ba ki . b i . š è g i4.g i4 a g r i g. z i . a n . n a 1.  Great matriarch, who establishes [. . .] 2.  The place where she has come near overflows with [joy] 3.  Nisaba, who rebuilds the fallen earth, who reestablishes the [fallen city] 4.  Who restores the fallen heaven, the faithful stewardess of An.

Reisman comments on pp. 121–22: “It is difficult to say whether the expression denotes literally ‘fallen heaven’. It appears to be parallel to ki-šub-b a in the preceding line, and may therefore refer to heaven’s state of neglect from which Nisaba restores it to its proper condition.” No direct link between an.šub.ba here and an šu b in our incantation can be demonstrated. However, the existence of manuscript G of the hymn from Assurbanipal’s library, K. 4755 (see D. Reisman, “A ‘Royal’ Hymn of Išbi-Erra to the Goddess Nisaba,” in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, ed. B. Eichler, J.  W. Heimerdinger, Å.  W. Sjöberg, AOAT 25 [Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1976], 357, with a reedition of the hymn) brings the text down to about the time when it could have been known to the Neo-Assyrian period scholar responsible for CTN 3 27. 19.  Edition and translation adopted from SAA 10 = Parpola, LAS no. 226, with discussion and previous bibliography noted in Parpola, LAS 2.218. Here Parpola identifies UradGula as an exorcist on the basis of the contents of the letter and its reference to phylacteries and a ritual. Parpola also argues that this Urad-Gula is the same as the man who writes to the king in the letters published as SAA 10 289–94. SAA 10 289–91 and 293 are dated to the reign of Esarhaddon; the others are undated.

290

Wayne Horowitz

 4. lu DÙG.GA-ka ŠÀ-bi GIŠ.ZU  5. šu-u [š]a ina ŠU.2 dPAB?-⸢PAD?⸣  6. tu-še-bi-la-an-ni  7. me-UGU-šú-nu x [x x]-a-te  8. i-na ŠÀ-bi [x x x]

happy. In that writing board [wh]ich via Aḫi-duri you dispatched to me, phylacteries . [. .] . . inside [. . .]

 9. ù DÙ.DÙ.BI-šú šá-ṭi-⸢ir⸣ and its ritual is written (there) 10. ma-a ÉN ŠUR dNIN.KILIM as follows: Incantation . . . MAŠ.MAŠ Ninkilim, Exorcist of 11. dMAŠ ŠUB-ti AN-e mi-i-nu šu-u Ninurta, “Fall of the Heavens,” What is this? 12. ka-a-a-[ma-n]u AN-e i-ba-ši The Heavens exist for[eve]r! 13. [x x x x] x x [x x] [. . .] . . [. .] 20 4.2.1.  Discussion of SAA 10 295 In SAA 10 295, the king appears to take issue with an interpretation of an incantation about what he takes to be falling Heavens. He argues, to the contrary, that the Heavens will last forever. I suggest that the incantation referred to in this royal correspondence is either our incantation known from CTN 3 27, or something very much like it, which someone must have interpreted as the Heavens themselves falling, thus prompting the king’s response. If so, the issue of eschatology may have been alive and well in the intellectual world of the Assyrian court, although there has so far been little or no direct evidence for us to suspect this state of affairs. 5.  The Incantation and Eschatology in Ancient Mesopotamia The possibility of Heaven and Earth’s falling and vanishing, if understood correctly above, are at face value eschatological in nature, referring to the end of the physical universe in its present form. In what we know from the cuneiform text tradition, the closest one comes to such an event is the flood, when the Earth’s surface may have been thought of as returning to a primordial state of water prior to the creation of dry land. 21 This same, or a second occasion, is described in eschatological terms by Marduk to Erra in Erra I 132–36: 22 20.  The reverse, as understood by S. Parpola in SAA 10, likewise indicates the king’s unfamiliarity with the incantation and its purpose: “Write down and [send me what] they say even (if) there is no alternative [. . .] how it is p[erformed], And write down and send (this) via [NN].” 21.  The tradition of the creation of the universe from primordial waters is clearest in Enuma Elish, “The Bilingual Creation of Marduk” (for which, see below), and The Babyloniaca of Berossus. 22.  I am following the standard translation from L. Cagni, The Poem of Erra, Sources from the Ancient Near East (Malibu, CA: Undena, 1982), 32.

Sumerian Incantation, Neo-Assyrian Eschatology

291

Hero Erra, concerning that work you spoke of performing, I got angry long ago: I rose from my seat and contrived the deluge. And the sky, lo!, it shook: the stations of the stars in the sky were altered,   and I did not bring (them) back to their (former) positions. “The lower world, lo!, it quaked: the yield of the furrow became scanty. For  ever difficult to levy taxes (on it)! “Lo!, the government of heaven and earth dissolved: springs became few,   the overflow receded.

However, the cuneiform corpus nowhere offers anything approaching a true eschatology set in the future of the type that is available in Jewish and Christian sources. Instead, Heaven and Earth are generally presumed to last forever in Mesopotamia, as argued by the king in SAA 10 295 above. Another royal example is available in the prologue to The Laws of Hammurabi: (Babylon’s) eternal kingship, the foundations of which are as fixed as heaven and earth. 23 However, I believe that there is a place for eschatology in native Mesopotamian tradition in the guise of what I would call de-creation: an unraveling or reversal of the process of creation. This would have resulted in the return of the physical universe to the primordial chaos that existed before the era of creation. 24 For example, an unbinding of the cosmic bonds that ancient Mesopotamians believed held the universe together, with Heaven in place over Earth including, in Ee V 59–62, the durmaḫḫu, “Great Bond,” made from the tail of Tiamat, and Tiamat’s crotch: Twisting her tail he (Marduk) fastened it as the Great Bond, He . . . . the Apsu beneath his feet. [He set up] her crotch wedging up the heavens, [the half which h]e made as a roof. Earth was set firm. 25

Without these supports holding up the Heavens, logic would seem to demand that the Heavens would fall, returning us to the chaos before Heaven and Earth were created and separated from one another. Chicken Little’s fears expressed at the beginning of this essay, “Help! Help! The sky is falling!” would come true. 23. M. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1975), 76. For a sense of the infinite nature of the universe in time and space in ancient Mesopotamian texts, see my forthcoming article “Big Numbers and Infinity in Ancient Mesopotamia.” 24.  It has long been argued that Mesopotamian religious thought and ritual included a periodic or annual de-creation of the universe (return to chaos) and subsequent re-creation, particularly in the context of the New Year’s and Akitu Festivals of Babylon. For a relatively recent overview of some of this discussion, see B. Sommer, “The Babylonian Akitu Festival: Rectifying the King or Renewing the Cosmos?” JANES 27 (2000): 81–95. 25.  For cosmic bonds, see, e.g., my Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 119–20, 248, 265–67, 300; CAD M/1 283, markasu 4; CAD R 348–49, riksu 2b.

292

Wayne Horowitz

However, in the context of the recitation of “an šub ki šub” in the lavatory in CTN 3 27, one finds what would appear to be, not just a matter of eschatology, but also of scatology—of a problem involving movement of the bowels. In this, the king’s puzzlement is well placed. However, I suggest that the king, in his response, “The Heavens exist for[eve]r!” has missed the point, that our incantation intended to make a connection between the cosmic and the mundane, between creation and disease. 26 I offer in support of this understanding of “an šub ki šub” the famous dental incantation “The Worm,” 27 which was meant to be performed when pulling teeth. Here, one finds a chain of creation, beginning with Anu creating Heaven, Heaven then creating Earth, and so on, which finally ends with the birth of the worm. 28 As the incantation progresses, the worm rejects a proposal to live in ripe fruit—“What are a ripe fig and apple to me?”—choosing instead to live in human teeth. This worm can be identified as the small living nerve of a pulled tooth which looks and wiggles like a tiny worm of the type sometimes found in overripe fruit. Thus, the reader “in the know” could enjoy “The Worm” incantation both for its dental efficacy and for what I believe was the hidden humor in its etiology for the human toothache. As in our own days, one may laugh at the human condition rather than cry. So too, I believe that the incantation “an šu b ki šub” operated on more than one level: providing physical relief for a common human ailment but also comic relief to the those who understood the nuances of the relationship between the incantation and its purpose—a cosmic cure for problems of the toilet, making use of bathroom humor of the type that remains popular in some circles down to this day. Thus, despite its humble setting, the incantation “an šub ki šub” in CTN 3 27 may have been understood by some to reflect two central human concerns—one base, the proper functioning of the human digestive system; and one cosmic, a fear that our universe as we know it might cease to be. However, this interpretation of the incantation remains just an interpretation, one of a number of possible interpretations that may not 26.  Another point of contact between Šulak, and the cosmic may be found in Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik, 323: 84′: [É]N dŠU⸣-⸢LAK⸣ ÉN ME.⸢ŠÈ ⸢BA.DA.RI, “[Incan]tation of Šulak, Incantation me.šè ba.da.dal.” Here an incantation pertaining to Šulak is recited together with me.šè ba.da.dal (which includes the rubric “a n . 7 k i . 7”) that we discussed at the beginning of this essay. The incantation of Šulak is not identified here. Could it be our “an šub ki šub” incantation? 27.  For a standard translation with bibliography, see B. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1993), 878. For some discussion with additional bibliography, see Geller, Ancient Babylonian Medicine, Theory and Practice, 85. 28. For other incantations with reference to the era of creation, see W.  G. Lambert, “Mesopotamian Creation Stories,” in Imagining Creation, ed. M. Geller and M.  Schnipper (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 35–36; Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 129–31 (the incantation commonly known as “The Bilingual Creation of the World by Marduk”); ibid., 148–50; and Foster, Before the Muses, 854 (d), 856.

Sumerian Incantation, Neo-Assyrian Eschatology

293

have occurred to anyone in ancient Mesopotamia, or to anyone but myself in modern times. Appendix: Translations of the Full Incantation Option One 1. Incantation: (The demon) abandoning Heaven, abandoning Earth 2. It has abandoned Heaven, it has abandoned Earth 3. It has fled Heaven, it has fled Earth 4 Having fled Heaven, having fled Earth 5. Having fled into (the body) of a loose man. 6. It is the command of the go[d]s. 7. Ritual, [incan]tation, spell. reverse 1. This (incantation). Three times his fin[g]er towar[d . . .] 2. he will point! and he will . . . [. . .] 3. In the lavator[y], 4. water, on (him/it), he will . . . Option Two 1. Heaven fall! Earth fall! 2. Heaven has fallen Earth has fallen 3. Heaven has vanished Earth has vanished 4. Heaven is vanished Earth is vanished 5. (so too may it) be vanished from the (body) of a loose man. 6. It is the command of the go[d]s. 7. Ritual, [incan]tation, spell. reverse 1. This (incantation). Three times his fin[g]er towar[d . . .] 2. he will point! and he will . . . [. . .] 3. In the lavator[y], 4. water, on (him/it), he will . . .

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet “The teaching of a sage is a fountain of life.” (Prov 13:14) In memory of Avigdor, a modern sage and a major exponent of ancient wisdom

Sumerian “practical” (i.e., didactic) wisdom literature, similar to the biblical book of Proverbs, includes two major literary types: proverb collections and collections of instructions. 1 Students of this literature generally agree that both the proverbs and the instructions possess a secular, rationalistic character and are very rarely concerned with religious or cultic matters. This view has been expressed several times by Bendt Alster, the major editor and exponent of Sumerian wisdom literature in general and of Sumerian proverb collections in particular. According to Alster, although Sumerian proverb literature contains many proverbs with a moral message, it is basically secular, referring to gods only accidentally and exhibiting no particular interest in theological motives or ideas. 2 Recently, Jon Taylor expressed some doubts about this hypothesis. In Authors’ note: This essay is a revised version of a paper read by J. Klein at the 58e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Leiden, July 17, 2012). 1.  These two types of wisdom literature are also attested in the biblical book of Proverbs, labeled by W. McKane as “sentence literature” (cf. William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach, OTL [London: SCM, 1970], 413) and “instruction genre” (p. 262), respectively. Note, however, that Sumerian practical wisdom also includes a rich variety of other, minor literary types, such as, e.g., short didactic stories, animal tales or fables, folkloristic tales, riddles, practical, professional instructions (such as, e.g., Miguel Civil, “Sumerian Riddles: a Corpus,” AuOr 5 [1994]: 17–37), working songs, humorous, didactic or moralistic poems, and so on; cf. Edmund I. Gordon, Sumerian Proverbs: Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Sumer, Museum Monographs (Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1959), 17–18; Bendt Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, 2 vols. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 1997), xvi; idem, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 22–24. These types merit a special study, which could not be undertaken within the present survey. 2.  See, e.g., Bendt Alster, “Literary Aspects of Sumerian Proverbs,” in Mesopotamian Poetic Language: Sumerian and Akkadian, ed. M. E. Vogelzang and H. L. J. Vanstiphout

295

296

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

his statistical study of the distribution of various key words and phrases in the Sumerian proverb collections, he discusses the frequency of divine names in the proverbs. Taylor, to be sure, observes that references to deities in the proverbs are meager relative to other genres of Sumerian literature. 3 Nevertheless, in another article he claims that, “in those proverbs which do mention deities, it is striking how deeply they permeate the fabric of society.” 4 The purpose of this essay is to reexamine the categorical assumption that Sumerian proverb and instruction literature hardly contains any religious outlook, because its value system is of a secular nature. We explore texts from both the Early Dynastic period and the Old Babylonian period, and we seek to determine to what extent they contain religious ideas and motives and how they relate to the ethical and moral values of society reflected in the proverbs. The Chronology and Nature of the Sumerian Proverb and Instruction Literature The sources for the two types of Sumerian wisdom literature under discussion come from two periods that are more than 500 years apart. The oldest examples of Sumerian practical wisdom literature come from the ED III pe­ riod. 5 These are two archaic compositions, the translation and interpretation of which are quite difficult. The first is the oldest version of the “Instructions of Šuruppak,” and the second is the oldest Sumerian proverb collection known to us. The “Instructions of Šuruppak” are a type of instruction literature, and their most extended version contains ca. 290 sayings of advice. The nature of these sayings is didactic, and their purpose is to teach middle-class, free Sumerian citizens a way of life that guarantees success. The instructions are based on the moral values of Sumerian society, and they are intended to inculcate proper Groningen: Styx, 1996), 13: “In contrast to the proverbs of some cultures, references to deities are rare in Sumerian Proverbs. Moreover, the mention of deities does not necessarily imply a theological issue.” See further idem, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, xviii; Alster states there that the Early Dynastic proverbs “clearly testify to the contemporary existence of a completely secular attitude toward social behavior” and that statements such as “[t]he liar bites (his) fingernails; (he is) a man eating alone” are completely secular statements, indicative of the way people were treated in society. Note also idem, Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2007), 7–8, where Alster recognizes some “proverbs expressing truth with ethical implications,” ignoring their obvious religious aspect. 3. Jon Taylor, “A Quantitative Analysis of the Sumerian Proverb Collections,” in Analysing Literary Sumerian: Corpus-Based Approaches, ed. J. Ebeling and G.  Cunningham (London: Equinox, 2007), 281–82. 4.  Idem, “The Sumerian Proverb Collections,” RA 99 (2005): 20. 5.  The earliest version hailing from Abū-Ṣalābīkh is generally dated to ca. 2500 b.c.e.; the younger version from Fara is dated by Alster to ca. 2400 b.c.e., whereas Wilcke dates it to ca. 2300 b.c.e. (cf. Claus Wilcke, “Philologische Bemerkungen zum Rat des Šuruppag,” ZA 68 [1978]: 196–97).

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

297

social order, peaceful relations, friendship, and decency among people. This collection of instructions was so popular in scribal circles that it was substantially expanded in the Old Babylonian period, was translated into Akkadian, and appeared in four different recensions, the last of which comes from the first millennium. 6 The archaic proverb collection from the third millennium contains ca. 200 proverbs, parts of which were translated into Akkadian in the Old Babylonian period. 7 From the OB Akkadian translation of the excerpts emerges the fact that most of this composition is nothing but a collection of insults against women, written from the point of view of male scribes, and it is indeed of an exclusively secular nature. However, the greater part of the Sumerian practical wisdom literature is known to us from the Old Babylonian period (i.e., ca. 1800–1600 b.c.e.). As of today, Sumerologists have been able to reconstruct about 26 large proverb collections and dozens of small collections and excerpts from this period. 8 However, only the first 3 large collections (SP 1, SP 2 + 6, and SP 3) were popular in the scribal schools. These 3 collections were more or less standardized and can be reconstructed fully from approximately 80, 160, and 40 duplicates, respectively. 9 All other collections have very few copies and can only be partially reconstructed. 10 The authenticity and antiquity of the “Instructions of Šuruppak” are beyond debate. Since the oldest copies of this composition come from the Early Dynastic period, there is no doubt that it represents genuine Sumerian wisdom. The date of composition of the proverb collections and the aims of their compilers, on the other hand, are a matter of controversy for a number of reasons. First, in the Old Babylonian period, when the copies of these proverb collections were made, Sumerian had ceased to be a spoken language; the mother tongue of the scribes who wrote down these proverbs was Akkadian. Second, the proverb collections contain, in addition to genuine proverbs, sayings 6. Editio princeps: Bendt Alster, The Instructions of Suruppak (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1974). Revised edition: Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 31–220. 7.  See more recently Jacob Klein, “An Old Babylonian Edition of an Early Dynastic Collection of Insults (BT 9),” in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, Orientalia Biblica et Christina 14 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 135–49. 8. For an updated edition of this corpus, see Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, 3–305. Alster’s edition will occasionally be compared below with the subsequent electronic edition of the ETCSL (henceforth, the above proverb collections will be referred to as SP 1, SP 2, SP 3, and so on). For additional collections and excerpts of proverbs, which partly overlap formerly published material, see Alster, Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection. 9.  Almost all duplicates hail from Nippur and include, besides large tablets inscribed with the entire collection, many small fragments and lenticular tablets containing only small excerpts or individual proverbs. 10.  For an overall description of the various collections, including the number of Nippur sources available for each of them, see Taylor, “The Sumerian Proverb Collections,” 25–27.

298

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

and phrases that appear in other literary genres besides proverbial literature. Consequently, Niek Veldhuis argued that the proverb collections were composed by the scribes in the Old Babylonian schools exclusively in order to teach their students Sumerian, and even if some of them derive from earlier sources, we are not able to discern them. Therefore, according to Veldhuis, we must regard the proverbs as primarily didactic material and not representative of genuine Sumerian culture. 11 Against Veldhuis’s hypothesis, it has been argued correctly that large, rich collections of proverbs such as these could not arise during one generation but must have developed gradually over hundreds of years. Therefore, there is no doubt that a great amount of old material had been incorporated into them, including authentic and popular proverbs collected over several generations. It is true that these proverbs served the Babylonian scribes as textbooks for teaching the Sumerian language, but this does not mean that they are late creations, for we know that the curriculum of the Edubba, the Mesopotamian school, included literary compositions of various genres, such as epics, myths, hymns, lexical and grammatic texts, and so on. Many of these literary works were composed before and during the Ur III period, having undergone a process similar to that of the canonization of the Bible in the Second Temple era: Sumerian literature, including the proverbs, were collected in the schools, standardized, written down, and transmitted over the generations for didactic as well as for cultural aims: the primary aim was to create a tool for teaching the students Sumerian; an additional, also-important aim was to preserve ancient Sumerian culture for future generations. 12

11.  See Niek Veldhuis, “Sumerian Proverbs in Their Curricular Context,” JAOS 120 (2000): 383–99; Taylor, “The Sumerian Proverb Collections,” 18–21. Similar ideas were expressed already by E. I. Gordon, “A New Look at the Wisdom of Sumer and Akkad,” BO 17 (1960): 124–35; idem, Sumerian Proverbs, 19–20. Veldhuis’s thesis is particularly influenced by the hypothesis expressed by Falkowitz that the collections under discussion “are neither poems nor proverbs. Instead, they are better understood as collections of very diverse types of mostly fictive, non-causal discourse which were used to instruct non-native speakers of Sumerian in the rhetoric of Sumerian appropriate to educated and literate Old Babylonian Mesopotamians, primarily in the schools themselves” (Robert S. Falkowitz, “The Sumerian Rhetoric Collections” [Ph.D. diss., The University of Pennsylvania, 1980], 4). 12. See Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, xix–xx; idem, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 34–35, 45 (“Addendum”); B. Alster and T. Oshima, “A Sumerian Proverb Tablet in Geneva with Some Thoughts on Sumerian Proverb Collections,” Or 75 (2006): 31–37; Alster, Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection, 2 n. 8. However, unlike biblical literature, the Sumerian literary works were not holy, and therefore, their transmission ceased at the end of the OB period. Only the lexicographical texts, which served for teaching cuneiform writing, and the Sumerian liturgical texts, which continued to be used in the cult until the end of the first millennium b.c.e., continued to be transmitted in the scribal schools, having been provided with full or partial Akkadian translations.

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

299

Religious Elements in the Proverb Collections of the Early Dynastic Period As we pointed out above, the archaic proverb collection from the third millennium b.c.e. is difficult to comprehend and interpret, and the parts of it that are comprehensible do not reflect a religious or moral-social value system. Therefore, we will devote our discussion to the religious and moral aspects of the didactic collection “The Instructions of Šuruppak.” In his introduction to his latest edition of this composition, Alster writes: It is remarkable that this early Sumerian example of a father-and-son didactic composition is phrased in a secular way. There are very few passages mentioning the gods, and the question of divine retaliation does not openly play a role. . . . The motivation for not doing harm to one’s neighbor is in no way specifically religious, but that it would not be clever from a social point of view. . . . So for the early periods, one must appreciate a type of wisdom that is secular, practical, and not speculative in nature. 13

A careful examination of all versions (ED and OB) of the “Instructions of Šuruppak” seems to confirm this observation by Alster. The instructions in this composition, similar to some of the advice found in the third collection in the biblical book of Proverbs (Prov 22:17–24:22), are normally expressed in the form of an injunction, followed by a motive clause. For example: 14 g a n a2- z u - a m3 p u2 n a-a n -n i-d u3-e-e n u ĝ3-e š a-ri-ib-ḫul-ḫul Do not dig a well in your field; people will damage it for you (line 17) šu d u8- a n u - e -tu m3 lu2-b i š a -b a-e -d ab5-b e2 Do not vouch for someone; that man will have a hold on you (line 19) k i - si k i l d a m tu k u -d[a] e -⸢n e ⸣ n am-mu -u n -KA -e inim s ig-bi   m a[ḫ - a m3] Do not play around with a married maiden; the slander could be serious (line 33) k a n a m - t a r - t ar-re-⸢e⸣-e n in im-zu ĝ a r-ra -a m3 Do not boast; your word stands forever (line 37) a š 2 a 2 z i g 3 n a - a b -b a l-e š u -u š im-š i-n iĝin Do not curse with violent intent; it will turn back on you (line 50)

These words of advice faithfully represent the nature of the “Instructions of Šuruppak,” which are social-moral percepts explained by rational motives and based on common sense and accepted social norms. One cannot find in them even one religiously motivated piece of advice, such as a divine reward for a good deed or divine retribution for a bad deed. 13.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 31. 14. Quotations are derived from the OB version of the “Instructions,” unless stated otherwise.

300

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

However, if we carefully examine the overall structure of this composition, we realize that it cannot be characterized as a purely secular work. The expanded version of this composition from the Old Babylonian period falls into three parts, each of which is inserted into a literary framework consisting of a prologue and an epilogue. The prologue, or, opening formula of the three parts is uniform, consisting of the direct address of a father to his son, urging him to heed his words of counsel (lines 1–13): 15 u d re - a u d su d -ra2 re-a ĝi6 re - a ĝi6 b a d -ra2 re-a m u re - a m u s u d -ra2 re -a u d - b a ĝe št u 2 tu k u in im g ala m in im zu -a   k a l a m - m a til3-la-a šu r u p p a g ki ĝe š tu g2 tu k u in im g a la m in im   z u - a k a l a m -ma til3-la -a šu r u p p a gki- e d u mu -n i-ra n a n a -mu -u n -d e5-d e5 šu r u p p a gki d u mu u b a ra -tu -tu -k e4 z i - u d - su d - r a2 d u mu -n i-ra n a n a -mu -u n -d e5-de5 d u m u - ĝu10 n a g a-d e5 n a d e5-ĝ u10 ḫ e2-d a b5 z i - u d - su3- r a2 in im g a -ra -a b -d u g4 ĝ izz a l   ḫ e2- e m - ši - a k n a d e5- g a - ĝu10 š u n a m-b i2-b ar-re i n i m d u g4- g a -ĝ u10 n a-a b -ta-b al-e -d e3 n a d e5 a b - b a n iĝ2 k a l-la -a m3 g u2-z u ḫ e2-em-š i-ĝ a l2 In those days, in those far remote days, in those nights, in those faraway nights, in those years, in those far remote years: at that time, the wise one, the one of elaborate words, the eloquent one, who lived   in the land, Šuruppag, 16 the wise one, the one of elaborate words, the eloquent one, who lived   in the land, Šuruppag gave instructions to his son; Šuruppag, the son of Ubara-Tutu, gave instructions to his son Ziusdura: “My son, let me give (you) instructions; may you heed my instructions! 17 Ziusdura, let me speak a word to you; may you pay attention! 18 Do not neglect my instructions! Do not transgress the words I speak! The instructions of an old man are precious; you should comply with them!” 15.  A similar opening formula appears in lines 76–82 and 146–52. 16.  Alster takes Šuruppag (here and in the next line) as a gentilic, translating, “the one of Šuruppak.” 17.  Alster: “let my instructions be taken!” 18.  Alster: “let attention be paid to them!”

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

301

The epilogues (i.e., the closing formulas) of the three parts are different in content, but all of them carry a similar message, that the instructions included in them are based on a supreme divine order, conforming to the will of the gods. The epilogue of the first part attributes the instructions to Utu (lines 69–75): u r - sa ĝ d i l i n a -n am d ili-n i lu2 š ar2-ra-a m3 u t u d i l i n a - n am d ili-n i lu2 š a r2-ra -a m3 u r - sa ĝ- d a g u b -b u -d e3 zi-z u ḫ e2-en -d a -ĝ al2 d u t u - d a g u b - b u -d e3 z i-z u ḫ e2-e n -d a -ĝa l2 šu r u p p a gki- e d u mu -n i-ra n a -š e3 mu -u n -n i-in-de5 šu r u p p a g ki d u mu u b ara -tu -tu -[k e4] z i - u d - su d - r a2 d u mu -n i-ra n a -š e3 mu -u n -n i- in-de5 d

“The ‘hero’ 19 is unique, he alone is the equal of many! Utu is unique, he alone is the equal of many! Standing with the ‘hero,’ your life will be prolonged! 20 Standing with Utu, your life will be prolonged!” Šuruppag gave these instructions to his son. Šuruppag, the son of Ubara-Tutu, gave these instructions to his son Ziusdura.

The epilogue of the second part advocates praying to the gods (lines 140–45): i n i m šu d u3- d e3-ĝ u10 ḫ e2-ĝ al2-la-a m3 a - r a - z u a se d4-d a š ag4-g e im-s ed4-e a š2 ḪAR n a- ĝ a2-aḫ d i-d a ĝ iz z a l k a la m-ma -ke4 šu r u p p a g ki- e d u mu -n i-ra n a n a -mu -n i-in -d e5-de5 šu r u p p a g ki d u mu u b a ra -tu -tu -k e4 z i - u d - su d - r a2 d u mu -n i-ra n a -mu -u n -n i-in -de5-de5 “My words of prayer 21 bring abundance. Prayer is cool water that cools the heart. Insults and stupid speaking receive the attention of the land.” 22 Šuruppag gave these instructions to his son. Šuruppag, the son of Ubara-Tutu, gave these instructions to his son Ziusudra. 19.  Obviously, “the hero” (here and in line 71 below) is an epithet of Utu. This was only partly recognized by Alster. Although the standard epithet of Utu in Sumerian literature is “šul dutu,” the extended epithet ur-sa ĝ šul dutu appears quite frequently (cf. Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld, 50; Gilgameš-Ḫuwawa, A 45; Lugalbanda in the Mountain Cave 424; Utu E 72; Inana and An 16). See also the OB catalog from Nibru (N4), line B 12 (dutu ur-⸢saĝ⸣). 20.  Literally: “your breath will stay with you.” 21. So Wilcke, “Philologische Bemerkungen,” s.v.; and ETCSL; Alster reads i n i m šudu3-de3 mu ḫe2- ĝal2-la-am3, “words of prayer (bring) a year of abundance.” 22.  The present tentative translation of the line follows ETCSL, assuming that “attention” carries a negative connotation (disapproval or the like). Alster translates: “(but) uttering curses and stupid speech is (what) the attentive of the country (should avoid).”

302

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

The epilogue of the third part does not contain an explicitly religious motive. However, toward the end of this part, among the last instructions, we find the following exhortation (lines 265–70): 23 a m a - z u - u r2 i n im d irig n am-b a-n a-a b -b e2-e n ḫul š a -ba -ra -gig-ga  a m3 i n i m a m a - z a in im d iĝ ir-z a k a -š e3 n a m-b i2-ib-dib2-be2-e n a m a du t u - a[m ]3 lu2 mu -u n -u3-tu d a b - b a d i ĝi r - r a -a[m3 x] mu -u n -d ad ag -g e a b - b a d i ĝi r - a m3 [i]n im-ma-n i z id -d a n a d e5 a b - b a -š e3 ĝ izz a l ḫ e2-e m-š i-ia -a k Do not speak arrogant words to your mother; that causes hatred for you! Do not scorn 24 the words of your mother and your personal god! The mother, like Utu, gives birth to the man; the father, like a god, makes him pure. 25 The father is like a god: his words are just. You should pay attention to the instructions of the father! 26

From the literary framework of the first two parts of this composition and from the religious instructions to the mother and father toward the end of the third part, 27 it is clear that the instructions to the father that are enclosed between them are considered to be the words of the gods, especially the doctrine 23.  Lines 255–60 in the ETCSL edition. 24.  Literally: “Do not take to your mouth.” 25. Cf. ETCSL; Alster: “makes a [name] shine.” 26.  The possibility cannot be excluded that this pious exhortative passage was intended by the author to be the concluding formula of the third division of this composition. This is, in fact, Wilcke’s opinion (cf. Wilcke, “Philologische Bemerkungen,” 231, comment to line 259). He wonders why the author inserted a chain of instructions (lines 271–82) between this passage and the epilogue of the entire composition (lines 284–90). According to Alster, these seemingly practical, rational instructions describe “the barbarian customs of the mountaineers, as opposed to civilized life of Sumer . . . elaborating on the conditions that made it possible to comply with the counsels contained in the composition” (Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 171). Hence, he considers these instructions to be part of the epilogue of the entire composition. 27. The “Instructions of Šuruppak” composition as a whole ends with a 7- (or 9-) line prologue, including a doxology dedicated to Nisaba (lines 284–90 [=  274–80 in the ETCSL]), which reads as follows: kadra inim-ma - b i n i ĝ2 š a g 4 t e n - n a [m u?-. . .] / e2- g a[l - l a k]u r 9- r a- b i n i ĝ2 šag4 ten-na [. . .]  / [k a]d r a i n i m - i n i m - m a m u[l a n . . .]  / n a d e5 šu r u p p agki d u m u ubara-tu-tu-ke4 n a d e5- g a / š u r u p p a gki d u m u u b ar a- t u - t u - k e4 n a d e5-g a / n i n dub gal-gal-la š u d u7- a / k i - s i k i l dn i s a b a z a3-m i2 This gift of words is something which soothes the heart; when it enters the palace, it is something which soothes the heart. This gift of many words [like] the stars [of heaven], are the instructions given by Šuruppag, the son of Ubara-Tutu as instructions. That Šuruppag, the son of Ubara-Tutu, gave (his) instructions, praise be to the lady who perfects the great tablets, the maiden Nisaba!

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

303

of Utu, the supreme divine judge. He was the patron of justice and truth in human society, even though the instructions themselves lack any religious content or ideas. We have seen that, in the Old Babylonian recension of the “Instructions of Šuruppak,” the seemingly secular, rational words of counsel were inserted in a clearly religious framework, thus imparting a religious coloring to the entire composition. The question arises: Is this religious framework original or secondary? In other words, was it already a genuine part of the Early Dynastic version, or was it an innovation of the Old Babylonian scribes? Even a superficial examination of the Abū-Ṣalābīkh version of this composition reveals that it lacked the religious framework of the OB version. 28 Accordingly, the religious framework of the Old Babylonian recension is most likely a later, secondary creation. Hence, we seem to have here a historical development, analogous to that of the biblical book of Proverbs, in the course of which the old, secular, practical wisdom was reinterpreted and recast in religious terminology. 29 Religious Elements in the Old Babylonian Proverb Collections As has been observed by Alster, the main concern of the later Sumerian proverbs is everyday life, 30 with almost no interest in matters historical or political. The social setting of the proverbs is that of an agricultural society. The dominant imagery reflects agriculture and animal husbandry. The proverbs also reflect many of the occupations of an urban society, such as the temple personnel, artisans, and scribes. The social outlook of the proverbs is basically aristocratic and conservative, promulgating the status quo, and not questioning the current social order. According to the outlook reflected in them, no one can emerge from the social status of his/her birth, and those who belong to the lower social classes must remain at the bottom of the social scale. Furthermore, no compassion is expressed toward the underprivileged; the weak must help themselves. 31 28.  For the structure of the ED version of the “Instructions of Šuruppak,” see the appendix below. 29.  For the history of interpretation of the biblical book, see, e.g., R. B. Y. Scott, “Wise and Foolish, Righteous and Wicked,” in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel, VTSup 23 (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 145–65; R. N. Whybray, “Yahweh Sayings and Their Context in Proverbs 10,1–22,16,” in La Sagesse de l’Ancien Testament, ed. M. Gilbert et al., BETL 51 (Gembloux: Duculot, 1979), 153–65; McKane, Proverbs, 10–22. 30.  For proverbs dealing with everyday life, see, e.g., SP 1.51: “His bread is finished”; SP 12 D 3: “The man who did not tighten his waterskin made his friend angry” (the proverb seems to describe a situation of people working together in the fields or traveling together in a caravan). For proverbs from the life of bakers, see, e.g., SP 1.52: “There is no baked cake in the middle of the dough” (i.e., if the baker is impatient, the cake will be baked only on the outside); or SP 1.53: “My heart urged me to bake two loaves out of a half. My hands could not take them out of the oven” (the reference is to a stingy baker). 31. Cf. Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, xxiii–xxv.

304

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

The aim of the following survey is to examine the proverbs in the collections that might contain religious ideas or outlook. For this purpose, we scrutinize four groups of proverbs that contain inherent religious elements: proverbs mentioning divine names; proverbs referring to the personal deity in general; proverbs denouncing behavior that is considered an abomination to certain deities; and proverbs dealing with the concepts of “justice” and “evil.” The last two categories seem, on the face of it, not to belong to the sphere of religion but to the sphere of ethics. Nevertheless, a close look at these proverbs reveals that they derive their authority from divine sanctions. 1.  Proverbs Containing Divine Names A survey of the proverb collections reveals that they contain no less than 96 references to 9 different deities. 32 These deities play diverse roles in the proverbs and influence all aspects of human life. They are frequently mentioned in the sphere of popular daily life that is characteristic of proverb literature. Thus, for example, the fuller swears in the name of Enki that the customer’s garment will not stay in the laundry for a long time, which is probably an ironic statement that casts doubt on the validity of the fuller’s oath. 33 Some dialogues between an animal and a god should also probably be understood as ironic or humorous sayings, such as, for example, “Imagine a wolf is eating. Utu looks down on it and says: ‘As long as you praise me you will keep growing fat!’” 34 or “The wolf wept before Utu: ‘The animals frisk around together, but I am all alone!’” 35 Yet another proverb states, perhaps in an ironic tone: “The fool’s lot was created by Utu.” 36 Many proverbs reflect the traits of the various deities as they are depicted in Sumerian mythology. Thus, for example, the proverbs mentioning Iškur allude to his function in mythology as a storm god who destroys the land, splits the mountains, 37 or fertilizes the earth, similar to a man who copulates with a lustful slave girl; 38 the birth-goddess Nintu is responsible, according to a proverb,

32.  Taylor, “A Quantitative Analysis,” 292 (sub 3.1.6). The deities mentioned in the proverbs are according to descending order of frequency: Enlil, Utu, Inana, Ninurta, Enki, Sîn, Iškur, Lamma, and Martu. For some of the ideas expressed in this paragraph, see earlier Taylor, “The Sumerian Proverb Collections,” 20–21. 33.  SP 3.148. 34.  SP 5 B 71 (Alster translates differently). For another dialogue between the wolf and Utu, see SP 5 B 72. 35.  SP 5 73. 36.  CT 58, 30 rev. 2 (5); cf. Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, 288. For other proverbs referring to the god Utu, see SP 1.86; 3.26; 3.83; 3.166; 6.3; 11.133; 14.21; 22 ii 12–14; 22 v 31; 22 viii 19–22; 28.20; UET 6/2 289, 1–8; 6/2 298; 6/2 368 (2); Free Library; MDP 27, 114. 37.  SP 3.76; 3.77. 38.  SP 3.36.

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

305

for the birth of him “whose knees are paralyzed”; 39 and Nungal is depicted as a belligerent goddess who captures criminals with her “huge net.” 40 Additionally, Enlil, the supreme Sumerian deity who is mentioned in the proverbs most frequently is usually depicted as a hostile, capricious god. One of the proverbs describes a natural or warlike disaster caused by Enlil with the following words (SP 3.25): e n - l i l2- l e a - n a-a m3 in -ak in -b u l-b u l šu k u r i n - sig10 s u mu -n i-ib -te-te

d

urud

What did Enlil make? Chaff! The lance struck. It went into the flesh. 41

See also the following proverb, which refers ironically to the financial aspects of Enlil’s Temple administration (SP 3.91): e2 de n - l i l2- l a2 g u2-d irig s aĝ ĝ a u g u la -b i-im Enlil’s Temple is a summation of accounts.   The administration-priest is its overseer. 42

However, in addition to these proverbs that speak about the gods in popular, ironic terms, we can find proverbs referring to the gods with utmost respect. A number of proverbs contain the language of prayer to the gods. Thus, for example, the god Lumma is beseeched to grant favor to him who speaks favorably about his friend. 43 He who wishes to have a “hot-limbed wife” or “broadarmed sons” prays to Inana, 44 and broken-hearted lovers turn to her for help, as well. 45 The cripple, on the other hand, can expect divine help from Enlil. 46 One of the two most popular deities in the proverbs is the sun-god Utu, the supreme divine judge. Utu is mentioned in the proverbs no less than 25 times, 47 39. Cf. SP 12 C 9: “The man whose knees are paralyzed has not prayed devoutly to Nintur.” 40.  Sumerian sa-šu2-uš-gal (SP 2.155; 6.3). 41.  In view of the unique theological character and terminology of this proverb, the possibility cannot be excluded that we have here a quotation from a cultic lament; cf. M. E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia, 2 vols. (Potomac, MD: Capital Decisions, 1988), 615:207 (we owe this reference to Uri Gabbay). For references to Enlil in a similar vein, see the following proverbs: “My Enlil, when you rise, my loincloth is gone” (SP 3.24); “The farmer lifts his gaze to you (i.e., Enlil): ‘May Enlil look upon the city that he cursed!’” (SP 14.3). 42.  For similar proverbs referring to Enlil, see further SP 6.48; 6.49; 8 B 20; MLC 618; SP 4.16. 43.  SP 14.2, according to the translation of ETCSL. In Alster’s interpretation, the god is requested to grant favor to him of whom favor is predicted by the diviner. 44.  SP. 1.147. 45.  SP 1.128. 46.  SP 15 B 6. See further UET 6/3 80 obv. 6′, where there seems to be an obscure reference to the three major gods of the Sumerian pantheon: An, Enlil, and Enki. 47.  See n. 31 above.

306

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

and it is he to whom people in distress usually turn. Thus, for example, a proverb contains a prayer to Utu for turning a dream of evil portent to a favorable portent, in the following words (SP 9 Sec E 4): u t u d i - k u d - m e -e n d i-ĝu10 k u d -d e3 k a - a š b a r - b a r-re -me -e n k a-a š -ĝu10 b ar-ra m a š2- ĝi6 i g i b a-n i-in -d u8-a s ag9-g a-a š k u r9-n i-ib2 d

Oh Utu, you are my judge: pronounce my judgment! You are my decision-maker, decide my case! The dream that I have seen—turn it into a favorable one!

Many of the proverbs that mention this god refer to his principal role as the god of justice and law. In his capacity as the divine judge, Utu calls to account the person who does not pay his debts to his fellow-man (SP 11.133): u r5 n u - l u ḫ - ḫ a [x ] n iĝ2 du tu u r5 a k

Uncleared debts . . . are debts to Utu. 48

Another proverb assures protection to those who trust Utu (SP 22, lines 271–75): 49 i g i du t u šu d u3-d e3 ša g4 du t u d a ĝal-la d u m u du t u k u g -g a-k am šu b - b a du t u s a g9-g e -d e3 m a2 g u7- g u7 k a r-ra an -d a b5-b e2 Utu’s glance is a blessing, Utu’s heart is compassionate. 50 A devotee 51 of Utu is among the holy. Allotted by Utu to be fortunate, he causes the trustworthy ship to reach the quay. 52

As we have pointed out above, 53 divine names appear in the proverbs less frequently than in religious compositions. However, this fact is not surprising, given that the proverbs are concerned mainly with everyday life, rather 48.  Literally: “Uncleared debts . . . . . . are something which makes debts to Utu.” Reading and translation follows ETCSL. Alster reads niĝ2⟨gig⟩ du t u - k a m - ak in the second half of the line, translating the proverb: “Debts not cleared—are an *abomination to Utu.” 49.  The numbering of the lines and the translation of lines 271–74 are according to the ETCSL. The translation of line 275 is based on Alster, p. 268 (see his comment to this proverb on p. 448). 50.  For the translation of these two lines, see ETCSL. Alternatively, one could translate: “A prayer to Utu makes Utu’s heart compassionate” (similarly Alster). 51.  Literally: “A son of Utu.” 52.  In other proverbs, we can find a prayer to Utu for rescue from calamity (SP 2.155), exhortation to trust in Utu (SP 14.21), and a statement that it is in his power to grant kingship (SP 3.83; MDP 27 114). 53.  Cf. n. 32.

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

307

than with the cult or mythology. Therefore, it would be a mistake to conclude from this relative scarcity of divine names that the proverbs lack religious consciousness. Some of the proverbs present the gods from a popular, humorous point of view. But others, especially those that refer to Utu and his role in the sphere of law and justice, take a serious attitude toward the gods that is saturated with religious piety. This trait is especially characteristic of the proverbs dealing with the personal god, which we examine next. 2.  Proverbs Referring to the Personal God Along with the proverbs that contain divine names, there are other proverbs in the various collections containing the word “god” without mentioning his name. These proverbs refer to the personal god, who is believed to be the individual’s patron, protecting him from all evil and keeping him healthy and successful. In such proverbs, as usual, the attitude toward the deity is full of respect and religious piety. Many of these proverbs stress the constant care of the personal god to his devotee, for example (SP 3.134): ⸢d i ĝi r⸣ l u2- u l u3 s ip a d u2 k iĝ2-ĝ a2 lu2-u lu3-k a m u d u - g i n7 u2 g u7-a ḫ e2-e n -tu m2-tu m2-mu A man’s personal god is a shepherd who finds pasturage for the man. Let him lead him like a sheep to the “grass” he can eat. 54

The absolute dependence of a man on his personal god for subsistence is aptly expressed in the following expanded proverb found in the proverb collection from Ur. It contrasts the bitter fate of a man whose personal god abandoned him for some unspecified reason with the man whose personal god regards him graciously (UET 6/2 251 = 252): l u2- u l u3 d i ĝi r - d a n u -me-a n u l a - b a - g u - le-e n n u la-b a-tu r-re -e n id2- d a e d3- d e3-b i k u6 n u -d a b5-b e2 a - ša g4- g a e d3- d e3-b i ma š -d a3 n u -d a b5-b e2 d i g a l - g a l - e s a2 n u -u b -b e2 k a š4 i3- i b2- e sa2 n u -u b -b e2 t u k u m - b i d i ĝir-ra -a -n i a n -n a -d u g3 n i ĝ2 m u sa4- a a n -n a -ĝa r-ĝ ar A man without a personal god: does not procure much food, does not procure a *little food. Going down to the river, he does not catch any fish. Going down to a field, he does not catch any gazelle. In important matters he is unsuccessful. 54.  See further the following proverb: “A man’s god is a man’s shepherd. The god will not desert him. A shepherd should not . . . . . . . A man’s god provides him with something to eat and water to drink” (UET 6/2 255).

308

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

When running, he does not reach his goal. Yet if his god becomes favorable toward him, anything that he names will be provided for him. 55

However, the god’s grace is conditional on the faithfulness of his protégé; he must bring him offerings (SP 6.37): d i ĝi r si z k u r - r a me-te -b i-im The gods—offerings befit them. 56

The believer must turn to the god in time of distress. The following proverb distinguishes between those who do not turn to the god when they are in trouble and the faithful young man who calls to the god for help. The former perishes in a calamity; the latter is saved from it (SP 7.77): ux( PA)- a b i2- i n -d u g4 ma2 b a -⸢d a- a n⸣-[s u] a - l a - l a b i2- i n -d u g4 ĝišg i-mu š b a -d a-a n -ḫ a š ĝu r u š- e u8- a d iĝ ir-ra -a m3 d i ĝišma2 k i-b i b a-te He said: “Woe!” and the boat sank with him. He said: “Alas!” and the rudder broke. (But) the young man said: “Ah, god!” and the boat reached its destination. 57

The dire fate of the man who does not worship his god will cling to him even after his death (UET 6/2 299): l u2 d i ĝi r - r a - a -n i ⸢n u⸣-mu -u n -k a l-la ⸢e d i n⸣-n a m u -u n -š u b ad3-b i n u -ĝ a2-ĝ a2 i b i l a - a - n i a l al-a m3 ⸢g id im⸣-ma-a -n i a n u -n a ĝ A man who does not value his god is thrown out in the desert; his body is not buried and his heir does not provide his ghost with drinking water through a libation  pipe.

On the other hand, a man should not be idle, casting all of his burden on the personal god. The following two proverbs apparently urge the faithful to exert himself in order to complement the divine support that he needs (SP 26 D 13): 55.  This proverb, in essence, is quoted in the prologue of the wisdom poem “Man and His God,” which is introduced by a moral lesson: “Let a man utter faithfully the exaltedness of his god! Let a young man praise artlessly the words of his god! . . . Let the harp player, his female (or) male companion, assuage his spirit! Let him soothe his heart! . . . . Let his words of lament soothe the heart of his god! (For) a man without a (personal) god will not obtain (his) food” (lines 1–9). For another proverb that attributes man’s wisdom and success to his personal god, see UET 6/2 254. 56.  For another proverb recommending obedience to a personal god, see MDP 27 112. See further the proverb “A happy ear—a happy god” (UET 6/2 335). 57.  This proverb may be an extended version of the short proverb: “He said: ‘Woe!’ and the boat sank with him. He said: ‘Alas!’ and the rudder broke” (SP 3.179).

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

309

⸢e n g a r⸣-e a - ša g4 n a -a b -d a ĝal-la ⸢d i ĝ i r⸣? l u2- u18-lu š a g4-g al-la -n i ⸢n am⸣-b a-a b - ta ḫ-e A farmer who did not widen (his) field, the god of (that) man will not increase his food supply. 58

The same idea seems to be expressed more generally in the following proverb (SP 10.8 = SP 9 A 7): u su d i ĝi r - ĝa 2 n i 2-ĝ a 2 b a -til

The strength of my god completes my own. 59

The personal god requires devotion from his protégé not only in cultic matters; he must also be just and fair toward his fellow-man. The following proverb promises a favorable fate as a reward for honesty (YBC 7352): l u2 i n i m g e n6-n a b a l-b al i n i m d i ĝi r - r a -n i-ta n a m-ta r s ag9-g a -a m3 u d šu2- u š m u - d a-ĝa l2 The man who speaks just words— by the word of his personal god, (his) fate is favorable, and he is with him all day long.

Another proverb praises the obedient son who respects both his mother and his personal god (SP 1.145): 60 ĝ i š- šu b u s 2- s a ama -z u ḫ u l 2-⸢la ⸣ k a š 4 t u k u - m a d iĝir-zu ḫ u l 2-⸢la⸣ Accept your lot and make your mother happy. Run fast and make your god happy. 61

We have seen that the numerous proverbs referring to the personal god constitute typical examples of religious thought in the proverb collections. The proverbs quoted above touch various aspects of the reciprocal relationship between humans and their god: a man is obliged to worship his god and be faithful to him, and in reward the god protects him and guarantees his well-being and success in life. Most interesting are the proverbs that relate to the requirements of the god from his human protégé in the moral and social spheres. These proverbs reflect an outlook that identifies religious values 58.  Alster translates: “A farmer should not ‘expand’ a field. A man’s god should not add to his food supply.” Admittedly, the verbal prefix na- fits his translation better. 59.  Translation after ETCSL. 60.  This proverb recurs also in SP 19 C 3; 22.87–88; 28.4. 61.  Compare the proverb “Do not scorn the words of your mother and your personal god!” quoted from the “Instructions of Šuruppak” above (cf. n. 24). A contrasting proverb, referring to a corrupted son, says: “A disorderly son—his mother should not have given birth to him. His god should not have created him” (SP 1.157).

310

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

with social and moral values. The ideal believer lives up to his obligations both in the cultic and the moral spheres, thus finding favor in the eyes of god and humans alike. 62 Apparently, this proverb refers to this sort of person (SP 15 A 5): ⸢i n ⸣- g a - ḫ u l 2- z u u ĝ 3-e ḫ e 2-em-me [ ḫ e 2] - a m 3- z u d iĝ ir-z u ḫ e 2-e m-me May the people wish you well! May your god also grant your wish! 63

This religious attitude, which sees an inherent unity in both cultic and moral perfection is more fully manifested in proverbs that deal with social values and behavior. Below, we investigate two groups of proverbs relating to typical social and moral concepts: proverbs containing the concept of “abomination” (niĝ2-gig) and proverbs relating to the concepts of “justice” and “evil.” In each of these two groups, we examine the role of religion and its relationship to moral and social conventions. 3.  Proverbs Dealing with “Abominations” Many antisocial acts and habits are qualified in the proverbs explicitly as “abominations” in the eyes of certain gods or as “abominations” in general. 64 There are at least 25 proverbs of this type scattered throughout the proverb collections, some of them appearing several times in different versions. These proverbs condemn two types of action as abominations: moral sins, such as theft, subversion of legal rights, or exploitation of the socially weak; and socially repugnant behavior, such as, for example, sexual acts in public. Clearly, the authors of the proverbs did not distinguish between these two types of “abomination” but regarded them as a homogenous group of social taboos. 65 Most proverbs of this sort relate to moral sins. Below, we present the most important examples. 62.  Cf. Prov 3:4. 63.  Literally: “May your god also say, ‘your let-it-be!’” Translation follows ETCSL; Alster considers the two lines to be two alternative versions of the same proverb. 64.  The Sumerian term for “abomination” is níĝ-gi g (a bad thing), Akkadian ikkibu. This term also qualifies grave sins in the sphere of the cult in Sumerian and Akkadian literature. Semantically, it is parallel to the biblical word tōʿēbâ, common also in wisdom literature (cf. especially Prov 6:16). For a comprehensive study of the concept of “sin” in general and this term in particular, see K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study, SSN 22 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985); see also A. Löhnert, “Sünde,” RlA 13.248–53. 65. J. Klein and Y. Sefati, “The Concept of ‘Abomination’ in Mesopotamian Literature and the Bible,” Beer-sheba 3 (1988): 131–48 [Heb.], esp. p. 132. Note the exceptional use of the term “abomination” regarding a young scribe who is absent from school (UET 6/2 274). Apparently, this hyperbolic proverb was created in scribal circles for pedagogical purposes.

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

311

One group of proverbs characterized as “abominations” condemns covetousness and illegal appropriation of property of another person. About coveting another’s property, it is said (SP 3.175): i g i - t u m3 l a2 i g i d u8 n iĝ2-g ig dn in -u rta -k e4

Coveting and craving are abominations to Ninurta. 66

Another proverb condemns greediness in general (UET 6/2 261 = UET 6/2 262): n i ĝ2- t u k u a l d i k eš e2-re n iĝ2-g ig d iĝ ir-ra -k a

To be wealthy and insist on demanding more is an abomination to the god. 67

Sailors on a river are warned not to take advantage of their right of way, in the following words (SP 26 A 10): l u2 ĝišm a2 d i r i g -g a lu2 ĝišma2 ru -ru -⸢g u2⸣ n i ĝ2 k a b2 d i - d am n iĝ2-g ig ds u en -n a -k e4 (When) a man sailing downstream demands an inspection of a man sailing upstream, it is an abomination to Suen. 68

The following proverb condemns those who illegally deprive their lawful heirs of their field or property (UM 29-16-519 rev. 3′): .  .  . d i n u - ĝa r -ra d a b5-b e2- ⸢d a⸣? d u m u - n i t a ḫ e2 ⸢a d⸣-[d a]-n a-k a s a!-ra n i ĝ2- g i g dn i n - u rta -k am . . . rendering an untrue verdict (and) chasing away a son from his father’s house— are abominations to Ninurta. 69 66.  Alternative version: “Coveting and taking away (Sum. g id2- i - d a) are abominations to Ninurta.” 67.  Another version of the same proverb (SP 1.23) reads “it is an abomination.” See discussion below. 68.  For the compound verb kab2-dug4, which means “to test,” “to inspect,” see Miguel Civil, The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual, AuOrSup 5 (Barcelona: AUSA, 1994), 153ff. The person sailing downstream had the right of way over the one sailing upstream. Hence, according to Civil (pp. 159–60), the proverb warns the former not to take advantage of his right by demanding a bribe from the latter before letting his boat pass. For an abbreviated form of the same proverb, see SP 3.170 (with comment by Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, 393–94). 69.  Compare the parallel proverb YBC 7351 (see below): “A judge who despises justice . . . and the chasing away of a younger son from the house of his father are abominations to Ninurta” (for a slightly different version of the same, see further SP 26 A 4). Alternatively, our proverb may be interpreted as referring to the dispossessing of a son by his own father. A similar case seems to be referred to in the following proverb: k i- t a k ur2 n i ĝ2- g i g dn i n urta-ke4, “to remove (someone) from (his proper) place is an abomination to Ninurta.”

312

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

And the same idea is expressed in different words (UET 6/2 298): ḫ a - l a ḫ a - l a - še3 ĝ a2-ĝ a2 n i ĝ2- g i g du t u -k am Adding an inheritance share to an inheritance share is an abomination to Utu.

Misappropriation of the temple’s property is also considered an abominable act (SP 14.18): e2 de n - l i l2- l a2 p a-ḫ ar ⸢ad d ir⸣-[à m]? 70 šu g id2 i g i - t um3 la2 š u s u mu r n i ĝ2- g i g - g a - k am Enlil’s Temple is a collecting (place) for wages; yet to reach out, to look with greedy eyes, to seize— are abominations.

A number of proverbs denounce dishonest judges or witnesses. About the corrupt judge, we read as follows (YBC 7351): d i - k u d n i ĝ2- g e n6-n a ḫ u l-a aš2 a2 z id -d a 71 b al-e d u m u - n i t a ḫ t u r-ra e2 a d -d a -n a-k a ib2-ta -a n-s a r-re n i ĝ2- g i g dn i n - u rta -k e A judge who despises justice, cursing with violence, who chases away a younger son from the house of his father— is an abomination to Ninurta. 72

And regarding a false witness, we read as follows (SP 3 118): n i ĝ 2- z u - a - n i g a -ra -a n -d a -a b -b e 2 n i ĝ 2 n u - z u - a m 3 lu 2-k i-in im-ma ab -ta-e 3 n i ĝ 2- g i g dsu e n -n a -k am When a man comes forward as a witness (saying): “Let me tell you what I   know about him,” but he knows nothing (of it)— it is an abomination to Suen. 73 However, the above proverb may be translated alternatively: “to remove something from its proper place is an abomination to Ninurta” (for example, Alster). 70.   Restored on the basis of SP 3.92, which is a short version of our proverb. 71.  The correct reading is *zig3-ga; see the next proverb. 72.  Another version of the same proverb reads: “it is an abomination to Utu” (UET 6/2 259). See further the Free Library of Philadelphia school tablet (Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, 334): “He who despises a just decision, who loves evil decisions—is an abomination to Utu.” 73.  In another version of the same proverb (SP 26 A 8), this “abomination” is related to Utu. Similarly, one should understand the following proverb as relating to a person who refuses to deliver testimony, thus causing perversion of justice (SP 26 A 8): n u - d u g4- g a

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

313

The second part of the following proverb denounces an act that appears to be sexual harassment (SP 3.170): .   .   . u g u? ⸢t u g2⸣-g a g a l4-la š u d u g4-g a n i ĝ2- g i g dsu e n -n a-⸢k a⸣ . . . he who touches a woman’s genitals over her clothes— it is an abomination to Suen.

Likewise, condemned is the tendency to vindictiveness (SP 26 A 6): šu g i4- g i4 n i ĝ2-g ig dn in -u rta -k e4

To take revenge is an abomination to Ninurta. 74

Finally, we present a cluster of proverbs dealing with abominations related to social hygiene and prudence. All of these are repugnant acts in public, inappropriate for civilized people (SP 3.8): šu n u - l u ḫ - ḫ a k a š i3-d e2-a 75 u š7 d u g4- g a ĝiri3 n u -s ag a11-a g i r i17 t e - e n - n a s aḫ ar n u -g i4-a e m e a k a n - b a r 7 an -d u l3 n u -ĝ a2-ĝ a2 n i ĝ2- g i g du t u -k am To serve beer with unwashed hands, 76 to spit without trampling upon it, to sneeze without covering it with dust, to kiss with the tongue at midday without providing shade 77— are abominations to Utu.

We have seen that, in most cases, this type of proverb uses the formula “it is an abomination of DN,” with the god named being Ninurta, Utu, or Suen. 78 niĝ2-gig dnin-urta -ke4, “Not to speak—it is an abomination of Ninurta.” Another proverb of this kind may refer to exploitation of the weak in society: g i r5- r a i n - n a - a n - ḫ u l - l e - e š . . . niĝ2-gig [dnin]-⸢urta⸣-am3, “They treated an immigrant badly . . . —it is an abomination to Ninurta” (SP 13.57). 74.  The same proverb recurs in SP 11.66; and UM 29-16-519 (rev. 4). For a different translation and interpretation of this proverb, see Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer, 279, 454. 75.  This line appears in only one of seven duplicates of this proverb. 76.  A variant version of this taboo appears in SP 3.161: šu n u- luḫ- ḫa k a- e tum3da niĝ2-gig-ga-am3, “Putting unwashed hands to one’s mouth is an abomination.” Note that Alster and ETCSL translate ni ĝ2-gig-ga-am3 “it is disgusting” in this context, feeling that the socioreligious term “abomination” is not suitable for characterizing such behavior. 77.  Others interpret this line as referring to actual coition, translating: “to have sexual intercourse without covering oneself with a canopy” (cf. Klein and Sefati, “The Concept of ‘Abomination’,” 138). 78.  The moon-god Suen, who was considered the firstborn of Enlil by Ur III theologians, is usually mentioned in political treaties and contracts as well as in medical texts as the deity

314

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

The frequent appearance of this formula indicates that the concept of “abomination” was of major importance in the religious thought of the authors and collectors of the proverbs and that these taboos were considered to be under divine sanction. We have also shown that in a number of cases the religious formula “it is an abomination of DN” alternates with the general, social-moral formula “it is an abomination.” Thus, for example, serving beer with unwashed hands is labeled an “abomination to Utu,” while putting unwashed hands to one’s mouth is labeled “an abomination” in general. Greediness in general is labeled an “abomination of Ninurta,” while lust for the property of the temple is labeled a mere “abomination.” That there is no difference whatsoever in the meaning of these alternate formulas is clearly indicated by the alternate versions of the two proverbs condemning greediness: “To be wealthy and insist on demanding more—is an abomination to the god” (SP 1.23) and “To be wealthy and demanding more—is an abomination” (UET 6/2 261 = UET 6/2 262). 79 This free alternation between “it is an abomination” and “it is an abomination to the god” indicates that the authors and collectors of the proverbs did not distinguish between “secular” or social ethics on the one hand and “religious” ethics on the other hand; the identity between social and religious taboos was natural to them. 4.  Proverbs Referring to “Justice” and “Evil” There is a sizable group of proverbs that deal with the problem of “justice” (niĝ2-gi-na) and “evil” (ni ĝ2-erim2) or “the righteous” (lu2-zid) and “the wicked” (lu 2-lul), 80 occasionally in antithetic parallelism. 81 Occasionally, these proverbs display a consistent doctrine of retribution according to which the righteous are duly rewarded, while the wicked are duly punished. For example, a proverb from Ur (UET 6/2 256) warns the wicked that

who inflicts the sinner with leprosy and epilepsy; cf. Marten Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia, CM 2 (Groningen: Styx, 1993), 127–30; J. Klein, “Leprosy and Lepers in Mesopotamian Literature,” Korot 21 (2011–12): *9 and passim [Heb.]. His son, the sun-god Utu, was responsible among others for the upkeep of justice in human society. The war- and farmer-god Ninurta (-Ninĝirsu) was also considered the firstborn of Enlil by the theologians of Lagaš and Nippur. However, his relationship to the “abominations” connected with him is not clear. Perhaps he was believed especially to detest cases of illegal disinheritance in his capacity as the god of agriculture. 79.  See SP 1.23 with n. 67 above. 80.  Literally: “the truthful/faithful man” (lu2 zid) and “the man of lie/falshood” (l u2 l ul(-la)). 81.  In some proverbs, the terms “righteous” (= man of truth) and “wicked” (= man of falsehood) occur in a popular, nonethical context, even in a humorous tone. For example: “Although the dishonest man was unable to build his own house, he came to serve as a construction worker at my friend’s house” (SP 23.7:7–8); or “A house built by a righteous man is destroyed by a treacherous man (lines 11–12). These proverbs are not discussed here.

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

315

l u2 n i ĝ2- g e n6- n a ḫ e2-š u b -b a zig3-g a -b i a -a b - gu-ul

The burden (of the sins) of those who neglect justice is heavy.  82

On the other hand, a proverb from the same collection (UET 6/2 257) promises the righteous longevity: l u2 n i ĝ2- g e n6- n a zi-b i ḫ e2-u3-tu d n a m - t i l3 ḫ e2- s u3-u d -d e3 The just men—let them rejuvenate, 83 and let their lives last long.

The same idea is cast in another proverb (SP 1.1), which, significantly, opens the first, most-popular collection in a more-general and poetic mode: n i ĝ2- g e n6- n a - d a a-b a in -d a-s a2 n am-til3 i3-u3-tud

Who can compete with righteousness? It creates life.

The above proverbs do not specify who is responsible for rewarding the righteous and punishing the wicked; other proverbs, however, unequivocally answer this question. One proverb states that the punishment of the dishonest person is inflicted by society in the form of condemnation and denunciation (UET 6/2 260): l u2- l u l - l a a b u la in -k u4-k u 4 i g i - b i šu - si - a m3 eĝ e r-b i š u -s i-am3 When liars enter by the city gate— in front of them there is a (pointing) finger, behind them there is a (pointing)  finger.

Seemingly, this proverb speaks about social retribution that comes from fellow human beings, representing “secular” thought. However, a similar proverb mentions the same kind of retribution—namely, denunciation by society, among other punishments that are inflicted by the gods themselves (UET 6/2 289, 1–8): e m e? si g9 d u g4-d u g4 lu2-lu l-la -ra d n i n - e2- g a l - l a s aĝ-a -n i b i2-in -⸢g u l⸣? sa g9- g a - n i ḫ u l-š e3 b a-d a-ĝ a l2 i g i - n i t e š2 l a - b a -a n -tu k u šu - si e ĝe r - a - n i mu -u n -d a-ĝ al2 d u t u e n n i ĝ2- g e n6-n a k i ⸢aĝ2⸣ n i ĝ2- e r i m2 b a - an -d a -b u r12 n iĝ2-g en6-n a g id2-⸢da⸣ n a m - t a g d u g u d ib2- t a -⸢a b⸣-[il2?] 82.  For the present translation of this line, see the preceding proverb above. ETCSL translates: “The expenses of those who neglect justice are numerous.” 83.  Literally: “let their life be born (anew).”

316

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

He who slanders, the liar— Ninegala will crush his head, His good deeds turn to evil, In front of him there is no respect, 84 There are fingers (pointing at him) from behind. Utu, the lord who loves justice, Extirpates wickedness and prolongs righteousness, A heavy punishment [inflicts] on him.

It should be noted that the above proverb, which contrasts the righteous with the wicked, explicitly mentions the expression nam-tag, a theologically central concept that usually means “sin” but in the present context denotes “punishment” meted out to the wicked. 85 It is not surprising that the most-preferred divine authority in such proverbs is Utu, the supreme divine judge. A particularly popular proverb that recurs in various collections presents Utu as the patron of justice in the following words: 86 m a2 n i ĝ2- g e n6-n a n i2 b a -ra -a b -d irig u t u k a r g e n6- n a mu -u n -n a-a b -š i-k iĝ2-k iĝ2

ĝiš d

A trustworthy boat is sailing 87— Utu seeks out a trustworthy harbor for it.

Interestingly, in one of the collections, this proverb was juxtaposed with an antithetic proverb, creating a contrast between the righteous and the wicked (SP 1.83–84): 88 m a2 n i ĝ2- g e n6-n a n i2 b a -ra -a b -d irig u t u k a r g e n6- n a mu -u n -n a-a b -š i-k iĝ2-k iĝ2 ĝiš m a2 n i ĝ2- e r i m2-e n i2 b a -ra -a b -d irig p e š10- p e š10- e i m-ta -⸢tag⸣-[ta g]-e ĝiš d

A a trustworthy boat is sailing; Utu seeks out a trustworthy harbor for it. A dishonest boat is sailing; it runs aground.

84.  Alster and the ETCSL translate: “His looks are shameless.” 85.  To this Sumerian term and the Mesopotamian concept of sin in general, see recently A. Löhnert, “Sünde,” RlA 13.248–53. 86.  For this proverb, see SP 1.83; 26 A 11; YBC 8713.2; ET 6/2 302. 87.  Or “A a trustworthy boat is drifting in the wind.” 88.  Similar antithetic parallelisms appear in the biblical book of Proverbs, where the steadfastness of the righteous is frequently contrasted with the weakness and ephemerality of the wicked. However, the Bible does not use the image of the boat, which is characteristic of the Mesopotamian environment, using instead the images native to the natural world of the land of Israel, such as a tree (Prov 11:28; 12:3; 12: 12) or a house (Prov 12:7; 15:6).

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

317

The ancient compiler wanted to create a pair of proverbs that liken the righteous and the wicked to two boats that are sailing (or drifting in the wind). One is granted divine protection, and the other is abandoned to its fate. On the face of it, the punishment of the wicked is natural. In reality, however, the sinking of the dishonest boat is caused by its lack of divine protection. The law of divine retribution has come into play. In some proverbs, the righteous and the wicked are contrasted within the same proverb by describing their contrasting deeds (SP 2.142): e2 l u2 z id - d e3 d u3-a lu2-lu l-e g u l-la

The house built by the upright man is destroyed by the treacherous man. 89

Compare further the following proverb, which expresses the same idea in a more general, abstract formulation (SP 3.190): si sa2 u n - t a r - e n iĝ2-e rim2 ib2-il2-e When righteousness is cut off, injustice is increased. 90

In the above proverbs, injustice in society is not connected directly to the gods. The following proverb, however, makes the god responsible for the triumph of injustice (SP 1.2): n i ĝ2- e r i m2- e a2-b i ḫ e2-b i2-ib2-k u š2-u3 du tu me-da tum3 If wickedness exerts itself, 91 how will Utu succeed? 92

In summary, we can say that, according to the proverbs dealing with the concepts of “justice” and “evil,” the gods are considered responsible for the upkeep of justice in human society. The most important deity in these proverbs is of course Utu, the supreme divine judge, who is labeled in one of the proverbs “Utu, the lord who loves justice, extirpates wickedness, and prolongs righteousness” (UET 6/2 289, 6–7). Some of these proverbs describe the reward of the righteous and the retribution of the wicked in “natural,” social terms; others describe them as the acts of the gods. We have shown that the authors 89.  This proverb is attached here to the proverb “He who slanders, the liar—Ninegala will crush his head,” quoted above. This editorial arrangement is further evidence for the identity between the religious and “natural” formulations of the law of justice. For the same proverb in other collections, see SP 6 A 1; 23.7, 11–12; 25.8. 90.  Note that this pessimistic proverb is the last concluding item of collection three. 91.  Literally: “exert its arm/strength.” 92.  Or: “what is Utu’s advantage?” Note that this proverb follows in collection one immediately after the first proverb, which reads: “Who can compete with righteousness? It creates life” (SP 1.1). Most likely, the two proverbs were juxtaposed with the intention of opening this popular collection with a proverb that had antithetical parallel. Another version of this antithetical proverb, which hails from Ur, expresses the opposite viewpoint: “Who can compete with righteousness? It creates life. If wickedness exerts itself, Utu will not acquiesce (lit.: will not be silent)!” (UET 6/2 291; cf. YBC 8713, 1).

318

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

and collectors of the proverbs did not perceive any tension or contradiction between these parallel formulations of the concept of justice. Therefore, even when the proverb does not state it explicitly, justice is tacitly assumed to be in harmony with a given divine order, whereas injustice is assumed to be in contradiction to the will of the gods. Summary and Conclusions Examination of the religious elements in the Sumerian instruction and proverb literatures seems to point to two different trends that were characteristic of two different periods in the history of Sumerian sapiential thought. We have observed that, in the “Instructions of Šuruppak,” the oldest versions of which come from the third millennium b.c.e., there is a dichotomy between the instructions proper and the literary framework in which they are embedded. Whereas the instructions lack any religious content, and their motivations for pursuing justice are common sense and social conventions, the literary framework presents the instructions as being the words of the gods (especially of Utu and the personal god) that are passed to the son via his mother and father. We suggest that this dichotomy derives from the editorial work of Old Babylonian scribes who wished to set the ancient, “secular” instruction in a religious framework. In view of this possible development in Mesopotamian wisdom literature during the transition from the third millennium to the second millennium, it should not surprise us that a survey of the Sumerian proverb collections from the Old Babylonian period reveals a picture that is different from what was characteristic of the archaic proverbs: these proverbs seem not to be mere ethical sayings, free of any religious outlook. Although these proverbs rarely relate to cultic or mythological subjects, 93 they still reflect a popular faith in which the gods are significantly involved. From these proverbs, we learn that the gods are involved in all areas of human life, especially in the sphere of morals and justice. A comparison of proverbs that manifest a value system that derives its authority from natural and social mores with proverbs that evidence a value system believed to be created by the gods reveals that these two value systems were considered by the authors of the proverbs to be identical. This identity manifests itself in various ways, such as: requirements by the personal god that include both cultic and moral obligations; demands that the ideal worshiper excel in both areas; an alternation between sometimes denouncing acts 93.  Nevertheless, as we have shown above, the proverb collections occasionally contain short quotations from liturgical texts, such as laments and prayers, and they even echo mythological motifs. See U. Gabbay, “Lamentful Proverbs or Proverbial Laments? Intertextual Connections between Sumerian Proverbs and Emesal Laments,” JCS 63 (2011): 51–64; idem, “The Assyrian Dream Book and Sumerian Proverbs,” NABU (2010): 30.

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

319

as “abomination” and sometimes denouncing them as “abomination to a god”; attributing a reward or a punishment sometimes to social-natural causes and sometimes to divine sanctions; and so on. Our hypothesis that Sumerian practical wisdom literature was reinterpreted in the Old Babylonian period to endow it with a more religious nature may explain the relatively few proverbs that mention gods. It is quite possible that this fact can be attributed to the many third-millennium proverbs that were collected and integrated into the later collections. 94 Epilogue In conclusion, we will quote two proverbs that appear both in the proverb collections discussed in this essay and in a cultic-theological poem that may be regarded as belonging to the sphere of theoretical wisdom. The appearance of these two proverbs in both types of wisdom literature demonstrates how deeply Sumerian practical wisdom literature was rooted in the belief in gods and their involvement in human life. The theological-cultic-wisdom composition “Man and His God,” 95 which was labeled by Kramer “The Sumerian Job,” quotes two proverbs of a religious nature. The first proverb seems to belong to plain, practical wisdom, whereas the second seems to express a theoretical theological truism. The poem opens with this sapiential, introductory exhortation: a man should faithfully praise and exalt his god, soothing his heart with lamentations (lines 1–8), for: A man without a (personal) god will not obtain (his) food. 96

Interestingly, this proverbial saying is found in a more-extensive version in the Ur proverbial collection, which we quoted above: 97 A man without a personal god: Does not procure much food, does not procure a little food. Going down to the river, he does not catch any fish. 94.  However, this analysis is presented here with some reservations. Although the AbūṢalābīkh version of the “Instructions of Šuruppak” seems to support our theory that its literary framework lacked any religious elements (see the appendix below), we do not have enough sources from the third millennium to determine with certainty that this composition is representative of the wisdom literature of its era. One cannot exclude the possibility that Sumerian sapiential thought did not distinguish between the categories of “religion” and “social-ethics” in any period, and hence the identity of these two categories in the later proverbs reflects an ancient general outlook that did not acknowledge secular values as being independent from religion. 95.  A revised edition of this poem is forthcoming by J. Klein. For the time being, see the composite text and translation in the ETCSL sub 5.2.4. 96.  Sumerian: lú-ulu 3 diĝir-da nu-me-a ú-gu 7 la-ba-ak-e (“Man and His God,” 9). 97.  UET 6/2 251 = 252 (cf. n. 55 above).

320

Jacob Klein and Nili Samet

Going down to a field, he does not catch any gazelle. In important matters he is unsuccessful. When running, he does not reach his goal. Yet if his god becomes favorable toward him, anything he names will be provided for him.

Later on, when the hero’s suffering reaches its climax and he complains about his grave affliction, he quotes the following widely known proverb: They say—the wise men—a word true and right: “Never has a sinless child been born to his mother. The idea was never conceived. A sinless man has never existed from old!” 98

Surprisingly, this proverb also is found, word for word, in the Ur proverb collection. 99 Do we need any better evidence to prove that Sumerian proverb literature was founded on a firm belief in a world order created by the gods and controlled by them? Appendix 100 Two manuscripts represent the Early Dynastic version of the “Instructions of Šurupppak”: a nearly complete (14- or 16-column) tablet from Abū-Ṣalābīkh, and a fragmentary tablet from Adab. 101 The Adab tablet is so fragmentary that it is impossible to determine the literary structure of the ED recension that it represented. In the Abū-Ṣalābīkh tablet, on the other hand, enough text has been preserved to support our hypothesis that its literary framework lacked any religious elements, and therefore, the religious concept reflected in the literary framework of the OB recension should be ascribed to an OB redactor. The text went through radical changes from the ED to the OB period. The ED version is considerably shorter, and the instructions’ sequence often differs from the sequence of the OB version. In addition, while the OB text has three divisions, each framed by opening and concluding formulas, the ED version has five much shorter divisions, each beginning with an opening formula, 102 98. Sumerian: m i-ni-ib-bé-ne šul gal-an-zu-n e i n i m z i si sá  / u d n a - m e dumu nam-tag nu-tuku ama-a-ni nu-tu-ud / inim l a - b a - si g10 e r i n2 n a m - t a g n u t u ku ul-ta nu-ĝá l-l a-àm (“Man and His God,” 103–5). To express the concept of sin, the poet uses the term nam -tag, which is a term that is rich with theological and ethical connotations (for this term, see n. 85 above). 99.  See UET 6/2 368 (1). 100.  This appendix was inspired by a pertinent comment made by Walther Sallaberger on the paper read in Leiden (see authors’ note above). 101.  Labeled ED1 and ED2, respectively, in Alster’s recent edition (cf. Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 47). 102.  The opening formula of the first division, which serves as a prologue to the entire composition (obv.  i 1–8), reads: ĝ eštu2 inim-zu / [ka]l a m [ t ]i - l a / [šu r u p p a g Ú]R. [A]Š / [ĝeš]tu2 inim-zu / kalam ti-la / šuruppag dum u n a [n ]a - m u - r i / d u m u - ĝu10 na ga-ri / ĝ eš[tu2] ḫé-m[a]-ak, “The wise one, the eloquent, who lived in the land,

Religion and Ethics in Sumerian Proverb Literature

321

but having no concluding formulas at the end. Thus, the praise for Utu, the advice to pray to the gods, and the analogy between obeying parents and adhering to the gods are seemingly absent from the ED version of this composition. Note, however, that the fifth section of the ED1 version ends with a concluding formula of five lines (ED1 rev. vii 5–9), which seems to have been the epilogue of the entire composition. Two lines of this formula (ED1 rev. vii 7–8) are reconstructed by Alster as follows: [inim a-a-za inim diĝir-za]-gin7 / GIŠ[TUG2.PI ḫ]e2-[ma]-ak, “May you pay attention [to the words of your father] like [to the words of your (personal) god].” 103 Accordingly, he detaches these two lines from the epilogue, considering them to be parallel to OB 266, which reads: inim ama-za inim diĝir-za ka-še3 nam-bi2-ib-dib2-be2en, “Do not scorn the words of your mother and your personal god!” 104 If Alster’s reconstruction of the above two lines is correct, then we must admit that the ED version of the “Instructions” already had a religiously motivated framework. It should be pointed out, however, that the similarities between ED1 rev. vii 7–8 and OB 266 occur only in the reconstructed parts of the former, which renders this reconstruction highly speculative. These two damaged lines in the ED1 version seem instead to be part of the concluding formula of the entire composition, and just like the prologue, it probably did not mention the words of the (personal) god. In fact, these two lines may roughly correspond to lines obv. i 7–8 in the prologue, just as the preceding lines (ED1 rev. vii 5–6) seem to correspond to line 285a of the OB version; 105 and the following line (rev. vii 9) partly corresponds to obv. i 3 of the prologue and line 287 of the OB version. 106 Šuruppak, the . . . , the wise one, the eloquent, who lived in the land, Šuruppak gave instructions to (his) son: my son, let me give (you) instructions; you should pay attention!” The openings of the other four divisions are, on the other hand, laconic, reading: Š u r u p p a g dumu na na-mu-ri (dumu-ĝu10 na ga-ri), “Šuruppak gave instructions to (his) son: (My son, let me give you instructions)” (cf. obv. iii 3; iv 6–7; vi 9; rev. v 4–5). 103.  Alster, The Instructions of Suruppak, 14. 104.  Idem, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 98; see his comment to this line on p. 171. 105.  The two parallel lines share the words kadra, in i m, and m u l. 106.  Compare ED1 vii 9 (šuruppag Ú[R].A[Š]? du m u n a-⸢r i⸣- r i - g a) with OB 287 (na-ri šuruppag duma ubar-tu-tu-ke4 na ri-ga).

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

Yigal Levin Introduction The punitive campaign led by Sennacherib king of Assyria against Judah was without question one of the most traumatic events that the small kingdom would experience through the four centuries or so of its existence. Evidence of this trauma can be found in the many biblical passages that refer to it: most of 2 Kings 18–19, the almost-parallel Isaiah 36–37 and the rather different version in 2 Chronicles 32, as well as such prophetic and poetic passages as sections of Micah 1, Isaiah 1, 8–10, and perhaps 21–22 and more. 1 The campaign is recorded in Sennacherib’s own annals—his famous “prism” inscriptions— the well-known Lachish reliefs at Nineveh, and his so-called Azekah inscription as well. 2 The archaeological record, especially that of the destruction of such towns as Lachish and Beth-shemesh, is also impressive. From all this and more, it is clear that the campaign and its aftermath completely changed the kingdom’s demography, economy, settlement patterns, and political position within the Assyrian sphere of hegemony. The campaign also brought 1.  For the dating of Isaiah 21–22 to this period, see W. R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 22–74. 2.  This inscription is actually a combination of two previously published fragments that N. Naʾaman (“Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to God’ on His Campaign to Judah,” BASOR 214 [1974]: 25–39) first attributed to Sennacherib. Naʾaman’s reading has been accepted by most scholars but not all. For two of the dissenting voices, see G. Galil, “A New Look at the ‘Azekah Inscription’,” RB 102 (1995): 321–29; D. Miano, “What Happened in the Fourteenth Year of Hezekiah? A Historical Analysis of 2  Kings 18–20 in the Light of New Textual Considerations,” in Milk and Honey: Essays on Ancient Israel and the Bible in Appreciation of the Judaic Studies Program at the University of California, San Diego (ed. S. Malena and D. Miano; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 113–32. For an analysis of the Lachish reliefs, see C. Uehlinger, “Clio in a World of Pictures: Another Look at the Lachish Reliefs from Sennacherib’s Southwest Palace at Nineveh,” in “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 bce, ed. L. L. Grabbe, JSOT Sup 363 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 221–305.

323

324

Yigal Levin

about a radical change in the self-perception of the inhabitants of Judah and of Jerusalem. On one hand, the trauma caused by the enormous destruction, the mass deportation of the inhabitants, especially of the Shephelah region, and the total subservience to Assyria; on the other hand, the self-acknowledgment of those who survived the horror, especially of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and its surroundings. In practice, the two main geographical parts of the Kingdom of Judah experienced both the campaign and its outcome in very different ways: on one hand was the Shephelah, which suffered the most from the Assyrian attacks, sieges, and deportations, and on the other hand was the Judean Hills, the inhabitants of which had mostly viewed the dramatic events from afar, undoubtedly frightened, but not directly harmed. 3 From both our written and archaeological sources, we know that the high point of the Shephelah campaign was the siege and destruction of Lachish and the deportation of many its inhabitants, while for the inhabitants of the hill country, the culmination of the war was the siege of Jerusalem, at the end of which the city remained unconquered and perhaps even strengthened. 4 In this essay, presented here in memory of my onetime neighbor, Professor Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, it is my intention to focus on the second stage, the siege of Jerusalem conducted by the Assyrian “Rabshakeh.” The Assyrian Account Of the three primary Assyrian sources for Sennacherib’s “third campaign,” the Lachish reliefs and the “Azekah” inscription deal with specific events and do not mention the possibility of a siege of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the annals—known to us from three almost-identical “prism” inscriptions—give us the wider picture: Sennacherib’s siege of Tyre and the flight of its king, Luli, the capitulation of other kings in the area, the capture and exile of the king of Ashkelon, the defeat of the rebellious leaders of Ekron and the reinstatement of its loyal king, Padi, and finally: As for Hezekiah the Judean, I besieged forty-six of his fortified walled cities and surrounding smaller towns, which were without number. Using packed-down ramps and applying battering rams, infantry attacks by mines, breaches and siege machines, I conquered (them). I took out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, cattle, and sheep, without number, and counted them as spoil. He himself, I locked up within Jerusalem his royal 3.  For a survey of the relevant archaeological evidence, see A. Faust, “Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and Intensity of Sennacherib’s Campaign,” PEQ 140 (2008): 168–94. 4.  For a survey of “two centuries of Sennacherib study,” see L. L. Grabbe, “Introduction,” in “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 bce, ed. L. L. Grabbe, JSOTSup 363 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 20–35; as well as P. Machinist, “The Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem: Israelite Identity in the Face of the Assyrian ‘Other’,” HS 41 (2000): 152–53 and n. 1 there.

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

325

city, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthworks and made it unthinkable for him to exit by the city gate. 5

Sennacherib then goes on to describe the heavy tribute that he received from Hezekiah after his surrender. As noted by several scholars, the account is typical of Assyrian royal inscriptions, and even the touching portrayal of Hezekiah as being locked up in Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage” is not unique. 6 What the annals do not describe in detail is the siege of Jerusalem itself. The Biblical Account Unlike the Assyrian annals, the Bible does describe at least one aspect of the siege in detail. 7 This description begins with 2 Kgs 18:13–16: In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, King Sennacherib of Assyria came up against all the fortified cities of Judah and captured them. King Hezekiah of Judah sent to the king of Assyria at Lachish, saying, “I have done wrong; withdraw from me; whatever you impose on me I will bear.” The king of Assyria demanded of King Hezekiah of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold. Hezekiah gave him all the silver that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king’s house. At that time Hezekiah stripped the gold from the doors of the temple of the Lord, and from the doorposts that King Hezekiah of Judah had overlaid and gave it to the king of Assyria.

According to this passage, while Sennacherib was busy with the siege of Lachish or perhaps just after Lachish fell, Hezekiah offered him his unconditional surrender. This, however, was not the end of it. According to v. 17, as if Hezekiah had not already submitted, “The king of Assyria sent Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh with a great army from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem. They went up and came to Jerusalem. When they arrived, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field.” At this point, “Rabshakeh” began to address the people 5.  Translation from the “Rassam Prism” by M. Cogan, “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem,” in COS 2.3. For a summary of the Assyrian sources, see Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 9–14. 6.  The formula kīma iṣṣūr quppi esēru, appears in Tiglath-pileser III’s description of his siege of Damascus and even goes back to the letters of Rib-Adi of Byblos to the king of Egypt found at El-Amarna. See H. Tadmor, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographical Considerations,” Zion 50 (1985): 75 [Heb.]; and I. Ephʿal, The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 37 n. 9; as well as the comment made by Faust (“Settlement and Demography,” 186) that this seems to be a phrase used when an army is unable to conquer a city. 7.  Among scholars, it is customary to divide the biblical account into several segments, known as segment A (roughly 2 Kgs 18:13–16), B1 (18:13, 17–37; 19:1–9, 36–37), and B2 (19:10–35), although there are disagreements on the exact boundaries between the segments. See, for example, Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 14–16; and also J. T. Walsh, “The Rab Šāqēh between Rhetoric and Redaction,” JBL 130 (2011): 264–65.

326

Yigal Levin

who were manning the city walls, and it soon became evident that he delivered this speech in Yehudit. Yehudit presumably refers to the specific dialect of what we call Hebrew that was spoken by the people of Judah, mentioned by this name in Neh 13:24 as well, and perhaps the same as that which Isa 19:18 calls “the language of Canaan.” 8 This so disturbed Hezekiah’s three representatives, Eliakim, Shebnah, and Joah, that they asked Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Yehudit within the hearing of the people who are on the wall.” Rabshakeh, however, was adamant, and continued on to the second part of his speech, “in a loud voice in Yehudit” as well. The three messengers reported to the king, they all rent their clothes as a sign of distress, Hezekiah sent to the prophet Isaiah who sent words of encouragement, they all prayed for salvation, and indeed, at the end of 2 Kings 19, “That very night the angel of the Lord set out and struck down one hundred eighty-five thousand in the camp of the Assyrians; when morning dawned, they were all dead bodies. Then King Sennacherib of Assyria left, went home, and resided at Nineveh” (19:36). The siege was over, this time without the need to pay tribute to Assyria, and Jerusalem had indeed not fallen. Many different scholars have dealt with the relationship between the two parts of the biblical account and with the biblical account’s relationship to the Assyrian texts. 9 Others have dealt with the intertextual relationships between the accounts in Kings, Isaiah, and Chronicles. And still others have dealt with the archaeological evidence from Lachish, Jerusalem, and other sites in an attempt to understand the background and results of the Assyrian campaign. In this paper, I investigate the speech delivered by Rabshakeh and attempt

8.  Interestingly enough, while “Hebrew” as an ethic term appears often in the Bible, the earliest use of the term as the name of the language is in the prologue to Ben-Sira. See D. I. Block, “The Role of Language in Ancient Israelite Perceptions of National Identity,” JBL 103 (1984): 330. For the difference between the Hebrew of Judah and that of the Northern Kingdom, see G. A. Rendsburg, “A Comprehensive Guide to Israelian Hebrew: Grammar and Lexicon,” Orient (Tokyo) 38 (2003): 5–35. Rendsburg has recently claimed that the famous Siloam Inscription, which is often dated to the days of Hezekiah, shows northern “Israelean” features, suggesting that the workers who carved it—the builders of the Siloam Tunnel—were also northerners, refugees from Samaria who had settled in Judah. See G. A. Rendsburg and W. M. Schniedewind, “The Siloam Tunnel Inscription: Historical and Linguistic Perspectives,” IEJ 60 (2010): 188–203. 9.  One suggestion about how to solve the apparent contradiction between Hezekiah’s unconditional surrender in the Assyrian annals and in the beginning of ch. 18 and his later refusal to surrender that comes up every so often is that 2 Kgs 18:13–19:35 or sections thereof actually reflect a different campaign, either by Sargon II (e.g., Miano, “What Happened in the Fourteenth Year of Hezekiah?”) or by Sennacherib himself. These theories have been widely discussed and refuted, leaving us no need to discuss them further. For a summary, see Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 8–9.

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

327

to explain how and why this speech was delivered in Yehudit—the language of Judah. Who Were Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh? According to 2 Kgs 18:17, Sennacherib sent three men, “Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh,” together “with a great army” to Jerusalem. Scholars have long recognized that the three are referred to by their titles rather than by their personal names, and in fact many modern translations attach the definite article to those titles—“the Rabshakeh” and so on—although this is not indicated in the Hebrew text. The identity of “Tartan” with the Assyrian turtānu, a word that was often used as the title of the commander of the army, was realized at an early stage. There are different opinions about the other two, but the most widely accepted view is that of Hayim Tadmor, according to whom “Rabsaris” is the Hebrew rendering of rab ša-rēsi, one of the senior officials in the Assyrian royal administration, although his precise role remains unclear. Tadmor then identified the Rabshakeh with the rab šaqu, cognate of Hebrew śar hammašqim or mašqê (Gen 40:2–9; Neh 1:11). 10 If this interpretation is correct, then the Assyrian delegation to Jerusalem was led by a senior military officer, a senior “civil” official, and a close personal servant of the king. It is worthwhile to note that, according to Cogan and Tadmor, the rab šaqu usually stayed at the royal court and “never took part in military campaigns.” 11 They then go on to suggest that, if the rab šaqu did join the campaign to the west, it was as the king’s personal servant, and if he, the less senior of the three, served as spokesman, it was specifically because he spoke the language of Judah. Opposite Sennacherib’s three messengers stood three Judahite officials: “Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was in charge of the palace, and Shebnah the secretary, and Joah son of Asaph, the recorder” (2 Kgs 18:18). 12 Without getting into a discussion of the specific duties of ʾašer ʿal habbāyit, the sopēr, and the mazkīr, respectively, I will mention that Eliakim and Shebnah are also 10. H. Tadmor, “Rabshakeh, Rab-shakeh,” EM 7.323–25 [Heb.]. See also idem, “Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh in 2 Kings 18,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 279–86. Tadmor considered Rabshakh to be the title of a personal servant to the king, not a military commander. 11. M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB  11 (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 230. On the other hand, Gallagher (Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah, 165–66) claims that there are known cases from the time of Sargon II of a rab šaqu serving as a provincial governor. M. A. Sweeney (I and II Kings: A Commentary, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2007], 414) described the Rab Shakeh’s function as “a diplomat or an advisor to the king.” 12.  The numeric balance between the two delegations has been pointed out by A. Demsky (personal communication); as well as by Sweeney, I and II Kings, 412; and others.

328

Yigal Levin

mentioned in Isa 22:15–25, although there it is Shebnah who is “in charge of the palace” and is warned by Isaiah that he will lose this position to Eliakim. 13 Rabshakeh’s Speech The speech delivered by Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18) is divided into two parts. In vv.  19–25, Rabshakeh delivers a message from Sennacherib, “the Great King, King of Assyria,” to Hezekiah (whom he refrains from calling “King of Judah”), the essence of which is that Hezekiah’s confidence in Egypt, in his own strength, and even in Yahweh are unfounded, since it was Yahweh himself who sent Sennacherib to ravage Judah. After hearing this, Hezekiah’s three officials entreat Rabshakeh, “Please speak to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; do not speak to us in Yehudit within the hearing of the people who are on the wall” (part 2, vv. 26–35), to which Rabshakeh admits that his words were not really intended for Hezekiah but, rather, precisely for “the people sitting on the wall.” Rabshakeh then turns to the people themselves, loudly and in their own language, imploring them not to believe Hezekiah’s promises that Yahweh will save them, since no other god has ever saved his people from Sennacherib’s might. He advises the people of Jerusalem to surrender and to be deported willingly “to a land like your own land, a land of grain and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive oil and honey, that you may live and not die.” Hezekiah’s three men, who refrained from answering Rabshakeh this time, came to their king; all four rent their clothes in mourning, and only Isaiah’s message of hope kept them from surrendering. Rabshakeh and his comrades returned to the main Assyrian camp, which had meanwhile moved from Lachish to Libnah. Sometime later, Sennacherib sent additional messengers bearing letters; the content appears to have been the same as that of Rabshakeh’s speech (2 Kgs 19:1–14). This speech and its parallels have been the subject of scholarly inquiry for generations. First, there is the question of the relationship between the text as set down in 2 Kings and that of Isaiah 36–37: which of the two can be considered the “original” and why, when, and how was it transferred into the other? What implications does this have for our understanding of the compositionhistory of both Kings and Isaiah? Just as an example, according to Isa 36:2, the king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh on his own, with no mention of Tartan and Rab-saris. Were the two added by the author of Kings or deleted by the 13.  The episode mentioned in Isaiah 22 presumably occurred before Sennacherib’s invasion. The title ʾašer ʿal habbāyit, lit., “who is over the house,” is known from both the Bible and from the tomb inscription of a certain “. . . yahu, who is over the house” from the Siloam necropolis in Jerusalem, whom Avigad understood to refer to the very same Shebnah whose full name, in Avigad’s opinion, was “Šebanyahu.” See N. Avigad, “The Epitaph of a Royal Steward from Siloam Village,” IEJ 3 (1953): 137–52.

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

329

compiler of Isaiah, and in any case why? And what is the source of the abbreviated version of the story and the speech in 2 Chronicles 32, in which even Rabshakeh’s name is not mentioned? 14 However, from a historical point of view, the more significant question is that of the historical originality and reliability of the entire episode, including the speech and the language in which it was delivered. Obviously, the campaign itself was a historical event, but there is no solid evidence of a siege of Jerusalem. Sennacherib’s claim that he locked up Hezekiah in Jerusalem “like a bird in a cage” is, as defined by Cogan, “a cliché ” and proves nothing. 15 There are scholars who see the entire episode as an invention of the author of Kings or of one of his sources, that has no basis in fact. 16 We should keep in mind that “Tartan, Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh” are not the officials’ names but, rather, their titles—Assyrian titles that were probably known to the author, and indeed a “tartan” of Sargon is mentioned in Isa 20:1. The “balance” of Sennacherib’s three messengers’ being met by three of Hezekiah’s officials can be seen as rather artificial. This considered, it is not surprising that many scholars have concluded that the entire episode of Rabshakeh’s speech and its content are no more than a rhetorical device used by the author of Kings in order to deliver his own messages to his readers, making the entire discussion of the speech and of the language in which it was delivered an innerbiblical literary issue, with no real historical implications. 17 Conversely, the very fact that language is an issue in the story is unusual in biblical narrative. In the vast majority of cases in which the Bible tells of conversation between Israelites and non-Israelites, there is no discussion of what language they spoke or how they understood each other. The Aramaic words uttered by Laban in Gen 31:47 or mention of the “interpreter” between Joseph and his brothers in Gen 42:23 are specific exceptions that serve specific 14. See Machinist, “The Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem,” 154–56. On the relationship between the Kings text and that of Isaiah, see Sweeney (I and II Kings, 410–12), who sees the Kings text as the original. On the relationship between the text of Kings and Isaiah and that of Chronicles, the general consensus is that the Chronicler simply reworked and abbreviated the Kings text in order to make it fit his literary and theological aims. See S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 985–89. 15.  Cogan, “Sennacherib’s Siege of Jerusalem,” 303 n. 9. 16.  For example, see W. Mayer, “Sennacherib’s Campaign of 701 bce: The Assyrian View,” in “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 bce (ed. L.  L. Grabbe, JSOT Sup 363 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 168–200, esp. pp. 179– 81. His conclusion is that Sennacherib “blockaded” Jerusalem and deprived Hezekiah of his freedom of movement but did not actually set siege to the city. 17.  This, for example, is the opinion of E. Ben Zvi, “Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshkeh and Why?” JBL 109 (1990): 79–92; as well as Walsh, “The Rab Šāqēh between Rhetoric and Redaction.”

330

Yigal Levin

purposes within their contexts. 18 In his attempt to analyze the speech and its purposes, Peter Machinist expressed his opinion that this point is so unusual in biblical literature that it must have been based on a historical incident. 19 So, if we are to assume that at least the basis of the Rabshakeh incident is rooted in a historical episode, of an Assyrian officer who delivered a threatening speech beneath the walls of Jerusalem, and made sure to do so in the local language, the question still remains: how did Rabshakeh know the language of the people of Judah? How Did Rabshakeh Know Yehudit? As mentioned above, after Rabshakeh finished the first part of his speech, Hezekiah’s officials requested that he continue in Aramaic, which they understood, rather than in the language of Judah, which was understood by “the people who are on the wall” (18:26). Rabshakeh, who readily admitted that his words were in fact intended for those “people who are on the wall,” insisted on continuing in Yehudit. Rather surprisingly, very few of the medieval or modern commentators even brought up the question of how Rabshakeh knew the language of Judah. 20 Of the modern commentators who did, most simply assumed that he must have spoken through an interpreter. 21 However, in his entry on “Rabshakeh, Rab-shakeh” in Encyclopaedia Biblica, Hayim Tadmor did deal with just this point:   While the Tartan and the Rab-saris often served as the Assyrian king’s chief military commanders, the functions of the Rab-shakeh were usually limited to the court. It then follows that the central role of the Rab-shakeh in the story of Sennacherib’s campaign to Judah . . . was not a result of his importance in the delegation that Sennacherib sent from Lachish . . . but rather because he knew 18. See, for example, the comments made by V.  P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 314, 527–28. On the use of language as a marker of identity in the Bible, see W. Weinberg, “Language Consciousness in the OT,” ZAW 92 (1980): 185–204; Block, “The Role of Language,” 321–40. 19.  In his own words: “[T]he address was doubtless not the invention—or at least not the full invention—of the Deuteronomist writers, but something that gives every indication of being rooted in actual historical practice”: Machinist, “The Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem,” 159. 20.  See, for example, T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1985), 258; V. Fritz, 1 and 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 372; J. Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary, 2nd ed., OTL (London: SCM, 1970), 683; Y. Keel, The Book of Kings, Daʿat Miqraʾ (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1989), 2.723 [Heb.]. Most of these writers comment on the status of Aramaic as the language of diplomacy, which must have been understood by the Judahite officials, but do not comment at all on the Assyrian officer’s knowledge of Hebrew. 21. For example, J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Kings, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), 489.

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

331

how to speak Judahite and did not need a translator. That a senior Assyrian court official would know the language of Judah is indeed surprising, as are the arguments that Rab-shakeh raises, that show his profound knowledge of events within Judah and Jerusalem. Even if we are to assume that Rab-shakeh’s speech is none other than a later literary composition, the very fact of its attribution to Rab-shakeh—and not, for example, to Sennacherib himself—shows the extent to which the appearance of such a senior official, who actually spoke the language of Judah, at the gates of Jerusalem, sowing fear with his harsh words both among the people of the city who were standing on the wall and among the Judahite officials, was engraved in the collective memory of that generation. . . .   It is not impossible that Rab-shakeh was a native Aramean or even Israelite, of the second or third generation of the exile of Israel. 22

Surprisingly enough, Tadmor’s suggestion was not widely discussed. It was of course mentioned in Cogan and Tadmor’s Anchor Bible commentary on 2  Kings. 23 It was also supported by Chaim Cohen in an article published in 1979, in which he showed that some of the expressions used in Rabshakeh’s speech, such as the title “the Great King, King of Assyria” and the description of Egypt as “a broken reed,” while appearing nowhere else in the Bible, are typical of Assyrian royal inscriptions, a fact that strengthens the probability of the speech’s historical accuracy. 24 Both Tadmor and Cogan mention Ahiqar, the Aramean adviser who served in the court of Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son. 25 Machinist, in his article on Rabshakeh, writes of “Hayim Tadmor’s now celebrated view,” 26 and they all cite the Babylonian Talmud tractate b. Sanh. 60a, which suggests that “Rabshakeh was an apostate Israelite.” 27 But beyond this, Tadmor’s suggestion was not discussed seriously by scholars. 22.  Tadmor, “Rabshakeh, Rab-Shakeh,” 321–24. Tadmor repeated his suggestion in a slightly different context in idem, “On the Use of Aramaic in the Assyrian Empire: Three Observations on a Relief of Sargon II,” ErIsr 20 (Yadin Volume; 1989): 249–52 [Heb.]. In this paper, Tadmor discussed a relief from the palace of Sargon II in Dur-šarukīn, which depicts an attack on the city of Pazaši, with an Assyrian officer standing inside a siege engine, reading what seems to be a list of demands from a scroll. In Tadmor’s opinion, the scroll is an indication that he was reading Aramaic. 23.  Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 230. 24. C. Cohen, “Neo-Assyrian Elements in the First Speech of the Biblical Rab-Saqe,” IOS 9 (1979): 32–48. 25.  For more on Ahiqar, see J. C. Greenfield, “The Wisdom of Ahiqar,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, ed. J. Day, R. P. Gordon, and H. G. H. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 43–52. 26.  Machinist, “The Rab Šāqēh at the Wall of Jerusalem,” 159. 27.  However, they actually use this quotation out of context. The talmud does not discuss Rabshakeh’s knowledge of Hebrew but, rather, the obligation to rend one’s clothes as a sign of mourning upon hearing God’s name being desecrated. As proof of this obligation, the talmud cites 2 Kgs 18:37 and 19:1, in which Hezekiah and his men tear their clothes. The passage then quotes the opinion of Rabbi Judah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel, that if one hears blasphemy from an idol worshiper, he does not have to tear his clothes. As an answer

332

Yigal Levin

Assyrian Deportation Policy and the Fate of the Deportees However, it does turn out that the idea of an Israelite deportee’s serving in the Assyrian court is not at all far-fetched. We should remember the example of Nehemiah, son of Hakeliah, who filled a similar function in the court of the Persian Artaxerxes I, and became governor of Judah because of the king’s trust in him (Neh 2:1–9). And we now know that the Assyrian Empire had a systematic policy of using the abilities of skilled deportees from its conquered lands, putting them to service in its military, administration, and even in the royal court. We have already mentioned the Aramean sage Ahiqar. Over three decades have passed since Bustenay Oded published his groundbreaking work on the mass deportation policies of the Assyrian kings. In this study, Oded examined deportations, not just from Israel, but from all the lands of the Empire. The main points that are relevant for our purposes are as follows: while deportations were carried out by several Assyrian kings, the system as a whole was perfected by Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, and Sennacherib. They were used not only as punishment for rebellious provinces but also as a preventive measure, in order to weaken potentially rebellious areas. 28 In the majority of the cases in which the deportees are categorized, they are listed as members of royal families, royal courts, military, and skilled craftsmen. Only in two cases are the deportees identified as slaves. 29 They were often inducted into the Assyrian army; indeed, we know of entire regiments that were composed of deportees, including people from Samaria and Philistia. 30 Other deportees were put to work as craftsmen, scribes, or laborers, according to their abilities. 31 There were also deportees who served as senior advisers to the Assyrian king, as reflected by later stories such as those of Daniel, Mordechai, and Tobias. And there are known cases of deportees who knew “foreign languages” (other than Akkadian) who served as scribes and interpreters. 32 If Rabshakeh was indeed an Israelite deportee, as Tadmor suggested, he may have reached his position because of his language skills. to the question of why Hezekiah and his men rent anyway, they then suggest that perhaps “Rabshakeh was an apostate Israelite.” This is certainly not proof that the rabbis had some sort of tradition of Rabshakeh’s Israelite origin. 28. B. Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Wies­ baden: Reichert, 1979), 41–45. 29.  Ibid., 19–22. 30.  S. Dalley, “Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II,” Iraq 47 (1985): 31–48; Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the NeoAssyrian Empire, 48–54; I. Ephʿal, “Assyrian Imperial Rule in Non-literary Documents Relating to the Territory ‘Beyond the River,’” Beer-sheba 19 (Israel and Its Land: Inscriptions and History—Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Shmuel Aḥituv on the Occasion of His Retirement; 2010): 44–45 [Heb. with Eng. abstract]. 31.  Oded, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 54–58. 32.  Idem, The Early History of the Babylonian Exile (8th–6th Centuries b.c.e.) (Haifa: Pardes, 2010), 175–77 [Heb.].

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

333

According to Oded, most of the deportees were brought to the main urban centers of the Empire such as Kalḫu and Nineveh, but some were also taken to other conquered lands, 33 where they were used to settle the frontiers and to work the land. 34 In many cases, families and even whole communities were deported together, a fact that helped them maintain their identity and continue to function in exile. 35 And finally, Oded pointed out that the deportees tended to be loyal to the Assyrian Empire. 36 This loyalty is not surprising, because their very existence and status in their new land depended on the support of the Empire and its agencies. In Oded’s more recent book, he deals specifically with the deportees from Israel and Judah. In the methodological section of this book, Oded points out the large number of deportees of Israelite origin who can be identified in the inscriptions by their theophoric names, by specific mention of their families or their origins, and by additional clues. 37 In accordance with the general policy mentioned above, Oded finds these deportees in such urban centers as Assur, Kalḫu, Dur-Sharukin, and Nineveh but also in frontier areas such as the Habur Valley, Gozan, and Media. 38 According to the various sources, these people worked as farmers and as traders, craftsmen. and builders, often in government service. Oded singles out people from Samaria who served in the Assyrian military. Additionally, there were people who were sold as slaves, forced into labor, or became serfs and worked their masters’ land. 39 Considering all that we now know about both the deportations and the fate of the deportees, Tadmor’s suggestion seems more reasonable than ever. Although we will apparently never have absolute proof, probably the “Rabshakeh” was a low-level Israelite officer or official who was exiled in 722 or 720 b.c.e., inducted by force or by choice into the Assyrian service, advanced in rank and position perhaps because of his language skills, and 20 years later was Sennacherib’s senior servant—his rab šaqu. As such, and perhaps 33.  Idem, Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-Assyrian Empire, 27–32. 34.  Ibid., 59–74. 35.  Ibid., 24–25. 36.  Ibid., 46–48. 37.  Idem, The Early History of the Babylonian Exile, 85–97. See also I. Ephʿal, “On the Identification of the Israelite Exiles in the Assyrian Empire,” in Excavations and Studies: Essays in Honour of Professor Shemuel Yeivin, ed. Y. Aharoni (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology and Carta, 1973), 201–3 [Heb. with Eng. abstract]; B. Oded, “The Settlements of the Israelite and the Judean Exiles in Mesopotamia in the 8th–6th Centuries bce,” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zecharia Kallai, ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 91–103; R. Zadok, “Israelites, Judeans and Iranians in Mesopotamia and Adjacent Regions,” in God’s Word for Our World, vol.  1: Biblical Studies in Honor of Simon John De Vries, ed. J. Harold Ellens (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004), 98–127. 38.  Oded, The Early History of the Babylonian Exile, 129–44. 39.  Ibid., 160–95.

334

Yigal Levin

precisely because of his knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic, he accompanied Sennacherib on his third campaign in 701, was a member of the delegation to Jerusalem, and found himself standing “by the conduit of the upper pool, which is on the highway to the Fuller’s Field,” addressing the people of Judah in their own language. Rabshakeh’s Speech as a Reflection of His Origin and Position There can be no argument that, in its present form, Rabshakeh’s speech is a well-written piece of literature. Among scholars, there are several different approaches to the question of the speech’s composition. Some scholars consider the speech and the entire story in which it is set to be a free composition of the author of Kings or of one of his sources and mostly debate the date of its composition, its relationship to Isaiah 36–37, and its significance within both of these books. 40 Others consider at least the section known as B1 (2 Kgs 18:13– 19:7) to be a faithful record of a historical event, while yet others consider the speech to be a later (“Deuteronomistic”) reconstruction based on the memory of a real event that left a lasting impression on the people of Jerusalem. 41 Many commentators have analyzed the speech and its content, and I shall not attempt to repeat their analyses. 42 In the following section, I show that the speech attributed to Rabshakeh could very well reflect the views of an Israelite, whose country had been destroyed and whose people had been exiled by the Assyrians a few decades previously, and who was now honestly trying to warn his brothers in Judah of a similar fate. At the outset of his speech, Rabshakeh addresses Hezekiah’s three representatives in the name of his master, the king of Assyria: “Say to Hezekiah: Thus says the Great King, the king of Assyria: On what do you base this confidence of yours? Do you think that mere words are strategy and power for war? On whom do you now rely, that you have rebelled against me? See, you 40.  Thus, for example, Ben Zvi, “Who Wrote the Speech of Rabshakeh and When?”; Walsh, “The Rab Šāqēh between Rhetoric and Redaction,” although in my opinion both of these scholars expect too much from the text. “Discrepancies” such as changes in the person being addressed (from Hezekiah in the third person to the “men on the wall” in the second) are only natural in an oral presentation. 41.  This seems to have been Tadmor’s own opinion, as expressed in Cogan and Tadmor, II Kings, 243: “It can hardly be denied that the Hebrew text preserves the original representation of the Rab-Shakeh, whose Hebrew rhetoric so impressed his hearers that it became the focus of the B1 tradition. And yet, like similar speeches in the writings of Thucydides, the biblical text does not contain the ipsissima verba of the speaker.” 42.  Ephʿal (The City Besieged, 12) does not accept the arguments made by Tadmor and Cohen and considers Rabshakeh’s speech “no more than arguments chosen by the narrator, suited to his perceptions and to those of his Judean audience.” Despite this, in his analysis of similar threatening speeches made at various opportunities, he shows how every section of Rabshakeh’s speech matches the usual practice in Assyrian sieges and psychological warfare.

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

335

are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff that will pierce the hand of anyone who leans on it. Such is Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to all who rely on him” (18:19–21). Up to this point, Rabshakeh’s language was “diplomatic,” and we have already cited Cohen’s comment that both the title given to “the Great King, the King of Assyria,” and the reference to “Egypt, that broken reed of a staff,” bear the marks of Assyrian nomenclature. However in v. 22, Rabshakeh’s argumentation changes: “But if you say to me, ‘We rely on the Lord our God,’ is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and to Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem’?” Here, Rabshakeh shifts to the third-person plural, addressing not Hezekiah but his delegates. In fact, Rabshakeh has set diplomacy aside and is now addressing the people, the defenders of Jerusalem: even your confidence in God is misguided, since Yahweh himself was offended by Hezekiah’s cultic reforms. This is a critical point. As an Israelite from the Northern Kingdom, Rabshakeh would have no special sympathy for the Jerusalem temple. Even Samaria, as far as we know, had no central royal temple. The cultic tradition with which Rabshakeh was familiar was that of the worship of the God of Israel at bamôt (the so-called high places) in various places throughout the land. From his point of view, Hezekiah’s “removal” of these bamôt as recounted in v. 4 was in itself an offence to Yahweh, and so the people of Judah had no reason to think that Yahweh would now save them from the king of Assyria. In vv. 23–24, Rabshakeh returns to his previous “diplomatic” language by rhetorically challenging Hezekiah: “Come now, make a wager with my master, the king of Assyria: I will give you two thousand horses, if you are able on your part to set riders on them. How then can you repulse a single captain among the least of my master’s servants, when you rely on Egypt for chariots and for horsemen?” But in v. 25 he reverts to theology: “Moreover, is it without the Lord that I have come up against this place to destroy it? The Lord said to me, Go up against this land, and destroy it.” Theoretically, Rabshakeh is still speaking in the name of his king. The argument is typical Mesopotamian royal propaganda: the conquering king always does so at the invitation of the local deities, who call upon him to “save” the conquered country from its own “wayward” king. 43 On the other hand, this is also an Israelite view, and the idea that the king of Assyria is God’s tool in punishing Israel is in fact expressed by Isaiah himself—for example, in Isa 10:5–6: “Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger—the club in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, 43.  The most famous example of this is of course the Cyrus Cylinder, in which Cyrus claims that it was Marduk, god of Babylon, who commanded him to “free” Babylon from the tyranny of Nabonidus, who had desecrated the temples of Marduk and the other gods. See P. Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (trans. P. T. Daniels; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002), 40–41.

336

Yigal Levin

and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.” In fact, Isaiah (7:17–18, 20) had already prophesied to Ahaz, Hezekiah’s father, about the arrival of Assyria as a vessel of God’s will: The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria. On that day the Lord will whistle for the fly that is at the sources of the streams of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. . . . On that day the Lord will shave with a razor hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will take off the beard as well. 44

It is reasonable to assume, that in the mind of an Israelite who had been exiled from his land, there was little doubt that the disaster had been brought about by Yahweh himself as punishment for Israel’s sins, although he would probably describe those sins differently than was done by 2 Kgs 17:7–13. In his “Israelite mind,” it is clear that Hezekiah’s removal of the bamôt was an affront to Yahweh for which Hezekiah was about to be punished. This argument continues in the second part of the speech, in which Rabshakeh addresses the people on the wall directly, over the heads of Hezekiah’s delegates, but here we see the outcome of Rabshakeh’s two decades of service to the Assyrian kings. Verses 29–35 are more, typical Assyrian propaganda, although Rabshakeh could doubtlessly identify with what was being said. Indeed, up until this point, there had not been any country whose gods had saved them from the wrath of Assyria. Indeed, as Samaria had fallen as punishment from Yahweh, so now would Jerusalem. And as we have seen, even Rabshakeh’s promise that, if the people of Jerusalem would only surrender, they would be taken “to a land like your own land, a land of grain and wine, a land of bread and vineyards, a land of olive oil and honey, that you may live and not die,” matched the Assyrian policy of deporting whole communities to the frontiers of the Empire, where they would be able to work the land and to prosper. 45 And thus stood Rabshakeh, a son of Israel, who had himself experienced the wrath of Assyria but also knew the possibilities of surviving and even prospering under Assyria, and attempted to convince the people of Jerusalem to make their peace, to give their blessing, to live and not to die. He could only hope 44.  As pointed out by D. Rudman, “Is the Rabshakeh Also among the Prophets? A Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings XVIII 17–35,” VT 50 (2000): 102, “[T]he end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field,” at which Isaiah appeared before Ahaz ([Isa] 7:3) is the same place as that at which Rabshakeh stood when delivering his speech. This place is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. This cannot be a coincidence.” 45.  Oded, The Early History of the Babylonian Exile, 107. However, Oded also points out (p. 165) that, as befits this sort of propaganda, Rabshakeh does not bother to point out that it is they, with their own hard work, who would have to make that frontier into a land of grain, wine, bread, vineyards, olive oil, and honey.

How Did Rabshakeh Know the Language of Judah?

337

that they would not be led astray by their rebellious king, Hezekiah and his false prophet Isaiah, who insisted that the king of Assyria “shall not come into this city, shoot an arrow there, come before it with a shield, or cast up a siege ramp against it. By the way that he came, by the same he shall return; he shall not come into this city, says the Lord” (2 Kgs 19:32–33). Who ever heard of such a thing? 46 46.  An earlier version of this paper was first read at the Seventeenth Annual Conference on New Studies on Jerusalem which took place at Bar-Ilan University in December of 2011 and was included (in Hebrew) in the self-published proceedings of that conference, edited by E. Baruch, A. Levy-Reifer, and A. Faust. Considering the subject matter, I am certain that Avigdor would have appreciated it.

From Accountability to Commandment: Trends in the Evolution of the Ancient Near Eastern Ritual Genre

Baruch A. Levine My interest in Ugaritic ritual texts dates back to my very first studies, and it has remained with me over the years, as the number of these texts has increased dramatically, the fruit of successive excavations. 1 Ritual texts hold the key to an appreciation of religion as practiced at Ugarit, and they offer comparisons and contrasts with similar texts from other ancient Near Eastern sources. Salient examples are the recently discovered, elaborate Akkadian rituals from contemporary Emar. Actually, it was interest in the Ugaritic rituals that originally led me to investigate biblical ritual, and I very soon published a study entitled: “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentateuch” that dealt with developing forms of biblical ritual texts. 2 Now I sense that there is more to be said concerning the significance of textual form, and it is this perception that has motivated the present study. The critical edition of the Ugaritic rituals by Dennis Pardee, quite apart from its depth and encyclopedic coverage, which accesses the plentiful literature, further facilitates engagement of this genre as a corpus. 3 This is not to imply that all problems of interpretation have been solved or that Author’s note:  It is a sad honor to contribute to a volume in memory of Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz composed of tributes to a scholar who was very much alive when work began. His name reflects his life’s work: he conquered texts, and his writings soon became classics. He will be missed! 1.  Baruch A. Levine, “Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals,” JCS 17 (1963): 105–11; idem, “The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Honor of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Carol L. Meyers and Michael O’Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 467–75; idem, “Toward an Institutional Overview of Public Ritual at Ugarit,” in Le Royaume d’Ougarit de la Crète à l’Euphrate, ed. Jean-Marc Michaud, FaTEP, (Sherbrooke, QE: Éditions GGC, Université de Sherbrooke, 2007), 357–80. 2.  Idem, “The Descriptive Tabernacle Texts of the Pentaeuch,” JAOS 85 (1965): 307–18. 3. Dennis Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, RSO 12 (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 2002), fasc. 1–2.

339

340

Baruch A. Levine

Ugaritic philology has been mastered fully. Here, I follow up on my earlier interpretations without arguing them again, since many of the present texts overlap with those discussed in my earlier studies. Two related insights have guided my ongoing research into the forms of ancient Near Eastern ritual texts, both of which point to an administrative derivation and reveal a penchant for describing customary practice rather than presenting ritual performance as a commandment, which it was, in essence. In the first instance, we note the use of shared terminology in ritual texts. As examples, the Akkadian terms naptanu, “food allotment, meal” (CAD N 319– 23), ginû, “regular offering, dues” (CAD G 80, s.v. ginû A), and satukku, “food allowance, regular offering” (CAD S 198–202) may signify regular or daily allocations of food delivered to the palace, for example, but also foodstuffs allocated for sacrificial offerings delivered to the temple. In the same way, it is appropriate to designate a dutiful sacrifice by the Hebrew term minḥâ, the administrative meaning of which is “tribute,” such as would be remitted by a vassal (2 Kgs 17:3–4), or to call a daily sacrifice tāmîd, “regular, daily allotment,” a term used elsewhere for the daily rations allotted by a Babylonian king to captive Judean princes (2 Kgs 25:29). In the second instance, we find that the composition of ritual texts developed from institutional records (or: “accounts”). The Ugaritic rituals illustrate this process, enabling us to trace how records of deliveries, receipts, and expenditures have morphed into descriptions of coherent rites and celebrations, held on specific occasions. To put it another way, an inventory of what the temple needed or used up in particular rites might come close to yielding a description of the rites themselves. In increasing measure, these descriptions employ indicative verb forms, having durative force: in Ugaritic, the imperfect yqtl form, and in Akkadian the present-future, iparras form. Anticipating the discussion to follow, I understand that in Ugaritic rituals, durative (= imperfect) verbal forms, especially in the third person, often express continuous and/or customary action, not future action. Much less frequent but clearly attested are statements in Ugaritic rituals that employ precative or jussive verbal forms. In cases of this sort, a verb would usually be introduced by the particle l/lu, “verily, may one, let one,” thereby effectively prescribing specific ritual activity rather than only describing it (see below). It is this distinction, evident in rituals from diverse cultures, which led me to employ the terms “descriptive” and “prescriptive,” respectively. From the outset, there was a problem with these characterizations, however. Some of the Ugaritic rituals that I had classified as “descriptive” were preserved in more than one copy (e.g., KTU 1.41//1.87) and contained fixed (or: “canonical”) lists of recipient deities and registered standard offerings. These features indicated that these texts were instructional in purpose, serving as manuals or references for priests and, as such, were functionally “prescriptive.” This prob-

From Accountability to Commandment

341

lem is resolved once we differentiate between form and function. In turn, this difference, once acknowledged, requires us to explain precisely why it is that functionally prescriptive texts were so often expressed descriptively. Building on my earlier studies, I present here a more systematic analysis of this documentary pattern at Ugarit than I have previously attempted. Record into Ritual Tracing terminology enables us to reconstruct documentary development. I begin with the Ugaritic verb kly (DULAT 441–42), which exhibits two aspects, active and passive (= stative): “to finish” > “be finished”; “to consume” > “be consumed.” It occurs both in administrative and ritual texts, bridging the two genres, as we shall see. Thus, KTU 4.230, an administrative record of wine deliveries discovered in the Royal Palace, room 73, reads in part as follows:  1. [a]rbʿ . yn l . mrynm ̣ ḥsk . klh  2. kdm . l . znm (lines 3–10: additional assigned deliveries) 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

arbʿ m . yn l . ḫrd ḫmšm . ḫmš kbd . tgmr yn . d . nkly

  1. Four ( jugs) of wine to the Maryanu’s, all of it assigned.   2. Two jugs to PN. (lines 3–10: additional deliveries) 11. Forty ( jugs) of wine 12. to PN. 13.  Fifty-five ( jugs), 14. in precise quantity; the total 15. of wine that was used up. This record attests two fairly frequent administrative terms, kbd (=  kubdu), “weight, precise quantity,” and tgmr, “total,” but what interests us in particular is the N-stem verbal form d nkly (= du naklaya), “which was consumed, used up.” The same construction appears in another record, KTU 4.213, also from room 73 of the Royal Palace, of wine shipments originating from 12 different estates. This tablet exhibits 30 lines in all, but a fully incised divider after line 23 suggests that a different record may have been appended. The first shipment (lines 1–3) is presented here as a sample, after which lines 24–30, the possibly appended text, is presented in full.

342

Baruch A. Levine

 1. hmš . ʿšr . yn .ṭb  2. w. tšʿm . kdm . yn . kbd . yn . d . l . ṭb  3. w . arbʿm . yn . ḫlq . b . gt . sknm   1. Fifteen ( jugs) of high quality wine.   2. And ninety-five jugs of wine, in precise quantity, that is not of high quality.   3. And forty ( jugs) of spoiled wine from the wine press of PN. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

mitm . yn . ḥsp . d . nkly . b . dbḥ[. mlk? ] mit . arbʿm . kbd . yn . ḥsp . l . m[ ] mit . ʿšrm . kbd . yn . ḥsp . l . yb?)[ ] ʿšrm . yn . ḥsp . l ql . d . tbʿ . mṣr(?)m mit . arbʿm . kbd . yn . mṣb l . mdrġlm ʿšrm yn . mṣb . xxḥxx . l . gzzm

24. Two hundred ( jugs) of decanted wine that was used up in the ritual celebration [of the king?] 25. One hundred forty ( jugs), in precise quantity, of decanted wine to[ 26. One hundred twenty ( jugs), in precise quantity, of decanted wine to PN 27. Twenty ( jugs) of decanted wine, per request, that leaked, (to) PN. 28. One hundred forty ( jugs), in precise quantity, of wine from the cellar, 29. to PN. 30. Twenty ( jugs) of wine from the cellar, [xxḥxx] for the shearers. Of particular interest is line 24, where we again encounter the construction d . nkly, “that was used up,” but with an added specification: b . dbḥ, “in the ritual celebration,” possibly restoring mlk, “of the king.” Both of the above texts illustrate accountability; they record how certain commodities were expended, detailing their quantity and condition. Presumably, certain agencies—here the palace—required this sort of reporting. Furthermore, we learn what kind of wine was used in this ritual, which was perhaps an offering by the king, and how much was used. The dots are connected in KTU 1.91(= Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, ch. 33), a ritual text generally recognized as exhibiting administrative features. This tablet was most likely discovered in room 81 of the Royal Palace. I will present only the most relevant parts of it for the present discussion. Lines 1–2 register the entire tablet and are followed by a divider:  1. yn . d. ykl . bd . PN [. . .]  2. b . dbḥ . mlk _____ [. . .]

From Accountability to Commandment

343

  1. Wine that has been used up at the hand of PN   2. In the ritual celebration of the king The verb kly appears here again, in line 1, but in a different form that is more difficult to parse than was N-stem nkly/ in KTU 4.230 and 4.213. The two forms should mean the same thing, however, and I follow Sivan, who suggests reading ykl as yukallê, a D-stem passive form. 4 Another tie to the administrative texts is provided by prepositional bd/bîdê, “by, at the hand of-” (DULAT 214, s.v. bd IV, prep.), frequently attested in the KTU 4 series. Line 3 is an internal caption: dbḥ ṣpn, “Ritual celebration in honor of Ṣapānu.” It introduces a list of six divine recipients, including Ilu-ibi and Pidray of the Palace (lines 4–9). Thereupon, lines 10–11 specify that the above offerings are presented in the temple (certainly the Temple of Baʿlu) at a particular point in the proceedings, when processionals took place at the palace: 10. k . tʿrb . ʿṯtrt . šd . bt[. ml]k 11. k . tʿrbn . ršpm . bt . mlk 10 As Athartu-Šadi enters the Royal Palace 11. As the Rašap-deities enter the royal palace. The same pattern is repeated in lines 12–15. First we have the names of two divine recipients, whose identity is uncertain, followed by the record of a processional: 14. dbḥ . bʿl--- k . tdd . bʿlt bhtm 15. b . ġb . ršp . ṣbi 14. Ritual celebration in honor of Baʿlu, when Baʿalat-Bahatima proceeds 15. into the sacrificial pit(?) of Rašap-Ṣabi. We then encounter a list of additional offerings and their divine recipients in lines 16–20, which are heavily damaged. This concludes the recto of the tablet. The verso (lines 21–34) lists the names of donors of wine for the various cultic events, including the kinds and quantities of wine that were received. Finally, lines 35–36 provide the total (tgmr) amounts of wine, differentiated, as in KTU 4.213, according to conditions of storage. KTU 1.91 illustrates the transition from record to ritual from two perspectives: it retains administrative information “for the record” but also describes ritual activity by means of certain indicative verb forms. These are parsed as G-imperfect 3rd-person indicative feminine singular and plural: tʿrb/ tʿrbn, “she/they enter”; and singular tdd, “she walks, proceeds.” The force of these 4. Daniel Sivan, A Grammar of the Ugaritic Language, HO 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 170.

344

Baruch A. Levine

verbs is temporal, subordinated by preceding k, “when,” informing us of the synchronized rites. “Descriptive” into “Prescriptive” Rituals Notwithstanding agreement on the formal descriptiveness that characterizes most of the Ugaritic ritual texts, a judgment based on the verb forms occurring in them, there is disagreement on the significance of this distinction. Before attempting to explain the penchant for durative indicative forms, I should present evidence pertaining to the few texts attesting precative forms, in a more systematic manner than has previously been attempted. We begin with KTU 1.119 (= Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, ch. 46), a composite text that may be outlined as follows: Lines 1–24a (obv. lines 1–17; rev. 18–36) preserve a classic ritual text that records sacrificial and other rites scheduled for various days of a named month in the Baʿlu Temple and devoted to Baʿlu of Ugarit. Lines 25b–36 preserve a beautiful hymn to Baʿlu, petitioning him to spare the city of Ugarit from attack. (To be precise, lines 24b–25a announce an offering of oil to Baʿlu, leading into the hymn, proper.) Here, I do not comment on the hymn, itself, which is worthy of a separate study but, rather, focus on the ritual section, which contains both indicative and precative verb forms. Actually, there are relatively few verbs in the itemized list of offerings; for the most part, the formulation is either: (a) item + name of divine recipient, or (b) item + l + divine recipient, with no verb at all. Exceptions are the following: Lines 4b–5: b šbʿt ʿšrt yrtḥṣ mlk brr, “On the seventeenth, the king washes himself for purity”; or, “The king, the purifier, washes himself.” This is a frequent entry in Ugaritic rituals. The verb should be considered a Gt–reflexive third-person masculine imperfect (yirtaḥiṣu) with durative force and should be translated in the present tense in English. Line 8b: bt tʿy [.] ydbḥ, “In the temple, the officiant offers sacrifice.” This translation is uncertain, but for our purposes it suffices that the passage clearly attests the indicative verb, ydbḥ. Lines 9–10a, which immediately follow, are even more difficult to translate but should not be ignored: w tnrr bʿd bt bʿl, “And illuminate the temple of Baʿlu!” The form tnnr is taken as a D-stem factitive second-person-imperfect form with imperative force, *tanarriru, from nr, “light, shine” (DULAT 642, s.v. nr), hence: “to illuminate.” ̣ mlk bt il, “at midLines 13–14a: x-number of offerings [b] urm u šnpt l ydbh day. And a presentation sacrifice the king shall/will surely offer in the Temple of Ilu”; or, “May the king offer a presentation sacrifice.” Here we have the important contrast between indicative ydbḥ and l ydbḥ in the same text. The Common Semitic functor l (= lu) (see DULAT 484–85, s.v. l [l III]) often has

From Accountability to Commandment

345

emphatic or affirmative force, hence “truly,” but it may also connote a wish, with precative force. Sivan surveys the plentiful Ugaritic evidence for the precative function and cites the important article by Huehnergard on the functions of Ugaritic la/lu. 5 In this instance, Pardee correctly translates l ydbḥ mlk, “le roi doit accomplir,” but he is not consistent in this regard elsewhere. It is worth mentioning that lines 22b–23a attest an additional indicative verb: b šbʿ . tdn/ mḥllm, “On the seventh, the musicians are in procession.” The form tdn is a third-person-plural imperfect with t–preformative of ndd, a verb that we have already encountered in KTU 1.91, line 14. So, once again, we find both indicative and modal forms in the same text. From here, we proceed to KTU 1.115 (= Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, ch. 43), which further sharpens the distinction between the indicative and precative verb forms: 1. id ydbḥ mlk   9. š l il bt . šlmm 2. l uš[ḫr ḫ]lmz 10. kl l ylḥm bh 3. lb bt . il bt —————— 4. š l ḫlmz 11. w lb bt šqym 5. w ṯr . l qlḥ 12. š l uḫur (=ušḫr)ḫlmz 6. w šḥl[l] . ydm —————— 7. b qdš il bt 13. w ṯr l qlḥ 8. w tlḥm aṯt Verso: 14. ym aḥd —————)̣   1.   2.   3.   4.   5.   6.   7.   8.   9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

When the king offers sacrifice to DN-a inside the Temple of DN-b, a sheep to DN-a, and a bull to DN-c. And purification of the hands inside the sanctuary of Ilu-Biti. The lady (= the queen) partakes. A sheep to DN-b as a sacred gift of greeting. Everyone must partake of it (kullu lu yilḥamu buhu)̣ And inside the Temple of DN-d a sheep to DN-a, and a bull to DN-c. Verso: Day one.

This text is rich in information. It attests both the indicative ydbḥ, “He offers sacrifice,” in line 1, and the precative kl l yḷḥm, “Let (all) partake,” in line 10. 5. See Sivan, Grammar, 191–92; and see John Huehnergard, “Asservative *la- and Hypothetical lū/law in Semitic,” JAOS 103 (1983): 569–93.

346

Baruch A. Levine

Line 8 is less clear, since w tlḥm aṯt might be taken two ways: “And the lady partakes” (indicative), or possibly “And may the lady partake,” if conjunctive waw before a finite verb can have precative force. Then there is KTU 1.127 (= Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, ch.  51), discovered in the home of the priest, at the southern acropolis. It is inscribed on a lung model and is schematically presented by Pardee in a series of sections, “edges.” The caption in line 1 reads: dbḥ kl yrḥ, which is best rendered: “A sacrificial offering for every month.” This is preferable to translating: “for the entire month.” After several specifications, we find in lines 6b–9 the following: w / dbḥ kl / kl ykly / dbḥ k . sprt And / it is a sacrifice for everyone. / Everyone consumes / the sacrifice according to the order.

Ugaritic sipirtu is a cognate of Akkadian šipirtu (CAD Š 65–68, s.v. šipirtu A) or possibly an Akkadian loanword in Ugaritic. In any event, this reference alludes to available ritual instructions, or orders, perhaps even written instructions, meant to be obeyed, thereby coming close to the notion of ritual as commandment. Finally, KTU 1.164 (= RIH 77/2B = Pardee, Les Textes Rituels, ch. 74) is a classic ritual text of 20 lines, the latter half of which is poorly preserved. The opening lines read:  1. id . ydbḥ . mlk , b hmn  2. [ ] w sn[m] . l yšt  1. When the king offers sacrifice in the hammanu-chapel.  2. [ ]. And sandals he must/shall put on. In summary, the Ugaritic rituals are predominantly descriptive in form. We only find prescriptive formulations internally, covering specific acts. Also to be considered is the likelihood that special emphasis was needed when introducing innovations, in order to ensure proper performance. The significance of this observation will be clarified as we turn to the Akkadian ritual texts from Emar. Descriptive Rituals at Emar Important comparative evidence on the descriptiveness of the Ugaritic ritual texts comes from contemporary Emar. Preserved are elaborate rituals in Akkadian, many times the length and elaborateness of the Ugaritic texts. These were published and edited with French translation and brief annotation by Daniel Arnaud. 6 We are fortunate in having an in-depth study of one of them, the NIN. DINGIR ritual for the installation of the high priestess of Baal (Emar  369), 6. Daniel Arnaud, Recherches au Pays d’Aštata: Emar VI, vol. 3, Textes sumeriens et accadiens: Texte (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1986).

From Accountability to Commandment

347

by my colleague, Daniel Fleming, whose findings relate to other Emar ritual texts as well. 7 On the matter of verb forms, Fleming opts for the indicative in translating the usual iparras forms that are employed, but whereas Arnaud had rendered these forms in the French present tense, Fleming favors the English future tense. The opening lines of the tablet will clarify this point: 8 ṭup-pi par-ṣi NIN.DINGIR dIM ša uru[E-m]ar e-nu-ma DUMU.MEŠ uru E-mar NIN.DINGIR a-na dIM. i-na-aš-šu-ú DUMU.MES pu-re-e [i]š-tu É dNIN.URTA-l-aq-qu-û a-na pa-ni dIM / i- ṣa-ba-tu4

a. Fleming Tablet of rites for the NIN.DINGIR of dIM of Emar. When the sons of Emar elevate the NIN.DINGIR to dIM, the sons of Emar will take the lots(?) from the temple of NIN.URTA (and) manipulate them before dIM.

b. Levine Tablet of rites: High Priestess of Baal of Emar: When the sons of Emar elevate the High Priestess of Baal of Emar, the sons of Emar bring the lots / from the Temple of Ninurta and manipulate them before Baal.

In a note on the translation of the opening passage, Fleming explains his choice of the English future: “I use the future tense to translate the standard ritual durative, since to my ear this communicates the tone of instruction better than the English present.” 9 This is precisely my point: here we have a parṣu, a mandated ritual code described by indicative verbs, rather than mandated by modal forms, which would more clearly convey the instructional function of the text. These grammatical usages indicate to me that the intent was not to express the obligatory force of the instructional function but, rather, to present the ritual as customary, or traditional, and hence authoritative. The text describes what the sons of Emar “would do” (or even: “used to do”) whenever it came time to elevate a high priestess. In a sense, the entire text is temporally subordinated by the particle enūma, “when,” just as we find Ugaritic rituals being subordinated by id, “when.” Similarly, the Emar ritual uses Akkadian kī, “when,” just as some Ugaritic texts use k, “when.” Conclusion The purpose of this essay is to investigate “form” as distinguished from “function” in ancient Near Eastern ritual texts, exemplified at Ugarit, by tracing 7. Daniel Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion, HSS 42 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992). 8.  Ibid., 10, lines 1–3a 9.  Ibid., 49 n. 1.

348

Baruch A. Levine

documentary development. An argument can be made that the derivation of ritual texts from records was what led to their descriptive composition, expressed by indicative, durative verb forms rather than prescriptive formulations, which are expressed by modal morphology and syntax. This was not the only way to write, and indeed we observe in the Ugaritic rituals signs of incipient prescriptive formulation as well. The most that can be said by way of explanation is that the authority of ritual, once ordered, was thought to rest on custom. The text gives an account of what is customarily done so that priest, king, and country will perform the rites properly.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

Diana Lipton In this essay, I consider afresh the role of idolatry in the often paraphrased but seldom read story of Abraham and his father’s idol shop. By examining possible biblical and postbiblical sources and influences, including several to my knowledge not previously identified, I hope to show that the idol shop story is not, as usually assumed, a story about iconoclasm proper. 1 Its messages are at once less violent and more subtle. I have argued elsewhere that, with exceptions such as Molech worship and child sacrifice, the Bible is not hostile Author’s note:  I am honored to dedicate this paper to the memory of Victor Hurowitz ‫ל‬′′‫ז‬, whose fast, friendly, and funny responses to the esoteric questions that I e-mailed to him over the years never failed to educate and entertain me; whose work profoundly enriched my own (especially my doctoral research on Jacob’s dream at Bethel as a temple-building incubation dream, published as Revisions of the Night: Politics and Promises in the Patriarchal Dreams of Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), and who it was always the greatest pleasure to encounter at conferences. Victor is greatly missed. I am grateful to Nili Wazana for inviting me to give the first version of this paper in October 2011 at a special meeting of Hebrew University’s Bible Department symposium in memory of Arie Toeg ‫ל‬′′‫ז‬, who was killed in the Six Day War shortly after completing his doctorate in the department. What appears below owes much to comments and suggestions I received on that occasion; at two sessions of Cambridge Limmud for adults and children, respectively, in November 2011 at the invitation of Shoshana Goldhill; and at Ben-Gurion University in June 2012 at the invitation of David Gilad. I am grateful to Dan Baras for helpful comments on a first draft of this essay, and to my husband, Chaim Milikowsky, for suggesting many improvements and clarifications, all of which I hope I made. 1.  For one example among thousands of the reading that I am questioning, see Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit, Idolatry, trans. Naomi Goldblum (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 117: “[T]he Abraham of the midrash is literally an iconoclast—he breaks the idols in his father’s (Terah’s) house and thus symbolizes the destruction of the tradition of his ancestors.” My interest in showing that this is not a story about iconoclasm has a politicoreligious motivation as well as a scholarly exegetical purpose. It would be good, I think, to learn that “our father Abraham” is not after all a role model for people who attack the artifacts and infrastructure of other people’s religions and that the story of his young life as related in biblical and postbiblical Jewish sources offers neither justification nor encouragement for adherents of one religion to act violently toward another.

349

350

Diana Lipton

to idolatry practiced by non-Israelites and that what look like polemics against idolatry are better understood as responses to “unacceptable” Israelite prac­ tices. 2 Idolatry is thus the “wrong kind” of Israelite religion “disguised” as the religion of the nations, and idolaters are the Jews whose practices are deemed unsuitable. In the Bible, idolatry has less to do with “the other” and more to do with internal identity questions, such as the borders between coexistence and assimilation. In this essay, I make similar claims about the story of Abraham and his father’s idol shop. The story of Terah’s idol shop is without doubt one of the best-known “biblical” stories that is not in the Bible; many have searched for it in vain in the pages of Genesis. Popularized in synagogue sermons and Jewish children’s books, the story tells how the young Abraham, left to manage Terah’s shop in his absence, resolves to convince their customers and ultimately his father that idols have no power. Its earliest known version is in Gen. Rab. 38.13: And Haran died in front of Terah, his father [in Ur ‫וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו אמר‬ of the Chaldeans] (Gen 11:28). Rabbi Hiyya said, ,‫ חייא תרח עובד צלמים הוה‬′‫ר‬ Terah was a maker of idols. Once Terah went away ‫חד זמן נפק לאתר הושיב אברהם‬ somewhere and left Abraham to sell in his stead. A ‫ הוה אתי בר נש בעי‬,‫מוכר תחתיו‬ man came and wanted to buy. [Abraham] asked him, ‫ אמר ליה בר כמה שנין‬,‫דיזבון‬ “How old are you?” And the man responded, “Fifty ‫ אמר ליה‬,‫ אמר ליה בר חמשין‬,‫את‬ years old.” [Abraham] said, “Woe to the man who ‫ווי לההוא גברא דאת בר חמשין‬ is fifty and worships idols that are one day old.” So ‫ והוה מתבייש‬,‫ותסגוד לבר יומא‬ [the man] became ashamed and left. Once a woman ‫ חד זמן אתת איתתא‬,‫והולך לו‬ came with a plate of fine flour. She said to Abraham, ‫ ליה הא‬′‫טעינא חד פינך דסלת אמ‬ “Go and present it to them.” Abraham stood up, took ‫ קם נסיב בוקלסה‬,‫לך קרב קדמיהון‬ a stick, broke [the idols], and put the stick in the ‫ותברהון ויהב ההוא בוקלסה‬ hands of the biggest of [the idols]. When his father ‫ כיון דאתא‬,‫בידוי דרבה דבהון‬ returned he asked “Who did this to them?” Abraham ,‫אבוה אמר ליה מה עבד להון כדין‬ answered, “I cannot conceal it from you. A woman ‫אמר ליה מה נכפור לך אתת חדא‬ came with a plate of fine flour and told me to present ‫איתתא טעינא חד פינך דסלת‬ it to them. [So I presented it to them and] each said, ‫ דין אמר‬,‫ואמרת לי קרב קומיהון‬ ‘I shall eat first.’ Then that biggest one stood, took a ‫אנא אכיל קדמאי ודין אמר אנא‬ stick in his hand and broke them all.” Then [Terah] ‫ קם הדין רבה נסיב‬,‫אכיל קדמאי‬ said to him, “Why do you mock me? Do these idols ‫ [אמר ליה] מה‬,‫בוקלסה ותברהון‬ know anything?” And Abraham replied, “Let your ‫ אמר ליה‬,‫ ידעין אינון‬,‫את מפלה בי‬ ears hear what your mouth speaks.”a .‫ולא ישמעו אזניך מפיך‬ a.  Bereshit Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah), ed. Judah Theodor and Chanoch Albeck, 3 volumes, reprint (Jerusalem: Wahrmann,1965), English translation mine. Theodor Albeck does not take Vatican 30 into account, but that manuscript has no variations that seem significant here. 2. Diana Lipton, Longing for Egypt and Other Unexpected Biblical Tales (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008); and idem, “Bezalel in Babylon? Anti-Priestly Polemics in Isaiah 40–55,” JANES 31 ( 2009): 63–84.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

351

Many popular renditions of the idol shop story end here, but Genesis Rabbah continues: Then Terah seized Abraham and handed him over to Nimrod. “Let us worship the fire,” Nimrod said. “Let us worship the water that extinguishes the fire,” replied Abraham. Nimrod said to him: “So let us worship the water!” “Let us worship the cloud which carries the water?” answered Abraham. Nimrod said, “So let us worship the clouds!” Abraham continued, “Let us worship the wind, which disperses clouds?” Nimrod said, “Let us worship the wind!” Abraham answered, “Shall I then worship man, who endures the wind?” Nimrod said, “You talk too much; we will worship only fire. I am going to throw you into it; let the God to whom you bow down come and save you from it!” Haran was standing there. He said, “Either way [I win]—if Abraham wins, I shall say, ‘I am with Abraham.’ If Nimrod wins, I shall say, ‘I am with Nimrod.’” When Abraham entered the fiery furnace and was saved, they said to Haran: “On whose side are you?” Haran told them, “I am with Abraham!” They took him and cast him into the fire, and so he was burned and his loins were scorched, and he came out and died in front of Terah, his father. Therefore it is written, And Haran died in front of Terah, his father [in Ur of the Chaldeans].

‫ אמר‬,‫נסתיה ומסרתיה לנמרוד‬ ‫ אמר ליה נסגוד‬,‫ליה נסגוד לנורא‬ ‫ אמר ליה‬,‫למייא דמטפין לנורא‬ ‫ אמר ליה נסגוד‬,‫ונסגוד למיא‬ ‫ אמר ליה‬,‫לענני דטעני מיא‬ ‫ אמר ליה נסגוד‬,‫ונסגוד לעננא‬ ]‫ [אמר ליה‬,‫לרוחא דמובלי עננא‬ ‫ אמר ליה נסגוד‬,‫ונסגוד לרוחא‬ ‫ אמר‬,‫לבר נשא דסביל רוחא‬ ‫ליה מלין את משתעי לא נסגוד‬ ‫אלא לאור הריני משליכך בו‬ ‫ויבוא אלהיך שאתה משתחוה‬ ‫ הוה תמן הרן‬,‫לו ויצילך ממנו‬ ‫קאים פליג אמר מה נפשך אם נצח‬ ,‫אברהם אנא אמר מן דאברם אנא‬ ‫אם נצח נמרוד אמר אנא מנמרוד‬ ‫ כיון שירד אברם לכבשן‬,‫אנא‬ ,‫ ליה מן דמן את‬′‫האש ונוצל אמ‬ ‫ נטלוהו‬,‫אמר ליה מן דאברם‬ ‫והשליכוהו באש ונחמרו מעיו‬ ‫ד‬′′‫ויצא ומת על פני אביו הה‬ .‫וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו‬

Although the earliest known and most often cited version of the idol shop story is found in a midrashic collection, it does not function as classic midrash. Its biblical “peg” is Gen 11:28: “And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in Ur of the Chaldeans.” Ur is both the name of Abraham’s city and a word meaning fire in Hebrew and Aramaic. 3 At the same time that God allows Haran to burn to death, He saves Abraham from the fiery furnace, a probable allusion to Gen 15:7: “I am God who has taken you out of Ur of the Chaldeans.” The midrash reads this verse “I am God who has taken you out of the fire of the Chaldeans,” 4 but its biblical peg about the death of Haran is used 3.  See Menahem Kister, “Observations on Aspects of Exegesis, Tradition and Theology in Midrash, Pseudepigrapha and Other Jewish Writings” in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. Reeves, SBLEJL 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 6–7. 4.  I am grateful to Cana Werman of Ben-Gurion University for showing me an unpublished lecture that will be incorporated into her commentary on the book of Jubilees (Yad ben Zvi, forthcoming) dealing with Abraham’s early life as portrayed in the book of Jubilees. Werman emphasizes the importance of God’s removal of Abraham from the furnace

352

Diana Lipton

only at the very end of the three-part unit of which the idol shop constitutes part one. Neither the events in the idol shop nor the theological debate with Nimrod that follows it can be drawn, however indirectly, from verses in Genesis. Other sources have been suggested for these components of the story. In addition to some biblical passages that I discuss in detail below, they include two postbiblical texts. James Kugel proposes Jdt 5:6–9, which indicates that Abraham and his family were driven out of Ur of the Chaldeans by its inhabitants for rejecting their gods. 5 It is tempting to interpret Nimrod’s behavior in this light, but I will try to show that it is not in the end a good fit with Genesis Rabbah’s assessment of the political mood in Ur of the Chaldeans at the time. 6 A more fruitful source, I think, is the book of Jubilees. Young Abraham in the Book of Jubilees The book of Jubilees, dated by scholarly consensus to the second century b.c.e., is the earliest account of the life of Abraham to contain anything approximating the idol shop story as a whole. Although it does not mention an idol shop, it has other significant parallels with the Genesis Rabbah story. According to Jub. 11:15–12:19, the young Abraham came early to the conclusion that idolatry is theologically flawed and that idol worshipers were going astray. Abraham’s initial response to the threat of idolatry was separation from his father in order to avoid going astray himself. 15. In the seventh year of this week [1876] she [Edna] gave birth to a son for him [Terah], and he named him Abram after his mother’s father because he had died before his daughter’s son was conceived. 16. The child began to realize the errors of the earth—that everyone was going astray after the statues and after the impurity. His father taught him (the art of) writing. When he was two weeks of years [= 14 years], he separated from his father in order not to worship idols with him. (Jub. 11:15–16) 7

The separation between father and son must have been short-lived; Abraham is soon spelling out for Terah precisely what is wrong with idols. His criticisms are familiar to readers of biblical prophets such as Isaiah 40–55 (on which, more below) and Jeremiah (see, e.g., Jer 10:2–6), and of Ps 115:5–6: idols are dumb, lack spirit, mislead people, and above all, they cannot help or benefit their worshipers: alongside Haran’s death in it as part of her broader argument that Genesis Rabbah preserves a fuller and therefore she thinks probably earlier version than Jubilees of the story of the departure from Ur of the Chaldeans. 5. James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 246. 6.  Werman thinks that the authors of Jubilees would have known the persecution motif found in Judith and elsewhere but chose to suppress it. 7. James VanderKam, trans. and ed., Book of Jubilees (Louvain: Peeters, 1989), 66–67.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

353

11:17. He [Abraham] began to pray to the creator of all that he would save him from the errors of mankind and that it might not fall to his share to go astray after impurity and wickedness. . . . 12:1. During the sixth week, in its seventh year [1904], Abram said to his father Terah: “My father.” He said: “Yes, my son?” 2. He said: “What help and advantage do we get from these idols before which you worship and prostrate yourself? 3. For there is no spirit in them because they are dumb. They are an error of the mind. Do not worship them.” (Jub 11:17, 12:1–3) 8

Not content with undermining his father’s religion, Abraham tries to persuade Terah to turn to a new one. Terah should reject idols, who bring shame to those who make them (cf., e.g., Isa 44:9) and mislead their worshipers (cf., e.g., Isa 44:20), in favor of God, who creates and sustains life (cf., e.g., Isa 44:24): 4. Worship the God of heaven who makes the rain and dew fall on the earth and makes everything on the earth. He created everything by his word; and all his life (comes ) from his presence. 5. Why do you worship those things that have no spirit in them, but instead they are a great shame for those that make them and an error of the mind for those who worship them. (Jub. 12:4–5) 9

Terah needs no convincing about the impotence of idols; what he fears are the social and political repercussions of rejecting idolatry. This is not the theological disputation it seemed at first glance to be but, rather, a debate about assimilation, accommodation, and compromise: 6. Then he said to him: “I too know (this), my son. What shall I do with the people who have ordered me to serve in their presence? 7. If I tell them what is right, they will kill me because they themselves are attached to them so that they worship and praise them. Be quiet, my son, so that they do not kill you.” When he told these things to his two brothers and they became angry at him, he remained silent. (Jub. 12:6–7) 10

The time comes when Abraham’s zeal allows no further accommodation or compromise; he burns a temple of idols. Exegetically speaking, the burning of the temple emerges from the Genesis verse that reports that Haran died earlier than or in front of his father in Ur of the Chaldeans. Like the author of the Genesis Rabbah midrash, the Jubilees author reads Ur as fire. From a narrative point of view, however, the burning of the temple comes out of thin air and is presented without comment, presumably as a logical extension of Abraham’s zealous hostility towards idol worship. Regardless of its causes, the effect of Abraham’s violent outbreak is to make public the private differences that Terah had tried to hide from his compatriots. More importantly, it undermines the possibility of continued peaceful coexistence between Abraham’s family and 8.  Ibid., 67, 69. 9.  Ibid., 69. 10.  Ibid., 69–70.

354

Diana Lipton

the idol-worshiping community. Structurally, Abraham’s burning of the temple functions like Moses’ killing of the Egyptian in Exod 2:11–15. In each case, the protagonist can no longer sit on the fence, straddling two cultures and two identities but makes a choice that leads him to leave the land in which he has been living. At the same time, he puts himself in a dangerous situation from which he needs to be rescued. 11 12. In the sixtieth year of Abram’s life (which was the fourth week, in its fourth year [1936]), Abram got up at night and burned the temple of the idols. He burned everything in the temple, but no-one knew about it. 13. They got up at night and wanted to save their gods from the fire. (Jub. 12:12–13) 12

In cases such as this, it is not only the protagonist who must get off the fence. As other Israelites were affected by Moses’ decision to kill the Egyptian, so other members of Abraham’s family were affected by his choice to reject idols and worship God. Haran is affected most of all—he dies because of his brother’s zeal. Whereas Genesis Rabbah presents Haran as an opportunistic agnostic, Jubilees has him die as a committed idol-worshiper trying to save idols that, in a graphic demonstration of the many biblical claims about the ineffectiveness of idols, could not save him. Haran dashed in to save them, but the fire raged over him. He was burned in the fire and died in Ur of the Chaldeans before his father Terah. They buried him in Ur of the Chaldeans. (Jub. 12:14) 13

Abraham’s violent act confirms him as a follower of the one true God, a believer who can no longer coexist with followers of other religions; he and Terah along with their extended family must leave Ur. What Jubilees lacks, in contrast to Genesis Rabbah, as we shall see, is a narrative in which Abraham is removed by God from the flames of Ur of the Chaldeans (cf. Gen 15:7). 14 Then Terah left Ur of the Chaldeans—he and his sons—to go to the land of Lebanon and the land of Canaan. He settled in Haran, and Abram lived with his father in Haran for two weeks of years. (Jub. 12:15). 15

What ensues in Haran complicates the simple picture that has just emerged. Abraham has not after all turned his back on the ways of Mesopotamia. While he in no sense worships the stars, Abraham studies them to find out about weather conditions in the year ahead, engaging in a form of astronomy. The new-found faith that led Abraham to destroy a temple of idols did not prevent him from star-gazing, a stereotypically Babylonian activity that he might 11. See Kugel, Traditions, 251–54. 12.  VanderKam, Jubilees, 70. 13.  Ibid. 14.  Again, I am grateful to Cana Werman for highlighting this important point. 15.  VanderKam, Jubilees, 71.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

355

have been expected to reject along with idols. When eventually he does stop star-gazing, it is not on account of a theological objection but because he has reached the logical conclusion that he is wasting his time: God offers a faster connection to the future. 16 16. In the sixth week, during its fifth year [1951] Abraham sat at night—at the beginning of the seventh month—to observe the stars from evening to dawn to see what would be the character of the year with respect to the rains. He was sitting and observing by himself. 17. A voice came to his mind and he said: “All the signs of the stars and signs of the moon and the sun—all are under the Lord’s control. Why should I be investigating them? 18. If he wishes he will make it fall. Everything is under his control.” 19. That night he prayed and said: “My God, My God, God most high. You alone are my God.” (Jub. 12:16–19) 17

We can now turn to the parallel sequence of events in Genesis Rabbah. Young Abraham in Genesis Rabbah The story of Terah’s idol shop in Gen. Rab. 38:28 is the first in a threepart narrative unit that continues with Abraham’s encounter with Nimrod and culminates with the fiery furnace. As usually read, it is a narrative about Abraham’s early life that seeks to explain why he was chosen by God and how he came to be the first monotheist, but it is important to bear in mind that the story begins and ends with Haran.  18

‫וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו‬

The idol shop story is a family drama about what makes two brothers, raised in the same household by the same parents, so different from each other. This is a familiar biblical theme, especially prominent in Genesis, and it is tempting to ask if the rabbinic authors were providing for Abraham what he alone among the patriarchs lacks—a story that differentiates him from his brother. From a midrashic perspective, the story contributes to a theme found in midrashim such as Gen. Rab. 39:3 concerning the influence of Abraham’s parents. Did Abraham imbibe idolatry with his mother’s milk? Or was he a mere blank slate before God called him to leave his father’s house? Or was he already a fully formed monotheist just waiting to “come out”? While the contrast between Abraham and Haran in the idol shop story is not definitive, it points tentatively to the conclusion that Abraham started out as a Mesopotamian boy like any other, who slowly came to see the world differently. At the very least, Genesis Rabbah uses Haran to make a homiletical point about Abraham, in contrast to Jubilees, where Haran’s fate in the burning temple mainly fills out the Genesis 16. See Kugel, Traditions, 249–51; and Kister, “Observations,” 16, on Abraham the astronomer. 17.  VanderKam, Jubilees, 71–72. 18.  Theodor Albeck as above.

356

Diana Lipton

verse that reports his death. The idol shop story emphasizes innerfamily differences and thus works well as a microcosm of a society or community at a time of transition or in which relations between different social and ethnic groups are complex. In these social contexts, boundaries and distinctions are fluid, and attitudes toward “the other” cannot be summed up in simple “them and us” tropes. Diversity and difference exist even within a single family. Genesis Rabbah presents Terah as a maker of idols. 19 ‫ חד זמן נפק לאתר הושיב אברהם מוכר תחתיו‬,‫ חייא תרח עובד צלמים הוה‬′‫אמר ר‬

Terah’s shop is more than a picturesque detail; it is evidence that his family lives from idolatry and that theologically motivated actions have economic consequences. Abraham convinces a potential customer that there is no rational basis for buying an idol made yesterday when the man himself is 50 years old. The man leaves the shop ashamed, presumably without the idol he intended to buy. There is no violent destruction, and no sign of heightened tension between Abraham and the customer. Rather, by means of a combination of logic and gentle, mocking humor, the case is made that idols are ineffective. ‫ אמר ליה ווי‬,‫ אמר ליה בר חמשין‬,‫ אמר ליה בר כמה שנין את‬,‫הוה אתי בר נש בעי דיזבון‬ ‫ והוה מתבייש והולך לו‬,‫לההוא גברא דאת בר חמשין ותסגוד לבר יומא‬

A woman comes to make a meal offering. This suggests that the “shop” is more than just a factory that sells idols; it serves also as a kind of temple. It is plausible that idols, once manufactured, were eligible to accept offerings, regardless of their location. At any rate, the boundaries are blurred; even if Terah were to stop worshiping idols (assuming that he had started—the text is silent on this matter), as a maker and seller of idols, he would still face the challenge of hosting idol worship under his own roof. ,‫ קם נסיב בוקלסה‬,‫ ליה הא לך קרב קדמיהון‬′‫חד זמן אתת איתתא טעינא חד פינך דסלת אמ‬ ‫ותברהון ויהב ההוא בוקלסה בידוי דרבה דבהון‬

It is clear that Abraham sought to convince the 50-year-old man who came to buy an idol that idol worship is folly, but the woman who came to offer meal was not the intended recipient of his next message. Indeed, she must have left the shop while he was smashing the idols. The point of this episode was the aftermath of the destruction, not the destruction itself; the dramatic ploy would have been completely ineffective for anyone who saw it unfolding. The intended audience of Abraham’s drama was Terah. The destruction of the idols was a visual parable, comparable with Nathan’s parable of the poor man’s 19.  Some translations favor “worshiper” over “maker,” but the verb ‫ עובד‬does not signify “worship” or “serve” in Aramaic, the language of the idol shop story, as it does in Hebrew, and in any case the meaning of “make” is required for the logic of the idol shop narrative.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

357

lamb in 2  Sam 12:1–7, that forced Terah to articulate the unpalatable truth: idols have no power. Needless to say, this does not prove that Terah lacked faith in idols; as Paul Veyne has famously shown, even in the ancient world, people were capable of cognitive dissonance. 20 It does, however, compromise his position as a purveyor of idols. ,‫ אמר ליה מה נכפור לך אתת חדא איתתא‬,‫כיון דאתא אבוה אמר ליה מה עבד להון כדין‬ ‫ דין אמר אנא אכיל קדמאי ודין אמר אנא‬,‫טעינא חד פינך דסלת ואמרת לי קרב קומיהון‬ ‫ קם הדין רבה נסיב בוקלסה ותברהון‬,‫אכיל קדמאי‬

At no point does Abraham mention God or offer a concrete alternative to idolatry. He simply undermines idols using stock terms and images familiar from biblical “anti-idol polemics.” Indeed, the idol shop story’s punch-line plays on one of these passages (Ps 115:5–6): .‫ ְולֹא י ְִראּו‬,‫ ְולֹא יְדַ ּבֵרּו; עֵינַיִם ָלהֶם‬,‫ ָלהֶם‬-‫ה ּפֶה‬ .‫ ְולֹא יְִריחּון‬,‫ִׁשמָעּו; אַף ָלהֶם‬ ְ ‫ ְולֹא י‬,‫ו ָא ְזנַיִם ָלהֶם‬

Terah has ears, but they do not hear the words that his mouth utters. He has a mouth but the words it utters do not reach his own ears. ,[‫ אמר ליה ולא ישמעו אזניך מפיך‬,‫ ידעין אינון‬,‫אמר ליה] מה את מפלה בי‬

As an anti-idol polemic, the story could have ended with Terah’s acknowledgment that idols have no power, but to work as a commentary on the death of Haran, another installment is required. Terah hands Abraham over to Nimrod: ‫נסתיה ומסרתיה לנמרוד‬

Abraham and Nimrod begin to debate in a fashion less reminiscent of a theological dispute than of the Passover Haggadah song Had Gadya: ,‫ אמר‬,‫ אמר ליה ונסגוד למיא‬,‫ אמר ליה נסגוד למייא דמטפין לנורא‬,‫אמר ליה נסגוד לנורא‬ ,‫ אמר ליה נסגוד לרוחא דמובלי עננא‬,‫ אמר ליה ונסגוד לעננא‬,‫ליה נסגוד לענני דטעני מיא‬ ‫[אמר ליה] ונסגוד לרוחא‬

In contrast to the parallel debate between Abraham and Terah in Jubilees, idols do not feature in Abraham’s encounter with Nimrod; Nimrod concentrates on objects of worship that emanate from the natural world. Moreover, God is not mentioned in the encounter between Abraham and Nimrod; there is absolutely no “conversion” agenda here on Abraham’s part. As the rabbinic authors tell it, however, Nimrod is well versed in the relevant literature and alludes to the biblical contrast between helpless idols and God who saves. The bottom line is saving power or the lack of it, and the debate is over, once God 20. Paul Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe in their Myths? (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

358

Diana Lipton

rescues Abraham from the fiery furnace. It is worth noting once again that this feature is absent from Jubilees. ,‫ אמר ליה מלין את משתעי לא נסגוד אלא לאור‬,‫אמר ליה נסגוד לבר נשא דסביל רוחא‬ ‫הריני משליכך בו ויבוא אלהיך שאתה משתחוה לו ויצילך ממנו‬

The story could have ended with Abraham’s survival and its implicit assertion of God’s saving power, but biblical exegesis demands a return to Haran and his death earlier than or in front of his father in Ur of the Chaldeans. In Jubilees, Haran is a committed idol-worshiper, ready to leap into the fire to save the idols from the burning temple, but in Genesis Rabbah he is no more than a practical agnostic punished for doing the right thing (Haran does precisely what Abraham did) for the wrong reasons (to back the winner). ,‫ אם נצח‬,‫הוה תמן הרן קאים פליג אמר מה נפשך אם נצח אברהם אנא אמר מן דאברם אנא‬ ,‫ ליה מן דמן את‬′‫ כיון שירד אברם לכבשן האש ונוצל אמ‬,‫נמרוד אמר אנא מנמרוד אנא‬ ‫ד‬′′‫ נטלוהו והשליכוהו באש ונחמרו מעיו ויצא ומת על פני אביו הה‬,‫אמר ליה מן דאברם‬ ‫וימת הרן על פני תרח אביו‬

The Genesis Rabbah authors may have wished to signify the importance of faith by demonstrating that appropriate actions do not help in the absence of theological commitment. More plausibly, I think, Haran’s fate shows that sitting on the fence is not a long-term option. The Biblical Background of the Idol Shop Story While it is fairly certain that the events in the idol shop and Abraham’s debate with Nimrod cannot be traced back to the book of Genesis, it is possible that they were inspired by other parts of the Bible. Yair Zakovitch among others has noted similarities to the book of Daniel. 21 To be sure, the two stories share several important features: a Babylonian setting, a fiery furnace, and a demonstration of the impotence of other religious systems in the face of God’s saving power. However, a central theme that preoccupies me here is absent in Daniel. Having been taken captive and pressed into the king’s service in Babylon, Daniel has no family complications and no intergenerational ties; his story is a snapshot in time. In this respect, Daniel has little in common with the idol shop story, which deals centrally with a family in transition. James Kugel sees the influence of Josh 24:2–3, which mentions that Israel’s ancestors, Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived across the Euphrates, where they served other gods, and that God took Abraham out from across the river and brought him to Canaan. 22 It is worth noting, however, that Haran, not Nahor, features in 21. Yair Zakovitch, “The Exodus from Ur of the Chaldeans,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo and L. H. Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 429–43. 22.  Kugel, Traditions of the Bible, 244–45.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

359

the idol shop story, and Genesis Rabbah concentrates on Terah’s manufacture of idols, not his worship of them. Nathaniel Helfgot sees Gideon’s destruction of his father’s idol in Judg 6:25–32 as the prototype for the idol shop story. 23 Many of the parallels that Helfgot identifies between Gideon and Abraham are convincing, but in the end the differences between the two stories may be more instructive than the similarities. Like the idol shop story, Judg 6:25–32 concerns a son who represents a new religious system and a father who stands for what preceded it. Both stories feature “neighbors” who turn or might potentially turn hostile. And both stories occur at times of religious transition and fluidity when new and old practices exist alongside each other, even within a single family. Strikingly different, however, is the motif of iconoclasm in the two stories. In Judges, the breaking of the idols is an end in itself, explicitly commanded by God, whereas in Genesis Rabbah the idol breaking is simply a means to an end. ‫ׁשנִים‬ ָ ‫ׁשבַע‬ ֶ ‫ָביךָ ּופַר ַהּשֵׁנִי‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ְלא‬ ֶ ‫ּפַר־ ַהּשֹׁור א‬-‫ קַ ח אֶת‬′‫ וַּיֹאמֶר לֹו ה‬,‫ְהי ַּב ַּל ְילָה הַהּוא‬ ִ ‫כה ַוי‬ ′‫ִית ִמ ְזּב ֵַח לַה‬ ָ ‫ ִּת ְכרֹת׃ כו ּו ָבנ‬,‫ֲׁשר־ ָעלָיו‬ ֶ ‫אׁש ֵָרה א‬ ֲ ‫ָביךָ ְואֶת־ ָה‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ְלא‬ ֶ ‫ֶת־מ ְזּבַח ַה ַּבעַל א‬ ִ ‫ְוהָרַ ְס ָּת א‬ ‫אׁש ֵָרה‬ ֲ ‫ית עֹולָה ַּבעֲצֵי ָה‬ ָ ‫ֲל‬ ִ ‫ֲרכָה ְולָקַ ְח ָּת אֶת־ ַהּפָר ַהּשֵׁנִי ְו ַהע‬ ָ ‫ עַל רֹאׁש ַהּמָעֹוז ַהּזֶה ַּב ַּמע‬,ָ‫אֱלֹהֶיך‬ ‫ֲׁשר ִּת ְכרֹת׃‬ ֶ‫א‬

The nighttime setting in which Gideon smashes the altar is reminiscent of the cover of dark under which Abraham burned the temple in Jubilees, but in the idol shop story the idols are broken in broad daylight. Whereas Gideon fears a violent reaction from his neighbors, Abraham is apparently at ease in the idol shop. There is no evidence that he feared the customers and, as it turns out, he should have feared his father; it is Terah who hands him over to the authorities. More importantly, whereas Genesis Rabbah does not so much as hint at the destruction of the idols as the desired outcome of the events in the idol shop, and at no point advocates for God as a substitute for the broken idols, Judg 6:25–32 contains an explicit divine instruction that Gideon should destroy his father’s altar and build a new one dedicated to God. ‫ֲׁשר יָרֵא אֶת־ּבֵית‬ ֶ ‫ְהי ַּכא‬ ִ ‫ ַוי‬′‫ֲׁשר ִּדּבֶר ֵאלָיו ה‬ ֶ ‫ָדיו ַוּיַעַׂש ַּכא‬ ָ ‫ָׁשים ֵמעֲב‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ ‫ֲׂש ָרה‬ ָ ‫כז ַוּיִּקַ ח ִּג ְדעֹון ע‬ ‫ָעיר ּבַּבֹקֶר ְו ִהּנֵה נֻּתַ ץ‬ ִ ‫ַׁש ִּכימּו ַא ְנׁשֵי ה‬ ְ ‫ָעיר ֵמעֲׂשֹות יֹומָם ַוּיַעַׂש ָל ְילָה׃ כח ַוּי‬ ִ ‫ָביו ְואֶת־ ַא ְנׁשֵי ה‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫ֲׁשר־ ָעלָיו ּכ ָֹר ָתה; ְואֵת ַהּפָר ַהּשֵׁנִי הֹעֲלָה עַל־ה ִַּמ ְזּב ֵַח ַהּבָנּוי׃‬ ֶ ‫ׁשרָה א‬ ֵ ‫א‬ ֲ ‫ִמ ְזּבַח ַה ַּבעַל ְו ָה‬

The people determine through investigation that it was Gideon who smashed the altar, but they do not confront him directly. Instead, they go to Gideon’s father, Joash, and demand that he hand over his son. As with Terah’s handing over of Abraham, this confirms the story as family drama or, better, a family 23. Nathaniel Helfgot, “Unlocking the Riddle of Abraham the Iconoclast: A Study of the Intertextuality of Peshat and Derash,” Tradition 43/3 (2010): 9–16. Many thanks to my friend Charles Corman for drawing my attention to Helfgot’s paper and thus stimulating me to write this one.

360

Diana Lipton

drama on a political stage. But the two fathers respond very differently to their respective crises involving a rebellious son. ‫ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫אמרּו ִּג ְדעֹון ּבֶן־יֹואָׁש ע‬ ְ ֹ ‫ִד ְרׁשּו ַו ְיב ְַקׁשּו וַּי‬ ְ ‫ָׂשה הַָּדבָר ַהּזֶה ַוּי‬ ָ ‫אמרּו ִאיׁש אֶל־ ֵרעֵהּו ִמי ע‬ ְ ֹ ‫כט וַּי‬ ‫ֶת־מ ְזּבַח ַה ַּבעַל‬ ִ ‫ֶת־ּבנְךָ ְויָמֹת ִּכי נָתַ ץ א‬ ִ ‫ָעיר אֶל־יֹואָׁש הֹוצֵא א‬ ִ ‫אמרּו ַא ְנׁשֵי ה‬ ְ ֹ ‫הַָּדבָר ַהּזֶה׃ ל וַּי‬ ‫ֲׁשר־ ָעלָיו׃‬ ֶ ‫ׁשרָה א‬ ֵ ‫א‬ ֲ ‫ְו ִכי כָרַ ת ָה‬

Joash, like Terah (explicitly in Jubilees and implicitly in Genesis Rabbah), already knows that Baal is powerless. To save his son, Joash tells the people to let Baal take his own revenge, literally to save himself (compare with Jubilees, where Haran tries to save the idols, which cannot save him). Helfgot suggests that Joash is mocking Baal, but this seems unlikely. Rather, Joash risks an ingenious “call-my-bluff ” to save his son. He is banking on the people’s unwillingness to admit that Baal has no power of his own and can act only through them. If Joash is wrong, and the people do after all decide to take Baal’s affairs into their own hands, all is lost for Gideon. ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ּתֹוׁשיעּון אֹותֹו א‬ ִ ‫ַּתם‬ ֶ ‫ַּתם ְּתִריבּון ַל ַּבעַל ִאם־א‬ ֶ ‫ָמדּו ָעלָיו ַהא‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר־ע‬ ֶ ‫לא וַּיֹאמֶר יֹואָׁש ְלכֹל א‬ ‫ִק ָרא־לֹו בַּיֹום־‬ ְ ‫ְּבחֹו׃ לב ַוּי‬ ְ ‫ֶת־מז‬ ִ ‫יִָריב לֹו יּומַת עַד־הַּבֹקֶר ִאם־אֱל ִֹהים הּוא יָרֶב לֹו ִּכי נָתַ ץ א‬ ‫ְּבחֹו׃‬ ְ ‫ֶת־מז‬ ִ ‫הַהּוא ְירֻ ַּבעַל לֵאמֹר יָרֶב ּבֹו ַה ַּבעַל ִּכי נָתַ ץ א‬

Yet why does Joash have an altar to Baal if he knows Baal is powerless? Perhaps because he justifiably fears the people; just as they wanted to kill Gideon for breaking their altar, they might have attacked Joash for breaking with their religious practices and traditions. Or perhaps Joash had an altar to Baal because his father had an altar to Baal, a crucial and often underestimated component of religious practice. Or perhaps the pressures are socioeconomic; Joash wants to coexist with his neighbors. The altar to Baal facilitates peaceful interaction, and Gideon’s zeal threatens it. Despite the significant parallels between Joash’s attitude to Baalism in Judges and Terah’s attitude toward idols in Genesis Rabbah, the idol shop story raises important questions to which Judges has no answers. The first question concerns the story’s broader purpose. If this is not a tale of deliberate iconoclasm—Abraham, unlike Gideon, did not set out to destroy his father’s idols and was not commanded by God to do so—what is the story trying to teach us about the young Abraham? The second question relates to Terah’s behavior. Joash acted to save Gideon. Why did Terah betray Abraham even without evidence of the pressure from hostile neighbors that Joash faced? Terah’s betrayal is in many respects the most disturbing aspect of the idol shop story— far more shocking than the political tension it creates. That a tyrannical ancient Near Eastern king would persecute dissident subjects is hardly surprising, but that a father would turn his son over to such a ruler is hard to swallow. To be sure, the confrontation with Nimrod brought Haran to the furnace and thus to

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

361

his death before or in front of his father in Ur of the Chaldeans. But the plot does not require Terah’s “handing him over to the authorities”; the neighbors could have fulfilled that role. What explains this immensely troubling feature of the idol shop story? In deciding how Terah should properly respond to the theological and sociological changes in Abraham’s life, the rabbinic authors of the idol shop story might first have defined and categorized his behavior: a young man undermines the religious status quo as part of an attempt to convince others to turn to a new god they have not previously known. They might then have asked themselves how a Jew would have been required to behave in the same circumstances. This question might have led them to Deut 12:29–13:16, a compendium of laws about Israelites who tempt other Israelites to worship other gods. If this seems like a big imaginative leap on their part, an act of unnatural empathy, we should bear in mind that they were dealing with the father of Abraham, not with a real outsider. Like Judg 6:25–32, Deut 12:29–13:16 describes a time of religious transition when Israelites are cautioned against taking up the religious practices of the land’s previous inhabitants. ‫ׁש ָּת א ָֹתם‬ ְ ַ‫ם—מ ָּפנֶיךָ ְויָר‬ ִ ‫אֹות‬ ָ ‫ֶׁשת‬ ֶ ‫ָא־ׁשּמָה ָלר‬ ָ ‫ַּתה ב‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר א‬ ֶ ‫ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת־הַּגֹויִם א‬′‫כט ִּכי־י ְַכִרית ה‬ ָ ‫ֶן־ּת ְדרֹׁש לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם‬ ִ ‫ָמ ָדם ִמ ָּפנֶיך; ּופ‬ ְ ׁ‫ ַאחֲרֵ י ִהּש‬,‫ֶן־ּתּנָקֵׁש ַאחֲרֵ יהֶם‬ ִ ‫ְויָׁשַ ְב ָּת ְּבא ְַרצָם׃ ל ִהּשָׁמֶר ְלךָ ּפ‬ ′‫ֲׂשה כֵן לַה‬ ֶ ‫ ּגַם־ ָאנִי׃ לא לֹא־תַ ע‬,‫ֱׂשה־ּכֵן‬ ֶ ‫לֵאמֹר אֵיכָה יַע ְַבדּו הַּגֹויִם ָה ֵאּלֶה אֶת־אֱלֹהֵיהֶם ְו ֶאע‬ ‫ִׂש ְרפּו‬ ְ ‫ֶת־ּבנֹתֵ יהֶם י‬ ְ ‫ֶת־ּבנֵיהֶם ְוא‬ ְ ‫ֶם—ּכי גַם א‬ ִ ‫ׂשנֵא עָׂשּו לֵאלֹהֵיה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ א‬′‫אֱלֹהֶיךָ ִּכי כָל־ּתֹועֲבַת ה‬ ‫ָבאֵׁש לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם‬

Deut 13:2–6 enjoins the Israelites who enter the land to put to death a dreamer or prophet from their midst who tempts them to worship other gods whom they have not known. From the point of view of Terah and the citizens of Ur of the Chaldeans as conceived by the rabbinic authors of the idol shop story, this could describe Abraham, a prophet (cf. Gen 20:7) who entices those around him to turn to a new God. ‫ָביא אֹו חֹלֵם חֲלֹום ְונָתַ ן ֵאלֶיךָ אֹות אֹו מֹופֵת׃ ג ּובָא הָאֹות ְוהַּמֹופֵת‬ ִ ‫ב ִּכי־יָקּום ְּב ִק ְר ְּבךָ נ‬ ,‫ׁשמַע‬ ְ ‫ָבדֵ ם׃ ד לֹא ִת‬ ְ ‫ם—ונָע‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר לֹא־יְדַ ְע ָּת‬ ֶ ‫אחִֵרים א‬ ֲ ‫ר־ּדּבֶר ֵאלֶיךָ לֵאמֹר נ ְֵלכָה ַאחֲרֵ י אֱל ִֹהים‬ ִ ‫ֲׁש‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ִׁשכֶם‬ ְ ‫הי‬ ֲ ‫ֶתכֶם לָדַ עַת‬ ְ ‫ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם א‬′‫ ִּכי ְמנַּסֶה ה‬:‫ָביא הַהּוא אֹו אֶל־חֹולֵם ַהחֲלֹום הַהּוא‬ ִ ‫ֶל־ּד ְברֵי ַהּנ‬ ִ ‫א‬ ‫יראּו‬ ָ ‫ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ּתֵ לֵכּו ְואֹתֹו ִת‬′‫ׁשכֶם׃ ה ַאחֲרֵ י ה‬ ְ ‫ּובכָל־נ ְַפ‬ ְ ‫ָל־לב ְַבכֶם‬ ְ ‫ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ְּבכ‬′‫ֲבים אֶת־ה‬ ִ ‫אֹה‬ ‫ָביא הַהּוא אֹו חֹלֵם‬ ִ ‫ׁשמָעּו ְואֹתֹו תַ עֲבֹדּו ּובֹו ִת ְדּבָקּון׃ ו ְו ַהּנ‬ ְ ‫ּובקֹלֹו ִת‬ ְ ‫ׁשמֹרּו‬ ְ ‫ֶת־מ ְצ ‍ו ָֹתיו ִּת‬ ִ ‫ְוא‬ ‫ֶתכֶם ֵמ ֶארֶץ ִמ ְצרַ יִם ְוהַּפ ְֹדךָ ִמּבֵית‬ ְ ‫ַּמֹוציא א‬ ִ ‫ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם ה‬′‫ַהחֲלֹום הַהּוא יּומָת ִּכי ִדּבֶר־ ָסרָה עַל־ה‬ ְ ‫ים—לה ִַּדיחֲךָ ִמן־הֶַּדר‬ ‫ָרע ִמ ִּק ְרּבֶךָ׃‬ ָ ‫ּובע ְַר ָּת ה‬ ִ ‫ אֱלֹהֶיךָ ָל ֶלכֶת ּבָּה‬′‫ֲׁשר ִצ ְּוךָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ֶך א‬ ְ ‫ָד‬ ִ ‫עֲב‬

According to Deut 13:7, a man whose brother, son or daughter, wife, or close friend entices him to worship other gods that neither he nor his fathers have known (note this new level of intergenerational complexity compared with the case of the prophet) must initiate a process that will end with the

362

Diana Lipton

enticer’s death at the hands of the people. From the perspective of Ur of the Chaldeans as conceived by the rabbis, this could be addressing Terah and his enticing son, Abraham. ָ‫אֹו־בנְך‬ ָ‫ֶן־אּמֶך‬ ‫ֵתר‬ ֶ ‫ׁשךָ ַּבּס‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ְּכנ ְַפ‬ ֶ ‫ֵׁשת חֵיקֶךָ אֹו רֵ עֲךָ א‬ ֶ ‫אֹו־ב ְּתךָ אֹו א‬ ִ ִ ִ ‫ָחיךָ ב‬ ִ ‫יתךָ א‬ ְ ‫ְס‬ ִ ‫ז ִּכי י‬ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ַּתה ַואֲב ֶֹתיךָ׃ ח ֵמאֱלֹהֵי ָהע ִַּמים א‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר לֹא יָדַ ְע ָּת א‬ ֶ ‫אחִֵרים א‬ ֲ ‫ נ ְֵלכָה ְונַע ְַב ָדה אֱל ִֹהים‬:‫לֵאמֹר‬ ‫ַד־קצֵה ָה ָארֶץ׃ ט לֹא־תֹאבֶה‬ ְ ‫ָרח ִֹקים ִמ ֶּמּךָ ִמ ְקצֵה ָה ָארֶץ ְוע‬ ְ ‫ְס ִביבֹתֵ יכֶם ה ְַּקר ִֹבים ֵאלֶיךָ אֹו ה‬ ָ ‫א־ת ַכּסֶה ָעלָיו׃ י ִּכי הָרֹג ּתַ ה ְַרגֶּנּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫א־תחֹוס עֵינְך ָעלָיו ְולֹא־תַ ְחמֹל ְול‬ ָ ֹ ‫ׁשמַע ֵאלָיו ְול‬ ְ ‫ ְולֹא ִת‬,‫לֹו‬ ְ‫י‬ ‫ ָומֵת ִּכי ִבּקֵׁש‬,‫א ָבנִים‬ ֲ ‫ּוסקַ ְלּתֹו ָב‬ ְ ‫ ָּב ַאחֲרֹנָה׃ יא‬,‫ֲמיתֹו ְוי ַד ּכָל־ ָהעָם‬ ִ ‫ָראׁשֹונָה ַלה‬ ִ‫ָדךָ ִּת ְהיֶה־ּבֹו ב‬ ‫ָדים׃‬ ִ ‫ַּמֹוציאֲךָ ֵמ ֶארֶץ ִמ ְצרַ יִם ִמּבֵית עֲב‬ ִ ‫ ה‬,ָ‫ אֱלֹהֶיך‬′‫ְלה ִַּדיחֲךָ ֵמעַל ה‬

In the case of someone who entices a whole town to worship other gods, the people must investigate to determine whether the accusations against the enticer are valid (compare with Judg 6:29, where the people investigate to determine who is responsible for the destruction of the altar). If the allegations are correct, the enticer and his whole town must be put to death by the sword. ‫ָׁשים ְּבנֵי־‬ ִ ‫אנ‬ ֲ ‫ָצאּו‬ ְ ‫ׁשם לֵאמֹר׃ יד י‬ ָ ‫ָׁשבֶת‬ ֶ ‫ אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵ ן ְלךָ ל‬′‫ֲׁשר ה‬ ֶ ‫ׁשמַע ְּב ַאחַת ָערֶיךָ א‬ ְ ‫י־ת‬ ִ ‫יג ִּכ‬ ‫ֲׁשר לֹא־יְדַ ְע ֶּתם׃‬ ֶ ‫אחִֵרים א‬ ֲ ‫ נ ְֵלכָה ְונַע ְַב ָדה אֱל ִֹהים‬:‫ירם לֵאמֹר‬ ָ ‫ׁשבֵי ִע‬ ְ ֹ ‫ְב ִלּיַעַל ִמ ִּק ְרּבֶךָ ַוּי ִַּדיחּו אֶת־י‬ ‫ֶׂש ָתה הַּתֹו ֵעבָה הַּזֹאת ְּב ִק ְרּבֶךָ׃ טז‬ ְ ‫אמֶת נָכֹון הַָּדבָר נֶע‬ ֱ ‫ׁשא ְַל ָּת הֵיטֵב ְו ִהּנֵה‬ ָ ‫ׁש ָּת ְוחָקַ ְר ָּת ְו‬ ְ ַ‫טו ְו ָדר‬ ‫ֶמ ָּתּה ְל ִפי־‬ ְ ‫ֶת־ּבה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר־ּבָּה ְוא‬ ֶ ‫ָעיר ה ִַהוא ְל ִפי־ ָחרֶב ַהחֲרֵ ם א ָֹתּה ְואֶת־ּכָל־א‬ ִ ‫ׁשבֵי ה‬ ְ ֹ ‫ַהּכֵה תַ ּכֶה אֶת־י‬ ‫ָחרֶב׃‬

It seems plausible that the rabbinic authors of the idol shop story saw Abraham as just such a prophet or dreamer of dreams and that Terah’s problematic decision to hand over his son has its roots in precisely these Deuteronomic regulations about what to do with a radical visionary who arises in your midst. Another passage from Deuteronomy helps to illuminate the idol shop story’s perspective on the idols themselves. Idolatry in the idol shop story and beyond can be divided into two broad categories, one concerning the making and worship of idols (Terah’s shop), and one focused on the natural world (the disputate with Nimrod). Significant in this regard is Deut 4:15–20, which deals with different forms of idolatry: ְ ‫אלֵיכֶם ְּבחֹרֵ ב ִמ‬ ‫ּתֹוך‬ ֲ ‫ָל־ּתמּונָה ְּביֹום ִּדּבֶר יְהוָה‬ ְ ‫יתם ּכ‬ ֶ ‫ִׁשמ ְַר ֶּתם ְמאֹד ְלנ ְַפׁשֹתֵ יכֶם ִּכי לֹא ְר ִא‬ ְ ‫טו ְונ‬ ‫יתם ָלכֶם ֶּפסֶל ְּתמּונַת ּכָל־ ָסמֶל ּתַ ְבנִית זָכָר אֹו ְנ ֵקבָה׃ יז ּתַ ְבנִית‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂש‬ ִ ‫ׁש ִחתּון ַוע‬ ְ ַ‫ָהאֵׁש׃ טז ּפֶן־ּת‬ ‫ֲדמָה‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר ָּתעּוף ַּבּשָׁ ָמיִם׃ יח ּתַ ְבנִית ּכָל־רֹמֵׂש ָּבא‬ ֶ ‫ָל־צּפֹור ָּכנָף א‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר ָּב ָארֶץ ּתַ ְבנִית ּכ‬ ֶ ‫ָל־ּב ֵהמָה א‬ ְ ‫ּכ‬ ‫ית אֶת־ ַהּשֶׁמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֶן־ּתּשָׂא עֵינֶיךָ ַהּשָׁ ַמ ְימָה ְו ָר ִא‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר־ ַּב ַּמיִם ִמּתַ חַת ָל ָארֶץ׃ יט ּופ‬ ֶ ‫ָל־ּדגָה א‬ ָ ‫ּתַ ְבנִית ּכ‬ ‫ֲׁשר ָחלַק‬ ֶ ‫ית ָלהֶם ַועֲב ְַד ָּתם—א‬ ָ ‫ֲו‬ ִ‫ׁשּתַ ח‬ ְ ‫ ְונִּדַ ְח ָּת ְו ִה‬,‫ָבים ּכֹל ְצבָא ַהּשָׁ ַמיִם‬ ִ ‫ְואֶת־ ַהּיָר ֵַח ְואֶת־הַּכֹוכ‬ ‫ֶתכֶם ִמּכּור‬ ְ ‫ַּיֹוצא א‬ ִ ‫ֶתכֶם לָקַ ח יְהוָה ו‬ ְ ‫ ְלכֹל ָהע ִַּמים ּתַ חַת ּכָל־ ַהּשָׁ ָמיִם׃ כ ְוא‬,‫יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ א ָֹתם‬ ‫חלָה ּכַּיֹום ַהּזֶה׃‬ ֲ ַ‫ַהּב ְַרזֶל ִמ ִּמ ְצ ָריִם ִל ְהיֹות לֹו ְלעַם נ‬

Israelites must not make or bow down to a likeness of any living being on earth, whether male or female (this instruction presumably refers to humans), animal, fish, bird, or crawling thing. Three separate terms are used to designate what precisely is prohibited: ‫“( פסל‬sculpture”), ‫“( תמונה‬likeness”), and ‫תבנית‬

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

363

(“form”). The Decalogue forbids the making and worship of images in almost the same language, but now comes another prohibition that the Decalogue does not mention: Israelites cannot worship anything in the heavens—sun, moon, stars, and all the hosts of heaven. Deuteronomy’s explanation for this prohibition is that the heavenly spheres were apportioned by God to the nations, from whose midst Israelites were removed when God took them out of Egypt. 24 It is this additional prohibition together with the specific term used here to describe Egypt—namely, an iron furnace—that suggests the link to the idol shop story. The events that occur in the shop itself are reported in order to explain why Abraham and his family stopped making and worshiping idols as specified by the Decalogue and Deut 4:16–18. The encounter with Nimrod does not feature idols at all but elements of the natural world, and Abraham does not try to convince Nimrod that these elements have no power but, rather, that his religious system lacks a prime mover—or at least, one accessible to Nimrod. He achieves this goal by taking him through a sequence of logical deductions, at the end of which Nimrod becomes frustrated. This is consistent with Deut 4:19, which implies that the peoples of the earth will worship what they see in the heavens, presumably without recognizing that it was all given to them by God. What inspired the story’s midrashic authors to portray Terah as an idol maker with a retail outlet? One answer to this question is that they wanted to show that the family stopped making idols as well as stopped worshiping them, consistent with the Decalogue and Deut 4:15–20. A more interesting answer emerges from the so-called anti-idol polemics of Isaiah 40–55. 25 Isaiah 40–55 and the idol shop story share a common subject: Jews about to leave Ur of the Chaldeans and enter the Promised Land. They share a common approach to the making and worship of idols: gently comic satire. Neither Isaiah’s anti-idol polemics nor the idol shop story is strongly separatist or divisive; the respective authors mock people who make and worship idols, but do not condemn them for it or present the idols they make as threatening. Finally, neither the anti-idol polemics nor the idol shop story seeks to change the ways or beliefs of Babylonians other than Terah. Although one of the customers featured in the story learns from Abraham that idols have no power, it is Terah and his family, 24.  See Jeffrey Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 46–51 for a helpful overview of these verses in their biblical context and as interpreted in Jewish tradition. For an overview of scholarly treatments of these verses, especially in relation to Deut 32:8–9, see Mark S. Smith, God in Translation (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 202–12. For detailed thematic discussions of Deuteronomy  4 in relation to idolatry and monotheism, respectively, see Knut Holter, Deuteronomy Four and the Second Commandment (New York: Peter Lang, 2003); and Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, FAT 2/1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003). 25.  Following the common consensus, I classify Isa 40:18–20, 41:6–7, 44:9–20, and 46:1–7 as anti-idol texts.

364

Diana Lipton

functioning here as proto-Jews rather than Babylonians, who are the intended recipients. Isaiah’s anti-idol polemics are unusual for their detailed engagement with the practicalities of idol-making. While they do not exactly evoke sympathy for idol makers, their near-comic presentation makes it hard to condemn these foolish but not wicked craftsmen who take wood and burn part of it to warm themselves and bake bread while reserving the rest to make a god. Terah and his customer have much in common with the characters evoked in Isa 44:15– 20 (not evil but misguided): ‫ָׂשהּו ֶפסֶל‬ ָ ‫ִׁש ָּתחּו ע‬ ְ ‫ִפעַל־אֵל ַוּי‬ ְ ‫ָדם ְל ָבעֵר ַוּיִּקַ ח ֵמהֶם ַוּיָחָם אַף־יַּשִׂיק ְו ָאפָה ָלחֶם אַף־י‬ ָ ‫טו ְו ָהיָה ְלא‬ ‫ִׂשּבָע אַף־יָחֹם ְויֹאמַר‬ ְ ‫ָלי ְוי‬ ִ ‫ִצלֶה צ‬ ְ ‫ָׂשר יֹאכֵל י‬ ָ ‫ֶציֹו ּב‬ ְ ‫ׂשרַ ף ְּבמֹו־אֵׁש עַל־ח‬ ָ ‫ֶציֹו‬ ְ ‫ִסּגָד־לָמֹו׃ טז ח‬ ְ ‫ַוּי‬ ‫ִת ַּפּלֵל‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּתַ חּו ְוי‬ ְ ‫ִסּגָד־) לֹו ְוי‬ ְ ‫ָׂשה ְל ִפ ְסלֹו יסגוד־ (י‬ ָ ‫ ְלאֵל ע‬,‫ּוׁשאִֵריתֹו‬ ְ ‫יתי אּור׃ יז‬ ִ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫ַּמֹותי ר‬ ִ ‫ֶהאָח ח‬ ‫ַׂש ִּכיל ִלּב ָֹתם׃‬ ְ ‫ָבינּו ִּכי טַח מ ְֵראֹות עֵינֵיהֶם ֵמה‬ ִ ‫ָדעּו ְולֹא י‬ ְ ‫ֵאלָיו ְויֹאמַר ה ִַּצי ֵלנִי ִּכי א ִֵלי אָת יח לֹא י‬ ‫יתי עַל־‬ ִ ‫ָפ‬ ִ ‫ׂשרַ ְפ ִּתי ְבמֹו־אֵׁש ְואַף א‬ ָ ‫ֶציֹו‬ ְ ‫א־תבּונָה לֵאמֹר ח‬ ְ ֹ ‫ֶל־לּבֹו ְולֹא דַ עַת ְול‬ ִ ‫ָׁשיב א‬ ִ ‫יט ְולֹא־י‬ ‫ֶסּגֹוד׃ כ רֹעֶה ֵאפֶר לֵב הּותַ ל‬ ְ ‫ֱׂשה ְלבּול עֵץ א‬ ֶ ‫ִתרֹו ְלתֹו ֵעבָה ֶאע‬ ְ ‫ָׂשר ְואֹכֵל ְוי‬ ָ ‫ֶצלֶה ב‬ ְ ‫ֶּג ָחלָיו ֶלחֶם א‬  26 ‫ימינִי׃‬ ִ ‫ׁש ֶקר ִּב‬ ֶ ‫ִה ָּטהּו ְולֹא־י ִַּציל אֶת־נ ְַפׁשֹו ְולֹא יֹאמַר הֲלֹוא‬

I have argued elsewhere that Isaiah’s anti-idol polemics are addressed to Jews, who are intended to see themselves in the descriptions of the foolish idol makers. 27 In this rhetorical context, it is not the religious practices of Babylonian outsiders that are a cause for concern but internal practices that are parodied and rendered “other” in order to disenfranchise them. In my earlier work on these texts, I argued that the target of Isaiah’s anti-idol polemics is the materialism of Israel’s priestly cult, which is so alien to the theology of Isaiah 40–55. Another possible target is the Israelites who inevitably followed Babylonian practices while in Babylon. I have two main reasons for thinking that the anti-idol polemics are intended in the first instance to remind Jews of themselves. First, the idol makers mentioned in these passages are not once identified explicitly as Babylonians. Second, idols are not mentioned in Isaiah 47, the only chapter explicitly addressed to Babylonians. Rather, the religious practices mentioned in this chapter involve spells, stars, and the natural world: ְ ‫ׁש ַפי‬ ְ ‫ׁשכֹול ְוא ְַלמֹן ְּכ ֻתּמָם ּבָאּו ָע ַלי‬ ְ ‫ט ְו ָתבֹאנָה ּל‬ ‫ָצמַת‬ ְ ‫ִך ְּבע‬ ָ ‫ִך ְּברֹב ְּכ‬ ְ ‫ׁשּתֵ י־ ֵאּלֶה ֶרגַע ְּביֹום ֶאחָד‬ ְ ‫ָך‬ ְ ְ ְ ְ ‫חבָרַ י‬ ‫הֹועיל אּולַי‬ ִ ‫ּתּוכ ִלי‬ ְ ‫ְעּוריִך אּולַי‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר יָ ַגע ְַּת ִמּנ‬ ֶ ‫ׁש ַפיִך ַּבא‬ ָ ‫ּוברֹב ְּכ‬ ְ ‫חבָרַ יִך‬ ֲ ‫ִך ְמאֹד׃ יב ִע ְמ ִדי־נָא ַב‬ ֲ ְ ‫יֹוׁשיע‬ ְ ‫ָתי‬ ‫מֹוד ִעים‬ ִ ‫ָבים‬ ִ ‫ׁש ַמיִם הַחֹזִים ּבַּכֹוכ‬ ָ )‫ֻך הברו (ה ְֹברֵ י‬ ִ ‫ִך יַע ְַמדּו־נָא ְו‬ ָ ‫ִלאֵית ְּברֹב עֲצ‬ ְ ‫ֲרֹוצי׃ יג נ‬ ִ ‫ּתַ ע‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר יָבֹאּו ָע ָלי‬ (Isa 47:9–13) ‫ִך׃‬ ֶ ‫ׁשים ֵמא‬ ִ ‫ֳד‬ ָ ‫ֶלח‬

As in Abraham’s debate with Nimrod, Isaiah 47 does not offer a choice between powerless idols and the all-powerful God. No alternative is presented to the Babylonian followers of Babylonian religion; they will be burned in fire 26.  The word used for “worship” in Genesis Rabbah’s idol shop story occurs only nine times in the Bible, four as above in Isaiah (44:16, 17, 19; 46:6) and five in Daniel (2:46; 3:6, 10, 11, 18). 27.  See above, n. 2.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

365

without hope of being saved. This is not because they do not accept God’s sovereignty but because they are considered insignificant pawns in God’s cosmic chess game, a fact that they failed in their hubris to recognize. ‫ׁשם ִמּיַד ֶל ָהבָה אֵין־ ַּג ֶחלֶת ל ְַחמָם אּור‬ ָ ‫יד ִהּנֵה הָיּו ְכקַ ׁש אֵׁש ְׂש ָרפָתַ ם לֹא־י ִַּצילּו אֶת־נ ְַפ‬ ְ ‫ִך ִמּנְעּורַ י‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר יָָגע ְַּת סֹחֲרַ י‬ ְ ‫ֶגּדֹו׃ טו ּכֵן הָיּו־ל‬ ‫מֹוׁשיע ְֵך׃‬ ִ ‫ֶברֹו ָּתעּו אֵין‬ ְ ‫ִך ִאיׁש ְלע‬ ֶ ‫ָך א‬ ְ ‫ָׁשבֶת נ‬ ֶ‫ל‬ (Isa 47:14)

Whereas Isaiah 47, addressed to Fair Maiden Babylon and Fair Chaldea (v. 1), warns that the heavens and the stars will not yield information about future events to the Babylonians who study them, Isaiah 48, addressed to the house of Jacob and those who bear the name Israel and came forth from the waters (or loins) of Judah (v. 1), warns that idols and molten images cannot foretell the future to the uncommitted Jews (v. 1b) who rely on them. 28 ‫ׁשה‬ ֶ ‫יתי ו ַָּתבֹאנָה׃ ד ִמּדַ ְע ִּתי ִּכי ָק‬ ִ ‫ָׂש‬ ִ ‫ַׁש ִמיעֵם ִּפ ְתאֹם ע‬ ְ ‫ָצאּו ְוא‬ ְ ‫ּומ ִּפי י‬ ִ ‫ָראׁשֹנֹות ֵמאָז ִהּג ְַד ִּתי‬ ִ‫ג ה‬ ‫ׁשמ ְַע ִּתיךָ ּפֶן־ּתֹאמַר‬ ְ ‫ְחּוׁשה׃ ה ָוא ִַּגיד ְלךָ ֵמאָז ְּב ֶטרֶם ָּתבֹוא ִה‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְצחֲךָ נ‬ ִ ָ‫ָרּפֶך‬ ְ ‫ָּתה; ְו ִגיד ּב ְַרזֶל ע‬ ָ‫א‬ ‫ֲדׁשֹות‬ ָ ‫ׁשמ ְַע ִּתיךָ ח‬ ְ ‫ ִה‬:‫ַּתם הֲלֹוא תַ ִּגידּו‬ ֶ ‫חז ֵה ֻּכּלָּה ְוא‬ ֲ ‫ׁשמ ְַע ָּת‬ ָ ‫ִס ִּכי ִצּוָם׃ ו‬ ְ ‫ּופ ְס ִלי ְונ‬ ִ ‫ָׂשם‬ ָ ‫ָצ ִּבי ע‬ ְ‫ע‬ ‫ׁשמ ְַע ָּתם ּפֶן־ּתֹאמַר ִהּנֵה‬ ְ ‫ִב ְראּו ְולֹא ֵמאָז ְו ִל ְפנֵי־יֹום ְולֹא‬ ְ ‫ֵמע ַָּתה ּו ְנצֻרֹות ְולֹא יְדַ ְע ָּתם׃ ז ע ַָּתה נ‬ ‫א־פ ְּתחָה ָא ְזנֶךָ׃‬ ִ ֹ ‫א־ׁשמ ְַע ָּת ּגַם לֹא יָדַ ְע ָּת ּגַם ֵמאָז ל‬ ָ ֹ ‫יְדַ ְע ִּתין׃ ח ּגַם ל‬

If they were expected also to give up star-gazing when they returned to Zion, this is not specified. 29 Unlike the Babylonians who will burn in Babylon, Israel will be tested in a furnace of affliction before God brings the people out: (Isa 48:10) ‫ ְּבכּור עֹנִי׃‬,ָ‫ ְולֹא ְב ָכסֶף ְּבח ְַר ִּתיך‬,ָ‫י ִהּנֵה ְצרַ ְפ ִּתיך‬

Abraham embodies this prophecy when he enters and exits the fiery furnace in perfect health. 30 Haran, on the other hand, is like one of those who will not abandon his idols and therefore cannot leave Babylon whole or in peace: ‫ַד־קצֵה ָה ָארֶץ ִא ְמרּו‬ ְ ‫הֹוציאּו ָה ע‬ ִ ‫ַׁש ִמיעּו זֹאת‬ ְ ‫ַׂש ִּדים ְּבקֹול ִרּנָה ה ִַּגידּו ה‬ ְ ‫כ ְצאּו ִמ ָּבבֶל ִּב ְרחּו ִמּכ‬ ‫ִבקַ ע־צּור‬ ְ ‫הֹוליכָם ַמיִם ִמּצּור ִהּזִיל לָמֹו ַוּי‬ ִ ‫ֳרבֹות‬ ָ ‫ָמאּו ָּבח‬ ְ ‫ ע ְַבּדֹו יַעֲקֹב׃ כא ְולֹא צ‬′‫ָּגאַל ה‬ (Isa 48:20–22) ‫ׁש ִעים׃‬ ָ ‫ָר‬ ְ ‫ ל‬′‫ׁשלֹום ָאמַר ה‬ ָ ‫ַוּיָזֻבּו ָמיִם׃ כב אֵין‬ 28.  An external reader of this paper was skeptical about the distinction I make here between Isaiah 47, the only chapter addressed explicitly to Babylon, and the other chapters in Isaiah 40–55. He suggested that Isaiah 47 did not have a different referent but was the work of a different author, and he asked me to remove my discussion of the relative harshness of the criticisms in ch. 47, which I did. Others who share this reader’s concerns could look at Shalom M. Paul’s comments on the connections and “abundant” linguistic and thematic links between chs. 46 and 47 in Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 287–88; and at John L. McKenzie’s observation that “it can scarcely be denied that the tone of the oracle [against Babylon in ch. 47] exhibits a degree of vindictiveness.” See John L. McKenzie, Second Isaiah, AB 20 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967), 92. 29.  Perhaps like Abraham in Haran as described in Jub. 12:16, they continued to consult the heavens after leaving. 30. See Gen. Rab. 39:3, in which Abraham enters and leaves the fiery furnace whole.

366

Diana Lipton

When representing what must have been the immensely complex and confusingly fluid situation of prerestoration Babylon, the author of Isaiah 40–55 appears to have used idolatry as a touchstone for Jewish identity. “Real Jews” would abandon idols and return to Zion. Those who clung to their idols would stay behind or fall by the wayside. Two distinctions have been important to me in this essay. The first is the distinction between the manufacture and worship of idols, on the one hand, and religious practices involving elements of nature, on the other. This distinction is significant (a) in the idol shop story, where the protoJewish Abraham and his family wrestle with the consequences of idol worship, while Nimrod steadfastly worships the elements; and (b) in Deut 4:15–20 and Isaiah’s anti-idol polemics, both of which speak about idols in relation to Israelites or “as-if” Israelites and the natural elements in relation to non-Israelites. The second distinction concerns geopolitical context. Viewed from the perspective of its characters, the relevant context of the idol shop story is an autonomous national homeland; Terah and his family are permanent residents of Ur of the Chaldeans, and Nimrod is their king. However, Abraham’s emerging recognition of the one God has already set him and his family apart from their fellow-citizens. Conceptually, they function as outsiders, a religious minority living in a Diaspora that they are poised to leave, much like the Jews in Isaiah 40–55 who are preparing to return from Babylon to Zion. In other words, from the perspective of the story’s rabbinic authors, Abraham was already a protoJew, an embryonic version of themselves, who shared notionally their own geopolitical context. 31 Indeed, this point of view is already present in the Bible; God’s statement in Gen 15:7 that he brought Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans looks forward to the exodus from Egypt in the first instance and even further forward to the return to Zion from Babylon in the second. Biblical texts such as Deuteronomy that portray idolatry in the setting of an autonomous national homeland depict it as the unwelcome intrusion of alien influences, or the harmful persistence of the practices of the land’s previous occupants. It 31.  The tension between these two perspectives—Abraham taken at face value in the story and Abraham as interpreted through a rabbinic lens—emerges elsewhere and relates to a paradox that underlies many rabbinic presentations of the young Abraham. Is he best understood “as if” a Jew from birth or, alternatively, as someone who became “Jewish” as a young man? And following this, is he “as if” a Jew in temporary exile who returns to the land or someone who becomes at the same time a Jew and a citizen of a land that is new to him? It seems to me that, even as the rabbinic authors of Genesis Rabbah wrote about a young man who encountered God “out of the blue” at an identifiable moment in his own life, they imagined Abraham as one of themselves, a Jew from birth struggling to return to an optimal Jewish life. Interpreters of these texts must somehow keep both perspectives fully in view if they are to engage fully with the idol shop story and others like it.

Idol Moments: Reading the Bible in Abraham’s Father’s Idol Shop

367

represents a form of infidelity, 32 a turning to non-Israelite gods or the pollution of Israelite worship with foreign elements. From Deuteronomy’s perspective, the creation and maintenance of a homogenous national identity demands the eradication of idolatry; Deut 7:1–5 instructs the Israelites to enter the Promised Land and destroy the religious paraphernalia of its previous inhabitants. In the context of temporary exile, long-term Diaspora, or a nonautonomous homeland under foreign rule, however, idolatry is less a matter of national identity and more a matter of resisting assimilation. In these nonnational or nonautonomous settings, iconoclasm proper is rarely an option. Even if ancient Israelites could destroy altars in the land of Canaan, their descendants could not, for obvious reasons, burn temples in Babylon or destroy the manifestations of foreign worship in postexilic Judah under Persian and Roman rule. To advocate religious violence in these latter circumstances would have been divisive and dangerous; religious zeal was usually demonstrated through strict adherence to their own religion and refusal to engage with others, 33 not through the attempted destruction of Persian or Roman religious structures or artifacts. 34 In these circumstances, idols could be parodied for the benefit of Jews who might be tempted to worship them, but they could not be destroyed. I have tried to show by means of exegesis of the text itself, a comparison with Jubilees, and an examination of several possible biblical sources and influences that it is implausible that the authors of Genesis Rabbah’s idol shop story intended to portray Abraham as a committed iconoclast. In their own geopolitical context, as well as the context they envisaged for Abraham at the time of the idol shop story—that is, a Jew in someone else’s land, not a rebellious citizen in his own land—Abraham was very unlikely to have smashed idols as a deliberate act of iconoclasm. He was, however, very likely to have undermined them, in the mode of the anti-idol polemics in Isaiah 40–55, as I read them, as a means of distancing himself from the host religion and from family members who stayed in it, and of asserting his religious independence.

32. See Halbertal and Margalit, Idolatry, 1–8; and Josh Ellenbogen and Aaron Tugendhaft, eds., Idol Anxiety (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2011), 1–18. 33.  Multiple stories in the Babylonian Talmud and beyond come to mind in support of this claim: for example, the martyrdoms of Hanina ben Teradion in b. ʿAvod. Zar. 17b/18a and Rabbi Aqiba in b. Ber. 61b; and the story of the woman with seven sons in 2 Maccabees 7. 34.  I consulted several friends and colleagues (many thanks to them!) whose knowledge of postbiblical Jewish literature is immeasurably greater than mine, and they confirmed my impression that it is hard to think of stories or reports in which Diaspora or subjugated Jews destroyed or desecrated religious objects or buildings belonging to non-Jews. Jews did remove images from buildings they took over as part of the rebellion in Roman Palestine, but this is a different matter, and in any case I do not have in mind here a situation of active conflict.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution: The Biblical Tabernacle (ʿōhel môʿēd/miškān) and the Akkadian qersu

Natalie N. May Victor Avigdor Hurowitz’s dissertation 1 explored temple building in the Bible in the light of ancient Near Eastern sources. As Victor’s Doktortochter, I had the special pleasure of dedicating to his forthcoming Festschrift an essay that continued his study of the Tabernacle (in both method and theme). 2 It has been a great sorrow to continue working on the same paper for his memorial volume. My only comfort is that the memory of Victor as an extraordinary scholar, mentor, and friend lives on. The present contribution investigates the Tabernacle in a Mesopotamian context. It derives from a study of the Assyrian portable sanctuary qersu begun in my dissertation, which was written under Victor’s supervision and benefited greatly from his insightful thinking and erudition. 3 This article explores the connection between Akkadian qersu 4 and the biblical portable sanctuary, both of which were initially nomadic tent shrines. Both Akkadian and biblical sources preserved accounts of nomadic realia put on 1.  Victor A. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings, JSOTSup 5 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992). 2.  Idem, “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle,” JAOS 105 (1985): 21–30; idem, “The Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent Proposal,” JQR 86 (1995): 127–51. 3.  See also my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting: Its Origin, Depiction and Evolution,” in Proceedings of 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale—Moscow/ St. Petersburg, July 23–28, 2007, vol. 1: Language in the Ancient Near East, ed. L. Kogan et al.; Babel und Bibel 4/1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 441–89. 4.  For the West Semitic origin of the word qersu and its connection with Hebrew qereš, which Simo Parpola interprets as “board, prow (?),” and Ugaritic qrš, translated by him as “abode,” see Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, part 2: Commentary and Appendices, AOAT 5/2 (Kevelaer: Butzon  & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 65–66.

369

370

Natalie N. May

record already in sedentary society, thus presenting certain methodological difficulties. The evidence from Mari and Assyria describes the contemporary portable shrines, while the biblical accounts may preserve the collective historical memory at best. The biblical text refers to two different portable sanctuaries: 5 the nonPriestly Tent (ʿōhel môʿēd) and the Priestly Tabernacle, called both ʿōhel 5.  The LXX suggests the existence of one more portable sanctuary and portable divine symbols of celestial deities in Amos 5:26: καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ μολοχ καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν ραιφαν τοὺς τύπους αὐτῶν οὓς ἐποιήσατε ἑαυτοῖς. Original: ûnĕśāʾtem ʾēt sikkût malkĕkem wĕʾēt kîyyûn ṣalmêkem kôkab ʾĕlōhêkem ʾăšer ʿăśîtem lākem, “But you shall carry the tents (?) of your king, and Kaiwan (Saturn), your images of a star, which you made for yourself.” The passage is extremely difficult (see Francis I. Andersen, Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 24A [New York: Doubleday, 1989], 533–37). Andersen translates, “But you shall carry Sakkuth, your king, and Kaiwan, your star god, your images, which you made for yourself,” 529). Nevertheless, the LXX interpretation of sikkût(?) as sukkat, “tent/booth,” is not impossible. Notably, the Peshitta translates it as msknh! In this case, it would be the earliest (first half of the 8th century b.c.e.) evidence in the Bible for a portable sanctuary that also appears in connection with celestial divine symbols. Moreover, the reading sukkôt malkĕkem wĕʾēt kîyyûn ṣalmêkem kôkab ʾĕlōhêkem, though compromised by the translations of the LXX, Vulgate, and Peshitta by singular “tent,” is suggested by the Hebrew Bible’s rendering of skwt with waw (Rykle Borger, “Amos 5,26, Apostelgeschichte 7,43 und Šurpu II, 180,” ZAW 100 [1988]: 77). The translation then would be “tents of your king, and of Kaiwan, your images of the star of your god.” This draws a picture that immediately calls to mind the Lachish relief depicting the tent of King Sennacherib and the divine symbols worshiped by priests in the Assyrian military camp nearby (Richard D. Barnett, Erika Bleibtreu, and Geoffrey Turner, Sculptures from the Southwest Palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh [London: British Museum, 1996], pls. 322, 342–48; and below, n. 42); Andersen (Amos, 536) states that, if ever Israelites practiced planetary worship, it would have been under Assyrian influence and that “these Assyro-Babylonian deities here cannot come from Amos, or the period of Amos prophecies” (ibid.). However, Shalom M. Paul (Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, ed. F. M. Cross, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 194 with nn. 65–66) refutes the suggestion that “at least one of two gods, Sikkuth (‫)סּכּות‬, ִ is supposed to have been introduced into Israel only after the Assyrian conquest (2 Kgs 17: 30)” and that “many commentators . . . surmise that the verse is a later interpolation.” Paul (p. 197) notes further, “There is no reason to suspect this verse of being introduced by a later redactor after the Assyrian conquest,” since Mesopotamia astral cult could penetrate Israel through Aramean agency. To Paul’s argumentation, one can add that the equation of sikkût with dSAG.KUD (p. 195 with n. 72) is no longer valid after Borger’s collation of the relevant passage of Šurpu proved that dSAG.KUD is not to be found there (Borger, “Amos 5,26, Apostelgeschichte 7,43 und Šurpu II, 180”). The passage with its current interpretation constitutes a parallel to Mesopotamian and (particularly) Assyrian cult processions (Paul, Amos, 194, 197), when the king, the divine symbols, and the portable sanctuary processed in all their glory before the army and the commoners (Natalie N. May, “Royal Triumph as an Aspect of the Neo-Assyrian Decorative Program,” in Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008, ed. G. Wilhelm [Winona Lake: IN, Eisenbrauns, 2012], 461–88, e.g., at fig. 1).

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

371

môʿēd and miškān. 6 The descriptions of the Tent and the Tabernacle derive from different sources and their functions were different. 7 The description of the Tabernacle originates from the Priestly source (P), which means that it was composed in the Persian period. The Tent appears in the Jahwistic, Elohistic, and Deuteronomic sources, which were of an earlier date. The entity qersu is a “portable sanctuary” in Akkadian. 8 It is attested in two groups of texts as well. The smaller group consists of the 3 Mari texts. The larger group consists of 19 texts from the time of the Assyrian Sargonids. 9 Naturally, such a gap of time between the two groups suggests differences in usage and meaning, so one should actually differentiate between Amorite and NeoAssyrian qersu. Moreover, a portable sanctuary, represented as a baldachin structure, is depicted in the visual sources of the early Neo-Assyrian period. 10 As for the meaning of the qersu in Mari, Daniel Fleming suggested interpreting qersu in the Mari texts as “a heavy object that serves to raise the structure of the tent.” 11 The tent in question is a public structure that is analogous, in his view, to the biblical sanctuary Tent. It is noteworthy that in Mari texts qersū is a pluralis tantum. Moreover, in all three examples at our disposal, the plural of qersū is never indicated by a determinative but only phonetically and numerically, probably due to the foreign origin of the word. In two of the three cases, qersū is written with the determinative GIŠ and is mentioned in connection with ḫurpatum (M. 6754 and M. 6873; see below). It seems that in these cases the qersū are the wooden frames or posts of a tent. The word ḫurpatum is known only in Mari. 12 The only dictionary that has this entity is the Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, where it 6.  For detailed analyses of the Tent and the Priestly Tabernacle, see Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1978), 149–204, 260–75; as well as idem, “The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” JSS 5/1 (1960): 50–65; idem, “The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle,” HUCA 36 (1965): 191–226. 7.  Haran (“The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” 56) also points out that ʿōhel môʿēd is not a permanent abode of the godhead; miškān is the place where the godhead dwells (p. 58). 8.  For establishing the meaning of qersu in Akkadian as “portable sanctuary,” see my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting: Its Origin, Identification, Depiction and Evolution,” especially pp. 468–70. 9.  Ibid., 446–53. 10.  Ibid., 458–68. 11. Daniel Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” VT 50 (2000): 484–98, esp. p. 487. 12.  The meaning of the Middle Assyrian ḫu-ru-up-pa-a-te (KAV 1 col. VI 17, 20) is unclear (contra Jean-Marie Durand, AEM 1/1.115 with n. 68, who translates it “tent”). For the meaning of ḫurpatum, see idem, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles dans les textes de Mari, ARM 30, Matériaux pour le Dictionnaire de Babylonien de Paris 1 (Paris: CNRS, 2009), 46–47.

372

Natalie N. May

is translated “tent.” 13 Fleming points out that it can designate only the tent’s fabric. However, the meaning “baldachin” is also possible. 14 In the three Mari texts, the use of qersū provides a perfect parallel to qaršê hammiškān, which are mostly used in plural construct, and everywhere in the Bible, with one only exception, 15 are associated with miškān. Actually, qereš/qĕrāšîm/qaršê/ is found mostly in the description of the tent sanctuary in Exod 26:17–28 and 36:21–34, where it designates “frame” or “board.” 16 The use of qersū in the kispum ritual (M. 12803) dated to the reign of SamsīAddu I 17 differs from two other Mari texts mentioning qersū. The ḫurpatum does not appear in M. 12803, and the determinative GIŠ is absent. The ritual takes place at the qersū, which suggests that it is a shrine itself (M. 12803): 18 Column II  7. ūm gimkim  8. qersū  9. iššakkanū 10. imērum iddâk 11. ilū u enūt[um] 12. ina lib⸢bi qer⸣sī 13. uṣṣû ilum ana bītišu 14. šarru an[a] e[kalliš]u illak 13.  CDA, 122a. 14.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 487. On the meaning “tent” for the ḫurpatum, see Durand, AEM 1/1.114–15; and idem (La nomenclature des habits et des textiles, 47); Durand collected all the evidence for this entity and suggested the translation “tent.” Nevertheless, taking into consideration ḫurpa[tim] ša eleppi, “the ḫurpatum of the boat” (ARM 9 12, no. 22, lines 10–11), baldachin should not be excluded (Durand AEM 1/1.114; and idem, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles, 47). 15. Ezek 27:6; this exceptional passage is exhaustively treated by Fleming (“Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491). See also below. Parpola’s translation of qersu as “prow?” probably comes from here (see above, n. 4). 16. See Hurowitz, “The Form and Fate of the Tabernacle: Reflections on a Recent Proposal,” 134–43, 147–51, on the reconstruction of the Tabernacle’s wooden frame of qĕrāšîm. 17. Jean-Marie Durand and Michaël Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari, III,” in Recueil d’études à la mémoire de Marie-Thérèse Barrelet, ed. D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, Florilegium Marianum 3, Mémoires de NABU 4 (Paris: Société pour l’Étude du Proche-Orient Ancien 1997) 19–78; Daniel E. Fleming, “Chroniques bibliographiques, 1: Recent Work on Mari,” RA 93 (1999): 157–74, esp. p. 161. Durand and Guichard (pp. 63–64) and Fleming (p. 161) deduce the time of Samsī-Addu I as the date for this text based on calendrical considerations and on the fact that the ritual was performed as an ancestral cult for Sargon of Akkad and Narām-Sîn, who were closely associated with the dynasty of Samsī-Addu. The ritual was carried out in the month of ŠE.GUR10(KIN).KU5, which is only attested in the calendar of Samsī-Addu. 18.  As collated by Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 490–91. This text is fully published in Durand and Guichard, “Les rituels de Mari, III,” 63–70.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

373

Fleming translates qersū as “tent frames,” though he speaks of the qersū as a shrine in this ritual text. 19 I will argue that the term is used here as pars pro toto designating the entire structure and not just its wooden frame. This is confirmed by the absence of the determinative GIŠ, which is present in two other examples from Mari. Thus the proposed translation is: On the gimkim day the tent sanctuary is 20 installed. A donkey is killed. The gods and the utensils come out from inside the tent sanctuary. The god goes to his house (and) the king to his palace.

The text is a ritual of the funerary offerings (kispu) to the statues of Sargon of Akkad and Narām-Sîn. Maurice Birot saw in this ceremony a legitimation rite aimed at connecting the Dynasty of Samsi-Addu I with the hero-kings of Akkad—a practice that is also well attested for the Assyrian Sargonids. 21 Fleming is convinced that, since “the king is not said to leave the qersū, it appears that he is present but not inside” during the ritual. 22 This would mean that the rite actually took place outside the tent sanctuary; inside it, only the gods’ images and utensils were placed. This situation identical to the theophany at the door of the biblical (E) Tent (ʿōhel môʿēd) as it is described in Exod 33:9– 10 and elsewhere. 23 In the Neo-Assyrian period, the portable sanctuary qersu was mostly used during military campaigns, where it substituted for permanent temples. 24 Nevertheless, there is evidence for such a function of the qersū and the ḫurpatum in Mari in a letter that one of the king’s officials sent to another (M. 6754 = ARM 27, no. 124): 25 Obv. 2–5: [ana Šunu]ḫra-˹ḫa˺[lû˺ // [qib]ima // [umma Zi]mri-Addu // aḫukāma // x x x x kīma ˹ḫur˺[pa- (. . .) Rev. 1ʹ–10′: annumma ṭuppam a[na ṣēr šarri?] // ušābilam šupur[ma ḫurpa­tam] // šâti lilqūn[i]m[ma] // ša šuddun ḫu[rpatim šâti] // qadum GIŠ qersīša [epuš] // ana mātim šanītum ū˹lūma˺ tillatim // b[ēlī i]l[l]ak 19.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491–92. 20.  Qersū is translated here using a singular as a pluralis tantum. 21. Maurice Birot, “Fragment de rituel de Mari relatif au kispum,” in Death in Mesopotamia (ed. B. Alster; Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), 139–50, esp. pp. 139 and 148–49. 22.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491. 23.  Haran, “The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” 55–56; and Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 265–67. See also the worship of divine standards at the entrance to the Neo-Assyrian qersu (below). 24.  See my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 470–72. 25.  Following Maurice Birot Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qattunân, ARM 27 (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1993), 211. See also Wolfgang Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary, MC 12 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2003), 453.27 124 for the translation.

374

Natalie N. May

ḫurpatam // [lā]? ˹i˺kallūnim // [ina anneti]m a[t]ḫutka // [u rāʾimūtka] lūmur Obv. 2–5: [Say to Šunu]ḫra-˹ḫa˺[lû˺: [so (says) Zi]mri-Addu, your brother . . . as for the ˹tent] (. . .). Rev. 1ʹ–10′: Here I have sent a letter to the [king?]. Write [and] may they fetch me this [tent]. [Make] so that this tent will be handed over together with its qersus. (If) [my lo]rd will go to another land or e[lse], to the aid (of someone), they shall [not?] withhold the tent. Let me see your brotherly attitude [and friendship] in this! Durand and Fleming identify GIŠqersū in this text as the supporting wooden construction of a tent. 26 The last Mari text that mentions qersū is M. 6873. 27 It is an administrative text, listing the number of men responsible for each part of the tent: 28 ḫurpatum rabītum 16 awīlū 10 GIŠqersū 20 awīlū 5 GIŠmuzzazū 5 awīlū 14 GIŠmurudû 2 awīlū napḫarum 43 awīlū ša ḫurpatim rabītim . . . 10 GIŠqersū 3 GIŠmurudû 2 awīlū našû One large tent (by) 16 men, 10 qersus (by) 20 men, 5 bases? (by) 5 men, 3 fence units? (by) 2 men—total: 43 men pertaining to the large tent— . . . 10 qersus (and) 3 fence units? (by) 2 men are carried. The assignment to certain Levitical families of responsibility for the transportation of various parts of the miškān provides a striking parallel to this text. According to the Bible, the Gershonites were responsible for the covers and other skin and textile components of the Tabernacle and the altar; the furniture and other sacral utensils were assigned to the Kohathites; and carrying the frames (qaršê hammiškān), bars, posts, and sockets was the duty of the Merari family: 26.  Fleming “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 487 with n. 11, “Without translation, Durand identifies the qersum as a heavy object that serves to raise the structure of the tent, with reference to ARM XXVII 124: 4′−5′ and the Hebrew noun qereš.” 27.  Unpublished, partially cited by Durand and Guichard, Les rituels de Mari, III, 65−66. 28. Following Fleming “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 486−87; and Durand and Guichard, Les rituels de Mari, III, 65−66.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

375

ûpĕqudat mišmeret bĕnê mĕrārî qaršê hammiškān ûbĕrîḥāyw wĕʿammudāyw waʾădānāyw wĕkol-kēlāyw wĕkōl ʿăbōdātô wĕʿammudê heḥāṣēr sābîb wĕʾadnê­ hem wîtēdōtām ûmêtrêhem The marshalled force bearing the Merarite assignment is charged with the planks of the Tabernacle (qaršê hammiškān), and its bolts; its posts and its sockets, and all of its appurtenances, and their complete construction, also the posts of the courtyard, on every side; and their sockets, their tent pegs, and their lashings. (Num 3:36−37) 29

Although, as was shown by Fleming, 30 the tent in Mari text M. 6873 was extraordinary in size, since 43 men were needed to carry its parts, it was certainly smaller than the Priestly Tabernacle. According to M. 6873, this large tent had 10 qersus; each of these qersus needed 2 men to carry it. The Tabernacle had 48 qĕrāšîm (Exod 26:18−25). If, as Fleming suggests, 31 qersū-frames and qĕrāšîm were comparable in size, the large Mari tent in M. 6873, which had only 10 qersūs, was 5 times smaller than the Priestly Tabernacle. Moreover, if we translate muzzazū as “bases” or “stands,” as Fleming does 32 and as we can only agree, then their construction must be different from that of the ʾădānîm (“sockets”) of the Tabernacle: in the Mari text, only 1 muzzazu corresponds to 2 qersū, whereas, in the biblical text, 2 ʾădānîm are necessary for each qereš. The text describes the ḫurpatum, which here obviously specifies the tent’s cover, as “large.” But Fleming 33 presumes the existence of smaller tents of this type whose fabric weighed only 30 kg, in his estimation. 34 The texts do not mention the qersū in conjunction with the smaller tents, since for small tents the wooden frames would be unnecessary. 35 In the Bible, qĕrāšîm with one exception only (see below) are characteristic of the miškān and are not associated with any other tent, including the non-Priestly ʿōhel môʿēd or any other structure. Haran notices that these are qĕrāšîm, which distinguish the construction of the Priestly Tabernacle from that of a simple tent. 36 They obviously were perceived as being used in a special sort of construction that was necessary to raise a very large tent. Possibly the same was the case with the Mari qersū, 29.  Translation following Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 4A (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 153. 30.  Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 488. 31.  Ibid., 490. 32.  Ibid., 487. 33.  Ibid., 488 with n. 16. 34.  Ibid. 35.  See Phillippe Talon, Texts administratives des salles “Y et Z” du palais de Mari, ARM 24 (Paris: Editiones Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1985), 99, 238; and Durand, La nomenclature des habits et des textiles, 46−47, for the meaning of ḫurpatum, and the catalog of the Mari texts where it occurs (nos. 8, 10). 36.  Haran, Temples and Temple-Service, 195.

376

Natalie N. May

Figure 1.  The White Obelisk VI A–B. Representation of a triumph. The divine standard on the royal chariot and the winged quadruped (cherub?) on the ridge of what is perhaps a representation of the Assyrian portable shrine on the march. After Edmond Sollberger, “The White Obelisk,” Iraq 36 (1974): pls. 42–43. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

which makes them a distinctive feature of the cultic or public tent. This is why we describe this term as pars pro toto in M. 12803 and in the Neo-Assyrian texts. In Mari, the qersū were a distinctive characteristic of rather large tent structures, and thus qersū gradually became the term for the later public tents or tent sanctuaries. According to M. 6873, the third element of the Mari portable sanctuary is murudû, “grating fence (?).” Unlike qersū and ḫurpatum, it is not Amorite but a Sumerian loanword in Akkadian. 37 It has neither cognates in Biblical Hebrew, nor parallel constructive elements in the structure of the Priestly Tabernacle. 38 The Neo-Assyrian portable sanctuary obviously was not a nomadic sort of tent. It served as a cultic center at the military camp and as an installation for purification rights, particularly in the Late Assyrian period. 39 Nevertheless, it shows certain similarities with the Priestly Tabernacle. First of all, the Neo-Assyrian qersu is closely associated with the divine symbols, as can be traced in both texts and pictorial sources (e.g., figs. 1–3). 40 37.  CAD M/1 230. 38.  See also Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 487 with n. 14. 39.  May, “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 445−72, especially pp. 454 and 470. 40.  See VAT 10464, rev., col. VI, lines 3–11: našpartu ina GIŠqersi ušerrab ušeššab dariu ina[ssaḫ] silqu epp[al] [unī]qu iqallu ḫariu ipatte našpartu ina libâni ša rab! šipirte ikar!rar ana Libbi-āli illaka kî kunukku issu Libbiāli ana muḫḫi urigallu illakanni He brings the letter into the qersu (and) puts (it there), makes sacrifices, offers boiled food, he burns a female kid (and) opens a ḫariu, puts the letter on the neck of the message master, comes to Aššur. When the sealed (letter) from Aššur upon the divine symbol comes. . . .

And the Assyrian war ritual performed with the war chariots carrying divine standards (Karlheinz Deller, “Neuassyrische Rituale für den Einsatz der Götterstreitwagen,” in Erica

Figure 2.  Baldachin structure within the representation of the Assyrian royal battlefield ritual. Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 b.c.e.). Throne room of the Northwest Palace at Kalhu. After Austin H. Layard, The Monuments of Nineveh from Drawings Made on the Spot [London: Murray, 1853], pl. 30. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 377

378

Natalie N. May

Figure 3.  Assyrian royal battlefield ritual. The chariots with the king and the divine symbols are approaching the baldachin structure qersu. Ashurnasirpal II. The throne room of

the North-West Palace at Kalhu. After Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, pls. 21, 22,

One of the important functions of the divine symbols from the earliest periods was to provide the divine’s presence in the army at war. For this purpose, they were taken on military campaigns. This practice is evident in the written sources, beginning with Gudea’s time. 41 Artistic representations of the diBleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götterstreiwagen und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM 23 [1992]: 341–46, pls. 67–69; May, “Royal Triumph as an Aspect of the Neo-Assyrian Decorative Program,” 462; K.10209, lines 19, 25, 38, 44–46): issi muḫḫi narkabte ša dNergal inassūn[e] . . . amēlu šaniu issi dBēlat-dunāni irakkubu . . . šarru . . . erāb āli ana madākti uppaš // [an]a qersi errab // naptunu iššakkan [ša]rru iḫaddu from the chariot of (the standard) of—N.N.M.) Nergal they raise the “second man” rides (in a chariot—N.N.M.) with (a standard of—N.N.M.) Bēlat-dunāni . . . (the king . . .) performs a triumphal entrance into the camp. He enters the qersu. A meal is prepared. The king rejoices.

See my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 458–66, 485 with figs. 1–14 and 17 for the catalog of representations of the baldachin structures in Assyrian art; Austin H. Layard, The Monuments of Nineveh from Drawings Made on the Spot (London: Murray, 1853), pls. 21, 22, 30; Shalmaneser III’s Balawat Gates, passim and probably Paul E. Botta and Eugène Flandin, Monument de Ninive, vol. 2: Architecture et Sculpture (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849), pl. 146. For the identification of the baldachin structure of the Neo-Assyrian reliefs with the qersu, see my article “The Qersu in Neo-Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 458–68, 470–72. 41.  See Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Mesopotamische Standarten in Literarische Zeugnissen,” in Erica Bleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götterstreiwagen und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM 23 (1992): 299–340, esp. pp. 306, 316, 323, 337–39. In the following two examples, the campaign designated ḫarranu, lit., “way, road,” is mentioned in connection with the divine standard: ina alāk harrānu urinnāku, “on (military) campaign I am a standard” (see “The Poem of Erra,” in Luigi Cagni, Das Erra-Epos: Keilschrifttext, Studia Pohl 5 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970], 7, col. I, 1ine 114).

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

379

and 30. Details: the upper parts of the divine standards with representations of the gods. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

vine standards accompanying the army were known already from the stele of Narām-Sîn (fig.  4) and became particularly widespread in the Neo-Assyrian period (figs.  3, 6). 42 Šamšī-Adad V boasts of capturing the standards of his Babylonian adversary. 43 The association of the Ark of the Covenant with the Priestly Tabernacle in the Bible is similar to the association of divine symbols with the qersu. 44 The ark and the Tabernacle are created by the same command (Exodus 25–26) and often move together (1 Kgs 8:4; 1 Chr 15:1; 2 Chr 5:5); the Ark is to stand See also the seal inscription of Aššur-šumu-iddina: ša Aššur-šumu-iddina šangû Ninurta/Nergal(?) Adad ša harrānu epāše Ninurta/Nergal(?) Adad ša Kalḫi (ša Aš+šur-MU-ŠUM-na dMAŠ.⟨MAŠ⟩ dIM šá KASKAL DÙ dMAŠ d IM šá URUKal-ḫi . . .) the seal of Aššur-šumu-iddina, the high-priest of Ninurta/Nergal(?) (and) Adad that go on campaign (and of) Ninurta/Nergal(?) (and) Adad of Kalḫu.

Concerning the reading KASKAL DÙ, I completely agree with the argument of Beate Pongratz-Leisten and Karlheinz Deller contra Wilfred G. Lambert (Beate Pongratz-Leisten and Karlheinz Deller, “Zum Siegel des Aššur-šumu-iddina,” NABU [1991]: 77; Karlheinz Deller, “Einleitung,” in Erica Bleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götterstreiwagen und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM 23 [1992]: 291–98, esp. p. 294; and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Mesopotamische Standarten in Literarische Zeugnissen,” 338–39; Wilfred G. Lambert, “A Late Assyrian Seal Inscription,” NABU [1991]: 14; idem, “The Seal of Aššur-šumu-iddina Again,” NABU [1991]: 111). 42.  See also Erica Bleibtreu, “Standarten auf Neuassyrischen Reliefs und Bronzetreibarbeiten,” in Erica Bleibtreu, Karlheinz Deller, and Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Götterstreiwagen und Götterstandarten: Götter auf dem Feldzug und ihr Kult im Feldlager,” BaghM 23 (1992): 291–357, pls. 349–56 and pls. 50–66. 43.  Ernst F. Weidner, “Die Feldzuge Šamši-Adad V. Gegen Babylonien,” AfO 9 (1933): 89–104, esp. pp. 95, 100. 44.  For the portable sanctuary and portable divine symbols of celestial deities in Amos 5:26, see n. 5.

380

Natalie N. May

Figure 4.  The divine standards on the stele of Narām-Sîn.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

381

Figure 5.  Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.). Band IV, upper register. Baldachin structure inside Assyrian camp. The king is performing a ritual in front of it. After Leonard W. King and E. A. Wallis Budge, Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser King of Assyria b.c. 860–825 (London: British Museum, 1915), pl. 20. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

inside the Tabernacle (Exod 26:33; 28:21, 40:2–3). Haran notes that “in the Priestly Source the Ark is described as a fixed and inseparable part of the Tabernacle,” 45 but in the JE sources it is “a portable object in the full sense of the term” that can be removed from the sanctuary when the people are on the march or in a procession or at war. Julian Morgenstern argued that the Ark itself was a kind of portable shrine in the form of a tent. 46 Some scholars suggested that the Priestly “Ark of the Testimony” (Exod 30:26 and passim) was conceived as containing two tablets inscribed with the Decalogue, in a likeness of the Ark of the Temple of Solomon (1 Sam 8:9). 47 The divine standards associated with the Assyrian portable sanctuary are two poles with the emblems that appear following the royal chariot at the head of the attacking army (fig. 6) or in a triumphal procession (figs. 1, 3). 48 45.  Haran, “The Nature of the ‘Ohel Moʿedh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” 50; Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 261. 46. Julian Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting,’” HUCA 17 (1942–43): 153–266 at 229–66; and especially pp. 249–50. 47.  Ibid., 230. 48.  For the contents of the portable sanctuaries of the Semitic-speaking nomads, see also ibid., 213–14, concerning the pair of goddesses or bethyls in the pre-Islamic Bedouin portable sanctuaries.

382

Natalie N. May

The Ark, which was the receptacle for the divine presence, 49 was used in military campaigns, just as the divine symbols were in Mesopotamia. It preceded the tribes of Israel at their entrance into Canaan, showing them the way and drying up the waters of the Jordan (Josh 3:3–17; 4:18). It accompanied the procession around the walls of the besieged Jericho (Josh 6:5–8, 10–12). Finally, Israelites brought along the Ark to support their army in the second battle against the Philistines at Ebenezer (1 Sam 4:3–6), where it was captured by the latter (fig. 7; 1 Sam 4:11). This event was perceived as the abandonment of Israel by Yhwh (1 Sam 4:21). 50 It is noteworthy that all the biblical evidence for the participation of the Ark in military campaigns is connected with the premonarchic period and belongs to a non-Priestly source. After the Ark was put inside the Temple, no biblical narratives recount its removal until the destruction of the First Temple. It seems that the only function of the Amorite nomadic tent sanctuary preserved in the use of the Neo-Assyrian qersu was its use as a portable sanctuary on military campaigns, when the divine symbols were also kept inside it and worshiped when installed in front of it. 51 Rituals were performed in front of the baldachin structure qersu in the Assyrian camp (figs. 3, 5). 52 The other feature common to the Tabernacle and the qersu is the materials out of which they were produced. The determinative GIŠ, which often appears with qersu, indicates that the wooden construction was a significant part both of the Neo-Assyrian military shrine 53 and the Mari large tent. Wooden frames (qaršê hammiškān) are characteristic of the Priestly Tabernacle. It seems that in Mesopotamia as well as in the Bible, the wooden construction of the portable sanctuaries was different from the construction of the regular tents and was a distinctive feature of the tent shrines. 49.  For example,, see the discussion in ibid., 237–38. 50.  The ephod of Benjamin plays the same role at the Battle of Michmas (1 Sam 14:3, 18, 20); see ibid., 8–9. 51.  The divine symbols are shown being worshiped in front of but not inside the tent (Richard D. Barnett and Margarete Falkner, The Sculptures of Assur-Nasir-Apli II [883–859 b.c.], Tiglath-pileser III [745–727 b.c.], Esarhaddon [681–669 b.c.] from the Central and South-West Palaces at Nimrud, Assyrian Sculptures in the British Museum 3 [London: British Museum, 1962], pl. 60; Paul E. Botta and Eugène Flandin, Monument de Ninive, vol. 2: Architecture et Sculpture [Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1849], pl. 146). The Mari kispum text M.  12803, which uses the qersū to designate the entire portable sanctuary, mentions also the divine emblem (Durand and Guichard, Les rituels de Mari, III, 68, col. iii, line 8, written GIŠTUKUL, “weapon”). Unfortunately, the text in this part is too broken to permit understanding the connection between these two entities. Durand and Guichard (lines 8–9) reconstruct gišTUKUL [ša d . . .. . . i-na É . . . ] uṣ-[ṣí-ma a-na É . . .], “the standard [of the god in the house . . .] withdr[aw to the house . . .]. 52.  See also my “Royal Triumph as an Aspect of the Neo-Assyrian Decorative Program,” 461–67. 53.  May, “The Qersu in Neo Assyrian Cultic Setting,” 456–57.

Figure 6.  The divine standards following the royal chariot at the head of the attacking army. After Layard, Monuments of Nineveh, pls. 13–14. Details (6a–b): the upper parts of the standards with representations of the gods. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution 383

384

Natalie N. May

Figure 7.  Dura-Europos Synagogue (245–256 c.e.). Panel WB4. The Ark captured by the Philistines in the second battle at Ebenezer (1 Sam 4:3–6). After Carl H. Kraeling et al., The Excavations at Dura-Europos: Conducted by the Yale University and the French Academy of Inscriptions and Letters: Final Report VIII, Part I: The Synagogue (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1956), pl. 56.

A letter to Sargon II from Aššur-ālik-pāni, the king’s military official on the northeastern Assyrian frontier, reveals that the qersu was made of linen and leather: 54 qersēya pāniūte ibašši lā ˹dam˺qu šaniūte eššūte ú-TAR-si lā gammurū ina muhhi Adad-ibni šarru bēliya ˹l˺išpura GIŠqersē damqāte ša eliš kitê šapliš KUŠ ˹t˺unimme ˹is˺sēniš l[išpur]˹ū˺[ni] GIŠ

My previous tent-shrines (GIŠqersus) were not good and I have . . .ed new ones, but they are not ready. May the king, my lord, write to Adad-ibni that they should [send me] good tent-shrines (GIŠqersus), (furnished) with linen abo[ve] and with tunimmu-leather below.

It should be stressed that the word KUŠtunimmu used in this text to designate the material from which the qersu was made is a hapax. Only the determinative 54.  Giovanni B. Lanfranchi and Simo Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, part 2: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces, SAA 5 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1990), 115–16, no. 152, rev. lines 6–10.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

385

Figure 8.  Balawat Gates of Shalmaneser III (858–824 b.c.e.). Band IV, upper register. Double baldachin structure qersu. After King and Budge, Bronze Reliefs, pl. 10. © Copyright of the Trustees of the British Museum. Reproduced with permission.

KUŠ permits establishing KUŠtunimmu as being some kind of a leather. It is evidence for the use of a rare, presumably luxurious sort of leather to construct the Assyrian tent sanctuary. In addition to precious woods and linen used for the Tabernacle, it was covered with the exquisite, red-dyed leather (ʿōrōt ʾêlim mĕʾāddāmîm) and an exotic “tâḥaš leather” 55 (?; ōrōt tĕḥāšîm; Exod 26:14; 35:23; 36:19). Finally, the Neo-Assyrian pictorial sources often represent a portable field sanctuary as a luxuriously decorated double baldachin structure (figs. 2, 8). The relief of Assurnasirpal II (fig. 2) displays a Neo-Assyrian portable sanctuary ornamented with various apotropaic symbols, such as rosettes, pomegranates and cones. Its columns are topped with the images of goats. Cherubs, which are apotropaic images as well and a cognate of the Akkadian kurību/ 55.  Yellow- or orange-dyed leather, according to Hayim Tadmor, “‫ ָ ּתחַׁש‬,” EM 8.520 –21. Stephanie Dalley (“Hebrew taḥaš, Akkadian duḫšu, Faience and Beadwork,” JSS 45 [2000]: 1–19, especially p. 17) suggests that it was a leather decorated with beadwork, both colored mainly blue or turquoise, as suggested by the LXX (δέρματα ὑακίνθινα) and Vulgate (ianthae pelles). The Akkadian cognate of taḥaš is duḫšu (ibid., 8–9; Tadmor, “‫)” ָ ּתחַׁש‬.

386

Natalie N. May

Figure 9.  The plan of the Tabernacle and its enclosure. After Menahem Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 152. © Eisenbrauns. Reproduced with permission.

kāribu, 56 decorated the linen covers of the Priestly Tabernacle (Exod 26: 1), the veil of the Ark (Exod 26: 31) and the Ark itself (Exod 25: 18–20). A winged 56.  See T. N. D. Mettinger, “Cherubim,” in Dictionaries of Demons and Deities in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd rev. ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 189–92, especially p. 191b.

Portable Sanctuaries and Their Evolution

387

quadruped, as were the cherubs, appears on the ridge of what possibly is a representation of the Assyrian portable shrine on the march (fig. 1). Following the description of the Priestly Tabernacle (Exod. 26) most scholars reconstruct it as a rectangular structure, open on one side and divided into two by the veil; behind it, in the rear part of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies, stood the Ark (fig. 9). 57 We do not have a plan of the Assyrian portable sanctuary, but its elevations and sections permit one to assume that it was a rectangular structure which often consisted of two parts: rear and front (figs. 2, 8). I suggest the following scheme for the evolution of the qersu. In Mari, it was introduced as the wooden frames (qersū) of the West Semitic nomadic portable sanctuary, analogous to the biblical Priestly Tabernacle (ʾōhel môʿēd) and its qĕrāšîm. Gradually, due to its being a distinctive feature of a tent sanctuary, the term qersū came to be employed pars pro toto meaning the entire portable shrine, not just its frame. The donkey sacrifice, which is a typically nomadic Amorite rite, 58 takes place in the qersū according to the kispum ritual (M. 12803, lines 10–12), thus proving the West Semitic character of the whole ritual and its attributes beyond Hebrew and Ugaritic cognates. 59 Qersū/qersu was introduced into Akkadian with the meaning “tent sanctuary” or “portable sanctuary,” which it later had in the Neo-Assyrian texts. The text of the funeral offerings ritual (M. 12803), where qersū is first attested with this meaning, is attributed to Samsī-Addu I, the Assyrian ruler of Mari. Thus, perhaps the term qersū as a “portable shrine” was colloquial in Assyrian Amorite, and the portable sanctuary itself together with the word designating it survived in Assyria as a heritage of the Amorite nomadic milieu. The use of qĕrāšîm in Ezek 27:6 is exceptional. 60 This metaphor likening Tyre to a ship is the only place where this word appears not in conjunction with the Tabernacle. In this passage, qĕrāšîm is obviously not part of the sacral inventory but an installation that belonged to a ship. This installation was made of wood inlaid with ivory. Significantly, in Mari a baldachin structure of a ship is ḫurpatum: 4 ṣubātuša ana ḫurpa[tim] ša eleppi išša[k]nu ana Mari 57.  Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 150–53. 58.  ḫayyarum qatālum, “slaughtering of a donkey” (Bertrand Lafont, “Relations internationale, alliances et diplomatie au temps des rois de Mari: Essai de synthèse,” in Mari, Ebla et les Hourrites—dix ans de travaux: Actes du colloque international (Paris, mai 1993), 2 vols., ed. Jean-Marie Durand and Dominique Charpin, Amurru 1–2 [Paris: Édition Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1996–2001], 2.213–328, esp. pp. 263–71); compare with the Syrian Ruwala-Bedouins’ rite of annually sacrificing a white camel to the tribal ancestor in front of a portable sanctuary, described by Morgenstern (“The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting,’” 158) and Jaussen, Curtiss, and Musil (apud Morgenstern, ibid., 167–69 and 182). 59.  See also Fleming, “Mari’s Large Public Tent and the Priestly Tent Sanctuary,” 491. 60.  Greenberg interprets qereš here as a collective (Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 22 [New York: Doubleday, 1997], 549) and translates “Your planking they made of ivory-inlaid cypress from the Kittean islands” (p. 545).

388

Natalie N. May

ub[l]u[šun]uti, “4 textiles were set out for the baldachin of the ship and they brought them to Mari.” 61 In my view, the qĕrāšîm in Ezek 27:6 most likely designate the posts of the ship baldachin structure or the entire structure as pars pro toto, similar to the qersū in the funerary offerings text (M. 12803). The passage qaršēk ʿāśû-šēn bat-ʾăšurîm mēʾîyê kitîyim should be translated “They made your posts(!) of ivory-inlaid cypress from the Kittean islands.” Ezekiel probably preserves the only original profane West Semitic meaning of qĕrāšîm as a wooden support of a tent or a baldachin of the ship’s deck in the Bible. Taking into consideration the Babylonian background of the book of Ezekiel and its date prior to P, 62 I suggest that it may reflect a meaning of qĕrāšîm as a wooden frame in a secular context, the frame of a tent or a baldachin, which was eventually lost by the Priestly source, where qĕrāšîm appeared only in conjunction with the Tabernacle as the “posts” or the “poles of the Tabernacle” but nothing else. The Mari portable sanctuary, ḫurpatum or qersū, constitutes a historical parallel to the Priestly Tabernacle as well as to the Elohistic Tent, sharing common features with both. It has often been noted that the Priestly “account of the Tabernacle is a kind of historical fiction.” 63 It has been suggested as well that the Tabernacle was modeled after the Temple. 64 The descriptions of the Tabernacle, the Temple, 65 and the shrine of Shilo, which itself had been a tabernacle, 66 share much in common. However, the Tabernacle and the Shilo shrine were items to be reconstructed by the time of the composition of the Priestly source. Taking into consideration the similarities of the qersu and the biblical miškān, discussed above, I suggest that the Priestly account of the Tabernacle may have been inspired by the Assyrian portable shrine.­­ 61.  ARM 9, no. 22, lines 9–11. See also Talon, Texts administratives des salles “Y et Z” du palais de Mari, 99. 62.  Between 593–571 b.c.e., in accordance with Lawrence Boadt (“Ezekiel, Book of,” ABD 2.711–72, esp. p. 711) and Moshe Greenberg (Ezechiel 1–20, HTKAT [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2001], 32). 63. E.g., Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 188, 197. 64.  Ibid., 189–94. 65.  Morgenstern, “The Ark, the Ephod, and the ‘Tent of Meeting,’” 24. 66.  Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel, 201.

“Your Father Is an Amorite and Your Mother a Hittite” (Ezekiel 16:3)

Bustenay Oded The term ‫( חת‬Heth) and its derivatives as toponym, ethnonym, and gentilic are used widely in varying contexts in the Old Testament, from Genesis to Chronicles, mainly in the stereotyped lists of the “seven nations” (Deut 7:1) that inhabited the land of Canaan before the tribes of Israel conquered the Promised Land. 1 In relevant nonbiblical sources from the second and first millennia b.c.e., Ḫatti has diverse geographical and political renderings at different times (Anatolia, North Syria, Syria–Palestine, and “Beyond the Rivers,” a general phrase that essentially meant “west”); likewise, the term Amurru. 2 It is universally accepted that the Bible was composed and edited by several scribes and editors at different times, in Palestine (especially in Judah) and in the Diaspora. Therefore, the terms ‫ חת‬and ‫ אמרי‬should be interpreted (geographically, politically, symbolically, and metaphorically) in accord with the specific time and place of the given text, the source, the worldview of the biblical author and the “life setting” (Sitz im Leben). This essay does not discuss the place of origin, the ethnogenesis, or the history of the biblical Hittites. These complex issues give rise to a wealth of Author’s note:  I have the honor of dedicating this paper to the memory of my colleague and friend Avigdor in appreciation for his lucid and perceptive studies of many issues relating to ancient Israel and ancient Near East. I am grateful to Dr. Shei Gordin, who was kind enough to read a draft of this paper and offered valuable suggestions. 1.  For the study of these lists, see Tomoo Ishida, “The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite Nations,” Bib 60 (1979): 461–90; John Van Seters, “The Terms ‘Amorite’ and ‘Hittite’ in the Old Testament,” VT 22 (1972): 68–71 2.  Ishida, “Structure,” 467–69; John D. Hawkins, “Hatti,” in RlA 4.152–59; A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5 (Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1975), 100–102 [repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2000]; Simo Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, AOAT 6 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Ke­velaer: Butzon & Bercker, 1970), 17–18, 157–58; Ran Zadok, “Anatolians in the Neo-Assyrian Documents,” in Pax Hethitica, ed. Yoram Cohen et al. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 411–39.

389

390

Bustenay Oded

opinions because the biblical evidence itself is not uniform. 3 Instead, it discusses Ezekiel’s unique statement in regard to Jerusalem, ‫אביך האמרי ואמך‬ ‫חתית‬, especially the expression “your mother is a Hittite” (Ezek 16:3). The “mother” is a metaphorical image of Jerusalem and Judah, just as “your elder sister was Samaria” alludes to the defunct Kingdom of Israel (v. 46; compare Ezekiel 23 and Jer 3:6–11). Both Jerusalem and Samaria, that is, the “house of Israel,” are metaphorically two sisters, “daughters of a Hittite mother and an Amorite father” (v. 45). Thus, the inquiry adopts a literary-historical analysis rather than a historical approach to the text for a better understanding of its meaning and significance. The intricate ontological statement “by origin and birth you are from the land of the Canaanite; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite” (v. 3) raises two thorny problems: (1) According to Israelite consciousness and self-identity as it is reflected in the Bible, the ancestry of the tribes of Israel is not the “cursed” Canaanite (e.g., Gen 9:25; Jer 2:2; Hos 2:17) or Hittite or Amorite. 4 Nowhere in the Bible is it said that the Patriarchs or their descendants are Canaanites, Amorites or Hittites. In the stereotyped lists of the 3.  The amount of literature is immense. This paper has benefited immensely from the comments of other scholars, especially from the systematic study and insightful publications of Singer. See Itamar Singer, “The Hittites and the Bible Revisited,” in I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, 2 vols., ed. Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 2.723–56 and the bibliographical references there. Ultimately, I concur with Singer’s conclusion (p. 756) that the biblical Hittites have nothing to do with the Anatolian Hittites. Rather, the term “Hittite” served as a synonym for “Canaanite” and “Amorite,” generally denoting the inhabitants of Syria–Palestine, in accordance with the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian usage of the term from the late century on. . . . This, of course, does not diminish in the least the importance of Hittite-Israelite parallels.

Also, ibid., p. 726 on the identity of “outland” Hittites (i.e., Anatolian or North Syrian Hittites, e.g., Judg 1:26; 1 Kgs 10:29; 2 Kgs 7:6) and “inland” Hittites (i.e., originally SemiticCanaanite “Hittites”). For the various opinions, see Harry. A. Hoffner, “Hittites,” in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. Alfred J. Hoerth et al. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 127–55; Nadav Naʾaman, “The ‘Conquest of Canaan’ in the Book of Joshua and in History,” in From Nomadic to Monarchy, ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naʾaman (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1994), 234–46. 4. Peter Machinist, “The Question of Distinctiveness in Ancient Israel: An Essay,” in Ah, Assyria . . . , ed. Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephʿal (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991), 196–212. Machinist isolates approximately 433 distinctive passages in the Hebrew Bible, of which over 20 are in the book of Ezekiel (pp. 203–4); idem, “‘Outsiders’ and ‘Insiders’: The Biblical View of Emergent Israel and Its Context,” in The Other in Jewish Thought and History, ed. Laurence J. Silberstein and Robert L. Cohen (New York: New York University Press, 1994), 35–60; Julie Galambush, Jerusalem in the Book of Ezekiel: The City as Yahweh’s Wife, SBLDS 130 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992), 81–82. For Jewish interpretations of Ezek 16:3, see Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Jerusalem and Israel, Synonyms or Antomyms? Jewish Exegesis of Ezekiel’s Prophesies against Jerusalem,” in After Ezekiel: Essays on the Recep-

“Your Father Is an Amorite and Your Mother a Hittite”

391

indigenous ethnic groups and political units (e.g., Deut 7:1; 1 Kgs 9:20; 2 Chr 8:7–8), the Israelites are not enumerated. Israel is the seed of the archon eponymous Abraham (Isa 41:8, and see Ezek 33:23–24) and the seed of the “house of Jacob” (Ezek 20:5; Gen 12:9; Isa 51:1–2; 65:9; Jer 33:26). In Deut 26:5, we read, “My father was a fugitive Aramean.” Laban, the father of Jacob’s wives, is Aramean. Abraham’s place of origin is Ur in southern Babylonia and not Canaan (Gen 11:28). Abraham emigrates from his homeland to settle in Canaan (Gen 12:1–5). Abraham and his progeny have the status of ‫“( גר‬sojourner, resident-alien,” Gen 23:4; 26:3; Exod 6:4) in Canaan. Canaan is not their land of origin (Ezek 16:3, ‫)מכרתיך ומלדתיך‬. According to the biblical traditions, the tribes invaded from the south and east, conquered Canaan, and settled there. The noteworthy remark ‫ הן עם לבדד ישכן ובגוים לא יתחשב‬evinces a notion of uniqueness, a concept that underlines the sense of “we” vis-à-vis the “other.” Ezekiel knew and used the Israelite traditions about the Patriarchs (e.g., Ezek 20:5; 33:24), the exodus, the covenant between God and Israel, the cliché of the “seven nations” ‫( אשר לא מבני ישראל המה‬1 Kgs 9:20), and the covenant as a metaphor for a marriage relationship. 5 (2) A question of gender: Why does the prophet designate the mother as a Hittite and the father as an Amorite and not the reverse? Is this by chance, or is it intentional? In the following, I shall try to show that the prophetic statement designating Israel as the offspring of a mixed marriage of heathen parents whose place of origin is Canaan and that the mother is of a Hittite origin cannot be fortuitous but results from an accumulation of traditions and values pertaining directly and indirectly (1) to certain traditions on Israel’s settlement in Canaan; (2) to an ethnic group that is designated in several biblical passages as Hittites; and (3) to Ezekiel’s distinctive perspectives on Israel’s history and character, using rhetorical language and symbolic motifs in the form of allegory. Ezekiel  16 presents an image of Jerusalem on a metaphorical level. 6 A.  ‫“( בית מרי‬a rebellious breed”).  This phrase is a unique expression in the book of Ezekiel (e.g., Ezek 2:5, 6; 3:7–9; in Isa 30:9, ‫)עם מרי‬. Jerusalem tion of a Difficult Prophet, ed. Andrew Mein and Paul M. Joyce (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2011), 89–114 5.  Elaine J. Adler, “The Background for the Metaphor of Covenant as Marriage in the Bible” (diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1990); Rimon Kasher, Ezekiel, vol. 1: Chapters 1–24, Miqra Leyisrael: A Biblical Commentary for Israel, ed. Shmuel Aḥituv (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2004), 41; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, trans. Ronald. E. Clements, ed. Frank M. Cross et al., Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 337–38, esp. pp. 347–48; Galambush, Jerusalem, 20–23, 78–88. In Ezekiel’s prophecies, Canaanite(s), Amorite(s), and Hittite(s) are mentioned only in ch. 16. 6.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, 334–35: “Among the Old Testament prophets Ezekiel is regarded as the true father of allegory.” However, Zimmerli prefers the term “metaphor”—i.e., Ezekiel uses metaphorical language, and Jerusalem is “seen under the metaphor of unfaithful wife.” On definitions of “allegory” and “metaphor,” see Galambush, Jerusalem, 4–11.

392

Bustenay Oded

represents all the house of Israel. 7 The habit of sinning against God and man is generic, second nature to Israel, an inherited guilt, ‫כאמה ִבתה‬ ִ (Ezek 16:44). Israel has been sinful from the beginning of its history as a nation, from the time of the exodus “unto this very day” (Ezek 2:3; 20:4–9; 23:3, 19; 2 Kgs 21:15). This statement is the prophet’s refutation of the proverb proclaimed by the Judeans: ‫( אבות יאכלו בסר ושני בנים תקהינה‬Ezek 18:2 and see Jer 31:29–30 and compare the antithetical Exod 20:5). Jerusalem is more corrupt than Sodom, the archetype of wickedness and ultimate evil-mindedness (Ezek 16:47; Genesis 18–19; Isa 1:9, 3:9; Lam 4:6). 8 Consequently, God will punish them by ultimate destruction (cf. Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9), the same fate as that of the “seven nations,” which stand symbolically for the indigenous and idolatrous population of Canaan before the tribes of Israel settled there (Deut 9:4), among them the Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites (Deut 18:9–10). B.  Israel worships idols, ‫אלהים אחרים‬, exactly as the pagan nations (Exod 23: 24–33; Deut 7:3–5; 12:2–3, 29–31).  “They worshiped other gods and followed the customs of the nations” (2 Kgs 17:8). Consequently, Israel has forfeited itself and its unique identity (cf. Hos 5:7). Moreover, Abraham’s parents worshiped idols in Babylonia (Josh 24:2; Isa 43:27) The midrashic tradition depicts Abraham as the destroyer of his father’s idols. Accordingly, one can easily designate Israel as the offspring of heathen nations, an “other” since its birth. To quote the elders’ statement (Ezek 20:32): ‫נִהיה כגוים כמשפחות‬ ‫הארצות לשרת עץ ואבן‬. The equation of Israel with pagan nations means that Israel and Judah resemble the heathen peoples in religious, moral, and political spheres and are no longer ‫( עם קדוש‬Jer 2:3). Israel has profaned itself as the previous nations that had been cast out of Canaan. They should be severely punished similarly to the “seven peoples” because of their abominations and their pejorative character. In this sense, Israel and Judah are included under the category of Amorites and Hittites (Deut 7:1–4; 11:16–17). C.  Many non-Israelite natives, including the Hittites, continued to live in Canaan among the Israelites (Judg 2:3, 3:5–6; 1 Kgs 9:20).  The importance of the Hittites within the Israelite/Judean society should not be underestimated. Hebron was a Hittite town (Genesis 23), and Sarah, the mother of Israel (cf. Isa 51:2), was buried in Hebron. It is possible that there is an associative link between ‫ ואמך חתית‬and the tradition that Sarah was buried in a Hittite town (compare the customs to be buried “in his own town,” “slept with his fathers”). 7.  Zimmerli, Ezekiel I, 336. 8.  Ibid., 351: “Sodom was once the city of exemplary disgrace and became proverbial as such.” But see the problematic verse in Ezek 20:25: ‫וגם אני נתתי להם חקים לא טובים‬ ‫ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם‬. This is an example of radical subversion of prior authoritative laws and traditions. See, e.g., Ezekiel 40–48; Kasher, Ezekiel II, 774. On the issue of the principle of transgenerational punishment vis-à-vis the principle of individual responsibility, see Bernard M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 57–71.

“Your Father Is an Amorite and Your Mother a Hittite”

393

Hebron was the first capital of David (2 Sam 2:11; 5:3–4). As for Jerusalem, we read: “so the Judahites dwell with the Jebusites in Jerusalem to this day” (Josh 15:63; 1 Kgs 9:20). In several biblical pericopes, ‫( יבוס היא ירושלים‬Josh 15:8; Judg 19:10). It stands to reason that, if the mother of Jerusalem was a Hittite, then according to Ezekiel the Jebusites were of Hittite extraction. The resemblance of the name ‫ארנן‬/‫ארניה‬/‫ארונה‬, the Jebusite (2 Sam 24:16), with the name ‫אוריה‬, the Hittite, led biblical commentators to the speculation that both names refer to the same person, to Uriah. 9 Hittite officials served in the civil administration and in the army (1 Sam 26:6; 2 Sam 23:39). The mention of the high officials Ahimelech, the Hittite (1 Sam 26:6), and Uriah (2 Sam 23:39) attests a substantial Hittite community in Jerusalem during the time of David. D.  The Canaanites, Amorites, and Hittites are essential components and the major peoples in the stereotyped lists of the inhabitants of Canaan and are known from nonbiblical sources as well.  In several lists, they feature in succession and occupy the first three positions in the lists, in alternating order (e.g., Josh 9:1; Judg 3:5–6). In several passages, the three of them are applied as general toponyms for all Canaan and its primeval inhabitants; at times they are even used interchangeably with one another as synonymous terms. 10 In 2 Kgs 21:11, ‫ האמרי‬refers to the pre-Israelite nations in Canaan. In the NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, Ḫatti replaces Amurru to designate the territory west of the River Euphrates. In Gen 27:46, ‫ בנות חת‬feature as ‫בנות‬ ‫הארץ‬, and in Gen 27:46–28:1 as ‫( בנות כנען‬and compare Gen 27:46 with 28:1). The equation of ‫ בנות חת‬with ‫ בנות הארץ‬may explain the Hittite motherhood in the parental metaphor. 11 The word ‫ חת‬in Gen 27:46 has the broadest sense 9.  The name Araunah is non-Semitic. Several scholars interpret the name as a title for the king of pre-Davidic Jerusalem that derives from the Hurrian word ewri-na (“the lord,” with suffix -na) or from the Hittite word arawa(nnis) (“a freeman or aristocrat”). See P. Kyle McCarter, II Samuel, AB 9 (New York: Doubleday, 1984), 512. The cultural symbiosis of the Hurrites and the Hittites are clearly reflected in the onomastic, religion, art, etc. See Eph­ raim A. Speiser, “‫חורי‬,” EM 3.60. For Uriah and Araunah as one and the same person, see McCarter, ibid.; the discussion in Singer, “The Hittites,” 745, and the documentation there. Historically, Jerusalem was ruled by non-Israelites until it was conquered by David (Josh 10:5; 15:63; 18:28; 2 Sam 5:6–9). Collins refers to commentators who believe that “your mother is a Hittite” was a “historical allusion to a time when Hittites lived in Jerusalem” (Billie J. Collins, “The Bible, The Hittite, and the Construction of the ‘Other’,” in Tabularia Hethaeorum, ed. Detlev Groddek and Marina Zorman [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007], 159). She assumes that Ezek 16:3 and 45 deal with the prohibition against intermarriage (see also Ishida, “Structure,” 476–77). As for Hivite–Hittite, see Benjamin Mazar, “‫חוי‬,” and “‫יבוס‬,” EM 3.46, 447 [Heb.]. However, some commentators claim that there is insufficient evidence to identify the Jebusites as a Hittite tribe. And see below, n. 18 10.  See, e.g., the inscription of Sennacherib, in which Ḫatti and Amurru are synonyms; Daniel D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 29–30, col. II 37, 58; Collins “The Bible,” 156; Van Seters, “The Terms,” 64–81; Ishida, “Structure,” 478; Hawkins, “Ḫatti,” 154. 11. See Van Seters, “The Terms,” 79.

394

Bustenay Oded

of the land of Canaan, and ‫( כל ארץ החתים‬Josh 1:4) denotes the Promised Land. So it would be quite natural to mention three components of this indigenous trio—the Hittite, the Canaanite, and the Amorite—together: Canaan as the place of origin (Canaan is not mentioned in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian inscriptions) and the Hittite and Amorite as the parents of Israel (Ezek 16:3). Hittites and Amorites are both mentioned in connection with Jerusalem (Josh 10:5; 2 Samuel 11). 12 The Amorites are the prominent, salient figure in Canaan (e.g., Gen 15:16; Num 21:31; Josh 5:1; 10:5; 24:15, 18). Consequently, and according to the familial hierarchical configuration of ancient Israelite society, it is “natural,” that the metaphorical father is an Amorite and the mother a Hittite. 13 The personification of Jerusalem as a female figure is conspicuous in biblical literature (e.g., the book of Lamentations). E. Wordplay.  The play on words is typical of Ezekiel. 14 The toponym ‫חת‬ and the noun ‫( חטא‬a moral, religious, and political sin) are almost homophonic in Hebrew (“almost” but not entirely: they are not homonymous and there is phonetic disparity between t and ṭ). Likewise, ḫattû (adj. “Hittite,” fem. ḫattīitu) and the verb ḫaṭû (“to commit an offence”), ḫāṭû (adj. “sinful”) ḫaṭītu (evil) are nearly homophonic. It is worth noting that Sargon II’s inscriptions referred to the rulers of the Neo-Hittite states with the predicative complement Ḫattê lemnī (“evil Hittites”)—for example, Ilubiʾdi/Iaubiʾdi, King of Hamat. 15 The explicit purpose of the prophecy in Ezekiel 16 is to fulfill the divine order: “proclaim to Jerusalem her abominations” (Ezek 16:2; see 20:4; 22:2). The concept ‫ חטא‬is expressed through several metaphors. Violation of Yhwh’s covenant is ‫“( חטאה גדולה‬a great sin”), which refers to apostasy and adultery (Gen 20:9; Exod 32:21; 2 Kgs 17:21). 16 The condemnation in ch. 16 recapitu12.  Van Seters, “The Terms,” 66. 13.  And see below, n. 17. 14.  Kasher, Ezekiel, 101–2. There are several types of wordplay (puns) in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature. See Scott B. Noegel, Nocturnal Ciphers: The Allusive Language of Dreams in the Ancient Near East (New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, 2007), 1–7; Valerie Kabergs and Hans Ausloos, “Paronomasia or Wordplay? A Babel-Like Confusion towards a Definition of Hebrew Wordplay,” Bib 93 (2012): 1–20. 15. Andreas Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvilluer, 1994), 200.33; CAD Ḫ 157a, s.v. “ḫaṭû,” “Ḫa-at-ti e-eḫ-ti.” Deported Assyrians are designated EN.ḫi-iṭ-ṭi (sinners) by an Assyrian king on a stele erected in the Neo-Hittite Hamat, which is a play on the words Hamat-ḫatû. See Karen Radner, “The Assyrian King and His Scholars,” in Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars, ed. Mikko Luukko et al., StOr 106 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 2009), 236. On using the term Ḫatti abusively with a disparaging connotation (ḫaṭû = evil), see Hawkins, “Hatti,” 153–54; Harry A. Hoffner, “The Hittite and Hurrians,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. Donald J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 199: “More likely the term ḫattû was used in the annals of the Sargonids to designate anti-Assyrian rebels.” 16.  Adler, “Background,” 127–29.

“Your Father Is an Amorite and Your Mother a Hittite”

395

lates in harsh and critical rhetorical language the immoral behavior of sinful Jerusalem. The prophet employs the ‫ חת–חטא‬wordplay for a specific case, to delineate Jerusalem as a figure (female gender) who embodies all its faults and deficiencies. Both the wordplay and the aim of ch. 16, to state the abominations of the infidel “wife” Jerusalem, play a role in considering the “mother” ‫חתית‬. 17 F.  The three terms ‫חת‬-‫חטא‬-‫ ירושלים‬recall the episode of David and Bathsheba, the wife of the mighty man ‫( אוריה החתי‬2 Samuel 11).  In the story, the ethnic background of Uriah is underscored (six times). Bathsheba willingly came to David’s palace in Jerusalem (‫ )ותבא אליו‬and became pregnant. This was not rape but fornication. It was an adulterous act, akin to prostitution (cf. Isa 57:3; Jer 13:27; 29:23; and cf. ḫāṭītu = “adulteress”). 18 The prophet Nathan considers the death of the offended husband in battle to be premeditated murder (2 Sam 12:9), and David further confesses, “I have sinned (‫)חטאתי‬ against the Lord” (v. 13). Adultery is a crime (‫)חטא‬. Not to be overlooked is the fact that there are several stylistic links between Ezekiel 16 and the DavidBathsheba episode. For example, it is said regarding Bathsheba, “the woman was beautiful” (2 Sam 11:2), and in Ezek 16:13–14, “you grew more and more beautiful,” “you trusted in your beauty.” As for the fornication, Ezekiel says, “You were like the adulterous wife who welcomes strangers instead of her husband” (16:32). Hence, it is more than likely that there is a conscious association between the David-Bathsheba episode and Ezekiel’s statement “and your mother is a Hittite.” 19 17.  Collins, “The Bible,” 159. At the same time, the word ‫ חת‬has the meaning of “weakness and fright” (Gen 9:2; Ezek 32:23–27, 30, 32; Job 41:25), as applied to female weakness relative to male strength. In the light of a patriarchal-based society, this meaning of ‫חת‬ explains why the Hittite is the “mother,” not the “father.” On the feminine imagery applied to Jerusalem and the ancient Near Eastern conceptual metaphor of the city as wife, see the meticulous observations of Galambush, Jerusalem. 18.  Commentators associate the story of Bathsheba with the story of Dinah, the daughter of Leah (Genesis 34). Was Dinah raped, or was she present in Shechem’s house by her own free will? This is a matter of debate. See Mayer Gruber, “A Reexamination of the Charges against Shechem, Son of Hamor,” Beit Mikra 44 (1999): 121–23 [Heb.]; Adele Berlin, “Literary Approaches to the Bible: General Observations and a Case Study of Genesis 34,” in The Hebrew Bible: New Insight and Scholarship, ed. Frederick Greenspahn (New York: New York University Press, 2008), 45–75 and especially n. 15: “I view Dinah [from a literary approach] much as I view Bathsheba in 2 Samuel 11—a female character necessary to a plot whose action is motivated by a sexual act,” and see below, n. 22. On adultery as a sin against God that could result in divine punishment, see Raymond Westbrook, “Adultery in Ancient Law,” RB 97(1990): 566–69. 19.  So Benjamin Mazar, “‫חת‬,” EM 3.356; Zimmerli, Ezekiel, 347–48; Markus Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und Assyrien (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005), 409–10. Zehnder contends that Uriah the Hittite was from an indigenous, aristocratic Hittite family in Jerusalem, and this explains the Hittite motherhood in Ezek 16:3; Zimmerli (Ezekiel, 337–38) refers to Abdiḫepa (logogram IR—Ḫepa(t)/Abdi), king of Jerusalem in the Amarna

396

Bustenay Oded

G.  Mixed Marriages.  The David-Bathsheba episode in Jerusalem is connected in one way or the other with the issue of endogamy versus exogamy. 20 Ezek 16:3 and 46 recall the previous contacts, including intermarriage, with non-Israelite ethnic groups, among them the Hittites (e.g., Gen 26:34; Judg 3:5–6; Ezek 16:26, 28) contrary to the ban ordinance in Deut 20:18. In Ezra 9:1–2, a clear linkage exists between mixed marriage and the stereotyped lists of the foreign nations of Canaan, among them the “Hittite.” Most of the standardized lists of nations that inhabited Canaan prior to the settlement of the Israelites are from the Deuteronomistic School and are connected with and consciously allude to the prohibition on intermarriage. Mixed marriages are closely aligned with apostasy and are strictly forbidden (Exod 34:15; Numbers 25; Deut 7:3–5; Ezra 9:14; Neh 13:23–27). Foreign women turn away the heart after other gods (e.g., Deut 7:3–4; Judg 3:5–8; 2 Kgs 11:1). They are religiously and morally dangerous (cf. Prov 2:16–19 and ch. 7 on the deleterious influence of ‫נכריה‬/‫)אשה זרה‬. ִ It is not a very great stretch to posit that Bathsheba, the daughter of Amiel, the wife of Uriah the Hittite was herself a foreigner. Others cases are found in which women (and their fathers) bear proper Semitic names but are designated “Hittites” (Gen 26:34–35; 36:2; and see Ephron, Achimelech, and Uriah, Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite). Here we can add the disparaging statement of Rebekah to Isaac regarding a Hittite woman: “I am disgusted with my life because of the Hittite woman . . . if Jacob marries a Hittite woman . . . what good will life be to me?” (Gen 27:46). The Hittite women were ‫מרת רוח‬ ‫( ליצחק ולרבקה‬Gen 26:35). The mention of the Hittite women together and successively after the Sidonian women in Solomon’s court (1 Kgs 11:1) is not accidental but associative in light of the stories about Jezebel the Sidonian, the archetype of the foreign woman par excellence. Jezebel is remembered as the epitome of mixed marriages, apostasy, and immoral character (1 Kgs 16:31–33; 18:19; 2 Kgs 9:22; 11:18). The biblical author underlines the fact that Ahab’s period. Ḫepat/d is aHittite/Hurrian goddess; hence, “[T]he question cannot altogether be evaded whether Ezekiel knew a special tradition of Jerusalem which preserved a recollection of the Hittite influence in the city.” 20.  “The latter [prohibition against intermarriage] also forms the basis for Ezekiel’s admonition against Jerusalem. He reminds the city of her origins in the land of the Canaanites—‘Your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite’” (Collins, “The Bible,” 159); Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 508: “There must have been many more like him [i.e., Arauna] who lived side by side with the Israelites and in the course of time intermarried with them. There is therefore a kernel of truth in Ezekiel’s reference to Jerusalem’s parents as Hittites and Amorites.” The story of Dinah is connected as well with the (Deuteronomic) prohibition on intermarriage. See Gruber, “A ReExamination,” 121, 126–27; Stephen A. Geller, “The Sack of Shechem,” Prooftexts 10 (1990): 1–15.

“Your Father Is an Amorite and Your Mother a Hittite”

397

problems were caused by his idolatrous wife (1 Kgs 21:25). Athaliah behaves exactly as her mother (cf. Ezek 16:4, ‫;כאמה ִבתה‬ ִ and Hos 2:7). Likewise, the pairing of Sidon and Heth in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10). The proper names ‫ צידן‬and ‫ חת‬are listed as the sons of Canaan, successively: “Canaan begot Sidon his firstborn, and Heth” (v. 15). 21 Biblical commentators contend that Gen 10:16–17 is a redactional addition to the text on the basis of the stereotyped lists. 22 H. In Ezekiel 16 and 23, Jerusalem has the metaphorical image of an adulterous wife.  In ch. 16, Jerusalem is depicted as an infant whose heathen parents abandoned her on the day she was born (vv. 4–5, the metaphor of childbirth). Nevertheless, God rescues the infant from death, “adopts” her, feeds her, and makes her perfect in beauty (vv. 10–14). At maturity, she becomes Yhwh’s wife (v. 8, the metaphor of a divine marriage), and her status is elevated in comparison with the degraded status of Amorites and Hittites by Solomon (1 Kgs 9:20). But alas, the woman Jerusalem is an adulterous wife. 23 Worship of gods other than Yhwh is adultery (e.g., Deut 31:16). The root ‫ זנה‬in its various forms appears en masse in ch. 16 (21 times) and is associated with cultic offenses, licentious sexual practices, and promiscuous adultery, along with many lecherous expressions. Adultery becomes the symbol and a sociocultural marker of religious infidelity and a sacrilegious city. Ezekiel adopts the conventional attitude whereby (1) Yhwh’s covenant with Israel (the marriage metaphor) requires exclusive fidelity and unconditional commitment to God; 21. The reliefs and the bilingual inscriptions written in hieroglyphic Luwian and in Phoenician in Neo-Hittite Karatepe “illustrate the blending of Hittite and Phoenician culture at this site” (Gregory McMahon, “The History of the Hittites,” BA 52/2–3 [1989]: 76). 22.  For a view of the woman as an inciter to apostasy and as having immoral character, see 1 Kgs 15:13; Qoh 7:26–28. It is suggested that the concept that the “mother”/female is a paradigm of incitement to idolatry is reflected in Deut 13:7: ‫( כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך‬no mention of the father in the MT version). The laws in Deuteronomy 13 deal consistently with apostasy and incitement to worship other gods. See discussion in Bernard M. Levinson, “Textual Criticism, Assyriology, and History of Interpretation: Deuteronomy 13:7a as a Test Case in Method,” JBL 120 (2001): 36–41; Adler, “Background,” 361–64. Nevertheless, see Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, JPS Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 367 n. 26. 23.  For investigation into the nature and implication of Ezekiel’s metaphorical depiction of Jerusalem as Yhwh’s wife, especially in chs. 16 and 23, see Galambush, Jerusalem, especially pp. 35–59, 89–125; Adler, “Background.” On the adoption and marriage metaphors (Ezekiel 16), see Meir Malul, “Adoption and Foundlings in the Bible and Mesopotamian Documents: A Study of Some Legal Metaphors in Ezekiel 16, 1–7,” JSOT 46 (1990): 97– 126; Dalit Rom-Shiloni, “Ezekiel as the Voice of the Exiles and Constructor of Exilic Ideology,” HUCA 76 (2005): 25–26, 30–31, 44–45 and the sources cited there. Rom-Shiloni interprets Ezekiel 16 as “Delegitimation”—those who remained in Jerusalem—in contradistinction to ch. 20 as “legitimation”—the exiles with Yehoiachin. The former are of Canaanite origin (metaphor) and doomed to annihilation, and the latter are of the seed of the house of Jacob and merit restoration.

398

Bustenay Oded

(2) promiscuous adultery (on the part of the wife) is a metaphor for apostasy; (3) the end result of intermarriage is “whoring after other gods” (Ezek 6:1–10; 8:9–18; 11:21; 14:4–5; 16:32, 38; 20:8, 30; 22:2–3; 23:13–14, 19, 30, 43–49; and Isa 1:21; Jer 2:2, 20–24; 3:7–10; 5:7–11; 9:1; Exod 34:11–16; Lev 17:7; Deut 31:16; Judg 2:11–23; Hosea 1–2; Mal 2:14; Proverbs 2, 17; 1 Chr 5:25). Not by chance in the cliché of the (seven) foreign peoples are intermarriage, idolatry, and (religious) prostitution (‫ )זנה‬bound together (Exod 34:11–16). 24 I. The many parallels and striking similarities in cultic rituals (such as the scapegoat/Azazel and disposal of impurity) between biblical Israel and Anatolian Hittites—mainly in the Priestly source (and Ezekiel was a priest), especially those for purification by means of blood, including childbirth (cf. Ezek 16:6, 9, 22)—probably exerted some influence over producing the statement “and your mother is Hittite.”  Weinfeld postulates that the adoption of many religious beliefs and cultic ceremonies attested only among the Hittites and the Israelites “is reflected in Ezekiel’s words about Jerusalem ‘your father the Amorite and your mother the Hittite (16:3, 45).’” 25 In sum: (1) Each of the foregoing arguments alone is insufficient to explain the somewhat perplexing statement in Ezek 16:3. However, I contend that the cumulative weight of the arguments above makes it impossible to dismiss the definition of the mother as a Hittite as being accidental. To the contrary: I postulate that the arguments taken together constitute a critical mass that furnishes a plausible and coherent explanation for the rather enigmatic verse referring to the parentage of Jerusalem: “your father is an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.” (2) Probably, in the time of Ezekiel, the terms “Amorite” and Hittite” 24.  On idolatry as adultery in the Old Testament in the framework of the metaphor of Jerusalem as God’s wife see Aloisius Fitzgerald, “The Mythological Background for the Presentation of Jerusalem as Queen and False Worship as Adultery in the OT,” CBQ 34 (1972), 403–16; Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet, (JSOTSup. 212, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) . On the intermarriage-apostasy-harlotry linkage see Adler, “Background,” 317–40, 378; Galambush, Jerusalem, 27–31. 25. Moshe Weinfeld, “Traces of Hittite Cult in Shiloh, Bethel and in Jerusalem,” Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 129 (1993), 455–72. For specific examples see also Singer, “The Hittites,” 740–747, 751; David P. Wright, “Analogy in Biblical and Hittite Ritual,” Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 129 (1993), 473–506; Harry A. Hoffner, “Hittite-Israelite Cultural Parallels,” in The Context of Scripture vol. III, (William W. Hallo, ed., Leiden. Boston. Köln: Brill, 2002), xxix-xxxiv; Yitzhaq Feder, “A Levantine Tradition: The Kizzuwatnean Blood Rite and the Biblical Sin Offering,” Pax Hethitica, (Yoram Cohen et al. eds., Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 101–111 and on p. 101 “several scholars identified a striking parallel between Hittite and Biblical texts pertaining to the use of blood to eliminate sin and impurity”; idem, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and Meaning. (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011). The parallels hint at Anatolian cultural influence. For similarities in law see Meir Malul, “Abshalom’s Chariot and Fifty Runners (II Sam 15,1) and the Hittite Laws Par. 198,” ZAW 122 (2010), 44–52. It is not impossible that cultural contacts with the Hittites of Anatolia partially relied on mediation through the Neo-Hittites in Syria. I wonder if there is a connection between the parallels and Ezek 20:25 (see n.8 above).

“Your Father Is an Amorite and Your Mother a Hittite”

399

no longer had a precisely ethnic or political connotation. They were virtually archaic terms designating the indigenous inhabitants of Canaan. (3) Ezekiel’s penchant for allegory, metaphor, proverb, and simile as literary devices to express his ideas is conspicuous. The use of the terms Canaanite, Amorite, and Hittite is rhetorical in a pejorative sense, with disparaging connotations rather than historical reality and an ethnic designation. The phrase ‫ גויי הארץ‬connotes peoples who worship idols and are religiously dangerous (Deut 7:1–6; see, e.g., the rhetorical nature of the list of the “seven nations” in Ezra 9:1; Neh 9:8). The stereotyped lists of the “seven nations” are a paradigm for the “other”—all of the idolatrous peoples who were practicing contaminated cultural practices. Thus, “Hittite” is a code word that encapsulates traits that vividly contrast Ezekiel’s fundamental ethical and theological perspective. I dare say that the issue is not how the term “Hittite” looks to modern commentators but what the term conveyed to its contemporary user—in our case, Ezekiel. (4) Ezekiel’s saying (16:3) does not reflect a debate or polemic in ancient Israelite society about Israel’s origin and self-identity but a sheer rhetorical and metaphorical usage of archaic terms with pejorative intention in order to accentuate the prophet’s blatant perceptions of the character and portrayal of Israel as ‫בית מרי‬. In other words, the use of the terms is rhetorical rather than historical. 26 (5) Historical traditions; a group that is designated Hittites in several biblical passages; ethical and ideological-theological attitudes and purposes that lie behind the employment of the terms play a role in the use of the term Hittite for the mother of Jerusalem. 26.  Van Seters, “The Terms,” 67, 80; Collins, “The Bible,” 160.

Vain Imprecations on Having Been Born in Job 3 and Mesopotamian Literature

Shalom M. Paul Pleading personal plaints about having been born into a state of unending woe and misery, along with vain wishful thinking that it were better not to have been born than to have seen the light of day, 1 are attested in biblical and ancient Near Eastern literature. 2 Such a jeremiad appears in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, who, due to his unending trials and tribulations, is the source of this aptly descriptive substantive. The prophet, in the throes of agony and anguish, exclaims: “Woe to me, my mother, that you bore me” (Jer 15:10). And more patently and poignantly, he launches into extensive vilification: Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day my mother bore me, let it not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought my father the news: 3 “A male child is born to you,” making him extremely happy. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . because he did not kill me in the womb, so that my mother would have been my grave, and her womb pregnant with me forever. Why did I ever come forth from the womb to experience misery and sorrow and have my days terminate in shame? (Jer 20:14–18) 5 Author’s note:  For Victor of blessed memory: cherished friend, dear colleague, and prolific scholar, ummânu mudû ša kullat ṭupšarrūti ša gimir ummâni mala bašû iḫzīšunu taḫīṭ. 1. Compare b. ‘Erub. 13b: “It were better for man not to have been created than to have been created.” 2.  For a comprehensive study, see M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting (Grönigen: Styx, 2000). 3.  For the announcement of birth in Ugaritic, see below. 4.  For a similar joyous reaction to a birth announcement, see the Ugaritic text cited below. 5.  For the opposite order traced backward, see Hos 9:11: “From birth (‫)מּל ֵָדה‬, ִ from the womb (‫)מ ֶּבטֶן‬, ִ from conception (‫) ֵמ ֵהרָיֹון‬, Ephraim’s glory shall be like birds that fly away.”

401

402

Shalom M. Paul

This inquiry, however, will examine in detail motifs that appear in several passages in the book of Job and their corresponding analogues in ancient Near Eastern literature. At the very outset of the poetic portion of ch. 3, Job delivers a sullen soliloquy over his cruel fate, expressing a retroactive vain death wish in a concatenate string of execrations. In extremis, driven to dire despair and distress, and obsessed and oppressed by misery and unbearable suffering, he breaks forth in an obsessive outcry, cursing the day of his birth: v. 3 v. 4 v. 5 v. 6 v. 7 v. 8 v. 9

Perish the day I was born, And the night it was announced: “A male child 6 has been conceived!” 7 May that day be darkness! May God from above not seek it, Or light shine on it! May darkness and deep gloom reclaim it, And may clouds lie over it! May what blackens the day terrify it! That night may deep darkness carry it off! May it not be counted among the days of the year! Or enter into the number of months! May that night be barren! No sound of joy be heard in it! May those who cast spells upon the day/Sea damn it, Those prepared to stir up Leviathan! May its twilight stars remain dark! May it hope for light and have none! And may it not see the glimmerings of the dawn!

For maledictions against the day and night, compare the Old Babylonian Sumerian lament of the mother of Dumuzi: “I am the mother who gave birth. Woe to that day, that day! Woe to that night! . . . . A day to be wiped out that I would not forget! Yon night [. . .] that should [never] have let it go forth!” 8 As for announcing the birth of a child, one can draw attention to the Ugaritic Baal epic wherein it is stated: “Word was brought to El: ‘El’s two wives have given birth!’ What have they borne? ‘A newly born pair, Dawn and Dusk.’” 9 6.  Only here is Heb. ‫ ֶגבֶר‬employed with the meaning of a newborn child. 7. Heb. ‫ הֹרָה‬is a passive qal. Compare, e.g., ‫יֻּלַד‬, Gen 4:26; ‫ ֻאּכָל‬, Exod 3:2; ‫לֻּקַ ח‬, Isa 33:11. For the parallel sequence of the verbs ‫ הרי‬and ‫ ילד‬in v. 3, see, e.g., Gen 21:2, Num 11:12, and Isa 52:5. 8.  See T. Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), 65, lines 187–204. 9.  See M. S. Smith, The Rituals and Myths of the Feast of the Goodly Gods of KTU/ CAT 1.23: Royal Constructions of Opposition, Intersection, Integration, and Domination (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 23, lines 52–53. See also p. 24, lines 59–60.

Vain Imprecations on Having Been Born

403

And in a short epic entitled “Baal Fathers a Bull”: “Anat calls out loud and clear to Baal: ‘Good news (bšrt)! Good news, Baal! Welcome it, offspring of Dagan! For a bull is born to Baal, a wild ox to the Rider of the Clouds!’ Baal the Almighty rejoices.” 10 (Note that Ugaritic bšrt, “announcement,” is the interdialectal etymological and semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫בׂשר‬, which appears in the birth announcements in Jer 20:15. Compare likewise the similar joyous reaction of the receiver of the good news: Baal rejoices [line 37, yšmḫ.bʿl], and Jeremiah’s father is overjoyed [‫ׂש ְּמחָהּו‬gַ ִ ‫]ׂשַ ֵּמח‬.) Job 3:10.  “Because it did not 11 shut the doors of my mother’s womb.” 12 For shutting or blocking the egress from the womb, two verbs are employed: here and in 1 Sam 15:6: ‫ ;סגר‬and in Gen 20:18: ‫עצר‬. 13 In Akkadian, there are several ways to express this. The most common is parāsu, “to block.” Compare, for example, in Atrahasis, where the birth goddess Nintu is instructed by Enki to “stop the childbirth” (alādam pursī) of certain classes of priestesses. 14 In the Epic of Erra, it is stated: “He/she will stop childbirth” (iparrasa tālittu). 15 And in the vassal treaties of Esarhaddon: “May Bēlet-ilī, the mistress of Creation, stop childbirth (tālittu liprus) in our land.” 16 Other verbs include: kasû, “to bind (magically).” Thus, in the maqlû incantations: “She, the witch, who gags the mouth of the gods, binds (kasītu) the womb of the goddesses”; 17 kuṣṣuru, “to tie up”: “Pestilence was laid upon the peoples, so that the womb was tied up (kuṣṣur) and did not allow the free passage of the baby”; 18 kanāku, “to seal”: “The woman in hard labor, the

10.  KTU 1.10 III 32–37. 11.  N. H. Tur-Sinai, The Book of Job: A New Commentary (Jerusalem: Kiryath-Sepher, 1957), 60, following Saadia, ‫לו אנגקל‬, reads ‫לֻא‬, an optative, instead of the Masoretic ‫לֹא‬, “If only. . . .” Compare 2 Sam 18:12, where ‫ לא‬is the Kethiv and ‫ לּו‬is the Qere. 12.  For Heb. ‫ ֶּבטֶן‬, “womb,” see, e.g., Gen 25:23; Isa 46:3; Mic 6:7; Ps 22:10. The word ‫ ִּב ְטנִי‬in this present verse is an objective genitive; cf., e.g., Gen 16:5, (‫ָסי )עליך‬ ִ ‫חמ‬ ֲ , “The wrong done to me (is your fault).” See GKC 416/§128h; 439/§135m. 13.  For the opposite, ‫פתח‬, in reference to the opening/closing of the womb, see Gen 29:31 and 30:22. So also its Akkadian interdialectal etymological and semantic equivalent, petû; see CAD P 346. 14.  W. G. Lambert, A. R. Millard, and M. Civil, Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, with the Sumerian Flood Story (repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 102, III vii 9. 15. L. Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra (Rome: Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente dell’Università, 1969), 92, III 16. 16.  D. J. Wiseman, The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1958), 61, lines 437–38. 17. G. Meier, Die assyrische Beschwörungssammlung Maqlû (Osnabrück: Biblio, 1967), 23, III 50–51. 18.  Lambert, Millard, and Civil, Atra-ḫasīs, 108, iv 50–51; 110, iv 60–61. See also R. Borger, “Einige Texte religiösen Inhalts,” Or 54 (1985): 17, line 30.

404

Shalom M. Paul

sealed (kangātu) womb.” 19 “May the sealed (kangātum) womb be loosened”; 20 parāku, “to block, bar”: “On the day you bore me, would I had been blocked (apparik) in (your) womb”; 21 “May they not block (iparrikū) (the birth of) the offspring of her womb.” 22 For sanāqu, “to be fastened,” and kanû, “to be firm in place,” see the following text. The unique expression “doors of a womb” finds its parallel in an incantation in a Middle Assyrian medical text: “The woman in childbirth has pangs at delivery. At delivery she has pangs. The baby is stuck fast [kūnat, lit., “firm in place”]. The baby is stuck fast. The bolt is secure to bring life to an end. The door is fastened (saniq bābu) against the suckling.” 23 Compare also an Old Babylonian text in which the plural “doors” appears: “She (the mother goddess) says, ‘You are free. The locks are unfastened. The doors (dalātu) are open.” 24 Job 3:11.  “Why did I not die at birth, expire as I came out of the womb?” Compare Job 10:18–19: Why did you bring me forth from the womb? Would that I had expired unseen. Would that I were as though I had not been, Carried from womb to tomb.

And in the Epic of Erra: “On the day your bore me, would that I had been blocked in the womb.” 25 Job 3:12  “Why were there knees to receive me? And why 26 breasts for me to suck?” For the reception of the infant upon the mother’s/father’s knees as a symbolic gesture of legitimation and acknowledgment as one’s own, see Gen 30:3, where Bilhah, the surrogate mother of Rachel is appointed to receive the newborn, and Gen 50:23, where “the children of Machir son of Manasseh were born upon Jacob’s knees.” So also in the Hittite tale of Appu: “Appu’s 19. F. Köcher, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen (= BAM), 7 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963–64), 2.248, iv 6–9 (= R. C. Thompson, Assyrian Medical Texts [= AMT] [London: Bale & Danielsson, 1923], 67, I iv 1–2). 20.  Köcher, BAM 248 ii 54. 21.  Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra, 114, IV 89. 22.  J. V. Kinnier Wilson, “Some Contributions to the Legend of Etana,” Iraq 31 (1969): 15, line 7. 23.  W. G. Lambert, “A Middle Assyrian Medical Text,” Iraq 31 (1969): 31, lines 33–36. The same text also states in lines 48–49: “Bring forth that sealed-up one (kakku < kanku), a creation of the gods! Let him come out to see the light (līmur nūra).” 24.  J. J. A. van Dijk, “Une incantation accompagnant la naissance de l’homme,” Or 42 (1973): 503, lines 22–24. For another reference to “door,” pertaining to the mother, see Lambert, “Middle Assyrian Medical Text,” 35 n. 3, where the verb is edēlu, “locked.” 25.  Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra, 114, IV 90. 26.  For Heb. ‫מה‬, “why,” see Exod 14:15; 17:2.

Vain Imprecations on Having Been Born

405

wife bore a son. The nurse lifted the boy and placed him on Appu’s knees.” 27 The motif of suckling at the mother’s breast in order to survive is universal. 28 Otherwise, death is imminent, as the curse in Hos 9:14 clearly states: “Give them a womb that miscarries and shriveled breasts (‫ׁשדַ יִם צ ֹ ְמ ִקים‬ ָ ‫)ו‬.” ְ Compare in Akkadian: “I will dry up the breasts so that the baby will not live.” 29 And a stillborn is one “who does not take its mother’s breasts.” 30 Compare also “like a stillborn child who has not sucked the milk of its mother.” 31 Job 3:16.  “Or why was I not 32 like a hidden stillbirth (‫)נֵפֶל טָמּון‬, like babies who never see the light.” One should note especially the employment of the adjective ‫טָמּון‬, “hidden, concealed,” in this connection, since stillbirths were not buried (see also the following quote from Qoh 6:3) but were cast into pits without grave markers, as one learns from t. ʾOhal. 16.13: ‫בור שמטילין‬ ‫נפלים לתוכו‬, and the accompanying t. ʾOhal 16.12: ‫נפלים אינן קונין את הקבר‬, “Stillborns do not possess a grave.” 33 The custom of not burying stillborns in graves is already attested in Sumerian literature: “The malformed (and) the stillborn child who is not buried in a grave” (Sum.: nigìn-sag·iti·nu-til-la urugal-la[!]-aš nu-túm-ma; Akk.: izbu kūbu ša [ina qabri] la qebru). 34 For an additional example of a “hidden” dead body, see Exod 2:12: “He (Moses) turned this way and that, and seeing no one, struck down the Egyptian and hid him (‫ִט ְמנֵהּו‬ ְ ‫ ) ַוּי‬in the sand.” For Heb. ‫נֵפֶל‬, “stillborn,” see also Ps 58:9, where a similar expression appears: ‫ׁשמֶׁש‬ ָ ‫ֵׁשת ּבַל חָזּו‬ ֶ ‫נֵפֶל א‬, “Like a woman’s stillbirth, may they never see the sun!” And in greater detail, Qoh 6:3–5: .‫וגם קבורה לא היתה לו אמרתי טוב ממנו הנפל‬ ‫ גם שמש לא ראה ולא ידע נחת לזה מזה‬.‫כי בהבל בא ובחֹשך ילך ובחֹשך שמו יכֻסה‬, “I say that the stillborn, though not ever having a burial, 35 is more fortunate than he. Though it comes in vain and departs into darkness, and its very name

27.  H. A. Hoffner Jr., “Appu and His Two Sons,” in COS 1.154. 28.  For Heb. ‫ינק שדים‬, see Joel 2:16; Song 8:1; cf. Isa 28:9. For Akkadian ṣirti/tulâ/zizē enēqu, see the respective entries in CAD E, Ṣ, T, and Z. 29.  Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra, 116, IV 121. 30.  Thompson, AMT 36.2 rev. 4. 31.  Idem, CT 22, pl. 23, 10.16; cf. KAR 2.34, 181 rev. 12; 33.5. 32.  Tur-Sinai (Book of Job, 63) translates Heb. ‫לא אהיה‬, “I would have become nothing”; and compare Job 6:21, where ‫ לא‬has this meaning. 33.  For similar statements, see t. ʾOhal. 16.1; m. Nid. 7:4; b. Sanh. 48a; and notes by S. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, 4 parts (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1999), at t. Tehar. 3.148. 34. P. Haupt, Akkadische und sumerische Keilschrifttexte (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1882), 82–83.13. 35.  This stich is transferred to the following stich (njps). Note here also that the stillborn has no burial.

406

Shalom M. Paul

is covered in darkness (i.e., leaves no memory), 36 never seeing or experiencing the sun, is better off than he.” First, a comment on ‫כי ב ֶהבֶל בא‬, “He has come in vain,” that is to say, into lifeless existence. A similar statement is recorded in šumma izbu, “If a woman becomes pregnant with wind and gives birth to wind.” 37 Akk. šāru, 38 “wind,” is the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫ ֶהבֶל‬, referring to “nothingness,” an apt description of a stillborn. Even more specifically, compare Isa 26:18, “We were with child, we have been in labor, but have brought forth wind (‫)רוח‬.” For never seeing the sun/light, with the meaning “never having lived,” see Ps 58:9, and Qoh 6:5, both just quoted, and Ps 49:20: “He will join the company of his ancestors, who will never again see light.” So, too, its opposite in the Assyrian medical text cited above, “Let him come out to see the light (līmur nūra).” 39 Stillbirths are also attested in Mesopotamian literature. Thus, in the Sumerian composition Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld, we read: nigìngar-tur-tur-mu ní-ba nu-zu, “Did you see my little stillborn children who never knew existence?” 40 Similarly in Akkadian, “Like a stillborn (kūbu) is not able to suck the milk of its mother.” 41 And, “Just as a stillborn (nīd libbi) does not take its mother’s breast.” 42 Interestingly enough, Akk. nīd libbi—lit., “one who is dropped/cast out of the womb,” from the verb nadû, which has as one of its meanings “to have a miscarriage” 43—serves as the interdialectal semantic equivalent of Heb. ‫נֵפֶל‬, “one who has dropped, fallen.” 44 To end on a positive note, the root ‫ נפל‬paradoxically also means “to give birth, bring to life”—that is, has fallen out of the womb alive. See Isa 26:18– 19, “The inhabitants of the earth have not come to life (‫ִּפלּו‬ ְ ‫)י‬. . . . You bring those of the land of the shades to birth again (‫)ּתַ ִּפיל‬.” 36.  For Heb. ‫ׁשֵם‬, “memory,” see Exod 3:15, Deut 9:14, and 1 Sam 24:22. 37. E. Leichty, The Omen Series Šumma Izbu (Locust Valley, NY: Augustin, 1970), 36, I 50. 38.  CAD Š/2 139–40. 39.  Lambert, “Middle Assyrian Medical Text,” 31, line 49. 40.  A. S. Shaffer, “Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgameš: A Dissertation in Oriental Studies” (diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1963), 95, line 300; see also p. 97, rev. 1: Sum. nìgin = Akk. kūbu, “stillborn.” 41.  Thompson, AMT 36, 2 rev. 4. See also Köcher, BAM 1, 28.13; H. Hunger, Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk (Berlin: Mann, 1976), 54, 44.67. 42.  Thompson, CT 22, pl. 23, 10.16. See also Ebeling, KAR 2.330:5. 43.  CAD N/1 79. 44.  In talmudic literature, this term and its corresponding verb in the hiphil, ‫לה ִַּפיל‬, ְ refers to an abortion or miscarriage. See, e.g., m. Nid. 3:1; b. Pesaḥ. 9a; y. Yebam. 11d–12b.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription “I-Style,” Intonation Units, and Oral Performance

Frank H. Polak The Mesha inscription, which dates to the late ninth century, 1 manifests many characteristics of Biblical Hebrew narrative in morphology, syntactic structure, tense system, and lexical register and thus is an important peg for the understanding of Hebrew narrative style and its place in language history. Consequently, an analysis of this inscription’s style is crucial to our understanding of roots, periodization, and place during the time of the biblical narrative. It is my pleasure and an honor to dedicate an essay on this matter to the memory of my friend Avigdor (Victor) Hurowitz, who began his studies in Jerusalem together with me, and with whom I shared many fundamental interests, insights, and questions. Structure and Discourse Type Genre Problems The Mesha Stele has been analyzed as a memorial inscription in the “Istyle” that unites the account of a rebellion and a series of military successes, mainly in the first part of the stele, with a commemoration of building operations, mainly in the second part. 2 Klaas Smelik finds a major caesura between these two parts, largely because the building sections are characterized by the use of ‫ אנך‬followed by a verb of construction (‫עשה‬, ‫)בנה‬, mostly in qatal, whereas the first section is characterized by wayyiqtol sequences. But, as noted 1.  If his achievement of Moabite independence is dated before 841, Mesha could not have had much time to live after 825 b.c.e. For this period, the Tel Dan inscription and biblical narrative present convergent pictures of the great Aramean pressure on Israel, which provided an excellent framework for Moabite rebellion, and in fact this rebellion may even have been encouraged by the Arameans. 2.  J. Maxwell Miller, “The Mesha Stele as a Memorial Inscription,” PEQ 106 (1974): 9–18.

407

408

Frank H. Polak

by Francis Andersen, building operations are also mentioned in the first part of the inscription, whereas the second part also includes poorly preserved accounts of military activity. 3 Thematic intertwining and integration, then, are the key words. In the view of Bruce Routledge, the distinction between the two parts is geographical. Mesha’s actions to the north of Wadi Arnon (in the first part) included both military exploits and building operations, and so did his actions to the south of this wadi (second part). 4 The description of Mesha’s actions in two different regions could, of course, indicate that he operated first in the northern region and only afterward turned his attention to the southern districts. But the place given to the northern region could also be explained in light of the position of Dibon as a royal citadel. 5 The “I Style” It has been argued that the sudden emergence of royal “autobiographical” inscriptions, in which the ruler is introduced as speaking in his own voice, the “I style,” is related to the western campaigns of Shalmaneser III, beginning in 858 b.c.e. We cannot discount the possibility that the subdued kings of the Levant actually viewed a victory stele erected by the Assyrian king, for instance at Baʿal Raʾsi (841 b.c.e., probably Mt. Carmel or Rosh haNiqra). 6 On the other hand, Phoenician building inscriptions are attested in Byblos from the tenth century b.c.e. It is to be noted that the Bir Hadad inscription (KAI 201), though originating in a ninth century Aramaean kingdom, reflects Phoenician rather than Assyrian influences. 7 Many Luwian royal inscriptions from postHittite kingdoms in Anatolia and North Syria, such as Hamath, celebrate the king’s rule and exploits. 8 Thus it is the North Syrian/Northwest Semitic tradition that provides the literary context for the Mesha Stele. 3.  Klaas A. D. Smelik, “The Literary Structure of King Mesha’s Inscription,” JSOT 46 (1990): 21–30, esp. pp. 25–26; Francis I. Andersen, “Moabite Syntax,” Or 35 (1966): 81–120, esp. pp. 115–16. 4. Bruce Routledge, “The Politics of Mesha: Segmented Identities and State Formation in Iron Age Moab,” JESHO 43 (2000): 221–56, esp. pp.  228–29. Smelik (“Literary Structure,” 26) views the description of the conquest of Horonaim (from line 31) as a later addition to the account since the event must have occurred long after the events of the preceding sections. 5.  Instead of biblical Dibon (‫דיבֹן‬,ִ Isa 15:2; but mostly ‫ּדיבֹון‬,ִ e.g., in Num 21:30), the stele has ‫דיבן‬, which indicates the presence of a diphthong, e.g., “Daybon,” but here I will use the spellings “Dibon /Dibonite” from the received text. 6. Nadav Naʾaman, “Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” IEJ 50 (2000): 92–104, esp. pp. 94–95; Shigeo Yamada, The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 b.c.) Relating to His Campaigns to the West, CHANE 3 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 11–12, 191–92, 284. 7.  Christopher A. Rollston, “The Dating of the Early Royal Byblian Phoenician Inscriptions: A Response to Benjamin Sass,” Maarav 15 (2008): 57–93; Wayne T. Pitard, “The Identity of the Bir-Hadad of the Melqart Stela,” BASOR 272 (1988): 3–21, esp. pp. 13–16. 8.  J. David Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 1: Inscriptions of the Iron Age, 3 vols. (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2000), 2.398–414. The Kulamuwa and Azati-

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

409

Actually, the “I-style” concept is in need of analysis. First, we must distinguish between the literary aspect and syntactic structure proper. From the point of view of literary design, the “I-style” constitutes a narrative in which the king is introduced as recounting events in which he himself is the protagonist (as an autodiegetic narrator), 9 even though the biographical author of the text is a “great scribe of the king, chief of scribes” (ṭupšar šarri rabû rab-ṭupšarrī). 10 In this respect, the Mesopotamian and the Northwest Semitic inscriptions represent similar traditions. On the other hand, the syntactic structure of the North Syrian and Northwest Semitic inscriptions differs from that of the Mesopotamian texts. The large majority of Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions using first-person forms open with the personal name and continue with verbs in the first person and thus represent a “name-style” 11 instead of an “I-style”; note the following, for example, Aššur 742 šulmān-ašarēdu šarru rabû šarru dannu šar kullat kibrāt arbaʾi, eqdu, lēʾu . . . naspantašunu aškunma, kīma išātim elīšunu abāʾi 12 Shalmaneser, great king, strong king, king of all the four quarters, ferocious, capable. . . . I brought about [their] destruction and swept over them like fire. (Grayson)

wada inscriptions are by their very origin an inseparable part of the Luwian tradition; see Halet Çambel, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, vol. 2: Karatepe-Aslantaş (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999), 16–48; Hawkins, Corpus of Luwian Inscriptions, 1.44–60. The connections between the post-Hittite world and the Syro-Palestinian cultures have recently been discussed by Zsolt Simon, “Die angenommenen hethitisch-biblischen kulturellen Parallelen: Das Problem der Vermittlung,” BN 156 (2013), 17–38, esp. pp. 24–33. 9. Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (trans. J. Lewin; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980), 245–48, 252–53; David Herman, Basic Elements of Narrative (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 66–67. 10.  Line 428 of the account of Sargon’s Urartu campaign; see François Thureau-Dangin, Une rélation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (714) (Paris: Geuthner, 1912), 66–67; for the reading and a discussion see Eckhart Frahm, “New Sources for Sennacherib’s ‘First Campaign’,” Isimu 6 (2003), 129–64, esp. pp. 157–59. 11.  The pattern, in which the king’s personal name and praise formulas are followed by the appositional “I” pronoun is presented by the inscription of Sennacherib: mdSîn-aḫḫē pl -erība šarru rabû šarru dannu šar kiššati šar kurAššurki . . . ṣulul ummanātēšu, anāku “Sennacherib, the great king, the powerful king, king of the four quarters, the king of Asshur, . . . the protection of his armies, I. . .;” see David D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (OIP 2; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1924), 135–36, and similarly 117, 144, 147. So also in many Old Babylonian inscriptions, such as those of Hammurapi and SamsuIluna; see Arno Poebel, Das appositionell bestimmte Pronomen der 1. Pers. Sing. in den westsemitischen Inschriften und im Alten Testament (AS 3; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932), 3–10. 12.  Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium b.c. II (858–745 b.c.), RIMA 3 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 117–18, i lines 1–3, 8–9.

410

Frank H. Polak

Only rarely do we encounter clauses opening with anāku—for instance, in a small inscription on a limestone brick of Sennacherib and two inscriptions of Ashurbanipal. 13 In Northwest Semitic inscriptions, on the other hand, the opening with the “I” pronoun is regular, as shown by the Phoenician inscriptions: 14 KAI 24.1 I—Kulamuwa, son of Ḥaya.

