Commentaire sur La Genèse 46:38

The suffix ה replaces the prefix ל locale (Yevamot 13b).

AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk;⁷⁵Further 48:15. and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac.⁷⁶Above, 32:10. Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal.⁷⁷Ibid., 12:7. And what need was there to explain it further?
However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁸94:5. When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac⁷⁹Above, 31:53. in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran.⁸⁰See Ramban above, 28:17.
Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said⁸¹Zebachim 116a. that Noachides⁸²See Note 148 in Seder Vayishlach, also Note 222 in Seder Bereshith. did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar.⁸³Above 8:20. But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim Vayikra 16:1. “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah,⁷⁸94:5. i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.”⁸⁵The case refers to a procession of a Rabbi and his pupils on the road. Since the pupils travel in advance of the Rabbi, a person coming from the opposite direction would first meet the pupils and then the Rabbi. Similarly, Isaac is the pupil and Abraham is the Rabbi. Hence Jacob offered sacrifices to the G-d of his father Isaac.
I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah:⁸⁶Sefer Habahir, 135. See Note 42 in Seder Bereshith. “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering,⁸⁷I Kings 18:38. and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.”⁸⁸Deuteronomy 4:24. Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him],⁸⁹The words in the brackets are from the Commentary of Lvush to the Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes these words of Ramban. as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.⁹⁰Micah 7:20. It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night⁹¹Verse 2 here. with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father,⁹²Verse 3 here. for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar;⁹³Above, 31:13. it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again.⁹⁴Verse 4 here.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again,⁹⁴Verse 4 here. [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down⁹⁵Exodus 19:20. as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see⁹⁶Above, 18:21. as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night,⁹¹Verse 2 here. thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.
Similarly he said⁹⁷Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard⁹⁸Above, 29:33. as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying⁹⁹Exodus 22:22. as “I will surely accept his complaint.”
But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained¹⁰⁰Moreh Nebuchim I, 65. with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”?¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. And that which the Rabbi has said¹⁰²Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai;¹⁰³Above 16:2. Hear the voice of my supplications;¹⁰⁴Psalms 28:2. Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear;¹⁰⁵Isaiah 1:15. And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁰⁶Deuteronomy 28:1. And so also, leiv shomei’ah¹⁰⁷I Kings 3:9. (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction,¹⁰⁸Above, 29:32. [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people,¹⁰⁹Exodus 3:7. [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel,¹¹⁰Ibid., 2:25. [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous¹¹¹Ramban refers here to Chapter 48 of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim mentioned above, in which Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) sets forth the theory that Onkelos always renders “seeing” literally except where it is connected with wrong, injury or violence, in which cases he expresses it as “It was manifest before the Eternal.” Onkelos is thus consistent with the prophetic phrase, Thou canst not look on iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13). However, Rambam mentions that he found three passages which contradict his theory. One is the verse, And the Eternal saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, (above, 6:5), and the other two are mentioned in the following note. In these three cases which are connected with wrong and violence, Onkelos should have expressed “seeing” in the form of “being manifest before the Eternal,” and yet he translated them literally! Rambam then concludes that our version of Onkelos is inaccurate in those three cases! It is this conclusion of Rambam with which Ramban takes issue in the text before us. in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw],¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. and two other verses,¹¹²And G-d saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt, (above, 6:12). And the Eternal saw that Leah was hated, (above, 29:31). which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory.
With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him,¹¹³Exodus 34:6. as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned.¹¹⁴Moreh Nebuchim I, 21. But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee?¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 31:3. In our version of Onkelos, the text reads, “His word will go over.” Ramban’s objection is thus removed. This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative¹¹⁶As opposed to “the visions of the night.” See the beginning of the section where Ramban explains this distinction which Rambam makes. and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d.¹¹⁸Ibid., 31:18. The Rabbi’s answer¹¹⁹Moreh Nebuchim I, 66. that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them,¹²⁰Deuteronomy 33:2. in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand¹²¹Exodus 15:12. as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy;¹²²Ibid., Verse 6. Thy strong hand;¹²³Deuteronomy 3:24. By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm;¹²⁴Ibid., 4:34. And My hand take hold on judgment;¹²⁵Ibid., 32:41. The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it.¹²⁶Ibid., 11:12. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him],¹²⁷Above, 28:12-13. as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream.¹²⁸Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon’s thesis is that the reason Onkelos did not paraphrase the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, but translated it literally, is that the narrative begins with a statement that it was in a vision of the night. Ramban questions this thesis, for in the story of the ladder, which is also introduced as a dream, Onkelos avoided possible indications of corporeality, and accordingly he paraphrased the verses. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee,¹²⁹Above, 28:15. as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth,¹³⁰Exodus 4:12. [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee,¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night,¹³²Above, 20:3. And G-d came to Laban in a dream,¹³³Ibid., 41:22. as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. and yet Jonathan ben Uziel¹³⁵See Note 152 in Seder Noach. translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream,¹³⁶Above, 41:22. is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest.¹³⁷Daniel 2:31.
And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal,¹³⁸Exodus 16:8. as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses¹³⁹Numbers 21:5. as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you,¹⁴⁰Above, 9:12. and Between G-d and every living creature,¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 16. were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch¹⁴²Ibid., 31:49. as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 50. as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d,¹⁴⁴Ibid., 21:23. is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah].
Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said¹⁴⁵Moreh Nebuchim I, 28. that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand,¹⁴⁶Zechariah 14:4. as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock.¹⁴⁷Exodus 17:6.
And concerning that which the Rabbi has said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation,¹⁴⁹Numbers 16:19. as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down,¹⁵⁰Exodus 19:20. “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.”¹⁵¹Onkelos, ibid., 3:2. Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face,¹⁵²Above, Verse 32. as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not,¹⁵³Exodus 33:15. as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee,¹⁵⁴Ibid., 32:34. and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken,¹⁵⁵Ibid., 33:17. Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us,¹⁵⁶Ibid., 34:9. and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.”¹⁵⁷We thus see that even here, where it is clear from the context that the verse refers to G-d and not an angel, Onkelos does not hesitate to translate “going” literally. He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face,¹⁵⁸Ibid., 33:20. “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,]¹⁵⁹Ezekiel 3:12. Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,¹⁶⁰Exodus 33:18. which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted,¹⁶¹Moreh Nebuchim I, 54 and 64. then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle,¹⁶²Exodus 40:35. Moreh Nebuchim I, 64. and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala¹⁶³See Note 56 in Introduction to Sefer Bereshith. known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention¹⁶⁴See Ramban on Exodus 20:19. this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying,¹⁶⁵Ibid., 20:1. [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 5:4. unto your whole assembly.¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 19. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.
However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶⁸Mechilta Shirah 3. See also Megillah 29a. “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.”¹⁶⁹Jeremiah 49:38. Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.],¹⁷⁰Verse 3 here. and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],”¹²⁹Above, 28:15. because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him.¹⁷¹28:13. Since the Tetragrammaton (“the Eternal”) represents the attribute of mercy, had Onkelos literally translated Verse 15, “and, behold, I am with thee,” it would have indicated that this attribute would follow Jacob into exile since at the outset of this matter in Verse 13, Scripture uses the Tetragrammaton. Hence Onkelos translated Verse 15 as, ‘and My word will be in thy help,’ which is a reference to the attribute of judgment. (Bei’ur Ha’lvush to Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes the words of Ramban.) The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses.¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.

לאלוקי אביו יצחק, He had become this because Yitzchok had previously built an altar there to this G’d when G’d had appeared to him there as we know from 26,25 where Yitzchok was reported offering sacrifices there as had done his father Avraham.

לאלוקי אביו יצחק. The reason why Yitzchok is mentioned here is because he too was about to escape from a famine by traveling to Egypt, whereas in his case, G’d stopped him from going there. (26,2) Yaakov, as opposed to his father, offered meat offerings at Beer Sheva. This town was at the border of the land of Canaan, and he wanted to enquire from G’d if he had His approval in his undertaking to leave the Holy Land a second time in his life. The sacrifices he offered were intended to restore the Holy Spirit to him which had departed when Joseph had departed from him.

ויזבח זבחים, “meat-offerings of thanksgiving.” For having arrived at Beer Sheva with all his family without mishap. Alternately, these offerings were because he set out once more to leave the Holy Land and he was not certain that G’d approved of what he was doing. He used the offerings hoping to receive guidance from the Almighty. As we shall see, he received such approval, plus the assurance that in Egypt his descendants would develop into a numerous nation, but that he himself would be buried in the grave of his father and grandfather in the Holy Land.

ויזבח זבחים לאלו-הי אביו יצחק, “he offered meat-offerings to the G’d of his father Yitzchak.” The Torah really should have written: “he offered sacrifices to the Lord.” Seeing that the Torah did not use this wording, it is clear that the emphasis on the words “G’d of his father” refers to the attribute of G’d which had served as the model his father Yitzchak was in the habit of emulating. It was the attribute גבורה, the attribute of Justice. This was a kind of admission that Yaakov felt he had already been granted by G’d all that he was entitled to. Until he had returned to the land of Canaan, Yaakov had not been able to serve that particular attribute of G’d exclusively. This is why the Torah here informed us that this particular sacrifice of Yaakov was offered specifically to this attribute of G’d.
This is what the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 had in mind when they said concerning this verse that we learn from it that “a person is obligated to honor his father more than his grandfather.” The name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה represents the attribute of חסד, loving kindness, Avraham’s (Yaakov’s grandfather’s) outstanding attribute. Had the Torah reported Yaakov as offering his sacrifice to Hashem, i.e. the attribute י-ה-ו-ה, Yaakov would have demonstrated more honour for his grandfather than for his father. This is why the Torah here spoke of “the G’d of his father Yitzchak,” [even adding the name Yitzchak though all us know that Yaakov’s father was Yitzchak. Ed.]
In the same section of Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 the illustration provided by the Midrash as to what constitutes honouring ”one’s father before one’s grandfather is that one greets one’s student before greeting one’s teacher.” This means that when one encounters both Rabbi and student simultaneously, one first addresses the student. Seeing that the students walk ahead of their teacher, one encounters them first and also greets them as one meets them. One does not get to meet the teacher until after one has met the students. Seeing that Yitzchak was a student of Avraham, Yaakov sacrificed to the attribute represented by Yitzchak described by the Torah as “the G’d of his father Yitzchak.” Yaakov was bound to mention Yitzchak ahead of Avraham either because Yitzchak had been Avraham’s student or because Yitzchak was Yaakov’s father.
The type of sacrifices which Yaakov offered were שלמים, “peace-offerings,” seeing Yaakov realised that the exile commenced now for his sons, something which filled him with fear. He considered it appropriate therefore to offer them to the attribute of פחד יצחק, i.e. the attribute of Justice. The word שלמים contains an allusion to the fact that Yaakov strove to perfect his various character traits. Seeing that this was his goal, he merited a vision of the “weaker” form of that attribute, i.e. G’d appeared to him in a nocturnal vision while he was asleep. This was to reassure him that although he was on the way to Egypt and to exile that his descendants would not perish as a result of being exiled. When the Torah stressed that G’d appeared to him במראות הלילה, “in a nocturnal vision,” this was an allusion to the fact that subsequent to their exile, his descendants would experience redemption after having suffered cruel persecution.

A person must honor his father more than ... his grandfather... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it not say, “To the God of his fathers”? Or, “To the God of Avraham,” who was the main one to spread knowledge of Hashem’s Presence? Whereas Yitzchok received [this knowledge] from Avraham.

Da brach Israel auf, in der freudigsten Stimmung, in dem Glanz- und Höhepunkt seines ganzen, in bitteren Kämpfen und Leiden so vielfach geprüften Lebens, er und all die Seinigen.

לא־לוהי אביו יצחק, “to the G-d of his father Yitzchok. His father Yitzchok had offered a sacrifice at the same altar, as we know from Genesis 26,28.

לאלהי אביו יצחק TO THE GOD OF HIS FATHER, ISAAC — The duty of honouring one’s father is more imperative than that of honouring one’s grandfather (Genesis Rabbah 94:5); therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac and not with that of Abraham.

Sie reisten südwärts und kamen an die letzte Grenzstadt, an das durch die Erinnerung der Väter verherrlichte Beer-Schewa. Da opferte er זבחים. Wir finden nicht wieder, dass unsere Erzväter זבחים geopfert hätten. Sie, wie alle Noachiden, brachten vielmehr nur עולה .עולות drückt die gänzliche Hingebung an Gott aus, זבח ist an sich ein von den בעלים zu verzehrendes Familienmahl, und weiht die Familienstätte, das "Familienhaus" und den Familientisch zu Tempel und Altar. זבחים, ja in der Regel שלמים, drücken ja den höheren Gedanken aus, dass "Gott zu uns komme"; sie werden daher aus jenem heiteren Bewusstsein dargebracht, dass, wo ein Familienkreis pflichttreu und einig lebt und sich von Gott getragen fühlt, da אלקי׳ בדור צדיק, da sei Gott gegenwärtig. Darum sind שלמים, "Friedensopfer" des gottgesegneten Familienlebens, so spezifisch jüdisch. Der Gedanke des Aufgehens in Gott und des Hingebens an Gott dämmerte auch in nichtjüdischen Gemütern. Allein, dass das gewöhnliche Leben so von Gott durchdrungen sein kann, dass "man isst und trinkt und schaut dabei Gott", dass alle unsere Familienräume Tempel, unsere Tische Altäre, unsere Jünglinge und Jungfrauen Priester und Priesterinnen, diese Durchgeistigung des gewöhnlichen Privatlebens, das ist eine Spende des Judentums. Dass Jakob-Israel nicht עולות, sondern זבחים opferte, das liegt darin, dass Jakob sich jetzt zum erstenmale in seinem Familienkreise glücklich und heiter und "ganz" fühlte. In diesem Bewusstsein und Gefühle brachte er Gott ein "Familienopfer" und in diesem Gefühle brachte er sein Opfer, tief bedeutsam, אבין לאלקי יצחק nicht allgemein לאלקי׳. In dem Liede am roten Meere spricht Israel: זה אל ואנוהו אלקי אבי וארוממנהו: "In dieser meiner Rettung hat sich Gott als die mich tragende Allmacht mir gezeigt, auf dass ich ihn in meine Mitte aufnehme und ihm eine entsprechende Stätte werde; es ist dies aber derselbe Gott, den mich die Väter gelehrt, dem auch die Väter gedient, und der durch mich nur noch zu erhöhter Anerkennung gelangen will!" "Der Belehrung und dem זכות der Väter verdanke ich ich diese Rettung." So auch hier. Die Seligkeit, die Jakob eben jetzt empfand, schrieb er nicht seinem Verdienste, sondern dem זכות אבות zu. — Vielleicht auch ist es ein Hinblick auf die עקדה. Jakobs ganzes bisheriges Leben war nichts als eine in konkreter Wirklichkeit sich vollziehende עקדה, deren Auferstehungsmomente er eben jetzt sich genaht fühlte.

