Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals
Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals Special Issue IOSOT 2013 - Books and Journals
54 S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76 מגרש .4 The basic meaning of מגרש is presumably “pasture land”, a place of cattle מגרשי הערים driving.97 are the untilled grounds surrounding the cities which were used as pasture lands.98 In most of its occurrences in the O.T. מגרש is connected with the Levites, i.e., in the explicit commandment to give the Levites cities with their pasture lands (Num. xxxv 2ff.) in the law concerning the redemption of lands (Lev. xxv 32-34) and in the list of the Levitical cities ( Jos. xxi 3ff.).99 In Chr. the word is used in several ways: a) In its basic meaning as pasture land: 1 Chr. v. 16; b) To denote the pasture lands which surround the Levitical cities: 1 Chr. vi 54ff. (39ff.)100 which is a doublet of the list of the Levitical cities, in Jos. xxi 3ff.101 97) Cf. KBL, p. 494. 98) Cf. Num. xxxv 1-3: “The cities shall be theirs to dwell in and their pasture lands shall be for their cattle and for their livestock and for all their beasts”. 99) In addition to these and the verses in Chr. the word מגרש is mentioned also in Ez. xlv 2, xlviii 15, 17, Jos. xiv 4. 100) M. Noth regards the list in 1 Chr. vi 54ff. as post-chronistic. His argument is that its geographical content is not in harmony with the other lists (op. cit., p. 120). Rudolph agrees with Noth, but differs in his reasons. To him the list cannot be chronistic as “the sons of Aaron” are preferred to the Levites (Rudolph, Chronikbücher, p. 61). The assumption itself is not proved since it is difficult to see how the list prefers the priests to the Levites. But even so, it should be said that the considerations are rather general, and do not take into account the peculiar signs of the Chr.’s work. A comparison of all the verses in which the cities of priests and Levites are mentioned reveals that they all belong together and are composed of consistent groups of words and terms. On the other hand, each of them is related to its context. For example: 1 Chr. xiii 2 is dependent directly upon the list in 1 Chr. vi 54ff. This causes Rudolph to doubt its originality (op. cit., p. 110). But is it possible, if we view the matter from the Chr.’s standpoint, that the priests and Levites were not invited to the ceremony of bringing the ark to Jerusalem? And further: 2 Chr. xi :13 והלויים אשר בכל ישראל התיצבו עליו מכל גבולם ”והכהנים is dependent on the list too, as the phrase גבולם is found only in this list and nowhere else in Chr. (1 Chr. vi 54 (39), 66 (51)) and is also absent from the list in Jos. xxi. Should we regard this verse too as secondary? Rudolph does not. There is no doubt that the list in 1 Chr. vi 54 (39ff.) was not composed by the Chr. but it was incorporated in the book by the Chr. himself who gave it some touches of his own, but did not thoroughly rework it. 101) A summation of the different views regarding the origin of this list and its relation to the parallel list in Jos. xxi is given by B. Mazar: “The Levitical and Priestly Cities” (Hebrew), Encyclopedia Biblica (Hebrew) IV, p. 476ff.
