Genesis 33:1-33:20

Surf The Site

Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a   26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50

YA'AKOV'S RETURN

Throughout the Ya'akov story, Ya'akov appears as a pretty appalling (though not unappealing) character, whereas Esav is all good. Why should this be? Presumably because the whole story was originally Edomite, and brought to Yeru-Shala'im by Beney Kalev (Calebite) or Beney Kenaz (Kenizite) clansmen at the origins of Yehudah. Yehudah was traditionally an enemy of Bin-Yamin - which he later overthrew and assimilated - as well as the other Rachelite tribes: Ephrayim, Menasheh, Dan and Naphtali who formed the main part of the northern kingdom. Le'ah, Yehudah's father, also hated Rachel, as we have seen (so a perfect illustration of Tolstoy's opening sentence in Anna Karenina!). In the end then it is Le'ah and Esav who win out, the Rachelite northern tribes being enslaved by Sennacherib and lost to history, the Le'ah principal tribe of Yehudah becoming the remnant, based on Bin-Yamin's capital Yeru-Shala'im, with an Edomite aristocracy through Kalev holding Chevron and the tombs of Machpelah, and eventually taking over the kingdom under Herod.

And of course it would have been necessary to keep Le'ah in the Ya'akov stories, rather than expunging her like Kayin and Yishma-El and Esav and all the other deposed first-born, quite simply because she was Yehudah's mother.

And yet, if one were to ask the average Bible-reader who was the "victor" in the wrestling-match between Le'ah and Rachel, I am confident that 100% of people would say Rachel.

33:1: VA YISA YA'AKOV EYNAV VA YAR VE HINEH ESAV BA VE IMO ARBA ME'OT ISH VA YACHATS ET HA YELADIM AL LE'AH VE AL RACHEL VE AL SHETEY HA SHEPHACHOT

וַיִּשָּׂא יַעֲקֹב עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה עֵשָׂו בָּא וְעִמּוֹ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת אִישׁ וַיַּחַץ אֶת הַיְלָדִים עַל לֵאָה וְעַל רָחֵל וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת

KJ: And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children unto Leah, and unto Rachel, and unto the two handmaids.

BN: And Ya'akov lifted up his eyes, and looked, and there was Esav was arriving, and with him four hundred men. And he divided the children between Le'ah and Rachel and the two handmaids.

Yet again this division into camps (and always bifurcation, as at the Creation), on this occasion presumably four, because they were already divided in two. Remember that we are in a place named MACHANAYIM, which is the multiple plural of MACHANEH = "camp", which in its first rendering was MACHANEH HA ELOHIM, "the camp of the gods", which is to say the heavens - so this really is the newly crowned moon-god arranging the positions of the stars and planets around the Cosmos.

33:2: VA YASEM ET HA SHEPHACHOT VE ET YALDEYHEN RI'SHONAH VE ET LE'AH VIYLADEYHA ACHARONIM VE ET RACHEL VE ET YOSEPH ACHARONIM

וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַשְּׁפָחוֹת וְאֶת יַלְדֵיהֶן רִאשֹׁנָה וְאֶת לֵאָה וִילָדֶיהָ אַחֲרֹנִים וְאֶת רָחֵל וְאֶת יוֹסֵף אַחֲרֹנִים

KJ: And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, and Leah and her children after, and Rachel and Joseph hindermost.

BN: And he put the handmaids and their children at the front, and Le'ah and her children next, and Rachel and Yoseph at the back.

Pure favouritism! But this is where the concept of infantry takes its cue, on the reckoning that the front ones are the most likely to be slaughtered and the rear the most likely to survive; mediaeval armies literally conscripted infants to run at the front of the pack and take the brunt of the first onslaught of arrows, or cannons, or later gunfire.

ACHARONIM: The things one only manages to think of, even in moments of intense fear and panic! But does the text put Rachel and Yoseph even further back than Le'ah, or back alongside her? Is this a poor translation, or a subtle understanding of the nuances of a word that happens to be the same on each occasion? So it is not as clear as the translation wants to insist.

33:3: VE HU AVAR LIPHNEYHEM, VA YISHTACHU ARTSAH SHEVA PA'AMIM AD GISHTO AD ACHIV

וְהוּא עָבַר לִפְנֵיהֶם וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַרְצָה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים עַד גִּשְׁתּוֹ עַד אָחִיו

KJ: And he passed over before them, and bowed himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.

