Commentaire de citation sur Les Juges 14:1

בת איש כנען, “daughter of a Canaanite named Shu’a.” Onkelos translates the word איש כנעני not as an ethnic description, but as the description given to “traders.” He wants to be sure that we know that none of the brothers married a Canaanite woman. This is the reason why the Torah singled out “Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite,” in 46,10 among the sons of Shimon as an exception. This subject has already been the subject of disagreement of Tannaim in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah claiming that twin sisters had been born with all of the twelve brothers, enabling them to marry half sisters, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah holds that the brothers other than Joseph, married Canaanite women. Rabbi Yehudah is forced to have the brothers marry half sisters, something permitted to Israelites before the Torah was given, whereas according to Rabbi Nechemyah we would have to presume that all these twin sisters died before their husbands moved to Egypt, as otherwise, how come they are not included in the list of descendants of Yaakov who moved to Egypt? If we approach the subject logically, it is hard to understand how sons of Yaakov could marry women of a cursed nation such as the Canaanites. It is therefore most likely that Onkelos was correct in translating the word איש כנעני as “a prominent trader.” This would also account for the Torah writing ‘Yehudah saw there, etc.” Had this girl been an ethnic Canaanite, what was so special in Yehudah “seeing” her? They were a dime a dozen! She struck him as not belonging to the true inhabitants of that region. It is possible to understand Rabbi Nechemyah as not meaning that the brothers actually married ethnic Canaanites. He may only have wanted to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that the brothers committed what was incest in terms of Torah legislation. Not only this, but half sisters from the same mother were also forbidden even before the Torah was given. There is little doubt that among the inhabitants of the land of Canaan there were also a minority of Moabites and Ammonites who did not belong to descendants of Canaan who had been cursed. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Yehudah had sons who were not loyal to their father and grandfather’s tradition was that he had married a Canaanite, and that this was the reason they died so young. This was also the reason the Torah criticized Shimon for having sired Sha-ul from a Canaanite mother [not necessarily his wife, Ed.]. If not for this reason, why would the Torah have singled out the maternity of Sha-ul as the only one of Yaakov’s grandchildren? According to the approach of Ibn Ezra, we would have to understand the line: “Yehudah saw there the daughter of a prominent Canaanite, etc.,” as Yehudah taking an instant liking to that woman, much as Shimshon took an instant liking to the Philistine woman in Judges 14,1 something described by the prophet Samuel as “Shimshon descended to Timnatah, where he saw a woman of the daughters of the Philistines, etc.” According to Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 50,13 וישאו אותו בניו , that “Yaakov’s sons carried his bier,” the absence of mention of Yaakov’s grandsons as pall bearers is due to Yaakov having forbidden Egyptians to be pall bearers as well as his grandsons, seeing they had been born of Canaanite mothers. He had referred at least to Shelah son of Yehudah and a Canaanite, and Shau-l son of Shimon and a Canaanite. In order not to slight these grandsons, he precluded all of them from being his pall bearers. [Tanchumah on Numbers12 explains why also Joseph and Levi were excluded from that task. Ed.]

A DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE. [In translating “Canaanite,” Onkelos said “merchant.” That is to say, a merchantman who came to dwell in the land of Canaan for business reasons. His intent is to say that Jacob’s sons guarded themselves from marrying Canaanitish women, as Isaac and Abraham, their fathers, had commanded.¹⁰⁷Above, 28:1. 24:3. And thus did the Sages mention in the Gemara of Tractate Pesachim.¹⁰⁸Pesachim 50a. They took as wives women from Egypt, Ammon, Moab, and from the noble families of the children of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. It is for this reason that Scripture singles out Shaul, the son of Simeon, as the son of a Canaanitish woman,¹⁰⁹Further, 46:10. as he was the only one among them. And even there the Rabbis expounded¹¹⁰Bereshith Rabbah 80:10. that the reference is to Dinah who had relations with a Canaanite [Shechem].
Our Rabbis, however, have differed in this matter. Thus they have said:¹¹¹Ibid., 84:19. “Rabbi Yehudah says, ‘Twin sisters were born with each of Jacob’s sons, and they took them as wives.’ Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘Their wives were Canaanitish women.’” It is possible that Rabbi Nechemyah was not particular about [ the term “Canaanitish” and did not mean it to indicate] their genealogy. He meant to say only that they took women from the land of Canaan as wives. However, they were from among the strangers and the sojourners who had come there from all lands, either Ammonite or Moabite women, and other peoples. His purpose¹¹²Ramban is pointing out that Rabbi Nechemyah agrees with the Talmudic sages who said that Jacob’s sons did not marry Canaanitish women. See Note 108. was only to differ with Rabbi Yehudah and say that they did not marry their sisters, since a maternal sister is forbidden to the sons of Noah. But according to Rabbi Yehudah it will be necessary to say that the sons of Leah married the twin sisters of the six other brothers,¹¹³This is because “the sons of Noah” were forbidden to marry a maternal sister. Prior to the giving of the Torah on Sinai, our ancestors had the status of b’nei Noach (sons of Noah). Consequently they could marry a paternal sister but not a maternal sister. See Sanhedrin 58 a; Rambam, Hilchoth Melachim 9:5. and they in turn wed the twin sisters of the sons of Leah. It may be that Rabbi Nechemyah does not at all admit the existence of these twins, with Jacob not having any daughter other than Dinah, as the literal interpretation of Scripture would indicate.
It is not logically correct to say that they all married Canaanitish women since there would then have been descendants of Canaan, the accursed servant, among those who inherited the land, just as there were representatives of the seed of Abraham, and Scripture has commanded that he be destroyed until neither remnant nor survivor remain.
In any case,¹¹⁴I.e., whatever the correct opinion be in the matter discussed above. this man [the Canaanite referred to here] was a merchant, for why should Scripture find it necessary to state that he was a Canaanite by descent when all people of the land were Canaanites, of the Perizzites and Jebusites and their brothers, as all of these traced their genealogy to Canaan? Adullam, [from where this man came] furthermore, was in the land of Canaan.¹¹⁵In Joshua 12:15, the king of Adullam is mentioned among the kings of Canaan. Thus if the word “Canaanite” is to be understood literally, why should Scripture have even mentioned it? It would then have been proper for the verse to say: “And Judah took there a wife with such-and-such a name,” just as it mentions the names of the women in the case of Tamar, and Esau’s wives,¹¹⁶Above, 26:34. and others. But the true explanation is that he was a merchant, not of the land of Canaan, which belonged to the Hivite or the Amorite. This then is the meaning of the verse: And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, implying that he married her on account of her father.¹¹⁷This is implied in the expression, And he saw there, meaning that he saw a man there who was not of the regular community. The word “Canaanite” must therefore mean merchant, for they were all Canaanites, and if “Canaanite” were to refer to his genealogy it would not be significant enough to be mentioned. And concerning the verse which states, The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah; which three were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess,¹¹⁸I Chronicles 2:3. This would seem to indicate that she was indeed a Canaanitess. this is due to the fact that being the daughter of the man called “the Canaanite,” she was also so called, since this man was called “the merchant” by them as he was known for, and expert in, his trade, on account of which he settled there.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says¹¹⁹In his commentary on Genesis 46:10. that because this woman was a Canaanitess, and Judah had transgressed the opinion of his fathers, her children were evil and they died. And this is why concerning Shaul,¹⁰⁹Further, 46:10. Scripture mentions only that he was the son of a Canaanitish woman, but with respect to Shelah the son of Judah it was not necessary for Scripture to mention it¹²⁰Since it is so stated in this present chapter. Shaul, on the other hand, was not mentioned above. Hence in mentioning the seventy souls, it states that he was of a Canaanitish woman (46:10). These are the words of Ibn Ezra, and Ramban now proceeds to comment upon them. [when enumerating the descendants of Jacob who entered Egypt].
If so,¹²¹If Judah, according to Ibn Ezra, went against the command of Abraham and Isaac. the expression, And Judah saw there a daughter, would mean that he saw her and desired her, even as it says of Samson, And he saw a woman in Timnah.¹²²Judges 14:1. And in the Parshah of Vayechi Yaakov, Rashi wrote: “And his sons bore him,¹²³Further, 50:13. but not his sons’ sons. For thus indeed did Jacob command them; ‘My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons since they are children of Canaanitish women.’”¹²⁴Now this text of Rashi would apparently contradict the opinion of Ibn Ezra who states that only Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, were born of Canaanitish women. Ramban, however, proceeds to reconcile the position of Rashi with that of Ibn Ezra.
It may be that, according to Rashi, Jacob said this of Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, who were of the daughters of Canaan, and therefore Jacob excluded all the other [grandsons although their mothers were not Canaanitish]. However, in all of our texts of Bereshith Rabbah¹²⁵Mentioned in Yalkut Shimoni 161. we find this version: “My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons’ sons, as there is among them of the daughters of Canaan.”¹²⁶The Midrash there concludes: “For it is said, And Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman (46:10).” Thus it is clear from this Midrash that only Shaul was born of a Canaanitish woman, but not Shelah the son of Judah. Tamar likewise was the daughter of one of the strangers living in the land, not the daughter of a man who was a Canaanite by descent. Far be it that our lord David¹²⁷He was a descendant of Tamar and Judah through Peretz, who was the ancestor of David. See Ruth 4:15-22. and the Messiah our just one, who will speedily reveal himself to us, be of the seed of Canaan, the accursed servant. Our Rabbis have also said¹²⁸Bereshith Rabbah 85:11. concerning Tamar that she was the daughter of Shem, of whom it is said, And he was a priest of the most high G-d.¹²⁹Above, 14:18.

The son-in-law of the Timnite. The son-in-law of the Pelishtite from Timnah.

עלה תמנתה HE GOETH UP TO TIMNAH — In the case of Samson it is said (Judges 14:1) “And Samson went down to Timnah”. But it lay on the slope of a mountain: from one direction one had to go up to it, from the other one went down to it (Sotah 10a).