There was not among the tribal naĥalot a land full of all that is good like the land of Joseph.
Rashi, ad loc.
Why was Israel subjugated to all the nations? So that within Israel they would live on, for Israel must incorporate the world.
Zohar, Exodus 16b
Manasseh: The Diaspora Jew
I have lived most my life within the dream of nationhood. The ingathering of the Diaspora of Jewish exile back to our homeland, and the establishment of the modern Jewish state, Israel, are the most natural and wondrous of miracles, and I thrill at being a part of it all. My reality is, indeed, a dream: “When God brings about the return to Zion, we are veritable dreamers!” Diaspora Jews are meant to be foreign relics, to my thinking – they have lived out their time, and now must join the national enterprise of building the Land of Israel. Their institutions must be dismantled, their comforts undone.
And yet. Though I live in a dream, reaping with songs of joy and rejoicing in the great things that God has done for us, I look back at the fullness of Jewish history and understand how much we needed the exiles of thousands of years (interrupted by periods of autonomy in Eretz Yisrael) to form our national character. Joseph, the very foundation of our nation, ushered Benei Yisrael into exile – an exile that God Himself decreed as critical to our national mission.1Genesis 15:13–14.
Joseph named his two sons after exile, so central had that concept become to his being:
Joseph named the firstborn Manasseh, because “God has made me forget completely [nishani] my hardship and my parental home.”
He named his second son Ephraim, because “God has made me fertile [hifrani] in the land of my affliction.”
Genesis 41:51–52
Joseph insisted that his brothers and father settle permanently in Goshen, though they were reluctant to do so. They legitimately feared the dangers of assimilation as a threat to their “national” identity. Joseph, however, knew that Israel had to absorb the beauty, gifts, and knowledge of our host countries, own them, and fully appreciate them in order to fulfill our national destiny. We could only have come into our own after a long, exhaustive era of exiles among different foreign nations:
Why was Israel subjugated to all the nations? So that within Israel they would live on, for Israel must incorporate the world.
Zohar, Exodus 16b
Jewish tradition is to bless our children that God make them as Ephraim and Manasseh,2Genesis 48:20. people whose very names reflected aspirations for success within the broader world. More profoundly, and painfully: Manasseh and Ephraim represented the very forgetting of our roots in Eretz Yisrael, a necessary stage in our national development. Joseph understood, as we must, the necessity of letting go for a time, of planting ourselves firmly in galut (exile), though it may be a “land of affliction.”
The rich and profound contributions of exile must not be glibly dismissed; they supplied a critical component to our national character. We did not plod blindly through thousands of years of Diaspora; we lived them deeply, absorbing and reacting – only because we could forget. “God has made me forget completely all of my hardship, and all of my roots.”
Yet even as he named his child for forgetting, Joseph earnestly anticipated the end of exile, and with it, the return to Eretz Yisrael. A man who lived in dreams and potential, he foresaw the distant redemption – and planned on being a part of it:
“I am about to die. God will surely remember you, and bring you up from this land to the land that He promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” So Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying, “When God has remembered you, you shall carry up my bones from here.”
Genesis 50:24–25
God will not allow you to forget completely, Joseph assured, for He shall remember you.
As it would be wrong to deny the necessity of galut, it would be a far graver folly to continue “going along weeping, and sowing in tears.” Pakod pakadeti etkhem – the time has come, for I have surely remembered you. We proudly carry the galut names Manasseh and Ephraim with us always, as a memory of our successes in incorporating the world, but we pray fervently: may all our future Manassehs and Ephraims be as dreamers, living as we do in our homeland.
Manasseh and Ephraim
Genesis is dominated by a pattern of challenging primogeniture. With each story, there was an excitement, a fanfare, about the firstborn, but very often it was the younger child who ended up dominating. Despite the auspicious hope of Cain’s naming – “I have acquired a man from the Lord” – Abel was chosen. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael. After a long battle, Jacob trumped Esau. Joseph also trumped all of his older brothers, and was declared by his father to be “the pinnacle.” This central pattern of Genesis was given concrete form in the scene where Jacob blessed Joseph’s children:
Joseph took the two of them, Ephraim with his right hand, to Israel’s left, and Manasseh with his left hand, to Israel’s right, and brought them close to him. But Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, though he was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head – thus crossing his hands – although Manasseh was the firstborn.…Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh.