BN: And he himself passed over ahead of them, and prostrated himself seven times, until he came near to his brother.

Seven times: we have been dealing with Elohim for most of the tale, but seven is YHVH's sacred number, not Elohim's.

AVAR yet again, where another verb would have done as well or better.

And now the big dramatic moment that all this has been preparing us for: the division into camps, the appeasement gifts, the messages of obsequiousness, the night of guilt spent wrestling with his conscience, the division into further camps, and then the redivision into different camps, the approach of Esav with his four hundred, the expectation of battle, slaughter, death on both sides...and then...

33:4: VA YARATS ESAV LIKRA'TO VA YECHABKE'HU VA YIPOL AL TSAVARAV VA YISHAKEYHU VA YIVKU

וַיָּרָץ עֵשָׂו לִקְרָאתוֹ וַיְחַבְּקֵהוּ וַיִּפֹּל עַל צַוָּארָו וַיִּשָּׁקֵהוּ וַיִּבְכּוּ

KJ: And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him: and they wept.

BN: And Esav ran towards him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and kissed him; and they wept.

One of the greatest ironic moments in all literature. After all these pages of build-up, Ya'akov's terror of encountering Esav, the division into two camps, the immense gifts sent on ahead, the hierarchical arrangement of the family in case of attack, the briefing of his soldiers, the prayers, the wrestling-match with the angel, and all the rest... after all this preparation in the face of fear, davka Esav is pleased to see him, and falls on his neck in tears of embrace! (Of course, it may just have been the scale of the gift.)

33:5: VA YISA ET EYNAV VA YAR ET HA NASHIM VE ET HA YELADIM VA YOMER MI ELEH LACH VA YOMAR HA YELADIM ASHER CHANAN ELOHIM ET AVDECHA

וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת הַנָּשִׁים וְאֶת הַיְלָדִים וַיֹּאמֶר מִי אֵלֶּה לָּךְ וַיֹּאמַר הַיְלָדִים אֲשֶׁר חָנַן אֱלֹהִים אֶת עַבְדֶּךָ

KJ: And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who are those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant.

BN: And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children, and said, "Who are these with you?" And he said, "The children whom Elohim has graciously given your servant."

CHANAN: The same verb that gives the name Chanah (Hannah), which is often rendered in English as Anna or Anne, and which, with the goddess name added, becomes Yah-Chanah or Joanna/Joanne. All mean "grace", but not in the sense of "grace before meals", which is a rendering of the Latin "gratis", and means "thanks", and then adds on a gratuity; here in the sense of "graciousness", "being favourably inclined", "being empathetic", "granting pity". CHANUN is one of the thirteen attributes of the deity in Talmudic Judaism.

MI ELEH LACH: Exactly the question that Ya'akov gave instruction to his messengers about in 32:18. So it is either rhetorical here, or - more likely- it is more specific here; which is to say: Esav has been told his brother is coming with his wives and his children, Esav is now asking him to introduce them.

End of third fragment.

33:6: VA TIGASHNA HA SHEPHACHOT HENAH VE YALDEYHEN, VA TISHTACHAVEYNA

וַתִּגַּשְׁןָ הַשְּׁפָחוֹת הֵנָּה וְיַלְדֵיהֶן וַתִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶיןָ

KJ: Then the handmaidens came near, they and their children, and they bowed themselves.

BN: Then the handmaids came near, they and their children, and they prostrated themselves.

A formal greeting to a tribal sheikh?

TISHTACHAVEYNA: let us be clear; bowed down means prostrate on the ground, not a mere formal bowing at the waist as one might before the English monarch. The root is SHETACH (שתח), which means "surface", and is used for the flat surface of the ground; the binyan here is Hitpalel, the reflective form, so a literal translation is "they lay themselves down on the surface of the ground". Prostrate.

And Esav looking at this vast tribe, and thinking, wow, that was some blessing that you stole from me! Though with four hundred men in his train, he appears to have done well enough himself.

