פירוש על בראשית 47:39

אבי ואחי..…באו, "my father, my brothers, etc., have arrived. Joseph meant: "in accordance with your instructions." והנם בארץ גשו, "and here they are in the province of Goshen." "Just as you have said when you said: "I will give you the best part of the country (45,18)." As far as cattle is concerned the province of Goshen was the best part of Egypt. We find, however, that when the brothers enjoyed an audience with Pharaoh that they did not refer to what Joseph had told them about Pharaoh's promise; rather they pleaded that inasmuch as they had a lot of cattle they would appreciate it if they were allowed to settle in Goshen as it provided grazing land for their cattle.

(1-2) Josef stellt seine Brüder früher als seinen Vater dem Pharao vor. Er mochte wohl gewusst haben, Jakob werde im Gefühl seiner sittlichen Würde auch vor einem Pharao das Knie nicht beugen. Es ist ihm daher lieber, zuvor einige Glieder der Familie ihm vorzuführen, die es wohl an entsprechender Untertänigkeitsbezeugung nicht würden fehlen lassen. Daher auch ויציגם לפני, er stellt sie Pharao zu Gebote, wie אציגה נא וגוי (Kap.39. 15).

ומקצה אחיו SOME OF HIS BRETHREN — Some of the inferior ones amongst them as to strength — of those who did not look robust. For should Pharaoh find them to be robust men he might press them for military service. The weaker brethren were as follows: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar and Benjamin, and it was they whose names Moses did not repeat when he blessed them. But the names of the strong ones he mentioned twice: (Deuteronomy 33:7) “And this is for Judah ... hear, Eternal, the voice of Judah”; (Deuteronomy 33:20) “And of Gad he said, Blessed he lie that extendeth Gad”; (Deuteronomy 33:25) “And of Naphtali he said, Naphtali ...” (Deuteronomy 33:22). “And of Dan he said Dan . . .”, and in like manner he repeated the names of Zebulun (Deuteronomy 33:18) and of Asher (Deuteronomy 33:24). This is the version of Genesis Rabbah 95:4 which is a Palestinian Agada. But in our Babylonian Talmud we find that those whose names Moses mentioned twice were the weaker of the brethren and it was these whom he (Joseph) brought before Pharaoh. But six are enumerated above as having their names mentioned twice and he brought only five before Pharaoh. The explanation is that it is true that Judah’s name is mentioned twice, but it is mentioned twice not because he was one of the weaker brethren, but there is another reason for this, as is stated in Bava Kamma 92a. In the Baraitha of Siphre on וזאת הברכה we have the same version as in our Babylonian Talmud.

ומקצה אחיו לקח, in order that Pharaoh would understand through conversing with them that their vocation was that they were shepherds, raisers of flocks and cattle.

ומקצה אחיו, after Jospeh had told Pharaoh about his family’s arrival he selected the five least impressive looking of them or the five most impressive looking ones among them. Our sages disagree about the meaning of the ambiguously worded text.

ומקצה אחיו לקח, “he took from his stronger brothers.” The word קצה is derived from קצין, officer, strong man, as for instance in Isaiah 41,9 ומקצות הארץ קראתיך, “and I called unto you from the corners of the earth.”

But there is a reason for this... Which is: the entire forty years the Israelites were in the wilderness, Yehudah’s bones rattled in his coffin, [and Moshe prayed for him]. Rashi cites this on Devarim 33:7.

ומקצה אחיו לקח חמשה אנשים, “and from his weaker brothers he singled out five men, etc;” the word מקצה is interpreted by Rashi here as the “weaker ones.” Rashi presumably took his cue from the spelling of the word חמשה here without the customary letter י after the letter מ.

...Rashi says the kindness you do with those that passed away is called true kindness becuase you're not expecting any reward. Ramban asks Rashi, by Eliezer, Avraham asked Eliezer to do kindness and truth with him, but there he wasn't passing away. It appears to me this how we should explain Rashi: there are some people who merit to have a very lofty soul at birth, while others, later on in life, can attain a lofty soul by doing a mitzvah with a good intention (as is known in Kabbalistic circles). So when you merit this soul (from your good intent), you attain more strength and power in your service of Hashem because these souls assist you. This is when the Talmud means when it says that "if someone wants to become pure, they assist him." "They" refers to those souls. It also says in the Talmud that "they tell him to finish the mitzvah." Who tells it to him? These souls which he has acquired tell him to finish the mitzvah. This is also the meaning of the Mishna: "your house should be a house where the wise men meet." As it says in the Torah, "with wisdom you can build a house." That is referring to the soul: what it means that by preparing your soul you will merit to have many souls of the wise." Like we find by the Ri M'Gash, he had many souls for the Tannaim in him, as the Arizal says. The Mishna continues "and you should drink their words with thirst" means that you will do mitzvot with passion, because they [the souls] will inspire him. This is meaning concerning the building of the Mishkan, "and all the wise-hearted among you will come and do." The wise-hearted refer to these souls that have become part of you; they will do all that G-d has commanded. Also in the possuk: all wise-hearted among will perform the task. What that means that is that these supernal souls will work with you to build the Mishkan with the deepest mystical intent. This is what Rashi means with kindness of truth: this means that these holy souls, which have passed away, what they do with you is a kindness of truth because their intent is certainly true, without expecting any ulterior motive.

רעה צאן עבדיך , “your servants are shepherds.” When the Torah has the letter ה at the end of the word רעה instead of the customary letter י for the plural ending, this can be explained because the letters אהו'י are interchangeable.

רעה צאן im Singular. Vom Schafhirtenstand sind deine Diener. Josef hatte ihnen an die Hand gegeben zu sagen, אנשי מקנה, Viehzüchter. Sie aber scheuen sich ihres Berufs nicht und sagen geradezu: Schafhirten.

TO SOJOURN IN THE LAND ARE WE COME; FOR THERE IS NO PASTURE FOR THY SERVANTS’ FLOCKS. I wonder about this reason which they told to Pharaoh, for there was also no pasture in Egypt; the famine was as severe in the land of Egypt as it was in the land of Canaan, or even more so, for it was against Egypt that the main decree was directed. Perhaps they said that in the land of Canaan, due to the severity of the famine, people were eating the grass of the field and were not leaving any sustenance for the cattle. However, in the land of Egypt where there is corn, people subsist on that, and thus in Egypt there is a little pasture left. It is possible that in the land of Egypt there was a little pasture in the reedgrass on account of the rivers and the ponds.

לגור בארץ, not because we are short of money, but because there is no grazing land in Canaan as long as the famine lasts.

כי אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך, “for there is no grazing land for the flocks and herds of your servants.” Nachmanides writes that he is puzzled by this reason given by the brothers for having come to Egypt. After all, there was no grazing land in Egypt either during the famine, and both man and beast survived only from stored surplus of prior years. Possibly, the most intense famine raged in the land of Canaan, and the people there were reduced to eating grass, so that there was really nothing left for the beasts to feed on. Seeing that people received regular food rations in Egypt they had not needed to deny their beasts the grass in the fields. Alternately, there would be some grass around the many ponds in Egypt and in the Nile delta near the banks of the tributaries of the Nile river.

כי אין מרעה לצאן, “for these is no grazing land for the flocks.” Due to the severity of the famine in the land of Canaan the grazing land normally used for the animals to feed on had turned into meagre grass and even that was reserved for human consumption.

Obgleich in Goschen wahrscheinlich während der Hungerjahre ebensowenig Weide für das Vieh wie in Kanaan gewesen sein wird, so hatte doch wohl Josef wie überall so auch in Goschen Futterkräuter für das Vieh in den Stadtgebieten aufgespeichert.

לגור בארץ באנו, “we came here for only a temporary stay, sojourn;” At that time they did not entertain the idea of becoming permanent residents of Egypt. (Pessikta Zutrata)

כי אין מרעה “for there is no grazing land;” they emphasised this aspect so that Pharaoh should not think that they had come to sponge on Joseph. They asked permission to stay in Goshen, עתה for now, until the Lord in His wisdom, will end the famine so that we can return to the land of Canaan.

THY FATHER AND THY BRETHREN ARE COME UNTO THEE. This introduction is as if to say: “Now I have heard that your father and your brothers have come, and the land of Egypt is before you.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Your father and your brothers have come to you because they have heard of your glory, and it is upon you that they have cast their burden. See that you treat them well for it is your responsibility and it is within your power.”

ויאמר פרעה אל יוסף לאמור, Pharaoh said to tell Joseph, etc. What is meant here by the word לאמור? Besides, what did Pharaoh mean when he said: "your father has arrived?" This was not news!

אביך ואחיך באו אליך, “your father and your brothers have come to join you.” This may be an introductory remark by Pharaoh before offering the brothers and their father the hospitality of the land of Egypt. [otherwise it is banal, as the facts were well known. Ed.] Alternately, it is an introductory remark to “your brothers have come to convince themselves with their own eyes of your rise to greatness in this land. They are now planning to look to you for sustenance.” Pharaoh then proceeds to instruct Joseph to indeed treat his brothers with largesse.

Sie sind zu dir gekommen, ihre Versorgung liegt dir ob und die Mittel dazu gebe ich dir.

We must refer back to where Pharaoh had instructed Joseph in 45,17 - 18 to command his brothers to take their father and "come to me." These instructions could have either one of two meanings. 1) Joseph should speak to the brothers conveying instructions from Pharaoh. 2) Joseph should speak to them as if he were acting on his own authority. This latter interpretation is more likely to be the correct one. We base this on 45,19 where Joseph is told "you have been commanded, etc." If the instructions for the migration of Joseph's family had all originated with Pharaoh why would Joseph have to refer to permission he obtained from Pharaoh? One obtains permission after making a request for it. You will note that Joseph had spoken to the brothers about their migration in 46,31 when he was about to speak to Pharaoh about their arrival. The fact that he described the brothers as having "come to me" as opposed to having come to Pharaoh, seems evidence that they did not come in response to Pharaoh's invitation. In our verse, however, he did not describe the brothers as having "come to me," but simply as "having arrived." This implied that their arrival was at the behest of Pharaoh. He now wanted Pharaoh to make good on his promise. In response Pharaoh said in verse 6: "your father and your brothers have come to you." Pharaoh meant to correct any impression Joseph might have had that what he had said in 45,17 -18 should have been construed as an invitation from himself for the brothers to settle there. All Pharaoh had meant was that Joseph had his permission to extend an invitaion to them in Pharaoh's name to settle in the best part of Egypt.

There are subtle differences between a migration as the result of Pharaoh's direct invitation and one which resulted from an invitation by Joseph which had Pharaoh's approval. On the one hand, it appears that Pharaoh was now anxious to relieve himself of any responsibility towards Joseph's brothers and clan. When a king grants a certain person an elevated status, this is normally considered a permanent gift. Had the brothers' migration been at the direct invitation of Pharaoh their status in the land of Goshen would have been permanent and irrevocable. Pharaoh was concerned lest his invitation would be perceived as that kind of gift. He preferred to have the brothers believe that the land of Goshen was allocated to them by the authority of Joseph. It was valid as long as Joseph was ruler in the land. Just as Joseph's position was not a hereditary one, so the brothers' tenure in Goshen would not be a hereditary one. Both Joseph's position and the brothers' stay in Goshen continued to depend on Pharaoh's pleasure. Pharaoh wanted to make sure that Joseph or the brothers should not think that he, Pharaoh, needed them in order to strengthen his hold on the throne of Egypt.

There is, however, also a positive aspect of what Pharaoh had said now. Why would Joseph have to appeal to Pharaoh now as if he himself did not wield any authority in the country? Had not Pharaoh given Joseph blanket authority at the time he had appointed him as the absolute ruler over his kingdom? When Pharaoh now said to Joseph that his brothers had come to him, he merely reiterated that Joseph did not need to ask any kind of permission. Joseph's authority included the area concerning which he had now asked Pharaoh's permission. We find something analogous in Yuma 4 where Rabbi Mussiah son of Rabbi Menassiah teaches that there is scriptural proof for the assumption that when one reveals information received by a second person even when one had not been sworn to secrecy, this is forbidden unless specific permission has been granted. When G'd spoke to Moses in Leviticus 1,1, He added that Moses should communicate His words by adding the word לאמור. Accordingly, Pharaoh had to tell Joseph to extend the invitation in his name. Although this diminishes the value of Pharaoh's invitation slightly, it is not materially different from what Pharaoh had said in chapter 45.

We may also see some additional significance in the word אליך in verse five. The reason Pharaoh did command the brothers to migrate to Egypt was only in order to demonstrate that Joseph had never been a slave and had been born into a very respectable family. While it was true that on the face of it this had been demonstrated at the time when Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, he had not yet freed himself completely from the suspicion that the "brothers" were a group of bachelors with whom Joseph had made a deal that they should claim to be his family. We find that Bereshit Rabbah 100,9 refers to such a possibility in connection with Genesis 50,21 where Joseph is described as: "he consoled them and put their minds at ease." The Midrash describes that Joseph put his brothers' minds at ease by telling them that if he were to take any punitive action against them now the Egyptians would question his claim that they were his family and would argue that at the time that he, Joseph, identified them as his brothers this had been a charade, and that they had only been a group of young men whom he had paid to misrepresent themselves. When Pharaoh said to Joseph "your brothers have come to you," he meant that the brothers' presence in Egypt would buttress Joseph's claim concerning his ancestry.

אנשי חיל MEN OF ACTIVITY — skilled in their occupation of tending sheep.

אנשי חיל, men capable of being major commandants or political ministers. The word חיל here means something as in Ruth 3,11 a combination of ability and integrity. The author claims to have found that the expression אנשי חיל can be used directly to apply to cattle breeders.

במיטב הארץ…ישבו בארץ גשן, "they shall dwell in the land of Goshen in the best part of the country." Pharaoh was careful not to say only: "in the best part of the land," seeing that Joseph had indicated that he preferred that the brothers should live in the province of Goshen. If Pharaoh were not to confirm this specifically, Joseph might think that he did not want them to reside in Goshen. If, on the other hand, he were to say only that the brothers should reside in Goshen without adding the words "in the best part of the land," Joseph might feel that Pharaoh only assigned the inferior part of the province of Goshen to them. To avoid any misunderstanding, Pharaoh spelled out that the brothers should reside in the best part of the land of Goshen. Verse eleven then confirms that this is indeed what happened, that the land around Ramses was considered the best part of Goshen.

אנשי חיל, capable cattle (livestock) breeders.

ושמתם שרי מקנה על אשר לי, “appoint them as the ministers in charge of all my livestock.” Ibn Ezra understands the term מקנה here as animals such as horses, the type of animals owned by Royalty. Pharaoh, personally, did not own flocks of sheep, etc.

Experts in their occupation of tending sheep. Rashi is saying that here, חיל does not mean piety or wealth.

הושב, nicht als גרים, sondern als bleibend berechtigte ואם — .תושבים ידעת ויש בם. Mit großer Feinheit spricht dies Pharao als zwei Bedingungen aus. Es kann sein, dass יש בם אנשי חיל und du weißt es nicht, oder willst es nicht wissen, wünschest es nicht, dass sie in meinen Dienst treten; er gibt somit Josef selbst Ausreden an die Hand, wenn er es etwa nicht wünschen sollte.

במיטב הארץ הושב את אביך, “in the most fertile part of the land settle your father!;” seeing that he is aged and is only looking for peace and quiet and clean air, let him dwell in that part of the land; as far as your brothers are concerned, let them settle in the region of Goshen which has excellent grazing land. Our author continues with: “Do not tell me that the cantillation mark etnachta under the words: ואת אחיך clearly contradicts this interpretation.” This is not the only time that an etnachta, divisive cantillation mark, does not override the plain meaning of the verse. To mention just one:Judges 5,18 זבולון עם חרף נפשו למות ונפתל על מרומי שדה; “Zevulun is a people that mocketh at death; Naftaly on the open heights.” The etnachta under the word Naftaly in that verse is not meant to be divisive. Devorah surely lauded both those tribes as partners.

על אשר לי OVER THAT WHICH IS MINE — over my sheep.

Over my sheep. It is written (v. 3) רועי צאן עבדיך. Since they said to Pharaoh they were רועי צאן only, [thus Rashi knows that] the word מקנה in this verse refers to צאן (sheep).

It is also possible to understand the whole verse as a choice offered by Pharaoh. The brothers were welcome to reside in the best part of the land of Egypt; if, however, for whatever reason they preferred to settle in the province of Goshen, this too was acceptable to Pharaoh.

אנשי חיל, “able and astute people.” According to Rashi, Joseph described his brothers as not only intelligent but as loyal and trustworthy. Examples of the use of that word in that sense are: Proverbs 31,10: אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who is fortunate enough to find a truly wise woman?” Clearly Solomon did not speak about a woman who prepared for battle as a soldier! [Except in modern day Israel, where do women serve in the army in battle formations? Ed.]

ושמתם שרי מקנה, “you will appoint them as being in charge of livestock.” (Pharaoh speaking to Joseph concerning his brothers) The livestock that Pharaoh was most interested in were camels, mules and horses. If we needed proof that this interpretation is correct, it can be found in Chronicles I 28,1: ויקהל דוד את כל שרי ישראל ושר כל הרכוש ומקנה, “David assembled all the chieftains of Israel as well as the chieftains in charge of inert possessions, and the chieftains in charge of livestock, etc.; immediately before this verse, the previous chapter speaks of camels and sheasses (27,30) and the officers in charge of them. An alternate exegesis: Seeing that the areas in which defenseless sheep, goats and cows graze in the desert, an area where there are wild animals and robbers, the shepherds looking after them must be strong, able and capable of defending them.

ויברך יעקב AND JACOB BLESSED — this was the greeting of peace, as is usual in the case of all who are granted an interview with kings at long intervals; saluer in old French

AND JACOB BLESSED PHARAOH. This refers to a salutation, as is customary for all who are granted an occasional interview with kings. Thus the language of Rashi. But this does not appear to be so, for it is not royal protocol for a person to greet the king, and the Rabbis have similarly said:²³²Shabbath 89a. “May a servant greet the king?” Instead, it refers to a real blessing which Jacob bestowed upon Pharaoh, for it is customary for aged and pious people who come before kings to bless them with wealth, possessions, honor, and the advancement of their kingdom, even as Scripture says, Let my lord king David live forever.²³³I Kings 1:31. Upon his taking leave of Pharaoh, Jacob again blessed him²³⁴Verse 10 here. in order to take permission to leave. Our Rabbis have said²³⁵Tanchuma Naso 26, and mentioned here by Rashi. that he blessed him that the Nile might rise at his approach.

ויעמידהו לפני פרעה, and he presented him before Pharaoh. The reason the Torah chose the word "ויעמידהו" may be that Joseph placed Jacob in the place where he himself would normally stand when he had an audience with Pharaoh. This may have been an elevated spot only lower than Pharaoh's throne [compare 41,40 where Pharaoh reserved only his throne as beyond Joseph's authority].

ויברך יעקב את פרעה. He greeted him (bestowed a blessing) as is customary when one is introduced to the king. The custom is highlighted in Kings II 4,29 where Elisha told Gechazi not to respond to anyone’s greeting. Yaakov blessed Pharaoh again upon leaving after the audience. I have not found a satisfactory explanation why the Torah had to report something so ordinary.

ויברך יעקב את פרעה, “Yaakov blessed Pharaoh.” He wished him wealth and success in his position as ruler of a great Empire. This was the customary blessing conferred by elders and pious people who were granted an audience by a king. We find an example of this in Kings I 1,31 where Bat Sheva, David’s wife, blesses him in a similar vein, saying: “may my lord King live forever.” The Torah mentions Yaakov blessing Pharaoh again before he took his leave. Our sages (Tanchuma Nasso 26) say that the blessing consisted of a wish that the river Nile would rise again and irrigate the fields of Egypt.

ויבא, nicht לקח wie bei den Brüdern; ebenso nicht ויציגהו, sondern ויעמדהו. Jakob wartet auch nicht, bis der Fürst ihn anredet. Er fühlt sich auch ein Fürst auf Erden und kommt ihm mit einem Segensgruß entgegen.

