stating:
עד דן : איננה ליש הנקראת דן בימי השופטים ( שופטים י"ח ז' ) אלא מקום אחר, כי אפי' לדעת האומרים שנוסף אחר זמן, לא ייתכן זה, כי אז היה ראוי שיהיה כתוב וירדף עד ליש היא דן, ואז היה אפשר לומר מילים "היא דן" נוספות, אבל שיגיה אדם ויחליף מילה בתורה, לא ראינו ולא שמענו.
That is, if we look at Shofetim 18:7 and on, we read:
Shadal answer is that this is a different place by the name of Dan. This is not so farfetched, IMHO. E.g. there was more than one Biblical town of Bethlehem. And if we believe those Biblical scholars who claim Dan was the name of a deity, then one could easily imagine a town named after it. Or what about rather than a city, the general territory (though that would also be determined later).
Shadal also rejects the idea that this could be a later addition. Some scholars/commentators felt comfortable claiming that certain words and phrases were later explanatory insertions, even as the main Biblical text was ancient. But Shadal argues that the construction would need to be different -- "and he pursued him until Laish -- this is Dan." Because at the time it was written, the Biblical text would have had to have said Layish. And a later editor would not have felt comfortable to switch a word, but only to add an explanatory note.
Obviously, the alternative is to say that there is late authorship of this narrative.
Rashi seems to intuit some of this difficulty. He has two comments, on pasuk 14 and then pasuk 15:
Two final points on the subject. One is an interesting book written to Voltaire in defense of Judaism. In Letters of Certain Jews to Monsieur Voltaire, we have what is pictured to the right. The main text and footnote text broadly parallels the idea Shadal rejects -- that the name of the place may have been switched in later.
Another idea, developed from the writings of Josephus, is that there is another place called Dan in play. This approximates Shadal's idea. Thus, we have what is pictured to the right:
We have reference to Dan in Devarim 34:1 as well:
Thus, it might not be referring to the town of Dan at all.
Shadal answer is that this is a different place by the name of Dan. This is not so farfetched, IMHO. E.g. there was more than one Biblical town of Bethlehem. And if we believe those Biblical scholars who claim Dan was the name of a deity, then one could easily imagine a town named after it. Or what about rather than a city, the general territory (though that would also be determined later).
Shadal also rejects the idea that this could be a later addition. Some scholars/commentators felt comfortable claiming that certain words and phrases were later explanatory insertions, even as the main Biblical text was ancient. But Shadal argues that the construction would need to be different -- "and he pursued him until Laish -- this is Dan." Because at the time it was written, the Biblical text would have had to have said Layish. And a later editor would not have felt comfortable to switch a word, but only to add an explanatory note.
Obviously, the alternative is to say that there is late authorship of this narrative.
Rashi seems to intuit some of this difficulty. He has two comments, on pasuk 14 and then pasuk 15:
until Dan There he became weak, for he saw that his children were destined to erect a calf there (Sanh. 96a). The reference is to I Kings 12:29: “And he (Jeroboam) placed one in Beth-el, and the other he placed in Dan.”Thus, both Chovah and Dan are the same place, the place Yeravam set up his idol, which is presumably the same Machanei-Dan. But the reason Avraham stopped there is that he was enervated by the future events saw would occur there. This, of course, drags in future events as important in the present narrative. And then, the fact that Dan would be named this much later no longer seems to matter so much. Indeed, this may well be a good part of Rashi's motivation here.
until Hobah There is no place named Hobah, but Dan is called Hobah [culpable] because of the idolatry which would be practiced there [in the future]. [from Tan. Lech Lecha 13]
Two final points on the subject. One is an interesting book written to Voltaire in defense of Judaism. In Letters of Certain Jews to Monsieur Voltaire, we have what is pictured to the right. The main text and footnote text broadly parallels the idea Shadal rejects -- that the name of the place may have been switched in later.
Another idea, developed from the writings of Josephus, is that there is another place called Dan in play. This approximates Shadal's idea. Thus, we have what is pictured to the right:We have reference to Dan in Devarim 34:1 as well:
Thus, it might not be referring to the town of Dan at all.
2 comments:
Lets throw in a parsha trivia question what is Lot wifes name (the salt lady)?
This verse (ad Dan) has been cited by many of the earliest Bible critics, from whom Voltaire got this.
See Spinoza, Tractatus Theologicopoliticus. ANd Hobbes, Leviathan.
Josh L
Post a Comment