33:7: VA TIGASH GAM LE'AH VIYLADEYHA, VA YISHTACHAVU VE ACHAR NIGASH YOSEPH VE RACHEL VA YISHTACHAVU

וַתִּגַּשׁ גַּם לֵאָה וִילָדֶיהָ וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ וְאַחַר נִגַּשׁ יוֹסֵף וְרָחֵל וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ

KJ: And Leah also with her children came near, and bowed themselves: and after came Joseph near and Rachel, and they bowed themselves.

BN: And Le'ah too, with her children, approached and then prostrated themselves; and after them Yoseph and Rachel approached, and they too prostrated themselves.

ACHARONIM: Unlike verse 2, where it was not clear, here the precedence is unequivocal, not simply the hand-maidens and their children being introduced first, so that the wives can be the ones who stay when introductions are over and the party moves on to the celebratory welcome, but Rachel very definitely pre-eminent over Le'ah, and Rachel's son over Le'ah's. I imagine that Le'ah, as elder sister and official first wife, will not have been very pleased; and the first cause for the terrible jealousy that his brothers will feel for Yoseph.

There is a strong possibility that Rachel and Yoseph were added to the "founding of Yisra-El" aspect of these tales much later on, and were never there in the original of this part of the story. Yoseph in this chapter has suddenly been given a pre-eminence which he does not deserve. Why mention him at all when none of the other sons are mentioned, not even Yehudah, the one tribe still in existence when this text was being written down, and who is usually given pre-eminence at every opportunity? It can only be as a prelude to him becoming the chief protagonist in the coming chapters.

But of course there is another point to this verse. Here is Yoseph, first time we've properly met him, and he's the one bowing down. Nice one, Mr Story-Teller.

33:8: VA YOMER MI LECHA KOL HA MACHANEH HA ZEH ASHER PAGASHTI VA YOMER LIMTSO CHEN BE EYNEY ADONI

וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לְךָ כָּל הַמַּחֲנֶה הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר פָּגָשְׁתִּי וַיֹּאמֶר לִמְצֹא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִי

KJ: And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord.

BN: And he said, "Who are all this vast camp that I've just met." And he said, "To find favour in the sight of my lord."

MI LECHA (מי לך): does it really mean : "what do you mean by...?" Literally, no, but it gets the tone right. "Who are they to you, all this camp..." would be more accurate - the camp in question being the gift, not the wives and children. The important here though is the tone: Esav hears that his brother is coming home after twenty years. Brothers are brothers and life is life, whatever water may have flowed under whatever bridge. Esav is excited to see his brother again. And then come all these messengers, these gifts... what is this about? But also the tone of the question, which is checking to see if Ya'akov has a guilty conscience.

What starts to become interesting now is the matter of the birthright. What was it actually, a mere spiritual blessing, or an actual, material inheritance? If it was the former, there is nothing to say. But if it was the latter, as most people presume, then: for the last twenty years the disinherited Esav has been living the inheritance from which Ya'akov fled. And as we shall see in the coming passages, he is not the slightest bit bothered about any of it...

33:9: VA YOMER ESAV YESH LI RAV ACHI YEHI LECHA ASHER LACH

וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו יֶשׁ לִי רָב אָחִי יְהִי לְךָ אֲשֶׁר לָךְ

KJ: And Esau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.

BN: And Esav said, "I have enough, my brother, let what you have be yours."

And again Esav is the good guy, generous, forgiving, unvengeful, magnanimous: unconcerned about losing his birthright; indeed, there is almost an arrogance about his humbleness. The birthright and blessing seem to have been completely immaterial to him; they were spiritual, cultic, tribal.

But what if, given that neither YHVH nor Yitschak had a blessing for him after his was stolen, what if Ya'akov had found Esav in some adobe hut, in some impoverished slum-corner of the West Bank of the Jordan, trying to eke out a crop from salt-lands three hundred feet below sea-level, and well-financed foreigners encroaching on his lands, threatening to annexe them as theirs? How might Ya'akov had reacted to him then?

What Ya'akov earned by deception was a priest-king status, proven in his going to get the queens from the tribal source. A mere spiritual crown, and the religious duties that accompanied it. One has to imagine Esav's relief, as he sees Ya'akov approaching, still limping because of his thigh. (An interesting line of enquiry for a senior in high school studying world literature: Narziss und Goldmund by Hermann Hesse contrasted with Esav and Ya'akov.)

