17:1 VA YEHI HA GORAL LE MATEH MENASHEH KI HU BECHOR YOSEPH LE MACHIR BECHOR MENASHEH AVI HA GIL'AD KI HU HAYAH ISH MILCHAMAH VA YEHI LO HA GIL'AD VE HA BASHAN
וַיְהִי הַגֹּורָל לְמַטֵּה מְנַשֶּׁה כִּי הוּא בְּכֹור יֹוסֵף לְמָכִיר בְּכֹור מְנַשֶּׁה אֲבִי הַגִּלְעָד כִּי הוּא הָיָה אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה וַיְהִי לֹו הַגִּלְעָד וְהַבָּשָׁן
BN (BibleNet translation): There was also a share for the tribe of Menasheh; for he was the firstborn of Yoseph; to wit, for Machir the firstborn of Menasheh, the father of Gil'ad: because he was a man of war, therefore he had Gil'ad and Bashan.
Something is going on here that is not quite right. Menasheh has a portion (precisely in Gil'ad and Bashan - East Menasheh), in two halves, and Ephrayim received his portion at the end of the last chapter - the problem here is the Yoseph issue, based on the story in Genesis 48. Menasheh was indeed the firstborn, but when grandfather Ya'akov blessed the boys, it was on Ephrayim's head that he placed his right hand, thereby naming him the senior. Machir has already received his portion of land, see Numbers 26:29, but also Judges 5:14. Why then does he get land now, as a sub-clan? Unless, in fact, Machir is now the name of the second half of the tribe, which would be useful and logical; and if not Machir, then could we please have East Menasheh and West Menasheh as I have presented them. But first see the next verse.
17:2 VA YEHI LIVNEY MENASHEH HA NOTARIM LE MISHPECHOTAM LIVNEY AVI-EZER VE LIVNEY CHELEK VE LIVNEY ASRI-EL VE LIVNEY SHECHEM VE LIVNEY CHEPHER VE LIVNEY SHEMID'A ELEH BENEY MENASHEH BEN YOSEPH HA ZECHARIM LE MISHPECHOTAM
KJ: There was also a lot for the rest of the children of Manasseh by their families; for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families.
BN: There was also a share for the rest of the Beney Menasheh, by their clans; for the Beney Avi-Ezer, and for the Beney Chelek, and for the Beney Asri-El, and for the Beney Shechem, and for the Beney Chepher, and for the Beney Shemid'a: these were the male children of Menasheh ben Yoseph by their clans.
HE NOTARIM: The rest. Does that indicate that Machir may indeed be the word we need for East Menasheh?
AVI-EZER: The clan-list of Menasheh was given in Numbers 26, and includes the same names that are given here; so the two are consistent, but the questions raised here must also be taken back to there.
CHELEK: This actually makes it more, not less complicated. A child named CHELEK! The very word that is causing the problem - CHELEK means "division" - see my note to the mis-named Mount Chalak in Joshua 11:17.
ASRI-EL: Just as there are twelve tribes in Yisra-El, to mirror on Earth the constellations that comprise the heavens, so those twelve constellations have names. To us they are Gemini and Libra, Cancer and Scorpio etc, but to the Beney Yisra-El these "messengers", which is the correct translation of Mal'achim, rather than "angels", were - you can read the full list at this link, with details about each of them. Asri-El, or Azra-El, which of course is also a variation of Avi-Ezer, above, can be found as number 7 in that list. Azra-El is also a reversal of El-Azar (which is itself a variant of Eli-Ezer), who appears as the High Priest in verse 4. And then look again at the Yehudit, and tell me which "angel" it was who wrestled with Ya'akov at Penu-El.
SHECHEM: Why would any son of Ya'akov name their child Shechem, after what happened there - imagine Ya'akov's face at the baby-naming, let alone Levi or Shim'on's embarrassment, or aunty Dinah's shame and fury! (see Genesis 34). Again, as with Machir and several others, these are only "sons" in the sense of "towns in the county" that have become "family members" because they are attached to the tribe whose territory this is; so the Bronx is a son of New York, and Abbots Langley is a daughter of Hertfordshire.
CHEPHER: And at risk of repeating myself: how many of these clan-names reflect places of whose existence we have already been told? Chepher for one - see Joshua 12:17. Conquered, subjugated into the tribe, and therefore "family".
SHEMID'A: Is this another name that describes what happened to the town, like Ha Ai - "destroyed" in this case? That would work, if it were not for the final Ayin - the root for "destruction" has the Sheen, Mem and Dalet but not that Ayin (click here). But there is an Ayin at the end, and no other root, and no form of grammar, gives the name: which is why most scholars assume it is a compound name, and make the logical deduction Shem Yode'a, though "god knows" how they do that! (Shem is either the firstborn son of No'ach, the one who gave his name to the word Semite, or it is a way of avoiding using an actual name for the deity, by calling him Ha Shem. YAD'A is the root of the verb "to know").
Checking the meanings and geographies of the other names in this verse, it appears to provide further evidence that there never were twelve sons of Ya'akov, but a loose confederation of city-states, some of whom may have gone down to Mitsrayim, others not, but who now come together in the division of the land, forced into a twelve-tribe amphictyony for ideological reasons, with the Machirites needing to be treated with.
17:3 VE LITSLAPHCHAD BEN CHEPHER BEN GIL'AD BEN MACHIR BEN MENASHEH LO HAYU LO BANIM KI IM BANOT VE ELEH SHEMOT BENOTAV MACHLAH VE NO'AH CHAGLAH MILKAH VE TIRTSAH
KJ: But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah
BN: But Tselaphchad ben Chepher ben Gil'ad ben Machir ben Menasheh had no sons, but only daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Machlah, and No'ah, Chaglah, Milkah, and Tirtsah.
So we return, for the third time indeed, to the much-disputed matter of the status of female inheritance when there are no brothers, on which YHVH and Mosheh have already ruled (Numbers 26:33ff), but the Supreme Court, in which YHVH and Mosheh also sat, then over-ruled that ruling (Numbers 36:2ff), and now...
TSELAPHCHAD BEN CHEPHER BEN GILAD BEN MACHIR BEN MENASHEH: perhaps better read as Tselaphchad, the son of Chepher, from the city of Gil'ad, in the clan of Machir, from the tribe of Menasheh, though even that is open to variation and debate. Important though, in helping us understand the complexity of names and relationships of both people and places throughout the Tanach.
And how many of these girls' names are also places that we have already encountered. Tirtsah for certain - see below.
CHEPHER: See my note to the previous verse.
GIL'AD: See the link.
MACHLAH: Modern translators and commentators all follow Gesenius, who identifies the root as CHOLEH, meaning "sick". What parent, unless the infant comes out looking unlikely to survive, names their child "disease"? And anyway, if this were the root, the name would be either MACHALAH or MACHALEH, not MACHLAH (see Proverbs 18:14 and 2 Chronicles 21:15).