Genesis 48:13–20
Here, the choice of the secondborn was made extremely explicit. It was almost as if Jacob was recreating that fateful day where he tricked Isaac into giving him Esau’s blessing, and “righting that wrong” by making this blessing a matter of choice, rather than deceit. The preference of Ephraim over the firstborn Manasseh was not surprising then. What was surprising was Joseph’s response.
At the very moment that Joseph was chosen over his many older brothers to receive a choice blessing, he attempted to force his father to choose the firstborn. Despite a long family tradition of dismissing or inverting birth order, Joseph stubbornly presented Manasseh to his father’s right hand, and then argued with Jacob that it was Manasseh who deserved the superior blessing:
When Joseph saw that his father was placing his right hand on Ephraim’s head, he thought it wrong; so he took hold of his father’s hand to move it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s. “Not so, Father,” Joseph said to his father, “for the other is the firstborn; place your right hand on his head.” But his father objected, saying, “I know, my son, I know.”
Genesis 48:17–19
The scene is evocative, especially in Joseph’s surprising defense of the usually maligned firstborn. On one level, it seems to indicate a particularly close relationship between Joseph and Manasseh. The midrash certainly painted a consistent portrait of Manasseh as Joseph’s right-hand man, steward of his house, his shamash [minister].3Targum Yerushalmi, Genesis 48:16; Tan. B. Miketz 13. Joseph groomed Manasseh in his likeness. When Joseph’s brothers descended to Egypt in search of food, it was Manasseh’s qualities that first alerted the brothers – who were unmindfully interacting with Joseph and his supposed steward – that something was amiss:
Judah threatened: “If you do not comply with our demand [to release Benjamin], I will draw my sword, cut you down first, and then Pharaoh!” Upon hearing this threat, Joseph made a sign, and Manasseh stamped his foot on the ground. The whole palace shook. Judah said: “Only one belonging to our family could have such power!”
Genesis Rabbah 93:64Simeon reacts similarly to Manasseh’s earlier show of strength when the latter imprisons him. Tan. VaYigash 4.
According to the midrash, Joseph taught Hebrew to Manasseh. The “translator” (Genesis 42:43) whom Joseph appointed so as to keep up the ruse that he did not understand his brothers’ native tongue was identified by the midrash as Manasseh.5BR 91:8; Targum Yerushalmi, Genesis 42:43. Manasseh guarded the gates of Egypt6BR 91:4. and faithfully followed his father’s every command.7Tan. B. Miketz 13. This first son, then, seemed primed by Joseph to receive the ultimate blessing from his grandfather.
Yet, though Jacob reassured Joseph that Manasseh would not be forgotten, he insisted on granting the superior blessing to the younger Ephraim: “He too shall become a people, and he too shall be great. Yet his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall be plentiful enough for nations” (Genesis 48:19).
As Joseph entered with his two sons, Jacob declared that the future of the nation of Israel would feel the impact of these two grandsons as much as they would feel that of the personalities of the other tribes: “Manasseh and Ephraim will be as Reuben and Simeon to me” (Genesis 48:5). Jacob understood that Ephraim was destined for a measure of greatness beyond that of his older brother. No matter Joseph’s preference, Jacob envisioned Ephraim dominating Manasseh, both then and in the future: “Yesimkha Elokim ke-Ephraim ve-khe-Menasheh” (May God make you like Ephraim [first, and then] like Manasseh).8“I know Gideon will be of Manasseh; but Joshua will come from Ephraim!” BR 97:4–5; MHG I, 717 and 722–723; Tan. VeYeĥi 6; PRE 12b; Targum Yerushalmi, Genesis 48:20.
