heh heyidiah, so it is some place known from elsewhere ("that place"). Therefore, Rashi brings down a midrash which makes a gezera shava to the Akeidat Yitzchak, and thus to Har haMoriah:
And he arrived at the place Scripture does not mention which place, but [it means] the place mentioned elsewhere, which is Mount Moriah, concerning which it is said (Gen. 22:4):“And he saw the place from afar.” [From Pes. 88a]This is problematic, since later in the same narrative we find the name of the place -- Luz, or Bet-El:
Shadal works to discount this heh hayidiah:
ויפגע במקום וגו' : הכוונה פגע במקום שפגע ושם לן, כלו' לן במקום שפגע, אעפ"י שלא היה מקום ללון, עד שהוצרך לתת ראשו על האבנים, ולפיכך הוסיף וישכב במקום ההוא, להגיד צערו. וכל זה הקדמה לסיפור החלום, כי לכך בא אליו החזיון לנחמו, כי היה בורח מביתו יחידי וגם הוצרך ללון על הדרך.
Thus, the place, that place, where he slept. This allows reference to Luz and Bet-El later on with no problems. Of course, there are other problems, such as whether Luz and Bet-El are identical, or just near each other. Shadal writes:לוז שם העיר : לוז היתה עיר קודם לכן ואיננה במקום בית אל ממש, כי יעקב לא שכב בעיר אלא חוץ לעיר במקום שהיה בתחומה של עיר ונכלל עמה ונקרא בשמה ; ומשם והלאה בני ישראל היו קוראים ללוז בית אל, ואצל הכנענים נקראה לוז כמלפנים , כנראה משופטים א' כ"ג וכ"ו. ומה שכתוב ביהושע ט"ז ב' ויצא מבית אל לוזה , אין ראיה שהיו בית אל ולוז שתי ערים, אלא בית אל לוזה הכל עיר אחת, כלו' בית אל הנקראת לוזה ; ואם תאמר א"כ מה זו הה"א בסוף התבה ? והיה לו לומר מבית אל לוז, דע כי מצאנו לוזה בה"א יתרה, אל כתף לוזה נגבה היא בית אל ( יהושע י"ח י"ג ), וגם ממקרא זה ראיה שלא היו בית אל ולוז שתי ערים.
At any rate, what is motivating Rashi, and the midrash, to claim that this is Har HaMoriah, the site of the Bet haMikdash, in apparent conflict with the explicit pesukim?
I think the answer here is fairly straightforward. First, note that (some?) modern scholars say that sulam in Biblical Hebrew probably means "stairs" rather than a ladder. Thus, Yaakov's dream of a Stairway to Heaven, with angels ascending and descending, seems to be reference to a ziggurat, like the ziggarat in Ur. This was a temple tower.
Furthermore, what does Yaakov say? He says:
And that Temple should be the one in Jerusalem, on Mount Moriah, which is the Bet haMikdash of malchut Yehudah.
If, on the other hand, it is in Bet El, that presents some "difficulties." Bet-El was one of the two centers of worship established by Yerovam ben Navat (on the southern end of his kingdom), with a golden calf, and was supposed to be an alternative to the Temple in Jerusalem. (See also the showdown between the true prophet Amos and the high priest of Bethel in Amos 7:10.) It would be quite awkward to grant legitimacy to this Temple.
2 comments:
Or, look at the other way. Yeravam chose Beit-El *because*, based on the Torah, it already seemed like a plausible alternative to Jerusalem.
My thoughts exactly, anonymous. Additionally, consider Yerovam's choice of golden calfs. Possibly Yerovam claimed that he was presenting the Israelite with the more authentic Israelite religion and brought proof from the Torah (he probably claimed that Malchut Beit David and Shevet Yehuda in general and the Kohanim had corrupted the Torah for their political advantage - where have I hear that idea before?)
Post a Comment