The Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects the Deuteronomic Law Prohibiting Ammonites and Moabites

36 Gershon Hepner

By Gershon Hepner

(1561 Reeves Street, LA, CA 90055, USA)

After Abram and his wife Sarai return from Egypt where they had been forced to go on account of a famine Abram asks Lot to separate from him (Gen 13,9). The language the biblical author uses to describe the way that Abram asks Lot to separate from him (Gen 13,6–9) parallels that which describes the separation of Jacob from Esau (Gen 36,6–8). However, although the two narratives are linked by several verbal resonances, the verb drp, separate, which Abram uses when he asks Lot to separate from him (Gen 13,9) does not appear in the narrative of the separation of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 36 or in the earlier description of the separation of Jacob from Esau in Genesis 33, even thought it appears in the oracle that predicts to Rebekkah before the birth of her twins that they would vdrpy, separate (Gen 25,23). The difference between the behavior of Abram towards Lot and Jacob towards Esau reflects the following: although Lot is the ancestor of David, descended from Ruth to Moabite and Solomon who was descended from an Ammonite mother, Naamah1 Lot is cursed whereas Esau is not. The name of uvl, Lot, a keyword in Genesis 13, appearing 7 times (Gen 13,5.7.8.10.11 [2].12), is cognate with the Aramaic word meaning »curse« and is therefore a bilingual wordplay2, implying that Lot is cursed. The narrative in which Abraham pleads for Lot contains

1 A Midrash says: »And YHWH spoke to me: Do not harass the Moabites and do not contend with them in battle« (Deut 2,9) … The Holy One blessed be He said to him [Moses]: I have two tvdyrp, mules, to bring forth from them, Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammon- ite (B. T. Baba Qama 38b). The word drph, separate (Gn 13,9) may have inspired this Midrash since it resonates with the word hdrp describing the »she-mules« from whom Ruth and Naamah would emerge. The Midrash implies that God countermands Abram’s command of drph, separate, in order to ensure that two tvdyrp, mules, would join the people of Israel. 2 The phenomenon of bilingual wordplay implies that the biblical narratives are in- tended for sophisticated people, since the common people did not understand Aramaic (II Reg 18,26 = Isa 36,11).

ZAW 117. Bd., S. 36–52 © Walter de Gruyter 2005 Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 37 the word ylvX, maybe, 6 times (Gen 18, 24. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32), and ytlXvh, I have undertaken (Gen 18, 27. 31), which both resonate with the word hlX, curse, implying in a bilingual wordplay that Lot is sub- ject to a curse.3 Being cursed links Lot to Canaan whom Noah had termed rvrX, damned (Gen 9,26), and excluded from the land of Canaan except as a slave (Gen 9,27). The biblical author contrasts Abram with Lot when God tells him he is a hkrb, blessing (Gen 12,2–3). The Deuteronomist warns the Israelites that they must choose between hllqhv hkrbh, the blessing and the curse: I call to witness against you today the heavens and the earth, I have given you life and death, hllqhv hkrbh, the blessing and the curse, trxbv, and you shall choose, life so that you live, you and your seed (Dtn 30,19). Abram, who is a hkrb, blessing, gives Lot whose name means »cursed« a choice between hllqhv hkrbh, the blessing and the curse, when he allows him to choose the part of the land where he wishes to dwell. The biblical author says: uvl vl=rxbyv, and Lot chose for himself, all the plain of the Jordan, and Lot traveled east. And they separated, each from his brother (Gen 13,11). The word rxbyv, and he chose, echoes the Deuteronomist’s command of trxbv, and you shall choose, life so that you live, you and your seed (Dtn 30,19). However, Lot does not choose life because Sodom is doomed. The bilingual wordplay involving the name of Lot implies that Lot’s choice of Sodom is due to the fact that he is cursed in accordance with the meaning of his name. Lot is the paradigm of people who are cursed, and while Abraham is able to rescue him from captivity (Gen 14,14–16) and from destruction in Sodom (Gen 18,23–33) he is unable to make him blessed. As a result, he has no title to the land of Canaan whose gift to Abraham is associated with a blessing. The narrative in which Abraham pleads for Lot contains the word ylvX, maybe, 6 times (Gen 18,24.28.29.30.31.32), and the word

3 There are several bilingual wordplays in Genesis involving non-Israelite protagonists. In the well narrative involving Abraham and Abimelech the word tv>bk, ewes (Gen 21,29), is a bilingual pun because in Aramaic the word is ]vprx in Aramaic, which resonates with rpx, dig, a verb that Abraham uses to indicate that the ewes with which he makes a covenant with Abimelech prove that he has dug the well (Gen 21,30) (see Gershon Hepner, »Abimelech’s Seizure of the Wells of Abraham and Isaac and the Oaths and Treaties they Make With Him Violate Biblical Laws«, ZABR 2005 (in press). There are also many examples in the Laban narratives (see R. C. Steiner, »The »Aramean« of Deuteronomy 26:5: Peshat and Derash,« in Tehillah le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg, ed. M. Cohen, B. Eichler, J. H. Tigay, 1997, 137, fn. 137). 38 Gershon Hepner ytlXvh, I have undertaken (Gen 18,27.31), both these words alluding to the word hlX, curse, because Lot means »cursed,« as explained. The Midrash draws the same conclusion regarding Abraham’s servant from this word, deducing that he is cursed and therefore not allowed to marry into Abraham’s family4. Abraham’s servant says to Rebekkah’s family: And I said to my master: ylX, perhaps, the woman will not go after me (Gen 24,39). The Midrash says: Eliezer had a daughter and he was looking around for an excuse that would cause Abraham to tell him to marry off his daughter to him. Abraham said to him: My son is blessed and you are cursed, and one who is cursed cannot cling to one who is blessed5. A close reading of the narrative of Abram and Lot indicates that the reason Abram asks Lot to put a distance between himself and Abram reflects his unwillingness to have Lot marry into his family in the same way that he does not want his servant to become his son-in-law. The fact that Jacob never asks Esau to separate from him in the way that Abram asks Lot to do so is an anomaly that the biblical author perhaps redresses when Moses and Joshua help the Israelites to defeat the Amalekites in ,ydypr, Rephidim (Ex 17,8). Amalek is a descendant of Esau, his firstborn by his concubine Timna (Gen 36,12.16) and ,ydypr resonates anagrammatically with ,ydyrp, separated, as Kli Yakar (Eph- raim Solomon ben Haim of Luntschitz, 1550–1619), points out on Ex 19,20. The author of the Exodus narrative felt that the separation of Amalek from Israel was necessary before the Sinai theophany, demonstrating antipathy to at least one branch of the Edomites. However, the way that the Genesis narratives are more tolerant towards Esau reflects the way that the Deuteronomist is more tolerant towards Edomites and

4 Gn. R. 59:9. The biblical author makes another wordplay involving the word ylvX, maybe, in the narrative of the purloined blessing, where Jacob says to Rebekkah: ylvX, maybe, my father will feel me and I will be in his eyes like one who mocks and bring upon myself hllq, a curse, and not a blessing (Gn 27,12). The word ylvX, maybe, anticipates the word hllq, a curse, because it resonates with the word hlX, curse. If a curse had fallen on Jacob he would not have been able to receive the blessing in the same way that the curse implied by Lot’s name precludes him from receiving one. 5 Gn. R. 59:9. The biblical author makes another wordplay involving the word ylvX, maybe, in the narrative of the purloined blessing, where Jacob says to Rebekkah: ylvX, maybe, my father will feel me and I will be in his eyes like one who mocks and bring upon myself hllq, a curse, and not a blessing (Gn 27,12). The word ylvX, maybe, anticipates the word hllq, a curse, because it resonates with the word hlX, curse. If a curse had fallen on Jacob he would not have been able to receive the blessing in the same way that the curse implied by Lot’s name precludes him from receiving one. Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 39

Egyptians than he is towards Ammonites and Moabites (Dtn 23,3–9). Lot becomes the ancestor of the Ammonites and Moabites as the result of his incestuous union with his daughters following the destruction of Sodom, because his older daughter gives birth to Moab and his younger one to Ammon (Gen 19,30–38), thus producing children who have the category of rzmm, bastard, forbidden in Dtn 23,36. The narrative of the birth of Moab and Ammon echoes the Deuteronomic law chiastically, Moab and Ammon being mentioned in the reversed order that their descendants are mentioned in Deuteronomy, in accordance with Seidel’s law7. While Abram’s decision to ask Lot to separate from him reflects the Deuteronomic law that exhorts the Israelites to exclude the Moa- bites and Ammonites from the congregation of Israel forever Jacob’s failure to ask Esau to separate from him in reflects the Deuteronomist’s tolerance of Edomites who are allowed to enter the community of YHWH in the third generation (Dtn 23,8–9). The Qumran sectaries understood the prohibition of »entering the community of YHWH« to describe a prohibition from entering the Temple8. This interpretation is consistent with the way that Nehemiah evicts Tobiah the Ammonite from the Temple (Neh 13,7) after Shemaiah son of Delaiah and grandson of Mehetabel tries to kill Nehemiah in the sanctuary, instigated by Tobiah the Ammonite and Sanballat (Neh 6,10–13).9 However, Nehemiah also interprets the Deuteronomic law as

6 The midrash in Sifrei 243 justifies the exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites by their incestuous origins, a conclusion that not only follows halakhic exegesis but is probably the intention of the author of Gen 19,30–38 and the Deuteronomist (see M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 1985, 120). 7 M. Seidel, »Parallels between Isaiah and Psalms«, Sinai 38 (1955–1956): 149–172, 229–240, 272–280, 335–355. 8 4QFlorilegium contains a pesher on 2 Sam 7,10 in conjunction with Ex 15,17–18 that states: »This is the house where shall not enter[?] … forever either an Ammonite or a Moabite or a rzmm or a foreigner of a rg forever.« Baumgarten understands the rg as proselyte and claims that the Qumran sectaries excluded proselytes from the community like Ammonites and Moabites (J. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law, Leiden, Brill, 1977, 77ff. (see Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: In- termarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud, Oxford University Press, 2002, 61–62 and 240, n. 43). While the Rabbis forbade intermarriage with gentiles based on a first-century decree, they did not forbid intermarriage with proselytes (see Shaye J. D. Cohen, »From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage«, Hebrew Annual Review, vol. 7, ed. R. Aharoni, Ohio State University, 1983, 23–39). 9 As Fishbane points out, when Nehemiah calls Shemaiah a rvk>, hireling, of Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh 6,12, 13), he also alludes to way that the Deuteronomist rationalizes his prohibition by saying that the Ammonites rvk>, hired, Balaam to curse the Israe- lites (Dtn 23,5 (Fishbane, 126–127)). 40 Gershon Hepner a prohibition of intermarriage, describing the Ammonites and Moabites as an bri, mixture: At that time the book of Moses was read in the ears of the people and it was found written in it that an Ammonite and Moabite should not enter the congregation of God for ever, because they had not greeted the Israelites with bread and water and hired Balaam against them to curse them, and God turned the curse into a blessing. And it was, when they heard the instruction they separated the bri, mixture, from Israel (Neh 13,1–3).10 The word bri, mixture (Neh 13,3) resonates with the term br bri, mixed-multitude, that denotes the people who accompany the Israelites from Egypt (Ex 12,38): And the Israelites did according to Moses’ word, and they asked for bhz ylkv [ck ylk, items of silver and gold, and garments … And also an br bri, large mixed multitude, went up with them, and sheep and cattle, dXm dbk hnqm, very heavy in livestock (Ex 12,35.38). The language describing the exodus of this br bri, mixed-multitude, echoes that describing the exodus of Lot from Egypt, accompany- ing Abram: And Abraham was hnqmb dXm dbk, very heavy in cattle, bhzbv [ckb, in silver and gold … And also Lot who went with Abraham had flocks and cattle and tents (Gen 13,2. 5). In Numbers the biblical author uses the hapax [vcpcX, riffraff (Num 11,4), to denote the br bri, large mixed multitude. The choice of this hapax is related to the fact that the root [cX, gather, is a keyword in Numbers 11–12, appearing 14 times (Num 11,4.16.20.22.24.25.30.32 [2].33; 12,9.14.15)11. The Midrash identifies the [vcpcX, riffraff, with the br bri, mixed multitude, in Ex 12,38 and Samaritan manuscripts read br bri as a single word brbri while the Targums read ]ybrbri. The departure of the [vcpcX from Egypt with the Israelites echoes the way Lot departs Egypt with Abram, implying that the br bri are com- parable to the Ammonites and Moabites whom Nehemiah rejects as an bri, mixture (Neh 13,3). It possible that Ex 12,38 echoes Neh 13,3 which would mean that it was written in the Persian period, but it is also possible that Ex 12,38 inspired the language in Neh 13,3.12