It may also mean that he placed Jacob immediately opposite Pharaoh so that his father could bless Pharaoh.

We have a tradition that Pharaoh was of extremely small stature so that unless Jacob was directly opposite him he could not have known that the person he faced was Pharaoh (compare Moed Katan 18).

כמה ימי שני חחייך?, Pharaoh was utterly amazed at Yaakov’s age as the Egyptians did not know of any life-prolonging ingredients and people of Yaakov’s age simply did not exist in Egypt.

ויאמר פרעה כמה ימי שני חייך?, “Pharaoh said to Yaakov: ‘how old are you?’” It is puzzling why Pharaoh suddenly displays such interest in Yaakov’s age. At the same time, it is puzzling why Yaakov, instead of simply telling Pharaoh his age, prefaces his answer with a description of the quality of his life before revealing the quantitative aspect of it. Yaakov meant to explain to Pharaoh that if, contrary to norm, he appeared far older than his actual years this was due to the many trials and tribulations he had experienced in his years on earth. When Yaakov had arrived in Egypt and his sons had described themselves as coming לגור בארץ, to sojourn for a while, this created the impression that Yaakov expected to be around on this planet for quite some time yet. Pharaoh was therefore almost bound to ask him how old he was already, seeing that he had such plans for the future. Yaakov reassured him, that as of this day he was far younger in terms of years, than had been either his father or his grandfather at the time of their respective deaths. The fact that Yaakov really intended to return to Canaan after the famine would have passed had really thrown Pharaoh for a loop. According to the Midrash, G’d reacted angrily when He heard that after having been saved by Him miraculously a number of times during his life, Yaakov had the nerve to complain about the quality of his life on earth up until then in the presence of Pharaoh. As a result, Yaakov’s lifespan was reduced by 33 years when compared to the 180 years his father Yitzchok had lived. The number 33 corresponds to the number of words in our verse.

כמה ימי שני חייך, “how old are you?” Yaakov appeared to Pharaoh as considerably older than anyone he had seen in Egypt. When Yaakov replied he was careful not to equate the years he had been on earth as “life.” He said: “the days of my sojourn on earth, etc.” This is typical of the righteous. They consider themselves as merely transients in this world. Having established how he related to the experience of living within a body here on earth, he did say: “the days of my life are fewer and have been marked by sorrow.” He used the word “life” in contrast to his fathers who had not experienced such sorrows and who could therefore describe their days of life on earth as “life.” In order for Pharaoh to understand that the term “life” applied to his fathers was merely relative, Yaakov reverted again to describing even the lives of his fathers as “the days of their sojourn.”

Auch heute sprechen Fürsten, deren Zeit natürlich höchst kostbar ist, bei einer Audienz in der Regel nur ein paar kurze hingeworfene Fragesätze, die aus gleichgültigen Verhältnissen des Anzuredenden herausgegriffen sind. Selten hat aber wohl ein Fürst mehr Feinheit in ein paar Frageworte zu bergen verstanden, als hier Pharao, und noch seltener ein Angeredeter in einem kurzen Antwortsatz mehr Weisheit ausgesprochen, als hier Jakob. Wenn man nach Jahren zählt, rechnet man nicht mehr nach Tagen. Nur bei wenigen auserlesenen Menschen geschiehts, bei denen jeder Tag bedeutungsvoll und von ihnen als besondere Aufgabe betrachtet wird. Der wahre Mensch lebt nicht Jahre, sondern Tage. So in dem großen Psalm Moschehs, wo die ganze Weltgeschichte wie ein Traum vorüberzieht, heißt es zuletzt: wenn selbst tausend Jahre Weltgeschichte nichts mehr als eine Minute bedeuten, dann bedeuten die Tage gar nichts. Nur wo die תורה eingezogen und die Tätigkeit des Menschen im Dienste Gottes bestimmt und weiht, da lebt der Mensch Tage, heute hat er Kraft, heute wirkt er, um den Zusammenhang und die Folge völlig unbekümmert, der Tag ist Gott zugezählt und unverloren. "למנות ימינו כן הודע!" "Lehre uns so unsere Tage zählen!" — So spricht auch Pharao hier: Wie viel Tage hast du in den Jahren deines Lebens gelebt? und gibt in dieser Fragestellung den tiefen Eindruck kund, den die ganze Erscheinung Jakobs auf ihn gemacht.

כמה ימי שני חייך, “for how many years have you lived thus far?” Pharaoh was probably prompted to ask this unusual question of his guest as he looked as if he was exceedingly old. Yaakov, when replying, did not refer to his having “lived” at all, but described his sojourn on earth as something of a very temporary nature, ימי מגורי, “the days of my being a stranger,” as opposed to ימי שני חיי, “the days of the years the life,” the way the Torah had described the life of his grandmother Sarah at her death, reported in Genesis 23,1. He indicated that as opposed to his forefathers, he had had a very troubled life thus far. This resulted in his features reflecting this. An explanation by the Midrash of this strange sounding conversation between the ruler of the civilised world at the time and Joseph’s father: As soon as Yaakov had uttered the words that his life compared unfavourably with that of his father and grandfather, G–d told him “I have saved you from Esau and Lavan, I restored your daughter Dinah to you, as well as your son Joseph, and you have the nerve to describe your life on earth in negative terms when speaking to Pharaoh? I am now forced to make sure that you did not tell a lie, by shortening your lifespan when compared to that of your father and grandfather. He therefore deducted a year for each of the words in this reply by Yaakov, i.e. 33 words, so that he died at 147 years, 33 years younger than the lifespan of his father who had lived for 180 years. [This includes the opening blessing and the concluding blessing Yaakov gave to Pharaoh. Ed.]

?כמה ימי שני חייך, “how old are you?” Pharaoh was under the impression that Yaakov was extremely old, as he bore the marks of his sorrow filled life marked on his facial features. Yaakov replied: “do not be surprised that I look so old, the experiences that I have undergone during my life thus far have left their mark on me.” A Midrash quote G-d as responding to Yaakov describing his life as a series of harsh experiences by pointing out that no one before had been protected from as many dangers facing him as had Yaakov. According to these Midrash, the reason why Yaakov lived 33 years less than his father and 28 years less than his grandfather was onaccount of his not having appreciated all that G-d had done for him. The number 33 is arrived at by counting the number of words in verse 8 of our chapter commencing from the word: ויאמר up to and including the word: מגוריהם in verse 9.

שני מגורי — means the days of my being a stranger. All my days I have been a stranger in other peoples’ lands.

FEW AND EVIL HAVE BEEN THE DAYS OF THE YEARS OF MY LIFE. I know no reason for this comment by our aged patriarch. Is it ethical for a person to complain to the king? And what sense is there in saying, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers? He may yet possibly attain them and live even longer than they did!
It appears to me that our father Jacob had turned gray, and he appeared very old. Pharaoh wondered about his age, for most people of his time did not live very long as the lifespan of mankind had already been shortened.²³⁶See Ramban, above, 5:4. He therefore asked him, “How many are the days of the years of thy life,²³⁷Verse 8 here. as I have not seen a man as aged as you in my entire kingdom?” Then Jacob answered that he was one hundred and thirty years of age, and that he should not wonder at the years he had lived for they are few when compared with the lifespans of his fathers who had lived longer. However, on account of their having been hard years of toil and groaning, he had turned gray and he appeared extremely old.

מעט ורעים, seeing that Pharaoh’s question of how old he was appeared to Yaakov as being motivated by his extremely old appearance, he told him that he was not nearly as old as he might look, but that the various troubles in his life he had endured had left their mark on his appearance.

מעט ורעים היו ימי שני חיי, concerning your question how many years I am old, I must confess that actually I am relatively young in years, and I have certainly not benefited from any life-extending drugs or herbs, on the contrary, I have experienced enough troubles to hasten my old age and my death. Years during which a person is beset with major problems do not even count as “years of his life.” But if you want to know how many years I have been sojourning on this planet, I am 130 years old.

ימי שני מגורי, the days and years which I have lived so far amount to 130 years. They are few and have been earmarked by many negative experiences. The latter is what he meant by the word רעים. However, how did Yaakov know that his (total) years would be few? He must have assumed that due to the troubles he had already experienced and the effect on his general well being he could not look forward to live to the same age as had his father and grandfather before him.

In seiner Antwort unterscheidet Jakob Leben und Sein: du fragst nach den Tagen der Jahre meines Lebens? gelebt habe ich nicht viel, geweilt bin ich auf Erden hundertunddreißig Jahre. Die Tage der Jahre, die ich mein Leben nennen könnte — (in denen ich meine Aufgabe voll gelöst) — waren nur wenige, und sie eben waren רעים, waren eben die bittersten, sorgenerfülltesten. Es war mir die Aufgabe ge worden, die Pflichten des Unglücks im Unglück zu üben. Der Inhalt meines Lebens ist keineswegs mit dem Lebensinhalt meiner Väter zu vergleichen. Sie haben mehr gelebt, jeder Tag ihres Hierseins war Leben und sie hatten ihre Lebensaufgabe in heiteren Verhältnissen zu lösen. Es ist dies keine Klage über die Kürze des Lebens, sondern Bescheidenheit im Rückblick auf den sittlichen Wert des zurückgelegten Lebens.

ולא השיגו AND THEY HAVE NOT ATTAINED so far as happiness is concerned.

ולא השיגו, they did not match in either length of time or quality of life.

ויברך יעקב AND JACOB BLESSED [PHARAOH] — i.e. he gave him the salutation of peace as is usual for all who take their leave of princes — they salute them and depart. A Midrash however understands this more literally and asks, “What was the blessing with which he blessed him? That the waters of the Nile might rise at his approach Because Egypt does not drink (is not irrigated by) rain-water, but the waters of the Nile rise and irrigate it. And from the time when Jacob blessed him and henceforth, whenever Pharaoh came to the Nile it rose at his coming, overflowed its banks and watered the land. Thus it is stated in Tanchuma Yashan 4:2:26 to נשא.

ויברך יעקב את פרעה, ”Yaakov blessed Pharaoh.” Rashi understands this “blessing” as extending greetings. Nachmanides writes that it does not appear reasonable to him that a commoner is in the habit of enquiring after the good health, etc., of a reigning monarch. It is assumed that a king enjoys such, as a matter of course. We are told in Shabbat 89 there are no servants who offer this type of greeting to their masters, their masters being presumed to enjoy amenities denied to people of a lower social stratum. [when Moses arrived at the seat of G’d’s throne, he supposedly found G’d preoccupied with decorating the letters of the Torah with crowns. When he remained silent, dumbfounded, G’d asked him whether in his part of the universe it was not customary to extend greetings? Moses replied with the above quotation. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore concludes that Yaakov extended a real (literal) blessing to Pharaoh. It was customary for aged people to do so, as the very fact that they attained old age was perceived as proof that they themselves were blessed, and that therefore a blessing by them was of special value. Yaakov’s first blessing was in respect of earthly possessions, including good health, whereas his blessing before leaving the presence of Pharaoh was the promise that the waters of the Nile would once again overflow their banks and irrigate the farmland of Egypt.

What blessing did he give him? That the Nile rise as he approached it... This explanation is from Midrash Tanchuma, as Rashi mentions at the end [i.e., older versions of Rashi mentioned Tanchuma as the source]. Accordingly, “Yaakov blessed” means he gave him an actual blessing. But according to the first explanation, it was not an actual blessing. It rather meant: “Those who take leave of royalty, bless them [as a matter of formality]and take their leave.” Therefore, Rashi is asking [according to the Midrash: “What blessing did he give him?” Alternatively, even according to the first explanation that maintains that those who take leave of royalty offer a blessing, but that too is an actual blessing, regarding this [Rashi asks:] “What blessing did he give him?”

רעמסס RAMESES — This is part the land of Goshen.

AND JOSEPH SETTLED HIS FATHER AND HIS BRETHREN AND GAVE THEM A POSSESSION, etc. The meaning thereof is that he settled them in the choicest land and with the possession which he gave them since he did not want them to be as strangers in the land. Thus he bought them houses and gave them an inheritance of fields and vineyards.²³⁸Numbers 16:14. This he did with the permission of Pharaoh because they had said, “To sojourn in the land are we come,²³⁹Verse 4 here. not to live, and when the famine will pass we will return to our land.” But Pharaoh said to Joseph, Settle thy father,²⁴⁰Verse 6 here. meaning that he settle them in the manner of citizens of the land who reside in the land of Goshen.

ויושב, Joseph made his family settle in Goshen and gave them parcels of land as permanent ancestral property.

ויושב יוסף את אביו ואת אחיו ויתן להם אחוזה, “Joseph settled his father and his brothers in the land of Egypt, and he allocated to them freehold property, property that could be transferred to their children upon their death.” He did not want them to have the status of aliens, tourists, transients, etc. He gave them vineyards, houses and fields, all with Pharaoh’s permission, seeing they themselves had only asked permission to be resident aliens for a while. Pharaoh had told Joseph to make full citizens of them.

Sie waren nur in der ausgesprochenen Absicht, sich zeitlich im Lande aufzuhalten, gekommen. Auf Pharaos ausdrückliches Verlangen und auf seinen Befehl wurden sie zur förmlichen Niederlassung veranlasst und ward ihnen Grundbesitz angewiesen. — אחוזה. Nach jüdischer Anschauung ergreift der Mensch nicht vom Boden Besitz, sondern lässt sich vom Boden fesseln; nicht אוחו, sondern — הֵאָחֵז heißt: Land in Besitz nehmen. Nur bewegliche Habe geht in die Person auf und wird von dieser vertreten. Der unbewegliche Besitz ist vielmehr Träger der Persönlichkeit und Vertreter derselben im Rechtsgebiete. Ein Verhältnis, das im jüdischen Zivilrechte von weitreichenden Folgen ist.

במיטב הארץ, in the most fertile part of the country, which is around Raamses and near the province of Goshen, כאשר צוה פרעה, in accordance with what Pharaoh had commanded (verse 6). Unless Pharaoh himself had authorised this Joseph would not have done this on his own authority, even though he had the power to shift around the entire population of Egypt, as we know from verse 21. His powers were those of an absolute ruler but he did not become guilty of abusing it in order to favour members of his own family.

לפי הטף ACCORDING TO THEIR LITTLE ONES — according to the requirements of all their household.

לחם לפי הטף. Even though Joseph was in a position to allocate generous rations to the members of his family, he did not show them any preference and treated them on the basis of need, each family according to the number of souls. Our sages have stated that at a time when the general population suffers shortage even those who have ample are to limit themselves.

ויכלכל..לחם לפי הטף, the reason children are mentioned is that children eat all day long and waste food, leaving crumbs behind all over the place. Our sages in Pessachim 10 state that it is in the nature of children to break food up into crumbs and to leave them all over the place. There is a well known proverb which states that children are responsible for decay of food.

According to the needs of all the members of the household. Meaning: children scatter bread unnecessarily, and it says that Yoseif provided even for the needs of the children, i.e., he provided more than they really needed. [Thus Rashi knows that] he surely provided for the needs of the members of the household.

לחם לפי הטף. Kindern kann man nichts abknappen, selbst in Zeiten der Teurung und des Mangels lassen sie sich nicht wie Erwachsene beschränken, insbesondere nicht טף, in dem zarten Alter, das dieses Wort ausdrückt. Es scheint daher hiermit angedeutet, dass Josef die Vorräte auch seinem Vater und seiner Familie nur mit weiser Sparsamkeit zuwendete.

ויכלכל יוסף את אביו, “Joseph sustained his father;” Yaakov had become dependent on Joseph’s economic support, as according to what we read in verse 13, the amount of grain available in Egypt during those years for the general population was just enough for bread for each individual.

לפי הטף, “the rations Joseph handed out were not based on the price of bread, but on the number of children each family head had to support.”

ולחם אין בכל הארץ AND THERE WAS NO BREAD IN ALL THE LAND — Scripture reverts now to the original subject, viz, to the account of the beginning of the years of famine.

ותלה, similar to the word ותכה in Job 17,7 ותכה מכעס עיני, where it means: ”my eyes fail from vexation.” The letter ה is part of the root, this is why it has the mappik, similar to נגה אור in Job 22,28.in the word נגה. [indicates the letter is not a pronoun. Ed.]

ולחם אין…כי כבד הרעב מאד, there was no bread…because the famine was very severe, etc. The Torah informs us of the psychology of hunger. During a famine people have a tendency to eat inordinate amounts of food thus causing their reserves of food to be depleted prematurely. The author describes a personal experience of famine in the country he lived in where a person ate ten times the amount of food he would eat normally and still felt hungry.

ותלה, a word describing mental disturbance, Famine has that impact on people. The dagesh in the first root letter also indicates that meaning, compare Proverbs 26,18 כמתלהלה היורה זקים, “like a madman who throws firebrands.”

Returns to the beginning of the account... I.e., to the first year. [Rashi knows this] because the famine ceased when Yaakov came to Egypt, as Rashi soon explains [see v. 19]. Perforce, our verse goes back to before Yaakov came to Egypt.

ותלה, das Land verging, ermattete, rad. להה, verwandt mit לאה, kraftlos werden. לאה ist wohl die Wurzel von {לא, der logischen Negation, der Verneinung eines Seins, unterschieden von אל, der sittlichen Negation, der Verneinung eines Wollens und Sollens. לאה ist der Übergang aus dem Sein in das Nichtsein, das Schwinden der Kräfte.

ותלה AND FAINTED — This is the same as ותלאה, it means to be wearied, as the Targum renders it. Another example of the root is (Proverbs 26:18) “Like one fatigued who casteth fire-brands”.

ארץ מצרים וארץ כנען, however, people living further away than the people of Canaan did not come to Egypt to buy their food there. Either the journey was too long and tedious, or the famine was not as severe in their countries.

Similar to this is: כמתלהלה who shoots firebrands. I.e., the ה of כמתלהלה is in place of א, as the letters א–ה–ו–י are interchangeable.

בשבי אשר הם שוברים FOR THE CORN WHICH THEY BOUGHT — they gave him the money.

AND JOSEPH GATHERED UP ALL THE MONEY, etc. Scripture relates this and goes on to complete the subject in this entire section in order to make known Joseph’s excellence in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge,²⁴¹Exodus 31:3. and that he was a faithful man²⁴²Proverbs 20:6. in that he brought all money into Pharaoh’s house and did not accumulate for himself treasures of money and secret hiding places for wealth in the land of Egypt, or send it to the land of Canaan. Instead, he gave all money to the king who trusted him and purchased the land for him, and even the bodies of the Egyptians. Through this endeavor, he found grace even in the eyes of the people, for it is G-d Who causes those who fear Him to prosper.

ויבא יוסף את הכסף ביתה פרעה, because he did not permit himself to recompense himself on his own accord without being given his compensation by Pharaoh

וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף, Joseph collected all the silver (money), etc. The reason the Torah uses the expression לקט, gleaned, for the manner in which Joseph collected the money, is to tell us that after Joseph had collected there was absolutely no money left anywhere.

וילקט יוסף, he did this at the end of the first two years of the famine and during the remaining years of the famine At the beginning of the famine people were mostly eating from private stores they had accumulated during the years of plenty. Subsequently, they used their money to purchase food until their money ran out. Yaakov came to Egypt during the second year as Joseph had said to him: כי זה שנתים הרעב, “for these two years have been famine.” (45,6)

וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף, “Joseph collected all the money,” the Torah reports some of Joseph’s astuteness as a ruler, as well as his fairness and faithfulness in that whatever he collected he handed over to Pharaoh’s treasury. He did not amass a private fortune of his own.

They gave him the money. Rashi is saying that we should not think שבר means selling, because if it did, the verse should have written בשבר אשר הוא שובר, referring to Yoseif, who sold to them. Since it is written בשבר אשר הם שוברים, it refers to the people who purchased from Yoseif.

ויבא יוסף, in order to demonstrate his integrity. He did not need to do this and could have stored it in the granaries. Pharaoh had never demanded an accounting from Joseph, knowing that he was absolutely trustworthy. Nonetheless, Joseph was concerned not to allow anyone to suspect him of pocketing anything for his own private purposes.

אפס — Render this as the Targum does: שלים IS AT AN END.

