Comentário sobre Gênesis 48:23

ויאמר ליוסף literally, HE SAID TO JOSEPH — “he” means one of the messengers: it is an elliptical phrase. Some say, that Ephraim was regularly with Jacob for study and when Jacob became ill in the land of Goshen Ephraim went to his father in Egypt and reported it to him (Tanchuma 1:12:6).

ויאמר ליוסף, a third person told him. We find similar constructions, the subject not only not being named but not being identified at all, in verse 2 of our chapter, i.e. ויגד. The Torah does not bother to inform us who was the one that conveyed this information.

48.1. שני בניו עמו, את מנשה ואת אפרים, together with his two sons Menashe and Ephrayim. Why did the Torah have to give us the names of Joseph's two sons when we already know their names as well as the fact that he had only two sons? Alternatively, the Torah could have simply written: "Menashe and Ephrayim," and I would have known that these names referred to his two sons? Besides, why did the Torah have to insert the word עמו, with him, in the middle of the verse? Why did the Torah have to use the word את twice in this verse?

ויאמר, whoever it was who said it. It is reasonable to assume that it was one of the brothers who traveled to the capital to inform Joseph that his father had taken ill.

One of the tellers... [Rashi says, “One of the tellers,” to convey that] “said to Yoseif” in fact means “told Yoseif,” for news is “told,” not “said.” Yaakov’s falling sick before he died was something new to the world, since before his time there was no weakness [before death]. And why is it not written, “told Yoseif”? Because the teller was Ephraim, who was frequently with Yaakov so he saw that he was sick, and it was nothing new to him.

אחרי leitet stets einen Wendepunkt ein.ח־ חלה, drückt das Gehemmtsein einer Bewegung aus, wie נוע und נוח. So עלה: die selbständige Erhebung, Entwicklung, das Aufsteigen, (die unbelebte Materie sinkt, die belebende Kraft hebt das Belebte empor). Wird dieses Vorwärtsschreiten, eigentlich das Sichaufwärts- bewegen gehemmt, so ist es: חלה, die gehemmte Entwicklung. רפה) רפא) ist das Lösen des die Aufbewegung hemmenden Knotens, die Heilung; daher Genesung. תעלה, die wieder eintretende Aufwärtsentwicklung, das wieder beginnende Aufsteigen.

ויאמר ליוסף, “he said to Joseph;” according to our sages, the subject in this verse was Ephrayim, who informed his father of Yaakov’s illness; (Tanchuma section 6 on this portion) Rabbi Moshe adds that there is an oblique hint of this in the text, seeing that the letters in the word ויאמר and the word אפרים when reading the alphabet backwards, starting with the letter ת, are in the relative same position as when read from the right to left, i.e. the letter ו in the word ויאמר is the sixth letter in the alphabet when read from right to left, whereas the letter פ is in the sixth place when the alphabet is read from left to right commencing with the latter ת. (the other letters are identical) What we learn from this is that whereas Joseph was not a frequent visitor in the province of Goshen where his father resided, his sons spent much more of their time with their grandfather, so that they were aware of any changes in the state of his health. The words ויקרא לבנו ליוסף, “he called for his son, for Joseph,” i.e. sent a messenger to ask for his presence, indicated that he did not want to wait for Joseph’s next visit. I have heard from Rabbi Sh’muel of blessed memory that the reason that Joseph did not frequently visit his father was that he was afraid that Yaakov would ask him how he had come to be in Egypt in the first place, in which case he would have had to tell him that his brothers had sold him, etc., as a result of which his father would have cursed the brothers. This in turn would have spelled the destruction of the civilised world, seeing that when he had cursed Rachel quite unintentionally, Rachel died prematurely as a result, although the teraphim of Lavan had never even been found. We cannot even imagine what the result of Yaakov cursing ten of his twelve sons would have meant.

ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, etc;” ever since the universe had been created it had never happened that someone after having sneezed recovered from his illness. He would have died immediately, regardless of where he had been when he sneezed. Yaakov asked G-d to change this, so that he would be able to make his last will and testament before dying. G-d answered his prayer. This is the reason why this paragraph commenced with the words: ‘”It was after these words,“ after G-d had consented to give Yaakov enough time to prepare for his departure from earth. Not only this, but all the kings of the earth became very agitated, when they heard that Yaakov had died only after having made all these arrangements about his forthcoming demise. Ever since that time, not only Jews, but believing people everywhere, pronounce a benediction when they hear someone sneeze. G-d had transformed what used to be a signal of death to continued life, (compare Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, (earliest kabbalistic text) chapter 52.

ויקח את שני בניו עמו AND HE TOOK HIS TWO SONS WITH HIM — so that Jacob would bless them before his death.

Ephraim was frequently with Yaakov for study... We need not ask: How does Rashi know that Ephraim was frequently [with him for study]? For the answer is: It is written (v. 14), “Yisrael stretched out his right hand... he deliberately placed his hands so (שכל את ידיו).” And why does it not say he “switched his hands” (הפך את ידיו)? Because Yaakov was hinting to him that Ephraim was expert in Torah and had greater understanding (שכל) than Menasheh, and for this reason Yaakov deliberately placed (שכל) his hands. And how did Yaakov know this [about Ephraim]? Because Ephraim was frequently with Yaakov for study.

Perhaps the Torah describes Joseph's desire that each of his children be the recipients of separate blessings in addition to the blessings that would devolve upon them in their capacity as his children. This is why it says separately: את שני בניו עמו.

Oben, wo Jakob von Josef etwas wünscht, lässt er ihn rufen; hier, wo er Josef etwas, und zwar das Höchste, die בכורה erteilen will, lässt er ihm bloß mitteilen: dein Vater ist krank. Er soll als Kind, in dem Gefühle dessen, dem der altbetagte Vater erkrankt ist, von selbst kommen, und bei dieser Gelegenheit gibt er ihm, was er ihm zu erteilen hat. Ein Jakob macht, selbst wenn er das Höchste schenkt, nicht viel Wesen daraus. —

So that Yaakov might bless them. Otherwise, why should it be mentioned?

Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us that Joseph's children deserved a blessing on two accounts; a) because of their respective virtues, b) because they were Joseph's children. The words בניו עמו refer to the latter, the words את מנשה ואת אפרים refer to their individual merits. The word עמו is interposed to prevent us from thinking that the Torah only wanted to inform us about the identity of these two sons.

Before his death. Yoseif knew that Yaakov had weakened, and now they told him that he was sick. Yoseif said to himself: surely, the day of his death has come. Thus he took his sons with him.

ויגד literally, AND HE TOLD — “he” means the messenger whoever it was — TO JACOB. It does not state plainly who told it; there are many such elliptical verses

וישב על המטה. His feet touched the ground. This is why the Torah, when Joseph brought his children to Yaakov to be blessed, had to write: “he took them out from between his knees.” (verse 12) Another reason why the Torah mentioned these trivial sounding details, was to inform us that Yaakov still possessed the physical strength to pronounce all his final announcements with his feet firmly placed on the ground. It was only after he did not have anything else to say that he put his feet back on the bed in preparation for dying (49,33). That motion is comparable to what is described in Deuteronomy 22,2 as ואספת אל תוך ביתך, “bring it into your house,” i.e. The verb אסף, also appears in a similar sense in Judges 19,18 ואין איש מאסף אותו,”and there is no one willing to take me in.”

וישב על המטה. He did this in order to pay his respects to the presence of “Royalty” in his house to the extent that he was able to under, the circumstances, considering that he was bedridden. We observe the opposite mode of behaviour described when Mordechai did not make the slightest move indicating deference for Haman in Esther 5,9 “he neither rose nor even moved from where he was seated.”

ויגד, the one who had carried the news to Joseph now returned to tell Yaakov that his son Joseph was about to visit him.

ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel strengthened himself;” in order that the blessing he would bestow would be that of a healthy human being.

ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel summoned his strength.” Reflecting on this exertion by Yaakov, our sages asked themselves why he subjected himself to the obvious pain of sitting up in bed? They say that Yaakov reasoned that if a mere general were to send him some clothing would he not go out of his way to show honor to such a general? How could he shame his own son by showing him less honor?

There are numerous such elliptical verses. Rashi does not explain here that the teller was Ephraim, as he explained above, since “he took his two sons with him” implies that Ephraim was with Yoseif and went with him to Yaakov.

Josef weiß nicht, wie es seinem Vater geht, will ihn nicht aufregen, ויגד: lässt ihm zuerst wie gelegentlich erzählen, dass er komme, und lässt dann erst, ויאמר, ihm sagen, er sei da.

ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel strengthened himself.” He did not wish to bless his sons while bedridden, as he said that the blessing of a person clearly on the brink of dying, would not be considered as having been given by someone in possession of all his faculties.

ויתחזק ישראל AND ISRAEL STRENGTHENED HIMSELF — he said, “Although he is my son, he is a king, and I will do honour to him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Bo 6). From this we may infer that we must show honour to a person of royal rank (Cf. Menachot 98a). Similarly, Moses showed honour to the king when he said, (Exodus 11:8) “And all these, thy servants, shall come down to me” (which was only a polite way of saying. “Thou, thyself, wilt be forced to come down to me”); so, too, did Elijah: (1 Kings 18:46) “and he girded up his loins [and ran before Ahab] etc.” (Midrash Tanchuma, Bo 7)

From here that we must honor royalty... [Rashi knows this] because Yoseif needed Yaakov [to bless his sons], yet Yaakov bowed to him nevertheless. But before (47:31), Rashi explained [the bowing differently:] “When it is the time of the fox, bow to him.” This is because Yaakov needed Yoseif [to swear to bury him].

ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel recovered his strength.” He decided to look upon himself as if healthy, seeing that the gifts bestowed by someone close to death, as long as he is able to stand, are considered in Jewish law as having been bestowed by a person healthy in body and mind. Israel was very anxious for the blessings he was about to bestow as being viewed as the blessing of a person completely healthy. Such a person’s gifts are irrevocable in law whereas presents by a person who is on the verge of death but later recovers are considered to be revoked.

And your servants will come down to me... Moshe knew that even Pharaoh would come down, as in fact happened. He said “your servants” [instead of “you”] to honor royalty.

נראה אלי בלוז, when I returned from Padan Aram. (Compare 35,11 אני א-ל שדי, פרה ורבה)

א-ל שדי נראה אלי בלוז, that was the location where G’d had introduced Himself to Yaakov with His attribute of Shaddai. He had blessed him saying: “be fruitful and multiply. (35,10-11)

(3-7) Durch das ועתה des Raw Hirsch on Genesis 48: 5 ist es klar, dass die Erteilung der בכורה an Josef durch Einsetzung seiner beiden Söhne als besondere Stämme in den vorhergehenden Versen eine vorbereitende Erläuterung finden müsse. Nun ist es, wie uns scheint, wohl nicht denkbar, dass dies in dem Umstande liegen könne, dass, als Jakob auf seiner Heimkehr die Verheißung geworden: הנני מפרך וגוי ונתתיך לקהל עמים oder wie die Verheißung (Kap.25, 11) wörtlich lautet: פרה ורבה גוי וקהל גוים יהי׳ ממך seiner Familie nur noch der Zuwachs durch Benjamin, Efrajim und Menasche bevorstand, somit dies גוים sich nur auf diese beiden letzteren beziehen konnte, und sie somit als zwei getrennte Stämme von vornherein bezeichnet gewesen wären. Denn schwerlich kann in einem Familienkreise, der bereits aus elf Söhnen bestand, ein solcher Zuwachs so bedeutend erscheinen, dass er in den Worten הנני מפרך והרביתיך angekündigt sein dürfte. Vielmehr, wie wir dies bereits oben zur Stelle angedeutet, ist mit dem קהל גוים, hier קהל עמים, die durchaus für dieses Volk charakteristische Bestimmung gegeben, dass es innerhalb seiner vollkommenen, durch die Gemeinsamkeit der einen geistigen und sittlichen Aufgabe gegebenen Einheit, eine Mannigfaltigkeit verschieden gearteter Stämme umschließen soll. Es soll das Ackerbau- wie das Handelsvolk, das Kriegervolk wie das Volk der Wissenschaft usw. und somit als Mustervolk die Wahrheit faktisch darstellen, dass der eine gemeinsame Menschen- und Völkerberuf, wie ihn das Gottesgesetz offenbart, durch keine besondere Art des Berufs und der Anlage bedingt ist, sondern die Gesamtmenschheit in allen Nuancen ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit in ganz gleicher Weise ihren Beruf in der einen, allen gemeinsamen geistigen und sittlichen Lebensaufgabe finde. Die Gliederung in verschiedene Stämme und die daraus hervorgehende Teilung des verheißenen Bodens an diese gesondert zu erhaltenen Stämme, sie ist es, auf welche hier hingewiesen ist. Nur in ihrer Folge hat es überhaupt Bedeutung, dass Efrajim und Menasche zu zwei besonderen Stämmen erwachsen sollen. Ohne sie wäre ja jede Verschiedenheit in die Gesamtnationalmasse aufgegangen, sowie auch das Land an die Nation im ganzen und nicht nach Stämmen zur Verteilung gekommen wäre. — אחזת עולם. Obgleich wir es nun schon Jahrhunderte lang nicht mehr im Besitze haben, so ist es doch unsere ewige אחוזה בה נֵאָחֵז בה wir sind an es gefesselt, es hält uns, wenngleich wir es nicht haben.