10 The Psalmist uses the word vbrityv, and they intermarried (Ps 106,35), five verses after praising Phineas (Ps 106,30) who adopts a militant attitude against intermarriage in Numbers 25. 11 See R. E. Friedman, Commentary on the Torah, San Francisco, Harper, 2001, 466. 12 Ezra denotes intermarriage with the word vbrithv (Ez 9,2). The author of 4QMMT also uses brith to denote intermarriage in line C8 and rbgh tbvrit in B39–49 (see Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 87–89). Interestingly enough, it is possible that the reason why Jubilees 30 and Targum Jonathan on Lev 18,21 interpret the Holiness Code’s Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 41

The exodus of Abram to Egypt in Genesis 12 echoes that of the Israelites from Egypt, as I have shown in a previous paper13. Verbal resonances also link the famine that causes Abram to go to Egypt to the one that causes Jacob and his sons to go there: And there was a bir, famine, in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt /rXb birh dbk=yk ,> rvgl, to sojourn there, because the famine was heavy in the land (Gen 12,10). And they said to Pharaoh: rvgl, to sojourn in the land, we have come, because there is not pasture for the flocks that belong to your servants, ]ink /rXb birh dbk=yk, because the famine is heavy in the land of Canaan (Gen 47,4). The duration of the exile of the Israelites in Egypt is 430 years according to Ex 12,40, a period that also equals the duration of the First Temple14. Abraham goes to Egypt soon after he arrives in Canaan at the age of 75 (Gen 12, 4), and is 100 years old when Isaac was born 25 years later (Gen 21,5). A further 60 years elapse between the birth of Isaac to the birth of Jacob, because Isaac is 60 years old when Jacob is born (Gen 25,26). Jacob is therefore born 85 years after Abram came to the land of Canaan. When Jacob has an audience with Pharaoh he is 130 years old (Gen 47,9), so that his audience with Pharaoh takes place 215 years after Abram goes to Egypt. The reason the biblical author mentions that Jacob is 130 years old is to indicate that 215 years have passed since Abram went to Egypt, and that half of the 430 years of servitude have passed! The departure of the br bri, large mixed multitude, who leave Egypt with Moses at the end of 430 years of servitude creates an inclu- sion for the exile in Egypt, which has an abortive beginning when Lot, the ancestor of the Ammonites and Moabites, leaves Egypt together with Abram and ends definitely when the br bri leave with the Israe-

prohibition of the Molech cult as a prohibition of intermarriage (see Hayes, Gentile Impurities, 74), an interpretation strongly rejected by the Mishnah (Meg 4:9), may be because the word rybihl, to pass over, denoting the passing over of seed to Molech in that verse, resonates anagrammatically with bri, mixture, in Neh 13,3. 13 G. Hepner, »Lot’s Exodus from Sodom Foreshadows the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and the Passover Laws«, ZABR, 9 (2003), 129–164. See also Gen. R. 40:6; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II: From Noah to Abraham, translated Israel Abraham, 1964, 335–336; Fishbane, 375–376; Y. Zakovitch, The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible, 1991, 18–20, 46–47. 14 See T. L. Thompseon, The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of the Past, 1999, 74–75. It is interesting that Cyrus’s edict for the re-establishment of the Temple occurs 50 years after the exile begins, which may be why the Torah says that the Sinai theophany ends with a lby (Ex 29,24), a word that means not only »ram,« alluding to the sound of a ram’s horn, but a 50-year period of the jubilee, thus implying that the Sinai theophany occurs 480 years after Abram goes into exile in Egypt, linking the sanctuary of Sinai not only to Solomon’s Temple but the one that Cyrus decreed after 50 years of exile. 42 Gershon Hepner lites 430 years later. Nehemiah’s exclusion of the Ammonites and Moa- bites described as an bri, mixture, from the community implies that he not only considers that the Deuteronomic law excludes them from the Temple, an interpretation that leads to the post-exilic eviction of Tobiah the Ammonite from the Temple (Neh 13,7), but also that it prohibits intermarriage with them. The author of Ezra likewise indicates that he considers intermarriage with any of the indigenous peoples to be as forbidden as the Deuteronomic prohibition of intermarriage with Ammon- ites and Moabites when he follows his prohibition of such intermarriage with the words ,lvi=di ,tbvuv ,ml> v>rdt=Xlv, and you shall not seek their peace and good for ever (Ezra 9,12), because these words echo language the Deuteronomist uses to exclude the Ammonites and Moa- bites, „ymy=lk ,tbvuv ,ml> v>rdt=Xl, and you shall not seek their peace and good all your days (Dtn 23,7).15 The verbal resonance indicates that he disapproved of all non-Judeans as much as the Deutero- nomist disapproves of Ammonites and Moabites.16 This interpretation of the Deuteronomic law is probably based on the fact that the Deute- ronomist precedes his exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites by ex- cluding anyone who is a rzmm (Dtn 23,3), a term which Rabbinic exegesis maintains denotes a person born from a union forbidden in the Torah.17 Such a definition would cover the Ammonites and Moabites who were descended from the incestuous union between Lot and his daughters, a relationship forbidden by the Holiness Code (Lev 20,14)18. Nehemiah’s exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites echoes Abram’s separation from Lot, and probably provides the Vorlage of the Exodus narrative describing the way that an br bri, large mixed multitude,