AND WHEN THE MONEY WAS ALL SPENT IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, AND IN THE LAND OF CANAAN, ALL THE EGYPTIANS CAME UNTO JOSEPH, etc. Scripture mentions that the money in the land of Canaan had been exhausted because when the Egyptians came before Joseph they reminded him of this, for they said: “Since the money is also exhausted in the land of Canaan, and since they will no longer come to buy food, why should we die in thy presence? For the money is at an end, and you will cause our death in vain, for the food will remain in your hand, and no man shall buy it.”

ולמה נמות….כי אפס כסף, "why should we die …for there is no more money?" The people complained that Joseph had proved unwilling to accept any payment other than money in return for grain. They argued that they were not destitute, they could pay him with other chattels; why should they die merely because they could not pay cash? This is why Joseph replied that he was willing to accept their cattle in payment only "if indeed there is no more money." Joseph's reason for all this was to impoverish the Egyptians so that his brothers would not be in an economically inferior position vis-a-vis the Egyptians. Joseph was very clever not to accept any payment other than money as long as there was cash around. As long as the Egyptians still had their livestock they would have to provide fodder for their animals; presumably one effect of the famine was the absence of grazing land. The Egyptians therefore had to feed their livestock with barley. This in turn led to the money supply becoming completely exhausted within a year. As a result of Joseph's strategy the brothers who arrived during the second year of the famine were wealthy compared to the average Egyptian at that time.

ויבאו כל מצרים, the people living in the land of Canaan went elsewhere to secure their food supplies. By now the Torah speaks of conditions during the sixth year of the famine. During that year Joseph distributed food and accepted livestock as payment. In the seventh year he handed over food in return for the local land owners renouncing their title to their land in favour of Pharaoh. He distributed seed so that there would be a harvest during the eight’s year when the famine was supposed to have ended. Our sages, quoted by Rashi, claim that the famine ceased with the arrival of Yaakov in Egypt and his blessing to Pharaoh which resulted in the Nile once again overflowing its banks and providing irrigation for the fields. One can raise serious reservations about this approach. If the famine did indeed stop already in the second year or at the end thereof, when did all the measures Joseph is described as taking in verses 14-22 take place?

ויתום הכסף מארץ מצרים, “Egypt completely ran out of money,” money stopped circulating as there was too little of it both in Egypt and in the land of Canaan. The reason why the Torah had to mention that money had also run out in the land of Canaan was that the Egyptians said to Joseph: “seeing that there is no point in your waiting for more buyers from the land of Canaan, as they have no money with which to buy, you might as well introduce a new bartering system in Egypt. If you keep waiting for customers and we die in the meantime, you will be left with tons of supplies and no one who will buy it from you. The disappearance of money from circulation occurred gradually, beginning with the poor running out of cash first. The words ויתם הכסף describe a state when even the wealthy people had no more ready cash. According to the Midrash Joseph had been equipped with a degree of prophecy so much so that he knew how much money every person still possessed. He used this knowledge to charge higher prices to the rich and lower prices to the poor, in order to preserve a certain degree of equality amongst the population when it came to obtaining the necessities of life.

The Egyptians may also have meant to convey to Joseph that they did have money but that they had no cash flow at that time. They were unable to collect their receivables. This was not something unusual as many people invested their money in enterprises in foreign countries, sending money on ships which were meant to import goods. Their argument therefore was: "why should we die since we have the necessary liquid assets and are only unable temporarily to collect that money?" Accordingly, Joseph told them that if they really did have money in the form of receivables he was willing to accept their livestock as payment for food in the meantime. The livestock served as collateral for the cash the Egyptians would owe him. As soon as they would collect their receivables he expected them to turn over the money to him.

If there is no more money. He did not believe them, so he told them to bring their livestock as a test, knowing they would rather part with money than their animals.

וינהלם — is the same as וינהגם AND HE GUIDED, LED THEM. Similar in meaning are (Isaiah 51:18) “There is none (מנהל) to lead her”, and (Psalms 23) “he guideth me (ינהלני) beside the still waters.”

וינהלם בלחם, he guided them slowly, as in Isaiah 40,11 עלות ינהל. He handed out food a little at a time. It was to be eaten but one should not stuff oneself on it. This is the proper way to conduct oneself during periods of famine. There is a saying that if one starves oneself a little during periods of famine he avoids dying an unnatural death Physicians confirm the reverse of this when they said that if someone overeats after starving for a period, he contracts a potentially fatal illness.

בסוסים unter allem Herdenbesitz der wertvollste, wegen dessen Ägypten berühmt war.

בשנה ההיא, after they money had run out, the sixth year of the famine.

בשנה השנית IN THE SECOND YEAR — of the famine.

THEY CAME UNTO HIM IN THE SECOND YEAR. I.e., the second year of the years of the famine. Now although Joseph had said, And there are yet five years when there will be no plowing and sowing,²⁴³Above, 45:6. as soon as Jacob came to Egypt a blessing came with his arrival, and they began to sow and the famine came to an end. And thus we read in the Tosephta of Tractate Sotah.²⁴⁴10:9. Tosephta means “addition.” This is a collection of Tannaitic teachings compiled by Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshayah soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. Thus the language of Rashi. And it is similarly mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah:²⁴⁵89:11. “Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina said that the famine lasted for two years, for when our father Jacob went down to Egypt the famine ceased. When did it return? In the days of Ezekiel, etc.” But if so, then Joseph’s words regarding his interpretation of [Pharaoh’s dream which predicted the seven years of famine] were not fulfilled, and would thus cause people to doubt his wisdom! Perhaps we shall say that the famine continued in the land of Canaan as Joseph had said, but in Egypt our father Jacob went down to the river in the presence of Pharaoh and all of Egypt, whereupon all his people saw that the waters in the Nile rose as he approached it, and thus they knew that G-d’s blessing was due to the prophet’s arrival. In that case, the verse stating, And Joseph sustained his father, and his brethren, and all his father’s household, with bread, according to the want of their little children,²⁴⁶Verse 12 here. applies to the remainder of the seven years and for as long as his father lived,²⁴⁷According to the Tur’s version of Ramban, this passage reads: “applies to the years of plenty of his father’s entire lifespan.” for even after his father’s death, Joseph said, I will sustain you and your little ones.²⁴⁸Further, 50:21.
Yet, with all this, I wonder: for if so, then Pharaoh’s dream was not true since it only revealed the decree to him but not what would ultimately become of those seven years! Now I have seen there in the Tosephta of Tractate Sotah:²⁴⁴10:9. Tosephta means “addition.” This is a collection of Tannaitic teachings compiled by Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshayah soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. “Rabbi Yosei said that as soon as our father Jacob died, the famine reverted to its former condition, etc.” We have further been taught in the Sifre:²⁴⁹Sifre Eikev, 38. “And Jacob blessed Pharaoh.²³⁴Verse 10 here. How did he bless him? [His blessing was] that the years of famine should cease. Nevertheless they were completed after Jacob’s death, as it is said, Now therefore fear ye not; I will sustain you.²⁴⁸Further, 50:21. Now just as ‘sustaining’ mentioned above²⁵⁰Above, 45:11. And there I will sustain thee, for there are yet five years of famine. by Scripture refers to years of famine, so also ‘sustaining’ mentioned here²⁴⁸Further, 50:21. refers to years of famine. Rabbi Shimon says, ‘It is not a sanctification of G-d’s Name for the words of the righteous to be effective as long as they live, and then to be removed after their death.’ Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon said, ‘I accept the opinion of Rabbi Yosei rather than that of my father, for it is indeed a sanctification of G-d’s Name for there to be a blessing in the world for the period that the righteous are in the world, and for the blessing to remove from the world when they leave.’” Thus far the text of the Tosephta. Thus the remaining five years of the famine were completed.
The opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra is that these two years, [recounted in Verses 14-20, during which the Egyptians gave their money and cattle to Joseph in exchange for food], occurred after Jacob had come to Egypt, [and since there were two years of famine before he came to Egypt, this accounts for four of the seven years of famine]. And Ibn Ezra wrote as follows: “We find in homiletic texts of the Rabbis that the famine was removed by the merit of Jacob. It is also possible that there were three more years of famine, but that they were not as severe as the first four years which had passed.” But Ibn Ezra’s words are not at all correct. The account of the dream and its interpretation make all seven years alike, and, had it been as he said, Scripture would have mentioned the different nature of these three last years.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan during a period of five years, and he brought it to Pharaoh, for how is it possible for the money and cattle to be exhausted in one year? Rather, the money sufficed them for the entire five years, as is the usual way of the world.²⁵¹In a time of famine, people conserve money and make it last for a long period of time. Now since nothing was initiated, and no change of any kind occurred during all these years, Scripture relates nothing about them except, And Joseph gathered up all the money, etc.²⁵²Verse 14 here. When the money was exhausted, Scripture relates that they came to Joseph — this was in the sixth year of the famine — and he gave them bread in exchange for their cattle. He fed them with bread only to the extent of sustaining them, but not to satiety. And when that year was ended,²⁵³Verse 18 here. in which he had vowed to them that he would feed them with bread in exchange for their cattle—which was the sixth year—they came unto him the second year, [i.e., the year following the sixth year of famine being discussed], and they told him that he should purchase them and their land for the bread which he will feed them during that seventh year, and since the land will then belong to Pharaoh, he should give them seed so that the land will not be desolate, for they knew that when the seven years of famine will be completed, they will have planting and reaping. The verse stating, And Joseph sustained his father…with bread, according to the want of their little ones,²⁴⁶Verse 12 here. thus means that he furnished them with bread sufficient for their needs during the famine, as the expression, according to the want of their little ones, indicates.

בשנה השנית, the second year after the money had run out. This was the seventh year of the famine.

לא נכחד מאדוני, "we will not hide the fact from my lord, etc." The expression "we will not hide" presents a difficulty. What was the point of speaking of hiding something which was bound to be revealed if indeed it existed? On the other hand, if they were to claim that their livestock and money had not been exhausted they had to deliver it! Why would they say that they would not conceal the existence of money or livestock? Besides, what is the meaning of the words כי אם? Furthermore, they had told Joseph already at the end of the previous year that their money supply was exhausted? Why did the Egytians say to Joseph: "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir?"

ויבואו אליו בשנה השנית, “They came to him in the second year, etc.” according to Rashi the verse speaks about the second year of the famine, even though Joseph had spoken about another 5 years of crop failures, (45,11) However, as soon as Yaakov arrived in Egypt, a miracle happened and the blessings returned as a result of his presence. Nachmanides writes that although Joseph’s prediction of seven consecutive years of famine did not come true, no one used this as an excuse to call Joseph a liar or a false prophet. The reason was that they noted that the famine continued in the surrounding countries, so that it was clear to them that special circumstances had arisen when Yaakov went down to the Nile and suddenly the waters of the Nile rose to welcome him. Pharaoh himself had witnessed this phenomenon. He showed it to his servants and they realized that Yaakov’s blessing had been effective. We must therefore understand Joseph’s pledge to support his brothers economically as being meant for the normal years to follow, a pledge which was to be valid for at least as long as his father would remain alive. In fact, Joseph continued to support his brothers financially even after his father’s death (50,51) Even considering all this, if all this is true, then Pharaoh’s dream had not been interpreted correctly seeing that Pharaoh had not really been shown the decree nor how it could be changed. There is an interesting Tossephta in Sotah according to which Rabbi Yossi said that as soon as Yaakov died, the famine resumed in Egypt. There is also a statement in the Sifri according to which Yaakov’s blessing to Pharaoh consisted in the promise that the famine would cease forthwith. Nonetheless, seeing seven years of famine had been decreed in the dream, these did in fact occur, at intervals, after Yaakov’s death. Rabbi Shimon protested such an interpretation, saying that it does not confer glory on either G’d or His righteous people on earth if the promise (blessing) of a צדיק remains effective only during his own lifetime. In response to this Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Shimon (ben Yochai) said that he prefers the interpretation of Rabbi Yossi to that of his own father, as it is a greater sanctification of G’d when people observe that as long as a tzaddik walks the earth there is visible blessing on earth thanks to his merit. The very fact that the blessings on earth we due to the presence of Tzaddikim at that time, becomes manifest when these blessings cease as soon as the Tzaddik leaves this earth. The fact is that there are 5 more mentions of famine in Egypt scattered throughout the Bible; these five years of famine completed those predicted by Joseph but interrupted by the blessing of his father Yaakov when he went to see Pharaoh. [by the way, the clue Yaakov had found in Pharaoh’s dream that gave him the opening for this blessing was that the parched ears of corn symbolizing the years of famine, did not grow on a single stalk, whereas the good ears of corn all grew on a single stalk, suggesting that the good years would be consecutive. Ed.] Ibn Ezra claims that here we are speaking about the first 2 years of the famine after Yaakov’s arrival in Egypt. We find support for this in the Midrash, which states that the famine ended thanks to the merit of Yaakov. It is also possible that the division was four years of famine at once, and three years at a later date, but of far less severity. Nachmanides writes that he finds these interpretations as unsatisfactory, for if that had been so the Torah herself would have referred to some of these events explicitly. At any rate, the meaning of the text read straightforwardly is that Joseph collected all the available money during five years of the famine, but seeing that during those five years no new elements developed, the Torah did not refer to those years individually, but treated them as if they had been a single year. When a new development occurred, i.e. the people for the first time confronting Joseph, the Torah resumes the thread of the narrative. What is related now actually occurred during the sixth year of the famine. At that time Joseph handed out grain and took cattle and beasts of burden as payment for this. When the people came back again in the following year, the second of the last two years, he acquired their land on behalf of Pharaoh and made sharecroppers out of all of them. When he began to hand out seed for sowing it became clear that this had been the last year of the famine.

That the money and livestock are used up... Rashi writes אשר in place of [Scripture’s word] אם. This is because אם [generally] conveys “if,” but here it does not mean that. Rashi adds, “And everything has come into my master’s hand,” because the verse seemingly says that the money was used up by Yoseif. [But now] it conveys: “We did not spend any of our money on anything else; all has come into our master’s hand.”

בשנה השנית, “during the second year;” according to the plain meaning of the text, this refers to the second year after Yaakov had arrived in Egypt, which was the fourth year of the famine. The food which had been stored up during the seven years of plenty plus the financial savings of the population had sufficed to see them through the first three years. In the fourth year the people tendered their livestock for food, and in the fifth year they tendered their land holdings. In the sixth year they agreed to become slaves of Pharaoh in return for receiving rations from Joseph’s stores. In the seventh year, Joseph gave them seed to plant and they planted it, collecting a harvest in the eight’s year, and the famine was over.

כי 'אם תם הכסף וגו is the same as כי אשר תם הכסף and the meaning is: but (כי) it is a fact that (אשר) the money and the herds of cattle are exhausted, and everything has now come into my lord's hands.

לא נכחד מאדוני, that we still possess some livestock, כי אם תם הכסף ומקנה הבהמה.

The same as: if not for our bodies. [Rashi knows this] because בלתי cannot mean “except for” and it cannot mean “not,” because then the word אם (“if”) will not fit in. [I.e., it would read as: “except for if our bodies,” or: “not if our bodies.”] Thus Rashi explains that בלתי indeed means “not.” However, the verse’s wording must be inverted: אם לא גויתינו, i.e., אם בלתי גויתינו. Accordingly, it means: “except for our bodies.”

Perhaps what the Egyptians meant was: "we really have no more money, we are not hiding it, the money is truly exhausted." They did not want Joseph to suspect them of pretending to be destitute, asking for a handout. They added that as far as the livestock was concerned there was not even a need to tell Joseph they had none left, seeing Joseph had bought it all and it could not be hidden even if they tried. As a result the only thing they had left were their very bodies.

לא נכחד, “we cannot hide, etc.” i.e. “we have nothing left that we could hide instead of offering it to you.”

בלתי אם גויתנו is the same as [NOTHING REMAINS] IF IT BE NOT OUR BODIES.

According to the alternative meaning of the words אפס כסף, that their cash receivables were not collectible at that time, the verse does not need any explanation at all. They told Joseph that when they argued previously that they had receivables but that those could not be collected at that time, that had been a lie, and they would not deny that they had lied in order to get Joseph to accept their livestock in payment for the grain. The fact was that at this time all their assets other than their bodies had been exhausted. This is the reason that whereas the first time around the Torah speaks about אפס כסף, i.e an absence of money, they now spoke about תם הכסף, that the money had been completely exhausted.

When they said: ומקנה הבהמה אל אדוני, "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir," they referred to the livestock they had pledged in lieu of the cash they had not had available at the time they made their recent grain purchases. As of now, this livestock belonged to Joseph absolutely. This is why they added the word אדוני.

ותן זרע GIVE US SEED — to sow in the ground. Although Joseph had said (Genesis 45:6) “And there are yet five years when there will be no plowing and sowing”, as soon as Jacob came to Egypt a blessing came with his arrival: they began to sow and the famine came to an end. Thus do we read in the Tosefta of Sotah (Tosefta Sotah 10:3).

BUY US AND OUR LAND. Now they said to him that he should also purchase their bodies as servants for Pharaoh, and thus did Joseph say, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land.²⁵⁴Verse 23 here. However, Scripture records, And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field,²⁵⁵Verse 20 here. but it does not say that he bought their bodies, only the land. The reason for it is that the Egyptians told Joseph that he should purchase them as servants to perform the king’s business as he pleases. But Joseph wanted to buy only the land, and he made a condition with them that they work on it forever, thus becoming Pharaoh’s family tenants. Afterwards he said to them, “Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh,²⁵⁴Verse 23 here. not as servants as you told me, but you will belong to him with the land. Now it is proper that the king, who is now lord of the land, take four parts of the harvest and that you take the remaining fifth, but I will deal kindly with you in that you will take the portion due to the owner of the land, and Pharaoh will take the portion due the tenant. However, you will be sold to him in that you will not be able to leave the fields.” This is the meaning of that which they vowed to him, And the land will not be desolate²⁵⁶Verse 19 here. meaning that it will never be desolate. For this reason they said to Joseph, “We have found favor in the sight of my lord,²⁵⁷Verse 25 here. for you have been lenient with us by permitting us to take four parts of the harvest so that we may use them to live, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants,²⁵⁷Verse 25 here. as we have vowed, in that we will work the ground in accordance with his will.”
Vayechi

למה נמות לעיניך?, even assuming that both the money and the livestock had completely been exhausted, it is not be fair to let us die because we have no means to pay

?למה נמות, the reason why the verse speaks also about the death of the land, i.e. גם אדמתנו, is that earth which is desolate is as if “dead.” This is also why the farmers used the expression ולא תשם, “and it would become desolate.”

קנה אותנו ואת אדמתינו בלחם, “acquire us together with our land in return for bread!” They asked Joseph to also acquire their bodies as slave labour, and this is confirmed when Joseph told them in verse 23 that he had indeed acquired both their soil and their bodies on Pharaoh’s behalf. Seeing that this has all been spelled out by the Torah in unmistakable language, what do the words in verse 20: “Joseph acquired all the soil of Egypt on Pharaoh’s behalf,” add to the information we have already received? In fact that verse seems to contradict what we read in both verse 19 and 23 in that it speaks only of soil and not bodies having been sold. The reason for the insertion of this verse was to show that although the Egyptians were willing and eager to even sell their bodies, Joseph did not acquire their bodies,- as he considered the personal freedom of the body of a human being as of paramount importance- but he established a system of share-cropping, the former landowners being legally obligated to work the lands in question on behalf of Pharaoh, but sharing in the success or failure of the annual crops to the extent of 80%. When he did say to them in verse 23 “here I have acquired you,“ he refers to the entitlement to their labour, not to their bodies being owned, and subject to resale to other human beings, (as was the custom in the United States until1866) Moreover, Joseph’s concern for “human rights” was such that instead of allocating to Pharaoh 80% of the fruits of their labour he allocated only 20% to Pharaoh, the remainder belonging to the farmer who had worked the land. The expression קניתי “I have acquired you,” is justified as the farmers were not allowed to leave the land or offer their labour to someone else.

To sow in the ground. [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise it should say, “Give us bread,” or, “Give us foodstuff.”