There is an implied criticism of Ya'akov too, not by Esav but by the writer. I have everything I need, brother. You keep what's yours. Ya'akov had all that he needed too when he was with Lavan in Padan Aram; he only left because he wanted more, and worked the scam to take a goodly portion of Lavan's portion.

Are we perhaps reading separate Edomite and Yisra-Elite scrolls at different stages of this story? This would be the Edomite then.

33:10: VA YOMER YA'AKOV AL NA IM NA MATSA'TI CHEN BE EYNEYCHA VE LAKACHTA MINCHATI MI YADI KI AL KEN RA'IYTI PHANEYCHA KI RE'OT PENEY ELOHIM VA TIRTSENI

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אַל נָא אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וְלָקַחְתָּ מִנְחָתִי מִיָּדִי כִּי עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי פָנֶיךָ כִּרְאֹת פְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים וַתִּרְצֵנִי

KJ: And Jacob said, Nay, I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me.

BN: And Ya'akov said, "No, I insist. If now I have found favour in your sight, then take this gift from my hand; let it stand to show that I have seen your face, as one sees the face of Elohim, and that you have accepted me...

EXTRAORDINARY MISTRANSLATIONS! at least one Jewish translation avoids the Elohim altogether and translates it as "the face of princes". New English and Revised Standard get it right, as does Hertz.

It is, however, complex. Esav is rejecting his Minchah (sacrificial offering), as Kayin's and his own Minchot were refused beforehand. Esav in this role has become the power figure, as though he had never given up his birthright; his refusal of the birthright is equivalent therefore to Elohim rejecting Kayin and Yitschak Esav himself. And Ya'akov is devastated by having his offering refused - by which he is learning a very important lesson. This didactic purpose behind the story has never been picked up before, simply because Esav isn't supposed to be the good guy. But if you were Beney Edom, not Beney Yisra-El, reading the whole Ya'akov and Esav myth, you would see Esav as the great hero, a veritable tsadik, and Ya'akov, with Lavan, on the side of the daemons. (It would be worth exploring this in more detail).

Ya'akov's fear and his relief are the other key constituents of this tale. We have heard of a god called PACHAD YITSCHAK - the Fear of Isaac (see for example Genesis 31:53); is there now another one called PACHAD YA'AKOV - the Fear of Jacob? Remember, after all, what a god was in those days. A force. A kinetic impulse. A power. Rather more of a verb than a noun.

RA'IYTI PHANEYCHA KI RE'OT PENEY ELOHIM: This phrase is an ironic echo of the one we heard before, about seeing the face of god and surviving the experience; at Penu-El, which means precisely that: the face of god. But it is also a closure of the fear expressed in 32:21, which used exactly the same terminology: "I will appease him with the offering that goes before me, and afterward I will see his face; perhaps he will accept me".

33:11: KACH NA ET BIRCHATI ASHER HUVA'T LACH KI CHANANI ELOHIM VE CHI YESH LI CHOL VA YIPHTSAR BO VA YIKACH

קַח נָא אֶת בִּרְכָתִי אֲשֶׁר הֻבָאת לָךְ כִּי חַנַּנִי אֱלֹהִים וְכִי יֶשׁ לִי כֹל וַיִּפְצַר בּוֹ וַיִּקָּח

KJ: Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because God hath dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it.

BN: "Take, please, the rewards of my blessing that I have brought to you. Because Elohim has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough." And he urged him, and he took it.

In what has become a kind of wrestling-match between Ya'akov and Esav over this matter of the Minchah, the resolution that the two agree in their stalemate is described as BIRCHATI = "my gift". I really need to underline it in my translation, to emphasise the error in almost every English translation. Yes, it is "a gift", but until now the Yehudit for that gift has been MINCHAH, as explained above: the Minchah was specifically a sacrifice, a gift to the god, not to another human.

Now, having used the word MINCHAH previously (מנחה), the word blessing (BIRCHAH/ברכה) is also repeated, and with it the didactic aim of the tale: an echo of the resolution of the stalemate with the "angel". In asking him to accept the gift this time, it is no longer to find "grace" (note the careful repetition of that word too) in his eyes – i.e. out of fear of vengeance - but because his god has been generous and he has plenty – i.e. a gift given without hidden agenda or ulterior motive, from the heart.