S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 36-76 55 c) The word מגרש alone and the phrase עיר מגרש are turned in Chr. into technical terms denoting the levitical and priestly cities themselves. This last meaning is peculiar to the Chr. and is found nowhere else in the O.T. 1) 1 Chr. xiii 2. והלויים בערי מגרשיהם“ .”הכהנים The RSV translation is literal: “The priests and Levites in the cities that have pasture lands”. But ערי מגרש in Chr. means “levitical and priestly cities”, and so the whole verse is: “Let us send abroad to our brethren who remain in all the land of Israel, and with them to the priests and Levites in their cities that they may come . . .”. מגרשיהם again, Here ”כי עזבו הלויים את מגרשיהם ואחוזתם“ :13-14 (2 2 Chr. xi is not only the pasture lands surrounding the cities but the cities themselves. It should be translated: “The Levites left their cities and their possessions”. 3) 2 Chr. xxi 19 אהרן הכהנים בשדי מגרש עריהם“ ”ולבני This, again is translated literally by RSV, “. . . The priests who were in the fields of common land belonging to their cities”. In fact, the text does not refer to the priests in “the שדה מגרש Jerusalem. common land” but to the priests who were not present in them- is taken over as a whole from Lev. xxv 34 and refers to the cities עריהם selves. Here again it should be translated: “The priests . . . in their cities”, and thus it continues: “there were men in the several cities who were designated by name to distribute portions . . .”. The technical term עיר מגרש is found, as a fixed term for the cities themselves, in later literature.102 In Ezr.-Neh. we find neither the word מגרש nor the technical term. Ezr.-Neh. describes the settlement of the returned exiles, and among them the priests and the Levites. Nehemiah mentions that “. . . The Levites and the singers who did the work, had fled each to his field” (Neh. xiii 40) but the cities are not mentioned. This is all the more significant because we do have evidence in Ezr.-Neh. for the existence of these cities.103 “And at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem they sought the Levites in all their places to bring them to Jerusalem. . . . And the sons of the singers gathered together from the circuit round Jerusalem and from the villages of Netophathites . . . for the singers had built themselves villages around Jerusalem” (Neh. xii 27-29). “משחרב בית המקדש בטל מלכות מבית דוד ובטלו אורים ותומים ופסקו ערי II. (102 Tosefta Sota 13 אף לא 5: (Very similar in the Babylonian Talmud Sota 48 b). The Mishna Ma’ser Sheni xiv ”מגרש The translations here too .אומר: יש להם ערי מגרש ”. . . כהנים וליים שלא לקחו חלק בארץ. רבי יוסי: overlook the special technical significance of the construct state ערי מגרש which is literally “cities of a pasture land” and translate it “cities with pasture land”. Actually it should be translated as a unit: “levitical cities”. 103) Cf. S. Klein: “The Priestly and Levitical cities, etc.” (Hebrew), 1934, p. 19.
- Page 7 and 8: Rückblick / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 9 and 10: Prospect / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 11 and 12: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 13 and 14: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 15 and 16: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 17 and 18: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 19 and 20: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 21 and 22: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 23 and 24: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 25 and 26: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 27 and 28: A. Alt / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2
- Page 29 and 30: Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 25-2
- Page 31 and 32: H. L. Ginsberg / Vetus Testamentum
- Page 33 and 34: Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 29-3
- Page 35 and 36: P. Winter / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 37 and 38: M. Kessler / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 39 and 40: M. Kessler / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 41 and 42: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 43 and 44: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 45 and 46: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 47 and 48: C. Hif ʿil The same rules apply he
- Page 49 and 50: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 51 and 52: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 53 and 54: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 55 and 56: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 57: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 61 and 62: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 63 and 64: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 65 and 66: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 67 and 68: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 69 and 70: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 71 and 72: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 73 and 74: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 75 and 76: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 77 and 78: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 79 and 80: S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 81 and 82: Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 77-8