יעקב יעקב JACOB, JACOB — The repetition of the name is a mark of affection (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 1 12).

AND HE SAID, JACOB, JACOB. After G-d had told him, Thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name,¹⁷²Above, 35:10. it would be proper that He call him by this glorious name, and so he is indeed mentioned three times in this section.¹⁷³In Verses 1, 2 and 5. However, He called him Jacob in order to hint that now he will not contend with G-d and men and prevail, [as the name Israel indicates],¹⁷⁴Above, 32:29. but he will be in a house of bondage until He will also bring him up again, since the exile now begins with him. This is the meaning of the verse, And these are the names of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons,¹⁷⁵Verse 8 here. for they would come there with the appellation, “children of Israel,” since the children would multiply and increase there and their name and glory would extend. However, he is “Jacob” when descending thereto.
The reason why Scripture mentions Er and Onan¹⁷⁶Verse 12 here. together with the children of Israel who came into Egypt,¹⁷⁷See Ramban above, 38:8. [although they had already died, as clearly stated in Verse 12]; is due to a secret which can be known from the words we have already written.¹⁷⁷See Ramban above, 38:8. The learned student [of the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand this, as well as the meaning of the entire Verse [12]. Scripture likewise mentioned them among those numbered¹⁷⁸The intent of the Hebrew text may also be that Scripture likewise mentions them “in the book of Numbers,” thus giving this sentence the same format as Ramban’s next sentence, “And in the book of Chronicles….” in the desert: The sons of Judah: Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Judah after their families were, etc.¹⁷⁹Numbers 26:19-20. And there, in the book of Chronicles, Scripture enumerates them in another count: The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan and Shelah; which were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess…And Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Perez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.¹⁸⁰I Chronicles 2:3-4. This is difficult to understand. Since two of his sons died prior to the birth of the youngest two, how does Scripture conclude that they totalled five? Thus there is here also an allusion to that which was referred to above.

ויאמר אלוקים לישראל, what He said to him at this time was due to Yaakov having become Yisrael. He would have to display qualities of leadership as his sons would have to deal with people who would challenge them

!ויאמר: יעקב! יעקב; the reason this call to Yaakov is repeated is to illustrate that for how many years Yaakov had not been favoured with a communication from G’d. By repeating his name at this point, Yaakov was alerted to the fact that he would receive a prophetic insight.

ויאמר יעקב, “Yaakov said, etc.” even though G’d had told him that in the future he would no longer be called Yaakov but Israel, this change of name was not the same as that of Avram’s name being changed to Avraham. Avraham had undergone a name change in honour of changing his religion, becoming circumcised and simultaneously becoming JEWISH. This was not the case with Yaakov who had been born Jewish. While it would have been inappropriate to continue to refer to Avraham by his former name, in fact it would have been insulting, this consideration did not apply to the name Yaakov. Furthermore, if Yisrael had never again been called Yaakov, people would have thought that the stigma attached to the name Yaakov, i.e. the crooked one, had been justified at the time he had been known as such. Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah reverted to calling him Yaakov at this stage, was to hint that once in Egypt, his task would no longer be to contend with the heavenly representatives of the spiritually negative forces, such as the angel representing Esau in heaven. From now on he would be basically in the house of slavery, as effective from now the years of exile G’d had predicted at the covenant of the pieces to Avraham had begun. This condition would continue until G’d would redeem the Jewish people from there and lead them to the Holy Land. If, nonetheless, the Torah in verse 5 begins to list the names of בני ישראל, “the children of Israel,” and not as we might have expected “the children of Yaakov,” even though it was these who traveled to their exile, it was to assure them that paradoxically, the Jewish people’s developing into a numerically strong nation was a process that would take place in the very land where they would be cruelly suppressed and tormented. Verse 5 was a look into the future, whereas our verse deals with the present, i.e. a period when Yaakov, their patriarch, would in a manner of speaking become a symbol and would inspire them by what he had already accomplished on earth, not by what he still had to accomplish. [Here I have sermonized a little, expanding on Nachmanides. Ed.]

אל תירא מרדה מצרימה FEAR NOT TO GO DOWN TO EGYPT — God said this to him because he was grieved that he was compelled to leave the Land of Israel (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 39).

I am … God of your father. I am the God who told your father not to go to Egypt (26:2), yet I am telling you to go. There I will make you into a great nation. Whereas if you remain here your offspring will intermarry with the Canaanites. This will not happen in Egypt because the populace will not even eat with the Hebrews; see 43:32

אל תירא…כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם "Do not be afraid…for I will make you into a great nation there." What precisely was Jacob afraid of when he set out to go to Egypt? If it was the fear of ushering in exile for his family, how did G'd's assurance alleviate that fear? If, on the other hand, G'd meant to console him that there would be no exile there, history teaches that Jacob's family became enslaved and suffered persecution and hard labour in Egypt! Besides, how did the announcement that Jacob would become a great nation while in Egypt console him over what he was afraid of? Why could he not develop into a great nation in any other place but Egypt? Furthermore, why did G'd add the letter ל and said לגוי גדול אשימך, instead of merely בי גוי גדול אשימך?

אלוקי אביך, the very G’d Who prevented your father from descending to Egypt is now telling you not to be afraid to undertake this journey together with your family, as כי לגוי גדול, the redeeming feature of this journey will be that I will cause you to develop into a great nation there. The promise was fulfilled in Exodus 1,7 where we read that the Israelites multiplied and became a very powerful people in Egypt.

אנכי הא-ל אלו-הי אביך ,”I am the Lord G’d of your father.” G’d meant: “I am the same G’d who prevented your father from leaving the Holy Land by telling him “do not go down to Egypt (Genesis 26,2). If I tell you now to proceed to Egypt, I do not want you to be afraid of this trip.” We have a similar assurance phrased by a warning not to be afraid in Isaiah 41,14 “do not be afraid, O worm Jacob.” A third example of G’d offering reassurance by phrasing it in a similar manner is found in Isaiah 41,10 “fear not for I am with you, be not frightened for I am your G’d.”

אלוקי אביך, “the G-d of your father.” G-d appeared to Yaakov in the same mode as Yaakov had addressed him, i.e. this is why He describes Himself as “the G-d of your father “

אשימך, i.e. “I will make your children.” What G’d is reported as saying to Yaakov here in verse 4, i.e. אעלך, “I will lead you up” (back to the land of Canaan) is also to be understood as referring to Yaakov’s descendants, the purpose being to inherit the land of Canaan, not to G’d accompanying Yaakov’s his bodily remains.

Clearly, the Torah refers to the prediction/decree at the covenant between the pieces when G'd told Abraham (Genesis 15,13) that exile had already been decreed. No doubt Abraham had informed his son and grandson of this decree. When Jacob saw that food was for sale in Egypt, he immediately associated this with the fact that his descendants would endure exile there. He was afraid that this exile would commence the moment he arrived in Egypt.. He was also worried that he would be buried there, in a land which was totally impure. G'd therefore appeared to him in a dream describing Himself as the G'd of his father; He meant that just as the exile had not commenced during Isaac's life and Isaac had not experienced persecution, so it would not commence during Jacob's lifetime either. Concerning Jacob's intention to return to the land of Canaan as soon as the famine was over, G'd told Jacob that he would develop into a great nation in Egypt; in other words, G'd had a good reason why Jacob would not return to the land of Canaan soon. G'd alluded to this by saying כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם, i.e. in order for this to be accomplished you have to stay there for some considerable time.

אל תירא מרדה מצרימה, “do not fear descending to Egypt;” no one in the Bible had ever been told by G-d not to be afraid, unless he had already been afraid. Yaakov’s reasoning for being fearful was his knowledge that being strangers in a foreign land and being slaves which had been decreed already in the lifetime of his grandfather Avraham would most likely commence now that he was moving to Egypt. G-d answered him that although He had warned his father and grandfather of this, He appeared to him in order to give him reassurance. He hinted that although he was correct in assuming that the warning would soon be fulfilled, but by the same token, the promise made to all the three patriarchs that they would develop into a great nation, came closer to its fulfillment.

In order to understand the whole concept I must preface by quoting a tradition we have in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues (recorded in Likutey Torah, Miketz). The purpose of the various exiles is to isolate segments of sanctity which are scattered Within various branches of the קליפה, the "peel" surrounding the kernel which is all sanctity. Inasmuch as Egypt was full of abominations [manifestations of such a קליפה, Ed.] and impurity had its "headquarters" in that country, it was no more than natural that many such segments of sanctity were scattered throughout that country. In fact the amounts of such scattered segments of sanctity are usually proportionate to the amount of impurity and defilement that abound in a certain area or environment. The phenomenon we have just described originated as soon as Adam sinned. It has been Israel's task to "rescue" all those splinters of sanctity and to make them part of a whole. Our sages (quoted in Likutey Torah on Parshat Vayeshev) have said that the nation that left Egypt and experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai was previously captive within this קליפה called Egypt. It is to such a nation that Moses said in Deut. 4,8: "who is a great nation possessing such righteous statutes, etc." G'd told Jacob that the purpose of Israel spending time in exile in Egypt was to enable it to develop into this great nation. "The great nation" [all the fragments of sanctity, Ed.] at that time was "lost" amongst all the Egyptians and it had to be isolated and then led out from there. Unless Jacob descended to Egypt at this time, there would be no hope of accomplishing this. It was because Jacob represented sanctity in a powerful and concentrated form that he could become the "magnet" which would attract the various scattered segments of sanctity that still abounded in Egypt in an ineffectual form. This is the meaning of the statement in Bereshit Rabbah 79,1 that Jacob did not depart from this world until he had seen 600.000 descendants. These 600.000 were the ones who endured persecution there and were ultimately refined in what our sages are fond of calling the "iron crucible" which welded the Jewish people into a nation and enabled them to leave Egypt after having been refined. Jacob understood then that is was necessary for him to settle in Egypt for the rest of his life and he was no longer filled with dismay at that prospect, especially so since G'd assured him that he personally, would not experience oppression and persecution. As to Jacob's final concern, that he would not want to be buried amidst the impurities that Egypt was full of, G'd assured him that He would see to it that Jacob would be buried in the land of Israel.

ואנכי אעלך AND I MYSELF WILL ALSO SURELY BRING THEE UP AGAIN — Here He promised him that he would be buried in the Holy Land (Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 1:10).

אעלך גם עלה, G’d meant that He would both descend with Yaakov to Egypt and also return with him to the Holy Land. The single expression גם serving as preposition for two activities, also occurs in Exodus 12,32 וברכתם גם אותי, when Pharaoh asked Moses to bless him as well as the Jewish people when they would offer sacrifices to their G’d.

אעלך גם עלה. Not only will I bring you out of Egypt (in a coffin) to be buried in the Holy Land, but I will also bring your numerous descendants out of there to a good land flowing with milk and honey (the land of Cannan) as we know from G’d’s promise to Moses in Exodus 3,8.

אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה, "I personally will go down to Egypt with you, etc." This verse teaches that the Divine Presence (שכינה) descended to Egypt with Jacob; this seems difficult in view of the statement by Mechilta on Exodus 9,29 that Moses had to go out of town to offer up a prayer due to the preponderance of impurity within the town.

אנכי ארד עמך, the meaning of these words is that you will not suffer a mishap on the way to Egypt.

אנכי אעלך גם עלה, “I will also be the One Who will bring you up.” The verb עלה has been repeated here alluding to the statement of our sages that יעקב לא מת, that “Yaakov never died.” Some commentators understand the word אעלך as parallel to אל תעלני בחצי ימי, Psalms 102,25, where it means that David prays that he should not be allowed to die, -i.e. to ascend to the heavenly regions of after life- while he had lived only part of his allotted span on earth. [David wanted to experience the triumph of G’d on earth before leaving the earthly domain. Ed.] G’d told him that he would die while Joseph would survive him, and that is the meaning of “Joseph will place his hand on your eyes,” in our verse. Still another interpretation understands the word אעלך as referring to Yaakov’s soul whom G’d, personally, will accompany to the celestial regions, while his son Joseph, would perform the earthly rites connected with the passing of his father from life on earth.

He promised him that he will be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Rashi deduces this because it is written, “I will bring you up,” implying to Eretz Yisrael, which is higher than all the other lands.

אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה, ואנכי אעלך גם עלה, “I (G–d speaking) will go down with you to Egypt, and I will also go back up with you (for you to be buried in the land of Canaan).” The wording when examined closely, implies that whereas G–d personally will accompany him on the way down to Egypt, an agent of His will supervise the return to the land of Canaan of his body when the time came. Proof for this interpretation is the fact that although 70 of his descendants have been mentioned as coming to Egypt, only sixty nine names have been listed, i.e. G–d Himself is considered as making up the seventieth. (Compare Deuteronomy 10,22) When the Israelites eventually would leave Egypt there was also one missing to make up the number 600000, this ‘one’ being G–d.” [This is why no precise number was quoted in Exodus 12,37 for the number of males that left Egypt, although on several counts in the desert, each time a precise number of the adult males is given. Ed.] Another interpretation: the words: אנכי אעלך גם עלה, are a correction by G–d for what Yaakov had thought of as a “descent” to Egypt. G–d tells him that far from being a “descent,” it will be seen as an ascent, by the time his descendants will leave Egypt.

גם עלה, the word גם “also,” which appears superfluous, means that not only would his bones be buried in the cave of Machpelah, but that all the bones of his children would also find their eternal resting place in the Holy Land. He also assured him that Joseph would be present when it came time for him to die.

(2) ALSO RAISING. That he was buried in with his ancestors in the Cave of Machpelah.