[‫אנך כלמו בר חי]א‬

KAI 26 A I 1–2 ‫אנך אזתוד הברך בעל עבד בעל אש אדר אורך מלך דננים‬ I—Azatiwada, the one blessed by Baʿal, the servant of Baʿal, whom Awaraku (Uriki) has made mighty, the king of the Danuna (people of Adana). In Aramaic: 15 KAI 202 A, 2 ‫אנה זכר מלך חמת ולעש אש ענה אנה‬ I—Zakkur, the king of Hamath and Laʿash, I was an afflicted man. A similar pattern is followed by the Luwian inscriptions from the Neo-Hittite kingdoms in Anatolia and North Syria, which open with amu, “I,” such as the inscription from Aleppo (around 900): “I—Laparazitis (?) the RulerPrince,” 16 or the eighth-century Luwian-Phoenician bilingual from Çineköy: KAI l.1–4   ‫] הברך בעל‬. . .[ ‫] אשפח מפש‬. . . ‫אנך ו[רכ בן‬ ‫אש [ירחבת] בת ארץ עמק אדן‬ 13. David Marcus and Ed L. Greenstein, “The Akkadian Inscription of Idrimi,” JANES 8 (1976): 59–96, esp. p. 68; Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, 150. 14.  So also in later inscriptions, e.g., KAI 10.1 (Yeḥawmi/alk, Byblus, fifth-fourth century b.c.e.); 13.1 (Tabnit, Sidon, end of sixth century b.c.e.). In the Inçirli Trilingual, the “I” clause follows the border description; see Stephen A. Kaufman, “The Phoenician Inscription of the Inçirli Trilingual: A Tentative Reconstruction and Translation,” Maarav 14 (2007): 7–26. 15.  So also KAI 216.1; 217.1. 16.  Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, 2.391–92; Recai Tekoğlu, André Lemaire, Ismet Ipek, and A. Kasim Tosun, “La bilingue royale louvito-phénicienne de Çineköy,” CRAIBL 144 (2000): 961–1007, esp. pp. 994–96. So also, for example, in the tenth-century inscriptions from Tell Ahmar (Tel Barsip; Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, 1.225–30) and the ninth-century inscriptions from Hamath (Hawkins, Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions, 2.402–9). In the inscriptions from Karatepe and Çineköy, the opening sign EGO (= amu) must be restored.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

411

I—Uriki [the son of . . .], a scion of Mopsos [. . .] the one blessed by Baʿal,   who has enlarged the estate of the plain [of Adana]. . . . Luwian: I—Warikas, son of [. . .], descendant of Mukasas, king of Ḫiyawa   (= Que), the servant of Turḫanza, the man blessed by the Sun. The style of these inscriptions had roots in the Late Bronze period, as indicated by the opening of the Idrimi narû: 17 Idrimi 1–2 anāku mIdrimi mār Ilim-ilimma, arad dAddu/Tešub, dḪebat u dIštar/   Šaušga bēlet āl Alalaḫ bēlti I—Idrimi, son of Ilimilimma, the servant of Adad/Tešub, Ḫebat u Ištar/   Šaušga, the mistress of the town of Alalaḫ, my lady The distinction between the “I-style” and the “name-style” is extremely meaningful. The “I-style” violates the basic principle of referring to a speaking person by a first-person singular, for in these inscriptions, the real person behind the persona of the ‫ אנך‬is not present. Only the reader is on the spot, whereas the narrating “I” is represented by the statue that is carrying or accompanying the inscription, such as the Idrimi narû, a “portrait” en relief (Kulamuwa), a part of a relief (Azatiwada), or a sarcophagus (Tabnit). 18 The communication situation is made explicit by the opening sentence of the Sidonian sarcophagus of Eshmunazor (around 500 b.c.e.): KAI 14:1–3 ‫ דבר מלך אשמנעזר מלך צדנם לאמר‬. . . ‫בירח בל בשנת‬ ‫ ושכב אנכ בחלת ז ובקבר ז במקם אש בנת‬. . . ‫נגזלת בל עתי‬ In the month of Bul in year . . . King Eshmunazor, king of the Sidonians, declared in speaking: I have been snatched away before my time . . . and am lying in this coffin and in this grave which I have built. The iconic representation of the speaking ‫ אנך‬may suggest that the “I-style” in the narrow sense originated in inscriptions that accompanied or were accompanied by a sculpture or relief. 17.  Marcus and Greenstein, “Idrimi,” 68. 18.  In Mesopotamia, presence by proxy was standard in cultic contexts, as shown by the small statues at the sanctuary at Khafajeh and the text of Gudea B vii 21–48; see Henri Frankfort, Sculpture from the Third Millennium b.c. from Tel Asmar and Khafājah, OIP 44 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), 11; Dietz O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, RIME 3/1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997), 35–36. Sennacherib’s Bavian inscription describes how the king erected statues for the six great gods on Mount Tas and placed his own statue before them in prayer (lines 54–56; Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, 84). He also commands the foundation stone to utter his prayer to Assur (I 7, lines 30–31, p. 146; see also I 2, lines 54–57, pp. 138–39).

412

Frank H. Polak

The Mesopotamian “name-style” does not imply such a direct connection between reader and the “speaking” I, for the mention of the name that opens the inscription establishes the identity, status, and majesty of this potentate before introducing him as an “I.” The pronoun/verbal morph following the name bestows royal authority on this proclamation. Thus in spite of the superficial similarity, the communication situation of the Mesopotamian pattern is different from that of the Northwest Semitic (and Luwian) “I-style.” Hence the conclusion imposes itself that the opening of the Mesha Stele is not dependent on Neo-Assyrian influence but instead reflects a Northwest Semitic tradition. 19 This inference is corroborated by the presence of spoken discourse: Kamosh addresses Mesha, ordering him to conquer Nebo: /‫לך‬ ‫“( אחז·את·נבה·על·ישראל‬go, take Nebo from Israel,” line 14; the continuation recounts in the same words how Mesha executed the command, lines 14– 15). Mesha orders the people of Dibon to dig cisterns: ‫כם·אש·בר·בביתה‬/‫עשו·ל‬ (“Make you each a cistern in his/your house,” line 25). The ominous intentions of Omri’s son are presented in a quoted monologue, ‫“( אענו·את·מאב‬I will afflict Moab,” line 6), a well-known device in biblical narrative. 20 By contrast, in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, as in Akkadian royal inscriptions in general, spoken exchanges are extremely rare. They are attested only in the annals and memorial inscriptions of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. 21 On the other hand, in the Idrimi narû, quoted speech is not infrequent. Thus, the instructions presented in direct speech on the Mesha Stele represent a Northwest Semitic narrative tradition. In view of this similarity, the narrative structure of the Mesha inscription contributes much to our understanding of Biblical Hebrew narrative, as a contemporary of ninth-century Israelite history, and even relative to events from the narrative about Joram’s Moabite campaign. 22 In spite of important distinc19.  In comparison, the very same tradition is attested in some of the central texts of the HB narrative, where the deity is introduced as though he were speaking himself: Ps 81:11; Exod 20:2; and similarly Hos 12:10; 13:4; Isa 43:11, 25; 44:24; 51:12; and with ‫אני‬: Gen 15:7; Isa 43:3; 45:21; 48:17; and in a content clause: ‫אנִי הּוא‬ ֲ ‫אנִי‬ ֲ ‫( ְראּו ע ַָּתה ִּכי‬Deut 32:29; for the reduplication, see Isa 48:15; Hos 5:14). The inverse order is met in Ps 50:7. 20. Maren Niehoff, “Do Biblical Characters Talk to Themselves? Narrative Modes of Representing Inner Speech in Early Biblical Fiction,” JBL 111 (1992): 577–95. 21. Pamela Gerardi, “Thus, He Spoke: Direct Speech in Esarhaddon’s Royal Inscriptions,” ZA 79 (1989): 245–60. As noticed above (n. 18), in some of Sennacherib’s inscriptions the foundation stone is supposed to proclaim the king’s identity and exploits in direct discourse. Direct speech, however, is found in a well-known inscription of Shalmaneser III (or Ashurnasirpal II), which is a poetic text rather than a memorial inscription (text 17 in Grayson, Assyrian Rulers, 85). 22. The narrative aspects have been discussed by Smelik, “Literary Structure”; Simon B. Parker, Stories in Scripture and Inscriptions: Comparative Studies on Narratives in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions and the Hebrew Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 43–58; for the historical parallels/non-parallels, see J. A. Emerton, “The Value of

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

413

tions between the language of the stele and Biblical Hebrew, scholars have pointed out the significant similarity in syntactical structure between this inscription and the norms of Biblical Hebrew. 23 Two-Verb Patterns One of the characteristic features of the Mesha Stele is the use of biverbal and biclausal patterns based on verbs of motion, such as ‫ירד‬, ‫לקח‬, ‫הלך‬. In a pattern of this type, the main action, in the core clause, is preceded by a preparatory clause often consisting of a verbal predicate only, the preverb: Line 14: ‫·אחז·את·נבה·על·ישראל‬/‫לך‬, “Go, take Nebo from Israel.” Line 32: ‫·הלתחם·בחורנן‬/‫רד‬, “Go south, make war against Horonaim.” Lines 15–16: ]‫·ואהרג·כל[ה‬/‫ואחזה‬, “I took it and slew it entirely.”· Alternatively, the preparatory clause may contain additional constituents, so as to form a preclause: Lines 14–15

‫·ואלתחם·בה·מבקע·השחרת·עד·הצהרם‬/‫ואהלך·בללה‬ So I went by night and battled against it from the break of dawn until noon time.

Lines 17–18

‫·ואסחב·הם·לפני·כמש‬/‫·ואקח·משם·א[ת·כ]לי·יהוה‬ So I took from there the utensils of Yhwh and dragged them before Kamosh.

Lines 19–20 ‫·על·דיבן‬/‫·ואחזה·לספת‬/‫·ואשאה·ביהץ‬/‫[ו]אקח·ממאב·מאתן·אש·כל·רשה‬ So I took from Moab two hundred men, all its heads (?) and led them against Yahaz, and took it, adding it to Dibon. the Moabite Stone as a Historical Source,” VT 52 (2002): 483–92; Nadav Naʾaman, “Royal Inscription versus Prophetic Story: Mesha’s Rebellion according to Biblical and Moabite Historiography,” in Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty, ed. Lester L. Grabbe, LHBOTS 421 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007), 145–83; Thomas L. Thompson, “Mesha and Questions of Historicity,” SJOT 22 (2007): 241–60. The earlier discussion by Jacob Liver (“The Wars of Mesha, King of Moab,” PEQ 99 [1967]: 14–31) is still valuable. 23.  On the differences between the language of the stele and Biblical Hebrew, see Sta­ nislas Segert, “Die Sprache der moabitischen Königsinschrift,” ArOr 29 (1961): 197–268; W.  Randall Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria–Palestine, 1000–586 b.c.e. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 228–29; Klaus Bayer, “Die Sprache der moabitischen Inschriften,” KUSATU 11 (2010): 5–41. Syntactic similarities have been highlighted by Andersen, “Moabite Syntax,” 118; Mats Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect and Narrative Technique in Biblical Hebrew Prose (Uppsala: Almqvist & Amsell, 1990), 45–50; Alviero Niccacci, “The Stele of Mesha and the Bible: Verbal System and Narrativity,” Or 63 (1994): 226–48.

414

Frank H. Polak

The frequency of patterns of this sort fits the style of classical biblical narrative, in which preverbal and preclausal constructions are numerous, featuring verbs such as ‫הלך‬, ‫לקח‬, ‫ירד‬: 24 Gen 21:19

ְ ‫באֵר ָמיִם ּוַּתֵ ל‬ ‫ש ְק‬ ְׁ ַ‫ֶך ו ְַּת ַמּלֵא אֶת־ ַה ֵחמֶת ַמיִם וַּת‬ ּ ְ ‫ַוִי ְּפקַ ֤ח אֱל ִֹהים אֶת־עֵינֶי ָה וַּתֵ רֶא‬ ‫אֶת־ ַהּנָעַר׃‬ Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. She went and filled the skin with water

Gen 24:51 Here is Rebekah before you; take her and go

‫ֵה־ר ְב ָקה ְל ָפנֶיךָ קַ ֣ח ָול ְֵך‬ ִ ‫ִהּנ‬

Gen 27:9

ְ‫ל‬ ‫ְדי ֵי ִעּזִים ט ִֹבים‬ ָ ‫ּׁשם ְׁשנֵי ּג‬ ָ ‫ֽח־לי ִמ‬ ִ ַ‫ֶך־נָא אֶל־הַצֹּאן ְוק‬ Go to the flock and fetch me there two choice kids.

Exod 2:1

ְ ‫ַוּיֵל‬ ‫ֶך ִאיׁש ִמ ֵבּית לִֵוי ַוִיּּקַ ח אֶת־ּבַת־לִֵוי׃‬ A certain man of the house of Levi went and married a Levite woman.

Gen 43:4 We will go down and buy you food.

‫ִש ְּברָה ְלךָ אֹכֶל׃‬ ְׁ ‫נ ְֵר ָדה ְונ‬

2 Sam 23:20

ְ ֹ ‫ֲרי ְּבת‬ ‫ַּׁשלֶג׃‬ ָ ‫וך הַּבֹאר ְּביֹום ה‬ ִ‫ְוהּוא יָרַ ד ְו ִהּכָה אֶת־ ָהא‬ And he went down and killed a lion in a pit on a snowy day.

Thus the particular use of motion verbs is an additional shared feature of Hebrew and Moabite.

24.  Frederick W. Dobbs-Allsopp, “Ingressive qwm in Biblical Hebrew,” ZAH 8 (1995): 31–54; Mats Eskhult, “The Verb sbb as a Marker of Inception in Biblical Hebrew,” Orientalia Suecana 47 (1998): 21–26; Frank H. Polak, “Verbs of Motion in Biblical Hebrew: Lexical Shifts and Syntactic Structure,” in A Palimpsest: Rhetoric, Ideology, Stylistics, and Language Relating to Persian Israel, ed. Ehud Ben-Zvi, Diana Edelman, and F. H. Polak (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2009), 161–97, esp. pp. 187–97.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

415

The Vertical Stroke and Prose Prosody Of particular value is the way the stele uses upright strokes. Those strokes have often been taken to indicate sentence boundaries and thus form an authentic indication of syntactic and discourse structure in the view of a ninth-century scribe. However, the function of the vertical strokes is not exhausted by the marking of the sentence boundary.  25 One notes the stroke within a sentence: Lines 16–17 ‫ואהרג·כל[ה]·שבעת·אלפן[·]ג[ב]רן·ו[גר]ן | וגברת·ו[גר]\ת·ורחמת‬ I slew it entirely, seven thousand men and youngsters, 26 and women and girls and maids Lines 29–30 27 ‫ואנך·בנתי·[את·מהד]בא·ובת·דבלת|ובת·בעלמען‬ And I have built Medeba and the temple at Diblathaim, and the temple at Baʿal Meon The stroke separates the motive clause from its antecedent: Line 17 for I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kamosh. 28

‫|כי·לעשתר·כמש·החרמתה‬

In addition, it is quite possible that the phrase ‫ במ?[ת·י]שע‬closes the first sentence of the building description, but unfortunately the text is damaged, and the reading remains conjectural: 25.  Andersen, “Moabite Syntax,” 85–88; Johannes C. de Moor, “Narrative Poetry in Canaan,” UF 20 (1988): 149–77. 26. Deriving ‫ גר‬from the same root as ‫גור‬, “young animal,” and thus “youngster”; with André Lemaire, “Notes d’Épigraphie Nord-Ouest Sémitique,” Syria 64 (1987): 205–16, esp. pp. 207–8; Shmuel Aḥituv, HaKetav weHaMiḵtav: Handbook of Ancient Inscriptions from the Land of Israel and the Kingdoms beyond the Jordan from the Period of the First Commonwealth, Biblical Encyclopaedia Library (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 2005), 12.367 [Heb.]. I see no good reason for a derivation from ‫גר‬, “protected foreigner,” an interpretation that is even less plausible for ‫ גרת‬in the next line. 27.  The phrase ‫ ובת בעלמען‬could be viewed as a cleft sentence (compare lines 4–5), but the continuation of line 30 is highly uncertain; see Lemaire, “Notes d’Épigraphie,” 209–10, also for the rendering of ‫בת‬, “house,” as temple. 28.  The most plausible reading for ‫ כמש‬is Kamosh, as in LXX Χαμως (Num 21:29 and passim), warranted by the interplay of Kamus/Kamas in Assyrian transcriptions; see Erasmus Gass, Die Moabiter: Geschichte und Kultur eines ostjordanischen Volkes im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2009), 128, 132.

416

Frank H. Polak

Lines 3–4 ‫ואעש·הבמת·זאת·לכמש·בקרחה|במ?[ת·י]שע‬ And I made this high place for Kamosh in qrḥh(?), as a high [place? of sal]vation. 29 But since the phrase ‫ במת ישע‬is quite short and is followed by a long motive clause, this case still merits mentioning (see below). In addition, Francis Andersen notes that, in many cases the stroke encloses two clauses (e.g., lines 3–4, 6–9, 10–13, 18–20, 22–24, 25–28). These data lead him to the conclusion that the stroke serves to set off pairs of clauses in a structure that is similar to parallelism though not exactly like poetic language. This approach has been carried further by Johannes de Moor, who however analyses even noun pairs as parallelism—for example: ‫ וחצי ימי בנה‬// ‫“( וישב בה ימה‬and one resided there during his days and half the days of his son”). 30 When patterns of this sort are considered parallelism, all fences are down. What is needed is a renewed review of the evidence. An important premise for this discussion is provided by the linguist Michael Halliday’s insight that the term “sentence” should be replaced by the notion “clause complex,” as an open sequence of clauses bonded together (paratactically and/or in hypotaxis) into a single complex unit which may be structured in various ways. 31 In this view, the vertical strokes serve to set off clause complexes or substructures within the complex, which can be described as clause chains (ClCh). Lines 1–33 of the stele contain 38 ClChs. 32

29.  This is the rendering of Routledge (“The Politics of Mesha,” 247), who notes Lipiń­ ski’s reading as bn[th. n]šʿ, “I built it as victorious,” that is, “one who has been granted victory”; see Edward Lipiński, On the Skirts of Canaan in the Iron Age. Historical and Topographical Researches (Leuven: Peeters and Departement Oosterse Studies, 2006), 336. Gass (Die Moabiter, 17) reads bns [y]šʿ, on an unclear basis. Smelik (“Literary Structure,” 27) wisely refrains from reconstruction. 30. De Moor, “Narrative Poetry,” 150–55. My rendering of these lines is based on the consideration that Omri did not actually reside there and certainly not during the “days of his son.” Accordingly, the verb should probably be read as an infinitive absolute, or at least as an indefinite form. 31.  Michael A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed. (London: Arnold, 1994), 215–25; Christian M. I. M. Mathiessen, “Combining Clauses into Clause Complexes: A Multifaceted View,” in Complex Sentences in Grammar and Discourse: Essays in Honor of Sandra A. Thompson, ed. Joan Bybee and Michael Noonan (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2002), 237–322, esp. pp. 237–38. For Biblical Hebrew, this notion is particularly helpful, since it often is impossible to determine where one “sentence” ends and where the other one begins. 32.  The fragmentary state of lines 34–35 does not allow segmentation.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

417

Clause Pairing and Parallelism The first issue to be discussed is the semantics of the clause chains as marked by the vertical stroke. 33 Synonymous parallelism with metrical balance is demonstrated by the motivation for the building of qrḥh: Lines 3–4 34 |‫·וכי·הראני·בכל·שנאי‬/‫כי·השעני·מכל·המ?לכן‬ Because he saved me from all the kings (?) and because he let me prevail over all my enemies. Semantic, syntactic, and rhythmic symmetry appear together in the description of the fate of the cult utensils from Nebo: Lines 17–18 |‫·ואסחב·הם·לפני·כמש‬/‫ואקח ·משם·א[ת·כ]לי·יהוה‬ And I took from there all utensils of Yhwh and dragged them before Kamosh. A rather weak semantic symmetry is represented by two motion verbs, ‫ ואקח‬and ‫ואסחב‬, both in the semantic field of caused movement. A syntactic balance is created by the use of two direct objects and two locative modifiers. Of particular interest is the alternation of a deictic and a noun phrase: as against the noun phrase ‫ א[ת כ]לי יהוה‬in the opening clause, the second clause has a deictic, ‫הם‬, as the direct object. The noun phrase ‫ לפני·כמש‬counterpoises the deictic ‫ משם‬of the first clause. This ClCh, then, evidences a particular balancing act. In the building descriptions, one notes the coupling of ‫( בנה‬in clauses a and c) and ‫( עשה‬in clause b): Lines 9–10 |‫·ואב]ן[·את·קריתן‬/‫·ואעש·בה·האשוח‬/‫ואבן·את·בעלמען‬ And I built Baʿal Meon, and made therein the reservoir, and I built Kiriathaim. In these clauses, parallelism is based on the congruence of syntactic and metrical patterning; the repetition of ‫ בנה‬forms an inclusio. In other cases, the correspondence is limited to lexical associations:

33.  The clause boundary will be indicated by a regular slash, /. A back slash, \, indicates the beginning of a new line in the inscription. 34. In my view, the graphic remains of the fragmentary signs ‫מ‬/‫ש‬, their size, and their angle point to the reading ‫ מלכן‬rather than to ‫שלכן‬.

418

Frank H. Polak

Lines 22–24· |‫·ואנך·עשתי·כלאי·האשו[ח·למ]ין·בקר[ב·\ה]קר‬/‫וא\נך·בנתי·בת·מלך‬ And I built the royal palace, and I made the double (?) water pool inside the town. Line 26 |‫·ואנך·עשתי·המסלת·בארנן‬/‫ואנך·בנתי·ערער‬ And I built Aroer, and I made the highway by (?) the Arnon. The ClCh in lines 22–24 is characterized by the association of ‫ בנה‬and ‫עשה‬, like the previous example, and by the anaphoric repetition of ‫אנך‬. However, the (b) clause contains additional modifiers not present in the (a) clause: in line 24, ‫ ;למ]ין בקר[ב ה]קר‬in line 26, ‫בארנן‬. Hence, the semantic correspondence in these lines is not accompanied by syntactic/metric balancing. Lexical association and anaphoric repetition (‫ אנך‬and ‫ )בנה‬stand out in the opening of the building section, in which a complete sentence (lines 21–22) is counterpoised with a balanced clause pair (in syntactic/metrical equilibrium as well): Lines 21–22 |‫אנך·בנתי·קרחה·חמת·היערן]·[וחמת·העפל‬ I built qrḥh, the wall of the forests and the wall of the citadel. Line 22 I built its gates and I built its towers.

|‫·ואנך·בנתי·מגדלתה‬/‫ואנך ·בנתי·שעריה‬

The words ‫ חמה‬and ‫ שער‬are often associated in biblical and Ugaritic poetry (RS 24.266): 35 Lines 28ʹ–29′ ⸢hm. t⸣dy ʿz l⸢ṯ⸣ġrn\y // qrd [l]ḥmtny If you drive a/the strong one from our gate(s), a/the warrior from our walls.

35.  See Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit, SBLWAW 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002), 150; and compare Deut 28:52; Isa 26:1–2; 60:18; Jer 1:15; 51:58; Lam 2:8–9; Neh 1:3.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

419

So are ‫ חומה‬and ‫מגדל‬, 36 and ‫ שער‬and ‫מגדל‬. 37 Thus, the lexical association of ‫שער‬, ‫חומה‬, and ‫ מגדל‬is part and parcel of the Northwest Semitic rhetorical tradition. Antithetic parallelism is also at work in the Mesha Stele: Line 26 38 |‫·כי·הרס·הא‬/‫אנך·בנתי·בת·במת‬ I have built Beth Bamoth because it was in ruins. Line 27 And I have built Bezer because it was in ruins.

[‫אנך·בנתי·בצר·כי·עין·\]הא‬

Another case contrasts the intentions of Omri’s son with Mesha’s ultimate success: Lines 6–7 |‫·וארא·בה·ובבתה‬/\]‫בימי ·אמר·כ[ן‬ In my days, he said so, but I have prevailed over him and his house. This line instances antithetic parallelism ad sensum. 39 A third example involves paronomasia of ‫ שוב‬and ‫ישב‬, as well as the repetition of ‫יום‬: Lines 8–9 |‫·ויש\בה·כמש·בימי‬/‫וישב·בה·ימה·וחצי·ימי·בנה·ארבען·שת‬ And he resided there his days and half the days of his son, forty years, but Kamosh restored it in my days. Although none of these lines is balanced metrically, metrical balance stands out in the description of the building of the cisterns: Lines 24–25 /‫ובר·אן·בקרב·הקר·בקרחה‬ |‫·עשו·ל\כם·אש·בר·בביתה‬/‫ואמר·לכל·העם‬ Now there was no cistern in the town, in qrḥh, and I said to all the people: “Make you each a cistern in his/your house.” 36.  Compare Isa 2:15; Ezek 26:9; 27:11; Song 8:10; Neh 3:27. 37.  Compare Jer 31:38; Ezek 26:10; Zech 14:10; Song 7:5; and in building descriptions: Neh 3:1, 13, 26; 12:38–39; 2 Chr 26:9; 27:3–4. 38. For ‫ בנה‬and ‫ הרס‬in parallelism, see: Ps 28:5; Prov 14:1; Jer 24:6; 31:28; 42:10; 45:4; Mal 1:4; Job 12:14; see also Jer 1:10; Ezek 36:36. 39.  On a similar, ideologically motivated balance in lines 7–8, see below, pp. 424–425.

420

Frank H. Polak

The negative description ‫ ובר·אן‬has its antithesis in clause (c), the positive royal instruction ‫עשו·לכם·אש·בר·בביתה‬. Apart from the repetition of ‫בר‬, one notes the recurrent use of locative modifiers, ‫ בקרב·הקר·בקרחה‬as against ‫בביתה‬. Repetitious parallelism characterizes the opening of the narrative section: Lines 2–3 |‫שת·ואנך·מלכ\תי·אחר·אבי‬/·‫אבי·מלך·על·מאב·שלשן‬ My father was king over Moab for thirty years, and I became king after my father One notes the repetitive parallelism of ‫מלכתי‬//‫ מלך‬and ‫אחר·אבי‬//‫אבי‬. The indication of time, ‫אחר·אבי‬, matches the temporal modifier ‫שלשן·שת‬, both at the end of the clause. One might discern a scent of metrical balance (4–5 accented words). The vertical stroke also marks repetition patterns with two lines consisting of divine command and royal execution in tandem, and thus in synonymous parallelism ad sensum: Lines 14–16 |‫·אחז·את·נבה·על·ישראל‬/‫·לך‬/ \‫ויאמר·לי·כמש‬ |‫·ואלתחם·בה·מבקע·השחרת·עד·הצהרם‬/‫ואה\לך·בללה‬ |‫ואח\זה·ואהרג·כל[ה]·שבעת·אלפן·ג[ב]רן·ו[גר]ן‬ And Kamosh said to me: “Go, take Nebo from Israel,” and I went by night, and waged battle against it from the break of dawn until noon time, and I took it and slew it completely, seven thousand men and youngsters. Lines 32–33 |‫·הלתחם·בחורנן‬/‫·רד‬/‫וי]אמר·לי·כמש‬ |‫[ ויש]בה ·כמש·בימי‬. . . . . . . . .]/[. . .]‫· ו‬/‫וארד‬ And Kamosh said to me: “Go south, wage battle against Horonaim,” and I went to the south, and [. . . . . . . . .] Kamosh [retur]ned it in my days. In both cases, the description of the slaughter contains additional detail, beyond the command, as is also customary in biblical narrative. 40 In the complex concerning the conquest of Nebo (lines 14–16), the indication of the conquest itself appears in a third ClCh, which also recounts the killing of the inhabitants. Thus in 18 clause chains out of 38, the division by strokes is correlated with synonymous or antithetic parallelism, or with repetition patterns closely related to parallelism. However, metrical balance is less common. 40.  Although the description of Mesha’s attack in lines 32–33 is only partly preserved (and often reconstructed with the help of the first part of line 32), its import is clear from the end.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

421

Free Patterns Some lines contain repetition patterns that are less structured than repetitive parallelism but that nevertheless affect prosody: Lines 4–7 41 |‫·ויענו·את·מאב·ימן·רבן·כי·יאנף·כמש·בארצה‬/‫עמר\י ·מלך·ישראל‬ |‫·ויאמר·גם·הא\·אענו·את·מאב‬/‫ויחלפה·בנה‬ |‫וארא·בה·ובבתה‬/·\ ]‫בימי·אמר·כ [ן‬ Omri, king of Israel, subdued Moab for many days, because Kamosh was angry with his country. And his son succeeded him and likewise said: “Let me subdue Moab.” In my days he said so, but I prevailed over him and his house. The opening phrase, a casus pendens followed by the clause concerning Omri’s subjugation of Moab (lines 4–5) is matched by the introduction of Omri’s son and his intention to continue the subjugation (line 6). Thus the clause ‫ אענו·את·מאב‬matches ‫ויענו·את·מאב·ימן·רבן‬, whereas ‫ ויחלפה·בנה‬corresponds with ‫עמרי·מלך·ישראל‬. If ‫ ויחלפה·בנה‬is matched by (‫בית‬//‫)בן‬, ]‫בימי·אמר·כ[ן‬ ‫ וארא·בה·ובבתה‬echoes ‫( ימן·רבן‬line 5). In this connection, one may also consider a sequence of two ClChs: Lines 10–11 |‫ ויבן·לה·מלך·ישראל·את·עטרת‬/‫ואש·גד·ישב·בארץ·עטרת·מעלם‬ |‫·ואחזה‬/‫ואלתחם ·בקר‬ Now, the people of Gad had lived in the land of Ataroth from ancient times, and the king of Israel had fortified Ataroth, but I waged war against the town and took it. In the first line, the repetition of the mention of Ataroth creates a sort of equilibrium between the two clauses, underscored by the coupling of ‫ ישב‬and ‫בנה‬, as also found in the sequence ‫·וישב·בה‬/‫( ומלך·ישראל·בנה]·[את]·[יהץ‬lines 18–19). However, the relationship between these clauses is uncertain. Should we posit a contrast between the situation “of olden” and the fortification of the town? 42 Or is the Israelite building operation a continuation of a situation that always 41.  On antithetic parallelism in lines 6–7, see above, p. 419. 42.  The special mention of the “people of Gad” may be a recognition of the Gad­ites as a particular ethnic group within Mesha’s kingdom following his conquest of the area. Apart from ‫אש גד‬, only ‫ אש דיבן‬merits special mention, but unlike the Dibonites who had a special role to play in Mesha’s war of liberation, the mention of the Gadites is not motivated. Hence, their particular mention precludes Knauf’s hypothesis that they always formed a regular component of the Moabite population, whose rights were violated by the king of Israel; see Routledge, “The Politics of Mesha,” 238; as against Ernst Axel Knauf, “Eglon and Ophrah: Two Toponymic Notes on the Book of Judges,” JSOT 51 (1991): 25–44, esp. pp. 26–27. Notably, Mesha does not assert that the Gadites were expelled by the Omrides, nor does

422

Frank H. Polak

was a thorn in the eyes of the Moabites and that was only now resolved by Mesha’s conquest? In any case, this line is balanced by a concise description of the successful attack (line 11). The terseness of this ClCh, of which the first clause contains two words and the second only one, highlights its weight. Lines 12–14 |‫·ואסחבה·לפני·כמש·בקרית‬/‫ואשב ·משם·את·אראל·דודה‬ |‫ואשב·בה·את·אש·שרן·ואת·א]ש[\·מחרת‬ And I captured the . . . ? from there, and dragged it before Kamosh in qryt, And settled the people from Sharon there and the people from mḥrt Both clauses open with the same graph ‫ואשב‬, first as “I captured,” from ‫שבה‬ (line 12), 43 and second as “I settled,” from ‫( ישב‬line 13). The symmetry created by this graphic similarity, actually a play on words of the same sort as the play with ‫ ישב‬and ‫ שוב‬in lines 8–9, is underscored by the direct object in both clauses. The ‫ אראל·דודה‬in line 12, which is taken from Ataroth and dragged to the sanctuary of Kamosh in qryt (line 13), is counterpoised by the people settled in Ataroth. A similar counterbalance is apparent in the description of the conquest of Yahaz: Lines 18–21 |‫וישב בה בהלתחמה בי‬/‫ומלך·ישראל·בנה]·[את]·[יהץ‬ |‫·]ו[\אקח·ממאב·מאתן·אש·כל·רשה‬/‫ויגרשה·כמש·מפני‬ |‫·ואחזה\·לספת·על·דיבן‬/‫ואשאה·ביהץ‬ And the king of Israel had fortified Yahaz and dwelled there as he waged war against me, but Kamosh drove him out before me. So I took from Moab two hundred men, all its heads (?), and led them against Yahaz, and took it, adding it to Dibon. The depiction of the fortification and settlement of Yahaz (lines 18–19) is balanced by the section on the conquest of the town (lines 19–20). The general description in the opening clause at the end of line 19, which shows how Kahe claim to have returned them to their location, a privilege that was allowed the people of Sharon and mḥrt. 43. With Aḥituv, Handbook, 365–66. It is true that this derivation is less adequate for objects; in Biblical Hebrew, ‫ שבה‬refers to the capture of animals (Exod 22:9; 1 Chr 5:21; 2 Chr 14:14), but for inanimate possessions it appears only in juxtaposition with persons (2 Chr 21:17). However, derivation from ‫ שבה‬could fit the enigmatic phrase ‫ אראל·דודה‬if it denoted a cultic or monumental object. The derivation from ‫שוב‬, “return,” could indicate the return of a Moabite object usurped by Israel but would be ill at ease with ‫סחב‬, which fits booty rather than venerated artifacts. This derivation would be less objectionable if “return” could be taken to imply “present (or bring in) what is owed,” as in Exod 21:34; and with ‫אשם‬: Num 5:7–8; 1 Sam 6:3, 17.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

423

mosh expelled the Israelite king, is complemented by Mesha’s initiative as depicted in the second clause (the opening of line 20) and the following ClCh (lines 20–21). A modern reader might prefer to attach the opening clause concerning Kamosh to the previous ClCh by the conjectural insertion of a vertical stroke. However, the present structure as indicated by the vertical strokes is not to be disregarded, for it represents the well-known synergism of divine and human action. Non-Paired Clauses If we add the 11 instances of free repetitive patterning to the 18 cases of parallelism and structured repetition, we see that 28 out of 38 clause chains embody patterns that are close to parallelism. These patterns, then, provide the groundwork for our inscription. This patterning even involves non-paired clauses that do not manifest parallelism or structured repetition. 44 Structuring of this sort stands out in the opening lines: Lines 1–3 |‫אנך·משע·בן·כמש]ית]·מלך·מאב·הד\יבני‬ |‫·ואנך·מלכ\תי·אחר·אבי‬/‫אבי·מלך·על·מאב·שלשן·שת‬ |‫ואעש·הבמת·זאת·לכמש·בקרחה‬ I—Mesha, son of Kamosh-yat, king of Moab, the Dibonite— my father was king over Moab for thirty years, and I have become king after my father, and I have constructed this bamah for Kamosh in qrḥh. In this clause complex, the second ClCh (lines 2–3) reveals repetition with parallelism, whereas the opening and closing chains (lines 1–2, 3) do not. However, these chains contribute to parallelistic structuring by surrounding the second ClCh with an opening and a closing. By the same token, the long clause (line 25–26) concerning the reservoir (?) that the Israelite POW’s were required to dig (?) 45 is surrounded by two balanced ClCh’s (lines 24–25, 26): Lines 25–26 |‫י]·[ישראל‬/‫ואנך·כרתי·המכרתת·לקרחה·באסר‬ |‫·ואנך·עשתי·המסלת·בארנן‬/‫אנך·בנתי·ערער‬ And I dug the reservoir for qrḥh by means of the Israelite captives. And I have built Aroer, and I have made the highway by (?) the Arnon. 44.  Because of disagreements over the reading of lines 11–12, where Lemaire (“Notes d’Épigraphie,” 206–7; “New Photographs and ryt or hyt in the Mesha Inscription, Line 12,” IEJ 57 [2007]: 204–7) reads ‫ הקר רית‬but others read ‫( הקר רית‬Aḥituv, Handbook, 360, 365), I refrain from analyzing this stretch. 45.  See J. A. Emerton, “Lines 25–26 of the Moabite Stone and a Recently-Discovered Inscription,” VT 55 (2005): 293–303; Aḥituv, Handbook, 370.

424

Frank H. Polak

Moreover, the opening with ‫ ואנך‬links up with line 26 (and lines 22–24). One also notes the connection between the unstructured clauses in lines 28–30, which all open with ‫ אנך‬and the patterned ClCh’s in the preceding section (lines 26–28). Both in these lines and in the opening (lines 1–3), the nonpaired clauses convey important information: Mesha’s self-presentation, the dedication of the cult location to Kamosh, and the use of the Israelite POW’s for the construction of the reservoir (?). Thus the content affects the prosodic patterns of this inscription. Ideology and Patterning Some instances of unusual shaping are apparent due to the ideational preoccupations of the stele. Subjugation and Reconquista: An Equilibrium The description of Mesha’s victory over Israel ends with a ClCh in which the first clause presents the outcome of the war of liberation: Israel perished, perished forever. The second clause forms the opening of a new event sequence that describes Omri’s actions in the region of Madaba: Lines 7–8 |‫ץ·מהדבה‬/]‫( וירש·עמרי·את·א[ר‬b) / ‫( וישראל·אבד·אבד·עלם‬a) So Israel perished, perished forever. Omri, now, had taken possession of the land of Medeba Based on the generally accepted division into sections by theme and subject matter, these clauses do not belong together. Andersen and Smelik placed the (a) clause in the preceding description of the oppression, whereas the (b) clause was allocated to the section about Madaba. On the other hand, Niccacci uses the discourse order suggested by the vertical strokes and combines the two clauses into one adversative sentence: “Now Israel had perished in eternal perdition, but Omri occupied the land of Madaba.” 46 The assumption underlying this rendering is that the fronting of the subject ‫ וישראל‬indicates that clause (a) serves as background for Omri’s action, indicating Israel’s weakness in the period before Omri: “Although Israel perished, perished forever, Omri took possession of the land of Madaba.” 47 However, in this interpretation the meaning of ‫עלם‬, “forever,” does not fit the situation. 46.  Andersen, “Moabite Syntax,” 83; Smelik, “Literary Structure,” 27; Niccacci’s interpretation (“Stele of Mesha,” 228, 236) is followed by Routledge, “The Politics of Mesha,” 247 n. 88; Lipiński, Skirts of Canaan, 336. 47.  Routledge, “The Politics of Mesha,” 247. In my view, ‫ וירש‬cannot be analyzed as wayyiqtol, because the result of the later action (“and Israel perished, perished forever”) would supply the point of departure (reference time) for the earlier event (Omri’s occupying the Madaba region). I do not see a problem in its reading as a waw-conjunctive followed

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

425

In my view, the explicit juxtaposition of the two episodes in one clause pair serves the purpose of balancing the gain and loss. The successful outcome of Mesha’s war serves to counterbalance Omri’s occupation of the Madaba region. The humiliation of this conquest is neutralized by the reference to Moab’s final triumph. 48 Mesha in Nebo: Intonation and Ideology Special problems are raised by the structure of the depiction of Mesha’s treatment of Nebo. Following the command/execution pattern of lines 14–15, we encounter a two-clause pattern with a long noun phrase: Lines 15–17 |‫ואהרג·כל]ה[·שבעת·אלפן·ג]ב[רן·ו]גר[ן‬ |‫וגברת·וג[ר]\ת·ורחמת‬ |‫כי·לעשתר·כמש·החרמתה‬ And I slew it entirely, seven thousand men and youngsters, and women and girls and maids, for I had put it to the ban for Ashtar Kamosh. As noted above, these lines pose two problems. First, the vertical stroke divides a long noun group into two smaller groups: |‫ שבעת·אלפן·ג]ב[רן·ו]גר[ן‬and ‫וגברת·וג[ר]\ת·ורחמת‬. 49 In the second phrase, the addition of ‫ רחמת‬creates an approximate rhythmic counterweight to ‫ שבעת·אלפן‬in the first phrase. These two noun phrases, then, are to be viewed as approximately balanced intonation units. The delimitation of these intonation units has another feature: the ensuing clause, ‫( כי·לעשתר·כמש·החרמתה‬line 17), is set apart from the core clause (lines 15–17). 50 Since the latter clause forms the climax of the section on Nebo, ‫כי‬ could function as a deictic or even as a presentation particle highlighting the faithful implementation of the ḥērem ban as the high point of Mesha’s achievement in Nebo.  51 by a qatal (like Gen 42:30), or, probably preferable, as a weqātōl-infinitive followed by the subject (compare 1 Sam 25:26, 33; and in LBH: Qoh 4:2; Esth 9:1). 48.  On a similar balance in lines 6–7, 8–9, see p. 419 above. 49.  One notes the position of ‫ רחמתים רחם‬in the division of the spoil as imagined by Sisera’s mother (Judg 5:30); the special provision for the captured girl (Deut 21:10–14); and, in the Iliad (I, lines 130–344), the conflict between Achilles and Agamemnon over the status of the captive girls Briseis and Chryseis. 50.  In line 4, the motivation clause is set apart from the building clause (line 3) by a stroke and the phrase ‫ ;במ?[ת י]שע‬and see below. 51.  On the ḥērem, see now Lauren A. S. Monroe, “Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean Warḥērem Traditions and the Forging of National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text RES 3945 in Light of Biblical and Moabite Evidence,” VT 57 (2007): 318–41; Routledge, “The Politics of Mesha,” 237–38.

426

Frank H. Polak

Segmentation and Intonation Unit The unique use of the upright stroke in lines 7–8 and 15–17 suggests a more general function than merely marking the clauses or clause chains. What is indicated in all cases is a pause that marks an intonation unit, which can be defined as the “suprasegmental unit,” the boundaries of which are recognizable by “(1) final lengthening, (2) an initial rush, (3) pitch reset, and (4) a pause.” 52 In most cases in this inscription, the unit thus marked is a clause pair; at times it is a long clause, and in some special cases the unit is smaller and results in a special effect. It seems to me that the problem of the ]‫במ?[ת י‬ ‫( שע‬lines 3–4, si vera lectio) should also be viewed in this light. This phrase is granted a special position in view of its weight. If it were not separated from the preceding clause, it would be no more than the fifth constituent in the current sentence, or an apposition to ‫—הבמת‬as it is in the English translation “And I made this high place for Kemoš in Qrḥh, high place of salvation.” 53 In the present structure, this phrase assumes the position of an assertion in its own right as the head of the ensuing explanation: “because he saved me from all the kings (?) and because he let me prevail over all my enemies.” The latter clause serves as a pointer to the war narrative that opens with the reference to Omri (lines 4–5). Intonation and Performance Thus the ultimate function of the upright stroke is to indicate intonation units, such as clause chains or clause pairs, single clauses in their own right, or smaller units. What was the purpose of this sort of segmentation? It is doubtful that it was created to indicate syntactic units in writing. After all, only some of the sequences thus indicated consist of sentences or sentence strings. In other cases, this punctuation melds different clauses together or suggests segmentation where syntactic analysis indicates continuity. Moreover, we do not know how the ancient scribal intuition experienced the clause boundary, which in spoken discourse is only indicated by diverse sorts of intonation, 54 and in Biblical Hebrew, to a certain extent, by pausal forms. 52. Shlomo Izre'el, “Intonation Units and the Structure of Spontaneous Spoken Language: A View from Hebrew,” article 5 in Proceedings of the IDP05 International Symposium on Discourse-Prosody Interfaces (ed. Cyril Auran et al., 2005), 3, http://aune.lpl .univ-aix.fr/~prodige/idp05/actes/izreel.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2012); Wallace L. Chafe, Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 58–60. 53.  Eskhult, Studies in Verbal Aspect, 46. 54.  Michael A. K. Halliday, “Intonation and Meaning,” in Halliday: System and Functions in Language, ed. Gunther Kress (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 214–34; Halliday, Functional Linguistics, 7–10; Chafe, Discourse, Consciousness, and Time, 64–68; Izre'el, “Intonation Units,” 3–5, 11–12.

The Discourse Structure of the Mesha Inscription

427

These considerations lead me to consider the other side of literary and public communication, the oral performance. 55 In oral performance, the role of breathing is clear, and the highlighting of the shorter sequences seems more perceptible. 56 Moreover, only oral proclamation would spread the word of Mesha’s achievements all over the kingdom. 57 When viewed in this light, the Mesha stele, though inevitably a product of the scribal chancery, seems to reflect both a scribal and an oral context. 58 But analysis of this interplay requires a study in its own right. 55.  Perhaps the performed text was introduced by a short presentation phrase, such as “Thus speaks the king,” as in the Aramaic version of Darius’s Bisitun Inscription. 56.  Michael A. K. Halliday, Spoken and Written Language, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 48–60. 57. Note Oppenheim’s analysis of the rhetorical/aural style of Sargon’s account of the campaign in Urartu and his conclusions regarding the oral context of this account; see A. Leo Oppenheim, “The City of Assur in 714 b.c.e.,” JNES 19 (1960): 133–47. In Luwian Hieroglyphic inscriptions, the enclitic particle -wa, which indicates quoted speech, is almost “omnipresent” and appears especially in opening phrases; e.g., Carchemish A11a, 11b; Tell Ahmar 2 (Hawkins, Corpus Luwian Inscriptions, 1.95, 103, 228); Babylon 1 (ibid., 2.392). The use of this particle probably indicates an aural/oral context, “as written documents were generally intended to be read out,” as discussed by Annick Payne, Hieroglyphic Luwian: An Introduction with Original Texts, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 40. 58.  Frank H. Polak, “Sociolinguistics: A Key to the Typology and the Social Background of Biblical Hebrew,” HS 47 (2006): 115–62, esp. p. 159 n. 131.

Anointing Documents with Oil and Sacrificing before Them

Barbara N. Porter Throughout the days of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, it was common practice for Assyrian kings to erect large stone monuments, referred to by modern scholars as “steles,” in important newly conquered cities at key points along the boundaries of the rapidly expanding Assyrian Empire and in temples and palaces within the Assyrian homeland. Typically, each stele carried a carved inscription describing the king’s recent military achievements and, beneath the arched top of the monument, an image in bas relief of the standing king wearing formal, ceremonial dress and raising a hand or cup in salute to emblems of some of Assyria’s most powerful gods. 1 A curious aspect of the inscriptions on these steles is that their concluding passages often included a special clause requesting that future rulers who saw the stele would anoint it with oil and perform a sacrifice. At this point in the Author’s note: It is a pleasure to dedicate this brief essay to the memory of my good friend Avigdor Hurowitz, who had a remarkable knack for untangling muddled problems of religious practice and belief. I hope it would have pleased him. 1. This essay grew out of a long-term joint research project on Sargon and Cyprus undertaken in collaboration with Joseph Greene, Assistant Director of the Harvard Semitic Museum. Although the opinions expressed here are my own, they reflect my debt to him for expert advice on matters archaeological and Cypriot and for his astute comments. I am also indebted to Grant Frame for generously helping me obtain materials and for sharing part of his unpublished translation of the Larnaca inscription. For recent comprehensive studies of steles, see Louis D. Levine, Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae from Iran, Royal Ontario Museum Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 23 (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1972); Jutta Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und Vergleichbare Felsreliefs, Baghdader Forschungen 4 (Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern, 1982); Daniele Morandi, “Stele e Statue Reali Assire: Localizzazione, Diffusione e Implicazioni Ideologiche,” Mesopotamia 23 (1988): 105–55; Heinz Genge, Stelen Neuassyrischer Könige, vol. 1 (Berlin: Weissensee, 1965); Ann T. Shafer, “The Carving of an Empire: Neo-Assyrian Monuments on the Periphery” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1998); and Grant Frame, “The Tell Acharneh Stele of Sargon II of Assyria,” in Tell ʿAcharneh 1998–2004, ed. M. Fortin, Subartu 18 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 49–68.

429

430

Barbara N. Porter

text, the stele had already been erected and ritually dedicated; the requested ceremonies were to take place at a future time, at the hands of a ruler to come. In a typical example, King Sargon II, at the end of the stele he erected at Najafehabad, Iran, requests: In the future, may a future prince (one) whom Aššur, king of all the Igῑgû gods, shall summon and name to be ruler of Assyria read this commemorative monument (narû: NA4 NA.RÚ.U), ano[int (it)] with o[il . . . ,] and offer a sacrifice! 2

Why were these two ritual actions requested? The first, to anoint with oil (pašūšu), was a ceremonial way to receive honored guests with a skin-soothing balm in secular contexts in Assyria, as well as a medical technique used to soothe and to administer drugs through the skin; in religious contexts, the pleasantly soothing unction was sometimes extended to gods’ statues and emblems, such as the copper lion of Ishtar in her temple, in a reverent gesture that honored a god as one would honor a special guest. 3 The anointment with oil requested here for a stele, an inanimate object, seems by analogy to be a gesture of reverence and solicitude for the object erected by the earlier king, designed to honor it and also to focus the attention of the future king on it. Continuing the traditional request, Sargon asks the future prince to offer a sacrifice, or perhaps pour a libation (the Akkadian term, niqâ naqû, can mean either, and none of the requests for it on steles ever specifies whether liquids or an animal are to be used).  4 Whether liquids or animals were offered, however, the action described as niqâ naqû (“offering an offering”) was the central act of Assyrian religious worship: the presentation of food or drink to the gods to provide nourishment for them and to honor them. But why would Sargon and other Assyrian kings request that food or drink be provided worshipfully to an inscribed inanimate object—a stele? The fact that the person asked to perform the sacrifice was to be a future Assyrian king, presumably a descendent of Sargon, suggests a first possible solution to the conundrum. In a few exceptional cases, the term niqâ naqû was used to refer to the giving of special libations of water, named kispu or naq mê (“pouring of water”), that surviving members of a family poured out for their dead ancestors on a regular basis to provide them with water to drink in the afterworld. 5 Could the requested offering have been a kispu libation for the king whose image is carved on the stele? 2.  Levine, Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae, 44, line 72; restorations and translation here by Frame, “Tell Acharneh Stele,” 60. 3.  CAD P, s.v., pašūšu. 4.  CAD N/1, naqû 3. 5.  Ibid., 1.a1′; CAD K, kispu; Akio Tsukimoto, Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien, AOAT 216 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag; Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker 1985).

Anointing Documents with Oil and Sacrificing before Them

431

Tempting though it is, this explanation seems unlikely. In the first place, the usual terminology for kispu is missing here; the requested sacrifice is identified neither as a kispu nor a naq mê. In the second place, the requested libation (if libation it was) would be insufficient for the purpose; one libation per generation is hardly enough to keep a dead king going. And in any case, it was unneeded; a dead Assyrian’s kispu rituals would already be being performed by his descendants on a regular basis at his grave through a clay pipe provided for the purpose. A stele lacked the proper equipment to reach the dead king with water and was not the place for it. His bones were elsewhere. If the requested sacrifice was not a kispu offering to the dead king, to whom was the libation or sacrifice to be made, and what was its purpose? Stele inscriptions are uniformly silent on this point, simply instructing the future king to sacrifice, without specifying the receiver. Does the fact that the request to sacrifice follows immediately on the heels of the request to rub or pour oil on the stele imply that the requested sacrifice was also intended for the stele itself? Grant Frame, in his essay on steles, tentatively takes this position, saying: Some offerings may have been directed to the monuments themselves and not just to the gods mentioned on them or the kings who commissioned their creation and were also depicted on them. The idea that these monuments were objects of some veneration could be indicated by the request on many of them that future rulers anoint them with oil and offer sacrifices. 6

However, sacrifices and libations, aside from the kispu, were reserved for gods alone. If the stele itself is the object of the ritual requested here, it implies, rather surprisingly, that Assyrian royal steles were considered divine. Frame, however, offers no further explanation. Jutta Börker-Klähn, in her now-classic catalog of steles and related monuments offers a possible explanation for sacrificing to steles, by taking a different tack. She argues that it was not the steles themselves that were being worshiped but, rather, that the Assyrian kings depicted on the steles were the active recipients of worship during their lifetime. 7 D. Morandi, in his essay on Neo-Assyrian steles, argues that a stele might have been seen as a substitute for the king because of the image of him sculpted on its surface, and he tentatively accepts Börker-Klähn’s argument that Assyrian kings, and thus the steles, were worshiped as gods. 8 In support of the idea that Assyrian kings were worshiped as divine, he joins Börker-Klähn in citing a scene on a seal from Sennacherib’s reign in which, Börker-Klähn argues, a worshiper standing on the left side of the scene and raising his hand in prayer is praying to an image of the king depicted on the royal stele that stands opposite him on the right side of the 6.  Frame, “Tell Acharneh Stele,” 67 7.  Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen, 193 and 203, and pl. 176. 8.  Morandi, “Stele e Statue Reali Assire,” 136 and n. 72.

432

Barbara N. Porter

scene. 9 This interpretation of the scene on the seal is questionable, however, because it ignores the presence of an Assyrian stylized tree placed between the worshiper and the stele with the image of a god in a winged disk hovering over it. It is much more likely that both the king shown on the stele to the right and the worshiper across from him on the left are raising their hands in a gesture of worship toward the god who is hovering over the tree between them than that they are raising their hands to each other. The documentary evidence that Börker-Klähn and Morandi cite in support of the worship of Assyrian kings depicted on steles is a passage from a broken and heavily restored prism fragment of Tiglath-pileser III in which the king is installing a statue (?) bearing images of the gods (?) and a royal image in the palace of the conquered King Hanūnu of Gaza and remarks, “I reckoned (it) [am]ong the gods of their land.” 10 If the relevant passage has been correctly read, it is unique and is the only textual evidence of the worship of an Assyrian king known to me. But the passage does not apply to the situation we are considering because the demand to worship an Assyrian king’s image is made to a conquered foreign king, who is evidently being asked to worship Tiglathpileser’s stele as an extreme act of submission to the Assyrian conqueror. But it is the beliefs and religious practices of future Assyrian rulers, the kings who will one day sacrifice before this stele, that are in question here. The weight of the documentary evidence in fact strongly supports the contention that Assyrian rulers saw themselves (and their predecessors) not as gods but as priests and servants of the gods, chosen by them and dependent on their help for success. In their royal inscriptions, on steles, and elsewhere, this is how Assyrian kings consistently characterize themselves. King Sennacherib, for example, in the opening passages of the Oriental Institute Prism identifies himself as “great king, mighty king, king of the universe,” a “wise ruler,” and “first among princes” but never as a god. Instead, he says clearly that it is the god Assur who has given him “an unrivaled kingship” and “made powerful my weapons” and that “all humankind (the black-headed race) he has brought in submission at my feet.” 11 Later, when he conquers cities of Chaldea, it is not through his own power, he assures us, but “through the might of Assur, my lord.” 12 Like all Assyrian kings, Sennacherib attributes his military success to the gods who have appointed him and sent him to war. He is unmistakably a human, not a god, and this is unequivocally the message 9.  Drawing no. 176 in Börker-Klähn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen. 10. Hayim Tadmor and Shigeo Yamada with Jamie Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 bc), and Shalmaneser V (726–722 bc), Kings of Assyria, RINAP 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 106. 11.  Daniel D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib, OIP 2 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1924), I 1–15. 12.  Ibid., I 35–37.

Anointing Documents with Oil and Sacrificing before Them

433

he presents to his contemporaries, to his gods, and to any future kings who find his inscriptions. If not to the king on the stele, then to whom was the sacrifice directed? The remaining possibility seems to be the gods whose emblems are depicted on the stele before the king’s face. But there is a problem with this conclusion, as we will see. So far, we have dealt only with requests for sacrifices to be made before steles, which were stone monuments that typically carried images of a king and gods. However, the same request in exactly the same terminology also appeared at the conclusion of texts on objects that carried no images at all, such as the large clay prisms or cylinders bearing accounts of the kings’ military achievements and building activities. 13 The inscriptions on both steles and these commemorative prisms and cylinders often name the inscribed object as a narû or refer to it with one of the synonyms for narû , suggesting that all these objects, whether adorned with images or not, belonged to a single category from an Assyrian point of view. Precisely the same sacrifice by future kings is requested for both types of object. King Esarhaddon, for example, requests future anointing and sacrifice (or libation) for the stele he erected at Zincirli, 14 which carries a large image of him raising a cup toward emblems of his gods, but he also requests it in essentially the same terms for the clay prisms he deposited in foundations of buildings at Nineveh, such as the Nineveh A prism, which carries no images. 15 Sennacherib, at the end of the Oriental Institute Prism, a building inscription that similarly carries no images, requests, “May some future prince . . . . look upon the stele with my name inscribed (thereon) [the term he uses for stele is mušare šiṭir šumiya, a synonym of narû], anoint it with oil, pour out a libation upon it [or sacrifice] and return it to its place. (Then) Assur and Ishtar will hear his prayers.” 16 Clearly, the requests for anointing with oil and the sacrifice or libation were not directed at the images of either the king or his gods, because the request was also made when there were no images on the inscribed object at all. The characteristic shared by the objects whose texts request these sacrifices is not pictures but words: they typically carry royal inscriptions that describe at some length the king’s achievements and attribute his success to his collaboration with the gods. It is significant that Sennacherib, like many other kings, follows his request for sacrifice with a curse against any future ruler 13.  For examples, see CAD N/1, narû 3.2′b. 14. Riekele Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien, AfOB 9 (Graz: published by the editor, 1956), 96–100. 15. Erle Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 bc), RINAP 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), no. 1, vi 65–74. 16.  Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, VI 77–80.

434

Barbara N. Porter

who “destroys my inscription and my name,” and he sums up the prism as a “monument with the writing of my name.” 17 Ultimately then, such inscriptions, whether with or without images, were meant to be a permanent record of the king’s “name,” his achievements, successes, and the happy results of his collaboration with the gods. The main purpose of all these objects, as Morandi and Genge both suggest in the case of steles, was to give him a kind of “monolithic,” if not actual, eternity, to preserve both a record of his deeds and physical evidence of his existence. 18 The texts were clearly also a record of the gods’ successes, achieved through the efforts of their chosen king. It seems likely then, that the sacrifices were neither worship of the king shown on the stele nor of the stele itself but, rather (like sacrifices in general), worship of the gods whose goodness and effectiveness is described in the text, whether or not they are depicted. The first and probably the main purpose of the sacrifice was to draw the gods’ favorable attention to the inscribed object generation after generation, so that the gods would think well of the hardworking, departed king eternally. In the case of a stele, the image of the king engraved on it, which showed him eternally saluting the emblems of his gods, could only reinforce the object’s favorable effect on the king’s divine patrons. At the same time, the requirement that the future ruler anoint with oil and sacrifice before the stele or other inscribed object would conveniently draw him to focus his attention on it, so that in future times the “name”of the departed king would live on in the minds of human beings as well. 17.  Ibid., VI 80 and 72–73. 18.  Morandi, “Stele e Statue Reali Assire,” 136.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

Gary A. Rendsburg One of the hallmarks of the scholarly career of our late, lamented honoree was his attention to literary features in Akkadian texts. Remarkably, Victor (Avigdor) Hurowitz identified devices such as chiasm, inclusio, wordplay, alliteration, and so on, not in the standard literary compositions (such as Enuma Elish, Gilgamesh, Adapa, etc.), where they well may be expected, but primarily in legal and cultic texts, where techniques of this sort might not be anticipated. 1 In contributing this essay to this commemorative volume, I remain in the same domain, though with a focus on legal and cultic texts from a different corpus—namely, the Bible, which quite obviously was another prime interest of our departed colleague. I first met Avigdor ca. 1978, while we were both still graduate students—I at New York University and he at the Hebrew University—during a chance encounter in the library of Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR) in New York. Naturally, my curiosity was piqued when I saw a fellow-researcher in the library who was wearing a kippah inscribed in cuneiform. Thus began our conversation almost four decades ago, as our paths continued to intersect, until the very end of Avigdor’s shortened life. Among the most memorable intersections were our neighboring offices at the Center for Advanced Judaic Studies of the University of Pennsylvania during the academic year 1997–1998 and our joint attendance at the Gilgamesh conference at the University of Sydney in August 2004. In recent years, our exchange was mostly via e-mail, given the geographical distance between our home locations, but the warmth, personality, jocularity, and sincerity always 1.  See most importantly Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Inu Anum ṣīrum: Literary Structures in the Non-Juridical Sections of Codex Hammurabi, Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 15 (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1994); idem, Divine Service and Its Rewards: Ideology and Poetics in the Hinke Kudurru, Beer-sheva 10 (Beer-sheva: BenGurion University of the Negev Press, 1997); along with numerous essays, many of them cited in these two monographs.

435

436

Gary A. Rendsburg

shone through. These traits too, as much as the kippah, epitomized Avigdor, ‫יהי‬ ‫זכרו ברוך‬. I for one, along with many others, no doubt, will recall him fondly in the years to come, as we reflect on our colleague’s life and legacy. Of the various literary devices that have been identified by scholars of ancient Near Eastern literature, the least recognized, it appears to me, is the technique of polyprosopon, or repetition with variation. Fortunately, there is increased attention to this device of late, mainly from the pens of Shamir Yona (a colleague of our Avigdor Hurowitz), 2 Knut Heim, 3 and me (both independently and in conjunction with Scott Noegel). 4 The focus of these recent offerings has been the more literary texts of the Bible (both prose and poetry). The present essay extends the treatment to repetition with variation in the legal and cultic sections of the Torah, which is to say, it shares much with Hurowitz’s work on literary devices in the corresponding Akkadian compositions. Some excellent work along these lines was produced by Meir Parʾan (a fellow-student of Avigdor Hurowitz at the Hebrew University), 5 whose superb volume remains an unrecognized and underused (I am afraid to say) fount of information for many scholars. The information provided below differs from that presented by Parʾan in two main ways. First, while Parʾan limited himself to the Priestly source, I provide examples of the device studied herein from across the various legal and cultic sources of the Torah. Second, while Parʾan noted an occasional instance of polyprosopon, or repetition with variation, this technique was not a primary focus of his research, which instead concentrated on a host of other important literary devices (chiasm, inclusio, etc.). The first 15 sections of this article present repeated passages in the legalcultic sections of the Torah, with representative samples from Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Toward the article’s end, I shift the focus 2.  See, for example, Shamir Yona, “Stylistic and Syntactic Variants in Repeated Texts in the Bible” [Heb.], in T eshûrôt LaAvishur: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, in Hebrew and Semitic Languages—Festschrift Presented to Prof. Yitzhak Avishur on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, ed. Michael Heltzer and Meir Malul (Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center, 2004), 225–32; and idem, “Repetition and Variation in Biblical Texts,” UF 37 (2005): 729–40. 3. Knut Heim, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature of Poetry, BBRSup 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). Note the important summary comment on p. 636: “The creative combination of repetition with variation is the very essence of Hebrew poetry” (emphasis his). As we shall see in the present essay, this observation holds equally well for legal-cultic texts. 4.  Scott B. Noegel and Gary A. Rendsburg, Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs, SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature; Leiden: Brill, 2009); and Gary A. Rendsburg, “Variation in Biblical Hebrew Prose and Poetry,” in “Built by Wisdom, Established by Understanding”: Essays on Biblical and Near Eastern Literature in Honor of Adele Berlin, ed. Maxine L. Grossman (Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 2013), 197–226.  5. Meir Parʾan, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989) [Heb.]. To bring all of this full circle, see the important reviews of Parʾan by our honoree in HS 32 (1991): 156–62; and in Shnaton 11 (1997): 327–31 [Heb.].

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

437

slightly, with 4 additional sections treating different registries in the Torah (namely, the lists of forbidden birds [2×] and the lists of forbidden marriages [2×]). 6 As we shall see, the norm in all these texts, as elsewhere in the Bible, is not to repeat the wording or phraseology in verbatim fashion but to modify the language in some minor way. To my mind, this procedure alters the very nature of the text, transforming what could have been a dry and laborious composition into a creative and imaginative literary product. 7 1.  Exodus 23/34: Appearing before God Three Times Each Year (a) Exod 23:14

‫ַּׁשנָה׃‬ ָ ‫ָלים ָּתחֹג ִלי ּב‬ ִ ‫ׁשלֹׁש ְרג‬ ָ Three occasions you shall celebrate me during the year.

(b) Exod 23:17

‫ֶל־ּפנֵי ָהאָדֹן יְהוָה׃‬ ְ ‫ְכּורךָ א‬ ְ ‫ַּׁשנָה י ֵָראֶה ּכָל־ז‬ ָ ‫ָמים ּב‬ ִ ‫ׁשלֹׁש ְּפע‬ ָ Three times during the year, every male of yours shall be seen before the face of the Lord Yhwh.

(c) Exod 34:23 ‫ִׂש ָראֵל׃‬ ְ ‫ֶת־ּפנֵי ָהאָדֹן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי י‬ ְ ‫ְכּורךָ א‬ ְ ‫ַּׁשנָה י ֵָראֶה ּכָל־ז‬ ָ ‫ָמים ּב‬ ִ ‫ׁשלֹׁש ְּפע‬ ָ Three times during the year, every male of yours shall be seen before the face of the Lord Yhwh, the God of Israel. (d) Exod 34:24

‫ַּׁשנָה׃‬ ָ ‫ָמים ּב‬ ִ ‫ׁשלֹׁש ְּפע‬ ָ ָ‫ֶת־ּפנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיך‬ ְ ‫ַּבעֲל ְֹתךָ לֵרָאֹות א‬ when you go-up to be seen before the face of Yhwh your God three times during the year

6.  Each passage is presented in (a) the Hebrew original and (b) my own translation (striking a balance between the approaches taken by Everett Fox and Robert Alter), with the hope that the rendering captures, to the extent possible, the slight modifications inherent in the original text. In the treatment of each passage, when a specific word or phrase is discussed, I also include the transliteration, though in simplified fashion (with vowel lengths and so on largely ignored). 7.  Variation occurs in many other ways as well, as documented by Robert J. Ratner, “Morphological Variation in Biblical Hebrew Rhetoric,” Maarav 8 (Let Your Colleagues Praise You: Studies in Memory of Stanley Gevirtz, part 2; 1992): 143–59. Ratner’s fine essay is devoted to smaller items revealing variation, whereas the present study focuses on larger matters of phraseology—though, to be sure, some of the former serve the latter (see, for example, the different prepositions used in Exod 23:8, ‫ עַד־ּבֹקֶר‬ʿad boqer, “until morning,” and Exod 34:25 ‫ לַּבֹקֶר‬lab-boqer, “till morning,” studied below, example no. 2). As such, one might say that the current study is Ratner writ large. Moreover, virtually everything that Ratner states in his essay, especially the concluding thoughts (pp. 157–59)—for example, the comment that “the authors considered them [sc. the variations in language] to be an enhancement of the reading and listening pleasure” (p. 159)—applies to the current paper as well.

438

Gary A. Rendsburg

The book of Exodus presents the four passages above as an instruction to the people of Israel to appear before God on three occasions during the calendar year. The first of these has the simplest and most direct wording, though it also includes the unusual usage ‫ָלים‬ ִ ‫ׁשלֹׁש ְרג‬ ָ šaloš rĕgalim, “three occasions” (attested elsewhere only in Num 22:28, 32, 33, where it is used as part of the overall style-switching effect in the Balaam narrative). 8 The other three iterations use the more standard expression ‫ָמים‬ ִ ‫ׁשלֹׁש ְּפע‬ ָ šaloš pĕʿamim, “three times.” 9 In addition, in (a) the word ‫ַּׁשנָה‬ ָ ‫ ּב‬baššanah, “during the year,” is disjoined from the phrase “three occasions,” while in the other three formulations it follows immediately after “three times.” The key verb is different as well, for in (a) we read ‫ ָּתחֹג‬taḥog, “you shall celebrate” (second person), while the other three expressions employ the niphal of the verb ‫ ראה‬rʾh, “see,” hence, “be seen, appear,” with (b) and (c) using the prefix-conjugation form ‫ י ֵָראֶה‬yeraʾeh, “shall be seen” (third person), and with (d) using the infinitive form ‫ לֵרָאֹות‬leraʾot, “to be seen.” Different prepositions also serve to differentiate the wordings: (a) uses simple -‫ ְל‬lĕ-, “to”; (b) uses ‫ֶל־ּפנֵי‬ ְ ‫ א‬ʾel-pĕne, “before the face of” (literally, but the force may be simply “before”); and (c) and (d) use ‫ֶת־ּפנֵי‬ ְ ‫ א‬ʾet-pĕne, “before the face of” (thus, literally, once more, though again the force may be simply “before”). The object of the preposition is different as well: (a) reads ‫ ִלי‬li, “to me” (first person); (b) uses ‫ ָהאָדֹן יְהוָה‬ha-ʾadon yhwh, “the Lord Yhwh”; (c) expands to ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ ָהאָדֹן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי י‬ha-ʾadon yhwh ʾĕlohe yiśraʾel, “the Lord Yhwh, God of Israel”; and (d) reads ָ‫ אֱלֹהֶיך‬ʾĕloheka, “your God.” The exact relationship between chs. 23 and 34 has been debated by scholars. Regardless of how that issue is resolved, the book of Exodus in its final form ensures variation in the repeated command to appear before God three times each year, via the means presented above. 2.  Exodus 23:18, 34:25: Passover Sacrifice (a) Exod 23:18

‫ָלין ֵחלֶב־ח ִַּגי עַד־ּבֹקֶר׃‬ ִ ‫ִב ִחי ְולֹא־י‬ ְ ‫א־ת ְזּבַח עַל־ ָחמֵץ ּדַ ם־ז‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ You shall not sacrifice the blood of my sacrifice upon anything-leavened; and you shall not let-remain the suet of my festival offering until morning.

8.  Clinton J. Moyer, “Literary and Linguistic Studies in Sefer Bilʿam (Numbers 22– 24)” (Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, 2009), 80–3. 9.  For further study, see Chaim Cohen, “‘False Friends’: Regular Meanings of Words in Modern Hebrew That Originated Erroneously” [Heb.], in Shaʿare Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, 3 vols., ed. Aharon Maman et al. (Jerusalem: Bialik, 2007), 1.28–30; and idem, “New Directions in Modern Biblical Hebrew Lexicography,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 444–48.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

439

(b) Exod 34:25

‫ָלין לַּבֹקֶר זֶבַח חַג ַה ָּפסַח׃‬ ִ ‫ִב ִחי ְולֹא־י‬ ְ ‫ׁשחַט עַל־ ָחמֵץ ּדַ ם־ז‬ ְ ‫א־ת‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ You shall not slaughter the blood of my sacrifice upon anything-leavened; and you shall not let-remain till morning the sacrifice of the Festival of Pesaḥ.

The passages presented in (1b) and (1d) above are followed by the verses listed here as (2a) and (2b). Each of them deals with the Passover sacrifice, though with similar yet divergent wording. 10 The former begins with ‫א־ת ְזּבַח‬ ִ ֹ ‫ ל‬loʾ tizbaḥ, “you shall not sacrifice”; while the latter commences with ‫ׁשחַט‬ ְ ‫א־ת‬ ִ ֹ‫ל‬ loʾ tišḥaṭ, “you shall not slaughter.” The conclusion of (a) is: ‫ֵחלֶב־ח ִַּגי עַד־ּבֹקֶר‬ ḥeleb ḥaggi ʿad boqer, “the suet of my festival offering until morning”; while the parallel expression in (b) is: ‫ לַּבֹקֶר זֶבַח חַג ַה ָּפסַח‬lab-boqer zebaḥ ḥag happasaḥ, “till morning, the sacrifice of the Festival of Pesaḥ.” Note the different prepositions affixed to ‫ ּבֹקֶר‬boqer, “morning” (‫ עַד‬ʿad, “until,” vs. -‫ ְל‬lĕ-, “till”), plus the different placements of the phrase “until/till morning” (at the end of the verse vs. a bit earlier in the verse). Finally, 23:18 uses the generic term ‫ֵחלֶב־‬ ‫ ח ִַּגי‬ḥeleb ḥaggi, “the suet of my festival offering,” with no specific reference to Passover, though Passover clearly is implied by the prohibition of leaven in the first half of the verse; while 34:25 is more explicit with the expression ‫זֶבַח חַג‬ ‫ ַה ָּפסַח‬zebaḥ ḥag hap-pasaḥ, “the sacrifice of the festival of Pesaḥ.” To repeat what we noted in the previous section: regardless of the ultimate relationship between chs. 23 and 34, the final text of Exodus has ensured variation in these parallel verses via the changes just analyzed. However, we also must admit that the following verses, 23:19 and 34:26, read verbatim: ‫רֵאׁשית‬ ִ ‫חלֵב ִאּמֹו׃‬ ֲ ‫א־ת ַבּׁשֵל ּג ְִדי ַּב‬ ְ ֹ ‫ָתךָ ָּת ִביא ּבֵית יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ ל‬ ְ ‫ּבּכּורֵי א ְַדמ‬, ִ “the firstfruits of your land you shall bring to the house of Yhwh your God; you shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” 3.  Exodus 25–27: The Blueprint of the Tabernacle (a) Exod 25:9 (General) ‫ׁשּכָן ְואֵת ּתַ ְבנִית ּכָל־ ֵּכלָיו‬ ְ ‫אֹותךָ אֵת ּתַ ְבנִית ה ִַּמ‬ ְ ‫אנִי מ ְַראֶה‬ ֲ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ְּככֹל א‬

‫ְוכֵן ּתַ עֲׂשּו׃‬

According to all that I show you, the design of the tabernacle and the design of all its accoutrements; and thus you shall do. (b) Exod 25:40 (Menorah)

‫ָראֶה ָּבהָר׃‬ ְ ‫ַּתה מ‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר־א‬ ֶ ‫ִיתם א‬ ָ ‫ּוראֵה ַועֲׂשֵ ה ְּבתַ ְבנ‬ ְ And see and do; according to their design, which you are shown on the mountain.

10.  See already Parʾan, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch, 249: ‫ורק צורך‬ ‫ספרותי גרס לשינוי‬.

440

Gary A. Rendsburg

(c) Exod 26:30 (Tabernacle)

‫ֵית ָּבהָר׃‬ ָ ‫ָרא‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ה‬ ֶ ‫ׁשּפָטֹו א‬ ְ ‫ׁשּכָן ְּכ ִמ‬ ְ ‫הקֵמ ָֹת אֶת־ה ִַּמ‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬ And you shall erect the tabernacle, according to its plan, which you have been shown on the mountain.

(d) Exod 27:8 (Altar)

‫ֶראָה א ְֹתךָ ָּבהָר ּכֵן יַעֲׂשּו׃‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ה‬ ֶ ‫ֲׂשה אֹתֹו ַּכא‬ ֶ ‫נְבּוב לֻחֹת ּתַ ע‬ Hollow planks you should make it; according to what he showed you on the mountain, thus they shall do.

Four times in Exodus 25–27, God directs Moses to construct the tabernacle and its accoutrements according to the blueprint that he has devised. I reproduce each verse in toto here, though our attention is drawn to the variation present in the dependent clauses. The first statement is clear and succinct, in anticipation of the forthcoming detailed instructions: ָ‫אֹותך‬ ְ ‫אנִי מ ְַראֶה‬ ֲ ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ְּככֹל א‬ kĕ-kol ʾašer ʾani marʾe ʾotka, “according to all that I show you” (25:9). 11 The next statement serves to seal the menorah section: ‫ָראֶה ָּבהָר‬ ְ ‫ַּתה מ‬ ָ ‫ֲׁשר־א‬ ֶ ‫ א‬ʾašer ʾattah morʾeh ba-har, “which you are shown on the mountain” (25:40)—the form ‫ָראֶה‬ ְ ‫ מ‬morʾeh, “are shown,” is the only hophal participle of the verb ‫ראה‬ rʾh, “see,” in the Bible. The next iteration seals the tabernacle section (that is, the details concerning the tent itself, constructed of beams, curtains, etc.): ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ֵית ָּבהָר‬ ָ ‫ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ה‬ʾašer horʾeta ba-har, “which you have been shown on the mountain” (26:30)—with change from the hophal participle in the previous passage to the hophal suffix-conjugation form ‫ֵית‬ ָ ‫ָרא‬ ְ ‫ ה‬horʾeta, “you have been shown,” one of only three cases of this sort in the Bible (see also Lev 13:49, Deut 4:35). The fourth and final version appears at the end of the altar segment: ‫ֶראָה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ה‬ ֶ ‫ַּכא‬ ‫ א ְֹתךָ ָּבהָר‬ka-ʾašer herʾah ʾotka ba-har, “according to what he showed you on the mountain” (27:8)—notwithstanding the fact that God remains the speaker here, the text uses a third-person verbal form (one would expect a first-person form, as in 25:9), thereby raising the reader’s eyebrow in the process. After the common, expected wording in the first passage, the text applies the technique of defamiliarization in the next three passages—each with its own peculiarity, inviting the reader to ponder the unusual and unexpected language. 12

11.  So succinct, in fact, that the phrase ‫ ָּבהָר‬ba-har, “on the mountain,” that appears in the three parallel passages is lacking in 25:9. See further n. 12. 12.  My research has shown that MT typically retains the variation within repeated sentences to a greater extent than do the ancient versions. In the present case of Exod 25:9 [LXX 25:8], note that the LXX includes ἐν τῷ ὄρει, “on the mountain,” and that the Samaritan Pentateuch adds ‫בהר‬, though both versions reveal an attempt at harmonization based on the inclusion of this phrase in the three parallel verses. See William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, AB 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 320. For additional examples, see below, n. 16 and n. 22.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

441

4.  Leviticus: “And You Shall Say” (a) Lev 1:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10; 25:2; 27:2

‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ּבֵר א‬ speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say unto them

Lev 19:2

‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ּבֵר אֶל־ּכָל־עֲדַ ת ְּבנֵי־י‬ speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and you shall say unto them

Numerous times in the book of Leviticus, God instructs Moses to speak to the children of Israel generally or to Aaron and the priests specifically. 13 We begin this section with a look at the former formulations. The Priestly author sets the tone in 1:2 with the standard rendition ‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ּבֵר א‬, “speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say unto them,” which appears four other times with the exact set of accent marks and one additional time (18:2) with a different array. To mix things up a bit, the text adds an additional phrase in 19:2: ‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ּבֵר אֶל־ּכָל־עֲדַ ת ְּבנֵי־י‬, “speak to all the congregation of the children of Israel, and you shall say unto them”; note the insertion of ‫ ּכָל־עֲדַ ת‬kol ʿadat, “all the congregation of.” (b) Lev 21:1

‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫הנִים ְּבנֵי ַאהֲרֹן ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ֲֹ ‫אֱמֹר אֶל־הַּכ‬ say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and you shall say unto them

Lev 22:2–3

‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ אֱמֹר‬. . . ‫ּדַ ּבֵר אֶל־ ַאהֲרֹן ְואֶל־ ָּבנָיו‬ speak to Aaron and to his sons . . . say unto them

In these two passages, God instructs Moses to speak to the priests. Apparently to mark this distinction (that is, only the priests are to be addressed and not the Israelites generally), the language is modified greatly. Both verses, for example, use the imperative form ‫ אֱמֹר‬ʾemor, “say,” the only two instances of this sort in all of Leviticus. When the two are compared with each other, further distinctions are forthcoming—for example: 21:1, ‫הנִים ְּבנֵי ַאהֲרֹן‬ ֲֹ ‫אֶל־הַּכ‬ ʾel hak-kohanim bĕne ʾaharon, “to the priests, the sons of Aaron,” versus 22:2, ‫ אֶל־ ַאהֲרֹן ְואֶל־ ָּבנָיו‬ʾel ʾaharon wĕ-ʾel banaw, “to Aaron and to his sons.” For the sake of completeness, I also note here two passages (verbatim in this case) in which the priests and the Israelites are specifically mentioned as the addressee: 13.  I do not include in the present section simpler introductory statements such as those found in Lev 4:1 and 7:28.

442

Gary A. Rendsburg

(c) Lev 17:2

‫אלֵיהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ָל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ּבֵר אֶל־ ַאהֲרֹן ְואֶל־ ָּבנָיו ְואֶל ּכ‬ speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, and you shall say unto them

Lev 22:18

‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל ְו ָאמ ְַר ָּת‬ ְ ‫ָל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ּדַ ּבֵר אֶל־ ַאהֲרֹן ְואֶל־ ָּבנָיו ְואֶל ּכ‬ speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the children of Israel, and you shall say unto them

So, if the two passages are verbatim (even to the point of the accent marks), why do I reproduce them individually? In order to highlight the orthographic variation generated by the scribe, with plene ‫אלֵיהֶם‬ ֲ ʾalehem, “unto them,” in 17:2 and defectiva ‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ʾalehem, “unto them,” in 22:19. 14 Finally, even greater linguistic variation is introduced in two other places: (d) Lev 17:8 and unto them you shall say Lev 20:2 and unto the children of Israel you shall say

‫א ֵלהֶם ּתֹאמַר‬ ֲ ‫ַו‬

‫ִׂש ָראֵל ּתֹאמַר‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ְוא‬

In these two passages, (i) the indirect object is placed first, with the prefixconjugation verb ‫ ּתֹאמַר‬toʾmar, “you shall say,” following; and (ii) the author uses ‫א ֵלהֶם‬ ֲ ‫ ַו‬wa-ʾalehem, “unto them” (with pronoun) in the one instance (presumably the priests and the Israelites mentioned in 17:2 [see above] constitute the antecedent of “them” here), with the more patently stated ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ֶל־ּבנֵי י‬ ְ ‫ְוא‬ wĕ-ʾel bĕne yiśraʾel occurring in the second iteration. All of the passages treated here, except one, occur within Leviticus 17–27, so that the scholars who see the Holiness Code as a separate unit within the book of Leviticus should not worry that these passages cross compositional boundaries. 15 The only passage that occurs within the first 16 chapters of Le14.  On variable spellings in the Bible, simply for the sake of variation, see Alfred Rahlfs, “Zur Setzung der Lesemütter im Alten Testament,” Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Philologisch-historische Klasse (Berlin: Weidmann, 1916), 315–47; and James Barr, The Variable Spellings of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), esp. pp. 186–95. 15. Important relevant works include: Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1995); Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17–26, VTSup 67 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); and Baruch J. Schwartz, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999) [Heb.].

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

443

viticus is Lev 1:2 (see above), which may be seen, according to the view that treats P and H discretely, as an introductory usage of the phrase, once the book as a whole achieved its final status. 5.  Leviticus 1:7–8: The Sons of Aaron (a) Lev 1:7 the sons of Aaron the priest (b) Lev 1:8 the sons of Aaron, the priests

‫ְּבנֵי ַאהֲרֹן הַּכֹהֵן‬

‫הנִים‬ ֲֹ ‫ְּבנֵי ַאהֲרֹן הַּכ‬

The phrase ‫הנִים‬ ֲֹ ‫ּבנֵי ַאהֲרֹן הַּכ‬, ְ “the sons of Aaron, the priests,” occurs 5× in Leviticus 1–3 (1:5, 8, 11; 2:2; 3:2). Just to mix it up a bit, the author of this material uses the expression ‫ּבנֵי ַאהֲרֹן הַּכֹהֵן‬, ְ “the sons of Aaron the priest,” in 1:7, the only attestation of this wording in the Bible. 16 The pattern, then, is: standard phrase first; the unusual (indeed, unique) phrase second; followed by a return to the standard phrase for the remainder. 17 6.  Leviticus 23: Festival Refrain (a) Lev 23:3: Shabbat

‫מֹוׁשבֹתֵ יכֶם׃‬ ְ ‫ׁשַ ּבָת ִהוא לַיהוָה ְּבכֹל‬ It is a Sabbath unto Yhwh, in all your dwellings.

(b) Lev 23:14: Pesaḥ

‫ׁשבֹתֵ יכֶם׃‬ ְ ֹ ‫חֻּקַ ת עֹולָם ְלדֹרֹתֵ יכֶם ְּבכֹל מ‬ An eternal statute for your generations, in all your dwellings.

16.  The Samaritan Pentateuch reads plural ‫ הכהנים‬also in 1:7, and the LXX οι ἱερει̑ς, “the priests,” implies a similar reading, though once more these efforts are a clear sign of harmonization, reflecting an unawareness of the device studied here. For various attempts to explain the wording of the MT, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3, New York: Doubleday, 1991), 157; though to my mind the far simpler explanation is variation for the sake of variation. Incidentally, Milgrom also referred to 4QLevb with the reading ‫הכהנים‬, but this must be an error, since the extant portion of this document commences only at Lev 1:11. 4QLevc contains a fragmentary section of Lev 1:1–7 but only a poorly preserved nun-yod sequence at the beginning of v. 7, to be restored as ̇‫ [ב] ̇ני‬with the following words wanting. For these Qumran texts, see Eugene Ulrich, “4QLevb,” and Emanuel Tov, “4QLevc,” in Qumran Cave 4/VII, DJD 12 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 177–87 and 189–92, respectively. 17.  For another example of this pattern, see the superscriptions to Psalms 120–34, with the second, Ps 121:1, ‫ׁשיר ַל ַּמעֲלֹות‬ ִ šir lam-maʿalot, “a song of ascents,” as the unique example.

444

Gary A. Rendsburg

(c) Lev 23:21: Shavuʿot

‫ָל־מֹוׁשבֹתֵ יכֶם ְלדֹרֹתֵ יכֶם׃‬ ְ ‫חֻּקַ ת עֹולָם ְּבכ‬ An eternal statute in all your dwellings, for your generations.

(d) [Lev 23:24–25: no statement] (e) Lev 23:31: Yom Kippur

‫ׁשבֹתֵ יכֶם׃‬ ְ ֹ ‫חֻּקַ ת עֹולָם ְלדֹרֹתֵ יכֶם ְּבכֹל מ‬ An eternal statute for your generations, in all your dwellings.

(f) Lev 23:41: Sukkot An eternal statute for your generations.

‫חֻּקַ ת עֹולָם ְלדֹרֹתֵ יכֶם‬

Leviticus 23 presents the ancient Israelite calendar, with the various (nonverbatim) phrases presented above. The standard expression (inasmuch as it occurs twice) appears in vv. 14 and 31, concerning Pesaḥ and Yom Kippur, respectively (see also Lev 3:17, Num 35:29). In v. 21, regarding Shavuʿot, the text reverses the two key phrases, with ‫לדֹרֹתֵ יכֶם‬, ְ “for your generations,” occurring after ‫ָל־מֹוׁשבֹתֵ יכֶם‬ ְ ‫ּבכ‬, ְ “in all your dwellings” (plus note the maqqep in the latter phrase). 18 In v. 41, concerning Sukkot, the phrase ‫מֹוׁשבֹתֵ יכֶם‬ ְ ‫ּבכָל‬, ְ “in all your dwellings,” is omitted altogether, presumably because the threefold use of the verbal root ‫ישב‬, “sit, dwell,” in the following two verses (vv. 42–43; 2× qal, 1× hiphil) renders the term unnecessary in the author’s mind. Perhaps to balance this deletion toward the end of the chapter, the author omits the other term ‫לדֹרֹתֵ יכֶם‬, ְ “for your generations,” in the description of Shabbat at the beginning of the chapter. Note also that the connection between Shabbat and “the generations” is built into the system, as indicated by the twofold use of the term in Exod 31:13, 16. If we may evoke Abraham Joshua Heschel here, 19 Sukkot is the most “place”-defined holiday and therefore does not require “in all your dwellings,” whereas Shabbat is the most “time”-defined holiday and therefore does not require “for your generations,” at least as conceived and formulated by the author of Leviticus 23. Finally, the greatest divergence occurs in vv. 24–25, pertaining to the festival that occurs on month 7, day 1 (to emerge eventually as Rosh ha-Shanah). Since Leviticus 23 provides only the most minimal information concerning this holiday, quite appropriately the non-verbatim refrain is omitted altogether in these two verses. 18.  See already Parʾan, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch, 232, in his treatment of chiasm as a feature of Priestly style. 19.  Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Sabbath (New York: Farrar, Straus & Young, 1951). For some qualifying remarks, see David Kraemer, “The Sabbath as a Sanctuary in Space,” in Tif ʾeret le-Yisraʾel: Jubilee Volume in Honor of Israel Francus, ed. Joel Roth et al. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010), 79–91.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

445

7.  Numbers 2: The Tribal Encampment around the Tabernacle (Flags) ‫ְהּודה ְל ִצ ְבא ָֹתם‬ ָ ‫חנֵה י‬ ֲ ‫ְרחָה ֶּדגֶל ַמ‬ ָ ‫ ְ והַחֹנִים ק ְֵדמָה ִמז‬3 ‫חנֵה ְראּובֵן ּתֵ י ָמנָה ְל ִצ ְבא ָֹתם‬ ֲ ‫ ּדגֶל ַמ‬ ֶ 10 ‫ֶפרַ יִם ְל ִצ ְבא ָֹתם יָּמָה‬ ְ ‫חנֵה א‬ ֲ ‫ ּדגֶל ַמ‬ ֶ 18 ‫חנֵה ָדן צָפֹנָה ְל ִצ ְבא ָֹתם‬ ֲ ‫ ּדגֶל ַמ‬ ֶ 25  3.  And those encamped orient-ward, eastward, the flag of the camp of Judah according to their armies; 10.  The flag of the camp of Reuben, southward, according to their armies; 18.  The flag of the camp of Ephraim, according to their armies, sea-ward; 25.  The flag of the camp of Dan, northward, according to their armies; According to Numbers 2, the Israelite encampment was divided into four parts, each one positioned on a different flank of the tabernacle, with a flag or banner to mark the division. The second and fourth units are described in parallel fashion (except for the necessary differences of lead tribe and cardinal direction) and thus may be considered the standard wording: “The flag of the camp of tribe-X, direction-Y, according to their armies.” The third unit is described with variant word order, with the phrase “according to their armies” and the direction-Y term switching slots. The first unit has the most variation, with (a) the word ‫ ְוהַחֹנִים‬wĕ-ha-ḥonim, “and those encamped”; (b) two synonyms for the same direction, ‫ְרחָה‬ ָ ‫ ק ְֵדמָה ִמז‬qedmah mizraḥah, “orient-ward, eastward”; and (c) with the direction preceding the reference to the flag. 8.  Numbers 3: The Number of Levites ‫חמֵׁש מֵאֹות׃‬ ֲ ‫ָפים ַו‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ׁש ְבעַת‬ ִ ‫ֻדֵ יהֶם‬ ‫ָעלָה ְּפק‬ ְ ‫ֻדֵ יהֶם ְּב ִמ ְסּפַר ּכָל־זָכָר ִמּבֶן־חֹדֶׁש ָומ‬ ‫ ּפק‬ ְ 22 ֹ ‫ׁש ֶמרֶת הַּקֹדֶׁש׃‬ ְ ‫ָפים ְוׁשֵׁש מֵאֹות ׁש ְמרֵי ִמ‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ׁשמֹנַת‬ ְ ‫ָעלָה‬ ְ ‫ ּב ִמ ְסּפַר ּכָל־זָכָר ִמּבֶן־חֹדֶׁש ָומ‬ ְ 28 ‫ָאתיִם׃‬ ָ ‫ָפים ּומ‬ ִ ‫אל‬ ֲ ‫ֵׁשת‬ ֶ ‫ָעלָה ׁש‬ ְ ‫ֻדֵ יהֶם ְּב ִמ ְסּפַר ּכָל־זָכָר ִמּבֶן־חֹדֶׁש ָומ‬ ‫ ּופק‬ ְ 34 22.  Their accounting, by the number of all males, from one-month (old) and upward; their accounting, seven thousand and five hundred. 28.  By the number of all males, from one-month (old) and upward, eight thousand and six hundred, duty-guards of the guard-duty of the sanctuary. 34.  And their accounting, by the number of all males, from one-month (old) and upward, six thousand and two hundred. The Levites are divided into three groups: Gershonites, Kohathites, and Merar­ ites, with the census providing the number for each division. In the style to which we have become well accustomed, the data are not presented in a dull manner; instead, the author jumbles the material to allow for the reader’s admiration of his literary flair. With the first group, the word ‫ֻדֵ יהֶם‬ ‫ ְּפק‬pqudehem, “their accounting,” is used twice (v. 22); for the second group, this key word is omitted (v. 28); and for the third group, the conjunction waw is included to

446

Gary A. Rendsburg

provide the form ‫ֻדֵ יהֶם‬ ‫ּופק‬ ְ u-pqudehem, “and their accounting.” In addition, the second group gains a special epithet: ‫ׁש ֶמרֶת הַּק ֹדֶׁש‬ ְ ‫ ׁש ֹ ְמרֵי ִמ‬šomre mišmeret haqqodeš, “duty-guards of the guard-duty of the sanctuary.” 9.  Numbers 3: The Number of Levites (Encamped + Tribal Leader) ‫ׁשּכָן יַחֲנּו יָּמָה׃‬ ְ ‫ׁשּנִי ַאחֲרֵי ה ִַּמ‬ ֻ ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ַהּג ְֵר‬ ְ ‫ מ‬ ִ 23 ‫ֶליָסָף ּבֶן־ ָלאֵל׃‬ ְ ‫ׁשּנִי א‬ ֻ ‫ְׂשיא בֵית־אָב ַלּג ְֵר‬ ִ ‫  ּונ‬24 ְ ‫ֵי־קהָת יַחֲנּו עַל יֶר‬ ‫ׁשּכָן ּתֵ י ָמנָה׃‬ ְ ‫ֶך ה ִַּמ‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ְּבנ‬ ְ ‫ מ‬ ִ 29 ‫עּזִיאֵל׃‬ ֻ ‫ֶלי ָצפָן ּבֶן־‬ ִ ‫ָתי א‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ה ְַּקה‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיא בֵית־אָב ְל ִמ‬ ִ ‫  ּונ‬30 ְ ‫ֲבי ָחיִל עַל יֶר‬ ‫ׁשּכָן יַחֲנּו צָפֹנָה׃‬ ְ ‫ֶך ה ִַּמ‬ ִ ‫צּוריאֵל ּבֶן־א‬ ִ ‫ָרי‬ ִ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ְמר‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיא בֵית־אָב ְל ִמ‬ ִ ‫  ּונ‬35 23.  The families of the Gershonite; behind the tabernacle, they encamped seaward. 24.  And the leader of the ancestral house of the Gershonite: Eliasaph son of Lael. 29.  The families of the children of Kohath encamped; on the flank of the tabernacle southward. 30.  And the leader of the ancestral house of the families of the Kohathite: Elizaphan son of Uzziel. 35.  And the leader of the ancestral house of the families of Merarite: Zuriel son of Abihail; on the flank of the tabernacle, they encamped, northward. In these comparable verses, additional details are provided for the three Levite groups: (a) their position vis-à-vis the tabernacle, and (b) the names of their division leaders. The most glaring difference is the employment of two verses to present this information for the Gershonite and Kohathite groups (vv. 23–24 and 29–30, respectively) with only a single (albeit long) verse used for the Merarite group (v. 35). And within this major variation, one notes the order of cardinal direction + name of leader for the first two groups, versus the order of name of leader + cardinal direction for the third group. More minor divergences are also present. First, in the clause that provides details about the encampment, we note the differences between and among: (a) ‫ׁשּנִי‬ ֻ ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ַהּג ְֵר‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬mišpĕḥot hag-geršoni, “the families of the Gershonites” (v. 23), with definite article + gentilic form of the group name—that is, “the Gershonites”; (b) ‫ֵי־קהָת‬ ְ ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ְּבנ‬ ְ ‫ ִמ‬mišpĕḥot bĕne qĕhat, “the families of the children of Kohath” (v. 29), with the word ‫ ְּבנֵי‬bĕne, “children of,” used; and (c) no such corresponding phrase for the encamping of the Merarite group (v. 35). Second, concerning where each group encamped, we note the differences between and among: (a) ‫ׁשּכָן יַחֲנּו יָּמָה‬ ְ ‫ ַאחֲרֵי ה ִַּמ‬ʾaḥare ham-miškan yaḥanu yamְ ‫יַחֲנּו עַל יֶר‬ mah, “behind the tabernacle, they encamped seaward” (v. 23); (b) ‫ֶך‬ ‫ׁשּכָן ּתֵ י ָמנָה‬ ְ ‫ ה ִַּמ‬yaḥanu ʿal yerek ham-miškan temanah, “they encamped; on the ְ ‫ עַל יֶר‬ʿal flank of the tabernacle southward” (v. 29); and (c) ‫ׁשּכָן יַחֲנּו צָפֹנָה‬ ְ ‫ֶך ה ִַּמ‬

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

447

yerek ham-miškan yaḥanu ṣaponah, “on the flank of the tabernacle they encamped northward” (v. 35). Each of these has a slightly different wording, with the most striking feature being the attachment of ‫ יַחֲנּו‬yaḥanu, “they encamped,” to the first clause of v. 29 (although not marked here, there is also a major disjuncture marked by an ʾatnaḥ). Third, for the name of the group leader, we note: (a) ‫ׁשּנִי‬ ֻ ‫ְׂשיא בֵית־אָב ַלּג ְֵר‬ ִ ‫ּונ‬ u-nśiʾ bet ʾab lag-geršunni, “and the leader of the ancestral house of the Gershonite” (v. 24); (b) ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ה ְַּקה‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיא בֵית־אָב ְל ִמ‬ ִ ‫ ּונ‬u-nśiʾ bet ʾab lĕ-mišpĕḥot haq-qĕhati, “and the leader of the ancestral house of the families of the Kohathite” (v. 30); and ‫ָרי‬ ִ‫ׁש ְּפחֹת ְמר‬ ְ ‫ְׂשיא בֵית־אָב ְל ִמ‬ ִ ‫ ּונ‬u-nśiʾ bet ʾab lĕ-mišpĕḥot mĕrari, “and the leader of the ancestral house of the families of Merarite” (v. 35). All three begin the same, though for the first, simply the gentilic term is used, “of the Gershonite,” while for the second and third, the term “the families of” is inserted. Given this parallel structure of the second and third phrases, an additional distinction is introduced by including the definite article with ‫ָתי‬ ִ ‫ה ְַּקה‬ haq-qĕhati, “the Kohathite,” and by omitting this morpheme with ‫ָרי‬ ִ‫ ְמר‬mĕrari, “Merarite.” The result of these variant wordings is a panoply of differentiations at which the reader may marvel. Far from banal repetition of the formulas used to impart the data for the three Levite subgroups, the author deliberately introduces variation at every level. 10.  Numbers 28–29: The Goat Offering on Festival Days (a) Num 28:15 (Rosh Ḥodesh)

‫ַּטאת לַיהוָה‬ ָ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר ִעּזִים ֶאחָד ְלח‬ ְ and one hairy-one of the goats as a ḥaṭṭaʾt unto Yhwh

(b) Num 28:22 (Pesaḥ)

‫ַּטאת ֶאחָד ְל ַכּפֵר עֲלֵיכֶם‬ ָ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר ח‬ ְ and one hairy-one ḥaṭṭaʾt to expiate for you

(c) Num 28:30 (Shavuʿot) one hairy-one of the goats to expiate for you

‫ְׂש ִעיר ִעּזִים ֶאחָד ְל ַכּפֵר עֲלֵיכֶם‬

(d) Num 29:5 (Rosh ha-Shanah)

‫ַּטאת ְל ַכּפֵר עֲלֵיכֶם‬ ָ ‫יר־עּזִים ֶאחָד ח‬ ִ ‫ּוׂש ִע‬ ְ and one hairy-one of the goats ḥaṭṭaʾt to expiate for you

(e) Num 29:11 (Yom Kippur) one hairy-one of the goats ḥaṭṭaʾt

‫ַּטאת‬ ָ ‫יר־עּזִים ֶאחָד ח‬ ִ ‫ְׂש ִע‬

448

Gary A. Rendsburg

Numbers 28–29 outlines the individual sacrifices for each of the festival days, as envisioned by the Priestly source. Far from a repetitive litany of offerings and sacrifices, the author of this pericope introduces variation whenever possible. The different wordings in the individual paragraphs are too complicated to outline here, and thus we limit ourselves to the variation inherent in one specific formula—that is, the variation about the goat offering. In four instances, the animal is referred to as ‫ ְׂש ִעיר ִעּזִים‬śĕʿir ʿizzim, “hairy-one of the goats,” while in 28:22, the term appears as ‫ַּטאת‬ ָ ‫ ְׂש ִעיר ח‬śĕʿir ḥaṭṭaʾt, “hairyone ḥaṭṭaʾt.” In three cases, the phrase begins with the conjunction ‫ וּ־‬u-, “and,” while in 28:30 and 29:11, the conjunction is omitted. The word ‫ַּטאת‬ ָ ‫ ח‬ḥaṭṭaʾt (traditionally rendered “sin offering,” though recent research reveals that “purification offering” is more appropriate) appears in four places, though not in 28:30. The phrase ‫ ְל ַכּפֵר עֲלֵיכֶם‬lĕ-kapper ʿalekem, “to expiate for you,” occurs three times, but it does not appear in 28:15 and 29:11. The divine name ‫ יהוה‬yhwh, “Yhwh,” appears in the first formulation, though not in the others. These minor modifications guarantee that none of the five sentences is repeated verbatim. 11.  Numbers 29: The Sacrifices for the Individual Days of Sukkot Day 1—Num 29:16

‫ִסּכָּה׃‬ ְ ‫ָתּה ְונ‬ ָ ‫ַּת ִמיד ִמ ְנח‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫יר־עּזִים ֶאחָד ח‬ ִ ‫ּוׂש ִע‬ ְ and one hairy-one of the goats ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, its grain offering and its libation offering.

Day 2—Num 29:19 ‫ִסּכֵיהֶם׃‬ ְ ‫ָתּה ְונ‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְנח‬ ִ ‫ַּת ִמיד‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫יר־עּזִים ֶאחָד ח‬ ִ ‫ּוׂש ִע‬ ְ and one hairy-one of the goats ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, and its grain offering and their libation offerings. Day 3—Num 29:22

‫ִסּכָּה׃‬ ְ ‫ָתּה ְונ‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְנח‬ ִ ‫ַּת ִמיד‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ֶאחָד ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר ח‬ ְ and one hairy-one ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, and its grain offering and its libation offering.

Day 4—Num 29:25

‫ִסּכָּה׃‬ ְ ‫ָתּה ְונ‬ ָ ‫ַּת ִמיד ִמ ְנח‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫יר־עּזִים ֶאחָד ח‬ ִ ‫ּוׂש ִע‬ ְ and one hairy-one of the goats ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, its grain offering and its libation offering.

Day 5—Num 29:28

‫ִסּכָּה׃‬ ְ ‫ָתּה ְונ‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְנח‬ ִ ‫ַּת ִמיד‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ֶאחָד ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר ח‬ ְ and one hairy-one ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, and its grain offering and its libation offering.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

449

Day 6—Num 29:31

‫ָתּה ּו ְנ ָסכֶיהָ׃‬ ָ ‫ַּת ִמיד ִמ ְנח‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ֶאחָד ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר ח‬ ְ and one hairy-one ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, its grain offering and its libation offerings.

Day 7—Num 29:34

‫ִסּכָּה׃‬ ְ ‫ָתּה ְונ‬ ָ ‫ַּת ִמיד ִמ ְנח‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ֶאחָד ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר ח‬ ְ and one hairy-one ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, its grain offering and its libation offering.

Day 8—Num 29:38

‫ִסּכָּה׃‬ ְ ‫ָתּה ְונ‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְנח‬ ִ ‫ַּת ִמיד‬ ָ ‫ַּטאת ֶאחָד ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬ ָ ‫ּוׂש ִעיר ח‬ ְ and one hairy-one ḥaṭṭaʾt, in addition to the daily offering, and its grain offering and its libation offering.

The enumeration of the sacrifices on the festival days (see above, no. 10) concludes with the offerings ordained for the individual days of Sukkot, with the technique of repetition with variation continuing apace. In the present instance, we expand our analysis to include the wording not only for the goat offering but for the daily offering (tamid) and its accompanying grain and libation offerings (minḥah and nesek, respectively, the latter comprised of oil) as well. To begin, in three cases the animal is called ‫יר־עּזִים‬ ִ ‫ ְׂש ִע‬śĕʿir ʿizzim, “hairyone of the goats,” with the word ‫ַּטאת‬ ָ ‫ ח‬ḥaṭṭaʾt following, while in five cases the term used is ‫ַּטאת‬ ָ ‫ ְׂש ִעיר ח‬śĕʿir ḥaṭṭaʾt, “hairy-one ḥaṭṭaʾt.” The expression ‫ַּת ִמיד‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְּלבַד עֹלַת ה‬mil-lĕbad ʿolat hat-tamid, “in addition to the daily offering,” remains constant throughout all eight days, but the final formula in each of the verses allows for variation once more. Four days present ‫ָתּה‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְנח‬minḥatah, “its grain offering,” while four days present ‫ָתּה‬ ָ ‫ּומ ְנח‬ ִ u-minḥatah, “and its grain offering.” The oil offering is termed ‫ִסּכָּה‬ ְ ‫ ְונ‬wĕ-niskah, “and its libation offering” (in the singular) six times, though quite oddly, once, we read ‫ִסּכֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫ְונ‬ wĕ-niskehem, “and their libation offerings” (Day 2), and once, we read ‫ּו ְנ ָסכֶי ָה‬ u-nĕsakeha, “and its libation offerings” (Day 6). As a consequence of all these alterations, five different formulations are present: one set of passages appears verbatim for Days 1 and 4; another set of passages appears verbatim for Days 3, 5, and 8; while the other days (2, 6, and 7) attest unique wordings. When we expand these passages to include the full wording for each day of Sukkot, 20 we find still other minor variations. Thus, for example, v. 24 (Day 4) commences with ‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫ ִמ ְנח‬minḥatam, “their grain offering,” while the parallel 20.  I exclude from the discussion Day 1, since an altogether different phrasing is used there to introduce the entire, week-long holiday.

450

Gary A. Rendsburg

verses for all other days begin with ‫ָתם‬ ָ ‫וּמ ְנח‬ ִ u-minḥatam, “and their grain offering” (that is, with the conjunction); and v. 33 (Day 7) ends with ‫ׁש ָּפטָם‬ ְ ‫ְּכ ִמ‬ kĕ-mišpaṭam, “according to their regulation,” while the parallel verses for all other days use ‫ׁשּפָט‬ ְ ‫ ּכ ִַּמ‬kam-mišpaṭ, “according to the regulation.” On the orthography front, we also note the unique spelling ‫ִס ֵּכהֶם‬ ְ ‫ ְונ‬wĕ-niskehem, “and their libation offerings,” in v. 33 (Day 7). A less creative author would have repeated the same language again and again for the seven (or eight days) of Sukkot. Instead, however, the reader is invited to pay attention to these very minor differences, all in the interest of keeping the mind alert in the continual play of author → text → reader/ performer → listener/audience. 12.  Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15: Witnesses (a) Deut 17:6

‫ׁשה ע ִֵדים יּומַת ַהּמֵת‬ ָ ֹ ‫ׁשל‬ ְ ‫ׁשנַיִם ע ִֵדים אֹו‬ ְ ‫ַל־ּפי‬ ִ ‫ע‬ (only) on the testimony of two witnesses or three witnesses may a person be put-to-death

(b) Deut 19:15

‫ׁשה־ע ִֵדים יָקּום ָּדבָר׃‬ ָ ֹ ‫ׁשל‬ ְ ‫ַל־ּפי‬ ִ ‫ׁשנֵי ע ִֵדים אֹו ע‬ ְ ‫ַל־ּפי‬ ִ ‫ע‬ (only) on the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses may the matter stand

Twice the book of Deuteronomy turns its attention to the question of how many witnesses are required in order to convict the accused in a legal proceeding. 21 The two laws agree in requiring two or three witnesses (that is, a minimum of two, though more are permitted), though we note the variant wording present in the text. In 17:6 the term ‫ַל־ּפי‬ ִ ‫ ע‬ʿal pi, “on the testimony of” (lit., “mouth of”) appears but once, governing both the following “two witnesses” and “three witnesses”; while in 19:15 the term ‫ַל־ּפי‬ ִ ‫ ע‬ʿal pi, “on the testimony of,” occurs twice, before both “two witnesses” and “three witnesses.” Moreover, in the first iteration the absolute form of the numeral is used: ‫ׁשנַיִם ע ִֵדים‬ ְ šnayim ʿedim, “two witnesses”; whereas in the echo two chapters later the construct form of the numeral is used: ‫ׁשנֵי ע ִֵדים‬ ְ šne ʿedim, “two witnesses.” 22 Finally, the slightest variation is present in the Masoretic Text, with the former passage invoking ‫ׁשה ע ִֵדים‬ ָ ֹ ‫ׁשל‬ ְ šĕloša ʿedim, “three witnesses,” as two separate words, and 21.  In the first one the death penalty is explicit, and this may be implied in the second instance as well; see below, n. 23. 22.  This is yet another instance where the Samaritan Pentateuch harmonizes, reading both passages as ‫על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים‬, thereby accommodating MT 17:6 to 19:15. On the Septuagint here, see Carmel McCarthy, Deuteronomy, BHQ 5 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgeschellschaft, 2007), 53, 103.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

451

the second passage conjoining ‫ׁשה־ע ִֵדים‬ ָ ֹ ‫ׁשל‬ ְ šĕloša ʿedim, “three witnesses,” as a single entity via the maqqep. 13.  Deuteronomic Code: “And You Shall Extirpate Evil” (and Similar Expressions) (a) Deut 13:6; 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21, 24; 24:7 and you shall extirpate evil from your midst (b) Deut 17:12; 22:22 and you shall extirpate evil from Israel

ָ‫ּובע ְַר ָּת הָרָע ִמ ִּק ְרּבֶך‬ ִ

‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ּובע ְַר ָּת הָרָע ִמּי‬ ִ

These two variant phrases punctuate the laws of Deuteronomy, especially those where the death penalty is involved. 23 Version (a) is clearly the dominant one, though in two cases the author of Deuteronomy changes the final word from ָ‫ ִמ ִּק ְרּבֶך‬miq-qirbeka, “from your midst,” to ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ ִמּי‬miy-yiśraʾel, “from Israel,” to produce version (b). Why does this change occur specifically at 17:12 and 22:22? In both cases, the variant phrasing follows in proximity to the standard phrasing; note 17:12 coming five verses after 17:7, and 22:22 following immediately after 22:21. In the case of 22:22, I also suggest a second factor: namely, alliteration with a key word in the next verse: one observes the use of ‫ָׂשה‬ ָ ‫ ְמאֹר‬mĕʾoraśa, “betrothed,” five words after ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ ִמּי‬miy-yiśraʾel, “from Israel,” with the root ‫ ארשׂ‬ʾrś, “betroth,” of the former appearing in reverse order within the ethnonym ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ י‬yiśraʾel, “Israel.” This observation suggests that alliteration may also be at play in 17:12, even though the sound play between ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ י‬yiśraʾel, “Israel,” and the key word ‫ׁשרֶת‬ ָ ‫ ְל‬lĕ-šaret, “to serve” (earlier in the verse) is less arresting. 24 (c) Deut 19:13

‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ָקי ִמּי‬ ִ ‫ּובע ְַר ָּת דַ ם־ ַהּנ‬ ִ and you shall extirpate the blood of the innocent from Israel

23.  Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 131. The one apparent exception is Deut 19:19, though, in the light of Deut 17:6, the law of false witnesses also may result in capital punishment. 24.  On alliteration as a feature of ancient Hebrew composition, see my “Alliteration in the Exodus Narrative,” in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 83–100; and Scott B. Noegel and Gary A. Rendsburg, Solomon’s Vineyard: Literary and Linguistic Studies in the Song of Songs, SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 63–106.

452

Gary A. Rendsburg

(d) Deut 21:9

ָ‫ָקי ִמ ִּק ְרּבֶך‬ ִ ‫ַּתה ְּת ַבעֵר הַָּדם ַהּנ‬ ָ ‫ְוא‬ and you, you shall extirpate the innocent blood from your midst

The key verb ‫ בער‬bʿr, “purge, extirpate,” from (a) and (b) above also appears in (c) and (d). In these passages, the focus is specifically on the extirpation of innocent blood. Once more, the author introduces variation: (c) uses (i) the wĕqatal form of the verb ‫ּובע ְַר ָּת‬ ִ u-biʿarta, “and you shall extirpate,” (ii) the expression ‫ָקי‬ ִ ‫ דַ ם־ ַהּנ‬dam han-naqi, “the blood of the innocent,” and (iii) ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ִמּי‬ miy-yiśraʾel, “from Israel,” whereas (d) uses (i) the prefix-conjugation verb with the independent pronoun for emphasis, thus ‫ַּתה ְּת ַבעֵר‬ ָ ‫ ְוא‬wĕ-ʾattah tĕbaʿer, “and you, you shall extirpate,” (ii) the expression ‫ָקי‬ ִ ‫ הַָּדם ַהּנ‬had-dam han-naqi, “the innocent blood,” and (iii) ָ‫ ִמ ִּק ְרּבֶך‬miq-qirbeka, “from your midst.” (e) Deut 13:12 ‫א־יֹוספּו ַלעֲׂשֹות ּכַָּדבָר הָרָע ַהּזֶה ְּב ִק ְרּבֶךָ׃‬ ִ ֹ ‫ִׁש ְמעּו ְויִרָאּון ְול‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל י‬ ְ ‫ְוכָל־י‬ And all Israel shall hear and shall fear, and they shall not continue to do according to this evil thing in your midst. (f) Deut 19:20 ‫ִׁש ְמעּו ְויִרָאּו ְולֹא־י ִֹספּו ַלעֲׂשֹות עֹוד ּכַָּדבָר הָרָע ַהּזֶה ְּב ִק ְרּבֶךָ׃‬ ְ ‫ָרים י‬ ִ‫ִׁשא‬ ְ ‫ְו ַהּנ‬ And all who remain shall hear and shall fear, and they shall not continue to do again according to this evil thing in your midst. These two verses exhort the Israelites in similar fashion to the aforementioned passages, though without recourse to the verbal root ‫ בער‬bʿr, “purge, extirpate.” Instead, a different phraseology is employed, though a comparison of the two verses reveals, as we have come to expect, non-verbatim repetition. We note the following differences: (i) ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ ְוכָל־י‬wĕ-kol yiśraʾel, “and all Israel,” versus ‫ָרים‬ ִ‫ִׁשא‬ ְ ‫ ְו ַהּנ‬wĕ-han-nišʾarim, “and all who remain” (i.e., “everyone else”); (ii) the archaic form ‫ ְויִרָאּון‬wĕ-yiraʾun, “and they shall fear,” with paragogic nun, versus the standard form ‫ ְויִרָאּו‬wĕ-yiraʾu, “and they shall fear”; and (iii) the introduction of ‫ עֹוד‬ʿod, “again,” in (f) versus its absence in (e). An orthographic difference bolsters the alterations, with plene ‫יֹוספּו‬ ִ yosipu, “continue,” in 13:12 versus defectiva ‫ י ִֹספּו‬yosipu, “continue,” in 19:20. Note that these two verses appear six chapters apart, and yet one assumes that the listener to the text would apprehend the differences in wording, even at this remove. (g) Deut 17:13 and all the people shall hear and shall fear (h) Deut 21:21 and all Israel shall hear and shall fear

‫ִׁש ְמעּו ְויִרָאּו‬ ְ ‫ְוכָל־ ָהעָם י‬

‫ִׁש ְמעּו ְויִרָאּו‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ָראֵל י‬ ְ ‫ְוכָל־י‬

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

453

Shorter versions of (e) and (f) above appear in these two passages, though again, the reader notices the variation. The former uses ‫ ְוכָל־ ָהעָם‬wĕ-kol ha-ʿam, “and all the people,” while the latter uses ‫ִׂש ָראֵל‬ ְ ‫ ְוכָל־י‬wĕ-kol yiśraʾel, “and all Israel.” The book of Deuteronomy is distinguished (from Leviticus, for example) by its constant exhortations to the people of Israel to observe the law and to remove evil from its midst. The message remains essentially the same, though the wording is varied in order to provide the composition with appropriate literary flavor. 14.  Deuteronomy 27:12–13: Tribes on the Mountains (a) Deut 27:12 ְ ‫ֵאּלֶה יַע ְַמדּו ְלב‬ ‫ׁש ְמעֹון ְולִֵוי‬ ִ ‫ָב ְרכֶם אֶת־ ַהּי ְַרּדֵ ן‬ ְ ‫ָרֵך אֶת־ ָהעָם עַל־הַר ּגְִרזִים ְּבע‬ ‫ָמן׃‬ ִ ‫ּוב ְני‬ ִ ‫ִּׂששכָר ְויֹוסֵף‬ ָ ‫יהּודה ְוי‬ ָ ‫ִו‬ These shall stand to bless the people upon Mount Gerizim, when you cross over the Jordan: Simeon and Levi and Judah; and Issachar and Joseph and Benjamin. (b) Deut 27:13 ‫ְו ֵאּלֶה יַע ְַמדּו עַל־ה ְַּק ָללָה ְּבהַר עֵיבָל ְראּובֵן ּגָד ְו ָאׁשֵר ּוזְבּולֻן ָּדן ְונ ְַפ ָּת ִלי׃‬ And these shall stand over the curse on Mount Ebal: Reuben, Gad, and Asher; and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. In these verses, Moses commands the people concerning the ceremonial proclamation of the blessings and curses that will occur once the Israelites cross the Jordan and arrive in Canaan proper, with specific attention to the arrangement of the 12 tribes, 6 on each mountain. While an uncreative author might have used the same phraseology in each verse, our author, with ever an eye to literary artistry, introduces variation in several key places. (i) The action of the first group is worded ‫ ֵאּלֶה יַע ְַמדּו ְלבָרֵ ְך אֶת־ ָהעָם‬ʾelleh yaʿamdu lĕ-barek ʾet ha-ʿam, “these will stand to bless the people,” while the action of the second group is worded ‫ ְו ֵאּלֶה יַע ְַמדּו עַל־ה ְַּק ָללָה‬wĕ-ʾelleh yaʿamdu ʿal haq-qĕlalah, “and these will stand over the curse.” I am not concerned with the absence of the conjunction -‫ ְו‬wĕ-, “and,” in the first passage and its presence in the second, for this would be expected in almost any linguistic context. Rather, one notices the use of the infinitive verb ‫ ְלבָרֵ ְך‬lĕ-barek, “to bless,” followed by the explicit direct object ‫ אֶת־ ָהעָם‬ʾet ha-ʿam, “the people,” in v. 12, in contrast to the phrase ‫ עַל־ה ְַּק ָללָה‬ʿal haq-qĕlalah, “over the curse,” in v. 13. (ii) In the first instance, the text reads ‫ עַל־הַר ּגְִרזִים‬ʿal har gĕrizim, “upon Mount Gerizim,” while in the second instance, the text uses a different preposition, ‫ ְּבהַר עֵיבָל‬bĕ-har ʿebal, “on Mount Ebal.” The Bible seems to use both expressions with more or less equal frequency following the verb ‫ עמד‬ʿmd,

454

Gary A. Rendsburg

“stand” (on a mountain): for ‫ עַל‬ʿal, “upon,” see Ezek 11:23, Zech 14:4 (and when ‫ רֹאשׁ‬roʾš, “head, summit,” is used, see also 1 Sam 26:13, 2 Kgs 1:9); for -‫ ְּב‬bĕ-, “on” (lit., “in”), see Deut 10:10, 1 Kgs 19:11 (and with ‫ רֹאשׁ‬roʾš, “head, summit,” see also Judg 9:7). 25 This is to say, not only were both options available to the author of Deut 27:12–13, not surprisingly both were used in order to vary the diction. (iii) The first six tribes are presented as ‫ָמן‬ ִ ‫ּוב ְני‬ ִ ‫ִּׂששכָר ְויֹוסֵף‬ ָ ‫יהּודה ְוי‬ ָ ‫ׁש ְמעֹון ְולִֵוי ִו‬ ִ šimʿon wĕ-lewi wi-hudah wĕ-yiśśakar wĕ-yosep u-binyamin, “Simeon, and Levi and Judah; and Issachar, and Joseph and Benjamin,” with the conjunction -‫ ְו‬wĕ-, “and,” appended to each name (except the first, obviously), whereas the second six tribes are presented as ‫ ְראּובֵן ּגָד ְו ָאׁשֵר ּוזְבּולֻן ָּדן ְונ ְַפ ָּת ִלי‬rĕʾuben gad wĕ-ʾašer u-zĕbulun dan wĕ-naptali, “Reuben, Gad, and Asher; and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali,” with a different system. In this arrangement, as can be determined by the Masoretic accents, the six are divided into two groups of three, 26 with each subgroup aligned as ⟨A, B, “and” C⟩, and with the second subgroup also introduced with “and,” thereby producing a string of ⟨A, B, “and” C⟩; ⟨“and” D, E, “and” F⟩. 27 15.  Deuteronomy 28: “The Fruit of Your . . .” (a) Deut 28:4 ְ ‫ּב‬ ‫ַׁש ְּתרֹות צֹאנֶךָ׃‬ ְ ‫א ָלפֶיךָ ְוע‬ ֲ ‫ׁשגַר‬ ְ ָ‫ֶמ ֶּתך‬ ְ ‫ּופִרי ְבה‬ ְ ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫ּופִרי א ְַדמ‬ ְ ָ‫י־ב ְטנְך‬ ִ ‫ָרּוך ְּפִר‬ Blessed be the fruit of your womb, and the fruit of your soil, and the fruit of your animals—the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. (b) Deut 28:11

ָ‫ָתך‬ ֶ ‫ּוב ְפִרי א ְַדמ‬ ִ ָ‫ּוב ְפִרי ְבה ְַמ ְּתך‬ ִ ָ‫הֹות ְרךָ יְהוָה ְלטֹובָה ִּב ְפִרי ִב ְטנְך‬ ִ ‫ְו‬ And Yhwh will suffuse you with goodness, with the fruit of your womb, and with the fruit of your animals, and with the fruit of your soil.

(c) Deut 28:18

‫ַׁש ְּתרֹות צֹאנֶךָ׃‬ ְ ‫א ָלפֶיךָ ְוע‬ ֲ ‫ׁשגַר‬ ְ ָ‫ָתך‬ ֶ ‫ּופִרי א ְַדמ‬ ְ ָ‫י־ב ְטנְך‬ ִ ‫אָרּור ְּפִר‬ Cursed be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your soil—the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.

25.  In general, there seems to be a more-or-less equal distribution of the two prepositions governing the noun ‫ הָר‬har, “mountain,” though with certain verbs, such as ‫ ישׁב‬yšb, “sit,” -‫ ְּב‬bĕ-, “on,” predominates, while with other verbs, such as ‫ ירד‬yrd, “descend” (in the sense of “descend upon,” not “descend from”), ‫ עַל‬ʿal, “upon,” predominates. 26.  This is also true of the first six tribes (note my punctuation in the English translation), though the issue is less relevant there, since each tribal name is preceded by the conjunction. 27.  I do not treat here the presence of ‫ָב ְרכֶם אֶת־ ַהּי ְַרּדֵ ן‬ ְ ‫ ְּבע‬bĕ-ʿobrĕkem ʾet hay-yarden, “when you cross over the Jordan,” in v. 12 versus its absence in v. 13, since it would be very unidiomatic to include an expression of this sort a second time.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

455

(d) Deut 28:51 ‫ֲׁשר לֹא־י ְַׁש ִאיר ְלךָ ָּדגָן ִּתירֹוׁש‬ ֶ ‫ּׁש ְמ ָד ְך א‬ ָ ‫ָתךָ עַד ִה‬ ְ ‫ּופִרי־א ְַדמ‬ ְ ָ‫ֶמ ְּתך‬ ְ ‫ְו ָאכַל ְּפִרי ְבה‬ ָ‫ַׁש ְּתרֹת צֹאנֶך‬ ְ ‫א ָלפֶיךָ ְוע‬ ֲ ‫ׁשגַר‬ ְ ‫ִצהָר‬ ְ ‫ְוי‬ And it 28 shall eat the fruit of your animals and the fruit of your soil, until you have been destroyed, (and) who also shall not leave you grain, wine, and oil, the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks. (e) Deut 30:9 ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫ּוב ְפִרי א ְַדמ‬ ִ ָ‫ֶמ ְּתך‬ ְ ‫ּוב ְפִרי ְבה‬ ִ ָ‫ירךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ ְּבכֹל ַמעֲׂשֵ ה יָדֶךָ ִּב ְפִרי ִב ְטנְך‬ ְ ‫הֹות‬ ִ ‫ְו‬ ‫ְלטֹובָה‬ And Yhwh your God will suffuse you with all the work of your hand— with the fruit of your womb, and with the fruit of your animals, and with the fruit of your soil—with goodness. Deuteronomy 28 constitutes a list of blessings and curses that will befall the people, depending on their behavior, either positive or negative vis-à-vis the laws of the Torah. We may consider v. 4 to be the basic statement, (i) because it uses the most straightforward language, and (ii) because it appears among the ְ ‫ּב‬ short statements at the beginning of the chapter introduced by the word ‫ָרּוך‬ baruk, “blessed.” We read in this passage that the blessing will be manifested in “the fruit of your womb, and the fruit of your soil, and the fruit of your animals,” with this last phrase further explicated by the expression “the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.” Variation is introduced in the other verses by an assortment of means. (1) In v. 11, the second and third elements are reversed, so that the passage reads: “with the fruit of your womb, with the fruit of your animals, and with the fruit of your soil.” (2) In v. 18, the mood changes from blessing to curse, though this shift most likely is not the reason for the change in wording. Rather, as we have seen in so many instances, the desire for alternative phraseology drives the author of our text to delete one element of the standard expression, namely, “the animals,” even if the extended expression remains with reference to it. Hence, we read: “Cursed be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your soil—the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.” (3) The final iteration in Deuteronomy 28 occurs in v. 51 (still in the curses section), as follows: “the fruit of your animals, and the fruit of your soil . . . grain, wine, and oil, the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flocks.” In this instance, “the fruit of your womb” has been omitted (though see further below), so that the passage begins with “the fruit of your animals, and the fruit of your soil,” which are both then detailed in the standard phraseology, though strikingly in noncorresponding order, with “grain, wine, and oil” first, followed by “the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flock.” 28.  That is, the conquering nation, for which, see vv. 49–50.

456

Gary A. Rendsburg

One final rehearsal of this theme appears in Deut 30:9, in which the text returns to its basic wording from Deut 28:3, with the trio in place in the original order, “with the fruit of your womb, and with the fruit of your animals, and with the fruit of your soil.” However, we should mention some differences between Deut 30:9 and its closest congener—namely, Deut 28:11. Both verses begin with the verb ָ‫ירך‬ ְ ‫הֹות‬ ִ ‫ ְו‬wĕ-hotirka, “and shall suffuse you,” 29 but (1) one uses simply ‫ יְהוָה‬yhwh, “Yhwh,” while the other uses ָ‫ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיך‬yhwh ʾeloheka, “Yhwh your God”; (2) 30:9 inserts the phrase ָ‫ ְּבכֹל ַמעֲׂשֵ ה יָדֶך‬bĕ-kol maʿaśe yadeka, “with all the work of your hand,” which is lacking in 28:11; and (3) the key phrase ‫ ְלטֹובָה‬lĕ-ṭoba, “with goodness,” appears early in 28:11 but is moved to the end in 30:9. We should also mention that Deuteronomy sets the stage for these passages early on, in Deut 7:13 (more than 20 chapters [!] before the above series of passages), where we read as follows: (f) Deut 7:13 ָ‫ַׁש ְּתרֹת צֹאנֶך‬ ְ ‫א ָלפֶיךָ ְוע‬ ֲ ‫ׁשגַר־‬ ְ ָ‫ִצ ָהרֶך‬ ְ ‫ׁשךָ ְוי‬ ְ ֹ ‫ָתךָ ְּדָגנְךָ ְו ִתיר‬ ֶ ‫ּופִרי־א ְַדמ‬ ְ ָ‫י־ב ְטנְך‬ ִ ‫ּובֵרַ ְך ְּפִר‬

And he shall bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your land—your grain, and your wine, and your oil—the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flock.

This passage uses only “the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your soil,” without the specific mention of “the fruit of your animals,” at which point it defines the second element as “your grain, and your wine, and your oil” and then fills in the gap, as it were, of the “missing” third element, with the expression “the progeny of your cattle and the offspring of your flock.” In short, the book of Deuteronomy invokes this phrase a total of six times, though—in characteristic biblical style, as we have come to expect—no two iterations are the same. Finally, to round out the picture, we note that individual elements are incorporated into the text of Deuteronomy 28 elsewhere, with ָ‫ָתך‬ ְ ‫ ְּפִרי א ְַדמ‬pĕri ʾadmatka, “the fruit of your soil,” used in vv. 33, 42, and ָ‫י־ב ְטנְך‬ ִ ‫ ְפִר‬pĕri biṭnĕka, “the fruit of your womb,” used in v. 53. Above, we noticed that this latter element is lacking in v. 51; in fact, its inclusion there would be inappropriate given the context. Here in v. 53 ( just two verses later), its placement is all the more effective, since the context refers to the people’s need to eat their own young, so complete will be the devastation wrought by the nation from afar. We now move to consider a second type of variation, not the slight alteration in specific wording of repeated passages, but rather the transformations in the organization of information presented in registry form. 29.  Note the different spellings, with Deut 28:11 written defectiva and Deut 30:9 written plene.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

457

16.  Leviticus 11:13–19: Forbidden Birds (Round One) ‫ָכלּו ׁשֶקֶץ הֵם אֶת־ ַהּנֶׁשֶר ְואֶת־ ַה ֶּפרֶס ְואֵת ָה ָע ְז ִנּיָה׃‬ ְ ‫ׁשַּקצּו ִמן־הָעֹוף לֹא יֵא‬ ְ ‫ ְואֶת־ ֵאּלֶה ְּת‬13 ‫ ְואֶת־הַָּדאָה ְואֶת־ ָה ַאּיָה ְל ִמינָּה׃‬14 ‫ אֵת ּכָל־עֹרֵב ְל ִמינֹו׃‬15 ‫ַּׁשחַף ְואֶת־ ַהּנֵץ ְל ִמינֵהּו׃‬ ָ ‫ ְואֵת ּבַת ַהּיַעֲנָה ְואֶת־הַּתַ ְחמָס ְואֶת־ה‬16 ְ ‫ַּׁשל‬ ‫ָך ְואֶת־ ַהּיַנְׁשּוף׃‬ ָ ‫ ְואֶת־הַּכֹוס ְואֶת־ה‬17 ‫ָרחָם׃‬ ָ ‫ְׁשמֶת ְואֶת־ה ַָּקאָת ְואֶת־ה‬ ֶ ‫ ְואֶת־ה ִַּתנ‬18 ‫ַּדּוכיפַת ְואֶת־ ָהעֲ ַטּלֵף׃‬ ִ ‫אנָפָה ְל ִמינָּה ְואֶת־ה‬ ֲ ‫ידה ָה‬ ָ ‫ֲס‬ ִ ‫ ְואֵת ַהח‬19 Because the identification of so many of the individual birds listed in Lev 11:13–19 is so uncertain, I refrain from producing a translation here. Regardless of the specific meanings, one observes how this pericope is structured, with an eye toward variation in the grouping of the birds in each verse. We will consider vv. 17–18 to constitute the standard wording, with three species listed, each introduced by ‫ ְואֶת־‬wĕ-ʾet + definite article. Verse 13b represents only the slightest variation, with no -‫ ְו‬wĕ-, “and” (because it would not be expected at the beginning of a list), and with ‫ ְואֵת‬wĕ-ʾet as a self-standing word (note the lack of maqqep) before the third bird. Verse 14 has only two birds and adds ‫ ְל ִמינָּה‬lĕ-minah, “according to its kind,” to the second. Verse 15 refers to only one species (or one class of birds): ‫ אֵת ּכָל־עֹרֵב ְל ִמינֹו‬ʾet kol ʿoreb lĕ-mino, “every raven, according to its kind,” with no -‫ ְו‬wĕ-, “and,” at the beginning, the addition of the word ‫ ּכָל‬kol, “every,” and the use of ‫ ְל ִמינֹו‬lĕ-mino, “according to its kind” (masculine, unlike the previous occurrence, which is feminine; obviously, the change in gender is mandated by the antecedent, but the variation is noteworthy nonetheless). Verse 16 lists four separate species and then adds ‫ ְל ִמינֵהּו‬lĕ-minehu, “according to its kind,” to the last item, using a different (more archaic) form of the pronominal suffix than in the previous verse. Finally, v. 19 lists four birds, but for the second species, the nota accusativi (direct-object indicator) is lacking, plus said item bears the word ‫ְל ִמינָּה‬ lĕ-minah, “according to its kind.” A less creative writer, I submit, would have listed the 20 birds in a more orderly fashion; for example, by using five verses each with 4 species, or some such arrangement. The author of Leviticus 11, by contrast, displays his virtuosity with the text above. 17.  Deuteronomy 14:12–18: Forbidden Birds (Round Two) ‫ֶׁשר ְו ַה ֶּפרֶס ְו ָה ָע ְז ִנּיָה׃‬ ֶ ‫אכלּו ֵמהֶם ַהּנ‬ ְ ֹ ‫ֲׁשר לֹא־ת‬ ֶ ‫ ְ וזֶה א‬12 ‫ָראָה ְואֶת־ ָה ַאּיָה ְוהַּדַ ּיָה ְל ִמינָּה׃‬ ָ ‫ ְ וה‬13 ‫ ְ ואֵת ּכָל־עֹרֵב ְל ִמינֹו׃‬14 ‫ַּׁשחַף ְואֶת־ ַהּנֵץ ְל ִמינֵהּו׃‬ ָ ‫ ְ ואֵת ּבַת ַהּיַעֲנָה ְואֶת־הַּתַ ְחמָס ְואֶת־ה‬15 ‫ְׁשמֶת׃‬ ָ ‫  אֶת־הַּכֹוס ְואֶת־ ַהּיַנְׁשּוף ְוה ִַּתנ‬16

458

Gary A. Rendsburg ְ ‫ַּׁשל‬ ‫ָך׃‬ ָ ‫ָר ָחמָה ְואֶת־ה‬ ָ ‫ ְ וה ַָּקאָת ְואֶת־ה‬17 ‫ַּדּוכיפַת ְו ָהעֲ ַטּלֵף׃‬ ִ ‫אנָפָה ְל ִמינָּה ְוה‬ ֲ ‫ידה ְו ָה‬ ָ ‫ֲס‬ ִ ‫ ְ ו ַהח‬18

Due to the similarity and interdependence between Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, we depart from the book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter presentation of the data and move directly to the second parallel text. Unlike Leviticus 11, where a standard formulation was discernible, no two verses in Deuteronomy 14 contain the same pattern. We begin, accordingly, with the first set of birds, in v. 12, with three species listed and no use of the nota accusativi. In v. 13, once more three birds are registered, though in this case the second is introduced by ‫ ְואֶת‬wĕ-ʾet, and the third bears the word ‫ ְל ִמינָּה‬lĕ-minah, “according to its kind” (in the feminine, due to gender considerations). Verse 14 reads ‫ ְואֵת ּכָל־עֹרֵב ְל ִמינֹו‬wĕ-ʾet kol ʿoreb lĕ-mino, “and every raven, according to its kind,” which (like its parallel in Lev 11:15 concerning this bird), adds both ‫ ּכָל‬kol, “every,” and ‫ ְל ִמינֹו‬lĕ-mino, “according to its kind” (in the masculine, again due to gender considerations). Verse 15 (the verbatim equivalent of Lev 11:16) registers four separate species, with ‫ ְל ִמינֵהּו‬lĕ-minehu, “according to its kind,” affixed to the last item, using a different (more archaic) form than in the previous verse. Both v. 16 and v. 17 record three birds, though in each case one of the three lacks the preceding ‫ ְואֶת‬wĕ-ʾet; not wishing to repeat the same pattern, the author deletes this particle on the third item in v. 16 and on the first item in v. 17. Finally, v. 18 lists four species, with none of them preceded by ‫ ְואֶת‬wĕ-ʾet, and with the second one followed by ‫ ְל ִמינָּה‬lĕ-minah, “according to its kind.” Once more, one may assume that a less imaginative author would have produced a more systematic catalog of the 21 birds in Deut 14:12–18, for example, using seven verses with three species each. When we compare the two lists of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 with each other, we note that (with one exception) either authorial action or scribal tradition ensured that, not only within each listing of the birds the verses should diverge, but that also from one text to the other variation should be present. Thus, for example, at first glance Lev 11:15 and Deut 14:14 appear to contain the same wording, until one realizes that the Deuteronomic version deviates by affixing the conjunction -‫ ְו‬wĕ-, “and,” at the head of the verse. A more complicated illustration of fluctuation between the two compositions arises from an inspection of Lev 11:17–18 and Deut 14:16–17. These verses include the same 6 species, although (a) they appear in scrambled order, with ABC/DEF in the former and ACD/EFB in the latter; (b) Lev 11:17 uses masculine ‫ ָרחָם‬raḥam, while Deut 14:17 uses feminine ‫ ָר ָחמָה‬raḥamah, presumably referring to the same species, which is typically identified with the Egyptian vulture; 30 and 30.  Note that both forms, masculine and feminine, are attested in Arabic to refer to the same bird, namely, raḫam and raḫamat; cf. Edward W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon (8 vols.; Beirut: Librairie du Liban, 1968 [original publication 1863–1893]), 2.1059.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

459

(c) Lev 11:17–18 uses the nota accusativi six times (once before each bird), while Deut 14:16–17 deletes this particle once in each verse. On the other hand, one must admit that Lev 11:16 and Deut 14:15 are identical (word-forword, accent-for-accent)—ah, just to keep the reader honest (I propose)—by including one instance of verbatim repetition. Until this point, I have investigated variant passages within the same source document. This one instance of comparing passages from different documents allows us to see an editorial hand at work across the Torah compilation. Possibly the author of Deuteronomy 14 consciously altered the list of forbidden birds derived from Leviticus 11 (assuming the priority of “P” over “D” 31), so as not to repeat his source material verbatim. Alternatively, one might conclude that the scribe/author/compiler/redactor responsible for the Torah in its final form introduced this variation, again with the same goal, to ensure that repeated information did not reprise in verbatim fashion. 18.  Leviticus 18: Laws of Incest (Round One) ‫ָתּה׃‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ֶרוַת ִא ְּמךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה ִא ְּמךָ ִהוא לֹא ְת ַגּלֶה ע‬ ְ ‫ָביךָ ְוע‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫  ע‬7 ָ ָ ‫ָביך ִהוא׃‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫ָביך לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה ע‬ ִ ‫ֵׁשת־א‬ ֶ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫  ע‬8 ‫ַת־אּמֶךָ מֹו ֶלדֶת ַּביִת אֹו מֹו ֶלדֶת חּוץ לֹא ְת ַגּלֶה‬ ִ ‫ָביךָ אֹו ב‬ ִ ‫ותךָ בַת־א‬ ְ ֹ ‫ֶרוַת אֲח‬ ְ ‫  ע‬9 :‫ָתן‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ ‫ָתךָ ֵהּנָה׃‬ ְ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ָתן ִּכי ע‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ַת־ּב ְּתךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֶה ע‬ ִ ‫ַת־ּבנְךָ אֹו ב‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת ּב‬ ְ ‫  ע‬10 ‫ָתּה׃‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ותךָ ִהוא לֹא ְת ַגּלֶה ע‬ ְ ֹ ‫ָביךָ אֲח‬ ִ ‫ָביךָ מֹו ֶלדֶת א‬ ִ ‫ֵׁשת א‬ ֶ ‫ֶרוַת ּבַת־א‬ ְ ‫  ע‬11 ָ ‫ָביך ִהוא׃‬ ִ ‫ׁשאֵר א‬ ְ ‫ָביךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת אֲחֹות־א‬ ְ ‫  ע‬12 ‫י־ׁשאֵר ִא ְּמךָ ִהוא׃‬ ְ ‫ות־א ְּמךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה ִּכ‬ ִ ֹ ‫ֶרוַת אֲח‬ ְ ‫  ע‬13 ‫ׁשּתֹו לֹא ִת ְקרָב ּד ָֹד ְתךָ ִהוא׃‬ ְ ‫ֶל־א‬ ִ ‫ָביךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה א‬ ִ ‫ֲחי־א‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫  ע‬14 ‫ָתּה׃‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ֵׁשת ִּבנְךָ ִהוא לֹא ְת ַגּלֶה ע‬ ֶ ‫ָתךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה א‬ ְ ‫ֶרוַת ַּכּל‬ ְ ‫  ע‬15 ָ ‫ָחיך ִהוא׃‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫ָחיךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה ע‬ ִ ‫ֵׁשת־א‬ ֶ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫  ע‬16 ‫ָתּה‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ַת־ּב ָּתּה לֹא ִתּקַ ח ְלגַּלֹות ע‬ ִ ‫ַת־ּבנָּה ְואֶת־ּב‬ ְ ‫ּוב ָּתּה לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה אֶת־ּב‬ ִ ‫ּׁשה‬ ָ ‫ֶרוַת ִא‬ ְ ‫  ע‬17 ‫ ׁשַ אֲרָה ֵהּנָה ִזּמָה ִהוא׃‬   7.  The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother, you shall not uncover her nakedness.   8.  The nakedness of the wife of your father you shall not uncover; she is the nakedness of your father.   9.  The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother, whether born in the house or born outside; you shall not uncover their nakedness. 10.  The nakedness of the daughter of your son or the daughter of your daughter, you shall not uncover their nakedness; for they are your nakedness. 31.  A view to which an ever-increasing number of scholars (or so it appears) would accede.

460

Gary A. Rendsburg

11.  The nakedness of the daughter of the wife of your father, born of your father, she is your sister; you shall not uncover her nakedness. 12.  The nakedness of the sister of your father you shall not uncover; she is the carnality of your father. 13.  The nakedness of the sister of your mother you shall not uncover, for she is the carnality of your mother. 14.  The nakedness of the brother of your father you shall not uncover; unto his wife you shall not come-near, she is your aunt. 15.  The nakedness of your daughter-in-law you shall not uncover; she is the wife of your son, you shall not uncover her nakedness. 16.  The nakedness of the wife of your brother you shall not uncover; she is the nakedness of your brother. 17.  The nakedness of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; the daughter of her son or the daughter of her daughter you shall not take to uncover her nakedness, they are carnality, it is vile. We return to the book of Leviticus, with an inspection of the laws of incest in 18:7–17. The reader will observe that no two wordings of the 11 verses are alike. The closest are vv. 12 and 13, parallel prohibitions of intercourse with an aunt, either the sister of one’s father or the sister of one’s mother—with the variation generated by inclusion of the word ‫ ִּכי‬ki, “for,” in the latter statement. Verses 7 and 15 constitute another pair of proximate wordings, with each one using the expression ‫ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה‬loʾ tĕgalle (pausal) / ‫ לֹא ְת ַגּלֶה‬loʾ tĕgalle (standard) twice; the passages depart, however, via the inclusion of ‫ֶרוַת‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ʿerwat, “the nakedness of,” two times in the former (one for “father,” one for “mother”) versus only one instance of this word in the latter (for “daughter-in-law”). We can expand this point by observing that the vital word ‫ֶרוַת‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ʿerwat, “the nakedness of” (including instances with pronominal suffixes), appears only once in vv. 12, 13, 14, twice in vv. 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 17, and thrice in vv. 7 and 10—with no pattern present—that is, the number of times the noun appears is not connected to how many individual relatives are mentioned in each verse. One further observes that vv. 7, 9, 11, and 15 conclude with the expression “you shall not uncover her/their nakedness,” whereas vv. 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 end with a pronoun serving as the copula in a nominal phrase. In these latter expressions, the commonest key noun is ‫ֶרוַת‬ ְ ‫ ע‬ʿerwat, “the nakedness of” (vv. 8, 10, 16), with the following deviations: (a) vv. 12–13 use the word ‫ׁשאֵר‬ ְ šĕʾer, “carnality”; (b) no equivalent term is used in v. 14 (the verse ends simply ‫ ּד ָֹד ְתךָ ִהוא‬dodatka hiʾ, “she is your aunt); and (c) v. 17 reads ‫ ׁשַ אֲרָה ֵהּנָה ִזּמָה ִהוא‬šaʾarah henna zimmah hiʾ, “they are carnality, it is vile,” with two verbless clauses to seal the verse and thus the entire litany of prohibitions; with (d) the additional change from masculine ‫ׁשאֵר‬ ְ šĕʾer, “carnality” (vv. 12–13), representing the standard form in Biblical Hebrew, to feminine ‫ ׁשַ אֲרָה‬šaʾara, “carnality,” a form that appears only here in the canon, no doubt introduced into the text by our witty wordsmith variationis causa.

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

461

All of this, once more, served to create a composition characterized by the ebbs and flows of the written word in order to allow for maximum enjoyment at the oral/aural level. 19.  Leviticus 20: Laws of Incest (Round Two) ‫ֵׁשת רֵ עֵהּו מֹות־יּומַת הַּנֹאֵף‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר ִי ְנאַף אֶת־א‬ ֶ ‫ֵׁשת ִאיׁש א‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר ִי ְנאַף אֶת־א‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬10 ‫ְ והַּנ ָֹאפֶת׃‬ ֹ ‫ָביו ִּגּלָה מ‬ ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם ְּדמֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫ות־יּומתּו‬ ְ ִ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫ָביו ע‬ ִ ‫ֵׁשת א‬ ֶ ‫ִׁשּכַב אֶת־א‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬11 ‫ ּבָם׃‬ ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם ֶּתבֶל עָׂשּו ְּדמֵיהֶם ּבָם׃‬ ְ ‫יּומתּו‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּכַב אֶת־ ַּכּלָתֹו מֹות‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬12 ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם מֹות יּומָתּו ְּדמֵיהֶם‬ ְ ‫ּׁשה ּתֹו ֵעבָה עָׂשּו‬ ָ ‫ׁש ְּכבֵי ִא‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּכַב אֶת־זָכָר ִמ‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬13 ‫ ּבָם׃‬ ‫ֶתהֶן ְולֹא־‬ ְ ‫ִׂש ְרפּו אֹתֹו ְוא‬ ְ ‫ֶת־אּמָּה ִזּמָה ִהוא ָּבאֵׁש י‬ ִ ‫ּׁשה ְוא‬ ָ ‫ֶת־א‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר יִּקַ ח א‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬14 ‫וככֶם׃‬ ְ ֹ ‫ ת ְהיֶה ִזּמָה ְּבת‬ ִ ‫ָבּתֹו ִּב ְב ֵהמָה מֹות יּומָת ְואֶת־ה ְַּב ֵהמָה ּתַ הֲרֹגּו׃‬ ְ ‫ׁשכ‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר יִּתֵ ן‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬15 ‫ּׁשה ְואֶת־ה ְַּב ֵהמָה‬ ָ ‫ָא‬ ִ ‫ָל־ּב ֵהמָה ְלִר ְבעָה א ָֹתּה ְוהָרַ ְג ָּת אֶת־ה‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר ִּת ְקרַ ב אֶל־ּכ‬ ֶ ‫ּׁשה א‬ ָ ‫ ְ ו ִא‬16 ‫ מֹות יּומָתּו ְּדמֵיהֶם ּבָם׃‬ ‫יא־ת ְראֶה‬ ִ ‫ָתּה ְו ִה‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ַת־אּמֹו ְו ָראָה אֶת־ע‬ ִ ‫ָביו אֹו ב‬ ִ ‫ֲׁשר־יִּקַ ח אֶת־אֲחֹתֹו ּבַת־א‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬17 ‫ִּׂשא׃‬ ָ ‫ֶרוַת אֲחֹתֹו ִּגּלָה עֲֹונֹו י‬ ְ ‫ִכ ְרתּו ְלעֵינֵי ְּבנֵי ַעּמָם ע‬ ְ ‫ֶרוָתֹו ֶחסֶד הּוא ְונ‬ ְ ‫ אֶת־ע‬ ‫ֶת־מק ָֹרּה ֶהעֱרָה ְו ִהיא ִּג ְּל ָתה‬ ְ ‫ָתּה א‬ ָ ‫ֶרו‬ ְ ‫ּׁשה ָּדוָה ְו ִגּלָה אֶת־ע‬ ָ ‫ֶת־א‬ ִ ‫ִׁשּכַב א‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר־י‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬18 ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם ִמ ֶּקרֶב ַעּמָם׃‬ ְ ‫ִכ ְרתּו‬ ְ ‫ֶת־מק ֹור ָּדמֶי ָה ְונ‬ ְ ‫ א‬ ‫ִּׂשאּו׃‬ ָ ‫ֶת־ׁשאֵרֹו ֶהעֱרָה עֲֹונָם י‬ ְ ‫ָביךָ לֹא ְת ַגּלֵה ִּכי א‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת אֲחֹות ִא ְּמךָ ַואֲחֹות א‬ ְ ‫ ְ וע‬19 ‫ֲר ִירים יָמֻתּו׃‬ ִ‫ִּׂשאּו ע‬ ָ ‫ֶטאָם י‬ ְ ‫ֶרוַת ּדֹדֹו ִּגּלָה ח‬ ְ ‫ִׁשּכַב אֶת־ּד ָֹדתֹו ע‬ ְ ‫ֲׁשר י‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬20 ‫ִהיּו׃‬ ְ ‫ֲר ִירים י‬ ִ‫ָחיו ִּגּלָה ע‬ ִ ‫ֶרוַת א‬ ְ ‫ִּדה ִהוא ע‬ ָ‫ָחיו נ‬ ִ ‫ֵׁשת א‬ ֶ ‫ֲׁשר יִּקַ ח אֶת־א‬ ֶ ‫ ְ ו ִאיׁש א‬21 10.  And a man who commits adultery with the wife of a man, who commits adultery with the wife of his fellow; indeed the adulterer shall die, and the adulteress. 11.  And a man who lies with the wife of his father, the nakedness of his father he has uncovered; indeed the two of them shall die, their blood is upon them. 12.  And a man who lies with his daughter-in-law, indeed the two of them shall die; an outrage they did, their blood is upon them. 13.  And a man who lies with a male (like) the bedding of a woman, an abomination they did, the two of them; indeed they shall die, their blood is upon them. 14.  And a man who takes a woman and her mother, it is vile; in the fire they shall burn him and them, and there shall not be vileness in your midst. 15.  And a man who gives his lying to an animal, indeed he shall die; and the animal they shall kill. 16.  And a woman who comes-near to any animal, to copulate with it, and you shall kill the woman and the animal; indeed they shall die, their blood is upon them.

462

Gary A. Rendsburg

17.  And a man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and he sees her nakedness, and she sees his nakedness, it is immorality, and they shall be cut-off in the eyes of their fellow people; the nakedness of his sister he has uncovered, his sin he shall bear. 18.  And a man who lies with an infirm woman, and he uncovers her nakedness, her fountain he has laid-bare, and she has uncovered the fountain of her blood; and the two of them shall be cut-off from the midst of their people. 19.  And the nakedness of the sister of your mother and the sister of your father you shall not uncover; for his carnality she has laid-bare, their sin they shall bear. 20.  And a man who lies with his aunt, the nakedness of his uncle he has uncovered; their transgression they shall bear, childless they shall die. 21.  And a man who takes the wife of his brother, it is indecency; the nakedness of his brother he has uncovered, childless they shall be. A second set of incest laws appears in Leviticus 20, this time with 12 individual statements (vv. 10–21). Not surprisingly, again, there is no repetition of the pattern anyhere in this pericope. Ten of the verses begin with ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ ְו ִאיׁש א‬wĕ-ʾiš ʾašer, “and a man who,” so this is clearly a standard formula; variation is present in v. 16, which begins with ‫ֲׁשר‬ ֶ ‫ּׁשה א‬ ָ ‫ ְו ִא‬wĕ-ʾišša ʾašer, “and a woman who,” and more significantly in v. 19, which fronts the object ‫ֶרוַת‬ ְ ‫ ְוע‬wĕ-ʿerwat, “and the nakedness of.” If we return to the 10 verses with the standard formula, we note the variation generated first by the following verb (1× ‫ ִי ְנאַף‬yinʾap, “commits adultery” [v. 10], 5× ‫ִׁשּכַב‬ ְ ‫ י‬yiškab, “lies” [vv. 11, 12, 13, 18, 20], 3× ‫יִּקַ ח‬ yiqqaḥ, “takes” [vv. 14, 17, 21], and 1× ‫ יִּתֵ ן‬yitten, “gives” [v. 15]) and then through a variety of other mechanisms as each passage continues. ֹ‫מ‬ Among these alternative phrases, we find the following series: ‫ות־יּומתּו‬ ְ ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם ְּדמֵיהֶם ּבָם‬ ְ mot yumtu šnehem dĕmehem bam, “indeed the two of them shall die, their blood is in them” (v. 11); ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם ֶּתבֶל עָׂשּו ְּדמֵיהֶם ּבָם‬ ְ ‫יּומתּו‬ ְ ‫ מֹות‬mot yumatu šnehem tebel ʿaśu dĕmehem bam, “indeed the two of them shall die; an outrage they did, their blood is upon them” (v. 12); ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם מֹות‬ ְ ‫ּתֹו ֵעבָה עָׂשּו‬ ‫ יּומָתּו ְּדמֵיהֶם ּבָם‬toʿebah ʿaśu šnehem mot yumatu dĕmehem bam, “an abomination they did, the two of them; indeed they shall die, their blood is upon them” (v. 13); and ‫ מֹות יּומָתּו ְּדמֵיהֶם ּבָם‬mot yumatu dĕmehem bam, “indeed they shall die, their blood is upon them” (v. 16; note the absence of ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם‬ ְ šnehem, “the two of them”). Other comparable yet different phrasings are the following: (a) different terms for the objectionable act (including two just mentioned): ‫ ֶּתבֶל‬tebel, “outrage” (v. 12), ‫ ּתֹו ֵעבָה‬toʿebah, “abomination” (v. 13), ‫ ִזּמָה‬zimmah, “vile” (v. 14), the very unusual ‫ ֶחסֶד‬ḥesed, “immorality” (v. 17; normally the term means just the opposite), and the atypical ‫ִּדה‬ ָ‫ נ‬niddah, “indecency” (v. 21; nor-

Repetition with Variation in Legal-Cultic Texts of the Torah

463

mally used in connection with a menstruant woman, though that is not the case here); (b) the phrases ‫ִּׂשא‬ ָ ‫ עֲֹונֹו י‬ʿawono yiśśaʾ, “his sin he shall bear” (v. 17) versus ‫ִּׂשאּו‬ ָ ‫ עֲֹונָם י‬ʿawonam yiśśaʾu, “their sin they shall bear” (v. 19) versus ‫ֶטאָם‬ ְ‫ח‬ ‫ִּׂשאּו‬ ָ ‫ י‬ḥetʾam yiśśaʾu, “their transgression they shall bear” (v. 20); 32 (c) the expressions ‫ֲר ִירים יָמֻתּו‬ ִ‫ ע‬ʿaririm yamutu, “childless they shall die” (v. 20) versus ‫ִהיּו‬ ְ ‫ֲר ִירים י‬ ִ‫ ע‬ʿaririm yihyu, “childless they shall be” (v. 21); and (d) the clauses ‫ִכ ְרתּו ְלעֵינֵי ְּבנֵי ַעּמָם‬ ְ ‫ ְונ‬wĕ-nikrĕtu lĕ-ʿene bĕne ʿammam, “and they shall be cutoff in the eyes of their fellow people” (lit., “the children of their people”) (v. 17) versus ‫ׁשנֵיהֶם ִמ ֶּקרֶב ַעּמָם‬ ְ ‫ִכ ְרתּו‬ ְ ‫ ְונ‬wĕ-nikrĕtu šnehem miq-qereb ʿammam, “and the two of them shall be cut-off from the midst of their people” (v. 18). All of this, as we have seen on so many occasions, occurs in order to guarantee that no single wording repeats anywhere within the same section. Our modern bias might suggest that legal writing (or legal-cultic writing) should be dry, cumbrous, and ponderous, with little or no literary creativity. In the case of ancient Near Eastern legal texts, however, the scribes/authors responsible for these compositions strove just as much as their colleagues responsible for belletristic material (myths, epics, narratives, etc.) to imbue their writing with literary flair. As I indicated at the outset of this essay, Avigdor Hurowitz demonstrated this firmly for Akkadian legal texts throughout his distinguished career. The present contribution, I trust, advances the conversation in one small way for the legal sections of the Torah. 32.  For this item, see already Parʾan, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch, 178.

Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives

Jack M. Sasson Writing on the art of war, Chinese General Sun Tzu praised the military values of deception, secrecy, speed, surprise, and the foreknowledge that comes from spies rather than from omens. He offered this succinct assessment, “What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy’s strategies. Next best is to disrupt his alliances by diplomacy. The next best is to attack his army. And the worst policy is to attack cities.” 1 He reasons that preparation takes months and that generals lose patience, sending many on useless assaults. Not surprisingly, there is debate about the date of this treatise and its attribution to a sixth-century b.c.e. general, with many scholars placing it several centuries later. For us, however, this dispute about the true circumstances for these sentiments should not be as relevant as is his advice on avoiding besieging cities. Yet such sensible counsel could not have had antecedence in early eighteenth-century b.c.e. Mari, for according to its archives, the principal method for bringing an enemy to his knees is to besiege and capture his city. 2 1.  Cited from Su Tzu, The Art of War / Shang Yang, The Book of Lord Shang (Words­ worth Classics of World Literature; Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1998), 25. He goes on to explain that to prepare big shields and wagons and [to] make ready the necessary arms and equipment require at least three months, and to pile earthen ramps against the walls requires an additional three months. The general, unable to control his impatience, will order his troops to swarm up the wall like ants, with the result that one-third of them will be killed without taking the city. Such is the calamity of attacking cities.

Another translation of the same passages is posted online at http://www.chinapage.com/ sunzi-e.html, sub section III. 2.  I have profited much by consulting the works of Israel Ephʿal, The City Besieged: Siege and Its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2009); and of Paul Bentley Kern, Ancient Siege Warfare (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1999). See also Laura Battini, “Lorsqu’une ville est en état de siège: Étude de cas néo-assyriens,” in Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe–Ier mill. av. J.-C.): Actes du colloque international organisé à Lyons les 1er et 2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, ed. Philippe Abrahami and Laura Battini, BAR International Series 1855 (Oxford: Hedges, 2008), 185–206; and Sébastien Rey, Poliorcétique au Proche-Orient à l’âge du bronze:

465

466

Jack M. Sasson

In this essay, offered in fond memory of Avigdor, a colleague and friend who left us when he had so much more to share, I evaluate some of the evidence. War in the Old Babylonian Period War was a frequent visitor in the Old Babylonian period as several centuries of instability followed the collapse of the Third Dynasty of Ur. In the halfcentury or so covered by the OB Mari archives, the area was a vast “Serengeti Plain, where predators were most deadly when operating in packs and their preys most vulnerable when striking out on their own.” 3 There was much scurrying toward and away from overlords who were shopping for vassals. Control of territory was never permanent or guaranteed, and “Musical Thrones” was the tune heard in many “capitals.” Babylon was among few major centers that could boast of dynastic continuity. In most others, change occurred suddenly and frequently, Mari itself typifying this condition, with four rulers sitting on the same throne in just over a score of years. A corollary to this situation is that, in most states of the region, allegiance was personal and limited to the cities in which the ruler had set a throne. Control of outlying territory was never permanent or guaranteed. Bureaucrats dutifully paid lip service but knew better than to invest lives rather than careers. For this reason, rulers stayed on the move or forced their vassals to do the same. They relied much on relatives or tribal kinfolks and shipped off daughters and sons to enlarge family ties. Under these circumstances, combat was endemic, and I cannot point to any appreciable stretch in which Mari kings were not embroiled in combat, whether it was their choice or not. Armies The size of armies mentioned in letters was substantial. A Shemshara letter reports that Išme-Dagan of Ekallatum was leading 60,000 men toward Nurrugum; but its author was trading in rumor while the sexagesimalism suggests a hyperbole (SH 827 = SA1 64). 4 I would discount it. Normally, the numbers of troops on major campaigns hover from 10,000 to just over 30,000, with occasional spikes toward half as many more. 5 These numbers were achieved by cobbling a force from diverse resources. Thus, for a campaign to Syria, SamsiFortifications urbaines, procédés de siège et systèmes défensifs, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 197; Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient 2012), 129–84. 3.  J. M. Sasson, “The King and I: A Mari King in Changing Perceptions,” JAOS 118 (1998): 458. 4. Jesper Eidem and Jørgen Læssøe, The Shemshāra Archives, 1: The Letters, Historisk filisofiske Skrifter 23 (Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 2001), 135–38. 5.  Philippe Abrahami, “La circulation militaire dans les textes de Mari: La question des effectifs,” in La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche Orient ancien, ed. Dominique Charpin and Francis Joannès, RAI 38 (Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1992), 159–61.

Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives

467

Addu provided 10,000 men from the Upper Country, and his ally Ešnunna sent 6,000. Mari was asked to raise less than 5,000 from tribal groups (Simʾal and diverse Yaminite units) and from the southern Suḫum district. 6 It is telling that, when Zimri-Lim faced insurrection in the Upper Ḫabur region, he could not meet the challenge because his own troops were aiding Hammurabi of Babylon. Pitched battles in open country, of the sort known in the first millennium, are not easily reconstructed. While they may have occurred, only one possible example can be retrieved from the vast Mari documentation. 7 Rather, we read much about ambushes, fast raids, or swift razzias, with loot uppermost in mind. Harassing an army as it set off against a fortified city was known, as was hounding it as it retreated (FM 3 135). Samsi-Addu, a committed confrontationist, is often cited for his jaundiced view on this sort of clashes when writing to his son, Yasmaḫ-Addu (ARM 1 5 = LAPO 17 517). To wipe out the enemy, all of you devise tricks and maneuver against him; but the enemy likewise devises tricks and maneuvers against all of you, just as wrestlers use tricks against each other. This is just like the old proverb, ‘In her shuttles back and forth, a bitch bore blind puppies.’ 8 Now you must not act like this, lest the enemy maneuver you into a trap.

Samsi-Addu would obviously not invest time and energy on tactics that could impair success or lead to disastrous consequences. Samsi-Addu continues by telling his son, About the instruction I have conveyed to you via Uṣur-pi-šarrim—when he heard the rumors about the armies gathering to Išme-Dagan, the enemy who stays by Lidaya (king of the Turukku) facing Išme-Dagan abandoned his city, pulled out and left. Išme-Dagan seized his city, Burullum. The entire land of Uta is now quiet and settled. He placed it under a single authority. The troops are now headed into the land. 9 6.  ARM 1 42 = LAPO 17 448, with good comments by Durand there. See also Dominique Charpin, “Shamshi-Adad’s Lebanon Campaign: Royal Inscriptions and Archival Texts,” Canadian Society of Mesopotamian Study Journal 4 (2010): 4–11. To give conscripted troops stability, Samsi-Addu would draw equally from self-supporting citizens and those who were heavily subsidized by the crown; see Nele Ziegler, “Samsî-Addu et ses soldats,” in Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe–Ier mill. av. J.-C.), ed. Philippe Abrahami and Laura Battini, BAR International Series 1855 (Oxford: Hedges, 2008), 49–56. 7.  ARM 4 85+ = LAPO 17 621. The text is studied by Nele Ziegler, “L’armée, -quel monstre!” FM 3 (1997): 145–52. In ARM 26 521, we hear about a vassal moving his army toward an enemy busy transporting spoils from a captured town. Nothing happens, however. 8.  This apothegm had a long life in world literature; the latest discussion is in J.-M. Durand, “Dictons et proverbes à l’époque amorrite,” Journal asiatique 294 (2006): 29–30. 9.  The note continues, “They will rest for 2 or 3 days in their homes, then reassemble. I will take up leadership of the entire army and within the month together with the armies will reach destination, there. You are now informed. Just keep the troops safe until I come up. From Šubat-Enlil, I have posted to you this note of mine on 8th of Abum (11th month).”

468

Jack M. Sasson

Battles near Cities We have no idea how long the Turukku had been in Burullum. 10 The likelihood is that they had occupied it awhile back and, facing Išme-Dagan, had to choose whether to defend the city. In this case, they decided otherwise, leaving it until a better occasion. “Musical Towns” is a dance that was widely practiced in those days: an army might occupy a town, only to withdraw based on the rumor that a superior enemy force was advancing (ARM 1 43 = LAPO 17 492). Nonetheless, in his note, Samsi-Addu conveyed this basic premise: waging war is about occupying an enemy’s cities. Real battles—rather than skirmishes or raids—occur at the enemy’s gate. Thus, when Yarim-Lim of Aleppo threatens a fickle vassal hundreds of miles away (Transtigridian Der), he vows to bring troops to his city gate. 11 Yaḫdun-Lim triumphs over Samsi-Addu at “the gate of Nagar” and attacks Yaminite tribal groups at their strongholds, Samanum, Tuttul, Abattum, and Ḫaman. 12 There can therefore be no meaningful confrontation without such a backdrop. In fact, a Zimri-Lim official drips with sarcasm as he tells a tribal group, “You are writing to my lord about war (as if) you are a powerful king or (have) a spacious city encircled by walls.” 13 10.  A fuller description of events appears in Eidem and Laessøe, Shemshāra Archives, 52–55. Burullum is mentioned in administrative texts from Shemshara as Burulliwe; see Jesper Eidem, The Shemshāra Archives, 2: The Administrative Texts, Historisk filisofiske Skrifter 15, Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1992), 56, 88. 11.  Whether the text is historical or not, the point of the threat is clear. On this text, see my “Casus Belli in the Mari Archives,” in Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien: 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, International Congress of Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology, Münster, 17.–21. Juli 2006, ed. H. Neumann et al., AOAT 401 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 686–90. 12.  The former is known from a year-name of Yaḫdun-Lim; the latter from his brick inscription: In that same year: Laʾum, king of Samanum and the land of the Ubrabium, Baḫlu-kullim, king of Tuttul and the land of the Amnanum, Aialum, king of Abattum and the land of the Rabbum—these kings rebelled against him. The troops of Sūmû-Epuḫ of the land of Iamḫad came as auxiliary troops (to rescue him) and in the city of Samānum the tribes gathered together against him, but by means of (his) mighty weapon he defeated these three kings [a Yaminite army]. He vanquished their troops and their auxiliaries and inflicted a defeat on them. He heaped up their dead bodies. He tore down their walls and made them into mounds of rubble.

Text cited from Douglas R. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595), RIME 4 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 606 [E4.6.8.2]. On all these details and more, see D. Charpin and N. Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Orient à l’époque amorrite: Essai d’histoire politique, FM 5, Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 6 (Paris: SEPOA, 2003), 38–43. 13. A.  3862, cited in D. Charpin, “Guerre et paix dans le monde amorrite et postamorrite,” in Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien: 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale—Münster, 17.–21. Juli 2006, ed. Hans Neumann et al., AOAT 401 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 207.

Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives

469

The notion here is that tribes cannot threaten war because they have no fortified cities of their own. Burullum, famous for its wine, may not have been heavily defended, concretely or by choice, thus allowing shifts in occupation. Many towns in the Mari age were easily conquered, although sometimes through deception. Talḫayum, for example, was breached while it was under a nonaggression accord (A.  2417  = LAPO 17 607). Others matched Jericho in falling within a week. 14 Such towns may not have had strategic value; but armies captured them just the same, for the taking of spoils—it was said—lifted the spirits. The brutal and vain Išḫi-Addu of Qatna invited his son-in-law Yasmaḫ-Addu to Syria, telling him, “Time is propitious for your coming up here. Feed your troops spoils so they will bless you. These three towns are hardly fortified and we can take them in one day” (ARM 5 16 = LAPO 17 443). 15 As it happened, 14.  Išme-Dagan wrote these notes to his brother, Yasmaḫ-Addu: I moved against Ḫadka and overwhelmed it within the same day. Rejoice. (ARM 1 138 = LAPO 17 526) Once I took Tutarrum, Ḫadka, and Šunḫum, I headed against Ḫurara. I have besieged the city, setting up a siege tower and a ram against it. On the 7th day of the campaign, I captured the city. Rejoice! (ARM 1 131 = LAPO 17 528) Once I headed to Kerḫum city, I had a tower set against it. I then downed its wall by breaching it (ina pilšim). I took Kerḫum city by the 8th day. Be happy. The fortified towns of the land of Qabra are now taken, with just Qabra itself remaining. I am well as are the troops. You should not worry. (ARM 1 135 = LAPO 17 529)

Appreciably later, Išme-Dagan is reported (ARM 26 521) to have captured a city, emptying its grain and treasures into another town. Samsi-Addu wrote these to his son, Yasmaḫ-Addu: Just 5 days after my victory over Qabra, I defeated the Ya-ilanum (tribes) and seized the city Ḫimara. In this city, I defeated 300 of its men within the citadel as well as one of its sons. Rejoice. (ARM 1 92 = LAPO 17 530) Išme-Dagan took Nilimmar, the city he was besieging. As long as the earth (ramp, epiru) had not reached the level of the town’s summit, he could not take it. Once it did so, he was able to take it. Išme-Dagan is well, as is the army. The army has now moved on, having reached Ḫamša. Rejoice! (ARM 1 4 = LAPO 17 480)

Daniel Fleming finds reasons to compare Mari and biblical reports on sieges that last seven days, “The Seven-Day Siege of Jericho in Holy War,” in Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 211–27. 15.  A passage appears in a letter from early in the reign of Zimri-Lim, in which he is invited to take Šubat-Enlil (Tell Leilan), capital of the late Samsi-Addu, Turum-nakte (elsewhere Turum-nadke) and the citizen of Šubat-Enlil are constantly writing your lord to open the city Šubat-Enlil, saying, “Come and capture this city, take its silver, gold, and spoils. You must surely know that the treasure of Samsi-Addu is inside this city; so along with Simʾal brothers follow your leaders on this campaign. Who does not have a slave can now get one for himself, who does not have a handmaid can have one for himself, and who does not have an agālum-equid can have one for himself. Gorge yourself with spoils and give acclaim to your lord.” (FM 2 116)

470

Jack M. Sasson

Yasmaḫ-Addu was busy elsewhere. 16 His general, however, reported from somewhere “near the seashore”: “With no booty or food, the troops were hungry. Later we besieged Ṣerum, between Saren and Labnan (Mt. Hermon and the Lebanon range). On the second day, we had a battle and the town offered terms. It let out its garrison-members and hostages.” 17 Coercing allegiance, taking hostages, and imposing tribute were common demands for lifting a siege. 18 We learn a bit more about easy conquests from the campaign that kept Yasmaḫ-Addu from going to Syria. He and his brother Išme-Dagan had joined his father’s coalition in moving against Qabra on the Lower Zab. The large dossier about this enterprise includes steles by Samsi-Addu and by his allies Daduša of Ešnunna, although each takes credit for the victory. 19 The records reveal that heavy weaponry making its way to Qabra made short shrift of weakly defended towns. This ordnance might include towers (dimtum and ḫamanum) which were often paired with rams (yašibum), footbridges (ḫummudayûm; ARM 26 318; 27 142), ladders (simmiltum), ropes, chains (saparrûm), and That capturing a city gave prestige and earned credits for overlords is also illustrated by this Shemshara letter exchanged between two vassals of Samsi-Addu (SH 913 = SA1 39; Eidem and Læssøe, The Shemshāra Archives, 108–9): Šikšabbum, your enemy, is trouble for you and for me. We should plan to besiege it. As soon as you listen to this tablet, promptly muster your full army and the Lullu-tribesmen and march on. Let us promptly besiege Šikšabbum and gain prestige in our lord’s sight. Indeed, I am now at the Tarum frontier, waiting for you. Come here quickly and let us bring Šikšabbum to terms, before the king arrives. Within 3 to 4 days the king should seize Nurrugum and with his army head toward Šikšabbum. Still, before the king comes here together we could carry out a great feat for our lord! Don’t delay, just come here.

16.  Samsi-Addu had expected Yasmaḫ-Adu to go to Qatna and (unfairly) accused him of staying put in a harem when his brother was facing the enemy at Qabra; see ARM 1 69 (= LAPO 17 452). 17.  M. 5423.11ʹ–21′; see D. Charpin, “Toponymies amorrite et toponymie biblique: La ville de Ṣîbat/Ṣobah,” RA 92 (1998): 84. The event took place “by the seashore” (ina lēt têmtim); as Charpin suggests, the reference is probably to a lake rather than the Mediterranean. 18.  In ARM 2 42 (= ARM 26 518 = LAPO 17 599), an ambassador named Iddiyatum reports to Zimri-Lim from Karana that Turukku troops have besieged a town. They offer a peace agreement if the city delivers its king and allows a Turukku garrison in its midst. When the townsmen reject the terms, the Turrukkus simply make a new peace proposal. We never learn how the confrontation ends, because the writer moves on to other topics. According to A. 1610 (sent to Zimri-Lim) and A. 1212 (= LAPO 17 604, 605), faced with an enemy at their gates, citizens of Talḫayum murder their king and massacre a garrison sent by ZimriLim. The full story is detailed in J.-M. Durand, “Les anciens de Talḫayûm,” RA 82 (1988): 97–113. 19.  For the Samsi-Addu inscription, see A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia bc (to 1115 bc), RIMA 1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), 63–65 (§A.O. 39.1001). A nice translation of the Daduša stele is by Frans von Koppen, “Old Babylonian Period Inscriptions,” in The Ancient Near East, ed. Mark W. Chavalas, Historical Sources in Translation (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006), 98–102.

Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives

471

other tools. 20 The building of earthen ramps was left to specialists; but the besieged also had experts to counter the effort (ARM 2 30+ [= LAPO 17 58] 26ʹ–28′). Also known are sappers and breach-makers. Singly and serially, the allies conquered a string of cities before reaching Qabra: Arrapḫa, Ninet (Nineveh), Nurrugum, Šibanum, Tutarrâ, Hatkum, Hurarâ, and Kerḫum and left us a dossier about their fall. 21 The population of Sarri simply abandoned its town to advancing Samsi-Addu, fleeing to Qabra (ARM 4 49 = LAPO 17 527). Panic that led to flight was part of the strategy, for an infusion of escapees into the target city strained resources for its defense. Facing major odds, Qabra fell in just over two months. 22 Fortifications 23 Qabra was a fortified town (dannatum; āl dannatim) somewhere on the Lower Zab. 24 One of its conquerors (Daduša of Ešnunna) has left us an image of its façade on his victory stele, which portrays towers and massive walls flanking a sturdy gate. Parallel crenulated lines represent a frontal view of the parapet, a broad walkway that suggests very thick walls. How similar towns were fortified is discussed in other documents. Thus, about Karana by Jebel Sindjar, we learn: “The wall is enclosed within a glacis? (šulḫum), while the palace is encircled by a glacis as well as a moat (ḫirītum)” (ARM 6 29.16–18 = LAPO 17 597). Another town, itself the site of a major battle, was Ḫiritum which literally means “a moat.” From one letter (ARM 2 30+ = LAPO 17 20. Among these tools are lab/kalbanātum, “hooks?,” and possibly also kammum, “planks?”; see LAPO 17, p. 298. On the use of siege engines, see D. Charpin, “Données nouvelles sur la poliorcétique à l’époque paléo-babylonienne,” MARI 7 193–203; and J. Vidal, “La guerra de asedio en el período paleobabilónico según los textos de Mari,” in Fortificaciones y Guerra de asedio en el mundo antiguo, ed. Jordi Vidal and Borja Antela (Zaragoza: Pórtico, 2012), 21–37. 21.  See n. 14 above. 22.  The story of the fall of Qabra is told well in Charpin and Ziegler, Mari et le ProcheOrient, 90–94. It relies on tablets from Mari and Shemshara, as well as inscriptions by Samsi-Addu and Daduša of Ešnunna; see D. Charpin, “Chroniques bibliographiques 3: Données nouvelles sur la région du Petit Zab au XVIIIe siècle av. J.-C.,” RA 98 (2004): 151–78. Davide Nadale offers a fine study of its iconography, “La Stele di Daduša come documento storico dell’età paleobabilonese. Immagini e iscrizione a confronto,” Vicino Oriente 14 (2008): 129–46. The inhabitants of Šurnat take all their possessions into its kerḫum (ARM 26 422). Daduša certainly exaggerates when he says that no king had ever controlled Qabra before he did; likewise, when he claims to have conquered it in ten days. This is probably the period of time in which his own army was involved. In fact, Išme-Dagan spent the better part of a month (and certainly more) there (ARM 26 291). 23.  Nice overview in Amihai Mazar, “The Fortification of Cities in the Ancient Near East,” in CANE, 1523–37. For fortified cities in Upper Mesopotamia, see David Oates, “Walled Cities in Northern Mesopotamia in the Mari Period,” MARI 4 (1985): 585–94; and Rey, Poliorcétique au Proche-Orient, 15–85. 24.  Possibly Tepe Yaʿqub; see Karlheinz Deller, “Eine Erwägung zur Lokaliesierung des aB ON Qabrā/Qabarā,” NABU 1990/84: 62–63.

472

Jack M. Sasson

581), we learn that it also had (a series of) channels (amrummum) by the main gates and at defensive points, leading to deep trenches (abrum). Water could be forced into them, presumably to sap any earthen ramp that was piled up against its walls. 25 About Mari itself, archaeology and texts agree that it had three concentric layers of defenses. A moat doubled as a catch-basin for flood-waters as well as a nice fish pond. It fronted an outer layer of brick walls that was 3 m thick. A glacis-like heap leaned on the interior, rising perhaps as high as 10 m. On the inside was the adaššum, the lower city, where the gupārum could be found (probably a group of casernes) and the bīt napṭarim (barracks for safely lodging foreign soldiers). 300 m inward was the kirḫum, “citadel,” with its own massive walls. 26 Within, the palace itself was a fortress defended by massive pillars; it was a conglomeration of blocks, each with just a single entry point. Its massive doors were bolted during the siesta hour and at night. At one corner, probably the harem area, the walls were 13 m thick. 27 Protected by a similar armature, a writer from an earlier era assured his king (Bilalama), “The army is well and the city is safe. My lord’s garrison is so strong that, were Amorites to battle (us) for 10 years, bringing 10 battering rams, 10 siege towers, and 20 samukānū-engines, I would still be in control. My lord should not worry.” 28 We do not know how long it took a combination of armies from Elam, Mari, and Babylon to bring down Ešnunna; 29 but Larsa, which was attacked by Hammurabi and his allies a bit later on, took 6 months to fall. 30 To besiege such fortifications required stamina, durable siege instruments, secure (re)supply channels (ARM 18 5 = LAPO 17 666), access to 25. For Durand’s explanation of these terms, see LAPO 17 209–10. Denis Lacambre makes reference to similar installations at Choga-Zambil, “La bataille de Ḫirîtum,” MARI 8 (1997): 440–45. The relevant section of Ibal-pi-El’s letter to Zimri-Lim reads as follows (lines 5–13), “Once the enemy realized that a decision was formed in Ḫiritum, he tried twice to build a ramp, but my lord’s troops blocked him and would not let him build the ramp. When he did not succeed with the ramp, the enemy realized about his ramp that we and the servants of Hammurabi enlarged the channels and opened (them) ahead of his ramp (so that) (it carried) the ramp toward the river.” 26.  We know of cases in which troops entered the adaššum (Kiyatan; Amaz) and set up camp but could not penetrate the kerḫum. On the siege of Kiyatan, see ARM 26 424.23–33; ARM 26 520. Eventually, the city fell (ARM 26 521) and was despoiled; but the victor (Išme-Dagan) faced a counterattack. Against Amaz, Ḫimdiya succeeded in occupying its adaššum; but to save face, he tried to negotiate the return of the previous king, who had been dethroned by the population (ARM 26 433). 27.  On the archaeology of Mari’s fortifications, see lastly Jean Margueron, “Tell Hariri/ Mari; Archéologie” in Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, fasc. 77–78 (Paris: Letouzey & Ané, 2008), 50–61; and for the palace area, pp. 132–40. 28.  Text #9 cited from Robert M. Whiting, Old Babylonian Letters from Tell Asmar, AS 22 (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1987), 46–47. On samukānū, see CAD S 132. 29.  Charpin and Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Orient, 212. 30.  At least 40,000 allied troops were involved, according to ARM 26 379.

Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives

473

water, fresh relays of allied troops, prudent guidance by diviners, obstinacy no less than patience, and a great deal of luck. 31 Besieging At the city gate, the blockaders settled down for the long haul. We do not have evidence regarding the type of investment that Caesar installed at Alesia. 32 However, Mari documents give rudimentary hints of circumvallation to minimize counterattacks, and even of contravallation to discourage siegebreaking by allies. Attackers quickly built camps (karāšum) around the target city. Several of these camps were posted strategically (ARM 26 405) to create a noose around the target. These military camps mirrored the besieged city, in that they too were fortified (karāšam epēšum) and were encircled by moats (ARM 1 90 = LAPO 17 497; see also ARM 26 343). What they were defending against were unpredictable sorties (tūṣitum) by townsmen (ARM 14 104+ = LAPO 17 548; ARM 27 133, 142), who awaited gaps in attention induced by boredom. The game was cat and mouse, at the gate as well as behind the lines of the invaders. Reflecting on how he would relieve pressure on Andarig, an allied city, Zimri-Lim planned to besiege the attackers, “When I besiege and it (Ešnunna’s army) breaks out from its camp to move against me, I will fight it then” (ARM 27 18 10ʹ–16′). Mari’s Fall Taking a fortified city, then, was no easy task. Second-millennium Mari itself was taken only once, when a conjunction of disasters befell YasmaḫAddu. The illness and death of his father distanced vassals and allies from their loyalty oaths, because treaties in the Old Babylonian period were personal and not bequeathed dynastically. When at first tribes began harassing major strongholds (Tuttul and Dur-Yasmaḫ-Addu), a lieutenant (Sumiya) from a nearby fortification (Ṣuprum) assured Yasmaḫ-Addu that marauding tribes could not harm him because they lacked siege engines (ARM 2 44 = LAPO 17 532). The king should not even bother to launch sorties from Mari but wait for the arrival of allies. Soon, however, the gig was up; the enemy (likely led by Zimri-Lim) forced those in captured strongholds (Saggaratum and Terqa) to cut canes and reeds with which to manufacture siege towers. 33 Harrassed on all sides, Yasmaḫ-Addu was probably executed by Bannum, a Simʾal leader who had once served his father. 34 31.  There is a note to the queen mother reassuring her that her son, Yasmaḫ-Addu, was not allowed near the fortification walls while a ram was in operation, thus alleviating her fears; ARM 10 171 (= LAPO 1086). 32.  Kern, Ancient Siege Warfare, 302–7. 33.  M. 6427; cited in Charpin and Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Orient, 139 n. 521. 34.  See ibid., 144 n. 560; as well as Michäel Guichard and Nele Ziegler, “Yanûḫ-Samar et les Ekallâtéens en détresse,” in Assyria and Beyond: Studies Presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen, ed. J. G. Dercksen, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten 100 (Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near East, 2004), 229–47. The population exchanges

474

Jack M. Sasson

I might add here that the same combination of misfortunes did not take place when Hammurabi of Babylon occupied Mari. On the basis of the administrative records of Zimri-Lim’s final year, I have argued elsewhere that, to its last dated document, life seemed normal with nary a hint of stress. 35 The king was receiving tributes and gifts from vassals and sheikhs. Unless Hammurabi was operating in total secrecy, there is no sense that a Babylonian coalition was ready to bring down the formidable walls. Despite a vigorous defense of the regnant view, which attributes Mari’s destruction to Hammurabi’s weaponry, 36 I reiterate my earlier speculation that Zimri-Lim died a sudden but natural death and that Hammurabi, an old ally, was invited to protect Mari. 37 For reasons that remain obscure—possibly the aging city was too distant for him to defend—Hammurabi went there and methodically moved its population before shutting down the city, destroying its walls, and via his soldiers leaving behind the archives and treasures that we have found there. The Siege of Razama 38 Several sieges are mentioned in the Mari archives, none with as many details as the one around Razama, the capital of a Mari vassal state in the Yussan that occur when a city is about to change patrons can be encapsulated in two letters. The first (A.3356, Guichard and Ziegler, “Yanûḫ-Samar et les Ekallâtéens,” 230–33) concerns the last days of Yasmaḫ-Addu. Zakura-abum, a top Simʾal military leader (merḫum), writes to Yanuḫ-samar, then likely a supporter of Išme-Dagan of Ekallatum: Earlier, I listened to the tablet you had sent to me, saying, ‘You are wise, for my father (god?) had augmented for you wisdom upon wisdom. Just as my father has been gracious to you, do the same for me. Speak on my behalf before Qarni-Lim king of Andarig. Just now I sent Ḫiṣniya back to you. I have now arrived and spoken well to Qarni-Lim about you. I have gone to Mari and had Mari and other (people) go out. All citizens from Ekallatum who lived there have left safely. Your brother, with his tools, has left safely. Haletar has left safely.

The second letter was sent by (the obscure) Habbusum to Zimri-Lim (TH 72.5): I went in the land Šubartum to the fortified towns that have until now held back from making peace. They have all now given word about making peace. So, fearing along with Šepraru, I did not enter these fortified towns. Now Šepraru will proceed to enter the fortified towns. I will go with him myself. I will have the nomads and the Mari citizens who now live in fortified towns in Šubartum brought out directed (to Mari). Do send me a servant of yours to accompany me.

See D. Charpin “Une lettre d’un roi inconnu: Nouvelles données sur le début du règne de Zimri-Lim,” in The Ancient Near East, A Life! Festschrift Karel Van Lerberghe, ed. T. Boiy et al., OLA 220 (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 92–96. 35.  Sasson, “The King and I,” 461–62. 36.  Charpin and Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Orient, 242–45. 37.  A Babylonian conquest of Razama in the Yussan is suggested by OECT 13 278, leading D. Lacambre to propose it as one stage in the conquest of Mari; see his “Études sur le règne de Zimrî-Lîm de Mari,” RA 96 (2002): 19–21. I doubt it. 38.  The Mari documents on the siege of Razama include the following: ARM 14 104+ (= LAPO 17 548); ARM 6 51, 52, and 65 (= LAPO 17 553, 552, 850); and ARM 27 132, 133,

Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives

475

region, not far from Tell Leilan. I leave to a footnote the background on why and how, in Zimri-Lim’s tenth year, King Atamrum of Allaḫad, having successfully occupied Andarig, moved against Šarriya (Šarraya) of Razama. Suffice it to say that these two kings were vassals of Zimri-Lim; but, because the king had gone to visit Aleppo and Ugarit, in the process depleting the region of soldiers, Atamrum took advantage of circumstances to destroy his rival. The siege lasted two months, tops; yet, despite the interval’s brevity, the event generated a nice collection of documents, posted from near and far, suggesting a lively traffic in networked news. It is useful to collect these tweets around a juicy letter that Governor Yaqqim-Addu of Saggaratum province sent to ZimriLim, then still in transit; ARM 14 104+ = LAPO 17 548. 39 Yaqqim-Addu writes, “On the same day I convey this letter to my lord, three men from Bāb-naḫlu (near Mari), who had been taken to Ešnunna during the past campaign of Dannum-taḫaz against Mari, escaped here from the army at Atamrum’s disposal and appeared before me.” Let us keep in mind the source of this information: local boys who had been conscripted into an army allied to Atamrum had managed to escape home. They had good reasons, therefore, to fear being treated as traitors or spies, so they may well have adopted an ingratiating tone as well as the practice of telling everything “slant.” Continues Yaqqim-Addu, “I questioned them about events, and they told me the following, ‘An army reached Razama, and as it did so, a contingent from the town came out and killed 700 Elamite warriors and 600 Ešnunna men.’” The numbers killed seem incredible; in fact, in other notes sent to Zimri-Lim, the numbers vary, although it is not always easy to tell whether they are reporting on the same incident. Details on how it happened are conveyed to distant Zimri-Lim by a diplomat (Yamṣum) stationed in Ilanṣura (ARM 26 318): It seems that Šarriya dropped bitumen in front of Atamrum’s siege towers and set it on fire. The fire also burned the footbridges (īkul). Once again, I quote Yaqqim-Addu: “They let 10 days pass (without fighting); then the elders came out before Atamrum and told him, ‘We want peace. 318. There is a great deal of literature on this famous event. A succinct account is found in C.  Michel in RlA 11.278–79. Diverse aspects of the siege are discussed in Wolfgang Heimpel, “Details of Atamrum’s siege of Razama,” NABU 1996/102: 89–90; and in two articles by Jordi Vidal, “The Siege of Razama: An Example of Aggressive Defence in Old Babylonian Times,” AoF 36 (2009): 365–71; and “La guerra de asedio.” More details are offered in Charpin and Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Orient, 212–14, 219–22. On the location of Razama, see ibid., 22. The other siege occurred at Ḫiritum, also in Zimri-Lim’s tenth year, when Elam, flush with its victories against Ešnunna, sought to take control of Babylon (ibid., 212–14, 219–22). Documents about this siege include: ARM 27 141–42; ARM 2 30+ (= LAPO 17 581); ARM 26 384; and A. 3669 (D. Lacambre, “La bataille de Ḫirîtum”). Discussions about the siege there appear in Wolfgang Heimpel, “The Defense of Ḫiritum,” NABU 1997/103: 97–8. 39.  See D. Charpin, “Données nouvelles sur la poliorcétique,” with a new edition of the core text.

476

Jack M. Sasson

As soon as the army stays within its campsite (karāšum) a good distance away, 40 I [= Šarriya] shall deliver the money.’” With their ten-day wait, the elders were sharpening Atamrum’s anxiety. The elders probably knew by then that ZimriLim was rushing back to defend his turf (ARM 27 132). 41 In fact, we have a note that they may also have received in which Zimri-Lim was warning Atamrum about taking Razama (ARM 14 103 = LAPO 16 431). Razama and Mari had once “shared the same couch”—that is, their armies had merged in fights against an enemy (Ešnunna). Moreover, its king (Šarriya) was faithful to the loyalty oaths he had sworn, when other vassals were not (among them, QarniLim). 42 The elders may also have heard that Atamrum’s main ally (Elam) had become concerned about fighting Zimri-Lim and wanted the siege lifted (ARM 14 103 = LAPO 16 431). 43 Moreover, another note informs us that 4,000 men had already abandoned Atamrum and his siege, heading for easier targets. 44 Atamrum, however, would have none of it. Yaqqim-Addu cites what he said to the elders: “This is what you are plotting, ‘Let us trick him with words and he will move away within his campsite. In this way, let us thus put an end to trouble in Idamaraṣ.’” “If you really want peace,” continues Atamrum, “why has Šarriya not come out to meet me? Go ahead and fight; just strengthen your 40.  .The phrase duppurum ina can have the meaning of moving away from something or moving away toward something; so it is not clear whether they are to abandon their camp or to move out with it. 41.  Zimri-Lim’s move toward Razama is confirmed by ARM 23 545; on the date, see Charpin and Ziegler, Mari et le Proche-Orient, 220 n. 466. 42.  A.2730 (cited by Charpin in ARM 26/2, p. 33 (text in n. 24), is a letter that Ibal-El sent to Zimri-Lim:   On the matter of Atamrum who wrote to my lord, “Send me troops!”; my lord should answer like this, “Now you must ask Hammurabi (of Kurda), Ḫatnu-rabi (of Qattara), Šarru-ki-kalima (Razama of Yamutbal) kings who are with you—and Yanuḫ-samar, your servant. (They will tell you that) between me and Šarraya (of Razama) there endures powerful blood agreements (merismus: damu u dannātum šaknā). With me, there were 100 tribesmen and 100 banks-of-the Euphrates followers of mine—therefore, 200 reliable followers, the pick of my land—when they attested to the blood (covenant) and when I indeed imposed an oath by the gods on him (ina dami izzizã u nīš ilim lã zakrakšum).”   Once more, when my father, the sukkal (of Elam) wrote me about troops, I sent (them) and wrote to Qarni-Lim, “Do you not belong to my blood (covenant)? Send me your army, for it to share my couch (ina rubṣiya lirbiṣ).” He did not give me his army, and he was brought to a bad end (ištalūšu). I also sent a letter to Šarraya telling him, “You belong to my blood (covenant). Give me an army, for it to share the couch of my army. . . . [segment broken, probably includes Šarraya’s acceptance of Zimri-Lim’s request, reporting,] “I will give you an army if you plan to besiege another town.” This is what you should write him.

43.  Nur-Sin writes to Zimri-Lim (FM 7 25), “Just before Iṣi-qatar, my lord’s servant, was leaving, this is what I heard from my sources, ‘Fourteen people trafficking information for the sukkal of Elam and who were carrying errands were seized and were moved into confinement. This is what was posted to Atamrum: Make peace with the ruler of Razama. Give him silver or gold and release (his servants).’” 44.  Asqur-Addu was said to lead 4,000 soldiers toward Šubat-Enlil; ARM 27 133.

Siege Mentality: Fighting at the City Gate in the Mari Archives

477

town!’” In essence, Atamrum knew that Razama’s king was not likely to give himself up as hostage and so had heightened pressure by declaring war, a move that always took place when armies were encircling a town. Razama took the dare and mocked Atamrum, “This town belongs to ZimriLim, but the levied army has followed him. Stick around, then, until the town’s lord [= Zimri-Lim] catches up with you!” 45 In fact, given the good prospect of Zimri-Lim’s arriving to the rescue, Razama’s king (Šarriya) proceeded exactly as Atamrum was fearing. We cannot tell how much Yaqqim-Addu’s informers were telescoping events; but they report fresh sorties by the defenders. As I have said, diverse sources give suspiciously changing numbers for the victims. 46 Realizing the brevity of opportunity, Atamrum was building a ramp with which he hoped to reach the crest of the outer wall. By night he had a tunnel cut under the ramp. 47 One dawn, however, the townsmen made a sortie that allegedly killed half of Atamrum’s troops, taking much weaponry into town. In telling this tidbit, Yaqqim-Addu steps out from simply reporting to comment, “The goal for these townsmen is only to remain loyal to (lit., keep in mind) my lord only!” Hurting badly, Atamrum tried a ruse: “He had bronze lances picked up for 30 impostors (lú.meš sarrārū) and they taunted (usaḫḫimū) the townsmen, ‘Why do you keep thinking (taḫtanassassā) of Zimri-Lim? Is it not the case that his soldiers are besieging you now?’ But the townsmen answered [Atamrum], ‘These are deceitful men that you have equipped and made come near here! Indeed, you will see when within 5 days the armies that are with ZimriLim catch up with you!’” 48 What Atamrum had done was to outfit 30 deceivers 45.  .In the G, kašādum is commonly construed with an accusative rather than a dative, as here and in line 44. 46.  600 in ARM 6 65 [= LAPO 17 850].8–12) and 300 just from Ešnunna in ARM 27 133.6–9. It is possible that these soldiers bore the brunt of the defenders because they fronted a strategic spot; but more likely is that the deserters were regaling Zimri-Lim with inflated numbers of kills because they knew Zimri-Lim had no love for Ešnunna. 47.  “Once the front sections of the ramp reached the jutting portion/base of the outer fortification, the townsmen broke out from town/tunneled the town and made two big holes, right and left, at the ramp’s front sections. At night, they moved to the front of the ramp via the tunnel, at dawn the town’s soldier surged out and killed half the army. They plundered their bronze lances and shields, taking them into town. The goal for these townsmen is to remain loyal to (lit., keep in mind) my lord only!” 48.  A vivid taunt takes place at the base of the rampart of Ašnakkum, a city in the upper part of the Ḫabur River. At the moment of writing ARM 28 98, Ili-Sumu, a vassal of ZimriLim of Mari, was trying to remove Ašnakkum from the control of Terru of Urgiš: “When I approached Ašnakkum for combat, the king of Urgiš shouted to me from the rampart, ‘When did a minion [šaknum, literally, “vassal”] of Zimri-Lim ever set up a king at Ašnakkum?’ But I answered him, ‘As to the kings of Elam—when, O when did they ever install a king in Ašnakkum? The whole land belongs to my lord.’” We have a wonderful example of a taunt at the walls of Shechem, with Zebul succeeding in shaming Gaal into facing Abimelech, (Judg 9:38).

478

Jack M. Sasson

with garments and weapons associated with Zimri-Lim’s men and had these impostors claim that Zimri-Lim had sided with Atamrum. The term applied to them (lú.meš sarrārū) comments on their character instead of their activity and thus may be equivalent to Hebrew ‫( אנׁשים ריקים ופחזים‬Judg 9:4). From here on, the text becomes difficult to follow clearly. The gist, however, is clear. Panic began to spread among the attackers—so much so that they feared sending some of their men to haul the necessary water. Yaqqim-Addu ends on this laconic note: “But in (Atamrum’s) campsite, this army is under alert and remains fearful of my lord. My lord should act to reach and save the city.” 49 We also lose the thread of the drama. I am sorry to say that there is no record of the way that the siege ended, but because we find Atamrum marrying one of Zimri-Lim’s daughters (Inbatum), I imagine that he pulled back from Razama without challenging Mari. 50 I might note that, as Zimri-Lim was entering his own final year as ruler, he received news that Atamrum died. We do not know how. He was unmourned by his father-in-law, and his death was attributed to a just but vengeful God (ARM 26 185b = LAPO 18 1145). Conclusion The Razama dossier, then, illustrates yet another failure to take a wellfortified city by siege. It therefore vindicates General Sun Tzu’s opinion on the wastefulness of such efforts. The Mari documents I cite come to us from an age in which chariotry, not to speak of cavalry, had still to emerge as major units of warfare. I therefore propose that, with these new armaments entering the fray, the need for plenty of room in which to maneuver altered military strategy, thus bringing armies into wider confrontations. In this way, rulers could lose control long before the enemy successfully stormed their cities. Still, the art of besieging and defending cities never died out. It also came to be such a dependable literary feature that we still thrill at reading about an Assyrian challenge hurled at the defenders of Jerusalem and about the last moments of a ten-year siege at Homeric Troy. 49.  “With the rumor about the arrival of my lord rife over the army, while it was still night, in the campsite twice the armies would come under alert (ummanātum isallulā). It was said, ‘If non-stop (lit: night and day) they could haul water for the troops from a good distance, who among the 2–3000 men . . . has gone to raid the water haulers, so that those within the city could come out and kill many soldiers?’” The phrase ummanātum isallulā is difficult; see W. Heimpel, “Ṣalālum, to be sleepless,” NABU 1995/93: 83–84. The context suggests an unusual amount of activity, due to their fear. 50. The treaty is published by Francis Joannès, “Le traité de vassalité d’Atamrum d’Andarig envers Zimri Lim de Mari,” in Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs: Études sur la civilisation mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, ed. D. Charpin and F. Joannès (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991), 167–77.

The Question of David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

Mark S. Smith I offer this study of a biblical lament to my lamented friend, Avigdor Hurowitz, a wonderful scholar and a lover of literature, both biblical and ancient Near Eastern. This study of 2 Sam 1:19–27 is offered as an expression of our loss and as a token of my admiration for his scholarship and gratitude for his friendship that went back to our time together at the Hebrew University in 1983–84, especially in the classroom of the great Jonas Greenfield. The poem under discussion in this essay holds a particularly prominent place in Israel’s early poetic tradition. In the nine verses of this lament, the conceptual world of traditional attitudes and sensibilities about warriors comes to the fore. While most of these features have been largely noted, what they may indicate about the poem’s literary progression and structural construction has not been appreciated. It is in the interplay of tradition and innovation that this piece of heroic poetry offers a new presentation of David. It is further the goal of this study to explore this poem’s voices—one rather traditional for heroic poetry in contrast to another that is less traditional in its language. This essay begins with a translation with notes. The second part offers remarks on the traditional features in this poem as set against a number of ancient Near Eastern texts concerning warriors. The third part of this essay takes up the poem’s dramatic movement and its representation of David’s voice(s), addressing in particular the questions of whether the poem represents a single voice or two voices and, if the latter, whether they are both David’s. Translation of 2 Samuel 1:19–27 with Notes The translation 1 is set out below in order to highlight the structural relations between the poem’s parts. I have also provided headings (with the letters, A, B, 1.  For the text-critical issues, see Richard W. Nysse, “An Analysis of the Greek Witnesses to the Text of the Lament of David,” in The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Samuel, ed. Emanuel Tov (Jerusalem: Akademon, 1980), 69–104. For studies of the poem, see A. Guillaume, “David’s Lament over Saul and Jonathan,” JTS 16 (1915): 491–94; Stanley Gevirtz, Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 32 (Chicago:

479

480

Mark S. Smith

C, Bʹ, Aʹ), in order to point out the poem’s construction: its opening and closing invocations of the two heroes (A and Aʹ), framing the two sets of instructions about proclaiming the battle (B and Bʹ), and in turn framing the poem’s central section (C). 2 This larger chiastic construction in vv. 19–25 is followed by a reprise in vv. 26–27, distinguished by its rather different voice. A: Opening Invocation to Saul (parallel to v. 25) 19 The Gazelle, O Israel, upon your heights slain! 3 University of Chicago Press, 1963), 81; William Holladay, “Form and Word Play in David’s Lament over Saul and Jonathan,” VT 20 (1970): 153–89; William H. Shea, “David’s Lament,” BASOR 221 (1976): 141–44; David Noel Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 263–74; Michael P. O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980), 230–33 and 468–71; Francis Landy, “Irony and Catharsis in Biblical Poetry: David’s Lament over Saul and Jonathan,” European Judaism 15 (1981): 3–13; J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, vol. 2: The Crossing Fates (Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1986), 654–56; Shemaryahu Talmon, “Emendation of Biblical Texts on the Basis of Ugaritic Parallels,” in Studies in Bible, ed. S. Japhet, ScrHier 31 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 279–300, reprinted in Talmon, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 273–94; Diana V. Edelman, “The Authenticity of 2 Sam 1:26 in Light of the Historicity of David’s Covenant with Jonathan,” SJOT 2 (1988): 66–75; Gale A. Yee, “The Anatomy of Biblical Parody: The Dirge Form in 2 Samuel 1 and Isaiah 14,” CBQ 50 (1988): 565–86; Steven P. Weitzman, “David’s Lament and the Poetics of Grief in 2 Samuel,” JQR 85 (1995): 341–60; W. Boyd Barrick, “Saul’s Demise, David’s Lament, and Custer’s Last Stand,” JSOT 73 (1997): 25–41; Mark K. George, “Assuming the Body of the Heir Apparent: David’s Lament,” in Reading Bibles, Writing Bodies, ed. Timothy K. Beal (London: Routledge, 1997), 164–74; Zvi Mozan, “Praise or Surprise (2 Samuel 1:19: hṣbj jśrʾl ʿl bmwtjk ḥllʾ): Another Explanation for David’s Lament,” Beit Mikra 52/2 (2007): 22–40 [Heb.]; Todd Linafelt, “Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17–27: Hearing and Overhearing David’s Lament for Jonathan and Saul,” Journal of Religion 88 (2008): 497–526; Terry Giles and William J. Doan, Twice Used Songs: Performance Criticism of the Songs of Ancient Israel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), 41–44; and Nissim Amzallag and Mikhal Avriel, “Complex Antiphony in David’s Lament and Its Literary Significance,” VT 60 (2010): 1–14. 2. This approach to vv.  19–25 is anticipated in Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Textual Study of the Bible: A New Outlook,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. Frank M. Cross and Shemaryahu Talmon (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975), 365; and Edelman, “2 Sam 1:26 in Light of the Historicity,” 72. 3.  Regarding “the” (h- in Heb.), there are three major proposals: (1) The simplest solution is that the definite article may bear a demonstrative force, pointing to the place where the warrior is slain, namely “upon your heights.” Joüon-Muraoka (§137f) refer to the article as originally a demonstrative and indicate that it retains a weak demonstrative value. Accordingly, one might read: “Behold the Gazelle, O Israel, upon your heights lies slain!” In this connection, it is to be noted that Ugaritic occasionally uses hn and h- to express definiteness; see hbt, in KTU 2.70.16, rendered “this house,” by Pierre Bordreuil and Dennis Pardee, A Manual of Ugaritic, Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 310. See also hn bnš hw, “behold, that servant,” in RS 96.2039 in COS 3.103 n. 118, with Pardee’s comment: “the use of hn here before a noun that is further modified by the demonstrative hw, a function that must have been paralleled in proto-Hebrew and led to the adoption of the particle hn there as a true definite

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

481

How 4 have the warriors fallen!

B: Instructions about Philistine women rejoicing (inverse of v. 24) Make no proclamation 5 in Gath, 6

20

article.” For further discussion, see Holger Gzella, “Die Entstehung des bestimmten Artikel im Semitischen,” JSS 21 (2006): 1–18; and “Some Pencilled Notes on Ugaritic Lexicography,” BO 64 (2007): 543–44. The next-oldest attestation of h- in extrabiblical sources seems to be hspr, “the scribe,” on one inscribed Iron I arrowhead; see Émile Puech, “Les pointes de flèches inscrites de la fin du IIe millénaire en Phénicie et Canaan,” in Actas del IV Congresso International de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos: Cádiz, 2 a 6 de Octubre de 1995, ed. María Eugenia Aubet Semmler and Manuela Barthélemy, 4 vols. (Cádiz: Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad de Cádiz, 2000), 1.254, #18. (2) The h- has been read as a particle of lament, which would be very suitable at the head of the poem. See, e.g., Cross, From Epic to Canon, 145. Similarly, McCarter (II Samuel, AB 9 [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984] 74) reads h- as hô, “alas,” as in Amos 5:16 and for the MT interrogative h- in 2 Sam 3:33. Note also Akkadian Ëʾi, “woe,” cited in connection with Amos 5:16 by Shalom Paul, Amos, ed. Frank M. Cross, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 179 n. 196; and Hebrew hāh in Ezek 30:2, said to be cognate with Arabic ʾāh, “alas” (see HALOT, 4th ed., 240). See also hî in Ezek 2:10 and ʾî in Qoh 4:10. In this interpretation, the two nouns are sometimes read as a construct phrase, “prince of Israel.” See, e.g., William F. Albright,“The Earliest Forms of Hebrew Verse,” JPOS 2 (1922): 85 n. 3; followed by Patrick D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” UF 2 (1970): 177–86, esp. p. 185. A minor problem: if Israel is not vocative (as in these translations), then there is no antecedent for the second-person suffix on “your heights.” (3) The particle h- here may be the definite article as a vocative particle. Joüon-Muraoka (§137g) note h- in vocative usage, for example, in Judg 3:19 (“I have a secret word [to deliver] to you, O King”) and 2 Kgs 9:5 (“I have a word [to deliver] to you, O Commander,” v. 5a; also “To you, O Commander,” v. 5b); for more on this usage, see the helpful treatment by Cynthia L. Miller, “Definiteness and the Vocative in Biblical Hebrew,” Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 36 (2010): 43–64. While the morphology of this solution works for 2 Sam 1:19, the syntax does not. Verse 19a–b would end up translating: “O Gazelle of Israel, Upon your heights lies slain.” In this case, the pronominal suffix would refer to the addressed leader himself, which seems awkward. Gazelle is usually translated “glory” or the like (njps; BDB 840). For this noun as a title for a military leader, see KTU 1.15 IV 7, 18, discussed by P. D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” 185. Heights: v. 21 suggests “heights” here also. See Gevirtz (Patterns, 81), who reads the word as “back” or “body of the slain,” but then he also makes hṣby into a verb. Slain: the series of l’s in the translation is intended to reflect the l’s in Heb. ʾel . . . ʿal . . . ḥālāl. 4.  ʾÊk for lament in Jer 2:21, 9:18; Mic 2:4; Qoh 2:16 (BDB 32). According to JoüonMuraoka, (§162), this is an exclamatory particle; they also cite in this regard Ps 73:19 (“how [ʾêk] quickly they have come to ruin”) as well as Lam 1:1 and Isa 1:21. 5.  This form of translation avoids adding a direct object (e.g., “Tell it not . . . , //Do not proclaim it” (njps; my italics). For the verbal expression, compare with pen-yaggîdû in 1 Sam 27:11, which also involves communication about conflict with the Philistines. 6.  With the imbalance of the first two lines, Gevirtz (Patterns, 83) emends to brḥbwt gt, as rḥbwt and ḥwṣwt are paired nine times. Gevirtz especially notes Amos 5:16, with its lament context.

482

Mark S. Smith



No announcement in Ashkelon’s streets, 7 Lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, Lest the daughters of the uncircumcised 8 exult:



C: Central section of lament O mountains 9 in the 10 Gilboa, no dew, 11 No rain upon you, O lofty 12 highlands! 13

21



7.  For streets in Ashkelon in the Iron II, see Ashkelon 1: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), ed. Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen, and Daniel M. Master, The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 284, 288, 307, 310. For city planning in other Philistine sites, see the summary in Zeʾev Herzog, Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and Its Social Implications, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology Monograph 13 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1997), 201–4. 8. For plštym//ʿrlym, see also 1 Sam 14:1, 6; cf. Judg 14:3, 15:18; 1 Sam 17:26, 36; 31:4. Note also the issue of circumcision in Jer 9:24–25; ANEP 332 (Megiddo ivory) and ANET 326 and 629, as well as circumcised divine figurines; see also Ora Negbi, Canaanite Gods in Metal: An Archaeological Study of Ancient Syro-Palestinian Figurines (Tel Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, 1976), 14, 108, and pl. 17; reference courtesy of Saul Olyan). For discussion, see William C. Propp, “The Origins of Infant Circumcision in Ancient Israel,” HAR 11 (1987): 355–70; Richard Steiner, “Incomplete Circumcision in Egypt and Edom: Jeremiah (9:24–25) in the Light of Josephus and Jonckheere,” JBL 118 (1999): 497–505; Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Ritual: Hierarchy in Biblical Representations of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 64–90, and 153–54 n. 18 (reference courtesy of Saul Olyan); Philip J. King, “Circumcision: Who Did It, Who Didn’t and Why,” BAR 32/4 (2006): 49–55; Avraham Faust, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance, Approaches to Anthropological Archaeology (London: Equinox, 2007), 85–91; and David A. Bernat, Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Priestly Tradition, SBL Ancient Israel and Its Literature 3 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009). 9.  For the construct plus prepositional phrase, see the cases noted in GKC 130a, including Isa 9:1, yōšĕbê bĕʾereṣ ṣalmāwet, cited also by McCarter, II Samuel. See also Gevirtz, Patterns, 85 n. 40, citing the Kethiv to 2 Sam 10:9, bĕḥûrê bĕyiśrāʾēl (the Qere has no b-). Otherwise, my translation here is quite close to O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 230. 10.  The translation commonly omits the definite article, as elsewhere with Gilboa (1 Sam 28:4; 31:1, 8; 2 Sam 1:6, 21; 21:12) and twice without (1 Chr 10:1, 8). So see S. Noah Lee, “The Use of the Definite Article in the Development of Some Biblical Toponyms,” VT 52 (2002): 334–49, esp. p. 338. 11.  The force of the clause is volitive: “Let there be no dew . . . let there be no rain” (so Joüon-Muraoka, §160a, citing also Isa 62:6 and Ps 83:2. 12.  It is more common for the word to be taken as referring to offerings (“fields yielding sacred imposts,” BDB 929, under tĕrûmâ, “contribution, offering, for sacred uses”) or fertility (“bountiful fields,” njps). The parallelism with hārê baggilbōaʿ suggests a term for height as in the translation here. With this use of trwmt, McCarter compares mĕrômê śādeh in Judg 5:18; so also Freedman, Poetry, 270; and McCarter, II Samuel, 69; compare with the metaphorical sense of trmwt for “height” (of heart) in Jer 14:14. For an explanation of the expression, see Shemaryahu Talmon, Text and Canon of the Hebrew Bible: Collected Studies (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 280–87. 13.  For this sense, see William H. C. Propp, “On Hebrew śāde(h), ‘Highland’,” VT 37 (1987): 230–36.

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

483

For 14 there begrimed was the shield 15 of warriors, The shield of Saul ungreased 16 with oil. 17 22 From the blood 18 of the slain, From the fat of warriors, The bow of Jonathan was not turned back, 19 And the sword of Saul never withdrew 20 empty. 21 23 Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely, In life and in death 22 inseparable 23—

14.  The opening kî here nicely balances with bĕlî, if one construes these two lines as four short lines. Note also kî šām, which forms sonant parallelism with māšîăḥ, šām, and *šemen and thus frames māgēn in the second and third lines. 15.  Freedman (Poetry, 270) takes māgēn here as a term for leader (comparing Punic māgon). In this case, the fourth line would refer to the leader as the anointed one. See further McCarter, II Samuel, 71. 16. MT bĕlî is generally a negative modifier, mostly in poetry (cf. Gen 31:20). See Joüon-Muraoka, §160m. I am reading the image as a statement of the weapon’s condition, reflecting its owner’s condition, in effect parallel to “there was begrimed.” See Freedman (Poetry, 271), who would take bly as an asseverative, since Saul was the anointed king; this seems to miss the point about the weapon’s condition, however, not to mention the clever wordplay between the anointing of the weapon and the royal status (rather than a literal statement about Saul, as Freedman would have it). 17.  For parallels, see Alan R. Millard, “Saul’s Shield Not Anointed with Oil,” BASOR 230 (1978): 70. Millard follows G. R. Driver’s citation of Isa 21:5, mišḥû māgēn, literally, “grease the shield.” Millard additionally cites Akkadian evidence for “oil to rub shield(s)” in CAD K 1, under kabābu, “shield.” See Gilgamesh’s cleaning of his battle equipment as well as himself in SBV Gilgamesh VI 1–3; see George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, 1.619. 18.  For blood and fat in battle, see Gevirtz, Patterns, 88, citing Isa 34:6. 19.  The idiom denotes victory (cf. defeat in Ps 44:19; Jer 38:22, and 46:5 and shame in Isa 42:17). For the enemies of Yahweh driven back, see Isa 42:17; Jer 46:5; Pss 35:4, 40:15 = 70:3 (BDB 690). McCarter (II Samuel, 71) compares Ps 129:5. 20.  Contrast the picture in Judg 3:21–22. 21.  For the idiom also in Jer 50:9, see S. David Sperling, “Late Hebrew ḥzr and Akkadian saḫāru,” JANES 5 (1973; Gaster Festschrift): 403. Mark Hamilton renders: “Saul’s sword did not retract clean.” See Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel, BibInt 78 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 155 and commenting in n. 32: “literally, ‘empty,’ but here in the sense of ‘without blood and gore on it,’ hence ‘clean.’” 22.  The phrase here is a pun on *bāmôt, “heights,” in v. 19 (see also v. 25c) 23.  Or, “never parted” (njps). Given the use of the root for social units, might the usage suggest that the two are represented here as belonging to the same fictive social unit—for example, that they are understood, in effect, as brothers? An analogous thrust may be seen in Ruth’s declaration that God will not part (*prd) Naomi and her in Ruth 1:17; for this social sense of Ruth’s speech here, see my “‘Your People Shall Be My People’: Family and Covenant in Ruth 1:16–17,” CBQ 69 (2007): 242–58. This sense of the BH root *prd may be seen also in its use to denote families separating (Gen 13:9, 11, 14), the branching out of social entities (Gen 10:5, 32), socially “separate” units (Gen 25:23; cf. Deut 32:8), or social “disaffiliating” (Judg 4:11); see DCH 6.754–55.

484

Mark S. Smith They were swifter 24 than eagles, 25 They were stronger 26 than lions! 27



Bʹ: Instructions to Israelite women to weep (inverse of v. 20) O daughters of Israel, weep for Saul, Who 28 clothed you in crimson 29 along with fineries, 30 Who put 31 gold ornament upon your clothing. 24

Aʹ: Closing invocation to Jonathan (parallel to v. 19) 25 How have the warriors fallen in the midst of battle! Jonathan upon your heights slain! First-person reprise addressed to Jonathan I am in pain over you, my brother; O Jonathan, you were so lovely to me. Wondrous 32 was your love for me, Greater than the love of women. 27 How have the warriors fallen, The weapons of war 33 perished! 26

24.  For *gbr//*qll, see Amos 2:14–16; Jer 46:6; Qoh 9:11; etc. 25.  For the eagle image here, see Jer 4:13, Lam 4:19 (so Gevirtz, Patterns, 92). 26. For gbwr applied also to the lion, see Prov 30:30, as noted by Brent A. Strawn, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? Leonine Image and Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, OBO 212 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 352. 27.  For the image of the warrior “with the heart of a lion,” see 2  Sam 17:10. Strawn (ibid., 334) notes the combination of the explicit eagle comparison and the implicit lion imagery in Lam 4:19, and he further notes the appearance of the two animals together in Ezek 10:14 (p. 354). For the image in 2 Sam 1:23, see also his comments on pp. 55, 236–37. For lion imagery applied to warriors in the Iliad, see 11.113, 383; 12.40–50, 293, 299–308 (Seth Benardete, Achilles and Hector: The Homeric Hero [South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s, 2005], 54–55, 56); 16.752, 756; 17.20–23 (ibid., 123). 28.  The definite article as a relative pronoun (Joüon-Muraoka, §145) is attested in Ps 18:33 = 2 Sam 22:33 (might this be one of the older uses of the definitive article?). 29.  See Prov 31:21. 30.  The word ʿădānîm in the first line resonates with ʿădî in the second line. The former is a problem here; see McCarter, II Samuel, 72–73. For the other terms, see Gevirtz, Patterns, 93–95, citing parallels in Jer 4:30 and Job 40:10. 31.  For the verbal usage, see 1 Kgs 10:16, 17; Amos 8:10. 32.  The form is anomalous (see Joüon-Muraoka, §78g; McCarter, II Samuel, 73). GKC 75oo translates as a third-person feminine singular: “it was wonderful” (see also the LXX; njps; etc.). According to McCarter (II Samuel, 73), the form is a third-ʾ root formed on analogy with third-h verbs. Following Cross and Freedman, O’Connor (Hebrew Verse Structure, 233) takes the word as second-person singular: “You were a wonder.” 33.  O’Connor (ibid., 233) cites a suggestion of David Noel Freedman that the last line should be understood that they perished “along with, by means of” the weapons of war. Apart from reading against the plain(-looking) sense of the line, it misses the weapons as standing for Saul and Jonathan. As Gevirtz (Patterns, 95) remarks: “for Saul and Jonathan are themselves the perished instruments of war.” Similarly, the ungreased shield in v. 21b evokes Saul’s status as the Lord’s “anointed.”

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

485

Traditional Warrior Motifs in the Lament The initial noun in v. 19, while debated, seems best understood as a title for Saul, 34 precisely to signal at once his martial prowess and his leadership. Patrick Miller notes this word as a term of leadership in the Ugaritic story of King Kirta (KTU 1.15 IV 7, 18). 35 This particular term may also evoke the image of the warrior as a gazelle. In 2 Sam 2:18, the warrior Asahel is praised for being “swift of foot (qal bĕraglāyw), like a gazelle that is in the (open) field.” According to 1 Chr 12:9, the Gadites who withdrew with David to the wilderness were “valiant men, armed with shield and spear, and they had the appearance of lions and gazelles upon the mountains.” 36 “Swift of foot” is a standard title of Achilles (Iliad 1.84, 148, 215, 489, etc.). 37 The second motif of the fallen warrior appears in the report of El’s messengers’ finding Baal (KTU 1.5 VI 8–10; see also 1.5 VI 30–31): 38 We came upon Baal fallen to the earth: Dead is Mightiest Baal, Perished the Prince, Lord of the Earth.

mǵny lbʿl npl lʾarṣ mt ʾalʾiyn bʿl ḥlq zbl bʿl ʾarṣ

This statement cleverly captures the contrast with Baal: although other titles for the god might have been used, his epithet “Lord of the Earth” appears here, perhaps most ironically, for at this point in the story, the god seems anything other than “Lord of the Earth.” The verbs are no less poignant in context, for they report a “fallen” warrior 39 who is “dead” and “perished.” Another divinity said to be fallen to the earth is Dagon in 1 Sam 5:3, evidently defeated by Yahweh as symbolized by the ark mentioned in the preceding v. 2. In 2 Sam 3:34, David laments over Abner: “Like one falling before treacherous men, you have 34.  I take the title to refer to Saul (as does Cross) rather than to Jonathan (as do Freedman and O’Connor); see O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 470. I also see the reference to Saul here in v. 19 as balancing the reference to Jonathan in v. 25. 35.  P. D. Miller, “Animal Names as Designations in Ugaritic and Hebrew,” 185; and DULAT 1003. For the question of the use of animal name for military terminology, see also Albert Jamme, Sabaean Inscriptions from Maʾram Bilqîs (Mârib) (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1962), 339. 36. See Strawn, What Is Stronger Than a Lion? 48, noting also 2 Sam 17:10. Cf. Song 2:8–9, with the physical movement of the beloved compared also to a gazelle (brought to my attention by Saul Olyan). 37.  According to Benardete (Achilles and Hector, 47), “Achilles’ most frequent epithet,” is “‘swift-footed,’ which seems to occur in such reckless profusion throughout the Iliad, but Homer manages its use more finely than many suppose.” For this epithet, see further ibid., 127. 38.  Noted by many commentators, for example, Weitzman, “David’s Lament and the Poetics of Grief,” 349–50. See Robert F. Miller II, Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 93, following an oral presentation of mine of this section. 39.  See also the description of Baal’s “fall” (npl) in KTU 1.12 II 53–55. The context is unclear.

486

Mark S. Smith

fallen” (nāpaltā; see also 2 Sam 2:16). David also laments about Abner that this warrior is dead, a report that is weighty, definitive. In this connection, we may mention the report about Goliath in 1 Sam 17:51, mēt gibbôrām, “their warrior was dead.” Verses 20 and 24 reflect the role of women celebrating in song in the public context when the warrior(s) return from conflict. 40 1 Sam 18:6–7 is emblematic of this female role. This sort of behavior is perhaps modeled by the goddess Anat, as she sings of the love of Mighty Baal (see KTU 1.3 III 4–8 and its parallel in KTU 1.101). 41 The inverse role of women in post-battle lamentation is given particular prominence in David’s lament over Jonathan and Saul. 42 The daughters of Israel are told to weep over Saul in 2 Sam 1:24, while in v. 21 Israel is commanded to refrain from publicizing the defeat so that Philistine women not rejoice. Elsewhere women lament in the face of battle’s defeat (cf. 1 Sam 15:33). Anat, too, weeps for Aqhat (*bky). 2 Sam 1:24 expresses not only the women’s traditional role of weeping; it also describes these same women in terms of the spoils of war—namely, the wonderful clothing that Saul had provided them. Thus, the single verse conveys with a particular sharpness both the role of women in lamentation and their prior celebration, thanks to the same figure of Saul. Mourning and rejoicing are, according to Gary A. Anderson, 43 ritual states consisting of sets of discrete behaviors and fixed literary formulas. Anderson further characterizes them as related “symbolic antitypes”; 44 indeed, one may lead to the other. Verse 24 evokes prior occasions of rejoicing, here turned to mourning. The curse of the place near where the hero is slain is likewise a traditional motif. A commonly cited instance is the series of curses uttered by Daniel on behalf of his dead son, Aqhat, in 1.19 III 45–IV 6. It has been common to compare this passage in Aqhat to the ruling in Deut 21:1–9 concerning the discovery of someone ḥālāl . . . nōpēl baśśādeh, “slain . . . fallen in the (open) field.” In this case, a ritual of resolving the bloodguilt is undertaken in the place located closest to where the corpse is discovered. Note that the two descriptors for the corpse in v. 1 are ḥālāl and nōpēl, which likewise inform our poem. The lament on nature in v. 21a received its classic formulation from H. L. Ginsberg in 1938, thanks particularly to the two instances of negatives plus terms for precipitation, “dew” and “rain,” reflected in the telling parallel in the 40. Athalya Brenner and Fokkelien van Dijk Hemmes, On Gendering Texts: Female and Male Voices in the Hebrew Bible, BibInt 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 44 and 83–84. 41.  UBC 2.216–22. 42.  Cf. SBV VIII 44–45: “I shall mourn, Enkidu, my friend, / like a professional mourning woman I shall lament bitterly.” 43.  G. A. Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance: The Expression of Grief and Joy in Israelite Religion (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), 73. 44.  Anderson, A Time to Mourn, A Time to Dance, 60, 95–97.

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

487

story of Aqhat that he observed (KTU 1.19 I 44–46). In that context, each term for precipitation is preceded by a negative particle: “no dew, no rain (bl ṭl bl rbb).” 45 Terms for dew and rain occur together also in biblical literature (Deut 32:2, 1 Kgs 17:1, Job 38:28; cf. Dan 4:30, 5:21). Somewhat difficult in 2 Sam 1:21a is the next phrase, śĕdê tĕrûmōt, which Ginsberg proposed to emend to šrʿ thmtm, “the upsurging of the deeps,” following the third term for precipitation in the Aqhat passage. 46 Rather than following Ginsberg in emending the third phrase as another term for precipitation, one may understand śĕdê tĕrûmōt as “lofty highlands,” reflecting an Israelite adaptation 47 to the older topos 48 as recognized by Ginsberg. The phrase here is not a term for precipitation but another topographical expression corresponding to hārê baggilbōaʿ. Or, if taken as “fields of offerings,” it may denote the land’s languishing because of the king’s death, which would fit the parallel context of Aqhat. The weapons and their condition in vv.  21–22 recall the Ugaritic Baal Cycle’s presentation of Baal and Yamm as two warriors. In KTU 1.2 IV, the two gods are hardly engaged themselves in battle, because the weapons made by Kothar take center stage. Here we might also compare the personified weapon, Sharur, in Lugale-e 49 and perhaps the central role that weapons play in the story of Aqhat. Weapons may play a range of literary functions for describing the exploits of warriors. In the Iliad, Achilles encourages Patroklos to use his armor (Iliad 16.129), leading the Trojans to believe that Achilles has returned to the field of battle (16.278–83). Hector seizes the armor after he slays Patroklos with Apollo’s aid (cf. 16.818–28; cf. 16.798–99). Moreover, Thetis tells Achilles that Hector is said to exult in his armor, but he will face 45.  Translation of Ginsberg, ANET, 153; cf. “no dew, no downpour,” by Parker, UNP, 69. For ṭl and rbb together, see also KTU 1.3 II 39 (also reconstructed for 1.3 II 40–41), 1.3 IV 43–44; Mic 5:6; and 1QM 12:9–10. See also n. 46 below. 46.  H. L. Ginsberg, “A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1 21,” JBL 57 (1938): 212 n. 14; and ANET 153 n. 34, following T. H. Gaster, “The Story of Aqhat,” SMSR 13 (1937): 49; see also UT 19.2488; and the njps p. 644, note d-d. For the issues with the etymology for the Ugaritic word proposed by Gaster and followed by Ginsberg, see Fred Renfroe, Arabic-Ugaritic Lexical Studies, ALASP 5 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1992), 146–47. Renfroe suggests that the Ugaritic word in this context may instead refer to a storm or tempest (cognate with BH sʿr). 47.  My view here is close to Freedman, Poetry, 270. See also the famous discussion of Talmon, most recently in his collected essays, Text and Canon, 280–87. 48.  Compare with the conclusion drawn from the relationship of 2  Sam 1:21 and the Ugaritic passage by Edward L. Greenstein, “Texts from Ugarit Solve Biblical Puzzles,” BAR 36/6 (2010): 52: “This verse was taken almost directly from Danel’s exclamation of grief over the death of his son in the Epic of Aqhat.” He (p. 70 n. 2) rightly disputes the translation “steppes of offerings” for the last line of the verse based on the Hebrew, but this is not the only possible understanding of the Hebrew, as I have rendered it here. In view of the difference in the Hebrew, it is arguable that direct dependence is not involved but, instead, a modification of a known topos of lament—a modification that does not require a particular genetic relationship between the two passages. 49. See Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . , 242–44.

488

Mark S. Smith

Achilles himself, its original owner (18.130–33). In due course, Achilles slays the slayer of his beloved friend (22.326–30), by thrusting a spear through the one point unprotected by the armor (22.2324). 50 The weapons of Saul and Jonathan in 2 Samuel 1 poignantly draw the audience’s attention to these figures: the shields including Saul’s “there” (šām) after battle in v. 22; and the bow of Jonathan and sword of Saul presented in parallel terms as fiercely engaged in battle in v. 23. Stanley Gevirtz, I think, got the point right in suggesting, “Saul and Jonathan are themselves the perished instruments of war.” 51 Insofar as the weapons in v.  21a reflect the situation of their wielders, 52 “those objects that are in closest contact with their owners become, as it were, ‘extra-somatic body parts’.” 53 This is the force of the wordplay in v. 21, that the shield ungreased with oil (bĕlî māšîaḥ baššemen) evokes Saul’s status as the Lord’s “anointed,” the traditional title for the monarch. 54 King Saul, like his weapon, is anointed no more. These shields of defeat, strewn on the battlefield, contrast with shields of victory that would hang in public view as testimony of great victory. Such hanging shields on tower walls are a sign of Tyre’s military strength in Ezek 27:11 (see also v. 10), a thousand shields adorning the Tower of David serve as an analogy for the woman’s beauty in Song 4:4, and small shields are said to decorate the front of the rededicated temple in 1 Macc 4:57. 55 The description of the warriors in v. 23 captures not only the effect of the slain on those who lament. The term “beloved” conveys something of the bond among warriors, while *nʿm conveys something of the leader’s physical attractiveness and appeal (perhaps given the male warrior context, “beefy” may be preferable to “lovely” or even “handsome”). 56 While a variety of translations have been suggested, the use of Akkadian damqu as applied to Enkidu 50. For weapons identified with their warrior owners, see Hans van Wees, “Heroes, Knights and Nutters: Warrior Mentality in Homer,” in Battle in Antiquity, ed. Alan B. Lloyd (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2009), 32–33. 51.  Gevirtz, Patterns, 95. 52. See the description in the New Kingdom Papyrus Anastasi I, “The Craft of the Scribe” (COS 3.12): “Your leather armor has fallen on the ground: it is buried in the sand and has become part of the barren land.” The same notion has been noted for warriors in the Iliad—for example, Diomedes (5.181–83; see Benardete, Achilles and Hector, 42–43). 53. Fernando Santos-Granero, “Introduction,” in The Occult Life of Things: Native Amazonian Theories of Materiality and Personhood, ed. Fernando Santos-Granero (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2009) 14. 54.  For a recent survey, see Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008). 55.  For this information, see Marvin H. Pope, Song of Songs, AB 7C (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977), 468. Note also the dedication of the shield of metal in KTU 1.123.2; cf. the dedication of the armor in the shrine of Apollo in Iliad 7.83. 56.  I thank Corrine Carvalho for this suggestion.

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

489

in Gilgamesh SBV I 207 seems to capture the leader’s magnetic appeal: “You are handsome, Enkidu, you are just like a god” ([dam]-⸢qa-ta den⸣–ki-dù ki-i ili(dinger) ta-ba-áš-ši). 57 The attractive image of the warriors combined with the comparison with lions also appears in the Egyptian Satirical letter: “You slay like a lion, O wondrous warrior” (abata kama ir mahir neʿam). 58 The motif appears also in Iliad 7.256. 1 Chr 12:9 is also germane, because it combines the image of the lion with the swiftness of the gazelle for the Gadite warriors who withdrew with David to the wilderness, said to be “valiant men, armed with shield and spear, and they had the appearance of lions and gazelles upon the mountains.” The image of warriors as lions is a common motif in the Iliad (e.g., 5.299; 10.297; 11.129, 173; 12.42, 292–93). 59 The aspect of the poem that has perhaps garnered the most attention involves the relationship of David and Jonathan as expressed in v. 26. As Saul Olyan has stressed, 60 David’s invocation of Jonathan as “brother” may well echo treaty practice where this sort of language was common, but it seems to do more in this context, especially given the reference to “love of women” here. In gender terms, the male human-to-human bonding of David and Jonathan may in part emblemize the exclusion of females, reflected in Aqhat’s famous retort to Anat (KTU 1.17 VI 39–41): “Bows are .  .  . warriors; now shall womanhood go hunting?” In this statement, Aqhat asserts the gendered understanding of warrior culture. So Hector refers to “a woman who knows not the deeds of war” (Iliad 7.236). The world of human warriors is considered a male world, and for warriors within that world, the bond may be experienced as stronger than the 57.  So A. R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic: Introduction, Critical Edition, and Cuneiform Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 550, 551; and for the evidence for the reconstruction based on the parallel text from Boghazköy, MB Bogh1 Fragment a, 1, see George 2.799 note to 207. 58.  ANET 477. For n⸗ʿ⸗mu here, see James E. Hoch, Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994) 181, #244. For ma⸗ha⸗-r here, see ibid., 147, #190; and Jeffrey Zorn, “LU.PA-MAḪA-A in EA 162.74 and the Role of the Mhr in Egypt and Ugarit,” JNES 50 (1992): 129–38. The first part of the phrase is more problematic. 59.  See the motif by Christos Tsagalis, The Oral Palimpsest: Exploring Intertextuality in the Homeric Epics, Hellenic Studies 29 (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2008), 155–61. 60. Saul Olyan, “‘Surpassing the Love of Women’: Another Look at 2  Samuel 1:26 and the Relationship of David and Jonathan,” in Authorizing Marriage? Canon, Tradition, and Critique in the Blessing of Same-Sex Unions, ed. Mark D. Jordan, with Mehan T. Sweeney and David M. Mellott; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), 7–16, 165–70, esp. pp. 10–16. See also Nihan, “David et Jonathan,” 328. The classic treatment of political “love” is by William L. Moran, “The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 25 (1963): 77–87. See also Susan Ackerman, “The Personal is Political: Covenantal and Affectionate Love (ʾĀHĒB, ʾAHĂBÂ) in the Hebrew Bible,” VT 52 (2002): 437–58; and Jacqueline E. Lapsley, “Feeling Our Way: Love for God in Deuteronomy,” CBQ 65 (2003): 350–69.

490

Mark S. Smith

sexual love between a man and a woman. This particular expression in v. 26, however, is not entirely common or traditional, by comparison with the warrior idioms noted for vv. 19–25. The difference is further telling, when examined in light of the poem’s composition, as examined in the next section. The Poetic Voice(s) of David In the prose tradition that precedes 2 Sam 1:19–27, this poem is represented as David’s response to the news of the fall of the king and his son, David’s beloved friend. This representation of the lament as David’s own has been accepted by a number of critics, such as P. Kyle McCarter: The composition of an elegy for Saul and Jonathan generations after their death would be pointless. It is difficult, then, to think of the origin of the present poem at a date long after the events described in the surrounding narrative. But is the attribution to David spurious? Again, probably not. The sentiments expressed in the lament correspond to those David held. . . . The highly personal declaration of grief over Jonathan’s death in vv. 25–26, moreover, would be out of place on any lips but David’s. 61

Since the time of McCarter’s Samuel commentary, there has been considerable skepticism about biblical representations, and this extends to the poem. 62 Indeed, many modern commentators would—and should—find ideological reasons for finding a poem of this sort on David’s lips, while other scholars are—and should be—suspicious of David’s character, more specifically that he is responding to the expectation of the context. 63 A public expression on the part of a major leader such as a David might well be expected to reflect con61.  McCarter, II Samuel, 78. 62.  For skepticism about the date of the poem, see Christophe Nihan, “David et Jonathan: Une ‘amitié héroïque’? Enquête littéraire et historique à travers les récits de 1–2 Samuel (1–2 Règnes),” in Le jeune héros: Recherches sur la formation et la diffusion d’un thème littéraire au Proche-Orient ancien. Actes du colloque organisé par les chaires d’Assyriologie et des Milieux bibliques du Collège de France, Paris, les 6 et 7 avril 2009, ed. Jean-Marie Durand, Thomas Römer, and Michael Langlois, OBO 250 (Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 328. 63.  See Steven L. McKenzie, King David: A Biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); and Baruch Halpern, David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). For an assessment, see David A. Bosworth, “Evaluating King David: Old Problems and Recent Scholarship,” CBQ 68 (2006): 191–210. Note also the strong rejection of the negative reconstruction of David in J. Randall Short, The Surprising Election and Confirmation of King David, Harvard Theological Studies 63 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010). For literary-critical treatments, see Jacques Vermeylen, La loi du plus fort: Histoire de la rédaction des récits davidiques de 1 Samuel à 1 Rois 2, BETL 154 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000); Klaus-Peter Adam, Saul und David in der judäischen Geschichtsschreibung: Studien zu 1 Samuel 16–2 Samuel 5, FAT 51 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); and Rachelle Gilmour, A Literary Analysis of Narrative Historiography in the Book of Samuel, VTSup 143 (Leiden: Brill, 2011).

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

491

cern about how he is perceived as being “heard” and “overheard,” to echo the phrases from a rather brilliant essay by Tod Linafelt. 64 Some scholars hear the expression of genuine loss, while others hear in this voice a larger public motive. For Steven Weitzman, it is a public relations effort to demonstrate David’s heartfelt emotion over the loss of Saul as evidence against his involvement in the king’s death, 65 while for Linafelt it is an implicit critique of Saul as king. In this approach, David’s lament is a cold self-promotion cast in hot emotion. Like Weitzman, Mark W. Hamilton recognizes the concerns of David’s own status in uttering this poem. Hamilton also highlights the differences between the poetry and the prose contexts, and he further suggests different purposes behind the poetic and prose accounts of Saul’s demise as well as the circles that produced them. 66 For Hamilton, the poem’s description of Saul’s death while battling is at odds with the description of Saul’s taking his own life in 1 Samuel 31. Accordingly, the literary traditions that preserve the poetic and prose accounts were originally independent of one another; the poem’s purpose is not a continuation of the prose’s or vice versa. 67 In Hamilton’s view, David’s “royal self-display” 68 in the poem offers praise of the dead king’s valor, and in doing so, the lament releases social anxiety over his death. 69 Both of these goals would serve David well in consolidating his kingship 70 and in claims for his dynasty, especially over and against Saul’s royal descendants. These studies as well as other scholarly analyses assume that the poem of 2  Sam 1:19–27 constitutes a literary unity, despite objections raised. 71 This presupposition often goes unexamined. The structure of the poem, as well as its shift in voice, points to a piece that may represent two voices: one is a public voice in vv. 19–25 (that may or may not be David’s), and the other is a reprise with a private voice in vv. 26–27 (that may or may not be David’s). At first glance, the reprise seems to represent the emotional expression of David. In terms of the use of warrior motifs, the poem’s context presents David as a warrior poet. In this understanding, the text would attest David’s poetic elegy over 64. Tod Linafelt, “Private Poetry and Public Eloquence in 2 Samuel 1:17–27: Hearing and Overhearing David’s Lament for Jonathan and Saul,” Journal of Religion 88 (2008): 497–526. See also Weitzman, “David’s Lament and the Poetics of Grief,” 341–60; and Paul Borgman, David, Saul, and God: Rediscovering an Ancient Story (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 154–57. 65.  Weitzman, “David’s Lament and the Poetics of Grief,” 341–60, esp. pp.  354–55. Weitzman also sees a larger literary function for the lament within 2 Samuel. 66.  Hamilton, The Body Royal: The Social Poetics of Kingship in Ancient Israel, BibInt 78 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 145–70, esp. pp. 153–59. 67.  Ibid., 156. 68.  Ibid., 157. 69.  Ibid., 158. 70. See Nihan, “David et Jonathan,” 328. 71.  For example, O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 470–71; and Edelman, “The Authenticity of 2 Sam 1:26,” 66–75.

492

Mark S. Smith

Saul and Jonathan. A picture of David of this sort recalls his singing role apparently with a lyre before King Saul, according to 1 Sam 18:10: “David would play by hand day by day” (we˘dāwîd me˘nagge¯n be˘yādô ke˘yôm be˘yôm). This is hardly incongruous for a warrior. In this connection, we may note the song of Achilles before Patroklos, in Iliad 9.185–192, witnessed by the legation sent by Agamemnon and headed by Phoenix and Odysseus: Now they came beside the shelters and ships of the Myrmidons And they found Achilles delighting in his heart in a lyre, clear-sounding, Splendid and carefully wrought, with a bridge of silver upon it, Which he won out of the spoils when he ruined Eëtion’s city. With this he was pleasuring his heart, and singing of men’s fame, as Patroklos was sitting over against him, alone, in silence, watching Aiakides and the time he would leave off singing. 72

Warriors at song were hardly peripheral to warrior interaction. On the contrary: in these cases, a song is represented in association with two of the greatest of warrior figures, David and Achilles. At the same time, this is a persona for David that belongs to the prose context, and it is one that may overread—and perhaps overwrite—the dynamics within the poem as a single voice. How does this poem work? On the one hand, vv. 19–25 read as a neatly composed elegy with a tight chiastic structure, as seen in the following diagram: A: Opening invocation of Saul and the “warriors fallen” (v. 19, parallel to v. 25) B: Instructions about Philistine women rejoicing (v. 20, inverse to v. 24) C: Central section of lament (vv. 20–23) Bʹ: Instructions to Israelite women to weep (v. 24, inverse to v. 20) Aʹ: Closing invocation of Jonathan and the “warriors fallen” (v. 25, parallel to v. 19)

In this reading of 1 Sam 1:19–27, the public voice of vv. 19–25 would begin and end with the units containing ʾêk nāpĕlû gibbôrîm, in vv. 19 and 25. Inside vv. 19 and 25, vv. 20 and 24 are balanced by the address to “daughters” (bĕnôt). This noun, bĕnôt, is echoed in sound in the outside frame by the word “heights,” *bāmôt (vv. 19, 25), and perhaps in the central lament section by “lofty,” tĕrûmōt (v. 21), and “in death,” *bĕmôt (v. 23). The poem of vv. 19–25 offers a breathtaking progression, taking the audience back through time to the battle and then returns to the audience’s present. It begins with the final state of the heroes’ death (v. 19) and the instructions not to relate this news (v. 20), back to the site of battle in Gilboa (v. 21), then to the battlefield itself strewn with the ruined weapons remaining from the conflict (v. 22) and the heroes praised for their fighting prowess (v. 23). The descrip72.  Translation of Richard Lattimore, The Iliad of Homer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 203. For cases in the Odyssey, see Charles Segal, Singers, Heroes, and Gods in the Odyssey (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994).

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

493

tion of the weapons (vv. 21–23), themselves representing their wielders, Saul and Jonathan, evoke the scene of battle. At the center is a picture of father and son, who are “inseparable” in life and death. The shield (v. 21) together with the bow and the sword (v. 22) conjure up a picture of twin heroes, there at the front lines, there in the midst of the battle now silent, perhaps there at what Song 7:2 calls “dance of the two camps.” The shield and the sword in particular evoke the dramatic moment of the two warrior heroes fighting and falling at the front lines. After this point, at the end of v. 23, the audience is led back to the present, through instructions to the women (v. 24) and another invocation of the fallen warriors (v. 25). The two instances of the line “how the warriors have fallen” in vv.  19 and 25 form an inclusion showing what Shemaryahu Talmon calls “distant inverted parallelism.” 73 They frame the beautiful chiastic construction of vv. 19–25. In this reading, these verses enshrine a lament addressed in a public manner to Israel and the daughters of Israel. This is a voice projected publicly, one that describes both Saul and Jonathan. Verse 26 shows a shift in voice. It is not an evocative description like vv. 19–25, and it is not addressed to a public. Rather, it is an invocation, a very personal invocation, addressed to one of the fallen, namely Jonathan, and not to Saul. In context, it follows the public voice of vv. 19–25, but it represents a private voice once again “overheard” (again to echo Linafelt). This distinctive first-person voice comes to the fore only in v. 26, using the phrase “to me” (lî) three times, along with the first-person suffix on “brother.” 74 It is a personal lamenting voice (cf. ṣar lî in 2 Sam 24:14 // 1 Chr 21:13; Pss 31:10, 59:17, 69:18, 102:3; Lam 1:20; cf. Ps 66:14). It is reminiscent of Gilgamesh’s firstperson voice in his lament for Enkidu in SBV X 132–33//233–34 (cf. SBV X 245–46): “my friend, whom I love so deeply, who with me went through every danger.” The singular address to Jonathan is quite pronounced, with the second-singular forms of various sorts used four times in this verse. This is a first-person-singular voice locked in lament over a second-singular intimate. Such singular devotion to Jonathan is what an audience might expect of David. The personal voice of David in v.  26 also includes the famous gendermarked line of v.  26 noted above: “O Jonathan, you were so lovely to me./ Wondrous (nplʾth) was your love for me,/ Greater than the love of women.” 75 73.  Talmon, Text and Canon, 63–64. 74.  Compare Prov 18:24: “There is a friend (lit., one who loves) who is closer (lit., clings more) than a brother.” See Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 169. 75.  For recent discussions, see Susan Ackerman, When Heroes Love: The Ambiguity of Eros in the Stories of Gilgamesh and David (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); and the review of Jean-Fabrice Nardelli in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2007.10.46 (http:// ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/2007/2007-10-46.html. Nardelli has written his own book on the subject entitled Homosexuality and Liminality in Gilgamesh and Samuel (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 2007).

494

Mark S. Smith

For this expression, I would compare the analysis of Gilgamesh and Enkidu by Tikva Frymer-Kensky: “The gods’ solution to Gilgamesh’s arrogance indicates a cultural sense that the truest bonding possible is between two members of the same gender. The true equality that leads to great bonding is between male and male. The closeness of same-sex bonding holds true for females.” 76 Susan Ackerman comments on the verse in similar terms: “I would interpret David’s words in 2  Samuel 1:26 to mean that David perceived Jonathan to have loved him in a way analogous to the sexual-emotional way in which a woman (Michal, say) would love a man and to imply that David returned that love, finding it to be something ‘wonderful.’” 77 Somewhat like Achilles’ lamenting the dead Patroklos in Iliad XIX or Gilgamesh’s mourning Enkidu in SBV tablet VIII, David’s personal voice here builds on traditional formulary and is vibrant with emotion for his fallen beloved. 78 This reuse may be seen in how the reprise with its “I-voice” in vv. 26– 27 echoes the lament of vv. 19–25, with some rather brilliant turns. Perhaps most cleverly and certainly with powerful affective force, the term used for the comparison of “love”—namely, “wonderful” (nplʾth)—brilliantly echoes the recurring expression of the heroes as “fallen (*npl). The roots *nʿm and *ʾhb in vv. 26 echo their use in v. 23. The voice here personalizes what this lovely and beloved of v. 26 means to the speaker personally, “to me.” This voice laments the one who has fallen as the most wonderful to the speaker. David’s voice in v. 27 echoes the inclusion element “how the mighty have fallen” in vv. 19 and 25. Verse 27 closes the poem by recalling the perishing of the weapons that had been named in vv. 21 and 22. The picture of the single man lamenting over Jonathan in vv. 26–27 offers a rhetorical counterpart to the collective of women who would weep over Saul in v. 24. It also seems to offer a counterclaim to the representation of Saul and Jonathan in vv. 19–25: where these verses represent the father and son as inseparable in life and death, vv. 26–27 represent David as the figure no less—and arguably more—deeply tied to Jonathan. These differences between vv.  19–25 and vv.  26–27 are striking. Verses 19–25 provide a more formal or public lament of David directed to the wider community, as suggested by the addressees in vv. 20 and 24. With v. 26, the poetic David in a sense turns aside (cf. Gen 42:24) and offers his own personal 76.  See Tikva Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of the Goddesses: Women, Culture, and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth (New York: Free Press, 1992). 30. 77.  Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 192. In the case of David and Jonathan, Ackerman goes on to suggest, “David and Jonathan were in fact imagined to be same-sex partners by the Samuel narratives” (p. 194). While this could be so, the broader question about the sexual relations among these male pairings lies largely beyond reach. Her characterization of this relationship as “sexual-emotional” is drawing on Olyan’s article (in a prepublication version), “Surpassing the Love of Women,” 7–16. 78. See Ackerman, When Heroes Love, 189. Note also the acts of lamentation, including weeping, upon receiving the news, in 2 Sam 1:11–12.

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

495

expression, addressing the particular one of the two royals whom he loves. Thus the poem would contain both the public face of David along with his private moment of grief. 79 Both are voices that the figure permits, perhaps even desires, to have “heard” and “overheard.” There is another possibility, albeit a speculative possibility, that deserves a hearing: it is only after an anonymous lament in vv. 19–25 that David’s represented voice (not necessarily the “historical David’s”) begins. 80 Verse 26 shows a powerful shift in voice addressed to Jonathan alone, unlike vv. 19–25 which are devoted to both Saul and Jonathan. One might doubt that, coming from David, such a strong shift from both Saul and Jonathan to Jonathan alone could be possible. Although this could represent a shift from a public voice to the private voice of a represented David, as discussed above, it is also possible that vv. 26–27 represent David’s personal reprise; 81 perhaps it was added to this poem (or was added by another poet in his voice or name) as received or transmitted from those who had fought in the battle, survived it, and sung about it. Verses 19–25 may be a traditional lamentation pronounced earlier (cf. the lament at the burial of fallen leaders in 2 Sam 3:32–34). The additional reprise of David in vv. 26–27 perhaps compares with the lament for Patroklos in Iliad 19.315–337 by Achilles, who was not present when his comrade fell. 82 David was not there, while the voice of vv. 19–25 sounds like someone who was. This approach would solve a long-standing crux surrounding the distribution of the so-called “refrain,” which has been claimed for “how the mighty have fallen” in vv. 19, 25, and 27. 83 Commentators have noted that refrains usually take place after sections that are regularly rather well balanced in length (e.g., Psalms 42–43, with its refrain at 42:6, 12, and 43:5). Although there is 79.  This approach was suggested to me by Susan Niditch and discussed with other members of the Colloquium for Biblical Research at its meeting on 15 August 2010. I am grateful to Prof. Niditch and the other members of the colloquium. 80. Cf. Edelman, “The Authenticity of 2 Sam 1, 26,” 73: “I would suggest that v. 26, and possibly also v. 27, represents a secondary expansion of the original lament over Saul and Jonathan that was quoted in the Book of Jashar.” Edelman takes v. 26 “probably to be a literary creation by the biblical writer responsible for shaping the Saulide narratives.” At the same time, Edelman concedes: “[I]t is not impossible that David could have written the lament himself.” It is evident that the matter of the authorship of v. 26, much less the entirety of vv. 19–27, remains rather speculative, but it does not eviscerate the literary observations that Edelman has noted. 81.  This view is close to that of Hans J. Stoebe, Das zweite Buch Samuelis (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag, 1994) 96; discussed by Olyan, “Surpassing the Love of Women,” 168 n. 15. 82.  See Andrew Dalby, Rediscovering Homer: Inside the Origins of the Epic (New York: Norton, 2006), 12. See also Achilles’ speeches in Iliad 23.19–23, 43–53. Note also the poignant Iliad 23.54–107. Cf. Iliad 23:391 for the idea of the victorious warriors’ singing their victories as they return from battle. 83.  The problem was noted by Freedman, Poetry, 263.

496

Mark S. Smith

some variation in the use of refrains, 84 they exhibit “a highly developed sense of symmetry.” 85 Standard refrains in the psalms and other Hebrew poetry differ from what we see in 2 Sam 1:19–27. Refrains typically do not occur at the outset of a poem (see v. 19), nor do the stanzas between the refrains usually differ in length as vv. 20–24 and v. 26 do. With the so-called “refrain” appearing in the opening verse and with the lack of balance in the units that the alleged “refrain” would govern, the line “how the mighty have fallen” seems in fact to be no refrain. However, in the reading suggested by the structural observations offered above, the instances in vv. 19 and 25 would not be a “refrain” but an envelope or inclusion around the older lament, while the further use of the line in v. 27 would serve to tie the highly personal reprise to Jonathan in vv. 26–27 to the earlier poem of vv. 19–25. Diana V. Edelman puts the point about v. 27 in this way: “In its present placement, it serves as an inclusio framing the expansion introduced in v. 26.” 86 In this reading, Jonathan is invoked in v. 25c in a manner parallel to Saul in v. 19, providing a transition for David’s first-person invocation of Jonathan in the following v. 26. The traditional components of the lament in vv. 19–25 serve as the foundation for lamentation that then goes beyond the traditional in vv. 26–27. The emotional expression directed to the memory of Jonathan especially in v. 26, in a sense, builds on the traditional elements otherwise seen earlier in the poem. To summarize, the represented David’s voice may echo a traditional feature of warrior culture—namely, the circulation of songs for its fallen warriors, to which oral alterations or additions might be made as they circulated. The reprise may have been David’s represented response in receiving the news of the death of the heroes as expressed in 2 Sam 1:19–25. His own represented voice is added, perhaps as a claim to both his poetic talent 87 and his great attachment to one of the fallen heroes, not to mention the implicit claim to these heroes’ succession. This reading of the poem and its context could work with a theory of different stages in its production and transmission: the poem’s being produced in the aftermath of battle by an anonymous elegist; the poem’s circulation more broadly; and its reception and expansion in the represented voice of David, whether on David’s own part or on the part of later Davidic propa-

84.  See Paul R. Raabe, Psalm Structures: A Study of Psalms with Refrains, JSOTSup 104 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 164–66. 85.  Raabe (ibid., 165), commenting on the refrains found in Psalms 39, 42–43, 46, 49, 56, 57, 59, 67, 80, and 80. 86.  Edelman, “The Authenticity of 2 Sam 1, 26,” 74. 87.  I have been struck by male poetic competitions reported in later cultures. See the discussion of Heikki Palva, “Review of Nadia G. Yaqub, Pens, Swords, and the Springs of Art,” ZDPV 160 (2010): 185–88.

David’s Voice(s) in the Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19–27

497

ganda. 88 I could entertain the possibility that this poem is David’s own political propaganda, a poem that included some of his own feelings. The political heart is complex, and even the calculating political intention may be freighted with deep emotion. However, it is entirely possible that the “historical David” had nothing to do with this poem and that he never had the level of relationship with Jonathan as represented in this poem and in some of the prose passages in 1  Samuel. All of this could well be understood as largely the creation of monarchic political propaganda to lay claim to Saul’s kingship. This would seem to be a fitting setting for the poem, by comparison with some later period. Either way, the tenth century remains a viable setting for the poem, which as we have seen appears to draw on traditional warrior features going back to the Iron I period. This mode of poetic commemoration also seems to be an effective means for reaching a wide audience in Israelite society. The poem begins with wellknown elements in vv. 19–25 that would have resonated for an Israelite audience, and then in vv.  26–27 the poem leads that audience into the internal emotional world of the heroic speaker. The poetic commemoration serves not only to recall the past event and to make the audience feel its emotionally laden force. It also brings the audience into a new level of understanding of this past event and reveals the heart of its great hero. Whatever its political force or authenticity, the act of poetic commemoration marks a watershed in the representation of David, transformed from a successful warrior into a military leader who knows and feels devastating loss. This affective Davidic voice represented in vv. 26–27 indeed sounds more wonderful than the traditional voice of David in vv. 19–25. 88.  Compare with “Let the first one hear and te[ll it] to the later ones!” in “The Hunter,” in Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature, 3rd  ed. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 337

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

Claudia E. Suter Gudea of Lagash persists in being a fascinating figure. Whereas details of his reign remain tantalizingly scarce, his self-representation and posthumous veneration are better documented than for any other early Mesopotamian ruler. His reign fell between the two brief episodes of divine kingship in Mesopotamia. In contrast to Egypt, where divine kingship was the norm throughout its ancient history, only a few early Mesopotamian kings of the late third millennium b.c.e. wrote their names with the divine determinative and established cults to themselves. Piotr Michalowski and Irene Winter have recently argued that these cases were historically determined. 1 Raising the question of why divine kingship was such a fleeting phenomenon in Mesopotamia, Jerry Cooper muses: “[S]ince divine kingship cross-culturally seems to be the exception rather than the rule, there could well be some basic human cognitive resistance in pushing any living mortal fully into the category of the divine.” 2 Author’s note:  I am grateful to Piotr Michalowski for insightful comments on an earlier draft of this essay and for access to his unpublished work, and to the anonymous reader who commented on the manuscript draft. 1. Piotr Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A Short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Religion and Power: Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond, ed. N. Brisch (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008), 33–45; Irene J. Winter, “Touched by the Gods: Visual Evidence for the Divine Status of Rulers in the Ancient Near East,” in ibid., 75–101. In its most complete version, divine kingship was confined to some Akkad and Ur III dynasts. In both cases, it was the consolidator rather than the founder of the hegemony who introduced self-deification—Naramsin and Shulgi—and it sputtered out after as little as two generations, only to be mimicked by some epigones before dying out completely. As Dominique Charpin (“Chroniques bibliographiques 11,” RA 102 [2008]: 159) suggests, it would be worthwhile examining these “epigones” more closely. 2.  Jerrold S. Cooper, “Divine Kingship in Mesopotamia, a Fleeting Phenomenon,” in Religion and Power, ed. N. Brisch (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008), 264. Recent contributions on Egyptian kingship have downgraded the pharaoh’s image from a full god to a human who partakes of divinity: Paul J. Frandsen, “Aspects of Kingship in Ancient Egypt,” in ibid., 47–74; John Baines, “Ancient Egyptian Kingship: Official Forms, Rhetoric, Context,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Day (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 16–53.

499

500

Claudia E. Suter

After having been neglected for some time, the nature of kingship has resurfaced as a topic of research. 3 It is now generally agreed that Mesopotamian kingship was always sacred. Whether the king deified himself or not, he stood above humans and close to gods and always partook of some degree of divinity. Gebhard Selz, who makes a point about the inadequacy of a binary approach to the Mesopotamian mind, in which the boundaries between human and divine were fuzzy, concludes that all “3rd millennium Mesopotamian kings could have had—in varying degrees—divine status.” 4 In Cooper’s words, “[T]he king is not god but partakes of the divine, and is human, but without many of the limitations prototypical of the human being.” 5 In the already cited Oriental Institute Seminar on divine kingship, Selz and Winter touch upon Gudea: 6 while Selz situates his divine birth and his intimate relationship with his personal god within Lagashite tradition, Winter points out homologies between Gudea’s hymns and those of Shulgi of Ur, offerings to his statues, his divine election, his outstanding physical properties, and concludes that the behaviors (and beliefs?) associated with divine status accorded the royal person were de facto if not de jure maintained in the interim between the formally marked/deified rulers of Akkad and those of Ur in the neo-Sumerian period . . . even in a period of rhetorically emphasized piety on the part of the ruler and the absence of an explicit divine determinative, Gudea remains one shaped by the gods, with privileged access to the divine and the cultic observance, and so distinct from ordinary humans.

Although his work is concerned with imperial Assyria, Peter Machinist’s observations on kingship and divinity are particularly useful. Seeking a more flexible definition than the either-divine-or-human distinction, he suggests as a framework the dual function of the king as “both votary of the gods and venerated among his human subjects,” his being viewed as “the primary nexus between heaven and earth, a lynchpin that allows the two realms to communicate.” 7 Machinist perceives this duality as inherent in virtually every 3.  For half a century, Henri Frankfort (Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948]) remained the only in-depth study for Mesopotamia. Aside from the already cited Religion and Power, see Die Sakralität von Herrschaft: Herrschafts­legitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume, ed. F.-R. Erkens (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002); and ch. 2 in Text, Artifact, and Image: Revealing Ancient Israelite Religion, ed. G. M. Beckman and T. J. Lewis, BJS 346 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2006). 4.  Gebhard J. Selz, “The Divine Prototypes,” in Religion and Power, ed. N.  Brisch (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2008), 25. 5.  Cooper, “Divine Kingship,” 263. 6.  Selz, “Divine Prototypes,” 23–24; Winter, “Touched by the Gods,” 81–82. 7. Peter Machinist, “Kingship and Divinity in Imperial Assyria,” in Text, Artifact, and Image, ed. G. M. Beckman and T.  J. Lewis, BJS 346 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 2006), 186.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

501

tradition of human kingship and proposes that it is the degree of explicitness of divinity that “would vary with which of the two views is given greater emphasis and with how exclusively the king is conceived as nexus to heaven.” In this contribution, I examine Gudea’s kingship in more detail, both in verbal and visual media, with the aim of elucidating how and to what degree of explicitness suprahuman and godlike aspects were developed in the interval between the two episodes of divine kingship in Mesopotamia. This essay was meant to afford pleasure to Victor, with whom I conversed on Gudea many years ago when we both stayed in Philadelphia. Now, it must sadly be dedicated to his memory. Historical Context We know little about the political events and constellations of Gudea’s time and cannot even pin down precisely when he reigned; the chronology of the socalled Second Dynasty of Lagash remains unresolved. 8 It seems, however, that during this interval between two extraordinary hegemonies, Lagash thrived independently and played a more important role in southern Mesopotamia than the equally independent Ur and Uruk for most of the time. Guti kings from the Zagros Mountains controlled its northern neighbors Umma and Adab, while Puzur-Inshushinak established a short-lived hegemony in the neighboring Susiana and Iranian highlands and occupied for some time an area northwest of Nippur. 9 Under Gudea’s predecessor Ur-Baba, and especially under Gudea himself, Lagash’s sphere of influence seems to have extended beyond the state itself: while Ur-Baba installed one of his daughters in the prestigious office of the high priestess of Nanna in Ur (RIME 3/1.1.6.12–13), Gudea offered a basin made of dolerite to Enlil in Nippur (RIME 3/1.1.7.10), may have set up statues of himself not only in the state of Lagash but also in Nippur, Ur, and Uruk, 10 claimed victory over Elam (Statue B 6.64–69), and seems to have built 8. Walther Sallaberger, “Relative Chronologie von der frühdynastischen bis zur altba­ bylonischen Zeit,” in 2000 v. Chr. Politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Entwicklung im Zeichen einer Jahrtausendwende, ed. J.-W. Meyer and W. Sommerfeld (Berlin: Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 2004), 29–36; Remco de Maaijer, “Šulgi’s Jubilee: Where’s the Party?” in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2008), 49–50; Piotr Michalowski, “Networks of Authority and Power in Ur III Times,” in From the 21st Century bc to the 21st Century ad: Proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-Sumerian Studies Held in Madrid, July 22–24, 2010, ed. S. Garfinkle and M. Molina (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 169–205; Walther Sallaberger and Ingo Schrakamp, eds., Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean 3: History and Philology (Turnhout: Brepols, in press). 9.  Michalowski, “Networks of Authority,” 182–85. 10.  Statue fragments that are compatible with those of Gudea but remain unidentified include Gudea Statue T from Nippur’s Ekur; shaven heads with the patterned brimmed cap from Ur and Uruk (Eva A. Braun-Holzinger, Das Herrscherbild in Mesopotamien und Elam:

502

Claudia E. Suter

Figure 1.  Gudea Statue B, 93 cm high (reproduced courtesy of the Musée du Louvre).

a temple in the Iranian highlands. 11 His many statues made of Gulf stone bear witness to his access to long-distance trade, while his post­humous deification and veneration in Ur III Lagash bespeak a memorable reign. 12 Spätes 4. bis frühes 2. Jt. V. Chr., AOAT 342 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007], 112 n. 31 and 114 n. 37); and a fragment of the typical Gudea stool from Ur (Julian Reade, “Early Monuments in Gulf Stone from the British Museum,” ZA 92 [2002]: 286–87 with figs. 14–15). 11. Marie-Joseph Stève, “La tablette sumerienne de Šûštar (T. MK 203),” Akkadica 121 (2001): 5–21. The tablet’s origin is not beyond doubt, for which see Daniel T. Potts, “Adamšah, Kimaš and the Miners of Lagaš,” in Your Praise Is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black, ed. H. D. Baker et al. (London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 2010), 246–47. 12.  Claudia E. Suter, “Gudea of Lagash: Iconoclasm or Tooth of Time?” in Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond, ed. N. N. May (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2012), 61–63.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

503

Verbal Image Gudea uses only one title: ensi2 lagašaki. 13 This was the traditional royal title in the state of Lagash, used not only by all Lagash II rulers but also by their Early Dynastic predecessors. Without entering into the enduring debate on Sumerian royal titles, I find the conventional translations of ensi2 as “governor” or “city-ruler”—based on its use for province governors subject to Early Dynastic, Akkad, or Ur III hegemons or rulers of foreign states—misleading in reference to Lagashite rulers, since it diminishes their status. Michalowski and Cooper assert that the titles en, lugal, and ensi2 were just different local words for ruler used at Uruk, Ur, and Lagash, respectively. 14 Lagashite rulers used the title ensi2 lagašaki regardless of whether they were autonomous or dependent on an overlord. By persisting in using this title, Gudea most likely situated himself in the tradition of independent Lagashite rulers. He repeatedly evoked comparison in texts and images with powerful Early Dynastic predecessors as well as with hegemonic kings of Akkad. The ambiguous use of kalam in the Cylinder Inscriptions, which implicitly merges the state of Lagash with the Sumerian world, insinuates Lagash’s control over the latter. 15 Moreover, Girsu is stylized as the center of the then-known universe in accounts of Gudea’s import of precious materials for the construction and equipment of temples from all four directions of the wind (Statue B 5.28–6.63; CA 15.4–17.4). These texts obscure the historical situation by implying that there were no other seats of power, as though Gudea were a king of the “four corners (of the universe),” a title introduced by Naramsin of Akkad to celebrate the expansion of his realm and emulated by Iranian kings with hegemonic ambitions, such as Erridu-Pizir and Puzur-Inshushinak, and by Utuhegal of Uruk—all of whom were more or less contemporaries of Gudea. 16 The combination of his name with the Lagashite royal title identifies Gudea as a historical person: aside from being an indispensable part of his building and dedicatory inscriptions, the title constitutes the owner inscription on his seal and also occurs as a caption on his images carved in stone, be they statues 13.  For Gudea’s inscriptions, see Dietz O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, RIME 3/1 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1997). I use the sigla CA/CB for the Cylinder Inscriptions and the common lettering for the statues. 14. Piotr Michalowski, “A Man Called Enmebaragesi,” in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien: Festschrift für Claus Wilcke, ed. W. Sallaberger, K. Volk, and A. Zgoll (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003), 202–5; idem, “The Mortal Kings,” 33; Cooper, “Divine Kingship,” 261 n. 1. 15.  Claudia E. Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building: The Representation of an Early Mesopotamian Ruler in Text and Image, CM 17 (Groningen: Styx, 2000), 116–17. 16.  For Erridu-Pizir, see RIME 2.2.1–3; and Andrew George, “Erridupizir’s Triumph and Old Akkadian saʾpum ‘Foot’,” in Akkade Is King: A Collection of Papers by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz, ed. G. Barjamovic et al. (Leiden: NINO, 2011), 139–41; for Puzur-Inshushinak, Ignace J. Gelb and Burkhart Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr, FAOS 7 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1990), 333–34, Elam 8:7–13; for Utuhegal, RIME 2.13.6.4.

504

Claudia E. Suter

Figure 2.  Gudea Statue N, 62 cm high (reproduced courtesy of the Musée du Louvre).

or figures in relief that formed part of visual narratives. 17 In the abbreviated version (d)gu3-de2-a ensi2, it is found in Ur III administrative texts mentioning the deceased Gudea. Gudea’s preoccupation with eternal fame finds expression not only in curses intended to prevent the obliteration of his name from his monuments, especially statues, 18 but also in the evocative epithet “one of eter17.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 39, 47 and 49, 54 fig. 9, and 165. 18.  Statue B 8.8–9; C 4.8; I 4.6–7; K 3′.1ʹ–2′. Erasing the written name was one of the most common offenses against which curses were used to protect royal monuments; see Karen Radner, Die Macht des Namens: Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung,

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

505

nal name” 19 and in the divine blessing addressed to him probably by the chief of the Sumerian pantheon: “May your name extend from south to north!” 20 We know Gudea primarily as temple builder. Practically all of his monuments deal with temple building in one way or another. It is not surprising, therefore, that a frequent epithet, which occurs in varying formulations throughout his inscriptions, from short factual building inscriptions over elaborate statue inscriptions to the poetic Cylinder Inscriptions, characterizes him as temple builder. 21 Since temple building was a royal prerogative that required divine sanction, this epithet situated Gudea beyond humans and close to gods. Gudea’s name—“the one who is/was called”—is original and may well be a throne name. 22 It must have evoked his divine election, which is so well attested in his inscriptions. In fact, in the Cylinder Inscriptions, a generic Lagashite ruler is once referred to as sipa dnin-gir2-su-ke4 gu3-de2-a, “shepherd called by Ningirsu” (CB 6.17). There can be no doubt that the wording of this generic ruler was a pun on “Gudea,” because the most detailed passage with regard to his divine election in Statue B states that Ningirsu had chosen him “as the legitimate shepherd of the land.” 23 Moreover, “the shepherd” is one of the referents of Gudea in the Cylinder Inscriptions, apart from his name and his title. Sumerian royal inscriptions and hymns employ a large number of stereotype epithets and stock sentences that recount the king’s election and investiture by the gods and often also include his divine parentage. 24 These topoi of royal rhetoric with the aim of legitimizing the king’s power go back to Early Dynastic times, when they are particularly well attested in Lagash. Just as the Gudea corpus can be considered the foundation for the Ur III and Isin literary style, 25 Gudea himself drew on his Early Dynastic predecessors, especially the powerful Eannatum, as Horst Steible pointed out. 26 One should add, however, SANTAG 8 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 252–66. On Gudea’s preoccupation with eternal fame, see also below. 19.  Statue B 2.5 = C 2.5 = D 1.8: mu gil-sa. 20.  CB 24.2: sig-ta nim-še3 [m]u-zu he2-gal2. 21.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 41–42; 105. 22.  Ibid., 103–4. 23.  Statue B 3.6–11: dnin-gir2-su-ke4 . . . gu3-de2-a sipa zi-še3 kalam-ma ba-ni-pa3-da-a. In abbreviated form, the same message occurs twice as an epithet (Statue B 2.8–9 = D 1.11– 12): sipa ša3-ge-pa3-da dnin-gir2-su-ka-ke4. 24. Esther Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition, OBO 166 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 46–51. 25. Jacob Klein, “From Gudea to Šulgi: Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literary Tradition,” in DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et  al. (Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989), 289–301; Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma, 44. 26. Horst Steible, “Legitimation von Herrschaft im Mesopotamien des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr.,” in Moral und Recht im Diskurs der Moderne: Zur Legitimation gesellschaftlicher Ordnung, ed. G. N. Dux (Opladen: Leske & Budrich, 2001), 67–91.

506

Claudia E. Suter

that, in contrast to Eannatum, who invokes the top of the Sumerian pantheon in addition to Lagashite deities, the deities that Gudea invokes for his legitimacy are largely confined to the Lagashite pantheon; 27 only twice does he link himself to Enlil, and this is in a serving role. One of the longest enumerations of such epithets in hierarchic order of the mentioned deities is the following passage in the colossal Statue D (1.5–2.5): gu3-de2-a, ensi2, lagašaki mu gil-sa ma2-gid2, den-lil2-la2 sipa ša3-ge pa3-da, dnin-gir2-su-ka-ke4 agrig kal-ga, dnan-še-ke4 lu2 inim-ma še3-ga, dba-ba6-ke4 dumu tu-da, dga2-tum3-du10-ke4 nam-nir-gal2 gidri maḫ sum-ma ig-alim-ka-ke4 zi-ša3-gal2-la šu dagal du11-ga, d šul-ša3-ga-na-ka-ke4 lu2 si-sa2, uru-ni ki-ag2-e d

Gudea, the ruler of Lagash, The one of eternal name, The one who tows Enlil’s barge, Shepherd whom Ningirsu chose in his heart, Strong steward of Nanshe, The man to whom Baba keeps her word, The child to whom Gatumdu gave birth, To whom Igalim gave authority and a supreme scepter, Whom Shulshaga abundantly provided with breath of life, The straightforward man whom his city loves.

In addition to describing himself as a minion of deities, Gudea claims several divine parents. 28 The two mother goddesses that appear as birth mothers link him to two dynastic traditions: Gatumdu to his Lagashite predecessors and Ninsun to the mythic kings of Uruk, which he may have controlled before Utuhegal rose to power. In contrast to the birth mothers, Nanshe and Ningishzida play active roles in Gudea’s more poetic inscriptions, which portray his sonship of these deities along the lines of an intimate relation with a superior. While Ningishzida was Gudea’s personal god, Nanshe linked him both to Lagash’s patron Ningirsu and to Enki, as whose sister or daughter, respectively, she is depicted. Enki further insinuated a link to the primeval city of Eridu; and Ningirsu, going one step further, also implied a link to the pan-Sumerian religious center Nippur, since he is repeatedly called Enlil’s son. Gudea’s divine parents thus related him both to major deities and to important cities of Sumer. Rather than adopting the personal deity of his father-in-law, Gudea introduced a new one, Ningishzida, whom his son adopted. Luděk Vacín sees in 27.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 41. 28.  For the references, see ibid., 104–5, 111–12.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

507

this an ambition to found his own dynasty. 29 Attested only sporadically before Gudea, Ningishzida was a relative newcomer to Lagash’s pantheon. While Gudea’s inscriptions make it seem as though he had introduced Ningishzida to Lagash, 30 the real novelty may have been that Gudea built a temple and established a cult for him. Dietz Edzard observed that Ningishzida’s welldocumented temple in Girsu contrasts with the case of Shulutul, personal god of Early Dynastic kings of Lagash, for whom not a single building or dedicatory inscription is attested; 31 the same applies to Ilaba, the personal god of the Akkad dynasty. Both Selz and Vacín argue that Gudea’s relationship with Ningishzida as portrayed in his inscriptions bordered on partial or virtual identity. 32 From this perspective, Gudea’s establishment of a temple and cult for his personal god may be understood as an implicit reference to his own divine status. Selz points out the conspicuous absence of the usual caption on the right shoulder of the statues that Gudea dedicated to Ningishzida (Statues I, P, and Q). The Temple of Ningishzida was in the palace area rather than the sacred district, where the temples of all major deities of Lagash were located, and may have been a sort of palace chapel. 33 Parallelisms exist not only between Gudea and his personal god but also between him and Lagash’s divine patron. Although the triad NingirsuNingishzida-Gudea occurs repeatedly in this hierarchic order, recalling presentation scenes in which Gudea is led by Ningishzida to an enthroned Ningirsu (fig. 3), the boundaries between ruler and gods can be blurred by crediting the same deed to all of them. The most poetic account of Eninnu’s construction and inauguration, for example, concludes its first part by crediting the building not only to Gudea, who is previously described as agent of the construction, but to the entire triad: “The House: its master (Ningirsu) built it in splendor; Ningishzida set it up on a pedestal; Gudea, the ruler of Lagash, marked its 29. Luděk Vacín, “Gudea and Ning̃ išzida: A Ruler and His God,” in U4 DU11-GA-NI SÁ MU-NI-IB-DU11: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Blahoslav Hruška (ed. L. Vacín; Dresden: ISLET, 2011), 270–72. 30.  Most telling is the seated Statue I dedicated to Ningishzida: it reports that Ningirsu gave Ningishzida a home and land in Girsu before accounting for Gudea’s construction of his temple, which, according to this inscription, postdated the construction of temples to all of the great gods of Lagash. 31.  Dietz O. Edzard, “Private Frömmigkeit in Sumer,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, ed. E. Matsushima (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1993), 204. Gudea’s predecessor, Ur-Baba, claims to have built a temple for his personal goddess Ninagal in two summary inscriptions (RIME 3/1.1.6.5 4:4–7; 6 3:8–11). Gudea seems to have followed this path, yet going much further than his father-in-law. 32.  Gebhard J. Selz, “Was bleibt? Der sogenannte ‘Totengeist’ und das Leben der Geschlechter,” in Timelines: Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak, ed. E. Czerny et al. (Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 92; Vacín, “Gudea and Ning̃ išzida,” 269. 33.  See my “Gudea of Lagash,” 69–70.

508

Claudia E. Suter

Figure 3.  Seal of Gudea, 2.7 cm high (after L. Delaporte, Catalogue des cylindres, ca­chets et pierres gravées de style oriental, vol. 1 [Paris: Musée du Louvre and Hachette, 1920], no. T.108).

perimeter.” 34 This statement may have been intended not only to bolster the chain of authority and, with it, the legitimacy of Gudea’s temple construction but also to assimilate ruler and gods. Furthermore, the accounts of the Baba or Bridewealth Festival, which Selz and Vacín present as evidence for the virtual identity of Gudea with his personal god, likened him to both Ningishzida and Ningirsu. The festival celebrated Baba’s wedding to Ningirsu as the high point in the cultic calendar of Lagash since Early Dynastic times. 35 An important part of the festivities was the delivery of the bridewealth to the bride’s house, which took the form of a procession. Bridewealth was usually supplied by the groom and delivered by his best friend. 36 Gudea Statues E and G account for Gudea’s increase of Baba’s bridewealth offerings when he built the temples for Ningirsu and Baba, enlisting all items with their original and new amounts (Statue E 5.1–7.21 = G 3.5–6.19). Both inscriptions mix this cultic level with a mythic level; while Statue E (7.22–8.15) continues to relate that Ningishzida delivered the bridewealth offerings, Statue G includes Gudea in the delivery by introducing the event as follows: “Ningirsu put together a bridewealth that rejoices the heart for Baba, the daughter of An, his beloved bride; his (Gudea’s) god Ningishzida 34.  CA 30.1–5: e2 lugal-bi ḫi-li-a i3-du3, dnin-ĝiš-zid-da-ke4, ki gal-la bi2-du3, gu3-de2-a ensi2 lagašaki-ke4, temen-bi mu-si. 35. Walther Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” in Mesopotamien Annäherungen 3: Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit, ed. P. Attinger and M. Wäfler, OBO 160/3 (Fribourg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999), 288–91; idem, “Neujahr(sfest), A. nach su­ merischen Quellen,” RlA 9.291, §3.3.­ 36. Samuel Greengus, “Bridewealth in Sumerian Sources,” HUCA 61 (1990): 25–88.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

509

followed behind it; Gudea, the ruler of Lagash, extended greetings from Girsu to the sacred city.” 37 By making his personal god into Ningirsu’s best man, Gudea moved himself closer to Lagash’s patron, and by participating in the procession, which probably corresponded to cultic reality, a partial identity of Gudea and Nin­ gishzida was achieved. The colossal Statue D, finally, summarizes the event in one sentence: “In it (Ningirsu’s Temple), he set out the bridewealth of Baba, his lady.” 38 On a cultic level, Gudea supplied the offerings, yet on a mythic level, this was Ningirsu’s task. One could argue that the unnamed agent is Ningirsu, yet the agent of the preceding and succeeding actions is clearly Gudea, plus Ningirsu would call Baba “his bride/wife” rather than “his lady.” As supplier of Baba’s bridewealth, Gudea is cast in Ningirsu’s role. The same intention is apparent elsewhere such as, for example, in the account of the revelation dream, in which Gudea repeatedly addresses Nanshe as “my Nanshe, sister in Sirara,” which is only a hair’s breadth away from calling her his sister and once alternates with “your (Ningirsu’s) sister, child born in Eridu.” 39 The tigi-hymn to Baba that recounts Gudea’s appointment by this goddess bears further witness to Gudea’s aim at linking himself to Ningirsu. 40 It repeatedly mentions sexual allure (hili), first with regard to Baba herself (lines 2, 6), then with regard to her relationship to both Gudea (lines 17, 21), whom she chooses for it, and Ningirsu (lines 28, 32), who presents her with a lavish offering table, possibly an allusion to the Bridewealth Festival. This hymn foreshadows Ur III and Isin royal hymns that describe the king’s intimate relationship with a goddess in much more explicit terms, and which overly inspired the fantasy of scholars. 41 The sexual component should not be overestimated; it was simply another facet of the king’s close relationship with the divine world. The ideological purpose of divine and “sacred” marriages was annu­ally to reestablish the mutual obligations between royals and gods in order to guarantee con­tinued prosperity. 37.  Statue G 2.1–16: nig2-mi2-us2-sa2, ša3 hul2-la, dnin-gir2-su-ke4, dba-ba6, dumu an-na, dam ki-ag2-ni, mu-na-ta-ak-ke4, dingir-ra-ni, dnin-giš-zi-da, egir-bi bi2-us2, gu3-de2-a, ensi2, lagašaki-ke4, gir2-suki-ta, uru ku3-še3, silim-ma im-da-be2. 38.  Statue D 2.13–3.2: ša3-ba nig2-mi2-us2-sa2, dba-ba6, nin-a-na-ke4, si ba-ni-sa2-sa2. This sentence occurs after Gudea recounts his construction of Ningirsu’s Temple and before he mentions his construction of Baba’s Temple. 39.  CA 2.2 = 2.18 = 3.27: dnanše nin9 dingir sirara6-ta-gu10; CA 2.16: nin9-zu dumu eriduki-ge tud-da. 40.  Gudea A = ETCSL 2.3.2. Although the hymn is preserved only on an Old Babylonian tablet from Nippur, I believe, as do William W. Hallo (“Royal Hymns and Mesopotamian Unity,” JCS 17 [1963]: 115) and Klein (“From Gudea to Šulgi,” 296), that it was composed under Gudea’s patronage. 41.  Jerrold S. Cooper, “Sex in the Temple,” in Tempel im Alten Orient, ed. K. Kaniuth et al., CDOG 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2013), 49–58.

510

Claudia E. Suter

Already in Early Dynastic times, ancestors received funerary offerings on the occasion of the Baba Festival, which was the most important cultic event of the year for the queen of Lagash. 42 In the later reign of Shulgi, it was specifically the deceased Gudea and his wife who received special offerings on this occasion, and some of these offerings came from the household of Baba’s ereš-dingir, who was none other than the current ruler’s wife. 43 Based on this evidence, together with the special relationships between Ur III queens and Inana and Ur III kings and Dumuzi, Sallaberger suggests that the ruler and his wife were the protagonists in annual festivals that celebrated divine weddings. 44 The sexual union of Baba and Ningirsu is evoked in the Cylinder Inscriptions, which describe Baba sweetening the sleeping place with Ningirsu (CB 17.1–3). 45 These lines follow a poetic description of Eninnu’s bed (CB 16.19– 20) in a metaphor-laden passage that apparently describes Ningirsu’s approval of Gudea’s previously presented gifts by taking possession of them. 46 Although Cylinder B recounts Eninnu’s inauguration rather than a New Year’s Festival, the former seems to be timed to coincide with the latter. While the statue in42. Walther Sallaberger, “Neujahr(sfest), nach sumerischen Quellen,” RlA 9/3–4.291– 94, esp. p. 291. 43.  On the funerary offerings, see idem, Der Kultische Kalender der Ur III Zeit, UAVA 7 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1993), 290–91; on the identity of the Baba priestess with the ruler’s wife, see my “Between Human and Divine: High Priestesses in Images from the Akkad to the Isin-Larsa Period,” in Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter, ed. M. Feldman and J. Cheng (Boston: Brill, 2007), 328, with documentation. 44.  Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit,” 155–56. Lagash celebrated not only Baba’s wedding to Ningirsu but also that of Nanshe to Hendursanga in Ningin, which also involved bridewealth (Sallaberger, “Neujahr[sfest],” 291–92). 45.  CB 16.19–17.3: na2-bi ki-na2-a gub-ba-bi, šilam(TUR3) ki-na2-ba du10 gar-ra-am3, bar ku3 u2 za2-gin3 ba-ra-ga-ba, ama dba-ba6 en dnin-gir2-su-da, ki-na2 mu-da-ab-du10-ge, “Its bed, standing in the bedroom, was a cow kneeling down in its sleeping place. On its pure surface spread (with) clean hay Mother Baba was sweetening the sleeping place with Lord Ningirsu.” 46.  Lines CB 16.3–17:16, which I previously took as being preparations for the ensuing banquet (Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 100), are better understood as belonging to the previous section concerning the presentation of gifts (CB 13.11–16.2). Gudea presents Ningirsu with a war chariot and weapons and with cult vessels (CB 13.11–14.18), corresponding to Ningirsu’s two principal roles as warrior of Enlil and Išib-priest of An (CA 9.20–10.14); part of the passage under discussion can be understood as describing him on his chariot (CB 16.5–18) and putting the cult vessels to use (CB 17.4–11). The above quoted lines (CB 16.19–17.3), which occur in between, can be related to the agricultural produce brought to the temple in a procession accompanied by music (CB 14.25–16.2) if the latter represents Baba’s bridewealth. In the cylinders, Baba’s role is confined to being Ningirsu’s wife: she enters the newly built Eninnu at her husband’s side (CB 5.10–15) and inhabits it with him (17.1–3); the only other action she performs is sprinkling the bricks to which Gatumdu gave birth (CA 20.19–20). Gudea built her quarters so that she would sweeten her dwelling place (CB 2.23–3.1), which she is described as doing with Ningirsu in CB 17.3.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

511

scriptions accounting for Baba’s bridewealth date this event to “New Year’s Day, the Festival of Baba, on which to make the bridewealth,” 47 an elaborate time indication in the Cylinder Inscriptions (CB 3.5–12) that is the only particular calendar date in the entire composition describes the fourth day of a new year and implies, together with other relative time indications, that Eninnu’s inauguration took place during the seven days of Girsu’s New Year Festival. 48 I suspect that this timing represents Gudea’s endeavor to integrate himself into the cultic calendar, which may have been responsible for the abovementioned offerings that he and his wife received in Ur III times. Further evidence for Gudea’s ambitions in this direction are the prescription of regular offerings to some of his statues in order to secure their cultic maintenance after his death, 49 and a passage from Statue B’s unusually long curse (Statue B 8.10–43), in which Jacob Klein sees Gudea’s “testament” and a direct prototype of Shulgi Hymn E. 50 This passage refers to several measures intended to transmit Gudea’s name so that he will attain eternal fame. At least some of them seem to relate to the Baba Festival: the “decree” (di-ku5) that Ningirsu addresses to Gudea on New Year’s may refer to the Cylinder Inscriptions, which recount at length the blessings that Gudea receives for building Eninnu, and/ or it may refer to the recurrent decree of destinies that was the main purpose of New Year festivals; his donations (nig2-ba) may refer to his increase of Baba’s bridewealth and/or offering funds for his statues and/or his inscribed dedicatory gifts in general; the collection of his songs (en3-du KA-keš2-ra2) must include the above-mentioned tigi to Baba, the praise song to Ningirsu (that is, the Cylinder Inscriptions), and possibly also the praise song to Nanshe (ETCSL 4.14.1); the festivals (eš3) set up in Ningirsu’s courtyard must refer to the occasions during which his songs would be regularly performed; 51 his “decree” (di-ku5) and his “word” (inim), finally, seem to sum up the list. 47.  Statue E 5.1–3 = Statue G 3.5–7: u4-za3-mu, ezen-dba-ba6, nig2-mi2-us2-sa2 ak-da. The term za3-mu marked the high point of the cultic year, which need not necessarily have coincided with the New Year (Sallaberger, “Neujahr[sfest],” §§1–2). Early Mesopotamian cultic calendars differed from place to place. According to administrative records, the Baba Festival took place in the 11th/12th months in Early Dynastic times and in the 8th month in Ur III times. Nevertheless, because of its etymology and meaning, it was a sort of New Year. The same applies to the Nanshe Festival in Nigin, which was celebrated in the 5th month and is referred to as za3-mu in the Hendursanga Hymn (ETCSL 4.6.1A 25–20). 48.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 117–18. 49.  Idem, “Gudea of Lagash,” 65–66. 50.  Klein, “From Gudea to Šulgi,” 294–299. 51. With Klein (“From Gudea to Šulgi,” 297 n. 51) and against Edzard (Gudea and His Dynasty, 37), I understand eš3 in Statue B 8.25, even if singular, to refer to festivals rather than chapels, since there was a connection between temple courtyards and the performance of cultic songs, and this connection is attested also for Gudea in CA 28.18; CB 10.9–15; CB 15.19–22.

512

Claudia E. Suter

As a corollary to the convergence of Eninnu’s inauguration with the Baba Festival, the ceremonies related in Cylinder B may well have been modeled on the ritual agenda of that festival. Several features have counterparts in New Year festivals: the agricultural produce brought in procession to the temple (CB 14.25–16.2) recalls the bridewealth procession; the induction of Ningirsu’s staff in the form of a parade (CB 6.11–12.25) recalls the annual review of staff as described, for example, in the Nanshe Hymn; the banquet during which the gods reward Gudea for the temple construction with blessings of prosperity and long life (CB 19.16–24.8) 52 recalls the gods’ decree of the king’s destiny on New Year festivals. All these events mix cultic and mythic levels or human and divine spheres with the aim of portraying the human ruler as the linchpin that allows the two realms to communicate; he thus becomes the primary nexus to heaven. An additional parallelism that likens Gudea to both Ningishzida and Ningirsu is their shared comparison with the rising sun. While in the dream in which Gudea receives the divine commission to build Eninnu, Ningishzida appears to him like the daylight that had risen on the horizon, 53 during the temple’s inauguration it is Gudea who appears to his city as the sun god rising on the horizon. 54 This image of Gudea occurs precisely after his successful induction of the gods into their new temple and before the banquet during which he will receive divine blessings in return. Moreover, it is followed by an image of his entering the temple like a bull with raised head, 55 which may have been intended to evoke the horned crown of deities, as Herbert Sauren suggested. 56 Ningirsu also is compared with the sun god or daylight: when he enters his newly built temple and when he accepts Gudea’s gifts. 57 Ur III to Old Babylonian royal inscriptions and hymns document much more explicitly the equation of the king with the sun god, which probably goes back to the selfdeified kings of Akkad, from whom Gudea is likely to have adopted it. 58 As Janice Polonsky convincingly demonstrated, the rising sun was a key image in royal ideology that not only underlined the king’s role as con­duit of the course

52.  For my understanding of this event, see Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 100–102. 53.  CA 5.20: u4-gin7 ki-ša-ra ma-ra-da-ra-ta-è. 54.  CB 18.12–13: uru-e dutu-gin7 ki-ša-ra im-ma-ta-a-è. 55.  CB 18.17: gu4-gin7 sag il2-la mu-ku4-ku4. 56. Herbert Sauren, “Die Königstheologie in der Kunst des 3. Jahrtausends,” OLP 13 (1982): 46. 57.  CB 5.9: dutu ki lagaša⟨ki⟩-e e2-am3; CB 16.8: u4-de3-eš2 im-e3. 58. Janice Polonsky, The Rise of the Sun God and the Determination of Destiny in Ancient Mesopotamia (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002), 471–529. While for the kings of Akkad the equation is attested only in texts that were written down in Old Babylonian or later times (pp. 504–5), Claudia Fischer (“Twilight of the Sun-God,” Iraq 44 [2002]: 125–34) sees it manifest in their visual images.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

513

of destiny for his subjects and thus primary nexus to heaven but also accorded him a divine status. Most translators of the cylinders understand CB 1.15, ensi2-ke4 dingir uru-na-ke4 ra2-zu im-ma-be2, as a direct reference to Gudea’s divinity: “The ruler, the god of his city, says a prayer.” 59 Their understanding, however, is influenced by epithets of hegemonic kings who emphasized their divinity to a higher degree than Gudea, such as using the phrase “god of Akkad,” “Lama of his city,” or “god of the land.” In my opinion, this line should be interpreted, with Thorkild Jacobsen, as “The ruler was going to say a plea to his city-god,” 60 since this is what Gudea is subsequently described as doing (CB 2.7–3.4). At the same time, I would not exclude an intentional ambiguity that would have allowed for an allusion to Gudea’s divinity. Visual Image Were there any visual attributes that corresponded to Gudea’s royal title? Archaeologists have time and again lamented the absence of regalia in royal images as opposed to literary texts, which associate a number of accoutrements with kingship: headgear, thrones, scepters, and sometimes also weapons and garb. 61 In her recent study of the early Mesopotamian royal image, Eva BraunHolzinger suggests understanding this regalia as tropes, due to their supposed absence of imagery. 62 To dismiss concrete objects as figures of speech, however, does not convince me. They must have existed in reality. A crown of gold (aga3 ku3-sig17), for example, is listed among the grave goods of a high priestess in an Ur III administrative text. 63 The crux can be resolved by taking into consideration both the definition of regalia in ancient Mesopotamia as opposed to modern perceptions and, since the presence of regalia can depend on context, the narrative or ritual context of the respective images: a standing image, for example, cannot include a throne. Characterization by using varying and not necessarily exclusive elements is typical for ancient Mesopotamia. Regalia comprised a fluid group of objects associated with kingship rather than a standard set, such as one might expect 59.  E.g., Adam Falkenstein and Wolfram von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (Zurich: Artemis, 1953), 166; Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty, 89; ETCSL 2.1.7. l. 892; Willem H. P. Römer, Die Zylinderinschriften von Gudea, AOAT 376 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 67. 60. Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), 426. 61.  See now Walther Sallaberger, “Den Göttern nahe—und fern den Menschen? Formen der Sakralität des altmesopotamischen Herrschers,” in Die Sakralität von Herrschaft: Herrschafts­legitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume, ed. F.-R. Erkens (Berlin: Aka­ demie Verlag, 2002), 87–88. 62.  Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, 196–97. 63.  UET 3 335: obv. 1, discussed by Walther Sallaberger, “Eine reiche Bestattung im neusumerischen Ur,” JCS 47 (1995): 15–19.

514

Claudia E. Suter

from a Western point of view, and it did not pertain exclusively to the earthly king but was also linked with kings and queens of the divine realm and with high priestesses, who were conceived as wives of gods. The shape was not standardized either but could change over time and vary with the identity of the wearer. Different-shaped headgear such as the horned crowns of gods, the brimmed caps of kings, and the headbands of high priestesses can all be viewed as the regalia of their wearers, since they were exclusive to their wearers. Three attributes were exclusive to Gudea in his time: a brimmed cap, his particular stool, and a palm branch. The brimmed cap became standard in Ur III times and continued to be the royal headgear into Old Babylonian times. 64 It is first attested for Gudea, although Braun-Holzinger points out that the headless statue of his father-in-law and three headless statuettes of PuzurInshushinak may also have had brimmed caps (since they are wearing the same robe as Gudea) and that the statue of Ishtup-El of Mari, who was more or less contemporary with them, wore a brimmed cap with a more flattened shape. 65 Whether the brimmed cap was an innovation of Gudea or not, his cap is patterned as opposed to the plain caps of Ishtup-El and later Mesopotamian kings (see fig. 2). 66 While Akkad and Ur III kings are always seen with their respective headgear, Gudea is depicted bareheaded before enthroned deities (fig. 3) and seems to wear his cap only when interacting with his subjects. 67 This im64.  Some scholars, including Braun-Holzinger (Herrscherbild, 111–15) and Rudolf H. Mayr (“The Figure of the Worshipper in the Presentation Scene,” in Garshana Studies, ed. D. I. Owen [Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2011]) contend that high officials also wore a brimmed cap after Ur III times. Their thesis, however, is based on less than a handful of seals, on which the identity of the presentee or the individual performing the libation is contestable; see my “Ur III Kings in Images: A Reappraisal,” in Your Praise Is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black, ed. H. D. Baker et al. (London: British Institute for the Study of Iraq, 2010), 338–39. The fact that a caption identifies the presentee as the seal owner on Turam-ili’s seal, which Mayr adduces in support, may in fact just prove the opposite: if the presentee always was the seal owner, then the out-of-the-ordinary caption would have been superfluous. 65.  Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, 113. Ishtup-El’s reign ended ca. eight years before the accession to the throne of Apil-Kin, who was a contemporary of Ur-Namma; on the chronology of the Shakkanakku period, see Pascal Butterlin, “Mari, les Šakkanakku et la crise de la fin du troisième millénaire,” in Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: Une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? ed. C. Kuzucuoǧlu and C. Marro (Paris: Boccard, 2007), 227–45. 66. A pattern, albeit different, is otherwise attested only for Iddi-Sin of Simurrum (Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, pl. 75). 67.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 255. Whether this applied also to his statues cannot be verified, since they were not found in situ, with the possible exception of Statue I, and because most of them are headless. It is interesting, however, that isolated Gudea-style heads occur with and without caps and that the Gudea statues that wear a cap, including Statue I, are the statuettes dedicated to either his personal god or that god’s consort, which stood in the palace area rather than in the temple district. The same applies also to the statuette of his son Ur-Ningirsu (Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, pl. 53).

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

515

plies that the cap signified his authority vis-à-vis his subjects and was indeed conceived as regalia. With the differentiated use of his headgear, Gudea may have harked back to Early Dynastic times, when kings appear bareheaded in ceremonial contexts. Gudea’s stool is attested in all the statues that depict him enthroned: Statues B, D, F, H, I, Q (see fig. 1). Its representation on two seals of Lu-Dumuzi, son of a steward of the deceased Gudea in the later Ur III period, corroborates that this particular stool was Gudea’s individual throne. 68 Kings of Akkad are seen sitting on a stool with a pattern that may have represented bound and stacked reed bundles, Ur III kings on a four-legged stool covered with a fleece. 69 Since the dynasties of Akkad and Ur III each had their own type of throne, Gudea’s introduction of a new type can be understood as another facet of his ambition to found a new dynasty or even as a claim to the same rank as these hegemonic kings. On three stele fragments, Gudea is seen holding a palm branch, which I have argued may represent his gidru, “scepter.” 70 In his inscriptions, Gudea receives the scepter from Igalim (Statue B 2.18–19 = D 1.19–2.1), son and bailiff of Ningirsu, who is described as being in charge of establishing justice as well as the royal throne and scepter (CB 6.11–23). From the Ur III period on, the icon corresponding to a scepter was the so-called rod and ring, which Kathryn Slanski derives from surveying tools used for laying straight lines and interprets as an icon for righteous kingship sanctified by the gods. 71 In royal images, these insignia are seen as being held out to kings by gods rather than as being in the kings’ possession because, as Slanski argues, justice and the tools for establishing it remained firmly in the hands of gods. Thus, if my interpretation of the palm branch is correct, Gudea was the only king who had himself depicted with a scepter. In addition to regalia, size revealed Gudea’s rank to be above other humans’. In visual narratives, he stands out by being depicted larger than other 68.  Claudia E. Suter, “The Divine Gudea on Ur III Seal Images,” in Beyond Hatti: A Tribute to Gary Beckman, ed. B. J. Collins and P. Michalowski (Atlanta: Lockwood, 2013), 309–24. 69.  The Old Akkadian royal stool is attested on a statue of Manishtusu and on an anonymous royal statue from Uruk (Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, pl. 40 Akk. 4, and 82 n. 17) and may be represented on the Scribe’s Seal from Tell Brak (Eppihimer, “Assembling King and State,” 376 with fig. 11), while the Ur III royal stool appears in glyptic from Shulgi onward; Ur-Namma sits on a chair with a back (Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, pl. 55). 70.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 291–92. 71.  Kathryn E. Slanski, “The Mesopotamian ‘Rod and Ring’: Icon of Righteous Kingship and Balance of Power between Palace and Temple,” in In Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein, ed. H. Crawford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 37–59. For the relevant Ur III images, see my “Ur III Kings in Images,” figs. 10–11, 14–15, 17, and 24–25.

516

Claudia E. Suter

humans. 72 To give the ruler prominence by means of size was a common practice from the time of the earliest known royal images in narrative contexts; good examples are the Uruk Vase, the Standard of Ur, Ur-Nanshe’s door plaques, Eannatum’s Stele of the Vultures, and, most pronounced, the victory stele of Naram-Sin. Furthermore, Gudea’s statues were generally larger than the statues of other individuals, who were mainly royal women. 73 Only the statues that he dedicated to his personal god and that god’s consort were less than life-size, whereas the majority were dedicated to major Lagashite deities and were approximately life-size; Statues D and U were even larger, a phenomenon well attested for kings of Akkad. 74 With regard to attire, Gudea is depicted in a fringed robe in all his public images, whether statue, relief, or seal (figs. 1–3, 5). 75 One should add that he is always shown in civilian contexts and never in military pursuits. Gudea never wears the flounced robe of deities that some self-deified kings are occasionally seen wearing—such as, for example, Naramsin on the Pir Hüseyin relief or Ur III kings on seals—and that high priestesses wear as a rule. 76 The posthumous image of Gudea in a flounced robe on Lu-Dumuzi’s last seal can be explained as a projection of his posthumous deification under the influence of Ur III royal imagery. Fringed robes originated in Old Akkadian times, when they were worn by high officials—such as, for example, Lugal-ushumgal, governor of Lagash under Naramsin and Sharkalisharri 77—and by royal women. By Ur III times, it not only clothed members of the elite but had also become the standard ceremonial robe of sacred and divine kings alike, and this remained so into Old Babylonian times. 78 I suspect that it was the Second Dynasty of 72.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 260. 73.  For a catalog of Lagash II statuary, see Eva A. Braun-Holzinger, Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit, HSAO 3 (Heidelberg: Orientverlag, 1991), 263–72, 299–300. An overview of the relative size of Gudea statues is given in my “Gudea of Lagash,” table 3.2 and pls. 2.1–2; for royal women, also see my “Between Human and Divine,” 333–34; and idem, “Who Are the Women in Mesopotamian Art from ca. 2334–1763 bce?” KASKAL 5 (2008): 7–11 with table 1. 74. Melissa Eppihimer, “Assembling King and State: The Statues of Manishtushu and the Consolidation of Akkadian Kingship,” AJA 114 (2010): 365–80. The largest Mesopotamian statue found so far is the damaged lower body of a standing statue made of Gulf stone that must have been 3 m high and may have come from Akkad; see Reade, “Early Monuments in Gulf Stone,” 263–69 with figs. 2–4. 75.  Suter, Gudea’s Temple Building, 57–70, 255. Only foundation figurines buried for future generations show a ruler in a workman’s short kilt, engaged in temple construction, with a basket on his head. 76.  On the latter, see my “Between Human and Divine,” 315–59. 77. Candida Felli, “Some Notes on the Akkadian Glyptic from Tell Brak,” in Excavations at Tell Brak 2: Nagar in the Third Millennium bc, ed. D. Oates et al.; London: British School for Archaeology in Iraq, 2001), figs. 75–79; for the interpretation of the seal image, see Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, 84 note 21. 78.  Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, 111–113.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

517

Lagash, Gudea in particular, who established the fringed robe as the ceremonial robe of kings. 79 Since this robe was not exclusive to kings, it may have reflected their human side. In reality, however, the king’s fringed robe was probably distinguished from that of his subjects by the use of the most precious fabrics and colors, distinctions that cannot be made out in images carved in stone. 80 Braun-Holzinger regards hairstyles and beards as the salient features that distinguished early Mesopotamian kings. 81 But this applies mainly to hegemonic kings who emphasized their godlikeness to a higher degree than others. Gudea is bareheaded and beardless, like most of his Early Dynastic predecessors, whom he may have intentionally followed in this respect. In sum, the patterned brimmed cap, the unique stool, and possibly also the palm branch composed Gudea’s exclusive regalia, which, together with his larger size, elevated him above other humans. While his throne and scepter remained unique, he was most likely responsible for establishing the brimmed cap and fringed robe as the king’s ceremonial garb for the next two centuries. Whereas regalia and size denoted Gudea’s suprahuman status, other attributes implied his nexus to heaven. The plan or drafting tablet on the lap of his seated Statues B and F indicated his role as temple builder, while the overflowing vase of statue N signified his reception of god-given prosperity (figs.  1–2). Both icons were introduced by Gudea, 82 who also introduced the foundation figurine in the shape of the basket carrier, another icon that conveyed the king’s personal involvement in temple construction. Like the king’s ceremonial garb, the basket carrier became standard for the next two centuries. Extended versions of the gods’ bestowal of prosperity on Gudea are depicted on his seal (fig. 3) and in the culminating scene of one of his steles, which doubtless served as a model for the top registers of the UrNamma Stele. Were there any features in Gudea’s images that evoked a divine status? Like other kings, Gudea claimed to be shaped by the gods not only through his 79.  Already the statue of Ur-Baba is dressed in a fringed robe. While Braun-Holzinger (Herrscherbild, 86) suspects that Naramsin introduced the fringed robe as a royal garb, I doubt that he would have represented himself in a robe looking like that of his high officials in view of the distinctive garments that he as well as other kings of Akkad are seen wearing in their surviving images. 80.  Texts inform us of the variety of fabrics and dyes used for garments; the color red, for example, was reserved for deities, kings and high priestesses; see Hartmut Waetzoldt, “Kleidung, Philologisch,” RlA 6 (1980–83), 19–21. 81.  Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, 195. 82.  A Gulf stone fragment of another statue that depicted a ruler with an overflowing vase comes from Tello and could  have belonged to Gudea as well, although one cannot exclude another late 3rd millennium ruler. The only other king seen holding an overflowing vase is the divine Shulgi on the seal of Utu-girgal (Braun-Holzinger, Herrscherbild, 117).

518

Claudia E. Suter

Figure 4.  Stele fragment of Gudea, 27 × 51 cm (drawing by author).

divine birth but also through god-given qualities such as physical strength and wisdom. Winter argues that these attributes were reflected in Gudea’s statues. 83 Even if plausible, her claim is difficult to substantiate due to the scarcity of nonroyal sculpture for comparison. From the Old Akkadian period on, monumental images became more and more a royal prerogative. Whether Gudea Statue R portrayed its donor Namhani or Gudea, to whose life it was dedicated, is difficult to answer, like the similar case of Shulgi-kiursagkalama. 84 The difference in build between Gudea and contemporary royal women is due to gender rather than to the divine status of the ruler versus other humans; no clear distinction is apparent, for example, in the sculpting of the ears, in which Winter sees Gudea’s god-given wisdom, based on the etymology of the Sumerian term. In terms of material and style, Gudea adopted features from both his local predecessors and the kings of Akkad. Although he is the first ruler consistently to mention the import of Gulf stone (na4esi) from Oman (kur ma2-ganki) in his statue inscriptions, the first to use this precious hard dark stone for their images in the round were late Early Dynastic rulers from Lagash. Kings of Akkad then made it into the material par excellence for royal images, both in the round and in relief, and Gudea’s father-in-law followed them in using it for his statue. 85 With regard to style, Gudea combined the sturdy, block-like appearance of his 83.  Irene J. Winter, “The Body of the Able Ruler: The Statues of Gudea,” in DUMU-E2DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. (Philadelphia: The University Museum, 1989), 573–84; idem, “Touched by the Gods,” 81–82. 84.  Suter, “Ur III Kings in Images,” 323. 85.  On Gulf stone, see Reade, “Early Monuments in Gulf Stone,” 258–95; for Early Dynastic statues made of this stone, see Gianni Marchesi and Nicolò Marchetti, Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia, MC 14 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), nos. 5, 8–9, 14, and 17–18.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

519

local predecessors with a portion of the naturalism of the kings of Akkad. The latter is evident, for example, in the well-articulated musculature of his exposed right arm. Rita Dolce—who stresses Gudea’s adopting from the kings of Akkad in order to reveal his between-the-lines agenda of propagating universal power—correctly observes that he did not adopt the latters’ heroism. 86 It would have been precisely hero-like traits, such as the exhibition of a partially nude body or an elaborate beard, that would have evoked god-likeness in images, as I have argued in the case of self-deified kings. 87 In addition, Gudea made a point of having his statues carved in stone rather than being made of the same materials as divine images, which self-deified kings did. Nevertheless, there also seem to be allusions to a certain degree of divinity in Gudea’s images. One candidate is a stele fragment that preserves parts of two large stools shaped like Gudea’s throne, yet with a lion head protruding from the side, together with part of a lion on a barrow (fig. 4). 88 Although the surface is damaged in the area of the lion protome, the relief is elevated, and the lion’s eyes and nozzle are clearly visible on the original. The stools and the lion sculpture are best explained as temple furniture in a scene that depicted their transport to the newly built temple. Since in Lagash the lion was associated with Ningirsu, the stools must have been intended for this god despite deviating from usual divine thrones. By depicting temple furniture for Ningirsu in the shape of his own particular stool rather than typical divine thrones, Gudea must have intended to liken Lagash’s divine patron to Lagash’s king. Another intriguing case is the door plaque that Gudea dedicated to Ningishzida (fig. 5). 89 It depicted his presentation to the now lost dedicatee. The figure leading Gudea by the hand has convincingly been interpreted as Ningishzida’s minister, Alla. He is slightly larger than the ruler, wears the flounced robe of deities, yet lacks the horned crown (principal marker of divinity) and deviates from the norm of representing gods also with respect to hairstyle: his scalp is shaven and he is beardless. As a result of Alla’s anomalous representation, god and ruler look alike. Braun-Holzinger called attention to three more images of Alla that exhibit the same anomalies: 90 two Ur III seal images from Tello and an unprovenienced statue identified by the following caption: dAl-la, lugal é kisal sukkal, d nin-giš-zi-da, “Alla, king of the courtyard, minister of Ningishzida” (fig. 6). Although the statue is decapitated, it must have followed the same pattern, 86. Rita Dolce, “Gudea di Lagash e il suo regno: Stato di grazia o stato di immunità?” SMEA 38 (1996): 8–12. 87.  Suter, “Ur III Kings in Images,” 319–49. 88.  Idem, Gudea’s Temple Building, no. ST.29. 89.  Ibid., no. DP.3. 90.  Eva A. Braun-Holzinger, “Der Bote des Ningišzida,” in Von Uruk nach Tuttul: Eine Festschrift für Eva Strommenger, ed. B. Hrouda et al.; Munich: Profil, 1992), 37–43.

520

Claudia E. Suter

Figure 5.  Door Plaque of Gudea, 42 × 36.5 cm (reproduced courtesy of the Musée du Louvre).

since it is beardless. Braun-Holzinger observes that all four images share a connection with Ningishzida and foreground Alla’s aspect as minister, which is attested only at this time. She suspects that they were confined to Lagash, because other ministers of Ningishida and similar snake gods elsewhere followed the standard depiction of gods. Since Gudea chose Ningishzida for his personal god and made him prominent in Lagash, I suspect that this case of anomalies was related to him in particular. The seals were probably modeled on the sculptures. The statue of Alla is one of the very few stone images of a deity, which were a rarity in Mesopotamia. Frans Wiggermann suggests that it once stood “in the ‘courtyard building’ of a temple of Ningišzida, ready to introduce visitors to his master.” 91 This must have been Ningišzida’s chapel in the palace 91.  Frans A. M. Wiggermann, “The Staff of Ninšubura: Studies in Babylonian Demonology II,” JEOL 29 (1987): 8.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

521

Figure 6.  Statue of the god Alla, ca. 100 cm high (after Winfried Orthmann, ed., Der Alte Orient, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 18 [Berlin: Propyläen, 1975], pl. 52). Reproduced courtesy of Winfried Orthmann.

area of Girsu. The statue cannot be dated with more precision than to Lagash II or Ur III times. There are several possible patrons: Gudea, because he built the temple and dedicated several objects in it, including statues of himself; the Ur III governor of Girsu, who was a namesake of Alla; the prime minister Arad-Nanna whose construction activity in this area is also evidenced in the archaeological record. Alla wears an archaic version of the flounced robe and holds the minister’s staff, just like another minister god on a stele of Gudea. The archaizing robe may have been intended to establish a link to the glorious Early Dynastic past of Lagash, which would be in line with Gudea. If Gudea was its patron, this statue would lend further support to my thesis that Gudea intended to liken himself to gods also in images. Conclusion Gudea was deified and venerated in Ur III times probably as a result of both his own striving for inclusion in the cultic calendar after his death and

522

Claudia E. Suter

of Lagash’s special status in the Ur III state. 92 While he may have aimed at posthumous deification, he did not explicitly claim it during his lifetime. In contrast to hegemonic and self-deified kings of Akkad and the Third Dynasty of Ur before and after him, Gudea neither used a hegemonic title nor wrote his name with the divine determinative, nor did he have godlike statues of himself fashioned or himself depicted in a divine stance, with a horned headgear, a divine beard, a heroic body or the occasional flounced robe that these kings flaunted to represent their divine status. Yet he alluded to hegemonic power and godlikeness in implicit ways. His pictorial self-representation emphasized his position beyond human and close to gods. Several regalia exclusive to him marked Gudea’s superior status in parallel to his title: his patterned brimmed cap, unique stool, and possibly also the palm branch. Moreover, in visual narratives his figure prevailed over other human figures in size, and most of his statues were considerably larger than those of other donors. Other attributes evoked his nexus to heaven: the plan or drafting tablet on his lap characterized him as divinely sanctioned temple builder in parallel to his temple builder epithet, and the overflowing vase in his hands encapsulated his reception of god-given prosperity in parallel to the various epithets that expressed his divine election and blessings. While the king’s outstanding size was traditional, the two over-life-size statues of Gulf stone and the introduction of new regalia and attributes followed strategies of the kings of Akkad, which can be viewed as an endeavor on the part of Gudea to evoke an equally powerful rank for himself. Hegemonic claims are implicit in Gudea’s more poetic inscriptions which blur the boundaries between Lagash and Sumer and stylize Girsu as the center of the universe, as if it were the only seat of power. These texts also imply a certain degree of divinity by claiming divine parentship on the one hand, and by assimilation to gods on the other. The latter is done by parallelism of actions in temple building, by mixing cultic and mythic levels in accounts of the New Year festival, and by the use of the same simile, the rising sun, for the ruler, his personal god, and his state’s divine patron. In visual images, Gudea’s godlikeness is similarly allusive—such as, for example, in the representation of temple furniture for Ningirsu that is shaped like his own particular stool rather than usual divine thrones, or in the out-of-the-ordinary depiction of a minor god that is evidently assimilated to Gudea’s image. In addition, Gudea’s establishment of a temple and cult for his personal god may be seen as a hidden form of his own worship. How exclusively was Gudea conceived as nexus to heaven? Members of the elite also had access to the divine world: royal women and high officials dedicated inscribed objects to the gods and could be depicted approaching a 92.  On the latter, see Michalowski, “Networks of Authority and Power in Ur III Times,” 188–96.