As an alternative, there is Machli, who appears as a Levite in Exodus 6:19, Numbers 3:20 and elsewhere; this would make Machlah the feminine equivalent, in the way that Yehudit is to Yehudah and Dinah to Dan: but unfortunately modern translators and commentators all follow Gesenius, who identifies the root of Machli as CHOLEH, meaning "sick"... And there is also a Machalat, in the family of the Beney Yishma-El (Genesis 28:9, 2 Chronicles 11:18) - but the same problem for a third time.
But these are, I believe, priestesses, and priestesses have very specific roles, especially in the choir and orchestra, and what a coincidence that there is also a different MACHALAT, from the root CHALAH, and it means - "to play the harp", though it's also used occasionally for singing - presumably when accompanied by the harp. You can find it in use in Psalms 53:1 and 88:1, though the latter is described as Machalat Le'anot (מָחֲלַ֣ת לְעַנּ֑וֹת), rather than plain Machalat - Le'anot means "to answer", so I am guessing that the Psalm was sung responsively, with the leader giving the line "a capella" and the harpist accompanying the congregation for the response. You might also like to look at Genesis 4:21, where the Ugav and the Kinor are mentioned, the latter also being a type of harp.
NO'AH: Perfectly correct for the translators to render this as Noah - though I prefer No'ah with an apostrophe because there is always a slightly pause before an Ayin (ע), in order to ensure that the Ayin is a strong consonant, not a weak one. But it does exacerbate the error of No'ach in Genesis 5ff; the two are entirely different names
CHAGLAH: Five daughters and no sons was never terribly convincing, was it? A school of priestesses, perhaps, connected to one or other of the Kena'ani cults? Definitely educated women, or they wouldn't have been able to bring their case, and speak for themselves, Portias every one, but undisguised, in court. Wouldn't have been allowed probably, though in Mir-Yam's time, with her as their guiding High Priestess... anyway, her shrine, or possibly temple, and school as part of it, has already been mentioned: Beit Chaglah, in Joshua 15:6.
As to the meaning of the name - and you will need to go to Robert Graves and Raphael Patai for the full exposition of this - a Chaglah is a "partridge dance", which was a type of dance performed by the Temple ballerinas, if I may call them that, and is associated mythologically with the ritual immolation of the sacred king: the reason why geishas in Japan (and Chinese priestesses before them) had their feet hobbled, the reason why ballerinas wear the crippling shoes that force them onto tip-toe, the reason why Achilles had a sacred heel and Oedipus means "swollen-foot". The original Pesach (Passover) takes its name from the same rite and ceremony (see Genesis 41:46 and Deuteronomy15:21), and it would seem that the castration/eunuchisation of Ya'akov at Penu-El (Genesis 32:26) was a variation on this as well. Students of Arabic explain that the word, in their usage, describes a person trying to walk with their ankles tied together, though they also compare it with the walking of a crow - and of course the crow, the Orev in Yehudit, was sacred to the mother-goddess...
MILKAH: And speaking of the mother-goddess; which of the five daughters was the High Priestess? Obviously the one who carries the mother-goddess' name as her title. Moloch, which becomes Melech, the King; Milkah, the feminine equivalent.
TIRTSAH: Tirtsah (the name, delightfully, means "she is my delight") appears elsewhere, in Joshua 12:24, as a town, presumably a shrine. As with the father, is it the case that the daughters are not daughters either, but the need to include, and to validate the importance of, certain goddess shrines in their territory - towns that were being allowed to continue their "heathen" practices for political reasons.
And worth looking again at my notes on these five ladies, at Numbers 26:33.
17:4 VA TIKRAVNAH LIPHNEY EL-AZAR HA KOHEN VE LIPHNEY YEHOSHU'A BIN NUN VE LIPHNEY HA NESIY'IM LEMOR YHVH TSIVAH ET MOSHEH LATET LANU NACHALAH BETOCH ACHEYNU VA YITEN LAHEM EL PI YHVH NACHALAH BETOCH ACHEY AVIHEN
KJ: And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren. Therefore according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.
BN: And they were granted an audience with El-Azar the priest, and with Yehoshu'a bin Nun, and in the presence of the princes, where they said: "YHVH instructed Mosheh to give us an inheritance among our kinsmen." Therefore, according to the instruction of YHVH, he gave them an inheritance among their father's kinsmen.
And that's it? Despite Numbers 36:2ff? All that complaint that if the women inherit, and then marry, the land will pass to the husbands' tribes... and the ruling that they must marry within the tribe? Does that still stand? And is this then just a reminder that they have land rights, and this is the time for them to be fulfilled?
17:5 VA YIPLU CHAVLEY MENASHEH ASARAH LEVAD ME ERETS HA GIL'AD VE HA BASHAN ASHER ME EVER LA YARDEN
KJ: And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, beside the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side Jordan.
BN: And ten portions fell to Menasheh, in addition to the lands of Gil'ad and Bashan, which were on the other side of the Yarden.
Does that just happen to make 12 portions? And if you go back to Genesis 25:12-16, where the genealogy of Yishma-El is given, and specifically stated as being in the land of Edom, yes, 12 there too. So all the Av-Rahamic descendants share the same socio-political structure.
17:6 KI BENOT MENASHEH NACHALU NACHALAH BETOCH BANAV VE ERETS HA GIL'AD HAYETAH LI VENEY MENASHEH HA NOTARIM
KJ: Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons: and the rest of Manasseh's sons had the land of Gilead.
BN: Because the daughters of Menasheh had an inheritance among his sons: and the rest of Menasheh's sons had the land of Gil'ad.
I wonder if this, like the earlier instance, is a reflection of the switch from matrilocal to patrilocal marriage at the time of the conquest? But no question, from both of these verses, the women have had their original verdict restored and confirmed, albeit with the amendment from the appeal.
17:7 VA YEHI GEVUL MENASHEH ME ASHER HA MICHMETAH ASHER AL PENEY SHECHEM VE HALACH HA GEVUL EL HA YAMIN EL YOSHVEY EYN TAPU'ACH
KJ: And the coast of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand unto the inhabitants of Entappuah.
BN: And the border of [west] Menasheh ran from Asher to Michmetah, which lies before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand as far as the settlements of Eyn Tapu'ach.
A very odd way of defining a border, Asher being a region, Michmetah and Eyn Tapu'ach towns: and the border of Maine ran from Canada to Eastport...as far as Portsmouth - look on a map and see if you can make sense of that (try here!)
MICHMETAH: See Joshua 16:6.