ישית ידך על עיניך, you yourself will not have to worry about any of your affairs while in Egypt, seeing that Joseph will take care of all the mundane matters pertaining to daily life. In other words, you can keep your eyes closed when it comes to mundane matters.

ואנכי אעלך, as we explained already on the preceding verse. Another possible explanation: the words refer to the person of Yaakov himself, G’d promising that He would be with him on his way to burial in the land of Canaan. The reason G’d added the words: גם עלה would then be a reference to his children who would carry him from Egypt to Canaan to be buried there.

Perhaps what G'd had in mind when He told Jacob that He would descend with him to Egypt was that whenever he or the Jewish people would experience problems, G'd would share their suffering (compare Psalms 91,15 "I am with him in distress"). אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה, the word מצרימה, may be derived from the word מצר, "a narrow, confined area." G'd hinted that whenever Jacob (the Jewish people) would find themselves hemmed in, He would share their misery. G'd demonstrated this to Moses when He appeared to him out of the burning bush, certainly not a dwelling fit for G'd. G'd's message was that as long as the Jewish people are in distress in Egypt, He Himself would reside in such locations as the lowly thornbush. The שכינה never descended to the part of Egypt which was full of impurity. There are numerous instances (such as in Megillah 29) where the descent of the שכינה to Egypt is understood to mean that G'd shared the exile experience of the Jewish people with them. When Israel (Jacob) is described as prostrating himself at the head of the bed in Genesis 47,31, Tanchuma understands this as Jacob bowing down to the presence of the שכינה. [Evidently the presence of the שכינה was felt in Egypt then. Ed.] Moreover, Bereshit Rabbah 94,9 understands that the שכינה made up the number 70 in the list of descendants coming down to Egypt with Jacob, seeing that you will find only 69 names listed there. All of this proves that the שכינה did descend to Egypt (though not to areas infested with impurity).

ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך, “and Joseph will place his hand on your eyes (and close them forever.)” This was an accepted custom in those days. It implied that Joseph would also be instrumental in his remains being transferred to the cave of Machpelah. A different interpretation of this verse: the words: על עיניך, are not to be understood literally, but are derived from the word עין being used as referring to someone’s or something’s, fountain, essence, as in עין יעקב, (Deuteronomy 33,28) where it refers to the personification of what Yaakov stood for. According to this interpretation, G-d assured Yaakov that in Joseph he will have a suitable successor. He will take care ably of all his needs.

ישית ידו על עיניך, the word עיניך does not mean “your eyes,” but “your affairs, your needs.” Joseph will look after all of Yaakov’s needs during the years remaining to him in Egypt The expression occurs in Job 9,33.

ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך, we see that this promise was fulfilled in 50,1 when the Torah reports ויפול יוסף על פני אביו, “that Joseph fell on the face of his father.” The promise mentioned here included the fact that after Yaakov’s death Joseph would look after the economic requirements of the brothers and their families. [presumably based on Yaakov’s knowledge that the famine would start again after his death. Ed.]

You have to realise that the manifestation of G'd's Presence (שכינה) occurs in a variety of forms and degrees. We are taught in Avot 3,6 that when ten people sit together and are preoccupied with Torah, the שכינה rests amongst them. The rabbis in the Mishnah there are at pains to prove from scriptural quotations that even a single individual studying Torah is accompanied by the שכינה. On the other hand, we find that the שכינה did not descend from heaven to take up residence amongst the Jewish people until the latter had established the Tabernacle (compare Exodus 40,35) and had made numerous preparations to qualify for hosting the שכינה. How is it possible that no such preparations appear to be required for an individual who studies Torah and qualifies for G'd's Presence as stated in Avot? Clearly, when one speaks of the presence of the שכינה one must distinguish between different levels of such a Divine Presence. The amount of enlightenment one experiences depends on the level of Divine Presence one is privileged to experience. If we were to describe such different levels of a Divine Presence, we could categorise the revelation at Mount Sinai as the highest level of such a Divine Presence. The next lower level may be the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. A slightly lesser level of G'd's Presence may be experienced by the "average" prophet at the time he receives a message from G'd. Progressively lower levels of such a Divine Presence may be found in synagogues or houses of study. A group of ten people discussing matters related to Torah-study may qualify for an even lesser degree of such a Divine Presence, etc. When we keep this in mind we can better understand the statement of our sages that the Divine Presence, i.e. the enlightenment provided to a prophet never descended to certain levels. As a result, Moses had to leave the city in order to qualify for the degree of Divine Presence that could respond to his prayer. The degree of Divine Presence found amongst a group of people studying Torah is of a lower level, however, and it was that level of the שכינה which descended to Egypt with Jacob and remained there until the Exodus.

While it may sound presumptuous to differentiate between different degrees of Divine light, this is true as long as we speak of G'd Himself. Light which radiates from G'd, however, is subject to different "filters" in order to ensure that the recipient receives the amount which is beneficial to him and does not harm him through over-exposure. The same principle applies even to different souls, all of which may be perceived as parts of G'd's "light" emanating from G'd's throne of glory.

The considerations we have just mentioned may also explain why G'd referred to Himself twice as אנכי when telling Jacob that He would descend with him to Egypt and would go up with him again when Jacob would be buried. G'd meant that the level of שכינה that would accompany him on his return would be a higher level than that which accompanied him at the time he journeyed to Egypt. It was the latter level of אנכי which the Jewish people experienced at Mount Sinai, and it is that level of אנכי which is experienced at the end of the forty nine years of the Jubilee cycle. This is the mystical dimension of the fact that the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in the Torah a total of forty nine times.

The repetition by G'd of the word ואנכי may also be an allusion that the redemption when it would occur would be orchestrated by G'd personally, not merely by one of His agents (compare Deut. 6,21 and Exodus 13,16).

The reason G'd repeated the words אעלך גם עלה, "I will also bring you up from there" is, that G'd will 1) see to it that Jacob will be buried in Canaan; 2) that the Jewish people will be led out of exile by G'd. G'd added the word גם, also, as an allusion that both the regular Jewish people will be redeemed as well as the lost souls which had been captive amongst all the impurity in that country and about which we have written earlier. All of them would ascend to the land of Israel.

It is also possible that the word גם refers to the spirituality which descended to Egypt with Jacob. It will be redeemed. The Zohar quotes proof for that from the words יצאו כל צבאות השם מארץ מצרים "all of G'd's hosts went out of Egypt" ( Exodus 12,41).

ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך, "and Joseph will place his hand over your eyes." This was an assurance to Jacob that Joseph would not die during his lifetime. It was welcome news to Jacob as he had prophesied that he would descend to the grave of his son Joseph (37,36). G'd wanted Jacob to know that he had erred in that forecast.

The other part of this message was that Jacob would not return to the land of Canaan alive. In fact this statement may be construed as G'd prohibiting Jacob from returning to Canaan as this would frustrate G'd's promise that Joseph would be present at his death. Since Joseph was not allowed to leave Egypt G'd would not be able to keep His promise to Jacob unless he lived out his life in Egypt.

וישאו בני ישראל, the reason why Yaakov’s children are referred to here for the first time as בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel, and not as “the sons of Yaakov,” is that from this moment on their task had become a twofold one, to do that on account of which their father had been accorded his additional name, title, “Israel.” From now on they faced challenges in their conduct vis-à-vis G’d as well as challenges in their conduct vis a vis their environment. This resulted from their becoming strangers in a land in which they had not been born and raised.

Yaakov rose. He forced himself to get up and go. The move was difficult for him because he knew that it marked the beginning of the exile.

וישאו בני ישראל את יעקב אביהם, “The children of Israel carried their father.” This was the occasion when they repaid him for the time at the Yabbok when he had carried all of them across the river. (Genesis 32,25)

Als er in der ungetrübt heiteren Stimmung aufbrach (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 46: 2), heißt es nicht ויקם; jetzt aber bedurfte er der Ermannung; darum: ויקם. Bedeutsam wechseln hier wieder die Namen. Die Familie war in der heitersten Stimmung, hatte keine Ahnung von der in der Ferne andämmernden trüben Zukunft, der sie entgegen zog. Den Vater aber erfüllte der Ernst der Galutherwartung, auf die er hingewiesen worden. Darum heißt es: die Söhne "Israels" führten ihren Vater "Jakob".

את יעקב אביהם. Now that Yaakov was on his way to his final destination while alive, one which would not be followed by more suffering, disappointment, and upheavals, he had a foretaste of what is historically the ultimate destiny of Yaakov as described by the prophet Jeremiah 31,6 for the eventual glorious future of the Jewish people. The prophet describes it as רנו ליעקב שמחה, “cry out in joy for Yaakov.”

That Pharaoh had sent. After Yaakov related to his sons what Hashem had told him, they noted that Pharaoh had also decreed that he be brought to Egypt and a king’s thoughts are determined by Hashem; see Mishlei 21:1.

אשר רכשו בארץ כנען WHICH THEY HAD GOTTEN IN THE LAND OF CANAAN — But all that he had gotten in Padan-aram he gave to Esau in payment for his share in the Cave of Machpelah. He said, “The possessions I obtained outside the land are of no value to me”. It is to this that the words refer (Genesis 50:5) “[Bury me in my burying-place] which כריתי” I obtained for myself by means of a כרי. He placed before him (Esau) piles of gold and silver like a heap (כרי) of corn and said to him, “Take these in exchange for your share in the Cave of Machpelah” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).

ויקחו את מקניהם, They took their cattle, etc. This ought to have been reported in verse one when we are told about Jacob's whole family setting out on their journey to Egypt. Perhaps the brothers originally intended only to accompany their father and to see Joseph. Only after Jacob's dream did it become clear to them that G'd approved of their migration to Egypt until such time as it would please Him that they should return to their ancestral homeland (as I explained on verse 4). This is why they agreed only at this point to take their mobile possessions with them. The Torah also alludes to the fact that though the brothers may well have been aware that their journey would lead to their families' eventual exile in Egypt they did not rebel against what appeared to be G'd's decree.

(6-7) Sie waren alle bei ihm und mit ihm; waren alle seine Kinder. Er hatte nicht den Schmerz wie seine Voreltern, denen ein Kind sich entfremdet hatte; sondern es waren alle seine Söhne und seine Enkel, und obgleich sich schon viele Familien gebildet hatten, so gruppierten sich doch alle um ihren Vater Jakob; an ihm hingen sie, mit ihm gingen sie, er brachte sie alle mit sich hinab nach Mizrajim.

ובנות בניו HIS SON’S DAUGHTERS — these were Serah, the daughter of Asher, and Jochebed, the daughter of Levi.

AND HIS SONS’ DAUGHTERS. These were Serah, the daughter of Asher, and Jochebed, the daughter of Levi. This is the language of Rashi. But what will Rashi include in the term, his daughters, [which is also plural, although Jacob only had one daughter, Dinah]? Rather, it is the way of Scripture, when mentioning the genealogy of many people, to refer to an individual in the plural form, as for example, And the sons of Dan: Hushim;¹⁸¹Verse 23 here. And the sons of Palu: Eliab.¹⁸²Numbers 26:8. The same is true here: “daughters” refer to Dinah. “His sons’ daughters” refers to Serah the daughter of Asher, but Jochebed [Moses’ mother] is not mentioned by Scripture [as being among the persons who went down to Egypt], as it is said, All the souls were threescore and six.¹⁸³Verse 26 here. She is, however, hinted at, according to the opinion of our Rabbis.¹⁸⁴Baba Bathra 123a. See also Ramban, next Verse.

בניו ובני בניו אתו, his sons and grandchildren with him, etc. Since we have been told in the previous verse that Jacob arrived in Egypt with all his descendants, why did the Torah have to tell us that he took his children and grandchildren with him?

בנותיו, his daughter Dinah and his daughters-in-law.

His granddaughters. See Rashi. This would mean, however, that Yaakov’s sons fathered only two daughters. It seems more likely only those whose biographies affected the nation are mentioned by name.

ובנות בניו, “and the daughters of his sons.” According to Rashi the “daughters” mentioned here are Serach, daughter of Asher, and Yocheved, daughter of Levi. Nachmanides writes that the expression בנותיו presents a difficulty, seeing that according to Scripture, Yaakov had only one daughter, Dinah. Why then would the Torah speak about בנותיו, “his daughters” (pl.)? We must remember that it is the style of the Torah to treat subjects (such as offspring, children) in the plural mode, as for instance ובני דן חושים, “Dan’s sons were Chushim.” (verse 23) He had only that one son, and no daughters. Or, for instance, ובני פלוא אליאב, “and the sons of Phallu were Eliav.” There is therefore no reason to wonder why the subject of “daughters” should be treated differently. The same applies to the plural mode used for granddaughters, the only one being named in the text being Serach. Yocheved was not mentioned directly, although the Torah speaks about 70 souls of Yaakov’s descendants arriving in Egypt, whereas only 69 (including Joseph and his two sons) have been named. Some commentators explain the plural mode as references to daughters-in-law. Many people refer to their daughters-in-law as “daughter.”