Gudea’s Kingship and Divinity

523

deity in a presentation scene on their seal image. 93 Yet this access was restricted and bound to conditions, in which Gudea obviously adopted policies of the kings of Akkad. Stone monuments, in particular steles depicting extended visual narratives that included scenes of the ruler interacting with deities, as well as life-size and over-life-size statues remained royal privileges. The same applies to temple building with all media used for building inscriptions and to the commission of songs to the gods that would incorporate the ruler into the cultic calendar. Moreover, donors of gifts to the gods other than the ruler had to include him in their wish for a long life in their dedicatory inscriptions, and high-rank owners of inscribed seals had to mention him as their superior in their seal inscriptions. In conclusion, Gudea’s self-portrait conveyed both suprahuman and godlike aspects in words and images, thus expressing his role as the linchpin that allowed the two realms to communicate. His nexus to heaven was to a high degree exclusive to him. He adopted topoi of his Early Dynastic predecessors as well as the hegemonic kings of Akkad, and introduced several new features, some of which became standard for the next two centuries. Although he never explicitly claimed deification, he alluded to a certain degree of divinity in perhaps more sophisticated ways than the self-deified kings before and after him. 93.  For dedicatory objects, see RIME 3/1.1.7.89–100; for seals, see the references in Fischer (“Gudea zwischen Tradition und Moderne,” BaghM 27 [1996]: 216 n.  3), who, however, questions the authenticity of the three original seals on rather far-fetched grounds.

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

Marvin A. Sweeney The book of Jeremiah is very well known in both Judaism and Christianity. 1 It presents the prophet’s oracles and accounts of his experiences during the last years of the Kingdom of Judah and the early period of the Babylonian Exile, when Judah suffered repeated invasions by the Babylonian Empire, saw the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple of Solomon in 587/6 b.c.e., and experienced the forced exile of King Jehoiachin, many of the leading citizens of Judah, and many of the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem to Babylonia, Egypt, and other locations in the ancient Near Eastern world. Jeremiah’s eschatological perspective comes to expression especially in relation to the great changes in Judean life brought about by the destruction of the homeland and the temple as well as the deaths and deportations of so many of the people, but it also appears in relation to Jeremiah’s expectations that Jerusalem, Israel/Judah, and the House of David will be restored once the 70-year period of exile comes to an end and that the people will observe Yhwh’s Torah. Jeremiah appears frequently in the Haphtarot or prophetic texts read together with the Torah as part of the synagogue worship service; 2 indeed, Jer 8:19–9:23 is the haphtarah reading for the Ninth of Av, the traditional day of mourning for the loss of the temple and other tragic events in Jewish history; Jer 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–28; 3:4 are read at the outset of the 10-week period of admonition and consolation prior to Rosh ha-Shanah or the Jewish New Year; and the scenario of restoration in Jer 31:2–20 appears as the haphtarah reading 1. For discussion of the interpretation of Jeremiah in Judaism and Christianity, see “Jeremiah,” EncJud 9.1345–61; A. J. Rosenberg, The Book of Jeremiah, 2  vols., Judaica Books of the Bible (New York: Judaica, 1985); Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 354; A. H. W. Curtis and T. Römer, eds., The Book of Jeremiah and Its Reception, BETL 128 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1997). For critical discussion and overviews of Jeremiah, see Jack R. Lundbom, “Jeremiah,” ABD 3.684–98; idem, “Jeremiah, Book of,” ABD 3.706–21; Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature, 85–125. 2.  See Michael Fishbane, Haftarot, JPS Bible Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002/5762), passim.

525

526

Marvin A. Sweeney

for the second day of Rosh ha-Shanah. Jeremiah is frequently cited in the New Testament: Jeremiah’s persecution and suffering provide an important model for the portrayal of Christ’s passion in the Gospel tradition, and Jeremiah’s concept of a “new covenant” provides the model for Christianity’s understanding of the New Testament—that is, New Covenant. The superscription of Jeremiah in Jer 1:1–3 identifies the book as “the words of Jeremiah ben Hilkiah, from the priests who were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin,” and it places his career during the 40-year period from the 13th year of King Josiah of Judah (ca. 627 b.c.e.) through the 11th year of King Zedekiah (ca. 587 b.c.e.), when Jerusalem went into exile. The “words of Jeremiah” include both the oracles of the prophet and extensive narrative accounts of events and experiences during his lifetime. Indeed, many interpreters suggest that the scribe, Baruch ben Neriah, who lent support and his professional skills to Jeremiah throughout the prophet’s career may have written much of the book. Readers must note that the 40-year span of time for Jeremiah’s prophetic activities mentioned in the superscription is hardly accurate, since the book portrays events long after the destruction of Jerusalem, such as the assassination of Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shapan, the Babylonian-appointed Judean governor of Judah in 582 b.c.e. and Jeremiah’s last oracles in Egypt following his removal from Judah by his supporters in the aftermath of the failed coup (see Jeremiah 41–45). Interpreters note that the 40-year chronology presented in Jer 1:1–3 deliberately contrasts Jeremiah with Moses. 3 Like Jeremiah, Moses was both priest and prophet. But whereas Moses’ 40-year career saw his leadership of the people as they left Egypt to enter into the promised land of Israel, Jeremiah presided over a 40-year period in which the people were exiled from the land of Israel, and Jeremiah himself eventually ended up as an exile in Egypt. Although the book of Jeremiah includes extensive prose materials, especially in Jeremiah 26–45, the book does not reflect the work of multiple prophets working over the course of several centuries, as is the case with Isaiah. Jeremiah does indeed reflect a lengthy and complicated history of composition, but the oracles and narratives of the book all presuppose the work and activities of the late-seventh/early-sixth-century prophet and priest Jeremiah ben Hilkiah, whether they present oracles from the prophet himself, oracles that develop or expand his perspectives, or narratives that present and reflect on the prophet, his times, and his views. An important complicating dimension of the history of the composition of the book of Jeremiah and the development of its eschatological perspectives is the existence of two discrete but interrelated versions of the book, the Hebrew Masoretic version (MT) of the book and the 3.  Christopher R. Seitz, “The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah,” ZAW 101 (1989): 3–27; idem, Theology in Conflict: Reactions to the Exile in the Book of Jeremiah, BZAW 176 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989), 222–35.

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

527

Greek Septuagint version (LXX), which in turn presupposes a Hebrew Vorlage that may well be represented by one fragmentary Hebrew manuscript of Jeremiah from Qumran (4QJerb). The LXX version of Jeremiah is approximately one-eighth shorter than the MT version of the book, and it reflects a different literary structure, in which the oracles concerning the nations from MT Jeremiah 46–51 appear in LXX Jer 25:14–31:14 immediately following Jer 25:13a. LXX Jeremiah then resumes with Jer 25:13b–45:5, which appears as LXX Jeremiah 32–51. The account of the fall of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 52 then concludes both versions of the book. Although it would be easy to presuppose that the shorter text of LXX Jeremiah is the earlier form of the book, scholars have concluded that each version of the book has developed independently from a presumed common text. Thus far, it is impossible to demonstrate the priority of one version over the other. 4 Scholars have generally relied on diachronic models concerning the postulated history of Jeremiah’s composition to explain the literary structure and theological outlook of the book. 5 In such models, Jeremiah 1–25, which most scholars identify as the basic collection of Jeremiah’s oracles, plays a foundational role as the first primary structural block of the book, followed by the narratives in Jeremiah 26–45, the oracles concerning the nations in Jeremiah 46–51, and the concluding narrative concerning the fall of Jerusalem in Jeremiah 52. Although such a model may be useful to explain the history of the book’s composition, it overlooks the role that the superscription (which identifies the book as “the words of Jeremiah . . .”) and the subsequent narrative examples of the prophetic word transmission formula (viz., haddābār ʾăšer hāyâ ʾel-yirmĕyāhû mēʾēt yhwh lēʾmōr, “the word which was unto Jeremiah from Yhwh, saying, . . .”) play in defining the literary structure of the book as a sequence of “words” from Yhwh to Jeremiah. These formulas therefore play the key role in presenting each version of the book of Jeremiah according to its own distinctive literary structure and theological perspective. 6 4. For discussion of the LXX and Qumran versions of the book of Jeremiah, see esp.  Emmanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu. Les oracles et leurs transmission, BETL 54 (Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1981), 145–67; J. Gerald Janzen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, HSM 6 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); Andrew G. Shead, The Open and Sealed Book: Jeremiah 32 in Its Hebrew and Greek Recensions, JSOTSup 347 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). 5.  For current critical commentaries on Jeremiah, see William S. Holladay, Jeremiah: A Commentary on the Book of Jeremiah, 2 vols., Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986– 89); William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986–96); Douglas Rawlinson Jones, Jeremiah, NCB (London: Marshall Pickering; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992); Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah, 3 vols., AB 21A–C (New York: Doubleday, 1999–2004); Louis Stulman, Jeremiah, AOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005). 6.  Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature, IBT (Nashville, Abingdon, 2005), 85–95.

528

Marvin A. Sweeney

The literary structure of LXX Jeremiah presents Yhwh’s plans for Israel/ Judah and the nations, followed by a depiction of the consequences for Jerusalem for failing to abide by Yhwh’s will. The LXX sequence includes successive blocks of oracles that call on Israel and Judah to observe Yhwh’s will in chs. 1–25 and a block of oracles that announce Yhwh’s judgment against the nations together with Jeremiah’s warnings to submit to Babylon in LXX Jeremiah 26–36. LXX Jeremiah 37–51 and 52 then presents a scenario for future restoration followed by a sequence of subunits that recount Jerusalem’s destruction and its aftermath. A structure of this sort reveals a retrospective perspective to the book, in that as it is designed to explain the destruction of Jerusalem as a consequence of the people’s failure to heed the prophet’s warnings. The literary structure of LXX Jeremiah is as follows: The Words of Jeremiah Son of Hilkiah concerning Yhwh’s Judgment against Jerusalem I. Oracles concerning Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem 1–10 A. Superscription 1:1–3 B. Call of the Prophet 1:4–10 C. Oracles calling for Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem to return to G-d 1:11–10:25 II. Oracles concerning the rejection of Yhwh’s covenant and the Punishment that will follow 11–17 A. Oracles concerning the rejection of Yhwh’s covenant 11–13 B. Oracles concerning the punishment that will follow 14–17 III. Oracles concerning shattered pottery/judgment against Judah 18–20 IV. Oracles concerning Davidic kingship 21–24 V. Oracles concerning the nations 25–36 VI. Oracles concerning the future restoration of Jerusalem 37–38 VII. Narrative concerning the field at Anathoth 39–40 VIII. Narrative concerning Yhwh’s decision to deliver Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar 41:1–7 IX. Narrative concerning reneging on the year of release 41:8–22 X. Narrative concerning Babylonian siege of Jerusalem 42–46 XI. Narrative concerning aftermath of destruction 47:1–50:13 XII. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s word to Baruch 51 XIII. Appendix concerning destruction of Jerusalem 52

The literary structure of the Masoretic version of Jeremiah demonstrates a different concern. It, too, begins with a sequence in MT Jeremiah 1–25 in which the prophet warns Israel and Judah to abide by Yhwh’s will, and it presents the consequences for the people’s failure to do so together with a portrayal of future restoration in MT Jeremiah 26–45. The placement of the individual oracles concerning the nations, in which the oracle concerning Babylon concludes the sequence, in MT Jeremiah 46–51 demonstrates concern with the

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

529

future realization of Yhwh’s plans to bring about the downfall of the nations, culminating in Babylon. Such a structure indicates a prospective, hopeful interest in the book, insofar as it is designed to point to the rise of the Persian empire as the agent of Yhwh’s restoration for Jerusalem and punishment against Babylon and the nations that oppressed Judah. The literary structure of MT Jeremiah is as follows: The Words of Jeremiah Ben Hilkiah concerning the Restoration of Jerusalem and the Downfall of Babylon

I. Oracles concerning Israel and Judah 1–6 A. Superscription 1:1–3 B. Commissioning of the prophet 1:4–10 C. Signs concerning Yhwh’s purpose 1:11–19 D. Oracles calling for Israel and Judah to return to Yhwh 2–6 II. Account concerning Jeremiah’s temple sermon 7–10 III. Oracles concerning rejection of Yhwh’s covenant 11–13 IV. Oracles concerning drought and marriage 14–17 A. Drought 14–15 B. Marriage 16–17 V. Oracles concerning shattered pot/judgment against Judah 18–20 VI. Oracles concerning Davidic kingship 21–24 VII. Narratives concerning Jeremiah’s warnings to submit to Babylon 25–29 VIII. Oracles concerning restoration of Israel and Judah 30–31 IX. Narrative concerning field at Anathoth 32–33 X. Narrative concerning Yhwh’s decision to give Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar 34:1–7 XI. Narrative concerning reneging on year of release 34:8–22 XII. Narrative concerning fall of Jerusalem 35–39 XIII. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s removal to Egypt 40–43 XIV. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s oracles in Egypt 44 XV. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s word to Baruch 45 XVI. Oracle concerning Egypt 46:1–12 XVII. Oracle concerning Babylonian conquest of Egypt 46:13–28 XVIII. Oracle concerning small nations 47–49 XIX. Oracle concerning Babylon 50:1–51:58 XX. Narrative concerning Jeremiah’s instructions about Babylon 51:59–64 XXI. Appendix concerning fall of Jerusalem 52

The Judgment and Restoration of Jerusalem in the Book of Jeremiah Jeremiah’s eschatological perspective permeates the entire book, insofar as it focuses on the transformation of Israel/Judah brought about by the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile as well as the future restoration of the people to Jerusalem and the land of Israel following the 70-year period of

530

Marvin A. Sweeney

exile and punishment (see Jer 25:8–16; 29:1–14). Because Jeremiah is portrayed as an Elide priest whose primary task is to teach Yhwh’s Torah or Instruction to the people (Lev 10:10–11), Jeremiah’s oracles and actions portray the disaster as the result of the people’s failure to abide by divine Torah, and they portray the future restoration as the result of Yhwh’s will to maintain fidelity with the people as stipulated in the covenant with Israel’s ancestors. 7 Like Isaiah, Jeremiah is especially concerned with the question of theodicy inasmuch as it posits Yhwh’s righteousness in the face of disaster throughout the book. Although many interpreters maintain that Jeremiah’s understanding of covenant is analogous to the conditional covenant articulated in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History, 8 close attention to the blessings and curses of the covenant in Deuteronomy 28–30 indicates that the people will return to Yhwh, observe Yhwh’s Torah, and be restored to the land following a period of punishment and exile (see esp. Deut 30:1–10). As in the book of Isaiah, the book of Jeremiah reconceives the Davidic covenant tradition as applying to the people as a whole rather than specifically to the royal House of David. Although two forms of the book of Jeremiah are extant, my discussion focuses on the Masoretic version of the book, since it is more commonly read in the Western world. Where appropriate, I also note features of the Septuagint version of the book. The first major subunit in MT Jeremiah 1–6 presents a block of oracles concerning Israel and Judah that anticipates the impending threats against the people together with a brief acknowledgment of subsequent restoration. The initial commissioning narrative of Jeremiah as a prophet to nations and kingdoms employs six verbs that are repeated at several key points throughout the book of Jeremiah. Altogether, these verbs characterize both the judgmental and the restorative commission of the prophet to uproot and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, and to build and to plant (Jer 1:10; cf. Jer 12:14–17; 18:5– 10; 24:6; 31:28, 40; 42:10; 45:4). The visionary signs granted to Jeremiah in Jer 1:11–19 employ aspects of his priestly identity to announce Yhwh’s plans for judgment: viz., the sight of the almond branch (Hebrew, šāqēd) recalls the sprouting almond rods that designated the Levites as priests in Numbers 17 and portends that Yhwh watches to bring the divine word to pass, and the vision of the boiling pot from the north draws on Jeremiah’s priestly role to prepare 7.  Contra Christl Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 196 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), who argues that Jeremiah’s priestly identity is the product of later redaction. 8.  For discussion, see e.g., E. W. Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition of the Book of Jeremiah (New York: Schocken, 1970); Winfried Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 1–25, WMANT 41 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973); idem, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45, WMANT 52 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981).

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

531

sacrificial meals at the temple to portray the unnamed enemy 9—that is, Babylon—that will threaten Israel from the north. The oracles that call for Israel and Judah to return to Yhwh in Jeremiah 2–6 portray Israel as a wayward bride who began to betray her husband Yhwh in the wilderness and again emphasize the impending threat of the enemy from the north if the people do not repent. The second major subunit of the book in Jeremiah 7–10 presents Jeremiah’s famous temple sermon, which Yhwh instructs him to deliver in the gates of the Jerusalem temple. Although the sermon challenges the notion that the people will be saved due to the presence of the Jerusalem temple, it is a model of Levitical preaching that cites elements of the Ten Commandments from Yhwh’s Torah (Jer 7:9–10) and the earlier destruction of Jeremiah’s ancestral sanctuary at Shiloh (Jer 7:12; cf. 1 Samuel 1–3; 4–6) in an effort to argue that the Jerusalem temple could also be destroyed if the people do not observe Yhwh’s will. 10 This contention is a challenge to the prevailing Davidic tradition of Yhwh’s eternal protection for Jerusalem and the House of David (see 2 Samuel 7; Psalms 2, 46–48; Isaiah 36–37) by a priest and prophet whose ancestor, the high priest Abiathar, was expelled from the Jerusalem temple to the town of Anathoth by Solomon (1 Kings 2:26–27). As an outsider from the priests at Anathoth, Jeremiah is not as heavily invested in Davidic ideology, although he does anticipate righteous Davidic rule. 11 Three subsequent subunits then follow up the temple sermon by portraying Yhwh’s decision to bring about punishment on the people from different perspectives. The oracles concerning the rejection of Yhwh’s covenant in Jeremiah 11–13 emphasize Yhwh’s charges that the people are not observing the terms of their covenant, and this nonobservance will result in covenant curses of punishment and exile in keeping with Deuteronomy 28–30. The oracles concerning drought and marriage in Jeremiah 14–17 draw on the experience of drought in Judah as an example of Yhwh’s intention to punish the people for failure to observe Yhwh’s expectations. Yhwh also instructs Jeremiah not to marry—a very unusual act for a man in ancient Judean society—as a means to symbolize Yhwh’s intentions to bring punishment against “the bride” Israel (cf. Jeremiah 2). Finally, the oracles concerning the shattered pot that symbolizes Yhwh’s judgment against Judah appear in Jeremiah 18–20. Jeremiah here engages in a symbolic action that would illustrate Yhwh’s intentions by having a pot made, taking it to the Ben Hinnom Valley just to the south and west 9.  Sweeney, Prophetic Literature, 96–97; Carolyn J. Sharp, Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in Deutero-Jeremianic Prose (London: T. & T. Clark, 2003). 10.  For a general discussion of Levitical preaching, see Rex Mason, Preaching to the Exiles: Homily and Hermeneutics after the Exile (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), although he does not discuss Levitical preaching in relation to Jeremiah. 11.  For current discussion of Jeremiah’s temple sermon, see Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora, and the commentaries cited above.

532

Marvin A. Sweeney

of Jerusalem where trash was burned, and shattering it to symbolize Yhwh’s plans to “shatter” Jerusalem and Judah. The Ben Hinnom Valley was known for its continually burning fires as well as acts of apostasy, such as passing one’s son through fire in an act of adulation for the Moabite god Molech, and it eventually came to symbolize Hell in medieval and early modern Jewish tradition under the Yiddish name Gehenna, a modified pronunciation of the Hebrew gê͗ ben-hinnōm, “Valley of the Son of Hinnom.” The oracles concerning Davidic kingship in Jeremiah 21–24 comprise an especially important block for understanding issues of eschatology in Jeremiah due to its focus on ideal kingship. Jeremiah is well known for his conflicts with Kings Jehoiakim and Zedekiah of Judah, particularly since he was subject to imprisonment by both during the course of his career. Consequently, many interpreters presuppose that Jeremiah is anti-Davidic and that the oracle concerning ideal Davidic kingship in Jer 23:1–8 must be a later addition to the book, but a closer analysis of Jeremiah’s critique of Jehoiakim demonstrates that the prophet does uphold an ideal of Davidic rule based on the model of King Josiah of Judah. 12 The oracle in Jer 21:11–14 calls on the Davidic monarchs to render just verdicts and to act on behalf of the victims of crimes. Likewise, Jeremiah 22 recounts Jeremiah’s criticism of Jehoiakim for building himself a splendid palace while his people suffered instead of acting as his righteous father, Josiah. Following condemnation of Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin, who was exiled to Babylonia in 597 b.c.e. by Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 23:1–8 states the prophet’s call for ideal Davidic kingship. Employing the typical metaphor of king as shepherd, the oracle draws on another oracle concerning the ideal and righteous Davidic monarch, in Isa 11:1–16, to anticipate a king who will do what is just and right in the land (Jer 23:5). Jeremiah’s perspective of judgment appears in the last verses of the oracle inasmuch as the righteous Davidic king will rule in the future, following the return of Jewish exiles from the north. Following the condemnation of false prophets in Jer 23:9–40, Jeremiah 24 employs the metaphor of the presentation offering of two baskets of figs at the temple altar to distinguish between the bad figs that Yhwh will reject and the good figs that Yhwh will accept. The good figs symbolize those who go into exile to be restored to the land once the punishment is over, and the bad figs symbolize those who remain in the land with King Zedekiah, who will endure the punishment of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. The narratives concerning Jeremiah’s warnings to submit to Babylon in Jeremiah 25–29 are likewise key texts for understanding Jeremiah’s eschatological perspective. Jeremiah 25 contends that Yhwh has brought Nebuchadnezzar from the north (cf. Jeremiah 2–6) against Jerusalem in order to punish the 12. See my forthcoming paper, “Jeremiah’s Reflection on the Isaian Royal Promise: Jeremiah 23:1–8 in Context,” in To Build and to Plant: Essays on Jeremiah in Honor of Leslie Allen, ed. J. Goldingay, JSOTSup 459 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2007) 308–321.

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

533

people for failure to observe Yhwh’s will. The prophet envisions a 70-year period of punishment, which apparently derives from Assyrian sources as a means to designate a lengthy period of punishment, although biblical interpreters note that it also corresponds to the 70 years between the destruction of the temple in 587/6 and its rebuilding in 520–515 b.c.e. 13 Jer 25:11–13a notes that Yhwh will punish the king of Babylon at the end of the 70 years, which explains the placement of the oracles concerning the nations—culminating with Babylon—at this point in the LXX version of the book of Jeremiah. MT Jeremiah continues with a portrayal of the cup of wrath that will be drunk by the nations that took part in the punishment of Jerusalem after the period of exile is completed. Indeed, Jer 25:33–38 invokes the Day of Yhwh tradition of Yhwh’s judgment against the nations for their roles in Jerusalem’s punishment. Altogether, this block of material defends Yhwh’s righteousness by contending that Jerusalem’s punishment is the result of failure to observe divine Torah and that the punishment of the nations is merited because of the nations’ mistreatment of Jerusalem. In such a manner, the passage attempts a synthesis between the Deuteronomic tradition of punishment against Israel for failure to abide by divine Torah and the Davidic tradition of Yhwh’s oath to defend Jerusalem against the nations that would threaten it (e.g., Psalm 2). The following subunits of this block of material then follow in Jeremiah 26–29 with various narratives that emphasize the prophet’s call for Jerusalem to submit to Babylon in accordance with Yhwh’s will. The failure to submit to Babylon (as opposed to alliance with Egypt, the major enemy of Yhwh and Israel in the Torah) as an expression of Yhwh’s will is an important basis for judgment against Judah in the book of Jeremiah. Jeremiah 26 relates the prophet’s trial for prophesying sedition against the state in the temple sermon that Yhwh instructed him to speak in Jeremiah 7. Jeremiah’s claims that the presence of the temple of Jerusalem would not protect them challenged the fundamental teachings of the Davidic/Zion tradition that Yhwh had sworn to protect the House of David and Jerusalem as the divinely chosen dynasty and the site for Yhwh’s Temple. Although the courtroom debate pointed to the precedent of Micah’s claim that Jerusalem would be destroyed (Jer 26:18; cf. Mic 3:12), only the intervention of Ahikam ben Shaphan, a key figure in the pro-Babylonian party of Judah and son of one of King Josiah’s chief administrators, saved Jeremiah from a death sentence. 14 The following narrative in 13.  Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, 249–50), but his references are not fully reliable. The 70-year reference appears in the Black Stone of the Assyrian monarch Esarhaddon (680–669 b.c.e.), where it refers to the anticipated period of Babylon’s desolation (see Luckenbill, ARAB, §643; cf. §650) 14.  For discussion of the Shaphan family as representatives of the pro-Babylonian party in Judah and as supporters of Jeremiah, see esp. Jay Wilcoxen, “The Political Background of Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon,” in Scripture in History and Theology: Essays in Honor of J. Coert Rylaarsdam, ed. A. Merrill and T. Overhold (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1977), 151–66.

534

Marvin A. Sweeney

Jeremiah 27–28 likewise raises the issue of Judah’s submission to Babylon and identifies attempts to invoke past tradition to claim that Yhwh would defend Jerusalem against Babylon as false prophecy. 15 The narrative relates Jeremiah’s encounter with the prophet Hananiah at a time when Jeremiah went about Jerusalem with a yoke on his neck to symbolize the need to submit to Babylon. Hananiah broke the yoke, declaring that Yhwh would break the yoke of Babylon, but Jeremiah returned with an iron yoke to symbolize Yhwh’s unbreakable will. Although Hananiah is typically understood to be a false prophet, his position that Yhwh would defend Jerusalem is analogous to that of Isaiah a century earlier. Jeremiah is influenced by Isaiah, but he concludes that the period of judgment against Israel previously announced by Isaiah would not come to an end until Judah had suffered as well. Finally, the narrative in Jeremiah 29 relates Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles— that is, the Judeans exiled to Babylonia with King Jehoiachin in 597 b.c.e. Jeremiah calls on the exiles to build houses, raise children, seek the welfare of the city in which they live, and so on, because Yhwh wills a 70-year exile before the people will be able return to Jerusalem to inaugurate the restoration. In keeping with the previous narratives, Jeremiah declares that those who counsel otherwise must be regarded as false prophets. The issue of false prophecy is key to Jeremiah’s eschatological perspectives because Jeremiah is viewed as a false prophet by those who would invoke the Davidic/Zion tradition of Isaiah to claim that Yhwh would protect Jerusalem against the Babylonians. Jeremiah contends instead that the people must observe Yhwh’s will as expressed in Yhwh’s Torah or otherwise face Babylonian invasion and exile that will transform Judah from an autonomous monarchy to a subservient nation of exiles. The following major block of material in Jeremiah 30–31 then outlines the scenario of restoration for Israel and Judah in the aftermath of exile. Such a scenario is key to Jeremiah’s eschatological perspective inasmuch as it portrays the future transformation of Israel/Judah and their relationship with Yhwh after the Babylonian Exile is concluded. Although both Israel and Judah are included in the present form of the text, Jeremiah 30–31 appears to be a redacted version of an earlier text from the time of King Josiah that called for northern Israel’s return to Jerusalem in keeping with the principles of Josiah’s reform. 16 Nevertheless as Jeremiah came to realize that Yhwh’s judgment against the 15.  For discussion of true and false prophecy in Jeremiah and the prophet’s reading of the earlier Isaian tradition, see my essay “The Truth in True and False Prophecy,” Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature, FAT 45 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 78–93. 16. See my essay “Jeremiah 30–31 and King Josiah’s Program of National Restoration and Religious Reform,” ibid., 109–22. For Jeremiah’s relation to Josiah’s reform, see my King Josiah of Judah: The Lost Messiah of Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 208–33; Mark Leuchter, Josiah’s Reform and Jeremiah’s Scroll: Historical Calamity and Prophetic Response (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006).

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

535

north in the time of Isaiah would also encompass Jerusalem and Judah in his own time, Jeremiah 30–31 was reworked with the addition of passages introduced by the formula hinnēh yāmîm bāʾîm, “behold, the days are coming” (Jer 30:2–3; 31:27–34, 38–40) to address the restoration of all Israel in the aftermath of the Babylonian Exile. The oracles are written down in a scroll (cf. Isa 8:1–4, 16) to preserve them for the time of their fulfillment. They promise that Yhwh will restore both Israel and Judah to the land, that the people will serve Yhwh and the Davidic monarch, that the people will be Yhwh’s people once again, and that Rachel, who is weeping for her lost children, will see them return to their own country. Future expectations of the restoration are tied into the themes of the book of Jeremiah and Yhwh’s eternal covenant with Israel. Jer 31:27–30, for example, maintains that Yhwh watched over the people, in keeping with Jeremiah’s vision in Jer 1:11–12, to uproot, pull down, destroy, bring disaster, build, and plant, in keeping with the terms of Jeremiah’s commission as a prophet in Jer 1:10. Jer 31:31–34 presents the famous “new covenant” passage that Christians often read as a forerunner of the New Testament. Readers should note, however, that the covenant calls for Yhwh to place divine Torah into the hearts of the people so that the covenant may not be abrogated; that is, observance of Yhwh’s Torah will stand as the foundation for Yhwh’s relationship with Israel in keeping with Jeremiah’s Levitical understanding of covenant. Jer 31:35–36, 37–40 declares that Yhwh’s covenant with Israel will stand as long as creation, which ties the covenant to the creation traditions of the Pentateuch, Psalms, Wisdom, and Prophetic traditions. The concluding statement that Jerusalem’s fortifications will never again be uprooted or overthrown once again recall Jeremiah’s commission as a prophet in Jer 1:10. Although such a statement draws on the běrît ʿōlām, “the eternal covenant,” or more properly, “the covenant of the world/creation,” that appears throughout the Pentateuch and other literature, it is based in the covenant curses and blessings of Deuteronomy 28–30, which promise Israel’s restoration to the land following the period of punishment. Jeremiah 32–33 concerning the field at Anathoth is also a key text for portraying the eschatological perspectives of the book of Jeremiah. It begins with a portrayal of Jeremiah’s efforts to redeem family property in his hometown of Anathoth during the siege of Jerusalem, but the reference to the property documents necessary for the transaction then becomes a basis for projecting the future of Israel/Judah, Jerusalem, the House of David, and the Levitical priesthood once the exile has concluded. The narrative relates how Jeremiah was imprisoned for treason following his attempt to leave the besieged city of Jerusalem for Anathoth. Having made many enemies during the course of his career, Jeremiah frequently found himself in trouble. Although Jeremiah was imprisoned, the narrative relates that he was able to carry out the transaction,

536

Marvin A. Sweeney

including the preparation of a sealed deed of purchase, with the assistance of the scribe Baruch ben Neriah (Jer 32:9–15). The very enigmatic reference to the sealed and open text of the deed in Jer 32:11 has been explained as a characteristic feature of ancient legal documents: an open display copy of the document was kept to provide a summary or overview of the transaction together with a sealed copy of the document, which contained all of the details of the transaction. 17 Of course, such an image would easily lend itself for use as an image of the secret prophecies of Yhwh to be revealed in the future. The LXX version of this narrative attempts to correct the enigma of an open and sealed document, referring only to the sealed document. Nevertheless, the Masoretic version elaborates on this motif to present the revelation of Yhwh’s purposes for the future. When Jeremiah prays to Yhwh to ask why he should redeem land when the nation is undergoing siege and exile, Yhwh responds that the nation will be restored to the land once the period of exile and punishment—brought about by Yhwh—is over. Once again, Yhwh announces a běrît ʿōlām, “eternal covenant,” to characterize the relationship with the people and declares that land will be purchased once again, and deeds will be written again as the people return to fill their land. Jeremiah’s own purchase of land emerges as a symbolic action for Yhwh’s intentions. However, the passage continues with Jeremiah 33, which presents Yhwh’s second word to Jeremiah, which in turn elaborates further on Yhwh’s promises of restoration. This subunit begins with references to the houses that were torn down to build defenses for the besieged city of Jerusalem but transitions to Yhwh’s promises to restore the city once the purge of its sins is complete. The LXX version of this passage does not continue past v. 13, which portrays the restoration of towns and pasturage in Benjamin, Judah, Jerusalem, the Shephelah, and the Negev, but the Masoretic version of the book contains a series of prophecies in Jer 33:14–26 introduced by the formula hinnēh yāmîm bāʾîm, “behold the days are coming,” like the prophecies noted in Jeremiah 30–31 above. This segment includes a series of prophecies that draw intertextually on earlier biblical texts from Jeremiah and elsewhere that function as a form of midrashic exegesis to provide a scenario of restoration based on earlier tradition. 18 First is the promise to restore the true branch of the House of David in keeping with the earlier royal prophecy in Jer 23:1–8, but the passage has been modified extensively to apply the promise of the restored House of David to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood. Whereas Jer 23:6 states that the righteous Davidic monarch will be called “Yhwh is our righteousness/ vindicator,” Jer 33:16 states that “Jerusalem will dwell securely, and this is what she will be called, ‘Yhwh is our righteousness/vindicator.’” Likewise, Jer 17.  For discussion, see esp. Shead, The Open and the Sealed Book, esp. pp. 114–24. 18.  For discussion of the following, see esp. Yohanan Goldman, Prophétie et royauté au retour de l’exil: Les origins littéraires de la forme massorétique du livre de Jérémie, OBO 118 (Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 9–64.

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

537

33:17–18 draws on the promises of a permanent Davidic line in 1 Kgs 8:25–26 and 9:4–5 to state that the line of Levitical priests who present offerings in the temple before Yhwh will never come to an end. A further oracle in Jer 33:19–22 declares that Yhwh’s covenant with David and the Levitical priests will not be broken as long as day and night (that is, creation) continue, much like the claims of Jer 31:35–40 noted above. The final oracular subunit in Jer 33:23–26 further elaborates on these promises by relating them to the covenant made with Israel’s ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Just as Isaiah reformulated the Davidic covenant to apply to the people of Israel under the rule of the Persian King Cyrus (Isa 55:1–11; 44:28; 45:1), so Jer 33:14–26 restates the terms of the Davidic covenant in relation to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priests who serve at the temple altar in Jerusalem. The eschatological perspective of the book holds out the possibility of Davidic restoration in the future, but it likewise acknowledges the realities of the roles played by the city, temple, and priesthood in the absence of a restored monarchy. The next three units of the book recount various aspects of the judgment leveled against Jerusalem. They thereby contribute to the eschatological perspective of the book by reflecting on Jerusalem’s destruction as the basis for the transformation of Israel and Judah and their relationship with Yhwh as articulated throughout the book. Jer 34:1–7 announces Yhwh’s decision to give Jerusalem into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, although it also promises King Zedekiah a peaceful death. Jer 34:8–22 condemns Zedekiah for abrogating his covenant to release all those held as slaves in Jerusalem so that they could help in the defense of the city. Jeremiah 35–39 presents a lengthy block of material that relates the Babylonian siege, conquest, and destruction of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 35 begins this unit with Jeremiah’s presentation of the Rechabites, a seminomadic group known for their piety and zealous loyalty to Yhwh, as examples for the people of Jerusalem and Judah to emulate. Jeremiah 36 recounts the controversy over Jeremiah’s public comments concerning Yhwh’s plans to bring judgment against Jerusalem and Judah and King Jehoiakim’s orders to arrest him after reading a scroll that recorded Jeremiah’s oracles. Jeremiah 37 relates Jeremiah’s arrest for treason when he attempted to leave Jerusalem during a lull in the Babylonian siege in order to redeem family property in Anathoth. 19 Jeremiah 38 presents Zedekiah’s consultation with Jeremiah during the siege of Jerusalem even while the prophet was imprisoned for treason. Jeremiah  39 relates the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, the Babylonians’ capture of Zedekiah and the execution of his sons, and the destruction of the city. 19.  For a narratological analysis of Jeremiah 37–40 that examines the characterization of Jeremiah and Zedekiah in these chapters, see now Mark Roncance, Jeremiah, Zedekiah and the Fall of Jerusalem, LHBOTS 423 (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005).

538

Marvin A. Sweeney

Another sequence of three units focuses on the assassination of the Babylonian-appointed Judean governor of Judah, Gedaliah ben Ahikam ben Shaphan, in the period following the destruction of Jerusalem and Jeremiah’s subsequent forced removal to Egypt for protection against Babylonian retaliation. These subunits aid in presenting the contrast between Jeremiah and Moses indicated in the superscription of the book, given that Jeremiah’s 40 years begin in the land of Israel but end in Egypt. Jeremiah 40–43 provide a detailed account of Gedaliah’s assassination by a member of the royal house named Ishmael ben Nethaniah ben Elishama. The narrative begins with Jeremiah’s release from prison and decision not to accept a Babylonian offer to live in Babylon under state protection. Jeremiah 41 relates the assassination of Gedaliah at Mizpah and the efforts of Jonathan ben Kareah and other Judean army officers to kill Ishmael and put down the revolt that he had started before the Babylonians could retaliate. Jeremiah 42 relates the decision of Jonathan and his followers to flee to Egypt, despite Jeremiah’s assurances that Yhwh would protect them if they stayed to build and to plant the land (see Jer 1:10), and Jeremiah 43 relates how they took Jeremiah to Egypt with them despite his statements that they should remain in the land. Jeremiah 44 relates the prophet’s oracles against the people for the abominations of living in a foreign land and observing the gods of Egypt. Finally, Jeremiah 45 presents Yhwh’s oracle through Jeremiah to Baruch ben Neriah promising to destroy what Yhwh has built and planted (Jer 1:10) but granting Baruch safe passage to wherever he might go. But whereas MT Jeremiah 51 presents Baruch as Jeremiah’s scribe prior to the oracles concerning the nations, LXX Jeremiah 45 presents him as Jeremiah’s successor at the end of the book and thereby provides a basis for the continuing Baruch tradition and his role as an apocalyptic seer in late Second-Temple-period Jewish apocalyptic literature (1 Baruch, 2 Baruch). 20 Five subsequent units of the book present Jeremiah’s oracles concerning the nations. Within the literary structure of MT Jeremiah, they appear at the conclusion of the book, where they are introduced by the account of Jeremiah’s condemnation of Egypt and the Judean refugees who had fled there. Within the literary structure of LXX Jeremiah, they appear immediately after Jer 25:13a, where the prophet announces that the nations will drink the cup of Yhwh’s wrath as part of Yhwh’s efforts to reshape the world. Jer 46:1–12 presents Jeremiah’s condemnation of Egypt at the time that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at Carchemesh in 605 b.c.e., resulting in Judah’s initial submission to Babylon. Jer 46:13–28 follows with an oracle anticipating Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Egypt, although Nebuchadnezzar never succeeded in doing so. Jeremiah 47–49 present a series of oracles against smaller nations, including 20.  See J. Edward Wright, Baruch ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), esp. pp. 26–39.

Eschatology in the Book of Jeremiah

539

the Philistines, Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, and Elam. Jer 50:1–51:58 presents a lengthy oracle of judgment against Babylon for its role in the destruction of Judah, Jerusalem, and the temple. Finally, Jer 51:59–64 presents a brief narrative concerning Jeremiah’s instructions to Seraiah ben Neriah ben Mahseiah to take a scroll of prophecies condemning Babylon, to read it publicly in Babylon, and to sink it in the Euphrates River when he has finished, as a means of sealing Babylon’s fate. The final unit of the book, Jeremiah 52, presents a narrative account of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the execution of various prominent figures, such as the high priest Seraiah and the deputy priest Zephaniah, and the exile of many survivors, including King Zedekiah after he witnessed the execution of his sons. The account concludes with the notice that the Babylonian King Evil Merodach, the successor to Nebuchadnezzar, released the previously exiled King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison in Babylonia and provided him with support for the rest of his life. Although such an act may be construed as an act of mercy, it effectively marks the end of the Davidic monarchy, given that Jehoiachin remains under Babylonian control and no successor ever reestablishes Davidic rule in Jerusalem. Conclusion The book of Jeremiah focuses especially on Jeremiah’s understanding of the fall of Jerusalem and the beginnings of the Babylonian Exile, but this perspective also serves the eschatological perspectives of the book. The destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the exile of the people provide the foundation for the prophet’s view of the transformation of the nation. As an Elide priest, he argues that the disaster occurred because the people failed to observe Yhwh’s Torah, but in the course of announcing the fulfillment of the covenant curses of destruction and exile, he maintains that the people will be constituted differently after their return to the land, once the 70-year period of punishment is completed. A new and eternal covenant (běrît ʿōlām) will bind the people and Yhwh together, in which Yhwh’s Torah will be engraved on their hearts so that observance of Yhwh’s Torah will be ensured and the people will not again be removed from the land, in keeping with the promises to the ancestors of Israel, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Although the prophet appears to envision the restoration of an ideal Davidic monarch, the book of Jeremiah applies the Davidic tradition to the city of Jerusalem itself and to the Levitical priests who will serve in Yhwh’s Temple. Like Isaiah, the book of Jeremiah acknowledges the demise of the House of David but points to Jerusalem and the temple priesthood as the foundation for the future life the people of Israel and Judah. 21 21.  I am indebted to my research assistant, Dr. Pamela Nourse, for her careful reading of this essays. Any errors that remain are mine.

The “Holiness School”—Creativity and Editorial Activity in the Book of Joshua: The Case of Joshua 24

Ada Taggar-Cohen The separation of the Holiness source (H) and the Priestly source (P) of the Pentateuch, long accepted in biblical research, has during the last decade been brought to the foreground of discussion on the formation of the Pentateuch by Jacob Milgrom and Israel Knohl. 1 Both have determined that H is later than P in time and thus has much to do with editorial work. Knohl went further to claim that H is not an older source embedded in P but was the product of a “school of priestly scribes” 2 that re-edited P on the basis of a new ideology relevant to the socioeconomic situation at the time of its formation. 3 Other scholars built on Milgrom’s and Knohl’s groundwork and looked for the editorial work of H in other books of the Pentateuch. One example is Thomas J. King in his treatment of P and H in Genesis. 4 Following in the steps of Milgrom and Knohl, I Author’s note:  It is a difficult moment when one submits a paper for a volume honoring a teacher of many years, and the book becomes a volume in his memory. Avigdor was my teacher at my first step into the study of the Akkadian language and at the moment I received my Ph.D. degree. I was his first mentored Ph.D. student. It has been my privilege to know Avigdor for these many years, to study with him, and to benefit from his vast knowledge. 1.  For a brief description, see Jacob Milgrom, “Priestly (‘P’) Source,” ABD 5.454–61. For a detailed study of H by Milgrom, see his commentary on the book of Leviticus in 3 volumes: Leviticus: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 3 vols., AB 3 (New York: Doubleday, 1991–2001). 2.  This idea of a school is similar in a way to the description of the D source by Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992). 3. Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 204–9. A description of both Knohl and Milgrom research is critically presented by Saul M. Olyan, “Exodus 31:12–17: The Sabbath according to H or the Sabbath according to P and H?” JBL 124 (2005): 201–2. 4.  Thomas J. King, The Realignment of the Priestly Literature: The Priestly Narrative in Genesis and Its Relation to Priestly Legislation and the Holiness School, PTMS 102 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2009).

541

542

Ada Taggar-Cohen

argue below that Joshua 24 should be ascribed to the “Holiness School” or a “Holiness redactor” for reasons of language and content. 5 Joshua 24 as a Unique Composition Joshua 24, a chapter usually considered an independent literary unit appended to the book of Joshua, has occupied the interest of biblical scholarship mainly in the context of the Old Testament covenant. Scholars have interpreted the literary form of Joshua 24 by focusing on the covenant’s cultic or political origin, viewing it as a legal treaty between God and his people in the tradition of the ancient Near Eastern political treaties. 6 Accordingly, most of the scholars treating the chapter have agreed that the assembly at Shechem reflects an old tradition of cultic as well as political contexts that originated in an ancient religious center. Several layers of redaction have been suggested for the chapter in regard to its position at the end of Joshua, 7 and two main periods have thus beem proposed for its composition: either during the 8th century b.c.e. (a preexilic text) or later, during the 5th century b.c.e. 8 It is clear that the author of Joshua 24 was familiar with the sources of the Pentateuch. 9 The chapter reflects passages or expressions mainly from the Pentateuch but also from the early prophets as well as later ones such as Ezekiel and Jeremiah 5.  A study on the Holiness Code, with conclusions similar to those of Knohl, was published by Jan Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, VTSup 42 (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Joosten’s conclusion supports a preexilic date for the Holiness Code, before the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem; see pp. 203–7. 6.  For an overview of the literature, beginning with Noth, von Rad, Mowinckel, Mendenhall, and others, see W. T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, JSOTSup 93 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 31–95. For a recent commentary on the book of Joshua and Joshua 24, see Richard D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, OTL (Louisville: John Knox, 1997). 7.  For an overview of the redaction of the book of Joshua, see recently Michaël N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, VTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). An earlier comprehensive overview of this issue was presented by John Van Seters, “Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament,” in In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G. W. Ahlström, ed. W. B. Barrick and J. R. Spencer, JSOTSup 31 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 139–58. 8.  Supporting an early date is Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, 410–13, while the later date was suggested by several scholars; for the latest detailed work supporting a late authorship, see Moshe Anbar. The book by Anbar was first published in French under the title Josué et l’alliance de Sichem (Josué 24:1–28), Beiträge zur biblichen Exegese und Theologie 25 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992); this book was translated into Hebrew under the title: Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem (Jos. 24:1–28) (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1999), 1–14. The Hebrew edition is quoted here (English translation is mine). 9.  A majority of scholars identified an older layer E, and some proposed a Deuteronomistic phraseology in the text, which they took to point to either the writer or the redactor; for a detailed survey of ideas, see Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, 109–15; see also the complementary survey by Anbar, Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem, 2–14.

The Case of Joshua 24

543

and perhaps even Nehemiah. 10 As an independent unit, Joshua 24 manifests a complex style, with a creative use of vocabulary and language in an attempt to present a new description of Israelite history and introduce a new covenant between Yhwh and his people. David Sperling 11 and William T. Koopmans 12 showed that Josh 24:1–28 is a complete literary unit that stands by itself and does not necessarily reflect the language of Deuteronomy, as suggested by a number of scholars such as Perlitt and Van Seters. 13 The uniqueness of the language of the text is apparent in wording such as: ,‫ ספר תורת אלהים‬,‫ אלהי נכר‬,‫ ואם רע בעיניכם‬,‫ לא יגעת בה‬,‫ויתיצבו לפני האלוהים‬  14 :‫ פן תכחשון באלהיכם‬,‫במקדש יהוה‬

The author of the chapter was well versed in the ancient language and formulations of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers and with some forms that may resemble the language of Deuteronomy, but in most of the cases his language is different from the language of Deuteronomy, such as, for example, in the expression ‫( ותשבו במדבר ימים רבים‬v. 7): nowhere in the Bible do the people of Israel dwell in the desert. This is a new concept; they go or pass through, they travel in the desert, but they do not dwell there. A similar expression appears in Deut 1:46, where the people of Israel dwell in Kadesh, a specific place, but not the desert. 15 This example, and there are more in the chapter, 16 shows a unique understanding, phrasing, and presentation of the history of Israel and its covenant with its God. The Redaction Stages of Joshua 24 The assembly at Shechem constituted a historical moment in the Israelites’ relationship with the promised land, binding it together with a new stage in the 10. See Anbar’s attempt (in Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem, 59–78) to find the linguistic stratum of the chapter, where he concludes that, “in spite of the strong Deuteronomistic character of the chapter, it is not a pure Deuteronomistic style as in Joshua 23, for example.” 11.  S. David Sperling, “Joshua 24 Re-examined,” HUCA 58 (1987): 119–36. 12.  William T. Koopmans’ general conclusions, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, 367–455. 13.  Sperling, “Joshua 24 Re-examined,” 133. 14.  Language that Anbar (Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem, 127–28) insists is Late Hebrew, but this can be disputed. Other such expressions will be discussed below. 15.  Another example is v. 13, which was said to be copied from Deut 6:10–11. But Joshua’s phrasing is different, though it uses some of the same components for describing the gift from God: absence of the verb ‫ ;יגעת‬verbs in the plural form; the end of the gift in Deuteronomy (“and you shall eat and be satisfied”) compared with the ending in Joshua 24 (“you are eating”). This difference is discussed below. 16.  Such as: ‫ ואם את אלהי האמורי אשר אתם‬,‫ ואציל אתכם מידו‬,‫ואביאה אתכם אל ארץ האמורי‬ ‫ אמרי‬,‫ כי אלהים קדושים הוא אל קנוא הוא‬,′‫ לא תוכלו לעבוד את ה‬,‫ כי הוא אלוהינו‬,‫יושבים בארצם‬ ′‫ ה‬and more.

544

Ada Taggar-Cohen

relationship between the people and their God. It can be called a “new” stage, since the event of the previous covenant of Sinai, as most scholars have noted, is absent from the historical description of the chapter. The relationship established between the people of Israel and their God is termed ‫( כרת ברית‬v. 25). Milgrom 17 pointed out the special use of the verb ‫ כרת‬in the Priestly source. It uses the verb ‫ כרת‬for “establishing a covenant” and the verb ‫ הקים‬to “maintain/ fulfill a covenant or validate a covenant.” 18 Josh 24:3 begins with Abraham’s being given progeny and the promise of land but with no direct mention of the covenant in Gen 15:18. Though we may say that it is clearly implied by the reference to the Pentateuch history, the covenant with Abraham is not named in Joshua 24. The Sinai covenant is not mentioned either, so one must conclude that the main point of this composition is indeed the establishment of a new covenant and not the fulfillment of an older one. In one case of establishing a new covenant (after the Sinai covenant), the verb ‫ כרת‬is used: Jer 34:8, 13, and 15, ‫“( ותכרתו ברית לפני‬and you made a covenant before me”), a covenant relating to a social law established in the time of King Zedekiah. 19 Josh 24:25 presents the establishment of a new covenant between the people of Israel and Yhwh that took place at Shechem. There is an old debate concerning Shechem, the location of the event described in this chapter. In the book of Joshua, the gathering place for the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua is in the religious center of Shiloh (18:1, 22:12). Many scholars thus replaced the name of Shechem with Shiloh, seeing in the former a scribal error. This is also done in the Greek translation, the LXX. It is interesting to note that, among the Qumran scrolls of Joshua, there is a composition that retains an expanded tradition of Shiloh as the religious center and the place of the ark during the time of Joshua. 20 Emanuel Tov shows that this tradition is part of what he terms an “Apocryphon of Joshua,” a composition that dates to the 1st century c.e. 21 I therefore assume that the change of location in the LXX was part of this tradition, as was the practice of harmonization by the Greek translators. 22 However, within Joshua 24, Shechem 17.  Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2343–45. 18.  Ibid., 2344. 19.  Compare Josh 24:1, 25. See also Ezek 17:13, the covenant between King Zedekiah and the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar. 20.  According to Emanuel Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 233–56. 21.  Ibid., 253–56. 22.  Van der Meer (Formation and Reformulation, 523) concludes his research on the book of Joshua regarding the relationship between the MT, the LXX, and the Qumran scrolls by saying that the LXX and Qumran texts “do not attest to the process of formation preceding the edition of the book of Joshua as preserved in MT, but to the process of interpretation, harmonization and reformation of that version.”

The Case of Joshua 24

545

correlates perfectly with the ending of the chapter, where vv. 29–30 speak of the burial place of Joshua on the mountain of the tribe of Ephraim. The chapter reveals an Ephraimite tradition, as already suggested by scholars. 23 Verses 26–27, a tradition having to do with Joshua at a temple (‫מקדש‬ ‫ )יהוה‬in Shechem, stand in contrast to the main tradition of Joshua and the ark and tabernacle in Shiloh. Because it is an Ephraimite tradition, we should ask whether some of the expressions unique to this text might not reflect a northern dialect of the Hebrew language. 24 Several expressions and word usages may indeed be explained this way. The word ‫( מעולם‬v. 2), “of old times,” rarely appears in the biblical texts with the preposition ‫מ‬. It appears nine times in relation to the antiquity of God and four times including Joshua 24 indicating the antiquity of a people or a nation. 25 The Moabite inscription of Mesha (line 10) has phrasing very similar to this verse: “The men of Gad had lived in the land of Ataroth from ancient times.” 26 The direct correlation of Josh 24:2–13 with lines 4–10 and 18–19 of the Moabite inscription 27 can be substantiated for Moabite words such as: ‫מפני‬.‫כמש‬.‫ וירשה‬,‫ וישב בה‬,‫ וארא‬,‫רבן‬.‫ ימן‬,‫הראני‬. Another example, ‫“( אלהי נכר‬foreign Gods”), is known from Akkadian. 28 Also, in the combination ‫אלהים קדשים‬, the adjective in the plural form is unique to Joshua 24 alone. This is a title found in Canaanite as used in a Phoenician inscription. 29 The form ‫“( אמרי יהוה‬words of Yhwh”) is rare compared with the more-common ‫דברי יהוה‬. Typically, this phrase appears in ancient biblical poetic language as ‫( אמרי אל‬Num 24:4, 16 [Balaam’s speech 30]; Deut 32:1; Ps 107:11; or in Job 6:10 as ‫אמרי קדוש‬, and in Gen 49:21 as ‫)אמרי שפר‬. The expression ‫ ואנכי וביתי נעבד את יהוה‬can be compared with two texts. The first is Gen 34:30 for the combination ‫אני וביתי‬, 31 while the other is 2 Sam 23:5, “‫כי לא כן ביתי עם אל‬,” which correlates directly with Joshua’s declaration of his house’s relationship with Yhwh and notes the context of the everlasting covenant set up in this verse. 32 23.  Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative ,141–45. 24.  For the criteria for determining Israelite Hebrew, see Gary A. Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms, SBLMS 43 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 5–13; esp. p. 7. One of the main criteria is the relationship of the biblical text with texts from neighboring kingdoms such as Phoenicia, Aram, Ammon, Moab, and Edom. 25.  Gen 6:4; 1 Sam 27:8; Jer 5:15. 26.  As already indicated by Sperling, “Joshua 24 Re-examined,” 124. 27.  The text is in KAI 2.168; for the translation, see COS 1.137–38. 28.  CAD N/1 192a. 29.  KAI 1.145:2, 4. 30.  Balaam’s speech in Numbers 24 has been shown to have a northern origin; see G. A. Rendsburg, “The Northern Origin of ‘The Last Words of David’ (2 Sam 23, 1–7),” Bib 69 (1988): 115. Another rare combination, in Josh 24:10, ‫ויברך ברוך‬, recalls the Balaam passage and may also be a northern form. 31.  Recalling the story of Dinah in Shechem, Genesis 34. 32.  For the northern Israelite origin of this text, see Rendsburg, “Northern Origin,” 120.

546

Ada Taggar-Cohen

The redaction levels of the book of Joshua are important for understanding the position of Joshua  24. Chapter 24 has been repeatedly searched for Deuteronomistic redaction for the simple reason that chapter 23 is a clear Deuteronomistic work, which, together with Chapter 1, forms the framework given to the book by that editor. One thus expects to see this kind of redaction even if the chapter is an addition to the book. 33 Van der Meer counts as the last redaction of the book of Joshua a Priestly redaction, which is distinguished by terminology as well as specific ideology relating to the land of Yhwh and the dwelling of the tabernacle in Shiloh. 34 Knohl, in his description of the Holiness School’s (=HS) work in the book of Joshua, identifies mainly three places which he ascribes to HS: 1) Josh 6:6–13, which describes a priesthood involved in war; 35 2) Joshua 21, containing a list of Levite cities, which resembles the description of the Levite encampments in Numbers 3; 36 and 3) Joshua  22, which tells the story of dismay about the Trans-Jordanian altar, reflecting HS ideology with respect to the centralization of the cultic sacrifice as in Leviticus 17. 37 One may raise the question whether the temple of Yhwh in Shechem stands in contrast to the centralization of the cult according to HS. It should be noted that P prescribes a central sanctuary with the tabernacle and the ark, but it does not claim that the tabernacle is the only legitimate sanctuary. HS clearly bans other altars. The activity in Joshua 24 at an ancient sanctuary in Shechem can represent an incorporating of older material (as H does with P) with no mention of an altar. Instead of an altar there is a stone as witness, which parallels other stories in the book of Joshua (4:9; 8:32). The stones in the book of Joshua are not related to sacrifice; this correlates with the HS concept of a central place of sacrifice. To sum up this section, the literary unit comprising Joshua 24 shows roots in an ancient Ephramite tradition of the temple of Yhwh at Shechem. Its redactional phases thus present the use of the older material and a dependence on Pentateuch stories, phrased in a way that ignores the possible difficulty of mentioning a sanctuary besides the one in Shiloh, and all written in a special terminology to be discussed in the following section. 33.  Van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 121–26. I do not see such a redaction, but rather a possible knowledge on the part of this chapter’s composer as to the phraseology of the Book of Deuteronomy, which he is clearly not using. 34.  Van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 134–43. The passages counted as such are mostly in the second half of Joshua and do not include chapter 24; they are 8:15ff; 14:1–5; 17:3–4; 18:1; 19:51; 20:1–3, 9; 21:1–42; 22:9–34. (see page 140). 35.  Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 156 n. 132. 36.  Ibid., 99–100. Compare also Josh 21:41 with Lev 25:32, 34. 37.  Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 207–8 with n. 26.

The Case of Joshua 24

547

Joshua 24: A Legal Text Declaring the Relationship between Yhwh and His People In this text, a new covenant is established between the people of Israel and Yhwh. Because it is a new covenant, we expect it to include a new reason or new content as the basis for its establishment. The historical context is that the people of Israel are settled in the promised land. In a recent article on Joshua 24, I have suggested seeing this chapter as a literary unit reflecting a legal text, such as a contract or a transaction. 38 The guiding concept in Lev 25:23 (“But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me”) and Lev 26:12 (“I will be your God, and you shall be My people”) is the subject of this contract. The language used in Joshua 24 is the legal terminology of ANE legal texts, and the format follows the scheme of the Aramaic texts from Elephantine that were part of the legal tradition of Mesopotamia, North Syria, and Canaan during the second and first millennia b.c.e. Joshua 24 presents a new understanding of the legal relationship between Yhwh and the people of Israel after they reach the land and settle in it. This is a relationship of ownership agreed to by both parties, as in cases of adoption or marriage. 39 The right of ownership is in return for service, and the benefit to the people of Israel is their receiving a land on which to live (Josh 24:13) as well as divine protection. Being a legal text, its terminology should be looked at from a legal perspective. The core of the legal relationship is announced in vv. 19–20: “You will not be able to serve Yhwh for he is a holy God. If you forsake Yhwh, and serve foreign gods, then he will turn and do you harm, and make an end of you, after he had done you good.” The legal validity of this proclamation can be seen in both biblical and ANE legal terminology. These verses are part of a dialogue between Joshua, the leader, and the people of Israel on the occasion of entering into a covenant between Yhwh and themselves. In vv. 14–18, Joshua proposes to the people of Israel to choose which God or gods they prefer to worship. The people choose Yhwh as their god, because of the miracles he had performed for them in the past. Verse 18 ends with the words “We too, will worship Yhwh, for He is our God.” Joshua’s answer to the people of Israel is peculiar: “You will not be able to worship God.” The meaning of the verb ‫ יכל‬is “be able.” What is the meaning of “you will not be able” in the context of Joshua’s speech? Does it mean that it is impossible to worship Yhwh, or does it set a new definition for worshiping him? Read superficially, the combination ‫ לא תוכלו לעבד‬followed by “because” (‫ )כי‬may seem a common phrase: “You cannot do something, because . . . ,” but when studied in a legal context in other biblical texts, we find that it has 38. Ada Taggar-Cohen, “The Covenant as Contract: Joshua 24 and the Legal Aramaic Texts from Elephantine,” ZABR 11 (2005): 27–50. 39.  Ibid., 48–50.

548

Ada Taggar-Cohen

a different usage. The form ‫( לא‬a negation) + ‫ יכל‬in the imperfect form + an infinitive is used in several biblical texts parallel to the apodictic form of the law, ‫“( לא תעשה‬do not do //you shall not do,” meaning “you are forbidden”). 40 Examples of this use include Gen 34:14; Deut 12:17; 16:5; 17:15; 21:16; 22:3, 19, 29; 24:4; Josh 9:19; Judg 21:18. All of these passages represent legal prohibitions or bans; six of the examples from Deuteronomy forbid a legal cultic or social behavior or activity. Moshe Weinfeld, in his study of Deuteronomy, points out the fact that the form ‫ו‬/‫ לא תוכל‬often appears at the opening of laws for the following reason: 41 Whenever it would seem that the people might ignore a specific commandment or law because of its novelty or apparent peculiarity, the author adds: “you are forbidden/‫לא תוכלו‬.” In no case can the occurrence of such phrases in a text be used as evidence of Deuteronomic origin. Only those recurrent phrases that express the essence of the theology of Deuteronomy can be considered “Deuteronomic.” (italics mine)

Two important points are raised in Weinfeld’s observation: the use of “you are forbidden” derives from the novelty of the legal idea, while the law may originate in ancient customs. This observation is to be applied to Joshua 24. In Aramaic, the verb ‫יכל‬/‫ כהל‬appears either in the first or third person with the negative form and dates back to the Sefire inscriptions from the 8th century b.c.e. in the context of prohibitions placed on the vassal king: ‫אנא לאכהל‬ ]‫לאשלח יד] בך וליכהל ברי [ל]ישלח יד בברנ[ך‬. 42 Jacob J. Rabinowitz indicates that the verb ‫ כהל‬in the Aramaic documents from Elephantine has the legal meaning of “to have legal power.” 43 In the Aramaic legal texts from Elephantine, dating to the 5th century b.c.e., we find the use of ‫ לא אכהל‬+ imperfect tense to mean “It is forbidden for me, as validated by the agreement, to retreat from what I have obliged myself.” 44 The phrase ‫ לא תוכלו לעבד את יהוה‬should be interpreted in the same sense: “you are forbidden to worship Yhwh while you worship other gods, as validated in the agreement to be set in this covenant.” Thus, the phrase in Joshua 40.  Regarding “apodictic law,” see Albrecht Alt, “The Origins of Israelite Law,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), 116. For a linguistic discussion, see Yochanan Muffs, Studies in Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, HO (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 36–37 n. 2. 41.  Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, 2–3. 42.  Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire I and II,” JAOS 81 (1961): 182 (lines 24–25), 204. 43.  Jacob J. Rabinowitz, “Neo-Babylonian Legal Documents and Jewish Law,” Journal of Juristic Papyrology 13 (1961): 162; and see his mention of the Greek use of this term. See also Takamitsu Muraoka and Bezalel Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, HO (Leiden: Brill, 1998), §73a. 44. Bezalel Porten and H. Z. Szubin, “A Dowry Addendum (Kraeling 10),” JAOS 107 (1987): 235. See also Muraoka and Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, §73a.

The Case of Joshua 24

549

is the opening of an apodictic law, which continues with the reasoning of the statement: “He is a holy God. He is a jealous God.” Verse 20 opens with ‫כי‬ (“if”). This marks the introduction of a specific case illustrating the main law indicated previously and can be seen as a casuistic law: ‫ כי‬+ imperfect verb. 45 In the biblical law codes, we often find a casuistic law following an apodictic law (Exod 21:12–21). Verse 20 presents the case of a deviation from the law and its punishment: “If you forsake,” the punishment will be “he will make an end of you.” Verses 19–20, therefore, are a combination of apodictic and casuistic laws. Verse 25 underlines the giving of a new law with the words that Joshua “set them a statute ‫ חק‬and an ordinance ‫ משפט‬in Shechem.” The language used in 24:19–20 clearly reflects the legal thinking behind its composition. The principle revealed in this law, pronounced in both apodictic and casuistic terms, is the worship of Yhwh alone, while the holiness of Yhwh should be the “guideline” for worshiping him. To focus on this meaning, we point to the similarity and difference between Joshua 24 and the previous chapter, 23. Both are alternative endings to the book of Joshua. While Joshua 23 is “a call for obedience to the law in the form of a testament, directing the people how to worship God,” ch. 24 is “a challenge to serve Yhwh, indicating who ought to be worshiped.” 46 This, on the one hand, makes ch. 24 a conclusion to the Hexateuch; on the other hand, it raises the question whether this chapter can be ascribed to a certain ideology created by a specific circle within the biblical sources, presented in a legal language that points to its novelty. The Holiness of God and Other Characteristics of the “Holiness School” in Joshua 24 The subject of the law in Josh 24:19–20 is the relationship between Yhwh and his people. The people are forbidden to worship Yhwh because he is holy. His holiness means that he will not forgive the people’s transgression, and the unforgivable transgression as defined here is the worship of foreign deities. The people are allowed to worship Yhwh only in a state of holiness, which they assume by worshiping him exclusively, having forsaken the other deities they used to worship. The phrase ‫ אלהים קדשים‬is unique to Joshua 24, since it uses the plural form of the adjective ‫“( קדוש‬holy”) to describe Yhwh. 47 The other occurrences of the holiness of Yhwh in the biblical texts are Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:7, 26; 21:6, 8. In all these verses, there is a direct relationship between the holiness of 45.  Alt, “The Origins of Israelite Law,” 89; and R. A. F. Mackenzie, “The Formal Aspect of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of T. J. Meek, ed. William S. McCullough (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1964), 33. 46.  Richard D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 268. 47.  The plural form of the root ‫ קדש‬appears in Ps 16:3; 89:6, 8; Prov 9:10; 30:3; Zech 14:5; Hos 12:1; Job 5:1 in reference to divine entities.

550

Ada Taggar-Cohen

God and the demand that the people will be holy as well. In other biblical texts, we find that the people of Israel are regarded as holy by their God but without mentioning the holiness of God himself as a reason. 48 Knohl, in his above-mentioned study, determined the characteristics that distinguish the “Holiness School” source (HS) from the Priestly source (PT = “Priestly Torah”). 49 He showed that the concept of holiness in the writings of the HS has undergone a substantial change compared with the PT: holiness has moved out of its exclusive location in the cultic sphere and into the sphere of social law as well. Holiness is now applied to all the people of Israel and throughout their land (Leviticus 19; 27:21). The people of Israel are viewed as a group of people who are required to live a life of holiness, and this is strikingly apparent in regard to their relations with other nations (Lev 20:26) and the demand that they separate themselves from those nations and their practices. 50 In addition, the use of the word ‫ קדש‬in the book of Joshua is most interesting. Besides the place-name Kedesh/Kadesh ‫קדש‬, which appears a number of times as a location of the conquered/inherited land, the root ‫קדש‬ is used in the verbal form: twice as a command for the Israelites to sanctify themselves because Yhwh will appear among them: Josh 3:5, 7:13; and once as an indication to Joshua that the place he stands on is holy (5:15), which is a way of denoting the presence of the divine. The appearance of the divine is used together with the word ‫בקרב‬, “among,” pointing to the close relations of Israel and Yhwh. According to the HS, the covenant between God and the people is a conditional covenant that is based on the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. Jan Joosten defines it thus: “The whole raison d’être of the law (for H), lies in what Yhwh has done for his people when he led them out of slavery in Egypt.” 51 In Lev 25:38, we read: “I Yhwh am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” The expression used by the people of Israel to define their God in Josh 24:16–18 correlates perfectly with this idea: “For it is Yhwh our God who brought us and our ancestors up from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. . . . We too will worship Yhwh, for He is our God.” The thought underlying this passage is that the people of Israel change from being slaves of the Egyptians to being slaves of 48.  See Deut 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9, for which, see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 227–28. 49.  Leviticus 17–27 is considered the core of H (= Holiness). However, as was shown by Knohl, H is not only Leviticus 17–27 but also other passages that have come from the hand of H; thus he labeled these redactions the “Holiness School” (HS). I follow Knohl in this essay by using the term HS for all H passages (Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 6–7). 50.  Ibid., 180–81, 186. On the same topic, see also Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, especially pp. 130–33. 51.  Ibid., 196.

The Case of Joshua 24

551

Yhwh. The HS typically uses the form ‫( ארץ מצרים‬Lev 26:45, Josh 24:17), and ‫( ארץ כנען‬for which, see Josh 24:3). 52 One should note that the ancestors of the people of Israel are mentioned both in the HS and in Joshua 24. In Lev 26:42, we read: “Then will I remember My covenant with Jacob; I will remember also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham; and I will remember the land.” The three patriarchs are also mentioned in Josh 24:3–4 in the opening of the historical review, which focuses on the inheritance of the land from God. Joshua 24 does not use the term bĕrît in relation either to the patriarchs or to Sinai. The historical perception of the author is that up to this point Yhwh’s actions were unilateral: God took, led, multiplied, gave, brought out, destroyed, and so forth. The terms used by the HS in regard to the land and its inheritance are ‫נתן‬ and ‫ירש‬, which identify the people of Israel as the heirs of Yhwh. 53 The HS (Lev 20:24) emphasizes the fact that God gives the land “to take possession” of it. Josh 24:4 uses the same language in regard to Esau. Josh 24:3, 8, accordingly, recalls Gen 15:7 and Lev 26:42. According to the HS, the covenant is based on a rewording system, which Joosten characterizes as follows: “It is not a political dependence but a sacral correlation.” 54 The idea of a divine grant is essential to the concept of bĕrît in the HS. On the one hand, there is in Josh 24:3 an echo of the grant given by God to Abraham, as in Gen 17:8 and Lev 25:38. On the other hand, both Genesis and Leviticus mention the fact that Yhwh will become the God of the descendents of Abraham as a result of this grant. 55 The people are slaves to their God, and as such they belong to him forever. They may be disobedient, but they still belong to him. 56 A special terminology of the HS for suggesting the meaning of the relationship with this God is the verba solemnia of Lev 26:12: “I will be your God, and you shall be my people.” 57 This phrase is echoed in Josh 24:18: ‫נעבד את יהוה כי הוא אלהינו‬, “We (too) shall worship Yhwh for he is our God.” The relationship between Yhwh and the people in the HS is expressed in the speech of God to the people of Israel using the first person. 58 Josh 24:2–13 includes a speech by God in the first and second person, “I-you.” 52. See ibid., 149–52. In both H and Joshua 24, the extent of the territory of Canaan is not specified. This is in contrast to Josh 1:4, to be identified with the entire chapter as a DH work; see Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, 28ff. 53.  Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, 184–88. See also second half of this page. 54.  Ibid., 116. 55.  For the redaction of Gen 17:7–8 by the HS, see Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 102. 56.  See on this special national identity, Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, 272–73. 57.  Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, 101. 58.  Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 173. See also the assessment of King, The Realignment of the Priestly Literature, 132–36.

552

Ada Taggar-Cohen

The people are termed ‫עם‬, which is characteristic of the HS. Joosten points to “kinsmen” as the meaning of this noun, 59 indicating the close familial/adoptive relationship with Yhwh. As slaves taken by their lord, the people of Israel are given a land to dwell on so that they may serve him. This resembles the idea of royal grants well known from Ancient Near Eastern texts. 60 Joshua 24 has been interpreted as a composition reflecting a treaty form, but there has been serious opposition to this interpretation for various reasons. Recently, Noel Weeks presented an overview of the treaty/covenant form, discussing also the problem of Joshua 24. 61 However, the covenant in the HS is formulated as a grant with conditions and therefore differs from the covenant concept of Deuteronomy, which follows the vassal-treaty form. 62 Joshua  24 also is formulated, in my opinion, more as a legal grant than as a political treaty. 63 Joshua 24 includes several phrases indicating that the author’s composition of the chapter was guided by the concept of a legal grant: (1) The main issue of the historical description of vv. 2–13 is God’s choosing Abraham, followed by a list of verbs from the root ‫נתן‬, “to give.” 64 God gives Abraham’s descendants the land that he first showed their patriarch. (2) The indication that the land is a grant from God appears in v. 13: “I have given (‫ )ואתן‬you a land for which you did not labor and towns which you did not build, and you have settled in them; you are enjoying (‫ )אכלים‬vineyards and olive groves which you did not plant.” The verse just quoted parallels Deut 6:10–11, but where Deuteronomy wished to elaborate and add details, Joshua is short and has three phases: (1) I gave, (2) you settled, and (3) you are eating. The second part, beginning with “settle” (‫)ותשבו‬, correlates with the dwelling in the desert in Josh 24:7: “you dwelt/settled in the wilderness many days.” 65 The dwelling in the desert is 59.  Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code ,79. 60.  Ibid., 101, 134–35. This was treated at length by Moshe Weinfeld, Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations: Equality and Freedom in Ancient Israel in Light of Social Justice in ANE (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985), 133–39 [Heb.]. 61. Noel Weeks, Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships, JSOTSup 407 (London: JSOT Press, 2004), 151–53. Weeks regards the treaties as “a device aimed to secure a certain form of personal relationship” and therefore does not expect its form to be fixed. 62.  Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, 200–201. 63.  As presented in my article “The Covenant as Contract: Joshua 24 and the Legal Aramaic Texts from Elephantine,” this grant is formulated following the format of a legal transaction. In another article, I suggest viewing the biblical covenant in Joshua 24 in light of the Hittite legal-administrative texts entitled išḫiul-; see my “Biblical Covenant and Hittite išḫiul- Reexamined,” VT 62 (2011): 461–88. 64.  For the use of this verb in legal texts of the Bible, see TDOT 10 (1999), 96–101. 65.  The Israelites, as indicated above, are said either to walk or to go in the desert or camp, but they do not dwell in the desert.

The Case of Joshua 24

553

regarded by the HS as a very important period in order to create the holy sanctuary and establish the rules of the new society. 66 In both Deuteronomy and Joshua 24, we find passages that may reflect the language of royal grants from the ANE, such as are known from Assyria, Hatti, and Ugarit. 67 The words “you are eating” (‫ )אתם אכלים‬mean that the people of Israel do not receive ownership of the land; the land is given to them as a usufruct, for their use only. 68 The real owner is the “giver,” Yhwh, and he gives the land on condition of holiness. This is exactly the conception of the HS. 69 The status of the people of Israel is of a temporary kind (Lev 25:23; p. 547 above). The land belongs to Yhwh, and the people are like a gēr, “a foreigner who has been granted land on which to live.” 70 The fact that the land is the main issue in the book of Joshua recently led Richard Hess to identify the literary form of the entire book as a reflection of legal grants found in the Akkadian texts from Alalakh of North Syria. 71 Both the HS and Joshua 24 show similar uses of the names of God. In the HS, the names of God are ‫יהוה‬/‫( אלהים‬Yhwh/Elohim) and a combination of the two in possessive constructions. 72 Knohl emphasizes that the common HS phrase ‫“ יהוה אלהיכם‬expresses the relation of intimacy between God and Israel . . . [a] closeness apparent in God’s direct address to his people.” 73 The names used in Joshua 24 are ‫( יהוה אלהי ישראל‬vv. 2, 23) and combinations of ‫יהוה אלהים‬. 74 While Joshua calls him ‫ יהוה‬all through the dialogue, the people call him ‫יהוה אלהינו‬, a form characteristic of a personal God. God speaks to the people in the first person. This God has chosen the patriarchs, but 66.  Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, 137ff. 67.  For royal grants from Ugarit, see Klaus Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary: Jewish and Early Christian Writings, trans. David E. Green (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 20–21; and for Assyria, see J. Nicolas Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1976), 2–3. 68.  For the legal use of the verb ‫אכל‬, “eat,” as “allowed in use,” see Lev 22:1–16 and compare with Rabinowitz, “Neo-Babylonian Legal Documents and Jewish Law,” 157–58. For the Akkadian verb akālu used in the same sense in Neo-Assyrian texts of conveyance, where the land is given in lease, see Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, 29–31. 69.  Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2187. 70. Joshua 24 emphasizes the yōšĕbîm (“dwelling”) in vv. 13, 15. For the use of both forms, gēr and tōšāb (“resident aliens”), by H, see Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, 73–74. 71.  Richard S. Hess, “The Book of Joshua as a Land Grant,” Bib 83 (2002): 493–506. 72.  Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 168–69 with nn. 3 and 4, and pp. 172–73. The combination ‫ ספר תורת אלהים‬in Josh 24:26 should be taken as this sort of combination from the HS and not as Late Hebrew for its appearance in Neh 8:18, where the name of God appears with the article, ‫האלהים‬. 73.  Ibid., 173. 74. For ‫יהוה אלהי ישראל‬, see ibid., 175, 197–98.

554

Ada Taggar-Cohen

he established the covenant with the Israelites as a nation after their settlement in his land. 75 In Joshua 24, the land of Canaan is identified as belonging to Yhwh. Other deities are identified as the gods of foreign lands: gods “Beyond the River,” or the “gods of the Amorites” (v. 15). They are also termed “other gods,” ‫אלהים‬ ‫( אחרים‬vv. 2, 16), or ‫( אלהי נכר‬vv. 20, 23), which is an inclusive term for gods of other nations. According to the author of this chapter, these deities have no place in Yhwh’s land. 76 Joosten has pointed out that, while Deuteronomy uses the word ‫( נכרי‬nokri) as a man who does not belong to the family or to the seed of Israel (Deut 17:15, 23:21, 29:21 compared with the ‫[ זר‬zar] who does not belong to the family, an outsider, in Lev 22:10, Deut 25:5, and Gen 31:15), H uses the form ‫( נכר‬nēkar) and ‫נכר‬-‫( בן‬ben-nēkar). 77 Both ‫ נכר‬and ‫ זר‬are regarded as impure (Deut 14:21; Lev 22:10, 13; and especially Ezek 44:9) in relation to the cult, of which ‫אל זר‬ ‫אל נכר‬ // in Ps 81:10 is an example. 78 Just as a foreigner (‫נכר‬-‫ )בן‬cannot himself present a sacrifice to Yhwh but can only send it via an Israelite (Lev 22:25), 79 so the other gods, when present in the land that belongs to Yhwh alone, cause cultic impurity. For the HS, the land is the place where Yhwh dwells; thus there is an extension of the sanctuary’s holiness to the entire land. 80 Once another god is worshiped in the land, there is defilement, followed by punishment as specified in Lev 20:2–3. As Knohl points out, Leviticus 26 concludes with blessings and curses (elements characteristic of the covenant-treaties’ literary form), and the most severe of the curses is the devastation of the land and exile. 81 Josh 24:20 echoes this idea. 82 Verse 20 seems to relate to two passages from Deuteronomy (6:15 and 31:16), but the combination of ‫היטיב‬/‫ הרע‬appears only in the legal material of Lev 5:4. 83 We find all these points, counted here under terminology or 75. See King, The Realignment of the Priestly Literature, 142–43. 76.  Compare 1 Sam 26:19. 77.  Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, 75–76. 78.  Ps 81:10 correlates with much of the historical content of Joshua 24 and probably has the same roots in the traditions of the Northern Kingdom as Joshua 24. See M. J. Buss, “The Psalms of Asaph and Korah,” JBL 82 (1963): 384–88. See also Rendsburg, Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms, 79–81. 79.  Milgrom, Leviticus, 1881. 80.  Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code, 176–77; Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 180–86. 81.  Ibid., 205. 82.  Though, in Joshua 24, I do not think it represents the element of blessings and curses in the political treaty, for which, see my article “The Covenant as Contract: Joshua 24 and the Legal Aramaic Texts from Elephantine,” 46. 83.  Words derived from the same two roots also appear together in Jer 35:15, a verse that also contains the main ideas of Joshua 24.

The Case of Joshua 24

555

ideology, to correlate with the ideology that originated with the Priestly Holiness School. Joshua 24’s Connections to Other Passages in the Book of Joshua That Relate to the Holiness School The source of the HS has been identified in the book of Joshua by Knohl in chs. 6, 21, and 22, 84 while on the whole the book has mostly been seen as a Deuteronomistic product, due to its strong linguistic similarities with Deuteronomy. However, the attempt to identify its Priestly layers was the first step toward searching for the HS material as well. Joshua 7 and 22 demonstrate the HS reduction in relation to Joshua 24. Chapter 7 can be regarded as a Priestly chapter, based on its concern with the theft from the divine and on its employment of the P terminology ‫ מעל‬and ‫ כחש‬in 7:1, 11–12. Its main concern is with the fact that the Israelites did not maintain the commandment of Yhwh for holiness, for the divine leaves the people once there is a sin among them (7:12). The same issue appears in ch. 22, where the establishment of an altar creates a severe sin, as long as this altar is being used; this is against the concept of the centralization of the cult in H. The term  85‫ מעל‬is used to indicate the sin of disobedience (v. 19 in particular). Both stories end up with stones that are to be left as a witness to the special occasion of the Israelites’ state of holiness—being cleared of Achan’s sin and being cleared of committing a sin in the case of the two and a half tribes. The same can be seen with the stone at the Temple of Yhwh in Shechem in 24:27. In all three cases—chs. 7, 22, and 24—the stones witness the moment of correct relations between the people and the Divine. The negative moments are portrayed using the term ‫כחש‬, which appears in 7:11 and in 24:27. 86 Both chs. 7 and 22 should be considered texts that have undergone editing by the HS. 87 Concluding Remarks Joshua 24 is an independent literary unit in which language and form are used to introduce the concept of a new covenant between Yhwh and the people of Israel that was established at Shechem. In the discussion above, it has been shown that its roots may have been in the Northern Israelite Kingdom and that later the text was edited by the scribes of the Holiness School. The fact that the text avoids mentioning previous covenants (with Abraham and at Sinai) as well 84.  See above, p. 546. King (The Realignment of the Priestly Literature, 151) identifies the following passages as being redacted by H: 11:15–20, 14:1–5, and 21:1–8. 85.  Milgrom, “The Concept of maʿal in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 96 (1976): 236–47. 86.  The use of the term ‫ כחש‬for a social sin that is forbidden by the covenant is clearly the intent in Lev 5:21–22, 19:11; it is also used in the same context in Job 31:28 and Prov 30:9. 87.  I discuss this issue in a forthcoming article on the concept of herem in Joshua 7 in light of Hittite texts.

556

Ada Taggar-Cohen

as the fact that it emphasizes historical events (such as the Balaam and Jericho episodes) may also strengthen the possibility of its northern roots. It is quite clear that the chapter builds on terminology and phraseology from older texts found in the Pentateuch; in addition to the Priestly material, its editors seem to have been familiar with Deuteronomic language as well. The central issue of the covenant in this chapter is presented by the root ‫עבד‬, worship, “serve the divine.” It appears 16 times in this short chapter. To serve God and be his slave is the main idea of the HS, as exemplified in the covenant with Yhwh in Lev 25:55. The idea of the covenant between Yhwh and the people of Israel is rooted in legal concepts and is bound up with the holiness of God. The heart of the covenant, phrased in apodictic and casuistic legal terminology, can be seen in Josh 24:19–20. The conditional covenant, which binds the grant of the land of Canaan with the holiness of the people, is correlated with the ideology and novelty of the Priestly Holiness School. We find that all the above-mentioned points correlate with the ideology that originated in the HS. However, there are also some points at which Joshua 24 seems to deviate from the tradition of H. Joosten pointed out that in H the practice of writing the law and covenant is never mentioned, contrary to its importance in Deuteronomy. In that regard, Josh 24:25 deviates from H by emphasizing the written text, setting this act in parallelism with the exodus activity of Moses in both Exod 24:4 and Exod 34:28. However, this is done in order to draw a distinction between Joshua’s law and Moses’ Law. Josh 24:26 reads, “Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of Elohim (‫אלהים‬ ‫)ספר תורת‬, and he took a large stone and set it up under the tree that was at the sanctuary of Yhwh,” while Exod 24:4 reads, “Moses wrote all the words of Yhwh. And he woke up early in the morning and he built up an altar at the foot of the mountain and twelve stones for the tribes of Israel.” As was ascertained above, the law Joshua is presenting to the people of Israel is a different one: it is the law of holiness/servitude assumed between Yhwh-Elohim and his people. In this regard, the terminology “Joshua wrote these words in the book of Torat-Elohim” is clearly a novelty. All the previous books are either Torat-Yhwh or Torat-Moshe. The combination Torat-Elohim is manifestly new. Joshua 24 does not speak of Torat-Moshe from Sinai but a new torah—a torah that places the holiness of Elohim, the name so often used for God by the HS—at the center of the covenant, ‫והייתי לכם לאלהים‬. Assigning Joshua 24 to the composition of the Holiness School may suggest a date for its editing. If we follow Joosten’s and Knohl’s historical framework for the HS, it may be possible to propose a preexilic date. Knohl emphasizes the struggle of the HS against foreign cults. 88 This struggle is the main concern of the covenant in Joshua  24. Knohl argues that “the religious, social, 88.  Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence, 218–20.

The Case of Joshua 24

557

and political conditions under the reign of Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judea most closely correspond to the picture that emerges from the Holiness Code.” 89 Thus Joshua 24 may present a covenant renewal with Yhwh that includes the Northern Kingdom’s refugees and the Judean people. Josh 24:20 may thus reflect a historical memory of the destruction of the Northern Kingdom. However, while the chapter offers a clear conception of dwelling in the land granted by Yhwh and anticipating possible destruction as a punishment, it nevertheless holds a strong familiarity with the Deuteronomic texts in language and phraseology, as mentioned above; its editors know the language of Deuteronomy, but they change it. In accordance with this fact, the chapter must have been composed later than Deuteronomy, thus later than the time of Hezekiah. I therefore suggest that this chapter, which is strongly reminiscent of the tradition of the Northern Kingdom, was created by the HS, which continued to work until the destruction of Judea. I also suggest that this chapter was composed after the destruction of Judea, while there were still some Israelites living there. But it could not have been composed after the return of the exiles with Ezra, whose book has different terminology from the HS and conceptually does not acknowledge the northern residents. 90 89.  Ibid., 209. Knohl is followed in this by King (The Realignment of the Priestly Literature, 152ff.), who emphasizes the association of the emergence of H with the period of Hezekiah. 90.  This is contrary to Anbar, who determined the date of Joshua 24 to be the time of Ezra (Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem [Heb.]).

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah and the Geographical Background

Shmuel Vargon The episode of Saul’s pursuit of David after the latter’s flight from the royal palace is described at length in the book of Samuel (1 Samuel 21–2 Samuel 2). 1 It is therefore surprising that scholars researching the geography and history of the land of Israel in the biblical period have devoted only minimal attention to the story of these wanderings. 2 Biblical critics and commentators have also not Author’s note:  In memory of the late, sadly departed Prof. Victor Hurowitz—a true, broadminded, big-hearted colleague and dear friend, called to the Court on High in his prime, who will be greatly missed by all. This is the English version of an article that first appeared in Hebrew in Studies in Bible and Exegesis 9 (2009): 369–92. All English translations of Hebrew quotations herein are mine unless otherwise indicated. A map is provided at the end of this essay on p. 585 (fig. 1). 1.  Some scholars regard the description of the pursuits as beginning in 1 Samuel 19, in which the narrator tells of Saul’s attempts to kill David. See, e.g.: S. Abramsky, “Saul and David, the Pursued: The Significance of the Stories of David and Saul’s Meeting for Understanding the Beginning of the Israelite Monarchy,” Beit Mikra 30 (1984): 49 [Heb.]. Segal, in contrast, places the beginning of the pursuits in ch. 21, in which David leaves Saul’s palace, never to return (M. H. Segal, The Books of Samuel [Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher, 1956], 170 [Heb.]). I have chosen this manner of describing the routes of David’s escapes from Saul and the hardships that he encountered in his roaming. I end the unit under discussion with 2 Samuel 2, which describes David’s arrival in Hebron after the death of Saul; in Hebron, David’s wanderings came to an end, and there he became the permanent ruler. 2.  For the concise discussions of the geographical aspect of David’s perambulations, see, e.g.: Y. Aharoni, Eretz Israel in Biblical Times: A Geographical History, rev. ed. I. Ephʿal (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1987), 223–24 [Heb.]; E. Auerbach, Wüste und Gelobtes Land [The Desert and the Chosen Land], vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1958), 1.197–99 [Heb.]; D. Nativ, “The Geographical Order in David’s Wanderings,” in Shem le-Shmuel: A Collection of Articles on the Book of Samuel, ed. Y. Rosen (Alon Shevut: The Zomet Institute, 1990), 132–35 [Heb.]; and for works concerned with the narratives of David’s rise to power, see: R. Ward, “The Story of David’s Rise: A Traditio-Historical Study of 1 Samuel xvi 14–2 Samuel v” (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1967); J. H. Grønbaek, Die Geschichte von Aufstieg Davids (1 Sam 15–2 Sam 5): Tradition und Composition (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1971);

559

560

Shmuel Vargon

devoted much attention to the geographical aspect of the routes and directions of his wanderings. The basic premise of this essay is that Kinġ David was a historical figure active in the 10th century b.c.e. and that the David stories reflect events that actually took place, as viewed by the writer. The author of the book of Samuel drew his information from ancient documents that had been composed as long beforehand as the United Kingdom period; these originated from a reliable source, and he shaped them and the character of David as he saw fit. 3 In this article, I examine this topic and propose a logical, reconstructed order of the historical-geographical picture that probably was envisaged by the author of Samuel when he portrayed David’s trials and tribulations during the period of his flight from Saul’s sword until the day when he marched to Hebron with his military forces after the death of Saul. The Flight to Gath of the Philistines The book of Samuel relates that David, who had been one of the most highly praised and successful army commanders in Saul’s kingdom and, as Saul’s son-in-law, was also close to the throne, was forced to flee from the king, who was jealous of David and regarded him as a threat to his rule and the continuation of his dynasty. David first escaped from the royal court to the prophet Samuel at Ramah (1 Sam 19:18). After Saul learned where he was, David fled to Jonathan, the king’s son, with whom he met clandestinely in an attempt to remain close to the throne (1 Samuel 20). When he learned, however, that Saul’s stance could not be altered, David set out on a march to evade the N. P. Lemche, “David’s Rise,” JSOT 10 (1978): 2–25; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 193–94; and others. In contrast, see: M.  Naʾor, HamMiqra WeHaʾAretz, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv: Histadrut Hamorim, 1954), 2.190ff. 3.  In recent years, a number of historians of the biblical period have been casting doubts on the historicity of the biblical stories concerning the place of David and Solomon in Israelite historical reality, some of them even going so far as to suggest that these are fictitious literary figures created in a later period, and in the words of one of the scholars, “The Biblical stories of David have nothing to do with history” (N. P. Lemche and T. L. Thompson, “Did Biran Kill David? The Bible in the Light of Archaeology,” JSOT 64 [1994]: 16). Symposia have been held and many articles written in favor of and objecting to this approach, which negates the historical factuality presented by the Bible; this is not the place to reproduce the various arguments, however. For discussions on the Bible and the history of the biblical period, see, for example: N. Naʾaman, “King David and the Establishment of the Israelite Monarchy,” in Leaders and Leadership in Jewish and World History, ed. I. Malkin and Z. Tzahor (Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, Zalman Shazar Centre for Jewish History, 1992), 43–68 [Heb.]; Herzlia Baron and Ora Lifschitz, eds., David King of Israel Alive and Enduring? (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997) [Heb.] (contains an exhaustive summary and bibliography on this question); S. Aḥituv and E. Oren, eds., The Origin of Early Israel, Beer Sheva 12 (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 1998); a complete issue of Al Atar: Journal on the Land of Israel in the Sources 7 (September 2000), has been devoted to the subject; L. I. Levine and A. Mazar, eds., The Controversy over the Historicity of the Bible (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi and Dinur Center, 2002) [Heb.]; see also a special issue of the journal Beit Mikra 49 (The Beginnings of Israel in Scripture and Research; 2004), ed. by Nili Shupak [Heb.].

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

561

monarch. He did not head for Bethlehem, his own city, knowing full well that the king would seek him there, since he had informed the king through Jonathan that the purpose of his leaving was to visit his family. At the beginning of his journey, David went to the priest Ahimelech at Nob to provide himself with food and weapons (1 Sam 21:2–10). Only then, when he was properly outfitted, did David flee beyond the sphere of influence of Saul’s kingdom to seek refuge with the Philistine King Achish of Gath (21:11–17). 4 Gath is known as one of the five Philistine cities that were ruled by the seranim in the late second–early first millennium b.c.e. Gath is currently identified with Tel Zafit, which is situated where the Elah brook enters the western Shephelah (grid reference 1359 1237). 5 The city rose to greatness in this period (the late 11th century b.c.e.) and acquired the status of a royal city. Achish is given the appellation “King” (21:11; 27:2), while the other city rulers are called seranim (“courtiers, princes”; cf. 29:1–10). Mazar maintains that the change in Achish’s title from seren to “king” indicates a change in the Philistine regime during the time of Saul. 6 4.  Many scholars consider this narrative to be a literary projection or a secondary tradition of the episode of David’s time in Ziklag under Achish (1 Samuel 27). For a summary and short discussion, see: K. Koch, The Growth of Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (New York: Scribner, 1969), 132–38; H. J. Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, KAT (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973), 52–69, 473, 475–79; P. K. McCarter, 1 Samuel, AB 8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 13ff., 358–59. Contrary to this approach, see: R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, part 2: 1 Samuel (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 205. This duality is one of the many characteristics of the book of Samuel, and scholars resolve it by means of the Documentary Hypothesis, traditionhistorical systems, or the fragmentary hypothesis (see introductions to the Bible and critical commentaries on the book of Samuel). It is nonetheless puzzling why the author-redactor of Samuel saw fit to repeat this episode, which does no honor to David, unless he considered this to be a historically reliable tradition that could not be omitted. It therefore is not implausible that David fled twice to Achish at Gath. The first time, David went alone, was not received in amicably, and was compelled to “feign madness” and flee. The second time, he came with his military force, was afforded a cordial reception, and lived in Philistia for more than a year. See: A. F. Kirkpatrick, ed., The First Book of Samuel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1918), 184; D. M. Gunn, The Story of King David: Genre and Interpretation (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978); Abramsky, “Saul and David, the Pursued,” 51. 5.  See the summation of the scholarly research: A. F. Rainey, “The Identification of Philistine-Gath: A Problem in Source Analysis for Historical Geography,” ErIsr 12 (Glueck volume; 1975), 63*–76*; E. Stern, “Ζ[αφιτ, Tel,” NEAEHL 4.1522–24. This is a prominent tel that can be seen from afar and that contains rich Philistine pottery finds. Philistine vessels were already discovered in the excavations by Bliss and Macalister and were also uncovered in private excavations conducted at the site from time to time and in the recent excavations. See: A. Boas and A. Maeir, “The Renewed Excavations at Tell e-Safi/Gath,” in The Judean Shephelah—Man, Nature and Landscape: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies, ed. A. Ackerman (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998), 33–39 [Heb.]. 6. B. Mazar, “Seren Seranim,” EM 5.1128–29 [Heb.]. For the problem of the Philistines in the late 11th century b.c.e., see: M. Garsiel, “Elements of History and Reality in the Description of Ela Valley Warfare and the Combat between David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17),”

562

Shmuel Vargon

David’s decision to seek refuge in Gath specifically apparently ensued from the city’s geopolitical position: it was sufficiently distant from Saul’s long arm but nonetheless in geographical proximity to the territory of the Judahite settlement where the members of his tribe resided. David’s ploy to seek sanctuary in Gath of the Philistines was only marginally successful, however, since the courtiers of Achish identified him as the one who had smitten the Philistine army by order of King Saul (1 Sam 21:11–16). 7 Their suspicious and hostile attitude and David’s fear for his life forced him to escape from Gath. The Refuge in Adullam and the Mustering of the Military Force David fled from the land of the Philistines to the land of Judah, where he established his first way station, the base for his activity, in the cave of Adullam (22:1), which was located on the eastern border of the Judean Shephelah. Adullam is identified with Kh. esh-Sheikh Madhkur, about 1 km to the southeast of the agricultural settlement of Adderet, to the south of the Valley of Elah (Israeli grid reference 1503 1175). At the foot of the remains is a later ruin, ʿId elMiʾah, 8 the name of which apparently preserves the ancient name in distorted fashion but with a new meaning. The decision by David to find sanctuary in the Adullam region was most likely due to the following reasons: 1.  He was familiar with the area, since it apparently was the grazing area for Bethlehem, where David felt at home. 2.  The vicinity of Adullam is the end of the region that contains ramified karstic caves, which provide convenient hiding places. 9 Beit Mikra 41 (1997): 293–316 [Heb.]. S. Abramsky maintains that “it is difficult to learn anything from the exchanges between ‫ סרנים‬and ‫ שרים‬concerning a change in the Philistine form of government of the seranim to a more formal regime of royalty and sarim (courtiers). These may be no more than variant expressions” (S. Abramsky, The Kingdom of Saul and the Kingdom of David: The Beginning of the Israelite Monarchy and Its Impact on Leadership in Israel (Jerusalem: Shikmona and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1977), 252 n. 136 [Heb.]; n. 135 contains additional bibliographical references for the source of the word seren). 7. For the question of the reliability of the narrative, see above, n. 3; and also: S. Abramsky and M. Garsiel, eds., “The Book of 1 Samuel,” in The World of the Bible Encyclopaedia (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1985), 178–79 [Heb.]. 8.  The Century Festival (ʿId el-Ma), or ʿId el-Miʾah = the water festival. The tel contains shards from the Israelite period, and this identification is accepted by scholars. The site was first identified by C. Clermont-Ganneau, “The Site of the City of Adullam,” PEFQS (1875): 168–77. See a summary in: Z. Kallai, “Adullam,” EM 6.93–94 [Heb.]; Aharoni, Eretz Israel in Biblical Times, 100, 334; Y. Dagan, “The Shephelah of Judah in the Period of the Monarchy in Light of the Archaeological Excavations and Survey” (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1992) 149–50 [Heb.]. 9.  These are limestone caves that were formed as a result of karstic erosion and that were used as hiding places and dwellings. See: B. Zisso, “Hiding Complexes at Tel Adul-

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

563

3.  This was a border region between Judah and the Philistines, a sort of no-man’s-land between the Kingdom of Gath of the Philistines and the kingdom of Saul. The possibility of passage between the areas under the control of different regimes is of importance to a fugitive seeking shelter. 4.  The city of Adullam is situated within the territory of the tribe of Judah, David’s tribe. David thought to remain in this area, which was seemingly beyond Saul’s reach. Here, he would be joined by the two main elements of his military force. One group united on the basis of tribal and family ties (22:1: “his brothers and all his father’s house”), while the other, larger contingent joined him on socioeconomic grounds: “Everyone who was in straits” was the general formulation, with two accompanying specifications: “everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was desperate” (1 Sam 22:2). The first definition, “everyone who was in debt,” indicates the individual’s economic and social standing; 10 the second definition, “everyone who was desperate,” speaks only of the mental state of someone in the throes of suffering and despair, for whatever reason. Characteristic of the individuals defined in various biblical narratives as “desperate” is their willingness to perform irregular actions that we would not expect people to do under normal circumstances. 11 David’s military force therefore comprised people who had nothing to lose. These were individuals with no home, no food, and at the mercy of all comers in the wilderness. In biblical times, when an individual was cast out from his family (such as Jephthah, to whom it was said: “You shall have no share in our father’s property,” Judg 11:2), he was cut off from his ancestral landholding and was left with no source of livelihood. When a person had a family, others were careful not to attack her, lest someone avenge her death; if, however, someone was abandoned by society, his or her life was outside the protection of the law, and he or she therefore must go to the wilderness, where s/he would lam,” Nikrot Tzurim 20 (1999): 69–78, esp. pp. 69, 76 [Heb.]. For a theoretical explanation of the formation of these caves, see: D. Ford and P. Williams, Karst Geomorphology and Hydrology (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989); A. Bogli, Karst Hydrology and Physical Speleology (New York: Springer, 1980). 10.  The intent is people incapable of repaying their debts, who therefore are fleeing from their creditors. Although Exod 2:24 mandates: “If you lend money to My people [. . .] do not act to him as a creditor: exact no interest from him,” the reality was that “the borrower is a slave to the lender” (Prov 22:7); and much more so after the repayment was past due, when the lender became a creditor, a plaintiff, and an oppressor. This reality is expressed in the narrative of a certain woman, the wife of one of the disciples of the prophets, who cried out to Elisha to save her from the creditor: since her husband had died, the creditor was coming to seize her two children as slaves (2 Kgs 4:1). The reality was that the creditor was empowered to sell the debtor and his or her children as slaves; since people fled from slavery, “everyone who was in debt” would escape to a place beyond the reach of the creditor. 11.  See, e.g., Judg 18:25; 1 Sam 30:6; 2 Sam 17:8; cf. 1 Sam 1:10.

564

Shmuel Vargon

live by the sword and sustain him/herself. People of this sort come together when a capable leader arises for them. 12 The chronicle of David’s warriors (2 Sam 23:8–39; 1 Chr 11:11–47) teaches that the initial nucleus of the military force had already formed in the first stage of his flight from Saul, the Adullam period, and that it initially constituted a unit of 30 men, excluding the officers. It seems that the unit soon expanded and filled its ranks with additional soldiers (1 Chr 11:12). 13 Scripture initially specifies the number of 400 men who rallied around David (1 Sam 22:2), but awhile later, after the deliverance of Keilah, we read of 600 men in the force (23:13; 27:2; 30:9). David remained with this band in the campaigning that preceded his assumption of the throne. David presumably was not interested in enlarging his military force beyond this, for fear of hampering his troop’s mobility. The Problem of the Location and Chronological Order of the Moves in Mizpeh of Moab, in the Stronghold, in the Forest of Hereth, and in Keilah In order to clarify the problem, we first discuss each of the events and locations according to the order in the Bible; we will then present the questions raised by this order, followed by a proposed resolution, according to which the author changed the order of the events. Mizpeh of Moab and the Stronghold 1 Sam 22:3 states that David went “from there”—from Adullam, mentioned in v. 1—and set out for “Mizpeh of Moab,” his second way station, and the seat of the king of Moab. In Mizpeh, he said: “Let my father and mother come 14 [yēṣēʾ nāʾ] with you, until I know what God will do for me [= until my situa12.  On the nature of David’s military force and similar bands among other peoples, see: A. Malamat, “Raiding Band,” EM 2.432–43 [Heb.]; R. de Vaux, Daily Life in Ancient Israel in Biblical Times (Tel Aviv: Am Hasefer, 1969), 240 [Heb.]. For the social processes that led to the organizing of societal fringes into bands of mercenaries, see: H. Reviv, From Clan to Monarchy: Israel in the Biblical Period (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979), 129–30 [Heb.]; N. Abraham, “Fringe Groups in Israelite Society in Biblical Times” (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Haifa, 2000) [Heb.]. 13.  On “David’s warriors,” see: M. Garsiel, The Kingdom of David: Studies in History and Inquiries in Historiography (Tel Aviv: Don, 1975), 26–40, 47–64 and additional documentation there [Heb.]; N. Naʾaman, “The List of David’s Officers (Shalishim),” VT 38 (1988): 71–79; D. G. Schley, “David’s Champions,” ABD 2.49–52 and additional bibliographical references there. 14.  The place-name “Mizpeh” in the territory of Moab is mentioned only here, and therefore is difficult to identify. Based on the onomatopoeic similarity, A. Musil (Arabia Petraea, 3 vols. [Vienna: Hölder, 1907], 1.270) identified this with ruğm el-Mešrefe (grid reference 2221 2120), a high (860 m) site to the west-southwest of Madaba. Other scholars maintain that “Mizpeh” is not a specific place-name but an observation point (mitzpeh) offering a view of Moab. Thus, e.g., C. F. Keil, Die Bücher Samuel, BKAT (Leipzig: Clark, 1865), 2/2.163; W. Caspari, Die Samuelbücher, KAT 7 (Leipzig: Deichert, 1926), 281. K. Budde (Die Bücher Samuel, KHC 8 [Tübingen: Mohr, 1902], 152) is of the opinion that the original

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

565

tion becomes clear].” The response by the king of Moab is not recorded, but it is implicit in the conclusion of the passage: “So he left them [wa-yanḥēm] 15 with the king of Moab, and they stayed with him [the king of Moab] as long as David remained in the stronghold.” The location of this stronghold is in dispute. Segal is of the opinion that the stronghold in which David stayed while his parents remained with the king of Moab was the cave of Adullam. 16 He argues that, at that time, “the tribe version was me-ha-matzadah, which was corrupted to mi-sham mitzpeh. None of these proposals has any basis in the biblical text. The expression yeṣe na is not appropriate in the context of the verse and therefore some scholars amend it to read yuṣag, “be presented.” See, e.g., S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 179. Compare with Gen 33:15 and Exod 10:24. Others, however, prefer the version of the Peshitta, the Vulgate, and several manuscripts, yesheb na, which matches the continuation: wa-yešbu imo, “and they stayed with him.” Thus, e.g., A. B. Ehrlich, Mikra Ki-Pheschuto (Berlin: Poppelauer, 1900), 155; H. P. Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1899), 204; Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 152. We may be looking at an ellipsis of yetze ve-yavo, literally, “let (them) go out and come in” (thus in Num 27:21; Deut 31:2; Josh 14:11; 2 Chr 15:5; and more). See: P. A. H. de Boer, “Research into the Text of First Samuel xviii–xxi,” in Selected Studies in Old Testament Exegesis, OtSt 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1949), 39. For the word-pair ‫יצא‬-‫בוא‬, see: A. van der Lingen, “BWʾ – YṢʾ as a Military Term,” VT 42 (1992): 56–66. It could be argued against this proposal that, although the expression yeṣe we-yabo is connected to the conduct of warfare (1 Sam 29:6; 1 Kgs 15:17; and more), this verse may nevertheless be viewed as an ellipsis, in which David requests: “Let my father and mother come [and stay] [yeṣʾu we-yaboʾu] with you,” that is to say, “Please give permission for my father and mother to come and stay with you.” 15.  Wa-yanḥēm is from the root ‫נחה‬, “guided” them, “brought” them. See: H. W. Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, OTL (London: SCM, 1964), 185. Tg. Jonathan renders this wa-ašrinun, “he placed/left them” (thus, too, Aquila, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate), apparently reading this as wa-yanihem. Ehrlich (Mikra Ki-Pheschuto, 156), maintains that the vocalizer erred: “because its meaning is va-yanihem, because its root is ‫ נוח‬. . . and its meaning . . . is like ‘and placed him [va-yanihehu] in the garden of Eden’ (Gen 2:15).” This opinion is shared by Budde, Die Bücher Samuel, 152. 16. See: Segal, Books of Samuel, 177–78; Stoebe (Das erste Buch Samuelis, 403), listing a number of scholars who concur with this view. B. Oded writes: “It is quite plausible that the fortress mentioned in vv. 4–5 is the fortress of Adullam” (“Mitzpeh Moav,” EM 5.243). S. Yeivin asserts that the term meṣudah in this verse means a cave, because vv. 4–5 speak of the cave of Adullam that is mentioned in the beginning of the chapter. Yeivin explains that David clearly did not encamp at that time in a fortified structure. The cave of Adullam (= the meṣudah of Adullam) was situated at a steep spot on the hill that was protected and fortified by its natural topographical features. 1  Sam 24:23, which relates that David and his men “went up to the meṣudah” after taking their leave of Saul in the vicinity of En-gedi, refers to a cave that was “in the direction of the rocks of the wild goats” (1 Sam 24:2). The verse that speaks of the eagle, that is “dwelling in the rock, lodging upon the fastness of a jutting rock [u-meṣudah]” (Job 39:28) also undoubtedly refers to a cave—access to which is prevented by its natural fortifications—and not to a fortified structure. The words of the poet: “O Lord, my rock, my refuge [u-meṣudati]” (2 Sam 22:2) are likewise more applicable to a lofty cave than to a fort. See: S. Yeivin, “The Military Campaigns of David,” in The Military History of

566

Shmuel Vargon

of Judah might not yet have expanded to Adullam, as it had still not reached Keilah (cf. 23:3)”; in other words, this was non-Israelite territory. Segal’s understanding is based on the prophet Gad’s express command to David: “Do not stay in the stronghold; go at once to the territory of Judah” (22:5); consequently, the stronghold was not in Judah. The suggestion that the tribe of Judah had not extended its territory to the Adullam-Keilah area raises a number of difficulties: 1.  According to Josh 12:15, the Israelites had already conquered Adullam, or at least attacked it, in the time of Joshua. 17 This difficulty could be overcome by arguing that, after Adullam’s conquest by the Israelites, the Canaanites returned to Adullam, as happened at other places included in this list of conquests in the book of Joshua, such as Jerusalem (v. 10), Gezer (v. 12), and Taanach and Megiddo (v. 21), but there is no evidence that Adullam remained Canaanite in the time of Saul. 2.  Josh 15:35 lists the Adullam region as part of the portion of Judah. 18 3.  The hypothesis that the tribe of Judah had not yet reached Keilah should be rejected, because the entire Elah Valley belonged to Judah during the reign of Saul, and the Philistines, who conducted raids via this valley (1 Samuel 17), plundered among other places the threshing floors of the inhabitants of Keilah, who were loyal to Saul, as is indicated by 1 Sam 23:1–13. This story implies the reverse of what Segal sought to deduce from it. the Land of Israel in Biblical Times, ed. J. Liver (Tel Aviv: Israel Defense Forces, 1964), 164 n. 18, and p. 152 [Heb.]. For the location of the meṣudah at the cave of Adullam, see also: R. P. Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1986), 229; cf. Judg 6:2. See a discussion of this in: Garsiel, The Kingdom of David, 42–44; idem, “David’s Warfare against the Philistines in the Vicinity of Jerusalem (2  Samuel 5, 17–25; 1 Chron. 14, 8–16),” in Studies in Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography Presented to Zechariah Kallai, ed. G. Galil and M. Weinfeld, VTSup 81 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 155 (and additional sources listed there). 17.  Agreed, research generally accepts that this is a later source, not reflecting the historical state of affairs during the settlement period; I would venture to presume, however, that even if the story was written at a later date, it nevertheless depicts an earlier situation, the narrator having drawn his knowledge from older documents or oral traditions that may be taken as reliable. 18.  The argument that the list of the cities of Judah in Joshua 15 reflects a later reality is valid, but I feel that it also is reflective of periods prior to the time of its composition. See a discussion of this list by G. Galil, “The Administrative Districts of the Judean Hill Area,” Zion 49 (1984): 205–24 [Heb.] (and additional references there); see also N. Naʾaman, “The Town-Lists of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah in the Days of Josiah,” Zion 54 (1989): 17–71 [Heb.]. These scholars believe that the list originated during the time of Josiah and does not reflect the period when Israel was settling its land. Adullam also appears in the list of Rehoboam’s fortifications, along with additional cities in the Judean Shephelah: Soco, Gath, Mareshah, and others (2 Chr 11:5–23).

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

567

These reasons bolster the argument that Keilah was inhabited by Judahites and that the Adullam-Keilah area was part of the Israelite kingdom in the time of Saul. Accordingly, the stronghold occupied by David, while his parents remained in Moab, was not in Adullam. The opposing approach, set forth by Yohanan Aharoni, is that the “stronghold” was most likely Masada, which is situated on the road to Moab, opposite the Dead Sea Lisan Peninsula. According to Aharoni, David turned the stronghold into his base in the Judean Desert region, and from this citadel he conducted raids into the territory of Judah. 19 This proposal also is inconsistent with the order by the prophet Gad, since Masada was in the territory of Judah, so then why would the prophet tell him to go there?! Based on Gad’s instruction in v. 5, the stronghold (vv. 4–5) is not located in the territory of Judah but instead in Moab. The king of Moab seemingly permitted David’s military force to establish its base in the stronghold, which was under Moabite sovereignty. 20 A meṣudah is a natural shelter at the summit of a mountain, as in “Such a one shall dwell in lofty security, with inaccessible cliffs [meṣadot] for his stronghold” (Is 33:16); “Dwelling in the rock, upon the crag of the rock, and the stronghold [u-meṣudah]” (Job 39:28), and whoever chooses to hide in it can also fortify such a place. Natural strongholds of this type exist in the Engedi region, in the Judean Desert, and in additional locations in the land of Israel and in Moab. 21 State of Moabite Settlements during Saul’s Reign Biblical evidence is the only literary source depicting the situation in Moab and its relations with Israel. Moab’s legitimate territory stretches from south 19.  Aharoni notes that Iron Age sherds discovered at Masada attest that this natural fortification was in use in that period as well (Eretz Israel in Biblical Times, 223); idem, “The Moving About of David and His Men in Ziklag and in the Judean Desert,” in Studies in the Book of Samuel: Discussions of the Bible Study Circle in the Residence of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, vol. 1, ed. B. Z. Lurie (Jerusalem: Israel Society for Biblical Research, 1992), 1.47–66, esp. pp.  50–51 [Heb.]. See also: Y. Yadin, “The Excavations of Masada—1963/1964: Preliminary Report,” IEJ 29 (1965): 28–29; M. Har-El, “David Is Hiding among Us in the Strongholds of Horesh,” in Sefer S. Yeivin, Transactions of the Israel Society for Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1970), 169 [Heb.]. 20.  As is maintained by Rashi and Isaiah b. Mali di Trani, and as may be alluded to in the rendition by the Peshitta of ba-meṣudah as “in Mizpeh of Moab.” Har-El writes: “In our opinion, the stronghold is not to be sought in Moab, because it is inconceivable that the king of Moab would allow David and his warriors, the wielders of the shield and the spear, to establish their base in a stronghold in Moabite territory” (“David Is Hiding among Us,” 169). It seems, however, that a satisfactory explanation can be provided for the encampment of David’s troop in Moabite territory, as will be shown below. See also the discussion by Y. Elitzur in response to the lecture by Aharoni (Studies in the Book of Samuel, 60). 21.  For the meaning of meṣad-meṣadah, see: K. D. Schunck, “David’s ‘Schlupfwinkl’ in Juda,” VT 33 (1983): 110–13.

568

Shmuel Vargon

of the Arnon as far as the Valley of Zered (Num 21:14; Deut 2:9–11; etc.) According to the book of Judges, Eglon, the king of Moab, also controlled the Ammonite and Amalek area to the north of the Arnon; he successfully strove to take over Israelite territory to the north of the Arnon and on the west bank of the Jordan, thus expanding his state: “Then he gathered to himself the people of Ammon and Amalek, went and defeated Israel, and took possession of the City of Palms” (Judg 3:13). In the early period of the Judges, Moab’s dominion most likely reached as far as Jericho and neighboring districts in Cisjordan; later on, in the time of Ehud ben Gera (thanks to whom Israel enjoyed a prolonged period of peace and security), Moabite-controlled territory shrank, benefiting the tribes of Israel. The story of Jephthah reads, “While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its villages, in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities along the banks of the Arnon, for three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?” (Judg 11:26), showing that Moab did not recover during the period of the judges, and in the time of Jephthah the tribes of Israel occupied the whole plain. Even at the beginning of the Israelite monarchy, Moab still remained an insignificant force in the region. 22 It may be deduced for the list of peoples captured by Saul (1 Sam 14:47) that during Saul’s reign the Moabite Kingdom had regained independence but was defeated at war with Saul. In Saul’s time, the Moabites were hostile to the House of Saul, so it is no wonder that they were prepared to shelter David’s contingent—which was also being pursued by Saul—and employ it to supplement the forces opposing Saul. 23 The stronghold that served as the base for David’s military troop was apparently one of the border fortresses of the territory of Moab. David therefore lived on the boundary of Moabite territory, while his parents stayed in the city of Mizpeh of Moab, the royal seat and the political center in southern Moab. Why did the king of Moab permit David and his men to establish themselves in a border fort of his land? It may be surmised that David asked the king of Moab for permission for his parents to dwell in Mizpeh of Moab, not as a “personal favor,” but as part of a deal that he proposed to the Moabite ruler, similar to what he would later suggest to King Achish of Gath. 24 The king of 22.  See A. Malamat, “The Days of the Judges,” in The History of the People of Israel: The Patriarchs and the Judges, ed. B. Mazar (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1969), 229–30 [Heb.]; J. Lever, “The Wars of Mesha the King of Moab against Israel,” in The Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times, ed. J. Lever (Tel Aviv: Israel Defense Forces, 1964), 225 [Heb.]. 23.  For the status of Moab in Saul’s time, see also Van Zyl’s research: A. H. Van Zyl, The Moabites (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 16–17, 130–33; J. M. Miller, “Moab and Moabites,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. A. Dearman (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 1–40 (esp. pp. 34–35). 24.  The status of David and his forces while staying in Moab has been the subject of various speculations, one of which views them as a “mercenary troop.” 1 Sam 27:5–12 tells of David’s proposal that Achish give him a place in one of the country towns; Achish gives him Ziklag, so that David would command his border detachment, raid the surrounding peoples,

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

569

Moab was willing to extend his protection to the members of David’s family to further his political goals: so that David and his men would harass his enemy Saul. Striking this sort of deal with the Moabite sovereign was probably convenient for David: (1) because David was of Moabite descent; 25 and (2) the Moabites were Saul’s foes, and their king, in all likelihood, would readily accept anyone who rebelled against the Israelite monarch, especially when joined by an entire military force; David could have served as a tool in the Moabite king’s hands against Saul, as the Egyptian king in a later period would use the Edomite Hadad and Jeroboam son of Nebat (1 Kgs 11:14–22, 40). This proposal takes into account the prophet Gad’s words to David: “Do not stay in the stronghold (in the land of Moab); go at once to the territory of Judah” (1 Sam 22:5). David still had a mission in Judah; he complied with the prophet’s mandate and moved with his military force to the forest of Hereth, in the territory of Judah. The Forest of Hereth This is the sole biblical reference to the “forest of Hereth.” Rabbi David Qimḥi comments that Hereth is a place-name. Conder places Hereth at Kharas, an Arab village on a wooded hill to the northwest of Halhul, about 4 km to the east of Keilah in the Judean Shephelah, 26 but this identification is baseless. This leads us to concur with the position that “there is no support for any determination of the location of the forest of Hereth.” There is also no foundation for the conjecture that this is the Aramaic form of the forest [ḥuršah] in the wiland guard the frontier of the Kingdom of Gath. For the phenomenon of “mercenary troops,” similar to the military forces of Jephthah, see: Garsiel, Kingdom of David, 12 n. 6. The practice of hiring foreign troops in times of military distress is documented in the Bible and in documents from the ancient Near East. See 1 Kgs 15:18–20; 2 Kgs 7:6–7; 16:7–9 (cf. 2 Chr 28:21); the inscription of ‫ כלמו‬king of ‫יאדי‬: H. Donner and W. Röllig, KAI 2.30–34, lines 7–8; M. Liverani, “Kitru, kataru,” Mesopotamia 17 (1982): 61–63. The Chronicler tells of Amaziah, king of Judah, who hired mercenaries from Israel and paid them before the battle, to provide reinforcements for his army in their war against Edom (2 Chr 25:6–10). According to Aharoni, the Kittim mentioned in 10 ostracons from the archives of Eliashib in Arad were mercenaries of Greek or Cypriot origin who served in the Judean army and possibly especially in garrison forces in remote fortresses (Y. Aharoni [in cooperation with J. Naveh], Arad Inscriptions: Judean Desert Studies [Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1975], 12–13 [Heb.]; and more). The military unit in David’s army called “the Cherethites and the Pelethites” was also a unit of mercenaries, mainly from Philistia (see Garsiel, Kingdom of David, 57–59, and additional references there). Schunck asserts, in contrast, that David spent a considerable amount of time with the king of Moab with the status of a vassal. On the one hand, he was in a happy position, because the welfare of his family members was assured, but, on the other hand, he lost his independence and was obliged to act in accordance with the orders of his protector (K. D. Schunck, “Benjamin,” BZAW 86 [1963]: 112). 25. For the descent of David from Ruth, the Moabite, see Ruth 4:17–22; McCarter, 1 Samuel, 359; Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 173. 26.  C. R. Conder, Tent Work in Palestine (London: Watt, 1880), 243, a view shared by V. R. Gold, “Hereth,” IDB 2.583; see also I. Peres, A Topographical-Historical Encyclopaedia of Palestine (Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1948), 366 [Heb.].

570

Shmuel Vargon

derness of Ziph. 27 The attempt to identify “Hereth” with “Horesh” in the wilderness of Ziph, in the southern Hebron hill country (1 Sam 23:15–16) on the grounds that ḥeret is an Aramaic form of ḥoršah is similarly doomed to failure, since it does not follow the criteria of phonetic transcription. 28 Nevertheless, based on the factual context and linguistic affinity, it may be fair to suppose that Hereth may be identified with Horesh in the wilderness of Ziph. Keilah 1 Sam 23:1–14 relates the episode of Keilah, a city that also stood on the border between the Kingdom of Gath of the Philistines and the domain of Saul. 29 When David learned that the Philistines were plundering the grain in the threshing floors of Keilah’s fields, he asked the Lord: “Shall I go and attack those Philistines?” (v. 2), and in accordance with the affirmative answer by God, David decided to rescue the inhabitants of Keilah. 30 However, he met with opposition from his men, who were not so daring as to become embroiled in a war against the Philistines. Apparently, they not only feared the Philistines but were apprehensive that their success on the battlefield would demonstrate to Saul that the military force posed a threat to his regime, resulting in the king’s increasing his pressure against them; these were after all fugitives from 27.  “There is no foundation for the conjecture that this is the Aramaic form of the forest [ḥuršah] in the wilderness of Ziph” (“Ḥeret,” EM 3.310 [Heb.]). Har-El (“David Is Hiding among Us,” 166), based on the etymology of the nouns yaʿar with the meaning of obstacleladen grazing land and ḥeret, meaning scored (ḥarut) and cleft, is of the view that yaʿar ḥeret was in an area used as grazing and agricultural land and was situated at a main crossroads in the wilderness, where a toll could be collected from passersby or where their possessions could be robbed. He maintains that yaʿar ḥeret was located in Ha-Qanaim (“the Zealots”) Valley, to the west of Masada. 28.  The consistent process of phonetic transcription shows that the Aramaic letter ‫ת‬ replaces the Hebrew ‫ ׁש‬only when this consonant is represented in Arabic by th, such as ‫ׁשֹור‬ (Hebrew), ‫( ּתֹור‬Aramaic), thawr (Arabic). The Arabic parallel of the Hebrew word ḥoreš is hurš, and not huruth, therefore ruling out the letter ‫ ת‬in the Aramaic parallel. See J. Blau, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2nd ed. (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993), 6. 29.  Keilah is identified with Kh. Qila, an early tel that preserves the ancient name and that is situated approximately 6 km to the east of Nehushah, along the southern end of Nahal Elah (grid reference 1145 1504). See: A. F. Rainey, “The Biblical Shephelah of Judah during Biblical Times and the Second Temple Period,” in Man and Environment in the Southern Shephelah, ed. D. Orman and E. Stern (Givatayim: Masada, 1988), 99–118, esp. p. 105. According to the biblical testimony, “a town with gates and bars” (23:7), this was a fortified city. The tel controls an ancient crossroads, and, according to Josh 15:44, Keilah was a city in the fourth district of the tribe of Judah (cf. 1 Chr 4:19). The archaeological remains discovered at the ruins are consistent with the identification (see M. Kochavi, ed., Judea, Samaria and the Golan Archaeological Survey, 1967–1968 [Jerusalem: Carta, 1972], 23, 48; site no. 70 [Heb.]). 30.  It may be assumed that the sole purpose of this local border incident was no more than to plunder the crops in the fields of Keilah, since the nature of the operation implies that they did not intend to settle in the area of Keilah (Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 420).

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

571

society who had fled to the wilderness and had no wish to draw the attention of the authorities. David managed to persuade them, set forth to battle, and saved the inhabitants of Keilah (23:5). In political terms, David may have been seeking to win the support of the people of Keilah for himself and his troops against Saul’s persecutions. Difficulties in the Sequence of Events Depicted in the Bible and a Proposed Resolution The order of events as described presents two major difficulties: 1.  What led David, after he had been joined by his relatives, to leave the Adullam region, go to Mizpeh of Moab, and stay in the stronghold on the Moab border until the prophet Gad was sent to inform him to return to the territory of Judah? This question is especially compelling, since he was not being pursued by Saul when he was in Adullam. 31 2.  If the “forest of Hereth” was indeed in the southern Hebron hill country, what purpose was served by David’s extensive raiding in the Keilah area? Do the Scriptures really wish to relate David’s lengthy raids to rescue residents who were under attack beyond the region where he was encamped? I feel that the actual order of events in David’s wanderings so far depicted was different from what appears in the Bible. The biblical sequence is not historical-chronological, consistent with the principle that “there is no chronological order in the Torah [in the relating of events]”; 32 it is, rather, a contextual arrangement. Changes in the historical-chronological continuity in the order of events are common in the literary structure in the Bible. 33 In various places, the narrator concludes a topic, despite gaps in time—that is, he skips over certain events—and after concluding the topic in which he is interested, the

31.  Although David patently feared for the lives of his aged parents and those of the women and children (see A. Bartal, The Kingdom of Saul, Israel’s First King [Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad–Sifriat Poalim, 1982], 138 [Heb.]), he apparently thought upon arriving at Adullam that he was now beyond Saul’s reach. 32.  Mekilta, Širat ha-Yam 7; Siprei, Be-Haʾaloteka 9:1; y. Šeqalim 6:1; Soṭah 2:3, and more. For the principle that “there is no chronological order in the Torah,” see: R. Kasher, “The Interpretation of Scripture in Rabbinic Literature,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M. J. Mulder (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 590–91; I. B. Gottlieb, “En Muqdam u-Meʾuhar in Ramban’s Commentary on the Torah,” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 41–62 [Heb.]. 33. For the principle of juxtaposition, see: Y. Zakovitch, An Introduction to Innerbiblical Interpretation (Even Yehudah: Reches Educational Project, 1992), 35–41 [Heb.] and the bibliographical sources cited there.

572

Shmuel Vargon

narrator returns to the events that occurred between the first and last phases of the narrative. 34 Chapter 22 begins a new stage in David’s wanderings: the Adullam-Keilah region. In this phase, “his brothers and all his father’s house” join the journeying. Since the narrator does not desire to describe the continuation of the travels by David’s parents, he relates how their journey ended, even though it happened later. His father and mother stayed in Moab under the care of the king, while his brothers remained with him at the border of Moab. David encamped at the stronghold until the arrival of the seer Gad, who encouraged him to return to the territory of Judah. Chronologically, this took place after David’s military force had rescued the inhabitants of Keilah. During the fighting with the Philistines, David’s parents were still with David in the vicinity of Adullam. According to my reconstruction, the chronological order of the wanderings is as follows: From Gath of the Philistines to Adullam-Keilah to Moab to the forest of Hereth

(beyond the boundaries of Judah) (the territory of Judah) (beyond the boundaries of Judah) (the southern Hebron hill country, in the territory of Judah)

This order of events resolves both of the difficulties that we raised. It is plausible that every once in awhile David’s military troop was situated in a certain region; however, it was not encamped in a fixed place but changed its location from time to time, lest a prolonged bivouac at a single base lead to its discovery and a surprise attack. The band was forced to move or flee to another location when it was faced with a threat to its existence. David therefore began this strategy in Adullam, where he began to gather people around him. Initially, Saul did not view David as an existential threat and did not go searching for him. Only later, when he learned that David was organizing and gaining strength did Saul consider David to be a threat to his rule. In Adullam, David heard that the Philistines were waging war against Keilah, 5 km to the south. 34.  See, e.g., Gen 11:26; 12:1–4; Rashi, Va-Yamot Terah be-Haran 12:1–4; Gen. Rab. 39:7; H. Enelow, “Chronological Order in the [Torah] Portions,” Baraita de-32 Middot, Middah 32 (New York: Bloch, 1933), 40–41 [Heb.]. Also see the narrative of the head of Goliath (1  Sam 17:54–58). This narrative technique has recently been examined by a number of scholars; see, e.g.: J. Licht, Storytelling in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1978), 96; S. Bar Ephrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (Jerusalem, 1980), 151–53, 172–73, [Heb.]; M. Garsiel, “The Battle of Michmas: A Historical-Literary Study (1 Sam 13–14),” in Studies in Bible and Exegesis, vol. 1, ed. U. Simon and M. Goshen (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1980), 1.33–34 [Heb.]; idem, The Kingdom of David, 15; D. A. Glatt, Chronological Displacement in Biblical and Related Literatures (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 2–6. Every change in the chronological order of events has a reason, however, and therefore the explanation for this shift must be sought.

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

573

He went to battle and delivered the city. 35 Adullam and Keilah were situated in the same area, and the events happened in them in chronological proximity. David reached the difficult decision to set out on a long journey outside the territory of Judah to Moab only after having learned, while in Keilah, that despite his having rescued its inhabitants (1 Sam 23:5), the residents intended to surrender him to Saul (23:12). David’s disappointment with the people of Keilah, the fear of his troops regarding Saul and his men (23:3), and his concern for the members of his family because Saul was already seeking to kill them 36 led him to the decision that at this point he needed to stop forging ties with the population in Judah. He understood that his primary concern at this time was to escape Saul’s persecution in order to preserve his and his warriors’ lives. When he realized that he could expect no safe haven in Judah, he fled to Moab; it was only after his agreement with the king of Moab that David began to guard the Moab periphery by stationing himself at the Mizpeh fortress. In chronological and geographical terms, “David and his men [.  .  .] left Keilah at once and moved about wherever they could” (23:13) is parallel to the passage “David went from there [from Keilah, in the Adullam region] to Mizpeh of Moab” (22:3–4). Following David’s departure from Saul’s kingdom, Saul ceased his pursuit of David. In the Wilderness of Ziph—in Horesh (Horshah) Given that 1 Sam 23:13 and 22:3–4 reflect a parallel order of events, 1 Sam 23:14—which describes David’s encampment in fortresses in the southern Hebron hill country in the wilderness of Ziph—returns to the previous subject of 22:5, which tells of David’s return from Moab to Judah, to the forest of Hereth in the wilderness of Ziph. 37 The continuation of ch. 23 depicts a new phase in the life of David’s military band after his return from Moab. 38 In this period, the company moved about in the southeast of the Hebron hill country, in the region of Ziph, Horesh (Horshah), Carmel, and Maon. David came to this region to live among its population, over whom he aspired to rule. The caves in this region provided ready hiding places for rebels and fugitives. 35.  David’s troop apparently afforded a measure of protection for the local populace against the Philistine bands that would raid the fields of the Judahite settlements in order to plunder their agricultural produce, as is additionally indicated by 2 Sam 23:11–12. Regarding the 30-man unit of David that formed at Adullam, see Garsiel, Kingdom of David, 26–40; Schley, “David’s Champions,” 49–52. 36.  David’s parents could not have remained in Bethlehem, certainly not after the mas­ sacre that Saul had committed at Nob, the priestly city (22:18–19), and of course the nomadic and insecure life was far from easy for his father and mother. 37.  For the wilderness of Ziph, see, e.g.: V. R. Gold, “Ziph,” IDB 4.960. The site identification at Tel Ziph, 6 km to the southeast of Hebron (grid reference 1627 0981) was confirmed by an archaeological survey (Kochavi, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Archaeological Survey,, site no. 178). See also: A. Ofer, “The Judean Hills during Biblical Times” (Ph.D. thesis, Tel Aviv University, 1997), §3, 42 [Heb.]. 38.  Verses 14–16 are an introduction to the series of events in the wilderness of Ziph.

574

Shmuel Vargon

The people of Ziph occupy a prominent position in the annals of David’s life on his path to the crown. Scripture presents two episodes connected with his being informed on by the Ziphites, who revealed the hiding places used by David and his men (23:19–20; 26:1). 39 “Horshah,” David’s hiding place in the wilderness of Ziph, is mentioned four times in the chapter (1 Sam 23:15, 16, 18, 19). The text defines its location “in the wilderness of Ziph” (v. 15), “in the strongholds of Horshah, at the hill of Hachilah 40 to the south of Jeshimon” (v. 19). According to one opinion, 41 the word ḥoršah, with its penultimate milʿel accentuation is a general noun for a wooded area, a forest in the southern Hebron hill country. Others maintain that this is a place-name. 42 Zechariah Kallai argues that the definite article form ba-ḥoršah attests that the word does not denote the name of a settlement but is a topographical appellation meaning mountain or wooded mountain, like the Akkadian word 43 ḫuršānu and the Ugaritic ḫrsn; 44 compare with 2 Chr 27:4: “and in the woods [u-weḥorašim] he built fortress and towers.” 45 The difficulty with this view is twofold: (1) the definite article adjoining the word does not necessarily rule out its being a specific place-name. 46 (2) No forests grew in the Judean Desert, both because of its arid climate and as a result of the chalk and flint rock in its 39.  An echo of these events appears in Ps 54:2. Against this background, it is not surprising that Ziph is not enumerated among the cities to which David sent spoils upon his return from the war with Amalek (1 Sam 30:26–31). The omission of the city from the list may be due to the nature of the list or to political factors pertaining to the relations between the Calebite inhabitants of the city and David’s family. 40.  The hill of Hachilah cannot be precisely identified; the context of the passage informs us that it was proximate to the wilderness of Ziph. The “hill of Hachilah” was most likely a high peak in the region that afforded a view of the vicinity. 41.  Thus, e.g., Rashi, Gersonides, Segal (Books of Samuel); McCarter, 1 Samuel, 374. 42.  Thus, e.g., R. David Qimḥi (in his second interpretation); followed by many scholars, such as Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, 243; Driver, Notes on Samuel, 187; Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, 193; Kirkpatrick, First Book of Samuel, 187–88. 43. See CAD H 253–54; W. von Soden, AHw 1.360. 44.  C. H. Gordon, UT 405. 45.  Kallai, “Ḥoršah”; B. Mazar, “Geva and Ḥaroshet Hagoyim,” in Cities and Districts in Eretz-Israel (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1975), 120 [Heb.]. 46.  Ibn Ezra states in his commentary on Deut 6:16, Ba-Massah: “A place-name that is mentioned: ‘The place was named Massah’ [Exod 17:7], and the bet is vocalized with a patah, like ‘Now Zebah and Zalmunna were at Karkor [ba-Karkor]’ [Judg 8:10], ‘and enrolled them at Telaim [ba-Telaim]’ [1 Sam 15:4], ‘There was a man in Maon whose possessions were in Carmel [ba-Karmel]’ [1 Sam 25:2].” See also ha-Hormah (“Hormah”) (Num 14:45), ha-Gilgal (“Gilgal”) (Deut 11:30), ha-Ai (“Ai”) (Josh 8:9). Maon, the home of Nabal of Carmel, has been identified as Kh. Maʿayan, grid reference 1628 0908 (see Ofer, “The Judean Hills during Biblical Times,” §3, 59–60, and additional sources there). The name of the town of “Carmel” has been preserved in Kh. Carmel on the southern edge of the desert, the ancient settlement being located at the eastern section of ruins adjoining grid reference 1631 0923 (see ibid. §3, p. 55, and additional bibliography there).

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

575

soil through which water cannot permeate, and also owing to the large quantities of alluvium that run down the steep slopes of its mountains and hills. 47 Horowitz already noted, 48 following Conder: “The scholars who established the existence of a forest at this location are incorrect, for no forest could grow here, not even in antiquity; here there is only grazing land for camels, goats, and sheep.” It would also be possible to regard the word as a topographical description of the crevassed earth—that is, as if the soil were ḥaruš (plowed), which may also be the correct interpretation of ḥorašim (usually translated as “the woods” or “wooded hills”) in 2 Chr 27:4. It is noteworthy that ḥoršah and ba-ḥoršah take penultimate milʿel accentuation, that is: ḥoreš + the directional article, the meaning of which is preserved in v. 16 (“And he came to David at Horesh”), while remaining without meaning in the three other instances (ba-ḥoršah—in Horesh), similar to the place descriptions: be-Yabeš-ah (“in Jabesh”) (1 Sam 31:13), be-Riblatah (“at Riblah”) (Jer 52:10), and with the definite article, as in the current case: ba-Negbah (“in the Negeb”) (Josh 15:21). 49 The name of the place therefore appears to be “Horesh” and may be identical with “the forest of Hereth,” 50 where David went after his return from Moab (1 Sam 22:5). Dalman located “Horesh” at Kh. Khureise, that is about 3 km to the south of Tel Ziph (grid reference 0954 1623), 51 a view that was accepted by many scholars. 52 The archaeological data uncovered to date do not confirm this identification, since the remains discovered at Kh. Khureise are from the Roman III and Byzantine periods. 53 According to the biblical text (1 Sam 23:19), Horesh 47.  Har-El, “David Is Hiding among Us,” 158–59. 48. I. Z. Horowitz, Eretz Yisrael u-Shekhenoteha (“The Land of Israel and Its Neighbors”) (Vienna: Horowitz, 1923), 245 [Heb.]. 49.  See GKC 250/§90e. 50. Some scholars categorically reject this hypotheses (see “Ḥeret,” 3.310 [Heb.]), but their view is countered by other scholars who maintain that nothing prevents this identification (see Segal, Books of Samuel, 185; Smith, Samuel, 205, 213; Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 427). Har-El asserts that the concept yaʿar here does not attest a forest (“David Is Hiding among Us,” 161). We may conclude that a few trees grew here where trees generally did not flourish, and the location was termed horshah because of its few trees (Kallai, “Ḥoršah,” 3.309). At any rate, a shared internal motif is discernible in both passages: David was motivated to come to yaʿar Ḥeret by Gad, speaking in the name of the Lord; and at Ḥoršah Jonathan encourages him in (the name of) God (23:17–18); also see Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 427. 51. G. Dalman, Palästina-Jahrbuch 9 (1913): 32. 52.  Driver, Notes on Samuel, 187; Hertzberg, 1 and 2  Samuel, 193; Segal, Books of Samuel, 185; et al. 53. See Kochavi, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Archaeological Survey, 72, site no. 201. Horsha may have been situated here only from the Second Temple period on (pp. 29–30).

576

Shmuel Vargon

(Horsha) adjoins the hill of Hachilah “to the right of ha-yeshimon,” that is, to the south of the desolate area. Saul conducted his second campaign in pursuit of David in this region. The campaign, following the betrayal by the Ziphites, placed David in great danger, and a confrontation between David’s men and the force of Saul that was encircling them was a very likely prospect. David might have surrendered himself to his pursuers in order to prevent bloodshed. Right at the last moment, Saul was summoned to protect his subjects from a routine raid by the Philistines, similar to the strike against Keilah when David was encamped at Adullam. After this episode, David decided, for the sake of greater security, to move his troop eastward and establish his base in the strongholds near En-gedi (23:29). In En-gedi The strongholds of En-gedi, where David stayed, are lofty hills in the wilderness close to En-gedi, which is the probable reason for the use of the verb “wa-yaʾal (“he went”—literally, “he ascended”) in 23:29. The name “En-gedi” is preserved by the local Arab population in the name of ʿAin Jidi, near the Dead Sea. 54 David was not successful in establishing a base in this region either, because the informers (whose identity is not revealed by the text) told Saul where David could be found. Saul took immediate action on learning of David’s whereabouts. For the third time, he assembled a large military force and set forth to capture David (24:1–2). The end of this chase should have encouraged David, because Saul regretted having engaged in his pursuit of David and promised to cease this activity (24:17–21). After this expression of remorse and gratitude, Saul made a single request: that David would not destroy his descendants when he ascended the throne. At the conclusion of the conversation between the two, as Scripture relates, each one returned to his place (24:22). 55 Despite this reconciliation, however, David still feared that the lives of his warriors were in danger, and he therefore did not remain in the strongholds of En-gedi but continued all the way to the wilderness of Paran. Kochavi notes that “the preservation of the biblical name Horsha is possible only if this was a topographical designation, and not the name of a settlement.” 54.  For the identification and the excavations in the area, see: B. Mazar, “En-Gedi,” EM 6.201–7 [Heb.]; idem, “Ein gedi,” in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. Winton Thomas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), 224–30; idem et al., En-Gedi: The First and Second Seasons of Excavations, 1961–1962, ʿAtiqot 5 (Jerusalem, 1966); D. Barag, “En-Gedi,” NEAEHL 2.399–409. 55.  According to one scholarly opinion (based on LXX 1 Sam 25:1), David and his men did not remain in the En-gedi region, because this arid area could not support the members of the band and their wives and children; David accordingly returned to the wilderness of Maon. See N. Ararat, “The Modern Reader Confronting the Biblical Narrative: The Narrative of David the Head of the Military Band,” Bi-Sedeh Hemed 25 (1982): 192–98 [Heb.]. I do not accept this theory, but see more on this below.

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

577

In the Wilderness of Paran The next way station in David’s wanderings, the wilderness of Paran (1 Sam 25:1), is beyond the bounds of the geographical area in which David was active in the territory of Judah. “The wilderness of Paran” is a general name for the area of the Sinai Peninsula, which comprises discrete areas: the wilderness of Zin, the wilderness of Sin, the wilderness of Sinai, and the wilderness of Shur. Thus the wilderness of Paran is a generic name for the wildernesses to the south of the land of Israel. 56 In this passage, the wilderness of Paran appears as a broad reference for the wildernesses to the south of the inhabited region. David’s going to the wilderness of Paran is questionable, for a number of reasons: 1.  The text relates nothing concerning David’s activity in this wilderness. 2.  The distance from En-gedi to the wilderness of Paran is too great. 3.  What led David to travel so far from the vicinity of En-gedi after the reconciliation scene with Saul? David’s going to the wilderness of Paran is not appropriate to the context of the biblical passage. The Septuagint Vaticanus (Codex B) reads “the wilderness of Maon” instead of “the wilderness of Paran.” Most modern commentaries 57 rely on this version, also finding support from the following verse: “There was a man in Maon” (25:2) for their emendation of the MT to “the wilderness of Maon.” They then maintain that this correction, according to which David did not enter the wilderness of Paran, resolves the problems we have presented. This solution is unsatisfactory, however, and encounters two main objections. 1.  A single version of the Septuagint, the great distance from the Judean Desert, and the contextual problem raised by these texts together do not constitute sufficient grounds for textual emendation; on the contrary, attempts should be made to understand the MT, which has much support in the targums and in the manuscript versions as an example of a lectio difficilior. 58 2.  The verse (25:1) juxtaposes the death of Samuel with David’s march to the wilderness of Paran. Emendation of the text does not 56.  See Y. Aharoni, “Paran, Midbar Paran,” EM 6.433–34. 57. See: Driver, Notes on Samuel, 195; Segal, Books of Samuel, 194; Hertzberg, 1 and 2  Samuel, 199; Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 451; McCarter, 1  Samuel, 388; and many others. 58.  According to this rule, that is cited in the name of Giovanni Bernado De Rossi (Italy, 1742–1831), the difficult and irregular version is usually the original text, while the simple and normal version is an emendation intended to aid in the understanding of the topic. For the rule that the difficult version is preferable, see: E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Bible: An

578

Shmuel Vargon contribute to an explanation of the connection between the two events. 59

Verse 1 apparently should be viewed as a fragment of an early source that described David’s perambulations. The author of the book of Samuel does not speak of all the wanderings that were listed in detail in the early source but merely alludes to a certain way station in David’s travels in the wilderness of Paran. David came to this wilderness from some place in Judah, that is also unspecified in the narrative. Nor does Scripture explain why David returned to the Maon-Carmel region or how David grew roots in this area as the commander of the unit guarding the sheep of Nabal (25:7, 16, 21). The link between the death of Samuel and David’s descent to the wilderness of Paran can be explained by 1 Sam 19:18–24. David sensed that the threat to his well-being had increased after the passing of the prophet Samuel, who had been his patron, on the one hand, and whose presence had served as a deterrent to any drastic action against David, on the other. 60 After Samuel’s death, David apparently concluded that this signaled the breakdown of the last psychological barrier preventing Saul to whatever extent from continuing his pursuit of David. He therefore resolved to cross the border of Saul’s kingdom and go as far as the wilderness of Paran. 61 Fundamentally, the decision to go to Paran resembled his choice to move to Moab (22:3) and his later joining King Achish of Gath (ch. 27). The early source seemingly contained a narrative of David’s conduct in the wilderness of Paran, but the author of the book of Samuel elected not to include it. This region apparently was not beneficial to David, because it was an Amalekite zone. 62 This nomadic tribe evidently was not pleased by the inIntroduction (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1990), 229–31 [Heb.]; idem, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research 2, (Jerusalem: Simor, 1997), 226–29 and additional documentation there. Hertzberg (1 and 2 Samuel, 199, note e) attempts to explain the error in the MT as resulting from an orthographic corruption. Some scholars see no need to correct the MT here; see, e.g.: Smith, Samuel, 220–21; Kirkpatrick, First Book of Samuel, 199. 59.  Some scholars distinguish between the two parts of the verse, arguing that they are unrelated: the death of Samuel is an independent section, while the second part of the verse is connected to the narrative of Nabal of Carmel (thus, e.g., Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, 199). According to Hertzberg, the death of Samuel is related here because this occurred during David’s stay in En-gedi (ibid., 198; McCarter, 1 Samuel, 388). In other words, this is a purely chronological comment, that does not further the narrative. 60.  For the relationship between David and Samuel, see Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, 452. 61.  The connection between the Hebron area and the wilderness of Paran can be learned from the narrative of the spies in Num 12:16; 13:3, 26. 62.  According to Gen 21:21, Paran was inhabited by the Ishmaelites. Other testimonies indicate that the Amalekites, the descendants of Esau (Gen 36:12, 16; cf. 1 Chr 1:36), wandered mainly through the deserts in the south of the land of Israel to the expanses of the Sinai Peninsula—the wilderness of Paran. See Gen 14:6; Exod 17:8–16; Num 13:29; and the

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

579

cursion of David’s military force into its territory, and David was consequently compelled to return to the realm of the tribe of Judah—to the southern Hebron hill country. In the Southern Hebron Hill Country The Bible devotes two narratives to the phase of David’s movements after his return from the wilderness of Paran to the southern Hebron hill country: the narrative of David, Nabal, and Abigail (1 Samuel 25); 63 and that of Saul’s pursuit of David as a result of the Ziphites’ informing on David (ch. 26). In this stage of his perambulations, David sought to forge ties with clans in Judah, including members of the Caleb family (1  Sam 25:3, 7, 9–17, 21), in whose territory (Hebron) he planned to rule. 64 In this region, David demonstrated his ability to provide protection for the local populace against the wilderness brigands, although Nabal the Calebite (25:3) was unwilling to acknowledge David’s worth or standing and to cooperate with him. After the death of Nabal the Calebite from Carmel, David married his widow. 65 The Ziphites, of Calebite stock (1 Chr 2:42; 4:16), were not reconciled with the presence of David, a descendant of Ram (1 Chr 2:9–15), and his troop in their territory, and at their own initiative and for the second time (the first time: 23:19–28), they therefore sent messengers to Saul 66 and revealed the location summaries by S. Abramsky, “Amalekites,” EncJud 2.787–91; Y. Aharoni, “Amalek,” EM 6.289–92 [Heb.]. 63.  For a detailed analysis of this narrative, see: J. D. Levenson, “1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History,” CBQ 40 (1978): 11–28; Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel, 181–87; M. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1983), 136–43; idem, “Wit, Words and a Woman: 1 Samuel 25,” in On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible, ed. Y. T. Radday and A. Brenner, JSOTSup 92 (Sheffield: Almond, 1991), 163–70; U. Simon, “Abigail Prevents David from Seeking Redress by Blood: Political Violence in the Scriptures,” in Seek Peace and Pursue It: Topical Issues in the Light of Bible, The Bible in the Light of Topical Issues (Tel Aviv: Yediot–Hemed, 2002), 177–217 [Heb.]. 64.  For Caleb’s family, see M. J. Fretz and R. I. Panitz, “Caleb,” ABD 1.808–9. 65.  Ahinoam of Jezreel, David’s other wife (1 Sam 25:43), was also from this region, because the city of Jezreel is located near Maon and Carmel (Josh 15:56; 1 Chr 4:3). This marriage should also be regarded as a political act. See B. Mazar, Canaan and Israel: Historical Essays (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Exploration Society, 1974), 185 [Heb.]. 66.  Many scholars believe that the narrative of the informant Ziphites (ch. 26) is a duplicate of their betrayal in 23:19–24:23. Thus, e.g., Smith, Samuel, 229–30; Driver, Notes on Samuel, 204; Segal, Books of Samuel, 188; Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel, 207–8. See the summation of the differing approaches to the problem in McCarter, 1 Samuel, 386–87; see also Y. Zakovitch, David: From Shepherd to Messiah (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1995), 58–60. I nevertheless contend (without entering into a discussion of the dual narratives in the narrative portions of the Bible) that, if the narrator relates two different (albeit similar) events, this implies that he possessed traditions regarding two events. There is no reason to assume that someone who informs once will not do so a second time. Therefore, in the reconstruction of

580

Shmuel Vargon

of David and his returning band. 67 This pursuit by Saul (1 Samuel 26), like the previous chase in the vicinity of En-gedi (1 Samuel 24), ended with a conciliatory message by Saul, in which he acknowledged David’s superiority, regretted his pursuits, and accepted David’s future as Israelite monarch (26:21, 25). Gath of the Philistines and Ziklag Despite Saul’s assurances that he would refrain from attacking David, the latter, based on past experience did not trust the king’s statements: after the pursuit at En-gedi, Saul had already expressed his regret and spoken in a conciliatory tone but nevertheless did not stop his belligerent actions. David therefore decided to flee, once again, to the land of the Philistines. The text presents David’s motives in explicit fashion: “David said to himself, ‘Some day I shall certainly perish at the hands of Saul. The best thing for me is to flee to the land of the Philistines; Saul will then give up hunting me throughout the territory of Israel, and I will escape him’” (1 Sam 27:1). David departs for Gath of the Philistines, 68 and this time King Achish of Gath agrees to accept David and his men, thinking to make use of these rebels against Saul. Achish thus makes use of Saul’s hostility to David to undermine the rule of Saul and to foment unrest in the Israelite Kingdom. Achish even agrees to David’s request for a place to live and gives him Ziklag (27:5–6), 69 the events, I view ch. 26 as the description of an additional act of informing by the inhabitants of Ziph; see also Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, 206ff. 67.  This pronounced “loyalty” to Saul may have ensued from the struggles between clans in Judah, as was proposed by H. Genizi, “Nabal of Carmel and David,” Bar-Ilan: Bitaʾon Universitet Bar-Ilan (1973): 22–23 [Heb.]. See also: Abramsky, “Saul and David, the Pursued,” 55 n. 20. Numerous scholars (such as Aharoni, Eretz Israel in Biblical Times, 223) assert that the members of the tribe of Judah did not accept the the fugitive David’s troops, and the narratives of their informing on his location attest this general attitude. M. Garsiel argues, in opposition to this view, that David won the support of the people of Judah and that his activities in Judah constituted a rebellion against the government. The instances of informing, according to Garsiel, are exceptional (Garsiel, Kingdom of David, 12–13). 68.  For this tradition’s duplicating the tradition in ch. 21, see above, n. 4. 69.  The identity of Ziklag is disputed. In the past, many scholars, following Abel and Alt, believed that Ziklag was located at Tel Halif (in Arabic: Tell Khuweilife), a large tel in the northeast Negev, to the north of Kibbutz Lahav (within the bounds of the kibbutz), and approximately 17 km to the northeast of Beer-sheba (Israeli grid reference 0879 1373). F. M. Abel, Géographie de la Palestine (Paris: Gabalda, 1938), 2.51, 87, and esp. p. 465; A. Alt, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Munich: Beck, 1968), 3.429 (= JPOS 15 [1935]: 318); see also J. D. Seger, “Tel Halif, 1980,” IEJ 30 (1980): 223–26. The presence of Philistine pottery vessels at the site supports this identification (see the archaeological report on the site: O. Borowski, “Four Seasons of Excavations at Tel Halif/Lahav,” Qadmoniot 15 [1988]: 57–60). Numerous scholars place Ziklag at Tel Sheva (see V. Fritz, “Der Beitgar der Archäologie zur historischen Topographie Palästinas am Beispiel von Ziklag,” ZDPV 106 [1990]: 78–85; W. R. Kotter, “Ziklag,” ABD 6.1090). In contrast, many others, following the proposal by I. Peres (A Topological-Historical Encyclopaedia of Palestine [Jerusalem: Reuven Mass, 1948], 4.806–7 [Heb.]), place Ziklag at Tel Seraʿ (Tell esh-Shariʿa), on the northern bank of Nahal Gerar, halfway between Beer-sheba and Gaza (grid reference 1196

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

581

one of the country towns of Gath that was located in the territory of the Philistines. David and his men lived in Ziklag under royal protection and served the king of Gath for a year and four months (27:7). 70 David received Ziklag as his private property and ruled it under the reign of the Philistine king. His role was to defend the border area of the king of Gath from the direction of the wilderness, from the vast expanse of the Negeb, against the nomads and seminomads, and especially against the pillaging tribes. In this area, far from the eyes of his sovereign, David had considerable maneuvering room. The biblical text relates that he conducted raids from Ziklag into the southern Negeb and wilderness regions: “the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites—who were the inhabitants of the region of Olam, all the way to Shur and to the land of Egypt” (1 Sam 27:8). According to Garsiel, Achish understood that David would not conduct forays into the territory of Judah but nevertheless thought that his protégé’s actions would inflame the southern region. 71 The biblical narrator, however, presents David’s cunning and Achish’s gullibility in order to exonerate David from the charge of collaboration with the Philistines, the enemies of Israel (1 Sam 27:8–12). 72 The Ziklag period was a time of waiting by David for the throne, during the course of which he amassed power. While in Ziklag, he strengthened his ties with the leaders of Judah in Hebron and in the surrounding cities of the south 0889). Excavations have been conducted at the site from 1972 under the aegis of Ben-Gurion University, headed by Prof. Eliezer Oren. See: E. D. Oren, “Tell Seraʿ, Tell Esh-Sharia,” in NEAEHL 4.1328–35. Ziklag is one of the cities of Simeon (Josh 19:5; 1 Chr 4:30) and is in the district of the Negev (Josh 15:30). We learn from the text, which relates that Ziklag was one of the country towns of King Achish of Gath, that it was a small settlement, among the border towns of Philistia. It apparently is to be sought in the west of the territory of Simeon. 70.  According to the LXX, David remained in Ziklag for four months, but the MT appears superior. See Smith, Samuel, 135–36; McCarter, 1 Samuel, 413. 71.  Garsiel, Kingdom of David, 12. 72.  Aharoni develops a theory based on the emendation of the MT: “These were their towns until David became king” (1  Chr 4:31) to “until David became king in Hebron,” and on an analysis of the biblical sources, that the terms “the portion of Simeon” and “the Negeb of Judah” are parallel expressions; in practice, Ziklag was the first kingdom of David, who received it as a vassal of the king of Gath, just as he would later go to rule in Hebron as a vassal of the king of Gath. He asserts that David’s rule was not limited to the city of Ziklag, but also extended over a certain area in the Negeb, that would now be called “the Negeb of Judah,” and whose territory included the first group of Simeonite cities enumerated in Josh 19:2–8 and in 1 Chr 4:28–31 (Aharoni, Eretz Israel in Biblical Times, 208–209; idem, “The Negeb of Judah,” in Judah and Israel, The Twelfth National Symposium on the Land of Israel Studies [Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1957], 46–58 [Heb.]; idem, “The Moving About of David,” 55–56). Reservations about this theory were expressed by participants in the discussion following the lecture: S. Yeivin (ibid., 59), Y. Elitzur (ibid., 61), B. Z. Luria (ibid., 62). For the inner order of the list of the Simeonite cities, see: N. Naʾaman, “The Inheritance and Settlement of the Sons of Simeon in the South of Eretz Israel,” in Isaac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays in the Bible and the Ancient World, ed. A. Rofe and Y. Zakovitch (Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983), 1.124–26 [Heb.].

582

Shmuel Vargon

by sending gifts from the spoils that he took in his raids (1 Sam 30:26–31). 73 1 Chronicles preserves a list of warriors from Benjamin and Judah who flocked to David when he was in Ziklag (1 Chr 12:1ff.), where David became a military commander and leader and laid the groundwork for his entrance into Hebron and his ascent to the throne. From Ziklag, David would return to rule in Judah after the death of Saul and his sons. Additional testimony regarding the areas of David’s moving about is provided by the list of cities in the Hebron and Beer-sheba regions to whose elders David sent gifts from the spoils from his many raids as a token of his gratitude for their aid in the past, during the time he spent roaming through the south (1 Sam 30:26–31). Scripture also notes that the list is not complete; there were additional places, the names of which the author did not find necessary to specify (30:31). This listing is of great importance for a reconstruction of the regions in which David was active and therefore is worthy of a full discussion. The selected list of names includes 13 cities in the south of the land of Israel, 11 of which are mentioned by name, and 2 others that are given collective mention: “the towns of the Jerahmeelites” and “the towns of the Kenites,” without specification. All the cities mentioned by name, with the exception of Aroer and Siphmoth, are Judean cities on the southern slopes of the Judean hill country or Simeonite cities in the Negev. 74 The list opens with Bethel and concludes with Hebron. The mention of Bethel at the beginning of the list does not indicate a geographical orientation but, rather, is apparently based on some sanctity that was attributed to the site or on the memory of the sanctity linked with the name “Bethel” from the time of Abraham. Holiness was also ascribed to the city of Hebron from the time of the patriarchs; Hebron’s position at the conclusion of the city list may allude to the fact that David was destined to be anointed king over Judah. 75 The names of the cities in the list are not arranged in chronological or geographical order, and it therefore is to be regarded as a summarizing roster that documents the places through which David passed on his raids during his time as a fugitive in the regions mentioned above. The geographical location of the sites in the list that have been identified does not essentially differ from the regions in which David stayed during his flight from King Saul. The northernmost place on the list is Hebron, 76 which is 73.  We may assumed that David sent gifts to the elders of Judah in various cities over a lengthy period of time in order to win their support (Garsiel, Kingdom of David, 12 n. 7). 74.  The LXX contains emendations and additions. Siphmoth is mentioned only in this source, and there is no foundation for any theory that locates the city anywhere in the territory of Judah, because its location is unknown; for Aroer, see below. For a geographical analysis of this city list, see Z. Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill, 1986), 277–325. 75. Ibid.; Abramsky and Garsiel, “1 Samuel,” 226. 76.  The city name is preserved as Habran, El-Hallil. Tel Hebron has been identified at the site adjoining Jebel Rumeida, overlooking the tel from the northwest, grid reference 1597 1036 (see Ofer, “The Judean Hills during Biblical Times,” §3, 43–46).

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

583

not far from the city of Ziph. The southernmost city on the list is Aroer, about 20 km to the southeast of Beer-sheba. 77 The cities farthest to the northwest are Bor-ashan and Athach, and the city that is farthest southwest is Bethel. 78 An examination of the historical-geographical aspect of the wanderings of David and his men reveals that different periods are connected with the various 77.  Aroer is apparently identical with Adadah in Josh 15:22 (= Aroer, according to the Septuagint). The site is identified with Kh. ʿArʿarah (H. ʿAroʿer), about 22 km to the southeast of Beer-sheba, alongside the road leading to Dimonah. The excavations conducted at the site in 1975–81 revealed the remains of a fortified city from the time of the First and Second Temples, but no remains were found at this site for a settlement from the time of David (11th–10th centuries b.c.e.). The identification with Aroer in 1 Samuel 30 was first made in 1838 by the American explorer Edward Robinson and was accepted by scholars. See, e.g., A. Biran, “Tel ʿIra and ʿAroʾer toward the End of the Judean Monarchy,” Cathedra 42 (1987): 26–33, esp. p. 29 [Heb.]; idem and R. Cohen, “ʿAroʾer in the Negeb,” ErIsr 15 (Aharoni volume; 1981): 250–73 [Heb.]. Biran nonetheless notes that “we accept the identification of the Aroer that was excavated with the Aroer in the David stories, despite the fact that in our excavations we have not yet discovered architectural and ceramic remains from the time of King David” (p. 29). The possibility has been raised of identifying the remains of the ancient Aroer from the time of David as the nearby Tel Esdar (which was excavated by Moshe Kochavi) and conjecturing that the name of the city is preserved in the adjacent Tel ʿAroʾer (A. Biran, “Aroer [in Judea],” NEAEHL 4.1272). 78.  Bor-ashan is apparently the same as the city of Ashan in the portion of Simeon, in the Judean Shephelah (Josh 15:42; 19:7; 1 Chr 6:44); the prefix “Bor-” may reflect a specific topographical feature attributed to the settlement. Another view identifies it with Tel Beit Mirsim, about 7 km to the south of Amazyah and approximately 20 km to the southwest of Hebron, at the northeastern extremity of the territory of Simeon (Kallai, Historical Geography, 234–35). Still another view places Ashan at Tel Burna on the northern bank of Nahal Guvrin; see Y. Dagan, “Cities of the Judean Shephelah and Their Division into Districts Based on Joshua 15,” ErIsr 25 (Aviram volume; 1996): 136–46, esp. p. 143 [Heb.]. Athach also appears in Codex A of the Septuagint. A site named “Tochen” appears in conjunction with “Ashan” in 1 Chr 4:32. In Naʾaman’s view, its original name was “Athach,” which was corrupted to “Tochen” in 1 Chronicles; and, under the influence of “Ether” in the Shephelah (Josh 15:42) to “Ether” in Josh 19:7, although no place with such a name existed at the edge of the Negev. He believes that the corruption to “Ether” in Joshua was due to its proximity to Ashan (Naʾaman, “The Town-Lists,” 33). It is commonly assumed that the original name was “Ether,” a town that is mentioned together with Ashan in Josh 15:42; 19:7. Ether was situated in the territory of Simeon that was included in the eastern Shephelah of Judah, bordering on the Negev. Some identify it with Kh. Mujeidilat, not far from Tel Beit Mirsim, and others identify it with Tel Beit Mirsim, which was built and fortified in the 10th century b.c.e. (Aharoni, Eretz Israel in Biblical Times, 274). See the short survey of previous studies on this identification in Rainey (“The Biblical Shephelah of Judah,” 104), who is of the opinion (following Peres, Topological-Historical Encyclopaedia, 2.344; 4.762) that this city should be identified with Kh. el-Athar near Tel Burna, approximately 2 km to the northwest of Beit Guvrin (see the proposal of Dagan with regard to Joshua 15 in “Cities of the Judean Shephelah,” 143). Only 1 Sam 30:27 speaks of Bethel as a city in the portion of Judah in the Negev, while other passages offer different versions of its name in the list of cities in the portion of Simeon: Bethul (Josh 19:4), which is a shortened form of Bethuel (1 Chr 4:30; that is, Chesil—Josh 15:30), in proximity to Ziklag. The name of the city is most likely preserved in Tell Umm Beitin, approximately 9 km to the northeast of Beer-sheba.

584

Shmuel Vargon

areas in which David stayed while a fugitive. The regions in which David encamped, according to the chronological order of events (not the order that appears in the Bible), are as follows: 1. Gath of the Philistines 2. Adullam, Keilah 3. Moab 4. the forest of Hereth = Horesh(?), the   wilderness of Ziph, the wilderness of  Maon 5. En-gedi 6. the wilderness of Paran 7. Maon, Carmel, Ziph 8. Gath of the Philistines, Ziklag 9. Hebron

beyond the boundaries of the kingdom the Shephelah of Judah beyond the boundaries of the kingdom in the southern Hebron hill country, Judah in the eastern part of the territory of Judah beyond the boundaries of the kingdom in the southern Hebron hill country, Judah in Philistia, beyond the boundaries of the kingdom in Judah

David sought to establish himself in the southern part of the land of Israel, in the territory of the tribe of Judah and did not desist from his attempts to put down roots among the local populace. Although he roamed this area as a fugitive, he ceaselessly tried to establish ties with the city elders throughout the territories of Judah and Simeon and to win their support for him and his military troop (1 Sam 23:1–5; 30:26–31). Every departure beyond the borders of the territory of Judah entailed a difficult decision on his part, since it would distance him from his aspiration to lead the inhabitants of the south. Every departure of this sort beyond the boundaries of the Israelite kingdom, however, was the result of severe security constraints and ensued due to his fear of capture by Saul and his soldiers. During the course of his being pursued, David was forced to leave the territory of Judah four times (although he returned in each instance to various regions in Judah), whether for fear of his life outside the boundaries of the kingdom (Gath of the Philistines—1 Sam 21:11–22:1; the wilderness of Paran—1 Sam 25:1), as a result of explicit encouragement by the prophet Gad (Moab—1 Sam 2:5), or due to the inspiration he received from inquiring of the Lord (Philistia—2 Sam 2:1–3).

Saul’s Pursuit of David in the Land of Judah

Fig. 1.  David’s wandering as reconstructed in this essay.

585

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

Joan Goodnick Westenholz ‫ל‬′′‫ז‬ tu k u m-b i diĝir-ra -ni igi-z i mu-š iin -b a r ĝ eš tu-K A -ni ĝá l ba -a n-ta g 4 ⸢ x ⸣ ⸢ A N (? )⸣ dla ma dĝuruš diĝ ir[ra ]-n i s u ba -ĝá l-[x] If his god has looked favourably upon him, his ears are opened (and so) his personal god and his protective deities will be present in (his) body. 1 ‫עור ובשר תלבישני ובעצמות וגידים תשככני‬ Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews. (Job 10:11)

Every culture and language shapes the perception of the human being in diverse ways. The physical body was and is continually perceived according to the constructs of society. Biological and physiological phenomena are subject to cultural mediation. In these varying constructions, different valuations are placed on the physical and the mental, the exterior and the interior. For example, regarding the exterior layer of any individual, English has formed idioms such as: “to get under (someone’s) skin,” meaning “to irritate or stimulate; Author’s note:  For previous applications of the term bodyscape in the context of Mesopotamian culture, see Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Divine Agency and Astralization of the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, ed. B. PongratzLeisten; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 153–55, in relation to the divine bodyscape of Ninurta; and Zainab Bahrani, Women of Babylon: Gender and Representation in Mesopotamia (London: Routledge, 2001), 41, regarding the body image in visual representations. I express my deep appreciation for the Felix Gilbert Fellowship at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, which has supported my study of the human body. All English translations in this essay are mine unless otherwise noted. 1. Bendt Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 277–78: Níĝnam, version D, lines D 10–D12. For a discussion of this passage, see p. 593 below.

587

588

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

provoke” or “to preoccupy someone; become an obsession.” “Under the skin” can also imply “beneath the surface.” Our use of these terms and the metaphorical resonances they set up for us are grounded in our own bodies and in our own experiences. Likewise, ancient notions of the person and the body differ according to their differing intellectual and linguistic traditions. 2 In the Bible, one clear description of the corporeal body is given in Job 10:11 (cited above) which could be easily translated into another Semitic language such as Akkadian: maškam u šīram tulabbišanni u ina eṣmēti u šerʾāni tušakkikani.” However, if it were to be rendered into Sumerian, the first clause would cause difficulties. There is no simple correspondence in Sumerian to the Akkadian maškam u šīram; either su u uzu or bar u su or just one noun su could refer to skin and flesh. To Victor, who enjoyed translating into Akkadian and delving under the skin of any subject to see the internal mechanisms, I dedicate this study. In Mesopotamian thought, the external form and appearance of the body affected the fate of individual. 3 Despite the undoubted importance of the surface of the human body for medical diagnosis and prognosis, the cutaneous layer of the skin was mostly scrutinized for significant features regarding future events. Whereas animal viscera were purveyors of ominous signs, the outer shell of the human body was the major carrier of portentous significance. This is stated explicitly in the explanation of the physiognomic omen series Alamdimmû (“Form” or “Figure”). 4 According to the colophon preserved on both later NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian tablets, the late second-millennium royal sage 2.  On the Greek cultural valorizations of the skin, in particular as a symbol of wholeness and oneness, see Heinrich von Staden, “The Discovery of the Body: Human Dissection and Its Cultural Contexts in Ancient Greece,” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 65 (1992): 227. 3.  See further Barbara Böck “Physiognomie und Schicksal? Oder wie der altmesopotamische Mensch mit einem durch ein physiognomisches Omen angekündigtes Unheil umgegangen sein mag,” Sefarad 62 (2002): 241–57. 4. From an artificial Sumerogram alam-dím, “Gestalt” (Barbara Böck, Die babylonisch-assyrische Morphoskopie, AfOB 27 [Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien, 2000], 1); “Körperform” (Barbara Böck, “Hauterscheinungen in altmesopotamischer Divination und Medizin Teil I: Das kuraru-Mal,” AuOr 21 [2003]: 162); “figure” (Jovan Bilbija, “Interpreting the Interpretation: Protasis-Apodosis-Strings in the Physiognomic Omens Series Šumma alamdimmû 3.76–132,” in Studies in Ancient Near Eastern World View and Society Presented to Marten Stol on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, 10 November 2005, and His Retirement from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, ed. R. J. van der Spek [Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2008], 19); “physique” (Eckart Frahm, “Reading the Tablet, the Exta, and the Body: The Hermeneutics of Cuneiform Signs in Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries and Divinatory Texts,” in Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World, ed. A. Annus, Oriental Institute Seminar 6 [Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 2010], 114). For the edition of this series, see Böck, Die babylonischassyrische Morphoskopie, and her other various articles; Bilbija, “Interpreting the Interpretation”; Frahm, “Reading the Tablet.”

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

589

Esagil-kīn-apli described his editorial work on the physiognomic omen series Alamdimmû and diagnostic prognostic medical series Sakikkû (“Symptoms”) 5 in these words: Alamdimmû bunnannê lānu šīmat NAM.LÚ.U18.L[U], “Alamdimmû (is concerned with) external form and bodily appearance (and how they imply) the fate of humanity.” 6 Rutz alluded to the cultural conventions for describing signs on the body and the received knowledge of reading what these signs signify or imply. 7 Thus, the geography of the body was defined by ancient scholars and its semiotic inscription by the gods. The Issues When the ancient Sumerians and Akkadians directed their analytical gaze at the human body, how did they perceive the skin and what categories did they apply in their approach? More generally, what was the role of skin in physiognomic thought? The answers to these queries revolve around two lexicographic issues: (1) su and kuš and (2) bar. Whereas the former lexemes have been subjected to scrutiny, the latter has never been related to the former and has never garnered much interest. In the following, only references related to the anthropomorphic divine, human or animal body will be included. The basic problem concerning su and kuš are that they are rendered by the same sign and thus the reading of that sign is always open to interpretation. In the translations of the following quotation, it can easily be seen that the interpretations given by the various translations are subjective: su / kuš- b i sila -š è im-ma-a b -š ú m-mu šà - m a ḫ - b i si l a d a ĝa l-la im-ma-a b -š ú m-mu u z u - b i ! d u m u n u -mu -u n -s u ! irik i-n a (source: ĝá )-ke 4-ne ĝiš dus u-ta ḫ é - e m - t a - b a - e -n e su / kuš- b i su -s i-ig -š è im-ma-a b -š ú m-mu (Gilgameš and the Bull of Heaven, lines 135–38)

Translations: il jeta sa dépouille à la rue, il jeta ses tripes sur la place; 5.  From sa.gig (lit., “sick cord’), see Nils P. Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik, AOAT 43 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), 3, 95–96. 6.  BM 41237+ rev. line 29′, and dupl., see Irving Finkel, “Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kinapli, and the Series sa.gig,” in A Scientific Humanist: Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, ed. E. Leichty et al., Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9 (Philadelphia: University Museum, 1988), 149; and Nils P. Heeßel, “Neues von Esagil-kin-apli: Die ältere Version der physiognomischen Omenserie alamdimmû,” in Assur-Forschungen, ed. S. M. Maul and N. P. Heeßel (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010), 141. On this line, see Böck “Physiognomie und Schicksal?” 243. 7.  Matthew T. Rutz, “Threads for Esagil-kīn-apli: The Medical Diagnostic-Prognostic Series in Middle Babylonian Nippur,” ZA 101 (2011): 300.

590

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

sa viande, les fils des veuves de sa! ville en prirent chacun leur part dans un couffin, Sa carcasse, il la livra à l’équarrisseur. 8 Its corpse he did throw down in the streets, Its innards he did throw down in the broad streets, Its! meat he did apportion by basket-load to the orphans of his! city, Its carcass he did hand over to the tanner. 9 He threw its carcass in the alley, He set its enormous entrails in the main street, He gave its hide to the tanner, 10 He doled out its meat by the bushel to the orphans of the city. 11

The opposition between “skin” (usually read kuš) and the “body” (usually read su) was investigated by F. R. Kraus in 1984 12 and Antoine Cavigneaux and Farouk al-Rawi in 1993. 13 After reviewing the Old Babylonian lexical word lists, Kraus determined that the polyvalent sign SU renders both su (=  Akkadian zumrum, “body,” and šīrum, “flesh”) and kuš (= Akkadian zumrum, “body,” and maškum, “skin”) and that: “Der Befund ist zwar kein Beweis dafür, daß SU an unseren Belegstellen den Gegenstandsbegriff ‘Haut’ repräsentiert, su­merisch kuš zu lesen und in akkadischen Texten als Ideogram für maškum aufzufassen ist.” 14 His final conclusion: “Als Schlußfolgerung meiner Ausführungen schlage ich vor, SU an allen erörterten Stellen einheitlich kuš zu lessen und als ‘Fell,’ ‘Haut’ aufzufassen.” 15 However, Kraus also demonstrated that SU is to be read su in the compound su-si-ig, which he translated “Abdecker.” 16 In their discussion, Cavigneaux and al-Rawi dem8. Antoine Cavigneaux and Farouk N. H. al-Rawi, “Gilgameš et Taureau de Ciel (šulmè-kam) (Textes de Tell Haddad IV),” RA 87 (1993): 126, lines 135–38. This translation was followed closely in ETCSL: “He consigned its hide to the streets, he consigned its intestines to the broad square, and the widows’ sons of his city each took their share of its meat in baskets. He consigned its carcass to the knacker’s,” 1.8.1.2, Meturan Version, Segment D, lines 54–57. 9.  Andrew R. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Babylonian Epic Poem and Other Texts in Akkadian and Sumerian (London: Penguin, 1999), 175. 10.  Frayne has reversed the order of the lines. 11. Douglas Frayne, The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation, Analogues, Criticism, trans. and ed. Benjamin R. Foster; Sumerian Gilgamesh poems trans. Douglas Frayne; Hittite Gilgamesh trans. Gary Beckman (New York: Norton, 2001), 127. 12.  Fritz Rudolf Kraus, Königliche Verfügungen in altbabylonischer Zeit, Studia et documenta ad iura Orientis antiqui pertinentia 11 (Leiden: Brill, 1984). 13. Antoine Cavigneaux and Farouk N. H. al-Rawi, “Textes magiques de Tell Haddad (Textes de Tell Haddad II),” ZA 83 (1993): 202–5. 14.  Kraus, Königliche Verfügungen, 359. 15.  Ibid., 361. 16.  Ibid., 361–66. This definition of the work of the su - s i - i g is uncertain, although the CAD defined šus/šikku as “fellmonger, an administrative functionary concerned with the disposal of animal carcasses,” and the ePSD defined su-s i - i g as “animal flayer.” The issue

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

591

onstrated that the sign SU in the meaning “body” can also be read kuš and that the opposition between the meanings “skin” and “body” is not substantiated in the texts. 17 Thus, su/kuš, “body,” and kuš/su, “the envelope of the body,” are an indivisible unity. At times, they point out that the reading may be dependent on the poetic phrase—for example, the alliterative couplet su-sa (see below). They also distinguished between su, “substance corporelle,” and uzu, “viande”/“living flesh,” applied to a living human being. They conclude: “II se distingue de kuš en ce qu’il est une notion plus ‘essentielle’, plus ‘intérieure’ à l’individu (noter l’analogie des combinaisons su-zi et šà-zi) que ne l’est kuš, qu’on pourrait définir comme la dimension spatiale de l’homme, expliquant par ce biais comment il a pu devenir l’équivalent de mašku.” 18 Since 1993, this issue has not been reviewed and confusion reigns. ePSD (2006) lists kuš with the meanings “skin; leather; body; person” and su, “flesh; body; entrails (omen); body.” The hypothesis to be tested in the following is whether the Sumerian su, “body,” and kuš, “the envelope of the body, the skin,” denote one entity and whether only when flayed or separated from body, in particular animal bodies, do su/kuš denote “the skin”/“hide.” The second issue revolves around the lexeme bar, which needs to be taken into consideration since it belongs to the same semantic field as su/kuš. From the incidence of substitution and parallelism of these two lexemes, their semiotic overlap can be established. In the following example, su occurs as a variant of bar: m u - z u - šè b a r (var. s u) b í-(in-)-tag-tag Because of you, my body/skin is infected(?) 19

The correlation, whether equivalent or complementary, between the two variables su and bar is examined in this essay. is that SU cannot be understood as pagru in Sumerian contexts. As pointed out by Hallo (William W. Hallo, “Carcasses for the Capital,” in Studies Presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeo­ logische Instituut te Istanbul–Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandaise de Stamboul 89, ed. W. H. van Soldt et al. [Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten; 2001], 165–66), carcasses (adda) and hides (SU) were discrete entities in Sumerian administrative texts. For a discussion of the writing of ad d a, “carcass,” in Ur III texts, see Niek Veldhuis, “Orthography and Politics: adda, ‘Carcass’ and kur9, ‘to Enter,’” in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist, ed. P. Michalowski, JCS Supplement 1 (Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research, 2008), 224–26. 17.  Cavigneaux and al-Rawi, “Textes magiques,” 190–91 note to line 40; 202–5 note to line 17. 18.  Ibid., 205. 19.  See Åke Sjöberg, “Der Vater und sein missratener Sohn,” JCS 25 (1973): 110 (Father and Son 42), composite transliteration; 115, translation; 121, note to line with variant. The present translation and others given in this essay are based on previous treatments but have been revised and altered by the author.

592

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

In the following, the focus is on the semantic range of these Sumerian lexemes rather than on the reading of the signs. Consequently, rather than hazarding a guess as to whether su is to be read /kuš/ or /su/ in any particular context, since any reading is subjective and arbitrary, the sign is rendered consistently SU, whether referring to human vis-à-vis animal or to the epidermis vis-àvis bodyscape. 20 Second, since there is a lack of one-to-one correspondence between Sumerian and Akkadian body parts, the Old Babylonian lexical evidence is considered after the review of the monolingual Sumerian literature. 21 The Evidence SU is clearly defined as the envelope of the body in the creation of human bodies in the literary composition Enki and Ninmaḫ: p e š- b a l - g i l ú SU-b a ĝ ìš n u -ĝar g a l 4-la n u -ĝa r à m-ma -ni-dím d e n - k i - k e 4 l u 2 SU-b a ĝìš n u -ĝ a r g a l 4-la n u - ĝa r igi du 8-a -ni-ta d n i b r u ki t i r u ( GA L .T E ? )-e mu -e mu -n i-in -s a 4-a i g i l u g a l - l a - k e 4 g u b -b u -d è n a m-b i a -ma -n i -in-ta r Sixth, she fashioned one with neither penis nor vagina on its bodyscape. Enki looked at the one with neither penis nor vagina on its bodyscape and gave it the name ‘Nibru eunuch (?)’, and decreed as its fate to stand before the king. (Enki and Ninmaḫ, ETCSL 1.1.2, lines 75–78)

The same text testifies to maleficent demons (asag, namtar) inhabiting the skin of a person. p e š- g i l ú a su r-s u r-ra àm-[ma ]-n i-d ím d e n - k i - k e 4 l ú a s u r-s u r-ra ig i d u 8-a -n i-ta a m u 7- m u 7 m i -n i-in -tu 5 n a m-ta r SU-b i à m-ma -ni-in-z ìg(ZI) Fourth, she fashioned one who could not hold back his urine. Enki looked at the one who could not hold back his urine and bathed him in enchanted water and drove out the namtar demon from his body. (Enki and Ninmah, ETCSL 1.1.2, lines 69–71)

Such possession of the envelope of the human being is reminiscent of the idea of skin walkers. Further, protective beneficial deities can also inhabit the bodyskin, as in the quotation cited at the beginning of this essay: 20.  The poverty of the Sumerian vocabulary in comparison with the Akkadian, not to speak of Greek (derma; cf. Jackie Pigeaud, “La peau comme frontière,” in La pelle umana (The Human Skin), Micrologus: Natura, scienza e società medievali 13 [Florence: Galluzzo, 2005], 23–53) and Latin (cutis, pellis, corium; cf. Anne Grondeux, “Cutis ou pellis: Les dénominations médiolatines de la peau humaine,” in ibid., 113–30); and see n. 21. 21.  Cf. J. Goodnick Westenholz, and Marcel Sigrist, “The Measure of Man: The Lexical Series Ugu-mu,” in Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005, ed. R. D. Biggs et al., SAOC 62 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 2008), 226.

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

593

t u k u m - b i d i ĝir-ra -n i ig i-zi mu -š i-in -b ar ĝ e š tu-K A -ni ĝá l ba -a nt a g 4 ⸢x ⸣ ⸢AN( ? )⸣ dla ma dĝ u ru š d iĝir-[ra ]-n i SU ba -ĝá l-[x] If his god has looked favorably upon him, his ears are open (and so) his personal god and his protective deities will be present in (his) body. (Níĝ-nam, version D, lines D 10–D12) 22

This quotation demonstrates the method of penetration of the beneficial or malevolent beings into the human being through body orifices. 23 Consequently, the “bodyskin” could be defined as one having liminal orifices. The bodyskin SU is anointed with oil, rubbed with lubricants, smeared with lotions, and daubed with perfume, as in the following example: e - n e a - r a - z u - a mu -n a-a n -g u b -b a-à m g iri 17 š u mi-ni-ĝá l-la -à m é r ĝ a r - r a n a m-š ita d u g 4-g a -n i n u n k u r-k u r-ra -ke 4 ì - ḫ e - n u n - n a làl k u 7-k u 7-d a -g in 7 SU-n i b í-íb -a k-à m He (Išme-Dagan) himself stood in prayer to Enlil and offered salutations! When he had begun the lament and spoken the supplication, the prince of all countries treated his bodyskin with oil of abundance as if it were the sweetest syrup! (Lament for Nibru, ETCSL 2.2.4, lines 304–6)

In literary texts, SU, “bodyskin,” occurs in parallelism with sa, “cords.” 24 Since this parallelism is obviously not synonymous, it must be complementary or antithetical. In this opposition, su cannot be the whole body, which would include the cords, but must be the outer bodyskin, while sa is the inner body cords. It may be a rhetorical device based on alliteration. 25 This alliterative parallelism is found in a pre-Sargonic Sumerian incantation mythological tale from Nabada (modern Tell Beydar): SU m e n u - m e -a sa m e n u - m e - a 22.  Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 277–78. 23.  For a discussion of these liminal orifices, see Julia Assante, “Inside and Out: ExtraDimensional Aspects of the Mesopotamian Body with Egyptian Parallels,” Mitteilungen für Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 20 (2010): 7–10. For the ears as the orifice through which wisdom penetrates the brain, see my article “The Ear and Its Wisdom,” in Er öffnete Nisabas Haus der Gelehrsamkeit, Festschrift für . . . zum 1. August 2011, ed. L. Sassmannshausen (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, forthcoming). Illness can also be expelled through these orifices. For the mouth, see Manfred Krebernik, Die Beschwörungen aus Fara und Ebla: Untersuchungen zur ältesten keilschriftliche Beschwörungsliteratur (Hildesheim: Olms, 1984), 26, no. 4A iv 8 = B iv 5; also Graham Cunningham, “Deliver Me from Evil”: Mesopotamian Incantations, 2500–1500 bc, Studia Pohl: Series Maior 17 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1997), 32. 24.  Including the nerves, tendons, muscles, ligaments, veins, and arteries; see Annie Attia, “A propos de la signification de šer´ânu dans les textes médicaux mésopotamiens: Une question d’anatomie,” Histoire des sciences médicales 33 (2000): 47–56. 25.  Cavigneaux and al-Rawi, “Textes magiques,” 204.

594

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

e n - k i ⸢SU⸣ me ⸢n u ⸣-me-a sa m e n u - m e -a a n a - n e b a - n a -⸢ š ú m⸣ [. . .]

d

A bodyskin having no being, sinews having no being, Enki, a bodyskin having no being, sinews having no being above, this was given to him. (col. ii) 26

In his publication of the text, Sallaberger comments that the pairing of su in the meaning “flesh, body” with sa, “sinews, vessels,” is known from Sumerian incantations, and he refers to Cavigneaux and al-Rawi, “ce qui fait la substance de l’individu,” as describing the complete body of the patient. 27 It is interesting to note the metaphorical usage of this complementary pair su-sa: m è - ĝu 10 a m a ḫ è -a -g in 7 k u r-re b a -ra -a b -[è] SU p i r i ĝ sa p iriĝ -ĝ á k i-b al-a zi-z i-i My battle, like an onrushing flood, overflowed in the mountains. With a lion’s bodyskin and lion’s muscles, it rose up in the rebellious land. (Angim, Ninurta’s return to Nibru: a šir-gida to Ninurta: ETCSL 1.6.1, lines 119–20)

Whereas the polyvalent sign SU renders two different phonological lexemes, the sign BAR is said to render a variety of different homophonous semantic lexemes. The PSD has 5 entries for bar: bar A through bar E. Of these entries, two refer to body parts: bar A and bar B. While bar A is translated “outside,” “side,” “back,” “edge,” “exterior,” “outer covering,” “outer form,” “body,” “skin,” “fleece”; bar B is translated “liver” (as the location of the soul and mind), “spirits,” “mood.” 28 In the latter meaning, bar is never used to refer to the physical materiality of the liver as an organ but only in figures of speech. This metaphorical meaning has been imported into Sumerian from the Akkadian translation given in lexical entries in Proto-Aa and later canonical Aa and Izi. In the following, the discussion is limited to the monolingual Sumerian references to bar as a body part. 26. Walther Sallaberger, “The Sumerian Literary Text from Tell Beydar: A Myth of Enki?” in Third Millennium Cuneiform Texts from Tell Beydar (Seasons 1996–2002), ed. Lucio Milano and Walther Sallaberger et al., Subartu 12 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 39 (transliteration), 42 (translation); Philippe Talon, “212: Epigraphic Find from the Excavation Season 2000,” in ibid., 118 (copy, photograph), 119 (transliteration). 27.  See the sources cited in n. 26; see also Cavigneaux, and al-Rawi, “Textes magiques,” 170–205. 28.  The ePSD has 5 homophonous entries for bar but combines PSD’s ba r A and B into one entry.

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

595

While oil is used to lubricate the SU, clothes adorn and cover the bar (cf. references collected in PSD bar A mng. 4.1.2). 29 An example is: n a 4- n u n u z t a b -b a g a b a-n a b a -n i-in -s i túg p a l a 3 t ú g n a m-n in -a bar-ra-n a b a -a n -d u l She placed twin egg-shaped beads on her breast. She covered her bodyskin with a pala dress, the garment of ladyship. (Inana’s Descent to the Netherworld, ETCSL 1.4.1, lines 20–21)

Or the opposite, the bar is stripped naked (bar-su/sù): e 2- m e - e š bar-s u g u 7 la -b a-⸢ d u 12* ⸣ -d u 12* He (the man without a personal god) does not experience summer that consumes the naked skin. (Hymn to Ḫendursaĝa [Ḫendursaĝa A], line 209′) 30

The sun burns the skin of the person. The lexeme b ar has the same temporal and spatial distribution as SU. For example, bar appears in proverbial expressions from the ED period: á š d u g 4- d [ u g 4] bar š è-d ar An insult hurts only the skin. 31 (The Instructions of Šuruppak; see Alster, Wisdom of Ancient Sumer, 80)

Similarly, the lexeme bar occurs in antithetical parallelism in Sumerian literature. The binary opposition in Sumerian thought is between šà, “inside/ interior,” and bar, “outside/exterior,” of the body, which together make up the entirety of the human body. The Mesopotamian body whole is the combination of the collective innards and exterior shell. This opposition has been noted many times, for example by Joachim Krecher but, as he states most clearly, he translates on the basis of the later idiomatic Akkadian phrase libbu : kabattu. 32 The ministering goddess, Ninšubura, designates her responsibility as: 29.  One exception: túg-ba13 kù SU-ĝá mu-ni-in-l á, “He (Enlil) wrapped a festival dress around my body” (Inana Hymn F 12, ETCSL no. 4.07.6). There may be more instances of SU in this usage not in the corpus. 30.  See Pascal Attinger and Manfred Krebernik, “L’Hymne a Hendursaga (Hendursaga A),” in Von Sumer bis Homer: Festschrift fur Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004, ed. R. Rollinger (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2005), 46. 31.  The English children’s rhyme reflecting the same sentiment is: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” 32. Joachim Krecher, Sumerische Kultlyrik (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966), 146. For egí-re a šà-⟨ba⟩-n i a bar-ra-ni (SK25 ii 41, Krecher, Kultlyrik, 55), note the translation given on p. 67: “Die Fürstin —, ach ihr Herz! ach ihr Sinn!” Although, as Krecher points out, most of the later bilinguals translate libbu : kabattu, certain bilingual texts preserve the earlier opposition: š à-bi líl-lá -àm bar-bi líl-lá -àm = lìb-ba-šú za-qí-qu a-ḫa-tu-šú zaqí-qu-ú-ma, “its inside is nothingness, its outside is nothingness” (SBH 62, no. 33.25–26).

596

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

šà d è - e m - ḫ u ĝ-e bar d è -e m-ḫ u ĝ-e d ì m - m e 8- e r da -n u n -n a ĜA R-ĝ á-e d è -e n -ḫ u ĝ -e let me sooth the innards, let me sooth the outsides, let me sooth the gods, the Anunna in the chamber (?). (Ninšubur A Segment B lines 6–7, ETCSL 4.25.1) 33 šà ḫ u ĝ-ĝ á - d a bar ḫ u ĝ-ĝ á-d a (his divine duties, namely) to soothe the innards, to soothe the outsides. (Gudea Cyl B x 16, ETCSL 2.1.7, line 1048) 34

On infrequent occasions, SU and bar occur in the same clause. In the following late Early Dynastic citation, SU and bar are clearly distinct lexemes, the former rendering, “skin,” in the sense of the hide of an animal; and the latter rendering “bodyscape,” in reference to a deity: u 4 g i 6- t a è - a k u š( SU) - p i r ig b ar n a m-mi-mu 4 k u š( SU) - p i r ig -p irig zag mu-ni-kešda As the day rose from the night, He (Ninurta) dressed (his) body in a lion’s skin. With lions’ skins he girded himself. (Barton cylinder vi 10–13) 35

The opposite contrast occurs when bar is the fleece of the sheep and su the “bodyscape” of the great gods: b a r - ĝu 10 SU d iĝ ir g a l-g al-e -n e-k a mu l-ma -a l im-mi-ib-z a My fleece glistens on the bodyscape of the great gods. (The Debate between Grain and Sheep, ETCSL 5.3.2, line 109)

In addition to the lexemes SU and bar, a rare and infrequent compound subar occurs. The term su-bar (PSD bar mng. 4.1.3) is first found in one group 33.  Reprinted in Gábor Zólyomi, “A Hymn to Ninšubur,” in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein, ed. Y. Sefati et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2005), 398, rev. 6ʹ–7′. The translation is mine. For more common translations, compare “let me sooth the hearts, let me sooth the spirits” (Zól­yomi, “A Hymn to Ninšubur,” 398); “Pour apaiser le cœur, pour apaiser l’humeur” (Margaret Jaques, Le vocabulaire des sentiments dans les textes sumériens: Recherche sur le lexique sumérien et akkadien, AOAT 332 [Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2006], 166 n. 375). On the other hand, the ePSD has the entry bar hu ĝ, “to appease,” as composed of the lexemes b a r, “outside” + huĝ, “hire.” 34.  For the most recent edition, see Willem H. P. Römer, Die Zylinderinschriften von Gudea, AOAT 376 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 73. 35. Bendt Alster, and Aage Westenholz, “The Barton Cylinder,” Acta Sumeriologica 16 (1994): 20 (transliteration), 28 (translation).

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

597

of Early Dynastic IIIa Sumerian incantations in the phrase su-bar nam-lú. 36 Krebernik understood the phrase as “Körper (oder ein Teil desselben) des Menschen,” on the basis that su is “Körper” and suggesting that the compound su-bar literarily conveys “Körper-Äußeres.” 37 But he hypothesized that the compound su-bar was composed of su, “Leib,” and bar, “Körper-Äußeres,” hendiadys for “Körper.” The most complete composition of this group of Early Dynastic therapeutic incantations may have embedded in it an etiology of the human species created out of a dust storm observed by Enki from the abzu (in the first incantation); by Inana, possibly from the heavens; and by Enlil from the earth (in the second incantation): obverse i  1. én-é-nu-ru Incantation.   2. an-na IM mu-zi In heaven a wind arose,   3. ki saḫar mu -zi on earth dust swirled up;  4. imu 5 mu-zi south wind rose, 38  5. immir mu-zi north wind rose;   6. I.IGI.MAŠ gale ii   1. dal-ḫa-mun and dust storm   2. mu-zi arose;   3. su-bar lú a human body  3. mu-zi arose.   4. utu lú ḫé-DU May Utu come to? the man.  5. dnanna lú ḫé-DU May Nanna come to? the man.   6. eme-gál inim May the eloquent, of brilliant mul x(AN.AN) speech,  7. den-ki Enki, iii   1. lugal diĝ ir abzu king, god of the Abzu,   2. lú ḫé-DU come to? the human.  3. imu 5 He (Enki?) saw south wind,  4. immir north wind,   5. I.IGI.MAŠ gale,   6. dal-ḫa-mun dust storm, 36.  Krebernik, Beschwörungen, 26–35, nos. 4–5, pp. 382–83 copy; Niek Veldhuis, “Another Early Dynastic Incantation,” Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2006/2, http://cdli .ucla.edu/pubs/cdlb.html. 37.  Krebernik, Beschwörungen, 29. 38.  On the winds, see Frans A. M. Wiggermann, “The Four Winds and the Origins of Pazuzu,” in Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient: Sprache, Religion, Kultur und Gesellschaft, ed. C. Wilcke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 127–34. Figures of the winds as winged deities, as masters, or as protectors of human beings are shown on pp. 139–40, figs. 3–4.

598

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

  7. su-bar lú a human body   8. igi-na mu-bar  9. dMA-MU/gu 10 My MA-god / The goddess Ma-mu, 39 10. a-zu 5 the physician / the seer, 40 iv  1. e-ta x(TA gunû)-è came out.   2. UD.KA du 11-ga Incantation  3. dnin-gir im x(BU.KU 6.DU) of Ningirima. (empty space) reverse i  1. dInana kù Holy Inana,  2. ú ? dEn-líl and? Enlil   3. an-gál-x were present   4. kur bàd and saw in the high mountains  5. imu 5 south wind,  6. immir north wind,   7. I.IGI.MAŠ gale   8. dal-ḫa-mun and dust storm  9. ku 6 mušen-gin 7 —like fishes and bird— ii   1. su-bar lú and a human body   2. igi-na mu-bar  3. dMA-na  41 His MA-god,   4. a-zu 5 the physician / the seer,   5. e-ta x(TA gunû)-è came out.   6. UD.KA du 11-ga Incantation  7. dnin-girim x(BU.KU 6.DU) of Ningirima. 42 39.  Possibly to be identified with the goddess of dreams, Mamu, known in pre-Sargonic Mari ma-mu-da TH 80.111 iii′ 2′ fragmentary composition written in Akkadian regarding oneiromancy (TH 80.111; see Marco Bonechi and Jean-Marie Durand, “Oniromancie et magie à Mari à l’époque d’Ébla,” in Literature and Literary Language at Ebla, ed. P. Fronzaroli, Quaderni di Semitistica 18 [Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze, 1992], 155, who comment on line 9 with another reference), and in Old Akkadian Adab, see Marcos Such-Gutiérrez, “Untersuchungen zum Pantheon von Adab im 3. Jt.,” AfO 51 (2005–6): 23, s.v. 72. 40.  Cf. Ebla: inim-a:zu5 = ʾà-zi-um (source A), ʾà-za-zu (source D). These translations may be explained as ḥāziyum and ḥazzāzum, “(fore)seer,” from */ḫzy/w, “to see, to vaticinate; to be seer” (Amalia Catagnoti and Marco Bonechi, “Magic and Divination at IIIrd Millennium Ebla, 1: Textual Typologies and Preliminary Lexical Approach,” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 15 [Magic in the Ancient Near East; 1998]: 37). 41.  Possibly this is a scribal error for either dMa-⟨mu⟩-n a or a dittography from previous igi-na. 42.  Veldhuis, “Another Early Dynastic Incantation.” Similar incantations can be found in Krebernik, Beschwörungen, 26–35, nos. 4–5, pp. 382–83 copy = Cunningham, “Deliver Me from Evil,” nos. 11 (discussed on p. 32) and 12.

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

599

Two additional incantations belonging to this group of Early Dynastic incantations have different verbal Leitmotifs. The first incantation seems to play on the word kéš, “to bind,” and the second on the verb ru, “to cast down, release,” while the cited incantation has zi, “to rise.” 43 It has been proposed that these are therapeutic incantations, the objective of which is to fight the illness bound to the su-bar nam-lú, the body of the patient. 44 The question is in what manner this binding to the body was understood. The verb kéš binds illness both (apparently) externally to the su-bar and internally to the šà. 45 Consequently, su-bar seems to be equivalent to bar in its semiotic function. Su-bar is not limited to Early Dynastic compositions but also occurs in Old Babylonian texts (see refs. in PSD bar, s.v., mng. 4.1.3). For example, in an incantation against the evil eye written in syllabic Sumerian “(Let Enki, master of the Abzu, cause it to depart) from your body (su-ba-ra).” 46 In this reference, su-b ar is identical in meaning with su as the bodyskin inhabited by spirits. Furthermore, su-bar can be used as a metonym for the whole person or in a figurative sense—usages also known from its Akkadian equivalents (see below): su - b a r šu l - g i d u mu de n -líl-lá -ra d u 11-g e-e š im-mi-ĝá l The sound I produce, in all its sweetness, is a delight for the person of Šulgi, son of Enlil. (The Debate between Bird and Fish, ETCSL 5.3.5, line 76)

Su-bar can also alternate with su without any obvious distinction in meaning: ì ḫ u r - sa ĝ SU kù ĝ ál-la -z u d n a n n a b a r a 2 maḫ -zu ⸢b a⸣-ĝ a r-ra g a d a m a ḫ k e š d a s aĝ íl s i mu l s u ḫ 10-g ir 11 n am-me n !-na ì m a ḫ ì n a m -men ! ì erim 3 g a l-z u su-bar kù-ga -ka 43.  The concatenation of the verb zi with the object SU in these incantations does not seem to be related to the compound su-zi, “gooseflesh, fear.” For s u - z i / s u—zi (compound verb), “to have / give goose bumps, to be afraid, emotion of fear,” see Fumi Karahashi (“Sumerian Compound Verbs with Body-Part Terms” [Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2000], 144). One example is: lugal-me-en ní ba-ra- b a - d a - t e su b a - r a - b a - d a - z i, “I, the king, I feared not, nor was I terrified! (lit., Me, the king, with me fear truly did not approach! The skin certainly did not rise with me!)” (Šulgi A 70, ETCSL 2.4.2.01); see Abraham Hendrik Jagersma, A Descriptive Grammar of Sumerian (Leiden: Faculty of the Humanities, Leiden University, 2010), 575. 44.  Krebernik, Beschwörungen, 26, no. 4, A iv 4 = B iii 8–9. 45.  Ibid., 150, no. 28 iii 5. M. J. Geller (“Review of G. Cunningham, ‘Deliver Me from Evil,’” AfO 46 [1999–2000]: 272) prefers to understand the text as: “Enki is angry? / worried? [lit. bound / pinched the heart].” 46.  Cavigneaux and al-Rawi, “Textes magiques,” 198, line MA 17.

600

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

k a r - z a - g ì n k a r ma ḫ k ar k ù-g a-n a d n i n - g u b l a g a -k e 4 e n š u im-ma -a n -k ù-g a You put mountain oil on your sacred body (SU); O Nanna, you are placed upon your majestic dais, wrapped in majestic linen, with raised head, shining horns and the diadem of lordship! With the majestic oil of the sacred body (su-bar), the oil of lordship, oil from your great treasury, on his lapis-lazuli quay, the majestic quay, the sacred quay. Lord Ningublaga consecrates the hands. (“A Hymn to Nanna” [Nanna E], ETCSL 4.13.05, lines 46–51)

In all these cases, su-bar can replace both bar and su in the following contexts: 1.  Replacing bar in opposition bar : šà 2.  Replacing su in meaning bodyscape of human or deity On the other hand, su-b ar is apparently not used for the hide of an animal (kuš) or the fleece of a sheep (bar) in Sumerian texts. 47 The last data to be utilized with respect to solving this problem are those provided by Old Babylonian lexicographical texts and bilingual literary texts. The key evidence that has been cited by scholars for the meaning of SU and bar comes from the sign list Proto-Ea giving various possible readings of individual cuneiform signs and its expanded Proto-Aa providing an Akkadian translation. For SU, there is compelling evidence of the polyvalence of SU. Two distinct entries are given in Proto-Ea 148, 149 (MSL 14 37; DCCLT): 148 [[su]] s u - ú SU 149 [[kuš]] k u - u š SU

While the semantic field of the first entry is expanded in Proto-Aa Nippur, the second entry is limited to one meaning (MSL 14 94–95; DCCLT): 148:1 [[su]] [s u - ú] [SU] 148:2 [[su]] 148:3 [[su]] 148:4 [[su]] 148:5 [[su]] 148:6 [[su]] 148:7 [[su]] 148:8 [[su-⟨(lim)⟩]]

[ṭu-ub]-bu-u [ri]-a-bu-um [ta]-ri-bu-um ⸢zu⸣-um-ru-um ši-i-rum me-re-e-nu e-ri-iš-šum ša-lum-ma-tum

to make pleasant 48 to replace replacement body flesh nakedness naked corpse

47.  Yet, su-bar is found in lexical texts in this meaning; for ku š - b a r, see PSD B p. 105. 48.  Perhaps this meaning is related to the metaphorical usage albeit of s u - b a r in The Debate between Bird and Fish, cited above.

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape 148:9 [[su-⟨(zi)⟩]] 149:1 [[kuš]] [k u - u š] SU

ša-ḫa-a-tum ma-aš-kum

601

to fear skin

The Akkadian lexicographers who created these lists saw in SU the equivalent of three distinct Akkadian body parts: zumrum, “body,” and šīrum, “flesh,” with the reading /su/ and maškum, “skin,” with the reading /kuš/ from whence originated the assumptions discussed above under the section on the issues involved in this study. Whereas the Akkadian translations of zumrum and maškum could be deduced from the evidence reviewed above, the slippage of SU into Akkadian šīrum needs explanation. It is not a productive logogram in Akkadian (CAD s.v. šīru A). In bilingual texts, Akkadian šīru u damu are rendered either su—sa or uzu—mud, the former a Sumerian idiomatic phrase (see above), and the latter the more correct Sumerian semantic equivalences. Of the two instances of the use of SU in Akkadian contexts as a logogram, both stem from Sumerian semantics; the Old Babylonian example relates to the SU of the god Šamaš (PBS 7 133 ii 72, sub mng. 1b–2′) and refers to its figurative usage in idioms of physical pleasure. On the second occasion, SU is used as the variant of UZU in BAM 471 ii 28 (sub mng. 1b–1′) and relates to rubbing oil on skin. This minor overlap in semantic fields plus the bilingual mechanical translation apparently caused šīru to be given as the translation of SU. Old Babylonian lexicographical texts and bilingual literary texts providing Akkadian translations of bar are both similar and divergent. One distinct entry is given in Proto-Ea 120 (MSL 14 36; DCCLT): ba-ar BAR. In addition, two secondary branches of Proto-Aa provide Akkadian translations, probably of the sign BAR: [BAR] ⸢ṣe⸣-rum back / open country it-tum sign i-ta-tum signs ka-wi-a-tum outskirts bu-da-an both shoulders zu-um-rum body ku-un-ši-lum thistle (for carding) qá-la-pu to peel ša-la-qum to slit wa-ar-ka-tum rear side ka-⸢ba⸣-tum liver úḫ-ḫu-rum to be late a-la-ku to flow ṣa-ra-rum to flow ša-la-tum to split (Proto-Aa Geneva 251–61, MSL 9 129) 49 49.  See also the poorly preserved Secondary Proto-Ea/Aa 10 ii 12–16, MSL 14 129.

602

Joan Goodnick Westenholz

In the case of the Akkadian translations of BAR, further evidence comes from the Akkadian glosses to Proto-Izi II 321–32 (MSL 13 50): b a r su-tum measure of volume b a r zu-um-ru-[um] body b a r ka-ma-tum outskirts b a r a-ḫi-a-t[um] outer, outskirts b a r p[a]-ar-r[u] hide 50 b a r [ba]-ma-tum open country b a r ṣe-rum back / open country b a r ku-un-ši-lum thistle (for carding) b a r ša-la-qum to slit b a r ša-la-tum to split b a r i-ta-tum signs b a r wa-ar-ka-tum rear side

Corporeal equivalents for bar given by the lexicographers are zumrum, “body,” būdān, “two shoulders” (dual), pāru, “hide,” in addition to kabattu, “liver.” Further anatomical references might be ṣērum and warkatum, but these terms relate to not only the back side of humans but also to that of objects and matter. The semantic field of bar given in these secondary Proto-Aa lists also includes the verbs related to removing the skin, the cutaneous layer, from the body. The anomalous entry in this list of exteriority is without doubt kabattu, “liver,” as is the meaning “mood” in PSD bar B. Comparable to the occurrence of Akkadian šīrum as a meaning of SU, the appearance of kabattu, “liver,” is dependent on the Akkadian semantic field. Bar is never used as a logogram in Akkadian with this meaning. The Akkadian translation kabattu, “liver,” is dependent on the Akkadian translation of the idiomatic Sumerian phrase bar—šà as kabattu—libbu. A separate lexical list is dedicated to the human body: the anatomical vocabulary entitled Ugu-m u (“my cranium”). 51 In this list, however, there is one relevant entry: kuš(SU)-ĝ u10(MU) = ma-aš-[ki], “my skin.” 52 Bilingual literary texts also provide hints in metonymic uses of “body,” “person,” and “self”: (May the eye that follows you and the tongue that follows you, the evil-acting tongue) su - b a r - r a ḫ é -z i-z i : ina zumrišu lit[bû] depart from you (lit., arise from your body). (VAT 8382, line 55, royal ritual) 53 50.  Cf. CAD pāru A. 51.  For an introduction to Ugu-mu, see Westenholz and Sigrist, “The Measure of Man.” 52. Miguel Civil, The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 12, Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection: Cuneiform texts 5 (Bethesda, MD: CDL, 2010), 151, SC 4146: 51 53.  J. J. A. van Dijk, “VAT 8382: Ein zweisprachiges Konigsritual,” in Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient: Adam  Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966, ed. D.  O. Edzard (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1967), 262.

Under The Skin: A Study of SU, the Sumerian Bodyscape

603

Conclusion Ancient Sumerian conceptions of the human body require a shift in our thinking. The SU is a receptacle for the internal viscera (šà) and the cords (sa). On the other hand, bar is also a term for the outer envelope of the body, but it is never a receptacle for the internal viscera. In synonymous, semantic, and syntactic parallelism in three successive clauses, the following reference highlights the differences between šà, su, and bar: šà - z u ḫ a - r a - d ùg su - z u ḫ a - r a - d ùg b a r - z u ĝ i šk i m g i-n a -a -z u ḫ a-ra -d ùg May your (Rīm-Sîn’s) innards (“heart”) be well; May your bodyscape be well; May your exterior, (the place) of your true signs, be well. (“A Prayer to Nanna for Rīm-Sîn” (Rīm-Sîn G): ETCSL 2.6.9.7, lines 43–45, PSD B 100, s.v. 4.1.5) 54

The Sumerian conceptions of the SU and bar are encapsulated in this reference. The differentiation is not only anatomical but also semiotic. This text provides the missing link between BAR = ittu, “sign,” and Esagil-kīn-apli’s statement that semiotic signs are inscribed on the exterior of the body. Consequently, meaning was not ascribed to the subcutaneous layer of skin beneath the surface of the skin, as in English, but significant features regarding future events were inscribed on top of the cutaneous layer of the skin. Mapping the semantic fields of SU and bar has shed much needed light on the Sumerian conception of the human body. 54. Nicole Brisch, Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–1763 bce), AOAT 339 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2007), 238–39.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans in the Inscriptions of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur of Suḫu

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. It has been over 20 years since the publication of the tablets discovered by Iraqi archaeologists in salvage work in the Ḥadītha Dam area. 1 Various scholars have contributed to a richer understanding of these texts. 2 In this study, Author’s note:  This study is dedicated to Prof. Victor Avigdor Hurowitz in recognition of many decades of friendship and collegiality and in honor of his great interest in the literary study of the Mesopotamian texts, where he made such an important contribution to the advance of the discipline. 1.  See A. Cavigneaux and B. K. Ismail, “Die Statthalter von Suḫu und Mari im 8. Jh. v. Chr.,” BaghM 21 (1990): 343–57, 412–17. Reedited by G. Frame, Rulers of Babylonia: From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 bc), RIMB 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995) (= RIMB 2.294–300). Texts will be cited with the numbering from this edition. 2.  A. K. Grayson, “Studies in Neo-Assyrian History II: The Eighth Century bc,” in Corolla Torontonensis: Studies in Honour of Ronald Morton Smith, ed. E.  Robbins and S. Sandahl (Toronto: TSAR, 1994), 73–84, esp. pp. 80–84; P.-E. Dion, “Les Araméens du moyen-euphrate au VIIIe siècle à la lumière des inscriptions des maîtres de Suhu et Mari,” in Congress Volume: Paris, 1992, VTSup 61 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 53–73; idem, “The SyroMesopotamian Border in the VIIIth Century bc: The Aramaeans and the Establishment,” BCSMS 30 (1995): 5–10; idem, Les Araméens à l’âge du fer: Histoire politique et structures sociales, Études bibliques n.s. 34 (Paris: Gabalda, 1997), 53–631; E. Lipiński, The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion, OLA 100 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 105–7, 425–28; F. Blocher, “Assyrische Würdenträger und Gouverneure des 9. und 8. Jh.: Eine Neubewertung ihrer Rolle,” AoF 28 (2001): 298–324; P. Clancier, “Le moyen Euphrate de l’implantion des Arameens à la periode romaine,” in Studia Euphratica: Le moyen Euphrate iraquien révélé par les fouilles préventives de Haditha, ed. C. Kepinski, O. Lecomte, and A.  Tenu, Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 3 (Paris: Boccard, 2006), 247–89; N.  Naʾaman, “Three Notes on the Suhu Inscriptions,” NABU (2003) no. 92 (pp.  101–2); idem, “The Contribution of the Inscriptions of the Governors of Suhu to the Study of the History of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah,” Zion 69 (2004): 133–56 [Heb.]; idem, “The Contribution of the Suhu Inscriptions to the Historical Research of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah,” JNES 66 (2007): 107–22; idem, “The Suhu Governors’ Inscriptions in the Context of Mesopotamian Royal Inscriptions,” in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical

605

606

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

I address once again the key episode involving the nomadic Aramean tribal entities, using literary analysis and the archaeological data to generate a more comprehensive understanding of the history of the Middle Euphrates in the first two-thirds of the 8th century b.c.e. Written in the Babylonian dialect with both Assyrian and Aramaic influences, these texts of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur of Suḫu describe his mighty achievements, especially his defeat of the Ḫaṭallu Aramean tribal confederation headed by the wily leader Šamaʾgamni. The texts are quite vivid and show impressive narrative ability, 3 especially in plot development, which is somewhat unusual in Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, which are more often stereotypical. The Historical Context As a preliminary, a word must be said about the nature of the region and its history just prior to the time of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur. First, the area that constituted the land of Suḫu is restricted largely to the fertile band along the Euphrates with stretches of desert steppe on each side useful for nomadic pastoralism. The geographical constraints (the narrowness of the cultivable strip, the enclosed valley, the proximity of the Euphrates and of its floods) have always limited the possibilities for human settlement. 4 Thus, what made this area vital was neither its agricultural potential nor its raw material resources but its strategic position on international trade routes and on the routes of the pastoralists. Kepinski puts it well when she states: The land of Suḫu was essentially an open door towards Babylonia, but also a zone through which Aramean and Arab nomadic populations passed on their way to the pastures of the Euphrates or the Wadi Tharthar. Suḫu was at the crossroads of international trade routes between the Babylonian world, the Diyala, Iran and the Levant on the one hand, and on the other between Assyria and the world of the steppe. 5 and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʿal, ed. M. Cogan and D. Kahn (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008), 221–36; idem, “The Writings of the Governors of Suḫu in View of Assyrian Historiography,” in Royal Assyrian Inscriptions: History, Historiography and Ideology—A Conference in Honour of Hayim Tadmor on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 20 November 2003, ed. I. Ephʿal and N. Naʾaman (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2009), 97–113 [Heb.]. 3.  Naʾaman, “The Suhu Governors’ Inscriptions in the Context of Mesopotamian Royal Inscriptions,” 230. 4. G. Bucellati, “‘River Bank,’ ‘High Country,’ and ‘Pasture Land’: The Growth of Nomadism on the Middle Euphrates and the Khabur,” in Tall al-Ḥamīdīya 2. Symposion: Recent Excavations in the Upper Khabur Region, ed. S. Eichler, M. Wäfler, and D. Warburton, OBO Series Archaeologica 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 87–118; C. Kepinski, O. Lecomte, and A. Tenu, “Introduction,” in Studia Euphratica: Le moyen Euphrate iraquien révélé par les fouilles préventives de Haditha, ed. C. Kepinski, O. Lecomte, and A. Tenu, Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 3 (Paris: De Boccard, 2006), 9–19, esp. p. 10. 5. C. Kepinski, “Conflict, Territory and Culture: The Case of Haradu, a Fortress on the Iraqi Middle Euphrates (11th to 7th Centuries bc),” Syria 86 (2009): 149–58, esp. p. 150.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

607

Second, immediately before the time of his father, Šamaš-rēša-uṣur, the city of Anat had been ruled by Assyria for 50 years, as well as the first 3 years of his father’s governorship. 6 During these 50 years, Tabnēa, Iqīša-Marduk, and Nasḫir-Adad had been the governors of the land of Suḫu. It is very likely that Pālil-ēreš/Nergal-ēreš 7 controlled Suḫu during some of these 50 years as part of his network of lands 8 and that possibly one or more of the individuals mentioned by Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur (i.e., Tabnēa, Iqīša-Marduk, and/or Nasḫir-Adad) were subordinate to him. Pālil-ēreš was a eunuch (ša rēši) and the Assyrian governor of Raṣappa, a “strong man” 9 who was eponym in 803 and in 775 b.c.e. (during the reigns of Adad-nērārī III [810–783] and Shalmaneser IV [782–773], respectively). Pālil-ēreš placed his own inscriptions on three steles of Adad-nērārī III, on a mace-head discovered in Assur, and on a Black Stone Cylinder, all of which enumerated his various territorial holdings (see table 1; also see map 1). 10 6.  RIMB 2.316 (S.0.1002.9 i 22–ii 2). 7.  The reading of dIGI.DU remains uncertain. It is unlikely to be Nergal, since none of the personal names bearing this theophoric is ever written with one of the other writings for Nergal in Neo-Assyrian (mostly dU.GUR and dMAŠ.MAŠ). Although in Neo-Babylonian names, dIGI.DU (= Pālil) stands for Nergal, there is no evidence of this for Neo-Assyrian; rather, there is evidence that dIGI.DU is a separate deity from Nergal (e.g. SAA 2, 2.12, 19). But there is still uncertainty whether Pālil is the correct reading of dIGI.DU or not. See Radner in H. Kühne, and K. Radner, “Das Siegel des Išme-ilū, Eunuch des Nergal-ēreš, aus Dūr-Katlimmu,” ZA 98 (2008): 26–44, esp. pp. 31–32. See M. P. Streck, “Nergal-ēreš,” RlA 9.227–28; K. Åkerman and H. D. Baker, “Pālil-ēreš,” PNA 3/1.981–82. In this essay, the name is rendered Pālil-ēreš, while understanding its tentative nature. 8.  For Pālil-ēreš and his lands, see M. Liverani, “Raṣappa and Hatallu,” SAAB 6 (1992): 35–40; F. M. Fales, “Mari: An Additional Note on ‘Raṣappu and Hatallu,’” SAAB 6 (1992): 105–7; A. K. Grayson, “Assyrian Officials and Power in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries,” SAAB 7 (1993): 19–52; idem, “Eunuchs in Power: Their Role in the Assyrian Bureaucracy,” in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, ed. M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, AOAT 240 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 85–98; and D. Morandi Bonacossi, “‘Landscapes of Power’: The Political Organisation of Space in the Lower Ḫabur Valley in the Neo-Assyrian Period,” SAAB 10 (1996): 15–49, esp. pp. 21–27. For the general situation, see Frame, RIMB 2.275–276; Blocher, “Assyrische Würdenträger und Gouverneure des 9. und 8. Jh.: Eine Neubewertung ihrer Rolle,” 302. 9.  Grayson, “Assyrian Officials and Power in the Ninth and Eighth Centuries,” 27–28. “Strong man” is in quotation marks because he was, as Bernbeck has pointed out, a governor who was not simply doing lip service but was apparently a loyal servant of Adad-nērārī III receiving promotion. See R. Bernbeck, “Sex/Gender/Power and Šammuramat: A View from the Syrian Steppe,” in Fundstellen: Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, ed. D. Bonatz, R. M. Czichon, and F. Janoscha Kreppner (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 351–69, esp. p. 361. 10.  The Sabaʾa Stele (RIMA 3, A.0.104.6, lines 22b–25); the Tell al-Rimah Stele (RIMA 3, A.0.104.7, lines 13–21); the unpublished inscription on a mace-head (Assur 10274) dedicated to Nergal by Pālil-ēreš (see E. F. Weidner, “Die assyrischen Eponymen,” AfO 13 [1939–40]: 308–318, esp. p. 318; and RIMA 3, A.0.104.2007); the Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad Stele (K. Radner, “The Stele of Adad-nērārī III and Nergal-ēreš from Dūr-Katlimmu [Tell Šaiḫ

608

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Table 1.  The Inscriptions of Pālil-ēreša

Sabaʾa Stele (ca. 796 or later)

Tell al-Rimah Stele (ca. 796 or later)

Mace-head (before 797?)

Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad Stele Black Stone Cylinder (ca. 805–797) (ca. 805–800)

(1) city of Nēmed-Ištar (Tell ʿAfar)

city of Nēmed-Ištar

(2) city of Apqu (Tell Abū Māriyā)

city of Apqu

city of Nēmed-Ištar

(3) city of Marê ≈ Ṭābēte (Tell Taʾban)a (4) land of Raṣappa

land of Raṣappa

land of Raṣappa land of Raṣappa land of Raṣappa

(9) land of Laqê

land of Laqê

land of Laqê

(10) land of Ḫindānu (Tell al-Jabrīya)

land of Ḫindānu

(11) city of Anat (modern ʿAna)

city of Anat

(12) land of Suḫu

land of Suḫu

(13) city of Aššuriṣbat {URU.aš-⸢šur⸣DAB-bat}e

city of Aššuriṣbat {URU. AN.ŠÁR- DAB-bat}

(5) land of Qatnu (Tell Fadgami) (6) city of DūrKatlimmu (Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad)c (7) city of KārAššurnaṣirpald (8) city of Sirqu (Tell ʿAshara)

land of Suḫu

a.  The numbers in the first column tally with map 1; modern names of sites are given in parentheses. b.  The city of Marê (URU.ma-re-e) may refer to a territory roughly corresponding to the land of Marê (cf. S. M. Maul, Die Inschriften von Tall Bderi, Die Ausgrabungen von Tall Bderi  1, BBVO 2 [Berlin: Reimer, 1992]) three centuries earlier. See Fales, “Mari: An Additional Note on Raṣappu and Hatallu,” 106. c.  The seal of Išme-ilu, eunuch of Pālil-ēreš, discovered in excavations at Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad (Dūr-Katlimmu) affirms that this city was in the network of Pālil-ēreš. See Kühne and Radner, “Das Siegel des Išme-ilu, Eunuch des Nergal-ēreš, aus Dūr-Katlimmu.” d.  A city built by Aššurnaṣirpal II on the left (north) bank of the Euphrates, thought to be located at Zelebiya (see A. Musil, The Middle Euphrates: A Topographical Itinerary, Oriental Explorations and Studies 3 [New York: American Geographical Society, 1927], 210–11; and M. Liverani, Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II. 2: Topographical Analysis, Quaderni di Geografica Storica 4 [Rome: Università di Roma, “La Sapienza,” 1992], 71); or at the confluence of the Habur and Euphrates (see W. Röllig, “Kār-Aššur-nāṣir-apli,” RlA 5/5–6.407-8). e.  Grayson (RIMA 3.209, 211) translates: (Ana)-Aššur-(utēr)-aṣbat. But this was the name given to Pitru, a town across the river from Til Barsib (RIMA 3, A.0.102.2 ii 36; ii  85 [URU àna-aš-šur-ut-ter-aṣ-bat]). Pālil-ēreš did not govern a city in the jurisdiction of Šamši-ilu! Read “Aššur-iṣbat,” a town in the Middle Euphrates?

Map 1.  Lands of Pālil-ēreš/Nergalēreš (numbers in parentheses indicate the entity’s position in the Sabaʾa Inscription).

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans 609

610

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

It seems that Pālil-ēreš did not control Ḫindānu until it was added to his holdings by a royal edict that is preserved on a tablet from the Ištar Temple in Nineveh dated by eponym (Bēl-tarṣi-ilumma) to 797 b.c.e. (RIMA  3, A.0.104.9; SAA 12, 98–100 [no. 85]). Therefore, the Sabaʾa and Tell al-Rimah steles must date after the issuance of this edict and after Adad-nērārī’s campaign to Damascus of 796 b.c.e. Pālil-ēreš’s other inscriptions appear to predate the edict, although since the mace-head has not been published, the dating of this text must remain tentative. However, since Laqê and Suḫu are apparently mentioned on the mace-head, this seems to indicate a slightly later date than the Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad Stele and the Black Stone Cylinder texts. While the Tell Šēḫ Ḥamad Stele of Adad-nērārī III has been known for some time (RIMA 3, A.0.104.5), K. Radner has recently published a previously unknown fragment from a private collection that also has an inscription of Pālil-ēreš. 11 In it, Pālil-ēreš identified himself as “the [gover]nor of the land of Raṣappa, the city of Nēmed-Ištar, (and) the city of Apqu,” who made a special golden sword (namṣaru, a sword fit for a god) for dedication to the deity Salmānu, and the image of his lord, Adad-nērārī III, which he set up in the presence of the deity, the god of Dūr-Katlimmu. This inscription of Pālil-ēreš appears to date to sometime between 805–797 b.c.e., certainly before the 797 edict and Adad-nērārī III’s campaign to Damascus in 796 b.c.e. Obviously, the most complete list of Pālil-ēreš’s territories is contained in his inscription on the Sabaʾa Stele. The Tell al-Rimah Stele, however, contains an additional passage after its listing of his lands, enumerating towns and villages that were under his control, totaling 331 “small towns.” An attempt in antiquity to erase this half of the stele about Pālil-ēreš and his settlements was not thoroughly successful. 12 Even so, some of the readings must be regarded as uncertain. Some scholars have seen in this passage a colonization program, 13 and this has been linked to the archaeological survey of the Wadi ʿAjij area, which evinces a clear increase in the number of settlements and population in the re-

Ḥamad],” AoF 39 [2012]: 265–77, esp. pp.  271–74; RIMA 3, A.0.104.5); and the Black Stone Cylinder (RIMA 3, A.0.104.2006). Also see the grant of Ḫindānu to Pālil-ēreš (RIMA 3, A.0.104.9; SAA 12 98–100 [no. 85]). 11.  Radner, “The Stele of Adad-nērārī III and Nergal-ēreš from Dūr-Katlimmu (Tell Šaiḫ Ḥamad),” 271–4. 12.  For a discussion of the possible motives, see S. Page, “A Stela of Adad-nirari III and Nergal-ereš from Tell al Rimah,” Iraq 30 (1968): 139–53, esp. pp. 152–53; A. Fuchs, “Der Turtān Šamšī-ilu und die große Zeit der assyrischen Großen (830–746),” WO 39 (2008): 61–145, esp. p. 94 (evidence of the death of Pālil-ēreš due to Tiglath-pileser III’s usurpation); Radner, “The Stele of Adad-nērārī III and Nergal-ēreš from Dūr-Katlimmu (Tell Šaiḫ Ḥamad),” 275–76 (“specific regional import”). 13. For example, Weippert calls this “ein gigantisches Kolonisationsprojekt.” See M.  Weippert, “Die Feldzüge Adadnararis III. nach Syrien Voraussetzungen, Verlauf, Folgen,” ZDPV 108 (1992): 42–67, esp. p. 62.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

611

gion. 14 Whatever the case, from all this data, it is clear that Pālil-ēreš governed quite an extensive network that included a contiguous curve of large tracts of the Ḫabur and Middle Euphrates rivers: Laqê, Ḫindānu, Anat, and Suḫu. However, two questions arise. The first concerns the status of the land of Šadikanni (Tell ʿAjaja). Morandi Bonacossi argues that, since this status is not mentioned in any of these texts, this may imply that Šadikanni was still an “autonomous tributary kingdom of Assyria.” 15 However, Kühne argues that, if Šadikanni was still an independent entity, it is difficult to explain why this is not mentioned. He concludes that it had likely become part of either Raṣappa or Qatnu. 16 The second question concerns the political situation in Suḫu itself. On the basis of a letter found in the excavations of Hama (ancient Hamath), Parpola has argued that there were rival governors ruling over different parts of Suḫu. 17 The letter was addressed to Rudamu (Uratami) of Hamath from Marduk-aplauṣur of Anat. 18 It contains a complaint about a mdIŠKUR-SUM-n[a . . .] , which was restored by Parpola as Adad-nādin-[zēri], whom he equates with the Adadnādin-zēri, the governor of Suḫu and Mari. 19 He concludes that Adad-nādinzēri and Marduk-apla-uṣur were rival governors of different parts of Suḫu (the former over areas north and south of Anat, the latter over the city of Anat). 20 Naʾaman argues that the last lines of the Sabaʾa Stele should be rendered “the lands Laqe (and) Hindanu, the cities of Anat of Suhu (and) (Ana)-Assur-(uter)aṣbat” and that this corroborates Parpola’s suggestion. 21 He concludes: “Both Marduk-apla-uṣur and Nergal-ereš (Pālil-ēreš) ruled Anat, side by side with the hereditary dynasty of Suhu that governed the district.” 14. R. Bernbeck, Steppe als Kulturlandschaft: Das Aǧiǧ-Gebiet Ostsyriens vom Neolithikum bis zur islamischen Zeit, Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient: Ausgrabungen 1 (Berlin: Reimer, 1993), 97–145; idem, “Sex/Gender/Power and Šammuramat: A View from the Syrian Steppe,” 359–63; Morandi Bonacossi, “Landscapes of Power,” 24–25; H. Kühne, “The Assyrians on the Middle Euphrates and the Ḫābūr,” in Neo-Assyrian Geography, ed. M. Liverani, Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5 (Rome: Università di Roma, “La Sapienza,” 1995), 69–86, esp. pp. 79–82 and fig. 5. 15.  Morandi Bonacossi, “Landscapes of Power,” 25–27. 16.  Kühne, “The Assyrians on the Middle Euphrates and the Ḫābūr,” 81. 17. S. Parpola, “A Letter from Marduk-apla-uṣur of Anah to Rudamu/Urtamis, King of Hamath,” in Hama: Fouilles et recherches 1931–1938, vol. 2/2: Les objects de la période dite Syro-Hittite [Âge du Fer], ed. P. J. Riis and M.-L. Buhl, Hama, fouilles et recherches, 1931–1938 2/2 (Copenhagen: Fondation Carlsberg, 1990), 257–65. 18.  Likely the “Marduk-apla-uṣur, the Suḫuean” (mdAMAR.UTU-A-PAB KUR.su-ḫaa-a) mentioned in the Black Obelisk (RIMA 3, A.0.102.90). See J. A. Brinkman, “Mardukapla-uṣur,” PNA 2/2 (2001): 711. 19. Mentioned in the genealogy of Šamaš-rēš-uṣur (RIMB 2, S.0.1001.2, line  2; S.0.1001.3, line  2); and Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur (RIMB 2, S.0.1002.1, line 2; S.0.1002.2, line 2; S.0.1002.9, line 3; S.0.1002.11, line 12). 20.  Parpola, “A Letter from Marduk-apla-uṣur of Anah to Rudamu/Urtamis, King of Hamath,” 262. 21.  Naʾaman, “Three Notes on the Suhu Inscriptions,” 102.

612

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

However, there are four issues. First, while it is possible that the name in the letter should be restored as Adad-nādin-[zēri], some other individual may be meant. 22 Second, the sense of the Sabaʾa Stele is not that Pālil-ēreš only ruled the city of Anat but that he was the governor of all these lands, including all of Suḫu. 23 Third, even if there were two different rulers (Anat and Suḫu), this does not mean that, during his tenure, Pālil-ēreš did not control all the area of Suḫu, with perhaps distinctions between the districts. Fourth, it is hard to imagine that Pālil-ēreš, who controlled Laqê and Ḫindānu, would not also have controlled the land between Ḫindānu and Anat, especially if Ḫaradu (Khirbet ed-Diniyeh) was still an Assyrian fort (see below). Thus, it seems very likely that Pālil-ēreš controlled the core district of Raṣappa, the Ḫabur (from north of Ṭābēte to the confluence with the Euphrates), and the Middle Euphrates (from roughly Kār-Aššurnaṣirpal [Zelebiya] to the southern border of Suḫu). In the last few years, important synthetic studies of the excavations in the Middle Euphrates region have been published. 24 These have demonstrated a significant Assyrian fort system in the region of Suḫu that dates from the 11th to 8th centuries (see table 2 and map 2 on pp. 614–615). Undoubtedly, these forts were originally built in the Middle Assyrian period in order to control trade and nomadic movements in the region. 25 The evidence 22.  Frame, RIMB 2.276. 23.  This is certainly the implication of the Tell al-Rimah Stele and the Assur Mace-head, which read: KUR Su-ḫi. 24. A. Tenu, “Le moyen Euphrate à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” in Studia Euphratica: Le moyen Euphrate iraquien révélé par les fouilles préventives de Haditha, ed. C. Kepinski, O. Lecomte, and A. Tenu, Travaux de la Maison René-Ginouvès 3 (Paris: Boccard, 2006), 217–45; idem, “Les fortresses assyriennes de la vallee du moyen Euphrate,” in Les armées du Proche-Orient ancien (IIIe–Ier mill. av.  J.-C.): Actes du colloque international orga­ nisé à Lyons les 1er et 2 décembre 2006, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, ed. P. Abrahami and L. Battini, BAR International Series 1855 (Oxford: Hedges, 2008), 151–75; idem, L’expansion médio-assyrienne: Approche archéologique, BAR International Series (Oxford: Hedges and British Archaeological Reports, 2009), 222–23; C. Kepinski, “Haradu: A General Outline of the Middle- and Neo-Assyrian Fortress, with a Brief History of the French Excavations at Khirbet ed-Diniyeh,” in Studia Euphratica, 329–38; idem, “Conflict, Territory and Culture: The Case of Haradu, a Fortress on the Iraqi Middle Euphrates (11th to 7th Centuries bc),” 149–58; S. J. al-Shukri, “Archaeological Survey of Ancient Settlements and Irrigation Systems in the Middle Euphrates Region of Mesopotamia” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1988); idem, “Assyrian Frontier Sites on the Middle Euphrates: New Evidence from the al-Qadisiya (Haditha) Dam Region in the Western Desert of Iraq,” in Assyrien im Wandel der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Heidelberg, 6.–10. Juli 1992, ed. H. Waetzoldt and H. Hauptmann, Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 6 (Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag, 1997), 219–21. 25.  Tenu, “Le moyen Euphrate à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” 217–45; idem, “Les fortresses assyriennes de la vallee du moyen Euphrate,” 151–75; idem, L’expansion médioassyrienne: Approche archéologique, 222–23; Clancier, “Le moyen Euphrate de l’implantion des Arameens,” 247–89. See also J. L. Montero and F. Caramelo, “New Data on the Middle

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

613

from these excavations seems to indicate that prior to this “Aramean episode” (analyzed below) there was an Assyrian presence in the region that perhaps enabled Pālil-ēreš in his administration of this vast network. But as F. M. Fales has rightly noted, 26 whatever the exact situation at the time of Šamaš-rēša-uṣur and Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur, the previous unity of the domain of Pālil-ēreš had been decidedly broken. 27 At the beginning of his inscriptions, Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur identifies himself as the “governor (šaknu) of the land of Suḫu and the land of Mari.” Yet, it is clear that, as far as Suḫu was concerned, he was its king. Four things 28 point to this: (1) in the genealogy that he gives, he roots “his dynasty” all the way back to Ḫammu-rāpi through an ancestor of Kassite origin, Tunamissaḫ. Kassite pottery found in excavations in the area of Suḫu underscores Ninurtakudurrī-uṣur’s claim; 29 (2) he states in text 2 i 4–7 that “the gods Šamaš, Marduk, Adad, and Apla-Adad” gave him the “kingship (šarrūtu) over the land

Assyrian Expansion in the Valley of the Euphrates,” in The Perfumes of Seven Tamarisks: Studies in Honour of Wilfred G. E. Watson, ed. G. del Olmo Lete, J. Vidal, and N.  Wyatt, AOAT 394 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2012), 51–62. Likewise, the fort of Pitru was also founded by Tiglath-pileser I (Tell Aushariye). See J. Eidem, and K. Pütt, “Iron Age Site on the Upper Euphrates,” AAAS 44 (2001): 83–96. 26.  F. M. Fales, “The Djezireh in Neo-Assyrian Sources,” in The Syrian Jezira—Cultural Heritage and Interrelations: Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Deir ezZor, April 22nd–25th, 1996, ed. M. al-Maqdissi et al., Documents d’archéologie syrienne 1 (Damascus: République arabe syrienne, Direction générale des antiquités er des musées, 2002), 181–99, esp. p. 196 n. 115. 27.  Evidence of the demise of Pālil-ēreš may be found in the Tell al-Rimah Stele, where this man’s portion of the inscription has been deliberately erased, as well as in the destruction of two pairs of lion heads nearby that bear traces of inscriptions. However, the erasure on the stele was far from successful since nearly everything remained decipherable. See A. K. Grayson, RIMA 3.210; Blocher, “Assyrische Würdenträger und Gouverneure des 9. und 8. Jh.: Eine Neubewertung ihrer Rolle,” 303. See also n. 12 above. 28.  Naʾaman understands these points as indications of the “creative spirit of the scribes who, seeking to aggrandize the governors of Suḫu, picked phrases and titles from the royal Assyrian inscriptions, even though these did not always fit the post of governor” (“The Suhu Governors’ Inscriptions in the Context of Mesopotamian Royal Inscriptions,” 227). However, it seems better to see Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur (and for that matter Šamaš-rēša-uṣur also) as being a native ruler of royal lineage similar to Had(d)-yiṯʿî of Gozan. See Blocher, “Assyrische Würdenträger und Gouverneure des 9. und 8. Jh.: Eine Neubewertung ihrer Rolle,” 305. 29. See Tenu, “Le moyen Euphrate à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” 217–45; idem, “Les fortresses assyriennes de la vallee du moyen Euphrate,” 151–75. Some brick tombs also date to the Kassite period (al-Shukri, “Archaeological Survey of Ancient Settlements and Irrigation Systems in the Middle Euphrates Region of Mesopotamia,” 185). Two goblets of Kassite tradition that were collected by al-Shukri are very similar to two of the same type found in 2000 in Assur in Middle Assyrian levels. See P. Miglus et al., “Assur-Frühjahrskampagne 2000,” MDOG 132 (2000): 13–54, fig. 21.

614

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Table 2.  Summary of Assyrian Fort Systems

Systems

Sites – Modern (Ancient)

Archaeological Evidence

1st Three- Modern Sur Murʾeh Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery Fort Modern Gleiʾeh (Kār-Apladad) Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery System Modern Sur Jurʾeh (Gabbāri-bānî) Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery 2nd ThreeFort System

the Island of Bijan (Sapirutu?)ā

Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery

ʿUsiyeh

Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery and Assyrian lamassu

Yemniyeh

Neo-Assyrian pottery (9th century) pottery

Single Forts/ Cities

Sur Telbis (Sūru, capital of Suḫu) Island of Anat (Anat) Khirbet ed-Diniyeh (Ḫaradu)

Middle and Neo-Assyrian pottery

a.  Sapirutu is mentioned by Tiglath-pileser I (RIMA 2, A.0.87.4, line 42; A.0.87.10, line 41) and Tukulti-Ninurta II (RIMA 2, A.0.100.5, line 66). See M. Gawlikowski, “Began Island,” AfO 29-30 (1983-84): 207.

of Suḫu”; (3) he notes that Suḫu gained some level of independence after the third year of his father’s (Šamaš-rēša-uṣur’s) reign, regaining control of Anat: From (the time of ) Tabnēa, Iqīša-Marduk and Nasḫir-Adad—three governors (in all)—for fifty years, the city of Anat was (under the control) of the Assyrian, (and also) for three years, in the days of Šamaš-rēša-uṣur, ditto, my father . . . ; 30

and (4) in their buildings activities, Šamaš-rēša-uṣur and Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur demonstrate their royal prerogatives. Both built towns: Šamaš-rēša-uṣur 31 rebuilt the town of Gabbāri-bānî (modern Sur Jurʾeh). 32 Excavations have shown that this had been one of the Assyrian forts from the earlier period. 33 Ninurtakudurrī-uṣur built the town of Dūr-Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur 34 and rebuilt the town of Kār-Apla-Adad (modern Gleiʾeh), 35 which also had been an Assyrian fort. 30.  RIMB 2, S.0.1002.9 i 22b–ii 1. See Clancier, “Le moyen Euphrate de l’implantion des Arameens,” 255. 31.  RIMB 2.281, S.0.1001.1 iii 1–4. 32.  This is where the majority of inscriptions were found (RIMB 2, S.0.1002.1–2, 4–5, 7–8, and 11–13). 33.  Tenu, “Le moyen Euphrate à l’époque médio-assyrienne,” 219. She notes that this was definitely not an ex nihilo construction on a virgin site. 34.  RIMB 2, S.0.1002.2 iii 1ʹ–22aʹ. 35.  RIMB 2, S.0.1002.2 iii 22bʹ–32ʹ.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

Map 2.  Forts of the Middle Euphrates.

615

616

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

Hence, though his rule is to be dated to the second third of the 8th century, Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur is like Had(d)-yiṯʿî, who in the Akkadian version of his 9th-century bilingual inscription from Tell Fakhariya 36 is the “governor (šaknu) of the land of Guzānu,” yet in the Aramaic version, he is “the king (mlk) of Gozan.” 37 Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s reign and his father’s reign were short windows of “relative” independence for Suḫu that ended with the accession of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 b.c.e.). However, while the reduction of Assyrian control engendered the autonomy of the governors of Suḫu, it also exposed them to the major issue of all the “weak” 38 periods of Mesopotamian history: the multiplication of outlaws— in this case, Aramean raiding bands (gudūd). Although the Aramean element dominated in Laqê and Ḫindānu, and played a considerable role even in Suḫu, these texts of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur associate the term “Aramean” with restless, nomadic groups who were attracted by the riches accumulated by the sedentary merchants and the farmers. 39 The Defeat of the Ḫaṭallu Confederation: “The Aramean Episode” The most prominent event in the texts of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur is the episode about the defeat of the Aramean Ḫaṭallu confederation. 40 It is recorded in eight different texts, although text 1 is a shorter version than the others. None of the texts with the longer version (texts 2–8) preserves the whole episode, and more than one recension of this version is attested. 41 The following is a working composite of the longer version (with an important passage from text 1 included). 42 Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines i 1–7a I, Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur, governor of the land of Suḫu and the land of Mari, son of Šamaš-rēša-uṣur, ditto (governor of Suḫu and Mari), (grand)son of Iqīša-Marduk, ditto (governor of Suḫu and Mari), great grandson/descendant of Adad-nādin-zēri, ditto (governor of Suḫu and Mari), the one of everlasting seed, distant descendant of Tunamissaḫ, son of Ḫammu-rāpi, king of Babylon: the chosen, upon whom Šamaš and 36. A. Abou-Assaf, P. Bordreuil, and A. R. Millard, La Statue de Tell Fekherye et son inscription bilingue assyro-araméenne (Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982). 37.  Blocher, “Assyrische Würdenträger und Gouverneure des 9. und 8. Jh.,” 309. 38.  In other words, those lacking strong imperial administrative structures. 39.  Dion, Les Araméens à l’âge du fer, 61. In contrast to the Arameans, all the names of the rulers and messengers from Suḫu are Babylonian. 40.  Another episode involves the capture of a 20-man Aramean raiding party by one of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s mounted officers (text 2, S.0.1002.2 iii 1ʹ–22aʹ). Because it is very compact, it will not be analyzed in this essay. 41. See Cavigneaux and Ismail, “Die Statthalter von Suḫu und Mari,” 332–40; and RIMB 2.288–89. 42.  For a somewhat similar composite text, see Naʾaman, “The Suhu Governors’ Inscriptions in the Context of Mesopotamian Royal Inscriptions,” 228–30.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

617

Marduk, Adad and Apla-Adad joyfully (and) radiantly glanced with their powerful shining faces; to whom they gave complete power and kingship over the land of Suḫu; and for my allotted destiny they bestowed justice (kittu). Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines i 7b–16a Barely three months had passed at the beginning of my governorship, when I sat on the throne of my father. 2,000 men of the Ḫaṭallu tribe— from (ultu) the Sarugu (clan) to (adi) the Luḫūya (clan)—with their archers and their heads of camps—gathered together; and they imparted a command to each other (i.e., came to an agreement). Šamaʾgamni, the herald (nāgiru) of the Sarugu, who is thoroughly confused by falsehood, was their chieftain (ālik pānīšunu). They came up for a raid against the land of Laqê. And while in the steppe they advised themselves, saying: “The governor of Suḫu is hostile to us. How will we pass by and conduct a raid on the land of Laqê?” Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines i 16b–27a Šamaʾgamni, the herald (nāgiru) of the Sarugu, and Yāʾe, the son of Balammu, the Amatite, their heads of camps, said the following to them: Among the governors of the land of Suḫu, his ancestors, none dared to go to war against 1,000 Arameans. Now he must go to war against 2,000 Arameans! If he does attack us, we will go to war against him and gain possession of the land of Suḫu. But if he does not attack, we will bring down the booty (of Laqê); and we will add (more) troops, i.e., (more) troops will join us; and we will go and attack the houses (i.e., clans) of the land of Suḫu; we will seize his cities of the steppe; and we will cut down their fruit trees.

Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines i 27b–30a They trusted in their (own) strength and they advanced against the land of Laqê. They seized 100 farmsteads (adurû) of the land of Laqê; they plundered booty without number; and they turned the land of Laqê into ruin mounds. Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines i 30b–32 Adad-daʾʾānu, the governor (šaknu) of the land of Laqê, came to me with 4 chariots and 200 troops. He kissed the ground before me; and he entreated me (for help). I accepted his entreaty. Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines i 33–35 Furthermore, Sîn-šallimanni, the provincial governor (bēl pāḫiti) of the land of Ruṣapu/Raṣappu, came against them (the Arameans) together with the entire strength of the land of Ruṣapu/Raṣappu. But (when) he saw them, he became afraid and [he did not fall upon them].

618

K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Lacuna of 20–30 lines)

Text 1, S.0.1002.1, Lines 29–43a I, Ni[nurta-kudurrī-uṣur, governor of the land of Suḫu] and the land of Mari, the chosen, whom Šamaš and Marduk, Adad and Apla-Adad and Ištar [. . . . . .] and Marduk made [. . .] and exalted over mighty kings and over [powerful?] gover[nors], I inquired of Apla-Adad, the great lord, my lord. At the command of the Apla-Ad[ad], the great lord, my lord, I went up to the steppe against them with 105 chariots, 220 competent cavalry, (and) 3,000 soldiers. Thus, not all of the land of Suḫu was gathered! Text 4, S.0.1002.4, Lines 4ʹ–15ʹ [. . . the comman]d of the gods Apla-Adad and Tardennu/Purusdīni(?) [. . .] marching these troops [. . .] he conveyed to me instruction; and I [was not negli]gent; but [I trus]ted the command of Apla-Adad, the great lord, my divine lord. So I mustered 105 chariots, 220 competent cavalry, good choice horses, 3,000 infantry, and the palace guard. I harnessed the yoke (of my chariot); and I went on campaign to do combat and battle with them. I waited one (whole) day in the month of Duʾūzu (IV = June–July) at the well of Ṣumūa, which (is located) between the well of Makiru and the well of Gallabu. Opposite the well of Ṣumūa were four pens which did not hold (any) sheep. But I knew that the well Ṣumūa . . . (lacuna). Text 3, S.0.1002.3, Lines ii 2ʹ–3aʹ; Text 5, S.0.1002.5, Lines 12bʹ–14aʹ; Text 6, S.0.1002.6, Lines ii 1ʹ–3ʹ [. . .] I became furious with the . . . and I became angry. Like a mighty lion (. . .) I roared against (their) chief (LUGAL) [. . .] Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines ii 1–29a I brought upon them an inundation. From inside my chariot, I destroyed them like [barley re]eds. Like locusts, the arrows whizzed over my camp. (But) no one in my camp fell dead! Although they wounded 38 troops in my camp, no one’s corpse among them (my troops) fell in the steppe. I fell upon them (the Arameans) like a blazing fire; and I put to the sword 1,616 of their troops. Furthermore, I removed the hands and lower lips of 80 of their troops; and I released them to (spread the news of my) glory. From the well of Makiru ⟨as far as⟩ the well of Gallabu and as far as the well Suribu, at (these) three wells, I decisively defeated them. I annihilated them. I scattered their substantial auxiliary troops; and I broke up their troop contingents. I placed my hand over those escaping capture.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

619

I caused their blood to flow like waters of a river. The road with their corpses was visible to the eagles and vultures. I filled the mountains and wadis with their skulls like mountain stones. Birds made nests in their skulls. 304 of their troops had quickly fled before me. (Since) my horses and my troops had become thirsty for water due to the fighting, I did not pursue them. 40 of (these) troops perished due to thirst for water. 254 of their troops got away. I killed 1,846 of their troops among them. This is a single defeat that Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur, governor of the land of Suḫu and the land of Mari, inflicted upon the Ḫaṭallu (confederation). Šamaʾgamni, the herald (nāgiru) of the Sarugu (clan), their chieftain, the dishonest servant whom the land of Suḫu, the land of Assyria, and my fathers rejected, I captured him. (When) I killed him, my heart calmed down. I incised his skin like the skin of a sheep; and I placed (it) in front of the gate of the city of Gabbāri-bānî. I inflicted such a defeat as none of ⟨my ancestors⟩ had ever inflicted. My ancestors had defeated the enemy ten times, but they did not achieve as much as I. In inflicting a single defeat, I surpassed my ancestors. Text 2, S.0.1002.2, Lines ii 29b–35 Anyone in the future who comes forward and says: “How did Ninurtakudurrī-uṣur, governor of the land of Suḫu and the land of Mari, [inflict] this defeat?” (should be told that) I did [not] inflict (this) [by my own power,] [(but rather) I inflicted this] defeat by the power of Šamaš and Marduk, A[dad and Apla-Adad, the great gods]. [Anyone in the future] who comes forward and [should ask] the elders of [his] la[nd . . .] (lacuna) Having established his identity and legitimated his royal authority (text  2, lines 1–7a), Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur immediately enters into the narration of his mighty acts. He has barely been in power (three months) when his greatest threat appears: 2,000 Arameans of the Ḫaṭallu confederation. 43 This confederation apparently comprised a number of clans or subtribes. The text’s wording “from (ultu) the Sarugu clan to (adi) the Luḫūya clan” indicates only the basic parameters of the confederation. In parallel texts, one reads “to (adi) the Minuʾū clan.” 44 Thus, the Ḫaṭallu confederation comprised at least four clans or subtribes: the Sarugu, the Luḫūya, the Minuʾū, and the Amatu, and perhaps others. It is clear from the mention of some of these groups in later Assyrian texts that they could and did act independently of the confederation. 43.  Reading the second consonant as /ṭ/ instead of /t/ is supported by the Aramaic ḥṭl. See DNWSI 364. Cf. ‫( חטיל‬Ezra 2:57; Neh 7:59). See Lipiński, The Aramaeans, 426–28. 44.  Text 1, S.0.1002.1, line 20. See R. Zadok, Geographical Names according to Newand Late-Babylonian Texts, RGTC 8 (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1985), 63–70.

620

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

The confederation’s leaders are named: “Šamaʾgamni, 45 the herald (nāgiru) of the Sarugu, and Yāʾe, 46 the son of Balammu, 47 the Amatite (LÚ.a-mat-a-a), their heads of camps (rēš karāšī).” But the real bad boy was Šamaʾgamni, who was thoroughly confused by falsehood (lit., “confused by non-truth [ina lā kitti],” text 2 i 12–13). Nevertheless, he served ironically as “the chieftain” (ālik pānīšunu, lit., “the one who goes before them”) of 45.  The name occurs a total of six times, once fragmentarily, and is consistently spelled: šá-ma-ʾ-ga-am-ni (text 1, 21, 39; text 2 i 12, i 16, ii 23; text 3, 7). If Šamaʾgamni is the correct normalization of the name, only Zadok has attempted, to my knowledge, an analysis of this form. He questions: “Is [this] šm ‘name’ followed by an element related to Saf., Had. and Sab. Jmn, Harding, An Index and Concordance of Pre-Islamic Arabian Names and Inscriptions (Toronto, 1971) 168?” See R. Zadok, “The Ethno-Linguistic Character of the Jezireh and Adjacent Regions in the 9th–7th Centuries (Assyria Proper vs. Periphery),” in Neo-Assyrian Geography, ed. M. Liverani, Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5 (Rome: Università di Roma, “La Sapienza,” 1995), 217–82, esp. p. 229. The doubt in the questioning seems justified. While the second element has been read -ga-am-ni, it is possible to read the cuneiform differently. There appear to be three possibilities. One would be to read the name as šá-maaʾ-ga-am-lí (šmʾ-gmly), “the name is my recompense.” A second possibility is to read the second component of the name as qá-am-lí. Lipiński has suggested this reading, stating: “Despite the Arab flavour of these tribal names, the leader of the lúSa-ru-gi bears the Aramaic name Ša-ma-ʾ-Qá-am-lî, ‘the Betyl has listened to me.’ The word qām, which is used in the targum to translate Hebrew maṣṣēbā, appears as a theophorous element also in the name of the forefather of Aram, Qemuʾel, ‘the Betyl of God,’ according to Gen. 22:21” (see Lipiński, The Aramaeans, 427–28). However, this name’s structure (Perfect + theophoric + preposition with suffix) does not, to my knowledge, occur in Aramaic personal names. Nevertheless, that the first sign of the second component of the name should be read as qá, thus composing a participle, qām, that functions as a theophoric element, is possible. For example, the NeoAssyrian period name Qa-am-ba-na has been analyzed in this way. See R. Zadok, “Historical and Onomastic Notes,” WO 9 (1977): 35–56, esp. p. 54; and E. Cancik and R. Zadok, “Qambana,” PNA 3/1 (2002): 1006. The name ‫קמּואֵל‬/Qemuel ְ has also been analyzed as Qamu-ʾel “Qam is god.” See S. C. Layton, Archaic Features of Canaanite Personal Names in the Hebrew Bible, HSM 47 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 76–78. The qamu element appears in a handful of Amorite personal names (ibid.; see also I. J. Gelb, Computer-Aided Analysis of Amorite, Assyriological Studies 21 [Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1980], 579, no. 1743: GA-MI–DINGIR). Targum Pseudo-Jonathan translates ‫ ַמ ֵצבָה‬with ‫ קמה‬in Gen 31:45, etc. In light of this, a third possibility would be to read the final sign as ì, yielding the name as šá-ma-aʾ-qa-am-ì (šmʿ-qmy), “my Qam (pillar) listened/ heard” (cf. the Amorite name [no. 1743 above] and the Nabatean personal name ʿbdqwmy [J. Cantineau, Le Nabatéen, 2 vols. (Paris: Leroux, 1930–32), 2.142]). There was also an Aramean tribe named G/Qamu. 46.  mia-a-e. Compare the Hebrew name ‫( יְעּואֵל‬note Qere ‫ְעאֵל‬ ִ ‫ י‬and Old Greek: Ιιηλ). See further, HALOT 419. Harding (Arabian Names, 646) gives wʿy, “strong” (attested in Safaitic). 47.  mba-la-am-mu (also spelled mba-li-am-mu). Dion connects the name to the biblical name Balaam. See Dion, “Les Araméens du moyen-euphrate au VIIIe siècle,” 68–69. On the other hand, Lipiński (The Aramaeans, 428 and n. 116) states: “As for the patronymic, it can be interpreted confidently as Baʿlī-ʿammu, “the Ancestor is my lord. . . . This name had no relation whatsoever with the name of Balaam, son of Beor.” m

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

621

the confederation and as “the herald” (nāgiru) 48 and “the head of camp” (rēš karāši) 49 for the Sarugu clan! 50 In complete contrast (text 2, lines i 4–7), Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur (“real” royalty) was bestowed by a foursome of gods with truth/justice (kittu). Šamaʾgamni’s offices have correspondence with those of another Iron Age tribal leader, Jephthah, who in Judg 11:11 is described as the ‫ רֹאׁש‬and ‫ ָק ִצין‬of the Gileadites. While ‫ רֹאׁש‬is the exact equivalent of rēšu, interestingly, the Old Greek translates ‫ ָק ִצין‬with ἡγούμενος, lit., “one who goes before,” which corresponds exactly to ālik pāni. The Ḫaṭallu’s initial purpose was to raid and plunder the land of Laqê. But while still in the steppe (ṣēru), their home, they “advise themselves (indalkū)” on a problem: “The governor of Suḫu is hostile to us. How will we pass by and (literally) ‘plunder the plunder’ from the land of Laqê?” This indicates that the Ḫaṭallu must pass Suḫu in order to attack Laqê (an east-to-west movement is implied). The Ḫaṭallu were, as Liverani notes, “clearly occupying the area between (the city of) Assur and (the land of) Suḫu, i.e., the area of the Wadi Tharthar, perfectly fitting as the abode of a nomadic tribe.” 51 Moreover, a letter from Fort Shalmaneser collaborates the confederation’s location: Tablet of the governor of (the province of Assur) to Šarru-dūrī: (3)May there be well-being to my brother. (4–6)Your servants cast fire into the desertsteppe. (7–10)It devoured the entire desert-steppe up to the land of Suḫu (and) up to the land of Ḫaṭallu. (11)Make inquiries! (Rev.1)[  the city of Ḫ]aṭallu which the fire burned (???) (2)they have not listened/obeyed. (3)I have written you. 52 (Obv. 1–2)

In recently published contracts from Dūr-Katlimmu (dating to the time of Ashurbanipal), a “city of Ḫaṭallu” is mentioned; and “the land of Ḫaṭallu” has its own governor (šaknu), Adad-bēl-šīmāti, who serves as a witness. 53

48.  The term nāgiru may have served as the title of a tribal chief. See L. Sassmannhausen, “Funktion und Stellung der Herolde (Nimgir/nāgiru) im Alten Orient,” BaghM 26 (1995): 85–194, esp. pp. 153–8. The term nasīku, “chieftain, sheikh,” is the designation of the Aramean tribal chiefs in Neo-Assyrian texts, especially from the time of Sargon II (though it is found as early as Ashurnasirpal II to describe the Laqê confederation leaders). ְ ‫ָס‬ Compare Hebrew ‫יך‬ ִ ‫( נ‬Josh 12:21; Ezek 32:10; Mic 5:4; Ps 83:12) and later Aramaic nsyk. 49.  Compare the much later phrase rwš hm.hnyh, “the head of the camp,” in P. Benoit, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabbaʿāt, DJD 2 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961), 42.. 50.  In text 3, S.0.1002.3, lines ii 2ʹ–3ʹ, he is even given the designation LUGAL. 51.  Liverani, “Raṣappa and Hatallu,” 37. See also Lipiński, The Aramaeans, 426. 52.  J. N. Postgate, The Governor’s Palace Archive, CTN 2 (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1973), 187–88, pl. 67; F. M. Fales, and G. B. Lanfranchi, Lettere dalla corte assira, Letteratura universale Marsilio (Venice: Marsilio, 1992), 60–61, no. 8. 53.  See K. Radner, Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad, Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu 6/2 (Berlin: Reimer, 2002), 134 (no. 93), and 129 (no. 89).

622

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

Map 3.  the “Aramean Episode” of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

623

Obviously, “the land of Ḫaṭallu” seems to be southwest of Assur and northeast of Suḫu in the central Wadi Tharthar area (see map 3). To the dilemma posed in the steppe, Šamaʾgamni and Yāʾe provide the logical answer: Among the governors of the land of Suḫu, his ancestors, none dared to go to war against 1,000 Arameans. Now he must go to war against 2,000 Arameans! 54 If he does attack us, we will go to war against him and gain possession of the land of Suḫu. But if he does not attack, we will bring down the booty (of Laqê); and we will add (more) troops, i.e., (more) troops will join us; and we will go and attack the houses of the land of Suḫu; we will seize his cities of the steppe; and we will cut down their fruit trees. 55

There are two things to note about the use of this direct speech in the narrative. First, it demonstrates, as does the earlier evidence from the Mari archives, that marshaling the violence of the tribal, mobile, able-bodied males took a great deal of speech because the decisions flowed from the military assembly: the leaders could only command by persuading the militias to agree with their decisions. 56 Sovereignty, the power to choose and execute war or peace, was vested in the tribal assembly conceived as a meeting of the ḫana—that is, the tent-dwellers. 57 Second, this direct speech serves to heighten the achievement of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur. The persuasion of the speech is based on a veracity that also works in Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s favor, and he will exploit this at the end of this episode. Thus in text 2, lines ii 27–29a, he states: I inflicted such a defeat as none of ⟨my ancestors⟩ had ever inflicted. My ancestors had defeated the enemy ten times, but they did not achieve as much as I. In inflicting a single defeat, I surpassed my ancestors. 54.  Perhaps not literal—1,000 standing for “a large bunch” and 2,000 for “a doubly large bunch.” See below. 55.  The value of fruit trees in the Middle Euphrates is well-known. The Ḫaṭallu’s declaration of its intention to cut down the fruit trees of Suḫu is contrasted with Ninurta-kudurrīuṣur’s planting of new orchards in his account of the founding of the new town of Kār-AplaAdad (RIMB 2, S.0.1002.2 iii 22bʹ–32ʹ, esp.  line 28ʹ). See S. W. Cole, “The Destruction of Orchards in Assyrian Warfare,” in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, ed. S.  Parpola and R. M. Whiting (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1997), 29–40; J. L. Wright, “Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 20:19–20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft,” JBL 127 (2008): 423–58; N.  Wazana, “Are Trees of the Field Human? A Biblical War Law (Deuteronomy 20:19–20) and Neo-Assyrian Propaganda,” in Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Ephʿal, ed. M. Cogan and D. Kahn (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2008), 274–95. 56.  D. E. Fleming, Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors: Mari and Early Collective Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 207. 57. S. Sanders, The Invention of Hebrew (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 73.

624

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

The speech of Šamaʾgamni and Yāʾe is accurate—at least for Ninurtakudurrī-uṣur’s father, Šamaš-rēša-uṣur. In one of his inscriptions, he proclaims: 400 of the (Aramean tribe) Tuʾmānu (tʾmn) came and arose (to fight) against the city of Ribaniš. I had gone to the New City for a festival and when in the town of Baqa I heard, I crossed over (the river) with the palace troops who were with me to the land side, and I pursued them. When I crossed over (the river), I defeated them in the territory of Aradātu; 58 and I killed 350 of the troops among them (and) the remainder I released (to go spread the news of my) glory. 59

Thus, while Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur is not inaccurate in his portrayal of the Aramean chiefs’ speech, he frames the facts to heighten his “victory” over these Aramean leaders. Liverani argued that this “Aramean” episode dates to around 747 b.c.e., 60 due to the mention of Sîn-šallimanni of Raṣappa, who was eponym in that year. 61 Thus this would have been immediately before the enthronement of Tiglath-pileser III in 745 b.c.e. On the other hand, Lipiński places the episode sometime between 770 and 760. 62 The statements “I filled the mountains and wadis with their skulls like mountain stones. . . . Birds made nests in their skulls” seem to demand a reasonable period of time between the actual events of the episode and the writing of the versions for these statements to be applicable. Therefore, while it may not have taken place as early as 770, it definitely was sometime earlier than 747. 63 Nevertheless, this “Aramean episode” certainly explains why Tiglathpileser III considered it so urgent at the very beginning of his reign (in 745 b.c.e.) to beat the Aramean confederacy located south of Assur. 64 The Eponym Chron­icle for 745 (note also the Eponym List for a full preservation of the eponymy) reads: Nabû-bēlu-uṣur of Arrapha. In the month Ayyāru, on the 13th day, [Tiglat]hpileser (III) ascended the throne; [in the month of T]ašrītu, he went to (the land) ‘between the rivers’ (birīt nāri). 65 58.  CAD Q 117, s.v. qaqqaru A, 3c. Or, Qaqqaru-Aradātu, if qaqqaru is understood as part of the toponym. 59.  RIMB 2.280, S.0.1001.1 ii 17bʹ–26ʹ. 60.  Liverani, “Raṣappa and Hatallu,” 37. 61.  A. R. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 bc, SAAS 2 (Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1994), 43, 59: md30-DI-an-ni ša [URU]Ra-ṣap-pa ina KUR. 62.  Lipiński, The Aramaeans, 106. 63.  Cole states: “Sometime in the decade or two before 750.” S. W. Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times c. 755–612 bc, SAAS 4 (Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, 1996), 25. 64.  Liverani, “Raṣappa and Hatallu,” 37; H. Tadmor, and S. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 bc), and Shalmaneser V (726–722 bc), Kings of Assyria, RINAP 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 25 (= RINAP 1, text 4, line 4). 65.  Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 43, 59.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

625

Tadmor rightly noted that birīt nāri, “the land between the rivers,” refers to the territory between the lower part of the Euphrates and the Tigris in the context of Tiglath-pileser’s inscriptions. 66 Tiglath-pileser III describes his efforts against the Arameans in Summary Inscription 7 (text 47): (5) From the beginning of my reign until my 17th regnal year, I conquered the (tribes of) Ituʾu, [Rubuʾ]u, Ḫamarānu, Luḫūʾatu, Ḫaṭallu, Rubbu, Rapiqu, Ḫirānu, Rabi-ilu, (6)Naṣiru, Gulusu, Nabātu, Raḫiqu, Ka[piri], Rummulutu, Adilē, Giprē, Ubudu, Gurumu, Ḫudadu, Ḫindiru, (7)Damunu, Dunanu, Nilqu, Radê, Dai[. . .]nu, Ubulu, Karmaʾu, Amlatu, Ruʾua, Qabiʾu, Liʾtāʾu, Marusu, (8) Amatu, Ḫagarānu, the cities of Dūr-Kurigalzu, Adin[ni], the fortress of Sarragiti, the fortress of Labbanat, (and) the fortress of Kār-Bēl-mātāti—(9)all the Arameans by the banks of the Tigris River, the Euphrates River, and the Surappi River, up to the Uqnu River by the shore of the Lower Sea. I defeated them; I plundered them. (10)I annexed the Arameans, as many as there were, to Assyria; and I placed my eunuch over them as governor. 67

While some of these tribes are defeated in later campaigns of Tiglath-pileser III, it is clear that a significant number (at least eighteen) were part of his initial campaign of 745 based on one of his annalistic texts which reads: At the beginning of my reign, in my first palû, in the fifth month after I sat in greatness on the throne of kingship, Ašsur, my lord, encouraged me and [I marched] against the Ḫamarānu, Luḫuʾatu, Ḫaṭallu, Rubbû, Rapiqu, Ḫirānu, Rabi-ilu, Naṣiru, Gulusu, Nabātu, Liʾtaʾu, Raḫiqu, Kapiru, Rummulitu, Adilē, Giprē, Ubudu, Gurumu. . . . 68

Comparing these two texts, we see that there is an omission of the first two tribes named in Summary 7 (i.e., Ituʾu and Rubuʾu); and there is an insertion of the tribe Liʾtaʾu between the 12th and 13th tribes of Summary 7. Otherwise, the sequence of names is identical through the tribe Gurumu, after which there is a gap in annalistic text 4. Summary Inscription 7 mentions the Ḫaṭallu in the sequence Ituʾu, Rubuʾu, and Ḫaṭallu. 69 Earlier, the sequence—Utuʾu, Rubuʾu, Ḫaṭallu, Labdudu—can be seen in the Til Barsib Lions’ Inscription of Šamši-ilu (from roughly 790 to 770 b.c.e.): “who devastates the lands of Utû, Rubû, Ḫaṭallu, (and) Labdudu, who brings about their annihilation.” 70 66. H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994), 232. 67.  RINAP 1, text 47, lines 5–10a; Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, 158–61. 68.  RINAP 1.25, text 4, lines 3–7. This slab was discovered during the Polish excavations at Nimrud in 1976 (excavation number: NA 9/76). See E. Frahm, “Review of H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, King of Assyria,” AfO 44–45 (1997–98): 399– 404, esp. pp. 400–401. 69.  RINAP 1.118 (Tiglath-pileser III 47, line 5). 70. RIMA 3.231–233, lines 10b–11; F. Thureau-Dangin and M. Dunand (Til  Barsib [Paris: Geuthner, 1936], 141–51, pl. 37) read the West Lion as KUR ḫa-[r]i-lu and the East Lion as KUR ḫa-[r]u-d[u?] (p. 146). One can discern the wedges of the sign RI on the West

626

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

Furthermore, the sequence Utû, Rubuʾu, Ḫaṭallu, (and) Labdudu is found for the last time in Sargon II’s Display Inscription, 71 perhaps referring to his years 12 and 13. In this case, these tribes are located on the banks of the Uqnû and Surappi rivers near the Elamite border! 72 Hence, the movement of the Ḫaṭallu tribe, along with the others mentioned is important evidence for the study of the nomadic Aramean tribes, as well as for nomadism in the ancient Near East in general. 73 This textual evidence has not been fully integrated into recent studies on Aramean nomadism. It highlights the need to acknowledge the significant complexity in the symbiotic relationship between sedentary and nomadic peoples. Szuchman has pointed out that, while there is a symbiotic “trade relationship” between nomads and sedentary communities, this is usually an unequal relationship: “Nomads are much more dependent on agricultural products from sedentary farmers than are farmers on pastoral nomadic products.” 74 In addition, the “nomad-villager symbiosis” can be unstable because of the competition between the two groups for limited resources. Interactions between nomadic and sedentary societies often lead to the subjugation of the latter by the former. Raiding and demands of tribute are two ways in which nomads adapt to the sedentary world, adaptations that exist alongside the mutualism of the symbiotic trade relationship. 75 Therefore, the relationship between nomads and villagers is highly complex and multifaceted: it can be symbiotic and competitive at the same time. The fact that mobile communities fluctuate only complicates the forms of these interactions. Moreover, there is variability to tribal nomadic adaptations that can be envisioned along a mode-of-subsistence axis (ranging from agriculture to pasto-

Lion. Lipiński (The Aramaeans, 425 n. 90) rightly remarks: “Thureau-Dangin’s readings, Ḫa-[r]i-lu on one lion, and Ḫa-[r]u-d[u?] on the other, should be reinterpreted in the light of the spelling Ḫa-ṭal-lu. In particular, the wedges of [r]u must belong to RI (ṭal) and the d[u?] must represent the left side of the sign LU.” See also Liverani (“Raṣappa and Hatallu,” 37), who understands this as a reference to the Ḫaṭallu. 71. A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen: Cuvillier, 1994), 195 (Prunk.), lines 18–20: LÚ.I-tu-ʾu LÚ.Ru-bu-ʾu LÚ.Ḫa-ṭal-lum LÚ.Lab-du-du. 72. See also Sargon II (ibid., 265): Schwelleninschrift Typ 4 (Threshold Inscription Type 4), lines 70–75: (71)LÚ.I-tu-ʾu LÚ.Ru-bu-ʾu (72)LÚ.Ḫa-ṭal-lum LÚ.Lab-du-du. 73.  I have attempted to do this in my forthcoming book, A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature), ch. 2. 74.  J. J. Szuchman, “Prelude to Empire: Middle Assyrian Hanigalbat and the Rise of the Arameans” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Los Angeles, 2007), 137. Unfortunately, Szuchman’s study does not look at the evidence of these “highly mobile” Aramean groups such as the Ḫaṭallu. 75.  Ibid.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

627

Figure 1.  Sedentary and nomadic Arameans: mode-ofsubsistence axis and mobility axis.

ralism) and a mobility axis (ranging from sedentary to fully nomadic). 76 This means that, among the Arameans, there were tribes that were more or less sedentary and others that were more or less nomadic (apparently like the Ḫaṭallu confederation), with great variation in between (see fig.  1). This is, in fact, attested in the textual records. So while tribes like the Tūʾmānu and Ḫaṭallu appear in the Suḫu texts to be very mobile—raiding sedentary regions—other groups such as the Liʾtāʾu had some sedentary elements, as a text such as BM 40548 indicates: the Arameans are engaged in agricultural work, owning their own fields and orchards. 77 From Tiglath-pileser III’s Summary Inscription 7, it is apparent that numerous Arameans out of the 35 tribes listed were settled in cities and forts (see lines 8–9 in Summary 7 [text 47] cited above). In recent years, there has been a tendency among scholars to downplay migration as an explanation in historical reconstruction. This has happened to the point that the Arameans are presented in the literature as simply the same nomadic pastoralists who are always “there” throughout the centuries. 78 But there 76. See R. L. D. Cribb, Nomads in Archaeology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 15–22 and fig. 2.1; and Szuchman, “Prelude to Empire,” 135–38. 77.  BM 40548, lines 8–12, as cited by Lipiński, The Aramaeans, 423–24; J. A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 b.c., AnOr 43 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1968), 270–71 n. 1738. Dated to the 9th year of King Eriba-Marduk (ca. 765). 78.  W. T. Pitard (“Arameans,” in Peoples of the Old Testament World, ed. A. Hoerth, G. Mattingly, and E. Yamauchi [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994], 207–30, esp. pp. 209–10) states: “It seems quite unlikely that the Arameans were immigrants into Syria and Upper Mesopotamia at all, but rather that they were the West Semitic-speaking peoples who had lived in that area throughout the second millennium.”

628

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

is clear textual evidence of tribal migrations among the Arameans (e.g., the Yaḫānu, from the central Tigris to west of the Euphrates around Arpad). Some Aramean tribes are quite mobile, never settling. They move, not just between seasonal areas, but to entirely new locations. The Ḫaṭallu are one example: from the Upper Euphrates region (south of Bīt Adini, in the great bend of the Euphrates?) to the Wadi Tharthar area and finally to southern Mesopotamia. 79 Throughout the history of the ancient Near East, there have been many tribal people movements (e.g., 19th-century c.e. examples can be cited). 80 In text 2, lines i 27b–30a, Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur relates that the Ḫaṭallu advanced against the land of Laqê (probably following a route that took them south of the Wadi ʿAjij terminus, Ar-Rauda) and seized 100 farmsteads, plundering and destroying (see map 3). Somewhat ironically, the land of Laqê had been in the 9th century an independent confederation of Aramean tribes, 81 though now it was an Assyrian district. He relates in lines i 30b–32 that Adaddaʾʾānu, the governor (šaknu) of the land of Laqê, came with his very meager forces (4 chariots and 200 troops) to beg Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur for help. The following lines (i 33–35) tell of Sîn-šallimanni, the provincial governor (bēl pāḫiti), who mustered the “entire strength of the land of Raṣappa” and, having come south a distance of roughly 150 km in order to intercept the Arameans, retreated in fear! (see map 3). 82 Therefore, Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur is depicted as superior. He is superior to his ancestors, but much more. He is superior, not just to “a pair” of Aramean tribal chieftains (Šamaʾgamni and Yāʾe), but to “a pair” of his contemporary governors (Adad-daʾʾānu and Sîn-šallimanni). 83 All the listed “offices” or “ranks” of these two pairs of men underscore the mighty achievement of Ninurta-kudurrīuṣur. This is a deliberate rhetorical strategy of the narrative. 79.  Fales gives some excellent examples of the variability in mobility of some of the southern Mesopotamian Aramean tribes. See F. M. Fales, “Arameans and Chaldeans: Environment and Society,” in The Babylonian World, ed. G. Leick (New York: Routledge, 2007) 288–98, esp. pp. 293–95. 80.  In the early 19th century c.e., the Shammar nomads drove tribes such as the ʿUbaid, once the lords of the Jezireh, across the Tigris into Iraq. See Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, 24 n. 4. 81.  Liverani, Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II, 108; Dion, Les Araméens à l’âge du fer, 56. 82.  Quite a contrast with the earlier “strong man” Pālil-ēreš, governor of Raṣappa! Did Sîn-šallimanni have an insufficient force? Or having traveled in the steppe, were his forces unfit for battle? Whatever the case, Sîn-šallimanni is portrayed as a coward. 83.  As noted by Postgate, šaknu (or better: šakin-X) and bēl pāḫiti refer to the same office, although šakin-X perhaps appears in formal contexts and bēl pāḫiti in common usage. See J. N. Postgate, “Assyria: The Home Provinces,” in Neo-Assyrian Geography, Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5 (Rome: Università di Roma, “La Sapienza,” 1995), 1–17, esp. p. 3. See also Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire, 69.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

629

Finally, there is a heightened contrast between Sîn-šallimanni and Ninurtakudurrī-uṣur. Sîn-šallimanni “mustered the entire strength of the land of Raṣappa,” while Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur enumerated the number of chariots, cavalry, and soldiers that he mustered and then states (see text 1, line  32): “Thus, not all of the land of Suḫu was gathered!” However, there is a mysterious absence in this “Aramean Episode.” Nowhere is the city of Ḫindānu 84 mentioned in this Aramean episode in any of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s texts. Clearly, Ḫindānu is not in Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s control. Later in text 2, a caravan of Temaʾ and Sabaʾ had come to Ḫindānu. Instead of seizing their goods in Ḫindānu, he waited for the caravan to leave the city before attacking it. The status of Ḫindānu vis-à-vis the Aramean Ḫaṭallu may be revealed in another group of texts, the so-called Governor’s Archive from the city of Nippur. 85 These inscriptions dating from 750 to 732 are contemporary with the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745–727) and just slightly later than the Suḫu Annals. 86 From these texts, it appears that the city of the Ḫindānu had the dubious privilege of being the center for the slave trade, at least for southern Mesopotamia. 87 There appears to have been some kind of relationship between this Aramean confederation and the city of Ḫindānu that excluded it from the Arameans’ raiding plans. Apparently, Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur chose to engage the Arameans in the steppe upon their return from plundering Laqê (as opposed to engaging them on their way to Laqê). 88 The Aramean confederates traveled a distance of 84.  The land of Ḫindānu was located between Laqê and Suḫu. The town is also spelled Ḫinzānu (Sargon II letter SAA 1), and Isidore of Charax mentions Givddan, Giddavn which may be equated. Thus Lipiński (The Aramaeans, 82) posits an original Ġiḏḏān. The location of the city of Ḫindānu is uncertain (generally placed in the area of Abu Kemal). See J. N. Postgate, “Hindanu,” RlA 4.415. A. Musil (The Middle Euphrates: A Topographical Itinerary [New York: AMS, 1927], 14–15 n. 12, 228, 230) identifies Ḫindānu with Tell al-Ǧabrīya. See also R. Zadok, “West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources,” in Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau (Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1978), 163–79, esp. p. 151. 85.  S. W. Cole, Nippur in Late Assyrian Times: The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur, OIP 114 (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1996). 86.  Ḫindānu is mentioned in Cole, The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur, nos. 40.111–12, 41.113–15, and 72.158–60. 87.  Clancier, “Le moyen Euphrate de l’implantion des Arameens,” 255. In letter  40, Marduk-ēreš states to Balāssu, who is present in Ḫindānu: “If you see slaves for ransom, ransom (them) for me and deliver (them) here. Don’t buy anything else” (Cole, The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur, 95–96, no. 40.19–25). “Ḫindānu seems to have been a strategic trade entrepot, much as Mari had been one thousand years earlier and as Dura-Europos would be later during the Parthian and Roman periods” (ibid., 64). 88.  Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s texts do not say what happened to the plunder from Laqê, but it seems that this would be his “spoils of war.”

630

K. Lawson Younger, Jr.

roughly 250 km from Wadi Tharthar to Laqê. Their raid of Laqē probably covered around 100 km. According to the Suḫu texts, they then intended to attack Suḫu. Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s troops, however, probably only had to travel a distance of 50 km or less in order to engage the Arameans. While text 2 is broken at this point, text 4 preserves Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s action. Trusting in the command of the god Apla-Adad, he mustered 105 chariots, 320 competent cavalry, good choice horses, 3,000 infantry, and his palace guard. To these, he added the 4 chariots and 200 soldiers of the governor of Laqê. 89 He set an ambush at the well of Ṣumūʾa (“The Well of the Thirsty”), using four empty sheep pens to prepare his trap. A day later, he pounced on the heavy-laden and no doubt exhausted Arameans as they approached the well. It was late June or early July (the month of Duʾūzu); thus heat and dehydration were significant factors. The statement that “from the well of Makiru ⟨as far as⟩ the well of Gallabu and as far as the well of Suribu, at (these) three wells, I decisively defeated them” and the statements concerning “thirst” throughout the description of the enemy’s defeat demonstrate that heat and dehydration were major factors in Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s victory. From a close reading of the text, it seems that Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur had the advantages of numbers, rested troops, mounted troops and chariots, control of the sources of water in the desert heat, and importantly, surprise!!! The battle itself is described with six similes, conveying the utterly devastating defeat inflicted on the Arameans and the amazing casualty numbers for Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur: 38 wounded, 0 killed! The numbers of enemy dead and fleeing do not add up, unless one assumes that the initial number of 2,000 is a round number or simply conventional; or other Arameans have, in fact, joined the raiding party, as Šamaʾgamni and Yāʾe had suggested (“But if he does not attack, we will bring down the booty; and we will add [more] troops”). For 80 of the captured Arameans, there was the loss of hands and lower lips. These men were released to spread the news of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s praiseworthy victory (ana dalīli undašširšunūti)—a somewhat difficult thing to do with only “one lip!” His father, Šamaš-rēša-uṣur, had also released captives from an Aramean tribe (the Tuʾmānu) after a battle for this same purpose (šittūtušunu ana dalīli undaššir) but without the loss of hands and lips. 90 Climactically, the capture and execution of Šamaʾgamni is recorded in ii 23–27: I captured Šamaʾgamni, the herald (nāgiru) of the Sarugu (clan), their leader (ālik pānīšunu), the dishonest servant (arad lā tarṣu) whom the land of Suḫu, the land of Assyria and my fathers rejected. 91 When I killed him, my heart calmed 89.  Naʾaman, “The Contribution of the Suhu Inscriptions to the Historical Research,” 110. 90.  RIMB 2.280, S.0.1001.1 ii 23bʹ–26ʹ. See translation above, p. 624. 91.  Frame suggests reading for ii 25: ú-šá-an-si(*)--šu. See RIMB 2.293 n. i 41.

Another Look at the Nomadic Tribal Arameans

631

down. I incised his skin like the skin of a sheep; and I placed (it) in front of the gate of the city of Gabbāri-bānî.

Although the text clearly exalts Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur’s great victory, particularly in its demeaning of the pair of enemies and pair of contemporary governors, as well as his superiority over his ancestors, it repeatedly emphasizes that Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur did not achieve this victory by his power but by the power of “two pairs” of his deities: ina emūq Šamaš u Marduk Adad u Apladad ilāni rabûti bēlēya, “by the power of Šamaš and Marduk, Adad and AplaAdad, the great gods, my lords.” Once again, this appears to be a deliberate rhetorical strategy of the narrative. Conclusion A close literary reading of the “Aramean Episode” in the inscriptions of Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur demonstrates the importance of this sort of approach to the reconstruction of the history of the Middle Euphrates in the mid-8th century b.c.e. When a literary reading is combined with the archaeological data and the historical-geographical context of the region, a more comprehensive historical understanding is obtained. While the aggressive and effective policies of Tiglath-pileser III appear to have ended the degree of relative independence exercised by Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur (and his father), these texts, with their rhetorical sophistication provide a window onto the historical events of this significant geographical zone. In addition, they furnish many crucial insights into the more mobile tribal Arameans who helped compose the complex social dynamics of the region.

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap, Isaiah’s Vision, and Iron Age Bones

Ziony Zevit Templeologists have not yet determined whether biblical texts indicate that there was a ten-cubit space above the dĕbîr of Solomon’s temple or whether the dĕbîr itself was elevated so that its top was flush with the ceiling. In recent popular and scholarly articles, Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, to whose memory this essay is dedicated, wrote that he favored the first possibility, and he opined that Isa 6:1 is relevant to and sheds light on the problem but did not elaborate. 1 Because his remarks piqued my curiosity, I decided to consider anew what data might be useful for either resolving the ten-cubit question or, at least, bringing it closer to resolution. In this study, I offer some nuanced interpretations of literary data crucial to the topic, introduce osteological data relevant to the discussion that have not been considered heretofore, and conclude that both of Hurowitz’s intuitions are correct. The Tabernacle It is highly unlikely that the desert tabernacle was a fantasy structure concocted in the Persian period by P(riestly) writers retrojecting the Solomonic temple, destroyed in 586 b.c.e., to an imagined, foundational period of national Yahwistic awareness. Were that the case, the differences between their dimensions and decorations would be difficult to explain. Fabricators could have imagined an elaborate, gigantic temple-tent but did not. Their imagination appears to have been self-limiting, working within realistic parameters determined, conceivably, by their familiarity with large, portable, tented framed structures used to house royalty in the battlefield, divine images, and cultic appurtenances by various peoples in the ancient Near East. 2 Perhaps it was influenced by traditions maintaining that the ark 1. V. A. Hurowitz, “Solomon’s Temple in Context,” BAR 37 (March/April 2011): 49; idem, “Yhwh’s Exalted House: Aspects of the Design and Symbolism of Solomon’s Temple” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 74. 2.  M. M. Homan, To Your Tents, O Israel! The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 94–102,

633

634

Ziony Zevit

had been kept in various places before the temple: some structure at Shiloh (Judg 18:31; 1 Sam 3:3–9; Jer 7:13); someplace on the property of Obed Edom (2 Sam 6:10–11); in a tent set up by David in Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:17 and see 2 Sam 7:6), and a booth in the field of battle (2 Sam 11:11). Moreover, textual and archaeological evidence suggests that the writers would have known that many types of cult sites situated in different locales had once been deemed appropriate for Yahwistic rituals and that Yhwh and been thought present somehow at each temple, shrine, or cult-corner. 3 These types of knowledge may have helped ground their imagination in the realm of the possible, if not probable. This idea is supported by the observation that the language of the Priestly source in which the tabernacle descriptions are found, Exod 25:1–31:17, is characteristically preexilic Hebrew. 4 This linguistic observation implies that people familiar with the First Temple and its rituals were those who described the “original” tabernacle, a structure that had long ceased to exist, if it ever had existed. In their (re)creation, they presented it as part of the formative past of their people, in the years of Moses. They cast the origin of their own complex temple rites back to days of the tent shrine, melding temple and tent in their imaginative creativity. 5 This was possible only because they viewed the tabernacle as the temple in its essence—that is, as reflecting the core of the temple when contracted and reduced to the minimalist type of structure deemed necessary for housing the divine presence and its symbols with appropriate degrees of holiness encoded through the use of various metals and fabrics and by restricted degrees of

108–16, 129–30; J. K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 193–2008. Although Homan dates the tabernacle traditions late and Hoffmeier early, both concur that what is described in Exodus is realistic. They disagree with regard to the historicity of this particular structure, which is an issue that I do not address in this study. 3. E. Stern, “From Many Gods to the One God,” in One God—One Cult—One Nation: Archeological and Biblical Perspectives ed. R. G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann, BZAW 405 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010), 395–97; Z. Zevit, “The Textual and Social Embeddedness of Israelite Family Religion: Who Were the Players? Where Were the Stages?” in Family and Household Religion: Toward a Synthesis of Old Testament Studies, Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Cultural Studies, ed. R. Albertz, B. Alpert Nakhai, S. M. Olyan, and Rüdiger Schmitt (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 301–9. 4.  A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Gabalda: Paris, 1982); and see the essays in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, ed. Z. Zevit and C. Miller-Naudé (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012). 5. H. Liss, “The Imaginary Sanctuary: The Priestly Code as an Example of Fictional Literature in the Hebrew Bible,” in Judah and Judeans in the Persian Period, ed. O. Lipschits and M. Oeming (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 668–70, 689.

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

635

physical access to the ark. 6 Smaller than the Jerusalem temple, P’s tabernacle was not a miniaturized model of it; rather, it was a compact, portable shrine without bells and whistles. Even if a total fiction, in its literary context, P’s tabernacle was historicized in a diachronic narrative about a singular period, set of places, and circumstances. Consequently, it must be examined as integral to the cultic tradition of at least part of historical Israel and as a significant component of temple mytho-theology that provides oblique insights into some aspects of temple Realia. 7 Relevant historical and anthropological parallels tend to support a theoretical likelihood that tent shrines such as that described by P existed even when P was composed, though their history is opaque. 8 We may, of course, speculate that traditions about the Jerusalem tent housing the (or an) ark until it was moved into Solomon’s temple or other contemporaneous tent shrines may have contributed detail to P’s architectonic sketch and details of the “original” tabernacle. Likewise, we may assume but cannot demonstrate that authors of the description either exaggerated or invented the tabernacle’s elaborately embroidered covering and the use of gold in its construction. 9 Consequently, all comparisons made below are between literary sketches of architectural plans composed in the Iron Age and not between a Late Bronze tent shrine and a stone building of the Iron Age. The measures and descriptions provided in Exod 26:1–20 and 36:20–32 suffice to produce the following general plan of the tabernacle: 30 cubits (length)  ×  10 (width)  ×  10 (height). A richly decorated curtain, pārōket, 10 cubits from the back of the tent (that is, 20 cubits from the front) marked off 6. M. Haran, Temple and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978; repr. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985), 158–65; P. P. Jensen, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTSup 106, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 56–66, 114, 147–48; M. B. Hundley, “Before Yhwh at the Entrance to the Tent of Meeting: A Study of the Spatial and Conceptual Geography in the Priestly Texts,” ZAW 123 (2011): 21–26. 7.  The tabernacle is different from and not to be identified with the non-P “tent of meeting” (Exod 33:7–11; Num 11:16–30) that was, as A. Cooper and B. R. Goldstein so aptly describe it, a “tent of occasional theophany” (“At the Entrance to the Tent: More Cultic Resonances in Biblical Narrative,” JBL 116 [1997]: 203, 212). 8.  Zevit, “The Textual and Social Embeddedness,” 309, 311. 9.  See F. M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle,” BA 10 (1947): 45–68; K. A. Kitchen, “The Tabernacle: A Bronze Age Artifact,” ErIsr 24 (Malamat volume; 1993): 119–20; idem, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 275–80. It is likely on tradition-historical grounds that the description of the large bronze altar in the tabernacle’s courtyard is a retrojection from the temple and, perhaps, that details in the description of a small gilded altar within the tabernacle are also retrojections despite the fact that in the tabernacle descriptions the altar was constructed from acacia (Exod 30:1) while in temple descriptions it was built from cedar (1 Kgs 6:20). See Haran, Temples and TempleService, 191–92; and my book The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum, 2001), 288–90, 296–97.

636

Ziony Zevit

the larger, 20  ×  10–cubits holy area referred to as qōdeš from the smaller, 10 × 10–cubits qōdeš haqqŏdāšîm, most holy area (Exod 26:33). 10 The pārōket was suspended from clasps arranged on four gold-overlaid posts, ʿammûdîm, and used as a screen. When the ark was moved for whatever reason, however, the pārōket was (apparently) taken down and placed directly over the ark as a covering. The pārōket itself was then, in turn, draped with other coverings to protect it from the elements (Exod 40:3, 21; Num 4:5–6). The information in Exodus does not account for the thickness of the coverings and dividers. When set up, the completed scaffolding of wood frames, qĕrāšîm, with its dividing pārōket was overcovered first with connected, swatches of fine twisted linen whose decorations were visible only to those within the structure. This “wrap,” as it were, which did not cover the front end of the structure, was considered an integral part of the tabernacle, hammiškān, defining its unity (Exod 26:1–6). The whole was then tented over with protective coverings of goat-hair, a tent of tanned ram’s skins, and finally a waterproof covering made from the skins of dugongs, aquatic mammals found in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean (Exod 26:7–14). 11 What is significant for this study is that the linen wrap across the top of the most holy space defined it spatially as a closed cube, 10 × 10 × 10 cubits. Its right, left, and rear walls coincided with the wooden frames, qĕrāšîm, of the tabernacle; its front wall coincided with the pārōket, which could be moved aside when required. The ground on which the tabernacle was set up constituted the floor of the cube, while the fine twisted linen cover formed its ceiling. A woven screen, the māsāk, suspended from five gold-overlaid posts, ʿammûdîm, was placed across the entrance to the tabernacle but not integrated into the system of interlocked, gold-overlaid wood frames, qĕrāšîm, that supported the tent-shrine. Moreover, the fact that socket-footings of its posts were made of bronze, not silver like those of tabernacle appurtenances, indicates that it was not considered part of the tent shrine (compare Exod 26:19, 21, 25, 32 with Exod 36:38) Mention that five pillars were required to hang this māsāk in front of the tabernacle (Exod 26:32) while only four were needed for the 10-cubit pārōket within it (Exod 26:37) indicates that the māsāk was slightly longer than the tabernacle was wide. Consequently, it blocked direct physical access to the inside of the tabernacle, compelling all entering to approach obliquely, following 10.  Only in Lev 16:2, 3, 16, 20, 23 is the rear most holy place referred to as the qōdeš. From this, J. Milgrom infers that the yôm hakkippurîm ritual prescribed in that chapter is derived from a tradition earlier than the final composition of P (Leviticus 1–16, AB 3 [New York: Doubleday, 1997] 1013, 1061–65). 11. Z. Zevit, “Timber for the Tabernacle: Text, Tradition, and Realia,” ErIsr 23 (Biran volume; 1992): 138.

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

637

a bent-axis. Those entering it from the right had to make a right turn, the māsāk on their left, while those approaching from the left had to make a left turn, the masak on their right. Moreover, because nobody outside the tabernacle could see anything on the inside (unless they peeked obliquely around the māsāk), the māsāk functioned as a sort of chancel screen. This, however, as I suggest below, was not its raison d’être. Within the tabernacle itself, the pārōket kept those engaging in cultic or ritual activities inside the large part of the tent from viewing the ark and place of divine presence in the most holy space at its rear. 12 The Temple Although 1 Kings 6 provides a fairly detailed narrative sketch of the interior of Solomon’s temple, conceptualizing the most holy place from its details is difficult. 13 According to vv. 2–3, the inner dimensions of temple building itself were 60 cubits (length) × 20 cubits (width) × 30 cubits (height). 14 According to v. 20, the dĕbîr, the most holy place, was a cube 20 × 20 × 20 cubits. According to 1 Kgs 6:31 (and see 2 Chr 4:22), the dĕbîr was entered through double doors hung on interior walls extending from the sides toward the middle. 15 12.  A second māsāk at the entrance to the fenced off enclosure surrounding the tabernacle achieved a similar objective. The entrance side was 50 cubits long and had two 15-cubit hangings extending from the east and west corners toward the middle, while the māsāk at the entrance—in the center—was 20 cubits long (Exod 27:13–16), effectively blocking direct access. Moreover, sacrificial rituals within the enclosure could not be viewed from the outside. 13.  Hurowitz, hypothesized that the descriptions in 1 Kgs 6 may be based on a school exercise. This would then explain the absence of information about the thickness of the temple’s walls (I Have Built You An Exalted House: Temple Building in the Bible in Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings [ (JSOTS 115) Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 252). Considering the narrative as a document akin to a rough sketch made by competent handymen or contemporary architects rather than a technical blueprint with engineering details included eliminates the alleged problem of the many absent details. I agree with Hurowitz that the data provided in 1 Kgs 6 attest to a “coherent conception of what the Jerusalem temple looked like” and that they can therefore be taken as reflecting an actual temple to which different authors refer or allude or presuppose and not to an imaginary structure confabulated by a single author. The differences between 1 Kgs 6–7 and 2 Chr 3–4 are explicable as due to changes in the structure during the course of its almost 400 year history and the desire of the Chronicler to attribute what he knew of the temple to Solomon (“Yhwh’s Exalted House,” pp. 65, 92–95; idem, “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It: Building the First Temple According to the Book of Kings,” in From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, ed. M. J. Boda and J. Novotny; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2010), 285. 14.  That these were inner dimensions is clear from Ezek 41:5 that refers to the thickness of the walls as 6 cubits on all sides while providing measurements for the inner dimensions that correspond with those of 1 Kgs in Ezek 41:2–4. 15.  Hurowitz, “Yhwh’s Exalted House,” 75–6. Even with Hurowitz’s interpretation of the relevant passages and of the vocable ʾayil (1 Kgs 6:31; Ezek 40:9, 10) as “edge of a wall,” the details remain unclear.

638

Ziony Zevit

The Chronicler, however, adds mention that a pārōket, unmentioned in Kings, separated the dĕbîr from the main hall of the temple (2 Chr 3:14). The contradiction can be maintained, or it can be resolved by arguing that, even when the doors were opened to allow access, the pārōket still served as a functional screen and room divider. For my purpose, it is only necessary to observe that the contents of the dĕbîr were not regularly visible to those inside or outside the long-house temple. The large, visible pārōket concealed what might be seen only by a few men at certain times under specific circumstances. According to 1  Kgs 6:3, a porch, ʾûlām, not bonded structurally to the temple and hence architecturally distinct from it, was constructed directly in front and immediately adjacent to the building proper. 16 The ʾûlām was 20 cubits long, corresponding to the width of the temple, and 10 cubits wide—that is, it extended 10 cubits from the front wall of the temple. 17 Nothing indicates that it was roofed over. 18 Two free-standing pillars, called Yachin and Boaz, with ornately decorated capitals were set up, as a final flourish, somewhere on the right and left sides of the ʾûlām (1 Kgs 7:15–22; 2 Chr 3:17). Their location is not clearly indicated in the biblical sketch, and the fact that they were put in place after the completion of everything else indicates that they were neither 16.  Similarly, a three-storied structure used for storage was constructed abutting but not bonded to the temple’s north, west, and south walls. It may have buttressed the walls of the temple in addition to filling a practical role (1 Kgs 6:5–6; see also Ezek 41:5–7). 17.  There is some apparent ambiguity in the Hebrew of 1 Kgs 6:3 about the position of the ʾûlām vis-à-vis the temple building. This is due to the way terms indicating length and width are used in combination with ʿal pĕnê, two prepositions with a range of possible meanings. The same expression recurs in 2 Chr 3:8 describing the dimensions of the inner sanctum vis-à-vis the temple. In Chronicles, their interpretation is contextually clear and the expression revealed to be technical language embedded in the narrative sketch. This clarifies 1 Kgs 6:3 satisfactorily, illustrating that the apparent ambiguity is not real. 18.  2 Chr 3:4 mentions that its height was 120 cubits. This verse, a literal interpretation of which indicates that it must have been roofed over (else, why mention its height?) has led to many fanciful artistic renderings of the temple, with some or all of its roofs topping out at about 180 feet = 55 meters. The verse is corrupt and beyond restoration. The word “hundred,” mʾh, may have resulted from a metathesis of graphemes in the word for cubit, ʾmh. The verse may (or may not) have referred originally to the elevation of the ʾûlām from the ground, indicating indirectly the elevation of the platform on which the temple had been constructed. This, however, is pure speculation on my part since data from the main versions and Qumran that might be useful for a convincing reconstruction are lacking. See R. Dillard, 2 Chronicles, WBC 15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 25–26; S. Japhet, I and II Chronicles, OTL (London: SCM, 1993), 552–53; K. Hognesius, The Text of 2 Chronicles 1–16: A Critical Edition with Textual Commentary (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003), 81–83. Possibly, the ʾûlām of the temple as known to the Chronicler (or his sources) had been roofed and partially walled. These assumptions would at least account for the word gōbah, “height,” and the reference to its interior in his description (2  Chr 3:4). See Hurowitz, “Yhwh’s Exalted House,” 69–70.

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

639

structural supports nor load bearing. Their symbolic significance has yet to be determined by critical research. Unlike the broad, open entrance to the tabernacle, the temple proper had double doors (1 Kgs 6:34; 2 Kgs 18:16; 2 Chr 4:22). This warrants a hypothesis that people entered the temple indirectly by first stepping (or ascending, if stairs—unmentioned in 1 Kings, but see Ezek 40:49—were involved) onto the ʾûlām at either its north or south side or at both sides, moving to its center and then, following a bent-axis approach, turning 90 degrees to enter the temple through its doors. 19 Alternatively, people may have entered from one side of the ʾûlām and exited using the other. This suggests that the ʾûlām functioned similarly to the māsāk of the tabernacle, even though it did not serve as a chancel screen, blocking outsiders from viewing activities in the temple’s outer chamber. Consequently, the fact that the tabernacle māsāk blocked all outsiders from viewing what went on within may have been an unavoidable consequence of its insertion into the plan but not the reason for it. A practical reason may be conjectured: the māsāk was intended to block wind from blowing dust, dirt, and smoke into the tent. The dimensions provided in 1 Kings 6 indicate that the temple proper, like the tabernacle was divided into two sections. The rear section, 20 × 20 cubits, referred to as the dĕbîr and as qōdeš haqqŏdāšîm (1 Kgs 6:16; 7:49–50; 8:6) was the inner, most holy section; the front section, referred to as the hêkāl, 40 (length) × 20 (width) cubits, contained the working area with lamps, tables for the showbread, and the golden incense altar. 20 A significant difference between the temple and tabernacle is the fact that the ceiling of the much larger temple is described as 10 cubits higher than the top of the dĕbîr. Since there is no indication that the dĕbîr was tented or roofed over in any way, it cannot be conceived as a closed cube. Chronicles, however, seems to mention casually that stairs led up to the Holy of Holies: He made the house of the Holy of Holies—its length according to the width of the temple, twenty cubits, and its width twenty cubits. And he overlaid it with good gold, six hundred talents. The weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold, the ʿăliyyôt, stairs, he covered with gold. (2 Chr 3:8–9) 19.  For archaeological data illustrating bent-axis temples in the Levant, see A. Mazar, Excavations at Tell Qasile, vol. 1: The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects, Qedem 12 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1980), 64. The question of stairs cannot be settled on the basis of information in Ezekiel 40–48, which prescribes what the rebuilt temple ought to look like in the future and how the cult there ought to be practiced. Nevertheless, Ezekiel’s prescriptions may be a drastic remodel of what he knew to have existed in the Jerusalem temple of his youth at the end of the 7th century b.c.e. 20.  A common word for palace, hêkāl (1 Kgs 21:1; 2 Kgs 20:18), is used also to refer generally to the Jerusalem temple (or Shiloh shrine) (1 Sam 1:9; 2 Kgs 24:13; Jer 7:4; 24:1; Ps 18:7; 29:9), and specifically to its front chamber (1 Kgs 6:3; 2 Kgs 23:4).

640

Ziony Zevit

On the basis of this datum, one could posit that the cubicle was constructed on a podium raised as much as 10 cubits above the main floor of the temple so that the ceiling of the temple building created a sealed cube, closing the 10-cubit gap. There are a few problems with this conclusion, however, that are often reflected in graphic representations of the Bible’s narrative sketch. 21 The word ʿăliyyôt, rendered “stairs” in my translation above, is usually taken as referring to elevated chambers on the basis of the way the word is used in standard preexilic Hebrew (Judg 3:23; 2  Kgs 4:10; Jer 22:14). The word maʿălôt, which does not occur in the Chronicles verse, is the common word for “stairs” (Exod 20:23; 1 Kgs 10:19; Isa 38:8; Ezek 40:22, 49; 2 Chr 9:18 [a nonparallel passage]). Since there were no upper chambers in the temple proper, however, not even according to the Chronicler, the word may have assumed a new meaning in postexilic Hebrew. 22 There may have been stairs that led up to the dĕbîr, as do two slight stairs in the ʿAin Dara temple, which is considered a structural parallel to the Jerusalem temple. Or, there may have been a slightly raised platform within the dĕbîr itself, on which the ark was placed, that had stairs leading up to it, as in the second Tainat temple, also considered a parallel of the Jerusalem structure. 23 If, however, we imagine either the dĕbîr or a platform inside it raised 10 cubits (= 15 feet, approximately 5 meters) or more, then either stairs or a ramp ascending to its top would have filled between 5 and 20 cubits of horizontal floor space within the hêkāl, measured from the beginning of the ramp or stairs to the base of the dĕbîr or the platform within it— depending on the pitch of the ascent—reducing its floor space considerably. This assumption makes nonsense of the dimensions provided for the allocation of floor space in 1 Kings 6. 24 These data precipitate two questions: Were the dimensions of the dĕbîr in Solomon’s temple 20 × 20 × 20 or were they 20 × 20 × (20 + 10)? Was the dĕbîr conceived as an abstract cube open at the top or a sealed, rectangular 21.  See the artistic renderings in V. Hurowitz, “Solomon’s Temple in Context,” 47; and in L.  Ritmeyer, The Quest: Revealing the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Carta, 2006), 138, 145. 22.  The Chronicler refers to upper chambers, ʿăliyyôt, in 1 Chr 28:11, but the reference does not indicate where they were located. 23.  For photographs, see Hurowitz, “Solomon’s Temple in Context,” 49, 55; for plan drawings of Levantine temples with raised platforms, see Mazar, Tell Qasile, 63, 68–69. These parallels are useful only as illustrations, not as witnesses to historicity. For a useful discussion of some theoretical problems raised when mapping artifacts onto texts or vice versa and seeking congruity, see J. Boardman, “Iconography and Archaeology: Some Problems East and West,” in Images as Media: Sources for the Cultural History of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st Millennium bce), ed. C. Uehlinger (Fribourg: University Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 2000), 393. 24. The niv avoids this exegetical dilemma by translating it “upper parts.” Although this is a more cautious translation, it fails to clarify what information the verse was supposed to convey.

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

641

box? These questions can be answered by an analysis of other data bearing on the innermost chamber of both the tabernacle and the temple. 25 Appointed Furnishings of the Tabernacle’s Inner Sanctum The only object in the inner sanctum of the tabernacle was the ark. The sketch presented in Exod 25:10–22 (and 37:1–9) indicates that the gold-covered ark, ʾărôn, was a box 2.5 cubits (length) × 1.5 (width) × 1.5 (height). On top of this was a golden cover, kappōret, the given dimensions of which were 2.5 cubits (length)  ×  1.5 cubits (width). 26 Of one piece with the cover were two gold, winged cherubs, kerûbîm, set opposite each other, as if emerging from the flat hammered surface, at two of its edges. 27 The cherubs were posed so that each faced the other as well as the ark-cover, their wings extended not horizontally away from the sides of their bodies, as if in flight, or swept back alongside their bodies, but in a line with the long axis of their bodies, curving over their heads, to form a three-dimensional, mesh-like shield over the ark-cover: “The cherubs will be spreading wings upward, covering with their wings over the kappōret” (Exod 25:20). The artfully elaborate ark-cover with its two cherubs defined a special place: “I will come there for you and speak with you from on (or over) the kappōret, from between the two cherubs that are on the ark of the covenant” (Exod 25:22). A narrative aside in Num 7:89 is a fulfillment passage for Exod 25:22: “[Moses] heard the sound of one speaking to him from on/over the kappōret that is on the ark of the covenant from between the two cherubs.” These verses indicate that the ʾărôn was used to refer, not only to the ark-box alone, but also to the combined ark-box + kappōret. 25.  A collection of drawings by G. E. Wright, W. F. Albright, C. Watzinger, and T. A. Busink, who attempted to sketch the external appearance and/or floor plans and longitudinal sections of the temple on the basis of the biblical data are presented in O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (New York: Seabury, 1978), 155–56, ##209–13. 26.  No dimensions are provided for its thickness on top of the ark or for its total height. In the Babylonian Talmud, its thickness is determined to be a handbreadth (b. Sukkah 5a–b). 27.  Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1014. The Israelite conception of cherubs from the 10th through the 7th century b.c.e. is usually understood on the basis of the Ahiram sarcophagus, the Megiddo ivories, and ancient Near Eastern artifacts to have been of sphinx-like, winged (Syrian) lions with human faces. If this is correct, they are attested also in Israelite art on both 10th-century b.c.e. ceramic cult stands from Taʿanach (see my Ancient Israelite Religions, 318–25). In the 6th century, Ezekiel identifies as cherubs creatures with four faces (one a human, one a lion, one an ox, and one an eagle), four wings, a hoofed foot, and human-like hands beneath their wings (Ezek 1:5–14; 10:20–21). Whether this is a development from the earlier comprehension or an image that was heavily influenced by Mesopotamian mythology has not yet been determined. Ezekiel’s description indicates that, by the 6th century b.c.e., the Hebrew kerûb had come to refer to a broad range of mythological creatures associated with Yhwh. Those in the tabernacle and temple had only two wings and one face.

642

Ziony Zevit

These references to the kappōret in narrative are reinforced by specific cultic texts in which the kappōret is the focus of prescribed rituals involving bloodmanipulation ceremonies that affect purification on the Day of Purgations. (1) The first prescription commands the priest that, before moving beyond the pārōket into the small, back chamber of the tabernacle, he is to take coals from the inner altar and a handful of finely ground incense. In the chamber, he is to place the incense on the coals and create a thick, smoky incense cloud that covers the kappōret on the ʾărôn so that he will not die (Lev 16:12–13). The reason for this is that “I make myself visible in a cloud (or, by means of a cloud,) on the kappōret” (Lev 16:2). One way of understanding this inherently ambiguous verse is that the incense cloud was intended to obscure a cloud different from the incense cloud—a cloud within (or, through) which Yhwh reveals himself. The incense cloud was a device intended to save the life of the officiating priest, who was not permitted to see Yhwh, even inadvertently. Though invisible, Yhwh was held to be present (or manifest [somehow]) in a cloud of his own making above the ark. 28 (2) The second prescription enjoins the officiating priest to sprinkle blood with his finger on the east side of the kappōret—that is, the front part of its flat surface (since it faced east toward the entrance of the tabernacle)—and then seven times in front of it (on the ground?). The sprinklings are performed first with blood from the priest’s own purification offering, a bull, and then with the blood of a goat, the people’s purification offering (Lev 16:14–15). No information is provided in Exodus about the vertical dimensions of the cherubs or their wings, so the total height of the ark after the kappōret was placed on it is not directly accessible (see Exod 40:20). 29 28.  Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1014–15 and, in general, pp. 1061–65. R. E. Clements describes six arguments advanced from the 19th through the early 20th century against the idea that the ark was a type of “throne on which Yahweh was thought to be invisibly seated.” Refuting some parts of these arguments, he concludes that, although the conceptualization of the ark as throne may have evolved as early as the time of the sanctuary at Shiloh (ca. 1050 b.c.e. according to his chronology), P, he claims, did not consider the ark a throne but assigned that role, on the authority of an early study by Menahem Haran, to the kappōret. See God and Temple (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965), 28–35, and the concluding paragraph of the following note. 29.  See A. Salvesen, “kissēʾ,” in Semantics of Ancient Hebrew, ed. T. Muraoka (Louvain: Peeters, 1998), 58–59. J.-M. de Tarragon proposes that the mention of the kappōret in Exod 25:17–20 is a late, Persian period addition to an earlier text. He argues this on the grounds that its main cultic role involved the kippurîm ritual and that concern with ritual impurity developed only in the postexilic period (“La kapporet est-elle une fiction ou un element du culte Tardif?” RB 88 [1981] 5–12). Research in ancient Near Eastern religion since he wrote, and long before as well, indicates that ritual impurity was a concern among Egyptians, Hittites, Ugaritans, and other peoples long before the Persian period; consequently, positing that it was also a concern in Israel during the Iron Age is reasonable even for those who maintain that P writ-

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

643

To complicate matters further, Exod 25:12 indicates that four legs, the dimensions of which are not given, supported the ark. 30 These must have added something to the distance between the ground and the top of the cherubs’ wings, since they were sufficiently long to accommodate a single attached ring through which staves for carrying the ark were to be inserted. Their very mention, however, suffices to indicate that the ark-box itself was not in contact with the earthen floor of the tabernacle or the gilded floor of the temple’s dĕbîr. Consequently, there would have been no compelling reason for a platform, no matter how low, to elevate the ark above the floor. The temple narrative provides some additional information useful for establishing parameters within which the final height of the completed structure must have fallen. Appointed Furnishings of the Temple’s Inner Sanctum After the temple was completed, the ark was moved into the Holy of Holies (1 Kgs 8:6). 1 Kgs 6:23–27 and 8:7 mention that in addition to the complete ark, the dĕbîr contained two identical cherubs ten cubits high whose wingspan, from tip to tip was also ten cubits. These cherubs were placed next to each other wings extended so that one wing of each cherub touched a wall of the temple and the other wing touched that of the other cherub. The wings of these two standing cherubs were extended so that they covered the place where the ark was set as well as its carrying staves that extended fore and aft. Assuming that furnishings in the dĕbîr were arranged symmetrically, this description indicates that the touching wings of the cherubs extended over the kappōret with its two cherubs and that the highest point of the ark and kappōret was beneath the point at which the wings met. Because the standing cherubs were 10 cubits tall, they were not visible from the hêkal since the minimum height of the partition between the inner and outer sanctum was 20 cubits. Assuming that their wings extended from the ings derive from the Persian period. Moreover, Tarragon’s explanation does not consider the description and role of the kappōret in P’s cultic imagination. Hurowitz, following Haran, opines that the kappōret as described by P never existed (“Yhwh’s Exalted House,” 87). I consider this highly unlikely. Without the kappōret as sketched in P, a late, pre-exilic source with a preexilic literary history, expressions such as yōšēb (hak)kĕrubîm in preexilic, Deuteronomistic literature and in Psalms (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2 Kgs 19:15[=Isa 37:16]; Ps 80:2; 99:1) or references to the ark-box beneath the kappōret as “a footstool” (Ps 99:5; 132:7; and 1 Chr 28:2) are difficult to explain. Moreover, the reference to the dĕbîr in Chronicles as bêt hakkappōret (1 Chr 28:11) is a phrase that could have developed only through the close association of the ʾărôn and the kappōret by synecdoche. (See Clements, God and Temple, 28–33.) This use of kappōret parallels and inverts the earlier, preexilic use of ʾărôn to refer to both the ark and its kappōret cover. 30.  Rendering Hebrew paʿămōtāyw as “legs” is based on 1 Kgs 7:30, where the same word refers to devices beneath the lavers in the temple that bore and distributed their weight, stabilizing them.