EYN TAPU'ACH: See my note to Joshua 15:34; the Tapu'ach there is also mentioned in Joshua 12:17, and again below; these are nevertheless two different places that happen to share part of their name: three indeed, as far as the one below is concerned.
Does this - and see the illustration - suggest that Yehudah, Ephrayim and Menasheh basically took all the best land, and most of the total, and then left the other tribes to fend for themselves? It does rather appear that way.
17:8 LIMNASHEH HAYETAH ERETS TAPUA'CH VE TAPU'ACH EL GEVUL MENASHEH LIVNEY EPHRAYIM
KJ: Now Manasseh had the land of Tappuah: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim.
BN: Now Menasheh had the land of Tapu'ach: but Tapu'ach on the border of Menasheh belonged to the children of Ephrayim.
Making clear that these are two entirely different places; the verse simply a reminder not to assume that they must be the same because they share a name.
17:9 VE YARAD HA GEVUL NACHAL KANAH NEGBAH LA NACHAL ARIM HA ELEH LE EPHRAYIM BETOCH AREY MENASHEH U GEVUL MENASHEH MI TSEPHON LA NACHAL VA YEHI TOTS'OTAV HA YAMAH
KJ: And the coast descended unto the river Kanah, southward of the river: these cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh: the coast of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river, and the outgoings of it were at the sea.
BN: And the border went down as far as the river Kanah, and then southward of the river; these cities of Ephrayim are among the cities of Menasheh. The border of Menasheh was also on the north side of the river, and its terminus was at the sea.
KANAH: Again see Joshua 12:17, and also 16:8. And again this bizarre business of tribes possessing towns and villages in each other's territory. Presumably it was because (forget the pseudo-history of the twelve tribes all being one family for a moment), the tribal regions were mapped on the plan of the heavens, and the various tribes who lived across borders needed to be guaranteed travel and trade freedoms: think of the problems with the north and south of Ireland when Brexit was being negotiated (click here), or issues for Spanish citizens who work in Gibraltar, families divided when Vietnam and Korea split, when Pakistan was founded etc. The people who live on the other side of the road from me pay much higher rates and council taxes, because the line dividing our boroughs is the road that separates us...
17:10 NEGBAH LE EPHRAYIM VE TSAPHONAH LI MENASHEH VA YEHI HA YAM GEVULO U VE ASHER YIPHGUN MI TSAPHON U VE YISASCHAR MI MIZRACH
KJ: Southward it was Ephraim's, and northward it was Manasseh's, and the sea is his border; and they met together in Asher on the north, and in Issachar on the east.
BN: To the south was Ephrayim's, and to the north was Menasheh's, and the sea was his border; and they met together in Asher in the north, and in Yisaschar on the east.
This name Yisaschar, Yissashchar, Yesh Shachur, Yah Shachur, Issachar, continues to perplex scholars and theologians. I continue to believe that Yisaschar was intended.
17:11 VA YEHI LIMNASHEH BE YISASCHAR U VE ASHER BEIT SHE'AN U VENOTEYHA VE YIVLE'AM U VENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY DOR U VENOTEYHA VE YOSHVEY EYN DOR U VENOTEYHA VE YOSHVEY TA'NACH U VENOTEYHA VE YOSHVEY MEGIDO U VENOTEYHA SHELOSHET HA NAPHET
KJ: And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher Bethshean and her towns, and Ibleam and her towns, and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Endor and her towns, and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns, even three countries.
BN: And Menasheh had territory in Yisaschar and in Asher Beit She'an and her suburbs, and Yivle'am and her suburbs, and the settlement of Dor and her suburbs, and the settlement of Eyn Dor and her suburbs, and the settlement of Ta'nach and her suburbs, and the settlement of Megido and her suburbs, these three cliffs.
But perhaps my explanation of why these borders make no geographical sense is not correct - perhaps I have applied a modern political stratagem where the ancients had other reasons. So letus ask again: why would one tribe have land in another's? What has Beit She'an to do with Asher - which is miles away to the north-west? Perhaps, if the tribes are not just ethnic tribes but, mythologically, totem clans, each one connected to a specific star within a constellation, then it would make perfect sense - existing shrines to the tribal deity would thereby be acknowledged, and the fact that stars and constellations move across the heavens permit the clans to gather where they need, on specific occasions: the passing of a comet, the rising of a new star, a meteorite storm at a certain time of year. This seems to make more sense than my previous conjecture: imagine a federal system like the USA, but everything in, say, Florida, is run by Florida, except for Orlando, which counts as Alabama, and Jacksonville, which counts as Georgia.
VE ET ...VENOTEYHA: Is it just a lazy scribe, or is there a grammatical reason why the ET (the indicator of an accusative noun) is suddenly dropped?
BEIT SHE'AN: See the link.
YIVLE'AM: See the link.
DOR... EYN DOR: Just as we had Tapu'ach and Eyn Tapu'ach, so we have Dor and Eyn Dor - the town and the spring or well or fountain which serves as a shrine. The latter will become famous when King Shau'l summons a soothsayer from Eyn Dor (1 Samuel 28:3–25). Not to be confused with the Endor that is also known as Tana among the Ewok species, though I am quite certain that George Lucas knew exactly what he was doing when he chose the name (he learned how to write filmscripts by reading Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces").
TA'NACH: See Joshua 12:21.
MEGIDO: Likewise see Joshua 12:21.
NAPHET: The root also yields NOPH, which means "a view", in the sense of a vista or panorama, and the sense of the word is a high place from which you can see for miles. As all the towns named here are on the Mediterranean coast, I have chosen "cliffs"; other translators go for the more general "countries" or "territories", though I have also seen "heights".
17:12 VE LO YACHLU BENEY MENASHEH LEHORISH ET HE ARIM HA ELEH VA YO'EL HA KENA'ANI LASHEVET BA ARETS HA ZOT
KJ: Yet the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; but the Canaanites would dwell in that land.
BN: But the Beney Menasheh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; so the Kena'ani would dwell in that land.
Echoing the closing verse of the last chapter.
17:13 VA YEHI KI CHAZKU BENEY YISRA-EL VA YITNU ET HA KENA'ANI LAMAS VE HORESH LO HORIYSHO
KJ: Yet it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute; but did not utterly drive them out.
BN: Yet it would come to pass, when the Beney Yisra-El grew powerful, that they would put the Kena'ani to tribute, though they never completely drove them out.
Again, as per the last hapter; see Joshua 16:10 (and so much for the Mosaic instruction to treat the stranger who is within your gate etc etc...).
samech break
17:14 VA YEDABRU BENEY YOSEPH ET YEHOSHU'A LE'MOR MADU'A NATATAH LI NACHALAH GORAL ECHAD VE CHEVEL ECHAD VA ANI AM RAV AD ASHER AD KOH BERCHANI YHVH
KJ: And the children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as the LORD hath blessed me hitherto?