Asher’s daughter, Serach and Leivi’s daughter, Yocheved. You might ask: Why does Scripture write “his daughters” in the plural form? He had only Dinah! We cannot answer that this is in accordance with R. Yehudah who said that a twin sister was born with each of Yaakov’s sons, and the sons married them [i.e., each married another’s twin]. This cannot be, for the twin sisters died before coming to Egypt, as Rashi explains on v. 26. Neither can we answer that it is in accordance with R. Nechemiah who said that the wives of Yaakov’s sons were [born of fathers from other nations and mothers who were] Canaanites, and Scripture calls them Yaakov’s “daughters” because people call their sons-in-law “son” and their daughters-in-law “daughter.” Rashi cited these two conflicting opinions on the verse, “All his sons and all his daughters rose to console him” (37:35). Accordingly, [also here] “his daughters” will mean his daughters-in-law. But this cannot be, for Scripture is counting Yaakov’s own offspring here [as it says in v. 26]. It seems the answer is: When Scripture treats the genealogy of many people, it speaks in plural even for one person. [Examples are:] “The sons of Don were Chushim” (v. 23), and, “The sons of Palu were Eliav” (Bamidbar 26:8). Although [it might infer that] “his daughters” means Dinah alone, we still would prefer to include [other descendants] where possible, rather than relying on stretched explanations. Thus Rashi explains [“his granddaughters” as] Serach and Yocheved, [even though Yocheved is not expressly mentioned in this section]. And so it seems from Bava Basra 143b. We need not ask then on the contrary: [If this is true, then] on the verse, “They rose to console him” (37:35), why did R. Yehudah say they were twins, and R. Nechemiah say they were daughters-in-law? Perhaps it was only Dinah! For [the answer is:] It is different there, because it is written, “All his daughters.” Alternatively, it is different in this case, because here it is treating the genealogy of many people, as mentioned above. (Nachalas Yaakov)

בנותיו ובנות בניו, “his daughters and the daughters of his sons;” Rashi explains this line as referring to Serach, daughter of Asher, and Yocheved, daughter of Levi. This sounds peculiar as it does not explain who Yaakov’s “daughters (pl)” were. We have been told only about one daughter Dinah, born for him by Leah. She was the only daughter listed as descending to Egypt. The twin daughters born to him had all died before that time. Leah’s descendants numbered 33 as stated explicitly. (verse 15) It is possible to include daughters-in-law, but those were not included in the count. My personal problem with this verse are the words (author writing) כל נפש בניו ובנותיו שלושים ושלש, “the total number of souls his sons and daughters were thirty three.” (verse 15) It is not possible to understand this number as including any daughters-in-law, as these were not counted, seeing that they are specifically excluded in verse 26 as not having been included in the count. Maybe that what Rashi had in mind was to teach us that granddaughters were considered like daughters.

בנותיו, “his daughters;” the plural mode is used although Yaakov had only one daughter. This is a customary way of the Torah referring to descendants, and we find a parallel in referring to male descendants in verse 23 of our chapter i.e. ובני דן חושים, “Dan’s sons were called Chushim,” as well as in Numbers 26,8 where the children of Palu are called Eliav, even though each of the fathers had only one son.

ובנות בניו, His daughters-in-law and Serach the daughter of Asher

Why did the Torah interrupt the report by the word אתו at the end of verse six and again mentioned אתו between listing male and female offspring respectively in verse seven? The report could have been considerably condensed without omitting any of the details.

The Torah tries to tell us that there were ideological differences between the sons of Jacob. Some agreed willingly to migrate to Egypt and to accept the burden of G'd's decree that their children would become slaves in Egypt. Others strove to delay as long as possible the descent to the land which would be known as the "iron crucible" of the Jewish people. The Torah tries to describe who was who by mentioning separately בניו ובני בניו אתו on the one hand, meaning that those did not have to be persuaded to undertake the journey with Jacob. On the other hand, when the verse continues to speak separately about Jacob bringing with him "his daughters, granddaughters and all his descendants," these are the people who did not go down to Egypt voluntarily.

In this connection it is important to pay attention to the statement in Shemot Rabbah 1,5 that as long as any of the people who descended with Jacob at the time remained alive the Jews lived in Egypt as totally free people. This is based on the Torah telling us in Exodus 1,6 that "Joseph and all that generation died." The words "and all that generation" refer to those who came to Egypt from Canaan. Perhaps the Torah teaches us that the people who had accepted G'd's decree willingly were spared realisation of that decree during their own lifetime. Perhaps the best proof of this is the fact that Yocheved and Serach, daughter of Asher, who both arrived in Egypt with the family of Jacob did experience the enslavement. The reason was that they were not around when a decision had to be made to descend to Egypt. They were still in their mother's wombs (compare Bereshit Rabbah 94,9). It is worth- while to peruse what the Zohar on Vayakhel 198 has to say on the subject. He quotes Psalms 146,5 "hail to him who has the G'd of Jacob for his help, because his hope was in the Lord."

הבאים מצרימה WHO CAME INTO EGYPT — Relative to that time when they were going to Egypt Scripture calls them “those who were coming” to Egypt (the participle) and one, therefore, need not be surprised that it does not state אשר באו “who came” (the perfect tense).

These are the names … Yaakov and his sons. Although all seventy were righteous, only Yaakov and his sons were truly worthy of being mentioned by name.

ואלה שמות בני ישראל, "And these are the names of Israel's children, etc." The numbers listed here deserve to be analysed; we need to understand why the verse had to repeat again "Jacob and his sons;" besides, what does that statement have to do with "Jacob's firstborn Reuben?" Why does the Torah mention in verse 15 that Leah's descendants numbered 33 when the list of names shows only 32?

ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה יעקב ובניו, “and these are the names of the children of Israel who arrived in Egypt, Yaakov and his sons.” All the three patriarchs were called “Israel,” (Bereshit Rabbah 63,3). At this point Yitzchak is called “Israel” by the Torah as we read: that the “children of Israel” were none other than “Yaakov and his sons.” This verse clearly indicates that Yitzchak too was called “Israel.” We find proof that Avraham was also called “Israel” in Exodus 12,40: “and the length of time the Israelites had stayed in Egypt was 430 years.” We know that the calculation of the 400 years of which G’d spoke in Genesis 15,13 commenced with the birth of Yitzchak. Seeing the Torah refers to “the children of Israel” at a time when the Israelites left Egypt this makes their founder Avraham also one of the “Israelites.” How else could they be described as the “children of Israel?” This is also why the Talmud (Kidushin 18) calls Esau an “heretic Israelite.”

Concerning that particular time Scripture refers to them as “those who are coming”... Rashi is answering the question: Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the Torah for us, and in his days they had already come. If so, it should say, “Who came”! Thus Rashi explains [as he does].

יעקב ובניו, Yaakov is included in the number 70 as is evident from the plain meaning of the words in front of us, i.e. כל נפש בניו ובנותיו של יעקב ולאה הכל שלושים ושלוש (verse 15). This total of 33 presupposes that Yaakov is included.

(8-10) Wie überhaupt auf das keusche, sittlich reine Familienleben die jüdische Nation gebaut ist, wie später die Köpfe immer nach Vaterhäusern und Familien gezählt werden, so werden sie im Augenblick ihres Hinabziehens auch noch einmal alle nach ihrer Abstammung genannt. — יעקב ובניו, sie waren eins, so eins, dass Jakob selbst mitgezählt wird.

ואלה שמות, “and these are the names, etc.” the Torah enumerates them once more in order to highlight the miracles of the Lord showing how seventy souls who migrated to Egypt developed into nation of at least 2,5 million souls within the space of 210 years.

Although we have already quoted the Midrash according to which Yocheved was born "between the walls," i.e. at the time Jacob and his family entered Egypt, there is no proof or even hint of this in the Torah. There is no unanimity on that subject amongst our sages seeing that we have the view that the שכינה should be considered as making up the missing number between 69 and 70. If Yocheved were indeed to be included in the count we would then have a total of 71 instead of seventy. Proof of the accuracy of the statement of our sages is found in verse 27 where the Torah mentions that the total number of persons arriving in Egypt was 70. Why would the שכינה be considered as making up the missing number 33 in verse eight, instead of applying equally to the whole family, i.e. accounting for the difference between 69 and 70? Moreover, if Yocheved made up the number 33 in verse 8, then the number mentioned in verse 27 ought to have been 67 instead of 66. This would comprise 33 of Leah, 16 of Zilpah, 11 of Rachel -excluding Joseph and his two sons who were already in Egypt,- plus 7 of Bilhah. Why does the Torah appear to contradict itself by writing: "all the persons were 66," when in fact there were 67?

Besides, why were Joseph and his sons included in the count in verse 27 when we are told about a total number of 70?

The plain meaning of these verses is undoubtedly that the Torah informs us about two sets of numbers. One count refers to Jacob plus his family, the other to Jacob's descendants by themselves. When Jacob and his children are added up together we have the number 70. When the numbers exclude Jacob we have a total of 69.

The Torah is quite accurate by explaining that in the first count Jacob is specifically included in verse 8 where the Torah emphasised יעקב ובניו, Jacob and his sons. While the Torah reports on a count which included Jacob himself, the report in verse 8 which arrives at a total of 33 persons for Jacob and the family of Leah is absolutely correct (not including Yocheved). We may even speculate that the word כל was intended to make it clear that Jacob himself is part of that number. The fact that the Torah does not use the word כל when listing the total of Zilpah's family reinforces our belief that the word כל in verse eight refers to Jacob. While it is true that the Torah does use the word כל when listing Rachel's family (verse 22), the reason is that the Torah there wanted to include Joseph's sons who are needed to make up the total listed there and who were in Egypt already. As to the word כל in verse 25 where Bilhah's family is enumerated, the Torah wanted to emphasise by use of that term that altogether they comprised only seven persons.

It is interesting to observe that the expression "birth" in one form or another appears in connection with the families of Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah, whereas this expression does not occur in connection with Leah's family. According to our interpretation we can account for this by the fact that not all the persons listed in connection with Leah's family were born to her or to her offspring. Had the Torah mentioned ותלד לאה as it does when describing Bilhah's family, for instance, then the number 33 would have to puzzle us seeing that she was responsible for the birth of only 32 children at that stage. The number 33 therefore is arrived at only by including Jacob himself.

When the Torah gives us the number 66 in verse twenty six, this is exclusive of Jacob himself, something which is emphasised by the words: "the offspring of Jacob." When the Torah speaks about a total of 70 persons in verse 27, Jacob is included in what the Torah describes as לבית יעקב, Jacob's family.

The Torah even went to the length of changing its syntax in order to make certain we understand its meaning. In verse 25 we read about כל הנפש הבאה לבית יעקב, whereas in verse 27 we read about כל הנפש לבית יעקב הבאה; the difference is clear. In verse 25 the arrival of the family is mentioned before the name Jacob, i.e. it excludes him. In verse 27 the name Jacob appears prior to the statement that the family arrived in Egypt. This means that Jacob himself is included in the count.

We do not wish to contradict our sages who have said that Yocheved was born between the walls separating Egypt from Canaan. Perhaps the Torah alludes to her birth with the words כל נפש…ובנותיו. Inasmuch as apart from Dinah we do not know of any other daughters in Leah's family, the Torah's use of the plural "his daughters" cannot be justified unless there was at least one additional daughter who arrived in Egypt. This would be Yocheved. The Torah did not include Yocheved in the names of the people who journeyed to Egypt with Jacob since we have already explained that Jacob himself was the one who made up the number 33. There could be an additional reason why Yocheved was not included in the count. Seeing that she was only born when the family arrived in Egypt she would not be a viable human being until thirty days had elapsed. Up until that time she was still in the category of a נפל, an aborted embryo. Do not be bothered by the fact that our explanation appears to contradict that of our sages. We have explained to you repeatedly that whenever the exegesis of our sages does not imply halachic consequences scholars of established reputations are allowed to disagree. Concerning such instances we read in Song of Songs 5,16: חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים, "the words of his palate are sweet and He is all delight."

בן הכנענית THE SON OF THE CANAANITISH WOMAN — means the son of Dinah, who had been associated with a Canaanite (Shechem). When they (her brothers) had killed Shechem, Dinah refused to leave the city until Simeon swore to her that he would marry her and regard the child she was about to bear as his own (cf. Genesis Rabbah 80:11).

ושאול בם הכנענית, it appears that all of Yaakov’s sons abided by his aversion to intermarry with Canaanites. Even Shimon also honoured this tradition. However, after he had married a woman who was not a Canaanite and had had children by her, he married an additional wife who was a Canaanite. Shaul was a son of that second wife of his. Seeing that this had been a breach of the tradition, the Torah alludes to it in considering this son as the “son of the Canaanite woman.” Our sages on 34,26 took the view that Shimon had taken pity on his sister Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite, and married her and the son from the rape was the one named Shaul. (based on Bereshit Rabbah 80,11)

ושאול בן הכנעני, “as well as Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite.” Ibn Ezra explains this puzzling statement by saying that this grandson of Yaakov was the only one born by a Canaanite mother, as none of his other sons married girls of Canaanite parentage. Rashi explains the phenomenon as an allusion to this Sha-ul being a son of Dinah who had been raped by the Canaanite Shechem. If so, we are confronted with another difficulty, i.e. how could Shimon marry a sister by his own mother? According to a Midrash [I have not found such a version. Ed.] the problem is resolved as it is presumed that Dinah’s fetus grew predominantly in Rachel’s womb. [The Torah reports Leah only as having “given birth” to Dinah, not as having been pregnant with her. (Genesis 30,21)]

The son of Deenah who was violated by a Canaanite... Rashi is answering the question: According to the view that the wives [of Yaakov’s sons] were Canaanites [see entry on v. 7], all of their children should have been called children of Canaanite women. Why is Shaul singled out? And according to the view that a twin sister was born with each son, and they married them [see entry on v. 7], why mention “A Canaanite woman,” at all? Rashi’s answer addresses both views.

ושאול בן הכנענית. Wenn unter כנענית hier Dina verstanden ist, die Simeon geheiratet, so dürfte שאול vielleicht nicht Simeons Sohn, sondern der von Schechem erzeugte, von Dina geborene Sohn sein; es wäre dann selbst dieser Sohn der Jakobsfamilie nicht entfremdet worden. Sie wird כנענית genannt, weil ihr Sohn physisch ein בן כנעני gewesen. Es träte dann hier schon der Grundsatz hervor, dass in der Verbindung einer Jakobstochter mit einem הולד הולך אחר האם :כנעני, das Kind zur Familie der Mutter, und nicht zu der des Vaters gezählt wird.

בן הכנענית, “the son of a Canaanite woman.” This verse testifies to the fact that the respective wives of Yaakov’s sons were of Egyptian, Edomitic, and Midianite descent; the reason that this particular son of Shimon has been singled out as having been born of a Canaanite mother, is that his father is criticised for having married a Canaanite woman, something that had not been considered appropriate already since Avraham’s time. This is also why the premature death of Er and Onan, sons of Yehudah, had been mentioned. According to another interpretation, the reason why Er and Onan have been mentioned here altogether, although they died before the family descended to Egypt, is that if Yehudah had objected to Joseph’s sale, his brothers would have listened to him. [This leaves open the question of what happened to Yehudah’s third son Sheylah, who though apparently not having descended to Egypt, is not listed here by name, though he had the same two parents as Er and Onan. Ed.] G-d’s reasoning had been: you, Yehudah have not taken into account that you caused your father terrible grief by depriving him of Joseph, I will cause you grief at the time when he will rejoice by reminding you of two of your sons and their depriving, and mentioning this here in order to rekindle your pain.

