פירוש על בראשית 48:22

ואני נתתי לך MOREOVER I HAVE GIVEN TO THEE — Because you will take the trouble to engage in my burial “I” give you an inheritance in which you will be buried. And which was this? Shechem, as it is said, (Joshua 24:32) “And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem”.

MOREOVER I HAVE GIVEN TO THEE ONE PORTION ABOVE THY BRETHREN. After he had blessed Joseph’s children and made them two tribes, he returned to Joseph and said to him: “Behold, I die; but G-d will be with you⁶⁰Verse 21 here. in exile in order to save you from all trouble, and you will increase and multiply exceedingly, and He will bring you back to the land of your fathers to inherit it. I have already given you the one portion in my power to bestow — namely, the portion of the birthright — to be yours above that of your brothers, right from the day that I took it out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.” All this is a conciliation to Joseph and a manifestation of his love for him, for he informed him that he gave him the birthright, meaning that his sons will henceforth be blessed by becoming two tribes, also in the banners which were assigned in the desert,⁶¹See Numbers, Chapter 2. and in the dedication of the Tabernacle by the princes of the tribes.⁶²Ibid., Chapter 7. He also gave him his portion in the inheritance which he would acquire when the children of Israel will conquer the Land by sword and bow and war. Jacob thus told him: “I have done for you all the good which I was able to do for you as long as it was in my power to do it.” Jacob’s right in the Land was but one portion for he had no right to divest any of his sons of his inheritance. Only the birthright was his to give to whomever he pleased, and it was to Joseph that he gave it.

ואני, and what I say to you now refers to that land, נתתי לך, I have assigned to you, שכם אחד, a share על אחיך, over and beyond the shares which you will divide with your brothers in territory which I and my offspring will conquer from the Emorite in the future with my sword and bow, (in the wars conducted by Joshua). [The author, whose exegesis of the past tense used in Yaakov’s statement is most remarkable, now deals with possible objections that could be raised against his interpretation of Yaakov’s words. Ed.] Even though it is written in the Book of Joshua 24,12 לא בחרבך ולא בקשתך, “not with your sword nor with your bow (did you drive out the Emorite, but because G’d sent scorpions and the like against these people,” this verse does not contradict what Yaakov said here. Firstly, these scorpions did not cross the river Jordan, so how can we understand Joshua quoting G’d as saying “I have sent the scorpions ahead of you to drive out the two Kings of the Emorite, etc.” (same verse)? When reading the words quoted in Joshua before, we must put the stress on the pronoun endings of the words בחרבך בקשתך, i.e. “your sword, your bow. Joshua meant that although on the face of it appeared that your prowess with the sword and bow accounts for your successful conquest, your success was due to the merit of your ancestor Yaakov. The effect of that merit was equivalent to the effect of well trained archers and swordsmen using their physical weapons.

ואני נתתי לך, Yaakov emphasises the word אני in order to explain that he was not violating any of the rules pertaining to the distribution of the land of Canaan to the tribes, seeing such a distribution was not yet something at hand, but was still in the realm of the potential. Seeing that he, Yaakov, had personally conquered the city of Shechem, in spite of this city being part of the land of Canaan, seeing that he had taken it from the “Emorite,” i.e. someone whose deeds were as evil as those of the Emorite, (although the inhabitants had been Hittites), what he was allocating to Joseph now was an actual, a gift bestowed by him now, and had no bearing on any distribution of land conquered by Joshua in the future. Yaakov hints that givers who promise a lot wind up actually not even keeping part of their promises, such as Esau. When Yaakov, at the time, had bought the birthright from Esau, Esau forfeited not only his additional share in the land as a firstborn but wound up without any share in the land of Canaan whatsoever.

שכם, another word meaning חלק. The word occurs in the same sense in Psalms 21,13 כי תשיתמו שכם, as well as in Tzefania 3,9 ולעבדו שכם אחד.

ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך, “and I have allocated to you one additional portion in excess of that of your brothers;” this was a reference to the birthright. Joseph became the official firstborn of Yaakov, and that is why his two children each received a share of the holy Land, just as Yaakov’s own sons. According to Rashi, Yaakov referred to the birthright that he had purchased at the time from his brother Esau, as a result of which, he, Yaakov, was entitled to an extra share in the inheritance from his father Yitzchok. I must confess that I do not understand Rashi’s words here. Yaakov did not give Joseph the birthright he had taken away from Esau, but he gave him the birthright he had taken away from Reuven, as is spelled out when he blessed the other sons, and when referring to Reuven, (49,4) that Reuven had desecrated him when he entered his bed-chamber,.claiming it as his abode. The birthright had been transferred from Reuven to Joseph as penalty for the act of desecrating his father. Furthermore, how would the fact that Yaakov had personally taken the city of Shechem from the Emorite have any bearing on his deal with Esau that acquired Esau’s birthright for him? He had been forced to justify giving this extra portion of land to Joseph by making reference to the fact that it had not come to be his through inheritance passed on, but through personal acquisition when he had risked his life for it in war. Nachmanides explains the words אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי,in this paragraph as meaning that the words refer to the time when the land of Israel would be conquered by the sword. Yaakov, already now, tells Joseph that his sons, i.e. the tribes of Menashe and Ephrayim, who would be in the forefront, especially Machir ben Menashe, as we know from Numbers 32, 33-42. According to Nachmanides the promise of בקשתי ובחרבי would be fulfilled in the future when the tribe of Menashe would conquer distant parts of the east bank of the Jordan, such as Gilead, etc, as described at the end of Parshat Mattot. The reference to these weapons were only allusions to the fact that actual fighting would have to take place to secure the land of Canaan as the homeland of the Jewish people for all times. חרב and קשת, sword and bow, are presumed to be symbolical references to the battles against Sichon and Og, both kings of the Emorite tribe. These battles were the fiercest of the conquest of the land of Israel, although they were fought for land on the east bank of the river Jordan. Joshua 11,19 himself testified that not a single city in the land of Canaan made a peaceful surrender to the Jewish army in order to emigrate and save their lives. When Yaakov used the expression לקחתי, “I have taken,” he refers to his moral and legal right to engage in that battle against a people who -according to United Nations statutes- had been rightful owners of the land they dwelt on. Yaakov may very well have done what a number of prophets did when they wanted to make similar points regarding the legality of Israelite expansionary wars. They took arms symbolically, and shot them at imaginary targets, to explain to the king that what they had done symbolically, it was up to the king to do in practice.(compare Kings II 13,16-17).

Because you will take the trouble to occupy yourself with my burial. Rashi said, “Because you will take the trouble...” because [otherwise the reason for giving him Shechem] has no connection with the preceding.

שכם אחד על אחיך. Das mit שכם verbundene אחד macht es unmöglich, dass hier ein nomen proprium, der Name der Stadt sein könne. Und hieße selbst, wie man gewöhnlich meint, שכם: Teil, Los, so bleibt das אַחַד noch völlig unerklärt. אַחַד ist nie einer absolut, sondern stets einer von zweien oder mehreren, einer unter vielen. Es kann also nicht heißen: Ich habe dir einen Teil mehr als deinen Brüdern erteilt. Es gibt auch im Grunde kein Beispiel für שכם als: Teil. Vielmehr erscheint שכם als Schulter, die entweder eine Würde oder eine Bürde trägt: ותהי המשרה על שכמו (Jes. 9, 5) הסירתי מסבל שכמו (Ps. 81, 7). Wörtlich hieße es daher: ich habe dir die Schulter des einen über deinen Brüdern erteilt, d. h. ich habe dir die Bürde und die Würde des ersten unter deinen Brüdern erteilt, der, nach meinem Tode mich vertretend, an ihrer Spitze stehen und sie leiten soll. — ׳אשר לקחתי וגו, deine Brüder, meine Kinder, die ich mit "meinem Schwerte", mit dem, was — im Gegensatz zu Esaus Schwert — mein Schwert ist, die ich mit meiner geistigen Kraft und geistigen Arbeit dem Emori abgerungen. Jakob spricht: Siehe, ich sterbe, an Erbschaft habe ich nicht viel zu hinterlassen, wir sind in der Fremde. Gott muss euch erst wieder in unser Land zurückführen, dort werdet ihr נחלות haben; hier haben wir nur ברכות und Wünsche. Was ich aber hier zu vergeben habe, das habe ich dir gegeben; es ist dies die Würde und Bürde, mein Nachfolger in Leitung der Familie, der erste zu sein über deinen Brüdern, über meinen Kindern, die die einzigen Eroberungen sind, die ich im Leben gemacht, und über die ich im Sterben verfügen kann. Dass sie mitten unter den Emoritern keine Emoriter geworden, dass ich sie alle nun um mich als meine Söhne, als Fortträger des Namens und Berufes Israel versammeln kann, das sind meine Trophäen, meine Errungenschaften und Siege aus der Hand des Emoriten.