BN: Then the Beney Yoseph spoke to Yehoshu'a, saying: "Why have you only given me one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing that I am a great people, forasmuch as YHVH has blessed me up until now?"
The usual story of greed, hubris, vanity and self-entitlement. If they were Americans they would have hired a lawyer and sued over this! And see my note to verse 7 for the argument by the lawyers on the other side!
And then ask (again!): are we misunderstanding this concept of "lots"? And I really do mean it in the sense that Ephrayim wants lots and lots and then still more lots. Scholars have always taken it as the "Purim" concept of a "lottery", and you gets what you gets when your ticket comes up. But the American construction talks about "building lots", where the English talks about "building sites", and perhaps this is what it really is: Yehoshu'a as big chief gets to decide who gets what, has already taken the best for himself, and may or may not be amenable to the bullies of Ephrayim twisting his arm for another portion.
Which would also help explain why some sections of one tribe's lands end up with another: you can have the whole of Florida, but not Palm Beach because I'm giving that to...
AM RAV: Which could be regarded as a description of their sheer weight of numbers (the figures from the two censues can be found at Numbers 1 and Numbers 26), or it could be a statement of the power of their fists.
But (again) they are named as the Beney Yoseph, and not separately as Ephrayim and Menasheh - and we have already seen that they received some of the largest, and best, of all the territories. But were they not supposed to receive their inheritance by lot? And did they not all swear loyalty to the system of tribal allocation, as part of their covenant with the deity? And.... and... and....
Or is this just a piece of retroactive derogation, from after the division of the kingdom?
17:15 VA YOMER ALEHYEM YEHOSHU'A IM AM RAV ATAH ALEH LECHA HA YA'ERAH U VER'E'TA LECHA SHAM BE ERETS HA PERIZI VE HA REPHA'IM KI ATS LECHA HAR EPHRAYIM
KJ: And Joshua answered them, If thou be a great people, then get thee up to the wood country, and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants, if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee.
BN: And Yehoshu'a answered them: If you are a great people, then go up to the forest-lands, and clear a territory for yourself there, in the land of the Perizi, and of the giants, if Mount Ephrayim is too narrow for you."
Was it already called "the hill country of Ephrayim"? Surely that must be a term from after the conquest.
If they are receiving land as two tribes, why are they given the first person singular here?
Don't forget that this is being written in Yehudah, and the rivalry between the southern kingdom of Yehudah and the northern kingdom of Yisra-El, which was actually known at the time as Ephrayim and not Yisra-El, was still raging even 200 years after the northern kingdom had vanished into the history of Sennacherib's conquest.
KJ: And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.
BN: And the Beney Yoseph said: "The hill is not enough for us. All the Kena'ani who dwell in the land of the valley have iron chariots, both the ones from Beit She'an and her suburbs, and the ones who live in the Yizre-El valley."
The inference is that the vast tribal territory of Ephrayim is actually not that vast at all, except perhaps as a theoretical sometime-land, and that the tiny region around what they are now calling Mount Ephrayim is all that they have managed to obtain, and they have little hope for the rest, because the inhabitants have a better equipped army.
YIZRE-EL: See my notes to Joshua 15:56.
17:17 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL BEIT YOSEPH LE EPHRAYIM VE LIMNASHEH LEMOR AM RAV ATAH VE CHO'ACH GADOL LACH LO YIHEYEH LECHA GORAL ECHAD...
KJ: And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a great people, and hast great power: thou shalt not have one lot only.
BN: And Yehoshu'a spoke to the house of Yoseph, to both Ephrayim and Menasheh, saying: "You are a great people, and have great power: you shall not have just one portion...
What a shame, he gave in after all. Proof that bullying works! Or was it the whining that persuaded Yehoshu'a? I can't believe that he just gave in to these spoiled brats ...
After the unification by King David, Ephrayim and Menasheh became the central regions, geographically as well as politically, while some tribes died out or were absorbed into others, or moved, or were conquered; this appears to be a justification of their predominance, retroactively like so many of these Biblical tales. Either way, it makes Yoseph predominant over all the other tribes, save only Yehudah - though of course this history is written down by Yehudah.
17:18 KI HAR YIHEYEH LACH KI YA'AR HU U VERE'TO VE HAYAH LECHA TOTS'OTAV KI TORISH ET HA KENA'ANI KI RECHEV BARZEL LO KI CHAZAKH HU
KJ: But the mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood, and thou shalt cut it down: and the outgoings of it shall be thine: for thou shalt drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots, andthough they be strong.
BN: But the mountain shall be yours. For it is forest-land; and you shall cut it down, and its produce shall be yours; and you shall drive out the Kena'ani, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong."
Yehoshua's response actually deserves smiling respect - because he hasn't really given in to their bullying at all, but simply found a strategy to deal with it. "Boys, you can have an extra portion - if you can win it for yourselves. And if you are really such a great people as you claim, what are iron weaponry and chariots to you? Go prove your greatness by taking the land." No answer to that, except to do it, or fail.
For the information: they failed.
pey break
וַיְהִי לִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה הַנֹּותָרִים לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לִבְנֵי אֲבִיעֶזֶר וְלִבְנֵי חֵלֶק וְלִבְנֵי אַשְׂרִיאֵל וְלִבְנֵי שֶׁכֶם וְלִבְנֵי חֵפֶר וְלִבְנֵי שְׁמִידָע אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה בֶּן יֹוסֵף הַזְּכָרִים לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם
BN: There was also a share for the rest of the Beney Menasheh, by their clans; for the Beney Avi-Ezer, and for the Beney Chelek, and for the Beney Asri-El, and for the Beney Shechem, and for the Beney Chepher, and for the Beney Shemid'a: these were the male children of Menasheh ben Yoseph by their clans.
HE NOTARIM: The rest. Does that indicate that Machir may indeed be the word we need for East Menasheh?
AVI-EZER: The clan-list of Menasheh was given in Numbers 26, and includes the same names that are given here; so the two are consistent, but the questions raised here must also be taken back to there.
CHELEK: This actually makes it more, not less complicated. A child named CHELEK! The very word that is causing the problem - CHELEK means "division" - see my note to the mis-named Mount Chalak in Joshua 11:17.
ASRI-EL: Just as there are twelve tribes in Yisra-El, to mirror on Earth the constellations that comprise the heavens, so those twelve constellations have names. To us they are Gemini and Libra, Cancer and Scorpio etc, but to the Beney Yisra-El these "messengers", which is the correct translation of Mal'achim, rather than "angels", were - you can read the full list at this link, with details about each of them. Asri-El, or Azra-El, which of course is also a variation of Avi-Ezer, above, can be found as number 7 in that list. Azra-El is also a reversal of El-Azar (which is itself a variant of Eli-Ezer), who appears as the High Priest in verse 4. And then look again at the Yehudit, and tell me which "angel" it was who wrestled with Ya'akov at Penu-El.