Indeed, Manasseh developed to be relatively unremarkable among the tribes,9His noted descendants include the daughters of Zelophehad, his descendant Yair, whose loss at the Battle of Ai was considered a significant national tragedy (VR 11:17; Bava Batra 121b; Yerushalmi, Sotah 7, 22a. Also BR 39:16 and Sanhedrin 44b), and the conflicted King Jehu son of Nimshi who destroyed the temple of Baal, but did not entirely follow the ways of the Torah (II Kings 10:25–31). For the midrashic association of nimshi with Manasseh, see PR 3, 12b; Yerushalmi, Horayot 3, 47c. to be overshadowed time and again by Ephraim’s reputation.10Just a few of many examples: Isaiah 7:8, 17; 11:13; 28:1; Jeremiah 21:19; Ezekiel 37:16; Hosea 7:1. This made the scene of the blessing all the more evocative. Was Joseph’s insistence that Manasseh dominate merely a fatherly flight of fancy? If so, let us ask: Why did Jacob make the bizarre move of crossing his hands, rather than just switching the boys’ positions? It is striking that Manasseh remained on Jacob’s right side, even though he did not receive Jacob’s right hand in blessing.
Implied in Jacob’s decision to leave Manasseh standing to his right was a certain latent promise he saw in this grandson. The Benei Yisaskhar, a classic work of Hassidic thought on the festivals and months,11Benei Yisaskhar, Ĥodesh Mar-Ĥeshvan 1:5. Also Ĥodesh Tishrei 5:4. notes that the month of the year corresponding to Manasseh is Mar-Ĥeshvan, a month that at first glance is as unremarkable as Manasseh is slighted and overlooked. We are reminded, though, that the building of the First Temple was completed in Mar-Ĥeshvan, even though its inauguration was delayed until the following Tishrei. Mar-Ĥeshvan was robbed, in a sense, of its grandeur. This is in contrast to Kislev, the month in which the Mishkan (Tabernacle) was completed. There, the midrash specifies:
Though the Mishkan was not put into service until the following Nisan, Kislev got its due later on in history, when the Hasmoneans rededicated the Second Temple in that month. And Mar-Ĥeshvan, too, will be compensated: the Third Temple will be dedicated in Mar-Ĥeshvan.
Yalkut Shimoni, Kings, 184
These three months of Temple inaugurals – Tishrei for the First Temple, Kislev for the Second Temple, and Mar-Ĥeshvan for the Third Temple – all correspond to the sons of Rachel. Tishrei is Ephraim’s month, and Kislev Benjamin’s. Rachel, the source of passion, provided the basis of avodah, of service. Just as the relationship to Rachel made Jacob’s service to Laban an act of love, the relationship to Rachel’s children yielded Benei Yisrael a home for the service of God. The Mikdash, locus of intimate relationships with God, had to be dedicated time and again in the months that correspond to the benei Rachel.
And in standing as a symbol of peace and universal unity,12Isaiah 56:6–9. each Temple also provided an answer to the dangers of Rachel – the individualistic charisma that can cause division as well as passion.13From Ephraim came Jeroboam son of Nebat, who divided the united kingdom of Beit David in the days of Rehoboam son of Solomon (I Kings 12). The Ephramites also antagonized Gideon (Judges 8:1), and waged war against the judge Jephthah (Judges 12:1–6). The tribe of Benjamin brought the entire nation to civil war through its misdeeds, most egregiously in the case of the concubine at Gibeah (Judges 19–21). And Abimelech of Manasseh, son of Gideon, turned viciously on his family, murdering them all and anointing himself ruler over Shechem and the surrounding land (Judges 9). Whether for good or bad, breakdown or healing, the First and Second Temples were launched in months that fell under the purview of Rachel’s sons.
Manasseh, though, is linked to the month that is bitter: as the second month of the year; it bears the intrinsic division of being Number Two.14BR 4:6; see also the introduction to Tosfei ha-Rosh, found in Hadar Zekenim Baalei Ha-Tosafot. The flood, born of human quarreling and hatred, began in Mar-Ĥeshvan, and the kingdom of David was split between Rehoboam and Jeroboam in Mar-Ĥeshvan. Manasseh himself was dogged by this divisiveness: his was the only naĥalah to be divided into two.15While Dan’s naĥalah was also located in two separate regions, it did not start out as such, but was an expansion, thanks to that tribe’s conquests.