ובני יהודה ער ואונן. And the sons of Yehudah, Er and Onan, etc. Why were people who had died already listed as part of the family which travelled to Egypt? Besides, why did the Torah repeat here again that these sons of Yehudah had died in the land of Caanan, something that we are all familiar with? Furthermore, why does the Torah write: ויהיו בני פרץ חצרון וחמול, instead of the customary ובני פרץ חצרון וחמול? We find all the other grand-children introduced as: ובני…וגו. Perhaps it is all connected with the concept of the levirate marriage. יבום is aimed at re-establishing a presence on earth for the brother who died without leaving children. In our instance Yehudah performed this commandment instead of his son Shelah. It was Yehudah's duty to bring Er and Onan's offspring to Egypt. The Torah tells us by means of an unusual syntax that Yehudah performed this duty by bringing Chetzron and Chamul (his grandchildren) to Egypt. These two were to be considered the replacements of Er and Onan respectively. [If I understand the author correctly, he argues that because Yehudah belonged to a generation prior to that of Shelah the surviving brother of Er and Onan who should have performed the levirate marriage, only the second generation, i.e. Peretz's children, were the reincarnates of Er and Onan. Had Shelah himself performed the rites of יבום, his first two children would have been considered as the reincarnates of Er and Onan. Ed.] All this is hinted at by the word ויהיו.

ובני יהודה ער ואונן ושלה ופרץ וזרח, “and the sons of Yehudah: “Er, Onan, Shelah, Peretz, and Zerach.” The verse includes the two sons Er and Onan, though already deceased, as amongst the seventy people of Yaakov’s family who migrated to Egypt. This is extremely puzzling. How could the Torah include those two amongst those described earlier as “arriving” in Egypt? The answer is provided by the kabbalists (who have elaborated on the theme of migration of the souls) and it is made clearer in Numbers 26,19 where the Torah wrote: “and the sons of Yehudah, Er and Onan; Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan.” Immediately following that verse the Torah writes: “The sons of Yehudah according to their families were: Shelah, the family of the Shelanites; Peretz, the family of the Partzites; Zerach, the family of the Zarchites.” This is the mystical dimension of Ruth 4,15; “he (the new born Oved)” shall be for you as a life-restorer. This also explains why Naomi’s neighbours exclaimed at Oved’s birth “a son has been born to Naomi” (remember she had lost both her sons before either one had fathered a child). If not for the approach of the kabbalists, the prophet should have described Oved as having been born to Ruth instead of to Naomi.

ער ואונן. Es wird stets bei ihnen hervorgehoben: וימת וגו׳. Der göttliche Familienschutz ist kein unbedingter, an Reinheit und Sittlichkeit ist die Erhaltung geknüpft. Es genügt nicht, von jüdischen Eltern geboren zu sein. Darum fehlen auch Er und Onan hier nicht.

Looking at the plain meaning of the verse, the Torah may have explained here that the only reason that Er and Onan committed the sins that caused G'd to kill them was that they lived in the land of Canaan, a country in which sexual perversity had taken root. They had been corrupted by their environment. Apart from this one sin they were not basically bad. G'd killed them so that one should not copy their example, much as the Torah warns the Jewish people not to copy the sexual perversions practiced both in Egypt and the land of Canaan in Leviticus 18,3.

The expression ויהיו tells us that these two were a phenomenon by itself (הויה), unlike any observed elsewhere. Were this not so they could hardly be the members of the family from which the Messiah will devolve, someone who will serve as a shining example of morality to all of mankind.

אלה בני לאה ואת דינה בתו THESE ARE THE SONS OF LEAH WITH HIS DAUGHTER DINAH. — Scripture associates the men with the name of Leah and the women with that of Jacob for the reason given the Talmud (Niddah 31a).

THIRTY AND THREE. But in the above enumeration you will find only thirty-two. However, the one whose name is omitted is Jochebed who was born as they entered the border city, as it is said, Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bore to Levi in Egypt.¹⁸⁵Numbers 26:59. She was born in Egypt, but she was not conceived in Egypt. This is the principle of our Rabbis.¹⁸⁴Baba Bathra 123a. See also Ramban, next Verse.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra replied, saying that “this is surprising. For if so, why did Scripture not mention the wonder that befell her, for she gave birth to Moses when she was one hundred and thirty years old?¹⁸⁶Israel stayed in Egypt two hundred and ten years. Since Moses was eighty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, he was thus born one hundred and thirty years after they entered Egypt. And why did it mention the case of Sarah who gave birth when she was ninety years old? This distress was not yet sufficient for us so that the poets came and composed liturgic poems for the day of Simchath Torah,¹⁸⁷Literally, “Rejoicing of the Law.” On this festival day, which marks the last day of the festival of Succoth, the concluding chapter of the life of Moses is read in the Synagogue. The joyous celebrations on this day are due to the annual completion of the reading of the Torah, as well as to the fact that it is commenced anew. wherein they state, ‘Jochebed, my mother, will be comforted after me,’ [implying that Jochebed survived her son], and thus she was two hundred and fifty years old at the death of Moses!¹⁸⁸Her age when Moses was born added to Moses’ life span of one hundred and twenty totals two hundred and fifty. Is the proof of the poets for this longevity of Jochebed because Ahijah the Shilonite¹⁸⁹I Kings 11:29. lived a life of great duration?¹⁹⁰According to an Agadic tradition, Ahijah the Shilonite was among those who went out of Egypt, and lived to the days of Jeroboam I, king of Israel, a period of about four hundred and fifty years. (Baba Bathra 121b.) On the basis of this tradition, the poets claimed that since longevity was possible for Ahijah, it was possible also for Jochebed, Moses’ mother. [If so, this is not a proof, for his longevity is but] an Agadic tradition or the opinion of a single authority.”¹⁹¹The source for Ahijah’s longevity is the Seder Olam, Chapter 1. This book is a chronicle of Biblical times, composed by Rabbi Yosei ben Chalaphtah, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba. These are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.
Now lest he be wise in his own eyes¹⁹²Proverbs 26:5. in contradicting the words of our Rabbis, I must answer him and say that in any case, there is in the matter of Jochebed a great wonder of the hidden miracles¹⁹³See Ramban, above, 17:1. which constitute the foundation of the Torah. Jochebed was Levi’s actual daughter, and not merely his offspring, as it is written, Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bore to Levi,¹⁸⁵Numbers 26:59. and it is furthermore written, And Amram took himself Jochebed his father’s sister for a wife.¹⁹⁴Exodus 6:20. [Thus Amram, Levi’s grandson, married Jochebed, Levi’s daughter.] Now if we would say that Levi begot Jochebed in his younger years, just as he begot all his sons, this would place her birth soon after his descent into Egypt, and she would have been very old at the time of Moses’ birth,¹⁸⁶Israel stayed in Egypt two hundred and ten years. Since Moses was eighty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, he was thus born one hundred and thirty years after they entered Egypt. at or near the age stated by our Rabbis.¹⁹⁵In that case the wonder would have been only on the part of Jochebed. And if we would say that he begot her after he resided in Egypt for many years — say, for a period of fifty-seven years — then Levi would have been one hundred years old at Jochebed’s birth, for when he went down to Egypt he was forty-three years¹⁹⁶Jacob married Leah when he was eighty-four years old. (Bereshith Rabbah 68:5). When Levi, her third son, was born, Jacob was thus eighty-seven. When he stood before Pharaoh, Jacob said that he was one hundred and thirty years old (47:9). Thus Levi was forty-three at that time. of age. In that case, there were two great wonders! [Levi, at the time he begot Jochebed], was as old as Abraham, concerning whom Scripture mentions, Shall a child be born to him who is a hundred years old?¹⁹⁷Above, 17:17. and it is further written, And my lord is old also,¹⁹⁸Ibid., 18:12. while Jochebed would still have been an elderly woman of seventy-three when Moses was born! And should we further postpone Jochebed’s birth to the end of Levi’s days, the wonder of his begetting a child will be greater than that of Abraham!
But I will tell you a true principle, clearly indicated in the Torah. Scripture mentions miracles performed through a prophet and which he previously prophesied, or performed by an angel who is revealed in the course of a Divine mission, but those effected naturally in order to help the righteous or destroy the wicked are not mentioned in the Torah or in the books of the prophets. May this be “hot gold poured into the mouth”¹⁹⁹Sanhedrin 92b. of this wise man who refuted the words of our Rabbis in the matter of Phinehas²⁰⁰In his Commentary to Numbers 25:12, Ibn Ezra brushes aside the tradition that Phinehas is identical with Elijah. and similar matters in many places. Why should Scripture mention hidden miracles when all the foundations of the Torah are hidden miracles. In the entire scope of the Torah there are only miracles, and no nature or custom. All assurances of the Torah are in the form of signs and wonders, as it is not natural that he who has connection with one of the forbidden degrees of marriage or he who eats forbidden fat suffers excision or death.²⁰¹Ramban here refers to death by heavenly punishment. See, for example, Leviticus 20:17. Nor is it by nature that the heavens become as iron²⁰²Leviticus 26:19. because we have sowed our fields in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, all the assurances of the Torah concerning those blessings [which will result from our observance of the law], and all the good fortune of the righteous ones because of their righteousness, as well as all the prayers of our king David [in the book of Psalms] and all our prayers, all are founded upon miracles and wonders, except that there is no heralded change in the nature of the world, as I have already mentioned,¹⁹³See Ramban, above, 17:1. and I will yet explain it further,²⁰³Ibid., Verse 11. with the help of G-d.
I will give you faithful testimony to that which I have said. We know that from the time Israel came into the Land until the birth of our lord David, about three hundred and seventy years elapsed.²⁰⁴From the Exodus to the building of the Temple, four hundred and eighty years elapsed (I Kings 6:1). Deduct the forty years spent in the desert and the seventy years of David’s lifespan, and the remainder is three hundred and seventy. These years are to be divided among four generations: Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse [David’s father],²⁰⁵Ruth 4: 21-22. each one being allotted ninety-three years. Thus when they begot children they were all approximately as old as Abraham was when he begot Isaac. Furthermore, each one begot his son in the year of his death, a most unusual thing, since in their era the general span of life was not a hundred years. And if one of them begot his son in his younger years, as is usual, the others would have had to be much older than Abraham, and thus the wonder concerning them would be exceedingly great since people in the generation of Abraham lived long, and in the days of David the average lifespan was reduced to a half. And perhaps these four generations lived longer than their contemporaries for it is possible that Salmon was already advanced in years when he entered the Land of Israel. It is for this reason that the masters of Tradition, who are the true Sages, have attributed longevity to Obed,²⁰⁶Bereshith Rabbah 96:4: “The Sages have said, Obed lived more than four hundred years.” this being a covert miracle which was done to the ancestor of the kingdom [of the house of David], the son of the righteous one [Ruth], who had come to take refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence.²⁰⁷See Ruth 2:12. The Sages similarly mention longevity in connection with Obed’s mother, Ruth.²⁰⁸In Baba Bathra 91 b, it is stated that Ruth was still alive in the days of Solomon. Now I have already explained¹⁹⁷Above, 17:17. that the wonder in the case of Abraham was not as the above-mentioned Sage [Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra] and other masters of the Scriptures have thought.²⁰⁹That the wonder was due to Abraham’s advanced age. Abraham begot Isaac seventy-five years before his death, prior to the completion of two-thirds of his lifespan, and in all generations, old age does not affect people until three quarters of their lives have passed, just as the doctors have considered the divisions of life to be: childhood, youth, manhood, and old age. In these generations, when the lifespan is about seventy years, doctors do not consider a person aged until after sixty. Moreover, Abraham begot many children²¹⁰Above, 25: 1-2. forty years after the birth of Isaac, and the wonder is thus manifoldly miraculous! And should we say that G-d caused Abraham to revert to his youthful days, it may be asked why Scripture does not mention this great wonder when it was an open and known miracle which is contrary to nature. Moreover, it is known that in this present generation some men beget children until they are full seventy or eighty years old and more, depending upon the extent to which they retain their natural vitality. Women also have no specific time [for ceasing to conceive], as long as they have their period they can give birth. However, the wonder in the case of Abraham and Sarah, as I explained there,¹⁹⁷Above, 17:17. was due to the fact that they had not begotten children in their younger years, and now together they begot a child. In the case of Sarah there was an additional wonder, i.e., that the manner of women²¹¹Ibid., 18:11. had ceased with her, and after this happens, women no longer give birth. Now if Jochebed lived as many years as her father Levi had,²¹²One hundred and thirty-seven years (Exodus 6:16). and if her vitality remained with her until near her old age, as is the way of women, it would be no wonder if she gave birth at the time set forth by our Rabbis, [namely, at one hundred and thirty years of age]. It is because G-d wanted to redeem Israel though the brothers [Moses and Aaron], and since the time of the redemption had not yet come, He delayed their birth many years until their mother was old. Nothing is too difficult for the Eternal.²¹³See above, 18:14.
Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi] wrote:²¹⁴Verse 26 here. “According to the view that a twin-sister was born with each of Jacob’s sons, we must say that they died before Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt because they are not enumerated here.” There is no necessity for this conclusion, for the Rabbis have said:²¹⁵Bereshith Rabbah 84:19. See also Ramban, above, 38:2. “Rabbi Yehudah says that Jacob’s sons married their sisters.” These twin-sisters were thus the wives of Jacob’s sons, concerning whom Scripture says, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives.²¹⁴Verse 26 here. In fact, Rabbi Yehudah arrived at this opinion on the basis of this verse, since if it refers to Canaanitish women what reason is there for Scripture to say, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, after it had already said, that came out of his loins?²¹⁴Verse 26 here. It is only because his sons’ wives were also of those “that came out of his loins” that Scripture refers to them. It does not, however, divulge them here, just as it did not mention them explicitly when they were born together with Jacob’s sons. Furthermore, Scripture mentions here only those who begot children and increased in Egypt, in order to make known the great miracle which was performed in the mighty increase which they effected in Egypt, for at this juncture, they numbered seventy souls. Thus their wives were not counted because a man and his wife are one.

כל נפש בניו ובנותיו, Our sages in Baba Batra 123 claim that the number includes Yocheved who was born at the border with Egypt, Yaakov not being part of the count of 33.