SHECHEM: Why would any son of Ya'akov name their child Shechem, after what happened there - imagine Ya'akov's face at the baby-naming, let alone Levi or Shim'on's embarrassment, or aunty Dinah's shame and fury! (see Genesis 34). Again, as with Machir and several others, these are only "sons" in the sense of "towns in the county" that have become "family members" because they are attached to the tribe whose territory this is; so the Bronx is a son of New York, and Abbots Langley is a daughter of Hertfordshire.
CHEPHER: And at risk of repeating myself: how many of these clan-names reflect places of whose existence we have already been told? Chepher for one - see Joshua 12:17. Conquered, subjugated into the tribe, and therefore "family".
SHEMID'A: Is this another name that describes what happened to the town, like Ha Ai - "destroyed" in this case? That would work, if it were not for the final Ayin - the root for "destruction" has the Sheen, Mem and Dalet but not that Ayin (click here). But there is an Ayin at the end, and no other root, and no form of grammar, gives the name: which is why most scholars assume it is a compound name, and make the logical deduction Shem Yode'a, though "god knows" how they do that! (Shem is either the firstborn son of No'ach, the one who gave his name to the word Semite, or it is a way of avoiding using an actual name for the deity, by calling him Ha Shem. YAD'A is the root of the verb "to know").
Checking the meanings and geographies of the other names in this verse, it appears to provide further evidence that there never were twelve sons of Ya'akov, but a loose confederation of city-states, some of whom may have gone down to Mitsrayim, others not, but who now come together in the division of the land, forced into a twelve-tribe amphictyony for ideological reasons, with the Machirites needing to be treated with.
17:3 VE LITSLAPHCHAD BEN CHEPHER BEN GIL'AD BEN MACHIR BEN MENASHEH LO HAYU LO BANIM KI IM BANOT VE ELEH SHEMOT BENOTAV MACHLAH VE NO'AH CHAGLAH MILKAH VE TIRTSAH
וְלִצְלָפְחָד בֶּן חֵפֶר בֶּן גִּלְעָד בֶּן מָכִיר בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה לֹא הָיוּ לֹו בָּנִים כִּי אִם בָּנֹות וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמֹות בְּנֹתָיו מַחְלָה וְנֹעָה חָגְלָה מִלְכָּה וְתִרְצָה
KJ: But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah
BN: But Tselaphchad ben Chepher ben Gil'ad ben Machir ben Menasheh had no sons, but only daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Machlah, and No'ah, Chaglah, Milkah, and Tirtsah.
So we return, for the third time indeed, to the much-disputed matter of the status of female inheritance when there are no brothers, on which YHVH and Mosheh have already ruled (Numbers 26:33ff), but the Supreme Court, in which YHVH and Mosheh also sat, then over-ruled that ruling (Numbers 36:2ff), and now...
TSELAPHCHAD BEN CHEPHER BEN GILAD BEN MACHIR BEN MENASHEH: perhaps better read as Tselaphchad, the son of Chepher, from the city of Gil'ad, in the clan of Machir, from the tribe of Menasheh, though even that is open to variation and debate. Important though, in helping us understand the complexity of names and relationships of both people and places throughout the Tanach.
And how many of these girls' names are also places that we have already encountered. Tirtsah for certain - see below.
CHEPHER: See my note to the previous verse.
GIL'AD: See the link.
MACHLAH: Modern translators and commentators all follow Gesenius, who identifies the root as CHOLEH, meaning "sick". What parent, unless the infant comes out looking unlikely to survive, names their child "disease"? And anyway, if this were the root, the name would be either MACHALAH or MACHALEH, not MACHLAH (see Proverbs 18:14 and 2 Chronicles 21:15).
As an alternative, there is Machli, who appears as a Levite in Exodus 6:19, Numbers 3:20 and elsewhere; this would make Machlah the feminine equivalent, in the way that Yehudit is to Yehudah and Dinah to Dan: but unfortunately modern translators and commentators all follow Gesenius, who identifies the root of Machli as CHOLEH, meaning "sick"... And there is also a Machalat, in the family of the Beney Yishma-El (Genesis 28:9, 2 Chronicles 11:18) - but the same problem for a third time.
But these are, I believe, priestesses, and priestesses have very specific roles, especially in the choir and orchestra, and what a coincidence that there is also a different MACHALAT, from the root CHALAH, and it means - "to play the harp", though it's also used occasionally for singing - presumably when accompanied by the harp. You can find it in use in Psalms 53:1 and 88:1, though the latter is described as Machalat Le'anot (מָחֲלַ֣ת לְעַנּ֑וֹת), rather than plain Machalat - Le'anot means "to answer", so I am guessing that the Psalm was sung responsively, with the leader giving the line "a capella" and the harpist accompanying the congregation for the response. You might also like to look at Genesis 4:21, where the Ugav and the Kinor are mentioned, the latter also being a type of harp.
NO'AH: Perfectly correct for the translators to render this as Noah - though I prefer No'ah with an apostrophe because there is always a slightly pause before an Ayin (ע), in order to ensure that the Ayin is a strong consonant, not a weak one. But it does exacerbate the error of No'ach in Genesis 5ff; the two are entirely different names
CHAGLAH: Five daughters and no sons was never terribly convincing, was it? A school of priestesses, perhaps, connected to one or other of the Kena'ani cults? Definitely educated women, or they wouldn't have been able to bring their case, and speak for themselves, Portias every one, but undisguised, in court. Wouldn't have been allowed probably, though in Mir-Yam's time, with her as their guiding High Priestess... anyway, her shrine, or possibly temple, and school as part of it, has already been mentioned: Beit Chaglah, in Joshua 15:6.
As to the meaning of the name - and you will need to go to Robert Graves and Raphael Patai for the full exposition of this - a Chaglah is a "partridge dance", which was a type of dance performed by the Temple ballerinas, if I may call them that, and is associated mythologically with the ritual immolation of the sacred king: the reason why geishas in Japan (and Chinese priestesses before them) had their feet hobbled, the reason why ballerinas wear the crippling shoes that force them onto tip-toe, the reason why Achilles had a sacred heel and Oedipus means "swollen-foot". The original Pesach (Passover) takes its name from the same rite and ceremony (see Genesis 41:46 and Deuteronomy15:21), and it would seem that the castration/eunuchisation of Ya'akov at Penu-El (Genesis 32:26) was a variation on this as well. Students of Arabic explain that the word, in their usage, describes a person trying to walk with their ankles tied together, though they also compare it with the walking of a crow - and of course the crow, the Orev in Yehudit, was sacred to the mother-goddess...