ונתתיך לקהל עמים AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE AN ASSEMBLY OF PEOPLES — He announced to me that there were yet to issue from me an assembly of peoples (i.e. at least two more tribes). Now, it is true that He then said to me, (Genesis 35:11) “A nation and an assembly of nations [shall be of thee]”, but when He said “a nation” He intended it to refer to Benjamin who was not yet born, and this promise of “a nation” has been fulfilled by the birth of Benjamin, and for that reason I do not mention it now. “An assembly of nations [shall be of thee]”, however, presupposes that two more would descend from me besides Benjamin. Consequently, since no other son besides Benjamin was born to me, He was really telling me that one of my tribes (i.e. the tribe formed by one of my sons) would be divided so as to constitute at least two tribes, thus giving that son more importance, and that privilege I confer upon you (Genesis Rabbah 82:4; Pesikta Rabbati 3).

ונתתיך לקהל עמים ונתתי את הארץ, at the time Yaakov received this promise all his sons with the exception of Binyamin had already been born, and G’d had already said to me when I left on the way to Charan (in the dream of the ladder) “the land which you lie on I shall give to you and to your descendants.” (28,13) If so, it had been G’d’s intention at that time already to give me a “community of nations, i.e. separate tribes. Seeing that you and your children are my descendants and it is unreasonable to assume that G’d had had only you personally in mind when speaking of קהל עמים, a community of nations, it is clear to me that I have the right to designate both these sons of yours as being part of this concept קהל, i.e. that each of them will become a founding father of one of these tribes which constitute this community of nations.

הנני מפרך והרבך, "I am fructifying and multiplying you, etc." The repetition of these expressions, i.e. both "multiply and fructify," alludes to G'd's promise to Jacob in 35,11 that he would be fruitful and would multiply. At the time he had interpreted that promise to mean that two more sons (at least) would be born to him. In the meantime he had found out that only one more son, i.e. Benjamin was born to him.

הנני מפרך, we have explained this term on 35,11 as having been a necessary introduction leading up to taking possession of the land of Canaan in due course. Yaakov explains that in view of the fact that his sons will be the ones according to whom the keys in the distribution of that land will be determined, he wanted now already to establish that both of Joseph’s sons will rank equally with Joseph’s brothers in this respect.

ויאמר אליו הנני מפרך והרבתיך וכו', “He said to him: here I am about to fructify you and to multiply you, etc.” Rashi explains that Yaakov reminded Joseph that at the time when G’d had said to him that he would be the founder of nations and communities of nations (35,11), he had only had 11 sons, so that part of the blessing had not yet been fulfilled. He therefore directed that the as yet unfulfilled part of that blessing should be applied to Joseph and his sons. This is also the reason why he mentioned Rachel’s death at this juncture. Seeing that the missing part of the blessing could not have applied to any further children whom Rachel would have, it must apply to existing children, and he chose to channel this blessing to Joseph and his children. It is also possible that seeing he had allocated to the two sons of Joseph territory in the land of Israel on the same basis as that of Reuven and Shimon, i.e. as that of his actual sons, he mentioned that he had received the authority to make such allocations from G’d Himself.

That one of my tribes is destined to be divided... I.e., the division into two is considered as two extra sons.

ונמתין לקהל עמים, “and I will make you into a community of nations.” Even though G-d had used the plural mode, only Binyamin had been born for him after that. This being so, Yaakov said: “I must transfer the unfulfilled part of that blessing as belonging to one of my sons and I hereby designate you (Joseph)”. Ephrayim and Menashe, each being one of the 12 tribes of Israel, are viewed as representing fulfillment of that part of G-d’s blessing.

הנולדים לך עד באי אליך literally, WHO WERE BORN TO THEE . . . UNTIL I CAME TO THEE, i.e. before I came to thee. It signifies as much as: WHO WERE BORN from the time when you left me UNTIL THE TIME WHEN I CAME TO YOU. לי הם THEY SHALL BE MINE — they shall be counted amongst my other sons, to receive a portion in the Land each for himself (i.e. each to have his own territory exactly as each of my other sons has).

ועתה שני בניך וגו', seeing that G’d has given me the land of Canaan as a possession, I can make you the firstborn with the right to receive two portions of that land. This means that in effect you will receive the share of two tribes. Your sons will receive an allocation equal to the combined allocation of Reuven and Shimon.

ועתה שני בניך הנולדים לך....לי הם, G’d gave me only these two sons of yours together with you. Yaakov had confirmed his meaning when he said that just as he had not expected to see Joseph again he had also not expected to live to see two of his sons. (verse 11)

ועתה שני בניך, "And now, your two sons, etc." As a result of this insight, ועתה, Jacob realised in retrospect that G'd had referred to two sons that were to be born to Joseph and that it was these that were destined to become גוי וקהל גוים as per that promise in 35,11. What G'd had meant was that Joseph's sons were to rank equally with Reuben and Shimon amongst Jacob's offspring.

עד בואי, I am not saying that all your sons will be treated as if they were literally my own sons; only Menashe and Ephrayim will enjoy this status.

אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיה לי,” Ephrayim and Menashe will be to me just as Reuven and Shimon.” It appears from Rashi’s commentary that the division of the land in the days of Joshua was not based on the actual claimants, the sons of Yaakov still being alive at the time, but it was based on a principle known as גלגול, re-incarnation. It did not matter therefore, that Yaakov appeared to have compared the younger son Ephrayim, to Yaakov’s eldest, Reuven. Ephrayim and Menashe were to be “tribes” in name only, they did not replace the concept of “the tribe of Joseph.” [the cut off point for being included in the original family of Yaakov was the date of their arrival in the land of Egypt. Seeing that both Ephrayim and Menashe had been born prior to Yaakov’s arrival, even though they had been born on the contaminated soil of Egypt, enabled Yaakov to confer the status on them that he is about to bestow. Ed.] Nachmanides questions the wordsעל שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם, “they will be included under the names of their brothers in their inheritance,” claiming that these very words indicate that the “name” is of the essence, not as Rashi suggests that they were “tribes” in name only. Besides, Nachmanides holds that the land division under Joshua was not based on the original Israelites who had left Egypt being considered as having been resurrected, and the size of the land holdings being based on the size of their families at that time, but that each tribe received the same size of territory in the Land of Israel, although the parcels were not of equal quality as farmland, etc. When the Torah had instructed that the more numerous tribes should receive larger portions of land, whereas the less numerous ones would receive a smaller share, (Numbers 26,4) this referred to the basic family units within the tribe, not to the tribes themselves. These family units were based on the state of affairs of the families when they left Egypt. [if, due to the sin of the spies and the death decreed on that whole generation, taking possession of the land had not been postponed by 40 years, a whole generation, there would not have been a problem in understanding the instructions of the Torah. Ed.] It is therefore quite easy to understand that the tribal portions allocated to Ephrayim and Menashe by Yoshua equaled those of Reuven and Shimon.]

לפני — before I came to you... [Rashi explains this] because עד בואי seemingly implies they were born after Yaakov came to him. But in 41:50 it is written, “Two sons were born to Yoseif before the years of famine came.” And when Yaakov came to Yoseif, two famine years had already passed. Thus Rashi explains, “Before I came...”

אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי, “Ephrayim and Menashe shall be for me as possessing the same status as Reuven and Shimon.” It is notable that the numerical value of the words כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי, are identical to the numerical value of אפרים ומנשה [with a difference of only “1, the former amounting to “1” more.” Ed.]

'ועתה, שני בניך וגו, “and now, as far as your two sons are concerned, etc.;” according to the Talmud in Baba Batra 123, the reason why Yaakov appointed both of Joseph’s sons as becoming founders of the twelve tribes, something he did not promise to any of his other sons, was because Joseph had sustained the whole family during the years of famine. Further more, Joseph had been the firstborn of Rachel who had been his principal wife, as opposed to the respective firstborn sons of Zilpah and Bilhah. Another explanation: Yaakov felt that this was one way he could honour the memory of Rachel versus the concubines by increasing the heritage of the sons of Rachel. Reuven had already forfeited his original claim to extra rights of the firstborn, having been guilty of a major indiscretion.

לי הם THEY SHALL BE MINE — they shall be counted amongst my other sons, to receive a portion in the Land each for himself (i.e. each to have his own territory exactly as each of my other sons has).

עד בואי, before I arrived. We had been informed in 41,3 that two sons had been born to Joseph before the onset of the famine, i.e. before Yaakov came to Egypt.

Although the Land was divided according to the number of heads — as it is written, (Numbers 26:54) “To the more numerous thou shalt give a larger inheritance” — and each person had an equal share except those who were first-born sons (and these received a double share), yet only these of Joseph’s sons bore the name of “tribe” when it became a matter of casting lots for the partition of the land according to the number of the tribes (cf. Numbers 26:55), and of appointing princes to the various tribes and of assigning banners to each of them.

AND THE CHILDREN THAT WERE BORN TO YOU AFTER THEM. “If you beget any more children, they will not be numbered among my sons, but they will rather be included among the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh. Nor shall they have a name amongst the tribes as far as inheritance in the Land of Israel is concerned.” Now even though the Land of Israel was divided according to the number of persons, as it is written, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance,¹⁵Numbers 26:54. and each person received an equal share except for the first-born, who received a double share,¹⁶Deuteronomy 21:17. nevertheless only these sons were designated as “tribes.” This is the language of Rashi.
Now this is not correct, for if so,¹⁷If, as Rashi says, Joseph’s designation as firstborn meant only that Joseph’s two sons shall be counted as separate tribes, but not that they shall receive a double share in the Land, then it follows that, etc. then Jacob’s granting of the birthright to Joseph was just nominal, its only effect being that Joseph’s sons would be called “tribes,” whereas the verse states, in their inheritance.¹⁸At the end of the verse before us: And the children that were born to you after shall be counted to you; they shall be called after the name of their brethren ‘in their inheritance.’ This indicates that the two sons of Joseph were to be given the extra right of the firstborn in the matter of inheritance. In the Gemara,¹⁹Horayoth 6b. the Sages have said: “I have likened Ephraim and Menasheh to Reuben and Simeon with respect to the matter of inheritance, but not with respect to other matters,”²⁰As, for example, the case of a Sin-offering which is brought by the great Sanhedrin for an erroneous decision, followed by most of the tribes even though they did not constitute an actual majority of the entire population. In that case Ephraim and Menasheh are considered part of the tribe of Joseph. as is stated in Tractate Horayoth.¹⁹Horayoth 6b. Our Rabbis have mentioned in many places²¹Baba Bathra 123a. that Joseph was the first-born as far as inheritance was concerned, and that he received a double share in the Land, as is the rule of every first-born,¹⁶Deuteronomy 21:17. but not that his being first-born consisted merely of his sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi [Rashi] would have it.
From this we further learn that the Land was not divided among all the tribes of Israel according to their populations for if so, what was the significance of this primogeniture with respect to inheritance? If we would say it meant that each and every individual offspring of Joseph was given double that of each person of all other tribes, this is not mentioned at all in Scripture, and we do not find Jacob giving the birthright to Joseph except by what he said here, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me,,²²Verse 5 here. and based upon this, Scripture states, His [Reuben’s] birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel.²³I Chronicles 5:1. If so, then Ephraim and Menasheh were fully considered as two tribes, and it was this which constituted Joseph’s birthright, and the words of the Sages indeed corroborate this everywhere.
Thus the matter is not at all as the Rabbi²⁴Rashi. Rashi’s premise that the Land was divided according to population is disputed by Ramban. Since, according to Ramban, each tribe received an equal portion, he proceeds to differ with Rashi and says that Joseph received twice as much land as any other tribe since Ephraim and Menasheh were considered separate tribes. stated it. Instead, the Land of Israel was divided according to tribes. They made twelve equal parts of it, with Simeon, the least populous of the tribes, taking a share equal to that of Judah, the most populous of the tribes, and thus, Ephraim and Menasheh took exactly the same amount of land as Reuben and Simeon. This is the conclusion of the Gemara in the chapter, Yesh Nochalin.²⁵Baba Bathra 121b. Yesh Nochalin (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. Scripture also states, Ye shall divide the land for inheritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel, Joseph receiving two portions.²⁶Ezekiel 47:13. So too does Onkelos say,²⁷In translating the blessing bestowed upon Joseph by Jacob. Further, 49:22. “Two tribes shall come forth from his sons. They shall receive chulka ve’achsanta (portion and inheritance),” which means that they shall be equal to the other tribes with respect to inheritance received. Now chulka (portion) refers to the extra share of the first-born, and achsanta (inheritance) refers to ordinary inheritance. In the verse stating, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance,²⁸Numbers 26:54. This verse, which seems to indicate that the Land was divided according to population, as Rashi taught, is explained by Ramban as referring to the internal division within each tribe. Scripture refers to the paternal families mentioned there in the chapter.²⁹Ibid., Verses 8-50. Scripture is stating that the tribe divides its share of the land among the paternal families that left Egypt by giving a larger portion to a more populous family and a smaller portion to a less populous family, with the dead becoming heirs of the living, as is explained in the Sifre³⁰Sifre Pinchas 132. See also Ramban on Numbers 26:54. and is mentioned by Rashi in the Parshah of Pinchas.³¹Rashi, ibid. Thus the general principle with respect to Joseph was that he was the first-born as regards inheritance, and if, as mentioned in the Gemara,²⁵Baba Bathra 121b. Yesh Nochalin (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. the land was divided according to the number of tribes, they gave the children of Joseph portions equal to those of Reuben and Simeon.
And even if we were to say that the land was divided according to the number of persons, as is apparent from the verse,³²To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, etc. (Numbers 26:54.) then we would say that they gave them double portions commensurate with their numbers — an ordinary share as large as all the other people, and a second portion for the birthright. In that case, the meaning of Jacob’s words, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me,²²Verse 5 here. is that they should receive as many shares as twice their number of people. But that Joseph should be as the other tribes with respect to inheritance, with the birthright consisting of his two sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi³³Rashi. In his commentary to Numbers 26:54, Ramban further discusses this problem at great length. stated, this is impossible under any circumstance.

