Professor Aaron Koller of Yeshiva University has written an important discussion of the word מכרתיהם and I would like to share it. It is found in chapter seven of his: “The Semantic Field of Cutting Tools in Biblical Hebrew,” (2013).
I recall as a youth reading the Rashi on this word. The first explanation that Rashi brings is that the word refers to “kli zayin” (arms). As evidence for this first explanation, Rashi points out that the word for a “sword” in Greek is מכיר. (Rashi’s source for this explanation is Midrash Tanchuma Vayechi, section nine. Neither Midrash Tanchuma nor Rashi state whether the Greek word or the Hebrew word came first. The Greek word is pronounced “machaira.”)
My thoughts as a youth were that a connection between Hebrew and Greek regarding this word was farfetched. The two cultures were hundreds of miles and hundreds of years apart. In my limited understanding at the time, there was no Greek prior to the eighth century BCE. I was therefore very suspicious of any attempt to relate biblical words to Greek ones (unless they were found in very late biblical books).
Now, let us fast forward 25 years. I got into the habit of reading obituaries during my commute. I found that I was learning interesting things by doing so. One day, I learned that the person whose obituary I was reading was involved in the decipherment of a written language called “Linear B.” This was an early form of Greek— “Mycenaean Greek”—and we have texts of it from as early as 1400 BCE. I had no idea that there was a form of Greek that early. (There is also a written language called “Linear A”—related to Linear B and earlier than it. That one has still not been deciphered! It was used by the Minoans of Crete, from 1800-1450 BCE.)
In 1998, I started reading Daniel Klein’s English edition of Samuel David Luzzatto on Genesis. Luzzatto agreed with the connection of “mecheiroteihem” to the Greek word and suggested which direction the movement went. He wrote: “There is no doubt that many words passed from the Hebrew language to the Greek language.”
Klein helpfully added a note from Louis Feldman, professor of classics at Yeshiva University, found in the Encyclopedia Judaica entry, “Hellenism” (1972): “Several interesting parallels between early Greek—especially that of Homer—and biblical vocabulary have been suggested, such as Homeric amumon (‘without blemish’) and biblical mum (“blemish”), Homeric machaira (‘sword’) and biblical mechera (Genesis 49:5), Homeric erebos (“darkness”) and biblical erev (‘evening’) and maarav (“west”), and Greek kados (‘pitcher,’ in Archilochus) and Hebrew kad (“pitcher”).”
Feldman also wrote in that entry (not included by Klein): “Contacts between Greeks and Semites—probably including Jews—seems likely to have occurred in Mycenaean times, as remains of Greek pottery in Palestine and Syria testify.”
Here is what Koller wrote in 2013: “Two things should be noted regarding the proposed connection between Hebrew מכרתיהם and (the Greek word). First, positing a connection does not necessarily mean that the Hebrew word was borrowed from Greek. Since the word has no known etymology within Indo-European, it is possible—as some have suggested—that the Greeks borrowed the word from Semitic speakers, or that this word was borrowed by these two languages from a third language. Second, there is no reason to harbor a categorical bias against a Greek loanword—even in an early text such as Genesis 49. It is certainly true that Levantine contacts with Greek culture were far more intense in Hellenistic times than in the Bronze or Iron Ages. This does not, however, make it a priori impossible that certain words were borrowed earlier … If words could be borrowed into Mycenaean Linear B and early Greek from Northwest Semitic—as, indeed, they were—it is certainly possible that the reverse occurred, as well. While Greek should not be the primary hunting ground for Hebrew etymologies, it should also not be excluded a priori. A connection—whether direct borrowing or something else—is, therefore, possible.”
Okay, so a word in Genesis could be borrowed from Greek, or Greek could borrow a word from Hebrew, or both could have borrowed it from an earlier source. After all that, what does Koller conclude about our word? That its origin had nothing to do with Greek and is easily understood by all of us within Hebrew itself! (Forgive me for misleading you! Surely you have learned much from my digression!)
He points out that the scholar, Mitchell Dahood—in an article in 1966—suggested that the singular was מכרת (machreit) and that our word derived from the Hebrew verb כרת. We all know this verb. It means “to cut.” Moreover, at Exodus 4:25, כרת is used as the verb for circumcision. Accordingly, Dahood suggested (with no other evidence) that Hebrew likely had a word מכרת which was a “blade or knife for circumcision.”
Koller continues: “Dahood sees here a reference to Genesis 34, and the accusation would be that Simeon and Levi used the very knives lent to Shechemites for their circumcision to later murder the same people.”
Dahood suggested “klei chamas mecheiroteihem” should be translated as “tools of violence are their circumcision-blades.“ Koller would modify this a bit, preferring “scalpels” instead of “circumcision-blades.” By “scalpel,” Koller means, “a small cutting knife appropriate for surgery and other precise incisions.”
Genesis 49:5 then reflects a very sharp criticism of Shimon and Levi! (No pun intended!)
Rashi’s second interpretation (also found in the Tanchuma) interprets “mecheiroteihem” as if it has the meaning מגורתם. The meaning of the three Hebrew words would then be “in the land of their sojourns they conducted themselves with tools of violence.” The supercommentaries wonder what motivated Rashi to provide a second interpretation. A common answer given is that “tools of violence are their swords/arms” is merely stating the obvious. There is nothing new and meaningful in that statement. That is a point that Dahood and Koller make. Koller writes: “In a text such as Genesis 49, which is highly lyrical, allusive and multivalent, something more should be expected.”
Koller also points out that “the verb כרת—to cut” is not only closely associated with circumcision specifically, but also with treaty-making more generally. In Genesis 34, circumcision was to be the means by which Jacob and his family were concluding a treaty with the Shechemites. In condemning Simeon and Levi, Jacob uses a word for a root that captures three themes of their act simultaneously: they replaced circumcision and covenant with cutting, all כרת.” That is possibly why the rare noun מכרת (if there really was such a noun) was chosen by Jacob.
Dahood had suggested that we can learn from Jacob’s statement that the Shechemites had borrowed the Israelites’ knives for the circumcision. But Koller concludes that we do not need to interpret this way. The three words work as a profound criticism without that overly literal reading.
(P.S. If the original Hebrew word was “machreit,” Koller points out that its plural would be “machreteihem.” This is not the vocalization that we have today. Koller suggests why the original vocalization may have changed.)
I would like to thank Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein for forwarding me a copy of Professor Koller’s 2013 study.
Mitchell First can be reached at [email protected]. As a youth reciting “Al HaNissim,” he recalls wondering why Matityahu was traveling overseas to fight the Greeks! (For the few of you who still do not know the answer, the Jews—at this time—were fighting the Syrians. Because the Syrians had adopted Greek culture, they were loosely referred to in rabbinic literature as יונים. Of course, that Hebrew word is related to the word “Ionians.”)