גם אדמתינו, “also our land holdings.” The words מיתה, “death,” and חי, “live,“ are here used when speaking of inanimate objects, such as land. Our author points out that such usage of the Hebrew language. He cites as examples: Nechemyah 9,6: ואתה מחיה את כולם, “and You keep them all alive.” If G-d’s creatures do not plough the earth and grow things for themselves, they will not stay alive. In other words, they will be no better than dead. [Manna will not fall from heaven. Being given life is not an end in itself, but only a means to staying alive. Ed.]

לא תשם means it shall not be desolate. The Targum renders it by לא תבור shall not be uncultivated, which has the same meaning as (Mishnah Peah 2:1) שדה בור an uncultivated field — one which is not ploughed.

והאדמה לא תשם, “and the land will not become waste.” Neglect of the land now would result in the land becoming permanently unable to grow crops. In light of this it is not surprising that the farmers said to Joseph (verse 25): “you have kept us alive; let us find favour in your eyes and we will gladly be slaves to Pharaoh.”

They began to sow and the famine ended... You might ask: If so, would people not say that Yoseif is a fraud? For he had interpreted [Pharaoh’s dream] that there would be a seven-year famine! The answer is: The famine ended only in Egypt, not in other lands. And when they observed the Nile rising to meet Pharaoh they knew it was on account of Yaakov’s blessing.

אנחנו ואדמתנו עבדים לפרעה, “both we and our soil will be slaves to Pharaoh.” We will be his slaves, and the soil will he will hand over to us is to be taxed from its yield.

ותהי הארץ לפרעה SO THE LAND BECAME PHARAOH’S — possessed by him.

Yoseif bought all the land. He did not wish to purchase their bodies in exchange for bread, since it is the duty of a ruler to feed his people. Only when they asked to return to their lands did he make serfdom a precondition.

Bought for him. Rashi is explaining that it does not mean under his rulership, as that was so even beforehand. 21

ואת העם העביר AND AS FOR THE PEOPLE HE CAUSED THEM TO PASS — Joseph caused them to pass from one city to another city that they might be reminded that they now had no claim to the land. He settled the people of one city in another. There was no need for Scripture to state this except for the purpose of telling you something to Joseph’s credit — that he intended thereby to remove a reproach from his brothers because, since the Egyptians were themselves strangers in the various cities where they then dwelt, they could not call them (Joseph’s brethren) strangers (Chullin 60b).

העביר אותו לערים, a stratagem also employed by Sancheriv when he conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel and forcibly exchanged the populations of that kingdom with people from the north. (compare Kings II 18,32). The purpose behind this was to prevent uprisings by populations who had no roots in their countries and therefore had no good reason to start a rebellion.

העביר אותו לערים, he transferred them so that they should encourage him to keep the grain safe.

ואת העם העביר אותו לערים. He did not want the people to get too attached to the land they would be working on, not as the attachment they had felt for their land in the past which they had owned outright. He did give them the land as something they could transfer by inheritance to their children, but he made sure that they would remain aware that they had received it by the largesse of Pharaoh who had been the true owner and who could therefore claim a tax of 20% of their harvests.

Yoseif transferred them from city to city... [Rashi says this] so we will not think that it was Pharaoh who is mentioned just before, [who did this. That is not so,] because Yoseif was the buyer, the one who transferred them, and the giver of seed.

לערים nicht: in Städte, sondern städteweis, immer eine ganze Stadtbevölkerung zusammen nach einer anderen Stadt. Der ganze Boden war Staatseigentum geworden, und um dieses neuerworbene Recht vollständig konkret werden zu lassen, sollten alle bisherigen Eigentümer ihr bisheriges Eigentum verlassen, somit eine vollständige Auswanderung eintreten. Allein Josefs Weisheit milderte die Maßregel dadurch, dass immer eine Gesamtbevölkerung zusammenblieb und sich nur auf einem neuen Boden wieder zusammenfand. Somit blieben die alten sozialen und kommunalen Beziehungen dieselben und es trat nicht eine ganze Umwälzung aller bestehenden Verhältnisse ein. Die Weisen deuten auf die Folgen hin, die diese Versetzung der Gesamtbevölkerung für die neuen Ankömmlinge der Jakobsfamilie haben musste, auf welche fortan kein Ägypter mit Hohn herabblicken konnte. Es befand sich auch kein Ägypter mehr auf eigenem Hofe. Es war übrigens diese ganze Maßregel nicht eine von Josef erfundene. Das Volk selbst hatte sie Raw Hirsch on Genesis 47: 19, und zwar zugleich die Leibeigenschaft, in Vorschlag gebracht. Josef verschmähte diese und adoptierte nur den Staatsankauf der Ländereien, aus welchem zuletzt nur eine Grundsteuer resultierte.

ואת העם העביר אותו, “as far as the people were concerned, Joseph transferred them wholesale (to new locations).” Joseph transferred the people to new locations so that they would no longer be attached to their soil, since he had bought it. This would prevent them from returning to their land after some time and claim that this is what they had inherited from their fathers. Once they were settled in the new location on soil which had never been theirs, they could not make such a claim since everyone lived on land that had once belonged to somebody else.

'מקצה גבול מצרים וגו means thus did he to all the cities of the realm of Egypt FROM ONE EXTREMITY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF EGYPT EVEN TO THE OTHER EXTREMITY THEREOF).

He did this to all the cities that were in the kingdom of Egypt... Rashi says this so we will not think that Yoseif only switched [people] from one end to another end, but he did not switch [people living] in the middle of the country. Therefore he says, “All the cities...”

הכהנים mean THE PRIESTS. The term כהן always means one who ministers to Deity except in those cases where it denotes one of high rank, e.g. (Exodus 2:16) “Jethro the chief of (כהן) Midian” and (Genesis 41:45) “the chief of (כהן) On”).

הכהנים, the officials in charge of the myriad of altars in the country.

רק אדמת הכהנים, “only the land-holdings of the priests, etc.” Some commentators believe that Joseph favoured the priests because his former master Potiphar was now a priest in the monastery of On. Other commentators attribute Joseph’s showing preference to the priests to the tradition that it had been the priests who had to sit in judgment deciding if the accusation of Potiphar’s wife that Joseph had attempted to rape her was true or not had ruled in Joseph’s favour basing themselves on the manner in which his garments had been torn. Had the tears occurred in the frontal part of the garments this would have been incriminating. The fact that the tears were in the rear indicated to them that Joseph had fled from her and not vice versa. You need not consider the statement in our verse that there was a special law for the priests as contradicting the tradition we just quoted, seeing that this very law had been introduced by Joseph. Some commentators do not understand the word כהנים as referring to a religious order, but as a description of the local aristocracy, whom Joseph exempted from these new laws restricting land ownership to a numerically insignificant number of people.

Whenever the word כהן is used it refers to a servant of a deity... Wherever it says כהן alone, without explaining the association to what he is a כהן, it assumedly means he is the servant of a deity. This is surely so when it states כהן to Hashem, or כהן to an idol. But with כהן מדין and כהן און, where it mentions the name of the country or city, it means he is their governor or leader. That is why Onkelos translates it here as כומריא (priests), but translates כהן און and כהן מדין as רבא דאון and רבא דמדין. (רבא means leader.)

Nur den Boden der Priester kaufte er nicht usw. Hier sehen wir einen vollendeten Gegensatz zu jener Hypothese, die sich aus der sogenannten "Sendung Mosis" in so manche Anschauung eingebürgert, als hätte Moses "seine" staatliche und religiöse Weisheit von den Ägyptern erlernt. Die angeblichen Lehrer Mosis, die ägyptischen Priester, hatten Boden, ja, waren nach der zu Josefs Zeiten eingetretenen Veränderung die einzigen wirklichen Bodeneigentümer und hatten außerdem ein festgesichertes Staatseinkommen. Unsere כהנים hatten keinen Boden und kein gesichertes Einkommen aus Staatsmitteln, waren vielmehr mit ihrer Existenz auf den guten Willen und die Achtung der einzelnen hingewiesen. Wäre משה רבנו ע"ה ein "Moses" gewesen, er hätte für seinen Stamm ganz anders gesorgt.

רק אדמת הכהנים, “only the soil belonging to the priests (Joseph did not transfer to Pharaoh).” The priests are the like the ministers, as the כהן מדין the priest of Midyan. Joseph did not transfer to Pharaoh so they would not have any reason to start a rebellion against Pharaoh. A different reason given for Joseph’s preferential treatment of the priests is as we explained already, that the priests had suggested a method by which to test if Joseph or the wife of Potiphar had spoken the truth, as a result of which, Joseph instead of being hanged had only been put in ;jail.

חק לכהנים [FOR] THE PRIESTS HAD A PORTION — an assigned portion of a definite quantity of bread daily.

חק. Gewöhnlich werden חקים als Beschränkungen, als etwas grundlos einmal Festgesetztes begriffen, und die Bezeichnung הק, sowohl nach ihrer Abstammung, הקק verwandt mit הכך ,חגג, als nach ihrer Anwendung, ergibt doch das gerade Gegenteil. חק ist das von den Bedingungen, Bedürfnissen und Bestimmungen irgend eines Wesens, einer Sache oder eines Verhältnisses Geforderte, fließt somit tief aus dem Wesen der Dinge und der Bedingung ihres Daseins und ihrer Bestimmung. So: הטריפני לחם חקי (ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 47: 30. 8), die für meine Existenz notwendige, und von dir mir zugewiesene Nahrung. So hier: die für die Subsistenz der Priester erforderlichen Mittel. So sind denn auch חקים: unsere sittliche Nahrung, göttliche, tief aus der Natur unseres Wesens und unserer Bestimmung erflossene Feststellungen, deren Beachtung die Existenz und Zweckerfüllung unserer sittlichen Natur ebenso, wie das tägliche Brot die Existenz und Zweckerfüllung unserer leiblichen Natur, bedingt.

הא means the same as הנה “behold”, as (Ezekiel 16:43) “I also lo, (הא) will recompense thy way upon thine head”.

I have today purchased you. Since he had purchased both them and their lands he was required to feed them and supply them with seed, but all the produce would belong to him.

הן קניתי אתבם היום. "Look, I have bought you today, etc." The reason Joseph added the word היום, and the fact that it does not appear after the report that Joseph had bought their land, is to tell us that the method of acquisition was that each individual was acquired by the method known in Jewish law as משיכה, i.e. drawing the object being purchased a short distance towards the purchaser, as customary when one purchases slaves (Kidushin 22). Joseph did this en masse by transferring whole populations from city to city. Since one cannot acquire land by moving it, the word היום was interposed between these different kinds of purchases Joseph made.

הא לכם זרע וזרעתם, here is seed for you, work

The Torah also wanted to clarify something else here. We have the principle (Pessachim 88) that when one acquires a slave one automatically acquires everything this slave owned at the same time. There was no need to mention the acquisition of these Egyptians' lands separately. Since it is possible that Joseph did not acquire these Egyptians in the manner one usually acquires slaves, but that they became his (Pharaoh's) slaves only to the extent that they had to continue to farm the lands they had farmed previously and pay a portion of their harvest to Pharaoh, the Torah distinguished between the acquisition of the people on the one hand and that of their lands on the other hand. In practice, these Egyptians became hired hands who were not free to leave their employment. As a result Joseph had to acquire the land separately. This is why the Torah wrote in verse 20 that "Joseph acquired all the lands on behalf of Pharaoh as each of the Egyptians sold his land, etc." This would enable Pharaoh to bring in other labourers to work these fields, whereas he was not able to force the Egyptians who had previously owned those fields to farm them as he did not own those farmers bodily. When Joseph said: "I have acquired you," he meant that he had acquired them as hired hands, as distinct from their lands which he had acquired outright.

לזרע השדה FOR SEED OF THE FIELD — for sowing every year),

את האדמה, which is his, והיה בתבואות When it come to the crops, which are his,

חמישית לפרעה, one fifth for Pharaoh, etc. Joseph was astute enough to say that Pharaoh would collect the first 20% of any seed. Even if, as a result, the remaining 80% would be only sufficient for the farmer to plant and to break even, Pharaoh would not agree to collect less than his 20%. On the other hand, the farmers would be at liberty to collect the overage whether there be a lot or a little.

ולאשר בבתיכם, a reference to male and female servants as well as to horses and donkeys. [which had not been included in the מקנה, livestock, which Joseph had taken in payment for food on behalf of Pharaoh. Ed.]

וארבע הידות יהיה לכם, “and the other four fifths will be yours.” One quarter of the crop was intended to provide seed for next year’s crop; another quarter was intended for consumption by the farmer and his wife, yet another quarter for the farmer’s resident helpers other than his immediate family, and one quarter for use by the children.

For each year. I.e., not the first year alone. Re’m asks: Why did Rashi not make this comment at the beginning of the verse, “When it produces”? then it would apply to everything written afterward. The answer is: Here, [Rashi’s comment] is proven true. For Yoseif already said, “Here is seed, plant the soil.” Why does it say here, “For seed for your fields”? Perforce, because the statute of giving a fifth to Pharaoh applied for each year, thus he ordered them here to sow [each year] so that the fifth not become lessened. But if the statute was only for the first year, why was Yoseif concerned whether they sow [each year] or not? Perforce, it must have been for each year. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ונתתם חמישית לפרעה, “and you will hand over 20% of the harvest to Pharaoh as his share. The harvest was divided into five equal portions. 1) to serve as seed; 2) to provide food for the grower; 3) to provide for his slaves and maidservants; 4) to provide for his young children; and 5) to go to Pharaoh as a tax.

ולאשר בבתיכם AND FOR THEM OF YOUR HOUSEHOLDS — means and as food for the servants and maidservants that are in your houses,

ונתתם חמישית לפרעה, you will hand over one fifth to Pharaoh, for this is what you have to pay him in return for what he has done for you.

ולאכול לטפכם, and for your children to eat. Joseph made sure that the people would have enough food from the 80% of harvests of their parents even though he was aware that the children would require more food than their elders, it being well known that they were being wasteful. The land of Egypt, normally, has a surplus of food due to the irrigation method based on the overflow of the Nile, so that by being allowed to keep four fifths of their crops the farmers would not suffer hardship.

As food for your man servants and maid servants that are in your homes. [Rashi knows Scripture is referring to this] because later it is specifically written לטפכם, referring to small children.

The reason Joseph mentioned separately that it would be "to eat for your children," instead of including the children when he had said that the 80% would be "for you and your households to consume" was, that the portions required by the children would be greater than that of their parents.

טפכם means your young children.

וארבע הידות יהיה לכם לזרע השדה, including the seed which he has to provide for you as any other owner of a field.

ולאכלכם, and for you to eat, something he is also obligated to provide for his slaves. Considering that he will keep his part of the bargain, he is entitled to keep the remaining fifth for himself.

נמצא חן LET US FIND FAVOUR — [IN THE EYES OF MY LORD] in that you should do for us as you have said.

והיינו עבדים לפרעה, "and we shall remain slaves to Pharaoh." They were careful to describe themselves as Pharaoh's slaves, not as Joseph's.

החייתנו...והיינו עבדים לפרעה, “you have saved our lives, and we have becoming willing slaves of Pharaoh.” The emphasis on the unnecessary word לפרעה was a blunt hint to Joseph that whereas they were willing to become Pharaoh’s slaves, they would not have been willing to become Joseph’s slaves.

That you may do for us as you have said. [Rashi is explaining:] this is not the beginning of a [new] point, that they were now asking to find favor in his eyes. [Rashi knows it cannot mean this] because otherwise it would not be understandable.

והיינו עבדים לפרעה AND WE SHALL BE PHARAOH’S SERVANTS, paying him this tax annually.

Paying him this tax annually... [Rashi is explaining:] it does not mean that they themselves will belong to him as slaves, for it is written before (v. 20), “Yoseif bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh...” [But it does not say he bought the people]. (Re’m)

They also referred to something I mentioned earlier, that Pharaoh had acquired them only as hired labourers, people obligated to work these particular lands. By saying: והיינו עבדים לפרעה, they offered their bodies to Pharaoh also so that Pharaoh owned them outright from then on. Perhaps this is the reason why the new Pharaoh in Exodus 1,9 described the Jewish people as the "nation, the children of Israel," meaning that he could not in good conscience describe them as his slaves as they had never lost their status as a free people.

לחק AS A STATUTE — without repeal.

וישם אותה יוסף לחק, Joseph anchored this arrangement in a law after he had convinced the people that this did not represent a new hardship for them.

לפרעה לחמש, der Boden gehörte Pharao für das Fünftel, d. h. war sein Eigentum zur Sicherung des Fünftels. Wer das Fünftel nicht entrichtete, dem war die Krone berechtigt, das Ganze zu nehmen. Eigentlich waren alle Ägypter in Beziehung zum Lande nur אריסים, Pächter geworden, denen nur 1/2, 1/3 oder 1/4 des Ertrages zugekommen wäre. Das sollte allerdings in Wirklichkeit nicht eintreten, sie sollten 4/5 für sich behalten und nur 1/5 dem Grundeigentümer entrichten. Allein das tatsächliche Verhältnis sollte im Prinzipe gewahrt bleiben, daher nicht חמש לפרעה, sondern לפרעה לחמש, das Ganze gehört ihm zur Sicherung des Fünftels. Das ganze Verhältnis schließt Leibeigenschaft aus.

וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים AND ISRAEL ABODE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT — and where in the land of Egypt? בארץ גשן IN THE LAND OF GOSHEN which is a part of the land Egypt.

וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים, Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah add that the land of Goshen is in the land of Egypt? Do we not know this already? Besides, what is the connection between the Jewish people multiplying and their dwelling in the land of Egypt?

וישב ישראל, the term is used to describe the entire family of Yaakov, as if the Torah had written בני ישראל.

And where? In the Land of Goshen... [Rashi explains this] so we will not think they lived in two lands: Egypt and Goshen. (Gur Aryeh)

ויאחזו בה: sie ließen sich von dem Boden fesseln. Hier liegt eine Andeutung des Anfangs jener Versündigung, deren Tatsache uns Jecheskeel (Kap.20) aufbewahrt. In dem süßen Bewusstsein, hier sesshaft zu sein, lag im Laufe der Zeit die Gefahr sehr nahe, den Stammesüberlieferungen untreu zu werden und sich ihrer großen Bestimmung zu entfremden.

ויאחזו בה, “they became totally attached to it.” They acquired land that served as the ancestral heritage.

ויאחזו בה means THEY ACQUIRED POSSESSIONS.

ויאחזו בה, they bought land in it, additional to that which Joseph had allocated to them.

The Torah evidently wishes to remind us of the fulfilment of G'd's prophecy to Jacob in 46,3 that while in Egypt he would develop into a great nation, that the reason he and his family had to descend to Egypt was to liberate the stray holy souls that were entrapped amongst the Egyptians and their pagan practices. This is why the Torah emphasises that Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, a morally thoroughly depraved society. The Torah adds that Israel lived in the land of Goshen to hint that the origin of that word is הגשה, approach, i.e. that all those scattered souls we have previously described were attracted to and collected in Goshen because of the presence there of a branch of sanctity as represented by Jacob/lsrael. The entire paragraph refers to the fledgling nation Israel in the singular to emphasise the unity of purpose that characterised that society at that time. When the Torah adds ויאחזו בה, "they were possessed by it," this refers to their lofty ideal as a developing holy nation. The reason they were extraordinarily fruitful and multiplied was the fact that they were possessed by lofty ideals not because they happened to find themselves on Egyptian soil. The author suggests reading up the comments of the Maha"rik on Exodus 1,6: "Joseph, all his brothers and that entire generation died."

ויפרו וירבו. “they became fruitful and they multiplied.” Thus G-d’s promise to the Yaakov in Genesis 46,3, became fulfilled.

ויפרו וירבו מאד, both in children and in property.

ויחי יעקב AND JACOB LIVED — Why is this section (Sidra) totally closed? Because, comprising as it does an account of the death of Jacob, as soon as our father Jacob departed this life the hearts and eyes of Israel were closed (their eyes became dim and their hearts troubled) because of the misery of the bondage which they then began to impose upon them. Another reason is: because he (Jacob) wished to reveal to his sons the date of the End of Days (i.e. when Israel’s exile would finally end; cf. Rashi on Genesis 49:1), but the vision was closed (concealed) from him (Genesis Rabbah 96:1).

