3

In parsha chukat, we have the following Pasuk:

וְלֹא־נָתַ֨ן סִיחֹ֣ן אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל֮ עֲבֹ֣ר בִּגְבֻלוֹ֒ וַיֶּאֱסֹ֨ף סִיחֹ֜ן אֶת־כָּל־עַמּ֗וֹ וַיֵּצֵ֞א לִקְרַ֤את יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ הַמִּדְבָּ֔רָה וַיָּבֹ֖א יָ֑הְצָה וַיִּלָּ֖חֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

Targum Onkelos and the Targum on the Torah that is attributed to Yonasan ben Uziel; (is that really Targum Yonasan?) both translate the word יהצה as ליהץ, meaning that the name of the place is יהץ and the ה suffix has the same function as a ל prefix.

However, there is a Pasuk in Shoftim that clearly says the name of the city was יהצה; not יהץ:

וְלֹא־הֶאֱמִ֨ין סִיח֤וֹן אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ עֲבֹ֣ר בִּגְבֻל֔וֹ וַיֶּאֱסֹ֤ף סִיחוֹן֙ אֶת־כׇּל־עַמּ֔וֹ וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בְּיָ֑הְצָה וַיִּלָּ֖חֶם עִם־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ (שופטים יא:כ)

If the name was really יהץ, then in the Pasuk above, it should have said ביהץ. (Even תרגום יונתן over there says ביהצה; not ביהץ.)

It would seem to me that the name of the place was really יהצה. Why did the Targumim in our Parsha decide to say that the place was really called יהץ?

(One may say that it doesn't make sense grammatically to say, "and he arrived, יהצה;" so we were forced to say that the ה was a suffix meaning "to." However, we have another instance of that sentence structure in a very similar context:

וַיִּפְנוּ֙ וַֽיַּעֲל֔וּ דֶּ֖רֶךְ הַבָּשָׁ֑ן וַיֵּצֵ֣א עוֹג֩ מֶֽלֶךְ־הַבָּשָׁ֨ן לִקְרָאתָ֜ם ה֧וּא וְכָל־עַמּ֛וֹ לַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה אֶדְרֶֽעִי׃

Here there's no ה at the end to say it means "to Edrei," so we see that grammatically we can say "he arrived, יהצה."

Additionally, if we say it's a suffix in our Parsha, then we'd be left with a contradiction between the two Pesukim.

I guess my question is, what is the correct name of the city? (Also, does the fact that it's מלעיל mean it has to be a suffix?)

4

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .