Tanach Thoughts

 Recently I got into writing short stories about very very minor side-characters in Tanach. I call it "Tanachic fanfiction". Interestingly, I've found that during plotting and writing, I actually think of some interesting chiddushim that could actually be plausible. One was a recent thought about Elkanah, father of Shmuel. It is very noticeable that during the time of the Shoftim, Am Yisrael were not united. From the civil war between Yisrael and Binyamin, including Yavesh Gilad having pulled a Switzerland and opting out of the war (which led to their doom), through the Efraim and Menashe civil war in the time of Yiftach, through tribes that did not join Barak and Devorah in their battle against the Canaanites, and these are just some of the most significant examples. There are many more, both explicit and implicit. A few weeks ago I heard a class by Dr. Chagai Misgav about the religious lives of Yisrael in the time of the Shoftim. He pointed out that leadership at the t...

 In the parsha this Shabbat we heard tell of the first conquests of Bnei Yisrael as preparation toward conquering Canaan. After crushing Sichon at Yahtzah, the armies of Yisrael storm Og's land and from there the Tribe of Menashe storm the northeastern portion of the Golan and Bashan. Which raises a question: From p'shat, it seems that Am Yisrael was in the Golan, then headed back south to Arvot Moav, which is where Balak and Pinchas take place. They hang around that area until past Moshe's death, and then they head west, cross the Jordan River in Yehoshua and conquer Yericho (opposite where they were in Arvot Moav). Now, some people may not be aware of this, but it seems that this was hundreds of kilometers back and forth, just to get the people back to Arvot Moav! Why? I mean, why not simply conquer Canaan from the Golan? Rabbi Dr. Yoel Bin Nun explains in this  excellent class that Bnei Yisrael actually split into two groups: The advancing army which conquered the Land ...

 Some thoughts on some peculiar name-changes in Shmuel: King Shaul's only surviving son after his fall at the hands of the Plishtim was Yishvi . But upon becoming king of most of the tribes, he's called Ish-Boshet . Not a very honorable name. In Divrei Hayamim we learn that one of his names or maybe his full name was really Eshba'al . Avimelech, son of Gidon, who was also known as Yeruba'al , is called Avimelech ben Yeruboshet . Yehonatan's son Mefiboshet's real name, according to Divrei Hayamim was Merivba'al . We're starting to see a theme here. Most commentators - both ancient and modern - who make note of this, explain it by saying that the author of Shmuel had something against the word "Ba'al", as though it refers to the Canaanite god Ba'al, and he sought to rid Ba'al worship. Bible critics claim this is evidence that Shaul held pagan beliefs and worshiped both Hashem and Ba'al. However, the Tanach is never afraid to point...

 As promised yesterday, a cool story about Michmas: Michmas, as we know, was the place where Yehonatan, son of King Shaul, nearly-single-handedly defeated a legion of Plishti soliders ( Shmuel 1:13:16-14:15 ). Many millennia later, another army found victory there, echoing back to the same tactic victoriously wielded by Yehonatan and his arms-bearer. As recounted by Major Vivian Gilbert in " The Romance of the Last Crusade: with Allenby to Jerusalem ", ch. XIII (pg. 180-186): "The first things we bought after the capture of Jerusalem were Bibles and matches. We had recently received a welcome issue of army cigarettes from the base, but the army service corps forgot to send up matches. We used the Bibles as guidebooks to Palestine, and remarkably fine ones they turned out to be! It was wonderfully interesting to read the history of all the places we were visiting daily, and men in the ranks were as keen as the officers. It was no uncommon sight to come across cockney sol...

 According to Wikipedia , the Egyptian name for Egypt was not Mitzrayim (*gasp*) nor even Egypt (which is Greek *double gasp*) but Kemet , which is apparently Egyptian (or Kemetian?) for "black land" (something about the richness of Nile soil). One could sort of twist that to form the name Cham - חם, who was of course the father of Mitzrayim. With that said, I noticed something interesting today in the Book of Yehoshua: It is well-known that until not long before Am Yisrael came to Eretz Yisrael, the Egyptian maintained here a strong presence. Many Egyptian artifacts have been found in digs all around Israel. However, to my knowledge and understandings, their presence here was hardly ever reflected in place-names. Rabbi Ahron Marcus in his essay "Of The Jewish Chronology" mentions in a footnote Citri's (not sure who he was) view that the name Ma'ayan Mei Nafto'ach - מעין מי נפתוח ( Yehoshua 15:9 and 18:15 ) comes from Merneptah and that his real name wa...

  (Image from Shay Charka 's נגיד שבבא בתנ"ך (highly recommended)) Ask just about any bible academic, and they'll tell you that whoever authored Chronicles was basically writing pro-Davidic propaganda. Okay, pro-Davidic-- as opposed to what? Pro-Shaulian, of course. That's right, Am Yisrael's first official king (setting aside whatever halachic status Moshe may have held, and also, l'havdil, setting aside Avimelech, son of Gidon), King Shaul, while mentioned in Chronicles, doesn't get that much limelight, certainly nowhere close to that of David (David's kingdom covers almost all of Chronicles 1, and most of Chronicles 2 is dedicated to his descendants' stories). Bible critics are quick to notice this, and generally deduce that this means that the author of Chronicles was anti-Shaul and pro-Davidic, and did everything in his power to reduce Shaul's role in the history of Am Yisrael. Now me, I believe in our sages' tradition that Chronicles ...