AND JACOB LIVED IN THE LAND OF EGYPT SEVENTEEN YEARS. I have already mentioned¹Above, 43:14. that Jacob’s descent into Egypt alludes to our present exile at the hand of the “fourth beast,”²In Daniel’s vision concerning the Four Kingdoms, the fourth beast symbolizes Rome. See Daniel 7:7, also Note 8 in Seder Vayeitzei. which represents Rome. [There are many parallels,] for it was Jacob’s sons themselves who, by the sale of their brother Joseph, caused their going down there. Jacob, moreover, went there on account of the famine, thinking to find relief with his son in the house of his son’s friend, for Pharaoh loved Joseph and considered him as a son. It was their hope to ascend from there as soon as the famine would cease in the land of Canaan, just as they said, To sojourn in the land we have come, for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks, for the famine is heavy in the land of Canaan.³Above, 47:4. But then they did not come up, but instead the exile prolonged itself upon Jacob and he died there, and his bones ascended from there accompanied by all the elders and courtiers of Pharaoh, who instituted severe lamentation for him. Our relationship with our brothers Rome and Edom is similar. We ourselves have caused our falling into their clutches, as they⁴The Hasmonean rulers during the Second Temple era. See Abodah Zarah 8b. made a covenant with the Romans, and Agrippa, the last king during the Second Temple, fled to them for help. It was due to famine that Jerusalem was captured by the Romans, and the exile has exceedingly prolonged itself over us, with its end, unlike the other exiles,⁵It was known that the Babylonian Exile would last for a period of seventy years, (Jeremiah 25:12; II Chronicles 36:21). There was also a terminus known for the Egyptian Exile, (above 16:13). being unknown. We are in it as the dead, who say, “Our bones are dried up, we are completely cut off.”⁶See Ezekiel 37:11. But in the end they will bring us from all the nations as an offering to the Eternal,⁷Isaiah 66:20. and they will be in deep sorrow as they will behold our glory, and we will see the vengeance of the Eternal. May He raise us, that we may live in His presence.⁸Hosea 6:2.

ויחי יעקב, Jacob lived, etc. Although G'd had changed Jacob's name to Israel in 35,10, this is one of numerous instances when the Torah refers to him again as Jacob. I have explained that Jacob's permanent personality (נפש) had not changed as we know from Berachot 7 which interprets Psalms 46,9 where the word שמות, desolation, is re-interpreted to mean also שמות, names. The name Israel was an additional name reflecting spiritual highs that Jacob attained from time to time.

ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים שבע עשרה שנה, the commentators point out that just as Joseph was under the protection of his father for the first 17 years of his life, so his father was under Joseph’s protection for the last 17 tears of his life.

ויחי יעקב, “Yaakov lived (peacefully), etc.” The descent of Yaakov to Egypt is meant to be reminiscent of the third exile of the Jewish people, the exile under Roman domination, as the sons of Yaakov had brought about their exile in Egypt themselves through having sold their brother Joseph to Egypt. Yaakov descended there under the impression that he would be saved there due to his beloved son occupying such an illustrious position in a country that was not severely damaged by the famine. The brothers themselves had declared that they had only come to Egypt for a brief stay, expecting to return to Canaan as soon as the famine had come to an end. In the event, this is not how things worked out, the exile in Egypt dragged on for one reason or another, and even Yaakov himself was only brought back to the land of Israel after he died, and even that only because Joseph told Pharaoh that his father had made him swear not to bury his remains in Egypt. While it is true that he was buried with great honour and the elite of Egypt participated in his funeral, his death put an end to any chance of the brothers returning even if they had wanted to. Something very similar happened during the later years of the Hasmonean reign when two brothers vied for the position of King, and the one who did not succeed by his own strength, called in the Romans to support him politically and militarily. They did, but they never left the country again after King Agrippas took refuge with them. Eventually, due to famine in Jerusalem after years of siege, the defenders of Jerusalem were captured and until this day we are enduring this ”Roman” exile. In contrast to previous exiles, we have no idea when this exile will come to an end. Who knows how far off is the day when the tables will be turned and we will go up to Jerusalem and offer offerings of thanksgiving, and all the nations will witness the redemption of the Jewish people. Rashi explains that the reason why this portion has not been separated from the previous portion by even the space of a single letter, is to allude to the fact that as soon as Yaakov had closed his eyes for the last time, the ability of the Jewish people to look into the future with any sense of confidence and assurance had vanished. This remained true although, according to tradition, the Egyptians did not commence any repressive measures against the Jewish tribe until after the last one of the brothers had died. The enslavement commenced immediately after the death of the last surviving brother Another approach to the peculiar lack of the separation of the previous portion in the Torah from this one, is that before the Torah had commenced with the chronology of the years of the life of Yaakov who was 130 years old when he came to Egypt, now the Torah relates that he had 17 years left to live out his life while in Egypt, and the Torah did not want to interrupt its chronology. [Joseph spent the first 17 years of his life under the care of his father, whereas his father spent the last 17 years of his life under the care of Joseph. Ed.]

Why is this portion completely closed... I.e., we have a tradition from Ezra the Scribe that Parshas Vayechi begins a new section and is not in the same parshah with the preceding verse וישב ישראל. Yet, a “closed” parshah usually has [a blank space in front of it] the measure of nine letters, while here it is completely closed with no space.

ויחי schließt sich unmittelbar dem Vorhergehenden an, ohne die sonst gewöhnliche פרשה -Abteilung. Wenn man bedenkt, dass die hiermit eingeleiteten siebzehn Jahre die einzigen waren, die Jakob ruhig durchlebte, sie somit, seinem ganzen vergangenen Leben gegenüber, als die eigentliche Blüte desselben betrachtet werden dürften, so hätte man umsomehr erwarten können, deren Erzählung werde durch einen besonderen Abschnitt hervorgehoben sein. Dessen Abwesenheit jedoch lehrt uns, dass diese siebzehn Jahre wohl individuell mitzählen, national jedoch gerade die minderbedeutenden waren, dass vielmehr die Jahre des getrübten, gedrückten Lebens, in welchen die Prüfung zu bestehen war, mitten im herbsten Jakobgeschicke sich den Namen Jisrael zu erwerben und dessen würdig zu werden, diejenigen gewesen, in welchen Jakob seine ewige nationale Bedeutung errungen, und für welche die hier folgenden siebzehn Jahre nur den heiter lohnenden Abschluss bilden.

ויחי יעקב, “Yaakov “lived;” Rashi explains why there is not even the space of a single letter between the last letter of the previous portion and the first letter of this portion. It is the only time this occurs in the Torah. He writes that as soon as the eyes of Yaakov closed for the last time, so did the spiritual eyes of the Jewish nation and their hearts, on account of the hardships experienced when they became enslaved. [He adds that an alternate explanation is that seeing he was about to reveal parts of the future to his children, G–d immediately deprived him of his prophetic insights, preventing him form carrying out his wish. Ed.] The difficulty with Rashi’s first explanation is that Joseph’s rule in Egypt continued for another 54 years, during which period the Jews enjoyed preferred social status. Also, how do we know that Yaakov had at all been privy to what would happen to his descendants after his death, and when? We would have to answer that in his dream of the ladder he watched the ascension of that ladder by the guardian angel of brother Esau, as Rashi had explained in his commentary of B’reshit Rabbah, 68,12, and as we know from Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 35.

ויחי יעקב, “Yaakov lived;” according to Rashi, the reason why this portion has not been separated from the preceding portion by as much as the space of a single letter, is because with the death of Yaakov the “eyes and the heart” of his descendants were as if closed to the spiritual mission they were to bring to the world, as they were being enslaved. You might well ask that seeing that Joseph his son ruled in Egypt for another 54 years during which all of his descendants enjoyed complete freedom, how is that possible? The answer is that this was not quite so. [His family had become culturally too dependent on Egypt. Ed.] When Jacob died, slavery started very, very slowly without anyone taking notice. Another interpretation for the omission of even a minimum amount of blank space in the Torah before the commencement of this portion is that the subject dealt with here was inextricably interwoven with what preceded it, i.e. the Torah’s description of the years during which Yaakov lived thus far.

In this verse Solomon wishes to extol the virtue of charity in the wake of which much reward may be expected; in fact, the performance of that good deed may add years to one’s life (compare Psalms 19,12). The practice of charity is a panacea for both body and soul. It is capable of overcoming what is in store for people based on the mazzal they have been born under. We have proof of this in Samuel I 26,10 where David speaks of: “or his time will come and he will die.” What he meant was that the person’s day of death will approach sooner than had been originally scheduled. Death may sometimes occur sooner than originally scheduled, such as in the case of David of whom we read in Kings I 2,1 “David’s days approached to die.” On the other hand, there are instances when years are added to the life of a person who had been born under horoscopic influences which presaged a much shorter life for him. The best known example of this was the King Chiskiyah who, though he had been told by the prophet Isaiah to make his last will and testament, was granted an additional 15 years in response to his prayer (Isaiah 38,4-8).
Conversely, we find that the life span of a person may be shortened from what had originally been decreed for him as we find in the case of King Yehoram son of Achazyah who was punished for his idolatry. We find in Kings II 1,16 that Elijah told him: “because you sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zevuv the god of Ekron — as if there were no G’d in Israel whose word you could seek — assuredly you shall not rise from the bed which you are lying on but you shall die.” This is what prompted Solomon to say that charity is such a powerful virtue that it can overcome even decrees of death. Its power is equal to that of “being fruitful and multiplying.” The word חיים in the sequence בארח צדקה חיים means that an additional life span may be granted in recognition of the charity one practices. The word מות, “death,” in the second half of our verse refers to shortening someone’s life expectancy as retribution for some sin committed.
We are told in Baba Batra 11 that a certain righteous individual Binyamin, who was in charge of the distribution of public charity once had a certain woman approach him during a year of famine. The woman said to him: “please support me!” He answered her that there were no funds left in the kuppah. Thereupon she said to him: “if you do not provide me with food, a woman and her seven children will surely die.” He then gave her of his own money. Some time later, this very Binyamin fell sick and was on the point of death. At that point the angels said to G’d: “did You not say that anyone who keeps alive even a single Jew is considered as if he had kept a whole world alive? Did not this Binyamin save the lives of a woman and her seven children? Why does he have to die so young?” Thereupon the decree ordering his death was torn up and he had 22 years added to his life span.
The words ודרך נתיבה אל מות mean that because a person is performing constant acts of charity he may be certain that he does not die prematurely. Translated literally: “there is no death on its path.” This idea is expressed also by Proverbs 10,2 צדקה תציל ממות, “charity saves from death.” This means that the person who practices charity does not die before his appointed time thanks to his acts of charity. Seeing that on occasion acts of charity are the reason why someone’s life span is extended beyond what was originally decreed, it is only logical that such acts protect the person performing them against dying prematurely.
The subject matter of charity, how to practice it, and in what amount to practice it is quite complicated; the fundamental ingredient of doing charity is that one gives to someone else something which belongs to one. There are many ways of doing this. A minimal performance of the commandment would be giving a small alms to a Gentile. The next higher level of charity would be giving a similar amount to a Jewish person from another town who is in need. A still higher level of charity is giving this amount to a needy Jew from your own city. This is based on Exodus 22,24 “the poor person who lives amongst you.” A poor person residing in your house takes precedence in his claim on your charity over someone who lives out of town. A poor person who is also a next of kin takes precedence over another poor person of your hometown. The relevant verse in Isaiah 58,7 states: “do not ignore your own kin.” A still higher level of charity is to provide one’s children with a livelihood. Our sages (Ketuvot 50) applied to this Psalms 106,3 “Happy are those who do right at all times.” They argued that it is not possible to do right at all times as most people do not become called upon to perform acts of charity all the time. The only way they can fulfill what the psalmist talks about is by providing for their children while they are minors. The next higher level of performing charity is looking after one’s aged parents financially. By doing this one also fulfills the commandment to honour father and mother. This is the finest way of doing charity. When one does this one may be in line for living to a ripe old age oneself. This is why the Torah wrote in connection with this commandment (Exodus 20,12) “in order that you may experience long life on the earth that the Lord your G’d is assigning to you.” This is precisely what Solomon termed בארך צדקה חיים, that the path to life is righteousness. G’d repays measure for measure. If children keep their parents alive longer by ensuring that they can enjoy their old age, G’d in turn will recompense the children in a similar manner.
We see a perfect example of this principle in the relationship between Yaakov and Joseph. Yaakov had provided for Joseph during the first 17 years of his life; in our Parshah we are told that Joseph repaid his father by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. This is why the Torah (Genesis 47,28) was at pains to write: “Yaakov lived in Egypt for 17 years.” [Had the Torah not wanted to make this point it could simply have written that Yaakov lived for a total of 147 years. We know that he was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh. Ed.]

And hearts of Israel were “closed” because of the hardships of the bondage for they began... I.e., they were not yet in actual bondage, but had the “hardship” of bondage. Pharaoh requested them to [voluntarily] serve him, as it says in Sotah 11b that בפרך (Shemos 1:13) means בפה רך, “with a soft mouth.” In the beginning, the Egyptians enslaved them with a soft mouth.

We do need to examine the criteria which cause the Torah to refer to Jacob sometimes as "Jacob" and other times as "Israel." It is a fact that when these names are applied to the Jewish people as a whole, the name Jacob reflects some deficiency in the Jewish nation, whereas the name Israel reflects the fact that the nation lived up to its potential on the occasions when it is described by that name. This principle has been alluded to in the Zohar 210 on Parshat Balak. The reason given there cannot be applied to Jacob the individual, however, inasmuch as he lived a righteous life at all times.

Daher auch das eigentümliche ויהי ימי. Jakobs ganzes Lebensbild war ein einheitliches. שני חייו scheint, in Hinblick auf Jakobs bescheidene Äußerung über seinen Lebensinhalt, dieselbe wahrheitsgetreu rektifizieren zu sollen. Es waren nicht bloß מגוריו, die nur wenig חיים zählten, vielmehr waren alle Tage seiner Wanderschaft auf Erden Jahre wirklichen und wahrhaftigen Lebens. — Dass wir bei kleinen Zahlen das Gezählte im Plural, bei großen im Singular ausdrücken, hat vielleicht darin seinen Grund: bei einer kleineren Mehrheit stellen sich dem Auge und den Gedanken die einzelnen mehr in ihrer Individualität dar, während bei großer Anzahl sich mehr die Gesamtsumme hervorstellt, die den gemeinsamen Charakter der gezählten Objekte trägt. Wir sagen: חמשה אנשים und עשרים איש, ,"fünf Männer" und "zwanzig Mann".

'ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים וגו, “Why did the Torah mention the number of years that Yaakov lived in Egypt? We could have figured this out from the data the Torah already provided us with about how old Joseph was when he left the house of father, (Genesis 37,2) how old he was when he was appointed as viceroy by Pharaoh, and from the age of Yaakov (130) at the time of his death which is listed in the same verse. The point the Torah wished us to appreciate is that just as for the first seventeen years of his life Yaakov, his father, had provided for him, during the last seventeen years of his life, his son Joseph provided for his father.

ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים, “Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt;” all the years of Yaakov until he settled in Egypt could not truly be described as חיים, “life,” seeing that they were all clouded by different kinds of anguish. It was only during his last seventeen years in Egypt that his mind was at rest and not beset by serious worries of one kind or another. In fact, this whole verse has been inserted in the Torah as a compliment to Joseph who was the cause of Yaakov’s last seventeen years being happy years. During those 17 years he repaid his father who had sustained him for the first seventeen years of his life, by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. He had been seventeen years old when he had been sold.

ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו שבע שנים וארבעים ומאת שנה “the years of Yaakov’s life were one hundred and forty-seven years.” This Parshah is “closed,” i.e. we do not have the customary separation of words, lines or letters between the last portion and this one. There are two reasons for this. 1) The exile was about to start and the hearts of the Israelites became “closed” due to the progressively increasing difficulties in their daily lives. 2) Yaakov wanted to compensate for their feeling that a deterioration in their lives was about to take place by revealing to them the glorious future in store for them after the redemption. However, he was unable to do so. In other words, Yaakov’s channels of communication with the celestial regions had become “closed.” He had announced that he would reveal to them “what will befall you in the end of days” (49,1). When reading what follows it becomes clear that this is not what Yaakov announced. The “end of days” Yaakov had in mind was the exile in which we find ourselves now, not the exile in Egypt or Babylon. Seeing that Yaakov was the third of the patriarchs it is reasonable that his life should have foreshadowed experiences of the Jewish people during their third exile, i.e. our exile. At any rate, G’d would not let him reveal these matters and even Daniel (Daniel 12,9) states that these matters remained sealed secrets until the end of that exile. Our sages felt that Daniel had known about these developments and that is why the angel had to tell him to obscure the matter (Daniel 12,4).
Isaiah said something similar in Isaiah 9,6 where we read: לםרבה המשרה ולשלום אין קץ. The final letter ם in the middle of the word לםרבה where we should have had a regular “open” letter מ, is a warning that whatever the areas in which Israel excels, these will not be in evidence during their exiles. The prophet seems to be saying that even attempts to hasten the redemption through Torah-study, through establishing G’d’s authority on earth, etc., will not affect G’d’s timetable. It is interesting that we find exactly the reverse phenomenon in the Book of Ezra (Nechemyah 2,13) where an open letter מ appears at the end of a word, i.e. בחומות ירושלים אשר המ פרוצים, “the walls of Jerusalem which are broken down.” A Midrash comments on this verse that this is an allusion that whereas when the walls of Jerusalem which are now “open,” i.e. broken down, were still “closed,” i.e. intact, such as during the period of the Temple, G’d’s authority which had been “closed”, i.e. not in evidence during that period, will re-emerge and reassert itself as a result of the Jewish people learning their lesson during a harsh exile. Just as the two letters מ in the verses we have quoted from Isaiah and Nechemyah respectively contain allusions to matters hidden from us, so the unusual absence of a division between the two portions Vayigash and Vayechi also contain allusions to matters hidden from us, i.e. hidden from Yaakov.
There is a Midrash according to which Yaakov saw that the names of his twelve sons [the future tribes of Israel. Ed.] contained between them all the letters of the alphabet except the letters ח and ט. He concluded that this was a hint that none of these sons were guilty of a sin (chet.) This prompted him to reveal to them what he knew about the period preceding the final redemption. When he re-examined the letters in the names of the sons and realized that the letters ק and צ also did not appear in the names of any of them, he reconsidered and decided that his sons were not fit to have this information revealed to them. He therefore desisted, and this is why this portion is “closed.”

An alternate explanation: Because he wished to reveal the End... You might ask: According to the first explanation, it should be “closed” [not here but] in the verse where it is written that Yaakov died (49:33). And according to the alternate explanation, it should be “closed” in the verse, “Gather around and I will tell you... the end of days” (49:1). The answer is: In the middle of the parshah it would not be noticeable that it is “closed,” since it is usually “closed” there, so we would not know [that we should make] these expositions. And here Scripture enumerates Yaakov’s years, so it is considered the place where he died. And [this as well answers the explanation of] “reveal the End”: Yaakov assumedly would not reveal the End until close to his death, and here is the place of his death, as Rashi explains. Therefore, [the basis for Rashi’s interpretations] is evident. Maharshal writes that there is a question on the first explanation: This parshah does not mention the bondage. Why then was Parshas Shemos not “closed”? Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation. And there is a question on the alternate explanation: Why is it not “closed” at the section of (49:1), “Yaakov called for his sons... gather around and I will tell you...”? Therefore Rashi brings also the first explanation.

