A question of geography and biblical hebrew

[Ganz, Rafi (UK - London)]

1 – How did they end up on the east-bank of the Jordan (“ever ha-yarden”) if they were travelling from Egypt to Chevron? (not my question!)

 

וַיַּרְא יוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי אֶת-הָאֵבֶל בְּגֹרֶן הָאָטָד וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵבֶל-כָּבֵד זֶה לְמִצְרָיִם עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ אָבֵל מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן

 

 

2 - Rashi (48:9) quotes the following possuk from Hoshea

 

וְאָנֹכִי תִרְגַּלְתִּי לְאֶפְרַיִם קָחָם עַל-זְרוֹעֹתָיו

 

How do you translate/what is the function of the “taf” at the beginning of “tirgalti” (the verb is clearly first person)? R Goldblatt (senior) once told me that this is a unique conjugation in Tanach (“Tiphal” he called it).  

 

Rafi Ganz
Assistant Manager | International Tax
Deloitte LLP
2 New Street Square

London EC4A 3BZ

United Kingdom

 

Tel/Direct: +44 20 7303 4832 

rg...@deloitte.co.uk | www.deloitte.co.uk

Please consider the environment before printing.

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE

 

This communication is from Deloitte LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303675. Its registered office is 2, New Street Square, London EC4A 3BZ, United Kingdom. Deloitte LLP is the United Kingdom member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (“DTTL”), a UK private company limited by guarantee, whose member firms are legally separate and independent entities. Please see www.deloitte.co.uk/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of DTTL and its member firms.

 

This communication contains information which is confidential and may also be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please (1) notify it.secu...@deloitte.co.uk by forwarding this email and delete all copies from your system and (2) note that disclosure, distribution, copying or use of this communication is strictly prohibited. Email communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or free from error or viruses. All emails sent to or from a Deloitte UK email account are securely archived and stored by an external supplier within the European Union.

 

To the extent permitted by law, Deloitte LLP does not accept any liability for use of or reliance on the contents of this email by any person save by the intended recipient(s) to the extent agreed in a Deloitte LLP engagement contract.

 

Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email which have not been delivered by way of the business of Deloitte LLP are neither given nor endorsed by it.

[Joel Kahan]

Regarding question 1:

 

There were 2 main routes from Egypt to Canaan. One was the Via Maris (the Way of the Sea, known in the Torah as Derech Eretz Pelishtim - Shemos 13:7) which followed the coast of the Mediterranean out of Egypt, through the land of the Pelishtim (i.e. Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod) and then on through Dan and the Sharon.

 

The other route was the King's Highway (Derech HaMelech - Bamidbar 20:17 and 21:22) which went across the Sinai desert to Eilat / Aqaba, and then up through modern day Jordan along the East shore of the Dead Sea towards Rabbas Benei Ammon (i.e. Amman) and then along the East Bank of the Yarden.

 

Presumably, the brothers were taking the Derech HaMelech to get to Chevron, hence they would have travelled through Ever HaYarden and crossed over the river into Canaan at some point to get to Chevron. They would not have been able to follow the shortest route as the crow flies, as that would have meant travelling through the inhospitable Negev desert.

 

As to why they took the Derech HaMelech instead of taking the Derech Eretz Pelishtim which was presumably a shorter journey, maybe for the same reason that Bnei Yisrael didn't follow that route 200 years later - it would have involved fighting the Pelishtim. Alternatively, Chevron is closer to the Derech HaMelech than it is to the Derech Eretz Pelishitim, so maybe they decided to take a route which was longer geographically but would minimise the distance they'd have to travel away from a major road.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "beisparsha" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beisparsha+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to beisp...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ganz, Rafi (UK - London)]

Genius – however, look at the attached map of the trade routes (taken from p39 of the Daat Mikra atlas) – you will notice that Chevron appears significantly closer to Derech Eretz Pelishtim/Derech Hayam route than the Derech Hamelech route.

 

As for your argument that they went via Derech Hamelech because they couldn’t fight the Pelishtim – I think Egypt had control of most of Israel at the time – so presumably together with the Egyptian military escort there would have been no need to fear any Pelishtim.

 

Vehadro kushyo leduchto

 

Rafi Ganz
Deloitte LLP

Tel/Direct: +44 20 7303 4832

www.deloitte.co.uk

[Joel Kahan]

Fair points.

 

Take a look at Chizkuni (available here) who understands that the Canaanim who are observing the mourning at Goren HaAtad were those who lived under Sichon and Og on the East Bank of the Yarden, and when it refers to Ever HaYarden it is from their perspective so that Avel Mitzrayim is actually on the West side of the Yarden, which negates the premise of your question.

 

[rafi]

Apart from the obvious difficulty in assuming the Canaanim were from the east bank (which was not part of Canaan) as Chizkuni claims - if Ever HaYarden has a relative meaning - how would the Chizkuni understand the use of Ever Hayarden at the beginning of Devarim (1:1) Like the Ibn Ezra (I doubt it)?

(chizkuni's comments in Devarim don't shed much light on the latter point)

Sent from my iPhone

[Ari Levy]

Rafi (and anyone else interested)

Just came across this rashi on sota 35b, indicates ever hayarden could have relative meaning. 

Best

Ari

Sent from my iPhone

[Ganz, Rafi (UK - London)]

Thank you. As mentioned in one of the earlier posts, one of the problems with saying that ever hayarden has a relative meaning is the reference at the beginning of Devarim (in fact the same possuk quoted in that gemorro in Sotah). At that time they had not entered the land yet and nevertheless arvos moav is referred to as ever hayarden.

 

Now that you bring it up, I actually read a very good article on this by Prof. Yoel Elitzur which tries to prove (quite convincingly) that the term ever hayarden, at least in the context of burying Yaakov, really refers to the Jordan rift valley and is interchangeable with arvot ha-Yarden (the “Arabah”). I’ve copied a few paragraphs below but you need to read that whole section to do it justice - http://etzion.org.il/en/parashat-vayechi-goren-ha-atad

 

“What is the linguistic background for the identification of ever ha-Yarden with the Jordan Rift Valley? It appears that it can be deduced from an interesting example of kerei u-khetiv[6]in II Samuel. The verse reads: “Look, I shall linger in the steppes of the wilderness (be-arvot ha-midbar) until word come from you to inform me” (15:28). In the Masoretic text, however, the letters resh and bet in the word be-arvot are flipped and the word is spelled be-avrot ha-midbar. The couple arvot-avrot might be explained as metathesis (like keves-kesev and simla-salma). Thus, ever ha-Yarden can be understood to mean arvot ha-Yarden – the Arabah…

 

To summarize, our parasha describes a large-scale Egyptian military expedition, a yearly operation that involved numerous chariots and horsemen. The purpose of this expedition was to replace the troops manning the Egyptian garrisons throughout Canaan with fresh soldiers from Egypt.

 

Before each group of soldiers went off to their respective garrisons, the delegation stopped at a central location – Goren Ha-atad – for seven days, to mourn the loss of Jacob, the father of the second-in-command of Egypt. After this ceremony, the Egyptian troops all traveled to their designated garrisons, and Jacob’s twelve sons departed for Hebron to bury their father.”

 

Interestingly, there is a similar confusion with Ever Hanahar – the earlier references adopt an Israel perspective (Assyria and Babylonia being Ever Hanahar) whilst the later references adopt an Assyrian perspective and Ever Hanahar refers to Israel itself. In that case, Elitzur argues (different article), it comes down to a matter of perspective.