Is there some sort of rectification that can be made for this month? Remember that the First Temple, the symbol of peace built by the peaceful king,16Solomon, who built the First Temple, was named after the concept of shalom (peace). PRE 31. was completed in Mar-Ĥeshvan. Within every flaw is the core of its tikkun, or repair: if divisiveness permeates the month’s character, then unity and peace must be latent there as well!17For an expansion of this idea, see Rabbi Tzadok Ha-Kohen, Tzidkat Ha-Tzadik, 76. The utopian peace promised by the dedication of the Third Temple18Ramban, Genesis 26:20. in Mar-Ĥeshvan will be the ultimate triumph of the erstwhile bitter month.
Now the strange ordering of tribes in Psalms 80:3 becomes clear:19Benei Yisaskhar, ibid. “Before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh arouse Your might, for it is You who save us.” The First Temple (inaugurated in Tishrei, the month of Ephraim) and the Second Temple (inaugurated in Kislev, the month of Benjamin) both defined troubled eras that did not end well. But the Third Temple (to be inaugurated in Mar-Ĥeshvan, the month of Manasseh) will bear none of the feud and dissonance that accompanied the first two. It will be: “Rehovot [expansive]…brought about without quarrel or feud, and God will enlarge our borders…and all peoples will come to worship God with one consent” (Ramban, Genesis 26:20).
This Third Temple will be launched by Manasseh20One rabbinic opinion has it that the Mashiaĥ ben Yosef will be descended from Manasseh (BaR 14:1). in the month of Manasseh. Manasseh was indeed the perfected image of Joseph, and Joseph made no error in positioning him firmly in place for the superior blessing (on Jacob’s right side). Joseph was correct, and Jacob concurred by leaving the boys in the positions in which their father presented them. He switched his hands to proffer the blessings of this world on Ephraim, but intimated that latent, later blessings are in store for Manasseh, Joseph’s right-hand man, who will one day have an undivided, single naĥalah.21Ezekiel 48:4. In this, he also offered a dream of restitution for all the disenfranchised firstborns of Genesis. Perhaps in some place, some time, they too will find wholeness.
Naĥalat Menasheh
Manasseh’s borders are described briefly in Joshua 17.22Verses 5–11. They shared a northern border with Asher, Zebulun, and Issachar, along the line where the mountainous region of Samaria yields to the Jezreel Valley. The tribe’s western border was the Mediterranean Sea. Manasseh shared a border with Ephraim in the south, running sharply southeast from Shechem toward the Jordan, and westward from Shechem along the Kaneh Brook. Their eastern border was the Jordan River.
Manasseh was granted a naĥalah on the eastern bank of the Jordan River as well. They inherited the higher inland mountains of Gilead from the Jabbok to the Yarmuk, as well as the remaining conquered area of Og, the king of Bashan, which may have stretched all the way up to the northern Golan. Two of Manasseh’s eight families inherited the Bashan; the other six families were allotted naĥalot in Eretz Yisrael proper.
Though Manasseh and Ephraim remained two distinct tribes, their naĥalot essentially formed one large, contiguous territory that they worked together to conquer. Their combined numbers were such that they found this densely forested, mountainous terrain too constricting:
The children of Joseph complained to Joshua, saying: “Why have you assigned as our portion a single allotment and a single district, seeing that we are a numerous people whom the Lord has blessed so greatly?” “If you are such a numerous people,” Joshua answered them, “go up to the forest country and clear an area for yourselves there, in the territory of the Perizzites and the Rephaim, seeing that you are cramped in the hill country of Ephraim.” “The hill country is not enough for us,” the children of Joseph replied, “and all the Canaanites who live in the valley area have iron chariots, both those in Beth-shean and its dependencies and those in the Valley of Jezreel.” But Joshua declared to the House of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, “You are indeed a numerous people, possessed of great strength; you shall not have one allotment only. The hill country shall be yours as well; true, it is forestland, but you will clear it and possess it to its farthest limits. And you shall also dispossess the Canaanites, even though they have iron chariots and even though they are strong.”