We must remember that Jacob strove to attain a very high degree of sanctity, one which is reflected in his name Israel. Spiritual highs are attainable only when one simultaneously frees oneself of such human concerns as pain, anguish, anger, etc. The kind of sanctity Jacob strove for needed to be based on the attainment of a degree of serenity in his earthly life, something that we nowadays experience only on the Sabbath, a day that G'd has imbued with the quality of מנוחה. He gave us an additional soul in order to appreciate that day to the full, and in order to help us to disregard all the depressing phenomena we have to deal with during the 6 days preceding the Sabbath. The reason we are able to do this is because the מנוחה emanates in the higher spiritual regions. This is why G'd Himself called the Sabbath עונג, delight. Whenever Jacob experienced the kind of spiritual serenity we are meant to experience every Sabbath, he qualified for the name Israel. The Torah therefore informs us about all these occasions by referring to him by his additional name. Whenever Jacob experienced worries, etc., this serenity departed from him similar to the departure of the נשמה יתרה from every Jew at the end of the Sabbath. At such times the Torah reverts to referring to our patriarch as being merely "Jacob."

I shall make a short list of instances where the respective names of Jacob and Israel clearly reflect different frames of mind of Jacob/Israel. In Genesis 35,10 where G'd tells Jacob for the first time that though his name remains Jacob he will henceforth also be entitled to the name Israel, the reason that G'd emphasised that at that time his name was still Jacob is that he had just heard about the death of his mother Rivkah (compare Bereshit Rabbah 82, which understands the words: "He (G'd) blessed him" in 35,9 as the blessing one extends to mourners). This is why the name Jacob continues to appear throughout this paragraph. The time when Rachel died (immediately afterwards according to the report in the Torah) was also a period during which Jacob could not qualify for the additional name Israel. The Torah (35,20) speaks about Jacob erecting a tombstone on the site where Rachel died and was buried. As soon as the thirty days of mourning had passed, we find that G'd called Jacob "Israel" in 35,21 where he is described as continuing his journey towards reunion with his father. When we find Jacob's children referred to as "the sons of Jacob" instead of as "the sons of Israel" in 35,22, this does not contradict what we have written, as the Torah merely wants to inform us that Israel's children were not on the same spiritual level as their father. The fact that Reuben was guilty of a misdemeanour with Israel's concubine at that time, is clear evidence of that. When the reunion between Isaac and his son Jacob is described in 35,27, the reason that Jacob is not called Israel is simply that it would not be good manners for the son to be called by a name which suggests a higher spiritual level than that of his father Isaac. You will find confirmation of this thought in Yalkut Shimoni item 875 on Psalms 116,15 "that the death of His faithful is precious to the Lord," where the author writes: "if Abraham had been alive at that time, how could his son Isaac have exercised any authority?" The same argument applied to all the other patriarchs. The above teaches that while one's illustrious father or teacher is alive, the son or disciple is not allowed to outshine him. This is why the Torah refers to Jacob as Jacob at that time. When we read about Jacob settling in the land of Canaan in 37,1 he is again called Jacob to remind us that during all the years he remained in the land of Canaan his life was full of mental anguish with very brief exceptions. One such exception was his relationship with Joseph before the latter was sold into slavery. This is why the Torah speaks of that relationship as "Israel loved Joseph, etc." The name Israel is used by the Torah only three times from the time Joseph was sold until 45,28 after Jacob had regained a measure of Holy Spirit as stated in 45,27 ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, "their father Jacob's spirit revived." The three instances during the period between the sale of Joseph and Jacob's receiving the news that he was alive and well are 43,6: "Israel said: 'why did you harm me,'etc,"--43,8: "Yehudah said to Israel his father, etc." and 43,11: "Their father Israel said to them, etc." In all those instances Jacob spoke to his sons as a person who exercised his position of authority; this is why the Torah describes him with his full title "Israel." In those instances Jacob/lsrael had to assert his authority when he noticed that his sons did not give due consideration to their father's anguish. By acting as "Israel" he indicated that he would not forgive them if they did not heed his words. As soon as Jacob heard the news about Joseph he is referred to repeatedly as the "Israel" of old. This situation continues until Jacob/lsrael is told that he has to remain in Egypt, i.e. in exile. From then on the Torah called him Israel only at the moment of his reunion with Joseph or when the Torah referred to his sons. During the period Jacob dwelled in Egypt the Torah generally calls him Jacob until shortly before his death. It was important that his sons and family should remember that they had lost not merely a Jacob but an Israel. Besides, as Jacob prepared for death, his mind became filled with other-worldly concerns. It was therefore easy for him to attain the serenity needed to be Israel once more. The Zohar first section, 218 elaborates on the spiritual growth of the human soul shortly before its death in connection with "Israel prostrating himself at the head of the bed" during the period described in the Torah as "the days approached when Israel was to die," (47,29 and 47,31). All of this is the plain meaning of these verses. They do have implications of a more profound and mystical nature, however.

ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים, Jacob lived in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us once more that Jacob was in Egypt? Besides, all the Torah had to write was: 'ויהי ימי יעקב וגו, "Jacob lived to be 147 years old." This information would have allowed us to calculate that he lived in Egypt for the last 17 years seeing that he had told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old when he came to Egypt (47,9). Furthermore, why did the Torah have to repeat שני חייו, the years of his life?

Perhaps all of this is connected to the fact that Jacob's life was never smooth from the moment of his birth when he held on to the heel of his twin brother. His adversary Esau grew up alongside him; thereafter he lived a life of constant tension with his uncle Laban for 20 years. Not much later he experienced the anguish of Dinah's rape to be followed by Joseph's disappearance. For all these reasons the Torah tells us that the only 17 years Jacob lived a relatively serene life were the last 17 years of his life in Egypt. The Torah underlines that these were the only years which Jacob could really be described as having enjoyed by writing ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו, "these years were full of חיים, life." These 17 years were truly ימי יעקב, "Jacob's years."

We have a tradition based on Tana de bey Eliyahu Rabbah chapter 5 that when someone concludes his life on earth in a happy frame of mind his entire life may be considered as having been a happy one. This is also the meaning of Job 8,7: והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאד, "though your beginning was full of pain, your end will be a great achievement." Solomon has expressed a similar thought in Kohelet 7,8 when he said that "a good ending is better than a good beginning." When the Torah speaks of ויחי יעקב, this means that the last 17 happy years which Jacob lived in Egypt made his entire life, i.e. שני חייו appear as years during which he had lived to the full. The Torah chose the word ויהי which always signifies some painful experience to tell us that though there had been many painful experiences in Jacob's life on earth they were all converted to positive experiences in light of his last seventeen years in Egypt.

We need to consider why the Torah enumerates the years of Jacob's life in a different manner from the way it enumerated the lives of Abraham and the other patriarchs. When the Torah told us about the number of years Abraham lived, it commenced with the larger unit first, i.e. 100 years plus seventy years plus five years (compare Genesis 25,7). We find the same thing in Genesis 35,28 when Isaac's life is described; the same also is the case when the Torah described the number of years Sarah lived (Genesis 23,1). Perhaps the reason that the Torah reversed this in Jacob's case is to drive home the point that Jacob's last 17 good years were the key to his whole life.

Perhaps the Torah actually wanted to pinpoint 47 years of Jacob's life as the ones during which he experienced what we are in the habit of calling happiness. This is based on the interpretation of the verse in Genesis 37,3 that וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו. According to the Zohar both Jacob's love for Rachel his true mate and Joseph is lumped together in this verse as indicated by the extra word את. As long as Joseph had not been born Jacob dressed in sackcloth [a figure of speech denoting he had not yet begun to experience what he perceived to be his true destiny. Ed.] When computing the number of years Jacob was married to Rachel and the 17 years prior to Joseph's disappearance, one must consider that some of these years overlapped as Rachel was alive until the birth of Benjamin 6 years after the birth of Joseph. Jacob was married to Rachel for 13 years during his stay at Laban. He experienced 11 years in the company of Joseph before the latter was sold making a total of 24 years. When you add to this the 17 years he lived in Egypt you get a total of 41 years of happiness in Jacob's adult life. When you add the first 6 years of Jacob's childhood, years that are not yet clouded by the various problems we experience in life, we have a total of 47 years of Jacob's life during which he could be considered as having lived a "normal" life. The Torah may have wanted to draw our attention to this fact and therefore it mentions these 47 years before mentioning the numerically bigger number, i.e. the 100 years.

According to this approach we have to justify the word ויהי as a hint by the Torah that Jacob did not exploit all the good years of life on earth he could have enjoyed because he had caused Rachel's premature death when he uttered the oath that anyone who had stolen Laban's Teraphim should not live (31,32). Bereshit Rabbah 74,9 writes that the reason Jacob did not attain the age of his father Isaac (180), was that he lost 33 years of his life, a number corresponding to the numerical value of the word יחיה when he had said in 31,32 that the person who stole Laban's teraphim לא יחיה, should not live.

We are now left with the task of explaining why the Torah reports on the total of Jacob's years long before he was actually about to die, and before he had called in his sons to give them his last blessing. Perhaps the Torah wanted Jacob (and us) to become aware that he did not have the life expectancy of his father or his grandfather. This may have prompted him to call in his son Joseph order to make him swear that he would bury him in the land of Canaan. The patriarchs were all prophets and Jacob may well have been aware that he had forfeited 33 years of his life by his premature curse. As a result of this foreknowledge he called upon his son Joseph to visit him at that time in order to discuss burial arrangements.

If we look for some kind of allusion in the fact that Jacob enjoyed precisely 17 years in Egypt at the expense of his son Joseph who had become the provider of the family, it maybe that this number of years corresponded to the number of years Jacob himself had provided for Joseph before the latter had been sold into slavery by his brothers. It is also interesting that the number 17 is equal to the numerical value of the word טוב, good. Perhaps the Torah hints that Jacob experienced a repayment of the good he had done for Joseph while the latter grew up, when his son now repaid him with an equal number of years.

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות AND WHEN THE DAYS OF ISRAEL S DEATH APPROACHED — Everyone of whom it is stated that his days drew near to die did not attain to the age of his fathers (Genesis Rabbah 76:3). Some editions add: Isaac lived 180 years, whereas Jacob lived only 147. Similarly it is said in the case of David, “his days drew near” and he lived 70 years, whereas his father reached the age of eighty.

AND WHEN THE DAYS OF ISRAEL DREW NEAR TO DIE. This means when the time for Israel’s death approached, which was during the last year of his life,⁹Ramban’s intent is to say that the verse does not refer to Jacob’s day of death but to the general period in his life when he felt his powers beginning to ebb. he called his son Joseph. The purport of it is that he felt exhaustion and undue weakness in himself, but he was not sick. Rather, he knew that he would not live much longer, and therefore he called his son Joseph. Now after Joseph returned to Egypt [from visiting with his father who lived in Goshen, Jacob] became ill, whereupon Joseph was informed, and he came before him with his two sons so that he [Jacob] would bless them.
In a similar sense is the verse, Now the days of David drew near that he should die,¹⁰I Kings 2:1. There too the sense of the verse is that this occurred some time before David’s death. and there it says, I go the way of all the earth,¹¹Ibid., Verse 2. [which clearly indicates that the meaning of the first verse is] that David knew in his heart that his end was approaching.

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, whenever a person is reported as about to make his last will and testament to his children, the introductory phrase is that he felt death approaching, i.e. ויקרבו. When Yitzchok was about to bestow the blessing on Esau, the Torah also prefaced this by describing that he felt himself close to death (27,1-20) [even if the word for approaching used there was not the same as here, i.e. ויקרבו. Ed.] He did say: “I do not know the day of my death.” In Kings I 2,1 when David gives his final instructions to his son Solomon, we also read the preface ויקרבו ימי דוד למות ויצו, “when David felt death approaching, he commanded, etc.” Actually, our paragraph commences with the words וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים, “Israel settled down in the land of Egypt,” (verse 27 in our chapter.) The words ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים in our verse must be understood as a direct continuation of verse 27. The Jewish communities were not willing to conclude the reading of the weekly portion with the words ותהי הארץ לפרעה, “the land belonged permanently to Pharaoh.” This is why they added verse 27 as the final verse of Parshat Vayigash.

אל נא תקברני במצרים, even temporarily, in a coffin, as was done with Joseph (50,26). Yaakov reasoned that if he allowed himself to be interred even temporarily, Joseph would never be allowed to take his remains to the land of Canaan at a later date. They would argue that the honour done to him and burial in the soil of Egypt was adequate as it had been for the most outstanding kings. [we must understand the preoccupation the Egyptians had with the cult of death and what they presumed to be their afterlife. The whole culture of that people revolved around burial, hence the pyramids. Ed.]

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, Israel's time to die approached, etc. I have already explained whence Jacob knew that his death was close. Nachmanides writes that he knew this from a loss of vital signs in his body; I do not think that we can accept his theory for we know of many people who continue to live for many years after their old age sets in and they begin to feel weak.

ויקרבו, Yaakov felt himself that he was approaching death, as his physical weakness kept increasing, and he began to be afraid that his death would occur without adequate warning signs, suddenly. This is why he commanded Joseph that when the time came he should carry him to his final resting place in the land of Canaan where he wished to lie next to his fathers.

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, “As Israel’s time to die approached, etc.” These words do not refer to the sickness from which Yaakov died eventually, but they refer to a period when Yaakov began to experience the weakness which is common to people whose strength begins to ebb prior to their death. At a later stage, when Yaakov actually took sick and Joseph was told about it, he rushed to see his father and obtain his last blessing as well as to obtain blessings for his sons.

Everyone of whom it is said that his “days drew near”... Rashi is answering the questions: Why does it say “days” in the plural form, [rather than saying, “The day of Yisrael’s death drew near”]? And why does it speak of the days, implying that the days drew near? It should say, “Yisrael drew near to die.” Thus Rashi explains that the days themselves indeed “drew near.” They shortened and drew near [rather than expanding to the age of his fathers].

אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך. So spricht nicht ein Vater zu seinem Sohne, ja nicht einmal ein Sohn zu seinem Vater, am allerwenigsten hatte wohl Jakob also zu Josef zu sprechen. Das Wörtchen נא dürfte das Auffallende lösen. Josef hat gewiss mit aller Hingebung durch seine so hohe Stellung dem Vater Vorrechte zufließen lassen wollen, die Jakob jedoch nie annehmen wollte. Jakob wollte nicht Vater des Ministers sein. Hier war endlich eine Gelegenheit, in welcher Jakob Josefs Machteinfluss benutzen wollte, daher: wenn ich denn doch Gunst usw; willst du mir denn eine besondere Güte erweisen, so erfülle mir diese Bitte. — שים נא ידך תחת ירכי. (Siehe oben Kapitel 24, 2). ירך, verwandt mit ירק von sich werfen, wovon: Speichel. יֶרֶך: der hintere oder der untere Teil, der, wenn der Mensch sich niedersetzt oder niederlegt, zuerst mit dem Boden in Berührung kommt. Das Gegenteil von שכם in השכם. "Lege die Hand unter mich im Grabe" — versprich mir die Verwendung deiner Macht also, dass ich darauf sicher mich zum Sterben niederlegen könne. Auffallend ist, wie schon bemerkt, die Form עמדי für עמי, die mit keinem anderen Suffixum vorkommt. Vielleicht liegt darin die Nuance, dass das Erbetene nicht bloß die Beziehung zwischen dem Bittenden und dem Angesprochenen, sondern den ganzen Standpunkt des Bittenden berührt. Unerklärt bliebe aber immer noch, warum man nicht auch sagen kann: ועשיתי עמרך, und wenn dies zwischen Menschen und Menschen auch vielleicht zu anmaßend wäre, warum es auch von Gott zum Menschen nicht vorkommt. —

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, “Israel’s days of living approached their end;” wherever the expression קריבה, “approach,” is used in the Torah in connection with death, it signals that the person concerned died prematurely, i.e. before the time originally allocated to him at birth, or younger than the lifespan of his father. We find the same type of wording in Kings I 1,2 ויקרבו ימי דוד למות, where the approach of death of King David is discussed, the reason being that he did not live as long as his paternal forefathers Boaz, Oved, and Yishai Their combined lifetimes were over 400 years, whereas David died at the age of 70. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 96,4)

ויקרא לבנו ליוסף, “he called for his son, for Joseph.” He did so, seeing that G-d had told him while he was on his way to Egypt that Joseph would be present when the time came for him to die, and that he would close his eyes for the last time. (46,4) Another reason was that the only reason why Yaakov had undertaken the journey down to Egypt had been in order to be near Joseph. It would therefore be appropriate that Joseph would accompany him on his ascent to the Holy Land to be buried with his ancestors.

ויקרא לבנו ליוסף AND HE CALLED HIS SON JOSEPH — he called that one who had the power in his hands to do what he was about to ask (Genesis Rabbah 96:3).

שים נא ידך, we already explained this expression on 24,2 when Avraham requested an oath from his servant Eliezer using the same words.

שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, we explained the meaning of this phrase in Parshat Chayey Sarah (24,2).

ויאמר..שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “he said: ‘please place your hand beneath my loins.’” Here the Torah does not continue with reporting that Joseph did as requested, as it had done when Avraham made a similar request to Eliezer when he sent him to look for a wife for Yitzchok. Here the Torah did not want to spell out this detail, preserving the element of delicacy of this procedure. Some commentators, claiming to interpret the plain meaning of the text, say that the request to place his hand under Yaakov’s loins did not refer to an oath, seeing that Yaakov requested the oath at a later stage (verse 31). They say that Yaakov requested Joseph to take over the position known in Talmudic parlance as עובי הקורה, “center post,” i.e. the position of head of the clan with all the attendant responsibilities.

And take an oath. Rashi is explaining that we should not think the placing of the hand is the oath itself. He knows this because it is written regarding Avraham (24:2): “Place your hand under my thigh,” after which it says, “I will have you swear by Adonoy.” Since Avraham did it this way, [to place the hand under the thigh while swearing,] so did Yaakov. (Re’m)

Jacob may also have had an indication that his death was close at hand because the Zohar section 1,217 states that thirty days prior to one's death a person's צלם, divine image, is removed from him. The Zohar claims that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai observed this phenomenon with Rabbi Yitzchak. Although such knowledge is withheld from ordinary people, righteous people do become aware of it as they are aware of most spiritual matters. Another indication that this may have been so is the syntax of the verse "the days for Israel to die approached;" since when do we describe days as "approaching?"

חסד, verwandt mit אשד: sich ergießen, daher sich ganz hingeben חַסֵד andern ganz hingeben: der Entwürdigung preisgeben). Charakteristisch ist die Wahrung des Begriffs des wahren הסד durch die Beifügung ואמת. So: alle Wege Gottes sind חסד ואמת. Der Mensch übt oft aus lauter Liebe חסד ואמת .רעות ist eine Liebe, die über die Hingebung nicht das Wesentliche vergisst. Abraham hat den sehnlichsten Wunsch, seinen Sohn zu verheiraten. Wenn er nun so von diesem Wunsche beherrscht wäre, dass, fände er keine geistig und sittlich dem זרע אברהם entsprechende Frau, er auch die Wahl einer andern gestattete, so wäre dies kein אמת .חסד של אמת ist immer eine dem חסד beigefügte Klausel.

ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, “and perform for me an act of true kindness;” the reason why Yaakov used both the adjectives “kind, and true,” was that Joseph, as his son, was obligated to bury his father, whereas he was not obligated to transport his remains to the cave of Machpelah in the land of Canaan. Yaakov is aware that what he is asking is more than he has a right to ask of a person of such a high rank.

שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “please put your hand beneath my hip.” This method of swearing an oath was the equivalent of what a handshake is in our days.

שים נא ידך PUT, I PRAY THEE, THY HAND — and take an oath.

חסד ואמת, the word אמת, a truth, i.e. a requirement he can insist on, referred to Joseph’s duty to bring his father to burial. The word חסד, an act of love, not required by law, was that he should take the trouble to transport his remains from Egypt and have them buried in the land of Canaan.

ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, “and perform for me a true deed of loving kindness.” Rashi explains that the term “true loving kindness” is always used when the party performing the deed in question entertains no expectation of being rewarded for it in this life. The question raised against this interpretation is that we see that Yaakov immediately recompensed Joseph by giving him the city of Shechem over and above the normal portion allocated to the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe. The answer given is that we are to read the line as: “you will do with me something which would be a true act of kindness when performed for other מתים, dead people who cannot reciprocate in kind.” However, in my opinion the question is not even in place, as nothing was further from Joseph’s mind than expecting a reward. Yaakov’s giving Shechem to Joseph was entirely free-willed, not in the nature of a reward at all.