644

Ziony Zevit

point of their shoulders, as do those of the cherubs on the Taʿanach cult stand, they were 15–30 cm (= 6–12 in. = 1/3–2/3 cubits) less than 10 cubits above the floor. 31 This determines the theoretically maximum height of the complete ʾărôn: legs on the ark (height unknown) + the main box of the ark (1.5 cubits) + the kappōret including its set of cherubs with their overarching wings (height unknown). Allowing arbitrarily a minimum of 1.5 cubits for the combined height of the legs and the completed kappōret, the top of the ʾărôn stood 3 cubits from the ground, leaving slightly less than a maximum of 7 cubits between its top and the underside of the wings of the two standing cherubs in the temple. In the tabernacle, approximately the same distance would have separated the top of the ʾărôn from the ceiling of linen wrap that covered the inner sanctum 31.  Throughout this article, I consider a cubit to be 18 in. This metrical translation is based on the length of Hezekiah’s Tunnel in Silwan. According to the Siloam Inscription, the tunnel was 1,200 cubits long; according to L.-H. Vincent, who measured the tunnel in 1911, it was 1,749 ft. or 533.1 m long. On the basis of his measurement, the cubit is often translated as 17.5 inches or 44.5 cm. This translation can only be considered tentative. As Ronny Reich, who has excavated the complex of tunnels associated with the Gihon Spring, pointed out to me, the number 1,200 in the inscription is typological, 10 × 10 × 12, and that at best it might be a rounded approximation intended to indicate that it was indeed long. He doubts that ancient surveyors could have measured such lengths in the twisting underground tunnel accurately (private conversation, November 2011). Similar rounded numbers are reported in Josh 3:4; 2 Kgs 14:13. Moreover, the same inscription refers to the surface of the ground as being 100 cubits above the tunnel, a figure that is absolutely inaccurate. Complicating matters further, the most recent excavations indicate that the original tunnel length was most likely different from what Vincent measured (from its beginning by the Spring of the Virgin to the north end of what, in the 19th and early 20th century, was thought to be the original Pool of Siloam). Since this is no longer the case, the ancient short cubit may have been longer or shorter than what he determined. See D. Ussishkin, “The Original Length of the Siloam Tunnel in Jerusalem,” Levant 8 (1976): 82–85, 88; R. Reich and E. Shukran, “On the Original Length of Hezekiah’s Tunnel: Some Critical Notes on David Ussishkin’s Suggestions,” in “I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschdje (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 794–97. (Ussishkin wrote based on the assumption that the cubit to which the Siloam Inscription referred was a long cubit of 52.5 cm. See his “Original Length,” 88–89. The problem confronting scholars of ancient metrics is that, whereas ancient weights and measures are usually determined by comparing written texts with archaeological artifacts, no appropriate artifact has been found to resolve the length of the short cubit. See the entry “Weights and Measures” in ABD 6.899–900. Ephraim Stern provides a most thorough discussion of the problem, a fair evaluation of its proposed solutions, and a useful bibliography in EM 4.847–52 [Heb.]. The implications of this note for the metric translations that I make below are that they are tentative and that they may need to be changed if (1) the original tunnel length can be determined and is shown to be longer, and/or if (2) I am incorrect in hypothesizing that all cubit measurements that I use were in the common, short cubit of the preexilic period and not the slightly longer cubit—by a handbreadth, four fingers wide—that was adopted at the end of the First Temple period (Ezek 40:5; 43:13; 2 Chr 3:3).

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

645

at a height of 10 cubits. Were the legs of the ark or the height of the kapporet greater than what is proposed here, the figure of 7 cubits would be diminished correspondingly. Below, I undertake to determine the two missing heights. The Seated Deity The statement of Exod 25:22, cited above (which is repeated almost verbatim in a fulfillment passage, Num 7:89), indicates that on certain occasions Yhwh occupied some or all of the 7 cubits’ (or less) space between the top of the ʾărôn and the cloth ceiling of the tabernacle or the outstretched wings of the standing cherubs in the temple. What these verses do not reveal is Yhwh’s posture when present “above the kappōret and between the cherubs.” The words could be interpreted as indicting that he suspended himself above the kappōret’s flat surface on top of the ark but between the bodies of the cherub images, in which case he would be under the canopy created by the wings. The appositive yōšēb (hak)kĕrubîm applied to Yhwh in psalmody, a genre associated with temple liturgy (Ps 80:2, 99:1; 1 Chr 13:6) as well as in historiographical literature (1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2 in connection with the ark at Shiloh that was taken out to battle [cf. Num 10:35–36, where battle cries associated with Yhwh and the ark are provided]; and 2 Kgs 19:15[= Isa 37:16] in connection with the ark in the Jerusalem temple in the context of a prose prayer concerned with war) indicates that in Israelite mythopoesis he was imagined seated on the cherubs. It is reasonable to allow that both the authors of these texts as well as their intended audience comprehended the reference and would have been capable of imagining the anthropomorphic image behind the allusion. Consequently, the statements of Exod 25:22 and Num 7:89 interpreted in light of the yōšēb (hak)kĕrubîm passages indicate that Yhwh sat on the kappōret, specifically on the broad expanse over the length of the ark provided by the overarching wings of its two cherubs. 32 This is why the author 32.  Haran dissociates the ark from the kappōret by asserting that the large cherubs in the dĕbîr were somehow confused with those on the kappōret and that the title yōšēb kĕrubîm had to do with the nature of the deity and not with the presence of any cherubs. See his Temples and Temple-Service, 247–51; b. Sukkah 5a–b; and Liss, “The Imaginary Sanctuary,” 685 n. 93. Haran’s argument is unclear at best—as are the arguments and assumptions in the talmudic discussion—and involves special pleading. Keel provides illustrations of figures seated on what, in scholarly parlance, are labeled “cherub-thrones”—that is, thrones with cherubs carved into the design on each side of the throne, their swept-back wings creating a supporting frame for the throne (Symbolism, 169– 70, ##231–36). See also O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 168–72. These illustrations differ from what is described in Exod 25:20 only in that the prescribed wings of the cherubs on the kappōret in the biblical text were to be swept upward and forward, in what would be an unnatural position for a bird but natural, I suppose, for a mythological cherub. This difference is due to the fact that, in the illustrations, cherubs and seated figures are stationed in a row, facing the same direction, whereas on the ark the cherubs faced each other but were lateral to the seated figure.

646

Ziony Zevit

of Ps 132:7–8 could refer to the ark-box under the flat base of the kappōret, as Yhwh’s footstool (so also Ps 99:5). 33 This analysis indicates that the front of the ark was one of the long, not the narrow, sides. The “front” would have been the particular long side toward which the seated deity was believed to be facing. The carrying staves would have been inserted through the four rings affixed to the short sides of the ark. The significance of the word image that represented Yhwh as seated lies in the ancient Near Eastern iconographic convention of representing the reigning king as seated (1 Kgs 1:48; 3:6) and the reigning deity as seated—a trope repeated in Ps 29:10: Yhwh sat over the flood//Yhwh sits enthroned, king forever; Ps 47:8–9: God is king of all the earth. . . . God rules over the nations; God sits on his holy seat. 34 It was only at the beginning of the 6th century b.c.e. that the chair image was self-consciously metaphorized and applied to Jerusalem (Jer 3:16–17) and to the cosmos (Isa 66:1). The Imagined Height of the Anthropomorphized Deity 35 My cursory examination of five ancient Near Eastern iconographs featuring humans and deities in the same frame and at the same ground level indicates that they were usually represented as being of dissimilar stature. In five images from Mesopotamia, anthropomorphic deities are represented as being about 36% taller than the tallest accompanying human. 36 The dissimilarity is 33.  Second (or Third) Isaiah objects to these mythographical comprehensions of Yhwh that suggest a small stature and preached: “This is what Yhwh says: The heavens are my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Isa 66:1). This image is also picked up in Persian period literature (Qoh 5:2). The focus of the present article, however, is on comprehensions rooted in preexilic, pre-Persian period texts. 34.  J. C. Greenfield, “Baʿal’s Throne and Isa 6:1,” in ʿAl Kanfei Yonah: Collected Studies of Jonas C. Greenfield in Semitic Philology, vol. 2, ed. S. M. Paul, M. E. Stone, and A. Pinnick (Leiden: Brill; Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 896–97. T. Ornan, “‘Let Baʿal Be Enthroned’: The Date, Identification, and Function of a Bronze Statue from Hazor,” JNES 70 (2011): 272–76, where the significance of the “enthroned posture” in images from the Levant is discussed. I thank Dr. Ornan for drawing my attention to her article. 35.  In Israel, as in Mesopotamia, anthropomorphization was one of the ways through which divinity was comprehended and represented in art and language. In Mesopotamian research, the topic is addressed as an aspect of Mesopotamian thought and, therefore, of historical interest; in the case of Israel, however, it is often addressed as a thorny issue impinging on contemporary normative theology (cf. B. N. Porter, “Introduction,” in What Is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed. B. N. Porter, Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2 [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009], 4–9). Throughout the following discussion, I address anthropomorphism as a topic in the history of thought. 36.  The images measured were taken from Keel, Symbolism of the Biblical World, enlarged on a copy machine and measured. The true measurements are irrelevant for this exercise since the only matter of interest is the ratio between the deity and the person. The images used are the following: (1) p. 199, #272 (deity 8 cm; person 6 cm); (2) p. 207, #285 (deity 7 cm; person 4 cm); (3) p. 310, # 414 (deity 5 cm; person 3.4 cm); (4) p. 317, #426 (deity

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

647

clear even when the image is of a human standing before a seated deity and when the eyes of both are represented on the same horizon, an application of the isocephalic principle—that is, the tendency to represent heads of different figures at about the same level, in ancient Near Eastern art. 37 The implication of these representations is that, were the seated figure to stand, s/he would be taller than the standing figure by the length of the femur, known popularly as the thighbone. It is horizontal in a seated figure but vertical in a standing one. Even when allowance is made for the fact that a human may be portrayed as kneeling or prostrate before a seated or standing deity, my admittedly crude measurements of their stature—the sum of the lengths from heel to mid-knee to thigh to the top of the skull (or where I imagine the top of the skull would be if the figure’s head is covered)—indicate that, although their statures may appear to be similar in one’s first impression (such as when a deity is either seated or shown on a low platform), the deity is definitely taller. Studies of human skeletons by physical anthropologists and forensic pathologists since 1990 have determined that the human femur—which is the longest bone in the human body and which connects the knee to the hip—contributes to 26.74% of human stature. This figure, a mean ratio with no significant variations between males and females within populations, held across the 51 populations—a total of 13,149 individuals—that were studied. Noteworthy exceptions to this were found only in sub-Saharan Africa. 38 The significance of the mean femur/stature ratio enables archaeologists, who rarely find complete skeletons, to determine the stature of an individual when only the femur is available to them by applying the following formula: stature = femur length × 100/26.74. Unfortunately, skeletal evidence from Iron Age Israel is 7.3 cm; person 5.4 cm); 5) p. 330, #441 (deity 8.5 cm; person 6 cm). In all cases, the stature of the deity was higher: (1) 33%; (2) 74%; (3) 47%; (4) 35%; (5) 42%. These numbers do not provide a rule of thumb, since I ignored the sizes of the original image, the material on which they were made, the care of execution, and their conventions of representation. Thus, example #2, in which the deity would have been 74% taller than the human appears to follow a convention recognizable on some cylinder seals that featured seated deities with very elongated laps (e.g., p. 208, #286). Consequently, I ignored it as an anomaly when reporting the 36% average. Moreover, these figures have no statistical relevance because the number of examples is small and the measurements themselves crude. They illustrate only that anthropomorphically imagined deities appear to have been comprehended as somewhat tall humans but not grossly disproportionate. 37.  This was pointed out to me by Tallay Ornan of the Hebrew University (e-mail: November 28, 2011). She believes that the principle was first recognized as operative in ancient Near Eastern art by Irene Winter. 38.  M. R. Feldesman, J. G. Kleckner, J. K. Lundy, “Femur/Stature Ratio and Estimates of Stature in Mid- and Late-Pleistocene Fossil Hominids,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83 (1990): 359–61, 364–66. I thank Yechiel Zelinger and Yossi Nagar, both from the Israel Antiquities Authority; Joe Zias, retired from the Authority; and David Ussishkin, from the Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology for responding to queries about skeletal remains and directing me to relevant publications.

648

Ziony Zevit

not readily available, and no general study of stature during this period has been produced. 39 Consequently, I depend on a study of the stature of Jews during the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods based on the femur/stature ratio and other data; for heuristic reasons, then, in the absence of a more relevant study, I apply its results to the population that lived in ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel almost a millennium earlier. 40 According to the measurements of Y. Nagar and H. Torgee, who worked with data from 8 burial caves in the Shephelah, the average stature of mature males was 166  cm and of females 147 cm. A similar study of Jewish skeletons from En-gedi during the same periods indicated that the average stature of males was 162  cm and of females 149 cm. 41 These two populations appear somewhat taller than ancient Greeks who lived in the Proto-Geometric and Geometric periods, corresponding roughly to the early Iron Age in SyroPalestinian dating (according to the standard chronology). The Greek male figures are 162–63 cm and females 153–54 cm. J. L. Angel, who studied the Greek skeletons explains the gap between these earlier Greeks and the later Israelites. He claims that improved farming techniques resulted in a significant change in stature in Greece over the following centuries. 42 The data from Greece are relevant only if we assume that the Israelite population can be considered a Mediterranean population. I do make this assumption. For the purpose of the following discussion, I posit that the height of the average Israelite male was the average of the three averages: 39.  Potentially, a significant source of raw data for such a study would be the bones of more than 1,500 individuals found in the English excavations at Lachish, to which later finds might be added. Only 695 skulls returned to England were subjected to an intensive, far-reaching analysis by D. L. Risdon, which retains its significance for modern research (“A Study of the Cranial and Other Human Remains from Palestine Excavated by the WellcomeMarston Archaeological Research Expedition,” Biometrika 31 [1939]: 99–166). Risdon made a single impressionistic statement about the stature of the individuals at Lachish on the basis of some long bones: “As far as can be seen, the people were rather short” (pp. 160–61). For a popular summary of Risdon’s other conclusions and some of his more dramatic photographs, see D. Ussishkin, The Conquest of Lachish by Sennacherib (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology, 1982), 56–58. Although most scholars familiar with the Lachish excavations connected the skeletal remains (which had been dumped into four previously excavated tombs through openings in their roof) with the destruction of 701 b.c.e., O. Zimhoni, drawing on some of the ceramic evidence, opines that all or some of the remains may come from later periods and that the dating must be considered inconclusive (“The Pottery of Levels V and IV and Its Chronological Implications,” in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations of Lachish [1973–1994], vol. 4, ed. D. Ussishkin [Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Institute of Archaeology, 2004], 1698–99). 40. Y. Nagar and H. Torgee, “Biological Characteristics of Jewish Burial in the Hellenistic and Early Roman Periods,” IEJ 53 (2003): 164–71. 41.  Ibid., 169. 42.  J. L. Angel, “Skeletal Change in Ancient Greece,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 4 (1946): 69–70, 94.

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

649

(166  +  162  +  163)  ÷  3  =  164  cm. This average height translates to (164 cm × .39) = 64 in. = 5 ft. 4 in. (rounding up the fraction) = (64 in. ÷ 18 in. [the length of a short cubit] or) 3.6 cubits. 43 Imagined anthropomorphically, Yhwh’s stature would be 36% taller than that of an average human: 223 cm or 87 in. or 7 ft. 3 in. or 4.8 cubits—say 5.0 cubits after rounding up—tall. 44 For comparative purposes, we may note that the stature of Goliath is given as 6 cubits and a zeret, a handbreadth, conventionally understood as a half-cubit or slightly less (1 Sam 17:4; see Exod 28:16). This was considered frighteningly large (1 Sam 17:11, 24). The tallest person in history confirmed by Guiness World Records was a U.S. citizen, Robert Wadlow: 2.72 m = 8 ft. 11.1 in. or 6 cubits. 45 When sitting with feet placed on the floor and with knees bent 90 degrees, the seated height of my posited, average Israelite male can be determined by removing the contribution of the femur to his total stature because it adds nothing to his height from the floor. (It is horizontal to the floor.) Since the femur constitutes 26.74% of a human’s stature, his stature without the femur can be determined by multiplying his stature, 3.7 cubits, by the percentage that other bones contribute to his stature, which is determined by removing the femur’s contribution to the total, (100% – 26.74% =) 73.26%. The product of 3.6 cubits × 73.26% is 2.6 cubits, which represents the height of the average seated Israelite male. Applying the same calculation to the posited standing stature of Yhwh, which is 5 cubits, shows that his height, when imagined as seated on the wings of the cherubs with his feet set firmly on the part of the kappōret that was beneath him, would have been (73.26% × 5.0 cubits =) 3.7 cubits. (The eyes of an Israelite male imagined as standing before the seated Yhwh would almost have been at the same level as Yhwh’s eyes, if this imaginary image were engraved according to the isocephalic principle.) The minimal height of the combined legs of ark + ark-box + seated Yhwh can be determined by plugging in the relevant numbers. The length of the legs 43.  In “A Study of the Cranial and Other Human Remains,” Risdon published the mean average length of unsexed, scattered femurs from Lachish but provided no information about the condition of the specimens or explanation of what exactly was being measured. The average length of 18 right femurs was 42.79 cm; of 8 left femurs 43.045 cm. (p. 160, table 19). Applying the formula “stature = femur length × 100/26.74” reveals that the stature of the bodies whose right femurs were found was 160.02 cm; the stature of those whose left femurs were found was 160.99 cm. I could not use these in determining the average male height because the bones were unsexed. 44. Applying a datum from the outlier among the Mesopotamian figures discussed above, the long-lapped figure (see n. 36 above), in which the deity was 74% taller than the human in order to determine Yhwh’s stature, the results are 285 cm or 112.4 in. or 9 ft. or 6.4 cubits tall. 45.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people (accessed Dec. 9, 2011).

650

Ziony Zevit

on the ark remains unknown. Also unknown, though not relevant to this calculation, is the height of the cherubs on the kappōret, or more significantly, of their wings that swept forward over their heads to form the back and seat of the chair. The first is crucial, the second not so much, because the seated height of Yhwh has been determined without this information. 46 The crucial length of the legs supporting the ark cannot be determined except by deduction. For reasons adumbrated in the following section, I state here that they cannot have been more than 2–3 cubits but were most likely much less. In making the final calculation of this section, I will use the 3-cubit measure, even though it is most likely incorrect. Accordingly, from the floor of the dĕbîr to the top of the seated figure’s head, the height was 3 (height of legs) + 1.5 (height of ark) + 3.7 (stature of the seated figure) = 8.2 cubits. The Front of the dĕbîr Was Visible from outside the Building 1 Kgs 8:8 (= 2 Chr 5: 8), a passage referring to the staves used to carry the ark, indicates that the front of the dĕbîr was visible from outside the temple: “The handles were long, and the heads of the handles were seen from the sanctuary in front of the dĕbîr but were not seen outside, and they are there until this day.” 47 On both practical and literary grounds, it is unlikely that the carrying staves were longer than 20 cubits, which was the length and width of the temple’s dĕbîr. The practical argument against this is that such length would have been unnecessary to carry the ark safely; the literary argument is that, if the staves in the temple were imagined as being identical with or equal in length to those used in the tabernacle, they could not have been greater than 10 cubits, the length and width of the inner sanctum there. Consequently, the fact that the carrying staves were somehow visible in the sanctuary—perhaps causing slight bulges in the pārōket—may have been due to the ark’s placement toward the front of the dĕbîr so as to create a ritual space between the ark and the back wall associated with preparations for or the performance of rituals. Alternatively, the ark may have remained in a central position while the staves were off-centered vis-à-vis the ark, pushed forward through their carrying loops so as to create a ritual space. 48 46.  Were there a ratio of the combined lengths of the calcaneus (that is, the heel bone), the tarsals (that is, the ankle bones), and the tibia (that is, the strong, long bone in the lower leg) to the overall stature of males, it would be possible to determine the distance from the bottom slab of the kappōret to the top of the overarching wings. I am unaware of such an established ratio. 47.  Although vocalized as a hiphil, yʾrkw is written defectively. I read it as a qal stative, “to be long,” although this may not be necessary since the hiphil of ʾrk may also refer to a stative sense, as in Exod 20:12 and Num 9:22. 48.  The etiological tag “until this day” in 1 Kgs 8:8 could only have been penned before the temple was destroyed in 586 b.c.e. but at some undefined yet significantly lengthy period

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

651

Mention of the places where the heads of the handles could be seen and not be seen indicates that viewing the inner sanctuary from outside the building, either from the ʾûlām or from the courtyard east of it, did not provide a direct line-of-vision between viewers and the heads of the staves. This could not have been due to the placement of the furnishings within the outer sanctum, since the furnishings were set off to the sides (1 Kgs 7:49). However, since they were visible to those standing inside the hêkāl, it is realistic to assume that they were visible close to the floor level of the hêkāl but only to people who were standing quite near the dĕbîr. Were the inner sanctum constructed on a platform or were the ark placed on a podium that was elevated to any significant degree so that its functional floor level was higher than the various furnishings of the hêkāl, the bulges caused by the staves would have been visible to well-sighted people outside the temple. Accordingly, it is necessary to conclude that the floor levels of both the inner and outer sanctums were at (almost?) the same level. This also clarifies why the legs of the ark must have been very short. Additionally, the verse indicates that most of the front of the dĕbîr was visible from outside the temple. Were that not the case—or, were it the case that doors or partitions made viewing the pārōket of the inner sanctum impossible, as in the tabernacle—there would have been no reason for the author of v. 8 to mention that the heads of the staves could not be viewed from outside the building. Isaiah’s View of the hêkāl and the dĕbîr Isa 6:1–13 describes a private experience involving both the sights and sounds experienced by the prophet. 49 What is presented in the vision report is a drama set in the hêkāl of the temple that could have played itself out in a minute or less. The following paragraphs argue that the drama’s movement occurred between the space above the dĕbîr where Yhwh was ensconced and the ʾûlām on which Isaiah stood. Its props were drawn from what was regularly found inside the temple. Only two of its characters, the seraphs, were (apparently) foreign to the temple. This scene is superficially similar to what is described in Ezek 9:3–4: “And the kābôd of the god of Israel raised itself from on the cherub on which it had been to the threshold of the temple, and he called to the man clothed in linen (who in v. 2 had just approached the temple from of time after its construction—long enough that the fact of the uncorrected, unesthetic bulge was deemed worthy of notice. 49.  A recent thoughtful, extensive, critical analysis of this pericope is that of H. G. M. Williamson, “Temple and Worship in Isaiah 6,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. J. Day (London: T. & T. Clark, 2005), 123–44. My discussion of the vision has been influenced by his study. Although I do not accept all of Williamson’s conclusions, I agree with many, since they are based on a thorough study of the exegetical and scholarly literature on Isaiah processed through Williamson’s well-honed sense of the limitations of philology and archaeology in the pursuit of peshat.

652

Ziony Zevit

the north gate—Z.Z.). . . . Pass through the city . . .” (see also Ezek 10:4). 50 In both Isaiah and Ezekiel, the threshold marks the border between the sanctified space inside the temple and the space outside, limiting ingress to sacerdotal personnel. Something similar can be reconstructed for the shrine at Shiloh on the basis of 1 Sam 1:9–12: Eli is described as seated near/next to (ʿal) the doorposts of the hêkāl of Yhwh, from which vantage point he could observe Hannah’s lips moving and note that she was not speaking aloud. The narrator informs readers that Hannah was praying near/next to (ʿal) Yhwh. Possibly, I speculate, readers would have understood that Eli sat by the doorpost to monitor that those approaching the shrine did not pass its threshold. Although Shiloh was not Jerusalem, at both places, custom (as implied in narratives) allowed nonpriests access to the very entrance of the holy place, but not beyond. The only place from which what transpired within the temple could be seen clearly was directly before the doors of the hêkāl. As a non-priest, Isaiah had no access to the hêkāl itself—either from the courtyard between the bronze altar and the ʾûlām or from atop the ʾûlām itself—while standing just outside the doors of the hêkāl. 51 He experienced his vision at the place where ritually pure, male Israelites—it is unclear from the biblical texts whether females could cross the ʾûlām also—could stand and gaze into the hêkāl. Isaiah’s reference to the šûlāyw (“the hems” of some unmentioned textile) filling the hêkāl, the large 40 × 20–cubit chamber, in v. 1, and to the bayit, “the house,” filling up with smoke in v. 4 indicate that what he saw occurred within the temple. 52 This, in turn, clarifies that the reference to an altar from which a 50.  Unlike Ezekiel, Isaiah does not report a “rising” combined with movement toward the front of the building, stopping at the threshold. His report begins with the risen, levitated ark. Moreover, although the language is similar, we must recall that Ezekiel’s cherubs are different sorts of creatures than those in Isaiah. 51.  Williamson points out that, from where Isaiah stood, either in reality or in the world of his vision, he as a layman could see and hear everything that went on in the temple. In an extended discussion of this point, he concludes that the ʾulam was the place to which pilgrims had access and was as close as they could come to the heart of the sanctuary (“Temple and Worship,” 136–37). This is approximately the place where Ezekiel describes himself as standing when he witnessed the movement of Yhwh’s kābôd to the threshold of the temple (Ezek 8:16a). See also Hundley, “Before Yhwh at the Entrance,” 22–24. During the Second Temple period, people were able to see at least some implements used within the hêkāl since the show-bread table was regularly removed and brought out to be shown to pilgrims, creating problems of potential ritual impurity due. Similarly, they may have been able to see other items when they were removed occasionally for ritual cleansing. See the Jerusalem Talmud, y. Ḥag. 3, 21b–22b in the single-column format, halaka 8; or J. Neusner, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation, vol. 20: Hagigah and Moed Qatan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 118–23. (I thank Herbert W. Basser of Queen’s University for the reference.) 52.  Mention in v.  4 of “the (door)posts of the threshold/lintel,” if that is to what the term ʾammôt hassippîm refers, is irrelevant since most structures would have had them. The

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

653

coal was taken in v. 6 is to the small, golden incense altar that stood in the hêkāl (1 Kgs 7:48) and not to the large, bronze altar of the courtyard. 53 The first element of Isaiah’s vision report refers to “ʾădōnāy, ‘the Lord,’ sitting on a kissēʾ, ‘seat,’ rām wĕniśśāʾ, ‘high and lofty’” (jps, nrsv). 54 The expression rām wĕniśśāʾ consists of the qal participle of rwm (meaning “to be up, lifted up, high”) and the niphal participle of nśʾ (meaning “to have been lifted up by one’s own or some other agency”). Neither verb indicates the relative or absolute height intended. Context alone provides this information. Generally, these verbs indicate only that something or someone was in a higher position than before—for example, not on the ground but on the back of a donkey—after having elevated him/herself or having been elevated by some agent (Isa 33:10; 57:15; Ezek 1:19–21). In Isaiah, used together, the expression with slight variations refers to a mountain higher than hills (Isa 2.2), high mountains and hills (Isa 2:14; 30:25) and to very tall trees (Isa 2:13). All of these refer to normal heights—elevations within the realm of the likely, possible, and real. Nothing extraordinary. In Isaiah’s report, kissēʾ applied to the complete ark (that is, the ʾărôn + kappōret, metonymically) indicates that Isaiah saw Yhwh sitting on it when it levitated to a position higher than whatever would have blocked his vision of the ark inside the dĕbîr. Moreover, the reference to “its hems/edges filling the hêkāl” (the third-person masculine-singular pronoun referring to the immediately preceding noun, kissēʾ) is clarified partially by what is narrated about the pārōket of the tabernacle. When the ark was moved, the pārōket was draped over it (Num 4:5). This indicates that the pārōket functioned in two distinct ways: (1) as a hanging that divided the dĕbîr from the hêkāl so that the complete ark could not be seen casually, and (2) as an ark cover so that the ark could not be seen when moved from its closed-off chamber. Isaiah’s description may be interpreted as indicating that he saw the trailing hem of the pārōket over the ark when it levitated. 55 Isaiah did not report seeing the kappōret or the ark, only the cover over the divine chair.  56 Although Isaiah reports that “the specific referent, however, is uncertain since the remaining 247 of the 248 occurrences of ʾammâ in Biblical Hebrew refer to the cubit measure. See Williamson, “Temple and Worship,” 125–26 n. 5; A. Even-Shoshan, A New Concordance of the Bible (Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1977), ad loc. [Heb.]. 53.  Williamson, “Temple and Worship,” 136. 54.  I render kissēʾ with the nondescript noun “seat” rather than “throne” since the latter conjures up all manner of ornately decorated furniture. Not every chair on which a king sits need be thought of as a throne. 55.  In Num 4:5–6, the ark is first covered by the pārōket and then by dugong skin. The first covering makes it impossible to view the ark, whereas the second weatherproofs it so that it can be transported through the elements. In Isaiah’s vision, no transportation is involved. 56.  Considering the hem as an allusion to Yhwh’s robe (see njps; nrsv) makes an overly specific assumption about Yhwh’s appearance that is not necessary. See the discussion of

654

Ziony Zevit

king, Yhwh of hosts, my eyes have seen,” he does not attempt to describe Yhwh. Taking him at his word, I consider it likely that he saw Yhwh sitting on the embroidered pārōket. Yet, after having seen what he did, in his report, he acts as though he did not see what his culture informed him he was not supposed to see. He, along with his audience shared profound Yahwistic body blindness. Isa 6:2 refers to six-winged seraphs standing over Yhwh, each one calling to the other, “Holy, holy, holy.” That there are only two seraphs is clear from v. 3, where the masculine-singular demonstrative pronouns zeh ʾel zeh, “this one to this one,” and not the plural ʾēlleh ʾel ʾēlleh, “these to those,” are used. 57 Moreover, the reference to qôl haqqôrēʾ, “the sound of the one calling out,” in the third-person masculine singular (v. 4) indicates that the two seraphs recited the trisagion antiphonally, not in chorus. These seraphs, known as flying creatures (Isa 14:29; 30:6), are described as ʿōmĕdîm mimmaʿal lô, “standing above him.” They are “over” (see Gen 7:17; 8:3; 24:64; Exod 25:22) not “next to or adjacent to him.” Had Isaiah wished to indicate that they were next to or adjacent to Yhwh, he could have used the prepositions ʿal or ʿal yad (Gen 18:5; Amos 9:1; Exod 2:5; 2 Sam15:2). Accordingly, the text indicates that at the onset of Isaiah’s experience, he sees the seraphs as somehow suspended in space like Yhwh on his chair, not flying. When, in the course of his vision, one seraph does fly to Isaiah bearing a hot coal, a form of the verb ʿwp is used (Isa 6:6).  58 In his vision, Isaiah’s describes what sketches of the temple indicate existed in the dĕbîr behind the pārōket and beneath the horizontally spread wings of the two forward-facing, ten-cubit-high cherubs. According to the calculations presented in the preceding section, everything described in his vision of the seated Yhwh would have fit comfortably and realistically (in the framework of his vision) into the ten-cubit gap above the dividing wall between the dĕbîr and the hêkāl, with space to spare. The seraphs, the dimensions of which are not given, would have filled all or part of the remaining space beneath the ceiling. The only furnishings of the dĕbîr that played no role in Isaiah’s vision were both ten-cubit-high cherubs, unessential accoutrements in the dĕbîr of the lavish temple and therefore not imagined as crucial to the tabernacle by the P Williamson, “Temple and Worship,” 124–25, 129–30 and n. 4. I agree with Williamson’s analysis of the philological issue involved but not his conclusion about the referent of the attached pronoun on šûlāyw or with his estimation that the vision describes an enormous deity whose size exceeds the confines of the sanctuary (pp. 129–30). 57.  Ibid., 132 n. 20; and R. Halevy, “The Grammaticalization of Bipartite Reciprocal Markers in Hebrew,” HS 52 (2011): 14–15. 58.  The parallels between Isa 6:1–3 and 1 Kgs 22:19–21, Micaiah’s vision, are obvious, but so are the differences. They may be explained by hypothesizing that each stems from slightly different mytho-theological backgrounds. See H. Wildberger, Jesaja, BKAT 10/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972), 235–38.

Taking the Measure of the Ten-Cubit Gap

655

writers. In Isaiah’s vision, they seem to have been replaced in the vision by the shorter, versatile, vocal, six-winged, serpentine seraphs. 59 I speculate that this is because in Isaiah’s subconscious or in the place from which his vision originated—informed by the lore and mythology of both tabernacle and temple— the tall, lifeless cherubs behind the pārōket were not conceived as animatable agents measuring up to the tasks required by his vision. 60 Conclusion There was a gap of 10 cubits between the top of the dĕbîr and the ceiling in the First Temple. This is demonstrable by determining the height of what Isaiah 6 describes as filling this space in the course of his vision. 59.  Williamson, “Temple and Worship,” 131–32. These seraphs cannot be connected to the cherubs in the dĕbîr, especially since seraphs are associated with serpents, whereas cherubs are not (Num 21:6; Deut 8:15; Isa 14:29; 30:6). However, one of Isaiah’s seraphs had a prehensile appendage that he employed to hold tongs so that he could carry a burning coal from the altar to the prophet (Isa 6: 6). (Animating Isaiah’s vision in our imagination, we can imagine that he most likely picked up the tongs by the lamp in the hêkāl [see Exod 25:37–8]). His six wings were used for other purposes (Isa 6:2), so this appendage, functioning like a hand must have been conceived as part of his physical morphology. These data might form a very weak argument to consider him of the same mythological genus as Ezekiel’s four-faced, four-winged, and four-handed cherubs (Ezek 1:5–14; 10:20–21), that also had some connection with burning coals (Ezek 1:13). But even could a connection be made, the seraphs of the vision are more richly endowed with wings than the unanimated cherubs in the dĕbîr, and therefore belong to a different species. W. A. M. Beuken presents seals inscribed with flying serpents to illustrate the Isaiah passage. All have either 2 or 4 wings and none appears to have a prehensile appendage. See Jesaja 1–12, HTKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 170. A new seal featuring a four-winged, flying serpent was excavated in Jerusalem west of the Temple Mount, inside an abandoned fourroom house, perhaps in an 8th-century b.c.e. context or later (S. Weksler-Bdolah, A. Onn, S. Kisilevitz, and B. Ouahnouna, “Layers of Ancient Jerusalem,” BAR 38/1 [2012]: 40–41). 60.  S. E. Guthrie, “Anthropology and Anthropomorphism in Religion,” in Religion, Anthropology, and Cognitive Science, ed. H. Whitehouse and J. Laidlaw (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2007), 32–47. Despite my disparagement of the tall cherubs behind the pārōket, they may have been, if not the inspiration for Isaiah’s seraphs, then at least a semantic stepping-stone to them. I make this statement on the strength of Scott C. Jones’s useful collection of philological, literary, and iconographic data illustrating the intimate connection between lionid and feline creatures such as the cherubs on the Taʿanach cult stands (and on the kappōret and in the dĕbîr) and serpents (“Lions, Serpents, and Lion Serpents in Job 28:8,” JBL 130 [2011] 664–66, 671–79).

Index of Authors

Abel, F. M.  580 Abou-Assaf, A.  616 Abraham, N.  564 Abrahami, P.  465, 466, 467 Abramsky, S.  559, 561, 562, 579, 580, 582 Albright, W. F.  229 Abusch, (I.) T.  1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 200, 215 Ackerman, S.  489, 493, 494 Adam, K.-P.  490 Adler, E. J.  391, 394, 397, 398 Aharoni, Y.  559, 562, 567, 569, 577, 579, 580, 581, 583 Aḥituv, S.  222, 223, 225, 415, 422, 423, 560 Åkerman, K.  607 Albertz, R.  174, 175 Albright, W. F.  481, 641 Allen, L. C.  107 Aloni, N.  131 Alonso Schökel, L.  265 Al-Rawi, F. N. H.  590, 591, 593, 594, 599 Al-Shukri, S. J.  612, 613 Alster, B.  152, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 316, 320, 321, 373, 587, 593, 595, 596 Alt, A.  230, 548, 549, 580 Alter, R.  115, 119, 437 Amzallag, N.  480 Anbar, M.  542, 543, 557 Andersen, F. I.  278, 370, 408, 413, 415, 416, 424 Anderson, A. A.  67 Anderson, B. W.  141 Anderson, G. A.  486 Angel, J. L.  648

Aqiba  105, 367 Ararat, N.  576 Aristotle 162 Arnaud, D.  346, 347 Asher b. Jehiel  276 Assante, J.  593 Aster, S. Z.  21, 23, 33, 35, 36, 42 Attia, A.  593 Attinger, P.  113, 595 Auerbach, E.  113, 119, 559 Auffret, P.  141, 142 Ausloos, H.  394 Avigad, N.  225, 226, 328 Avrahami, Y.  264 Avriel, M.  480 Baines, J.  499 Baker, H. D.  607 Baltzer, K.  553 Bamberger, M. L.  276 Barag, D.  576 Bar-Ephrat, S.  572 Barnett, R. D.  38, 370, 382 Barr, J.  442 Barrick, W. B.  480 Bartal, A.  571 Barth, J.  130 Battini, L.  465, 467 Bayer, K.  413 Beal, T. K.  480 Beard, J. R.  126 Beaulieu, P. R.  78, 188 Beckman, G.  63 Beek, M. A.  144 Beentjes, P. C.  168 Begrich, J.  167 Benardete, S.  484, 485, 488 Benoit, P.  621

657

658

Index of Authors

Ben Saruq, M.  88 Ben-Yehuda, E.  271 Ben Zvi, E.  329, 334 Berger, D.  120 Berkovitz, A. J.  33 Berlejung, A.  186, 188, 217 Berlin, A.  87, 395 Bernat, D. A.  482 Bernbeck, R.  607, 611 Beuken, W. A. M.  86, 655 Biggs, R. D.  92, 286 Bilik, E.  163 Birot, M.  373 Black, A.  113 Black, J.  152 Blau, J.  570 Bleibtreu, E.  370, 378, 379 Blenkinsopp, J.  110, 141, 172, 174 Blocher, F.  605, 607, 613, 616 Block, D. I.  326, 330, 396 Boadt, L.  388 Boardman, J.  640 Boas, A.  561 Böck, B.  206, 265, 588, 589 Boer, P. A. H. de  565 Böhl, M. T.  151 Bonechi, M.  598 Bonfil, R.  111 Bordreuil, P.  480, 616 Borger, R.  76, 77, 79, 80, 90, 187, 189, 190, 199, 203, 204, 213, 370, 403, 433 Borgman, P.  491 Börker-Klähn, J.  429, 431, 432 Borowski, O.  580 Botta, P. E.  378, 382 Bottéro, J.  122, 239 Branden, A. van den  223 Braun-Holzinger, E. A.  501, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 519, 520 Brenner, A.  486 Briant, P.  335 Briggs, C. A.  88 Bright, J.  560 Brinkman, J. A.  78, 147, 611, 627 Brisch, N.  603 Brogan, J. V.  164 Bronowski, J.  161

Brueggemann, W.  141 Brunet, G.  229 Bucellati, G.  606 Budde, K.  564, 565 Budge, E. A. W.  381, 385 Burstein, S. M.  151 Busink, T. A.  144, 641 Buss, M. J.  554 Buttenwieser, M.  278 Butterlin, P.  514 Cagni, L.  148, 290, 378, 403, 404, 405 Çambel, H.  409 Campbell, E., Jr.  128 Cantineau, J.  620 Caramelo, F.  612 Carr, D. M.  153, 175 Caspari, W.  564 Cassuto, U.  273 Cavigneaux, A.  590, 591, 593, 594, 599, 605, 616 Cazelles, H.  180 Chafe, W. L.  426 Charpin, D.  239, 240, 241, 255, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 478, 499 Childs, B. S.  110, 273, 525 Civil, M.  295, 311, 403, 602 Clancier, P.  605, 612, 614, 629 Clements, R. E.  273, 642, 643 Clermont-Ganneau, C.  562 Clifford, R. J.  262, 263, 265, 266, 493 Clines, D. J. A.  85, 165, 269, 271, 272, 278 Cochavi-Rainey, Z.  98 Cogan, M.  19, 33, 73, 77, 78, 81, 133, 221, 223, 272, 325, 327, 329, 331, 334 Cohen, C.  85, 87, 93, 106, 107, 108, 168, 331, 334, 335, 438, 451 Cohen, M. E.  94, 99, 305 Cohen, R.  583 Cohen, S.  117, 122, 127, 129 Cohen, Y.  251 Cole, S. W.  623, 624, 628, 629 Collins, A. Y.  488 Collins, B. J.  393, 395, 396, 399 Collins, J. J.  488

Index of Authors Conder, C. R.  569, 574, 575 Cooper, A.  635 Cooper, J. S.  91, 499, 500, 503, 509 Craigie, P. C.  105, 278 Crenshaw, J. L.  234, 261 Cribb, R. L. D.  627 Cross, F. M.  75, 480, 481, 484, 485, 635 Crüsemann, F.  174 Cruz-Uribe, E.  177 Cunningham, G.  593, 598, 599 Curtis, A. H. W.  525 Dagan, Y.  562, 583 Dahood, M.  276 Dalby, A.  495 Dalley, S.  284, 385 Dalman, G.  130, 131, 575 Dandamayev, M.  181 Dardano, P.  60 Davies, J. G.  158 Day, J.  156 Debord, P.  178 Deimel, A.  144 Deller, K.  285, 376, 378, 379, 471 Demsky, A.  327 De Vries, S. J.  73 Dhorme, E.  163, 166, 270 Dick, M. B.  165, 186, 187, 188, 205, 213, 218 Dijk, J. J. A. van  90, 152, 404, 602 Dijk Hemmes, F. van  486 Dillard, R.  638 Dion, P.-E.  605, 616, 620, 628 Doan, W. J.  480 Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W.  414 Dolce, R.  519 Dombradi, E.  237, 238, 251, 258, 259 Donner, H.  569 Dothan, T.  221, 223, 224, 226 Driver, G. R.  86, 237, 239, 255, 256, 483 Driver, S. R.  85, 86, 166, 270, 273, 565, 574, 575, 577, 579 Dunand, M.  625 Durand, J.-M.  371, 372, 374, 375, 382, 467, 470, 472, 598

659

Edelman, D. V.  480, 491, 495, 496 Edzard, D. O.  198, 239, 411, 503, 507, 511, 513 Ehrlich, A. B.  265, 273, 565 Eidem, J.  466, 468, 470, 613 Elitzur, Y.  567, 581 Ellis, M. de J.  255, 257 Elyoeinay, M. K.  279 Emerton, J. A.  234, 412, 423 Enelow, H.  572 Ephʿal, I.  325, 332, 333, 334, 465 Eppihimer, M.  515, 516 Eshel, E.  223, 225 Eskhult, M.  413, 414, 426 Even-Shoshan, A.  653 Fales, F. M.  607, 608, 613, 621, 628 Falkenstein, A.  513 Falkner, M.  38, 382 Falkowitz, R. S.  298 Faust, A.  180, 324, 325, 337, 482 Feder, Y.  398 Feldesman, M. R.  647 Feldman, D. Z.  118 Feliks, Y.  84, 94 Felli, C.  516 Fincke, J. C.  196, 197, 198, 210 Finet, A.  122 Finkel, I. L.  190, 206, 210, 589 Finkelstein, J. J.  116, 117, 239, 240, 253 Fishbane, M.  525 Fitzgerald, A.  398 Fitzmyer, J. A.  548 Flandin, E.  378, 382 Fleming, D. E.  347, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 387, 469, 623 Flückiger-Hawker, E.  505 Fokkelman, J. P.  141, 142, 480 Ford, D.  563 Ford, J. N.  92 Forti, T. L.  161, 167, 262, 263, 265 Foster, B. R.  92, 95, 99, 148, 292, 497 Fox, E.  437 Fox, M. V.  230, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268 Frahm, E.  196, 208, 409, 588, 625

660

Index of Authors

Frame, G.  429, 431, 605, 607, 612, 630 Frandsen, P. J.  499 Frankenberg, W.  263, 265 Frankfort, H.  411, 500 Frayne, D. R.  468, 590 Freedman, D. N.  270, 278, 480, 482, 483, 484, 485, 487, 495 Freedman, S. M.  92 Frei, P.  171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181 Fretz, M. J.  579 Fried, L. S.  171, 172, 176, 177, 183, 184 Friedrich, J.  269 Fritz, V.  330, 580 Frye, J. B.  165 Frymer-Kensky, T.  494 Fuchs, A.  22, 394, 610, 626 Gabbay, U.  188, 192, 193, 194, 305, 318 Gadamer, H.-G.  262 Galambush, J.  390, 391, 395, 397, 398 Galil, G.  323, 566 Gallagher, W. R.  323, 325, 326, 327 Gardiner, A. H.  98, 106 Garfinkel, Y.  223 Garsiel, M.  561, 562, 564, 566, 569, 572, 573, 579, 580, 581, 582 Gass, E.  415, 416 Gaster, T. H.  275, 487 Gehman, H. S.  73 Gelb, I. J.  151, 620 Geller, M. J.  185, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 217, 283, 287, 288, 292, 599 Geller, S. A.  396 Genette, G.  409 Genizi, H.  580 George, A. R.  91, 105, 116, 145, 148, 149, 150, 152, 483, 489, 503, 590 George, M. K.  480 Gerardi, P. D.  76, 79, 412 Gersonides  264, 574 Gerstenberger, E. S.  65, 66 Gertz, J. C.  153

Gesenius, W.  118 Gevirtz, S.  273, 479, 481, 482, 483, 484, 488 Giles, T.  480 Gillingham, S. E.  72 Ginsberg, H. L.  87, 97, 99, 486, 487 Gitin, S.  221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226 Glatt-Gilad, D. A.  572 Glucksberg, S.  168 Glueck, N.  118, 121 Godley, A. D.  149 Gold, V. R.  569, 573 Goldman, Y.  536 Goldstein, B. R.  635 Gordis, R.  110, 166 Gordon, C. H.  151, 574 Gordon, E. I.  295, 298 Gordon, R. P.  566, 569, 579 Grabbe, L. L.  324 Grady, J.  163 Graef, K. de  241, 242 Graetz, S.  248, 250, 254, 257, 258 Gray, C. D.  200 Gray, G. B.  85, 166, 270 Gray, J.  73, 165, 166, 229 Grayson, A. K.  409, 412, 470, 605, 607, 608, 613 Greenberg, M.  148, 387, 388 Greenfield, J. C.  225, 226, 331, 646 Greengus, S.  508 Greenstein, E. L.  162, 410, 411, 487 Grønbaek, J. H.  559 Grondeux, A.  592 Gruber, M. I.  88, 395, 396 Guichard, M.  372, 374, 382, 473, 474 Guillaume, A.  479 Gunkel, H.  139, 140, 151, 167 Gurney, O. R.  93 Guthrie, S. E.  655 Gzella, H.  481 Haas, V.  61, 62, 63 Hagedorn, A. C.  176 Hakham, A.  85, 86, 89, 105, 110 Halbertal, M.  349, 367 Halevy, R.  654

Index of Authors Halliday, M. A. K.  416, 426, 427 Hallo, W. W.  84, 509, 591 Halloran, J. A.  266 Halpern, B.  490 Hamilton, M. W.  483, 491 Hamilton, V. P.  280, 330 Hanina ben Teradion  367 Haran, M.  371, 373, 375, 381, 387, 388, 635, 642, 643, 645 Harari, Y.  214 Har-El, H.  567, 570, 575 Harland, P. J.  146, 155 Harper, W. R.  278 Harris, R.  182, 238, 240, 247, 252, 253 Haupt, P.  405 Hawkins, J. D.  389, 393, 394, 408, 409, 410, 427 Hayes, J. H.  81 Heeßel, N. P.  288, 589 Heim, K.  436 Heimpel, W.  373, 475, 478 Helck, S.  128 Helfgot, N.  359, 360 Hendel, R. E.  146 Herman, D.  409 Herodotus  143, 149, 272, 181, 182 Hertzberg, H. W.  565, 574, 575, 577, 578, 579 Heschel, A. J.  444 Hess, R. S.  553 Hiebert, T.  154 Hillers, D.  68 Himmelfarb, L.  104 Hitzig, F.  278 Hobbs, T. R.  330 Hoch, J. E.  98, 129, 489 Hoffman, Y.  276 Hoffmann, D. Z.  131 Hoffmeier, J. K.  634 Hoffner, H. A., Jr.  61, 390, 394, 398, 405 Hognesius, K.  638 Holladay, W. S.  107, 480, 527 Holloway, S. W.  78, 80 Holter, K.  363 Homan, M. M.  633

661

Homer  116, 485, 492, 495 Horowitz, I. Z.  575 Horowitz, W.  283, 284, 291, 292 Hossfeld, R.-L.  65, 66 Hruša, I.  86 Hulin, P.  93 Hundley, M. B.  635, 652 Hunger, H.  406 Hurowitz, V. A.  1, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23, 30, 31, 35, 42, 43, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 83, 157, 159, 161, 171, 185, 186, 221, 229, 230, 232, 239, 240, 261, 271, 279, 283, 324, 339, 349, 369, 372, 407, 429, 435, 436, 463, 479, 559, 605, 633, 637, 638, 640, 643 Huxley, M.  36, 37, 38, 39 Hyatt, J. P.  273 Ibn Ezra  574 Ibn Nachmias, J.  276 Ipek, I.  410 Isaiah of Trani  264, 567 Ishida, T.  389, 393 Ishikida, M. Y.  244, 246 Ismail, B. K.  605, 616 Izre'el, S.  426 Jacob, B.  115 Jacobsen, T.  10, 402, 487, 513 Jaffa, M. L.  241 Jagersma, A. H.  216, 599 Janzen, J. G.  277, 527 Japhet, S.  66, 184, 231, 329, 638 Jaques, M.  596 Jensen, J. J.  635 Joannès, F.  177, 466, 478 Johnson, M.  162 Joines, K. R.  40, 41 Jones, A. H. M.  178 Jones, D. R.  527 Jones, G. H.  74 Jones, S. C.  655 Joosten, J.  442, 542, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 556 Joüon, P.  114, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484

662

Index of Authors

Kabergs, V.  394 Kadushin, M.  274 Kallai, Z.  562, 574, 575, 582, 583 Kapaḥ, Y.  264 Karahashi, F.  599 Kasher, R.  391, 392, 394, 571 Kaspi, J.  264 Kaufman, S. A.  410 Kaufmann, Y.  24, 275, 276, 277 Keel, O.  641, 645, 646 Keel, Y.  330 Keil, C. F.  564 Keimer, L.  131 Kemp, B. J.  84 Kepinski, C.  606, 612 Kern, B.  465, 473 Keysar, B.  168 Kikawada, I. M.  140, 142, 143 Kilmer, A. D.  231 King, L. W.  381, 385 King, P. J.  482 King, T. J.  541, 551, 554, 555, 557 Kirkpatrick, A. F.  561, 574, 578 Kisilevitz, S.  655 Kister, M.  351, 355 Kitchen, K. A.  635 Kleckner, J. G.  647 Klein, J.  297, 310, 313, 314, 319, 505, 509, 511 Kleinerman, A.  251 Klengel-Brandt, E.  144 Knohl, I.  442, 541, 542, 546, 550, 551, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557 Knoppers, G. N.  71, 73, 82, 89, 231 Koch, K.  561 Kochavi, M.  570, 573, 575, 576, 583 Köcher, F.  206, 404, 406 Koch-Westenholz, U.  196 Kogan, L.  94 Kooij, A. van der  147 Koopmans, W. T.  542, 543, 545 Koppen, F. von  470 Kotter, W. R.  580 Kraeling, C. H.  384 Kraeling, E. G. H.  143, 144 Kraemer, D.  444

Krahmalkov, C. R.  269 Kramer, S. N.  152, 319 Kraus, F. R.  237, 239, 255, 590 Kraus, H.-J.  66, 167, 277 Krebernik, M.  593, 595, 597, 598, 599 Krecher, J.  595 Kugel, J.  352, 354, 355, 358 Kühne, H.  607, 608, 611 Kuhrt, A.  177 Kuntz, K.  167 Lacambre, D.  472, 474, 475 LaCocque, A.  154 Ladefoged, P.  113 Læssøe, J.  466, 468, 470 Lafont, B.  387 Lafont, S. D.  238, 239, 240, 244, 251, 255, 256 Lakoff, G.  162 Lambert, W. G.  148, 189, 190, 191, 197, 198, 199, 210, 211, 219, 263, 283, 292, 379, 403, 404, 406 Landsberger, B.  254, 255 Landy, F.  480 Lane, E. W.  121, 458 Lanfranchi, G. B.  384, 621 Lapinkivi, P.  9 Lapsley, J. E.  489 Larsen, M. T.  238 Lattimore, R.  492 Laurin, R. B.  145 Lautner, J. G.  237, 255 Layard, A. H.  39, 42, 377, 378, 383 Layton, S. C.  620 Lecomte, O.  605, 606, 612 Leemans, W. F.  246 Lee, S. N.  482 Lehrerg, K. V.  250 Leichty, E.  78, 406, 433 Lemaire, A.  410, 415, 423 Lemche, N. P.  132, 560 Lemke, W. E.  277 Leuchter, M.  534 Levenson, J. D.  579 Lever, J.  568 Levine, B. A.  230, 339, 375

Index of Authors Levine, L. D.  429, 430 Levine, L. I.  560 Levinson, B. M.  392, 397 Licht, J.  572 Lichtheim, M.  267 Lieberman, S.  405 Linafelt, T.  480, 491, 493 Linssen, M. J. H.  192, 193, 194, 195, 218 Lipiński, E.  416, 424, 605, 619, 620, 621, 624, 626, 627, 629 Lipton, D.  350 Liss, H.  634, 645 Liverani, M.  569, 607, 608, 611, 620, 621, 624, 626, 628 Livingstone, A.  211 Loewenstamm, S. E.  88 Löhnert, A.  194, 310, 316 Long, B. O.  73 Long, V. P.  230 Loretz, O.  98, 100 Luckenbill, D. D.  78, 393, 409, 410, 411, 432, 433, 434, 533 Lukonin, V.  181 Lundbom, J. R.  273, 275, 276, 525, 527, 533 Lundy, J. K.  647 Maaijer, R. de  501 MacCormac, E. R.  162 MacDonald, N.  363 Machinist, P.  109, 324, 329, 330, 331, 390, 500 Macintosh, A. A.  278 Mackenzie, R. A. F.  549 Maddieson, I.  113 Maeir, A.  561 Magen, U.  285 Maier, C.  530, 531 Malamat, A.  564, 568, 635 Malbim 264 Mallowan, B. P.  20, 26, 27, 37 Malul, M.  262, 264, 266, 397, 398 Maman, A.  438 Marcus, D.  83, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 410, 411

663

Margalit, A.  349, 367 Margolies, M. B.  97 Margueron, J.  472 Marshall, I. H.  158 Marti, K.  278 Martin, W.  164 Martino, S. de  43 Mason, R.  531 Master, D. M.  482 Mathiessen, C. M. I. M.  416 Maul, S. M.  196, 198, 199, 203, 205, 219, 589, 608 May, N. N.  369, 370, 371, 373, 376, 378, 382 Mayer, W.  329 Mayer, W. R.  186, 187, 192, 269 Mayr, R. H.  514 Mazar, A.  471, 639 Mazar, B.  393, 395, 560, 561, 574, 576, 579, 640 McCarter, P. K.  393, 481, 482, 483, 484, 490, 561, 569, 574, 577, 578, 579, 581 McCarthy, C.  274, 450 McCarthy, D. J.  129 McKane, W.  262, 263, 265, 273, 277, 295, 303, 527 McKenzie, J. L.  365 McKenzie, S. L.  490 McMahon, G.  397 McNeile, A. H.  273 Meer, M. N. van der  542, 544, 546 Meier, G.  403 Menaḥem Meiri  264 Meshel, Z.  223, 225 Mettinger, T. N. D.  386 Meyer, E.  172, 173 Miano, D.  323, 326 Michalowski, P.  499, 501, 503, 515, 522 Michel, C.  163, 475 Mieroop, M. van de  259 Miglus, P.  613 Miles, J. C.  237, 239, 255, 256 Milgrom, J.  230, 443, 541, 544, 553, 554, 555, 636, 641, 642

664

Index of Authors

Milik, J. T.  621 Millard, A. R.  157, 219, 403, 483, 616, 624, 628 Miller[-Naudé], C. L.  481 Miller, G.  164 Miller, J. M.  81, 407, 568 Miller, P. D.  87, 101, 102, 103, 481, 485 Miller, R. F., II  485 Mirelman, S.  185, 186, 199 Monroe, L. A. S.  425 Montero-Fenellós, J.-L.  150, 612 Montgomery, J. A.  73, 330 Moor, J. C. de  415, 416 Morag, S.  113 Moran, W. L.  489 Morandi Bonacossi, D.  429, 431, 432, 434, 607, 611 Morgenstern, J.  381, 382, 387, 388 Moses Maimonides  115, 131, 274 Mowinckel, S.  167, 231, 542 Moyer, C. J.  438 Mozan, Z.  480 Mukasa-Mugerwa, E.  126 Muraoka, T.  114, 480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 548 Murphy, R.  167, 262, 263, 265, 266 Murray, J. A. H.  151 Musil, A.  387, 564, 608, 629 Naʾaman, N.  323, 390, 408, 413, 560, 564, 566, 581, 583, 605, 606, 611, 613, 616, 630 Nachmanides 121 Nagar, Y.  647, 648 Naʾor, M.  560 Nardelli, J.-F.  493 Nativ, D.  559 Naveh, J.  221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 569 Negbi, O.  482 Nelson, R. D.  232, 542, 549, 551 Nemet-Nejat, K. K.  286 Neufeld, E.  288 Neusner, J.  652 Niccacci, A.  413, 424 Nicholson, E. W.  530 Niehoff, M.  412

Nihan, C.  489, 490, 491 Nili, Y.  86 Noegel, S. B.  394, 436, 451 Noth, M.  73, 74 Nysse, R. W.  479 Oates, D.  471 O’Connor, M. P.  480, 482, 484, 485, 491 Oded, B.  332, 333, 336, 565 Oesterley, W. O. E.  263, 265 Ofer, A.  573, 574, 582 Olyan, S. M.  482, 485, 489, 494, 495, 541 Onn, A.  655 Oppenheim, A. L.  250, 267, 272, 427 Oren, E. D.  560, 581 Ornan, T.  646, 647 Oshima, T.  298 Oswalt, J. N.  110 Otto, E.  128, 237 Ouahnouna, B.  655 Panitz, R. I.  579 Parʾan, M.  436, 439, 444, 463 Pardee, D.  88, 339, 342, 344, 345, 346, 418, 480 Parker, S. B.  412, 487 Parpola, S.  19, 93, 289, 290, 369, 372, 384, 389, 611 Parrot, A.  144, 158 Paton, L. B.  272 Patton, C. L.  70, 71 Paul, S. M.  102, 219, 226, 263, 266, 267, 365, 370, 481 Payne, A.  427 Peake, A. S.  270 Pearce, L. E.  252 Peckham, J. B.  223, 224 Perdue, L. G.  168 Peres, I.  569, 580, 583 Perry, T. A.  261, 262, 263, 265 Peters, J. P.  144 Pfeiffer, R. H.­  270 Pigeaud, J.  592 Pitard, W. T.  408, 627

Index of Authors Plöger, O.  262, 263, 264 Poebel, A.  409 Pogge, R.  128 Polak, F. H.  414, 417, 427 Polonsky, J.  512 Polzin, R.  561, 580 Pongratz-Leisten, B.  378, 379 Pope, M. H.  488 Porten, B.  172, 182, 183, 548 Porter, B. N.  20, 23, 26, 646 Postgate, J. N.  19, 24, 284, 553, 621, 628, 629 Potts, D. T.  502 Preuss, H. D.  145 Propp, W. H. C.  275, 440, 482 Provan, I. W.  230 Puech, E.  481 Pütt, K.  613 Qimḥi, D.  232, 569, 574 Qimḥi, J.  264 Qimḥi, M.  265 Raabe, P. R.  496 Rabinowitz, J. J.  548, 553 Rad, G. von  75, 232, 233 Radday, Y. T.  140, 142 Radner, K.  394, 504, 607, 608, 610, 621 Rahlfs, A.  442 Rainey, A. F.  561, 570, 583 Rashbam 119 Rashi  88, 105, 122, 123, 219, 266, 567, 572, 574 Ratner, R. J.  437 Ravn, O. E.  145, 149 Reade, J.  20, 21, 25, 37, 502, 516, 518 Redford, D. B.  177 Reich, R.  644 Reisman, D.  289 Rendsburg, G. A.  110, 326, 436, 451, 545, 554 Renfroe, F.  487 Renger, J.  239 Renz, J.  224

665

Reviv, H.  564 Rey, S.  465, 471 Richter, R.  165 Risdon, D. L.  648, 649 Ritmeyer, L.  640 Roberts, J. J.  40 Robinson, H. W.  268 Rofé, A.  73, 75 Röllig, W.  224, 269, 569, 608 Rollinger, R.  149 Rollston, C. A.  408 Römer, T. C.  82, 525 Römer, W. H. P.  513, 596 Rom-Shiloni, D.  390, 397 Roncance, M.  537 Rosen, Y.  559 Rosenbaum, M.  122 Rosenberg, A. J.  525 Roth, M. T.  239, 240, 252, 254, 291 Roth, W. M. W.  261, 262, 265 Routledge, B.  408, 416, 421, 424, 425 Rowling, J. K.  22 Rowton, M. B.  118 Rudman, D.  336 Ruppert, L.  140 Russell, A.  162 Russell, J. M.  20, 26, 27, 37, 42 Rutz, M. T.  589 Saadia Gaon  264, 403 Sallaberger, W.  241, 320, 501, 508, 510, 511, 513, 594 Salvesen, A.  642 Sanders, S.  623 Sanmartín, J.  97 Santos-Granero, F.  488 Sarna, N. M.  101, 107, 273 Sassmannhausen, L.  621 Sasson, J. M.  153, 279, 466, 468, 474 Sauren, H.  512 Sayce, A. H.  144 Schley, D. G.  564, 573 Schloen, J. D.  482 Schmid, H.  144 Schmid, K.  175, 178 Schmökel, H.  152

666

Index of Authors

Schniedewind, W. M.  326 Scholnick, S. H.  165 Schorr, M.  237, 247 Schunck, K. D.  567, 569 Schwartz, B. J.  233, 442 Schwemer, D.  1, 5, 200 Scott, R. B. Y.  230, 263, 264, 265, 303 Scurlock, J. A.  78, 188, 189, 208, 209, 210 Seebass, H.  146 Sefati, Y.  310, 313 Segal, C.  492 Segal, J. B.  116 Segal, M. H.  559, 565, 566, 574, 575, 577, 579 Seger, J. D.  580 Segert, S.  269, 413 Seidl, E.  182 Seitz, C. R.  526 Sellin, E.  278 Selz, G. J.  500, 507, 508 Seybold, K.  140, 155 Seymour, M. J.  158 Shafer, A. T.  429 Shaffer, A. S.  406 Shang, Y.  465 Sharp, C. J.  531 Shea, W. H.  480 Shead, A. G.  527, 536 Sherwin-White, S.  177 Sherwood, Y.  398 Shibata, D.  186, 188 Short, J. R.  490 Shukran, E.  644 Sigrist, M.  592, 602 Simon, U.  75, 579 Simon, Z.  409 Simpson, W. K.  84 Singer, I.  390, 393, 398 Sivan, D.  98, 343, 345 Sjöberg, Å. W.  251, 252, 591 Ska, J.-L.  176, 179 Skinner, J.  86 Slanski, K. E.  515 Smelik, K. A. D.  407, 408, 412, 416, 424

Smith, H. P.  565, 575, 578, 579, 581 Smith, M. S.  363, 402, 483 Soden, W. von  93, 94, 148, 155, 513, 574 Sokoloff, M.  115 Soloveitchik, J. B.  115, 117, 128 Sommer, B.  291 Speiser, E. A.  116, 117, 120, 148, 152, 280, 281, 393 Spek, R. J. van der  588 Sperling, S. D.  483, 543, 545 Stackert, J.  10 Staden, H. von  588 Stager, L. E.  482 Stanford, W.  162 Starr, I.  197, 198 Steible, H.  505 Steiner, G.  158, 159 Steiner, R.  482 Steinkeller, P.  198 Stern, E.  561, 634, 644 Stern, J.  166 Stève, M.-J.  502 Stoebe, H. J.  495, 561, 565, 570, 575, 577, 578 Stol, M.  76, 200, 202, 206, 210, 217, 239, 253, 288, 314, 401 Stolper, M.  177 Strawn, B. A.  484, 485 Streck, M.  78, 80, 99 Streck, M. P.  607 Strong, J. T.  154 Stuart, D.  278 Stulman, L.  527 Su, T.  465, 478 Such-Gutiérrez, M.  598 Suter, C. E.  502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 510, 511, 512, 514, 515, 516, 518, 519 Sweeney, M. A.  229, 327, 329, 525, 527, 531, 532, 534 Szuchman, J. J.  626, 627 Tabory, J.  130 Tadmor, H.  19, 23, 33, 39, 78, 83, 109, 272, 325, 327, 330–34, 385, 432, 624–25

Index of Authors Taggar-Cohen, A.  547, 552, 554 Talmon, S.  480, 482, 487, 493 Talon, P.  375, 388, 594 Tarragon, J.-M. de  642, 643 Tate, M. E.  88, 105, 278 Taylor, J.  295, 296, 297, 298, 304 Teague, M. M.  131 Tenu, A.  605, 606, 612, 613, 614 Thiel, W.  530 Thompson, J. A.  276 Thompson, R. C.  404, 405, 406 Thompson, T. L.  413, 560 Thureau-Dangin, F.  192, 193, 194, 218, 409, 625, 626 Tigay, J. H.  112, 131, 363, 397, 451 Torczyner, H. see Tur-Sinai, N. H. Torgee, H.  648 Tosun, A. K.  410 Tov, E.  527, 544, 577, 578 Toy, C. H.  262, 264, 265 Tsagalis, C.  489 Tsukimoto, A.  430 Tsumura, D. T.  103 Tudeau, J.  12 Turner, G.  370 Tur-Sinai (Torczyner), N. H.  85, 261, 264, 403, 405 Uehlinger, C.  141, 145, 146, 147, 323, 645 Uffenheimer, B.  279 Ulrich, E.  443 Ussishkin, D.  180, 644, 647, 648 Vacín, L.  506, 507, 508 Vallat, F.  77 VanderKam, J. C.  184, 352, 353, 354, 355 Van Seters, J.  81, 147, 148, 155, 389, 393, 394, 399, 542, 543 Van Zyl, A. H.  568 Vaux, R. de  129, 564, 621 Veenhof, K. R.  239, 240, 255, 256, 257, 259 Veldhuis, N.  298, 591, 597, 598

667

Vermeylen, J.  17, 490 Vesco, J.-L.  66 Veyne, P.  357 Vidal, J.  471, 475 Vieyra, M.  43, 44 Voet, G.  250 Vos, R. L.  106 Waetzoldt, H.  103, 517 Walker, C.  186, 187, 188, 213, 218 Walsh, J. T.  73, 74, 230, 325, 329, 334 Walther, A.  237, 238, 252 Waltke, B. K.  262, 263, 265, 268 Walton, J. H.  144 Ward, R.  559 Watts, J. D. W.  86, 110 Watts, J. W.  176, 177 Watzinger, C.  641 Wazana, N.  109, 623 Weeks, N.  552 Wees, H. van  488 Wegner, I.  43, 44, 62, 63 Weidner, E. F.  379, 607 Weiher, E. von  200, 201, 202, 215 Weinberg, W.  330 Weinfeld, M.  398, 541, 548, 550, 552 Weippert, M.  610 Weiss, A.  162 Weitzman, S.  480, 485, 491 Weksler-Bdolah, S.  655 Wellhausen, J.  172, 173 Wenham, G. J.  141, 142, 280 Westbrook, R.  237, 238, 239, 240, 243, 395 Westenholz, A.  596 Westenholz, J. G.  203, 587, 588, 592, 593, 602 Westermann, C.  145, 280 Whiting, R. M.  472 Whybray, R. N.  262, 263, 303 Wiggermann, F. A. M.  26, 203, 204, 205, 520, 597 Wilcke, C.  238, 296, 301, 302 Wilcoxen, J.  533 Wildberger, H.  86, 654 Wildeboer, D. G.  264

668

Index of Authors

Wilhelm, G.  61, 144 Williams, G. R.  234 Williams, J. G.  261 Williams, P.  563 Williamson, H. G. M.  234, 651, 652, 653, 654, 655 Wilson, J. V. K.  404 Winitzer, A.  198 Winter, I. J.  20, 21, 25, 499, 500, 507, 518 Winterbottom, M.  162 Wiseman, D. J.  229, 403 Witte, M.  153, 233 Wittenberg, G. H.  155, 156 Wolde, E. van  154 Wolff, H. W.  267, 279 Woods, C.  216 Wright, D. P.  398 Wright, G. E.  641 Wright, J. E.  538 Wright, J. L.  623

Yadin, Y.  567 Yamada, S.  408, 432, 624 Yaqub, N. G.  496 Yee, G. A.  234, 480 Yeivin, I.  104 Yeivin, S.  565, 567, 581 Yona, S.  279, 280, 436 Yoshikawa, M.  113 Younger, K. L., Jr.  626 Zadok, R.  144, 333, 389, 619, 620, 629 Zakovitch, Y.  156, 358, 571, 579 Zarins, J.  118 Zenger, E.  65, 66 Zevit, Z.  634, 635, 636, 641 Ziegler, N.  231, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476 Zimmerli, W.  391, 392, 395 Zisso, B.  562 Zólyomi, G.  596

Index of Scripture

Genesis 1 153 1–11  141, 145, 153, 154, 155 1–15  141, 142 1:1–6 153 1:26 168 1:28  150, 155 2:4 114 2:7 153 2:8 143 2:15 565 3 154 3:8 153 3:22  153, 155 4:1 151 4:9 153 4:11 153 4:13 271 4:14 153 4:17–26 153 4:26  153, 402 5:1 114 5:1–32 153 5:29 151 6:1 153 6:1–4 153 6:1–8 153 6:2–3 153 6:3 153 6:4  153, 545 6:8 153 6:8–9 115 6:9  114, 153 7:16 153 7:17 654 8:3 654 9:1  150, 155

Genesis (cont.) 9:2 395 9:20 153 9:23 267 9:25 390 9:27 151 10  150, 151, 153, 157, 397 10:1 114 10:5 483 10:8 153 10:8–12 150 10:10  117, 139, 143 10:11 157 10:16–17 397 10:30 117 11  141, 144, 145, 147, 150, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158 11:1  146, 154, 155, 157 11:1–3 158 11:1–9  139, 140, 142, 145, 146, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158 11:2  143, 146 11:3  145, 148 11:4  139, 145, 146, 153, 154 11:5 153 11:6  153, 155, 156 11:6–7 153 11:7  153, 155 11:8  139, 143 11:8–9 153 11:9  151, 153 11:10 114

669

Genesis (cont.) 11:10–32 153 11:26 572 11:28  350, 351, 391 11:31 116 12 150 12:1  133, 572 12:1–5 391 12:2 153 12:5 116 12:9 391 12:10 116 12:20 121 13:2 116 13:5 117 13:5–12 121 13:9 483 13:11 143 14:1  115, 143 14:6 578 14:13 132 14:14 121 14:18 131 15:1 132 15:2 122 15:7  351, 354, 366, 412, 551 15:16  132, 394 15:18  179, 544 16–50 280 16:1–3 115 16:5 403 17:7–8  134, 551 17:8 551 18 122 18–19 392 18:5 654 19 120

670 Genesis (cont.) 19:1 122 19:4 120 20:7 361 20:9 394 20:14–15 121 20:18 403 21 132 21:2 402 21:12 121 21:17–20 134 21:19 414 21:21 578 21:23 121 21:32 132 21:34 135 22  119, 120 22:1 119 22:21 620 23 392 23:4  168, 391 24:12 122 24:17 126 24:18 126 24:19 126 24:26–27 122 24:33 123 24:49 123 24:50–51 123 24:51 414 24:64 654 25:1–11 116 25:12 114 25:23  403, 483 26:3 391 26:34 396 26:34–35 396 26:35 396 27:9 414 27:25 163 27:28–31 119 27:46  393, 396 27:46–28:1 393 28  156, 157 28:1 393

Index of Scripture Genesis (cont.) 28:13–15 116 28:17 157 28:18–22 81 28:20–22 116 29:31 403 30:3 404 30:22 403 31:15 554 31:20 483 31:45 620 31:47 329 32:6 116 33:15 565 34  395, 545 34:14 548 34:30 545 35:7 81 36:1 114 36:2 396 36:12 578 37–50  124, 280 37:2 114 39:21–23 123 40:2–9 327 40:14–15 123 40:23 124 41:9 280 41:40 125 42:23 329 42:24 494 42:30 425 43:4 414 44:16 125 46:2 116 46:6 116 47:3–4 125 47:9 125 47:29 125 47:31 125 49:21 545 49:24 107 49:25  279, 280 50:5 126 50:23 404

Exodus 1:8 127 2:1 414 2:5 654 2:11–15 354 2:12 405 2:18 127 2:19 127 2:20 127 2:21 127 2:24 563 3 16 3:2 402 3:6 15 3:10 127 3:15 406 4:21 102 4:24–26 129 6:4 391 7:13 102 8:15 102 9:12 102 10:8–11 124 10:20 102 10:24 565 11:10 102 12:11 113 12:15 112 12:19 112 12:27 123 13:3 112 13:4 129 14:4 102 14:15 404 15:15 87 16:3 129 16:4–5 105 17:2 404 17:7 574 17:8–16 578 19–40  275, 440 20:2 412 20:5 392 20:12 650 20:23 640

Index of Scripture Exodus (cont.) 21 179 21:12–21 549 21:33 86 21:34 422 22:9 422 23:4 86 23:7  273, 279 23:8 437 23:14 437 23:17  134, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 437 23:18  438, 439 23:19 439 24:4 556 24:11 135 25–26 379 25–27  439, 440 25:1–31 634 25:9  439, 440 25:10–22 641 25:12 643 25:17–20 642 25:20  641, 645 25:22  641, 645, 654 25:37–8 655 25:40  439, 440 26:1–6 636 26:1–20 635 26:7–14 636 26:14 385 26:17–28 372 26:18–25 375 26:19 636 26:30 440 26:32 636 26:33  381, 636 26:37 636 27:2 85 27:8 440 27:13–16 637 28:16 649 28:21 381 30:1 635 30:26 381

Exodus (cont.) 31:12–17 541 31:13 444 31:17 634 32:21 394 33:7–11 635 33:9–10 373 33:20  15, 273 34 278 34:11–16 398 34:15 396 34:22 273 34:23  134, 272, 273, 274, 437 34:24 437 34:25  437, 438, 439 34:26 439 34:28 556 34:34 274 35:23 385 36:19 385 36:20 635 36:21 372 36:38 636 37:1–9 641 40:2–3 381 40:3 636 40:20 642 Leviticus 1–3 443 1–16  443, 636, 641, 642 1:1–7 443 1:2  441, 443 1:5 443 1:7 443 1:7–8 443 1:8 443 1:11 443 2:2 443 3:2 443 3:17 444 4:1 441 5:4 554 5:21–22 555

671 Leviticus (cont.) 7:28 441 9:2 88 10:10–11 530 11  457, 458, 459 11:13–19 457 11:15 458 11:16  458, 459 11:17 458 11:17–18  458, 459 11:44–45 549 13:49 440 16:2  636, 642 16:12–13 642 16:14–15 642 17 546 17–26 442 17–27  442, 550 17:2 442 17:7 398 17:8 442 18:2 441 18:7 460 19 550 19:2  441, 549 19:11 555 20 462 20:2 442 20:2–3 554 20:7 549 20:17 271 20:24 551 20:26 550 21:1 441 21:6 549 22:1–16 553 22:2 441 22:2–3 441 22:10 554 22:18 442 22:19 442 22:25 554 23 444 23–27  544, 553 23:2 441 23:3 443

672 Leviticus (cont.) 23:14 443 23:21 444 23:24–25 444 23:27 68 23:31 444 23:41 444 25:2 441 25:23  168, 547, 553 25:32 546 25:33 179 25:38  550, 551 25:39 179 25:55 556 26 554 26:12  547, 551 26:36 166 26:42 551 26:45 551 27:2 441 27:21 550 Numbers 1–20 375 2 445 3 546 3:36–37 375 4:5 653 4:5–6  636, 653 5:7–8 422 7:13 88 7:89  641, 645 9:22 650 10:35–36 645 11:5 129 11:12 402 11:16–30 635 12:16 578 13:3 578 13:29 578 14:14 18 14:45 574 15:38 180 17 530 21–36 230 21:6 655

Index of Scripture Numbers (cont.) 21:6–8 14 21:14 568 21:17–18 268 21:29 415 21:30 408 21:31 394 22–24 438 22:3–4 131 22:12 133 22:28 438 23:22 84 24 545 24:4 545 24:8 84 25 396 27:21 565 28–29  447, 448 28:15  447, 448 28:22  447, 448 28:30  447, 448 29:5 447 29:11  447, 448 29:16 448 29:19 448 29:22 448 29:25 448 29:28 448 29:31 449 29:34 449 29:38 449 31:2  112, 131 35:29 444 Deuteronomy 1:28 154 1:46 543 2:9–11 568 2:28 112 2:28–29 112 2:37 112 4 363 4:6 232 4:15–20  362, 363, 366 4:16–18 363 4:19 363

Deuteronomy (cont.) 4:35 440 5:27 135 6:10–11  543, 552 6:15 554 6:16 574 7:1  389, 391 7:1–4 392 7:1–5 367 7:1–6 399 7:3–4 396 7:3–5  392, 396 7:13 456 8:15  14, 655 8:16 105 9:1 154 9:4 392 9:14 406 10:10 454 11:16–17 392 11:30 574 12:2–3 392 12:17 548 12:29–13 361 13 397 13:2–6 361 13:6 451 13:7  361, 397 13:12 452 13:16 361 14  458, 459 14:2 550 14:12–18  457, 458 14:14 458 14:15 459 14:16–17  458, 459 14:17 458 14:21 554 15:12 179 16 278 16:3 112 16:5 548 16:6  273, 274 16:16  134, 272, 273 17:6  450, 451 17:7 451

Index of Scripture Deuteronomy (cont.) 17:12 451 17:13 452 17:15  548, 554 18:9–10 392 19:13 451 19:15 450 19:19 451 19:20 452 20:18 396 20:19–20 623 21:1–9 486 21:9 452 21:10–14 425 21:16 548 21:21  451, 452 22:3 548 22:10 86 22:21 451 22:22 451 23:4–7  112, 131 23:21 554 24:4 548 24:7 451 25:5 554 25:17–19 132 26:5  118, 391 26:19 550 27:12 453 27:12–13  453, 454 27:13 453 28  455, 456 28–30  530, 531, 535 28:3 456 28:4 454 28:9 550 28:11  454, 456 28:18 454 28:51 455 28:52 418 28:66 104 29:21 554 30:1–10 530 30:9  455, 456 31:2 565 31:16  397, 398, 554

Deuteronomy (cont.) 31:16–22 232 31:19 232 31:30–32 233 32 235 32:1  233, 545 32:2 487 32:7  232, 233 32:8 483 32:8–9 363 32:21 232 32:28 232 32:29 412 33:17  84, 85, 95 Joshua 1:4  394, 551 3:3–17 382 3:4 644 3:5 550 4:9 546 4:18 382 5:1 394 5:15 550 6:5–8 382 6:6–13 546 7 555 7:1 555 7:11 555 7:12 555 7:13 550 7:21 143 8:9 574 8:15 546 8:32 546 9:1 393 9:19 548 10:5  393, 394 11:20 102 12:15 566 12:21 621 14:1–5 546 14:11 565 15  566, 583 15:8 393 15:21 575

673 Joshua (cont.) 15:22 583 15:30  581, 583 15:35 566 15:42 583 15:44 570 15:56 579 15:63 393 17:3–4 546 18:1  544, 546 18:28 393 19:2–8 581 19:4 583 19:5 581 19:7 583 19:51 546 20:1–3 546 21 546 21:1–42 546 21:41 546 22 546 22:9–34 546 22:12 544 23  543, 549 24  542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557 24:1 544 24:1–28 543 24:2 392 24:2–3 358 24:2–13  545, 551 24:3  544, 551 24:3–4 551 24:4 551 24:7 552 24:10 545 24:13 547 24:15 394 24:16–18 550 24:17 551 24:18 551 24:19 549 24:19–20  549, 556 24:20  554, 557

674 Joshua (cont.) 24:25  544, 556 24:26  553, 556 24:27 555 Judges 1:26 390 2:3 392 2:11–23 398 3:5–6  392, 393, 396 3:5–8 396 3:13 568 3:19 481 3:21–22 483 3:23 640 4:11 483 5:18 482 5:22 107 5:30 425 6 16 6:2 566 6:25–32  359, 361 6:29 362 8:10 574 9:4 478 9:7 454 9:38 477 11:2 563 11:11 621 11:26 568 13:22–23 15 14:3 482 14:5 99 15:18 482 18:25 563 18:31 634 19–21 122 19:10 393 21:18 548 1 Samuel 1–3 531 1:9 639 1:9–12 652 1:10 563 1:19–27 492

Index of Scripture 1 Samuel (cont.) 1:22  273, 274 1:27 271 2:1  85, 89 2:5 584 2:10 89 2:35 82 3 16 3:3–9 634 4:3–6 382 4:4  15, 643, 645 4:11 382 4:21 382 5:3 485 6 67 6:3 422 7:1–2 71 8:9 381 9:7 226 13–14 572 14:1 482 14:3 382 14:47 568 15–2 559 15:4 574 15:6 403 15:33 486 16–2 490 16:18 231 17  561, 566 17:4 649 17:11 649 17:26 482 17:51 486 17:54–58 572 18:6–7 486 18:10 492 19 559 19:18 560 19:18–24 578 20 560 21:2–10 561 21:8 103 21:11 561 21:11–16 562 21:11–17 561

1 Samuel (cont.) 21:11–22 584 22:1  562, 563, 584 22:2  563, 564 22:3  564, 578 22:3–4 573 22:5  566, 569, 573, 575 22:18 573 23:1–5 584 23:1–13 566 23:1–14 570 23:3  566, 573 23:5  571, 573 23:7 570 23:12 573 23:13  564, 573 23:14 573 23:15 574 23:15–16 570 23:17–18 575 23:19 575 23:19–20 574 23:19–24 579 23:19–28 579 23:29 576 24  127, 580 24:1–2 576 24:2 565 24:17–21 576 24:22  406, 576 24:23  565, 579 25 579 25:1  576, 577, 584 25:2  574, 577 25:3 579 25:7 578 25:26 425 25:43 579 26 580 26:1 574 26:6 393 26:13 454 26:19 554 26:21 580 27 561

Index of Scripture 1 Samuel (cont.) 27:1 580 27:2  561, 564 27:5–6 580 27:5–12 568 27:7 581 27:8  545, 581 27:8–12 581 27:11 481 28:4 482 29:1–10 561 29:6 565 30 583 30:6 563 30:9 564 30:26–31  574, 582, 584 30:27 583 30:31 582 31 491 31:1 482 31:4 482 31:13 575 2 Samuel 1  480, 487, 488, 495, 496 1:6 482 1:11–12 494 1:17–27  480, 491 1:19  480, 481 1:19–25 496 1:19–27  479, 490, 491, 496 1:21 487 1:23 484 1:24 486 1:26  480, 489, 491, 494 2 559 2:1–3 584 2:11 393 2:16 486 2:18 485 3:32–34 495 3:33 481

2 Samuel (cont.) 3:34 485 5  559, 566 5:3–4 393 5:6–9 393 5:23–24 268 6 69 6–7 67 6:2  15, 71, 643, 645 6:8–11 70 6:10–11 634 6:17 634 7  67, 531 7:6 634 7:13 82 10:9 482 11  394, 395 11:2 395 11:11 634 12:1–7 357 12:9 395 15 398 15:2 654 17:8 563 17:10  102, 484, 485 18:12 403 19:36 231 21:12 482 22:1 15 22:2 565 22:3 85 22:33 484 23 545 23:5 545 23:8–39 564 23:11–12 573 23:20 414 23:39 393 24:14 493 24:16 393 24:18–25 67 1 Kings 1:48 646 2:26  70, 271 2:26–27 531

675 1 Kings (cont.) 3:6 646 5:1 230 5:12–13  229, 230 5:14 230 6  637, 639, 640 6–7 637 6:3  638, 639 6:5–6 638 6:16 639 6:20 635 6:23–27 643 6:31 637 6:34 639 7:7 100 7:15–22 638 7:30 643 7:48 653 7:49  639, 651 8 69 8:4 379 8:6  639, 643 8:7 643 8:8 650 8:16 66 8:20–21 70 8:25 67 8:25–26  66, 537 9:3–5 66 9:4–5 537 9:4–7 71 9:20  391, 392, 393, 397 10:12 231 10:16 484 10:19 640 10:29 390 11:1 396 11:14–22 569 12:26–32 74 12:29 81 12:33 74 12:33–13:10 74 13  73, 74, 75, 81, 82 13:1–10 74 13:2  74, 82

676 1 Kings (cont.) 13:11–32 74 14:10–11 75 15:13 397 15:17 565 15:18–20 569 16:3–4 75 16:31–33 396 17:1 487 18:5 100 18:19 396 19:11 454 19:15 645 19:15–17 82 21:1 639 21:21–24 75 21:25 397 22 16 22:10  17, 18 22:15 17 22:17 17 22:19–21 654 22:19–22  17, 18, 22 22:19–23 17 22:26 18 2 Kings 1:9 454 4:1 563 4:10 640 7:6 390 7:6–7 569 8:19 71 9:5 481 9:22 396 11:1 396 11:18 396 14:13 644 16:7 569 17:3–4 340 17:4 22 17:7–13 336 17:8 392 17:21 394 17:24–33 81 18  327, 328

Index of Scripture 2 Kings (cont.) 18–19 323 18–20 323 18:4 40 18:13 325 18:13–16 325 18:13–19  326, 334 18:16 639 18:17 327 18:18 327 18:19 335 18:26 330 18:37 331 19 326 19:1  325, 331 19:1–14 328 19:7 334 19:10 325 19:15  15, 643 19:32–33 337 19:35 326 19:36 326 20:18 639 21:11 393 21:15 392 23  74, 75 23:4 639 23:4–14 75 23:15–20  75, 81, 82 23:17 82 24:13 639 25:19 272 25:29 340 Isaiah 1 323 1–12 110 1–27 234 1–33 110 1–35  86, 110 1–39  24, 86, 110 1:3 86 1:9  163, 392 1:17 259 1:21  398, 481 1:23 259

Isaiah (cont.) 1:24 107 2 653 2:5–2 36 2:5–22  18, 19 2:13 653 2:14 653 2:15 419 3:9 392 5:1–7  233, 234, 235 6  13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 40, 42, 651, 655 6:1  633, 646 6:1–3 654 6:1–4  14, 20, 29 6:1–7 29 6:1–13 651 6:2  267, 654, 655 6:3  18, 35, 36 6:5  13, 30 6:5–7  15, 28, 30 6:6 654 6:8 16 6:8–13  16, 31 6:10  32, 33 6:11 18 6:11–12 18 6:12 18 7 34 7–8 35 7:3 336 7:3–9 34 7:17–18 336 8 34 8:1–4 535 8:12–13 36 9:1 482 9:6 101 10:5–6 335 10:12–13 108 10:13  83, 100, 107, 108, 109, 110 10:20–21 32 10:21 32

677

Index of Scripture Isaiah (cont.) 11:1–16 532 11:11 143 14 480 14:12–15 156 14:29  15, 42, 654, 655 14:32 115 15:2 408 17:9 16 19:18  147, 326 20:1 329 21–22 323 21:5 483 21:14 131 22 328 22:15–25 328 26:1–2 418 26:18 406 26:18–19 406 28–39 86 28:9 405 30:6  14, 97, 654, 655 30:9 391 30:25 653 32:14 86 32:20 86 33:10 653 33:11 402 33:16 567 33:19 147 34–66 86 34:6  87, 103, 483 34:7  86, 87, 103 36–37  323, 328, 334, 531 36:2 328 37:15 18 37:16  643, 645 37:24–25 33 38:8 640 40–48 102 40–55  350, 352, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367 40–66  102, 270, 365 40:18–20 363 40:20 163

Isaiah (cont.) 41:6–7 363 41:8 391 42:17 483 43:3 412 43:11 412 43:27 392 44:9 353 44:9–20 363 44:15–20 364 44:16 364 44:20 353 44:24  353, 412 44:28 537 45:1 537 45:21 412 46:1–7 363 46:3 403 46:5 163 46:6 364 46:12  100, 101, 102 47  156, 364, 365 47:9–13 364 47:14 365 48 365 48:10 365 48:15 412 48:17 412 48:20–22 365 49:26 107 50:9  162, 163, 168 51:1–2 391 51:2 392 51:8  162, 163, 168 51:12 412 52:5 402 55:1–11 537 57:3 395 57:15 653 58:3 68 59:5 163 60:13 69 60:16 107 60:18 418 62:6 482 65:9 391

Isaiah (cont.) 66:1 646 Jeremiah 1–6 530 1–25  527, 528 1:1  528, 529 1:1–2 525 1:1–3 526 1:4  528, 529 1:10  419, 530, 535, 538 1:11  528, 529 1:11–12 535 1:11–19 530 1:14 277 1:15 418 2 531 2–6  531, 532 2:2  117, 390, 398 2:3  392, 525 2:4–28 525 2:21 481 3:4 525 3:6–11 390 3:7–10 398 3:16–17 646 3:18 277 3:22 33 4:6 277 4:9 102 4:13 484 4:30 484 5:7–11 398 5:8 107 5:15 545 5:16 275 6:1 277 6:20 225 7 533 7–10 531 7:4 639 7:9–10 531 7:12 531 7:13 634 8:16 107

678 Jeremiah (cont.) 8:19–9 525 9:1 398 9:18 481 9:23 525 9:24  109, 482 9:24–25 482 10:2–6 352 10:22 277 10:25 528 11–13 531 12:1 270 12:14–17 530 13:20 277 13:27 395 14–17 531 14:14 482 15:10 401 15:12 277 16:15 277 18–20 531 18:5–10 530 19:10 270 20:14–18 401 20:15 403 21–24 532 21–36  275, 276, 533 21:11–14 532 22 532 22:14 640 23:1–8  532, 536 23:5 532 23:6 536 23:9–40 532 24 532 24:1 639 24:6  419, 530 25  275, 532 25–29 532 25:8–16 530 25:9  272, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281 25:11 275 25:11–13 533 25:13  527, 538

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 25:14–31 527 25:33–38 533 26 533 26–29 533 26–36 528 26–45  526, 527, 528 26:18 533 27–28 534 29 534 29:1–14 530 29:23 395 30–31  534, 535, 536 30:2–3 535 31:2–20 525 31:14 527 31:27–30 535 31:27–34 535 31:28  419, 530 31:29–30 392 31:31–34 535 31:35–36 535 31:35–40 537 31:37 84 31:38 419 32–33 535 32–51 527 32:9–15 536 32:11 536 33 536 33:14–26  536, 537 33:16 536 33:17–18 537 33:19–22 537 33:23–26 537 33:26 391 34:1 529 34:1–7 537 34:8  529, 544 34:8–22 537 35 537 35–39 537 35:15 554 36 537 37 537 37–40 537

Jeremiah (cont.) 37–51 528 37–52 273 38 537 38:9 270 38:22 483 39 537 40–43 538 40:16 271 41 538 41–45 526 41:1 528 41:8 528 42 538 42:10  419, 530 43  278, 538 43:10 275 44 538 45 538 45:4  419, 530 45:5 527 46–51  527, 528 46:1 529 46:1–12 538 46:5 483 46:6 484 46:10 277 46:13 529 46:13–28 538 46:15  105, 106, 107 46:21 107 47–49 538 47:1 528 47:2 277 47:3 107 48:25 85 50:1 529 50:1–51 539 50:9  277, 483 50:11 107 50:13 528 51  276, 538 51:48 277 51:53 156 51:58  418, 529, 539 51:59 529

679

Index of Scripture Jeremiah (cont.) 51:59–64 539 52  527, 539 52:10 575 52:25 272 Ezekiel 1:5–14  641, 655 1:13 655 1:19–21 653 2:3 392 2:4 102 2:5 391 2:6 270 2:10 481 3 270 3:5 147 3:7–9 391 3:22 270 6:1–10 398 8:9–18 398 8:16 652 9:3–4 651 10:4 652 10:14 484 10:20  641, 655 11:21 398 11:23 454 14:4–5 398 16  391, 394, 395, 397 16:2 394 16:3  389, 390, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 398, 399 16:4 397 16:6 398 16:8  267, 270 16:13–14 395 16:26 396 16:32  395, 398 16:44 392 16:47 392 17:13 544 18:2 392 19:4 271 20:4 394

Ezekiel (cont.) 20:4–9 392 20:5 391 20:8 398 20:25  392, 398 20:32 392 21–37 387 22:2  394, 398 23 390 23:3 392 23:13–14 398 26:9 419 26:10 419 27:6  372, 387, 388 27:9 225 27:11  419, 488 30:2 481 32:10 621 32:23–27 395 33:23–24 391 33:24 391 36:36 419 39:18 86 40–48  392, 639 40:5 644 40:9 637 40:22 640 40:49 639 41:2–4 637 41:5 637 41:5–7 638 43:7 69 43:13 644 44:5 270 44:9 554 Hosea 1–2  21, 398 2:7 397 2:11 267 2:17 390 2:21–22 268 5:7 392 5:12  162, 163, 278, 281 5:14 412

Hosea (cont.) 9:4 225 9:11 401 9:14 405 10:15 30 12:1 549 12:5  272, 277, 278, 279 12:10 412 13:2 226 13:4 412 14:2–3 32 14:2–5 32 14:4 32 Joel 2:16 405 2:20 275 Amos 1:13 109 2:14–16 484 3:4 99 3:14 85 4:11 392 5 370 5:16 481 5:26  273, 370, 379 6:5 231 8:10 484 9:1 654 Micah 1 323 2:4 481 3:12 533 5:4 621 5:6 487 6:7 403 Nahum 1:10 166 Habakkuk 1:12–17 156 3:16 163

680 Zephaniah 1:11 30 2:9 392 3:9 152 Zechariah 5:11 143 11:3 99 14:4  143, 454 14:5 549 14:10 419 Malachi 1:4 419 2:14 398 3:4 225 Psalms 1–50  105, 276, 278 1–59  167, 277 2  531, 533 2:7  276, 277, 278 4:1 232 4:9 133 16:3 549 17:7 168 18:3 85 18:7 639 18:11 15 18:33 484 22:10 403 22:13 103 22:20 100 22:22  84, 85, 86, 87, 103 23:5 89 27:9 165 28:5 419 29:6  83, 84, 87, 88, 110 29:9 639 29:10 646 31:10 493 32 231 35:4 483 37 233 37:2 166

Index of Scripture Psalms (cont.) 39  166, 496 39:1–13 164 39:7 168 39:12  161, 162, 163, 166, 168 39:13 168 40:15 483 42–43 495 42:6 495 43:3 69 43:5 495 44:19 483 47:8–9 646 49  229, 233, 235 49:2 232 49:5 233 49:13 163 49:20 406 50:7 412 50:7–15 105 50:9 105 50:13 105 51–100  88, 105 53 232 54:2 574 58:9  405, 406 59:17 493 60–150 66 66:14 493 68:31  103, 104 69:18 493 70:3 483 73–150  89, 105 73:19 481 75:5 89 75:11 85 76:6 102 78 233 78:1 232 78:2 233 78:3 233 78:24 105 78:25  103, 104, 105 78:68–70 66 80:2  643, 645 81:10 554

Psalms (cont.) 81:11 412 83:2 482 83:12 621 84:2 69 84:8 134 88:5 100 89 67 89:6 549 89:16–17 89 89:18  85, 89 89:25 89 92:11  83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 110 95:4  84, 85 99:1  643, 645 99:5  69, 643, 646 102:3 493 102:12 168 102:27 168 103:20 105 104:21 99 105:40 105 107:11 545 112:9 89 114:4  87, 88 115:5–6  352, 357 118:5 87 120–34 443 121:1 443 129:5 483 132  65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 132:2 107 132:7 643 132:7–8 646 132:8 69 132:8–10 69 133 89 136:25 129 144:4 168 148:14 89 Job 1–20 165 3 168 3:10 403

681

Index of Scripture Job (cont.) 3:11 404 3:12 404 3:16 405 4:19 162 5:1 549 6:10 545 6:14 271 6:21 405 7:16 167 8:9 168 8:14 163 8:16 166 10:11  587, 588 10:18–19 404 12–14 165 12:2–13 165 12:3 165 12:7–11 165 12:7–25 165 12:12–14 165 12:14 419 13:2 165 13:3 165 13:3–12 165 13:15 166 13:18  165, 166 13:19  165, 166 13:20 165 13:23–24 166 13:25 166 13:27 166 13:28  161, 162, 163, 164, 168 13:28–14:3 164 14:1 166 14:2  166, 168 14:3 165 14:6  166, 168 18:6 166 22:8 104 22:24–25 85 22:25 84 23:4 166 24:5 166 24:22  103, 104 27:18 162

Job (cont.) 28:8 655 30:19 163 31 165 31:28 555 33:11 165 34:20  103, 104 38–41 230 38–42 85 38:1 165 38:16 84 38:28 487 39:5 86 39:9  84, 85 39:9–10 104 39:9–12  88, 104 39:28  565, 567 40:10 484 40:25 104 41:19 163 41:20–21 166 41:25 395 42:2 155 42:6 165 Proverbs 1–9  230, 266, 268 1:19 263 2 398 2:16–19 396 3:4 310 4–5 233 4:1 232 5:1 232 5:15 266 6:6 268 6:7–8 268 6:16 310 6:16–19 261 6:29 263 7:22 95 9:10 549 10 303 10–31  262, 263, 264, 265, 268 10:26 263 11:28 316

Proverbs (cont.) 12:3 316 12:4 163 12:7 316 13:14 295 14:1 419 14:3 271 14:30 163 15–31  263, 265 15:6 316 18:24 493 20:28 101 22:7 563 22:17–24 299 23:7 263 24:14 263 24:22 299 26:1 263 30  261, 264, 267, 268 30:3 549 30:9 555 30:15–31 230 30:18–19  261, 264, 265, 267, 268 30:18–20 261 30:20 261 30:24–28 268 30:27 268 30:30 484 31:21 484 Ruth 1:16–17 483 1:17 483 4:17–22 569 Song of Songs 2:8–9 485 4:4 488 4:12 266 7:2 493 7:5 419 7:6 226 8:1 405 8:10 419 8:11–12 234

682 Qohelet 2:8  226, 231 2:11 233 2:16 481 4:2 425 4:10 481 5:2 646 6:1–6 233 6:3 405 6:3–5 405 6:5 406 6:12 168 7:5–6 234 7:26–28 397 9:7–8 89 9:11 484 Lamentations 1:1 481 1:15  103, 104, 108 1:20 493 2:1 69 2:3 85 2:8–9 418 2:17 89 4:6 392 4:19 484 Esther 1:14 272 9:1 425 Daniel 1:2 143 2:46 364 3:6 364 4:30 487 5:21 487 10:3 163 10:11 163 Ezra 2:57 619 3:10 231 4:3 133 7  172, 173, 175, 176, 179

Index of Scripture Ezra (cont.) 7:14 172 7:25 174 7:25–26 181 7:27 173 9:1 399 9:1–2 396 9:14 396 Nehemiah 1:1–3 180 1:3 418 1:11 327 2:1 180 2:1–9 332 3:1 419 3:27 419 5 180 6:11 180 7:4 180 7:59 619 8:18 553 9:8 399 9:20–21 105 11:1 180 12:22  183, 184 12:27 180 12:38–39 419 12:46 231 13:4–31 180 13:8 180 13:11 180 13:17 180 13:23–27 396 13:24 326 13:25 180 13:26 180 1 Chronicles 1:36 578 2:9–15 579 2:42 579 4:3 579 4:16 579 4:19 570 4:28–31 581 4:30  581, 583

1 Chronicles (cont.) 4:31 581 4:32 583 5:21 422 5:25 398 6:44 583 10–29  89, 231 10:1 482 11:11–47 564 11:12 564 12:1 582 12:9  485, 489 13–17 67 13:5–6 71 13:6 645 13:13–14 70 15:1 379 15:16  68, 231 15:22 231 16 69 16:4 68 16:37–42 68 21:13 493 22:1 68 22:1–5 68 22:6 68 22:14 70 25:1 231 25:5  88, 89 25:6–8 231 28:2  69, 643 28:11  640, 643 28:11–19 68 29:15 168 2 Chronicles 1–16 638 3–4 637 3:3 644 3:4 638 3:8 638 3:8–9 639 3:14 638 3:17 638 4:22  637, 639 5:5 379 6:6 66

683

Index of Scripture 2 Chronicles (cont.) 14:14 422 15:5 565 21:17 422 23:18 231 25:6–10 569 26:9 419 27:3 419

2 Chronicles (cont.) 27:4  574, 575 28:21 569 29:25–27 231 30:6 81 30:21–22 231 32  323, 329 34:12 231 35:15 231

Judith 5:6–9 352

2 Maccabees 7 367

1 Maccabees 4:57 488

Sirach 14:17 168 27:9–10 268

Sirach (cont.) 42:3 163 42:13  162, 163

2 Chronicles 6:16 67 6:41–42 69 7:6 68 8:7–8 391 8:14 231 9:18 640 11:5–23 566

Deuterocanonical Books

New Testament Matthew 6:25–34 230

Luke 13:15 86

Wisdom of Solomon 5:9–12 264 Acts 2 158 4:32 158

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫מרבה חכמה‬

‫*‪i‬‬

‫*‪ii‬‬

‫פתח דבר‬

‫פרופסור אביגדור (ויקטור) הורוויץ ז"ל‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫מרבה חכמה‬ ‫מחקרים במקרא ומזרח קדום‬ ‫ספר זיכרון‬

‫לאביגדור ויקטור הורוויץ ז"ל‬ ‫עורכים‬

‫ש' יונה‪ ,‬א' גרינשטיין‪ ,‬מ' גרובר‪,‬‬ ‫פ' משיניסט‪ ,‬ש"מ פאול‬

‫וינונה לייק‪ ,‬אינדיאנה‬ ‫אייזנבראונס‬ ‫‪2015‬‬

‫*‪iii‬‬

‫פתח דבר‬

iv*

2015 © ‫תשע"ו‬ ‫כל הזכויות שמורות לאייזנבראונס‬ ‫ ספי עיצוב גרפי‬:‫סדר ועימוד עברי‬ ‫הודפס בארצות הברית‬ www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Marbeh Hokmah : studies in the Bible and the ancient Near East in loving memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz / edited by S. Yona, E. L. Greenstein, M. I. Gruber, P. Machinist, and S. M. Paul.     pages cm Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 978-1-57506-415-4 (volume 1, cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-57506-416-1 (volume 2, cloth : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-1-57506-333-1 (2-volume set, cloth : alk. paper) 1. Bible—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Semitic philology. ​3. AssyroBabylonian literature—History and criticism. I. Hurowitz, Victor, honoree. ​ II. Yona, Shamir, editor. BS511.3.M3266 2015 221.6—dc23 2015029479

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48–1984. ™

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫*‪v‬‬

‫תוכן העניינים‬

‫*‪vii‬‬

‫פתח דבר ‬ ‫ה"ברכות" לראובן (בראשית מט ‪ ;4-3‬דברים לג ‪ ;6‬שופטים ה ‪ — )4‬רקען‬ ‫ הספרותי וההיסטורי ומגמתן האידיאולוגית ‬ ‫ יצחק אבישור‬ ‫ערים מוסבות שם ‬ ‫ ישראל אפעל‬

‫*‪1‬‬ ‫*‪35‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי — ההתנגשות הגורלית בין מדיניות המלך לבין קדושת‬ ‫ נחלת אבות ‬ ‫ צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫*‪47‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים ‬ ‫ יונתן בן־דב‬

‫*‪73‬‬

‫חשיבותם המשפטית של המילים “וְ ֻהּגַ ד לְ ָך"‪ :‬קריאה חדשה בדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬‬ ‫ שלום אליעזר הולץ‬

‫*‪91‬‬ ‫*‪101‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס ‬ ‫ נילי ואזנה‬ ‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬ ‫ והכרוניסטית ‬ ‫ צפורה טלשיר‬

‫*‪123‬‬

‫על הזיקה שבין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי אברהם ‬ ‫ יונתן יוגב ושמיר יונה‬

‫*‪151‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על הפערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות ‬ ‫ רימון כשר‬

‫*‪161‬‬

‫עריכה וחיבור במשלי כב ‪ — 17‬כג ‪ 10‬‬ ‫ מיכאל פוקס‬

‫*‪185‬‬

‫*‪v‬‬

‫*‪vi‬‬

‫תוכן העניינים‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע ‬ ‫ יצחק פנקובר‬

‫*‪197‬‬

‫נפילת שומרון‪ :‬בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה ‬ ‫ דנאל קאהן‬

‫*‪229‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול ‬ ‫ אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫*‪241‬‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים ‬ ‫ אלכסנדר רופא‬

‫*‪261‬‬

‫“תועבת מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה ‬ ‫ נילי שופק‬

‫*‪271‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים ‬

‫*‪295‬‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫*‪vii‬‬

‫פתח דבר‬

‫ספר זה היה אמור להיות ספר יובל לכבודו של עמיתנו וחברנו‪ ,‬פרופ’ אביגדור ויקטור‬ ‫הורוויץ‪ ,‬אלא שבמהלך הפקת הספר אביגדור נלקח מן העולם‪ ,‬ונמצא שספר היובל הפך‬ ‫לספר זיכרון‪.‬‬ ‫במלאכת הכנת הספר עמלו חמישה עורכים‪ ,‬פרופ’ שמיר יונה ופרופ’ מאיר גרובר‬ ‫מאוניברסיטת בן־גוריון בנגב‪ ,‬פרופ’ אד גרינשטיין מאוניברסיטת בר־אילן‪ ,‬פרופ’ פיטר‬ ‫משיניסט מאוניברסיטת הארוורד ופרופ’ שלום פאול מהאוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים‪,‬‬ ‫עמיתיו של אביגדור ומוקירי זכרו‪ ,‬אשר לא חסכו ממרצם ומזמנם כדי להשלים את‬ ‫המלאכה‪ .‬יבואו על הברכה נשיאת אוניברסיטת בן־גוריון בנגב‪ ,‬פרופ’ רבקה כרמי; רקטור‬ ‫אוניברסיטת בן־גוריון בנגב‪ ,‬פרופ’ צבי הכהן ודיקן הפקולטה למדעי הרוח והחברה‬ ‫באוניברסיטת בן־גוריון בנגב‪ ,‬פרופ’ דייויד ניומן על שנענו לפניית העורך הראשי וסייעו‬ ‫בחומר בנדיבות רבה‪ .‬ללא עזרתם לא היה אפשר להפיק את הספר במתכונת זו‪.‬‬ ‫עוד יבואו על הברכה חברי קהילת שומרי תורה וכן רב הקהילה לשעבר‪ ,‬ארז שרמן‪,‬‬ ‫על תרומתם‪ ,‬ועוד יש לברך את הרב סימור רוזנבלום‪ ,‬רב אמריטוס של קהילת עדת‬ ‫ישורון באלקינס פארק פנסילבניה על תרומתו‪.‬‬ ‫עליהם יש להוסיף את רוחב לבם של מספר אנשים יקרים‪ ,‬שביקשו להישאר בעילום‬ ‫שם‪ ,‬שתרמו הן מכיסם הן מקרנות המחקר שלהם סכומים לא מבוטלים שבלעדיהם‬ ‫מלאכת הוצאת הספר לאור לא הייתה צולחת‪.‬‬ ‫ברכה מיוחדת מקדישים העורכים למו”ל המסור מר ג’ים אייזנבראון ולאנשים‬ ‫המצוינים העובדים עם מחברי המאמרים והעורכים של ספר זה‪ ,‬על עבודתם המסורה‬ ‫ועל שלא חסכו כל מאמץ כדי לשוות לספר צורה נאה‪ :‬בברלי מקקוי‪ ,‬עורכת; אנדרו‬ ‫קנפפ‪ ,‬אחראי על השיווק; פמלה ניקולס‪ ,‬מנהלת הפקה; אנדי קר‪ ,‬מעצב הכריכה; גבריאל‬ ‫אייזנבראון‪ ,‬ממיר גופנים וקבצים; ג’ינה חנה‪ ,‬ממונה על משלוחים ומנהלה וקתי יאנג‪,‬‬ ‫אחראית להכנת המפתחות בחלק האנגלי‪.‬‬ ‫תבוא על הברכה ד”ר חגית טרגן מהמחלקה למקרא‪ ,‬ארכיאולוגיה והמזרח הקדום‬ ‫באוניברסיטת בן־גוריון בנגב על עזרתה הרבה בעריכתם של המאמרים הכתובים עברית‬ ‫ועל סיועה בנושאים שונים הקשורים בהפקת הספר‪.‬‬ ‫תודה שלוחה לד”ר אן רושוולב הורוויץ על שאפשרה לעורכים לעשות שימוש בתמונתו‬ ‫של אביגדור‪ ,‬ובמיוחד על עזרתה הרבה בהשלמת רשימת הפרסומים ובהכנת הביוגרפיה‪.‬‬ ‫עוד יש להודות למר פטריס קמינסקי‪ ,‬שרטט במחלקה למקרא‪ ,‬ארכיאולוגיה והמזרח‬ ‫הקדום‪ ,‬על סיועו הנדיב בעיצובן של תמונות אחדות שמופיעות בספר‪.‬‬ ‫*‪vii‬‬

‫*‪viii‬‬

‫פתח דבר‬

‫תודה מיוחדת למעצבת הגרפית‪ ,‬גברת ספי סיני‪ ,‬שעמלה רבות ולא חסכה כל מאמץ‬ ‫בעיצוב המאמרים של החלק העברי‪.‬‬ ‫ואחרונים חביבים‪ 55 ,‬המחברים‪ ,‬תלמידיו‪ ,‬עמיתיו ומוריו של אביגדור ז”ל‪ ,‬מרחבי‬ ‫הארץ ומחוצה לה‪ ,‬שניאותו לבקשת העורכים להרים תרומה לאוסף מאמרים זה —‬ ‫שתבוא עליהם הברכה‪.‬‬ ‫הקורא ימצא שבספר שני חלקים‪ ,‬חלק אנגלי מזה וחלק עברי מזה‪ .‬למאמרים בעברית‬ ‫צורפו תקצירים באנגלית כדי להקל על הקורא שאינו אמון על הלשון העברית‪.‬‬ ‫בשם חברי המערכת‬ ‫שמיר יונה‬ ‫עורך ראשי‬ ‫אדר תשע”ה‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪1‬‬

‫ה”ברכות” לראובן‬ ‫(בראשית מט ‪ ;4-3‬דברים לג ‪ ;6‬שופטים ה ‪)14‬‬ ‫*‬ ‫רקען הספרותי וההיסטורי ומגמתן האידיאולוגית‬ ‫יצחק אבישור‬ ‫הקדמה‬ ‫מכיוון שה”ברכות” לראובן נמצאות במסגרות ספרותיות המלכדות ברכות שונות‬ ‫של שבטים שונים מזמנים שונים‪ ,‬ומכיוון שזמן חיבור של אחת הברכות אף אינו הזמן‬ ‫המתואר והמשתקף ממנה‪ ,‬ומכיוון ששילובן של הברכות למסגרת ספרותית אחת עבר‬ ‫עריכות שונות בזמנים שונים ובעלי מגמות שונות‪ ,‬לכן ראוי לדון בברכות לכל שבט ושבט‬ ‫בנפרד‪ ,‬אחרי זה בעימותן של הברכות השונות לאותו שבט‪ ,‬לאחר מכן בעימותן עם יתר‬ ‫הברכות לשבטים האחרים ורק לבסוף בשיבוצן במסגרתן הסופית ובעריכתן‪ .‬הברכות‬ ‫לראובן שב”ברכת יעקב” (בר’ מט) וב”ברכת משה” (דב’ לג) יידונו להלן לא במסגרתן‬ ‫הספרותית העכשווית כפרק בספר בראשית וכפרק בספר דברים‪ ,‬לא כברכת יעקב לבנו‬ ‫ראובן ולא כברכת משה לשבט ראובן‪ ,‬אלא ככתובים המתארים את השבט בתקופות‬ ‫מסוימות‪ ,‬דהיינו הברכות לראובן ידונו במנותק מברכות יתר השבטים וממסגרתן‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫הספרותית הנוכחית‪.‬‬ ‫תחילה נדון ב”ברכת משה” לראובן (דב’ לג ‪ )4‬ואחרי זה נדון ב”ברכת יעקב” לראובן‪,‬‬ ‫כל ברכה לעצמה (הקדמנו את הדיון ב”ברכת משה” לדיון ב”ברכת יעקב” שלא כסדרן‬ ‫בספרי התורה מסיבות שונות‪ 2.‬לדיון בשתי “ברכות” אלה לראובן נוסיף דיון בכתוב‬ ‫ב”שירת דבורה” על ראובן (שופ’ ה ‪ ,)16–15‬ונדון בלשונם של הכתובים‪ ,‬בסגנונם וברקע‬ ‫הספרותי וההיסטורי העולה מהם‪ .‬ננסה להעלות מכל כתוב פרטים על השבט בתקופה‬ ‫מסוימת ונדון בזיקתם של הכתובים כמשקפים שינויי מצב ומעבר במסגרת תולדות‬ ‫השבט‪ .‬כיוון שלא ניתנה הדעת במחקר במידה מספקת לתרומתה של השירה העברית‬ ‫הקדומה לתולדות שבטי ישראל‪ ,‬כולל הברכות לשבטים נדון גם במקורות האחרים‬ ‫* מאמר זה הינו פרק מתוך ספרי "הברכות לשבטים"‪ ,‬שעתיד להתפרסם בקרוב‪ .‬אני מודה‬ ‫למוציא לאור של ספר "מרבה חכמה" על הסכמתו לפרסם מאמר זה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬ראו שם‪.‬‬

‫*‪1‬‬

‫*‪2‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫שבמקרא על שבט ראובן‪ ,‬במיוחד במקורות הנראים לנו כאותנטיים‪ ,‬הערות היסטוריות‪,‬‬ ‫רשימות גינאולוגיות ורשימות גיאוגרפיות ובמידה מסוימת אף הגרעינים ההיסטוריים של‬ ‫מסורות וסיפורים על אירועים בקורות השבט‪ ,‬ונשלב את הידיעות ששאבנו מן הברכות‬ ‫עצמן כדי לשרטט בקווים כלליים את קורות שבט ראובן מראשיתו ועד גלותו לאשור‬ ‫אחרי חורבן ממלכת שומרון במאה השמינית לפנה”ס‪.‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬ברכת משה לראובן (דברים לג ‪)6‬‬ ‫ב”ברכת משה” לשבטי ישראל‪ 3‬באה הברכה לשבט ראובן כברכה ראשונה ובקיצור‬ ‫נמרץ‪ ,‬בפסוק קצר מאוד‪ ,‬שאינו אלא חרוז דו־צלעי‪ ,‬ואיננו יודעים אם הוא היה בתוך‬ ‫ברכה נרחבת יותר‪ ,‬שקוצרה מאוד‪ ,‬או מלכתחילה הייתה ברכה קצרה (ראה להלן)‪:‬‬ ‫יהי ְמ ָתיו ִמ ְס ָּפר‬ ‫אּובן וְ ַאל־יָ מֹת ‪ /‬וִ ִ‬ ‫יְ ִחי ְר ֵ‬ ‫חרוז זה לא עורר בדרך כלל קשיים לשוניים וסגנוניים והמחקר התעסק במשמעותו‪,‬‬ ‫ברקעו ההיסטורי ובשילובו בתוך “ברכת משה”‪ .‬עם זאת היו חוקרים בודדים שהציעו‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫“ת ִמים מספרו”‪,‬‬ ‫“תמים מספר”‪ ,‬או ָ‬ ‫תיקוני גרסה‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬במקום “מתיו מספר” גרסו ְ‬ ‫וכן “מתיו ס ִ‬ ‫ֹפרם”‪ 5.‬וכן גם תיקונים קלים‪ ,‬כמו השמטת וי”ו החיבור במילה “ואל”‪ ,‬וכמו‬ ‫“ויהיו” במקום “ויהי”‪ 6.‬הצלע הראשונה בחרוז הובנה‪ ,‬בצדק‪ ,‬כתפלה‪ ,‬כבקשה‪ ,‬והבקשה‬ ‫הראשונה מבקשת חיים (“יחי”) ואין הבקשה השנייה (“ואל ימת”) אלא נרדפת לה‪.‬‬ ‫תקבולת מסוג זה נפוצה במקרא והיא באה כ”תקבולת פנים הצלע”‪ ,‬כפי שכיניתי תופעה‬ ‫סגנונית זו‪ 7,‬היינו בתוך צלע אחת‪ ,‬ולא בתוך חרוז אחד‪ ,‬נמצאת הקבלה נרדפת‪ ,‬כגון‪:‬‬ ‫“בקשו צדק בקשו ענוה ‪ /‬אולי תסתרו ביום אף ה’” (צפ’ ב ‪“ ;)2‬ארך אפים ורב חסד ‪ /‬ונחם‬ ‫על הרעה” (יואל ב ‪ .)13‬תקבולת פנים־הצלע שבחרוז הנידון היא מן הסוג של התקבולת‬ ‫השלילית‪‘ ,‬יחי‪/‬אל ימת’‪ ,‬כדוגמתה יש הרבה במקרא ובאוגריתית‪ 8‬וראו גם הצמד הנרדף‬ ‫‘מות‪/‬לא חיה’‪ ,‬וכן הצמד ‘חיים‪/‬אל־מות’‪ ,‬הנמצא במקרא ובאוגריתית‪‘ ,‬חימ‪/‬בלמת’‪ ,‬ואת‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫הצמד הניגודי ‘חיה‪/‬מות’‪.‬‬ ‫האם יש לפרש את הצלע השנייה בזיקה סגנונית לצלע הראשונה או לפרשה כצלע‬ ‫בפני עצמה? במילים אחרות‪ :‬האם משהו מהצלע הראשונה נמשך לצלע השנייה? נחלקו‬ ‫‪ .3‬על “ברכת משה” ראו בפירושים לספר דברים‪ ,‬וראו במיוחד במחקרים הבאים‪ :‬קאסוטו‪ ,‬דברים‬ ‫לג‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;32–8‬קרוס־פרידמן‪ ,‬ברכת משה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;210–191‬זליגמן‪ ,‬מזמור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;204–189‬צובל‪ ,‬שבטים;‬ ‫קרוס‪ ,‬מיתוס‪ ,‬במקומות שונים; פרידמן‪ ,‬מבנה שירי; ביירלי‪ ,‬ברכת משה‪ ,‬ושם‪ ,‬ביבליוגרפיה; די מור‪,‬‬ ‫יהוויזם (במקומות שונים); אבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪.‬‬ ‫‪.BH3 .4‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.236‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬קרוס־פרידמן‪ ,‬ברכת משה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,203‬הע’ ‪.22–21‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬אבישור‪ ,‬צמדי מילים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;59–52‬אבישור‪ ,‬עיונים סגנוניים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;63–56‬ווטסון‪ ,‬החרוז‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.191–104‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬ראו‪ :‬כהן‪ ,‬התקבולת השלילית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬צמדי מילים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;307‬אבישור‪ ,‬עיונים סגנוניים‪ ,‬מפתח העניינים‪.‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪3‬‬

‫הדעות כבר בפרשנות העברית המסורתית בימי הביניים‪ :‬רש”י פירש את הצלע השנייה‬ ‫כעומדת בפני עצמה‪“ :‬ויהי מתיו מספר — נמנין במנין שאר אחיו”‪ .‬לעומת זאת הראב”ע‬ ‫פירש אחרת‪“ :‬ויהי מתיו מספר — ואל יהי מתיו מספר‪ ,‬כמו “ולא למדתי חכמה ודעת‬ ‫קדושים אדע” (משלי ל ‪ .)3‬וכן קיבל דעתו רמב”ן‪ ,‬היינו “אל” שבצלע הראשונה נמשכת‬ ‫אל הצלע השנייה‪ 10.‬ארליך פירש את הכתוב כמשפט ויתור‪“ :‬ואפילו אם יהיו מתיו‬ ‫מספר”‪ 11.‬קאסוטו הסכים לפירוש זה‪ ,‬אך הוא הביא אותו בשמו של בודה (שכתב את‬ ‫פירושו אחרי ארליך)‪ 12,‬טור־סיני שלל את שני הפירושים‪ ,‬שהוזכרו לעיל‪ ,‬הציע תיקון‬ ‫ספ ִרים”‪ ,‬היינו ‘ויהיו אנשיו‪ ,‬מנהיגיו‪ ,‬סופרים‪ ,‬כמו שכתוב‬ ‫בטקסט וגרס כאמור‪“ ,‬ויהי מתיו ְ‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫בשירת דבורה’ (שופ’ ה טו‪-‬טז)”‪ ,‬ולדעתו הברכה צריכה להיות חיובית לשבט ראובן‪.‬‬ ‫מתיו מספר — מבחינה תחבירית אין זהות בין “מתיו‪-‬מספר” ובין צירוף הסמיכות‬ ‫“מתי מספר”‪ ,‬אך הפרשנים פירשוהו כמותו‪‘ ,‬אנשים מספר’‪ “mutu” .‬באכדית ו”מת”‬ ‫באוגריתית ובמקרא (המילה מופיעה ‪ 22‬פעמים) פירושם ‘איש’‪ ,‬והצירוף “מתי מספר”‬ ‫פירושו ‘אנשים מעטים’‪ ,‬היינו ‘מיעוט אנשים המעיד על חולשה במיוחד בזמן צרה‪ ,‬בזמן‬ ‫מלחמה’ (ראו בר’ לד ‪ ,30‬דב’ ד ‪ ,‬יר’ מד ‪ ,28‬תה’ קה ‪ ,12‬דהי”א טז ‪ ,)19‬ומקביל לו הצירוף‬ ‫“אנשי מספר” (יח’ יב ‪ )16‬ו”מתי מעט” (דב’ כו ‪ ,5‬כח ‪ .)62‬נראה שאין צורך בתיקונים‬ ‫שהוצעו לעיל ויש לפרש את הכתוב כנתינתו‪ .‬התיקון של “ויהי” ל”ויהיו” אינו נחוץ וניתן‬ ‫על פי כללי הדקדוק של העברית המקראית שיבוא יחיד במקום רבים‪ 14.‬יש לקבל את דעת‬ ‫“אל”’‪ ,‬תופעה שכאמור‬ ‫ראב”ע שיש כאן למעשה המשכה מצלע לצלע של מילת השלילה ַ‬ ‫ו”אל יהיו מתיו מספר”‪ ,‬היינו תפילה ובקשה שלא יהיה‬ ‫שכיחה בשירת המקרא‪ ,‬ולפרש ַ‬ ‫שבט ראובן מיעוט מבוטל בזמן צרה ומלחמה‪.‬‬ ‫ייתכן גם וצודק מי שהציע להשלים “ויהי מתיו [אין] מספר”‪ 15,‬תיקון שייתכן והוא‬ ‫חושף את ראשוניותה של הברכה שנאמרה לפני הידלדלותו של שבט ראובן‪ ,‬והשמטת‬ ‫ה”אין” על ידי עורך לא באה אלא להכשיר את הדרך לבני יוסף אל ההנהגה‪ .‬יתרה מזו‪,‬‬ ‫מבחינה תחבירית‪ ,‬הכתוב “מתיו מספר” אינו צירוף הזהה‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬לצירוף “מתי מספר”‪,‬‬ ‫המושווה תמיד אליו ומפורש בעזרתו‪ ,‬ולכן הכוונה הראשונית של הכתוב הייתה לברך לא‬ ‫על דרך הוויתור‪ ,‬אלא על דרך האיחול‪ ,‬בברכה שאנשי שבט ראובן יהיו “אין מספר”‪ 16,‬או‬ ‫‘אל יהיו מתיו‪ ,‬אנשיו‪ ,‬מספר’‪.‬‬

‫‪ .10‬על המשכה מצלע לצלע‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬סגל‪ ,‬השירה המקראית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.141‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.380‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬קאסוטו‪ ,‬דברים לג‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.15‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.236‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬ראו‪ :‬קאסוטו‪ ,‬דברים לג‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,15‬המזכיר את גזניוס־קאוטש § ‪.1454‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬ראו‪ :‬קונרד‪ ,‬ספר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.917‬‬ ‫‪ .16‬הצירוף “אין מספר” שכיח בתיאור שבטים נוודים ורכושם כדוגמת שבט ראובן “ומדין ועמלק‬ ‫וכל בני קדם נפלים בעמק כארבה לרב ולגמליהם אין מספר כחול שעל שפת הים לרוב” (שופ’ ז ‪ )12‬וכן‬ ‫בתיאור “עם”‪“ :‬ואין מספר לעם אשר באו עמו” (דה”ב יב ‪ ,)3‬וכן “גוי”‪“ :‬גוי עצום ואין מספר” (יואל א ‪,)6‬‬ ‫ועוד כעשרים פעמים‪.‬‬

‫*‪4‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫ברכת משה לראובן תתבהר רק על רקע זמנה של הברכה וזמן שיבוצה ב”ברכת‬ ‫משה” ובבירור יחסה לא רק ל”ברכת יעקב”‪ ,‬אלא בבדיקת כל הנתונים הידועים לנו מן‬ ‫המקרא על ראובן‪ ,‬נתונים העולים ממקורות שונים‪ ,‬משיר ומסיפורים‪ ,‬מהערות היסטוריות‬ ‫ומרשימות גאוגרפיות הקשורים בראובן ובקבוצת השבטים שאליהם הוא שייך‪ .‬לא רק‬ ‫בבירור הנתונים כשלעצמם אלא בבירור מגמותיהן האידיאולוגיות והדתיות של המסגרות‬ ‫שבהן המקורות משובצים‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬ברכת יעקב לראובן (בר’ מט ‪ )4–3‬וזיקתה לברכת משה לראובן (דב’ לג ‪)6‬‬ ‫ב”ברכת יעקב”‪ 17‬מופיעה הברכה לראובן כברכה ראשונה המשתרעת על שני פסוקים‪:‬‬ ‫אּובן ְּבכ ִֹרי ַא ָּתה‬ ‫ְר ֵ‬ ‫אׁשית אֹונִ י‬ ‫ּכ ִֹחי וְ ֵר ִ‬ ‫יֶ ֶתר ְׂש ֵאת וְ יֶ ֶתר ָעז‬ ‫ל־ּתֹותר‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַּפ ַחז ּכַ ַּמיִ ם ַא‬ ‫ּכִ י ָעלִ ָית ִמ ְׁשּכְ ֵבי ָא ִביָך‬ ‫צּועי ָעלָ ה (בר’ מט ‪.)4–3‬‬ ‫ָאז ִחּלַ לְ ָּת יְ ִ‬ ‫מבחינת הנוסח הוצעו תיקונים לא מועטים‪ ,‬מהם מבוססים ומהם אינם מבוססים‪.‬‬ ‫נציין את ההצעות ולבסוף נכריע מי מהן ראויות לאימוץ‪ .‬לצירוף “יתר שאת” הציע גבירץ‬ ‫לגרוס “יתר [ר]שאת” בהקבלה ל”יתר עז” בשני נימוקים משכנעים‪ ,‬האחד שהשמטת‬ ‫הרי”ש נעשתה בשל הפלוגרפיה והשני שהצמד ‘רשאת‪/‬עז’ הנמצא בכתובת פיניקית‪,‬‬ ‫מציין שלטון וכוח‪( 18‬ראו בפירוט להלן)‪ ,‬למילה ָ‬ ‫“עז” הוצע לרוב לגרוס “עוז”‪ 19,‬ולמילה‬ ‫(שאֹת?)‪ .‬למילה “פחז” הוצע על‬ ‫“שאת” הוצע‪ 20‬על סמך אחד התרגומים‪ ,‬לגרוס “ש ָֹאה” ְ‬ ‫“פ ַחזְ ָת”‪ ,‬היינו במקום שם עצם יש‬ ‫סמך תרגומים עתיקים והנוסח השומרוני לתורה לגרוס ָ‬ ‫לגרוס פועל‪ 21.‬לצירוף “פחז כמים” הציע אחד החוקרים לגרוס “פחז כמרים”‪ 22‬ואחר הציע‬ ‫“פחזך מים”‪ 23.‬את “אל ַ‬ ‫תותר” הוצע לנקד על סמך הנוסח השומרוני “אל ִתּוָ ֵתר”‪ 24,‬ובאשר‬ ‫ל”עלִ ָית”‪ ,‬ויש המשנים את “עלה” ל”בלהה”‪ ,‬היינו‬ ‫ל”עלה” — רבים רואים בה נוסח אחר ָ‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫“יצועי בלהה”‪ ,‬והצעות אחרות‪ ,‬כגון‪“ :‬יצועי עֹלֶ ה”‪“ ,‬יולדך” וכד’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬על “ברכת יעקב”‪ ,‬ראו בפירושים לספר בראשית וכן במונוגרפיות ובמחקרים‪ :‬מכצ’י‪ ,‬ישראל;‬ ‫די הוּפ‪ ,‬בראשית מט ושם‪ ,‬ביבליוגרפיה; אבישור‪ ,‬כלי חמס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;393-389‬אבישור‪ ,‬הלשון העברית‬ ‫לדורותיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,157–149 ,147–143‬ושם‪ ,‬ביבליוגרפיה; אבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪ ,‬ושם‪ ,‬ביבליוגרפיה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬ראו‪ :‬גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.91–88‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬ראו ב־‪ ,BH3‬וראו‪ :‬מכצ’י‪ ,‬ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,45–44‬ושם‪ ,‬ביבליוגרפיה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬ראו ב־‪.BH3‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬ראו‪ :‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;78‬גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.90‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬שטיינברגר‪ ,‬ברכת יעקב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.4‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.78‬‬ ‫‪ .24‬ראו ב־‪.BH3‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬ראו בפירוט אצל סקינר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.515‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪5‬‬

‫מבחינת המבנה והסגנון של הכתוב על ראובן נחלקו החוקרים בדעותיהם‪ .‬יש פרשנים‬ ‫וחוקרים שהלכו בעקבות חלוקת בעלי המסורה וחלקו את החרוזים כך‪:‬‬ ‫אּובן ְּבכ ִֹרי ַא ָּתה‬ ‫ְר ֵ‬ ‫אׁשית אֹונִ י‬ ‫ּכ ִֹחי וְ ֵר ִ‬ ‫יֶ ֶתר ְׂש ֵאת וְ יֶ ֶתר ָעז‬ ‫ל־ּתֹותר‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַּפ ַחז ּכַ ַּמיִ ם ַא‬ ‫ּכִ י ָעלִ ָית ִמ ְׁשּכְ ֵבי ָא ִביָך‬ ‫צּועי ָעלָ ה‬ ‫ָאז ִחּלַ לְ ָּת יְ ִ‬ ‫לפי חלוקה זו יש שני חרוזים תלת־צלעיים‪ ,‬טריקולונים‪ ,‬המאוזנים פחות או יותר‬ ‫במשקלם‪ 26.‬גבירץ חלק על חלוקה זו והציע לחלק את הכתוב בפסוק ‪ 3‬כך‪:‬‬ ‫אּובן‪ְּ ,‬בכ ִֹרי‪,‬‬ ‫ְר ֵ‬ ‫ַא ָּתה ּכ ִֹחי‬ ‫אׁשית אֹונִ י‬ ‫וְ ֵר ִ‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫יֶ ֶתר ְׂש ֵאת וְ יֶ ֶתר ָעז‬ ‫גבירץ הסתמך על ספייזר שטען‪ ,‬ובצדק‪ ,‬שבהקשר הזה‪ ,‬זה בנאלי שיעקב פנה לבנו‬ ‫כהכרזה “בכרי אתה”‪ ,‬וציין ש”אתה” זוהי תמורה במשפט‪ 28.‬אך מה לגבי חלוקת הפסוק‬ ‫השני (‪ )4‬שבברכה? כל החוקרים ראו בפסוק חרוז תלת־צלעי כמו החרוז שקדם לו (פסוק‬ ‫‪ )3‬ולעומתם גבירץ חילק כך‪:‬‬ ‫ַּפ ַחז ּכַ ַּמיִ ם‬ ‫ל־ּתֹותר‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַא‬ ‫ּכִ י ָעלִ ָית ִמ ְׁשּכְ ֵבי ָא ִביָך‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫צּועי ָעלָ ה‬ ‫ָאז ִחּלַ לְ ָּת יְ ִ‬ ‫חלוקה זו אינה מאוזנת ואין סיבה לחלוקה זו‪ .‬ייתכן וגבירץ עשה כך כדי להמשיך‬ ‫את המקצב של הפסוק הקודם‪ .‬לדעתי יש לקבל את החלוקה בפסוק ‪ 4‬לחרוז תלת־צלעי‪.‬‬ ‫מה בין שני פסוקי הברכה? השאלה למה בשני פסוקים צמודים שנושאם אחד בא‬ ‫הבדל כזה במקצבי החרוזים? השאלה תהא חמורה יותר אם נאמר שנושאם ועניינם של‬ ‫שני הפסוקים חד הוא והם יצאו מתחת יד מחבר אחד‪ .‬נראה לי שבדיקת תוכנם של שני‬ ‫הפסוקים מראה על הבדל גדול בתוכנם‪ ,‬במקצבם ואף בלשונם ולדעתי הם לא יצאו מיד‬ ‫מחבר אחד‪.‬‬

‫‪ .26‬ראו‪ :‬גונקל‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;479‬סקינר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;513‬פון־ראד‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;414‬צובל‪,‬‬ ‫שבטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.4‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.98‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬ספייזר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,361‬תרגם‪‘ :‬אתה ראובן בכורי’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.98‬‬

‫*‪6‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫פסוק ראשון בברכה (פסוק ‪ )3‬הוא אכן ברכה ללא כל נימת שלילה ואף אינו מכין את‬ ‫הקורא לקראת נימה שלילית‪ ,‬הנושאת אופי של קללה‪ .‬לדעתי‪ ,‬החרוז הראשון הוא שריד‪,‬‬ ‫פרגמנט מתוך ברכה קדומה לראובן‪ ,‬ברכה שהדגישה את חשיבותו כבן בכור‪ ,‬כשבט‬ ‫חשוב בישראל‪ ,‬שראוי לו הממשל והעוז (ראו להלן)‪ ,‬ואילו הפסוק השני נאמר בזמן ירידתו‬ ‫של שבט ראובן ועליית שבט יוסף‪ ,‬או שבט יהודה‪ ,‬לבכורה ולשלטון במקומו (להלן נברר‬ ‫את הרקע ההיסטורי והספרותי לברכה זו)‪ .‬המחבר שהכיר את הברכה הקדומה לראובן‬ ‫הביאה והוסיף לידה את הפסוק השני שתולה אשמה בראובן שבשלּה הודח מבכורתו (ראו‬ ‫להלן)‪ .‬ההבדלים כאמור בין שני הפסוקים הם במבנם‪ ,‬בלשונם ובזמן חיבורם‪.‬‬ ‫ראובן בכרי ‪ /‬אתה כחי ‪ /‬וראשית אוני — ראובן נחשב כבכורו של יעקב בכל הסיפורים‪,‬‬ ‫בכל הרשימות ובברכות‪ ,‬דבר המעיד על מסורת קדומה של השבט בקרב שבטי ישראל‬ ‫(ראו להלן)‪ .‬חלקי המשפט מקבילים ונרדפים זה לזה‪ .‬בכרי‪/‬ראשית אני — הצמד בתקבולת‬ ‫זאת נמצא במקומות נוספים במקרא‪ ,‬הן בשירה והן בפרוזה‪:‬‬ ‫ויך כל בכור במצרים ‬ ‫ויך כל בכור בארצם ‬ ‫את הבכור‪ ...‬כי הוא ‬

‫ראשית אונים באהלי חם (תה’ עח ‪)51‬‬ ‫ראשית לכל אונם (תה’ קה ‪)36‬‬ ‫ראשית אונים לו משפט הבכרה (דב’ כא ‪)17‬‬

‫יש לציין שהצמד שבתקבולת כאן הוא על דרך מילה כנגד צירוף הבא לאיזון המשקל‪,‬‬ ‫והמעניין בדבר הוא שכל אחד ממרכיבי הצירוף יש לו קשר של צמד עם המילה “בכור”‪.‬‬ ‫כמו כן‪“ ,‬און” מקביל ל”כח” ושניהם מופיעים כצמד קבוע במקרא‪:‬‬ ‫הנה נא כחו במתניו ‬ ‫נתן ליעף כח ‬ ‫מרב אונים ‬

‫ואונו בשרירי בטנו (איוב מ ‪)16‬‬ ‫ולאין אונים עצמה ירבה (יש’ מ ‪)29‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫ואמץ כח (יש’ מ ‪)26‬‬

‫רבים פירשו באיוב יח ‪“ ,12‬יהי רעב אנו”‪ ,‬את “אנו” כ”בכורו”‪ ,‬והציעו לפרש כך‬ ‫בכל המקומות הנ”ל כולל פסוקנו‪ 31.‬גם למילה “בכור” יש קשר לא רק למילה “ראשית”‪,‬‬ ‫אלא גם למילה “ראש”‪“ :‬כי לא בכור וישימהו לראש” (דה”א כו ‪ ,)10‬והשוו את הצירוף‪:‬‬ ‫“כבכורה בתאנה בראשיתה” (הושע ט ‪ ,)10‬והשוו “כל בכורי כל‪ ...‬וראשית עריסותיכם”‬ ‫(יח’ מד ‪.)30‬‬ ‫יתר שאת ויתר עז — לצירופים אלה יש להשוות את “יתר מאד” (יש’ נו ‪ ,)12‬וכן “ומשלם‬ ‫על יתר עשה גאוה” (תה’ לא ‪ 32.)24‬קרוס־פרידמן השמיטו את הצירוף “יתר שאת” בטענה‬ ‫שהוא נראה כהכפלה ל”ראשית אוני”‪ 33.‬רבים פירשו את “שאת” כנגזרת משורש “נשא”‪,‬‬

‫“אנ”‪ .‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬במקרא נמצא גם “און”‪ 2‬במשמע ‘אבל’‪ :‬דב’ כו ‪ ,14‬הושע ט ‪ ,4‬וכן באוגריתית ֻ‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬הזיקה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;49-48‬אבישור‪ ,‬לשון המקרא וסגנונו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.304–303‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬ראו‪ :‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬הלשון והספר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;175‬ויינפלד‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,112‬הע’ ‪.3‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬ראו בפירוט‪ :‬מכצ’י‪ ,‬ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.42‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬קרוס־פרידמן‪ ,‬עיונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.77 ,72‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪7‬‬

‫במשמע ‘נעלה‪ ,‬מפואר’‪ ,‬ואף עניין “נשיא” הוזכר כאן‪ ,‬וכן לעניין “עז” כלשון ‘עוז מלכות’‪,‬‬ ‫כדברי רש”י‪“ :‬ראוי היית להיות יתר על אחיך בכהונה לשון נשיאות כפים ויתר עז במלכות‬ ‫כמו (שמואל א‪ ,‬ב) ויתן עז למלכו”‪ .‬וכן ראב”ע‪“ :‬ראוי היית ליתרון על הכל שתהיה נשיא‬ ‫ויתר עז כפול בטעם כדרך כל הנבואות ופי’ עז תקיף”‪ 34,‬וכן רוב הפרשנים החדשים‬ ‫בעקבותיהם‪ .‬ספייזר ציין ש”יתר שאת” היא סמיכות תוארית ודומות לה נמצאות באכדית‪,‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫כמו ‪=( Atraḫasīs‬יתר חכמה)‪.‬‬ ‫נראה לי ששיפור לאותה פרשנות יש למצוא בהצעתו של גבירץ לגרוס‪“ :‬יתר [ר]שאת‬ ‫ויתר עז” המבוססת על קיומו של הצמד ‘רשאת‪/‬עז’‪ ,‬הנמצא בכתובת אזתוד הפיניקית מן‬ ‫המאה השמינית לפנה”ס שבה כתוב‪:‬‬ ‫ארכ יממ ורב שנמ ‬ ‫ורשאת נעמת ועז אדר ‬

‫אורך ימים ורוב שנים‬ ‫ושלטון נעים ועוז אדיר (‪)III A 26 KAI: 6-7‬‬

‫כ”רשּות” בעברית‪ ,‬הידועה‬ ‫את “רשאת” הפיניקית המקבילה ל”עז” פירש בצדק ָ‬ ‫מספרות חז”ל‪ ,‬ומספרות קומראן‪ ,‬במשמע ‘שלטון’‪ 36.‬הוספת הרי”ש בתיקון זה‪ ,‬כנובע‬ ‫מהפלוגרפיה‪ ,‬יש לו בסיס בתיקוני נוסח המקרא‪ 37.‬את הצעת התיקון קיבלתי סמוך‬ ‫להצעתה‪ 38‬ועתה יש להוסיף לדבריו של גבירץ‪ ,‬שהמובאה מהכתובת הפיניקית היא מתוך‬ ‫ברכה שברך האל את אזתוד מלך הדננים‪:‬‬ ‫“וברכ בעל כרנתריש אית אזתוד חימ ושלמ ועז אדר על כל מלכ לתתי בעל‬ ‫כרנתריש וכל אלנ קרת לאזתוד ארכ יממ ורב שנת ורשאת נעמת ועז אדר‬ ‫על כל מלכ” (שם‪ ,‬שורות‪ :)7–2 :‬וברך בעל כרנתריש את אזתוד (ב) חיים‬ ‫ו(ב) שלום ו(ב) עד אדיר על כל מלך לתת לו בעל כרנתריש וכל אלי הקרת‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫לאזתוד אורך ימים ‪ /‬רוב שנים ‪ /‬רשות נעימה ‪ /‬ועז אדיר על כל מלך‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬כולם מבוססים על תרגום אונקלוס‪“ :‬בכירותא כהונתא ומלכותא”‪ ,‬ועל מדרשי חז”ל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬ספייזר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,364‬וראו גם גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.89‬‬ ‫‘ומרשּות והֹוד‬ ‫‪ .36‬ראוי לציין שמובאה קרובה לצמד הנידון מצאתי רק בפיוט מתקופת הגאונים‪ָ :‬‬ ‫ברחה’ (פיוט לר’ האי גאון)‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬המילון ההיסטורי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬ראו בפירוט‪ :‬גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;91–87‬אבישור‪ ,‬כתובות פיניקיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.42–41‬‬ ‫‪ .38‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬צמדי מילים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;378‬אבישור‪ ,‬זוגות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;47-13‬אבישור‪,‬כתובות פיניקיות‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .224‬די הופ‪ ,‬בראשית מט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,96 ,89-88‬שדן בהצעה זו והזכיר את החוקרים שקיבלוה וביססוה‪ ,‬ציין‬ ‫שההצעה היא אפשרית‪ ,‬אולם הוא טוען שמשמעות המילה “רשאת” כ־’‪‘ ,‘dignity‬גדולה‪ ,‬משרה רמה’‬ ‫זהה למשמעות המילה “שאת” ולכן הוא מעדיף לקיים את נוסח המסורה’‪ .‬הוא אף טען בפירושו שהצמד‬ ‫נשא‪/‬עז שיש בנוסח המסורה נמצא במקום נוסף במקרא‪ :‬גוי עז פנים‪/‬אשר לא ישא פנים לזקן‪ /‬ונער‬ ‫לא יחן” (דב’ כח ‪ .)50‬בפסוק זה אין תקבולת ואין צמד עז‪/‬נשא‪ ,‬כי התקבולת היא תקבולת של נרדפים‬ ‫בין “נשא” ו”חנן”‪“ :‬לא ישא”‪”/‬לא יחן”‪ ,‬אך אם נניח שיש צמד או תקבולת בין עז‪/‬נשא‪ ,‬אזי התקבולת‬ ‫היא ניגודית כי “עז” מקביל ל”לא ישא” והוא מסוג התקבולת השלילית‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬כהן‪ ,‬התקבולת השלילית‪.‬‬ ‫בברכת ראובן מדובר בתקבולת נרדפת‪ ,‬בצמד נרדפים‪ ,‬כזה שנמצא בצמד הפיניקי רשאת‪/‬עז‪ ,‬העולה‬ ‫בברכת יעקב לראובן בתיקון קל‪ .‬קרבתו של הטקסט הפיניקי לטקסט העברי בברכה לראובן היא גדולה‬ ‫לאין שיעור (ראו להלן) מקרבתם של שני הטקסטים העבריים שעליהם הצביע די הופ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬אבישור‪ ,‬כתובות פיניקיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.224‬‬

‫*‪8‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫כתובים מקבילים אלה באים מאותו סוג ספרותי של “ברכות”‪ ,‬דבר המחזק את‬ ‫ההקבלה בין הכתובים‪ 40,‬ומחזק את הצעתי לראות בפסוק זה ברכה קדומה לראובן‬ ‫מלכתחילה‪ִ ,‬וקשרּה אל הקללה הבאה בפסוק שאחריה הינו משני כפי שנראה להלן‪.‬‬ ‫פחז כמים אל תותר ‪ /‬כי עלית משכבי אביך ‪ /‬אז חללת יצועי עלה — קרוס־פרידמן‬ ‫השמיטו את הצלע הראשונה בטענה שהטקסט משובש ואת הצלע השנייה והשלישית‪,‬‬ ‫שאף הן משובשות‪ ,‬שחזרו כך‪“ :‬כ עלת [על] משכב ‪ /‬אז חללת יצע [אבכ]”‪ 41.‬פחז כמים —‬ ‫נתלבטו החוקרים במשמעות המילה “פחז” ובדימוי “פחז כמים”‪ ,‬וננסה לבררם בהקשרם‪.‬‬ ‫פחז — השורש “פחז” מופיע עוד שלוש פעמים במקרא‪ ,‬פעמיים כשם עצם ברבים‪“ :‬אנשים‬ ‫ריקים ופחזים” (שופ’ ט ‪“ ;)4‬נביאיה פחזים אנשי בגדות” (צפ’ ג ‪ ,)4‬ופעם אחת כשם עצם‬ ‫מופשט‪“ :‬פחזות”‪“ :‬ויתעו את עמי בשקריהם ובפחזותם” (יר’ כג ‪ .)32‬הפירושים העולים‬ ‫ל”פוחז” מהכתובים הללו על פי מקביליהם הם ‘בוגד’ (ע”פ צפניה)‪‘ ,‬שקרן’‪ ,‬ו’ריקן’ (ע”פ‬ ‫המובאה מספר שופטים)‪.‬‬ ‫את הפרשנות המסורתית של התרגומים‪ ,‬הפרשנים והמילונאים של ימי הביניים‬ ‫מסכם גרינבאום במהדורתו ל”פירוש התורה לרב שמואל בן חפני גאון — המקור הערבי‬ ‫עם תרגום”‪“ :‬בסיום יש לסכם; בבאור המלה פחז ובהמשלה למים יש שני באורי יסוד‬ ‫אצל הקדמונים‪( .‬מלבד הבאור בלשון חפזון) א‪ .‬במובן של ריקנות כמים הנגרים‪ ,‬זה פירוש‬ ‫הגאון בן חפני לפנינו‪ ,‬ומביא לראיה את סוף הפסוק באיוב ו‪ ,‬טו‪ .‬פירוש זה ביסודו מובא‬ ‫בראב”ם (ר’ אברהם בן הרמב”ם)‪ ,‬בפירוש ראשון‪ .‬ב‪ .‬במובן של בגידה‪ :‬פירשו ר’ יהודה‬ ‫אבן קוריש‪ ,‬ר’ יונה אבן ג’נאח ור’ יהודה בן בלעם‪( ,‬כמבואר למעלה בהערה ‪ .)126‬האחרון‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫מביא ראיה מאותו פסוק באיוב אולם מחלקו הראשון‪“ :‬אחי בגדו כמו נחל”‪.‬‬ ‫פרשנים שראו שפירושים אלה אינם הולמים ומתאימים להקשר הכתוב ובמיוחד‬ ‫בזיקה ל”מים” השתמשו בשרש “פחז” שבספרות העברית הבתר־מקראית ובארמית‬ ‫לפירושיהם‪ ,‬במשמע ‘חסר בושה‪ ,‬קל דעת’‪ ,‬ואמנם נמצאים שפע כתובים במשמעויות‬ ‫יותר הולמות את ההקשר בכתוב שב”ברכת יעקב”‪ .‬רוב הופעת “פחז” באה בקשר ל”יצר”‬ ‫(“פחז עלי יצרי”)‪ ,‬בקשר ל”זנות” “פחזת התעבת זיניתה”; “מבני בעולה פחוזה”‪ ,‬דברים‬ ‫שראו בהם פרשנים כהולמים את מעשה ראובן עם בלהה שפחת אביו‪ ,‬וכן גם במשמעות‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫‘פרץ‪ ,‬ניגר‪ ,‬מיהר‪ ,‬נחפז‪ ,‬פחד וכיו”ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫הצירוף או הדימוי “פחז כמים” אינו כה ברור ומובן מאליו‪ ,‬אם כי היו שניסו לפרשו‬ ‫כקל תנועה וחסר יציבות כמים‪ ,‬ויש שביססו פירוש זה בהשוותם אותו לכתובים‪“ :‬אחי‬ ‫בגדו כמו נחל ‪ /‬כאפיק נחלים יעברו” (איוב ו ‪ 15‬ועוד)‪“ ,‬היה תהיה לי כמו אכזב ‪ /‬מים לא‬

‫‪ .40‬על הברכות בכתובות הפיניקיות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אבו סמרא‪ ,‬ברכות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬קרוס־פרידמן‪ ,‬עיונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.77-75 ,72‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬ראו‪ :‬גרינבאום‪ ,‬פירוש התורה‪ ,‬עמ’ שמ”ג‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬ראו המובאות הרבות בשימוש “פחז” בבן־סירא‪ ,‬בקומראן ובספרות חז”ל וכן בפיוט הקדום‬ ‫שבמילון ההיסטורי‪ ,‬הן כפועל (‪ 59‬פעמים) והן כשם (‪ 22‬פעמים)‪ ,‬וראו גם בן־יהודה‪ ,‬מילון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪–4877‬‬ ‫‪.4880‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬ראו‪ :‬סקינר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.514‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪9‬‬

‫נאמנו” (איוב טו ‪ 45,)18‬ולפרש ‘בגד כמים’‪ ,‬כמו הפירוש העולה מהכתוב בצפניה‪ ,‬המקביל‬ ‫את “פחז” ל”בגד”‪“ :‬נביאיה פחזים אנשי בגדות” (צפ’ ג ‪.)4‬‬ ‫גבירץ טען שמפירוש “פחז כמים” על־פי המקומות האחרים במקרא שבהם מופיע‬ ‫הפועל “פחז” נמצא כי אין הפירוש מתאים‪ .‬הוא בדק את כל הדימויים במקרא ל”מים”‬ ‫והגיע למסקנה שהפעל “פחז” במשמעותו הידועה אינו מתאים ולכן על פי דימוי מקביל‬ ‫באכדית מציע גבירץ לגרוס פ ‪ +‬אחז ← פחז = ‘ויאחז’‪ ,‬היינו ‘ויאחז‪ ,‬ויחסום כמים’‪ 46.‬רבין‬ ‫ציין שיש שני שורשים ערביים המקבילים ל”פחז” העברי‪ ,‬האחד “פח’ז” — במשמעות‬ ‫‘להתפאר’ ויש לשייך אליו את שופ’ ט ‪ 4‬וצפ’ ג ‪ ,4‬והשני “פח’ד’ “ במשמע ‘לפזר‪ ,‬להפיץ’‪,‬‬ ‫ואליו יש לשייך את בר’ מט ‪ ,4‬הפסוק הנידון‪ ,‬והוא מתאים לשבט ראובן שנפוץ ונטמע‬ ‫בין הנוודים במדבר‪ 47.‬גרינפלד הקדיש מחקר מיוחד ל”פחז”‪ 48,‬ובו בחן את הופעת “פחז”‬ ‫בעברית הבתר־מקראית (כולל הופעת “פחז” בקומראן)‪ ,‬בארמית הכללית (כולל חדירתה‬ ‫מארמית לאכדית)‪ ,‬בסורית ובמנדאית וכולם במשמעות ‘נאף‪ ,‬זנה‪ ,‬היה מופקר’‪ .‬לאחר‬ ‫מכן בחן את משמעות “פחז” במקרא‪ ,‬שהחוקרים‪ ,‬הפרשנים והמילונאים קשרו אותה‬ ‫לעברית הבתר־מקראית‪ ,‬והסיק ש”פחז” בשופ’ ט ‪ ;4‬צפ’ ג ‪ ,4‬יר’ כג ‪ ,32‬ניתן לפרשו על‬ ‫בסיס הידוע לנו מהארמית ומהעברית הבתר־מקראית‪ .‬אולם‪ ,‬בעניין “פחז” שבפסוקנו‬ ‫סיכם‪“ :‬השימוש ב”פחז” בבר’ מט ‪ 4‬נשאר עדיין בלתי ברור; אבל זה אינו הפסוק היחיד‬ ‫בברכת יעקב שנשאר אניגמטי‪ .‬תגליות אפיגראפיות הבהירו מעט מאלה ויכולים לקוות‬ ‫שהמשמעות של פחז כמים תתבהר יום אחד”‪ 49.‬גם די הופ הקדיש מאמר ל”פחז”‪ 50‬ובו‬ ‫בדק אף הוא את הכתובים שבבן סירא ובקומראן והגיע למסקנה שונה מגרינפלד‪ ,‬ש”פחז”‬ ‫במקרא בבן־סירא ובקומראן משמעו ”‪ ,“to deceive‬היינו ‘רמה‪ ,‬בגד‪ ,‬כחש וכד’‪ ,‬כולל‬ ‫משמעות “פחז” שבברכה לראובן‪ 51.‬דיון מחודש במלה “פחז” בא לאחר תגלית כתובת‬ ‫“בלעם בר בעור”‪ ,‬מדיר עלא שבעבר הירדן המזרחי מהמאה השביעית לפנה”ס‪ 52,‬ובה‬ ‫המלה “פחזי”‪ ,‬ומכיוון שהדיאלקט שבו כתובה הכתובת הוא ארמי‪ ,‬או ארמי־עברי‪ ,‬ברור‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫שהמילה היא ארמית‪.‬‬

‫‪ .45‬נראה שהראשון שקשר את המים שכאן לנחלים זורמים היה התרגום הניאופיטי לצירוף “פחז‬ ‫כמים”‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬הערה ‪ ,41‬לעיל‪ ,‬וראו‪ ,‬להלן בדיון על “השתלשלות המסורות”‪ .‬ראו גם‪ :‬די הופ‪ ,‬בראשית‬ ‫מט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.91-90‬‬ ‫‪ .46‬גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.93–91‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬רבין‪ ,‬אטימולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;398‬באר‪ ,‬פילולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.333‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬גרינפילד‪ ,‬פחז‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬גרינפילד‪ ,‬פחז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.40‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬די הופ‪ ,‬פחז‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .51‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.26‬‬ ‫‪ .52‬על פרסום הכתובת ועל מחקרה ראו‪ :‬הופטייצר־ון דר קוי‪ ,‬טקסטים ארמיים‪ .‬על הכתובת‬ ‫בזיקתה לסיפור בלעם במקרא‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬רופא‪ ,‬ספר בלעם; הופטייצר־ון דר קוי‪ ,‬בלעם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬על המלה “פחז” בכתובות השמיות צפון־מערביות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬הופטייצר־יונגלינג‪ ,‬מילון‪ ,‬כרך ב‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.906-905‬‬

‫*‪10‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫יש לציין שלא ניתנה הדעת מספיק להצעתו של פון זודן‪ ,‬שבשני מקומות דן‬ ‫ב־‪ paḫāzu‬באכדית‪ .‬במאמרו על השפעת הארמית על האכדית‪ 54,‬ציין שהמילה האכדית‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫שאולה מארמית‪ 55‬ובמילונו האכדי ציין את הקשר בין האכדית‪ ,‬הארמית ו”פחז” העברית‪.‬‬ ‫לאחרונה נתפרסם כרך ‪ P‬של המילון האשורי‪ 57,‬ובערך ‪ ,paḫāzu‬הוא מגדיר את משמעותו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ ,1. to be arrogant, highhanded. 2. III to allow to be arrogant, improper‬ומשמעויות‬ ‫אלה ‪ .1‬להשתחץ‪ ,‬להתייהר‪ ,‬להתנשא‪ ,‬נשא יד (מרד) וכד’‪ .2 .‬לא הוגן‪ ,‬לא הולם‪ ,‬לא‬ ‫כחוק — משמעויות ההולמות את הארמית־סורית‪ 58,‬את העברית הבתר־מקראית וכן‬ ‫לענייננו את העברית המקראית כולל את פסוקנו בבר’ מט ‪ .4‬לפיכך יש להניח ש”פחז”‬ ‫בעברית שאול הוא מהארמית‪ ,‬כמו שהוא שאול באכדית מארמית‪ 59.‬החומר המצוטט‬ ‫מהאכדית במילונים האכדיים הוא מהתקופה הניאו־אשורית ומהתקופה הניאו־בבלית‪,‬‬ ‫היינו מהמאות התשיעית עד המאה השישית לפנה”ס‪ .‬אם נאמר שהברכה לראובן היא‬ ‫יותר קדומה‪ ,‬אזי יש להניח אחת משתי הנחות‪ :‬א‪ .‬כאמור לעיל יש לחלק את הברכה‬ ‫לראובן לשתי תקופות‪ ,‬לברכה קדומה (בר’ מט ‪ )3‬ולהסבר־נימוק מאוחר מעשה ידי עורך‪,‬‬ ‫וזמן חדירת “פחז” לעברית מתאים לזמן העריכה‪ ,‬וכאמור לעיל שני פסוקי הברכה לראובן‬ ‫שונים גם בלשונם‪ .‬ב‪.‬תופעה ידועה היא בלשונות‪ ,‬כולל לשון המקרא‪ ,‬שמילים שהיו‬ ‫קיימות בלשון ולא היו בשימוש באותה לשון ובזמן שעולה שימושה בלשון אחרת באותה‬ ‫סביבה מתחדש שימושה של אותה מילה גם באותה לשון שבה הייתה “נשכחת”‪ .‬כך קרה‬ ‫למשל במילים מהמקרא שנחשבו ארמיות ועתה נתגלו גם באוגריתית‪ ,‬כמו “אתה”‪“ ,‬טען”‪,‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬ ‫ועוד‪.‬‬ ‫אם נקיים את גירסת נוסח המסורה “פחז” ונאמץ גירסת התרגומים ונוסח שומרון‪,‬‬ ‫“פחזת”‪ 61,‬ועל־פי הכתוב בצפניה‪“ ,‬נביאיה פחזים אנשי בגדות” (ג ‪ ,)4‬נפרש “פחז” כ’בגד’‪,‬‬ ‫או על־פי הכתוב בשופטים‪“ ,‬אנשים ריקים ופחזים” (ט ‪ ,)4‬נפרש “פחזים” כ ‘מורדים‪,‬‬ ‫אנשים שעברו חוק וגדר’‪ ,‬נוכל לפרש את “פחז[ת]” כ’מרדת’‪ ,‬ולהסתמך על הפסוק באיוב‬ ‫“אחי בגדו כמו נחל” (ו ‪ )15‬ואת הצירוף “פחז[ת] כמים” נפרש “בגדת כמים”‪ .‬מה שמחזק‬ ‫פירוש זה היא הקרבה שבין “פחז” ל”חלל” שבכתוב על ראובן בבראשית מט לכתוב‬ ‫בצפניה שאפשר לראות בה צמד משותף‪:‬‬

‫‪ .54‬פון זודן‪ ,‬מילים ארמיות א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;20-1‬פון זודן‪ ,‬מילים ארמיות ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.271-261‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬פון זודן‪ ,‬מילים ארמיות‪ ,‬ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.262‬‬ ‫‪ .56‬ראו‪ ,AHw :‬עמ’ ‪.811‬‬ ‫‪ .57‬ראו‪ ,CAD :‬כרך ‪ ,P‬עמ’ ‪.33-32‬‬ ‫‪ .58‬ראו אצל גרינפילד‪ ,‬פחז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.38‬‬ ‫‪ .59‬פון זודן‪ ,‬מילים ארמיות ב’ עמ’ ‪ .262‬על הדיאלקטים הארמיים בתקופה זאת‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬גאר‪,‬‬ ‫גיאוגרפיה; על מקומה של הארמית באימפריה האשורית‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬תדמור‪ ,‬אשור בבל ויהודה‪ ,‬עמ‘ ‪182-159‬‬ ‫על ‪ ,paḫāzu‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.170‬‬ ‫‪ .60‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬הלשון העברית לדורותיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.91-80‬‬ ‫‪ .61‬וראו‪ ,‬ראב”ע‪“ :‬בעבור שפחזת כמים”‪.‬‬

‫*‪11‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫פחז כמים אל תותר ‬ ‫כי עלית משכבי אבי ך‬ ‫אז חללת יצועי עלה (בר’ מט ‪)3‬‬

‫נביאיה פחזים אנשי בגדות‬ ‫כהניה חללו קדש חמסו תורה (צפ’ ג ‪)4‬‬

‫‪62‬‬

‫עם זאת אני מציע אפשרות אחרת‪ ,‬הצעה אלטרנטיבית‪ ,‬של תיקון פשוט וקל בדימוי‬ ‫[ת] ּכְ מֹ ים” היינו‪‘ :‬בגדת‪ ,‬מרדת כמו‬ ‫“פ ַחזְ ָ‬ ‫“פחז כמים”‪ ,‬ביתר דיוק במילה “כמים”‪ ,‬ולגרוס‪ָ :‬‬ ‫ים‪ ,‬כמו אל הים שמרד’‪ .‬לגירסה זו ופירושה יש יתרונות מספר‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬לא מצאנו פירוש ומשמעות הולמים את הכתוב לדימוי “פחז כמים”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬אין בהצעה זו שינוי הכתוב אלא הפרדת מילה לשתיים‪ ,‬דבר המקובל במסירת‬ ‫נוסח המקרא‪ 63‬וניקוד שונה מניקוד המסורה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬הגירסה המוצעת נותנת הסבר לסיבת כעסו של יעקב‪ ,‬או של מי ששם בפיו של‬ ‫יעקב את הדברים‪ ,‬להדרת ראובן מן הבכורה‪ ,‬מן ההנהגה‪ ,‬מן השלטון והתפארת‪,‬‬ ‫בכנותו אותו בכינוי מורד כאל הים‪.‬‬ ‫ מהרבה כתובים במקרא אנו למדים על מרדו של ים בה’ אלוהי ישראל וככל‬ ‫הנראה הדבר מבוסס על המיתוס הכנעני על מרד אל הים “זבל ימ ת’פט נהר”‬ ‫(=נשיא ים שופט נהר)‪ .‬קאסוטו אסף את כל הכתובים במקרא ובמידה מסוימת‬ ‫‪64‬‬ ‫מכתובים בתר־מקראיים וניסה לשחזר את “האפוס על מרד הים”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬הנימוק הקודם אף מסייע להסבר הנימוק השני שבפסוק והוא שראובן הודר‬ ‫מבכורתו בגלל ששכב עם בלהה פילגש אביו‪ .‬ואמנם משכב עם פילגש קשורה‬ ‫במרד‪ ,‬בירושה ובשלטון‪ .‬ראובן חילל את יצועי אביו בשוכבו עם פילגש אביו‪,‬‬ ‫כמו שאבשלום המורד בדוד המלך‪ ,‬אביו‪ ,‬שכב עם פילגשי אביו כדי לתת תוקף‬ ‫ולגיטימיות לירושת המלוכה‪ ,‬כדי למלוך במקומו‪ ,‬כעצת אחיתופל‪“ :‬ויאמר אחיתפל‬ ‫אל אבשלום בוא אל פלגשי אביך אשר הניח לשמור הבית ושמע כל ישראל כי‬ ‫נבאשת את אביך וחזקו ידי כל אשר אתך” (שמ”ב טז ‪ 65.)21‬ייתכן שאם נפרש‬ ‫“פחזת” כ’מרדת’ התכוון הכתוב למרד בני ראובן‪ ,‬דתן ואבירם‪ ,‬כנגד משה (במ’ טז)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .62‬השוו‪ :‬די הופ‪ ,‬בראשית מט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.96‬‬ ‫‪ .63‬כמו ההצעה להפריד את המלה “מים” בכתוב “מי מדד בשעלו מים” (יש’ מ ‪ )12‬ל”מי ים” על‬ ‫בסיס תרגום השבעים ועל בסיס קיומו של הצירוף באכדית‪ .‬ראו בפירוט‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬לשון המקרא‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.47-41‬‬ ‫‪ .64‬ראו‪ :‬קאסוטו‪ ,‬ספרות א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.90-62‬‬ ‫‪ .65‬גונקל שיער שצירוף הפסוק על ראובן ובלהה (לה ‪ )22‬לסיפור על מותה של רחל בא להסביר‬ ‫שראובן ביקש לבטל את הזיקה בין אביו ובין צרת אמו המתה ולפיכך בא על שפחתה שבניה קרויים על‬ ‫שם רחל‪ .‬גונקל הסתמך על המסופר באיליאדה להומרוס (שורות ‪ )455–443‬על איש ששכב על פי בקשת‬ ‫אמו עם פילגש אביו ובשל כך קיללו אביו “שימות חשוך בנים” (ראו‪ :‬גונקל‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,384–383‬וראו‪:‬‬ ‫ייבין‪ ,‬ראובן ‪ ,1‬טור ‪ ,286‬וראו לאחרונה‪ :‬די הופ‪ ,‬בראשית מט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,351‬הערה ‪ ,166‬ושם ביבליוגרפיה‪.‬‬ ‫דעה דומה הביע רש”י‪ :‬מעשה ראובן בא לתבוע את עלבון אמו לאה‪ ,‬כפי שהוא מצא בתלמוד (שבת נה)‪:‬‬ ‫“מתוך שבלבל משכבו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו שכבה ולמה בלבל וחלל יצועיו שכשמתה רחל נטל יעקב‬ ‫מטתו שהיתה נתונה תדיר באהל רחל ולא בשאר אהלים ונתנה באהל בלהה‪ .‬בא ראובן ותבע עלבון אמו‬ ‫אמר אם אחות אמי היתה צרה לאמי שפחת אחות אמי תהא צרה לאמי‪ .‬לכך בלבל”‪.‬‬

‫*‪12‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫אל תותר — על ניקודו של הפועל כבר העיר ראב”ע בפירושו לפסוק “אל תותר”‬ ‫לא יהיה לך יתרון ופה ראוי להיות אל תּותר בשורוק הוי”ו ולכן היו שהציעו לראות את‬ ‫הבנין כנפעל ִ‬ ‫“תיָ ֵתר”‪ 66.‬מכל מקום המשמעות ברורה “לא יהי לך יתרון” והרמיזה ברורה‬ ‫‪67‬‬ ‫למילה החוזרת “יתר” כמשחק לשון בפסוק הקודם‪ .‬גבירץ הקדיש דיון ארוך לצירוף‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫“אל תותר”‪ ,‬וראה במילה שורש “ירה” ובניין אחר‪ ,‬ועל סמך האכדית פרש “אל תנהיג”‪.‬‬ ‫כי עלית משכבי אביך ‪ /‬אז חללת יצועי עלה — כאמור לעיל הוצעו תיקונים ל”עלה”‪.‬‬ ‫“עלִ ָית” במקום “עלה”‪ ,‬או יש לקיים את נוסח המסורה‬ ‫מכל ההצעות יש לשקול בחיוב את ָ‬ ‫“עלֹות”‬ ‫צּועי ָעלָ ה” כ”יצועי האם המיניקה”‪ ,‬על סמך ָ‬ ‫ולקבל הצעת טור־סיני לגרוס “יְ ֵ‬ ‫“עלה” כהערת שוליים‬ ‫(בר’ לג ‪ )13‬ו”עּול”‪ 69.‬להצעה זו עדיפות על ההצעה להשמיט ָ‬ ‫ל”עלית”‪ ,‬שחדרה לתוך הטקסט‪ ,‬והיא מקבילה בתוכנה להצעה “בלהה” שיש להשיגה‬ ‫בתיקון מוגזם‪ ,‬ל”עלה”‪ .‬יתר על כן‪ ,‬בהצעה זו יש איזון מקצבי של צלעות החרוז ונמצא‬ ‫‪70‬‬ ‫שיש הקבלה מאוזנת ושווה בין “עלית משכבי־אביך” ל”חללת יצועי־עלה”‪.‬‬ ‫משכב ‪ /‬יצוע — המילה “יצוע” נמצאת במקרא חמש פעמים‪ .‬פעמיים היא נמצאת ללא‬ ‫זיקה ל”משכב” (תה’ סג ‪ ,7‬איוב יז ‪ ,)13‬פעמיים בזיקה לעניין ראובן‪ ,‬בכתובנו ובאיזכור‬ ‫הכתוב הזה בדברי הימים (דה”א ה ‪ ,)1‬ופעם נוספח בסמיכות ל”ערש”‪“ :‬ערש יצועי”‬ ‫(תה’ קלב ‪ .)3‬כצמד ‘משכב ‪ /‬יצוע’ בתקבולת‪ ,‬כמו בפסוקנו נמצאים המרכיבים‪ :‬יצועך ‪/‬‬ ‫משכבך‪ ,‬במשלי בן־סירא בפרפרזה לכתוב על ראובן (בן־סירא‪ ,‬מז‪ ,‬כח‪-‬כט)‪ ,‬וכן בצורת‬ ‫סמיכות נרדפים במגילת הסרכים ממדבר יהודה‪“ :‬ועם משכב יצועי ארננה לו” (סרכים‬ ‫‪71‬‬ ‫י ‪.)14‬‬ ‫כאמור לעיל יש להפריד בין פסוק ‪ 3‬לפסוק ‪ 4‬כי הם שונים ממספר בחינות‪:‬‬ ‫‪ )1‬הם שונים במקצבם‪ ,‬מה שהביא חוקרים להעמידם כחרוזים שונים במבניהם (ראו‬ ‫לעיל)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ )2‬הם שונים בתוכנם — הראשון ברכה והשני קללה והיו ניסיונות לפרש את החלק‬ ‫‪72‬‬ ‫הראשון על־פי החלק השני‪.‬‬

‫‪.BH3 .66‬‬ ‫‪ .67‬ראו‪ :‬גונקל ‪ ,1901‬עמ’ ‪.479‬‬ ‫‪ .68‬גבירץ‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.94–91‬‬ ‫“יצועי‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫‪ .69‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬עוללות לעוללות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;394‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .78‬להצעות אחרות כגון‪:‬‬ ‫יַ ְעלָ ה”‪ ,‬ראו בפירוט‪ :‬די הופ‪ ,‬בראשית מט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.91-90‬‬ ‫‪ .70‬חסרונה של הצעה זו שאין סיפור המספר על בלהה שהייתה ָעלָ ה בזמן המקרה‪ .‬יתר על כן ככל‬ ‫הנראה לא היה בכלל סיפור על מעשה ראובן ובלההת ונאלץ העורך האחרון של ספר בראשית לשתול‬ ‫הערה במקום שנראה על מעשה ראובן כביכול (בר’ לה ‪.)22‬‬ ‫‪ .71‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬נוספות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.117–116‬‬ ‫‪ .72‬מספר חוקרים ניסו ליצור השלכה של האמירה השלילית‪ ,‬הקללה‪ ,‬שבחלקה השני של הברכה‪,‬‬ ‫על פרשנות החלק הראשון‪ .‬כך למשל גונקל‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,479‬ניסה לפרש את “שאת” ואת “עז” בצורה‬ ‫“ׂשאתו תבעת אתכם”‪ ,‬ובאיוב מא ‪“ ,17‬משתו‬ ‫שלילית‪ .‬את “שאת” שכאן זיהה עם “שאת” שבאיוב יג ‪ֵ :11‬‬ ‫“עז” הקביל ל”עריץ” על פי יש’ כה ‪“ :3‬על כן יכבדוך עם עז ‪ /‬קרית‬ ‫יגורו אלים”‪ ,‬במשמעות שלילית‪ .‬את ָ‬ ‫גוים עריצים ייראוך”‪ .‬קיטל גרס “ש ָֹאה” במקום “שאת” במשמע סערה‪.‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪13‬‬

‫‪ )3‬שני הפסוקים שונים במגמותיהם‪ .‬הראשון‪ ,‬מגמתו לברך ולהלל את השבט‪,‬‬ ‫והשני‪ ,‬להדירו ולהשמיצו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ )4‬ייתכן ויש אף הבדלים בלשון‪ .‬לשונו של הפסוק הראשון ארכאית וראינו אף שיש‬ ‫לו זיקה ללשון פיניקית (כתובת אזתוד) וכן השימוש במילים “אוני” ו”רשאת”‪.‬‬ ‫הפסוק השני‪ ,‬לעומתו‪ ,‬מכיל מילות חיבור מאוחרות‪“ :‬כי”‪“ ,‬אז” וייתכן אף‬ ‫ש”פחז” ו”יצוע” הן מלים מאוחרות במקרא‪“ .‬פחז” היא מילה ארמית שחדרה ככל‬ ‫הנראה בסוף המאה השביעית לפנה”ס לעברית‪ .‬עליה אומר רמב”ן‪“ :‬ורבותינו‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫משתמשים בו תדיר”‪ 73.‬הוא הדבר לגבי “יצוע”‪.‬‬ ‫מכל האמור לעיל‪ ,‬נראה לי‪ ,‬להפריד בין שני הפסוקים שב”ברכת יעקב” לראובן‪,‬‬ ‫שככל הנראה‪ ,‬מוצאם ממקורות שונים‪ ,‬מזמנים שונים ועברו שינויים מגמתיים שונים‪.‬‬ ‫לפיכך‪ ,‬יש לייחס את הפסוק הראשון לזמן קדום ולייחס את הפסוק השני לעריכה‬ ‫מאוחרת של “ברכת יעקב” (ראו להלן)‪.‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬שבט ראובן ב”שירת דבורה” (שופ’ ה ד‪)16 15-‬‬ ‫ב”שירת דבורה”‪ 75‬הכתוב על ראובן לא בא ככתוב ראשון המתייחס לשבטים‪ ,‬אלא‬ ‫מופיע לאחר שנזכרו חמישה שבטים לפניו‪ ,‬בפסוקים ד ‪:16–15‬‬ ‫אּובן ּגְ דֹלִ ים ִח ְק ֵקי לֵ ב‪.‬‬ ‫ִּב ְפלַ ּגֹות ְר ֵ‬ ‫לָ ָּמה יָ ַׁש ְב ָּת ֵּבין ַה ִּמ ְׁש ְּפ ַתיִ ם‬ ‫לִ ְׁשמ ַֹע ְׁש ִרקֹות ֲע ָד ִרים‬ ‫אּובן ּגְ דֹולִ ים ִח ְק ֵרי‬ ‫לִ ְפלַ ּגֹות ְר ֵ‬ ‫לגבי נוסח הכתובים נתעוררו שאלות הנוגעות לחזרות ולשינויים שבצלע הפותחת‬ ‫ובצלע החותמת‪ :‬בפלגות ‪ /‬לפלגות‪ ,‬וחקקי לב ‪ /‬חקרי לב‪ .‬כן הוצעו תיקונים למילה‬ ‫“למה” שבצלע השנייה וכן למילה שאחריה “ישבת”?‪ 76‬ועוד‪ 77.‬לגבי החילוף ‘בפלגות’ ‪/‬‬ ‫‪78‬‬ ‫‘לפלגות’‪ ,‬הוצע על סמך כתבי־יד לגרוס בשתי הצלעות “בפלגות”‪.‬‬ ‫למעשה אין צורך בתיקון כיוון שהחילופים במילות היחס וכאן באותיות בכל”ם‬ ‫שכיחים באוגריתית ובלשון המקרא והמשמעות זהה‪ .‬יותר רציני הוא השינוי בין הצירופים‬ ‫‘חקקי לב’ ‪‘ /‬חקרי לב’‪ ,‬מפני ששינוי זה נותן מילים שונות חקק ‪ /‬חקר‪ ,‬שניתנות להתפרש‬ ‫‪ .73‬מלבד שכיחותו בספרות חז”ל השתמשו בו בהרחבה ובזיקה לענייני משכב במשלי בן־סירא‪,‬‬ ‫במגילות מדבר יהודה ובפיוט הקדום‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬המילון ההיסטורי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .74‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬שם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .75‬על שירת דבורה‪ ,‬ראו בפירושים לספר שופטים‪ ,‬וכן‪ ,‬רבין‪ ,‬שופטים ה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;134–125‬צובל‪,‬‬ ‫שבטים; גלוב‪ ,‬מבנה ספרותי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;513–493‬גלוב‪ ,‬מפקד‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;184–169‬האוזר‪ ,‬שופטים ה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;41–23‬‬ ‫די מור‪ ,‬שירת דבורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;494–483‬טורניי‪ ,‬שירת דבורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.207–195‬‬ ‫‪ .76‬ראו‪ :‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.61-60‬‬ ‫‪ .77‬ראו למשל ברני‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,139‬המציע לגרוס‪“ :‬נפריד נפרד לפלגות ראובן ‪ /‬גדולים חקרי‬ ‫לבו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .78‬ראו‪.BH3 :‬‬

‫*‪14‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫פירושים שונים‪ .‬ואומנם רבים‪ ,‬בעקבות תרגום יונתן והפרשנות המסורתית בימי הביניים‪,‬‬ ‫פירשו את שני הצירופים פירוש דומה; תרגום יונתן‪ :‬חקקי לב — נכלי לבא; חקרי לב —‬ ‫מחשבות לבא‪ ,‬וכן רש”י המביא את נכלי לבא ומתרגמו לעברית‪ :‬ערמומית‪ ,‬ומסביר את‬ ‫מעשה הערמומית של ראובן‪ .‬רד”ק ציין‪“ :‬ולא באו למלחמה גדולים הם חקקי וחקרי לבי‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫עליו” וכן הרלב”ג‪ .‬הפרשנים החדשים ראו בזה משחק מילים‪.‬‬ ‫שינויים אלה ניתנים להתפרש מהצד הסגנוני כשינוי הבא לשם גיוון החזרה והם‬ ‫שייכים לחזרת צלע בשינוי מילה‪ ,‬מילית‪ ,‬צירוף‪ 80,‬וכן בצורתם הנוכחית כפי שהם‬ ‫מופיעים כצלע שלישית בשני חרוזים תלת־צלעיים‪:‬‬ ‫למה ישבת בן המשפתים‬ ‫ושרי ביששכר עם דבורה ‬ ‫ויששכר כן ברק בעמק שלח ברגליו לשמע שריקות עדרים‬ ‫‪81‬‬ ‫לפלגות ראובן גדולים חקרי לב (שופ’ ה ‪)16-15‬‬ ‫בפלגות ראובן גדולים חקקי לב ‬ ‫אולם לדעתי מדובר בחרוזים לא מקוריים מבחינת מבניהם ויש לראות בהם בנוסחם‬ ‫הנוכחי יחידה אחת מבחינת תוכנם‪ ,‬כחרוז ארבע־צלעי‪ ,‬הנתון במסגרת (“אינקלוזיו”)‪:‬‬ ‫בפלגות ראובן גדולים חקקי לב‬ ‫למה ישבת בין המשפתים‬ ‫לשמע שריקות עדרים‬ ‫‪82‬‬ ‫לפלגות ראובן גדלים חקרי לב‬ ‫הפרשנים ראו בכתוב כולו דברי גנאי וביקורת על שבט ראובן שלא בא לעזרת העם‬ ‫במלחמה‪ .‬לדעת ארליך דברי דבורה הם “התולים”‪ ,‬היינו דברי אירוניה עוקצניים כלפי‬ ‫שבט ראובן‪ 83.‬אולם‪ ,‬כבר עמדו על כך שמתחלפים הגופים בכתיב על ראובן בתחילה‬ ‫דיבור עקיף “בפלגות ראובן גדלים חקקי לב”‪ ,‬ואח”כ דיבור ישיר (למה ישבת‪ )...‬ושוב‬ ‫דיבור עקיף (לפלגות‪ ,)...‬או כדברי טור־סיני‪:‬‬ ‫“ואם בין ‘בפלגות ראובן גדלים חקקי לב’ ובין החזרה על אותו משפט בא‬ ‫חרוז אחר‪ ,‬שהמעתיקים והנקדנים קראו אותו ‘לָ ָּמה יָ ַׁש ְב ָּת בין המשפתים‬ ‫‪ .79‬ראו‪ :‬בולינג‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.112‬‬ ‫‪ .80‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬החזרה והתקבולת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.42–36‬‬ ‫‪ .81‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.42‬‬ ‫‪ .82‬על האינקלוזיו במתכונת חזרה הידועה כחזרת אינקלוזיו (=”מסגרת”) בשירה המקראית‪ ,‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬המסגרת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.254-234‬‬ ‫‪ .83‬ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .55‬את האירוניה רואה ארליך בשימוש במילה “פלגות” פעמיים‬ ‫במשנה הוראה‪“ :‬יש במשמע פלגות שתים‪ :‬פלגי מים ולשון חלוקה והכתיב מכוון לשתיהן‪ ,‬ופירושו‪:‬‬ ‫“ראובן שבחר נחלתו מעבר לירדן‪ ,‬והירדן מפריד בינו ובין כל ישראל גדולים חקקי לבו‪ ,‬והדברים‬ ‫התולים‪ ,‬כי דבורה רוצה לאמר ראובן עשה מעשהו בערמה וכוונתו צפונה בלבו” (כך כתב בגרמנית‬ ‫ארליך‪ ,‬הערות‪ ,‬כרך ‪ ,3‬עמ’ ‪ .)84‬וכן אחרים שלא הזכירו את שמו של ארליך (ברני‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;140‬‬ ‫קראון‪ ,‬שופטים ה‪ ,1967 ,‬עמ’ ‪ . 241‬קראון רואה סרקאזם לא רק ב”פלגות” וב”לפלגות”‪ ,‬אלא גם ב”חקקי‬ ‫לב” וב”חקרי לב”‪ ,‬וכן משחק לשון בין “משפתיים” ו”שפתיים”‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.242–241‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪15‬‬

‫לשמע שרקות עדרים’‪ ,‬כלום יש ללמוד ממנו את ההפך‪ ,‬כי לא באו בני ראובן‬ ‫לעזור במלחמה‪ ,‬וזאת הואיל וישבו בין המשפתיים? אילו כך היה הדבר‪,‬‬ ‫כלום לא היה מלאך ה’ מקלל גם אותם‪ ,‬כמו שקילל עיר יחידה זו שלא באה‬ ‫לעזרה‪ ,‬כנאמר בפס’ כג‪‘ :‬אֹורּו מרוז‪ ... ,‬אֹרּו ָארֹור ישביה’? ואין בחרוז נוסח‬ ‫כזה בשאלה‪‘ :‬למה ישבת’‪ ,‬בגוף שני וביחיד‪ ,‬אפשרי מצד הלשון והעניין בין‬ ‫‘בפלגות ראובן גדולים חקקי לב’ ובין חזרתו שנית‪ .‬הרי מדובר על ‘פלגות‬ ‫ראובן’ בגוף שלישי ובריבוי‪ ,‬ונאמר במפורש על פלוגות אלו‪ ,‬כי היו בהן‬ ‫שם גדולים חוקקי לב‪ .‬ואם כך תקרא‪‘ :‬למה ישבת’ ותבין זאת כהאשמה נגד‬ ‫מישהו‪ ,‬בוודאי לא לפלגות ראובן ולגדולים וחוקקים שלהן והכוונה; ובעל‬ ‫כורחך היית צריך להניח‪ ,‬שאין מקום הדברים בתוך המשפט החיובי הכפול‪,‬‬ ‫ואז לא היית יכול לדעת כלל‪ ,‬למי מכוונת השאלה ‘למה ישבת’ — ולמה‬ ‫‪84‬‬ ‫היושב לא היה חייב לשבת שם — ועל כל פנים לא לראובן”‪.‬‬ ‫מהבחנותיו של טור־סיני על החילופים בגופים ומן המסקנה שהוציא מהנוסח‬ ‫המתחיל בשאלה “למה ישבת”‪ ,‬כהאשמה כנגד ראובן‪ ,‬עולה שיש לשלול את השאלה‬ ‫כמכוונת לראובן‪ .‬אך משום מה חזר טור־סיני ממסקנתו זו‪ ,‬ותיקן את השאלה “למקשבות‬ ‫בין המשפתים לשמע שריקות עדרים”‪ 85,‬וחזר על דברים נכוחים שאין הדברים ביסודם‬ ‫האשמה נגד ראובן‪:‬‬ ‫“אין כאן אפוא כל האשמה כנגד ראובן‪ ,‬אשר גם הוא בא‪ ,‬עם גדוליו‪ ,‬לעזרת‬ ‫ה’ בקרב‪ .‬כל המשפט הרצוף כאן לא בא אלא כתוספת תיאור של שבט‬ ‫בני ראובן‪ ,‬העשירים במקנה‪ ,‬ומחלקותיהם היו מצויות בין המשפתיים‪ ,‬כשם‬ ‫שנאמר על שבטים אחרים בהמשך‪‘ :‬גלעד בעבר הירדן שכן‪ ,‬ודן‪ ...‬יגור‬ ‫אניות‪ ,‬אשר ישב לחוף ימים ועל מפרציו ישכון’‪ ,‬ועוד; וזאת לא במשמעות זו‪,‬‬ ‫שישבו כל השבטים האלה במקומותיהם ועסקו במלאכתם בשעת המלחמה‬ ‫ולא באו לעזרה גם הם‪ ,‬אלא שזה מקומם הקבוע וזאת מלאכתם הקבועה‪ ,‬וכן‬ ‫פלגות ראובן‪ ,‬כך דרכן הקבועה להקשיב בין המשפתיים‪ ,‬במקומות אשר שם‬ ‫שופתים בשר לבישול‪ ,‬ולשמוע שם את שריקות העדרים; ואולי בשריקות‬ ‫עדרים אלו הכוונה המילולית לשריקות הפחד של הצאן והבקר כשיובאו‬ ‫‪86‬‬ ‫לשחיטה‪ ,‬ואין ‘שריקות’ מציין את געיית הבקר והצאן סתם”‪.‬‬ ‫בׁשנותם את הפירוש ל”למה”‪,‬‬ ‫חוקרים נוספים ראו בכל דברי דבורה לראובן חיוביים ַ‬ ‫שפורשה כשאלה רטורית־אירונית‪ ,‬והסבירו את האותיות המרכיבות את המילה “למה”‬ ‫בכך שבכתיב העברי העתיק נכתבה “למ”‪ ,‬כלמ”ד אמפטיק‪ ,‬או כ”לא” וכמי”ם אינקליטית‪,‬‬

‫‪ .84‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .60‬במקום אחר הציע ששתי הצלעות החוצצות בין שתי הצלעות‬ ‫הדומות נאמרו על העיר מרוז‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬הלשון והספר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪. 127‬‬ ‫‪ .85‬שם‪ ,‬שם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .86‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.61‬‬

‫*‪16‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫וזאת בהסתמך על קיומה של המילית “למ” באוגריתית במשמעויות אלה (‪CTA 4 VII:‬‬ ‫‪ .)39-38; 10 III: 7‬קרוס היה הראשון שפירש כך ואחריו הלפרן במאמרו על “שירת‬ ‫דבורה”‪ ,‬וכן חוקרים אחרים‪ .‬במיוחד הרחיב את הדברים לאחר מכן קרוס וציין שבכל‬ ‫“שירת דבורה” אין גינוי לאף שבט (הוא הדין לגבי המילה “למה” שבפסוק ‪ 17‬שמתייחסת‬ ‫לשבט דן)‪ ,‬וכולם התנדבו ובאו לעזרת ה’‪ ,‬וכי הגינוי ב”שירת דבורה” הוא רק לעיר‬ ‫מרוז‪“ .‬המקום בחיים” (‪ )sitz im leben‬של שירת דבורה‪ ,‬אסיפת ברית השבטים‪ ,‬והסיווג‬ ‫‪87‬‬ ‫הספרותי (‪ )gattung‬כברכות‪ ,‬מכריעים‪.‬‬ ‫האם פירושו של טור־סיני ופירושיהם של החוקרים האחרונים כקרוס והלפרן‪ ,‬שאין‬ ‫גינוי בדברי דבורה לשבט ראובן‪ ,‬ואין לראות ב”למה” מילית שאלה ותמיהה ריטורית‪-‬‬ ‫אירונית‪ ,‬היא דעה חדשה בתרגומים ובפירושים?‬ ‫הראשון שתרגם ופירש את כל הכתוב על ראובן ב”שירת דבורה” בצורה שלילית‬ ‫וחריפה היה יונתן‪“ :‬בזרעית ראובן סגיאין נכלי לבא‪ :‬למא תבתון ממשרית קרבא למתב‬ ‫בין תחומין בפרשת ארחא למשמע בשורתא דא מן דא לברק אתון אמרין דילך אנחנא‬ ‫לסיסרא אתון אמרין דילך אנחנא למשמע בשורא למידע אי דא היא משריתא נצחא‬ ‫בקרבא למהוי עמיה איכדין כשר למעבד לכון בית ראובן הלא ידעיתון דקדמוהי גלין‬ ‫מחשבות לבא”‪ .‬רש”י קיצר את הדברים ונתן את תמציתן בפירושו‪“ :‬אבל בחילוקי לבו‬ ‫של ראובן רבו חקקי לב נכלי לבא ערמומית ומה היא ערמומיתו ישב לו בין משפתי‬ ‫המלחמה לשמוע מי נוצח ויהיה עמו”‪ .‬את פירוש רש”י קיבלו כל הפרשנים המסורתיים‬ ‫בימי הביניים ובעת החדשה‪.‬‬ ‫לעומת הכתוב בתרגום יונתן הארמי שונה תרגום הכתוב על ראובן בתרגום הערבי‬ ‫של ר’ סעדיה גאון ל”שירת דבורה”‪ 88,‬וכן בתרגומים הערביים־יהודיים שאחריו תורגמו‬ ‫הדברים אחרת מתרגום יונתן‪ .‬רס”ג תרגם‪ :‬ואקסאם ראובן אכת’ר מן אן ירסמהם אלקלב‪:‬‬ ‫לא תקימון בין אלמרתבתין לתסמעו צפיר אלקטוע פאן לאקסאמכם כת’יר אסתברא‬ ‫אלקלב”‪ :‬ופלוגות ראובן יותר ממה יתאר הלב (יעלה על הדעת)‪ :‬לא ישבת בין המשפתים‬ ‫לשמוע שריקות עדרים כי לפלוגותיהם גדולים ברי לבב‪.‬‬ ‫את “חקקי לב” תרגם באופן חיובי כ”יתארם הלב” ולא “נכלי לבא” כיונתן‪ ,‬ואת‬ ‫“חקרי לב” תרגם כ”ברי לבב”‪ ,‬וחשוב מזה את “למה” תרגם “לא”‪ 89.‬ולא רק בפסוק זה‬ ‫תרגם רס”ג “למה” כמילית שלילה “לא”‪ ,‬אלא גם בכתוב על דן ב”שירת דבורה”‪“ :‬ודן‬ ‫למה יגור אניות” (פסוק ‪“ :)17‬ודן לא יקים פי אלספן”‪ ,‬וכן בכמה מקומות בספר איוב‬

‫‪ .87‬ראו‪ :‬קרוס‪ ,‬מיתוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,235‬ושם‪ ,‬ביבליוגרפיה; הלפרן‪ ,‬ההיסטוריון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;384‬קרוס‪ ,‬קאנון‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .55–54‬וראו לאחרונה‪ :‬אמית‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,103‬שקיבלה את דעתו של קרוס‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .88‬על תרגום “שירת דבורה” לרס”ג בערבית־יהודית‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬רצהבי‪ ,‬שרידים‪ ,‬עמ’ קסח‪-‬קעח; מלמד‪,‬‬ ‫תרגום יונתן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;206-198‬שונרי‪ ,‬שירת דבורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;86-77‬רצהבי‪ ,‬שירת דבורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;219-211‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬התרגום הקדום‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.18-14‬‬ ‫‪ .89‬לראשונה העיר על כך ע”צ מלמד במאמרו “תרגום יונתן ותפסיר ערבי לשירת דבורה” וציין‬ ‫שכך תרגם רס”ג גם באיוב יג ‪ .24‬ראו‪ :‬מלמד‪ ,‬תרגום יונתן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.200‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪17‬‬

‫ובמקומות אחרים‪ 90.‬גם תרגום אחר בערבית־יהודית לנביאים ראשונים תרגם את הכתוב‬ ‫על ראובן ב”שירת דבורה”‪ ,‬כמו תרגום רס”ג‪“ :‬ומן קסאם ראובן צאפיי אלניה‪ :‬לם אקמת‬ ‫בין אלמרתבתין אלסאמע צפיר אלקטוע פמן ראובן אגלי סאלמי אלניה”‪“ 91:‬ומפלגות‬ ‫(חלקי) ראובן ָב ֵרי הכוונה‪ :‬לא ישבת בין המשפתים (כ)שומע שריקות עדרים ומראובן‬ ‫רבים תמימי הכוונה (בעלי כוונות טובות)”‪.‬‬ ‫נראה לי‪ ,‬אם כדעת טור־סיני‪ ,‬שהשמיט את הכתוב המגנה ואם כחוקרים אחרים‬ ‫שתיקנו את הכתוב או פירשו את הכתוב מגנאי לשבח‪ 92,‬שאין ב”שירת דבורה” כל גינוי‬ ‫לשבט ראובן אלא להיפך דברי שבח‪ .‬ומהם דברי השבח? הם יתקבלו אם נניח שנוסחו‬ ‫הראשוני של החרוז היה דברי שבח לראובן‪:‬‬ ‫בפלגות ראובן גדולים חקקי לב‬ ‫לפלגות ראובן גדלים חקרי לב‬

‫‪93‬‬

‫אם נחפש את צורתו המקורית של החרוז‪ ,‬הנותנת לנו דברי שבח לראובן ולא גינוי‪,‬‬ ‫אזי הנוסח הקדום יתכן והיה‪:‬‬ ‫בפלגות ראובן גדלים חקקי[ם]‬ ‫לבי לפלגות ראובן גדלים חקקי[ם]‬ ‫העברתי מסוף הצלע הראשונה את “לב” וגרסתי “לבי” על־פי דברי השבח שבשירת‬ ‫דבורה עצמה (פסוק ‪“ :)9‬לבי‪ 94‬לחקקי ישראל”‪ .‬הוספת החרוז “למה ישבת בין המשפתים‬ ‫לשמע שריקות עדרים” היא החדרה מאוחרת לתוך הטקסט הכוללת דברי גינוי לראובן‬ ‫על אי השתתפותו במלחמה וזאת במסגרת הוויכוח אם השתתף שבט ראובן בכיבוש עבר‬ ‫הירדן המערבי או לא (ראו להלן)‪.‬‬ ‫ב”שירת דבורה” ה”חוקקים” הם מנהיגי העם‪ ,‬הם המתנדבים בעם‪“ :‬לבי לחקקי‬ ‫ישראל ישראל המתנדבים בעם ברכו ה’” (פסוק ‪ .)9‬ואין “חוקק” אלא צורה אחרת של‬ ‫“מחוקק”‪ ,‬וההבדל הוא רק במ”ם התצורה של השם‪ 95,‬המופיע גם בצורה חיובית באותה‬ ‫שירה‪“ :‬מני מכיר ירדו מחקקים” (פסוק ‪ .)14‬כן מופיע השם “מחוקק” ב”ברכת משה”‬ ‫ככינוי למשה “חלקת מחקק ספון” (דב’ לג ‪ ,)21‬וב”ברכת יעקב”‪‘ ,‬שבט ‪ /‬מחקק’ (בר’ מט‬

‫‪ .90‬ראו בהערה הקודמת מה שהזכיר מלמד‪ .‬בפירושו לספר איוב תרגם רס”ג את “למה” בפרק ז ‪,20‬‬ ‫“לם” (ובנוסח אחר של כתבי־יד “לא”)‪ ,‬ופירש “ויהיה פירוש למה שמתני כמו למה נמות לעיניך (בר’ מז‬ ‫‪ )19‬וכמו למה יבואו מלכי אשור (דה”ב לב ‪ )4‬ודומיהם‪ ,‬וכן תרגם באיוב יג ‪ 24‬ועוד‪ .‬ראו בפירוט‪ :‬קאפח‪,‬‬ ‫איוב‪ ,‬לפסוקים הנ”ל ולפסוקים אחרים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .91‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬התרגום הקדום‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.96‬‬ ‫‪ .92‬ראו לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .93‬על החזרות ב”שירת דבורה”‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬עיונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;75–72‬על סוגה של החזרה הזאת‬ ‫כחזרת צלעות בחרוז‪ ,‬בשינוי פרט‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬החזרה והתקבולת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.280–275‬‬ ‫‪ .94‬נראה שיש לפרש כרבין את “לבי” ב”שירת דבורה” על־פי הערבית “לבי(כ)” במשמעות ‘הנני‬ ‫לפניך לשירותך’‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬רבין‪ ,‬שופטים ה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.126‬‬ ‫‪ .95‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬נוספות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.89‬‬

‫*‪18‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫‪ ,)10‬וראו גם יש’ לג ‪ ;22‬תה’ ס ‪ = 9‬קח ‪ .9‬מי ששינה את “חקקים”‪ ,‬ל”חקקי לב” ול”חקרי‬ ‫לב”‪ ,‬אולי על פי “הוי החקקים חקקי און” (יש’ י ‪ ,)1‬שינה אותו לכתוב שיש בו נימה‬ ‫שלילית‪ ,‬מגמה שלילית כלפי ראובן‪ .‬כנראה הוא זה שהחדיר את הפסוק המגנה אותו‬ ‫על שלוותו ועל אי היחלצותו למלחמת השבטים בכנענים‪ .‬ייתכן ומילים וצירופים מן‬ ‫הכתוב‪“ ,‬למה ישבת בין המשפתים לשמע שרקות עדרים”‪ ,‬היו בברכה חיובית לראובן‪,‬‬ ‫כמו שפירשו רס”ג וטור־סיני‪ ,‬אך מי ששינה את הפסוק שינה כך שאי־אפשר לשחזר את‬ ‫החרוז הקדום‪ ,‬בטובעו אותו במטבע אירוני‪ ,‬בשאלה רטורית־אירונית כביכול‪.‬‬ ‫גם כאן כמו בשתי הברכות הקודמות ב”ברכת משה” וב”ברכת יעקב”‪ ,‬נראה לי שהיו‬ ‫ברכות קדומות חיוביות על שבט ראובן שחלו בהן ידיים ועברו עיבודים מגמתיים ועיון‬ ‫מדוקדק בלשונן ובסגנונן הנוכחיים מראה את המקור המשוער ואת העיבוד המגמתי‬ ‫המאוחר‪.‬‬ ‫אני מקבל באופן עקרוני את פירושיו של טור־סיני‪ ,‬אך לא את תיקוני הנוסח שלו‪.‬‬ ‫טור־סיני מניח בצדק שהכתוב על ראובן‪ ,‬וכן על יתר השבטים‪ ,‬ב”שירת דבורה”‪ .‬אינו‬ ‫קללה אלא ברכה ואין בו גינוי על אי בואם למלחמה ועל אי התנדבותם למען העם‪,‬‬ ‫ובמילים שלו‪“ :‬אין כאן אפוא כל האשמה כנגד ראובן‪ ,‬אשר גם הוא בא עם גדוליו לעזרת‬ ‫ה’ בקרב”‪ 96.‬נראה שהכתוב על ראובן ב”שירת דבורה” עבר שינוי ועריכה מגמתית כדי‬ ‫להכשיר את הדרך בתחילה לשלטון בית יוסף‪ ,‬ולאחר מכן ליהודה‪ ,‬לבית דוד‪.‬‬ ‫ד‪ .‬בין “ברכות” יעקב ומשה והכתוב ב”שירת דבורה” על ראובן‬ ‫נראה לי שה”ברכות” ב”ברכת יעקב” ב”ברכת משה” וב”שירת דבורה” לראובן‬ ‫משקפות ארבע תקופות בתולדות שבט ראובן ואם ננסה לסדרן לפי סדר הגיוני לפני‬ ‫שנבדוק את יתר המקורות‪ ,‬אזי הסדר נראה כך‪:‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬ברכת יעקב בחלקה הראשון (מט ‪ )3‬משקפת את זמן ראשיתו של שבט ראובן‬ ‫וגדולתו‪ ,‬וככל הנראה לתקופה זו‪ ,‬תקופת בכורתו ושלטונו של שבט ראובן‪ ,‬שייכת‬ ‫התפשטותו צפונה בעבר הירדן המזרחי עד הפרת (דה”א ה ‪ 97,)9‬השתתפותו‬ ‫בעזרה לשבטים “אחים”‪ ,‬בית יוסף‪ ,‬בכיבוש מרכז ארץ כנען בעבר הירדן המערבי‬ ‫(במ’ לב)‪ 98,‬המסורות המיוחסות לה’ המנצח והכובש בבשן ובבית בעל פעור (תה’‬ ‫סח)‪ 99,‬התפשטותו עד למגע עם שבט יהודה (יהו’ טו ‪ ;6‬יח ‪ 100.)17‬יש הרואים‬ ‫סממנים לגדולתו ולחשיבותו של ראובן בסיפור הדודאים (בר’ ל ‪ ,)20-14‬המראה‬ ‫זיקה בין ראובן ללידת יוסף וללידת יששכר וזבולון‪ ,‬דבר המראה מעשה של בכור‬ ‫במשפחה‪ ,‬והרי על בכורתו של ראובן אין מסורת החולקת על כך‪ .‬חשיבותו של‬

‫‪ .96‬ראו‪ :‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.61‬‬ ‫‪ .97‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬בדיונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪-*5‬ו‪*18‬‬ ‫‪ .98‬ראו‪ :‬ליונשטם‪ ,‬מסורת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.26-12‬‬ ‫‪ .99‬ראו‪ :‬די מור‪ ,‬יהוויזם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.198-171‬‬ ‫‪ .100‬ראו‪ :‬ליונשטם‪ ,‬בהן‪ ,‬טור ‪.40‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪19‬‬

‫ראובן כבכור הראוי לשלטון עולה גם מהשתתפותו במרד נגד משה ואהרן (במ’‬ ‫טו — ראה להלן)‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬גדולתו של שבט ראובן וחשיבותו בקרב השבטים‪ ,‬נמשכה ככל הנראה‪ ,‬עד לימי‬ ‫יפתח הגלעדי שאז עלתה חשיבותו של שבט גד‪-‬גלעד‪ ,‬או בשל היותו עסוק‬ ‫בהגנה על נחלתו מפני אויבים לא היה יכול לעמוד כקודם בראש שבטי ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫סממנים לירידה בכוחו של שבט ראובן באה כתוצאה מהפולשים‪ ,‬מדיינים‬ ‫ושבטים אחרים בימי שאול‪ .‬הירידה במעמדו וחשיבותו משתקפת גם בהעמדתו‬ ‫מן הצד‪ ,‬אם נקבל את הפירוש המאוחר לדברים על ראובן‪ ,‬ב”שירת דבורה” על‬ ‫מלחמת דבורה וברק בן אבינעם בכנענים‪.‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬ירידתו ככל הנראה בשל המלחמה בפולשים בימי שאול כפי שהיא משתקפת‬ ‫בברכת משה (דב לג ‪ .)6‬על כך שזאת תקופת שאול אנו למדים מהקדמת העיסוק‬ ‫בבנימין לפני יוסף‪.‬‬ ‫ד‪ .‬ירידת כוחו של שבט ראובן הביאה לכתיבת ספרות המנמקת את ירידתו‪ ,‬אך‬ ‫לא את סילוקו מן התודעה שהוא בכור וראשון לשבטי ישראל‪ ,‬שכבר נתקבלה‬ ‫בעם‪ .‬ההסברים לירידת ראובן הם הנימוקים לעליית יוסף ויהודה‪ ,‬ומשום כך הם‬ ‫מגמתיים ואינם בהכרח קשורים להיסטוריה של שבט ראובן‪.‬‬ ‫ראובן הוא בכור יעקב בכל המסורות במקרא מה שמעיד על קדמותה של מסורת‬ ‫זו‪ ,‬אפילו המשמיצים את שבט ראובן לא התעלמו ממסורת זאת‪ ,‬אלא הביאוהו תמיד‬ ‫כשבט הראשון‪ ,‬כבנו בכורו של יעקב‪ ,‬ומצאו סיבות ותירוצים לירידתו מהבכורה‪ .‬ידיעות‬ ‫על גדולתו וחשיבותו של שבט ראובן נשתמרו במקומות אחרים במקרא (ראו לעיל‬ ‫ולהלן)‪ ,‬ואף בשלושה מקורות אלה שב”ברכת יעקב” ב”ברכת משה” וב”שירת דבורה”‬ ‫נשארו הדים לימי גדולתו ובכורתו בשבטים‪ .‬לעיל‪ ,‬ניסינו להראות שבשלוש יצירות אלה‬ ‫השתמשו העורכים המאוחרים בחומר כתוב‪ ,‬בברכות ששיבחו את שבט ראובן‪ ,‬שינו‪ ,‬גרעו‬ ‫והוסיפו בהן למטרתם ולמגמתם‪ .‬שלושת כתובים אלה יתבהרו על פי כתובים אחרים‬ ‫במקרא הנוגעים לשבט ראובן‪.‬‬ ‫פרשנות פנים־מקראית ניתנת על ידי מי שכתב את דברי־הימים פרק ה‪ ,‬המציין‬ ‫במפורש את מגמותיהם של עורכי פרקי הברכות‪ .‬הדבר בא לידי ביטוי ב”ברכת יעקב”‬ ‫וב”ברכת משה” והכותב אף מסכם את מגמותיהם המנוגדות של העורכים בהסבירו את‬ ‫הסיבות לירידתו של ראובן בכור השבטים בנסיון לפשר בין העורכים המצדדים בבית‬ ‫יוסף ובין העורכים המצדדים ביהודה ובבית דוד‪“ :‬ובני ראובן בכור ישראל כי הוא הבכור‬ ‫ובחללו יצועי אביו נתנה בכרתו לבני יוסף בן ישראל ולא להתייחש לבכרה‪ :‬כי יהודה‬ ‫גבר באחיו ולנגיד ממנו והבכרה ליוסף” (דה”א‪ ,‬ה ‪ 101.)2–1‬יתרה מזו‪ ,‬מחבר פסוקים אלה‪,‬‬ ‫‪ .101‬הזיקה בין ירידת שבט ראובן ועלייתם של יוסף ויהודה‪ ,‬המשתמעת מן הכתוב כאן‪ ,‬נמצאת גם‬ ‫בסיפור יוסף ובעיבודו‪ .‬בסיפור יוסף‪ ,‬יוסף הוא הדמות המרכזית וכנראה בנוסחו הקדום של הסיפור‪,‬‬ ‫ראובן אומנם ירד במעמדו לעומת יוסף‪ ,‬אך עדיין הוא הבכור והוא הדואג ליוסף (ראו גם להלן)‪ .‬בעיבודו‬ ‫של הסיפור הוכנס יהודה לסיפור כגורם העולה על ראובן בפעולותיו להצלת יוסף ובהבאת יוסף להכרה‬ ‫באחיו (ראו‪ :‬ליונשטם‪ ,‬ראובן ויהודה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)70-69‬‬

‫*‪20‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫שבזמנו לא הייתה כבר חשיבות למגמותיהם של הטקסטים ההם‪ ,‬וכששבט ראובן כשבט‪,‬‬ ‫כבר אינו קיים‪ ,‬תיאר בהמשך הפרק את קורות ראובן על־פי המקורות‪ ,‬או המסורות שהיו‬ ‫בידיו ללא מגמתיות שבטית־מדינית כלשהי ואף בנימה חיובית (ראו להלן)‪ .‬הוא התעלם‬ ‫מדברי הדחייה וההשמצה על ראובן‪ ,‬ומאלה שנאמרו על שמעון ולוי ב”ברכת יעקב”‪ ,‬וכן‬ ‫מדברי האירוניה והגנאי שב”שירת דבורה”‪.‬‬ ‫כמו בדברי יעקב על שמעון ולוי שקוללו ב”ברכת יעקב” ושסופרו עליהם סיפורי‬ ‫השמצה דוגמת סיפור אונס דינה (בר’ לד)‪ ,‬סיפור מלחמתו של שבט לוי לצד משה בבני‬ ‫ישראל החוטאים‪ ,‬וכן לגבי שמעון בהשמצת נשיאו בעוון פעור שבשלו באה מגפה על‬ ‫‪102‬‬ ‫בני ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫דברי יעקב (בר’ מט ‪ )4‬על מרדו של ראובן ועל חילול יצועו יתבהרו רק על רקע‬ ‫הסיפורים וההערות על השבט במקרא עצמו בסיפורים המסופרים בספר במדבר על‬ ‫קורות שבט ראובן‪ .‬בבמדבר טז מסופר על מרד בני ראובן‪ ,‬שבשיתוף עם בני לוי‪ ,‬באו‬ ‫בטענות כנגד משה ואהרן‪ ,‬על ההנהגה ועל השררה‪“ :‬ויקח קרח בן יצהר בן קהת בן לוי‬ ‫ודתן ואבירם בני אליאב בן פלת בן ראובן ויקהלו על משה ועל אהרן ויאמרו אליהם רב‬ ‫לכם כי כל העדה כלם קדושים ובתוכם ה’ ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה’” (במ’ טז ‪ ,)3 ,1‬וכבר‬ ‫‪103‬‬ ‫עמדו על כך שגם צירוף בני ראובן למרד קורח הוא משני ויש להפריד בין הסיפורים‪,‬‬ ‫לדעתי תוספת הגנאי לברכת יעקב (פסוק ‪ ,)4‬יצאה מחוגי עורכים כהניים מבית צדוק‬ ‫‪104‬‬ ‫שבמקדש ירושלים שביהודה‪.‬‬ ‫אין לדון בכתוב שב”שירת דבורה” על ראובן כעל תגובה לשבט ראובן שלא בא‬ ‫לעזרת שבטי ישראל במלחמת דבורה‪ ,‬אלא‪ ,‬נראה‪ ,‬שהכתוב ב”שירת דבורה” מעוגן‬ ‫בוויכוח אם היה חלק לשבט ראובן בכיבוש הארץ אם לא‪ .‬ויכוח זה משתקף בסיפור‬ ‫על התנחלותם של בני גד ובני ראובן (במ’ לב)‪ .‬ליונשטם ניתח את הסיפור למסורותיו‪,‬‬ ‫לרבדיו ולעיבודים שחלו בו כשבמרכז עמדה השאלה מהו בסיס הקשר בין שבטי עבר‬ ‫הירדן המזרחי‪ ,‬ראובן וגד‪ ,‬לבין שבטי עבר הירדן המערבי? לדעת ליונשטם יסוד הסיפור‪,‬‬ ‫הוא טענת בני ראובן וגד‪ ,‬ש”המסורת הקדומה סיפרה בפשטות‪ ,‬שמשה הכיר בצדקת‬ ‫טענתם של בני גד ובני ראובן‪ ,‬שאינטרסים חיוניים מחייבים את התיישבותם בעבר הירדן‬ ‫מזרחה ושלסיפור זה נוספה במאוחר בלבד דרישתו של משה שישתתפו במלחמות כנען‪...‬‬ ‫משנתגבשה ההשקפה ההיסטוריוגרפית‪ ,‬שבימי יהושע גמרו שבטי ישראל את כיבוש‬ ‫ארץ כנען כמחלקות שונות של צבא אחד נוצרה בהכרח ההשקפה‪ ,‬שהשירות בצבא זה‬ ‫הוא הטעם היחיד העשוי להצדיק את מעמדו של שבט בתוך עם ישראל‪ ,‬ואי־אפשר היה‬ ‫‪105‬‬ ‫להעלות על הדעת שמשה הסכים להתנחלותו של שבט שנשתמט מחובה בסיסית זו”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .102‬ראו‪ :‬ליונשטם‪ ,‬דתן‪ ,‬ובפירוט‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .103‬ליכט‪ ,‬במדבר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .114–113‬עם זאת בדב’ יא ‪ 6‬מיוחס המרד רק לבני ראובן‪ ,‬ככל הנראה מפני‬ ‫שהכתוב הזה יצא מחוגי הלוויים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .104‬על העריכה של בראשית מט ודברים לג אני דן במקום אחר‪ .‬ראו לעת עתה במאמר זה‪,‬‬ ‫ובאבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .105‬ליונשטם‪ ,‬מסורת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.18–17‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪21‬‬

‫בוויכוח הזה מעוגנים דברי דבורה‪ .‬אלה שעשו את העיבוד המשני של הסיפור הם‬ ‫אלה שהוסיפו את השאלה הרטורית־אירונית‪“ :‬למה ישבת‪ ,”...‬והם אלה ששינו את‬ ‫המגמה החיובית שייתכן שהייתה כלפי שבט ראובן בכתובים קדומים‪ ,‬כפי שהראינו לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫ב”ברכת יעקב” לראובן‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬חלו ידי עורכים שאינם מבית־יוסף ואינם משבט‬ ‫הלוויים ששירתו בממלכת הצפון‪ .‬עורכים אלה‪ ,‬כוהנים ממקדש ירושלים שביהודה‪ ,‬לקחו‬ ‫ברכה שנאמרה על שבט ראובן וערכו אותה למגמתם‪ .‬מגמות העורכים והמעבדים את‬ ‫הברכות הייתה לקדם את יהודה על ידי סילוק‪ ,‬דחייה והשמצה של שלושת השבטים‬ ‫שקדמו ליהודה‪ ,‬ראובן שמעון ולוי‪ .‬גם ב”ברכת משה” נערכו הדברים על ראובן ושמעון‬ ‫כדי לקדם את בנימין ויוסף ועריכה כזאת נמצאת במקורות אחרים במקרא ובאה לידי‬ ‫ביטוי בסיפורים ובהערות‪ .‬בסיפורי יעקב מסופר על חשיבותה של רחל אם יוסף ובנימין‪,‬‬ ‫ועל אהבת יעקב אליה בניגוד ללאה‪ ,‬אמם של ראובן‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪ ,‬המתוארת כאשה שיעקב‬ ‫נשאה מכורח הנסיבות ושאינו אוהבה כאהבתו לרחל‪ .‬ב”סיפור יוסף” (בר’ לז‪-‬נ) עומד‬ ‫במרכז יוסף‪ .‬הוא הבן האהוב‪ ,‬בן האם האהובה על יעקב‪ ,‬הוא שעולה לגדולה במצרים‪,‬‬ ‫שכל משפחתו תלויה בו‪ ,‬ואילו ראובן הוא האיש שלא מצליח להציל את יוסף מידי אחיו‪.‬‬ ‫ככל הנראה‪ ,‬בנוסחו הקדום של “סיפור יוסף”‪ ,‬שמוצאו בוודאי משבט אפרים‪ ,‬ראובן הוא‬ ‫שמצליח להציל את יוסף ממוות על ידי מכירה למדיינים‪ ,‬ומעשה ראובן מתואר בצורה‬ ‫חיובית‪ .‬בעיבוד המאוחר של הסיפור בממלכת יהודה הכניסו את יהודה לתמונה כמי‬ ‫שמצליח להציל את יוסף ממוות ולשכנע בנאומו את יוסף להתוודע אל אחיו‪ 106.‬בסיפור‬ ‫על כיבוש הארץ משה לא ממנה איש משבטו‪ ,‬שבט לוי‪ ,‬או משבט ראובן‪ ,‬שהצליח לכבוש‬ ‫את נחלתו בעבר הירדן המזרחי‪ ,‬למלא את מקומו בכיבוש הארץ‪ ,‬אלא ממנה איש משבט‬ ‫אפרים‪ ,‬את יהושע בן נון (והדברים יידונו במפורט במקום אחר)‪.‬‬ ‫ה‪ .‬קווים כלליים לתולדות שבט ראובן‬ ‫הניסיון הראשון לצייר את תולדות שבט ראובן בקווים כלליים נעשה על ידי מחבר‬ ‫פרק ה בספר דברי הימים א ועם כל ההסתייגויות מכך שספר דברי הימים הוא ספר‬ ‫מאוחר‪ ,‬מגמתי וסלקטיבי‪ ,‬אין ספק בעיניי שמחבר פרק ה נעזר במקורות היסטוריים‬ ‫אותנטיים לתולדות שבט ראובן שבחלקם לא הובנו על ידי החוקרים‪ .‬במאמרי‪“ ,‬בדיונות‬ ‫ספרותיים ותיאורים היסטוריוגרפיים בדברי הימים א‪ ,‬ה — איזה תגלת פלאסר הגלה‬ ‫את בארה נשיא הראובני?”‪ 107,‬הראיתי שבפרק זה אין בלבול ואין חזרות‪ ,‬אלא יש מהלך‬ ‫קורות שבט ראובן מראשיתו ועד הגלייתו לאשור על ידי תגלת פלאסר השלישי בשנת‬ ‫‪ 732‬לפנה”ס‪ ,‬ונסכם את האמור שם בקצרה‪:‬‬ ‫בפתיחת הפרק צוינה בכורת ראובן ודחיקתו ממנה על ידי יוסף ויהודה (‪)3-1‬‬ ‫אחרי זה מאוזכרים חמישה מאורעות שאירעו לשבט ראובן לפי סדר כרונולוגי‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬יחס ראובן‪ ,‬התיישבותו והגלית בארה נשיא הראובני על ידי מלך אשור (‪)9-4‬‬

‫‪ .106‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬וכן לעיל‪ ,‬וראו‪ :‬ליונשטם‪ ,‬ראובן ויהודה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.80-79‬‬ ‫‪ .107‬אבישור‪ ,‬בדיונות‪ ,‬עמ’ *‪.18*–5‬‬

‫*‪22‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫‪ .2‬מלחמת שבט ראובן עם ההגריאים בימי שאול המלך (‪)10‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬יחס גד‪ ,‬התיישבותו והמפקד בימי יותם מלך יהודה ובימי ירבעם מלך ישראל‬ ‫(‪)17-11‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬שבטי עבר הירדן המזרחי ומלחמתם עם ההגריאים (‪)22-18‬‬ ‫‪108‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬יחס של חצי המנשה והגליית שבטי עבר הירדן על ידי מלך אשור (‪)25-23‬‬ ‫במאמר ההוא הראיתי שסדר זה הוא כרונולוגי‪ ,‬אם נניח שהגלית בארה נשיא הראובני‬ ‫הייתה לא על ידי תגלת פלאסר השלישי‪ ,‬כדעת כל הפרשנים והחוקרים‪ ,‬אלא על ידי‬ ‫‪109‬‬ ‫תגלת פלאסר הראשון בסוף המאה הי”ב ותחילת המאה הי”א‪ ,‬סביב שנת ‪ 1100‬לפנה”ס‪.‬‬ ‫שתי מלחמות שבט ראובן עם ההגריאים אינה מלחמה אחת אלא שתיים עם שבטים‬ ‫שונים‪ ,‬האחת אירעה בימי שאול בשנים ‪ 1006–1025‬לפנה”ס; אחר כך היה מפקד יותם‬ ‫וירבעם השני בשנת ‪ 750‬לפנה”ס ובאותן השנים התרחשה המלחמה השנייה עם ההגריאים‬ ‫ושבטים נוודים אחרים‪ ,‬ולבסוף הגליית שני השבטים וחצי מעבר הירדן המזרחי לאשור‬ ‫‪110‬‬ ‫על ידי תגלת פלאסר השלישי שהייתה בשנת ‪ 732‬לפנה”ס‪.‬‬ ‫מתי הייתה תקופת השגשוג של שבט ראובן? על ראובן נאמר “ולמזרח ישב עד‬ ‫לבוא מדבר למן הנהר פרת כי מקניהם רבו בארץ גלעד” (דה”א ה ‪ .)9‬תקופת השגשוג‬ ‫וההתפשטות של ראובן מתחילה עם כיבוש עבר הירדן המזרחי מידי מלכי האמורי‪ ,‬סיחון‬ ‫מלך חשבון ועוג מלך הבשן‪ 111.‬מתי היה הכיבוש? ככל הנראה בגל של שבטי ישראל‪ ,‬בני‬ ‫לאה‪ ,‬ראובן‪ ,‬שמעון‪ ,‬לוי ויהודה‪ .‬לדעתי‪ ,‬שבט יהודה יחד עם משפחות משבט שמעון‪,‬‬ ‫משפחת כלב וחלק מהקיני חדרו לכנען דרך הנגב‪ ,‬דרך ערד הכנענית‪ ,‬כפי שמסופר‬ ‫באחת המסורות (במ’ כא ‪ ,)3–1‬פריצה שהצליחה‪ ,‬ואילו שבטי לאה האחרים‪ ,‬ראובן‪,‬‬ ‫שמעון ולוי והנלווים אליהם פרצו דרך אֹבות ועיי העברים למואב‪ ,‬או לפי מסורת אחרת‬ ‫סבבו את ארץ אדום והגיעו עד למואב ושם נלחמו באמורי‪ ,‬כבשו את ארצם והתנחלו בה‬ ‫עד לפרת (במ’ כ)‪ 112,‬עד שבא תגלת פלאסר הראשון הענישם על התפשטותם והגלה את‬ ‫נשיאם‪ ,‬את בארה‪.‬‬ ‫אם נקודת המוצא היא הגליית הנשיא בארה על ידי תגלת פלאסר הראשון מלך אשור‪,‬‬ ‫שכאמור אירע סביב ‪ 1100‬לפנה”ס‪ ,‬אזי נוכל לשער את זמן הכיבוש וההתנחלות של שבט‬ ‫ראובן והנלווים אליו‪ .‬על בארה נאמר שהוא דור עשירי לראובן ואם נחשב זמנו של דור‬ ‫כ־‪ 25‬שנה הרי שחלפו ‪ 250‬שנה‪ ,‬דהיינו המלחמה והכיבוש היו סביב אמצע המאה הי”ד‬ ‫וזהו הזמן והרקע המתוארים לנו במכתבי אל עמארנה ובמיוחד במכתבי מלכי האמורי‬ ‫למצרים‪ .‬זמן פלישת העפר־החבירו‪ ,‬העברים והשוסים לעבר ארץ כנען‪ ,‬לעבר הירדן‬

‫‪ .108‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ *‪.13‬‬ ‫‪ .109‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ *‪.18*–14‬‬ ‫‪ .110‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ *‪.13*–12‬‬ ‫‪ .111‬ראו בפירוט‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ *‪ .16*–15‬על הבשן באלף השני לפנה”ס‪ ,‬ועל התיישבות שבטי ישראל‬ ‫שם‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מזר‪ ,‬ערים וגלילות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;189-182‬די מור‪ ,‬יהוויזם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .112‬על כך אני דן במפורט במקום אחר‪.‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪23‬‬

‫המזרחי והמערבי‪ 113.‬לפיכך‪ ,‬נראה ששבטי עבר הירדן המזרחי ובראשם שבט ראובן הם‬ ‫הגל הראשון‪ .‬שבטי לאה היו הראשונים שהגיעו לפני יתר השבטים לארץ כנען המורחבת‬ ‫ורק אחרי הגל השני של בני יוסף וחדירתו לארץ כנען המערבית בסיוע שבטי עבר הירדן‬ ‫המזרחי בראשות ראובן‪ ,‬וכיבוש מרכז הארץ‪ ,‬נעשה הניסיון לאחד את השבטים שמשני‬ ‫צדי הירדן‪ .‬האיחוד נעשה הכרחי בתקופת ההתנחלות בשל שלוש סיבות‪:‬‬ ‫א) חדירות והתפשטויות של השבטים משני עברי הירדן‪ .‬משפחות ובתי אב מבני‬ ‫יוסף‪ ,‬חצי שבט המנשה‪ ,‬מכיר‪ ,‬נמצאים בעבר הירדן המזרחי (דה”א ו ‪ ,)56‬וכן‬ ‫מבני אפרים נמצאים בגלעד (שופ’ יב)‪ ,‬ומשבטי עבר הירדן המזרחי‪ ,‬מראובן‪,‬‬ ‫משמעון ומלוי נמצאים בעבר הירדן המערבי‪ .‬וכן הקשר ההדוק שנמצא בין ערים‬ ‫משני צדי הירדן‪ ,‬בין יבש גלעד ובין הגבעה (ראה סיפור פילגש בגבעה (שופ’‬ ‫י”ט‪-‬כ”א)‪ ,‬מלחמת שאול בנחש העמוני למען יבש גלעד (שמ”א יא)‪ ,‬והחסד‬ ‫שעשו אנשי יבש גלעד לשאול (שמ”א לא ‪.)13-11‬‬ ‫ב) גם הפשיטות של שבטים פולשים מהמדבר כמו פלישות המדיינים ועמלק בימי‬ ‫גדעון (שופ’ ו‪-‬ח) וכן נסיונות הכיבוש של מואב ועמון בימי אהוד (שופ’ ג ‪)30-12‬‬ ‫ובימי יפתח (שופ’ יא‪-‬יב) סייעו לשבטים משני עברי הירדן להתלכד ולהתאחד‬ ‫כשבטי ישראל‪ .‬ברית זו נערכה בוודאי באחד מהמקדשים בעבר הירדן המערבי‪,‬‬ ‫אם בשכם (ראה יהושע כד) ואם בשילה (שמ”א א)‪ ,‬בסיטואציה כזאת בראשות‬ ‫בית יוסף וביתר דיוק‪ ,‬שבט אפרים (יש לשים לב למסופר על “ברית שכם”‬ ‫שנעשתה על־ידי יהושע משבט אפרים — יהושע כד)‪.‬‬ ‫ג) הלחץ הכנעני על שבטי ישראל בעבר הירדן המערבי תרם לא מעט לאיחוד‬ ‫השבטים כפי שהדבר בא לביטוי במלחמת דבורה וברק ביבין מלך כנען‬ ‫ובהשתתפות רוב שבטי ישראל במלחמה זאת (שופ’ ד‪-‬ה)‪.‬‬ ‫אם נחזור לשבט ראובן נראה שעלייתו הייתה בזמן שבין אמצע המאה הי”ד וסוף‬ ‫המאה הי”ב‪ .‬המכה שקיבל שבט ראובן מתגלת פלאסר הראשון מלך אשור הביאה‬ ‫לתחילת הירידה שלו ולנדידה שלו דרומה ועד לעבר הירדן המערבי‪ .‬סופה של הירידה‬ ‫בימי שאול במלחמתו יחד עם שבטי עבר הירדן המזרחי בהגריאים בסוף המאה הי”א‪.‬‬ ‫לפי זה בכורתו של שבט ראובן הושגה בניצחונותיו בעבר הירדן המזרחי‪ .‬יש לשער‬ ‫ששיר המושלים על כיבוש חשבון עיר סיחון מלך האמורי היה בראשיתו שיר המהלל את‬ ‫שבטי עבר הירדן המזרחי ובראשם ראובן על נצחונותיהם על מלכי האמורי על סיחון מלך‬ ‫חשבון ועל עוג מלך הבשן‪ ,‬אלא שהוא שונה בימי יפתח והותאם לטענותיו של יפתח נגד‬ ‫מלך בני עמון‪ 114.‬הכיבושים בעבר הירדן המזרחי היו דגם לכיבושים בעבר הירדן המערבי‪,‬‬ ‫בארץ כנען המערבית‪ ,‬במיוחד עבור בית יוסף‪ ,‬לאפרים ולמנשה בני יוסף‪.‬‬

‫‪ .113‬ראו‪ :‬ייבין‪ ,‬כיבוש הארץ‪ ,‬טור’ ‪ ;102-79‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬ראובן (‪ ,)2‬טור’ ‪ ,294-287‬וראו לאחרונה‪ ,‬די מור‪,‬‬ ‫שם‪ ,‬במקומות שונים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .114‬על כך אני כותב במקום אחר‪.‬‬

‫*‪24‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫בכורתו‪ ,‬גדולתו וחשיבותו של שבט ראובן עולה מהפסוק הראשון שב”ברכת יעקב”‬ ‫(בר’ מט ‪ 115.)3‬כאמור לעיל‪ ,‬לדעתי יש להפריד בין שני הפסוקים ולייחס את הפסוק‬ ‫הראשון לימי גדולתו ועלייתו של שבט ראובן (במאה הי”ג) ואת הפסוק השני לימי‬ ‫ירידתו (מן המאה הי”א)‪ 116.‬הוא הדבר לגבי “ברכת משה” לראובן שככל הנראה בנוסחה‬ ‫הראשוני המשוער לעיל שיקפה את ימי גדולתו של שבט ראובן (מאה י”ג לפנה”ס)‪ ,‬ואת‬ ‫נוסחה הנוכחי לימי ירידתו‪ .‬כן הדבר לגבי הדברים ש”בשירת דבורה”‪ ,‬שביסודם הייתה‬ ‫ברכה מימי גדולתו של ראובן (מאה י”ב)‪ ,‬עת נחלץ לעזרת שבטי עבר הירדן המערבי‪,‬‬ ‫אם בכיבוש הארץ (כמסופר בבמ’ לג) ואם בימי דבורה‪ ,‬והשינויים שחלו בדברים הם‬ ‫מאוחרים ומשקפים את ירידתו של השבט (ראו לעיל)‪ .‬גדולתו של ראובן נמשכה גם‬ ‫במאה הי”א כפי שמתברר עתה מנוסח קומראן לשמ”א יא ומדברי יוספוס על מלחמת‬ ‫‪117‬‬ ‫שאול ביבש גלעד ועל ההתגייסות משבט ראובן‪ ,‬של מעל שבעת אלפים איש‪.‬‬ ‫מלחמותיו של ראובן במאה הי”א עם עמון ומואב (ראו‪ :‬שופ’ ג ‪ ,30–15‬שמ”א יא) ועם‬ ‫ההגריאים (כמתואר בדה”א ה) בימי שאול התישו את כוחותיו והקטינו את מספרו‪ .‬נראה‬ ‫שהיחס החיובי המתואר ככל הנראה בנוסחה הראשוני של “ברכת משה” ובאיזכורו בדברי‬ ‫דבורה מוצאו משבטי יוסף או מהלוויים שנלוו תחילה לראובן ולאחר מכן גם לבית יוסף‪,‬‬ ‫שאיתם קשר קשרים דו־כיווניים; חצי שבט המנשה התיישב בעבר הירדן המזרחי יחד‬ ‫עם ראובן וגד; היחלצותו של שבט ראובן בכיבוש הארץ ובמלחמת דבורה וברק בכנענים‬ ‫ושותפותו עם הלוויים במקדשים במזרח לירדן‪ ,‬הביאו לכך שקיבל יחס אוהד בספרות‬ ‫שמוצאה ממקדשי עבר הירדן המזרחי‪ ,‬מהמקדשים של חוגי הלוויים‪ 118.‬כשעברו הדברים‬ ‫לממלכת יהודה ולחוגי הכוהנים בירושלים הובע היחס השלילי כדי לפלס את הדרך‬ ‫לעליונותו של שבט יהודה ללגיטימיות של מלכות בית דוד‪ ,‬ולהכשרת הדרך לכוהנים‬ ‫מבית צדוק מייסדי הכהונה בירושלים מימי דוד ואילך‪.‬‬ ‫מי שייחס את המרידות של ראובן ולוי בסיפור מרד קורח ודתן ואבירם ומי שייחס‬ ‫לשמעון את חטא פעור‪ ,‬ומי שהשמיץ את שמעון ולוי בסיפור אונס דינה ואת לוי‬ ‫במלחמתו כנגד שבטי ישראל לימין משה‪ 119,‬הם הם שהשליכו את דברי הגנאי לאחור‬ ‫בברכות הקדומות ב”ברכת יעקב”‪ ,‬ב”ברכת משה” ובנאמר על ראובן ב”שירת דבורה”‪.‬‬ ‫הם האשימו את ראובן‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי במרידות ובחילול כבוד האב ובהפרת האחווה בין‬ ‫השבטים‪ .‬כל זה נעשה בעיקר על ידי הכוהנים מבית צדוק שמונו לכהונה על ידי דוד‬

‫‪ .115‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬וראו‪ :‬קרוס‪ ,‬קאנון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .54–53‬קרוס ציטט את מרטין נות‪ ,‬המדגיש את חשיבותם‬ ‫בתקופה הקדומה של השבטים — ראובן‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪ .‬ראו גם קרטיס‪ ,‬שבט ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;249-247‬די הופ‪,‬‬ ‫בראשית מט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.512-511‬‬ ‫‪ .116‬נות‪ ,‬הסטוריה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .88‬קרוס מניח שברכת יעקב לראובן היא אחידה‪ ,‬הכוללת את עלייתו‬ ‫וירידתו של שבט ראובן‪ ,‬ולכן הוא מייחס את חיבורה למאה הי”א לפנה”ס‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .117‬ראו‪ :‬קרוס‪ ,‬קאנון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.54‬‬ ‫‪ .118‬על הלוויים‪ ,‬מקדשיהם‪ ,‬מסורותיהם ופולמוס הכוהנים מבית צדוק במקדש ירושלים אני דן‬ ‫במקום אחר‪ .‬ראו לעת עתה הערותיי‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .119‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי‪.‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪25‬‬

‫במטרה לתת לגיטימיות לעליית דוד משבט יהודה לשלטון ולתת לגיטימיות לכוהנים‬ ‫מבית צדוק‪ ,‬שייחסו את עצמם לאהרן‪ ,‬להנהגה הדתית במלכות דוד וביתו‪ ,‬כנגד הנהגת‬ ‫בית יוסף והנהגת הלוויים בשבטי הצפון המתייחסים למשה‪ .‬הכוהנים בירושלים במלכות‬ ‫בית דוד השתמשו במקורות קדומים ועיבדום לצרכיהם ולמגמותיהם‪ ,‬כך שהמקורות‬ ‫שבידינו עתה בעריכתם הסופית מכילים מסורות אותנטיות ומסורות פולמוסיות‪ .‬יש‬ ‫בסיפורים על ראובן מסורות אותנטיות שנשמרו על ידי השבט ואחר כך עברו לשבטי‬ ‫הצפון בשל הקשרים ההדוקים שהיו ביניהם‪ ,‬ונשמרו בידי הלוויים שבממלכת הצפון‬ ‫וכשהגיעו ליהודה בימי הממלכה המאוחדת ואחרי חורבן ממלכת שומרון נתקבלו‬ ‫בפולמוס של חוגים מבית דוד וחוגי הכוהנים מבית צדוק‪.‬‬ ‫לשבט ראובן נלוו‪ ,‬ככל הנראה‪ ,‬לא מעטים מן הלוויים (ראו ערי הלוויים בעבר הירדן‬ ‫המזרחי) והם שירתו במקדשים‪ ,‬שבעבר הירדן המזרחי‪ .‬מרגע שהתפשטו הלוויים גם‬ ‫בקרב שבטי בית יוסף‪ ,‬ככל הנראה‪ ,‬פעלו לאחדות השבטים וליכדו אותם ליחידה אחת‬ ‫בטקסים שבמקדשים שם‪ .‬גם מוצאן של הברכות לשבטים ככל הנראה מן המקדשים שם‪.‬‬ ‫בקרב שבטי עבר הירדן היה מזבח קדום‪ ,‬היינו מקדש‪ ,‬שעליו היה מאבק בין שבטי עבר‬ ‫הירדן המערבי ושבטי עבר הירדן המזרחי (יהו’ כב)‪ ,‬ובהתחברות השבטים שמשני עברי‬ ‫הירדן נתבטלה פעילות מקדש זה ומסורותיו עברו לעבר הירדן המערבי‪ .‬כך למשל הניח‬ ‫רופא שמקדש הלוויים היה ליד מקום קבורתו של משה באשדת הפסגה על הר נבו‪ ,‬ושם‬ ‫היו אסיפות השבטים ושם מקום התהוות ברכת משה ושימושה בטקסים שם‪ 120.‬די מור‬ ‫ציין‪ ,‬שהיה מקדש לה’ אלוהי ישראל בבשן ושמזמור ס”ח‪ ,‬ביסודו‪ ,‬נתחבר שם‪ ,‬ושם הונחו‬ ‫היסודות של דת ה’ אלוהי ישראל‪ 121.‬קרוס שהראה את חשיבותו של שבט ראובן‪ ,‬שהיה‬ ‫בקשרים עם מדיין ועלה מן הדרום בהנהגת משה לעבר הירדן המזרחי‪ ,‬ציין שיש מספר‬ ‫סיבות להאמין שמקדש ראובן היה על הר נבו מול הר בעל פעור‪ 122.‬ייתכן שהסיפור על‬ ‫ביטולו של המזבח שבקרב שבטי עבר הירדן המזרחי קשור למקדש זה (יהו’ כב)‪.‬‬ ‫ו‪ .‬להשתלשלות המסורות על שבט ראובן‬ ‫אם נרצה לסכם את הדיון על שבט ראובן לפי שיטת המסורות מיסודם של קאסוטו‬ ‫וליונשטם‪ 123‬ולא לפי שיטת המקורות המקובלת‪ .‬ליונשטם דן במסורות דיון מעמיק‬ ‫ומפורט ועומד על דרכי השתלשלותן ועל דרכי מאבקן במסורות אחרות עד להתגבשותן‬ ‫בצורה המונחת לפנינו במקרא‪ .‬אך בזה לא פסקה צמיחתן ויש לעיין גם עיון מקיף‬ ‫במקורות העבריים היהודיים הבתר־מקראיים ולראות המשך הדיאלקטיקה‪ .‬במסורות‬ ‫ראה ליונשטם אידיאות החיות את חייהן; כאן הן נאבקות על קיומן וכאן הן נגנזות בשל‬ ‫‪124‬‬ ‫אי התאמתן‪ ,‬כאן הן מתפלגות וכאן הן שבות ועולות בשינוי צורה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .120‬ראו‪ :‬רופא‪ ,‬ברכת משה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.424–409‬‬ ‫‪ .121‬ראו‪ :‬די מור‪ ,‬יהוויזם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.207–103‬‬ ‫‪ .122‬קרוס‪ ,‬קאנון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.70 ,57‬‬ ‫‪ .123‬ראו בעיקר קאסוטו‪ ,‬בראשית; קאסוטו‪ ,‬שמות; קאסוטו‪ ,‬תעודות; ליונשטם‪ ,‬יציאת מצרים;‬ ‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬מבבל לכנען‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .124‬ראו בפירוט‪ :‬אבישור־בלאו‪ ,‬מחקרים‪ ,‬עמ’ יא‪-‬יט‪.‬‬

‫*‪26‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫לפי שיטה זאת יש לראות את התפתחות המסורות על שבט ראובן והשתלשלותן‬ ‫בדרך זאת‪ :‬בכל המסורות שבמקרא ראובן הוא בכורו של יעקב‪ ,‬הוא השבט הראשון‬ ‫שלו מגיעה הבכורה‪ ,‬השלטון והגדולה‪ .‬הוא גם השבט הראשון שכבש את נחלתו בעבר‬ ‫הירדן המזרחי‪ ,‬התיישב שם והמשיך להרחיב את נחלתו והגיע עד לנהר פרת‪ .‬לאחר‬ ‫מכן באה ירידה מגדולתו ומחשיבותו בין שבטי ישראל ועלו מסורות שונות המרמזות‬ ‫על סיבת ירידתו‪ ,‬וזאת על מנת להכשיר ולקדם את אחד השבטים לעמדת השלטון על‬ ‫כל השבטים‪ .‬לראשונה‪ ,‬ככל הנראה‪ ,‬הייתה הדחייה של ראובן בשבטי הצפון כדי לקדם‬ ‫את שבטי יוסף (אפרים ומנשה) ובנימין‪ ,‬בני רחל (ב”שירת דבורה”)‪ .‬אחר־כך הייתה‬ ‫דחייה בממלכת שאול כדי לקדם את בנימין (“ברכת משה”) ואחריה דחייה בממלכת דוד‬ ‫כדי לקדם את שבט יהודה (“ברכת יעקב”)‪ .‬מסורות כאלה צמחו בהתכנסויות שבטיות‬ ‫באירועים מרכזיים שבהם השתתפו שבטי ישראל‪ ,‬כמו אחר ניצחון במלחמה משותפת‬ ‫לרוב שבטי ישראל (“שירת דבורה”)‪ ,‬או במסגרת המלכת מלך (המלכת שאול — “ברכת‬ ‫משה”; המלכת דוד — “ברכת יעקב”)‪ ,‬או בהתכנסויות חגיגיות בימי חג ומועד‪ .‬המסורות‬ ‫על שבטי ישראל‪ ,‬ובכללם שבט ראובן‪ ,‬לא באו לביטוי רק בשירה העברית העתיקה‪ ,‬אלא‪,‬‬ ‫כאמור‪ ,‬גם בסיפורים‪ ,‬ברשימות ובהערות‪ .‬מסורת אחת תלתה את ירידת שבט ראובן‬ ‫באי היחלצותו לעזרת שבטי ישראל במלחמתם בכנען במלחמת דבורה (שופ’ ה ‪;)16-15‬‬ ‫מסורת אחרת תלתה את ירידת שבט ראובן בחילול כבוד אביו בשוכבו עם בלהה פילגש‬ ‫אביו (בר’ מט ‪ ,4‬וראו‪ :‬בר’ לה ‪ ;)22‬מסורת אחרת תלתה את הירידה במרד שבט ראובן‬ ‫במשה (במ’ טז)‪ .‬בעל ספר דברי הימים‪ ,‬שמצא את המסורות הללו לפניו‪ ,‬ניסה ליישב‬ ‫ביניהן על‪-‬ידי זה שבחר אחת המסורות‪ ,‬זאת שבברכת יעקב‪ ,‬והביא את מגמתן של שתי‬ ‫הברכות‪ ,‬מגמת “ברכת יעקב” לקדם את שבט יהודה ומגמת “ברכת משה” לקדם את שבט‬ ‫יוסף (דה”א ה ‪.)2-1‬‬ ‫השתלשלות המסורות ממשיכה בטקסטים העבריים והיהודיים הבתר־מקראיים‪.‬‬ ‫בספרות הבתר־מקראית הלכו בעקבות מחבר ספר דברי הימים ובחרו במעשה בלהה‬ ‫וראובן בלבד כמניע לירידתו או כסיבה להדרת ראובן מהבכורה והברכה‪ .‬בספרות הבתר־‬ ‫מקראית העמידו במרכז דיוניהם המדרשיים חטאו של ראובן ועונשו ואף עסקו בשאלה‬ ‫האם בלהה חטאה ומהו עונשה? על חטאם של ראובן ובלהה לא היו עוררין‪ ,‬הוא מוזכר‬ ‫ומפורש בדיני המקרא (ויק’ יח ‪ ;7‬כ ‪ ;11‬דב’ כג ‪ ;1‬כז ‪ ,)20‬אך מה היה עונשם? אם נאמר‬ ‫שראובן נענש בהדרתו מהבכורה‪ ,‬האם עונש זה הולם את המעשה? לפי הדין העונש‬ ‫הוא מוות אך עונש זה לא בוצע והשאלה היא למה? בעל “צוואת השבטים”‪ ,‬ב”צוואת‬ ‫ראובן”‪ 125‬ומחבר “ספר חנוך”‪ 126‬ניסו למלא את הפער שהשאיר הסיפור המקראי‪ .‬ב”צוואת‬ ‫ראובן” ניסו לתרץ את עונשו הקל של ראובן בכמה סיבות‪ :‬א) הפשע היה פשע נעורים; ב)‬ ‫אלוהים היכה אותו מכה גדולה על ירכו שבעה חודשים ורק תפילתו של יעקב אביו הצילה‬

‫‪ .125‬ראו‪ :‬כהנא‪ ,‬הספרים החיצוניים‪ ,‬עמ’ קנא‪-‬קנו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .126‬ראו שם‪ ,‬עמ’ רפו‪-‬רפז‪.‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪27‬‬

‫אותו ממוות; ג) ראובן התחרט ועינה את נפשו שבע שנים‪ ,‬לא אכל כל מאכל תאווה‬ ‫והתאבל על עוונו; ד) בלהה אשמה שהתרחצה עירומה‪ ,‬פחז עליו יצרו ונתפתה לעשות‬ ‫המעשה; ה) מהיום ההוא והלאה למד לקח נשמר ולא חטא; ו) הוא מזהיר את צאצאיו‬ ‫ומטיף להם שלא יעשו כמעשיו ויישמרו מהזנות ומאשת איש‪.‬‬ ‫מחבר “ספר חנוך” חוזר על חלק מהדברים שב”צוואת ראובן”‪ ,‬במיוחד על בלהה‬ ‫הרוחצת במים‪ ,‬אך הוא מפחית מאשמתה המתוארת ב”צוואת ראובן”‪ ,‬ואינו מוסיף שהיא‬ ‫‘עירומה ושיכורה’‪ ,‬אלא אומר שהיא “רוחצת במים בסתר”‪ ,‬ו”שוכבת במטה לבדה”‪ .‬הוא‬ ‫אף מציין שהיא מספרת ליעקב על מעשה ראובן ומונעת אותו מחטוא‪ ,‬מלשכב עמה‪.‬‬ ‫התרגום הניאופיטי שדורש את הדימוי “פחז כמים”‪ ,‬מנסה לרכך את חטאו של ראובן‬ ‫ורואה במעשהו היעלמות חוכמתו הישברות והיסחפות כמו שמים עזים של נחלים סוחפים‬ ‫גן‪ ,‬וכן מוסיף את חזרתו בתשובה שלא יוסיף לחטוא‪“ :‬מדמי אנה לך ראובן כדי לגנה‬ ‫זעירא דעלו בגווי נחלין דמיין שטפן ולא יכלת למסובריה יתהון ואתרעת מן קדמיהון‪.‬‬ ‫כדן אתרעת ראובן ברי בחכמתך ומן עבדיך טביי[א ד]חטית ולא תוסיף למחטא”‪ 127.‬חטאו‬ ‫של ראובן במעשה בלהה ועונשו שימשו גם לאחר מכן מקור לדרשנות ענפה עד לימינו‪.‬‬ ‫קיצורים ביבליוגרפיים‬ ‫אבו סמרא‪ ,‬ברכות = ‪Bénédictions et malédictions dans les inscriptions Phénico-‬‬ ‫‪Puniques, G. Abou Samra, Kaslik-Liban 2005‬‬

‫אבישור‪ ,‬זיקה = י’ אבישור‪“ ,‬הזיקה הסגנונית והלשונית בין ספר הושע וספרות אוגרית”‪,‬‬ ‫בית מקרא מ’’ח (תשל’’ב)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪50-36‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬צמדי מילים = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬צמדי המלים במקרא ומקביליהם בשפות השמיות של‬ ‫המזרח הקדמון‪ ,‬דיסרטציה‪ ,‬האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים‪ ,‬תשל”ד‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬זוגות = ‪Y. Avishur, “Word Pairs Common to Phoenician and Biblical‬‬ ‫‪Hebrew”, Ugarit-Forschungen 7 (1975), pp. 13-47‬‬

‫אבישור‪ ,‬סמיכויות הנרדפים = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬סמיכויות הנרדפים במליצה המקראית‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים‪ ,‬קרית ספר‪ ,‬תשל”ז‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬נוספות = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬נוספות לדברים ל”ג‪ ,‬כח‪ ,‬בית מקרא ע (תשל”ז)‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ =( 136-133‬אבישור‪ ,‬לשון המקרא וסגנונו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪)89-86‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬כתובות פיניקיות = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬כתובות פיניקיות והמקרא‪ ,‬ירושלים‪ ,‬תשל”ט‪.‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬לשון המקרא וסגנונו = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬לשון המקרא וסגנונו לאור הלשונות השמיות‬ ‫העתיקות וספרותן‪ ,‬תל אביב תשס’’ג‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬עיונים סגנוניים = ‪Y. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word Pairs in Biblical‬‬ ‫‪and in the Ancient Semitic Literatures, Neukirchen-Vluyn (Alter Orient und‬‬ ‫‪Altes Testament 210) 1984‬‬

‫‪ .127‬ראו במדרשים השונים‪ ,‬וראו גם כדורי‪ ,‬חטא ראובן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.491-469‬‬

‫*‪28‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫אבישור‪ ,‬שירת המזמורים = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬עיונים בשירת המזמורים העברית והאוגריתית‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים תשמ”ט‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬בדיונות = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬בדיונות ספרותיים ותיאורים היסטוריוגרפיים בדברי‬ ‫הימים א‪ ,‬ה‪ :‬איזה תגלת פלאסר הגלה את בארה נשיא הראובני?‪ ,‬מיכאל‪ :‬מחקרים‬ ‫בהיסטוריה באפיגרפיה ובמקרא לכבוד פרופ’ מיכאל הלצר‪ ,‬בעריכת י’ אבישור ור’‬ ‫דויטש‪ ,‬תל אביב תשנ”ט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪*18-*5‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬התרגום הקדום = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬התרגום הקדום לנביאים ראשונים בערבית יהודית‪,‬‬ ‫עדה ולשון יט‪ ,‬ירושלים תשנ”ה‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬החזרה והתקבולת = י’‪ ,‬אבישור‪ ,‬החזרה והתקבולת בשירה המקראית והכנענית‪,‬‬ ‫תל־אביב–יפו ‪2002‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬כלי חמס = י’ אבישור‪“ ,‬כלי חמס מכרתיהם” (בר’ מט‪ ,‬ה) — קריאה חדשה בכתוב‬ ‫והבהרת הקללה לשמעון ולוי‪ ,‬לשוננו ס”ו (תשס”ד)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪393-389‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬המסגרת = י’ אבישור‪“ ,‬המסגרת” ביחידות סגנוניות וביחידות ספרותיות בשירה‬ ‫המקראית‪ ,‬מנחות ידידות והוקרה למשה גרסיאל‪ ,‬עיוני מקרא ופרשנות‪ ,‬כרך ט‪ ,‬רמת‬ ‫גן תשס”ט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪80-63‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬הלשון העברית לדורותיה = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬עיונים בלשון העברית לדורותיה ובמרכיב‬ ‫העברי שבעברית החדשה ובספרותה‪ ,‬חיפה תשע”א‬ ‫אבישור־בלאו‪ ,‬מחקרים = י’ אבישור וי’ בלאו (עורכים)‪ ,‬מחקרים במקרא ובמזרח הקדמון —‬ ‫מוגשים לש”א ליונשטם במלאת לו שבעים שנה‪ ,‬ירושלים תשל”ח‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬שמעון ולוי = י’ אבישור‪ ,‬ברכת (=קללת) יעקב לשמעון ולוי (בראשית מ”ט‬ ‫‪ :)7-5‬קריאה חדשה בטקסט‪ ,‬רקעו הספרותי וההיסטורי ומגמתו האידיאולוגית‪,‬‬ ‫בתוך‪ :‬מחקרים במקרא‪ ,‬בתולדות ישראל ובמזרח הקדום מוגשים לצפרירה בן־ברק‪,‬‬ ‫בעריכת‪ :‬מאיר גרובר ואחרים‪ ,‬באר שבע תשע”ג‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪32-1‬‬ ‫ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו א = א”ב ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬כרך א‪ ,‬ברלין תרנ”ט‬ ‫ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו ב = א”ב ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬כרך ב‪ ,‬ברלין תר”ס‬ ‫ארליך‪ ,‬הערות = ‪A.B. Ehrlich, Randglossen zur Hebräischen Bibel, 3, Hildesheim‬‬ ‫‪1910‬‬

‫אמית‪ ,‬שופטים = י’ אמית‪ ,‬שופטים עם מבוא ופירוש‪ ,‬תל אביב ‪1999‬‬ ‫באר‪ ,‬פילולוגיה = ‪J. Barr, Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament,‬‬ ‫‪Oxford 1968‬‬ ‫בולינג‪ ,‬שופטים = ‪R.G. Boling, Judges (Anchor Bible), New York 1975‬‬ ‫ביירלי‪ ,‬ברכת משה = ‪S. Beyerle, Der Mosesegen im Deuteronomium, Berlin 1997‬‬

‫בן־יהודה‪ ,‬מילון = א’ בן יהודה‪ ,‬מילון העברית הישנה והחדשה‪ ,‬ירושלים ‪1959–1924‬‬ ‫בן־סירא = ספר בן־סירא‪ ,‬מפעל המילון ההיסטורי ללשון העברית‪ ,‬ירושלים תשל”ג‪.‬‬ ‫ברני‪ ,‬שופטים = ‪C.F. Burney, The Book of Judges, New York 1970‬‬ ‫גאר‪ ,‬גיאוגרפיה = ‪W.R. Garr, Dialect Geography of Syria-Palestine, 1000-586‬‬ ‫‪B.C.E., Philadelphia 1985‬‬

29*

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

S. Gevirtz, “The Reprimand of Reuben”, Journal of Near Eastern = ‫ ראובן‬,‫גבירץ‬ Studies 30 (1971), pp. 87-98 H. Gunkel, Genesis8, Göttingen 1969 ,= ‫ בראשית‬,‫גונקל‬

‫ ברלין תרנ”ח‬,‫ מהדורת מ’ גינזבורגר‬,‫ תרגום ירושלמי = תרגום ירושלמי לתורה‬,‫גינזבורגר‬ A. Globe, “The Literary Structure and Unity of the Song of = ‫ מבנה ספרותי‬,‫גלוב‬ Deborah”, Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974), pp. 494-512 A. Globe, “The Muster of the Tribes in Judges 5 11-18”, Zeitschrift = ‫ מפקד‬,‫גלוב‬ für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 87 (1975), pp. 169-184

‫ פירוש התורה לרב שמואל בן חפני גאון — המקור‬,‫ פירוש התורה = י’ גרינבאום‬,‫גרינבאום‬ 1979 ‫ ירושלים‬,‫הערבי עם תרגום‬ J.C. Greenfield, “The Meaning of ‛paḥaz’”, in Studies in the Bible = ‫ פחז‬,‫גרינפילד‬ and the Ancient Near East Presented to S. E. Loewenstamm, ed. Y. Avishur and J. Blau, Jerusalem 1978, pp. 75-40 R. de Hoop, “The Meaning of pḥz in Classical Hebrew”, Zeitschrift = ‫ פחז‬,‫די הופ‬ für Althebräistik 10 (1997), pp. 16-26 R. de Hoop, Genesis 49 in its Literary and Historical = ‫ בראשית מט‬,‫די הופ‬ Context, Brill 1999 J.C. de Moor, “The Twelve Tribes in the Song of Deborah”, = ‫ שירת דבורה‬,‫די מור‬ Vetus Testamentum 43 (1993), pp. 483-493 J.C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, Leuven 1997 = ‫ יהוויזם‬,‫די מור‬ A.J. Hauser, “Judges 5: Parataxis in Hebrew Poetry”, Journal = ‫ שופטים ה‬,‫האוזר‬ of Biblical Literature 99 (1980), pp. 23-41 A. J. Hauser, “Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of= ‫ שירות ניצחון‬,‫האוזר‬ Exodus 15 and Judges 5”, Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E.R. Follis, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 40, pp. 265-284 J. Hoftijzer and G. van der Kooij, The Aramaic = ‫ טקסטים ארמיים‬,‫הופטייצר־קוי‬ Texts from Deir Alla, Leiden 1976 J. Hoftijzer and G. Van der Kooij, The Balaam Text from = ‫ בלעם‬,‫הופטייצר־קוי‬ Deir ‛Alla Re-Evaluated, Leiden 1991 Baruch Halpern, “The Resourceful Israelite Historian: The= ‫ ההיסטוריון‬,‫הלפרן‬ Song of Deborah and Israelite Historiography”, Harvard Theological Review 76 (1983), pp. 379-401

,‫ האקדמיה ללשון העברית‬,‫המילון ההיסטורי = המילון ההיסטורי של הלשון העברית‬ ‫ירושלים‬ B. Vawter, “The Canaanite Background of Genesis 49”, = ‫ הרקע הכנעני‬,‫ואותר‬ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955), pp. 1-18

‫*‪30‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

‫ווטסון‪ ,‬החרוז = ‪W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew‬‬ ‫‪Verse, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: supplement series 170,‬‬ ‫‪Sheffield 1994‬‬ ‫ויינפלד‪ ,‬דברים = ‪M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972‬‬

‫זליגמן‪ ,‬מזמור = י”א זליגמן‪“ ,‬מזמור מלפני מלך מלך לבני ישראל”‪ ,‬מחקרים בספרות‬ ‫המקרא‪ ,‬ירושלים תשנ”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪204-189‬‬ ‫זקוביץ וליונשטם‪ ,‬ראובן (‪ = )2‬י’ זקוביץ וש”א ליונשטם‪“ ,‬ראובן(‪ ,”)1‬אנציקלופדיה‬ ‫מקראית‪ ,‬כרך ז‪ ,‬ירושלים תשמ”א‪ ,‬טור’ ‪286-285‬‬ ‫טורניי‪ ,‬שירת דבורה = ‪R.J. Touray, “Le cantique de Debora et ses relectures”, Texts,‬‬ ‫‪Temples, and Traditions, A Tribute to M. Haran, ed. Michael V. Fox et al.‬‬ ‫‪Winona Lake IN 1996, pp. 195-207‬‬

‫טור־סיני‪ ,‬עוללות לעוללות = נ’’ה טור־סיני‪” ,‬עוללות לעוללות”‪ :‬ביאורים נוסםים לכמה‬ ‫סתומות במקרא“‪ ,‬בתוך נ’’ה טור סיני‪ ,‬הלשון והספר‪ ,‬כרך האמונות והדעות‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תשט’’ז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪409-393‬‬ ‫טור־סיני‪ ,‬הלשון = נ”ה טור־סיני‪ ,‬הלשון והספר‪ ,‬כרך הלשון‪ ,‬ירושלים תשי”ז‬ ‫טור־סיני‪ ,‬הספר = נ”ה טור־סיני‪ ,‬הלשון והספר‪ ,‬כרך הספר‪ ,‬ירושלים תש”ך‬ ‫טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו א = נ”ה טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו של מקרא‪ ,‬כרך א‪ ,‬ירושלים תשכ”ז‬ ‫טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו ב = נ”ה טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו של מקרא‪ ,‬כרך ב‪ ,‬ירושלים תשכ”ז‬ ‫טל‪ ,‬התרגום השומרוני = א’ טל‪ ,‬התרגום השומרוני לתורה — מהדורה ביקורתית‪ ,‬תל‬ ‫אביב תש”ם‬ ‫ייבין‪ ,‬כיבוש הארץ = ש’ ייבין‪“ ,‬כיבוש הארץ”‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית‪ ,‬כרך ד‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תשכ”ג‪ ,‬טור’ ‪102-79‬‬ ‫ייבין‪ ,‬ראובן (‪ = )2‬ש’ ייבין‪“ ,‬ראובן (‪ ,)2‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית‪ ,‬כרך ז‪ ,‬ירושלים תשמ”א‪,‬‬ ‫טור’ ‪294-287‬‬ ‫יסטרוב‪ ,‬מילון = ‪M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, The Talmud Babli and‬‬ ‫‪Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, New York 1950‬‬

‫כדורי‪ ,‬חטא ראובן = י’ כדורי‪“ ,‬חטא ראובן עם בלהה בחיבור צוואת ראובן”‪ ,‬עיוני מקרא‬ ‫ופרשנות ט‪-‬מנחות ידידות והוקרה למ’ גרסיאל‪ ,‬רמת גן תשס”ט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪491-469‬‬ ‫כהן‪ ,‬התקבולת השלילית = ח’ כהן‪“ ,‬תופעת התקבולת השלילית והשלכותיה בחקר‬ ‫השירה המקראית”‪ ,‬באר שבע ג (תשמ”ח)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪107-69‬‬ ‫כהנא‪ ,‬הספרים החיצוניים = א’ כהנא‪ ,‬הספרים החיצונים‪ ,‬כרך ראשון‪ ,‬תל אביב תש”ך‬ ‫כרמיכאל‪ ,‬בראשית = ‪C.M. Carmichael, “Some Saying in Genesis”, Journal of‬‬ ‫‪Biblical Literature 88 (1969), pp. 435-444‬‬ ‫לבושאגן‪ ,‬ברכת משה = ‪C.J. Labuschagne, “The Tribes in the Blessing of Moses”,‬‬ ‫‪Old Testament Studies 19 (1974), pp. 97-112‬‬ ‫לוי‪ ,‬מילון = ‪J. Levi, Wörterbuch über die Talmudim und Midraschim, Berlin und‬‬ ‫‪Wein 1924‬‬

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪31‬‬

‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬בהן = ש”א ליונשטם‪“ ,‬בהן”‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית‪ ,‬כרך ב‪ ,‬ירושלים תשל”ח‪,‬‬ ‫טור ‪40‬‬ ‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬דתן = ש”א ליונשטם‪“ ,‬דתן”‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית‪ ,‬כרך ב‪ ,‬ירושלים תשל”ח‪,‬‬ ‫טור’ ‪774-773‬‬ ‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬ראובן ויהודה = ש”א ליונשטם‪“ ,‬ראובן ויהודה במחזור סיפור יוסף”‪ ,‬דברי‬ ‫הקונגרס העולמי הרביעי למדעי היהדות‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ירושלים תשכ”ז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪70-69‬‬ ‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬מסורת = ש”א ליונשטם‪“ ,‬מסורת סיפור התנחלותם של בני גד ובני ראובן”‪,‬‬ ‫תרביץ מב (תשל”ג)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪26-12‬‬ ‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬יציאת מצרים = ש”א ליונשטם‪ ,‬מסורת יציאת מצרים בהשתלשלותה‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תשמ”ז‬ ‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬מבבל לכנען = ‪S.E. Loewenstam, From Babylon to Canaan, Jerusalem‬‬ ‫‪1992‬‬

‫ליכט‪ ,‬במדבר = י’ ליכט‪ ,‬פירוש על ספר במדבר‪ ,‬כרך ב‪ ,‬ירושלים תשנ”ה‬ ‫מזר‪ ,‬ערים וגלילות = ב’ מזר‪ ,‬ערים וגלילות בארץ ישראל‪ ,‬ירושלים ‪1975‬‬ ‫מכצ’י‪ ,‬ישראל = ‪J.D. Macchi, Israel et ses tribus selon Genese 49, Göttingen 1999‬‬ ‫מלמד‪ ,‬תרגום יונתן = ע”צ מלמד‪“ ,‬תרגום יונתן ותפסיר ערבי של שירת דבורה”‪ ,‬ארץ־‬ ‫ישראל ג (תשי”ד)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪206-198‬‬ ‫מקראות גדולות = הפירושים לרש”י‪ ,‬אבן עזרא‪ ,‬רמב”ן‪ ,‬רד”ק ואחרים‪.‬‬ ‫נאמן‪ ,‬גרים ולוויים = נ’ נאמן‪“ ,‬גרים ולויים בממלכת יהודה במאה השביעית לפסה”נ”‪,‬‬ ‫תרביץ עז (תשס”ח)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.203-167‬‬ ‫נות‪ ,‬היסטוריה = ‪M. Noth, The History of Israel, London 1958‬‬ ‫סגל‪ ,‬השירה המקראית = מ”צ סגל‪“ ,‬לחקר צורתה של השירה המקראית”‪ ,‬תרביץ יח‬ ‫(תש”ז)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪145-139‬‬ ‫סגל‪ ,‬לחקר צורתה של השירה המקראית = מ”צ סגל‪“ ,‬לחקר צורתה של השירה המקראית”‪,‬‬ ‫ספר קלוזנר‪ ,‬ירושלים תרצ”ז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪108-90‬‬ ‫סגל‪ ,‬מבוא המקרא = מ”צ סגל‪ ,‬מבוא המקרא‪ ,‬ירושלים תש”ך‬ ‫סוקולוף‪ ,‬ארמית יהודית = ‪M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic,‬‬ ‫‪Ramat-Gan 1990‬‬ ‫סוקולוף‪ ,‬ארמית בבלית = ‪M. Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic,‬‬ ‫‪Ramat-Gan 2002‬‬ ‫סקינר‪ ,‬בראשית = ‪J. Skinner, Genesis (Internatinal Critical Commentary),‬‬ ‫‪Edinburgh 1910‬‬ ‫ספייזר‪ ,‬בראשית = ‪E.A. Speiser, Genesis (Anchor Bible), New York 1964‬‬ ‫סרנה‪ ,‬בראשית = ‪N.M. Sarna, Genesis (Jewish Publication Society) New York-‬‬ ‫‪Jerusalem 1989‬‬ ‫פון זודן‪ ,‬מילים ארמיות א = ‪W. von Soden, “Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen‬‬ ‫‪und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein Vorberict. I (agû–mūš)”,‬‬ ‫‪Orientalia, n.s., 35 (1966), pp. 1-20‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

32*

W. von Soden, “Aramäische Wörter in neuassyrischen = ‫ מילים ארמיות ב‬,‫פון זודן‬ und neu- und spätbabylonischen Texten. Ein Vorberict. II (n-z und Nachträge)”, Orientalia, n.s., 37 (1968), pp. 261-271 G. von Rad, Genesis (Old Testament Library), London 1961 = ‫ בראשית‬,‫פון ראד‬ D.N. Freedman, “The Poetic Structure of the Framework of = ‫ מבנה שירי‬,‫פרידמן‬ Deuteronomy 33”, The Bible World - Essays in Honor of C.H. Gordon, eds. Gary Rendsburg [et al.], New York 1980, pp. 25-46 H-J Zobel, Stammesspruch und Geschichte, Berlin 1997 = ‫ שבטים‬,‫צובל‬

‫ ירושלים תשל”ב‬,‫ ספרות מקראית וספרות כנענית א‬,‫ קאסוטו‬,‫ ספרות א = מ”ד‬,‫קאסוטו‬ ‫ ירושלים תשל”ט‬,‫ ספרות ב = מ”ד קאסוטו ספרות מקראית וספרות כנענית ב‬,‫קאסוטו‬ ‫ מחקרים במקרא‬,‫ דברים לג וחג ראש השנה בימי קדם‬,‫ דברים לג = מ”ד קאסוטו‬,‫קאסוטו‬ 32-8 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשל”ט‬,‫ כרך ב‬,‫ובמזרח הקדמון‬ ‫ ירושלים תשכ”ה‬,‫ פירוש על ספר בראשית‬,‫ בראשית = מ”ד קאסוטו‬,‫קאסוטו‬ ‫ ירושלים תשכ”ה‬,‫ פירוש על ספר שמות‬,‫ שמות = מ”ד קאסוטו‬,‫קאסוטו‬ ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ תורת התעודות וסידורם של ספרי התורה‬,‫ תעודות = מ”ד קאסוטו‬,‫קאסוטו‬ ‫תשכ”ה‬ ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ איוב עם תרגום ופירוש הגאון רבנו סעדיה בן יוסף פיומי‬,‫ איוב = י’ קאפח‬,‫קאפח‬ ‫תשל”ג‬ J. Conrad, “Sefer”, in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten = ‫ ספר‬,‫קונרד‬ Testament, vol. 5, columns 910-921 A.D. Crown, “Judges 5:15b-16”, Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967), = ‫ שופטים ה‬,‫קראון‬ pp. 240-42 F.M. Cross, From Epic to Canon, Baltimore and London 1998 = ‫ קאנון‬,‫קרוס‬ F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge MA 1973 = ‫ מיתוס‬,‫קרוס‬ F.M. Cross - D.N. Freedman, “The Blessing of Moses”, = ‫ ברכת משה‬,‫קרוס־פרידמן‬ Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1948), pp. 191-210 F.M. Cross - D.N. Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic = ‫ עיונים‬,‫קרוס־פרידמן‬ Poetry, Missoula MT 1975 Curtis, J.B. “Some Suggestions concerning the History of = ‫ שבט ראובן‬,‫קרטיס‬ the Tribe of Reuben”, Journal of Bible and Religion 33 (1965), pp. 247-249 C. Rabin “Judges V. 2 and the “Ideology” of Deborah’s War”,= ‫ שופטים ה‬,‫רבין‬ Journal of Jewish Studies 6 (1955), pp. 125-133 Ch. Rabin, Etymological Miscelanea, Scripta Hierosolimitana = ‫ אטימולוגיה‬,‫רבין‬ 8 (1961), pp. 384-400

‫רד”ק = פירוש רד”ק לתורה‬ B.J. Roberts, The Old Testament Text and Versions, = ‫ הטקסט המקראי‬,‫רוברטס‬ Cardiff 1951

‫ה"ברכות" לראובן‬

‫*‪33‬‬

‫רופא‪ ,‬ברכת משה = א’ רופא‪“ ,‬ברכת משה‪ ,‬מקדש נבו ושאלת מוצא הלויים”‪ ,‬מחקרים‬ ‫במקרא ובמזרח הקדמון מוגשים לש”א ליונשטם‪ ,‬בעריכת‪ :‬י’ אבישור וי’ בלאו‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים תשל”ח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪424-409‬‬ ‫רופא‪ ,‬ספר בלעם = א’ רופא‪ ,‬ספר בלעם‪ ,‬ירושלים תש”ם‬ ‫רס”ג‪ ,‬תורה = תפסיר אלתוריה באל ערביה‪ ,‬תאליף רבינו סעדיה גאון בן יוסף אלפיומי‪,‬‬ ‫מהדורת נ”י דירנבורג‪ ,‬פאריס ‪1893‬‬ ‫רצהבי‪ ,‬שרידים = י’ רצהבי‪“ ,‬שרידים מתרגום ערבי לנביאים ראשונים מבית מדרשו של‬ ‫הרס”ג”‪ ,‬סיני כה (תש”ט) עמ’ קסח‪-‬קעח‬ ‫רצהבי‪ ,‬שירת דבורה = ‪Y. Ratzabby, “The Arabic ̔tafsir̕ to the Song of Deborah”,‬‬ ‫‪Textus 4 (1964), pp. 211-219‬‬

‫שד”ל = ש”ד לוצאטו‪ ,‬על חמשה חומשי תורה‪ ,‬תל אביב תשכ”ה‬ ‫שונרי‪ ,‬שירת דבורה = ‪J. Shunary, “An Arabic Tafsir of the Song of Deborah”,‬‬ ‫‪Textus 2 (1962) pp. 77-86‬‬ ‫שטיינברגר‪ ,‬ברכת יעקב = ‪L. Steinberger, Der Segen Jakobs (Genesis 49), Göttingen‬‬ ‫‪1925‬‬

‫שפרבר‪ ,‬כתבי הקודש בארמית = א’ שפרבר‪ ,‬כתבי הקודש בארמית‪ ,‬כרך א‪-‬ד‪ ,‬ליידן ‪.1959‬‬ ‫תדמור אשור‪ ,‬בבל ויהודה = ח’ תדמור‪ ,‬אשור בבל ויהודה‪ :‬מחקרים בתולדות המזרח‬ ‫הקדום‪ ,‬בעריכת מ’ כוגן‪ ,‬ירושלים תשס’’ו‬ ‫תרגום אונקלוס = א’ שפרבר‪ ,‬כתבי הקודש בארמית‪ ,‬כרך א’‪ :‬תרגום אונקלוס לתורה‪,‬‬ ‫ליידן ‪1959‬‬ ‫תרגום ניאופיטי = תרגום ארץ ישראל לתורה‪ ,‬כתב־יד ותיקן (ניאופיטי ‪ ,)1‬הוצאת מקור‬ ‫(צלום)‪ ,‬ירושלים תשל”א‬ ‫תרגום פסוידו יונתן = תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל על התורה‪ ,‬מהדורת מ’ גינזבורגר‪ ,‬ברלין‬ ‫תרס”ג‬ ‫‪AHw = W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwoerterbuch, Wiesbaden 1965‬‬ ‫‪BDB = F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of‬‬ ‫‪the Old Testament, Oxford 1907‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫‪BH = Biblia Hebraica3, ed. R. Kittel, Stuttgart 1969‬‬ ‫‪CAD = The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of‬‬ ‫‪Chicago 1954‬‬ ‫‪CTA = A. Herdner, Corpus des Tablets en Cunéiformes Alphabétiques, Paris 1963‬‬ ‫‪DNWSI = J. Hoftiizer - K. Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic‬‬ ‫‪Inscriptions, Leiden 1995‬‬ ‫‪KAI = H. Donner - W. Roellig, Kanaanaeische und Aramaeische Inschriften I-III,‬‬ ‫‪Wiessbaden 1964‬‬ ‫‪KBL = L .Koehler - W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the‬‬ ‫‪Old Testament, Leiden 1994-2000‬‬

‫יצחק אבישור‬

34*

KTU = M. Dietrich - O. Loretz - J. Sanmartin, Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts, Münster 19952 UT = C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook, Roma 1965

‫ערים מוסבות שם‬

‫*‪35‬‬

‫ערים מוסבות שם‬ ‫ישראל אפעל‬ ‫א‪ .‬מבוא‪:‬‬ ‫הסבת שמות של יישובים‪ ,‬ולעתים גם של תוואים גיאוגרפיים אחרים (כגון הרים‬ ‫ונהרות)‪ ,‬נעשית בדרך כלל בעקבות הופעתה של אוכלוסיה חדשה שלשונה ו‪/‬או מערכת‬ ‫האמונות והדעות שלה שונות משל התושבים הקודמים; או ביוזמת השלטונות (לעתים‬ ‫קרובות החדשים) באזור‪ .‬שמות שונים ליישוב באזורי גבול מעידים על מאבק (או‪ ,‬לפחות‪,‬‬ ‫תביעה) בין מספר ישויות פוליטיות או אתניות על אותו יישוב‪ .‬להלן דוגמאות לערים‬ ‫כפולות שם שנמצאו באזורי מריבה ולנסיבות שבהן נוצרו השמות הללו‪:‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬האנאלים של אדד‪-‬נררי ב’ (‪ 891-911‬לפסה”נ)‪:RIMA 2 150:51-54 ,‬‬ ‫“אל העיר גִ ַד ַר‪ ,‬הקרויה בפי הארמים ַר ַק ַמ ֻת (או ַר ַד ַמ ֻת)‪ ,‬אשר הארמים לקחו‬ ‫בחזקה (‪ )ina danāni ekimuni‬אחרי ימיו של תגלת־פלאסר (ב’‪ )935-966 ,‬בן‬ ‫אשור־א ִׁשי‪ ,‬מלך אשור‪ ,‬נסיך אשר קדם לי (משמע‪ ,‬העיר נכבשה בימי מלכות‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫אשור־דן ב’‪ ,)912-934 ,‬הלכתי‪”...‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫מּכּורח של שלמנאסר ג’ (‪ 824-858‬לפסה”נ)‪RIMA 3 ,‬‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ב‪ .‬כתובת המונולית‬ ‫‪:19 ii 35-38‬‬ ‫“בעת ההיא (את) העיר ‪( (Ana-)Aššur-utēr-aṣbat1‬מילולית‪ :‬לאשור השבתי‬ ‫(ו)אחזתי‪/‬לקחתי)‪ ,‬אשר בני (ארץ) חת יקראוה ‪ ,Pitru‬אשר על נהר ַסגּור‪ ,‬אשר‬

‫בעבר הנהר פרת — ו(את) העיר ֻמ ְתּכִ נֻ — אשר בצד זה של נהר פרת — אשר‬ ‫תגלת־פלאסר (א’‪ ,)1076-1114 ,‬אב(י)‪ ,‬נסיך שקדם לי‪ ,‬יישבן — אשר בימי‬ ‫אשור־רבי (ב’‪ )972-1012 ,‬מלך אשור לקח מלך הארמים בחזקה (‪ina danāni‬‬ ‫‪ — )ekimuni‬את הערים הללו השבתי (‪ )utēra‬לקדמותן והושבתי בהן אשורים”‪.‬‬ ‫הסבת שמות יישובים עשויה להתרחש בנסיבות שונות‪ .‬במאמר זה נעיין בשלוש‬ ‫התגלויות של התופעה הנדונה‪ :‬באימפריה האשורית‪ ,‬במהלך התנחלותם של שבטי‬ ‫ישראל בארץ‪ ,‬ובמדינת ישראל בשנים הראשונות לקיומה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬לכתיב המלא של שם העיר ‪ Ana-Aššur-utēr-aṣbat‬ראו‪ .RIMA 3 64:38 :‬על משמעותו‬ ‫המדינית והדתית‪ ,‬להלן‪ ,‬נספח א‪.‬‬

‫*‪35‬‬

‫*‪36‬‬

‫ישראל אפעל‬

‫ב‪ .‬האימפריה הניאו־אשורית‪:‬‬ ‫התרחבות תחומה של ממלכת אשור בימי אשורנצרפל ב’ (‪ 859-883‬לפסה”נ)‬ ‫ושלמנאסר ג’ (‪ )824-858‬היתה מלווה כיבוש ערים (מהן ערים שנכבשו בידי הארמים‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫במהלך המאבקים בינם ובין האשורים במחצית השנייה של המאה י”א ובמאה י’ לפסה”נ)‪,‬‬ ‫הושבת אשורים בהן‪ 4,‬וייסוד מאחזים צבאיים בנקודות מפתח בסמיכות לגבולות החדשים‬ ‫של הממלכה המתרחבת‪ 5.‬חלק מן הערים המושבות (וגם ערים חדשות שנוסדו) נקראו‬ ‫בשמות חדשים‪ 6.‬מאזכור שמותיהם של מלכי אשור שבימיהם הארמים “לקחו בחוזקה”‬ ‫ערים עולה שמדובר בתהליך ארוך ומתמשך ולא במהלך צבאי יחיד‪ .‬הכרה זו מעצימה את‬ ‫הישגיהם של אשורנצרפל ושלמנאסר ג’ ומסבירה את המשמעות הפוליטית והתעמולתית‬ ‫של הסבת שמות הערים המושבות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 42‬מתוך ‪ 50‬הטופונימים מוסבי־השם המופיעים בכתובות מלכי אשור נוצרו בימי‬ ‫ׁשּוּב ִריָ ה ומצרים בסוף שנת‬ ‫אסרחדון בתוך שנתיים‪ ,‬והם קשורים לכיבושן של ממלכת ְ‬ ‫‪ 673‬ובשנת ‪ 671‬לפסה”נ‪ ,‬בהתאמה‪ .‬הסבת שמות רבת־היקף זו התרחשה בתקופת משבר‬ ‫חמור שבה ריחפה סכנה על יציבות שלטונו של אסרחדון ויש להעריכה כפעולה ממלכתית‬ ‫יזומה‪ ,‬מרוכזת וחלק אורגני של הפעילות הצבאית והמאמץ התעמולתי האינטנסיבי‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫שאפיינו את התנהגותו הפוליטית של אסרחדון באותן שנים‪.‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫לצד גזירתם של טופונימים מוסבים לערים הכבושות במתכונת ‪Dūr/Kār-RN/DN‬‬ ‫אנו מוצאים באימפריה האשורית‪ ,‬למן תחילת התפשטותה‪ ,‬תופעה חדשה‪ :‬קריאת שמות‬ ‫‪2‬‬

‫‪ .2‬לפירוט הערים מוסבות השם בכתובותיהם של מלכי אשור‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬פונגרץ־לייסטן‪ ,‬טופונימים‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ .343-325‬לרשימת הערים מוסבות השם הכלולה במאמרה של פונגרץ־לייסטן יש להוסיף את ערי‬ ‫מצרים המנויות בכתובת אסרחדון ’‪( RINAP 4 9 ii’ 1’-11‬ראו‪ :‬אפעל‪ ,‬אסרחדון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,67‬הערה ‪.)41‬‬ ‫הּבלִ יח והפרת‬ ‫‪ .3‬על מאבקי האשורים והארמים במאה י’ ובתחילת המאה ט’ לפסה”נ באזורי ַ‬ ‫התיכון‪ ,‬שבהם נע הגבול‪ ,‬ועימו קבוצות אוכלוסין‪ ,‬ללא הכרעה עד ימי מלכותם של אשורנצרפל ב’‬ ‫ושלמנאסר ג’ שבהם הושגה‪ ,‬בסופו של התהליך‪ ,‬שליטה אשורית על כל סוריה הצפונית ופעילותה‬ ‫הצבאית התרחבה אף לדרום סוריה‪ ,‬עיינו‪ :‬גרייסון‪ ,‬אשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .265-247‬על שלבים ומאפיינים בתהליך‬ ‫ההתרחבות של שלטון אשור בתקופה הנדונה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ליוורני‪ ,‬האימפריה האשורית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬אשורנצרפל‪ֻ :‬ת ְׁש ַח (‪ַ ;)RIMA 2 202 ii 7-8‬א ִר ֻּב ַא בארץ ַּפ ִתינַ (‪ִ ;)RIMA 2 218 iii 82-83‬סנַ ֻּב‬ ‫ות ֻיד (‪ ;)RIMA 2 261:93-94‬שלמנאסר‪ :‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬במבוא למאמר זה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.1‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫‪ .5‬איסום שעורים ותבן (היינו הכנת בסיסים לוגיסטיים לקראת הפעלת רכב ופרשים‪ ,‬על כך ראו‪:‬‬ ‫אפעל‪ ,‬לוחמה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ֻ ;102-99‬ת ְׁש ַח (‪;)RIMA 2 202 ii 9; 211 ii 117-118; cf. 251 iv 107-108; 261:85‬‬ ‫ַא ְתלִ לַ (‪ַ ;)RIMA 2 208 86‬א ִר ֻּב ַא (‪ .)RIMA 2 218 iii 82‬ייסוד שתי ערי־מצודה על שתי גדות הפרת בארץ‬ ‫לַ ֶק (‪.)RIMA 2 216 iii 49-50‬‬ ‫‪RIMA 2 207 ii 77; 208 ii 84-86; 3 19 ii 33-38 .6‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬על הרקע לפעילות הצבאית ועל המאמץ ההיסטוריוגרפי והתעמולתי של אסרחדון בשנים‬ ‫‪ 671-673‬לפסה”נ‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אפעל‪ ,‬שלבים ומגמות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬לטופונימים הנאו־אשוריים ‪ ,Dūr/Kār-RN/DN‬ראו‪ :‬פרפולה‪ ,‬טופונימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪,115-108‬‬ ‫‪ .199-196‬להלן טופונימים המכילים שמות מלכים‪ִ :‬תל ַּב ְר ִסיּפ > ּכַ ר‪-‬שלמנאסר (ג’); ַח ְר ַחר > כר־סרגון;‬ ‫ֶאלֶ נְ זַ ׁש > כר‪-‬סנחריב; צידון > כר‪-‬אסרחדון; עיר בארץ שובריה ששמה לא פורש > דּור‪-‬אסרחדון‪ .‬להלן‬ ‫דור‪-‬א ְת ַח ַר > דור‪-‬‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫טופונימים המכילים שמות אלים‪ַ ):‬א ְתלִ לַ > דור־אשור [הוסב בימי אשורנצרפל ב’];‬ ‫נַ ּבּו; ּכִ ֶׁש ִסם > כר‪-‬נרגל; ּכִ ַׁש ְסלֻ > כר‪-‬נבו; ּכִ נְ ֻד ַא > כר‪-‬סין; ַאנְ זַ ְריָ > כר‪-‬אדד; בית‪-‬גַ ַּביַ > כר‪-‬אשתר) ששת‬ ‫האחרונים הוסבו בימי סרגון)‪.‬‬

‫ערים מוסבות שם‬

‫*‪37‬‬

‫ערים בסיסמאות של היגדים מורכבים‪ ,‬בדומה לשמותיהם של שערים בבירותיהן של‬ ‫אשור ובבל‪ 9.‬תופעה זו מצויה במספר מקרים בכתובותיו של שלמנאסר ג’‪ 10‬והיא חוזרת‪,‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫בהיקף גדול‪ ,‬בכתובות אסרחדון‪.‬‬ ‫על הסבת הטופונימים כתופעה הקשורה בלעדית לבניית האימפריה האשורית‬ ‫ולמיסודה מעידות לא רק כתובות־המלכים ששלטו בה‪ ,‬כי אם גם היעדרם הכמעט‬ ‫מוחלט של טופונימים המכילים שמות מלכים או אלים ממכלולי הטופונימים האשוריים‬ ‫שקדמו לתקופת האימפריה האשורית‪ 12.‬ניתן לומר כי הסבת השמות היתה כלי מובהק‬ ‫של מדיניות אימפריאלית‪ ,‬ייחודי לאימפריה האשורית‪ ,‬ולא היה לה המשך בתקופות‬ ‫הבבלית ובפרסית‪.‬‬ ‫הסבת שמותיהן של ערים בעקבות כיבושן וקריאתן בשמות המלכים הכובשים או‬ ‫בשמות אליהם‪ ,‬יחד עם הקידומת ‪ Kār-‬או ‪ ,Dūr-‬מצויה בכתובותיהם של שלמנאסר ג’‪,‬‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫סרגון‪ ,‬סנחריב ואסרחדון (עד שנת ‪ 677‬לפסה”נ‪ ,‬לפני המסע נגד שובריה)‪.‬‬ ‫חלק מן הטופונימים שהוסבו במאות ט’‪-‬ח’ לפסה”נ נקלט ושימש גם לאחר מות‬ ‫המלכים שהסבו את שמות הערים‪ 14.‬אולם‪ ,‬יש עדויות כי לא תמיד נדחק הטופונים הישן‬ ‫‪ .9‬לשמות שערים הבנויים כסיסמאות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ג’ורג’‪ ,‬טקסטים טופוגרפיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;456-455 ,177 ,67‬‬ ‫’‪.RINAP 3 15 vii 25-31, 1’-23’; 16 vii 34-69; 17 vii 70–viii 5; 18 vii 13’-40‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬על ‪ ,Ana-Aššur-utêr-aṣbat‬שמה המוסב של ‪ ,Pitru‬עיינו לעיל‪ ,‬במבוא למאמר זה‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .1‬על ‪( Līt-Aššur < Nappigi‬נצחון אשור)‪( Aṣbat-la-kunu < Alligu ,‬תפסתי את הלא־יציבים?)‪,‬‬ ‫‪( Qibit-[Aššur?] < Ruguliti‬מצוות‪[-‬אשור?]‪ ,‬ראו‪ .RIMA 3 19 ii 33-35 :‬תל ברסיפ ו־‪ Pitru‬שכנו‬ ‫על הגדה המזרחית של הפרת התיכון‪ ,‬שלוש הערים האחרות נמצאו ממערב לנהר ובסמוך לו‪ ,‬מדרום‬ ‫לכרכמיש‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬דוגמאות לסיסמאות שבהן נקראו ערים אשר נכבשו בימי אסרחדון‪“ :‬דבר המלך לא יופר”‬ ‫(‪“ ,)Abāt-šarri-lā-tēni‬מי ישווה ל(אל) אשור” (‪“ ,)Mannu-šānin-Aššur‬האל אשור הרחיב את ארצו”‬ ‫(‪“ ,)Aššur-māssu-urappiš‬יאריך ימים המשמח את לב (האל) אשור” (‪,)Libur-munīḫ-libbi-Aššur‬‬ ‫“הכְ נַ ע את הלא־נכנע” (‪(“ ,)Kunuš-lā-kanšu‬המתייצב) מול אויבי‬ ‫“רואהו יחרד” (‪ַ ,)Ᾱmiršu-liglud‬‬ ‫המלך” (‪(“ ,)Maḫri-gārê-šarri‬האל) אשור מגרש השדים” (‪“ ,)Aššur-nāsiḫ-gallî‬יִ זְ ַהר ה־‪ iššakku‬של‬ ‫אשור” (‪.)Limmir-iššak-Aššur‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬בטופונימיה האשורית הקדומה (‪ )OA‬אין אף שם שגזרונו ‪ ,Dūr/Kār-RN/DN‬ראו‪ :‬נאשף‪ ,‬יישובי‬ ‫התקופה האשורית הקדומה‪ .‬באשר לטופונימיה האשורית התיכונה (‪ ,)MA‬אנו מוצאים ‪Dūr/Kār-DN‬‬ ‫דור‪-‬תּכֻ לְ ִת‪-‬נִ נֻ ְר ַת‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬נאשף‪,‬יישובי התקופה האשורית התיכונה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;99-87‬‬ ‫ֻ‬ ‫לרוב ורק ‪ Dūr-RN‬אחד‪:‬‬ ‫בא ַר ְר ֻט מצויות‬ ‫‪ .161-152‬עוד ראוי לציין כי קריאת טופונימים על שם אלים או מלכים אינה מצויה בחת‪ֻ .‬‬ ‫היקרויות אחדות של תופעה זו (‪Argišteḫinele, Argištei irdu/o pātare, Ḫaldei pātare, Rusaḫinele,‬‬ ‫‪ ,)Rusai URU.TUR, uru.dTeišebāine‬ראו‪ :‬דיאקונוף וקשקאי‪ ,‬שמות גיאוגרפיים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ִ .13‬תל ַּב ְר ִסיּפ > ּכַ ר‪-‬שלמנאסר; ַח ְר ַחר > כר‪-‬סרגון; ֶאלֶ נְ זַ ׁש > כר‪-‬סנחריב; צידון > כר‪-‬אסרחדון‪.‬‬ ‫ראו גם דור‪-‬אסרחדון בארץ שובריה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬כר‪-‬שלמנאסר‪ ,‬שמה החדש של תל ברסיפ‪ ,‬מוזכר בכתובות שמש‪-‬אדד ה’ (‪ 811-823‬לפסה"נ)‬ ‫־אלֻ (האפונים של השנים ‪ 770 ,780‬ו־‪ 752‬לפסה”נ)‪ ,‬תירו־דנז’ן‪ ,‬אריות‬ ‫‪ ;RIMA 3 184 ii 9‬והתרתן ַש ְמ ִש ִ‬ ‫תל ברסיפ; במכתבים מימי סרגון (’‪ )NL 40:12‬ואסרחדון (‪ ,)SAA XVI 44:3‬ובמסמכי מינהל מן המאה‬ ‫ח’ לפסה”נ (ראו‪ ,)SAA XI 1, 178 :‬אבל ראו ההערה הבאה על השתמרות השם תל ברסיפ‪Kâr-Adad .‬‬ ‫‪ < Anzaria‬או ‪ Bīt Bagaia‬בימי סרגון ב’‪ ,‬חוזר ומוזכר ב־‪ ;SAA VII 161‬והשם ‪ ,Dūr-Nabû‬שבו נקראה‬ ‫‪ Dûr mAtḫara‬בימי סרגון‪ ,‬רשום ב־‪ .SAA XI 202‬השם כר‪-‬סרגון‪ ,‬שניתן לעיר חרחר‪ ,‬מוזכר במכתבים‬ ‫‪( SAA XV 54, 84, 90, 100, 101, 103, 106‬כולם מימי סרגון)‪.‬‬

‫*‪38‬‬

‫ישראל אפעל‬

‫מפני החדש‪ 15.‬קשה לדעת אם הטופונימים שנגזרו בימי אסרחדון בצורת סיסמאות‪ ,‬חלקן‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫בנות שלוש ואף ארבע מילים‪ ,‬יצאו מכלל הכרזה תעמולתית ונכנסו לשימוש‪.‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬ישראל בארצו‪:‬‬ ‫מעיון בטופונימים הבאים במקורות חיצוניים — מצריים‪ ,‬בבליים ואוגריתיים — מן‬ ‫האלף השני לפסה”נ ובמקרא‪ ,‬עולה כי בני ישראל‪ ,‬וכמוהם “גויי הים”‪ ,‬ירשו טופונימים‬ ‫ארצישראליים מקומיים רבים והוסיפו להשתמש בהם‪ 17.‬לצדה של תופעה זו‪ ,‬יש במקרא‬ ‫עדויות להסבת שמות‪ ,‬בעיקר בתקופת היאחזותם של בני ישראל בארץ‪ .‬פעולה זו‬ ‫מיוחסת לשבטים ולמשפחות שכבשו את נחלותיהם‪ :‬בני ראובן (במ’ לב ‪ ,)38-37‬בני‬ ‫יהודה ושמעון (שופ’ א ‪ ,)17‬בני דן (שופ’ יח ‪ ;29‬יהו’ יט ‪ ,)47‬יאיר בן מנשה (במ’ לב ‪;41‬‬ ‫דב’ ג ‪ )14‬ונ ַׂבח (במ’ לב ‪.)42‬‬ ‫לגבי עשרות טופונימים מוסבים אין במקרא ידיעות על נסיבות ההסבה ועל זמנה‬ ‫אלא רק היגדים בנוסח “‪ GN1‬היא ‪ 18”)GN2‬וכי שמו של ‪“ GN1‬לפנים‪/‬לראשונה”‪ ,‬היינו‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫לפני היותו ישראלי‪ ,‬היה ‪( GN2‬או להפך)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬העיר ‪ ,Arragdi‬ששמה הוסב ל־‪ ,Tukulti-Aššur-aṣbat‬כנראה בימי אשורנצרפל ב’ (ראו‪RIMA :‬‬ ‫‪ ,)2 207 ii 77‬מוזכרת בשמה הישן ב־‪ ;SAA V 227; XI 14‬והטופונים ‪ ,Nappigi‬ששונה בימי שלמנאסר‬ ‫ג’ ל־‪ ,Lit-Aššur‬חוזר ומופיע בתקופות מאוחרות יותר ב־’‪.SAA I 185; XI 14, 219; RINAP 1 35 ii 6‬‬ ‫הטופונים תל ברסיפ מופיע בכתובות של סנחריב (‪ )RINAP 3 43 48; 46 134; 143 obv. 10‬ובמסמכי‬ ‫מינהל ומשפט מימי סרגון‪ ,‬אסרחדון ואשורבניפל (בצורת ‪ ,)uruTarbusiba‬ראו‪ :‬דאלי‪ ,‬לוחות נאו־אשוריים‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,84‬מס’ ‪ ;SAA I 4, 183, 184, 191, 192; VI 312; XV 106 ;14‬ובכתיב תרבשיב במסמך ארמי מן‬ ‫המחצית השנייה של המאה ז’ לפסה”נ בקירוב (ראו‪ :‬פאלס‪ ,‬לוח ארמי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)91‬להופעת השמות הישנים‬ ‫במסמכים הרשמיים הלא־ספרותיים נודעת חשיבות מיוחדת לענייננו בשל היותם בלתי־תלויים בחוגים‬ ‫שבהם צמחה ההיסטוריוגרפיה המלכותית האשורית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .16‬במסופר בכתובות אשורבניפל על מסעו הראשון למצרים (בשנת ‪ 667‬לפסה”נ) מוזכרות‬ ‫שלוש ערים בארץ זו ששמותיהן הוסבו בימי אסרחדון ואפשר ללמוד מהם על מידת היקלטותם של‬ ‫כר‪ּ-‬בנִ ֵת (‪ A i .77‬על הסבתו של שם זה בימי אסרחדון ראו ’‪,)RINAP 4 9 ii’ 7‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫הטופונימים החדשים‪:‬‬ ‫ר‪-‬א ַׁשּכ‪-‬אשור”‬ ‫ו”ח ְת ַח ִר ַּב (=אתריביס) ששמה לִ ִמ ִ‬ ‫ל‪-‬מ ָת ִת” (‪ַ )K 228+ obv. 61-62‬‬ ‫כר‪ּ-‬ב ַ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫“סאיס‪ ,‬ששמה‬ ‫(‪ .)K 228+ obv. 64-65‬ציון מראי־המקום בכתובות אשורבניפל הוא לפי ‪.BIWA‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬להלן רשימה (חלקית) של הטופונימים הללו‪ :‬אבל‪ ,‬אדומים‪/‬אדמה (בנחלת נפתלי‪ ,‬יהו’ יט ‪,)36‬‬ ‫אדרעי‪ ,‬אונו‪ ,‬אילון‪ ,‬אכשף‪ ,‬אנחרת‪ ,‬אפק‪ ,‬אשדוד‪ ,‬אשקלון‪ ,‬בית דגן‪ ,‬בית חורון (ראו‪ :‬תדמור וקלאי‪ ,‬בית‬ ‫נינורתה)‪ ,‬בית ענת (בנחלת נפתלי‪ ,‬יהו’ יט ‪ ,)38‬בית שאן‪ ,‬בית שמש‪ ,‬גבת‪ ,‬גזר‪ ,‬גנה‪ ,‬גת (על השם גת‬ ‫לצורותיו‪ ,‬עיין להלן‪ ,‬נספח ב)‪ ,‬דאר‪ ,‬חנתון‪ ,‬חצור‪ ,‬יבלעם‪ ,‬יפו‪ ,‬ירושלים‪ ,‬ירמות‪ ,‬לוד‪ ,‬ליש‪ ,‬לכיש‪ ,‬מגדל‪,‬‬ ‫מגידו‪ ,‬מרום‪ ,‬משאל‪ ,‬נעמן‪ ,‬עזה‪ ,‬עיון‪ ,‬עין‪ ,‬עכו‪ ,‬עשתרות (בבשן)‪ ,‬צרעה‪ ,‬קנה (בנחלת אשר‪ ,‬יהו’ יט‬ ‫‪ ,)28‬קנת‪ ,‬קעילה‪ ,‬רבת‪/‬הרבת‪ ,‬רחוב‪ ,‬שוכה‪ ,‬שונם‪ ,‬שכם‪ ,‬שמעון‪/‬שמרון‪ ,‬שרוחן‪ ,‬תענך‪ .‬לתקופה הקדם־‬ ‫ישראלית נראה לייחס גם טופונימים המוזכרים במקרא עם הסיומת (הלא־עברית) ‪ֹ-‬ו‪ֹ- ,‬ה‪ :‬גילה‪ ,‬עכו‪ ,‬יפו‪,‬‬ ‫מגדו‪ ,‬ירחו‪ ,‬אונו‪ ,‬שילה‪ ,‬שוכה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬קרית ארבע היא חברון (בר’ כג ‪ ;2‬יהו’ יד ‪ ;15‬טו ‪ ;54 ,13‬כא ‪ ;11‬שופ’ א ‪ ;)10‬ממרא היא חברון‬ ‫(בר’ כג ‪ ;19‬והשוו‪ :‬ממרא [היא?] קרית הארבע היא חברון‪ ,‬בר’ לה ‪ ;)27‬קרית בעל היא קרית יערים (יהו’‬ ‫טו ‪ ;60‬יח ‪ ;14‬השווה *בעל היא קרית יערים‪ ,‬יהו’ טו ‪ ;)9‬קרית סנה היא ְּד ִבר (יהו’ טו ‪ ;)49‬חצרון היא‬ ‫חצור (יהו’ טו ‪ ;)25‬אפרת היא בית לחם (בר’ לה ‪ ;19‬מח ‪ ;)7‬ירושלים היא יבוס (דה”א יא ‪.)4‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬חברון = קרית ארבע (יהו’ יד ‪ ;15‬שופ’ א ‪ ;)10‬דביר = קרית ספר (יהו’ טו ‪ ;15‬שופ’ א ‪ ,)11‬בית‬ ‫אל = לוז (שופ’ א‪ ;23 ,‬השוו‪ :‬יהו’ יח ‪.)13‬‬

‫ערים מוסבות שם‬

‫*‪39‬‬

‫בולטת העובדה כי‪ ,‬בניגוד לנוהג שמצינו במזרח הקדום‪ ,‬אף עיר ישראלית לא נקראה‬ ‫בתקופת המלוכה על שם מייסדה (כמו‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬דור‪-‬שרכין; אזתודיה‪ ,‬דור‪-‬שמש‪-‬רש‪-‬‬ ‫אצר) או כובשה‪ :‬על עמרי‪ ,‬המלך הישראלי היחיד שייסד בירה‪ ,‬נאמר כי קרא לעירו‬ ‫שומרון “על שם שמר אדוני ההר” (מל”א טז ‪ .)24‬לא מסופר על דוד כי הסב את שמה‬ ‫של ירושלים (השמות הנרדפים במקרא לעיר זו הם ציון ויבוס)‪ ,‬כי אם קרא בשמו‪“ ,‬עיר‬ ‫דוד”‪ ,‬את מצודתה (משמע לא את כל העיר‪ ,‬שמ”ב ה ‪ .9‬בדה”א יא ‪ ,7‬נאמר כי “קראו” —‬ ‫ולא “ויקרא” — לעיר דוד בשמה)‪ .‬הוא אף לא קרא לרבת בני עמון בשמו לאחר כיבושה‪.‬‬ ‫ועל אמציה מלך יהודה מסופר כי “תפש את הסלע במלחמתו (עם אדום) ויקרא את שמה‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫יקתאל” (מל”ב יד ‪ )7‬ולא על שמו‪.‬‬ ‫כיוצא בזה‪ ,‬איננו מוצאים מגמת הנצחה של אלוהי ישראל כמרכיב תיאופורי בשמות‬ ‫היישובים ועוד ניתן להיווכח כי בני ישראל לא הסבו טופונימים שנגזרו משמותיהם של‬ ‫אלים זרים‪ ,‬כגון בית ענת‪ ,‬בית שמש‪ ,‬בית דגון‪ ,‬בית חורון‪ ,‬ואולי אף בית אל; השווה גם‬ ‫הטופונימים בעל חצור‪ ,‬בעל מעון‪ ,‬בעל פרצים‪ ,‬בעל שלִ שה‪ ,‬בעל תמר‪ ,‬קרית בעל‪/‬בעלת‪,‬‬ ‫עשתרות ויריחו‪.‬‬ ‫בהחלפת שמות הערים קרית ארבע — חברון‪ ,‬קרית ספר‪/‬סנה — ְּד ִבר‪ ,‬הסלע — יקתאל‪,‬‬ ‫בית לחם — אפרת קשה למצוא מסר אידיאולוגי או תעמולתי‪.‬‬ ‫מכל הנאמר לעיל מתקבל הרושם שהנסיבות שבהן הוסבו טופונימים בידי בני ישראל‬ ‫שונות מאלו המאפיינות את הנוהג האשורי‪ .‬הסבת השמות בישראל אינה תוצאה של‬ ‫פעילות ממלכתית ואי־אפשר למצוא בשמות המוסבים מגמתיות אידיאולוגית או תרבותית‪.‬‬ ‫ד‪ .‬מדינת ישראל ‪:1953-1948‬‬ ‫אל מפעל ההתיישבות הציונית בארץ‪ ,‬שבא לידי ביטוי ברכישת קרקעות והקמת‬ ‫יישובים יהודיים עליהן‪ ,‬נתלווה גם צעד הצהרתי‪ ,‬היינו קריאת היישובים בשמות עבריים‪.‬‬ ‫‪21‬‬

‫‪ .20‬הנוהג לקרוא לערים כבושות על שם כובשיהן ידוע בספרות המקרא (ראה הכתובים על נ ַֹבח‪,‬‬ ‫יאיר בן מנשה ודן‪ .‬פעולתם של אלה התרחשה‪ ,‬לפי הכתוב‪ ,‬לפני כינון המלוכה בישראל)‪ .‬נוהג זה יוחס‬ ‫גם לסיחון‪ ,‬השווה “כי חשבון עיר סיחֹן מלך האמֹרי היא‪ ,‬והוא נלחם במלך מואב הראשון ויקח את כל‬ ‫ארצו מידו עד ארנֹן‪ .‬על כן יאמרו המֹשלים‪ּ ,‬בֹאו חשבון‪ ,‬תבנה ותכונן עיר סיחון‪ .‬כי אש יצא מחשבון‪,‬‬ ‫להבה מקרית סיחֹן‪ ,‬אכלה ַער מואב‪ ,‬בעלי במות ארנֹן” (במ’ כא ‪.)28-26‬‬ ‫במכתבו של יואב בן צרויה אל המלך דוד נאמר‪“ :‬נלחמתי ברבה‪ ,‬גם לכדתי את עיר המים‪ .‬ועתה אסֹף‬ ‫את יתר העם וחנה על העיר ולָ כְ ָדּה פן אלּכֹד אני את העיר ונקרא שמי עליה” (שמ”ב יב ‪ .)28-27‬לפי פשוטו‬ ‫של מקרא‪ ,‬עמד שמה של רבת בני עמון להתחלף בעקבות כיבושה תחת פיקודו ולהיקרא בשמו‪ .‬אולם‪,‬‬ ‫ראוי לציין כי לא מצינו במזרח הקדום עיר שנקראה על שם שר ָצבא שכבש אותה‪ .‬נראה יותר שמדובר‬ ‫בזקיפת הכיבוש לזכות הקצין ולא בעצם הסבת שם העיר על שמו; ראו‪ :‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.312‬‬ ‫עוד ראוי להזכיר כי רבת בני עמון לא זו בלבד שלא נקראה בשמו של יואב‪ ,‬אף דוד לא קרא לה בשמו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬אני מחזיק טובה ליהודה זיו על שהביא לידיעתי את שני מכתביו של ד’ בן־גוריון אל הוועדה‬ ‫הגיאוגרפית לקביעת שמות בנגב‪ ,‬המצוטטים להלן והשמורים בגנזך המדינה (תיק מס’ ג‪.5550/3782/‬‬ ‫מעשהו זה זכור במיוחד לטוב משום שלא ניתן לחפש את המכתבים בגנזך המדינה מחמת היותו‬ ‫סגור לפרק־זמן לא־ידוע בשל סיבות מינהליות)‪ ,‬וכמו־כן הואיל לקרוא את הדיון על “מדינת ישראל‬ ‫‪ ”1953-1948‬ולהעיר על הכתוב בו‪.‬‬