15 Kugel suggests that Ezra’s rationale was the fact that in the fifth century the people of Israel were no longer coterminous with the people living in Israel’s territory, leading to the assertion that the people of Israel were radically discontinuous with the rest of humanity (James Kugel, »The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Times,« in Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran, ed. M. V. Fox et al., 1996, 21–32, p. 28). 16 Fishbane, 115–118. Ezra’s rationale for the prohibition of intermarriage was the fact that the Israelites constitute a »holy seed« (Ez 9,1–2), constituting an impermeable bar- rier between them and other nations. This rationale differs from the moral one mentioned in Dtn 7,4, which is the one the Rabbis adopted to prohibit intermarriage with gentiles only if they have not converted (see Hayes, 164–192). 17 Sifrei 248; Mishnah Yebamot 4:13. The Septuagint and Targum Jonathan understand the word rzmm to mean the offspring of a prostitute, such as Jephthah (Ri 11,1–3, 7), whose rejection by his fellows might have been a response to this Deuteronomic law. 18 Sifei 243 justifies the exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites by their incestuous origins (see Fishbane, 120). Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 43 attach themselves to the Israelites, although it is possible that the Neh 9,1–3 echoes the Exodus narrative which acts as the Vorlage. Although verbal resonances link the br bri, large mixed multitude, who leave Egypt with the Israelites to the Ammonites and Moa- bites whom Nehemiah describes as a bri, mixture, the term br bri probably refers to Egyptians who attached themselves to the Israelites during the exodus. The reason why Moses allows the br bri, large mixed multitude, to remain attached to the Israelites in contrast to Nehemiah who excludes the bri, mixture, from the Judean community is because the Deuteronomist allows the third generation of Egyptians to enter the community (Dtn 23,8–9), in contrast to the perpetual exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites. Moses’ acceptance of the Egyp- tians also echoes the way that Jacob accepts coexistence with Esau, from whom he separates only for economic reasons, as the author of Genesis explains in Gen 36,6–8. This acceptance of coexistence also conforms to the Deuteronomic law, which allows Edomites, like Egyptians, to enter the community in the third generation (Dtn 23,8–9). While the intolerant attitude of Abram towards Lot and of Nehe- miah towards Ammonites and Moabites reflects the intolerant attitude of the Deuteronomist to these people it may be contrary to a more tolerant law of the Priestly legislator who never explicitly forbids intermarriage and repeatedly states »one ordinance for you und for the stranger who sojourns with you« (Num 9,14; 12, 9; 15,14.16.26; 19,10), as Mary Douglas points out19. Moses not only marries an alien woman, Zipporah, but is saved by her, as described in the »bridegroom of blood« narrative (Ex 4,24–26).20 Miriam and Aaron disapprove of Moses’ intermarriage but the Priestly narrator indicates his approval by relating that God supports Moses and not his siblings (Num 12,1–16). While the author of the narrative of the betrothal of Rebekkah to Isaac in Genesis 24 reflects the intolerant attitude towards Canaanites by the Deuteronomist’s the author of Ruth and the Chronicler21 show remarkable racial tolerance. The racially intolerant narrative of the

19 M. Douglas, »Responding to Ezra and Nehemiah: The Priests and the Foreign Wives«, BI 10 (2002): 1–23. 20 By performing circumcision, Zipporah enables Moses to enter the Israelite community in the manner mentioned in Ex 12,43–51 where the Priestly legislator says that a stranger, meaning a non-Israelite, may eat the Passover sacrifice once he has become circumcized, becoming like an xrzX, native born (Ex 12,48), making him a virtual »easterner« (see G. Hepner, »The Begettings of Terah and the Structure of Genesis and the Tetrateuch: A Zadokite Polemic«, RB 111 (2004), 31–60. 21 A systematic examination of Chronicles reveals a continuous line of support of mixed marriages (I Chron 2,17, 34–35; 4,18; 7,14; II Chron 24,26) (S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought, 1989, 325–351). 44 Gershon Hepner betrothal Rebekkah echoes parts of the racially tolerant book of Ruth, probably being a polemic against exogamy.22 In both narratives the verb „lh, go, is a keyword appearing 14 times in Genesis 24 (Gen 24,4.5.8.10.38.39.40.51.55.56.58 [2].61.65), 10 times in the first chapter of Ruth (Ruth 1,1.7.8.11.12.16 [2].18.19. 21) and 7 times in the second chapter (Ruth 2,2 [2]. 3. 8. 9 [2]. 11). The words hrqm rqyv, and there happened a happening (Ruth 2,3), resonate with Abraham’s servant’s use of the word hrqh, make it happen (Gen 24,14),23 a verbal resonance that is highlighted by Naomi’s description of Boaz as „rykm, he who took note of you (Ruth 2,19), since this word resonates with hrqm rqyv, and therefore indicates that the happening that oc- curred was the fact that Boaz took note of Ruth. The way that the encounter between Ruth and Boaz reflects human luck obliquely in Ruth 2,3 echoes the way that the encounter between Rebekkah and Abra- ham’s servant reflects it explicitly in Gen 24,14,24 the description of the explicit divine guidance of Abraham’s servant being the mirror image of the hidden divine guidance of Ruth. The way that Boaz commands his lads to bX>, draw, water for Ruth (Ruth 2,9) echoes the way that Rebekkah herself bX>, draws, water for Abraham’s servant and his camels (Gen 24,19.20.44). The conduct of both heroines contrasts with that of the Moabites whose exclusion the Deuteronomist explains by saying that they failed to provide water for the Israelites (Dtn 23,5), an offence recalled in Neh 13,2. When Naomi acknowledges the help Boaz gives Ruth she says: vdcx bzi=Xl r>X hvhyl Xvh „vrb blessed be he to YHWH who did not abandon His lovingkindness, to the living and the dead (Ruth 2,20). This echoes the language of Abraham’s servant when he thanks God for enabling him to meet Rebekkah: And he said: vtmXv vdcx bzi=Xl r>X ,hdbX yndX yhlX hvhy „vrb, blessed is YHWH, the God of my lord Abraham, who did not abandon his lovingkindness and truth, from my lord (Gen 24,27). The way that the author of Ruth describes the way that Ruth becomes Boaz’s wife echoes the way that the biblical authors describes that Rebekkah becomes Isaac’s wife:

And Boaz took Ruth hylX Xbyv h>Xl vl=yhtv, and she became his wife and he came to her (Ruth 4,13).

22 G. Hepner, »The Begettings of Terah and the Structure of Genesis and the Tetrateuch, RB 111 (2004) 31–60. See A. Rofé, »Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nach- geschichte«, Festschrift für Rolf Rentdorff zum 65. Geburtstag, 1990, 27–39. 23 See G. Cohen, Studies in the Book of Ruth [Hebrew], 1980, 28. 24 See P. Trible, »A Human Comedy: The Book of Ruth«, in K. R. R. Gros Louis with J. S. Ackerman, eds., Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, Volume II, 1982, 173. Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 45

qxjy hXbyv, and Isaac brought her, to the tent of Sarah his mother. And he took Rebekkah h>Xl vl=yhxv, and she became his wife, and he loved her (Gen 24,67). Before Rebekkah departs for the land of Canaan her family say to her: Our sister, may you become hbbr yplXl, thousandfold myriads, and may your seed inherit the gate vyXn>, of those who hate him (Gen 24,60). These words echo those that the Israelites say regarding the Ark in Numbers: And when the Ark traveled Moses said: Arise, YHWH, and may Your enemies be scattered, and may „yXn>m, those who hate You, feel before You. And when it rested he said: Reside, YHWH, among yplX tvbbr, the myriads of thousands, of Israel (Num 10,35–36). Rebekkah travels to Canaan with Abraham’s servant like the Ark that traveled rvtl, to scout, for the Israelites (Num 10,33). Her journey to Canaan with the servant of Abraham echoes that of Ruth to Judea, a fact whose significance is highlighted by the name tvr, Ruth, which resonates with rvtl, to scout, to Judea. The connection between Ruth and the Ark of the Covenant is further highlighted when the narrator says: And she rose to glean, and Boaz commanded his lads saying: Let her glean even between the sheaves and do not hvmylkt, put her to shame (Ruth 2,15). The word hvmylkt, put her to shame, resonates with lkym, Michal, David’s wife who puts David to shame when she accuses him of exposing his nakedness while bringing the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6,20). The name lkym, Michal, resonates with ,lk, put to shame, and Michal’s false ac- cusation against David echoes that of the Israelites when they consider that Moses to be >>b, shamefully-late (Ex 32,1), when returning from the Sinai theophany, the word >>b resonating with the word v>>bth, ashamed, denoting the lack of shame of Man and Woman before the Pri- mal Sin (Gen 2,25). All three narratives are about shameful nakedness al- legedly occurring in the presence of God in violation of the prohibition of exposing nakedness in Ex 20,23. Saul gives lkym, Michal, to Palti the son of Laish at the end of the narrative (1 Sam 25,44). Palti is from ,ylg, Gallim, a place which is mentioned only once again (Isa 10,30) and resonates with hlg, reveal, the word Michal uses to David 3 times when ac- cusing him of acting shamefully (2 Sam 6,12).25

25 Ezekiel also uses the root ,lk twice before describing the inauguration of the Temple: And you, son of Man, tell the house of Israel about the House, vmlkyv, and let them feel ashamed, about their sin, and measure the structure. 46 Gershon Hepner

The rationale of the journeys of Rebekkah to Isaac and Ruth to Bethlehem is to establish the dynasty of David, Descended from Ruth the Moabite, that culminates in Solomon, the builder of the Temple and son of Naamah, an Ammonite (I Reg 14,21.31; II Chron 12,13). While the links between the narratives of Rebekkah and Ruth explain the origins of the Davidic dynasty they also explain those of the Temple. The Rebekkah narrative alludes to tabernacle in the wilderness, because the word iqb, half-weight, appears only twice in the bible, denoting the weight of a gift Abraham’s servant gives Rebekkah (Gen 24,22), and the weight of the half-shekel used for the building of the tabernacle (Ex 38,26). The language in Gen 24,60 alludes to the Ark of the Covenant as described in Num 10,35–36 while the name of tvr, Ruth, resonates with the word rvtl, to scout, denoting the way the Ark scouted for the Israelites in the wilderness (Num 10,33), as explained above. Fur- thermore, in the Rebekkah narrative the word tndgm, gifts (Gen 24,53), denoting the gifts that Abraham’s servant gives Rebekkah before her departure from Mesopotamia links Rebekkah’s departure from Mesopo- tamia to the land of Canaan to that of the returning exiles to Jerusalem whose Temple they wish to rebuild because this rare word also denotes the gifts that the Mesopotamians give the Judeans before they return to Judea (Ezra 1,6). The use of this word in both narratives suggests that the Rebekkah narrative is a post-exilic polemic whose rationale is to support the efforts of leaders such as Ezra and Nehemiah in their attempt not only to prohibit exogamy but also to persuade the Judeans in Mesopotamia to return to Jerusalem in the same way that Rebekkah went to Canaan in order to marry Isaac. While the rationale of Rebekkah’s marriage to Isaac is to unite Abraham’s lineage with that of his brother Nahor when Isaac marries Rebekkah, Nahor’s granddaughter (Gen 22,23), the rationale of Boaz’s marriage to Ruth is to reunite Abraham’s lineage with that of Haran, Abraham’s other brother, since Ruth is descended from Moab, the grandson of Haran (Gen 19,37). However, whereas Isaac’s marriage to Rebekkah violates no biblical laws and ensures that Isaac does not marry a Canaanite in violation of the Deuteronomic law in Dtn 7,3 the marriage of Boaz to Ruth violates the Deuteronomic law prohibiting intermarriage with Moabites and possibly Ammonites26 as enforced by Ezra and Nehemiah. Whereas the Rebekah narrative highlights the racially intolerant attitude of the Deuteronomist towards the Canaanite