Is considered true kindness for one does not anticipate... Rashi does not mean that it is true kindness only when it is done with the dead. Rather, whenever kindness is done without the anticipation of remuneration, even if the recipient of the kindness is alive, it is considered “kind and truthful.” For Eliezer said that Lavan and Besuel should [“do kindly and truthfully” (49:22) and] give him Rivkah freely, anticipating no remuneration — not from him, as he promised them no gifts of silver and gold, and certainly not from Avraham, since he was far away. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain before, regarding Eliezer, that this is considered true kindness? The answer is: Yaakov in fact remunerated Yoseif for swearing to take him to Eretz Yisrael. He said (48:22), “I have given you one share more,” as Rashi explains ad loc. That is why Rashi explains the point here [and not regarding Eliezer]. It is to say that even so, at the time Yaakov asked Yoseif to bury him in Eretz Yisrael, he neither promised to give him anything, nor did he have in mind to give him one share more. And that is why it says here, “kindly and truthfully.”

We can understand the meaning of this verse by accepting what the sainted Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (Ari zal ) wrote in his book Kohelet Yaakov. He writes as follows: "You know that the souls have been divided up into numerous "sparks" of sanctity. These are destined to inhabit human beings on their various appearances on earth. The length of time a person lives on earth is directly related to how many of these sparks of sanctity -also known as tzelem -inhabit his body. Every day such a person performs G'd's commandments the condition of one of these "sparks" is enhanced, thus strengtheneing such a persons צלם. Every day that such a person does not perform G'd's commandments his צלם suffers damage because one of these sparks has been damaged. Thus far Rabbi Luria.

Jakob weiß ganz gewiss, dass Josef seinen Vater mit allem möglichen Glanz bestatten werde. Er spricht aber: vergiss über die דoח das אמת nicht. Ich will lieber gar nicht, als in Mizrajim begraben werden. Der Hauptnachdruck liegt auf der Bitte: nicht in Mizrajim begraben zu werden. Wir hätten denken können, die Erfüllung dieser Bitte sei gar nicht so schwer gewesen, dass es dazu einer feierlichen Beschwörung bedurft hätte. Allein da, wie sich aus allem ergibt, Pharao und Ägypten es durchaus nicht gerne gesehen hätten, wenn Jakob und seine Familie wieder fortgezogen wären, so musste schon das Hinaufbringen der Leiche nach Kanaan keinen guten Eindruck machen, vielmehr offenkundig zeigen, Josefs Familie betrachte sich noch nicht als eingebürgert und hänge mit ihrem Herzen noch an der alten Heimat.

אל נא תקברני במצרים “please do not bury me in Egypt.” When Rashi explains Yaakov’s motivation as being that he foresaw that Egypt would be smitten with the plague of lice, etc., this does not sound plausible. He had no reason to fear that his remains would be affected by that plague, seeing that we have a tradition that even his son Binyamin was not affected by that plague; his father Yaakov surely would be even less affected by it. (Talmud tractate Baba Batra folio 17) In order for Rashi to be correct, we would have to assume that Yaakov was unaware that his son Binyamin and his descendants would not be afflicted by these lice, something that seems unlikely. One of Rashi’s grandsons, Rash’bam, claims that Yaakov wanted to prevent the Egyptians of being spared the ten plagues seeing that he had been buried in that soil. This would be due to his having been named Yisrael, which conferred a much higher spiritual status on him. (Compare Jeremiah 50,17 where he has been referred to as שה פזורה, “a scattered sheep,” as opposed to the Egyptians who are referred to by several of our prophets as donkeys, i.e. their flesh being described as similar to the flesh of donkeys. (Ezekiel 23,20) The Torah writes that the firstborn male donkey has to be redeemed by a שה, i.e. a sheep or lamb (Exodus 13,13) the implication being that only descendants of Yaakov can possibly serve as redemption for Egyptians. If that animal is not redeemed, it must be killed by its owner. (B’reshit Rabbah 96,5)

ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, “and perform for me an act of kindness and truth.” Wherever we find the expression חסד ואמת, it refers to giving someone more than he is entitled to expect, or asking him to do something beyond what he is entitled to demand. One such example is found in Samuel II 15,20: שוב והשב את אחיך עמך חסד ואמת, “go back and take your kinsmen with you and perform an act of loyalty and kindness (with them).” [David was in dire straits and staying with him was likely to result in the death of Ittai and his men. He was not obligated to remain faithful to David. Ed] Yaakov reminds Joseph that while it is his duty to bury his father, he is not entitled to demand of him to bring him to burial in the cave of Machpelah. He therefore pleads with him not to bury him in Egypt.

חסד ואמת MERCY AND TRUTH — The mercy shown to the dead is “mercy of truth” (true, disinterested kindness) since one cannot hope for any reward (Genesis Rabbah 96:5).

By suffering the pain of rolling through underground tunnels. Also, so that the Egyptians not make a deity of me... Rashi needed these three explanations because: If it was only on account of lice, Yaakov should have requested that they make an iron coffin. Therefore Rashi explained, “rolling through underground tunnels.” And if because of these two reasons alone, why did Yaakov trouble Yoseif that he be brought to Eretz Yisrael immediately? He could have told them to take his bones along when they leave Egypt, as Yoseif said [to do for himself] in 50:25. Thus Rashi gives the [third] reason, “That the Egyptians not make a deity of me.” And there is a question: If the only reason is that the Egyptians might “make a deity of me,” why did he say to take him to Eretz Yisrael, rather than to cast him in the Nile? Thus Rashi also offers the reason of “rolling through underground tunnels.” And if it was for these two reasons alone, he should have had them swear just as Yoseif told his brothers to swear, [that they will take him along when they leave Egypt]. Thus Rashi also offers the reason of “its soil will become lice.” (Maharshal)

This introduction is immensely valuable for those who want to examine matters connected with these phenomena in detail. By means of this paragraph in Rabbi Luna's book we can understand what the Talmud Berachot 57 meant when it states that sleep is equivalent to 1/60th of death. It means that every day one of these sparks escapes the body when a person goes to sleep. Such a loss of the spark is not clearly noticed by the soul as something absolute, however; the "spark" is merely detached from the main body of the soul and becomes intertwined with the lower form of the soul known as נפש, life-force. It is an act of kindness by G'd that every "spark" which acquired a merit on a particular day through the performance of a מצוה by the person whom it inhabits is further removed from loss of vitality in spite of the fact that said person may commit sins subsequently thereby producing defective "sparks." Moreover, when the errant person repents his sin G'd enables such sparks to be restored to their original level of vitality. All of this is part of the various ways in which G'd demonstrates His kindness towards us.

Allein das Motiv dürfte noch tiefer zu suchen sein. Jakob hatte noch siebenzehn Jahre mit seinem Hause in Mizrajim gelebt, mochte gewahrt haben, welchen mächtigen Einfluß das הֵאחז בה auf seine Nachkommen zu üben begonnen, wie sie schon anfingen, im Nil den Jordan zu begrüßen, und in dem Aufenthalt in Mizrajim gar kein Galuth zu erblicken. Motiv genug, um mit so feierlichem Ernst darauf zu dringen, dass sie ihn nicht in Mizrajim begraben, dass sie ihn in das Land ihrer alten, wirklichen Heimat tragen sollten; Motiv genug, ihnen zu sagen: ihr hoffet und wünschet in Mizrajim zu leben, ich möchte nicht einmal in Mizrajim begraben sein. Darum sprach er diesen Wunsch auch nicht als Jakob, von individuell persönlichem Standpunkte, sondern als "Israel" aus, als Träger der nationalen Bestimmung, als Mahnung an die nationale Zukunft seiner Kinder.

אל נא תקברני במצרים BURY ME NOT, I PRAY THEE, IN EGYPT — Because its soil will ultimately become lice which would swarm beneath my body. Further, those who die outside the Land of Israel will not live again at the Resurrection except after the pain caused by the body rolling through underground-passages until it reaches the Holy Land) And another reason is that the Egyptians should not make me (my corpse or my tomb) the object of idolatrous worship (Genesis Rabbah 76:3).

Keeping in mind the Ari zal's statement, we can understand why the complaint against G'd for having shortened man's lifespan after the deluge from around nine hundred years to less than one hundred years nowadays is not justified. Let us use the following parable to illustrate what occurred. A king distributed gems which had been mined in a quarry to various craftsmen in order to fashion from these gems intricate golden jewelry. He urged the various craftsmen to use all their skills to produce superior work and to complete it at a certain date. Different craftsmen were given different amounts of gems in accordance with the king's estimate of their ability to complete the task within the time allotted. When the time arrived for these craftsmen to present the result of their labours to the king, the king found to his dismay that not only had most of them not performed work of acceptable standards, but some of them had actually ruined many of the gems in the process. The king grew angry and killed these craftsmen. He showed the children of these craftsmen what happened to their parents and why, and he urged them not to repeat the mistakes of their parents. When the king handed the new generation of craftsmen gemstones to fashion into jewelry, he allocated to each one only approximately one tenth of the amount of gems he had allocated to the craftsmen of the previous generation. He believed that by making the task less demanding the craftsmen would have a better chance to perform excellent workmanship.

ויקרא לבנו ליוסף, “he called in his son Joseph.” He did not call upon his firstborn son Reuven or upon Yehudah who represented Royalty but upon Joseph who had the authority to carry out his request.
אל נא תקברני במצרים, “do not bury me in Egypt.” Actually, Yaakov requested two things from Joseph. 1) not to be buried in Egypt. 2) to be buried in the land of Israel. He did not want to be buried in Egypt in order that the Egyptians should not deify him after his death. He was afraid that just as the people worshiping idols are punished so are the objects of their worship. We know this from Exodus 12,12 “and G’d punished all the idols of the Egyptians.” He asked to be buried in the land of Israel just as all the patriarchs expressed a desire to be buried in the Holy Land. This is because the nature of the land helps those buried there to obtain atonement for their sins. Isaiah speaks of this when he said: “It shall be inhabited by folk whose sin has been forgiven.” We also have a verse in Deut. 32,43 stating the same. The Torah writes of the Holy Land: “its land will atone for its people.” Eretz Yisrael is the gateway to heaven, the place whence all the prayers of the Jewish people ascend to heaven. This is the reason all the sages wished themselves to die in that land when their time to die came. There is a tradition that certain highly spiritual people enter heaven from there without the need for their souls to take painful spiritual detours. We also have a tradition that the people who died in the land of Israel will be amongst the first to be revived at the time of the resurrection. People buried in other lands will experience pain at the time of the resurrection as they will have to travel underground after bursting out of their graves until they arrive in the land of Israel (based on an interpretation of Ezekiel 36,14).

The souls G'd allocated to people are the gemstones referred to in the parable. This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 49,24: משם רועה אבן ישראל, that by means of the instruments placed at our disposal by G'd, i.e. the Torah and the commandments, we have been given the insights to conduct our lives in such a manner that the sparks making up the soul can be strengthened. The Zohar, part one section 82 describes that the condition of the soul is improved in proportion to the performance of good deeds and abstention from sins by the personality it inhabits. This is equivalent to the intricate jewelry described in our parable.

Originally, G'd assigned great tasks to the antediluvian generations and at the same time equipped them with commensurately greater souls, each one of which consisted of many "sparks." He assigned a single day to each "spark." This is alluded to in Exodus 16,4 when the Torah speaks about people collecting the manna on a daily basis, i.e. דבר יום ביומו. The word יום may be understood as ענף, a branch or sprout of each soul. G'd granted each human being a certain number of days, i.e. He allocated to them approximately 300.000 such gemstones as mentioned in the parable. After the failure which resulted in the deluge, all of this was restructured in order to help us achieve what is expected of us in a lifespan averaging seventy years.

We have benefited by this change in G'd's allocation of a shorter lifespan in additional ways. For instance, we observe that the process of aging results in people becoming progressively more frail, a process which even includes scholars (of secular disciplines). Infirmity in old age results in a person not being able to carry out fully the tasks allocated to him for each day he lives. While it is true -as our sages say at the end of tractate Kinim -that Torah scholars who have attained old age retain clear minds, the sages were careful with their wording. They stated that the minds of non-scholars decline progressively to such an extent that their minds gradually cease to function properly. It is clear that inasmuch as parts of the soul gradually disappear, the remaining parts of the soul are not up to the task of performing as if they were still whole. The same thing happens to the body so that gradually both body and mind deteriorate to the level of that of a minor.

With the help of Rabbi Luria's analysis we can also better understand Bereshit Rabbah 62,2 in which the difference between dying as a young man or dying at a ripe old age is described. Rabbi Yehudah explained: "when this light (soul) is extinguished by a natural process it is beneficial both for the light and the wick. If, however, it is extinguished by an unnatural process this is harmful both for the light and its wick." The Midrash compared the death of an aged person to the gradual extinction of a light. As the light gradually loses power, so the aged person's vital systems (נפש) decline progressively until finally he dies by appearing like a person who is merely asleep and who does not feel what is happening to him when his last remaining vestige of life leaves him.

Rabbi Luria's comparison also helps us understand Psalms 104,29: תוסף רוחם יגועון, "when you take away their breath they perish." The meaning of this statement had not been clear. Besides, one would have expected David to say: תוסף ברוחם. With the help of Rabbi Luria's introduction the meaning of the verse becomes crystal clear. When the end of man's life approaches and G'd gathers in all the remaining parts of the soul which used to commute to heaven nightly only to return to their bodies by morning, G'd will then collect the soul itself (not just the "sparks"). We have already explained elsewhere that the departure of the soul from the body at night is not something absolute; the soul continues to illuminate the body below with its "light;" we have proof of this in the well known phenomenon that when one awakens a sleeping person (in the middle of the night) the part of the soul which had ascended heavenwards is immediately perceived as present in the body of the person who has been awakened.

Having read what Rabbi Luria had to say on the subject of the soul we now appreciate that when the Torah described Jacob's life as drawing to its close by saying: "the days of Jacob's death approached," the meaning is the same as that in Psalms 104,29 except that here the Torah uses the expression למות instead of יגועון. The various parts of Jacob's soul which used to ascend nightly were now about to be gathered together for a final journey to heaven. Jacob felt that this process was taking place and this is why he called for Joseph to come and see him.

ויקרא לבנו ליוסף. "He called for his son, for Joseph." The reason Jacob only called upon Joseph is simple. Only Joseph possessed the power to carry out Jacob's wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah. We do need to understand, however, why the Torah felt the need to add that Joseph was "his son;" do we not know this? Was there another person called Joseph so that we might have erred as to whom Jacob called? Furthermore, why did the Torah not merely write לבנו יוסף, instead of adding the letter ל by writing לבנו ליוסף?

The Torah may have wanted to explain the strange phenomenon of a commoner summoning the king instead of asking the king for an audience at his palace in the capital. We know that the halachah considers the dignity of a king as taking precedence over the dignity of one's teacher. The Talmud Kidushin 33 discusses the problem of how a father has to conduct himself vis-a-vis his son when the latter is his rabbi. Is the son who is also a rabbi obligated to rise in the presence of his father? Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi there opines that he himself does not need to rise in the presence of his son since he was greater than his son in Torah learning; since, however the son occupied a position of great prominence (he was the son-in-law of the prince (נשיא) he made a practice of rising in the presence of his son. I have already elaborated on this subject in my book Rishon Letzion (glossaries on the Yore De-ah 240, subsection 7). In any event, it is clear from the discussion in the Talmud that the honour due to the temporal power takes precedence over that due to one's father even if the son was not the temporal authority itself but only closely related to it. In view of this, how could Jacob arrogate to himself the right to summon Joseph to his home? In order to answer this question the Torah provides us with two answers. 1) Inasmuch as Joseph was his son, and 2) inasmuch as he was Joseph. One of these two reasons by itself would not have sufficed to give Jacob the right to summon Joseph. Had Joseph not been Jacob's son, the fact that Joseph loved him would not have been an adequate reason for Jacob to ignore etiquette and summon the king to his side. However, since Joseph did not only love Jacob as such but he was also his father and mentor and Joseph was a dutiful son, Jacob was able to ask him to come to him. The Torah writes לבנו, to stress that Joseph was known for his extraordinary devotion to his father. This is why his father knew that he would not stand on ceremony and would ignore etiquette. This in spite of the halachic ruling based on Kidushin 32 that when a king is willing to forego the honour due him he is not allowed to do so. The ruling in the Talmud applies only to a Jewish king who rules over Israel. A king of the type of Joseph is permitted to waive the honour due him if he feels the occasion demands it.

אם נא מצאתי חן, "If I have found favour in your eyes, etc." The word נא means both "please" and "now" in this instance. Jacob used the word in the sense of "now" to make Joseph realise that he knew he had already previously found favour in his son's eyes, why else would he have provided for him for the past 17 years. However, he now asked for an additional favour. This is why he said: "please." Had he not said "please," it might have sounded as if he had not been grateful for the sustenance Joseph had provided thus far.

Alternatively, Jacob indicated that although Joseph would no longer have to provide for him seeing he was about to die, there was another matter concerning which he needed Joseph's favour.

We may also read a more subtle meaning into this request. All the favours Joseph had done for Jacob in the past could have been interpreted in either of two ways. 1) Joseph did so because Jacob had found favour in his eyes and not because he expected any favours from his father in return. This was normal between a father and a son who were extremely fond of each other. 2) Joseph had done what he did merely because it was his duty as a son to look after his aging father something that is customary also amongst the Gentiles. It would simply have been a disgrace for a man in Joseph's position to make his family a charge on outsiders. Inasmuch as the motivation of Joseph's conduct up to this point had been subject to some doubt, the request Jacob was about to make from him now was one by means of which Joseph could demonstrate that he had done everything only because he loved his father not because he was performing a filial duty. If Joseph were to accede to his request he would prove that all he had done in the past had also been motivated solely by love for his father. Inasmuch as what Jacob asked Joseph to do now was something he was not obligated to do, if he were to decline to do so it would reflect on the motivations behind the favours he had done for his father up to now. This is also why Jacob spoke about מצאתי, "I have found," instead of אמצא "I will find."

שים נא ידך, "please place your hand, etc." In this instance the word נא may mean "please," or it may mean "now" in the sense of "after due consideration." Jacob added a second request to the one he had already indicated he was about to make that he be buried in the land of Canaan, namely that Joseph reinforce his promise by swearing an oath. The word also meant that Jacob was not content to wait until his death was imminent for Joseph to make this undertaking. He wanted the undertaking to be made on that very day. The fact that the next paragraph begins with the words: "it was after these events," makes it quite plain that the conversation the Torah reports here took place some considerable time before Jacob took ill (48,1) and Joseph was told about it by a third party (48,2). Jacob also wanted Joseph to render this oath immediately, before he had an opportunity to register a מודעה, a statement that the oath his father requested from him was to be considered as something he had committed himself to only under duress and should therefore not be binding upon him. Midrash Tanchuma even says that Jacob told Joseph that unless he swore an oath to him concerning this burial, he would die from mere worry that he would not be buried in the cave of Machpelah. If that was so, Joseph had additional reason to register a מודעה. Jacob therefore had to pre-empt such a possibility by insisting on an immediate and therefore irrevocable oath. All this is implied by the words: שים נא ידך, "put your hand now, etc."

ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, "and do me a true favour!" The Torah added the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשית to indicate that the request for the oath had preceded the actual request to bury him in the land of Canaan.

Bereshit Rabbah 96,5 teaches that any favour performed for a person after his death is considered a "true favour." This is very difficult to understand as we observe Jacob promising Joseph an extra share in the land of Israel at the time the land would be distributed when he said: "I am giving you one portion more than your brothers which I took from the Emorites with my sword and my bow (48,22)." Rashi even explains that Jacob said: "because you have the bother to organise my burial, etc, I assign to you an extra share in the land of Israel, namely שכם." The fact that Jacob said נתתי, "I have given," indicates that he did so at the time when he had made Joseph swear the oath which he had categorised as חסד ואמת in 47,29 at the time Joseph accepted the task to bury his father. We may have to conclude that Jacob meant to reward Joseph already at that time for accepting the task to organise the funeral procession all the way to the land of Canaan and not for the burial in the cave of Machpelah itself. Even if this were correct, Jacob should not have added the word "ואמת."