Ya'akov is now equivalating Esav's generosity by bestowing his gift, no longer as an offering, but as a blessing - as though he is now giving back the one that he stole from their father: expiation and reparation. And when Esav eventually accepts it, the brothers are reconciled, the past is - no, not forgotten, but forgiven, reconciled, closured. Esav has won back the predominant position which is his birthright. The past is redeemed, and restored. The gift may be accepted with "grace". And no need, though this too is echoing constantly in the language and the incidents of the tale, for a Gal-Ed, a "heap of witness", to make the reconciliation symbolically complete.

Ah, Rabbi Freud, you should have used this as a paradigm for human guilt. The Esav Complex! But even more so: The Ya'akov Complex!

33:12: VA YOMER NIS'AH VE NELECHA VE ELCHAH LE NEGDECHA

וַיֹּאמֶר נִסְעָה וְנֵלֵכָה וְאֵלְכָה לְנֶגְדֶּךָ

KJ: And he said, Let us take our journey, and let us go, and I will go before thee.

BN: And he said, "It's time to set out on our journey. Let us go, and I will go as your escort."

Beautiful poetic line. Yehudit literature at its very finest. Esav offers to lead, as the host and dominant figure should; the English cannot capture the rhythm and metre and the assonance especially.

But where do they think they are going? To Be'er Sheva, the ancestral home? To Mount Se'ir, where Esav lives?

33:13: VA YOMER ELAV ADONI YODE'A KI HA YELADIM RAKIM VE HA TSON VE HA BAKAR ALOT ALAI U DEPHAKUM YOM ECHAD VA METU KOL HA TSON

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲדֹנִי יֹדֵעַ כִּי הַיְלָדִים רַכִּים וְהַצֹּאן וְהַבָּקָר עָלוֹת עָלָי וּדְפָקוּם יוֹם אֶחָד וָמֵתוּ כָּל הַצֹּאן

KJ: And he said unto him, My lord knoweth that the children are tender, and the flocks and herds with young are with me: and if men should overdrive them one day, all the flock will die.

BN: And he said to him, "My lord knows that the children are delicate creatures, and that the flocks and herds giving suck are a care to me; and if they overdrive them one day, all the flocks will die.

At what point is Ya'akov going to ask about their parents: "and are they still alive after these twenty years that I have been away? And what about you Esav, with your three wives, are their any grandchildren yet?" But he does not ask.

Nor does he stop the obsequiousness, even after the reconciliation. He treats him as the elder, the mightier, and himself the subordinate. So the birthright and the blessing may well be about status in the clan, or inheritance, but Esav is still the elder brother.

33:14: YA'AVOR NA ADONI LIPHNEY AVDO VA ANI ETNAHALAH LE'ITI LE REGEL HA MELA'CHAH ASHER LEPHANAI U LE REGEL HA YELADIM AD ASHER AVO EL ADONI SE'IRAH

יַעֲבָר נָא אֲדֹנִי לִפְנֵי עַבְדּוֹ וַאֲנִי אֶתְנָהֲלָה לְאִטִּי לְרֶגֶל הַמְּלָאכָה אֲשֶׁר לְפָנַי וּלְרֶגֶל הַיְלָדִים עַד אֲשֶׁר אָבֹא אֶל אֲדֹנִי שֵׂעִירָ

KJ: Let my lord, I pray thee, pass over before his servant: and I will lead on softly, according as the cattle that goeth before me and the children be able to endure, until I come unto my lord unto Seir.

BN: "Let my lord, please, pass over before his servant; and I will journey on more leisurely, according to the pace of the cattle that are before me and according to the pace of the children, until I come to my lord in Se'ir."

YA'AVOR: That "Hebrew" pun for the how many times is it now?

Ya'akov's submissiveness to his master is now complete; or is he up to one of his tricks? Because, now that the anxiety of his future is dealt with, and the wealth he has accrued is guaranteed, and Esav is in Se'ir which means the family home is his to reinhabit, why, he has plenty of time.

Note that they are indeed heading for the land of Edom, to Se'ir, and not Be'er Sheva. As we understood previously, by the rules of matrilocal marriage, Esav has joined his wives' tribe.

33:15: VA YOMER ESAV ATSIYGAH NA IM'CHA MIN HA AM ASHER ITI VA YOMER LAMAH ZEH EMTSA CHEN BE EYNEY ADONI

וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו אַצִּיגָה נָּא עִמְּךָ מִן הָעָם אֲשֶׁר אִתִּי וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָּה זֶּה אֶמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנִי

KJ: And Esau said, Let me now leave with thee some of the folk that are with me. And he said, What needeth it? let me find grace in the sight of my lord.