- Page 83 and 84: W. Zimmerli / Vetus Testamentum IOS
- Page 85 and 86: W. Zimmerli / Vetus Testamentum IOS
- Page 87 and 88: W. Zimmerli / Vetus Testamentum IOS
- Page 89 and 90: W. Zimmerli / Vetus Testamentum IOS
- Page 91 and 92: Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 87-9
- Page 93 and 94: A. Lemaire / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 95 and 96: A. Lemaire / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 97 and 98: A. Lemaire / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 99 and 100: A. Lemaire / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 101 and 102: A. Lemaire / Vetus Testamentum IOSO
- Page 103 and 104: Vetus Testamentum IOSOT (2013) 99-1
- Page 105 and 106: D. Pardee / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
- Page 107 and 108: D. Pardee / Vetus Testamentum IOSOT
S. Japhet / Vetus Testamentum <strong>IOSOT</strong> (<strong>2013</strong>) 36-76 55<br />
c) The word מגרש alone <strong>and</strong> the phrase עיר מגרש are turned in Chr. into<br />
technical terms denoting the levitical <strong>and</strong> priestly cities themselves. This last<br />
meaning is peculiar to the Chr. <strong>and</strong> is found nowhere else in the O.T.<br />
1) 1 Chr. xiii 2. והלויים בערי מגרשיהם“ .”הכהנים The RSV translation is literal:<br />
“The priests <strong>and</strong> Levites in the cities that have pasture l<strong>and</strong>s”. But ערי מגרש in<br />
Chr. means “levitical <strong>and</strong> priestly cities”, <strong>and</strong> so the whole verse is: “Let us send<br />
abroad to our brethren who remain in all the l<strong>and</strong> of Israel, <strong>and</strong> with them to<br />
the priests <strong>and</strong> Levites in their cities that they may come . . .”.<br />
מגרשיהם again, Here ”כי עזבו הלויים את מגרשיהם ואחוזתם“ :13-14 (2 2 Chr. xi<br />
is not only the pasture l<strong>and</strong>s surrounding the cities but the cities themselves. It<br />
should be translated: “The Levites left their cities <strong>and</strong> their possessions”.<br />
3) 2 Chr. xxi 19 אהרן הכהנים בשדי מגרש עריהם“ ”ולבני This, again is translated<br />
literally by RSV, “. . . The priests who were in the fields of common l<strong>and</strong><br />
belonging to their cities”. In fact, the text does not refer to the priests in “the<br />
שדה מגרש Jerusalem. common l<strong>and</strong>” but to the priests who were not present in<br />
them- is taken over as a whole from Lev. xxv 34 <strong>and</strong> refers to the cities עריהם<br />
selves. Here again it should be translated: “The priests . . . in their cities”, <strong>and</strong><br />
thus it continues: “there were men in the several cities who were designated by<br />
name to distribute portions . . .”.<br />
The technical term עיר מגרש is found, as a fixed term for the cities themselves,<br />
in later literature.102<br />
In Ezr.-Neh. we find neither the word מגרש nor the technical term. Ezr.-Neh.<br />
describes the settlement of the returned exiles, <strong>and</strong> among them the priests<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Levites. Nehemiah mentions that “. . . The Levites <strong>and</strong> the singers who<br />
did the work, had fled each to his field” (Neh. xiii 40) but the cities are not<br />
mentioned. This is all the more significant because we do have evidence in<br />
Ezr.-Neh. for the existence of these cities.103 “And at the dedication of the wall<br />
of Jerusalem they sought the Levites in all their places to bring them to Jerusalem.<br />
. . . And the sons of the singers gathered together from the circuit round<br />
Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> from the villages of Netophathites . . . for the singers had built<br />
themselves villages around Jerusalem” (Neh. xii 27-29).<br />
“משחרב בית המקדש בטל מלכות מבית דוד ובטלו אורים ותומים ופסקו ערי II. (102 Tosefta Sota 13<br />
אף לא 5: (Very similar in the Babylonian Talmud Sota 48 b). The Mishna Ma’ser Sheni xiv ”מגרש<br />
The translations here too .אומר: יש להם ערי מגרש ”. . . כהנים וליים שלא לקחו חלק בארץ. רבי יוסי:<br />
overlook the special technical significance of the construct state ערי מגרש which is literally “cities<br />
of a pasture l<strong>and</strong>” <strong>and</strong> translate it “cities with pasture l<strong>and</strong>”. Actually it should be translated as a<br />
unit: “levitical cities”.<br />
103) Cf. S. Klein: “The Priestly <strong>and</strong> Levitical cities, etc.” (Hebrew), 1934, p. 19.