Wednesday, November 10, 2010

When did the Angel speak to Yaakov in a dream?

Summary: It is entirely normal to discover new details along the way. But the Samaritans falsify their Torah text by retrojecting the entire dream so as to be explicit, in the proper place.

Post: As we progress through each parsha, I am taking pains to point out the way the Samaritans have "fixed" up their text. This, with the goal of making the forged nature of the Samaritan text clearer to those who mistakenly believe that the Samaritan variant is more likely original, because it is 'better'. Of course it seems 'better'! That it their agenda in corrupting their Torah!

Thus, to pick on DovBear, though certainly others try to say similar things:
This suggested emendation makes the problem disapear, and is supported by three ancient version of the text --LXX, Peshita, and Samarian -- all of which have "one" rather than "behind" or "after".
In the purported example, it was not true that the Peshitta supported it -- see here -- but this represents a rejection of lectio difficilior, a principle which should apply a thousandfold when considering the Samaritan text. That it makes a "problem disappear" is precisely the continuous motivation of the Samaritan scribes.

Here are three examples, selected from this parasha. My first choice is the first pasuk of Vayeitzei. The pasuk:

10. And Jacob left Beer sheba, and he went to Haran.י. וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה:

and Rashi:

and he went to Haran: He left in order to go to Haran. — [From Gen. Rabbah 68:8,]וילך חרנה: יצא ללכת לחרן:

Thus, something like 'and set out towards Charan'. This is an attempt at peshat, rather than at derash. See other meforshim grappling with this. To lay out two others, that he arrived at Charan, realized he hadn't prayed at the location of the akeida, and so turned back and arrived there via kefitzat haderech; alternatively, that he indeed arrived at Charan, but the events which follow happened along the way.

There are good explanations of this phrase in a way that doesn't do violence to the rules of Biblical Hebrew. And it is a natural language, and so certain expressions may seem strange if we consider them most literally. And these most literal evaluations often lead to derash, but before we arrive at the derash, we can evaluate them as peshat as a normal way of expressing the idea.

The Samaritans don't like such awkward expressions, and not surprisingly, they don't have them in their Biblical text:

See above, how they emend vayelech to lalechet.

In the next pasuk, they also consider that Yaakov is just one person, with one head, and emend the strange plural form merashotav to merashoto. They emend it as well in pasuk 18. But consider that the plural form is correct, and we see, for example, in sefer Rut, the word margelotav:

ד  וִיהִי בְשָׁכְבוֹ, וְיָדַעַתְּ אֶת-הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב-שָׁם, וּבָאת וְגִלִּית מַרְגְּלֹתָיו, ושכבתי (וְשָׁכָבְתְּ); וְהוּא יַגִּיד לָךְ, אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשִׂין.4 And it shall be, when he lieth down, that thou shalt mark the place where he shall lie, and thou shalt go in, and uncover his feet, and lay th

Some words, like baalav, are plural, for whatever reason. And we can analyze why, but regardless, this is the pattern. Even though overeager scribes who think they know better will 'correct' it.

The third example I selected was in Yaakov's dream, in which the angel tells him that he is helping him with the spotted, etc., sheep:

The text on the left is the Samaritan. See how they insert all of these pesukim. Now, do they invent these yesh me'ayin? Absolutely not. Rather, later on, Yaakov convinces Rachel and Leah to leave with him for home. I am providing some surrounding context, but look in particular from pasuk 10 and on:

3. And the Lord said to Jacob, "Return to the land of your forefathers and to your birthplace, and I will be with you."ג. וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל יַעֲקֹב שׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וּלְמוֹלַדְתֶּךָ וְאֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ:
4. So Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field, to his flocks.ד. וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב וַיִּקְרָא לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה הַשָּׂדֶה אֶל צֹאנוֹ:
5. And he said to them, "I see your father's countenance, that he is not disposed toward me [as he was] yesterday and the day before, but the God of my father was with me.ה. וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶן רֹאֶה אָנֹכִי אֶת פְּנֵי אֲבִיכֶן כִּי אֵינֶנּוּ אֵלַי כִּתְמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וֵאלֹהֵי אָבִי הָיָה עִמָּדִי:
6. And you know that with all my might I served your father.ו. וְאַתֵּנָה יְדַעְתֶּן כִּי בְּכָל כֹּחִי עָבַדְתִּי אֶת אֲבִיכֶן:
7. But your father mocked me and changed my wages ten times ten times, but God did not permit him to harm me.ז. וַאֲבִיכֶן הֵתֶל בִּי וְהֶחֱלִף אֶת מַשְׂכֻּרְתִּי עֲשֶׂרֶת מֹנִים וְלֹא נְתָנוֹ אֱ־לֹהִים לְהָרַע עִמָּדִי:
8. If he would say thus, 'Speckled ones shall be your wages,' all the animals would bear speckled ones, and if he would say thus, 'Ringed ones shall be your wages,' all the animals would bear ringed ones.ח. אִם כֹּה יֹאמַר נְקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ וְיָלְדוּ כָל הַצֹּאן נְקֻדִּים וְאִם כֹּה יֹאמַר עֲקֻדִּים יִהְיֶה שְׂכָרֶךָ וְיָלְדוּ כָל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים:
9. Thus, God separated your father's livestock and gave it to me.ט. וַיַּצֵּל אֱ־לֹהִים אֶת מִקְנֵה אֲבִיכֶם וַיִּתֶּן לִי:
10. And it came to pass at the time the animals came into heat, that I lifted my eyes and saw in a dream, and behold, the he goats that mounted the animals were ringed, speckled, and striped.י. וַיְהִי בְּעֵת יַחֵם הַצֹּאן וָאֶשָּׂא עֵינַי וָאֵרֶא בַּחֲלוֹם וְהִנֵּה הָעַתֻּדִים הָעֹלִים עַל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּבְרֻדִּים:
11. And an angel of God said to me in a dream, 'Jacob!' And I said, 'Here I am.'יא. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי מַלְאַךְ הָאֱ־לֹהִים בַּחֲלוֹם יַעֲקֹב וָאֹמַר הִנֵּנִי:
12. And he said, 'Now lift your eyes and see [that] all the he goats mounting the animals are ringed, speckled, and striped, for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you.יב. וַיֹּאמֶר שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כָּל הָעַתֻּדִים הָעֹלִים עַל הַצֹּאן עֲקֻדִּים נְקֻדִּים וּבְרֻדִּים כִּי רָאִיתִי אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר לָבָן עֹשֶׂה לָּךְ:
13. I am the God of Beth el, where you anointed a monument, where you pronounced to Me a vow. Now, arise, go forth from this land and return to the land of your birth.'"יג. אָנֹכִי הָאֵל בֵּית אֵל אֲשֶׁר מָשַׁחְתָּ שָּׁם מַצֵּבָה אֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ לִּי שָׁם נֶדֶר עַתָּה קוּם צֵא מִן הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְשׁוּב אֶל אֶרֶץ מוֹלַדְתֶּךָ:
14. And Rachel and Leah replied and said to him, "Do we still have a share or an inheritance in our father's house?יד. וַתַּעַן רָחֵל וְלֵאָה וַתֹּאמַרְנָה לוֹ הַעוֹד לָנוּ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה בְּבֵית אָבִינוּ:

Also, from what was cited above, pasuk 3, for the slightly modified ending.

Now, from our Masoretic perspective, is there a real problem? Absolutely not. Sometimes details are rich in one location and poor in the other. And sometimes later pesukim reveal earlier information. An exemplar of the latter is in sefer Yonah:

י  וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים יִרְאָה גְדוֹלָה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו מַה-זֹּאת עָשִׂיתָ:  כִּי-יָדְעוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, כִּי-מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה הוּא בֹרֵחַ--כִּי הִגִּיד, לָהֶם.10 Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto him: 'What is this that thou hast done?' For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them.

No earlier pasuk has Yonah tell him, and so the Biblical text itself feeds us this information where it is first relevant. But, since we are not assuming that Yaakov Avinu is lying to his wives, and since he did have this success in producing appropriate speckled sheep, when he explicitly informs his wives about his dream, we can trust him and mentally retroject these details as well.

The Samaritans, who dislike Oral Law and like a smooth text with all necessarily details, explicitly retroject the dream into the place it would have occurred. This does not mean that there text is better, in the sense of reflecting an original Biblical Ur-text. Instead, the precise opposite! What it does mean is that there text is a sort of Hebrew Targum, with edits to make what is happening clearer to the reader.

But, given this, that the Samaritan variant 'fixes' a textual problem is not a reason to believe that it is better, and that we should emend our Masoretic text.

1 comment:

MIghty Garnel Ironheart said...

These are examples of what I call the "stupid editor" hypothesis. The idea is that there are mistakes or inconsistencies in the Torah because of the "Redaction" that Ezra supposedly did. But come on, there are so many "errors" in the Torah that either the editor was a complete idiot (Yaakov visiting both Penuel and Peniel within a verse of two of each other, did no one check the editor's spelling) or he left these inconsistencies in because they are an essential part of the text.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin