Genesis 21: 29-31.
And Avimelech said to Abraham, "What are these seven ewe lambs, which you have placed by themselves?" And he said, "For these seven ewe lambs you shall take from my hand, in order that it be to me for a witness that I dug this well." Therefore, he named that place Beersheva, for there they both swore.
כט. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲבִימֶלֶךְ אֶל אַבְרָהָם מָה הֵנָּה שֶׁבַע כְּבָשֹׂת הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר הִצַּבְתָּ לְבַדָּנָה
ל. וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי אֶת שֶׁבַע כְּבָשֹׂת תִּקַּח מִיָּדִי בַּעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה לִּי לְעֵדָה כִּי חָפַרְתִּי אֶת הַבְּאֵר הַזֹּאת
לא. עַל כֵּן קָרָא לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא בְּאֵר שָׁבַע כִּי שָׁם נִשְׁבְּעוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם
There's a bit of a pun there, since the word "sheva" relates to both the seven lambs and to the oath. Regardless, the Torah states that Abraham was responsible for the name of the place.
A few chapters later we have Isaac in the starring role. After some quarreling over water rights, Isaac goes to Beersheva (so named - anachronistically? - in 26:23) and Avimelech meets him there to make a covenant.
Genesis 26:33:
And he [Isaac] named it Shevah; therefore, the city is named Beersheva until this very day.This time, Beersheva clearly refers to an "oath at the well".
לג. וַיִּקְרָא אֹתָהּ שִׁבְעָה עַל כֵּן שֵׁם הָעִיר בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה
Each passage claims a different personality as being responsible for the naming of the city. One explanation from the traditionalist camp suggests that Isaac simply reconfirmed a name already given - and possibly forgotten - by his father, Abraham. A very unsatisfying answer that smacks of apologetics. It seems obvious that this is not the intention of the verses. I have highlighted the "therefore" (עַל כֵּן) in both passages since each one states an explicit reason for the origin of the name.
So why isn't Rashi "bothered" by this?
Needless to say, Bible critics love this one.
Posts
1 comment:
Very easy distinction - one talks of a place, the other of a city. In the interim between the building of the first well, the founding of a settlement, and it's development of a city, it is in fact highly likely that the city of a local ruler didn't name itself after a WELL dug by an outsider.
Now we are dealing with the regional ruler of the location entering into a pact within a city ruled by him. The city became noted for it's role as the location of the pact, sort of like how Appomattox is emblematic of the conclusion of the American Civil War.
The reason Rashi isn't bothered by the discrepancy between naming the place twice is because two different things are being named - the location of the well ("The Well of the Seven/Oath") and the the city ("The City of the Pact of the Well"). This is the pshat.
I agree that "What's not bothering Rashi" is oftentimes the more interesting question, but the answer in this case was rather straightforward. All that's needed is a comparison of the two sources.
Post a Comment