Tanach Thoughts

Yesterday in a certain waiting room I came across a book by Dr. Tzvi Betzer z"l, who was apparently a linguist, and who had passed away about 22 years ago, if I remember correctly. The book, dedicated in his memory, collected some (or perhaps all, I didn't check) of his various papers. Several caught my eye because they discussed topics that sounded relevant for some of my research interests. But one in particular seemed unusual. It was a short essay, more of a note, really, in terms of length, on the term "מסבות שם" (Mussabot Shem) which is typically translated something like "changed names". The term is used in Bamidbar 32:38  in reference to the Transjordanian cities captured by the Reuvenites and Gadites and resettled by their families. As mentioned above, the term is usually understood to refer to the literal names of the cities having been changed by the tribes, because the names had idolatrous connotations. However, strangely enough, in most cases we...

I read on Shabbat a cool paper on the meaning of the word "tzinor" (צינור) as it appears in Tanach. The paper, titled "ויגע בצינור", is by linguist Tzion Okashi and was published very recently in a festschrift for linguist Dr. Uri Melammed, "לקט אורות: אסופת מאמרים לכבוד ד"ר אורי מלמד בהגיעו לשיבה", Yerushalayim 2024, pp. 253-263. The tzinor was most famously mentioned by David in relation to his conquest of Yerushalayim. The near-and-dear bit in the post's title refers to the blog's banner, which is a drawing of a midrashic imagining of another of David's conquests, that of an Amalekite city (see more here ). Both conquests featured Yoav ben Tz'ruyah in a lead role. The word tzinor in modern Hebrew means "pipe" but in context doesn't make sense as the meaning of the tanachic word. Shmuel 2:5:6-9 : "The king and his men set out for Jerusalem against the Jebusites who inhabited the region. David was told, “You will ne...

Shanah Tovah to everyone and have an easy fast. A quick realization that I came to shortly before Mincha yesterday: In Shmuel 2:24:18 , David was commanded to build an altar in a place in Yerushalayim called 'Goren Arvanah ha'Yevusi (The Threshing Floor of Araunah the Jebusite)'. Since it was owned by Arvanah, David it bought it from him and built the altar. This story is also recounted in greater detail in Chronicles 1:21:18-28 . Here Arvanah is called 'Ornan'. Subsequently , David decides that the Temple should be built there, and that project was completed by his son Shlomo ( ibid. 2:3:1 ). In other words, this place would become the final dwelling place of the Ark of the Covenant. Now here's what's really fascinating: The name Arvanah, as it's spelled in Shmuel - ארונה - is made up of the word ארון and the letter ה = the word 'Ark' and the letter Heh, one of the letters of the name of Hashem. I.e., the name Arvanah equals Aron H' ('אר...

This will be a two-post series on the subject of the destruction of Shiloh. More precisely, on the destruction of the Tabernacle at Shiloh. The Tabernacle at Shiloh was constructed already in the days of Yehoshua ( idem. 18:1 ). There it remained until mysteriously disappearing circa the Israelite-Plishtite War in Shmuel 1:4:1-22 . After this war, we do not hear of people coming to the Tabernacle at Shiloh. Instead they go to places such as Nov and Giv'on. The reason was only reported centuries later, in Yirmiyahu 26:1-6  where Hashem tells Yirmiyahu to pass on a prophecy that if the people of the Kingdom of Yehudah do not fix their ways, the Temple will be destroyed just like the Tabernacle in Shiloh (similarly mentioned in ibid. 7:13-15 ). Subsequently, people get angry at Yirmiyahu for having the gall to threaten them with a destruction on par of that of Shiloh ( ibid. 8-9 ). Wait, destroyed? When did that happen?! Actually, this was hinted at already in a Tehillim chapter writt...

This post title is based on this post title because the subjects are similar. I read a very interesting essay on Shabbat by Yitzchak Avishur . It's titled (in Hebrew) "Literary Inventions and Historiographical Descriptions in Chronicles 1:5 - Which Tiglath Pileser Exiled Be'erah the Reubenite Prince?" As you can already guess from the post title, the answer to the essay's title's question is Tiglat Pileser I , who lived around the year 1100 BCE. Avishur examines the different events described in Chronicles 1:5 and points out that it would be illogical to think that the verse "his son Beerah—whom King Tillegath-pilneser of Assyria exiled—was chieftain of the Reubenites" ( ibid. 6 ) refers to the same event described in the verse "So the God of Israel roused the spirit of King Pul of Assyria—the spirit of King Tillegath-pilneser of Assyria—and he carried them away, namely, the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, and brought t...

A couple of days ago I read a great essay by Yairah Amit . Amit argued that the story of Shmuel's becoming a prophet as described in Shmuel 1:3:1-21  reflects matters of interest and comes to answer subjects that were debated in the circles of the prophets of Yisrael. In short: Prophets were rare in the time of the judges. People generally turned to the kohanim (priests) for guidance. The story is designed in a way that shows the divine providence leaving the kohanim and passing over to the prophets. Prophecy was individualistic, i.e., only the prophet could hear Hashem talking to him. In another essay I saw today by Chaim Gevaryahu, he argued (based on similar prior suggestions) that most prophets of the early days made a living off of donations from people who came to them, or they wandered from town to town and city to city collecting donations. This can be seen in several instances in Tanach, including by Eliyahu, Elisha, Shmuel, Achiyah Hashiloni and more. Now, about a year ag...

 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...

 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...

  (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 ...

 A couple of years ago I set out on an endeavor to write my first-ever serious Torani essay, with the guidance of a friend from yeshiva. The result was a well-received (by the yeshiva and family) essay examining the often taken-for-granted story of the battle between David and Goliath. I called it (in Hebrew): David and Goliath: The True Story. Yep, dramatic. I think it was a good essay. The first section dealt with understanding the basic pshat of the text, which I think was commonly misunderstood by most people for, I guess, centuries now. The second section dealt with the question on how the commentators saw the story. The third part came to reconcile the different views and create one coherent understanding of the story. In any case, a question popped up yesterday on the Judaism stackexchange site, Mi Yodeya which tied directly into the first part of the essay. As such, I essentially rewrote the first part in English, so I thought I'd post it here, too: Shmuel I 17:38-39 : וַיּ...