MILKAH: And speaking of the mother-goddess; which of the five daughters was the High Priestess? Obviously the one who carries the mother-goddess' name as her title. Moloch, which becomes Melech, the King; Milkah, the feminine equivalent.
TIRTSAH: Tirtsah (the name, delightfully, means "she is my delight") appears elsewhere, in Joshua 12:24, as a town, presumably a shrine. As with the father, is it the case that the daughters are not daughters either, but the need to include, and to validate the importance of, certain goddess shrines in their territory - towns that were being allowed to continue their "heathen" practices for political reasons.
And worth looking again at my notes on these five ladies, at Numbers 26:33.
17:4 VA TIKRAVNAH LIPHNEY EL-AZAR HA KOHEN VE LIPHNEY YEHOSHU'A BIN NUN VE LIPHNEY HA NESIY'IM LEMOR YHVH TSIVAH ET MOSHEH LATET LANU NACHALAH BETOCH ACHEYNU VA YITEN LAHEM EL PI YHVH NACHALAH BETOCH ACHEY AVIHEN
וַתִּקְרַבְנָה לִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן וְלִפְנֵי יְהֹושֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן וְלִפְנֵי הַנְּשִׂיאִים לֵאמֹר יְהוָה צִוָּה אֶת מֹשֶׁה לָתֶת לָנוּ נַחֲלָה בְּתֹוךְ אַחֵינוּ וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אֶל פִּי יְהוָה נַחֲלָה בְּתֹוךְ אֲחֵי אֲבִיהֶן
BN: And they were granted an audience with El-Azar the priest, and with Yehoshu'a bin Nun, and in the presence of the princes, where they said: "YHVH instructed Mosheh to give us an inheritance among our kinsmen." Therefore, according to the instruction of YHVH, he gave them an inheritance among their father's kinsmen.
And that's it? Despite Numbers 36:2ff? All that complaint that if the women inherit, and then marry, the land will pass to the husbands' tribes... and the ruling that they must marry within the tribe? Does that still stand? And is this then just a reminder that they have land rights, and this is the time for them to be fulfilled?
17:5 VA YIPLU CHAVLEY MENASHEH ASARAH LEVAD ME ERETS HA GIL'AD VE HA BASHAN ASHER ME EVER LA YARDEN
וַיִּפְּלוּ חַבְלֵי מְנַשֶּׁה עֲשָׂרָה לְבַד מֵאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד וְהַבָּשָׁן אֲשֶׁר מֵעֵבֶר לַיַּרְדֵּן
BN: And ten portions fell to Menasheh, in addition to the lands of Gil'ad and Bashan, which were on the other side of the Yarden.
Does that just happen to make 12 portions? And if you go back to Genesis 25:12-16, where the genealogy of Yishma-El is given, and specifically stated as being in the land of Edom, yes, 12 there too. So all the Av-Rahamic descendants share the same socio-political structure.
17:6 KI BENOT MENASHEH NACHALU NACHALAH BETOCH BANAV VE ERETS HA GIL'AD HAYETAH LI VENEY MENASHEH HA NOTARIM
כִּי בְּנֹות מְנַשֶּׁה נָחֲלוּ נַחֲלָה בְּתֹוךְ בָּנָיו וְאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד הָיְתָה לִבְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה הַנֹּותָרִים
BN: Because the daughters of Menasheh had an inheritance among his sons: and the rest of Menasheh's sons had the land of Gil'ad.
I wonder if this, like the earlier instance, is a reflection of the switch from matrilocal to patrilocal marriage at the time of the conquest? But no question, from both of these verses, the women have had their original verdict restored and confirmed, albeit with the amendment from the appeal.
וַיְהִי גְבוּל מְנַשֶּׁה מֵאָשֵׁר הַמִּכְמְתָת אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי שְׁכֶם וְהָלַךְ הַגְּבוּל אֶל הַיָּמִין אֶל יֹשְׁבֵי עֵין תַּפּוּחַ
BN: And the border of [west] Menasheh ran from Asher to Michmetah, which lies before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand as far as the settlements of Eyn Tapu'ach.
A very odd way of defining a border, Asher being a region, Michmetah and Eyn Tapu'ach towns: and the border of Maine ran from Canada to Eastport...as far as Portsmouth - look on a map and see if you can make sense of that (try here!)
MICHMETAH: See Joshua 16:6.
EYN TAPU'ACH: See my note to Joshua 15:34; the Tapu'ach there is also mentioned in Joshua 12:17, and again below; these are nevertheless two different places that happen to share part of their name: three indeed, as far as the one below is concerned.
Does this - and see the illustration - suggest that Yehudah, Ephrayim and Menasheh basically took all the best land, and most of the total, and then left the other tribes to fend for themselves? It does rather appear that way.
17:8 LIMNASHEH HAYETAH ERETS TAPUA'CH VE TAPU'ACH EL GEVUL MENASHEH LIVNEY EPHRAYIM
לִמְנַשֶּׁה הָיְתָה אֶרֶץ תַּפּוּחַ וְתַפּוּחַ אֶל גְּבוּל מְנַשֶּׁה לִבְנֵי אֶפְרָיִם
BN: Now Menasheh had the land of Tapu'ach: but Tapu'ach on the border of Menasheh belonged to the children of Ephrayim.
Making clear that these are two entirely different places; the verse simply a reminder not to assume that they must be the same because they share a name.
17:9 VE YARAD HA GEVUL NACHAL KANAH NEGBAH LA NACHAL ARIM HA ELEH LE EPHRAYIM BETOCH AREY MENASHEH U GEVUL MENASHEH MI TSEPHON LA NACHAL VA YEHI TOTS'OTAV HA YAMAH
וְיָרַד הַגְּבוּל נַחַל קָנָה נֶגְבָּה לַנַּחַל עָרִים הָאֵלֶּה לְאֶפְרַיִם בְּתֹוךְ עָרֵי מְנַשֶּׁה וּגְבוּל מְנַשֶּׁה מִצְּפֹון לַנַּחַל וַיְהִי תֹצְאֹתָיו הַיָּמָּה
BN: And the border went down as far as the river Kanah, and then southward of the river; these cities of Ephrayim are among the cities of Menasheh. The border of Menasheh was also on the north side of the river, and its terminus was at the sea.
KANAH: Again see Joshua 12:17, and also 16:8. And again this bizarre business of tribes possessing towns and villages in each other's territory. Presumably it was because (forget the pseudo-history of the twelve tribes all being one family for a moment), the tribal regions were mapped on the plan of the heavens, and the various tribes who lived across borders needed to be guaranteed travel and trade freedoms: think of the problems with the north and south of Ireland when Brexit was being negotiated (click here), or issues for Spanish citizens who work in Gibraltar, families divided when Vietnam and Korea split, when Pakistan was founded etc. The people who live on the other side of the road from me pay much higher rates and council taxes, because the line dividing our boroughs is the road that separates us...
