The Torah traces lineage back numerous times and never goes all the way back to the Avos (see Maharal).
I replied that I don't believe this to be the case. (See there.) But here, in this followup post, I would like to explore this idea further. What do we consider "tracing back lineage?"
"And it does not mention 'son of Yaakov'."And if you will say that it does not need so write 'son of Yaakov' for in every place it only mentions the lineage until the tribe, and from then on, it is known by itself, so why is it necessary to write further?
And he goes on to analyze and suggest.
However, I do not agree that this lineage throughout Torah proves anything. What seems to be almost unique about Korach is that as a person, he is introduced as A ben B ben C ben D. This is not the same as a genealogy. In a genealogy, we work from the top down. Start from Reuven, and say his sons, and their sons, and so on. But this is no genealogy, in a genealogical section. Within a narrative section, when introducing a person, the pattern is A ben B, or perhaps A ben B of the tribe of Z.
Look for example at that very pasuk with Korach. How are Datan and Aviram's genealogy? How is that of On ben Pelet?
| א וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן. | 1 Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, with Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men; |
Meanwhile, Datan and Aviram are brothers, but it is Datan ben Aliav ben Reuven. That is A ben B, son of tribe_name. Eliav was not one of the sons of Reuven. Rather, he was the son of Pallu, who in turn was the son of Reuven. So we are not enumerating every single generation, and so there is no sudden stop at Reuven. Reuven is the tribal affiliation in this instance.
How many instances in all of Tanach -- that is right, forget this claim of all of Torah, but rather all of Tanach -- where we have A son of B son of C son of D son of E son of F son of G son of H son of I son of J son of K son of L and so on and so forth, all the way to one of the 12 brothers?! That is the comparison, not the lineages in general, where indeed you would expect to find this pattern! I would expect that they could be counted on one hand. And so, this pattern, whether or not Yaakov was mentioned, is atypical, and calls out to be darshened. And then the various reasons for darshening I discussed in that post, and in the comments to that post, come into play.
So again, it is not just the stopping at the level of shevet. That seems to be to be a superficial treatment of the style here. And the question of Maharal thus never gets off the ground.
I should note that just there in Divrei Hayamim we have this pattern. On occasion we see Z, Y his son, X his son, W his son, and so on, but I would say it is rather atypical to have the genealogy go in the opposite direction with such comprehension. But in Divrei Hayamim I 6:
and you might have others on occasion, with multiple generations, though not all the way to the shevet. Thus, in perek 9 in Divrei Hayamim I:
| יב וַעֲדָיָה, בֶּן-יְרֹחָם, בֶּן-פַּשְׁחוּר, בֶּן-מַלְכִּיָּה; וּמַעְשַׂי בֶּן-עֲדִיאֵל בֶּן-יַחְזֵרָה בֶּן-מְשֻׁלָּם בֶּן-מְשִׁלֵּמִית, בֶּן-אִמֵּר. | 12 and Adaiah the son of Jeroham, the son of Pashhur, the son of Malchijah, and Maasai the son of Adiel, the son of Jahzerah, the son of Meshullam, the son of Meshillemith, the son of Immer; |
This is not the same phenomenon to which Maharal is referring, and even this is atypical and differs from these occasional examples.
No comments:
Post a Comment