BN: And Esav said, "Then please let me leave with you some of the people who are with me." And he said, "What need of it? Let me find favour in the sight of my lord."

To the point of sycophancy; but still wanting his space, his autonomy, his independence. Does he think Esav is suspicious of him? Or is he suspicious of Esav? Does he think there might be a trap in Se'ir? Does he not really want to go there, and is therefore making excuses? Is he thinking that the people Esav is leaving behind may be spies, informers, agents, rather than a generous offer of assistance from Esav, whose own shepherds will know this region much better, and where the wells are especially? This is the nature of Ya'akov's guilt, that it manifests as paranoia even when Esav has received him as he has. The fact is, or at least so we must assume, there are bandits on the road, and those who will not be pleased to see a very large camp of nomads with huge flocks moving in to the region. There are dangers. Esav is also leaving behind people who can guarantee their safe-passage.

EMTSA CHEN BE EYNEY ADONI: Is there an error in the text here. It would make much more sense if the last phrase were Esav's response to Ya'akov's interrogative. It makes no sense at all coming from Ya'akov. All it lacks is another VA YOMER ESAV after LAMAH ZEH

33:16: VA YASHAV BA YOM HA HU ESAV LE DARKO SE'IRAH

וַיָּשָׁב בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עֵשָׂו לְדַרְכּוֹ שֵׂעִירָה

KJ: So Esau returned that day on his way unto Seir.

BN: So Esav turned round that same day, and set out on his journey to Se'ir. 

33:17: VA YA'AKOV NASA SUKOTAH VA YIVEN LO BAYIT U LE MIKNEHU ASAH SUKOT. AL KEN KARA SHEM HA MAKOM SUKOT

וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת

KJ: And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.

BN: And Ya'akov journeyed to Sukot, and set up his home, and made stables for his cattle. That is why the place is named Sukot.

VA YIVEN LO BAYIT: With bricks, and mortar, and no doubt Elizabethan timbers to give it the feel of a mansion, and a carriage in the yard! These are nomads, and we have seen them described repeatedly as living in tents. At the very most he established a very large caravanserai, as close as the other users would allow him to a well, or oasis.

AL KEN KARA...: The irrepressible need of the writer to create an aetiology for every person and place, and every last one of them turns out to be false!

SUKOT (סכת): which you might know as SUKKOT or SUCCOT or even SUCCOTH from the traditional phonetic renditions; I am sticking to the principles of the phonetics being used throughout TheBibleNet.

The word is the plural form of SOCH (שוך) = "a booth, hut, cottage, tent", even "house". It also has the sense of "a thicket of trees", presumably because most sukot were made by intertwining leaves and branches, or leaves and fronds in the case of palm trees, which was the usual source of "timber". The word is also used for the lairs of wild beasts, and of course the Feast of Ingathering which is today called the Festival of Sukot. The probability here is that Ya'akov "established a home" rather than "built a house", but the latter is what the text insists.

Note that Sukot was also the first place in the wilderness where the Yisra-Elites rested (Exodus 12:37) after leaving Mitsrayim with Mosheh, and also one of the places in Mo-Av which they passed with Yehoshu'a (cf Joshua 13:27 - see below) on their way into Kena'an - suggesting that, like Newcastle and Springfield, or towns with Castra in their name, their were many temporary caravanserai that became permanent hut-villages, that grew into full-fledged towns, but kept the name. Interestingly the Times Atlas of the Bible places it right next to, just west of Penu-El; alas, it provides no evidence for this besides, presumably, basing it on the episode narrated in this chapter?

Many translations will tell you that SUKAH also means "tabernacle", and then carry the error forward to make the festival of Sukot into the Feast of Tabernacles; the tabernacle was very specifically the Mishkan, and the two should not be confused. See my next paragraph, but especially the notes to the Mishkan when it is built in Exodus 25:8 et al. The ark of the covenant was also a Sukah (סוכה), the feminine form.

Sukot-Benot (שכת-בנות) were the houses in which the Babylonian Samarians put their idols and other gods (maybe the house he built was not to live in, but to store the teraphimhttp://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14331-teraphim that Rachel stole?); also where their ritual prostitutes worked.