And if vmlkn, they are ashamed, about all that they have done, inform them about the shape of the house (Ez 43,1–2). 26 The name of Ruth’s mother-in-law, ymin, Naomi, resonates with ynmi, Ammonite, as indicated in G. Hepner, »Verbal Resonances in the Bible and Intertextuality«, JSOT 96 (2001): 14, n. 32. Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 47

(Dtn 7,3), the Ruth narrative reflects what may be the Priestly legislator’s more tolerant attitude towards strangers, as explained above. The Deuteronomist echoes the narrative of Lot’s separation from Abram stating that if the Israelites disobey God and violate their covenant with Him they will share the fate of the inhabitants of the cities of the Plain amongst whom Lot chose to live: Lest there be among you a man or woman or family of tribe whose heart is turning today from YHWH our God, to go and serve the gods of those nation, lest there be among you a root bearing poison and wormwood, and it will be when he hears the words of tXzh hlXh, this curse, „rbthv, that he will feel himself blessed, in this heart saying: There will be peace for me, for I will go after the obstinacy of my heart, in order hXmjh=tX hvrh tvpc, to sweep away the wet with the dry (Dtn 29,17–18). The words tXzh hlXh, this oath (Dtn 29,18), are an oblique allu- sion to Lot whose name means »cursed« in Aramaic, as explained above. The word „rbthv, that he will feel himself blessed, echoes the Genesis narrative that says that Abraham is a hkrb, blessing (Gen 12, 2). The word tvpc, to sweep away (Dtn 29, 18), echoes the verb hpc, sweep away, which appears 4 times in the Lot narrative (Gen 18,23.24; 19,15.17). The word hvrh, the wet, refers to the word qydj, the innocent (Gen 18,23), because Jeremiah and the Psalmist compare the righteous with the tree planted by water (Jer 15,7–8; Ps 1,2–4). The word hXmjh, the dry, refers to the word i>r, guilty, since the verb Xjm can mean »find guilty,« as when the word tXjvm, had been taken out, denotes the way that Tamar had been taken out after Judah had found her to be guilty (Gen 38,25) and when Ahab asks Elijah whether he has found him to be guilty (I Reg 21,20). The phrase hXmjh=tX hvrh tvpc, to sweep away the wet with the dry (Dtn 29,17–18), is a poetic description of the destruction of the righteous with the innocent, echoing Ab- raham’s more prosaic language when he asks God: Will You hpct, sweep away, i>r=,i qydj, the innocent with the guilty? (Gen 18,23). The Deuteronomist continues: hirl hvhy vlydbhv, and YHWH will separate him for evil, from all the tribes of Israel, according to all the tvlX, curses, that are written in this book of instruction (Dtn 29,20). The Deuteronomist’s use of the word vlydbhv, and He will separate him, refers to Abram’s use to Lot of the word drph, depart (Gen 13,9), since the words are semantically similar. The words hirl hvhy vlydbhv, and YHWH will separate him for evil (Deut. 29: 20), echo the description of the inhabitants of Sodom as hvhyl ,yXuxv ,yir, evil and sinful to YHWH (Gen 13,13). The Deuteronomist proceeds to make an explicit reference to the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah and Zeboim 48 Gershon Hepner

(Dtn 29,22). The language with which he concludes the pericope echoes the language with which the author of Genesis begins it. He says: The hidden things belong to YHWH our God but those that are revealed are for us and our children forever, to perform the words of this instruction (Dtn 29,28). This echoes the way that God asks Himself, before deciding to destroy the Cities of the Plain: Should I cover up from Abraham what I am about to do (Gen 18,17)? It therefore follows that the Deuteronomist’s language predicting that God would destroy the Israelites if they violated God’s command- ments in the same way that He destroyed the cities of the Plain echoes the way that the author of Genesis describes the way that God considers destroying the righteous inhabitants of Sodom, including Lot, before Abraham persuades Him to save the life of Lot27. The narrative of the separation of Lot from Abraham is linked to his separation from Ishmael and Hagar described in Gen 21,9–21, as Rendsburg has shown, pointing out that the way that the patriarch receives the land of Canaan in Gen 13,14–17 foreshadows the way that he receives his son Isaac in Gen 21,1–728. However, the primary rationale of the linkage is that they both reflect Abraham’s obedience to Deuteronomic law. Abraham causes Lot separate from him because the Deuteronomic law in Dtn 23,4 requires the separation from Ammonites and Moabites, but is reluctant to cause Ishmael to separate from him because Ishmael is the son of an Egyptian woman, Hagar (Gen 16,1), and not only marries an Egyptian wife (Gen 21,21), but also has a daughter, Basemath, who marries Esau (Gen 28,9), thus making his descendants not only Egyptians but Edomites, both nations which the Deuteronom- ist allows to enter the community in the third generation (Dtn 28,8–9). Abraham’s reluctance to send Hagar and Ishmael away is as consistent with Deuteronomic law as his decision to send Lot away so that it requires a divine imperative to cause him to do so! Since the biblical authors may consider Ishmael to be the ancestor of the Arabs as the Rabbis did in the post-biblical era it is possible that the tolerance towards Ishmael as well as Esau who married his daughter Basemath may reflect a tolerance towards Arabs.

