Genèse 48:22

and I, behold, I have given to thee the city of Shekem, one portion for a gift above thy brethren, which I took from the hand of the Amoraee at the time that you went into the midst of it, and I arose and helped you with my sword and with my bow.

MOREOVER I HAVE GIVEN TO THEE ONE PORTION ABOVE THY BRETHREN. After he had blessed Joseph’s children and made them two tribes, he returned to Joseph and said to him: “Behold, I die; but G-d will be with you in exile in order to save you from all trouble, and you will increase and multiply exceedingly, and He will bring you back to the land of your fathers to inherit it. I have already given you the one portion in my power to bestow — namely, the portion of the birthright — to be yours above that of your brothers, right from the day that I took it out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.” All this is a conciliation to Joseph and a manifestation of his love for him, for he informed him that he gave him the birthright, meaning that his sons will henceforth be blessed by becoming two tribes, also in the banners which were assigned in the desert, and in the dedication of the Tabernacle by the princes of the tribes., Chapter 7. He also gave him his portion in the inheritance which he would acquire when the children of Israel will conquer the Land by sword and bow and war. Jacob thus told him: “I have done for you all the good which I was able to do for you as long as it was in my power to do it.” Jacob’s right in the Land was but one portion for he had no right to divest any of his sons of his inheritance. Only the birthright was his to give to whomever he pleased, and it was to Joseph that he gave it.

ואני, and what I say to you now refers to that land, נתתי לך, I have assigned to you, שכם אחד, a share על אחיך, over and beyond the shares which you will divide with your brothers in territory which I and my offspring will conquer from the Emorite in the future with my sword and bow, (in the wars conducted by Joshua). [The author, whose exegesis of the past tense used in Yaakov’s statement is most remarkable, now deals with possible objections that could be raised against his interpretation of Yaakov’s words. Ed.] Even though it is written in the Book of Joshua 24,12 לא בחרבך ולא בקשתך, “not with your sword nor with your bow (did you drive out the Emorite, but because G’d sent scorpions and the like against these people,” this verse does not contradict what Yaakov said here. Firstly, these scorpions did not cross the river Jordan, so how can we understand Joshua quoting G’d as saying “I have sent the scorpions ahead of you to drive out the two Kings of the Emorite, etc.” (same verse)? When reading the words quoted in Joshua before, we must put the stress on the pronoun endings of the words בחרבך בקשתך, i.e. “your sword, your bow. Joshua meant that although on the face of it appeared that your prowess with the sword and bow accounts for your successful conquest, your success was due to the merit of your ancestor Yaakov. The effect of that merit was equivalent to the effect of well trained archers and swordsmen using their physical weapons.

ואני נתתי לך, Yaakov emphasises the word אני in order to explain that he was not violating any of the rules pertaining to the distribution of the land of Canaan to the tribes, seeing such a distribution was not yet something at hand, but was still in the realm of the potential. Seeing that he, Yaakov, had personally conquered the city of Shechem, in spite of this city being part of the land of Canaan, seeing that he had taken it from the “Emorite,” i.e. someone whose deeds were as evil as those of the Emorite, (although the inhabitants had been Hittites), what he was allocating to Joseph now was an actual, a gift bestowed by him now, and had no bearing on any distribution of land conquered by Joshua in the future. Yaakov hints that givers who promise a lot wind up actually not even keeping part of their promises, such as Esau. When Yaakov, at the time, had bought the birthright from Esau, Esau forfeited not only his additional share in the land as a firstborn but wound up without any share in the land of Canaan whatsoever.

בחרבי ובקשתי, through my intelligence and insight (חכמה ובינה). Whereas the weapons of warriors are the sword and the bow, the equivalent weapons of the righteous, the scholars, are their wisdom and understanding. This is what Psalms 45,4 has in mind when the author writes: חגור חרבך על ירך גבור. Our sages in Shabbat 63 already commented on this verse that the psalmist does not refer to actual weapons but to the use of words of Torah as being the tools used by the Torah scholar. [The interpretation of this verse as something allegorical, and almost diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the text, is disputed by some scholars in the Talmud there. Ed.]

שכם, another word meaning חלק. The word occurs in the same sense in Psalms 21,13 כי תשיתמו שכם, as well as in Tzefania 3,9 ולעבדו שכם אחד.

אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי, as if the Torah had written this in the future tense, i.e. “which I am going to take from the Emorite.” It is quite common for the past tense to be employed instead of the future tense. When reporting prophecies, Scripture very frequently resorts to describing something in the future as if it had already taken place. [presumably in order to strengthen the belief of the reader in such prophecies, positive ones, to the fulfillment of which one looks forward. Ed.]

When Yaakov said: לקחתי, “I will take or I took,” he did not refer to his own person but to the extension of himself, his children or offspring. The same is true also when he said: ובחרבי ובקשתי, “and with my sword and with my bow.” He referred to the sword and bow used by the members of the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe in the conquest during the days of Joshua. Although we read in the Book of Joshua 24,12 לא בחרבך ולא בקשתך, that Joshua is reminding the Jewish people that their victory was not due to their prowess in the martial arts, our sages already explained that Joshua did not mean to deny the facts, but to deny faulty interpretations of the facts, by not giving the credit for their success to G’d’s help, or in this case, for the assistance of the merit of their illustrious ancestor Yaakov. This is not the only time in Scripture that we encounter such apparently enigmatic statements. We read in Samuel II 22,3 that David speaks of G’d being “my shield, my fortress and my refuge.” Any fool can understand that David did not consider G’d as an invisible shield, seeing he had refused to use one in his fight against Goliath, for instance. He indicated that without G’d’s help, even if holding a shield in his hand, such a shield would have been powerless to protect him.

ואני נתתי לך, “I have given (allocated) to you;” Rabbi Moshe raises the point that Yaakov was directly responsible for fuelling jealousy between the brothers, commencing already with giving his son Joseph a garment that was visibly more expensive than those worn by his brothers. On account of this error in judgment, the whole family descended to Egypt, only to become enslaved for hundreds of years after initially having been welcomed there. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 10) We must also marvel that Joseph followed in his father’s footsteps by giving his full brother Binyamin far more valuable gifts than he gave to his other brothers (Genesis 45,22). In order to answer these questions we must remember that what Yaakov gave to Joseph was done while he was relatively young and immature, younger than 17 years old, an age at which Ishmael in Genesis 21,14 has still been described by the Torah as a ילד, “a child;” at that time the brothers who were jealous of him had reason to be so. What had he done to deserve preferential treatment by his father? Now that his dreams had come true, not only did they not feel jealous of him, but they were grateful and proud of his achievements. Moreover, they had become economically dependent upon him. Even if he had not treated them well, they were legally obligated to honour him on account of his position. If he gave Binyamin more gifts, that was easily explained by the fact that he was his only full brother. However, what bothers me is that at a time when he had not yet revealed to the brothers who he was, (Genesis 43,34) the brothers of Binyamin must have asked themselves for the reason that this ruler of Egypt who had –according to their assumption- never previously laid eyes on Binyamin, should have given him five times as much as he gave to them. Surely, this would have aroused the other brothers’ jealousy of Binyamin. However, the brothers found a reason for this also, as they considered it as Joseph compensating Binyamin for having insisted that he make the journey to Egypt just because he had not trusted the brothers’ statement that he even existed. Furthermore, I believe that Joseph, already at that point, had decided to reveal his true identity. He was certain that as soon as they would find out that he, Joseph, was a full brother of Binyamin, they would not begrudge him the additional gifts. Some commentators explain the words: שכם אחד, in our verse, the extra portion of ancestral parts of the land of Israel, allocated by Yaakov to Joseph, as referring to the grave in that city in which the remains of Joseph would be interred after the Israelites taking over that country. (Compare Joshua 24,32) The matter can be compared to a parable of thieves who had robbed the owner of a vineyard of a full casket of wine when they were found out by the owner. That owner asked the thieves to do him one favour; seeing that they had already emptied the casket of its contents he asked them to at least return the empty casket to him. Joseph had been sold in Sh’chem. The time had come to at least bring his remains back there. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah, 85,3).