Thursday, July 08, 2010

even "Ataros v'Divon"

The other post on this topic was pretty long, so I'll toss this machshava in seperately. The gemara tells us that each parsha must be read shenayim mikra v'echad targum, even "Ataros v'Divon," the cities asked for by Reuvain and Gad, where the targum just recapitulates the text. Why does the gemara single out these city names as an example rather than "Reuvain, Shimon..." or some other list of names where the targum just repeats the text?

Perhaps the gemara’s choice of “Ataros v’Divon” sheds light on the motivation of Reuvain and Gad. It is easy to judge these shevatim in a negative light as abandoning Eretz Yisrael for the sake of their flocks. Yet, it’s possible to put a far more positive spin on things. Perhaps these shevatim did not want to abandon Eretz Yisrael, but rather wanted to extend the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael outside its defined boundaries to cover even the pasture land on the east bank. Not only would this be to their own benefit, but it would be to Moshe Rabeinu's benefit as well, as it would mean he could actually step foot in land of Eretz Yisrael. (Some read "mikneh rav" as a play on words referring to the connection of Reuvain and Gad to their Rav, their Rebbe.)

The relationship between the west bank pasture land and Eretz Yisrael proper is analogous, explains the Imrei Emes of Ger, to the relationship between targum and the text. Usually there is a clear distinction between the text itself and its targum. "Ataros v'Divon," however, serves as the paradigm of text without a different targum because it reflects Reuvain and Gad's blurring of the distinction between the sanctity between Eretz Yisrael proper, the "text" of our homeland, and the additional conquered land of Sichon and Og, the added portion, the targum.

28 comments:

  1. Tal Benschar1:28 PM

    I think you meant to say "East Bank."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous3:41 AM

    chaim-i have an int. q. i thought of during shniam mikra this week and id like to know if you or your son have anything to say about it
    one of the nesiems name is kemual. kemual was also i believe besuels brother as listed by the birth of rivka. medrash, daas zekanim twice, mention that lavan is kemual. (on an aside, even though it seems to contradict the psukim themselves, but not within the purview of this, one mareh makom on that is the yedei moshe on that medrash who basically says medrash holds lavan ben nachor is davka and ben besual is lav davka, unlike the ramban chizkuni etc. ) but anyways, the shayla is shem reshaim yirkav.
    so what would you say.
    dont say the answer of it wasnt named for him b.c there were more kemuals bc at this point we dont find more kemuels.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If everyone called him Lavan maybe using the name Kemuel whould not be a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also, just because the Midrash identifies him as Lavan, who says that creates an issur? Maybe shem resha'im only applies when the name is associated by the Torah/Tanach with the rasha, but not to every name that rasha may historically have been known by.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nice idea, but my question is this, how could they have thought to extend the kedusha of eretz Yisroel before the original kedusha had taken hold? Isn;t it impossible to extend kedusha in this manner.

    Isn;t there a Gemora that talks about Kibush Yachid and so (I believe it is the first perek of Gittin)? Would this EVEN be considered kibush yachid?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1. You are assuming that what falls within the borders of E.Y. must be captured first. But the borders of E.Y. were not defined until Parshas Masei.

    2. Meshech Chochma writes that the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz (which is the point of kibush) is fulfilled by living in Eiver Ha'yarden (http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2006/08/eivar-hayarden-and-yishuv-eretz_18.html).

    [See Rambam Rotzeiach 10:1 -- eglag arufa can be performed only in E. Yisrael or Eiver haYarden.]

    3. If you don't want to go that far perhaps you could use the Rogatchover's chiddush that Eiver Ha'yarden as a border areas has a quasi-kedushas ha'aretz, albeit with exclusions (e.g. you cannot bring bikurim from there). Perhaps waging war in that in-between area does not constitute kibush yachid. (I don't remember if the R. deals directly with that point).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous2:55 PM

    the answer that shem reshaim only applies to names of tanach- if torah chasumah nitnah, that answer wont work here.

    ReplyDelete
  8. According to you "Yet, it’s possible to put a far more positive spin on things. Perhaps these shevatim did not want to abandon Eretz Yisrael, but rather wanted to extend the kedusha of Eretz Yisrael outside its defined boundaries to cover even the pasture land on the east bank."

    How could they do this if, according to you, no one knew the borders of Israel?

    Also, there is a mitzva of Yishuv on the other side of the Yardein because that land was consecrated on the condition that Eretz Yisroel proper would be conquered. I believe that is also how the cities of refuge worked also. They would gain their status once the cities of refuge in eretz yisroel proper were established.

    Whatever the case, you can look at the Gemora's yourself about Kibush yachid, avoda zara 21a, gittin 8b and 47a or b, I can;t remember.

    Have a good shabbos

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry, I found the Tosfos on Avoda Zara I was looking for that quotes a Sifrei that says, as long as EY has not been conquered there is no permission to conquer Chutz Laaretz. But you said that maybe eiver hayardein might not be considered chutz laaretz. Well, where is Aram? Isn't it eiver hayardein? Because the Sifrei was talking about Dovid conquering Aram. Check the tosfos on AZ 21a Kibush Yachid.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ignore my previous comment -- I should have answered more simply that kibush yachid is only a problem because it undermines the seder of kibush which Hashem dictated. Since Hashem specifically said to conquer the lands of Eiver haYarden first, it's a non-issue here.

    Re:Kemuel -- I saw a Yalkut Reuvaini cited which identifies Kemuel as Bilam.

    ReplyDelete
  11. True, but where does G-D say that these lands have the holiness of Eretz Yisroel. If anything they clearly do not have anything near the holiness of Eretz Yisroel because G-D said Moshe will never enter the land of Israel. Also, the way Bnei Yisroel were commanded to conquer these lands had nothing to do with kibush EY, especially since EY is supposed to be the land that we drive the Cannanites from.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous4:04 AM

    daas zekanim in vayera quotes the yalkut shimoni.
    in any case, lavan, bilam, or maybe even both, as the targum says in parshas balak that lavan was bliam, in any case, the question stands.
    yea its interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  13. >>>where does G-D say that these lands have the holiness of Eretz Yisroel.

    They were mekadesh it through kibush. Numerous Achronim ask what the point of the boundaries in P' Masei are when any land conquered can have kedushas ha'aretz. Also, again, there are Achronim who even hold there is a mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael in settling in this area. See Parashas Derachin derush #8 in addition to the Meshech Chochma.

    >>>since EY is supposed to be the land that we drive the Cannanites from

    Says who? And see Ramban with respect to giyul on the difference between the wars.

    Re: Kemuel, one last thing -- none of this fits the gemara that he was 33 years old.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous10:57 AM

    which you already have rashi in sanhedrin that points out that its against shlosha hayu boto eitza.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "
    They were mekadesh it through kibush. Numerous Achronim ask what the point of the boundaries in P' Masei are when any land conquered can have kedushas ha'aretz. Also, again, there are Achronim who even hold there is a mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael in settling in this area. See Parashas Derachin derush #8 in addition to the Meshech Chochma."

    PLEASE, take a look at the Tosfos on AZ and Gittin that talk about Kibush Yachid, it completely destroys your point. He says straight out what the requirements for kibush are and these lands did not fulfill them. Mainly, because he says that you have to conquer ALL of EY proper before conquering anything else. It doesn't really matter what an achron says, Tosfos trumps any achron. It is just a kasha on the achron, no?

    I never argued that settling in these lands are not yishuv haaretz. However, the mitzva only came into being, like I said before, once EY proper was conquered. This is like the cities of refuge. The ones ever hayardain did not go into effect until the cities in EY proper were established first.

    "Says who?"

    The Torah.

    Please look up these Tosfos and just try to explain them according to your pshat, that is all I am asking. Not these answer that do not address my point. Or just ignore my question.

    Here is a link to one of the tosfoses
    http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=19&daf=8&format=pdf the tosfos is the one on the bottom left kibush yachid.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous11:58 PM

    in regards to your sevaros on shem reshaim, take a look at sdei chemed maarechet reish oas mem aleph, one of your answers you were mechaven to, another one was exact opposite of what you said.

    ReplyDelete
  17. >>>you have to conquer ALL of EY proper before conquering anything else

    G-d trumps Tosfos, and G-d said to conquer the land of Sichon and Og first. Tosfos is talking about the seder of kibush all things being equal.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "G-d trumps Tosfos" HAHAHAHA, funny.

    Please see Bamidbar 21:21-33 and tell me that this was part of Kibush Eretz Yisroel.

    The main problem is that you are assuming Bnei Gad and Reuven are only talking about Bashan. It seems like they were talking about Sihon's lands were part of the Bnei Gad and Reuven. G-D NEVER even said ANYTHING about Sihon's lands.

