Vayishlach: The Censored Seforno, and the Dating of the Torah
The past two weeks, we’ve focused on censorship in Eliyahu Munk’s translation of Radak.
On Toledot, I selected a single Radak of those left untranslated, and explained that what Munk found problematic Radak’s interpretation of Rivkah’s words (“upon my your curse, my son”) was likely the attitude towards the efficacy of curses.
On Vayeitzei, I noted that often there were two consecutive verses for which Munk omits the English translation, and that perhaps only one of them was deemed ideologically “problematical”, with the other coming along for the ride. Of the three untranslated spans I identified, I focused on the first, in which Radak suggested that the celebratory week after marriage was actually an age old secular custom which Chazal then tapped and made into rabbinic Jewish practice.
I also noted another kind of warping of commentaries in translation. This is where Munk supplements the commentary with additional words which spin it in a different direction. While he often marked his own analysis in square brackets beginning with [Ed.], sometimes this isn’t the case.
So, I pointed out one instance, where Radak cast the kiss between Yaakov and Rachel as a romantic kiss, which she accepted because of all he had done for her (lifting off the rock and watering the sheep). And the translation brought in Radak’s later discussion of relatives, thereby obscuring the idea of a romantic kiss and turning it into a kiss between long-lost relatives.
Now on Vayishlach, let us consider another case. Surveying the Radaks, I did not spot any obvious censorship in the translation. There was an English comment for every Hebrew comment. Still, I didn’t read each comment carefully for improper additions (like that of last week), or for partial omissions. Partial omission is the focus of this week.
Eliyahu Munk translates many different commentators, and has three or four in his Chut HaMeshulash translation. I did spot something interesting in his commentary on Seforno.
Consider this, from Bereishit 36:31:
וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ הַמְּלָכִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מָלְכ֖וּ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ אֱד֑וֹם לִפְנֵ֥י מְלׇךְ־מֶ֖לֶךְ לִבְנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Yisra᾽el.
The Seforno comments:
לפני מלך מלך. קודם שימלוך משה עליהם במצות האל ית' כאמרו ויצום אל בני ישראל על דרך וצוך לנגיד אמנם כשמלך מלך חדלה מלכות עשו והיו לו אלופים כענין ולאם מלאם יאמץ:
Before any king reigned. Before Moshe reigned over them.
The English is much much shorter than the Hebrew. What is being obscured? We’ll get back to it, but first, let us broaden the discussion a bit.
Here is some background. The idea that these kings are listed before a king ruled in Israel could suggest to a pashtan that this text was written well past Moshe Rabbeinu, maybe from the time of Sefer Melachim!
Ibn Ezra contends with Yitzchaki, who says that all the kings included those past Moshe, meaning that they must have been added to the Chumash afterwards.
ואלה המלכים. י"א כי בדרך נבואה נכתבה זאת הפרשה, ויצחקי אמר בספרו כי בימי יהושפט נכתבה זאת הפרשה, ופי' הדורות כרצונו, הכי קרא שמו יצחק, כל השומע יצחק לו כי אמר כי הדר הוא הדד האדומי, ואמר כי מהיטבאל אחות תחפנחס, וחלילה חלילה שהדבר כמו שדבר על ימי יהושפט, וספרו ראוי להשרף, ולמה תמה על שמונה מלכים שמלכו שהם רבים, והנה מלכי ישראל כפלים במספר, ושני אלה המלכים קרובים לשני מלכי ישראל גם מלכי יהודה רבים הם ממלכי אדום עד ימי משה והאמת שפי' לפני מלך מלך על משה מלך ישראל, וכן כתוב ויהי בישורון מלך (דבר' לג ה):
AND THESE ARE THE KINGS. Some say that this chapter records a prophecy. However, Yitzchaki claims in his book that this chapter was composed during the reign of King Jehoshaphat. He explained the generations as he saw fit. Was he not rightly named Yitzchak? Everyone that heareth his interpretation will laugh at him. For he identified Hadar (v. 39) with Hadad the Edomite (I Kings 11:14) and also said that Mehetabel (v. 39) is to be identified with the sister of Tahpenes the queen of Egypt. Far be it for one to believe that our chapter was written in the days of Jehoshaphat as Yitzchaki maintains. Indeed his book is fit to be burned. Why did Yitzchaki maintain that it is impossible for eight Edomite kings to have reigned before Moses when we find double the number of kings in Israel in about the same number of years? Furthermore, there were also proportionally many more kings of Judah in the same time period than the eight Edomite kings who reigned till the age of Moses. The truth is that king, in before there reigned any king over the children of Israel, refers to Moses who was king over Israel, and so it is written, And there was a king in Jeshurun (Deut. 33:5).