Joshua 17:14–18
Even if they denuded the forest, Manasseh and Ephraim argued to Joshua, the mountainous terrain would not suffice for their numbers. So Joshua suggested that Manasseh (perhaps with Ephraim’s aid) conquer the northern valleys on behalf of their weaker brethren, in exchange for which they would be granted certain cities that officially lay outside of their naĥalah, such as Megiddo, Taanach, Beth-shean, and En-dor. Despite Joshua’s suggestion, when Manasseh tried to wrest control away from the Canaanites, they stubbornly held on to these cities, and the tribe was not able to easily incorporate these strategic assets into its naĥalah.23Malbim, Joshua 17:14–18; see also verses 12–13.
Moses granted the tribesmen of Manasseh something they did not ask for: an additional portion on the eastern bank of the Jordan, alongside Gad and Reuben.24Numbers 32:33. The midrash offers causality beyond the practical:
Since Manasseh son of Joseph caused the shevatim to rend their clothes over the goblet that was found in Benjamin’s sack [because he had planted it], his naĥalah was torn in two: half apportioned in the Land of Israel proper, and half on the eastern side of the Jordan.
Lekaĥ Tov, 140
This seems to be a punative measure. Manasseh caused grief among the shevatim, therefore his descendants were deprived of one cohesive naĥalah. Upon further reflection, though, the midrash might be indicating something else entirely! Firstly, Manasseh’s naĥalah was indeed cohesive; it was actually the largest naĥalah, though it straddled both sides of the Jordan. Also of note is that Manasseh was essentially granted a double portion, as befit a firstborn – especially one whose position of primacy was not entirely rejected, as noted above.
Consider a different reading of the midrash, one that saw the brothers’ horrified reaction to finding the stashed goblet as a positive sign of progress. By tearing their garments – so reminiscent of the torn garments of Joseph and Jacob in the wake of Joseph’s sale to the Ishmaelites! – the shevatim finally demonstrated their care and concern for a son of Rachel. They feared for Benjamin, they stepped up to protect him…and only afterward could they once again be unified as a complete entity, the Benei Yisrael.
Manasseh, Joseph’s emissary in this whole affair, forced the brothers into a demonstration of arevut. It would seem entirely appropriate, then, that the ranks of the tribe that bore his name were divided along both sides of the Jordan, as a group with the unique capacity to promote interaction and relationship among all of the tribes. An ongoing fear of secession was greatly allayed by placing half of Manasseh, purveyor of arevut, in Ever Ha-Yarden (the east bank of the Jordan)25איתן פינקלשטיין, ״מדוע צרף משה את חצי המנשה לראובן וגד?״ עלון שבתון (פרשת מטות תשס״ז). Another explanation for Moses’s decision was that he felt that Manasseh, a tribe that symbolized galut, would survive on foreign soil (Kahn, Explorations, 398).
Visiting Naĥalat Menasheh
Itinerary: Mount Kabir lookout, Havat Mevo Dotan (Havat Ma’oz Tzvi), el-Ahwat
We start our tour on Mount Kabir, as it offers breathtaking views of northern Samaria from a height of 800 meters (approx. 2,600 feet) above sea level. Enter through Elon Moreh and follow the signs to Mount Kabir. The outlook points circle the mountaintop; begin with the southern view, with the Beit Dagan valley splayed out beneath. This valley empties right into Shechem, nestled between lush Mount Gerizim and bare Mount Ebal.26For more on Shechem, see “Visiting Levi” in chapter 4. The final battle between Abimelech (from Manasseh) and the Shechemites played out in the vista below.
The view from the east allows you to take in the likely site of Joshua’s altar, built by the nation’s leader as part of the ceremony establishing a covenant with God directly upon entering Eretz Yisrael. The Israelites first entered the land, heading straight for this location, by way of the Tirzah Valley, the wide and beautiful flatland spread out beneath you as you reach the northern outlook point. The dominant tel pushing up from the valley was biblical Tirzah, the capital of the Israelite kingdom for a time. The Tirzah Valley was heavily populated by Israelites (most likely from the tribe of Manasseh) during the earliest periods of Israelite settlement.