Also SIKUT (סכות), which the Beney Yisra-Elim built in the desert when they turned to idolatry.

The SUKI'IM were an African tribe of nomads from Kenya and the Sudan.

Not to be confused with SACH (סך) = "a crowd", or "multitude", or with SACHAH (סכב) = "to look at".

This particular SUKOT was probably a caravanserai (so named because it was made up of temporary sukot/tents) in the area that would become the tribal territory of Gad; by the time of the Psalms it was a city and even a territory; east of the Yarden (Jordan); cf Joshua 13:27. Hertz suggests that Ya'akov remained here for several years (which would mean that he did not go on to Esav in Se'ir, as we suspected he was trying to get out of doing), but this conflicts with verse 18.

Sukot became an important Beney Yisra-Eli shrine, linked principally to Mosheh, but here first identified with Ya'akov (as with so many shrines he is said to have built). What is clear from the festival, however, is that it too was a much earlier rite, belonging to the great goddess.

We need to ask: why is he going to Se'ir first anyway, and not to his parents in Be'er Sheva (or Mamre, as it will transpire)? The inference of verse 18 is that Sukot was just an overnight stopping-place.

Samech break.

33:18: VA YAVO YA'AKOV SHALEM IR SHECHEM ASHER BE ERETS KENA'AN BE VO'O MI PADAN ARAM VA YICHAN ET PENEY HA IR

וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב שָׁלֵם עִיר שְׁכֶם אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם וַיִּחַן אֶת פְּנֵי הָעִיר

KJ: And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.

BN: And Ya'akov came in peace to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Kena'an, when he came from Padan Aram; and he camped before the city.

SHALEM IR SHECHEM (שלם עיר שכם): There is much conjecture among the scholars over whether he "came in peace to Shechem" or he came to "Shalem, the sacred city [of god or Yisra-El]" or simply, which is what the Yehudit says, "he came, whole, to the city of Shechem", today's Nablus. This is going to require several levels of explanation.

SHALEM: Why is it not SHALEMAH, in the dative? If Shalem were the name of the place, it would require the dative, and then we would translate this as "And he came to Shalem, the city of Shechem", as in the famous Salem of which Massachusetts has its own version. But that Shalem, as we saw when Av-Ram met with Malki-Tsedek the king of Shalem in Genesis 14:18, was in honour of one of the seven hillside towns that would eventually conurbate to become Yeru-Shala'im.

The root is SHALAM (שלם) = "to be whole, sound, safe, completed, finished, at peace, in friendship, secure, restored, healthy, recompensed, requited, paid, performed, rewarded, perfect", and several other synonyms besides; whence SHALOM, SHELEM, SHILEM, SHALUM, SHELOMIT (the Shulamite), SHELOMOH (Solomon), AV-SHALOM (Absalom), SALOME and on and on and on. So is SHALEM, YERU-SHALEM or YERU-SHALA'IM the correct name for the town - no one knows? The latter is a multiple plural, indicating the act of conurbation.

The SHECHEM part of this is still more complex. SHECHEM means "shoulder", which of course is the best part of any animal to eat, because it has strong and muscular meat, but very little fat. The Shechem became the "royal portion", the part saved for the priests, from every sacrifice, and after that a "shechem" became an idiomatic term for anything particularly special or privileged. But does that work in the context of this verse? No. It does not. The bringing of Ya'akov to proto-Jerusalem is simply wishful thinking.

On this occasion, and not simply because I so often disagree with him, we need to follow Hertz and have him come to Shechem, which is today's Nablus; however, because I cannot resist disagreeing with him at every opportunity, his "in peace" is a limited reading of "Shalem", and would anyway be grammatically incorrect: he would have to come "BE SHALOM" for this to work. But he comes SHALEM, which means "whole"; and the point of this is the paranoia that Ya'akov expressed in verse 14. Esav offered him the services of guards or guides, which Ya'akov felt insulted by; but clearly he was worried, and clearly there was a real danger, or the relief at his safe arrival would not need to be stated here.

Having said all of which, see Genesis 34:21, where the same word is used, and becomes somewhat ironic in the context.