    Either way, if Sihon and Og's lands were considered part of Eretz Yisroel at that time, then G-D LIED to Moshe. Obviously, MOSHE stepped foot in Eretz Yisroel.

    I don;t understand what you mean that Tosfos is talking about the order of Kibush. He quotes a Sifrei that specifically says, one must conquer EY proper before expanding the kedusha of EY to other lands. This is why the lands of Bnei Gad and Reuven were not holy until after they came back from conquering the rest of EY.

    ReplyDelete
  19. >>>Please see Bamidbar 21:21-33 and tell me that this was part of Kibush Eretz Yisroel.

    As I mentioned earlier, see Parashas Derachim, derush #8, who holds Eiver haYarden is included in mitzvas yishuv E.Y. and kibush E"Y, and if you have the new edition, the footnotes as well. (See also Ramban quoted in the next post.) The question of Moshe entering the land is discussed there as well. I think I'm safe in reassuring you that P.D. and other Achronim knew the pesukim in chumash as well and nothing can be proven from there.

    >>>This is why the lands of Bnei Gad and Reuven were not holy until after they came back from conquering the rest of EY.

    The issue of kidush ha'arez is irrelevant to any discussion of kibush ha'aretz and yishuv ha'aretz.

    Tos is talking about the order of conquest sans any other instruction. Obviously, if G-d himself says conquer the land of Sichon v'Og before you get to Eretz Yisrael, those lands need to be conquered first.

    Covered all this already...

    ReplyDelete
  20. If you look at the pesukim G-D actually NEVER says conquer the land of Sichon. Look at the pesukim.

    Kidush Haaretz is COMPLETELY dependent upon kibbush Haaretz.

    I just don;t understand how the understanding is that the land of Og and Sichon are to be considered part of EY proper. We see by the request of Bnei Gad and Reuven itself that it is clearly NOT part of EY and that is why they HAD to request it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I think I'm safe in reassuring you that P.D. and other Achronim knew the pesukim in chumash as well and nothing can be proven from there."

    This is a ridiculous statement. I am asking you to explain it according to them because the idea seems to contradict the pesukim. You telling me they must have known what they are doing is pointless and does not lead to an understanding. If you don;t know, just say you don;t know.

    They Ramban does seem to say the wars of Sichon and Og were part of kibush EY though. That is probably all you had to say. These achronim are going with the Ramban. That is a good answer, not the other stuff you said, I don;t understand what the point was with the rest of that.

    The question I have on the Ramban is, where does G-D give the command to conquer Sichon?

    ReplyDelete
  22. It looks like I was mechavein to the SHem Mishmuel see this link http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/fleisher/

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous11:29 PM

    im not done with kemuel yet....assuming you didnt look at the sde chemed, i found today that you were mechaven to the pnei yehoshua in ketuvos 104b 2nd shtickel of last perek. that im sure youll look at...

    ReplyDelete
  24. I saw the P.Y. quoted, and you're right, i didn't look at the sdei chemed. Anyway, I was wondering if the answers depend on how you understand shem resha'im irkav -- is the problem because sh'ma garim and somehow the name influences the person or causes a transfer of the neshoma from the rasha, or is the problem that by everyone calling the person Kemuel (or Lavan or whatever) it means that name (and its associations) remain in the public consciousness?

    If the former is right, than even if everyone called Kemuel Lavan, then using the name Kemuel would still be assur. If the latter is right, then so long as everyone knew him as Lavan and not Kemuel, using the name Kemuel would not be asur.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous11:40 AM

    that chakira with the same nafka mina just for other people, i found in a sefer called divrei shalom. he brings from rishonim. i dont remember precisly at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous4:19 PM

    HELP! I’m currently being held prisoner by the Russian mafia xyzrxyz [url=http://www.buypenisenlargement.com]penis enlargement[/url] xyzrxyz and being forced to post spam comments on blogs and forum! If you don’t approve this they will kill me. xyzrxyz [url=http://www.male-sexual-styles.com]penis enlargement[/url] xyzrxyz They’re coming back now. xyzrxyz [url=http://pills.buypenisenlargement.com]vimax[/url] xyzrxyz Please send help! nitip [url=http://www.male-sexual.com/vimax-pills.html]vimax[/url]

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous1:29 PM

    this is very good for you, ybg :)

    ReplyDelete