ואני נתתי לך, “I have given (allocated) to you;” Rabbi Moshe raises the point that Yaakov was directly responsible for fuelling jealousy between the brothers, commencing already with giving his son Joseph a garment that was visibly more expensive than those worn by his brothers. On account of this error in judgment, the whole family descended to Egypt, only to become enslaved for hundreds of years after initially having been welcomed there. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 10) We must also marvel that Joseph followed in his father’s footsteps by giving his full brother Binyamin far more valuable gifts than he gave to his other brothers (Genesis 45,22). In order to answer these questions we must remember that what Yaakov gave to Joseph was done while he was relatively young and immature, younger than 17 years old, an age at which Ishmael in Genesis 21,14 has still been described by the Torah as a ילד, “a child;” at that time the brothers who were jealous of him had reason to be so. What had he done to deserve preferential treatment by his father? Now that his dreams had come true, not only did they not feel jealous of him, but they were grateful and proud of his achievements. Moreover, they had become economically dependent upon him. Even if he had not treated them well, they were legally obligated to honour him on account of his position. If he gave Binyamin more gifts, that was easily explained by the fact that he was his only full brother. However, what bothers me is that at a time when he had not yet revealed to the brothers who he was, (Genesis 43,34) the brothers of Binyamin must have asked themselves for the reason that this ruler of Egypt who had –according to their assumption- never previously laid eyes on Binyamin, should have given him five times as much as he gave to them. Surely, this would have aroused the other brothers’ jealousy of Binyamin. However, the brothers found a reason for this also, as they considered it as Joseph compensating Binyamin for having insisted that he make the journey to Egypt just because he had not trusted the brothers’ statement that he even existed. Furthermore, I believe that Joseph, already at that point, had decided to reveal his true identity. He was certain that as soon as they would find out that he, Joseph, was a full brother of Binyamin, they would not begrudge him the additional gifts. Some commentators explain the words: שכם אחד, in our verse, the extra portion of ancestral parts of the land of Israel, allocated by Yaakov to Joseph, as referring to the grave in that city in which the remains of Joseph would be interred after the Israelites taking over that country. (Compare Joshua 24,32) The matter can be compared to a parable of thieves who had robbed the owner of a vineyard of a full casket of wine when they were found out by the owner. That owner asked the thieves to do him one favour; seeing that they had already emptied the casket of its contents he asked them to at least return the empty casket to him. Joseph had been sold in Sh’chem. The time had come to at least bring his remains back there. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah, 85,3).

שכם אחד, “one portion;” the letter א in the word אחד is vocalised with the vowel patach. (as if it were in the construct mode)

שכם אחד על אחיך Jacob meant by the word שכם the actual city of Shechem and said: this shall be to you one portion additional to what you will receive together with your brothers.

OUT OF THE HAND OF THE AMORITE. The meaning of this is that Israel first took the Land from the hand of the Amorite. Sichon and Og were two Amorite kings, and the first great war in the conquest of the Land took place between the children of Joseph and the Amorites. This was the war of Joshua⁶³Joshua belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, Joseph’s son. See Numbers 13:8, and 16. with the Amorites, and it was in the course of the war with them that the great miracle took place, as it is written, Then spoke Joshua to the Eternal in the day when the Eternal delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, etc.⁶⁴Joshua 10:12. And it was out of the hand of the Amorites that the children of Joseph took their portion and inheritance in the Land, as it is written, And the children of Machir the son of Menasheh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites that were there.⁶⁵Numbers 32:39. The children of Ephraim likewise inherited in the territory of the Amorites, as it is written, But the Amorites were resolved to dwell in Har-cheres, in Ayalon, and in Shaalbin; yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributary.⁶⁶Judges 1:35.