ומולדתך, your children or grandchildren who will be born or have been born after my arrival in Egypt (during the last 17 years). על שם אחיהם יקראו, they will have the same status as their brothers, i.e. they will not each be considered as the founding father of one of the tribes, but בתי אבות, heads of family groupings within the tribe they belong to (Menashe or Ephrayim). All the seventy souls included in the count of people descending to Egypt with Yaakov, whether his sons or his grandsons, became the heads of such family groups. And this was of relevance when the land of Israel was distributed by Joshua. The Talmud Baba Batra 118 discusses this in detail, basing itself on Numbers 26,21 mentioning such families as Peretz and Chetzron, etc., as well as the members of the family of Elon and Ard and Naamon mentioned in verses 40 and 53-55 respectively in that same chapter. What applied in those situations would also apply to children of Joseph born after Yaakov’s arrival in Egypt.

ומולדתך אשר הולדת אחריהם, your grandchildren, who are truly called מולדתך, seeing that this expression includes children and grandchildren,לך יהיו, they will be known as part of בית יוסף, the house of Joseph, bearing your name. And their blessing will be part of your blessing, not separate blessings.על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם, everyone of Menashe’s sons will also incorporate the name of his father Menashe, as will the sons of his brother, who will also incorporate the name of their father Ephrayim as part of their individual names. They were to inherit part of the land of Israel together with Yaakov’s other sons.

ומולדתך אשר הולדת אחריהם, "and any sons you beget after them, etc." This means that Joseph and his sons Menashe and Ephrayim would not be counted as three tribes but only as two. Accordingly, whenever the tribes are enumerated we do not find a tribe referred to as "the tribe of Joseph," but as the tribes Ephrayim and Menashe, respectively.

ומולדתך אשר הולדת, perhaps Joseph had sired other sons during the years that Yaakov had resided in Egypt even though the Torah did not see fit to mention this explicitly. The reason that Joseph did not bring them with him to his father’s bedside may have been that they were too young to travel.Even if you were to understand the word ומולדתך as does Onkelos, and other commentators, i.e. תוליד, as if Yaakov had meant: “whom you will sire,” we also do not find any mention of children born to Joseph after Menashe and Ephrayim.

אשר הולדת אחריהם, “whom you have sired after them;” according to the past tense used here, it is quite possible that Joseph had begotten more children after Menashe and Ephrayim. The reason why the Torah had not spelled this out is because they would inherit with their brothers, not separately. The fact that this is the likely explanation is supported by the fact that Yaakov continued at length with: “and now, your two sons who have been born before I came down to Egypt, etc.” This appears to support the theory that Joseph had indeed had other children, and that these were born to him after the famine had ceased. Alternately, the words אשר הולדת could be understood to mean אשר תוליד, “whom you will beget;” we have numerous examples of a past tense being used where we would have expected a future tense. The fact that we do not hear about other children does not prove that there were none. At any rate, Yaakov may have told Joseph what the status of such children would be in the event they would yet be born for him.

If you will have any more children they will not be counted... Since אשר seems to imply that he surely will have children, Rashi explains: “If you will have any more children.” This is because אשר can mean אם (if). Since we find that אם can mean אשר, as Rashi explained on 24:19, therefore אשר can mean אם.

ומולדך אשר הולדת אחריהם, “and any sons that you will beget after them, etc.” sons of Ephrayim and Menashe that will be born while you are alive, will be considered as yours, founders of tribal families. They will rank on a par with the sons of Yehudah and Asher.

Nevertheless, the only ones to be called Tribes are these... Each tribe’s inheritance was called by its own name: Reuven’s inheritance, Shimon’s inheritance, etc. Similarly, the inheritance of Menasheh and Ephraim will be called by their name: Menasheh’s inheritance and Ephraim’s inheritance, each with his own territory, like the other tribes. It will not be called Yoseif’s inheritance. And when Rashi said above: “They [the future children of Yoseif] will not have their own names as tribes,” it means that their inheritance will not be called by their name.

The fact that Jacob excluded mention of Joseph whenever the tribes would be mentioned or enumerated deserves our closer attention. Why would it bother Jacob that including Levi there would be 14 tribes if Joseph were to be mentioned separately? After all it appears from G'd's promise in 35,11 that Jacob was to produce two more tribes, not just one more tribe? Where do we have an indication that the name Joseph as a tribe would be eliminated or superseded? Besides, who told Jacob that the two additional children G'd promised him in 35,11 were to be the two sons of Joseph rather than two sons of another one of his children? Was it not more likely for Jacob to assume that the two additional children G'd had in mind were Peretz and Zerach, the children of the union of Yehudah and Tamar, truly superior children as we know from the fact that dynasties were descended from them?

על שם אחיהם, “their names will be subcategories of their fathers’ (who are part of the original twelve brothers) ancestral shares (when it comes to the distribution of the land of Israel)”. The formulation על, here, is similar to: Leviticus 25,31, על שדה הארץ יחשב, “they shall be classed as open country.” This is also reflected in what the Torah writes in 50,23: 'וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים וגו, “and Joseph lived to see the third generation, i.e. children and grandchildren of Ephrayim.” What the Torah tells us there is that although neither of them had been born in the land of Canaan, seeing they had been born during the lifetime of their father or grandfather who had been born in the Holy Land, they were included in the founding families, בתי אבות, of their respective tribes. Other such grandchildren were considered founding families of their respective tribes as they were born in the Holy Land. For instance: grandchildren of Asher, through Briyah. (46,17). According to the Talmud referred to earlier (Baba Batra, 123), it is not clear precisely according to which criteria the distribution of parcels of land during Joshua’s time proceeded.)

Perhaps Jacob thought G'd that must have referred to Joseph's children as He had already alluded to the role of Yehudah's children when He had told him that kings would be descended from him in the same verse i.e. ומלכים מחלציך יצאו. However, why do we have to assume that these words referred to the sons of Yehudah rather than that the גוי וקהל גוים themselves would be the kings? Besides, there was always the possibility that G'd had referred to the sons of another one of Jacob's sons.

The plain meaning of the prophecy in 35,11 that "nations and a community of nations" would emanate from Jacob surely must have been that they would emanate from Jacob directly, not from his sons. The Zohar section 1 item 180 claims that the נפש of Jacob and Joseph were closely intertwined and that we have proof of this in Psalms 77,16 where the sons of Jacob and Joseph are almost equated by the use of a conjunctive letter ו by the psalmist to show how close these two were to one another. Kabbalists describe that letter ו as מלוי הוי׳ו, i.e. that the מלוי is equivalent to the word itself. [In other words, Joseph equals Jacob because the psalmist joined his name to Jacob by means of this letter ו. Ed.] In this way Joseph became a "founding father" (patriarch) of tribes. Once we accept this, it was easy for Jacob to realise that of all his sons only his son Joseph was endowed with the ability to be a founding father of the tribes. When G'd had told Jacob that he would beget still more sons, this promise could therefore just as easily have been meant to apply to Joseph having these sons. As a result, Jacob had no reason at all to consider that prophecy as applicable to any of his other sons.

This is why Jacob was quite precise when he said: שני בניך…לי הם, "your two sons…are really mine, just as Reuben and Shimon are mine." He wanted Joseph to understand that he did not look at his sons as his grandsons but as his real sons. It followed that Joseph could no more be part of the tribes than Jacob himself could be part of the tribes.

'ואני בבאי מפדן וגו AND AS FOR ME, WHEN I CAME FROM PADAN etc. — “And although I trouble you to take me for burial into the land of Canaan and I did not do this for your mother (i.e., I did not take the trouble to bury her in a place other than that in which she died, which was by the road-side) which I might easily have done since she died quite close to Bethlehem”.

AND I BURIED HER THERE. In Rashi’s commentary it is written, “And I did not transport her for burial even to Bethlehem to bring her into the Land.”
Now I do not know the meaning thereof. Was Rachel buried outside of the Land? Forbid it! She died within the Land, and she was buried there, just as it says here in the parshah: Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan.³⁴In the verse before us. And there in the narrative of her death it is still more clearly written, And Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan — the same is Beth-el,³⁵Above, 35:6. and it is further stated, And they journeyed from Beth-el and there was still some way to come to Ephrath,³⁶Ibid., Verse 16. and Rachel died on the way between Beth-el and Bethlehem Ephratha in the Land of Israel.

ואני בבואי מפדן, on the same route after G’d had given me His blessing, מתה עלי רחל, while I was still on the same route, this is why I had to bury her there while on the way. There did not present itself an opportunity to bury her next to Leah in the cave of Machpelah. Yaakov elaborated on this now so that Joseph would not consider him as having been criminally negligent in not according his mother the kind of burial she was entitled to.

ואני, maybe you think that when G’d said to me: “I will make you into a community of nations,” that He meant that I myself would become the father of more sons but that I was denied those on account of some sin, this cannot be because

ואני בבאי מפדן מתה עלי רחל, "As for me, when I was coming from Padan Rachel died on me, etc." This verse seems to lack any connection to what preceded it. We do not even know what purpose this information is supposed to serve at this point. It is true that Rashi based on Midrash Lekach Tov explains that Jacob wanted to explain to Joseph why he had imposed upon him the difficult and tedious task of burying him in the land of Canaan while he himself had not buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah which was much closer to the site of her death than Egypt from Machpelah. If that had been the Torah's purpose in writing this then it should have appeared in conjunction with 47,30 rather than here. Besides, what did Jacob mean when he said עלי, "she died on me?"

ואני, this entire paragraph was inserted to describe Yaakov’s apology or justification to Joseph why he, who was so insistent on where he wanted to be buried and who was putting Joseph to so much trouble in this connection, had himself not acted in a similar manner when it came to burying Joseph’s mother, his own favourite wife, seeing that he had buried Leah in the cave of Machpelah. He explained that he had in no way been at fault, that it was not negligence on his part, but that fate had intervened, Rachel dying suddenly on route to the land of Canaan. The fact that he was moving extremely slowly at the time on account of all his livestock, something that the Torah had reported Yaakov as explaining already to Esau at the time, (33,13) made it impossible for him to carry Rachel’s body with him seeing he had no means to embalm it and keep it from decaying and becoming putrid until he would reach Chevron. Presumably, the season was summer when it is even harder to keep a body from decaying quickly. He therefore chose to bury her without delay, in the most dignified manner which the prevailing conditions had permitted.

ואקברה שם, “and I was forced to bury her there.” Nachmanides questioned what Rashi explains here, i.e. that Yaakov apologized to Joseph that he had not even been able to transport the remains of Rachel the short distance to Beyt Lechem so that she would be buried on holy soil. Nachmanides feels that the text does not only not support this, but supports the very reverse, that Rachel, though not buried in a cemetery, was indeed buried within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Why else would Yaakov have said that Rachel had died suddenly, “in the land of Canaan?” Yaakov’s apology concerned the fact that he had not buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah in Chevron, not that he had buried her outside the boundaries of the Holy Land. He emphasizes that although he had not been able to bury her in Machpelah, at least he had been able to bury her inside the Holy Land. He had not been able to abandon his entire family and carry the remains of Rachel all the way to the cave of Machpelah. He himself was likely to be buried outside of the Holy Land unless he could arrange before his death to have his remains transferred, as he was about to request from Joseph. If, at the time of Rachel’s death he would have moved his entire camp with him to the cave of Machpelah, a journey which takes a half a day for a single traveler would have consumed many days and would have been a great indignity for the remains of Rachel as he had no means to embalm her and to prevent her body from decomposing in the interval. Joseph had been fully aware of the circumstances of his mother’s death, as well as the fact that Yaakov could not have buried the remains of two sisters both of whom had been his wife, in the cave of Machpelah. The reason why he buried Leah in that cave was that he had, after all, married her first. Rachel died in “Ramah,” hence רמת רחל,” part of the territory of Binyamin after the distribution of the land by Joshua. Our sages who explain all this allegorically, say that Rachel had to die when she entered the Holy Land, in order that Yaakov not become guilty of being married to two sisters both of whom were alive, something that the Torah had forbidden. Yaakov received instructions from on high to bury Rachel where he did, so that her spirit, in due course, could petition G’d when her “children,” would be taken into captivity by the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan. Some commen-tators say that Yaakov explained to Joseph that the reason he had buried his mother on the way to Efrat was that this was within the tribal territory of one of her sons, whereas had she been buried in Machpelah, she would not have been interred in soil belonging to her offspring. Burying her in earth that would belong to the descendants of Leah would not have been something compatible with her dignity.

