Pensamiento judío sobre Isaías 63:1

(1) When Lot faced the people of Sodom, he had shut the door so that the angels would not overhear the negotiations and the indecencies that the Sodomites planned to perpetrate on them. Their objective was to reinforce their image as being anti-strangers, so that this kind of news would make others shun their city. Lot's argument was that the townspeople's quarrel was only with him, not with them, since it had been he who had breached the town's regulations. His guests could not have known about these regulations. He offered his daughters as expiation for his own disloyal conduct, not as substitute for the strangers. The reference "that is why the men came to my house for shelter" means they did not know that the laws of Sodom forbade visitors; they are not guilty therefore. (2) In their reply gesh hal-ah, "out of our way," the townspeople refused to accept this argument, and threatened to deal more harshly with Lot than with the strangers, since he, Lot, had dared put his own interpretation on the rights and wrongs of the case. Lot had classified the strangers as not subject to the town's jurisdiction. Therein lay his sin, in the eyes of the townspeople. The old man in Givah however, had not used his daughter and the concubine to atone for his mistakes as Lot did, thereby acknowledging the town's laws as proper and just. He had done so simply to relieve the pressure and the threat of death to himself and his guest. (3) When the angels saw that the whole town was of one mind, and that even Lot's sons-in-law considered the idea of heavenly retribution as absurd-- believing that no such retribution was called for-- they realized that G-d’s criteria, "if I see that what is happening is as bad as what I have heard, that is the end," had been met. Destruction was called for. The pressure on Lot was designed to make him pray for the survival of Tzoar, since there were an insufficient number of good people there who could have insured the town's survival. The arrival of Lot in Tzoar would augment that meager number of good people there. All this was to show Abraham that G-d had not only met the conditions Abraham's prayer had called for, but that G-d had done His best to engineer things in such a way that the right conditions would be created. (4) Because He remembered Abraham and his prayer, He sent Lot away in such a manner. For a similar reason, on the morrow, when Abraham would return to that spot, Sodom would be gone. (5) Lot's daughters thought that Tzoar had been spared only for the sake of their family, and that upon their departure, it too would be destroyed, as in fact they thought that the whole earth would be laid waste like at the time of the deluge. The entire story is told to put misdeeds perpetrated against Israel by nations who owed their entire existence to the prayer of Israel's first ancestor Abraham into perspective. At the same time, it also explains how two "pearls" in Jewish history, Ruth and Naamah, respectively, came out of those two nations and made their magnificent contribution to Jewish history by becoming ancestors of the ultimate redeemer, the Messiah, so that David as well as Rechavam both had blood from those nations flowing in their veins. (6) Concerning Abraham's migration to the South after this catastrophe, the sages in the Midrash offer a variety of insights. Some say that Abraham was afraid that the neighborhood would henceforth be shunned by travellers, thus limiting his opportunities to proselytize. Others believe that Abraham wanted to put some physical distance between himself and the bastards born to Lot by his daughters. I believe the reason is to be found in Abraham's new destiny, acquired simultaneously with his name having been changed. To become the founder of a variety of nations requires physical exposure to different societies. He had to move to areas where he was not yet well known, in order to be able to continue his life's work. Abraham's again asking Sarah to claim that she was his sister, despite his experiences in Egypt, proves that she had indeed regained a youthful appearance as a result of the angel's blessing. Her desirability once again posed a problem to both herself and Abraham, as proved by the prompt action of Avimelech seizing her. (7) If G-d did not immediately restrain Avimelech, it may have been in order to help Abraham's economic progress while in the land of the Philistines, and to demonstrate that a G-d-fearing man could enjoy great material prosperity. G-d had to communicate with Avimelech for two reasons: 1) His own personal standard of morality was superior to that of Pharaoh. 2) In the years that had elapsed since his stay in Egypt, Abraham had attained a much higher spiritual level, and as a result he qualified for more prompt Divine assistance. While in Egypt, Abraham had not yet been able to appreciate the personal intervention in his affairs that G-d would demonstrate; now however, he was well aware of that. For that reason, Pharaoh was alerted to his wrongdoing only through the plagues inflicted upon him and his household. In the case of Avimelech, however, G-d communicated with Avimelech by spelling out his complaint to him in a dream. (8) Since beney Noach, i.e. ordinary non Jews, are automatically guilty of the death penalty if they transgress those laws that apply to them-- of which adultery is one-- the Torah has to mention the fact that an adulterous relationship had not yet taken