בחרבי ובקשתי, through my intelligence and insight (חכמה ובינה). Whereas the weapons of warriors are the sword and the bow, the equivalent weapons of the righteous, the scholars, are their wisdom and understanding. This is what Psalms 45,4 has in mind when the author writes: חגור חרבך על ירך גבור. Our sages in Shabbat 63 already commented on this verse that the psalmist does not refer to actual weapons but to the use of words of Torah as being the tools used by the Torah scholar. [The interpretation of this verse as something allegorical, and almost diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the text, is disputed by some scholars in the Talmud there. Ed.]

אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי, as if the Torah had written this in the future tense, i.e. “which I am going to take from the Emorite.” It is quite common for the past tense to be employed instead of the future tense. When reporting prophecies, Scripture very frequently resorts to describing something in the future as if it had already taken place. [presumably in order to strengthen the belief of the reader in such prophecies, positive ones, to the fulfillment of which one looks forward. Ed.]

Therefore, I have also given you an inheritance. Explanation: I have already given it to you. This is because in the blessings that Yaakov gave them afterward, they were all equal [in inheriting the Land]. Accordingly, Yaakov said to him: I have hereby given it to you, and it will not be included in those blessings. (Maharshal)

אשר לקחתי, “which I have taken;” he meant that he would take this (accept this) in the days of Joshua when the tribes would receive their shares of the Holy Land. In those days all of this would be conquered with the sword and the bow and arrow. The use by Yaakov of the past tense here is parallel to the use of the past tense concerning the money for the purchase price of the cave of Machpelah, when Avraham had said: נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have already given the money for the field, accept it from me.” (Genesis 23,13) Just as Avraham at the time was certain that Efron would finalise the negotiation, so Yaakov was certain that G-d would keep His promises concerning the Israelites receiving their ancestral land in due course. The reason why Yaakov singled out the Emorite and no other Canaanite tribe is that this was by far the strongest of the Canaanite tribes. We find proof of this in Amos 2,9: ואנכי השמדתי את האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה ארזים גבהו וחסון הוא כאלונים, “yet I destroyed the Emorite before them, whose stature was like that of the cedars amongst the trees and who was as stout as oak trees.”Another interpretation: when Yaakov speaks of “my sword and my bow,” he quotes G-d, just as we have the line said by Moses in Deuteronomy 33,29: בה' מגן עזרך ואשר חרב גאותך, “by G-d your protecting shield, your sword is triumphant.”Rashi here understands our verse as Yaakov referring to the surrounding tribes making a joint effort to avenge the male inhabitants of Sh’chem whom Shimon and Levi had killed, as abstaining from their intention, i.e. “they did not pursue the sons of Yaakov.” (Genesis 35,5)

בחרבי ובקשתי WITH MY SWORD AND WITH MY BOW — When Simeon and Levi slew the inhabitants of Shechem all the surrounding nations gathered together to join in battle against them and Jacob girded on his weapons to war against them (cf. Genesis Rabbah 80:10) Another explanation of this verse: שכם אחד ONE PORTION [ABOVE THY BRETHREN] — this refers to the birthright (Genesis Rabbah 97:6): that Joseph’s children should receive two portions when Canaan would be divided amongst the tribes (cf. Deuteronomy 60:17; Joseph therefore was to be regarded as the first-born). The word שכם signifies portion. “For thou wilt make them שכם” i.e. thou wilt place my enemies before me in portions (thou wilt scatter them before me); (Deuteronomy 60:8) “I will divide שכם the portion”; (Hosea 6:9) “on the way they murder שכמה” i.e. each man kills someone as his own portion; (Zephaniah 3:9) “to serve him as though they were all but one portion (שכם)” i.e. to serve him unitedly.