כל נפש בניו ובנותיו שלושים ושלוש. If we count the names mentioned we find only 32 names. This prompted the sages to say that Yocheved, daughter of Levi, was born on the way to Egypt when Levi’s wife had just arrived at the border so that on arrival the requisite number of Israelites entered Egypt. (Baba Batra 123) She could not have been enumerated at departure, not having born and named as yet. This is also why we find the word בנותיו, “his daughters, (pl.) “as an obscure reference to Yocheved [daughter and granddaughter being lumped together as “daughter.” Serach, being a daughter of Asher who was a son of Zilpah, is mentioned separately as a “sister” in verse 17. Ed.] Both Ibn Ezra and my father wrote that the number 33 is made up by the addition of Yaakov to the total [although he was not anyone’s descendant, so that it is difficult to see him as included in the words בני ישראל in verse 8. Ed.] According to the commentary of these two scholars the words ובנותיו would have to be understood as similar to “ובני דן,” and the sons of Dan, seeing that he is reported as having had only one son by the name of Chushim (verse 23)

אלה בני לאה, “these were the sons of Leah. Rashi comments on this that from here we learn that when a woman orgasms first she will give birth to a male child. The rationale is that the woman’s seed in such a situation has already started to disperse, whereas the man’s seed ejaculated later is still in its original strength. The reverse is true when the man ejaculates earlier, i.e. that the woman’s seed being last is still in its original strength, resulting in its immediate conception. (Compare Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 31)

שלשים ושלש THIRTY THREE — But in the enumeration above you will find only thirty-two. The one whose name is omitted is Jochebed who was born “between the walls” just as they entered the border city, as it is said (Numbers 26:59) “Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bore to Levi in Egypt — she was born in Egypt, but she was not conceived in Egypt (Bava Batra 123).

וסרח אחותם, “and their sister Serach.” Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah did not use the customary “and Search, his daughter,” as for instance “and Dinah his daughter,” but defined her as someone’s “sister,” that this is proof that Serach had not been sired by Asher at all, but had been born to his wife. This view is also held by Onkelos in his translation of our verse, where he adds the word: “his wife.” I fail to understand the validity of such a commentary as how could she then have been included in what were specifically described in verse 5 of our chapter as “the names of the descendants (biological) who made up the Children of Israel who arrived in Egypt?” The end of the chapter repeats “all the people who were biologically related to Yaakov’s offspring, etc.” We can only explain all this by again referring to the style of the Torah when narrating such details, i.e. that daughters are lumped together with their brothers when the Torah relates family relationships. Another prominent example of the style of the Torah in this regard is the line:ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Lotan had a sister named Timna.” The Torah does not describe Timna’s father as having a daughter by that name. Rashi writes that according to the view of the sage that the brothers all married half sisters who were born as twins with their male counterparts, that now, at the time when the family moved to Egypt, they were not enumerated in the list of seventy descendants as they had all died before this point in time. Nachmanides writes that we do not need to fall back on such an unlikely scenario as the brothers all having married half sisters by the father who had died before they could have reached the age of 40 or so, but that the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) who claims that Yaakov’s sons married their “sisters” who had been born as twins of their brothers, is that their names had not needed to be listed, except with the words מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons,” adequately covered the subject. If the sons of Yaakov had indeed married Canaanite women, why would the Torah in Genesis 37,33 mention these women as Yaakov’s daughters? Unless they had been biologically related to Yaakov, such as being twin daughters, there would have been no point in referring to them in this entire chapter. Their names were not mentioned in this chapter just as they had not been mentioned at the time they had been born. The main purpose of the Torah listing the incredibly small number of people who came to Egypt with Yaakov, i.e. 70, was to show that these formed the nucleus of a great nation which developed into millions, counting wives and children who were minors, by the time they left Egypt 210 years later. It was in order to alert us to this miraculous population explosion of the Jewish people while they were on Egyptian soil. Man and wife are considered as one unit, as only as a pair can they sire offspring.

THESE ARE THE SONS OF ZILPAH, etc. 19. THE SONS OF RACHEL JACOB’s WIFE, etc. It is customary for Scripture to first enumerate the sons of the mistresses together, just as it said in the Seder Vayishlach Yaakov²¹⁶Above, 35: 23-26. and in the Seder V’eileh Shmoth bnei Yisrael,²¹⁷Exodus 1: 2-4. or else to enumerate them according to the order of their birth, the firstborn according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth,²¹⁸Above, 43:33. as Scripture did when they were blessed by Jacob in the Seder Vayechi Yaakov.²¹⁹See my Hebrew Commentary (p. 295) where the point is made that Ramban refers only to Joseph and Benjamin. Either Scripture mentions them at first together with the sons of Leah, as it did in Seder Vayishlach and in Shmoth, or according to their age, as it did in Vayechi. Ramban is attempting to explain why they are mentioned here after Zilpah’s children. Here, however, because Scripture’s purpose was to enumerate their numbers and to state that with seventy souls they went down to Egypt, it gave precedence to those who were more numerous. This was why Scripture mentioned Rachel among the concubines, and hence it was necessary to mention her with respect, saying, Jacob’s wife, as I have mentioned above.²²⁰Above, 37:2.

אלה בני זלפה, “These are the sons of Zilpah;” Although it is the Torah’s style to list the names of the children of Yaakov’s principal wives, Leah and Rachel, together, as was done in Parshat Vayishlach, and as occurred when they received their respective blessings in Parshat Vayechi, here when the main consideration is numbers, the Torah listed Zilpah’s offspring before that of Rachel as the latter produced only 14 of the 70, whereas Ziplpah produced 16. Since she had been mentioned as part of the שפחות, handmaids, the Torah adds the title נשי יעקב, “Yaakov’s wives” in order to accord them the honour they deserve.

Im Geschlechtsregister wird darauf hingedeutet, dass, wenn Silpa und Bilha Frauen Jakobs geworden sind, dies nur auf Veranlassung ihrer "Herrinnen" selbst geschehen. Ebenso wird bei Rahel angedeutet, dass sie die einzige Gattin seiner Wahl gewesen.

בני רחל אשת יעקב THE SONS OF RACHEL, JACOB’S WIFE — In the case of all the other wives of Jacob the term אשת “wife” is not mentioned. But the reason is because she was the chief mistress of the household (Genesis Rabbah 73:1).

בני רחל אשת יעקב, who had been the wife whom he had wanted to marry. She had also become the mother of Joseph and Binyamin, the choicest of the tribes as mentioned by our sages in Sotah 36. The text there is: “Joseph by himself was worthy enough to have produced 12 tribes just as his father Yaakov.” The same sages, in Shabbat 55 are on record as saying that Binyamin died only because death had ben decreed for every member of the human race.” [not because he had committed any personal sin which would have accounted for his forfeiting eternal life. Ed.]

ויולד ליוסף. Im Lande Mizrajim, umgeben von einer ganz fremden Lebensweise, werden doch "Kinder dem Josef geboren". Er zeugte sie nicht nur, sondern auch als sie da waren, waren sie sein, und selbst seine Frau, die Tochter eines ägyptischen Priesters, gebar sie ihm und erzog sie ihm.

בלע ובכר, we must not make an issue of the number of Binyamin’s sons, as according to the report in Chronicles I 8,15 there were 11 sons. We must simply assume that at the time when Binyamin descended to Egypt the eleventh son had not yet been born. The difference in some of their names may also be accounted as due to their being listed once more. This is something we find also in other instances where the Bible records the same people more than once.

וארד, the letter ו in this word is vocalised with the vowel kametz.

ובני דן חושים. At the time he moved to Egypt he had only this one son. The reason the Torah commences our verse with the word ובני, “and the sons of, etc.,” is as if the Torah had meant to say “and all the sons of Dan were only one, i.e. Chushim.” Similar formulations are found in Chronicles I 2,8 ובני איתן עזריה, where Azaryah, though the only son of Eytan, is described as part of Eytan’s children, i.e. בני.

ובני דן חושים, and the name of Dan’s children: Chushim. There were two, one of them died and his name has not been mentioned.

כל הנפש הבאה ליעקב EVERY SOUL THAT WAS COMING WITH JACOB — every soul that left Canaan to go to Egypt The word הבאה, here, is not a perfect tense, but a participle with a relative present sense — just as (Ester 2:4) “In the evening she (באה) was coming” and (Genesis 29:7) “and, behold, Rachel his daughter is coming (באה)” and therefore the accent is on the last syllable, on the א, because when they left, coming from the land of Canaan, they were only sixty-six. But at the second mention of this word (Genesis 46:27) — “every soul of the house of Jacob, which came (הבאה) into Egypt were seventy” — it is a perfect tense and therefore it is accented on the last but one syllable, on the ב. The reason is, that when they came there, they were seventy, for they found Joseph and his two sons there, and Jochebed was added to their number “between the walls”. According to the view of the Rabbi (i. e. R. Jehudah, cf. Genesis Rabbah 84) who stated that with each of Jacob’s sons a twin-sister was born, we must say that these died before they (Jacob and his family) went down to Egypt, because they are not enumerated here. In Vayikra Rabbah 4:6 I found the following: When he left Canaan (cf. Genesis 36:6) Esau’s family consisted of only six (himself and his five sons), and Scripture calls them “the souls of his house” (in the plural) and this is because they worshipped many gods (each serving a different god and having as it were, a different soul or religious feeling). But the family of Jacob when he came to Egypt consisted of seventy and Scripture calls them “soul”, in the singular, because they all served One God.

(1) [ALL THE PERSONS WHO CAME WITH YA'AKOV TO EGYPT] HIS OWN ISSUE. Who are coming to Egypt.

כל הנפש הבאה, we are told about number of the members of Yaakov’s household appearing with the masculine ending twice, such as the number fourteen in verse 22, and the number seven in verse 25. On the other hand, in verse 15 the Torah uses the feminine ending for the number 33 (שלושים ושלוש) and in verse 18 it uses the feminine ending for the number 16 (שש עשרה). The reason for this apparent anomaly is that the noun נפש mentioned in verse 26, for instance is feminine, hence the number associated with that noun has to be in the feminine mode also. The word בני being in the masculine mode, however, determines that the adjective or attribute accompanying it be in the same mode, i.e. masculine.

יוצאי ירכו מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “his biological descendants aside from the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 where Rabbi Yehudah claimed that a twin sister was born to each one of Yaakov’s sons, the words יוצאי ירכו here are an allusion to the fact that the wives of the sons of Yaakov were each one of those twins. What would be the point of the Torah writing: “apart from the wives of the sons of Yaakov,” if the reference had been to Canaanite women whom the brothers married? Who would ever have thought that Canaanites would have been included in the count? The Torah had to mention that these women were not included in the count of seventy precisely because they were descendants of Yaakov. When the Torah here concludes with the words כל נפש ששים ושש, “all the persons sixty-six,” this is because only sixty-six were included in the ones previously described as הבאים מצרימה, arriving in Egypt. Joseph and his two sons as well as Yocheved (who did not make the journey as she had not been born yet) made up the missing four from the number seventy. The Torah testified in Numbers 26,59 that “Yocheved was born for Levi in Egypt.”

We must assume that they died... Because otherwise, why were they not counted among the other children? Thus it says, “Not counting the wives [of Yaakov’s sons],” to convey that they had died, and these wives [mentioned here] were of foreign origin and did not come out of Yaakov’s loins. Scripture itself explains this. (Maharshal)

כל נפש. Esaus Haus zählte nur sechs Seelen, und es heißt von ihm כל נפשות ביתו bemerkt ein Wort in ,(1. B. M. 36, 6) מ"ר, Jakobs Haus zählt siebenzig Seelen und sie heißen zusammen nur ein כל הנפש לבית יעקב :נפש! Außerhalb des jüdischen Berufes schlägt oft jeder Sohn seinen eigenen Weg ein. Wo aber in Wahrheit und Treue jüdischer Sinn erhalten ist, da mögen es siebenzig sein, und es waltet doch in allen ein Geist und ein Sinn.

כל נפש ששים ושש, “The combined total of souls were 66.” They were made up of 33 children of Leah including Dina, Chetzron, Chamul and Yocheved who was born at the border of Egypt, included. Zilpah had a total of 16, including Chever and Malkiel. Rachel’s descendants at that time were 14, and Bilhah’s were seven. You have to deduct Joseph and his two sons as well as Yocheved, [who did not descend. Ed.], as explained by Rashi. Compare verse 46 according to which the number is made up of people having left the land of Canaan. The words: יוצאי ירך יעקב, “biological offspring of Yaakov,” have been added to tell us that the wives of both Yaakov and his sons were not included. [Our author may have added these words as otherwise we would have to assume that both Bilhah and Zilpah had already died. Ed.]

(2) ALL THESE PERSONS NUMBERED 66. For Ya'akov, who was among the count of 33 relating to Leah, is not among "his own issue," for "his own issue" were only 69. And this is what Moshe said (Deut. 10:22), "Your ancestors went down to Egypt seventy persons in all, for Ya'akov and his descendants were 70.

Eisov had six souls... As it is written in 36:6: “Eisov took his wives... and all the souls of his household.” There must be an error in the text of Rashi, because Eisov had only five souls, yet Rashi, who cites the Midrash that says six. This requires further investigation.

כל הנפש לבית יעקב, “all the persons who were part of the house of Yaakov;” when you count them individually you will find that there are only 69 and not 70. Some commentators claim that Dinah had a son by Shechem, and that while he is included in the total 70, he is not included as an individual having a name. Other commentators claim that the lineכל נפש בניו ובנותיו עם יעקב 33, indicate that Yaakov himself is included in the count of 70 seeing that it first says ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה, “these are the Israelites who arrived in Egypt.” When the Torah enumerated the 66 יוצאי ירך יעקב, the persons that emerged from Yaakov’s loins, he himself is obviously not included as he could not have been his own offspring. (verse 26) Some commentators are not at all perturbed by the round number 70 being used although there were only 69, seeing that there are numerous examples throughout the Bible in which round numbers are used, although when you examine them in detail you will find that they are just that, “rounded off” numbers. Personally, I do not know what all the fuss is about. Why could these commentators not have been satisfied with the solution provided for us by our sages in earlier periods that Yocheved was conceived in the land of Canaan but not born until the family was just at the border of Egypt, בין החומות, between the walled fortifications, as they phrase it. [at this point the author voices sharp rebuke at Ibn Ezra saying that Nachmanides already refuted all that he said on the subject. Ed.]