place. Therefore, G-d could confirm to Avimelech that indeed he was not yet guilty of death. Avimelech countered that since whatever he had been about to do had been the result of being misled by both Abraham and Sarah, such an act should not have been considered a crime even if he had committed it, and that therefore no question of guilt could arise. G-d replied to Avimelech that it was true that vis a vis his countrymen he had not sinned, but that He, G-d, knew that vis a vis Him a sin had been committed, since it had only been due to G-d’s interference, i.e. making him impotent, that he had not yet committed adultery. (9) He should not think, however, that since he had begun in innocence, he could now keep the lady and consider himself free from guilt as a result of Abraham and Sarah having tricked him. He would have to restore Sarah to Abraham, who, being a prophet, was aware that Sarah had not been touched due to G-d’s intervention. Abraham would pray for the king, allowing for the fact that he had not intended to commit adultery. Avimelech was warned not to become an intentional sinner at this stage. (10) Avimelech now wanted to know from Abraham why he had felt the need to go to such lengths of deception to protect himself. Abraham replied that since the fear of G-d would not act as a restraining influence on Avimelech's subjects, he had had to look for other deterrents. Being afraid that Avimelech would say now-- just as Pharaoh had done-- "You could at least have told me that she is your wife," Abraham could not very well tell him that such a revelation might not have been deterrent enough. Therefore, he mentioned that Sarah was indeed kind of a sister to him. Since it had been legal at that time to marry blood relations of such a category as Abraham and Sarah, i.e. a niece, a lie had in fact never been uttered. Avimelech had simply failed to ascertain whether there was an additional relationship that existed between Abraham and Sarah beyond their being brother and sister. Hence he had only himself to blame for the complications that had arisen. Abraham explained that it had long been his practice to describe Sarah as his sister, ever since they had started to wander and had not yet reached the site of a permanent settlement. The expression hittu, is used on numerous ocasions in the same sense as hiflig, i.e. to cause to depart (compare Genesis 21,14;37,15; Psalms 107,4). In presenting gifts to Abraham, Avimelech behaved in an appropriate manner. Inasmuch as he had contravened the principle of "What is yours is yours" by appropriating Sarah without asking Abraham whether she also happened to be his wife, he atoned now by using the "What is mine is yours" principle. (11) Also, of course, he was interested in Abraham praying for his impotence to be cured. To Sarah, he remarked reprovingly that the thousand pieces of silver he had given to Abraham as her dowry had served as an eye cover to let everyone think that she had been free to marry, and that though G-d knew well enough that she had not had marital relations, no one else would know about this. He told her to mend her ways and not again practice this kind of deception. The Torah merely reports that Sarah accepted the rebuke gracefully, and indicated her being prepared to avoid creating such a misleading impression in the future. Another meaning could be that Avimelech meant "although I have paid a thousand pieces of silver to your brother, you should not have accepted this and caused suspicion about your status amongst all the people around you." Abraham's prayer, recorded at this juncture, was the first prayer that Abraham offered that had not been triggered or prompted by someone else, but was offered completely of his own initiative. It seems, according to Bereshit Rabbah 52 that "something that had kept him tied up, had now been released." This refers to another step forward in Abraham's development toward the complete and perfect personality. By announcing beforehand that Abraham would pray, the Torah further underlined this landmark in Abraham's development. "G-d remembered Sarah as He had said," by making her pregnant. "He did for Sarah as He had said," He timed the event as promised. Sarah's exclamation means, "Let anyone who wants to mock do so, I am willing to bear it, even if G-d has made people mock me; the important thing is "He made a laughter, a joy for me." (12) The words mi millel, who would have foretold, seem an added expression of thanksgiving, such as "how wonderful he who foretold Abraham that Sarah would nurse children,” for I have indeed born a son in his old age. There are numerous examples of the use of the word mi in this sense. Compare Isaiah 49,21 "Who has born me these?" (masculine usage of the verb yalad, gave birth), or Isaiah 63,1 "Who is this that comes from Edom"? (13) The display of excessive joy at the meal celebrating the weaning of Isaac, may have caused Ishmael to become concerned lest he lose part of his heritage, and he may have mocked Sarah and her having given birth in her old age. This may have angered Sarah sufficiently to ask that both Hagar and Ishmael be expelled from the household. Associating Ishmael's behavior with his mother was meant to convey Sarah's opinion that Ishmael had acted as he did only because he was Hagar's son, not because Abraham was his father. Abraham was naturally disturbed for his son's sake, but G-d intervened by telling him to give Sarah carte blanche in the matter.