27 The linkage is extremely ironic because, whereas the Deuteronomist says that no evil Israelite will be saved from destruction just because he is associated with righteous people, God saves Lot and his two daughters solely because of their association with Abraham, as indicated by the way that the Lot narrative highlights Abraham’s role in the rescue of Lot (see Hepner, »Lot’s Exodus«). 28 Gary A. Rendsburg, The Redaction of Genesis, Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns 1986, 37–39. Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 49

The analysis of the separation of Abram from Lot reflects the Deuteronomic law prohibiting intermarriage with Ammonites and Moabites and confirms others studies showing that Genesis narratives often allude to biblical laws29. The rationale of such allusions may be an attempt to imply that ostensibly Sinaitic laws are actually as old as the Patriarchs. Such an implication would be helpful to post-exilic leaders when trying to impose laws that may well have been post-exilic. Yairah Amit has identified many of biblical narratives as »hidden polemics«30, and Heard has suggested that the narratives of Genesis, like those of Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13, reflect the interests of Yehud’s elite31. The links between the biblical narratives and laws are likely to be reflection of this very need as well as the need to support the ethnic identity of the Judeans who returned from exile in Mesopotamia.32 Friedman ascribes the narratives describing the separation of Abram and Lot as well as that of the birth of Moab and Ammon to a scribe in the court of King David who flourished in the 10th century B.C.E.33, and Schniedewind uses archaeology, epigraphy, and linguistic anthropology to argue that the Bible was largely composed between the 8th and 6th centuries B.C.E. and that very little was composed in the Persian

29 G. Hepner, »Verbal Resonance in the Bible and Intertextuality,« JSOT (2001): 3–27; »The Sacrifices in the Covenant Between the Pieces Allude to the Laws of Leviticus and the Covenant of the Flesh,« BN 110 (2002): 38–73; »Abraham’s incestuous marriage with Sarah involves a violation of the Holiness Code«, VT 53 (2003): 143–155; »Jacob’s Oath Reflects the Law about Oaths in Lev 5: 4–6 and Causes Rachel’s Death«, ZABR 8 (2002): 131–165; »The Affliction and Divorce of Hagar Involves Violations of the Covenant and Deuteronomic Codes«, ZABR, 8 (2002): 166–206; »Lot’s Exodus from Sodom Foreshadows the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and the Passover Laws«, ZABR 9 (2003): 129–164; »Jacob’s Servitude Reflects Differences in the Cov- enant and Holiness Codes and Deuteronomy«, ZAW 115 (2003): 185–209; »The De- pravity of Ham and the Tower of Babel. Echo Contiguous Prohibitions of the Holiness Code«, Estudios Biblicos 61 (2003): 85–131; »The Begettings of Terah and the Struc- ture of Genesis and the Tetrateuch«, RB 111 (2004): 31–60; »Abimelech’s Seizure of the Wells of Abraham and Isaac and the Oaths and Treaties they Make With Him Vi- olate Biblical Laws«, ZABR, 2005 (in press); »Israelites Should Conquer Israel: The Hidden Polemic of the First Creation Narrative«, Revue Biblique (2005) (in press); The Relationsship between Biblical Narratives and Law, New York, Peter Lang 2005 (in press). 30 Y. Yamit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative, Leiden, Brill, 2000. 31 R. C. Heard, Dynamics of Diselection: Ambiguity in Genesis 12–36 and Ethnic Bound- aries in Post-Exilic Judah, Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta 2001. 32 See N. Steinberg, Kinship and Marriage in Genesis: A Household Economics Perspec- tive, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1993, 115, 113. 33 R. E. Friedman, The Hidden Book in the Bible: The Discovery of the First Prose Masterpiece, Harper, San Francisco, 1998, 79, 86–87. 50 Gershon Hepner period.34 However, since Genesis 13 reflects the Deuteronomist’s exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites (Dtn 23,4) it is likely to be a post- exilic polemic supporting the program of Ezra and Nehemiah to settle the land with Mesopotamian exiles whose colonization of the land echoes that attributed by the patriarchs in general and Abraham in par- ticular. This view is consistent with that of Ahlström who argues that the archaic references to the early inhabitants of the area such as Periz- zites, Hivites and Jebusites were included in the historiography of this period to emphasize that the groups in possession of the land at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah had no true title to it35. The description of the incestuous origins of Moab and Ammon in Gen 19,30–38 reflects the same Deuteronomic law since the term rzmm in Dtn 23,3 probably applies to the Ammonites in Moabites, as explained above, and is probably a Zadokite post-exilic polemic directed against the dynasty of David, descended from Ruth the Moabite, and Solomon, whose suc- cessor Rehoboam was the son of an Ammonite, Naamah.36 The way that both Ezra and Nehemiah end abruptly when its protagonists take steps to end intermarriage reflects a failure to enforce this policy by the rulers of Yehud. The author of Ezra clearly considers intermarriage with any of the indigenous peoples of Judea and Samaria to be as forbidden as the Deuteronomic prohibition of intermarriage with Ammonites and Moabites, as the linkage between the language in Ezra 9,12 to Dtn 23,7 indicates, and the author of Genesis reflects this attitude in the narrative of the betrothal of Rebekkah while also reflecting the more tolerant attitude of the Deuteronomist towards Egyptians and Edomites in his portrayal of both the Egyptian Ishmael whose mother Hagar was and Egyptian (Deut 16,1) and who married an Egyptian wife (Gen 21,21) and the Edomite Esau who married Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter (Gen 28,9). This tolerance of Edomites and Egyptians is also highlighted by verbal resonances that link Isaac’s blessing of Esau (Gen 27,37) to Jacob’s adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph’s two Egyptian sons (Gen 48,16).37 According to