הבאה, the stress is on the second to last syllable, seeing that the verb is in the past tense. The meaning of the word is the same as if the Torah had written אשר באה, “who had arrived,”

הבאה מצרימה שבעים, “the ones who had arrived in Egypt numbered seventy.” The Torah, in this verse, meant to include Yaakov himself. The beginning of the subject proves that this is so, as in verse 8 we have been told: “the following are the names of the Children of Israel who came to Egypt, ‘Yaakov’ and his sons, his first born son being Reuven. The word “Yaakov” in this verse is superfluous unless it was meant to include him in the count. The reason why Yaakov was included in the count with Leah’s children was that only 32 names were mentioned and he was needed to make up the number 33 at the end of that paragraph. Not only that, it was certainly fitting that the founding father should be included in the first of the four groups of people counted. If you wanted to know the precise number of Yaakov’s family in Egypt i.e. seventy, counting Joseph and his family, [assuming Joseph’s wife was Dinah’s offspring Ed.] this is how it was composed. If you wish to accept my interpretation that G–d made up the missing umber, you do not have to include Yaakov himself in the number.

הבאה מצרימה שבעים, “who had arrived in Egypt, (were) seventy.” This number includes Joseph, his two sons, and Yocheved, (Moses’ mother). The Torah does not worry about minor inaccuracies as it concerns itself with the overwhelming majority. There are many examples of this rule having been applied. [Perhaps the best known examples are when Moses refers to the Jewish people comprising six hundred thousand men of the ages 2060, as well as when during the census, each time with a single exception, the total of the numbers of each tribe always ends with the digit zero, i.e. have been rounded off. Ed.] The only females in the count above are: Dinah, Yocheved, Serach. [In the author’s text which this editor works from, there appear four more names of males at this point, all grandsons of Yaakov. I have not been able to figure out why these names appear there. Ed.] According to a view expressed in the Midrash, that twin sisters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons, we would have to assume that they had all died before the family’s descent to Egypt, with the exception of twin of Dinah.

מצרימה, an inaccuracy, as the family did not arrive in Egypt, but in Goshen, a border province. The word is used as an “umbrella,” i.e. a description of the entire state.

להורת לפניו TO DIRECT HIM — Render this as the Targum does: to prepare a place for him and to show him how he should settle in it.

להורות לפניו גושנה, in order to make a clearing where suitable accommodation could be built for Yaakov and the family.

ואת יהודה, Yaakov sent him ahead to Joseph in order for him to be given details about Goshen, the part of the country Joseph had said his brothers would be settled in (45,10) Alternatively, the meaning of our verse may be that the word להורות, refers to Yehudah providing information to Yaakov, to make sure the family would proceed on the best route and the best location in Goshen.

To prepare a house of study... I.e., since it is written להורת without a second vav, it contains the letters [of the word] תורה.

להורות לפניו: damit Josef, ehe er hinkam, ihm die Anweisung gebe, nach Goschen zu ziehen. Es solle nicht scheinen, als ob er eigenmächtig mit seiner Familie dort einzöge, obwohl er "Väter des Fürsten", oder vielmehr, weil er dieses war. Jakob kannte die Welt und wusste, wie jeder ihn nach sich beurteilen und ihm eine eigenmächtige Willkür andichten könnte, die er sich in solcher Stellung selbst erlauben würde.

ואת יהודה שלח לפניו אל יוסף, “and he (Yaakov) had sent Yehudah ahead to Joseph;” so that he would be informed about which route to travel to the province of Goshen and thus to avoid entering Egypt proper. Joseph had already told him that he would live there in order to be close to Joseph (Genesis 45,6).

They then came to the land of Goshen. Yoseif and Yehudah went to Goshen to prepare a place for Yaakov and it was from there that Yoseif went to greet him.

לפניו BEFORE HIM — means before he should arrive there. A Midrashic comment is: להורת לפניו (in the sense of, “that there might be teaching before him”) — to establish for him a House of Study from which Teaching (הוראה or תורה) might go forth (Genesis Rabbah 95:3).

ויאסר יוסף מרכבתו AND JOSEPH MADE READY (literally, bound, harnessed) HIS CHARIOT — He himself harnessed the horses to the chariot being eager to show honour to his father (Genesis Rabbah 95:8; Mechilta to בשלח).

AND HE APPEARED BEFORE HIM. Joseph appeared before his father. And he wept on his neck a good while. The phrase vayeivk od signifies “weeping copiously.” Jacob, however, did not fall upon the neck of his son Joseph, nor did he kiss him. Our Rabbis said that this was because he was reciting the Shema, (the affirmation of G-d’s Unity). This is the language of Rashi. But [according to this interpretation, which says that it was Joseph who fell on his father’s neck and wept], I know of no reason for the statement, And he appeared before him, since it is understood that Joseph appeared before Jacob since he fell upon his neck. Moreover, it is not respectful for Joseph to fall upon his father’s neck. He should rather bow before him or kiss his hands, as it is written, And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he fell down on his face.²²¹Further, 48:12. And at the present moment, it was more fitting that he bow to him [than at the time referred to in the aforementioned verse].²²¹Further, 48:12. So also, every term ‘od’ in Scripture indicates an addition to the original but does not imply copiousness. Thus: He doth not set a stated time ‘od’ for a man,²²²Job 34:23. which means, “He sets a stated time for a man in accordance with his transgression, and nothing is added.”²²³We thus see that od can refer to a slight increase.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Israel’s eyes were already slightly dim from age,²²⁴See further, 48:10. and when Joseph arrived in the carriage of the second in rank,²²⁵Above, 42, 43. with a mitre on his head as was the custom of the Egyptian kings, his father did not recognize him. His brothers also had not recognized him.²²⁶Ibid., 42:8. Therefore Scripture mentioned that when he appeared before his father, who stared at him and finally recognized him, his father fell on his neck and cried again over him, even as he had continually cried over him to this day when he had not seen him after his disappearance, and then Jacob said, Now let me die, since I have seen thy face.²²⁷Verse 31 here. It is a known matter as to whose tears are more constant: that of an old father who finds his son alive after having despaired of him and having mourned for him, or that of a grown-up son who reigns. Do not be concerned [lest this interpretation be open to question] because Scripture immediately says, And Israel said,²²⁸Verse 30 here. [thus implying that the previous subject is not Israel but Joseph], whereas according to our interpretation Scripture is speaking of Jacob and then mentions his name once again in the following verse. A similar case is found in these verses: And he gathered up all the foods of the seven years, etc.,²²⁹Above, 41:48. [where Joseph is the subject of the verse, and yet Scripture mentions his name in the succeeding verse], And unto Joseph were born two sons.²³⁰Ibid., Verse 50. There are constantly many similar places in the Torah and in the other books of Scripture.

A GOOD WHILE. Much, as it is written (Job 34:23), "He will not require much of a person." [JPS: He has no set time for man.]

וירא אליו, my grandfather explained this somewhat strange formulation saying that Joseph appeared to Yaakov from a distance, someone having pointed him out to Yaakov, (he did not know what Joseph looked like at this time). This gave Yaakov an opportunity to adopt the appropriate posture before coming face to face with such a mighty ruler and not to be disoriented due to a sudden encounter.

ויעל לקראת אביו גושנה, he went up to meet his father, to the province of Goshen. Some commentators say that the Goshen mentioned here is the same as that mentioned in the Book of Joshua 10,41, [that Goshen is described as near Givon], and that seeing that the land of Israel is located at higher altitudes than all other countries according to our sages, the Torah describes Joseph as traveling “up,” i.e. uphill. [why would Yaakov’s journey then have been described as a descent, seeing that one look at the map would convince us that as his last stop was Beer Sheva, he too would have had to continue from there uphill. Ed.] We do not consider this explanation of the word ויעל as appropriate at all. The province of Goshen was situated within Egypt proper, though at a higher level than the Nile delta which was practically at sea level for many kilometers starting with the capital. As to the apparently contradictory line in 46,31 where Joseph, leaving his father, speaks about “going up to Pharaoh etc,” has to be understood in terms of his stepping into his chariot, just as getting out of a chariot is described as “descending” from it, so entering it again as described as “ascending” into it. It is also possible that the correct interpretation of these terms עליה and ירידה respectively, is that Joseph said: “I will go to Egypt, (capital) and ascend to the palace of Pharaoh, which was built on a hill, overlooking the surrounding area, and inform him, etc.” It is even possible, though unlikely, that the land of Egypt proper was on a higher plateau than the province of Goshen, which was closest to the Mediterranean sea, in which case the word ויעל in our verse would refer to Joseph ascending his chariot before beginning his journey.

ויאסר יוסף מרכבתו, “Joseph harnessed his chariot.” Tanchuma Vayigash 7 states that there were two people who were honoured in a manner unparalleled. One was Yitro, the other was Yaakov. When Yitro visited Moses in the desert, the Torah writes: (‎Exodus 18,7) “Moses went forth to greet his father-in-law.” As soon as someone saw Moses leave his customary place in order to welcome Yitro, all the princes, Aaron the High Priest, as well as the entire nation went out also to welcome Yitro. Yaakov experienced something similar. As soon as people saw that heir ruler harnessed his chariot in order to welcome his father, the entire nation did the same. This was an example of what Isaiah 24,23 had in mind when he said: “and the Presence will be revealed to His elders.”

He himself harnessed the horses to the chariot. Otherwise, it should say: “He rode in his chariot.”

Josef weinte, Jakob weinte nicht; Josef weinte noch, Jakob hatte bereits ausgeweint; Josef weinte noch, selbst als Jakob bereits mit ihm sprach — in solchen kleinen Zügen spiegelt sich die faktischste Wahrheit. Jakob hat inzwischen ein einförmiges Leben geführt, hat ihn beweint, sein ganzes Gemütsleben war in die Trauer um Josef aufgegangen. Josef hatte das wechselvollste Leben gehabt, hatte nicht Zeit gehabt, sich so dem Schmerze der Trennung hinzugeben; seine jedesmalige Gegenwart musste ihn ganz erfüllen. Jetzt, wo er sich am Halse des Vaters befand, da fühlte er erst recht die überstandene Trennung und lebte die zurückgelegten zwanzig Jahre noch einmal durch. Jakob war schon Jisrael geworden, Josef weinte noch. —

ויעל לקראת ישראל, “he (Joseph) went up to meet Israel.” The reason that the expression עלה is used here is to tell the reader that for Joseph it was tantamount to a spiritual ascent to go and greet his father and to pay him this honour. Alternately, the reason why he is described as ascending, is that the province of Goshen is situated on a higher plateau than the Nile delta in which most of the Egyptians dwelt. Goshen borders on the land of Israel which is a land of many hills and mountains. This is also clear from Joshua 15,49-51. Seeing that Yehudah had been sent ahead by his father to prepare his residence in Goshen, that region became part of the ancestral heritage of the tribe of Yehudah in due course. The Egyptians never challenged the Israelites having annexed that province.

ויבך על צואריו עוד, “he (Joseph) still continued weeping while embracing his father,” in addition to when he had wept when being reunited with his brother Binyamin.” (45,10; 45,14) An alternate exegesis of this verse: the word: עוד refers to the weeping being in addition to embracing each other around their necks.

וירא אליו AND HE APPEARED BEFORE HIM — Joseph appeared before his father.

ויפול על צואריו, when Joseph had come close enough to his father he fell around his neck weeping for joy for a considerable period of time. The meaning of the word.

וירא אליו, “he appeared to him;” according to Rashi, Joseph appeared to his father and fell around his neck and wept still, are to be contrasted with Yaakov’s reaction; he did not fall around Joseph’s neck and did not kiss his son until he had finished reciting the prayer קריאת שמע. Nachmanides writes that he does not know why the expression וירא “he appeared,” has been chosen by the Torah to describe this meeting, seeing that it is quite obvious that when two people meet so closely that they embrace each other, as here, that they appear to one another. Furthermore, Joseph’s whole behaviour does not seem appropriate. He should have first prostrated himself and have kissed his father’s hands. Furthermore, the word עוד does not mean a surfeit of something, but something in addition to what had already been there before. Seeing that Joseph had not fallen around Yaakov’s neck before, the word עוד in this connection is hard to understand. The correct meaning of the phrase is that Yaakov’s eyes were heavy from old age, which made it difficult for him to recognize Joseph, or that seeing that Joseph had been in a rush to welcome his father he had been wearing royal attire and some sort of headgear totally unfamiliar to Yaakov, so that even if he would have recognized him in ordinary garments, he did not associate the figure approaching him in Royal Splendour as being his son. Therefore, when upon Joseph approaching real close and Yaakov finally recognizing him, i.e. “he appeared to him,” he fell around his neck and, in addition to this, wept while doing so. He had been weeping over the loss of Joseph for many years, only this time he wept from joy. Joseph, on the other hand, although he had been told that his father was well, when he saw him, he received a shock so that he began to weep in spite of the reunion. It is a moot point who of the two wept more and longer.

ויפול על צואריו ויבך על צואריו עוד. “He fell around his neck and he kept crying on his neck exceedingly.” Nachmanides writes that one must not understand this verse as if Joseph fell around his father’s neck, seeing that this would not be in good taste. Good taste would have dictated for Joseph to kiss the hand of his father or to prostrate himself in front of him. The verbs in this verse all apply to Yaakov. It was Yaakov who fell around the neck of Joseph and broke out crying for quite some time. Just as he had still been crying over him while they had not been reunited, the reunion also evoked a crying spell. He cried over the reunion, and he cried additionally when he considered the position of power and eminence Joseph had attained.

Yoseif appeared to his father. [Rashi knows this] because we cannot say Yaakov appeared to Yoseif, since Yaakov did not go to appear to Yoseif. Rather, [Yaakov went] to see him and to live in Egypt. But Yoseif went toward his father to appear before him. (Maharshal)

ויבך על צואריו עוד AND WEPT ON HIS NECK A GOOD WHILE — The phrase ויבך עוד signifies weeping copiously. So, too, עוד has the same meaning in (Job 34:23) “For He doth not place upon a man עוד” — which means something more than is proper: God does not place on him accusations additional to his sins (the sins he has really committed) Here, also, he wept greatly and continuously — more than is usual. Jacob, however, did not fall upon Joseph’s neck nor did he kiss him. Our Rabbis say: the reason was that he was reciting the Shema (renewing his allegiance to God immediately on settling in a new land).