ואני בבואי מפדן, “as to my own situation, when I was on the way from Padan, etc.,” seeing that Yaakov was about to request from Joseph that he bury him in the cave of Machpelah he first had to apologise to him for not having brought Joseph’s mother Rachel to be buried there; this is why he said: “Rachel died on me on the journey in the land of Canaan.” He emphasised that Rachel too had been buried in the Holy Land and not outside its boundaries. The fact that she was not buried in the cave of Machpelah was due only to her sudden and unexpected death which did not afford Yaakov an opportunity to carry her all the way to Chevron seeing he had so many children and cattle with him. Had he buried her there she would have started to decompose on the journey to that cave which would have taken several days at least. According to our best estimates today such a journey should not have taken longer than half a day. This is why he emphasised that although she died “on the way,” she was not buried on the way, but on a hill, a distinctive place.

When the earth is riddled with holes like a sieve. Rashi explained כברת as a measure. Nevertheless, since Scripture chose to use the word כברת, both [explanations] are implied.

ואקברה שם, I had to bury her there as her body was in a physically detestable state as a result of just having given birth (which did not enable me to delay burying her without subjecting her body to indignities).

מתה עלי, es war ein Verhängnis, das über mich gekommen. כברת siehe Kap.35, 16. — Man pflegt die Äußerung, in welcher Jakob hier auf Rachels Tod und Begräbnis hinblickt, als Entschuldigung dafür zu erklären, dass er ein so bedeutendes Gewicht darauf legt, in Machpela begraben zu werden, und doch Josefs Mutter selbst nicht dort begraben hatte. Allein, wäre dies der Sinn, so hätten wir dies oben bei der früheren Unterredung erwarten sollen, wo Jakob sich eben das Versprechen hinsichtlich seines Begräbnisses geben ließ. In dem Zusammenhange, in welchem wir es hier erblicken, kann es nur in Beziehung zu der hier, hinsichtlich der Söhne Josefs, getroffenen Bestimmung stehen. In dieser Unterredung bis zu dem Momente, in welchem er V 8 seinen Enkeln die Stellung in der Zukunft seiner Nation segnend erteilt, wird Jakob nur als Jakob und nicht als Jisrael bezeichnet. Als Josef Raw Hirsch on Genesis 48: 2 zu ihm kam ויתהזק ישראל nahm sich Jakob zusammen, um Josef nicht nur als seinen Sohn, sondern in seiner Bedeutung für die nationale Zukunft anzuschauen, die an den Namen שראל׳ sich knüpft, und von diesem Standpunkt aus spricht er auch Raw Hirsch on Genesis 48: 8 seinen Segen über Josefs Söhne aus. Allein deren Begünstigung als Doppelstamm floss aus Jakobs individueller Beziehung, daher Raw Hirsch on Genesis 48: 3 ויאמר יעקב, und erst Raw Hirsch on Genesis 48: 8 wieder ירא ישראל. Es scheint nämlich diese Begünstigung der Söhne Josefs nicht aus nationalen Rücksichten, sondern aus individuell persönlichen Beziehungen erflossen zu sein, die Jakob als Jakob, als Mensch in seiner Individualität, berühren. In den letzten Tagen seines Lebens tritt ihm ganz besonders das Bild der Frau ins Gedächtnis, die er am innigsten geliebt, die das eigentliche Weib seiner Wahl gewesen, die ihn am frühesten verlassen und die ihrem ganzen Geschicke nach Gefahr lief, für die späteren Nationalerinnerungen in den Hintergrund zu treten. Wenn einmal die Söhne Israels in späteren Zeiten das Grab ihrer Stammeltern aufsuchen, werden sie Abraham und Sara, Jizchak und Rebekka, Jakob und Lea finden, aber Rahel, Josefs Mutter, war es nicht einmal im Tode vergönnt, ihren Platz in der gemeinsamen Ruhestätte der Stammeseltern zu erhalten. Und nur zwei Stämme — ganz gleich den früher Mägde gewesenen Müttern Bilha und Silpa — nennen sie ihre Mutter. So würde gerade das Weib seines Herzens, das er sich als die eigentliche Mutter seines künftigen Volkes gedacht, aus dem Herzen der Nation verschwinden. Daher war es Jakobs Herzensbedürfnis, Josef, Rahels Erstgeborenen, zum Erstgeborenen seines Stammvolkes zu erheben, ihm durch Bestimmung seiner Söhne zum Doppelstamm die nationale Erstgeburt zu erteilen und damit zugleich Rahels Gedächtnis wenigstens in einem Stamme mehr als Bilhas und Silpas fortleben zu lassen.

ואני בבואי מפדן ארם, “as far as I a am concerned, when I came from Padan Aram , etc.” (Yaakov, who insists on being buried in the cave of Machpelah, owes Joseph an explanation for why he did not bury Joseph’s mother Rachel there, when he was much closer).“Rachel died on me suddenly at a time when I did not yet possess undisputed entitlement to that burial ground, since your uncle Esau had not yet ceded it to me by leaving the Land of Canaan with his whole family, so that an attempt to do so would have involved me in a confrontation with Esau, and it would have been most unseemly for your mother remaining unburied at that time. When I buried my wife Leah in the cave of Machpelah, Esau had already vacated the land of Canaan.”

כברת ארץ is a measure of land equal to 2000 cubits which is the extent of a Sabbath day’s journey. This is according to the statement of R. Moses the Expositor. — “Do not imagine that it was the rains which prevented me from bringing her to Hebron for burial. It was the dry season when the ground is riddled and full of holes like a sieve (כברה).

בבואי מפדן, when I came away from Padan Aram, when G’d appeared to me,

ואקברה שם בדרך אפרת, “and I buried her there on the way to Efrat.” The words “I buried her there” would have sufficed. Why did he add the words: “on the way to Efrat?” We have already seen told that Rachel died only a tract of land away from Efrat, another name for Bethlehem. Yaakov hinted what our sages told us in Bereshit Rabbah 82,10 that Yaakov buried Rachel where he did as he foresaw that in the future Jews going into exile would pass her grave and she would offer prayers on their behalf. This is what the prophet (Jeremiah 31,15) referred to when he wrote: “Thus said the Lord: ‘a voice is heard in Ramah- wailing bitter weeping- Rachel weeping for her children.’” All of these details Yaakov revealed now so that Joseph would not become angry at what might appear an unreasonable request by his father who himself had not shown such concern about Joseph’s mother. This is what Nachmanides wrote on our verse.

Even to Beis Lechem in order to bring her to a [settled] land... You might ask: Does the verse not state clearly that she was buried in Eretz Yisrael? For it is written, “Rochel died unto me in the land of Canaan,” and Canaan is Eretz Yisrael. [If so, why does Rashi say that Yaakov did not bring her לארץ?] The answer is: Surely she was buried in Eretz Yisrael, but לארץ means “to an inhabited town,” as in ארץ נושבת (Shemos 16:35).

Actually, having told Joseph that G'd had told him that he would have more children himself, Jacob now explained to Joseph that it was his own fault that this did not happen as Rachel had died prematurely because of his negligence by delaying to honour the vow he had made after the dream of the ladder. This is the meaning of מתה עלי, "she died on my account." The words ואני בבאי refer to the promised additional children not being physical issue of Jacob but that Joseph's children were the incarnation of that promise. Vayikra Rabbah 37,1 tells us that if someone makes a vow and is tardy in keeping it he is punished by having to bury his wife. Jacob's saying ואני בבאי מפדן מתה עלי רחל is quoted as the source for this statement. Alternatively, Jacob may have referred to his rash curse of "anyone who has stolen Laban's teraphim shall not live" which he made without knowing that Rachel had been the thief. In either event, had Rachel remained alive Jacob himself would have sired the additional sons G'd had promised to him in 35,11.

AND I BURIED HER THERE. “Now I know that there is some resentment in your heart against me [for not having brought her into the city]. But you should know that I buried her there by the word of G-d, that she might help her children when Nebuzaradan³⁷Chief general of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who destroyed the city of Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and led the people into captivity (II Kings 25:8-21). would exile them,” for when they passed along that road, Rachel came forth from her grave and stood by her tomb beseeching mercy for them, as it is said, A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children,³⁸Jeremiah 31:15. and the Holy One, blessed by He, answered her, Thy work shall be rewarded … and the children shall return to their own border.³⁹Ibid., Verses 16-17. This is the language of Rashi.
Now in any case there should be some allusion in Scripture to this interpretation which is stated in this Agadah. Perhaps this is alluded to in the expression of the verse, She died by me … in the way … And I buried her in the way,⁴⁰The second baderech (in the way) is unnecessary except as an allusion to “the way” which Rachel’s children were destined to use when they went into captivity. (Bachya. See my Hebrew commentary on Ramban, p. 261.) that is to say, “She died on the road which her children would pass, and I buried her there for her advantage.” She did not die on the road, but in Ramah,⁴¹See Ramban, above, 35:16. a city in the land of Benjamin, and there she was buried. [Thus, according to the Midrash, Scripture is implying that] she died on the road which her children were destined to pass in the future, as Scripture does not fully explain future events but only alludes to them in a general manner.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is likewise understood that Jacob spoke to Joseph in an apologetic vein so that when he discerned his father’s wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, Joseph should not be angered about his failure to bury his mother there just as he buried Leah there. It was for this reason that Jacob told him that she died in the land of Canaan, and she was not buried outside of the Land in the manner in which an Egyptian burial would befall Jacob. Furthermore, she died on the road suddenly, and he could not bury her in the cave of Machpelah for how could he leave his children and his flocks on the road and hurry with her body to the cave of Machpelah? And where could he find doctors and medicines to embalm her? This is the meaning of the word alai (by me) [in the verse, Rachel died by me]. Even though the cave of Machpelah is but a half-day’s distance from the place of her death, Jacob was heavily laden with much cattle and family, and he would not arrive there for many days. Thus he did indeed spend many days on that road until he came to his father. Our Sages have further taught:⁴²Moed Katan 27a. “The bier of a woman may never be set down, out of respect.”
Now it is my opinion that these are but words of apology as Joseph already knew that Rachel died on the road and was buried in the Land, and that honor was paid to her when she died. But the reason Jacob did not transport Rachel to the cave of Machpelah was so that he should not bury two sisters there,⁴³For being married concurrently to two sisters was later prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:18). See also Ramban above, pp. 330-2. for he would be embarassed before his ancestors. Now Leah was the one he married first, and thus her marriage was permissible, while he married Rachel out of his love for her and because of the vow he made to her.⁴⁴Since he married her while already married to Leah, the wedding to Rachel would have been forbidden according to the Torah’s later prohibition. Hence her burial place could not be in the cave of Machpelah. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 262.

ואקברה שם, “I buried her there,” (where she had died) I knew that the piece of land where I buried her would in the future be still part of the ancestral heritage of Binyamin, and it would be fitting for her to have her last resting place in soil that would be part of her children’s heritage. We find an interesting verse in Samuel 10,2, where Samuel has just crowned the first Jewish King, Shaul, a descendant of Rachel from the tribe of Binyamin, and says to the newly crowned King: “when you leave me this day, you will meet two men near the tomb of Rachel in the territory of Binyamin, at a place called Zeltzah;” Yaakov, added that if he had buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah, which is in the territory of Yehudah, a son of Leah, this would not have been appropriate, seeing that she and Leah had been rivals during their lifetime. An alternate exegesis of this paragraph, quotes Yaakov as follows: “the reason that I have buried your mother where I did, at the time, was that seeing that she had died in childbirth and having to transport her any distance would most likely have resulted in her blood becoming putrid after having soiled her shroud. Seeing that I wanted to at least bury her in the holy soil of the land of Israel, I buried her where I did, just inside that land.”(Compare Rashi’s commentary on this verse, according to whom Rachel’s tomb was outside the Holy Land.)

ואקברה שם AND I BURIED HERE THERE and did not carry her even the short distance to Bethlehem to bring her into a city. I know that in your heart you feel some resentment against me. Know, however, that I buried her there by the command of God”. And the future proved that God had commanded him to do this in order that she might help her children when Nebuzaradan would take them into captivity. For when .they were passing along that road Rachel came forth from her grave and stood by her tomb weeping and beseeching mercy for them, as it is said, (Jeremiah 31:15) “A voice is heard in Rama, [the sound of weeping … Rachel weeping for her children]”, and the Holy One, blessed be He, replied to her (v. 16) “There is a reward for thy work, says the Lord etc. (v. 17) for thy children will return to their own border”. Onkelos translated it (כברת ארץ) by כרוב ארעא which is a full measure of one day’s ploughing. I am of opinion that they had a definite measure which they called “one full furrow”; old French cordié. So we say, (Bava Metzia 107a) “He ploughs (כריב) and ploughs again”, and (Yoma 43b) “as much earth as a fox carries on its feet from a ploughed field (בי כרבא).”