The upshot of all this (David's outpourings in Psalm 119) is that mitzvah performance must become as automatic to us as life itself. Therefore, the Mishnah in Avot 3, 10, says that "whosoever forgets part of his studies has sinned gravely," since the Torah has provided memory joggers. The word "Talmud" in that Mishnah refers to knowledge of the commandments and their performance. Unless a person has tried and failed to remember, he is guilty of a sin. If he did the latter, he is subject to the saving grace of pen yassuru mi -levavcha, lest they depart from your heart, as long as he did not contribute to forgetting them. (Deut. 4,9) G-d lays tefillin, phylacteries, or created the rainbow, so that His memory should be jogged by visible symbols. If, in the words of the Midrash, it is good enough for Him to jog His memory, it is certainly incumbent upon us to do so. The concept of "G-d’s Torah is perfect," (Psalms 119,8) implies that the law of G-d is beyond blemish at any time in history; nothing in it can therefore be devoid of purpose at any time. This is so even if the application of a particular commandment is restricted to certain individuals such as priests. Even the occurrence of a million to one shot such as a ben sorer umoreh, an obstinate gluttonous teenager whose parents take him to Court to be executed, or a commandment which by definition could only be performed once in history in the desert, has significance far beyond that unique opportunity to perform it. David assures us in the first of the Psalms that he who truly desires Torah and studies same, is like a tree securely planted next to a never failing water supply. Such a tree will not wilt etc. If this is true of the person who studies Torah, how much more must Torah itself be meaningful in all its details. This is the reason that the mitzvot of the tabernacle and priestly garments which are of limited duration, emphasize again and again "it is an eternal statute in front of Me forever," or the use of the word tzav. The Talmud in Kiddushin 29, states that any commandment associated with the word tzav is a commandment that applies forever. Examination of those laws reveals that there are many instances where this rule simply does not stand up in the light of history. We must understand the Talmud to mean that though the details of the commandments in question helped us fulfil them at times when they proved physically capable of fulfilment, we derive the major benefit from these commandments through the lessons we learn from the concepts that these mitzvot represent. It is these concepts that remain valid forever. This is the meaning of Deuteronomy 29,8, "observe the words of the covenant, carry them out so that you will gain insights from all that you do." Similarly Deut.4,6, "it is your wisdom and your insight." Unfortunately, as the Rambam already observes in his "Moreh," most people never concern themselves with such matters and want to get close to the king without ever having seen the king's palace, as it were. Granted that performance of the mitzvah, since it is G-d’s command, is praiseworthy. Nevertheless it is far from the ultimate that we are capable of achieving. Whatever the tabernacle teaches is as relevant today as ever, just as basic concepts do not lose their relevance because they cannot always be applied instantly. If the Torah commands that we help an enemy load his beast, thereby teaching important moral lessons, these lessons do not lose their relevance because we have no enemies or because we never encountered an enemy in circumstances where this commandment could be performed. David says in Psalms 51, 19, "the (real) sacrifice to G-d is a broken spirit." It is the spirit in which G-d is approached that matters. The Talmud Menachot 106, explains the verse in Leviticus 7,37, "this is the teaching of the Torah concerning the total offering, the gift offering and the peace offering," as meaning that he who labours studying the laws of these offerings, does not actually have to bring them in order to achieve the personality development that these offerings are meant to help us achieve. The idea is that just as performance plays its part in awakening the mind to what, why and how one is doing, so the study of