17:10 NEGBAH LE EPHRAYIM VE TSAPHONAH LI MENASHEH VA YEHI HA YAM GEVULO U VE ASHER YIPHGUN MI TSAPHON U VE YISASCHAR MI MIZRACH
נֶגְבָּה לְאֶפְרַיִם וְצָפֹונָה לִמְנַשֶּׁה וַיְהִי הַיָּם גְּבוּלֹו וּבְאָשֵׁר יִפְגְּעוּן מִצָּפֹון וּבְיִשָּׂשכָר מִמִּזְרָח
BN: To the south was Ephrayim's, and to the north was Menasheh's, and the sea was his border; and they met together in Asher in the north, and in Yisaschar on the east.
This name Yisaschar, Yissashchar, Yesh Shachur, Yah Shachur, Issachar, continues to perplex scholars and theologians. I continue to believe that Yisaschar was intended.
17:11 VA YEHI LIMNASHEH BE YISASCHAR U VE ASHER BEIT SHE'AN U VENOTEYHA VE YIVLE'AM U VENOTEYHA VE ET YOSHVEY DOR U VENOTEYHA VE YOSHVEY EYN DOR U VENOTEYHA VE YOSHVEY TA'NACH U VENOTEYHA VE YOSHVEY MEGIDO U VENOTEYHA SHELOSHET HA NAPHET
וַיְהִי לִמְנַשֶּׁה בְּיִשָּׂשכָר וּבְאָשֵׁר בֵּית שְׁאָן וּבְנֹותֶיהָ וְיִבְלְעָם וּבְנֹותֶיהָ וְאֶת יֹשְׁבֵי דֹאר וּבְנֹותֶיהָ וְיֹשְׁבֵי עֵין דֹּר וּבְנֹתֶיהָ וְיֹשְׁבֵי תַעְנַךְ וּבְנֹתֶיהָ וְיֹשְׁבֵי מְגִדֹּו וּבְנֹותֶיהָ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַנָּפֶת
BN: And Menasheh had territory in Yisaschar and in Asher Beit She'an and her suburbs, and Yivle'am and her suburbs, and the settlement of Dor and her suburbs, and the settlement of Eyn Dor and her suburbs, and the settlement of Ta'nach and her suburbs, and the settlement of Megido and her suburbs, these three cliffs.
But perhaps my explanation of why these borders make no geographical sense is not correct - perhaps I have applied a modern political stratagem where the ancients had other reasons. So letus ask again: why would one tribe have land in another's? What has Beit She'an to do with Asher - which is miles away to the north-west? Perhaps, if the tribes are not just ethnic tribes but, mythologically, totem clans, each one connected to a specific star within a constellation, then it would make perfect sense - existing shrines to the tribal deity would thereby be acknowledged, and the fact that stars and constellations move across the heavens permit the clans to gather where they need, on specific occasions: the passing of a comet, the rising of a new star, a meteorite storm at a certain time of year. This seems to make more sense than my previous conjecture: imagine a federal system like the USA, but everything in, say, Florida, is run by Florida, except for Orlando, which counts as Alabama, and Jacksonville, which counts as Georgia.
VE ET ...VENOTEYHA: Is it just a lazy scribe, or is there a grammatical reason why the ET (the indicator of an accusative noun) is suddenly dropped?
BEIT SHE'AN: See the link.
YIVLE'AM: See the link.
DOR... EYN DOR: Just as we had Tapu'ach and Eyn Tapu'ach, so we have Dor and Eyn Dor - the town and the spring or well or fountain which serves as a shrine. The latter will become famous when King Shau'l summons a soothsayer from Eyn Dor (1 Samuel 28:3–25). Not to be confused with the Endor that is also known as Tana among the Ewok species, though I am quite certain that George Lucas knew exactly what he was doing when he chose the name (he learned how to write filmscripts by reading Joseph Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces").
TA'NACH: See Joshua 12:21.
MEGIDO: Likewise see Joshua 12:21.
NAPHET: The root also yields NOPH, which means "a view", in the sense of a vista or panorama, and the sense of the word is a high place from which you can see for miles. As all the towns named here are on the Mediterranean coast, I have chosen "cliffs"; other translators go for the more general "countries" or "territories", though I have also seen "heights".
17:12 VE LO YACHLU BENEY MENASHEH LEHORISH ET HE ARIM HA ELEH VA YO'EL HA KENA'ANI LASHEVET BA ARETS HA ZOT
וְלֹא יָכְלוּ בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה לְהֹורִישׁ אֶת הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיֹּואֶל הַכְּנַעֲנִי לָשֶׁבֶת בָּאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת
BN: But the Beney Menasheh could not drive out the inhabitants of those cities; so the Kena'ani would dwell in that land.
Echoing the closing verse of the last chapter.
17:13 VA YEHI KI CHAZKU BENEY YISRA-EL VA YITNU ET HA KENA'ANI LAMAS VE HORESH LO HORIYSHO
וַיְהִי כִּי חָזְקוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי לָמַס וְהֹורֵשׁ לֹא הֹורִישֹׁו
BN: Yet it would come to pass, when the Beney Yisra-El grew powerful, that they would put the Kena'ani to tribute, though they never completely drove them out.
Again, as per the last hapter; see Joshua 16:10 (and so much for the Mosaic instruction to treat the stranger who is within your gate etc etc...).
samech break
17:14 VA YEDABRU BENEY YOSEPH ET YEHOSHU'A LE'MOR MADU'A NATATAH LI NACHALAH GORAL ECHAD VE CHEVEL ECHAD VA ANI AM RAV AD ASHER AD KOH BERCHANI YHVH
וַיְדַבְּרוּ בְּנֵי יֹוסֵף אֶת יְהֹושֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר מַדּוּעַ נָתַתָּה לִּי נַחֲלָה גֹּורָל אֶחָד וְחֶבֶל אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עַם רָב עַד אֲשֶׁר עַד כֹּה בֵּרְכַנִי יְהוָה
BN: Then the Beney Yoseph spoke to Yehoshu'a, saying: "Why have you only given me one lot and one portion to inherit, seeing that I am a great people, forasmuch as YHVH has blessed me up until now?"
The usual story of greed, hubris, vanity and self-entitlement. If they were Americans they would have hired a lawyer and sued over this! And see my note to verse 7 for the argument by the lawyers on the other side!
