There are two questions that arise at this point. First, considering that Manasheh was born in Egypt, how and when did he develop connections to his territory? Second – a larger question about the apportionment map in general – if Manasheh, as one of Joseph’s two children, was only a half-tribe in the first place, why was his territory so enormous? Indeed, Manasheh’s territory is the largest of the tribes of Israel. In the Transjordan, Manasheh inherited the entire land of King Og of Bashan, from half of Gilead in the south up to and including Mount Hermon in the north, and from the Sea of Galilee and the northern Jordan in the west until Jabal al-Druze in the east. In the Cisjordan, Manasheh’s territory includes northern Samaria from Shechem and Nahal Qana in the south until the Jezreel Valley in the north, including most of the Sharon plain in the west and the Jordan Rift Valley in the east (as well as additional territory in the valleys and in the northern Sharon; see Joshua 17:11). How did such a thing come to be?
“The Allotments of the Tribes of Israel” (from R. Palmer, The Bible Atlas, London 1831, plate XIX). The general framework fits the approach of contemporary scholarship. Note the two portions allotted to Manasheh. The answer to these questions was supplied by an early and original commentator on the book of Chronicles, known as “the student of Rabbi Saadia Gaon.”
The genealogical lists in Chronicles (I Chronicles 2:21) mention the conquests of Jair son of Manasheh in Gilead and Bashan in connection with the early generations of the tribe of Judah, without mentioning at all the Egyptian enslavement, the Exodus or the conquests of Joshua. “The student of Rabbi Saadia Gaon,” in his commentary there, maintains that Machir and his sons took possession of territory in the land of Israel “during the rulership of Joseph, who was king of the land.” After Joseph died, the land changed hands:
The gentiles attacked them, took [the territories] from their hands and settled in them until [Israel] came to the land of Israel [during the time of Moses]. Because of this, the descendants of Machir desired to settle the land of Gilead, so Moses gave them land from the holdings of their ancestor.
The presumption of “the student of Rabbi Saadia Gaon” that there were Egyptian provinces in the land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan was apparently based on various verses in Genesis (e.g., “So all the world came to Joseph in Egypt to procure rations” [41:57]; “And the money gave out in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan” [47:15]; “Chariots, too, and horsemen went up with him... they came to Goren Ha-Atad” [50:9-10]). Today this approach might be supported by the Egyptian sources and by the Amarna Letters.
This name was given to him by the Tosafists. He apparently lived during the tenth century CE. He quotes extensively from the writings of Rabbi Saadia, but also from the first grammarian Rabbi Judah ibn Quraysh and from the teachings of the sages of Kairouan, in modern-day Tunisia.
“The student of Rabbi Saadia Gaon” points out another significant verse in this context: “Since Machir, the first-born of Manasheh, was a valiant warrior, Gilead and Bashan were assigned to him” (Joshua 17:1). Chazal interpreted this verse to mean that Machir lived to be almost two hundred fifty years old. He was born during Jacob’s lifetime and died after Moses’ death, and at the age of about 235 he fought in battles and conquered territory (Seder Olam 9 and parallels). It is clear that this is a homiletic explanation, but what is the simple truth of the matter? From a linguistic perspective it is difficult to interpret this verse to mean that the family of Machir consisted of valiant warriors. The phrase “a valiant warrior” is rendered in the singular and not in the plural. According to “the student of Rabbi Saadia Gaon,” however, this verse is not referring to the time of Joshua but to the time of Joseph. Machir – the man, Joseph’s grandson, whose children were “born upon Joseph’s knees” (Genesis 50:23) – was a valiant warrior and Gilead and Bashan were assigned to him. Since Machir and his sons held possession of the territories of Gilead and Bashan years earlier, their descendants were given these territories during the time of Moses and Joshua.
Having established this interpretation of the verse, “the student of Rabbi Saadia Gaon” suggests an innovative explanation for the final verses in Parshas Matos: “Know, now, an excellent explanation – that those details in the Chumash regarding Machir, Jair and Nobah are related retroactively, for Machir, Jair and Nobah did not take any [land] in the wilderness” (i.e., in the time after the period of wandering in the wilderness).
Rabbi Judah the Pious, the leader of Hasidei Ashkenaz during the time of the Tosafists, in his commentary on the Torah in the name of his father Rabbi Samuel the Pious (Exodus 1:7):
My father would prove from Chronicles that throughout the time that Israel was in Egypt, they would occasionally travel to the soil of Jacob our father and would build cities there. And I believe that the descendants of Joseph specifically would do this, and they had permission [to do so] from Pharaoh; in respect to Joseph, Pharaoh would treat them with respect, [allowing them] to improve and strengthen their inheritance. And they would settle the land with tenants and charge them a tax...
A similar opinion is found in the commentary of Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel on our parsha:
Some say that Joseph bought these cities during the time of famine in Egypt, and after his death Ammon and others seized them. And now that Israel has gained the upper hand over them and the cities have been restored to Israel’s possession, the descendants of Machir requested the inheritance of their matriarch.
Further, the book of Numbers had a census during the second year and again in the 40th year. The only tribe to grow significantly was the tribe of Manasheh, which grew from 32,200 to 52,700. What is the background for the unexpected surge – over twenty thousand additional men – in Manasheh’s population?
Perhaps we may make a bold speculation, going one step beyond what the previous generation’s scholars dared suggest. It may be that the twenty thousand men that were added to the tribe of Manasheh in the plains of Moab were descendants of Machir, Jair and Nobah, who never returned to Egypt after establishing cities in the Transjordan, but rather remained in the land of Bashan.
To summarize: The picture that arises from the innovative approach advocated earliest by “the student of Rabbi Saadia Gaon,” later by others, is that the sons of Jacob had already drawn up a general, basic plan for apportioning the land between themselves in the future – even before they emigrated to Egypt. In addition, the sons of Joseph were active in settling whole regions of the land during the time that their father served as second-in-command to Pharaoh, perhaps even at his behest. After Joseph, his brothers and that entire generation died out, when “a new king arose over Egypt who did not know Joseph,” the people’s grip on these holdings in the land of Israel collapsed. However, their yearning for the land and the territories that were designated for each of the tribes continued to resonate within the people. This yearning influenced the names they gave their children, the blessings that Moses bestowed upon the people and, in the end, the very conquest of the land and its apportionment.
For further study:
- Yoel Elitzur, “Anashim Ve-nachalot Bi-Menasheh U-veshivtei Yisrael,” Al Atar 4-5 (1999), 243-249 [Hebrew].
- Y. Kiel, Da’at Mikra: Divrei Ha-yamim I (introduction), 64-66; II, 87-89 [Hebrew].
- R. Kirchheim (compiler), Peirush al Divrei Ha-yamim: Meyuchas Le-echad Mi-talmidei Sa’adia Ga’on, Mutza Le-or al pi Shelosha Kitvei Yad, Jerusalem 1966 (Frankfurt am Main 1874) [Hebrew].
- Y. Medan, “Chavira el Ha-Eretzyisraelim,” Makor Rishon: Shabbat, Erev Shabbat Parashat Matot-Masei, 27 Tammuz 5770 (July 9, 2010), 2-3.
- E. Viezel, “Context, Harmonization, and the Uniqueness of the Commentaries to the Book of Chronicles,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 22 (2015).