the laws pertaining to these observances accomplishes the same thing. We should not therefore bemoan earlier times when through the performance of mitzvot such as yovel, the Jubilee year, we could come closer to G-d. Let us look now at the "memory" element surrounding the commandments of the priestly vestments. Concerning the ephod, apron it states "Aaron should wear the names of the children of Israel before G-d on his shoulders as remembrance." Concerning the choshen, the breastplate, we find a similar quote. A similar purpose is common to all the priestly garments. Clothing as such is symbolic of acquired traits. Already in the wording of the commandments there is a reference to the concepts of midot, character traits, which we discussed at the beginning of this chapter. (Leviticus 6,3) mido bad; or in Judges 3, 16, "under his madim;” or in Psalms 133,2, "descending according to midotav." So we observe the term midah being used for garments, illustrating the essential nature of garments, at least when worn by priests. The first impression that one receives when meeting another person is that of the clothes he wears. It suggests his occupation, certain of his behavioral traits etc. Even our prophets in praising the Lord, use the simile " You are garbed in Splendour." (Psalms 104, 1) Or, "resplendent in His garments" (Isaiah 63, 1) Secondly, people wear different sets of clothing for the Sabbath and weekdays. Even in ancient times, Esau had "his precious clothes" (Genesis 27, 15) or (Ruth 3,3) Ruth who put special garments for a special occasion. By wearing different clothing on the Sabbath, every Jew signals that he assumes different character traits on the Sabbath. In Hilchot Derech Eretz, the halachah stipulates that ordinary clothing be worn for the performance of mundane tasks, whereas festive clothing should be worn when performing mitzvot between man and His Maker. This is the meaning of Isaiah chapter 58. Compare also chapter 63. Thirdly, just as man is never completely nude, so he is never completely devoid of mitzvot. Therefore, all of Israel, priests and ordinary Israelites alike, have the duty to be garbed in special garments. This is why a whole nation is referred to as a kingdom of priests, to imbue all garments with a reminder of the symbolic significance of garments as such. Therefore, the Torah says in connection with the tzitzit, fringes, "when you see it, you will remember the commandments" (Numbers 15,39). "A garment adorned with tzitzit will remind you of all the commandments of G-d to carry them out, ibid." Whenever white garments are mentioned by our sages, it refers to the moral condition of the wearer of such garments. For instance, we have the parable of the king who invites his servants to partake of a meal in his palace without specifying the date and hour the meal is to take place. The intelligent servants remained within the vicinity of the king’s palace, saying that it would be foolish to roam around elsewhere since they had no urgent business elsewhere. The foolish ones carried on business as usual, citing as their reason that they would not receive any food for which they had not worked. Suddenly, the king issued a summons for his servants to attend the party. The intelligent ones entered the palace suitably attired, whereas the foolish servants arrived dirty and dishevelled. The king was well pleased with the first group, of course, but was very angry at the second group. Therefore, he seated the first group and left the second group to remain standing and watch the others partake of the feast. This is how Rabbi Meir's son-in-law explained the following verse in Isaiah 65, 13, "My sons will eat, and you will starve; My sons will drink, but you will remain thirsty." Another version explains the meaning of Kohelet 9,8, "at all times your garments should be white, and oil should be on your head," as referring to tzitzit and tefillin respectively. The Aggadah in Baba Batra 74, concerning the meal of the righteous in the future, featuring salted meat of the female leviathan and well aged wine, may also be understood allegorically as referring to the garments worn by the tzaddikim in their lifetime, namely Torah and Mitzvot. More about this Aggadah in chapter 60.

(1) When calling in his sons concerning the events in the distant future, Jacob had in mind what happens to the souls after death. The second call concerned happenings during Messianic times, on this earth. Concerning Reuben, the statement yeter se-eyt refers to additional responsibilities which Reuben should have shouldered being a firstborn, instead of assuming an additional portion of negative virtues. Since the nature of his error was such that it could not be undone, like water which, if it has once hit the ground, cannot be retrieved, Reuben's sin of entering his father's bedroom constituted an irreversible desecration. This deprived him of the birthright, which was transferred to Joseph. Possibly, the hastiness and lack of mature judgment criticized here in Reuben's character may account for the equally hasty decision of the tribe of Reuben later in claiming their part of the ancestral inheritance in the territory formerly belonging to Sichon. It was the tribe of Reuben who was the first to experience exile and dispersion in later years. (2) Shimon and Levi are bracketed together because of the similarity of their actions. Their error was the opposite of that of Reuben. Reuben had acted hastily, without mature judgment. Shimon and Levi's action against Shechem was reprehensible precisely because it was preceded by careful planning. Aristo in Ethics 7, Section 9, already discusses the relative merit of impetuosity versus the person who is in perfect control of his actions who, though carrying out carefully planned deeds, has given no thought to the possibility that he may be wrong. At Shechem, Shimon and Levi sinned because they had planned. When it came to the violence done to Joseph, they could not even claim that their action had been thoroughly thought out. Concerning the first action, Jacob condemns an anger of the aph variety, something that would not evaporate until they had taken collective revenge. In the case of their treatment of Joseph, their action was the result of ratzon, free will, impetuous behavior. When both of these characteristics are found side by side, they spell too much danger for society. Jacob did not want to be associated with this. Therefore, the two have to be separated to reduce their potential for causing harm. Although anger is a negative virtue, it can on occasion be most helpful, since it awakens people to their duty who would otherwise have remained inactive, on the sidelines. Having Levi scattered throughout Israel would ensure that when the occasion would demand it, there would be people that would galvanize the rest of the population into taking action. When Isaiah (63,5) says, "My arm brought me salvation, and my fury upheld me," he refers to exactly such instances of the usefulness of fury. Similarly, the Talmud in Ketuvot 103 reports how Rabbi Yehudah taught his son Rabbi Gamliel how to conduct himself in the office of the President. He told him, "Conduct your office among the exalted and strike fear into the students." (3) Yehudah is the first of the sons whose heroic deeds did not manifest themselves in turning against his own flesh and blood when angered; rather, "Your hand was against the neck of your enemy." Therefore, it is fitting that his brothers pay homage to him. "A young lion;" subsequently he is described as a fully grown lion (both in verse 9). This suggests that Yehudah's personality development proceeded according to accepted norms. He develops from strength to strength, unlike other crowned heads, many of whom experience their greatest moment of glory at the moment they are crowned and ascend the throne. Miteref beni aleeta, you overcame, surmounted the confused thinking of my other sons. Even though you were young in years, you showed mature judgment at the moment it was called for ("What profit is there in killing our brother" 37,26). Jacob proceeds to assure Yehudah that royalty will be hereditary in his descendants throughout the ages. However, just as the lion may crouch ready to pounce, but lacks the power, so the royal descendants of Yehudah will similarly be found lacking in strength on occasion. Such weakness will reflect Yehudah's lack of religious observance during such periods. The Talmud (in Sanhedrin 5) tells us that the term "king" is not used here for Yehudah to convey the idea that in the long years of exile when there will be no Jewish king, leadership functions will still devolve upon the descendants of Yehudah; "The sceptre will not depart," "the lawgiver," refer to such men as the Exilarch, i.e. the leader of the Jews in the Babylonian exile who were members of the tribe of Yehudah, often in a direct line from David. Once the era of Shilo commences, the condition of Yehudah being merely kore-a, crouching, will be over, and the whole world will pay homage to him. The reference then is to Yehudah's restricted leadership role in the interval, not the cessation of such status. The reason that Zevulun in this blessing is mentioned ahead of Issachar is that since the former provides the funding for the latter's sacred vocation, that of devoting himself to Torah, the former is the prime mover, and deserves to be recognized first. Issachar who is like a beast of burden weighed down under its load, represents the qualities without which Torah study devoid of ulterior motives cannot be undertaken successfully. A donkey accepts ever greater burdens