עוד, is that this went on for a time. We find the word used in this sense in Exodus 4,6 where G’d is persisting in His efforts to convince Moses to accept the position of Israel’s leader by showing him miracles he could perform to legitimise himself before his people. The word describes something that happened repeatedly, at intervals. Yaakov wept only once, whereas Joseph wept repeatedly. Some commentators claim that Yaakov did not weep at all but was preoccupied with reciting the שמע ישראל, an affirmation of G’d and His uniqueness which he formulated on that occasion for the first time. (compare Rashi)

He does not place upon him accusations which are in excess of his sins... Rashi is explaining the verse he cited: כי לא על איש ישים עוד. I.e., when Hashem punishes the wicked, He does not punish them more than they sinned. “He does not place upon him [accusations which are in excess of his sins].”

And wept. See Rashi. When Yaakov saw Yoseif he reflected on what Hashem had done for him and renewed his love and awe through the recitation of the Shema.

Our Sages explained that this was because he was reading the “Shema.” Some ask: Perhaps he was standing in prayer? It seems [the answer is:] Our Rabbis of blessed memory said in Berachos 27a that we may not pass in front of someone standing in prayer, so as not to interfere with his concentration. Surely, Yoseif would not fall on Yaakov’s neck lest he disturb his concentration. But with the Shema, we need to concentrate mainly in the first verse, which where we accept upon ourselves the Kingship of Heaven. And Yoseif fell on Yaakov’s neck after Yaakov had read the first verse. You might ask: Why was Yoseif, too, not reading the Shema? The answer is: Yoseif was involved with the mitzvah of honoring his father. Someone involved in the performance of a mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah. Another answer: Yoseif exempted himself by reading the first verse [alone], since he was busy and occupied, as it says in the Gemara in Berachos 13b that [the single verse of] Shema Yisrael was the Shema of R. Yehudah Hanasi, because he was busy with teaching the disciples.

אמותה הפעם NOW, I WILL FAIN DIE — It's literal meaning is as the Targum renders it. A Midrashic explanation is (being based upon the literal translation. “I will die this once”): I had thought that I would die two deaths, in this world and also in the world to come, because the Divine Presence departed from me and I therefore thought that God would hold me responsible for your death. Now, since you are alive I will die only once, in this world (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9).

אמותה הפעם, I have been saved from all my other afflictions only in order to experience new troubles afterwards. This time, I pray that I will be spared any more troubles during the rest of my life.

ויאמר …אמותה הפעם, He said:.."now I can die, etc." The reason Jacob said "now" is that he had expressed fears of dying on a previous occasion when he heard about Joseph's disappearance.

אמותה הפעם, I am not longer dissatisfied if I were to die now, having been granted my wish to see you with my own eyes once more before my death.

The plain meaning is as Onkelos explains it. I.e., the verse does not mean what it sounds like, that Yaakov wished to die now that he merited seeing Yoseif’s face. On the contrary, after having merited to see him, Yaakov should pray to live and enjoy being with his son [to make up for] the days of their suffering.

Jetzt möchte ich sterben! Er fühlte sich auf dem Gipfel des möglichen Glückes, konnte nicht mehr glücklicher werden! Mit diesem Gipfel der Seligkeit möchte er enden.

Another part of this verse which needs analysis is why Jacob added the words כי עודך חי, "that you are still alive." If Joseph had not been alive how could Jacob have expressed his joy at seeing him? Besides, why did Jacob not make this statement when the brothers had told him that Joseph was still alive in 45,26?

Actually Jacob had now reassured himself about something that the brothers could not have told him at the time. He had been satisfied that Joseph was alive, well and powerful; he had not yet been certain that in view of all the experiences Joseph had undergone both as a slave and subsequently as a powerful ruler, that he had been able to preserve his righteousness. Jacob himself had experienced a loss of the presence of Holy Spirit at the time he had mistakenly exclaimed that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast. He naturally was afraid that Joseph too had been cut off from such Holy Spirit seeing he had lived in close contact with people who represented the קליפה, the personification of impurity. It is a well known fact that the righteous prefer the disappearance of a son to such a son embarassing them by abandoning his spiritual heritage. It was only when he set eyes on Joseph that he realised that Joseph had not changed. We have numerous examples in the Bible of righteous people being able to tell by merely looking at the faces of people that such people were upright and righteous. This is why Jacob was able to say אחרי ראותי את פניך, "after having seen your face." Jacob was now able to accept death without regret whenever it would occur. Berachot 18 mentions that the righteous are called חיים, alive, during their lifetime. Jacob expressed this thought when he called Joseph as "still alive" after having set eyes on him.

'ואמרה אליו אחי וגו AND I WILL SAY TO HIM— “MY BRETHREN … have come unto me” and further I will say to him, והאנשים רעי צאן 'וגו AND THE MEN ARE SHEPHERDS etc.

אעלה ואגידה, that your vocation is the raising of sheep and goats. I will not ask Pharaoh to give you the land of Goshen. The reason I will not ask for this is to make sure that he will believe you when you say that you raise sheep. i.e. that basically, you are nomads. If I were to mention the land of Goshen he would think that you ask for this because it is good grazing land.

ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו, there can be no question that he did not say what follows before first having secured his father’s consent. [What was under discussion was a matter of major importance, i.e. how to preserve the integrity of Yaakov’s family as a clan, and how to minimize assimilation with the local population through voluntary ghettoisation. Pharaoh’s offer of the brothers participating in the political life of Egypt, something Joseph anticipated, had to be declined without giving offence to him. Ed.] The reason the Torah only mentions Joseph speaking to the brothers was that it was the brothers to whom the above-mentioned offer would be made.

And I will also tell him: “The men are shepherds, etc.” Rashi means: we should not think that “The men are shepherds etc.” is a new statement, and Yoseif said it to his brothers, not to Pharaoh. If so, “the men” would refer to different men, [not his brothers]. Thus Rashi explains: And I will also tell Pharaoh this matter, that “the men are shepherds etc.”

Zu dem Hause seines Vaters — sie bildeten noch alle ein Haus. Er sagte es ihnen allen, denn sie hatten es alle zu beherzigen, den Gegensatz nämlich, in ,אגידה — .welchem sie sich zu der Bevölkerung befinden würden und erhalten sollten אומרה: Im Vaterhause ist er nicht מושל, äußert er nur Wunsch und Absicht. Ich möchte wohl, halte es für Recht usw. — אעלה. Goschen muss demnach wohl niedriger als die Residenz gelegen gewesen sein. Später, als Pharao sein Volk bereden wollte, Israel zu drücken, spricht er die Befürchtung aus: ועלה מן הארץ; diese sonst schwierige Äußerung dürfte darin ihre Erklärung finden. Unsere Väter sollten sich in Goschen ansiedeln, weil diese Provinz dem ganzen Zentralleben Ägyptens entlegen war. "Wenn das so weiter geht"; spricht der spätere Pharao, "und sie sich so vermehren, so werden sie bei erster Gelegenheit aus ihrer Provinz, in die sie jetzt eingepfercht sind, heraufkommen und wir werden uns vor Juden nicht retten können". Demnach muss aber das ויעל des Raw Hirsch on Genesis 46: 29 aus der Lage Mizrajims Kanaan gegenüber gesprochen sein, woher Jakob kam.

אעלה ואגידה לפרעה, “I will go up and tell Pharaoh;” was Egypt then a hilly country that the Torah describes Joseph as “going up” to Pharaoh? Up until now, when Joseph had been speaking with his father, he had first descended from his chariot in order to do so. Now he is quoted as again mounting his chariot in order to tell Pharaoh about his father’s having come to Egypt.

אעלה. The word poses a problem, Joseph having been described previously as “ascending” when going to meet his father. How could he now again be ”ascending” on the return journey to his capital? We must therefore understand the word as not referring to the return journey but to Joseph climbing back into his carriage.

AND THE MEN ARE SHEPHERDS, FOR THEY HAVE BEEN KEEPERS OF CATTLE. Joseph told them that they are shepherds but that they do not tend to the cattle of others because even with respect to their own cattle, they have servants and attendants to pasture them. It is only that their wealth consists of cattle. This is the sense of the expression, they have been keepers of cattle, and had wealth, and a very great household²³¹Job 1:3. by virtue of the great multitude of cattle which they possessed. It was Joseph’s intention to mention them in an honorable way.

THE MEN ARE SHEPHERDS. Yosef said all this to Par'oh.

והאנשים רועי צאן, “and the men are shepherds by vocation.” He did not mean to say that the brothers themselves were shepherds, but that they were experts in sheep and cattle raising as their vast wealth consisted primarily of flocks and herds, while their servants did the actual minding of the beasts.

Ich möchte ihm geradezu sagen, dass ihr dem Stande der Schafhirten angehört, obwohl man dies in Mizrajim nicht für das Ehrenhafteste hält. "Denn sie waren Herdenzüchter". Nicht, dass sie immer selbst die Schafe geweidet hätten, das konnten ihre Knechte tun; allein ihre bürgerliche Nahrung hatten sie aus der Viehzucht.

וצאנם ובקרם וכל אשר להם, “and their flocks and herds and all that they owned;” they need to tend these so that they do not have time to become professional soldiers.

In einem Staate wie Mizrajim, wo der Mensch völlig in den sogenannten Beruf aufging, und eigentlich kein Mensch, sondern ein Handwerker, ein Landbauer, ein Krieger usw. geboren wurde, war die Frage nach dem Berufe natürlich die erste Frage. Auch sie sollten auf Pharaos Frage ungescheut diese unangenehme Wahrheit hervorkehren; denn der nicht zu umgehende Abscheu der Ägypter vor ihrem Berufe war, wie überhaupt die Abneigung der Völker gegen die Juden, das erste Erhaltungsmittel dieses zum isolierten Gange durch die Zeiten bestimmten Menschenstammes. Bis zum geistig sittlichen Morgen der Völker schützten die Pallisaden, die der Wahn der Völker gegen die Juden errichtete, diese vor jeder Ansteckung durch die Barbarei und Entsittlichung der Menschen, in deren Mitte sie Jahrhunderte hinab zu wandeln haben sollten. Deshalb kehrte auch hier Josef sofort die den Ägyptern unangenehme Seite hervor, in der ausgesprochenen Absicht, damit sie dadurch eine gesonderte Provinz zum Wohnplatz eingeräumt erhielten.

בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן IN ORDER THAT YE MAY ABIDE IN THE LAND OF GOSHEN — and this is the land that you require, for it is a land of pasture. If you tell him that you are inexperienced in other work he will send you far away from him and settle you there.

For [all shepherds] are an abomination in Egypt - All shepherds were disgraceful in their eyes, for sheep were loathsome to them - whether for eating or for sacrifice - as it is written, "If we sacrifice what is abominable to the Egyptians..." (Ex. 9:22)

בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן, seeing it was a land in which cattle were being raised. Furthermore, Joseph did what he did in order to prevent Pharaoh from enlisting his brothers in Pharaoh’s political and military echelon.

כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן, “for every cattle and sheep raiser was pursuing a career despised by the Egyptians.” He would keep them apart from the Egyptians as they were anathema to them. Some commentators, on the contrary, consider that the Egyptians especially esteemed cattle men and men raising sheep as it would not make sense that Joseph should present his brothers before Pharaoh in a manner which would make him despise them. The reason that Pharaoh assigned the province of Goshen for them to dwell in was precisely because he considered them a very valuable asset to the Egyptian economy so that they deserved to live in the economically most prosperous part of the country. The word תועבה, abomination, does not refer to the brothers’ vocation, but to the deities whom the Egyptians worshipped.

Because they are deities to them. The Egyptians know that shepherds know all about sheep, since they are always with them. Shepherds therefore know that sheep have nothing [divine about them], so the Egyptians hate all shepherds. Alternatively, when Scripture says כי תועבת מצרים כל רעי צאן, the word תועבה means idolatry. In other words, the Egyptians greatly respected shepherds and considered them as if they were deities. Therefore, Pharaoh will settle them in the best of the land.

כי תועבת מצרים כל רעה צאן, “for the Egyptians despised people whose vocation was the rising and tending of sheep. The reason they did so was because they hated sheep meat, i.e. mutton, just as they hated goats’ meat. This was something not unique to the Egyptians. This is also why they could not sit at the same table as the Hebrews when the latter were being served lamb. They harboured a deep aversion for anyone stemming from the Euphrates-Tigris region. They considered the Sumerians as a lower class of human beings. (Exodus 8,9) The Hebrews claimed that they would insult the Egyptians if they slaughtered their animals as service to their G–d inside the boundaries of the land of Egypt. They would risk being stoned by them. It is interesting that they did not refer to being just killed, but they spelled out by which method they would be killed, a method which in Jewish law is the most severe kind of death penalty. Our author states that he has also heard a different interpretation of our verse. The Egyptians considered anyone slaughtering sheep or goats and eating their meat as guilty of the kind of perversion that would stamp such a person as a subhuman species. We find the word רועה, which we normally translate as “tending,” i.e. shepherding, also used by the Targum for “providing food” (transitive) on Genesis 48,15 by Yaakov in his blessings for his children when on his deathbed.

ואמרתם אנשי מקנה, “you’ll say: ‘we are cattle growers by vocation.’” Joseph was worried that if his brothers would occupy senior positions in Pharaoh’s Palace, this would result in jealousies and they would use this to reduce his status. He remembered that the “uniform” indicating rank, i.e. the striped coat had had worn, had led to all these jealousies once before.

כי תועבת מצרים כל רעה צאן FOR EVERY SHEPHERD IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE EGYPTIANS — because they (sheep) are regarded by them as deities.

כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן, seeing that they did not eat the flesh of sheep, they detested anyone raising these animals. They only raised the number of such animals needed for their wool and milk.

כי תועבת מצרים, “for it is something that the Egyptians detest;” Rashi understands the line as “for it is a deity of Egypt;” i.e. it is something that G-d detests, i.e. an idol. Their favorite astrological constellation was that of the lamb, which they worshipped. [“Worshipping” in the language of pagans means “to be afraid of.” Ed.] We find a similar expression concerning the favorite idol of the Moabites, (Kings II 23,14) i.e. שקוץ מואב ולמלכום תועבת בנימין, “kemosh the abomination of Moav, and Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites.”