And then ask (again!): are we misunderstanding this concept of "lots"? And I really do mean it in the sense that Ephrayim wants lots and lots and then still more lots. Scholars have always taken it as the "Purim" concept of a "lottery", and you gets what you gets when your ticket comes up. But the American construction talks about "building lots", where the English talks about "building sites", and perhaps this is what it really is: Yehoshu'a as big chief gets to decide who gets what, has already taken the best for himself, and may or may not be amenable to the bullies of Ephrayim twisting his arm for another portion.
Which would also help explain why some sections of one tribe's lands end up with another: you can have the whole of Florida, but not Palm Beach because I'm giving that to...
AM RAV: Which could be regarded as a description of their sheer weight of numbers (the figures from the two censues can be found at Numbers 1 and Numbers 26), or it could be a statement of the power of their fists.
But (again) they are named as the Beney Yoseph, and not separately as Ephrayim and Menasheh - and we have already seen that they received some of the largest, and best, of all the territories. But were they not supposed to receive their inheritance by lot? And did they not all swear loyalty to the system of tribal allocation, as part of their covenant with the deity? And.... and... and....
Or is this just a piece of retroactive derogation, from after the division of the kingdom?
17:15 VA YOMER ALEHYEM YEHOSHU'A IM AM RAV ATAH ALEH LECHA HA YA'ERAH U VER'E'TA LECHA SHAM BE ERETS HA PERIZI VE HA REPHA'IM KI ATS LECHA HAR EPHRAYIM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהֹושֻׁעַ אִם עַם רַב אַתָּה עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה וּבֵרֵאתָ לְךָ שָׁם בְּאֶרֶץ הַפְּרִזִּי וְהָרְפָאִים כִּי אָץ לְךָ הַר אֶפְרָיִם
BN: And Yehoshu'a answered them: If you are a great people, then go up to the forest-lands, and clear a territory for yourself there, in the land of the Perizi, and of the giants, if Mount Ephrayim is too narrow for you."
Was it already called "the hill country of Ephrayim"? Surely that must be a term from after the conquest.
If they are receiving land as two tribes, why are they given the first person singular here?
Don't forget that this is being written in Yehudah, and the rivalry between the southern kingdom of Yehudah and the northern kingdom of Yisra-El, which was actually known at the time as Ephrayim and not Yisra-El, was still raging even 200 years after the northern kingdom had vanished into the history of Sennacherib's conquest.
Is Yehoshu'a being sarcastic or simply dismissive here? I am inclined to translate the first part as "If you are such a great people..." Good for him either way, for refusing to be bullied.
PERIZI: See the link.
17:16 VA YOMRU BENEY YOSEPH LO YIMATSE LANU HA HAR VE RECHEV BARZEL BE CHOL HA KENA'ANI HA YOSHEV BE ERETS HA EMEK LA ASHER BE VEIT SHE'AN U VENOTEYHA VE LA ASHER BE EMEK YIZRE-EL
PERIZI: See the link.
17:16 VA YOMRU BENEY YOSEPH LO YIMATSE LANU HA HAR VE RECHEV BARZEL BE CHOL HA KENA'ANI HA YOSHEV BE ERETS HA EMEK LA ASHER BE VEIT SHE'AN U VENOTEYHA VE LA ASHER BE EMEK YIZRE-EL
וַיֹּאמְרוּ בְּנֵי יֹוסֵף לֹא יִמָּצֵא לָנוּ הָהָר וְרֶכֶב בַּרְזֶל בְּכָל הַכְּנַעֲנִי הַיֹּשֵׁב בְּאֶרֶץ הָעֵמֶק לַאֲשֶׁר בְּבֵית שְׁאָן וּבְנֹותֶיהָ וְלַאֲשֶׁר בְּעֵמֶק יִזְרְעֶאל
KJ: And the children of Joseph said, The hill is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of Bethshean and her towns, and they who are of the valley of Jezreel.
BN: And the Beney Yoseph said: "The hill is not enough for us. All the Kena'ani who dwell in the land of the valley have iron chariots, both the ones from Beit She'an and her suburbs, and the ones who live in the Yizre-El valley."
The inference is that the vast tribal territory of Ephrayim is actually not that vast at all, except perhaps as a theoretical sometime-land, and that the tiny region around what they are now calling Mount Ephrayim is all that they have managed to obtain, and they have little hope for the rest, because the inhabitants have a better equipped army.
Though "chariots of iron" is an anachronism. There is no evidence of iron in any usage at all in the middle east before around 1100 BCE, two hundred years after these supposed events - click here and/or here for the latest archaeology.
YIZRE-EL: See my notes to Joshua 15:56.
17:17 VA YOMER YEHOSHU'A EL BEIT YOSEPH LE EPHRAYIM VE LIMNASHEH LEMOR AM RAV ATAH VE CHO'ACH GADOL LACH LO YIHEYEH LECHA GORAL ECHAD...
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶל בֵּית יֹוסֵף לְאֶפְרַיִם וְלִמְנַשֶּׁה לֵאמֹר עַם רַב אַתָּה וְכֹחַ גָּדֹול לָךְ לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ גֹּורָל אֶחָד
BN: And Yehoshu'a spoke to the house of Yoseph, to both Ephrayim and Menasheh, saying: "You are a great people, and have great power: you shall not have just one portion...
What a shame, he gave in after all. Proof that bullying works! Or was it the whining that persuaded Yehoshu'a? I can't believe that he just gave in to these spoiled brats ...
After the unification by King David, Ephrayim and Menasheh became the central regions, geographically as well as politically, while some tribes died out or were absorbed into others, or moved, or were conquered; this appears to be a justification of their predominance, retroactively like so many of these Biblical tales. Either way, it makes Yoseph predominant over all the other tribes, save only Yehudah - though of course this history is written down by Yehudah.
17:18 KI HAR YIHEYEH LACH KI YA'AR HU U VERE'TO VE HAYAH LECHA TOTS'OTAV KI TORISH ET HA KENA'ANI KI RECHEV BARZEL LO KI CHAZAKH HU
כִּי הַר יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כִּי יַעַר הוּא וּבֵרֵאתֹו וְהָיָה לְךָ תֹּצְאֹתָיו כִּי תֹורִישׁ אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי כִּי רֶכֶב בַּרְזֶל לֹו כִּי חָזָק הוּא
BN: But the mountain shall be yours. For it is forest-land; and you shall cut it down, and its produce shall be yours; and you shall drive out the Kena'ani, though they have iron chariots, and though they be strong."
Yehoshua's response actually deserves smiling respect - because he hasn't really given in to their bullying at all, but simply found a strategy to deal with it. "Boys, you can have an extra portion - if you can win it for yourselves. And if you are really such a great people as you claim, what are iron weaponry and chariots to you? Go prove your greatness by taking the land." No answer to that, except to do it, or fail.
For the information: they failed.
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment