Comentário sobre Gênesis 47:29

...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.

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.