The name Tirzah is found elsewhere in the Bible: she was one of the five daughters of Zelophehad who, together with her sisters, asserted their right to their deceased father’s portion in Manasseh. Was this valley beneath us part of her inheritance?
To address that question, we must explore how Naĥalat Menasheh was split among his descendants. The naĥalah was divided into ten tracts, inherited by the six sons of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh:
For the children of Abiezer, for the children of Helek, for the children of Asriel, for the children of Shechem, for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida. Those were the male descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, by their clans. Now Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh had no sons, but only daughters. The names of his daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. They appeared before the priest Elazar, Joshua son of Nun, and the chieftains, saying: “God commanded Moses to give us a naĥalah among our brethren.” So in accordance with the Lord’s instructions, they were granted a portion among their father’s kinsmen. Ten districts fell to Manasseh – besides the land of Gilead and the Bashan that were across the Jordan. Manasseh’s daughters inherited a naĥalah in these together with his sons.
Joshua 17:2–6
This reference to the original story in Numbers 27 condensed a much longer narrative. The five daughters of Zelophehad approached Moses and requested that their father’s portion remain theirs, rather than be granted to his male relatives. Moses consulted with God, who commanded him to heed the women’s request. When the land was finally apportioned in the days of Joshua, it was divided among ten of Gilead’s descendants.
The simple meaning of Joshua 17:6, preceded as it is by the story of Zelophehad’s daughters’ request, is that Naĥalat Menasheh was divided into ten regions, five granted to the sons of Gilead who have male descendants, and the other five granted to the daughters of Zelophehad. As there was a ĥevel Aviezer, there was a ĥevel Tirzah.
As difficult as this explanation is,27For alternative interpretations of the ten divisions within Naĥalat Menasheh, see Malbim, ad loc., and Bava Batra 116b. it does seem to fit the simple meaning of the text, considering that the daughters of Zelophehad were essentially each inheriting a whole portion alongside their great-uncles as opposed to collectively inheriting the territory of their father. Archaeological evidence also backs this account of how Naĥalat Menasheh was allocated among five sons and five great-granddaughters of Gilead. The Shomron ostraca is a cache of sixty-four inscribed pottery sherds from the late ninth to the early eighth centuries Bce. These sherds, written in the capital of the Israelite kingdom, served as receipts of sale or some form of bookkeeping, and provide evidence that each of Zelophehad’s daughters inherited her own portion within Manasseh’s territory.
These ostraca, written in an ancient Hebrew script, basically followed a standard formula: year, territory from where goods ostensibly originated, name of government official(s), product. On some of the ostraca, the territory names given are recognizable as clans from Manasseh. Alongside Shemida and Abiezer were found ostraca inscribed with the clan names Hoglah and Noah, irrefutable proof that each of Zelophehad’s daughters separately constituted one of the ten divisions of the naĥalah referenced in Joshua 17.
Yoel Elitzur suggested that a closer examination of the ostraca might reveal a more precise location for ĥevel Ĥoglah. The two ostraca that mention Hoglah also reference Yazith as a specific village in that ĥevel. “Yazith” was found on three additional ostraca; on one of them, the government official is listed as Aĥnoam, who was also apparently administrator over Geba.
Geba and another village, Bedan, are often mentioned together in rabbinic literature as neighboring locales that were blessed with superior produce. All three of these villages – Yazith, Geba, and Bedan – were located within a twelve-kilometer (approx. seven-mile) radius between Mount Ebal and the Sanur Valley. This area is the most likely contender for ĥevel Ĥoglah.
Hoglah’s region, as of this writing, is inaccessible to the casual tourist. It remains in the national conscience, though, as a unique treasure, for it symbolizes the passionate love for Eretz Yisrael as a family legacy. The daughters of Zelophehad could have forfeited their father’s birthright to their male relatives; instead, they asserted their right to their father’s land, demonstrating a resolve missing from the many others at the time who shied away from claiming rights to all of their God-given property. These women sacrificed personal choice by readily agreeing to marry within Manasseh, so that their inherited land would remain within the tribe. Such was their devotion to their father’s name, such was their ironclad determination to settle the land, no matter the obstacles.
