The Onomasticon of the Spies

     The list of the names of the spies sent out by Moshe in BaMidbar 13 stands out among the onomasticons (a fancy word for a list of names- so fancy , in fact, that you can't even spell check it)  of the Torah.  There are other name lists in BaMidbar -chapter 2,7 and 26.  What make chapter 13 stand out is the large number of names in which it appears that the theophoric element has been dropped.  A theophoric element is the name of God part of the name .  An example would be Yechezkel which means God (El) will strengthen (me). The names in chapter 2 and 7 use the theophoric element El and Shaddai and possibly Tzur.  

      There are names in chapter 13 which seem to be truncated.  Names like Sodi, Susi and Gamli seem to be missing a part of their name that refers to God.  We are familiar with the name Gamliel.  It would mean something like God (El) has rewarded (me).  Although it cannot be proven it seems likely from other namelists that these type of names ending with a yod are incomplete names. (The names of the clans in BaMidbar 46 end in yod  , but these are inflectional suffixes.)

     So the question is why does the Torah cut off the names.  What kind of name of God was removed.  If it was a name like Baal which would imply avoda zarah (idol worship) , that would be a possible reason to remove those theophoric elements.   But what would a baal suffix be doing in an Israelite name in the generation that left Egypt.  There are two possibilities.  We know that Baal, for instance, was worshiped in Egypt , probably by the Asiatic (Canaanite) population that lived in Egypt in the late Bronze age ( 1500 -1200 BCE).  But more likely the term baal which literally means master at the time of the Canaanite conquest could have applied to the God of Israel.  It was only later in the ninth through seventh centuries that the term took on a strictly idolatrous connotation.  The Torah in anticipation then left out the part of the names that would be associated with idol worship.

Flying in the face of the second possibility is the results Of Jeffrey Tigays work on the onomasticon of Israel.  Although his study ecompassed mostly names found in inscriptions from the eighth to the sixth century BCE, he found that over 90 percent of the names that had theophoric elements related to the Tetragrammaton- the four letter name of God .  Examples are names like Yeshayahu (Isaiah) and Chizkiyahu (Hezekiah).  It is possible that names in the tenth to the eighth century may have had a different result.  Future inscriptional finds may shed more light on the question.

Sun in Gibeon...

     An article cited on Paleojudaica blog recently by Mark Chavalas presents an interesting perspective on the verse in Joshua 10:12-15.  The author suggests that Joshua's order to the sun and moon to stand still was not to lengthen the day so as to allow more time for a complete military victory.  This is the traditional understanding.  He says that the verse refers to the position of the sun and moon in an astrological context.  Chavalas' field of expertise is Mesopotamia.  He says the Babylonians were a very superstitious lot and the position of the sun and the moon were omens - either good or bad .  He posits the the sun over Gibeon (east) and the moon over the valley of Ayalon (west) might have had significance to the combatants.

     His argument is unlikely for a number of points.  The first is obvious.  The Canaanites are not Babylonians and we have very little in the way of a record of literacy let alone astrology for the Canaanites. ( This is not to say Canaanites were illiterate.  Certainly there exists correspondence with Egypt during the Amarna age, and the Ugaritic archives reveal a rich literature. The northern Canaanites- the Phoenicians were skilled sailors and presumably knew how to navigate by the stars  but the Canaanites in Eretz Yisrael did not leave much evidence of their writings.   Maybe future finds will change that). But more significantly the verses are clearly poetic and probably taken from an epic in the now lost Book of Yashar.  It is speculative but either the author of Joshua used the verses because they were well known and fit nicely with the story, or the book of Yashar actually contained an account of this battle.  My opinion is the former because the account already show God crushing the enemy with (hail) stones.  Usually one miracle at a time is the norm in the Bible.

 Did the Mishkan have a ramp?

     The parshiot describing the building of the tabernacle in Shemot 25 to 40 describe in great detail the blueprints for the tent, its accessories, furniture and its plaza.  In addition, a model of the mishkan -tabnit_was shown to Moses at Sinai to eliminate any ambiguity which might arise from textual or verbal instruction (Shemot 25:9).  So in regards to the menorah specifically it is said the Moshe was shown a model because the textual instructions would have been insufficient.

      If one looks at pictures of models of the mishkan which have been created for books on the mishkan one will note that many if not most have a ramp leading up to the bronze altar on its south side.   Yet if one reads the entire pericope on the mishkan in sefer Shemot there is no mention anywhere about a ramp or any other type of ascent.  Is it possible that in the very detailed set of instructions for the building of the mishkan there is no mention of a ramp which would be a prominent feature visible to cohen, levi and yisrael in the courtyard of the mishkan. That would indeed be a conspicuous omission.

     To ascertain the reason for this seeming omission  we must consider several factors.  Firstly we know that the altar in the second beit hamikdash had a ramp ascent to the altar.  The basic reason is the verse in Shemot (20:23) "Neither shall you go up by steps to my altar, that your nakedness be not exposed there."  The altar in the second temple was according to the Talmud 10 cubits high (about 15

feet) by 32 cubits across (49 ft).  This makes it impossible for a man to get to the top of the altar for the purpose of performing sacrifices or cleaning the ashes or setting the fires.  The altar in the mishkan was 3 cubits high ( 4 and a half feet) by 5 cubits across (7 and a half feet).  The altar in the mishkan on the other hand could be maintained by a normal sized man without an ascent on a ramp.  The dimensions of the bronze altar quoted here are  the peshat- exactly what the text prescribes. The talmud has a different interpretation of the dimensions in sefer Shemot. In Menachot 97b the height of the bronze altar of the desert tabernacle is given as 10 cubits.  This is based on Bamidbar 3:26 which groups the altar with the Tabernacle- both given a height of 10 cubits.  The analogy is tenuous because the verse talks of the hangings of the courtyard which are only 5 cubits (Shemot 38:18) and in any event is interpretive   Certainly this height goes against the plain meaning of the text.  The Mekhilta also notes that there is a ramp for ascending the bronze altar of the tabernacle.(Yitro   DebeHodesh 11)

    So it seems that if you interpret the height of the altar to be 10 cubits, you must of necessity conceive that a ramp would be necessary to reach that height.