NAḤAL ZERED IN THE BIBLE AND THE BARAITA DE-TEḤUMIN

Abstract

As a result of a mistaken interpretation of the Madaba map, biblical Naḥal Zered is often identified in the scholarship as Wādi al-ḥsā, which marks the boundary between Moab and Edom southeast of the Dead Sea. In reality, the brook of Zered does not appear on the Madaba map and the sole documentary evidence available for its identification is the Bible, which situates Naḥal Zered near Naḥal Arnon. The author proposes Wādi Nkheile, which spills into the Arnon from the southeast, as the most likely candidate for the biblical Zered. This identification perhaps also sheds light on the conflicting biblical sources regarding the question of whether or not the Moabites allowed the Israelites to pass through their territory en route to Canaan. In the postbiblical era Naḥal Zered appears in the boundaries baraita (baraita de-teḥumin) as part of the eastern border of the land of Israel and the article demonstrates that the identification of Naḥal Zered as Wādi Nkheile is consistent with the geographical logic of the baraita.

Keywords:

• numbers (book of)
• Deuteronomy (book of)
• Madaba map
• Baraita de-Teḥumin
• Moab
• Zered

Notes

1 According to the excavator of the site, it dates to the fifth to seventh centuries ce. Fragments of the baraita were also found in another inscription on the synagogue wall. The unpublished wall inscriptions dated to the late fourth/early fifth century (Vitto 1981, 90–94; Ben David 2011).

2 The identification of Area has no bearing on the current discussion. In my article, I surmised a possible link to Areopolis, the Greek name for Rabbah, which is north of Karak. 'Area' might have been the name of that region (southern Moab). Perhaps Area was the Greek successor to the territorial name Ar. I further suggested that in the original plan from which the artists who created the map worked, the name Area was located in the hilly area to the left of the Wadi and that the artists erroneously attached it to the wadi. Note, in addition, that with the exception of the Nile and its channels, the Madaba map designates neither rivers nor Wadis by name.

3 He translated Eusebius' first entry and omitted the second.

4 See Clermont-Ganneau (1897). This identification was espoused by such nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century scholars as Gesenius, Dillmann, Delitzsch, and Driver. See Brown et al. (1972, 279); Van Zyl 1960 (56 n. 5).

5 Nineteenth-century scholars were not always conversant with the details of the geography of Moab. For example, Wādi Nkheile and its tributaries are missing from Conder's map (Conder 1889; the map is at the beginning of the book), and Wādi al-Karak is drawn as emerging from the wilderness far to the east.

6 Ben-Gad HaCohen (1998) proposes that the phrase ‘Up! Set out across the Wadi Arnon’ (Deuteronomy 2:24) be viewed ‘as the opening of the speech and not as a separate command to travel' and that Wadi Zered is actually identical with the eastern section of the Arnon. This is how he explains Numbers 21:12–13: ‘From there they set out and encamped at the wadi Zered. From there they set out and encamped beyond the Arnon’: at first they were at wadi Zered and after leaving they were already on the other side of the Arnon. I find that these explanations diverge from the plain meaning of the text.

7 This identification first appeared in Richard Palmer's (1831) Bible Atlas (map 25). Palmer drew Wādi Nkheile correctly with the caption ‘Brook Zered'. However, he mistakenly attached to the same wadi the Arabic name ‘Seyle Sayde’. The actual Sêl Sa‘īde (the eastern part of the Arnon) is not marked on the map. Atlas Daat Mikra (Elitzur and Kiel 1993, 34–35) also draws Wādi Nkheile with the caption Naḥal Zered, but in the accompanying text Zered is identified with Wādi Ḥafīre, the upper part of Wādi Ṭarfawiyye.

8 This does not detract from its status and definition as a significant wadi. See Elitzur (2008).

9 This identification is more satisfactory than Wādi as-Sulṭāni as Musil (1907, 319), Smith (1918, 36), and Van Zyl (1960, 48 and 56) suggest. Wādi as-Sulṭāni is another central and rather long tributary of Wādi Nkheile, but it flows (diagonally from southeast to northwest) some 15 km south of Wādi Ṭarfawiyye, and anyone who crosses it from south to north must then cross the deep wadi of Wādi Ṭarfawiyye. Accordingly, it is not a suitable northern boundary for the wilderness of Moab.

10 The spelling טַרְוְיָא is clearly visible in the photograph. Because of some blurring of the waw, Klein mistakenly read טַרְדָא, noting ‘meaning unclear' (1986, 1:331, 2:90).

11 The Heshbon mentioned in the baraita could be a specific point and not a boundary line. In any event, its mention between two wadis also raises the possibility that Heshbon here is a wadi and not the city. Although present-day Wādi Ḥisbān (north of Ḥisbān -Heshbon) flows from east to west, the Heshbon of the baraita might be Wādi al-Ḥabīs, a northern tributary of Wādi Zarqa Ma‘īn, which begins near Heshbon, and flows from north to south, east of the Madaba plateau, along the same longitude as Wādi Nkheile. Note that Josephus (Ant. 15.294) mentions an administrative district called Ἐσεβωνῖτις, which certainly refers to the region of Heshbon. In his description of the regions of the country, Josephus mentions Σιλωνῖτις (War 3.47; variants: Σιλβωνῖτις, Σιβωνίς and Selbonitis) as marking the eastern border of Perea (Transjordan). Schürer and others emend here to Sebonitis or Esebonitis (see the references in Schmitt 1995, 150). If correct, this then provides further evidence that the Heshbon region was considered the eastern border of Jewish settlement in Transjordan, in harmony with the boundaries baraita.

12 The identification of the mlḥ of R^eziza is unknown (some emend to מִלֵּת דזיזה—the pool of Zīza—but this has no documentary support). Nimrin is known by this name to the present (coordinates 209145; its tell is identified with biblical Beth Nimrah). Igar Sahaduta has no precise identification, but from the biblical context in Genesis 32, it is situated near Mahanayim and the lower Jabbok.

13 Cf. Palestinian Talmud, Shevi‘it 6:1 (36c): ר' זעירא אזל לחמתא דפחל … אמרין ליה נהגין כהנייא מטיי עד תמן' ('Rabbi Zeira went to the hot springs of Pella … They said to him: Priests are accustomed to going that far'). For its identification and bibliography, see Reeg (1989, 257–8).

14 A final question requires clarification. The biblical southern border of the two-and-a-half tribes of Transjordan was the Brook of Arnon (Deuteronomy 3:8 and other sources). Is it possible that the region held and sanctified by the ‘Babylonian returnees' (namely during the Second Temple period) could include regions not in the primary region sanctified by the ‘Egyptian returnees'? In our context, with regard to the territory of Moab it is more difficult, since the Mishnah (Yadayim 4:3) states explicitly ‘Ammon and Moab are outside the Land'. This problem was one of the considerations that caused Ben-Gad HaCohen (1998) to state that Naḥal Zered was Wādi Sa‘īde, the eastern section of Wadi Arnon; thus the borders of the baraita do not exceed the biblical Land of Israel. However, as we have seen, this solution does not fit the descriptions found in Numbers and Deuteronomy. It seems therefore, that total Jewish settlement in a particular region, even outside the boundary of the ‘Egyptian returnees', granted it sanctity with respect to the Land-of-Israel-dependent commandments. ‘Moab’, which according to the Mishnah was not part of the land of Israel, was probably only a small part of biblical Moab. Determination of its borders is dependent on finding clues to the identification of mlḥ of R^eziza and of the Jewish and non-Jewish regions in the territory of Moab. This requires independent study and is beyond the scope of the present article.