מתה עלי רחל, as the sages say (Sanhedrin 22) a woman’s death is felt first and foremost by her husband; [hence the justification for Yaakov saying עלי, “for me,” i.e. the loss was mine. Ed.]

I buried her there so that she may help her descendants... You might ask: Did Rashi not previously explain (30:15) that “because she made light of being with the tzaddik, she did not merit being buried with him”? The answer is: Although this caused her to not be buried with him in Me’aras Hamachpelah, the question remains: why did she not merit burial in a town, rather than in a field? Perforce, “So she might help her descendants...” But we cannot say that “help her descendants” was the sole reason, and not “she made light.” For if so, why was Rochel — out of all the matriarchs — not buried with Yaakov? Surely, it was also because “she made light.” Question: Why did Yaakov tell Yoseif only now that her burial on the road was according to the word of Hashem? [The answer is:] Yaakov did not want to reveal to him the future troubles [of Israel’s exile] until necessary. For if not now, when?

It is also possible that Jacob intended to placate Joseph for having been instrumental in hastening his mother's death. He told him that the reason he considered Joseph's two sons as if they were equal to Reuben and Shimon was in expiation for having caused Rachel's death at the time. He added that although he buried Rachel בעוד כברת ארץ, "a tract of land away, (and had not buried her in the cave of Machpelah)," he asked Joseph to go to the trouble of burying him there.

בדרך בעוד כברת ארץ לבא אפרתה, immediately after G’d finished speaking to me before I had even arrived at Beyt Lechem, ואקברה שם בדרך אפרת, and I had to bury her there on the route to Efrat; I was so overcome by grief at the time that I did not even have the strength to transport her remains to the burial grounds in Beyt Lechem. There is no doubt that ever since her death my heart was so full of grief that my libido had completely ceased to be active and I would not have been able to sire more children and to thereby become dirtied by sin, even if I had felt the desire to do so. [The author describes the act of procreation as “sinful,” meaning that even among the most pious, the act of ejaculating is itself accompanied by some impure thought, a degree of physical gratification. Ed.].

As is mentioned: “He plows repeatedly.” This means to plow and then repeat it.

וירא ישראל את בני יוסף AND ISRAEL SAW JOSEPH’S SONS — he wished to bless them but the Divine Presence departed from him because he saw that from Ephraim would be born the wicked kings Jeroboam and Ahab, and from Manasseh Jehu and his sous (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).

וירא ישראל, even though we have been told that Yaakov could not see well due to his age (verse 10), it is possible for people whose eyesight has become dimmed to recognise the silhouette of a person without being able to distinguish his facial features sufficiently to identify them. When G’d told Moses that it was impossible for man to “see” Him (Exodus 33,20), He did not mean that man is unable to see any aspect of G’d. This is why the prophet Michyahu could claim to have “seen” G’d (Kings I 22,19) without this being a contradiction to what is written in Exodus 33,20. [thus invalidating King Menashe ordering the execution of the prophet Isaiah for being a false prophet based on his saying that he had “seen” (Isaiah 6,1) G’d. Ed.]

וירא ישראל את בני יוסף, he recognised them as human beings, but did not recognise them for who they were.

וירא ישראל את בני יוסף, Israel saw the sons of Joseph, etc. It is difficult to understand how Jacob failed to recognise grand-sons whom he had tutored for the last 17 years on a regular and frequent basis. Tanchuma on our portion explains that Jacob saw with his mental eye that in the future some evil people would come out of Menashe. This is homiletics, of course. We need to be able to explain the plain meaning of the verse also, and this is why the Torah reveals here that Jacob's eyesight had begun to fail him so that he could not see clearly and recognise people. Hence, although Jacob was aware that in addition to Joseph with whom he was speaking two other human beings were standing in front of him, he had recognised Joseph because he had been told in verse 2 that Joseph had come to visit him. He did not recognise Joseph's sons, however, and this is why he asked who they were.

וירא, he saw them from a distance and was unable to make out who they were due to his failing eyesight. This is why, even when they were already quite close to him, he had to ask: “who are these lads?”

ויאמר מי אלה, He said: “who are these?” According to the plain meaning of the text, Yaakov’s eyesight was failing to the extent that he no longer recognised his grandchildren, especially those who did not live in Goshen.

וירא ישראל את בני יוסף “Yisrael saw the sons of Joseph, etc.” The word “he saw” in this verse is to be understood as a vision; he did not see them physically. We have already been told כי לא יכול לראות, “for he was unable to see.” (verse 10)
מי אלה, “who are these? How can they qualify for a blessing?” He foresaw at that moment that Jerobam, a future descendant of Ephrayim, would erect two golden calves of whom it was said: “these are your gods O Israel” (Exodus 32,8). He also foresaw that Yehu and his sons would be descendants of Menashe. To this question Joseph replied:
בני הם אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, “they are my sons whom G’d has given me here.” Joseph mentioned the name of the Lord who had performed miracles for him and had raised him to the position of king so that he had been given this woman as a wife by Pharaoh. This wife had born these children for him. Targum Yonatan explains the word בזה to mean that he showed his father his marriage certificate, כתובה.

He attempted to bless them, but the Divine Presence departed from him... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ‘Who are these?” Did Yaakov not recognize that they were Menasheh and Ephraim? Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: [How can it say,] “Yisrael saw”? It is written right afterward (v. 10), “Yisrael’s eyes were heavy ... he could not see.” Thus Rashi explains, “He attempted to bless them but the Divine Presence departed from him...” Accordingly, “Yaakov saw” means he saw through ruach hakodesh, as [Rashi explained on], “Yaakov saw that food was being sold in Egypt” (42:1).

ויאמר, ״מי אלה?״, he said: “who are these?” According to the plain meaning of the text, Yaakov’s eyesight had been dimmed so that he could not recognise their facial features; This is why the Torah added that his failing eyesight was due to old age, (verse 10) If you were to counter that the Torah had described Yaakov just before as “seeing the sons of Joseph,” (verse 8) this was not sufficient to be able to identify them individually. He had no trouble indentifying Joseph as he recognised him by his voice.

ויאמר מי אלה AND HE SAID “WHO ARE THESE?” — Whence come these who are unfitted for blessing?

It is also possible that Jacob wanted to arouse feelings of love in the heart of the children's father before he commenced to bless them. In such circumstances the effectiveness of the blessing is enhanced. By asking מי אלה, Jacob was sure he would elicit the response of a proud father, someone who loved his children.

בָּזֶה IN THIS PLACE (literally, by this, or by means of this) — He showed him the contract of betrothal and the contract of marriage (evidence that their mother had adopted the faith of Israel, and that his and her offspring were of their faith) and Joseph prayed to God about the matter and the Holy Spirit again rested upon him (Jacob) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).

WHOM G-D HATH GIVEN ME HERE. It was really not necessary for Joseph to inform his father that his two sons were born to him in Egypt since when Joseph left him he had no wife and children, and Jacob himself had previously said to him, Thy two sons, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt.⁴⁵Verse 5 here. Why then was it necessary for Joseph to tell his father, They are my sons, whom G-d hath given me here? It appears to me that the meaning of the word bazeh (here) is “in this matter concerning which you have spoken,” i.e., “G-d gave them to me before you came to Egypt to me, and they are the ones concerning whom you have said that they are yours.”⁴⁶See Verse 5 here. A similar use of the word bazeh is found in the verse, In this way (‘u’bazeh’) the maiden came to the king.⁴⁷Esther 2:13. Meaning that she came in this manner specified above. (Ibid., Verse 12). Now Joseph said, G-d hath given me, meaning that “G-d had performed miracles for me until the king gave me this wife, and I have these children from her.”

בזה; in this kingdom.

בני הם אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה. My sons, but not my grandsons. These are the sons G’d granted me while I was here, alone, without any member of my family. as you said when you spoke about “those whom you had before I came to Egypt.” They are the ones of whom you said: “לי הם,” “they are mine.”

אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, "whom G'd has granted me here." Righteous people do not let an opportunity go by without acknowledging that anything they have received was a gift of G'd. We find an example of Jacob having done the same in Genesis 33,5.

בזה. As if the Torah had written במקום הזה, “in this place.” The brief בזה, also appears in the same sense already in 38,21 לא היתה בזה קדשה, “no harlot has been in this place, the word for “place,” מקום, being omitted.

בני אשר נתן לי אלוקים בדה, “they are my sons whom the Lord gave me here.” There had been no need for Joseph to tell his father that these children had been born in Egypt, for Yaakov was not only aware of this but had already referred to them in verse 5 as the two sons who had been born for him in Egypt. The whole point Joseph was making was that these were the sons who had been given to him by G’d even before his father had come to Egypt. Yaakov had said that he considered them as his own sons, (not only as his grandchildren)

He showed him his betrothal and marriage contracts... Question: Why did Yoseif show him the betrothal contract, and then pray? Why not the other way around? The answer is: At first he thought Yaakov did not want to bless them because they were born out of wedlock and were illegitimate children. So he showed him the contract, [proving] they were legitimate children. When he saw that Yaakov still did not bless them, he figured that surely ruach hakodesh must have left him, and he prayed for compassion. (Maharshal)

קחם נא אלי: wenn dasjenige, was wir jemandem bringen, durch diese Hingabe für uns selbst eine neue Weihe erhält, drückt sich dieser Gedanke durch לקח אל־ aus, wie ויקחו לי תרומה. Indem du sie mir bringst, gewinnst du deine Söhne doppelt. Es liegt darin die ganze Innigkeit des Gefühls, das ein Sohn empfinden muss, der das Glück hat, seine Kinder seinem alten Vater zum Segnen hinzubringen. Mit Raw Hirsch on Genesis 48: 8 tritt der Name Jisrael ein. Es ist der Stammvater des künftigen Volkes, der vom Gottesgeiste gehoben, die Enkel für ihre Stellung in der nationalen Zukunft seines Volkes segnet.

אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, “whom G-d has given me in this land.” They were born to me before you came down to Egypt so that you should include them in the list of the twelve tribes. This is why Yaakov responded by telling Joseph that as far as he was concerned Joseph’s sons Ephrayim and Menashe would be just like Reuven and Shimon for him (Verse 5). Joseph explains that this is why he brought them with him.

ויאמר קחם נא אלי ואברכם AND HE SAID, BRING THEM, I PRAY THEE, UNTO ME, AND I WILL BLESS THEM — It is to this that the text alludes, (Hosea 11:3) “And I, I הרגלתי לאפרים taking them (קחם) upon his arms”, meaning, I made My Spirit once again a familiar thing (הרגלתי) in Jacob for Ephraim’s sake until he took them (him and Manasseh) upon his arms (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).

The reason Joseph added the words בזה, "in this place," was that he was grateful that even while he was in exile G'd had shown him favour. Moreover, we have learned in Sotah 36 that Joseph had been meant to beget twelve tribes but that the fact that he almost succumbed to the temptation of sleeping with the wife of Potiphar resulted in his begetting only two of the twelve tribes. The word ב־זה is an allusion to this. The letter =2ב, whereas the numerical value of the word זה is 12. The word therefore alerts us to the tradition that he had only two children instead of twelve. Joseph added the word אלוקים, which describes G'd as the judge of our actions. Joseph acknowledged the fairness of G'd's decision by ascribing the number of children he had been granted to אלוקים.

לא יוכל לראות, he could not see clearly. In order for a blessing to take hold it is necessary for the one bestowing the blessing to see the party whom he blesses at the time the blessing is pronounced. [the same is true of a curse, this is why Balak took Bileam to a vantage point from which he could see the people of Israel whom he had been hired to curse, clearly. (Numbers 23,13). G’d also took Moses to a point from which he could see the land of Israel clearly so that he could bless the land. Something similar occurred in Kings II 2,24 where Elisha turned around to face the lads mocking his baldness before he cursed them.

ועיני ישראל כבדו מזקן, Israel's eyes were heavy with old age, etc. Why did the Torah choose this point to inform us of Jacob's failing eyesight? What does it have to do with his proceeding to embrace and kiss Joseph's children? Besides, why did the Torah have to describe these kisses as להם instead of אותם? Perhaps one of these details will help us understand the other detail. Jacob embraced the children in the wrong places and kissed them in the wrong places due to his failing eyesight. If that were true the expression להם instead of אותם is quite understandable.

ויגש אותם אליו, not in this order.

וישק להם ויחבק להם, “he kissed and embraced them.” Man is not blessed with the presence of the Divine (spirit) unless he is in a state of joy, happiness. This is why being kissed and embraced by his father enabled the blessing to take hold on Joseph and his sons.

וישק להם ויחבק להם, the physical contact was designed to make Yaakov more attached to them so that his blessing would be correspondingly more effective.