‫*‪40‬‬

‫ישראל אפעל‬

‫במסגרת זו החליט דירקטוריון הקרן הקיימת לישראל בשנת ‪ 1922‬להקים “ועדת שמות‬ ‫היישובים על יד הקרן הקיימת לישראל” וזו הוכרה על ידי כל המוסדות הרשמיים בארץ־‬ ‫ישראל כגוף המוסמך לקבוע שמות עבריים במפת הארץ‪.‬‬ ‫בשנים ‪ 1949-1948‬נתרוקנו מתושביהם למעלה מ־‪ 400‬יישובים ערביים שנכללו‬ ‫בתחומה של מדינת ישראל‪ 22.‬בשנים ‪ 1953-1948‬הוקמו ‪ 370‬יישובים יהודיים חדשים‪,‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫רובם בתחומי הכפרים הערביים הנטושים או בקרבתם‪.‬‬ ‫ביולי ‪ 1949‬מינה ראש הממשלה דאז‪ ,‬דוד בן־גוריון‪ ,‬את “הוועדה הגיאוגרפית‬ ‫לקביעת שמות בנגב”‪ ,‬והוטל עליה לקבוע שמות לכל העצמים הגיאוגרפיים (ולא רק‬ ‫ליישובים) ברחבי הנגב‪ .‬במשך כהונתה‪ ,‬עד מאי ‪ ,1950‬קבעה הוועדה ‪ 560‬שמות‪ ,‬מהם‬ ‫‪ 24‬ליישובים קיימים‪ .‬באפריל ‪ 1951‬החליטה ממשלת ישראל לאחד את הוועדה לקביעת‬ ‫שמות גיאוגרפיים בנגב שליד משרד ראש הממשלה ואת הוועדה לקביעת שמות יישובים‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫של הקרן הקיימת ולמנות במקומן את “ועדת השמות הממשלתית” הפועלת עד היום‪.‬‬ ‫משימתה של ועדת השמות עולה ממכתבו של בן־גוריון לחבריה‪ ,‬מיום ‪ 4‬באוקטובר‬ ‫‪...“ :1949‬אין אנו קשורים בהחלט לשמות הערביים הקיימים‪ ,‬ואין שום צורך לתרגם השם‬ ‫הערבי לעברית — אלא אם השם הולם המקום מבחינה טבעית‪ .‬אבל אם הערבים קראו‬ ‫ל־מ ְצ ִרי‪ ,‬וָ ִדי אל־מצרי‪ ,‬גַ ַּבל אל־מצרי — אסור לנו‪ ,‬לפי דעתי‪ ,‬לקבל שם‬ ‫מקום בשם ָראס ַא ַ‬ ‫זר זה‪ ,‬שמזקיק אדמת המולדת לארץ זרה‪ .‬כשם שאין אנו מכירים בבעלותם הרוחנית‪ ,‬אין‬ ‫אנו זקוקים לשמות שנודף מהם ריח ֲע ָרב”‪.‬‬ ‫האופן הרצוי לביצוע המשימה היה‪ ,‬כמובן‪ ,‬קריאת היישובים החדשים בשמות‬ ‫היסטוריים‪ 25.‬אולם‪ ,‬מספר “השמות ההיסטוריים” שעמדו לרשות הוועדה‪ ,‬באשר‬ ‫ליישובים שנוסדו עד סוף ‪ ,1953‬לא עלה על ‪ 26.61‬כיון שכך נזקקה הוועדה בעבודתה‬ ‫לדרכים נוספות‪ .‬הדרכים שננקטו מובאות להלן בסדר גודל יורד (בסוגרים רשום מספר‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫השמות ההולם את הדרך הנדונה)‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬פירוט היישובים הנטושים‪ ,‬ובין השאר‪ ,‬נתונים על השימוש שנעשה בקרקעותיהם לאחר‬ ‫הנטישה‪ ,‬ראו בספרו של חאלידי‪ ,‬יישובים שננטשו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬ראו‪ :‬ביתן‪ ,‬חמישים שנות התיישבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;89-88‬לשם השוואה‪ ,‬נציין כי בשנים ‪1959-1954‬‬ ‫הוקמו ‪ 81‬יישובים יהודיים חדשים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ביתן‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.90-89‬‬ ‫‪ .24‬ראו‪ :‬ביתן‪ ,‬ועדת השמות הממשלתית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .370-366‬על דרך עבודתה של הוועדה הגיאוגרפית‬ ‫לקביעת שמות בנגב ראו עוד בנבנשתי‪ ,‬המפה העברית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;29-7‬זיו‪ ,‬עיי נשיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.205-180‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬בחזקת “שמות היסטוריים”‪ ,‬לפי הגדרת הוועדה‪ ,‬נכללו טופונימים הידועים ממקורות‬ ‫שאינם מאוחרים מסוף התקופה הביזנטית (או‪ ,‬במילים אחרות‪ ,‬מקורות הקודמים לכיבוש הארץ‬ ‫בידי המוסלמים)‪“ :‬המקרא והתלמוד; כתובת שישק; תרגום השבעים; כתבי יוסף בן־מתתיהו; מפת‬ ‫מידבא; מפת פויטינגר; סטפניוס ביזנטינוס; גיאורגיוס קיפריוס; צו־המסים מבאר שבע; פפירוסי קולט‬ ‫(=פפירוסי ניצנה); נוטיציה דיגניטטום; הירוקלס סינדקמוס” (ראו‪ :‬שנתון הממשלה תשי”א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)280‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬לכאורה‪ ,‬מספר זה נראה נמוך‪ .‬אולם ראוי לזכור כי טופונימים היסטוריים נוספים רבים‬ ‫נשתמרו בצפון־הארץ וב”משולש” (ביישובים שתושביהם הערבים לא נטשום) וכן באזור ההר המרכזי‬ ‫(ה”שומרון” ו”יהודה”) שהיו בשנים ‪ 1967-1948‬מחוץ לתחומי שליטתה של מדינת ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬מיון הדרכים לקריאת השמות החדשים הוא לפי ביתן‪ ,‬חמישים שנות התיישבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.102-96‬‬ ‫לעתים ההבחנה בין הדרכים השונות לקריאת היישובים החדשים בשמות אינה חד־משמעית‪ ,‬משום‬ ‫שהשם הולם יותר מקבוצה אחת מאלו המפורטות כאן‪.‬‬

‫ערים מוסבות שם‬

‫*‪41‬‬

‫‪ .1‬קריאת שמות על פי פסוקים ומטבעות לשון במקורות היהודיים (‪)70‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬קריאה בשמות היסטוריים (‪)61‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬קריאה בשמות המנציחים אישים‪ ,‬אגודות ומפעלים הקשורים לתולדות הציונות‬ ‫ולבניין הארץ (‪)51‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬קריאה בשמות פרטיים הידועים מן המקורות היהודיים (‪)48‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬קריאה בשמות המנציחים חללים‪ ,‬מקומות או מבצעים הקשורים למלחמות‬ ‫ישראל (‪)37‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬מתן שמות חקלאיים ושמות מעולם החי והצומח (‪)31‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬קריאה בשמות סמליים ופיוטיים (‪)21‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬קריאה בשמות גיאוגרפיים (‪)18‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬קריאה בשמות סמליים הקשורים לערכי הבטחון וההגנה בחיי היישוב (‪)17‬‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬מתן צליל‪ ,‬צורה ומשמעות עבריים לשמות מקומיים (‪.)16‬‬ ‫במכתב מיום ‪ 6.9.1950‬לחברי הוועדה‪ ,‬עם סיום תפקידה‪ ,‬כתב בן־גוריון באותו עניין‪:‬‬ ‫“חברים יקרים! בשם ממשלת ישראל אני שמח להביע לכם הוקרה והכרה על המפעל‬ ‫התרבותי וההיסטורי אשר עשיתם — בקביעת שמות עבריים לכל שטחי הנגב‪ ,‬הריו‪,‬‬ ‫ּלֹותם‬ ‫גבעותיו‪ ,‬עמקיו‪ ,‬גיאיותיו‪ ,‬נחליו‪ ,‬מעבריו‪ ,‬מעייניו‪ ,‬שלוחותיו‪ ,‬בארותיו ומכתשיו‪ּ .‬גַ ֶ‬ ‫חרפת הנכר והלעז מעל מחציתה של מדינת ישראל והשלמתם הפעולה שהחל בה צבא־‬ ‫הגנה־לישראל‪ :‬שחרור הנגב משלטון זר‪ ... .‬אני מקווה שתמשיכו פעולתכם עד שתגאלו‬ ‫כל שטחה של ארץ ישראל משלטון הלעז”‪.‬‬ ‫סוף דבר‪“ ,‬הניתוח עלה יפה”‪ .‬להוציא את השמות הערביים שניתנו למספר יישובים‬ ‫יהודיים אשר הוקמו בתחילת ההתיישבות הציונית בארץ (כמו מטולה‪ ,‬חדרה‪ ,‬עפולה‪,‬‬ ‫[מאיר] שפיה)‪ ,‬ומלבד שמותיהם של יישובי המיעוטים הלא־יהודיים ומקומותיהם‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫הקדושים‪ ,‬מפת הארץ נעשתה עברית והשמות הערביים שהיו בה נמוגים והולכים‪.‬‬ ‫העובדה שלרשות הוועדה שקבעה את שמותיהם של ‪ 370‬היישובים היהודיים בשנים‬ ‫‪ 1953-1948‬לא עמדו אלא ‪ 61‬שמות היסטוריים מלמדת שרוב הטופונימים הקדם־ערביים‬ ‫לא נשתמרו בשמות הכפרים הערביים שננטשו‪ 30.‬גלגל חוזר בעולם‪...‬‬

‫‪“ .28‬מספר שמות צליליהם לא היו שונים מצלילי העברית ואפשר היה להשאירם ללא שינוי; שמות‬ ‫אחרים שלא הוחלפו בשמות היסטוריים ולא תורגמו‪ ,‬חודשו על יסוד חלקי של צלילים‪ .‬אין לחפש‬ ‫בחידושים אלה בסיס בלשני ואין לדקדק בכשרותם האטימולוגית‪ .‬ייתכן ששמות עבריים קדומים שובשו‬ ‫ולבשו צורה נכרית ועתה הם נגאלים‪ ,‬וייתכן שאין דמיון הצלילים אלא מקרה” (ראו‪ :‬שנתון הממשלה‬ ‫תשי”א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)279‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬ראו‪ :‬בנבנישתי‪ ,‬המפה העברית; קדמן‪ ,‬בצדי הדרך‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬תהליך אובדן זה ראוי למחקר נפרד ולא יידון כאן‪.‬‬

‫*‪42‬‬

‫ישראל אפעל‬

‫נספח א‪ :‬על המשמעות הלכסיקלית והאידיאולוגית של הטופונים ‪Ana-Aššur-utēr-aṣbat‬‬ ‫הטופונים ‪ ,Ana-Aššur-utēr-aṣbat‬היינו “השבתי (ו)כבשתי לאשור”‪ 31,‬שמה המוסב של‬ ‫העיר שנקראה בפי הארמים ‪=( Pitru‬פתור?)‪ ,‬מורכב משני פעלים‪=( turru :‬להשיב)‪ 32‬ו־‬ ‫‪( ṣabātu‬לכבוש)‪ 33.‬לפעלים הללו יש מקבילות סמנטיות שמיות מערביות התורמות להבנתם‪.‬‬ ‫בין הפעלים המציינים במקרא כיבוש אנו מוצאים את לקח (ראה‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬מל”ב טו ‪:29‬‬ ‫“’בימי פקח מלך ישראל בא תגלת פלאסר מלך אשור ויקח את עיון ואת אבל בית מעכה‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫ואת ינוח ואת קדש ואת חצור ואת הגלעד ואת הגלילה‪ ,‬כל ארץ נפתלי‪ ,‬ויגלם אשורה”)‪.‬‬ ‫המקבילה המואבית לפועל הנדון היא אחז; השווה כתובת מישע “ויבן לה מלך ישראל‬ ‫את עטרת ואלתחם בקר ואחזה” (שו’ ‪“ ;)11-10‬ויאמר לי כמש לך אחז את נבה על ישראל‬ ‫‪ ...‬ואחזה” (שו’ ‪ .)16-14‬זוהי גם הוראתו של הפועל اﺧذ בערבית‪ .‬והשווה עוד המקבילה‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫‪ ṣabātu // aḫāzu‬ברשימה הלכסיקלית ‪.malku = šarru‬‬ ‫כתובת מישע היא כתובת הקדשה שפתיחתה חדורה רוח מדינית־דתית‪ .‬היא פותחת‬ ‫בהודיה לכמוש‪ ,‬אלוהי מואב‪ ,‬על חסדו‪“ ,‬כי השעני מכל המלכן וכי הראני בכל שנאי” (שו’‬ ‫‪ .)4‬לאחר אזכור שעבודה של מואב‪“ ,‬כי יאנף כמש בארצה” (שו’ ‪ ,)6-5‬מתואר המאבק בין‬ ‫מואב וישראל על ארץ מידבא‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֵׄרשׁ‪ 36‬עמרי את כל ארץ מהדבא‪ ...‬וַ יְ ִׁש ֶב ָה‪ 37‬כמש בימי”‬ ‫(שו’ ‪ ,)9-7‬היינו כמוש החזיר את ארץ מידבא למצבה הקודם‪ ,‬למואב‪ ,‬לאחר שנכבשה בידי‬ ‫מלך ישראל כדור אחד קודם לכן‪ .‬למקבילות עבריות לפועל הנדון השווה מל”ב יד ‪// 22‬‬ ‫דה”ב כו ‪‘ :2‬הוא (אמציה) בנה את אילת וישבה ליהודה’; מל”ב יד ‪“ :25‬הוא (ירבעם ב’)‬ ‫השיב את גבול ישראל מלבוא חמת עד ים הערבה” (ראה כיו”ב פס’ ‪ ;)28‬טז ‪‘ :6‬בעת ההיא‬ ‫השיב רצין מלך ארם את אילת לארם וינשל את היהודים מאילות וארומים (קרי ואדומים)‬ ‫באו אילת וישבו שם עד היום הזה’‪ .‬כאמור‪ ,‬מקבילה אכדית לפועל זה היא ‪.turru‬‬ ‫הפעלים לקח והשב‪ ,‬כמו ‪ ṣabātu‬ו־‪ ,turru‬באים בצמדים‪ .‬השווה מל”א כ ‪‘ :34‬ויאמר‬ ‫אליו (בן־הדד לאחאב) הערים אשר לקח אבי מאת אביך אשיב ‪ ...‬ואני בברית אשלחך’;‬ ‫מל”ב יג ‪‘ :25‬וישב יהואש בן יהואחז ויקח את הערים מיד בן־הדד בן־חזאל אשר לקח מיד‬ ‫יהואחז אביו במלחמה‪ ...‬וישב את ערי ישראל’‪ .‬וראה גם שמ”א ז ‪ ;14‬מל”ב יד ‪ // 22‬דה”ב‬ ‫כו ‪ ;2‬מל”ב יד ‪ ;28 ,25‬טז ‪ .6‬כך הדבר בשם ‪ ,Ana-Aššur-utēr-aṣbat‬שבו קרא שלמנאסר‬

‫‪ .31‬בכתיב הטופונים הנדון במקורות שבידינו אין מגדיר (‪ )determinative‬לפני השם “אשור”‪ ,‬ועל‬ ‫כן ניתן לכאורה לחשוב ש”אשור” מכוון כאן לאל ולא לארץ‪ .‬אולם לאור המקבילות העבריות המצוטטות‬ ‫בנספח זה עדיף לומר שהכוונה היא לארץ אשור (ולא לאל)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬ראו‪CAD T 268 tāru 8 j :‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬ראו‪CAD Ṣ 15-16 ṣabātu 3 e :‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬למשמעות זו‪ ,‬השוו גם‪CAD L 144-145 leqû 4 d :‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬ראו‪ :‬הרושה‪ ,‬שמות נרדפים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪I IV 237 108,‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬כך‪ ,‬בבניין ִהפעיל‪ .‬הקריאה המקובלת “וַ ּיִ ַרׁש (בבנין קל) עמרי את ארץ מידבא” זרה לרוח‬ ‫הלאומית והדתית המפעמת בכתובת מישע‪ .‬מן הקריאה “וַ ּיִ ַרׁש” משתמע שעמרי קיבל את הארץ (ממי?‬ ‫האמנם מכמוש?!) על פי חוק הירושה; ואילו לפי הקריאה “ויורש”‪ ,‬עמרי הוריש את ארץ מידבא‪ ,‬היינו‬ ‫סילק את תושביה (השוו‪ :‬שופ’ יא ‪ ;24-21‬במ’ לג ‪ 53‬ועוד) והארץ הוחזרה לבעליה בידי כמוש‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬כך (משורש שו”ב)‪ ,‬ולא ‘וישב [ב]ה’ (משורש יש”ב)‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מילר‪ ,‬הערה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.464-461‬‬

‫ערים מוסבות שם‬

‫*‪43‬‬

‫ג’ לעיר ‪ .Pitru‬לשם המוסב נודעת אפוא משמעות מדינית ותעמולתית מובהקת‪.‬‬ ‫נספח ב‪ :‬על מוצא הטופונים עקרון ועל השלכותיו ההיסטוריות‬ ‫כאמור‪ ,‬מטופונימים הבאים במקורות חיצוניים — מצריים‪ ,‬בבליים ואוגריתיים — מן‬ ‫האלף השני לפסה”נ ומן הכתובים במקרא עולה כי “גויי הים”‪ ,‬כמוהם כבני ישראל‪,‬‬ ‫ירשו טופונימים מקומיים רבים ולא הסבו אותם במהלך התיישבותם בארץ (ראו לעיל)‪.‬‬ ‫עם הטופונימים הקדומים הללו נמנים שמותיהם של ארבעת המרכזים הפלשתיים עזה‪,‬‬ ‫אשדוד‪ ,‬אשקלון וגת (אמנם גת פלשתים אינה מוזכרת במקורות החיצוניים מן האלף השני‬ ‫לפסה”נ‪ ,‬אבל מן הטופונימים גת כרמל‪ ,‬גת ַּפ ַדלַ וגת רמון הבאים במקורות החיצוניים‬ ‫ברור כי היסוד “גת” הוא מקומי)‪ .‬יוצא דופן הוא שמה של עקרון‪ ,‬שאינו בא במקורות‬ ‫שקדמו להתנחלות הקבוצות החדשות בארץ‪.‬‬ ‫אל־מ ַקנַ ע) נתגלתה‬ ‫ֻ‬ ‫במהלך החפירות בתל מקנה (הוא השם העברי שבו נקראת ח’רבת‬ ‫כתובת ההקדשה‪“ :‬בת בן ִאּכַ יֻ ׁש בן ַּפ ִדי בן יסד בן אדא בן יער שר עקרן לפתגיה אדתה‬ ‫תברכה ותשמרה ותארך ימה ותברך [א]רצה”‪ 38.‬כתובת זו מאששת את ההצעה לזהות‬ ‫את האתר עם עקרון המקראית והשמות ִאּכַ יֻ ׁש ופתגיה מרמזים על המקור הלא־שמי של‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫תושביה (לפחות בחלקם)‪.‬‬ ‫לאחרונה מסתמנת דרך להסברת מקורו של שם העיר עקרון אשר בפלשת‪ :‬הודות‬ ‫לקריאה חוזרת בכתובות לוויות היירוגליפיות שנתגלו בחפירות בחלב אובחן קיומה של‬ ‫פלסתין‪/‬פליסתין (‪ ,)Pala/listin‬אחת הממלכות שקמו בצפון־סוריה‪ ,‬במרחב שבין חלב‬ ‫וחמת‪ ,‬לאחר נפילת האימפריה החיתית בתחילת המאה י”ב לפסה”נ‪ 40.‬לאור תגלית זו הוצע‬ ‫לאתר בצפון־סוריה את האזור שממנו הגיע לארץ־ישראל במאה י”ב לפסה”נ אותו חלק של‬ ‫“גויי הים” הידוע מן המקרא וממקורות מצריים בשם “פלשתים”‪ .‬אישוש לאיתור זה נתגלה‬ ‫בעותק של שבועת הנאמנות לאשורבניפל‪ ,‬שבה השביע אסרחדון מלך אשור את נתיני‬ ‫ממלכתו‪ ,‬אשר נחשף לפני כארבע שנים בחפירות תל ַת ִעינאת‪ 41.‬בין הסנקציות המזומנות‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫“(האלָ ה) מלכת עקרון תפיל תולעת מתוככם”‪.‬‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫מידי האלים למפרי השבועה באה הקללה‬ ‫לאור הממצאים הללו ניתן לשער כי הטופונים עקרון אינו ארצישראלי מקומי‪ ,‬כי‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫מקורו בצפון־סוריה וכי הובא ארצה עם הפלשתים שהתיישבו באזור השפלה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .38‬גיטין‪ ,‬דותן ונוה‪ ,‬כתובת הקדשה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬ראו‪ :‬נוה‪ ,‬אכיש; דמסקי‪ֵ ,‬אלת עקרון; שפר־ליכטנברגר‪ֵ ,‬אלת עקרון‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬הוקינס‪ ,‬קיליקיה; הריסון‪ ,‬נאו־חיתים; הוקינס‪ ,‬כתובות‪ ,‬במיוחד עמ’ ‪ ;45-40‬זינגר‪ ,‬פלישתים‪.‬‬ ‫לדעה כי קרבות הים והיבשה בין צבא מצרים ו"גויי הים" בימי רעמסס ג’ התחוללו בצפון סוריה‪ ,‬ולא‬ ‫במבואות מצרים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬קאהן‪ ,‬מסע רעמסס ג’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬לואינגר‪ ,‬חוזה אסרחדון‪ ,‬במיוחד עמ’ ‪.113 ,102‬‬ ‫‪ .dŠarrat-a-am-qàr-˹ru-u-na˺ ultu libbiku[n]u lišaḫiḫa tult[u] .42‬על “תולעת” כשם קיבוצי‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬דב’ כח ‪ ;39‬יש’ סו ‪ ;24‬יונה ד ‪.7‬‬ ‫לע ְקרֹון בנוסח המסורה העברי‬ ‫‪ .43‬לקביעה כי צורת השם המקורית הייתה ַע ָּקרֹון וכי זו התפתחה ֶ‬ ‫ול־‪ Am/An-qa-a-ru-na‬בכתובות האשוריות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬הורביץ‪ ,‬עקרון‪.‬‬

‫ישראל אפעל‬

44*

‫רשימת קובצי המקורות‬ BIWA = R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals, Wiesbaden 1996 RIMA 2 = A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (1114-859 BC), Toronto 1991 RIMA 3 = A. K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, II (858-745 BC), Toronto 1996 RINAP 1 = H. Tadmor and Sh. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726-722 BC), Kings of Assyria, Winona Lake 2011 RINAP 3 = A. K. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704-681 BC), Parts 1-2, Winona Lake 2012-2014 RINAP 4 = E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC), Winona Lake 2011 SAA I = S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria and the West, Helsinki 1987 SAA VI = Th. Kwasman and S. Parpola, Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-Pileser through Esarhaddon, Helsinki 1991 SAA VII = F. M. Fales and J. N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple Administration, Helsinki 1992 SAA XI = F. M. Fales and J. N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military Administration, Helsinki 1995 SAA XV = A. Fuchs and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III: Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces, Helsinki 2001 SAA XVI = M. Luuko and G. Van Buylaere, The Political Correspondence of Esarhaddon, Helsinki 2002

‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ,‫ נ’ נאמן‬,‫ בעריכת י’ אפעל‬,”‫ מצרים ושובריה‬,‫ “אסרחדון‬,‫ אסרחדון = י’ אפעל‬,‫אפעל‬ 69-53 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תש”ע‬,‫כתובות מלכי אשור‬ c I. Eph al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near = ‫ לוחמה‬,‫אפעל‬ Eastern Empires: A Research Outline”, eds. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, History, Historiography and Interpretation, Jerusalem 1983 c I. Eph al, “Stages and Aims in the Royal Historiography of = ‫ שלבים ומגמות‬,‫אפעל‬ Esarhaddon”, Orient 49 (2014), pp. 51-68

‫ ארץ־ישראל כג‬,”‫ “ועדת השמות הממשלתית‬,‫ ועדת השמות הממשלתית = ח’ ביתן‬,‫ביתן‬ 370-366 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫(תשנ”ב‬ ‫ ירושלים תשנ”ט‬,‫ חמישים שנות התיישבות‬,‫ חמישים שנות התיישבות = ח’ ביתן‬,‫ביתן‬

45*

‫ערים מוסבות שם‬

,)1997( 11 ‫ תיאוריה וביקורת‬,”‫ “המפה העברית‬,‫ המפה העברית = מ’ בנבנשתי‬,‫בנבנשתי‬ 29-7 ’‫עמ‬ A.R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, = ‫ טקסטים טופוגרפיים‬,’‫ג’ורג‬ Leuven 1992

‫ קדמוניות‬,”‫ “כתובת־הקדשה מלכותית מעקרון‬,‫ י’ נוה‬,‫ ט’ דותן‬,‫ דותן ונוה = ס’ גיטין‬,‫גיטין‬ 43-38 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ל (תשנ”ז‬ A. K. Grayson, “Assyria: Ashur-dan II to Ashur-Nirari V (934-745 = ‫ אשור‬,‫גרייסון‬ B.C.)”, eds. J. Boardman et alii, Cambridge Ancient History III/1, Cambridge 1982, pp. 247-265 S.M. Dalley, “Neo-Assyrian Tablets from Til Barsip”, = ‫ לוחות נאו־אשוריים‬,‫דאלי‬ Abr-Nahrain 34 (1996-1997), pp. 66-99 I.M. Diakonoff and S. M. Kashkai, = ‫ שמות גיאוגרפיים‬,‫דיאקונוף וקשקאי‬ Geographical Names According to Urartian Texts, Wiesbaden 1981 A. Demsky, “The Name of the Goddess of Ekron”, Journal = ‫ ֵאלת עקרון‬,‫דמסקי‬ of the Ancient Near Eastern Studies 25 (1998), pp 1-5 J.D. Hawkins, “The Inscriptions of the Aleppo Temple”, = ‫ כתובות‬,‫הוקינס‬ Anatolian Studies 61 (2011), pp. 35-54 J.D. Hawkins, “Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo”, Near Eastern = ‫ קיליקיה‬,‫הוקינס‬ Archaeology 74 (2009), pp. 164-173 ,)‫ לשוננו לג (תשכ”ט‬,”Ἀκκαρων = Amqar(r)una = ‫ “עקרון‬,‫ עקרון = א’ הורביץ‬,‫הורביץ‬

24-18 ’‫עמ‬ I. Hrůša, Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru, = ‫ שמות נרדפים‬,‫הרושה‬ Münster 2010 T.P. Harrison,”Neo-Hittites in the ‘Land of Palistin’’’, Near = ‫ נאו־חיתים‬,‫הריסון‬ Eastern Archaeology 74 (2009), pp. 174-189

,)‫ “עיי נשיה” (על דרכי ציונם של כפרים נטושים במפת ישראל‬,‫ עיי נשיה = י’ זיו‬,‫זיו‬ 205-180 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ (תשס”ט‬6 ‫מורשת ישראל‬ I. Singer, “The Philistines in the North and the Kingdom of = ‫ פלישתים‬,‫זינגר‬ Taita”, eds. G. Galil et alii, The Ancient Near East in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History, Münster 2012, pp. 451-471 W. Khalidi, All that Remains: The Palestinian Villages = ‫ יישובים שננטשו‬,‫חאלידי‬ Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, Washington 1992 J. Lauinger, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell = ‫ חוזה אסרחדון‬,‫לואינגר‬ Tayinat: Text and Commentary”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64 (2012), pp. 87-123 M. Liverani, “The Growth of the Assyrian Empire = ‫ האימפריה האשורית‬,‫ליוורני‬ in the Habur/Middle Euphrates Area: A New Paradigm”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin II/1 (1988), pp. 81-98

‫ישראל אפעל‬

46*

P.D. Miller, “A Note on the Mešac Inscription”, Orientalia 38 = ‫ הערה‬,‫מילר‬ (1969), pp. 461-464 P.K. McCarter, II Samuel, Anchor Bible, New Haven-London = ‫ שמואל ב‬,‫מקרטר‬ 1982 Kh. Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen = ‫ יישובי התקופה האשורית התיכונה‬,‫נאשף‬ der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit, Wiesbaden 1982 Kh. Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen = ‫ יישובי התקופה האשורית הקדומה‬,‫נאשף‬ der altassyrischen Zeit, Wiesbaden 1991 J. Naveh, “Achish-Ikausu in the Light of the Ekron Dedication”, = ‫ אכיש‬,‫נוה‬ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 310 (1998), pp. 35-37 F. M. Fales, “An Aramaic Tablet from Tell Shioukh Fawqani, = ‫ לוח ארמי‬,‫פאלס‬ Syria“, Semitica 46 (1996), pp. 81-121 B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Toponyme als Ausdruck = ‫ טופונימים‬,‫פונגרץ־לייסטן‬ assyrischen Herrschaftsanspruchs”, eds. B. Pongratz-Leisten, H. Kühne and P. Xella, Ana šadî Labnāni lū allik (Festschrift W. Röllig), NeukyrchenVluyn 1997 S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms, Neukyrchen-Vluyn 1970 = ‫ טופונימים‬,‫פרפולה‬ D. Kahn, “The Campaign of Ramesses III against Philistia”, = ‘‫ מסע רעמסס ג‬,‫קאהן‬ Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 3/4 (2011), pp. 1-11

‫ דחיקת הכפרים הערביים‬:‫ בצדי הדרך ובשולי התודעה‬,‫ בצדי הדרך = נ‘ קדמן‬,‫קדמן‬ ‫ ירושלים תשס“ח‬,‫ מהשיח הישראלי‬1948‫שהתרוקנו ב־‬ Ch. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “The Goddess of Ekron = ‫ ֵאלת עקרון‬,‫שפר־ליכטנברגר‬ and the Religious-Cultural Background of the Philistines”, Israel Exploration Journal 50 (2000), pp. 82-91

‫ לקורות‬:‫ “בית נינורתה = בית חורון‬,‫ ז’ קלאי‬,‫ בית נינורתה = ח’ תדמור‬,‫תדמור וקלאי‬ 147-138 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ תשכ”ט‬,‫ ארץ־ישראל ט‬,”‫ממלכת ירושלים בתקופת אל־עמארנה‬ F. Thureau-Dangin, “L‘inscription des lions de Til- = ‫ אריות תל ברסיפ‬,‫תירו־דנז‘ן‬ Barsip”, Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 27 (1930), pp. 11-21

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪47‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫ההתנגשות הגורלית בין מדיניות המלך‬ ‫לבין קדושת נחלת אבות‬ ‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬ ‫“ויאמר נבות אל־אחאב חלילה לי מה’ מתתי את־נחלת אבתי לך” (מל”א כא ‪)3‬‬ ‫“ולא יקח הנשיא מנחלת העם להונתם מאחזתם” (יח’ מו ‪)18‬‬ ‫במחקרי זה בדעתי לדון בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי מן האספקטים הבאים‪ :‬ההיסטורי‪,‬‬ ‫הפוליטי‪ ,‬הכלכלי והאידיאולוגי‪ .‬מחקרי מתבסס על ההנחה שבמקורות המקראיים‬ ‫בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי (מל”א כא ‪ ;29-1‬מל”ב ט ‪ ,)27 ,10-1‬טמונות עדויות היסטוריות‬ ‫רלוונטיות‪ ,‬המאפשרות‪ ,‬בסיוע עדויות נוספות ממקורות מקראיים וחוץ־מקראיים‬ ‫וממצאים ארכיאולוגיים‪ ,‬לנסות ליצור תמונה היסטורית קבילה של הנושא‪ ,‬ולהביא לכדי‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫מיצוי ראוי את תפישתי החדשה בפרשה זו‪.‬‬ ‫ממלכת ישראל ידעה תקופת שגשוג‪ ,‬התפתחות והתרחבות בתקופת מלכות עמרי‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫ואחאב במחצית הראשונה של המאה התשיעית לפנה”ס‪.‬‬ ‫מלכים אלה הצליחו לכונן ממלכה מאוחדת של כל שבטי הצפון‪ ,‬והביאו להתחזקותה‬ ‫ולהתעצמותה‪ 3.‬המלך עמרי שתפס את המלוכה‪ ,‬כונן בירה־שומרון והפכּה מיישוב קטן‬ ‫למרכז רב עצמה והשפעה‪ .‬עמרי ובנו אחאב הרחיבו מאד את שטחה של שומרון ופיארוה‬ ‫‪ .1‬בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי עסקתי וחקרתי במשך שנים ופרסמתי מאמרים והרצאות‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬בן־ברק‪,‬‬ ‫החרמת קרקעות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;117-101‬בן־ברק‪ ,‬פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;20-15‬בן־ברק‪ ,‬משפטי בגידה‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ 37-11‬ועוד‪ .‬חומרים אלה משמשים אותי בעבודתי הנוכחית‪ .‬אין בדעתי‪ ,‬לעסוק במחקר הנוכחי בבעיה‬ ‫בה דנתי בעבר‪ ,‬ובה דנו רבים‪ ,‬בהרחבות‪ ,‬בתוספות ובעריכות השונות המאוחרות הכרוכות במחקרים‬ ‫בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬וכן לא בדיון ספרותי על המקורות‪ .‬בעיה זו כבר נדונה בחלק מהמחקרים‬ ‫המובאים במאמר זה‪.‬‬ ‫להנחה שבין המקורות המקראיים הנדונים‪ ,‬מצויות גם עדויות היסטוריות המאפשרות בידינו ליצור‬ ‫תמונה היסטורית מסוימת מסיפור נבות היזרעאלי ראו‪ :‬נאמן‪ ,‬כרם נבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.214 ,199‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬לקורותיה של ממלכת ישראל בתקופת בית עמרי ראו‪ :‬גריי‪ ,‬מל”א&מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;508-328‬טים‪,‬‬ ‫שושלת; כוגן מל”א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;498-415‬כוגן ותדמור‪ ,‬מל”ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬על גדולתה ושגשוגה של מלכות עמרי ואחאב‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬פינקלשטיין וסילברמן‪ ,‬ראשית ישראל‪ .‬בחלק‬ ‫השני‪ :‬עלייתה ונפילתה של הממלכה הצפונית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,225-155‬פורשים מחברי הספר‪ ,‬במיוחד בפרק ‪,7‬‬

‫*‪47‬‬

‫*‪48‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫בבניני פאר‪ .‬הם השכילו למלא את שטחי הקרקעות הנרחבים מכיבושיהם הרבים‬ ‫ביישובים רבים בעלי אופי חקלאי ועירוני‪ .‬הן עמרי‪ ,‬ובמיוחד אחאב‪ ,‬נודעו כמלכים‬ ‫חזקים בעלי עצמה צבאית‪ .‬עמרי כבש את מואב בעבר הירדן המזרחי ושלט שם שנים‬ ‫רבות‪ .‬עדות לכך נמצאת במצבת מישע מלך מואב‪ 4.‬אחאב‪ ,‬בנו‪ ,‬עלה עליו במספר שנות‬ ‫מלכות‪ ,‬בהישגיו‪ ,‬בכיבושיו ובהקמת ערים ויישובים‪ ,‬ויש לראותו כאחד המלכים הגדולים‬ ‫ביותר שידעה הממלכה‪ .‬הוא נודע בכוחו הצבאי הרב‪ ,‬נזכר כאחד מבעלי הברית הגדולים‬ ‫בקואליציה האנטי־אשורית כנגד שלמנאסר ה־‪ ,III‬בקרב קרקר המתואר במונולית מכורח’‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫(שנת ‪ 853‬לפסה”נ)‪.‬‬ ‫אחאב נודע בייצוב הממלכה ובהרחבתה באמצעות כריתת בריתות ונישואין‪ :‬ברית‬ ‫ונישואין עם יהודה‪ ,‬ברית ונישואין עם צור‪ ,‬שתרומתה במיוחד בקשרים מדיניים וכלכליים‪,‬‬ ‫חברות בברית הגדולה האנטי־אשורית כנגד שלמנאסר ה־‪ ,III‬ובתקופה מסוימת ברית גם‬ ‫עם ארם אויבתו‪ .‬גם במדיניות פנים נלמדת גישה חיובית כלפיו‪ ,‬במיוחד בראשית מלכותו‪,‬‬ ‫כפי שעולה מקשרים חיוביים בין אחאב וזקני ישראל‪ .‬למרות מלחמתו הקנאית של אליהו‬ ‫הנביא בהכנסת האלילות של המלכה איזבל‪ ,‬הרי שבראשית מלכותו נוצרו לפרקים בין‬ ‫המלך אחאב והנביא אליהו קשרים מיוחדים‪ ,‬שבאו לביטוים כשאליהו רץ לפני מרכבת‬ ‫אחאב לאחר טבח כוהני הבעל‪ .‬אם כי ברבות הימים החריף והורע יחסו של אליהו כלפי‬ ‫אחאב‪.‬‬ ‫ואז התרחשה פרשת נבות היזרעאלי (מל”א כא‪ ;29-1 ,‬מל”ב ט‪)27 ,10-1 ,‬‬ ‫פרשה מסעירה‪ ,‬שזעזעה את החברה המקראית ורשמיה הורגשו ומורגשים לאורך‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫דורות בישראל ומחוצה לה‪ ,‬עד ימינו אנו‪.‬‬ ‫פרסומה של פרשת נבות בא לה בעקבות אחד המשפטים המפורסמים והידועים‬ ‫לשמצה מימי קדם ועד ימינו — משפט נבות היזרעאלי‪ .‬משפט זה הפך סמל למשפט‬ ‫את גדולתה‪ ,‬עוצמתה הצבאית והכלכלית של מלכות עמרי ואחאב‪ ,‬את עושרה הרב של הממלכה‪ ,‬שנבע‬ ‫מעושר טבעי‪ ,‬ומקשרי סחר נרחבים‪ ,‬שהפכוה לאחת הממלכות המשגשגות באזור‪ .‬כך גם מפעלי הבנייה‬ ‫המונומנטאליים שלה‪ ,‬עריה המרשימות‪ ,‬צבאה האדיר‪ ,‬שנחשב לאחד הצבאות החזקים ביותר באזור‪,‬‬ ‫וכיבושיה שטחים רבים בעבר הירדן המזרחי ובצפון‪ .‬את קביעתם הם מבססים על עדויות חוץ־מקראיות‬ ‫ועל ממצאים ארכיאולוגיים‪ .‬ברם‪ ,‬לטענתם‪ ,‬במקרא אין ביטוי הולם להישגיהם המפוארים של המלכים‬ ‫עמרי ואחאב‪ ,‬אלא רק הבלטה של מעשיהם השליליים‪ .‬להנחתם‪ ,‬הדברים שהועלמו במתכוון לעומת‬ ‫אלה השליליים שצוינו‪ ,‬נעוצים בעורכים ובעריכות מאוחרים‪ ,‬מההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‪,‬‬ ‫ומאוחר יותר‪ .‬לתיאור שושלת בית עמרי בהיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית ראו‪ :‬אישידה‪ ,‬בית אחאב‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.137-135‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬למצבת מישע‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬רביב‪ ,‬כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;34-9‬דרמן‪ ,‬כתובת מישע; אחיטוב‪ ,‬אסופת כתובות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ;261-249‬נאמן‪ ,‬מלך מישע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,92-83‬וראו גם‪ :‬פינקלשטיין וסילברמן‪ ,‬ראשית ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.182-179‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬לקרב קרקר והמונולית מכורח’‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬כוגן‪ ,‬אסופת כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;15-9‬פינקלשיין וסילברמן‪,‬‬ ‫ראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,176‬ובמיוחד‪ :‬עמ’ ‪.207 ,182‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬לפרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אופנהיימר‪ ,‬הנבואה הקדומה בישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;236-206‬בוהלן‪,‬‬ ‫משפט נבות‪ ,‬ושם ספרות; ויסמן‪ ,‬עם ומלך‪ ,‬וראו להלן הערה ‪.7‬‬

‫*‪49‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫מבוים‪ ,‬ולאספקלריה דרכה ניתן להכיר במלך אחאב‪ ,‬שליט רודן היכול לעשות ברכושו‬ ‫ובחייו של אזרח ככל העולה על רוחו בצורה הצינית ביותר‪ ,‬וסמלו הידוע‪ ,‬זעקתו של‬ ‫הנביא אליהו‪“ :‬הרצחת וגם ירשת” טבע את חותמו עליו לדורי דורות‪.‬‬ ‫פרשה זו‪ ,‬שהטביעה את חותמה על כל מלכות אחאב‪ ,‬מתרחבת להנחתי‪ ,‬וחורגת‬ ‫ממסגרת משפט נבות והפגיעה בו ובבני ביתו‪ ,‬כשהשלכותיה חוצות את גבול הפרט‬ ‫ומתרחבות למדיניות פנים ממלכתית מסובכת הפוגעת באזרחי המדינה‪ ,‬בבית המלך‪,‬‬ ‫גוררת מלחמת אזרחים עקובה מדם ובעיקרון‪ ,‬מערערת את ממלכת ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫בעקבות מכלול מורכב זה יחולק הדיון בפרשה לשני חלקים הנובעים האחד מהשני‪:‬‬ ‫בחלק הראשון אעסוק במוקד הפרשה‪ :‬משפט נבות היזרעאלי — משפט מבוים או‬ ‫משפט אמת?‬ ‫בחלק השני ארחיב הדיון והוא יתמקד בהשלכותיה ובתוצאותיה של הפרשה הזו —‬ ‫האספקט ההיסטורי‪ ,‬הפוליטי‪ ,‬הכלכלי והאידיאולוגי של פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪.‬‬ ‫חלק ראשון — משפט נבות היזרעאלי — משפט מבוים או משפט אמת?‬ ‫‪ .1‬המקור המקראי (מל”א כא ‪)29-17 ,15-1‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫סיפור משפט נבות היזרעאלי מיוחס למחזור סיפורי אליהו‪.‬‬ ‫ניתוח טקסטואלי מלמד שסיפור נבות היזרעאלי מורכב מגרעין היסטורי־ריאלי‬ ‫המהווה את הסיפור המקורי‪ ,‬מל”א כא‪( 16-1 ,‬להלן הסיפור המקורי)‪ ,‬ומהרחבות ועריכות‬ ‫מגמתיות מאוחרות‪ ,‬ממקורות נבואיים ודויטרונומיסטיים (פסוקים ‪ )29-17‬הנותנות לו את‬ ‫הגרסה המוגמרת שבידנו‪.‬‬ ‫מאלף שסיפור מפורסם זה‪ ,‬שגובש וקיבל את מתכונתו הסופית בעלת הקונוטציה‬ ‫השלילית על ידי העריכות המאוחרות‪ ,‬הוקפא בתפישה זו לאורך כל התקופות‪ .‬על אף‬ ‫המחקרים הרבים שהאירו אותו מאספקטים שונים‪ ,‬נמנעו החוקרים מלהתמודד עם‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫התפישה המקובלת של משפט מבוים‪.‬‬ ‫הגירוי לחקירה מחודשת החל בהשפעת מספר תעודות חוץ־מקראיות‪ ,‬שעוררו בי‬ ‫את ההכרה בנחיצות לחזור ולערוך בדיקה מחודשת בטקסט המקראי של סיפור נבות‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫היזרעאלי‪.‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬

‫‪ .7‬למשפט נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬ראו בהרחבה‪ :‬אופנהיימר‪ ,‬הנבואה הקדומה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .236-218‬עוד ראו‪:‬‬ ‫כוגן‪ ,‬מל”א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;486-475‬נפיר‪ ,‬יזרעאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;378-366‬אנדרסן‪ ,‬הרקע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;57-46‬סיבס‪ ,‬משפט נבות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ;481-474‬ויסמן‪ ,‬עם ומלך‪ ,‬פרק חמישי‪“ ,‬היבטים משפטיים בסיפור על כרם נבות היזרעאלי (מל”א‬ ‫כא)”‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,126-93‬פורש תמונה רחבה ומעמיקה‪ ,‬וראו מחקרו המאלף של רופא‪ ,‬כרם נבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.104-89‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬ניתוח משפט נבות היזרעאלי בעקבות אופנהיימר‪ ,‬הנבואה הקדומה‪ ,‬עמ' ‪ ;226-218‬גריי‬ ‫מל”א&מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,393-385‬ראה לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪.7‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬היו מי שטענו כי המשפט הוא חד־צדדי‪ ,‬מבוים‪ ,‬מרושע ומכור מראש‪ ,‬דוגמת‪ :‬אופנהיימר‪,‬‬ ‫הנבואה הקדומה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,22‬הערה ‪ .115‬ויסמן‪ ,‬עם ומלך‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,107‬מציין במפורש ש”המשפט הינו עלילה‬ ‫זדונית ומבוימת‪ ,‬שתכליתה לחסל את נבות על סמך עילה משפטית שונה מעיקרה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬על הרלוונטיות של ספרות המזרח הקדום להבנת ספרות המקרא‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬האלו‪ ,‬מבוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.28-23‬‬

‫*‪50‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫בסיפור המקורי (מל”א כא ‪ )16-1‬נבחין בשלבים הבאים‪:‬‬ ‫(פס’ ‪)7-1‬‬ ‫שלב א — המשא ומתן לקנית כרם נבות היזרעאלי ‬ ‫(פס’ ‪)14-8‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫שלב ב — משפט נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫(פס’ ‪)16-15‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫שלב ג — אחאב יורש את כרם נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫הסיפור המקורי תואם לאופיו של הסיפור המקראי — קצר‪ ,‬פשוט‪ ,‬עלילה‪ ,‬גיבורים —‬ ‫מכסה על תיאורי רגשות‪ ,‬בעיות‪ ,‬מאבקים‪ ,‬זרמים וכו’‪ 11,‬שלצורך גילוים נזקק הקורא‬ ‫להיעזר במקורות נוספים במקרא ובמקורות חוץ־מקראיים‪.‬‬ ‫(מל”א כא ‪)7-1‬‬ ‫שלב א — המשא ומתן לקנית כרם נבות היזרעאלי‪ :‬‬ ‫“ויהי אחר הדברים האלה כרם היה לנבות היזרעאלי אשר ביזרעאל אצל‬ ‫היכל אחאב מלך שמרון‪ .‬וידבר אחאב אל־נבות לאמר תנה־לי‬ ‫את־כרמך ויהי־לי לגן־ירק‪ ,‬כי הוא קרוב אצל ביתי ואתנה לך תחתיו‬ ‫כרם טוב ממנו‪ .‬אם טוב בעיניך אתנה־לך כסף מחיר זה‪.‬‬ ‫ויאמר נבות אל־אחאב חלילה לי מה’ מתתי את־נחלת אבתי לך‬ ‫ויבא אחאב אל־ביתו סר וזעף על־הדבר אשר־דבר אליו נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫ויאמר לא־אתן לך את־נחלת אבותי‪ ,‬וישכב על־מטתו ויסב את־פניו‬ ‫ולא־אכל לחם‪ .‬ותבא אליו אשתו ותדבר אליו מה־זה רוחך סרה ואינך‬ ‫אכל לחם‪ .‬וידבר אליה כי אדבר אל־נבות היזרעאלי ואמר לו תנה־לי‬ ‫את־כרמך בכסף או אם־חפץ אתה אתנה־לך כרם תחתיו ויאמר לא־אתן‬ ‫את־כרמי‪ .‬ותאמר אליו איזבל אשתו אתה עתה תעשה מלוכה על־ישראל‬ ‫קום אכל־לחם ויטב לבך אני אתן לך את־כרם נבות היזרעאלי”‬ ‫כבר בפתיחה מציג הסיפור את גיבורי העלילה‪ :‬אחאב מלך ישראל‪ ,‬נבות היזרעאלי‪,‬‬ ‫ובהמשכו איזבל אשת אחאב‪ .‬גם נבות וגם אחאב מוצגים כאזרחיה הנכבדים של יזרעאל‪.‬‬ ‫לגבי אחאב‪ ,‬באה המילה “ביתי” להבהיר שהוא בעל אחוזה משפחתית בעיר מולדתו‪,‬‬ ‫ובהתאם לדעת חוקרים הכוונה לנחלת אבות‪ .‬באשר לנבות‪ ,‬תוארו הצמוד “היזרעאלי”‪,‬‬ ‫מלמד על שרשיו הבסיסיים ביזרעאל‪ .‬איזבל המלכה‪ ,‬בת אתבעל מלך צור‪ ,‬מככבת‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫כגיבורה ראשית במשפט נבות היזרעאלי‪.‬‬ ‫מקום האירוע — העיר יזרעאל‪ 13.‬המוטיבציה הראשית בפרשה היא רצונו של המלך‬ ‫לרכוש את האדמות הנמצאות בבעלותו של האזרח נבות היזרעאלי והוא פונה אליו‬ ‫בהצעת עסקה‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬לאופיו ולעיצובו של הסיפור המקראי ראו‪ :‬אמית‪ ,‬הסיפורת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,286-273‬ושם ספרות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬על מוצאם של נבות ואחאב ועל הקשר שלהם ליזרעאל ניתן ללמוד מן הכתוב‪ .‬אחאב מכנה‬ ‫את ארמונו שביזרעאל “ביתי”‪ ,‬ויש להניח שהייתה זו אחוזת המשפחה בעיר מולדתו הטבעית‪ ,‬ונבות‬ ‫“היזרעאלי”‪ ,‬אזרח ישראלי נכבד‪ ,‬שמוצאו מיזרעאל‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬גריי‪ ,‬מל”א&מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;391-390‬אופנהיימר‪,‬‬ ‫הנבואה הקדומה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,219‬והשוו את התואר של ברזילי ‘הגלעדי’ המצביע על מוצאו (שמ”ב יז ‪ .)27‬על‬ ‫איזבל‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ברנר‪ ,‬איזבל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.37-27‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬על העיר יזרעאל ומעמדה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬נפיר‪ ,‬יזרעאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .378-366‬להנחתו‪ ,‬בתקופת עמרי ואחאב‬ ‫היתה חשיבותה של יזרעאל כשומרון‪ ,‬ואולי יותר‪ ,‬ורק הנוסח הדויטרונומיסטי הוא שמייחס את שומרון‬ ‫ולא את יזרעאל כמקום שלטון המלך‪ ,‬וראו אוסישקין‪ ,‬המיתחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.13-12‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪51‬‬

‫“תנה לי־את כרמך ויהי־לי לגן ירק כי הוא קרוב אצל ביתי ואתנה‬ ‫לך תחתיו כרם טוב ממנו‪ .‬אם טוב בעיניך אתנה־לך כסף מחיר זה” (פס’ ‪)2‬‬ ‫אחאב מנמק את רצונו לרכוש חלקה זו‪ ,‬והצעתו מתקבלת מהכתוב כעניינית והוגנת‪,‬‬ ‫ואף מעמידה את המלך באור חיובי‪ .‬אחאב מוכן לשלם תמורת החלקה ככל שישית‬ ‫ויקבע נבות‪ .‬הסיפור מעמיד את המלך ואת נבות כשווים‪ .‬יתרה מכך‪ ,‬לשונו של המלך‬ ‫רכה ומשדלת ואינה משתמעת כנשענת על סמכות ושררה‪ ,‬ובוודאי לא כצו רודני‪ .‬על־‬ ‫פי הכתוב‪ ,‬מסרב נבות להצעה באופן חד וחלק‪“ :‬ויאמר נבות אל־אחאב חלילה לי מה’‬ ‫מתתי את־נחלת אבתי לך” (פס’ ‪ .)3‬אחאב‪ ,‬שנפגע מסירובו של נבות‪ ,‬חוזר אל ביתו “סר‬ ‫וזעף” שוכב על מיטתו‪ ,‬מסב את פניו‪ ,‬אינו אוכל לחם‪ ,‬ונוהג כאדם אבל‪ 14.‬הקטע מסתיים‬ ‫בתגובתה הקצרה וההחלטית של המלכה איזבל‪ ,‬המכריזה כי היא תתן את הכרם לאחאב‪.‬‬ ‫מן הראוי לציין שלאורך כל הקטע מוצג המלך באור חיובי‪.‬‬ ‫(מל”א כא ‪)14-8‬‬ ‫שלב ב — משפט נבות היזרעאלי ‬ ‫המשפט הוא מרכזה של פרשת נבות והוא המקור להפיכתה לסמל לעריצות של מלך‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫קפריזי‪ ,‬שכתוצאה מחמדנותו מוצא אזרח תמים להורג ורכושו מוחרם למלך‪.‬‬ ‫הדעה הרווחת היא שמשפט נבות הוא משפט מבוים ומרושע‪ .‬מפסוקים ‪ 13-8‬מסיקים‬ ‫שהמשפט מראש היה משפט מכור‪ ,‬מאחר ובמפורש נאמר שהמשפט היה פרי יוזמתה‬ ‫ותיכנונה של המלכה איזבל‪ ,‬שבצו מפורש מורה לשופטים לכונן את המשפט וכן מתווה‬ ‫להם את מהלך המשפט על כל פרטיו‪ ,‬כשחותם המלך מאשר למעשה את חסותו‪:‬‬ ‫ותכתב (איזבל) ספרים בשם אחאב ותחתם בחתמו ותשלח הספרים אל הזקנים‬ ‫ואל־החרים אשר בעירו הישבים את־נבות‪ .‬ותכתב בספרים לאמר קראו צום‬ ‫והשיבו את־נבות בראש העם (פס’ ‪)9-8‬‬ ‫אולם העובדה שהמלכה איזבל היא שיזמה וארגנה את המשפט בחסות המלך‪ ,‬אין בה‬ ‫עדיין כל הוכחה שהמשפט עצמו אינו הוגן‪.‬‬ ‫ואכן קריאה מעמיקה בקטע מבהירה כי ההנחה המרשיעה את מהות המשפט‪ ,‬אינה‬ ‫עולה מכלל הכתובים‪ ,‬אלא מתבססת על שני טיעונים בלבד‪:‬‬ ‫הטיעון האחד — מתבסס על פסוק אחד בלבד‪ ,‬פסוק ‪:10‬‬ ‫“והושיבו שנים אנשים בני בליעל נגדו ויעדהו לאמר ברכת אלהים ומלך‪,‬‬ ‫ויוציאוהו מחוץ לעיר ויסקלוהו באבנים וימת”‬ ‫וממנו מסיקים כי הושתלו עדי שקר מטעם המלכה‪ ,‬שעדותם הביאה להוצאתו להורג‬ ‫של נבות‪.‬‬ ‫הטיעון השני — פסוק ‪ ,19‬הוא משפטו המפורסם של הנביא אליהו‪“ :‬הרצחת וגם‬ ‫ירשת”‪ ,‬שהקנה לפרשה זו את פרסומה ואת אות הקין שלה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .14‬על דרך התנהגותו זו המורה על צערו ומצוקתו של המלך אחאב‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מל”א כא ‪ .27‬לסימני אבל‬ ‫על פי המקרא‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬שמ”ב יב ‪.17-16‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬למשפט נבות ראו לעיל הערה ‪.7‬‬

‫*‪52‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫שני טיעונים אלה הם המקורות הבלעדיים בכל סיפור נבות שתוו לו את התווית —‬ ‫משפט מבוים‪ ,‬ובעקבותם קבלוהו החוקרים ללא עוררין לאורך השנים‪.‬‬ ‫העילה לבדיקה מחודשת עלתה מלפניי לאור תעודות חוץ־מקראיות הדנות במשפטי‬ ‫בגידה במלך‪ ,‬שבאמצעותן ניתן להבין טיבו של משפט מסוג זה‪ ,‬ואת המשמעות המדויקת‬ ‫והנכונה של שני הטיעונים המפלילים מתוך הטקסט המקראי‪.‬‬ ‫משפטי בגידה במלך במזרח הקדום‬ ‫שני משפטים פומביים מפורטים בלעדיים כנגד אזרחים שהואשמו בבגידה במלך‬ ‫מתבררים ממקורות חוץ־מקראיים‪ ,‬האחד ממצרים והשני מבבל‪ .‬כך‪ ,‬בנוסף למשפט נבות‬ ‫היזרעאלי מישראל‪ ,‬ברשותנו שלושה משפטים מסוג זה מישראל ומהמזרח הקדום‪.‬‬ ‫למקורות אלה חשיבות רבה לאין ערוך לדיוננו‪ ,‬מאחר שחקירה והשוואה במשפטים‬ ‫אלה משמשות בידינו מקור ראשון במעלה להאיר את משפט נבות במשמעותו הריאלית‪.‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬

‫א‪ .‬משפט רעמסס ה־‪ III‬מלך מצרים‪ ,‬המאה ה־‪ 12‬לפסה”נ‬ ‫בסוף מלכותו‪ ,‬נפצע רעמסס ה־‪ 18III‬פצעים אנושים בעקבות התנקשות בחייו‪ .‬אירוע‬ ‫זה שנודע בשם “קשר ההרמון” מקורו ביזמת אחת מנשותיו‪ ,‬תיא‪ ,‬שזממה להרוג את‬ ‫המלך‪ .‬תכניתה היתה להעלות את בנה פנתוורא‪ 19‬לשלטון‪ ,‬במקום הבן שנבחר ליורש‬ ‫על ידי רעמסס אביו‪ ,‬כרעמסס ה־‪ .iv‬המלכה הצליחה לגייס לקשר פקידים בכירים מן‬ ‫הארמון‪ 20,‬שחלקם כיהנו בשרותו האישי של רעמסס‪ .‬הקשר‪ ,‬שמקורו כאמור היה בארמון‪,‬‬ ‫‪17‬‬

‫‪ .16‬מעשי איבה כנגד מלכים בישראל ובמזרח הקדום מדווחים במקרא ובמקורות החוץ־מקראיים‪.‬‬ ‫ניתן להבחין בהם בשתי קטגוריות‪ :‬הראשונה‪ ,‬הרווחת ביותר‪ ,‬מתייחסת לשני סוגים‪ :‬האחד‪ ,‬למעשי‬ ‫קשר כנגד המלך במטרה לתפוש את כסאו‪ ,‬בעוד בשני‪ ,‬הפשע כנגד המלך אינו מוגדר‪ .‬העונש בשני‬ ‫הסוגים חמור ביותר — מות לנאשם והחרמת רכושו על ידי המלך‪ .‬בקטגוריה זו — לא מוזכר משפט‬ ‫והנאשם נענש על הסף‪ .‬הקטגוריה השניה‪ ,‬הנדירה ביותר — דיווח על משפטים מפורסמים‪ ,‬העונש‬ ‫גם הוא חמור ביותר‪ ,‬בהתאם לגזר הדין — מוות והחרמת הרכוש‪ .‬למעשי האיבה כנגד המלך בשתי‬ ‫הקטגוריות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬בן־ברק‪ ,‬משפטי בגידה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .37-11‬במחקר זה נתייחס רק למשפטי בגידה במלך‬ ‫שפורסמו במקרא ובמזרח הקדום‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.37-19‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬למשפט זה המכונה “קשר הארמון”‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬דה בק‪ ,‬הפפירוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;164-152‬וילסון‪ ,‬תוצאות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ;216-214‬ברסטד‪ ,‬תעודות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;221-208‬גואדיק‪ ,‬קסם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,92-71‬פוסל בעזרת שתי תעודות‬ ‫הדנות ב’קשר ההרמון’ כנגד רעמסס ה־‪ ,III‬את האפשרות שהשתמשו ב’קסם’ בביצוע רצח רעמסס‪ ,‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫רדפורד‪ ,‬קשר ההרמון‪ ,‬הדן בהרחבה במעשה הרצח ובמשתתפיו‪ ,‬והשוו‪ :‬קנאווטי‪ ,‬קשר‪ ,‬בנושא מעניין‬ ‫זה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬למרות שלא צוין שם המלך‪ ,‬ידוע שהיה זה רעמסס ה־‪ ,III‬מאחר שהוא מכונה ‘שליט הליופוליס’‪,‬‬ ‫כינוי שניתן במיוחד לרעמסס ה־‪.III‬‬ ‫‪ Pentewere .19‬לא היה שמו האמיתי של הנסיך‪ ,‬אלא שם שניתן לו בתעודות הארמון‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬ברסטד‪,‬‬ ‫תעודות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,208‬הערה ‪.3‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬גם הקושרים הראשיים לא כונו בשמותיהם האמיתיים‪ ,‬אלא בשמות שניתנו להם בתעודות‬ ‫הארמון‪ ,‬ראה ברסטד‪ ,‬לעיל הערה ‪.17‬‬

‫*‪53‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫פרץ ואיים להתפשט למרד כללי ברחבי הממלכה‪ 21,‬אך נחשף ומשתתפיו נתפסו כולם‪.‬‬ ‫למרות שהמלך עצמו נפגע וימיו היו ספורים‪ 22,‬הוא יזם משפט פומבי כנגד הקושרים‪.‬‬ ‫כל מהלכיו של המשפט היו על פי הוראותיו ובפיקוחו של המלך‪ :‬בפקודתו נקבעו‬ ‫השופטים‪ ,‬העדים‪ ,‬והוא שטבע את צביונו של המשפט‪ ,‬כשהורה במפורש שהמשפט חייב‬ ‫להתבצע על פי דרכי משפט צודק הנוהגים בממלכת מצרים‪ .‬המשפט נחלק בין ארבע‬ ‫מערכות‪ .‬בכל מערכת כיהנו שופטים אחרים ושפטו חלק מהנאשמים על פי ההנחיות‬ ‫שהנחה המלך‪ .‬הליכי המשפט היו קפדניים‪ .‬הנאשם היה מובא ומושב לפני הנכבדים‬ ‫של בית הדין לחקירה‪ ,‬ואלה חקרו את מקרהו בדקדקנות‪ ,‬ורק לאחר שנוכחו בפשעו‪,‬‬ ‫הכריזו על גזר דינו‪ .‬על הנאשמים נגזר עונש מוות‪ .‬הקושרים הראשיים הומתו‪ ,‬והקושרים‬ ‫הפסיביים הורשו להתאבד‪ .‬לא צוין גורל המלכה היוזמת‪ ,‬בעוד שהנסיך‪ ,‬בנה‪ ,‬נשפט‬ ‫למוות והורשה להתאבד‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬משפט נבוכדנאצר ה־‪ ,II‬מלך בבל‪ ,‬המאה ה־‪ 6‬לפסה”נ‬ ‫תעודה ניאו־בבלית מדווחת על משפט שנערך כנגד מורד במלך‪:‬‬ ‫[ב]־ב־אח־אדינ בנו של נב־אח־בליט ‪ )2‬צאצא של‪...‬למר‪ ,‬מעשה עון ופשע‬ ‫‪ )3‬ארגן‪ .‬ודבר רשע ‪ )4‬זמם‪ )5 .‬את שבועת אמונים למלך אדונו לא שמר‬ ‫‪ )6‬ותיכנן בגידה (במלכות) ‪ )7‬ביום ההוא‪ ,‬נבוכדנאצר ‪ )8‬מלך בבל‪ ,‬הנסיך‬ ‫השקול בדעתו ‪ )9‬רועה האנשים המפוזרים (ברחבי הארץ) ‪ )10‬אשר כמו‬ ‫האל שמש מפקח ‪ )11‬על כל הארצות ‪ )12‬מכונן אמת ויושר ‪ )13‬משמיד‬ ‫רשע ואויב ‪ )14‬את המעשים הרעים של ב־ב־אח־אדנ ‪ )15‬ראה ‪ )16‬ומעשה‬ ‫הקשר שלו חשף ‪ )17‬באספת ה־‪ ummanu‬את מעשה התועבה אשר בצע‬ ‫‪ )18‬הוכיח (המלך) בעדויות נגדו ‪ )19‬בזעם נקב מבטו בו‪” :‬אין לו חיים”‬ ‫צוה‪ )20 .‬ואת גרונו חתכו‪ )21 .‬ואת השדה של נב־אח־בליט אביו ‪ )22‬אשר‬ ‫נבופלאסר מלך בבל ‪ )23‬אביו מולידו (של נבוכדאנצר) לנכסי (מקדש) אזיד‬ ‫העביר ‪ )24‬נב־אח־בליט על ידי בגידה (במלכות) ‪ )25‬ועל ידי‪ ...‬עזב‪ ...‬בב־אח־‬ ‫אדינ ‪ )26‬נבוכדנאצר מלך בבל ‪ )27‬הנסיך [השקול בדעתו] במוצא פיו הצודק‬ ‫‪ )28‬אשר כמו האלים הגדולים ‪ ...‬את שארית האדמה ‪ )29‬של נב־אח־בליט‬ ‫אשר בעיר ובשדה ‪ ,‬כל מה שנשאר ‪ )30‬לבעלותו של (מקדש) [נב] העביר‪,‬‬ ‫ואת אנשי ביתו בכסף מכר‪.‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬

‫‪ .21‬ראו ברסטד‪ ,‬תעודות‪ ,‬מס’ ‪.417‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬להשערת ברסטד‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬מס’ ‪ ,418‬עמ’‪ ,210-209 ,‬המלך מת לפני המשפט מאחר שהוא מכונה‬ ‫“האל הגדול” בדיווח על המשפט‪ ,‬כינוי המוענק רק למלכים מתים‪ ,‬והשוו‪ :‬דה בק‪ ,‬הפפירוס‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .153-152‬נראה שהמלך נפצע באופן חמור והיה מסוגל רק לתת הוראות‪ ,‬להעניש את הקושרים ולאחר‬ ‫מכן מת‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬התעודה פורסמה על ידי ויידנר‪ ,‬נגד נבוכדנאצר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .9-1‬מעשה המשפט מובא במבוא‬ ‫לתעודה (שו’ ‪ ,)30-1‬שהיא עצמה תעודת מכר‪ .‬לתרגום התעודה ולניתוחה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬בן־ברק‪ ,‬פרשת נבות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,17-15‬וראו‪ :‬נאמן‪ ,‬משפט נבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;204-203‬על נבוכדנאצר‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬וייזמן‪ ,‬נבוכדנאצר‪.‬‬

‫*‪54‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫התעודה פותחת בדיווח על מעשה בגידה של אזרח בשם [ב]־ב־אח־אדינ בנו של נב־‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫אח־בליט‪ ,‬במלך נבוכדנאצר‪.‬‬ ‫התעודה מדגישה שכל הפעולות וכל מהלכי המשפט היו ביוזמת המלך ובביצועו‪.‬‬ ‫המלך הוא שחשף את הבגידה‪ ,‬והוא שהביא את הנאשם לפני אספת ה־‪.ummanu‬‬ ‫במשפט‪ ,‬המלך היה זה שדאג להבאת העדים‪ ,‬שהוכיחו בעדותם את חטאו של הקושר‪,‬‬ ‫וגם זה שגזר עליו פסק דין מוות‪ .‬המשפט בוצע בחסות גושפנקה ממלכתית‪ .‬לכל אורכו‬ ‫מורגש מקומו הבולט של המלך‪ ,‬כשחובת ההוכחה והבאת העדים היתה במפורש שלו‪.‬‬ ‫לא ברור אם הוא גם היה המוציא להורג‪.‬‬ ‫הנאשם — אזרח מכובד בעל ייחוס רב ומשפחה עתירת נכסים‪ .‬המשפט בוצע בפורום‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫מסוים — “באספת אנשים מומחים”‪.‬‬ ‫האשמה — “את שבועת המלך לא נצר”‪ 26,‬פורמולה המתייחסת למגוון סיטואציות‬ ‫אפשריות של פשיעה במלך‪ .‬כאן מתקבל שחטאו היה מעשה קשר במלך באספקט‬ ‫פוליטי‪ .‬העונש — חד משמעי — מוות על ידי שיסוף הגרון בחרב‪ .‬מהפסקה‪“ :‬ואת אנשי‬ ‫ביתו בכסף מכר”‪ ,‬ייתכן להסיק שהכוונה לבני המשפחה‪ ,‬ואפשר להבין שבית האב חדל‬ ‫מלהתקיים‪ ,‬ואדמתו הוחרמה על־ידי נבוכדנאצר והוענקה למקדש נבו‪ .‬בולט המקום‬ ‫הנרחב שמוקדש בתעודה לביטויים החוזרים ומדגישים את דרך שיפוטו הצודק והנכון‬ ‫של המלך נבוכדנאצר‪ .‬ריבוים והעובדה שהם חוזרים ונשנים ותופסים מקום כה נכבד‬ ‫בתעודה‪ ,‬מעידים עד כמה חשובים הם בהקשר זה למלך ולתדמיתו‪.‬‬

‫‪ .24‬השנה היא שנת ‪ 11‬למלכות נבוכדנאצר (‪ 594/3‬לפסה”נ)‪ ,‬תקופה הנודעת במרידות ואי שקט‬ ‫בממלכתו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬אין בידינו נתונים נוספים בתעודה כדי להגדיר מונח זה במדויק‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬דיון מקיף על “שבועת אמונים למלך”‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬תדמור‪ ,‬ברית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,173-149‬והשוו‪ :‬וייזמן‪ ,‬בריתות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.28-23‬‬

‫*‪55‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫טבלה משווה של משפטי בגידה במלך בישראל ובמזרח הקדום‬ ‫המשפטים‪:‬‬ ‫רכיבי המשפט‪:‬‬ ‫מלך ריבוני‪ ,‬חזק‬ ‫ובולט‬ ‫המשפט מטעם‬ ‫המלך וביוזמתו‬ ‫בית הדין נבחר‬ ‫מטעם המלך‪,‬‬ ‫או בהסכמתו‬ ‫המשפט נערך‬ ‫באופן פומבי בפני‬ ‫העם או נציגיו‬ ‫נוכחות המלך‬ ‫שופטים‬ ‫הנאשם‬ ‫עדים‬ ‫אשמה מוצהרת‬ ‫גזר דין‬

‫משפט נבות־אחאב‬

‫משפט רעמסס ה־‪III‬‬

‫משפט נבוכדנאצר ה־‪II‬‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫ביוזמת איזבל‬ ‫ובחותם המלך‬ ‫שופטי ישראל‬

‫ביוזמת המלך‬

‫ביוזמת המלך‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫‪X‬‬

‫לא נוכח‬

‫לא נוכח‬ ‫פצוע או מת‬ ‫פקידי המלך‬ ‫פקידים בכירים‬ ‫עדים‬ ‫פגיעה במלך‬

‫נוכח‬

‫זקנים‪ .‬חורים‬ ‫אזרח מכובד‬ ‫שני עדים‬ ‫"ברך אלהים‬ ‫ומלך"‬ ‫מוות‬

‫ביצוע פסק הדין על ידי שופטי‬ ‫יזרעאל‬ ‫הריגת הבנים‬ ‫גורל המשפחה‬ ‫מופקעות למלך‬ ‫אדמות‬ ‫הצהרה שהמשפט התנהל על פי‬ ‫כל חוקי המשפט‬ ‫משפט צדק‬ ‫בישראל‬

‫מוות‬ ‫על ידי השופטים‬ ‫לא ידוע‬ ‫לא ידוע‬ ‫הצהרה מפורשת‬

‫ה־‪ummanu‬‬

‫אזרח נכבד‬ ‫עדים‬ ‫"שבועת אמונים‬ ‫למלך אדונו לא שמר”‬ ‫מוות‬ ‫שיסוף הגרון‬ ‫על ידי המלך?‬ ‫נמכרו‬ ‫מופקעות למלך‬ ‫הצהרה מפורשת‬

‫לוח משווה בין שלושת המשפטים‪ ,‬בין משפט אחאב־נבות‪ ,‬לבין משפט רעמסס ה־‪III‬‬ ‫לבין משפט נבוכדנאצר ה־‪ ,II‬יעמידנו על הנקודות הזהות העוברות כחוט השני דרך‬ ‫כל שלושת המשפטים‪ .‬השוואה זו מעלה דמיון מירבי ביניהם לפרטי פרטים‪ ,‬ומאפשרת‬ ‫הסקת מסקנות ממקור אחד על משנהו‪ ,‬למרות עובדת היותם שונים זה מזה במקום‬ ‫גיאוגרפי‪ ,‬בזמן‪ ,‬בחברה ובסיבות‪ .‬העובדה שהעדויות החוץ־מקראיות מהמרחב של‬ ‫המזרח הקדום עוסקות בסיטואציה דומה ומשקפות נוהג זהה‪ ,‬מאפשרת בדרך טיפולוגית‬ ‫להקיש מהן על המשפט בישראל‪.‬‬

‫*‪56‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫משפטי הבגידה הפומביים החוץ־מקראיים מלמדים שמעשה בגידה במלך נתפס‬ ‫כדבר החמור ביותר שיש לקטעו על הסף‪ 27.‬אולם באותה מידת חומרה‪ ,‬באמצעות‬ ‫משפטים אלה הפגין המלך שהוא כפטרון החוק והצדק בממלכה‪ ,‬חרד לקיום משפט‬ ‫צדק בה‪.‬‬ ‫במהלך המשפטים דואג המלך בקנאות ובקפידה להוכיח כי משפט בגידה במלך‬ ‫מנוהל על פי המערכת השיפוטית המקובלת והמסורתית בממלכה‪ ,‬ולא כאקט חריג‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫ושרירותי‪.‬‬ ‫במצרים — על אף פציעתו הקטלנית‪ ,‬מורה רעמסס ה־‪ III‬לשופטים לנהוג בקפדנות על‬ ‫פי כללי הצדק ונוהגי המשפט המקובלים‪ .‬בבבל — נבוכדנאצר ה־‪ II‬חוזר ומדגיש את דרך‬ ‫שיפוטו הצודק בביטויים רבים התופסים מקום נכבד בתעודה‪ 29.‬ובכך מעידים עד כמה‬ ‫חשוב למלך להיחשב כמלך חסד ולא כשליט עריץ‪ .‬תרומת התעודות‪ ,‬המצרית והניאו־‬ ‫בבלית היא בכך שבאמצעותן התאפשר להבין לאשורו ובמפורש טיבו של משפט בגידה‬ ‫מהו‪ .‬הדבר הבולט ביותר מתוך כל סעיפי התעודות היא ההדגשה על החומרה שבהפעלת‬ ‫משפט מסוג זה‪ ,‬שנתפס כאקט שיפוטי נדיר וחריג‪ .‬תיאורי החטא המפורטים והמקום‬ ‫הרב המוקדש להם בתעודות מבהירים חד משמעית‪ ,‬כי רק בגידה ומרידה מתוכננות נגד‬ ‫המלך‪ ,‬המאיימות ישירות על בריאותו ועל שלטונו‪ ,‬יכלו להוות עילה מוצדקת לכינונו של‬ ‫משפט מסוג זה‪ .‬נדירות משפטי בגידה במלך בכל המזרח הקדום‪ ,‬יש בה גם היא להעיד‬ ‫על רתיעתם של המלכים מלהשתמש בהם‪ .‬ומצביעה על הימנעותם מלהפעיל אמצעי‬ ‫דרסטי זה‪ 30.‬העונש שנגזר כתוצאה היה חמור ביותר ופגע בשני עיקרים ראשונים‪:‬‬ ‫חיי אדם ונחלה‪ .‬בהחרמת אדמות ראו המלכים דרך ענישה הכרחית ולא אמצעי‬ ‫להגדלת רכושם‪ .‬דבר העולה ממיעוט העדויות שבידנו על החרמת אדמות במזרח הקדום‪,‬‬ ‫לעומת ריבוי העדויות על הדרך המקובלת בידי המלכים לרכישת אדמות על ידי קניה‬ ‫ומס‪ .‬וגם אם חשק המלך באדמות מסוימות שהיו בבעלות אזרחיו‪ ,‬או נזקק להן‪ ,‬הרי‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫העדויות מלמדות שבשום מקרה לא הפעיל משפט רגיש מסוג זה‪.‬‬ ‫העובדה שהעדויות החיצוניות תואמות לפרטי פרטים למשפט בישראל‪ ,‬מחייבת‬ ‫אותנו לבחון מחדש את משפט נבות‪ ,‬ובגזרה שווה יש להסיק שבאותה מידה של אחריות‬ ‫ינהגו בישראל‪ .‬יתרה מכך‪ ,‬ההשוואה בין העדויות‪ ,‬מצביעה על חומרת יתר בנוהגי‬ ‫המשפט בישראל‪ .‬בעוד למלך המצרי והבבלי היו סמכויות מלאות בכל הליכי המשפט‪,‬‬ ‫במיוחד למלך הבבלי‪ ,‬הרי בישראל‪ ,‬המלך לא היה נוכח כלל במשפט‪ ,‬והליכי המשפט היו‬ ‫בסמכותה הבלעדית של המנהיגות השיפוטית‪ ,‬הפטריארכאלית המקומית‪ .‬לפיכך קיימת‬ ‫סבירות רבה יותר של משפט עצמאי וצודק בישראל‪ ,‬לעומת שתי הממלכות האחרות‪,‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪.16‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬על רגישות המלכים לתדמיתם כמגשימי משפט וצדקה בחברה‪ ,‬בישראל ובמזרח הקדום‪ ,‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫ויינפלד‪ ,‬משפט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;44-26‬וייטלם‪ ,‬המלך‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.220-207 ,38-17‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬למצרים‪ ,‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,17‬ולבבל‪ ,‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,23‬שורות ‪.27 ,13-7‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬על נדירות משפטי הבגידה‪ ,‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪.16‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬לדיון בהחרמת אדמות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬בן‪-‬ברק‪ ,‬החרמת קרקעות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.117-101‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪57‬‬

‫במיוחד הבבלית‪ .‬אין ספק‪ ,‬שאותה מידה של זהירות שהפגינו מלכים כה גדולים במשפט‬ ‫מסוג זה‪ ,‬יגלה מלך של ממלכה קטנה יותר כישראל‪.‬‬ ‫הנחה זו‪ ,‬של התחשבות מרבית בזכויות האזרחים מצדו של המלך אחאב‪ ,‬מקבלת את‬ ‫חיזוקה גם ממקורות מקראיים אחרים‪:‬‬ ‫ממסורות מקראיות למדים על אחאב כמלך בעל מודעות פוליטית ורגישות לשלמות‬ ‫אזרחיו‪ .‬הוא היה מוכן לוותר על כספו וזהבו ושלמות משפחתו כדי להגן על אנשי עירו‬ ‫הנתונים במצור‪ ,‬והסתכן במלחמה כאשר סכנה איימה על רכושם ושלמותם של אזרחיו‬ ‫(מל”א כ ‪ .)11-1‬או שבחר לכרות ברית עם מלך ארם‪ ,‬אויבו בנפש‪ ,‬כששיקול פוליטי‬ ‫ממלכתי עמד לפניו (שם‪ .)34-32 ,‬הרי לא ייתכן לנתק אפיזודה אחת ממכלול העדויות על‬ ‫אחאב‪ ,‬ולהתעלם מאופיו ומדרך שלטונו‪ .‬במיוחד שאפיזודה זו מובאת על ידי חוג מסוים‬ ‫ומגמתי ביותר‪ ,‬הרוצה על ידי ניתוקה מהמסורות על אחאב‪ ,‬ליצור תמונה שלילית חד‬ ‫צדדית‪ 32.‬מלך בעל מודעות כזו כלפי אזרחיו לא היה מסתכן בהפעלת משפט כה רגיש‬ ‫ונדיר שתוצאותיו מי ישורן‪ ,‬בעבור חלקת אדמה אצל ארמונו‪ .‬מה גם שאחאב היה עתיר‬ ‫נכסים ואדמות כתוצאה מכיבושי אביו ומכיבושיו הוא‪.‬‬ ‫הדיון במשפטי בגידה במלך‪ ,‬והקווים המשותפים בינם לבין משפט נבות‪ ,‬בנוסף‬ ‫לכתובים המקראיים המצוינים לעיל על אחאב‪ ,‬מבהירים את משפט נבות בנקודה‬ ‫הקריטית ביותר‪ :‬בתפישת משפט נבות כמשפט מבוים‪ .‬תפישה‪ ,‬שהתבססה בעיקרה‬ ‫על הטיעון שהמשפט היה פרי יוזמתה ותכנונה של המלכה איזבל בחסות המלך‪ .‬טיעון‬ ‫שהופרך מעיקרו באמצעות שני המשפטים החוץ־מקראיים‪ .‬המשפטים הצליחו להבהיר‬ ‫חד וחלק‪ ,‬שלא רק שטיעון זה אינו קביל‪ ,‬נהפוך הוא‪ ,‬דווקא מעורבות המלך היא פועל‬ ‫יוצא במשפטי הבגידה‪ .‬מתברר שחובת עריכת המשפט‪ ,‬ארגונו והבאת העדים שיעידו‬ ‫בטיב האשמה — חלה על המלך‪ .‬מרגע שהוחלט בחצר המלך בנחיצות משפט מסוג זה‪,‬‬ ‫הרי המלך או גוף מטעמו‪ ,‬רק הם יכלו לזמנו ולארגנו ולספק את העדים‪ .‬ולא רק שאין כאן‬ ‫טעם לפגם באמינות המשפט‪ ,‬אלא רק כך היה הנוהל במשפטים מסוג זה‪.‬‬ ‫לאחר הבהרת הכלל המקובל לגבי משפטי בגידה במלך החל גם על משפט נבות‪,‬‬ ‫‪33‬‬ ‫נתמקד בשני הטעונים שעלו בגוף הטקסט המקראי‪.‬‬ ‫הטיעון הראשון מתבסס בעיקרו על פסוק ‪:10‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬אותו כלל המקובל לגבי פסוק ‪ ,10‬היינו הבאת עדים מטעם המלכות‪ ,‬לא רק שאין‬ ‫בו להפליל את אופיו של המשפט — הרי זימון עדים שיעידו בטיב האשמה חלה‪ ,‬כנזכר‬ ‫לעיל במפורש על המלך‪ ,‬או על הגוף מטעמו‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬באשר למונח המפליל “בני בליעל”‪ ,‬הרי אין פרושו “שקר”‪ ,‬למרות שהוא נשמע‬ ‫מונח שלילי‪ .‬המקרא יודע במדויק לקרוא לעדי שקר במונח הברור “שקר”‪“ :‬ודרשו‬ ‫השופטים היטב והנה עד־שקר העד‪ ,‬שקר ענה באחיו” (דב’ יט ‪“ ;)18‬אל־תשת ידך עם־‬ ‫רשע להית עד־חמס (שמ’ כג ‪.)1‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬והשוו להבחנה זו את טיעונם של פינקלשטיין וסילברמן‪ ,‬ראשית ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪,175-174‬‬ ‫‪.197-196 ,185-183‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬ראו לעיל ‪.‬‬

‫*‪58‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫לדעת חוקרים רבים‪ ,‬המונח “בליעל” כאן אינו שייך לטקסט המקורי‪ ,‬אלא הוכנס‬ ‫על ידי העריכה המאוחרת‪ 34.‬אך גם אם פסוק ‪ 10‬שייך לסיפור המקורי‪ ,‬הרי ניתוח המונח‬ ‫ילמדנו כי מונח זה מורכב משני רכיבים‪‘ :‬בלי־יעל’‪ ,‬היינו אנשים שאינם מביאים תועלת‪,‬‬ ‫בדומה ל”ריקים ופוחזים”‪ ,‬קרי‪ ,‬אנשים משכבה חברתית נחותה‪ 35‬שאינם בעלי אדמות‪.‬‬ ‫סביר שמשכבה זו יכלה המלכה להשיג עדים ביתר קלות‪ .‬לא משום שהיו עדי שקר‪ ,‬אלא‬ ‫משום שאנשים ממעמד גבוה יותר ביזרעאל נמנעו מלהעיד נגד נבות שהיה ממעמדם‬ ‫ויתכן מאד שהזדהו עם עמדתו‪.‬‬ ‫בטיעון השני — זעקת הנביא‪“ :‬הרצחת וגם ירשת”‪ ,‬שהקנתה למשפט זה את סמלו‬ ‫השלילי — גם כאן לדעת חוקרים‪ ,‬פסוק זה אינו שייך לסיפור המקורי‪ ,‬אלא יש לשייכו‬ ‫להרחבה מאוחרת מחוגי הנביאים‪ 36.‬אולם גם אם שייך הוא לסיפור המקורי‪ ,‬כדעת‬ ‫אחרים‪ ,‬הרי הוא אינו אומר דבר וחצי דבר על אופי המשפט‪ ,‬או תיפקודו‪ ,‬אלא מתייחס‬ ‫אך ורק לתוצאות המשפט ולמלך אחאב‪ .‬אין אליהו תוקף את חוקיות המשפט‪ ,‬לא את‬ ‫השופטים ולא את העדים‪ .‬אין ספק שאילו יד השופטים הייתה במעל‪ ,‬או המשפט עצמו‬ ‫היה בו טעם לפגם‪ ,‬היה הנביא תוקף אותם באותה חמת זעם שתקף את המלך‪ .‬טהרת‬ ‫המערכת השיפוטית בישראל הייתה ערך מקודש ועליון‪ 37.‬הנביאים לא היססו לתקוף כל‬ ‫פגם במערכת זו‪ .‬במיוחד את השופטים‪ ,‬לדוגמה‪“ :‬ואשיבה שופטיך כבראשונה‪ ...‬ציון‬ ‫במשפט תפדה” (יש’ א ‪“ ;)27-26‬כי־הפכתם לראש משפט ופרי צדקה ללענה” (עמ’ ו ‪.)12‬‬ ‫על חלקו המשמעותי הרב של אליהו בכל הפרשה נרחיב בהמשך‪ ,‬ברם זעקתו אינה‬ ‫מופנית לרכיבי המשפט‪ ,‬ולכן אי אפשר להקיש ממנה על טיב המשפט עצמו‪.‬‬ ‫הפרכת שני הטיעונים נוטלת מהטקסט המקראי את הרכיבים היחידים שטבעו על‬ ‫המשפט את אופיו השלילי‪ ,‬ובכך מזכה אותו מתדמיתו כמשפט מבוים‪ ,‬ומשאירה בידנו‬ ‫את הטקסט המקראי הריאלי של המשפט‪ .‬זיכוי זה פותח לפנינו את השלב הבא‪:‬‬ ‫בדיקה חוזרת יסודית וקפדנית של תהליך המשפט כפי שהובא בסיפור המקורי‪.‬‬ ‫הבדיקה מבהירה‪ :‬המשפט נערך באופן גלוי ופומבי “נגד כל העם”‪ ,‬תוך שמירה‬ ‫קפדנית על כל הכללים הנהוגים בישראל‪:‬‬ ‫הצום — שהוכרז‪ ,‬הכין את הרקע למשפט והצביע כי מדובר בענין חמור ביותר‪ .‬זאת‬ ‫בהתאם למסורת בישראל‪ ,‬לפיה הכרזת צום קשורה במצבים מיוחדים כמו עת משבר‬ ‫(שמ”א לא ‪ ,)13‬לחץ לאומי (שם יד ‪ ,)24‬או חטא לה’ (שם‪ ,‬ז ‪ ;6‬יואל א ‪.)15-14‬‬ ‫האשמה — הייתה גלויה‪ ,‬נכתבה בספרים ונשלחה לראשי המשפחות ביזרעאל‪.‬‬ ‫מהותה‪”:‬ברך נבות אלהים ומלך” (מל”א כא ‪ ,)13‬מתבססת על איסור חמור ביותר‪“ :‬אלהים‬

‫‪ .34‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,7‬וראו‪ :‬אופנהיימר‪ ,‬הנבואה הקדומה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬למונח‪ ,‬בני בליעל — אנשים ללא יעל — ’‪ ,‘Two worthless men‬ראו‪ :‬כוגן‪ ,‬מל”א‪ ,‬י‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,479-475‬והשוו‪ :‬גריי‪ ,‬מל”א&מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,392-391‬המכנה אותם‪ ,‘Sons of worthlessness’ :‬מהשורש‬ ‫יעל‪ ,‬להועיל‪ .‬לבעית ‘בני בליעל’‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬רוזנברג‪ ,‬בליעל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;40-35‬בן־ברק‪ ,‬ריקים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.367-366‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬לעניין זה‪ ,‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪.7‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬על השמירה לעשיית משפט צדק‪ ,‬ולטהרת מערכת המשפט‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ויינפלד‪ ,‬משפט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.25-2‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪59‬‬

‫לא תקלל ונשיא בעמך לא תאר” (שמ’ כב ‪“ ;)27‬אולי חטאו בני וברכו אלהים בלבבם”‬ ‫(איוב א ‪ ;")5‬ברך אלהים ומת” (שם‪ ,‬ב ‪ ;)9‬תה’ י ‪.3‬‬ ‫השופטים — נבחרו מראשי העם‪“ :‬הזקנים”‪ ,‬ומגדוליו‪“ :‬החרים”‪ ,‬כנדרש על פי החוק‪:‬‬ ‫“הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבנים וידעים לשבטיכם ואשימם בראשיכם” (דב’ א ‪.)15 ,13‬‬ ‫הרשעת נבות ופסק דינו למות — נשענו על עדות שני עדים כדרישת החוק‪“ :‬על פי‬ ‫שנים עדים או שלושה עדים יומת המת לא יומת על־פי עד אחד” (דב’ יז ‪.)6‬‬ ‫ביצוע גזר הדין — ”ויוציאהו מחוץ מחוץ לעיר ויסקלהו באבנים וימת” (מל”א כא ‪)13‬‬ ‫גם הוא על פי הנוהג בישראל (וי’ כד ‪ ;14‬במ’ טו ‪ ;36‬דב’ יג ‪ ;11-10‬יהו’ ז ‪.)25‬‬ ‫ניתוח העדות המקראית מעלה‪ ,‬שמשפט נבות נערך על פי ההליכים המקובלים‬ ‫במסורת המשפטית בישראל כחוק וכדין‪ ,‬בצורה הקפדנית ביותר והפומבית ביותר‪ ,‬כשכל‬ ‫תג ותג נשמר בהליכים המשפטיים‪ .‬תהליך המשפט על פי הכתובים המקראיים מלמד‬ ‫על עמדתם העצמאית של ראשי החברה‪ .‬פרשה זו חושפת את אחד הסדרים המאלפים‬ ‫ביותר בממלכת הצפון‪ ,‬את ‘הפרדת הרשויות’‪ ,‬בין הרשות השלטת התובעת — המלך‪,‬‬ ‫לבין הרשות השיפוטית המבצעת — ההנהגה המקומית‪ .‬כל מרכיבי המשפט‪ :‬השופטים‪,‬‬ ‫העדים‪ ,‬מושב המשפט‪ ,‬מהלכו וההוצאה לפועל היו בידי הרשות השיפוטית בלבד‪ .‬רשות‬ ‫זו היא הבלעדית לאורך כל המשפט‪ ,‬והיא שמרה על עצמאותה ואי תלותה לאורך המשפט‬ ‫כולו‪ .‬תפקידה מסתיים לאחר ההוצאה לפועל‪ ,‬ואין לה כל קשר לתוצאות המשפט‪ .‬למרות‬ ‫העובדה שהמלכה היא היוזמת‪ ,‬הרי לא כוחה ולא כוח המלך עמדו להם לשנות‪ ,‬או לשבור‬ ‫את נוהגי החברה המקובלים‪ ,‬ואת המסגרות המוגדרות של המערכת השיפוטית לפיהן‬ ‫פעלו בישראל‪ .‬לפחות בשני תחומים היה כוח המלך מוגבל בממלכת ישראל‪ :‬א) אי‬ ‫יכולתו להעביר אדמות אזרחים בניגוד לרצונם‪ .‬ב) המלך לא היה נוכח במשפט‪.‬‬ ‫מסקנה‬ ‫הפרכת מכלול הטיעונים שהטילו דופי במהימנות המשפט — מחד גיסא‪ ,‬ומאידך‬ ‫גיסא — בדיקה חוזרת ויסודית בקטע המשפט בסיפור המקורי — מבטלים את התפישה‬ ‫שהמשפט מעשה מרמה היה‪ .‬או את ההנחה שראשיה ושופטיה של חברה זו פעלו מתוך‬ ‫שחיתות או פחד השלטון‪ .‬תמיכה נוספת במעמדם העצמאי והתקיף של זקני ישראל עולה‬ ‫מכתובים אחרים מתקופת אחאב‪ ,‬המדווחים כיצד נועץ בהם אחאב בענינים ממלכתיים‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫ראשונים במעלה‪ ,‬ורק על פי הכרעתם פעל (מל”א כ ‪.)9-7‬‬ ‫(מל”א כא ‪)17-16‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫שלב ג — אחאב יורש את כרם נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫“ויהי כשמע אחאב כי מת נבות ויקם אחאב לרדת אל כרם נבות היזרעאלי לרשתו”‬ ‫(פס’ ‪)16‬‬ ‫הכתוב המקראי מבהיר חד וחלק‪ ,‬שהמלך נהג על פי החוק כשהוא מגדירו בקטגוריה‬ ‫של יורש‪ .‬היינו זכותו על האדמה היא מתוקף היותו יורש‪,‬במשמעות חיובית ליגיטמית‪.‬‬

‫‪ .38‬על מקומם של הזקנים בממלכת הצפון‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬רביב‪ ,‬מוסד‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.127-112‬‬

‫*‪60‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫האדמה עברה למלך כחוק רק כתוצאה מאשמתו המוכחת של האזרח‪ ,‬ורק לאחר‬ ‫מותו ומות בניו (מל”ב ט ‪ ,)26-25‬שזו הדרך המקובלת הלגיטימית הנהוגה בישראל‬ ‫ובעמים‪ 39.‬הנחה זו מתאשרת מהפועל “ירש” השולט בקטע‪“ :‬קום רש” (‪“ ,)15‬לרשתו”‬ ‫(‪”... )16‬וגם־ירשת” (‪.)19‬‬ ‫מכלול הדיונים וניתוח הכתובים מצביעים שמשפט נבות התנהל על פי כללי המערכת‬ ‫המשפטית המסורתית בישראל והתברר — כמשפט אמיתי ומהימן‪.‬‬ ‫חלק שני‪ :‬האספקט ההיסטורי‪ ,‬הפוליטי‪ ,‬הכלכלי והאידיאולוגי של פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫המסקנה בדבר מהימנות משפט נבות מעלה את השאלה המרכזית — אם אכן כך היו‬ ‫הדברים‪ ,‬אזי במה חטא נבות‪ ,‬ומה הייתה האשמה שבגינה נשפט למות ואדמתו הוחרמה‪.‬‬ ‫וכן כיצד יש להסביר שלאורך כל הפרשה המלך מתנהג כאבל וכפסיבי ביותר‪ ,‬וזאת גם‬ ‫לאחר שקבל את כל מבוקשו‪ .‬במיוחד לאור פריחתו הפוליטית‪ ,‬הכלכלית והביטחונית של‬ ‫אחאב ‪ ,‬ומילוי כל מאוויו‪ ,‬לא ברורה כל פרשת נבות‪ ,‬וכן לא התייצבותו של אליהו הנביא‬ ‫נגד המלך בהטחה כה קשה‪“ :‬הרצחת וגם ירשת”?‬ ‫לא מצאנו כל מקור מקראי היכול לעזור במציאת תשובה לשאלה זו ‪.‬‬ ‫נקודת המפתח שחוללה את המפנה בהנחתי במשמעותה הרחבה יותר של פרשת‬ ‫נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬המתפרשת על תחומים ראשונים במעלה‪ ,‬מלבד סיפור המשפט — מקורה‬ ‫בתעודה חוץ־מקראית‪ ,‬כתובת גליל של סרגון ה־‪ ,II‬מלך אשור (המחצית הראשונה של‬ ‫המאה השמינית לפסה”נ)‪ 40,‬בזיקה לחלקו הראשון של הסיפור המקורי — המשא ומתן‬ ‫לקנית כרם נבות היזרעאלי (מל”א כא ‪.)7-1‬‬ ‫כשתכנן סרגון ה־‪ II‬לייסד את בירתו החדשה דור שורכין‪ ,‬גילה כי חלק מהאדמות‬ ‫להן נזקק‪ ,‬נמצאות בבעלות אזרחים מהישוב הסמוך‪ ,‬שקיבלו אותן בשעתו כאדמות מענק‬ ‫מהמלך אדדניררי ה־‪ .III‬הכתובת מפרטת כיצד סרגון פנה לאזרחיו אלה בלשון רכה‬ ‫ומשדלת והפגין נדיבות רבה‪ .‬לאחר שהסביר להם את נחיצותו באדמותיהם‪ ,‬השאיר‬ ‫בידיהם לבחור את התמורה הרצויה להם בעבורן‪ ,‬כסף או אדמות חילופיות‪ .‬האזרחים‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫בחרו באדמות שהוצעו להם‪ ,‬תוך התחייבות לספק מתת כל שנה למקדש האל אשור‪.‬‬ ‫המלך בהתייחסו לעסקה זו‪ ,‬קשר על עצמו שורה של שבחים כשליט חסד המשכין‬ ‫צדק ומגן על החלשים‪ .‬וזאת בהתאם לרגישות המלכים להצטייר כשליטי חסד הפועלים‬ ‫על פי החוק והצדק‪ ,‬במיוחד בכל הקשור לאדמות האזרחים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬בנושא החרמת אדמות אזרחים על ידי המלך‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬בן־ברק‪ ,‬החרמת קרקעות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪117-102‬‬ ‫בעמ’ ‪ ,116‬העלו המסקנות‪ ,‬שנוהג החרמת קרקעות על ידי הכתר התקיים בדומה בישראל ובמזרח‬ ‫הקדום‪ .‬כשבעל האדמות נמצא אשם במרידה או פגיעה במלך‪ ,‬הוציאהו להורג‪ ,‬וברוב המקרים גם את‬ ‫בניו‪ ,‬ואדמותיו נשארו בקטגוריה של אדמות נטושות‪ .‬המלך הפך לבעל הקרקע בחזקת יורש‪ .‬תהליך‬ ‫החרמת הקרקעות התנהל במסגרת החוק והמשפט האופייניים לכל ממלכה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬ראו‪ :‬פוסטגייט‪ ,‬מענקים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .69-62‬להנחתו אין זו תעודת מענק‪ ,‬אלא דין וחשבון של עסקות‬ ‫אדמה של המלך‪ ,‬וראו‪ :‬לוקנביל‪ ,‬תעודות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;88-60‬קטג’ וויטינג‪ ,‬מענקים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .22-20‬לדיון בתעודה‬ ‫של סרגון‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬בן־ברק‪ ,‬החרמת קרקעות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.105-104‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬להנחת פוסטגייט‪ ,‬מענקים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,69-68‬התמורה שנתנה לאזרחים‪ ,‬היתה נדיבה ביותר‪.‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫הדמיון המפתיע בין נוסח הצעת סרגון‪ :‬‬ ‫לבין נוסח הצעתו של אחאב לנבות‪ :‬‬ ‫ ‬

‫*‪61‬‬

‫“כסף ונחושת או שדה תמורת שדה”‬ ‫“ואתנה לך תחתיו כרם טוב ממנו‪,‬‬ ‫אם טוב בעיניך אתנה לך כסף מחיר זה”‪,‬‬

‫הוא המקור שהביא אותי לראייה חדשה את הצעת אחאב‪ ,‬ובמעגל רחב יותר את כל‬ ‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ .‬להנחתי‪ ,‬למרות מרחקי המקום והזמן‪ ,‬ניתן להכיר בנוסח הזהה‬ ‫של סרגון ואחאב בפורמולה מקובלת במזרח הקדום לרכישת אדמות שברשות אזרחים‪,‬‬ ‫שנמצאו חיוניות לקידום מפעלים ממלכתיים‪ .‬מעין הפקעת אדמות לצרכי ציבור ומדינה‪,‬‬ ‫תוך התחשבות מרבית באזרחים ופיצויים בדרך המקובלת עליהם‪ .‬מקבילה זו שופכת‬ ‫אור חדש על הצעתו של אחאב לנבות‪ ,‬שנאמרה בלשון רכה ומשדלת‪ .‬מהזהות המלאה‬ ‫בין הנוסחאות האשורית והמקראית‪ ,‬וכן מזהות הנסיבות שנאמרו‪ ,‬ניתן להקיש מפעולתו‬ ‫המדינית של סרגון על טיב פעולותיו של אחאב‪ .‬מסתבר שמבעד לסיפור המקראי הקצר‪,‬‬ ‫יש להבחין בבעיות רחבות ומורכבות יותר במדיניותו של אחאב‪ .‬בדומה לסרגון שמעוניין‬ ‫היה בשטח אדמה נוסף‪ ,‬שהיה בבעלות אזרחים כדי לכונן את בירתו‪ ,‬כך ניתן להקיש‬ ‫על רצונו של אחאב לרכוש שטח אדמה נוסף‪ ,‬שהיה בבעלות אזרח‪ ,‬ובודאי בשטחים‬ ‫נוספים מיזרעאל בבעלות אזרחים אחרים‪ .‬המטרה‪ ,‬להרחיב את ארמונו אשר ביזרעאל‬ ‫וליצור עיר צפונית מרכזית בממלכתו — אספקט מדיני בעל השלכות פוליטיות חיצוניות‪,‬‬ ‫במיוחד כלפי ארם היריבה וגם האימפריה האשורית המאיימת‪ .‬אין ספק‪ ,‬שמעשה אביו‬ ‫עמרי שרכש אדמה מאנשי המקום‪ ,‬והצליח לכונן מישוב זניח את בירתו שומרון‪ ,‬עיר בירה‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫מדהימה בגודלה ובפארה‪ ,‬שימש לו כדוגמה‪.‬‬ ‫הממצאים הארכיאולוגיים בתל־יזרעאל ותרומתם לפרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫דיוני בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי התבסס על המקורות המקראיים‪ ,‬שהוארו וקבלו את‬ ‫משמעותם באמצעות מקורות אפיגראפיים חוץ־מקראיים‪ ,‬במיוחד המקור על סרגון ה־‪ ,II‬ובכך‬ ‫חשפו את הפרשה באור אחר לגמרי‪ .‬ברם חוליה חשובה חסרה בבניית התיאוריה שלי ופגמה‬ ‫בשלמותה‪ ,‬והיא היעדר עדות חיצונית ישירה‪ ,‬שתאשר כי אכן תכנן אחאב לשדרג את יזרעאל‬ ‫למטרופולין בעלת צביון צבאי‪ .‬הנחה שהיוותה את התשתית במבנה ההנחות על מניעיו‬ ‫האמיתיים של אחאב‪ ,‬ובגזרה שווה על שאלות עקרוניות אחרות שעולות מחקר הפרשה‪.‬‬ ‫חסר זה בא על פתרונו הודות לחפירות הארכיאולוגיות בתל יזרעאל‪ ,‬הממוקם בחלקו‬ ‫המזרחי של עמק יזרעאל בישראל‪ .‬החפירות בתל יזרעאל‪ ,‬נערכו בניהולם ובביצועם‬ ‫של פרופ’ דוד אוסישקין מהמכון הארכיאולוגי של אוניברסיטת תל־אביב‪ ,‬ושל ד”ר גיוון‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫וודהד מבית הספר הבריטי בירושלים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬לגודלה ולפארה של העיר שומרון‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬פינקלשיין וסילברמן‪ ,‬ראשית ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.185-183‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬לדוחות החפירות בתל יזרעאל‪ ,‬לממצאים הארכיאולוגיים‪ ,‬ולכל היקף המחקר‪ ,‬תוצאותיו‬ ‫והשלכותיו על פרשת נבות היזרעאלי ראו‪ :‬אוסישקין ווודהד‪ ,‬תל יזרעאל‪ ,1992 ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;56-3‬אוסישקין‬ ‫ווודהד‪ ,‬תל יזרעאל‪ ,1994 ,‬בשנים ‪ ,1993-1992‬עמ’ ‪ .48-1‬תמונה מקיפה וכוללת על כל המכלול במחקר‬ ‫בתל יזרעאל‪ ,‬פורש אוסישקין‪ ,‬המיתחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .14-1‬וראו את מחקריהם של ויליאמסון‪ ,‬יזרעאל‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;92-72‬יוגב‪ ,‬תל יזרעאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.18-15‬‬

‫*‪62‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫שתי עונות החפירות‪ ,‬הראשונה והשניה נערכו בשנים ‪ 1990‬ו־‪.1991‬‬ ‫על פי דיווחם של אוסישקין ווודהד‪ ,‬הממצאים בתל יזרעאל חשפו סיטואציה מעניינת‬ ‫ביותר‪ ,‬והיא — ביזרעאל‪ ,‬שהייתה בעבר במתכונת של ישוב חקלאי קטן‪ ,‬חל שינוי מפתיע‬ ‫ביותר‪ .‬הדבר מתגלה בעקבות הממצא החדש שנחשף בה‪ ,‬והוא מתחם מבוצר גדול‬ ‫ומרשים‪ .‬למתחם מבוצר זה יש‪ ,‬למרות ההבדלים‪ ,‬הרבה מהמשותף למיתחם המלכותי‬ ‫בשומרון‪ .‬דבר היכול להעיד על קיום עיר גדולה וחשובה‪ .‬חרסים מעטים שנמצאו‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫מתקופת הברזל ‪ II‬מעידים שהמיתחם לא הוקם לפני תקופה זו‪.‬‬ ‫בהתאם למסקנותיהם של אוסישקין ווודהד המסתמכים על ממצאים אלה ותיעוד‬ ‫החפירות‪ ,‬ועל סמך העדויות המוגבלות‪ ,‬ובהתאם למקורות המקראיים‪ ,‬מתקבל שהמיתחם‬ ‫ביזרעאל נבנה על ידי עמרי (‪ 871-882‬לפסה”נ)‪ ,‬או על ידי אחאב (‪ 852-873‬לפסה”נ)‪,‬‬ ‫ומאז היה בשימוש בני אחאב‪ ,‬אחזיהו ויורם‪ .‬את חורבן המיתחם יש ליחס לדעתם‪ ,‬למרד‬ ‫יהוא ב‪ 842-‬לפסה”נ‪ ,‬שסביר שמשתקף בדברי הנביא הושע א ‪” :4‬ופקדתי את דמי‬ ‫יזרעאל על בית יהוא”‪ ,‬המלמד על חורבן חסר רחמים ומאורע דמים‪ .‬מכאן‪ ,‬להנחתם של‬ ‫אוסישקין ווודהד ניתן להסיק שהמיתחם המבוצר היה בשימושם של מלכי בית עמרי‬ ‫במשך כ־ארבעים שנה לכל היותר‪ ,‬בשנים ‪ 842-882‬לפסה”נ‪ .‬ההנחות מתבססות בעיקר‬ ‫על החרסים וגם על ממצאים אחרים במיתחם‪.‬‬ ‫בשנים ‪ 1992‬ו־‪ 1993‬נערכו העונות הארכיאולוגיות השלישית והרביעית על ידי‬ ‫אוסישקין ווודהד‪ ,‬לדיווחם‪ ,‬מחזור שני זה מוצג כהמשך לדיווח הראשון‪ ,‬מתבסס עליו‬ ‫ומוסיף עליו‪ .‬המבנה הראשי נמצא בבית השער‪ ,‬כנראה השער הראשי של המיתחם‪.‬‬ ‫החפירות בעונות השלישית והרביעית מרחיבות את ידיעות החופרים על יזרעאל העתיקה‪,‬‬ ‫אבל כמעט לא שינו את הבנתם על אופי האתר ותיעודו ההיסטורי‪ .‬האתר ממוקם בין‬ ‫מגידו ובית שאן‪ ,‬לאורך הדרך הראשית המובילה ממצרים לאסיה‪.‬‬ ‫לסברתם של אוסישקין ווודהד‪ ,‬העבודות בעונות השלישית והרביעית הרחיבו את‬ ‫ידיעותיהם על המיתחם של תקופת הברזל‪ ,‬המיוחס לתקופת עמרי ואחאב (‪842-882‬‬ ‫לפסה”נ)‪ .‬בית השער שנחשף בשטח ‪ A‬הוא בוודאי השער הראשי‪ ,‬או אולי אפילו היחיד‬ ‫של המיתחם‪ .‬כמו כן הוא מוסיף מעט על אופיו ותיפקודו של המיתחם‪ .‬בין יתר השאלות‬ ‫שלדעתם יש להביא בחשבון‪ :‬א‪ .‬את מידתו הגדולה של המיתחם ב‪ .‬את אופיו ג‪ .‬את‬ ‫ביצוריו החזקים ומה שמושקע בבנינו ד‪ .‬הצורך להסביר את כינון יזרעאל בהקשר‬ ‫לשומרון הבירה הממלכתית‪ ,‬ומגידו הממוקמת לא הרחק ה‪ .‬התאריך המקראי‪.‬‬ ‫להנחתם מתקבל שהמושב הממלכתי נבנה ביזרעאל במקום צפונית למיתחם‪,‬‬ ‫בהתחשב בנוף והתנאים האקלימיים‪ .‬זאת בהתחשב בגודל המיתחם‪ ,‬בפדיום‪ ,‬בביצורים‬ ‫המסיביים‪ ,‬בסטנדרט הנמוך של הארכיטקטורה‪ ,‬והנוכחות של השרידים הביתיים‪ .‬כל‬ ‫אלה מדגישים שלמיתחם היזרעאלי היו פונקציות אחרות מלבד מקום של מושב מלכותי‬ ‫או מרכז אדמיניסטרטיבי‪ 45.‬לכאן הם מצרפים את סברתו של מ’ מנשה‪ 46,‬שניתן להניח את‬

‫‪ .44‬ראו‪ :‬אוסישקין‪ ,‬המתחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;14-1‬צימחוני‪ ,‬חרסים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;70-57‬רמזים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.100-83‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬ראו‪ :‬אוסישקין‪ ,‬המתחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.13-12‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪63‬‬

‫האפשרות שיזרעאל הייתה הבסיס למרכז צבאי של הצבא הישראלי הממלכתי בתקופת‬ ‫מלכי שומרון‪ .‬וכן שחיל הפרשים הממלכתי וחיל המרכבות הוצבו כאן‪ .‬החוזק של חיל‬ ‫המרכבות בתקופת מלכותו של אחאב מתועד בתעודות האשוריות של שלמנאסר ה־‬ ‫‪ ,III‬המתארות את קרב קרקר בסוריה בשנת ‪ 853‬לפסה”נ‪ ,‬בהן נאמר שלאחאב היה חיל‬ ‫מרכבות גדול יותר מאשר לבעלי בריתו מסוריה‪ .‬אם אכן יזרעאל הייתה מרכז צבאי‪ ,‬הרי‬ ‫ניתן להבין את מיקומה של שומרון‪ :‬שומרון הייתה בירת הממלכה ובה הארמון הממלכתי‬ ‫הראשי והמרכז הפולחני; בעוד יזרעאל הייתה המפקדה הצבאית‪ ,‬מקום שחיל המרכבות‬ ‫הממלכתי והפרשים נשמרו שם‪ ,‬ומושב ממלכתי חשוב נבנה שם‪.‬‬ ‫להנחתי‪ ,‬חשיבות מרבית למסקנות אלה המייחסות את בניית המיתחם לעמרי ולאחאב‬ ‫מלכי ישראל‪ ,‬ובמסקנה המעידה על יזרעאל כמרכז ממלכתי בולט‪ .‬במיוחד ההנחה‬ ‫שיזרעאל הייתה בעלת אופי צבאי‪ ,‬תומכת בטיעוניי שהמניעים העיקריים במגמתו של‬ ‫אחאב להפוך את יזרעאל למרכז ממלכתי בולט נבעו בעיקר בגלל הצרכים הביטחוניים‬ ‫הצבאיים שלו‪ .‬כינון עיר מרכזית צבאית מבוצרת וחזקה‪ ,‬כשפניה לצפון כלפי ארם האויב‬ ‫המר מזה שנים רבות לממלכת ישראל‪ ,‬וכלפי אשור הכוח האדיר המאיים על כל האיזור‪.‬‬ ‫גם הנחתם של אוסישקיו ווודהד ליחס בין שומרון הבירה הממלכתית והפולחנית‬ ‫לעומת הצביון הצבאי יותר של יזרעאל‪ ,‬תואמת בצורך המיידי בעיר גדולה חזקה בעלת‬ ‫אופי צבאי כיזרעאל הקרובה יותר לצפון‪ .‬לעומתה שומרון הנמצאת בהרים אינה יכולה‬ ‫לספק כוח מרתיע ובולם די הצורך‪ .‬המאלף‪ ,‬שבגודלה זה‪ ,‬הייתה יזרעאל קיימת רק‬ ‫בתקופת שלטון בית עמרי ואחאב‪ ,‬כ־‪ 40‬שנה‪ ,‬ולאחר מכן נהרס המקום‪ ,‬בתקופה התואמת‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫את זמן יהוא בן נמשי‪ ,‬שתפס את המלוכה בישראל וחיסל את בית עמרי ואחאב‪.‬‬ ‫המדיניות הממלכתית‪ ,‬ביטחונית‪ ,‬כלכלית ואידיאולוגית של המלך אחאב‬ ‫הממצאים הארכיאולוגיים בתל יזרעאל אישרו את התיאוריה שהנחתי בפרשת נבות‬ ‫היזרעאלי‪ .‬אחאב אכן ביצע את מדיניותו והרחיב את יזרעאל כבירה שנייה‪ ,‬לאחר שהצליח‬ ‫לממש את תוכניותיו לסחר ולרכישת אדמות מתושבי יזרעאל‪.‬‬ ‫העילה המכרעת הייתה‪ ,‬כפי שצוין לעיל‪ ,‬מדיניות החוץ של אחאב‪ ,‬שהופנתה צפונה‬ ‫כלפי ארם היריבה משכבר הימים וכלפי המעצמה המאיימת‪ ,‬האימפריה האשורית‪ .‬יחסים‬ ‫אלה גררו מלחמות קשות עם ארם‪ ,‬וכן בריתות‪ ,‬שהיוו את הבסיס לקואליציה האנטי־‬ ‫אשורית‪ .‬כל אלה היוו משקל מכריע בשיקוליו של אחאב לחזק ולהרחיב את יזרעאל‬ ‫לעיר מרכזית בעלת אופי צבאי‪ .‬אמנם שומרון נשארה הבירה הראשית של ישראל ואחאב‬ ‫הרחיבה והאדירה‪ ,‬ועל אף שאינה רחוקה מיזרעאל‪ ,‬הרי עובדת היותה ממוקמת בהר‪,‬‬ ‫הכריעה את הכף בנחיצות בכינון עיר חזקה בעלת אופי צבאי קרובה ומתאימה יותר‬ ‫בצפון‪ .‬אין ספק שלבחירת יזרעאל לכינון עיר חשובה‪ ,‬תרמה העובדה שהייתה זו אחוזת‬ ‫משפחת אחאב המקורית בעיר מולדתו ששם שכן היכל אחאב ביזרעאל‪ ,‬אותו הוא מכנה‬

‫‪ .46‬ראו‪ :‬הראל‪ ,‬רכב ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.43-29‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬ראו‪ :‬אוסישקין‪ ,‬המיתחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.13‬‬

‫*‪64‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫“ביתי”‪ .‬וכן תומכות בהנחה זו הידיעות על מושב קיים ומתפתח של משפחת המלך‬ ‫דוגמת‪ :‬יורם בנו של אחאב‪ ,‬ששב “להתרפא ביזרעאל” מן הפציעה שנפצע במלחמתו עם‬ ‫הארמים (מל”ב ח ‪ ;)29‬הביקור הממלכתי של אחזיהו בן יהורם מלך יהודה ש”ירד לראות‬ ‫את יורם בן אחאב ביזרעאל כי חולה הוא” (שם); מגוריה של איזבל הגבירה בארמונה אשר‬ ‫ביזרעאל (שם‪ ,‬ט ‪ ;)30‬וכן‪“ ,‬ועל כל הנשארים לבית־אחאב ביזרעאל וכל־גדליו ומידעיו‬ ‫וכהניו” (שם‪ ,‬י ‪.)11‬‬ ‫מגמה זו של אחאב חושפת פן נוסף במדיניותו‪ ,‬והוא החדרת הנוהג של סחר באדמות‬ ‫בישראל‪ ,‬בדומה למנהג המדינות השכנות־אספקט כלכלי‪ ,‬מסחרי מובהק‪ ,‬בעל השלכות‬ ‫מדיניות פנימיות‪ .‬מדיניותו של אחאב מייצגת את התפתחות החיים המסחריים והעירוניים‬ ‫וניסיון לשבור את המסגרות המסורתיות המקודשות והמגבילות‪ ,‬שייסודן במשטר השבטי‪,‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫על מנת לפתוח בתנופה רבתי בעידן חדש בסחר באדמות ובנכסים בממלכתו‪.‬‬ ‫אין ספק‪ ,‬שלקשרי החיתון והברית עם צור‪ ,‬שהייתה מעצמה כלכלית ומסחרית‬ ‫ראשונה במעלה‪ ,‬יש משקל רב לתנופת המסחר והכלכלה בישראל‪.‬‬ ‫מדיניותו זאת מקבלת את ביטויה ואת תוצאותיה לקראת החלק השני במלכותו‪.‬‬ ‫הסיבה‪ ,‬אחאב נסחף בשאיפותיו להאדרת ממלכתו ולהפיכתה‪ ,‬הן למעצמה צבאית רבת‬ ‫עוצמה באזור‪ ,‬והן כמעצמת — על בתחומים הכלכליים‪ .‬לשם כך היה עליו להגיע לסחר‬ ‫חופשי באדמות אזרחיו ובכך להביא לשינוי דרסתי בגישה לאדמות בישראל‪ .‬היינו‪ ,‬לשבור‬ ‫את המסגרות המסורתיות המקודשות והמגבילות‪ ,‬לבטל את הטאבו ששלט בישראל‬ ‫מקדמא דנא כלפי אדמותיהם — נחלת אבות‪ .‬משמעות הדברים — התנגשות קשה עם‬ ‫אזרחיו‪ ,‬ובגזרה שווה שינוי מדיניותו מראשית מלכותו‪ ,‬כשרווחתם ורצונם של אזרחיו היו‬ ‫מרכיב חשוב במדיניותו‪.‬‬ ‫נבות מייצג המרי שהקיף את אזרחיה של יזרעאל ונביאי ישראל‬ ‫לאור המקורות המקראיים‪ ,‬המקורות החוץ־מקראיים ממצרים‪ ,‬בבל ואשור‪ ,‬והממצאים‬ ‫הארכיאולוגיים בתל יזרעאל‪ ,‬התבררה במלואה ובהקפה המדיניות הממלכתית‪ ,‬ביטחונית‪,‬‬ ‫כלכלית ואידיאולוגית של המלך אחאב‪ ,‬והשלכותיה על כל אוכלוסיית ממלכת ישראל‬ ‫בכללה והעיר יזרעאל בפרט‪ .‬ותובנה זו תובילנו לשלב הבא‪.‬‬ ‫ההכרה במניעים העמוקים והמורכבים מצדו של אחאב מלמדת‪ ,‬שיש להקיש בגזרה‬ ‫שווה על הכרה במניעים עמוקים ומורכבים בעמדתו ובתגובתו של נבות‪ .‬מדיניותו של‬ ‫אחאב מסבירה את הבסיס הרחב והריאלי של אשמת נבות‪“ :‬ברך נבות אלהים ומלך”‪,‬‬ ‫שמשמעותה מרידה במלך‪ ,‬שנבעה ממניעים עמוקים ועקרוניים‪ .‬אין לצמצם את העימות‬ ‫בין אחאב לבין נבות במסגרת המצומצמת של כרם‪ ,‬בהתאם לגרסת הסיפור בו נכתב‪,‬‬ ‫אלא יש להקיש על היקפו הרחב והעקרוני מהנסיבות בהם נוצר‪ .‬אחאב לאור מדיניותו‬ ‫מעוניין להתרחב ולרכוש אדמות ונחלאות מתושבי יזרעאל‪ .‬ונבות כאחד מנכבדי יזרעאל‬

‫‪ .48‬למדיניות עמרי ואחאב ולהתפתחות החיים המסחריים והעירוניים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬פינקלשטיין וסילברמן‪,‬‬ ‫ראשית ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.196-193‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪65‬‬

‫לא הסתפק בסירובו הפרטי למלך‪ ,‬אלא התייצב כנגד מדיניות זו‪ ,‬כשהוא מייצג את‬ ‫השכבה הרחבה של בעלי הקרקעות ‪.‬‬ ‫ההתנגדות למכירת אדמות מסמלת דבר גדול ומורכב ביותר‪ .‬היא מסמלת את האמונה‬ ‫המסורתית הקפדנית השומרת על השארות נחלת האבות במשפחה‪ ,‬הוראה מטעם ה’‪,‬‬ ‫שגם בן המשפחה לא יכול להתירה‪“ :‬חלילה‪ 49‬לי מה’ מתתי את־נחלת אבתי‪ 50‬לך”‪ .‬מכאן‬ ‫הדחייה על הסף כל ניסיון לפרוץ בעקרונות של שלומי ישראל‪ ,‬שתגרור לשינוי אורחות‬ ‫חיים בסיסיים בחברה בישראל‪ .‬ריכוז פעולותיו של המלך לכינון יזרעאל כעיר מרכזית‬ ‫עוררה התנגדות קשה ועימות מר ביותר‪ .‬אין הכוונה להרחבת ישוב בעלמא‪ ,‬אלא בצפי‬ ‫סכנה גדולה ביותר‪ ,‬בשינוי כל דרכי החיים של תושבי יזרעאל‪ .‬כאן יש להכיר בהחלטה‬ ‫נחושה לשמירת צביונו של הישוב יזרעאל במתכונתו השמרנית המצומצמת הקיימת‪.‬‬ ‫העמידה היא כנגד הפיכתו למטרופולין צבאי‪ ,‬שפירושה שינוי כל מערכת החיים‪,‬‬ ‫הצבאית‪ ,‬הכלכלית‪ ,‬החברתית‪ ,‬הדתית והמוסרית‪ ,‬ומעל לכל הידיעה ששינוי זה מזמין‬ ‫חדירת תרבות חיצונית זרה‪.‬‬ ‫בעמדות אחאב ונבות יש להכיר בהתמודדות בין שני פלגים הנאבקים על עמדות‬ ‫נוגדות ביותר‪ .‬במאבקו של נבות תמכו המשפחות המכובדות בעלי הקרקעות ביזרעאל‬ ‫וחוגי הנביאים בראשותו של אליהו הנביא ותלמידו אלישע‪ ,‬שנלחמו בקנאות בשמירה‬ ‫הקפדנית על נוהגי המסורת‪ .‬יש להכיר שהדברים גלשו כבר מעבר להתנגשות בין יחידים‬ ‫והגיעו לגילויים של עימות מתרחב והולך‪ .‬רק כך אפשר להבין את עומק צערו של אחאב‬ ‫לנוכח סירובו הנוקב של נבות‪ .‬זה אינו ביטוי של אכזבה על אי השגת דבר בו חשקה נפשו‪,‬‬ ‫אלא אחאב היה מודע היטב לגלי ההתנגדות שמדיניותו הובילה‪ .‬הוא נקרע בין רצונו‬ ‫להגשים את מדיניותו הפורצת והשאפתנית‪ ,‬לבין דרכו מראשית מלכותו‪ ,‬להתחשב ברצון‬ ‫העם ולבוא לקראתו ולרווחתו‪ .‬במיוחד רבה חרדתו לאן יובילו מרד ועימות עם השכבה‬ ‫המכובדת של בעלי האחוזות וכלל התושבים‪ ,‬ולאור עמדתם הבלתי ניתנת לפשרות של‬ ‫הנביאים בראשותו של הנביא אליהו‪.‬‬ ‫בשלב ראשון זה של העימות בין אחאב לבין חוגי המסורת השמרנית‪ ,‬ידו של המלך‬ ‫הייתה על העליונה‪ .‬במשפט פומבי כנגד כל העם‪ ,‬בעדותם של שני עדים‪ ,‬מוכחת אשמתו‬ ‫של נבות “ברך אלהים ומלך”‪ ,‬היינו במרידה כנגד המלך‪ ,‬דינו נגזר והוא מוצא להורג‬ ‫ואדמתו עוברת למלך‪ .‬בכך נראה שאחאב הצליח לגבור על ההתנגדות כנגד מדיניותו‬ ‫לפרוץ את הטאבו בסחר בנחלת אבות בישראל‪ .‬ויותר מכך‪ ,‬הוא הצליח להפוך את יזרעאל‬ ‫לעיר מרכזית חזקה בעלת אופי צבאי‪ ,‬פתוחה להשפעות זרות ולמדיניות בין לאומית‪.‬‬

‫‪ .49‬לשרש “חלל” ולמשמעויותיו‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬גריי‪ ,‬מל”א&מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.390-389‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬נבות מסתמך על המסורת השבטית הקדומה‪ ,‬השמרנית מעצם טבעה‪ .‬תפישה זו רואה בה’ את‬ ‫בעליהן האמיתי של כל האדמות בישראל‪ .‬יסוד מוסד בהשקפת עולם זו‪“ :‬והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות‬ ‫כי־לי הארץ” (וי’ כה ‪ .)23‬למשמעות הרבה לנחלת אבות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬יח’ מו ‪ .18‬למושג נחלה ולמשמעותו‪ ,‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫מלמט‪ ,‬מארי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;32-19‬ליונשטם‪ ,‬נחלה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .816-815‬דיון רחב לעניין זה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬בוהלן‪ ,‬משפט נבות‪,‬‬ ‫(לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,)6‬עמ’ ‪.350-320‬‬

‫*‪66‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫אולם נראה שלא הצליח לדכא את גלי ההתנגדות והמרי שפעפעו וגברו באזרחי‬ ‫יזרעאל ובחוגי הנביאים‪.‬‬ ‫תמיכה להנחות אלה נשאב מהמסורת על מרד יהוא בן נמשי שר צבאו של אחאב‬ ‫וביתו (מל”ב ט ‪ .)27 ,10-1‬מרד יהוא הוא עדות להמשך מאבקו של נבות וכל מי שתמכו‬ ‫בו‪ 51.‬יהוא‪ ,‬יחוסו — בן יהושפט בן נמשי‪ ,‬ומשרתו הרמה כשר צבא‪ ,‬מצביעים על שייכותו‬ ‫לאחת המשפחות המכובדות ביזרעאל‪ .‬יהוא פעל ונתמך על ידי אליהו הנביא‪ ,‬ואחר כך‬ ‫על ידי יורשו‪ ,‬אלישע הנביא‪ ,‬וכל חוגי הנביאים והאזרחים שהתקוממו כנגד המדיניות‬ ‫של אחאב‪ ,‬ומורד בו ובביתו‪ .‬ואין זה מקרי‪ ,‬אלא מכוון וסמלי שהמרד מגיע לשיאו‬ ‫“בחלקת נבות היזרעאלי”‪ .‬שם‪ ,‬במקום מקור המרד‪ ,‬מחסל יהוא את בן אחאב וסוגר את‬ ‫המעגל‪ .‬יהוא מגשים את אשר התחיל נושא ההתקוממות — נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬שם קץ לכל‬ ‫המדיניות המתקדמת והפורצת גבולות של אחאב‪ ,‬ובקנאות אכזרית מחסל כל חידוש‬ ‫שאיים על מסורת ישראל הקדומה‪ .‬יש לשרטט כאן את קווי התפתחות המרד מהניצנים‬ ‫הראשונים — נבות‪ ,‬ועד השלמתו הסופית — מרד יהוא‪ ,‬דור אחריו‪ .‬בשלב השני ניצחה‬ ‫המסורת השמרנית את המדיניות של אחאב‪ ,‬השמידה את ביתו ומחקה את כל הקשור‬ ‫‪ .51‬בהתייחסות לקשר של סיפור נבות למרד יהוא בן נמשי קיימת מחלוקת‪ ,‬עד כדי קיצוניות‪ .‬נבחין‬ ‫בה בשתי גישות‪ ,‬האחת — הפוסלת כל קשר בין הקטע המדווח על הריגתם של נבות ובניו בגרסת מרד‬ ‫יהוא במל”ב ט ‪ ,26-25‬לבין סיפור נבות היזרעאלי במל”א כא ‪ .29-1‬גם בגישה זו יש להבחין בדעות‬ ‫שונות‪ ,‬בין אלה הרואים שינויים מסוימים ביניהם מעצם היותם מצויים בקטעים שונים‪ ,‬לאלה הטוענים‬ ‫שאין כל קשר ביניהם‪ .‬עד לקיצוניים ביותר‪ ,‬הטוענים שרק הקטע בסיפור מרד יהוא‪ ,‬הוא הקטע המקראי‬ ‫בו אפשר למצוא עדויות היסטוריות‪ ,‬בעוד שסיפור נבות נוצר בתקופה מאוחרת יותר‪ ,‬ואין לקשרו‬ ‫עם האירועים במל”ב ט ‪ ,26-25‬כפי שבא לביטוי במחקרו של רופא‪ :‬כרם נבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .100-97‬הגישה‬ ‫השנייה — טוענת לקשר ביניהם‪ ,‬למרות שמצויים הם בקטעים מקראיים שונים‪.‬‬ ‫מסכימה אני לאותה גישה הרואה קשר בין הקטע מסיפור מרד יהוא לבין סיפור נבות‪ .‬יתרה מכך‪,‬‬ ‫להנחתי‪ ,‬שני קטעים אלה כרוכים זה בזה‪ ,‬באירוע המכונה ‘פרשת נבות היזרעאלי’‪ .‬העובדה שהם מצויים‬ ‫בקטעים מקראיים שונים‪ ,‬וכל אחד מהם מדגיש דברים אחרים‪ ,‬נעוצה בסיבות שונות‪ :‬מקורם במסורות‬ ‫שבעל פה; הם נערכו בזמנים שונים‪ ,‬ובעריכות שונות‪ .‬מעל לכל יש להביא בחשבון שאין לקבל אף אחד‬ ‫מהם ככתובו כיום‪ ,‬אלא בהתאם לגישתי‪ ,‬כפי שנזכר לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫להנחתי‪ ,‬שני הקטעים מתבססים על מציאות היסטורית‪ ,‬שהשתקפה בממלכת הצפון בתקופה‬ ‫מסוימת‪ .‬המקום הוא יזרעאל ולא שומרון‪ .‬הטיעון לשייכות ‘סיפור נבות’ לשומרון נובע בעיקר מפרט‬ ‫אחד‪ ,‬מהזכרת אחאב כמלך שומרון‪ .‬הסיבות האפשריות לכינוי זה הן איחור זמן כתיבת הקטע‪ ,‬או עבודת‬ ‫עורך‪ ,‬או עריכות מכוונות‪ .‬לעומת זאת בבדיקה מדוקדקת בשני הקטעים‪ ,‬נמצא שהקשר ביניהם מגלם‬ ‫‘מציאות בחיים’ זהה‪ ,‬שהשתקפה ביזרעאל‪ ,‬בממלכת הצפון‪ ,‬בתקופה מסוימת‪ .‬כל הגיבורים‪ ,‬זהים גם‬ ‫כן‪ ,‬חיים ופועלים ביזרעאל‪ ,‬כולל האירוע הנזכר במל”ב ט ‪ ,27-25‬ואישור לכך מתקבל מהממצאים‬ ‫הארכיאולוגיים‪.‬‬ ‫לדעות חוקרים בסוגיה זו‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ויסמן‪ ,‬עם ומלך‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,98-94‬הדן בהרחבה בבעית הקשר בין שני‬ ‫הקטעים ומתייחס לדעות השונות‪ ,‬במיוחד לגרסתו של רופא‪ .‬להנחתו‪ ,‬היסודות המשותפים לשני‬ ‫הקטעים הנדונים מעידים על גרעין היסטורי משותף‪ ,‬היינו הריגת נבות וירושת נחלתו על ידי אחאב;‬ ‫נאמן‪ ,‬נבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,203-200‬מרחיב בדיונו בבעיה‪ ,‬בהתייחסו לעמדתו של רופא; ווייט‪ ,‬כרם נבות‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,76-66‬מקדישה מחקר מקיף בנושא זה‪ ,‬בגישה חדשה‪ .‬להנחת קוכמן‪ ,‬רצח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,78-75‬ניתן להניח‪,‬‬ ‫שמדובר בווריאציות שונות של אותו מעשה‪ ,‬שנחרתו בדרך שונה בזיכרונו של יהוא ואצל מעבד הסיפור‬ ‫במל”א כא‪.‬‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪67‬‬

‫בו‪ ,‬בביתו ובהישגיו המפוארים‪ .‬ואת אשר יגור אחאב אירע — הרגשתו הפנימית הקשה‪,‬‬ ‫שקיננה בו בראשית ביצוע מדיניותו‪ ,‬שהוא מתמודד עם דבר נשגב ממנו שעלול לסכנו —‬ ‫אכן התקיימה‪ ,‬ויותר — החורבן ושפיכות הדמים‪ ,‬וחיסול מוחלט של בית אחאב‪ ,‬באכזריות‬ ‫כה נוראה‪ .‬גם כאן באו לעדות הגילויים הארכיאולוגיים של יזרעאל‪ ,‬המעידים על שרפה‬ ‫גדולה וחורבן טוטלי של כל העיר יזרעאל‪ ,‬בתאריך ההולם את שלטון יהוא בן נמשי‪,‬‬ ‫וכפי שמשתקף בהטחתו הזועמת ביותר של הנביא הושע‪ .‬המסקנה‪ ,‬שבגודלה זה יזרעאל‬ ‫הייתה קיימת רק בתקופת בית עמרי ואחאב‪ ,‬כ־‪ 40‬שנה‪ ,‬ולאחר מכן נהרס המקום לגמרי‬ ‫בתקופה המתאימה ליהוא בן־נמשי‪ ,‬זהה להנחתי בסגירת המעגל של המרד בניצוחו של‬ ‫‪52‬‬ ‫יהוא‪.‬‬ ‫פעלו ומקומו של הנביא אליהו בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫מכל המקורות המקראיים העוסקים ביחסי הנבואה והשלטון‪ ,‬הפרשה הטובה‬ ‫והמפורטת ביותר החושפת את מעמד הנביא‪ ,‬כוחו ועקרונותיו ביחס למלך‪ ,‬למדיניותו‬ ‫ולדרכי שלטונו‪ ,‬ושליטתו על חיי האזרח — היא פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪.‬‬ ‫אחד האישים הדומיננטיים והמשפיעים במלכות אחאב ובפרשת נבות היזרעאלי —‬ ‫הוא הנביא אליהו‪ .‬פועליו נתחמים בעיקר בשני מישורים‪:‬‬ ‫האחד — מלחמתו הקנאית בעבודת הבעל והאשרה במלכות ישראל‬ ‫השני — התייצבות הנביא מול מדיניות המלך‪ ,‬ומלחמתו לכיליונו המוחלט של אחאב‬ ‫וביתו‪.‬‬ ‫חשיפת פועלו של הנביא אליהו בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי היא העדות המכרעת בתובנה‬ ‫שהנחתי‪ ,‬בתסיסה‪ ,‬בגלי הזעם ובהתפרצות המרד האכזרי‪ ,‬שעוררה מדיניותו של אחאב‪.‬‬ ‫מרד‪ ,‬שסביר שבראשו עמד נבות‪ ,‬שנשפט במשפט פומבי שהפעילה איזבל‪ ,‬נמצא אשם‬ ‫במרידה במלך‪ ,‬הוצא להורג ואדמתו הוחרמה למלך‪ .‬ובגזרה שווה מתרחשים מרד יהוא‪,‬‬ ‫חורבן מלכות אחאב וחיסול בית עמרי‪.‬‬ ‫בפרשה זו נחשף מצב ייחודי ביותר‪ .‬כאן אין הנביא אליהו מסתפק כדרך הנביאים‬ ‫בהטחות זעם נוקבות במלך על דרכיו ומעשיו‪ ,‬אלא מתגלה כלוחם ללא לאות המתכנן‬ ‫בעקביות ובמעשיות את השמדת המלך אחאב וכל ביתו‪ 54.‬כבר בהתגלות ה’ בהר חורב‬ ‫מוטלת עליו המשימה הפוליטית הגורלית‪“ :‬לך שוב לדרכך מדברה דמשק ובאת ומשחת‬ ‫את־חזאל למלך על־ארם‪ ,‬ואת יהוא בן־נמשי תמשח למלך על־ישראל ואת־אלישע בן־‬ ‫שפט מאבל מחולה תמשח לנביא תחתיך” (מל”א יט ‪ .)16-15‬לאור משימה זו‪ ,‬פועל הנביא‬ ‫אליהו במעמד מיוחד‪ .‬הוא כנציגו של ה’ נמצא מעל לשלטון המלך‪ ,‬על פי סדר היררכי‬ ‫‪53‬‬

‫‪ .52‬ראו‪ :‬אוסישקין‪ ,‬לעיל הערות ‪.47 ,43‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬לאליהו הנביא‪ ,‬ראו הרחבה בספרו של אופנהיימר‪ ,‬הנבואה הקדומה‪ ,‬המלחמה בבעל‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ .207-186‬על פעולת הנביאים בימי אחאב‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אופנהיימר‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.174‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬על אספקט שונה של התנהגותו‪ ,‬תגובותיו והרגשותיו של אליהו‪ ,‬העולה מתוך הכתבים‬ ‫המקראיים‪ ,‬בניגוד לעמידתו התקיפה והמעשית בפרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬גלנדר‪ ,‬משני עמים‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.32-27‬‬

‫*‪68‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫כזה‪ :‬אלהים‪-‬נביא‪-‬מלך‪ ,‬ומכאן כוחו להתמודד עם המלך ולעצור בו כשהוא פוגע בעם‪.‬‬ ‫לגרסתו‪ ,‬גם למלך קיים קו אדום אותו הוא אינו יכול לחצות‪ ,‬ואם המלך חוצה קו זה‬ ‫ומשליט את כוחו ומרותו‪ ,‬הצדק המוסרי והאלוהי יבלום אותו‪ ,‬באמצעות הנביא העומד‬ ‫מעל המלך‪ .‬ואם המלך אינו ממלא זאת — דינו‪ ,‬מוות וחורבן כל ביתו וכל ממלכתו‪.‬‬ ‫וכך פעל אליהו‪ .‬ברגע שאחאב חצה את הקו האדום ופגע בעקרונות בסיסיים‬ ‫מקודשים‪ ,‬שהעם לא יכול היה לעמוד בכך‪ ,‬ובמשפט מטעמו הורשע האזרח המתמרד‬ ‫ונגזר דינו למות‪ ,‬אליהו התייצב בגלוי כנגדו‪ ,‬תכנן בעקביות ובחומרה לפרטי פרטים‬ ‫את המרד וביצועו‪ .‬אלישע‪ ,‬תלמידו‪ ,‬מבצע את הצו שהוטל על אליהו למשוח את יהוא‬ ‫למלך‪ ,‬בוחר נביא שהגיע למחנהו של יהוא‪ ,‬ושם בחשאי מושח את יהוא למלך‪ .‬ובהמשך‪,‬‬ ‫באמצעות יהוא התקיימה מפלת בית אחאב וחורבן בית עמרי ועליית בית מלוכה אחר‪.‬‬ ‫ייחודיות הקשר בין הנביא אליהו ופרשת נבות היזרעאלי מתבטאת בכך‪ ,‬שקשר זה קיים‬ ‫ושזור מראשיתו ועד אחריתו‪ .‬בראשיתו‪ ,‬בחיי אליהו‪ ,‬באופן מעשי‪ ,‬ברם המיוחד כאן‪ ,‬שגם‬ ‫לאחר מותו‪ ,‬לאורכם של האירועים — רוחו שורה‪ ,‬וצוויו קיימים ומכתיבים דרך בהתאם‬ ‫לנבואותיו‪ ,‬כפי שעולה מהכתובים המקראיים (מל”א כא ‪ ;24-19‬מל”ב ט ‪ ;37-36‬י‪.)17 ,10 ,‬‬ ‫משמעותה הייחודית של פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫הכתובים המקראיים‪ ,‬הארתם במקורות אפיגראפיים חוץ־מקראיים עקיפים‪ ,‬ואישורם‬ ‫באמצעות עדות ישירה בת הזמן מהממצאים הארכיאולוגיים מתל יזרעאל — הם שגיבשו‬ ‫את התובנה החדשה והאחרת של פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬והם שחשפו פרשת זו כאחת‬ ‫הפרשות החשובות והחריגות שאירעו בתולדות ממלכת ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫נפתח בגרעין הפרשה — משמעות משפט נבות היזרעאלי‬ ‫פרסומה של פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬באה בעקבות אחד המשפטים המפורסמים‬ ‫והידועים לשמצה מימי קדם ועד ימינו כמשפט מכור‪ ,‬זדוני — משפט נבות היזרעאלי‪.‬‬ ‫בעקבות ניתוח המשפט‪ ,‬לעיל בחלק הראשון‪ ,‬ולאחר התגבשות המסקנה להיותו משפט‬ ‫מהימן‪ ,‬נחשף טיבה האמיתי והמקיף של הפרשה‪ .‬ברם‪ ,‬פרשה זו הנבנית ממחקר משפט‬ ‫נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬אינה מפחיתה מחשיבותו ומפרסומו‪ .‬נהפוך הוא‪ ,‬גם אם נערך כמשפט‬ ‫תקין על פי הלכות חוק נכונות‪ ,‬ונבות אכן יצא נגד המלך‪ ,‬הרי אין הדבר פוגם בזעזוע‬ ‫שמשפט זה הותיר ונחרת בעם לדורותיו‪ .‬מאחר שמעיקרו הוא ביטוי לעריצות המלך‬ ‫ולכוונותיו להכתיב את רצונו ומדיניותו על אזרחיו‪ ,‬ומסמל את מאבקו של האזרח להתנגד‬ ‫למדיניות שנוגדת את כל עקרונותיו ועקרונות עמו‪.‬‬ ‫אין ספק שמשפט נבות היזרעאלי היה אחד הגורמים הראשיים בהתפשטות המרד‬ ‫ובהצלחתו‪ .‬העם לא סלח למלך אחאב על שהרג וחיסל בית בישראל‪ ,‬וגזל את נחלתו‪,‬‬ ‫משום שהלה נלחם על זכותו על נחלת אבותיו‪ .‬ועד כמה מקודש העיקרון של נחלת‬ ‫האבות בעם לדורותיו‪ ,‬בא לביטוי בנבואתו של יחזקאל שנים אחר כך‪“ :‬ולא יקח הנשיא‬ ‫מנחלת העם להונתם מאחזתם” (יח’ מו ‪.)18‬‬ ‫בהמשך‪ ,‬מתגלה טיבה האמיתי של הפרשה‪ .‬הפרשה מתרחבת וחורגת ממסגרת‬ ‫משפט נבות היזרעאלי והפגיעה בו ובבני ביתו‪ ,‬כשהשלכותיה חוצות את גבולות הפרט‬

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

‫*‪69‬‬

‫ומתרחבות למדיניות פנים ממלכתית מסובכת‪ .‬ההתנגשות הגורלית בין מדיניות המלך‬ ‫אחאב לבין קדושת המסורת הפטריארכאלית הביאה להתקוממות אזרחי יזרעאל‪ ,‬ראשיה‪,‬‬ ‫מכובדיה‪ ,‬אזרחים בעלי אדמות‪ ,‬שר צבא‪ ,‬ומעל לכל הנביאים בראשותו של אליהו‪ ,‬שיצאו‬ ‫למלחמת חורמה במדיניות המלך‪ .‬אותו מלך‪ ,‬שלא היסס בעקבות שאיפותיו‪ ,‬לפגוע בעם‪,‬‬ ‫ויותר מכך לנסות לשנות את ערכיו ואורח חייהם של אזרחיו‪.‬‬ ‫המרד אמנם השיג את מטרותיו במיוחד בתחום השלטוני והאידיאולוגי‪ ,‬אולם‬ ‫התוצאות היו הרות גורל‪ .‬ההריגות האכזריות העקובות מדם‪ ,‬שחיסלו את בית המלך‬ ‫אחאב‪ ,‬מקורביו ואזרחים רבים נוספים מאנשי שלומו ומהתחום הדתי‪ ,‬החלישו את המדינה‬ ‫מבפנים‪ .‬בעוד הריגת איזבל בת מלך צור ואחזיהו מלך יהודה ביטלו את הבריתות בין צור‬ ‫ויהודה‪ ,‬וכתוצאה‪ ,‬ניתוק היחסים המדיניים והכלכליים בין ישראל לבין צור ויהודה‪ ,‬פגעו‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫קשות בפריחה הכלכלית של ממלכת ישראל בתקופת בית אחאב‪.‬‬ ‫הזעזועים מבפנים והפגיעה הכלכלית הקשה‪ ,‬הביאו כתוצאה מתבקשת‪ ,‬לירידה משמעותית‬ ‫בכוחה המדיני והצבאי של ממלכת ישראל‪ ,‬עד לסופה ברבות הימים על יד ארם ואשור‪.‬‬ ‫הייחודיות של פרשה נבות היזרעאלי נלמדת ומפתיעה בשתי תופעות חריגות‪:‬‬ ‫האחת — הפרשה מלמדת כיצד ממלכת עמרי ואחאב‪ ,‬מעצמה חזקה שכוחה רב‬ ‫במדיניות החוץ שלה‪ ,‬כובשת ממלכות‪ ,‬מעשירה עצמה כמדינות אחרות‪ ,‬המעורבת‬ ‫צבאית במצבים בין־לאומיים ויודעת שפע ופריחה כלכלית וצבאית‪ ,‬נסדקת ויורדת‬ ‫מגדולתה‪ ,‬נחלשת והולכת עד סופה‪ ,‬לא מכוח חיצוני צבאי של מעצמה זרה‪ ,‬אלא המקור‬ ‫להתערערות זו הוא פנימי — מלחמת מדיניות פנים של מלך עם מסורת עם עתיקת ימים‪.‬‬ ‫השניה — מצביעה על תופעה חריגה ביותר בקורות ממלכת ישראל‪ ,‬על התקוממות‬ ‫כנגד השלטון‪ ,‬שמתעוררת ופורצת מלמטה כלפי מעלה‪ ,‬מהעם כנגד המלוכה‪ ,‬ומשנה‬ ‫את מצב הממלכה לחלוטין‪ .‬המרד הצליח לחסל את בית אחאב על כל הישגי מדיניותו‪.‬‬ ‫אמנם‪ ,‬המרד לא שינה את אופי השלטון ואותו משטר מלך נשאר‪ .‬ממלכת אחאב‬ ‫נפלה כתוצאה מתפישת השלטון על ידי שר צבא‪ ,‬חיזיון מוכר וידוע בישראל ובמזרח‬ ‫הקדום‪ .‬ברם תפישת השלטון במקרה זה שונה לגמרי‪ .‬אין זו תופעה של שר צבא‪ ,‬שקם‬ ‫ומשתלט על המלך ועל הממלכה בעזרת חייליו‪ ,‬אלא זו התפרצות שהחלה מלמטה‪,‬‬ ‫הפיכה שמוצאה העם‪ .‬יהוא בן נמשי‪ ,‬שר צבאו של אחאב המורד‪ ,‬הוא תוצר של המרד‪,‬‬ ‫שנבחר‪ ,‬ופעל בהתאם לתכנון וביצוע הנביאים שהיו מראשי המרד‪.‬‬ ‫הטלת חותמו של הנביא על פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‪ ,‬במשפטו המפורסם‪:‬‬ ‫“הרצחת וגם ירשת”‬ ‫מבטאת את כוחה של המסורת הפטריארכלית‪ ,‬אותה מייצג הנביא‪:‬‬ ‫כל כוח שיפגע בשני העקרונות המקודשים של העם‪:‬‬ ‫קדושת החיים וקדושת האדמה — יושמד‪.‬‬

‫‪ .55‬ראו‪ :‬עודד‪ ,‬מלכות יהוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.87-85‬‬

‫*‪70‬‬

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫אוסישקין ווודהד‪ ,‬תל־יזרעאל = ‪D. Ussishkin & J. Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel‬‬ ‫‪Jezreel 1990-1991-Preliminry Report”, Tel Aviv XIX (1992), pp. 3-56‬‬ ‫אוסישקין ווודהד‪ ,‬תל־יזרעאל = ‪D. Ussishkin & J. Woodhead, “Excavations at Tel‬‬ ‫‪Jezreel-Second Preliminary Report”, Levant XXVI (1994), pp. 1-48‬‬

‫אוסישקין ‪ ,‬המתחם = ד’ אוסישקין‪ ,‬המתחם המבוצר של מלכי בית עמרי ביזרעאל‪ ,‬ארץ־‬ ‫ישראל ‪( 25‬תשנ”ו)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪14-1‬‬ ‫אופנהיימר‪ ,‬הנבואה הקדומה = ב’ אופנהיימר‪ ,‬הנבואה הקדומה בישראל‪ ,‬ירושלים תשל”ג‬ ‫אישידה‪ ,‬בית אחאב = ‪T. IShida, “The House of Ahab”, Israel Exploration Journal‬‬ ‫‪25 (1975), pp. 135-137‬‬

‫אמית‪ ,‬הסיפורת = י’ אמית‪“ ,‬הסיפורת המקראית”‪ ,‬ספרות המקרא‪ ,‬מבואות ומחקרים‪,‬‬ ‫בעריכת צ’ טלשיר‪ ,‬ירושלים תשע”א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪286-273‬‬ ‫בוהלן‪ ,‬משפט נבות = ‪R. Bohlen, Der Fall Nabot, Paulinus-Verlag, Tries 1978‬‬ ‫בן־ברק‪ ,‬ריקים = צ’ בן־ברק‪“ ,‬ריקים‪ ,‬ריקים ופוחזים”‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית כרך ז‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים תשל”ו‪ ,‬טור’ ‪368-367‬‬ ‫בן־ברק‪ ,‬החרמת קרקעות = צ’ בן־ברק‪“ ,‬החרמת קרקעות בישראל ובמזרח הקדום”‪,‬‬ ‫שנתון למקרא ולחקר המזרח הקדום‪ ,‬ה‪-‬ו (תשמ”א‪-‬תשמ”ב)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪117-101‬‬ ‫בן־ברק‪ ,‬פרשת נבות = צ’ בן־ברק‪“ ,‬פרשת נבות היזרעאלי לאור תעודה ממסופוטמיה —‬ ‫ראיה חדשה”‪ ,‬דברי הקונגרס העולמי התשיעי למדעי היהדות‪ ,‬ירושלים תשמ”ו‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪20-15‬‬ ‫בן־ברק‪ ,‬משפטי בגידה = ‪Z. Ben-Barak, “Trials for Treason against the King in‬‬ ‫‪Israel and the Ancient Near East”, Revue Internationale Des Droits de‬‬ ‫‪L’Antiquite 38 (1991), pp. 11-37‬‬

‫ברין‪ ,‬מחקרים = ג’ ברין‪ ,‬מחקרים בספרות הנבואה הקלסית‪ ,‬ירושלים תשס”ו‬ ‫ברנר‪ ,‬איזבל = ע’ ברנר‪“ ,‬איזבל”‪ ,‬שנתון למקרא ולחקר המזרח הקדום ה‪-‬ו (תשמ”א‪-‬‬ ‫תשמ”ב)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪37-27‬‬ ‫ברסטד‪ ,‬תעודות = ‪J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt (=AR) IV, New York‬‬ ‫‪1962; Records of Harem Conspiracy, # 416-456, pp. 208-221‬‬ ‫גואדיק‪ ,‬קסם = ‪H. Goedicke, “Was Magic used in the Harem Conspiracy against‬‬ ‫‪Ramesses III”? The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 49 (1963), pp. 71-92,‬‬ ‫‪1 fig. 2 plates‬‬

‫גוטמן‪ ,‬אחאב = י’ גוטמן‪ ,‬אחאב‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית א’‪ ,‬ירושלים תש”י‪ ,‬טור’ ‪199-198‬‬ ‫גלנדר‪ ,‬משני עמים = ש’ גלנדר‪ ,‬משני עמים לעם אחד‪ ,‬ירושלים תשס”ח‬ ‫גלעד‪ ,‬ספרות הנבואה = ד’ גלעד‪ ,‬ספרות הנבואה‪ ,‬ספרות המקרא‪ ,‬מבואות ומחקרים‪,‬‬ ‫בעריכת צ’ טלשיר‪ ,‬ירושלים תשע”א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪324-307‬‬ ‫גריי‪ ,‬מל”א&מל”ב = ‪J. Gray, I&II Kings (Old Testament Library), London 1964,‬‬ ‫‪pp. 328-508‬‬

71*

‫פרשת נבות היזרעאלי‬

A. de Buck, “The Judicial Papyrus of Turin”, The Journal of = ‫ הפפירוס‬,‫דה בק‬ Egyptian Archaeology 23/2 (1937), pp. 152-164 J.A. Dearman, (ed.) Studies in the Mesha Inscription and = ‫ כתובת מישע‬,‫דרמן‬ Moab, Atlanta GA 1989 W.W. Hallo, “Introduction: Ancient Near Eastern Texts and their = ,‫ מבוא‬,‫האלו‬ Relevance for Biblical Exegesis”, in W.W. Hallo, ed. The Context of Scripture, I, Leiden 1997, pp. xxiii-xxviii

‫ מחקרי יהודה‬,‫ בעריכת י’ אשל‬,”‫ “רכב ישראל ופרשיו‬,‫ רכב ישראל = מ’ הראל‬,‫הראל‬ 43-29 ’‫ עמ‬, 1994 ‫ אריאל‬,‫ושומרון‬ M. White, “Naboth’s Vineyard and Jehu’s Coup: The Legitimation = ‫ כרם נבות‬,‫ווייט‬ of a Dynastic Extermination”, Vetus Testamentum 44 (1994), pp. 66-76 E. Weidner, “Hochverrat gegen Nebukadnezar II. Ein = ‫ נגד נבוכדאנצר‬,‫ויידנר‬ Grosswurdentrager vor dem Konigsgericht”, Archiv fur Orientforschung 17 (1954-1956), pp. 1-9 D.J. Wiseman, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon”, IRAQ 20 = ‫ בריתות‬,‫וייזמן‬ (1958), pp. 23-28 D.J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Oxford 1985 = ‫ נבוכדנאצר‬,‫וייזמן‬ K.W.Whitelam, The Just King, Sheffield 1979, pp.17-38, 207-220 = ‫ המלך‬,‫וייטלם‬

‫ ירושלים תשמ”ה‬,‫ משפט וצדקה בישראל ובעמים‬,‫ משפט וצדקה = מ’ ויינפלד‬,‫ויינפלד‬ H.G.M. Williamson, “Jezreel in the Biblical Texts”, Tel Aviv = ‫ויליאמסון יזרעאל‬ 18 (1991), pp. 72- 92 H.G.M. Williamson, “Tel Jezreel and the Dynasty of = ‫ תל יזרעאל‬,‫ויליאמסון‬ Omri”, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 128, pp. 41-51 J.A. Wilson, “Results of a trial for conspiracy”, J. Pritchard (ed.) = ‫ תוצאות‬,‫וילסון‬ ANET 2, New Jersey NJ 1955, pp. 214-216

‫ תל אביב תשנ”א‬,‫ עם ומלך במשפט המקראי‬,‫ עם ומלך = ז’ ויסמן‬,‫ויסמן‬ ‫ ירושלים‬,3 ,‫ המקרא כדמותו‬,‫ מ’ וייס‬:‫ בתוך‬,”‫ “כרם היה לנבות‬,‫ כרם = י’ זקוביץ‬,‫זקוביץ‬ 377-354 ’‫ עמ‬,‫תשמ”ז‬ S. Timm, Die Dynastie Omri, Gottingen 1982 = ‫ השושלת‬,‫טים‬ 18-15 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ צב (תשמ”ח‬,‫ חדשות ארכיאולוגיות‬,”‫ “תל יזרעאל‬,‫ תל יזרעאל = א’ יוגב‬,‫יוגב‬ M. Cogan, I Kings (Anchor Bible), New York 2001, pp. 415-498 = ‫ מל”א‬,‫כוגן‬ M. Cogan, and H. Tadmor, II Kings (Anchor Bible) Garden = ‫ מל”ב‬,‫ ותדמור‬,‫כוגן‬ City NY 1988

’‫ו‬-’‫ מאות ט‬:‫ אסופת כתובות היסטוריות מאשור ובבל‬,‫ אסופת כתובות = מ’ כוגן‬,‫כוגן‬ 15-9 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשס”ד‬,‫לפסה”נ‬ D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, I, = ‫ תעודות‬,‫לוקנביל‬ Chicago IL 1926

‫צפרירה בן־ברק‬

72*

D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and = ‫ תעודות קדומות‬,‫לוקנביל‬ Babylonia, New York 1968, pp. 60-66,

’‫ טור‬,1968 ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ אנציקלופדיה מקראית ה‬,”‫ “נחלה‬,‫ נחלה = ש’ ליונשטם‬,‫ליונשטם‬ 816-815 ,‫ ספר מ”צ סגל‬,”‫ לדפוסי המשטר השבטי‬:‫ “מארי והמקרא‬,‫ מארי = מ’ מלמט‬,‫מלמט‬ 32-19 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ירושלים תשכ”ה‬ N. Na’aman, “King Mesha and the Foundation of the Moabite = ‫ מלך מישע‬,‫נאמן‬ Monarchy”, Israel Exploration Journal 47 (1997), pp. 83-92 N. Na’aman, “Naboth Vineyard and the Foundation of Jezreel”, = ‫ נבות‬,‫נאמן‬ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33.2 (2008), pp. 197-218 B.D. Napier, “The Omrides of Jezreel”, Vetus Testamentum 9 = ‫ יזרעאל‬,‫נפיר‬ (1959), pp. 366-378 H. Seebass, “Der Fall Naboth”, in I Reg. XXI, Vetus Testamentum = ‫ משפט‬,‫סיבס‬ 24 (1974), pp. 474-488

87-85 ’‫ עמ‬,1994 ‫ תל אביב‬,‫ עולם התנ”ך‬,”‫ “מלכות יהוא‬,‫ מלכות יהוא = ב’ עודד‬,‫עודד‬ J.N. Postgate, Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and, Decrees, = ‫ מענקים‬,‫פוסטגייט‬ Rome 1969, Pl. III K 1441 (&11463), pp. 62-69

:‫ ראשית ישראל‬,‫ ראשית ישראל = י’ פינקלשטיין ונ”א סילברמן‬,‫פינקלשטיין וסילברמן‬ ‫ תל אביב תשס”ג‬,‫ מקרא וזיכרון היסטורי‬,‫ארכיאולוגיה‬ ‫ תל אביב‬,)‫ מלכים ב (עולם התנ”ך‬,”‫ “רצח יורם ואחזיהו‬,‫ רצח = מיכאל קוכמן‬,‫קוכמן‬ 78-75 ’‫ עמ‬,1994 L. Kataja, and R. Whiting, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo- = ‫ מענקים‬,‫קטג’ וויטינג‬ Assyrian Period, Helesinki 1995 N.Kanawati, Conspiracies in the Egyptian Palace, London 2003 = ‫ קשר‬,‫קנאווטי‬ O. Zimhoni, “The Iron Age Pottery from Tel Jezreel. An Inerim = ‫ חרסים‬,‫צמחוני‬ Report”, Tel Aviv 19 (1992), pp. 57-70 O. Zimhoni, “Clues from the Enclosure-Fills: Pre-Omride = ‫ רמזים‬,‫צמחוני‬ Settlement at Tel Jezreel”, Tel Aviv 24 (1997), pp. 83-109

‫ ירושלים תשמ”ג‬,‫ מוסד הזקנים בישראל‬,‫ מוסד הזקנים = ח’ רביב‬,‫רביב‬ 34-9 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשל”ה‬,‫ כתובות מתקופת המלוכה בישראל‬,‫ כתובות = ח’ רביב‬,‫רביב‬ S. Redford, The harem conspiracy: The murder of Ramesses = ‫ קשר ההרמון‬,‫רדפורד‬ III, DeKalb IL 2002 ‫ דברי הקונגרס‬,R. Rosenberg, “The Concept of Biblical ‘Belial’” = ‫ בליעל‬,‫רוזנברג‬

40-35 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשמ”ב‬,‫העולמי השמיני למדעי היהדות‬ A. Rofe, “The Vineyard of Neboth” Vetus testamentum 38 = ‫ כרם נבות‬,‫רופא‬ (1988), pp. 89-104

‫ שנתון למקרא ולחקר‬,”‫ “ברית ושבועת אמונים במזרח הקדום‬,‫ ברית = ח’ תדמור‬,‫תדמור‬ 173-149 ’‫ עמ‬,)1982( ‫ו‬-‫ כרך ה‬,‫המזרח הקדום‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪73‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי‬ ‫לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬ ‫יונתן בן־דב‬ ‫יותר מכל ספר אחר‪ ,‬מתמקד מלאכי בביקורת על הנעשה במקדש‪ ,‬ובכוהנים שהנהיגו‬ ‫את סדרי המקדש הפגומים‪ .‬תוך כדי שהוא מתווה את הפגיעה במקדש ובקרבנות‪ ,‬מתאר‬ ‫הנביא גם את דמותו של הכוהן האידיאלי‪ ,‬ומבקר את כוהני זמנו על סטייתם ממופת זה‪.‬‬ ‫מאמר זה מוקדש לזכרו האהוב של אביגדור הורוויץ‪ ,‬שתרם רבות להערכת הכוהנים‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ומפעלותם בספרות המקרא והמזרח הקדום‪ ,‬ומפעל חייו נקטע באיבו‪.‬‬ ‫הנבואות בספר נאמרו מתוך היכרות קרובה עם הכוהנים ומנהגיהם‪ ,‬עם תפיסת‬ ‫עולמם ועם לשונם וספרותם‪ 2.‬חרף הרקע הכוהני הבולט‪ ,‬הנראה לפעמים כדיון פנימי‬ ‫של הכוהנים‪ ,‬ספר מלאכי נתון במסגרת נבואית מובהקת‪ ,‬כפי שניכר מנוסחות המדבר‬

‫‪ .1‬ראה בעיקר הורוויץ‪ ,‬מראה כהן‪ .‬ושם‪ ,‬בעמ’ ‪ ,29‬קשר הורוויץ את הדיון גם למל’ ב ‪.5-4‬‬ ‫מאמר זה הוצג בכנס בינלאומי בנושא ‪ ,Prophecy and Politics‬באוניברסיטת חיפה בחודש מאי‬ ‫‪ .2012‬אביגדור הורוויץ המנוח העיר הערות מועילות במיוחד במעמד זה‪ ,‬ועל כך שלוחה לו תודתי‬ ‫לעולם שכולו טוב‪ .‬תודה למארגני הכנס‪ :‬פרופ’ גרשון גליל וד”ר שירלי נתן־יולזרי‪ .‬אחרים ממשתתפי‬ ‫הכנס העירו אף הם‪ ,‬ובמיוחד עליי להודות לפרופ’ ג’פרי סטאקרט‪ .‬תודה לפרופ’ אלי עסיס‪ ,‬ששלח לי‬ ‫את מאמרו בטרם פרסום‪ ,‬ולפרופ’ האנספטר שאודיג על הבהרת החומר הבבלי‪ .‬הדעות המובעות כאן‬ ‫הן‪ ,‬כמובן‪ ,‬שלי והאחריות עליהן רובצת עליי‪.‬‬ ‫במאמר זה איני מתיימר להקיף את כל הספרות המרובה שנכתבה על ספר מלאכי‪ ,‬ואין בו סקירה‬ ‫ממצה של המחקר‪ .‬בכל מקום הפניתי למקצת מן הספרות‪ ,‬ובעיקר לחיבורים המספקים סקירת מחקר‬ ‫עדכנית‪ .‬הניסיון לקשר את מלאכי לחומר מקדשי מן התקופה הנאו־בבלית לא עלה במחקר כלל עד כה‪,‬‬ ‫ככל שידי מגעת לברר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬פישביין (פרשנות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )334-329‬טען כי קטעי הפולמוס עם הכוהנים רומזים באופן ישיר אל‬ ‫“ברכת הכהנים”‪ ,‬המוכרת מן הספרות הכוהנית בתורה (במדבר ו ‪ .)27-23‬והנה‪ ,‬מה שפישביין כינה‬ ‫“ברכת כוהנים” מוכר וידוע היום ממקורות אפיגראפיים‪ :‬הן מן הקמעות שנתגלו בכתף הינום והן מן‬ ‫הברכות הרשומות על פיטסים מכונתילת עג’רוד‪ .‬נראה אפוא כי הניסוחים במלאכי אינם מפרשים את‬ ‫ברכת הכוהנים המקראית דווקא‪ ,‬אלא נכתבו כוואריאציה על אוצר מונחים נפוץ בעבודת האלוהים‬ ‫ביהודה בכלל‪ .‬לשונו של מלאכי דומה ללשונם של המקורות הכוהניים אך אינה זהה להם‪ .‬ראו למשל‬ ‫מאיירס‪ ,‬לשון כוהנית; וכן דקדוקים אחדים משכנעים מאוד מאת פארן‪ ,‬דרכי הסגנון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.296-294 ,252‬‬ ‫כנגד פישביין ראה ויידה‪ ,‬נבואה ותורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;121‬לדיוק והרחבה על טיעונו של פישביין ראו‪ :‬עסיס‪,‬‬ ‫תוכחת הכוהנים‪.‬‬

‫*‪73‬‬

‫*‪74‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

‫“אמר ה’ צבאות” וכדומה‪ ,‬והוא עוסק בנושאים נבואיים קלאסיים‪ ,‬כגון הצדק החברתי‬ ‫(“עושקי שכר שכיר”‪ ,‬ב ‪ ,)5‬נבואות על הגויים (אדום‪ ,‬א ‪ ,)5-1‬ונבואות יום ה’ (למשל ג ‪.)19‬‬ ‫המפגש בין כהונה לנבואה איננו מפתיע‪ ,‬שכן לפנינו דוגמה אחרת‪ ,‬מובהקת יותר לכך‬ ‫בדמות ספרו של הנביא־הכוהן יחזקאל‪ ,‬אשר הליכות המקדש תופסות נתח ניכר בספרו‬ ‫(פרקים מ‪-‬מח)‪ 3.‬אולם בתוך ספר מלאכי ישנם ביטויים מובהקים לאידיאולוגיה מקדשית‬ ‫ולאינטרסים של המקדש‪ ,‬לעתים כל כך מובהקים עד שהם חורגים מן המקובל בלשון‬ ‫הנבואה ובמקרא בכלל‪.‬‬ ‫יחסו של מלאכי למקדש ולקרבנות הוא יוצא דופן‪ ,‬שכן אין אח ורע לאופן שבו מלאכי‬ ‫מוכיח את העם ואת הכוהנים על הבאת בהמות פגומות לקרבן (כפי שיפורש להלן)‪.‬‬ ‫ניתן לומר שנבואת מלאכי מהווה נקודת מפנה בתולדות הנבואה‪ ,‬שבה התמזגה התוכחה‬ ‫הנבואית עם הדקדקנות הכוהנית בדיני קרבנות ומעשרות‪ .‬אף כאן יש להבהיר את ההבדל‬ ‫המשמעותי מספר יחזקאל‪ :‬בעוד יחזקאל מרבה להתנסח בסגנון החוק הכוהני‪ ,‬ובדומה‬ ‫ל”קובץ הקדושה” שבחוקי התורה‪ 4,‬הרי מלאכי מביע רעיונות כוהניים בסגנון נבואי‪,‬‬ ‫מבלי לנסחם בלשון החוק‪.‬‬ ‫חשוב לציין כי ספר מלאכי‪ ,‬חרף החידושים המצויים בו‪ ,‬איננו חדשן לגמרי‪ ,‬אלא‬ ‫ממשיך מסורות ישראליות קדומות‪ .‬כך למשל‪ ,‬הפראפראזה על ברכת הכוהנים שצוינה‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫לעיל‪ ,‬ועוד שורה ארוכה של מסורות מן החוק ומן הנבואה‪ ,‬שחלקן יידונו בהמשך‪.‬‬ ‫בביקורתו על הכוהנים ממשיך מלאכי את מנהגם של מחברים מקראיים שקדמו לו‪ ,‬מן‬ ‫הנבואה ומן ההיסטוריוגרפיה‪ .‬בספר שמ”א ג ‪ 14-12‬נמצאת ביקורת כנגד הכוהנים מבית‬ ‫עלי‪ .‬אצל נביאי הכתב נמצא גינוי לכוהנים בתוך שורה נוסחאית של גינויים כלפי בעלי‬ ‫התפקידים בחברה‪ ,‬כגון יר’ ב ‪“ :8‬הכהנים לא אמרו איה ה’ ‪ /‬ותופשי התורה לא ידעוני”‪,‬‬ ‫והשוו‪ :‬צפ’ ג ‪ ,4-3‬יח’ כב ‪ ,29-25‬מי’ ג ‪ .11‬בגינויים אלה נזכרים הכוהנים לרעה בשל‬ ‫הזנחת תפקידם כמורי הוראה‪ ,‬אך לא בשל פעולות פולחן שגויות‪ .‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬בספר‬ ‫מלאכי נזכרו שתי הפנים של הביקורת‪ :‬הן בשל הזנחת ההוראה (מל’ ב ‪“ 8‬הכשלתם רבים‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫בתורה”) והן בשל הפגם בסדרי הפולחן (א ‪.)14-6‬‬

‫‪ .3‬ראו‪ :‬שורץ‪ ,‬כהן‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬על יחזקאל וחוקי הקדושה ראו‪ :‬לויט־כוהן‪ ,‬לב חדש‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬ספרו המקיף של ויידה‪ ,‬נבואה ותורה‪ ,‬מוקדש לבירור מקורותיו של מלאכי במסורות מקראיות‬ ‫קודמות‪ .‬לבירור הזיקה שבין תורת הקרבנות במלאכי ובין החוקים המקבילים בתורה ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.122-118‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬הביקורת כנגד קורבנות פגומים שהוגשו למקדש מכוונת לעתים אל הכוהנים (כגון א ‪,)8-6‬‬ ‫ולעתים אל אנשים פרטיים מן העם שהגישו את אותם קורבנות‪ ,‬כגון א ‪“ 14‬וארור נוכל ויש בעדרו זכר”‬ ‫וכו’‪ .‬פיטרסן‪ ,‬מלאכי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,184‬טען כי רק פס’ ‪ 14‬פונה אל העם בעוד שאר הפסוקים פונים אל הכוהנים‪.‬‬ ‫עסיס‪ ,‬תוכחת הכוהנים‪ ,‬טען כי פס’ ‪ 11-7‬פונים אל הכוהנים‪ ,‬ואילו פס’ ‪ 14-12‬פונים אל העם‪ ,‬והסביר‬ ‫אגב כך את הכפילות הכמעט־מדויקת בין שני חלקים אלה של הנבואה‪ .‬לעומת זאת טענה טימאייר כי‬ ‫הכוהנים נושאים באחריות הכללית על כשלון הפולחן‪ ,‬ועל כן גם הביקורת על בעלי נכסים פרטיים‬ ‫מופנית בסופו של דבר אל הכוהנים; ראו‪ :‬טימאייר‪ ,‬פולחנים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .22‬באופן כללי‪ ,‬טימאייר רואה את‬ ‫ספר מלאכי כפונה בעיקר אל הכוהנים‪.‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪75‬‬

‫ביקורתו של מלאכי אינה מתמקדת רק בכוהן מסוים שחטא או מעל ועל כן השפעתו‬ ‫מצומצמת‪ ,‬אלא היא מתייחסת אל חטאים בקנה מידה גדול יותר‪ ,‬הנהוגים על ידי‬ ‫הכוהנים כולם‪ ,‬ועל כן יש להם השפעה ניצחת על האומה‪ 7.‬המימד הלאומי של הביקורת‬ ‫על הכוהנים במלאכי גרם לכך שתהיה לספר חשיבות לדורות‪ ,‬ולא רק בתחום הפולחני‬ ‫אלא גם בתחום הפוליטי‪ .‬משעלתה לשלטון ביהודה משפחת הכוהנים מבית חשמונאי‪,‬‬ ‫ומששלטו הפרושים בבית המקדש ודחקו את רגליהם של הכוהנים‪ ,‬הביעו המתנגדים‬ ‫את מחאתם באמצעות שימוש בביטוייו של מלאכי‪ .‬כך הציטוט המפורסם של מל’ א ‪10‬‬ ‫“ולא תאירו מזבחי חנם” בתוך ברית דמשק ד ‪ ,14-1‬בהקשר אל החשמונאים‪ ,‬המביאים‬ ‫אל המקדש את “הון הרשעה הטמא”‪ .‬הביקורת המקראית על הכוהנים התגלגלה בשורה‬ ‫ארוכה של כתבים אפוקליפטיים מימי הבית (שכן חוגי האפוקליפסה היו המתנגדים‬ ‫העיקריים לחשמונאים)‪ :‬ספר עליית משה‪ ,‬החיבור הפסבדו־נבואי מקומראן ‪,4Q390‬‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫צוואת לוי מספר צוואות השבטים‪ ,‬ועוד‪.‬‬ ‫השאלות שתעסקנה אותנו כאן נוגעות לתפיסת המקדש והכהונה בספר מלאכי‪.‬‬ ‫מהם הדפוסים והמקורות שעיצבו את התוכחה הנבואית כנגד הכוהנים? תשובות שונות‬ ‫הוצעו לשאלה זו בעבר‪ ,‬והן בעיקר נוגעות למפנה הכללי שחל בנבואה בימי שיבת ציון‪,‬‬ ‫שבה עניני כוהנים ומקדש תפסו מקום שונה ממה שהיה בנבואה הקלאסית‪ 9.‬להלן נבקש‬ ‫להציע כי האווירה הכוהנית בימי מלאכי נוגעת לתפיסות כלליות של מקדש שרווחו תחת‬ ‫האימפריה הנאו־בבלית‪ ,‬ובראשית התקופה הפרסית‪ ,‬כפי שניכר בספרות כתב היתדות‬ ‫של אותה תקופה‪ .‬מחקרנו זה‪ ,‬אם יצלח‪ ,‬עולה בקנה אחד עם מאמץ מחקרי רחב יותר‪,‬‬ ‫המבקש להראות את הדמיון שבין התפתחויות בדת הישראלית ובדת הבבלית סביב‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫המאה השישית לפנה”ס‪.‬‬ ‫העובדה כי לפנינו ספרות מן המאה השישית או ראשית המאה החמישית לפנה”ס‬ ‫היא חשובה במיוחד עבור חוקרי מקרא העוסקים גם בכתב היתדות‪ ,‬שכן מתקופה זו‬ ‫נשמר מספר רב במיוחד של מסמכים אודות פולחן וכהונה במקדשי בבל‪ ,‬מן התקופה‬ ‫הנאו־בבלית והפרסית המוקדמת‪ .‬חוקרי התקופה הנאו־בבלית‪ ,‬ובראשם מיכאל יורסה‬ ‫(‪ )Jursa‬ותלמידיו‪ ,‬נוהגים לדבר על “המאה השישית הארוכה”‪ ,‬המשתרעת בערך מעליית‬ ‫בבל וירידת אשור (סביב ‪ 620‬לפה”ס) ועד מלכות כרכסס בבבל (‪ 484‬לפה”ס)‪ 11.‬לאורך‬ ‫התקופה הזו נשמרו דפוסי הנהגה ומקדש בבליים טיפוסיים‪ ,‬גם תחת שלטון פרס‪.‬‬

‫‪ .7‬הבחנה זו מבוססת על דבריו של הורוויץ‪ ,‬מראה כהן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.19‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬על ההתנגדות לכהונה בחוגי האפוקליפסה ראו‪ :‬הימלפרב‪ ,‬ממלכת כוהנים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬ראו למשל‪ :‬בלנקינסופ‪ ,‬תולדות הנבואה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .255-251‬בלנקינסופ מדבר על ‪reabsorption of‬‬ ‫‪( prophecy into the cult‬עמ’ ‪ .)252‬חוקרים אחדים הבחינו ברבדים שונים בספר מלאכי‪ ,‬וביניהם רבדים‬ ‫המדגישים במיוחד את תפקידו של הקורבן כ”מנחה”; מילה זו מופיעה באופן תכוף במיוחד בספר מלאכי‬ ‫בהוראה הכללית של “קרבן”‪ ,‬בניגוד לשאר משמעויותיה המקובלות במקרא‪ .‬קסלר‪ ,‬תיאולוגיה‪ ,‬טען כי‬ ‫רובד זה‪ ,‬המרבה להשתמש במילה “מנחה”‪ ,‬הוא רובד מאוחר שזמנו סוף התקופה הפרסית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬ראו לדוגמה‪ :‬איילי‪ ,‬הבקשות; משיניסט‪ ,‬אימפריאליזם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬לטביעת המונח‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬יורסה‪ ,‬היסטוריה כלכלית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;5‬וארזחרס‪ ,‬כהונה בבלית‪.‬‬

‫*‪76‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

‫תעודות רבות במיוחד בכתב היתדות נשמרו בידינו מתקופה זו‪ ,‬הן מארכיונים פרטיים והן‬ ‫מספריות המקדש בסיפר ובאורוך‪ .‬יחד עם טקסטים ספרותיים כגון מכתבים‪ ,‬כרוניקות‪,‬‬ ‫ונבואות‪ ,‬התעודות שופכות אור על יחסי הכלכלה והמנהל בתקופה זו‪ ,‬ובמקביל הן‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫חושפות את דרכי פעולתו של המקדש ואת מקומו במערך הכוחות שבתוך המדינה‪.‬‬ ‫בתקופה הנאו־בבלית ניתן דגש מיוחד — יותר מאשר תחת מלכי אשור שקדמו לה — על‬ ‫תפקידו של המלך בהזנת המקדש וריבוי משאביו‪ .‬בד בבד נוצרה ספרות רבה העוסקת‬ ‫בתפקידם של הכוהנים‪ ,‬בדרכי מיונם וכניסתם לתפקיד‪ ,‬בשמירת המשמעת בחוגי‬ ‫הכוהנים‪ ,‬בחלוקת העבודה וארגונה‪ ,‬ובמשפחות הכוהנים‪ .‬ובעוד התפקיד המיוחד של‬ ‫המלך הבבלי בהזנת המקדש נחלש עם אובדנה של המלוכה הילידית בבבל‪ ,‬הרי סדרי‬ ‫המקדש המשיכו כמעט ללא הפרעה גם תחת השלטון הפרסי וההלניסטי‪ 13.‬חשוב במיוחד‬ ‫לענייננו הוא הפרויקט שמובילה ‪ ,Caroline Waerzeggers‬שכותרתו ‪By the Rivers of‬‬ ‫‪.Babylon: New Perspectives on Second Temple Judaism from Cuneiform Texts‬‬ ‫במסגרת פרויקט זה פורסם מספר רב של טקסטים חדשים ויצאו לאור מאמרים רבים‬ ‫הסוקרים ענייני כהונה שונים‪ .‬חומר זה יעשיר מאד את נקודות הדיון הנוכחית‪.‬‬ ‫נחלק את הדיון להלן לכמה נקודות‪ ,‬ובכל נקודה נציג את הפסוקים ממלאכי ואת‬ ‫המקורות הבבליים שעשויים להאיר אותה‪.‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬הקרבן כמזונו של האל‪ ,‬והביקורת על הקרבת בהמות פגומות‬ ‫נביאי הכתב‪ ,‬באופן כללי‪ ,‬מדגישים את חשיבות המוסר על פני דקדוקי הקרבנות (מי’‬ ‫ו ‪ ,9-6‬שמ”א טו ‪ ,23-22‬יר’ ז ‪ ,22-21‬ועוד)‪ 14.‬למגמה זו נימוקים רבים‪ ,‬אולם חלק ניכר‬ ‫ממנה היא הטענה‪ ,‬המודגשת שוב ושוב‪ ,‬כי ה’ אינו חפץ בקרבנות כמאכל‪ .‬כך למשל במי’‬ ‫ו ‪“ 7‬הירצה ה’ באלפי אילים ‪ /‬ברבבות נחלי שמן”‪ .‬ובמזמור תהלים המביע רוח דומה‬ ‫לזו הנבואית‪“ :‬לא אקח מביתך פר ‪ /‬ממכלאותיך עתודים‪ ... .‬האוכַ ל בשר אבירים ‪ /‬ודם‬ ‫עתודים אשתה” (תה’ נ ‪ .)13-8‬והנה‪ ,‬בספר מלאכי מצטיירת תפיסה חריגה של הקרבנות‬ ‫כמזונו של האלוהים (א ‪“ 12‬וניבו נבזה אכלו”; כתוב זה מופיע גם בתה”ש בסוף פס’ א‬ ‫‪ ,)7‬ושל המזבח כ”שלחן ה’” (א ‪ .)7‬בולט גם האופן שבו מלאכי מתנה את בוא הגשם‬ ‫והפריון במידה שבה יקפיד העם להביא את המעשר אל בית האוצר (ג ‪ 15.)10‬תפיסה זו‬ ‫של הקרבן והמעשר הביאה את מלאכי לביקורת חסרת תקדים על המקדש‪ ,‬ועל הכוהנים‬ ‫המנהיגים אותו‪ .‬שיאם של הדברים הוא בהכרזה “מי גם בכם ויסגר דלתים ולא תאירו‬

‫‪ .12‬ראו‪ :‬וארזחרס‪ ,‬מלך צדיק; הנ”ל‪ ,‬מקדש אזידה; הנ”ל‪ ,‬מילואים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬ראו‪ :‬יורסה‪ ,‬המעבר; נילסן‪ ,‬פולחנים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬לניסוח מדוקדק של מגמה נבואית זו‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬שורץ‪ ,‬מזמור נ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬ראו‪ :‬אנדרסון‪ ,‬מקדשים ופריון‪ .‬נוסיף עוד‪ ,‬בעקבות ניתוחו של קסלר‪ ,‬תיאולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪145-‬‬ ‫‪ ,144‬כי המונח “מנחה” רגיל במלאכי בהוראה כללית של “קרבן”; קסלר הראה כי השימוש‪ /‬ב”מנחה”‬ ‫בהוראה זו נדיר למדי במקרא‪ ,‬ורוב היקרויותיו באות בספר הקצר של מלאכי‪ .‬שאר ההיקרויות האחרות‬ ‫של המילה הן ברובן בהוראת מס מדיני‪ ,‬או בהוראה הכוהנית המובהקת של “קרבן מן הצומח”‪ ,‬משמעות‬ ‫שאינה מופיעה בספר מלאכי‪.‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪77‬‬

‫מזבחי חנם” (א ‪ :)10‬מוטב לסגור את המקדש מאשר להפעיל אותו בצורה שגויה‪ .‬בעוד‬ ‫נביאים קודמים הצהירו אף הם הצהרות בגנות המקדש ועבודתו‪ ,‬הרי שהצהרות אלה‬ ‫באו בשל הפגיעה בצדק החברתי‪ ,‬שליותה את הפולחן במקדשים בימי הבית הראשון‬ ‫(כגון עמ’ ב ‪ ,7‬ה ‪ ,24-21‬יר’ ז ‪ 11-3‬ועוד)‪ .‬עמוס טען כי היין שנשתה במקדש הוא פסול‬ ‫בשל היותו “יין ענושים”‪ ,‬היינו יין שנלקח באונס‪ 16.‬לעומתו‪ ,‬מלאכי אינו פוסל את הפולחן‬ ‫הנעשה במקדש בשל החטאים המוסריים של העם‪ ,‬אלא דווקא בשל ליקויים בנימוסי‬ ‫הפולחן‪ ,‬כגון הקרבת בהמות חולות או בעלות מום‪ ,‬או בשל עיכוב בהבאת המעשר אל‬ ‫המקדש (ג ‪.)12-8‬‬ ‫עסיס‪ ,‬ואחרים לפניו‪ ,‬הצביעו על ההבדל בין התוכחה בפרק א לזו שבפרק ב‪ ,‬אף על‬ ‫פי ששתיהן עוסקות במקדש וקודשיו ופונות — כולן או חלקן — אל הכוהנים‪ 17.‬הנבואות‬ ‫בפרק א מתריעות על הגשת בהמות פסולות לקרבן‪ ,‬ואילו הנבואות בפרק ב מוכיחות‬ ‫את הכוהנים על התרשלות במילוי תפקידם כמורי תורה לעם‪“ :‬הכשלתם רבים בתורה”‪.‬‬ ‫כישלון הכוהנים במתן הוראה הוא שכיח בספרות הנבואה‪ ,‬ומהווה למעשה נושא מסורתי‬ ‫של נביאי הכתב‪ ,‬כמפורט בפתיחת המאמר‪ .‬בעניין זה‪ ,‬מלאכי בודאי ממשיך את קודמיו‪.‬‬ ‫אולם התוכחה של הקרבת בהמות פגומות אין לה אח ורע‪ ,‬ולא תקדים בכל ספרות‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫הנבואה‪.‬‬ ‫והנה‪ ,‬החשיבות התעמולתית הרבה של האספקה למקדש‪ ,‬ועימה גם החשיבות של‬ ‫בעלי חיים ופירות מן האיכות הגבוהה ביותר‪ ,‬והגינוי של קרבנות פגומים‪ ,‬כל אלה היו‬ ‫לאורך דורות רבים אחד מן המוקדים של התעמולה המלכותית הבבלית‪ ,‬כבר מראשית‬ ‫האלף השני לפה”ס‪ .‬חשיבותם של נושאים אלה נודעה מתארי הכבוד של המלך‪ ,‬שכללו‬ ‫ביטויים כמו ‪ ,zānin Esangila u Ezida, mukīn sattukkī, muṭaḫid sattukkī‬היינו‪ :‬הזן את‬ ‫(מקדשי) אסנגילה ואזידה; מייסד התרומות (למקדש); מרבה התרומות (למקדש)‪ .‬תפקידו‬ ‫זה של המלך ניכר‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬במבוא הספרותי לחוקי חמורבי‪ ,‬הכולל תארים מסורתיים של‬ ‫מלך בבל‪ 19.‬תפיסת המלך כמי שעיקר תפקידו להזין בשפע את מקדשי האלים היתה‬ ‫דומיננטית מאד בתקופה הנאו־בבלית‪ ,‬ובאה לידי ביטוי בכתובותיו של נבוכדנצר ב’‪,‬‬ ‫כמו גם בחיבור המפורסם “מלך הצדק”‪ 20.‬נבוכדנצר מתואר שוב ושוב כמי שהשפיע על‬ ‫האלים שפע רב‪ ,‬והאכילם בהמות שמנות ותמימות‪ ,‬שלא חל בהן מום‪ .‬כך למשל בדברי‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫התפארות של נבוכדנצר‪:‬‬

‫‪ .16‬לדעתי‪' ,‬יין הענושים’ של עמוס הוא שווה ערך לשתייה שהוגשה במשתה לפי אס’ א ‪:7‬‬ ‫“והשתייה כדת אין אנס”‪ .‬השוו‪ :‬טלשיר‪ ,‬משמעי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬עסיס‪ ,‬תוכחת הכוהנים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬ב’ שורץ (מזמור נ‪ ,‬בעיקר עמ’ ‪ )86‬טען כי תוכחה דומה לזו של מלאכי נשמעה גם במזמור‬ ‫תהלים נ‪ .‬לדיון בטענה זו ראו‪ :‬עסיס‪ ,‬תוכחת הכוהנים‪ ,‬הע’ ‪.31‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬וראו ניתוחו מאיר העיניים של אביגדור הורוויץ‪ ,‬חמורבי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬אין כאן המקום לצטט את המקורות הראשוניים במלואם‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬ונדרהופט‪ ,‬אימפריה‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;49-45‬וארזחרס‪ ,‬מלך צדיק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;731-726‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬כהונה בבלית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.62-61‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬ג’ורג’‪ ,‬כתבים בבליים‪ ,‬הציטוט מעמ’ ‪ ,147-146‬ושם השלמות לפי מקבילות‪.‬‬

‫*‪78‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

‫את קרבנות התמיד הגדולים של נבו ונָ נָ יָ ‪ ,‬אדונַ י‪ ,‬הואלתי להביא בשפע יותר‬ ‫מקודמי‪ :‬שור תמים שמן‪ ,‬אשר מידתו שלמה וגופו ללא רבב; ‪ 16‬אילים שמנים‪,‬‬ ‫ממיטב (הגזע) ‪ ... šulumḥû‬ירקות בשפע פאר הגינה‪ ,‬פירות אדמדמים גאון‬ ‫הכרם‪ ,‬תמרים‪ ,‬תמרי דילמון‪ ,‬דבלים‪ ,‬צימוקים‪....‬‬ ‫תעודות אחדות מתעדות חטאים של כוהנים ועובדי מקדש בהגשת אוכל טמא או‬ ‫מעופש למקדש‪ .‬כך‪ ,‬בדוגמה אופיינית‪ ,‬המכתב ‪ YOS 6, 222‬מימי נבונאיד מספר על‬ ‫כישלונו של עובד (מסוג ‪ ,lúGAL.DÙ‬רב בנאים?) במקדש אאנה בעיר אורוך‪ ,‬שהיה‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫אחראי על אספקת פירות לאל‪:‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬הקריב (‪ )ušelamma‬תמרים ורימונים לארוחתה של גבירת אורוך‪ .‬כיוון‬ ‫שהיו באושים (‪ ,)beʾēšu‬לא קרבו לפני גבירתה של אורוך‪ .‬הוא גרם להשבתה‬ ‫של הפולחן (‪ ]...[ .)baṭlu iškunuma‬התאנים והרימונים שהקריב לארוחה‬ ‫(אך) לא קרבו לפני הגבירה של אורוך כי היו באושים — (את אלה) חתם‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫במקדש אאנה (‪.)ina É.AN.NA iknuk‬‬ ‫ממקור זה מתבהרת התודעה כי הקרבנות שהובאו למקדש עלו על שולחנה של‬ ‫האלה‪ ,‬ועל כן כל הקרבה של קרבן פגום היא פגיעה בשולחנה הטהור של האלה‪ ,‬והיא‬ ‫ראוייה לעונש‪ .‬העובד שהביא את הרימונים הרקובים גרם להשבתה של הפולחן‪ ,‬חטא‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫חמור מאין כמוהו‪ ,‬ועל כך נענש‪.‬‬ ‫לאור החדשנות הרבה של דברי מלאכי בהקשר המקראי‪ ,‬ולאור שכיחותם הרבה של‬ ‫טיעונים דומים בספרות הנאו־בבלית‪ ,‬מתבקש לקשר את שני הדברים זה לזה ולטעון כי‬ ‫מלאכי משקף מנהגים וטענות שרווחו בימיו‪ .‬מצד שני‪ ,‬דבריו של מלאכי בודאי קשורים‬ ‫עם מסורת כוהנית ישראלית אודות שלמותם של הקרבנות‪ .‬מסורת זו מיוצגת בוי’ כב‬ ‫‪ ,25-17‬והקשרים בינה לבין נבואת מלאכי אמיצים‪ ,‬כפי שהראה ויידה‪ 25.‬אף כי דבריו של‬ ‫מלאכי דומים לתפיסה הנאו־בבלית‪ ,‬הרי במקרה הנוכחי אין ראייה ניצחת לטעון כי יש‬ ‫להם מקור חוץ־ישראלי‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬דמות הכוהן האידיאלי‪ ,‬ושיטות לבחינת הנביאים וטיהורם‬ ‫הנביאים מרבים להצביע על הפער בין העבר האידיאלי — אמיתי או דמיוני — ובין‬ ‫המציאות המפוקפקת בת הזמן‪ .‬בהצביעם על הפער‪ ,‬מדגישים הנביאים את הדיסוננס‬ ‫שבתפישה העצמית של העם או של מוסדות שונים בו‪ ,‬וטוענים לרוב כי אין תקנה לאותו‬

‫‪ .22‬קוקריה‪ ,‬מחקרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.114-113‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬או “(הכוהן) הושם בכלא באאנה”‪ .‬לתרגום זה האחרון ראו‪ :‬קוקריה‪ ,‬מחקרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.114‬‬ ‫‪ .24‬מתבקש להעמיד את התיאור הזה של השבתת המקדש כנגד האמירה במל’ א ‪“ 10‬מי גם בכם‬ ‫ויסגר דלתים” וכו’‪ .‬הטקסט הבבלי מדבר על פגם קטן בלבד של פרט אחד מתוך מערכת הקרבנות‪ ,‬ובכל‬ ‫זאת אומר המחבר כי “היתה השבתה”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬ויידה‪ ,‬נבואה ותורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.122-118‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪79‬‬

‫פער אלא בפורענות אדירה‪ ,‬שתכלה את העם ותתן לו אופציה לחזור למצבו הראשון‪ .‬כך‬ ‫למשל ביש’ א ‪ .26-21‬הנביא מזכיר כי ציון היתה פעם “קריה נאמנה‪ ...‬מלאתי משפט”‪,‬‬ ‫אך כעת היא כזונה‪“ :‬צדק ילין בה (בעבר)‪ ,‬ועתה — מרצחים”‪ .‬הפתרון לדיסוננס בא בפס’‬ ‫‪:26-25‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬ואצרף כבר סיגיך ‪ /‬ואסירה כל בדיליך‬ ‫ואשיבה שפטיך כבראשונה ‪ /‬ויעציך כבתחלה‬ ‫אחרי כן יקרא לך עיר הצדק ‪ /‬קריה נאמנה‬ ‫ציון אינה ראויה לשמה “עיר הצדק”‪ ,‬ועל כן תבוא עליה פורענות‪ .‬הפורענות מתוארת‬ ‫כאן בלשון של צירוף מתכות‪ ,‬הכרוך בשריפה והתכה בחום גבוה‪ 26.‬רק אחרי כן תהיה‬ ‫ירושלים ראויה שוב לשמה‪ .‬נבואות דומות מעין זה באות בנוגע לחילוף השם בין יעקב‬ ‫(=הרמאי) לבין ישראל (הישר)‪ ,‬כגון מי’ ב ‪ ,7‬או יש’ מח ‪.1‬‬ ‫בנבואות מלאכי מתחדד הפער דווקא בין ההגדרה האידיאלית של מוסדות הכהונה‬ ‫לבין מצבם העגום בהווה‪ .‬השאיפה היא‪ ,‬לאחר התיקון הגדול (עליו ראו בהמשך)‪ ,‬כי‬ ‫המצב יתוקן‪ ,‬ואז — “וערבה לה’ מנחת יהודה וירושלים כימי עולם וכשנים קדמוניות” (ג ‪.)4‬‬ ‫השאיפה כי קרבנות יתקבלו ברצון על ידי האלוהים משותפת לכל המקורות הכוהניים‪,‬‬ ‫כגון ריבוי ההיקרויות של הביטויים “ריח נחח” ו”רצון” בספרות הכוהנית לרבדיה‪ .‬יש בה‬ ‫עניין מיוחד גם בתקופה המאוחרת‪ ,‬כגון ביש’ נו ‪“ 7‬עלותיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי”‬ ‫(בנבואת ישעיה השלישי)‪ .‬אולם בדברי מלאכי יש פנים מיוחדות‪ ,‬העולות בקנה אחד‬ ‫עם הרוח המיוחדת השורה על ספר זה‪ .‬ראשית‪ ,‬יש כאן לשון חריגה‪ :‬הן הביטוי “מנחה”‬ ‫כציון של הקרבן‪ ,‬והן הלשון “ערב” ולא “רצון”‪ .‬שני שימושי הלשון האלה עולים בקנה‬ ‫אחד עם הנטייה בספר מלאכי לראות את הקרבנות כמזונו של האל‪ ,‬בדומה לתפיסה‬ ‫המסופוטמית‪ .‬עניין אחר הבולט במלאכי הוא העיסוק בדמותו האידיאלית של הכוהן‪ ,‬כפי‬ ‫שנוסדה בימים קדמונים‪ ,‬ובפגמים שהתגלו בה‪ .‬כידוע‪ ,‬המקרא מביא מעט מאד סיפורים‬ ‫איטיולוגיים על בחירתם של לוי ושבטו לתפקידם במקדש‪ ,‬וסופרים בתר־מקראיים‬ ‫נדרשו למלא את הפער בספרות רבת היקף שפיתחו לצורך זה‪.‬‬ ‫ספר מלאכי מציג את הברית האידיאלית שנכרתה עם הלוויים‪ .‬כך ב ‪ 4‬ואילך‪ ,‬בתוך‬ ‫היחידה העוסקת בהקרבת מנחה פסולה על המזבח‪:‬‬ ‫ ‪ ...‬להיות בריתי את לוי אמר ה’ צבאות‬ ‫בריתי היתה אתו ‪ /‬החיים והשלום‬ ‫ואתנם לו מורא ‪ /‬ויראני ומפני שמי נחת הוא‬ ‫תורת אמת היתה בפיהו ‪ /‬ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו‬ ‫בשלום ובמישור הלך איתי ‪ /‬ורבים השיב מעוון‪...‬‬ ‫ואתם סרתם מן הדרך ‪ /‬הכשלתם רבים בתורה‪ /‬שחתם ברית הלוי‬ ‫‪ .26‬משמעותה של המילה “ּבֹר” בפסוק זה היא “טהרה‪ ,‬ניקיון”‪ ,‬או אולי החומר “בורית”‪ ,‬היינו‬ ‫אשלגן‪ ,‬המופק כתוצר לוואי של הליך הבעירה בכבשן (‪.)HALOT‬‬

‫*‪80‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

‫נחלקו הדעות מיהו “לוי”‪ ,‬או “הלוי” הנזכר כאן בפס’ ‪ .8 ,4‬בין המפרשים המודרניים‬ ‫יש הסוברים כי “לוי” הוא לוי בן יעקב‪ ,‬אחד מאבות האומה‪ ,‬שכבר עימו נכרתה ברית‪.‬‬ ‫זו היתה גם הדעה הרווחת בין מחברים רבים בימי בית שני‪ ,‬ששחזרו והרחיבו את הברית‬ ‫עם לוי (כגון בכתב לוי הארמי‪ ,‬ובספר היובלים פרקים ל‪-‬לא)‪ 28.‬כיוון שלא נמצאה במקרא‬ ‫ברית שנכרתה ישירות עם אב קדמון זה‪ ,‬המפרשים המסורתיים‪ ,‬ואחדים מן החדשים‬ ‫עימם‪ ,‬מעדיפים לומר כי מדובר בברית קדומה עם שבט לוי (רש”י‪ ,‬רד”ק‪ ,‬סמית‪ ,‬ואחרים)‪:‬‬ ‫בין שמדובר בברית עם הלוויים בעקבות חטא העגל (שמ’ לב ‪ ,29-26‬ובעיקר דב’ לג ‪9‬‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫“שמרו אמרתך ובריתך ינצרו”)‪ ,‬או עם פנחס כנציג טיפוסי של הכהונה (במ’ כה ‪.)13-12‬‬ ‫העובדה כי פס’ ‪ 8‬להלן‪ ,‬וכן תה”ש לפס’ ‪ ,4‬מדברים על “ברית הלוי” מקרבת יותר את‬ ‫האפשרות השנייה‪ ,‬ומרחיקה את האפשרות שהפסוק עוסק באדם ושמו לוי‪ .‬כך או כך‪,‬‬ ‫עובדה היא כי מלאכי מעלה על נס את הכהונה‪/‬הלוייה האידיאלית‪ .‬בפסוקים אלה מודגש‬ ‫זמן העבר האידיאלי‪“ :‬בריתי היתה אתו‪ ...‬תורת אמת היתה בפיהו” ועוד‪ 30,‬ומודגש הניגוד‬ ‫כלפי המצב העכשווי‪“ :‬ואתם סרתם מן הדרך”‪.‬‬ ‫במקום אחר בספר מלאכי יוצא ה’ לפעולה על מנת לבער את הניגוד‪ ,‬וזאת במונחים‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫דומים לאלה המופיעים ביש’ א‪ .‬כך במל’ ג ‪:4-1‬‬ ‫‪27‬‬

‫‪ .27‬למשל ‪ ,NJPS‬ובעיקר קוגל‪ ,‬לוי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .32-30‬אך מדברי קוגל לא ברור אם הוא אכן סבור‬ ‫שהכתוב המקורי במלאכי התכוון לברית שנכרתה באופן אישי עם לוי בן יעקב‪ ,‬או שמא הוא מסביר‬ ‫כיצד קוראים בימי בית שני יכלו להסיק זאת‪ .‬מיינהולד (מלאכי‪ )146 ,‬סבר כי בפס’ ‪ ,4‬כשנזכר לוי ללא‬ ‫ה”א הידיעה‪ ,‬הכוונה היא ללוי בן יעקב‪ ,‬ואילו בפס’ ‪“ 8‬הלוי” הוא שבט לוי בכלל‪ .‬אך שימו לב כי בתה”ש‬ ‫יש גם בפס’ ‪“ 4‬הלוי” (‪ )πρὸς τοὺς Λευίτας‬כמו בפס’ ‪ .8‬גרסה זו תוקנה על ידי עקילס וסימכוס ל”לוי”‬ ‫בהתאם עם נוסח המסורה‪ .‬מפליא כי הפרשנים‪ ,‬וכן המהדורות השונות של ‪ Biblia Hebraica‬לא ציינו‬ ‫הבדל זה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬ראו על כך ונדרקם‪ ,‬בריאה פרשנית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬והשוו ניסוח דומה של הברית עם הלוויים ביר’ לג ‪ ,22-21‬הנחשב בדרך כלל אף הוא לחיבור‬ ‫מאוחר בשל העובדה שאינו מיוצג בתה”ש‪ .‬הלשון “הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום” (במד’ כה ‪ )13‬מתאימה‬ ‫עם הלשונות במל' ב ‪ .6-4‬יחד עם זאת‪ ,‬העובדה שמלאכי מתיחס בדרך כלל אל “הלוי” או “בני לוי”‪ ,‬וכולל‬ ‫תחת כינוי זה הן את הלוויים והן את הכוהנים‪ ,‬מקרבת אותו יותר אל ס”ד ופחות אל המקורות הכוהניים‪.‬‬ ‫גלזר־מקדונלד‪ ,‬מלאכי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,80-73‬מבקשת לטשטש את הגבולות בין ההשראה הדויטרונומיסטית או‬ ‫הכוהנית למלאכי‪ .‬ויידה‪ ,‬נבואה ותורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 186-176‬סוקר בפרוטרוט את הממצא ואת דעות החוקרים‪,‬‬ ‫ומגיע אף הוא למסקנה כי מלאכי שאב מכמה מסורות קודמות‪ ,‬הן ‪ D‬והן ‪ ,P‬ושילבן יחד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬הלשון “הלך אתי” (ב ‪ )6‬מופיע במקרא אך ורק ביחס לגיבורים הקדומים נח וחנוך (סמית‪,‬‬ ‫מלאכי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)39‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬בין הפרשנים המודרנים (למשל‪ :‬פיטרסן‪ ,‬מלאכי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;29‬וביתר פירוט מיינהולד‪ ,‬מלאכי‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ )248-243‬מקובל כי הרצף המקורי בפרק ג המשיך מפס’ ‪1‬א לפס’ ‪ ,5‬שכן בפסוקים אלה ה’ מדבר בגוף‬ ‫ראשון‪ .‬לעומת זאת בפס’ ‪1‬ב‪ 4-‬נזכרת פעולתו של מלאך הברית‪ ,‬שהיא עניין אחר‪ .‬ההרחבה‪ ,‬לדעת‬ ‫מיינהולד‪ ,‬נועדה לתחוב את התימה של יום ה’ (שמקורה ביואל ב ‪ )11‬לתוך הנבואה הנוכחית‪ ,‬וכן להציג‬ ‫מחדש את הרעיונות על ברית הלוי ממל’ ב ‪ .4-1‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬גלזיר־מקדונלד (מלאכי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )129‬התנגדה‬ ‫לכך במידה רבה של צדק‪ .‬הפסוקים אומרים כי ה’ ישלח מלאך (או שיבוא בעצמו‪ ,‬תלוי מהי זהותו של‬ ‫“מלאך הברית” המסתורי בפס’ ‪ ,)1‬והלה יתחיל את מלאכת הטיהור בלוויים; לאחר שעבודת המקדש‬ ‫תהיה טהורה‪ ,‬יוכל האל לבוא ולהמשיך את מלאכת הטיהור בקרב העם; והשוו‪ :‬טימאייר‪ ,‬פולחנים‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .26-25‬לסיכום מועיל של כל הדעות ראו‪ :‬ויידה‪ ,‬נבואה ותורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.284-280‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪81‬‬

‫‪ ...‬כי הוא כאש מצרף ‪ /‬וכברית מכבסים‬ ‫וישב מצרף ומטהר כסף‬ ‫וטהר את בני לוי ‪ /‬וזקק אותם כזהב וככסף‬ ‫והיו לה’ מגישי מנחה בצדקה‬ ‫וערבה לה’ מנחת יהודה וירושלים‬ ‫כימי עולם ‪ /‬וכשנים קדמוניות‬ ‫תמונת הטיהור והצירוף במלאכי דומה לזו שביש’ א‪ ,‬ושמא אף הושפעה ממנה‪ ,‬וזאת‬ ‫בעיקר בשל הדמיון הלשוני הרב‪ 32.‬נציין במיוחד את העובדה שהטיהור אינו מתבצע‬ ‫אך ורק על ידי צריפה באש‪ ,‬אלא גם בשיתוף לשונות של כיבוס‪ ,‬כגון במלאכי “וכבורית‬ ‫מכבסים”‪ ,‬וביש’ א ‪“ 25‬ואצרף ּכַ ּבֹר סיגיך”‪ 33.‬הלשון ששימשה פעם להביע את טיהורו‬ ‫של כל העם‪ ,‬עוברת כעת לתאר את טיהורה של הכהונה מעוונותיה ובחירת המשפחה‬ ‫המסוגלת לכך‪ .‬נשים נא לב לשינוי המוקד הרעיוני‪ :‬בעוד ישעיהו בן אמוץ‪ ,‬בן המאה‬ ‫השמינית‪ ,‬מפעיל את רעיון הצריפה באש לשם החלת צדק ומשפט‪ ,‬נושא נפוץ בנבואה‬ ‫הקלאסית‪ ,‬הרי בספר מלאכי הדימוי יוצא הדופן הזה חל על טיהורה של הכהונה‪ ,‬כנראה‬ ‫בהתאמה לרוח התקופה‪ .‬השאלה היא מה גרם לשינויו של המוקד? ומניין העניין הרב‬ ‫בטיהורה של הכהונה דווקא‪ ,‬ובדימוי העבר של הכהונה האידיאלית?‬ ‫עבודת הכהונה נתפסה במסופוטמיה כאחד מגופי הידע העתיקים‪ ,‬שאותם מסרו‬ ‫האלים לבני האדם בימים קדמונים‪ .‬כך למשל‪ ,‬בעלילת המבול של ארידו‪ ,‬זיוסודרה מכונן‬ ‫את הפולחן בעיר ארידו לפי הידע שלמד מן האלים‪ 34.‬במכתב פיקטיבי מאת סמסו־אילונה‬ ‫שייזכר להלן‪ ,‬מסופר כיצד מרדוך קבע את תפקידיהם של הכוהנים השונים ביום בריאת‬ ‫העולם‪ 35.‬הכהונה היא גם אחת מן החוכמות שלמד גילגמש בעת שביקר אצל אותו גיבור‬ ‫של המבול (אך בשם אחר)‪ .‬בבוא העת‪ ,‬כתב גילגמש את חוכמת הכהונה בין החוכמות‬ ‫האחרות על מצבה (‪ )narû‬והניח לדורות אחרונים‪ ,‬כמתואר במבוא לעלילת גלגמש‬ ‫‪ .32‬לשון צריפה באש ישנה גם בזכ’ יג ‪ ,9‬אך במל’ ג ‪ 3‬ישנה תמונה דומה יותר ליש’ א ‪ ,26-21‬הן‬ ‫מבחינה מילולית (בשל הופעת הדימוי של כיבוס בצד הצריפה) והן מבחינת העניין‪ .‬גם הלשון “והיו‬ ‫לה’ מגישי מנחה בצדקה”‪ ,‬המסמנת את סוף תהליך הטיהור במל’ ג‪ ,‬דומה ללשון “ציון במשפט תפדה‬ ‫ושביה בצדקה” ביש’ א ‪ .26‬על הדמיון בין ישעיה למלאכי ראו‪ :‬ויידה‪ ,‬נבואה ותורה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,297‬ושם‬ ‫הפניות קודמות‪ .‬פארן‪ ,‬דרכי הסגנון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,252‬הצביע על שימושה המיוחד של הלשון טה”ר במלאכי‪ :‬אין‬ ‫מדובר כאן בטיהור המתכת מטומאתה (כמו במ’ לא ‪ )23‬אלא בטיהורה ממתכות אחרות שהתערבבו בה‪,‬‬ ‫המובעת ברגיל במקרא באמצעות השורש צר”פ‪ .‬לטענתו מדובר בשימוש בתר־כוהני בשורש זה‪ .‬אולם‬ ‫ייתכן כי השימוש החריג בלשון טה”ר במלאכי בא בשל דרכי המטפורה‪ :‬יש להציע שאוצר המילים של‬ ‫ה”נמשל” מצא את דרכו לתוך ה”משל”‪ ,‬כפי שקורה לעתים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬לא ברור אם ישעיה ומלאכי מדברים על צריפה וכיבוס כשתי פעולות נפרדות‪ .‬הזכרתן של שתי‬ ‫הפעולות באחת‪ ,‬וכן העובדה שהמונח “ּבֹר” מציין לא רק כביסה אלא גם טהרה באופן כללי (תה’ יח ‪,21‬‬ ‫‪ ,35‬איוב כב ‪ ,)30‬מעלות את האפשרות שאין מדובר בכביסה אלא בפעולה של ניקוי‪ .‬גלזיר־מקדונלד‪,‬‬ ‫מלאכי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,150-147‬מציינת גם כי חומר הכיבוס “בורית” (היינו אשלגן או קאלי) מופק משאריות של‬ ‫חומרי הבעירה בכבשן‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬ראו‪ :‬יאקובסן‪ ,‬בראשית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬אל ראוי וג’ורג’‪ ,‬סיפאר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.138‬‬

‫*‪82‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

‫(א ‪ 36.)43-42‬האלים לימדו לכוהנים הקדומים את סדרי הפולחן (‪ ,)parṣu‬ואלה נמסרו‬ ‫לדורות‪ 37.‬הדוגמה המובהקת ביותר של כהן קדום‪ ,‬שקבע לדורות את סדרי העבודה ואת‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫הסטנדרטים של טהרה‪ ,‬הוא אדפה‪ .‬עליו נאמר‪:‬‬ ‫נקי‪ ,‬טהור ידיים‪ ,‬כוהן משוח‪ ,‬מהדר אחר חוקי הפולחן (‪Ebbu ella qāti‬‬ ‫אופי ערידו‬ ‫‪ .)pašīšu mušteʾʾu parṣi‬עם האופים — אפייה הוא עושה‪ ,‬עם ֵ‬

‫אפייה הוא עושה‪ .‬לחם ומים לערידו יום יום הוא עושה (בעצמו‪ ,‬יב”ד)‪ .‬בידיו‬ ‫הטהורות את שולחן המנחות הוא קושר (=עורך) (‪ina qātīšu ellēti paššura‬‬ ‫הדיִ ג‬ ‫‪ ,)irakkas‬ובלעדיו שולחן המנחות לא יוסר‪ .‬את הסירה הוא מקדם‪ ,‬את ַ‬

‫של ערידו הוא עושה‪.‬‬ ‫הקטע שלפנינו מביע פנים שונות בעבודת הכוהן‪ ,‬ואדפה הוא דוגמה טובה בכולם‪:‬‬ ‫הוא מקפיד בטהרה‪ ,‬והוא מזין את האלים בעצמו‪ ,‬מן הסתם כדי שלא להביא בפניהם מזון‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫מידיו המגואלות של אדם אחר‪.‬‬ ‫מכתבי המקדשים של בבל החדשה אנו למדים כי נשמרו בקפדנות ההליכים של‬ ‫זיכוך הכהונה וטיהורה‪ .‬כל כוהן‪ ,‬לפני שנכנס לעבודה‪ ,‬היה מחוייב במעין טקס מילואים‪,‬‬ ‫המכונה ‪ gullubu‬על־שם גילוח ראשו ושער גופו של הכוהן הנכנס לתפקיד‪ .‬בטקס זה‬ ‫מתוארת בדיקה גופנית ואישיותית של הכוהן הנכנס לתפקיד ואחר כך טיהורו‪ ,‬ובמהלכו‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫מושר שוב ושוב הלחש (‪ )šiptu‬הבא‪:‬‬ ‫‪Mû ana qaqqadi šapāku uḫulu suʾūru‬‬ ‫‪Ina naglabi elliš rummuku‬‬ ‫‪Mê rummuku uḫulu suʾūru‬‬ ‫‪Mê rummuku mešretišu ubbubu‬‬ ‫‪d‬‬ ‫‪Marduk mār Eridu‬‬ ‫‪lillil libbib linnamir‬‬

‫לשפוך מים על הראש‪ ,‬למרק בבורית‪ .‬לחטא בתער בטהרה‪ .‬לשטף במים‪,‬‬ ‫למרק בבורית‪ ,‬לשטף במים‪ ,‬לזכך את איבריו‪ .‬אסלוחי‪/‬מרדוך בן ארידו — לו‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫יט ֵהר הוא‪ ,‬לו יזַ ּכֵ ך הוא‪ ,‬לו יבהיק הוא!‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫‪ .36‬ראו על כך‪ :‬ג’ורג’‪ ,‬גילגמש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .445‬בתרגום העברי של שפרה וקליין נקודה זו לא באה לידי‬ ‫ביטוי מספיק‪ .‬התימה של גילגמש כגיבור תרבות וכמוצאו של הידע בעולם ככל הנראה לא היתה קיימת‬ ‫בגרסה ה ‪ SB‬של המיתוס‪ ,‬ונוספה רק בפרולוג הנאו־אשורי‪ .‬ראה על כך גרינשטיין‪ ,‬המבול‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬ראו על כך הורוויץ וכהן‪ ,‬חוקות העמים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .38‬מתוך המיתוס “אדפה ורוח הדרום” (’‪ ,)Fragment A obv. 1 9’-15‬הציטוט לפי יזרעאל‪ ,‬אדפה‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ .9‬התרגום מאת הורוויץ‪ ,‬מראה כוהן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.22‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬לפי הורוויץ‪ ,‬ההדגשה שהוא עושה הכל בעצמו באה לחזק את זריזותו ועמלנותו של אדפה‪.‬‬ ‫אולם‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬אני חושב שהדגש הוא על עשיית העבודה בטהרה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬מתוך בורגר‪ ,‬הקדשה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .166‬ראו על חיבור זה‪ :‬הורוויץ‪ ,‬מראה כוהן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,29-27‬וכן‬ ‫מילגרום‪ ,‬ויקרא ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.1843-1841‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬לסקירת השורשים השונים המציינים טהרה באכדית ובעברית‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ון דר טורן‪ ,‬חטא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.29-27‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪83‬‬

‫וארזחרס הראתה כיצד המקדשים הנאו־בבלים כוננו מעין ועדות (‪ ,)kiništu‬שבחנו‬ ‫את הכוהנים המבקשים להתקבל לעבודה וקבעו אם הן ראויים לכך (‪.)ana gullubi ṭāb‬‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫הבחינה כללה את מצבו הגופני של הכוהן‪ ,‬שהיה אמור להיות מושלם “כמו צלם זהב”‪,‬‬ ‫את ייחוסם של המועמדים (בעיקר מצד אימם)‪ ,‬את גילם (שאיננו צעיר מדי)‪ ,‬ואת שלמותם‬ ‫המוסרית‪ .‬כוהן שהיה בעל רקע פלילי‪ ,‬שהורשע ברצח או בעבירה אחרת והולקה‪ ,‬או‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫שהוא דובר שקר‪ ,‬נדחה מן העבודה‪.‬‬ ‫נשוב עתה למטפורה בדבר טיהורם של הכוהנים במל’ ג ‪ .6-4‬אמנם יש במטפורה‬ ‫זו המשכיות לנבואת ישעיהו‪ ,‬אך יש בה גם פנים חדשות‪ ,‬שאותן יש לקשור אל תפיסות‬ ‫בבליות של בחינת הכוהנים והכשרתם לתפקידם‪ .‬ואף כי הפרוצדורה הבבלית המתוארת‬ ‫כאן‪ ,‬והלחש לטיהורם לפני העבודה‪ ,‬אינם מטפוריים אלא מוחשיים‪ ,‬הרי מתבקש לומר‬ ‫כי ההליך הזה עומד בבסיסה של המטפורה במל’ פרק ג‪ .‬מסתבר אפוא כי בבסיסה של‬ ‫מטפורת הטיהור עמדה נבואת ישעיה בן אמוץ‪ ,‬ובצידה גם תפיסה מעודכנת של הכהונה‪,‬‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫כפי שהתקיימה במקדשים הנאו־בבליים‪.‬‬ ‫המסמכים שפורסמו על ידי וארזחרס‪ ,‬יחד עם מכתבו של סמסו־אילנ (להלן)‪ ,‬ועם‬ ‫הטקסטים שנאספו על־ידי הורוויץ במאמרו על הכוהן האידיאלי‪ ,‬מלמדים כי הכוהן נדרש‬ ‫לא רק לקיים בקפדנות את כללי הטהרה‪ ,‬אלא גם להיות דובר אמת ורחוק מדבר שקר‪,‬‬ ‫ושומר ידיו מעיסוק בדבר רע‪ .‬לא ייפלא אפוא הניסוח במל’ ב ‪“ 6‬תורת אמת היתה בפיהו‬ ‫ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו” וכו’‪.‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬ביקורת על הכוהנים‬ ‫לאור הנקודות הפרטניות שהוצגו עד כה‪ ,‬זה הזמן להציג תפיסה מקיפה יותר של‬ ‫הכהונה במסורת הבבלית (בעיקר הנאו־בבלית)‪ ,‬ולבחון שמא יש לה ביטוי בספר מלאכי‪.‬‬ ‫המסורת הבבלית הטילה את מירב האחריות להחזקת המקדש ושלומו על כתפיו של‬ ‫המלך‪ .‬בדומה לספר מלכים המקראי‪ ,‬מלכים מן העבר נשפטו והוערכו בפרספקטיבה‬ ‫היסטורית לפי המידה שבה היו נאמנים לפולחנים העתיקים בערי הבירה‪ .‬דוגמאות‬ ‫רבות לכך‪ ,‬וביניהן‪ :‬כתבי הפולמוס כנגד נבונאיד‪ ,‬המאשימים אותו ב”בלבול המנהגים‬ ‫וסילוף התורות” (‪ 45;)ibalbal parṣī idallah terētī‬הכרוניקות הבבליות העוסקות במלכים‬ ‫קדומים‪ ,‬ובראשן “כרוניקת אסנגילה”‪ ,‬המאשימה מלכים מן העבר הרחוק בחטאים‬

‫‪ .42‬הורוויץ‪ ,‬מראה כהן‪ ,‬ראה באמירה זו התיחסות למידת טהרתו של הכוהן‪ ,‬אך אני סובר כי‬ ‫מדובר כאן בשלמותו הגופנית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬ראו‪ :‬הורוויץ‪ ,‬מראה כוהן; ובפירוט‪ ,‬עם חומר חדש שפורסם לאחרונה‪ ,‬וארזחרס‪ ,‬מילואים‪ .‬על‬ ‫השלמות המוסרית הנדרשת מהכוהנים ראה בטקסט המילואים מניפור (‪ 8-5 ,III‬לפי מהדורת בורגר)‪:‬‬ ‫“כי דיבר לשון רעה ‪ /‬כי דיבר (דבר) לא טהור ‪ /‬כי דיבר (דבר) לא קדוש ‪ /‬כי דיבר (דבר) בכי”‪ ,‬ועוד שם‪:‬‬ ‫‪“ 15 ,I‬יראה וכניעה בגופו נמצאות” (‪ — )palāḫu u ašāru ina zumrišu ibašši‬בתרגומו של א’ הורוויץ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬אינני רואה מקום רב למסורת של יום ה’ בתוך נבואה זו‪ ,‬בניגוד לדבריו של ויידה‪ ,‬נבואה ותורה‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.299‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬החיבור הפולמוסי השירי (‪ :14 ,V )Verse Account‬שאודיג‪ ,‬כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.570‬‬

‫*‪84‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

‫פולחניים כלפי מקדש אסנגילה בבבל;‪ 46‬מן הצד השני של המטבע רעיונות דומים‬ ‫מובעים באמצעות “נבואות שלאחר מעשה” (‪ ,)Vaticinium ex eventu‬כגון נבואת אורוך‬ ‫המפורסמת‪ ,‬המציגה גלריה ארוכה של מלכי עבר ועתיד לפי מעשיהם באסנגיל ובעיר‬ ‫בבל‪ 47.‬דוגמה לחיבור מן המסורת הזו הוא “פשעיו של המלך נבו‪-‬שמ‪-‬אשכנ”‪ ,‬טקסט בן‬ ‫התקופה הנאו־בבלית ושמא אף מאוחר יותר‪ ,‬שנשמר בעותק מן התקופה ההלניסטית‪ ,‬אך‬ ‫הוא מתאר את חטאיו של מלך קדום מאמצע המאה השמינית לפנה”ס‪ 48.‬מחבר הטקסט‬ ‫הזה הביע את דעתו על בעיות דורו באופן מובלע‪ ,‬באמצעות התייחסות לדמויות מופת‬ ‫מן העבר‪ .‬המלך מואשם בחטאים הבאים‪ :‬בלבול ימי החג; החלפת האלים ובגדיהם;‬ ‫פעולות פולחניות שעשה בעצמו ללא גילוח ראשו (הגילוח [‪ ]gullubu‬נחשב לפעולה‬ ‫הממלאת את ידי הכוהנים)‪ ;49‬הטלת מום בכוהנים; כניסה בעצמו למקדש במקום שאסור‬ ‫להדיוטות; הספקת מזון פסול לכוהנים; הזזת פסלי האלים ממקומם; שפיכת דם נקי‪ ,‬רצח‬ ‫ומס עובד בערים המקודשות; בזיזת אוצרות האסנגילה‪ .‬הכוהנים — שייצגו את האליטות‬ ‫המסורתיות של בבל — מאשימים את המלך של דורם‪ ,‬ככל הנראה אחד ממלכי המאה‬ ‫השישית‪ ,‬בחטאים טיפוסיים אלה כנגד האלוהות‪.‬‬ ‫במסמך אחד הידוע לנו‪ ,‬מערכת האמונות והמנהגים הכרוכה באחזקת המקדש‬ ‫מתבטאת לא בביקורת על המלך אלא דווקא על הכוהן‪ .‬מסתבר כי אחד המלכים מצא‬ ‫לנכון להפנות את חיצי הביקורת חזרה כלפי הכוהנים‪ .‬המדובר במכתב מתקופה לא־‬ ‫ידועה‪ ,‬אולי מימי נבוכדנצר ‪ ,I‬המיוחס באופן פסבדו־אפיגראפי למלך סמסו־אלונ‪ ,‬בן‬ ‫התקופה הבבלית העתיקה‪ ,‬כאלף שנים ויותר קודם לכן‪ .‬המכתב מצא את דרכו לתוך‬ ‫זרם המסורת‪ ,‬והועתק בתקופות מאוחרות‪ .‬להלן קטעים מן המכתב‪ ,‬מדברי המלך על‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫הכוהנים‪:‬‬ ‫(‪ ...‬מחלקות שונות של כוהנים‪ ,‬יב”ד) אחזו בשקר‪ ,‬עשו תועבה‪ ,‬נגֹאלו בדם‪,‬‬ ‫דיברו לא־טובות‪ ,‬בתוכם את אלהיהם חנף יחניפו‪ ,51‬הרו והגו ל[הרע]‪ .‬דבר‬ ‫אשר אלוהיהם לא ציוו — לפני אלוהיהם ישימו‬ ‫‪ṣarrāti ītaḫḫazū anzilla iktabsū dāma iltaptū lā šalmāti ītammû šaplānu‬‬ ‫‪ilīšunu uḫannapū uša(ḫ)napū iṣabburū iṣurrū r[aggiš] amāt ilūšunu lā‬‬ ‫‪iqbû ana muḫḫi ilīšunu šaknū‬‬

‫‪ .46‬ראו‪ :‬גלסנר‪ ,‬כרוניקות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.267-263‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬לנבואה זו‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬בוליו‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי; סקורלוק‪ ,‬נבואת אורוך; נויאר‪ ,‬צפיית העבר‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.58-50‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬לפרסום ראשון‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬קול‪ ,‬עוונות‪ .‬והשוו‪ :‬וארזחרס‪ ,‬מלך צדיק; גלסנר‪ ,‬כרוניקות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.312-300‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬ראו‪ :‬וארזחרס‪ ,‬מילואים; שיינג‪ ,‬שיער‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬הציטוט מתוך אל־ראוי וג’ורג’‪ ,‬סיפאר; השוו‪ :‬וארזחרס‪ ,‬מלך צדיק‪.742-741 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .51‬המהדירים‪ ,‬בעקבות עצתו של למברט‪ ,‬קראו כאן פועל הגזור מן השורש המערב־שמי חנ”פ‪,‬‬ ‫בדומה להוראתו המקראית ”‪ .)HALOT( “defile, ungodly‬השימוש בשורשים מערב שמיים בתוך‬ ‫כתובות אכדיות הוא שכיח למדי בכתובות הנאו־בבליות; ראו דוגמאות אחדות אצל איילי‪ ,‬הבקשות‪,‬‬ ‫הע’ ‪.147‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪85‬‬

‫בהמשך המכתב המחבר מאחל לכוהנים שורה ארוכה של קללות‪ ,‬שעיקרן‪ :‬הכוהנים‬ ‫יישרפו בכבשן (‪ )utānu‬כעונש על חטאיהם‪.‬‬ ‫חטאיהם של הכוהנים במכתב זה הם כללים למדי‪ .‬חלקם נוגעים להתנהגות מוסרית‬ ‫פגומה‪ ,‬ואחרים לפגם בתפקיד הכוהן‪ .‬שמירת בגדי הכוהנים נקיים מדם היתה חלק‬ ‫מחובת הטהרה שלהם‪ .‬הכוהנים מתוארים כמי שמדברים וממהרים לעשות רע‪ ,‬וכן כמי‬ ‫שמבצעים פעולות פולחניות שאלוהיהם לא ציוו (השוו הביטוי המקראי “אשר לא צויתי”‬ ‫דב’ יז ‪ ;3‬יר’ ז ‪ ,31‬יט ‪ .)5‬החוקרים (המעטים) שעסקו בפסבדו־מכתב זה טענו כי האשמות‬ ‫כאלה כנגד הכוהנים יכלו לבוא רק כלפי כוהנים של אלים מתחרים‪ ,‬ולטענתם בעיקר‬ ‫בתקופת נבוכדנצר א’‪ ,‬כאשר פולחנו של מרדוך הועלה על נס בבבל על חשבון הפולחנות‬ ‫הותיקים של ָאנֻ ֵ‬ ‫וא ָא‪ ,‬וכוהני מרדוך השמיצו את כוהני אותם האלים‪ 52.‬לפי הסבר זה‪,‬‬ ‫תוקפו של המכתב יהיה מוגבל לימי נבוכדנצר א’‪ ,‬בסוף האלף השני‪ .‬אולם העתקתו‬ ‫בתקופה מאוחרת הולידה בהכרח תפיסה שונה של ההאשמות‪ .‬כפי שניכר מלשון הקטע‪,‬‬ ‫אין כאן האשמה על עבודת אל אחר‪ ,‬אלא על מנהגים פסולים של הכוהנים‪ .‬אף אם הרקע‬ ‫למכתב המקורי היה המאבק בין אלים באלף השני‪ ,‬הרי המכתב נשמר כלשונו בזרם‬ ‫המסורת והועתק עד המאה השישית ואף לאחריה‪ ,‬בתקופה שבה הסכסוכים הפוליטיים‬ ‫של האלף השני כבר נשכחו מלב‪ .‬העובדה כי מכתב זה נתגלה בין הלוחות במקדש שמש‬ ‫בסיפר מלמדת כי היו לו מהלכים גם בין כוהנים בתקופה המאוחרת‪ ,‬וכי הנושא היה עדיין‬ ‫בעל רלוונטיות‪.‬‬ ‫כוהני בבל אחזו במסורת של זלזול במלך‪ ,‬שראתה בו איום פוטנציאלי על שלמותו של‬ ‫המקדש ועל זכויותיהם של הכוהנים‪ .‬מסורת זו יוצגה באינספור כרוניקות על חטאיהם‬ ‫הפולחניים של המלכים‪ .‬אך היה מי שמצא לנכון לשמור גם על מכתב עתיק המביע את‬ ‫כשלונם של כוהני בבל בתקופה הבבלית העתיקה‪ .‬הצד השווה שבכל המקורות הבבליים‬ ‫הוא כי יחסי הגומלין בין המלך והכוהן — והביקורת שמתחו זה על זה — היו חלק מיסודות‬ ‫קיומה של האומה‪ .‬המלך מכלכל את מקדשי האלים ודואג לעבודה התקינה בהם‪ ,‬ובזה‬ ‫הוא ממלא את ייעודו ומתחזק את קיומה של האומה‪.‬‬ ‫הביקורת על הכוהנים אצל מלאכי ממשיכה מסורת עתיקה במקורות עבריים שקדמו‬ ‫לו‪ .‬אולם המיוחד בדבריו של מלאכי‪ ,‬כגון למשל במל’ ג ‪ ,5-1‬הוא כי הביקורת הזו נושאת‬ ‫מימד לאומי‪ .‬היינו‪ ,‬אין מדובר בביקורת מקומית על שושלת זו או אחרת‪ ,‬או בהחלפת‬ ‫השושלת המכהנת ותו לא (כמו בנבואה על בני עלי בשמ”א ב ‪ .)36-27‬הפגמים בכהונה‬ ‫פוגמים באומה כולה‪ ,‬ועל כן תיקונם של הפגמים הללו יהווה גם שער כלפי תיקון האומה‬ ‫כולה‪ .‬ביקורת דומה לזו באה בדברי יחזקאל‪ ,‬כגון בפרק מד‪ ,‬שם התיפקוד הנכון של‬ ‫הכוהנים‪ ,‬וזהותם של הכוהנים הנכונים‪ ,‬תופסים את מקומם בתוך החוקה של יחזקאל‬ ‫למוסדות האומה העתידית‪ .‬אלי עסיס הראה‪ ,‬באמצעות ניתוח מבני ותימטי של נבואות‬ ‫מלאכי‪ ,‬כיצד ביקורתו של הנביא כנגד הכוהנים משתלבת בתוך התימה הלאומית של‬

‫‪ .52‬אל־ראוי וג’ורג’‪ ,‬סיפאר‪ .137 ,‬וכן שאודיג (בהתכתבות אימייל)‪ .‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬וארזחרס אינה‬ ‫מקפידה על הקשר היסטורי מסויים זה בעת שהיא מפרשת את המכתב‪.‬‬

‫*‪86‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

‫הספר‪ ,‬דהיינו חידוש הברית והגדרה מחדש של הגבולות בין ישראל לבין שכניהם‪ 53.‬על‬ ‫רקע זה ניתן לומר כי מלאכי ממשיך במידה מסוימת את הקו האידיאולוגי הבבלי‪ .‬ואף כי‬ ‫המלך — שהיה ציר מרכזי בכל הטענות הבבליות שהובאו כאן — נעדר מספר מלאכי בכורח‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫הנסיבות‪ ,‬הרי הפולמוס עם הכוהנים מצא תחליפים למוסדות האומה בתוך הפולמוס הזה‪.‬‬ ‫סיכום‬ ‫לאור הרקע העשיר של ההתמקדות בכהונה בנבואה המקראית מימי גלות בבל ואילך‪,‬‬ ‫ולאור הפרטים שהובאו כאן בייחוד לגבי הנבואות בספר מלאכי‪ ,‬אני מבקש להציע כי‬ ‫הנבואות הללו משלבות נושאים מן הנבואה הקלסית ומן המורשת הקדם־גלותית‪ ,‬יחד‬ ‫עם נושאים חדשים‪ ,‬שעלו על הפרק בעקבות תפישת הכהונה בת התקופה‪ .‬נבואתו של‬ ‫מלאכי על בחירת הכוהנים וצירופם משלבת‪ ,‬בצורה מעניינת‪ ,‬את נבואות הצריפה של‬ ‫ישעיהו בן אמוץ יחד עם מנהגי הבחירה של הכוהנים במקדשי בבל‪ .‬בדומה לזה‪ ,‬גם‬ ‫ההקפדה הנבואית על איכות המזון שהובא למקדש‪ ,‬שאין לה אח ורע בספרות הנבואה‪,‬‬ ‫משלבת מסורות מעין אלה‪ .‬וכן גם הדגש על דמותו של הכוהן‪/‬לוי האידיאלי מימי קדם‪,‬‬ ‫ועל הפער הגדול בינו ובין הכוהנים המשרתים במקדש בן הזמן‪.‬‬ ‫החומר הבבלי שהבאנו‪ ,‬בעיקר מתקופת נבוכדנצר ב’‪ ,‬העוסק בשפע שבמקדש‬ ‫ובחומר המושלם שהובא אליו‪ ,‬הוא חלק מאידיאולוגיה מלכותית מקיפה‪ .‬גם תפקידם של‬ ‫הכוהנים במקדשי בבל אינו אלא חלק מאותה אידיאולוגיה מלכותית‪ ,‬שכן הכוהנים פעלו‬ ‫במימון המלך‪ ,‬ובמידה רבה הגדירו את עצמם ביחס אליו‪ .‬עובדה זו מקשה על ההשוואה‬ ‫עם ספר מלאכי‪ ,‬העוסק בתקופה שבה לא היתה מלוכה של ממש ביהודה‪ .‬יחד עם זאת‪,‬‬ ‫המוטיבים העיקריים שנידונו כאן אינם מוגבלים אך ורק לימי הממלכה הנאו־בבלית‪:‬‬ ‫חלקם התקיימו גם קודם לכן‪ ,‬ורובם המשיכו להתקיים גם במקדשי בבל בימי האימפריה‬ ‫הפרסית‪ ,‬שתחת עולה נכתב ספר מלאכי‪.‬‬ ‫שאלה שיש לתת עליה את הדעת היא מה טיב זיקתו של הנביא ביהודה של התקופה‬ ‫הפרסית עם סדרי הפולחן הבבליים‪ .‬המהלך הנוכחי מבקש לקשור נביא שפעל בארץ‬ ‫ישראל‪ ,‬לאחר נפילתה של הממלכה הנאו‪-‬בבלית‪ ,‬עם מקורות ומנהגים מבבל‪ .‬מהלך זה‬ ‫יהיה פשוט יותר בנבואת יחזקאל‪ ,‬אך לא פשוט כלל ועיקר במלאכי‪ .‬תקל עלינו העובדה‬ ‫שהתפיסות והמנהגים של התקופה הנאו‪-‬בבלית לא היו מוגבלים לתחומי האימפריה‬ ‫ותחת אכיפתה המיידית‪ .‬כל מקדשי בבל המשיכו להחזיק בתפיסות דומות של המקדש‬ ‫והכהונה עוד מאות שנים אחרי נפילתה של האימפריה‪ ,‬כפי שטענו לעיל‪ .‬אם תפיסות‬ ‫מעין אלה קנו להן אחיזה בירושלים בימי ראשיתו של המקדש הירושלמי‪ ,‬הרי שהן‬ ‫ימשיכו גם לאחר מכן‪ .‬והרי יש לפנינו במקום אחר סימנים — גם אם שנויים במחלוקת —‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫על המשכה של האידיאולוגיה המלכותית והכוהנית של בבל עד לימי החשמונאים‪.‬‬

‫‪ .53‬ראו‪ :‬עסיס‪ ,‬מבנה ומשמעות; וביתר פירוט גם עסיס‪ ,‬תוכחת הכוהנים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬ושמא האמירה “כי מלך גדול אני‪ ...‬ושמי נורא בגויים” (א ‪ )14‬באה אף היא על רקע זה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬ראו‪ :‬ויצמן‪ ,‬אנטיוכוס‪.‬‬

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

‫*‪87‬‬

‫יותר מכל‪ ,‬הדיון הקצר שהובא כאן מהווה הרהור על המשכיות וחידוש בנבואה‬ ‫המקראית‪ .‬הנביא המופיע בספר מלאכי מראה‪ ,‬מחד גיסא‪ ,‬המשכיות עם נבואתו של‬ ‫ישעיהו בן אמוץ‪ ,‬אך מאידך גיסא הוא מראה המשכיות עם יחזקאל ועיסוקו בביקורת‬ ‫על הכוהנים‪ .‬מכאן שהנבואה הישראלית שימשה סביבה תיאולוגית וספרותית פורייה‬ ‫לתפיסות חדשות‪ ,‬שנקרו בדרכה חדשות לבקרים‪.‬‬ ‫ההתמודדות החלוצית של יחזקאל ושל מלאכי עם ביקורת על הכהונה שימשה אבן‬ ‫פינה להתמודדויות מרחיקות לכת יותר עם אותו עניין‪ ,‬שהתעוררו עם עליית השושלת‬ ‫החשמונאית והגדרת בניה ככוהנים גדולים ומלכים‪ .‬רבים מן המחברים של ימי בית שני‬ ‫לקחו את חומר הגלם להתמודדותם עם התופעה החשמונאית מאותן נבואות של יחזקאל‬ ‫ומלאכי‪ .‬במידה מסוימת אפוא‪ ,‬התפיסה הנאו־בבלית של הכוהן האידיאלי ושל סדרי‬ ‫המקדש המשיכה לפעול עד סוף ימי הבית השני ושמא אף לאחר מכן‪.‬‬ ‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫איילי‪ ,‬הבקשות = נ’ איילי‪“ ,‬הבקשות ליראת שמים בספרות המקרא (מל”א ח ‪ ;61-56‬תה’‬ ‫פו ‪ ;13-1‬קיט; דה”א כט ‪ )19-10‬ובכתובות הבבליות (‪,”)Nbn. 5; Nbn. 4; Nbk. 15‬‬ ‫תרביץ עד (תשס”ה)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪370-321‬‬ ‫אל־ראוי וג’ורג’‪ ,‬סיפאר = ‪F.N.H. Al-Rawi and A.R. George, “Tablets from the‬‬ ‫‪Sippar Library III. Two Royal Counterfeits”, Iraq 56 (1994), pp. 135-148‬‬ ‫אנדרסון‪ ,‬מקדשים ופריון = ‪G.A. Anderson, “Temples and Fertility: A Reconsideration‬‬ ‫‪of the Rhetoric of Post-Exilic Prophecy”, Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient‬‬ ‫‪Israel. Studies in their Social and Political Importance (HSM 41), Atlanta‬‬ ‫‪1987, pp. 91-126‬‬ ‫בוליו‪ ,‬רקע היסטורי = ‪P.A. Beaulieu, “The Historical Background of the Uruk‬‬ ‫‪Prophecy”, in The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of‬‬ ‫‪William H. Hallo, ed. M.E. Cohen et al., Bethesda, MD 1993, pp. 41-52‬‬ ‫בורגר‪ ,‬הקדשה = ‪R. Borger, “Die Weihe eines Enlil-Priesters”, Biblia et Orientalia‬‬ ‫‪30 (1973), pp. 163-176‬‬ ‫בלנקינסופ‪ ,‬תולדות הנבואה = ‪J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel,‬‬ ‫‪Philadelphia 1983‬‬ ‫גורג’‪ ,‬גילגמש = ‪A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction,‬‬ ‫‪Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts, Oxford and New-York 2003‬‬ ‫ג’ורג’‪ ,‬כתבים בבליים = ‪A.R. George, “Babylonian Texts from the Folios of Sidney‬‬ ‫‪Smith. Part 1”, Revue d’Assyriologie 82 (1988), pp. 139-62‬‬ ‫גלזיר‪-‬מקדונלד‪ ,‬מלאכי = ‪B. Glazier-McDonald, Malachi the Divine Messenger‬‬ ‫‪(SBLDS 98), Atlanta 1987‬‬ ‫גלסנר‪ ,‬כרוניקות = ‪J.J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles (SBLWAW 19),‬‬ ‫‪Atlanta 2004‬‬

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

88*

E. Greenstein, “The Retelling of the Flood Story in the = ‫ המבול‬,‫גרינשטיין‬ Gilgamesh Epic”, in Hesed Ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernst S. Frerichs (BJS 320), ed. J. Magnes and S. Gitin, Atlanta 1998, pp. 197-204

‫ “מראה כוהן — לדמות הכוהן האידיאלי במזרח הקדום‬,‫ מראה כוהן = א’ הורוויץ‬,‫הורוויץ‬ 35-19 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ מועד יד (תשס”ד‬,”‫ובישראל העתיקה‬ V.A. Hurowitz, Inu Anum ṣīrum: Literary Structures in the non- = ‫ חמורבי‬,‫הורוויץ‬ Judiciary Sections of Codex Hammurabi (Occasional Papers of the Samuel Noah Kramer Foundation 15), Philadelphia 1994 V.A. Hurowitz and S. Cohen, “‘Hukkot ha-ammin = ‫ חוקות העמים‬,‫הורוויץ וכהן‬ hevel hu’ (Jer 10:3) in Light of Akkadian parṣu and zaqīqu Referring to Cult Statues”, Jewish Quarterly Review 89 (1999), pp. 277-290 M. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests. Ancestry and = ‫ ממלכת כוהנים‬,‫הימלפרב‬ Merit in Ancient Judaism, Philadelphia 2006 C. Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Priesthood in the Long = ‫ כהונה בבלית‬,‫וארזחרס‬ Sixth Century BC”, Buletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54 (2011), pp. 59-70 C. Waerzeggers (with an appendix by M. Jursa), “On the = ‫ מילואים‬,‫וארזחרס‬ Initiation of Babylonian Priests”, Zeitschrife für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14 (2008), pp. 1-38 C. Waerzeggers, “The Pious King: Royal Patronage of = ‫ מלך צדיק‬,‫וארזחרס‬ Temples”, in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, ed. K. Radner and E. Robson, Oxford and New-York 2010, pp. 725-751 C. Waerzeggers, The Ezida Temple of Borsippa: = ‫ מקדש אזידה‬,‫וארזחרס‬ Priesthood, Cult, Archives, Leiden 2010 K.W. Weyde, Prophecy and Teaching: Prophetic Authority, = ‫ נבואה ותורה‬,‫ויידה‬ Form Problems, and the Use of Traditions in the Book of Malachi (BZAW 288), Berlin 2000 S. Weitzman, “Plotting Antiochus’ Persecution”, Journal of = ‫ אנטיוכוס‬,‫ויצמן‬ Biblical Literature 123 (2004), pp. 219-234 K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia = ‫ חטא‬,‫ון דר טורן‬ (SSN), Assen/Maastricht 1985 D. VanderHooft, The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon = ‫ אימפריה‬,‫ונדרהופט‬ in the Latter Prophets (HSM 59), Atlanta 1999 J.C. VanderKam, “Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi = ‫ בריאה פרשנית‬,‫ונדרקם‬ the Priest”, From Revelation to Canon, Leiden 2000, pp. 545-562 L.S. Tiemeyer, Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage: Post-exilic = ‫ פולחנים‬,‫טימאייר‬ .Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood (FAT 2. Reihe 19), Tübingen 2006

89*

‫כוהנים וסדרי מקדש בספר מלאכי לפי מקורות נאו־בבליים‬

,)‫ מגילות ג (תשס”ה‬,”‫ “על משמעי אנ”ס בארמית ובעברית‬,‫ משמעי = ד’ טלשיר‬,‫טלשיר‬ 229-205 ’‫עמ‬ T. Jacobsen, “The Eridu Genesis”, Journal of Biblical = ‫ בראשית‬,‫יאקובסן‬ Literature 100 (1981), pp. 513-529 M. Jursa et al., Aspects of the Economic History of = ‫ היסטוריה כלכלית‬,‫יורסה‬ Babylonia in the First Millennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth (Veröffentlichungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte Babyloniens im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. 4), Münster 2010 M. Jursa, “The Transition of Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian = ‫ המעבר‬,‫יורסה‬ Empire to Achaemenid Rule”, in Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt: From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein (Proceedings of the British Academy 136), ed. H. Crawford, Oxford 2007, pp.73-94 S. Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind. Language Has the Power = ‫ אדפה‬,‫יזרעאל‬ of Life and Death Winona Lake, IN 2001 R. Levitt-Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the = ‫ לב חדש‬,‫לויט־כוהן‬ Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358), Sheffield 2002 E. Meyers, “Priestly Language in Malachi”, Hebrew Annual = ‫ לשון כוהנית‬,‫מאיירס‬ Review 10 (1986), pp. 225-237 A. Meinhold, Maleachi (BK XIV/8), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006 = ‫ מלאכי‬,‫מיינהולד‬ J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (AB 3), New York 2000, pp. = ‫ ויקרא ב‬,‫מילגרום‬ 1841-1843 P. Machinist, “Mesopotamian Imperialism and Israelite = ‫ אימפריאליזם‬,‫משיניסט‬ Religion: A Case Study from the Second Isaiah”, in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. Canaan, Ancient Israel and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palestina, etc, ed. W.G. Dever and S. Gitin, Winona Lake, Ind. 2003, pp. 237-264 M. Neujahr, Predicting the Past in the Ancient Near = ‫ צפיית העבר‬,‫נויאר‬ East. Mantic Historiography in Ancient Mesopotamia, Judah, And the Mediterranean World (BJS), Providence, RI 2012 M.J.H. Nilssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon: The Temple = ‫ פולחנים‬,‫נילסן‬ Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practices (CM 25), Leiden 2004 J.M.P. Smith, “Malachi”, in Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and = ‫ מלאכי‬,‫סמית‬ Jonah (ICC), Edinburgh 1912, pp. 1-88 J.A. Scurlock, “Whose Truth and whose Justice? The . = ‫ נבואת אורוך‬,‫סקורלוק‬ Uruk and Other Late Akkadian Prophecies Re-visited”, in Orientalism, Assyriology and the Bible, ed. S.W. Holloway, Sheffield 2006, pp. 449-467

‫יונתן בן־דב‬

90*

E. Assis, “Structure and Meaning in the Book of Malachi,” = ‫ מבנה ומשמעות‬,‫עסיס‬ in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (LHBOTS 531), ed. J. Day, New York and London 2010, pp. 354–369 E. Assis, “The Reproach of the Priests (Mal 1:6–2:9) = ‫ תוכחת הכוהנים‬,‫עסיס‬ within Malachi’s Conception of Covenant”, in Covenant in the Persian Period, ed. R.J. Bautch and G.N. Knoppers, Winona Lake, Ind.(forthcoming)

,‫ מבנים‬,‫ שימושי לשון‬,‫ דגמים‬:‫ דרכי הסגנון הכוהני בתורה‬,‫ דרכי הסגנון = מ’ פארן‬,‫פארן‬ ‫ירושלים תשמ”ט‬ D. Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: a Commentary (OTL), = ‫ מלאכי‬,‫פיטרסן‬ Louisville, KY 1995 M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, Oxford = ‫ פרשנות‬,‫פישביין‬ 1985 J. Kugel, “Levi’s Elevation to the Priesthood in Second Temple = ‫ לוי‬,‫קוגל‬ Sources”, Harvard Theological Review 86 (1993), pp. 1-38 S.A. Cole, “The Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabu-šuma-iškun”, = ‫ עוונות‬,‫קול‬ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 84 (1994), pp. 220-252 D. Cocquerillat, “Recherches sur le verger du temple = ‫ מחקרים‬,‫קוקריה‬ campagnard de l’Akītu (KIRI6 ḫallat)”, Welt des Orients 7 (1973), pp. 96-134 R. Kessler, “Die Theologie der Gabe bei Maleachi”, = ‫ תיאולוגיה‬,‫קסלר‬ Gotteserdung: Beiträge zue Hermeneutik und Exegese der Hebräischen .Bibel, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 153-163 H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nobonids von Babylon und Kyros’ = ‫ כתובות‬,‫שאודיג‬ des Grossen (AOAT 256), Münster 2001 B.J. Schwartz , “A Priest out of Place: Reconsidering Ezekiel’s Role = ‫ כוהן‬,‫שורץ‬ in the History of the Israelite Priesthood”, in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical Word: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality, ed. S.L. Cook and C. L. Patton, Leiden 2004, pp. 61-71

‫ שנתון למקרא ולחקר המזרח‬,”‫ דגמו ומקומו‬,‫ עניינו‬:‫ “מזמור נ‬,‫ מזמור נ = ב”י שוורץ‬,‫שורץ‬ 106-77 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫הקדום ג (תשל”ט‬ H. Scheyhing, “Das Haar in Ritualen des alten Mesopotamien. Der = ‫ שיער‬,‫שיינג‬ Umgang mit Haar im Bereich von Religion und Kult”, Welt des Orients 29 (1998), pp. 58-79

‫חשיבותם המשפטית של המילים "והֻ ּגַ ד ְלָך"‬

‫*‪91‬‬

‫חשיבותם המשפטית של המילים "וְ ֻהּגַ ד לְ ָך"‪:‬‬ ‫*‬ ‫קריאה חדשה בדב' יז‪7-2 ,‬‬ ‫שלום אליעזר הולץ‬ ‫מהי מטרתו של החוק נגד עבודת אלוהים אחרים בדב’ יז‪ ?2-7 ,‬לאחרונה הציעו‬ ‫כמה חוקרים כי אין למצוא את עיקר החוק בעונש הסקילה (יז‪ ,‬פס’ ‪ ,)7 ,5‬אלא בהנחיות‬ ‫הפרוצדורליות לשופט‪ ,‬אליו מופנים הציוויים בפסוקים (יז‪ ,‬פס’ ‪ 1.)6 ,4‬כלומר‪ ,‬על אף‬ ‫שהחוק עוסק באיסור עבודת אלוהים אחרים‪ ,‬חידושו המרכזי הוא הצבת הכללים ליישום‬ ‫העונש‪ .‬במאמר זה נוסיף תמיכה לגישה המקובלת הזאת באמצעות ניתוח חדש של‬ ‫החוק למרכיביו‪ .‬במרכזו של הניתוח המוצע עומדת הפרדה חדשה בין התנאי של החוק‬ ‫(‪ )protasis‬לתוצאתו המשפטית (‪ .)apodosis‬הפרדה זו נסמכת‪ ,‬בנוסף ליסודות הלשוניים‬ ‫של החוק עצמו‪ ,‬על השוואה של נוסח החוק עם מינוח מקביל המופיע בפרוטוקולים‬ ‫משפטיים ניאו־בבליים‪ .‬השוואה זו מעלה כי ה”הגדה” בפני השופט חשובה לא פחות‬ ‫מה”שמיעה” וה”דרישה”‪.‬‬ ‫הצגת הבעיה‬ ‫החוק שבדב’ יז‪ 2-7 ,‬משתייך לסוגת החוקים הקזואיסטיים‪ ,‬המנוסחים כמשפטי‬ ‫תנאי‪ .‬חוקים אלה פותחים במילה “כי”‪ ,‬שלאחריה פועל נטוי בצורת “יקטל”‪ ,‬המציג את‬ ‫המקרה ההיפותתי שאליו מתייחס החוק‪ .‬החלק המעשי של החוקים האלה הוא סופם‪ ,‬בו‬ ‫מופיעות הוראות הקובעות כיצד על נמעני החוק לפעול במקרה המתואר בתחילת החוק‪.‬‬

‫* לכבוד הוא לי להקדיש מאמר זה לזכרו של פרופ’ הורוויץ‪ ,‬שהיה בין ראשי המדברים בכול‬ ‫הנוגע להשוואה שבין התרבות המקראית וספרותה לתרבות המסופוטמית וספרותה‪ .‬המובא כאן‬ ‫ראשיתו בדברים שהרציתי בפברואר ‪ 2011‬בפני המחלקה ללימודי הלשונות והתרבויות של המזרח‬ ‫באוניברסיטת פנסילבניה‪ .‬העיון בדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬ממשיך ומעמיק את אשר התחלתי לעסוק בו כבר‪ ,‬במונחים‬ ‫משפטיים‪ ,‬בעיקר בעמ’ ‪ .9-8‬אני מודה לד”ר טובה גנזל‪ ,‬לד”ר אהרון קולר ולאבי‪ ,‬פרופ’ אברהם הולץ‪,‬‬ ‫על תגובותיהם ועזרתם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬אוטו‪ ,‬הבטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;194-193‬אוטו‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 89-88‬ועמ’ ‪ ;249-248‬לווינסון‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;118‬‬ ‫וולס‪ ,‬החוק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;103-102‬וולס‪ ,‬הליכים משפטיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.223-222‬‬

‫*‪91‬‬

‫*‪92‬‬

‫שלום אליעזר הולץ‬

‫על כן‪ ,‬בבואנו לדון במטרתם של חוקים קזואיסטיים עלינו למקד את העיון בסופם‪ ,‬שם‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫נמצא את התוצאה שאליה שואפים החוקים‪.‬‬ ‫בחוקים קזואיסטיים רבים בתורה נמצאים רמזים דקדוקיים — כגון שינויים בנושאי‬ ‫הפעלים ובהטייתם — המסייעים בידי הקורא המבקש להפריד בין התנאי של החוק‬ ‫לתוצאתו‪ .‬אך החוק בדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬אינו מאפשר הפרדה חד־משמעית‪ .‬האם עיקר הדין הוא‬ ‫הוצאת האיש או האישה לסקילה (פס’ ‪ )5‬או שמא עיקר הדין נמצא כבר בקביעה שעל‬ ‫השופט “לדרוש היטב” (פס’ ‪ )4‬או אפילו בקביעות מוקדמות יותר שבאותו הפסוק? מן‬ ‫התוכן והדקדוק של פסוקים ‪ 2‬ו־‪ 3‬ברור שהם (לכול הפחות) שייכים לתנאי החוק‪ .‬כמו‬ ‫כן‪ ,‬ברור שפסוקים ‪ 6‬ו־‪ 7‬בסופו של החוק קובעים כללים מעשיים‪ ,‬ומהווים מעין חתימה‬ ‫העוסקת בכללי עדות ובהנחיה להוצאת הדין לפועל (“יד העדים תהיה בו בראשונה”)‪.‬‬ ‫פסוקים ‪ 4‬ו־‪ 5‬הם שמציבים את הבעיה העיקרית בפני הפרשן‪.‬‬ ‫ההשוואה בין תרגומים שונים של פסוקים אלה לאנגלית ממחישה את הקושי‪ .‬בעוד‬ ‫שבעברית המקראית אין מילה המסמנת את המעבר בין התנאי לתוצאה‪ ,‬הרי שבאנגלית‬ ‫המילה ‪ then‬ממלאת את התפקיד הזה‪ .‬על כן מיקום המילה ‪ then‬בתרגומים השונים‬ ‫מורה על עמדת המתרגמים באשר להפרדה שבין התנאי לתוצאה בפסוקים‪ .‬כתוצאה מכך‬ ‫המילה ‪ then‬מורה גם על פירוש המתרגמים של מטרת החוק‪ ,‬בכלל‪ .‬כך לדוגמה‪ ,‬בתרגום‬ ‫‪ ,KJV‬מופיעה המילה ‪ then‬בתחילת פסוק ‪:5‬‬ ‫‪2) If there be found among you ... man or woman, that hath wrought‬‬ ‫‪wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God ...‬‬ ‫‪3) And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ...‬‬ ‫‪4) And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently,‬‬ ‫‪and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is‬‬ ‫‪wrought in Israel:‬‬ ‫‪5) THEN shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have‬‬ ‫‪committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that‬‬ ‫‪woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.‬‬

‫על פי התרגום הזה‪ ,‬המעבר בין התנאי לתוצאה חל בתחילת פסוק ‪ ,5‬בתיאור הוצאת‬ ‫האשם לסקילה‪ .‬לדעת הפרשנים והתרגומים הנוקטים בשיטה זו‪ ,‬מטרת החוק היא מניעת‬ ‫עבודה זרה על ידי הצבת עונש מוות בסקילה‪ 3.‬אם כן‪ ,‬פסוק ‪ ,4‬המתאר את ההיגד לשופט‬ ‫ושמיעתו ואת הדרישה שתברר את אמת הדבר‪ ,‬הוא רקע לעיקר החוק‪ .‬כך למשל דרייבר‪,‬‬ ‫המאמץ את התרגום הזה‪ ,‬בהערותיו המעטות לפסוק ‪ ,4‬אינו משווה משמעות מיוחדת‬

‫‪ .2‬ראו‪ :‬וולס‪ ,‬החוק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .94-93‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 92-91‬לפריסת הבעיה בקצרה ולספרות קודמת‬ ‫עליה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬ראו‪ :‬ריטרסוורדן‪ ,‬מקהילה לקהל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .32‬תרגום דומה נמצא בתרגום ‪ NRSV‬ואצל ריטרסוורדן‪,‬‬ ‫שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.31‬‬

‫חשיבותם המשפטית של המילים "והֻ ּגַ ד ְלָך"‬

‫*‪93‬‬

‫לתוכנו‪ 4.‬לדעתו‪ ,‬החוק הוא חלק מרצף של ארבעה חוקים (טז‪- 21 ,‬ז‪ )7 ,‬שמטרתם היא‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫הגנה על טוהר הפולחן‪.‬‬ ‫תוך כדי התמקדותה על העונש החמור לעובדי אלוהים אחרים‪ ,‬ההבנה הזאת של‬ ‫החוק מזניחה‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬את הפרטים שמסביב‪ .‬אם אכן מטרת החוק הוא העונש‪ ,‬מה מקום‬ ‫הפרטים הפרוצדורליים שבפסוק ‪ 4‬וכללי העדות וההוצאה לפועל שבפסוקים ‪ 6‬ו־‪?7‬‬ ‫פרטים אלה סוטים מהמגמה המשוערת נגד עבודת אלוהים אחרים ואף סוטרים אותה‪.‬‬ ‫הם מציבים תנאים מסויימים המגבילים למעשה את הוצאת העונש לפועל והמגינים‬ ‫בעצם על הנידון לסקילה‪.‬‬ ‫מסיבות אלה ואחרות‪ ,‬יש להעדיף את דעתם של כמה חוקרים הרואים את מוקד החוק‬ ‫לא בעונש שבפסוק ‪ ,5‬אלא בהנחיות שבפסוק ‪ 6.4‬הקריאה הזאת מתבטאת בתרגום ‪NJPS‬‬ ‫המציב את המילה ‪ then‬באמצע פסוק ‪:4‬‬ ‫‪... and you have been informed or have learned of it, then you shall‬‬ ‫‪make a thorough inquiry ...‬‬

‫לפי התרגום הזה‪ ,‬המעבר בין התנאי שבחוק לתוצאה חל בהוראה לשופט לדרוש‬ ‫לאמיתות ההיגד או השמועה‪ .‬אם כן‪ ,‬מטרת החוק אינה למנוע עבודת אלוהים אחרים‪,‬‬ ‫אלא להעמיד הוראות פרוצדורליות‪ ,‬החל בדרישה וכלה בהעדת לפחות שני עדים לפני‬ ‫ביצוע העונש‪.‬‬ ‫ראוי לציין כי לפי תרגום ‪ NJPS‬והבנת החוק העולה ממנו ההיגד והשמועה שבתחילת‬ ‫פסוק ‪ 4‬שייכים דווקא לתנאים שבחוק‪ ,‬ולא לתוצאות‪ .‬התפקיד של שני הפעלים‬ ‫הפותחים את פסוק ‪ 4‬הוא נרטיבי‪ ,‬כביכול‪ ,‬ומטרתם לציין כיצד יידע הנמען על המעשה‪.‬‬ ‫בדרך זו הפעלים מגשרים בין מעשה החטא לפעולות הנדרשות למשפט נגדו‪ .‬החוק‬ ‫מתעלם מהמתרחש לפני הדרישה‪ ,‬וחל דווקא על פעולותיו של הנמען לאחר ש”הוגד לו‬ ‫ושמע”‪ .‬מבחינה חוקית‪ ,‬דהיינו מבחינת התגובות הדרושות במקרה הנידון‪ ,‬לאופן ההגדה‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫והשמיעה אין משמעות מיוחדת‪.‬‬

‫‪ .4‬דרייבר‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .206‬לשיטה דומה‪ ,‬השוו את דברי קונג’ומן (תחביר)‪ ,‬הרומז לדמיון תחבירי‬ ‫בין דב’ יז‪ 5-4 ,‬לחוקים אחרים (דב’ ט‪ ;13 ,‬ט‪ ;17 ,‬יג‪ ;15 ,‬יט‪ .)18 ,‬לדעת קונג’ומן‪ ,‬המילה “והנה”‬ ‫והמסקנות המשפטיות שלאחריה שייכות לתנאים של החוקים ולא לתוצאותיהם‪ .‬במקרים מסויימים‪,‬‬ ‫כגון בדב’ יג‪ ,16-15 ,‬המעבר הדקדוקי מעתיד לציווי הוא המורה על המעבר בין חלקי החוק; תפקיד‬ ‫המילה “והנה” הוא משני ועדיין טעון בירור‪ .‬בהיעדר סימנים דקדוקיים אחרים (כגון בדב’ יז‪ ,)7-4 ,‬ולאור‬ ‫הפרשנויות האחרות האפשריות‪ ,‬נדמה כי אין להסתמך על המילה “והנה” בניתוח החוק‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬דרייבר‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.201‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬ראו‪ :‬לווינסון‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.121‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬לדעת תרגום ‪ NJPS‬האות ו’ שבתחילת המילה “ושמעת” מציינת בררה (”‪ )“or‬ולא צירוף‬ ‫(”‪ .)“and‬בכך מפחית התרגום עוד בערך החוקי של האופן שבו נודע הנמען לחטא‪ .‬מבחינת החוק אין‬ ‫הבדל משמעותי בין אם ייוודע לו לנמען על ידי “הגדה” (של עד או מגיד אחר) ובין אם ייוודע לו לנמען‬ ‫על ידי “שמיעה” (כנראה של הנמען עצמו)‪.‬‬

‫*‪94‬‬

‫שלום אליעזר הולץ‬

‫בשונה משתי השיטות הללו‪ ,‬לאחרונה הציע ברוס וולס את התרגום הבא‪ ,‬בו מצויה‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫המילה ‪ then‬במקום אחר בפסוק ‪:4‬‬ ‫‪... and it is reported to you, THEN you shall hear, and you shall‬‬ ‫‪investigate thoroughly ...‬‬

‫לדעת וולס‪ ,‬המילה “ושמעת” שבפסוק ‪ 4‬מציינת את נקודת המעבר מהתנאי של החוק‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫לתוצאה‪ .‬שיטת וולס בעקבות התרגום הגרמני שהציע אקרט אוטו לתחילת פסוק ‪:4‬‬ ‫‪... wenn es dir gemeldet wird, sollst du ein Verhör anstellen und‬‬ ‫‪gründliche Untersuchung anstellen ...‬‬

‫הקדמת המעבר בין חלקי החוק אל המילה “ושמעת” כרוכה בפירוש מיוחד‪ ,‬משפטי‬ ‫דווקא‪ ,‬של הפועל הזה‪ ,‬מעבר למשמעותו הרגילה בתחום החושים‪ .‬לדעת וולס ואוטו‪,‬‬ ‫בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬המילה “ושמעת” מורה על פעולה משפטית נפרדת‪-‬שמיעה ‪ --‬אשר פותחת‬ ‫את התהליך המשפטי נגד החוטא‪ 10.‬אם כן‪ ,‬מבחינת החוק‪ ,‬לפני שהנמען‪-‬השופט יפתח‬ ‫בדרישה‪ ,‬עליו “לשמוע”‪ ,‬כלומר לנהל מושב פורמלי שמטרתו קבלת ההאשמה‪.‬‬ ‫המשמעות המשפטית של הפועל “ושמעת” בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬עולה יפה מן ההקשר ואין‬ ‫להרהר אחריה‪ 11.‬אך נותרו קשיים בניתוח שמציעים וולס ואוטו‪ .‬וולס עצמו מתבסס על‬ ‫העובדה שהפועל “ושמעת” הוא הפועל שמחזיר את החוק לניסוח דברים בגוף שני ורואה‬ ‫בשינוי דקדוקי זה ציון למעבר בין חלקי החוק‪ ,‬כבחוקים אחרים‪ 12.‬אך החזרה לדיבור‬ ‫ישיר בגוף שני חלה כבר במילה “לך”‪ ,‬עוד לפני הפועל “ושמעת”‪ .‬בנוסף לכך‪ ,‬יש להעיר‬ ‫שהניתוח של וולס ואוטו קוטע בין הביטוי “והגד לך” לפועל “ושמעת”‪ .‬מבחינת הלשון‬ ‫וההיגיון שני הפעלים מורים על זוג פעולות מאוחד ובעל משמעות דומה‪ ,‬תהא זו סתמית‬ ‫או משפטית דווקא‪ .‬מבחינת “ההלכה למעשה”‪ ,‬קשה לתאר מצב שבו ה”שמיעה” היא‬ ‫פעולה משפטית פורמלית בעוד שה”הגדה” היא בלתי פורמלית‪ .‬אם ל”שמיעה” משמעות‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫של הליך משפטי פורמלי‪ ,‬נדמה שגם ה”הגדה” ה”נשמעת” תתבצע במשך הליך זה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬וולס‪ ,‬הליכים משפטיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.222‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬אוטו‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,89‬מובא אצל וולס‪ ,‬החוק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,92‬הע’ ‪ .25‬רס”ג כבר הציע פירוש דומה‪:‬‬ ‫“וכאשר יוגד לך דבר זה שמעהו ודרשהו היטב” (עמ’ קמ”ג)‪ .‬תודתי נתונה למורי ועמיתי ראובן (ריצ’רד)‬ ‫שטיינר על עזרתו בהשוואת הפירוש (כפי שהביאו המהדיר) לגרסה המובאת בתאג’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬המשמעות המשפטית הזאת מודגשת למדי בתרגום של אוטו המשתמש בביטוי ‪“ein Verhör‬‬ ‫”‪ anstellen‬במקום בפועל הפשוט ”‪ .“hören‬אמנם וולס משתמש במילה האנגלית ”‪ ,“hear‬המורה על‬ ‫פעולת חוש השמיעה‪ ,‬אך דבריו (החוק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;93‬הליכים משפטיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )223‬מוכיחים כי כיוון לייחס‬ ‫לפועל משמעות משפטית דווקא‪ .‬תרגום קרוב יותר (אך גם מסורבל יותר) הינו ”‪.“conduct a hearing‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬לספרות ראו‪ :‬הולץ‪ ,‬מונחים משפטיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,1‬הע’ ‪.2‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬וולס‪ ,2005 ,‬עמ’ ‪ .93‬ההבחנה בחזרה לגוף שני כסימן למעבר בין חלקי החוק מעלה גם קשיים‬ ‫לדעת המפרשים בעקבות תרגום ‪ NJPS‬שהובא לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬מסיבה פרשנית זו יש לשלול כנראה את ההיגיון הדקדוקי הנאה שבשיטה הזאת (שלא פורטה‬ ‫בדברי הדוגלים בה)‪ ,‬המפרידה בין פעלים סבילים בתנאי (כי ימצא ‪ ...‬והגד) לפעלים הפעילים בהמשך‬ ‫החוק (ושמעת ודרשת היטב וגו’)‪.‬‬

‫חשיבותם המשפטית של המילים "והֻ ּגַ ד ְלָך"‬

‫*‪95‬‬

‫את הקשיים בפירוש החוק בדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬ניתן לסכם כך‪ :‬ההבנה הפרוצדורלית של‬ ‫החוק היא העדיפה‪ ,‬אך תפקידם של הפעלים “והגד לך ושמעת ודרשת היטב” עדיין‬ ‫טעון בירור‪ .‬אלה פעולות משפטיות מטיל החוק על הנמען? האם על השופט רק “לדרוש‬ ‫היטב”‪ ,‬או שמא גם “לשמוע” (באופן משפטי פורמלי) ואולי אף לקבל את “ההגדה”?‬ ‫הצעה חדשה‪“ :‬הגדת” הנאשם כתחילת התהליך המשפטי‬ ‫לאור הנאמר לעיל‪ ,‬נציע כאן שהמילים “והגד־לך” שבתחילת דב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬הן שמציינות‬ ‫את המעבר בין התנאי של החוק לתוצאתו המשפטית‪ .‬בשונה מהתרגומים שכבר סקרנו‪,‬‬ ‫עלינו להעמיד את המילה האנגלית ‪ then‬בתחילת הפסוק‪ .‬כמענה למקרה המתואר‬ ‫בפסוקים ‪ ,3-2‬החוק מציב הליכים משפטיים המתחילים לא בשמיעה‪ ,‬אלא בהגדה‪.‬‬ ‫ל”הגדה” מקום שווה‪ ,‬הן מבחינה דקדוקית והן מבחינה רעיונית‪ ,‬למקום שתי הפעולות‬ ‫הבאות אחריה בפסוק‪ .‬רק אחרי הגדה‪ ,‬כלומר דיווח פורמלי או האשמה‪ ,‬תתבצענה‬ ‫הפעולות המשפטיות הכתובות בהמשך — ה”שמיעה” וה”דרישה”‪.‬‬ ‫הצעה זו כרוכה בפירוש משפטי לביטוי “והגד־לך”‪ .‬ממספר כתובים עולה כי הפועל‬ ‫נג”ד (בבניין הפעיל) מורה על דיווח ואפילו על האשמה‪ 14.‬יצויין השימוש בפועל בפי‬ ‫הנביא ירמיהו המתאר “דיבת רבים” המזימים להאשים אותו בפני המלכות באמרם “הגידו‬ ‫ונגידנו” (יר’ כ‪ .)10 ,‬המשמעות המיוחדת של הפועל מתבטאת בצירוף היחידאי של כנוי‬ ‫המושא (‪-‬נו)‪ ,‬המוסב על ירמיהו הנאשם‪ .‬מכאן יש להסיק כי נושא הפועל “והגד” שבדב’‬ ‫יז‪ 4 ,‬הוא אותו האדם (האיש או האישה) נושא הפועל “יימצא” המוזכר כבר בתחילת החוק‬ ‫(דב’ יז‪ .)2 ,‬מבחינת הדיקדוק נושא הפועל הסביל כאן (דב’ יז‪ ,‬ד) הוא מושא הפועל הפעיל‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫שם (יר’ כ‪.)10 ,‬‬ ‫אם כן‪ ,‬יש לתרגם את הפסוק כך‪:‬‬ ‫‪THEN he shall be reported to you, and you shall conduct a hearing‬‬ ‫‪and investigate thoroughly ...‬‬

‫תרגום זה שונה מהקודמים לו בשתי דרכים‪ .‬הוא מציב את המילה ‪ then‬כבר בתחילת‬ ‫הפסוק‪ ,‬ובכך מציין שכאן המעבר בין התנאי לתוצאות‪ .‬התרגום המוצע גם משתמש‬ ‫במילה ”‪ ,“he‬המציינת נושא אנושי ממין זכר‪ ,‬במקום במילה הסתמית ”‪ .“it‬נושא הפועל‬ ‫הוא “איש או אישה אשר יעשה את הרע בעיני ה’” (דב’ יז‪ ,)2 ,‬שלא כדעת המתרגמים‬ ‫הקודמים‪ ,‬שכנראה פירשו שנושא הפועל הוא המעשה‪.‬‬ ‫הניתוח המוצע פותר כמה מהבעיות בפירושים הקודמים שאותם מנינו‪ .‬במקום‬ ‫להפריד בין “הגדה” ל”שמיעה”‪ ,‬העברת נקודת המפנה שבחוק לתחילת דב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬מורה‬ ‫‪ .14‬כגון וי’ ה‪ ;1 ,‬שמ”א יד‪ ;33-32 ,‬מש’ יב‪ ;17 ,‬כט‪ .24 ,‬עיונים בפירוש המשפטי של הפועל נמצאים‬ ‫במילונים‪ ,‬בעמודים המצויינים במפתח של בובטי‪ ,‬צדק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,478-465‬ואצל מגדלין‪ ,‬צדיקות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪,116‬‬ ‫‪.195-194 ,159‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬לשימוש דומה בפועל סביל לפתיחת רשימת התוצאות במשפטים קזואיסטיים‪ ,‬השוו‪ :‬ויק’ יג‪,2 ,‬‬ ‫‪ ;19 ,9‬יד‪ .2 ,‬וראו‪ :‬לווין‪ ,‬ויקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,85‬ומילגרום‪ ,‬ויקרא א‪-‬טז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪( 776‬אך השוו דבריו בעמ’ ‪.)831‬‬

‫*‪96‬‬

‫שלום אליעזר הולץ‬

‫שגם ה”הגדה” וגם ה”שמיעה” הן רכיבים באותו חלק של החוק‪ ,‬בו מתוארות התוצאות‪.‬‬ ‫ראוי לציין שהבנה זו עולה מההפרדה בין פסוק ‪ 3‬לפסוק ‪ 4‬שבנוסח המסורה‪ :‬תיאור‬ ‫התנאים מסתיים בפסוק ‪ 3‬ותיאור התוצאות מתחיל בפסוק ‪ .4‬ועוד‪ ,‬לפי הבנתנו‪ ,‬נקודת‬ ‫המעבר שבתוכן החוק תואמת בדיוק לנקודת המעבר שבדקדוק‪ :‬המעבר לדיבור ישיר‪,‬‬ ‫החל כבר במילה “לך”‪ ,‬הוא המציין את המעבר בין חלקי החוק‪.‬‬ ‫על פי הצעתנו‪ ,‬הפסוק מתאר שלושה שלבים משפטיים הקודמים להטלת עונש מוות‬ ‫על הנאשם בעבודת אלוהים אחרים‪ .‬המילים “והגד לך” מציינות את השלב הראשון‪ ,‬בו‬ ‫מובאת ההאשמה לפני השופט‪ .‬בבוא ה”הגדה”‪ ,‬על השופט “לשמוע”‪ ,‬כלומר לקבל את‬ ‫ההאשמה באופן פורמלי‪ ,‬ואחר כך עליו “לדרוש היטב”‪ .‬מטרת השלב השלישי הזה היא‬ ‫בירור נכונות ההאשמה‪ ,‬האמת היא אם לאו‪ .‬הכתוב עוסק רק במקרה ש”אמת נכון הדבר”‪,‬‬ ‫ומטיל עונש סקילה על הנאשם‪.‬‬ ‫את הלשונות המתארות את הסדר המשפטי הזה ניתן להשוות ללשונות דומות‬ ‫המופיעות בפרוטוקולים משפטיים ניאו־בבליים‪ ,‬במיוחד במשפטים שנוהלו בעיר בבל‬ ‫בפני “שופטי המלך”‪ 16.‬למרות ההבדלים הניכרים בין הפרטים של משפט אחד למשנהו‪,‬‬ ‫המסמכים המתעדים את תוצאות המשפט ערוכים לפי מבנה לשוני ניכר‪ 17.‬מבנה זה מורה‬ ‫על פתיחת המשפט על ידי השימוש בפועל ‪“( qabû‬לְ ַד ֵּבר”) ולאחריו ציטוט דברי התובע‪.‬‬ ‫לאחר הציטוט מופיע הפועל ‪“( šemû‬לשמוע”)‪ ,‬המורה על תחילת פעילות השופטים‪,‬‬ ‫ה”שומעים” את דברי בעלי הדין‪ 18.‬הפועל ‪ kânu‬מורה על תוצאות הליכי־בירור משפטיים‪,‬‬ ‫המוצאים את “נכונות” הדברים‪ ,‬בדרך כלל על ידי קבלת עדות שבעל פה או קריאה‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫במסמכים כתובים‪.‬‬ ‫עיון בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬לאור הנתונים האלה מעלה דימיון לשוני בין המבנה שעל פיו מתוארים‬ ‫הליכים משפטיים במסמכים מבבל לתיאור המקראי של המשפט נגד הנאשם בעבודה‬ ‫זרה‪ .‬בולטת מכול היא הופעת הפועל “ושמעת” והתואר “נכון”‪ ,‬ששניהם קשורים קשר‬ ‫אטימולוגי למילים האכדיות ‪ šemû‬ו־‪ .kânu‬אך מעבר לקשר הזה‪ ,‬משמעותי יותר הוא‬ ‫הדמיון שבין סדר המילים שבכתוב ושבמסמכים באכדית‪ ,‬אותו ניתן לסכם כך‪:‬‬

‫והגד לך‬

‫ושמעת‬

‫והנה אמת נכון הדבר‬

‫‪qabû‬‬

‫‪šemû‬‬

‫‪kânu‬‬

‫‪ .16‬על אלה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬הולץ‪ ,‬הליך משפטי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.46-27‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬לפרטים על המבנה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬הולץ‪ ,‬מונחים משפטיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.7-4‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬פעולות אלה כוללות לפעמים “שאלה” (המצוינת על ידי הפועל ‪ )ša’ālu‬של השופטים המופנית‬ ‫אל בעלי הדין (הולץ‪ ,‬הליך משפטי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“ .)250-247‬שאלה” זו מקבילה לדרישה שבדב’ יז‪.4 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬הפועל ‪( kânu‬בהטייה בבניין קל) מופיע רק במקרים נדירים‪ .‬משמעותו של הפועל ניכרת היטב‬ ‫מהשימוש הרגיל בפועל ‪( kunnu‬בהטיה בבניין פיעל) לציין את דברי העדים‪ .‬על כך ראו‪ :‬הולץ‪ ,‬מונחים‬ ‫משפטיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.7-6‬‬

‫חשיבותם המשפטית של המילים "והֻ ּגַ ד ְלָך"‬

‫*‪97‬‬

‫גם בתורה וגם במסמכים באכדית פעלי הההגדה והשמיעה משמשים יחד לציין‬ ‫שלבים במשפט‪ .‬בכתוב‪ ,‬הפועל “ושמעת” מופיע אחרי הפועל “והגד לך”‪ ,‬ומורה על‬ ‫שמיעת ההיגד (כהליך משפטי)‪ ,‬כשם שבמסמכים האכדיים הפועל ‪ šemû‬מופיע בסוף‬ ‫ציטוט דברי התובע‪ ,‬הנפתחים בפועל ‪( qabû‬הנרדף מבחינה סמנטית לפועל “והגד לך”‪,‬‬ ‫ששניהם מורים על פעולת דיבור בפה)‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬המילה “נכון” מציינת את תוצאת פעולות‬ ‫הדרישה‪ ,‬בדומה לשימוש במילה ‪ kânu‬באכדית‪ .‬מדמיונות אלה ניתן לתאר את הכתוב‬ ‫בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬ואת מבנה הפרוטוקולים באכדית כשתי נוסחאות שוות המתארות הליך משפטי‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫דומה‪.‬‬ ‫השלכות ומסקנות‪ :‬בין החוק בדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬לחוקים בדב’ יג‪16-7 ,‬‬ ‫כאמור‪ ,‬הניתוח המוצע של החוק בדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬מדגיש את תפקידה המשפטי של‬ ‫ה”ההגדה”‪ .‬רק הגדה פורמלית‪ ,‬האמורה בפני השופט‪ ,‬נמען החוק‪ ,‬היא מספקת במקרה‬ ‫שבסופו ייתכן עונש סקילה‪ .‬שמועה סתם‪ ,‬כלומר כזאת שנשמעה מחוץ לבית דין‪ ,‬אין‬ ‫בכוחה להפעיל את המנגנון המשפטי נגד הנאשם‪.‬‬ ‫חשיבותה של ה”הגדה” על פי החוק בדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬מתבהרת על ידי השוואת החוק הזה‬ ‫לחוקים הדומים בדב’ יג‪ 21.16-7 ,‬נעמוד כאן על שתי נקודות דמיון בין החוקים‪ ,‬הראשונה‬ ‫נוגעת לתוכן והשנייה נוגעת לניסוח המילים‪ .‬מבחינת התוכן‪ ,‬פרשת ה”מסית” (דב’ יג‪,‬‬ ‫‪ )12-7‬היא הקרובה לחוק שבדב’ יז‪ .7-2 ,‬שני החוקים מתייחסים ליחיד החוטא‪ ,‬ושניהם‬ ‫מטילים עליו עונש סקילה‪ .‬מבחינת ניסוח המילים‪ ,‬הדמיון בין הפרשיות ניכר דווקא‬ ‫בהשוואת תיאור הליכי הבירור בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬לתיאור הדומה (כמעט באופן מילולי) בדב’ יג‪,‬‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫‪ ,15‬הנמצא בחוק עיר הנידחת לעבודה זרה (דב’ יג‪.)19-13 ,‬‬ ‫שתי נקודות הדמיון מעלות בפנינו גם את ההבדלים שבין החוקים‪ .‬למרות העונש‬ ‫הדומה‪ ,‬חוק המסית חמור במידה ניכרת מהחוק שבדב’ יז‪ .7-2 ,‬לפי דב’ יג‪ ,11-9 ,‬הענשת‬ ‫המסית היא חובה מיידית על הנמען‪ ,‬ללוא כל זכר להליכים המשפטיים המוזכרים בדב’‬ ‫יז‪ 23.4 ,‬ואם נשווה בין הכתוב בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬לכתוב הכמעט דומה בדב’ יג‪ 15 ,‬ניווכח לדעת‬

‫‪ .20‬מדמיונות אלה אין להסיק כי הנוסח העברי מושאל מזה שבאכדית‪ .‬סביר יותר לשייך את‬ ‫הדמיון למורשת המשפטית שממנה ינקו גם התרבות המיסופוטמית וגם התרבות הישראלית‪ .‬על כך‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬הולץ‪ ,‬מונחים משפטיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,4‬ובהפניות לספרות שם‪ ,‬הע’ ‪.12‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬רבים כבר השוו בין הפרשיות האלה‪ ,‬ואין זה המקום להאריך בפירוט מלא‪ .‬על נושא זה‪ ,‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫לווינסון‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,110-102‬ועמ’ ‪ ,127-118‬בהפניות לספרות שם‪ ,‬ובפירושים לכתובים עצמם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬לווינסון‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .104-103‬אמנם לווינסון מבחין בדמיון שבין דב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬לדב’ יג‪15 ,‬‬ ‫ובהבדלים אחרים שבין ניסוח החוקים ומגמתם‪ ,‬אך אין הוא עומד על הבדלי הניסוח שיוצעו להלן‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬לווינסון‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .121-120‬לווינסון‪ ,‬רואה בהצבת ההליכים המשפטיים בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬תמיכה‬ ‫לטענתו שהחוק כולו הוא גרסה מחודשת של החוקים בדב’ יג‪ ,‬פרי עריכה משנית ומכוונת‪ .‬לדעתו מטרת‬ ‫עריכה זו היא‪ ,‬בין היתר‪ ,‬להדגיש את פעולות בתי הדין המקומיים למרות ריכוז הפולחן‪ ,‬ואפילו במקרים‬ ‫החמורים ביותר (שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)127-118‬לעומת ההסבר הדיאכרוני של לווינסון‪ ,‬ייתכן הסבר סינכרוני‬ ‫המצביע על ההבדל בין “מסית” החמּור (בדב’ יג) ל”עובד” סתם‪ ,‬הקל (בדב’ יז)‪ .‬עליי להודות לפרופ’‬ ‫טליה פישמן שהייתה בין השומעים שבפניהם הרציתי את הדברים והיטיבה להבחין בהבדל זה ולהעיר‬ ‫לי עליו בעל פה‪ .‬והשוו לדברי לווינסון‪ ,‬דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.104‬‬

‫*‪98‬‬

‫שלום אליעזר הולץ‬

‫כי הליכי הבירור בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬מפורטים יותר מאלה הנזכרים בדב’ יג‪ .15 ,‬לפי דב’ יג‪,15 ,‬‬ ‫ההליכים הקודמים להענשת עיר הנידחת מסתכמים בבירור (“ודרשת וחקרת ושאלת‬ ‫היטב”)‪ ,‬ואילו לפי דב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬נוספים על הליך הבירור (“ודרשת היטב”) גם הליכי “הגדה”‬ ‫“ושמיעה” בבית הדין‪ .‬זאת ועוד‪ :‬השורש שמ”ע מופיע גם בחוק עיר הנידחת (דב’ יג‪)13 ,‬‬ ‫אך נדמה כי הוראתו שונה מזו שבדב’ יז‪ .4 ,‬בדב’ יג‪ 13 ,‬הפועל שמ”ע פותח את החוק (“כי‬ ‫תשמע באחת עריך ‪ ,)”...‬ומשמש ללא פועל דיבור או הגדה‪ .‬לכן קשה לייחס לפועל שמ”ע‬ ‫משמעות משפטית כזו העולה מן ההקשר שבו מופיע הפועל בדב’ יז‪.4 ,‬‬ ‫ההבדלים האלה שבין החוקים מורים כי החוק שבדב’ יז מקל מהחוק שבדב’ יג ביחסו‬ ‫אל החוטא‪ .‬הקלה זו כפולה היא‪ .‬במקום סקילה מיידית של החוטא‪ ,‬החוק בדב’ יז מחייב‬ ‫את הנמען לדרוש ולברר את נכונות השמועה‪ ,‬באופן דומה לבירור הנערך לפני החרמת‬ ‫עיר הנידחת‪ .‬ובנוסף‪ ,‬בדב’ יז‪ 4 ,‬הוספת הציוויים “והגד לך ושמעת” מעבר לציווי “ודרשת‬ ‫היטב” מציבה עוד מגבלות בפני הוצאת העונש לפועל‪ ,‬ומביעה עמדה ברורה לטובת‬ ‫החוטא‪.‬‬ ‫לפי הקריאה המוצעת כאן‪ ,‬החוק שבדב’ יז‪ 7-2 ,‬מגביל את פעולותיו של הבא‬ ‫לדון לסקילה את העובד לאלוהים אחרים‪ .‬הצבת ה”הגדה” כאחד השלבים המשפטיים‬ ‫הקודמים לסקילה גם פוטרת את הנמען‪ ,‬הוא השופט‪ ,‬מפעולה במקרים שבהם חסרה‬ ‫“הגדה” שכזו‪ .‬אם כך‪ ,‬הכתוב פוטר את השופט מלחזור ולחפש אחרי עובדי אלילים כדי‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫להענישם‪ .‬מבחינת החוק‪ ,‬הדורש ש”יוגד” החוטא‪ ,‬די לו לשופט שיבואו המגידים לפניו‪.‬‬ ‫אך בעוד שניתן לפרש את החוק כמגביל את השופט ומקל על הנשפט‪ ,‬ניתן גם לומר‬ ‫שהחוק מותיר בידי השופט שיקול דעת מסוים במקרה הנידון ואולי אפילו מטיל עליו‬ ‫אחריות מסוימת‪ .‬נוכל לתאר מצבים בהם “יימצא” איש או אישה העובדים לאלוהים‬ ‫אחרים‪ ,‬על ידי השופט עצמו או על ידי אחרים שמסרו דבריהם לשופט באופן בלתי‬ ‫פורמלי‪ .‬במקרים שכאלה‪ ,‬בידי השופט להתעלם מן השמועות (ואולי אפילו מראות עיניו)‬ ‫עד שתגיע “ההגדה” הפורמלית‪ .‬אך אם ירצה השופט‪ ,‬ושמא לדעת החוק זו היא חובתו‪,‬‬ ‫יוכל גם לסייע בידי ה”מוצאים” כדי שיצאו דבריהם מכלל שמועה ויבואו לכלל הגדה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .24‬השוו למגמה דומה (לגבי חוק עיר הנידחת) הניכרת בספרי דברים צב (עמ’ ‪ ,153‬ובדברי‬ ‫המהדיר שם) על הכתוב בדב’ יג‪‘“ :13 ,‬כי תשמע’—ולא החוזר והמצתת”‪.‬‬

99*

"‫חשיבותם המשפטית של המילים "והֻ ּגַ ד ְלָך‬

‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ E. Otto, “Aspects of Legal Reformulations in Ancient Cuneiform = ‫ הבטים‬,‫אוטו‬ and Israelite Law”, Theory and Method in Biblical and Cuneiform Law: Revision, Interpolation and Development (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 181), ed. B. M. Levinson, Sheffield 1994, pp. 160-198 E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium: Politische Theologie und Rechtsreform = ‫ דברים‬,‫אוטו‬ in Juda und Assyrien (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 284), Berlin 1999 P. Bovati, Re-Establishing Justice: Legal Terms, Concepts and = ‫ צדק‬,‫בובטי‬ Procedures in the Hebrew Bible, trans. M. J. Smith (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 105), Sheffield 1994 S.R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on = ‫ דברים‬,‫דרייבר‬ Deuteronomy (International Critical Commentary), New York 1895 S. Holtz, Neo-Babylonian Court Procedure (Cuneiform = ‫ הליך משפטי‬,‫הולץ‬ Monographs, 38), Leiden 2009 S. Holtz, “A Common Set of Trial Terms”, Zeitschrift für = ‫ מונחים משפטיים‬,‫הולץ‬ Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 17 (2011), pp. 1-14 B. Wells, The Law of Testimony in the Pentateuchal Codes (Beihefte = ‫ החוק‬,‫וולס‬ zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, 4), Wiesbaden 2004 B. Wells, “The Cultic Versus the Forensic: Judahite and = ‫ הליכים משפטיים‬,‫וולס‬ Mesopotamian Judicial Procedures in the First Millennium B.C.E.”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 128 (2008), pp. 205-232 B. Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus, Philadelphia = ‫ ויקרא‬,‫לווין‬ 1989 B. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal = ‫ דברים‬,‫לווינסון‬ Innovation, New York 1997 F.R. Magdalene, On the Scales of Righteousness: Neo-Babylonian = ‫ צדיקות‬,‫מגדלין‬ Trial Law and the Book of Job (Brown Judaic Studies 348), Providence, RI 2007 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16:A New Translation with = ‫טז‬-‫ ויקרא א‬,‫מילגרום‬ Introduction and Commentary (Anchor Bible), New York 1991

‫ ניו‬,‫ ספרי על ספר דברים עם חלופי גרסאות והערות‬,‫ פינקלשטיין‬.‫א‬.‫ספרי דברים = א‬ ]‫יורק תשנ”ג [ת”ש‬ R.D. Kunjummen, “The Syntax of Conditionals in Deuteronomy = ‫ תחביר‬,‫קונג’ומן‬ and Translation of wqatal (Consecutive Perfects)”, (Paper presented a the

‫שלום אליעזר הולץ‬

100*

annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Boston, 25 November 2008), n.p. [Cited 14 October, 2010] U. Rüterswörden, Von der politischen Gemeinschaft = ‫ מקהילה לקהל‬,‫ריטרסוורדן‬ zur Gemeinde: Studien zu Dt 16,18-18,22 (Bonner Biblische Beiträge 65), Berlin 1987

‫ ירושלים תשכ”ג‬,‫ פירושי רבינו סעדיה גאון על התורה‬,‫רס”ג = י’ קאפח‬ The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and the New Testament: Newly = KJV ‫תרגום‬ Translated out of the Original Tongues, London 1611 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Philadelphia 1985 = NJPS ‫תרגום‬ The New Revised Standard Bible, New York 1989 = NRSV ‫תרגום‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪101‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬ ‫נילי ואזנה‬ ‫ספר עמוס מעיד על בקיאות מרשימה ביותר של מחבר הספר ו‪/‬או עורכיו ברזי‬ ‫המורשת הספרותית המקראית‪ .‬בתשעת פרקיו של הספר מצויים כתובים מסוגות נבואיות‬ ‫שונות‪ ,‬כגון‪ :‬נבואות על הגויים‪ ,‬נבואות ריב ותוכחה‪ ,‬נבואות “הוי” ונבואות נחמה‪ ,‬סיפור‬ ‫נבואי‪ ,‬מראות ודוקסולוגיות‪ .‬נוסף על כך‪ ,‬לשון הנבואות ציורית‪ ,‬והיא עשירה בדגמים‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫ספרותיים רבים כגון דגם מספרי עולה‪ ,‬סדרות‪ ,‬שאלות רטוריות ומשחקי מילים לרוב‪.‬‬ ‫ההנחה שהספר הוא אוצר זוטא של דגמים ספרותיים מגוונים מהווה נקודת מוצא עבור‬ ‫מאמר זה‪ ,‬שבו אציע פירוש חדש למראות עמוס‪.‬‬ ‫בעמ’ ז ‪ ;9-1‬ח ‪ 3-1‬באה סדרה של ארבעה מראות הקשורים זה לזה‪ .‬חלק מן החוקרים‬ ‫קושרים ליחידת המראות גם את המראה החמישי בספר (עמ’ ט ‪ 2.)6-1‬גם אם כל החמישה‬ ‫שייכים לסוגת המראות‪ ,‬המראה החמישי שונה מקודמיו במבנהו ובתכניו‪ ,‬והקשר הבולט‬ ‫ביותר ביניהם הוא הפתיחה בפועל משורש רא”ה‪ ,‬שאף היא שונה בצורתה‪ :‬בבניין ִהפעיל‬ ‫גוף שלישי בארבעת המראות הראשונים‪“ :‬כה הראני”‪ ,‬ובבניין קל גוף ראשון במראה‬ ‫החמישי‪“ :‬ראיתי”‪ 3.‬בהמשך‪ ,‬נבחן בקצרה גם את המראה החמישי‪ .‬על אף שהוא נפרד‬ ‫מארבעת המראות שבמוקד דיוננו‪ ,‬הצבתו במיקומו הנוכחי בזיקה למראות הקודמים‬ ‫עשויה להצביע על תפיסת גורל העם המשתקפת בו‪ ,‬ויש לכך השלכות גם על הפירוש‬ ‫המוצע למראות הקודמים לו‪.‬‬ ‫למרות שסיפור נבואי המתאר את העימות בין עמוס ובין אמציה כהן בית־אל חוצץ‬ ‫כעת בין המראה השלישי והרביעי (עמ’ ז ‪ ,)17-10‬ארבעת המראות מחולקים על פי אופיים‬

‫‪ .1‬ראו‪ :‬וולף‪ ,‬עמוס הנביא‪ ,‬עמ' ‪ ;53-6‬וולף‪ ,‬יואל ועמוס‪ ,‬עמ' ‪ ;100-91‬סוג'ין‪ ,‬הנביא עמוס‪ ,‬עמ'‬ ‫‪ ;15-12‬פאול‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ' ‪.7-4‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬לדוגמה‪ :‬וייזר‪ ,‬תרי־עשר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;181‬ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .155-154 ;125‬לדידם‪ ,‬המראה‬ ‫החמישי הוא שיאו של קובץ המראות המקורי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬קויפמן‪ ,‬תולדות האמונה‪ ,‬כרך ו’ עמ’ ‪ ;64‬מאג‪ ,‬טקסט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;47‬ויסמן‪ ,‬דגמים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;41‬רוזל‪,‬‬ ‫עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;253‬וראו הפניות לחוקרים נוספים אצל פאול‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,222‬הע’ ‪ .5‬גם חוקרים הסבורים‬ ‫שהמראה החמישי קשור לקודמיו‪ ,‬מכירים בהבדלים הצורניים הבולטים המייחדים אותו מהם‪ ,‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫סוג’ין‪ ,‬הנביא עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.122-121‬‬

‫*‪101‬‬

‫*‪102‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫וצורתם לשני זוגות עוקבים‪ 4.‬הזוג הראשון מציג צמד מראות דינמיים שהמסר שלהם מובן‪,‬‬ ‫מעין ‘סרטון’ קצר במונחי ימינו‪ .‬פעמיים הנביא מגיב באופן זהה כמעט לגמרי‪ ,‬כשהוא‬ ‫מתערב למען עמו ומתחנן שהאל ירחם או יחדל‪“ :‬וָ א ַֹמר ֲאדֹנָ י ה’ ְסלַ ח־נָ א ‪ֲ /‬ח ַדל־נָ א ִמי יָ קּום‬ ‫יַ ֲעקֹב ּכִ י ָקטֹן הּוא” (ז ‪2‬ב‪ .)5 ,‬האל אכן מגיב פעמיים בביטול גזרתו‪“ :‬נִ ַחם ה’ ַעל־זֹאת ֹלא‬ ‫ם־היא ֹלא ִת ְהיֶ ה ָא ַמר ֲאדֹנָ י ה’” (ז ‪ .)6‬צמד המראות‬ ‫ִת ְהיֶ ה ָא ַמר ה’” (ז ‪“ ;)3‬נִ ַחם ה’ ַעל־זֹאת ּגַ ִ‬ ‫השני מציג מראות סטטיים‪ ,‬מעין תמונות או ‘שקופיות’‪ ,‬הדורשים פתרון‪ .‬למראות צמוד‬ ‫ה־א ָּתה ר ֶֹאה ָעמֹוס” (ז ‪ ;8‬ח ‪ ,)2‬והנביא מתאר‬ ‫“מ ַ‬ ‫דו־שיח שבו פותח האל בשאלה לנביא‪ָ :‬‬ ‫בקצרה את מוקד המראה‪ :‬במראה השלישי “וָ א ַֹמר ֲאנָ ְך”; במראה הרביעי “וָ א ַֹמר ּכְ לּוב‬ ‫“הנְ נִ י ָׂשם ֲאנָ ְך ְּב ֶק ֶרב ַע ִּמי‬ ‫ָקיִ ץ”‪ .‬הגדרת הנביא משמשת קרש קפיצה עבור גזרת האל‪ִ :‬‬ ‫“ֹלא־אֹוסיף עֹוד ֲעבֹור לֹו” (ז ‪ ;8‬ח ‪.)2‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ל־ע ִּמי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל” ועימה ההכרזה‪:‬‬ ‫“ּבא ַה ֵּקץ ֶא ַ‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל”; ָ‬ ‫הצגת המראות בזוגות מעידה על תקפותם כנושאי מסר אלוהי‪ .‬עקרון זה בא לידי‬ ‫ביטוי במקרא בעיקר בהתגלות דרך חלום‪ ,‬שנחשב אמצעי נחות יחסית של התגלות‪ 5.‬כמו‬ ‫בחלומות יוסף (בר’ לז ‪ ,)9-6‬בחלומות שר המשקים ושר האופים (בר’ מ ‪)17-16 ,11-5‬‬ ‫ובחלומותיו של פרעה עצמו (בר’ מא ‪ )24-17 ;7-1‬המסר החוזר פעמיים‪ ,‬אם לאותו אדם‪,‬‬ ‫אם בו זמנית לשני חולמים‪ ,‬מהווה עדות למהימנותו‪ .‬על החלומות של השרים‪ ,‬שהם‬ ‫וריאציות מנוגדות על אותו נושא נאמר‪“ :‬ויחלמו חלום שניהם” (בר’ מ ‪ ,)5‬וכן בפסוק ‪:8‬‬ ‫“חלֹום ָחלַ ְמנּו ּופ ֵֹתר ֵאין אֹתֹו”‪ .‬העניין עולה גם מפירוש החלום‪ .‬כפי שמדגיש יוסף בדבריו‬ ‫ֲ‬ ‫“חלֹום ַּפ ְרעֹה ֶא ָחד הּוא ֵאת‬ ‫לפרעה מפורשות‪ ,‬שני החלומות שחלם נושאים מסר אחד‪ֲ :‬‬ ‫והשנות החלום מעידה על אמיתותו‬ ‫ֹלהים ע ֶֹׂשה ִהּגִ יד לְ ַפ ְרעֹה” (בר’ מא ‪ִ ,)25‬‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ּומ ַמ ֵהר‬ ‫ֹלהים ְ‬ ‫ל־ּפ ְרעֹה ַּפ ֲע ָמיִ ם ּכִ י־נָ כֹון ַה ָּד ָבר ֵמ ִעם ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ועל תקפותו‪“ :‬וְ ַעל ִה ָּשׁנֹות ַה ֲחלֹום ֶא ַ‬ ‫ֹלהים לַ ֲעׂשֹתו” (בר’ מא ‪ .)32‬גם בסיפור גלגמש מתבשר הגיבור על בואו של אנקידו‬ ‫ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫באמצעות צמד חלומות סמליים‪ .‬עקרון החזרה משמש להענקת משנה תוקף גם לחזונות‬ ‫ולא רק לחלומות‪ ,‬שכן בשניהם מדובר על מסר אלוהי באמצעות מראה‪ ,‬כדברי יוסף‬

‫‪ .4‬זקוביץ‪ ,‬על שלושה‪ ...‬ועל ארבעה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;191-186‬ברין‪ ,‬מחקרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;37-36‬וכן במרבית‬ ‫הפירושים המודרניים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬בגלל העובדה שכל אדם חווה חלומות‪ ,‬נחשבו הללו אמצעי נחות יחסית של התגלות במזרח‬ ‫הקדום ועל כן היה צורך להבחין בין חלומות סתמיים ובין חלומות נושאי מסר אלוהי‪ ,‬ולעתים קרובות‬ ‫גם לפרש את כוונת החלום (פרנקפורט‪ ,‬מלוכה והאלים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;258-255‬אופנהיים‪ ,‬חלומות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;212‬‬ ‫גנוס‪ ,‬חלום שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)34-33‬על חזרה על המסר האלוהי בחלומות הבאים בצמדים או בשלשות‪,‬‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬אופנהיים‪ ,‬חלומות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .209-208‬החזרה על המסר בחלום נוסף (לאותו חולם‪ ,‬או לאחר) הייתה‬ ‫רק אחת מהשיטות ששימשו לאימות מקורו השמיימי‪ .‬שיטה אחרת הייתה להיעזר בפרקטיקות מאנטיות‬ ‫כפי שעשה‪ ,‬לדוגמה‪ ,‬גודא מלך לאגאש שבחן את תקפות המסר שקיבל בחלומותיו השני והשלישי ואת‬ ‫משמעותו על ידי ראייה בכבד (הורוויץ‪ ,‬בית זבול‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)50-49‬לדעת קים‪ ,‬גם מוטיב שינוי האווירה‬ ‫ומצב הרוח של החולם ”‪ ,“the ‘change in mood’ motif‬מהווה אמצעי ספרותי שמסמן את אישור‬ ‫תקפותו של החלום (קים‪ ,‬אינקובציה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)80‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬עלילת גלגמש לוח א’‪ ,‬שו’ ‪ ;289-242‬לתרגום לעברית‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬שפרה וקליין‪ ,‬אנתולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.196-195‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪103‬‬

‫ת־ּפ ְרעֹה”(בר’ מא ‪28‬ב)‪ ,‬וכעדות עמוס‪ּ“ :‬כֹה ִה ְר ַאנִ י‬ ‫ֹלהים ע ֶֹׂשה ֶה ְר ָאה ֶא ַ‬ ‫“א ֶׁשר ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫לפרעה‪ֲ :‬‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫ֲאדֹנָ י ה’” (ז ‪ ;4 ,1‬ח ‪ .1‬ובצורה מקוצרת‪ּ“ :‬כֹה ִה ְר ַאנִ י” ז ‪.)7‬‬ ‫לעתים קרובות מכילים המראות משחקי מילים וסמלים‪ 8.‬במראות רבים‪ ,‬ובעיקר‬ ‫במראות מהסוג הסטטי — ה’שקופית’‪ ,‬משמעות הדברים הנראים דורשת הסבר על ידי‬ ‫האל‪ ,‬מלאך (בחזונות המאוחרים של זכריה ודניאל)‪ ,‬או במקרה של חלומות‪ ,‬על ידי מי‬ ‫שיודע לפרש אותם‪ .‬לדוגמה‪ ,‬במראה שבא בספר ירמיה שואל האל את הנביא‪“ :‬מה אתה‬ ‫יט ְב ָּת לִ ְראֹות‬ ‫“ה ַ‬ ‫“מ ֵּקל ָׁש ֵקד ֲאנִ י ר ֶֹאה”‪ .‬או אז מפרש האל‪ֵ :‬‬ ‫ראה ירמיהו?” והנביא עונה‪ַ :‬‬ ‫ל־ּד ָב ִרי לַ ֲעׂשֹתֹו” (יר’ א ‪ .)12-11‬בן זוגו של מראה זה הוא מראה הסיר הנפוח‬ ‫ּכִ י־ׁש ֵֹקד ֲאנִ י ַע ְ‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫(יר’ א ‪ ,)14-13‬וכביתר זוגות המראות תכנם אחד‪ :‬הרעה ששוקד האל להביא מצפון‪ .‬כך‬ ‫אף בצמד השני‪ ,‬הסטטי‪ ,‬של מראות עמוס — התמונה משמשת כעורר למסר‪ ,‬שמקושר‬ ‫אליה על ידי זיקה מצלולית אסוציאטיבית‪ .‬הדבר בולט במיוחד במראה האחרון‪:‬‬ ‫ה־א ָּתה ר ֶֹאה ָעמֹוס וָ א ַֹמר ּכְ לּוב ָקיִ ץ‬ ‫ֹאמר ָמ ַ‬ ‫ּכֹה ִה ְר ַאנִ י ֲאדֹנָ י ה’ וְ ִהּנֵ ה ּכְ לּוב ָקיִ ץ וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֹלא־אֹוסיף עֹוד ֲעבֹור לֹו וְ ֵהילִ ילּו ִׁשירֹות‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ל‪-‬ע ִּמי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ֹאמר ה’ ֵאלַ י ָּבא ַה ֵּקץ ֶא ַ‬ ‫וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ל־מקֹום ִה ְׁשלִ יְך ָהס‪( .‬עמ’ ח ‪)3-1‬‬ ‫ֵהיכָ ל ַּבּיֹום ַההּוא נְ ֻאם ֲאדֹנָ י ה’ ַרב ַה ֶּפגֶ ר ְּבכָ ָ‬ ‫עמוס רואה סל של תאנים — “כלוב קיץ”‪ .‬המסר הוא “בא הקץ אל עמי ישראל” (עמ’‬ ‫ח‪ .)2-1 ,‬זהו משחק מילים ברור על כפל המשמעות של התיבה “קיץ”‪ .‬מובנה האחד פרי‬ ‫שעונתו בקיץ (שמ”ב טז ‪ ;2-1‬יר’ מ ‪ ,)12 ,10‬שבדיאלקט הצפוני‪ ,‬שבו התכווץ הדיפתונג ‪ai‬‬ ‫למונופתונג ‪ e‬בוטא ֵ‬ ‫“קץ” כפי שברור מכתובת גזר‪ 10.‬במובנה השני “קץ” באה במשמעות‬ ‫סוף‪ .‬בפסוק הבא הנבואה מתארת את החורבן העתידי באמצעות דימוי קולי הנע בין שני‬ ‫קצוות‪ :‬בין יללת “שירות היכל” ובין צורת הציווי “הס!” החותמת את המראות‪“ :‬וְ ֵהילִ ילּו‬ ‫ל־מקֹום ִה ְׁשלִ יְך ָהס” (עמ’ ח ‪ .)3‬צירוף הסמיכות “שירות היכל”‬ ‫ִׁשירֹות ֵהיכָ ל‪ַ ...‬רב ַה ֶּפגֶ ר ְּבכָ ָ‬ ‫הינו יחידאי‪ .‬התיבה “היכל” עצמה הינה דו־משמעית בעברית המקראית‪ ,‬ומסמנת הן‬ ‫ארמון (לדוגמה‪ ,‬מל”א כא ‪ ,)1‬הן מקדש (לדוגמה‪ ,‬יש’ ו ‪ 11.)1‬הצירוף מתפרש בהתאם על‬ ‫‘ׁשרֹות’ (שמ”ב יט ‪ ;36‬קה’ ב ‪ ;8‬דה”ב לה ‪,)25‬‬ ‫בכי זמרות הארמון‪ ,‬המכונות בכל מקום אחר ָ‬ ‫או לקינת קירות המקדש‪ ,‬ה’שורות’‪ ,‬מילה שמוכרת בצורה ‘שוריא‪/‬ה’ מארמית מקראית‬

‫‪ .7‬הרן‪ ,‬תקופות ומוסדות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,329‬קורא למראות עמוס “חלומות נבואיים”‪ .‬לדעתו מי שרואה‬ ‫מראות מסוג זה “בהכרח שהגיע לכך בשעה שמחוץ לפכחון ההכרה”‪ ,‬כפי שנאמר על התגלות ה’ לנביא‬ ‫בתקבולת‪“ :‬במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו” (במ’ יב ‪.)6‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬על מקומם של משחקי המילים‪ ,‬ובעיקר כפל המשמעות באורקלים אלוהיים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬קזנוביץ‪,‬‬ ‫פרונומסיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .Ia 14‬על פי גריבס‪ ,‬הומופוניה‪ ,‬משחקי מילים מאפיינים גם את האומינות‪ ,‬וכנראה שיש‬ ‫לכך קשר עם הצורך לפענח את המסר האלוהי בכל צורותיו וסוגותיו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬הרן‪ ,‬תקופות ומוסדות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,332‬מציע שגם חזון שני דודאי התאנים (יר’ כד) היה במקורו שני‬ ‫מראות שהורכבו יחדיו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬על תופעת התכווצות הדיפתונג בדיאלקט הצפוני והפניות למחקר קודם‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬פאול‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,254‬הע’ ‪ .5‬ללוח גזר‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אחיטוב‪ ,‬הכתב והמכתב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.231-228‬‬ ‫‪ BDB .11‬עמ’ ‪ ,228‬ערך ‘היכל’‪.‬‬

‫*‪104‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫בלבד (עז’ ד ‪ ,12‬יג ‪ 12, )16‬כפי שבחר לתרגם תה”ש ‪ = τὰ φατνώματα τοῦ ναοῦ‬הקורות‬ ‫(חלקי הגג) של המקדש‪ .‬ייתכן שאף ביטוי ייחודי זה נוצר במתכוון על מנת לרמוז לכפל‬ ‫משמעות‪ :‬יללות הקינה מושמעות הן על ידי השרות בארמון‪ ,‬הן על ידי שורות המקדש‪.‬‬ ‫תיאור חורבן סופי זה משתמש בהכללה ובמריזמוס‪ :‬האבל יכה “בכל מקום”‪ :‬מן המקומות‬ ‫הנחשבים ביותר — היכל — ארמון ומקדש על פי כפל המשמעות שהתיבה מסמנת‪ ,‬עד‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫אחרון המקומות שבהם מושלכים הפגרים הרבים‪.‬‬ ‫במראה הרביעי אם כן מצוי משחק של כפל משמעות בשני מושגים — ‘קץ’ במובן‬ ‫פרי קיץ וסוף; ו’שירות היכל’ במובן זמרות הארמון וקירות המקדש‪ .‬שתי המשמעויות של‬ ‫צירוף הסמיכות היחידאי “שירות היכל” נרמזים באזכור אחד בעל כפל משמעות‪ ,‬ואילו‬ ‫התיבה “קץ” חוזרת פעמיים‪ ,‬בכל פעם במשמעות שונה‪ ,‬תופעה המכונה אנתנקלזיס‪ ,‬והיא‬ ‫העיקר במסר של המראה‪ 14.‬הכרת השימוש החוזר באותה מילה במשמעויות שונות כדגם‬ ‫ספרותי חוזר יסייע לנו להבהיר חלק מן הקשיים הטקסטואליים והפרשניים המאפיינים‬ ‫את המראות‪ .‬למרות שחוקרים שעסקו במראות עמוס זיהו בקלות את משחק המילים‬ ‫קיץ‪-‬קץ במראה הרביעי‪ ,‬הם לא הבחינו שכפל המשמעות מאפיין את ארבעת המראות‬ ‫וכי תופעת האנתנקלזיס חוזרת בכולם ומסייעת בפירושם‪.‬‬ ‫המראה הראשון‬ ‫במראה הראשון הנביא רואה תמונה דינמית‪:‬‬ ‫יֹוצר ּג ַֹבי ִּב ְת ִחּלַ ת ֲעלֹות ַהּלָ ֶקׁש וְ ִהּנֵ ה־לֶ ֶקׁש ַא ַחר ּגִ ּזֵ י‬ ‫ּכֹה ִה ְר ַאנִ י ֲאדֹנָ י ה’ וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֵ‬ ‫ת־ע ֶׂשב ָה ָא ֶרץ וָ א ַֹמר ֲאדֹנָ י ה’ ְסלַ ח־נָ א ִמי יָ קּום‬ ‫ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך‪ .‬וְ ָהיָ ה ִאם־ּכִ ּלָ ה לֶ ֱאכֹול ֶא ֵ‬ ‫יַ ֲעקֹב ּכִ י ָקטֹן הּוא (עמ’ ז ‪.)2-1‬‬