So, in the English translation provided by Eliyahu Munk to Seforno, defining לפני מלך מלך as “before Moshe reigned over them”, Seforno essentially endorses Ibn Ezra’s rejoinder to Yitzchaki. The Israelite king who reigned was Moshe, so this entire preceding list of Esav’s descendants who were kings are in line with traditional accounts of Matan Torah and Mosaic authorship.
But now, let us translate the full Seforno.
לפני מלך מלך. קודם שימלוך משה עליהם במצות האל ית' כאמרו ויצום אל בני ישראל על דרך וצוך לנגיד אמנם כשמלך מלך חדלה מלכות עשו והיו לו אלופים כענין ולאם מלאם יאמץ:
Before any king reigned. Before Moshe reigned over them, via the command of the Blessed God, as is stated (Shemot 6:13) “And He charged them [Moshe and Aharon] to the children of Israel”, [with ויצום] with the same connotation as (I Shmuel 25:30), “and have charged you as a ruler.”
However, once he [Moshe] ruled as a king, the kingship of Esav ceased, and he had alufim, in the manner of fulfilling (Bereishit 25:23) “and the one people shall be stronger than the other people.”
Perhaps the spelling out of the evidence that Moshe had king-like status was not deemed necessary. But really, it is the final sentence in Seforno which is potentially problematic.
After all, Seforno wrote that from Moshe’s ascendency to kingship, Edom’s rulers were just alufim. And, looking both up and down in the perek in Vayishlach, we have rulers listed as alufim / chiefs. For instance, before in 36:30:
אַלּ֥וּף דִּשֹׁ֛ן אַלּ֥וּף אֵ֖צֶר אַלּ֣וּף דִּישָׁ֑ן אֵ֣לֶּה אַלּוּפֵ֧י הַחֹרִ֛י לְאַלֻּפֵיהֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ שֵׂעִֽיר׃ {פ}
the chief Dishon, the chief Eżer, the chief Dishan: these are the chiefs that came of the Ḥori, according to their chiefs in the land of Se῾ir.
and below, 36:40, beginning:
וְ֠אֵ֠לֶּה שְׁמ֞וֹת אַלּוּפֵ֤י עֵשָׂו֙ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֔ם לִמְקֹמֹתָ֖ם בִּשְׁמֹתָ֑ם אַלּ֥וּף תִּמְנָ֛ע אַלּ֥וּף עַֽלְוָ֖ה אַלּ֥וּף יְתֵֽת׃
And these are the names of the chiefs that came of ῾Esav, according to their families, after their places, by their names; the chief Timna, the chief ῾Aleva, the chief Yetet,
Pasuk 40 is actually the very next Seforno to the censored one above, on pasuk 2. And Eliyahu Munk does provide the translation of that Seforno.
ואלה שמות אלופי עשו... למקמתם בשמתם. שלא היו חשובים להקרא בשמם רק על שם מקומם.
ואלה שמות אלופי עשו, the significance of the additional words למקומותם בשמותם may be that they were not distinguished enough to be recorded by their individual names, but only in association with the location where they practiced their authority.
But still, by skipping the end of the previous Seforno, he strips out the significance of the significance. Why we care that they were not as important.
Essentially, the idea that these might be described in some post-Mosaic source.
Now, we might answer that Seforno conceives of all of these chiefs as simultaneous to Moshe, not following. I don’t know if it is true, but regardless, the censored English translation skips the theologically fraught conversation entirely.