It is interesting that on his return Ya'akov makes a tour of the shrines: Penu-El, Sukot, (Shalem), Shechem, Se'ir. Is this a kingly triumph? It echoes Shaul's kingly triumph; and indeed the one made by Mosheh on the first part of the wilderness journey.

Again we can note the nature of the birthright as not being material. Be'er Sheva is no longer the family home - his father, as we shall see in Genesis 35:27, has moved to Mamre, while Esav was in Se'ir, and what was there anyway but blocked-up wells and arguments with the Gerarites? What was he even inheriting? Only the right to be counted as the first-born, which he appears to have given back, and the accompanying blessing, which he appears to have transferred: and that anyway only meant the right to be sacrificed or immolated.

Hertz says that "before the city" means to the east, though there is no obvious explanation of this; he also claims that there is a well about a mile from the city called Jacob's Well - and indeed there is. There is a Jacob's well in Bristol too, in the United Kingdom - what does this prove? There are Martin Luther King Jr boulevards in every town in America; it doesn't mean he was there, but only that it was named after him, many years later. There is a logic to assuming that this is the case with many of the place-names in the Bible.

One small point, which ought to have been noted before now: the fact that Padan and Aram are never hyphenated, even though, in most English versions, they always are.

SHECHEM: Was it already called this? In the next chapter we will learn that the son of the city's chief was named Shechem, which makes it unlikely.

ASHER BE ERETS KENA’AN: Ya'akov and Lavan defined some boundaries at Gal-Ed; this is telling us that at some point of that journey from Penu-El and Machanayim and Sukot, Ya'akov crossed another boundary and is now in the land of Kena'an.

33:19: VA YIKEN ET CHELKAT HA SADEH ASHER NATAH SHAM AHALO MI YAD BENEY CHAMOR AVI SHECHEM BE ME'AH KESIYTAH

וַיִּקֶן אֶת חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר נָטָה שָׁם אָהֳלוֹ מִיַּד בְּנֵי חֲמוֹר אֲבִי שְׁכֶם בְּמֵאָה קְשִׂיטָה

KJ: And he bought a parcel of a field, where he had spread his tent, at the hand of the children of Hamor, Shechem's father, for an hundred pieces of money.

BN: And he bought the patch of ground where he had spread his tent from the hand of the Beney Chamor, from Shechem's father, for a hundred pieces of money.

Why does he need to buy a piece of land when he stands to inherit a piece of land in Be'er Sheva (I appreciate that this is not a question that will be understood by owners of second homes, holiday villas, and buy-to-rent apartments, but in the Biblical world it was unusual to say the least to own land at all, unless like Av-Raham at Machpelah one was buying a grave-plot; land tended to be owned and shared out on a rotational basis by the village or rural elders)? Or perhaps - why did we not realise this earlier? - there was no inheritance, as the tribe was nomadic, and Yitschak only leased it from Avi-Melech in the first place? In which case, yet again, what exactly was the birthright that he stole? And this land is nowhere near where he lived before. If the birthright denotes a sheikhdom, then it was not much to steal and spend twenty years as a refugee for: the leadership of homeless nomads with an ambition to become sedentary.

They settle at Shechem, which, from the name of the father, Chamor (חמור) = "donkey", was the shrine of an ass or donkey cult, presumably to Shet, Adam's third son. This will become hugely significant when we get to the tales of King Sha'ul, who was unquestionably a Shet-worshipper.

Shechem will also become important later on, in the next chapter indeed, when Levi and Shim'on take revenge, though it seems somewhat excessive, for the alleged rape of Dinah.

33:20: VA YATSEV SHAM MIZBE'ACH VA YIKRA LO EL ELOHEY YISRA-EL

וַיַּצֶּב שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ וַיִּקְרָא לוֹ אֵל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

KJ: And he erected there an altar, and called it Elelohe-Israel.

BN: And he built an altar there, and named it El Elohey Yisra-El.

Was this passage added by the Ezraic scribe? El Elohey Yisra-El needs a lot of explaining otherwise. Was he doing it to take over the ancient donkey-cult? Note that he is still called Ya'akov, not Yisra-El.

This last verse seems to confirm the view that the newly crowned priest-king was making a tour of his new domain, defined in the covenant with Lavan, established by arrangement with Esav.

End of fifth fragment; end of chapter 33.

Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a   26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50

Copyright © 2020 David Prashker

All rights reserved

The Argaman Press