‫‪ .12‬יש המוצאים את צורת היחיד גם בכתובים שיריים בעברית מקראית‪( ,‬בר’ מט ‪ ;22‬שמ”ב כב‬ ‫י־א ֶבן ִמ ִּקיר ִּתזְ ָעק‬ ‫‪ = 30‬תה’ יח ‪ .)30‬תופעת המבנים המקוננים מצויה במקורות נוספים‪ ,‬כמו לדוגמה‪ּ“ :‬כִ ֶ‬ ‫וְ כָ ִפיס ֵמ ֵעץ יַ ֲענֶ ּנָ ה” (חב’ ב ‪ .)11‬גורדיס (ספר גינזבורג‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )192-191‬טען כי הצורה ‘שירות’ מקבילה‬ ‫ל’שורות’‪ ,‬בדומה לצירים (יש’ מה ‪ )16‬המקביל ל’צורה’; ‘שיחה’ (תה’ נז ‪ ;7‬קיט ‪ )85‬לשוחות (יר’ ב‪ ;6 ,‬יח‬ ‫‪ 20‬ועוד)‪ ,‬וראו‪ :‬יר’ יח ‪ ,22‬כתיב‪ׁ‘ :‬שיחה’‪ ,‬קרי‪ׁ‘ :‬שוחה’‪ .‬לתופעה העניינית של קירות מקוננים הוא משווה‬ ‫לדברים הבאים במדרש איכה זוטא‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ב (מהד’ בובר‪ ,‬ע’ ‪“ :)53‬למה נשתנה בוכה בלילה מבוכה ביום?‬ ‫שהבוכה בלילה כותלי הבית ומזלי הרקיע נושאים עמו קינה”‪ .‬לקשיים בפירוש הביטוי “שירות היכל”‪,‬‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬פאול‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,255-254‬הע’ ‪ ;15‬וייס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬כרך ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,428-427‬הע’ ‪.327‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬אופיו המריזמטי של הביטוי אינו תומך בתפיסה שמדובר כאן בהיכל מסוים‪ ,‬זה של המקדש‪,‬‬ ‫כדעתו של זקוביץ (על שלושה‪ ...‬ועל ארבעה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,191‬הע’ ‪ ,)82‬שמבקש לגרוס כאן ‘ההיכל’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬להגדרת האנתנקלזיס‪ ,‬ראו קזנוביץ‪ ,‬פרונומסיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪the use of one and the same word :15‬‬ ‫‪ .in two different senses‬וראו הגדרתו של דוד ילין (ילין‪ ,‬משנה ההוראה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)254‬המזכירה את שתי‬ ‫הדרכים לכפל המשמעות‪“ :‬המלים בלשון שיש להן יותר מהוראה אחת שמשו למליצים ולמשוררים‬ ‫חומר לדרכים שונות בקישוט דבריהם‪ .‬לפעמים השתמשו בהן פעמיים או שלש במאמר אחד‪ ,‬ובכל אחת‬ ‫מהן בהוראה אחרת‪ ,‬אך לפעמים הביאו את המלה רק פ ע ם א ח ת במאמר ובאותה פעם כיוונו או רמזו‬ ‫לשתי הוראותיה באופן כי אפשר לבארה במאמר זה בשתי ההוראות יחד”‪.‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪105‬‬

‫המראה מציג באופן ישיר מאורע קטסטרופלי כלשהו שעשוי להתרחש בעתיד (השוו‬ ‫לאיום הנביא ירמיהו על המלך צדקיה‪ ,‬יר’ לח ‪ .)23-21‬מראות דינמיים הינם לרוב הצצות‬ ‫מעבר לפרגוד אל עתיד אפשרי‪ ,‬שניתן לבטל אותו על ידי פעולה מונעת של תפילה‬ ‫או תשובה‪ 15.‬המראה הראשון של עמוס מתאר התקפת ארבה‪ ,‬כפי שברור מן המושא‬ ‫הראשון שהאל יוצר — גובי‪ .‬זהו אחד מכינוייו של הארבה‪ ,‬המופיע גם בנחום ג ‪“ :17‬גוב‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫גובי”‪ ,‬ונתמך בשימוש בשפת חז”ל ובמקבילות משפות אחרות כגון ערבית וארמית‪.‬‬ ‫יצירת הגובי מלווה בפסוקית זמן‪ִּ :‬ב ְת ִחּלַ ת ֲעלֹות ַהּלָ ֶקׁש‪“ .‬לקש” הינו מונח יחידאי המוכר‬ ‫גם מלוח גזר‪ ,‬כסומך של שני החודשים הבאים בסוף החורף‪ ,‬שבט ואדר‪“ ,‬ירחו לקש”‪.‬‬ ‫הפירוש המקובל לפסוקית הזמן “בתחילת צמיחת היבולים המאוחרים”‪ 17‬מציג מכת ארבה‬ ‫קשה במיוחד‪ ,‬שכן אם הארבה יבוא בסוף החורף הוא ישמיד הן את היבולים שנזרעו‬ ‫מוקדם יותר‪ ,‬הן את היבולים של הזריעה המאוחרת שזה עתה החלו לצמוח‪ ,‬ונזקו יהיה‬ ‫רב‪ .‬הפירוש השכיח ללקש במובן גידולים מאוחרים נובע גם מהזיקה למילה המקראית‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫“מלקוש” שמובנה גשם מאוחר‪ ,‬גשמי אביב‪ ,‬וממקבילות בלשון חז”ל‪ ,‬בערבית ובסורית‪.‬‬ ‫הקושי בפירוש המקובל הוא בהבנה של הפועל “עלה” במובן צמיחה‪ 19.‬זוהי אמנם‬ ‫אפשרות שיש לה מקבילות בלשון המקרא‪ ,‬לדוגמה‪“ :‬ולא יעלה בה כל עשב”‪ ,‬דב’ כט‬ ‫‪ 20,22‬אך אולי לא הבחירה הצפויה‪ .‬מאידך גיסא‪ ,‬פעולת הארבה במצרים מתוארת על‬ ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ָּב ַא ְר ֶּבה וְ יַ ַעל ַע ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר ה’ ֶאל־מ ֶֹׁשה נְ ֵטה יָ ְדָך ַע ֶ‬ ‫ידי פועל זה ממש‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ל־א ֶרץ‬ ‫ל־א ֶׁשר ִה ְׁש ִאיר ַה ָּב ָרד‪ ...‬וַ ּיַ ַעל ָה ַא ְר ֶּבה ַעל ּכָ ֶ‬ ‫ל־ע ֶׂשב ָה ָא ֶרץ ֵאת ּכָ ֲ‬ ‫ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם וְ יֹאכַ ל ֶאת־ּכָ ֵ‬ ‫ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם וַ ּיָ נַ ח ְּבכֹל ּגְ בּול ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם” (שמ’ י ‪ .)14-12‬הדמיון בין מכת הארבה במצרים ובין‬ ‫המראה הראשון בספר עמוס ממשיך גם בפעולתו הבאה של הארבה‪“ :‬ויאכל את כל עשב‬ ‫הארץ” (שמ’ י ‪“ ,)12‬והיה אם כלה לאכל את עשב הארץ” (עמ’ ז ‪ ,)2‬והוא בולט במיוחד‪,‬‬ ‫שכן צירוף הסמיכות “עשב הארץ” מצוי במקרא רק בשני הקשרים אלה (השוו למזמור‬ ‫ל־ע ֶׂשב ְּב ַא ְר ָצם” תה’ קה ‪.)35‬‬ ‫המתאר את פעולת מכת הארבה על ידי המשפט “וַ ּיֹאכַ ל ּכָ ֵ‬ ‫ספר יואל המתאר את מכת הארבה בפירוט רב מתאר אף הוא את פשיטת הארבה על‬ ‫ל־א ְר ִצי” (יואל א ‪ .)6‬בחירת השורש על”ה‬ ‫הארץ באמצעות הפועל “עלה”‪ּ“ :‬כִ י־גֹוי ָעלָ ה ַע ַ‬ ‫בצורת המקור הנסמך “עלות” על הקשריה המוכרים עם מכת הארבה‪ ,‬במקום מונחים‬ ‫ל־ע ֶׂשב ַה ָּשׂ ֶדה ֶט ֶרם יִ ְצ ָמח” בר’ ב‪,‬‬ ‫מוכרים ומדויקים יותר המציינים צמיחה כגון צמ”ח (“וְ כָ ֵ‬ ‫יח מ ָֹצא ֶד ֶׁשא” איוב לח‪ )27 ,‬הינה משמעותית‪ ,‬ואשוב אליה בהמשך הדברים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ּ“ ;5‬ולְ ַה ְצ ִמ ַ‬ ‫‪ .15‬וייס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬כרך ב’ הע’ ‪ .104‬לתופעה זו בנבואה בכלל‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬טימאייר‪ ,‬נבואה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .16‬ראו‪ :‬פאול‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,227‬הע’ ‪ .5‬פאול מזכיר גם חותם עברי מתקופת הברזל שבו ציור של‬ ‫ארבה וכתוב “הגבה”‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אביגד‪ ,‬חותם‪ .‬חז”ל זיהו את הגובי עם הארבה‪“ :‬ארבה זה גובאי” (חולין סה‪,‬‬ ‫ע”א)‪ .‬לצד הופעת המילה גובי במראה של עמוס ובנחום ג ‪ ,17‬ראו גם “גבים” במקביל לחסיל ביש’ לג ‪4‬‬ ‫(וראו פירוש אבן עזרא על אתר)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬כך לפי פרשני ימי הביניים‪ ,‬וראו תרגום המלך ג’יימס‪in the beginning of the shooting up of :‬‬ ‫‪ ,the latter growth‬וכן תרגום ה־‪.when the late-sown crops were beginning to sprout :NJPSV‬‬ ‫‪ ,BDB .18‬עמ’ ‪ ,545‬ערך “לקש”; ראו‪ :‬וייס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬כרך ב’ עמ’ ‪ ,401‬הע’ ‪.76‬‬ ‫‪ 19‬הרן‪ ,‬תקופות ומוסדות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.333‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬למשמעות זו‪ ,‬ראו‪ BDB :‬עמ’ ‪ ,748b‬ערך “עלה”‪.4 ,‬‬

‫*‪106‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫הבעיה העיקרית בפירוש המראה הראשון מצויה בפסוקית השנייה‪ .‬היא פותחת‬ ‫במילית “והנה”‪ ,‬ולאחריה בא משפט שמני המתייחס ללקש‪“ :‬וְ ִהּנֵ ה־לֶ ֶקׁש ַא ַחר ּגִ ּזֵ י ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך”‪.‬‬ ‫המשפט נתפס כהערה מסבירה‪ ,‬בין אם מקורה בנבואת עמוס עצמה‪ ,‬או כגלוסה מבארת‬ ‫שנוספה על ידי יד מאוחרת‪ 21.‬מטרת המשפט לפי תפיסה זו הייתה להגדיר את המונח‬ ‫הקשה ‘לקש’ על ידי משפט זמן‪ :‬לקש בא אחרי גִ זי המלך‪ .‬התרגומים האנגליים הנוקטים‬ ‫פירוש זה חוזרים על התרגום למילה ‘לקש’ מן המשפט הקודם‪ ,‬לדוגמה‪:‬‬ ‫‪He formed grasshoppers in the beginning of the shooting up of the‬‬ ‫‪latter growth; and, lo, it was the latter growth after the king’s‬‬ ‫‪mowing (KJV).‬‬ ‫‪He was creating locusts at the time when the late-sown crops were‬‬ ‫‪beginning to sprout – the late-sown crops after the king’s reaping‬‬ ‫‪(NJPSV).‬‬

‫המשפט השני לפי שיטה זו הינו גלוסה מבארת‪ ,‬והוא מוצג באמצעות המילית ‘והנה’‪.‬‬ ‫אך לפי מחקרים בלשניים מילית הקריאה הרומזת “והנה” בתיאור מראות איננה מציגה‬ ‫משפט מבאר בעברית מקראית‪ .‬מילית זו פותחת את כל ארבעת המראות בספר עמוס (ז‬ ‫‪ ;7 ,4 ,1‬ח ‪ )1‬וכן את המשפט “המבאר” שבו אנו דנים במראה הראשון (ז ‪ ,)1‬אך תרגומים‬ ‫רבים מתקשים בה ומתעלמים ממנה‪ 22.‬נתעכב לפיכך על שימושיה של המילית “והנה”‬ ‫בעברית המקראית‪.‬‬ ‫משמעותן הבסיסית של “הנה” ושל “והנה” הינה היצגית והן מיליות רומזות‪ .‬אך הן‬ ‫אינן זהות‪ ,‬ויש להבחין בין תפקידיהן בשפה‪ 23.‬המילית “הנה”‪ ,‬ללא וא”ו‪ ,‬יכולה לשמש‬ ‫בתפקיד רומז המציג פסוקית מבארת שלא בתיאורי מראות‪ ,‬כמו למשל בתיאור מיקומה‬ ‫ּובין‬ ‫ין־ק ֵדׁש ֵ‬ ‫“על־ּכֵ ן ָק ָרא לַ ְּב ֵאר ְּב ֵאר לַ ַחי ר ִֹאי ִהּנֵ ה ֵב ָ‬ ‫של הבאר שבה התגלה האל להגר‪ַ :‬‬ ‫ָּב ֶרד” (בר’ טז ‪ .)14‬אולם רק המילית “והנה” באה אחרי פעלי ראייה‪ ,‬חלום או חזון‪ ,‬ומציגה‬ ‫פסוקיות תוכן‪ .‬תפקיד “והנה” במראות או בחלומות הוא להציג תמונה‪ .‬כאשר היא חוזרת‪,‬‬ ‫היא מציגה רכיב חדש בסצינה‪ ,‬או התפתחות בה‪ .‬לדוגמה‪ ,‬בחלום יעקב בבית אל חוזרת‬

‫‪ .21‬ראו לדוגמה את דבריו של הרפר (עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“This phrase is an explanatory insertion :)160‬‬ ‫”‪ .not belonging to the original text‬וכך אצל פרשנים רבים‪ ,‬כגון‪ :‬רוזל‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;202‬ווילי־פליין‪,‬‬ ‫צורות מקוריות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .98 § ,45‬ברטצ’ק (נבואה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )30‬סבור כי עצם הופעת המילה “והנה” שנית‬ ‫במראה זה‪ ,‬ובו בלבד‪ ,‬מעידה על משניות המשפט‪ .‬לדעתו‪ ,‬אופיו המשני של המשפט נלמד גם מייתורו‬ ‫ההקשרי‪ :‬פסוק ז ‪ 2‬ממשיך באופן ישיר את המראה בחלקו הראשון של פסוק ז ‪.1‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬לפי מחקרו של אנדרסן (הנה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)31‬יותר ממחצית המקרים של הופעת המילית “הנה”‬ ‫בעברית מקראית נעלמים בתרגומי ה־‪ NIV‬וה־‪ .NJPSV‬במראות עמוס תרגם ה־‪ NJPSV‬רק שתיים‬ ‫מחמש ההופעות של “והנה”‪ ,‬האחת המציגה את המראה השני על ידי המילה ”‪( “Lo‬עמ’ ז ‪ ,)4‬והשנייה‬ ‫המציגה את המראה הרביעי על ידי הנשוא‪( “there was” :‬ח ‪ NIV .)1‬מתעלם מכל חמש ההיקרויות של‬ ‫המילה‪ .‬יש לציין כי ‪ KJV‬וכן ‪ RSV‬משקפים את כל חמשת האזכורים‪“ ,‬והנה” הפותחת את המראות‬ ‫מתורגמת ”‪“ ;“and, behold‬והנה” השנייה במראה הראשון ”‪.“and, lo‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬ראו‪ :‬צבי‪ ,‬הנה והנה‪.‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪107‬‬

‫המילית שלוש פעמים‪ ,‬ובכל פעם היא מציגה שלב חדש בחלום‪“ :‬וַ ּיַ ֲחֹלם וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֻסּלָ ם ֻמ ָּצב‬ ‫ֹלהים עֹלִ ים וְ י ְֹר ִדים ּבֹו‪ .‬וְ ִהּנֵ ה ה’ נִ ָּצב ָעלָ יו‪”...‬‬ ‫ַא ְר ָצה וְ רֹאׁשֹו ַמּגִ ַיע ַה ָּשׁ ָמיְ ָמה וְ ִהּנֵ ה ַמלְ ֲאכֵ י ֱא ִ‬ ‫“ׁש ְמעּו־‬ ‫(בר’ כח ‪ .)13-12‬גם בחלומות יוסף מסמנת המילית “והנה” התפתחות עלילתית‪ִ :‬‬ ‫נָ א ַה ֲחלֹום ַהּזֶ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ָחלָ ְמ ִּתי‪ .‬וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֲאנַ ְחנּו ְמ ַאּלְ ִמים ֲאלֻ ִּמים ְּבתֹוְך ַה ָּשׂ ֶדה וְ ִהּנֵ ה ָק ָמה ֲאלֻ ָּמ ִתי‬ ‫וְ גַ ם־נִ ָּצ ָבה וְ ִהּנֵ ה ְת ֻס ֶּבינָ ה ֲאלֻ ּמ ֵֹתיכֶ ם וַ ִּת ְׁש ַּת ֲחוֶ יןָ לַ ֲאלֻ ָּמ ִתי‪ ...‬וַ ּיַ ֲחֹלם עֹוד ֲחלֹום ַא ֵחר וַ יְ ַס ֵּפר אֹתֹו‬ ‫ֹאמר ִהּנֵ ה ָחלַ ְמ ִּתי ֲחלֹום עֹוד וְ ִהּנֵ ה ַה ֶּשׁ ֶמׁש וְ ַהּיָ ֵר ַח וְ ַא ַחד ָע ָׂשר ּכֹוכָ ִבים ִמ ְׁש ַּת ֲחוִ ים לִ י”‬ ‫לְ ֶא ָחיו וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫לּוחה ֵאלָ י‬ ‫(בר’ לז ‪ .)9 ,7-6‬בנבואת ההקדשה של הנביא יחזקאל נאמר‪“ :‬וָ ֶא ְר ֶאה וְ ִהּנֵ ה־יָ ד ְׁש ָ‬ ‫וְ ִהּנֵ ה־בֹו ְמגִ ּלַ ֵ‬ ‫ה־איׁש‬ ‫ת־ס ֶפר” (יח’ ב ‪ 24.)9‬כך הדבר גם בחזונות זכריה‪“ָ :‬ר ִא ִיתי ַהּלַ יְ לָ ה וְ ִהּנֵ ִ‬ ‫ּוביָ דֹו ֶח ֶבל ִמ ָּדה‪ .‬וָ א ַֹמר ָאנָ ה ַא ָּתה‬ ‫ה־איׁש ְ‬ ‫רֹכֵ ב ַעל־סּוס ָאדֹם” (זכ’ א ‪“ ;)8‬וָ ֶא ָּשׂא ֵעינַ י וָ ֵא ֶרא וְ ִהּנֵ ִ‬ ‫ה־ר ְח ָּבּה וְ כַ ָּמה ָא ְרּכָ ּה‪ .‬וְ ִהּנֵ ה ַה ַּמלְ ָאְך ַהּד ֵֹבר ִּבי‬ ‫רּוׁש ִַלם לִ ְראֹות ּכַ ָּמ ָ‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵאלַ י לָ מֹד ֶאת־יְ ָ‬ ‫הֹלֵ ְך וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫ּומלְ ָאְך ַא ֵחר י ֵֹצא לִ ְק ָראתֹו” (זכ’ ב ‪.)7-5‬‬ ‫י ֵֹצא ַ‬ ‫נבחן את הופעתה הכפולה של המילית “והנה” במראה הראשון של עמוס לאור‬ ‫תפקידה במראות‪ ,‬חזונות וחלומות בלשון המקרא‪ .‬הופעתה הראשונה באה כרגיל אחרי‬ ‫יֹוצר ּג ַֹבי ִּב ְת ִחּלַ ת ֲעלֹות ַהּלָ ֶקׁש”‪ .‬מיד אחר כך‬ ‫פועל ראייה‪ּ“ :‬כֹה ִה ְר ַאנִ י ֲאדֹנָ י ה’ והנה ֵ‬ ‫היא באה בשנית‪“ :‬וְ ִהּנֵ ה־לֶ ֶקׁש ַא ַחר ּגִ ּזֵ י ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך”‪ .‬קשה להניח שבהופעתה החוזרת היא‬ ‫מציגה משפט מבאר המסביר את משמעותה של התיבה “לקש”‪ 26.‬נראה יותר כי כמו‬ ‫ביתר המראות והחלומות גם במקרה זה מדובר ברכיב חדש או בהתפתחות במראה עצמו‪.‬‬ ‫המערכה הראשונה מתארת את יצירת הגובי בתחילת צמיחת הגידולים המאוחרים‪ ,‬הלקש‪.‬‬ ‫אחר — מופיע‪ ,‬ואף הוא‬ ‫המערכה השניה מתארת אפוא התפתחות חדשה‪ :‬והנה לקש — ֵ‬ ‫מוגדר על ידי פסוקית זמן‪ַ :‬א ַחר גזי המלך (עוד צירוף יחידאי)‪ .‬לקש כאן אינו יכול לבוא‬ ‫במשמעות של ‘גידולים מאוחרים’‪ ,‬ויש לבחון משמעות אחרת למילה‪ .‬רמז למשמעותה‬ ‫של תיבת “לקש” בהופעתה השנייה מצוי בבחירתו של הפועל הקודם המתאר את צמיחת‬ ‫הלקש הראשון‪ :‬עלֹות‪ ,‬שעתה מובנת כמילת יאנוס‪ ,‬אשר “תלויה בשימוש של מילה אחת‬ ‫בעלת שתי משמעויות שונות לגמרי” כפי שהגדיר כורש גורדון את התופעה של תקבולת‬

‫‪ .24‬בחזון העצמות היבשות הנביא רואה את העצמות “והנה רבות מאד על פני הבקעה והנה יבשות‬ ‫מאד” (יח’ לז ‪ .)9‬ישנן דוגמאות רבות נוספות שבהן המילית “והנה” באה פעם אחת אחרי פועל ראייה‬ ‫כגון בר’ טו ‪ ;17‬יר’ ד ‪ ;26-23‬כד ‪ ;1‬לח ‪ ;22‬יח’ יא ‪ ,1‬או פעמים אחדות‪ ,‬כשהיא מציגה רכיב חדש או‬ ‫התפתחות עלילתית כגון יח’ ח ‪ ;16-2‬י ‪ .9 ,1‬ראו גם‪ :‬יח’ מ ‪ ;24 ,17 ,5 ,3‬מג ‪ ;5 ,2‬מד ‪ ;4‬מו ‪ ;21 ,19‬מז ‪,1‬‬ ‫‪.7 ,2‬‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ י ֶֹׁש ֶבת וְ ׁש ָֹק ֶטת” (זכ’ א ‪ )11‬שבו המילית “והנה” מציגה‬ ‫“ה ְת ַהּלַ כְ נּו ָב ָא ֶרץ וְ ִהּנֵ ה כָ ָ‬ ‫‪ .25‬המשפט ִ‬ ‫משפט מבאר כביכול‪ ,‬איננו חלק מן המראה עצמו‪ ,‬אלא בא בדיווח של השליחים שהתהלכו בארץ‪ .‬כמו‬ ‫כן ניתן להבין את התיאור של הארץ לא כביאור מצבה הראשוני‪ ,‬אלא כתיאור ההתפתחות החדשה‬ ‫הנצפית על ידי השליחים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬ראו הערתו של בודה‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,67‬שלו היה מדובר במשפט מבאר היינו מצפים בהצגתו‬ ‫לניסוח‪‘ :‬והלקש‪ ’’..‬או ‘והלקש הוא‪ ,’...‬בעוד שהמילה ‘והנה’ מציגה את המשך המהלך ברצף האירועים‪.‬‬ ‫גם אנדרסן ופרידמן (עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )741‬תמהים מדוע רק הלקש הראשון מיודע‪ ,‬עובדה המעוררת בהם‬ ‫ספק אם שני האזכורים מכוונים לאותו עניין‪.‬‬

‫*‪108‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫יאנוס‪ 27.‬הבחירה בשורש על”ה בסצינה הראשונה המתארת את צמיחת הלקש רומזת‬ ‫לפסוקית הבאה שבה לקש מובנו ארבה‪ ,‬שכרגיל “עולה” על הארץ‪ .‬מובן זה של לקש‬ ‫קשור אולי לפועל הנזכר בספר איוב‪ַ :‬‬ ‫“ּב ָּשׂ ֶדה ְּבלִ ילֹו יקצירו (יִ ְקצֹורּו) וְ כֶ ֶרם ָר ָׁשע‪ 28‬יְ לַ ֵּקׁשּו”‬ ‫(איוב כד ‪ .)6‬דומה כי הפועל היחידאי ‘ילקשו’ המקביל לפועל ‘יקצורו’ נגזר משם העצם‬ ‫לקש‪ ,‬כמו שחסיל — שם נוסף לארבה — קשור לפועל הנגזר משורש זה‪“ :‬יַ ְח ְסלֶ ּנּו ָה ַא ְר ֶּבה”‬ ‫(דב’ כח ‪.)38‬‬ ‫תה”ש אכן מתרגם באופן שונה את המילה לקש בשתי היקרויותיה העוקבות במראה‬ ‫הראשון של עמוס‪ ,‬והפעם השנייה מתורגמת על ידי המילה ‪ βροῦχος‬המשמשת בדרך כלל‬ ‫לתרגום המילה "ילק" — עוד אחד משמות הארבה‪ 29.‬על פי תה"ש הציעו חוקרים אחדים‬ ‫לתקן את הכתוב למילה "ילק"‪ 30,‬אולם משכנעת יותר הצעתו של טור־סיני שהמילה לקש‬ ‫עצמה הינה שם קיבוצי נוסף לארבה‪ ,‬לצד הצורות הרבות הידועות מן המקרא‪ :‬ארבה‪,‬‬ ‫חסיל‪ ,‬ילק‪ ,‬גובי‪ ,‬גזם‪ ,‬חגב‪ ,‬חרגול‪ .‬לדעתו יש לקשור גם את המילה הלטינית ‪locust‬‬ ‫ללקש‪ 31.‬אך לפי פירושו המראה כולו עוסק במכת הארבה‪ ,‬ואינו קשור לתזמון המכה‪ .‬לפי‬ ‫דעתו‪ ,‬המילה 'לקש' בשתי היקרויותיה באה במשמעות ארבה‪ ,‬וגם הצירוף "גזי המלך"‬ ‫הוא שיבוש של "ּג ַׂבי המלך"‪ ,‬ובא שוב במובן ארבה‪ 32.‬ניתן לקבל את הפירוש של "גזי‬ ‫המלך" במובן מין נוסף של ארבה גם ללא תיקון הכתוב‪ ,‬שכן התלמוד הבבלי מכיר "גזין"‬ ‫לצד חרקים מציקים אחרים‪" :‬הצד חגבין גזין וצרעין ויתושין" (שבת‪ ,‬קו‪ ,‬ע"ב)‪ 33,‬ואולי יש‬ ‫למילה "גִ זי" קשר ל"גזם" — מין הארבה הנזכר בעמ' ד ‪( 9‬וראו עוד יואל א ‪ ;4‬ב ‪ .)25‬אולם‬ ‫הצעה זו‪ ,‬המפרשת פעמיים את המילה לקש במראה הראשון כארבה אף היא חוטאת אל‬ ‫הכוונה‪ .‬הקשר של "גזי המלך" לארבה מעורר עניין‪ ,‬אך אני רואה בפסוקית זו פסוקית‬ ‫"א ַחר גזי המלך" מתייחס‬ ‫זמן‪ ,‬הקושרת את גל הארבה השני לעוד שלב בצמיחת היבולים‪ַ .‬‬ ‫כנראה לאביב המאוחר‪" .‬גז" במובן צומח נדיר אך נזכיר כאן את הפסוק במזמור המתאר‬

‫‪ .27‬גורדון‪ ,‬כיוונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.60-59‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬אולי יש לתקן ל’עשיר’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬התרגום של שני המשפטים במראה הראשון הוא‪καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπιγονὴ ἀκρίδων ἐρχομένη :‬‬ ‫‪ ,ἑωθινή, καὶ ἰδοὺ βροῦχος εἷς Γωγ ὁ βασιλεύς.‬והנה‪ ,‬בן (יצר? על כל פנים הפועל ‘יוצר’ תורגם‬ ‫כשם‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬קריפס‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )219‬גובי השכם בבוקר‪ ,‬והנה ארבה אחד גוג המלך‪ .‬הכתוב מעורפל‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ואף משובש‪ .‬ה’לקש’ הראשון תורגם על ידי ‪ — ἑωθινή‬השכם בבוקר‪ .‬אולי קרא המתרגם במקום ‘עלות‬ ‫הלקש’ את הצירוף הנפוץ יותר ‘עלות השחר’ (השוו‪ :‬בר’ לב ‪ ;25‬יהו’ ו ‪ ;15‬שופ’ יט ‪ ;25‬שמ”א ט ‪ ;26‬יונה‬ ‫ד ‪.)7‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬ראו לדוגמה‪ :‬הרפר‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;161‬לדעת וייזר‪( ,‬תרי־עשר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,180‬הע’ ‪ )2‬המשפט במקורו‬ ‫היה גלוסה מבארת שהגדירה את הגובי כ’ילק (על פי תה”ש) אחר גזי המלך’‪ .‬המילה ילק הפכה ל’לקש’‬ ‫לאחר שהערת הגיליון נכנסה לגוף הטקסט (ראו‪ :‬וייס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬כרך ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,402‬הע’ ‪.)81‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬על פי הצעה של תלמידו‪ ,‬א’ אמיר‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬טור־סיני (הלשון והספר‪ ,‬כרך ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;)427-426‬‬ ‫הצעתו התקבלה על דעת הרן‪ ,‬תקופות ומוסדות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.334-333‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬טור־סיני (שם‪ ,‬וכן טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו‪ ,‬כרך ג‪ ,2‬עמ’ ‪ )470‬מציע לקרוא “גבי המלך” במובן “גבי‬ ‫המהלך”‪ ,‬משמע‪ ,‬הנודד‪ ,‬והמראה כולו הוא לפיו‪... :‬בתחלת עלת(ה) הלקש‪ ,‬והנה אחר הלקש ּג ַׄבי מהלך‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬י’ פלמוני‪“ ,‬ארבה”‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית כרך א‪ ,‬טור ‪.522‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪109‬‬

‫ירידת מטר על גז‪ ,‬במקביל לארץ‪" :‬יֵ ֵרד ּכְ ָמ ָטר ַעל־ּגֵ ז ּכִ ְר ִב ִיבים זַ ְרזִ יף ָא ֶרץ" (תה' עב ‪.)6‬‬ ‫הבחירה בשם נדיר זה נובעת אף היא ככל הנראה ממשחק המילים עם המין הנוסף של‬ ‫הארבה‪.‬‬ ‫מרבית הפירושים והתרגומים מבינים את הצירוף "גזי המלך" כפעולת קצירה עבור‬ ‫אוצרות המלך‪ 34,‬אך פירוש זה מקטין את עוצמת האסון‪ ,‬שכן לפיו חלק מן היבול ניצל‪,‬‬ ‫והוא מנוגד לרוח המראה הקטסטרופלית‪ .‬להבנתי‪ ,‬הנביא מתערב כשהוא רואה את‬ ‫הכליון הקשה שמביאה מכת הארבה על הארץ‪ ,‬חורבן מוחלט של כל היבול‪" :‬וְ ָהיָ ה ִאם־‬ ‫ת־ע ֶשׂב ָה ָא ֶרץ"‪ .‬על פי הפירוש המוצע המראה מציג שני גלי התקפות‪,‬‬ ‫ּכִ ּלָ ה לֶ ֱאכֹול ֶא ֵ‬ ‫והטוטאליות של המכה מודגשת בשני שלבים זמניים‪ :‬בתחילת צמיחת הלקש‪ ,‬ולאחר‬ ‫שלב צמיחה נוסף‪ ,‬של יבול מרכזי המכונה "גזי המלך"‪" .‬המלך" איננו מציין כאן את‬ ‫השליט אלא בא במובן אדברביאלי‪" ,‬מלכותי" (ראו "כמשתה המלך" שמ"א כ ‪" ,36‬דרך‬ ‫המלך" במ' כ ‪ ;17‬כא ‪ .)22‬באופן זה‪ ,‬שתי פסוקיות הזמן מהוות מעין מסגרת מריזמטית‬ ‫המציינת את ההשמדה הטוטאלית של הצמחיה על ידי גלי הארבה‪ ,‬הגובי בתחלת עלות‬ ‫הלקש (סוף החורף) והלקש אחר גזי המלך (סוף האביב)‪ .‬שני הגלים העוקבים מחסלים‬ ‫"אדֹנָ י ה' ְסלַ ח־‬ ‫את היבול בשלמותו‪ ,‬ועוצמת האסון היא שגורמת לנביא לזעוק במחאה‪ֲ :‬‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫"מי יָ קּום יַ ֲעקֹב ּכִ י ָקטֹן הּוא?"‬ ‫נָ א!" שכן ברור לו שהעם לא יתאושש ממכה אנושה זו‪ִ :‬‬ ‫הבחירה החריגה בצירוף "גזי המלך" יכולה אף היא לכוון למשחק מילים עם השם‬ ‫"גזם" או "גִ זים"‪ ,‬כינוי נוסף לארבה‪" ,‬מלכותי"‪ ,‬כפי שהבחירה בפועל מהשורש על"ה‬ ‫לציון צמיחת הלקש מכוונת לרמוז גם לעליית הארבה‪ .‬ההתקפה של הארבה בגלים‬ ‫מופיעה גם בנבואת יואל‪ ,‬והיא מסמנת גם שם את הכליה המוחלטת של עולם הצומח‪:‬‬ ‫"יֶ ֶתר ַהּגָ זָ ם ָאכַ ל ָה ַא ְר ֶּבה וְ יֶ ֶתר ָה ַא ְר ֶּבה ָאכַ ל ַהּיָ לֶ ק וְ יֶ ֶתר ַהּיֶ לֶ ק ָאכַ ל ֶה ָח ִסיל" (יואל א ‪.)4‬‬ ‫על פי פירוש זה‪ ,‬המראה הראשון בספר עמוס משקף משחקי מילים וכפל משמעות‬ ‫של שלוש מילים או צירופים‪ :‬עלות (במובן צמיחה ובתיאור מכת הארבה)‪ ,‬לקש (במובן‬ ‫יבול מזריעה מאוחרת וארבה) וגזי המלך (במובן גידול מרכזי וארבה)‪ .‬כפל המשמעות של‬ ‫כל המילים נע סביב המובן של הצומח — הנפגע מן הארבה‪ ,‬וסביב המובן של הארבה —‬ ‫הפוגע בצמחית הארץ‪ .‬שני המובנים של עלות ושל גזי נרמזים באיזכור אחד‪ ,‬בעוד לקש‬ ‫נזכר בתווך‪ ,‬בין 'עלות' לבין 'גזי המלך'‪ ,‬פעמיים בזו אחר זו‪ ,‬בכל פעם במשמעות שונה —‬ ‫תופעת האנתנקלזיס‪ .‬בשני אזכוריו השונים "לקש" נמצא בשני צדיה של התופעה הנראית‬ ‫לעיני הנביא‪ .‬ראשית הוא מייצג את הנפגע — היבול הנאכל על ידי הגובי‪ ,‬ובאזכור השני‬ ‫את הפוגע — הגל השני של הארבה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .34‬ראו‪ :‬וייס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬כרך א’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,216‬ושם הפניות לפרשנים נוספים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬המילה “מי” באה כאן במובן “כיצד”‪ ,‬כמו לדוגמה בשאלה ששואלת נעמי את רות עם שובה‬ ‫י־א ְּת ִּב ִּתי” (רות ג ‪ ,)16‬ראו‪ :‬מונטגומרי‪ ,‬הערות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,HALOT ;95‬עמ’ ‪ ,b575‬ערך “מי”‪.‬‬ ‫“מ ַ‬ ‫מהגורן‪ִ :‬‬

‫*‪110‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫המראה השני‬ ‫המראה השני דומה לראשון במבנהו ובמסר שלו‪:‬‬ ‫ת־ּתהֹום ַר ָּבה וְ ָאכְ לָ ה‬ ‫ּכׄה ִה ְר ַאנִ י ֲאדֹנָ י ה' וְ ִהּנֵ ה ק ֵֹרא לָ ִרב ָּב ֵאׁש ֲאדֹנָ י ה'; וַ ּתׄאכַ ל ֶא ְ‬ ‫ת־ה ֵחלֶ ק (עמ' ז ‪.)4‬‬ ‫ֶא ַ‬ ‫אף כאן המכה הקשה מביאה כליון מוחלט‪ ,‬וגם היא נגרמת על ידי סוכן המזומן על‬ ‫ידי האל ומחסל את מקורות המחייה הנחוצים‪ ,‬במקרה זה אש המכלה את המים ומייבשת‬ ‫את השדות‪ ,‬בצורת‪ 36.‬הטוטאליות של מכה זו מתוארת אף היא על ידי מריזמוס‪ ,‬אולם‬ ‫במקרה זה מריזמוס מרחבי ולא זמני‪ :‬האש אוכלת את "תהום רבה" השוכנת למטה‪ ,‬ואת‬ ‫ה"חלק" למעלה — על פני הקרקע‪" .‬חלק" יש להבין בשתי משמעויות‪ ,‬במובן שדה קיבוצי‬ ‫(השוו "חלק יזרעאל" מל"ב ט ‪ ;37 ,36 ,10‬וראו "חלקה" בנבואת עמ' ד ‪ ,)7‬ובמובן "נחלה"‪,‬‬ ‫"רכוש" ובמיוחד "חלק ה'" כפי שתרגם תה"ש כ"י ‪ ,τὴν μερίδα κυροίου :B‬משמע‪,‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫ישראל‪ ,‬כמו בשירת האזינו‪ּ" :‬כִ י ֵחלֶ ק ה' ַעּמֹו יַ ֲעקֹב ֶח ֶבל נַ ֲחלָ תֹו" (דב' לב ‪.)9‬‬ ‫הקושי במראה השני הוא בפירוש הצירוף המתאר את פעולת האל אחרי המילית‬ ‫הפותחת "והנה"‪" :‬ק ֵֹרא לָ ִרב ָּב ֵאׁש"‪ .‬התחילית "ל" אחרי הפועל 'קֹרא' מצביעה על הסוכן‬ ‫"ק ָרא ה' לָ ָר ָעב" (מל"ב ח ‪ ;1‬והשוו ללא‬ ‫המבצע את העונש‪ ,‬כמו למשל בסיפורי אלישע‪ָ :‬‬ ‫למ"ד בתה' קה ‪ .)16‬בדוקסולוגיות הבאות בעמ' ה ‪ ;8‬ט ‪ 6‬מתואר האל כמי שקורא למי‬ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ָה ָא ֶרץ"‪ .‬אולם המילה הבאה במשבצת הסוכן על‬ ‫י־הּיָ ם וַ ּיִ ְש ְּׁפכֵ ם ַע ְ‬ ‫"הּק ֵׄרא לְ ֵמ ַ‬ ‫הים‪ַ :‬‬ ‫פי תבנית זו‪"ִ ,‬רב" מציינת תביעה משפטית‪ ,‬ואיננה נחשבת כעונש בפני עצמה‪ ,‬ואף אינה‬ ‫באה בשום מקום אחר כסוכן מעניש‪ .‬הבעיה נמשכת בתחילית הבאה‪ ,‬בי"ת‪ ,‬שבצירוף‬ ‫"לריב ב‪ "...‬מסמנת את הנאשם‪ ,‬לדוגמה‪ ,‬בדברי הושע‪"ִ :‬ריבּו ְב ִא ְּמכֶ ם ִריבּו" (הושע ב ‪;4‬‬ ‫ראו עוד בר' לא ‪ ;36‬שופ' ו ‪ ,)32‬ואין להבין בהקשרנו את האש כנאשמת‪ .‬על פי הפירוש‬ ‫המקובל הבי"ת הינה בי"ת האמצעי‪ ,‬והמשפט מתאר את האל הקורא למשפט באמצעות‬ ‫אש‪ 38,‬אולם במקרה זה המשפט חסר מושא‪.‬‬

‫‪ .36‬ירמיאס (ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )129‬משווה לבצורת הבאה אחר מכת הארבה בספר יואל‪ .‬גם שם היא‬ ‫ל־ע ֵצי‬ ‫“אלֶ יָך ה’ ֶא ְק ָרא ּכִ י ֵאׁש ָאכְ לָ ה נְ אֹות ִמ ְד ָּבר וְ לֶ ָה ָבה לִ ֲה ָטה ּכָ ֲ‬ ‫מתוארת על ידי הביטוי “אש אוכלת”‪ֵ :‬‬ ‫ם־ּב ֲהמֹות ָש ֶׂדה ַּת ֲערֹוג ֵאלֶ יָך ּכִ י יָ ְבׁשּו ֲא ִפ ֵיקי ָמיִ ם וְ ֵאׁש ָאכְ לָ ה נְ אֹות ַה ִּמ ְד ָּבר” (יואל א ‪.)20-19‬‬ ‫ַה ָּשׂ ֶדה‪ּ .‬גַ ַ‬ ‫“ש ֶֹדינּו יחלק”‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬השוו ל"חלקה" ביר' יב ‪ ;10‬ולמיכה ב ‪ 4‬שם מופיע הצירוף “חלק עמי” ובהמשך ָ‬ ‫ׁשֹובב ָש ֵׂדינּו יְ ַחּלֵ ק”‪ .‬דומה כי במיכה יש להבין את המילה “חלק” כתקבולת‬ ‫“חלֶ ק ַע ִּמי יָ ִמיר; ֵאיְך יָ ִמיׁש לִ י לְ ֵ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫יאנוס‪ :‬ביחס לפסוק הקודם המשמעות היא העם (“המשפחה הזאת” בפסוק ‪ ;)3‬ביחס להמשך הדברים‬ ‫המשמעות היא שדה‪ .‬לפי הצעה אחרת עמ’ ז ‪ 4‬היא העדות היחידה בעברית מקראית ל”חלק” במובן‬ ‫בריאה‪ ,‬עולם‪ ,‬על פי הערבית ומקבילות מבן סירא (מונטגומרי‪ ,‬הערות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;96-95‬וייס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬כרך‬ ‫י־אׁש‬ ‫ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,412‬הע’ ‪ .)199‬אנדרסן ופרידמן (עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )748-747‬משווים את התמונה לדב’ לב ‪ּ“ :22‬כִ ֵ‬ ‫מֹוס ֵדי ָה ִרים”‪.‬‬ ‫ד־שׁאֹול ַּת ְח ִּתית; וַ ּתׄאכַ ל ֶא ֶרץ וִ ֻיבלָ ּה וַ ְּתלַ ֵהט ְ‬ ‫ָק ְד ָחה ְב ַא ִּפי וַ ִּת ַיקד ַע ְ‬ ‫ל‪ּ-‬ב ָשׂר” (יש’ סו ‪ .)16‬ראו‪ :‬הרפר‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;163‬גזניוס‬ ‫ּוב ַח ְרּבֹו ֶאת‪ּ-‬כָ ָ‬ ‫‪ .38‬השוו‪ּ“ :‬כִ י ָב ֵאׁש ה’ נִ ְש ָּׁפט ְ‬ ‫§ ‪.119o‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪111‬‬

‫בשל הקשיים הללו הוצעו לכתוב זה תיקונים רבים‪ 39.‬אני מקבלת את הצעתו של‬ ‫ארליך שהבי"ת השנייה נובעת מדיטוגרפיה‪ ,‬ושיש לקרוא כאן‪ :‬והנה קרא לרֹב אש‪.‬‬ ‫"רֹב אש" לפי פירוש זה הוא הסוכן שהאל מזמן‪ ,‬צירוף שייכות שמשמעותו הרבה אש‪,‬‬ ‫היוצר משחק מילים עם ההצמד "תהום רבה" — תהום אדירה‪ 41.‬כפל המשמעות של‬ ‫המילה "רב" — כשם עצם במובן 'הרבה' וכתואר במובן גדול מתועדת הן במקומות אחרים‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫בעברית המקראית וכן באוגריתית‪.‬‬ ‫במראה השני אנו עדים אפוא לשימוש בכפל משמעות של שתי מילים‪ :‬חלק (במובן‬ ‫שדות ובמובן נחלה‪/‬נחלת ה')‪ ,‬ורב(ה) (במובן רבים ובמובן אדיר)‪ .‬שתי המשמעויות של‬ ‫המילה "חלק" נרמזים באזכור אחד‪ ,‬ואילו רב(ה) חוזרת פעמיים — אנתנקלזיס‪ .‬גם כאן‬ ‫המילה הנזכרת פעמיים מצויה בשני צדי המתרס‪ ,‬לראשונה בצד הפוגע — האל קורא‬ ‫ל"רֹב אש"‪ ,‬ובשנית בצד הנפגע "תהום רבה"‪ .‬הסדר הכיאסטי במראה זה של פוגע‪-‬‬ ‫נפגע לעומת השימוש באנתנקלזיס במראה הראשון (לקש במובן הצומח הנפגע ואחריו‬ ‫לקש במובן הארבה הפוגע) מכוון לדעתי‪ ,‬והוא סוגר את צמד המראות הראשון המציג‬ ‫מראות דינמיים‪ .‬שורש נוסף המחבר בין שני המראות הראשונים הוא אכ"ל המסמן את‬ ‫הפגיעה הקשה והטוטאלית בצרכים הבסיסיים של החיים‪ ,‬הצומח במראה הראשון "וְ ָהיָ ה‬ ‫ת־ּתהֹום ַר ָּבה וְ ָאכְ לָ ה‬ ‫ת־ע ֶשׂב ָה ָא ֶרץ" (עמ' ז ‪ )2‬ומים בשני "וַ ּתׄאכַ ל ֶא ְ‬ ‫ִאם־ּכִ ּלָ ה לֶ ֱאכֹול ֶא ֵ‬ ‫ת־ה ֵחלֶ ק" (ז ‪ .)4‬הטוטאליות של האסון באה אפוא לידי ביטוי באמצעות מריזמוס בכל‬ ‫ֶא ַ‬ ‫‪40‬‬

‫‪ .39‬ראו‪ :‬מורגנשטרן‪ ,‬מחקרים בעמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;64-59‬הילרס (עמוס ז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )225-221‬הפנה תשומת לב‬ ‫מחודשת להצעה לשנות את חלוקת המילים‪ ,‬ולקרוא “והנה קרא לרבב אש” במובן מטר אש (השוו לבר’‬ ‫יט ‪“ :24‬וה’ המטיר על סדם ועל עמרה גפרית ואש”)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬ג’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .414-413‬חילופין דומים בין ‘ריב’ ל’רוב’ מצויים בין הקרי‬ ‫ל־מ ְשּׁכָ בֹו וריב (וְ רֹוב) ֲע ָצ ָמיו ֵא ָתן”‪ .‬הכתיב החסר במילה ִ‘רב’‬ ‫והכתיב לאיוב לג ‪“ :19‬וְ הּוכַ ח ְב ַּמכְ אֹוב ַע ִ‬ ‫נדיר יחסית‪ ,‬והתרגומים מעידים לעתים במקרים אלה על הקריאה ‘רֹב’‪ ,‬לדוגמה‪ ,‬בתרגום סומכוס לשם‬ ‫ל־ּת ֵצא לָ ִרב ַמ ֵהר” ‪ .εἰς πλῆθος‬בפסוק הבא מופיעה המילה ‘ריב’ בכתיב‬ ‫“א ֵ‬ ‫‘לרב’ במש’ כה ‪ַ :8‬‬ ‫הפועל ִ‬ ‫ל־רב”‬ ‫ֹלא־ת ֲענֶ ה ַע ִ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ת־ר ֶעָך” (מש’ כה ‪ .)9‬באופן דומה מתרגם תה”ש לשמות כג ‪“ :2‬וְ‬ ‫מלא‪“ִ :‬ר ְיבָך ִריב ֶא ֵ‬ ‫‪ ;μὰτε πλῆθους‬ראו‪ :‬ברטצ’ק‪ ,‬נבואה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,35-34‬הע’ ‪.43‬‬ ‫“ועד בדבר תהום רבה שבסוף‬ ‫‪ .41‬ארליך (שם)‪ ,‬אכן עמד על משחק המילים בפסוק בדבריו‪ֵ :‬‬ ‫הפסוק‪ ,‬כי שני הדבורים האלה מקבילים זה אל זה‪ ,‬וה’ קורא ל ר ב אש לאכול תהום ר ב ה (הריווח‬ ‫במקור)‪ .‬ויתורגם ללועזים ‪.”JHVH bestellte ein grosses Feuer‬‬ ‫ׄאמר ברכב ְ(ּברֹב) ִרכְ ִּבי ֲאנִ י ָעלִ ִיתי ְמרֹום‬ ‫‪ .42‬ראו‪ :‬ברלין‪ ,‬רב לשם העצם ‘רֹב’ במובן הרבה‪ ,‬ראו‪“ :‬וַ ּת ֶ‬ ‫ָה ִרים” (מל”ב יט ‪ ;)23‬ובמובן גדולה “וברב גאנך תהרס קמיך” (שמ’ טו ‪ .)7‬אותו כפל משמעות מתועד‬ ‫גם בשימוש התואר רב(ה) במובן הרבה‪“ :‬בהמה רבה” (יונה ד ‪“ ;)11‬רב הפגר” (עמ’ ח ‪ ;)3‬ובמובן גדול‪:‬‬ ‫ם־רב ּגְ בּולָ ם ִמּגְ ֻבלְ כֶ ם” (עמ’ ו ‪ .)2‬בניגוד לאנתנקלזיס בנבואות האחרות הנשען על מילים הומונימיות‬ ‫“א ַ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫משורשים שונים‪ ,‬כאן מדובר על משמעויות קרובות‪ ,‬ואף משלימות של אותו שורש (ראו ‪ ,HALOT‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,1172-1170‬ערך “רב ‪ ,1174-1173 ;”I‬ערך “רֹב”)‪ .‬ניתן להציע להבין את המילה ִ“רב” לאור האכדית ‪rību‬‬ ‫במובן רעש אדמה (ראו‪ CAD :‬כרך ‪ ,R‬עמ’ ‪ ,322-321‬ערך ‪ )rību a‬ולקרוא‪ :‬והנה קורא לריב (רעש) ואש‪.‬‬ ‫אני מעלה אפשרות זו משום שנבואת עמוס כולה הובנה כמתייחסת לרעש (על פי הכותרת לספרו עמוס‬ ‫ניבא שנתיים לפני הרעש‪ ,‬עמ’ א ‪ .)1‬אולם כנגד הצעה זו יש לציין שהמילה ִרב איננה מתועדת במובן זה‬ ‫במקרא‪ ,‬וגם המשך התיאור מתייחס לפעולת האש בלבד‪ ,‬ולא לרעש‪.‬‬

‫*‪112‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫אחד מן המראות בנפרד‪ ,‬בראשון מריזמוס זמני — הגל הראשון של הארבה נוצר בתחלת‬ ‫עלות הלקש‪ ,‬והגל השני אחר גזי המלך‪ ,‬ובשני מרחבי — האש אוכלת את תהום רבה‬ ‫(מלמטה) ואת החלק (מלמעלה)‪ ,‬וכן בשניהם יחדיו‪ ,‬כצמד‪ :‬הארבה האוכל את היבול מזה‬ ‫והבצורת והאש האוכלים את מקורות המים מזה‪ .‬התוצאה היא פגיעה כוללת ומקיפה‬ ‫שאינה מותירה לעם סיכוי להתאוששות‪ ,‬והיא המעוררת את הנביא לתגובה הנרעשת‬ ‫אחרי כל מראה‪" :‬וָ א ַֹמר ֲאדֹנָ י ה' ְסלַ ח־נָ א ִמי יָ קּום יַ ֲעקֹב ּכִ י ָקטֹן הּוא" (ז ‪2‬ב); "וָ א ַֹמר ֲאדֹנָ י ה'‬ ‫ֲח ַדל־נָ א ִמי יָ קּום יַ ֲעקֹב ּכִ י ָקטֹן הּוא" (ז ‪.)5‬‬ ‫המראה השלישי‬ ‫זהו המראה הראשון של הצמד השני‪ ,‬שבו מוצגת תמונה ואחריה הסבר‪ .‬המראה‬ ‫השלישי נסב סביב המילה "אנך" הנזכרת בו ארבע פעמים‪ ,‬ואיננה מצויה עוד במקרא‪:‬‬ ‫ה־א ָּתה‬ ‫ּאמר ה' ֵאלַ י ָמ ַ‬ ‫ּוביָ דֹו ֲאנָ ְך‪ .‬וַ יֹ ֶ‬ ‫ל־חֹומת ֲאנָ ְך ְ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּכׄה ִה ְר ַאנִ י וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֲאדֹנָ י נִ ָּצב ַע‬ ‫ֹלא־אֹוסיף‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ּאמר ֲאדֹנָ י ִהנְ נִ י ָשׂם ֲאנָ ְך ְּב ֶק ֶרב ַע ִּמי יִ ְש ָׂר ֵאל‬ ‫ר ֶֹאה ָעמֹוס וָ א ַֹמר ֲאנָ ְך וַ יֹ ֶ‬ ‫עֹוד ֲעבֹור לֹו (עמ' ז ‪.)8-7‬‬ ‫במראה עצמו נזכרת המילה "אנך" פעמיים‪ .‬עמוס רואה את האל (או שמא אדם‪ ,‬על‬ ‫פי תה"ש ‪ )ἀνὴρ‬ניצב על או על יד‪" 43‬חומת אנך" ובידו אנך‪ .‬כשהנביא נשאל מה הוא‬ ‫"הנְ נִ י ָשׂם‬ ‫רואה הוא חוזר על האלמנט העיקרי במראה — אנך‪ .‬המסר האלוהי בהתאם הוא ִ‬ ‫ֲאנָ ְך ְּב ֶק ֶרב ַע ִּמי יִ ְש ָׂר ֵאל"‪ ,‬דבר המסמן מן הסתם אסון‪ ,‬שכן האל מתריע שהדבר נקשר עם‬ ‫"ֹלא־אֹוסיף עֹוד ֲעבֹור לֹו"‪.‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫עצירת מידת הרחמים‪:‬‬ ‫השימוש המוכר היחיד של המונח אנך בשפות קרובות הוא במובן בדיל‪ ,‬ביחוד‬ ‫באכדית ‪ .annaku‬בהתאם לכך הוצעו האפשרויות הבאות לפירוש המראה‪:‬‬ ‫א ‪ .‬אנך הוא בדיל — החומר‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬אנך במובן מכשיר המדידה של הבנאים ‪ .plumb-line‬מכשיר זה היה עשוי בדרך‬ ‫כלל מעופרת‪ ,‬אך ראו “האבן הבדיל ביד זרבבל” (זכ’ ד ‪ )10‬המסמנת את מכשיר‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫המדידה על פי החוקרים‪.‬‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬בדיל כסינקדוכה לנשק‪ ,‬אולי חרב העשויה מארד‪.‬‬ ‫אף אחת מהאפשרויות הללו איננה תואמת את כל שלושת האזכורים של המילה אנך‬ ‫במראה ובמסר האלוהי‪ ,‬ואם מבקשים למצוא משמעות אחת עקבית לאזכוריה החוזרים‬ ‫של המילה ‘אנך’‪ ,‬נדרשים תיקוני טקסט או פירושים חריגים שאינם נתמכים בכתובים‪.‬‬

‫ל־עין ַה ָּמיִ ם” בר’ כד ‪“ ;13‬וְ ִהּנֵ ה נִ ָּצב ַעל־עֹלָ תֹו”‬ ‫“הּנֵ ה ָאנֹכִ י נִ ָּצב ַע ֵ‬ ‫‪ .43‬ל”נצב על” במובן על יד‪ ,‬ראו‪ִ :‬‬ ‫במ’ כג ‪.17 ,6‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬וויליאמסון‪ ,‬הנביא והאנך‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.111‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 131‬מדגיש את העובדה ששימושו הכמעט בלעדי של הבדיל היה‬ ‫כמרכיב קטן אך יקר ביותר בהכנת הסגסוגת הנפוצה ארד (ברונזה)‪ ,‬ועל כן אין זה מפליא שהוא משמש‬ ‫במובן זה‪.‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪113‬‬

‫הפתרון הנפוץ ביותר הוא לבחור במשמעות השנייה של אנך‪ ,‬במובן מכשיר המדידה‪.‬‬ ‫פתרון זה הוצע לראשונה על ידי פרשני ימי הביניים‪ ,‬שבימיהם הטשטשה זה כבר האבחנה‬ ‫בין בדיל ועופרת‪ 46.‬לפיכך הם סברו שמדובר במכשיר המדידה ‘אנך’ שבאופן רגיל הורכב‬ ‫מעופרת‪ .‬פתרון זה נשען על השימוש המוכר של הפועל נט”י‪/‬ה ‪ +‬כלי מדידה של בנאים‬ ‫כמטאפורות לחורבן בנבואות אחרות‪ ,‬כגון נטה קו או משקולת או אבן‪ ,‬לדוגמה‪“ :‬נָ ִט ִיתי‬ ‫ת־מ ְׁשקֹלֶ ת ֵּבית ַא ְח ָאב” (מל”ב כא ‪ ,)13‬וכן‪“ :‬ונטה עליה קו‬ ‫רּוׁש ִַלם ֵאת ָקו ׁש ְֹמרֹון וְ ֶא ִ‬ ‫ַעל־יְ ָ‬ ‫תהו ואבני בהו” (יש’ לד ‪ .)11‬פעולה זו כחלק מהשחתת חומה נזכרת מפורשות בספר‬ ‫איכה‪“ :‬חשב ה’ להשחית חומת בת ציון נטה קו” (איכה ב ‪ .)8‬בדרך כלל נתפרש המעשה‬ ‫של נטיית קו על החומה בטרם החרבתה כבדיקת עמידותה — אם היא נטתה על צידה‬ ‫נתגלה הדבר על ידי המשקולת‪ ,‬והיא הוחרבה‪ 47.‬התרגום לאנגלית של המלך ג’יימס‬ ‫מאפיין פתרונות מסוג זה‪:‬‬ ‫‪behold, the Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumbline, with a‬‬ ‫‪plumbline in his hand. And the LORD said unto me, Amos, what‬‬ ‫‪seest thou? And I said, a plumbline. Then said the Lord, Behold, I‬‬ ‫)‪will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel... (KJV‬‬

‫התרגום הארמי משלב בין המראה ופשרו על ידי תרגום כל ארבע ההופעות של‬ ‫המילה “אנך” במילה “דין”‪ ,‬כלומר צדק‪ ,‬והוא מפענח כנראה את מה שנתפס על ידו‬ ‫כאיזכור של כלי מדידה‪ ,‬במובן של מטאפורה לדין שבו ישפוט האל את עמו‪.‬‬ ‫צירוף הסמיכות “חומת אנך” התפרש על ידי פרושים אלה במשמעות של חומה‬ ‫מסוג מסוים‪ ,‬אולי כי נבנתה בעזרת מכשיר המדידה המכונה אנך‪ 48.‬אולם הפירוש “חומה‬ ‫(העשויה על ידי) אנך” איננו משכנע‪ :‬האם העין (והלשון בעקבותיה) הבחינה בין חומות‬ ‫שנבנו בעזרת מכשיר מדידה ובין כאלה שנבנו בלעדיו?‪ 49‬המונח “חומת אנך” אינו מוסיף‬ ‫דבר להבנת אופייה של החומה והוא חסר משמעות‪ 50.‬מאידך גיסא‪ ,‬להופעה הראשונה‬ ‫של המילה ‘אנך’ במראה‪ ,‬בצירוף ‘חומת אנך’ מתאים ביותר הפירוש הראשון‪ :‬תיאור‬

‫‪ .46‬ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,131‬הע’ ‪.19‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬המרשיימב‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.111‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬באנגלית ‪ ,plumb-line‬ראו‪ :‬וויליאמסון‪ ,‬הנביא והאנך‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .112‬מקורה של המילה ”‪“plumb‬‬ ‫באנגלית‪ ,‬הוא מן המילה הלטינית המציינת עופרת ‪.Plumbum‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬השוו לקושייתו של ארליך (מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬ג’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“ :)414‬והחומה עצמה יראנה הרואה ולא ידע‬ ‫שנבנתה במשקלת של עפרת חוץ מן האומן היודע בטיב בנין‪ ,‬ואין הנביא אומן‪ ,‬ואיך ידע?”‪ .‬לפיכך אין‬ ‫לקבל את הצעתו של וויליאמסון‪ ,‬לעיל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 112‬להשוות ל”עוגת רצפים” (מל”א יט ‪ )6‬כעוגה שעשויה‬ ‫על גחלים‪‘ .‬עוגת רצפים’ היא אכן סוג מיוחד של עוגה הנבדלת במראיה ובטיבה מעוגות אחרות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬לפיכך‪ ,‬חוקרים רבים תמכו בהצעה למחוק את ההופעה הראשונה של המילה ‘אנך’ שנשתרבבה‬ ‫על פי דעה זו מההמשך (מורגנשטרן‪ ,‬מחקרים בעמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;82‬המרשיימב‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;111‬לרשימת‬ ‫החוקרים שהלכו בדרך זו עד שנות השלושים של המאה ה‪-‬כ’‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מורגנשטרן‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,80‬הע’ ‪,)101‬‬ ‫או שביקשו לשנות את הכתוב ל’חומת אבן’ (מאג‪ ,‬טקסט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;43‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו‪ ,‬כרך ג‪ ,2‬עמ’ ‪.)470‬‬ ‫יהם”‪ ,‬נח’ ג ‪.35‬‬ ‫“חֹומת ַא ְבנֵ ֶ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫למונח “חומת אבן”‪ ,‬ראו‪:‬‬

‫*‪114‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫החומה כעשויה מאנך‪ .‬ביטויים המתארים חומת מתכת‪ ,‬בצורת צירוף סמיכות מוכרים‬ ‫צּורה” (יר’ טו ‪;)20‬‬ ‫חֹומת נְ ח ֶֹׁשת ְּב ָ‬ ‫במקרא בלשון מטאפורית נבואית‪ּ“ :‬ונְ ַת ִּתיָך לָ ָעם ַהּזֶ ה לְ ַ‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ” (יר’ א ‪;)18‬‬ ‫“וַ ֲאנִ י ִהּנֵ ה נְ ַת ִּתיָך ַהּיֹום לְ ִעיר ִמ ְב ָצר ּולְ ַעּמּוד ַּב ְרזֶ ל ּולְ חֹמֹות נְ ח ֶֹׁשת ַעל־ּכָ ָ‬ ‫“קיר ברזל” (יח’ ד ‪ .)3‬לצירוף הסמיכות “חומת‪+‬סוג מתכת” יש מקבילות חוץ מקראיות‬ ‫בלשון מטאפורית צבאית‪ :‬סתי א’ מוגדר כחומת ארד המגנה על עמו‪ ,‬בנו רעמסס ב’ הוא‬ ‫חומת ברזל לפני קרב קדש‪ ,‬ובמכתבי אל עמרנה קורא אבי־מילכי מושל צור לפרעה‬ ‫“הנך השמש הזורח עלי וחומת ארד המוקמת עבורו”‪ 51.‬על פי אפשרות זו הנביא רואה‬ ‫חומה עשויה ממתכת‪ :‬בדיל‪ ,‬או ארד שהוא סגסוגת המורכבת מנחושת ובדיל‪ 52.‬בכל‬ ‫הופעותיה חומת המתכת משמשת סמל של עוצמה ושל הגנה‪ 53.‬לפיכך יש להבין את‬ ‫ה”אנך” בהופעתו הראשונה במראה כחומת הביטחון וההגנה של העם‪ ,‬הרכיב שייהרס‬ ‫וייפגע‪.‬‬ ‫אף במראה זה‪ ,‬לדעתי‪ ,‬הכרה בתופעת החזרה על מילה במשמעויות שונות המאפיינת‬ ‫את המראות של עמוס — האנתנקלזיס — עשויה להציע פתרון‪ .‬חוקרים שונים חשו‬ ‫שבמראה זה קיים משחק מילים‪ ,‬במקביל למראה הבא של כלוב הקיץ והקץ‪ 54.‬ככל הנראה‪,‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫כפי שהכיר ירמיאס‪ ,‬כבר במראה עצמו מופיעה המילה “אנך” בשתי משמעויות שונות‪.‬‬

‫‪ .51‬אל עמרנה‪ ,147 ,‬שו’ ‪ ,53‬תרגום עברי לפי כוכבי־רייני‪ ,‬למלך אדוני‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .256‬במכתב זה שליט‬ ‫צור מתייחס לעצמו הן בגוף ראשון‪ ,‬הן בגוף שלישי (מורן‪ ,‬מכתבי עמרנה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,234‬הע’ ‪ .)10‬למקורות‪,‬‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬אולט‪ ,‬חומת מתכת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.325-324‬‬ ‫‪ .52‬היות שבאכדית ‪ annaku‬תמיד בא במשמעות בדיל (ראו‪ :‬לנדסברגר‪ ,‬בדיל ועופרת‪ ,‬והפניות‬ ‫למחקר אצל ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,131‬הע’ ‪ ,)19‬קשה להניח שבעברית מקראית “אנך” עשוי היה גם‬ ‫לסמן עופרת‪ ,‬מה גם שהעברית המקראית מבחינה בין בדיל ובין עופרת (ראו‪ :‬במ’ לא ‪ .)22‬אך מהכתוב‬ ‫ל־ּב ִדילָ יִ ְך” הסיק לנדסברגר (בדיל ועופרת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,287-286‬הע’ ‪ )9‬שהשם בדיל נגזר‬ ‫ביש’ א ‪“ :25‬וְ ָא ִס ָירה ּכָ ְ‬ ‫מהפועל ‘להבדיל’‪ ,‬והוא מסמן כאן את כל המתכות הנוספות לכסף‪ ,‬משמע הלשון ראתה במונח ‘בדיל’‬ ‫מונח כללי לרכיבי סגסוגת שונים‪ .‬המילה “אנך” כאמור יחידאית לעמוס‪ ,‬ועל כן קשה להוכיח שגם‬ ‫בעברית “אנך” באה בהכרח במשמעות של בדיל בלבד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬בניגוד לחוקרים הסבורים שחומה עשויה בדיל‪ ,‬שהוא חומר רך במיוחד שאיננו עמיד‪ ,‬היא‬ ‫סמל לחולשה וחוסר הגנה (כגון פאול‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)235‬לביקורת על גישה זו‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬וויליאמסון‪ ,‬הנביא‬ ‫והאנך‪,‬עמ’ ‪ ;107-105‬ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.132‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬מורגנשטרן‪ ,‬מחקרים בעמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,84-83‬ושם הפניות קודמות; אנדרסן ופרידמן‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;616‬ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.132‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .133-132‬אולם לדעתו המילה ‘אנך’ מופיעה במראה כולו בשתי‬ ‫משמעויות בלבד‪ :‬בדיל (‘חומת אנך’)‪ ,‬וחרב‪ ,‬הן ביד האל‪ ,‬הן ה’אנך’ שהאל ישים בקרב עמו ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫ירמיאס שואל מדוע נבחרה מילה כל כך נדירה כדי לבטא את הדימוי‪ ,‬והוא קרוב לדעתי שמשחק‬ ‫המילים הכתיב כאן שימוש במילה זו‪ ,‬בהשוואה למשחק המילים של המראה הבא‪ ,‬בין פירות קיץ ובין‬ ‫קץ‪ .‬ירמיאס מצביע על מילים נוספות שאמורות להדהד לשמע המילה ‘אנך’‪ ,‬שהוצעו על ידי חוקרים‬ ‫בעבר‪ ,‬כגון אנחה (ראו לדוגמה‪ :‬אולט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,330-329‬הנסמך על הצעות קודמות)‪ ,‬או ‘אנוכי’ (ראו‬ ‫לדוגמה‪ :‬קוט‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)92‬עם מקבילה למשחק מילים באכדית מההמנון לאישתר (ירמיאס‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ 133‬הע’ ‪ .)27‬אולם בעוד שבאכדית שתי המילים הומונימיות‪‘ :‬אנך’ (‪ )annaku‬ו’אנוכי’ (‪ ,)anāku‬בעברית‬ ‫אין הדבר כן‪ ,‬ומשחקי מילים הם ספציפיים לשימוש בשפה‪ .‬על כן קשה להניח שעמוס מתייחס למשחק‬ ‫מילים מעין זה‪ .‬נדמה שההשוואה לתופעה הספרותית אנתנקלזיס החוזרת בכל המראות מעידה שיש‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪115‬‬

‫באזכור הראשון היא מתארת את החומה‪ ,‬ובשני היא מציינת דבר מה שניתן להחזיק ביד‪.‬‬ ‫הוולגטה קרובה לכך כשהיא מתרגמת “חומת אנך” על ידי ‪( murum litum‬חומה מטויחת)‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫ואת האנך שהדמות מחזיקה בידה על ידי ‪( trulla cementarii‬מרית הבנאים)‪.‬‬ ‫הדמות שרואה הנביא אוחזת בידה “אנך”‪ .‬הפעם‪ ,‬לפי ההקשר‪ ,‬ככל הנראה‪‘ ,‬אנך’ אכן‬ ‫מסמן מכשיר מדידה‪ .‬למרות שמשמעות זו של ‘אנך’ איננה מתועדת במקורות אחרים‪ ,‬אם‬ ‫אכן זו המשמעות של האנך שמחזיקה הדמות בידיה אולי מכשיר זה גרם לשימוש הבלתי‬ ‫‪57‬‬ ‫רגיל במילה “אנך” לתיאור חומת המתכת‪ ,‬כנגד המילים הרגילות יותר — בדיל או ארד‪.‬‬ ‫דמות המחזיקה בידיה מכשיר מדידה באה במובן חיובי בנבואת זכריה‪“ :‬וָ ֶא ָּשׂא ֵעינַ י וָ ֵא ֶרא‬ ‫רּוׁש ִַלם לִ ְראֹות‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵאלַ י לָ מֹד ֶאת־יְ ָ‬ ‫ּוביָ דֹו ֶח ֶבל ִמ ָּדה‪ .‬וָא ַֹמר ָאנָ ה ַא ָּתה הֹלֵ ְך וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ה־איׁש ְ‬ ‫וְ ִהּנֵ ִ‬ ‫ּוב ֵה ָמה ְּבתֹוכָ ּה‪ .‬וַ ֲאנִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה־ּלָ ּה‬ ‫רּוׁש ִַלם ֵמרֹב ָא ָדם ְ‬ ‫ה־ר ְח ָּבּה וְ כַ ָּמה ָא ְרּכָ ּה‪ְּ ...‬פ ָרזֹות ֵּת ֵׁשב יְ ָ‬ ‫ּכַ ָּמ ָ‬ ‫חֹומת ֵאׁש ָס ִביב ּולְ כָ בֹוד ֶא ְהיֶ ה ְבתֹוכָ ּה” (זכ’ ב ‪ .)9-5‬נבואה מאוחרת זו מעידה על‬ ‫נְ ֻאם־ה' ַ‬ ‫המוטיבים ההפוכים המאפיינים את נבואות החורבן בנבואה הקלאסית בכלל‪ ,‬ובמראות‬ ‫עמוס בפרט‪ .‬יש לפיכך לפרש כי הדמות המחזיקה מכשיר מדידה‪ ,‬ובעיקר את ה’אנך’‪,‬‬ ‫המקביל ל’קו’ ול’משקלת’ המשמשים למדידת זווית הנטייה של הקיר‪ ,‬מסמלת את הכוונה‬ ‫להחריב את החומה‪.‬‬ ‫כשהאל מפרש את המראה לנביא הוא מזכיר שוב את המילה ‘אנך’‪“ :‬הנני שם אנך‬ ‫בקרב עמי ישראל”‪ .‬הן מצד הלשון‪ ,‬הן מצד התוכן אין זה סביר שהוא מכוון לכך שהוא‬ ‫ישים מתכת (בדיל או ארד) בקרב עמו ישראל‪ ,‬או מכשיר מדידה כדי לציין בדיקה‪.‬‬ ‫מצד הלשון‪ ,‬כפי שראינו‪ ,‬ביטויי החורבן המזכירים כלי מדידה משתמשים תמיד בפועל‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫משורש נט”י‪/‬ה‪ 58.‬מצד התוכן‪ ,‬במראות השלישי והרביעי לא יוסיף עוד האל לסלוח לעם‪.‬‬ ‫צמד המראות האחרונים מקבילים זה לזה ומחזקים האחד את רעהו‪ ,‬ומאחר שהמסר של‬ ‫המראה האחרון הוא סופני “בא הקץ אל עמי ישראל” יש להניח שהמסר של המראה‬ ‫השלישי ושל ההצהרה “הנני שם אנך בקרב עמי ישראל” דומה לו‪ .‬לפיכך יש להבין את‬

‫לראות בכל הופעה של המילה ‘אנך’ במראה ובדברי האל משמעות שונה‪ ,‬ואולי המובן ‘מכשיר מדידה’‬ ‫שהוחזק ביד האל הוא הסיבה לבחירה במילה נדירה זו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .56‬בפעם השלישית חוזרת הוולגטה על “מרית הבנאים” ובפעם הרביעית ‪ — trulla‬מרית בלבד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .57‬מורגנשטרן (מחקרים בעמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )84‬סבר שהשימוש במילה השאולה מאכדית מצביע על‬ ‫האויב שיפגע בעם‪ ,‬אשור‪ .‬אולם עמוס איננו מזהה את האויב מפורשות‪ .‬בספר כולו אין אף אזכור של‬ ‫האויב האשורי‪ ,‬והופעתו בתה”ש לעמ’ ג ‪ 9‬במקום ‘אשדוד’ נובעת מתיקון לצמד המקראי המוכר אשור‬ ‫ומצרים‪ ,‬ואיננה עדות לגירסה המקורית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .58‬וראו גם את ההסתייגות של אנדרסן ופרידמן (עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )758‬שהאל שם אנך בקרב ולא על עמו‬ ‫ישראל‪ .‬בפירושם הם קרובים לדעתנו שיש למצוא שלוש משמעויות שונות לארבע ההופעות של המילה‬ ‫‘אנך’ במראה השלישי (שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)759‬אם כי הצעתם הסופית שונה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .59‬זליגמן (לבעיות הנבואה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )180‬מניח כי סידרת החזונות של עמוס היא החוויה שיצרה את‬ ‫ל־א ְר ָּב ָעה ֹלא ֲא ִש ֶׁיבּנּו” (עמ’ א ‪,3-2‬‬ ‫ֹׁלשׁה ִּפ ְש ֵׁעי ‪ ...‬וְ ַע ַ‬ ‫ל־ש ָ‬ ‫“ע ְ‬ ‫הניסוח בכותרת החוזרת בנבואות על הגויים ַ‬ ‫‪“ :)6‬שאלוהים סולח פעם‪-‬פעמיים‪ ,‬ואילו בפעם השלישית והרביעית הוא אינו יכול לעבור על חטא‬ ‫העם”‪ .‬ראו גם זקוביץ‪ ,‬על שלושה‪ ...‬ועל ארבעה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;187 ,182‬ואזנה‪‘ ,‬פשעי מלחמה’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,98‬הע’ ‪.19‬‬

‫*‪116‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫ה”אנך” שהאל ישים בקרב ישראל ככלי נשק‪ ,‬חרב אולי‪ ,‬סוכנת מוכרת נוספת של חורבן‬ ‫לצד ארבה ואש‪ ,‬אם כי הפעם האל עצמו מעורב ישירות בחורבן‪.‬‬ ‫במראה השלישי ישים אפוא‪ ,‬האל ‘אנך’ במובן נשק‪ ,‬בקרב עמו‪ .‬כך הבין המחבר של‬ ‫פסוק ‪ ,9‬גם אם מדובר בתוספת למראה שהוחדרה כדי לשמש כ”דבק” על ידי מי שבחר‬ ‫להכניס את סיפור העימות בין עמוס ובין כהן בית אל בין המראה השלישי והרביעי‪.‬‬ ‫פסוק ‪ 9‬הינו עדות לכך שכבר בשלב זה הובנה ההכרזה “הנני שם אנך בקרב עמי ישראל”‬ ‫ל־ּבית‬ ‫ּומ ְק ְּד ֵׁשי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל יֶ ֱח ָרבּו וְ ַק ְמ ִּתי ַע ֵ‬ ‫כפעולת חורבן ומות בחרב‪“ :‬וְ נָ ַׁשּמּו ָּבמֹות יִ ְׂש ָחק ִ‬ ‫יָ ָר ְב ָעם ֶּב ָח ֶרב” (עמ’ ז ‪ 60.)9‬ייתכן שיש כאן משחק מילים נוסף בין המילה “בקרב” ובין‬ ‫המילה הדומה לה שאיננה נזכרת מפורשות — בחרב‪ .‬אמנם אין מקבילה מילולית לפעולה‬ ‫זו — שימת חרב בקרב העם — אולם יחזקאל מדבר על החורבן באמצעות היד שה’ שם‬ ‫ר־ׂש ְמ ִּתי ָב ֶהם” (יח’ לט ‪,)21‬‬ ‫ת־מ ְׁש ָּפ ִטי ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ִׂש ִיתי וְ ֶאת־יָ ִדי ֲא ֶׁש ַ‬ ‫ל־הּגֹויִ ם ֶא ִ‬ ‫בהם‪“ :‬וְ ָראּו כָ ַ‬ ‫וניתן להשוות למקרים אחרים של נתינת דברים שליליים בקרב העם כגון אשמת דם‪:‬‬ ‫ל־ּת ֵּתן ָּדם נָ ִקי ְּב ֶק ֶרב ַע ְּמָך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל” (דב’ כא ‪ ,)8‬או הצהרות פשוטות במשפטים שמניים‬ ‫“וְ ַא ִ‬ ‫כגון‪ּ“ :‬כִ י־זֶ ה ְׁשנָ ַתיִ ם ָה ָר ָעב ְּב ֶק ֶרב ָה ָא ֶרץ” (בר’ מה ‪ .)6‬ייתכן שהפועל ‘שֹם’ יוצר משחק‬ ‫מילים עם החורבן המתואר בפסוק הבא על ידי הפועל “ונשמו”‪ ,‬בין אם מדובר בחלק‬ ‫מקורי מן המראה או בתוספת‪ .‬שימת האנך בקרב העם מזכירה נבואה אחרת של עמוס‪,‬‬ ‫י־א ֱעבֹר ְּב ִק ְר ְּבָך” (עמ’ ה ‪ .)17‬האל‬ ‫שבה יתמלאו הרחובות‪ ,‬החוצות והכרמים מספד “ּכִ ֶ‬ ‫העובר בקרב העם הוא הגורם לאבל הכבד‪ ,‬הנהי והמספד‪ .‬כפי שציין וויליאמסון הקשר‬ ‫בין נבואה זו למראות קיים גם בשימוש האירוני והדו־משמעי בפועל “עבר” — שם במובן‬ ‫‪61‬‬ ‫שלילי‪ ,‬ואילו במראות במשמעות חיובית “לא אוסיף עוד עבור לו”‪.‬‬ ‫ניתוח זה של המראה השלישי מלמד אפוא שתופעת האנתנקלזיס מאפיינת את‬ ‫המראות כולם‪ .‬במראה זה המילה אנך באה בשלוש משמעויות שונות‪ :‬כחומר (בדיל‬ ‫או ארד) שממנו עשוייה החומה‪ ,‬כמכשיר מדידה‪ ,‬משקולת הבנאי‪ ,‬וככלי נשק או חרב‪.‬‬ ‫כמו בשני המראות הראשונים‪ ,‬המילה אנך מסמנת הן את הנפגע (החומה המסמלת את‬ ‫העוצמה של העם ואת ההגנה עליו)‪ ,‬הן את הסוכן הפוגע (הנשק)‪ ,‬ועל פי הסדר המאפיין‬ ‫את המראה הראשון‪ ,‬בהתאם לכללי הכיאזמוס‪ .‬בתווך נמצא השימוש הנוסף‪ ,‬של מכשיר‬ ‫המדידה בידי הדמות או האל‪ ,‬המסמל אולי את המעבר מצמד המראות הראשון‪ ,‬שבו האל‬ ‫חזר בו מתוכניתו‪ ,‬אל צמד המראות האחרון‪ ,‬שבו “לא אוסיף עוד עבור לו”‪ ,‬אדרבה‪ ,‬האל‬ ‫עצמו יצא כנגד עמו‪.‬‬ ‫אחרי ארבעת המראות בא המראה החמישי (ט ‪ .)4-1‬על פי תפיסתי‪ ,‬מלכתחילה‬ ‫מראה זה איננו חלק מסידרת המראות המסתיימת במילת הציווי “הס”‪ ,‬אך על פי תוכנו‬ ‫הוא מלמד על הפעולה של האל נגד עמו‪ ,‬ועל כן הוא מתאים ביותר להופיע אחרון‪ ,‬אחרי‬ ‫ארבעת המראות הקודמים‪:62‬‬

‫‪ .60‬ירמיאס‪ ,‬ספר עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,131‬מפנה גם לחרב האל בחזון החמישי (עמ’ ט ‪.)4 ,1‬‬ ‫‪ .61‬וויליאמסון‪ ,‬הנביא והאנך‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,116‬הע’ ‪.62‬‬ ‫‪ .62‬ראו‪ :‬ווילי־פליין‪ ,‬צורות מקוריות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.48‬‬

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

‫*‪117‬‬

‫ּוב ַצ ַעם‬ ‫ֹאמר ַהְך ַהּכַ ְפּתֹור וְ יִ ְר ֲעׁשּו ַה ִּס ִּפים ְ‬ ‫ל־ה ִּמזְ ֵּב ַח וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ת־אדֹנָ י נִ ָּצב ַע ַ‬ ‫ָר ִא ִיתי ֶא ֲ‬ ‫ְּברֹאׁש ּכֻ ּלָ ם וְ ַא ֲח ִר ָיתם ַּב ֶח ֶרב ֶא ֱהרֹג ֹלא־יָ נּוס לָ ֶהם נָ ס וְ ֹלא־יִ ָּמלֵ ט לָ ֶהם ָּפלִ יט‪ִ .‬אם־‬ ‫אֹור ֵידם‪ .‬וְ ִאם־יֵ ָח ְבאּו‬ ‫יַ ְח ְּתרּו ִב ְׁשאֹול ִמ ָּשׁם יָ ִדי ִת ָּק ֵחם וְ ִאם־יַ ֲעלּו ַה ָּשׁ ַמיִ ם ִמ ָּשׁם ִ‬ ‫ְּברֹאׁש ַהּכַ ְר ֶמל ִמ ָּשׁם ֲא ַח ֵּפׂש ּולְ ַק ְח ִּתים וְ ִאם־יִ ָּס ְתרּו ִמּנֶ גֶ ד ֵעינַ י ְּב ַק ְר ַקע ַהּיָ ם‬ ‫יהם ִמ ָּשׁם ֲא ַצּוֶ ה ֶאת־‬ ‫ת־הּנָ ָחׁש ּונְ ָׁשכָ ם‪ .‬וְ ִאם־יֵ לְ כּו ַב ְּשׁ ִבי לִ ְפנֵ י אֹיְ ֵב ֶ‬ ‫ִמ ָּשׁם ֲא ַצּוֶ ה ֶא ַ‬ ‫טֹובה (עמ’ ט ‪.)4-1‬‬ ‫יהם לְ ָר ָעה וְ ֹלא לְ ָ‬ ‫ַה ֶח ֶרב וַ ֲה ָרגָ ַתם וְ ַׂש ְמ ִּתי ֵעינִ י ֲעלֵ ֶ‬ ‫מראה אחרון זה מתאר את פעולת האל בקרב עמו‪ ,‬ומצייר כליון מוחלט על ידי מרי־‬ ‫זמוס ‘ראש־אחרית’‪“ :‬ובצעם בראש כלם‪ ,‬ואחריתם בחרב אהרג”‪ ,‬ולאחריו תיאור המרדף‬ ‫‪63‬‬ ‫אחר הנמלטים במריזמוס אנכי כפול וכיאסטי‪ :‬שאול ושמים‪ ,‬ראש הכרמל וקרקע הים‪.‬‬ ‫המראה מסיים את תיאור הכליון המוחלט בהתייחסות לאפשרות ההמלטות דרך הליכה‬ ‫בשבי “לפני איביהם”‪ ,‬כלומר במישור האופקי‪ ,‬ואף אפשרות זו נפסלת על ידי האל‪:‬‬ ‫“משם אצוה את החרב והרגתם”‪ .‬במראה החמישי משתמש האל בשני סוכני חורבן מו־‬ ‫כרים — רעש וחרב‪ ,‬ומגייס גם את הנחש המיתולוגי כדי לתאר את הקץ הסופי והמוחלט‬ ‫של ישראל‪ .‬המראה מסתיים במוטיב היפוך התפיסה האופייני לנביא עמוס‪ :‬ושמתי עיני‬ ‫עליהם לרעה ולא לטובה‪ .‬יתכן שמי שסידר את הספר הציב את המראה החמישי במקום‬ ‫זה כי הוא מבאר את טיבו של הקץ הנורא המתואר במראות הרביעי והחמישי‪“ :‬הנני שם‬ ‫אנך בקרב עמי ישראל”; “בא הקץ אל עמי ישראל”‪ .‬תוכנו של מראה זה מחזק אם כן גם‬ ‫הוא את התפיסה שהאנך שהאל ישים בקרב עמו ישראל במראה הרביעי מובנו ‘חרב’‪.‬‬ ‫סיכום‬ ‫הפירושים לספר עמוס עמדו על השימוש במשחק המילים קיץ‪-‬קץ במראה הרביעי של‬ ‫עמוס‪ .‬זיהוי אמצעי ספרותי זה‪ ,‬האנתנקלזיס‪ ,‬כלומר חזרה מילולית על מילה במשמעויות‬ ‫שונות גם בשלושת המראות האחרים מספק מפתח לפענוח הניסוח והמשמעות של כל‬ ‫מראות עמוס‪ ,‬שפירושם היה שנוי במחלוקת עד כה‪ .‬העובדה שהמראות עצמם באים‬ ‫בזוגות‪ ,‬אשר מטרתם לחזור על המסר הנבואי ולחזק אותו‪ ,‬מסבירה את מקומו הדומיננטי‬ ‫של מאפיין ספרותי זה במראות‪ .‬החזרה המילולית המתפרשת בשתי משמעויות (לקש‪,‬‬ ‫רב(ה)‪ ,‬קץ); או בשלוש (אנך)‪ ,‬לצד המילים והצירופים הייחודיים הבאים פעם אחת‬ ‫במראות ומתפרשים בשתי משמעויות (עלות‪ ,‬גִ זי המלך‪ ,‬חלק‪ִׁ ,‬שירֹות היכל) הולמים היטב‬ ‫את הסוגה הספרותית של המראות הנבואיים‪ ,‬שבהם רבים הסמלים הדו־משמעיים‪ ,‬והם‬ ‫באים בזוגות כדי לחזק את המסר ולאמתו‪.‬‬ ‫מראות עמוס מנבאים את חורבן הארץ וכיליון העם‪ .‬איום הכיליון המוחלט מתואר‬ ‫באמצעות קצוות מריזמטיים‪ :‬זמניים (בתחילת — אחר)‪ ,‬מרחביים‪-‬אנכיים (תהום — חלק)‪,‬‬ ‫קוליים (הילילו — הס)‪ ,‬ומרחביים‪-‬מעמדיים (היכל — בכל מקום)‪ .‬המראה החמישי‪,‬‬ ‫העצמאי במקורו‪ ,‬מציג אף הוא כיליון כוללני ושיטתי‪ ,‬ובו תיאור מרדף אחר הנמלטים‬ ‫באמצעות מריזמוס אנכי כפול וכיאסטי‪ :‬שאול ושמים‪ ,‬ראש הכרמל וקרקע הים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .63‬לזוגות אלה ולמשמעותם הקוסמולוגית והמיתית‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אנדרסן ופרידמן‪ ,‬עמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.685-682‬‬

‫*‪118‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫בשני המראות הראשונים האל מזמן סוכני חורבן שיפעלו בארץ וימיטו עליה כליון‪:‬‬ ‫הוא יוצר ארבה וקורא לרוב אש‪ .‬נסיונות אלה‪ ,‬לו הוצאו לפועל‪ ,‬היו פוגעים באמצעי‬ ‫המחייה של העם‪ ,‬היבול והמים‪ ,‬אך למזלו של עם ישראל הם מבוטלים בעקבות התערבות‬ ‫הנביא למען עמו‪ .‬בשני המראות האחרונים שוב אין האל סולח לעמו‪ ,‬ויחד הם מבשרים‬ ‫את קצו של העם‪ :‬במראה השלישי האל עצמו מופיע ושם את גורם החורבן‪ ,‬חרב‪ ,‬בקרב‬ ‫עמו ישראל‪ .‬הקץ המופיע מפורשות במראה הרביעי סותם את הגולל על גורלו של העם‪.‬‬ ‫בצמד סופי זה שוב אין מדובר בסוכן שיפגע בעם בעקיפין‪ ,‬כלומר באמצעי המחייה של‬ ‫העם‪ ,‬אלא באל עצמו שיצא ישירות בחרב נגד עמו ישראל‪ .‬התוצאה תהיה טבח נורא‬ ‫שיוביל לקינות ויללות שיעלו מן ההיכלות‪ ,‬ולשקט איום‪“ ,‬הס”‪ ,‬שילווה את מראה הפגרים‬ ‫המושלכים “בכל מקום”‪.‬‬ ‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫‪Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old = BDB‬‬ ‫‪Testament, Oxford 1907, rep. 1968‬‬ ‫‪L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and English Lexicon of the = HALOT‬‬ ‫‪Old Testament, trans. and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson,‬‬ ‫)‪Leiden, New York and Köln 1994-2000 (5 vols.‬‬ ‫אביגד‪ ,‬חותם = ‪N. Avigad, “A Hebrew Seal with a Family Emblem”, Israel‬‬ ‫‪Exploration Journal 16 (1966), pp. 50-53‬‬ ‫אולט‪ ,‬חומת מתכת = ‪J. Ouellette, “Le mur dʼétain dans Amos,VII, 7-9”, Revue‬‬ ‫‪Biblique 90 (1973), pp. 321-331‬‬ ‫אופנהיים‪ ,‬חלומות = ‪A.L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams In the Ancient‬‬ ‫‪Near East, Philadelphia 1956, rep. 2008‬‬

‫אחיטוב‪ ,‬הכתב והמכתב = ש’ אחיטוב‪ ,‬הכתב והמכתב‪ ,‬ירושלים תשס”ה‬ ‫אנדרסן‪ ,‬הנה = ‪F.I. Andersen, “Lo and Behold! Taxonomy and Translation of‬‬ ‫‪Biblical Hebrew hinneh” in: M.F.J. Baasten and W.Th. van Peursen (eds.),‬‬ ‫‪Hamlet on a Hill: Semitic and Greek Studies Presented to Professor T.‬‬ ‫‪Muraoka on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Orientalia Lovaniesia‬‬ ‫‪Analecta 118, Leuven 2003, pp. 25-56‬‬ ‫אנדרסן ופרידמן‪ ,‬עמוס = ‪F.I. Andersen and D.N. Freedman, Amos: A New‬‬ ‫‪Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB), New York 1989‬‬

‫ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬ג’ = א”ב ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬כרך ג’‪ :‬דברי נבואה‪ ,‬ניו־יורק‬ ‫‪( 1969‬פורסם לראשונה ‪)1901‬‬ ‫בודה‪ ,‬עמוס = ‪K Budde, “Zu Text und Auslegung des Buches Amos (Schluß)”,‬‬ ‫‪Journal of Biblical Literature 44 (1925), pp. 63-122‬‬

‫ברין‪ ,‬מחקרים = ג’ ברין‪ ,‬מחקרים בספרות הנבואה הקלאסית‪ ,‬ספריית האנציקלופדיה‬ ‫המקראית כב‪ ,‬ירושלים תשס”ו‬

119*

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

G. Bartczek, Prophetie und Vermittlung: zur literarischen = ‫ נבואה‬,‫ברטצ’ק‬ Analyse und theologischen Interpretation der Visionsberichte des Amos, Frankfurt am Main, 1980 A. Berlin, “On the Meaning of rb”, Journal of Biblical Literature 100 = ‫ רב‬,‫ברלין‬ (1981), pp. 90-93 C.H. Gordon, “New Directions”, Bulletin of the American Society = ‫ כיוונים‬,‫גורדון‬ of Papyrologists, 15 (1978), pp. 59-66 R. Gordis, “Studies in the Relationship of Biblical and = ‫ ספר גינזבורג‬,‫גורדיס‬ Rabbinic Hebrew”, Louis Ginsburg Jubilee Volume, New York 1945, pp. 173-199 R.K. Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel, Lanham MD. = ‫ חלום שמואל‬,‫גנוס‬ 1984 S. W. Greaves, “Ominous Homophony and Portentous Puns in = ‫ הומופוניה‬,‫גריבס‬ Akkadian Omens”, Puns and Pundits, ed. B. Noegel, Bethesda, MD. 2000, pp. 103-113 V. Hurowitz, I Have Built You an Exalted House, Journal for = ‫ בית זבול‬,‫הורוויץ‬ the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 115, Sheffield 1992 D.R. Hillers, “Amos 7:4 and Ancient Parallels”, Catholic Biblical = ‫ עמוס ז‬,‫הילרס‬ Quarterly 26 (1964), pp. 221-225 E. Hammershaimb, The Book of Amos: A Commentary = ‫ ספר עמוס‬,‫המרשיימב‬ (trans. by J. Sturdy), Oxford 1970

‫ תל־אביב‬,‫ עיונים היסטוריים‬:‫ תקופות ומוסדות במקרא‬,‫ תקופות ומוסדות = מ’ הרן‬,‫הרן‬ ‫תשל”ג‬ W.R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and = ‫ עמוס‬,‫הרפר‬ Hosea (ICC) Edinburgh 1905 rep. 1994

’‫ “’פשעי מלחמה’ בנבואות עמוס על הגויים (עמוס א‬,‫ ‘פשעי מלחמה’ = נ’ ואזנה‬,‫ואזנה‬ 115-93 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ תש”ע‬,‫ באר שבע כרך יט‬,‫ תעודות ותולדות‬:‫ ישראל וארצו‬,”)3 ’‫ — ב‬3 I. Will-Plein, Vorformen der Schriftexegese innerhalb = ‫ צורות מקוריות‬,‫ווילי־פליין‬ des Alten Testaments, Berlin and New-York 1971 H.G. M. Williamson, “The Prophet and the Plumb- = ‫ הנביא והאנך‬,‫וויליאמסון‬ Line”, In Quest of the Past: Studies on Israelite Religion, Literature and Prophetism, Oudtestamentische Studiën 26, ed. A.S. van der Woude, Leiden 1990, pp. 101-120 H.W. Wolff, Joel amd Amos, trans. by W. Janzen et. al., = ‫ יואל ועמוס‬,‫וולף‬ Hermeneia, Philadelphia PA. 1977 H.W. Wolff, Amos the Prophet, Philadelphia 1973 = ‫ עמוס הנביא‬,‫וולף‬ A. Weiser, Das Buch der zwölf kleinen Propheten, I, Göttingen ‫וייזר = תרי־עשר‬ 1956

‫נילי ואזנה‬

120*

‫ב‬-‫ כרכים א‬,‫ ירושלים תשנ”ב‬,‫ ספר עמוס‬,‫ ספר עמוס = מ’ וייס‬,‫וייס‬ ,‫ תש”ל‬,‫ד‬/‫ בית מקרא י”ד‬,”‫ “דגמים ומיבנים במראותיו של עמוס‬,‫ דגמים = ז’ ויסמן‬,‫ויסמן‬ 57-40 ’‫עמ‬ ‫ בתוך‬,‫ תולדותיה ואופיה‬,‫ לבעיות הנבואה בישראל‬,‫ לבעיות הנבואה = י”א זליגמן‬,‫זליגמן‬ 188-171 ’‫ עמ‬,2‫ ירושלים תשנ”ו‬,‫מחקרים בספרות המקרא‬ ‫ ירושלים‬,”‫ ועל ארבעה‬...‫ “על שלושה‬,‫ ועל ארבעה = י’ זקוביץ‬...‫ על שלושה‬,‫זקוביץ‬ ‫תשל”ט‬ ,)‫ כרך ב’ (כרך הספר‬,‫ הלשון והספר‬,‫ כרך ב’ = נ”ה טור־סיני‬,‫ הלשון והספר‬,‫טור־סיני‬ ‫ירושלים תש”ך‬ ‫ ירושלים תשכ”ז‬,‫ פשוטו של מקרא‬,‫ פשוטו = נ”ה טור־סיני‬,‫טור־סיני‬ L. Tiemeyer, “Prophecy as a Way of Cancelling Prophecy: = ‫ נבואה‬,‫טימאייר‬ the Strategic Uses of Foreknowledge”, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 117/3 (2005), pp. 329-350

’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשמ”ג‬,’‫ כרך ו‬,‫ כתבי דוד ילין‬,)‫ משנה ההוראה = ע”צ מלמד (עורך‬,‫ילין‬ 288-254 J. Jeremias, The Book of Amos: A Commentary, trans. by = ‫ ספר עמוס‬,‫ירמיאס‬ D.W. Stott, (OTL) Louisville, KY 1998

‫ ירושלים‬,‫ מכתבי אל־עמארנה‬:‫ למלך אדוני‬,‫ למלך אדוני = צ’ כוכבי־רייני‬,‫כוכבי־רייני‬ ‫תשס”ה‬ B. Landsberger, “Tin and Lead: The Adventures of Two = ‫ בדיל ועופרת‬,‫לנדסברגר‬ Vocables”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24 (1965), pp. 285-296 V. Maag, Text, Wortschatz und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos, = ‫ טקסט‬,‫מאג‬ Leiden 1951 J.A. Montgomery, “Notes on Amos”, Journal of Biblical = ‫ הערות‬,‫מונטגומרי‬ Literature 23 (1904), pp. 94-96 J. Morgenstern, Amos Studies, vol. 1, Cincinnati OH = ‫ מחקרים בעמוס‬,‫מורגנשטרן‬ 1941 (originally pub. 1936) W.L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, Baltimore and London = ‫ מכתבי עמרנה‬,‫מורן‬ 1992 J.A. Soggin, The Prophet Amos, trans. by J. Bowden, London = ‫ הנביא עמוס‬,‫סוג’ין‬ 1987 Sh.M. Paul, Amos, Hermeneia, Minneapolis MN 1991 = ‫ עמוס‬,‫פאול‬ H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of = ‫ מלוכה והאלים‬,‫פרנקפורט‬ Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature, Chicago 1948 T. Zewi, “The Particle ‫ הנה‬and ‫ והנה‬in Biblical Hebrew”, Hebrew = ‫ הנה והנה‬,‫צבי‬ Studies 37 (1996), pp. 21-37

121*

‫משחקי מילים במראות עמוס‬

R.B. Coote, Amos Among the Prophets: Composition and Theology, = ‫ עמוס‬,‫קוט‬ Philadelphia 1981

‫תל־‬-‫ ירושלים‬,’‫ כרך ו‬,‫ תולדות האמונה הישראלית‬,‫ תולדות האמונה = י’ קויפמן‬,‫קויפמן‬ ‫אביב תש”ז‬ I.M. Casanowicz, Paronomasia in the Old Testament, PhD. = ‫ פרונומסיה‬,‫קזנוביץ‬ Johns Hopkins University 1894 K. Kim, Incubation as a Type-Scene in the ʾAqhatu, Kirta, and = ‫ אינקובציה‬,‫קים‬ Hannah Story, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 145, Leiden-Boston 2011 R.S. Cripps, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of = ‫ עמוס‬,‫קריפס‬ Amos, London 1969 (rep. of the 2nd ed. 1955)

1990 ‫ חיפה‬,‫ עמוס‬,‫ עמוס = נ’ רוזל‬,‫רוזל‬ ‫ אנתולוגיה משירת‬:‫ בימים הרחוקים ההם‬,‫ י’ קליין‬,‫ אנתולוגיה = ש’ שפרה‬,‫שפרה וקליין‬ ‫ תל אביב תשנ”ז‬,‫המזרח הקדום‬

‫*‪122‬‬

‫נילי ואזנה‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪123‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור‬ ‫ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית והכרוניסטית‬ ‫צפורה טלשיר‬ ‫לכבוד הוא לי להקדיש דבר תורה‬ ‫לזכרו של עמיתי פרופסור אביגדור הורוויץ‬ ‫שתמיד היה דבר תורה בפיו‬

‫מעקב אחר תהליכי חיבור ועריכה במקרא מעמיד אותנו על אמצעי בולט ומרחיק‬ ‫לכת בידי מחברים‪ ,‬עורכים ומסדרים — הלוא הוא החזרה על פרשיות ככלי בעיצוב רצף‬ ‫היצירות‪ .‬מחברים‪ ,‬עורכים ומסדרים חוזרים על פרשיות קצרות וארוכות כדי לסמן בהן‬ ‫גבולות של יחידות ְּוקשרים ביניהן‪ ,‬כדי לפתוח ולסגור מעגלים בנראטיב שהם בונים‪.‬‬ ‫החזרות הללו אינן עשויות מעור אחד ואינן מוגבלות לשלבי יצירה ומסירה מסוימים‪ .‬הן‬ ‫מופיעות הן במסגרת ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‪ ,‬הן במסגרת ההיסטוריוגרפיה‬ ‫הכרוניסטית‪ .‬הגדרת הקורפוסים הללו כהיסטוריוגרפיה דויטרונומיסטית והיסטוריוגרפיה‬ ‫כרוניסטית אינה נעשית מחמת נוחות או על פי המקובל‪ ,‬אלא מתוך הכרה שאי אפשר‬ ‫להימלט מקיומן של מסגרות רחבות היקף‪ ,‬בצורה כזאת או אחרת‪ ,‬והפרשיות החוזרות‬ ‫אף הן מעלות תרומה להכרה הזאת‪.‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬פרשיות חוזרות מן ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬ ‫הפרשיות החוזרות בהיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית הן כלי עריכה מובהק בין יתר‬ ‫האמצעים הטכניים הבולטים המשמשים בידי מעצבי היצירה הזאת‪ ,‬כגון הצבת נספחים‬ ‫בנקודות מעבר בחיבור הגדול‪ ,‬או המבנה הכיאסטי שהעניק המחבר הן לנספח בסוף ספר‬ ‫שמואל (שמ”ב כא‪-‬כד)‪ ,‬הן למלכות שלמה (מל”א ג‪-‬י)‪ ,‬או התבנית המשוכללת שאיווה לו‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫המחבר לכל אורך ספר מלכים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬מות יהושע‬ ‫פעמיים מופיע הדיווח על מות יהושע‪ ,‬פעם בסוף ספר יהושע‪ ,‬כד ‪ ,31–29‬ופעם‬ ‫בשופ’ ב ‪ .10–7‬שני הדיווחים באים אחרי שיהושע משלח את העם (יהו’ כד ‪ ;28‬שופ’ ב ‪.)6‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬דרייבר‪ ,‬מבוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;190 ,189 ,183‬וכן טלשיר‪ ,‬למבנה ספר מלכים‪.‬‬

‫*‪123‬‬

‫*‪124‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫בספר יהושע נגררים עוד אחרי מות יהושע גם קבורת עצמות יוסף ומות אלעזר וקבורתו‬ ‫(כד ‪ .)33–32‬ואילו בספר שופטים נוסף עוד פסוק על הדור שלא ידע (שופ’ ב ‪ ,)10‬כהכנה‬ ‫למבוא הפרוגרמטי העומד מיד בהמשך‪.‬‬ ‫ׁשופטים ב‬ ‫יהוׁשע כד ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶאת ָה ָעם‬ ‫‪ 6‬וַ יְ ַׁשּלַ ח יְ ֻ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶאת ָה ָעם ‬ ‫‪ 28‬וַ יְ ַׁשּלַ ח יְ ֻ‬ ‫וַ ּיֵ לְ כּו ְבנֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִאיׁש לְ נַ ֲחלָ תֹו‬ ‫ִאיׁש לְ נַ ֲחלָ תֹו׃ ‬ ‫לָ ֶר ֶׁשת ֶאת ָה ָא ֶרץ‪:‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע‬ ‫‪ 7‬וַ ּיַ ַע ְבדּו ָה ָעם ֶאת ה’ ּכֹל יְ ֵמי יְ ֻ‬ ‫~ ‬ ‫וְ כֹל יְ ֵמי ַהּזְ ֵקנִ ים ֲא ֶׁשר ֶה ֱא ִריכּו יָ ִמים‬ ‫~ ‬ ‫הֹוׁשּוע‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ַא ֲח ֵרי יְ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָראּו ֵאת ּכָ ל ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ה’ ַהּגָ דֹול‬ ‫~ ‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה לְ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪:‬‬ ‫~ ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪ 29‬וַ יְ ִהי ַא ֲח ֵרי ַה ְּד ָב ִרים ָה ֵאּלֶ ה ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ִּבן נּון ֶע ֶבד ה’ ֶּבן ֵמ ָאה‬ ‫‪ 8‬וַ ּיָ ָמת יְ ֻ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ִּבן נּון ֶע ֶבד ה’ ֶּבן ֵמ ָאה ‬ ‫וַ ּיָ ָמת יְ ֻ‬ ‫וָ ֶע ֶׂשר ָׁשנִ ים‪:‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫וָ ֶע ֶׂשר ָׁשנִ ים‪:‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 30‬וַ ּיִ ְק ְּברּו אֹתֹו ִּבגְ בּול נַ ֲחלָ תֹו ְּב ִת ְמנַ ת ֶס ַרח ‪ 9‬וַ ּיִ ְק ְּברּו אֹותֹו ִּבגְ בּול נַ ֲחלָ תֹו ְּב ִת ְמנַ ת ֶח ֶרס‬ ‫ְּב ַהר ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם ִמ ְּצפֹון לְ ַהר ּגָ ַעׁש‪:‬‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ְּב ַהר ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם ִמ ְּצפֹון לְ ַהר ּגָ ַעׁש‪ :‬‬ ‫~‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ‬ ‫‪ 31‬וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹד יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת ה’ ּכֹל יְ ֵמי יְ ֻ‬ ‫וְ כֹל יְ ֵמי ַהּזְ ֵקנִ ים ֲא ֶׁשר ֶה ֱא ִריכּו יָ ִמים‬ ‫~‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ‬ ‫ַא ֲח ֵרי יְ ֻ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫~‬ ‫וַ ֲא ֶׁשר יָ ְדעּו ֵאת ּכָ ל ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ה’ ‬ ‫~‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה לְ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל׃ ‬ ‫בֹותיו‬ ‫‪ 10‬וְ גַ ם ּכָ ל ַהּדֹור ַההּוא נֶ ֶא ְספּו ֶאל ֲא ָ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫יהם ֲא ֶׁשר ֹלא יָ ְדעּו ֶאת ה’‬ ‫וַ ּיָ ָקם ּדֹור ַא ֵחר ַא ֲח ֵר ֶ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫וְ גַ ם ֶאת ַה ַּמ ֲע ֶׂשה ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה לְ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל׃‬ ‫ ‬ ‫מעמדה החריג של הפרשה שבין הדיווח האחד על מות יהושע ובין הדיווח האחר —‬ ‫שופ’ א ‪–1‬ב ‪ — 5‬ידוע היטב‪ .‬פרשה זו מערערת על השלמות שנבנתה בדי עמל בספר‬ ‫יהושע וחוזרת ופותחת את מה שכבר נסגר שם על מנעול ובריח‪ .‬מעמדה כאנקלאבה‬ ‫מתברר ללא כחל וסרק כאשר מופיע על הבמה ְמ ַסדר הספרים ומכריז מפורשות על‬ ‫חריגותה‪ ,‬והוא עושה זאת על ידי חזרה מילולית על הדיווח על מות יהושע (שופ’ ב ‪,)10–6‬‬ ‫משל הוא אומר‪ :‬ראו עצמכם כאילו אתם נמצאים בסוף ספר יהושע‪ ,‬כעין חזרה מקשרת‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫אלא שזו מושגת על ידי חזרה על קטע שלם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬קייל ודליטש‪ ,‬פירוש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,267‬מעירים על שופ’ ב ‪ :10–6‬ההתפתחות שאחרי מות יהושע‬ ‫נקשרת לספר יהושע על ידי חזרה פשוטה על יהו’ כד ‪ ,31–28‬בהבדלים בלתי חשובים‪ .‬על ידי כך נוצר‬ ‫לא רק קישור בין יהו’ כד ושופ’ ב ‪ ,11‬ולא רק מתחדש חוט העלילה שניתק על ידי סיכום המלחמות‪,‬‬ ‫אלא בעיקר מתקבל ניגוד בולט בין העבר ובין מה שעתיד להתרחש‪ּ .‬בודה‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,20–19‬משווה‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪125‬‬

‫ברור מאליו שמדובר באותו טקסט עצמו‪ ,‬אף שיש ביניהם הבדלים‪ ,‬הן כאלה‬ ‫המתגדרים בתחום המסירה הן כאלה שכוונו להקשר השונה‪.‬‬ ‫בתחום המסירה נמצאים הבדלים כגון החילוף ידעו ‪ /‬ראו‪ ,‬או תמנת סרח ‪ /‬תמנת‬ ‫חרס‪ ,‬וכן‪ :‬ויעבד ישראל ‪ /‬ויעבדו העם; מעשה ה’ ‪ /‬מעשה ה’ הגדול; אשר בהר אפרים ‪/‬‬ ‫בהר אפרים‪ .‬עיצוב מכוון להקשר השונה אפשר לראות בהצלבה בין מות יהושע ומנהג‬ ‫הדור שידע את מעשה ה’ (יהו’ כד ‪ = 30–29‬שופ’ ב ‪ ;9–8‬יהו’ כד ‪ = 31‬שופ’ ב ‪ .)7‬עיצובו של‬ ‫פסוק ‪ ,10‬הנוסף בשופטים על פני יהושע‪ ,‬מלמד על כוונת הסידור‪ :‬תחילה סיפר שהעם‬ ‫עבדו את האל כל ימי יהושע וכל ימי הזקנים שהיו עדים למעשה ה’ (פסוק ‪ ,)7‬אחר כך‬ ‫סיפר על מות יהושע (פסוקים ‪ ,)9–8‬ואחר כך גם על מות כל הדור ההוא שידע את מעשה‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫ה’ (פסוק ‪ ,)a10‬כדי שיוכל להמשיך אל הדור אשר לא ידע (פסוק ‪.)b10‬‬ ‫מעשה העריכה‪ ,‬יש לומר‪ ,‬לא עלה יפה‪ .‬הפגם אינו בעצם החזרה על מות יהושע‪,‬‬ ‫באשר ברגע שמכירים בחזרה ככלי עריכה הרי תפקידה ברור‪ .‬הבעיה מתגלעת בין‬ ‫התיאור החוזר על מות יהושע ובין המילים הפותחות את ספר שופטים‪ :‬וַ יְ ִהי ַא ֲח ֵרי מֹות‬ ‫יְ ֻ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע‪ 4.‬שני פתרונות לפרשה החריגה יש כאן והם אינם מתיישבים זה עם זה‪ :‬האחד‬ ‫קובע את האירועים בשופ’ א ‪–1‬ב ‪ 5‬אחרי מות יהושע (שופ’ א ‪ ,)1‬האחר קובע אותם לפני‬ ‫מות יהושע (שופ’ ב ‪ .)9–6‬יש לציין שגם תיאור מות יהושע בסוף ספר יהושע מלכתחילה‬ ‫לא כיוון להיות סוף פסוק אלא מובנית בו הכנה לפרשה הבאה‪ :‬יהושע מת (כד ‪ )29‬ונקבר‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע וְ כֹל יְ ֵמי ַהּזְ ֵקנִ ים ֲא ֶׁשר ֶה ֱא ִריכּו יָ ִמים‬ ‫(פסוק ‪ ,)30‬ומיד‪ :‬וַ ּיַ ֲעבֹד יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֶאת ה’ ּכֹל יְ ֵמי יְ ֻ‬ ‫ַא ֲח ֵרי יְ ֻ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע וַ ֲא ֶׁשר יָ ְדעּו ֵאת ּכָ ל ַמ ֲע ֵׂשה ה’ ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה לְ יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל (פסוק ‪ 5.)31‬הכתוב הזה‬ ‫מכין לקראת קורות הדור שלא ידע‪ ,‬בדיוק כתפקידו במהדורתו החוזרת בשופ’ ב‪ ,‬אבל‬ ‫בינתיים התערבה כאן יד מסדרת אחרת‪ ,‬והתנגש מעשה עריכה אחד במעשה עריכה אחר‪.‬‬ ‫בשולי הדברים‪ ,‬מן הראוי להזכיר כאן את התוספת בתרגום השבעים בסוף ספר‬ ‫יהושע שאף היא בחלקה תוצר של חזרה על כתובים שבאים בהקשר‪ .‬התוספת בנויה שני‬ ‫חלקים; החלק הראשון עניינו בארון ה’ והוא מקושר אל הזכרת אלעזר (‪ .)a33‬החלק השני‬ ‫(‪ )b33‬מדלג על פני כל שופ’ א ‪-1‬ג ‪ ,11‬הרבה מעבר לפרשה החריגה שאנו מדברים בה‪,‬‬ ‫הישר אל השעבוד המואבי‪:‬‬

‫בין החזרה הזאת לזו שבסוף דה”י ותחילת עזרא (ראו להלן‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,)54‬ועל רקע זה הוא מכנה את שופ’‬ ‫ב ‪ — “Anknüpfung an das Buch Josua” 10–6‬קישור לספר יהושע‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬לדעת בודה‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,21‬פסוק ‪“ 10‬וגם כל הדור” אינו יכול לחזור אל יהושע שבפסוקים‬ ‫‪ ,9–8‬אלא רק אל הזקנים שבפסוק ‪ ,7‬ואי אפשר להפריד בין פסוקים ‪ 7‬ו־‪ .10‬לפיכך‪ ,‬טוען בודה‪ ,‬יש‬ ‫להניח שהעורך מצא את פסוקים ‪ 10 ,7‬במקור אחד‪ ,‬ואת פסוקים ‪ 9 ,8 ,6‬באחר‪ ,‬ותחב את האחרונים בין‬ ‫הראשונים‪ .‬אלא שלא בהכרח כך‪ ,‬וכאמור למעלה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬בודה‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,2‬מצביע על כך ששופ’ א ‪ a1‬מקביל היטב ליהו’ א ‪ ,a1‬וממלא אותו תפקיד‪,‬‬ ‫אך עומד בניגוד גמור לשופ’ ב ‪ 6‬ואילך‪ ,‬שם מדווח מות יהושע לראשונה‪ ,‬ולא פחות בניגוד לספר יהושע‬ ‫בכלל‪ ,‬כי מן הפתיח הזה יוצא שיהושע מת‪ ,‬ורק אחר כך כובשים את עבר הירדן המערבי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬בהקשר הנוכחי הפסוק הזה גם מפריד בין הדבקים לכאורה‪ ,‬כלומר מות יהושע (פסוק ‪)29‬‬ ‫וסגירת מעגלים נוספים‪ :‬קבורת עצמות יוסף (פסוק ‪ )32‬ומות אלעזר בן אהרן וקבורתו (פסוק ‪.)33‬‬

‫*‪126‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬ ‫‪Ὁι δὲ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἀπήλθοσαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τό πον αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς‬‬ ‫‪τὴν ἑαυτῶν πόλιν. Kαὶ ἐσέβοντο οἱ υἱοὶ Iσραηλ τὴν Aσταρτην καὶ‬‬ ‫‪Aσταρωθ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν κόκλῳ αὐτῶν καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς‬‬ ‫‪κύριος εἰς χεῖρα Εγλωμ τῶ βασιλεῖ Μωαβ, καὶ ἐκυρίευσεν αὐτῶν ἔτη‬‬ ‫‪δέκα ὀκτώ.‬‬

‫ששיעורו‪:‬‬ ‫ובני ישראל הלכו איש למקומו ולעירו (≈ שופ’ ב ‪ .)6‬ויעבדו בני ישראל את‬ ‫עשתרת ואת עשתרות ואת אלהי העמים אשר סביבותיהם (≈ ב ‪ .)11‬ויתן‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫אותם ה’ ביד עגלון מלך מואב וימשל בהם שמונה עשרה שנה (≈ ג ‪.)7‬‬ ‫גם מי שמקבל את מקוריות גרסת תרגום השבעים באשר לסיום ספר יהושע‪ ,‬יתמה‬ ‫על המכלול נוכח העובדה שהכתובים הללו חוזרים במקומותיהם בתחילת ספר שופטים‪.‬‬ ‫יוצא אפוא שעורכים ומסדרים חיפשו דרכים לכונן רצף בין יהושע לשופטים ויצרו‬ ‫מכשולים חדשים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬רשימת שרי דוד‬ ‫ספר שמואל מציע שתי רשימות מקבילות של שרי דוד‪ ,‬האחת בסוף שמ”ב פרק ח‬ ‫(פסוקים ‪ 7,)18–16‬והאחרת בסוף פרק כ (פסוקים ‪.)26–23‬‬ ‫שמ”ב ח ‬ ‫יֹואב ֶּבן ְצרּויָ ה ַעל ַה ָּצ ָבא ‬ ‫‪ 16‬וְ ָ‬ ‫~ ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫יהֹוׁש ָפט ֶּבן ֲא ִחילּוד ַמזְ ּכִ יר׃ ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫וִ‬ ‫‪ 17‬וְ ָצדֹוק ֶּבן ֲא ִחיטּוב וַ ֲא ִח ֶימלֶ ְך ֶּבן ֶא ְביָ ָתר ּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ‬ ‫סֹופר׃ ‬ ‫ּוׂש ָריָ ה ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫~ ‬ ‫ּובנָ יָ הּו ֶּבן יְ הֹויָ ָדע וְ ַהּכְ ֵר ִתי וְ ַה ְּפלֵ ִתי ‬ ‫‪ְ 18‬‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ָדוִ ד ּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ָהיּו׃ ‬ ‫ְ‬

‫שמ”ב כ‬ ‫יֹואב ֶאל ּכָ ל ַה ָּצ ָבא יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫‪ 23‬וְ ָ‬ ‫ּובנָ יָ ה ֶּבן יְ הֹויָ ָדע ַעל ַהּכְ ֵר ִתי וְ ַעל ַה ְּפלֵ ִתי‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫וַ ֲאד ָֹרם ַעל ַה ַּמס‬ ‫יהֹוׁש ָפט ֶּבן ֲא ִחילּוד ַה ַּמזְ ּכִ יר‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫וִ‬ ‫~‬ ‫ּוׁשוָ א ס ֵֹפר‬ ‫‪ְ 25‬‬ ‫וְ ָצדֹוק וְ ֶא ְביָ ָתר ּכ ֲֹהנִ ים‬ ‫~‬ ‫‪ 26‬וְ גַ ם ִע ָירא ַהּיָ ִא ִרי ָהיָ ה כ ֵֹהן לְ ָדוִ ד‬

‫‪ .6‬קייל ודליטש‪ ,‬פירוש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,236‬סבורים שהתוספת בשבעים פשוט לקוחה משופ’ ב ‪ 11 ,6‬ואילך‪,‬‬ ‫ג ‪ 12 ,7‬ואילך‪ ,‬וסופחה באופן שרירותי בסוף ספר יהושע‪ .‬רופא סבור שזהו טקסט מקורי שהושמט‬ ‫מנה”מ‪ .‬רופא‪ ,‬המבוא של ספר שופטים; רופא‪ ,‬סיומו של ספר יהושע‪ .‬לדעת בטלר‪ ,‬יהושע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪,282‬‬ ‫העיצוב הספרותי החדש בתחילת פסוק ‪ 33‬והחזרה על הכתוב בשופ’ ג ‪ ,14‬מצביעים נגד מקוריות‬ ‫התוספת‪ .‬זהו ניסיון מאוחר לקשור בין הספרים לא רק בשופ’ ב ‪ ,10-6‬אלא כבר בסוף יהושע‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬יש מתחילים את היחידה בפסוק ‪ ,15‬למשל בודה‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;242‬אנדרסון‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.136–135‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪127‬‬

‫והשוו גם את המקבילה בדה”א יח ‪:17–15‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫יֹואב ֶּבן ְצרּויָ ה ַעל ַה ָּצ ָבא וִ‬ ‫וְ ָ‬ ‫יהֹוׁש ָפט ֶּבן ֲא ִחילּוד ַמזְ ּכִ יר‪ .‬וְ ָצדֹוק ֶּבן ֲא ִחיטּוב וַ ֲא ִב ֶימלֶ ְך ֶּבן‬ ‫ֶא ְביָ ָתר ּכ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַׁשוְ ָׁשא ֵ‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ָדוִ יד ָה ִראׁשֹנִ ים לְ יַ ד‬ ‫ּובנָ יָ הּו ֶּבן יְ הֹויָ ָדע ַעל ַהּכְ ֵר ִתי וְ ַה ְּפלֵ ִתי ְ‬ ‫סֹופר‪ְ .‬‬ ‫ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך‪.‬‬ ‫וכן את רשימת שרי שלמה במל”א ד ‪:6–2‬‬ ‫הֹוׁש ָפט‬ ‫יׁשא ס ְֹפ ִרים יְ ָ‬ ‫וְ ֵאּלֶ ה ַה ָׂשּ ִרים ֲא ֶׁשר לֹו ֲעזַ ְריָ הּו ֶבן ָצדֹוק ַהּכ ֵֹהן‪ֱ .‬אלִ יח ֶֹרף וַ ֲא ִחּיָ ה ְּבנֵ י ִׁש ָ‬ ‫ּובנָ יָ הּו ֶבן יְ הֹויָ ָדע ַעל ַה ָּצ ָבא וְ ָצדֹוק וְ ֶא ְביָ ָתר ּכ ֲֹהנִ ים‪ .‬וַ ֲעזַ ְריָ הּו ֶבן נָ ָתן ַעל‬ ‫ֶּבן ֲא ִחילּוד ַה ַּמזְ ּכִ יר‪ְ .‬‬ ‫יׁשר ַעל ַה ָּביִ ת וַ ֲאדֹנִ ָירם ֶּבן ַע ְב ָּדא ַעל ַה ַּמס‪.‬‬ ‫ַהּנִ ָּצ ִבים וְ זָ בּוד ֶּבן נָ ָתן ּכ ֵֹהן ֵר ֶעה ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך‪ .‬וַ ֲא ִח ָ‬ ‫השוואה מהירה בין שתי הרשימות בספר שמואל מראה בבירור שמדובר באותה‬ ‫הרשימה; האלמנטים המשותפים רבים וברורים לעין‪ ,‬וההבדלים בכמה מרכיבים ובסדרם‬ ‫רובם נוצרו בתהליך המסירה‪ 8.‬ידה של הרשימה בפרק כ על העליונה בכמה וכמה‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫עניינים‪.‬‬ ‫היחס בין שתי הרשימות מצטייר כלהלן‪:‬‬ ‫(א) יואב בן צרויה על הצבא פותח את שתי הרשימות‪.‬‬ ‫(ב) בניה בן יהוידע על הכרתי והפלתי — כך גרסת פרק כ‪ ,‬והיא עדיפה על גרסת פרק‬ ‫ח‪‘ :‬בניה בן יהוידע והכרתי והפלתי’‪ .‬גם בעניין מיקומו השונה בשתי הרשימות‪ ,‬סביר‬ ‫להניח שמקומו בפרק כ עדיף‪ ,‬בצד יואב‪ ,‬שהרי זו פונקציה צבאית‪ ,‬ולא בסוף הרשימה‬ ‫כבפרק ח‪ ,‬ועוד בין בעלי תפקידים שאין להם דבר עם הצבא‪.‬‬ ‫(ג) יהושפט בן אחילוד המזכיר מופיע בשתי הרשימות‪ .‬מקומו בפרק כ אחרי‬ ‫הפונקציות הצבאיות ובמיוחד בצמוד למשרת הסופר הגיונית יותר מאשר בין שר הצבא‬ ‫והכוהנים‪.‬‬ ‫(ד) במשרת הסופר נושא על פי פרק כ ְׁשוָ א (כתיב‪ :‬שיא)‪ ,‬ועל פי פרק ח — שריה‪.‬‬ ‫בדה”י הגרסה היא ַׁשוְ ָׁשא‪ ,‬הקרובה יותר לגרסת פרק כ‪ .‬על פי רשימת שרי שלמה ‘בני‬ ‫שישא’ הם הסופרים בימיו‪ .‬שוב יוצא שיד הרשימה בפרק כ על העליונה‪ :‬סביר להניח‬ ‫שהשם הזר והמוזר ִׁש ָ‬ ‫יׁשא ‪ַׁ /‬שוְ ָׁשא‪ ,‬או ְׁשוָ א ‪ְׁ /‬שיָ א‪ 10,‬פינה מקומו לשריה המוכר הרבה יותר‬ ‫מרשומות מאוחרות יותר כשמם של בעלי תפקידים שונים (כוהן‪ ,‬איש צבא וכו’‪ ,‬במל”ב‬ ‫כה ובעיקר בירמיהו ובדה”י)‪.‬‬ ‫(ה) הכוהנים‪ :‬בפרק כ ‘צדוק ואביתר כהנים’‪ ,‬צמד המופיע גם ברשימת שרי שלמה‪,‬‬ ‫במל”א ד‪ ,‬וגם בסיפור מרד אבשלום‪ ,‬שמ”ב טו ‪ .35 ,29‬בפרק ח מדובר על ָצדֹוק ֶּבן‬ ‫ֲא ִחיטּוב‪ 11‬וַ ֲא ִח ֶימלֶ ְך ֶּבן ֶא ְביָ ָתר (מן הסיפורים מוכר דווקא אביתר בן אחימלך נושא האפוד‬

‫‪ .8‬לדעת אקרויד‪ ,‬שמואל ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,89‬למשל‪ ,‬הרשימות נובעות ממקור אחד; ובדומה‪ ,‬מקרטר‪,‬‬ ‫שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,435‬סבור ששתי הרשימות אינן אלא ואריאנטות והן משתלשלות ממקור אחד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬כך בודה‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ :242‬בכמה פרטים פרק ח עדיף אך בדרך כלל עדיפה גרסת פרק כ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬הצורות הללו מסתברות כצורות לא־שמיות; ראו למשל‪ :‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.256‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬הייחוס הזה מופיע עוד במקום המקביל בדה”א יח ‪ ,16‬שבוודאי לקוח מכאן‪ ,‬אך גם ביוחסין של‬ ‫עזרא‪ ,‬עז’ ז ‪.2‬‬

‫*‪128‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫לפני דוד‪ ,‬שמ”א כב ‪ ,20‬כג ‪ ,6‬ל ‪ 12.)7‬בשני המקורות מופיעים כוהנים ייחודיים ומוזרים‬ ‫משהו‪ :‬בפרק ח בני דוד כוהנים‪ ,‬ובפרק כ עירא היאירי (השם עירא מוכר מרשימת גיבורי‬ ‫דוד)‪ .‬שני הנוסחים מצביעים על כוהנים שאינם בעלי רקורד משפחתי מתאים ואולי‬ ‫מלמד על מסורות קדומות‪ ,‬בזמן שהדבר עדיין היה אפשרי‪ .‬אין זה מפתיע שבדה”י בני‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ָדוִ יד ָה ִראׁשֹנִ ים לְ יַ ד ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך‪.‬‬ ‫דוד אינם כוהנים אלא ְ‬ ‫(ו) אדרם על המס מופיע רק בפרק כ; בדומה מופיע ֲאדֹנִ ָירם ֶּבן ַע ְב ָּדא ַעל ַה ַּמס‬ ‫ברשימת שרי שלמה‪.‬‬ ‫אף שאין ספק שמדובר באותה רשימה עצמה‪ ,‬ההבדלים הרבים שנתגלעו בין‬ ‫גרסותיה אולי מלמדים שהיו למחבר שתי רשימות אלטרנטיביות ושילב אחת ואף מן‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫השנייה לא הניח ידו‪.‬‬ ‫על מה ולמה מובאות שתי רשימות? יש שהעניקו לכך משמעות היסטורית‪ ,‬משל‬ ‫הרשימות משקפות שלבים שונים במלכות דוד‪ 14.‬ויש שראו בחזרה תפקיד עריכתי‪ ,‬מעין‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫חזרה מקשרת המחזירה את הקורא להקשר הישן‪.‬‬ ‫מה שמעניין לדידנו‪ ,‬במסגרת אמצעי חיבור ועריכה‪ ,‬הוא המקומות שהמחבר החליט‬ ‫לשלב בהם את הרשימות שהיו בידו‪ ,‬ואלה אינם מקריים כלל ועיקר‪ .‬הפרקים הראשונים‬ ‫של שמ”ב מתארים את מלכות דוד‪ ,‬תחילה בחברון על יהודה‪ ,‬ואחר כך על כל ישראל‬ ‫ּיֹוׁשע ה’ ֶאת‬ ‫בירושלים‪ .‬פרק ח מביא שורת דיווחים קצרים על מלחמות דוד‪ ,‬וסיכומה‪ :‬וַ ַ‬ ‫ָּדוִ ד ְּבכֹל ֲא ֶׁשר ָהלָ ְך (ח ‪14‬ב)‪ .‬ההמשך הוא בבחינת סיכום של מלכות דוד עד כאן‪ :‬וַ ּיִ ְמֹלְך‬ ‫ּוצ ָד ָקה לְ כָ ל ַעּמֹו (ח ‪ .)15‬או אז באה רשימת‬ ‫ָּדוִ ד ַעל ּכָ ל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וַ יְ ִהי ָדוִ ד ע ֶֹׂשה ִמ ְׁש ָּפט ְ‬ ‫השרים הראשונה (ח ‪.)18–16‬‬ ‫החטיבה הגדולה שלאחר מכן משתרעת על פני פרקים ט–כ‪ .‬זוהי יחידה סגורה‬ ‫ומהודקת ושונה מסביבתה‪ .‬היא כתובה בסגנון אחר לגמרי‪ ,‬לא היסטורי־דיווחי אלא‬ ‫נובליסטי־סיפורי‪ ,‬והיא ככל הנראה חלק מנובלה ארוכה עוד יותר על ירושת כיסא דוד‬ ‫(על פי המקובל במחקר‪ :‬שמ”ב ט–כ ומל”א א–ב)‪ .‬הרשימה השנייה מופיעה בשוליו של‬ ‫פרק כ‪.‬‬

‫‪ .12‬ולהאוזן‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,177‬סבור שהטקסט משובש‪ ,‬ויש לקרוא‪‘ :‬אביתר בן אחימלך בן אחיטוב‬ ‫וצדוק כהנים’‪ ,‬כלומר‪ ,‬כדבריו‪ ,‬יש לקרוא כביכול את הטקסט מן הסוף להתחלה‪ .‬ברתלמי‪ ,‬ביקורת‬ ‫הנוסח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,253–252‬עוד מכביר מילים הרבה על הסוגיה הזאת‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬כך אקרויד‪ ,‬שמואל ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;89‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.435‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬קייל ודליטש‪ ,‬פירוש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,456‬טוענים שהמחבר ודאי שילב את שתי הרשימות ביצירתו מן‬ ‫הסיבה הפשוטה שהן משתייכות לשתי תקופות שונות כפי שההבדלים מוכיחים‪ .‬מטינגר‪ ,‬שרי שלמה‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,7‬טוען שהייחוס לתקופות שונות מתבקש הן מן המקום השונה של הרשימות הן מן העובדה‬ ‫שברשימה השנייה יש תפקיד נוסף‪ ,‬הממונה על המס העובד‪ ,‬שהופך למשרה חשובה בימי שלמה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬כך מגדיר בודה‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,303‬את הרשימה שבפרק כ‪“Wiederholung von 8:16-18 zur :‬‬ ‫”‪ .Wiederaufnahme des alten Zusammenhangs‬קשה לקבל הבחנה מהותית המעדיפה את המקום‬ ‫האחד על פני האחר‪ ,‬כמשתמע מדברי אנדרסון‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,244‬הרואה ברשימה בפרק כ תוספת‬ ‫עריכתית בעוד זו של פרק ח אמורה להיות במקומה הטבעי‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪129‬‬

‫עולה אפוא ששתי הרשימות המקבילות מסמנות בצבע בוהק את החטיבה שמ”ב‬ ‫ט–כ‪ :‬הן באות בסוף פרק ח‪ ,‬אחרי שתם הדיווח על מלכות דוד ולפני שמתחילה הנובלה‬ ‫על ירושת כסאו‪ ,‬ובסוף פרק כ‪ ,‬לפני שהמחבר יכניס טריז בין חלק הארי של הנובלה על‬ ‫ירושת כיסא דוד ובין חלקה האחרון (שעתיד להופיע במל”א א–ב)‪ ,‬וישלב את הנספח‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫בשמ”ב כא–כד‪.‬‬ ‫מעניינת הצעת מקרטר שהרשימות החלופיות נוצרו כאשר סיפור הגבעונים (כא‬ ‫‪ )14–1‬הוזז ממקומו המקורי לפני סיפור מפיבושת בן יהונתן למקומו הנוכחי‪ .‬כלומר‪,‬‬ ‫היה היה פעם ‬ ‫רשימת המלחמות ‬ ‫רשימת השרים‬ ‫סיפור נקמת הגבעונים‬ ‫סיפור מפיבשת ‬ ‫ושאר סיפורי ירושת הכיסא‬ ‫ ‬

‫מהלך העניינים בנה”מ‬ ‫ח רשימת המלחמות‬ ‫רשימת השרים‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ט–כ סיפור מפיבשת‬ ‫ושאר סיפורי ירושת הכיסא‬ ‫ ‬ ‫רשימת השרים‬ ‫ ‬ ‫כא–כד ‪17‬סיפור נקמת הגבעונים‬ ‫ושאר פרקי הנספח‬ ‫ ‬

‫כלומר‪ ,‬סיפור נקמת הגבעונים בבית שאול עמד פעם לפני סיפור מפיבשת וכאשר‬ ‫הועתק משם למקומו החדש העתיקו יחד אתו גם את רשימת השרים הקודמת לו‪ .‬זהו‬ ‫הסבר מפתה‪ ,‬אולי מבריק‪ ,‬ועקרונית‪ ,‬בהחלט אפשרי;‪ 17‬השאלה היא אם הוא אפשרי‬ ‫במקרה שכאן‪.‬‬ ‫(א) אם רשימת השרים הועתקה יחד עם סיפור נקמת הגבעונים למקום אחר למה היא‬ ‫נשארה גם במקומה המקורי?‬ ‫(ב) ואם סיפור הגבעונים עמד אי פעם לפני סיפור מפיבשת‪ ,‬על מה ולמה יעתיק אותו‬ ‫מאן דהוא למקום אחר? בין כה וכה אין רצף בין פרק ח ובין מה שבא אחריו — יהיה זה‬ ‫סיפור הגבעונים או סיפור מפיבשת — וקשה להניח שהיו מעבירים אותו רק כדי ליצור‬ ‫נספח מובנה היטב כמו שהוא היום‪.‬‬ ‫(ג) ועוד‪ ,‬במקומו הנוכחי קשור סיפור הגבעונים‪ ,‬שמ”ב כא‪ ,‬בצורה מכוונת היטב‬ ‫לסיפור המפקד‪ ,‬שמ”ב כד‪ .‬סיפור המפקד מתחיל‪ :‬וַ ּי ֶֹסף ַאף ה’ לַ ֲחרֹות ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪ ,‬קישור‬ ‫שאינו יכול לחזור אלא לסיפור נקמת הגבעונים‪ .‬זאת ועוד‪ ,‬שני סיפורי חרון־האף האלוהי‪,‬‬ ‫ֹלהים לָ ָא ֶרץ (כא ‪ ;14‬כד ‪,)25‬‬ ‫ה’‪/‬א ִ‬ ‫ֱ‬ ‫גם נקמת הגבעונים וגם המפקד‪ ,‬מסתיימים ב־וַ ּיֵ ָע ֵתר‬ ‫מוטיב ומינוח שאינו חזון נפרץ‪ ,‬כך שנוצר בכוונת המכוון‪.‬‬

‫‪ .16‬קייל ודליטש‪ ,‬פירוש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,267‬מעירים שהחטיבה השנייה של תולדות מלכות דוד נסגרת‬ ‫ברשימת השרים‪ ,‬כמו שהרשימה הראשונה סגרה את החטיבה הראשונה (אין זה עולה בקנה אחד עם‬ ‫החלוקה ליחידות כפי שהיא מופיעה אצלם בעמ’ ‪ ,283‬שם סיפחו את פרק ט לחטיבה הראשונה)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬החזרה על רשימת היחס של בנימין בדה”א ח ו‪-‬ט היא דוגמה למקרה כזה בדיוק; ראו להלן‪.‬‬

‫*‪130‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫(ד) ועוד יש לציין את הכתוב בסיפור הגבעונים‪ ,‬כא ‪:7‬‏וַ ּיַ ְחמֹל ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך ַעל ְמ ִפיב ֶֹׁשת ֶּבן‬ ‫ּובין יְ הֹונָ ָתן ֶּבן ָׁשאּול‪ .‬אילו עמד הסיפור‬ ‫יְ הֹונָ ָתן ֶּבן ָׁשאּול ַעל ְׁש ֻב ַעת ה’ ֲא ֶׁשר ֵּבינ ָֹתם ֵּבין ָּדוִ ד ֵ‬ ‫הזה‪ ,‬עם הכתוב האמור‪ ,‬לפני סיפור מפיבשת שמעלה את עניין המחויבות של דוד לברית‬ ‫נֹותר לְ ֵבית ָׁשאּול וְ ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה ִעּמֹו ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫ֹאמר ָּדוִ ד ֲהכִ י יֶ ׁש עֹוד ֲא ֶׁשר ַ‬ ‫עם יהונתן כנושא חדש — וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ַּב ֲעבּור יְ הֹונָ ָתן (ט ‪ — )1‬הוא היה מקדים את המאוחר‪.‬‬ ‫סוף דבר‪ ,‬הנחה מעניינת אך בעייתית מבחינה פילולוגית‪.‬‬ ‫לדידנו מדובר אפוא ברשימות חלופיות ששימשו את המחבר כאבני דרך בעיצוב הספר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬מהדורת ספר מלכים בתרגום השבעים‬ ‫ספר מלכים בדמותו המשתקפת מתרגום השבעים שונה מן הספר הקנוני באופן‬ ‫מהותי‪ .‬ההבדלים המהותיים ביותר מתגדרים בתוספות גדולות ובשינויים מרחיקי לכת‬ ‫במהלך המאורעות‪ 18.‬המעבד שיצר את ספר מלכים במהדורתו זו השתמש גם הוא בחזרה‬ ‫על פרשיות כאמצעי בנייה‪.‬‬ ‫(א) התוספות בתרגום השבעים למל”א ב‬ ‫במל”א ב יש שתי תוספות ארוכות בתרגום השבעים‪ ,‬אחרי פסוק ‪ 35‬ואחרי פסוק ‪.46‬‬ ‫עד פסוק ‪ 35‬מתגלגל הסיפור כלהלן‪ :‬בראשו מופיעה צוואת דוד‪ ,‬ולאחריה מתואר מותו‬ ‫ובא סיכום מלכותו‪ .‬אחרי שהממלכה נכונה ביד שלמה הוא יוצא לטפל במתנגדים מבית‬ ‫בהתאם לצוואה ומעבר לה‪ .‬תחילה באה פרשת אדוניה אל סופה והוא מוצא את מותו‬ ‫מידי בניהו‪ ,‬ולאחריה מטופלים ראשי תומכיו‪ :‬אביתר מגורש לענתות ויואב מוצא להורג‪.‬‬ ‫עתה יש עוד לטפל בשמעי בן גרא‪ ,‬בהתאם לצוואת דוד‪ .‬ואכן‪ ,‬בנוסח המסורה עניינו‬ ‫של שמעי מתגלגל מפסוק ‪ .36‬לא כן בתרגום השבעים‪ .‬אחרי פסוק ‪ 35‬מופיעה תוספת‬ ‫ארוכה (‪ )35a-k‬המכילה שורת נתונים על מלכות שלמה המוכרים ברובם גם מן הספר‬ ‫הקנוני ומתרגומו היווני הסדור‪ :‬חכמתו‪ ,‬נישואיו עם בת פרעה‪ ,‬עובדי הכפייה שלו‪ ,‬כלי‬ ‫המקדש‪ ,‬שרי הנצבים‪ ,‬והערים שביצר‪ .‬אחרי כל אלה מופיע קטע שלם‪ ,)35l-o( ,‬החוזר‬ ‫מילה במילה על צוואת דוד על שמעי‪ ,‬וכך חוזר הכתוב לרצף שנקטע על ידי התוספת‪.‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬

‫‪[35l] Καὶ ἐν τῷ ἔτι Δαυιδ ζῆν ἐνετείλατο τῷ Σαλωμων λέγων Ἰδοὺ μετὰ‬‬ ‫]‪σοῦ Σεμεϊ υἱὸς Γηρα υἱὸς σπέρματος τοῦ Ιεμινι ἐκ Χεβρων· [35m‬‬ ‫‪οὗτος κατηράσατό με κατάραν ὀδυνηρὰν ἐν ᾗ ἡμέρᾳ ἐπορευόμην‬‬ ‫‪εἰς Παρεμβολάς, [35n] καὶ αὐτὸς κατέβαινεν εἰς ἀπαντήν μοι ἐπὶ τὸν‬‬ ‫‪Ιορδάνην, καὶ ὤμοσα αὐτῷ κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου λέγων Εἰ θανατωθήσεται‬‬ ‫‪ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ·[35o] καὶ νῦν μὴ ἀθῳώσῃς αὐτόν, ὅτι ἀνὴρ φρόνιμος σὺ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ γνώσῃ ἃ ποιήσεις αὐτῷ, καὶ κατάξεις τὴν πολιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐν αἵματι‬‬ ‫‪εἰς ᾅδου.‬‬

‫‪ .18‬ראו‪ :‬טלשיר‪ ,‬מהדורת ספר מלכים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬שחזור הנוסח העברי ביסוד התוספות הללו ודיון בהן ראו‪ :‬טוב‪ ,‬תוספות; טלשיר‪ ,‬תוספות‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪131‬‬

‫ושיעורו‪:‬‬ ‫ובעוד דוד חי ציווה את שלמה לאמר הנה עמך שמעי בן גרא בן זרע הימיני‬ ‫מחברון‪ .‬הוא קללני קללה נמרצת ביום עלתי מחנים‪ .‬והוא ירד לקראתי (על)‬ ‫הירדן ואשבע לו בה’ לאמר אם יומת בחרב‪ .‬ועתה אל תנקהו כי איש חכם‬ ‫אתה וידעת מה תעשה לו והורדת את שיבתו בדם שאול(ה)‪.‬‬ ‫הדברים הללו הולכים עקב בצד אגודל אחר הכתוב במל”א ב ‪ ,9–8‬המתורגמים‬ ‫בתה”ש במקומם‪:‬‬ ‫ן־היְ ִמינִ י ִמ ַּב ֻח ִרים וְ הּוא ִקלְ לַ נִ י ְקלָ לָ ה נִ ְמ ֶר ֶצת‬ ‫‪ 8‬וְ ִהּנֵ ה ִע ְּמָך ִׁש ְמ ִעי ֶבן־ּגֵ ָרא ֶב ַ‬ ‫אתי ַהּיַ ְר ֵּדן וָ ֶא ָׁשּ ַבע לֹו ַביהוָ ה לֵ אמֹר ִאם־‬ ‫ְּביֹום לֶ כְ ִּתי ַמ ֲחנָ יִ ם וְ הּוא־יָ ַרד לִ ְק ָר ִ‬ ‫ל־ּתנַ ֵּקהּו ּכִ י ִאיׁש ָחכָ ם ָא ָּתה וְ יָ ַד ְע ָּת ֵאת ֲא ֶׁשר ַּת ֲע ֶׂשה־‬ ‫ֲא ִמ ְיתָך ֶּב ָח ֶרב׃ ‪ 9‬וְ ַע ָּתה ַא ְ‬ ‫ת־ׂש ָיבתֹו ְּב ָדם ְׁשאֹול׃‬ ‫הֹור ְד ָּת ֶא ֵ‬ ‫ּלֹו וְ ַ‬ ‫‪8 καὶ ἰδοὺ μετὰ σοῦ Σεμεϊ υἱὸς Γηρα υἱὸς τοῦ Ιεμενι ἐκ Βαουριμ, καὶ‬‬ ‫‪αὐτὸς κατηράσατό με κατάραν ὀδυνηρὰν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ᾗ ἐπορευόμην εἰς‬‬ ‫‪Παρεμβολάς, καὶ αὐτὸς κατέβη εἰς ἀπαντήν μου εἰς τὸν Ιορδάνην, καὶ‬‬ ‫‪ὤμοσα αὐτῷ ἐν κυρίῳ λέγων Εἰ θανατώσω σε ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ· 9 καὶ οὐ‬‬ ‫‪μὴ ἀθῳώσῃς αὐτόν, ὅτι ἀνὴρ σοφὸς εἶ σὺ καὶ γνώσῃ ἃ ποιήσεις αὐτῷ,‬‬ ‫‪καὶ κατάξεις τὴν πολιὰν αὐτοῦ ἐν αἵματι εἰς ᾅδου.‬‬

‫המעבד הוסיף רק פתיח‪ ,‬ענייני‪‘ :‬ובעוד דוד חי ציווה את שלמה לאמר’‪ ,‬והמשיך וחזר‬ ‫על כל הצוואה הנוגעת לשמעי מילה במילה‪ ,‬בתור פתיח לחלק השני של השתלשלות‬ ‫הפרשה‪ :‬שמעי מקבל הזדמנות להמשיך בחייו‪ ,‬כמו אדוניה‪ ,‬וכמו אדוניה אינו עומד‬ ‫בתנאים שהוצבו לו ומוצא להורג‪ .‬זוהי אפוא עוד דוגמה בהירה לשימוש שעשו עורכים‬ ‫ומעבדים באמצעי הזה של חזרה על פרשיות כדי לגשר על פני תוספות שמערערות את‬ ‫רצף הכתוב‪.‬‬ ‫(ב) המסורת הכפילה‬ ‫במישור אחר‪ ,‬כך נראה‪ ,‬יש לראות את המקרה הזה‪ .‬אחרי פרשת הפילוג (יב ‪)20–1‬‬ ‫וייצובו בדבר ה’ בפי שמעיה (מל”א יב ‪ ,)24–21‬פרשה המתורגמת כהווייתה בתרגום‬ ‫השבעים‪ ,‬מופיעה בתרגום השבעים תוספת ארוכה מעוצבת היטב (‪ .)24a–z‬המסורת‬ ‫הזאת רובה ככולה בנויה על חומרים המצויים במל”א יא‪ ,‬יב ו־יד‪ ,‬בתמהיל חדש לחלוטין‪.‬‬ ‫היות שכך‪ ,‬אולי אין זה מן הראוי להפנות את הזרקור דווקא אל מרכיב מסוים אחד‬ ‫שישרת אותנו בהקשר של פרשיות חוזרות‪ .‬ואף על פי כן‪ ,‬יש למהלך המאורעות כפי‬ ‫שהוא בתרגום השבעים‪ ,‬מידת רלוונטיות לענייננו‪ :‬פרשת הפילוג מתגלגלת בתרגום‬ ‫השבעים כבנה”מ ונעצרת בדבר ה’ בפי שמעיה (יב ‪ ;)24–1‬אחר כך יוצא לדרך הסיפור‬ ‫הכפיל על הפילוג‪ ,‬מעוצב כרטרוספקטיבה על האירועים‪ ,‬נודד אחורה וקדימה בתכנון‬ ‫קפדני (‪ ;)24a–z‬הקטע האחרון שלו (‪ ,)24x–z‬מקביל מילה במילה ל־יב ‪ 24–21‬המסיים‬ ‫את הפילוג בנבואת שמעיה‪ .‬בכך חוזר חוט העלילה למקום שנקטע בו עם שילוב המסורת‬

‫*‪132‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫הכפילה‪ .‬אין זה אומר בשום אופן שהקטע ‪ 24x–z‬הוא פרי עריכה‪ ,‬תוספת מאוחרת‬ ‫שמטרתה לדלג על החומר הזר; הקטע הזה הוא חלק מן המסורת הכפילה והוא מהווה לה‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫סיום בדיוק כמו בחומר המקביל שהמסורת הזאת בנויה עליו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬הפרקים ההיסטוריים בספרי הנבואה‬ ‫כלי העריכה שבידי המחברים־עורכים של ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬ ‫גולשים אל מעבר לגבולותיה‪ .‬הן בספר ישעיהו והן בספר ירמיהו מופיעים פרקים‬ ‫מקבילים לספר מלכים‪.‬‬ ‫(א) פרקים מספר מלכים בספר ישעיה‪ :‬מל”ב יח–כ ‪ //‬יש’ לו–לט‬ ‫לתיאור מלכות חזקיהו בספר מלכים (מל”ב יח–כ) יש מקבילה בספר ישעיהו (יש’ לו–‬ ‫לט)‪ .‬הפרקים הללו‪ ,‬שהם עצמם כבר הרכב של מסורות‪ ,‬נסדרו לראשונה על ידי העורך‬ ‫של ספר מלכים לצרכיו הוא‪ ,‬ולא במטרה להסתפח לספר ישעיה‪ 21.‬בשלב מאוחר יותר‬ ‫נשאלה היחידה ההיסטורית הזאת‪ ,‬שישעיהו הוא דמות מרכזית בה‪ ,‬לספר ישעיהו‪ .‬מעשה‬ ‫עריכה זה יוצא לשתי פנים‪ .‬בפן האחד מסמנים הפרקים ההיסטוריים החוזרים את גבולות‬ ‫הזמן והעניין של נבואות ישעיהו בן אמוץ וכמו מספחים אותן לתיאור ימי הממלכה‪ .‬אם‬ ‫כך‪ ,‬מי שתלה את הפרקים הללו אחרי יש’ לה התכוון לסמן בהם את סוף הספר‪ ,‬ולאו‬ ‫דווקא לקח בחשבון שעוד יוסיפו לספר את פרקים מו–סו‪ 22.‬בפן האחר‪ ,‬במעמדם הנוכחי‬ ‫בלב ספר ישעיה‪ ,‬שמים הפרקים הללו חיץ ברור בין החלק הראשון של הספר לחלקו‬ ‫השני‪ ,‬אף כי ספק אם שולבו בספר למטרה זו‪ 23.‬מכל מקום‪ ,‬ברור שלפנינו חזרה מכוונת‬ ‫‪ .20‬דיון מקיף על עיצוב המסורת הכפילה ויחסיה עם החומר המקביל ראו טלשיר‪ ,‬המסורת הכפילה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬כך בפרשנות לדורותיה; למשל מרטי‪ ,‬ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“Aus II Reg sind die Capp. dann :268‬‬ ‫”‪ ;durch den Redaktor von Jes 1-39 entlehnt‬דום‪ ,‬ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“Die geschichtlichen Zusätze c. :14‬‬

‫‪36-39, verschiedenen Quellen entnomen, sind wahrscheinlich vom Redaktor der Königsbücher‬‬ ‫”‪ ;zusammengestellt, also nicht zu dem Zweck, dem B. Jesaia einverleibt zu werden‬קלמנטס‪,‬‬ ‫ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“The character of the minor variations between the two accounts leaves no :277‬‬ ‫‪doubt that their setting in 2 Kings is original and their inclusion here a secondary carrying-over‬‬ ‫”‪ ;by a redactor‬בלנקינסופ‪ ,‬ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“This entire section is an insertion taken from the :459‬‬ ‫”‪.History… This hypothesis is much more probable than a transfer in the opposite direction‬‬

‫הפרשנים שמים דגש במיוחד על הרכב המסורות המתאים לספר מלכים והועבר כמות שהוא לישעיה‪,‬‬ ‫כמו גם על כתוב כמו לו ‪ 1‬הלקוח היישר מן הכרוניקה המובאת בספר מלכים ושם הוא חלק מדיווח רחב‬ ‫יותר שאיננו בישעיה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬השוו‪ :‬דּום‪ ,‬ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“Die geschichtlichen Nachträge c. 36-39 dienen als Abschluss :257‬‬ ‫”‪ ,den ursprünglichen Jesaiabuches c. 1-39‬כלומר‪ ,‬הנספחים ההיסטוריים בפרקים לו–לט שימשו‬ ‫כסיום לספר ישעיהו המקורי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬קשה לקבל שרמזים על גלות עתידית של מלכי יהודה — יש’ לט ‪“ :7‬ומבניך אשר יצאו ממך‬ ‫אשר תוליד יקחו והיו סריסים בהיכל מלך בבל” — הם שהביאו עורך מאוחר לשלב בספר השלם את‬ ‫הפרקים ההיסטוריים כמעבר מן הנביא של ימי הממלכה אל פרקי הנביא של שיבת ציון; ראו למשל‬ ‫קייזר‪ ,‬ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .368–367‬וכך גם קלמנטס‪ ,‬ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,277‬הטוען שתוספת הפרקים הללו בישעיהו‬ ‫הם מן הצעדים המאוחרים ביותר של עריכת הספר‪ ,‬ומתאר את מטרת העורך כיצירת גשר בין ישעיהו‬ ‫הראשון והשני‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪133‬‬

‫על שורת פרקים‪ ,‬חומר מקיף למדיי‪ ,‬כאמצעי בבניית ספר ישעיהו עצמו‪ ,‬ואף בהקשר‬ ‫רחב יותר — במעמדו של ספר ישעיהו ביחס לספרים אחרים‪.‬‬ ‫(ב) פרקים מספר מלכים בספר ירמיה‬ ‫כמו בספר ישעיהו גם בספר ירמיהו יש פרקי היסטוריוגרפיה מקבילים לספר מלכים‪.‬‬ ‫גם אלה הם בוודאי מידי עורך מאוחר של הספר‪ ,‬וכמו בספר ישעיהו — אולי מיד עורך‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫שהפרספקטיבה שלו רחבה יותר‪ ,‬מעבר לספר ירמיהו לבדו‪.‬‬ ‫בספר ירמיהו התמונה מסובכת יותר מאשר בספר ישעיהו‪ .‬יש בספר שימוש כפול‬ ‫במל”ב כה‪ ,‬פעם ביר’ נב ופעם במהלך פרקים לט–מא‪ .‬האם אפשר לשייך את שני‬ ‫השילובים הללו לאותה יד? האם מדובר בשני שלבים של עריכה? האם היחסים בין‬ ‫מלכים וירמיהו בשני המקרים הם אותם יחסים מבחינת מוקדם ומאוחר‪ ,‬נותן ומקבל?‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫בדרך כלל‪ ,‬יש הבחנה ברורה במחקר בין שתי החטיבות‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )1‬מל”ב כד ‪–18‬כה ‪ // 30‬יר’ נב‬ ‫הפרשה האחרונה של ספר מלכים‪ ,‬מלכות צדקיהו וקץ מלכות יהודה (מל”ב כד‬ ‫‪–18‬כה ‪ )30‬חוזרת בפרק האחרון של ספר ירמיהו (יר’ נב)‪ .‬אי אפשר שלא לראות את‬ ‫החזרה הזאת בהקשר של החזרה שראינו בספר ישעיהו‪ 26,‬למרות ההבדל המהותי ביניהם‪:‬‬ ‫בפרקים ההיסטוריים בספר ישעיהו יש לנביא חלק נכבד‪ ,‬בעוד יר’ נב אינו מזכיר את‬ ‫ירמיהו ולו במילה‪ 27.‬שמא ראה העורך בפרק הזה ראיה להתגשמות נבואת ירמיהו‪ ,‬הן‬ ‫על הקץ הן על התקומה‪ 28.‬זהו מעשה עריכה מובהק‪ ,‬כלי בידי מסדרי הספרים‪ .‬החזרה‬ ‫הזאת מספקת אקורד סיום היסטורי לספר הנבואי‪ ,‬וכמו חובקת את ספר ירמיהו כולו‬

‫‪ .24‬הופמן‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,76–75 ,63‬רואה בפרקי ההיסטוריוגרפיה בספר ירמיהו “כתובים שלא‬ ‫ירמיהו חיברם”‪ ,‬ומיחסם לשלב השלישי של התפתחות הספר‪ ,‬שלב שהוא מייחס לימים שלאחר החורבן‬ ‫כאשר גבר העיסוק בספר והוא משך אליו הרחבות ועיבודים שונים‪ .‬חוגי סופרים מן האסכולה המשנה־‬ ‫תורתית “הם אשר שיוו לספר את מבנהו הבסיסי‪ ,‬והם האחראים גם לשיבוץ ההיסטוריוגרפיה המשנה־‬ ‫תורתית כדי להבהיר את המסגרת ההיסטורית של הספר”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬מובינקל‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬המבחין כמה מקורות ביסוד ספר ירמיה‪ ,‬שייך את הראשונה למקור ‪ B‬ואילו את‬ ‫האחרונה למקור ‪ .C‬רודולף‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,xvii‬טוען שהעריכה הסופית חילקה את ספר ירמיהו לשניים‪,‬‬ ‫עד נפילת ירושלים א–לט (ופתיחתה ב־א ‪ ,)3–1‬ואחרי נפילת ירושלים מ–מה (ופתיחתה ב־מ ‪;)1aa‬‬ ‫חלוקה זו מעידה לדעתו שהספר הסתיים בפרק מה; משמע‪ ,‬הנבואות על הגויים עדיין עמדו בפרק כה‪,‬‬ ‫כמו בתרגום השבעים‪ ,‬ופרק נב עדיין לא נוסף לספר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬בלנקינסופ‪ ,‬ישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,459‬מדגיש שהמקרה של ירמיהו מלמד גם על ישעיהו‪ ,‬מפני שהפרק‬ ‫החוזר הזה בירמיהו אינו מזכיר אפילו את הנביא‪ ,‬כך שכלל לא עולה על הדעת שמקומו הראשוני היה‬ ‫בספר ירמיהו‪ .‬הופמן‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,869‬מדגיש גם הוא את העובדה שירמיהו אפילו לא נזכר בפרשה‬ ‫הזאת‪ ,‬אבל עם זאת “עריכתה בסוף ספר הקרוי על שמו אינה תמוהה‪ ,‬ויש בה היגד ברור‪ :‬הרעה עליה‬ ‫ניבא ירמיהו‪ ...‬אכן באה”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬כך ברייט‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.370‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬ברייט‪ ,‬שם‪“In its present context the chapter seems to say: the divine word both has :‬‬ ‫”!‪( been fulfilled – and will be fulfilled‬איזו דרך נאה מצא לו ברייט לסיים בה את פירושו לספר‬ ‫ירמיה)‪.‬‬

‫*‪134‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫ומצרפת אותו לתולדות המתוארים בספר מלכים‪ .‬מה שלא עשה מחבר ספר מלכים‪,‬‬ ‫שהשאיר את ירמיהו מחוץ לתמונה באופן תמוה למדיי‪ ,‬עשה עורך ספר ירמיהו שהעמיד‬ ‫את קורות הנביא במסגרתם ההיסטורית‪ .‬כאן‪ ,‬יותר מאשר במקרה של ישעיה‪ ,‬העורך‬ ‫אומר את דברו לא רק לצורך ספר ירמיהו אלא גם למקומו של הספר בהרכב ספרים רחב‬ ‫יותר‪ .‬לא מפתיע שיר’ נב בא אחרי חתימה שאין מובהקת הימנה‪“ :‬עד הנה דברי ירמיהו”‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫(נא ‪ 29.)64b‬בכך אמר מי שאמר את דברו‪ :‬הפרק הבא‪ ,‬פרק נב‪ ,‬אינו בגדר דברי ירמיהו‪.‬‬ ‫פרק נב הוא בבחינת נספח או חתימה לספר‪ .‬בספר ירמיהו ניכרת אפוא עשייתו ל’ספר’‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫בצורה מובהקת ביותר‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )2‬מל”ב כה ‪ // 26–23 ,12–1‬יר’ לט ‪ ;10–1‬מ ‪ ;]16–10[ 9–7‬מא–‪18–16 ,]15–4[ 3‬‬ ‫מורכבת יותר השאילה ממל”ב כה המשתרעת על פני יר’ לט–מא‪ 32.‬הקטעים ממל”ב כה‬ ‫משולבים כאן בחומרים אחרים‪ ,‬שאין להם מקביל בספר מלכים‪ ,‬חלקם היסטוריוגרפיים‬ ‫(ומעניין לציין שגם באלה‪ ,‬כמו בספר מלכים‪ ,‬אין זכר לירמיהו)‪ ,‬חלקם קורות הנביא‬ ‫וחלקם דברי נבואה‪ 33.‬בניגוד ליש’ לו–לט‪ ,‬וליר’ נב‪ ,‬כאן אין מדובר בהצבת נספח השאול‬ ‫מספרי ההיסטוריה‪ ,‬אלא ביצירה חדשה הבנויה על שילוב של חומרים מסוגים שונים‪,‬‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫חלקם ממל”ב כה‪.‬‬ ‫אפשר מעשה העריכה ניכר כבר בשולי תיאור היחסים בין צדקיהו וירמיהו‪ .‬בסוף יר’‬ ‫רּוׁש ִָלם ס וְ ָהיָ ה ּכַ ֲא ֶׁשר נִ לְ ּכְ ָדה‬ ‫לח כתוב‪ :‬וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו ַּב ֲח ַצר ַה ַּמ ָּט ָרה ַעד יֹום ֲא ֶׁשר נִ לְ ּכְ ָדה יְ ָ‬ ‫רּוׁש ִָלם‪ .‬הפסוקית ‘והיה כאשר נלכדה ירושלם’ מהדקת את הקשר בין הפרשה המתארת‬ ‫יְ ָ‬ ‫‪ .29‬אין בידינו חתימות‪/‬כותרות רבות המאפשרות הצצה לתהליך חיבור הספרים‪ .‬בתוך ספר ירמיהו‬ ‫מזכירים עוד את יר’ מח ‪“ :47‬עד הנה משפט מואב”‪ ,‬בסוף הנבואה על מואב ולפני תחילת הנבואה על‬ ‫עמון‪ .‬קרובות יותר לענייננו חתימת קובץ מזמורים בספר תהילים ב”כלו תפלות דוד בן ישי” (תה’ עב‬ ‫‪ ,)20‬כמו גם הכותרת שלא תסולא בפז בראש אוסף פתגמים בספר משלי‪“ :‬גם אלה משלי שלמה אשר‬ ‫העתיקו אנשי חזקיה מלך יהודה” (מש’ כה ‪.)1‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬כך למשל‪ ,‬רודולף‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪‘ :277‬פרק נב‪ ,‬כמו שמלמד נא ‪ ,64b‬בצדק אינו נחשב על ירמיהו‪.‬‬ ‫הוא נלקח ממל”ב כה‪ ,‬להוציא הקטע על גדליה (מל”ב כה ‪ )26–22‬שהוא בעצמו מקטע מתוך יר’ לט–מא’‪.‬‬ ‫וכן ברייט‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“As the concluding words of chapter li indicate, chapter lii forms an :370‬‬ ‫”‪ ;appendix to the Jeremiah book‬מקיין‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪clxxi: “Chapter 52 is described as an appendix‬‬ ‫”‪ .to the book of Jeremiah and is signaled at 51.64‬מתקבלת על הדעת ההנחה שהחתימה הזאת‬ ‫כיוונה לסגור את דברי ירמיהו אחרי נא ‪( 58‬ולא אחרי פסוק ‪ ,)64‬ומלמדת על כך מילת ‘ויעפו’ הרומזת‬ ‫אל המילה האחרונה בפסוק ההוא; ראו‪ :‬מקיין‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.1349‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬על שום כך קרא אותו לונדבום‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪‘ ,101–100‬ספר הספרים’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬זוהי פרשה מורכבת מאד מעבר לשאילה ממל”ב כה ‪ //‬יר’ נב‪ ,‬והדעות על תהליך התהוותה‬ ‫מגוונות מאד; ראו למשל במבוא של מקיין‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.cxlviii-cli‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬הופמן‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.702‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬כדברי הופמן‪ ,‬שם‪“ :‬עריכתם (החוזרת) בפרשה זו נועדה לקשרם עם המידע ההיסטוריוגרפי‬ ‫הנמסר אך ורק כאן ולא במקורות אחרים במקרא”‪ .‬לדעתו‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,704‬יר’ לט ‪ 10–1‬הוא עיבוד מקוצר‬ ‫של מל”ב כה ‪ //( 12–1‬יר’ נב ‪ .)16–4‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬על יר’ מ ‪–7‬מא ‪ ,18‬תיאור רצח גדליהו‪ ,‬הוא אומר‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,716‬שהמקבילה הקצרה יותר בספר מלכים היא תקציר של הכתוב בספר ירמיהו‪ ,‬היות שספר מלכים‬ ‫עניינו בחורבן ובגלות ואין לו עניין להאריך בקורות שלאחר מכן‪ .‬להנחה שתיאור רצח גדליה במלכים‬ ‫הוא סיכום של המתואר ביר’ לט–נא‪ ,‬ראו גם‪ :‬ברייט‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.370‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪135‬‬

‫מה שקרה עד יום אשר נלכדה ירושלים ובין הפרשה המתארת מה קרה מיום לכידת‬ ‫ירושלים ואילך‪ 35.‬אין לה המשך אלא בחומר המשולב מעשה אורג ביר’ לט–מא המתאר‬ ‫את שהתרחש כאשר נלכדה ירושלים‪.‬‬ ‫ייתכן אם כן שיש לייחס את השימוש הכפול במל”ב כה בספר ירמיהו לידיים שונות‪.‬‬ ‫העורך שעיצב את יר’ לט–מא עשה מעשה מסוג אחד‪ ,‬בעוד מי שהוסיף את פרק נב אמר‬ ‫אמירה שונה אולי מנקודת ראות של מי שחולש על נביאים ראשונים ואחרונים גם יחד‪.‬‬ ‫* * *‬ ‫לסיום‪ ,‬הפרשיות החוזרות מן ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית אינן מתפרשות‬ ‫כעדות לקיומן של מסורות או גרסאות שונות ששולבו על ידי מחברים שונים או בשלבים‬ ‫שונים של מסירת הספרים באופן בלתי תלוי‪ .‬אדרבא‪ ,‬הן כלי בידי מי שרוצה לקרב את‬ ‫הרחוקים ובמודע חוזר על פרשיות כדי לגשר ביניהם‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬פרשיות חוזרות בהיסטוריוגרפיה הכרוניסטית‬ ‫גם בספרי דברי הימים ועזרא ונחמיה אנו מוצאים את השימוש בכלי החיבור ‪/‬‬ ‫העריכה הזה של חזרה על פרשיות שלמות‪ .‬גם כאן לא כל הדוגמאות עולות בקנה אחד‪,‬‬ ‫ואף על פי כן יש בהן כדי להצביע על דרך עבודה ייחודית‪ ,‬שאולי בעיניים מודרניות היא‬ ‫תמוהה‪ ,‬אך מחברים ועורכים קדמונים‪ ,‬בשלבים שונים של התהוות ספרות המקרא‪ ,‬לא‬ ‫מאסו בה‪ .‬ארבע דוגמאות הן‪ ,‬האחת מתוך ספר דברי הימים‪ ,‬אחרת מתוך ספר עזרא‬ ‫ונחמיה‪ ,‬ושתיים המגשרות על פני ספר דברי הימים וספר עזרא ונחמיה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬משפחת שאול דה”א ח ‪ // 38–28‬ט [‪44–35]34‬‬ ‫הדוגמה הראשונה‪ ,‬רשימת היוחסין הכפולה של משפחת שאול‪ ,‬אפשר אינה שייכת‬ ‫כלל למשפחת הפרשיות החוזרות הנדונות כאן‪.‬‬ ‫דה”א ט‬ ‫דה”א ח ‬ ‫דֹותם‬ ‫אׁשי ָה ָאבֹות לַ לְ וִ ּיִ ם לְ תֹלְ ָ‬ ‫‪ֵ 34‬אּלֶ ה ָר ֵ‬ ‫אׁשים ‬ ‫דֹותם ָר ִ‬ ‫אׁשי ָאבֹות לְ תֹלְ ָ‬ ‫‪ֵ 28‬אּלֶ ה ָר ֵ‬ ‫אׁשים‬ ‫ָר ִ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ‫ֵאּלֶ ה יָ ְׁשבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ‫ֵאּלֶ ה יָ ְׁשבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫יאל]‬ ‫ּובגִ ְבעֹון יָ ְׁשבּו ֲא ִבי גִ ְבעֹון יעואל [יְ ִע ֵ‬ ‫‪ְ 35‬‬ ‫ּובגִ ְבעֹון יָ ְׁשבּו ֲא ִבי גִ ְבעֹון ‪ ---‬‬ ‫‪ְ 29‬‬ ‫וְ ֵׁשם ִא ְׁשּתֹו ַמ ֲעכָ ה׃‬ ‫ ‬ ‫וְ ֵׁשם ִא ְׁשּתֹו ַמ ֲעכָ ה׃‬ ‫ּוב ַעל‬ ‫ּובנֹו ַה ְּבכֹור ַע ְבּדֹון וְ צּור וְ ִקיׁש ַ‬ ‫‪ְ 36‬‬ ‫ּוב ַעל ‬ ‫ּובנֹו ַה ְּבכֹור ַע ְבּדֹון וְ צּור וְ ִקיׁש ַ‬ ‫‪ְ 30‬‬ ‫וְ נֵ ר וְ נָ ָדב׃‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ --‬וְ נָ ָדב׃‬‫‪ּ 37‬וגְ דֹור וְ ַא ְחיֹו ּוזְ כַ ְריָ ה ִּומ ְקלֹות׃‬ ‫‪ּ 31‬וגְ דֹור וְ ַא ְחיֹו וָ זָ כֶ ר ‪---‬׃ ‬ ‫ּומ ְקלֹות הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִׁש ְמ ָאם‬ ‫‪ִ 38‬‬ ‫ּומ ְקלֹות הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִׁש ְמ ָאה ‬ ‫‪ִ 32‬‬

‫‪ .35‬הופמן‪ ,‬ירמיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.703‬‬

‫*‪136‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫ירּוׁש ִַלם‬ ‫יהם יָ ְׁשבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫וְ ַאף ֵהם נֶ גֶ ד ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫יהם׃‬ ‫ִעם ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫‪ 39‬וְ נֵ ר הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִקיׁש וְ ִקיׁש הֹולִ יד ֶאת ָׁשאּול‬

‫ירּוׁש ִַלם ‬ ‫יהם יָ ְׁשבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫וְ ַאף ֵה ָּמה נֶ גֶ ד ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫יהם׃ ‬ ‫ִעם ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 33‬וְ נֵ ר הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִקיׁש וְ ִקיׁש הֹולִ יד ‬ ‫ֶאת ָׁשאּול‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ׁשּוע‬ ‫ׁשּוע וְ ָׁשאּול הֹולִ יד ֶאת יְ הֹונָ ָתן וְ ֶאת ַמלְ ּכִ י ַ‬ ‫וְ ָׁשאּול הֹולִ יד ֶאת יְ הֹונָ ָתן וְ ֶאת ַמלְ ּכִ י ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶאת ֲא ִבינָ ָדב וְ ֶאת ֶא ְׁש ָּב ַעל׃‬ ‫ ‬ ‫וְ ֶאת ֲא ִבינָ ָדב וְ ֶאת ֶא ְׁש ָּב ַעל׃‬ ‫ּובן יְ הֹונָ ָתן ְמ ִריב ָּב ַעל‬ ‫‪ֶ 40‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ּובן יְ הֹונָ ָתן ְמ ִריב ָּב ַעל‬ ‫‪ֶ 34‬‬ ‫ְּומ ִרי ַב ַעל הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִמיכָ ה׃‬ ‫ְּומ ִריב ַּב ַעל הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִמיכָ ה׃ ‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ִמיכָ ה ִּפיתֹון וָ ֶמלֶ ְך וְ ַת ְח ֵר ַע ‪---‬׃‬ ‫‪ְ 41‬‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ִמיכָ ה ִּפיתֹון וָ ֶמלֶ ְך וְ ַת ְא ֵר ַע וְ ָא ָחז׃ ‬ ‫‪ְ 35‬‬ ‫‪ 42‬וְ ָא ָחז הֹולִ יד ֶאת יַ ְע ָרה‬ ‫הֹוע ָּדה ‬ ‫‪ 36‬וְ ָא ָחז הֹולִ יד ֶאת יְ ַ‬ ‫וְ יַ ְע ָרה הֹולִ יד ֶאת ָעלֶ ֶמת וְ ֶאת ַעזְ ָמוֶ ת‬ ‫יהֹוע ָּדה הֹולִ יד ֶאת ָעלֶ ֶמת וְ ֶאת ַעזְ ָמוֶ ת ‬ ‫וִ ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶאת זִ ְמ ִרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫וְ ֶאת זִ ְמ ִרי‬ ‫ ‬ ‫מֹוצא׃‬ ‫וְ זִ ְמ ִרי הֹולִ יד ֶאת ָ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫מֹוצא׃‬ ‫וְ זִ ְמ ִרי הֹולִ יד ֶאת ָ‬ ‫ּומֹוצא הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִּבנְ ָעא‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫ּומֹוצא הֹולִ יד ֶאת ִּבנְ ָעא ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫ְּור ָפיָ ה ְבנֹו ֶאלְ ָע ָׂשה ְבנֹו ָא ֵצל ְּבנֹו׃‬ ‫ָר ָפה ְבנֹו ֶאלְ ָע ָׂשה ְבנֹו ָא ֵצל ְּבנֹו׃ ‬ ‫מֹותם‬ ‫‪ּ 44‬ולְ ָא ֵצל ִׁש ָׁשּה ָבנִ ים וְ ֵאּלֶ ה ְׁש ָ‬ ‫מֹותם ‬ ‫‪ּ 38‬ולְ ָא ֵצל ִׁש ָׁשּה ָבנִ ים וְ ֵאּלֶ ה ְׁש ָ‬ ‫ּוׁש ַע ְריָ ה‬ ‫ַעזְ ִר ָיקם ּבֹכְ רּו וְ יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵעאל ְ‬ ‫ּוׁש ַע ְריָ ה ‬ ‫ַעזְ ִר ָיקם ּבֹכְ רּו וְ יִ ְׁש ָמ ֵעאל ְ‬ ‫וְ ע ַֹב ְדיָ ה וְ ָחנָ ן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫וְ ע ַֹב ְדיָ ה וְ ָחנָ ן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ֵ --‬אּלֶ ה ְּבנֵ י ָא ַצל׃‬‫ ‬ ‫ּכָ ל ֵאּלֶ ה ְּבנֵ י ָא ַצל׃‬ ‫יפלֶ ט ַה ְׁשּלִ ִׁשי׃‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ֵע ֶׁשק ָא ִחיו אּולָ ם ְּבכֹרֹו יְ עּוׁש ַה ֵׁשּנִ י וֶ ֱאלִ ֶ‬ ‫‪ְ 39‬‬ ‫‪ 40‬וַ ּיִ ְהיּו ְבנֵ י אּולָ ם ֲאנָ ִׁשים ּגִ ּב ֵֹרי ַחיִ ל ּד ְֹרכֵ י ֶק ֶׁשת‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ָבנִ ים ֵמ ָאה וַ ֲח ִמ ִׁשּים‬ ‫ּומ ְר ִּבים ָּבנִ ים ְ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּכָ ל ֵאּלֶ ה ִמ ְּבנֵ י ִבנְ יָ ִמן׃‬

‫שני הסברים ניתנו לחזרה זו על רשימת היוחסין של משפחת שאול‪ ,‬האחד ענייני‬ ‫והאחר טכני‪ .‬ענייני‪ ,‬משל חזר המחבר בכוונת המכוון על היוחסין של משפחת שאול‬ ‫שבפרק ח גם בפרק ט‪ ,‬כדי להקדים בה את סיפור מלחמת הגלבוע‪ ,‬סיפור ִק ָצּה של‬ ‫משפחת שאול‪ ,‬הבא מיד לאחר מכן‪ ,‬בפרק י‪ .‬על ידי כך‪ ,‬יש לומר‪ ,‬גם סימן את רשימת‬ ‫השמות של היושבים בירושלים (ט ‪ )34-b1‬כפרשה חריגה‪ 36.‬אם כך‪ ,‬הרי זה שימוש בוטה‬ ‫בכלי החזרה‪ ,‬בגלל עצם הסמיכות של הפרשיות החוזרות ומפני אורכן (אלא אם כן כוונת‬ ‫הכותב הייתה שהרשימה הראשונה תימחק)‪.‬‬

‫‪ .36‬רודולף‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,93–91‬מכתיר את כל פרק ט ‘נספחים’‪ ,‬ורואה בחזרה על היחס של‬ ‫בית שאול תוספת מאוחרת מאוד שמטרתה לגשר על פני החומר הזר בהקשר ולהוביל אל מפלת שאול‪.‬‬ ‫ויליאמסון‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,92–91‬אומר שהרשימה בפרק ט היא פתיחה טובה לפרק י ועל כן אפשר‬ ‫להניח שמחבר דה”י הוא שהכליל אותה כאן‪ .‬קליין‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,281‬אף מעניק משמעויות שונות‬ ‫לרשימות בהקשריהן‪ ,‬הרשימה הראשונה מוסיפה מידע רב על אילן היוחסין של בנימין‪ ,‬ואילו מקבילתה‬ ‫בפרק ט היא בבחינת הכנה לסיפור על מות שאול ובאה ללמד שאשמתו של שאול לא דבקה בכל שבטו‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪137‬‬

‫ההסבר הטכני מכוון לומר שהחזרה בטעות יסודה‪ ,‬כדברי ארליך‪ ,‬בפירושו על ט ‪:35‬‬ ‫ובגבעון ישבו וגו’‪ .‬כל הדברים האלה מכאן ועד סוף הפרשה כבר נאמרו‬ ‫למעלה (ח‪ ,‬כט–לח)‪ .‬ונראה לי שבתחלה ִמשנֵ ה המגילה הזאת טעות סופר‪,‬‬ ‫שטעה הלבלר בפסוק הקודם‪ ,‬שלשונו כעין לשון הכתוב למעלה (ח‪ ,‬כח)‪,‬‬ ‫המשנֶ ה קודש‪ ,‬והניחוהו‬ ‫וכתב אחרי זה מה שנכתב אחרי זה‪ .‬ולאחר זמן היה ִ‬ ‫לעמוד במקומו עד היום הזה‪ .‬ובלבד ששנו בו שנויים‪ ,‬כדי שלא יהיה כפל‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫דברים ממש‪.‬‬ ‫הסיפא של דברי ארליך אינה מקובלת עליי‪ .‬ההבדלים עד אחד שייכים לתחום של‬ ‫תולדות הנוסח‪ ,‬ולא ששינו בו שינויים מכוונים‪.‬‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫ההבדלים כלהלן‪:‬‬ ‫(א) צורות חלופיות של שמות‪ :‬זכר‪/‬זכריה; שמאה‪/‬שמאם; תארע‪/‬תחרע; רפה‪/‬רפיה‪.‬‬ ‫(ב) או שמות שהשתבשו מחמת טעויות סופרים‪ :‬יהועדה‪/‬יערה; מרי־בעל‪/‬מריב בעל‪.‬‬ ‫(ג) “ונר” ח ‪ ,30‬נשמט בטעות ב‪-‬ט ‪ 36‬בגלל דמיונו ל”ונדב” הסמוך לו‪ ,‬שהרי אי אפשר‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫בלעדיו בהמשך‪“ :‬ונר הוליד את קיש” וכו’‪.‬‬ ‫(ד) תוספת השם ‘יעיאל’ כשמו של אבי גבעון — בעניין זה קשה להעריך את היחס בין‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫הגרסאות‪ ,‬כי לא ברור מדוע יתוסף או ייגרע השם הזה בגלל טעות מעתיקים‪.‬‬ ‫(ה) חסרון “ומקלות” ב‪-‬ח ‪ ,31‬וחסרון “ואחז” דווקא ברשימה השנייה‪ ,‬ט ‪ — 41‬אין אלה‬ ‫אלא מקרים פשוטים של הפלוגרפיה‪.‬‬ ‫(ו) וגם חסרון המילה “כל” לקראת סוף הקטע המקביל היא מתחום תולדות המסירה‬ ‫ולא איזה שינוי מכוון‪.‬‬ ‫הטקסט בפרק ט עדיף במידת מה על זה של פרק ח‪ ,‬אך בסך הכול נכון יותר לומר‬ ‫שאותו טיפוס של שיבושים נפל בשתי הרשימות‪.‬‬ ‫באשר לסיפא של דברי ארליך‪ ,‬הערכתו על עצם סיבת הכפלת הרשימה — נכונה או‬ ‫לא נכונה — היא מבריקה‪ .‬לדעתו‪ ,‬ההכפלה יסודה בכתובים הדומים הצמודים לרשימות‪.‬‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‬ ‫אׁשים ֵאּלֶ ה יָ ְׁשבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫דֹותם ָר ִ‬ ‫אׁשי ָאבֹות לְ תֹלְ ָ‬ ‫לפני הרשימה של פרק ח כתוב‪ֵ :‬אּלֶ ה ָר ֵ‬

‫‪ 37‬ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.437‬‬ ‫‪ .38‬ארליך מונה את כל ההבדלים‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬הערה ‪.3‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬ברתלמי‪ ,‬ביקורת הנוסח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,447‬מקבל את דעת הוביגן‪ ,‬ביבליה‪ ,‬שמדובר בהפלוגרפיה‪,‬‬ ‫במיוחד על בסיס עדות היווני אף שהיא משובשת (או דווקא משום כך‪ ,‬באשר כך אין היא יכולה להיות‬ ‫שאילה מאוחרת מן המקום המקביל)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬היינו מצפים שיהיה שם פרטי‪ :‬בדרך כלל הצירופים מן הטיפוס הזה מזהים את אבי המקום‬ ‫בשמו‪ ,‬כגון‪ :‬חם אבי כנען‪ ,‬קמואל אבי ארם‪ ,‬ועוד בבראשית‪ ,‬והרבה מאד בדה”י‪ :‬מישע בכרו הוא אבי זיף‪,‬‬ ‫שובל אבי קרית יערים‪ ,‬ועוד‪ .‬ברתלמי‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬בניגוד להוביגן ולחוקרים רבים אחרים שהלכו בעקבותיו‪,‬‬ ‫אינו סבור שיש להתאים את הרשימות זו לזו; נימוקו של ברתלמי שקשה להניח ש’יעיאל’ הוא יסוד‬ ‫אותנטי‪ ,‬באשר זהו שם המופיע רק בעזרא (פעמיים) ובדה”י (‪ 12‬פעמים)‪ ,‬אינו עומד בפני הביקורת‬ ‫באשר הרשימות שתיהן בגבולות דה”י והנושא העומד לדיון אינו נוגע לאפשרות שהרשימה הזאת באה‬ ‫ממקור קדום‪.‬‬

‫*‪138‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫אׁשי‬ ‫(ח ‪ .)28‬ואחרי רשימת היושבים בירושלים בפרק ט מופיע סיכום דומה מאד‪ֵ :‬אּלֶ ה ָר ֵ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם (ט ‪ .)34‬המעתיק שהגיע לסוף‬ ‫אׁשים ֵאּלֶ ה יָ ְׁשבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫דֹותם ָר ִ‬ ‫ָה ָאבֹות לַ לְ וִ ּיִ ם לְ תֹלְ ָ‬ ‫רשימת היושבים בירושלים‪ ,‬ט ‪ ,34‬טעה לחשוב שהוא נמצא בכתוב הדומה לו בפרק ח‬ ‫‪ ,28‬והמשיך להעתיק שם‪ ,‬ונמצא מעתיק שוב את רשימת היושבים בגבעון ומשפחת בני‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫שאול‪.‬‬ ‫לטעמי‪ ,‬החזרה אכן בטעות יסודה‪ ,‬ולו רק מפני סמיכות הפרשיות‪ .‬אם כך‪ ,‬אין מקרה‬ ‫זה שייך לפרשת אמצעי חיבור ועריכה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬רשימת שבי ציון — עז’ ב ‪ //‬נח’ ז‬ ‫הרשימה הארוכה של שבי ציון חוזרת בעז’ ב ובנח’ ז‪ 42.‬כמו בטקסטים החוזרים‬ ‫האחרים‪ ,‬גם כאן מדובר באותה רשימה עצמה וההבדלים ביניהם ברובם הם הבדלים‬ ‫צפויים בגלגולי רשימות‪/‬שמות‪.‬‬ ‫ההבדלים בין השמות אינם רבים יחסית‪ :‬שריה‪/‬עזריה; רעליה‪/‬רעמיה; מספר‪/‬‬ ‫מספרת; רחום‪/‬נחום; בני‪/‬בנוי; יורה‪/‬חריף; גבר‪/‬גבעון; שמלי‪/‬שלמי; נפוסים‪/‬נפישסים;‬ ‫אמי‪/‬אמון‪ .‬ובצד אלה חילופי סדר בודדים‪ ,‬חילופי בני‪/‬אנשי‪ ,‬והבדלים במספרים‪.‬‬ ‫אף שלשתי הרשימות המקבילות יש תפקידים עצמאיים בהקשריהן השונים‪ ,‬גם‬ ‫מקרה זה מראה כיצד מחברים ועורכים לא מאסו בחזרה על פרשיות שלמות‪ ,‬אף אם‬ ‫מדובר ברשימה‪ ,‬ועוד ברשימה ארוכה כל כך‪.‬‬ ‫מדווחת על אלה‬ ‫בעז’ ב מובאת רשימה של עולים שעל פי מהלך העניינים ַּבספר ַ‬ ‫שעלו בעקבות הכרזת כורש‪ .‬הרבה שנים אחר כך‪ ,‬כמאה שנים מאוחר יותר‪ ,‬אבל לא‬ ‫הרבה פרקים אחר כך‪ ,‬יוזם נחמיה יישוב מחדש (‪ )συνοικισμός‬של ירושלים‪ ,‬ולשם‬ ‫ֹלהי ֶאל לִ ִּבי וָ ֶא ְק ְּב ָצה ֶאת ַהח ִֹרים וְ ֶאת ַה ְּסגָ נִ ים‬ ‫כך הוא נזקק לרשימת אוכלוסין‪ :‬וַ ּיִ ֵּתן ֱא ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶאת ָה ָעם לְ ִה ְתיַ ֵחׂש וָ ֶא ְמ ָצא ֵס ֶפר ַהּיַ ַחׂש ָהעֹולִ ים ָּב ִראׁשֹונָ ה וָ ֶא ְמ ָצא ּכָ תּוב ּבֹו (נח’ ז ‪ .)5‬ולא‬ ‫הסתפק בהזכרת ספר היחס שמצא‪ ,‬אלא הביאו על ִקרבו וכרעיו‪ .‬אם המילים “ואמצא‬ ‫כתוב בו” אותנטיות — קשה לומר שלא — יוצא שהרשימה הזאת הייתה חלק מזיכרונות‬ ‫נחמיה‪ .‬לפיכך היו שהניחו שמי שיצר את הנרטיב של שיבת ציון הראשונה (עז’ א–ו)‪,‬‬ ‫לקח את הרשימה מ’זכרונות נחמיה’ ושילב אותה במקום המתאים לדעתו‪ ,‬בימי כורש‪ .‬אך‬ ‫זאת רק אפשרות אחת‪ .‬תסריטים שונים נכתבו על היחס בין הרשימות; ביניהם‪ ,‬הסצנריו‬ ‫כאילו הייתה רשימה של עולים שמורה ברשומות ושני מחברים שונים השתמשו בה‬ ‫באופן עצמאי‪ ,‬הוא הפחות מתקבל על הדעת‪ ,‬ולו רק מפני שהמקבילּות גולשת מעבר‬ ‫לרשימה עצמה‪ ,‬וסיומה מהווה פתיח להמשכים השונים תכלית שינוי בעז’ ג מכאן ובנח’‬ ‫‪ .41‬על התופעה של החזרה מחמת הדומות עמד ויס‪ ,‬תופעה טקסטואלית‪ .‬החרה־החזיק אחריו‬ ‫גוטליב‪ ,‬חזרה מחמת הומויוטלאוטון‪ ,‬על מקומנו עמ’ ‪ .207–206‬הוא מביא את מקומנו כמקרה של חזרה‬ ‫מוטעית‪ ,‬בעקבות ארליך‪ ,‬ומגדירו כטעות הסופרים הגדולה ביותר‪ ,‬לפחות מבחינת ממדי הטקסט‬ ‫שהועתק בטעות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬מפאת אורכה‪ ,‬ויתרנו על הבאתה כאן כלשונה‪ ,‬אף שאין כמראה עיניים לקרב אל הדעת‬ ‫שמדובר באותו טקסט עצמו‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪139‬‬

‫ח מכאן‪ 43.‬לטעמי‪ ,‬דווקא מחבר עזרא ונחמיה‪ ,‬זה שדאג לשלב את קורות עזרא ונחמיה‬ ‫אלה באלה‪ ,‬זה שהקדים לקורות עזרא ונחמיה את קורות שיבת ציון הראשונה ואולי אף‬ ‫עיצב אותן בצורתן הנוכחית‪ ,‬הוא גם מי שבחר לחזור על הרשימה‪ 44.‬מחבר ספר עזרא‬ ‫ונחמיה‪ ,‬מכל מקום‪ ,‬יצא נשכר מן השימוש ברשימה החוזרת מכמה פנים‪ .‬הוא השתמש‬ ‫בה כקרש קפיצה לקריאת התורה בנח’ ח‪ ,‬ובכך גישר‪ ,‬גם אם באופן מלאכותי‪ ,‬בין פועלו‬ ‫של נחמיה ופועלו של עזרא‪ ,‬ולמעלה מזה — הוא העמיד תחת קורת גג אחת את שיבת‬ ‫ציון הראשונה והשנייה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬רשימת היושבים בירושלים (נח’ יא ‪ // 19–3‬דה”א ט ‪)17–1‬‬ ‫הספרים עזרא ונחמיה ודה”י קשורים בטבורם ברשימת היושבים בירושלים‪ ,‬החוזרת‬ ‫בנח’ יא ובדה”א ט‪ .‬יש לומר‪ ,‬שהנושא של היושבים בירושלים כבר הופיע ברשימה‬ ‫ירּוש ִָׁלם‪...‬‬ ‫אשׁים ֵאלֶ ּה יָ ְשׁבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫דֹותם ָר ִ‬ ‫אשׁי ָאבֹות לְ תֹלְ ָ‬ ‫הסמוכה של בני בנימין‪ :‬ח ‪ֵ 28‬אלֶ ּה ָר ֵ‬ ‫יהם (ובמקבילה בפרק ט ‪ .)38 ,34‬ושמא‬ ‫ירּוש ִַׁלם ִעם ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫יהם יָ ְשׁבּו ִב ָ‬ ‫‪ 32‬וְ ַאף ֵה ָמּה נֶ גֶ ד ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫אלה היוו השראה למי ששאל את רשימת יושבי ירושלים מבני יהודה ובנימין ושילב אותה‬ ‫בדה”י‪ 45.‬ומכל מקום‪ ,‬אי אפשר לנתק בין הדברים‪.‬‬ ‫נחמיה יא ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם ‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַ ּיֵ ְׁשבּו ָׂש ֵרי ָה ָעם ִּב ָ‬ ‫גֹורלֹות לְ ָה ִביא ֶא ָחד‬ ‫ּוׁש ָאר ָה ָעם ִה ִּפילּו ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ִמן ָה ֲע ָׂש ָרה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם ִעיר ַהּק ֶֹדׁש וְ ֵת ַׁשע‬ ‫לָ ֶׁש ֶבת ִּב ָ‬ ‫ַהּיָ דֹות ֶּב ָע ִרים׃‬ ‫ ‬

‫דה”א ט‬ ‫[‪ a1‬וְ כָ ל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִה ְתיַ ְחׂשּו‬ ‫תּובים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ַמלְ כֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל]‬ ‫וְ ִהּנָ ם ּכְ ִ‬ ‫יהּודה ָהגְ לּו לְ ָב ֶבל ְּב ַמ ֲעלָ ם׃‬ ‫‪ b1‬וִ ָ‬

‫‪ .43‬ויליאמסון‪ ,‬עזרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,30–29‬מקדיש דיון מקיף לאפשרויות שהוצעו במחקר‪ .‬מסקנתו החד־‬ ‫משמעית היא שביתה הקדום יותר של הרשימה בנחמיה ולא בעזרא‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬ראו הנספח המקיף שהקדיש גונווג‪ ,‬עזרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,66–53‬לבעיית הרשימה החוזרת‪ .‬הוא הגדיר‬ ‫את החזרה כאחת מבעיות היסוד (‪ )Kernprobleme‬של הבנת חיבור הספר והדגיש שיש להתחשב לא‬ ‫רק ברשימה עצמה אלא גם בהמשך הסיפורי שלה (עמ’ ‪ .)53‬לטענתו‪ ,‬התפיסה שהכרוניסט בעצמו‬ ‫שילב את הרשימה בשני המקומות המרכזיים גם יחד‪ ,‬ואף המשיך אותן באופן דומה בעז’ ג ובנח’ ח‪ ,‬יש‬ ‫לה יתרון הפשטות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“Die hier vertretene Auffassung, dass es der Chr sebst war, der die :56‬‬ ‫‪Liste an beiden wichtigen Stellen absichtvoll in seinem Werk als Verzeichnis der Erretteten und‬‬ ‫‪der wahren Gemeinde verwendete, und dass derselbe Chr in E 2f. und Neh 7f, im Anschluss an‬‬ ‫‪die wiedergegebene Liste eine ähnliche Forsetzung verfasste, ebenfalls um die Parallelität der‬‬ ‫‪Vorgänge von Erstheimkehr und endgültiger Konstituierung der wahren Gemeinde deutlich zu‬‬ ‫”‪.machen, bietet den zusätzlichen Vorteil der Einfachheit‬‬

‫‪ .45‬כך‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬מאיירס‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.67‬‬

‫*‪140‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫‪ 2‬וַ יְ ָב ֲרכּו ָה ָעם לְ כֹל ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם׃‬ ‫ַה ִּמ ְתנַ ְּד ִבים לָ ֶׁש ֶבת ִּב ָ‬ ‫אׁשי ַה ְּמ ִדינָ ה ֲא ֶׁשר יָ ְׁשבּו ִּב ָ‬ ‫‪ 3‬וְ ֵאּלֶ ה ָר ֵ‬ ‫ּיֹוׁש ִבים ָה ִראׁשֹנִ ים‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם ‪ 2‬וְ ַה ְ‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫יהם ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ֲא ֻחּזָ ָתם ְּב ָע ֵר ֶ‬ ‫הּודה יָ ְׁשבּו ִאיׁש ַּב ֲא ֻחּזָ תֹו ְּב ָע ֵר ֶ‬ ‫ּוב ָע ֵרי יְ ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם וְ ַהּנְ ִתינִ ים׃‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם וְ ַהּנְ ִתינִ ים ‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ַע ְב ֵדי ְׁשֹלמֹה׃‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם יָ ְׁשבּו ִמ ְּבנֵ י יְ ָ‬ ‫‪ִּ 4‬וב ָ‬ ‫ּומן‬ ‫הּודה ִ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם יָ ְׁשבּו ִמן ְּבנֵ י יְ ָ‬ ‫ּוב ָ‬ ‫הּודה ִּומ ְּבנֵ י ִבנְ יָ ִמ ן ‪ִ 3‬‬ ‫ְּבנֵ י ִבנְ יָ ִמן‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ּומנַ ֶׁשּה׃‬ ‫ּומן ְּבנֵ י ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ְ‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫‪--‬‬‫ ‬ ‫הּודה‬ ‫ִמ ְּבנֵ י יְ ָ‬ ‫עּותי ֶּבן ַע ִּמיהּוד ֶּבן ָע ְמ ִרי ֶּבן ִא ְמ ִרי‬ ‫‪ַ 4‬‬ ‫ֲע ָתיָ ה ֶבן ֻעּזִ ּיָ ה ֶּבן זְ כַ ְריָ ה ֶבן ֲא ַמ ְריָ ה ‬ ‫הּודה׃‬ ‫[ּבנִ י ִמן] ְּבנֵ י ֶפ ֶרץ ֶּבן יְ ָ‬ ‫ֶבן בנימן ָ‬ ‫ֶּבן ְׁש ַפ ְטיָ ה ֶבן ַמ ֲהלַ לְ ֵאל ִמ ְּבנֵ י ָפ ֶרץ׃ ‬ ‫ּומ ֲע ֵׂשיָ ה ֶבן ָּברּוְך ֶּבן ּכָ ל חֹזֶ ה ֶּבן ֲחזָ יָ ה‬ ‫‪ַ 5‬‬ ‫ֶבן ֲע ָדיָ ה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ּובנָ יו׃‬ ‫ּומן ַה ִׁשּילֹונִ י ֲע ָׂשיָ ה ַה ְּבכֹור ָ‬ ‫‪ִ 5‬‬ ‫ֶבן יֹויָ ִריב ֶּבן זְ כַ ְריָ ה ֶּבן ַה ִׁשֹּלנִ י׃ ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫ירּוׁש ִָלם ‬ ‫‪ּ 6‬כָ ל ְּבנֵ י ֶפ ֶרץ ַהּי ְֹׁש ִבים ִּב ָ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫ּוׁשמֹנָ ה ַאנְ ֵׁשי ָחיִ ל ‬ ‫ַא ְר ַּבע ֵמאֹות ִׁש ִׁשּים ְ‬ ‫יהם ֵׁשׁש ֵמאֹות‬ ‫עּואל וַ ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫ּומן ְּבנֵ י זֶ ַרח יְ ֵ‬ ‫‪ִ 6‬‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫וְ ִת ְׁש ִעים׃‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ּומן ְּבנֵ י ִּבנְ יָ ִמן‬ ‫‪ִ 7‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 7‬וְ ֵאּלֶ ה ְּבנֵ י ִבנְ יָ ִמן‬ ‫יֹועד ֶּבן ְּפ ָדיָ ה ֶבן קֹולָ יָ ה ַסּלּוא ֶּבן ְמ ֻׁשּלָ ם‬ ‫ַסּלֻ א ֶּבן ְמ ֻׁשּלָ ם ֶּבן ֵ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫ֶבן ַמ ֲע ֵׂשיָ ה ֶּבן ִא ִית ֵיאל ֶּבן יְ ַׁש ְעיָ ה׃ ‬ ‫‪ 8‬וְ ַא ֲח ָריו ּגַ ַּבי ַסּלָ י ְּת ַׁשע ֵמאֹות ֶע ְׂש ִרים ְ‬ ‫ּוׁשמֹנָ ה׃ ‪---‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫יהם ‬ ‫יֹואל ֶּבן זִ כְ ִרי ָּפ ִקיד ֲעלֵ ֶ‬ ‫‪ 9‬וְ ֵ‬ ‫הֹודוְ יָ ה ֶּבן ַה ְּסנֻ ָאה׃‬ ‫ֶּבן ַ‬ ‫נּואה ַעל ָה ִעיר ִמ ְׁשנֶ ה׃ ‬ ‫יהּודה ֶבן ַה ְּס ָ‬ ‫וִ ָ‬ ‫‪ 8‬וְ יִ ְבנְ יָ ה ֶּבן יְ ר ָֹחם וְ ֵאלָ ה ֶבן ֻעּזִ י ֶּבן ִמכְ ִרי‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫עּואל ֶּבן יִ ְבנִ ּיָ ה׃‬ ‫ּומ ֻׁשּלָ ם ֶּבן ְׁש ַפ ְטיָ ה ֶּבן ְר ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫דֹותם ְּת ַׁשע ֵמאֹות‬ ‫יהם לְ תֹלְ ָ‬ ‫‪ 9‬וַ ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫וַ ֲח ִמ ִׁשּים וְ ִׁש ָׁשּה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫יהם׃‬ ‫אׁשי ָאבֹות לְ ֵבית ֲאב ֵֹת ֶ‬ ‫ּכָ ל ֵאּלֶ ה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ָר ֵ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫ּומן ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים יְ ַד ְעיָ ה וִ יהֹויָ ִריב וְ יָ כִ ין׃‬ ‫‪ִ 10‬‬ ‫‪ִ 10‬מן ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים יְ ַד ְעיָ ה ֶבן יֹויָ ִריב יָ כִ ין׃ ‬ ‫‪ 11‬וַ ֲעזַ ְריָ ה ֶבן ִחלְ ִקּיָ ה ֶּבן ְמ ֻׁשּלָ ם ֶּבן ָצדֹוק‬ ‫‪ְׂ 11‬ש ָריָ ה ֶבן ִחלְ ִקּיָ ה ֶּבן ְמ ֻׁשּלָ ם ֶּבן ָצדֹוק ‬ ‫ֹלהים׃‬ ‫ֶּבן ְמ ָריֹות ֶּבן ֲא ִחיטּוב נְ גִ יד ֵּבית ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ֹלהים׃ ‬ ‫ֶּבן ְמ ָריֹות ֶּבן ֲא ִחיטּוב נְ גִ ד ֵּבית ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫יהם ע ֵֹׂשי ַה ְּמלָ אכָ ה לַ ַּביִ ת ‬ ‫‪ 12‬וַ ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫ּוׁשנָ יִ ם ‬ ‫ְׁשמֹנֶ ה ֵמאֹות ֶע ְׂש ִרים ְ‬ ‫‪ 12‬וַ ֲע ָדיָ ה ֶּבן יְ ר ָֹחם ‬ ‫וַ ֲע ָדיָ ה ֶּבן יְ ר ָֹחם ֶּבן ְּפלַ לְ יָ ה ֶּבן ַא ְמ ִצי ‬ ‫ֶּבן ַּפ ְׁשחּור ֶּבן ַמלְ ּכִ ּיָ ה‬ ‫ֶבן זְ כַ ְריָ ה ֶּבן ַּפ ְׁשחּור ֶּבן ַמלְ ּכִ ּיָ ה׃ ‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪141‬‬

‫‪---‬‬

‫אתיִ ם ‬ ‫אׁשים לְ ָאבֹות ָמ ַ‬ ‫‪ 13‬וְ ֶא ָחיו ָר ִ‬ ‫ּוׁשנָ יִ ם‬ ‫ַא ְר ָּב ִעים ְ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ּומ ְע ַׂשי ֶּבן ֲע ִד ֵיאל ֶּבן יַ ְחזֵ ָרה‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫וַ ֲע ַמ ְׁש ַסי ֶּבן ֲעזַ ְר ֵאל ֶּבן ַא ְחזַ י ‬ ‫ֶּבן ְמ ֻׁשּלָ ם ֶּבן ְמ ִׁשּלֵ ִמית ֶּבן ִא ֵּמר׃‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ֶּבן ְמ ִׁשּלֵ מֹות ֶּבן ִא ֵּמר׃‬ ‫ּבֹורי ַחיִ ל ֵמ ָאה ֶע ְׂש ִרים ְ‬ ‫‪ 14‬וַ ֲא ֵח ֶיהם ּגִ ֵ‬ ‫ּוׁשמֹנָ ה ‪---‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫יהם זַ ְב ִּד ֵיאל ֶּבן ַהּגְ דֹולִ ים׃ ‬ ‫ּופ ִקיד ֲעלֵ ֶ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫בֹותם‬ ‫אׁשים לְ ֵבית ֲא ָ‬ ‫יהם ָר ִ‬ ‫‪ 13‬וַ ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫ּבֹורי ֵחיל‬ ‫ּוׁש ַבע ֵמאֹות וְ ִׁש ִׁשּים ּגִ ֵ‬ ‫ֶאלֶ ף ְ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫ֹלהים׃‬ ‫בֹודת ֵּבית ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ְמלֶ אכֶ ת ֲע ַ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫ּומן ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם ְׁש ַמ ְעיָ ה ֶבן ַחׁשּּוב‬ ‫‪ִ 14‬‬ ‫ּומן ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם ְׁש ַמ ְעיָ ה ֶבן ַחׁשּּוב ‬ ‫‪ִ 15‬‬ ‫ֶּבן ַעזְ ִר ָיקם ֶּבן ֲח ַׁש ְביָ ה ִמן ְּבנֵ י ְמ ָר ִרי׃‬ ‫ֶּבן ַעזְ ִר ָיקם ֶּבן ֲח ַׁש ְביָ ה ֶּבן ּבּוּנִ י׃ ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫‪ 16‬וְ ַׁש ְּב ַתי וְ יֹוזָ ָבד ַעל ַה ְּמלָ אכָ ה ַה ִחיצֹנָ ה ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫אׁשי ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם׃ ‬ ‫ֹלהים ֵמ ָר ֵ‬ ‫לְ ֵבית ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ּוב ְק ַּב ַּקר ֶח ֶרׁש וְ גָ לָ ל‬ ‫‪ַ 15‬‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫ּומ ַּתנְ יָ ה ֶּבן ִמיכָ א ֶּבן זִ כְ ִרי ֶּבן ָא ָסף׃‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫ּומ ַּתנְ יָ ה ֶבן ִמיכָ ה ֶּבן זַ ְב ִּדי ֶבן ָא ָסף ‬ ‫‪ַ 17‬‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫הֹודה לַ ְּת ִפּלָ ה ‬ ‫רֹאׁש ַה ְּת ִחּלָ ה יְ ֶ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫ ‬ ‫ּוב ְק ֻּב ְקיָ ה ִמ ְׁשנֶ ה ֵמ ֶא ָחיו‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫וְ ַע ְב ָּדא ֶּבן ַׁש ַ‬ ‫ּמּוע ֶּבן ּגָ לָ ל ֶּבן ידיתון [יְ דּותּון׃] ‪ 16‬וְ ע ַֹב ְדיָ ה ֶּבן ְׁש ַמ ְעיָ ה ֶּבן ּגָ לָ ל ֶּבן יְ דּותּון‬ ‫ּיֹוׁשב‬ ‫ּוב ֶרכְ יָ ה ֶבן ָא ָסא ֶּבן ֶאלְ ָקנָ ה ַה ֵ‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫‪ --‬‬‫טֹופ ִתי׃‬ ‫ְּב ַח ְצ ֵרי נְ ָ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫אתיִ ם ‬ ‫‪ּ 18‬כָ ל ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם ְּב ִעיר ַהּק ֶֹדׁש ָמ ַ‬ ‫ְׁשמֹנִ ים וְ ַא ְר ָּב ָעה׃‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ 17‬וְ ַהׁשּ ֲֹע ִרים ַׁשּלּום וְ ַעּקּוב וְ ַטלְ מֹן‬ ‫‪ 19‬וְ ַהׁש ֲֹּוע ִרים ַעּקּוב ַטלְ מֹון ‬ ‫יהם ַׁשּלּום ָהרֹאׁש׃‬ ‫וַ ֲא ִח ָימן וַ ֲא ִח ֶ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪--‬‬‫יהם ַהׁשּ ְֹמ ִרים ַּב ְׁשּ ָע ִרים ֵמ ָאה ‬ ‫וַ ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫ּוׁשנָ יִ ם׃ ‬ ‫ִׁש ְב ִעים ְ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫בהבדל מן הרשימות הקודמות שנידונו‪ ,‬שתי הרשימות הללו נבדלות זו מזו במידה‬ ‫ניכרת‪ ,‬עד שקשה להתחייב על קשר ישיר ביניהן‪ ,‬ואפשר מפרידים ביניהן שלבי התפתחות‬ ‫נוספים שלא שרדה להם עדות‪.‬‬ ‫ההבדלים בין השמות רבים מכדי שאפשר לפרוט אותם במסגרת זו‪ .‬גם כאן ממילא‬ ‫חלק מן ההבדלים הוא במישור של שיבושי מעתיקים‪ ,‬אך את רובם אי אפשר להסביר‬ ‫באמצעות ביקורת הנוסח‪ .‬עיקר ההבדל הוא בחסרים וביתרים (תמונת אלה עוד מסתבכת‬ ‫נוכח עדותו של תרגום השבעים)‪ 46.‬פער גדול יש במרכיבים הייעודיים‪ .‬הסיכומים המונים‬ ‫‪ .46‬קנופרס‪ ,‬הרשימות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,168–166‬ערך השוואה מפורטת של הגרסאות השונות‪ .‬לדעתו‪,‬‬ ‫הממצא הטקסטואלי ברשימות הללו מלמד על קיומן של עריכות שונות של טקסטים מסוימים בתוך‬ ‫ספרי המקרא‪ .‬סביר להניח‪ ,‬הוא אומר‪ ,‬ששתי הרשימות מייצגות עיבוד שונה והתפתחות שונה של מקור‬ ‫קדום יותר‪.‬‬

‫*‪142‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫את מספר אנשי הקבוצות היושבות בירושלים רווחים יותר בנחמיה (נח’ יא ‪,13 ,12 ,8 ,6‬‬ ‫‪ )18 ,14‬מאשר בדה”י (דה”א ט ‪ ,)13 ,9 ,6‬ומעבר לזה — אין הסיכומים הללו חופפים כלל‬ ‫ועיקר‪ .‬מרכיב בולט החוזר בנחמיה וחסר כמעט לגמרי בדה”י הם בעלי התפקידים בין‬ ‫נּואה‬ ‫יהּודה ֶבן ַה ְּס ָ‬ ‫יהם וִ ָ‬ ‫יֹואל ֶּבן זִ כְ ִרי ָּפ ִקיד ֲעלֵ ֶ‬ ‫הנקראים לדגל יישוב ירושלים (נח’ יא ‪ 9‬וְ ֵ‬ ‫יהם זַ ְב ִּד ֵיאל ֶּבן ַהּגְ דֹולִ ים;‬ ‫ּופ ִקיד ֲעלֵ ֶ‬ ‫יהם ע ֵֹׂשי ַה ְּמלָ אכָ ה לַ ַּביִ ת; ‪ָ 14‬‬ ‫ַעל ָה ִעיר ִמ ְׁשנֶ ה; ‪ 12‬וַ ֲא ֵח ֶ‬ ‫ּומ ַּתנְ יָ ה ֶבן ִמיכָ ה‬ ‫אׁשי ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם׃ ‪ַ 17‬‬ ‫ֹלהים ֵמ ָר ֵ‬ ‫‪ 16‬וְ ַׁש ְּב ַתי וְ יֹוזָ ָבד ַעל ַה ְּמלָ אכָ ה ַה ִחיצֹנָ ה לְ ֵבית ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ּוב ְק ֻּב ְקיָ ה ִמ ְׁשנֶ ה ֵמ ֶא ָחיו — כולם ללא מקביל‬ ‫הֹודה לַ ְּת ִפּלָ ה ַ‬ ‫ֶּבן זַ ְב ִּדי ֶבן ָא ָסף רֹאׁש ַה ְּת ִחּלָ ה יְ ֶ‬ ‫בדה”י‪.‬‬ ‫למרות ההבדל הניכר‪ ,‬ואף שפרשנים נוטים לדבר בצורה בלתי מחייבת על הקירבה‬ ‫בין הרשימות‪ 47,‬אין ספק שמדובר על אותה רשימה שהתגלגלה ושינתה פנים אולי בידי‬ ‫המחברים שהתאימו אותה להקשריה השונים‪.‬‬ ‫בספר עזרא ונחמיה זוהי רשימת יושבי ירושלים בעקבות היזמה של נחמיה‪ .‬במסגרת‬ ‫פעילותו מתוודע נחמיה לבעיה קשה‪ :‬וְ ָה ִעיר ַר ֲח ַבת יָ ַדיִ ם ּוגְ דֹולָ ה וְ ָה ָעם ְמ ַעט ְּבתֹוכָ ּה וְ ֵאין‬ ‫ָּב ִּתים ְּבנּויִ ם (נח’ ז ‪ — )4‬ויוצא לעשות מעשה וליישב את העיר‪ .‬הוא מוצא את ספר היחש‬ ‫של העולים בראשונה‪ ,‬ופורט את רשימת השמות המופיעים בו‪ .‬הציפיה היא שנחמיה‬ ‫יפיק תועלת מן הרשימה הזאת‪ ,‬אך קו העלילה הזה נפסק לזמן ארוך (פרקים ח–י)‪,‬‬ ‫ומתחדש רק בפרק יא‪:‬‬ ‫גֹורלֹות לְ ָה ִביא ֶא ָחד ִמן ָה ֲע ָׂש ָרה‬ ‫ּוׁש ָאר ָה ָעם ִה ִּפילּו ָ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם ְ‬ ‫‪ 1‬וַ ּיֵ ְׁשבּו ָׂש ֵרי ָה ָעם ִּב ָ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם ִעיר ַהּק ֶֹדׁש וְ ֵת ַׁשע ַהּיָ דֹות ֶּב ָע ִרים׃ ‪ 2‬וַ יְ ָב ֲרכּו ָה ָעם לְ כֹל ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים‬ ‫לָ ֶׁש ֶבת ִּב ָ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם‪.‬‬ ‫ַה ִּמ ְתנַ ְּד ִבים לָ ֶׁש ֶבת ִּב ָ‬ ‫לפסוקי הפתיחה הללו‪ ,‬הנוגעים ישירות לרפורמה של נחמיה‪ ,‬אין מקביל בדה”י —‬ ‫מחבר דה”א ט שואל את הרשימה אך לא את הקשרה‪ .‬במקום זה‪ ,‬מופיעה כותרת אחרת‬ ‫המשלבת את הרשימה בקונטקסט החדש‪ .‬בדה”א ט ‪ 1‬כתוב‪ :‬וְ כָ ל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ִה ְתיַ ְחׂשּו וְ ִהּנָ ם‬ ‫יהּודה ָהגְ לּו לְ ָב ֶבל ְּב ַמ ֲעלָ ם‪ .‬המחצית הראשונה של הפסוק‬ ‫תּובים ַעל ֵס ֶפר ַמלְ כֵ י יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‪ .‬וִ ָ‬ ‫ּכְ ִ‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫מסכמת‪ ,‬כך נראה‪ ,‬את רשימות היחס של בני ישראל (דה”א ב‪-‬ח)‪ .‬המחצית השנייה‬ ‫יהּודה ָהגְ לּו לְ ָב ֶבל ְּב ַמ ֲעלָ ם — מציינת בקפיצה נחשונית את גורל יהודה‪,‬‬ ‫של הפסוק — וִ ָ‬ ‫וגם מהווה מעבר לרשימה שבהמשך שנושאה הוא אלה ששבו מן הגלות והתיישבו‬ ‫בירושלים‪ .‬אף שניסוחה של הפסוקית הזאת מעורר אי נוחות מסוימת‪ ,‬אין להפקיעּה‬

‫‪ .47‬קרטיס‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,167‬למשל‪ ,‬נדמה כמי שמופתע מהדמיון יותר מאשר מן ההבדלים‪:‬‬

‫‪“This section in vv. 2-17, 22a has marked affinity with Ne. 11:3-19. Both passages enumerate‬‬ ‫‪the inhabitants of Jerusalem on the same general plan, with striking coincidences in the names‬‬ ‫”‪ .of the residents‬לדעתו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,168‬ההבדלים אולי משקפים את הבדל הזמן בין ימי נחמיה וימי מחבר‬

‫דברי הימים‪ .‬קנופרס‪ ,‬הרשימות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,142–141‬מפרט את מגוון הדעות על היחסים בין שני הטקסטים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬לדעת רודולף‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,83‬אין שום קשר בין שני חלקי פסוק ‪ ,1‬באשר אין יחש של‬ ‫כל ישראל (‪ )a1‬יכול לשמש הקדמה לרשימה מצומצמת של יושבי ירושלים (‪ b1‬ואילך); ויליאמסון‪ ,‬דברי‬ ‫הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,87–86‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬רואה בפסוק ‪ 1‬כולו סיכום‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪143‬‬

‫מידי מי שהעמיד את הרשימות הללו על עומדן;‪ 49‬בדומה הביא את רשימת הכוהנים עד‬ ‫יהוצדק‪ ,‬הכהן שנזכר לראשונה בימי שיבת ציון‪ ,‬ואמר עליו‪“ :‬ויהוצדק הלך בהגלות ה’ את‬ ‫יהּודה ָהגְ לּו לְ ָב ֶבל ְּב ַמ ֲעלָ ם‬ ‫יהודה וירושלם ביד נבוכדנאצר” (ה ‪ .)41‬אם כן‪ ,‬יש לראות ב־וִ ָ‬ ‫‪01‬‬ ‫מעין כותרת שנייה לכותרת של הרשימה השאולה‪.‬‬ ‫גם הפתיחה לרשימה עצמה שונה‪:‬‬ ‫נח’ יא ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם ‬ ‫אׁשי ַה ְּמ ִדינָ ה ֲא ֶׁשר יָ ְׁשבּו ִּב ָ‬ ‫‪ 3‬וְ ֵאּלֶ ה ָר ֵ‬ ‫יהם ‬ ‫הּודה יָ ְׁשבּו ִאיׁש ַּב ֲא ֻחּזָ תֹו ְּב ָע ֵר ֶ‬ ‫ּוב ָע ֵרי יְ ָ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫ּובנֵ י ַע ְב ֵדי ְׁשֹלמֹה׃ ‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים וְ ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם וְ ַהּנְ ִתינִ ים ְ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם יָ ְׁשבּו ‬ ‫ּוב ָ‬ ‫‪ִ 4‬‬ ‫ּומ ְּבנֵ י ִבנְ יָ ִמן ‬ ‫הּודה ִ‬ ‫ִמ ְּבנֵ י יְ ָ‬ ‫‪ ---‬‬

‫דה”א ט‬ ‫ּיֹוׁש ִבים ָה ִראׁשֹנִ ים‬ ‫‪ 2‬וְ ַה ְ‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ַּב ֲא ֻחּזָ ָתם ְּב ָע ֵר ֶ‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַהּכ ֲֹהנִ ים ַהלְ וִ ּיִ ם וְ ַהּנְ ִתינִ ים׃‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם יָ ְׁשבּו‬ ‫ּוב ָ‬ ‫‪ִ 3‬‬ ‫ּומן ְּבנֵ י ִבנְ יָ ִמן‬ ‫הּודה ִ‬ ‫ִמן ְּבנֵ י יְ ָ‬ ‫ּומנַ ֶׁשּה׃‬ ‫ּומן ְּבנֵ י ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ְ‬ ‫ִ‬

‫בנחמיה חוזרת ההבחנה שכבר נעשתה קודם לכן‪ :‬ראשי המדינה (בפסוק ‪ :1‬שרי‬ ‫העם) יושבים בירושלים‪ ,‬ושאר העם יושבים בעריהם ורק חלקם יושב בירושלם‪ .‬ואילו‬ ‫ּיֹוׁש ִבים ָה ִראׁשֹנִ ים וגו’‪ .‬בנחמיה זוהי אפוא‬ ‫יהּודה ָהגְ לּו‪ ...‬וְ ַה ְ‬ ‫בדה”י נמשכת האקספוזיציה‪ :‬וִ ָ‬ ‫התחלת הרפורמה‪ ,‬בעוד בדה”י זו עדיין כותרת ֶהקשר ולא כותרת ישירה‪.‬‬ ‫אין לטעון שהרשימה בדה”י יוצאת מחזקת יושבי ירושלים שלאחר הגלות ומתחפשת‬ ‫לרשימת יושבי ירושלים בימים קדמונים‪ .‬מחבר דה”א ט משנה את הכותרת שבנח’ יא‬ ‫בדיוק כדי ליצור ניגוד בין הגלות וההתיישבות מחדש — יהודה הוגלו לבבל והיושבים‬ ‫הראשונים עם שובם הריהם מנויים כאן‪ 51.‬פסוקי הפתיחה בדה”י מצטיירים כעיבוד של‬ ‫הכתוב בנחמיה מסיבות נוספות‪ .‬מלמדים על כך ‘הנתינים’ הנזכרים בדה”י כמו בנחמיה‪,‬‬ ‫אבל בעוד הנתינים הם חזון נפרץ בעזרא ונחמיה (‪ 14‬פעמים)‪ ,‬הם נזכרים בדה”י רק כאן‬ ‫בכל הספר‪ ,‬על אף ההזדמנויות הרבות שיכול היה להזכירם כעובדי המקדש‪‘ .‬הנתינים’‬

‫‪ .49‬לדעת יפת‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,206‬פסוק ‪ b1‬הוא גלוסה באשר הדגשת גלות יהודה אינה תואמת‬ ‫את השקפתו של מחבר דה”י על הגלות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬מהלך דומה עשה מחבר דה”י כאשר שאל את רשימת גיבורי דוד מן הנספח החותם את ספר‬ ‫שמואל (שמ”ב כג ‪ )39–8‬ובנה בה את ראשית מלכות דוד (דה”א יא ‪ .)47–10‬הוא משתמש ברשימה כדי‬ ‫ֹלהים (דה”א יב ‪ )23‬הנאסף סביב דוד ותומך בו‪ .‬אף שבספר שמואל‬ ‫ליצור יש מאין ַמ ֲחנֶ ה גָ דֹול ּכְ ַמ ֲחנֵ ה ֱא ִ‬ ‫מדובר בנספח‪ ,‬משמע הרשימה נמצאת בבית‪-‬לא‪-‬בית וחסרת ֶהקשר מחייב‪ ,‬ברור שההעברה נזקפת‬ ‫לזכותו של מחבר דה”י והדבר ניכר בפתיחה הכפולה של הרשימה‪ ,‬האחת נושקת לזו שבספר שמואל‪,‬‬ ‫האחרת מידי מחבר דה”י שהוסיף לה כותרת כדי למקמה בהקשר החדש שלה בפרק יא‪ :‬פסוק ‪ 10‬וְ ֵאּלֶ ה‬ ‫ּבֹורים ֲא ֶׁשר לְ ָדוִ יד ַה ִּמ ְת ַחּזְ ִקים ִעּמֹו ְב ַמלְ כּותֹו ִעם ּכָ ל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל לְ ַה ְמלִ יכֹו ּכִ ְד ַבר יְ הוָ ה ַעל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל —‬ ‫אׁשי ַהּגִ ִ‬ ‫ָר ֵ‬ ‫זוהי הכותרת של מחבר דה”י; פסוק ‪ 11‬וְ ֵאּלֶ ה ִמ ְס ַּפר ַהּגִ ּב ִֹרים ֲא ֶׁשר לְ ָדוִ יד — זוהי הפתיחה המקבילה‬ ‫לשמ”ב כג ‪ֵ :8‬אּלֶ ה ְׁשמֹות ַהּגִ ּב ִֹרים ֲא ֶׁשר לְ ָדוִ ד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .51‬רודולף‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,84–83‬טוען שהרשימה בדה”י חייבת להיות תלויה בנחמיה‪ ,‬ולו רק‬ ‫מפני שדה”א ט ‪ 2‬כבר מגיב על נח’ יא ‪ 3‬שהוא בעצמו אינו חלק מן הרשימה אלא חלק מן המסגרת‬ ‫שסופקה לו בנחמיה‪.‬‬

‫*‪144‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫הם אם כן שריד מתוך רשימה ֶשביתּה הטבעי הוא בנחמיה‪ .‬גם הצלע האחרונה בפסוקי‬ ‫ּומנַ ֶׁשּה — היא מעשה ידיו של מחבר דה”י‪ ,‬המרחיב את‬ ‫ּומן ְּבנֵ י ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ְ‬ ‫הפתיחה בדה”י — ִ‬ ‫המסגרת לשבטי הצפון הייצוגיים‪ 52.‬גם המשך הרשימה בדה”י המוקדש בעיקר לשוערים‪,‬‬ ‫ברור למדי שהוא מידי מחבר דה”י (פס’ ‪ 33-b17‬ללא מקביל בנחמיה)‪ .‬אך אי אפשר‬ ‫להסביר בקלות כזאת את ההבדלים ברשימה עצמה‪ ,‬אף שאין ספק שמקומה בספר דה”י‬ ‫משני בהשוואה לנחמיה‪.‬‬ ‫במסגרת דה”י הרשימה מספקת תמונה של המשכיות בין עבר לעתיד‪ .‬המחבר עושה‬ ‫שימוש ברשימות היוחסין כדי לגשר על פני התקופות שבחר שלא לספר עליהן‪ ,‬ומעבר‬ ‫לזה‪ ,‬שהרי ִמתאר הרשימות גולש מעבר לגבולות הזמן של הנרטיב ההיסטורי‪ .‬בולט‬ ‫הדבר ביוחסין של דוד שמקיפים כמה וכמה דורות אחרי צדקיהו המלך האחרון לבית‬ ‫דוד (ג ‪ 53.)23–17‬ההחלטה לסגור את הרשימות הללו עם רשימה של היושבים בירושלים‬ ‫אחרי ששבו מן הגלות נדמית כסגירת מעגל ענק‪ ,‬המכניסה את ספרי דברי הימים ועזרא‬ ‫ונחמיה תחת קורת גג אחת‪.‬‬ ‫ד‪ .‬סוף ספר דה”י והתחלת ספר עזרא‬ ‫הדוגמה המפורסמת ביותר של חזרה שמחבר‪/‬עורך‪/‬מסרן סימן בה קשרים בין יצירות‬ ‫הוא הסיום של ספר דה”י וההתחלה של ספר עזרא ונחמיה‪ .‬המשפטים הפותחים את ספר‬ ‫עזרא ונחמיה (עז’ א ‪ )3–1‬הם גם אלה הסוגרים את ספר דה”י (דה”ב לו ‪.)23–22‬‬ ‫עזרא א ‬ ‫כֹורׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס ‬ ‫ּוב ְׁשנַ ת ַא ַחת לְ ֶ‬ ‫‪ִ 1‬‬ ‫לִ כְ לֹות ְּד ַבר ה’ ִמ ִּפי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ‬ ‫רּוח ּכ ֶֹרׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס ‬ ‫ֵה ִעיר ה’ ֶאת ַ‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ֲע ֶבר קֹול ְּבכָ ל ַמלְ כּותֹו וְ גַ ם ְּב ִמכְ ָּתב לֵ אמֹר׃ ‬ ‫‪ּ 2‬כֹה ָא ַמר ּכ ֶֹרׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס ‬ ‫ֹלהי ַה ָׁשּ ָמיִ ם ‬ ‫ּכֹל ַמ ְמלְ כֹות ָה ָא ֶרץ נָ ַתן לִ י ה’ ֱא ֵ‬ ‫וְ הּוא ָפ ַקד ָעלַ י לִ ְבנֹות לֹו ַביִ ת ‬ ‫יהּודה׃ ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם ֲא ֶׁשר ִּב ָ‬ ‫ִּב ָ‬ ‫‪ִ 3‬מי ָבכֶ ם ִמּכָ ל ַעּמֹו ‬ ‫ֹלהיו ִעּמֹו וְ יַ ַעל ‬ ‫יְ ִהי ֱא ָ‬ ‫יהּודה‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם ֲא ֶׁשר ִּב ָ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫לִ‬ ‫ֹלהי יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫וְ יִ ֶבן ֶאת ֵּבית ה’ ֱא ֵ‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִָלם׃‬ ‫ֹלהים ֲא ֶׁשר ִּב ָ‬ ‫הּוא ָה ֱא ִ‬

‫דה”ב לו‬ ‫כֹורׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס‬ ‫ּוב ְׁשנַ ת ַא ַחת לְ ֶ‬ ‫‪ִ 22‬‬ ‫לִ כְ לֹות ְּד ַבר ה’ ְּב ִפי יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו‬ ‫ּכֹורׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס‬ ‫רּוח ֶ‬ ‫ֵה ִעיר ה’ ֶאת ַ‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ֲע ֶבר קֹול ְּבכָ ל ַמלְ כּותֹו וְ גַ ם ְּב ִמכְ ָּתב לֵ אמֹר׃‬ ‫ּכֹורׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס‬ ‫‪ּ 23‬כֹה ָא ַמר ֶ‬ ‫ֹלהי ַה ָׁשּ ַמיִ ם‬ ‫ּכָ ל ַמ ְמלְ כֹות ָה ָא ֶרץ נָ ַתן לִ י ה’ ֱא ֵ‬ ‫וְ הּוא ָפ ַקד ָעלַ י לִ ְבנֹות לֹו ַביִ ת‬ ‫יהּודה‬ ‫ירּוׁש ִַלם ֲא ֶׁשר ִּב ָ‬ ‫ִּב ָ‬ ‫ִמי ָבכֶ ם ִמּכָ ל ַעּמֹו‬ ‫ֹלהיו ִעּמֹו וְ יָ ַעל׃‬ ‫ה’ ֱא ָ‬

‫‪ .52‬אף שהמסגרת הרחבה של שנים עשר השבטים מוצאת ביטוי בספר עזרא ונחמיה‪ ,‬אין בו ולו‬ ‫פעם הזכרה של אפרים ומנשה‪ ,‬בעוד מחבר דה”י חוזר ומזכיר שמות ספציפיים של שבטי הצפון‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬קנופרס‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪”the Israel discussed in the genealogies outlives the :245‬‬ ‫”‪ ;monarchy discussed in the history‬כדבריו‪ ,‬מוסדות הממלכה באו לקיצם עם הגלות‪ ,‬אך העם שורד‬ ‫כדי לשוב ולבנות אותם‪ ,‬בצורה כזאת או אחרת‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪145‬‬

‫ההבדלים בין הטקסטים טריוויאליים‪ ,‬הבדלים שנוצרו בתהליך המסירה‪ ,‬וברור שזהו‬ ‫אותו טקסט עצמו שמישהו חזר עליו בכוונת המכוון‪.‬‬ ‫בפסוק ‪ִ :1‬מ ִּפי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ‪ְּ /‬ב ִפי יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו — חילוף פשוט בין אותיות דומות וללא הבדל‬ ‫במשמעות‪.‬‬ ‫הקרבה הגרפית בין המילים השונות יהי‪/‬‬ ‫ֹלהיו ִעּמֹו — ִ‬ ‫ֹלהיו ִעּמֹו ‪ /‬ה’ ֱא ָ‬ ‫בפסוק ‪ :3‬יְ ִהי ֱא ָ‬ ‫יהוה מסבירה את ההבדל בקלות‪.‬‬ ‫ברור לגמרי לאן שייכים הכתובים הללו מלכתחילה‪ ,‬שהרי ספר עזרא ונחמיה אינו‬ ‫יכול בלעדיהם‪ ,‬בעוד בספר דה”י הם בבחינת סרח עודף‪.‬‬ ‫מטרת החזרה אף היא ברורה מאליה‪ :‬היא באה לציין את ההמשכיות‪ ,‬את הרצף‪,‬‬ ‫בין דברי הימים ועזרא ונחמיה‪ .‬והדברים ידועים‪ :‬אם היו שני הספרים פעם חיבור רצוף‬ ‫אחד הרי חלוקתו הולידה צורך להשאיר סימן לרצף שהיה קיים ועתה נקטע וזה סימנו‬ ‫ביד המסרן‪ ,‬חזרה על ראשית החיבור הבא בסוף החיבור הקודם‪ 54.‬ואם היו הם ספרים‬ ‫עצמאיים מלכתחילה‪ ,‬עדיין היה מי שבא להורות שאפשר למצוא המשך ישיר לתולדות‬ ‫המסופרים בספר דה”י‪ ,‬בספר האחר‪ ,‬בעזרא ונחמיה‪.‬‬ ‫האם יש משמעות לחזרה זו באשר לקשר הפנימי בין דה”י ועזרא ונחמיה?‬ ‫עדות הפסוקים האחרונים של ספר דה”י מתוארת בדרך כלל כעדות חיצונית שאין לה‬ ‫כלל משמעות פנימית בשאלת היחס בין דה”י ועזרא ונחמיה‪ .‬אילו עמדה החזרה לעצמה‪,‬‬ ‫אולי כך היה מן הדין לתארה‪ .‬ולא כן הוא‪ .‬הצהרת כורש בשולי ספר דה”י אינה תלויה‬ ‫שם כאבר מדולדל‪ .‬זהו המשך ישיר לקץ ממלכת יהודה בימי צדקיהו‪ ,‬כפי שבחר מחבר‬ ‫דה”י לתארו‪ ,‬דה”ב לו‪:‬‬ ‫ֹלהים ‪ 20 ...‬וַ ּיֶ גֶ ל‬ ‫יהם ֶאת ֶמלֶ ְך ּכַ ְׂש ִּדים‪ 19 ...‬וַ ּיִ ְׂש ְרפּו ֶאת ֵּבית ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫‪ 17‬וַ ּיַ ַעל ֲעלֵ ֶ‬ ‫ַה ְׁשּ ֵא ִרית ִמן ַה ֶח ֶרב ֶאל ָּב ֶבל וַ ּיִ ְהיּו לֹו ּולְ ָבנָ יו לַ ֲע ָב ִדים ַעד ְמֹלְך ַמלְ כּות ָּפ ָרס׃ ‪21‬‬ ‫יה ּכָ ל יְ ֵמי ָה ַׁשּ ָּמה‬ ‫תֹות ָ‬ ‫לְ ַמֹּלאות ְּד ַבר ה’ ְּב ִפי יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו ַעד ָר ְצ ָתה ָה ָא ֶרץ ֶאת ַׁש ְּב ֶ‬ ‫כֹורׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס‪...‬‬ ‫ּוב ְׁשנַ ת ַא ַחת לְ ֶ‬ ‫ָׁש ָב ָתה לְ ַמֹּלאות ִׁש ְב ִעים ָׁשנָ ה׃ ‪ִ 22‬‬ ‫בעוד שהפסוקים החופפים בסוף ספר דה”י ובתחילת ספר עזרא ונחמיה הם בפירוש‬ ‫מעשה עריכה וסידור‪ ,‬האפשר לראות באותו האופן את הכתובים הקודמים המביאים את‬ ‫סוף תולדות הממלכה ממש אל סף שיבת ציון? האם גם את פסוקי ‘עד מלך מלכות פרס’‬ ‫(לו ‪ )21–20‬כתב המסדר כדי ליצור המשכיות בין שני חיבורים נפרדים? בעיניי‪ ,‬אין ספק‬ ‫שהם מעשה ידי המחבר שהכין בכך לקראת ההמשך‪ ,‬המביא את דבר ההתחדשות עם‬ ‫מלוך מלכות פרס‪.‬‬ ‫מלבד זאת‪ ,‬גם הפסוקים האחרונים הללו‪ ,‬המביאים את התולדות עד מלוך מלכות‬ ‫פרס (לו ‪ ,)21–20‬אינם עומדים בפני עצמם‪ .‬מחבר דה”י ויתר על הכרוניקה של החורבן‬ ‫‪ .54‬בודה‪ ,‬שופטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,19‬משווה בין החזרה על מות יהושע ובין המקרה הזה; לדידו החזרה שם‬ ‫דומה לחזרה במקומנו המלמדת ללא ספק על ההמשכיות המקורית של הספרים דה”י ועזרא ונחמיה‪:‬‬

‫‪“Eine ähnliche Wiederholung findet sich zwischen Esr 1:1-3aa und IIChr 36:22f, dort zweifellos‬‬ ‫”‪.um den ursprünglichen Zusamenhang der Bücher klarzustellen‬‬

‫*‪146‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫המסיימת את ספר מלכים ועיצב את תיאור החורבן כנאום פרוגרמטי‪ .‬למעשה כבר‬ ‫נתן דעתו על כך מתחילת תיאור ימי צדקיהו‪ .‬הוא לקח מספר מלכים רק את המשפט‬ ‫הראשון של נוסחת הפתיחה (לו ‪ .)11‬בהמשך‪ ,‬בהערכת מלכות צדקיהו (פסוק ‪ ,)12‬הוא‬ ‫ֹלהיו‪ ,‬כמו בספר מלכים‪ ,‬אבל מיד‪ֹ :‬לא נִ כְ נַ ע ִמּלִ ְפנֵ י‬ ‫כבר התערב‪ :‬וַ ּיַ ַעׂש ָה ַרע ְּב ֵעינֵ י ה’ ֱא ָ‬ ‫יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו ַהּנָ ִביא ִמ ִּפי ה’‪ ,‬פרי רוחו של מחבר דה”י‪ .‬מתחילת תיאור ימי צדקיהו חשב על‬ ‫סופו והכין לקראת הסיום השב ומזכיר את ירמיהו; בסיום ספרו אמר‪ :‬לְ ַמֹּלאות ְּד ַבר ה’‬ ‫ְּב ִפי יִ ְר ְמיָ הּו (פסוק ‪ ,)21‬והתגשמות דבר ה’ בפי ירמיהו צפויה לבוא עם ְמֹלְך ַמלְ כּות ָּפ ָרס‪,‬‬ ‫כֹורׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס לִ כְ לֹות ְּד ַבר ה’‬ ‫ּוב ְׁשנַ ת ַא ַחת לְ ֶ‬ ‫וכך הווה‪ ,‬כפי שכתוב בתחילת ספר עזרא‪ִ :‬‬ ‫רּוח ּכ ֶֹרׁש ֶמלֶ ְך ָּפ ַרס‪ .‬התפיסה הרואה בשיבת ציון התגשמות דבר‬ ‫ִמ ִּפי יִ ְר ְמיָ ה ֵה ִעיר ה’ ֶאת ַ‬ ‫ה’ בפי ירמיהו משותפת למחבר דה”ב לו ועז’ א‪ .‬קשה לקבל שהשיתוף הפנימי הזה בין‬ ‫דה”י ועזרא ונחמיה הוא מקרי — משל אינו אלא ביטוי כללי לדעות שרווחו בתקופות‬ ‫ההן — ואף לא שבא מידי מסדר הספרים שרצה לקרב את הרחוקים‪ .‬לדידי‪ ,‬זהו מחבר‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫דה”י‪ ,‬הכותב כאן וכאן‪.‬‬ ‫יוצא אפוא שדווקא עם החזרה החיצונית בסוף דה”י על תחילת ספר עזרא נכנסנו‬ ‫לפנימיותם של דברים‪ ,‬ומצאנו את מחבר דה”י מעצב את הפרק האחרון של תולדות‬ ‫ממלכת יהודה כהכנה לקראת הפרק הראשון של שיבת ציון‪.‬‬ ‫לבחינה הזאת מן הראוי להזכיר את דברי הרמב”ן על רצף הספרים בראשית ושמות‬ ‫הדומה בעיניו לרצף דברי הימים ועזרא ונחמיה‪:‬‬ ‫כי אף על פי שהם שני ספרים הסיפור מחובר בדברים באים זה אחר זה‪.‬‬ ‫וכענין הזה בספר דברי הימים וספר עזרא‪ ,‬שהשלים דברי הימים ובשנת‬ ‫אחת לכורש וגו'‪ ,‬ואותם שני פסוקים בלשונם החזיר בראש ספר עזרא לחבר‬ ‫הסיפור‪ ,‬אלא שהיו שני ספרים‪ ,‬השלים הראשון במה שהיה קודם בנין הבית‬ ‫והספר השני מעת הבנין‪ ,‬וכן הדבר בשני הספרים האלה בראשית ואלה‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫שמות‪.‬‬ ‫בדומה לזה גם הספרים יהושע שופטים שמואל ומלכים‪ ,‬ספרים נפרדים המתאפיינים‬ ‫בהמשך דברים‪ ,‬ובדומה לזה גם ספרי דברי הימים עזרא ונחמיה‪ ,‬היום הם ספרים נפרדים‬ ‫אבל הם מתאפיינים בהמשך דברים פנימי‪ ,‬לא רק חיצוני‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬יפת‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,1077–1076‬מפליגה בהמשכיות המופלאה בין תיאור הקץ עד פסוק‬ ‫‪ 21‬ותיאור ההתחדשות שבפסוקים ‪ ,23–22‬אך לדידה הקשר הזה מתמצה בפסוקים החופפים ואין לנו‬ ‫להתחשב בהמשכם בעז’ א‪ .‬אם סבורים‪ ,‬כדעת יפת‪ ,‬שהספרים דברי הימים ועזרא ונחמיה הם ספרים‬ ‫נפרדים לחלוטין קשה להבין איך הושגה ההמשכיות הפנימית שהיא מעשה מחבר ולא מעשה עורך‪.‬‬ ‫ויליאמסון‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,419‬המסכים עם יפת שמדובר בספרים נפרדים‪ ,‬מכריע בהתאם שהכתובים‬ ‫החוזרים הם נספח; יצירתו של מחבר דה”י הסתיימה בפסוק ‪ 21‬והפסוקים ‪ 23–22‬נשאלו מעזרא ביד‬ ‫מאוחרת יותר‪ ,‬מסיבות ליטורגיות‪ ,‬כדי לסיים בנימת תקווה‪ ,‬ובאותו זמן לכוון אל המשך ההיסטוריה כפי‬ ‫שהיא מסופרת בעזרא ונחמיה‪ .‬אלא שבכך הוא מתעלם מן הטיעונים שלמעלה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .56‬כשהרמב”ן מדבר על בראשית ושמות כעל שני ספרים הוא בוודאי מכוון לשני ספרים מאותה‬ ‫יד‪ ,‬שאמר בתחילת פירושו על בראשית‪“ :‬משה רבינו כתב הספר הזה עם התורה כולה מפיו של הקב”ה"‪.‬‬

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

‫*‪147‬‬

‫מובן ששאלת היחס בין דברי הימים‪ ,‬עזרא ונחמיה‪ ,‬היא בעיה רבת פנים‪ ,‬אך אין זה‬ ‫המקום לפרוש את היריעה הזאת‪.‬‬ ‫* * *‬ ‫סוף דבר‪ ,‬הפרשיות החוזרות שימשו כלי בידי מחברים‪ ,‬עורכים ומסדרים‪ ,‬בעיצוב‬ ‫החיבורים שבידיהם‪ .‬באמצעותן נארגו יחדיו יצירות נפרדות לכדי חיבורים רבי היקף‬ ‫כמו ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית והכרוניסטית‪ ,‬ואף ספרי נבואה כישעיהו וירמיהו‬ ‫ניתנו לתוך המסגרת ההיסטורית‪ ,‬ובאמצעותן התוו גבולות וגישרו על פערים‪.‬‬ ‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫אנדרסון‪ ,‬שמואל = ‪A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (World Biblical Commentary), Dallas‬‬ ‫‪TX 1989‬‬ ‫אקרויד‪ ,‬שמואל ב = ‪P.A. Ackroyd, The Second Book of Samuel (Cambridge Bible),‬‬ ‫‪Cambridge 1977‬‬

‫ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו = א”ב ארליך‪ ,‬מקרא כפשוטו‪ ,‬כרך ב‪ :‬דברי סופרים‪ ,‬ברלין ‪1900‬‬ ‫ּבודה‪ ,‬שופטים = ‪K. Budde, Das Buch der Richter (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum‬‬ ‫‪Alten Testament), Leipzig & Tübingen 1897‬‬ ‫בודה‪ ,‬שמואל = ‪K. Budde, Die Bücher Samuel (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum‬‬ ‫‪Alten Testament), Tübingen & Leipzig 1902‬‬ ‫בטלר‪ ,‬יהושע = ‪T.C. Butler, Joshua (World Biblical Commentary), Nashville TN‬‬ ‫‪1983‬‬ ‫בלנקינסופ‪ ,‬ישעיה = ‪J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39 (Anchor Bible), New York 2000‬‬ ‫ברייט‪ ,‬ירמיה = ‪J. Bright, Jeremiah (Anchor Bible), Garden City NY 1965‬‬ ‫ברתלמי‪ ,‬ביקורת הנוסח = ‪D. Barthélemy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament‬‬ ‫‪(Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1), Fribourg 1982‬‬

‫גוטליב‪ ,‬חזרה מחמת הומויוטלאוטון = ל’ גוטליב‪“ ,‬חזרה מחמת הומויוטלאוטון”‪ ,‬על קו‬ ‫התפר (באר שבע יח)‪ ,‬בעריכת צ’ טלשיר וד’ עמארה‪ ,‬באר שבע תשס”ה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪208–189‬‬ ‫גונווג‪ ,‬עזרא = ‪A.H.J. Gunneweg, Esra, Berlin 1985‬‬ ‫דום‪ ,‬ישעיה = ‪B. Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia,5 Göttingen 1922‬‬ ‫דרייבר‪ ,‬מבוא = ‪S.R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament9,‬‬ ‫‪Edinburgh 1913‬‬ ‫הוביגן‪ ,‬ביבליה = ‪C.F. Houbigant, Biblia Hebraica cum notis criticis, I-IV, Paris‬‬ ‫‪1953‬‬

‫הופמן‪ ,‬ירמיה = י’ הופמן‪ ,‬ירמיה א–ב‪ ,‬תל אביב וירושלים‪ ,‬תשס”א‬ ‫ויליאמסון‪ ,‬דברי הימים = ‪H.G.M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles (New Century‬‬ ‫‪Bible), Grand Rapids NY & London 1982‬‬ ‫ויליאמסון‪ ,‬עזרא = ‪H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah (World Biblical‬‬ ‫‪Commentary), Nashville TN 1985‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

148*

‫ מחקרי מקרא — בחינות‬,”‫ “על תופעה טקסטואלית אחת‬,‫ תופעה טקסטואלית = ר’ ויס‬,‫ויס‬ 49–46 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשמ”א‬,‫נוסח ולשון‬ J. Wellhausen, Der Text der Bücher Samuelis, Göttingen 1871 = ‫ שמואל‬,‫ולהאוזן‬ E. Tov, “The LXX Additions (miscellanies) in 1 Kings 2”, Textus = ‫ תוספות‬,‫טוב‬ 11 (1984), pp. 89-118

‫ “לדמותה של מהדורת ספר מלכים המשתקפת‬,‫ מהדורת ספר מלכים = צ’ טלשיר‬,‫טלשיר‬ 302–249 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ תרביץ נט (תש”ן‬,”‫בתרגום השבעים‬ ‫ “למבנה ספר מלכים — סינכרוניזם נוסחתי‬,‫ למבנה ספר מלכים = צ’ טלשיר‬,‫טלשיר‬ Texts, Temples, and Traditions – A Tribute to Menahem ,”‫וסינכרוניזם סיפורי‬ Haran, eds. M.V. Fox et al., Winona Lake IN 1996, pp. 73*-88*

‫ ירושלים‬,‫ המסורת הכפילה על פילוג המלוכה‬,‫ המסורת הכפילה = צ’ טלשיר‬,‫טלשיר‬ ‫תשמ”ט‬ Z. Talshir, “The Miscellanies in 2 Reigns 2:35a-o; 46a-l and the = ‫ תוספות‬,‫טלשיר‬ Composition of the Books of Kings/Reigns”, XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki 2010 (SCS 59), ed. M.K.H. Peters, Atlanta GA 2013, pp. 155-174 S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (Old Testament Library), Louisville = ‫ דברי הימים‬,‫יפת‬ KY 1993 J. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1-20 (Anchor Bible), New York 1999 = ‫ ירמיה‬,‫לונדבום‬ J.M. Myers, I Chronicles (Anchor Bible), Garden City NY = ‫ דברי הימים‬,‫מאיירס‬ 1965 S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremias, Kristiania = ‫ ירמיה‬,‫מובינקל‬ 1914 T.N.D. Mettinger, Solomonic State Officials, Lund 1971 = ‫ שרי שלמה‬,‫מטינגר‬ W. McKane, Jeremiah (International Critical Commentary), = ‫ ירמיה‬,‫מקיין‬ Edinburgh 1996 P.K. McCarter, II Samuel (Anchor Bible), Garden City NY, 1984 = ‫ שמואל‬,‫מקרטר‬ K. Marti, Das Buch Jesaja (Kurzer Hand-Kommentar zum Alten = ‫ ישעיה‬,‫מרטי‬ Testament), Leipzig 1900 O. Kaiser, Isaiah 13-39 (Old Testament Library), Philadelphia PA = ‫ ישעיה‬,‫קייזר‬ 1974 C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, = ‫ פירוש‬,‫קייל ודליטש‬ II, Grand Rapids NY 1872 (tr. from the German, Leipzig 1863) R.W. Klein, 1 Chronicles (Hermeneia), Minneapolis MN 2006 = ‫ דברי הימים‬,‫קליין‬ R.E. Clements, Isaiah 1-39 (New Century Bible), Grand Rapids = ‫ ישעיה‬,‫קלמנטס‬ MI & London 1980 G.N. Knoppers, I Chronicles 1-9 (Anchor Bible), New York = ‫ דברי הימים‬,‫קנופרס‬ 2004

149*

‫פרשיות חוזרות ומשמעותן לחיבור ההיסטוריוגרפיה הדויטרונומיסטית‬

G.N. Knoppers, “Sources, Revisions, and Editions: The Lists = ‫ הרשימות‬,‫קנופרס‬ of Jerusalem’s Residents in MT and LXX Nehemiah 11 and 1 Chronicles 9”, Textus 20 (2000), pp. 141-168 E.L. Curtis, The Books of Chronicles (International Critical = ‫ דברי הימים‬,‫קרטיס‬ Commentary), Edinburgh 1910 W. Rudolph, Jeremia (Handbuch zum Alten Testament), Tübingen = ‫ ירמיה‬,‫רודולף‬ 1947 W. Rudolph, Chronikbücher (Handbuch zum Alten = ‫ דברי הימים‬,‫רודולף‬ Testament), Tübingen 1955

‫ תרביץ לה‬,”‫ “חיבור המבוא של ספר שופטים‬,‫ המבוא של ספר שופטים = א’ רופא‬,‫רופא‬ 213-201 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫(תשכ”ו‬ ,”‫ “סיומו של ספר יהושע לפי תרגום השבעים‬,‫ סיומו של ספר יהושע = א’ רופא‬,‫רופא‬ 227-217 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫שנתון למקרא ולחקר המזרח הקדום ב (תשל”ז‬

‫*‪150‬‬

‫צפורה טלשיר‬

‫על הזיקה שבין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי אברהם‬

‫*‪151‬‬

‫על הזיקה שבין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי אברהם‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫יהונתן יוגב ושמיר יונה‬ ‫המחקר ההשוואתי בין ספרות המזרח הקדום ובין ספרות המקרא עצום ורב הוא‪.‬‬ ‫לאחר שתורגמו יצירות רבות שנכתבו על ידי עמים שונים‪ ,‬כאלה שקדמו לבני ישראל‪,‬‬ ‫או כאלה שבאו במגע עימם‪ ,‬הועלו השערות בדבר קיומה של זיקה‪ ,‬הן מצד הרעיון והן‬ ‫מצד הלשון והסגנון‪ ,‬בין ספרות המקרא ובין ספרויות עמי קדם‪ :‬שומר‪ ,‬מצרים‪ ,‬בבל‪ ,‬חתי‪,‬‬ ‫יוון‪ ,‬רומא ועוד‪ .‬בבסיסם של המחקרים שנעשו עומד הרצון לתהות על העולם התרבותי‬ ‫ּובּגֹויִ ם ֹלא יִ ְת ַח ָּשׁב”?‬ ‫“עם לְ ָב ָדד יִ ְׁשּכֹן ַ‬ ‫שממנו הושפעו סופרי המקרא‪ .‬האמנם ישראל הוא ָ‬ ‫(במדבר כג ‪.)9‬‬ ‫מן המפורסמות הוא כי קיימת זיקה רבת היקף בין ספרות אוגרית וספרות המקרא‪.‬‬ ‫זיקה זו מוצאת את ביטויה בקרבה הגדולה שבין הלשון העברית הקדומה ובין הלשון‬ ‫האוגריתית‪ ,‬בעיקר ניכר הדמיון באוצר המילים ובתחביר‪ .‬גם בדגמים של סגנון ורטוריקה‬ ‫ניתן להצביע על מקבילות רבות בין השירה האוגריתית ובין ספרות המקרא‪ 2.‬מכאן ניתן‬ ‫לשאול‪ :‬האם שירת העלילה האוגריתית הקדומה השפיעה השפעה של ממש על עיצוב‬ ‫הסיפור המקראי? התשובה לשאלה זו הינה מורכבת ביותר‪ .‬במאמר זה נברר אם אכן‬ ‫ישנה זיקה ישירה של ממש בין עלילת אקהת האוגריתית ובין סיפורי אברהם בספר‬ ‫בראשית‪.‬‬ ‫עלילת אקהת כתובה על פני שלושה לוחות עיקריים‪KTU 1.17, KTU 1.18, KTU :‬‬ ‫‪ 3.1.19‬הלוחות נמצאו בעונות החפירה הראשונות בתל ראס־שאמרה בסוריה במקום‬ ‫אשר מכונה “בית הכהן הראשי”‪ ,‬בין השנים ‪ ,1931-1930‬בראשותו של הארכיאולוג קלוד‬ ‫שפר‪ 4.‬הלוחות תוארכו לתקופת ה־‪ ,LB‬בסביבות המאה ה־‪ 14‬לפנה”ס‪ .‬בלוח הראשון‬

‫‪ .1‬מאמר זה מוקדש לזכרו של אביגדור‪ ,‬מורה‪ ,‬עמית וחוקר מן המעלה הראשונה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬לדוגמה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬צמדי מילים; דהוד‪ ,‬תחביר וסגנון; הלד‪ ,‬קטל־יקטל; לורץ וקוטסיפר‪,‬‬ ‫קולומטריה; סיון ויונה‪ ,‬דגם הציר; סמית‪ ,‬מחקרים במקרא ובאוגריתית; פישר‪ ,‬מקבילות ראס שאמרה;‬ ‫קורפל ודה־מור‪ ,‬יסודות‪ ,‬ועוד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬מספור הממצא המקורי בהתאמה הינו‪RS 2.[004], RS 3.340 and RS 3.322+RS 3.349+RS :‬‬ ‫‪ .3.366‬לשיטות מספור שונות ראו‪ :‬הרדנר‪ ,‬קורפוס (‪ ;)CTA 17; CTA 18; CTA 19‬גורדון‪ ,‬ספרות אוגרית‬ ‫(‪.)1 Aqht; 2 Aqht; 3 Aqht‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬ראו‪ :‬שפר‪ ,‬וירולו ותורו־דנגין‪ ,‬עונה שנייה‪.‬‬

‫*‪151‬‬

‫*‪152‬‬

‫יהונתן יוגב ושמיר יונה‬

‫שרדו באופן חלקי כארבעה טורים‪ ,‬בעוד שרק שני טורים שרדו באופן חלקי בלוח השני‪.‬‬ ‫מצב השתמרותו של הלוח השלישי הוא טוב בהרבה ממצבם של השניים האחרים‪ ,‬והוא‬ ‫נחלק מראש לארבעה טורים‪ .‬כתוצאה ממצב השתמרותם הירוד של הלוחות‪ ,‬שרדו על‬ ‫פניהם כ־‪ 480‬שורות שלמות או חלקיות של טקסט‪ .‬קשה להכריע כמה לוחות היו קיימים‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫במקור בעלילת אקהת‪ ,‬או האם הלוח אשר מוספר כלוח השלישי הוא אכן האחרון‪.‬‬ ‫עלילת אקהת כתובה בלשון שירה והיא עשירה בדפוסים רטוריים וסגנוניים‪.‬‬ ‫במהלך שמונים השנים האחרונות היא שימשה מצע למחקר רב‪ .‬היא תורגמה לראשונה‬ ‫בשנת ‪ 1936‬על ידי האשורולוג שארל וירולו‪ 6,‬ומאז תורגמה שוב על ידי חוקרים רבים‪,‬‬ ‫דנאל‪,‬‬ ‫אם באופן מלא אם באופן חלקי‪ 7.‬עיקרה של האגדה עוסק באדם ידוע ומכובד בשם ִ‬ ‫אשר שרוי במצוקה קשה משום שאין לו יורש זכר אשר ימשיך את שמו‪ .‬הוא פונה אל‬ ‫האלים‪ ,‬ולאחר שמאכיל אותם‪ ,‬ניתנת לו ההבטחה שיזכה ביורש‪ ,‬בן זכר‪ .‬הבן שאכן נולד‪,‬‬ ‫דנאל בביתו ומעניק לו קשת מופלאה‬ ‫נקרא בשם “אקהת”‪ .‬האל כת’ר־וחסס מבקר את ִ‬ ‫המיועדת לבנו‪ .‬האלה ענת חומדת את קשתו של אקהת ומנסה לשכנעו לתת לה את‬ ‫הקשת ובתמורה היא מבטיחה לו כסף‪ ,‬זהב ואריכות ימים‪ .‬כשאקהת מסרב לבקשתה‪,‬‬ ‫היא מחליטה להורגו וכדי להוציא את תכניתה לפועל היא נעזרת בישות בשם יטפנ‪.‬‬ ‫דנאל יוצא לחפש את שרידי בנו‬ ‫דנאל‪ ,‬אביו של אקהת‪ ,‬ואחותו‪ ,‬פג’ת‪ ,‬מתאבלים עליו‪ִ .‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫כדי להביאו לקבורה ראויה‪ ,‬ומתעמת עם מספר ציפורים טורפות עד שמוצא את השרידים‬ ‫בתוך אחת מהן‪ .‬בתום שבע שנות האבל מתקיים דיאלוג בינו לבין פג’ת בתו‪ ,‬המבקשת‬ ‫לנקום את מות אחיה‪.‬‬ ‫בנקודה זו רצוי לשאול‪ :‬האם סופרי המקרא הכירו את עלילת אקהת‪ ,‬או גרסה‬ ‫מסוימת שלה? התשובה לשאלה זו הינה חיובית על פי רוב‪ ,‬ולכך יש שתי ראיות עיקריות‪:‬‬ ‫ֹלׁשת ָה ֲאנָ ִׁשים ָה ֵאּלֶ ה‬ ‫הראיה הראשונה נמצאת באלגוריה שמביא הנביא יחזקאל‪“ :‬וְ ָהיּו ְׁש ֶ‬ ‫ְּבתֹוכָ ּה נ ַֹח דנאל ָ(ּדנִ ּיֵ אל) וְ ִאּיֹוב ֵה ָּמה ְב ִצ ְד ָק ָתם יְ נַ ְּצלּו נַ ְפ ָׁשם נְ ֻאם ֲאדֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה” (יד ‪ 8.)14‬כפי‬ ‫שניתן לראות‪ ,‬גרסת הקרי מציגה את השם ָ“ּדנִ ּיֵ אל”‪ ,‬בעוד שגרסת הכתיב שומרת על‬ ‫צורת המקור של השם “דנאל”‪ .‬יחזקאל מציג לקהל השומעים דמות ספרותית שמוכרת‬ ‫מבחינה אוניברסאלית לא פחות מנוח ואיוב‪ ,‬שני צדיקים ידועים‪ .‬יתרה מכך‪ ,‬דנאל ידוע‬ ‫“הּנֵ ה ָחכָ ם ַא ָּתה‬ ‫כאחד מחכמי קדם‪ ,‬אשר יחזקאל מזכיר אותו בקינת הלעג לנגיד צור‪ִ :‬‬ ‫מדנאל ִ(מ ָּדנִ ּיֵ אל) ּכָ ל ָסתּום ֹלא ֲע ָממּוָך” (שם‪ ,‬כח ‪ .)3‬למרות שעברו מאות שנים בין כתיבת‬ ‫העלילה האוגריתית לבין זמנו של יחזקאל‪ ,‬ניתן לומר שהנביא וקהל שומעיו עדיין מכירים‬

‫‪ .5‬עלתה הסברה כי הלוח ‪ KTU 1.20‬מעלילת ה”רפאים” אשר נמצא בסמוך ללוח ‪,KTU 1.18‬‬ ‫מהווה המשך לעלילת אקהת‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬גריי‪ ,‬מורשת כנען‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;93-91‬דה־מור‪ ,‬אנתולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;224‬מרגלית‪,‬‬ ‫אקהת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;6-5‬קאקו‪ ,‬רפאים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬וירולו‪ ,‬דנאל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬לחיבורים עיקריים וחשובים ראו‪ :‬גיבסון‪ ,‬מיתוסים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;122-103‬גינזברג‪ ,‬מיתוס צפוני־כנעני;‬ ‫גינזברג‪ ,‬מיתוס צפוני־כנעני ‪ ;II‬גסטר‪ ,‬תספיס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;376-316‬וויאט‪ ,‬טקסטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;312-246‬פרקר‪,‬‬ ‫אקהת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;80-49‬קאסוטו‪ ,‬דנאל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬ושוב בפס’ ‪.20‬‬

‫על הזיקה שבין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי אברהם‬

‫*‪153‬‬

‫דנאל‪ .‬ישנה הסכמה כמעט מוחלטת במחקר כי “דנאל” הנזכר‬ ‫גרסה מסוימת של סיפור ִ‬ ‫בנבואת יחזקאל קשור ישירות עם דמותו של ִ‬ ‫דנאל‪ ,‬אביו של אקהת‪ 9.‬הראיה השנייה‬ ‫הוצגה על ידי גינזברג בשנת ‪ .1938‬הוא מצא כי קללתו של דוד את הרי הגלבוע בקינתו‬ ‫ּוׂש ֵדי ְתרּומֹת”‪[ ,‬שמואל ב’‪ ,‬א ‪)]21‬‬ ‫(“ה ֵרי ַבּגִ לְ ּב ַֹע ַאל ַטל וְ ַאל ָמ ָטר ֲעלֵ יכֶ ם ְ‬ ‫על שאול ויהונתן ָ‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫דומה ביותר לדברים הנאמרים לאחר מותו של אקהת (‪.)bl . ṭl . bl . rbb bl / šrʿ . thmtm‬‬ ‫יש בזה להעיד שהמשורר העברי הקדום הכיר את דגם קללת הבצורת‪ ,‬על מקום שנפלו‬ ‫בו יקיריו‪ ,‬ועשה שימוש בדגם זה בקינה שחיבר‪ 11.‬שתי ראיות אלו יש בכוחן לבסס את‬ ‫הטענה כי גרסה של עלילת אקהת הייתה מוכרת לסופרים מקראיים אף מאות שנים‬ ‫לאחר חורבן אוגרית‪ ,‬בסביבות המאה ה־‪ 12‬לפנה”ס‪ .‬האם ייתכן שהשפעת הסיפור הייתה‬ ‫אף רחבה מכך?‬ ‫מספר חוקרים סבורים כי סיפורי האבות בספר בראשית חולקים קווי דמיון משותפים‬ ‫רבים עם אגדות ומיתוסים מימי קדם‪ ,‬ממקומות כגון יוון‪ ,‬בבל‪ ,‬אוגרית ועוד‪ 12.‬מעבר לכך‪,‬‬ ‫ממספר מחקרים אף עולה כי ישנו קשר‪ ,‬עקיף או ישיר‪ ,‬בין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי‬ ‫אברהם‪ 13.‬ובאמת‪ ,‬קשה להתעלם מן המוטיבים הספרותיים המשותפים לשני הסיפורים‪.‬‬ ‫להלן נציג מספר מוטיבים שבולטים במיוחד‪:‬‬ ‫דנאל ואברהם‪ ,‬הינם דמויות ידועות שזוכות לכבוד מאלים ואנשים‪.‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬שני הגיבורים‪ִ ,‬‬ ‫ֹאמר ַא ְב ָרם‬ ‫המצוקה העיקרית של שניהם היא שאין להם בן שיירש אותם לאחר מותם‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר ַא ְב ָרם‬ ‫ּובן ֶמ ֶׁשק ֵּב ִיתי הּוא ַּד ֶּמ ֶׂשק ֱאלִ ֶיעזֶ ר וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֲאדֹנָ י ה’ ַמה ִּת ֶּתן לִ י וְ ָאנֹכִ י הֹולֵ ְך ֲע ִר ִירי ֶ‬ ‫יֹורׁש א ִֹתי” (בראשית טו ‪ .)2-3‬ובעלילת אקהת (‪KTU‬‬ ‫ֵהן לִ י ֹלא נָ ַת ָּתה זָ ַרע וְ ִהּנֵ ה ֶבן ֵּב ִיתי ֵ‬ ‫‪:)19-16 ,I ,1.17‬‬ ‫דנאל‪ ,‬איש רפא‬ ‫אביונות‪/‬אומללות ִ‬ ‫אנחת הגיבור‪ ,‬איש הרנמי‬ ‫שאין בן לו כמו אחיו‬ ‫ושורש‪ 14‬כמו רעיו‬

‫‪abynat / [d]nil . mt . rpi .‬‬ ‫‪anẖ . ģzr / mt hrnmy .‬‬ ‫‪din . bn . lh / km aẖh .‬‬ ‫‪w . šrš . km . aryh‬‬

‫דנאל ואברהם זוכים לביקור של ישויות אלוהיות‪ ,‬ואף מארחים אותן בביתם‪“ :‬וַ ּיֵ ָרא‬ ‫ב‪ִ .‬‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵאלָ יו ֲאנִ י ֵאל ַׁש ַּדי ִה ְת ַהּלֵ ְך לְ ָפנַ י וֶ ְהיֵ ה ָת ִמים” (בראשית יז ‪“ ;)1‬וַ ּיִ ָּשׂא‬ ‫ה’ ֶאל ַא ְב ָרם וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫דנאל זוכה‬ ‫ֹלׁשה ֲאנָ ִׁשים נִ ָּצ ִבים ָעלָ יו” (בראשית יח ‪ .)2-1‬בעלילת אקהת‪ִ ,‬‬ ‫ֵעינָ יו וַ ּיַ ְרא וְ ִהּנֵ ה ְׁש ָ‬

‫‪ .9‬לקריאה נוספת ראו‪ :‬דיי‪ ,‬דניאל באוגרית ויחזקאל; דרסלר‪ ,‬הזיהוי של דנאל; דרסלר‪ ,‬קריאה‬ ‫ופרשנות; מרגלית‪ ,‬פירוש לאקהת; נות‪ ,‬נוח‪ ,‬דניאל ואיוב‪.‬‬ ‫‪KTU 1.19, I, 44-45 .10‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬גינזברג‪ ,‬מקבילה אוגריתית; סמית‪ ,‬לשאלת קול דוד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬ראו‪ :‬גונקל‪ ,‬אגדות בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;96-88‬וויאט‪ ,‬המשמעות של אל רואי; קאסוטו‪ ,‬פירוש‬ ‫לבראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;300-291‬קראצ’מר‪ ,‬מיתוס סדום; רודין־אוברסקי‪ ,‬מאלוני ממרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.74-48‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬ראו‪ :‬אבישור‪ ,‬ביקור המלאכים; אוברמן‪ ,‬איך דניאל; גוד‪ ,‬שתי הערות; קסלה‪ ,‬אפיזודה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬על המילה “שורש” במשמעות “יורש” או “נצר” ראו‪ :‬ישעיה יא ‪“ :10‬וְ ָהיָ ה ַּבּיֹום ַההּוא ׁש ֶֹרׁש יִ ַׁשי‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר ע ֵֹמד לְ נֵ ס ַע ִּמים ֵאלָ יו ּגֹויִ ם יִ ְדרֹׁשּו וְ ָהיְ ָתה ְמנֻ ָחתֹו ּכָ בֹוד”‪ .‬עוד עיינו במילונים למקרא‪.‬‬

‫*‪154‬‬

‫יהונתן יוגב ושמיר יונה‬

‫לארח מספר ישויות אלוהיות כמו הכת’רת (הכושרות) ואל המלאכה כת’ר־וחסס (‪KTU‬‬ ‫‪:)1.17, II, 26-27; V, 25-26‬‬ ‫‪ʿrb . bbth . kṯrt .‬‬ ‫‪bnt / hll . snnt .‬‬ ‫‪aẖr . ymģy . kṯr / wẖss‬‬

‫נכנסו בביתו הכת'רת‬ ‫בנות הלל‪ 16‬סנוניות‬ ‫אחר יגיע כת'ר וחסס‬

‫‪15‬‬

‫ג‪ .‬בשני הסיפורים מצוי קטע שבו שני ביטויים דומים מופיעים טרם ביקור הישות‬ ‫האלוהית‪ ,‬הראשון שבהם הוא תיאור הגיבורים היושבים בפתח של אוהל או שער‪ ,‬והשני‬ ‫הוא הנוסחה הקבועה‪ :‬נשא‪/‬ישא עיניו וירא‪“ :‬וְ הּוא י ֵֹׁשב ֶּפ ַתח ָהא ֶֹהל ּכְ חֹם ַהּיֹום‪ ...‬וַ ּיִ ָּשׂא‬ ‫ֵעינָ יו וַ ּיַ ְרא” (בראשית יח ‪ .)2-1‬ובעלילת אקהת (‪:)KTU 1.17, V, 6; 9‬‬ ‫יישא (עצמו) וישב בשער‬ ‫נשא עיניו וירא‬

‫‪17‬‬

‫‪ytšu . yṯb . bap . ṯģr‬‬ ‫‪bnši . ʿnh . wyphn‬‬

‫ד‪ .‬שני הגיבורים טורחים טרחה גדולה להכין סעודה לאורחיהם האלוהיים‪ ,‬ואלה‬ ‫יהם וְ הּוא‬ ‫ּובן ַה ָּב ָקר ֲא ֶׁשר ָע ָׂשה וַ ּיִ ֵּתן לִ ְפנֵ ֶ‬ ‫אוכלים את המזון שהוגש להם‪“ :‬וַ ּיִ ַּקח ֶח ְמ ָאה וְ ָחלָ ב ֶ‬ ‫דנאל מאכיל את אורחיו האלוהיים‬ ‫יהם ַּת ַחת ָה ֵעץ וַ ּיֹאכֵ לּו” (בראשית יח ‪ .)8‬ואף ִ‬ ‫ע ֵֹמד ֲעלֵ ֶ‬ ‫(‪:)II, 29-31; KTU 1.17, I, 11-13‬‬ ‫דנאל‬ ‫אזור‪ ,‬אלים‪ִ ,‬‬ ‫אזור‪ ,‬אלים יאכיל‬ ‫אזור‪ ,‬ישקה בני קודש‬ ‫שור יטבח לכת’רת‬ ‫יאכיל את הכת'רת‬ ‫וישקה (את) בנות הלל סנוניות‬

‫‪uzr / [il]m . dnil .‬‬ ‫‪uzr . ilm . ylḥm /‬‬ ‫‪[uzr] . yšqy . bn . qdš .‬‬ ‫‪alp . yṭbẖ . lkṯ/rt .‬‬ ‫‪yšlḥm . kṯrt .‬‬ ‫‪wy/ššq . bnt . h[ll] . snnt‬‬

‫ודנאל מזה‪ ,‬הפוקדים על‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ה‪ .‬בשני הסיפורים‪ ,‬ישנו תיאור של הבעלים‪ ,‬אברהם מזה‬ ‫נשותיהם להכין סעודה לאורחים האלוהיים‪ .‬על אברהם נאמר‪“ :‬וַ יְ ַמ ֵהר ַא ְב ָר ָהם ָהא ֱֹהלָ ה‬ ‫דנאל‬ ‫לּוׁשי וַ ֲע ִׂשי ֻעגֹות” (בראשית יח ‪ .)6‬ועל ִ‬ ‫ֹאמר ַמ ֲה ִרי ְׁשֹלׁש ְס ִאים ֶק ַמח סֹלֶ ת ִ‬ ‫ֶאל ָׂש ָרה וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫בעלילת אקהת נאמר (‪:)KTU 1.17, V, 13-18‬‬

‫‪ .15‬אולי יש לקרוא “כות’ראת”‪ .‬בעניין שמן של ישויות אלו ראו‪ :‬הונרגרד‪ ,‬אוצר מלים אוגריתי ‪,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;141‬ואן־סלמס‪ ,‬השורש‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .16‬לעתים משייכים ישויות אלוהיות אלו לירח בשל הדמיון שבין המילה ‪ hll‬למילה הערבית ‪hilal‬‬ ‫המייצגת את הירח הנולד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬ואולי יש לתרגם‪ :‬יתנשא‪ ,‬ישב לפני שער‪.‬‬

‫על הזיקה שבין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי אברהם‬

‫דנאל איש רפא‬ ‫אף‪-‬הנה‪-‬כי‪ִ ,‬‬ ‫אף הנה‪ ,‬הגיבור‪ ,‬איש הרנמי‬ ‫בקול לאשתו יצווח‬ ‫שמעי‪ ,‬הגברת דנת‬ ‫עשי שה מהעדר‬ ‫לנפש כות'ר וחסיס‬

‫*‪155‬‬

‫‪apnk . dnil / mt . rpi .‬‬ ‫‪aphn . ģzr . mt / hrnm[y] .‬‬ ‫‪gm . laṯth . kyṣḥ /‬‬ ‫‪šmʿ . mṯt . dnt .‬‬ ‫‪ʿd[b] / imr . bpẖd .‬‬ ‫‪lnpš . kṯr / wẖss‬‬

‫ו‪ .‬בשני הסיפורים הגיבורים מגיבים בשמחה רבה כאשר האל מבטיח להם כי יורש‬ ‫זכר עתיד להיוולד להם‪ .‬שני הסיפורים‪ ,‬עושים שימוש בפועל “ויצחק”‪ 18‬כדי לתאר את‬ ‫דנאל מזה‪“ :‬וַ ּיִ ּפֹל ַא ְב ָר ָהם ַעל ָּפנָ יו וַ ּיִ ְצ ָחק” (בראשית יז ‪.)17‬‬ ‫תגובתם של אברהם מזה ושל ִ‬ ‫ובעלילת אקהת נכתב (‪:)KTU 1.17, II, 10‬‬ ‫ירפה מצחו‪/‬יפתח פיו ויצחק‬

‫‪yprq . lṣb . wyṣḥq‬‬

‫(לדנאל) וישמעאל‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ז‪ .‬בשני הסיפורים‪ ,‬נזכרת קשת הקשורה בבנו של הגיבור‪ ,‬אקהת‬ ‫(לאברהם)‪“ :‬וַ ֵּתלֶ ְך וַ ֵּת ֶׁשב לָ ּה ִמּנֶ גֶ ד ַה ְר ֵחק ּכִ ְמ ַט ֲחוֵ י ֶק ֶׁשת ּכִ י ָא ְמ ָרה ַאל ֶא ְר ֶאה ְּבמֹות ַהּיָ לֶ ד‪...‬‬ ‫ֹלהים ֶאת ַהּנַ ַער וַ ּיִ גְ ָּדל וַ ּיֵ ֶׁשב ַּב ִּמ ְד ָּבר וַ יְ ִהי ר ֶֹבה ַק ָּשׁת” (בראשית כא ‪ .)20 ,16‬הקשת של‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ֱא ִ‬ ‫ישמעאל אינה נזכרת באופן מפורש בראשית הדברים‪ ,‬אלא נרמזת בציון המרחק שאמו‬ ‫שמרה ממנו‪ ,‬ואז שבה ונזכרת בסוף היחידה כאשר מתואר לפנינו מקצועו של ישמעאל —‬ ‫שדנאל מקבל את הקשת מכות’ר וחסיס‪ ,‬אל המלאכה‪,‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ר ֶֹבה ַק ָּשׁת‪ .‬בעלילת אקהת מסופר‬ ‫ומעניק אותה לבנו‪ .‬קשת זו‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬מוצאת חן בעיני האלה ענת אשר באה עם אקהת‬ ‫במשא ומתן כדי שזה יתננה לה‪:)KTU 1.17, V, 26-28( 19‬‬ ‫דנאל ייתן הקשת‬ ‫ביד ִ‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫לברכיו ישים חצים‬

‫‪bd . dnil . ytnn / qšt .‬‬ ‫‪lbrkh . yʿdb / qṣʿt .‬‬

‫דנאל ואברהם‪ .‬שניהם מאופיינים בחוש‬ ‫ח‪ .‬נושא המשפט מאפיין את שני הגיבורים‪ִ ,‬‬ ‫צדק אשר בא לידי ביטוי במעשיהם‪ .‬על חוש הצדק של אברהם אנו למדים בעת שהוא‬ ‫מפקפק בתוכניות האל להשמיד את סדום ועמורה‪ .‬אברהם מבקר את האל באופן ברור‪:‬‬ ‫“ה ַאף ִּת ְס ֶּפה ַצ ִּדיק ִעם ָר ָׁשע‪ֲ ...‬הׁש ֵֹפט ּכָ ל ָה ָא ֶרץ ֹלא יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ִמ ְׁש ָּפט”? (בראשית יח ‪.)25-23‬‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫כלומר‪ ,‬אברהם מתואר כמי שיודע צדק ומשפט מהו‪ ,‬ופועל למען טובת אחיינו ושאר‬ ‫דנאל‬ ‫האנשים בסדום וסביבותיה‪ .‬אין לפנינו שיפוט בפועל‪ ,‬אלא ביקורת על השופט‪ִ .‬‬ ‫גם הוא מאופיין כשופט בפועל של חלשי החברה‪ ,‬היתומים והאלמנות‪ .‬משתמע מכך כי‬ ‫החברה שסבבה אותו סמכה על חכמתו ועל שיקול דעתו והעניקה לו את הסמכות הזו‬ ‫(‪:)KTU 1.17, V, 7-8‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬ישנו הבדל סמנטי כלשהו במשמעות של השורש “צחק” בשתי ההיקרויות‪ ,‬אך אין זה המקום‬ ‫לדון בכך‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬לגבי הקשת של ענת ראו‪ :‬דרסלר‪ ,‬האם הקשת; הילרס‪ ,‬קשת אקהת; סוקניק‪ ,‬הקשת המורכבת‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬מילולית‪ :‬יעשה‪.‬‬

‫*‪156‬‬

‫יהונתן יוגב ושמיר יונה‬

‫ידון דין אלמנות‬ ‫ישפוט משפט יתום‬

‫‪ydn . dn . almnt‬‬ ‫]‪yṯpṭ . ṯpṭ . y[tm‬‬

‫עד כה הוצגו ראיות המוכיחות כי הסופרים המקראיים הכירו גרסה מסוימת של‬ ‫עלילת אקהת‪ ,‬כפי שניתן ללמוד מן העדויות בספר יחזקאל ובקינת דוד‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬הצגנו‬ ‫שמונה דוגמות אשר ניתן להשתמש בהן כעוגן המצביע על זיקה בין עלילת אקהת‬ ‫לסיפורי אברהם‪ ,‬כפי שמספר חוקרים טענו זה מכבר‪ .‬אולם‪ ,‬הצגת זיקה זו אינה יכולה‬ ‫להתבסס באופן מתודולוגי אך ורק על מוטיבים משותפים‪ ,‬לא בין שני סיפורים אלה‪,‬‬ ‫ולא בכל מחקר המבקש להוכיח זיקה בין סיפורים‪ .‬על מנת לבסס זיקה בין עלילות‬ ‫מבחינת המוטיבים הסיפוריים‪ ,‬יש לבסס את הטענה כי המוטיבים לא רק שהם משותפים‬ ‫לשני הסיפורים שלפנינו‪ ,‬אלא הם ייחודיים לשני הסיפורים‪ .‬לאחר שבחנו מספר סיפורים‬ ‫דומים בספרות המזרח הקדום‪ ,‬אנו מאמינים כי יש לשלול זיקה ישירה בין עלילת אקהת‬ ‫וסיפורי אברהם‪ ,‬כפי שנציג כעת‪:‬‬ ‫בחיבורו של אובידיוס‪ ,‬פאסטי‪ ,‬המתאר סצנות מתוך המיתולוגיה הרומית‪ ,‬מסופר‬ ‫על שלושת האלים‪ :‬יופיטר‪ ,‬נפטון ומרקורי‪ ,‬אשר מגיעים לבקר אדם זקן וערירי בשם‬ ‫היריוס‪ .‬האיש הזקן מאכיל ומשקה את השלושה‪ ,‬ומספר להם שכל רצונו בעולם הינו‬ ‫שיהיה לו בן זכר שיירש אותו‪ .‬לאחר כעשרה חודשים‪ ,‬נולד לזקן בן שהוא לא אחר מאשר‬ ‫אוריון הצייד המפורסם‪ 21.‬בסיפור זה בולט באופן ניכר דמיון רב לתיאורם של שלושת‬ ‫האנשים המבקרים את אברהם הזקן‪ ,‬שמאכיל אותם וזוכה להבטחה שבן עתיד להיוולד‬ ‫לו‪ .‬גסטר‪ ,‬סבור כי ישנו קשר ישיר בין עלילת אקהת לסיפורו של אוריון הצייד‪ ,‬אשר‬ ‫באחת מגרסות סיפור מותו‪ ,‬הוא מתגרה באלה דיאנה וכתוצאה מכך מוצא את מותו‬ ‫בידיה‪ 22.‬כך גם אקהת מסרב ביהירותו להעניק את קשתו לאלה ענת‪ ,‬ומשלם בחייו על‬ ‫דנאל‬ ‫התגרות זו‪ .‬דמויות האב הזקן והערירי ובנו הצייד דומות בכל שלושת הסיפורים‪ִ :‬‬ ‫ואקהת‪ ,‬היריוס ואוריון ואברהם וישמעאל‪.‬‬ ‫אסטור‪ ,‬שחקר את המוצא השמי־מערבי של סיפורים מתוך המיתולוגיה היוונית‪,‬‬ ‫דנאל בעלילת‬ ‫מצא כי לדמותו של המלך המיתולוגי דאנאוס יש קווי דמיון לדמותו של ִ‬ ‫אקהת‪ .‬מעבר לכך‪ ,‬הוא טען שסיפורו של אקהת השפיע באופן ישיר על סיפורו המיתולוגי‬ ‫של אכטאון הצייד הנודע‪ ,‬שהאלה ארטמיס נוקמת בו קשות‪ ,‬בדומה לנקמתה של ענת‬ ‫באקהת‪ 23.‬פרקר מצא מקבילות בסיפור המלך המצרי הערירי‪ ,‬המופיע בפפירוס האריס‪,‬‬ ‫אשר מתפלל לאלים וזוכה לבן אשר עתיד למצוא את מותו‪ .‬הוא מצא אף מקבילות‬ ‫מהמיתולוגיה החיתית על פני לוח ‪ ,CTH 360‬המתאר אדם בשם “אפו” אשר מייחל לבן‪,‬‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫ולאחר שהקריב קורבן לאל השמש‪ ,‬הוא זוכה למבוקשו‪.‬‬

‫‪. 21‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬‬ ‫‪ .24‬‬

‫אובידיוס‪ ,‬פאסטי‪ ,‬ספר חמישי‪ ,‬שורות ‪.544-493‬‬ ‫גסטר‪ ,‬תספיס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.326-316‬‬ ‫אסטור‪ ,‬הלנוסמיטיקה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .168-163 ;80-69‬ובמקביל‪ ,‬הוא שולל את דעותיו של גסטר‪.‬‬ ‫פרקר‪ ,‬מוות ומסירות‪.‬‬

‫על הזיקה שבין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי אברהם‬

‫*‪157‬‬

‫במקרא אנו מוצאים סיפורים אחרים על ישויות בעלות טבע אלוהי אשר מבקרות‬ ‫זוג חשוך ילדים‪ ,‬כמו הזוג האוגריתי‪ .‬הדוגמה ראשונה מצויה בסיפור לידת שמשון‪“ :‬וַ יְ ִהי‬ ‫נֹוח וְ ִא ְׁשּתֹו ֲע ָק ָרה וְ ֹלא יָ לָ ָדה‪ .‬וַ ּיֵ ָרא ַמלְ ַאְך ה’‬ ‫ּוׁשמֹו ָמ ַ‬ ‫ִאיׁש ֶא ָחד ִמ ָּצ ְר ָעה ִמ ִּמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת ַה ָּדנִ י ְ‬ ‫יה ִהּנֵ ה נָ א ַא ְּת ֲע ָק ָרה וְ ֹלא יָ לַ ְד ְּת וְ ָה ִרית וְ יָ לַ ְד ְּת ֵּבן” (שופטים יג ‪.)2-1‬‬ ‫ֹאמר ֵאלֶ ָ‬ ‫ֶאל ָה ִא ָּשׁה וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ּמֹועד ַהּזֶ ה‬ ‫ֹאמר לַ ֵ‬ ‫דוגמה נוספת ישנה בביקורו של אלישע הנביא בבית האישה משונם‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֹלהים ַאל ְּתכַ ּזֵ ב ְּב ִׁש ְפ ָח ֶתָך‪ 25‬וַ ַּת ַהר‬ ‫ֹאמר ַאל ֲאדֹנִ י ִאיׁש ָה ֱא ִ‬ ‫ּכָ ֵעת ַחּיָ ה אתי ַ(א ְּת) ח ֶֹב ֶקת ֵּבן וַ ּת ֶ‬ ‫יׁשע” (מלכים ב’‪ ,‬ד ‪ .)17-16‬גם‬ ‫יה ֱאלִ ָ‬ ‫ּמֹועד ַהּזֶ ה ּכָ ֵעת ַחּיָ ה ֲא ֶׁשר ִּד ֶּבר ֵאלֶ ָ‬ ‫ָה ִא ָּשׁה וַ ֵּתלֶ ד ֵּבן לַ ֵ‬ ‫בספרות האוגריתית ניתן למצוא מוטיבים המשותפים לסיפורים אלה‪ .‬למלך כרת אין‬ ‫יורש בעקבות מותן ההדרגתי של כל נשותיו‪ 25.‬הוא מביע את אומללותו ובשל כך זוכה‬ ‫להתגלות של האל אשר מדריך אותו כיצד עליו לנהוג למען יזכה באישה שתלד לו בן‬ ‫ויורש‪ .‬בהמשך הדברים אף מצוין שכרת מורה לאשתו להכין סעודה לאורחים‪ ,‬בדומה‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫דנאל ואברהם לנשותיהם (קו דמיון זה הזכרנו לעיל)‪.‬‬ ‫להוראה שנותנים ִ‬ ‫דוגמות אלו נלקחו מתוך ספרות המקרא ומהמיתולוגיה האוגריתית‪ ,‬המצרית‪ ,‬החיתית‪,‬‬ ‫היוונית והרומית‪ .‬כל הסיפורים האלה חולקים לפחות שני מוטיבים דומים מתוך אלה‬ ‫שהוצגו למעלה‪ .‬האם ייתכן שאיזו גרסה של עלילת אקהת השפיעה באופן משמעותי על‬ ‫סופרים אשר ישבו בכל רחבי המזרח הקדום ועל העמים האגאיים‪ ,‬ובמשך מאות בשנים?‬ ‫הסבירות לכך נמוכה ביותר‪ .‬נראה כי כל המוטיבים שהוצגו הינם מוטיבים עממיים אשר‬ ‫משקפים מבט אנתרופולוגי על הלכי הרוח בימי קדם‪ :‬הצורך הנואש ביורש זכר דומה הן‬ ‫אצל מלכים והן אצל פשוטי העם; לידת נס לאחר פנייה אל האלים או ביקור אלוהי; הבן‬ ‫הצייד המוכשר‪ ,‬אך היהיר המוצא את מותו בידי אלָ ה‪ ,‬ועוד‪ .‬מוטיבים אלה‪ ,‬דומים ככל‬ ‫שיהיו‪ ,‬אינם מצביעים על זיקה ישירה בין סיפורים‪ ,‬או על יניקה ישירה של כמה סיפורים‬ ‫מסיפור עתיק יומין‪ .‬לסיכום‪ ,‬לא ניתן לבסס את הטענה שקיימת זיקה של ממש בין עלילת‬ ‫אקהת לסיפורי אברהם‪ ,‬מפני שהמוטיבים אשר הוצגו כהוכחה לזיקה זו מופיעים יותר‬ ‫מפעם אחת באופן נרחב במיתולוגיות של עמי קדם‪ .‬מוטיבים אלה אינם ייחודיים לשני‬ ‫הסיפורים‪ ,‬ולפיכך לא מתקיים כאן התנאי ההכרחי להוכחת זיקה ספרותית ישירה‪.‬‬ ‫ביבליוגרפיה‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬צמדי מילים = ‪Y. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and‬‬ ‫‪Ancient Semitic Literatures, Kevelaer and Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984‬‬

‫אבישור‪ ,‬ביקור המלאכים = י׳ אבישור‪“ ,‬סיפור ביקור המלאכים אצל אברהם ומקבילו‬ ‫בספרות אוגרית״‪ ,‬בית מקרא‪ ,‬קט (תשמ״ז)‪ ,‬עמ׳ ‪177-168‬‬ ‫אובידיוס‪ ,‬פאסטי = ‪Ovid, Fasti (tr. by J. G. Frager), The Loeb Classical Library,‬‬ ‫‪London-Cambridge, Mass. 1931‬‬

‫‪.KTU 1.14, I . 25‬‬ ‫‪.KTU 1.15, IV .26‬‬

‫יהונתן יוגב ושמיר יונה‬

158*

J. Obermann, “How Daniel was blessed with a Son: An = ‫ איך דניאל‬,‫אוברמן‬ Incubation Scene in Ugaritic”, Journal of the American Oriental Society Supplements, No. 6, (April-June, 1946) M.C. Astour, Hellenosemitica (Leiden, 1967), pp. 69-80; = ‫ הלנוסמיטיקה‬,‫אסטור‬ 163-68 M. Good, “Two Notes on Aqhat”, Journal of Biblical Literature = ‫ שתי הערות‬,‫גוד‬ 77, No. 1 (Mar. 1958), pp. 72-74 H. Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga = ‫ אגדות בראשית‬,‫גונקל‬ and History, New-York, 1964, pp. 88-96 C. H. Gordon, Ugaritic Literature: a Comprehensive = ‫ ספרות אוגרית‬,‫גורדון‬ Translation of the Poetic and Prose Texts, Roma, 1949. J.C.L. Gibson, (Originally edited by G.R. Driver) Canaanite = ‫ מיתוסים‬,‫גיבסון‬ Myths and Legends, London, 2004 (2nd Edition) H.L. Ginsberg, “A Ugaritic Parallel to 2 Sam 1:21”, = ‫ מקבילה אוגריתית‬,‫גינזברג‬ Journal of Biblical Literature 57, No. 2 (Jun., 1938), pp. 209-213 H.L. Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite Myth of Anath = ‫ מיתוס צפוני־כנעני‬,‫גינזברג‬ and Aqhat”, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 97 (Feb., 1945), pp. 3-10 H.L. Ginsberg, “The North-Canaanite Myth of = II ‫ מיתוס צפוני־כנעני‬,‫גינזברג‬ Anath and Aqhat II”, Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 98 (Apr., 1945), pp. 15-23 T.H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Drama in the Ancient = ‫ תספיס‬,‫גסטר‬ Near East, New-York, 1966 J. Gray, The legacy of Canaan: the Ras Shamra Texts and their = ‫ מורשת כנען‬,‫גריי‬ Relevance to the Old Testament, Leiden, 1957 J.C. de-Moor, An Anthology of Religious Texts from Ugarit, = ‫ אנתולוגיה‬,‫דה־מור‬ Leiden, 1987 M. Dahood, “Ugaritic – Hebrew Syntax and Style”, Ugarit = ‫ תחביר וסגנון‬,‫דהוד‬ Forschungen 1 (1969), pp. 20-36 M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, J. Sanmartin (eds.), The = ‫ טקסטים‬,‫ לורץ וסנמרטין‬,‫דיטריך‬ Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts: from Ugarit, Ras ibn Hani and Otherf Places, Munster, 1995 J. Day, “The Daniel of Ugarit and Ezekiel and the = ‫ דניאל באוגרית ויחזקאל‬,‫דיי‬ Hero of the Book of Daniel”, Vetus Testamentum 30, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1980), pp. 174-184 H.P. Dressler, “Is the Bow of Aqhat a Symbol of Virility?”, = ‫ האם הקשת‬,‫דרסלר‬ Ugarit Forschungen 7 (1975), pp. 217-220

159*

‫על הזיקה שבין עלילת אקהת ובין סיפורי אברהם‬

H. P. Dressler, “The Identification of the Ugaritic Dnil = ‫דנאל‬ ִ ‫ הזיהוי של‬,‫דרסלר‬ with the Daniel of Ezekiel”, Vetus Testamentum 29, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1979), pp. 152-161 H. P. Dressler, “Reading and Interpreting the Aqht Text: = ‫ קריאה ופרשנות‬,‫דרסלר‬ A Rejoinder to Drs J. Day and B. Margalit”, Vetus Testamentum 34, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1984), pp. 78-82 J. Huehnergard, Ugaritic Vocabulary in Syllabic = ‫ אוצר מלים אוגריתי‬,‫הונרגרד‬ Transcription, Winona Lake, In., 2008 D. R. Hillers, “The Bow of Aqhat: The Meaning of a = ‫ קשת אקהת‬,‫הילרס‬ Mythological Theme”, in Alter Orient und Altes Testament 22: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. Harry Hoffner, Jr.), 1973, pp. 71-80 M. Held, “The YQTL-QTL (QTL-YQTL) Sequence of Identical = ‫ קטל־יקטל‬,‫הלד‬ Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic”, Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (ed. M. Ben-Horin et al.), Leiden, 1962, pp. 281-290 A. Herdner, Corpus des Tablettes en Cuneiformes Alphabetiques: = ‫ קורפוס‬,‫הרדנר‬ Decouvertes a Ras Shamra-Ugarit de 1929 a 1939 (in Mission de Ras Shamra, Vol 10, Paris, 1963) A. van Selms, “The Root k-t-r and its Derivatives in Ugaritic = ‫ השורש‬,‫ואן סלמס‬ Literature”, Ugarit Forschungen 11 (1979), pp. 739-744 N. Wyatt, “The Meaning of El Roi and the = ‫ המשמעות של אל רׄאי‬,‫וויאט‬ Mythological Dimension of Gen 16”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 8 (1994), pp. 141-151 N. Wyatt, Religious Texts From Ugarit: The Words of Ilimilku = ‫ טקסטים‬,‫וויאט‬ and His Colleagues, Sheffield, 1998, pp. 246-312 Ch. Virolleaud, La Légende Phénicienne de Danil, Paris, 1936 = ‫ דנאל‬,‫וירולו‬ O. Loretz and I. Kottsieper, Colometry in Ugaritic = ‫ קולומטריה‬,‫לורץ וקוטסיפר‬ and Biblical Poetry: Introduction, Illustrations, and Topical Bibliography, Altenbeege, 1987 B. Margalit, The Ugaritic Poem of Aqht: Text, Translation, = ‫ אקהת‬,‫מרגלית‬ Commentary, Berlin; New-York, 1989, pp. 5-6 B. Margalit, “Interpreting the Story of Aqht: A Reply = ‫ פירוש לאקהת‬,‫מרגלית‬ to H. H. P. Dressler, VT 29 (1979): 152-61”, Vetus Testamentum 30, Fasc. 3 (Jul., 1980), pp. 361-365 M. Noth, “Noah, Daniel und Hiob in Ezechiel XIV”, Vetus = ‫ דניאל ואיוב‬,‫ נוח‬,‫נות‬ Testamentum 1, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1951), pp. 251-260 Y. Sukenik, “The Composite Bow of the Goddess Anath”, = ‫ הקשת המורכבת‬,‫סוקניק‬ Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 107 (1947), pp. 11-15

‫יהונתן יוגב ושמיר יונה‬

160*

D. Sivan and Sh. Yona, “Pivot Words or Expressions in = ‫ דגם הציר‬,‫סיון ויונה‬ Biblical Hebrew and in Ugaritic Poetry”, Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998), pp. 399-407 M. S. Smith, “The Question of David’s Voice(s) in the = ‫ לשאלת קול דוד‬,‫סמית‬ Lament of 2 Samuel 1:19-27” in: S. Yona et al.(editors), Marbeh Hokmah: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East In loving memory of Victor Avigdor Hurowitz, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns 2015. M.S. Smith, Untold Stories: the Bible and = ‫ מחקרים במקרא ובאוגריתית‬,‫סמית‬ Ugaritic Studies in the Twentieth Century, Peabody, 2001 L.R. Fisher, Ras Shamra parallels: The Texts from = ‫ מקבילות ראס שאמרה‬,‫פישר‬ Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, Rome, 1972 S.B. Parker, “Aqhat”, in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. S.B. = ‫ אקהת‬,‫פרקר‬ Parker), Society of Biblical Literature 9, Atlanta, 1997, pp. 49-80 S.B. Parker, “Death and Devotion: The Composition and = ‫ מוות ומסירות‬,‫פרקר‬ Theme of Aqht”, in Love and Death in the Ancient Near East (ed. J.H. Marks and R.M. Good), Guilford, 1987, pp. 71-83 U. Cassuto, “Daniel e le Spighe: Un Episodia Della Tavola 1 D di = ‫ דנאל‬,‫קאסוטו‬ Ras Shamra”, Orientalia 8 (1939), pp. 238-243 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, = ‫ פירוש לבראשית‬,‫קאסוטו‬ Jerusalem / The Oxford University Press, 1964, pp. 291-300 A. Caquot, “Les Rephaim Ougaritiques”, Syria 37, Issue 1-2 = ‫ רפאים‬,‫קאקו‬ (1960), pp. 75-93 M.C.A. Korpel and J.C. de-Moor, “Fundamentals of = ‫ יסודות‬,‫קורפל ודה־מור‬ Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry”, in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (ed. W. ven der Meer and J.C. de-Moor, Sheffield, 1988, pp. 1-62 P. Xella, “L’épisode de Dnil et Kothar (KTU 1.17 [=CTA 17] = ‫ אפיזודה‬,‫קסלה‬ 5:1-31) et Gen. 18:1-16”, Vetus Testamentum 28, 4 (1978), pp. 483-488 R. Kraetzschmar, “Der Mythus von Sodoms Ende”, = ‫ מיתוס סדום‬,‫קראצ’מר‬ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 17 (1897), pp. 81-92

‫ מאלוני ממרא עד סדום — בראשית‬,‫ מאלוני ממרא = ט’ רודין־אוברסקי‬,‫רודין־אוברסקי‬ 74-48 ’‫ עמ‬,1982 ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ הרכבו של הסיפור ועיצובו‬:‫י”ט‬-‫י”ח‬ C.F. Schaeffer, Ch. Virolleaud and F. Thureau- = ‫ עונה שנייה‬,‫ וירולו ותורו־דנגין‬,‫שפר‬ Dangin, La Deuxième Campagne de Fouilles à Ras-Shamra (printemps 1930): Rapport et Etudes Préliminaires, Paris, 1931

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪161‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על הפערים שבראייה‪,‬‬ ‫בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬ ‫רימון כשר‬ ‫מרק סמית בחיבורו על מקורות המונותיאיזם המקראי מעיד כי אחד המניעים לכתיבת‬ ‫ספרו היה פרופ' אביגדור (ויקטור) הורוויץ‪ .‬כאשר אביגדור קרא חיבור קודם של סמית‬ ‫‪ The Early History of God‬הוא העיר בשולי אחד העמודים‪ 1.“what is an ilu?” :‬אביגדור‬ ‫עצמו פרסם מאמר חשוב בו שירטט קווים לדמותם של האלים המסופוטמיים‪ 2,‬ובמאמר‬ ‫אחר עמד על היבטים אלוהיים שבאדם‪ ,‬מתוך הקבלת טקסטים מקראיים ומסופוטמיים‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫המתארים את בריאת האדם‪.‬‬ ‫במאמרי זה‪ ,‬המוקדש לזכרו של חוקר וידיד‪ ,‬אני מבקש לפתוח פתח לתשובה לשאלה‬ ‫”?‪ .“what is an ilu‬בשונה מן התיאולוגיה הפוזיטיביסטית (‪ ,)Cataphatic Theology‬אני‬ ‫מבקש ללכת במאמר זה בדרכה של התיאולוגיה הנגטיבית (‪,)Apophatic Theology‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫המציגה את האלוהות על דרך ההשוואה‪ ,‬תוך הבלטת השוני בינה לבין ישויות אחרות‪.‬‬ ‫לפיכך יידונו במאמר זה כמה היגדים מקראיים המבחינים הבחנה ברורה ומפורשת בין‬ ‫האלוהים לבין בני האדם‪.‬‬ ‫מן המפורסמות הוא כי עצם ההבחנה בין האלוהי לאנושי משותפת לרובן המכריע‬ ‫של הדתות שיש בהן אל‪ ,‬עתיקות כחדשות‪ ,‬שלולא כן לא הייתה קיימת ישות אלוהית‬ ‫בתודעתם של בני האדם‪ 5.‬אף דתות המזרח הקדום ומזרח הים־התיכון שותפות להבחנה‬ ‫זו‪ .‬כך למשל ניתן ללמוד במפורש מעלילת אררה המסופוטמית‪ ,‬על עצם ההבחנה בין אל‬ ‫לאדם‪ ,‬כאשר משתאים נוכח התנהגות אררה‪ ,‬בזו הלשון‪" :‬שינית טבעך האלוהי ועשית‬

‫‪ .1‬סמית‪ ,‬מקורות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.6‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬הורוויץ‪ ,‬דיוקנו של האל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.33–1‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬הורוויץ‪ ,‬אלוהות האדם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.274–263‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬רינגרן‪ ,‬אלהים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ :275–273‬הנגדה בין אלוהים לבין בני אדם או שדים ‪ /‬אלוהים אחרים ‪/‬‬ ‫פסילים‪ .‬אשר להנגדה אל(הים) – איש‪ ,‬נמנים כאן ארבעה כתובים בלבד‪ .‬בדומה‪ ,‬ון דר טורן‪ ,‬אלהים‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ 362‬מצביע על הנגדה זו‪ ,‬אלא שהוא מונה שני כתובים בלבד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬השוו בר’ לב ‪“ :29‬כי שרית עם אלהים ועם אנשים”; שופ’ ט ‪“ :9‬החדלתי את דשני אשר בי‬ ‫יכבדו אלהים ואנשים”; שם פס’ ‪“ :13‬החדלתי את תירושי המשמח אלהים ואנשים”‪.‬‬

‫*‪161‬‬

‫*‪162‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫עצמך כאדם" (אררה‪ ,‬ד‪ 6.)3:‬בדומה‪ ,‬במיתוס על 'אדפה וסופת הדרום' כותב המשורר‬ ‫בהקדמתו ליצירה כי אדפה זכה בחכמה‪ ,‬אולם נשללו ממנו חיי נצח‪" :‬והוא — חכמה נתן‬ ‫לו‪ ,‬חיי־נצח לא נתן לו" (קטע ‪ ,A‬שורה ‘‪ 7.)4‬התפיסה לפיה מה שמפריד בין האלים לבני‬ ‫אדם הוא חיי נצח‪ ,‬חוזרת ונשנית ביצירות נוספות‪ .‬כך למשל בעלילות גלגמש‪ ,‬אומרת‬ ‫סידורי המוזגת לגלגמש‪" :‬החיים אשר תחפש לא תמצא‪ .‬כאשר בראו האלים את האדם‪,‬‬ ‫מות שתו על האדם‪ ,‬ואת החיים שמרו בידם" (לוח עשירי‪ ,‬שורות ‪73‬ז–‪73‬י — על פי הנוסח‬ ‫הבבלי העתיק)‪ 8.‬במקום אחר בעלילות גלגמש‪ ,‬מודגש הפער בין אלים לבני אדם לא רק‬ ‫בנוגע לאורך החיים‪ ,‬אלא אף בנוגע לחוסר יכולתו של האדם להרקיע לשחקים‪" :‬מי‪,‬‬ ‫חברי‪ ,‬יעלה השמימה?! האלים (לבדם) עם ַש ַמש ישבו לדור ודור‪ .‬והאדם — קצובים ימיו‪,‬‬ ‫כל‪-‬אשר יעשה רק רוח‪ .‬והנה אתה תירא מות — איה אפוא עצם גבורתך?!" (לוח שני‪,‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫שורות '‪ ,345‘–340‬על פי הנוסח הבבלי העתיק)‪.‬‬ ‫גם בספרות החיתית ניתן למצוא הנגדה בין אלים לבני אדם‪ .‬לדעת זינגר "מותר האל‬ ‫מן האדם" — בתרבות החיתית — רק בשתי תכונות‪" :‬אלמוות ועוצמות על־אנושיות‪ ,‬אם‬ ‫כי מוגבלות"‪ 10.‬לראיה מפנה זינגר לשתי אגדות‪ .‬האחת‪ ,‬אגדה מסופוטמית בלבוש חיתי‪,‬‬ ‫לפיה המלך האכדי נרם־סין נתקל בקבוצת לוחמים‪ ,‬אך אינו יודע האם באנשים מדובר‬ ‫או באלים ורוחות‪ .‬לפיכך הוא עורך מבחן‪ :‬אם כתוצאה מפגיעת חנית יפרוץ מהם דם‪,‬‬ ‫חתשלי‬ ‫משמע הם בני תמותה; ואם לא‪ ,‬הם אלים‪ .‬אגדה אחרת מספרת על המלך החיתי ֻ‬ ‫א' שנקלע במסעותיו למקום של קניבלים‪ .‬ושוב‪ ,‬מה טיבם של יצורים אלה‪ ,‬בני אדם או‬ ‫אלים? אף כאן נערך מבחן‪ :‬יינתן להם בשר חזיר מבושל (ולא בשר אדם‪ ,‬כהרגלם)‪ :‬אם‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫יגלו התרמית‪ ,‬משמע אלים הם‪ ,‬ואם לא הרי הם בני תמותה‪.‬‬ ‫וכמו במסופוטמיה ובחת‪ ,‬כך גם במצרים‪ .‬אף כאן ניתן למצוא הבחנה מפורשת בין‬ ‫אל לאדם‪" :‬הוה האלהים [או‪ :‬האל] בתומו והאדם בחסרונו; שונים הדברים אשר ידברו‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫בני־אדם ושונים אשר יעשה האלהים [=האל]" (משלי אמנמאפה‪ ,‬בית יח‪ ,‬שורות ‪.)17–14‬‬ ‫מקבץ מדגמי זה מלמד אותנו כי התרבויות הקדומות יכלו לנסח ניסוחים כלליים‬ ‫ועקרוניים על המבדיל את האלוהי מן האנושי‪ .‬מן הבחינה הזאת‪ ,‬הספרות המקראית‬ ‫איננה יוצאת דופן‪ .‬אף בה כלולים היגדים‪ ,‬חלקם קצרים חלקם ארוכים‪ ,‬המבדילים‬ ‫את האלוהי מן האנושי‪ .‬היגדים אלה אינם עשויים מיקשה אחת‪ ,‬לא מבחינה צורנית־‬

‫‪ .6‬קגני‪ ,‬אררה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.106‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬יזרעאל‪ ,‬אדפה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,9‬וראו שם הדיון בעמ’ ‪ .136–120‬התרגום על פי שפרה־קליין‪ ,‬בימים‬ ‫הרחוקים ההם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.132‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬התרגום על פי שפרה־קליין‪ ,‬בימים הרחוקים ההם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.264‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬התרגום על פי שפרה־קליין‪ ,‬בימים הרחוקים ההם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .207‬לכול העניין‪ ,‬מקבילותיו‬ ‫המסופוטמיות והמקראיות‪ ,‬ראו בהרחבה אצל ון ליוון‪ ,‬הרקע למשלי ל ‪ ;4‬גרינספן‪ ,‬משל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬זינגר‪ ,‬החתים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.227‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬לתרגום הטקסט‪ ,‬השוו‪ :‬גילן‪ ,‬קניבלים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“If he hits it (right), then (he is) Go[d]. If :272‬‬ ‫”‪ .he does not hit it (right), then (he is) mortal‬תודתי לד”ר יצחק פדר על שהפנה אותי למאמר זה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬על פי גרינץ‪ ,‬מספרות מצרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .194‬ב־‪ ANET‬וב־‪ CS‬התרגומים מעט שונים‪.‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪163‬‬

‫פורמאלית ולא מבחינה תוכנית‪ 13.‬במאמר זה אני מבקש להתרכז בסוג מסוים של היגדים‪,‬‬ ‫המנגידים באופן קצר‪ ,‬מפורש ומכוון את הישות האלוהית עם הישות האנושית‪ .‬מספרם‬ ‫של היגדים אלה בספרות המקראית איננו מועט‪ ,‬והם מקיפים תחומים רבים ומגוונים‪,‬‬ ‫ולא רק עניינים שבכוח ועצמה‪ ,‬כגון‪ :‬חיי נצח; חכמה; התחרטות; אי אמירת שקר; ראיית‬ ‫נסתרות; רחמים; מקום מושב‪ .‬במאמר זה יצומצם הדיון לשני תחומים בלבד‪ .‬בשונה‬ ‫מאזכורים ספוראדיים של הכתובים בספרות המחקר המודרנית‪ 14,‬נעמוד במאמר זה‬ ‫לא רק על זיקות שבין מקראות רחוקים‪ ,‬אלא אף על מידת המקובלּות של ההיגדים‬ ‫בכלל הספרות המקראית‪ .‬בנוסף נבחן את השאלה התיאולוגית בדבר מהותה של הישות‬ ‫האלוהית ביחסה לבן האנוש‪.‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬ראיית האל מול ראיית האדם‬ ‫(‪ )1‬בסיפור על המלכתו בסתר של דויד מתואר ה’ כמי שגוער בנביא שמואל על‬ ‫שטעה ונטה למשוח את אליאב למלך בשל מראהו המלבב‪:‬‬ ‫קֹומתֹו ּכִ י ְמ ַא ְס ִּתיהּו ּכִ י‬ ‫מּואל ַאל ַּת ֵּבט ֶאל ַמ ְר ֵאהּו וְ ֶאל ּגְ ב ַֹּה ָ‬ ‫ֹאמר יְ הוָ ה ֶאל ְׁש ֵ‬ ‫“וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֹלא ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ְר ֶאה ָה ָא ָדם ּכִ י ָה ָא ָדם יִ ְר ֶאה לַ ֵעינַ יִ ם וַ יהוָ ה יִ ְר ֶאה לַ ּלֵ ָבב” (שמ”א טז ‪)7‬‬ ‫הצירוף 'יראה לעיניים' ('רא"י ל־') הוא יחידאי‪ ,‬והתרגומים הארמיים הקדומים‬ ‫תרגמוהו במשמע 'רא"י ב־'‪ 15.‬אולם על פי תחילת הפסוק "אל תבט אל מראהו ואל גבה‬ ‫קומתו" וסופו "וה' יראה ללבב" יש לפרש את הצירוף “יראה לעינים” במשמע‪ :‬ישים לב‬ ‫למראה החיצוני‪ ,‬כאשר העינים מסמלות כאן את כלל מראהו החיצוני של האדם או את‬ ‫פניו‪ 16‬בלבד‪ .‬לעומת ראייה חיצונית זו‪ ,‬ה' "יראה ללבב"‪ ,‬כאשר ה'לב' ‪ /‬ה'לבב' נתפס‬ ‫במקרא פעמים הרבה כמקום הרגש והרצון‪ ,‬כמקום המחשבות והתוכניות‪ ,‬או אף כמייצג‬ ‫את כלל האישיות‪ 17.‬זו אף זו‪ .‬יש אשר 'לב' נתפס כחלק הפנימי שבאדם‪ ,‬בניגוד לחיצוני‪,‬‬ ‫כגון‪" :‬במ' טו ‪" :39‬ולא תתרו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם"; יואל ב ‪“ :13‬וקרעו לבבכם ואל‬ ‫בגדיכם”; תה’ עג ‪" :26‬כלה שארי ולבבי"; קה' ב ‪" :3‬תרתי בלבי למשוך ביין את בשרי‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫ולבי נהג בחכמה"‪.‬‬ ‫לאור זאת ניתן לפרש את ההיגד שלפנינו במשמע‪ :‬בן־אנוש מתרשם מן החיצוניות‬ ‫וקובע על פיה את כשירותו של אדם לתפקיד זה או אחר‪ ,‬ואילו לאל יש יכולת לדעת את‬ ‫‪ .13‬על הדרכים השונות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אייכרודט‪ ,‬תיאולוגיה א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.220–210‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬אייכרודט‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,216–210‬מונה שישה כתובים‪ :‬במ’ כג ‪ ;19‬שמ”א טו ‪ ;29‬טז ‪ ;9‬יש’ לא ‪;3‬‬ ‫הו’ יא ‪ ;9‬איוב י ‪ 4‬ואילך‪ .‬סמית‪ ,‬מקורות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 6‬מצביע על חמש דוגמאות בלבד‪ :‬שמ”א טו ‪ ;29‬יש’ לא ‪;3‬‬ ‫יח’ כח‪ ,‬פסוקים ‪ ;9 ,2‬הו’ יא ‪ ;9‬איוב ט ‪ ;32‬ון דר טורן‪ ,‬אלהים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 362‬מצביע על הנגדה זו‪ ,‬אלא שהוא‬ ‫מונה שני כתובים בלבד‪ :‬במ’ כג ‪ ;19‬יש’ לא ‪.3‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬הפשיטתא‪“ :‬בעינא” (ל”ר); ת”י‪“ :‬ארי בני אנשא חזן בעיניהון”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .16‬השוו‪ :‬השבעים (נוסח וטיקנוס)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬ראו‪ ,BDB :‬ערכים ‘לבב’‪‘ ,‬לב’; פברי‪‘ ,‬לב’‪ ,‬סעיף ‪ ;V‬קדרי‪ ,‬מילון העברית המקראית‪‘ ,‬לב’‪,‬‬ ‫הוראות ‪.6–3‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬לדוגמאות נוספות‪ ,‬ראו‪‘ ,BDB :‬לבב’‪ ,‬סעיף ‪‘ ;II‬לב’‪ ,‬סעיף ‪.II‬‬