without protest, is undemanding in manner, and modest in upkeep. (4) The reason that both sons of Zilpah are mentioned in between the sons of Bilhah, is to prove that Zilpah really was supposed to have become pregnant before Bilhah. Only Laban's trickery had prevented this at the time he tricked Jacob into marrying the wrong girl. (5) Issachar realized the kind of menuchah, rest, that is "good." The reference is to the serenity attainable only through the diligent study of Torah, which ensures that one will reap the ultimate "good" at the end of one's endeavours. (6) After having mentioned the sons of Leah in the order of their birth, Jacob addresses himself to the oldest son of the maids. Samson, descendant of Dan would achieve the position of leader amongst his people, and become the first one to begin and shake off the yoke of the Philistines. Samson's activities were not accompanied by the glory and pomp of a royal Court, but like a snake, a loner, were simply acts of revenge perpetrated as acts of terror from ambush. This is just like the action of a snake which always seems unconcerned about its own fate. Samson died at the site of his greatest triumph, just as a snake presumably gets killed when the horse and rider it has bitten fatally kills the snake near the site of their own death. Since a victory in which the pursuer dies himself is hardly a true victory, the victor not surviving to enjoy the fruits of his deed, Jacob adds the words, "In Your help I trust," expressing the hope that the defender of his people will be spared by Divine intervention. "Gad will form units of troops," even though Gad will be the first of the tribes to be led into captivity (Kings II 10,33), he will eventually re-emerge at the time of redemption. Asher is blessed by being promised material blessings that are rarely found side by side, namely both grain and fruit. Perhaps during the reign of Solomon, he was called upon to supply the royal palace. "He will supply the delicacies for the king." The comparison of Naftali to "a hind let loose," i.e. fleet-footedness, may hint at the climatic conditions in his territory giving rise to earlier harvests than elsewhere in Israel. Possibly, Naftali had silver-tongued men, bearers of good tidings who would lead Israel in thanksgiving to the Lord. (7) Because Joseph was like a beautiful fruit, flourishing by a fountain, attracting admiration from all sides, he also attracted jealousy and envy. As a result, he was quarrelled with and persecuted. He himself, however, kept his ammunition in check instead of fighting back. Thus, he proved himself stronger than his adversaries. His hands were strengthened by the same G-d who had proven His might when aiding Jacob. Therefore, he possessed the merit to become the provider (ro-eh) for his family, his clan. "May you receive your reward from the G-d of your father, may it be stored with the G-d Shadday, and may you receive the bountiful blessings from the heavens above and the depths that lie below, which are typified by the blessings of the breasts and the womb. The blessings of your father (Jacob) are greater than those of my parents (Isaac) in that I may select one of my sons for a special blessing, though all of them deserve blessings.” Each one of the sons of Jacob had a morally justifiable claim to givaut olam, high positions in the world; Joseph, however, had proven outstanding. Therefore, "on his skull more than on that of his brothers," the special blessing. Since the tribe of Levi had not yet been given its special designation replacing the firstborn, and the number of tribes was not to exceed twelve, the blessings for Menashe and Ephrayim are here incorporated in the blessings pronounced on their father Joseph. At the time when Moses blessed the nation, singling out Levi for its share of recognition, Ephrayim and Menashe are once again not mentioned separately, to avoid exceeding the number twelve. Moses therefore only alludes to them by stating that bechor shoro, the firstborn, his ox, are the tens of thousands of Ephrayim and the thousands of Menashe. The importance of Benjamin is alluded to by the fact that he rates the opening of a new paragraph (the paragraph could easily have ended at verse twenty-nine). Just as the word "Yehudah" is usually found at the beginning of a "page," so both of the brothers in whose territory the holy temple was to stand later, share the distinctive treatment in the manner in which their blessings are recorded in the Torah. Since the Priests and Levites will constantly be found in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to expect the members of those tribes to pursue the wisdom obtainable by keeping company with the priests, like wolves that rob in the morning and share the booty at night. Benjaminites will share in the knowledge obtained through close association with the tribe of Levi, and will teach others. Since in this manner they will both learn and teach, they are privy to the essence of all blessings. After all, success in any endeavor is based on study and dissemination of knowledge. The verse "the tribes of Israel are twelve," means that "although Joseph was divided into two tribes, the total still does not exceed twelve tribes, rather Levi is to be regarded as in a class by himself." This is what is meant by the words (verse 28), "Which their father said to them" (perhaps for this reason the scattering