This passion to fight for one’s birthright was answered with blessing, both ancient and new. Ĥevel Ĥoglah was home in antiquity to Yazith, Geba, and Bedan, and produced “the choicest pomegranates and hay.”28Kelim 17:5; Orlah 3:7. In the more recent past, there were two small Jewish villages in the area, Sa-nur and Homesh.29These were settled in the 1970s and 1980s. They were later evacuated and dismantled by the Israeli government in 2005, along with the Jewish communities in the Gaza Strip. The idealistic pioneers built these communities with the stated mission of reestablishing a Jewish presence in northern Samaria, close as they might be to the notoriously hostile cities of Jenin and Nablus. It is no great stretch to see in these settlers a reincarnation of the indomitable spirit of Zelophehad’s daughters. Indeed, it was the spirit of Zelophehad himself, as one of the ma’apilim who surged forward desperately toward Eretz Yisrael, though he died en route.30YS, Shelaĥ 745. The story of these ma’apilim, individuals who defiantly entered Eretz Yisrael after the sin of the Spies, is found in Numbers 14:40–44.
We leave the magnificent vistas of Manasseh offered by Mount Kabir and head to the northwestern region of Naĥalat Menasheh. Underexplored and almost forgotten by most Israelis, this area is a wealth of beauty and history. Northern Samaria lies south of Wadi Ara (Nahal Iron) and the Jezreel Valley. Wadi Ara is the eastern bend in the famed Via Maris – the “Way of the Sea” – one of the most important routes in antiquity. Armies, caravanserai, and travelers inevitably passed through this riverbed valley as they made their way from Egypt toward Damascus, and then on to Mesopotamia. It is still a popular route to travel from the center of the country toward the northeast region.
South of Wadi Ara is Mevo Dotan, one of the few remaining Jewish communities in northern Samaria. Enter the yishuv and follow the signs to Maoz Tzvi Farm (Havat Mevo Dotan), a quaint caravan outpost on a hilltop that affords the very best view of the Dothan Valley (ask the locals – there are always some milling around – to point you in the direction of the nicely kept lookout post).
Dothan Valley is the northernmost and largest valley in the valley series that cuts through Samaria. The panorama legend and audio explanations available at the lookout post help identify the most important locations in the valley. Jenin is to the north; also visible in the distance are the Gilboa mountains, the site of Saul’s fatal battle against the Philistines. This is likely as close as many of us will get to Tel Dotan, the low trapezoidal hill just to the west on the horizon after Mevo Dotan.
This biblical city likely received its name from the ancient double wells that are still extant (dot means “pit,” and dothan is “dual pits”). There are several indications that this tel is indeed the site of ancient Dothan: the tel retains its name in Arabic, which fits the various historical records of Dothan’s location, and it has an archaeological record that aligns well with the historical account of Dothan.
Recall that the shevatim, angry and jealous of Joseph, set out from Hebron to Shechem, a distance of more than a hundred kilometers (over sixty miles). Their stated purpose? To shepherd their flocks. Perhaps they traveled so far north to attend to their father’s land holdings in the area,31Genesis 33:19. or perhaps they sought to distance themselves significantly from Joseph. What is particularly strange is that they did not end their journey there, but traveled even farther north, up to Dothan. As Joseph set out to find them, he had an unusual encounter:
When he reached Shechem, a man came upon him wandering in the fields. The man asked him, “What are you looking for?” He answered, “I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are pasturing?” The man said, “They have gone from here, for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.” So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at Dothan.
Genesis 37:14–17
One suggestion is that they headed farther north because the grazing lands around Shechem had already been stripped bare – as resources were drained, people naturally moved farther north, toward the more watered terrain. Interestingly, this nomadic wandering from the southern Hebron hills up to northern Samaria is an ageless phenomenon: in the nineteenth century, Bedouin from the village of Ar’ara (near Dimona) moved up to northern Samaria and established an Ar’ara in that area as well.32רביב ואלינסון, חלק א׳, 240.