‫*‪164‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫תכונותיו הלא־גלויות של האדם‪ .‬וכך פירש כבר ר' יוסף קרא‪'" :‬כי האדם יראה' — פתרונו‪:‬‬ ‫'האדם יראה' לדבר שעיניו מראות אותו‪ ,‬ולא לדבר הטמון‪' ,‬ויי יראה' ללבו של אדם"‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )2‬על הפער בין ראיית האל לראיית האדם עומד גם איוב בנאומו השלישי‪:‬‬ ‫נֹותיָך ּכִ ֵימי‬ ‫"ה ֵעינֵ י ָב ָׂשר לָ ְך ִאם ּכִ ְראֹות ֱאנֹוׁש ִּת ְר ֶאה; ֲהכִ ֵימי ֱאנֹוׁש יָ ֶמיָך ִאם ְׁש ֶ‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫גָ ֶבר" (איוב י ‪)5-4‬‬ ‫בשונה מן ההיגד בשמ"א טז‪ ,‬דברי איוב מנוסחים כצמד של שאלות רטוריות‪ 19,‬כאשר‬ ‫ההנחה המונחת ברקען ברורה וידועה לכול‪ .‬בנוסף‪ ,‬דברי איוב נוגעים בשתי תכונות‬ ‫עיקריות המבדילות את האדם מן האלוהים והמצביעות על יתרונו של האלוהים על‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫האדם‪ :‬ראייתו ואורך ימיו‪ 20.‬ולפיכך על האל להכיר בחפותו של איוב‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )3‬על ראייתו המיוחדת של האלוהים‪ ,‬בניגוד לראייתו המוגבלת של האדם‪ ,‬עומד גם‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫פרק כח שבספר איוב‪:‬‬ ‫וְ ַה ָחכְ ָמה ֵמ ַאיִ ן ִּת ָּמ ֵצא וְ ֵאי זֶ ה ְמקֹום ִּבינָ ה; ֹלא יָ ַדע ֱאנֹוׁש ֶע ְרּכָ ּה וְ ֹלא ִת ָּמ ֵצא‬ ‫קֹומּה; ּכִ י הּוא‬ ‫ֹלהים ֵה ִבין ַּד ְרּכָ ּה וְ הּוא יָ ַדע ֶאת ְמ ָ‬ ‫ְּב ֶא ֶרץ ַה ַחּיִ ים (פס' ‪ֱ ;)13-12‬א ִ‬ ‫לִ ְקצֹות ָה ָא ֶרץ יַ ִּביט ַּת ַחת ּכָ ל ַה ָּשׁ ַמיִ ם יִ ְר ֶאה (פס' ‪ָ ;)24-23‬אז ָר ָאּה וַ יְ ַס ְּפ ָרּה‬ ‫ֱהכִ ינָ ּה וְ גַ ם ֲח ָק ָרּה (פס' ‪ּ)27‬‬ ‫על מלוא המשמעות של כתובים אלה בכול הנוגע לפער שבין אלוהים לאדם עמד‬ ‫יפה אליסון לו‪:‬‬ ‫ֹלהים‬ ‫‪ (He) in v.23 are emphatic, marking the sharpest‬הּוא ‪ֱ (God) and‬א ִ‬ ‫‪of contrast between God’s supremacy and human limitation. God‬‬ ‫)ה ִבין( ‪alone understand‬‬ ‫‪) its‬יָ ַדע( ‪ֵ the way to wisdom and knows‬‬ ‫‪) His‬יַ ִּביט( ‪dwelling place (v.23). In contrast to man, God surveys‬‬ ‫‪) everything under the whole heaven‬יִ ְר ֶאה( ‪entire universe and sees‬‬ ‫‪(v.24). God is able to discern wisdom's place (v.23) because of His‬‬ ‫‪ (He) is again‬הּוא ‪“all-seeing” character (v.24). In v.24 the pronoun‬‬ ‫‪emphatic, highlighting God as an “all-seeing” deity.23‬‬

‫‪ .19‬לצמדים של שאלות רטוריות‪ ,‬השוו‪ :‬איוב ו‪ ,‬פס’ ‪.)?(13-12 ;6-5‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬הנושא של חיי נצח מול מוות חוזר ונשנה במקרא‪ ,‬ואנו נעמוד עליו במקום אחר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬הבל‪ ,‬איוב‪ .‬קלינס‪ ,‬איוב‪ ,‬מנתק את פס’ ‪ 5‬מפסוק ‪ ,4‬ומפרשם לעניינים שונים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬על פרק זה נכתבה ספרות פרשנית ומחקרית ענפה‪ .‬ראו לאחרונה את אסופת המאמרים‬ ‫בקובץ‪ :‬ון וולדה‪ ,‬איוב כח‪ .‬לצורך הדיון במאמר זה אין מקום לדון בשאלות מקומו ומעמדו של הפרק‬ ‫בספר איוב בפרט ובספרות החכמה בכלל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬לו‪ ,‬איוב כח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .203‬לו הולך כאן בעקבות פירושיהם של ניוסם‪ ,‬רייכרט והבל לספר איוב‪.‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪165‬‬

‫יכולת הראייה הבלתי מוגבלת של האל היא זו שהעניקה לו את היכולת להגיע אל‬ ‫החכמה ולבחון אותה‪ .‬זאת בניגוד לבני אנוש‪“ :‬לא ידע אנוש ערכה‪ 24‬ולא תמצא בארץ‬ ‫החיים" (פס' ‪ .)13‬פועל יוצא של הבנה זו של הכתובים הוא כי החכמה נתפסת כאן כישות‬ ‫נפרדת ועצמאית‪ ,‬נסתרת מבני אדם אך גלויה לאל‪ 25.‬פסוק ‪ 27‬מתאר את תגובתו של האל‬ ‫במוצאו את החכמה‪" :‬אז ראּה ויספרּה הכינּה וגם חקרּה"‪ 26.‬הפסוק זכה לפירושים רבים‬ ‫ומגוונים‪ .‬נראה כי מושאם של ארבעת הפעלים הוא החכמה‪ 27,‬ופעלים אלה פורטים את‬ ‫פעולותיו הראשונות של האל עם גילויו את החכמה‪ :‬לאחר שהבחין בה בעצמו — "ראּה"‪,‬‬ ‫הוא העריך‪/‬אמד אותה — "ויספרּה"‪ 28,‬העמידה‪ ,‬הציבה‪ ,‬כדי לבוחנה — "הכינּה"‪ 29,‬ולבסוף‪:‬‬ ‫בדק אותה לאשורה — "חקרּה"‪ 30.‬הבל היטיב לתאר את התמונה העולה בפסוק זה של‬ ‫דמות אדם הבוחן אבן יקרה‪:‬‬ ‫‪“There is a suggestion in this collocation of verbs that the poet is‬‬ ‫‪using the image of an individual who has discovered a precious jewel.‬‬ ‫‪Wisdom, like a precious gem, is sighted, examined closely, prepared‬‬ ‫‪as a jewel and its interior probed for flaws”.31‬‬

‫יצוין כי השורשים רא”ה ו־חק”ר שבפסוק הנדון מוצאים מקבילתם‪ ,‬בסדר מצולב‪,‬‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫בפסוקים ‪ 3‬ו־‪ ,10‬פסוקים הכלולים בפסקה המתארת את פעולותיו המיוחדות של ה'‪.‬‬ ‫שלושת הכתובים עליהם הצבענו — שמ"א טז ‪ ;7‬איוב י ‪ ;4‬כח ‪ — 24-23‬מדברים כולם‬ ‫על מיוחדותה של ראיית האל‪ .‬אולם יש ליתן את הדעת לכך שראיית האלוהים שבאיוב‬ ‫פרק כח מוצגת כראייה טוטאלית‪ ,‬חובקת עולם‪ ,‬חסרת גבולות‪ ,‬והאל הוא 'רואה־הכול'‪,‬‬ ‫לעומת ראיית האל בשמ"א טז ‪ 7‬ובאיוב י ‪ 4‬הממוקדת והמכוונת לתחום מוגדר‪ :‬ידיעת‬ ‫האלוהים את האדם‪ ,‬על מחשבותיו‪ ,‬תוכניותיו‪ ,‬תכונותיו והתנהגותו‪.‬‬ ‫האם תפיסת האלוהים כ'כול־רואה' רווחת במקרא‪ ,‬והאם הגבולות שבין האלוהי‬ ‫והאנושי נשמרים תדיר‪.‬‬ ‫אשר לראייה המקיפה של האל‪ ,‬זו נזכרת תכופות במקרא‪ ,‬בדרכים שונות‪ .‬כך למשל‬ ‫הפתגמים‪" :‬בכל מקום עיני ה' צפות רעים וטובים [נ"א‪ :‬טובים]" (מש' טו ‪" ;)3‬שאול‬

‫‪ .24‬ערכה = שוויה‪ ,‬חשיבותה; או ביתה‪ ,‬מקומה‪ ,‬על פי האוגריתית‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬דהוד‪ ,‬עברית־אוגריתית‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,355‬ובעקבותיו הרטלי‪ ,‬איוב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬על החכמה המקרבת את האדם לאל אך גם המפרידה בין השניים נעמוד במקום אחר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬הפסוק חוזר לנאמר קודם לכן בפס’ ‪“ :23‬אלהים הבין דרכה והוא ידע את מקומה”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬ולא הבריאה‪ ,‬כדעת הריס‪ ,‬חכמה או בריאה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬לא מן הנמנע כי משמעות זו מצויה גם בכתובים הבאים‪ :‬תה’ כב ‪ ;18‬איוב לא ‪( 4‬בניין קל); לח‬ ‫‪ ,37‬אך מגדר השערה לא יצאנו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬השוו‪ :‬יהו’ ג ‪ ;17‬יש’ מ ‪ ;20‬יר’ מו ‪ ;14‬נח’ ב ‪ ;6‬זכ’ ה ‪;11‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬השוו‪ :‬יר’ יז ‪ ;10‬תה’ קלט ‪.23‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬הבל‪ ,‬איוב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.400‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬ראו‪ :‬גרינשטיין‪ ,‬איוב כח‪ .‬לקביעה זו חשיבות רבה בנוגע ליחס בין ה’ לבני אנוש‪ ,‬עליה נעמוד‬ ‫בסיכום‪.‬‬

‫*‪166‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫ואבדון נגד ה' אף כי לבות בני אדם" (שם פס' ‪ .)11‬הנביא עמוס קובע כי לא ניתן לברוח‬ ‫ולהיסתר מפני ה'‪ ,‬תוך שהוא מקיף בדבריו את כל היקום כולו (שאול‪ ,‬שמים‪ ,‬ארץ‪ ,‬ים)‪:33‬‬ ‫"אם יחתרו בשאול משם ידי תקחם ואם יעלו השמים משם אורידם; ואם יחבאו בראש‬ ‫הכרמל משם אחפש ולקחתים‪ .‬ואם יסתרו מנגד עיני בקרקע משם אצוה את הנחש‬ ‫ונשכם" (עמ' ט ‪ .)3-2‬בניסוח אחר אצל הנביא ירמיהו‪ ,‬המתריס כנגד תפיסה עממית‬ ‫לפיה ה' רחוק ועל כן אינו רואה‪" :‬האלהי מקרב אני נאם ה' ולא אלהי מרחוק; אם יסתר‬ ‫איש במסתרים ואני לא אראנו‪ ...‬הלוא את השמים ואת הארץ אני מלא נאם ה'" (יר' כג‬ ‫‪ .)24-23‬ומשורר תהלים קלט קובע‪" :‬אנה אלך מרוחך ואנה מפניך אברח" (תה' קלט ‪7‬‬ ‫וראו שם פס' ‪.)12-8‬‬ ‫לאור זאת רווחת בספרות המקראית התפיסה כי ה' רואה את הנעשה עלי אדמות אף‬ ‫כשהוא מצוי בשמים‪ 34.‬כך במזמורי תהלים מצויות קביעות‪ ,‬כגון‪" :‬משמים הביט ה' ראה‬ ‫את כל בני האדם" (לג ‪" 35;)13‬כי השקיף ממרום קדשו ה' משמים אל ארץ הביט" (קב‬ ‫"ה ֵּבט משמים‬ ‫‪" ;)20‬כי רם ה' ושפל יראה וגבה ממרחק יידע" (קלח ‪ ,)6‬ובצידן‪ ,‬הבקשה‪ַ :‬‬ ‫ְּור ֵאה" (פ ‪ .)15‬מקראות אלה מוצאים מקבילתם גם בחיבורים מקראיים אחרים‪ .‬כך למשל‬ ‫וידוי המעשר שבספר דברים כולל בקשה‪" :‬השקיפה ממעון קדשך מן השמים‪( "...‬כו ‪;)15‬‬ ‫בקינות איכה כלולה תקווה וציפייה להפסקת הצער "עד ישקיף וירא ה' משמים" (איכה ג‬ ‫‪ .)50‬ישעיהו השני‪/‬השלישי פונה אל ה'‪" :‬הבט משמים וראה‪( "...‬יש' סג ‪ .)15‬אליפז מעלה‬ ‫את האפשרות לפיה איוב מניח הנחה מוטעית לפיה האלוהים איננו יודע ורואה בשל‬ ‫ריחוקו הרב‪" :‬הלא אלוה גבה שמים‪ ...‬ואמרת מה ידע אל‪ ...‬עבים סתר לו ולא יראה‪"...‬‬ ‫‪36‬‬ ‫(איוב כב ‪.)14-12‬‬ ‫התפיסה לפיה האל יודע את רצונותיו‪ ,‬מחשבותיו והרגשותיו של האדם‪ ,‬כעולה‬ ‫משמ"א טז ‪ ,7‬היא מן התפיסות התיאולוגיות הרווחות בכל הספרות המקראית‪ .‬ביטוי לכך‬ ‫הן הקביעות לפיהן ה' "בחן כליות ולב" (יר' יא ‪" ,)20‬חקר לב בוחן כליות" (יז ‪" ,)10‬ראה‬ ‫כליות ולב" (שם כ ‪ ,)12‬או "ובחן לבות וכליות" (תה' ז ‪ .)10‬פסוקים אלה יוצאים מן ההנחה‬ ‫לפיה אין לידיעת האל גבולות‪ 37,‬והוא יודע אף את הרהורי ליבו של האדם‪ .‬בדומה‪" :‬וירא‬ ‫ה' כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ וכל יצר מחשבות לבו רק רע כל היום" (בר' ו ‪" ;)5‬כי עיני‬ ‫על כל דרכיהם לא נסתרו מלפני ולא נצפן עונם מנגד עיני" (יר' טז ‪" ;)17‬ומעלות רוחכם‬ ‫אני ידעתיה" (יח' יא ‪" ;)5‬והעלה על רוחכם היו לא תהיה‪( "...‬יח' כ ‪" ;)32‬ה' ידע מחשבות‬

‫‪ .33‬ראו גם איוב יא ‪ ;9-8‬תה’ קלט‪ .9-8 ,‬השוו‪ :‬וולף‪ ,‬יואל ועמוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.341‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬על תפיסה רווחת זו בקרב חברות שונות‪ ,‬קדומות כבנות ימינו‪ ,‬ראו בהרחבה אצל אליאדה‪,‬‬ ‫דגמים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .123–38‬יש לציין כי בפסקה הדנה בה’ (עמ’ ‪ )96–93‬מדגיש המחבר את כוחו ועוצמתו של‬ ‫ה’‪ ,‬אך איננו נוגע בתכונתו כרואה ויודע הכול‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬ובניסוחים קרובים‪ :‬תה’ יד ‪ ;2‬נג ‪.3‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬לכתובים נוספים‪ ,‬ראו אצל פונטין‪ ,‬פתגמים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.103–100‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬ראו‪ :‬ליכט‪ ,‬הניסיון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .45‬לדעת ליכט‪ ,‬שם עמ’ ‪ ,43–42‬השורש בח”ן איננו בהכרח במשמע‬ ‫נס”ה‪ ,‬אלא הוא בא עם השורשים חק”ר‪ ,‬יד”ע (תה’ קלט ‪ ,)24-23‬חז”י (תה’ יא ‪ 4‬או רא”ה (יר’ כ ‪ = 12‬יא‬ ‫‪ .)20‬לדעה שונה בתכלית‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬קראסיק‪ ,‬גבולות‪ ,‬אך טיעוניו אינם משכנעים‪.‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪167‬‬

‫אדם כי המה הבל" (תה' צד ‪" ;)11‬שאול ואבדון נגד ה' אף כי לבות בני אדם" (מש' טו ‪;)11‬‬ ‫"ואתה שלמה בני דע את אלהי אביך ועבדהו בלב שלם ובנפש חפצה כי כל לבבות דורש‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫ה' וכל יצר מחשבות מבין‪( ...‬דה”א כח ‪.)9‬‬ ‫ראייתו המיוחדת של האלוהים‪ ,‬על הקשריה ומשמעויותיה השונים‪ ,‬משותפת‪ ,‬אפוא‪,‬‬ ‫לכתובים מקראיים רבים‪.‬‬ ‫אולם קיימת בספרות המקראית תפיסה אחרת‪ ,‬לפיה האלוהים אינו 'כול רואה' ולא‬ ‫תמיד יודע את הנסתרות שבאדם‪ .‬זו אף זו‪ .‬בתחום מסוים‪ ,‬מיוחסת לבן האנוש תכונה‬ ‫אשר באחד המקראות מיוחסת במפורש לה'‪.‬‬ ‫בסיפור הפלגה (בר' יא ‪ ;9-1‬מיוחס ל־‪ )J‬ובסיפור על הפיכת סדום (בר’ יח–יט‪,‬‬ ‫המיוחס רובו ל־‪ )J‬מתואר ה’ כמי שיורד (מן השמים אל הארץ) כדי לברר באופן ישיר את‬ ‫ההתרחשויות עלי אדמות‪ 39.‬בסיפור הפלגה‪" :‬וירד ה' לראת את העיר ואת המגדל אשר‬ ‫בנו בני האדם" (בר' יא ‪ ;)5‬ובסיפור סדום‪" :‬ויאמר ה' זעקת סדם ועמרה כי רבה‪ ...‬ארדה‬ ‫נא ואראה‪( "...‬בר' יח ‪ .)21-20‬גם קאסוטו‪ ,‬הטוען כי ירידת ה' בסיפור הפלגה "אין פירושה‬ ‫ירידה לשם ידיעה"‪ ,‬מודה כי ירידה זו נועדה "לחקור ולדרוש היטב בדבר"‪ 40.‬בין כך ובין‬ ‫כך‪ ,‬ה' מתואר כאן כמי שממקום מושבו אינו יודע את כל מה שנעשה עלי אדמות‪ .‬יושם‬ ‫על לב כי בשני הכתובים מופיע אותו צירוף‪' :‬יר"ד ‪ +‬רא"ה'‪ .‬חוסר־ידיעתו הטוטאלית‬ ‫של האלוהים מודגש היטב בסיפור סדום‪ ,‬בניסוח המעלה‪ ,‬ככל הנראה‪ ,‬כמה אפשרויות‬ ‫של פעולה מצד האלוהים קודם בחינה בלתי־אמצעית של המצב‪" :‬הכצעקתה הבאה אלי‬ ‫עשו כלה ואם לא אדעה" (בר' יח ‪ .)21‬אומנם מילים אלה קשות להבנה והן זכו לפירושים‬ ‫רבים‪ ,‬אולם השימוש בצירוף 'ואם לא' מצביע על קיומן של שתי אפשרויות העומדות‬ ‫לפני אלוהים‪ ,‬כדוגמת "‪...‬ויבחנו דבריכם האמת אתכם ואם לא חי פרעה כי מרגלים אתם"‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫(בר' מב ‪.)16‬‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫אף הניסיונות בהם מנסה האל בני אדם‪ ,‬בודדים‪ ,‬קבוצות או עם ישראל‪ ,‬מושתתים‬ ‫על ההנחה לפיה אין לאל ידיעה על כוונותיו של בן־אנוש‪ ,‬משום שניתנה לו הבחירה‬ ‫החופשית‪ .‬מקובלות עליי קביעותיו ומסקנותיו של יעקב ליכט‪ ,‬לפיהן "אין המנסה יודע‬

‫‪ .38‬לדעת יפת‪ ,‬דה”י‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,492‬תפיסת בעל דה”י מוצאת מקבילתה במשלי טז ‪“ :2‬ותכן רוחות ה’”;‬ ‫כא ‪“ :2‬ותכן לבות ה’”; כד ‪“ :12‬הלא תכן לבות הוא יבין”‪ .‬למקבילות נוספות‪ ,‬ראו אצל פונטין‪ ,‬פתגמים‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.103–100‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬על מוטיב זה בסיפורים מיתולוגיים יווניים ורומיים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬רודין־אוברסקי‪ ,‬מאלוני ממרא עד‬ ‫סדום‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.87–86‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬קאסוטו‪ ,‬מנח עד אברהם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.167–166‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬וראו גם בר’ ד ‪ ;)?(7‬שמ’ יג ‪.13‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬ניסיונות בהם נתנסו בודדים‪ :‬אברהם (בר’ כב); איוב; חזקיהו (דה”ב לב‪ .)31 ,‬ניסיונות בהם‬ ‫נתנסתה קבוצה‪ :‬שבט לוי (דב’ לג ‪ ;)8‬ניסיונות בהם נוסה עם ישראל כולו‪ :‬במרה (שמ’ טו ‪ ;)25‬במן (שמ’‬ ‫טז ‪ ;4‬דב’ ח ‪ ;)3-2‬ההליכה במדבר (דב’ ח ‪ ;)2‬השארת תושבי ארץ כנען (שופ’ ב ‪ ;22‬ג ‪ .)1‬וכן הופעתו של‬ ‫נביא שקר (דב’ יג ‪.)4‬‬

‫*‪168‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫כיצד תסתיים הפעולה או מה תהיה תוצאת המצבים שיזם אותם לשם ניסיון"‪ 43,‬ולפיכך‪:‬‬ ‫"אלוהים‪ ,‬העושה מעשים תמוהים ונוראים כדי לדעת‪ ,‬איננו יודע הכל"‪ 44,‬וכל זאת מן‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫הטעם הפשוט‪" :‬מעשיו של האדם בידו"‪.‬‬ ‫אף התפיסה לפיה האלוהים חוזר ומתחרט על מעשיו‪ ,‬איננה עולה בקנה אחד עם‬ ‫התפיסה לפיה האל יודע הכול‪ .‬עם זאת חרטת האלוהים מעידה על חוסר ידיעתו מראש‬ ‫את כוונות האדם ומעשיו‪ ,‬בעוד שהדוגמאות בהן דנו לעיל מצביעות על אי־ידיעת‬ ‫האלוהים את המתרחש בלב האדם בהווה‪.‬‬ ‫בצד הדוגמאות דלעיל‪ ,‬שעניינן אי־ידיעת האל‪ ,‬המקרבות במידת־מה את האל לאדם‪,‬‬ ‫ניתן להצביע על כתובים המקרבים את האדם לאל‪ ,‬ואשר מגלים זיקה (הפוכה) לכתוב בשמ"א‬ ‫טז ‪ 7‬בו פתחנו את הדיון‪ .‬כוונתנו לתכונותיו המיוחדות של המלך‪/‬המשיח(?) בספר ישעיה‪:‬‬ ‫“והריחו ביראת ה’ ולא למראה עיניו ישפוט ולא למשמע אזניו יוכיח‪ ...‬והכה‬ ‫ארץ בשבט פיו וברוח שפתיו ימית רשע” (יש' יא ‪)4-3‬‬ ‫כבר הפרשן המסורתי ר' יוסף קרא עמד על משמעותם של כתובים אלה‪,‬‬ ‫בפרשו‪'" :‬והריחו ביראת יי' — רוח שלו‪ .‬ודוגמתו דוגמת בוראו היא‪ ,‬ולא‬ ‫דוגמת בשר ודם‪' ,‬כי האדם יראה לעינים ויי' יראה ללבב'; וזה 'לא למראה‬ ‫עיניו ישפט ולא למשמע אזניו יוכיח'‪ ,‬ואע"פ כן 'ושפט בצדק דלים'‪ ,‬מה שאי‬ ‫אפשר לבשר ודם שיהא דן צדק בלא ראות ובלא משמע אזנים‪' ...‬והכה ארץ‬ ‫בשבט פיו' — אף מידה זו לא מידת בשר היא זו‪."...‬‬ ‫במחקר המודרני הועלתה זה מכבר הטענה לפיה קיימת הייתה בישראל בתקופת‬ ‫המקרא אידיאולוגיה שראתה במלך דמות אלוהית‪ ,‬מלאה או חלקית‪ .‬גונקל ובגריך‪,‬‬ ‫בדיונם על מזמורי המלך בספר תהלים הצביעו על מספר רכיבים המעניקים למלך‬ ‫תכונות אלוהיות‪ 46.‬כך למשל‪ ,‬מובטחים למלך חיי נצח‪ ,‬כגון‪ :‬תה' כא ‪" :5‬חיים שאל‬ ‫ממך נתת לו ארך ימים עולם ועד"‪ 47.‬מובינקל קובע כי "המלך העתידי הוא יותר מאשר‬ ‫אדם רגיל‪ .‬יש לו טבע אלוהי (‪ .)divine nature‬ניתן לכנותו ‘גיבור אלוהי’‪ 48.”...‬זאת לאור‬ ‫כתובים לפיהם בטקס המשיחה "מוענקים לו כוח ואמצעים אלוהיים"‪ ,‬כבשמ"א י ‪;6-1‬‬ ‫יש' יא ‪ 2‬ואילך‪ 49.‬ובלשון אחר‪ ,‬בנוגע לכתובים ביש' יא‪" :‬מתנת הרוח [יש' יא ‪ ]2‬מתגלה‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫בכוחות על־אנושיים‪ ,‬שהינם פיסיים‪ ,‬אינטלקטואליים ומוראליים"‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬ליכט‪ ,‬הניסיון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,11‬וראו גם עמ’ ‪“ :17‬הניסיון הוא בדיקה‪ ,‬שאין תוצאותיה ידועות מראש”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬ליכט‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.25‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,28‬וראו גם עמ’ ‪.29‬‬ ‫‪ .46‬גונקל־בגריך‪ ,‬מבוא לתהלים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.113–112‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬וכן תה’ מה‪ ,‬פס’ ‪ ;7 ,3‬סא ‪ ;9-7‬עב ‪ ;5‬קי ‪ .4‬על כתובים אלה יש להוסיף את מל”א א ‪ ;31‬נחמ’‬ ‫ב ‪ ;3‬דנ’ ב ‪ ;4‬ג ‪ .9‬על מוטיב זה ראו‪ :‬הילי‪ ,‬חיי נצח; קולינס־קולינס‪ ,‬בן אלוהים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪( 23‬אינם דוחים על‬ ‫הסף אפשרות זו)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬מובינקל‪ ,‬משיח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.175‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬מובינקל‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.65‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.175‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪169‬‬

‫לכתובים אלה ניתן להוסיף עדויות מקראיות אחרות הנוגעות למעמדו של המלך‪/‬‬ ‫‪51‬‬ ‫המשיח‪ ,‬כגון ראייתו 'בן' על ידי ה' (שמ"ב ז ‪ ;14‬תה' ב ‪ ,)7‬נברא על ידי ה' (תה' ב ‪,)6‬‬ ‫כינויו 'אלהים' (תה' מה ‪ ,)7‬יושב לימין ה' (תה' קי ‪ ,)1‬מתואר לא אחת כתיאורי ה' במזמורי‬ ‫תהלים‪ 52,‬או כינויו 'אל גבור' (יש' ט ‪ .)5‬ראויים הם דברי הזוג קולינס על יש' ח ‪–23‬ט ‪:6‬‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫”‪.“It makes claim for the king that no human ruler could fulfill‬‬ ‫לאור כתובים אלה ואחרים ניתן אפוא לראות בדברי ישעיהו על המלך העתידי — "ולא‬ ‫למראה עיניו ישפוט" — ביטוי של אידיאולוגיה מלכותית שרווחה בישראל‪ ,‬אשר ביקשה‬ ‫לצמצם במידת־מה את הפער בין מלך בשר ודם לבין אלוהים‪.‬‬ ‫לסיום הדיון בנושא ראיית האלוהים‪ ,‬הטוטאלית מזה והמוגבלת מזה‪ ,‬מן הראוי להעיר‬ ‫כי קיימת דמות נוספת‪ ,‬אנונימית‪ ,‬אשר מעורבת באופן דומיננטי בספרות המקראית‪.‬‬ ‫למ ַספר המקראי‪ ,‬אשר לפי פרנק פולק "נוהג כמי שאין מגבלות לידיעתו‪ :‬הוא יודע‬ ‫כוונתי ְ‬ ‫יותר מהדמויות שעליהן מסופר‪ .‬במובן זה אפשר לומר שהוא 'יודע כול' (‪.)omniscient‬‬ ‫אבל‪ ...‬עדיף לומר שהוא משוחרר מסייגים‪ .‬הוא 'יודע יותר' מהבריות בדרך כלל‪,‬‬ ‫מהדמויות ומהקורא‪ .‬ידועים לו רחשי ליבן של הדמויות‪ ...‬הוא יודע על מזימות חשאיות‪...‬‬ ‫כן הוא מרשה לעצמו למסור על הודעות סודיות‪ ...‬ואף על שיחות חשאיות בלא עדים‪...‬‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫כן עשוי המספר היודע יותר להצביע על ההשגחה האלוהית המכוונת את המאורעות‪."...‬‬ ‫על אפיון זה של המספר 'יודע כול' או 'היודע יותר' ניתן להוסיף כי המספר יודע לא רק‬ ‫את כוונותיה של ההשגחה האלוהית‪ ,‬אלא אף את הרהוריה‪ ,‬מחשבותיה ורגשותיה (כגון‬ ‫בר' ו ‪ ;6‬ח ‪ ;21‬יח‪.)21-20 ;19-17 ,‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬רחמי ה’ גוברים על כעסו או נאמנות ה’ מול בגידת האדם‬ ‫הושע יא ‪:9-8‬‬ ‫אתי לִ ְבנִ י (‪ָ )2‬ק ְראּו לָ ֶהם ּכֵ ן ָהלְ כּו‬ ‫ּומ ִּמ ְצ ַריִ ם ָק ָר ִ‬ ‫(‪ּ )1‬כִ י נַ ַער יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל וָ א ֲֹה ֵבהּו ִ‬ ‫יהם לַ ְּב ָעלִ ים יְ זַ ֵּבחּו וְ לַ ְּפ ִסלִ ים יְ ַק ֵּטרּון (‪ )3‬וְ ָאנֹכִ י ִת ְרּגַ לְ ִּתי לְ ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ָק ָחם ַעל‬ ‫ִמ ְּפנֵ ֶ‬ ‫אתי (‪ְּ )4‬ב ַח ְבלֵ י ָא ָדם ֶא ְמ ְׁשכֵ ם ַּב ֲעבֹתֹות ַא ֲה ָבה וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה‬ ‫זְ רֹוע ָֹתיו וְ ֹלא יָ ְדעּו ּכִ י ְר ָפ ִ‬ ‫יהם וְ ַאט ֵאלָ יו אֹוכִ יל (‪ֹ )5‬לא יָ ׁשּוב ֶאל ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ‫לָ ֶהם ּכִ ְמ ִר ֵימי עֹל ַעל לְ ֵח ֶ‬ ‫וְ ַאּשּׁור הּוא ַמלְ ּכֹו ּכִ י ֵמ ֲאנּו לָ ׁשּוב (‪ )6‬וְ ָחלָ ה ֶח ֶרב ְּב ָע ָריו וְ כִ ּלְ ָתה ַב ָּדיו וְ ָאכָ לָ ה‬ ‫רֹומם‬ ‫ׁשּוב ִתי וְ ֶאל ַעל יִ ְק ָר ֻאהּו יַ ַחד ֹלא יְ ֵ‬ ‫לּואים לִ ְמ ָ‬ ‫יהם (‪ )7‬וְ ַע ִּמי ְת ִ‬ ‫צֹות ֶ‬ ‫ִמּמ ֲֹע ֵ‬ ‫(‪ֵ )8‬איְך ֶא ֶּתנְ ָך ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ֲא ַמּגֶ נְ ָך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֵאיְך ֶא ֶּתנְ ָך כְ ַא ְד ָמה ֲא ִׂש ְימָך ּכִ ְצבֹאיִ ם נֶ ְה ַּפְך‬ ‫חּומי (‪ֹ )9‬לא ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה ֲחרֹון ַא ִּפי ֹלא ָאׁשּוב לְ ַׁש ֵחת ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם ּכִ י‬ ‫ָעלַ י לִ ִּבי יַ ַחד נִ כְ ְמרּו נִ ָ‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫ֵאל ָאנֹכִ י וְ ֹלא ִאיׁש ְּב ִק ְר ְּבָך ָקדֹוׁש וְ ֹלא ָאבֹוא ְּב ִעיר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .51‬השוו‪ :‬טיגיי‪ ,‬בריאה אלוהית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .52‬ראו‪ :‬פריש‪ ,‬המלוכה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.75–71‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬קולינס־קולינס‪ ,‬בן אלוהים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.42‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬פולק‪ ,‬הסיפור במקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.314–313‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬המילה “בעיר” זכתה לפירושים שונים‪ .‬על פי ההקשר נראה להעדיף את הפירוש לפיו ‘בעיר’ =‬ ‫בכעס‪/‬כועס‪ .‬על הפירושים השונים למילה זו כאן‪ ,‬ראו אצל מקינטוש‪ ,‬הושע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.465–464‬‬

‫*‪170‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫(‪ַ )10‬א ֲח ֵרי יְ הוָ ה יֵ לְ כּו ּכְ ַא ְריֵ ה יִ ְׁש ָאג ּכִ י הּוא יִ ְׁש ַאג וְ יֶ ֶח ְרדּו ָבנִ ים ִמּיָ ם (‪ )11‬יֶ ֶח ְרדּו‬ ‫יהם נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫הֹוׁש ְב ִּתים ַעל ָּב ֵּת ֶ‬ ‫כְ ִצּפֹור ִמ ִּמ ְצ ַריִ ם ּוכְ יֹונָ ה ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ַאּשּׁור וְ ַ‬ ‫בפס’ ‪ 9‬מכריז הנביא הושע בשם אלוהיו‪“ :‬כי אל אנכי ולא איש”‪ .‬היגד זה הוא היחיד‬ ‫מבין כל ההיגדים שעניינם הפער בין אלוהים לבני אדם אשר איננו מצביע באופן מפורש‬ ‫וברור על התכונה המפרידה‪ ,‬ולפיכך הועלו הסברים שונים להכרזה זו‪ ,‬שונים אף מנוגדים‪.‬‬ ‫על פי ההקשר המיידי (פס’ ‪ )9‬אמורה הכרזה זו לתת הסבר להחלטת ה’‪“ :‬לא אעשה חרון‬ ‫אפי לא אשוב לשחת אפרים”‪ ,‬אלא שאף פירושה של קביעה זו שנוי במחלוקת‪ :‬האם יש‬ ‫כאן משפט חיווי או שאלה רטורית‪ .‬זו אף זו‪ .‬מחלוקת פרשנית זו משליכה אף על משמעות‬ ‫הפסוק הקודם (פס’ ‪ ,)8‬ואפשר שעל היחידה הנבואית כולה‪ .‬בנוסף לאלה‪ ,‬לשונו הקשה‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫והמיוחדת של ספר הושע ושאלות טקסטואליות מקשות על הבנת הפסוקים‪.‬‬ ‫כפי שאראה בהמשך‪ ,‬ניתן להציע שני הסברים שונים סבירים למשמעות הקביעה “כי‬ ‫אל אנכי ולא איש” בהקשרה הנוכחי‪ .‬הסבר אחד מעוגן בתחום המשפט והאחר בתחום‬ ‫הרגש‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬רחמי ה' גוברים על כעסו‬ ‫ג’ורג אדם סמית ראה בפסוקים אלה שבספר הושע את פסגתו של הספר‪ ,‬באשר הם‬ ‫מציגים את רחמי האלוהים הבלתי נדלים‪ 57.‬תפיסה פרשנית זו של הכתובים‪ ,‬לפיה האל‬ ‫מּונע בהחלטותיו ובמעשיו על ידי מידת הרחמים שבו‪ ,‬הגוברת על מידת כעסו‪ ,‬מושתתת‬ ‫חּומי”‪ ,‬כמקביל לצירופים “נכמרו רחמיו” (בר’ מג‬ ‫בעיקרה על פירוש הצירוף “נִ כְ ְמרּו נִ ָ‬ ‫‪ )30‬ו”נכמרו רחמיה” (מל”א ג ‪ 58.)26‬אלא שקביעתו של סמית הינה רק חלק מן הטענה‬ ‫הכוללת‪ ,‬כפי שנראה להלן‪ .‬זו אף זו‪ .‬ספק אם הפסוקית כולה מצביעה על מניע אחד‬ ‫בלבד‪ ,‬רגשי במהותו‪ .‬שכן המילים “נֶ ְה ַּפְך ָעלַ י לִ ִּבי” אפשר שרומזות על מניע רציונאלי‪,‬‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫העומד ברקע השינוי בעמדתו של ה’‪.‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬ ‫כמה מן התרגומים המודרניים לאנגלית רואים במילים “נכמרו נחומי” עניין לרגשות‪,‬‬ ‫אולם תרגומם ל”לבי” הוא מילולי‪ ,‬ואין אתה יודע למה הוא מכוון‪ ,‬אם לרגש אם לשכל‪:‬‬ ‫‪Revised Standard Version: “My heart recoils within me, my‬‬ ‫”‪compassion grows warm and tender‬‬

‫‪ .56‬מורג‪ ,‬הושע‪.‬‬

‫‪ .57‬סמית‪ ,‬תרי־עשר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“… the greatest passage in Hosea – deepest if not the highest :297‬‬ ‫‪of his book – the breaking forth of that exhaustless mercy of the Most High which no sin of man‬‬ ‫”‪can bar back nor wear out‬‬

‫‪ .58‬השורש כמ”ר עניינו‪ :‬התחמם (לאור הארמית)‪ ,‬ולפיכך הצירוף כולו מכוון להתעוררות רגשית‬ ‫חזקה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .59‬השוּו‪ :‬שמ’ יד ‪“ :5‬ויהפך לבב פרעה ועבדיו” ; תה’ קה‪ ,‬כה‪“ :‬הפך לבם לשנא עמו”(?); איכה א ‪.20‬‬ ‫‪ .60‬ושמא אף התרגום המילולי ל’לב’ מכוון למקום הרגשות‪ .‬כך אצל חלק מן הפרשנים המודרניים‪,‬‬ ‫הנוקטים לשון )‪ compassion(s‬בבואם לתרגם את “נחומי”‪ ,‬כגון‪ :‬הרפר‪ ,‬מייס‪ ,‬מקינטוש‪.‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪171‬‬

‫‪American Standard Version: “My heart is turned within me, my‬‬ ‫”‪compassions are kindled together‬‬ ‫‪Today’s New International Version: “My heart is changed within‬‬ ‫”‪me; all my compassion is aroused‬‬ ‫‪Good News Translation: “My heart will not let me do it! My love for‬‬ ‫”‪you is too strong‬‬ ‫‪New Century Version: “My heart beats for you, and my love for you‬‬ ‫”‪stirs up my pity‬‬ ‫‪Contemporary English Version: “I just can’t do it. My feelings for‬‬ ‫”‪you are much too strong‬‬ ‫‪New King James Version: “My heart churns within Me; My‬‬ ‫”‪sympathy is stirred‬‬ ‫”‪The New JPS: “I have had change of heart, All my tenderness is stirred‬‬

‫יוצא דופן הוא תרגומם־פירושם של אנדרסן־פרידמן‪ ,‬המפריד באופן מפורש בין שני‬ ‫חלקי הפסוקית‪“My mind is turning over inside me. My emotions are agitated all :‬‬ ‫”‪ .together‬אליבא דתרגום־פירוש זה‪ ,‬ה’לב’ הוא מקום המחשבות‪ ,‬ולפיכך ה’ מּונע כאן‬ ‫בהחלטתו על ידי שני גורמים‪ :‬שיקול דעת רציונאלי מזה‪ ,‬ורגשות מזה‪.‬‬ ‫דומה שקשה להכריע בין התרגומים־הפירושים השונים‪ 61,‬שכן ‘לב’ בספרות‬ ‫המקראית הוא‪ ,‬כאמור לעיל‪ ,‬מקום המחשבה ומקום הרגשות גם יחד‪ .‬עם זאת ההבדל בין‬ ‫הפירושים השונים אינו רב‪ :‬בין כך ובין כך קובע הכתוב כי האלוהים חורץ דינם של בני‬ ‫אדם (גם) מתוך רגש הרחמים‪.‬‬ ‫אשר לעצם קריאת המחצית הראשונה של פס’ ‪“ — 9‬לא אעשה חרון אפי לא אשוב‬ ‫לשחת אפרים” — נחלקו הפרשנים לשני מחנות‪ .‬חלק הארי של הפרשנים‪ ,‬רואה בכתוב‬ ‫משפט חיווי‪ ,‬היינו‪ :‬החלטתו של ה’ שלא להעניש בחומרה את אפרים‪ .‬מחנה פרשנים‬ ‫אחר‪ ,‬מצומצם בהיקפו‪ ,‬מפרש את הכתובים בדרך הפוכה‪ ,‬היינו‪ :‬כשאלה רטורית‪ ,‬ולפיכך‬ ‫הכתוב קובע כי ה’ יעניש גם יעניש את אפרים על בגידתו בו‪ .‬ההכרעה בין שתי אפשרויות‬ ‫פרשניות אלה יש לה השפעה באשר למשמע ההיגד “כי אל אנכי בקרבך ולא איש”‪.‬‬ ‫האפשרות הפרשנית הקובעת כי האל מחליט שלא לפגוע פגיעה קשה באפרים עולה‬ ‫“איְך ֶא ֶּתנְ ָך [=אמסור אותך] ֶא ְפ ַריִ ם ֲא ַמּגֶ נְ ָך [=אסגיר אותך‪ .‬השוו בר’ יד‬ ‫יפה בהקשרה‪ֵ :‬‬ ‫‪ ]20‬יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ֵאיְך ֶא ֶּתנְ ָך כְ ַא ְד ָמה ֲא ִׂש ְימָך ּכִ ְצבֹאיִ ם‪ֹ ...‬לא ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה ֲחרֹון ַא ִּפי ֹלא ָאׁשּוב לְ ַׁש ֵחת‬ ‫[=להרוס; לפגוע פגיעה אנושה; להשמיד] ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם” (‪8‬א; ‪9‬א)‪ .‬על פי פרשנות סבירה זו‪ ,‬ניתן‬ ‫לבאר את הקביעה “ּכִ י ֵאל ָאנֹכִ י וְ ֹלא ִאיׁש ְּב ִק ְר ְּבָך ָקדֹוׁש” כמכוונת לתאר את דרכי פעולתו‬ ‫של ה’‪ ,‬כמי שמבטל כעסו מפני רחמיו — בניגוד לדרכם של בני אנוש‪ .‬פירוש זה מתנסח‬ ‫בניסוחים שונים בפרשנות המודרנית‪ ,‬כגון‪“ :‬כעס זה עשוי שלא להטות את האל‪ ,‬כמו‬ ‫שהוא עשוי להטות אדם‪ ,‬מביצוע מטרה מחושבת” (הרפר‪ ,‬הושע); “בשונה מבני אדם‪,‬‬ ‫‪ .61‬שכן אין הכרח לראות במילים “נהפך עלי לבי” ו”נכמרו נחומי” תקבולת נרדפת‪.‬‬

‫*‪172‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫[האל] בלתי תלוי במעשיו של שותפו‪ ...‬אינו חייב להגיב” (וולף‪ ,‬הושע); “ה’ אינו אדם‪/‬‬ ‫יצור אנושי המאפשר לכעס להשתלט עליו‪ .‬אדרבא‪ ,‬הוא מראה את טבעו האלוהי בכך‬ ‫שהוא מתגבר על הכעס באמצעות האהבה” (יונגלינג‪ ,‬אספקטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“ ;)358‬האל אינו‬ ‫כישראליים אשר רגשותיהם עשויים לשקף להט מלאכותי וכעסם עשוי להיות נקמני יותר‬ ‫מאשר הוגן” (סטוארט‪ ,‬הושע)‪.‬‬ ‫כאמור‪ ,‬טענו כמה פרשנים מודרניים להבנה שונה לחלוטין של הכתובים‪ .‬קרל מרטי‪,‬‬ ‫בפירושו לספר הושע (‪ ,)1904‬טען כי יש לקרוא את המילים “ֹלא ֶא ֱע ֶׂשה ֲחרֹון ַא ִּפי ֹלא‬ ‫ָאׁשּוב לְ ַׁש ֵחת ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם” כשאלה רטורית‪ 62.sollte ich nicht u.s.w. :‬אף אנדרסן־פרידמן‬ ‫בפירושם לספר הושע נקטו דרך פרשנית עקרונית זו‪ ,‬אלא שעיגנו אותה בשתי יתדות‪:‬‬ ‫האחת‪ ,‬פילולוגית‪ ,‬בפרשם את המילית “לא” שבפסוקית כ’לא הנחץ’ (לא ‪,)asseverative‬‬ ‫היינו‪ :‬אכן‪ ,‬אומנם כן;‪ 63‬והאחרת‪ ,‬תיאולוגית‪ ,‬לפיה האל שונה מבני תמותה בכך שאין הוא‬ ‫דן על פי הרגש כלל ועיקר‪ .‬זו אף זו‪ .‬לדידם‪ ,‬אם נפרש את הנבואה כביטוי ליחס חיובי‬ ‫כלפי אפרים‪ ,‬דמותו של האל תיפגם בכך שהיא תוצג כבלתי אמינה — לאחר כל כך הרבה‬ ‫‪64‬‬ ‫הצהרות על ענישה — בניגוד להצהרה “כי אל אנכי ולא איש”‪.‬‬ ‫ההכרעה בין הגישות השונות והסותרות איננה קלה‪ ,‬והיא תלויה ראש לכול בפרשנותם‬ ‫של הכתובים‪ .‬עם זאת ניתן לבחון תחילה את מסקנותיה הפרשניות של קבוצת הפרשנים‬ ‫השנייה‪ ,‬לפיה פס’ ‪ 9-8‬אינם ביטוי לרחמי האל‪ ,‬אלא הם דווקא ביטוי להכרעת הדין כנגד‬ ‫אפרים‪ .‬גם אם פרשנות זו של הכתובים אינה בלתי־סבירה‪ ,‬הרי יש והיא מנומקת בטענות‬ ‫שאינן עומדות בפני הביקורת‪ .‬כך למשל הטענה של אנדרסן־פרידמן לפיה האל אינו‬ ‫משנה דעתו היא טענה תמוהה‪ .‬אומנם נכון כי זו הקביעה העקרונית בבמד’ כג ‪ 19‬ובשמ”א‬ ‫טו ‪ — 29‬כתובים אותם מזכירים זוג פרשנים זה‪ ,‬אולם לא ניתן להתעלם מן העובדה כי‬ ‫הספרות המקראית מכירה גם תפיסה הפוכה‪ .‬די להזכיר הן את דברי המספר בשמ”א טו‪:‬‬ ‫“וה’ נחם כי המליך את שאול על ישראל” (פס’ ‪ ,)35‬הן את דברי ה’‪“ :‬נחמתי כי המלכתי‬ ‫את שאול למלך” (פס’ ‪ )11‬בניגוד לקביעתו של הנביא שמואל‪“ :‬וגם נצח ישראל לא ישקר‬ ‫ולא ינחם כי לא אדם הוא להנחם” (פס’ ‪ 65.)29‬אם נוסיף על כתובים אלה שורה ארוכה‬ ‫של מקראות המדברים על ה’ כמי ש’ניחם’ ‪‘ /‬ניחם על הרעה’‪ 66,‬או אז נגיע למסקנה כי אין‬ ‫שום מניעה לתיאור האלוהים כמי שחוזר בו מתוכניתו‪.‬‬ ‫האם תיאור האלוהים כמי שאינו מבקש להעניש את אפרים מנימוקים ‘רגשיים’ מצוי‬ ‫בספר הושע? התשובה לשאלה זו תלויה אף היא‪ ,‬ראש לכול‪ ,‬בפירושם של הכתובים‪.‬‬

‫‪ .62‬מרטי‪ ,‬תרי־עשר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .90‬בדומה הוא מפרש כך גם את הושע יג ‪“ :14‬מיד שאול אפדם ממות‬ ‫אגאלם”‪ .‬בגישה עקרונית זו הלכו למשל ניברג‪ ,‬מחקרים בספר הושע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;90‬מובינקל‪ ,‬הושע‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪( 597–596‬על פי ביורנרד‪ ,‬הושע יא ‪ ,9-8‬עמ’ ‪ ;)22‬רובינזון‪ ,‬תרי עשר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;45–44‬גלנזמן‪ ,‬שתי הערות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.233–230‬‬ ‫‪ .63‬על תופעה זו בעברית המקראית‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬סיון־שניידוינד‪ ,‬לא‪ ,‬ושם ביבליוגרפיה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .64‬אנדרסון־פרידמן‪ ,‬הושע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.590–589‬‬ ‫‪ .65‬על תפיסות אלה נעמוד במקום אחר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .66‬ראו למשל‪ :‬בר’ ו ‪ ;7-6‬שמ’ לב ‪ ;14‬שמ”ב כד ‪ ;16‬עמ’ ז‪ 6 ,3 ,‬ועוד‪.‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪173‬‬

‫ניתן להצביע על דוגמא (חלקית) בפרק יג‪ ,‬הכולל את הקביעה‪“ :‬מיד שאול אפדם ממות‬ ‫אגאלם‪ ...‬נ ַֹחם יסתר מעיני” (פס’ ‪ .)14‬בהנחה כי ה’ מבטיח כאן‪ ,‬בגוף ראשון‪ ,‬להציל את‬ ‫אפרים ממוות‪ ,‬על אף חטאו הכבד‪ ,‬המתפרט לכול אורכו של פרק יג‪ ,‬מצהיר ה’ בסופו של‬ ‫‪67‬‬ ‫דבר‪“ :‬נ ַֹחם יסתר מעיני”‪ .‬המילה ‘נ ַֹחם’ יחידאית‪ ,‬ולפיכך היא מתפרשת בדרכים שונות‪.‬‬ ‫על פי כמה כתובים מקראיים השורש הפועלי נח”מ קרוב (ואולי אף נרדף) ל־נק”מ‪ .‬כך‬ ‫למשל דב’ לב ‪“ :36‬כי ידין ה’ עמו ‪ //‬ועל עבדיו יתנחם” (=תה’ קלה ‪ ;)14‬יש’ א ‪“ :24‬הוי‬ ‫אנחם מצרי ‪ /‬ואנקמה מאויבי”; וראו גם בר’ כז ‪“ :42‬עשו אחיך מתנחם לך להרגך”‪ ,‬היינו‪:‬‬ ‫חושב לנקום‪ .‬לאור זאת תרגום המילים “נ ַֹחם יסתר מעיני” ב־‪ NJPS‬הוא‪“Revenge :‬‬ ‫”‪ .shall be far from My thoughts‬אם נקבל ביאור זה להושע יג ‪ 14‬נמצא כי הן כאן‬ ‫הן בכתובים הנדונים על ידינו מפרק יא ה’ מתואר כמי שאיננו מוציא לפועל את (מלוא)‬ ‫כעסו על ישראל!‬ ‫העולה מדברינו הוא כי ה’ מתואר בספר הושע כמי שחורץ דין (גם) על פי רגשותיו‪.‬‬ ‫לשון אחר‪ :‬ה’ אינו מחויב לפסוק או לגזור דין רק על פי שיקולים ‘משפטיים’‪ ,‬במסגרת‬ ‫של חטא–עונש‪ ,‬אלא הוא עשוי להפעיל שיקולים נוספים‪ .‬יחוס תכונה זו לה’ מהווה עבור‬ ‫אנדרסן־פרידמן קושי תיאולוגי‪ ,‬שכן לדידם דווקא התנהגות זו אופיינית לבני אדם‪ ,‬ועל‬ ‫כן שופטים בשר ודם מוזהרים “לא תכירו פנים במשפט כקטן כגדל תשמעון‪( ”...‬דב’ א‬ ‫‪ .)17‬אך היא הנותנת‪ :‬מה שאסור לבני אדם מותר לאל‪ ,‬שכן לאל יש פריבילגיות שאינן‬ ‫נחלתם של בני אנוש‪ 68.‬משמעות הקביעה בהושע יא ‪“ :9‬כי אל אנכי ולא איש בקרבך‬ ‫קדוש (=נבדל‪ ,‬שונה)” תהיה אפוא‪ :‬אני האל‪ ,‬רשאי שלא להעניש‪ ,‬שכן ישנם שיקולים‬ ‫נוספים‪ ,‬מעבר לאלה המשפטיים‪.‬‬ ‫לאור דברינו עד עתה ניתן אפוא לטעון כי בספר הושע מתוארת דמותו של אלוהים‬ ‫כבעל שיקולים שונים בבואו להכריע את הדין‪ .‬שיקולים אלה עשויים להיות ‘רציונאליים’‪,‬‬ ‫כאחד הפירושים לצירוף‪“ :‬נהפך עלי לבי”‪ ,‬ועשויים להיות (גם) רגשיים‪“ :‬יחד נכמרו‬ ‫נחומי”‪ .‬ואומנם ניתן לגלות בספרות המקראית את האלוהים כמי שאינו ממצה את‬ ‫הדין‪ 69,‬אם מתוך רחמים‪ ,‬אם מתוך שיקולים אחרים ‪‘ /‬אנוכיים’‪ .‬מתוך רחמים‪ :70‬כך‬ ‫למשל בהיסטוריוגראפיה המשנה־תורתית‪ ,‬בה מצויה קביעה על הפער בין רחמי ה’ לבין‬ ‫התנהגותם של בני אדם‪“ :‬ויבא גד אל דוד ויגד לו ויאמר לו‪ ...‬ואם היות שלשת ימים‬ ‫דבר בארצך‪ ...‬ויאמר דוד אל גד צר לי מאד נפלה נא ביד ה’ כי רבים רחמיו וביד אדם‬ ‫אל אפלה; ויתן ה’ דבר בישראל מהבקר ועד עת מועד וימת מן העם‪ ...‬שבעים אלף איש;‬

‫‪ .67‬פרונק‪ ,‬נחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 521‬מפרש במשמע‪ ;be comforted :‬סימיאן־יופרה‪ ,‬נחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 354‬מפרש‪:‬‬ ‫”’‪ ;“caution and self-control [=Jeremias], or simply ‘compasion‬קדרי‪ ,‬מילון העברית המקראית‪,‬‬ ‫ערך ‘נ ַֹחם’‪ :‬חרטה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .68‬כגון‪ :‬פקידת עוונות מאבות על צאצאיהם‪ ,‬או האפשרות לנקם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .69‬דוק‪“ :‬לא אשוב לשחת אפרים”‪ .‬בנוסף קיימת המתקת הדין במקום שהחוטאים מתקנים דרכם‪,‬‬ ‫חוזרים בתשובה‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬סימיאן־יופרה‪ ,‬רחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.442‬‬ ‫‪ .70‬הדוגמאות לרחמי ה’ המובאות בהמשך אין בהן לא תיאור של מעורבות נביא־מתווך ולא תיאור‬ ‫של חזרת העם בתשובה‪.‬‬

‫*‪174‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫וישלח ידו המלאך ירושלם לשחתה וינחם ה’ אל הרעה ויאמר למלאך המשחית בעם רב‬ ‫עתה הרף ידך‪( ”...‬שמ”ב כד ‪ = 16-13‬דה”א כא ‪ ;)15-12‬מל”ב יג ‪“ :23-22‬וחזאל מלך‬ ‫ארם לחץ את ישראל כל ימי יהואחז; ויחן ה’ אתם וירחמם ויפן אליהם למען בריתו את‬ ‫אברהם יצחק ויעקב ולא אבה השחיתם ולא השליכם מעל פניו עד עתה”; בזכרונות‬ ‫נחמיה‪“ :‬וברחמיך הרבים לא עשיתם כלה ולא עזבתם כי אל חנון ורחום אתה; ועתה‬ ‫אלהינו‪ ...‬שמר הברית והחסד‪( ”...‬נחמ’ ט‪ ;)32-31 ,‬ובמזמור תה’ עח ‪“ :38‬והוא רחום יכפר‬ ‫עון ולא ישחית והרבה להשיב אפו ולא יעיר כל חמתו”‪ 71,‬היינו ה’ “שלט באפו‪ ,‬השיבו‪,‬‬ ‫מנע ממנו להכות בעמו”‪ 72.‬מתוך שיקולים ‘אנוכיים’‪ :‬ראו למשל יח’ כ ‪“ :10-8‬וימרו בי‪...‬‬ ‫ואמר לשפוך חמתי עליהם לכלות אפי בהם בתוך ארץ מצרים; ואעש למען שמי לבלתי‬ ‫ואבאם אך המדבר” (וכן‬ ‫החל לעיני הגוים אשר המה בתוכם‪ ...‬ואוציאם מארץ מצרים ִ‬ ‫פס’ ‪ .)22-21 ,17 ,14-13‬על פי כתובים אלה הקביעה בהושע יא ‪“ 9‬כי אל אנכי ולא איש”‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫למתן את העונש או אף לא להעניש כלל‪,‬‬ ‫מנגידה את טיבו של האל המסוגל לרסן עצמו‪ַ ,‬‬ ‫לטיבם של בני־אנוש‪ ,‬שרק לעתים נדירות מרסנים עצמם‪ .‬על טיבם זה של בני אנוש ניתן‬ ‫ללמוד מספרות החכמה‪ ,‬מן החוק‪ ,‬מן הסיפור ומן השירה‪ .‬מספרות החכמה‪“ :‬כי קנאה‬ ‫חמת גבר ולא יחמול ביום נקם” (מש’ ו ‪“ 74;)34‬אכזריות חמה ושטף אף ומי יעמד לפני‬ ‫קנאה” (שם כז ‪ .)4‬מן החוק‪“ :‬לא תקׂם ולא תטׂר‪ 75‬את בני עמך ואהבת לרעך כמוך” (וי’ יט‬ ‫‪ .)18‬היינו‪ :‬חל איסור על אדם (מישראל) לבצע “תשלום רעה תחת רעה”‪ ,‬כהגדרת ליכט את‬ ‫מושג ה’נקמה’ המקראי‪ 76.‬לפיכך חוקי ‘נקמת הדם’ (שמ’ כא ‪ ;14-12‬במ’ לה ‪ )29-9‬נמנעים‬ ‫במכוון מלהשתמש בשורש נק”מ “לפי שהכוונה כאן לזכות או לחובה [של אדם להשיב את‬ ‫דם הנרצח בראש הרוצח] ולא לנקמה ולרגשות הכרוכים בה”‪ 77.‬מן הסיפור‪ :‬מעשה למך‬ ‫(בר’ ד ‪ 78;)24-23‬אבשלום השונא את אמנון ומצווה על רציחתו (שמ”ב יג ‪ ;)29-22‬דויד‬ ‫העוצר עצמו מלפגוע בנבל רק לאחר דברי השכנוע של אביגיל (שמ”א כה)‪ .‬מן השירה‪“ :‬כי‬ ‫באפם [=כעסם] הרגו איש” (בר’ מט ‪ .)6‬מדוגמאות אלה‪ ,‬עליהן ניתן להוסיף אחרות‪ ,‬עולה‬ ‫כי טבע האדם כפי שמוצג בספרות המקראית איננו מצביע על איפוק וריסון‪.‬‬ ‫עם זאת מצויים במקרא כתובים לפיהם גוברת אצל האלוהים מידת הדין על מידת‬ ‫הרחמים‪ .‬כך למשל ביר’ יג ‪ ...“ :14-13‬כה אמר ה’ הנני ממלא את כל ישבי הארץ הזאת‪...‬‬ ‫שכרון; ונפצתים איש אל אחיו והאבות והבנים יחדו נאם ה’ לא אחמול ולא אחוס ולא‬ ‫‪ .71‬במזמור זה מנומקת התנהגות ה’ בטבעם של בני האדם‪“ :‬ויזכר כי בשר המה רוח הולך ולא‬ ‫שב”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .72‬זקוביץ‪ ,‬תה’ עח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.146‬‬ ‫‪ .73‬השוו‪ :‬מופס‪ ,‬אהבה ושמחה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.38‬‬ ‫‪ .74‬דוק‪ :‬הקשרה של קביעה זו הוא בבגידת האישה בבן זוגה!‬ ‫‪ .75‬על נט”ר כאן כנרדף במשמעו ל־נק”מ‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מילגרום‪ ,‬ויקרא יז–כב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,1651‬על פי האכדית‬ ‫ועל פי נח’ א ‪ ;2‬כוגן‪ ,‬נחום‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.26‬‬ ‫‪ .76‬ליכט‪ ,‬נקמה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .918‬יש להוסיף כי הנקמה איננה במסגרת החוק‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .77‬ליכט‪ ,‬שם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .78‬השוו ויינפלד‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“ :24‬למך מתפאר כאן כי האיש שאך גרם לו פצע‪ ,‬ושתחתיו — לפי‬ ‫מידת־הדין — יש להחזיר פצע (שמות כא ‪ ,)25‬קבל אצלו דין מות”‪.‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪175‬‬

‫ארחם מהשחיתם”‪ .‬ובדומה ביח’ ט ‪“ :6-5‬ולאלה אמר באזני עברו בעיר אחריו והכו על‬ ‫תחס עיניכם [קרי‪ :‬עינכם] ואל תחמלו; זקן בחור ובתולה וטף ונשים תהרגו למשחית‬ ‫[=כדי להשחית‪ ,‬להשמיד]‪ .”...‬בנוסף לכתובים אלה‪ ,‬הקושרים את ‘ההשחתה’ באופן‬ ‫מפורש לחוסר רחמים וחמלה‪ ,‬ניתן להצביע על שורה של מקראות‪ ,‬המצהירה כי כעסו‬ ‫של ה’ מבטל את הרחמים‪ .‬חלק מן הכתובים מציין את העובדה כי כעסו של ה’ גובר על‬ ‫רחמיו‪ :‬יש’ ט ‪“ :16‬על כן על בחוריו לא ישמח‪ 79‬אדני ואת יתמיו ואת אלמנתיו לא ירחם‪...‬‬ ‫בכל זאת לא שב אפו‪ ;”...‬יח’ ח ‪“ :18‬וגם אני אעשה בחמה לא תחוס עיני ולא אחמול‪;”...‬‬ ‫זכ’ א ‪“ :12‬ה’ צבאות עד מתי אתה לא תרחם את ירושלם ואת ערי יהודה אשר זעמת‬ ‫‪80‬‬ ‫[=כעסת] זה שבעים שנה”‪ .‬בכתובים אחרים נקבע כי אין רחמים אצל ה’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬נאמנות ה’ לברית מול בגידתם של ישראל‬ ‫הסבר אחר לקביעה “כי אל אנכי ולא איש” הוא מן התחום המשפטי‪ .‬בספרות‬ ‫המשנה־תורתית מנומקים רחמי האל בנאמנותו להבטחותיו הקודמות‪ .‬במל”ב יג ‪23-22‬‬ ‫הנימוק הוא במחויבות ה’ לאבות‪“ :‬וחזאל מלך ארם לחץ את ישראל כל ימי יהואחז; ויחן‬ ‫ה’ אתם וירחמם ויפן אליהם למען בריתו את אברהם יצחק ויעקב ולא אבה השחיתם ולא‬ ‫השליך מעל פניו עד עתה”‪ .‬במל”ב ח ‪ 19‬נקשרת החלטתו של ה’ שלא לפגוע פגיעה קשה‬ ‫ביהודה בהתחייבות לדויד‪“ :‬ולא אבה ה’ להשחית את יהודה‪ 81‬למען דוד עבדו כאשר אמר‬ ‫‪82‬‬ ‫לו לתת לו ניר לבניו כל הימים”‪.‬‬ ‫לאור זאת אין תימה כי פרק יא שבהושע פותח בתיאור אהבת ה’ לישראל‪“ :‬כי נער‬ ‫ישראל ואהבהו וממצרים קראתי לבני”‪ ,‬וממשיך בתיאור אהבה זו בדימוי‪“ :‬בחבלי אדם‬ ‫אמשכם ‪ //‬בעבתות אהבה” (פס’ ‪ 83.)4‬גם אם קיימת קונוטציה רגשית לשימוש בשורש‬ ‫אה”ב בספר הושע‪ 84,‬קשה להתעלם מן המשמעות הפוליטית‪ 85,‬שעיקרה‪ :‬נאמנות‪ 86.‬על‬ ‫הקשר בין שתי המשמעויות‪ ,‬הרגשית והפוליטית‪ ,‬עמד יפה קאקנאטו‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .79‬על פי הערבית סמח = היות נדיב‪ ,‬רחמן‪ .‬ראו הערך سمح אצל ליין‪ ,‬מילון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .1423–1422‬על‬ ‫משמעות זו של הכתוב עמד כבר פרלס בסוף מאה י”ט‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬פרלס‪ ,‬הערות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;63‬פרלס‪ ,‬ביקורת‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪( 689‬כאן פרלס מפנה לערבית)‪ ,‬והיא זו הרווחת עד היום‪ .‬במגילת יש’ הראשונה‪“ :‬לוא יחמול”‪ ,‬אולם‬ ‫ספק אם יש כאן מסורת פרשנית‪ ,‬שכן השורשים חמ”ל ו־רח”מ מופיעים בספר ירמיה‪ :‬יר’ יג ‪ ;14‬כא ‪.7‬‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬קוטשר‪ ,‬הלשון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.179‬‬ ‫‪ .80‬ראו למשל‪ :‬יר’ טז ‪ ;4‬יח’ ה ‪ ;11‬ז‪ ,‬פס’ ‪ ;9 ,4‬ט ‪ ;10‬זכ’ יא ‪.6‬‬ ‫‪ .81‬בדה”ב כא ‪ 7‬ההדגשה היא על בית דויד‪“ :‬ולא אבה ה’ להשחית את בית דויד למען הברית אשר‬ ‫כרת לדויד‪.”...‬‬ ‫‪ .82‬ראו גם דב’ ד ‪ ,31-29‬אך כאן נקשרים רחמי האל לחזרת העם בתשובה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .83‬על זיקת פסוק זה ליחסי הברית בין ה’ לישראל‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אנדרסן־פרידמן‪ ,‬הושע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.581–580‬‬ ‫‪ .84‬כגון במעשים הסמליים של הושע‪ ,‬פרקים א ו־ג‪ .‬על אהבת ה’ לישראל בספר הושע‪ ,‬ראו למשל‬ ‫אייכרודט‪ :‬בקרבך קדוש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 263‬ואילך; קונרד‪ ,‬נדב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,224‬לפיו הקביעה “אהבם נדבה” שבהושע יד‬ ‫‪ 5‬מצביעה על האהבה הבלתי מותנית והבלתי מוגבלת של ה’ כלפי ישראל‪ ,‬וגם אם נדרשת תשובה מצד‬ ‫העם‪ ,‬אין היא תנאי לאהבה זו; קאקנאטו‪ ,‬הושע יא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.40–33‬‬ ‫‪ .85‬השוו‪ :‬הו’ ו ‪ ;7‬ח ‪.1‬‬ ‫‪ .86‬מורן‪ ,‬אהבת ה’‪.‬‬

‫*‪176‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬ ‫‪“Hos 11,1-4 envisages the early history of Israel as the realisation‬‬ ‫‪ for Israel. Through this verb, the covenantal‬אהב ‪(sic) of Yahweh’s‬‬ ‫‪relationship of Yahweh with Israel is depicted as a close personal‬‬ ‫‪relationship, which has a high emotional content”.87‬‬

‫המשמעות של ההיגד “כי אל אנכי ולא איש” תהיה אפוא שה’ אינו חוזר בו מן הברית‬ ‫עם ישראל‪ ,‬בניגוד לטבעם הבוגדני של בני אדם‪ 88.‬ואכן בספר הושע מצויות האשמות‬ ‫מפורשות כנגד ישראל על הפרת הברית עם ה’‪“ :‬והמה כאדם עברו ברית שם בגדו בי”‬ ‫(ו ‪...“ ;)7‬יען עברו בריתי ועל תורתי פשעו” (ח ‪.)1‬‬ ‫נאמנותו של ה’ לברית באה לביטוי בספרות המקראית בדרכים שונות‪ .‬בתכונתו‬ ‫השבעה אשר נשבע לאבתיכם הוציא‬ ‫ֻ‬ ‫כשומר אמונים‪“ :‬כי מאהבת ה’ אתכם ומשמרו את‬ ‫ה’ אתכם‪ ...‬וידעת כי ה’ אלהיך הוא האל הנאמן שומר הברית והחסד לאהביו ולשמרי‬ ‫מצותו [קרי‪ :‬מצותיו] לאלף דור” (דב’ ז ‪“ ;)9-8‬שמר הברית והחסד לעבדיך ההלכים‬ ‫לפניך בכל לבם” (מל”א ח ‪ = 23‬דה”ב ו ‪“ ;)14‬שמר הברית וחסד לאהביו ולשמרי מצותיו”‬ ‫(נחמ’ א ‪ .)5‬בפעולתו בהיסטוריה‪“ :‬זכר לעולם בריתו דבר צוה לאלף דור” (תה’ קה ‪;)8‬‬ ‫“ויחר אף ה’ בעמו‪ ...‬וירא בצר להם בשמעו את רנתם; ויזכר להם בריתו וינחם כרב‬ ‫חסדו [קרי‪ :‬חסדיו]” (תה’ קו ‪“ ;)45-40‬טרף נתן ליראיו יזכר לעולם בריתו” (תה’ קיא ‪;)5‬‬ ‫“וברחמיך הרבים לא עשיתם כלה ולא עזבתם כי אל חנון ורחום אתה‪ ...‬שומר הברית‬ ‫והחסד‪( ”...‬נחמ’ ט ‪ .)32-31‬בהבטחה לשמירת אמונים של ה’‪“ :‬והיה עקב תשמעון את‬ ‫המשפטים האלה ושמרתם ועשיתם אתם ושמר ה’ אלהיך לך את הברית ואת החסד אשר‬ ‫נשבע לאבתיך; ואהבך וברכך והרבך‪( ”...‬דב’ ד ‪“ ;)13-12‬לעולם אשמור [קרי‪ :‬אשמר] לו‬ ‫חסדי ובריתי נאמנת לו ‪ ...‬וחסדי לא אפיר מעמו ולא אשקר באמונתי; לא אחלל בריתי‬ ‫ומוצא שפתי לא אשנה; אחת נשבעתי בקדשי אם לדוד אכזב” (תה’ פט‪ ,‬פס’ ‪.)36-34 ,29‬‬ ‫יושם על לב כי בחלק מן הכתובים נאמנותו של ה’ קשורה לנאמנותם של ישראל‬ ‫לברית‪ :‬וי’ כו ‪ ;42-40‬דב’ ד‪ ;31-30 ,13-12‬ז‪ ;9-8 ,‬מל”א ח ‪ ;23‬תה’ קו ‪ ;45-40‬קיא ‪;5‬‬ ‫נחמ’ א ‪ 89.5‬עם זאת מצויים מספר כתובים שאינם מתנים את נאמנות ה’ לברית‪/‬לישראל‬ ‫בהתנהגותם של ישראל‪ :‬כך בוי’ כו ‪“ :44‬ואף גם זאת בהיותם בארץ איביהם לא מאסתים‬ ‫ולא געלתים לכלתם להפר בריתי אתם כי אני ה’ אלהיהם”; וכך ביח’ טז ‪“ :63-59‬כי כה‬ ‫אמר ד’ ה’ ועשית [קרי‪ :‬ועשיתי] אותך כאשר עשית אשר בזית אלה להפר ברית; וזכרתי‬ ‫אני את בריתי אותך בימי נעוריך והקימותי לך ברית עולם; וזכרת את דרכיך ונכלמת‪...‬‬ ‫והקימותי אני את בריתי אתך‪ ...‬למען תזכרי ובשת‪ ...‬בכפרי לך לכל אשר עשית‪.”...‬‬

‫‪ .87‬קאקנאטו‪ ,‬הושע יא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.39‬‬ ‫‪ .88‬קאקנאטו‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.89‬‬ ‫‪ .89‬ראו גם וי’ כו ‪.42-40‬‬

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪177‬‬

‫ג‪ .‬סיכום ומסקנות‬ ‫במאמר זה דנו בכמה היגדים מקראיים מתחומים שונים המבקשים להבדיל בין האל‬ ‫לבין בן־אנוש‪ .‬התחום האחד‪ ,‬היקף הראייה‪ :‬זו של ה’ שהיא בלתי מוגבלת‪ ,‬לעומת ראייתו‬ ‫החלקית של האדם‪ .‬בראייתו העצומה של האלוהים יכול הוא להגיע אל נבכי מחשבתו‪,‬‬ ‫רגשותיו ותכונותיו של האדם‪ ,‬ויכול הוא למצוא את החכמה ולהשתמש בה‪ .‬יכולות אלה‬ ‫נבצרות מבני תמותה‪ .‬התחומים האחרים‪ ,‬המבדילים את האלוהים מבני אנוש‪ ,‬מושתתים‬ ‫על הכתובים בהושע פרק יא‪ .‬לפי פירוש אחד‪ ,‬ניתן לפרש את הקביעה “כי אל אנכי ולא‬ ‫איש” כאפיונו של ה’ כמי שרחמיו גוברים על כעסו‪ ,‬או בלשון אחר‪ :‬בעל איפוק וריסון‬ ‫עצמי‪ .‬לפי פירוש אחר‪ ,‬אותה קביעה “כי אל אנכי ולא איש” מאפיינת את ה’ כנאמן‬ ‫להבטחותיו‪ ,‬לבריתו עם ישראל‪ .‬מטבע הדברים‪ ,‬על פי שני הפירושים מנוגד אופיו של‬ ‫ה’ לאופיו של בשר ודם‪.‬‬ ‫‪90‬‬ ‫התחומים השונים משמשים בכתובים כעדות לפער בין האלוהים לבין האדם‪ ,‬אולם‬ ‫יש מקום לשאול האם קיים הבדל מהותי בין התחומים בכול הנוגע לפער בין האל לאדם‪.‬‬ ‫קרל ון דר טורן‪ ,‬קובע בערך ‘אלהים’ שב’מילון האלים והדמונים במקרא’‪ ,‬כי הכתובים‬ ‫שכמותם נידונו במאמר זה (במ’ כג ‪“ :19‬לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם‪ ;”...‬יש’ לא‬ ‫‪“ :3‬ומצרים אדם ולא אל‪ )”...‬משקפים תפיסה אנטי־אנתרופומורפית‪ ,‬בהדגישם את‬ ‫הפער בין האלוהי לאנושי‪ .‬עם זאת התנגדות זו איננה פוסלת את האנתרופומורפיזם‬ ‫כשלעצמו‪“ :‬תכונות האלוהים הינן תכונות אנושיות‪ ,‬עם זאת מזוקקות מפגם ומגבירות‬ ‫את המימדים העל־אנושיים (‪ ...)superhuman‬האל הוא יותר מאשר בן־אנוש‪ ...‬קיים פער‬ ‫עצום בדרגה (‪ ,)in degree‬אך לא במהות (‪ 91.)nature‬לכאורה קביעתו של ון דר טורן‬ ‫תקיפה במיוחד כאשר הפער בין אלוהים לאדם הוא בתחום האנתרופופאתיזם‪ :‬במקום‬ ‫שמיוחסות לאלוהות תכונות רגשיות הרי הוא ובני האדם מצויים‪ ,‬למעשה‪ ,‬באותה סירה‪.‬‬ ‫אולם קביעתו של הושע “בקרבך קדוש” (יא ‪ )9‬רואה את האלוהים כשונה באופן מהותי‬ ‫מן האדם‪ ,‬כמשמעות הכינוי ‘קדוש’ בנוגע לאל‪ 92.‬גם אם ניתן למצוא בספרות המקראית‬ ‫מספר (מצומצם) של דמויות אנושיות שגילו ריסון ביחסם לאחרים‪ 93,‬הרי בספר הושע‬ ‫עולה קביעה עקרונית‪ :‬האל שונה מהותית מבני אדם! קביעה זו תהיה‪ ,‬אפוא‪ ,‬נכונה בין‬ ‫אם נפרש את דברי הכתובים בהושע כנוגעים לענייני רחמים בין אם נפרשם כנוגעים‬ ‫לענייני נאמנות‪.‬‬ ‫אף הכתובים המדברים בראייתו המיוחדת של האל‪ ,‬משקפים תפיסה לפיה יש‬ ‫לאלוהים יכולת שאיננה מצויה אצל בני אדם‪ ,‬באשר בני האדם מוגבלים בראייתם ובמידת‬

‫‪ .90‬הגדרתה של הישות האנושית נעשית באמצעות הכינויים ‘(ה)אדם’‪‘ ,‬איש’‪‘ ,‬אנוש’‪‘ ,‬בשר’‪‘ ,‬גבר’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .91‬ון דר טורן‪ ,‬אלהים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.362‬‬ ‫‪ .92‬השוו‪ :‬וולף‪ ,‬הושע על אתר; סטוארט‪ ,‬הושע‪ ,‬על אתר; קאקנאטו‪ ,‬הושע יא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“ :132‬קדושת‬ ‫האל מדגישה את האופי הטרנסצנדנטי שלו‪ .‬הכינוי ‘קדוש’‪ ...‬מתייחס לאחרּות של האל‪( ...‬השוו‪ :‬יש’ ו ‪.”)3‬‬ ‫‪ .93‬דמויות מקראיות המתוארות כבעלות ריסון הן למשל יוסף (בר’ מה ‪ 5‬ואילך; נ ‪ ;)21-15‬דויד‬ ‫(שמ”א כה)‪ .‬על המדרג בין אלוהים לבני אדם ניתן לעמוד גם מתוך שמ”ב כד ‪“ :14‬נפלה נא ביד ה’ כי‬ ‫רבים (=גדולים) רחמיו וביד אדם אל אפלה (כי מעטים רחמיו)”‪.‬‬

‫*‪178‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫הבחנותיהם מעצם טבעם‪ .‬אף כתובים אלה משקפים תפיסה לפיה האל הוא טרנסצנדנטי‪,‬‬ ‫‪94‬‬ ‫היינו‪ :‬אחר‪ ,‬שונה‪ .‬הוא אינו ‪ superman‬אלא ‪ ,superbeing‬ישות אחרת לחלוטין‪.‬‬ ‫עיון באותם היגדים הפזורים בספרות המקראית המצביעים באופן מפורש על פערים‬ ‫בין אלוהים לבן האנוש לא כולם עולים בקנה אחד עם התפיסה כי האל שונה באופן‬ ‫מהותי מן האדם‪ .‬מצד אחד קיימים אומנם‪ ,‬כתובים המצביעים על פערים מהותיים‪,‬‬ ‫כגון‪ :‬חיי הנצח של האל לעומת חייו הקצובים של האדם (בר’ ג ‪ ;24-22‬בר ו ‪ ;3‬יח’ כח‬ ‫‪ ;10-1‬תה’ פב ‪ ;)7-6‬מקום משכנו של האל בשמים לעומת משכנו של האדם עלי אדמות‬ ‫(תה’ קטו ‪ ;16‬מש’ ל ‪ ;4-1‬קה’ ה ‪ ;)1‬הנסתרות השמורות לאל בלבד (דב’ כט ‪ 95.)8‬אולם‬ ‫מצד שני‪ ,‬קיימים כתובים המצביעים על הבדלים שבעוצמה גרידא‪ :‬כוחו של האלוהים‬ ‫בהשוואה לזו של בני האדם (כגון‪ :‬איוב יב ‪ ;25-12‬מ ‪ ;32-9‬דה”ב לב ‪ ;)8-7‬היקפן של‬ ‫תוכניות ה’ המתגשמות תמיד (יש’ נה ‪ ;)11-8‬רחמי ה’ הגדולים מרחמי בשר ודם (שמ”ב‬ ‫כד ‪ ,)14‬או הגנתו של ה’ היעילה מזו של בני אדם (תה’ קיח ‪.)9-8‬‬ ‫למותר לציין כי חלוקת ההיגדים לשתי קבוצות‪ ,‬חלוקה המשקפת תפיסות שונות‬ ‫בנוגע למידת הפער ‪ /‬הקרבה בין האלוהות לאנושות תלויה‪ ,‬לא אחת‪ ,‬בפרשנותם של‬ ‫הכתובים‪ .‬דוגמא לכך הוא איוב פרק כח‪ .‬אליבא דרוב הפרשנים והחוקרים‪ ,‬פס’ ‪11-1‬‬ ‫מתארים את יכולתו של האדם לנצל את חוכמתו בכריית מחצבים ובגילויין של אבנים‬ ‫טובות‪ .‬פועל יוצא של פרשנות זו הוא כי הפער בין האל לאדם הוא בהיקף‪ ,‬במידה‪,‬‬ ‫כטענת פידס‪“The kind of wisdom available to God and man is therefore the :‬‬ ‫‪same – the ability to survey and so to handle the world. The difference is in the‬‬ ‫‪extent. Man may achieve much in certain areas (1-11), but he can never achieve‬‬ ‫‪that grasp of the world that belong to God (23-27), a distinction that is summed‬‬ ‫‪up in the riddle: But where can wisdom (itself) be found?”96‬‬

‫לעומת זאת אם נקבל את פרשנותו של גרינשטיין‪ ,‬לפיה פס’ ‪ 11-1‬מתארים את‬ ‫פעולותיו של האל‪ ,‬ולא של האדם‪ 97,‬או אז פרק כח שבאיוב אינו מותיר לאדם שום הישג‬ ‫בתחום החכמה‪ .‬הפער בין האל לבין האדם הוא פער שבמהות‪.‬‬ ‫מעיוננו בדוגמאות הנדונות במאמר זה ניתן‪ ,‬אפוא‪ ,‬להסיק כי גם אותם כתובים‬ ‫המייחסים תכונות אלוהיות לבני אדם יש שתופסים את האלוהות כישות מיוחדת‪,‬‬ ‫טרנסצנדנטית‪ .‬ללמדנו כי עלינו לבחון את ההיגדים המקראיים בהקשרם המיידי‪ ,‬ולאו‬ ‫דווקא בהקשרם הכלל מקראי‪.‬‬

‫‪ .94‬הבחנה זו בעקבות פניקר‪ ,‬אלוהות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.268–265‬‬ ‫‪ .95‬לכאורה כתוב זה שייך לקבוצת המקראות הראשונה בהם דנו במאמר והנוגעים לראיית האל‬ ‫המיוחדת‪ ,‬אלא שעד לכתיבת המאמר לא הגעתי לפירוש משביע רצון של הכתוב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .96‬פידס‪ ,‬נסתרּות החכמה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.151‬‬ ‫‪ .97‬גרינשטיין‪ ,‬איוב כח‪ ,‬ובעיקר עמ’ ‪.263–253‬‬

179*

‫ בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬,‫ על פערים שבראייה‬:‫בין אלוהים לאדם‬

‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫ מהדורה מחודשת‬,‫ מאת ש"ל גורדון‬...‫ הושע = תרי־עשר עם פירוש חדש‬,‫אופנהיימר‬ ‫ תל־אביב תשכ"ח‬,‫ כרך א‬,‫ פירש והתקין מבואות ב› אופנהיימר‬.‫ומתוקנת‬ W. Eichrodt, “‘The Holy One in Your Midst”, = ‫ בקרבך קדוש‬,‫אייכרודט‬ Interpretation 15 (1961), pp. 259-273 W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (trans. by = ‫ תיאולוגיה א‬,‫אייכרודט‬ J.A. Baker from the German Theologie des Alten Testament, Teil I, 19596), Vol. I, London 1961, 1964 M. Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion (tran. By R. Sheed = ‫ דגמים‬,‫אליאדה‬ from the French Traité d’histoire des religion, 1949), Lincoln-London 1996 R.B. Bjornard, “Hosea 11:8-9, God’s Word or Man’s = ‫ ח–ט‬,‫ הושע יא‬,‫ביורנרד‬ Insight?”, Biblical Research 27 (1982), pp. 16-25 D.E. Gowan, Theology of the Prophetic Books. The Death and = ‫ ספרי הנבואה‬,‫גוון‬ Resurrection of Israel, Louisville KT 1998 H. Gunkel – J. Begrich, Introduction to Psalms. = ‫ מבוא לתהלים‬,‫גונקל־בגריך‬ The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel (trans. by J.D. Nogalski from the fourth edition of Einleitung in die Psalmen: die Gattungen der relogiösen Lyrik Israels 19854; 19331), Macon GA 1998 A Gilan, “Were There Cannibals in Syria? History and Fiction in = ‫ קניבלים‬,‫גילן‬ an Old Hittite Literary Text”, Papers on Ancient Literatures: Greece, Rome and the Near East, eds. E. Cingano & L. Milano ,Padova 2008, pp. 267-284 G.S. Glanzman, “Two Notes: Am 3,15 and Os 11,8-9”, = ‫ שתי הערות‬,‫גלנזמן‬ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 23 (1961), pp. 227-233 F.E. Greenspahn, “A Mesopotamian Proverb and Its Biblical = ‫ משל‬,‫גרינספן‬ Reverberations”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 114 (1994), pp. 33-38

,‫ משלים מספרות מצרים העתיקה‬,‫ מזמורים‬,‫ סיפורים‬,‫ מספרות מצרים = י"מ גרינץ‬,‫גרינץ‬ ‫ירושלים תשל"ה‬ E.L. Greenstein, “The Poem on Wisdom in Job 28 and its = ‫ איוב כח‬,‫גרינשטיין‬ Conceptual and Literary Contexts”, Job 28. Cognition in Context, ed. E. Van Wolde, Leiden-Boston 2003, pp. 253-280 M. Dahood, “Hebrew–Ugaritic Lexicography VII”, = ‫ עברית–אוגריתית‬,‫דהוד‬ Biblica 50 (1969), pp. 337-356 N.C. Habel, The Book of Job. A Commentary (Old Testament Library), = ‫ איוב‬,‫הבל‬ Philadelphia PA 1985 V.A. Hurowitz, “The Divinity of Humankind in the Bible = ‫ אלוהות האדם‬,‫הורוויץ‬ and the Ancient Near East: A New Mesopotamian Parallel”, Mishneh Todah;

‫רימון כשר‬

180*

Studies in Deuteronomy and Its Cultural Environment (Fs. Jeffrey H. Tigay), eds. N.S. Fox et.al., Winona Lake, IN 2009, pp. 263-274

‫ אלי קדם־‬,"‫ "לדיוקנו של האל המסופוטמי‬,‫ דיוקנו של האל = א"ו הורוויץ‬,‫הורוויץ‬ ‫הפוליתיאיזם בארץ ישראל ושכנותיה מן האלף השני לפסה”נ ועד התקופה‬ 33-8 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשס”ח‬,‫ בעריכת מ’ קיסטר ואחרים‬,‫המוסלמית‬ J.F. Healey, “The Immortality of the King: Ugarit and the Psalms”, = ‫ חיי נצח‬,‫הילי‬ Orientalia 53 (1984), pp. 245-254 J.E. Hartley, The Book of Job, Grand Rapids MI 1988 = ‫ איוב‬,‫הרטלי‬ S.L. Harris, “Wisdom or Creation? A New Interpretation = ‫ חכמה או בריאה‬,‫הריס‬ of Job XXVIII 27”, Vetus Testamentum 4 (1983), pp. 419-427 W.R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and = ‫ הושע‬,‫הרפר‬ Hosea (International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh 1905 A.J. Heschel, The Prophets, New York 1962 = ‫ הנביאים‬,‫השל‬

‫ תורה נביאים וכתובים‬,)‫ א' כהנא (עורך‬:‫ אצל‬,‫ הושע‬,‫ הושע = י"י ב"צ וויינקאפ‬,‫וויינקאפ‬ 58–3 / ‫ עמ' א–כט‬,‫ קיוב תרס"ז‬,‫ חלק ראשון‬,‫ ספר תרי עשר‬,‫ נביאים‬.‫עם פירוש מדעי‬ H.W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (tran. by W. Janzen. S.Dean = ‫ יואל ועמוס‬,‫וולף‬ McBride, Ch. A. Muenchow from the German Dodekapropheten 2 Joel und Amos, 1975) (Hermeneia), Philadelphia PA 1977

‫ מהדורה‬,‫ מאת ש"ל גורדון‬...‫ ספר בראשית עם פירוש חדש‬,‫ בראשית = מ' ויינפלד‬,‫ויינפלד‬ ‫ תל־אביב תשל"ה‬,‫מחודשת ומתוקנת‬ K. van der Toorn, s.v., “GOD” (1), “‫”אלהים‬, Dictionary of = ‫ אלהים‬,‫ון דר טורן‬ Deities and Demons in the Bible2, Leiden-Boston-Köln 1999, pp. 352-365 E. Van Wolde (ed.), Job 28. Cognition in Context, Leiden- = ‫ איוב כח‬,‫ון וולדה‬ Boston 2003 R.C. Van Leeuwen, “The Background to Proverbs = ‫ ד‬,‫ הרקע למשלי ל‬,‫ון ליוון‬ 30:4a”, Wisdom, You Are My Sister. Fest. R.E. Murphy, ed. M.L. Barré, Washington MD 1997

‫ ירושלים תשס”ט‬,‫החתים ותרבותם‬ ִ ,‫ החתים = א' זינגר‬,‫זינגר‬ — ‫ תהלים עח‬.‫ ויבחר בדוד עבדו‬...‫ "'ויבחר את שבט יהודה‬,‫ תה' עח = י' זקוביץ‬,‫זקוביץ‬ '‫ בעריכת ה' ברוך וא‬,?‫ דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים‬,"‫ משמעות ומגמה‬,‫ מבנה‬,‫מקורות‬ 202–117 '‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשנ"ז‬,‫ליפשיץ‬ J.H. Tigay, “Divine Creation of the King in Psalms 2:6”, = ‫ בריאה אלוהית‬,‫טיגיי‬ 251*–246* ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשס”ג‬,‫ארץ־ישראל כז‬ H.-W. Jüngling, “Aspekte des Redens von Gott bei Hosea”, = ‫ אספקטים‬,‫יונגלינג‬ Theologie und Philosophie 54 (1979), pp. 335-358 J. Joosten, “1 Samuel XVI 6, 7 in the Peshitta Version”, = ‫ ו–ז‬,‫ שמ"א טז‬,‫יוסטן‬ VetusTestamentum 41 (1991), pp. 226-223

181*

‫ בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬,‫ על פערים שבראייה‬:‫בין אלוהים לאדם‬

Sh. Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind, Winona Lake, IN 2001 = ‫ אדפה‬,‫יזרעאל‬ S. Japhet, I & II Chronicles (Old Testament Library), London 1993 = ‫ דה"י‬,‫יפת‬

‫ תל־אביב–ירושלים תשס"ו‬,)‫ עם מבוא ופירוש (מקרא לישראל‬,‫ נחום‬,‫ נחום = מ' כוגן‬,‫כוגן‬ A. Lo, Job 28 as Rhetoric. An analysis of Job 28 in the context of Job = ‫ איוב כח‬,‫לו‬ 22-31 (Vetus Testamentum supplements 97) Leiden 2003 Edward W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, London 1863-1893, = ‫ מילון‬,‫ליין‬ vol. IV

‫ ירושלים תשל"ג‬,‫ הניסיון במקרא וביהדות של תקופת בית שני‬,‫ הניסיון = י' ליכט‬,‫ליכט‬ ’‫ טור‬,‫ ירושלים תשכ”ח‬,‫ ה‬,‫ אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬,”‫ “נְ ָק ָמה‬,‫ נקמה = י"ש ליכט‬,‫ליכט‬ 921–917 S. Mowinckel, Hosea (Det Gamle Testamente, oversatt av S. = ‫ הושע‬,‫מובינקל‬ Michelet, S. Mowinckel og N. Messel), Oslo 1944 S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh (trans. by G.W. Anderson from = ‫ משיח‬,‫מובינקל‬ the Norwegian Han som Kommer, 1951), Oxford 1959

‫ לשון ודת במקרא ובספרות חז"ל‬,‫ חוק‬.‫ אהבה ושמחה‬,‫ אהבה ושמחה = י' מופס‬,‫מופס‬ ‫ ירושלים תשס"ב‬,)‫(תרגם מאנגלית א' מלצר‬ ,"‫ קווים סמנטיים ומילוניים‬:‫ "לשאלת ייחוד לשונו של הושע‬,‫ הושע = ש' מורג‬,‫מורג‬ ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ מחקרים בלשון המקרא‬,‫ (=ש' מורג‬510–489 '‫ עמ‬,)‫תרביץ נג (תשמ"ד‬ )103–82 '‫ עמ‬,‫תשנ"ו‬ J.L. Mays, Hosea. A Commentary (Old Testament Library), London = ‫ הושע‬,‫מייס‬ 1969 J. Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (Anchor Bible), New York = ‫ ויקרא יז–כב‬,‫מילגרום‬ 2000 F. Brown, S.R. Driver, Ch.A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon = ‫מילון בד"ב‬ of the Old Testament, Oxford 1907, 1951 A.A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on = ‫ הושע‬,‫מקינטוש‬ Hosea (International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh 1997 K. Marti, Das Dodekaprophton (Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum = ‫ הושע‬,‫מרטי‬ Alten Testament), Tübingen 1904 H.S. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche: zugleich ein = ‫ מחקרים בספר הושע‬,‫ניברג‬ Beitrag zur Klarung des problems der alttestamentlichen Textkritik, Uppsala 1935 D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (World Biblical Connentary), Waco TX = ‫ הושע‬,‫סטוארט‬ 1987 D. Sivan and W. Schniedewind, “Letting Your ‘Yes’ Be ‘No’ = ‫ לא‬,‫סיון־שניידוינד‬ in Ancient Israel: A Study of the Asservative ‫ לא‬and ‫”ֲֹהלֺא‬, Journal of Semitic Studies 38 (1993), pp. 209-226

‫רימון כשר‬

182*

M.S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism – Israel’s = ‫ מקורות‬,‫סמית‬ Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford 2001 G.A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets, Commonly Called = ‫ תרי־עשר‬,‫סמית‬ the Minor (The Expositor’s Bible), Vol. 1, London 1896, 19282 H. J. Fabry, s.v., “‫ לבב‬,‫”לב‬, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,= ‫ לב‬,‫פברי‬ 7 (1995), pp. 399-437

‫ ירושלים‬,‫בחינות בעיצוב ובאמנות‬-‫ הסיפור במקרא‬,‫ הסיפור במקרא = פ’ פולק‬,‫פולק‬ ‫תשנ”ד‬ C.R. Fontaine, Traditional Sayings in the Old Testament, = ‫ פתגמים‬,‫פונטין‬ Sheffield 1982 F.S. Fiddes, The Hiddenness of Wisdom in the Old = ‫ נסתרּות החכמה‬,‫פידס‬ Testament and later Judaism, unpub. Ph.D. Diss., Oxford 1976 R. Panikkar, s.v., “Deity”, The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. = ‫ אלוהות‬,‫פניקר‬ Eliade, New York-London 1987, vol. 4, pp. 264-276

‫ שנתון לחקר המקרא‬,"‫ "לתפיסת המלוכה בספר תהלים‬,‫ המלוכה = ע' פריש‬,‫פריש‬ 76–57 '‫ עמ‬,)‫והמזרח הקדום יט (תשס"ט‬ F. Perles, “Critical Notes: Gesenius’ Hebrew Dictionary”, Jewish = ‫ ביקורת‬,‫פרלס‬ Quarterly Review, 11 (1899), pp. 688-690 F. Perles, “Notes critiques sur le Texte de L’Ecclésiastique”, Revue = ‫ הערות‬,‫פרלס‬ des Études Juives 35 (1897), pp. 48-63 T.E. Fretheim, The Suffering of God, Philadelphia PA 1984 = ‫ סבל האל‬,‫פרתיים‬

‫ מנח עד‬:'‫ חלק ב‬,‫ פירוש על ספר בראשית‬,‫ מנח עד אברהם = מ"ד קאסוטו‬,‫קאסוטו‬ 2 ‫ ירושלים תשי"ג‬,‫אברהם‬ J.P. Kakkanattu, God’s Enduring Love in the Book of Hosea. = ‫ הושע יא‬,‫קאקנאטו‬ A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Hosea 11,1-11 (Forschungen zum AT 2. Reihe 14), Tübingen 2006 I. Cagni, The Poem of Erra, Malibu FL 1977 = ‫ אררה‬,‫קגני‬

‫ אוצר לשון המקרא‬.‫ מילון העברית המקראית‬,‫ מילון העברית המקראית = מ"צ קדרי‬,‫קדרי‬ ‫ רמת־גן תשס"ו‬,‫מאל"ף עד תי"ו‬ ‫ הלשון והרקע הלשוני של מגילת ישעיהו השלמה ממגלות ים‬,‫ הלשון = י' קוטשר‬,‫קוטשר‬ ‫ ירושלים תשי"ט‬,‫המלח‬ ‫ ירושלים — תל־אביב‬,‫ ו–ז‬,‫ תולדות האמונה הישראלית‬,‫ תולדות ו–ז = י' קויפמן‬,‫קויפמן‬ ‫תש"ך‬ Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and = ‫ בן אלוהים‬,‫קולינס־קולינס‬ Messiah as Son of God. Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, Grand Rapids-Cambridge, U.K. 2008 J. Conrad, s.v., “‫”נדב‬, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, = ‫ נדב‬,‫קונרד‬ 9 (1998), pp. 219-226

‫בין אלוהים לאדם‪ :‬על פערים שבראייה‪ ,‬בריסון עצמי ובנאמנות‬

‫*‪183‬‬

‫קלינס‪ ,‬איוב = ‪D.J.A. Clines, Job 21-37 (WBC), Nashville TN 2006‬‬ ‫קראסיק‪ ,‬גבולות = ‪M. Carasik, “The Limits of Omniscience”, Journal of Biblical‬‬ ‫‪Literature 119 (2000), pp. 221-232‬‬ ‫רובינזון‪ ,‬תרי עשר = ‪T.H. Robinson, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten (Handbuch zum‬‬ ‫‪Alten Testament), Tübingen 19532‬‬

‫רודין־אוברסקי‪ ,‬מאלוני ממרא עד סדום = ט' רודין־אוברסקי‪ ,‬מאלוני ממרא עד סדום‬ ‫(בראשית י"ח – י"ט)‪-‬הרכבו של הסיפור ועיצובו הספרותי‪ ,‬ירושלים תשמ”ב‬ ‫רינגרן‪ ,‬אלהים = ‪”, Theological Dictionary of the Old‬אלהים“ ‪H. Ringgren, s.v.,‬‬ ‫‪Testament 1 (19772), pp. 267-284‬‬

‫שפרה־קליין‪ ,‬בימים הרחוקים ההם = ש’ שפרה – י’ קליין‪ ,‬בימים הרחוקים ההם —‬ ‫אנתולוגיה משירת המזרח הקדום‪ ,‬תל־אביב תשנ”ז‬

‫*‪184‬‬

‫רימון כשר‬

‫עריכה וחיבור במשלי כב ‪ - 17‬כג ‪10‬‬

‫*‪185‬‬

‫עריכה וחיבור במשלי כב ‪ - 17‬כג ‪10‬‬ ‫מיכאל פוקס‬ ‫בשנת ‪ 1924‬פירסם האגיפטולוג אדולף ארמן מאמר בשם ״מקור מצרי לחכמת‬ ‫שלמה״‪ ,‬בו קבע שמשלי כב ‪ — 17‬כד ‪ 22‬הינו תירגום מחכמת אמנמאפה‪ 1.‬במרוצת השנים‪,‬‬ ‫חוקרים אחרים חיזקו ופיתחו את התאוריה של ארמן‪ ,‬איש כדרכו‪ 2.‬לדעתי‪ ,‬התאוריה היא‬ ‫מוכחת ועומדת בעינה‪ ,‬אבל השאלות לגבי מידת התלות ודרכי השימוש במקור המצרי‬ ‫עדיין פתוחות‪ .‬שיפר‪ ,‬תוך עיון מפורט בדמיונות והבדלים בשני הטקסטים‪ ,‬טוען שבין‬ ‫שתי היצירות אין תלות הדוקה (הגם שמחבר ראה ושאב מספר אמנמאפה) אלא שאיבה‬ ‫של מוטיבים‪ ,‬נושאים ומושגים‪ ,‬תוך כדי ״תהליך של קריאה־מחדש״ כפי שאנו רואים‬ ‫במסורת החכמתית המצרית‪ 3.‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬אטען לקמן שהתלות במקור המצרי הייתה‬ ‫ישירה והדוקה משום שניכר כי המחבר מתחשב בטקסט שלפניו בכל צעד‪ ,‬ויחד עם זאת‬ ‫הוא נהג בחומר ששאב מאמנמאפה כבחומר גלם בעצבו יצירה חדשה משלו‪ .‬אותו סופר‬ ‫עברי היה עורך ומחבר כאחד‪ ,‬ולהלן אכנה אותו ״המחבר״ בהתחשב במובן האטימולוגי‬ ‫של המילה‪.‬‬ ‫במסה הנוכחית אשתדל לתאר את תהליך החיבור ביתר דיוק מכפי שנעשה בעבר‪,‬‬ ‫ותוך כדי כך לתרום להבנת ההוראה העברית עצמה‪ .‬הדיון יתחיל בסיכום ובפיתוח של‬ ‫דברים שכתבתי בפירושי לספר משלי‪ 4,‬ומשם יעבור לעיון בשימוש שעשה המחבר העברי‬ ‫בספר אמנמאפה והכוונות המתבהרות מעיון כזה‪ .‬לדעתי‪ ,‬אפשר להבחין כי המגילה‬ ‫עצמה הייתה בידי המחבר‪ ,‬או שהיה לו עוזר שהקריא אותה לפניו‪ .‬הטקסט במגילה זאת‬ ‫היה קרוב מאוד לנוסח שהגיע אלינו במצרית‪ ,‬ונראה אף שיש להניח שהטקסט ששימש‬ ‫את המחבר העברי היה בארמית‪ .‬כי הרי קשה להעלות על הדעת שאיש ישראלי‪-‬יהודי‬

‫‪( .1‬ארמן‪ ,‬מקור מצרי ‪1924‬א‪1924 ,‬ב)‪ .‬מאז השתכנעו רוב החוקרים בנכונותה העקרונית של תיזה‬ ‫זו‪ .‬ליתר דיוק‪ ,‬היחידה המושפעת מאמנמאפה היא משלי כב ‪ — 17‬כג ‪ ,11‬שמהווָ ה את המחצית הראשונה‬ ‫של הקובץ השלישי בספר משלי (כב ‪ — 17‬כד ‪ .)22‬אכנה יחידה זו קובץ ‪3‬א‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬ראו‪ :‬ברייס‪ ,‬מורשת חכמה; רומהלד‪ ,‬חכמה; אמרטון‪ ,‬אמנמאפה ומשלי; שופק‪ ,‬אמנמאפה‬ ‫ומשלי; פוקס‪ ,‬התהוות; הנ”ל משלי י‪-‬לא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .767–753 ;713–704‬לסקירת תולדות המחקר‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬שיפר‪,‬‬ ‫אמנמאפה ומשלי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.57–53‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬שיפר‪ ,‬אמנמאפה ומשלי‪ ,‬וראו הסיכום‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.71‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬פוקס‪ ,‬משלי י‪-‬לא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.767–753‬‬

‫*‪185‬‬

‫*‪186‬‬

‫מיכאל פוקס‬

‫היה לומד לקרוא בכתב ההיראטי‪ ,‬שדרש כמה שנות לימוד בבית ספר מצרי‪ ,‬או שסופר‬ ‫מצרי היה טורח ללמוד את השפה השולית‪ ,‬עברית‪ .‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬בתקופת האימפריה‬ ‫האשורית ואילך‪ ,‬השפה הארמית הייתה ידועה בחוגי החצר הן במצרים והן בלבנט‪ ,‬כפי‬ ‫שעולה‪ ,‬בין היתר‪ ,‬ממל״ב יח ‪.26‬‬ ‫אפתח בדברי הקדמה אחדים‪ .‬אם נקבל את התאוריה הנ״ל‪ ,‬כיצד נסביר את המעבר‬ ‫של חכמת אמנמאפה לחכם העברי? לדעתי‪ ,‬נדרשת ההשערה‪ ,‬הסבירה אם לא מוכחת‪,‬‬ ‫שהספר נודע בארץ (ולמעשה‪ ,‬בירושלים) בצורה של תרגום לארמית‪ ,‬כי‪ ,‬כפי שציינתי‬ ‫לעיל‪ ,‬לא עולה על דעתי האפשרות שאיש ישראל היה לומד את הכתב ההיארטי (חוץ‬ ‫מהס ָפרות ששימשו באפיגרפיה העברית)‪ ,‬אבל בעקבות הכיבוש האשורי היו גם מצריים‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫וגם יהודאים שידעו‪ ,‬במידה כזו או אחרת‪ ,‬ארמית‪ ,‬הלינגואה פראנקה של המזרח התיכון‬ ‫במאה השביעית והלאה (ראו‪ :‬מל״ב יח ‪ .)26‬תקופה זו‪ ,‬התקופה הסאית במצרים (‪525-‬‬ ‫‪ 664‬לפה״ס)‪ ,‬היא טווח הזמן הסביר ביותר למגעים ולהשפעות תרבותיות בין מצריים‬ ‫ויהודאים)‪ .‬בכל זאת‪ ,‬אציין מראי מקום לפי טור ושורה בפאפירוס ההיארטי הגדול של‬ ‫אמנמאפה‪ ,‬וגם אציין את מספר הפרק מבין שלושים הפרקים בספר זה‪ ,‬כתחליף למיקום‬ ‫הפסקאות במגילה הארמית המשוערת‪.‬‬ ‫באשר לתהליך הפיזי של מעשה החיבור‪ ,‬כבר טענתי‪ 5‬שהמחבר לא קפץ באקראי הנה‬ ‫והנה במגילת אמנמאפה כדי ללקט פתגמים שמצא בהם טעם‪ ,‬אלא עבר בה בשיטתיות‬ ‫ובצורה הגיונית ופשוטה‪ :‬הוא גלל את המגילה הלוך ושוב‪ ,‬כשהוא אוסף ומעבד חומרים‬ ‫ששירתו את מטרותיו‪ 6.‬נראה שהוא גלל חמש פעמים את ה״גלילות״‪ ,‬עד שכתב את‬ ‫הפסוק שאנו מכירים כמש׳ כג ‪ .11‬בנקודה זאת הוא עזב את אמנמאפה והתחיל יחידה‬ ‫חדשה‪ ,‬דהיינו קובץ ‪3‬ב‪ .‬היחידה הזאת מהווה הוראה בפני עצמה שפותחת ב״זימון״‪ ,‬או‬ ‫ב‪7‬דרישת הקשבה‪ :‬״הביאה למוסר לבך ואזנך לאמרי־דעת״ (כג ‪ ,)12‬כמקובל בפתיחות‬ ‫להוראות החכמה‪ .‬התמונה הזאת של תהליך החיבור בקובץ ‪3‬א מתאימה לאופיו של של‬ ‫חומר הקריאה שהיה בידי המחבר‪ ,‬שהיה בהכרח מגילת גומא‪ ,‬ולדפדף בה הנה והנה‪ ,‬כמו‬ ‫שניתן לעשות בקודקס‪ ,‬היה טורח מיותר‪.‬‬ ‫דיאגרמה א׳ מראה כיצד המחבר מתקדם בכל גלילה לפי סדר האמירות שבמגילת‬ ‫אמנמאפה‪ ,‬עם סטיות קלות בלבד‪ ,‬שניתן להסבירן בפשטות‪ :‬לפעמים המחבר התקדם‬ ‫קמעה למצוא חומר על אותו הנושא‪ ,‬ואז חזר למקומו הקודם‪.‬‬ ‫המקבילות המצויינות בדיאגרמה א׳ מוכרות לחוקרים מזה זמן‪ .‬ברוב המקרים הנוסח‬ ‫העברי משקף את הניסוח של המקור המצרי באופן מהימן למדי‪ .‬במקרים אחרים‪ ,‬הדמיון‬ ‫הוא יותר ענייני מלשוני‪ ,‬אבל בהתחשב בתלות המובהקת במקבילות האחרות‪ ,‬ניתן‬ ‫להניח שגם המקבילות הרופפות שביניהן מגלות גם הן את השפעת המקור המצרי‪ .‬יש‬

‫‪ .5‬פוקס‪ ,‬התהוות; הנ”ל‪ ,‬משלי י‪-‬לא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.565–525‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬סביר להניח ששני אנשים שיתפו פעולה במעשה זה‪ .‬אחד קרא ותירגם והשני רשם ועיבד‪.‬‬ ‫תיתכן כמובן חלוקה שונה של תפקידים‪ ,‬אך ודאי הוא שקשה היה לאדם אחד להחזיק ולגלול מגילה‬ ‫אחת‪ ,‬ובו־זמנית לתרגם ולכתוב בשנייה‪.‬‬

‫*‪187‬‬

‫עריכה וחיבור במשלי כב ‪ - 17‬כג ‪10‬‬

‫לציין שההבדלים בין שתי היצירות אינם נוגדים את התיזה של תלות ישירה‪ ,‬כפי שסבור‬ ‫שיפר‪ 7,‬שמבליט כל הבדל כעדות לחוסר תלות ישירה‪ .‬ברור שהמחבר לא היה מתרגם‬ ‫גרידא‪ ,‬אלא היה עורך שעיצב את החומר שקיבל‪ ,‬ובמידה רבה ניתן להסביר את השינויים‬ ‫בהתחשב עם מטרותיו‪ ,‬כפי שאעשה להלן‪.‬‬ ‫דיאגרמה א׳‪ :‬חמש הגלילות‬ ‫גלילה א‬ ‫משלי‬

‫אמנמאפה‬ ‫גלילה ב‬ ‫משלי‬

‫כב ‪17‬‬

‫כב ‪17‬‬

‫ב‬

‫‪3.9‬‬ ‫כב ‪21‬‬

‫כב ‪22‬‬

‫אמנמאפה ‪4.4-4.5 1.5-1.6‬‬

‫‪4.19‬‬

‫גלילה ג‬ ‫משלי‬

‫אמנמאפה‬ ‫גלילה ד‬ ‫משלי‬

‫א‬

‫‪3.10‬‬ ‫כב ‪23‬‬

‫ב‬

‫כב ‪18‬‬

‫ג‬

‫‪3.13‬‬

‫‪-5.10‬‬ ‫‪5.11‬‬

‫‪23.14-23.13‬‬ ‫כג ‪5‬א כג ‪5‬‬

‫כג ‪5‬‬

‫ב‬

‫ג‬

‫אמנמאפה ‪10.4 9.19 9.14 9.12 9.10‬‬

‫‪10.5‬‬

‫גלילה ה‬ ‫משלי‬

‫אמנמאפה‬

‫‪27.8-27.9‬‬

‫‪27.7‬‬ ‫כב ‪ 25‬כב ‪28‬‬

‫‪-11.13‬‬ ‫‪11.14‬‬

‫כג ‪1‬‬

‫כב ‪20‬‬

‫א‬

‫‪3.16‬‬ ‫כב ‪24‬‬

‫א‬

‫כג ‪4‬‬

‫כב ‪18‬‬

‫ב‬

‫כב ‪20‬ב‪21-‬‬

‫א‬

‫‪-15.13‬‬ ‫‪15.14‬‬

‫‪5.2‬‬

‫כב ‪29‬‬

‫‪-27.17 8.9 7.12‬‬ ‫‪27.16‬‬

‫כג ‪1‬א‪2-‬‬

‫כג ‪3‬‬

‫‪23.17‬‬

‫‪23.16-23.15‬‬ ‫כב ‪8‬‬

‫כג ‪6‬‬

‫כג ‪7‬‬

‫‪-15.9 -14.5‬‬ ‫‪15.10 14.6‬‬

‫‪14.7‬‬

‫א‬

‫כג ‪8‬‬

‫ב‬

‫‪14.14 14.17 14.8‬‬

‫כג ‪10‬‬

‫כג ‪11‬‬

‫‪)7.12( ;8.9‬‬

‫‪)7.19( ;8.14‬‬

‫אפנה עתה למניעים ולתוצאות של מעשה החיבור‪ .‬אתקדם לפני סדר הפסוקים בספר‬ ‫משלי‪ ,‬כי ניתן להניח שזה משקף את צעדי עבודתו של המחבר ביצירת ההוראה החדשה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .7‬שיפר‪ ,‬אמנמאפה ומשלי‪.‬‬

‫*‪188‬‬

‫מיכאל פוקס‬

‫דיאגרמה ב׳‪ :‬שאילה ועיצוב דברי אמנמאפה‬ ‫גלילה א‬ ‫נושאים‬ ‫זימון‪ :‬הדרישה להקשבה‬ ‫וקבלת החכמה‬ ‫שמירת דברי ההוראה‬ ‫יציבות בדיבור‬ ‫ביטחון באלוהים‬

‫שלושים האמירות‬ ‫שבח ההוראות‬

‫משלי‬

‫אמנמאפה‬

‫(כב ‪17‬בג) ‬ ‫ַהט ָאזְ נְ ָך ְ‬ ‫וְ לִ ְּבָך ָּת ִׁשית לְ ַד ְע ִּתי‬ ‫(כב ‪18‬א) ּכִ י־נָ ִעים‬ ‫י־ת ְׁש ְמ ֵרם ְּב ִב ְטנֶ ָך‬ ‫ּכִ ִ‬ ‫(כב ‪18‬ב) יִ ּכֹנּו יַ ְח ָּדו‬ ‫ל־ׂש ָפ ֶתיָך‬ ‫ַע ְ‬ ‫(כב ‪ )19‬לִ ְהיֹות ַּבה’‬ ‫הֹוד ְע ִּתיָך ַהּיֹום‬ ‫ִמ ְב ַט ֶחָך ַ‬ ‫ף־א ָּתה‬ ‫ַא ָ‬ ‫א‬ ‫(כב ‪ֲ ) 20‬הֹלא כָ ַת ְב ִּתי‬ ‫ֹלׁשים>‬ ‫ ‘לסוף שלש מאות שנה’ (וכן הציע לי לאחרונה פרופ’ ד’ ברגר); או בדומה‪ ,‬שהשיבוש העתיק היה‪:‬‬ ‫‘ו’ [או‪:‬ז’] מאות’ > ‘ג’ מאות’‪ .‬אם השערה זו נכונה‪ ,‬יש מקום להניח שבעל ס’ נצחון ישן סמך בנוסחו (‘ג’‬ ‫מאות שנה ויותר’) על הנוסח המשובש בפירוש רש”י‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬במקרה הראשון שביש’ ט ‪ :6‬בהמגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ ,1627-1623‬המילים הושמטו; בהמגיד‪ ,‬אמשטרדם‬ ‫‪ 1699‬המילים הוחלפו‪‘ :‬זו לתשובת החולקים’; גם במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ 1866-1860‬המילים הוחלפו‪:‬‬ ‫‘זו לתשובת אחרים’ — וכך במאגרי המידע של אוניברסיטת בר־אילן ושל ‪ .DBS‬במקרה השני ביש’ ט ‪:6‬‬ ‫בהמגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ ,1627-1623‬כל הקטע הושמט; בהמגיד‪ ,‬אמשטרדם ‪ 1699‬המילים הוחלפו‪‘ :‬ולתשובת‬ ‫החולקים האומרים לדעת’[ם]’‪( ,‬ובהמשך‪‘ :‬עד לסוף חמש מאות שנה ויותר’); וכן הוחלפו במקראות‬ ‫גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪‘ :1866-1860‬ולתשובת אחרים שאומרים שהוא שם’ — וכך בשני מאגרי המידע‪ .‬פוזננסקי‪,‬‬ ‫מבוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,XX‬הוטעה על ידי מהדורת הדפוס (של קארלסרוא ‪ ,1827‬הדומה בנוסחו להמגיד‪ ,‬אמשטרדם‬ ‫‪ :)1699‬הוא ציטט את המקרה השני של יש’ ט ‪ 6‬לפי הנוסח‪‘ :‬ולתשובת החולקים האומרים לדעתם‪ ...‬עד‬ ‫לסוף חמש מאות שנה [והשמיט‪“ :‬ויותר”]’‪ ,‬והסיק בטעות שהמילה ‘מינים’ אינה רגילה על שפתיו של‬ ‫רש”י‪ .‬וכבר הצביע על כך רוזנטל‪ ,‬הפולמוס האנטי נוצרי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 105‬הערה ‪ ,24‬וציין‪ ,‬בעקבות מהדורת‬ ‫מאהרשען‪ ,‬שהנוסח בכתבי היד של פירוש רש”י הוא ‘המינים’‪ ,‬ולא ‘החולקים’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬כתבי היד ‪,46 ,45 ,42 ,41 ,40 ,38 ,37 ,32 ,31 ,30 ,25 ,23 ,22 ,19 ,18 ,17 ,14 ,13 ,10 ,6 ,5 ,4 ,2‬‬ ‫וכן כתבי היד אוקספורד‪ ,‬בודליאנה ‪ ;2488‬ניו יורק‪ ,‬בהמ”ל לוצקי ‪ ;778‬פירנצה‪ ,‬ספריית מדיצ’יאה־‬ ‫לורנציאנה ‪ ;plut. III 11‬סנקט פטרבורג‪ ,‬הספרייה הלאומית‪.Evr. I 12 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬כתבי היד ‪ ;44 ,43 ,39 ,36 ,35 ,34 ,29 ,28 ,26 ,21 ,15 ,12 ,11 ,8 ,7 ,3 ,1‬וכן כתבי היד אוקספורד‪,‬‬ ‫בודליאנה ‪ ;308‬פראג‪ ,‬אובינרסיטת קארל‪ ,‬סרבל ‪( 27‬לשעבר‪ :‬ברדסלאו‪ ,‬בית המדרש לרבנים ‪;)II 104‬‬ ‫לווינגר־ווינריב‪ ,‬קטלוג‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,25‬מס’ ‪ ,27‬חיבור ‪.6‬‬ ‫‪ .38‬כ”י ‪ ,39‬וכן כ”י פראג‪ ,‬אובינרסיטת קארל‪ ,‬סרבל ‪.27‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬כתבי היד ‪.43 ,26 ,1‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪207‬‬

‫כתבי היד) — סימן מובהק לתוספת‪ .‬על פי ממצאים אלה‪ ,‬יש להסיק שבתחילה רש”י כתב‬ ‫את פירושו ליש’ ט ‪ 6‬ללא שני הקטעים של ‘לתשובת המינים’‪ .‬מאוחר יותר‪ ,‬הוא הגיה את‬ ‫פירושו והוסיף את שני הקטעים האלה‪ .‬וזה מסביר את התפוצה הגדולה של שני הקטעים‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫בכתבי היד של פירושו‪.‬‬ ‫ראוי להדגיש‪ ,‬שמי שבודק את מאגרי המידע של פרוייקט השו”ת של אוניברסיטת‬ ‫בר־אילן וכן של ‪ ,DBS‬לא יעלה על ארבעת המקרים של הביטוי ‘לתשובת המינים‪/‬המינין’‬ ‫בפירוש רש”י לתהלים ולישעיהו‪ .‬וזאת מפני שנוסח פירוש רש”י במאגרי מידע אלה‬ ‫מבוסס על מהדורות מאוחרות ולא מדוייקות של פירוש רש”י (שם הביטוי הושמט או‬ ‫שונה מטעמי צנזורה)‪.‬‬ ‫לשם ההשלמה אציין‪ ,‬שהביטוי גם נמצא לאחר מכן ארבע פעמים בפירושו של‬ ‫רשב”ם לתורה;‪ 41‬ושלוש פעמים בפירושו של חזקוני‪ 42,‬ושם גם מקרה אחד מורחב (דב’ ו‬ ‫‪‘ :)24‬ולחוסר דעת המינין ששואלים ‪ ,...‬תשובה לדבריהם’‪ .‬בפירושו של ר’ חיים פלטיאל‪,‬‬ ‫מבעלי התוספות‪ ,‬על התורה‪ ,‬אנו מוצאים שלוש עשרה פעמים את הנוסח הקרוב (על‬ ‫הרוב בפירושו לס’ בראשית)‪‘ :‬פוקרים המינים‪ ,...‬תשובה’ (ונוסחים דומים)‪ 43.‬לשונו‬ ‫מבוסס על דברי ר’ יוחנן בסנהדרין לח ע”ב המצוטטים לעיל‪.‬‬

‫‪ .40‬יש לציין שגרוסמן‪ ,‬נוסח פירוש רש”י לנ”ך‪ ,‬עמ’ לו‪-‬מ‪ ,‬בדיונו על פירוש רש”י לישעיה‪ ,‬לא דן‬ ‫בשני המקרים של ‘לתשובת המינים’ ביש’ ט ‪ .6‬מאהרשען‪ ,‬רש”י לישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,31‬לא הזכיר ‘זו לתשובת‬ ‫המינין’‪ ,‬אלא הביא באפארט שלו‪‘ :‬זו לתשובת אחרים’ וציין את כ”י ‪ ;29‬ברם שם כתוב‪‘ :‬זו לתשובת‬ ‫המינין’‪ .‬כמו כן הוא רשם שם שבכ”י ‪ 26‬חסרה ההגהה; ברם ההגהה נמצאת שם‪ ,‬אבל לא במקומה‬ ‫הנפוץ‪ ,‬בסוף הפירוש להושע א ‪ ,2‬אלא בתחילתו‪ .‬רוזנטל‪ ,‬הפולמוס האנטי נוצרי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,111‬בדיונו על‬ ‫פירוש רש”י לישעיה‪ ,‬דילג על המקרה הראשון ביש’ ט ‪ ,6‬והביא את המקרה השני שם (ואינו מציין‬ ‫שלפנינו הגהה)‪ .‬אלא שרוזנטל ציטט‪‘ :‬עד לסוף חמש מאות שנה’ (בעקבות הנוסח שבהערה במהדורת‬ ‫מאהרשען‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;32‬והוא על פי דפוס קארסלרוא ‪ ,1827‬אלא שדילג על המילה ‘ויותר’ שבסוף)‪ .‬בהערה‬ ‫‪ 40‬רוזנטל מעיר שהנוסח ‘בדפוסים שלנו’ (לאמר‪ ,‬להוציא את דפוס קארלסרוא) הוא ‘עד לסוף שלש‬ ‫מאות שנה’‪ ,‬ולדעתו יתכן שהשינוי במספר (מחמש המקורי לדעתו‪ ,‬לשלש) הוא תיקון על פי ספר‬ ‫הקבלה לראב”ד‪ .‬כנגד השערתו יש לומר‪ ,‬שבכתבי היד של פירוש רש”י הגורסים הגהה זו‪ ,‬הנוסח הוא‪:‬‬ ‫‘אפילו לסוף שלש מאות שנה’ (ויש שגורסים‪‘ :‬אלא לסוף שלש מאות שנה’; ובשני כתבי יד יש שיבוש‬ ‫ורק גורסים‪‘ :‬לסוף שנה’ [כ”י ‪ ,]26‬או‪‘ :‬לסוף מאות שנה’ [כ”י ‪ .)]1‬לשון אחר‪ ,‬לא מצאתי בכתבי היד‬ ‫שלפנינו הנוסח של ‘חמש מאות’‪ .‬וראו עוד לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ ,34‬שמא הנוסח המקורי המשוער בפירוש רש”י‬ ‫היה‪‘ :‬שש מאות שנה’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬ויק’ יא ‪‘( 3‬ותשובת המינים’)‪‘( 34 ,‬ולתשובת המינין’); יט ‪‘( 19‬ותשובת המינין’); דב’ כב ‪6‬‬ ‫(‘ולתשובת המינין’)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬בר’ ג ‪ ;4‬מט ‪( 10‬שניהם‪‘ :‬לתשובת המינים’); דב’ כה ‪‘( 9‬ולתשובת המינים’)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬בר’ א ‪‘( 2‬המינים פוקרים‪ ...‬תשובה לדבריהם’); ב ‪‘( 2‬פקרו המינים‪ ...‬תשובה’); ג ‪‘( 14‬המינים‬ ‫פוקרין‪ ...‬תשובה’); ו ‪‘( 6‬פוקרים המינים‪ ...‬תשובה’); יח ‪‘( 2‬המינים פוקרין‪ ...‬תשובה’); לז ‪‘( 35‬פוקרים‬ ‫המינין‪ ...‬תשובה’); מז ‪‘( 31‬פוקרין המינין‪ ...‬ור”ת השיב’); מח ‪‘( 14‬פוקרים המינים‪ ...‬תשובה’); מט ‪10‬‬ ‫(‘פוקרים המינין‪ ...‬תשובה’); שמ’ כא ‪‘( 24‬פוקרין המינים‪ ...‬ויש להשיב’); ויק’ יח ‪‘( 21‬פוקרים המינים‪...‬‬ ‫תשובה’); דב’ יח ‪‘( 15‬פוקרים המינים‪ ...‬תשובה לדבריהם’); כב ‪‘( 6‬פוקרים המינים‪ ...‬תשובה לדבריהם’)‪.‬‬

‫*‪208‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫[ב]‬ ‫נדון עתה בקבוצה של תשע הגהות שברובן יש ציון בתחילתן שיש כאן פירוש עם‬ ‫דעה אחרת (‘ד”א’‪‘ ,‬ל”א’)‪ .‬ברם בניגוד לארבע ההגהות הקודמות‪ ,‬אין בהן הערה מפורשת‬ ‫המקשרות אותן לרש”י‪ .‬מכל מקום‪ ,‬בגלל תפוצתן הרבה בכתבי היד‪ ,‬יש מקום לשער שגם‬ ‫הן יצאו מידי רש”י‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )6-5‬הושע יג ‪ ,15‬יד ‪3‬‬ ‫הושע יג ‪‘( 15‬כי הוא ֵּבן אחים יפריא’)‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫‘כי הוא בין אחים יפריא’ — ת”י‪‘ :‬ארי אנון מתקריין בנין ועובדין מתקלקלין אסגיאו’‪.‬‬ ‫‘אחים’ — לשון דבר רע‪ ,‬כמו ‘אח עשויה לברק’ (יחז’ כא ‪‘ ,)20‬ואמר אח אל כל‬ ‫תועבות’ (שם‪ ,‬ו ‪‘ .)11‬יפריא’ — לשון ‘פורה ראש ולענה’ (דב’ כט ‪.)17‬‬ ‫ואני אומר‪‘ :‬אחים’ — לשון ‘ותרענה באחו’ (בר’ מא ‪‘ .)2‬בין אחים יפריא’ — מפריח‬ ‫וצומח באחו‪‘ .‬בין אחים’ — בין‪ 44‬הגדל בפלגי מים‪ ,‬אשר תמיד ‘יפריא’‪ ,‬ולפי שדימהו‬ ‫לאחו הוא אומ’[ר] [=מיד בסמוך בפסוק] ‘יבא קדי’[ם] [‪ ]...‬ויבוש מקורו’‪.‬‬ ‫ד”א ‘כי הוא בין אחים יפריא’ — ירבעם הוא בן שהפריא אחוותן‪ 45‬של ישר’[אל]‪ ,‬על‬ ‫ידו נחלקו לשתי ממלכות‪‘ .‬יפריא’ — לשו’[ן] ‘פרא אדם’ (בר’ טז ‪.)12‬‬ ‫לפנינו שלושה פירושים שונים לביטוי הקשה ‘בן אחים יפריא’‪ .‬לפי הפירוש הראשון‪,‬‬ ‫של התרגום‪‘ ,‬בין’ (בכתיב חסר בנוסח הכתר) נתפרש כשם עצם ‘בן’‪ ,‬ו’יפריא’ נתפרש‬ ‫במשמע שלילי — שהרבו במעשים רעים‪ ,‬שנאנחים עליהם‪‘ :‬אח’‪ .‬כנגד זה‪ ,‬רש”י מציע‬ ‫פירוש אחר (בהתאם לפשט)‪‘ :‬בין אחים‪ ,‬יפריא’ — הגדל בפלגי מים (‘אח’ מלשון ‘אחו’)‪,‬‬ ‫תמיד יגדל‪ .‬בהתאם לפירוש זה רש”י גם מסביר את המשך הפסוק (‘יבוא קדים‪ ...‬ויבוש‬ ‫מקורו’)‪ .‬לבסוף הובא ‘דבר אחר’‪ ,‬המסביר את הביטוי בצורה דרשנית‪ ,‬ומיישם אותו‬ ‫לירבעם‪ .‬והפעם ‘בין’ שוב נדרש כלשון ‘בן’ (כשם עצם; וגם במשמע שני של ‘בין’ שבטי‬ ‫ישראל)‪‘ ,‬אחים’ נדרש מלשון ‘אחווה’ (וגם כנראה במשמע שנייה‪ ,‬של אחים‪ ,‬היינו שבטי‬ ‫ישראל)‪ ,‬ו’פרא’ נדרש מלשון פרא אדם‪ .‬ויש להשוות לרד”ק שפירש‪ ,‬שאפרים הפריא —‬ ‫הגדיל‪ ,‬בין האחים — שבטי ישראל‪ ,‬בהתאם לברכת יעקב‪‘ :‬ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו’‬ ‫(בר’ מח ‪ .)19‬ועכשיו שחטא‪ ,‬ייענש‪.‬‬ ‫הושע יד ‪‘( 3‬כל תשא עון וקח טוב’)‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫‘כל תשא עון’ — כל עונותינו סלח‪‘ .‬וקח טוב’ — ולמדנו דרך טוב‪.‬‬ ‫ד”א מעט מעשים טובים שבידנו קח בידך ושפטנו אחריהם‪ ,‬וכן דוד אומר‬ ‫‪ .44‬המילה מיותרת‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ ,1866-1860‬בטעות‪‘ :‬אחוותו’‪.‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪209‬‬

‫‘מלפניך משפטי יצא עיניך תחזינה מישרים’ (תה’ יז ‪.)2‬‬ ‫ד”א ‘וקח טוב’ — וקבל הודייה מאתנו‪ ,‬שנאמר ‘טוב להודות ליי’’ (שם‪ ,‬צב ‪.)2‬‬ ‫גם הפעם יש שלושה פירושים‪ ,‬והפעם לביטוי “וקח טוב”‪ .‬לפי הפירוש הראשון רש”י‬ ‫מפרש‪ :‬למדנו דרך טוב (לא ברור מה הקשר למילה ‘קח’; ושמא נדרש מלשון ‘לֶ קח’)‪ .‬לפי‬ ‫הפירוש השני (‘ד”א’ הראשון)‪ ,‬הצמוד יותר ללשון הפסוק‪ ,‬המשמע הוא‪ :‬קח בידיך מעט‬ ‫מעשים טובים שבידינו‪ .‬לפי הפירוש השלישי (‘ד”א’ השני)‪ ,‬שהוא דרשני יותר‪ ,‬המשמע‬ ‫הוא‪ :‬קבל מאתנו הודיה; ‘טוב’ נתפרש כ’הודיה’ על פי גזרה שווה לפסוק אחר (‘טוב‬ ‫להודות’)‪.‬‬ ‫בשני המקרים האלה (יג ‪ ;15‬יד ‪ ,)3‬הפירוש השלישי הוא במישור הדרשני‪ .‬ברם אין‬ ‫לפנינו דרשות כאלה בספרות חז”ל‪ .‬נעיין עתה בעדות של כתבי היד כדי לעמוד על‬ ‫תולדות הנוסח בפירוש רש”י בשני הפסוקים‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 8‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 46)18%‬של פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬לא מובא הפירוש השלישי בשני‬ ‫הפסוקים‪ .‬לשון אחר‪ ,‬בכל אחד משני הפסוקים רק מובאים שני פירושים‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 36‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 47,)82%‬מובא הפירוש השלישי בשני הפסוקים‪ .‬כתבי יד‬ ‫אלה מתחלקים לשתי קבוצות שוות‪:‬‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 18‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ )41%‬שני הפירושים האלה (הפירוש השלישי ל־יג ‪,15‬‬ ‫הפירוש השלישי ל־יד ‪ )3‬מובאים ביחד‪ ,‬מיד לאחר סוף הפירוש לספר הושע‪ .‬במקרים‬ ‫האלה סגנון נפוץ בכתבי היד הוא‪‘ :‬נשלם ספר הושע‪ ,‬ד’א’ כי בן אחים יפריא‪ ;...‬קח‬ ‫טוב‪ .’...‬היינו‪ ,‬הפתיחה ‘ד’א’’ מופיעה פעם אחת‪ ,‬ותקפה לגבי שתי התוספות‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 18‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ )41%‬שני הפירושים האלה מובאים כל אחד בנפרד על‬ ‫אתר‪ .‬במקרים האלה כל תוספת בנפרד פותחת‪‘ :‬ד”א’‪.‬‬ ‫על פי העדות שבכתבי היד‪ ,‬נדמה שיש לשחזר את התהליך הבא‪ :‬תחילה רש”י הביא‬ ‫רק שני פירושים לכל אחד משני הפסוקים יג ‪ ,15‬יד ‪ .3‬מאוחר יותר הוא הוסיף פירוש‬ ‫שלישי‪ ,‬דרשני‪ ,‬בכל אחד משני הפסוקים‪ .‬פירושים אלה תחילה נרשמו בסוף הפירוש‬ ‫לספר (מכיוון שניתוספו מאוחר יותר)‪ .‬בשלב מאוחר יותר‪ ,‬שני הפירושים הועברו‪ ,‬כל‬ ‫אחד למקום המתאים על אתר (היינו‪ ,‬לסוף יג ‪ ,15‬ולסוף יד ‪.)3‬‬ ‫אוסיף‪ ,‬שתופעה דומה של ריכוז תוספות לפירוש רש”י לספר מקראי גם נמצא בכתבי‬ ‫יד שונים של פירושו לס’ יחזקאל‪ 49.‬ונדמה שאף שם הן מייצגות הגהות מאוחרות של‬ ‫רש”י לפירושו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .46‬כתבי היד ‪( 35 ,31 ,29 ,27 ,26 ,13‬כנראה)‪.46 ,41 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬כתבי היד ‪[ 6 ,1‬יד שנייה גם הוסיף על אתר!]‪[ 7 ,‬יג ‪ ;15‬אבל את ההגהה ביחס ל־יד ‪ 3‬הוא הוסיף‬ ‫על אתר]‪[ 14 ,10 ,8 ,‬עמוד זה ביד שנייה]‪[ 16 ,‬בדיוק לפני הסוף‪ ,‬ומציין ‘ד’א’’]‪[ 19 ,‬ויד שנייה גם הוסיפה‬ ‫על אתר ב־יג ‪.44 ,43 ,42 ,40 ,39 ,37 ,36 ,34 ,33 ,30 ,]15‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬כתבי היד ‪[ 2‬חלק שדילג רשום בגיליון]‪[ 5 ,4 ,3 ,‬בגיליון]‪[ 20 ,18 ,15 ,12 ,11 ,‬בגיליון; אבל‬ ‫לא ב־יד ‪[ 28 ,25 ,24 ,23 ,22 ,21 ,]3‬בגיליון]‪[ 38 ,32 ,‬בגיליון]‪ .45 ,‬יש לדייק‪ ,‬שכ”י ‪ 20‬רק מביא הפירוש‬ ‫השלישי ביחס ל־יג ‪ ,15‬ולא לגבי יד ‪.3‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬ראו למשל‪ ,‬פנקובר‪ ,‬רש”י ליחזקאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,458‬הערה ‪.125‬‬

‫*‪210‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫לדעתי‪ ,‬התפוצה הרבה של תוספות אלה בכתבי היד (‪ )82%‬מורות על כך שרש”י‬ ‫הוא מחברן‪.‬‬ ‫במהדורות הדפוס‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪ ,1525‬ורשה ‪ ,1866-1860‬ושתי המהדורות‬ ‫של המגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ ,1627-1623‬אמשטרדם ‪ ,1699‬שני הפירושים הובאו כל אחד בנפרד‪,‬‬ ‫על אתר‪ ,‬ועם הפתיחה‪‘ :‬ד”א’; היינו‪ ,‬בדומה לקבוצה השנייה של כתבי היד שלעיל‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )7‬הושע ד ‪‘( 15‬אם זנה אתה ישראל אל יאשם יהודה ואל תבאו הגלגל ואל תעלו‬ ‫בית און’)‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫[א] ‘אם זונה אתה ישראל’ ‪ -‬לא‪ 50‬ילמדו בני יהודה דרכם‪.‬‬ ‫[ב] ל”א [לשון אחר]‪‘ :‬אם זונה אתה ישראל אל יאשם יהודה’ — אם זונה‬ ‫ישראל‪ ,‬אין בני יהודה חייבי’[ן] בכך‪ ,‬ואיני מחייבם‪ ,‬כמו שאמור למעלה ‘ואת‬ ‫בית יהודה ארחם’ (הושע א ‪.)7‬‬ ‫[ג] ‘ואל תבואו’ — בני יהודה ‘הגלגל’‪ ,‬ובלבד שלא יבואו בני יהודה הגלגל‪,‬‬ ‫ששם עשרת השבטים עובדים ע”ז‪ 51,‬שנאמר ‘כל רעתם בגלגל’ (הושע ט ‪,)15‬‬ ‫‘בגלגל [בנוסחנו‪‘ :‬הגלגל’] הרבו לפשוע’ (עמוס ד ‪.)4‬‬ ‫לפי הפירוש הראשון‪‘ ,‬אל יאשם יהודה’ נתפרש כאזהרה ביחס ליהודה‪ :‬אל ילמדו‬ ‫יהודה את דרכם הרעים (של ישראל)‪ .‬לפי הפירוש השני‪‘ ,‬אל יאשם יהודה’ נתפרש‬ ‫כמסקנה‪ ,‬שיהודה לא יואשם‪ ,‬כיון שאין הם אשמים במה שחטא ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫נעמוד על נוסח פירוש רש”י על פי העדות בכתבי היד‪ .‬הם מתחלקים לארבע קבוצות‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ 8 )1‬מתוך ‪ 42‬כתבי היד (‪ 52,)19%‬אינם גורסים חלק א או חלק ב‪ ,‬ורק מביאים את לשון‬ ‫הפסוק‪‘ :‬אם זונה אתה ישראל’‪ ,‬וממשיכים ישר לחלק ג‪‘ :‬אל תבואו בני יהודה הגלגל‪.’...‬‬ ‫(‪ 12 )2‬מתוך ‪ 42‬כתבי היד (‪ 53)28.5%‬גורסים את חלק א וחלק ג שלעיל‪ ,‬וללא חלק ב‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ 20 )3‬מתוך ‪ 42‬כתבי היד (‪ 54)47.5%‬גורסים את חלק ב וחלק ג‪ ,‬וללא חלק א‪ .‬ועוד‪,‬‬ ‫כתבי היד בקבוצה זו אינם פותחים את חלק ב בלשון ‘ל”א’; שהרי לדידם זה הפירוש‬ ‫היחידי לחלק הראשון של הפסוק‪ ,‬ואין כאן חלק א שלעיל‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ 2 )4‬מתוך ‪ 42‬כתבי היד (‪ 55,)5%‬גורסים חלק א וגם חלק ב (אבל בלי פתיחה של‬ ‫‘ל”א’)‪ ,‬וחלק ג‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬בכתבי היד (וכן בדפוסי המגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ ,1627-1623‬אמשטרדם ‪‘ :)1699‬אל’; וכן נכון‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .51‬במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ ,1866-1860‬מטעם צנזורה‪‘ :‬עובדים עכו”ם’‪ .‬בהמגיד‪ ,‬לובלין‬ ‫‪ ,1627-1623‬אמשטרדם ‪‘ :1699‬ע”א’ [עבודת אלילים]‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .52‬כתבי היד ‪ .46 ,34 ,30 ,22 ,19 ,12 ,8 ,5‬ב־‪ 3‬כתבי יד נוספים‪ ,‬אין פירוש רש”י לפסוקנו ‪,)24 ,17 ,9‬‬ ‫ובכ”י אחד (‪ )15‬קשה לקרוא את המיקרופילם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬כתבי היד ‪( 37 ,33 ,31 ,29 ,27 ,26 ,25 ,20 ,18 ,14 ,1‬גורס‪‘ :‬דרכך’)‪.40 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬כתבי היד ‪[ 13 ,11 ,10 ,7 ,6 ,3 ,2‬נוסח קצת שונה]‪.44 ,43 ,42 ,41 ,39 ,38 ,36 ,35 ,32 ,28 ,23 ,21 ,16 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬כ”י ‪ — 4‬חלק ב‪ ,‬ואז חלק א; כ”י ‪ — 45‬חלק א בפנים‪ ,‬חלק ב בגיליון (ולא ניתן לקרוא את הכל‬ ‫בתצלום)‪.‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪211‬‬

‫לסיכום‪ ,‬ביחס לחלק א וחלק ב‪ ,‬כתבי היד שבדקנו מתחלקים לקבוצות הבאות‪ :‬חלק‬ ‫גורסים רק חלק א‪ ,‬וחלק גורסים רק חלק ב (וללא ‘ל”א’)‪ .‬אחרים אינם גורסים את שני‬ ‫החלקים‪ ,‬ואחרים גורסים את שני החלקים‪ .‬על פי העדות בכתבי היד‪ ,‬נראה שיש לשחזר‬ ‫את התהליך הבא‪ .‬בתחילה רש”י לא גרס חלק א או חלק ב‪ .‬אחר כך הוא הגיה את פירושו‪.‬‬ ‫תחילה הוא הוסיף חלק א‪ ,‬ומאוחר יותר הוא החליף את חלק א בחלק ב‪.‬‬ ‫במהדורות הדפוס יש הרכבה של שני החלקים‪ ,‬א וגם ב‪ .‬כתוצאה מכך הוסיפו את‬ ‫הפתיחה ‘ל”א’ לפני חלק ב‪ .‬כאמור לעיל‪ ,‬פתיחה זו לא נמצאת בכתבי היד‪ ,‬שהרי רוב‬ ‫רובם רק גורסים את אחד החלקים‪ ,‬ולא את שניהם‪ .‬ואפילו בשני כתבי היד שיש בהם‬ ‫הרכבה של שני החלקים‪ ,‬אין הפתיחה של ‘ל”א’‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )8‬הושע ט ‪( 11‬תוספת אחרי ‪‘( )12‬אפרים כעוף יתעופף כבודם מלדה ומבטן ומהריון‪.‬‬ ‫כי אם יגדלו את בניהם ושכלתים מאדם’)‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫[‪‘ ]12-11‬אפרים כעוף יתעופף’ וגו’ — אמר הנביא‪ :‬הלואי ויהיו כעוף הזה‬ ‫הנודד מקנו וחדל מפרייה ורביה‪ ,‬כך ישכלו את זרעם‪ ,‬או בשעת לידה או‬ ‫יתעכל‪ 56‬בבן ויפילו או בשעת הריון לא יקלוטו‪‘ ]12[ .‬כי’ מה בצע בגדלם‬ ‫‘את בניהם’‪ ,‬שהם יגדלו ‘ושכלתים מאדם’‪...‬‬ ‫[‪ ]12-11‬ד”א ‘כעוף יתעופף כבודם’ וגו’ — כעוף זה שפורח ואיננו‪ ,‬כן יעוף‬ ‫ויברח כל כבודם‪ ,‬כל מה שנצטערו [ורשה ‪ :1866-1860‬בבניהם בליד’[ה]‬ ‫ובהריון]‪‘ ,‬בלידה’ [ורשה‪ :‬מלידה] — זה צער לידה‪‘ ,‬ובבטן’ [ורשה‪ :‬ומבטן] —‬ ‫אלו ימי העבור‪‘ ,‬ומהריון’ — בשעת תשמיש‪ ,‬כל טרחם זה יכלה‪ ,‬כיצד? שהרי‬ ‫כש’יגדלו את בניהם‪ ,‬ושכלתים’ (‪.)12‬‬ ‫לפי הפירוש הראשון‪ ,‬תחילת פסוק ‪ 11‬היא משאלה‪ ,‬הלוואי שאפרים יהיו כעוף‬ ‫הנודד וחדל מפריה ורביה‪ ,‬והלוואי שישכלו את זרעם בתחילת התהליך (בהריון‪ ,‬בבטן‪ ,‬או‬ ‫בלידה)‪ ,‬שהרי מה טעם שיגדלו את בניהם‪ ,‬כי אם יגדלו ואכחד אותם‪.‬‬ ‫בפירוש הראשון רש”י לא הסביר בדיוק מה זה “כבודם”‪ .‬בפירוש השני יש הסבר‬ ‫הדוק יותר ללשון הפסוק‪ .‬עתה ההשוואה בין אפרים לבין העוף אינה שלשניהם אין‬ ‫ילדים‪ ,‬אלא כמו שהעוף פורח ואיננו‪ ,‬כך יברח הכבוד של אפרים‪ ,‬והוא כל טרחם וצערם‬ ‫ביחס לבניהם‪ .‬שהרי כשיגדלו הילדים ה’ ישמיד אותם‪.‬‬ ‫נעמוד על נוסח פירוש רש”י על פי העדות בכתבי היד‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 21‬מתוך ‪ 43‬כתבי יד (‪ 57)49%‬של פירוש רש”י לפסוקנו‪ ,‬נמצא רק הפירוש הראשון‪,‬‬ ‫ללא הפירוש השני (‘ד”א’)‪.‬‬

‫‪ .56‬במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ ,1866-1860‬בהשפעת הפועל הקודם בפירוש‪‘ :‬ישכלו’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .57‬כתבי היד ‪.46 ,41 ,40 ,38 ,37 ,35 ,34 ,33 ,31 ,30 ,29 ,27 ,26 ,22 ,20 ,19 ,18 ,14 ,13 ,10 ,5‬‬ ‫בשלושה כתבי יד נוספים (‪ )24 ,17 ,4‬חסר הפירוש לפסוקנו‪.‬‬

‫*‪212‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫ב־‪ 22‬מתוך ‪ 43‬כתבי היד (‪ ,)51%‬נמצא הפירוש השני‪ ,‬מחולק לשתי הקבוצות הבאות‪:‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 19‬מתוך ‪ 43‬כתבי יד (‪ 58,)44%‬נמצא גם הפירוש הראשון וגם הפירוש השני‪ .‬באחד‬ ‫מבין כתבי יד אלה (כ”י ‪ ,)3‬הפירוש השני מובא בגיליון; ובאחד אחר (כ”י ‪ ,)21‬הפירוש‬ ‫השני ממוקם באמצע הפירוש המקורי‪ .‬ובאחד מכתבי יד אלה (כ”י ‪ ,)43‬הפירוש השני‬ ‫מובא לפני הפירוש על “בשורי” (פסוק ‪ ,)12‬וללא “ד”א” בתחילתו‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 3‬מתוך ‪ 43‬כתבי היד (‪ 59,)7%‬הפירוש השני החליף את הפירוש הראשון (וללא ציון‬ ‫“ד”א”; שהרי עתה מובא רק פירוש אחד)‪.‬‬ ‫על פי העדות בכתבי היד‪ ,‬ניתן לשחזר את התהליך הבא ביחס לפירוש רש”י לפסוקנו‪.‬‬ ‫בפירושו המקורי רש”י הביא רק את הפירוש הראשון (וכך ב‪ 49%‬מכתבי היד)‪ .‬מאוחר‬ ‫יותר הוא העלה אפשרות שנייה‪ .‬ברוב כתבי היד שהביאו פירוש שני זה‪ ,‬הפירוש הובא‬ ‫כאפשרות שנייה (‘ד”א’; ‪ .)44%‬במיעוט כתבי היד שהביאו פירוש שני זה‪ ,‬הפירוש השני‬ ‫החליף את הפירוש הראשון (‪.)7%‬‬ ‫בדפוסים‪ ,‬הפירוש השני הובא בנוסף לפירוש הראשון‪ ,‬ובציון ‘ד”א’‪ ,‬וזאת בהתאם‬ ‫ל־‪ 44%‬מכתבי היד‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )9‬הושע י ‪‘( 12‬זרעו לכם לצדקה קצרו לפי חסד נירו לכם ניר ועת לדרוש את ה’ עד‬ ‫יבוא ויורה צדק לכם’)‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫‘נירו לכם ניר’ — עסקו בתורה‪ ,‬ומשם תלמדו ללכת בדרך טובה להתגבר‬ ‫על יצר הרע‪ ,‬כזה שהוא נר את השדה‪ ,‬להפוך שרשי העשבים המכחישים‬ ‫בתבואה מימות החמה כמה ימים לפני הזרע‪‘ .‬ועת’ תקבעו ‘לדרוש את יי’’ —‬ ‫לתלמוד תורה‪‘ .‬עד יבא ויורה צדק לכם’ — כשתהיו יגעי’[ם] בה‪ ,‬הוא יבין‬ ‫אתכם להודיעכם צפונותיה בצדק‪.‬‬ ‫ד”א ‘נירו לכם ניר’ — עשו מעשים טובים קודם שיבוא עליכם הלחץ‪ ,‬וזה‬ ‫יגרום לכם שתתקבל תפילתכם בעת הצורך‪ ,‬ואז יהיה ‘עת’ ראוי לכם ‘לדרוש’‬ ‫הקב”ה בכל צרכיכם‪ ,‬כי אז תשמע צעקתכם‪‘ .‬ויורה צדק לכם’ — וימטיר‬ ‫צדקה לכם‪ ,‬כמו ‘ירה בים’ (שמ’ טו ‪)4‬‬ ‫לפי הפירוש הראשון‪ ,‬המטאפורה של ‘נירו לכם ניר’ הוסבר ביחס ללימוד תורה‪,‬‬ ‫ושעל ידי כך תוכלו להתגבר על יצר הרע‪ .‬גם ‘לדרוש את ה’’ הוסבר ביחס לתלמוד תורה‪.‬‬ ‫התוצאה‪‘ ,‬יורה צדק’‪ ,‬נתפרשה בהתאם‪ ,‬שה’ יודיע את צפונות התורה בצדק‪.‬‬

‫‪ .58‬כתבי היד ‪[ 1‬בסוף‪ ,‬מציין ‘תוספת’)‪[ 3 ,2 ,‬בגיליון]‪[ 11 ,9 ,8 ,7 ,6 ,‬ומציין ‘תוספת’]‪,16 ,15 ,12 ,‬‬ ‫‪[ 21‬וממוקם באמצע הפירוש המקורי]‪[ 25 ,‬קצת שונה בנוסח]‪[ 39 ,36 ,32 ,‬מיד אחרי סוף פס’ ‪43 ,]11‬‬ ‫[ממוקם לפני ‘בשורי’‪ ,‬וללא ‘ד”א’]‪.45 ,44 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .59‬כתבי היד ‪.42 ,28 ,23‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪213‬‬

‫המקור שהשפיע על רש”י בפירוש הראשון הוא בבלי עבודה זרה ה ע”ב‪:‬‬ ‫א”ר יוחנן משום רבי בנאה‪ ,‬מאי דכתיב ‘אשריכם זורעי על כל מים משלחי‬ ‫רגל השור והחמור’ (יש’ לב ‪ ?)20‬אשריהם ישראל‪ ,‬בזמן שעוסקין בתורה‬ ‫ובגמילות חסדים — יצרם מסור בידם ואין הם מסורים ביד יצרם‪ ,‬שנאמר‬ ‫‘אשריכם זורעי על כל מים’‪ ,‬ואין זריעה אלא צדקה‪ ,‬שנאמר ‘זרעו לכם‬ ‫לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד’ (הושע י ‪ ,)12‬ואין מים אלא תורה‪ ,‬שנאמר ‘הוי כל‬ ‫צמא לכו למים’ (יש’ נה ‪.)1‬‬ ‫רש”י לקח את הרעיון של דרשה זו (תלמוד תורה יעזור להתגבר על יצר הרע) והכיל‬ ‫אותה כולה על הפסוק בהושע י ‪( 12‬בדרשה המקורית רק חלק מפסוק זה נדרש‪ ,‬ולעניין‬ ‫צדקה)‪.‬‬ ‫לפי הפירוש השני‪ ,‬המטאפורה נתפרשה בצורה כללית יותר‪ ,‬ביחס למעשים טובים‬ ‫(ולא ניתן הסבר לקשר המדויק לעניין החרישה בשדות)‪ .‬והפעם ‘לדרוש את ה’’ הוסבר‬ ‫ביחס לבקשות של העם מאת ה’‪ ,‬שעתה זה העת הנכון לכך (לאחר שעשו מעשים טובים)‪.‬‬ ‫התוצאה היא שה’ ימטיר צדקה לעם‪.‬‬ ‫למקור של הפירוש השני‪ ,‬ראו מדרש תהלים (שוחר טור) מה‪ ,‬ד‪:‬‬ ‫בן עזאי ור’ עקיבא‪ ,‬חד מנהון אמר‪ :‬מי שהוא גומל חסדים יהא מבושר שתהא‬ ‫תפלתו נשמעת‪ ,‬שנאמר ‘זרעו לכם לצדקה’ [וגו’] (הושע י ‪[ ,)12‬מה כתיב‬ ‫אחריו‪‘ ,‬ועת לדרוש] את ה’’ (שם) — שהוא מתפלל לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא‬ ‫והוא נענה‪.‬‬ ‫רש”י הרחיב את הדרשה הזו‪ ,‬והכיל אותה גם על המשך הפסוק ‘נירו לכם ניר’ (כמו‬ ‫במקרה הקודם‪ ,‬הדרשה המקורית דרשה רק את תחילת הפסוק של הושע י ‪.)12‬‬ ‫יש מקום להניח‪ ,‬ששני הפירושים האלה (תלמוד תורה‪ ,‬גמילות חסדים) היו מופנים‬ ‫כהמלצות אקטואליות לציבור בזמנו של רש”י עצמו‪.‬‬ ‫נעמוד על נוסח פירוש רש”י על פי העדות בכתבי היד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 24‬מתוך ‪ 45‬כתבי היד של פירוש רש”י לפסוקנו (‪ 60,)53%‬גורסים רק את הפירוש‬ ‫הראשון‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 21‬מתוך ‪ 45‬כתבי היד (‪ 61,)47%‬גורסים את שני הפירושים (והשני מתחיל ‘ד”א’)‪.‬‬ ‫בשניים מכתבי יד אלה (‪ ,)45 ,3‬הפירוש השני מובא בגיליון‪.‬‬ ‫נראה שיש לשחזר את התהליך הבא בעקבות העדות בכתבי היד‪ .‬תחילה פירש רש”י‬ ‫רק את הפירוש הראשון (וכך הנוסח ב־‪ 53%‬מכתבי היד)‪ .‬מאוחר יותר הוא הוסיף את‬ ‫הפירוש השני‪ ,‬וכתבי היד שמביאים פירוש זה‪ ,‬מוסיפים אותו לפירוש הראשון (‪47%‬‬ ‫‪ .60‬כתבי היד ‪[ 37 ,34 ,33 ,32 ,31 ,30 ,29 ,27 ,26 ,25 ,23 ,22 ,?20 ,19 ,18 ,17 ,14 ,8 ,5 ,4 ,2‬תוספת‬ ‫אחרת]‪ .46 ,41 ,40 ,‬בכ”י נוסף‪ ,24 ,‬חסר הפירוש לפסוקנו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .61‬כתבי היד ‪[ 1‬ומציין תוספת]‪[ 3 ,‬בגיליון]‪,39 ,38 ,36 ,35 ,28 ,21 ,16 ,15 ,13 ,12 ,11 ,10 ,9 ,7 ,6 ,‬‬ ‫‪[ 45 ,44 ,43 ,42‬בגיליון]‪.‬‬

‫*‪214‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫מכתבי היד)‪ .‬מיעוט קטן מאלה האחרונים רק מביאים את הפירוש בגיליון; ואילו הרוב‬ ‫המוחלט מקבוצה זו מביאים את הפירוש השני בפנים‪ .‬גם בדפוסים מביאים את שני‬ ‫הפירושים‪ ,‬יחד עם “ד”א” בראש הפירוש השני‪.‬‬ ‫ופ ַרח כראש משפט על תלמי שדי’)‬ ‫(‪ )10‬הושע י ‪‘( 4‬דברו דברים ָאלֹות שוא ּכָ רֹת ברית ָ‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪ ,1525‬מתחלק למספר יחידות‪:‬‬ ‫[א] ‘אלות שוא’ — השבע לשקר‪‘ .‬אלות’ — כמו ‘כרות’‪ ,‬לשון הווה‪.‬‬ ‫[ב] ‘כרות ברית’ — גם הוא לשוא [חלק זה לא נמצא במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬אבל‬ ‫נדון בו בהמשך]‬ ‫‪63‬‬ ‫[ג] ‘כרת ברית’ — לע”ז‪ ,‬לפיכך ‘ופרח’ [מק”ג ‪ :1866‬יפרח] עליהם ‘משפט’‬ ‫ייסורין ופורענות ‘כראש’‪ ,‬שהוא עשב מר הפורח ‘על תלמי שדי’‪ .‬וי”ת ‘על‬ ‫תלמי שדי’ — בעון שמסיגין‪ 64‬גבולי שדות‪.‬‬ ‫‪65‬‬ ‫[ד] ‘תלמי שדי’ — מענות [מק”ג ‪ :1866‬מענית] המחרישה קרויה תלם‪.‬‬ ‫[ה] ד’א’ ‘על תלמי שדי’ — שהם עושים שם מזבחותם‪ ,‬כמה שנ’ ‘גם מזבחותם‬ ‫כגלים על תלמי שדי’ (הושע יב ‪ ,)12‬שם יפרח עליהם משפט עונם‪.‬‬ ‫[ו] ד”א ‘אלות שוא’ — כל ברית שהם כורתים זה עם זה עוברי’[ם] עליו‪.‬‬ ‫‘ופרח כראש משפט על תלמי שדי’ — כראש שהוא פורח ‘על תלמי שדי’‪,‬‬ ‫שהוא עשב מר‪ ,‬כך משפטיהם פורחים וגדלים תמרורי’[ם] [=מלשון מר]‬ ‫לעניים ואביונים‪ ,‬ואף עמוס (ו ‪ )12‬אמר כן ‘כי הפכתם ללענה [!; צ”ל‪:‬‬ ‫לראש]‪ 66‬משפט’‪.‬‬ ‫‪62‬‬

‫כמות שהוא לפנינו במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬הפירוש מורכב למדי‪ .‬לפי פירוש אחד (ג) הם‬ ‫כורתים ברית עם עבודה זרה‪ ,‬ולפיכך ייענשו במשפט של ייסורין ופורענות בדומה לראש‬ ‫[= עשב מר] הפורח על תלמי שדי‪( .‬ועוד הובא פירוש תרגום יונתן‪ ,‬ש’תלמי שדי’ מתאר‬ ‫את חטאם — שמסיגין גבולי שדות)‪ .‬על פי פירוש נוסף ל’תלמי שדי’ (ה) זה מתאר את‬ ‫מקום חטאם — בשדות הם עושים מזבחות (ע”ז)‪ ,‬וכתוצאה מכך הם ייענשו שם‪ .‬פירוש‬ ‫אחר (ו) מסביר ‘אלות שוא’‪ ,‬שהם לא מקיימים את הבריתות שהם כורתים; ועוד‪ ,‬החלק‬ ‫השני של הפסוק אף הוא מתאר את חטאם — משפטיהם פורחים דברים מרים לעניים‪,‬‬ ‫ובהתאם למה שתיאר הנביא עמוס‪ .‬פירוש אחר (ד) מסביר ‘תלמי (שדי)’ במשמע של‬ ‫מענית (מענות) המחרישה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .62‬ליתר דיוק‪ ,‬יש לראות בצורות אלה מקור נפרד‪ ,‬שיש להסבירן כפועל נטוי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .63‬במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ 1866-1860‬שינו מטעם צנזורה‪‘ :‬לעכו”ם של מולך’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .64‬בכל כתבי היד שלפנינו‪‘ :‬שמשיגין’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .65‬השווו‪ :‬שמ”א יד ‪‘ :14‬כבחצי מענה צמד שדה’‪ ,‬רש”י‪”’ :‬מענה” — הוא תלם המחרישה‪ ;’...‬וכן‬ ‫תה’ קכט ‪‘ :3‬על גבי חרשו חרשים‪ ,‬העריכו למעניתם’‪ ,‬רש”י‪”‘ :‬העריכו למעניתם” — הוא תלם המחרישה‪,‬‬ ‫“כבחצי מענה צמד שדה” (שמ”א יד ‪.’)14‬‬ ‫‪ .66‬וכן אל נכון בכתבי היד‪ .‬כאן במהדורת הדפוס יש החלפה בין שתי מילים מקבילות שמופיעות‬ ‫באותו פסוק‪‘ :‬כי הפכתם לראש משפט ופרי צדקה ללענה’‪.‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪215‬‬

‫נעיין בנוסח פירוש רש”י בכתבי היד כדי לעמוד על תולדות פירושו לפסוקנו‪ .‬תחילה‬ ‫נציין שכל כתבי היד גורסים את חלק א שלעיל‪ .‬ואלה הן הקבוצות ותת־הקבוצות שבהן‬ ‫נחלקים כתבי היד ביחס לשאר החלקים‪:‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 5‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 67,)11%‬יש נוסח קצר מאוד — ורק מביאים את חלק א שלעיל‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 18‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ ,)41%‬גורסים חלק ב וגם חלק ו‪ .‬ואלה מתחלקים לשתי קבוצות‪:‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 4‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 68,)9%‬בנוסף לחלק א‪ ,‬גורסים חלק ב (שכזכור לא נמצא‬ ‫במק”ג) וגם חלק ו‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 14‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 69,)32%‬בנוסף לחלק א‪ ,‬גורסים חלקים ב‪ ,‬ד‪ ,‬ו; אלא שבחלק‬ ‫מכתבי היד אלה חלק ד בא באמצע חלק ו‪ ,‬או במקום שבכלל לא מתאים‪ ,‬בפסוק ‪( 2‬סימן‬ ‫מובהק לתוספת)‪ 70.‬ובכ”י אחד נוסף (‪ )13‬נמצא בנוסף לחלק א‪ ,‬חלקים ד‪ ,‬ו (אבל חלק ו‬ ‫מתחיל “כרות ברית”‪ ,‬כלומר תחילת חלק ב‪ ,‬ללא המשכו)‪.‬‬ ‫יש לציין שכתבי היד שגורסים את חלק ו (יחד עם חלק ב‪ ,‬ויש גם עם חלק ד) אינם‬ ‫גורסים ‘ד”א אלות ברית’ בראש חלק ו (בניגוד לדפוסים‪ ,‬כפי שהבאתי לעיל)‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 15‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ ,)34%‬גורסים חלק ג וגם חלק ה‪ .‬ואלה מתחלקים לשתי‬ ‫קבוצות‪:‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 3‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 71,)7%‬נמצאים חלק ג וחלק ה‪.‬‬ ‫ב־‪ 12‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 72,)27%‬נמצאים חלקים ג‪ ,‬ד‪ ,‬ה‪ .‬בכ”י נוסף (‪ )45‬גורסים‬ ‫בפנים הסוף של חלק ג (יחד עם מעט מחלק אחר)‪ ,‬וחלקים ד‪ ,‬ה (יחד עם מעט מחלק‬ ‫אחר)‪ 73.‬אבל בגיליונות יש חומר נוסף; ונמצא שהוסיף חלק ב‪ ,‬וגם חלק ראשון של חלק‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫ג יחד עם חלק ו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .67‬כתבי היד ‪[ 46 ,41 ,34 ,30 ,19‬כאן יש רמז לחלק נוסף‪‘ :‬כרות ברית’ (ללא המשך!; והשווה חלק ב)]‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .68‬כתבי היד ‪( 44 ,36 ,35 ,8‬כאן חסר דיבור המתחיל ביחס לחלק ה‪ ,‬ובמקום ‘תמרורים’ גרס‪:‬‬ ‫‘וטורדים’)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .69‬כתבי היד ‪( 11 ,10 ,2 ,1‬חסר דיבור המתחיל בחלק ד)‪( 22 ,12 ,‬חסר דיבור המתחיל בחלק ד)‪,17 ,‬‬ ‫‪( 6‬חלק ד בא באמצע חלק ו)‪( 23 ,‬חלק ד בא באמצע חלק ו)‪( 38 ,‬חלק ד בא באמצע חלק ו‪ ,‬והסדר תוקן‬ ‫בכתב היד)‪( 15 ,‬חלק ד בא באמצע פסוק ‪( 39 ,)2‬חלק ד בא באמצע פסוק ‪( 28 ,)2‬חסר דיבור המתחיל‬ ‫בחלק ו)‪( 32 ,‬חסר דיבור המתחיל בחלק ד)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .70‬ראו בהערה הקודמת‪ :‬כתבי היד ‪ – 38 ,23 ,6‬חלק ד בא באמצע חלק ו; ‪ – 39 ,15‬חלק ד בא‬ ‫באמצע פסוק ‪.2‬‬ ‫‪ .71‬כתבי היד ‪( 20‬חלק ראשון של חלק ג‪ ,‬וחלק ראשון של חלק ה)‪( 25 ,‬חסר דיבור המתחיל לחלק‬ ‫ה)‪( 26 ,‬חלק ראשון של חלק ג; חסר דיברו המתחיל לחלק ה)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .72‬כתבי היד ‪( 37 ,33 ,31 ,29 ,21 ,14 ,3‬על פי הדומות‪ ,‬דילג על תרגום יונתן בחלק ג‪ ,‬ונוסחו משובש‬ ‫בחלק ה)‪( 16 ,43 ,40 ,‬חלק ד ממוקם באמצע חלק ג)‪( 18 ,‬רק חלק הראשון של חלק ג; קצת שינויים בחלק‬ ‫ה)‪( 27 ,‬חלק ראשון של חלק ג)‪.‬‬ ‫‪‘ .73‬אלות שוא השבע לשקר‪ ,‬אלות כמו כרות; ופרח בראש משפט‪ ,‬הוא עשב מר הפורח על תלמי‬ ‫שדי‪ ,‬וי’ת’ תלמי שדי בעון שמשיגין גבול שדות; תלמי שדי – מענית המחרישה קרויה תלם; ד’א’ על‬ ‫תלמי שדי — שהם עושים שם מזבחות’[ם]‪ ,‬כמה שנ’ גם מזבחותם כגלים על תלמי שדי‪ ,‬שם יפרח עליהם‬ ‫משפט עונם’‪.‬‬ ‫‪‘ .74‬אלות שוא השבע לשקר‪ ,‬אלות כמו כרות; [לשו’ הוה‪ ,‬כרות ברית גם הוא לשוא; כל ברית שהם‬ ‫כורתים זה עם זה עוברים עליו‪ ,‬וגם כורתים ברית לע’ז’ לפיכך] ופרח בראש משפט [על תלמי שדי כראש]‬

‫*‪216‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫ב־‪ 2‬מתוך ‪ 44‬כתבי היד (‪ 75,)5%‬גורסים את כל החלקים (אבל לא בסדר זהה)‪ .‬וב‪2-‬‬ ‫כתבי יד (‪ 76,)5%‬גורסים את כל החלקים להוציא חלק ג; ובאחד מביניהם (‪ )5‬גורסים חלק‬ ‫ג בגיליון‪.‬‬ ‫על פי העדות בכתבי היד‪ ,‬ניתן לומר שכתבי היד נחלקים לשתי קבוצות בסיסיות‪:‬‬ ‫אלה שגורסים חלקים ב‪ ,‬ו (‪ ;)41%‬ואלה שגורסים חלקים ג‪ ,‬ה (‪ .)34%‬בנוסף‪ ,‬חלק ד נמצא‬ ‫ברוב כתבי היד שבשתי קבוצות אלה‪ .‬לבסוף‪ ,‬יש כתבי יד שמרכיבים את שתי הקבוצות‬ ‫גם יחד‪ ,‬כולם או רובם (‪.)10%‬‬ ‫לשון אחר (בלי להתחשב בחלק ד)‪ ,‬לפי קבוצה אחת של כתבי יד אנו מוצאים (על‬ ‫פי כ”י ‪:)14‬‬ ‫[א] ‘אלות שוא’ — השבע לשקר‪‘ .‬אלות’ — כמו ‘כרות’‪ ,‬לש’[ון] הוה‪.‬‬ ‫[ג] ‘כרת ברית’ — לע”ז‪ ,‬לפיכך ‘ופרח’ עליהם ‘משפט’ יסורין ופורענות‬ ‫‘כראש’‪ ,‬שהוא עשב מר הפורח ‘על תלמי שדי’‪ .‬ויונ’ תרג’ ‘על תלמי שדי’ —‬ ‫‪77‬‬ ‫בעון שמשיגים גבולי שדות‪.‬‬ ‫[ה] ד’א’ ‘על תלמי שדי’ — שהם עושים שם מזבחותם‪ ,‬כמ’[ה] שנ’ ‘גם‬ ‫מזבחותם כגלים על תלמי שדי’ (הושע יב ‪ ,)12‬שם יפרח עליהם משפט עונם‪.‬‬ ‫ולפי קבוצה אחרת של כתבי יד‪ ,‬אנו מוצאים (על פי כ”י ‪:)32‬‬ ‫[א] ‘אלות שוא’ — השבע לשקר‪‘ .‬אלות’ — כמו ‘כרות’‪ ,‬לשון הווה‪.‬‬ ‫[ב] ‘כרות ברית’ — גם הוא לשוא‪.‬‬ ‫[ו] כל ברית שהם כורתים זה עם זה עוברים עליו‪‘ .‬ופרח כראש משפט‬ ‫על תלמי שדי’ — [כראש שהוא פורח ‘על תלמי שדי’]‪ 78,‬והוא עשב מר‪ ,‬וכן‬ ‫משפטיהם פורחים וגדילים תמרורים [=מלשון מר] לעניים ואביונים‪ ,‬ואף כן‬ ‫‪80‬‬ ‫אמר עמוס (ו ‪‘ )12‬כי [הפכתם]‪ 79‬לראש משפט’‪.‬‬ ‫לפי חלוקה זו‪ ,‬אנו רואים שהפירוש הראשון מדגיש את חטא העם כלפי ה’‪ ,‬חטא‬ ‫עבודה זרה‪ ,‬גם ביחס ל’כרות ברית’‪ ,‬וגם לגבי ‘תלמי שדי’‪ .‬ואילו הפירוש השני מדגיש את‬ ‫החטא בין אדם לחברו‪ :‬גם ביחס ל’כרות ברית’ (עוברים על בריתות שנכרתו)‪ ,‬וגם לגבי‬ ‫‘תלמי שדי’ (מטאפורה לעניים ואביונים‪ ,‬שמשפטיהם פורחים דברים מרים לחלשים בעם‪,‬‬ ‫וכדברי עמוס)‪.‬‬ ‫הוא עשב מר הפורח על תלמי שדי [כך משפטיהם פוריים וגדילים תמרורים לעניים אביונים וגם עליהם‬ ‫יפוח ייסורין ומשפט]‪ ,‬וי’ת’ תלמי שדי בעון שמשיגין גבול שדות; תלמי שדי — מענית המחרישה קרויה‬ ‫תלם; ד’א’ על תלמי שדי — שהם עושים שם מזבחות’[ם]‪ ,‬כמה שנ’ גם מזבחותם כגלים על תלמי שדי‪,‬‬ ‫שם יפרח עליהם משפט עונם’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .75‬כתבי היד ‪( 7‬סדר החלקים‪ :‬ו‪ ,‬ב‪ ,‬ג‪ ,‬ד‪ ,‬ה)‪( 9 ,‬סדר החלקים‪ :‬ב‪ ,‬ג [חלק]‪ ,‬ו — ובאמצע ד‪ ,‬ה)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .76‬כתבי היד ‪( 5‬סדר החלקים‪ :‬ב‪[ ,‬ג גיליון]‪ ,‬ו‪ ,‬ד‪ ,‬ה)‪( 42 ,‬הסדר‪ :‬ב‪ ,‬ה‪ ,‬ד‪ ,‬ו)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .77‬כאן בא חלק ד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .78‬כן בכ”י ‪ ,11‬ובכ”י ‪ 32‬חסר מפני שדילג על פי הדומות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .79‬כן בכ”י ‪ ;11‬בכ”י ‪ 32‬בטעות‪‘ :‬הפכתי’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .80‬כאן בא חלק ד (ללא דיבור המתחיל)‪.‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪217‬‬

‫לדעתי יש לשחזר את התהליך הבא‪ :‬תחילה רש”י פירש את הפסוק ביחס לחטא‬ ‫עבודה זרה (הקבוצה הראשונה‪ ,‬עם חלקים ג‪ ,‬ה)‪ ,‬ומאוחר יותר פירש אותו ביחס לחטא‬ ‫בין אדם לחבירו (הקבוצה השנייה‪ ,‬עם חלקים ב‪ ,‬ו)‪ .‬בחלק מכתבי היד (‪ )41%‬הפירוש‬ ‫השני החליף את הפירוש הראשון‪ .‬במיעוט של כתבי היד (‪ )10%‬הרכיבו את שני הפירושים‬ ‫השונים‪ ,‬רובם או כולם‪.‬‬ ‫באשר לחלק ד‪ ,‬הנמצא ברוב כתבי היד של שתי הקבוצות העיקריות שלעיל‬ ‫(‪ ,)59% = 32%+27%‬יש להניח‪ ,‬על פי תפוצתו הגדולה‪ ,‬שהוא יצא מידי רש”י‪ .‬ומה עוד‪,‬‬ ‫שחלק ד זהה לדברי רש”י בשני מקומות אחרים בפירושו לתנ”ך (שמ”א יד ‪ 14‬ותה’ קכט ‪.)3‬‬ ‫הנוסח המורכב בדפוסים דומה במורכבותו לקבוצה האחרונה של מיעוט כתבי היד‪,‬‬ ‫שהרכיבו את שתי הקבוצות גם יחד‪ .‬אלא שהסדר בדפוסים אינו דומה לסדר בכתבי היד‬ ‫שלפנינו‪ .‬ועוד‪ ,‬בדפוסים הוסיפו ‘ד”א אלות שוא’ בראש חלק ו‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )11‬הושע ד ‪ 19‬סוף ‪ /‬ה ‪ 1‬סוף‬ ‫פירש רש”י להושע ה ‪ ,1‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫‘כי לכם המשפט’ — משפט היסורין עליכם בית המלך‪ 81,‬כי אתם ‘הייתם פח‬ ‫על המצפה [לפנינו‪ :‬למצפה] ורשת [‪ ]...‬על תבור’ — על שני הרים הללו‬ ‫הושיבו פרסדיאות‪ 82‬לשמור שלא יעלו ישראל לרגל לבית המקדש‪.‬‬ ‫בספרות חז”ל נמצא העניין של ירבעם אשר הושיב פרסדיאות (שומרים) כדי למנוע‬ ‫את ישראל מלעלות לרגל בבית המקדש בירושלים‪ 83.‬ברם בספרות חז”ל שלפנינו נושא זה‬ ‫לא נקשר בדרשה מפורשת לפסוקנו בהושע‪ .‬אם כי רד”ק מציין פירוש זה בשם “מדרש”;‬ ‫וכנראה שגם רש”י ראה דרשה כזו‪ ,‬אף שאין היא לפנינו‪.‬‬ ‫במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪ ,1525‬מיד אחרי הפירוש המדרשי‪ ,‬מובא הלשון הבא‪:‬‬ ‫מדרש תנחומא‪ .‬מצאתי‪ :‬לשון אגדות כאדם המאיים על איש המקניטו‪‘ :‬חייך‬ ‫שאני צוררה‪ 84‬לך בכנפיך’‪ ,‬כך המקרא הזה מאיים על ישראל‪ ,‬קנאתי קשורה‬ ‫וחמתי להנקם באחרית ויבושו ממעשיהם‪.‬‬ ‫ההערה ‘מדרש תנחומא’ בא לציין מה היה המקור של הדרשה ביחס לפרסדיאות (אף‬ ‫שאין הדרשה נמצאת לפנינו במדרש תנחומא הרגיל‪ ,‬או במדרש תנחומא‪ ,‬מהדורת בובר)‪.‬‬ ‫ברם הקטע שלאחריו (‘מצאתי לשון אגדות’) אינו במקומו‪ ,‬שהרי אין הוא דן בהושע ה‬

‫‪ .81‬במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ ,1866-1860‬ניתוספה מילה‪‘ :‬ישר’[אל]’‪ .‬המילה מיותרת ולא נמצאת‬ ‫בכל כתבי היד שלפנינו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .82‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪‘ :1866-1860‬פרדסיאות’‪ .‬על מילה זו‪ ,‬שפירושה שומרים (על פי‬ ‫הלטינית‪ ,)praesidia :‬ראו‪ :‬בן־ישר‪ ,‬גוטליב ופנקובר‪ ,‬הושע‪ ,‬דרשה ‪ ,213‬עמ’ ‪ ,238‬והערה ‪ ;2‬וראו‪:‬‬ ‫מיליקובסקי‪ ,‬הפרסדיאות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.418-415‬‬ ‫‪ .83‬ראו‪ :‬בבלי תענ’ כח ע”א‪ ,‬ל ע”ב‪ ,‬גיט’ פח ע”א‪ ,‬בבא בתרא קכא ע”ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .84‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ ,1866-1860‬חילוף מישני‪‘ :‬צורר’‪.‬‬

‫*‪218‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫‪ ,1‬אלא בהושע ד ‪‘( 19‬צרר רוח אותה בכנפיה’)‪ .‬ומכאן שיש לפנינו תוספת‪ ,‬שהרי אחד‬ ‫מהסממנים האפשריים של תוספת הוא מיקום לא מתאים‪.‬‬ ‫אם נפנה לשלושה דפוסים אחרים של פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬נראה שהמהדירים הללו נקטו‬ ‫דרך אחרת בנדון‪ .‬בפירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מהדורת המגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ ,1627-1623‬ובעקבותיו במהדורת‬ ‫המגיד‪ ,‬אמשטרדם ‪ ,1699‬ובמקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪ ,1866-1860‬שני הקטעים (‘מדרש‬ ‫תנחומא’; ‘מצאתי לשון אגדות‪ )’...‬הועברו לסוף הושע ד ‪( 19‬אחרי דברי תרגום יונתן)‪.‬‬ ‫העברה זו אכן מתאימה לקטע השני (‘מצאתי לשון אגדות‪ ,)’...‬הדנה בהושע ד ‪ ,19‬אבל‬ ‫אינה מתאימה לקטע הראשון (‘מדרש תנחומא’)‪ .‬שהרי מה הקשר בין ‘מדרש תנחומא’‬ ‫לדברי תרגום יונתן הנמצאים מיד לפניו בפירוש רש”י להושע ד ‪ ?19‬אפשר שמי שהעביר‬ ‫גם את הקטע הראשון לסוף הושע ד ‪ 19‬חשב ש’מדרש תנחומא’ שייך לאחריו (‘מצאתי‬ ‫לשון אגדות’)‪ ,‬ולא לפניו‪ .‬ברם זו בוודאי טעות (וראו עוד על כך להלן)‪ .‬כפי שציינתי לעיל‪,‬‬ ‫‘מדרש תנחומא’ שייך למה שנאמר לפניו‪ ,‬אבל לא בהושע ד ‪ ,19‬אלא בהושע ה ‪.1‬‬ ‫כדי לעמוד היטב על מקור שני הקטעים האלה‪ ,‬נעיין עתה בעדות של כתבי היד של‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪.‬‬ ‫יש לציין מראש‪ ,‬שמבין כתבי היד שבדקתי אין אחד מהם שמביא את שני הקטעים‬ ‫ביחד‪ ,‬היינו לא כמו מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪( 1525‬שניהם בסוף הושע ה ‪ ,)1‬ולא כמו‬ ‫המגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ 1627-1623‬והבאים בעקבותיו (שניהם בסוף הושע ד ‪ .)19‬אלא מצאנו את‬ ‫הקבוצות הבאות‪:‬‬ ‫‘מדרש תנחומא’‬ ‫‪ 21‬מתוך ‪ 43‬כתבי היד (‪ 85)49%‬אינם מביאים תוספת זו בכלל‪ .‬ואילו ‪ 22‬מתוך ‪ 43‬כתבי‬ ‫היד (‪ 86)51%‬מביאים תוספת זו בסוף הושע ה ‪ .1‬כלומר‪ ,‬מי שמביא את התוספת מביא‬ ‫אותה במקומה הנכון‪ ,‬כציון למקור הדרשה ביחס לפרסדיאות (אף שאין הדרשה לפנינו‬ ‫בתנחומא)‪.‬‬ ‫‘לשון אגדות’‬ ‫כמעט כל כתבי היד‪ 40 ,‬מתוך ‪ ,)93%( 43‬אינם מביאים תוספת זו‪ .‬רק ‪ 3‬מתוך ‪43‬‬ ‫כתבי היד (‪ 88)7%‬מביאים תוספת זו‪ .‬כולם מביאים אותה במקום המתאים‪ ,‬בסוף הושע‬ ‫ד ‪ .19‬אלא שיש הבדל בניסוח התחלת התוספת בכתבי היד בהשוואה לדפוסים‪ .‬נוסח‬ ‫הפתיחה שבכתבי היד מגלה לנו מי הוא בעל התוספת‪ ,‬אשר נמצאת במיעוט קטן של‬ ‫כתבי היד‪ .‬וזה לשון התוספת עם הפתיחה (על פי כ”י ‪:)11‬‬ ‫‪87‬‬

‫‪ .85‬כתבי היד ‪.45 ,44 ,40 ,37 ,35 ,34 ,33 ,31 ,30 ,29 ,27 ,26 ,25 ,22 ,20 ,19 ,18 ,14 ,5 ,4 ,2‬‬ ‫‪ .86‬כתבי היד ‪.46 ,43 ,42 ,41 ,39 ,38 ,36 ,32 ,28 ,23 ,21 ,16 ,15 ,13 ,12 ,11 ,10 ,8 ,7 ,6 ,3 ,1‬‬ ‫‪ .87‬כתבי היד ‪,29 ,28 ,27 ,26 ,25 ,23 ,22 ,21 ,20 ,19 ,18 ,16 ,15 ,14 ,13 ,12 ,10 ,8 ,7 ,6 ,5 ,4 ,3 ,2‬‬ ‫‪ .46 ,45 ,44 ,43 ,42 ,41 ,40 ,39 ,38 ,37 ,36 ,35 ,34 ,33 ,31 ,30‬ב־‪ 3‬כתבי יד‪ ,24 ,17 ,9 ,‬חסר פירוש רש”י‬ ‫לפסוקנו‪.‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪219‬‬

‫ר’ יוסף או’[מר]‪ :‬לשון האגדות‪ ,‬כאדם המאיים על איש המקניטו‪ :‬חייך הריני‬ ‫צוררה לך בכנפיך‪ ,‬כך המקרא מאיים על ישראל‪ ,‬קנאתי קשורה וחמתי‬ ‫להנקם באחרית ויבושו ממעשיהם‪.‬‬ ‫מהנוסח המפורש שבכתבי היד (‘ר’ יוסף או’[מר]’)‪ ,‬בניגוד ללשון הסתמי שבדפוסים‪:‬‬ ‫(‘מצאתי’)‪ ,‬אנו לומדים שלפנינו תוספת מר’ יוסף [קרא]‪ .‬הוא מציע לפרש את לשון‬ ‫המקרא‪‘ :‬צרר רוח אותה בכנפיה’ בעקבות לשון שהוא מצא במדרשים‪‘ :‬הריני צוררה לך‬ ‫בכנפיך’‪ .‬לשון זה אכן נמצא במספר מדרשים‪‘ 89:‬אמר לו הקב”ה [למשה]‪“ :‬חייך שאני‬ ‫צוררה לך בכנפיך”’‪.‬‬ ‫נמצאנו למדים שלפנינו שתי תוספות שלא קשורות אחת בשנייה‪ .‬האחת (‘מדרש‬ ‫תנחומא’) שייכת לדרשה על הפרסדיאות‪ ,‬בהושע ה ‪ .1‬ולי נראה שאפשר שיצאה מידי‬ ‫רש”י (אולי אחרי שהתלמידים שאלו אותו מה מקור הדרשה הזו)‪ .‬ואילו התוספת השנייה‬ ‫(‘לשון האגדות’)‪ ,‬המבקשת ללמוד על לשון המקרא מלשון המדרשים‪ ,‬שייכת לסוף הושע‬ ‫ד ‪ ,19‬ומקורה בר’ יוסף קרא‪.‬‬ ‫לבסוף אעיר‪ ,‬שהפתיחה במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪‘ ,1525‬מצאתי’‪ ,‬ביחס להגהה השנייה‬ ‫(במקום ‘ר’ יוסף או’[מר]’ שבכתבי יד שלפנינו) אינו בהכרח לשונו של המהדיר יעקב בן‬ ‫חיים‪ .‬כבר עמדתי במחקר אחר על קבוצה של כ־‪ 20‬תוספות בפירוש רש”י לס’ יחזקאל‪,‬‬ ‫שכולן פותחות במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪ ,1525‬בלשון ‘מצ’[אתי]’‪ 90.‬ושם הראיתי שקבוצת‬ ‫הערות אלה נמצאות בכתבי יד שונים‪ ,‬ובחלק מכתבי היד האלה ההערות נמצאות יחד‬ ‫עם לשון הפתיחה ‘מצאתי’‪ 91.‬נמצאנו למדים‪ ,‬שהמהדיר של מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪,1525‬‬ ‫יעקב בן חיים‪ ,‬העתיק את קבוצת ההערות ביחזקאל המתחילות בלשון ‘מצאתי’ ישר‬ ‫מכתבי היד‪ ,‬לרבות לשון הפתיחה‪ 92.‬לכן אפשר שגם כאן בפירוש רש”י להושע‪ ,‬יעקב בן‬ ‫חיים העתיק את ההערה יחד עם לשון הפתיחה ‘מצאתי’ מכתב יד‪ ,‬למרות שאין כתב יד‬ ‫כזה לפנינו (לפנינו הפתיחה בכתבי היד הייתה‪‘ :‬ר’ יוסף או’[מר]’)‪.‬‬ ‫שתי ההגהות האחרונות שאדון בהן אין בהן שום הערה מפורשת שלפנינו הגהה‪.‬‬ ‫הן שונות מהדוגמאות הקודמות בכך שאין כאן פירוש נוסף אלא פירוש יחיד למילה או‬ ‫ביטוי‪( .‬במקרה הקודם‪ ,‬ההגהה באה לזהות את המקור של הדרשה שכבר נזכרה בפירוש‬ ‫רש”י המקורי)‪ .‬הזיהוי כהגהה עולה רק מהעיון בכתבי היד‪.‬‬

‫‪ .88‬כתבי היד ‪( 11 ,1‬בסוף גם מציין‪‘ :‬ת’[וספת]’)‪.32 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .89‬ויק”ר‪ ,‬מרגליות יא‪ ,‬ו‪ ,‬עמ’ רכח; שהש”ר א ‪ ,7‬ג (למעשה בקטע ג‪ ,‬עוברים לפסוק ‪ ;)8‬מדרש‬ ‫תהלים (שוחר טוב)‪ ,‬מהדורת בובר‪ ,‬יח‪ ,‬כב‪ ,‬עה ע”ב‪ .‬אבל הלשון הזה לא נמצא בתנחומא‪ ,‬והוא מה‬ ‫שציינתי לעיל‪ ,‬שההערה ‘מדרש תנחומא’ מתייחסת לדרשה בהושע ה ‪ ,1‬ולא לתוספת בסוף הושע ד ‪.19‬‬ ‫‪ .90‬ראו‪ :‬פנקובר‪ ,‬רש”י ליחזקאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 442‬והערה ‪.59‬‬ ‫‪ .91‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .445-442‬ועוד הראיתי שם‪ ,‬נספח ג‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,470-469‬שגם במקומות אחרים בפירוש‬ ‫רש”י משתמשים מעתיקי כתבי היד בלשון ‘מצאתי’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .92‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.444‬‬

‫*‪220‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫(‪ )12‬הושע יא ‪‘( 9-8‬נהפך עלי לבי יחד נכמרו נחומי‪ .‬לא אעשה חרון אפי לא אשוב‬ ‫לשחת אפרים’)‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫[‪‘ ]8‬אמגנך’ — אמסרך ביד אויביך‪ ,‬כמו ‘אשר מגן צריך’ (בר’ יד ‪.)20‬‬ ‫‘נכמרו’ — נתחממו‪ ,‬לשון ארמי‪ ,‬וכן ‘עורינו כתנור נכמרו’ (איכה ה ‪.)10‬‬ ‫[‪‘ ]9‬לא אשוב’ — מדברי הטוב אשר אמרתי‪‘ :‬לא מאסתי ולא געלתי’‪( 93‬ויק’ כו‬ ‫‪ ,)44‬להיות משחית את אפרי’[ם]‪.‬‬ ‫‘כי אל אנכי’ — המקיים דבר טובתי‪ ,‬ואין מדתי להנחם על הטובה [מק”ג‬ ‫‪ :1866‬הטוב]‪.‬‬ ‫עיון בכתבי יד לפסוקינו מראה שהם נחלקים לשתי קבוצות עיקריות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 20‬מתוך ‪ 46‬כתבי היד (‪ 94,)43%‬אינם גורסים את הפירוש ל’נכמרו’‪ ,‬וגם לא את‬ ‫הפירוש ל’לא אשוב’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 23‬מתוך ‪ 46‬כתבי היד (‪ 95,)50%‬גורסים את הפירוש ל’נכמרו’ וגם את הפירוש ל’לא‬ ‫אשוב’‪ .‬ועוד‪ 3 ,‬מתוך ‪ 46‬כתבי היד (‪ 96,)7%‬גורסים את הפירוש ל’נכמרו’ — ‪ 2‬מהם בגיליון‪,‬‬ ‫אבל לא גורסים את הפירוש ל’לא ישוב’‪.‬‬ ‫על פי העדות בכתבי היד יש לשחזר שרש”י תחילה לא פירש את ‘נכמרו’ וגם לא את ‘לא‬ ‫אשוב’‪ .‬מאוחר יותר הוא פירש לשונות אלה‪ ,‬ופירושים אלה נכנסו לכתבי היד של פירושו‪,‬‬ ‫הפעם ללא שום ציון שלפנינו תוספות‪ .‬כמו כן אין לשונות פתיחה כגון ‘ד”א’‪ ,‬או ‘ל”א’‪ ,‬שהרי‬ ‫אין אלה פירושים נוספים לפירושים שכבר נתן‪ ,‬אלא פירושים יחידים ללשונות אלה‪.‬‬ ‫שני פירושים אלה נכנסו לדפוסים‪ ,‬וגם כאן ללא ציון שלפנינו פירושים מאוחרים‪.‬‬ ‫יש להעיר שהפירוש הראשון‪ ,‬על ‘נכמרו’‪ ,‬דומה לדברי רש”י בפירושו לבר’ מג ‪ ,30‬אלא‬ ‫ששם הדגים את השימוש במילה בלשון הארמי‪ ,‬והרחיב בפירוש הדוגמה ממגילת איכה‪:‬‬ ‫‘נכמרו’ — נתחממו‪ ,‬ובלשון משנה ‘על הכומר של זיתים’ (בבא מציעא עד‬ ‫ע”א)‪ ,‬ובלשון ארמי משום ‘מכמר בשרא’ (פסחים נח ע”א)‪ 97,‬ובמקרא ‘עורנו‬ ‫כתנור נכמרו’ (איכה ה ‪ — )10‬נתחממו ונקמטו קמטים קמטים מפני זלעפות‬ ‫‪98‬‬ ‫רעב; כן דרך כל עור כשמחממין אותו נקמט ונתכווץ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .93‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪‘ :1866-1860‬לא מאסתים ולא געלתים’; וכן נכון‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .94‬כתבי היד ‪[ 31 ,29 ,27 ,26 ,24 ,20 ,19 ,18 ,14 ,8 ,5 ,4‬אבל מוסיף‪‘ :‬לולי נכמרו נחומי’]‪,34 ,33 ,‬‬ ‫‪.46 ,41 ,40 ,37 ,36 ,35‬‬ ‫‪ .95‬כתבי היד ‪[ 1‬מציין תוספת]‪{ 11 ,10 ,9 ,7 ,6 ,2 ,‬בסוף‪‘ :‬ת’’]‪,25 ,23 ,22 ,21 ,17 ,16 ,15 ,13 ,12 ,‬‬ ‫‪.44 ,42 ,39 ,38 ,32 ,30 ,28‬‬ ‫‪ .96‬כתבי היד ‪‘[ 3‬נכמרו’ בגיליון; חסר ‘לא אשוב’]‪[ 43 ,‬חסר ‘לא אשוב’]‪[ 45 ,‬בגיליון‪ ,‬כנראה‬ ‫התוספת על ‘נכמרו’‪ ,‬תצלום לא חד]‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .97‬והשוו פירוש רש”י על אתר‪ :‬ד”ה לא חיישינן למכמר בישרא — ‘חימום הבשר‪ ,‬ודומה לו באיזהו‬ ‫נשך (בבא מציעא עד ע”א)‪ :‬על הכומר של זיתים — שמניחין יחד בכלי כדי שיתחממו’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .98‬וכן דומים דברי רש”י בפירושו לאיכה ה ‪”‘ :10‬נכמרו” — נתחממו‪ ,‬וכן (בר’ מג ‪“ )30‬כי נכמרו רחמיו”‬ ‫ובלשון גמרא יש הרבה‪“ :‬על הכומר של ענבים” (בבא מציעא עד ע”א); “מכמר בשרא” (פסחים נח ע”א)’‪.‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪221‬‬

‫יש להוסיף‪ ,‬שפירוש רש”י על ‘נכמרו’ כאן וגם בבראשית (ואיכה) חולק על דברי‬ ‫התרגום הארמי לפסוקים אלה‪ ,‬המתרגם את המילה מלשון ‘התגוללו’‪ .‬וראו רד”ק שהלך‬ ‫בעקבות התרגום בפירוש הראשון שלו לפסוק בהושע (ורק בפירוש השני הזכיר בקצרה‬ ‫את האפשרות של ‘נתחממו’)‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )13‬הושע א ‪‘( 2‬תחלת ִּד ֶּבר ה’ אל הושע‪ ,‬ויאמר ה’ על הושע‪)’...‬‬ ‫פירוש רש”י‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪:1525‬‬ ‫[א] ‘תחלת דבר ה’ בהושע’ — רבותי’[נו] אמרו (פסח’ פז ע”א)‪ :‬תחלה לארבעה‬ ‫נביאי’[ם] שנתנבאו בימי עוזיה‪ 99,‬הושע ישעיה עמוס ומיכה‪ .‬ישעיה נתנבא‪,‬‬ ‫שנ’[אמר] ‘וינועו אמות הסיפים’ וגו’ (יש’ ו ‪ ,)4‬והוא היה יום שנתנגע עזיה‬ ‫שנכנס להיכל‪ ,‬שרעשו העליוני’[ם] לשורפו ותחתוני’[ם] לבולעו‪ ,‬כעונשן‬ ‫של עדת קרח‪ ,‬שהיו בהם בלועין ושרופים‪ 100.‬בעמוס נאמר ‘שנתי’[ם] לפני‬ ‫הרעש’ (עמוס א ‪ .)1‬והושע קדם לכולם‪ ,‬ומיכה היה אחרון לכולם‪,‬‬ ‫[ב] שנ’[אמר] בו ‘בימי יותם אחז וחזקיה’ (מיכה א ‪ ,)1‬ולא נאמר בו עוזיה‪.‬‬ ‫[ג] ופשוטו של מקרא תחלת דיבור שנדבר הקב”ה עם הושע אמ’[ר] לו כן‪.‬‬ ‫הקורא את הנוסח במקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪ ,1525‬תמה‪ :‬הרי בחלק ב נאמר במפורש‬ ‫שעוזיה לא נזכר אצל מיכה‪ ,‬וזו ההוכחה שמיכה היה אחרון לארבעת הנביאים‪ .‬אם כן‪,‬‬ ‫איך יתכן שבחלק א כתוב שארבעת הנביאים נתנבאו בימי עוזיה?! ומה עוד‪ ,‬אין זה לשון‬ ‫התלמוד‪ ,‬שם נאמר‪‘ :‬שנתנבאו באותו פרק [=בתקופה אחת]’‪.‬‬ ‫כדי לפתור סתירה זו‪ ,‬ולעמוד על תולדות פירוש רש”י לפסוקנו‪ ,‬נעיין בעדות שבכתבי‬ ‫היד‪ .‬כתבי היד נחלקים לשתי קבוצות עיקריות‪ ,‬ולשתי קבוצות קטנות יותר‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )1‬ב־‪ 11‬מתוך ‪ 40‬כתבי יד (‪ 101,)27.5%‬כתוב בחלק א‪‘ :‬בימי עוזיה’‪ ,‬ואין חלק ב (פסוק‬ ‫הראיה ביחס למיכה)‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )2‬ב־‪ 16‬מתוך ‪ 40‬כתבי יד (‪ 102,)40%‬כתוב בחלק א‪‘ :‬בימים הללו’‪ ,‬ויש חלק ב (פסוק‬ ‫הראיה)‪.‬‬

‫‪ .99‬בהמגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ ,1627-1623‬ובעקבותיו‪ ,‬המגיד‪ ,‬אמשטרדם ‪ ,1699‬ומקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה‬ ‫‪(‘ :1866-1860‬בימים הללו)’‪ .‬להלן בפנים נדון בחילוף נוסח זה שבין המהדורות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .100‬השוו‪ :‬בבלי סנהדרין קי ע”א‪‘ :‬במתניתא תנא‪ :‬קרח מן השרופים ומן הבלועין’; תנחומא‪,‬‬ ‫מהדורת בובר‪ ,‬קרח כג‪ ,‬מז ע”א ‪‘ :‬וקרח לקח [לקה] יותר מן כולם‪ ,‬שנשרף ונבלע’‪ .‬במקורות אלה הודגש‬ ‫שקרח עצמו נענש בשני עונשים‪ ,‬נשרף ונבלע‪ ,‬ואילו האחרים חלקם נבלעו וחלקם נשרפו‪ .‬ראו גם ספרי‬ ‫במדבר קיז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪‘ :135‬הא למדנו שהיה קרח מן הבלועים ומן השרופים’ (ושם זאת אשגרה ממקום אחר‪,‬‬ ‫כדברי הורוביץ־רבין‪ ,‬על אתר; אשגרה דומה נמצאת גם בספרי במדבר קיט‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)137‬‬ ‫‪ .101‬כתבי היד ‪‘[ 31 ,29 ,27 ,28 ,18 ,14‬עוזיהו’]‪‘[ 37 ,33 ,‬עוזיהו’]‪[ 40 ,‬רק‪‘ :‬בימי’]‪ .46 ,45 ,‬בחמישה‬ ‫כתבי יד נוספים אין פירוש רש”י לפסוקנו‪ ;24 ,20 ,17 ,9 ,4 :‬ובכ”י ‪ 15‬התצלום במיקרופילם לא ניתן‬ ‫לקריאה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .102‬כתבי היד ‪[ 28 ,23 ,21 ,16 ,13 ,12 ,10 ,7 ,6 ,1‬יש דילוג מטעם הדומות‪ ,‬וחסרות המילים‪‘ :‬ומיכה‬ ‫היה אחרון לכולם’‪ ,‬אבל פסוק הראיה נשתמר]‪[ 42 ,41 ,38 ,36 ,35 ,‬רק‪‘ :‬בימי’]‪[ 43 ,‬רק‪‘ :‬בימי’]‪.‬‬

‫*‪222‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫(‪ )3‬ב־‪ 5‬כתבי יד (‪ 103,)12.5%‬כתוב בחלק א‪‘ :‬בימי עוזיה’‪ ,‬ובכל זאת יש חלק ב (פסוק‬ ‫הראיה הסותר את הנוסח של ‘בימי עוזיה’)‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )4‬ב־‪ 8‬כתבי יד (‪ 104,)20%‬כתוב בחלק א‪‘ :‬בימים הללו’‪ ,‬ואין חלק ב‪.‬‬ ‫על פי העדות בכתבי היד ניתן לשחזר‪ ,‬שבתחילה רש”י כתב בחלק א‪ ,‬שהנביאים‬ ‫נתנבאו ‘בימי עוזיה’‪ ,‬ולא הביא פסוק ראיה (=חלק ב) שמיכה היה האחרון לארבעת‬ ‫הנביאים‪ .‬וכך לא הייתה סתירה בנוסח של פירוש רש”י‪ .‬אלא שהיה אי דיוק בדברי רש”י‪,‬‬ ‫שהרי לא כתוב במקרא שמיכה היה בזמנו של עוזיה; להפך המלך הראשון שנזכר אצל‬ ‫מיכה (א ‪ )1‬הוא יותם‪ ,‬בנו של עוזיה‪.‬‬ ‫מאוחר יותר‪ ,‬רש”י הוסיף פסוק ראיה שמיכה היה האחרון מבין ארבעת הנביאים‪.‬‬ ‫ההוכחה הייתה שיותם (בנו של עוזיה) הוא המלך הראשון שנזכר אצל מיכה‪‘ ,‬ולא נאמר‬ ‫בו עוזיה’ — בניגוד לשלושת הנביאים האחרים‪ ,‬הושע‪ ,‬עמוס וישעיה‪ .‬תוך כדי כך רש”י‬ ‫שם לב לאי דיוק בתחילת דבריו‪ ,‬והחליף את הנוסח‪‘ :‬בימי עוזיה’ לנוסח‪‘ :‬בימים הללו’‪.‬‬ ‫לפי הנוסח המוגה לא הייתה סתירה בנוסח של פירוש רש”י‪.‬‬ ‫שני טיפוסי כתבי היד העיקריים הללו (‘בימי עוזיה’ וללא פסוק ראיה; ‘בימים הללו’‬ ‫ופסוק ראיה) גרמו לנוסחים מעורבים בכתבי היד של פירוש רש”י‪ .‬יש שגרסו ‘בימי עוזיה’‬ ‫ובכל זאת הביאו את פסוק הראיה — וכך נוצרה סתירה בדברי רש”י‪ .‬טיפוס מעורב זה‬ ‫הוא שנכנס למקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪( 1525‬ואילו בהמגיד‪ ,‬לובלין ‪ 1627-1623‬המהדיר‬ ‫תיקן על פי אחד משני הטיפוסים העיקריים‪‘ :‬בימים הללו’‪ ,‬וגם הביא פסוק הראיה)‪ .‬ויש‬ ‫שגרסו ‘בימים הללו’ ולא הביאו את פסוק הראיה (אף שזה לא משקף את מלאכת ההגהה‬ ‫השלימה של רש”י בפירושו לפסוקנו‪ ,‬לפחות לא נוצרה סתירה בדבריו)‪.‬‬ ‫אוסיף‪ ,‬שבתחילת פירושו רש”י הפנה ל’דברי רבותינו’‪ ,‬היינו במקרה הזה לבבלי‬ ‫פסחים פז ע”א‪ ,‬ששם באה הדרשה העיקרית שהושע היה הראשון לארבעת נביאים‬ ‫שניבאו בפרק אחד‪ .‬ברם שם חסרות הוכחות לגבי הסדר הפנימי של שאר ארבעת‬ ‫הנביאים‪ .‬ההוכחות שרש”י הביא בפירושו לסדר הפנימי של שאר הנביאים מבוססות‬ ‫בעיקר על הנדרש בסדר עולם רבה כ (מ ע”א — מא ע”א)‪.‬‬ ‫בפירושו הראשון רש”י הסתפק בסדר הפנימי שבין עמוס לישעיה‪ ,‬על פי הדרשה‬ ‫שבסדר עולם רבה‪ ,‬שהנעת אמות הסיפים בימי ישעיה היא היא הרעש שנזכר בס’ עמוס‪,‬‬ ‫היינו שעמוס ניבא ‘שנתיים לפני הרעש’ (א ‪ .)1‬מכאן מסיקה הדרשה‪ ,‬שעמוס קדם‬ ‫לישעיה‪ .‬ברם‪ ,‬רש”י לא הביא הוכחה שמיכה היה האחרון מבין ארבעה נביאים אלה‪.‬‬

‫‪ .103‬כתבי היד ‪[ 3 ,2‬בשניים אלה‪‘ :‬עוזיהו’]‪ .32 ,25 ,11 ,‬בשלושה מכתבי יד אלה‪ ,32 ,11 ,3 :‬לאחר‬ ‫פסוק הראיה נוסף המשפט הבא‪‘ :‬מכל מקום בפרק אחד נתנבאו‪ ,‬שהרי יותם בימי אביו היה שופט על‬ ‫הארץ’ (שתי המילים האחרונות חסרות בכ”י ‪ .)3‬משפט אחרון זה ניתוסף על ידי מישהו שניסה לפתור‬ ‫את הסתירה בין חלק א (‘בימי עוזיה’) לבין חלק ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .104‬כתבי היד ‪[ 5‬כאן‪‘ :‬בימים ההם’]‪[ 8 ,‬אין בו פסוק הראיה‪ ,‬אבל יש בו התוספת של ‘ולתשובת‬ ‫המינין’]‪.44 ,39 ,34 ,30 ,22 ,19 ,‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪223‬‬

‫בהגהתו‪ ,‬רש”י בא להשלים את ההוכחה האחרונה‪ ,‬וזאת על פי מה שנמצא בסדר‬ ‫עולם רבה כ‪ ,‬שם ציינו‪’“ :‬דבר ה’ אשר היה אל מיכה המורשתי בימי יותם”‪ ,‬מלמד שכלן‬ ‫קדמו את מיכה’‪ .‬אלא שרש”י המשיך להבהיר את כוונת סדר עולם רבה‪ .‬ההוכחה היא‪,‬‬ ‫שביחס למיכה‪ ,‬יותם הוא המלך הראשון מיהודה שנזכר‪ ,‬ואילו חסר איזכור של המלך‬ ‫עוזיה (אביו של יותם)‪ ,‬שנזכר אצל שלושת האחרים (הושע א ‪ ;1‬יש’ א ‪ ;1‬עמוס א ‪ .)1‬מכאן‬ ‫שמיכה הוא האחרון מבין ארבעת הנביאים האלה‪ .‬ותוך כדי הבהרת ההוכחה האחרונה‪,‬‬ ‫רש”י עמד על אי דיוק בתחילת פירושו‪ ,‬ותיקן גם אותו (‘בימים הללו’‪ ,‬במקום ‘בימי‬ ‫עוזיה’)‪.‬‬ ‫אף על פי שלא כתוב במפורש בכתבי היד ששני התיקונים בפירוש לפסוקנו יצאו מידי‬ ‫רש”י‪ ,‬נראה לי שיש להסיק מסקנה זו על פי התפוצה הרבה של התיקונים בכתבי היד‪.‬‬ ‫טיפוסי ההגהות‬ ‫את הגהותיו של רש”י לפירוש להושע אפשר לחלקן לכמה קבוצות עיקריות‪:‬‬ ‫(‪1‬א) הגהות שבהן הבהיר ענייני לשון‪( 1 :‬חולק על פירושו המקורי)‪( 7 ,2 ,‬גם כאן‬ ‫שינוי מהפירוש המקורי)‪.12 ,‬‬ ‫(‪1‬ב) הגהות שבהן הבהיר ענייני לשון ברוח מדרשית‪( 6 ,5 :‬בשתיהן שינוי מהפירוש‬ ‫המקורי)‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )2‬הגהות שבהן הבהיר את מהלך העניינים‪( 10 :‬שונה מהפירוש המקורי)‪.12 ,‬‬ ‫(‪3‬א) הגהות שבהן הבהיר מטאפורה‪( 8 :‬דעה נוספת)‪( 9 ,‬דעה נוספת; בשני הפירושים‬ ‫רש”י הרחיב דרשות קיימות והכיל אותם גם על המשך הפסוק)‪.‬‬ ‫(‪3‬ב) הגהה שבה הבהיר האם לפנינו מטאפורה או פירוש מילולי‪.3 :‬‬ ‫(‪4‬א) הגהה שבה הבהיר דברי חז”ל‪( 13 :‬מה הראייה שמיכה היה האחרון מבין ארבעת‬ ‫הנביאים‪ ,‬וכתוצאה מכך דיוק ביחס לתקופה המשותפת בין ארבעת הנביאים)‪.‬‬ ‫(‪4‬ב) הגהה שבה הבהיר מקור של דרשה‪.11 :‬‬ ‫(‪ )5‬הגהה שבה הוסיף תשובה למינים‪.13 :‬‬ ‫תפוצת ההגהות בכתבי היד ובדפוסים‬ ‫מבין ארבע ההגהות שיש בהן הערה המייחסת את ההגהה לרש”י‪ ,‬במקרה אחד (הגהה‬ ‫‪ ,)1‬ההגהה וכמו כן הערת הייחוס נמצאות בכתב יד אחד בלבד‪ .‬במקרה שני (הגהה ‪,)4‬‬ ‫ההגהה נמצאת בשישה כתבי יד‪ ,‬ורק באחד מהם נמצאת הערת הייחוס (המשוחזר)‪ .‬שתי‬ ‫ההגהות האלה לא נכנסו לדפוסים (מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ונציה ‪ ;1525‬מהדורת המגיד‪ ,‬לובלין‬ ‫‪ ;1627-1623‬אמשטרדם ‪ ;1699‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬ורשה ‪.)1866-1860‬‬ ‫ביחס לשאר ההגהות‪ ,‬כולן נכנסו לדפוסים‪ ,‬אבל אין ציון שלפנינו הגהות‪ .‬הדרך‬ ‫היחידה לגלות שלפנינו הגהות היא בדיקת כתבי היד של הפירוש‪ .‬בדיקה זו מגלה‬ ‫שהעדות בכתבי היד מתחלקת לשלושה טיפוסים עיקריים‪:‬‬ ‫(‪ )1‬בחלק מכתבי היד יש דעה אחת (מקורית)‪ ,‬ובחלק מכתבי היד במקום הדעה‬ ‫המקורית‪ ,‬יש דעה חילופית (הפירוש המוגה)‪ .‬רוב כתבי היד שייכים לשתי קבוצות אלה‪,‬‬

‫*‪224‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫וכל קבוצה יש לה אחוז ניכר מכתבי היד‪ .‬כך הגהה ‪ ;39%-28% :2‬ובמקרה הזה‪ ,‬בכתב יד‬ ‫אחד יש ייחוס מפורש של ההגהה לרש”י; הגהה ‪ ;47.5%-28.5% :7‬הגהה ‪;41%-34% :10‬‬ ‫הגהה ‪.40%-27.5% :13‬‬ ‫(‪ )2‬בחלק מכתבי היד יש דעה אחת (מקורית)‪ ,‬ובחלק מכתבי היד יש הדעה המקורית‬ ‫וגם דעה נוספת‪ ,‬מוגהת; הדעה הנוספת פותחת בכותרת ‘ד”א’ [דבר אחר]‪ .‬רוב כתבי‬ ‫היד שייכים לשתי קבוצות אלה‪ ,‬וכל קבוצה יש לה אחוז ניכר מכתבי היד‪ .‬כך הגהה‬ ‫‪ ;60%-40% :3‬ובמקרה הזה‪ ,‬בכתב יד אחד יש ייחוס מפורש של ההגהה לרש”י; הגהה‬ ‫‪( 49%-44% :8‬ובמקרה הזה‪ ,‬ב־‪ 8%‬מכתבי היד‪ ,‬הדעה המוגהת החליפה את הדעה‬ ‫המקורית — היינו‪ ,‬כמו הטיפוס הראשון שלעיל); הגהה ‪ ;53%-47% :9‬הגהות ‪ 5‬וכן ‪:6‬‬ ‫‪( 82%-18%‬כאן האיזון בין האחוזים שונה משאר הדוגמאות; גם הצורה שונה משאר‬ ‫הדוגמאות‪ :‬ב־‪ 41%‬מכתבי היד‪ ,‬שתי ההגהות מופיעות ביחד‪ ,‬לאחר סוף הפירוש לעמוס‪,‬‬ ‫ואילו ב־‪ 41%‬מכתבי היד‪ ,‬כל הגהה מופיעה במקומה‪ ,‬על אתר)‪.‬‬ ‫יש להדגיש‪ ,‬שהפתיחה ‘ד”א’ אינה מסמנת בהכרח הגהה מאוחרת בפירוש רש”י; הרי‬ ‫אפשר שלפנינו דעה שנייה שנאמרה בפירוש המקורי‪ .‬ברם‪ ,‬כאשר כתבי היד מתחלקים‬ ‫לשתי קבוצות‪ ,‬וכל קבוצה יש לה אחוז ניכר מכתבי היד‪ ,‬ובקבוצה אחת חסרה ‘ד”א’‪,‬‬ ‫ובקבוצה השנייה קיימת ‘ד”א’‪ ,‬יש להניח ש’ד”א’ מייצג פתיחה של הגהה‪.‬‬ ‫(‪ )3‬בחלק מכתבי היד אין פירוש למילה או ביטוי‪ ,‬ובחלק מכתבי היד יש פירוש‬ ‫חדש‪ ,‬ואין הפירוש המוגה פותח בכותרת ‘ד”א’ (שהרי המילה או הביטוי לא נתפרש‬ ‫בנוסח המקורי)‪ .‬רוב כתבי היד שייכים לשתי קבוצות אלה‪ ,‬וכל קבוצה יש לה אחוז ניכר‬ ‫מכתבי היד‪ .‬כך הגהה ‪( 51%-49% :11‬הערה על מקור דרשה); הגהה ‪( 12‬הערה על המילה‬ ‫‘נכמרו’‪ ,‬וכן ‘ולא אשוב’)‪.‬‬ ‫בכל שלושת הטיפוסים שלעיל‪ ,‬הדגשנו שכתבי היד מתחלקים לשתי קבוצות‬ ‫עיקריות‪ ,‬ושכל קבוצה יש לה אחוז ניכר מכתבי היד‪ .‬תנאים אלה הם שמעלים את‬ ‫ההסתברות שלפנינו הגהה של רש”י עצמו‪ .‬לשון אחר‪ ,‬לא סביר שהגהה אנונימית הייתה‬ ‫נכנסת לקבוצה גדולה של כתבי יד של פירוש רש”י‪ .‬להפך‪ ,‬הסיכויים הם שהגהה שאיננה‬ ‫של רש”י תיכנס רק למיעוט של כתבי היד של פירושו‪ .‬דוגמה לכך היא ההגהה של ר’‬ ‫יוסף קרא‪ ,‬שראינו לעיל בדוגמה של הגהה ‪ .11‬מצד אחד‪ ,‬ההגהה [של רש”י] ביחס למקור‬ ‫דרשת חז”ל (‘מדרש תנחומא’) נכנסה ל־‪ 51%‬של כתבי היד‪ .‬מאידך‪ ,‬ההגהה של ר’ יוסף‬ ‫קרא נכנסה רק ל־‪ 3‬כתבי יד (‪ .)7%‬אמנם ביד המקרה שתי הגהות אלו נכנסו לדפוסים‬ ‫(וזו של ר’ יוסף קרא ללא ייחוס‪ ,‬אלא רק בכתורת‪‘ :‬מצאתי’)‪ ,‬ואין הקורא יודע ששתיהן‬ ‫הגהות‪ ,‬ורק אחת מידי רש”י‪.‬‬ ‫עוד יש להדגיש‪ ,‬שאם יש הגהה בכתבי היד‪ ,‬ויש גם הערת ייחוס מפורשת המשייכת‬ ‫אותה לרש”י‪ ,‬אז אפילו אם היא נמצאת במיעוט של כתבי היד יש לסמוך על העדות הזו‬ ‫ולייחס את ההגהה לרש”י‪ .‬רק במקרים שאין הערת ייחוס מפורשת‪ ,‬יש לסמוך על אחוז‬ ‫ניכר של כתבי היד כדי לייחס את ההגהה לרש”י (לפי שלושת הטיפוסים שלעיל)‪.‬‬ ‫ראינו אם כן‪ ,‬שמהדורות הדפוס אינן משקפות היטב את ההגהות של רש”י לספר‬ ‫הושע‪ .‬לאמר‪ ,‬אף שרוב הגהותיו לספר נמצאות שם‪ ,‬אין סימן שהן הגהות‪ .‬יתירה מזו‪,‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫*‪225‬‬

‫בשני מקרים ‪ ,‬הגהה ‪ 7‬והגהה ‪ ,10‬הנוסח בדפוס הוא מורכב‪ ,‬ולמעשה משקף הרכבה של‬ ‫הפירוש המקורי והפירוש המוגה‪ ,‬ללא סדר רצוף‪ .‬בכל המקרים האלה‪ ,‬רק בדיקת כתבי‬ ‫היד גילה לנו במדויק מה היה הפירוש המקורי ומה היה הפירוש המוגה‪.‬‬

‫נספח‬

‫‪ 46‬כתבי יד של פירוש רש”י לספר הושע‬ ‫(רשימת קיצורים לפי סדר אל”ף בי”ת)‬ ‫מילאנו‪ ,‬ספריית אמברוזיאנה ‪( C 119 Inf.‬ברנהיימר ‪)22‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬אמברוזיאנה ‪ 119 Inf.‬‬ ‫‪C‬‬ ‫מילאנו‪ ,‬ספריית אמברוזיאנה ‪( C 282 Inf.‬ברנהיימר ‪)23‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬אמברוזיאנה ‪ 282 Inf.‬‬ ‫‪C‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬בודליאנה ‪ pp. 2‬‬ ‫אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪( Opp. 2‬נויבאואר ‪)74‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫‪ .*4‬בודליאנה ‪ pp. 16‬‬ ‫אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪( Opp. 16‬נויבאואר ‪)82‬‬ ‫(חסר הושע א ‪ – 1‬ב ‪ ;3‬ה ‪ – 1‬י ‪)7‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪( Opp. 34‬נויבאואר ‪)186‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬בודליאנה ‪ pp. 34‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪( Or. 142‬נויבאואר ‪)295‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬בודליאנה ‪ r. 142‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪( Poc. 127‬נויבאואר ‪)296‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬בודליאנה ‪ oc. 127‬‬ ‫‪P‬‬ ‫אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪( Or. 326‬נויבאואר ‪)297‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬בודליאנה ‪ r. 326‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫‪ O‬אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪Or. Add. fol. 22‬‬ ‫‪ .*9‬בודליאנה ‪ r. Add. fol. 22‬‬ ‫(נויבאואר ‪)298‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫(שרד‪ :‬הושע ז ‪31[ 9‬א] ועד יב ‪32[ 10‬ב]; ואז קופץ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫למיכה ג ‪)5‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .10‬בודליאנה ‪ Corpus Christi‬אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪Corpus Christi‬‬ ‫‪ College 6‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪( College, ms. 6‬נויבאואר ‪)2435,2‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬בודליאנה ‪ Corpus Christi‬אוקספורד‪ ,‬ספריית בודליאנה ‪Corpus Christi‬‬ ‫‪ College 165‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪( College, ms. 165‬נויבאואר ‪)2440‬‬ ‫ברלין‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה ‪( Or. fol. 122‬שטיינשניידר ‪)15‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬ברלין ‪ r. fol. 122‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫ברלין‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה ‪( Or. fol. 1221‬שטיינשניידר ‪)140‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬ברלין ‪ r. fol. 1221‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫‪ .*14‬ברלין ‪ Or. 40 935‬‬ ‫ברלין‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה ‪( Or. 40 935‬לשעבר טיבינגן ‪)7‬‬ ‫(הושע יד ‪ - 4‬סוף‪ ,‬ביד שנייה)‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ג’נובה‪ ,‬הספרייה העירונית (‪Biblioteca Civica‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬ג’נובה‪ ,‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫מספר‬ ‫‪ ,)Berio‬ללא הספרייה העירונית ‬ ‫דוונטר (בהולנד)‪ ,‬ספריית אתניאום ‪6144‬‬ ‫‪ .16‬דבנטר ‪ 6144‬‬ ‫לונדון‪ ,‬הספרייה הבריטית ‪( Add. 26,879‬מרגוליות ‪)187‬‬ ‫‪ .*17‬הספרייה הבריטית ‬ ‫‪A‬‬ ‫(שרד‪ :‬הושע ט ‪16‬ב – יב ‪)3‬‬ ‫ ‪ dd. 26,879‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬הספרייה הבריטית ‪ 188‬‬ ‫לונדון‪ ,‬הספרייה הבריטית ‪)Harley 5518( 188,2‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬הספרייה הבריטית ‪ 189‬‬ ‫לונדון‪ ,‬הספרייה הבריטית ‪)Harley 150( 189,2‬‬

‫*‪226‬‬

‫וטיקן ‪e br. 24‬‬ ‫וטיקן ‪e br. 94‬‬ ‫‪H‬‬ ‫וינה ‪ ebr. 220‬‬ ‫וינה ‪ Hebr. 3‬‬

‫‪. 20‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬‬ ‫‪ .*24‬טורנטו ‪ 5-006‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .25‬ישיבה אוניברסיטה ‪ 1247‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬ליידן ‪ r. 4718‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .27‬מינכן ‪h ebr. 5‬‬ ‫‪A‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬סט’ ג’אנס קולג’ ‪ 3‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬סינסינטי ‪ 653‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬סנקט פטרבורג ‪ I 11‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬סנקט פטרבורג ‪I 13‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬סנקט פטרבורג ‪I C 6‬‬ ‫‪ .*33‬סנקט פטרבורג ‬ ‫ ‪ Evr. A II 228‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬פולדא ‪2 0A3‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬פריס ‪ héb. 154‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬פריס ‪ héb. 161‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬פרמה ‪ 2726‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .38‬פרמה ‪ 3260‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .39‬פרמה ‪ 2854‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .40‬קזנטנזה ‪ 3144‬‬ ‫‪A‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬קמברידג’ ‪ dd. 1733‬‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬רוסטוק ‪ r. 32‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪O‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬רוסטוק ‪ r. 33‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .44‬שביליה ‪ 56-1-16‬‬ ‫ ‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫וטקין‪ ,‬הספרייה האפוסטוליקית‪ ,‬וטיקן ‪Cod. ebr. 24‬‬ ‫וטיקן‪ ,‬הספרייה האפוסטוליקית‪ ,‬וטיקן ‪Cod. ebr. 94‬‬ ‫וינה‪ ,‬הספרייה הלאומית ‪( Hebr. 220‬שוורץ ‪)23‬‬ ‫וינה‪ ,‬הספרייה הלאומית ‪( Hebr. 3‬שוורץ ‪)24‬‬

‫טורנטו‪ ,‬ספריית האוניברסיטה‪ ,‬אוסף פרידברג ‪5-006‬‬ ‫(לשעבר‪ ,‬ששון ‪ ;1026‬חסר רוב הספר‪ :‬הושע א ‪ – 1‬י ‪14‬א)‬ ‫ניו יורק‪ ,‬ישיבה אוניברסיטה ‪( 1247‬כתבי יד רבניים‪,‬‬ ‫אביבי ‪ ;3‬לשעבר‪ :‬ברלין‪ ,‬בית ספר גבוה למדעי היהדות‬ ‫‪)1475‬‬ ‫ליידן‪ ,‬ספריית האוניברסיטה ‪( Or. 4718‬לשעבר‬ ‫סקליגר ‪ ;1‬שטיינשניידר ‪)1‬‬ ‫מינכן‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה ‪Cod. hebr. 5‬‬ ‫קמברידג’‪ ,‬סט’ ג’אנס קולג’ ‪A3‬‬ ‫סינסינטי‪ ,‬היברו יוניון קולג’ ‪653,1‬‬ ‫סנקט פטרבורג‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה‪( ,‬פירקוביץ’) ‪Evr. I 11‬‬ ‫סנקט פטרבורג‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה‪( ,‬פירקוביץ’) ‪Evr. I 13‬‬ ‫סנקט פטרבורג‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה‪( ,‬פירקוביץ’) ‪Evr. I C 6‬‬ ‫סנקט פטרבורג‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה‪( ,‬פירקוביץ’) ‪A II 228‬‬ ‫(העמודים לא שלימים)‬ ‫‪0‬‬ ‫פולדא‪ ,‬ספריית המדינה ‪2 A3‬‬ ‫פריס‪ ,‬הספרייה הלאומית ‪héb. 154‬‬ ‫פריס‪ ,‬הספרייה הלאומית ‪héb. 161‬‬ ‫פרמה‪ ,‬ספריית הפאלאטינה ‪( 2726‬די רוסי ‪ ;76‬ריצ’לר‬ ‫‪)523‬‬ ‫פרמה‪ ,‬ספריית הפאלאטינה ‪( 3260‬די רוסי ‪;387‬‬ ‫ריצ’לר ‪)524‬‬ ‫פרמה‪ ,‬ספריית הפאלאטינה ‪( 2854‬די רוסי ‪;663‬‬ ‫ריצ’לר ‪)207‬‬ ‫רומא‪ ,‬ספריית קזנטנזה ‪( 3144‬סקרדוטה ‪)H.V. 16 ;51‬‬ ‫קמברידג’‪ ,‬ספריית האוניברסיטה ‪Add. 1733‬‬ ‫רוסטוק (בגרמניה)‪ ,‬ספריית האוניברסיטה ‪Or. 32‬‬ ‫(שטידל־רוט ‪)543‬‬ ‫רוסטוק (בגרמניה)‪ ,‬ספריית האוניברסיטה ‪Or. 33‬‬ ‫(שטידל־רוט ‪)544‬‬ ‫שביליה‪ ,‬ספריית הקתדרלה והקולומבינה ‪56-1-16‬‬ ‫(לשעבר ‪)81-6-16‬‬

‫*‪227‬‬

‫הגהות רש”י לפירושו על ספר הושע‬

‫הדפים החסרים במקומות שונים בכ”י שביליה (ואין כאלה בתרי עשר)‪ ,‬נמצאים‬ ‫בכ”י מדריד‪ ,‬ספריית מוזיאון לאצארו גלדיאנו ‪ .)inv 15646( 704‬במרס ‪ 2004‬הגיע למכון‬ ‫לתצלומי כתבי היד העבריים מיקרופיש של כתב יד שביליה והוא כולל את כל הדפים של‬ ‫כ”י שביליה (המיקרופילם של כ”י שביליה שבמכון אינו שלם)‪.‬‬ ‫ירושלים‪ ,‬מכון שוקן ‪R 21-3-6( 12808‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬שוקן ‪ 12808‬‬ ‫ירושלים‪ ,‬מכון שוקן ‪ ;R 22-3-26 19526‬לשעבר‪ ,‬היום‬ ‫‪ .46‬שוקן ‪ 19526‬‬ ‫באוסף פרטי)‬ ‫ ‬ ‫כתבי היד ‪ 33 ,24 ,17 ,9 ,4‬אינם שלימים‪ .‬מס’ ‪ 9‬כולל רק הושע ז ‪ – 9‬יב ‪ ;10‬מס’ ‪17‬‬ ‫כולל רק הושע ט ‪16‬ב – יב ‪ ;3‬מס’ ‪ 24‬כולל רק הפרקים האחרונים‪ ,‬החל מהושע י ‪14‬ב‪.‬‬ ‫במס’ ‪ 14‬הסוף (הושע יד ‪ 4‬ואילך) הוא מיד שנייה‪.‬‬ ‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫אורבך‪ ,‬בעלי התוספות א = א”א אורבך‪ ,‬בעלי התוספות‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ירושלים תש”מ‬ ‫בן יעקב‪ ,‬ס’ מלחמות השם = ראובן בן יעקב‪ ,‬ס’ מלחמות השם‪ ,‬מהדורת י’ רוזנטל‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים תשכ”ג‬ ‫בן ישר‪ ,‬גוטליב ופנקובר‪ ,‬הושע = מ’ בן־ישר‪ ,‬י’ גוטליב‪ ,‬י”ש פנקובר‪ ,‬המקרא בפרשנות‬ ‫חז”ל‪ ,‬ספר הושע‪ ,‬רמת־גן תשס”ד‬ ‫ברגר‪ ,‬ספר נצחון = ד’ ברגר‪ ,‬ספר נצחון ישן‪ ,‬פילדלפיה ‪1979‬‬ ‫גרוסמן‪ ,‬אומות העולם = א’ גרוסמן‪“ ,‬אומות העולם במשנתו של רש”י‪ :‬מגמות פולמוסיות‬ ‫בפירושו למקרא”‪ ,‬בתוך‪ :‬דבר דבור על אופניו — מחקרים בפרשנות המקרא והקוראן‬ ‫בימי הביניים‪ ,‬מוגשים לחגי בן־שמאי‪ ,‬מ”מ בר־אשר ואחרים (עורכים)‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תשס”ז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪124-97‬‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫גרוסמן‪ ,‬חכמי צרפת = א’ גרוסמן‪ ,‬חכמי צרפת הראשונים‪ ,‬ירושלים תשס”א‬ ‫גרוסמן‪ ,‬פירוש רש”י לנ”ך = א’ גרוסמן‪“ ,‬נוסח פירוש רש”י לנ”ך והפולמוס היהודי‪-‬‬ ‫נוצרי”‪ ,‬סיני קלז (תשס”ו)‪ ,‬עמ’ לב‪-‬נח‬ ‫גרוסמן‪ ,‬פירוש רש”י לתהלים = א’ גרוסמן‪“ ,‬פירוש רש”י לתהלים והפולמוס היהודי‪-‬‬ ‫הנוצרי”‪ ,‬בתוך‪ :‬מחקרים במקרא ובחינוך מוגשים לפרופ’ משה ארנד‪ ,‬ד’ רפל (עורך)‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים תשנ”ו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪74-59‬‬ ‫לווינגר־ווינריב‪ ,‬קטלוג = ‪D.S. Loewinger-B.D. Weinryb, Catalogue of the Hebrew‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬

‫‪Manuscripts in the Library of the Jeudis-Theologisches Seminar in Breslau,‬‬ ‫‪Wiesbaden 1965‬‬

‫מאהרשען‪ ,‬מבוא = י’ מאהרשען‪ ,‬במבוא למהדורתו של פירוש רש”י לס’ הושע‪ ,‬פרשנ‪-‬‬ ‫דתא‪ ,‬חלק א’‪ :‬תרי עשר‪ ,‬האג ‪1930‬‬ ‫מאהרשען‪ ,‬רש”י לישעיה = י’ מאהרשען‪ ,‬פירוש רש”י לישעיה‪ ,‬פרשנ‪-‬דתא‪ ,‬כרך ב‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים ‪1933‬‬ ‫מיליקובסקי‪ ,‬פרסידאות = ח’ מיליקובסקי‪‘ ,‬ה”פרסדיאות שהושיב ירבעם” — התפתחותה‬ ‫של גירסא’‪ ,‬סידרא ז (תשנ”א)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪418-415‬‬

‫*‪228‬‬

‫יצחק ש’ פנקובר‬

‫פוזננסקי‪ ,‬מבוא = ש”א פוזננסקי‪‘ ,‬מבוא על חכמי צרפת מפרשי המקרא’‪ ,‬בתוך‪ :‬פירוש על‬ ‫יחזקאל ותרי עשר לרבי אליעזר מבלגנצי‪ ,‬ורשה ‪1913‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬גלגולי נוסח = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬על גלגולי נוסח פירוש רש”י ליחזקאל כז‪ ,‬יז”‪ ,‬תרביץ‬ ‫סג (תשנ”ד)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪233-219‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬הגהות נוספות = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬הגהות נוספות של רש”י לפירושו על התורה”‪,‬‬ ‫אור למאיר‪ ,‬מחקרים במקרא בלשונות השמיות‪ ,‬בספרות חז”ל ובתרבויות עתיקות‬ ‫מוגשים למאיר גרובר במלאות לו שישים וחמש שנה‪ ,‬בעריכת ש’ יונה‪ ,‬באר שבע‬ ‫תש”ע‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪409-363‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬הגהות רש”י ותלמידיו ליהושע = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬הגהות רש”י‪ ,‬הגהות תלמידיו‪,‬‬ ‫והגהות אנונימיות בפירוש רש”י לספר יהושע”‪ ,‬שנתון לחקר המקרא והמזרח הקדום‪,‬‬ ‫טז (תשס”ו)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪229-205‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬הגהות רש”י ליהושע ולמלכים = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬הגהות רש”י ליהושע ולמלכים”‪,‬‬ ‫עיוני מקרא ופרשנות ח‪ ,‬בעריכת ש’ ורגון ואחרים (תשס”ח)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪387-339‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬הגהות רש”י לספרי נביאים = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬הגהות שהגיה רש”י את פירושיו‬ ‫לספרי הנביאים”‪ ,‬שנתון לחקר המקרא והמזרח הקדום‪ ,‬טו (תשס”ה)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪211-185‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬הגהות רש”י לעמוס = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬הגהות רש”י והגהות תלמידיו לפירוש רש”י‬ ‫על ספר עמוס”‪ ,‬זר רימונים‪ ,‬מחקרים במקרא ובפרשנות מוקדשים לפרופ’ רימון כשר‪,‬‬ ‫בעריכת מ’ אביעוז‪ ,‬א’ עסיס‪ ,‬י’ שמש‪ ,‬אטלנטה ‪ ,2013‬עמ’ ‪524-448‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬הגהות רש”י לתורה = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬הגהות רש”י לפירושו לתורה”‪Jewish ,‬‬ ‫‪Studies, an Internet Journal 6 (2007), pp. 141-188; www.biu.ac.il/JS/JSIJ/6‬‬‫‪2007/Penkower.pdf‬‬

‫פנקובר‪ ,‬רש”י ליחזקאל = י”ש פנקובר‪“ ,‬פירוש רש”י לספר יחזקאל‪ :‬לרגל הופעתו‬ ‫במהדורה חדשה במקראות גדולות “הכתר””‪ ,‬עיוני מקרא ופרשנות ז‪ ,‬בעריכת ש’‬ ‫ורגון ואחרים‪ ,‬רמת־גן תשס”ה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪474-425‬‬ ‫קופפר‪ ,‬יבמות = א’ קופפר (מהדיר)‪ ,‬פירוש מס’ יבמות לרבנו יהודה ב”ר נתן (ריב”ן)‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים תשל”ז‬ ‫רוזנטל‪ ,‬הפולמוס האנטי נוצרי = י’ רוזנטל‪“ ,‬הפולמוס האנטי נוצרי ברש”י על התנ”ך”‪,‬‬ ‫מחקרים‪ ,‬כרך א‪ ,‬ירושלים תשכ”ז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪116-101‬‬ ‫ר”מ מקוצי‪ ,‬ספר מצות גדול = ר’ משה מקוצי‪ ,‬ספר מצות גדול‪ ,‬עשין‪ ,‬סי’ סג‪ ,‬ויניציא ש”ז‬ ‫רמב”ם‪ ,‬מורה נבוכים = רמב”ם‪ ,‬מורה נבוכים ב‪ :‬מא‪ ,‬מו‪ ,‬מהדורת מ’ שורץ‪ ,‬תל אביב‬ ‫תשס”ג‬ ‫רמב”ם‪ ,‬מורה נבוכים (קאפח) = רמב”ם‪ ,‬מורה נבוכים ב‪ ,‬מהדורת י’ קאפח‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תשל”ב‬

‫נפילת שומרון‪ :‬בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה‬

‫*‪229‬‬

‫נפילת שומרון‪ :‬בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה‬ ‫דנאל קאהן‬ ‫פרשת נפילת ממלכת ישראל נידונה במחקר פעמים רבות‪ 1.‬בפרשיה זו קיים מגוון‬ ‫מקורות מקראיים (מל”ב יז ‪ ;6–3‬מל”ב יח ‪ ,)11–9‬ומסופוטמיים‪ ,‬אשר שופכים אור על‬ ‫האירועים אשר הובילו לחורבן ממלכת שומרון‪ .‬אולם‪ ,‬ריבוי מקורות‪ ,‬לעתים‪ ,‬אינו מספק‬ ‫תמונה ברורה יותר‪ .‬לעתים מתקבלת נקודת מבט שונה על אירוע כלשהו‪ ,‬ולעתים‬ ‫המקורות המגויסים לדיון מתייחסים לאירועים שונים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬המקורות המקראיים‪:‬‬ ‫נפילת ממלכת ישראל מתוארת בס’ מלכים יב‪ ,‬יז באופן הלאקוני הבא‪:‬‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶע ֶבד וַ ּיָ ֶׁשב‬ ‫‪ָ 2‬עלָ יו (הושע בן אלה) ָעלָ ה ַׁשלְ ַמנְ ֶא ֶסר ֶמלֶ ְך ַאּשּׁור וַ יְ ִהי־לֹו ֵ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶק ֶׁשר ֲא ֶׁשר ָׁשלַ ח ַמלְ ָאכִ ים ֶאל־סֹוא ֶמלֶ ְך‪-‬‬ ‫ְך־אּשּׁור ְּב ֵ‬ ‫לֹו ִמנְ ָחה וַ ּיִ ְמ ָצא ֶמלֶ ַ‬ ‫ֹלא־ה ֱעלָ ה ִמנְ ָחה לְ ֶמלֶ ְך ַאּשּׁור ּכְ ָׁשנָ ה ְב ָׁשנָ ה וַ ּיַ ַע ְצ ֵרהּו ֶמלֶ ְך ַאּשּׁור‬ ‫ֶ‬ ‫ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם וְ‬ ‫יה ָׁשֹלׁש‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ וַ ּיַ ַעל ׁש ְֹמרֹון וַ ּיָ ַצר ָעלֶ ָ‬ ‫ְך־אּשּׁור ְּבכָ ָ‬ ‫וַ ּיַ ַא ְס ֵרהּו ֵּבית ּכֶ לֶ א וַ ּיַ ַעל ֶמלֶ ַ‬ ‫ְך־אּשּׁור ֶאת־ׁש ְֹמרֹון וַ ּיֶ גֶ ל ֶאת־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע לָ כַ ד ֶמלֶ ַ‬ ‫ָׁשנִ ים ִּב ְׁשנַ ת ַה ְּת ִׁש ִעית לְ ֵ‬ ‫ּוב ָחבֹור נְ ַהר ּגֹוזָ ן וְ ָע ֵרי ָמ ָדי (מלכים ב יז ‪.)6–3‬‬ ‫אֹותם ַּב ְחלַ ח ְ‬ ‫ַאּש ָּׁורה וַ ּי ֶֹׁשב ָ‬ ‫בארבעה פסוקים בלבד מתוארים אירועים רבים שהתפרשו על פני מספר שנים‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬שלמנאסר ה’‪ ,‬מלך אשור‪ ,‬עלה על שומרון‪ .2 .‬הושע‪ ,‬מלך ישראל‪ ,‬השתעבד למלך‬ ‫אשור והעלה לו מנחה‪ .‬המנחה שולמה במשך מספר שנים (מדי שנה בשנה)‪ .3 .‬הושע‬ ‫מרד באשור‪ .‬הוא הפסיק לשלם את מסיו וקשר קשר עם מלך מצרים‪ .4 .‬הקשר התגלה‬

‫‪ .1‬אולמסטד‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון; בקינג‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון; ברטלר‪ ,‬יצירת היסטוריה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;118-115‬‬ ‫ברייט‪ ,‬היסטוריה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;258–257‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;76–66‬גריי‪ ,‬מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;587–583‬גרין‪ ,‬זהותו‬ ‫של סוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;108–99‬דונר‪ ,‬הממלכות הנפרדות‪ ;434–432 ,‬דאלי‪ ,‬מרכבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;48–31‬הובס‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;226–219‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;181–153‬וורטויין‪ ,‬ספרי מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;395–391‬יאנגר‪,‬‬ ‫נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;482–461‬כוגן ותדמור‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;201–195‬כלה‪ ,‬הושע וסרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;244–226‬מילר‬ ‫והייז‪ ,‬תולדות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;337–332‬נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;225–206‬נות‪ ,‬תולדות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;262–261‬עודד‪ ,‬סוגיות במקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;6-4‬תים‪ ,‬כיבוש שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;82–62‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;40–33‬תדמור‪ ,‬הערות כרונולוגיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;436–433‬תתלי‪ ,‬תאריך נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.77–59‬‬

‫*‪229‬‬

‫*‪230‬‬

‫דנאל קאהן‬

‫על ידי האשורים‪ .5 .‬מלך ישראל נעצר ונאסר‪ .6 .‬מלך אשור ערך מסע מלחמה נרחב נגד‬ ‫ממלכת שומרון (בכל הארץ)‪ .7 .‬מלך אשור צר על העיר שומרון במשך שלוש שנים‪.8 .‬‬ ‫העיר שומרון נלכדה בשנת מלכותו התשיעית של הושע‪ .9 .‬תושבי ממלכת ישראל הוגלו‬ ‫ויושבו מחדש ברחבי האימפריה האשורית‪.‬‬ ‫במל”ב יח ‪ 11–9‬נוסף מידע חדש‪ ,‬שעיקרו שני סינכרוניזמים בין תחילת המצור על‬ ‫שומרון ונפילת שומרון לבין מלכות חזקיהו מלך יהודה‪ .‬פרשת מרידתו וכן כליאתו של‬ ‫הושע לא הוזכרו‪ .‬גם על־פי תיאור זה נפלה שומרון בשנת מלכותו התשיעית של הושע‪.‬‬ ‫ן־אלָ ה ֶמלֶ ְך‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶּב ֵ‬ ‫וַ יְ ִהי ַּב ָּשׁנָ ה ָה ְר ִב ִיעית לַ ֶּמלֶ ְך ִחזְ ִקּיָ הּו ִהיא ַה ָּשׁנָ ה ַה ְּשׁ ִב ִיעית לְ ֵ‬ ‫יה ִמ ְק ֵצה ָׁשֹלׁש ָׁשנִ ים‬ ‫ְך־אּשּׁור ַעל־ׁש ְֹמרֹון וַ ּיָ ַצר ָעלֶ ָ‬ ‫יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ָעלָ ה ַׁשלְ ַמנְ ֶא ֶסר ֶמלֶ ַ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶמלֶ ְך יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל נִ לְ ּכְ ָדה ׁש ְֹמרֹון וַ ּיֶ גֶ ל‬ ‫ת־ּת ַׁשע לְ ֵ‬ ‫ת־ׁשׁש לְ ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ִהיא ְׁשנַ ֵ‬ ‫ִּב ְׁשנַ ֵ‬ ‫ּוב ָחבֹור נְ ַהר ּגֹוזָ ן וְ ָע ֵרי ָמ ָדי ַעל‬ ‫ְך־אּשּׁור ֶאת־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַאּש ָּׁורה וַ ּיַ נְ ֵחם ַּב ְחלַ ח ְ‬ ‫ֶמלֶ ַ‬ ‫ל־א ֶׁשר ִצּוָ ה מ ֶֹׁשה‬ ‫ת־ּב ִריתֹו ֵאת ּכָ ֲ‬ ‫יהם וַ ּיַ ַע ְברּו ֶא ְ‬ ‫ֹלה ֶ‬ ‫ֹלא־ׁש ְמעּו ְּבקֹול יְ הוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר‬ ‫ֶע ֶבד יְ הוָ ה וְ ֹלא ָׁש ְמעּו וְ ֹלא ָעׂשו (מל”ב יח ‪.)11–9‬‬ ‫“ּוב ַא ְר ַּבע‬ ‫הסינכרוניזמים בפרק יח ‪ 11–9‬סותרים את הנתון הכרונולוגי במל”ב יח ‪ְ :13‬‬ ‫הּודה ַה ְּב ֻצרֹות וַ ּיִ ְת ְּפ ֵׂשם”‪,‬‬ ‫ל‪-‬ע ֵרי יְ ָ‬ ‫ְך־אּשּׁור ַעל ּכָ ָ‬ ‫ֶע ְׂש ֵרה ָׁשנָ ה לַ ֶּמלֶ ְך ִחזְ ִקּיָ ה ָעלָ ה ַסנְ ֵח ִריב ֶמלֶ ַ‬ ‫אירוע אשר התרחש בשנת ‪ 701‬לפסה”נ‪ .‬סינכרוניזם זה עם מקור חוץ־מקראי מאשר כי‬ ‫יש לקבוע את שנת עלייתו למלכות של חזקיהו ל־‪ 715‬לפסה”נ‪ .‬אין‪ ,‬אם כן מידע חדש‬ ‫ועצמאי בתיאור נפילת שומרון במל”ב יח ‪ ,11–9‬ואין לקבל את הסינכרוניזמים של מלכות‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫הושע עם מלכות חזקיהו כאמינים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬המקורות המסופוטמיים‪:‬‬ ‫במקורות החוץ מקראיים מיוחס כיבושה של שומרון לשני מלכים אשוריים שונים‪.‬‬ ‫עפ”י הכרוניקון הבבלי‪ 3‬נכבשה שומרון‪ 4‬בידי שלמנאסר ה’‪ ,‬מלך אשור (‪722–726‬‬ ‫לפסה”נ)‪ .‬הפועל ‪ ,iḫtepi‬המתאר את פעולת הכיבוש‪ ,‬מתורגם כ’הרס’‪ .‬נאמן הציע‬ ‫שידיעה זו מתייחסת לשנת עלייתו של שלמנאסר למלוכה‪ ,‬וכי שלמנאסר ערך מסע‬ ‫עונשין בערי שומרון לשם “פעולת הרתעה מוגבלת”‪ 5.‬אולם הייז וקואן‪ ,‬תדמור ויאנגר‬ ‫הציגו טענות כבדות משקל כנגד הצעתו של נאמן‪ 6.‬החוקרים אינם תמימי דעים לאיזו‬ ‫שנה יש לייחס את הידיעה על הרס שומרון — לראשית מלכותו‪ ,‬אמצע מלכותו או בשנת‬ ‫מלכותו האחרונה‪ .‬אם כן‪ ,‬על בסיס הכרוניקון האפונימי לא ניתן לקבוע מתי נהרסה‬ ‫‪ .2‬אין זה המקום לדון בהצעות החוקרים לפתור את בעיית השנה הארבע־עשרה של חזקיהו‪ .‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫ג’נקינס‪ ,‬השנה הארבע־עשרה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.298–284‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;137‬כוגן‪ ,‬אסופת כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.118‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬לזיהוי העיר כשומרון‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אולמסטד‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;181–180‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.40–39‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.216–214‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;160–158‬תתלי‪ ,‬תאריך נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .67‬תדמור‪,‬‬ ‫הערות כרונולוגיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;436–435‬יאנגר‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.468–465‬‬

‫נפילת שומרון‪ :‬בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה‬

‫*‪231‬‬

‫שומרון‪ 7.‬כתובותיו המלכותיות של שלמנאסר ה’ לא השתמרו ואינן יכולות אף הן לספק‬ ‫מידע רלוונטי לנושא‪ .‬יעד המסעות בכרוניקון האפונימי האשורי ‪“ K 3202‬נגד [שומרון]”‬ ‫בשלוש שנות שלטון שלמנאסר אפשרי‪ ,‬ותואם את הנתון המקראי (מל”ב יז ‪ ;5‬יח ‪ ,)10‬אך‬ ‫אינו ניתן לביסוס‪ 8.‬דומה‪ ,‬אם כן‪ ,‬שיש לנקוט משנה זהירות בהשלמת ידיעותינו על חורבן‬ ‫שומרון מהכרוניקונים שהשתמרו‪.‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫בכתובותיו של סרגון ב’ (‪ )705–721‬יוחס כיבושה של העיר לסרגון פעמים מספר‪.‬‬ ‫תדמור הראה שתיאור האירועים לראשית מלכותו של סרגון (‪ )722‬הינו מגמתי ולא אמין‪,‬‬ ‫וכי יש לתארך את כיבוש העיר בידי סרגון לשנת מלכותו השנייה (‪ 10.)720‬בשנה זו דיכא‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫סרגון את מרידת ממלכת חמת‪ ,‬אך גם את ה פ ח ו ו ת צמר‪ ,‬ארפד‪ ,‬דמשק‪ ,‬חדרך ושומרון‪.‬‬ ‫שומרון אינה מתוארת כממלכה וסאלית‪ ,‬ולא מתוארת לכידת מלך ישראל או תיאור גורלו‪,‬‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫בדומה ללכידת מלך חמת או שליטים אחרים‪“ .‬שומרונים” מוזכרים כאחראים למרידה‪.‬‬ ‫כמו כן‪ ,‬לא מוזכרים מצור ממושך על שומרון‪ ,‬ולקיחת שלל‪ .‬דומה שתיאור כיבוש‬ ‫שומרון בידי סרגון שונה מהתיאור בס’ מלכים ואפשר שמתוארים ש נ י אירועים שונים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬תאריך עליית הושע למלוכה‬ ‫מרידתו של הושע בפקח והדחתו מכסאו מתוארת בכתובת אשורית כנראה עם תום‬ ‫מסע תגלת־פלאסר ג’ למערב (‪ 13.)732–733‬ידיעה נוספת המאפשרת לתארך את עלייתו‬ ‫של הושע לשלטון לכל המאוחר לשנת ‪ ,731‬היא קבלת מנחתו של הושע בידי תגלת־‬ ‫פלאסר ג’ בעיר סרבנו בבבל‪ 14.‬מנחה זו התקבלה מספר חודשים מועט לאחר עלייתו של‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫הושע לשלטון‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬שנת מלכותו האחרונה של הושע‬ ‫על־פי המקורות המקראיים (מל”ב יז ‪ ;6 ,1‬יח ‪ )10‬מלך הושע תשע שנים‪ .‬לא ניתן‬ ‫לקבוע בודאות את שנת מלכותו האחרונה של הושע משום שאין בידינו את התאריך‬ ‫‪ .7‬לדעות השונות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬נאמן‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬שם; גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;67‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;159‬דאלי‪,‬‬ ‫מרכבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.33‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬ראו‪ :‬ביקורתו של גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.68‬‬ ‫‪ .9‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;137–134‬כוגן‪ ,‬אסופת כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.67–57‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.36‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬ראו‪ :‬דלי‪ ,‬מרכבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.34‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;37‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .74‬אפשר שכיבוש שומרון מוצג‬ ‫בתבליטי אולם ה’ בארמון סרגון בדור־שרוכין‪ ,‬חורסאבאד‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬פרנקלין‪ ,‬חדר עם נוף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.277–257‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬תדמור‪ ,‬כתובת תגלת־פלאסר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.277‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬בורגר ותדמור‪ ,‬שתי תרומות לחקר המקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;249–244‬נאמן‪ ,‬הערות היסטוריות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪74–71‬‬ ‫מתארך את מרידת הושע לשנת ‪.731/0‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬על הושע היה תחילה לבסס את שלטונו ולשלוח משלחת עם אוצרות לבבל‪ .‬מסע מעין זה עם‬ ‫סחורות יקרות יכול היה לארוך מספר חודשים‪ .‬לחישוב משך הזמן‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬אפעל‪ ,‬משמעותו של השלטון‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ .59‬למסע פיוס מיד עם עליית מלך לשלטון ראו‪ :‬משלחת מלך כוש אל סרגון ב‪ .706 -‬קאהן‪ ,‬כתובת‬ ‫סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.8‬‬

‫*‪232‬‬

‫דנאל קאהן‬

‫המדויק לעלייתו למלוכה‪ ,‬ולא ברור אם מניית שנות מלכות מלכי ישראל החלה בתשרי או‬ ‫בניסן‪ 16.‬שיטת מניית שנות המלוכה הייתה השיטה המקדימה (‪ ,)antedating‬שלפיה שנה‬ ‫בה המלך נפטר‪ ,‬ומלך חדש עלה למלוכה במקומו‪ ,‬נמנתה לשני המלכים‪ 17.‬מסתבר‪ ,‬אם‬ ‫כן‪ ,‬ששנת מלכותו האחרונה של הושע הייתה ב־‪724/3‬ו‪ 18‬או לכל המאוחר ‪,723/2‬ו‪ 19‬כשנה‬ ‫לפני מותו של שלמנאסר‪.‬‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶע ֶבד וַ ּיָ ֶׁשב לֹו ִמנְ ָחה‬ ‫‪ .5‬תאריך שעבוד הושע לשלמנאסר‪ :‬וַ יְ ִהי־לֹו ֵ‬ ‫הֹוׁש ַע ֶע ֶבד‬ ‫במל”ב יז ‪ 3‬נכתב‪ָ :‬עלָ יו (הושע בן אלה) ָעלָ ה ַׁשלְ ַמנְ ֶא ֶסר ֶמלֶ ְך ַאּשּׁור וַ יְ ִהי־לֹו ֵ‬ ‫וַ ּיָ ֶׁשב לֹו ִמנְ ָחה‪.‬‬ ‫בהמשך נכתב שהושע קשר עם סוא מלך מצרים‪ 20‬והפסיק לשלם את מסיו למלך‬ ‫אשור כשנה בשנה (פס’ ‪ .)4‬מרידה זו הביאה למצור הממושך על שומרון‪ .‬על־פי המתואר‬ ‫במקרא‪ ,‬פרק הזמן שבו אמורים להתרחש אירועים אלה אינו עולה על חמש שנות מלכותו‬ ‫של שלמנאסר ה’ (‪ .)722–726‬נאמן הציע שעם מות תגלת־פלאסר הג’ התרחשה מרידה‬ ‫במערב‪ 21,‬שכללה את פניקיה‪ 22,‬פלשת (יש’ יד ‪ 23)32–28‬ושומרון‪ .‬מיד עם עלייתו לשלטון‬ ‫בראשית מלכו–‪ ,727‬ערך שלמנאסר מסע למערב לדיכוי המרד ושיעבד את הושע‪ .‬הייז‬ ‫וקואן העלו טענות כבדות משקל נגד הצעתו של נאמן‪ .‬שנת מלכו של שלמנאסר לא‬ ‫ארכה יותר מכחודשיים (מה־‪ 25‬בטבת)‪ ,‬ולא ייתכן שביסס את שלטונו והספיק לשעבד‬ ‫את שומרון בפרק זמן זה‪ 24.‬כמו כן‪ ,‬לפי הכרוניקון האפונימי בשנת מלכותו הראשונה‬ ‫נשאר שלמנאסר ב[ארץ] (כלומר באשור)‪ 25.‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬אשר הבינו אף הם שתיאור אירועי‬

‫‪ .16‬תדמור‪ ,‬כרונולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;265–264‬כוגן‪ ,‬כרונולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.1109 ,1106‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬תדמור‪ ,‬שם‪.269–267 ,‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬כוגן‪ ,‬כרונולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;1009‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;37‬תדמור‪ ,‬כתובת תגלת־פלאסר‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;277‬בקינג‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.54–53‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬נאמן‪ ,‬הערות היסטוריות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .74‬אין לקבל את תאריכיהם של הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,156–153‬הנוקטים שיטת המנייה המאחרת (‪ )postdating‬בה הושע מנה את חודשיו עד ראש השנה‬ ‫כראשית מלכות‪ ,‬או את שיטת תתלי‪ ,‬תאריך נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,70‬המתארכת את המלכת הושע לשנת‬ ‫‪ 727‬ומתעלמת מהעלאת מסיו לסרבנו בבבל‪ .‬ראו ביקורתו של כלה‪ ,‬הושע וסרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.235‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬לזהותו של סוא‪ ,‬מלך מצרים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬גרין‪ ,‬זהותו של סוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 108–99‬וספרות קודמת שם; קאהן‪,‬‬ ‫כתובת סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.14‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .216–214‬וראו‪ :‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪162–159‬‬ ‫הכוללים גם את ממלכת תבל באנטוליה בין המורדים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬והשוו את הידיעה מפי מננדר אצל יוסף בן מתתיהו‪ ,‬קדמוניות היהודים‪ ,‬ט‪ .287–283 ,‬קצנשטיין‪,‬‬ ‫אלולי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.272–235‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬תדמור‪ ,‬כרונולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;278‬לתיארוך הנבואה בשנת מות אחז לשנת ‪ ,715‬ראו‪ :‬רוברטס‪,‬‬ ‫מצרים‪ ,‬אשור וישעיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.278‬‬ ‫‪ .24‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;160‬תדמור‪ ,‬הערות כרונולוגיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;435‬יאנגר‪ ,‬נפילת‬ ‫שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;467‬גליל ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.71‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬כוגן‪ ,‬אסופת כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .113‬אולם‪ ,‬גם כאשר המלך נשאר בארץ‪ ,‬צבאו דיכא מרידות‪ .‬השוו‬ ‫יש’ כ ‪ .1‬בכתובות המלכותיות של סרגון יוחסו פעולות אלו למלך‪.‬‬

‫נפילת שומרון‪ :‬בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה‬

‫*‪233‬‬

‫נפילת שומרון במל”ב יז רבים משניתן להכיל בשנות שלטונו המועטות של שלמנאסר‪,‬‬ ‫הציעו ששלמנאסר ערך את מסעו עוד בימי אביו‪ ,‬תגלת־פלאסר ג’‪ .‬בהסתמכם על‬ ‫קריאתו של ג’ סמית של הכרוניקון האפונימי ‪ ,K 3202‬ניסו להשלים בשו’ ‪ 7–6‬את יעד‬ ‫המסעות לשנת ‪“ 727‬נגד ד[משק]”‪ ,‬קריאה שבמקורה הופיעה בתיאור שנת ‪ 26.728‬לאור‬ ‫קריאה זו הציעו‪ ,‬שהמרידות במערב החלו בשנת מלכותו האחרונה של תגלת־פלאסר‪,‬‬ ‫וכי שלמנאסר עמד בראש צבא אשור אשר נשלח לדכא את המרידה‪ 27.‬אולם‪ ,‬תדמור‬ ‫ומילארד קבעו לאחר ההדרה מחדש של הטקסט‪ ,‬שאין לקרוא את הסימן ‪ di‬לפני השבר‬ ‫ולהשלים דמשק‪ .‬מילארד סבר שיש לקרוא את הסימן ‪ ,ḫi‬בעוד שתדמור לא זיהה את‬ ‫הסימן‪ 28.‬אין‪ ,‬אם כן‪ ,‬כל עדות למסע אשורי נגד שומרון בשנותיו האחרונות של תגלת־‬ ‫פלאסר‪ ,‬אך אין לשלול הצעה זו על הסף‪ .‬אפשר שפרק הזמן שבו היה הושע משועבד‬ ‫לריבון האשורי כלל גם את שנות מלכות תגלת־פלאסר מעליית הושע למלוכה בימיו‪.‬‬ ‫גליל סובר שעורך מל”ב הוסיף את מסע שלמנאסר נגד שומרון במל”ב יז ‪ ,3‬כדי לבאר את‬ ‫מרידתו של הושע בשלמנאסר‪ ,‬אשר להשקפתו לא היה עבד לאשור בימי תגלת־פלאסר‬ ‫(בפס’ ‪ 29.)4‬לפי השקפת המחבר העלה מנחם לתגלת־פלאסר מנחה חד־פעמית בלבד‪,‬‬ ‫ואין כל עדות שפקח היה משועבד לאשור‪ .‬הצעה זו מסתמכת על ההנחה שהידיעות אינן‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫אמינות‪ ,‬ומאוחרות‪ .‬על סמך הכתוב בס’ מלכים בלבד‪ ,‬ללא שימוש במקורות חיצוניים‪,‬‬ ‫ניתן להגיע למסקנה זו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬וַ ּיַ ַע ְצ ֵרהּו ֶמלֶ ְך ַאּשּׁור וַ ּיַ ַא ְס ֵרהּו ֵּבית ּכֶ לֶ א‪.‬‬ ‫נסיבות מאסרו של הושע לא תוארו במפורט‪ ,‬ולא צוין במפורש אם נעצר לפני המצור‬ ‫על העיר‪ ,‬במהלכו‪ ,‬או בתום מצור של שלוש שנים‪ .‬חוקרים רבים סוברים‪ ,‬בהתבסס על‬ ‫רצף התיאור המקראי‪ ,‬שהושע התייצב מחוץ לעיר שומרון בפני מלך אשור ונאסר לפני‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫תחילת המצור‪ 31.‬תדמור הציע שבעקבות מאסרו של הושע‪ ,‬ניהלו אותה נכבדי העיר‪,‬‬ ‫ואף העלה את הסברה שהומלך בה מלך‪ 33,‬שלא השתמר עליו מידע במקורות המקראיים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;161‬תתלי‪ ,‬תאריך נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.67‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬בדומה לנבוכדנאצר‪ ,‬יורש העצר של נבופלאסר מלך בבל‪ ,‬שעמד בראש הצבא הבבלי וערך את‬ ‫קרב כרכמיש ב־‪ ,605‬שנת מות אביו‪ .‬כוגן‪ ,‬אסופת כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ :131‬כרוניקה בבלית מימי נבוכדנאצר‪,‬‬ ‫פנים‪ ,‬שו’ ‪.15–1‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬תדמור‪ ,‬הערות כרונולוגיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;434–433‬יאנגר‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.463‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.74‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬תדמור‪ ,‬כתובות תגלת־פלאסר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.276–274‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬אפעל‪ ,‬אחריתה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;126‬ברייט‪ ,‬היסטוריה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;258‬גריי‪ ,‬מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;580‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל‬ ‫ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;72‬דונר‪ ,‬הממלכות הנפרדות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;433‬וייזמן‪ ,‬מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;265‬כוגן ותדמור‪ ,‬מל”ב ‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;199‬מילר והייז‪ ,‬תולדות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;337‬נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;218‬נות‪ ,‬תולדות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;262‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;37‬תדמור‪ ,‬כתובות תגלת־פלאסר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;278‬תתלי‪ ,‬תאריך נפילת‬ ‫שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.70‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬וראו אזכור “השומרונים” ללא אזכור מלך במפורש בכתובות סרגון‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ;37‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.74‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.37‬‬

‫*‪234‬‬

‫דנאל קאהן‬

‫דעה זו אומצה בידי הייז וקואן‪ ,‬אשר סוברים שהושע נלכד בפעילות צבאית במהלך‬ ‫ה מ צ ו ר על שומרון‪ 34.‬דעה זו קשה ואינה מסתמכת על הנתונים‪ .‬שאר החוקרים סברו‬ ‫שהושע מלך לכל אורך תקופת המצור על שומרון ונלכד לאחר כיבושה‪ 35.‬לא ידוע מה‬ ‫עלה בגורלו של הושע לאחר מאסרו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬תאריך נפילת שומרון‬ ‫החוקרים העוסקים בנפילת שומרון נתקלו בשתי בעיות‪ ,‬אשר השפיעו על השחזור‬ ‫ההיסטורי שהציעו‪ ,‬וכתוצאה מכך גם על תאריך כיבוש שומרון‪ :‬א‪ .‬מועד מאסר הושע‬ ‫ביחס לנפילת העיר‪ .‬ב‪ .‬במקרא ובכתובות החוץ־מקראיות (הכרוניקון הבבלי)‪ ,‬מיוחס‬ ‫הכיבוש לשלמנאסר‪ ,‬בעוד שבכתובותיו של סרגון מיוחס כיבושה של שומרון למלך‬ ‫זה‪ .‬חוקרים כתדמור‪ ,‬נאמן‪ ,‬גליל ואחרים ניסו לפתור סתירה זו בדרכים שונות‪ .‬הוצע‬ ‫‪36‬‬ ‫ששומרון נכבשה ארבע פעמים — שלוש פעמים בימי שלמנאסר ופעם בימי סרגון‪,‬‬ ‫פעמיים — פעם בימי שלמנאסר‪ ,‬ופעם בימי סרגון‪ 37,‬פעם אחת — לאחר מצור ממושך‬ ‫שהחל בסוף ימי שלמנאסר והמשיך בימי סרגון‪ 38,‬לאחר מצור בימי סרגון בלבד‪ 39,‬נכבשה‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫ללא מצור ממושך‪ ,‬אלא שעברו שלוש שנים בין מסע שלמנאסר לבין מסעו של סרגון‪.‬‬ ‫הנתונים המקראיים מציינים במפורש ששומרון נכבשה בידי שלמנאסר לאחר שלוש‬ ‫שנות מצור (מל”ב יז ‪ ;5‬מל”ב יח ‪ ,)10‬בשנה התשיעית להושע‪ ,‬קרי ‪ 724/3‬או ‪ .723/2‬דומה‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫שטענת סרגון לכיבוש שומרון מתארת אירוע אחר‪ ,‬מאוחר יותר‪.‬‬ ‫ּוב ָחבֹור נְ ַהר ּגֹוזָ ן וְ ָע ֵרי ָמ ָדי (מל”ב יז ‪;6‬‬ ‫אֹותם ַּב ְחלַ ח ְ‬ ‫‪ .8‬ההגליה‪ :‬וַ ּיֶ גֶ ל ֶאת‪-‬יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַאּש ָּׁורה וַ ּי ֶֹׁשב ָ‬ ‫מל”ב יח ‪)11‬‬ ‫כאמור‪ ,‬כתובותיו של שלמנאסר לא השתמרו ולא ידוע אם כלל בכתובותיו תיאור‬ ‫הגלית גולים משומרון‪ .‬זאת ועוד‪ ,‬תיארוך כיבוש שומרון ל־‪ 722‬גרם לחוקרים להסיק‬ ‫ששלמנאסר לא הספיק להגלות את תושבי ממלכת ישראל לאחר כיבושה‪ .‬לאור‬ ‫העובדה‪ ,‬שסרגון מספר בכתובותיו שהגלה ‪27,290‬ו‪ 42‬משומרון‪ ,‬סברו חוקרים שסרגון‬ ‫הוא המלך המגלה את תושבי ישראל במל”ב יז ‪ .6‬גולים מישראל מתועדים בתעודות‬

‫‪ .34‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.167–163‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬בנצינגר‪ ,‬מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;172‬ג’ונס‪ ,‬מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;547‬וורטויין‪ ,‬ספרי מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;394–393‬עודד‪,‬‬ ‫סוגיות במקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.5‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.181–153‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬תדמור‪ ,‬מסעות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;40–33‬בקינג‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.56–55‬‬ ‫‪ .38‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.76–66‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬תתלי‪ ,‬תאריך נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.77–59‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 206‬ואילך‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬חוקרים כ כוגן ותדמור‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,195‬הערה ‪ ;1‬נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;224‬גליל‪ ,‬ישראל‬ ‫ואשור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 76‬סוברים שהידיעה כי שומרון נפלה בשנה התשיעית להושע היא תוספת פרשנית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬והשוו למספר הגולים על פי מנסרת נמרוד‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬נאמן‪ ,‬מספר הגולים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.1‬‬

‫נפילת שומרון‪ :‬בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה‬

‫*‪235‬‬

‫אדמיניסטרטיביות מגוזן‪ ,‬על נהר החבור‪ ,‬ומחלח‪ 43.‬סרגון מציין בכתובותיו שהגלה‬ ‫תושבים למדי‪ ,‬ואפשר שביניהם גם גולים מישראל‪ .‬הגליה זו לא התרחשה לפני ‪,716/15‬ו‬ ‫התקופה בה גם שומרון יושבה מחדש‪ 45.‬יוצא‪ ,‬לכאורה‪ ,‬שבעוד שבפס’ ‪ 3‬שלמנאסר עלה‬ ‫על שומרון‪ ,‬מזוהה המלך‪ ,‬שהגלה את תושביה‪ ,‬עם סרגון‪ 46.‬אולם‪ ,‬עם תיארוך כיבוש‬ ‫שומרון שנה או שנתיים לפני מות שלמנאסר‪ ,‬אין סיבה לשייך את גלות שומרון לסרגון‪.‬‬ ‫זאת ועוד‪ ,‬במקורות מאוחרים השתמרו ידיעות על הגליית ישראלים למדי‪ .‬בדבה”א ה‪,‬‬ ‫‪ ,26‬הוגלו תושבי עבר הירדן בידי ִּתּלְ גַ ת ִּפלְ נֶ ֶסר (כך) למקומות אלו‪ 47.‬טובי ממטה נפתלי‬ ‫טוען שהוגלה בידי שלמנאסר מהגליל (טוביה א ‪ 48.)2–1‬בפס’ ‪ 16‬הוא הגיע לעיר רגוש‬ ‫במדי‪ .‬חוקרים התייחסו לידיעות אלו בספקנות משום שלא היו עדויות להגליה ישראלית‬ ‫למדי בשלב כה קדום‪ ,‬אולם‪ ,‬אשור השתלטה על מחוזות במדי עוד מימי תגלת־פלאסר‬ ‫ג’‪ .‬מחוזות אלו מרדו בתחילת מלכות סרגון‪ ,‬והמרידה דוכאה רק ב־‪ 716‬ולוותה בהגליה‬ ‫דו־סטרית‪ 49.‬לאחרונה אף הסתבר מתעודה אשורית כי בימי תגלת־פלאסר אכן הוגלו‬ ‫תושבים מממלכת ישראל למדי‪ 50.‬דומה‪ ,‬אם כן‪ ,‬שאין חובה לקשור את הידיעה על הגלית‬ ‫תושבי ישראל במקרא להגליה בה מתפאר סרגון בכתובותיו‪ ,‬ואפשר שההגליה התרחשה‬ ‫כבר בימי שלמנאסר‪.‬‬ ‫‪44‬‬

‫‪ .9‬המקורות לטקסט המקראי‬ ‫מל”ב יז ‪ 6–3‬שולב בתוך תיאור מלכותו של הושע בן אלה‪ .‬קטע זה (פס’ ‪ )2–1‬נכתב‬ ‫כמסגרת בידי העורך הדויטרונומיסט של ספר מלכים כ־‪ 150‬שנים לפחות לאחר האירועים‪.‬‬ ‫תיאור מלכותו כולל את המידע הסטנדרטי־סינכרוניזם עם אחז מלך יהודה והערכת‬ ‫מלכותו (השלילית‪ ,‬אך לא כשאר מלכי ישראל) מנקודת מבט דתית‪ 51.‬היחידה הבאה‬ ‫בפרק יז היא פס’ ‪ ,6–3‬אשר מתארת את נפילת שומרון‪ .‬חוקרים רבים מחלקים פסוקים‬ ‫אלו לשניים‪ .‬וינקלר הציע שהקטע הראשון (יז ‪ )4–3‬נלקח ממקור צפוני ובו מופיע תיאור‬ ‫מאסרו של הושע‪ ,‬ומושמט תיאור נפילת ממלכת שומרון והגלית תושביה‪ .‬לדעתו‪ ,‬מקורו‬ ‫של הקטע יז ‪( 6–5‬והפס’ המקבילים במל”ב יח ‪ )11–9‬בממלכת יהודה‪ ,‬והוא מתאר את‬

‫‪ .43‬כוגן ותדמור‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;197‬יאנגר‪ ,‬גלויות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.224–221‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬יאנגר‪ ,‬גלויות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;223‬דיאקונוף‪ ,‬ערי מדי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.17–16‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬נאמן וצדוק‪ ,‬הגליות סרגון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.40–38‬‬ ‫‪ .46‬נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.206‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬במקום ערי מדי מופיע המקום הרא‪ .‬דומה שזהו שיבוש‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬כוגן ותדמור‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .197‬ראו‬ ‫גם‪ :‬עזרא החיצוני ב‪ ,‬יג ‪.47–40‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬כוגן ותדמור‪ ,‬שם‪ .‬ייחוס הגליתו לימי שלמנאסר מבוססת על ס’ מל”ב ואינה יכולה לשמש ראיה‬ ‫עצמאית להגליה בימיו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬דיאקונוף‪ ,‬ערי מדי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.16‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬גליל‪ ,‬גולים ישראלים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .79‬להגליות של אנשי מדי ללבנט‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬דיאקונוף‪ ,‬ערי מדי‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.16–15‬‬ ‫‪ .51‬וורטויין‪ ,‬ספרי מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;393‬הובס‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;225‬ברטלר‪ ,‬יצירת היסטוריה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.115‬‬

‫*‪236‬‬

‫דנאל קאהן‬

‫אותה פרשה המופיעה בפס’ ‪.4–3‬ו‪ 52‬אולם‪ ,‬אין כל רמיזה להבדלה המלאכותית שנעשתה‬ ‫בין מקור ישראלי לבין מקור יהודאי‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬אין כל הוכחה שהמקורות הישראליים ניסו‬ ‫להסתיר את גורל הממלכה‪ .‬ברטלר הציע שמקור פס’ ‪ 4–3‬בהם נזכר שלמנאסר כמלך‬ ‫האשורי משמר מידע שגוי‪ ,‬גלותי או בתר־גלותי‪ .‬הוא מקביל את הפתיחה ָ‘עלָ יו ָעלָ ה’‬ ‫לדה”ב לו ‪ 5‬בו מתואר מסע נבוכדנאצר ליהודה וגלות יהויקים (‪ ,)597‬וסובר שהשימוש‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫במבנה דקדוקי זה ולא במבנה הדקדוק *’ויעל שלמנאסר על‪ ’...‬מרמז על מקור מאוחר‪.‬‬ ‫הצגתו החוזרת של מלך אשור בפס’ ‪ 5‬נתפסה כ־‪‘ Wiederaufnahme‬חזרה מקשרת’‪,‬‬ ‫המעידה על שילוב מקורות שונים‪ .‬פס’ ‪ 6–5‬זוהו כמקור קדום‪ ,‬אשר אפשר שהתבסס‬ ‫על כתובת אשורית‪ ,‬בגלל הדמיון ברצף הפעלים‪ ,‬ופירוט הערים אליהם הוגלו תושבי‬ ‫הצפון והאופייני לכתובות מלכי אשור‪ 54 .‬בוסתנאי מחזק את דעתו של ברטלר‪ ,‬ומוסיף‬ ‫שייתכן כי גם פס’ ‪ 4-3‬מסתמכים על מקור אשורי‪ .‬לדעתו‪ ,‬אין להבין את מאסרו של‬ ‫הושע כמאסר לפני תחילת המצור על שומרון‪ ,‬אלא שיש להבין מאסר זה על רקע סגנון‬ ‫הכתיבה ההיסטוריוגרפית האשורית‪“ :‬בעירו אסרתי אותו”‪ .‬אולם‪ ,‬אין כל עדות לשני‬ ‫מקורות‪ ,‬וטענה על ההסתמכות המחבר על מקורות אשוריים (שלא השתמרו) מימי סרגון‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫קשה אף יותר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬מבנה ספרותי‬ ‫דומה‪ ,‬אם כן‪ ,‬שאין כל עדות שהידיעה על נפילת שומרון מורכבת משתי ידיעות‬ ‫שונות ממקורות שונים‪ ,‬כרוניקות ישראלית ויהודאית‪ ,‬או כתובת מלכותית אשורית‬ ‫ועריכה מאוחרת‪ .‬אני סבור שהקטע מחולק לפי נושאים‪ 56.‬תחילה מתמקד המחבר בפס’‬ ‫‪ 4-3‬במלך ישראל‪ ,‬מעשיו (ויחסיו עם מלכי אשור ומצרים)‪ ,‬וגורלו‪ .‬הפעלים וכינויי הגוף‬ ‫מתייחסים אליו בגוף שלישי נסתר‪ :‬עליו‪ ,‬ויהי‪ ,‬וישב‪ ,‬שלח‪ ,‬ולא־העלה‪ ,‬ויעצרהו‪ ,‬ויאסרהו‪.‬‬ ‫לאחר שתואר גורל המלך בעת נפילת העיר בשנת מלכותו התשיעית‪ ,‬עובר המחבר לתאר‬ ‫יה ָׁשֹלׁש ָׁשנִ ים”‪,‬‬ ‫את גורל העיר ומתאר אותה בגוף שלישי נסתרת‪“ :‬וַ ּיַ ַעל ׁש ְֹמרֹון וַ ּיָ ַצר ָע לֶ ָ‬ ‫ולבסוף מתאר את גורל תושבי הממלכה בשימוש בגוף שלישי נסתרים‪“ :‬וַ ּיֶ גֶ ל ֶאת־יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ּוב ָחבֹור נְ ַהר ּגֹוזָ ן וְ ָע ֵרי ָמ ָדי”‪.‬‬ ‫ַאּש ָּׁורה וַ ּי ֶֹׁשב א ֹו ָת ם ַּב ְחלַ ח ְ‬

‫‪ .52‬וינקלר‪ ,‬תרומות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;25–16‬בנצינגר‪ ,‬מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;172‬גריי‪ ,‬מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;580‬ג’ונס‪ ,‬מלכים‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ;546‬בקינג‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .53–49‬וראו ביבליוגרפיה נוספת אצל נאמן‪ ,‬הרקע ההיסטורי‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,213‬הערה ‪ ;18‬הייז וקואן‪ ,‬שנותיה האחרונות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,160‬הערה ‪.17‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬ברטלר‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .116‬מבנה זה אכן חריג‪ .‬אולם התחביר שלו אינו מאוחר אלא מטרתו ל ה ד ג יש‬ ‫את המושא העקיף במשפט עליו = ע ל ה ו שע‪ ,‬וכך לקשר בין הידיעה הכרוניסטית המקורית לפסוקי‬ ‫המבוא של הדויטרונומיסט‪ .‬למבנה המדגיש‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬הובס‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;225‬יאנגר‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.479‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬ברטלר‪ ,‬יצירת היסטוריה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.119–115‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬איני מתייחס במאמר זה לאפשרות החשיפה של המחבר לכתובות מלכי אשור‪ ,‬אשר נידונה‬ ‫לאחרונה במחקרים שונים‪ .‬לשאלה זו‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬משיניסט‪ ,‬אשור ודמותה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;737–719‬אסטר‪ ,‬אחת דיבר‬ ‫סנחריב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.124–105‬‬ ‫‪ .56‬וורטויין‪ ,‬ספרי מלכים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;394‬הובס‪ ,‬מל”ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.226‬‬

‫נפילת שומרון‪ :‬בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה‬

‫*‪237‬‬

‫מקבילה מאלפת לפירוט גורל מלך‪ ,‬ערי ממלכה ותושביה ניתן למצוא בתיאור מסעו‬ ‫השלישי של סנחריב למערב‪ .‬בדיונו בכתיבה ההיסטוריוגרפית של סופרי סנחריב‪ ,‬הראה‬ ‫תדמור‪ ,‬שתיאור המסע השלישי של סנחריב למערב ערוך באופן ספרותי ולא בהכרח‬ ‫בסדר גיאוגרפי או כרונולוגי‪ 57.‬תיאור המסע השלישי ליהודה מחולק לשש יחידות‬ ‫ספרותיות‪ .‬ברוב היחידות הספרותיות‪ ,‬עפ"י התמונה המדינית המתוארת בפיסקה‪ .‬עוד‬ ‫הבחין תדמור שארבעה מרכיבים מופיעים בכל יחידה‪( .‬א) גורל מלך האויב‪( ,‬ב) גורל עיר‬ ‫בירתו וערי ממלכתו של המלך האויב‪( ,‬ג) המלך המובס מוחלף בוסאל נאמן‪( ,‬ד) מסי קבע‬ ‫מוטלים מחדש‪ .‬גורלם של תושבי הממלכה המורדת מופיע אף הוא בתיאור הפרשיות‬ ‫‪58‬‬ ‫השונות‪ ,‬כגון הגלית ‪ 200,150‬תושבי יהודה‪.‬‬ ‫המבנה הספרותי במל”ב יז דומה‪ :‬תחילה מתואר גורלו של הושע‪ ,‬מהשתעבדותו‬ ‫דרך מרידתו ועד מאסרו (א)‪ .‬גורל עיר הבירה וערי הממלכה מתואר אף הוא (ב)‪ .‬בניגוד‬ ‫לטקסט האשורי‪ ,‬אין מופיע הסעיף הדן בהמלכת מלך חדש (ג)‪ .‬הושע היה מלכה האחרון‬ ‫של ממלכת ישראל‪ .‬סעיף המסים (ד) חסר‪ .‬ייתכן שלא היו בידי המחבר נתוני ארכיון‬ ‫האוצר כפי שהיו בידי סופרי סנחריב‪ .‬אך סביר שלאחר החורבן‪ ,‬הסופר המקראי לא ראה‬ ‫חשיבות בתיאור הפיכת ממלכת ישראל לפחווה אשורית‪ ,‬ובפירוט תשלום מיסיה לריבון‬ ‫האשורי‪ ,‬במיוחד לאור העובדה ששומרון מרדה תוך כשנה וחרבה סופית ב־‪.720‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬סיכום‬ ‫ניתן לומר‪ ,‬אם כן‪ ,‬שמל”ב יז ‪ 6–3‬הינו מ ק ו ר א ח ד (ולא שילוב של שני מקורות)‪,‬‬ ‫המתאר את נפילת שומרון בימי שלמנאסר ה’ מלך אשור בלבד‪ .‬מהנתון המקראי עולה‪,‬‬ ‫ששומרון נכבשה בשנה התשיעית להושע (‪ 724/3‬או ‪ )723/2‬וש ל מנאסר הוא המלך‬ ‫האשורי שאסר את הושע והגלה את תושביה (פס’ ‪ .)6–5‬אין סיבה לפקפק בנתון כרונולוגי‬ ‫זה‪ .‬שירבובו של סרגון לפרשת כיבוש שומרון נובע מנטיית חוקרים לשלב כל מידע‬ ‫הנראה רלוונטי‪ ,‬כדי לשחזר את התמונה המדינית‪ .‬כך‪ ,‬שולבה פרשת כיבוש שומרון‬ ‫וסופה של ממלכת ישראל העצמאית בשנה התשיעית של הושע עם פרשת דיכוי המרד‬ ‫במערב בשנה השנייה למלכות סרגון (‪ ,)720‬כשלוש או ארבע שנים לאחר הפיכתה של‬ ‫שומרון לפחווה אשורית‪.‬‬ ‫ביבליוגרפיה‬ ‫אולמסטד‪ ,‬נפילת שומרון = ‪A.T. Olmstead, “The Fall of Samaria”, The American‬‬ ‫‪Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 21/ 3 (1905), pp. 179-182‬‬

‫אסטר‪ ,‬אחת דיבר סנחריב = ש"ז אסטר‪” ,‬אחת דיבר סנחריב‪ ,‬שתיים זו שמע הנביא‪:‬‬ ‫לעיבוד המקורות האשוריים בסיפור הנבואי על מלחמת סנחריב ביהודה”‪ ,‬שנתון‬ ‫לחקר המקרא והמזרח הקדום יט (תשס”ט)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪124–105‬‬

‫‪ .57‬תדמור‪ ,‬מלחמת סנחריב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.72–71‬‬ ‫‪ .58‬כוגן‪ ,‬אסופת כתובות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪79‬‬

‫דנאל קאהן‬

238*

,‫ ההיסטוריה של עם ישראל‬,”‫ ”אחריתה של ממלכת ישראל‬,‫ אחריתה = י' אפעל‬,‫אפעל‬ 130–121 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשמ”ב‬,‫ בעריכת א’ מלמט‬,‫ימי המלוכה–היסטוריה מדינית‬ ‫ “משמעותו של השלטון האימפריאלי האשורי על‬,‫ משמעותו של השלטון = י' אפעל‬,‫אפעל‬ ,‫ תעודות ותולדות‬:‫ ישראל וארצו‬,“'‫פי תעודות לא־ספרותיות הנוגעות ל‘עבר הנהר‬ 69–31 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ תש”ע‬,‫באר שבע כרך יט‬ R. Borger and H. Tadmor, “Zwei = ‫ שתי תרומות לחקר המקרא‬,‫בורגר ותדמור‬ Beiträge zur Alttestamentlischen Wischenschaft aufgrund der Inschriften Tiglatpilesers III”, Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 94/2 (1982), pp. 244-251 I. Benzinger, Die Bücher der Konige, Freiburg 1899 = ‫ מלכים‬,‫בנצינגר‬ B. Becking, The Fall of Samaria: An Historical and = ‫ נפילת שומרון‬,‫בקינג‬ Archaeological Study, Leiden 1992 M.Z. Brettler, The Creation of History in Ancient Israel, = ‫ יצירת היסטוריה‬,‫ברטלר‬ London -New-York 1995 J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd. ed. London 1964 = ‫ היסטוריה‬,‫ברייט‬ G.H. Jones, 1 and 2 Kings: Based on the Revised Standard Version, = ‫ מלכים‬,‫ג'ונס‬ Grand Rapids, Mi. 1984 G. Galil, “The Last Years of the Kingdom of Israel and = ‫ שנותיה האחרונות‬,‫גליל‬ the Fall of Samaria”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995), pp. 52-65

‫ תשס"א‬,‫ חיפה‬,‫ ישראל ואשור‬,‫ ישראל ואשור = ג' גליל‬,‫גליל‬ G. Galil, “Israelite Exiles in Media: A New Look at ND = ‫ גולים ישראלים‬,‫גליל‬ 2443+”, Vetus Testamentum 59 (2009), pp. 71-79 A.K. Jenkins, “Hezekiah’s Fourteenth Year: A New = ‫ השנה הארבע־עשרה‬,‫ג'נקינס‬ Interpretation of 2 Kings XVIII 13-XIX 37”, Vetus Testamentum 26, 3 (1976), pp. 284-298 J. Gray, I & II Kings: A Commentary, Philadelphia 1975 = ‫ מלכים‬,‫גריי‬ A.R.W. Green, “The Identity of King So of Egypt–An = ‫ זהותו של סוא‬,‫גרין‬ Alternative Interpretation”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52 (1993), pp. 99-108 H. Donner, “The Separate States of Israel and Judah”, = ‫ הממלכות הנפרדות‬,‫דונר‬ Israelite and Judaean History, eds. J.H. Hayes and J.M. Miller, London 1977 I.M. Diakonoff, The Cities of the Medes, in: M. Cogan and = ‫ ערי מדי‬,‫דיאקונוף‬ I. Eph΄al (eds.), Ah Assyria...–Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor, Jerusalem 1991, pp. 46-51 S. Dalley, “Foreign Chariotry and Cavalry in the Armies of Tiglath- = ‫ מרכבות‬,‫דלי‬ pileser III and Sargon II”, Iraq 47 (1985), pp. 31-48

239*

‫ בין היסטוריה להיסטוריוגרפיה‬:‫נפילת שומרון‬

T.R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, Waco Tx. 1985 = ‫ מל"ב‬,‫הובס‬ J.H. Hayes and J.K. Kuan, “The Final Years of = ‫ שנותיה האחרונות‬,‫הייז וקואן‬ Samaria”, Biblica 72 (1991), pp. 153-181 C. Hardmeier, Prophetie im Streit vor dem Untergang Judas, = ‫ נבואה‬,‫הרדמאייר‬ Berlin 1990 E. Würthwein, Die Bücher der Könige: 1. Kön. 17-2. Kön. = ‫ ספרי מלכים‬,‫וורטויין‬ 25, Göttingen 1984 D.J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings: An Introduction and Commentary, = ‫ מלכים‬,‫וייזמן‬ Leicester, England 1993 H. Winckler, “Beiträge zur Quellenscheidung der Königbücher”, = ‫ תרומות‬,‫וינקלר‬ Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen (Leipzig 1892), pp. 16-25 K.L. Jr. Younger, “The Deportations of the Israelites”, = ‫ גלויות ישראל‬,‫יאנגר‬ Journal of Biblical Literature 117/2 (1998), pp. 201-214 K.L. Jr. Younger, “The Fall Samaria in Light of Recent = ‫ נפילת שומרון‬,‫יאנגר‬ Research”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61 (1999), pp. 461-482 M. Cogan, “Chronology”, Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. I, ed. = ‫ כרונולוגיה‬,‫כוגן‬ D.N. Freedman, New-York 1992, pp. 1003-1011.