לא פללתי I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED — I had never dared to cherish the thought that I would again see your face. פללתי is an expression for thinking, like the noun in (Isaiah 16:3) “Give counsel, carry out the thought (פלילה)”.

ראה, as if the Torah had written ראות. We find a similar construction in Genesis 50,20 where the words עשה כיום הזה mean the same as if the Torah had written עשות כיום הזה.

גם את זרעך, the ones to whom the description קהל עמים applied. (verse 4) Yaakov continued (perhaps not audibly); this is when He said to me that He blessed me, i.e. Yaakov had repeated this blessing by G’d in his conversation to Joseph without being that specific. [I had to paraphrase this to make the author intelligible. Ed.] As a result of that blessing which I received, my blessing to you now will be effective, so that by blessing his sons he also blessed Joseph at the same time.

לא פללתי, related to the word ונתן בפלילים (Exodus 21,22) meaning here “I have not judged the situation and responsibility by myself but have left it to independent judges who are without prejudice.” As far as Joseph’s fate was concerned, Yaakov said that he had not arrived at definitive conclusions but had not dared hope that he would ever see him again. Some commentators relate the word פללתי to the word תפלה, prayer, in which case Yaakov was saying to Joseph that he had not prayed to G’d concerning being reunited with Joseph in this life as he had considered it a forbidden, vain prayer, i.e. uttering the Lord’s name in vain, seeing that all the evidence he had at his disposal indicated that Joseph was already dead. (compare Midrash Lekach Tov on this paragraph)

Yoseif brought them out. He moved his children aside so that he could bow to his father directly. He prostrated himself. To thank him for making his sons into distinct tribes.

לא פללתי, “I had not dared to expect.” I had not even entertained such a thought in my heart. The word is derived from פלילים, criminal judgments.

I did not dare have any thought... Rashi is answering the question: Yaakov thought that “Yoseif has been torn to pieces” (37:33). If so, why would he think he would see him? Thus Rashi explains, “I did not dare have any thought.” In other words, it never occurred to me to think differently, that perhaps you were not torn up and I will see you alive.

פלל ,פללתי verwandt mit בלל, etwas von außen in einen Stoff bringen und diesen damit ganz zu einer einheitlichen Masse durchdringen lassen, (unterschieden von ערב: mengen, mischen). Was בלל konkret ist, das bedeutet פלל geistig: ein geistiges Element, einen Gedanken, eine Wahrheit, ein Prinzip etc. in einen Kreis von Gedanken oder Verhältnissen bringen, und diese durch dies hineingetragene Element durchdringend verbinden und einen. Daher פלל das Geschäft des Richters, der das Prinzip des Rechts und des Gesetzes in alle Verhältnisse durchgreifend bringt und dadurch die Vielheit zu einer Einheit gestaltet. Daher dieser ja auch אלהים genannt, von אלה: diese, ein Begriff, der immer die Subsumierung einer Vielheit unter eine Einheit voraussetzt. התפלל: sich mit göttlichen Gedanken durchdringen. Jüdisches Beten ist nicht von innen heraus, sondern von außen herein. Gebe es nur ein Beten von innen heraus, d. h. ein Hinauslegen bereits im Innern vorhandener Gedanken, so wären "vorgeschriebene" Gebete, noch dazu zu einer bestimmten Zeit, von einer unbegrenzten Mehrheit zu betende Gebete purer Wahnsinn. Denn sie setzen voraus, dass auf Kommando in einem bestimmten Augenblick bei einer beliebigen Vielheit von Menschen gewisse Gedanken und Empfindungen vorhanden und des Ausdruckes bedürftig seien. So nicht. התפלל heißt: ewig geltend bleibende Wahrheiten immer wieder aufs neue mit ihnen durchdringen, eben weil sie sonst sich abschwächen, entschwinden, ja schon entschwunden sein können. Hier: ראה פניך לא פללתי: der Gedanke, dich noch einmal wiederzusehen, lag mir so fern von jeder Möglichkeit der Realisierung, dass ich ihm in mein Inneres keinen Eingang verschaffen konnte.

לא פללתי, an expression describing prayer as a request from G-d. We find this word in this sense also in Psalms 106,30, where it quotes Pinchas as having prayed. Yaakov says that he had not even prayed to see Joseph again, as it would have been inappropriate seeing that he thought he had seen evidence that Joseph had been the victim of a wild beast. (Genesis 37,33) An alternate explanation: whenever this word occurs it refers to making a judgment, i.e. arriving at a definitive conclusion. Yaakov would have been saying that he had never even entertained real hope to see Joseph again. (Rash’bam)

לא פיללתי, I never “judged,” in my heart. The word פילול whenever it occurs describes judgment. One example is Psalms 106,30) describing Pinchas’ state of mind before he slew Zimri as ויפלל , describing the manner in which avenged G’d’s honour which had been defiled by Zimri. (Numbers 25,7) Judgment, דין, and נקמה, retribution, avenging, are two words describing opposite sides of the same coin.

ויוצא יוסף אתם AND JOSEPH BROUGHT THEM OUT — After he (Jacob) had kissed them, Joseph brought them out from between his knees in order to place them one at the right and the other on the left in order that Jacob might thus lay his hands upon them and bless them

מעם ברכיו, of his father, who was embracing them.

ויוצא, after he had kissed and embraced them before he had blessed them, Joseph took them away from Yaakov’s knees. The reason was that he had not brought them to his father in the order in which he meant for them to receive their blessing. He therefore now arranged them in what he considered the appropriate order. וישתחו, he thanked his father for wanting to bestow special blessings on his sons.

When he stepped back from his father. It seems to me that Rashi here may be understood according to what he explained on 42:6, that “Every השתחואה implies the stretching out of the hands and feet.” Accordingly, while Yoseif was still standing before his father he could not stretch himself out. Perforce, it was “when he stepped back.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

Das Gefühl, das den Vater bei diesem Gedanken erfüllte, bemeisterte in noch höherem Grade den Sohn.

ויוצא יוסף אותם מעם ברכיו, “and Joseph brought them out from between his knees.” He did so as they had cleaved to their grandfather physically and had kissed him and embraced him. Joseph now wished them to assume a dignified posture to enable Yaakov to place his hands on their heads. Each one should receive his blessing while Yaakov had one hand on the head of each one of them.

וישתחו לאפיו AND HE PROSTRATED HIMSELF BEFORE HIS FACE — after he had stepped backwards from before his father.

מעם ברכיו, from between his knees. The word מעם occurs in this sense in connection with a table in Samuel I 20,34, מעם השלחן, it also occurs in a similar meaning in the phrase עם באר לחי רואי, (Genesis 25,11) “right by the well named by Hagar ‘the well of the Living G”d Who sees me.’”

את אפרים בימינו משמאל ישראל EPHRAIM ON HIS RIGHT HAND TOWARDS ISRAEL’S LEFT — If one is moving towards another person his right hand is opposite the other’s left. Now since he (Manasseh) was the first-born he was marked out for the blessing and should have been placed at Jacob’s right hand.

את אפרים בימינו, in order to place him on Israel’s left side, (seeing he was the younger).

בימינו, on Joseph’s right, which was the left side of Yaakov (Yisrael)

ויקח יוסף, “Joseph had already taken.” [Contrary to the past tense mode with the vav hahippuch . Ed] This verse ought to be understood as following verse 9.

כי מנשה הבכור, “although Menashe was the first-born.” Yaakov ignored this biological phenomenon as the younger of Joseph’s sons displayed signs of spiritual superiority. The use of the word כי in the sense of “although” is not unique. We find it being used in the same sense in Psalms 41,5 רפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך, “heal me although I have sinned against You.” Another example of the use of the word כי in the sense of ”although” is found in our daily prayer: “forgive us our Father although we have sinned.” It would certainly not be logical to translate the words סלח לנו אבינו כי חטאנו, “forgive us our Father for we have sinned.”

שכל את ידיו PLACING HIS HANDS DESIGNEDLY — Understand this as the Targum renders it: אחכמינון he put wisdom into them (viz., into his hands), meaning designedly and wisely he moved his hands for this purpose, intelligently and with full knowledge, for he knew that Manasseh was the first-born and yet he did not place his right hand upon him.

שכל את ידיו, as if the Torah had written שכל, both the letters ש and כ with the vowels kametz, resulting in sachal, meaning something distorted, bent out of shape.

שיכל את ידיא, he was quite clear, relying on his sense of touch, without being able to see exactly where his hands came to rest.

שכל את ידיו כי כי מנשה הבכור, he placed his hands deliberately, keeping in mind that Menashe was the firstborn. Many feel that the word כי may best be understood as "although."

שכל את ידיו, he conferred intelligence to his hands, so that they appeared to act intelligently on their own, seeing that Menashe was the firstborn and Yaakov saw with prophetic vision that he would be the “smaller one,” in the sense that his future would reflect less blessing than the future of his younger brother. Had he placed his right hand on Menashe, what intelligence would this have demon-strated? [the author surely means that the Torah does not have to speak about an act of special intelligence being required to put one’s right hand on the older of the two sons. Ed.]

For he well knew that Menasheh was the firstborn and, nevertheless... Rashi is answering the question: The word כי in Scripture usually comes to explain what preceded. But according to Onkelos, who explains שִׂכֵל as “wisdom,” how does [“Menasheh was the firstborn”] explain [what preceded]? Thus Rashi explains [that here, כי does not explain what preceded. It rather means:] “And, nevertheless.” In other words, [כי means:] even though he knew that Menasheh was the firstborn. And this was the wisdom, as it says, “I know my son, I know” (v. 19). Maharshal writes: Many explain that [according to Rashi, this] כי means “even though.” But it seems not so. Rather, this is how the verse flows. It says, “He deliberately placed his hands,” and then explains why he did this instead of telling Yoseif to rearrange them with Ephraim to his right and Menasheh to his left. [The explanation is:] “Because Menasheh was the firstborn.” In other words, since Menasheh was the firstborn he did not want to embarrass him.

שכל את ידיו, he crisscrossed his hands [so that the right hand was pointed to the left and the left to the right].

שכל את ידיו, seeing that Joseph had lined them up with Menashe on Yaakov’s right side, he was forced to cross his hand in order to give Ephrayim his blessing with his right hand. Although Menashe was Joseph’s firstborn son, Yaakov wished to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim. We encounter a similar situation in the Book of Daniel,9,9 [where the author recalls G–d’s merciful attitude of forgiving before even having mentioned why that forgiveness was required. Ed.]

וישת על ראש אפרים, “he placed it (his right hand) on the head of Ephrayim.” He did so with the intent of including them in the 12 tribes. We find a similar expression when Moses placed his hands on Joshua appointing him as his successor (Numbers 27,23).

כי מנשה הבכור, and Yaakov was well aware even without being able to recognise the sons’ features, that Joseph would position his firstborn son on his father’s right side. Seeing that he wanted to place his right hand on the younger son, Ephrayim, he had to cross his hands to accomplish this.

He guided his hands for Menashe was the firstborn. It is extra for we known from the parsha that Menashe was the firstborn. But this has depth and intension for truthfully, Yaakov shouldn't have guided (crossed) his hands, rather switched the positions of the boys. But since Menashe was the firstborn, he intended that Menashe should stand by Yaakov's right leg and Efrayim by his left leg. Only his hands did he guide that they should be crossed. The reason is that even though Yaakov put Efrayim before Menashe and therefore in the wilderness he was the head of his flag group (which Menashe was also a part of) still, in the counting of Parshas Pinchas, it was the opposite. Not only that, but even in the counting of Parshas Bamidbar it is written by all the (other) flags "and those that camp upon him" as opposed to with Menashe it is written, "and upon him the tribe of Menashe." All this comes to teach us that Efrayim only came before Menashe in matters of spirituality, that which is higher than the natural happenings of the world. In matters of the world, however, Menashe came before Efrayim. Therefore in the first counting at Mt. Chorev, where the Divine precence was upon their heads and the conduct was beyond nature, Efrayim came first. But in the counting in the Plains of Moav, when they were entering the Land, which was basically in a natural way (as is explained later in Bamidbar and Devarim) therefore Menashe came first. (And check out what I write in Bamidbar regarding the change of "and upon him the tribe of Menashe." The occurred because with regards to natural occurrences, the advantage of the firstborn is very impactful as I wrote earlier (27:19). Now, the hand services the head and the mind and the foot services the goings of the body according to its nature. That's why the Sages said in their way: The son is the foot of the father. Meaning: the natural mannerisms of the father that goes on its own without thought and wisdom. Therefore, Jacob desired that Menashe stand by his right leg and guided his hands so that Efrayim would be on his right hand. See more in Verse 20. That is why the verse specified "because Menashe was the firstborn."

I think that we have to understand the verse in conjunction with the previous statement that Jacob's eyesight was failing. As a result he could not recognise which of the two grandchildren was the older one. When it came to the blessing he used his wits to compensate for his eyesight and reasoned that surely Joseph had placed the sons in such a position that the elder one would be blessed by his right hand and the younger one by his placing his left hand on him. He reversed his hands because he wanted to place his right hand on the head of the younger son Ephrayim.