On the other hand, Jacob may have intended that Joseph should arrange matters in such a way that the fact that his father had awarded him an extra piece of territory should not be perceived by him as a payment for such a deed. This could be achieved by one of two means. 1) He asked Joseph not to bury him in a town filled with abominations, i.e. אל נא תקברני במצרים; 2) Joseph should transfer his earthly remains to the Holy Land. The חסד, kindness, Joseph was to perform was not to bury his father in Egypt; the normal sequence of death and burial is that one dies first and then one is buried. It is significant that Jacob first spoke about where he did not want to be buried, and only afterwards mentioned a word associated with dying when he said: "I wish to lie with my fathers." This indicates clearly that the oath Jacob made Joseph swear referred to where he was going to be buried, not to where he was not to be buried. Joseph would not receive a reward for either of these two requests so that what he did could be described as a true kindness. The extra town Jacob allocated to Joseph's (his tribe's) heritage in the land of Israel was only in respect of the effort and expense involved in transporting the remains of his father to the land of Canaan.

The verse may also be understood along the following lines: When Jacob said: ועשית, he meant that what Joseph had already done for him in the past was a חסד של אמת, a true kindness for which he had not and would not receive compensation. There was, however, another kindness Jacob would now ask of him for which he would receive the city of Shechem as a reward. We would then have to understand the letter ו in front of the word ועשית as referring also to what Joseph would do in the future. Once Joseph undertook to carry out his father's wish in return for compensation any oath he swore that he would do so could not be construed as an oath sworn under duress. There would be no legal way Joseph could become free from that oath except by carrying out its provisions (compare Rav Nissim on Nedarim 65). Although the text does not have Jacob mention the gift of Shechem at this point, the Torah does give a broad hint that Jacob had promised Shechem to Joseph already prior to 48,22 when the Torah makes mention of it. Jacob is not reported as saying that he would give that city to Joseph in the future, but the Torah reports him as saying: "I have already given you one portion more than to your brothers." The gift had been bestowed on Joseph at the time Jacob asked Joseph to render an oath concerning Jacob's burial arrangements in 47,30-31. We have explained the legal details about revocable and irrevocable oaths in connection with Isaac and Avimelech; see our commentary on Genesis 26,26. We must also remember Sotah 36 where it is stated that eventually Joseph had to threaten Pharaoh that he would consider himself free of his undertaking not to reveal that Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew unless the latter would let him honour his oath to his father to bury him in the land of Canaan. Joseph's argument there does not imply that he was legally able to renege on the oath to his father, he only used that argument to put the oath to his father on the same legal basis as that which he had rendered to Pharaoh, seeing that in both instances he had received compensation for rendering the oath.

אל נא תקברני במצרים, "please do not bury me in Egypt." The meaning of the words אל נא in this case refers to a time-frame. Jacob did not even want to be interred in Egypt temporarily. He wanted that his remains be transferred to the land of Canaan immediately. This is why he added ושכבתי עם אבותי, "I wish to lie with my fathers," adding ונשאתני "and you will transport me, etc." I have already explained the reason that Jacob had first said "do not bury me, etc." and only afterwards: "I wish to lie with my fathers, etc." on 47,29: "perform a favour for me." The Zohar Vayeshev 182 explains that Jacob and Joseph were so much part of the same category of souls and that this is why Jacob was afraid that when the time came for him to die, Joseph would not want to be separated from him until he himself would die. Although the Talmud Taanit 4 claims that Jacob did not die and remained alive, Jacob wanted to be sure that Joseph did not misunderstand this and that he realised that his father would "die." When that occurred he would be separated from Joseph and would want to join his fathers. This is why he had to issue all these instructions.

ושכבתי עם אבתי BUT I WILL LIE WITH MY FATHERS — This ו of ושכבתי is the connecting link with the beginning of the verse above: Put thy hand beneath my thigh and swear unto me that you will not bury me in Egypt. For I must ultimately lie with my fathers (i.e. die as all my fathers have died) and you shall carry me out of Egypt. One cannot say that “I will lie with my fathers” means “make me lie with my fathers in the cave” (i.e. bury me), for immediately after this it is written “And thou shalt carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burying place”. Further we find that wherever the term “lying with one’s fathers” is used it denotes dying and not burial. For instance, (1 Kings 2:10) “and David lay with his fathers”, and afterwards it states “and he was buried in the city of David”.

ושכבתי עם אבותי, the matter of “the deceased lying with his fathers,” is the placing the bier with the deceased at the place of the eulogy, surrounded by the mourners and those eulogising him. This is why the same expression is used throughout the Book of Kings, whether describing the burial of kings, the righteous, or the wicked.

ויאמר אנכי אעשה כדבריך. He said: "l will do in accordance with your instructions." Why did Joseph have to announce that he was going to do all this? All he had to do was to place his hand where his father had asked and make the promise and that would be his reply to his father's request. This is what Eliezer did when Abraham made him swear an oath concerning his selecting a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,9).

אנכי אעשה כדברך, “I shall do as you have said.” I will carry out your instructions. Alternately, the meaning is that Joseph conveyed to his father that he would do what he had asked him to do because he himself would do the same when the time came, and he too would ask his brothers and children to ensure that he would eventually be interred in the Holy Land. Both Yaakov and Joseph made his son/brothers swear, even though Yaakov had already had a direct assurance by G’d before he came to Egypt that He would accompany him back to his grave in the land of Canaan. He also had no reason to doubt Joseph’s sincerity and uprightness. He wanted Joseph to render an oath so that he could use this as an argument before Pharaoh in case the latter would object to the fact that someone who had been able to stop the famine, would not be honoured by the Egyptians by being given a burial and a monument in that land. In the event, Pharaoh did give permission, stressing that it was Joseph’s duty to honour his oath to his father. (50,7)

ושכבתי עם אבותי ונשאתני ממצרים, “I wish to lie with my fathers and that you carry me up from Egypt.” The first request pertained to his spirit, the second to his body. Yaakov meant that he was convinced that even if his body were to be buried in Egypt his spirit would reside with his fathers and that it would not have to undergo painful גלגולים, metamorphoses, before arriving in its rightful place in the celestial regions.
Rabbi Yitzchak claims that this verse teaches us that on the day a person dies he becomes aware of what destination he is headed for, whether he will be assigned to the region reserved for the righteous or the region reserved for the wicked. This is why Yaakov first said: “I will lie with my fathers,” and subsequently he asked Joseph to transport him there. He taught Joseph that even if one were to die on a boat or in a remote inaccessible island, one’s spirit would immediately head for the location assigned to it. We have been told that Rabbi Avohu saw the reward that was in store for him shortly before his death. The sages base this principle on Psalms 31,20: “How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You, that You do in the full view of men for those that take refuge in You.” According to tradition when Rabbi Avohu was shown all the reward which was in store for him he was so overwhelmed that he could not help exclaiming: ‘is all this really in store for Avohu?!’ He immediately wished himself dead and began to recite the above quoted verse from Psalms.

This letter ו connects this with the beginning of the previous verse... Rashi explains right afterward that ושכבתי means dying. Accordingly, Yaakov should first have said he will die, and then say, “Please do not bury me in Egypt.” Thus Rashi explains, “This letter ו connects ...”

אנכי אעשה כדברך, “I will do this independently of swearing an oath. There is no need to place me under oath. [I believe that author uses the extraneous word אנכי as the reason for his exegesis. Ed.]

שכבתי וגו", sich niederlegen zu seinen Vätern ist nicht das örtlich in ihrer Nähe begraben werden, sondern ist der leiblich in die Erscheinung tretende Akt des Sterbens, wie האסף die seelische Seite dieses Aktes bedeutet. האסף: das Heimgehen der Seele in die Heimat der Seelen, שכב: das Niederlegen des Leibes auf die Erde, in deren gemeinsamen Schoß, wo immer auch sie begraben seien, die vorangegangenen Eltern ruhen.

אנכי אעשה כדבריך, “I am going to do in accordance with your instructions.” According to the Midrash, Yaakov’s request to be buried in the land of Canaan inspired Joseph to make the same request of his brothers when the time came for him to die. We find that Joseph indeed made his brothers swear that his remains would be taken with the Israelites at the time of the redemption, and Moses personally, was involved in locating his coffin which was carried with the Israelites for 40 years until eventually being interred near Sh’chem in the tribal territory of Ephraim, one of his sons. He used the same formula when making his request as had his father at the time. (Compare Genesis 50,24-26) The choice of the Torah describing Joseph’s response as “the words of” instead of simply “his request,” or something similar, is why Rashi (in Exodus 3,18) says that before Moses came to Egypt and introduced himself as the redeemer, G–d told him that the elders would listen to him as he introduced himself with the words: פקוד יפקוד, that Joseph had used at the time when he stood at his father’s deathbed and they spoke about the eventual redemption, long before even the enslavement had commenced. This was also the reason why Yaakov had used this formula for describing the redemption.

ושכבתי עם אבותי, “I wish to have my last resting place with my forefathers;” he referred to his grave. He realised that this could be done only if Joseph would transport his remains all the way to the cave of Machpelah. An alternate explanation: When using the words ושכבתי עם אבותי, Yaakov referred to being buried in Egypt, temporarily, whereas when adding: אל נא תקברני במצרים, he asked Joseph not to make his permanent grave in Egypt. This corresponds to what we have learned in the Talmud tractate Nazir 64: “if someone is found buried in a normal fashion, (but not in a graveyard) when transferring the corpse to a Jewish graveyard, he should take along a certain amount of the earth surrounding the corpse with it. When applied to Yaakov, this means that some Egyptian soil was taken with his corpse on his way to be deposited also in the cave of Machpelah. The Talmud there defines how much soil, (approx 3 fingers deep of earth). Yaakov too referred to this amount of Egyptian soil, when he said: ונשאתני ממצרים, “and carry me up from Egypt.”

ונשאתני ממצרים, when you will follow this procedure you will be able to carry me out of Egypt, for when the days of lying in state will have come to an end, people will no longer be in a state of sorrow over my passing, as we know from 50,4 ויעברו ימי בכיתו, and no one will protest if you will transport my remains to another country.

וקברתני בקבורתם, “and bury me in their burial vault.” Our sages used this verse to tell us that the righteous ought to arrange that they be buried alongside other righteous people. We have a verse in Kings II 13,21 describing that someone who had been thrown into a grave next to that of the prophet Elisha emerged resurrected through having contacted the remains of the prophet. This is also what the false prophet said before he died when he requested to be buried alongside the true prophet. He had said: “you shall bury me in the grave of the prophet.” According to this interpretation the temporary resurrection of the sinner in question served the purpose of preventing him remaining buried next to the righteous man, the true prophet Elisha. (Compare Sanhedrin 47 on details of this story.)

Put me to rest with my fathers in the cave... According to which it would mean actual burial. Rashi explains ושכבתי to mean השכיבני because ושכבתי implies putting oneself down to rest, whereas burial is done by others. Thus he also adds “in the cave,” since [in this explanation] ושכבתי עם אבותי means actual burial. Accordingly, the verse means: “Put me to rest [i.e., bury me] with my fathers in the cave.”

Actually, the Torah mentions Joseph's declaration as proof that he said he did not need to swear an oath, that his promise was sufficient.

כדברך, “as you have said.” The word is spelled without the letter י, i.e. in the singular mode.

אנכי אעשה כדברך, I will do this on my own, making every effort to fulfill your command.

I (anochi) will do as you say. Yoseif declined to place his hand under his father’s thigh on the grounds that it was beneath his dignity. Instead he indicated through his use of the more formal anochi rather than the more common ani that for a man of his station a mere promise was sufficient.

אנכי אעשה כדברך, “I will comply with what you have said.” According to the plain meaning of the text Joseph agreed to honor his father’s request. According to a Midrashic interpretation the words mean “just as you made me swear to bring your bones up to the land of Canaan, so I will make my brothers swear to do the same for my own bones when the time comes.”

Carry me from Egypt and bury me in their grave... Rashi is saying that there are two contradictions. 1.It should It should have written first, “Carry me out of Egypt,” and then, “I will lie,” since he must first be carried and only then buried. 2.“I will lie” is apparently repetitive because it is written afterward, “Bury me in their grave.”

Alternatively, he meant that he was legally obligated to comply with his father's request either by dint of being his father's son or by dint of his father's request being that of a man about to die (compare Choshen Mishpat 252,2). Joseph added the word כדברך to demonstrate that he would fulfil the request quite independent of any oath he would swear.

“And Dovid lay with his fathers” and afterwards: “And he was buried...” Perforce, the וישכב of Dovid means death. For if it meant burial, it would indicate that they buried him with his fathers, i.e., in Beis Lechem where Dovid’s fathers lived. But then it is written, “He was buried in the City of Dovid,” implying Tzion, which is the City of Dovid. Thus it must be that שכיבה means death.

וישתחו ישראל AND ISRAEL PROSTRATED HIMSELF — The proverb says: Though the lion is king “when the fox has his time, bow to him” (Megillah 16b).

SWEAR UNTO ME. AND HE SWORE UNTO HIM. Jacob did not suspect that his righteous and beloved son would disobey his father’s command and renege on the matter which he had promised him by saying, I will do according to thy words.¹²Verse 30 here. But Jacob did so in order to strengthen the matter in the eyes of Pharaoh, as perhaps he might not give Joseph permission to leave him, and he would instead say to him, “Send your brothers and your servants, and they will bring him up there.” It may be that Pharaoh would want the prophet¹³Jacob. — Rashi quotes Hilchoth Gedoloth in Megillah 14 a that Jacob was one of the forty-eight prophets that arose in Israel. to be buried in his country as an honor and privilege to them. It was for this reason that he made him swear for it would not then be proper for him to force Joseph to violate his oath, and Joseph too would feel more obligated to fulfill his father’s wish on account of the oath. Such indeed was the case, as Pharaoh said, Go up, and bury thy father, as he made you swear.¹⁴50:6.

"And Israel bowed low": To Joseph, from the place where he was at [the top of] the bed.

השבעה לי!. This was only a device to enable Joseph to overcome objections by the Egyptians if they would not permit transfer of Yaakov’s remains to another country.

ויאמר השבעה לי, He said: "swear it to me, etc." Jacob felt that he needed to request an oath for the second time, that Joseph's promise was insufficient. He may have meant simply that he wanted Joseph to humour him and to phrase his promise in the form of an oath, or he may have said so without revealing his true motivation at all but making it clear that he had some reason he did not want to reveal. The reason, of course, was to give Joseph ammunition in case someone would try to prevent him from doing what he had promised. Events proved Jacob correct when Pharaoh wanted to prevent Jacob's body being moved out of the country as we have learned from Sotah 34.

!ויאמר: השבעה לי, normally, unless mentioned to the contrary, an oath is always rendered by using the name of G’d.

וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, “Israel prostrated himself at the head of the bed.” According to Rashi the Presence of G’d usually positioned itself near the head of the bed of the sick person. This is difficult according to the view we quoted earlier, that at this point Yaakov was not yet sick, so that we would have to say that at this point Yaakov was sitting on his bed and he prostrated himself as a mark of gratitude to Joseph for having agreed to honour his wish. His gratitude was expressed to G’d Who had given him a son who, in spite of his elevated position, honoured his father’s every wish. It is also possible that he literally prostrated himself before Joseph, thus fulfilling the last detail in Joseph’s dream about the sheaves.

השבעה לי, “swear to me!” seeing that Joseph had already agreed to honour his father’s wish in this regard, Yaakov most certainly did not suspect him of reneging on his promise. The purpose of the oath was so that in the event urgent matters of state would claim Joseph’s attention after his father’s death, or in the event that Pharaoh would raise an objection to Yaakov’s remains being taken out of Egypt, Joseph would have something to reinforce his desire to fulfill his father’s last wish. We know that Yaakov was very astute in the matter as in fact Joseph did have to tell Pharaoh that he had had to promise his father on oath that he would not allow him to be buried in Egypt (50,4). According to Nachmanides Pharaoh then instructed Joseph to go to the land of Canaan in order to bury his father there.

When it is the time of the fox, bow to him. I found it written that for one month in the year the fox is king of the animals. About that month it was said, “When it is the time of the fox.” (Kitzur Mizrachi)

וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה. Wie sich Elieser vor Gott hinwarf, als er seine Sendung erreicht hatte, so hier Jakob. Er hatte damit das Letzte erreicht, was er auf Erden zu versorgen hatte. Das Kopfende des Bettes war ihm im Rücken. Naturgemäß saß er mit dem Angesicht zum Fußende gerichtet und Josef vor ihm. Ein Beugen auf das Kopfende hin ist somit ein Zurückbeugen. Es war ein hingebender Dank an Den, der ihn durch seine ganze Vergangenheit hindurch zu diesem Ziele geleitet Gott hatte ihn hierher seinem Sohne zugeführt.

על ראש המטה, Yaakov gave thanks to Hashem Who had made Joseph’s heart decide to bury his father with his forefathers. This is how Joseph’s dream about the sun bowing down to him, was fulfilled, i.e. he had bowed to the Presence of G-d, not to his son. [The “sun” in the dream, had been Yaakov. Ed.]

על ראש המטה UPON THE BED’S HEAD — He turned towards the Divine Presence (the Shechinah) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 3). They (the Rabbis) inferred from this that the Shechinah is above the pillow of a sick person (Shabbat 12b). Another interpretation of על ראש המטה He bowed himself in thanks FOR HIM WHO WAS THE CHIEF (ראש) OF HIS CHILDREN — in thanks because his children were heart-whole with God, and none of them was wicked, for even Joseph who was a king and moreover had been a captive amongst heathen peoples yet maintained his righteousness (Sifré ואתחנן 31).

וישתחו ישראל, to give thanks to His Creator for enabling him to exact this promise from his son.. We find that Eliezer, after hearing that Rivkah’s family agreed that he take Rivkah as a wife for Yitzchok, reacted in the very same fashion in 24,52 וישתחו ארצה לה', “he prostrated himself on the earth to G’d.”

וישתחו, he prostrated himself thanking G’d that his son had promised him this favour.

He turned toward the Divine Presence... You might ask: Did not Rashi just say, “When it is the time of the fox, bow to him,” implying that he bowed to Yoseif? The answer is: If he bowed only for Yoseif, why was it specifically, “At the head of the bed”? And if he bowed only for the Shechinah, Scripture should have written, “Yisrael prostrated himself to Hashem,” or, “...to Elokim.” Perforce, he bowed on account of both of them, the Divine Presence and Yoseif.

Jacob may have intended to emphasise only the word לי, "to me," meaning that Joseph should not make any mental reservations when he made this promise to his father.

על ראש המטה. The bed on which he had been sitting or lying. He gave thanks to the Lord for having a son who was alive and well after he had for so long given him up as lost, and that this son was even willing to bury him all the way in the land of Canaan so that he could lie with his fathers. The reason why the Torah bothered to tell us, the readers, that Yaakov thanked the Lord “at the head of the bed,” is to tell us that he turned to the “head,” in honour of G’d Who is presumed to watch over the sick at that point. Our sages (quoted by Rashi) use this incident to teach us that the presence of G’d is located at the top of one’s bed. [for those of us worthy of the presence of the Shechinah. Ed.]

It is from here that they derived that the Shechinah is above the headrest of a sick person... Although Yaakov was not sick [then], he had weakened and was as if sick. Otherwise, why did he request [regarding] his burial place?

For his bed was perfect and none of the offspring was wicked... We cannot say that [the bowing was] only to the Shechinah, because then it should say, “To the head of the bed.” Perforce, he bowed also to Yoseif. But it is a forced explanation of the verse to say that he bowed to Yoseif, yet turned toward the Divine Presence. Therefore Rashi brings “another interpretation... for his bed was perfect...” But this cannot be the only explanation, because if so, why does it say, “At the head of”? [It should just say, “At the bed].” Therefore, Rashi brings the first explanations [as well]. (Maharshal)