'‫ו‬-'‫ מאות ט‬:‫ אסופת כתובות היסטוריות מאשור ובבל‬,‫ אסופת כתובות = מ' כוגן‬,‫כוגן‬ ‫ ירושלים תשס"ד‬,‫לפסה"נ‬ M. Cogan, and H. Tadmor, II Kings, Garden City NY 1988 = ‫ מל"ב‬,‫כוגן ותדמור‬ B.E. Kelle, “Hoshea, Sargon, and the Final Destruction of = ‫ הושע וסרגון‬,‫כלה‬ Samaria: A Response to M. Christine Tetley with a View toward Method”, Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17/2 (2003), pp. 226-244 J.M. Miller and J.H. Hayes, A History of Ancient Israel = ‫ תולדות ישראל‬,‫מילר והייז‬ and Judah, Philadelphia 1986 P. Machinist, “Assyria and Its Image in the First Isaiah,” = ‫ אשור ודמותה‬,‫משיניסט‬ Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983), pp. 719-737 N. Na’aman, “Historical and Chronological Notes on the = ‫ הערות היסטוריות‬,‫נאמן‬ Kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the Eighth Century B.C.”, Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986), pp. 71-92 N. Na’aman, “The Historical Background to the Conquest = ‫ הרקע ההיסטורי‬,‫נאמן‬ of Samaria”, Biblica 71, (1990), pp. 206-225 N. Na’aman, “The Number of Deportees from Samaria in the = ‫ מספר הגולים‬,‫נאמן‬ Nimrud Prism of Sargon II”, N.A.B.U. 2000/1, p. 1 N. Na’aman. and R. Zadok, “Sargon’s Deportations to = ‫ הגליות סרגון‬,‫נאמן וצדוק‬ Israel and Philistia (716-708 B.C.)”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 40 (1988), pp. 36-46

‫דנאל קאהן‬

240*

Noth, M. The History of Israel, 2nd ed. London 1960 = ‫ תולדות ישראל‬,‫נות‬

‫ בית מקרא‬,”‫ ”סוגיות במקרא לאור הכתובות האשוריות‬,‫ עודד‬.‫ סוגיות במקרא = ב‬,‫עודד‬ 7–1 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫א (תשנ”ז‬42 N. Franklin, “A Room with a View: Images from Room = ‫ חדר עם נוף‬,‫פרנקלין‬ V at Khorsabad. Samaria, Nubians, the Brook of Egypt”, Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar, Sheffield 2001, pp. 257-277 D. Kahn, “The Inscription of Sargon II at Tang-I Var and the = ‫ כתובת סרגון‬,‫קאהן‬ Chronology of Dynasty 25”, Orientalia 70 (2001), pp. 1-18

272–235 '‫ עמ‬,1969/74 ,'‫ פרקים ב‬,"‫ "אלולי מלך הצידונים‬,‫ אלולי = י' קצנשטיין‬,‫קצנשטיין‬ J.J.M. Roberts, “Egypt, Assyria, Isaiah, and = ‫ אשור וישעיה‬,‫ מצרים‬,‫רוברטס‬ the Ashdod Affair: An Alternative Proposal”, Jerusalem in Bible and Archaeology: The First Temple Period, eds. A.G. Vaughn and A. Killebrew, Atlanta, GA 2003, pp. 265-284 H. Tadmor, “The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A = ‫ מסעות סרגון‬,‫תדמור‬ Chronological-Historical Study” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 12 (1958), pp. 22-40, 77-100

'‫ עמ‬,)‫ ד (תשכ"ג‬,‫ אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬,"‫ "כרונולוגיה‬,‫ כרונולוגיה = ח' תדמור‬,‫תדמור‬ 310–245 H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III = ‫ כתובות תגלת־פלאסר‬,‫תדמור‬ King of Assyria, Jerusalem 1994

‫ תשורה‬,”‫ “הערות כרונולוגיות לכיבוש שומרון‬,‫ הערות כרונולוגיות = ח' תדמור‬,‫תדמור‬ ,‫ ירושלים‬,‫ ד’ סיון‬,‫ ש’ יונה‬,‫ בעריכת צ’ טלשיר‬,‫ מחקרים בעולם המקרא‬:‫לשמואל‬ 436–433 ’‫ עמ‬,‫תשס”א‬ ‫ בחינות היסטוריוגראפיות‬:‫ "מלחמת סנחריב ביהודה‬,‫ מלחמת סנחריב = ח' תדמור‬,‫תדמור‬ 79–65 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ ציון נ’ (תשמ”ה‬,”‫והיסטוריות‬ S. Timm, “Die Eroberrung Samarias aus assyrisch- = ‫ כיבוש שומרון‬,‫תים‬ babylonischer Sicht”, Die Welt des Orients 20-21 (1989-90), pp. 62-82 M.C. Tetley, “The Date of Samaria’s Fall as a Reason = ‫ תאריך נפילת שומרון‬,‫תתלי‬ for Rejecting the Hypothesis of Two Conquests”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 64 (2002), pp. 59-77

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪241‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה – סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬ ‫לזכר אביגדור‪ ,‬אילן גבוה‪ ,‬שנעם לנו לחסות בצלו‬

‫מרב‪ ,‬בתו הבכורה של שאול‪ ,‬נזכרת לראשונה בכתובת‪-‬הסיכום‪ 1‬המוסרת גם את‬ ‫ׁשּוע וְ ֵׁשם ְׁש ֵּתי ְבנ ָֹתיו ֵׁשם‬ ‫ּומלְ ּכִ י ַ‬ ‫אילן היוחסין של בית שאול‪“ :‬וַ ּיִ ְהיּו ְּבנֵ י ָׁשאּול יֹונָ ָתן וְ יִ ְׁשוִ י ַ‬ ‫ַה ְּבכִ ָירה ֵמ ַרב וְ ֵׁשם ַה ְּק ַטּנָ ה ִמיכַ ל” (שמ”א יד ‪.)49‬‬ ‫שמה של מרב‪ 2‬נזכר בספרות המקראית פעמיים נוספות באפיזודה קצרה בשמ”א יח‬ ‫‪:19-17‬‬ ‫ֹאמר ָׁשאּול ֶאל ָּדוִ ד ִהּנֵ ה ִב ִּתי ַהּגְ דֹולָ ה ֵמ ַרב א ָֹתּה ֶא ֶּתן לְ ָך לְ ִא ָּשׁה ַאְך ֱהיֵ ה ּלִ י לְ ֶבן‬ ‫‪“ .17‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ‫ּות ִהי בֹו יַ ד ְּפלִ ְׁש ִּתים ‪ .18‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ַחיִ ל וְ ִהּלָ ֵחם ִמלְ ֲחמֹות יְ הֹוָ ה וְ ָׁשאּול ָא ַמר ַאל ְּת ִהי יָ ִדי ּבֹו ְ‬ ‫ּומי ַחּיַ י ִמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת ָא ִבי ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ּכִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָח ָתן לַ ֶּמלֶ ְך ‪ .19‬וַ יְ ִהי‬ ‫ָּדוִ ד ֶאל ָׁשאּול ִמי ָאנֹכִ י ִ‬ ‫ְּב ֵעת ֵּתת ֶאת ֵמ ַרב ַּבת ָׁשאּול לְ ָדוִ ד וְ ִהיא נִ ְּתנָ ה לְ ַע ְד ִר ֵיאל ַה ְּמחֹלָ ִתי לְ ִא ָּשׁה”‪.‬‬ ‫הופעתה החטופה של מרב באפיזודה הזאת מספקת לנו תהיות באשר לאירועים‬ ‫הקשורים למהלך חייה ולדמותה‪ ,‬שכן בראשיתה של האפיזודה מרב מוצגת כבת מלך‬ ‫וככלה מיועדת לדוד גיבור החיל ובסופה היא אשתו של עדריאל המחולתי‪.‬‬ ‫חלקו הראשון של פסוק ‪ 17‬עוסק במרב‪ ,‬אבל היא איננה לבדה שם‪ .‬נוכחים בו הגברים‬ ‫ֹאמר ָׁשאּול ֶאל ָּדוִ ד ‪ ...‬א ָֹתּה ֶא ֶּתן (אני‪ ,‬שאול) לְ ָך‬ ‫שלמעשה שולטים ושישלטו בגורלה‪ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫(דוד) לְ ִא ָּשׁה‪ .‬מכאן ואילך (פס’ ‪ ,)18‬הופכת מרב לפרט בתוך מכלול התנאים שמציב שאול‬ ‫לדוד בדו־שיח שביניהם‪ ,‬כשבו־זמנית מיועדת מרב להיות גם לכלה וגם למלכודת מוות‬ ‫עבור חתנה המיועד‪.‬‬ ‫במעמד הצעת הנישואים (שמ”א יח ‪ ,)18-17‬דומה שמרב נוכחת‪-‬לא נוכחת‪ .‬מעל‬ ‫קולותיהם של שאול ודוד הנושאים ונותנים בעניינה‪ ,‬מרחפת שתיקתּה‪ ,‬שתיקה שאינה‬ ‫* במאמרנו זה נייחד דיון על הרבדים הספרותיים של אפיזודת מרב‪ .‬מאמר נוסף על מרב‪,‬‬

‫המתחקה אחרי עקבותיה בספרות המקראית‪ ,‬התפרסם לאחרונה‪O, Keren and H. Taragan “Merab, :‬‬ ‫‪.Saul’s Mute and Muffled Daughter”, Journal of Biblical Literature 134, no. 1 (2015), pp. 85-103‬‬

‫‪ .1‬על כתובת הסיכום‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬רופא‪ ,‬מבוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.132‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬על גזרונו של השם מרב ומשמעויותיו‪ ,‬ראו‪ ,BDB :‬מרב‪ ,‬מס’ ‪ ,HALOT ;5619‬מרב‪ ,‬מס’ ‪;5625‬‬ ‫מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;254‬לייטון‪ ,‬מרב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;203-197‬אדלמן‪ ,‬מרב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪124‬‬

‫*‪241‬‬

‫*‪242‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫מופרת גם כאשר היא “‪...‬נִ ְּתנָ ה לְ ַע ְד ִר ֵיאל ַה ְּמחֹלָ ִתי לְ ִא ָּשׁה” (פס’ ‪ .)19‬אין כל התייחסות‬ ‫לתחושותיה או לרגשותיה‪ 3,‬ומרב‪ ,‬כמו גם אישּה‪ ,‬עדריאל המחולתי‪ ,‬נעטפים בדממה‬ ‫ולכאורה נגרעים מההתרחשויות הקשורות לבית שאול‪.‬‬ ‫למרות היקפה המצומצם של האפיזודה‪ ,‬הצליח המספר לדחוס לתוכה את כל המתח‬ ‫שטמון בתיאור תכניתו של שאול להרוג את דוד (‪ .)17b‬הקורא שואל עצמו‪ :‬האם תצלח‬ ‫התכנית? האם הנישואין למרב יובילו לאובדנו של דוד?‬ ‫במאמר זה תיבחן דמותה של מרב בת שאול‪ ,‬אשת עדריאל המחולתי‪ .‬בבסיס הדיון‬ ‫על דמותה תעמוד השאלה באשר למקומה בטקסט ולנחיצות הופעתה בו‪.‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬שמואל א יח ‪ — 19-17‬מבנה ספרותי‬ ‫תיחום אפיזודת מרב נקבע ל־שמ”א יח ‪.19-17‬‬ ‫אפיזודה קצרצרה זו שנושאה הוא ניסיונו של שאול להשיא את מרב לדוד סגורה היטב‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫בתוך עצמה‪ 4,‬ודמותה של מרב המופיעה רק באפיזודה זו‪ ,‬נעדרת מאפיזודות־המעטפת‪.‬‬ ‫האפיזודה פותחת בתכניותיו של שאול לגבי בתו הבכורה מרב‪ ,‬וסוגרת עם מעשי שאול‬ ‫ביחס למרב‪ .‬אפיזודה זו שזורה היטב במארג האפיזודות (שמ”א יח ‪ 6,)30-1‬המתארות‬ ‫מצד אחד‪ ,‬את עוינותו של שאול כלפי דוד ואת ניסיונותיו ותכניותיו להורגו‪ ,‬החל מהנסיון‬ ‫הראשון לפגוע בדוד ישירות ועד הניסיון הנוסף שלו להרוג את דוד באמצעות מיכל (יח‬ ‫‪ ;21-20‬יט ‪ 7.)17 ,11‬מצד שני‪ ,‬מתארות האפיזודות הקודמות לה (יח ‪,)16 ,14 ,12 ,7-6 ,1‬‬ ‫וגם זו שאחריה (יח ‪ ,)28 ,20‬את כל האוהבים את דוד‪ .‬אפיזודה זו (יח ‪ ,)19-17‬בניגוד‬ ‫לאפיזודות־המעטפת‪ ,‬נעדרת כל גילויי רגשות‪ ,‬אין בה לא עוינות ואף לא אהבה‪.‬‬ ‫את גבולות המסגרת‪ 8‬שבתוכם נתונה האפיזודה מסמן הצירוף ‘נתן אשה’ החוזר‬ ‫בפתיח (יח ‪ ,)17‬ובסיום (יח ‪ .)19‬אברי המסגרת אף מסמנים את הטלטלה שעוברת דמותה‬ ‫של מרב מרומו של עולם ככלה אפשרית לדוד‪ ,‬למציאות בה היא מוצאת עצמה ככלה‬ ‫בפועל לעדריאל המחולתי‪ ,‬ובפעם הזאת בלא שהתקיים משא ומתן בעניינה‪ ,‬או הוצגו‬ ‫תנאים לנישואין‪.‬‬ ‫‪ . 3‬כך גם אין ביטוי לרגשותיה של מרב‪ ,‬כשמיכל‪ ,‬אחותה הקטנה‪ ,‬ניתנת לדוד לאישה (שמ”א יח‬ ‫‪.)27-20‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬אפיזודת מרב (יח ‪ ,)19-17‬חסרה בתרגום השבעים ‪ ,Codex Vaticanus‬וכן בקדמוניות היהודים‪.‬‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬בן מתתיהו‪ ,‬קדמוניות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .201‬יש בהיעדרה של אפיזודה זו בשלמותה ממקורות אלה לחזק את‬ ‫הטיעון בדבר מקוריותה של היחידה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬שמ”א יח ‪.30-20 ,16-14 ,13-10 ,9-6 ,5-1‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬לטענתו של מקנזי‪ ,‬המלך דוד‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,79‬מארג האפיזודות העוטפות את אפיזודת מרב רחב יותר‬ ‫והוא כולל את הפרקים יח‪-‬כ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .7‬לדעתו של מקנזי‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬בפרקים יח‪-‬כ מתוארת סדרת תכנונים מצד שאול להיפטר מדוד‬ ‫באמצעים גלויים וסמויים‪ .‬כל אחת מתכניותיו של שאול הסתיימה בתוצאה בלתי־רצויה לו ודוד יצא‬ ‫אחריה אף נשכר יותר מאשר היה קודם‪ .‬פעילותו העוינת של שאול כלפי דוד הפכה להיות גלויה יותר‬ ‫לעין‪ ,‬עד שלבסוף‪ ,‬נאלץ שאול להודות בגלוי שהוא מתמסר לחיסולו של דוד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬על מסגרות ספרותיות‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מולטון‪ ,‬ספרות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;53‬ווטסון‪ ,‬שירה מקראית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;283-282‬‬ ‫פולק‪ ,‬הסיפור במקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.38-37‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪243‬‬

‫מבנה האפיזודה‪:‬‬ ‫בפסוקים ‪ 19-17‬משולבים לסירוגין דבריהם ושמותיהם של דוד ושאול בדברי המספר‪:‬‬ ‫ֹאמר ָׁשאּול ֶאל ָּדוִ ד ִהּנֵ ה ִב ִּתי ַהּגְ דֹולָ ה ֵמ ַרב א ָֹתּה ֶא ֶּתן לְ ָך לְ ִא ָּשׁה‬ ‫‪ . 17‬דברי שאול‪ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ַאְך ֱהיֵ ה ּלִ י לְ ֶבן ַחיִ ל וְ ִהּלָ ֵחם ִמלְ ֲחמֹות יְ הֹוָ ה‬ ‫ ‬ ‫דברי המספר‪ :‬וְ ָׁשאּול ָא ַמר ַאל ְּת ִהי יָ ִדי ּבֹו ְּות ִהי בֹו יַ ד ְּפלִ ְׁש ִּתים‪:‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ֹאמר ָּדוִ ד ֶאל ָׁשאּול ִמי ָאנֹכִ י ִּומי ַחּיַ י ִמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת ָא ִבי ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ּכִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָח ָתן לַ ֶּמלֶ ְך‪:‬‬ ‫‪ . 18‬דברי דוד‪ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫‪ . 19‬דברי המספר‪ :‬וַ יְ ִהי ְּב ֵעת ֵּתת ֶאת ֵמ ַרב ַּבת ָׁשאּול לְ ָדוִ ד וְ ִהיא נִ ְּתנָ ה לְ ַע ְד ִר ֵיאל ַה ְּמחֹלָ ִתי לְ ִא ָּשׁה‪:‬‬ ‫נראה שהשיח לעיל העוסק במרב‪ ,‬מתוכנן בקפידה על ידי המספר שפותח בשאול‬ ‫הפונה אל דוד (פס’ ‪ ,)17‬וממשיך באופן כיאסטי בדוד הפונה אל שאול (‪:)18‬‬ ‫שאול‪-‬דוד‪-‬המספר‬ ‫דוד‪-‬שאול‬ ‫המספר‪-‬שאול‪-‬דוד‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ‫האפיזודה פותחת בהצעה לחתונה — תוכניתו של שאול להשיא את מרב לדוד‪ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ָׁשאּול ֶאל ָּדוִ ד ִהּנֵ ה ִב ִּתי ַהּגְ דֹולָ ה ֵמ ַרב א ָֹתּה ֶא ֶּתן לְ ָך לְ ִא ָּשׁה‪( ...‬פס’ ‪ ,)17‬ומסתיימת בחתונה‪,‬‬ ‫יאל ַה ְּמחֹלָ ִתי לְ ִא ָּשׁה (פס’ ‪.)19‬‬ ‫בנתינתה של מרב לעדריאל המחולתי‪ ... :‬וְ ִהיא נִ ְּתנָ ה לְ ַע ְד ִר ֵ‬ ‫המידע שנמסר בסופה של האפיזודה מתייחס למרב בלשון נסתרת ומבליט את התחושה‬ ‫שעסקת הנישואין לעדריאל יצאה לפועל בהיעדרה‪.‬‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫בפתיח של פסוק ‪ 17‬מוצגת מרב על ידי אביה‪ ,‬עוד לפני שנקב בשמה‪ ,‬כ’בתי הגדולה’‪,‬‬ ‫צירוף שלכאורה עולים ממנו רוך‪ 10‬בצד גאווה‪ .‬כינוי הקניין בגוף ראשון שבמלה ‘בתי’‬ ‫‪ .9‬התואר ‘גדולה’ הנלווה למרב בפסוק זה היה לו ראוי להופיע בשמ”א יד ‪‘ ,49‬גדולה’ ביחס‬ ‫ל’קטנה’ — מיכל‪ .‬במקומנו‪ ,‬היינו מצפים דווקא לכינוי ‘בכורה’ שהרי זה מעמדה של מרב במשא ומתן‬ ‫עליה עם דוד‪ .‬אלא שלא כל ‘גדולה’ היא ‘בכורה’ ולכן נדמה ששאול מקטין למעשה את מעמדה של מרב‬ ‫כאשר הוא מכנה אותה ‘גדולה’ ולא בכורה‪ .‬אך אין זה כך‪ .‬בספרות המקראית התואר ‘גדול’ זהה לתואר‬ ‫‘בכור’‪ ,‬למשל‪ :‬עשו היה הבכור בבנים אך המספר מכנה אותו ‘גדול’ (בר’ כז ‪ ,)15 ,1‬אבל גם ‘בכור’ (שם‪,‬‬ ‫‪ .)19‬אליאב‪ ,‬אחי דוד‪ ,‬מכונה במקום אחד ‘הגדול’ (שמ”א יז ‪ ,)28‬ובמקום אחר ‘הבכור’ (שמ”א יז ‪ .)13‬כך גם‬ ‫מרב מכונה ‘הבכירה’ (שמ”א יד ‪ ,)49‬וגם ‘הגדולה’ (שם‪ ,‬יח ‪ .)17‬על התואר ‘גדולה’ כ־‪,definite adjective‬‬ ‫בתוך רצף המכיל כוונה השוואתית־יחסית (‪ ,)comperative superlative‬ראו‪ :‬ולטקה ואוקונור‪ ,‬תחביר‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ .269‬לדברי גרינספן‪ ,‬אחים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,64‬המונחים הבאים לתאר ‘בכור’ בזכר ובנקבה במקרא אינם זהים‪.‬‬ ‫הכינוי ‘בכירה’ לעולם לא יהיה ‘זאת שנולדה ראשונה’ כפי שברור לעין מהצגתה של מרב כבתו הבכירה‬ ‫של שאול (שמ”א יד ‪ ,)49‬כשלפניה נימנים בניו‪ .‬זוהי הרשימה היחידה במקרא שבה נזכרות הבנות בצד‬ ‫הבנים‪ ,‬אם כי בנפרד מהם‪ .‬בהקשר הזה‪ ,‬ההגדרה אינה רומזת או מעידה על כך שמרב הייתה המבוגרת‬ ‫(‪ )the oldest‬מבין ילדי שאול‪ ,‬אלא על כך שהיא הייתה מבוגרת יותר מאחותה מיכל‪ .‬השימוש בכינויים‬ ‫‘בכור’ ו’בכירה’ באופן זהה‪ ,‬נובעים מתהליך השלכה של מונח אחד על משנהו‪ .‬עניין זה מבוסס על היעדר‬ ‫צורה זכרית ‘בכיר’ בעברית המקראית‪ ,‬אם כי בעברית המאוחרת יש מונח כזה‪ .‬שפירא‪ ,‬יעקב ועשו‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,260‬מעיר שלעולם הניגוד של ‘צעיר’ במקרא‪ ,‬הוא ‘בכור’‪ ,‬והוא למד זאת מההופעות של המתארים ‘בכור’‬ ‫ו’צעיר’ (בר’ יט ‪ ;38 ,37 ,34 ,31‬כט ‪ ;26‬מג ‪ ;33‬מח ‪ ;14‬יהו’ ו ‪ ;26‬מל”א טז ‪.)34‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬בהמשך אנו מבינים ששאול מתכנן למרב חיי אלמנות‪ ,‬ולכן הרוך שנדמה ששאול מפגין כלפי‬ ‫מרב הוא בגדר אשליה‪.‬‬

‫*‪244‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫בתוספת שם התואר ‘הגדולה’ משווה לה כאן את המעמד הראוי לה כנסיכה‪ :‬הבכירה‬ ‫והבחירה‪.‬‬ ‫בהמשכו של הפסוק מופיע צירוף היחס ‘א ָֹתּה’‪ ,‬שגם הוא מכוון אל מרב ומייחד אותה‬ ‫בתוך המעמד בו היא מוצעת להיות אישה לדוד‪ .‬בחלק זה של הפסוק מרב מיודעת מלבד‬ ‫באמצעות שמה‪ ,‬בשלושה מיידעים נוספים‪‘ :‬בתי’‪‘ ,‬הגדולה’‪‘ ,‬א ָֹתּה’‪ 12.‬אפשר שרצף זה‬ ‫של כינויים יש בו כדי לשקף את תחושותיו של שאול כלפי מעמד זה של מסירת בתו‬ ‫לאישה לדוד‪ ,‬שנוא נפשו‪ .‬כאילו אינו מסוגל להרפות ממנה ולוותר עליה‪ .‬ניתן ללמוד‬ ‫מכך‪ ,‬שארגון הדרגתי של השלבים כפי שמופיע במקומנו‪‘ :‬בתי’‪‘ ,‬הגדולה’ ו’א ָֹתּה’‪ ,‬נועד‬ ‫גם לאפשר לשאול להסתגל לרעיון כפי שהוזכר לעיל‪ .‬אך אולי גם לסייע לקורא להבין‬ ‫באיזו דילמה מצוי שאול‪ ,‬האם ייתן את בתו הגדולה לדוד כשהוא רוצה במותו? במקרה‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫שלפנינו מדובר בהדרגתיות הפועלת מהכינוי היותר אישי ‘בתי’‪ ,‬אל הפחות אישי ‘א ָֹתה’‪.‬‬ ‫בסופה של אפיזודה זו (פס’ ‪ ,)19‬מכנה המספר את מרב‪‘ :‬בת שאול’‪ 14,‬מעין תזכורת‬ ‫לקורא על שיוכה המשפחתי‪ ,‬ומנגד הוא דואג להבהיר שחל שינוי במעמדה ובמצבה‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫המשפחתי‪ :‬מרב שהייתה ידועה כבת המלך מיוחסת כעת לבעלה‪ ,‬עדריאל המחולתי‪.‬‬ ‫המעבר של מרב מסטטוס משפחתי־מעמדי אחד למשנהו מובלט גם על ידי חזרה‬ ‫כפולה בגיוון על השורש נת”נ‪ 16‬שעוטף את שמה וייחוסה‪:‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬

‫וַ יְ ִהי ְּב ֵעת ֵּתת ֶאת ֵמ ַרב ַּבת ָׁשאּול לְ ָדוִ ד ‪ //‬וְ ִהיא נִ ְּתנָ ה לְ ַע ְד ִר ֵיאל ַה ְּמחֹלָ ִתי לְ ִא ָּשׁה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .11‬שם התואר ‘בכירה’ נזכר בשלושה מסיפורי המקרא‪ :‬ארבע פעמים בסיפור לוט ובנותיו‪ ,‬בר’ יט‬ ‫קֹומנּו לָ ֵתת ַה ְּצ ִע ָירה לִ ְפנֵ י‬ ‫ֹאמר לָ ָבן ֹלא יֵ ָע ֶׂשה כֵ ן ִּב ְמ ֵ‬ ‫‪ ;37 ,34 ,33 ,31‬בסיפורי יעקב‪ ,‬בבר’ כט ‪ ,26‬ושם‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ַה ְּבכִ ָירה”‪ ,‬וכן בשמ”א יד ‪.49‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬ידוע בדרכי המספר המקראי ששינוי כינוי הוא אות לשינוי בפרספקטיבה לגבי מעמדה של‬ ‫הדמות‪ .‬שטרנברג‪ ,‬אונס דינה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,200‬טען ש”מדובר במכשיר יעיל להפניית תשומת ליבו של הקורא‬ ‫למרכזי ההתעניינות שבסיפוריו”‪ .‬כינוי הקניין בגוף ראשון שבמלה ‘בתי’ מתחלף בהמשך המשפט‬ ‫בצירוף היחס ‘לְ ָך’‪ ,‬בבחינת‪ ,‬מה ששייך לי יהפוך להיות שלך‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬אמית‪ ,‬הדרגתיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,27 ,25-24‬טוענת שהופעת שלושה כינויים נפרדים לדמות אינה יכולה‬ ‫להיות סתמית או מקרית‪ .‬כך למשל אצל יצחק בסיפור עקדת יצחק (בר’ כב ‪ .)2‬תופעה דומה מתרחשת‬ ‫בסיפור דינה ושכם (בר’ לד)‪ ,‬שם התקיים משא ומתן בין בני יעקב לחמור ושכם על נישואין אפשריים‬ ‫יה בכינויים שיש בהם הדרגתיות הפוכה‪,‬‬ ‫ואח ָ‬ ‫בין דינה לשכם (פסוקים ‪ .)17-12‬דינה מכונה על ידי שכם ֶ‬ ‫מן הכינוי הפחות אישי לכינוי האישי יותר‪ :‬הנערה (פסוק ‪ ,)12‬אחותנו (פסוק ‪ )14‬ולבסוף‪ ,‬בתנו (פסוק‬ ‫‪ .)17‬על מונולוג פנימי כמניפולציה וכהתערבות של הסופר‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ויס‪ ,‬מלאכת הסיפור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.404-403‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,243‬טוען כי בכל פעם שהתואר ‘בת שאול’ מופיע הרי שהוא‬ ‫מזהה את מרב כמו גם את מיכל‪ .‬ויש בשימוש כזה כדי להדגיש את המורכבות השושלתית הקיימת ביחס‬ ‫למעמדם העתידי של הצאצאים שעלולה להיווצר בנישואין למי שאינו נמנה על משפחת המלוכה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬לדברי פוקס‪ ,‬פוליטיקה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,112‬תמונות של אירוסין במקרא מציגות את המעבר של האישה‬ ‫מחזקתו של גבר אחד (האב)‪ ,‬לחזקתו של גבר אחר (הבעל המיועד)‪ ,‬ללא כל זכות ואפשרות להחליט‬ ‫עבור עצמה‪ .‬ראו גם דברי המילטון‪ ,‬נישואין‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,568-559‬על נישואין במקרא ובמזרח הקדום‪ ,‬ושם‬ ‫התייחסות לאפיזודה העוסקת בהצעתו של שאול לדוד לשאת לאישה‪ ,‬תחילה את בתו מרב‪ ,‬ואחר־כך גם‬ ‫את בתו הצעירה מיכל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .16‬על פי פוקס‪ ,‬פוליטיקה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,112‬הכלה נתפסת כ”נכס נייד” והפעלים הרווחים לגביה הם‪:‬‬ ‫לק”ח בקשר עם החתן ונת”נ בקשר עם האב‪.‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪245‬‬

‫שינוי לשונות הדיבור מדגיש את דחיקתה של מרב מחוץ למעגל המשפחתי ולמעשה‬ ‫אל מחוץ לארמון המלכותי‪:‬‬ ‫בתי הגדולה מרב ‬ ‫הנה‬ ‫ויהי בעת תת את מרב בת שאול לדוד ‬

‫לאשה‬ ‫א ָֹת ּה אתן לך ‬ ‫והיא נתנה לעדריאל המחולתי לאשה‬

‫ניתן לחלק את דברי שאול (פס’ ‪ ,)17‬לשלושה חלקים‪ :‬חלקו הראשון‪ ,‬שנושאו הצעת‬ ‫הנישואים קצר וענייני‪ ,‬ואילו שני החלקים הבאים בעקבותיו עוסקים בפירוט יתר‪,‬‬ ‫באמירה כפולה‪ ,‬בכוונותיו האלימות של שאול כלפי דוד‪.‬‬ ‫הצעת שאול לדוד המופיעה בפסוק זה מובאת על ידי המספר בדיבור ישיר והיא‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫“הּנֵ ה”‪.‬‬ ‫פותחת במלת ההצגה ִ‬ ‫מתוכנה של ההצעה עולה כי מצד אחד‪ ,‬שאול סומך על דוד ומציע לו להיות לו לבן־‬ ‫חיל‪ ,‬להילחם את מלחמות ה’ ולהיות חתן למלך‪ .‬מצד שני‪ ,‬הוא רוצה במותו‪ .‬שאול‪ ,‬הפונה‬ ‫לראשונה ישירות אל דוד‪ ,‬אינו משאיר כל פתח לעמימות ביחס לכוונותיו‪ .‬הוא קושר בין‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫שני האלמנטים‪-‬אשה ומוות‪-‬במטרה “להעניק” את שניהם לדוד‪.‬‬ ‫בדבריו של שאול לדוד מובלעת תבנית של תנאי קיים‪ ,‬אם כי ללא הסימנים הרגילים‬ ‫במשפט תנאי‪ 19.‬הרישא כפי שנטען לעיל‪ ,‬ישיר וענייני‪ ,‬ואילו הסיפא מכיל שני חלקים‪,‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫“אְך‬ ‫כשהחלק האחרון “וְ ִהּלָ ֵחם ִמלְ ֲחמֹות יְ הֹוָ ה”‪ ,‬מבהיר ומחדד את תוכנו של הראשון‪ַ :‬‬ ‫ֱהיֵ ה ּלִ י לְ ֶבן ַחיִ ל”‪ .‬למרות ההבהרה‪ ,‬חלקו של דוד בעסקה עמום ואין לדעת אם ומתי יצליח‬ ‫לעמוד במשימתו על מנת שיהיה רשאי לשאת את מרב‪ 21.‬לשאול ברור שהתנאי שהוא‬ ‫מציג לדוד אינו בר מימוש‪ ,‬ויש בזה להעיד על כוונתו הבסיסית של שאול לא לקיים את‬ ‫הבטחתו מלכתחילה ולתת את בתו‪ ,‬מרב‪ ,‬לדוד‪.‬‬ ‫השילוש שאול‪-‬דוד‪-‬מרב‪ ,‬מתרחב עם הוספת השם האלוהי ַּבצירוף ‘מלחמות ה’’‪,‬‬ ‫תוספת שיש בה אלמנט של שכנוע שאכן כוונתו של שאול לתת את בתו לדוד — אמיתית‪,‬‬ ‫מעין עיגון החוזה ומתן תוקף להסכם ביניהם‪ .‬שאול עושה שימוש ציני בהכנסתו של שם‬ ‫ה’ למשוואה‪ .‬הוא כבר יודע שאלוהים עם דוד‪ ,‬ומודע להיותו של דוד בן־חיל‪ ,‬והוא מנסה‬ ‫‪ .17‬על ‘הנה’ כמילת הצגה ראו‪ :‬גזניוס‪ ,‬דקדוק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;469‬מוראוקה‪ ,‬מילים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;140-137‬ולטקה‬ ‫ואוקונור‪ ,‬תחביר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.636-634‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬לדברי פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,245-235‬לשאול יש היכולת לגשר על הפער בין‬ ‫ה≠אְך ֱהיֵ ה ּלִ י לְ ֶבן‬ ‫נישואין ואלימות והוא למד זאת מן ההקבלה המוזרה בדבריו בין‪“ :‬א ָֹתּה ֶא ֶּתן לְ ָך לְ ִא ָּשׁ ַ‬ ‫ַחיִ ל וְ ִהּלָ ֵחם ִמלְ ֲחמֹות יְ הֹוָ ה” (יח ‪.)17‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬התנאי המובא במקומנו מצטייר כתנאי שסדר מרכיביו הפוך‪ .‬המבנה הנוהג במשפטי תנאי‬ ‫הוא‪ :‬אם‪ ...‬אז‪ ,...‬ואילו בפסוק הנדון מופיע‪ ,‬חלק הסיפא כחלקו הראשון של משפט התנאי‪(“ :‬אז) אתן לך‬ ‫את בתי לאשה” ובהמשכו מופיע‪ ,‬הרישא כחלק השני של משפט התנאי “(אם) היה לי לבן חיל והלחם‬ ‫מלחמות ה’”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬על המילית “אך” כ־‪ restrictive adverb‬ועל תפקידה במשפטים מחוברים הכוללים הבהרת‬ ‫עניין או מתן הוראה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬גזניוס‪ ,‬דקדוק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;153‬ולטקה ואוקונור‪ ,‬תחביר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.670‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬קליינס‪ ,‬מיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,31 ,28‬מציין‪ ,‬שהצעת שאול להשיא את מרב לדוד עומדת בניגוד להצעתו‬ ‫להשיא את מיכל לדוד‪ ,‬שם בא פירוט כיצד הנישואין יתממשו (שמ”א יח ‪ .)25‬ייתכן ששאול לא האמין‬ ‫שדוד יעמוד בתנאי שהציב לו‪ ,‬אך לרוע מזלו‪ ,‬את אשר הצליח למנוע עם הבכורה כשל בו עם הצעירה‪.‬‬

‫*‪246‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫בייאושו לשלוח את דוד ‘להילחם מלחמות ה’’‪ ,‬והכל במסגרת מזימתו‪ַ ...“ :‬אל ְּת ִהי יָ ִדי ּבֹו‬ ‫ּות ִהי בֹו יַ ד ְּפלִ ְׁש ִּתים” (יח ‪.)17‬‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫בניגוד למה שיכול להצטייר כמצב אידאלי וכיתרון לשאול במימוש הנישואין של בתו‬ ‫עם דוד‪ ,‬התמונה העולה מתוך מחשבותיו מצביעה דווקא על ההיפך‪ ,‬בבחינת מן הפה‬ ‫אל החוץ‪ 22.‬החגיגיות העולה מן הפתיח של האפיזודה מתחילה להתפוגג מיד כשהמספר‬ ‫משתף את הקורא במחשבותיו של שאול‪ 23,‬והיא נעלמת לגמרי בעקבות דברי הסירוב של‬ ‫ּומי‬ ‫ֹאמר ָּדוִ ד ֶאל ָׁשאּול ִמי ָאנֹכִ י ִ‬ ‫דוד‪ ,‬שאין בהם כל התייחסות למרב‪ ,‬אלא לעצמו בלבד‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ַחּיַ י ִמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת ָא ִבי ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ּכִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָח ָתן לַ ֶּמלֶ ְך” (יח ‪.)18‬‬ ‫באופן הגלוי‪ ,‬שאול רוצה להשיא את בתו לדוד‪ ,‬ומנגד‪ ,‬ברובד הסמוי‪ ,‬הוא רוצה‬ ‫להורגו‪ 24.‬זאת למרות‪ ,‬שכבר בהצעתו של שאול טמונה המזימה להרוג את דוד‪ ,‬שכן מי‬ ‫ששולח אדם לקרב‪ ,‬אפשר שכבר גוזר את דינו למוות‪ 25.‬מכאן‪ ,‬ברור שקיים ניגוד בין הצעתו‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫של שאול‪“ :‬היה לי לבן חיל”‪ ,‬לבין המזימה העולה במחשבותיו כלפי דוד‪“ :‬אל תהי ידי בו”‪.‬‬ ‫דוד‪ ,‬שלא הגיב להצעת שאול להיות לו לבן־חיל ולהילחם את מלחמות ה’‪ ,‬מגיב‬ ‫הפעם בסירוב לשאלתו ולהצעתו של שאול להשיא לו את מרב (יח ‪ 27.)18‬את סירובו הוא‬ ‫‪ .22‬לדברי פולק‪ ,‬הסיפור במקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,15‬מדובר בטכניקה של הצגת המחשבות הפנימיות של‬ ‫דמות בסיפור‪ .‬שיח פנימי שאינו מהווה אמצעי מרכזי לעיצוב הנפש‪ ,‬אך באמצעות הדיבור האישי‬ ‫מביא המספר היצג הרהור חרישי‪ ,‬שהוא כולו פרי הדמיון‪ ,‬כעין דיבור שבלב בשם הדמות עצמה‪ .‬בר‪-‬‬ ‫אפרת‪ ,‬העיצוב האמנותי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,87-86‬מציין כי אחת הטכניקות של המספר להצגת החיים הפנימיים של‬ ‫דמויות בסיפור בדרך ישירה‪ ,‬היא באמצעות‪“ :‬הבאת המחשבות‪ ,‬השיקולים והכוונות של הדמויות”‪ .‬את‬ ‫המחשבות מקדים הפועל ‘אמר’ או הצירוף ‘אמר אל לבו’‪ ,‬אין תיאור של התדיינות או ויכוח פנימי‪ ,‬אך‬ ‫מתיאור המחשבות עולה לא פעם הרושם כי הדמות רוצה לשכנע עצמה בצידקת פעולותיה העתידיות‪.‬‬ ‫לדעת בר־אפרת‪ ,‬זהו המצב בשמ”א יח ‪ .17‬גרסיאל מציין‪ ,‬שקיימת הדרגה מצד המלך במימוש התכנית‬ ‫שלו להרוג את דוד‪ .‬ראו פירוט אצל גרסיאל‪ ,‬דוד ומיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .118‬קמפבל‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,196‬רואה קשר‬ ‫בין חלקי ההצעה‪ .‬לדעתו מדובר בפתיון (‪ ,)17a‬ובמלכודת (‪ .)17b‬גרסיאל‪ ,‬דוד ומיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,119‬מציין‬ ‫שבאמצעות החדירות לעולמן הפנימי של הדמויות בסיפור‪ ,‬מבליט המחבר‪ ,‬כבר בשלב הראשון‪ ,‬על דרך‬ ‫ההנגדה‪ ,‬את הבדלי המוטיבציה של כל אחד משלושת הצדדים השותפים לנישואין האלה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬שלוש פעמים משתף אותנו המספר במחשבותיו של שאול (יח ‪ .)25b ,21a ,17b‬לדברי פוקלמן‪,‬‬ ‫אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,228‬רק כך נחשף לפנינו שאול “האמיתי”‪ .‬מחשבות אלו הן בגדר שיחות שמנהל‬ ‫שאול עם עצמו‪ ,‬מה שיכול להעיד על מצבו הנפשי הקשה ועל בדידותו‪ .‬החזרה המשולשת על המילים‬ ‫“ותהי בו יד פלישתים” מצביעה על נחישות כוונותיו של שאול להפיל את דוד בפח‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .24‬ראו דברי סימון‪ ,‬סיפורי נביאים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,132‬הערה ‪ ,35‬על סיפור דוד‪ ,‬בת־שבע ואוריה (שמ”א‬ ‫יא)‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬לדבריו‪ ,‬באה לידי ביטוי ההשלמה הזחוחה של דוד עם מפלה בשדה הקרב מול בני עמון‪ ,‬שהיא‬ ‫פועל יוצא של מזימה להיפטר “מאיש נכבד שהמלך חפץ בסילוקו”‪ .‬לדברי סימון‪ ,‬ראוי היה לו לדוד‬ ‫לזכור “כמה שפל מבחינה מוסרית ומפוקפק‪ ...‬התכסיס הזה‪ ,”...‬שכן כך ביקש שאול לעשות לו בשרתו‬ ‫לפניו בצבאו‪ .‬ברוגמן‪ ,‬שמואל א יח ‪ ,18‬עמ’ ‪ ,234-233‬מוסיף כי שאול מנסה ונכשל במזימתו להרוג את‬ ‫דוד‪ ,‬ואילו דוד מצליח במזימתו להרוג את אוריה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬ראו דברי ברוגמן‪ ,‬כוח והשגחה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.30‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.228‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬כך ר’ יוסף קרא בפירושו על שמ”א יח ‪“ :19‬פת’ כשהיה שאול מבקש ליתן את מירב בתו לדוד‬ ‫ודוד היה ממאן כי אמר מי אני כי אהיה חתן למלך ויהי עד כה ועד כה שזה רוצה ליתן וזה ממאן לקחתה‬ ‫שאל עדריאל המחולתי ונתנוה לו לאשה”‪ .‬ראו גם גרינברג‪ ,‬לפשוטו של מקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪“ :30‬שאול הציע‪,‬‬ ‫דוד סירב‪ ,‬על כן ניתנה מרב לעדריאל”‪.‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪247‬‬

‫תולה במעמד הנמוך של משפחתו ביחס למשפחת המלך‪ 28,‬והוא עושה זאת על דרך ‘דגם‬ ‫הביזוי העצמי’‪ 29.‬אופן המענה של דוד מסייע לאפיין אותו כביכול כאדם צנוע‪ 30,‬מכיוון‬ ‫שמן הכתוב לא עֹולָ ה הכוונה האמיתית שמאחורי סירובו ואף ייתכן שיש בדבריו מניעים‬ ‫נסתרים‪ .‬תשובה זו של דוד שונה בעליל מתשובתו להצעה השנייה של שאול להשיא לו‬ ‫ֹאמר ָּדוִ ד ַהנְ ַקּלָ ה ְב ֵעינֵ יכֶ ם ִה ְת ַח ֵּתן ַּב ֶּמלֶ ְך וְ ָאנֹכִ י ִאיׁש ָרׁש וְ נִ ְקלֶ ה” (שמ”א יח‬ ‫את מיכל‪ ...“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫‪ .)23‬בתשובה זו דוד אינו מתייחס למעמד משפחתו אלא למעמדו הכלכלי בלבד מתוך‬ ‫ההכרה כי נישואין כרוכים בתשלום המוהר מצידו‪ .‬האם השוני בתגובות דוד עומד ביחס‬ ‫ישיר למעמד מרב הבכורה מול מיכל הצעירה? יש להניח שנישואין עם הנסיכה הבכורה‬ ‫מחייבים חתן ממעמד גבוה‪ ,‬אך האם נישואין עם הבת הצעירה מחייבים רק יכולת לשלם‬ ‫את המוהר?‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫אלא שבעוד דוד מתלבט מרב כבר ניתנה לעדריאל‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬מדוע שאול מתכוון לתת את בתו‪ ,‬את מרב‪ ,‬לדוד?‬ ‫ֹאמר ִאיׁש יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ַה ְרֹ ִא ֶיתם ָה ִאיׁש ָהעֹלֶ ה ַהּזֶ ה ּכִ י לְ ָח ֵרף ֶאת יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל עֹלֶ ה וְ ָהיָ ה ָה ִאיׁש‬ ‫וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֲא ֶׁשר יַ ּכֶ ּנּו יַ ְע ְׁש ֶרּנּו ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך ע ֶֹׁשר ּגָ דֹול וְ ֶאת ִּבּתֹו יִ ֶּתן לֹו וְ ֵאת ֵּבית ָא ִביו יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ָח ְפ ִׁשי ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫(שמ”א יז ‪.)25‬‬ ‫על פי המסופר‪ ,‬שאול ייתן את בתו לאישה למנצח בקרב את גולית הפלישתי‪.‬‬ ‫באירועים העוקבים לא באות לידי ביטוי נתינת הבת‪ ,‬כמו גם ההבטחה לשחרר ממסים‬ ‫את בית אביו של המנצח בקרב‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬לא עולה בבירור מן הטקסט זהותה של הבת‬ ‫‪ .28‬על טיפוסים שונים של קשרי נישואין ועל נישואין בין־מעמדיים‪ ,‬ראו אצל גונתר‪ ,‬נישואין‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ,407-387‬המייחד דיון לשמ”א יח ולסצנות האירוסין והחתונה המתוארות בו‪ .‬בפסוקים ‪ 27-17‬מוצג דוד כמי‬ ‫שהנישואין לבת המלך‪ ,‬בעקבות הסכם־חתן‪ ,‬מוחקים למעשה את הפער המעמדי־כלכלי שהיה קיים ביניהם‪.‬‬ ‫“מי‬ ‫‪ .29‬נוסחה זו כוללת שני חלקים‪ :‬בחלק הראשון‪ ,‬משפט שמני הפותח במילת השאלה ‘מי’ — ִ‬ ‫ּומי ַחּיַ י ִמ ְׁש ַּפ ַחת ָא ִבי ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל” ואחריה בא כינוי הגוף — ‘אנכי’‪ .‬החלק השני נקשר לראשון עם‬ ‫ָאנֹכִ י ִ‬ ‫המילית ‘כי’‪ ,‬ובעקבותיה יבוא פועל בעתיד — “ּכִ י ֶא ְהיֶ ה ָח ָתן לַ ֶּמלֶ ְך”‪ .‬על נוסחת הביזוי העצמי‪ ,‬ראו אצל‬ ‫קוטס‪ ,‬ביזוי עצמי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,26-14‬שדן במאפייני פניות שכאלה‪ ,‬ובכלל זה בדברי דוד לשאול בשמ”א יח ‪.18‬‬ ‫קוטס מזהה בפסוק את הנוסחה הבסיסית של שאלות מסוג זה (מבנה ‪ ,ab‬בלשונו)‪ .‬מבנה כזה נמצא גם‬ ‫במכתבי לכיש ובמכתבי אל־עמארנה‪ .‬נוסחות כאלה‪ ,‬שהמשותף להן הוא היותן מכוונות ישירות למלך‬ ‫ֹאמר‬ ‫או לשליט (‪ )royal court speech‬מתועדות במקום נוסף במקרא‪ ,‬בדברי מפיבשת לדוד‪“ :‬וַ ּיִ ְׁש ַּתחּו וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫ֶמה ַע ְב ֶּדָך ּכִ י ָפנִ ָית ֶאל ַהּכֶ לֶ ב ַה ֵּמת ֲא ֶׁשר ּכָ מֹונִ י” (שמ”ב ט ‪ )8‬וכאמור בממצאים חוץ מקראיים‪ .‬פניות ברוח‬ ‫זו מצויות גם בשמ’ ה ‪ ,2‬טז ‪ ;7‬שופ’ ט ‪ ;38‬שמ”א יז ‪ ,43‬כה ‪ .10‬ראו דברי ולטקה ואוקונור‪ ,‬תחביר‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫וׁשם דיון גם על‬ ‫‪ ,322‬על דגם ‘הביזוי העצמי’ המנוסח כשאלה רטורית באמצעות מילת השאלה ‘מי’‪ָ ,‬‬ ‫שמ”א יח ‪.18‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;308-307‬קליינס‪ ,‬מיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;28‬פרידמן‪ ,‬הרצחת וגם ירשת‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .351‬פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,246‬טוען שמהרטוריקה בתשובתו של דוד עולה ענווה שיכולה‬ ‫להתפרש כסירוב והתוצאה היא שדוד‪ ,‬הופך בעקבות סירובו להיות יריב לשאול‪ .‬לדעת ברוגמן‪ ,‬כוח‬ ‫והשגחה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,30‬ניתן לייחס לדוד גם תמימות בשל תשובתו הרהוטה והמנומסת לשאול‪ .‬תמימות זאת‬ ‫בולטת על רקע דמותו הזוממת של שאול‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬סיפורה של מרב‪ ,‬בת מלך‪ ,‬המוצעת תחילה לדוד‪ ,‬אם כפרס אם כפיתיון‪ ,‬וניתנת בסופו של דבר‬ ‫לאדם שגם הוא‪ ,‬כדוד‪ ,‬אינו משתייך לבית מלוכה כלשהו‪ ,‬הוא חריג בספרות המקראית‪.‬‬

‫*‪248‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫שאמורה להינתן‪ .‬סביר להניח‪ ,‬שמדובר במרב‪ ,‬בתו הבכורה של שאול‪ ,‬וזאת על־פי מנהגי‬ ‫התקופה לפיהם לא ניתן להשיא את הצעירה לפני הבכורה כפי שמשתקף גם בסיפור‬ ‫קֹומנּו לָ ֵתת ַה ְּצ ִע ָירה לִ ְפנֵ י ַה ְּבכִ ָירה (בר’ כט ‪.)26‬‬ ‫ֹאמר לָ ָבן ֹלא יֵ ָע ֶׂשה כֵ ן ִּב ְמ ֵ‬ ‫לבן ובנותיו‪ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫אפשר שהפער בהצעה שב־יז ‪ ,25‬באשר לזהותה של הבת המיועדת להינתן למנצח‬ ‫ֹאמר ָׁשאּול ֶאל ָּדוִ ד ִהּנֵ ה ִב ִּתי ַהּגְ דֹולָ ה ֵמ ַרב‬ ‫לאישה‪ ,‬מתמלא בפנייתו של שאול אל דוד‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫א ָֹתּה ֶא ֶּתן לְ ָך לְ ִא ָּשׁה ַאְך ֱהיֵ ה ּלִ י לְ ֶבן ַחיִ ל וְ ִהּלָ ֵחם ִמלְ ֲחמֹות ה’ ‪( ”...‬שמ”א יח ‪ .)17‬ואכן‪,‬‬ ‫סוגיית הזיקה האפשרית בין שמ”א יז ‪ 25‬לבין שמ”א יח ‪ 17‬העסיקה חוקרים ומפרשים‬ ‫‪33‬‬ ‫מסורתיים כחדשים‪.‬‬ ‫המצדדים בקיומו של הקשר בין שתי ההצעות לגבי נישואי בת המלך מעלים מספר‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫טיעונים‪ :‬א‪ .‬קיום ההבטחה‪ ,‬שניתנה בפומבי (יז ‪ )25‬מיוזמתו של שאול‪ ,‬הוא הכרחי‪.‬‬ ‫סביר להניח שאילולא שאול היה מקיים הבטחתו‪ ,‬העם היה דורש ממנו לעשות כן בשל‬ ‫העובדה שדוד היה אהוב על העם (שמ”א יח ‪ 35.)16 ,7-6‬ב‪ .‬התנאי שהציב שאול לדוד‬ ‫להוכיח עצמו כבן־חיל‪ 36‬במלחמות ה’‪ 37‬אינו יכול לבוא לידי מימוש מיד בתום הניצחון על‬ ‫גולית‪ ,‬בשל גילו הצעיר וחוסר נסיונו של דוד‪ .‬ג‪ .‬גם אם יש בניצחונו של דוד את גולית‬ ‫עמיה דיי”‪ ,‬כלומר‬ ‫“ק ָר ָבא ְד ֵ‬ ‫‪ .32‬יונתן מתרגם את הצירוף ‘מלחמות ה’’ על דרך הרחקת ההגשמה‪ְ :‬‬ ‫‘מלחמות ַעם ה’’‪ .‬טלמון‪ ,‬מלחמות ה’‪ ,‬טור’ ‪ ,1065-1064‬טוען שמלחמות ישראל הן מלחמות ה’ הלוחם‬ ‫לישראל (שמ’ יז ‪ ,16‬יהו’ י ‪ )14‬ואפילו הפלשתים יודעים זאת על פי התרועה שבמחנה ישראל (שמ”א ד ‪5‬‬ ‫ואילך)‪ .‬בדרך זו לדעת טלמון‪ ,‬נתפסות מלחמותיהם של מלכי ישראל (מל”ב יג ‪ ,)17‬ובייחוד מלחמות דוד‬ ‫(שמ”א יח ‪ ,17‬כה ‪ )28‬כמלחמות ה’‪ .‬הסברו של טלמון מדגיש עד כמה התנאי של שאול עמום ולא ברור‬ ‫מתי אמור דוד לממשו‪ .‬פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,228‬מקפיד לכנות את ‘מלחמות ה’’‪‘ ,‬מלחמות‬ ‫קודש’‪ .‬ברוגמן‪ ,‬כוח והשגחה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,30‬מבין את הצירוף ‘מלחמות ה’’ כשם קוד למלחמה בפלישתים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬יש לציין שבכתב יד ותיקנוס של תרגום השבעים חסרות שתי ההצעות גם יחד‪ .‬ההשמטה‬ ‫מלמדת על התלות ההדדית של שני המקומות האחד בשני (שמ”א יז ‪ 25‬ו־יח ‪.)19-17‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬רלב”ג טען ששאול היה מוכרח שמוצא שפתיו יישמר וייעשה כאשר נדר‪ .‬כך גורסים גם קייל‬ ‫ודליטש‪ ,‬ספרי שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;191‬סגל‪ ,‬ספרי שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;152‬קיל‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;191‬פיין‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;98-97‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;308‬מיסקל‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;86‬פולצין‪ ,‬שמואל והדויטרונומיסט‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;177‬אדלמן‪ ,‬שאול‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;139‬קמפבל‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .168‬אלטר‪ ,‬סיפור דוד‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,115‬מוסיף שאמנם יש‬ ‫כאן משום מילוי ההבטחה‪ ,‬אך הוא רואה בזה חלק ממזימת שאול להרוג את דוד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬מאושלין‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.139‬‬ ‫‪ .36‬לניאדו‪ ,‬נביאים ראשונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ריו‪/‬ב‪ ,‬ראה בביטוי ‘בן חיל’ הצעה של שאול שדוד יהיה עבורו‬ ‫‘במדרגת בן’ ולא רק ב’מדרגת חתן’‪ .‬קיל‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,191‬מציין ששאול התכוון לומר לדוד שעליו לנהוג‬ ‫כאיש חיל וכגיבור חיל‪ ,‬ובמשמעו‪ ,‬גם עבד נאמן לאדוניו ומוסר נפשו‪ .‬על פי קדרי‪ ,‬בן חיל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪,296‬‬ ‫ן־חיִ ל‪.”...‬‬ ‫“‪...‬אם יִ ְהיֶ ה לְ ֶב ַ‬ ‫כוונתו של שאול היא להגיד לדוד‪‘ :‬היה לי אמיץ וגיבור’‪ ,‬כך גם במל”א א ‪ִ :52‬‬ ‫לטענת קליין‪ ,‬מדבורה עד אסתר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,186‬אין כל חידוש בתנאיו של שאול לדוד (אלה המפורטים ב־יח‬ ‫‪ ,)17‬ולפיהם על דוד להיות ל’בן חיל’‪ ,‬מכיוון שהוכתר כבר בתואר דומה לזה על ידי המספר בשמ”א טז‬ ‫ֹאמר ִהּנֵ ה ָר ִא ִיתי ֵּבן לְ יִ ַׁשי ֵּבית ַהּלַ ְח ִמי י ֵֹד ַע נַ ּגֵ ן וְ גִ ּבֹור ַחיִ ל‪ .”...‬בכל מקרה אין כאן‬ ‫‪“ :18‬וַ ּיַ ַען ֶא ָחד ֵמ ַהּנְ ָע ִרים וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫שום תוספת באשר לתוארו של דוד כ’בן חיל’‪ ,‬שכן רבים מחייליו של שאול כונו כך‪“ :‬וַ ְּת ִהי ַה ִּמלְ ָח ָמה‬ ‫ֲחזָ ָקה ַעל ְּפלִ ְׁש ִּתים ּכֹל יְ ֵמי ָׁשאּול וְ ָר ָאה ָׁשאּול ּכָ ל ִאיׁש ּגִ ּבֹור וְ כָ ל ֶּבן ַחיִ ל וַ ּיַ ַא ְס ֵפהּו ֵאלָ יו” (שמ”א יד ‪ .)52‬כך‬ ‫גם צומורה‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .482‬לדעתנו‪ ,‬מדובר בתנאי הנושא עימו מסר עמום מכיוון שקשה יהיה לדוד‬ ‫לדעת מתי ומה ייחשב לו כמי ֶׁש ִּמלָ א אחריו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬בר־אפרת‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.242‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪249‬‬

‫כדי להוכיח את יכולותיו כבן חיל במלחמות ה’‪ ,‬ייתכן שמדובר באירוע חד פעמי ואין בזה‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫כדי לספק את המלך‪.‬‬ ‫הטוענים להיעדר זיקה בין שתי ההצעות מפרידים ביניהן‪ 39.‬יש אף הרואים דווקא את‬ ‫ההצעה שב־יח ‪ 17‬כהצעה הראשונה שהובאה לפני דוד‪ 40.‬לדבריהם‪ :‬א‪ .‬שאול כלל לא‬ ‫הבטיח את בתו לאישה במעמד פומבי‪ ,‬אלא אנשי ישראל הם שאמרו זה לזה את הדבר‪,‬‬ ‫מעין שמועה שנפוצה בקרב העם‪ 41.‬עולה מכך ששאול לא דיבר על כך עם דוד לפני צאתו‬ ‫לקרב וגם לא לאחריו‪ .‬ב‪ .‬הצעתו של שאול ב־יח ‪ 17‬מתייחסת לעתיד לבוא‪ ,‬אם וכאשר‬ ‫דוד יהיה לבן־חיל ויילחם את מלחמות ה’‪ ,‬ואין מדובר על הפרס שאמור היה להינתן על‬ ‫ניצחונות העבר‪ 42.‬ג‪ .‬היבט נוסף מצוי בעובדה שרק ב־יח ‪ 17‬שאול מצהיר במפורש בפעם‬ ‫הראשונה שהוא מתכוון לתת את מרב בתו לדוד מרצון ולא כמימוש הבטחה‪ 43.‬ד‪ .‬הצעתו‬ ‫של שאול בשמ”א יז ‪ 25‬נראית כהצעה ּכֵ נה בניגוד לזו המצויה ב־יח ‪ ,17‬שם כוונת שאול‬ ‫הייתה שדוד ימות בקרב וכך לא יהא עליו לקיים את ההבטחה‪ 44.‬ה‪ .‬קיים הבדל באווירה‬ ‫בה נאמרו הדברים בכל אחת מן ההצעות‪ .‬ההצעה הראשונה נאמרה באווירה אוהדת‬ ‫ונקשרו בה מלחמה ונישואין “והיה האיש אשר יכנו‪ ...‬ואת בתו יתן לו‪( ”...‬יז ‪ ,)25‬ואילו‬ ‫ההצעה השנייה מובעת בריחוק ובקור ויש בה קשר מאולץ בין הנישואין ובין המלחמה‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫באמצעות המלה “אך”‪.‬‬ ‫לדעתנו‪ ,‬יש לקשור בין שתי הצעות הנישואין האלו מהסיבות הבאות‪:‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬ההיבט הלשוני — חזרה על המרכיבים בתו‪/‬בתי; לו‪/‬לך‪ 46‬והשורש נת”נ המופיעים‬ ‫בסדר זהה בשתי ההצעות‪:‬‬ ‫יז ‪ ...“ :25‬וְ ָהיָ ה ָה ִאיׁש ֲא ֶׁשר יַ ּכֶ ּנּו‬ ‫יַ ְע ְׁש ֶרּנּו ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך ע ֶֹׁשר ּגָ דֹול וְ ֶאת ִּבּתֹו י ִֶּתן לֹו‬ ‫ ‬ ‫וְ ֵאת ֵּבית ָא ִביו יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ָח ְפ ִׁשי ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל”‬ ‫ ‬ ‫יח ‪ִ ...“ :17‬הּנֵ ה ִב ִּתי ַהּגְ דֹולָ ה ֵמ ַרב א ָֹתּה אֶ ֶּתן לְ ָך לְ ִא ָּשׁה‬ ‫ַאְך ֱהיֵ ה ּלִ י לְ ֶבן ַחיִ ל וְ ִהּלָ ֵחם ִמלְ ֲחמֹות ה’‪”...‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫‪ .38‬הרצברג‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.160‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬לניאדו‪ ,‬נביאים ראשונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ריו‪/‬ב‪ ,‬טוען ש”שאול מפאת עצמו התעורר להם עתה ברצונו‬ ‫הטוב לתת לו בתו לא מצד היותו מחויב”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬גרין‪ ,‬איך נפלו גיבורים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,304‬מציינת כי רק כך אפשר להבין את התנאים ששאול מעמיד‬ ‫לדוד שכן דוד כבר הוכיח עצמו כבן־חיל בהילחמו את מלחמות ה’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .41‬כך למשל‪ ,‬לניאדו‪ ,‬נביאים ראשונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ריו‪/‬ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .42‬מקנזי‪ ,‬המלך דוד‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.78‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬ירושלמי‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .287‬בר אפרת‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,242‬מציין שב־יח ‪ 17‬ישנה תוספת‬ ‫לדרישה שהעמיד שאול בפני דוד ב־יז ‪.25‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬גרינברג‪ ,‬לפשוטו של מקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;30‬קליינס‪ ,‬מיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.28‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.228‬‬ ‫‪ .46‬השינויים בתו‪/‬בתי לו‪/‬לך נובעים בשל השוני בזהות הדובר‪ .‬בשמ”א יז ‪ ,25‬מובא ציטוט מדברי‬ ‫איש מישראל המדבר בגוף שלישי על המלך‪ ,‬ואילו ב־שמ”א יח ‪ ,17‬באה האמירה בדיבור ישיר של המלך‬ ‫כלפי דוד‪.‬‬

‫*‪250‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫ב‪ .‬ניתן לזהות חזרה צלילית על שורשים הקיימת בשני קצות הצעות הנישואין‪.‬‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫‘הלחם ִמלחמות ה’’ (יח ‪.)17‬‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫בראשונה‪‘ :‬יעשרנו‪ ...‬ע ֶֹשר’ (יז ‪ ,)25‬ובשניה‪:‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬אפשר שהמניע או המסובב להצעה המתוארת ב־יח ‪ 17‬הוא הדיאלוג של דוד עם‬ ‫האנשים “העומדים עמו”‪ַ ...“ :‬מה ּיֵ ָע ֶׂשה לָ ִאיׁש ֲא ֶׁשר יַ ּכֶ ה ֶאת ַה ְּפלִ ְׁש ִּתי ַהּלָ ז וְ ֵה ִסיר‬ ‫ֹאמר לֹו ָה ָעם ּכַ ָּד ָבר ַהּזֶ ה לֵ אמֹר ּכֹה יֵ ָע ֶׂשה לָ ִאיׁש ֲא ֶׁשר יַ ּכֶ ּנּו”‬ ‫ֶח ְר ָּפה ֵמ ַעל יִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל ‪ ...‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫(שמ”א יז ‪“ ,)27-26‬וְ ָהיָ ה ָה ִאיׁש ֲא ֶׁשר יַ ּכֶ ּנּו יַ ְע ְׁש ֶרּנּו ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך ע ֶֹׁשר ּגָ דֹול וְ ֶאת ִּבּתֹו יִ ֶּתן לֹו”‬ ‫(יז ‪.)25‬‬ ‫ד‪ .‬קיים קשר משלים בין שתי ההצעות כשהשנייה מבארת את הראשונה ומוסיפה עליה‬ ‫שמה ְרּכָ ַבת שתי ההצעות יחד עולָ ה‬ ‫ַ‬ ‫פרטים‪ ,‬מה שהתחיל כשמועה מתברר כאמת‪ .‬כך‬ ‫הצעה אחת שלמה‪:‬‬ ‫את בתו (יז ‪ )25‬הגדולה מרב (יח ‪ )17‬יתן לו (יז ‪ )25‬לאשה (יח ‪.)17‬‬ ‫ ‬ ‫ה‪ .‬קשר נוסף ניתן לראות במבנה של שתי ההצעות‪ .‬לכל אחת יש שני נילווים‪:‬‬ ‫הראשונה‪ ,‬נמצאת בתווך בין שתי “הטבות”‪:‬‬ ‫יַ ְע ְׁש ֶרּנּו ַה ֶּמלֶ ְך ע ֶֹׁשר ּגָ דֹול‬ ‫וְ ֶאת ִּבּתֹו יִ ֶּתן לֹו‬ ‫וְ ֵאת ֵּבית ָא ִביו יַ ֲע ֶׂשה ָח ְפ ִׁשי ְּביִ ְׂש ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ואילו בהצעה השנייה מובלטת הצעת הנישואין ומלווה בשתי התניות אחריה‪:‬‬ ‫‪...‬הּנֵ ה ִב ִּתי ַהּגְ דֹולָ ה ֵמ ַרב א ָֹתּה ֶא ֶּתן לְ ָך לְ ִא ָּשׁה‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ַאְך ֱהיֵ ה ּלִ י לְ ֶבן ַחיִ ל‬ ‫וְ ִהּלָ ֵחם ִמלְ ֲחמֹות ה’‪...‬‬ ‫יוצא אם כן‪ ,‬שנתינת בת המלך לאישה‪ ,‬בין אם למנצח בקרב מול גולית ובין אם‬ ‫לדוד‪ ,‬היא בשתי ההצעות חלק ִ‬ ‫מעסקה‪ 48.‬ההצעה הראשונה כרוכה בהטבות כלכליות‬ ‫למּכֶ ה גולית ולמשפחתו של המכה‪ ,‬וההצעה השנייה‪ ,‬היותו של דוד לבן חיל שלוחם את‬ ‫‪49‬‬ ‫מלחמות ה’‪ ,‬אמורה גם כן להיות לתועלת‪ ,‬לשני הצדדים‪.‬‬ ‫יאל ַה ְּמחֹלָ ִתי לְ ִא ָּשׁה (שמ”א יח ‪)19‬‬ ‫ג‪“ .‬וַ יְ ִהי ְּב ֵעת ֵּתת ֶאת ֵמ ַרב ַּבת ָׁשאּול לְ ָדוִ ד וְ ִהיא נִ ְּתנָ ה לְ ַע ְד ִר ֵ‬ ‫מדוע בוטלו הנישואין בין דוד למרב?‬ ‫הציפייה לנישואי דוד עם בת המלך החלה במהלך המלחמה עם גולית‪ ,‬שם מבטיח‬ ‫שאול את בתו למנצח בקרב (שמ”א יז ‪ .)25‬נראה היה ששאול עומד לקיים את הבטחתו‬ ‫(שמ”א יח ‪ ,)17‬כאשר הוא מציע לדוד את בתו מרב לאישה (יח ‪ ,)17‬אלא שציפייה זו נמוגה‬

‫‪ .47‬חזרה בגיוון על שורש‪ ,‬ובשני המקרים האלה בדרך של פועל‪/‬שם עצם‪ ,‬יוצרת מצלול הנופל על‬ ‫אוזני השומעים או על עיני הקוראים‪ ,‬והיא באה לחזק ולהדגיש את נחיצות הרעיון המובע בטקסט‪ .‬ראו‪:‬‬ ‫ווטסון‪ ,‬שירה מקראית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.228-225‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,228‬רואה בעסקה הזאת מעין שותפות בין שאול לדוד בשני‬ ‫מישורים‪ :‬האחד‪ ,‬מלחמות עבורי (שאול)‪‘ֱ :‬היֵ ה לי’‪ ,‬והשני‪ ,‬להיות שותף לשאול ב’מלחמות ה’’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬בדברי ‘איש ישראל’ מודגש ההיבט הכלכלי והמעמדי של המנצח‪ ,‬ואילו בפניית שאול מודגש‬ ‫בעיקר העניין המעמדי (נישואין עם בת המלך)‪.‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪251‬‬

‫עם נישואי מרב לעדריאל המחולתי‪ 50.‬אין לדעת על פי הכתוב מדוע השיא שאול את מרב‬ ‫לעדריאל‪ 51,‬או מתי התרחשו נישואין אלה‪ .‬הצירוף “ויהי בעת תת” סתום ולא מובן‪ 52‬כמו‬ ‫שסתם הכתוב את הסיבה לביטול הנישואין‪ ,‬או את התשובה לשאלה מי יזם את ביטול‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫הנישואין‪ .‬הטקסט‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬אינו מספק את התשובה‪.‬‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫סוגיה זו העסיקה מפרשים וחוקרים רבים מימי הביניים ועד ימי המחקר המודרני‪.‬‬ ‫רובם מתעמקים בעיקר בשאלות מי ביטל את הנישואין ומדוע‪ .‬חלקם טוענים שהיה זה‬ ‫שאול והסיבות הניתנות על ידם מגוונות מאוד‪ :‬א‪ .‬הנישואין לא היו אמורים להתרחש‬ ‫מכיוון שלא התאימו לתכנית האלוהית‪ 55.‬ב‪ .‬לשאול לא הייתה מלכתחילה כל כוונה‬ ‫להוציא את הנישואין בין מרב ודוד אל הפועל‪ ,‬ולהפוך את דוד לחתנו ובטח שלא להשיאו‬

‫‪ .50‬אקרויד‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,153‬מעיר שתיאור הנישואין של מרב עם מישהו אחר מתאים למוטיב‬ ‫המופיע במקרא ובו יש הבטחה של אב לתת את בתו‪ ,‬אלא שזו לא מתממשת בשל מהלך כלשהו שנוקט‬ ‫האב‪ .‬כך בסיפור לבן ובתו רחל (בר’ כט ‪ ,)15‬וכך גם בסיפור שמשון (שופ’ יד ‪-1‬טו ‪.)2‬‬ ‫‪ .51‬השם עדריאל המחולתי נזכר פעמיים במקרא בצמידות לכל אחת מבנות שאול‪ ,‬מרב ומיכל‬ ‫(שמ”א יח ‪ ,19‬שמ”ב כא ‪ .)8‬על עדריאל המחולתי‪ ,‬מוצאו ומעמדו‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬לניאדו‪ ,‬נביאים ראשונים‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫ריו‪/‬ב לשמ”א יח ‪ ;19‬אדלמן‪ ,‬עדריאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;81‬הרצברג‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;384‬אחיטוב‪ ,‬עדריאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;81‬בר־‬ ‫אפרת‪ ,‬העיצוב האמנותי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;195‬קיל‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;192‬אנדרסון‪ ,‬שמואל ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;250‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל‬ ‫א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;306‬בר־אפרת‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;242‬גרסיאל‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;166‬קליין‪ ,‬מדבורה לאסתר‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .189‬עדריאל מוזכר בשמ”ב כא ‪ 8‬כ’עדריאל בן ברזילי המחולתי’‪ .‬לפי אחת ההנחות עדריאל הוא בנו‬ ‫של ברזילי הגלעדי‪ .‬הנחה זו סבירה לדברי בר־אפרת‪ ,‬העיצוב האמנותי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,195‬רק אם מניחים שהעיר‬ ‫מחולה או אבל מחולה‪ ,‬נמצאת בעבר הירדן‪ ,‬בארץ הגלעד‪ .‬מדובר במשפחה מכובדת ועשירה (שמ”ב‬ ‫יז ‪ .)27‬לפיכך ניתן להסיק ששאול ביקש לחזק את הקשרים שבינו ובין היישוב שבעבר הירדן המזרחי‪.‬‬ ‫אנדרסון‪ ,‬לעיל‪ ,‬טוען שלא ייתכן שעדריאל המחולתי הוא עדריאל ממשפחת ברזילי שכן אין זה הגיוני‬ ‫שברזילי הגלעדי עזר לדוד במרד אבשלום (יט ‪ ,)32-31‬וכעת דוד הורג את ילדיו (שמ”א כא ‪.)8‬‬ ‫‪ .52‬לניאדו‪ ,‬נביאים ראשונים‪ ,‬עמ’ ריו‪/‬ב‪ ,‬מתייחס לביטוי ‘בעת תת’ כ’דברים בטלים’‪ ,‬זאת בשל‬ ‫העובדה שמרב כבר ניתנה לעדריאל לאישה‪ .‬לדעתו וי”ו החיבור במילה ‘והיא’ מאששת זאת‪ :‬בזמן שהיו‬ ‫עסוקים לתת את מרב לדוד היא ניתנה לזולתו‪ ,‬לעדריאל‪ .‬הפרשנים מסבירים את הצירוף ‘בעת תת’‪:‬‬ ‫בעת שעמדה מרב להינתן לדוד‪ ,‬היא ניתנה לעדריאל‪ .‬כך רש”י‪ ,‬רד”ק‪ ,‬רלב”ג‪ ,‬סגל ספרי שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;152‬קיל‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,192‬אך אין בפירושים אלה מענה לשאלה מהו אותו הזמן הנכון שבו שאול היה‬ ‫צריך לתת את מרב לדוד‪ .‬זו הסיבה שגרינברג‪ ,‬לפשוטו של מקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,30‬אומר‪“ :‬המבארים החדשים‬ ‫ראו עצמם מוכרחים לתקן כאן תיקונים שונים בטופס המקרא שאין להם שחר”‪ .‬קליינס‪ ,‬מיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪,27‬‬ ‫מתייחס לצרוף ‘בעת תת’ וקובע שלפנינו תיאור זמן המציין שמועד הנתינה של מרב לדוד היה מיד אחרי‬ ‫הצלחתו של דוד בקרבות נגד הפלשתים‪ .‬רק אז ראוי היה דוד לשאת את הנסיכה‪ .‬ראו גם גזניוס‪ ,‬דקדוק‪,‬‬ ‫סעיף ‪ ,e115‬עמ’ ‪ ,354‬וז’ואון־מוראוקה‪ ,‬דקדוק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,8‬ולפיהם‪ ,‬צורת המקור ֵ‘ּתת’ היא א־זמנית‪the …“ :‬‬ ‫‪time and the aspect of the action can only be ascertained from the context. Likewise the infinitive‬‬ ‫‪.”being a-personal, the subject is only indicated by the context‬‬

‫‪ .53‬גרינברג‪ ,‬לפשוטו של מקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,30‬מסיק שלאחר ניסיונות רבים למצוא פתרון ותשובה‬ ‫לשאלה מדוע לא קיים שאול את דברו‪ ,‬ניתן לטעון שמדובר ב’שאלה שאין עליה תשובה’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬ראו‪ :‬רש”י‪ ,‬רד”ק‪ ,‬רלב”ג ויוסף קרא ביחס לצירוף ‘בשתים תתחתן בי היום’ בפירושיהם על‬ ‫אתר‪ .‬וכן‪ ,‬גרינברג‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.28‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬ברוגמן‪ ,‬שמואל א יח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.235‬‬

‫*‪252‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫עם בתו הבכורה‪ 56.‬ג‪ .‬ביטול הנישואין מלמד על אי יציבותו של שאול שמצטייר כאיש‬ ‫לא עקבי וכמי שאינו מסוגל לממש אפילו את האסטרטגיות שלו עצמו‪ 57.‬ד‪ .‬יש בביטול‬ ‫הנישואין כוונה להביא את דוד לכדי כעס ולמעשה אלימות כדי ששאול יוכל להענישו‬ ‫כראות עיניו‪ 58.‬ה‪ .‬שאול לא רוצה להוסיף הילה וכוח למעמדו של דוד שיתבססו על‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫נישואין לבת המלך‪ .‬ו‪ .‬יש בביטול נישואין אלה אפשרות להרחיק את דוד מהארמון‪.‬‬ ‫ז‪ .‬התוספת ‘פחדה’ המצויה בתרגום השבעים בכתב היד הלוקיאני‪ ,‬לאחר ‘ויהי בתת את‬ ‫מרב’‪ ,‬יש בה כדי להעלות את הסברה ששאול ביטל את הנישואין של מרב לדוד בשל‬ ‫‪60‬‬ ‫התחשבות ברגשותיה‪.‬‬ ‫האם ניתן לשער שמרב היא זו שביטלה את הנישואין לדוד?‬ ‫חלק מהפרשנים טוענים שמרב ניתנה על ידי עצמה לעדריאל המחולתי וקבלה ממנו‬ ‫קידושין שלא על דעת אביה‪ 61.‬על האפשרות שמרב היא זו שביטלה את נישואיה לדוד‬ ‫ניתן ללמוד דווקא ממקרה אחותה מיכל‪ ,‬ולהקיש ממנו לגביה‪ .‬אפשר שכשם ששאול היה‬ ‫רגיש לרגשותיה של מיכל‪ ,‬שאהבה את דוד והתיר את הנישואין ביניהם‪ ,‬כך היה גם קשוב‬ ‫‪63‬‬ ‫לרגשותיה של מרב‪ 62,‬שלא אהבה את דוד ואהבה את עדריאל המחולתי‪.‬‬

‫‪ .56‬קיל‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,191‬טוען שחתן המלך שנשא לאישה את הבת הבכירה היה נכבד מחתן‬ ‫המלך שנשא את הבת הצעירה‪ .‬קליין‪ ,‬מדבורה לאסתר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,186‬מוסיף ואומר שנישואין למרב יעניקו‬ ‫זכויות יתר לדוד יותר מאשר נישואין למיכל‪ .‬כך גם אדלמן‪ ,‬מרב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.125-124‬‬ ‫‪ .57‬גרובר‪ ,‬נשות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,481‬וכן ברוגמן‪ ,‬כוח והשגחה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;31‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬שמואל א יח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;234‬‬ ‫אדלמן מרב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;125-124‬אשכנזי‪ ,‬חוה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .145-140‬עולָ ה לפנינו התהייה האם תכנון הנישואין בין‬ ‫דוד למרב וביטולם מלמדים דווקא על דמותו הלא יציבה של שאול‪ ,‬וזאת מהסיבה שנישואין שימשו‬ ‫בדרך כלל לחיזוק מעמדו הכלכלי והחברתי של האב או למטרות פוליטיות‪ .‬מעורבות האב בתהליך אין‬ ‫בה כדי להצביע דווקא על מצבו הנפשי‪ .‬אך אם בוחנים את התנהגותו של שאול על רקע מנהגי התקופה‬ ‫לגבי אירוסין ונישואין‪ ,‬מבינים ששאול נהג כלפי מרב כראוי‪ .‬הבנות היו בחסות החוקית של אבותיהן‬ ‫ונחשבו כרכושם הפרטי‪ .‬הם יכולים היו לסחור בהן כסחורה עוברת לסוחר‪ ,‬להשתמש בהן לתשלום חוב‪,‬‬ ‫או למוסרן כתמורה לטובה כלשהי‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬דה וו‪ ,‬חיי יום־יום‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .62-61‬לדעתו של גרסיאל‪ ,‬דוד ומיכל‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,118-117‬יחסו של שאול לבתו מרב מעורר התנגדות ויחס שלילי מצד הקורא כלפיו מכיוון שהוא‬ ‫מתכנן לבתו חיי אלמנות ונוהג בה כחפץ‪ :‬מתעלם מרגשותיה‪ ,‬מציע אותה לאחד ונותן אותה לאחר‪ .‬בשל‬ ‫התנהגויות אלה מיוחסת לשאול אי־יציבות נפשית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .58‬האקט‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;90‬ברוגמן‪ ,‬כוח והשגחה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 135‬ומאושלין‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.140‬‬ ‫‪ .59‬פיין‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.98-97‬‬ ‫‪ .60‬אין לדעת מהיכן לקח הלוקיאני את מוטיב ה’יראה’‪ .‬נראה שיש כאן ניסיון מצידו לפתור את‬ ‫הקושי המובנה בכתוב העברי‪ .‬לדעת הרצברג‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,161‬לא ניתן לייחס את רגשות הפחד‬ ‫(רגשנות היתר)‪ ,‬של מרב כסיבה לביטול הנישואין‪ .‬הרצברג לא מסביר כיצד בהמשך הסיפור שאול‬ ‫דווקא מתחשב ברגשותיה של בתו מיכל שאוהבת את דוד (שמ”א יח ‪.)20‬‬ ‫‪ .61‬בעל מצודות‪ ,‬מלבי”ם וירושלמי‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.289‬‬ ‫‪ .62‬כפי שנלמד מהתוספת המצויה בנוסח הלוקיאני‪ .‬ראו דיון בהערה ‪.60‬‬ ‫‪ .63‬לניאדו‪ ,‬נביאים ראשונים עמ’ ריו‪/‬ב‪ ,‬קושר בין הצירופים ‘בעת תת’ לבין ‘והיא נתנה’‪ :‬היא בסתר‬ ‫נתנה לעדריאל‪ ,‬שלא נודע הדבר אלא בינה לבינו (עדריאל)‪.‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪253‬‬

‫בסופו של דבר רצונה של מרב הוא שקבע למי תינשא‪.‬‬ ‫האם דוד הוא זה שביטל את הנישואין למרב?‬ ‫האפשרות שדוד סירב לנישואין עם בת המלך מופיעה בטקסט‪ .‬יש הטוענים כי סירובו‬ ‫של דוד נבע מענווה‪ 65,‬או שמניעים נסתרים עמדו מאחורי סירובו‪ 66.‬אך נשאלת השאלה‬ ‫האם יש במעשה זה היגיון? ממה נבע סירובו? שאול מציע לדוד מעמד של חתן למלך‬ ‫ומדובר בקרבה למשפחת המלוכה‪ ,‬בכסף‪ ,‬בכוח ובמעמד‪ .‬המניע של שאול להצעה זו היה‬ ‫להביא את דוד לידי הכרזה על נאמנות מלאה למלך‪ ,‬אך גם לדוד היה אינטרס להתקרב‬ ‫למשפחת המלוכה באמצעות נישואין‪ 67.‬כניסה לגיטימית לארמון המלוכה וצבירת כוח‬ ‫מתוך הארמון לא יסולאו מפז מבחינתו של דוד מכיוון שכחתן המלך הוא יוכל מאוחר‬ ‫יותר לרשת את שאול באופן טבעי‪ 68.‬לכן אין הגיון ואין כל סיבה הנראית לעין שיכולים‬ ‫להאיר את סירובו של דוד להתחתן עם בת מלך‪ .‬ההוכחה לכך מובאת בהמשך כשדוד‬ ‫דורש שמיכל בת שאול תוחזר אליו בשעה שעלה לשלטון (שמ”ב ג ‪ .)15-14‬שם‪ ,‬רגשות‬ ‫האהבה למיכל אינם מניעים את דוד כמו שאינם מניעים את יחסו למרב‪ 69.‬דוד פועל‬ ‫ממניעים מעשיים ופוליטיים והטובה שעשויה לצמוח לו מהקירבה המחודשת לבתו של‬ ‫שאול המלך‪ .‬הנישואין עם בנות המלך הם שיוצרים לגיטימציה לשלטונו‪.‬‬ ‫קיימת גם האפשרות שמיכל היא שעמדה מאחורי ביטול נישואי דוד ומרב‪ .‬אהבת‬ ‫מיכל נדחקה והיא הייתה צריכה לראות איך דוד אהובה ניתן לאחותה הבכירה שאולי‬ ‫לא אהבה אותו‪ 70.‬האם יתכן שהיא זו שמנעה את החתונה של דוד למרב בשל אהבתה?‬ ‫‪64‬‬

‫‪ .64‬מיסקל‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .248‬לדעת פרימר־קנסקי‪ ,‬אלות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,122‬אפשרות זו אינה עולה בקנה‬ ‫אחד עם המציאות של אותה תקופה‪ .‬ידוע שהבנות היו נתונות לחלוטין תחת שליטת האבות בכל הקשור‬ ‫לחיים ומוות‪ ,‬ובוודאי בנושא הנישואין‪ .‬גם מבחינה סגנונית‪ ,‬ניתן לראות‪ ,‬שהפועל ‘נתן’ המופיע בקשר‬ ‫עם האב ביחס לבנותיו מציין את השליטה של האב על בתו‪ .‬כך שאול מבטיח לתת את בתו מרב לדוד‪ ,‬אך‬ ‫בסוף נותן אותה לגבר אחר‪ ,‬קליינס‪ ,‬מיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;141-140‬פוקס‪ ,‬פוליטיקה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .112‬זאת בניגוד לטענת‬ ‫פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,233‬שהשימוש בצורת הסביל ‘ניתנה’ בא למנוע אמירה ברורה ששאול‬ ‫הוא האחראי לנתינה‪ .‬הצירוף ‘בעת תת’ (שמ”א יח ‪ ,)19‬מצביע על העובדה שהיא ניתנה בעל כורחה‪,‬‬ ‫כמו‪...“ :‬ותלקח אסתר‪( ”...‬אסתר ב ‪ ,)8‬ואת פיה לא שאלו‪ .‬לכן פוקלמן‪ ,‬לעיל‪ ,‬טוען שביטול הנישואין כמו‬ ‫גם הצעת הנישואין לא מאירים את דמותה של מרב‪ .‬היא מופיעה כצל ולא כדמות אמיתית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .65‬כך רלב”ג בפירושו לשמ”א יח ‪ ...“ :19‬ויִ ְד ֶמה שלא הסכים דוד בזה מצד הענוה‪ .”...‬רלב”ג מעלה‬ ‫הס ָּבה כשלא הסכים דוד בזה שיירא שיפול ביד‬ ‫סיבה נוספת לסירובו של דוד‪ ...“ :‬ושאול חשב שתהיה ִ‬ ‫פלשתים‪ ,‬ולזה צוה לעבדיו שידברו אל דוד בסתר‪ ,‬ויודיעו לו שהמלך חפץ בו וכל עבדיו אהבוהו‪ ,‬כדי‬ ‫שיחשוב דוד שאין כונת שאול להפילו ביד פלשתי”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .66‬פולק‪ ,‬הסיפור במקרא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,295‬מציין שאין לדעת האם באמת התכוון דוד למה שאמר לשאול‪,‬‬ ‫או שמא חשב שסירובו יכול להקנות לו יתרון במשא ומתן‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .67‬כך גרסיאל‪ ,‬דוד ומיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .119‬גונתר‪ ,‬נישואין‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,388‬מציין שבמזרח הקדום‪ ,‬כל הצדדים‬ ‫אמורים להרוויח מבחינה אסטרטגית ממסגרת כזו של נישואין מוסדרים‪ .‬נישואין של אדם פשוט לבת מלך‬ ‫גורמים לעלייה במעמדו הסוציו־אקונומי של החתן‪ .‬לכן אין ספק שדוד יצא נשכר מהנישואין לבת המלך‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .68‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.318‬‬ ‫‪ .69‬לדעת פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,228‬שאול מציע את מרב אך דוד בתשובתו לא מתייחס‬ ‫למרב אלא רק להצעת הנישואין‪ .‬המילה אהבה לא מוזכרת‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .70‬גרובר‪ ,‬נשות ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.482‬‬

‫*‪254‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫אמנם‪ ,‬אפשרות זו נסמכת על הכתוב‪“ :‬וַ יְ ִהי ְּב ֵעת ֵּתת ֶאת ֵמ ַרב ַּבת ָׁשאּול לְ ָדוִ ד וְ ִהיא נִ ְּתנָ ה‬ ‫לְ ַע ְד ִר ֵיאל ַה ְּמחֹלָ ִתי לְ ִא ָּשׁה‪ :‬וַ ֶּת ֱא ַהב ִמיכַ ל ַּבת ָׁשאּול ֶאת ָּדוִ ד ‪( ”...‬שמ”א יח ‪ .)20-19‬לאחר‬ ‫שמרב ניתנה ֵ‬ ‫לאחר מסופר מיד שמיכל היא שאוהבת את דוד‪ 71.‬דעה זו מעמידה את מיכל‪,‬‬ ‫בת המלך‪ ,‬בעמדה להשפיע על אביה בנושא הנישואין‪ .‬עניין אהבתה של מיכל את דוד‬ ‫מתועד פעמיים (שמ”א יח ‪ .)28 ,20‬נדמה שזאת הפעם היחידה במקרא שבה אישה בחרה‬ ‫‪72‬‬ ‫לעצמה בעל ִּב ְמקום הדפוס הידוע שעל־פיו הגבר בוחר את האישה בהסכמתו של האב‪.‬‬ ‫אך לאמיתו של דבר נמצאנו למדים שגם מיכל ‘ניתנת’ לדוד לנישואין‪“ :‬ויתן לו שאול‬ ‫את מיכל בתו לאשה” (שמ”א יח ‪ .)27‬בהמשך‪ ,‬היא ‘ניתנת’ לפלטיאל בן ליש‪“ :‬ושאול‬ ‫נתן את מיכל בתו אשת דוד לפלטי בן ליש” (שמ”א כה ‪ ,)44‬נלקחת מפלטיאל בן ליש‬ ‫ומוחזרת לדוד מבלי שיש לה יכולת להשפיע על גורלה‪“ :‬תנה את אשתי את מיכל‪...‬וישלח‬ ‫איש בשת ויקחה מעם איש מעם פלטיאל בן ליש” (שמ”ב ג ‪ .)15-14‬סופו של דבר‪ ,‬מיכל‬ ‫מועברת מגבר לגבר כחפץ‪ 73.‬כך מיכל שהייתה דמות אקטיבית ויוזמת‪“ 74‬הוחלפה” במיכל‬ ‫פאסיבית בדיוק כמו אחותה הגדולה מרב‪.‬‬ ‫ד‪ .‬מדוע מוזכרת מרב?‬ ‫“בני־אדם בסיפורי המקרא בעלי ‘רקע אחורי’ הם יותר מאשר אנשי הומרוס‪ ,‬יש להם‬ ‫‪75‬‬ ‫יותר עומק זמן‪ ,‬גורל ותודעה‪ ...‬מחשבותיהם ורגשותיהם הן רב שכבתיות ומורכבות יותר”‪.‬‬ ‫מרב מופיעה לרגע ומתפוגגת במהירות‪ .‬מהי מטרת הופעתה? לְ ָמה היא נחוצה? האם‬ ‫היא דמות משנית? אם כן‪ ,‬הרי היא צריכה לקדם את העלילה או לחלופין להקנות לסיפור‬ ‫יתר משמעות ויתר עומק‪ 76.‬או‪ ,‬האם ייתכן שתפקידה מסתכם בהארת הדמות הראשית‬ ‫כביטוי להשתעבדות של הדמות המשנית לדמות הראשית? האם היא עושה זאת?‪ 77‬האם‬ ‫היא דמות צדדית במשחק הפוליטי? האם יש להופעתה משמעות נסתרת? האם היא חלק‬ ‫מחיוניות תרבותית?‬ ‫פנים רבות ניתן למצוא למטרת הופעתה של מרב‪ .‬א‪ .‬ייתכן‪ ,‬שסיפורה הוא חלק‬ ‫ממארג הסיפורים במקרא שמכתיב דפוסים קבועים החייבים לחזור על עצמם בסיפורים‬

‫‪ .71‬קליינס‪ ,‬מיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.28‬‬ ‫‪ .72‬ברלין‪ ,‬נשות דוד‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.70‬‬ ‫‪ .73‬מנהג זה נרמז בכתובת שנמצאה על פירמידה מצרית של המלך אונאס‪“ :‬אז יקח את הנשים‬ ‫מידי בעליהן לאשר ירצה‪ ,‬שעה שלבו יחשק בהן”‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬גרסמן‪ ,‬כתבים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.157‬‬ ‫‪ .74‬התנהגותה של מיכל בסצנות אחרות יכולה להעיד שהיא דומיננטית‪ ,‬אגרסיבית וחזקה‪ :‬היא‬ ‫מצילה את דוד מיד אביה כאשר היא מורידה אותו מהחלון (שמ”א יט ‪ ,)13-11‬היא משקרת לשליחים (יט‬ ‫‪ ,)14‬וכאשר מתגלה התרמית היא בודה סיפור ומספרת אותו לאביה (יט ‪.)17‬‬ ‫‪ .75‬אוארבך‪ ,‬מימזיס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.10‬‬ ‫‪ .76‬סימון‪ ,‬הדמויות המשניות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.34‬‬ ‫‪ .77‬גם אם מרב לא ממלאת את התפקידים הללו שאנו מצפים ממנה למלא כדמות משנית‪ ,‬הרי‬ ‫שהתייחסות המספר אליה כדמות משנית מאוד בולטת‪ .‬ידוע שיש חירות למספר המקראי לעקוב אחר‬ ‫הדמות המשנית או להתעלם ממנה‪ .‬סימון‪ ,‬הדמויות המשניות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,33‬מביא דוגמה לתופעה זו מסיפור‬ ‫עקדת יצחק‪ ,‬שבסופו המספר בחר להתעלם מיצחק (בר’ כב ‪.)19‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪255‬‬

‫שונים‪ .‬במקרה שכאן מדובר על מוטיב שתי הנשים שלפיו‪ ,‬האחת דומיננטית ואקטיבית‪,‬‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫והשנייה פאסיבית לחלוטין‪ 78 .‬כך חנה ופנינה‪ ,‬אביגיל ואחינועם וכך גם מרב ומיכל‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬אפשר שיש בהזכרת מרב ניסיון ליצור סיפור בבואה‪ 80.‬הוספת אפיזודת מרב‬ ‫מעוררת את הזיכרון לסיפור יעקב‪ ,‬לאה ורחל‪ .‬מדובר בתבנית ספרותית הנלמדת מקווי‬ ‫דמיון רבים שישנם בין שני הסיפורים‪ .‬כשם שבסיפור יעקב יש צלע נוספת והיא לאה‪ ,‬כך‬ ‫מרב היא צלע נוספת בסיפור שכאן‪ .‬מרב ורחל שתיהן הצעירות ולא הבכירות‪ .‬לבן רימה‬ ‫את יעקב בליל הכלולות (בר’ כט ‪ ,)25‬ושאול רימה את דוד בכך שנתן לו את האפשרות‬ ‫לשאת את מרב וכשהגיע המועד לנישואין‪ ,‬נתן אותה לאחר (שמ”א יח ‪ .)19‬קישור נוסף‬ ‫עולה מהשימוש בתרפים כחלק מעלילת הסיפור‪ :‬מיכל מבריחה את דוד בעזרתם (שמ”א‬ ‫יט ‪ ,)13‬ורחל גונבת את התרפים בבורחה מאביה עם בעלה יעקב (בר’ לא ‪ .)35-31‬הן‬ ‫רחל והן לאה מעדיפות את בעליהן על פני אבותיהן‪ .‬יעקב נושא שתי אחיות וכמוהו דוד‬ ‫שעמדו לרשותו שתי אחיות לנישואין‪ ,‬ויש מי שסבורים שגם הוא נשא שתיים‪ 81.‬יחד עם‬ ‫זאת נוצר היפוך בשל קווי ההשתקפות הניגודית בין שני הסיפורים‪ :‬הניסיון של לאה‬ ‫לגרום ליעקב לשים לב אליה בלא הצלחה (בר’ ל ‪ ,)16‬מול נסיונה של מיכל למשוך את‬ ‫תשומת לבו של דוד בהצלחה (שמ”א יח ‪ .)20‬בנוסף‪ ,‬יעקב נשא את לאה לאשה‪ ,‬ומנגד‬ ‫מרב ניתנה לאחר‪ .‬למיכל היה חסר משהו מהותי שהיה לרחל והוא האהבה של דוד אליה‪.‬‬ ‫יעקב אוהב את רחל ומיכל אוהבת את דוד‪ ,‬אך לא מוזכר שדוד אוהב אותה‪ 82.‬כל הממדים‬ ‫שנימנו לעיל מורים על כך שאפיזודת מרב היא אכן סיפור בבואה לסיפור רחל ולאה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .78‬ג’ובלינג‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,181 ,‬טוען שמוטיב זה מופיע בעיקר בספר שמואל‪ ,‬אך ניתן למצוא אותו גם‬ ‫בספר בראשית בסיפור לאה ורחל‪ ,‬גם שם הנשים הן אחיות‪ .‬פוקלמן‪ ,‬אומנות הסיפור ב’‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,242‬טוען‬ ‫שהמ ְס ָּפר ‘שתיים’ הוא מוטיב חוזר במקומנו‪ :‬שתי נסיכות המוזכרות בשמן‪ ,‬שני שלבים במשא ומתן‪,‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫והמ ְס ָּפר מאתיים נזכר לגבי הפלישתים‪.‬‬ ‫שאול מדבר פעמיים ִ‬ ‫‪ .79‬ג’ובלינג‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,183‬מוסיף ואומר שמרב בסיפור היא חסרת אופי לעומת פנינה (שמ”א‬ ‫א)‪ ,‬שהרי כל שמסופר עליה הוא שהיא הובטחה לדוד אבל ניתנה לעדריאל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .80‬ראו‪ :‬זקוביץ‪ ,‬סיפור בבואה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.166‬‬ ‫‪ .81‬כך גם בפשיטתא‪“ :‬בתרתיהן תהוא לי חתנא יומנא”‪ .‬נתינת שתי בנות בנישואין דיפלומטיים‬ ‫היה נוהג ידוע במזרח הקדום‪ .‬הן במקרא והן במארי אנו מוצאים שבנישואין דיפלומטיים בעלי חשיבות‬ ‫עליונה לא מסתפקים בנתינת בת אחת של המלך הריבון למלך הווסאל‪ ,‬אלא נותנים לו שתי בנות‪ .‬בארכיון‬ ‫מרלִ ם‪ ,‬שבו הוא‬ ‫נצ ַר‪ ,‬שכתב לזִ ִ‬ ‫באלַ ֻ‬ ‫מצם‪ ,‬אחד משני מפקדי חיל המצב של מארי ִ‬ ‫מארי נמצא מכתב של יַ ֻ‬ ‫לחיַ ֻס ֻמ את‬ ‫מצם מזכיר ַ‬ ‫מרלִ ם‪ .‬יַ ֻ‬ ‫לחיַ ֻס ֻמ בשיחה שהתקיימה בשנה התשיעית למלכות זִ ִ‬ ‫מתאר דברים שאמר ַ‬ ‫מצם‬ ‫מרלִ ם הפגין כלפיו בהשיאו לו שתיים מבנותיו‪ ,‬את ִש ַמ ֻתם ואת ּכִ ֻרם‪ .‬וכך כתב יַ ֻ‬ ‫המחווה המיוחדת שזִ ִ‬ ‫מס ַא ֻּד מת‪ ,‬יש ארבעה מלכים חזקים (חמורבי מלך בבל‪,‬‬ ‫שס ִ‬ ‫מרלִ ם‪”.)’ARM XXVI.303.20’-24( :‬מאז ַ‬ ‫לזִ ִ‬ ‫חדנלִ ם‪ ,‬שתי נשים‪ ,‬לא נשאו‪ .‬עתה‪,‬‬ ‫דּפ ֶאל מלך ַקטנַ ויַ ִרמלִ ם מלך יַ ִרמלִ ם)‪ ,‬ובת (= בנות) יַ ֻ‬ ‫רס‪ַ ,‬א ֻמ ִ‬ ‫מסן מלך לַ ַ‬ ‫ִר ִ‬ ‫בת (=בנות) אדוני‪ ,‬שתי נשים נשאת”‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬ענבר‪ ,‬הארכיבים המלכותיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .251-247‬להשערה שדוד‬ ‫נשא שתי אחיות יש אישוש בדבריו של שאול בהמשך‪“ :‬בשתים תתחתן בי היום” (יח ‪ .)21‬לטענת חז”ל דוד‬ ‫נשא לנשים את שתי בנות שאול‪ ,‬גם את מרב וגם את מיכל‪ ,‬ילקוט שמעוני‪ ,‬שמואל א פרק יח‪ ,‬סימן קכח‪.‬‬ ‫דיונם הורחב סביב השאלה כיצד זה נשא דוד שתי אחיות למרות האיסור המקראי‪“ :‬ואשה אל אחֹתה לא‬ ‫ִתקח לצרֹר לגלות ערותה עליה בחייה” (ויקרא יח ‪ .)18‬טעמו של איסור זה הוא כדברי רמב”ן‪“ :‬שאינו ראוי‬ ‫שתיקח אישה אל אחותה לצרור אותן זו לזו‪ ,‬כי הן ראויות שתהיינה אוהבות זו את זו‪ ,‬לא שתהיינה צרות”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .82‬גרסיאל‪ ,‬דוד ומיכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,120‬מביא פרטים נוספים המבליטים את השוני בין הסיפורים‪.‬‬

‫*‪256‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

‫ג‪ .‬האם יתכן שהמניע להופעת מרב הוא פוליטי ומטרתו ליצור לגיטימציה לשלטונו‬ ‫של דוד ולכניסתו באופן טבעי כחתן המלך למלוכה?‪ 83‬הניסיון הראשון עם מרב לא צלח‬ ‫‪84‬‬ ‫ולכן הפעולה נמשכה עד שצלחה בעבורו עם מיכל‪.‬‬ ‫ד‪ .‬מטרת הופעתה של מרב היא ליצור הנגדה לאחותה מיכל‪ :‬מרב לא אהבה את‬ ‫דוד כמו מיכל;‪ 85‬דוד לוקח את מיכל בחזרה (שמ”ב ג ‪ ,)14‬לאחר שניתנה על ידי שאול‬ ‫לפלטיאל בן ליש (שמ”א כה ‪ ,)44‬אך לעומת זאת אינו מחזיר אליו את מרב שניתנה‬ ‫לעדריאל המחולתי (יח ‪.)19‬‬ ‫ה‪ .‬מיכל ומרב‪ ,‬מצטיירות באופן אירוני כשתי אחיות נפרדות‪ ,‬אך תמיד מתחברות‬ ‫חזרה לישות אחת‪ .‬עניין זה בא לידי ביטוי למשל בהיותה של מיכל חשוכת ילדים (שמ”ב‬ ‫ו ‪ ,)23‬ולגבי מרב‪ ,‬ניתן להניח‪ ,‬שהיו לה ילדים‪ 86.‬וכך‪ ,‬כשדוד הורג את ילדי מרב (שמ”א‬ ‫כא ‪ ,)8‬נוצרת משוואה בין השתיים — למרב כמו גם למיכל אין ילדים‪ .‬גם היעדר הזיהוי‬ ‫השמי־האישי של בנות שאול כפי שעולה מן הביטוי ‘בשתיים תתחתן בי היום’ (שמ”א יח‬ ‫‪ ,)21‬מחזק את נחיצותה של מרב למיצוב שתיהן כיֵ שות אחת‪.‬‬ ‫ו‪ .‬איזכורה של מרב מייצר היבטים חיוביים לדמותו של דוד‪ .‬דוד מצטנע בתשובתו‬ ‫‪87‬‬ ‫לשאול כאילו אינו מאמין בהתאמתו להיות חתן המלך (שמ”א יח ‪.)18‬‬ ‫ז‪ .‬קידום נישואיה של מיכל לדוד מצריך תחילה‪ ,‬מבחינת הנוהג התרבותי‪ ,‬ניסיון‬ ‫ֹאמר לָ ָבן ֹלא יֵ ָע ֶׂשה‬ ‫להשיא את מרב הבכורה לפני מיכל הצעירה‪ ,‬כך גם בסיפורי יעקב‪“ :‬וַ ּי ֶ‬ ‫‪88‬‬ ‫קֹומנּו לָ ֵתת ַה ְּצ ִע ָירה לִ ְפנֵ י ַה ְּבכִ ָירה” (בר’ כט ‪.)26‬‬ ‫כֵ ן ִּב ְמ ֵ‬

‫‪ .83‬לדברי סולבנג’‪ ,‬מקומה של האישה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,89‬פתרון זה‪ ,‬לסיבה מדוע מופיעה מרב אינו סביר‪.‬‬ ‫ידוע שחתן המלך לא ירש את המלך‪ .‬גם אין שום סיפור על מלכי ישראל או יהודה שהמלוכה עברה לבת‬ ‫המלך‪ .‬כך הדבר גם במלכויות האיזור‪ .‬המלך יכול היה לאמץ את בני אחיו ליורשים או להתחתן עם בתו‬ ‫כאישה שנייה‪ .‬למשל המלך החיתי חתושלי מינה את בן אחיו ליורש ואחר כך הדיח אותו‪ .‬כך שגם אחיינו‬ ‫של המלך אינו יכול לרשת אותו‪ .‬מקרה נוסף הוא זה של המלך אמנחותפ ה־‪ 3‬שהתחתן עם בתו בנוסף‬ ‫לא ָמּה‪ .‬במצרים בת מלך הייתה יכולה לרשת את אביה רק לאחר מות אחיה‪ .‬בעלה קיבל עמדה וכוח אך‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫לא יכול היה להיות המלך‪ .‬כך גם לשאול היו שלושה בנים וסביר להניח שהיו אמורים להיות להם בנים‬ ‫יורשים‪ ,‬מכאן שהסיכוי של דוד לרשת את השלטון כחתן המלך הוא אפסי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .84‬מקרטר‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.318‬‬ ‫‪ .85‬ג’ובלינג‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .183‬על מיכל נאמר במפורש שהיא אוהבת את דוד (שמ”א יח ‪,)20‬‬ ‫ואילו רגשותיה של מרב אינם מתוארים בטקסט‪ ,‬כך שקשה לראות בבירור את ההנגדה שבין רגשותיהן‬ ‫של שתי האחיות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .86‬כאשר כתוב בשמ”ב כא ‪‘ 8‬חמשת בני מיכל’ סביר להניח שמדובר בילדיה של מרב‪ .‬רבים‬ ‫מהחוקרים והמפרשים טוענים לטעות בטקסט‪ :‬במקום שמה של מיכל‪ ,‬צריך היה לבוא שמה של מרב‪.‬‬ ‫לדוגמה‪ ,‬רד”ק ורלב”ג הטוענים כי מרב היא זו שניתנה לעדריאל ולא מיכל‪ ,‬ומיכל היא זו שלא היו לה‬ ‫ילדים (שמ”ב ו ‪ ,)23‬ולא מרב‪ .‬כך גם בקרב המפרשים המודרנים‪ ,‬כמו‪ :‬אקסום‪ ,‬טרגדיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;171 ,91‬‬ ‫וולטרס‪ ,‬מיכל העקרה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 290‬וג’ובלינג‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .152-151‬בתלמוד הבבלי‪ ,‬סנהדרין יט ע”ב‪,‬‬ ‫מוצאים שמרב ילדה ומיכל ּגִ ְּדלָ ה ולכן נקראו על שמה של מיכל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .87‬כך לוטון‪ ,‬שמ”א יח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .425-424‬לדעתנו טענה זו אינה חזקה דיה להוכחת נחיצותה של‬ ‫אפיזודת מרב מכיוון שדוד יכול היה לתת את תשובתו המצטנעת גם ביחס למיכל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .88‬ראו‪ :‬רלב”ג בפירושו לשמ”א יח ‪.19‬‬

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

‫*‪257‬‬

‫ח‪ .‬מרב היא דמות משנית המופיעה בסיפור כאמצעי להערכה המוסרית של הדמות‬ ‫הראשית‪ .‬אמנם מוקדש לה מקום מועט בסיפור‪ ,‬אך כפי שסימון מציין לגבי הדמויות‬ ‫‪89‬‬ ‫המשניות‪“ :‬דווקא האפשרות לומר עליהן מעט עושה אותן כלי יעיל להורות על העיקר”‪.‬‬ ‫אפיזודת מרב יוצרת סיטואציה המכפישה את שמו של שאול‪ 90,‬ותכניתו הזדונית של‬ ‫‪91‬‬ ‫שאול להרוג את דוד יכולה להתממש רק באמצעות הנישואין‪.‬‬ ‫על אף היותה של מרב נוכחת‪-‬לא נוכחת בסיפורי בית שאול נדמה שנחיצותה למארג‬ ‫הסיפורי חיונית מעל לכל ספק‪ .‬היא זו המניעה את הקשרים הנוצרים בין הדמויות‬ ‫הסובבות אותה מבלי שיווצר קשר ממשי בינן לבינה‪.‬‬ ‫קיצורים ביבליוגרפיים‬ ‫אדלמן‪ ,‬מרב = ‪D.V. Edelman, “Merab”, Women in Scripture-A Dictionary of Named‬‬ ‫‪and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical‬‬ ‫‪Books, and the New Testament, ed. C. Meyers, Grand Rapids MI- Cambridge‬‬ ‫‪2000, p. 124‬‬ ‫אדלמן‪ ,‬עדריאל = ‪D.V. Edelman, “Adriel”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 1,‬‬ ‫‪New York NY 1992, p. 81‬‬ ‫אדלמן‪ ,‬שאול = ‪D.V. Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah‬‬ ‫‪(Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 121) Sheffield‬‬ ‫‪1991‬‬

‫אוארבך‪ ,‬מימזיס = א’ אוארבך‪ ,‬מימזיס‪ ,‬ירושלים ‪ ,1959‬עמ’ ‪10‬‬ ‫אחיטוב‪ ,‬עדריאל = ש’ אחיטוב‪“ ,‬עדריאל”‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית‪ ,‬כרך ו‪ ,‬ירושלים ‪,1972‬‬ ‫טור ‪95‬‬ ‫אלטר‪ ,‬סיפור דוד = ‪R. Alter, The David Story, New York-London 2000‬‬ ‫אמית‪ ,‬הדרגתיות = י’ אמית‪“ ,‬ההדרגתיות כאמצעי רטורי בספרות המקרא”‪ ,‬בתוך‪ :‬תשורה‬ ‫לשמואל (עורכים‪ ,‬צ’ טלשיר‪ ,‬ש’ יונה‪ ,‬ד’ סיון)‪ ,‬ירושלים ‪ ,2001‬עמ’ ‪48-21‬‬ ‫אנדרסון‪ ,‬שמואל ב = ‪A.A. Anderson, 2 Samuel (WBC), Dallas TX 1989‬‬ ‫אקסום‪ ,‬טרגדיה = ‪J.C. Exum, Tragedy and Biblical Narrative, Cambridge 1992‬‬ ‫אקרויד‪ ,‬שמואל = ‪P.R. Ackroyd, The First Book of Samuel (Cambridge Bible‬‬ ‫‪Commentary), London 1971‬‬

‫‪ .89‬ראו דברי סימון‪ ,‬הדמויות המשניות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,36‬על אחד מתפקידיה של הדמות הראשית‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .90‬קמפבל‪ ,‬שמואל א‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,197‬מציין שהסיבה להזכרת מרב היא כדי ליצור סיפור נוסף על דמותו‬ ‫השלילית של שאול‪ ,‬על התנהגותו האלימה ועל היותו מפר הבטחות‪ .‬לעומתו טוען ג’ובלינג‪ ,‬שמואל א‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,183‬שאין שחר למחשבה שמרב מופיעה בסיפור על מנת להראות את הצד האלים של שאול‪ .‬סיבה‬ ‫זו מיותרת לדעתו‪ .‬הסצנה הבאה (יח ‪ ,)29-20‬כמו גם יתר הסצנות שבהם מופיעים שאול ודוד מוכיחות‬ ‫הרבה יותר את מחלתו או את הצד האלים שבו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .91‬ניתן לטעון כנגד טענה זו ששאול היה יכול להשיא את מיכל בתו הקטנה לדוד ולהשיג את אותה‬ ‫מטרה‪.‬‬

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

258*

N. Aschkenasy, Eve’s Journey-Feminine Images in Hebraic Literary = ‫ חוה‬,‫אשכנזי‬ Tradition, Philadelphia PA 1986

,‫ קדמוניות היהודים (א’ שליט‬,)‫ קדמוניות = י’ בן מתתיהו (פלביוס יוספוס‬,‫בן מתתיהו‬ ‫ ירושלים תשס”ג‬,)‫תרגם מיוונית‬ ‫ תל־‬,‫ העיצוב האמנותי של הסיפור במקרא‬,‫ העיצוב האמנותי = ש’ בר־אפרת‬,‫בר־אפרת‬ 1979 ‫אביב‬ 1996 ‫ תל־אביב‬,)‫ שמואל א (מקרא לישראל‬,‫ שמואל א = ש’ בר־אפרת‬,‫בר־אפרת‬ W. Brueggemann, “Narrative Coherence and Theological = ‫ שמואל א יח‬,‫ברוגמן‬ Intentionality in 1 Samuel 18”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993), pp. 225-243 W. Brueggemann, Power, Providence and Personality- = ‫ כוח והשגחה‬,‫ברוגמן‬ Biblical Insight into Life and Ministry, Louisville KY 1990 A. Berlin, “Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David’s = ‫ נשות דוד‬,‫ברלין‬ Wives” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (1982), pp.69-85 D. Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam), Collegeville MN 1998 = ‫ שמואל א‬,‫ג’ובלינג‬ A. Guenther, “A Typology of Israelite Marriage: Kinship, Socio- = ‫ נישואין‬,‫גונתר‬ Economic and Religious Factors”, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29,4 (2005), pp. 387-407 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, eds. E. Kautzsch and E. Cowley, = ‫ דקדוק‬,‫גזניוס‬ Oxford 1910 M.I. Gruber, The Women of Israel by Grace Aguiler-Two = ‫ נשות ישראל‬,‫גרובר‬ Volumes in One with a New Introduction and Commentary, Piscataway NJ, 2011 B. Green, How Are the Mighty Fallen?, London 2003 = ‫ איך נפלו גיבורים‬,‫גרין‬

‫ תל־אביב תש”ה‬,‫ לפשוטו של מקרא‬,‫ לפשוטו של מקרא = ש’ גרינברג‬,‫גרינברג‬ 1999 ‫ תל־אביב‬,)‫ שמואל א’ (עולם התנ”ך‬,‫ שמואל א’ = מ’ גרסיאל‬,‫גרסיאל‬ ‫ עיוני מקרא‬:‫ בתוך‬,”‫ “יחסי דוד ומיכל בת המלך שאול‬,‫ דוד ומיכל = מ’ גרסיאל‬,‫גרסיאל‬ ,‫ רמת גן תשע”א‬,)‫ ד’ אלגביש‬,‫ ע’ פריש‬,‫ ר’ כשר‬,‫ מ’ גרסיאל‬,‫ופרשנות כרך י (בעריכת‬ 133-117 ’‫עמ‬ D.H. Gressmann, Die Schriften des Alten Testaments, Göttingen = ‫ כתבים‬,‫גרסמן‬ 1921

1969 ‫ תל־אביב‬,‫ א‬,‫ חיי יום־יום בישראל בימי המקרא‬,‫ חיי יום־יום = ר’ דה וו‬,‫דה וו‬ V.P. Hamilton, “Marriage”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (vol. = ‫ נישואין‬,‫המילטון‬ 4), New York-London 1992, pp. 559-568 J.A. Hackett, “1 and 2 Samuel”, in: The Women’s Bible = ‫ שמואל‬,‫האקט‬ Commentary, ed. C.A. Newsom and S.H. Ringe, Louisville, KY 1992 H.W. Hertzberg, I&II Samuel (Old Testament Library), London = ‫ שמואל‬,‫הרצברג‬ 1967

259*

‫לרגע הופיעה ונעלמה — סיפורה של מרב בת שאול‬

S.D. Walters, “ The Childless Michal, Mother of Five”, = ‫ מיכל העקרה‬,‫וולטרס‬ in: The Tablet and the Scroll, ed. M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell, D.B. Weisberg, Bethesda MD 1993 W.G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its = ‫ שירה מקראית‬,‫ווטסון‬ Techniques, Sheffield 1983

406-402 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ מולד כ (תשכ”ב‬,”‫ “מלאכת הסיפור במקרא‬,‫ מלאכת הסיפור = מ’ ויס‬,‫ויס‬ B.K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to = ‫ תחביר‬,‫ולטקה ואוקונור‬ Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake, IN, 1990 P.S.J. Jouon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical = ‫ דקדוק‬,‫ז’ואון־מוראוקה‬ Hebrew, Roma 1968

‫ “סיפור בבואה — מימד נוסף להערכת הדמויות בסיפור‬,‫ סיפור בבואה = י’ זקוביץ‬,‫זקוביץ‬ 165-176 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ תרביץ נד (תשמ”ה‬,”‫המקראי‬ ,1963 ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ ד‬,‫ אנציקלופדיה מקראית‬,”’‫ “מלחמות ה‬,‫ מלחמות ה’ = ש’ טלמון‬,‫טלמון‬ 1065-1064 ’‫טור‬ S. Yerushalmi, The Book of Samuel I (Me’am Lo’ez), New = ‫ שמואל‬,‫ירושלמי‬ York- Jerusalem 1991 R.B. Lawton, “1 Samuel 18: David, Merob, and Michal”, = ‫ שמ”א יח‬,‫לוטון‬ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 3 (1989), pp. 423-425 C. Layton, “The Hebrew Personal Name Merab: Its Etymological = ‫ מרב‬,‫לייטון‬ and Meaning”, Journal of Semitic Studies XXXVIII/2 (1993), pp. 193-207

1603 ‫ ונציה‬,‫פרוש נביאים ראשונים‬-‫ ספר כלי יקר‬,‫ נביאים ראשונים = ש’ לניאדו‬,‫לניאדו‬ R.G. Moulton, The Literary Study of the Bible, London 1896 = ‫ ספרות‬,‫מולטון‬ J. Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel (New Century Bible), London = ‫ שמואל‬,‫מאושלין‬ 1971 T. Muraoka, Emphatic Words And Structures In Biblical Hebrew, = ‫ מילים‬,‫מוראוקה‬ Jerusalem-Lieden 1985 P.D. Miscall, 1 Samuel, Bloomington 1986 = ‫ שמואל‬,‫מיסקל‬ S.L. McKenzie, King David-A Biography, Garden City NY 2000 = ‫ המלך דוד‬,‫מקנזי‬ P.K. McCarter, I Samuel (Anchor Bible), New York NY 1984 = ‫ שמואל א‬,‫מקרטר‬

1971 ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ ספרי שמואל‬,‫ ספרי שמואל = מ”צ סגל‬,‫סגל‬ K. Solvang, A Woman’s Place is in the House, London = ‫ מקומה של האישה‬,’‫סולבנג‬ 2003

‫רמת‬-‫ ירושלים‬,‫ סיפורי נביאים‬:‫ קריאה ספרותית במקרא‬,‫ סיפורי נביאים = א’ סימון‬,‫סימון‬ 1997 ,‫גן‬ ‫ דברי‬:‫ בתוך‬,”‫ “הדמויות המשניות בסיפור המקראי‬,‫ דמויות משניות = א’ סימון‬,‫סימון‬ 36-31 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשכ”ט‬,‫הקונגרס העולמי החמישי למדעי היהדות‬ M. Anbar, “la critique bibliqe a la lumiere des = ‫ הארכיבים המלכותיים‬,‫ענבר‬ Archives Royales de Mari II: 1S18, 21b”, Biblica 78 (1997), pp. 247-251

‫אורלי קרן וחגית טרגן‬

260*

R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, San = ‫ שמואל והדויטרונומיסט‬,‫פולצין‬ Francisco CA 1989

1994 ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ הסיפור במקרא‬,‫ הסיפור במקרא = פ’ פולק‬,‫פולק‬ J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books = ’‫ אומנות הסיפור ב‬,‫פוקלמן‬ of Samuel (vol. 2)-The Crossing Fates, Assen/Maastrict 1986 E. Fuchs, Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative-Reading the = ‫ פוליטיקה‬,‫פוקס‬ Hebrew Bible as a Woman, Sheffield 2000 D.F. Payne, I&II Samuel, Philadelphia PA 1982 = ‫ שמואל‬,‫פיין‬

2000 ‫ תל־אביב‬,‫ הרצחת וגם ירשת‬,‫ הרצחת וגם ירשת = ד’ פרידמן‬,‫פרידמן‬ T. Frymer-Kensky, In the Wake of Goddesses-Women, = ‫ אלות‬,‫פרימר־קנסקי‬ Culture and the Biblical Transformation of Pagan Myth, Fawcett Columbine NY 1992, p. 122 D.T. Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International = ‫ שמואל א‬,‫צומורה‬ Commentary on the Old Testament), Grand Rapids MI 2007

296 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ רמת גן תשס”ו‬,‫ מילון העברית המקראית‬,”‫ “בן חיל‬,‫ בן חיל = מ”צ קדרי‬,‫קדרי‬ G.W. Coats, “Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas”, Journal of = ‫ ביזוי עצמי‬,‫קוטס‬ Biblical Literature 89/1 (1970), pp. 14-26

1981 ‫ ירושלים‬,)‫ ספר שמואל (דעת מקרא‬,‫ שמואל = י’ קיל‬,‫קיל‬ C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Books of Samuel, = ‫ ספרי שמואל‬,‫קייל ודליטש‬ Grand Rapids MI 1950 L.R. Klein, From Deborah to Esther - Sexual Politics in = ‫ מדבורה לאסתר‬,‫קליין‬ the Hebrew Narrative, Minneapolis MA 2003 D.J.A. Clines, “Michal Observed: An Introduction to Reading her = ‫ מיכל‬,‫קליינס‬ Story”, in: Telling Queen Michal’s Story, eds. D.J.A. Clines, T.C. Eskenazi (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 119), Sheffield 1991, pp. 24-63 A.F. Campbell, 1 Samuel, Grand Rapids MI 2003 = ‫ שמואל א‬,‫קמפבל‬

‫ שמואל = פירושי רבי יוסף קרא לנביאים ראשונים — מהדורת פרופ’ שמעון‬,‫קרא‬ ‫ ירושלים תשל”ג‬,)‫עפנשטיין (על פי כתב־יד קירכהיים‬ 2007 ‫ ירושלים‬,‫ מבוא לספרות המקרא‬,‫ מבוא = א’ רופא‬,‫רופא‬ ,)1973( 2 ‫ הספרות ד‬,”‫ “איזון עדין בסיפור אונס דינה‬,‫ אונס דינה = מ’ שטרנברג‬,‫שטרנברג‬ 231-193 ’‫עמ‬ ‫ עיוני מקרא‬:‫ בתוך‬,”‫ קריאה רב משמעותית‬:‫ “יעקב ועשו‬,‫ יעקב ועשו = א’ שפירא‬,‫שפירא‬ 282-249 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ רמת גן תשנ”ז‬,)‫ י’ צפתי‬,‫ מ’ צפור‬,‫ ר’ כשר‬:‫ופרשנות כרך ד (עורכים‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫*‪261‬‬

‫צידוק הדין – פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬ ‫אלכסנדר רופא‬ ‫המונח ‘צידוק הדין’ בא ממקורותינו‪ ,‬ממעשה רבי חנינא בן תרדיון‪ ,‬שנתפס על ידי‬ ‫המלכות כשהוא לומד תורה ונדון לשרפה ואשתו להריגה ובתו לעבדות‪ 1.‬עליהם נאמר‪:‬‬ ‫‘שלשתן צידקו עליהם את הדין‪ .‬הוא אמר‪“ ,‬הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט”; ואשתו‬ ‫אמרה‪“ ,‬אל אמונה ואין עול צדיק וישר הוא”; ובתו אמרה‪“ ,‬גדול העצה ורב העליליה‪ ,‬אשר‬ ‫עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי בני אדם‪ ,‬לתת לאיש כדרכיו וכפרי מעלליו”‪ 2.‬אמר רב‪ ,‬כמה‬ ‫גדולים צדיקים אלו‪ ,‬שבשעת צרתם הזמינו שלושה פסוקים של צידוק הדין‪ ,‬מה שאין כן‬ ‫בכל הכתובים; כיוונו שלושתם את לבם וצידקו עליהם את הדין’‪ .‬ובכן צידוק הדין הוא‬ ‫לכתחילה מאמר מפיו של מי שיצאה עליו גזירה‪ ,‬המצדיק על עצמו את דינו של הקדוש‬ ‫ברוך הוא‪ ,‬אפילו הדין אינו נראה צודק על פניו‪.‬‬ ‫מדרך הטבע נתרחב המושג‪ .‬במסורת היהודית צידוק הדין נאמר עם פטירת אדם‬ ‫קרוב‪ .‬בספרות מחילים אותו על וידויים‪ ,‬שבהם אנשים מכירים באשמה שלהם ושל‬ ‫אבותיהם ומודים‪ ,‬על כן‪ ,‬שבצדק נענשו מידי שמים‪ .‬וכן ניתן להחיל אותו גם על מקרים‪,‬‬ ‫שבהם הגזירה יצאה על אחרים‪ ,‬שאינם קשורים עם המדברים או הכותבים‪ .‬מקרים כאלה‬ ‫נפוצים בייחוד בכתיבה היסטורית‪ ,‬כאשר דנים באישים מן העבר או במעשיהם‪.‬‬ ‫עם שנתרחבה משמעותו‪ ,‬אין צידוק הדין חופף למושג התאודיציה‪ ,‬אף על פי‬ ‫שמבחינה אטימולוגית שני המושגים קרובים‪ .‬תאודיציה היא מילה יוונית שנתחדשה‬ ‫בגרמניה בתחילת המאה השמונה־עשרה(!)‪ ,‬ומשמעה — הצדקת האל‪ .‬היא עוסקת‬ ‫בשאלת טּובו של אלוהים והשגחתו על הנעשה בעולם‪ ,‬חופש האדם ומקור הרע‪ 3.‬אם‬ ‫כן מושג התאודיציה רחב ומקיף יותר מן המושג העברי של צידוק הדין‪ ,‬שעל תכניו‬

‫‪ 1‬את עיקר המעשה אני מצטט על פי ב’ עבודה זרה יח‪ ,‬ע”א‪ ,‬אלא שהשלמתי את הציטוטים מן‬ ‫המקרא‪ ,‬כי בסופם נמצא עיקר משמעם‪ .‬לפי הגמרא נדונה בתו ‘לישב בקובה של זונות’‪ .‬מעדיף אני‬ ‫בעניין זה את גרסת מדרש ספרי לדברים‪ ,‬שם נאמר‪“ :‬ועליך לעשות מלאכה”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 2‬מכאן ואילך אני מצטט ממדרש ספרי לדברים‪ ,‬פיסקא ש”ז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.346‬‬ ‫‪ 3‬ראו‪ :‬וינריב‪ ,‬תאודיציה; ברגמן‪ ,‬ליבניץ‪ .‬מן הספרות הרבה על תאודיציה במקרא‪ ,‬רק מקצתה‬ ‫אפשר להזכיר כאן‪ :‬קרנשאו‪ ,‬תאודיציה; פרטו‪ ,‬בן סירא; לאאטו ודי מור‪ ,‬תאודיציה‪ .‬אסופה זו מחזיקה‬ ‫עשרים וחמישה מאמרים בנושא‪.‬‬

‫*‪261‬‬

‫*‪262‬‬

‫אלכסנדר רופא‬

‫עמדנו לעיל‪ .‬במסגרת מאמר זה נעסוק בצידוק הדין בלבד‪ ,‬בהבעותיו בספרות המקראית‬ ‫המאוחרת ובשילובו המשני בספרות היותר עתיקה‪.‬‬ ‫אין ספק שהמגמה להכיר בצדקתו של ה’ ובאשמת העם לנוכח האסונות שנפלו על‬ ‫ישראל הולכת וגוברת בספרות שלאחר החורבן‪ .‬כך נאמר באיכה א’ ‪‘ :18‬צדיק הוא ה’‪,‬‬ ‫כי פיהו מריתי’‪ .‬וכן בעזרא ט’ ‪‘ :13‬ה’ אלהי ישראל‪ ,‬צדיק אתה‪ ...‬הננו לפניך באשמתנו’‪.‬‬ ‫ובנחמ’ ט’ ‪‘ :33‬ואתה צדיק על כל הבא עלינו‪ ,‬כי אמת עשית ואנחנו הרשענו’‪ .‬ובדנ’ ט’ ‪:14‬‬ ‫‘וישקֹד ה’ על הרעה ויביאה עלינו‪ ,‬כי צדיק ה’ אלהינו על כל מעשיו’‪ .‬ובסרך היחד טור‬ ‫א’‪ ,‬שו’ ‪‘ :26‬וצדיק אל [ישראל ב]משפטו בנו ובאבותי[נו]’‪ 4.‬בהקשרים הללו אין למצוא‬ ‫עוד במילה צדיק משמעות ֵ‬ ‫פורנסית (סיטואציה של בית משפט)‪ 5,‬אלא קטגוריה מוסרית‬ ‫גרידא‪ ,‬מי הצודק בהתנהגותו‪.‬‬ ‫בייחוד ניכר צידוק הדין בתפילות שבספרים האחרונים‪ ,‬תפילות שיש בהן וידויים על‬ ‫עוונות הדור‪ ,‬ולא פחות מהם — עוונות הדורות הקודמים‪ 6.‬כך בתפילת עזרא‪‘ :‬עונתינו רבו‬ ‫למעלה ראש‪ ,‬ואשמתנו גדלה עד לשמים‪ .‬מימי אבתינו אנחנו באשמה גדולה עד היום הזה’‬ ‫(עז’ ט’ ‪ ;)7-6‬וכן בוידוי הגדול שלפני כריתת האמנה‪‘ :‬ואת מלכינו‪ ,‬שרינו‪ ,‬כהנינו ואבותינו‬ ‫לא עשו תורתך’ (נחמ’ ט’ ‪ ;)34‬לתקופה זו יש לשייך‪ ,‬כנראה‪ ,‬את הווידוי הקצר בפסוקי‬ ‫המסגרת של מזמור ק”ו‪‘ :‬חטאנו עם אבתינו‪ ,‬העוינו‪ ,‬הרשענו’ (פס’ ‪ ;)7‬ובדניאל‪‘ :‬חטאנו‬ ‫ועוינו והרשענו ומרדנו וסור ממצותיך וממשפטיך ולא שמענו אל עבדיך הנביאים אשר‬ ‫דברו בשמך אל מלכינו‪ ,‬שרינו ואבתינו ואל כל עם הארץ’ (דנ’ ט’ ‪ ;)6-5‬ובברית דמשק‪:‬‬ ‫‘ויתודו לפני אל‪ :‬חטאנו‪ ,‬רשענו גם אנחנו גם אבותינו’ (פרק א‪ ,‬שו’ ‪ 7;)230-229‬ובסרך‬ ‫היחד‪‘ :‬וכל העוברים בברית מודים אחריהם לאמור‪ :‬נעוינו‪ ,‬פשענו‪ ,‬חטאנו‪ ,‬הרשענו‪ ,‬אנו‬ ‫ואבותינו מלפנינו’ (טור א’‪ ,‬שו’ ‪ 8.)25-24‬המגמה להכיר בחטא מתמשך‪ ,‬חטא שהחל לפני‬ ‫דורות רבים‪ ,‬לפחות מתקופת המלוכה‪ ,‬אופיינית איפוא לימי בית־שני‪ ,‬בתקופה הפרסית‬ ‫ולאחריה בתקופה ההלניסטית והרומית‪.‬‬ ‫מגמה זו לצידוק הדין ניכרת בפרוטרוט בספר דברי הימים‪ ,‬במקומות ששכתב את‬ ‫המקורות שהיו לפניו‪ ,‬ספרי שמואל ומלכים‪ .‬בעל דברי הימים מרצה את תולדותיהם של‬ ‫המלכים החטאים‪ ,‬תוך שהוא משלב הערות משלו‪ ,‬הבאות להצדיק עליהם את הדין‪.‬‬ ‫כך למשל מקרהו של שאול‪ .‬ספר דברי הימים מוסיף על סיפור מותו של שאול‬ ‫בגלבוע‪‘ :‬וימת שאול במעלו אשר מעל בה’‪ 9,‬על דבר ה’ אשר לא שמר‪ ,‬וגם לשאול באוב‬

‫‪ 4‬ראו‪ :‬קימרון‪ ,‬מגילות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.213‬‬ ‫‪ 5‬השוו‪ :‬שמ’ ט’ ‪ ;27‬שמ”א כ”ד ‪ ;17‬יר’ י”ב ‪ .1‬בכתובים כאלה הסיטואציה המשפטית היא מטפורה‬ ‫ליחסים שבין הצדדים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 6‬ראו‪ :‬מ’ גרינברג‪‘ ,‬תפילה’‪ ,‬טור’ ‪ ,972-896‬בייחוד טור’ ‪ ;905-904‬ברטון‪ ,‬היסטוריוגרפיה‬ ‫ותאודיציה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,33-27‬בייחוד עמ’ ‪.31‬‬ ‫‪ 7‬ראו‪ :‬קימרון‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.21‬‬ ‫‪ 8‬ראו‪ :‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.213‬‬ ‫‪ 9‬זוהי לשון שגורה בספרים דברי הימים‪ ,‬עזרא ונחמיה‪ ,‬לציין בה חטא כלפי ה’; על כן אין למצוא‬ ‫בה רמז למעל בחרם עמלק‪ .‬בכך אני חולק על קלימי‪ ,‬דברי הימים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.206‬‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫*‪263‬‬

‫לדרוש‪ .‬ולא דרש בה’ וימיתהו ויסב את המלוכה לדוד בן ישי’ (דה”א י’ ‪ .)14-13‬הפסקה‬ ‫מנמקת מדוע עברה המלוכה משאול לדוד‪ ,‬תוך שהיא מתעלמת ממלכותו של אשבעל בן‬ ‫שאול (שמ”ב ב’ ‪ — 8‬ד’ ‪ 10.)12‬אך במישור הריאלי כבר השיג בעל דברי הימים מטרה זו‬ ‫כאשר ניסח מחדש את שמ”א ל”א ‪‘ ,6‬וימת שאול ושלשת בניו ונשא כליו‪ ,‬גם כל אנשיו‬ ‫ביום ההוא יחדיו’‪ ,‬וכתב במקום זאת‪‘ ,‬וימת שאול ושלשת בניו וכל ביתו יחדיו מתו’ (דה”א‬ ‫י’ ‪ .)6‬כל ביתו של שאול מתו‪ ,‬ועל כן באו כל ישראל להמליך את דוד (דה”א י”א ‪.)3-1‬‬ ‫ועם זאת ראה מחבר דברי הימים להצדיק את הדין על שאול וסיכם את חטאיו ברמזים‬ ‫אל המסופר בשמ”א י”ג ‪ ;14-8‬ט”ו; כ”ח ‪ .25-3‬כאן גם הוסיף המחבר נופך משלו‪‘ ,‬ולא‬ ‫דרש בה’’ — ההפך מן המסופר בשמ”א כ”ח ‪‘ ,6‬וישאל שאול בה’ ולא ענהו ה’‪ ,’...‬ולא בכדי‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫התקשו בכך מפרשים‪.‬‬ ‫כמעשהו בשאול כן עשה בעל דברי הימים במלכים אחרים‪ ,‬שעליהם כבר נאמר בספר‬ ‫מלכים ‘ויעש הרע בעיני ה’’‪ .‬מחבר זה רואה צורך להצדיק עליהם את הדין בצמידות‬ ‫לאסון שבא עליהם‪ .‬על רחבעם הוא עושה זאת בסיפור על מסעו של שישק; כאן מוסיף‬ ‫המחבר סיבה ‘כי מעלו בה’’ (דה”ב י”ב ‪ ,)2‬וכן המעשה ביהורם בן יהושפט‪ .‬מכבר היה‬ ‫ידוע שהוא ‘עשה הרע בעיני ה’’ (מל”ב ח’ ‪ ;18‬דה”ב כ”א ‪ ,)6‬אבל המחבר מוצא לנחוץ‬ ‫להוסיף נימוק על מרידת אדום והעיר לבנה‪‘ :‬כי עזב את ה’ אלהי אבותיו’ (דה”ב כ”א ‪,)10‬‬ ‫הוא הדין באחז מלך יהודה‪ ,‬שכבר נאמר עליו‪‘ :‬ולא עשה הישר בעיני ה’ אלהיו כדוד אביו’‬ ‫(מל”ב ט”ז ‪ ;2‬דה”ב כ”ח ‪ .)1‬גם כאן הוסיף בעל דברי הימים בשולי התבוסות שבאו עליו‬ ‫ועל עמו‪‘ :‬בעזבם את ה’ אלהי אבותם’ (דה”ב כ”ח ‪‘ ;)6‬כי הכניע ה’ את יהודה בעבור אחז‬ ‫מלך ישראל‪ ,‬כי הפריע ביהודה ומעול מעל בה’’ (שם‪ ,‬פס’ ‪.)19‬‬ ‫אותם יסודות של צידוק הדין נאמרו בספר דברי הימים לגבי מלכים שנחשבו‬ ‫מלכתחילה לצדיקים‪ ,‬אך בכל זאת נסתיימה מלכותם בכי רע‪ .‬המסע הארמי נגד יואש‬ ‫(מל”ב י”ב ‪ )19-18‬נומק בדה”ב כ”ד ‪‘ :24‬כי במצער אנשים באו חיל ארם‪ ,‬וה’ נתן בידם ַחיל‬ ‫לרֹב מאד‪ ,‬כי עזבו את ה’ אלהי אבותם‪ .’...‬על אמציה נאמר שעשה הישר בעיני ה’ (מל”ב‬ ‫י”ד ‪ ;3‬דה”ב כ”ה ‪ .)2‬אולם מלחמתו ותבוסתו לפני יואש מלך ישראל מוסברת בדה”ב כ”ה‬ ‫‪‘ ,20‬כי מהאלהים היא למען תתם ביד‪ ,‬כי דרשו את אלהי אדום’; ולרציחתו בידי קושרים‬ ‫מקדים מחבר זה‪‘ :‬ומעת אשר סר אמציהו מאחרי ה’’ (דה”ב כ”ה ‪ .)7‬עזיהו מלך יהודה אף‬ ‫הוא עשה הישר בעיני ה’ (דה”ב כ”ו ‪ ,)4‬אך את הצרעת שדבקה בו נזקק בעל דברי הימים‬ ‫להסביר‪‘ :‬ובחזקתו גבה לבו עד להשחית‪ ,‬וימעל בה’ אלהיו’ (שם‪ ,‬פס’ ‪.)16‬‬ ‫לצורך צידוק הדין מגייס מחבר דברי הימים גם את הנביאים‪ .‬כך מוכיח שמעיה הנביא‬ ‫את רחבעם (דה”ב י”ב ‪ ,)5‬חנני הרואה את אסא (דה”ב ט”ז ‪ ,)9-7‬אליעזר בן דודוהו את‬ ‫יהושפט (כ’ ‪ ,)37‬אליהו הנביא את יהורם במכתב (דה”ב כ”א ‪ ,)15-12‬זכריה בן יהוידע את‬ ‫יואש (דה”ב כ”ד ‪ )20‬ונביא אלמוני את אמציהו (דה”ב כ”ה ‪ .)15‬כל הנבואות הללו אינן‬ ‫נזכרות בספר מלכים‪ .‬ועוד זאת צריך להטעים לגבי תוכנן‪ :‬הן אינן בגדר התראות; אין בהן‬

‫‪ 1 0‬על אודותיה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬סוג’ין‪ ,‬אשבעל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.49-31‬‬ ‫‪ 11‬ראו פירוש רד”ק‪ ,‬ובעקבותיו מצודת דוד‪.‬‬

‫*‪264‬‬

‫אלכסנדר רופא‬

‫נוסח ‘אם לא תשמעו’‪ 12.‬התוכן שלהן הוא בדרך כלל צידוק הדין מראש; הוא נאמר גם‬ ‫בדיעבד‪ ,‬בנבואת אליעזר בן דודוהו ליהושפט‪ .‬אב טיפוס לתוכן זה של צידוק הדין נמצא‬ ‫בדברי שמעיה הנביא‪‘ :‬כה אמר ה’‪ ,‬אתם עזבתם אתי‪ ,‬ואף אני עזבתי אתכם ביד שישק’‬ ‫(דה”ב י”ב ‪ .)5‬ומתאימה לו גם תגובת הנמענים‪‘ :‬ויכנעו שרי ישראל והמלך ויאמרו‪ ,‬צדיק‬ ‫ה’’ (שם‪ ,‬פס’ ‪ .)6‬ניתן לסכם ולומר‪ ,‬שספר דברי הימים הוא הנציג המובהק של המגמה‬ ‫לצידוק הדין בכתיבה ההיסטורית העוסקת בעברו של עם ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫במצב דברים זה לא ייפלא שדברים מפורשים של צידוק הדין נכנסו באופן משני‬ ‫לכתובים עתיקים יחסית שבהם הוא לא נמצא מלכתחילה‪ .‬הדבר נעשה בדרך של תיקון‬ ‫הנוסח או על ידי תוספות פרשניות של מילים אחדות ואפילו של פסוקים שלמים‪.‬‬ ‫העיבודים הללו חלו מדרך הטבע בספרי ‘נביאים ראשונים’‪ ,‬המחזיקים מעיקרם את‬ ‫ההיסטוריוגרפיה העתיקה‪ ,‬מתקופת בית ראשון‪.‬‬ ‫במקום הראשון יש לתת את הדעת על שמ”א י”ד ‪:48-47‬‬ ‫ושאול לכד את המלוכה על ישראל וילחם סביב בכל איביו‪ ,‬במואב ובבני‬ ‫עמון ובאדום ובמלכי צובה ובפלשתים ובכל אשר יפנה ירשיע‪ .‬ויעש חיל ויך‬ ‫את עמלק ויצל את ישראל מיד שסהו‪.‬‬ ‫בידיעות שהובאו כאן יש בוודאי משום הגזמה‪ ,‬כגון המלחמה במלכי צובה (תה”ש‬ ‫מוסיף עליהם את בית רחוב)‪ .‬מצד שני יש יסוד של מקוריות בציון המלחמה בעמלק‪ :‬כאן‬ ‫היא לא נתפסה כחלק מהחשבון ההיסטורי עם עמלק מימי יציאת מצרים (כמו בסיפור‬ ‫המלחמה בפרק ט”ו)‪ ,‬אלא היא הצלה של ישראל מידי שוסיו‪ ,‬שודדי המדבר‪ .‬בכל אופן‪,‬‬ ‫מלכותו של שאול סוכמה כאן באופן חיובי‪ .‬לא רק ההצלה משוסי המדבר מבטאת זאת‪,‬‬ ‫אלא גם המילים “וילחם סביב בכל אויביו”; הרי זו הייתה המטלה שנתן שמואל לשאול‬ ‫כאשר משח אותו לנגיד‪‘ :‬אתה תעצר בעם ה’ ואתה תושיענו מיד אויביו מסביב’ (שמ”א י’‬ ‫‪[ 1‬לפי תה”ש])‪ .‬הווי אומר‪ :‬שאול הגשים את התפקיד שיועד לו מידי הנביא‪.‬‬ ‫בתוך הרצף הזה צורמת המילה “ירשיע”; האמנם רצה הכתוב לומר‪ ,‬שבכל מקום‬ ‫עשה שאול מעשי רשע? הרי זו המשמעות של הפועל רש”ע בבניין הפעיל‪ ,‬הבאה בחשבון‬ ‫בכתוב זה‪ 13.‬תה”ש מציע כנגד זאת ‪ ,εσωιζετο‬וכנראה גרס “יִ ּוָ ֵש ַע”‪ 14.‬אך נראה יותר‪,‬‬ ‫“יֹוש ַיע”‪ .‬ואכן השאלה האם‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫בהתאמה אל דברי שמואל במשיחת שאול (לעיל)‪ ,‬לגרוס‬ ‫המלך הראשון יושיע את ישראל חוזרת כחוט השני בסיפורים האלה; כך גם בשמ”א ט’‬

‫‪ 12‬בכך צריך לתקן את דברי שרה יפת שקיבלה מאליאס ביקרמן; ראו‪ :‬יפת‪ ,‬אמונות ודעות‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .166-154‬את ההתראה הנבואית אתה מוצא בספר דברי הימים רק בחיוויים כלליים כגון דה”ב כ”ד ‪;19‬‬ ‫ל”ו ‪ .15‬מאמריהם של הנביאים שנתחדשו בידי בעל דברי הימים אינם בגדר התראות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 13‬בפרוזה המקראית היא באה בספרים המאוחרים‪ :‬נחמ’ ט’ ‪ ;33‬דה”ב כ’ ‪ ;35‬כב ‪ ;3‬דנ’ ט’ ‪ ;5‬י”א‬ ‫‪ .32‬וכן ברית דמשק כ’ ‪ ;27-26‬סרך היחד א’ ‪ ;25‬ראו‪ :‬קימרון‪ ,‬מגילות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.213 ,21‬‬ ‫‪ 14‬כך עולה מן הוולגטה‪ ,‬הגורסת צורת פעיל‪.superabat :‬‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫*‪265‬‬

‫‪ ;16‬י’ ‪ 15.27‬מסתבר אפוא שהיה כאן מלכתחילה שבחו של שאול‪‘ ,‬ובכל אשר יפנה יושיע’‪,‬‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫הסב את הלשון לגנאי‪“ ,‬ירשיע”‪.‬‬ ‫וסופר בתקופה מאוחרת למדי ֵ‬ ‫במאמר קודם‪ ,‬שבו דנתי בכתוב זה‪ ,‬סברתי שהשינוי מ’יושיע’ ל’ירשיע’ נבע ממגמה‬ ‫להוסיף באופן כללי גנאי לשאול‪ ,‬המלך הרע‪ ,‬כנגד המלך הטוב דוד‪ ,‬שיבוא אחריו‪ 17.‬אולם‬ ‫אם נביא בחשבון את השימוש הנפוץ בפועל ‘הרשיע’ בווידויים שיש בהם צידוק הדין‪,‬‬ ‫נראה יותר לומר‪ ,‬שהגינוי הזה בנוסח המתוקן נועד להקדים ולהצדיק את הדין על שאול‬ ‫לאור הסיום הטרגי של מלכותו‪ .‬שאול הרשיע אפוא כמו מרשיעים אחרים‪ :‬אחזיה מלך‬ ‫ישראל (דה”ב כ’ ‪ )35‬ואחזיה מלך יהודה (דה”ב כ”ב ‪ .)3‬ועל כן נענש כמותם‪.‬‬ ‫תוספת של צידוק הדין נתונה בנוסח המסורה של שמ”א ב’ ‪ .22‬וזו לשון הכתוב‪:‬‬ ‫ועלי זקן מאד ושמע את כל אשר יעשון בניו לכל ישראל ואת אשר ישכבן את‬ ‫הנשים הצבאות פתח אהל מועד‪.‬‬ ‫החלק האחרון של הפסוק‪‘ ,‬ואת אשר ישכבן’ וגו’‪ ,‬איננו מיוצג בתה”ש ובכתב היד‬ ‫‪ 4Q51‬הוא מדרש שמואל‪ ,‬המכונה ‪ 18.4QSama‬על זמנו של כתוב זה מלמדת הגדרתו‬ ‫את מקדש שילה‪ .‬מקום זה מכונה בדרך כלל ‘בית ה’’ (שמ”א א’ ‪ ;24 ,7‬ג’ ‪ )15‬ו’היכל ה’’‬ ‫(שמ”א א’ ‪ ;9‬ג’ ‪ .)3‬רק בכתוב שלפנינו נקרא שמו ‘אהל מועד’; בכך מסגיר מחברו את‬ ‫מוצאו המאוחר‪ ,‬כאשר תפסו את מקדש שילה של ימי עלי כהמשך לאהל מועד שבמדבר‪,‬‬ ‫שהושכן בשילה עם כיבוש הארץ בימי יהושע (השוו מש’ זבחים י”ד‪ ,‬ו)‪.‬‬ ‫וראיה נוספת לאופיו המשני־המאוחר של הכתוב הנדון יש בספוראדיות של תכנו‪.‬‬ ‫הרי חטאם של בני עלי נזכר שוב ושוב בשמואל א ב’‪-‬ג’‪ .‬הם ‘נאצו‪ ...‬את מנחת ה’’ (ב’‬ ‫‪ ,)17‬בכך שהקדימו לקחת את חלקם בזבח עוד לפני שהקטירו לה’ את החלב (ב’ ‪.)16-15‬‬ ‫משמע שהכוהן ראה עצמו נכבד מאלוהיו‪ .‬ועל כך הוכיח עלי את בניו (ב’ ‪ ,)25‬ואיש‬ ‫אלוהים בא והוכיח את עלי (ב’ ‪ )30-29‬ושמואל שמע זאת בחזון הלילה (ג’ ‪ ;13‬גרוס ‘כי‬ ‫מקללים אלהים* בניו’‪ ,‬לפי תה”ש)‪ .‬רק בשמ”א ב’ ‪22‬ב‪ β‬מופיע חטא נוסף‪‘ ,‬את אשר‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫ישכבן’‪ .‬אין אפוא ספק שהוא איננו מעיקר הכתוב‪.‬‬ ‫ומכאן גם הסבר‪ ,‬מדוע נתחב לתוך הסיפור‪ .‬סופר מאוחר כלשהו לא חשב שהעבירה‬ ‫שעברו הכוהנים על דיני הזבח הייתה סיבה מספקת לעונש הנורא שבא אחר־כך‪ :‬מותם‬ ‫‪ 15‬וראו הדיון אצל מקרתי‪ ,‬תיקוני סופרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.236-234‬‬ ‫‪ 16‬וראו‪ :‬דרייבר‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .120‬הוא ביכר את הגרסה “יִ ּוָ ֵש ַע”‪ .‬זליגמן‪ ,‬לעומתו‪ ,‬העדיף “יושיע”;‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬זליגמן‪ ,‬גבורת האדם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,81-62‬בייחוד ‪ .73-72‬וכן ראו‪ :‬ברטל‪ ,‬מלכות שאול‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 70‬והערה ‪.147‬‬ ‫‘ירשיע’ הוא ביטוי מקובל בספרות המאוחרת; ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪.13‬‬ ‫‪ 17‬רופא‪ ,‬מסירת נוסח‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.45-44‬‬ ‫‪ 18‬קרוס‪ ,‬מגילת שמואל א‪-‬ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,39‬לוח ‪.III‬‬ ‫‪ 19‬ראו‪ :‬בודה‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬וכן דרייבר‪ ,‬שמואל‪ ,‬על אתר‪ .‬מעניין הדבר שמבקרים יהודיים פנו לדרך‬ ‫הפוכה‪ .‬גייגר סבר שהשמיטו השבעים את סוף פס’ ‪ 22‬משום כבודם של הכוהנים ‘לגול מעליהם את‬ ‫החרפה של מעשי נבלה כאלה’; ראו‪ :‬גייגר‪ ,‬המקרא ותרגומיו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .175‬סגל היסס בין הצעת גייגר‬ ‫לאפשרות שסוף פס’ ‪ 22‬מוסף‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬סגל‪ ,‬ספרי שמואל‪ .‬לטור־סיני היו טעמים משלו לקיים את נוה”מ;‬ ‫ראו‪ :‬טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו של מקרא ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.118‬‬

‫*‪266‬‬

‫אלכסנדר רופא‬

‫של חפני ופנחס‪ ,‬המכה הגדולה מאוד בעם ושביית ארון האלוהים בידי פלישתים‪ .‬לכן‬ ‫המציא סופר זה חטא חמור יותר‪ ,‬פריצות וניאוף‪ .‬ומעניין הדבר שהוא נוקט לשון כוהנית‪,‬‬ ‫כי ‘הצבאות אשר צבאו פתח אהל מועד’ הוזכרו על ידי התעודה הכוהנית (ס”כ‪ )P ,‬בשמות‬ ‫ל”ח ‪ .8‬אבל לגופו של דבר בעל התחיבה מרוחק מן המושגים הכוהניים‪ ,‬שהרי החטא‬ ‫בפולחן ה’ אינו נחשב בעיניו להצדיק בו את ההרג ואת החורבן‪.‬‬ ‫ועוד תחיבה לשם צידוק הדין מצויה במל”א כ”ב ‪ 20.18-17‬לשם הכרתה נעתיק כאן‬ ‫גם את הקונטקסט הנוכחי שלה‪ ,‬פס’ ‪20-15‬א‪:‬‬ ‫(‪ )15‬ויבוא אל המלך ויאמר המלך אליו‪ :‬מיכיהו‪ ,‬הנלך אל רמֹת גלעד למלחמה‬ ‫אם נחדל? ויאמר אליו‪ :‬עלה והצלח ונתן ה’ ביד המלך‪ )16( .‬ויאמר אליו המלך‪:‬‬ ‫משּבעך‪ ,‬אשר לא תדבר אלי רק אמת בשם ה’‪)17([ .‬‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫עד כמה פעמים אני‬ ‫ויאמר‪ :‬ראיתי את כל ישראל נפֹצים אל ההרים כצאן אשר אין להם רֹעה‪,‬‬ ‫ויאמר ה’‪ :‬לא אדֹנים לאלה ישובו איש לביתו בשלום‪ )18( .‬ויאמר מלך ישראל‬ ‫אל יהושפט‪ :‬הלוא אמרתי אליך לוא יתנבא עלי טוב כי אם רע‪ )19( ].‬ויאמר‪:‬‬ ‫לכן שמע דבר ה’‪ ,‬ראיתי את ה’ יֹשב על כסאו וכל צבא השמים עֹמד עליו‬ ‫מימינו ומשמאלו‪ )20( .‬ויאמר ה’‪ :‬מי יפתה את אחאב ויעל ויפל ברמת גלעד?‬ ‫והנה ברור הדבר שפס’ ‪ 19‬מתקשר במישרין אל פס’ ‪ .16‬אחאב אמר למיכיהו (פס’‬ ‫‪‘ :)16‬עד כמה פעמים אני משביעך‪ ,‬אשר לא תדבר אלי‪ ,‬רק אמת בשם ה’’‪ ,‬ומיכיהו השיב‬ ‫לו (פס’ ‪‘ :)19‬לכן שמע דבר ה’’‪ .‬לעומת זאת אין פס’ ‪ 19‬מתקשר כלל אל פס’ ‪‘ ,18‬הלא‬ ‫אמרתי לך לא יתנבא אלי טוב כי אם רע’‪ .‬החספוס הזה גרם לשינוי גרסה‪ ,‬כנראה בטקסט‬ ‫עברי ששימש מצע לתרגום השבעים‪‘ :‬לא כן‪ ,‬לא אני‪ ,‬שמע דבר ה’’‪ .‬מכאן כבר עולה ספק‬ ‫שמא פס’ ‪ 18-17‬אינם מעיקר הסיפור‪.‬‬ ‫ספק זה מתגבר כאשר אנו מוצאים כאן את התופעה שהוכרה מכבר‪ ,‬הידועה בשם‬ ‫‘חזרה מקשרת’‪ .‬היא מתרחשת לעתים כאשר סופר מאוחר מבקש לשלב את דבריו לתוך‬ ‫סיפור קיים‪ .‬הוא משתדל להתקשר אל ההרצאה שלפניו על ידי זה שהוא חוזר בשינויים‬ ‫קלים על לשון הכתוב שלפני התחיבה שתחב או לאחריה‪ 21.‬בכתוב שלפנינו אנו מוצאים‪:‬‬ ‫פס’ ‪ :17‬ויאמר‪ ,‬ראיתי את כל ישראל‪...‬‬ ‫פס’ ‪ :19‬ויאמר‪ ...‬ראיתי את ה’‪...‬‬ ‫אמנם הדמיון בין שתי הפתיחות אינו רב‪ ,‬אך הוא קיים‪ .‬מה שמתבקש הוא להסביר‬ ‫מה גרם לתחיבתם של פס’ ‪.18-17‬‬ ‫הקריאה בסיפור מיכיהו בן ימלה (מל”א כ”ב ‪ ,)28-1‬בהתעלמות מפס’ ‪ ,18-17‬מעוררת‬ ‫את השאלה‪ ,‬מדוע גוזר ה’ על אחאב ‘ויעל ויפֹל ברמֹת גלעד’ (פס’ ‪ .)20‬גדולה מזו‪ ,‬כחלק‬

‫‪ 20‬דיון תמציתי יותר נתתי בספרי‪ :‬רופא‪ ,‬סיפורי הנביאים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.123-120‬‬ ‫‪ 21‬ראו‪ :‬זליגמן‪ ,‬סיפורת‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;60-53‬רופא‪ ,‬ספר בלעם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;55‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬אלישע בדותן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;12-3‬מ’‬ ‫ענבר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .218-211‬בכל אלה תימצא ספרות נוספת‪.‬‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫*‪267‬‬

‫מן הגזירה הזאת מחפש ה’ איזו תחבולה ‘מי יפתה את אחאב’ (שם)‪ .‬התפקיד המיוחס לה’‬ ‫יש בו משהו מן השטניות‪ 22.‬דבר זה היה בו כדי לקומם קוראים מן הדורות האחרונים‪ .‬הם‬ ‫לא הסתפקו בדברי הגנאי לאחאב שבפרקים הקודמים (כגון כ”א ‪ ,)26-25‬ומה גם שסופר‬ ‫עליו שעשה תשובה (שם‪ ,‬פס’ ‪ .)27‬צריך היה להצדיק את הדין על אחאב כאן ועכשיו‪ .‬זה‬ ‫נעשה בפס’ ‪:17‬‬ ‫ויאמר‪ :‬ראיתי את כל ישראל נפצים אל ההרים כצאן אשר אין להם רֹעה‬ ‫ויאמר ה’‪ :‬לא אדֹנים לאלה ישובו איש לביתו בשלום‪.‬‬ ‫בעל התחיבה נטל האשמה שגרתית המצויה בספרי הנבואה‪ :‬הרועים מועלים‬ ‫בתפקידם והצאן מתפזר‪ 23.‬וכנגד מצב זה פוסק ה’‪ :‬לא האדונים של אלה‪ 24‬ישובו איש‬ ‫לביתו בשלום‪ .‬בכך ניתן הסבר הולם גם לגזירה שנגזרה על אחאב גם לפיתוי ביוזמת ה’‪.‬‬ ‫עוד ניתן להכיר שלשון התחיבה בנויה מאלמנטים שנמצאו כבר בסיפור‪ .‬במשפט‬ ‫‘לא אדֹנים לאלה ישובו איש לביתו’ (פס’ ‪ )17‬מהדהדים חילופי הדברים האחרונים בין‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫אחאב למיכיהו‪...‘ :‬עד שובי בשלום‪ ...‬אם שוב תשוב בשלום לא דבר ה’ בי’ (פס’ ‪.)28-27‬‬ ‫והמאמר של אחאב ליהושפט‪‘ :‬הלא אמרתי אליך לוא יתנבא עלי טוב כי אם רע’ (פס’‬ ‫‪ )18‬מצטט באמת את שאמר אחאב ליהושפט (פס’ ‪ ,)8‬כשעלתה לראשונה האפשרות‬ ‫לדרוש את דבר ה’ מפי מיכיהו בן ימלה‪ .‬אכן‪ ,‬המאמר שבפס’ ‪ 18‬איננו מוסיף דבר מבחינה‬ ‫עניינית‪ ,‬אבל הוא נחוץ מן הצד הרטורי‪ :‬דברו של מיכיהו‪ ,‬בפס’ ‪‘ ,19‬לכן שמע דבר ה’’‪,‬‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫צריך לבוא כתשובה לאיזה מאמר מנוגד מצד אחאב‪.‬‬ ‫המאמר ‘לא אדנים לאלה ישובו איש לביתו בשלום’ נועד אפוא להצדיק על אחאב‬ ‫את דין נפילתו ברמות גלעד‪ .‬מעניין הדבר כיצד קלט אותו מחבר דברי הימים ועשה אותו‬ ‫אבן יסוד לתאודיצאה שלימה‪ ,‬שכר לטובים ועונש לרעים‪ .‬וכך כתב בשולי הסיפור‪‘ :‬וישב‬ ‫יהושפט מלך יהודה אל ביתו בשלום לירושלים’ (דה”ב י”ט ‪ .)1‬אחאב‪ ,‬הרועה הרע‪ ,‬לא שב‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫לביתו בשלום; יהושפט הרועה הטוב שב לביתו בשלום‪ .‬מידת הצדק פועלת בשלמות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 22‬השוו‪ :‬שמ”ב כ”ד ‪ 1‬אל דה”א כ”א ‪ .1‬בראשון‪ ,‬ה’ מסית את דוד למנות את העם; בשני‪ ,‬יוחסה‬ ‫ההסתה לשטן‪ .‬ברור הדבר שדורות אחרונים ביקשו לסלק מהאל הצדיק קווי אופי ‘שטניים’; ואם אי‬ ‫אפשר לסלק אותם‪ ,‬כמו בדה”א כ”א‪ ,‬אז לפחות להסביר אותם‪ ,‬כמו בפס’ ‪ 17‬בפרקנו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 23‬השוו‪ :‬יר’ י’ ‪ ;21‬כ”ג ‪ ;4-1‬יחז’ ל”ד ‪ ;16-1‬זכ’ י”א ‪ ;17-4‬י”ג ‪ .7‬כנגד זה מדמים את המלך‬ ‫האידיאלי לרועה טוב‪ :‬שמ”ב ה’ ‪ ;2‬תה’ ע”ח ‪.72-70‬‬ ‫‪ 24‬כך נראה לי לפרש‪ .‬הלמ”ד של ‘לאלה’ היא למ”ד השייכות‪ ,‬ויש לנקדה בשוָ א‪ .‬למבנה התחבירי‬ ‫של המשפט‪ ,‬השוו במ’ ט”ז ‪...‘ :15‬לא חמור אחד מהם נשאתי’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 25‬בנוה”מ ‘עד בֹאי בשלום’‪ ,‬אך תה”ש כאן ודה”ב י”ח ‘עד שובי בשלום’‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 26‬להבחנת רבדים במל”א כ”ב הקדישה וייפרט מאמר מפורט‪ ,‬אולם לא החזיקה את פס’ ‪18-17‬‬ ‫כמשניים בתוך ההקשר‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬וייפרט‪ ,‬אחאב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,479-457‬ואילו פריץ הגדיר את פס’ ‪ 17‬כ’דברו המרכזי‬ ‫של מיכיהו’; ראו‪ :‬פריץ‪ ,‬מלכים א‪-‬ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.220‬‬ ‫‪ 27‬ראו‪ :‬ש’ יפת‪ ,‬תאודיציה באסופה הנזכרת לעיל‪ .‬ואולם אין לשכוח את המחיר‪‘ :‬בספר דברי‬ ‫הימים נתעוות הסיפור ההיסטורי‪ ,‬משום ששועבד לדוגמות של המחבר ונעשה כלי להבעת השקפותיו;‬ ‫ההיסטוריה הפכה לפרדיגמה’ — רופא‪ ,‬מבוא‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .186‬ועדיין כדאי לזכור את דברי ולהאוזן‪ ,‬אקדמות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.210-203‬‬

‫*‪268‬‬

‫אלכסנדר רופא‬

‫בסיכומו של דבר‪ ,‬המגמה להצדיק את הדין על החוטאים ועל הרשעים מבני הדורות‬ ‫הקודמים‪‘ ,‬אבותינו’‪ ,‬אופיינית לספרות המאוחרת בכלל ולספר דברי־הימים בפרט‪ ,‬שהרי‬ ‫הוא מרצה את תולדות ישראל ממות שאול ועד עליית כורש; והוא מרצה אותן מנקודת‬ ‫השקפתו שנתגבשה בסוף התקופה הפרסית‪ .‬צידוק דין כזה חדר במקצת גם לספרות‬ ‫ההיסטורית היותר עתיקה‪ ,‬לספרי שמואל ומלכים‪ .‬חלו בהם תיקוני נוסח קלים‪ ,‬הערות‬ ‫קצרות ותוספות נכבדות יותר‪ .‬בסך הכול‪ ,‬בהתחשב במגמה השלטת בדורות האחרונים‪,‬‬ ‫אפשר להתפלא שלא נמצא לנו שלל גדול יותר של עיבודים במגמה של צידוק הדין!‬ ‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫בודה‪ ,‬שמואל = ‪K. Budde, Die Buecher Samuel erklaert (Kurzer Hand-Commentar‬‬ ‫‪zum Alten Testament), Tübingen 1902‬‬

‫ברגמן‪ ,‬ליבניץ = ש”ה ברגמן‪” ,‬ליבניץ‪ ,‬גוטפריד וילהלם“‪ ,‬האנציקלופדיה העברית כ”א‬ ‫(תשכ”ט)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪688-682‬‬ ‫ברטון‪ ,‬היסטוריוגרפיה ותאודיציה = ‪J. Barton, “Historiography and Theodicy in the‬‬ ‫‪Old Testament”, Reflection and Refraction (Fs. A.G. Auld: Supplement to‬‬ ‫‪Vetus Testamentum 113), Leiden 2007, pp. 27-33‬‬

‫ברטל‪ ,‬מלכות שאול = א’ ברטל‪ ,‬מלכות שאול‪ :‬המלך הראשון בישראל‪ ,‬תל־אביב תשמ”ב‬ ‫גייגר‪ ,‬המקרא ותרגומיו = א’ גייגר‪ ,‬המקרא ותרגומיו (‪ ,)1857‬תרגם י”ל ברוך‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תש”ט‬ ‫גרינברג‪ ,‬תפילה = מ’ גרינברג‪”,‬תפילה“‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה מקראית ח’ (תשמ”ב)‪,‬עמ’ ‪972-896‬‬ ‫דרייבר‪ ,‬שמואל = ‪S.R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and Topography of the‬‬ ‫‪Books of Samuel, 2nd ed.; Oxford 1913‬‬ ‫וייפרט‪ ,‬אחאב = ‪H. Weippert, “Ahab el campeador? Redaktionsgeschichtliche‬‬ ‫‪Untersuchungen zu 1 Kön 22”, Biblica 69 (1988), pp. 457-479‬‬

‫וינריב‪ ,‬תאודיציה = א’ וינריב‪“ ,‬תאודיציה”‪ ,‬אנציקלופדיה עברית ל”ב (תשמ”א)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪446‬‬ ‫ולהאוזן‪ ,‬אקדמות = ‪J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel‬‬ ‫‪(1878), Engl. Transl. by Menzies and Black, Repr. New York 1957‬‬

‫זליגמן‪ ,‬גבורת האדם = י”א זליגמן‪“,‬גבורת האדם וישועת האל‪ :‬הסיבתיות הכפולה‬ ‫בחשיבה ההיסטורית של המקרא“ (‪ ,)1963‬בתוך‪ :‬מחקרים בספרות המקרא‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תשנ”ו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪81-62‬‬ ‫זליגמן‪ ,‬סיפורת = י”א זליגמן‪“ ,‬סיפורת עברית והיסטוריוגרפיה מקראית”‪ ,‬בתוך‪ :‬מחקרים‬ ‫בספרות המקרא‪ ,‬ירושלים תשנ”ב‪ ,‬תשנ”ו‪ ,2‬עמ’ ‪61-46‬‬ ‫טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו של מקרא ב = נ’’ה טור־סיני‪ ,‬פשוטו של מקרא כרך שני‪ ,‬ירושלים‬ ‫תשכ’’ח‬ ‫יפת‪ ,‬אמונות ודעות = ש’ יפת ‪ ,‬אמונות ודעות בספר דברי הימים‪ ,‬ירושלים תשל”ז‬ ‫יפת‪ ,‬תאודיציה = ‪S. Japhet, “Theodicy in Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles”, in: eds.‬‬ ‫& ‪A. Laato and J. De Moore, Theodicy in the World of the Bible, Leiden‬‬ ‫‪Boston 2003, pp. 429-469‬‬

‫צידוק הדין — פעולות עיבוד בספרי שמואל ומלכים‬

‫*‪269‬‬

‫לאאטו ודי מור‪ ,‬תאודיציה = ‪A. Laato – J.C. de Moor (eds.), Theodicy in the World‬‬ ‫‪of the Bible, Leiden & Boston 2003‬‬

‫מדרש ספרי לדברים = מדרש ספרי לדברים‪ ,‬מהדורת א”א פינקלשטין‪ ,‬ברלין ת”ש‪ ,‬ד”צ‬ ‫ניו־יורק תשכ”ט‪ ,‬פיסקא שז‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪346‬‬ ‫מקרתי‪ ,‬תיקוני סופרים = ‪C. McCarthy, The Tiqqune Sopherim and Other‬‬ ‫‪Theological Corrections in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament (Orbis‬‬ ‫‪Biblicus et Orientalis 36), Freiburg – Goettingen 1981‬‬

‫סגל‪ ,‬ספרי שמואל = משה צבי סגל‪ ,‬ספרי שמואל‪ ,‬ירושלים תשמ’’ז‬ ‫סוג’ין‪ ,‬אשבעל = ‪J.A. Soggin, “The Reign of Eshba’al, Son of Saul” (1965), in:‬‬ ‫‪J.A. Soggin, Old Testament and Oriental Studies (Biblica et Orientalia 29),‬‬ ‫‪Rome 1975, pp. 31-49‬‬

‫ענבר‪ ,‬חזרה מקשרת = מ’ ענבר‪”,‬חזרה מקשרת במקרא ובמארי או‪ :‬בשבח ביקורת‬ ‫המקרא”‪ ,‬בית מקרא מ”ב (תשנ”ז)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪218–211‬‬ ‫פרטו‪ ,‬בן־סירא = )‪G.L. Prato, Il problema della teodicea in Ben Sira (Anal. Bib. 65‬‬ ‫‪Roma: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum, 1975‬‬ ‫פריץ‪ ,‬מלכים א‪-‬ב = ‪V. Fritz, 1 & 2 Kings: A Continental Commentary (1998),‬‬ ‫‪Engl. Transl.: Minneapolis MN 2003‬‬

‫קימרון‪ ,‬מגילות = מגילות מדבר יהודה‪ :‬החיבורים העבריים‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ירושלים תש”ע‬ ‫קלימי‪ ,‬דברי הימים = י’ קלימי‪ ,‬ספר דברי הימים‪ :‬כתיבה היסטורית ואמצעים ספרותיים‪,‬‬ ‫ירושלים תש”ס‬ ‫קרוס‪ ,‬מגלת שמואל א‪-‬ב = ‪F.M. Cross et.al., Qumran Cave 4.XII: 1-2 Samuel (DJD‬‬ ‫‪XVII), Oxford 2005, pp. 39, pl. III‬‬ ‫קרנשאו‪ ,‬תאודיציה = ‪J.L. Crenshaw, “The Problem of Theodicy in Sirach: On‬‬ ‫‪Human Bondage”, Journal of Biblical Literature 94 (1975), pp. 47-64‬‬

‫רופא‪ ,‬אלישע בדותן = א’ רופא‪” ,‬אלישע בדותן (מל”ב ו’‪ ,‬ח‪-‬כג)‪ :‬ביקורת ספרותית־‬ ‫היסטורית בסיוע מן המדרש“‪ ,‬בית מקרא מ’ (תשנ”ה)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪12-3‬‬ ‫רופא‪ ,‬בלעם = א’ רופא‪ ,‬ספר בלעם (במדבר כ”ב‪ ,‬ב — כ”ד‪ ,‬כב)‪ :‬עיון בשיטות הביקורת‬ ‫ובתולדות הספרות והאמונה במקרא‪ ,‬ירושלים תש”ם‬ ‫רופא‪ ,‬מבוא = א’ רופא‪ ,‬מבוא לספרות המקרא‪ ,‬ירושלים תשס”ו‪ ,‬תשס”ז‬ ‫רופא‪ ,‬מסירת נוסח = א’ רופא‪”,‬מסירת נוסח המקרא לאור תולדות האמונה הישראלית‪:‬‬ ‫תיקונים משום כבודם של גדולי האומה ומשום גנותם של רשעים“‪ ,‬טקסטוס כ”ה‬ ‫(תשע”א)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪48-37‬‬ ‫רופא‪ ,‬סיפורי נביאים = א’ רופא‪ ,‬סיפורי הנביאים‪ ,‬הסיפורת הנבואית במקרא — סוגיה‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫ותולדותיה‪ ,‬ירושלים תשמ”ג‪ ,‬תשמ”ו‬

‫*‪270‬‬

‫אלכסנדר רופא‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪271‬‬

‫“תועבת מצרים”‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬ ‫נילי שופק‬

‫‪1‬‬

‫המונח “תועבה”‪ ,‬שמובנו הכללי הוא דבר בזוי ומאוס והמציין מעשה או התנהגות‬ ‫מסוכנים החורגים מן הנורמה והסדר המקובל‪ ,‬רווח בלשון המקרא‪ 2.‬הוא מופיע ‪ 116‬פעם‬ ‫בסוגות ספרותיות מגוונות — חוק‪ ,‬חכמה‪ ,‬נבואה והיסטוריוגרפיה‪ .‬על רקע זה בולטת‬ ‫העובדה שאזכוריו בסיפור המקראי מוגבלים לשלושה קטעים בלבד (בר’ מג ‪ ;32‬מו ‪;34‬‬ ‫שמ’ ח ‪ ,)22‬שבהם הוא בא תמיד בצירוף “תועבת מצרים”‪ .‬הדעות חלוקות לגבי משמעות‬ ‫ביטוי זה ופירושים מפירושים שונים ניתנו לו‪ .‬אולם אף אחד מפירושים אלה לא נשען‬ ‫על המחקרים הרבים יחסית שראו אור לאחרונה‪ ,‬העוסקים במשמעות המונח המקביל‬ ‫במצרית — ‪ — BWT‬ובשימושיו‪ .‬מטרת מאמר זה היא לשפוך אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‪:‬‬ ‫לנסות לפענח את זהות הפעולה או העצם המכונה בלשון המחבר המקראי “תועבת‬ ‫מצרים” לאור השוואה עם ממצאים חדשים אלו‪ .‬לא פחות חשוב לענייננו הוא המידע‬ ‫המובא במקורות המצריים על מנהגי האכילה של המצרים הקדמונים ויחסם לבהמות‬ ‫הבית‪ ,‬שגם הוא יידון במאמרנו‪.‬‬ ‫הבסיס להשוואה זו הוא‪ ,‬כמובן‪ ,‬השימוש ב”מצרים” כסומך בביטוי שבו עסקינן‬ ‫המלמד‪ ,‬קרוב לוודאי‪ ,‬שהמחבר המקראי היה מודע לעובדה שהמושג “תועבה” קיים‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫בתרבות של השכנה הוותיקה מדרום‪.‬‬ ‫יתר על כן‪ ,‬כפי שהראיתי במאמרים קודמים‪ ,‬בסיפורי יוסף ושעבוד מצרים‪ ,‬שבהם‬ ‫נזכר הביטוי‪ ,‬משובצים רישומים מצריים רבים‪ 4.‬יש אפוא מקום להניח שהבהרת המאחז‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫בחיים של המושג המצרי המקביל — ‪ — BWT‬תתרום להבהרת המונח בעברית‪.‬‬

‫‪ .1‬לזכרו של אביגדור היקר‪ ,‬ידיד אמת שהלך בטרם עת‪.‬‬

‫‪ .2‬השוו‪( “abomination” BDB :‬עמ’ ‪ ;)1072‬קוהלר־באומגרטנר‪ ,‬לקסיקון‪“Abscheu, Greuel” ,‬‬

‫(כרך ‪ ,4‬עמ’ ‪.)1568‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬אולם אין ללמוד מכאן שהמונח “תועבה” בלשון המקרא נלקח ממצרית או הושפע מן השימוש‬ ‫במצרית‪ .‬המלה באה גם בפיניקית ומקבילות לה נמצאות גם בשומרית ובאכדית ועוד‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬קליין־צפתי‪,‬‬ ‫תועבה‪ ,‬ולהלן‪ ,‬הערה ‪.54‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬ראו‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬שופק‪ ,‬עיון מחודש; הנ”ל‪ ,‬החומר המצרי; הנ”ל‪ ,‬סיפור יוסף‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .5‬הגישה המוצגת במאמר זה מנוגדת לזו של פיקט (הפירוש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)108-99‬הסבור שהביטוי‬ ‫“תועבת מצרים” הוא בעל אוריינטציה ישראלית ואיננו משקף פרספקטיבה מצרית‪ .‬לשיטתו הדגש הוא‬

‫*‪271‬‬

‫*‪272‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫נפתח בדיון בפרשנות המקראית‪ ,‬מכאן נעבור לסקירת החומר המצרי הרלוונטי‬ ‫ולהשוואתו עם החומר המקראי‪ ,‬ולבסוף תובאנה המסקנות והתוצאות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬תועבה‪ /‬תועבת מצרים במקרא‬ ‫הצירוף “תועבת מצרים” יש לו זיקה לאזכורים אחרים של המונח “תועבה” במקרא‬ ‫שלעתים מכונים במחקר “חוקי‪ /‬או כללי התועבה”‪ .‬תפוצת המילה מקיפה הן טקסטים‬ ‫הנתפשים כשייכים לרובד הקדום במקרא‪ ,‬שעליהם נמנים אלו שהם נושא דיוננו (בר’‬ ‫מג‪ ,‬מו ושמ’ ח) והן טקסטים מאוחרים (כגון יחזקאל‪ ,‬עזרא)‪ .‬היא מרבה להופיע בייחוד‬ ‫בספרים‪ :‬דברים (‪ 16‬פ')‪ ,‬משלי (‪ 21‬פ')‪ ,‬יחזקאל (‪ 43‬פ') וירמיה (‪ 6‬פ')‪ .‬ההצעות השונות‬ ‫שהובאו להבהרת האטימולוגיה של “תועבה”‪ ,‬ביניהן ניסיון לגוזרה מן הפועל “טהר”‬ ‫במצרית (ועב)‪ 6,‬מוטלות בספק‪ ,‬לפיכך יש לעמוד על משמעות המילה בעיקר לאור ניתוח‬ ‫פראדיגמטי־סינטגמטי‪.‬‬ ‫המושאים של תועבה מגוונים ושייכים למישורי חיים שונים‪ :‬ענייני מסחר ואכילה‪,‬‬ ‫עבודת אלילים‪ ,‬טקסי פולחן‪ ,‬התנהגות חברתית‪ ,‬עבירות מין ועוד‪ .‬התכונה המחברת בין‬ ‫הפעולות או העצמים שמוגדרים כתועבה היא פגיעה בסדר המקובל בין אם הוא סדר‬ ‫חברתי־מוסרי‪ ,‬או סדר דתי־פולחני‪ ,‬והתייחסותם לעיתים קרובות לספירה של טומאה‪.‬‬ ‫המהות הזו של תועבה משתקפת במילים הבאות עמה בתקבולת ניגודית (“רצון”‪ ,‬שמציין‬ ‫התנהגות מקובלת וראויה ו”טוהר” המתייחס בדרך כלל לטוהרה פולחנית) או בתקבולת‬ ‫נרדפת (“גילולים”‪“ ,‬שקוצים”‪" ,‬זמה” שעניינן אי טהרה‪ ,‬חרפה‪ ,‬תיעוב וחטא)‪ ,‬או מונחים‬ ‫הבאים עמה באיחוי או נמצאים בקרבתה — “תבל”‪” ,‬נידה” ועוד‪ 7.‬המילה “תועבה” מרבה‬ ‫לבוא במבנה של סמיכות ומלבד “תועבת מצרים”‪ ,‬שבו עסקינן‪ ,‬הצירוף הנפוץ ביותר‬ ‫הוא עם כינוי האלוהות‪“ :‬תועבת ה’” (מש’ ‪ 12‬פ’)‪“ ,‬תועבת ה’ אלהיך” (דב’ ‪ 8‬פ’)‪ 8.‬מלבד‬ ‫הצירוף עם הכינוי האלוהי חשובות לענייננו גם הסמיכויות “תועבת הגויים” (מל”א יד‬ ‫‪ ;24‬דה”ב לו ‪ )14‬ו”מלכם תועבת בני עמון” (מל”ב כג ‪ ,)13‬שהן דומות מבחינה תוכנית־‬

‫בשוני שבין מנהגי העברים למנהגי המצרים ובאי קבלתם של העברים למסגרת המצרית ואין להסבירו‬ ‫לאור הרקע המצרי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .6‬לפי המקבלים פירוש זה ייתכן שהמשמעות המקורית של תועבה — דבר טהור וקדוש בעיני‬ ‫המצרים‪ ,‬השתמרה בשלושת הקטעים הנדונים‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬יהודה‪ ,‬לשון החומש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;90‬גבריהו‪ ,‬תועבות‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .1‬לדעת הומברט המילה “תועבה” נגזרת מן השורש יעב‪ /‬עיב בערבית שקשור בפגם‪ ,‬בפשע‪ ,‬ומבטאת‬ ‫את הרעיון של “משהו מקולקל‪ ,‬מלוכלך‪ ,‬מזוהם אשר מעורר דחייה ופחד וכתוצאה מכך רגש של אשמה”‬ ‫(הומברט‪ ,‬אטימולוגיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)159-158‬לדיון בהצעות השונות ראו‪ :‬הומברט‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬וגרסטנברגר‪ ,‬תעב‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪.1429–1428‬‬ ‫‪“ .7‬תועבה” באה בתקבולת ניגודית עם‪“ :‬רצון” (מש’ יא ‪ ;1‬יב ‪ ;22‬טו ‪ ;8‬טז ‪“ ;)13-12‬טהור” (שם‬ ‫טו ‪ ;)26‬בתקבולת נרדפת עם‪“ :‬זמה” (שם כד ‪“ ;)9‬שקוצים” (יר’ טז ‪ ;18‬יח’ ה ‪ 11‬ועוד); “גילולים” (יח’ יד‬ ‫‪ .)6‬היא באה בסמוך או באיחוי עם המונחים הבאים‪“ :‬זמה” (ויק’ כ ‪ ;13‬מש’ כא ‪ ;27‬יח טז ‪ ;)58 ,43‬שקוץ‬ ‫(יר’ טז ‪ ;18‬יח’ ה ‪ ;11‬יא ‪“ ;)21 ,18‬תבל” (וי’ יח ‪ ;23‬כ ‪“ ;)12‬גלולים” (יח’ ו ‪ ;9‬טז ‪“ ;)36‬נידה” (עזרא ט ‪11‬‬ ‫ועוד); השוו‪ :‬גרסטנברגר‪ ,‬תעב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.1429‬‬ ‫‪ .8‬ראו להלן ‪ ,3‬א‪.‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪273‬‬

‫עניינית ל”תועבת מצרים”‪ .‬ההשוואה עימן מלמדת לכאורה שתועבת מצרים מתייחסת‬ ‫למנהג מצרי פגאני כלשהו שהעברים מתעבים‪ ,‬שונאים‪ .‬אולם צירופים אחרים כגון‬ ‫“תועבת צדיקים”(מש’ כט ‪ ,)27‬או “תועבת כסילים” (מש’ יג ‪ ,)19‬מורים על אפשרות‬ ‫הפוכה והיא שהמצרים מתעבים מנהג או טקס פולחני של העברים‪ .‬נראה אפוא שלא די‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫בניתוח פראדיגמטי של המונח “תועבה” כדי לשפוך אור על הצירוף “תועבת מצרים”‪.‬‬ ‫נפנה אפוא לעיון בשלושת הקטעים שבהם מופיע הצירוף “תועבת מצרים” ולפירושים‬ ‫השונים שהוצעו לו במחקר‪:‬‬ ‫בראשית מג ‪ :)J( 32‬בפגישת יוסף עם אחיו נאמר כי הוא פקד לשים להם‬ ‫“לחם”‪ .‬בהמשך נאמר שהפקודה בוצעה וכי יוסף אכל לבדו‪ ,‬האחים אכלו‬ ‫לבדם‪ ,‬והמצרים אכלו גם הם לבדם והטעם לכך‪“ :‬כי לא יוכלון המצרים לאכל‬ ‫את העברים לחם‪ ,‬כי תועבה היא למצרים”‪.‬‬ ‫גרסאות נוסח‪ :‬תרגום הע’ מוסיף “כי תועבה למצרים כל רועה צאן”‪ ,‬כנראה‬ ‫בהשפעת מו ‪.34‬‬ ‫תרגום אונקלוס מביא את הסיבה לאי אכילת המצרים עם העברים‪“ :‬הרי‬ ‫העברים אוכלים את הבהמות שהמצרים סוגדים להן”‪.‬‬ ‫בראשית מו ‪ :)J( 34‬יוסף מייעץ לאחיו להציג את עצמם לפני פרעה לא כרועי‬ ‫צאן אלא כ”אנשי מקנה”‪ ,‬כלומר מגדלים לא רק צאן וכבשים אלא גם את יתר‬ ‫בהמות הבית‪ ,‬והטעם כפול‪“ :‬בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן כי תועבת מצרים כל‬ ‫רועה צאן”‪.‬‬ ‫שמות ח ‪ :)J( 22‬משה מבקש את פרעה להתיר לבני ישראל לצאת את גבולות‬ ‫מצרים וללכת למדבר כדי לזבוח לאלוהיהם‪ .‬לתשובת פרעה כי יזבחו בתוך‬ ‫מצרים הוא עונה במלים אלו‪“ :‬לא נכון לעשות כן כי תועבת מצרים נזבח לה’‬ ‫אלהינו‪ .‬הן נזבח את תועבת מצרים ולא יסקלנו?”‬ ‫בע’‪“ :‬ולא ניסקל?”‬ ‫עיקר הפירושים שהועלו במחקר לקטעים אלו‪:‬‬ ‫את היבדלותם של המצרים מן העברים בשעת הארוחה בבראשית מג יש המסבירים‬ ‫על רקע מנהגי הטהרה הקיצוניים שהיו נהוגים במצרים והמתוארים בהרחבה על ידי‬ ‫הסופרים היווניים‪ 10.‬הואיל ומן המקורות המצריים ידוע שמנהגי טהרה אלו נשמרו בעיקר‬

‫‪ .9‬שתי האפשרויות מובאות על ידי רש”י‪ ,‬על אתר; קאסוטו‪ ,‬שמות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;73‬וינברג‪ ,‬תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ .237‬באפשרות הראשונה‪ ,‬שתועבה היא כינוי בפי העברים לעבודת אלילים (השוו‪“ :‬מלכם תועבת בני‬ ‫עמון”)‪ ,‬אוחזים בעיקר הפרשנים היהודים — שד”ל‪ ,‬על אתר; כהנא‪ ,‬שמות‪ ,‬על אתר; יעקוב‪ ,‬שמות‪ ,‬על‬ ‫אתר‪ .‬הומברט (תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)220‬ל’אור (תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )485‬מילגרום (תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)269‬צ’יילדס (שמות‪,‬‬ ‫על אתר) וחכם (שמות‪ ,‬על אתר) מקבלים את האפשרות השנייה‪ ,‬כלומר‪ ,‬הם סבורים ש”תועבת מצרים”‬ ‫הם מנהגי הפולחן הישראלים שהמצרים מתעבים אותם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .10‬פיגר והודל־הונס‪ ,‬הכניסה למצרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;253-247‬גרסטנברגר‪ ,‬תעב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;1430–1429‬בדומה‬ ‫פרחוטה‪ ,‬יוסף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;189‬פון ראד‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר; וסטרמן‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר‪.‬‬

‫*‪274‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫על ידי הכוהנים ובני המעמד הגבוה‪ ,‬יש האומרים שיוסף שנשא את בת כהן און לאישה‪,‬‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫היה כוהן‪ ,‬או שבהיותו פקיד בכיר הוא סיגל לו גינונים מצריים‪.‬‬ ‫אולם התיאורים של ההיסטוריונים היווניים מוגזמים ומתייחסים בעיקר לתקופה‬ ‫היוונית־רומית ואילך‪ ,‬בעוד שהמונח תועבת מצרים מופיע ברובד קדום של הסיפור‬ ‫המקראי‪ .‬כך או כך‪ ,‬בקרב שלל התארים והתפקידים שנושא יוסף בחצר פרעה לא‬ ‫מופיעה משרת הכהונה‪ .‬אמנם מסופר שנשא אישה מצריה‪ ,‬בת לכוהן מצרי‪ ,‬אך הדבר‬ ‫איננו הופך אותו לכוהן‪.‬‬ ‫פרשנים אחרים סוברים שיש להבהיר את היבדלותם של המצרים מן העברים בשעת‬ ‫הסעודה על רקע יחסם המסתייג והמתנשא של המצרים כלפי זרים בכלל‪ 12.‬ויש ההופכים‬ ‫את היוצרות ואומרים כי הקטע משקף את יחס העברים למצרים בתקופה המאוחרת‪.‬‬ ‫בגלל חוקי אכילה נוקשים (השוו‪ :‬ויק’ יא ודב’ יד) העברים לא יכלו לחלוק את ארוחותיהם‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫עם זרים‪.‬‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫הפירוש הסביר ביותר הועלה על ידי פרשני ימי הביניים ונרמז כבר בתרגום אונקלוס‪.‬‬ ‫תועבה הוא כינוי לאלוהי מצרים בפי העברים (השוו‪“ :‬מלכם תועבת בני עמון”)‪ .‬המצרים‬ ‫הקדמונים סגדו לחיות ובכללן לבקר ולצאן‪ .‬המצרים‪ ,‬אם כך‪ ,‬לא אכלו עם העברים משום‬ ‫שאכילת בקר וצאן (או רק צאן)‪ ,‬המאכל העיקרי בתפריט של אחי יוסף‪ ,‬רועי הצאן‪ ,‬הייתה‬ ‫אסורה עליהם‪ .‬בהמשך ננסה ללבן פירוש זה לאור הרקע המצרי‪.‬‬ ‫המשמעות של “כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן” בבראשית מו לכאורה ברורה‪:‬‬ ‫הפירוש המקובל הוא שהמצרים תעבו את רועי הצאן והתרחקו מהם ואף הועידו אזור‬

‫‪ .11‬סקינר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר; ספייזר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר; פיגר והודל־הונס‪ ,‬הכניסה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.253‬‬ ‫‪ .12‬חלק מפרשנים אלו נשענים על דברי הירודוטוס (ספר שני‪ )41 ,‬המספר שאיש מצרי לא השתמש‬ ‫בכלי שאכל ממנו איש יווני‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬סקינר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר; כהנא‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר‪ .‬השוו גם חזקוני‬ ‫(פירוש‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬עמ’ ר”ה) שלדעתו למצרים “בזוי לאכול עם אדם נוכרי כי אנשי מצרים גסי רוח‪ .”...‬לדעתו‬ ‫של פינקר (תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )161-159‬המצרים לא יכלו לשבת עם העברים בגלל שאלו לבשו בגדי צמר‬ ‫המדיפים ריח רע‪ .‬אמנם יש להניח לאור אזכוריו התכופים של המונח “צמר” במקרא בסמוך ל”פשתים”‬ ‫(‪ 9‬מתוך ‪ 16‬אזכורים) שבגדי צמר היו מקובלים בישראל הקדומה לא פחות מבגדי כותנה‪ ,‬וביח’ לד ‪ 3‬אף‬ ‫נאמר במפורש שהרועים לובשים בגדים מצמר הצאן‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬יש להניח שבאקלימה החם של מצרים‬ ‫בגדי צמר היו פחות פופולריים מאשר בשכנתה הצפונית (ראו‪ :‬הירודוטוס‪ ,‬ספר שני‪ ,81,‬ופינקר‪ ,‬שם);‬ ‫אבל לפי פשוטו של כתוב‪ ,‬בבר’ מג ‪ ,32‬המושא של תועבה הוא ה”לחם” שאוכלים העברים ולא לבושם‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .13‬פיגר והודל־הונס‪ ,‬המצטטים את הסיפור על יוסף ואסנת‪ ,‬שחובר ביוונית במאה השנייה‬ ‫לפנה”ס‪ ,‬שבו מסופר שיוסף לא אכל עם המצרים כי מצא אותם מתועבים (הכניסה‪ .)256-254 ,‬השוו גם‬ ‫סוג’ין‪ ,‬סיפור יוסף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .341‬בהקשר זה מעניין הצו “לא תתעב מצרי” (דב’ כג ‪ .)8‬ידידי‪ ,‬פרופ’ בוסתנאי‬ ‫עודד‪ ,‬הפנה את תשומת לבי ליח’ ד ‪ 13‬והו’ ט ‪ .3‬גם מפסוקים אלו ניתן להסיק שבני ישראל אינם אוכלים‬ ‫לחם עם הגויים מחמת הטומאה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .14‬רש”י‪ ,‬הולך בעקבות אונקלוס (על אתר); אבל בבר’ מו ‪ 34‬הוא אומר במפורש שהמצרים‬ ‫מתעבים רועי צאן “לפי שהם (הצאן) להם אלוהות”‪ .‬רד”ק (על אתר וגם בפירושו לבר’ מו ‪ )34‬מרחיק‬ ‫לכת ואומר כי המצרים לא אכלו כלל בשר וגידלו את הצאן לחלב ולגיזה בלבד‪ .‬ולדעת הרשב”ם (על‬ ‫אתר)‪ ,‬אנשי עבר הנהר היו נבזים בעיני המצרים וגם הצאן היה מאוס בעיניהם‪ .‬אלתר (בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ )258‬סבור שאכילת כבש הייתה טאבו במצרים‪.‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪275‬‬

‫מיוחד למגוריהם — ארץ גושן‪ 15.‬ביאור זה מקבל חיזוק מדברי יוסף המבקש מאחיו להציג‬ ‫את עצמם לפני פרעה לא כרועי צאן אלא כ”אנשי מקנה” (‪ 16.)34‬אולם פירוש זה מעורר‬ ‫קשיים ואיננו משתלב עם ההמשך‪ :‬אחי יוסף אינם שועים לבקשתו ומציגים עצמם כ”‬ ‫רעה צאן” ולמרות זאת אינם זוכים לקבלת פנים קרה או לדחייה‪ .‬להפך‪ ,‬פרעה פונה‬ ‫ליוסף בבקשה לבחור מקרב אחיו אנשי חיל שישמשו כ”שרי מקנה” למקנהו הנמצא‬ ‫בארץ גושן (בר’ מז ‪ .)6-4‬אם הצאן ורועי הצאן הם תועבה למצרים מדוע מבקש פרעה‬ ‫למנות את אחי יוסף‪ ,‬רועי הצאן‪ ,‬לאחראים על מקנהו שלו? יתר על כן‪ ,‬אם הצאן הוא‬ ‫תועבה למצרים‪ ,‬איך ייתכן שמקנהו של המלך כולל בהמות מסוג זה?‬ ‫לפיכך יש הסבורים‪ ,‬כי הכינוי “רועי הצאן” נסב על השליטים ההיקסוסים‪ ,‬השמיים‬ ‫מערביים‪ ,‬שהשתלטו על כס המלוכה המצרי בתקופת הביניים השנייה (‪1550-1750‬‬ ‫לפנה”ס) ואשר לפי הכוהן — ההיסטוריון מנתו — שחי בתחילת המאה ה־‪ 2‬לפנה”ס — כונו‬ ‫“מלכים רועים”‪ 17.‬הקטע משקף את השנאה רבת השנים שחשו המצרים כלפי השליטים‬ ‫הזרים אשר פגעו בגאוותם הלאומית‪ 18.‬אולם הצגתו של מנתון את ההיקסוס כמלכים‬ ‫רועים איננה נכונה; היא נובעת מתרגומו השגוי את המונח המצרי — “חקא ח’אסות”‬ ‫כ”מלכים רועים”‪ ,‬בעוד שהמובן הנכון הוא “מלכי ארצות זרות”‪.‬‬ ‫שתי הגישות שהוזכרו נתלות באירוע היסטורי ספציפי או במנהגים האופייניים‬ ‫למצרים כדי להבהיר את הקטע שלפנינו‪.‬‬ ‫גישה שונה לחלוטין רואה בבראשית מו את השתקפות האיבה הנצחית השוררת בין‬ ‫האיכרים־החקלאים היושבים על אדמתם‪ ,‬לבין הנוודים חסרי הבית‪ 19.‬עימות כזה לא פסח‬ ‫גם על האוכלוסייה המצרית‪ .‬אף ביאור זה יש בו קושי משום‪ ,‬שכפי שנראה בהמשך‪ ,‬גם‬ ‫אם פה ושם היה מתח בין שתי הקבוצות‪ ,‬הרי לאורך הדורות שרר בדרך כלל מצב של‬ ‫“מודוס ויונדיס” בין המצרים לבין הנוודים שנהגו לחדור למצרים בעיקר מאזור סיני‪.‬‬ ‫החל מימי השושלת ה־‪ 13‬שומעים על חדירה של מגדלי בקר לאזור הדלתה המזרחית‪.‬‬ ‫המסמכים המצריים מלמדים כי החדירות הללו היו מבוקרות על ידי שרשרת של מוצבים‪,‬‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫שבהם ישבו שומרים שהעניקו למהגרים אשרות כניסה רשמיות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .15‬רד”ק‪ ,‬על אתר; ראב”ע בפרושו לשמות ח ‪” :22‬והם (המצרים) מתעבים מי שאכל אותם (את‬ ‫החיות)‪ .‬ומלאכה נמאסה בעיניהם לרעות צאן‪ .‬וכן כתוב כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן‪ .‬ועד היום לא‬ ‫יניחו אדם מישראל שיאכל בשר בארצם”; אלטר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;278‬כהנא‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר; סרנה‪,‬‬ ‫בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.225–224‬‬ ‫‪“ .16‬מקנה” הוא שם כללי לחיות הבית הניתנות לרכישה — פרות‪ ,‬כבשים‪ ,‬סוסים‪ ,‬אתונות וגמלים‪.‬‬ ‫אבל בצירופים “אנשי מקנה” (בר’ מו ‪“ ,)34-33‬אנשי מקנה” (בר’ מז ‪“ ,)6‬רעי מקנה” (בר’ יג ‪ )7‬הוא‬ ‫מתייחס בעיקר לעדרי פרות‪ ,‬כבשים ועזים‪ .‬ראו‪ ,BDB :‬עמ’ ‪.889‬‬ ‫‪ .17‬דברי מנתו מצוטטים על ידי יוסף בן מתתיהו (המאה ה־‪ 1‬לספירה) בספרו‪ ,‬נגד אפיון‪ ,‬עמ’ יז‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .18‬ספייזר‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬על אתר; בריפורד‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;427-425‬דה־וו‪ ,‬בראשית‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;203‬אבל‬ ‫דה־וו חזר בו ובספרו‪ ,‬הסטוריה של ישראל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 375‬הוא טוען כי ההסבר שההיקסוס היו “מלכים רועים”‬ ‫מסתמך על פרי המצאתו הדמיונית של מנתו‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .19‬פרחוטה‪ ,‬יוסף במצרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;188‬רדפורד‪ ,‬יוסף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;235‬פינקר‪ ,‬תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.166-165‬‬ ‫‪ .20‬המפורסם שבין מסמכים אלו הוא פפירוס אנסטאזי ‪ ,6‬מסוף השושלת ה־‪( 19‬המאה השתים‬ ‫עשרה לפנה”ס)‪ ,‬שבו פקיד‪ ,‬הממונה על מוצב בגבול המזרחי של מצרים‪ ,‬מדווח על מתן רשות לשבטי‬

‫*‪276‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫הקושי העיקרי בשמות ח‪ ,‬הקטע השלישי והאחרון שבו מופיע הביטוי‪ ,‬הוא הנושא‬ ‫של תועבת מצרים — מי מתעב? העברים או המצרים? האם מדובר במעשה שאותו‬ ‫עושים העברים‪ ,‬והמצרים רואים בו תועבה‪ ,‬או במונח שבו משתמשים העברים לתאר‬ ‫דבר מה מצרי המתועב בעיניהם אך קדוש למצרים (השוו “מלכם תועבת בני עמון”)?‬ ‫שתי האפשרויות הועלו במחקר‪ 21.‬כך או כך‪ ,‬הביטוי ‘תועבת מצרים’ מתייחס לקורבן של‬ ‫בהמה שהקרבתה איננה נהוגה במצרים‪ ,‬קרוב לוודאי בהמה שהמצרים סוגדים לה ואשר‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫שחיטתה עלולה להניעם לתגובה אלימה — “ולא יסקלונו?”‬ ‫החוקרים נחלקו לגבי זהות הקורבן‪ .‬יש הסוברים שהוא בהמה סתם‪ ,‬יש אומרים בקר‬ ‫או צאן שהיו אלים במצרים (כגון הפרה‪ ,‬השור והתיש)‪ ,‬ואחרים מזהים אותו ביתר דיוק —‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫כבש או טלה‪.‬‬ ‫ראב”ע‪ 24,‬מרחיק לכת וטוען כי מאחר שאלוהי מצרים היה הטלה‪ ,‬המצרים היו‬ ‫צמחונים ולא אכלו כלל בשר‪ ,‬כמו “אנשי לכדי”אה (הודו) שאינם אוכלים כל דבר מן החי‬ ‫ומתעבים מי שיאכל אותו” — דעה שאין לה על מה להישען‪.‬‬ ‫עד כאן הפירושים השונים שהובאו במחקרים קודמים‪ .‬כפי שראינו‪ ,‬רובם אינם‬ ‫יכולים לעמוד בפני הביקורת‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬תועבה — ‪ BWT‬במצרית‬ ‫המונח המצרי המקביל ל”תועבה” בלשון המקרא הוא “בות” (‪ .)BWT‬תפוצתו‬ ‫במקורות המצריים רחבה (כחמש מאות פעם)‪ ,‬החל מתקופת הפירמידות וכלה בתקופה‬ ‫היוונית־רומית‪ .‬האטימולוגיה של המונח איננה ידועה‪ 25,‬אבל המגדיר שלו — ציור של דג‬

‫שאסו (נוודים) מאדום‪ ,‬לרעות את צאנם באזור המרעה של ברכות פיתום‪ .‬לשמיים שהתיישבו בחבל ארץ‬ ‫זה הותר להמשיך לעבוד את אלוהיהם ולאחוז במנהגיהם ובאמונותיהם‪ .‬יתר על כן‪ ,‬בתקופת הממלכה‬ ‫החדשה‪ ,‬שאליה מתייחסים‪ ,‬לדעתי‪ ,‬רוב הרישומים המצריים בסיפור יוסף (ראו‪ :‬שופק‪ ,‬סיפור יוסף)‪,‬‬ ‫התגברה ההשפעה השמית במצרים והטביעה את חותמה במישורי חיים שונים‪ :‬שימוש במילים ובשמות‬ ‫שמיים‪ ,‬אימוץ אלים שמיים לפנתיאון המצרי‪ ,‬כגון אשתרת‪ ,‬בעל‪ ,‬ענת‪ ,‬חורון‪ ,‬רשף ועוד‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .21‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ .9‬סרנה (שמות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )43‬סבור שמשה השתמש בכוונה בביטוי דו־משמעי‬ ‫לפני פרעה‪ .‬פינקר (תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)172-171‬מניח שצורת הקרבת הקורבן על ידי העברים — שריפתו‬ ‫על המזבח — היא שהייתה תועבה למצרים ועוררה את זעמם משום שבמצרים כל הקורבנות נאכלו על‬ ‫ידי הכוהנים‪ .‬אולם חלק מן הנימוקים שהוא מעלה (איסור אכילת בקר בגלל כמותו המצומצמת ואיסור‬ ‫אכילת פרה מפאת קדושתה) אינם תואמים את העדויות של המקורות המצריים הקדומים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .22‬גרינברג (שמות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ )203–202‬טוען בצדק שהסקילה באבנים אופיינית לאזור ההררי של א”י‬ ‫ואיננה אופיינית למצרים‪ .‬ובאמת לא זכור לי עונש של סקילה באבנים במקורות המצריים‪ .‬קרוב לוודאי‬ ‫שהמחבר של ספר שמות ייחס למצרים מנהג ישראלי‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .23‬בהמה (תרגום אונקלוס); טלה (ראב”ע); הצאן (רשב”ם)‪ .‬ראו גם דרייבר‪ ,‬שמות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;68‬לרסון‪,‬‬ ‫שמות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.64‬‬ ‫‪ .24‬על אתר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .25‬במחקר הועלו ההצעות הבאות‪“ :‬בות” קשורה ל “בו” (‪ — )bw‬מילת השלילה בלשון המצרית‬ ‫החדשה‪ ,‬או לשורש “עבו” (‪ )cbw‬שמציין הן טוהרה והן אי טוהרה‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬וילסון‪ ,‬לקסיקון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.314‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪277‬‬

‫(גרדינר‪ ,‬רשימת סימנים‪ — )K2 ,‬מצביע אולי על דבר מה מסריח‪ 26.‬השדה הסמנטי של‬ ‫“בות” רחב ומתייחס לנושאים שונים‪ .‬כך ארמן — גרפו במילונם פרשו את המלה כ־תועבה‪,‬‬ ‫מגעיל‪ ,‬שקר‪ ,‬פשע‪ ,‬רעב‪ ,‬צמא‪ ,‬צואה‪ ,‬ריב (‪ .)Wb 1: 453, 8-12‬הניג במילונו מוסיף “טאבו”‪,‬‬ ‫“מה שאסור” (”‪ ,“Tabu,Verbotenes‬עמ’ ‪ .)251‬ביאורו של הניג תואם את דעתו של מונטה‪,‬‬ ‫הסבור שהמובן הבסיסי של “בות” הוא דבר מה אסור‪ .‬מונטה מראה במחקרו המקיף‬ ‫ש”בות” מציין לא רק דבר מה מתועב‪ ,‬מלוכלך‪ ,‬לא טהור אלא גם דבר האסור מבחינה‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫דתית‪ ,‬שכרוך בייראה דתית — טאבו‪ ,‬בדומה ל”פרי האסור” בסיפור גן עדן‪.‬‬ ‫לדעת פרנדסן‪ ,‬שהקדיש לנושא מחקרים לא מעטים‪ ,‬ה”בות” במקורו הוא מרכיב‬ ‫שקיים היה לפני בריאת העולם‪ .‬בשעת הבריאה הדברים שהם “בות”‪ ,‬כלומר‪ ,‬הדברים‬ ‫האסורים והטמאים‪ ,‬הופרדו מיתר מרכיבי התבל‪ .‬במשך השנים חלה התפתחות בתפישת‬ ‫ה”בות” והוא הפך מהוויה ראשונית קפואה ובלתי משתנה לנורמה של התנהגות‪ .‬כך‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫עבירה על "בות" דומה לעתים למעשה פשע רגיל והוא נכנס לקטגוריה שקרובה לטאבו‪.‬‬ ‫בסיכום ניתן לומר כי “בות” מייצג בתרבות המצרית את האסור‪ ,‬הרע והשלילי‪ ,‬את‬ ‫כל מה שפוגע בסדר הקוסמי השורר בעולם מאז בריאתו (המאעת)‪ .‬ההכרזה על “בות”‬ ‫היא זכות השמורה רק לאל ולמלך‪ ,‬והיא אמצעי להגדרת שייכות למסגרת מסויימת — מי‬ ‫שעובר על ה”בות” מוגדר כ “בותי” (‪ )BWTY‬מתועב‪ ,‬מנודה‪.‬‬ ‫כמו תועבה במקרא גם ה”בות” מופיע בסוגות ספרותיות שונות — אוטוביוגרפיות‪,‬‬ ‫הוראות חכמה‪ ,‬ספרות מתים‪ ,‬מצבות ניצחון‪ ,‬המנונים לאלים‪ ,‬כתובות כניסה למקדשים‪,‬‬ ‫רשימות של פרטים המאפיינים את חבלי מצרים השונים (ה”טקסטים הגיאוגרפיים”) ועוד‪.‬‬ ‫מושאי ה”בות” — הדברים המתועבים‪ ,‬הנדחים‪ ,‬מגוונים ומתייחסים למישורי חיים‬ ‫שונים‪ .‬להלן דוגמאות נבחרות‪ ,‬בעיקר כאלו שדומות לענייני התועבה במקרא‪ ,‬או‬ ‫שעשויות להזכיר אותם‪:‬‬ ‫א‪ .‬מאכלים אסורים‬ ‫מידע רב על איסורי אכילת מאכלים שונים במצרים הקדומה השתמר הן במקורות‬ ‫המצריים הקדומים והן במקורות הקלאסיים‪ 29.‬אולם לא מדובר באיסורים כלליים‪.‬‬ ‫המאכלים האסורים מוגבלים תמיד למקום מסוים‪ ,‬לזמן מסוים ולקבוצות אנשים מסוימות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .26‬לראשונה אחזו החוקרים בדעה זו‪ ,‬כי המלה “ח’נש” (‪ ,)ḫnš‬להסריח‪ ,‬מופיעה גם היא עם מגדיר‬ ‫של דג‪ .‬אבל סברה זו לא מתקבלת על הדעת מאחר שהדג היה מאכל מרכזי בתפריט של המצרי הקדום‪.‬‬ ‫הורנונג סבור שדווקא הדג נבחר להגדיר את ה”בות” משום שבהיותו תושב האוקיינוס הבראשיתי (הנון)‪,‬‬ ‫הוא נמצא מחוץ לסדר הנורמטיבי של העולם (המאעת)‪ .‬הסבר אחר כורך את מגדיר הדג עם המיתוס‬ ‫הקדום אודות המאבק בין אוסיריס לסת‪ ,‬שלפיו הדג אכל את אבר מינו של אוסיריס‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬וילסון‪,‬‬ ‫לקסיקון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.314‬‬ ‫‪ .27‬מונטה‪ ,‬הפרי האסור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.86-85‬‬ ‫‪ .28‬פרנדסן‪ ,‬טאבו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;14‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬דיכוטומיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;165-64‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬הפרי האסור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;74-57‬הנ”ל‪,‬‬ ‫בות בגוף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;174-173‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬טאבו‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.351-349‬‬ ‫‪ .29‬תיאור של איסורים שונים‪ ,‬הקשורים באכילת חיות או בהקרבתן‪ ,‬מביא במאה ה־‪ 5‬לפנה”ס‬ ‫ההיסטוריון הירודוטוס בספרו דברי ימי מצרים (ספר שני‪ ,‬סעיפים ‪ ;47 ,46 ,42, 41 ,38 ,18‬ספר רביעי‪,‬‬

‫*‪278‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫בספרות המתים המצרית מתוארות סכנות שונות הצפויות לנפטר בעולם הבא‪ .‬שתים‬ ‫מן הסכנות היותר חמורות הן רעב וצמא מזה ואכילת צואה ושתיית שתן מזה‪ .‬סכנות אלה‪,‬‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫המוגדרות כ”בות”‪ ,‬עלולות להביא להדרת המת מעולם האלים‪.‬‬ ‫ב”טקסטים הגיאוגרפיים” מן התקופה היוונית־רומית המצויים במקדשים של דנדרה‪,‬‬ ‫אדפו‪ ,‬קום־אומבו ואדפו השתמרו באופן חלקי רשימות של “בותים”‪ ,‬הכוללות גם איסורי‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫מאכלים שנהגו בחבלי מצרים השונים‪ .‬עם איסורים אלו נמנים‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬שישה סוגי דגים‪,‬‬ ‫חזירים‪ ,‬פרות‪ ,‬דבש‪ ,‬כרשה ועוד‪ .‬את האיסורים הכרוכים בחיות נוהגים בדרך כלל לתלות‬ ‫באטיולוגיה מיתית מקומית או בסגידה לחיות אלו‪ .‬כך למשל‪ ,‬המיתוס מספר כי הדג אכל‬ ‫את אבר מינו של אוסירוס‪ ,‬אל המתים‪ ,‬החזיר נחשב לחיה המגלמת את האל הרע סת‪,‬‬ ‫והפרה הייתה סמלן של שתי אלות — חתחור ואיסיס — ולעתים סימנה את האלה נפתיס‪,‬‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫אחותה של איסיס‪ ,‬שזוהתה עם חתחור‪.‬‬ ‫על איסורי אכילה אלו הקפידו בעיקר הכוהנים ובני המעמד הגבוה‪ ,‬אך לא העם‬ ‫הפשוט‪ ,‬הרעב לבשר‪ .‬כך ההוראות‪ ,‬המופיעות על שערי מקדשי התקופה המאוחרת‬ ‫והמפרטות איסורים שונים‪ ,‬פונות בראש ובראשונה לכוהנים;‪ 33‬ואילו כתובות שהותירו‬ ‫אחריהם מלכים אחדים מורות שגם הם ובאי ביתם הקפידו על תקנות אלה‪ :‬במצבת המלך‬ ‫פענח’י‪ ,‬מהשליטים הנוביים‪ ,‬שהשתלטו באמצע המאה ה־‪ 8‬לפנה”ס על כס המלוכה‬ ‫הפרעוני‪ ,‬וסיגלו לעצמם את הגינונים והאמונות המקומיות‪ ,‬נאמר שנאסר על שליטי‬ ‫הדלתה המובסים להיכנס לארמונו כי “הם היו ערלים (“עמעו” ‪ )cmcw‬ואכלו דגים‪ ,‬תועבת‬ ‫בית המלך”‪ .‬רק המלך נמרוד (נמרת’) נכנס משום ש”היה טהור (“ועב” ‪ )wcb‬ולא אכל‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫דגים” (שורות ‪.)151-150‬‬ ‫הצהרה כללית בנושא זה משמיע רעמסס ‪ 4‬על מצבה מאבידוס‪“ :‬לא אכלתי את מה‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫שהוא לי תועבה”‪.‬‬ ‫סעיף ‪ .)186‬יחסם המיוחד של המצרים לחיות וסגידתם להן מעוררים את התפעלותו של ההיסטוריון‬ ‫דיודורוס סיקיליוס במאה ה־‪ 1‬לפנה”ס (ביבליוטקה היסטוריקה‪ ,‬ספר ראשון‪ ,‬סעיפים ‪ .)86 ,83‬ובדומה‬ ‫סטרבו‪ ,‬שביקר במצרים במאה ה־‪ 1‬לפנה”ס‪ ,‬מזכיר בחיבורו “גיאוגרפיה”‪ ,‬את הערצתן של חיות‬ ‫מסוימות‪ ,‬כולל כבשים‪ ,‬במצרים (ספר ‪ ,17‬פרק ‪ ;)40‬פלוטרך‪ ,‬במאה ה־‪ 1‬לספירה‪ ,‬מדווח על איסורי‬ ‫אכילת מאכלים שונים (איסיס ואוסיריס‪ ,‬פרקים ‪ ;)8-4‬והפילוסוף פורפירי‪ ,‬שחי במאה ה־‪ 3‬לספירה‪,‬‬ ‫עדיין דבק במסורת הזו בדבר מנהגי האכילה של המצרים ומדגיש את האמונה המצרית כי האלים‬ ‫מתגלים בצורת חיות וקשורים אליהן יותר מאשר לבני אדם (פורפירי‪ ,‬רתיעה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪,154–153 ,81 ,69 ,5‬‬ ‫‪.)158-157‬‬ ‫‪ .30‬לדוגמה‪ ,‬פוקנר‪ ,‬כתבי הפירמידות‪ ,‬לחש ‪ ;718§ 409‬השוו‪ :‬לחש ‪ ;127§ 210‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬כתבי הארונות‪,‬‬ ‫‪ ,1‬לחשים ‪ ,220-173‬בייחוד לחשים ‪ 195‬ו־‪ ;201‬הנ”ל‪ ,‬ספר המתים‪ ,‬לחש ‪.53‬‬ ‫‪ .31‬גמר־וולרט‪ ,‬דגים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.82‬‬ ‫‪ .32‬למחקר מקיף של רשימות האיסורים בחבלים השונים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬מונטה‪ ,‬הפרי האסור; אופרר‪,‬‬ ‫איסורים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .33‬כך‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬במקדש פילה נאסר על הכוהנים להכניס למקדש אנשים שאכלו צמחים מסוימים‬ ‫שמוגדרים כ”בות”; יונקר‪ ,‬הוראות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.158-151‬‬ ‫‪ .34‬קאהן‪ ,‬ניתוח דקדוקי‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.151‬‬ ‫‪ .35‬קורוסטובטסב‪ ,‬מצבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.162 ,158‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪279‬‬

‫בדומה למקדש ולארמון גם בית הקברות נחשב למתחם קדוש‪ .‬לכן אין תימה שגם על‬ ‫‪36‬‬ ‫מבקרי הקברים נאסר לאכול מאכלים שונים‪.‬‬ ‫ב‪ .‬איסורים הקשורים להתנהגות מוסרית־חברתית‬ ‫הצירוף “תועבה” עם כינוי על אנושי כלשהו שגור בלשון החכם המצרי ומתייחס‬ ‫בדרך כלל לעבירות שבין אדם לחברו‪ 37.‬בהוראת פתחחותפ‪ ,‬מן האלף השני לפנה”ס‪,‬‬ ‫משמש בהקשר זה הביטוי “תועבת הכא”‪“( 38‬בות כא”)‪ ,‬המציין כהתנהגות חברתית בלתי‬ ‫הולמת‪ ,‬את המעשים הבאים‪:‬‬ ‫עבירה הכרוכה בנימוסי שולחן “אל תנעץ (במארח) מבטים רבים‪ ,‬תועבת הכא‬ ‫היא להטריד אותו” (‪ ;)125 P‬שפיכת לב לפני כל אדם “אל תדבר לכל האנשים‪ ,‬גדולים‬ ‫וקטנים — תועבת הכא היא” (‪ ;)160 P‬והתמסרות לענייני הבית תחת הנאה מן החיים‬ ‫(‪ .)189 P‬בהוראת אמנמאופת (המאה ה־‪ 11‬לפנה”ס) מוחלף הביטוי “תועבת הכא” בצירוף‬ ‫“תועבת האל”‪ .‬כאן הדגש הוא על התנהגות של שקר ומרמה‪ :‬דיבור שקר וצביעות‪ ,‬כתיבת‬ ‫עדות שקר ומרמה במידות ובמשקלות (בית ‪ ;3 ,14 ;16-15 ,13 :10‬בית ‪;21-20 ,15 :13‬‬ ‫בית ‪.)1 ,19-21 ,18 :17‬‬ ‫בהוראת ענח’ששונקי מן התקופה המאוחרת (‪ 300-400‬לפנה”ס)‪ ,‬נאמר שלקיחת‬ ‫מישהו בשבי ללא עוול בכפו היא תועבה לאל רע (‪.)20 ,4‬‬ ‫בהעתק מאוחר של הוראת פתחחותפ מימי השושלת ה־‪ )2L( 18‬מופיע איסור נוסף —‬ ‫משוא פנים‪“ :‬אל תיטה לצד אחד כאשר אתה (שופט) שני אנשים‪ ,‬תועבת האל היא נטיה‬ ‫הצידה”(שורה ‪.)418‬‬ ‫מסתבר שהזהרה זו הייתה מאוד פופולרית‪ .‬היא מצוטטת בטקסט של “מינוי וזיר”‬ ‫בקברי שלושה וזירים‪ ,‬ביניהם זה של רחמירע — וזירו המפורסם של תחותמס ה־‪ .3‬מאוחר‬ ‫יותר היא מופיעה בתואר “תועבת הכא היא נטייה הצידה”‪ ,‬המיוחס לארבעה אלים‬ ‫במקדשים מהתקופה היוונית־רומית‪ 39.‬עקבותיה ניכרים כנראה גם בכתובת קברו של‬ ‫הכוהן הגדול פטוסיריס (סוף המאה ה־‪ 4‬לפנה”ס)‪ ,‬שבה נאמר שהשופטים את המתים‪,‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫רואים במשוא פנים תועבה‪.‬‬ ‫האיסור (“בות”) של התנהגות של שקר וכזב‪ ,‬שכאמור תופש מקום מרכזי בהוראת‬ ‫אמנמאופת‪ ,‬מודגש גם בטקסטים שאינם שייכים לספרות החכמה‪ .‬כך‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬הנסיך‬ ‫‪ .36‬מונטה‪ ,‬הפרי האסור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;110‬פרנדסן‪ bwt ,‬בגוף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.143-142‬‬ ‫‪ .37‬הניתוח כאן מתייחס בעיקר לצירוף זה‪ ,‬שבו הנסמך הוא שם העצם “תועבה” והסומך הוא כינוי‬ ‫על־אנושי‪“ :‬כא” או “אל” במצרית ו”ה’” או “ה’ אלוהיך” בלשון המקרא‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬נכללו אזכורים שבהם‬ ‫המלה “תועבה” מופיעה עם כינוי שייכות בגוף שלישי נסתר — “תועבתו” כשהנושא הוא אל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .38‬הכא הוא במצרית כפילו של האדם‪ ,‬המלווה אותו מיום היוולדו עד ליום מותו‪ .‬בקבר הנפטר‬ ‫נמצא פסלו הנקרא פסל הכא‪ ,‬שיש להקריב לו קורבנות‪ .‬קשה למצוא מלה מקבילה לכא בעברית — כוח‬ ‫חיים‪ ,‬כפיל‪ ,‬רוח המת‪ .‬לתרגומן של הוראות החכמה המצריות המופיעות במאמר זה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ליכטהיים‪,‬‬ ‫ספרות; שצ’ופק‪ ,‬קטעים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .39‬הגן‪ ,‬הדים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.135-132‬‬ ‫‪ .40‬פרנדסן‪ bwt ,‬בגוף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.174‬‬

‫*‪280‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫ח’ליות‪ ,‬בנו של המלך פענח’י (סוף המאה ה־‪ 8‬לפנה”ס)‪ ,‬מצהיר במצבה שנתגלתה‬ ‫בג’בל ברקל‪“ :‬לא עשיתי שקר (שהוא) תועבת האלים‪ ...‬הלכתי בדרכי האלים והתרחקתי‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫מתועבתם” (שורות ‪.)8 ,4‬‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫פרעה תות־ענח’־אמון מתגאה בכך שהפך את השקר (‪ )grg‬לתועבה (‪ .)bwt‬ברשימת‬ ‫האיסורים של החבל ה־‪ 18‬במצרים העליונה נזכרים פעולה שקרית וגם זיוף מידות‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫ומשקל בהקשרים שונים (מדידת השדה והתבואה)‪.‬‬ ‫בטקסטים אלו קשה להפריד בין “בות” השייך למסגרת חברתית‪ ,‬לעניינים שבין אדם‬ ‫לחברו‪ ,‬לבין “בות” שמתייחס למסגרת דתית‪ .‬במקדש אדפו‪ ,‬מתקופת בית תלמי‪ ,‬מעשים‬ ‫המנוגדים לסדר הקוסמי ולצדק (מאעת) — משוא פנים (‪ ,)rdi ḥr gs‬עוול (‪ ,)isft‬שקר(‪)grg‬‬ ‫ושוחד (‪ )gs3‬הם תועבת המלך‪ 44.‬סטיות מיניות שונות בעיקר כאלו הכרוכות בהומוסקסואליות‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫חוזרות שוב ושוב ברשימות האיסורים של חבלי מצרים‪ 45.‬גם נידה נחשבת ל”בות”‪.‬‬ ‫ג‪ .‬איסורים הכרוכים בעבודת האל ‪/‬שייכים להתנהגות דתית‬ ‫בהוראת אני‪ ,‬שלא כמקובל בספרות החכמה המצרית‪ ,‬הצירוף “תועבת האל” בא‬ ‫בהקשר של טקס פולחני‪ .‬הסופר אני מזהיר מפני התנהגות בלתי הולמת במקדש‪“ :‬אל‬ ‫תצעק במקדש האל‪ ,‬תועבתו היא צעקה‪ ,‬התפלל בלב אוהב” (‪ 47.)2-1 ,4‬האיסור להגביה‬ ‫קול‪ ,‬לצד איסורים דומים‪ ,‬כגון פסיעת צעדים רחבים בתוך המקדש‪ ,‬חוזרים ברשימת‬ ‫האיסורים של החבל ה־‪ 18‬ואף בכתובות ממקדש פילה ובכתובות אוטוביוגרפיות של‬ ‫כוהנים‪ .‬הסיבה נעוצה שוב במיתוס קדום — התנהגות זו אפיינה את האל סת‪ ,‬שצד‬ ‫במקדש‪ ,‬צרח ואף פסע בו בצעדים גדולים‪ 48.‬באל הרע‪ ,‬סת‪ ,‬קשורה גם הדרישה הבאה‬ ‫בכתובות מקדש פילה לאסור את כניסתם של החמור והעז‪ ,‬שנחשבו לחיות המסמלות‬ ‫אותו‪ .‬גם כניסתו של כלב נאסרה שם‪ ,‬כנראה בגלל נביחותיו‪ ,‬וכן כניסתם של אנשים‬ ‫זרים‪ ,‬שאינם מוכרים לכוהנים‪ 49.‬לאיסור מעניין זה נחזור בהמשך‪.‬‬ ‫ולבסוף יצוינו איסורים הנוגעים להקרבת מנחות וקורבנות — אין לגרוע ממכסת‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫המנחות הניתנות למקדש ואף לא לאכול מבשר הקורבנות‪.‬‬

‫‪ .41‬ריסנר‪ ,‬מונומנטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.43-42‬‬ ‫‪“ .42‬הוא הכניע עוול (‪ )isfy‬בשתי הארצות‪ ,‬כשהמאעת מבוססת במקומה‪ .‬הוא גרם שהשקר (‪)grg‬‬ ‫יהיה תועבה (‪ ;)Urk IV 2026, 17-19( ”)m bwt‬כלומר החזיר למקומו את הסדר שנוצר עם בריאת‬ ‫העולם‪ ,‬המאעת‪ .‬השוו‪ :‬פרנדסן‪ bwt ,‬בגוף‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.162–160‬‬ ‫‪ .43‬אופרר‪ ,‬איסורים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.107‬‬ ‫‪ .44‬וילסון‪ ,‬לקסיקון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.314‬‬ ‫‪ .45‬אופרר‪ ,‬איסורים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.102 ,99 ,97 ,94‬‬ ‫‪ .46‬פפירוס יומילאק ‪( 3, 16:XII‬ונדיאר‪ ,‬פפירוס יומילאק‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)123‬‬ ‫‪ .47‬אך ייתכן והדגש בהוראת אני הוא כמו במש’ טו ‪( 9-8‬המעמת את קורבן הרשע עם תפילת‬ ‫הישרים) על התנהגות של צביעות‪ ,‬העמדת פנים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .48‬פרנדסן‪ ,‬קול רם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;1000-975‬השוו גם אופרר‪ ,‬איסורים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.107‬‬ ‫‪ .49‬יונקר‪ ,‬הוראות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.158-151‬‬ ‫‪ .50‬אופרר‪ ,‬שם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.107‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪281‬‬

‫ד‪ .‬איסורים נוספים‬ ‫איסורים‪ ,‬שלא ניתן להכלילם בקטגוריות הקודמות‪ ,‬אבל הינם חשובים להבנת‬ ‫הצירוף “תועבת מצרים” בלשון המקרא‪ ,‬הם הביטוי “תועבת מצרים” והצירוף “תועבה”‬ ‫עם שם מקום השייך או מתייחס למצרים‪ .‬אלו מופיעים בטקסטים המצריים הבאים‪:‬‬ ‫בדיווח על משפטם של המתנקשים בפרעה רעמסס ‪ 3‬מסופר על אמצעי כישוף‪ ,‬אשר‬ ‫נקט אחד מהם שכללו רכישת דמויות שעווה של אלים ואנשים‪ ,‬שנועדו להחליש את‬ ‫איברי גופם של יריביהם‪ .‬על מעשים אלו נאמר שהיו “פשעים גדולים של מוות (ראויים‬ ‫‪51‬‬ ‫לעונש מוות)‪ ,‬תועבה גדולה של הארץ (מצרים) )‪.")bwt c3.w n p3 t3‬‬ ‫במצבת ישראל (‪ 1207‬לפנה”ס) מספר פרעה מרנפתח על הבסתו את מנהיג הלובים‪,‬‬ ‫מריו‪ ,‬במלים אלו‪“ :‬אדון מצרים קילל את שמו — מריו הוא תועבה (‪ )m bwty‬של החומה‬ ‫הלבנה (ממפיס)‪ ,‬מבן לבן במשפחתו לנצח”‪ 52.‬מעניין במיוחד הקשר בין “בות” לבין‬ ‫נוודים אסיאתיים ומצרים‪ ,‬המופיע בהוראה למריכארע (ראשית האלף ה־‪ 2‬לפנה”ס)‪,‬‬ ‫והמזכיר את השימוש בביטוי “תועבת מצרים” במקרא‪ .‬בהוראה המצרית מובא תיאור‬ ‫מפורט של האויב האסיאתי — ארץ מושבו‪ ,‬צורת חייו ושיטות מלחמתו — והמלך הזקן‪,‬‬ ‫אביו של מריכארע‪ ,‬מספר על הכנעתו‪“ :‬אני שדדתי את תושביהם‪ ,‬נטלתי את מקניהם‪ ,‬עד‬ ‫שהאסייתים תעבו את מצרים (‪( )r bwyt53 c3mw r Kmt‬שורות ‪.)97-96‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬תועבה בלשון המקרא ו־‪ BWT‬במצרית‬ ‫עד כאן על השימוש במונח “בות” בספרות המצרית‪ .‬מן הראוי לציין שמושגים‬ ‫המקבילים לתועבה בלשון המקרא ול”בות” במצרית קיימים כמעט בכל התרבויות‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫הקדומות‪ .‬דיון השוואתי עם השימוש במונח בתרבויות אחרות הוא מחוץ לענייננו‪.‬‬ ‫אולם הואיל ובשנים האחרונות הוקדשו לפחות שני מחקרים מקיפים להשוואה בין המונח‬ ‫המקראי למונחים מקבילים בשומרית ובאכדית‪ 55,‬שאין כמותם במחקר ההשוואתי שבין‬ ‫מצרים למקרא‪ 56,‬נמנה כאן בקצרה את הקווים הדומים והשונים בין תועבה בעברית‬ ‫ל”בות” במצרית‪:‬‬

‫‪ ,4 ,ARE .51‬עמ’ ‪.454 § 220‬‬ ‫‪. 5-3 ,15 KRI IV .52‬‬ ‫‪ .53‬קיים קושי בצורה הדקדוקית של המשפט‪ ,‬אבל המובן הכללי ברור‪ .‬השוו‪ :‬קווק‪ ,‬למריכארע‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ;59‬ליכטהיים‪ ,‬ספרות‪ ,1 ,‬עמ’ ‪.104‬‬ ‫‪ .54‬המלה ‘תועבה’ מופיעה בכתובת על סרקופג של תבנת מלך צידון (סוף המאה ה־‪ 6‬לפנה”ס)‬ ‫המזהירה שלא לפתוח אותו ולהפר את שלוות המת “כי תועבת עשתרת הדבר הוא” (אבישור‪ ,‬כתובות‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ .)88‬בחיתית מונחים מקבילים מתייחסים לסטיות מיניות שונות‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬האלו‪ ,‬תועבות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.34‬‬ ‫‪ .55‬קליין־צפתי‪ ,‬תועבה; האלו‪ ,‬תועבות‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .56‬המחקרים שפורסמו עד כה בנושא זה מיושנים‪ ,‬או אינם עוסקים ישירות בתחום ההשוואתי‪,‬‬ ‫וניתן למנותם באצבעות כף יד אחת‪ :‬הראשון שהצביע על הזיקה בין תועבה במקרא ו”בות” במצרית‬ ‫היה יהודה בספרו שהתפרסם ב־‪ .1929‬לדעתו‪ ,‬המונח העברי שאול ממצרית ואף גזור משורש מצרי‬ ‫(ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪ .)6‬הוא מצביע‪ ,‬בין היתר‪ ,‬על המקבילה בין הצירוף “תועבת האל” במצרית ל”תועבת‬ ‫ה’” בתורה (ספר דברים) (יהודה‪ ,‬לשון החומש‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)73-71‬לפני למעלה מחמישים שנה‪ ,‬במחקר‬

‫*‪282‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫א‪ .‬‬

‫ב ‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬‬

‫‪ .2‬‬

‫הצירוף של תועבה לשם העצם הכללי “אל” או לשם פרטי של אל מסוים‬ ‫מופיע הן במקרא והן בספרות המצרית‪ .‬השימוש בביטוי זה אופייני לספר‬ ‫משלי (‪ 12‬פ') ולספר דברים (‪ 8‬פ')‪ .‬בספר משלי רוב האיסורים המוגדרים‬ ‫כ”תועבת ה’” מתייחסים למוסר חברתי כגון‪ :‬רמאות במידות ובמשקלות‬ ‫(יא ‪ ;1‬כ ‪,)23 ,10‬דיבור שקר (יב ‪ ,)22‬חטא הגאווה (טז ‪ )5‬ועוד (השוו‪ :‬ג ‪,32‬‬ ‫ו ‪ ,16‬יא ‪ ,20‬טו ‪ 57,9-8‬טו ‪ ,26‬יז ‪ .)15‬תופעה דומה מצאנו בהוראות החכמה‬ ‫המצריות‪ ,‬שגם בהן הצירופים “תועבת האל‪ /‬הכא‪ /‬שם אל מסוים“‬ ‫עניינם מוסר חברתי‪ 58.‬לעומת זאת בספר דברים‪ ,‬בדומה לכתבים שאינם‬ ‫חכמתיים במצרים‪ ,‬משתמשים בביטוי זה בעיקר בהקשר דתי־פולחני‬ ‫(כגון מאכלים מסוימים שהם טאבו‪ ,‬התנהגות במקדש ובבית הקברות‬ ‫ועוד)‪ 59.‬המעשים המגונים בספר דברים הם בתחום שבין אדם לאלוהיו‪,‬‬ ‫עבירות דתיות־פולחניות כגון‪ :‬עבודת פסילים (ז ‪ ,)25‬העברת בנים באש‬ ‫(יב ‪ ,)31‬הקרבת קורבן בעל מום (יז ‪ ,)1‬עיסוק בקסם וכישוף והעלאת‬ ‫אובות (יח ‪( )12–10‬השוו גם דב’ כב ‪ ;5‬כג ‪ ;19‬כה ‪ 60;16-15‬כז ‪.)15‬‬ ‫ניתן לחלק את התועבות הנפוצות לפי תוכנן לשלוש קבוצות עיקריות‪:‬‬ ‫מאכלים אסורים — ביניהם מופיעים כאלו המשותפים לעברים ולמצרים‬ ‫כגון‪ :‬חזיר (דב’ יד ‪ ;8‬למאכלים נוספים אסורים בישראל ראו דב’ יד כל‬ ‫הפרק והשוו ויק’ יא);‬ ‫עבירות בתחום הדתי־פולחני — כישוף‪ :‬במצרים מעשי כישוף פסולים‬ ‫בהקשרים מסוימים (כגון בעת ההתנקשות בחיי רעמסס ה־‪ .)3‬במקרא‬ ‫האיסור הוא מוחלט (דב’ יח ‪ ;)12-10‬אסורה כניסה למקדש של אנשים‬ ‫נוכרים או כאלו שאינם טהורים (כתובת מקדש פילה; השוו ויק’ כא ‪;20-17‬‬ ‫יח’ מד ‪ ;)7-6‬הקרבת קורבנות מסוימים היא תועבה בספר דברים (יז ‪,)1‬‬

‫שהוקדש לתועבה במקרא‪ ,‬סקר הומברט (במספר שורות) את האזכורים של המונח “בות” בסוגות‬ ‫שונות בספרות המצרית (תועבה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;)221‬דיון רחב יותר במקורות המצריים ואף בחומר הרלוונטי‬ ‫הנמצא בכתבי הירודוטוס הובא לאחרונה במחקרם של פיגר והודל־הונס על סיפור יוסף‪ .‬אבל הדגש‬ ‫כאן איננו במחקר ההשוואתי אלא בניסיון להוכיח שהביטוי תועבת מצרים הוא עדות נוספת למסגרת‬ ‫הכרונולוגית המאוחרת של סיפור יוסף — התקופה הפרסית‪ .‬המידע הכללי שהיה למחבר המקראי על‬ ‫האיסורים המצריים דומה לזה שהיה להירודוטוס שחי ופעל באותה תקופה (פיגר והודל־הונס‪ ,‬הכניסה‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.)254–246‬‬ ‫‪ .57‬ההקשר הוא הקרבת קורבן על ידי רשעים‪ .‬זוהי הפעם היחידה שהביטוי מופיע במשלי בהקשר‬ ‫פולחני אך הדגש הוא על התנהגות של צביעות‪ ,‬העמדת פנים‪ ,‬המעומתת כאן עם “תפילת ישרים”‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .58‬ראו לעיל‪ 2 ,‬ב‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .59‬בעיקר בכתבים האוטוביוגרפיים‪ ,‬בספרות המתים ובכתובות במקדשים‪ :‬כך בכתובת אחמוסה‬ ‫משושלת ‪ 18‬נאמר שהוא “לא אכל את תועבת האלים”; בווידוי המת בספר המתים הנפטר מצהיר ש”לא‬ ‫עשה את תועבות האלים” (פוקנר‪ ,‬ספר המתים‪ ,‬פרק ‪ ,125‬עמ’ ‪ ;29‬מונטה‪ ,‬הפרי האסור‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;)114‬וכן‬ ‫נאמר שם שתועבת האל הורוס היא חזיר (שם‪ ,‬פרק ‪ ,112‬עמ’ ‪ .)108‬לדוגמאות נוספות ראו הדיון לעיל‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .60‬בדב’ כה מופיעה אמנם עבירה חברתית — מרמה במידות ובמשקלות‪ ,‬אך יש להניח שמדובר‬ ‫בציטוט ממש’ כ ‪ .23‬ראו‪ :‬ויינפלד‪ ,‬ספר דברים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.267‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪283‬‬

‫ובמצרים אסורה הריגת בעלי חיים שונים באזורים שונים (ב”רשימות‬ ‫הגיאוגרפיות”)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .3‬התנהגות בלתי נאותה מבחינה חברתית — פעולות שקר ומרמה הן תועבה‬ ‫במקרא כגון‪ :‬דיבור שקר (מש’ ג ‪ ;32‬ו ‪ ;)19 ,17‬הולכת שולל את העם‬ ‫(יר’ ו ‪ ;15‬ח ‪ ;)12‬רמאות במידות ובמשקלות (מש’ יא ‪ ;1‬כ ‪ ;23 ,10‬דב’ כה‬ ‫‪ ;)16-13‬עיוות דין (מש’ יז ‪ ;)15‬עדות שקר (מש’ ו ‪ .)19‬איסורים דומים‬ ‫מופיעים בספרות השייכת למעגל החכמה המצרית;‪ 61‬אלימות פיסית‬ ‫נאסרת במקרא (שפיכות דמים וריב [מש’ ו ‪ ;)]19 ,17‬ובדומה נאסרים‬ ‫מעשי אלימות שונים במקורות המצריים‪ ,‬כגון‪ ,‬קשירת אישה וניקור עין‬ ‫‪62‬‬ ‫לתושב כפר‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬קבוצה נוספת הן עבירות שיכולות להתייחס הן למישור החברתי והן‬ ‫למישור הדתי — סטיות מיניות כגון‪ :‬הומוסקסואליות (ויק’ יח ‪ ;22‬כ ‪;13‬‬ ‫ובדומה ברשימות האיסורים של החבלים המצריים);‪ 63‬לבוש בגד אישה‬ ‫על ידי גבר ולהפך (דב’ כב ‪ ;)5‬אישה נידה אסורה בישראל (ויק’ יח ‪;19‬‬ ‫השוו יח’ יח ‪ ;6‬כב ‪ )10‬ואף במצרים‪.‬‬ ‫ניכר אפוא דמיון רב בין תכני התועבות במקרא ל”בותים” המופיעים בטקסטים‬ ‫המצריים הקדמונים‪ .‬יחד עם זאת אי אפשר להתעלם מן ההבדלים בין החומר המצרי‬ ‫למקראי‪ .‬הבדלים אלו נובעים מתפישות גיאוגרפיות‪ ,‬תרבותיות ודתיות שונות‪:‬‬ ‫כך חלוקת הארץ לארבעים ושנים חבלים שונים‪ ,‬כשלכל אחד מהם רשימת “בותים”‬ ‫אופיינית לו‪ ,‬מיוחדת למצרים ואינה מופיעה לא במקרא ולמיטב ידיעתי‪ ,‬אף לא במסופוטמיה‪.‬‬ ‫רוב האיסורים הדתיים בישראל מופנים נגד מנהגי פולחן אליליים של עמי כנען‬ ‫(בעיקר בספר דברים)‪ 64‬או נגד עבודת אלילים ונהייה אחר אלוהי נכר בכלל‪ ,‬המכונים‬ ‫בהקשר זה “תועבות”‪“ ,‬גילולים” ו”שיקוצים” (בעיקר בנבואה המקראית‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬יר’ ב ‪;7‬‬ ‫מד ‪ ;22 ,4‬יח’ ז ‪ ;20‬ח ‪ ;10-9‬יח ‪ ;12‬מלאכי ב ‪ 11‬ועוד)‪ .‬אזהרות כאלו כמובן אינן בנמצא‬ ‫במצרים הקדומה‪ ,‬המשופעת באלים שונים והידועה בפוליתיאיזם הסובלני שלה‪.‬‬ ‫חלק ניכר מאיסורי המאכל במצרים והטבואים המתייחסים לחיות שונות כרוכים‬ ‫באירועים מיתיים קדמונים ובסגידה לחיות‪ ,‬המגלמות לפי האמונה המצרית הקדומה‬ ‫אלים שונים‪ .‬מובן מאליו‪ ,‬שאמונות אלו נעדרות מן הדת העברית‪ ,‬הדוגלת באמונת הייחוד‬ ‫‪65‬‬ ‫ובהפשטה של דמות האל ואשר המוטו שלה הוא “לא תעשה לך פסל וכל תמונה”‪.‬‬

‫‪ .61‬ראו לעיל‪ 2 ,‬ב‬ ‫‪ .62‬אופרר‪ ,‬איסורים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.107 ,102‬‬ ‫‪ .63‬ראו לעיל‪ ,‬הערה ‪.45‬‬ ‫‪ .64‬השוו לעיל‪ 3 ,‬א‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .65‬מעניין להשוות עם יחזקאל פרק ח שבו פולחן בנוסח המצרי (אם כי מקורו עשוי להיות גם‬ ‫מיסופוטמיה‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬כשר‪ ,‬יחזקאל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,)250‬כלומר סגידה ל”כל תבנית רמש ובהמה שקץ וכל גילולי בית‬ ‫ישראל”‪ ,‬החקוקים על קירות המקדש‪ ,‬נחשבת ל”תועבות גדולות” (יח’ ח ‪.)13 ,6‬‬

‫*‪284‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫ולבסוף‪ ,‬במקרא באים איסורי התועבה המתייחסים לנושאים נוספים שאינם בספרות‬ ‫הרלוונטית המצרית‪ .‬איסורים אלו הם‪ :‬עושק העני (יח’ יח ‪ ;)12‬גילוי עריות (ויק’ יח‬ ‫‪ ;18-6‬יח’ יח ‪ ;11‬כב ‪ ;)11‬נישואים עם נשים נוכריות (עזרא ט ‪ .)14-11‬תועבות אלו‬ ‫נחשבות לפגיעה באושיות הדת העברית — הגישה ההומאנית‪ 66‬והשמירה על טוהר העדה‬ ‫והמשפחה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .4‬פירוש “תועבת מצרים” לאור הרקע המצרי‬ ‫יוסף פוקד להביא את אחיו לביתו ו”לטבוח טבח והכן כי אתי יאכלו האנשים בצהרים”‬ ‫(בר’ מג ‪ .)16‬ובהמשך מסופר כי כל אחד מהם אכל לבדו (שם ‪ .)32‬לכאורה הערה תמוהה‬ ‫המכילה סתירה‪ .‬יש להבין את האמור כאן על רקע משמעות הסבה לסעודה משותפת‬ ‫בכלל וגינוני האכילה במצרים בפרט‪ .‬התחלקות באוכל היא בעלת משמעות מטנומית‬ ‫‪67‬‬ ‫ברוב החברות‪ .‬אכילה משותפת מסמלת השתייכות חברתית‪ ,‬קבלה למסגרת מסוימת‪.‬‬ ‫משמעות זו משתקפת יפה בשאיפת המת המצרי לסעוד בעולם הבא יחד עם האלים או‬ ‫לפחות לאכול ממזונם‪ .‬מזון זה מסמל את הידע‪ ,‬היכולת להבחין בין טוב לרע‪ ,‬בדומה‬ ‫‪68‬‬ ‫לפרי עץ הדעת בסיפור גן עדן‪.‬‬ ‫נימוסי השולחן המצריים היו קפדניים ונוקשים‪ ,‬והם אחד מן הנושאים המרכזיים‬ ‫בהוראות אב לבן (פתחחותפ‪ ,‬אמנמאופת ועוד)‪ 69.‬יתר על כן‪ ,‬סטייה או חריגה מנימוסים‬ ‫אלו נתפשה כ”תועבת הכא” (פתחחותפ לעיל)‪.‬‬ ‫עיון באיורים המתארים משתאות וחינגות‪ ,‬השכיחים בקברי האצולה המצרית מלמד‬ ‫על סדר ישיבה קבוע ואחיד במסיבות אלו‪ :‬נוהגת הפרדה ברורה בין נשים לגברים‬ ‫היושבים ביציעים נפרדים‪ ,‬למעט בני זוג נשואים היושבים זו בצד זה‪ .‬לפניהם ניצבים‬ ‫שולחנות עמוסים כל טוב ונערות ונערים משרתים את הגבירות ואת האדונים‪ .‬בין‬ ‫המשרתים‪ ,‬ובייחוד בקרב המנגנים‪/‬ות והרקדניות‪ ,‬ניתן למצוא גם כאלו שאינם ממוצא‬ ‫מצרי‪ ,‬אך המשתתפים בסעודה הם תמיד מצרים‪.‬‬ ‫מן המקורות המצריים עולה שהמצרים לא נהגו להסב לסעודה עם זרים‪ ,‬להוציא‬ ‫מקרים יוצאי דופן‪ ,‬כמו בפרשת נישואי רעמסס ‪ 2‬עם בתו של חתושילי ‪ ,3‬מלך חת‪.‬‬ ‫מסופר כי עם בואה של הכלה המיועדת לגבולה של ארץ מצרים‪ ,‬הצטרפו חייליו של‬ ‫המלך המצרי ובני פמלייתו אל מלוויה החתיים של הנסיכה והתערבבו בהם‪ .‬החגיגה‬

‫‪ .66‬יש לציין שהגישה ההומאנית וההתייצבות לצד החלש אופיינית גם לחיבורים מצריים שונים‪,‬‬ ‫בייחוד לספרות החכמה העיונית (או ה”נבואה המצרית”)‪ ,‬לטקסטים האוטוביוגרפיים ולווידויי המתים‬ ‫(ראו‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬סיפור האיכר צח הלשון‪ ,‬ליכטהיים‪ ,‬ספרות‪ ,1 ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;184-169‬פוקנר‪ ,‬ספר המתים‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪ ;31-29‬ריסנר‪ ,‬מונומנטים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)43-42‬‬ ‫‪ .67‬דגלס‪ ,‬טוהר‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.146‬‬ ‫‪ .68‬פרנדסן‪ ,‬הפחד‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.141-137‬‬ ‫‪ .69‬הוראה לכאגמני ‪ ;11-3 ,1‬הוראת פתחחותפ ‪ ;144-119 P‬הוראת |חתי ‪ ;F-D XXVIII‬הוראת‬ ‫אמנמאופת ‪ ;18-13 ,23‬פפירוס אינסינגר ‪ .24 ,6 — 12 ,5‬לתרגום‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬ליכטהיים‪ ,‬ספרות‪.‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪285‬‬

‫שנערכה מתוארת במלים אלו “הם אכלו ושתו יחדו בלב אחד כמו אחים מבלי להפריע‬ ‫‪70‬‬ ‫אלו לאלו”‪.‬‬ ‫במכתב מדיר אל־מדינה מן התקופה הרעמססית מוכיח אב את בנו הסורר על כי‬ ‫נדד הרחק מביתו לאזור הדלתה‪ .‬הבן מגונה במיוחד על כי כרת ברית עם האסיאתיים‬ ‫(העאמו) שוכני המקום‪ ,‬שמלווה הייתה באכילה משותפת של “לחם על דמו”‪ 71.‬הסתייגות‬ ‫אמוַ אסת בנו של רעמסס ‪,2‬‬ ‫מפורשת ממאכלים זרים מופיעה במעגל סיפורי סתנה‪ ,‬הוא ּכַ ְ‬ ‫הכתובים דמוטית‪ .‬מסופר על ביקורו של קוסם מארץ נוביה בחצר המלך‪ .‬הקוסם מפליא‬ ‫לעשות בקסמיו‪ ,‬ופרעה מצווה שיכינו לו חדר וארוחה של “דברים מתועבים (‪( )nbcy‬לפי‬ ‫‪72‬‬ ‫המנהג) הנובי"‪.‬‬ ‫הגדיל לעשות פענח’י‪ ,‬המלך הראשון של השושלת הנובית‪ ,‬אשר השתלטה על כס‬ ‫המלוכה המצרי באמצע המאה ה־‪ 8‬לפנה”ס‪ .‬מתברר שהלה הקפיד על איסורי התועבה‬ ‫הקפדה יתרה‪ ,‬ולא רק בני עמים זרים‪ ,‬אלא גם מנהיגים מצריים‪ ,‬זכו לקבלת פנים קרה‬ ‫בארמונו אם לא שמרו על מנהגי הטהרה‪ .‬כך נאסרה בפקודתו כניסתם של מנהיגי מצרים‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫העליונה והתחתונה לביתו כי היו ערלים ואוכלי דגים‪.‬‬ ‫די בדוגמאות אלו להראות שהזמנה לסעודה או אכילה משותפת הייתה בעלת‬ ‫משמעות מיוחדת בתרבות המצרית הקדומה‪.‬‬ ‫לאור זאת מתבהרת התמונה בבראשית מג ‪ :32‬יוסף‪ ,‬שהיה שר בכיר ביותר בחצר‬ ‫פרעה‪ ,‬נהג לפי הנורמות המקומיות בין משום שהיה חייב לנהוג כך מתוקף תפקידו ובין‬ ‫‪74‬‬ ‫משום שלא רצה להתגלות לפני אחיו‪ .‬פרט אחד עדיין נותר סתום והוא טיב ה”לחם”‬ ‫שמוגש למאכל לאחי יוסף (מג ‪.)31‬‬ ‫הפסקה הקודמת ברור שמדובר באכילת בשר‪“ :‬טבח טבח” מצווה יוסף את אשר‬ ‫לפי ִ‬ ‫על ביתו (שם ‪ .)16‬גם תרגום אונקלוס מרמז על כך‪“ :‬הרי העברים אוכלים את הבהמות‬ ‫שהמצרים סוגדים להן” (מג ‪ .)32‬על איזו בהמה מדובר כאן? יהיה הפתרון אשר יהיה‪ ,‬הוא‬ ‫צריך להתאים לאזכורי “תועבת מצרים” גם בשני הקטעים הנוספים במקרא — בראשית‬ ‫מו ‪ 34‬ושמות ח ‪ 75.22‬במלים אחרות‪ ,‬איזו בהמה משמשת למאכל העברים ומוקרבת‬ ‫כקורבן לאלוהיהם‪ ,‬ואילו המצרים סוגדים לה ומסתייגים מאכילתה?‬ ‫‪ .70‬כתובת ממקדש אבו סימבל ‪.5-1 ,251 ,KRI 2‬‬ ‫‪ .71‬במצרית‪ .“wnm.k ‘qw ḥr snf.k” :‬לטבעו של מנהג זה‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬צ’רני‪ ,‬התייחסות לאחווה‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .72‬סתנה ‪ ;6-5 ,3 II‬לפירוש המונח היחידאי ‪ ,nbcy‬ראו‪ :‬גריפית‪ ,‬סיפורים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ,165‬והשוו‪ :‬סונרון‪,‬‬ ‫הדעה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .63‬לפי סונרון (שם)‪ַ ,‬מ ְס ֶּפרֹו סבר שהשנאה של המצרים כלפי הנובים התבטאה גם בשנאת‬ ‫מאכליהם‪ .‬סונרון‪ ,‬ההולך בעקבותיו‪ ,‬משער שהמצרים זלזלו באומנות הבישול של זרים בכלל ולא רק‬ ‫בזו של הנובים‪ .‬ראו גם ברסיאני‪ ,‬זרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.227‬‬ ‫‪ .73‬נראה שנורמה זו נהגה בתוך ארץ מצרים‪ ,‬אולם כאשר מצרי שהה בניכר לא היסס להסב‬ ‫לסעודה עם נוכרים ולטעום מן המאכלים המקומיים‪ .‬השוו‪ :‬סיפור שאנהת‪ ,‬גרינץ‪ ,‬סיפורים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.13‬‬ ‫‪ .74‬הצירוף “אכל לחם” (בר’ מג ‪ )32‬מובנו במקרא לאכול מאכל‪ ,‬ארוחה‪ .‬השוו‪ ,BDB :‬עמ’ ‪.537‬‬ ‫‪ .75‬הופעת שלושה האזכורים של תועבת מצרים במקור אחד (‪ )J‬בסיפור המקראי והתייחסותם‬ ‫לקונטקסט זהה‪ ,‬דהיינו שהות בני ישראל במצרים‪ ,‬מורה שיש לחפש לביטוי הנדון משמעות אחת‪ .‬זאת‬ ‫בניגוד לגישתו של פינקר‪ ,‬תועבה‪ ,‬המפריד בין שלושה האזכורים ומפרש את כל אחד מהם באופן אחר‬

‫*‪286‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫המצרים סגדו לבהמות שונות — שור‪ ,‬פרה‪ ,‬תיש וכבש‪ 76.‬בהמות אלו‪ ,‬כאמור לעיל‪,‬‬ ‫סימלו אלים שונים‪ .‬אולם רק הכבש עונה על כל הנתונים‪.‬‬ ‫הכבש בוית במצרים החל מהתקופה הפרהיסטורית‪ .‬המצרים גידלו שני סוגי כבשים‪:‬‬ ‫כבש בעל קרניים ארוכות‪ ,‬שהתנוססו באופן אופקי משני צדי הראש‪ ,‬מבנה גוף גבוה וזנב‬ ‫ארוך‪ ,‬וכבש‪ ,‬שמופיע החל מן הממלכה התיכונה — בעל קרניים כפופות סביב האוזניים‪,‬‬ ‫מבנה גוף נמוך‪ ,‬זנב קצר ושמן וצמר המתאים לטוויה ולאריגה‪ .‬הכבש ממין זכר‪ ,‬האיל‪,‬‬ ‫היה לסמל של עוצמה ופוריות וייצג אלים שונים‪ :‬האל חנום‪ ,‬האל הקדר שברא את‬ ‫האנושות והחיות על גלגל היוצר ואשר מקום מושבו היה ביב‪ ,‬תואר בדמות הכבש בעל‬ ‫הקרניים הארוכות; בתבי‪ ,‬אמון האל הבורא‪ ,‬אל האוויר והרוח‪ ,‬התגלם בדמות האיל בעל‬ ‫הקרניים הכפופות‪ .‬מלבד אלים ראשיים אלו ייצג האיל אלים מקומיים‪ .‬כך‪ ,‬למשל‪ ,‬במנדס‬ ‫שבמצרים התחתונה הוא זוהה עם אוסיריס‪ ,‬אל המתים‪ .‬קרני האיל הכפופות‪ ,‬סמלו של‬ ‫האל אמון‪ ,‬עיטרו את אחד מכתריו של המלך‪ ,‬כתר ה”אטף”‪ ,‬וספינקסים בעלי ראש איל‬ ‫תחמו את דרך התהלוכה (שבה נישא פסל האל) בין מקדש כרנך למקדש לוקסור‪.‬‬ ‫ההערצה והסגידה לאיל הלכה וגברה בתקופה המאוחרת‪ ,‬ובייחוד בתקופה היוונית־‬ ‫רומית‪ .‬כך בחיבור אפוקליפטי‪ ,‬שהשתמר מתחילת המאה הראשונה לספירה‪ ,‬אבל‬ ‫המתייחס לימי המלך בוכוריס (המאה ה־‪ 7‬לפנה”ס)‪ ,‬מתייצבת כבשה כמגדת עתידות‪.‬‬ ‫בתום דברי נבואתה מתה הכבשה וזכתה לקבורה של אל‪ 77.‬לתקופה זו שייכים גם בתי‬ ‫קברות שבהם התגלו חנוטים של אילים רבים שהוטמנו בארונות עץ ובסרקופגים‪.‬‬ ‫המצרים‪ ,‬בייחוד בני המעמד הגבוה‪ ,‬נהגו לגדל עדרים של כבשים ועזים‪ .‬הכבש‬ ‫היה מקור לחלב ולמוצריו‪ ,‬לצמר‪ 78‬ולשומן שנלקח מאליתו‪ ,‬והיווה מרכיב חשוב בבישול‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫ובמרשמים רפואיים‪ .‬המצרים נעזרו בו גם בעבודות חקלאיות — זריעה ודיש‪.‬‬ ‫העדרים נשלחו בקיץ צפונה‪ ,‬לאזור הדלתה‪ ,‬לרעות באחו של היאור‪ .‬כאן חיו הרועים‬ ‫בתוך צריפי קנים שאותם העבירו ממקום למקום‪ .‬בהירארכיה של המקצועות במצרים‬ ‫‪80‬‬ ‫רעיית צאן נחשבה לעבודה משפילה ובזויה‪ ,‬בגלל תנאי החיים הקשים‪.‬‬ ‫(תועבת מצרים היא‪ :‬לבוש הצמר של העברים [בר’ מג ‪ ;]32‬רועי צאן [בר’ מו ‪ ;]34‬צורת הקרבת הקורבן‬ ‫על ידי הישראלים [שמ’ ח ‪.)]22‬‬ ‫‪ .76‬דרבי‪ ,‬גהליונגי וגריווטי‪ ,‬אוכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;223-211 ,136-120‬איקרם‪ ,‬נתחים נבחרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.19-8‬‬ ‫‪ .77‬קווק‪ ,‬תולדות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.152-150‬‬ ‫‪ .78‬בעבר הייתה מקובלת הדעה שבמצרים הקדומה לא היה צמר‪ .‬דעה זו התבססה על דברי‬ ‫הירודוטוס (ספר שני‪ ,‬סעיף ‪ )81‬שאסור היה לקבור את המת עטוף בצמר ולהכניס צמר למקדש‪ .‬אולם‬ ‫גם אם גידול כבשים לשם צמר רווח יותר בתקופה המאוחרת‪ ,‬הממצאים הארכיאולוגים מעידים שהיה‬ ‫קיים צמר החל מן התקופה השושלתית‪ .‬מכל מקום‪ ,‬הירודוטוס התייחס רק לכוהנים שלדבריו מותר להם‬ ‫ללבוש רק בגדי בד ונאסר עליהם ללבוש בגד אחר (שם‪ ,‬סעיף ‪ ,)37‬ופלוטרך (איסיס ואוסיריס‪ ,‬פרק ‪)4‬‬ ‫כותב במפורש שהכוהנים נמנעים מלהשתמש בצמרם של הכבשים (ראו‪ :‬הופפנר‪ ,‬על איסיס‪ ,‬ב‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.)5‬‬ ‫‪ .79‬סצנה שכיחה בתקופת הממלכה הקדומה היא זריעה של תבואה ורמיסת הזרעים לתוך האדמה על‬ ‫ידי עדרים של אילים וכבשים‪ ,‬ראו‪ :‬הוליאן‪ ,‬עולם החיות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 22‬ותמונה ‪ ;16‬אבנס‪ ,‬התנהגות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.66-64‬‬ ‫‪ .80‬ארמן‪ ,‬החיים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪( 440-439‬תמונות); וילקינסון‪ ,‬המצרים‪ ,2 ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;175 ,169-168‬השוו גם‬ ‫ברויר‪ ,‬כבשים ועזים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .278‬הרועה מתואר כאדם זקן‪ ,‬כחוש ובלתי מגולח — הלק‪ ,‬רועה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪;1221‬‬ ‫וילקינסון‪ ,‬המצרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.175‬‬

‫"תועבה מצרים"‪ :‬אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬

‫*‪287‬‬

‫מן הממצאים עולה שאכילת כבשים הייתה נדירה‪ ,‬ולבטח פחות שכיחה מאכילת‬ ‫בקר ועזים‪ .‬בתוך עשרות סצנות המתארות הבאת בהמות כמנחה למתים רק בסצנה‬ ‫אחת מופיעה כבשה‪ 81.‬מקומו של הכבש נפקד ברשימות של קורבנות לאלים‪ 82‬וגם‬ ‫בשלל התיאורים של שולחנות מנחה עמוסים לעייפה במטעמים שונים‪ ,‬המרבים להופיע‬ ‫‪83‬‬ ‫באומנות המצרית‪.‬‬ ‫המידע העולה מן המקורות הקלאסיים — אף שאלו מאוחרים יחסית ודיוקם מוטל‬ ‫בספק — משלים ומאשר את התמונה המתקבלת מן המקורות המצריים הקדומים‪.‬‬ ‫לפי מידע זה מסתבר כי לפחות חלק מתושבי מצרים הסתייגו מאכילת כבשים‬ ‫ומהקרבתם כקורבן‪ .‬היו אלו בראש ובראשונה תושבי המקומות שבהם סגדו לאיל‪ .‬כך‬ ‫סטרבו מספר שתושבי סאיס ותבי מעריצים את הכבשים ולא אוכלים אותם‪ 84‬ופלוטרך‬ ‫מדווח כי כוהני מצרים נמנעים מאכילת כבשים וכי רק תושבי ליקופוליס‪ ,‬אוכלים כבשים‪,‬‬ ‫‪85‬‬ ‫משום ש”הזאב שהם רואים בו אל אוכל כבשה”‪.‬‬ ‫התמונה המתקבלת מן המקורות המצריים הקדומים‪ ,‬ובחלקה גם מן המקורות‬ ‫הקלאסיים‪ ,‬זורה אפוא אור על הביטוי החידתי “תועבת מצרים” ומלבנת את השימוש בו‬ ‫בבראשית מג‪ ,‬מו ושמות ח‪.‬‬ ‫יוסף ובני פמלייתו המצרים לא הסבו לסעודה עם אחיו מטעם כפול‪ :‬הן משום‬ ‫שהאחים היו רועי צאן‪ ,‬מלאכה שנתפשה במצרים כקשה ובזויה ואשר האוחזים בה‬ ‫השתייכו למעמד החברתי הנמוך והן משום שאכלו בשר כבש‪ ,‬שהיה טאבו בייחוד בקרב‬ ‫הכהונה ובני המעמד הגבוה‪.‬‬ ‫גם דברי יוסף לאחיו בפרק מו מתבהרים‪ .‬יוסף חושש להציג את אחיו כרועי צאן פן‬ ‫יזכו ליחס מזלזל מן השלטונות‪ ,‬ואולי אלו אף יתנכלו להם‪ .‬הוא מבקש לשכנם בארץ‬ ‫גושן‪ ,‬הממוקמת בקרבה לגבולה הצפוני־מזרחי של מצרים‪ ,‬כדי להרחיקם מהישג ידם של‬

‫‪ .81‬פורטר־מוס‪ ,‬ביבליוגרפיה‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ 463‬ואילך ובייחוד עמ’ ‪ .467‬הכבש גם לא מופיע ברשימות‬ ‫מנחות למתים בכתבי הפירמידות (פוקנר‪ ,‬פירמידות) וגם לא ברשימות אלו באוטוביוגרפיות מימי‬ ‫הממלכה הקדומה והתיכונה שנכללו בספרה של ליכטהיים (ליכטהיים‪ ,‬אוטוביוגרפיות)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .82‬לדברי דרבי‪ ,‬גהליונגי וגריווטי‪“ :‬ההקרבה של הכבש הייתה נדירה יחסית לאורך רוב התקופה‬ ‫השושלתית” (אוכל‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)220‬חיזוק לדעה זו נמצא במחקרו של ברתה המקיף את רשימות הקורבנות‬ ‫לאלים ולמתים החל מראשית התקופה השושלתית וכלה בתקופה היוונית־רומית‪ .‬ברשימות אלה לא‬ ‫מופיע כבש ואילו המונח צאן (‪ )cwt‬נזכר פעם אחת בלבד (ברשימת מנחות על גבי חותם גליל מן‬ ‫השושלת הראשונה‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬ברתה‪ ,‬רשימות קורבן‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .)6‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬כמקור למנחות בשר‪ ,‬שכיחים בקר‬ ‫ואווז ולעתים מופיעות אף יונה ועז (רק שתי פעמים)‪ .‬ממצא זה סותר את דבריה של אנגלנד‪ ,‬הטוענת כי‬ ‫הכבשים מופיעים ברשימות קורבן לאלים (אנגלנד‪ ,‬קורבנות‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;567‬השוו גם איקרם [נתחים נבחרים‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪ ,]17‬המתייחסת לכבשים ולעזים יחדיו)‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .83‬השוו‪ :‬פטרס־דסטרקט‪ ,‬לחם‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ .303‬תמונה זו מתקבלת גם מבדיקת עשרות איורים של‬ ‫שולחנות מנחה בספרות הרלוונטית ובאתרי עתיקות מצרים הקדומה באינטרנט‪.‬‬ ‫‪ .84‬סטרבו‪ ,‬ספר ‪ ,17‬פרק ‪( 40‬גיאוגרפיה‪ ,8 ,‬עמ’ ‪.)109‬‬ ‫‪ .85‬פלוטרך‪ ,‬איסיס ואוסיריס‪ ,‬פרק ‪( 72‬הופפנר‪ ,‬על איסיס‪ ,2 ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;)44‬השוו גם פרקים ‪( 5–4‬שם‪,‬‬ ‫עמ’ ‪.)5‬‬

‫*‪288‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫הכוהנים ויתר המאמינים הסוגדים לאיל בתוככי הארץ‪ .‬חבל ארץ זה היה ידוע‪ ,‬כפי שצוין‬ ‫לעיל‪ ,‬כאזור מרעה מצוין‪ ,‬והרועים המצריים נהגו לרעות בו את עדריהם‪ 86.‬פרעה נעתר‬ ‫לבקשה‪ .‬יתר על כן‪ ,‬הוא מבקש למנות מקרב אחי יוסף‪ ,‬רועי הצאן המנוסים‪“ ,‬שרי מקנה”‬ ‫שיהיו ממונים על מקנהו‪ .‬כפי שראינו גם אם אכילת בשר הכבש לא הייתה פופולרית‬ ‫ונתפשה כטאבו בחבלים שונים במצרים‪ ,‬בני המעמד הגבוה‪ ,‬כולל המלך עצמו‪ ,‬גדלו‬ ‫‪87‬‬ ‫כבשים בהיותם שימושיים אף לצרכים אחרים‪.‬‬ ‫על רקע זה מתלבנת גם בקשת משה מפרעה בספר שמות (ח ‪ .)22‬בני ישראל חייבים‬ ‫לצאת מגבולות מצרים אם רצונם להקריב כבש לאל‪ ,‬שאם לא כן יסתכנו בתגובה אלימה‬ ‫מצד המצרים‪ ,‬הסוגדים לכבש ונמנעים משחיטתו‪.‬‬ ‫“תועבת מצרים” היא אפוא הכבש אשר שניים מחשובי אלי הבריאה המצריים — חנום‬ ‫ואמון — אבל גם אלים אחרים‪ ,‬לבשו את דמותו‪ .‬אמנם פתרון זה כבר מוזכר‪ ,‬לצד פירושים‬ ‫אחרים‪ ,‬בפרשנות היהודית הקדומה‪ .‬אולם זוהי דוגמה נוספת מיני רבות לסוגיה פרשנית‬ ‫שלא ניתן לפותרה לאור פרשנות פנים־מקראית בלבד‪ .‬רק בסיועו של המחקר ההשוואתי‬ ‫עם תרבות המזרח התיכון הקדום‪ ,‬במקרה הנדון — המידע הנובע מן המקורות הספרותיים‬ ‫והאומנותיים והממצא החומרי המעידים על מנהגי המצרים הקדמונים‪ ,‬הליכותיהם‬ ‫ואמונותיהם — ניתן למצוא את פישרה של תועבת מצרים‪.‬‬ ‫חיזוק לפתרון זה של חידת “תועבת מצרים” עולה גם מדברי חז”ל‪ ,‬המסבירים את‬ ‫היותו של קורבן הפסח דווקא שה‪ ,‬כסמל מתריס וכפולמוס נגד האליל המצרי‪“ :‬שיראו‬ ‫המצרים את יראתם (השה) קשורה בבשת ובזוי בבתי היהודים וישמעוה צועקת ואין‬ ‫‪88‬‬ ‫מושיע לה”‪.‬‬ ‫רשימה ביבליוגרפית‬ ‫]‪J.H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 4, London 1988 [1905‬‬ ‫‪F. Brown, S.R. Driver, C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew- English Lexicon of the‬‬ ‫‪Old Testament, Oxford 1966‬‬ ‫ ‪KRI‬‬ ‫‪K.A. Kitchen, Ramesside Inscriptions, 4, Oxford 1982‬‬ ‫ ‪LÄ‬‬ ‫‪eds. W. Helck and W. Westendorf, Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Wiesbaden‬‬ ‫‪1972-1989‬‬ ‫‪Urk IV K. Sethe, Urkunden der 18 Dynastie, 4 vols., Berlin 1961‬‬ ‫ ‪Wb.‬‬ ‫‪A. Erman and H. Grapow, Wörterbuch der ägyptischen Sprache, 7‬‬ ‫]‪vols., Berlin-Leipzig 1971 [1926‬‬

‫ ‪ARE‬‬ ‫ ‪BDB‬‬

‫‪ .86‬סיבה נוספת יכולה להיות העובדה שמקדמת דנא שכנה באזור זה אוכלוסיה זרה ממוצא סורי־‬ ‫ארץ ישראלי — מסגרת מתאימה לעברים‪ ,‬רועי צאן‪ .‬ראו‪ :‬ביטק‪ ,‬היקסוס‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪ ;142‬הלק‪ ,‬זרים‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.307‬‬ ‫‪ .87‬יחד עם זאת יש להניח שהעם הפשוט לא נמנע מאכילת בשר כבש כמו שלא נמנע מאכילת‬ ‫החזיר שהיה טאבו במצרים‪ .‬כך ברשימת אספקת מזון לצבא‪ ,‬מתוצרת א”י המופיעה בפפירוס אנסטאזי ‪1‬‬ ‫מן התקופה הרעמססית‪ ,‬נמנים “‪ 120‬ענח’ו (‪ )cnḫw‬מסוגים שונים” (‪ ;)6, 17‬כלומר‪ ,‬צאן — עזים וכבשים —‬ ‫מסוגים שונים‪ .‬ראו פישר־אלפרט‪ ,‬אנסטאזי ‪ ,1‬עמ’ ‪ 151 ,149‬והערה ‪ ;g‬מלמט‪ ,‬לוח מזון‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.176‬‬ ‫‪ .88‬חזקוני‪ ,‬פירוש‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬עמ’ רפ”א; השוו‪ :‬גבריהו‪ ,‬תועבות‪ ,‬משאב אלקטרוני‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪.3‬‬

289*

‫ אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬:"‫"תועבה מצרים‬

171 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשל”ט‬,‫ ב‬,‫ כתובות פיניקיות והמקרא‬,‫ כתובות = י’ אבישור‬,‫אבישור‬ S.H. Aufrère, “Les interdits religieux des nomes dans les = ‫ איסורים‬,‫אופרר‬ monographies en Égypte, Un autre regard”, L’ interdit et le sacré dans les religions de la Bible et de L’ Égypte: Actes du colloque Montpellier, le 20 mars 1998, eds. S. H. Aufrère and J- M. Marconot, Université Paul-Valéry, Montpellier 1998, pp. 69-113 L. Evans, Animal Behaviour in Egyptian Art, Representation of = ‫ התנהגות‬,‫אבנס‬ the Natural World in Memphite Tomb Scenes, Oxford 2010, pp. 64-66, 92-93 S. Ikram, Choise Cuts: Meat Production in Ancient Egypt, = ‫ נתחים נבחרים‬,‫איקרם‬ Leuven 1995, pp. 8-19 R. Alter, Genesis, New York-London 1997, pp. 258, 278 = ‫ בראשית‬,‫אלטר‬ G. Englund, “Offerings”, ed. D.B. Redford, The Oxford = ‫ קורבנות‬,‫אנגלנד‬ Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 2, Oxford 2001, pp. 564-569 A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, tran. H. M. Tirard, New York 1971 = ‫ החיים‬,‫ארמן‬ M. Bietak, “Hyksos”, ed. D.B. Redford, The Oxford Encyclopedia , = ‫ היקסוס‬,‫ביטק‬ of Ancient Egypt, 2, Oxford 2001, pp. 136-143

‫ תל אביב‬,‫ תרגום י’ נ’ שמחוני‬,‫ חיי יוסף‬,‫ נגד אפיון‬,‫ נגד אפיון = י’ בן מתתיהו‬,‫בן מתתיהו‬ ‫תשי”ט‬ D.J. Brewer, “Sheep and Goats”, ed. D.B. Redford, The = ‫ כבשים ועזים‬,‫ברויר‬ Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, 3, Oxford 2001, pp. 278-279 S. Brayford, Genesis (Septuagint Commentary Series), = ‫ בראשית‬,‫בריפורד‬ Leiden-Boston, MA 2007, pp. 175, 185, 425-427, 436-438 E. Bresciani, “Foreigners”, ed. S. Donadoni, The Egyptians, = ‫ זרים‬,‫ברסיאני‬ Chicago-London 1997, pp. 221-253 W. Barta, Die altägyptische Opferliste,von der Frühzeit bis = ‫ רשימות קורבן‬,‫ברתה‬ zur griechisch- römischen Epoche, Berlin 1963

:‫ משאב אלקטרוני‬.)‫ מחניים כח (תשט”ז‬, ”‫ “תועבות מצרים‬,‫ תועבות = ח"מ גבריהו‬,‫גבריהו‬ http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/mahanaim/tohen.htm I. Gamer-Wallert, Fische und Fischekult im Alten Ägypten, = ‫ דגים‬,‫גמר־וולרט‬ (Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 21) 1970, pp. 22-23, 64, 80-85 A. Gardiner, “Sign-list”, Egyptian Grammar, London = ‫ רשימת סימנים‬,‫גרדינר‬ 1966, pp. 442-543 M. Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, New York 1969, pp. 202- = ‫ שמות‬,‫גרינברג‬ 204

,‫ מזמורים ומשלים מספרות מצרים העתיקה‬,‫ סיפורים‬,‫ סיפורים = י"מ גרינץ‬,‫גרינץ‬ 21-5 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ירושלים תשל”ה‬ F. Ll. Griffith, Stories of the High Priests of Memphis, Osnabrück = ‫ סיפורים‬,‫גריפית‬ 1985 [1900], pp.142-173

‫נילי שופק‬

290*

E. Gerstenberger, “‫ תעב‬tcb, to abhor”, eds. E. Jenni, C. = ‫ תעב‬,‫גרסטנברגר‬ Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3, Peabody, Mass. 1997, pp. 1428-1431

,‫ תרגום י’ סלע‬,‫ ניתוח של המושגים זיהום וטאבו‬,‫ טוהר וסכנה‬,‫ טוהר = מ’ דגלס‬,‫דגלס‬ 2004 ‫תל אביב‬ R. de Vaux, La Genèse, Paris 1962, p. 203 = ‫ בראשית‬,‫דה־וו‬ R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, Philadelphia 1978, p. = ‫ היסטוריה‬,‫דה־וו‬ 375 Diodorus of Sicily, I, Books I- II.34, trans. C. H. = ‫ ביבליוטקה היסטוריקה‬,‫דיודורוס‬ Oldfather (Loeb Classical Library), Cambridge, MA 1989 [1933] W.J. Darby, P. Ghalionngui and L. Grivetti, Food: = ‫ אוכל‬,‫ גהליונגי וגריווטי‬,‫דרבי‬ Gift of Osiris, 1, London-New York-San Francisco 1977 S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge Bible) Cambridge, = ‫ שמות‬,‫דרייבר‬ 1953 [1911], pp. 68-69 F. Hagen, “Echoes of ‘Ptahhotep’ in Greco-Roman Period?”, = ‫ פתחחותפ‬,‫הגן‬ Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 136 (2009), pp. 130-135 P.F. Houlihan, The Animal World of the Pharaohs, London = ‫ עולם החיות‬,‫הוליהן‬ 1996 P. Humbert, “Le substantif tocēbā et le verbe tcb dans l’ Ancien = ‫ תועבה‬,‫הומברט‬ Testament”, Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 72 (1960), pp. 217-237 c P. Humbert, “L’Étymologie du substantive to ēbā”, ed. A. = ‫ אטימולוגיה‬,‫הומברט‬ Kuschke, Verbannung und Heimkehr, Beitrage zur Geschichte und Theologie Israels im 6 und 5 Jahrhundert v. Chr.,Wilhelm Rudolph zum 70. Geburtstag dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schulern, Tübingen 1961, pp. 157-160

‫ ירושלים תרצ”ה‬,4-1 ‫ ספר‬,‫ א‬,‫ בתרגום א’ שור‬,‫הירודוטוס = כתבי הירודוטוס‬ W.W. Hallo, “Biblical Abomination and Sumerian Taboos”, = ‫ תועבות‬,‫האלו‬ Jewish Quarterly Review 76 (1985), Essays in Memory of Moshe Held, pp. 21-40 W. Helck, “Fremde in Ägypten”, LÄ, 2, 1977, pp. 306-310 = ‫ זרים‬,‫הלק‬ W. Helck, “Hirt”, LÄ , 2, 1977, pp. 1220-1223 = ‫ רועה‬,‫הלק‬ R. Hannig, Grosses Handwörterbuch Ägytisch-Deutsch (2800-950 = ‫ מילון‬,‫הניג‬ v. Chr.), Mainz 1995 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, = ‫ ספר דברים‬,‫ויינפלד‬ Oxford 1972, pp. 267-269 P. Wilson, A Ptolemaic Lexicon, A Lexicographical Study of the = ‫ לקסיקון‬,‫וילסון‬ Texts in the Temple of Edfu, Leuven 1997, pp. v-xiii, 314-315

291*

‫ אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬:"‫"תועבה מצרים‬

J.G. Wilkinson, The Ancient Egyptians, Their Life and = ‫ המצרים‬,‫וילקינסון‬ Customs, 2, London 1994, pp. 168-178

237–230 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ בית מקרא סט (תשל”ז‬,”‫ “תועבה‬,‫ תועבה = צ’ וינברג‬,‫וינברג‬ J. Vandier, Le Papyrus Jumilhac, Paris 1904, pp. 113-124 = ‫ פפירוס יומילהק‬,‫ונדיאר‬ C. Westermann, Genesis (A Practical Commentary), Michigan = ‫ בראשית‬,‫וסטרמן‬ 1986, pp. 294, 309

‫ ירושלים‬,‫ שמות‬,‫ בראשית‬,‫ א‬,‫ חזקוני פירוש על התורה‬,‫ פירוש = ח’ בן מנוח‬,‫חזקוני‬ ‫תשמ”ג‬ ‫קלא‬-‫ עמ’ קל‬,‫ ירושלים תשנ”ה‬,)‫ שמות (מוסד הרב קוק‬,‫ שמות = ע’ חכם‬,‫חכם‬ A.S. Yahuda, Die Sprache des Pentateuch in Ihren Beziehungen = ‫ לשון‬,‫יהודה‬ zum Aegyptischen, 1, Berlin-Leipzig 1929, pp. 71-73, 90 H. Junker, “Vorschriften für den Tempelkult in Philä”, Studia = ‫ הוראות‬,‫יונקר‬ Biblica et Orientalia 3, Oriens Antiquus, Rome 1959, pp. 151-160 B. Yacob, The Second Book of the Bible Exodus, trans. W. Jacob, = ‫ שמות‬,‫יעקוב‬ New Jersey 1992, p. 269

‫ ירושלים תשכ”ט‬,‫ תנ”ך עם פירוש מדעי‬,‫ ספר בראשית‬,‫ בראשית = א’ כהנא‬,‫כהנא‬ ‫ ירושלים תשכ”ט‬,‫ תנ”ך עם פירוש מדעי‬,‫ ספר שמות‬,‫ שמות = א’ כהנא‬,‫כהנא‬ 250 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ירושלים תשס”ד‬-‫ תל אביב‬,‫ א‬,)‫ יחזקאל (מקרא לישראל‬,‫ יחזקאל = ר’ כשר‬,‫כשר‬ J. L’ Hour, “Les interdits toceba dans le Deuteronomie”, Revue = ‫ תועבה‬,‫ל’אור‬ Biblique 71 (1964), pp. 481-503 M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 3 vols., Berkely- = ‫ ספרות‬,‫ליכטהיים‬ Los Angeles-London 1973-1980 M. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Autobiographies = ‫ אוטוביוגרפיות‬,‫ליכטהיים‬ Chiefly of the Middle Kingdom, A Study and an Anthology (OBO 84), Freiburg-Göttingen 1988 G. Larson, Bound for Freedom: The Book of Exodus in Jewish and = ‫ שמות‬,‫לרסון‬ Christian Traditions, Grand Rapids, MA 1999, p. 64 P. Montet, “Le fruit défendu”, Kêmi 11-12 (1950-1952), pp. = ‫ הפרי האסור‬,‫מונטה‬ 85-116 J. Milgrom, “Abomination”, Encyclopaedia Yudahica, 1, = ‫ תועבה‬,‫מילגרום‬ Detroit 2007, pp. 269-270

‫ ידיעות החברה‬,”‫ “לוח מזון צבאי בפאפירוס אנאסטאזי א’ ובמקרא‬,‫ לוח = א’ מלמט‬,‫מלמט‬ 182-175 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ יט (תשט”ו‬,‫לארץ ישראל ועתיקותיה‬ J.A. Soggin, “Notes on the Joseph Story”, ed. A.G. Auld, = ‫ סיפור יוסף‬,‫סוג’ין‬ Understanding Poets and Prophets, Essays in Honour of George Wishart Andreson, Sheffield 1993, pp. 336-349 S. Sauneron, “L’Avis des Egyptiens sur la cuisine Soudanaise”, = ‫ הדעה‬,‫סונרון‬ Kusch 7 (1959), pp. 63-70

‫נילי שופק‬

292*

Strabo, The Geography of Strabo, trans. H.L. Jones (Loeb = ‫ גיאוגרפיה‬,‫סטרבו‬ Classical Library), 8, Cambridge , MA 1959 [1932] E.A. Speiser, Genesis (Anchor Bible), Garden City, NY 1964, = ‫ בראשית‬,‫ספייזר‬ pp. 328-329 J. Skinner, Genesis (International Critical Commentary),= ‫ בראשית‬,‫סקינר‬ Edinburgh 1963[1910], pp. 482, 496-497 N.M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, New York 1966, pp. 223- = ‫ בראשית‬,‫סרנה‬ 225 N.M. Sarna, Exodus (The TBS Torah Commentary), Philadelphia- = ‫ שמות‬,‫סרנה‬ New York 1991, p.43 G. von Rad, Genesis (Old Testament Library), London 1976, = ‫ בראשית‬,‫פון ראד‬ pp. 389, 404 R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford = ‫ פירמידות‬,‫פוקנר‬ 1969 R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, 3, Warminster, = ‫ ארונות‬,‫פוקנר‬ England 1978 R.O. Faulkner, The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead, = ‫ ספר המתים‬,‫פוקנר‬ London 1985 [1972] B. Porter and R.L.B. Moss, Topographical Bibliography = ‫ ביבליוגרפיה‬,‫פורטר־מוס‬ of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings, I, The Theben Necropolis Part 1. Private Tombs, Oxford 1960 M. Peters-Destéract, Pain, bière et toutes bonnes choses… = ‫ לחם‬,‫פטרס־דסטרקט‬ L’alimentation dans l’Égypte ancienne, éditions du Rocher, 1995 Porphyry, On Abstinence from animal food, trans. T. Taylor, = ‫ רתיעה‬,‫פורפירי‬ London-Fontwells 1965 M. Fieger and S. Hodel-Hoenes, Der Einzug in = ‫ הכניסה‬,‫פיגר והודל־הונס‬ Ägypten, Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Josefgeschichte, Bern-BerlinBruxelles 2007, pp. 246-257 A. Pinker, “Abomination to Egyptians in Genesis 43: 32, 46:34,= ‫ תועבה‬,‫פינקר‬ and Exodus 8:22”, Old Testament Essays 22 (2009), pp. 151-174 W.H. Pickette, The Meaning and Function of T’b / To’vah in the = ‫ תועבה‬,‫פיקט‬ Hebrew Bible, Ann Arbor Mi.: University Microfilms International, 1986, pp. 97-111 H.W. Fischer-Elfert, Die Satirische Streitschrift des = ‫ אנאסטזי‬,‫פישר־אלפרט‬ Papyrus Anastasi I, Wiesbaden 1986, pp. 149-151 Plutarch, Über Isis und Osiris, trans. T. Hopfner, 2, = ‫ איסיס ואוסיריס‬,‫פלוטרך‬ Darmsadt 1967

293*

‫ אור חדש על בעיה ישנה‬:"‫"תועבה מצרים‬

J. Vergote, Joseph en Égypte, Louvaine 1959, pp. 188-189 = ‫ יוסף‬,‫פרחוטה‬ P.L. Frandsen, “Tabu”, LÄ 4, Wiesbaden 1986, pp. 135-142 = ‫ טאבו‬,‫פרנדסן‬ P.L. Frandsen, “On the Avoidance of Certain Forms of Loud = ‫ קול רם‬,‫פרנדסן‬ Voices and Access to the Sacred”,eds. W. Clarysse, A. Schoors and H. Willems, Egyptian Religion the Last Thousand Years, Part 2, Studies Dedicated to the Memory of Jam Quaegebeur, Leuven 1998, pp. 975-1000 P.L. Frandsen, “On Fear of Death and the Three BWTS Connected = ‫ הפחד‬,‫פרנדסן‬ with Hathor”, eds. E. Teeter and J.A. Larson, Gold of Praise, Studies on Ancient Egypt in Honor of Edward F. Wente, Chicago, IL 1999, pp. 131-148 P.L. Frandsen, “Bwt in the Body”, ed. H. Willems, Social = ‫ בות בגוף‬,‫פרנדסן‬ Aspects of Funerary Culture in the Egyptian Old and Middle Kingdoms, Proceedings of the international symposium held at Leiden University 6-7 June,1996, Leuven-Paris-Sterling-Virginia 2001, pp. 141-174 P.L. Frandsen, “Le Fruit défendu dans l’Égypte ancienne”, = ‫ הפרי האסור‬,‫פרנדסן‬ Bulletin Société d’Égyptologie - Genève 25 (2002-3), pp. 57-74 P.L. Frandsen, “Durkheim’s dichotomy sacred: profane and = ‫ דיכוטומיה‬,‫פרנדסן‬ the Egyptian category bwt”, eds. Z. Hawass and J.H. Wegner, Millions of Jubilees, Studies in Honor of David P. Silverman, 1, Cairo 2010, pp. 149-174 B.S. Childs, Exodus (Old Testament Library), London 1974, pp. = ‫ שמות‬,‫צ’יילדס‬ 156-157 J. Černý , “Reference to Blood Brotherhood among = ‫ התייחסות לאחווה‬,‫צ’רני‬ Semites in Egyptian Text of the Ramesside Period,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 14 (1955), pp. 161-163

,‫ ניתוח דקדוקי ולשוני של אסטלת הניצחון של פיענחי‬,‫ ניתוח דקדוקי = ד’ קאהן‬,‫קאהן‬ ‫ חיבור לשם התואר‬,‫ המדינית והתרבותית העולה מהטקסט‬,‫והמציאות הצבאית‬ ‫ ירושלים תשס”א‬,‫ האוניברסיטה העברית‬,‫לפילוסופיה‬ 73 ’‫ עמ‬,‫ ירושלים תשכ”ט‬,‫ פירוש על ספר שמות‬,‫ שמות = מ”ד קאסוטו‬,‫קאסוטו‬ L. Kohler and W. Baumgartner, Hebräisches und = ‫ מילון‬,‫קוהלר־באומגרטנר‬ Aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament, 4 vols., Leiden-New York 19671990 J.F. Quack, Studien zur Lehre für Merikare, Wiesbaden 1992 = ‫ למריכארע‬,‫קווק‬ J.F. Quack, Einführung in die Altägyptische Literaturgeschichte III, = ‫ תולדות‬,‫קווק‬ die demotische und gräko-ägyptische Literatur, Münster 2005, pp. 150-152 M. Korostovtsev, “Stele de Ramsès IV”, Bulletin de = ‫ מצבה‬,‫קורוסטובטסב‬ l’Institut français d’Archéologie orientale 45 (1947), pp. 155-173

‫ “’תועבה’ ותועבות בספרות המסופוטמית‬,‫ תועבה = י’ קליין וי’ צפתי‬,‫קליין־צפתי‬ 148-131 ’‫ עמ‬,)‫ באר שבע ג (תשמ”ח‬,”‫ובמקרא‬

‫*‪294‬‬

‫נילי שופק‬

‫ראב”ע ‪ ,‬שמות = פירוש ראב”ע לספר שמות‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ירושלים‪-‬תל אביב‬ ‫תשי”ט‬ ‫ראב”ע ‪ ,‬בראשית = פירוש ראב”ע לספר בראשית‪ ,‬בעריכת מ’ כהן‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‬ ‫הכתר‪ ,‬אוניברסיטת בר־אילן‪ ,‬רמת גן תש”ס‬ ‫רדפורד‪ ,‬יוסף = ‪D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis‬‬ ‫‪37-50), Leiden 1970, p. 235‬‬

‫רד”ק‪ ,‬שמות = פירוש רד”ק לספר שמות‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ירושלים‪-‬תל אביב תשי”ט‬ ‫רד”ק‪ ,‬בראשית = פירוש רד”ק לספר בראשית‪ ,‬בעריכת מ’ כהן‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות הכתר‪,‬‬ ‫אוניברסיטת בר־אילן‪ ,‬רמת גן תש”ס‬ ‫ריסנר‪ ,‬מונומנטים = ‪M. B. Reisner, “Inscribed monuments from Gebel Barkal”,‬‬ ‫‪Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 70 (1967), pp. 42-43‬‬

‫רשב”ם‪ ,‬שמות = פירוש רשב”ם לספר שמות‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ירושלים‪-‬תל אביב‬ ‫תשי”ט‬ ‫רשב”ם‪ ,‬בראשית = פירוש רשב”ם לספר בראשית‪ ,‬בעריכת מ’ כהן‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‬ ‫הכתר‪ ,‬אוניברסיטת בר־אילן‪ ,‬רמת גן תש”ס‬ ‫רש”י‪ ,‬שמות = פירוש רש”י לספר שמות‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות‪ ,‬א‪ ,‬ירושלים‪-‬תל אביב תשי”ט‬ ‫רש”י‪ ,‬בראשית = פירוש רש”י לספר בראשית‪ ,‬בעריכת מ’ כהן‪ ,‬מקראות גדולות הכתר‪,‬‬ ‫אוניברסיטת בר־אילן‪ ,‬רמת גן תש”ס‬ ‫שד”ל = פירוש שד”ל‪ ,‬ר’ שמואל דוד לוצאטו על חמישה חומשי תורה‪ ,‬תל אביב‪ ,‬תשל”ב‬ ‫[תשכ”ו]‬ ‫שופק (שצ’ופק)‪ ,‬סיפור יוסף = נ’ שצ’ופק‪“ ,‬סיפור יוסף — בין אגדה להיסטוריה”‪ ,‬בעריכת‬ ‫א’ הורביץ‪ ,‬א’ הורוויץ‪ ,‬מ’ פוקס‪ ,‬מ’ קליין‪ ,‬ב’ י’ שוורץ ונ’ שצ’ופק‪ ,‬מקדש‪ ,‬מקרא‪,‬‬ ‫ומסורת מנחה למנחם הרן‪ ,‬אינדיאנה ‪ ,1996‬עמ’ ‪133-125‬‬ ‫שופק (שצ’ופק)‪ ,‬קטעים = נ’ שצ’ופק‪ ,‬קטעים נבחרים מתוך ספרות החכמה המצרית‬ ‫הקדומה (תרגום והערות)‪ ,‬יוזמה‪ ,‬חיפה תשס”ד [תשל”ז]‬ ‫שופק‪ ,‬החומר המצרי = נ’ שופק‪“ ,‬החומר המצרי ככלי לליבון סוגיית ראשית ישראל“‪,‬‬ ‫בעריכת נ’ שופק‪ ,‬ראשית ישראל במקרא ובמחקר‪ ,‬בית מקרא קעו (תשס”ד)‪ ,‬עמ’‬ ‫‪88-67‬‬ ‫שופק‪ ,‬עיון מחודש = נ’ שופק‪“ ,‬עיון מחודש בחלומות השרים ופרעה בסיפור יוסף‬ ‫(בראשית מ‪-‬מא) בזיקה לחלומות המצריים”‪ ,‬שנתון לחקר המקרא והמזרח הקדום‪,‬‬ ‫בעריכת ש’ יפת‪ ,‬טו (תשס”ה)‪ ,‬עמ’ ‪95-55‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫*‪295‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫אבו־סמרא‪ ,‬ג’ *‪8‬‬ ‫אביגד‪ ,‬נ’ *‪105‬‬ ‫אבישור‪ ,‬י’ *‪12* 11* 10* 7* 6* 4* 2* ,1‬‬ ‫*‪23* 22* 21* 20* 18* 17* 16* 14‬‬ ‫*‪281* 153* 151* 25* 24‬‬ ‫אבנס‪ ,‬ל’ *‪286‬‬ ‫אדלמן‪ ,‬ד"ו *‪252* 251* 248* 241‬‬ ‫אוארבך‪ ,‬א’ *‪254‬‬ ‫אובידיוס *‪156‬‬ ‫אוברמן‪ ,‬י’ *‪153‬‬ ‫אוטו‪ ,‬א’ *‪94* 91‬‬ ‫אולט‪ ,‬י’ *‪114‬‬ ‫אולמסטד‪ ,‬א"ט *‪230* 229‬‬ ‫אוסישקין‪ ,‬ד’ *‪67* 63* 62* 61* 50‬‬ ‫אופנהיים‪ ,‬א"ל *‪102‬‬ ‫אופנהיימר‪ ,‬ב’ *‪67* 50* 49* 48‬‬ ‫אופרר‪ ,‬ס"ה *‪282* 279* 278‬‬ ‫אוקונור‪ ,‬מ’ *‪247* 245* 243‬‬ ‫אורבך‪ ,‬א"א *‪204‬‬ ‫אחיטוב‪ ,‬ש’ *‪251* 103‬‬ ‫אייכרודט‪ ,‬ו’ *‪175* 163‬‬ ‫איילי‪ ,‬נ’ *‪84* 75‬‬ ‫איקרם‪ ,‬ס’ *‪287* 286‬‬ ‫אמרטון‪ ,‬י"א *‪185‬‬ ‫אישידה‪ ,‬ת’ *‪48‬‬ ‫אל־ראוי‪ ,‬פנ"ה *‪85* 84* 81‬‬ ‫אלטר‪ ,‬ר’ *‪275* 248‬‬ ‫אליאדה‪ ,‬מ’ *‪166‬‬ ‫אמיר‪ ,‬א’ *‪108‬‬ ‫אמית‪ ,‬י’ *‪244* 50* 16‬‬ ‫אנדרסון‪ ,‬א"א *‪251* 128* 126‬‬

‫אנדרסון‪ ,‬ג"א *‪76‬‬ ‫אנדרסן‪ ,‬פ"י *‪114* 110* 107* 106* 49‬‬ ‫*‪175* 172* 117* 115‬‬ ‫אסטור‪ ,‬מ"צ *‪156‬‬ ‫אסטר‪ ,‬ש"ז *‪236‬‬ ‫אפעל‪ ,‬י’ *‪233* 231* 36‬‬ ‫אקסום‪ ,‬י"ש *‪256‬‬ ‫אקרויד‪ ,‬פ"א *‪251* 128* 127‬‬ ‫ארליך‪ ,‬א"ב *‪138* 137* 113* 111* 14* 3‬‬ ‫ארמן‪ ,‬א’ *‪286* 185‬‬ ‫אשכנזי‪ ,‬ב' *‪204‬‬ ‫אשכנזי‪ ,‬נ’ *‪252‬‬ ‫באומגרטנר‪ ,‬ו’ *‪271‬‬ ‫באר‪ ,‬ג’ *‪9‬‬ ‫בגריך‪ ,‬י’ *‪168‬‬ ‫בובטי‪ ,‬פ’ *‪95‬‬ ‫בודה‪ ,‬ק’ *‪128* 126* 125* 124* 107‬‬ ‫*‪265* 145‬‬ ‫בוהלן‪ ,‬ר’ *‪65* 48‬‬ ‫בוליו‪ ,‬פ"א *‪84‬‬ ‫בולינג‪ ,‬ר’ *‪14‬‬ ‫בורגר‪ ,‬ר’ *‪231* 82‬‬ ‫ביורנרד‪ ,‬ר"ב *‪172‬‬ ‫ביטק‪ ,‬מ’ *‪288‬‬ ‫ביירלי‪ ,‬ס’ *‪2‬‬ ‫ביקרמן‪ ,‬א’ *‪264‬‬ ‫ביתן‪ ,‬ח’ *‪40‬‬ ‫בלאו‪ ,‬י’ *‪25‬‬ ‫בלנקינסופ‪ ,‬י’ *‪133* 132* 75‬‬ ‫בן־ברק‪ ,‬צ’ *‪60* 58* 56* 53* 52* 47‬‬

‫*‪295‬‬

‫*‪296‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫בן־גוריון‪ ,‬ד’ *‪39‬‬ ‫בן־יהודה‪ ,‬א’ *‪8‬‬ ‫בן־ישר‪ ,‬מ’ *‪217‬‬ ‫בנבנשתי‪ ,‬מ’ *‪41* 40‬‬ ‫בנצינגר‪ ,‬י’ *‪236* 234‬‬ ‫בקינג‪ ,‬ב’ *‪236* 234* 229‬‬ ‫בר־אפרת‪ ,‬ש’ *‪251* 249* 248* 246‬‬ ‫ברגמן‪ ,‬ש"ה *‪261‬‬ ‫ברגר‪ ,‬ד’ *‪206‬‬ ‫ברויר‪ ,‬ד"י *‪286‬‬ ‫ברוגמן‪ ,‬ו’ *‪252* 251* 248* 247* 246‬‬ ‫ברטון‪ ,‬י’ *‪262‬‬ ‫ברטל‪ ,‬א’ *‪265‬‬ ‫ברטלר‪ ,‬מ’ *‪236* 235* 229‬‬ ‫ברטצ’ק‪ ,‬ג’ *‪111* 106‬‬ ‫ברייט‪ ,‬ג’ *‪233* 229* 135* 134* 133‬‬ ‫ברייס‪ ,‬ג’ *‪194* 185‬‬ ‫בריפורד‪ ,‬ס’ *‪275‬‬ ‫ברלין‪ ,‬א’ *‪254* 111‬‬ ‫ברעו‪ ,‬ג’ *‪102‬‬ ‫ברני‪ ,‬ק"פ *‪14* 13‬‬ ‫ברנר‪ ,‬ע’ *‪50‬‬ ‫ברסטד‪ ,‬ג"ה *‪53* 52‬‬ ‫ברסיאני‪ ,‬א’ *‪285‬‬ ‫ברתה‪ ,‬ו’ *‪287‬‬ ‫ברתלמי‪ ,‬ד’ *‪137* 128‬‬ ‫גאר‪ ,‬ר’ *‪10‬‬ ‫גבירץ‪ ,‬ס’ *‪12* 9* 7* 5* 4‬‬ ‫גבריהו‪ ,‬ח"מ *‪288* 272‬‬ ‫גהיליונגי‪ ,‬פ’ *‪287* 286‬‬ ‫גואדיק‪ ,‬ה’ *‪52‬‬ ‫ג’ובלינג‪ ,‬ד’ *‪257* 256* 255‬‬ ‫גוטליב‪ ,‬י’ *‪217‬‬ ‫גוטליב‪ ,‬ל’ *‪138‬‬ ‫גונוג‪ ,‬אה"י *‪139‬‬ ‫ג’ונס‪ ,‬ג"ה *‪236* 234‬‬ ‫גונקל‪ ,‬ה’ *‪168* 153* 12* 11* 5‬‬ ‫גונתר‪ ,‬א’ *‪247‬‬

‫ג’ורג’‪ ,‬א"ר *‪85* 84* 82* 81‬‬ ‫ג’ורג’‪ ,‬מ’ *‪77* 37‬‬ ‫גורדון‪ ,‬כ"ה *‪151* 108‬‬ ‫גורדיס‪ ,‬ר’ *‪104‬‬ ‫גזניוס‪ ,‬ו’ *‪251* 245* 110* 3‬‬ ‫גיבסון‪ ,‬גק"ל *‪152‬‬ ‫גיטין‪ ,‬ס’ *‪43‬‬ ‫גייגר‪ ,‬א’ *‪265‬‬ ‫גילן‪ ,‬א’ *‪162‬‬ ‫גינזברג‪ ,‬ח"א *‪153*152‬‬ ‫גלוב‪ ,‬א’ *‪13‬‬ ‫ג’נקינס‪ ,‬א"ק *‪230‬‬ ‫גלזיר־מקדונלד‪ ,‬ב’ *‪81* 80‬‬ ‫גליל‪ ,‬ג’ *‪233* 232* 231* 230* 229‬‬ ‫*‪235* 234‬‬ ‫גלנזמן‪ ,‬ג"ס *‪172‬‬ ‫גלנדר‪ ,‬ש’ *‪67‬‬ ‫גלסנר‪ ,‬י"י *‪84‬‬ ‫גמר־וולרט‪ ,‬י’ *‪278‬‬ ‫גנוס‪ ,‬ר"ק *‪102‬‬ ‫גסטר‪ ,‬ת’ *‪156* 152‬‬ ‫גרובר‪ ,‬מ’ *‪252‬‬ ‫גרוסמן‪ ,‬א’ *‪207* 205* 204* 198‬‬ ‫גריבס‪ ,‬ס"ו *‪103‬‬ ‫גריווטי‪ ,‬ל’ *‪287* 286‬‬ ‫גריי‪ ,‬ג’ *‪233* 229* 65* 58* 50* 49* 47‬‬ ‫*‪236‬‬ ‫גריי‪ ,‬י’ *‪152‬‬ ‫גרייסון‪ ,‬א"ק *‪36‬‬ ‫גרין‪ ,‬אר"ו *‪232* 229‬‬ ‫גרין‪ ,‬ב’ *‪249‬‬ ‫גרינבאום‪ ,‬י’ *‪8‬‬ ‫גרינברג‪ ,‬מ’ *‪276* 262* 249* 246‬‬ ‫גרינספן‪ ,‬פ"א *‪243* 162‬‬ ‫גרינפילד‪ ,‬י’ *‪10* 9‬‬ ‫גרינץ‪ ,‬י"מ *‪285* 162‬‬ ‫גרינשטיין‪ ,‬א’ *‪178* 165* 82‬‬ ‫גריפית‪ ,‬פ"ל *‪285‬‬ ‫גרסטנברגר‪ ,‬א’ *‪273* 272‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫*‪297‬‬

‫גרסיאל‪ ,‬מ’ *‪255* 253* 252* 251* 246‬‬ ‫גרסמן‪ ,‬ד"ה *‪254‬‬

‫הופפנר *‪287* 286‬‬ ‫הוקינס‪ ,‬י"ד *‪43‬‬ ‫הורביץ‪ ,‬א’ *‪43‬‬ ‫הורוויץ‪ ,‬א’ *‪102* 83* 82* 77* 75* 73‬‬ ‫*‪161‬‬ ‫הייז‪ ,‬ג"ה *‪233* 232* 231* 230* 229‬‬ ‫*‪236* 234‬‬ ‫הילי‪ ,‬י"פ *‪168‬‬ ‫הילרס‪ ,‬ד"ר *‪153* 111‬‬ ‫הימלפרב‪ ,‬מ’ ‪*75‬‬ ‫הירודוטוס *‪286* 282* 277* 274‬‬ ‫הלד‪ ,‬מ’ *‪151‬‬ ‫הלפרן‪ ,‬ב’ *‪16‬‬ ‫הלק‪ ,‬ו' *‪288* 286‬‬ ‫המילטו‪ ,‬ו"פ *‪244‬‬ ‫המרשיימב‪ ,‬א’ *‪113‬‬ ‫הראל‪ ,‬מ’ *‪63‬‬ ‫הרדנר‪ ,‬א’ *‪151‬‬ ‫הרושה‪ ,‬י’ *‪42‬‬ ‫הריסון‪ ,‬ת"פ *‪43‬‬ ‫הרן‪ ,‬מ’ *‪108* 105* 103‬‬ ‫הרפר‪ ,‬ו"ר *‪170* 110* 108* 105* 103‬‬ ‫*‪171‬‬ ‫הרצברג‪ ,‬ה"ו *‪252* 251* 249‬‬

‫האוזר‪ ,‬א"י ‪*13‬‬ ‫האלו‪ ,‬ו’ *‪281* 49‬‬ ‫האקט‪ ,‬י"א *‪252‬‬ ‫הבל‪ ,‬נ"ק *‪165* 164‬‬ ‫הגן‪ ,‬פ’ *‪279‬‬ ‫הוביגן‪ ,‬צ"פ *‪137‬‬ ‫הובס‪ ,‬ת"ר *‪236* 235* 229‬‬ ‫הודל־הונס‪ ,‬ס’ *‪282* 274* 273‬‬ ‫הוליאן‪ ,‬פ"פ *‪286‬‬ ‫הולץ‪ ,‬ש’ *‪97* 96* 94‬‬ ‫הומברט‪ ,‬פ’ *‪282* 273* 272‬‬ ‫הונרגרד‪ ,‬י’ *‪154‬‬ ‫הופטייצר‪ ,‬י’ *‪9‬‬ ‫הופמן‪ ,‬י’ *‪134* 133‬‬

‫ואזנה‪ ,‬נ’ *‪115‬‬ ‫ואן־סלמס‪ ,‬א’ *‪153‬‬ ‫וארזחרס‪ ,‬ק’ *‪85* 84* 77* 76* 75‬‬ ‫וודהד‪ ,‬י’ *‪61‬‬ ‫וורטויין‪ ,‬א’ *‪236* 235* 234* 229‬‬ ‫וולף‪ ,‬ה"ו *‪177* 166* 101‬‬ ‫וויאט‪ ,‬נ’ *‪153* 152‬‬ ‫ויידה‪ ,‬ק"ו *‪83* 78‬‬ ‫ויידנר‪ ,‬א’ *‪53‬‬ ‫וייזמן‪ ,‬ד"י *‪233‬‬ ‫ווייט‪ ,‬מ’ *‪66‬‬ ‫וויליאמסון‪ ,‬הג"מ *‪139* 116* 113* 112‬‬ ‫*‪142‬‬ ‫וולטרס‪ ,‬ס"ד *‪256‬‬

‫דאלי‪ ,‬ס’ *‪231* 229* 38‬‬ ‫דגלס‪ ,‬מ’ *‪284‬‬ ‫דה בק‪ ,‬א’ *‪53* 52‬‬ ‫דה וו‪ ,‬ר’ *‪275* 252‬‬ ‫דה־מור‪ ,‬י"ק *‪152* 151‬‬ ‫דהוד‪ ,‬מ’ *‪165* 151‬‬ ‫דום‪ ,‬ב’ *‪132‬‬ ‫דונר‪ ,‬ה’ *‪233* 229‬‬ ‫דותן‪ ,‬ט’ *‪43‬‬ ‫די הופ‪ ,‬ר’ *‪24* 12* 11* 9* 7* 4‬‬ ‫די מור‪ ,‬י’ *‪25* 23* 22* 18* 13* 2‬‬ ‫ *‪261‬‬ ‫דיאקונוף‪ ,‬י"מ *‪235‬‬ ‫דיודורוס סיקיליוס *‪278‬‬ ‫דיי‪ ,‬ג’ *‪153‬‬ ‫דליטש‪ ,‬פ’ *‪248* 129* 128* 126* 124‬‬ ‫דמסקי‪ ,‬א’ *‪43‬‬ ‫דרבי‪ ,‬ו"י *‪287* 286‬‬ ‫דרייבר‪ ,‬ס"ר *‪276* 265* 123* 93‬‬ ‫דרמן‪ ,‬י"א *‪48‬‬ ‫דרסלר‪ ,‬ה"פ *‪155* 153‬‬

‫*‪298‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫ויינריב‪ ,‬ב"ד *‪206‬‬ ‫ווטסון‪ ,‬ו’ *‪250* 242* 2‬‬ ‫וולס‪ ,‬ב’ *‪94* 92* 91‬‬ ‫ויידה‪ ,‬ק"ו *‪81* 80* 74* 73‬‬ ‫וייזמן‪ ,‬ד"י *‪54* 53‬‬ ‫וייזר‪ ,‬א’ *‪108* 101‬‬ ‫וייטינג‪ ,‬ר’ *‪60‬‬ ‫וייטלם‪ ,‬ק"ו *‪56‬‬ ‫ויילי־פלין‪ ,‬י’ *‪116* 106‬‬ ‫ויינפלד‪ ,‬מ’ *‪282* 174* 58* 56* 6‬‬ ‫וייס‪ ,‬מ’ *‪110* 109* 108* 105* 104‬‬ ‫וייפרט‪ ,‬ה’ *‪267‬‬ ‫וילקינסון‪ ,‬י"ג *‪286‬‬ ‫וינברג‪ ,‬צ’ *‪273‬‬ ‫וינקלר‪ ,‬ה’ *‪236‬‬ ‫וינריב‪ ,‬א’ *‪261‬‬ ‫ויס‪ ,‬ר’ *‪138‬‬ ‫ויליאמסון‪ ,‬הג"מ *‪146* 136* 114* 61‬‬ ‫וילסון‪ ,‬י"א *‪52‬‬ ‫וילסון‪ ,‬פ’ *‪280* 277* 276‬‬ ‫ויסמן‪ ,‬ז’ *‪101* 66* 48‬‬ ‫ויצמן‪ ,‬ס’ *‪86‬‬ ‫וירולו‪ ,‬ש’ *‪152* 151‬‬ ‫ולהאוזן‪ ,‬י’ *‪267* 128‬‬ ‫ולטקה‪ ,‬ב"ק *‪247* 245* 243‬‬ ‫ון דר טורן‪ ,‬ק’ *‪177* 163* 161* 82‬‬ ‫ון דר קוי‪ ,‬ג’ *‪9‬‬ ‫ון וולדה *‪164‬‬ ‫ון ליוון‪ ,‬ר"ק *‪162‬‬ ‫ונדרהופט‪ ,‬ד’ *‪77‬‬ ‫ונדרקם‪ ,‬י"ק *‪80‬‬ ‫וסטרמן‪ ,‬ק’ *‪273‬‬ ‫ז’ואון‪ ,‬פס"י *‪251‬‬ ‫זיו‪ ,‬י’ *‪39‬‬ ‫זינגר‪ ,‬א’ *‪162* 43‬‬ ‫זליגמן‪ ,‬י"א *‪266* 265* 115* 2‬‬ ‫זקוביץ‪ ,‬י’ *‪255* 174* 104* 102‬‬

‫ח’אלידי‪ ,‬ו’ *‪40‬‬ ‫חזקוני *‪288* 274* 207‬‬ ‫חכם‪ ,‬ע’ *‪273‬‬ ‫טוב‪ ,‬ע’ *‪130‬‬ ‫טור־סיני‪ ,‬נ"ה *‪15* 13* 12* 6* 4* 3* 2‬‬ ‫*‪265* 113* 108* 17‬‬ ‫טורניי‪ ,‬ר"י *‪13‬‬ ‫טיגיי‪ ,‬י"ה *‪169‬‬ ‫טימאייר‪ ,‬ל"ס *‪80* 74‬‬ ‫טים‪ ,‬ס’ *‪47‬‬ ‫טלמון‪ ,‬ש’ *‪248‬‬ ‫טלשיר‪ ,‬ד’ *‪77‬‬ ‫טלשיר‪ ,‬צ’ *‪132* 130* 123‬‬ ‫טרגן‪ ,‬ח’ *‪241‬‬ ‫יאנגר‪ ,‬ק"ל *‪235* 233* 232* 230* 229‬‬ ‫*‪236‬‬ ‫יאקובסן‪ ,‬ת’ *‪89‬‬ ‫יהודה‪ ,‬א"ס *‪281‬‬ ‫ייבין‪ ,‬ש’ *‪23* 11‬‬ ‫יוגב‪ ,‬א’ *‪61‬‬ ‫יונה’ ש’ *‪151‬‬ ‫יונקר‪ ,‬ה’ *‪280* 278‬‬ ‫יוסף בן־מתיתיהו *‪275* 232* 40‬‬ ‫יוסף קרא *‪251* 246‬‬ ‫יזרעאל‪ ,‬ש’ *‪162‬‬ ‫ילין‪ ,‬ד’ ‪*104‬‬ ‫יעקוב‪ ,‬ב’ *‪273‬‬ ‫יפת‪ ,‬ש’ *‪267* 264* 167* 146* 143‬‬ ‫ירושלמי‪ ,‬ס’ *‪252* 249‬‬ ‫ירמיאס‪ ,‬י’ *‪114* 113* 112* 110* 101‬‬ ‫*‪173* 167* 116‬‬ ‫כדורי‪ ,‬י’ *‪27‬‬ ‫כהנא‪ ,‬א’ *‪275* 274* 273* 26‬‬ ‫כהן‪ ,‬ח’ *‪7* 2‬‬ ‫כהן‪ ,‬ש’ *‪82‬‬ ‫כוגן‪ ,‬מ’ *‪229* 174* 58* 49* 48* 47‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫*‪235* 234* 233* 232* 231* 230‬‬ ‫ *‪237‬‬ ‫כוכבי־רייני‪ ,‬צ’ *‪114‬‬ ‫כלה‪ ,‬ב"א *‪232* 229‬‬ ‫כשר‪ ,‬ר’ *‪283‬‬ ‫לאאטו‪ ,‬א’ *‪261‬‬ ‫לאוינגר‪ ,‬י’ *‪43‬‬ ‫ל’אור‪ ,‬י"ל *‪273‬‬ ‫לווינגר‪ ,‬ד"ס *‪206‬‬ ‫לווינסון‪ ,‬ב’ *‪97* 93* 91‬‬ ‫לוטון‪ ,‬ר"ב *‪256‬‬ ‫לויט־כהן‪ ,‬ר’ *‪74‬‬ ‫לווין‪ ,‬ב’ *‪95‬‬ ‫לונדבום‪ ,‬י’ *‪134‬‬ ‫לוקנביל‪ ,‬ד"ד *‪60‬‬ ‫ליונשטם‪ ,‬ש’ *‪65* 25* 21* 20* 19* 18‬‬ ‫ליוורני‪ ,‬מ’ *‪36‬‬ ‫לייטון‪ ,‬ק’ *‪241‬‬ ‫ליין‪ ,‬א"ט *‪175‬‬ ‫ליכט‪ ,‬י’ *‪174* 168* 166* 20‬‬ ‫ליכטהיים‪ ,‬מ’ *‪284* 281* 279‬‬ ‫ליסני‪ ,‬ופ"מ *‪191‬‬ ‫לניאדו‪ ,‬ש’ *‪252* 251* 249* 248‬‬ ‫לנדסברגר‪ ,‬ב’ *‪114‬‬ ‫לרסון‪ ,‬ג' *‪276‬‬ ‫מאג‪ ,‬ו’ *‪113* 101‬‬ ‫מאהרשען‪ ,‬י’ *‪207* 202‬‬ ‫מאושלין‪ ,‬י’ *‪252* 248‬‬ ‫מאיירס‪ ,‬א’ *‪73‬‬ ‫מאיירס‪ ,‬י"מ *‪139‬‬ ‫מגדלין‪ ,‬פ"ר *‪95‬‬ ‫מובינקל‪ ,‬ס’ *‪172* 168* 133‬‬ ‫מולטון‪ ,‬ר"ג *‪242‬‬ ‫מונטגומרי‪ ,‬ג"א *‪109‬‬ ‫מונטה‪ ,‬פ’ *‪282* 279* 278* 277‬‬ ‫מוס‪ ,‬רל"ב *‪287‬‬ ‫מופס‪ ,‬י’ *‪174‬‬

‫*‪299‬‬

‫מוראוקה‪ ,‬ת’ *‪251* 245‬‬ ‫מורג‪ ,‬ש’ *‪170‬‬ ‫מורגנשטרן‪ ,‬י’ *‪114* 113* 111‬‬ ‫מורן‪ ,‬ו"ל *‪114‬‬ ‫מזר‪ ,‬ב’ *‪22‬‬ ‫מטינגר‪ ,‬טנ"ד *‪128‬‬ ‫מילגרום‪ ,‬י’ *‪273* 174* 95‬‬ ‫מיינהולד‪ ,‬א’ *‪80‬‬ ‫מייס‪ ,‬י"ל *‪170‬‬ ‫מילר‪ ,‬י"מ *‪233* 229‬‬ ‫מילר‪ ,‬פ"ד *‪42‬‬ ‫מיסקל‪ ,‬פ"ד *‪248‬‬ ‫מכצ’י‪ ,‬י"ד *‪6* 4‬‬ ‫מלבי’’ם *‪252‬‬ ‫מלמד‪ ,‬ע"צ *‪16‬‬ ‫מלמט‪ ,‬א’ *‪288* 65‬‬ ‫מנתו *‪275‬‬ ‫מצודות *‪263* 252‬‬ ‫מקינטוש‪ ,‬א"א *‪170* 169‬‬ ‫מקנזי‪ ,‬ס"ל *‪249* 242‬‬ ‫מקרטר‪ ,‬פ"ק *‪248* 247* 241* 127‬‬ ‫*‪256* 251‬‬ ‫מקרתי‪ ,‬ק’ *‪265‬‬ ‫מרגלית‪ ,‬ב’ *‪153* 152‬‬ ‫מרטי‪ ,‬ק’ *‪172* 127‬‬ ‫משה מקוצי *‪204‬‬ ‫משיניסט‪ ,‬פ’ *‪236* 75‬‬ ‫נאויאר‪ ,‬מ’ *‪84‬‬ ‫נאמן‪ ,‬נ’ *‪230* 229* 66* 53* 48* 47‬‬ ‫*‪236* 235* 234* 233* 232* 231‬‬ ‫נאשף‪ ,‬כ’ *‪37‬‬ ‫נוה‪ ,‬י’ *‪43‬‬ ‫ניברג‪ ,‬ה"ס *‪172‬‬ ‫נות‪ ,‬מ’ *‪233* 229* 24‬‬ ‫נפיר‪ ,‬ב"ד *‪50* 49‬‬ ‫סגל‪ ,‬מ"צ *‪265* 251* 248* 3‬‬ ‫סוג’ין‪ ,‬י"א *‪274* 263* 101‬‬

‫*‪300‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫סולבנג’‪ ,‬ק’ *‪256‬‬ ‫סונרון‪ ,‬ס’ *‪285‬‬ ‫סוקניק‪ ,‬י’ *‪155‬‬ ‫סטרבו *‪287* 278‬‬ ‫סיבס‪ ,‬ה’ *‪49‬‬ ‫סיון‪ ,‬ד’ *‪172* 151‬‬ ‫סילברמן‪ ,‬נ"א *‪64* 61* 57* 48* 47‬‬ ‫סימון‪ ,‬א’ *‪257* 254* 246‬‬ ‫סימיאן־יופרה *‪173‬‬ ‫סמית‪ ,‬ג"א *‪170‬‬ ‫סמית‪ ,‬מ"ס *‪163* 161* 151‬‬ ‫ספייזר‪ ,‬א’ *‪275* 7* 5‬‬ ‫סקורלוק‪ ,‬י"א *‪84‬‬ ‫סקינר‪ ,‬ג’ *‪274* 8* 5* 4‬‬ ‫סרנה‪ ,‬נ’ *‪276* 275‬‬ ‫עודד‪ ,‬ב’ *‪234* 229* 69‬‬ ‫ענבר‪ ,‬מ’ *‪266* 255‬‬ ‫עסיס‪ ,‬א’ *‪86* 77* 74* 73‬‬ ‫פאול‪ ,‬ש’ *‪114* 105* 104* 103* 101‬‬ ‫פארן‪ ,‬מ’ *‪81* 73‬‬ ‫פוזננסקי‪ ,‬ש"א *‪206‬‬ ‫פולצין‪ ,‬ר’ *‪248‬‬ ‫פולק‪ ,‬פ’ *‪246* 242* 169‬‬ ‫פון זודן‪ ,‬ו’ *‪10‬‬ ‫פון־ראד‪ ,‬ג’ *‪273* 5‬‬ ‫פונגרץ־לייסטן‪ ,‬ב’ *‪36‬‬ ‫פונטין‪ ,‬ק"ר *‪166‬‬ ‫פוסטגייט‪ ,‬י"נ *‪60‬‬ ‫פוקלמן‪ ,‬י"פ *‪248* 247* 246* 245* 244‬‬ ‫*‪255* 250* 249‬‬ ‫פוקנר‪ ,‬ר"א *‪287* 284* 282* 278‬‬ ‫פוקס‪ ,‬א’ *‪244‬‬ ‫פוקס‪ ,‬מ’ *‪192* 189* 186* 185‬‬ ‫פורטו‪ ,‬ג"ל *‪261‬‬ ‫פורטר‪ ,‬ב’ *‪287‬‬ ‫פורפירי *‪278‬‬ ‫פטרוס־דסטרקט‪ ,‬מ’ *‪287‬‬

‫פיגר‪ ,‬מ’ *‪282* 274* 273‬‬ ‫פידס‪ ,‬פ"ס *‪178‬‬ ‫פיטרסן‪ ,‬ד’ *‪80* 74‬‬ ‫פיין‪ ,‬ד"פ *‪252* 248‬‬ ‫פינקלשטיין‪ ,‬י’ *‪64* 61* 57* 48* 47‬‬ ‫פינקר‪ ,‬א’ *‪285* 275* 274‬‬ ‫פיקט‪ ,‬ו"ה *‪271‬‬ ‫פישביין‪ ,‬מ’ *‪73‬‬ ‫פישר‪ ,‬ל"ר *‪151‬‬ ‫פישר־אלפרט‪ ,‬ה"ו *‪288‬‬ ‫פלוטרך *‪287* 286* 278‬‬ ‫פלמוני‪ ,‬י’ *‪108‬‬ ‫פניקר‪ ,‬ר’ *‪178‬‬ ‫פנקובר‪ ,‬י’ *‪217* 209* 201* 197‬‬ ‫ *‪219‬‬ ‫פרחוטף‪ ,‬י’ *‪275* 273‬‬ ‫פרידמן‪ ,‬ד’ *‪247‬‬ ‫פרידמן‪ ,‬ד"נ *‪114* 110* 107 * 8* 6* 2‬‬ ‫*‪175* 172* 117* 115‬‬ ‫פריץ‪ ,‬ו’ *‪267‬‬ ‫פרלס‪ ,‬פ’ *‪175‬‬ ‫פרנדסן‪ ,‬פ"ל *‪284* 280* 279* 277‬‬ ‫פריש‪ ,‬ע’ *‪169‬‬ ‫פרנקלין‪ ,‬נ’ *‪231‬‬ ‫פרנקפורט‪ ,‬ה’ *‪102‬‬ ‫פרפולה‪ ,‬ס’ *‪36‬‬ ‫פרקר‪ ,‬ס"ב *‪156* 152‬‬ ‫צבי‪ ,‬ת’ *‪106‬‬ ‫צדוק‪ ,‬ר’ *‪235‬‬ ‫צובל‪ ,‬ה"י *‪12* 5* 2‬‬ ‫צ’יילדס‪ ,‬ב"ס *‪273‬‬ ‫צומורה‪ ,‬ד’ *‪248‬‬ ‫צמחוני‪ ,‬א’ *‪62‬‬ ‫צפתי‪ ,‬י' *‪281* 271‬‬ ‫צ’רני‪ ,‬י’ *‪285‬‬ ‫קאהן‪ ,‬ד’ *‪278* 232* 231‬‬ ‫קאוטש‪ ,‬א’ *‪3‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫קאסוטו‪ ,‬מ"ד *‪153* 152* 24* 11* 3* 2‬‬ ‫*‪273* 167‬‬ ‫קאפח‪ ,‬י’ *‪203‬‬ ‫קאקו‪ ,‬א’ *‪152‬‬ ‫קאקנאטו‪ ,‬י"פ *‪177* 176‬‬ ‫קדרי‪ ,‬מ"צ *‪248* 173* 163‬‬ ‫קואן‪ ,‬י"ק *‪233* 232* 231* 230* 229‬‬ ‫*‪236* 234‬‬ ‫קוגל‪ ,‬ג’ *‪80‬‬ ‫קוהלר‪ ,‬ל’ *‪271‬‬ ‫קווק‪ ,‬י"פ *‪281‬‬ ‫קוט‪ ,‬ר"ב *‪114‬‬ ‫קוטס‪ ,‬ג"ו *‪247‬‬ ‫קוטסיפר‪ ,‬י’ *‪151‬‬ ‫קוטשר‪ ,‬י’ *‪175‬‬ ‫קולינס‪ ,‬א"י *‪169* 168‬‬ ‫קולינס ג"ג *‪169* 168‬‬ ‫קויפמן‪ ,‬י’ *‪101‬‬ ‫קוכמן‪ ,‬מ’ *‪66‬‬ ‫קול‪ ,‬ס"א *‪84‬‬ ‫קונג’ומן‪ ,‬ר"ד *‪93‬‬ ‫קונרד‪ ,‬י’ *‪175‬‬ ‫קוקריה‪ ,‬ד’ *‪78‬‬ ‫קורוסטובטסב‪ ,‬מ’ *‪278‬‬ ‫קונרד‪ ,‬י’ *‪3‬‬ ‫קופפר‪ ,‬א’ *‪204‬‬ ‫קורפל‪ ,‬מק"א *‪151‬‬ ‫קזנוביץ‪ ,‬י"מ *‪104* 103‬‬ ‫קטג’‪ ,‬ל’ *‪60‬‬ ‫קיטל‪ ,‬ר’ *‪12‬‬ ‫קייזר‪ ,‬א’ *‪132‬‬ ‫קייל‪ ,‬ק"פ *‪248* 129* 128* 126* 124‬‬ ‫קיל‪ ,‬י’ *‪252* 251‬‬ ‫קים‪ ,‬ק’ *‪102‬‬ ‫קימרון‪ ,‬א’ *‪264* 262‬‬ ‫קליין‪ ,‬י’ *‪281* 271* 162* 102‬‬ ‫קליין‪ ,‬ל"ר *‪252* 248‬‬ ‫קליין‪ ,‬ר"ו *‪136‬‬ ‫קליינס‪ ,‬די"א *‪254* 251* 247* 245* 164‬‬

‫*‪301‬‬

‫קלימי‪ ,‬י’ *‪262‬‬ ‫קלמנטס‪ ,‬ר"א *‪132‬‬ ‫קמפבל‪ ,‬א"פ *‪257* 248* 246‬‬ ‫קנאווטי‪ ,‬נ’ *‪52‬‬ ‫קנופרס‪ ,‬ג"נ *‪144* 142* 141‬‬ ‫קסלה‪ ,‬פ’ *‪153‬‬ ‫קסלר‪ ,‬ר’ *‪76* 75‬‬ ‫קצנשטיין‪ ,‬י’ *‪232‬‬ ‫קראון‪ ,‬א"ד *‪14‬‬ ‫קראסיק‪ ,‬מ’ *‪166‬‬ ‫קראצ’מר‪ ,‬ר’ *‪153‬‬ ‫קרוס‪ ,‬פ"מ *‪265* 25* 23* 16* 8* 6* 2‬‬ ‫קרטיס‪ ,‬א"ל *‪142‬‬ ‫קרטיס‪ ,‬י"ב *‪24‬‬ ‫קרן‪ ,‬א’ *‪241‬‬ ‫קרנשאו‪ ,‬י"ל *‪261‬‬ ‫ראב"ע *‪276* 275* 105* 10‬‬ ‫רדפורד‪ ,‬ד"ב *‪275‬‬ ‫רד"ק *‪275* 274* 263* 251‬‬ ‫רביב‪ ,‬ח’ *‪59* 48‬‬ ‫רבין‪ ,‬ח’ *‪17* 13* 9‬‬ ‫רובינזון‪ ,‬ת"ה *‪172‬‬ ‫רוברטס‪ ,‬גג"מ *‪232‬‬ ‫רודולף‪ ,‬ו’ *‪142* 136* 134* 133‬‬ ‫רודין־אוברסקי‪ ,‬ט’ *‪167* 153‬‬ ‫רוזל‪ ,‬נ’ *‪101‬‬ ‫רוזנברג‪ ,‬ר’ *‪58‬‬ ‫רוזנטל‪ ,‬י’ *‪207* 205‬‬ ‫רומהלד‪ ,‬ד’ *‪185‬‬ ‫רופא‪ ,‬א’ *‪265* 241* 66* 49* 23* 9‬‬ ‫*‪267* 266‬‬ ‫ריטרסוורדן‪ ,‬א’ *‪92‬‬ ‫רייכרט‪ ,‬ו’ *‪164‬‬ ‫רינגרן‪ ,‬ה’ *‪161‬‬ ‫ריסנר‪ ,‬מ"ב *‪284* 280‬‬ ‫רלב"ג *‪256* 251* 248‬‬ ‫רמב"ם *‪203‬‬ ‫רמב"ן *‪255* 146‬‬

‫*‪302‬‬

‫רס"ג *‪94* 16‬‬ ‫רצהבי‪ ,‬י’ *‪16‬‬ ‫רשב"ם *‪276* 274‬‬ ‫רש"י *‪274* 273* 251‬‬ ‫שאודיג‪ ,‬ה’ *‪85* 83‬‬ ‫שד"ל *‪273‬‬ ‫שופק‪ ,‬נ’ *‪271* 185‬‬ ‫שורץ‪ ,‬ב"י *‪77* 76* 74‬‬ ‫שטרנברג‪ ,‬מ’ *‪244‬‬ ‫שיפר‪ ,‬ב"א *‪187* 185‬‬ ‫שניידווינד‪ ,‬ו’ *‪172‬‬

‫מפתח מחברים‬

‫שפירא‪ ,‬א’ *‪243‬‬ ‫שפר‪ ,‬ק"פ *‪151‬‬ ‫שפר־ליכטנברגר‪ ,‬ח’ ‪*43‬‬ ‫שפרה‪ ,‬ש’ *‪162* 102‬‬ ‫שצ’ופק [=שופק]‪ ,‬נ’ *‪279‬‬ ‫תדמור‪ ,‬ח’ *‪231* 230* 229* 54* 47* 10‬‬ ‫*‪237* 235* 234* 233* 232‬‬ ‫תים‪ ,‬ס’ *‪229‬‬ ‫תירו־דנז’ין‪ ,‬פ’ *‪151* 37‬‬ ‫תתלי‪ ,‬מ"ק *‪234* 233* 232* 230* 229‬‬