WITH MY SWORD AND WITH MY BOW. The meaning thereof is that the Land was captured by them only through the sword and bow. This alludes to that which Scripture states, There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon; they took all in battle. For it was of the Eternal to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that they might be utterly destroyed.⁶⁷Joshua 11:19-20. He attributes the sword and bow to himself⁶⁸Saying, with ‘my’ sword and with ‘my’ bow. for it was his merit which waged war for them and fought on their behalf, not they themselves, even as the verse states it, For not by their own sword did they get the land in possession, neither did their own arm save them, but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou wast favorable unto them.⁶⁹Psalms 44:4. This is a reference to the merit of the patriarchs, for by way of the truth,⁷⁰The teaching of the Cabala. Thy right hand [is a reference to the merit of] Abraham, Thine arm to that of Isaac, and the light of Thy countenance to that of Jacob.
It further appears reasonable to me that Jacob did as the prophets later on were wont to do. He inclined his hand with a sword towards the land of the Amorites and cast arrows there to symbolize that the land would be captured by his children, even as Elisha did: And he laid his hands upon the king’s hands, and Elisha said, Shoot; and he shot.⁷¹II Kings 13:16-17. Now even though Scripture does not relate it here, it is alluded to in this verse. It is possible that this is the meaning of Jacob’s saying, lakachti (I took),⁷²This explains the use of the past tense “I took,” although the land was not actually captured until the time of Joshua. for from that moment on the Land was taken for his sons.

When Yaakov said: לקחתי, “I will take or I took,” he did not refer to his own person but to the extension of himself, his children or offspring. The same is true also when he said: ובחרבי ובקשתי, “and with my sword and with my bow.” He referred to the sword and bow used by the members of the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe in the conquest during the days of Joshua. Although we read in the Book of Joshua 24,12 לא בחרבך ולא בקשתך, that Joshua is reminding the Jewish people that their victory was not due to their prowess in the martial arts, our sages already explained that Joshua did not mean to deny the facts, but to deny faulty interpretations of the facts, by not giving the credit for their success to G’d’s help, or in this case, for the assistance of the merit of their illustrious ancestor Yaakov. This is not the only time in Scripture that we encounter such apparently enigmatic statements. We read in Samuel II 22,3 that David speaks of G’d being “my shield, my fortress and my refuge.” Any fool can understand that David did not consider G’d as an invisible shield, seeing he had refused to use one in his fight against Goliath, for instance. He indicated that without G’d’s help, even if holding a shield in his hand, such a shield would have been powerless to protect him.

This shall be for you one share in excess... Rashi is answering the question: If Shechem means the actual עיר (city) of Shechem, [and עיר is a feminine noun,] why is it written אחד which is the masculine form? Perforce, אחד does not refer to the city. Rather, the verse is saying that the city of Shechem shall be for you אחד חלק (one share), and אחד refers to חלק, which is masculine. (Maharshal)

אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי WHICH I TOOK OUT OF THE HAND OF THE AMORITE—out of the hand of Esau whose deeds were like those of an Amorite (Genesis Rabbah 97:6). Another interpretation of אמורי in reference to Esau is: he used to ensnare his father by the words (אמרי) of his mouth (cf. Rashi on Genesis 25:7).

When Yaakov made reference to האמורי, he did so merely because this tribe was the most ferocious and powerful among all the Canaanite tribes Joshua faced. We find this confirmed in Amos 2,9 ואנכי השמדתי את האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה הארזים גבהו, “and I have destroyed the Emorite before them, whose stature was as tall as the cedar’s and who was as stout as the oak, etc.” According to Bereshit Rabbah end of chapter 96 as quoted by Rashi, Yaakov had referred to the city of Shechem, Yaakov telling Joseph that the city in which he would eventually be buried would be part of his tribal territory. The word לקחתי is also understood by the Midrash as in the past tense, and as referring to what had happened there at the time. Shimon and Levi, Yaakov’s sons, had conquered that city, and the Emorite and the Hittite are two different names for the same tribe.

You will scatter my enemies before me. I.e., this is an explanation of the verse, “You will make them as portions.”

בחרבי ובקשתי that is, by means of his spiritual weapons: his wisdom and his prayer (“בַּקָשָׁתִי” cf. The Targumim and Bava Batra 123a).

Who acted as if he were an Emorite. There is a question on this explanation: why should Eisov be compared specifically to an Emorite? Thus Rashi brings another explanation. And according to the second explanation: It should have said אמרי instead of אמורי! That is why Rashi brings both explanations. (Maharshal)

His wisdom and prayers. I.e., “with my sword” is wisdom. Just as a sword saves the one who has it, so too, wisdom saves the one who possesses it. This is as it says (Koheles 7:11), “Wisdom gives life to the one who has it.” “My bow” (ובקשתי) is an expression of pleading (בקשה) and prayer.