Joseph met with his brothers…The rest of the story is well known. He was thrown into a pit, perhaps the well that had subsequently been known and venerated for centuries as Bir Yusuf (one of the two wells in the vicinity of Tel Dotan).33Though a pit (בור) and a well (באר) are two different methods of collecting and accessing water, Raviv and Ellinson suggest that Joseph may very well have been cast into one of the two wells of Dothan, though the Bible specifies he was cast into a pit, ibid., 241. The caravan of Ishmaelites was passing right by Dothan, on the ancient road that cut through the Dothan Valley from the Gilead mountains on its way to joining with the coastal Via Maris.
Dothan was a large, walled, and well-fortified city throughout the entire Bronze Age, not listed among the conquered northern cities in Joshua 12. Excavations have uncovered monumental structures, roads, storehouses, and residences, all dating to the Iron II (First Temple) period, indicating that Dothan served as an administrative center at the time when the prophet Elisha was in the city.34II Kings 6.
The battle for Dothan in the days of Elisha was followed (at least according to legend) hundreds of years later by another famous showdown in the same valley, this time centered in the Hasmonean city of Bethulia. The widow Judith, a resident of Bethulia, stole into the enemy camp and beheaded the fearsome general Holofernes, ridding the Jews of a serious threat.35The Apocryphal Book of Judith, where the tale first appears, has Nebuchadnezzar as the enemy king, with Holofernes as his general. The legend is entirely absent from early rabbinic literature, surfacing first in the twelfth century CE (see Tosafot, Pesaĥim 108b). In that reference, Judith was cited as an example of female heroism in the battle against the Hellenistic Syrian threat from the period of the Maccabean revolt. And in our day, this valley was host to one of the pivotal and bloody battles of the Six Day War in 1967 that resulted in Israeli victory and subsequent Israeli building projects in northern Samaria.
Our exploration of this lush, forested region continues with a stop in El-Ahwat, accessed via the western gate of the yishuv of Katzir. This site sits on Mount Amir, the mountain that formed the northern border of Samaria and was heavily settled by Manasseh during the early Israelite and First Temple periods. El-Ahwat is an intriguing candidate for the site of Harosheth-hagoiim, headquarters of Sisera, the general of King Jabin’s army in the days of Deborah. Sisera led a formidable squadron of nine hundred iron chariots, with which he maintained control over the Jezreel Valley, and effectively cut off the northern tribes from Manasseh and the southern tribes.
The site, excavated by the late Adam Zertal, is well positioned to be Harosheth-hagoiim. Located at the juncture where the Via Maris swings east into Wadi Ara, the inhabitants of this city would have ruthlessly controlled the military and trade traffic from Egypt to Damascus, as reflected in the Song of Deborah: “In the days of Shamgar son of Anath, in the days of Yael, caravans ceased, and wayfarers went by roundabout paths” (Judges 5:6).
The unusual architectural features that do not at all accord with the Israelite type, the presence of pig bones alongside those of other animals, and the various artifacts exotic to this region, all date to the thirteenth–twelfth centuries Bce, in consonance with the dating of the biblical story of Sisera.36This archaeological journey of discovery is retold in impressive detail by Zertal in his book סודו של סיסרא (אור יהודה: זמיר, תש״ע). Based on the strong resemblance between the finds at El-Ahwat and the Iron I period architecture/material culture of Sardinia, Zertal posits that Sisera belonged to one of the Sea Peoples who migrated to the western coast of Israel in the LB/Iron I periods. See also Trude Dothan and Moshe Dothan, People of the Sea (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 214. For an alternative identification of Harosheth-hagoiim, see אליצור, מקום בפרשה, 116. Sisera set out eastward from there, along the Kishon River,37As per the description in Judges 4:13. to meet Barak and the Israelites who charged westward from Mount Tabor. They likely clashed at “Taanach, by Megiddo’s waters” (Judges 5:19), the Canaanites “swept away by the torrent Kishon” (5:21), defeated by a miracle of God (4:15).
We have skirted around the borders of Manasseh, with only glimpses into its interior. This cannot be helped these days, as it is nigh impossible to access some of the most important sites of antiquity due to the current political situation. For now, these areas lie in wait, until the latent blessings promised to Manasseh are realized.