of Levi's cities was of quite a different nature than the dispersal of Shimon who had contiguous tribal territory, though it was an enclave within Yehudah). Since seventeen years had elapsed since Jacob and his family had left Canaan, Jacob was concerned lest any claim against the burial place of Abraham should have been registered during the family's absence from the country. Therefore, Jacob repeated all the details of his justified claim to the lands in question. Should any claim originate with the Canaanites, the fact that Ephron had sold to Abraham was essential; should the descendants of Ishmael claim the cave as theirs, the fact that Isaac had been buried there would prove that they had no valid claim thereto. To forestall any claim of Esau to be buried there, the fact that Leah had already been buried there, would attest to its ownership by the family of Jacob. Should the argument be used that the sale by an individual such as Ephron was invalid, since he was merely an individual and it was not in the national interest to sell off land to outsiders, the fact that the beney chet, a national group had approved the sale to Abraham, would invalidate any such claim in the future. (4) We have explained when Abraham died, that geviyah is the failure of one's faculties to function (clinical death), whereas meetah is the destruction and decay of the body's whole structure. Assiphah refers to the return of the soul to its hidden origin. Meetah is not mentioned in connection with Jacob. The reason our Rabbis may not have quoted this passage when they made the statement that "Jacob did not die," is so as not to allow the misconception that the elaborate measures taken to embalm Jacob's body were what is meant by the absence of the term meetah. The impression could easily have been formed that preventing decay of the body is equivalent to preventing meetah, i.e. death. Joseph appears to have had his own royal embalmers, and instead of the standard thirty-day procedure, Jacob was given the royal treatment, i.e. seventy days. This made the removal of the intestines and brain unnecessary (possibly). It appears that during the mourning Joseph observed for his father for seventy days, he did not permit himself to communicate with anyone at the royal court, and spoke to Pharaoh only through intermediaries (50,4). (5) It seems that as soon as Jacob had passed on, his sons were ready to return to the land of Canaan with their families and livestock, but were prevented by the Egyptians who were already planning to eventually enslave Jacob's entire offspring (Midrash Rabbah Tzav). We are told therefore, that the reason the Parshah dealing with Jacob's "death" is closed, i.e. is not separated from the preceding Parshah by a paragraph or line, is to indicate that true independence was lost as soon as Jacob closed his eyes for the last time. The Jews already felt that their freedom of movement had become subject to restrictions, and that is why even a Joseph on his deathbed had to invoke the time when G-d would lead the Jews out of Egypt as the time when his own remains should be transferred to the holy land (50,24). (6) The words va-ya-al immo in 50,9 may refer to the Shechinah leaving Egypt, having accompanied Jacob on his journey to Egypt seventeen years earlier (compare "I will go up with you," 46,4). The Canaanites saw a bad omen in all of this; they emphasized to their deities that this was an Egyptian affair, no business of theirs, and that any harmful fallout should befall Egypt. From then on, the brothers carried Jacob on their shoulders, just as their father had instructed. (7) The brothers had convinced themselves by and by that Joseph's rise to greatness was due entirely to their own action against him, and that because of that he owed them good treatment (as compensation). Their reasoning ran thus: "If only Joseph would hate us and pay us back for the kind of harm (may it happen so to all Jewish children) we have done him." They hoped to receive good in return for evil as a matter of right, not as a gesture of generosity. (8) When speaking in the name of Jacob then, they referred to their treatment of Joseph as evil (50,17), but they referred to themselves as "servants of the G-d of your father," who had acted presumably in consonance with G-d’s will, hence such eminently successful outcome of their actions. (9) Joseph realized that all this convoluted reasoning was the result of his brothers' fear, and he wept at their fear and discomfort. However, Joseph, answering his brothers along the line of their own argument, said, "I am not in place of G-d, so you need no forgiveness from me since your intention was indeed wicked. However, it was G-d who arranged for the outcome to be good not just for me alone but for everyone concerned. Despite your moral guilt however, do not worry, I will look after your needs.” (10) Joseph's raising Ephrayim's grandchildren on his knees is reported to show that Jacob's blessing concerning such grandchildren had been fulfilled. Since Joseph died at a younger age than his brothers, his reassuring remarks on his deathbed concerning the Providence of the Lord are of prime importance. Since his embalming was different from the method employed for his father, his physical death is mentioned. Since his remains were going to be interred in Egypt immediately, the treatment described would be quite adequate.