34 William M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004. 35 G. W. Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites? 1986, 108. See also T. Mullen Jr., Ethnic Myths and Pentateuchal Foundations: A New Approach to the Formation of the Pen- tateuch, 1997, 144. 36 The name of Ruth’s mother-in-law ymin, Naomi, resonates with ]vmi, Ammon, implying that she was an Ammonite. 37 Verbal resonances link the way that Jacob fears Esau to the way that Joseph’s brothers fear him, thus illustrating the equivalence between the Edomites descended from Esau to the Egyptians, descended from Joseph’s Egyptian wife. Both the Jacob and Joseph narratives involve a patriarch who prefers one son over the other (Gn 25,28; 37,3), Separation Between Abram and Lot Reflects 51

Heard,38 the narratives of Ishmael and Esau describe their Diselection. This is mistaken because they actually reflect the Deuteronomist’s tolerant attitude to Edomites and Egyptians (Deut 23,8–9) The attempts of Ezra and Nehemiah to enforce endogamy by ex- cluding not only Ammonites and Moabites but all people who could not trace their ancestry to Israel by genealogical proofs that they brought with them from Mesopotamia parallels the way that the Genesis narratives highlight the importance of endogamy, the formula tvdlvt hlX, these are the begettings, occurring 11 times (Gen 2,4; 5,1; 6,9; 10,1; 11,10; 11,27; 25,12; 25,19; 36,1; 36,9; 37,2). The pivotal citation is the sixth, which is that of Terah39, and highlights the importance of the Mesopotamian roots of the Israelites in the book of Genesis, reflecting the importance Ezra and Nehemiah attached to Mesopotamian roots when they determined that the returning exiles could only intermarry among themselves and not with the indigenous population whom they regarded as alien as the Canaanites in Genesis whose presence the author of the narrative of the separation of Lot from Abram highlights, saying »And the Canaanite and Perizzite were then dwelling in the land« (Gen 13,7), immediately before Abram demands that Lot separate from him, echoing the reference to »the Canaanite and Perizzite« in the Deuteronomic law prohibiting intermarriage with Canaanites (Dtn 7,1).

After Abram and Sarai return from Egypt, where they are forced to go during a famine in Canaan, Abram asks Lot to separate from him. This request reflects a Deuteronomic law prohibiting the Israelites from allowing Lot’s descendants, the Ammonites and Moabites, to enter the community (Deut 23,4). The narrative is likely to be a hidden polemic against intermarriage with Ammonites and Moabites, reflecting the intolerant attitude of Ezra and Nehemiah towards all of the indigenous population in Judea. The intolerance of Abram towards Lot’s descendants parallels his intolerance towards Canaanites in Genesis 24 and contrasts with the tolerant attitude of the author of the book of Ruth. The tolerant attitude

leading to the emergence of the younger son and the intention of the older son(s) to kill the younger son (Gn 27,41; 37,18–20) and the departure of the younger son (Gn 27, 42–45; 28,10–29; 37, 21–28. 36; 39,1), but concluding with reconciliation between the brothers (Gn 33,4; 45,14–15). Joseph’s brothers see him in the same way that Jacob sees Esau, making Joseph a virtual Edomite, even using the same word, vnmu>y, despises us (Gn 49,23; 50,15), to denote Joseph’s hate of them that Jacob uses to denote Esau’s hate of him (Gn 27,41). In I Reg, the story of Haddad the Edomite is probably a polemic against the Ephraimite king Jeroboam (I. J. Yuval, »Two Nations in Your Womb«: Perceptions of Jews and Christians«, [Heb] 2001, 24), also demonstrating the connection between Esau/Edom and Joseph. 38 Heard, Dynamics of Diselection, 16–23. 39 G. Hepner, »The Begettings of Terah and the Structure of Genesis and the Terateuch: A Zadokite Polemic«, RB 111 (2004), 31–60. 52 Gershon Hepner of the author of Genesis towards Esau and Ishmael, the son of an Egyptian whose daughter Basemath marries Esau, reflects the Deuteronomist’s tolerant attitude towards Egyptians and Edomites. Après le retour d’Abram et de Sara d’Égypte, où ils avaient dû se réfugier pour échapper à une famine en Canaan, Abram exige que Lot se sépare de lui. Cette demande reflète une loi deutéronomique, qui interdit aux Israélites d’intégrer à leur communauté des Ammonites et des Moabites, les descendants de Lot (Dtn 23,4). Le récit comporte sans doute une polémique occulte contre les mariages avec des Ammonites et des Moabites, laquelle reprend la position intolérante d’Esdras et de Néhémie à l’encontre de toute la population autochtone de Juda. L’intolérance d’Abram à l’encontre de Lot reflète son intolérance vis à vis des Cananéens selon Gen 24, et contraste avec l’attitude tolérante du livre de Ruth. Par ailleurs, l’attitude tolérante de l’auteur de la Genèse envers Esaü et Ismaël, fils d’une Égyptienne, reflète celle du Deutéronomiste envers les Égyptiens et les Édomites. Nachdem Abram und Sarai aus Ägypten zurückgekehrt sind, wohin sie wegen einer Hungersnot in Kanaan zu gehen gezwungen waren, bittet Abram Lot, sich von ihm zu tren- nen. Diese Bitte spiegelt ein deuteronomisches Gesetz wider, das den Israeliten verbietet, die Ammoniter und Moabiter, die Nachkommen Lots, in die Gemeinde aufzunehmen (Dtn 23,4). Die Erzählung stellt wahrscheinlich eine versteckte Polemik gegen die Ehen mit Ammonitern und Moabitern dar, welche die intolerante Haltung Esras und Nehemias ge- genüber der gesamten einheimischen Bevölkerung Judas widerspiegelt. Die Intoleranz Ab- rams gegenüber Lots Nachkommen entspricht seiner Intoleranz gegenüber den Kanaanäern in Gen 24 und kontrastiert der toleranten Haltung des Buches Ruth. Die tolerante Haltung des Autors der Genesis gegenüber Esau und Ismael, dem Sohn einer Ägypterin, dessen Toch- ter Basemat Esau heiratet, spiegelt die tolerante Haltung der Deuteronomisten gegenüber Ägyptern und Edomitern wider.