Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The Posuk says:

וַיִּקְרָא אֹתָהּ שִׁבְעָה עַל כֵּן שֵׁם הָעִיר בְּאֵר שֶׁבַע עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה

Translated as:

And he named it Shibah; therefore, the city is named Beer sheba until this very day

The problem is earlier in Parshas Vayera (בראשית כ"א ל"ג) it says:

וַיִּטַּע אֶשֶׁל בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע

Translated as:And he planted an eishel in Beer-Sheba

so it had the name earlier so why does the torah say "therefore, the city is named Beer sheba" if it already had that Name?

share|improve this question
    
can you post chapter and verse to the verses you're quoting? –  Menachem Nov 27 '11 at 1:43
add comment

1 Answer 1

Your question assumes that the Torah is written in chronological order, but it is not.

When the Torah names places, the names given are the names that the Jewish people knew them as when Yehoshua took over Cannan. Sometimes, it will tell you the old name, so as to give you a story and lesson about the name changing, but in general, if there is no special need, the Torah just uses the 'modern' name of the city.

This is especially obvious with the use of the name of the Philishtim, or the area of the tribe of Dan and Asher giving during Bereshit.

share|improve this answer
1  
a source is required for answers on this forum –  simchastorah Nov 26 '11 at 22:58
1  
(1) Even if the Torah were in chronological order, that does not mean that it may not use the names of places that were named afterward. It just means, "This is what happened in what is now..." (2) Although this does answer the above question, it does not answer the obvious question that arises from what we find regarding Avraham: "עַל כֵּן קָרָא לַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא בְּאֵר שָׁבַע כִּי שָׁם נִשְׁבְּעוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם". –  jake Nov 27 '11 at 0:16
1  
@jake When I saw the beginning of the question, I thought that is where it would be going. Good point in (1) as well. Could it be that there are multiple nuances to "(not) in chronological order" - episodic chronology vs. narrative chronology - the former of which would demand that events in pasuk 12 happen before the events in pasuk 13, while the latter only assumes that as long as any given event is recorded from a perspective of immediately after the event's occurrence it is consistent? (Not sure this makes sense. Just thinking out loud. . . silently.) –  WAF Nov 27 '11 at 1:23
    
רמב"ן says in his pirush –  simchastorah Nov 27 '11 at 4:05
    
כי על דעתי כל התורה כסדר, זולתי במקום אשר יפרש הכתוב ההקדמה והאחור, וגם שם לצורך עניין ולטעם נכון. –  simchastorah Nov 27 '11 at 4:06
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.