שכל את ידיו, “Yaakov placed his hands by using his intelligence, i.e. sechel. One could have thought that instead of crossing his hands, Yaakov should have asked that the sons of Joseph switch their position in front of their grandfather, but that is precisely what Yaakov did not want them to do. He did not want to embarrass Menashe by relegating him to his left side, seeing that after all he was Joseph’s firstborn, and he deserved to be treated with respect on account of this. The only reason he had not placed his right hand on the head of Menashe, was that he had seen through his holy spirit that his younger brother would historically be of greater importance than the first born. It occurs frequently that the word “כי,” means “although;” for instance: Psalms 41,5: כי חטאתי לך, “although I have sinned against You.” Or, Psalms 25,11: כי רב הוא, “although it is great.” Or, Exodus 13,17: כי קרוב הוא, “although it is nearby.” The author states that he could have quoted many more examples.

AND HE BLESSED JOSEPH, AND SAID. The meaning of this verse⁴⁸The verse begins by stating that Jacob blessed Joseph, and the blessing that follows refers only to his sons. Ramban is attempting to resolve this difficulty. is that in order to bless Joseph, out of his love for him, he blessed his sons. Scripture is relating that Joseph had no other children and his entire blessing was inherent in the blessing of these boys. It may be that [the blessing here was directed at Joseph himself, stating that] the other children who will be born to him in the future⁴⁹Verse 6 here. shall be called by the name of their brothers and be blessed with their blessing.
In my opinion this latter interpretation is correct since the prophet Jacob said, And the children that were born (‘holad’to’)⁵⁰Holad’to is in the past tense and means “were born to you.” Ramban will explain that Jacob’s words are to be understood as if they were in the future tense: “And the children that will be born to you after them shall be thine.” Joseph thus had other children besides Ephraim and Menasheh, whom Scripture does not record, as they were counted among the tribes of his first sons. after them, shall be thine, and his word would not be in vain.⁵¹As it would be if we interpret the verse literally as referring to the past for Joseph did not as yet have any children other than Ephraim and Menasheh. However, Joseph did beget children after that, just as is the opinion of Onkelos, who translated: “And the children that you will beget after them.” And thus, asher holad’to is a past tense replacing a future, just as in the verse, Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite,⁵²Verse 22 here. Here again, lakachti (I took) is to be understood as if it were in the future tense. and many additional verses besides. Even in line with the literal interpretation of Scripture it would appear that Joseph had children that he had begotten after his father came to him in Egypt. This is obvious from the fact that Jacob found it necessary to elaborate rather than say, “And now thy sons, Ephraim and Menasheh, who were born to thee, shall be mine as Reuben and Simeon, and the children that will be born shall be thine.” This is the reason why Scripture states, And unto Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came,⁵³Above, 41:50. since after the famine additional children were born to him, but Scripture does not mention them as there is no need for us to know of them [since they were absorbed into the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh].

ויברך את יוסף, blessings bestowed on one’s children are a blessing bestowed on the father.

He blessed Yoseif. Scripture does not relate the contents of this blessing.

ויברך את יוסף, He blessed Joseph. We do not find a blessing addressed to Joseph here. Nachmanides says that by blessing Joseph's sons Jacob actually blessed Joseph. This does not really appeal to me as it does not explain why Jacob did not say some words which would apply to Joseph individually. I believe that the very word ויברך was Jacob's way of telling Joseph that he would remain blessed henceforth.

ויברך את יוסף, anyone blessing his sons, automatically was conferring a blessing on him also.

ויברך את יוסף, “He blessed Joseph.” Although, literally speaking, as we can see, he blessed Joseph’s sons, when the sons are blessed this is a great blessing for their father. Seeing that Joseph had only these two sons, Yaakov invested all his blessings in these two sons, thereby blessing all of Joseph. Even if Joseph were to have more children in the future, their blessings would be derived through the blessing now given to Ephrayim and Menashe.

Er segnete Josef, indem er dessen Kinder segnete. Ist ja des Vaters höchster Segen der Segen, der seinen Kindern wird. — התהלך kommt nur von Gott und Menschen vor und bezeichnet ein Sich-selbst-führen, somit einen Wandel aus freier sittlicher Energie, oder bildlich von Elementen, die im Dienste Gottes als Boten wandeln, so von Blitzen. Er spricht diesen sittlich freien Wandel vor Gott bescheiden nur von seinen Eltern aus. Aber auch er hatte Gott kennen gelernt, Er war ihm der Hirte, der ihn geleitet und geführt, geweidet und erhalten von dem Anfang seines Daseins bis auf diesen Tag.

ויברך את יוסף, “he blessed Joseph.” A blessing given to the sons is automatically also a blessing for their father. (Rash’bam)

THE G-D, BEFORE WHOM MY FATHERS, ABRAHAM AND ISAAC, DID WALK, THE G-D WHO HATH BEEN MY SHEPHERD ALL MY LIFE LONG UNTO THIS DAY. The prophet⁵⁴Jacob. Ramban is here explaining the double use of Elokim (G-d) in this blessing: The G-d before Whom … the G-d who hath been my shepherd. calls upon the G-d of his fathers Who [has] the greatness and the power and Who did great and tremendous things for them, and [after that he refers to Him in a synonymous way and] he calls upon the true G-d, Who had been his shepherd all his life.
It is possible that the word haro’eh (shepherd) — in the phrase, Who hath been my shepherd — is derived from the word rei’ah (friend), as in the verse, Thine own friend (‘rei’acha’), and thy father’s friend, forsake not,⁵⁵Proverbs 27:10. for in that attribute there is peace and friendship. Do not find difficulty with the expression, all my life unto this day, in connection with that which we have written on the verse, And he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his father Isaac,⁵⁶Above, 46:1. The difficulty is that the verse here indicates that the attribute of peace was forever directing Jacob’s life, while in the verse above (46:1) Ramban explained that this attribute did not come into his life until that time. (Tziyoni. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 263.) for from his very inception He did indeed lead him in the true path, but His attribute of truth was not brought to bear upon him completely until he returned to the land of his ancestors as he was outside of the Land, and also because he was constrained to conduct himself in a crafty manner towards Laban, and that was not the path of truth.

And said. After he blessed Yoseif.

אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו, I have already explained on Genesis 17,1 that this wording includes serving G’d in one’s heart as well as with deeds. The root of all religious service is in the heart. [when it is only the from the lips outward it is a sham. Ed.] We must not understand Yaakov as claiming credit for himself or boasting, that he himself had served G’d, although it is a fact that he had served the Lord; he meant to give credit to his fathers, suggesting that if G’d had been at his side this had been largely due to the merits of both his father and grandfather. המלאך, having first spoken about G’d having assisted him, and creating the impression that G’d, personally, had done so, he now mentions the intermediary always used by G’d to do His work. We know from Psalms 34,8 חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם, “G’d’s angel camps around those who fear Him and He rescues them,” that His agents called מלאכים are close at hand whenever the righteous are in danger. This is why Yaakov at this time referred to המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע, the one sent by G’d to rescue him, protect him, and bless him, יברך את הנערים will function similarly and protect Joseph’s sons. We know that such angels had been in evidence protecting Yaakov first from Lavan, then from Esau, and again when the Emorites launched an attack after Yaakov’s sons had killed the males of Shechem and looted the town.

The wording may also be explained in terms of Bereshit Rabbah 39,11 that Abraham received the keys to blessings. Isaac received those keys after Abraham had died and he handed them to Jacob before he sent the latter to get himself a wife. At this point Jacob bequeathed these keys to his son Joseph. This is the meaning of the words ויברך את יוסף.

The God. You, O Elokim before whom my fathers walked, do this in their merit

ויאמר האלוקים אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו, He said: "the G'd before Whom my forefathers walked, etc." Jacob recited the virtues of his forefathers before commencing his blessing much as we do when we commence the central prayer the עמידה, where we first introduce ourselves to G'd as descendants of worthy people. Jacob did not spell out the specific merits of his fathers, but when he spoke about himself he added that his own conduct had been similar to that of the sheep which walks in front of the shepherd who looks after it. Only after this introduction did Jacob commence his blessing with the words: המלאך הגואל.

האלוקים הרועה אותי, the same G’d Who has acted as my own shepherd, i.e. “You Who have shown me so much love.”

המלאך הגאל אתי THE ANGEL REDEEMING ME — The angel who was usually sent to me in my trouble, as it is said, (Genesis 31:11) “And the angel of God said unto me in the dream: Jacob etc. … (Genesis 31:13), I am the God of Beth-el.”

AND LET MY NAME BE CALLED ON THEM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that it means that all Israel be called by the name Ephraim,⁵⁷As in the verse: Is Ephraim a darling son unto me? (Jeremiah 31:19), the reference there being to all Israel. just as they are called “the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
This is not correct for Scripture uses the word bahem (on them), [thus referring to both Ephraim and Menasheh], and they were not called by the name of Menasheh. But perhaps this is because they were called the house of Joseph.⁵⁸Zechariah 10:6. And I will help the house of Joseph.
The correct interpretation though is that their race and their name will exist forever, and the name of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will forever be upon them.

ויקרא בהם שמי, may their seed and the seed of their see live.

In them may my name be recalled and the names of my fathers. That you recall for them all of what was taught concerning my name and the name of my ancestors. Because the name Israel is so named because "I have striven with beings divine and human (Genesis 32:29)." Thus he will be a righteous man, ruling through fear of God. And Jacob is so named because most of the goodness of the righteous is hidden, because their beginning is always with sorrow and their end is very exalted. And Abraham, is so named "Father of a multitude of nations (Genesis 17:4), thus they will be the head of all the nations. And Isaac is translated "And I rejoiced", thus there will always be joy in their dwellings.

המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע יברך, the letter ה introducing the word המלאך is not a definitive article, identifying a specific angel [seeing that we had not previously heard about him; Ed] but acts as an appeal, instruction to such angel(s) who in the past on different occasions had been Yaakov’s guardian angels(s). Yaakov appeals to his own guardian angels to bless the children if their own merit does not suffice for the guardian angels assigned to them to do the job.

המלאך הגואל אותי, "The angel who redeems me, etc." Jacob referred to any word of G'd which He issues to or on behalf of those those who love Him as מלאך. This is analogous to Psalms 29,7: "The voice of G'd kindles flames of fire." Jacob expressed the hope that G'd's word would always come to the assistance of Joseph's sons and bless them.

ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי, he meant that Joseph would be called Israel on occasion, as for instance in Psalms 80,2 רועה ישראל האזינה נהג כצאן יוסף, “Give ear O shepherd of Israel who leads Joseph like a flock.” Also in Amos 6,6 we read ולא נחלו על שבר יוסף, “but they are not concerned about the ruin of Joseph;” (Joseph being a euphemism for Israel, of course) The author quotes several more verses proving the same point, i.e. that Joseph is being equated with his father Israel, i.e. is the spiritual continuation of his father Yisrael, the founder of the 12 tribes. Psalms 80,3 uses the same simile for Joseph’s sons Ephrayim and Menashe when writing לפני אפרים ובנימין ומנשה עוררה את גבורתך ולכה לישועתך לנו, “at the head of Ephrayim, Benjamin, and Menashe! Rouse Your might and come to our help!”

המלאך הגואל אותי, “the angel that has redeemed me, etc. Some commentators understand this as a reference to G’d Who had shepherded Yaakov by means of an angel, seeing that no angel has independent powers such as attributed to him by Yaakov here. There is little doubt that the words המלאך and האלוקים which are used interchangeably (here 15 and 16) refer to the same Divine manifestation, but when viewed by the immediate recipient of the miraculous providence of G’d, appear as a more immediate Divine providence than when viewed by bystanders, who did not experience this on their own bodies. [my wording, but I trust the author’s meaning. Ed.]

Let my name be called. They too would be called “Hebrews” (ivrim) — indicating their origin “across the [Euphrates] river” (eiver hanahar) — despite having been born in Egypt. Alternatively, their lineage would be traced to the Patriarchs despite their mother’s descent from Shechem; see 41:45 in the name of Tosafos.

The angel who was usually sent to me in my time of affliction... [Rashi knows this] because an angel is unable to redeem anyone without Hashem’s permission.

Es ist sehr schwer, in diesem Zusammenhange von einem Engel auszusprechen, dass er segnen solle, zumal da unmittelbar zuvor Gott genannt ist, in dessen Händen ja allein der Segen liegt. In ב"ר Kap.97 spricht sich ר׳ אליעזר nach der Lesart des Jalkut also aus: הקיש גאולה לפרנסה ופרנסה לגאולה מה גאולה פלאים אף פרנסה פלאים מה פרנסה בכל יום אף גאולה בכל יום, ,"es sind hier die Ernährung (הרועה) und die Erlösung einander wechselseitig gleichgestellt; wie die Erlösung, so geschieht auch die Ernährung durch Wunder, und wie die Ernährung, ist auch die Erlösung täglich". Somit haben wir hier nicht an die Erlösung aus einer besonderen Gefahr, sondern an jene Erlösung zu denken, deren wir Tag für Tag wie der Ernährung bedürfen. Beide, Parnaßa und Geula, sind keine Ergebnisse der einmal von Gott allgemein gesetzten Weltordnung, sondern Wirkungen der besonderen göttlichen Fürsorge. Dass der Rechtschaffene, Gewissenhafte nur auf redlichem, sittlichem Wege sein Brot Suchende auf diesem Wege sein Brot finde, ist פלאים, ist ein jedesmaliges Geschenk der göttlichen Waltungswunder, wie es heißt: טרף נתן ליראיו יזכור לעולם בריתו, "was andere der Gewalt verdanken, gibt Er seinen Verehrern, Er ist unaufhörlich seines Bundes eingedenk". Und dass der also nur sittlich dahin wandelnde Mensch in einer mit physischen und sozialen Übeln drohenden Welt unangefochten aufrecht bleibt, dazu bedarf er der steten göttlichen Erlösung, der steten גאולה.

ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי, “and let my name be known through them together with the name of my fathers;” He prayed that just as the 12 tribes who were physical sons of Yaakov were described as his sons, so these two grandsons should also be described as his sons.

המלאך הגואל אותי, “the angel who redeems me;” in verse 15 Yaakov had commenced the blessing by referring to G-d by His name of “האלוהים,” whereas in this verse he has switched to an angel as the source of the blessing. How are we to account for this?The two verses have to be understood as follows: “The G-d before Whom I and my forefathers have walked by means of His angel who protected me against all harm; may He arrange for that same angel also to protect the lads who are your sons.”

יברך את הנערים SHALL BLESS THE LADS — viz, Manasseh and Ephraim.

וידגו, the root is of the same category as the ones which lose the last root letter in the future tense, such as בכה, “to cry,” ויבכו, “they will cry,” or שבה, “to capture,” וישבו, “they will capture.”

וידגו לרב, may the multiply like fish.

ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי אברהם ויצחק. Although we know that Avraham and Yitzchok were both Yaakov’s fathers, he meant to make plain that he did not appeal to the god of Terach or Nachor who were similarly his “fathers” in the sense of being his ancestors. It is an axiom throughout Scripture that the righteous are never linked to those of their ancestors who were wicked, i.e. idolaters. The same is true in reverse as our sages say in Sanhedrin 52, (but not found there) קרינן לרשיעא אפילו בר צדיקא רשיעא בר רשיעא, “a wicked person, even if he is the son of a righteous person is still called a wicked person son of a wicked person.” This principle is invoked in order to save the righteous father the embarrassment of being associated with his son who has turned from the path of righteousness. When the ancestry of such a wicked person requires to be mentioned, one prefers to link him to another wicked person in his lineage. This is why Yaakov prayed for the lads that they should remain G’d fearing and prepared to serve Him. If they were to do this they would qualify to be described as offspring of Avraham and Yitzchok. This principle is known as יחד לבבי ליראה את ה', “let my heart be undivided in reverence for Your name.” (Psalms 86,11)

ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי, “and may my name and the name of my forefathers be declared upon them.” Ibn Ezra explains that Yaakov wishes that the Jewish people be known as “the children of Ephrayim,” just as they are known as “the children of Avraham Yitzchok and Yisrael.” Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that the verse addresses itself to both Ephrayim and Menashe, even though Ephrayim may have been mentioned ahead of his senior brother. History shows that although traditionally, the Jewish people have been referred to as “Ephrayim,” by some prophets, Menashe has never been used as an alternative for “the seed of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yisrael.” Perhaps what Yaakov meant was that the Jewish people appear collectively as “the house of Joseph” in a number of prophecies by our prophets. The plain meaning of the blessing appears to be that just as the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yisrael are blessed and assured of eternal continuity, so Yaakov wishes that the same may apply to the seed of both Ephrayim and Menashe, individually, as tribes.

Menasheh and Ephraim. If Rashi did not specifically explain this, we would think that it cannot mean Ephraim and Menasheh. Since it is specifically written in v. 20 that Yaakov blessed them, why then would he bless them again? Thus we would have thought that “the lads” were Yoseif’s young sons. Therefore Rashi explains that it refers to Menasheh and Ephraim. [Rashi knows this] because Yoseif did not have other sons. And why did he bless them twice? The answer is: Here it is written, “He blessed Yoseif,” and he included them in Yoseif’s blessing but did not bless them on their own. In v. 20 he gave them their own blessing. But to me it seems [that Rashi knew it means Menasheh and Ephraim] because it is written “the lads,” meaning those mentioned above, and only Menasheh and Ephraim were mentioned. Furthermore, Yoseif is not known to have had any other sons. The proof is that on v. 6, Rashi explained אשר הולדת to mean, “If you will have any more sons.” (Kitzur Mizrachi)

ויקרא בהם שמי, "and may my name be called upon them, etc." Jacob wished that Joseph's sons should reflect the spiritual level of the patriarchs. While it is quite impossible for any Jew to completely sever the connection with all three of the patriarchs, Jacob blessed Ephrayim and Menashe in that they would never fail to reflect the spiritual values of even one of the patriarchs.

גאל, verwandt mit Kohle: ein brennbarer Stoff, der bereits im Feuer ge legen, ihm aber entzogen wurde, ehe das Feuer ihn vollständig bewältigte. (So auch געל: etwas vor der Zeit hinauswerfen aus der Hülle, in welcher es sich befindet; allein während גאל zur Rettung, bedeutet געל in entgegengesetztem Sinne: etwas aus seiner bis dahin schützenden und nährenden Hülle hinauswerfen). גאולה ist aber die vollkommene Rettung, die nicht wie גחל noch die Spuren des Brandes an sich tragen, sondern gänzlich frei und unversehrt lässt, wie Abraham aus dem Feuer Chaldäas, wie Daniels Genossen aus der Glut des Ofens. Hätten wir Augen zu sehen, bemerkt ein Wort der Weisen, wir würden es gewahren, wie wir überall und immer von מזיקים, von schädlich auf uns einwirkenden Elementen in der physischen Welt umgeben sind, und wie im physischen, so wahrlich auch im sozialen Leben. Wehe uns, wenn wir dafür nicht blind wären. Wohl uns, dass wir die Gefahren des Todes nicht sehen, denen wir jeden Augenblick in der physischen Welt entgehen, noch das von Neid und Bosheit uns zugedachte Verderben und Unheil gewahren, das im sozialen Leben täglich und stündlich uns unbewusst an uns vorüberziehen mag. Das ist das רע, aus welchem הב"ה uns jeden Augenblick rettet, und zwar also rettet, dass wir uns der Gefahr nicht einmal bewusst werden. Nun bemerkt ר׳ שמואל בר נחמן daselbst: פרנסה גדולה מן הגאולה שהגאולה ע"י מלאך פרנסה ע"י הב"ה ,größer ist noch die Ernährung als die Erlösung, diese geschieht durch einen Engel (המלאך הגואל) jene durch הב"ה selbst. Verstehen wir diesen Satz recht, so liegt ihm die Wahrheit zu Grunde, dass die stete Geula von Untergang drohenden Übeln ja der Parnaßa vorangehen muss, die bloße Existenz des Menschen überhaupt bedingt, somit ein Moment ist, das von vornherein mit dem Dasein eines Menschen- oder Volks-Individunms gegeben sein muss, gleichsam der Raum ist, der ihm innerhalb des Weltgetriebes durch die göttliche Fügung geschaffen ist. Es ist dies das "Geschick" des Menschen, bei welchem der Jude aber stets an den "Schickenden" denkt, das ihm stets "מלאך", "Bote" der göttlichen Fürsehung bleibt. Es ist die gött- liehe Bestimmung, die bei dem Eintritt eines Menschenkindes oder eines Volkes ins physische, soziale oder historische Dasein "es soll leben!" spricht, und seinen מלאכים, seinen "Geschickten", für es befiehlt, "es zu hüten auf allen seinen Wegen, es auf Händen zu tragen, dass es an keinem Stein den Fuß verletze, dass es über Schakal und Otter dahinwandle, Leu und Schlangen zertrete" (Psalm 91). Vielleicht ist das Wort מלאך ja von מלך gebildet, eine bewältigend wirkende Macht, die aber nicht aus eigener MachtVollkommenheit wirkt, sondern ׳א, das Zeichen einer andern sie leitenden und sendenden Persönlichkeit unsichtbar in sich trägt: buchstäblich שמי בקרבו, wie es vom מלאך heißt). Jakob wünscht also, dass Gott seine Enkel durch denselben מלאך, durch welchen Er ihn von allem Übel erlöst, gesegnet werden lassen möge, d. h. dass seine Enkel dasselbe "Geschick" weiter tragen mögen, innerhalb dessen und durch welches Gott ihn Existenz und Gedeihen hat finden lassen, dass sie ebensowenig wie Jakob, etwa Esau gleich, auf eigener Faust und eigenem Schwerte leben, sondern, Jakob gleich, nur in Gott ihren Schutz und Beistand suchen und finden mögen; nur so ויקרא וגו׳ werden er und seine Väter in ihnen fortleben. וידגו לרב בקרב הארץ.

וידגו AND LET THEM INCREASE — like fishes (דגים) which are fruitful and which multiply and which the evil eye cannot effect (Berakhot 20a).

Jacob may also have expressed the hope that the reputations of the patriarchs would be enhanced by the conduct of Joseph's sons in the future. We find such an idea in Proverbs 23,24: "the father of the righteous will rejoice greatly;" we also have a similar statement in Proverbs 17,6: "Grandchildren are the crown of their elders." All of this is predicated on the grandchildren following in the footsteps of their illustrious forebears.

וידגו: Nie wieder kommt das Wort דגה vor, nur als Wurzel von דג, Fisch, ist es bekannt und bezeichnet eben als solches in ganzer Tiefe die Innigkeit des Jakobsegens und die Bedeutung dessen, was das Teilen des Jakobsgeschickes und das Forttragen des Jakobnamens enthält, was es heißt: vor demselben Gott wie die Väter wandeln, sich von demselben Gott führen und durch dieselbe Gottessendung retten lassen! — In gesondertem Elemente, still, in vom Menschenauge unerreichter Tiefe lebt die Fischwelt ihr Leben. Gedankenlos geht der Mensch am Ufer hin und ahnet nicht, welch fröhliches, frisches, glückliches, ungetrübtes Leben sich da unten in reicher Fülle von Geschlecht zu Geschlecht entfaltet. So בקרב הארץ, so in Mitte der Erde soll das Jakobsgeschlecht in seinem gesonderten Elemente, wohin die umgebende Welt ihm nicht zu folgen, dessen Bedeutung sie nicht zu ahnen vermag, ihr stilles, glücklich eigenes Leben vollbringen, "fischgleich", "gleichsam im Wasser in Mitten der Menschheit auf Erden" ,בגו בני אנשא על ארעא כנוני ימא יסגון (ת"א).

Jacob also hinted that mentioning the names of Ephrayim and Menashe would have as positive an effect in the ears of G'd as has mentioning the names of the patriarchs themselves. This sentiment is expressed in Jeremiah 31,19 when the prophet exclaims that every time G'd merely hears the name of Ephrayim mentioned He recalls him with feelings of mercy and has pity on his plight.

וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, "and they will multiply on earth just like fish." Jacob's considerations may have been similar to the blessings G'd bestowed on the fish in Genesis 1,22.1 explained there that a special blessing for the fish was called for due to their habitat being less suited for successful and enduring procreation than the conditions prevailing on dry land. G'd therefore increased the fish's natural reproductive powers to counter the negative conditions prevailing in their habitat. Jacob too accorded Joseph's sons greater powers of reproduction when he blessed them by comparing their fruitfulness to that of fish. Inasmuch as Ephrayim and Menashe did not reside in regions which are hostile to human reproduction, Jacob's blessing was even stronger than G'd's blessing for the fish.

Jacob deliberately chose to say בקרב, "in the midst of the earth," instead of merely saying "on earth." This was a hint that at some time in the future Joseph's descendants would "hide" within the earth as we know from Sotah 36 where Joshua is reported as having advised the members of that tribe to hide in the forests (to prevent attracting envy and jealousy due to their being numerous). This need arose only because Jacob's blessing had been fulfilled and they had multiplied at a faster rate than the other tribes. Berachot 55 sees in Jacob's phraseology a hint that the descendants of Joseph would be immune to the evil eye just as the fish are immune to the evil eye. The fish enjoy that status only thanks to their remaining under the surface of the water and therefore not visible. Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph that they would enjoy this immunity even while visible on earth, i.e. בקרב הארץ.

ויתמך יד אביו; HE HELD UP HIS FATHER’S HAND — He lifted it up from his son’s head and upheld it in his hand to remove it etc.

IT DISPLEASED HIM. Perhaps Joseph loved Menasheh more on account of his being the first-born. Hence it displeased him. The correct interpretation in my opinion is that he thought that his father had made a mistake concerning them, and if his blessing will be without true knowledge it will never be fulfilled upon them as it will not have been done with the proper Ruach Hakodesh (holy spirit). But when his father told him, I know it, my son, I know it,⁵⁹Verse 19 here. he was reconciled.

כי ישית, before he had started blessing them (Verse 7) Joseph had noticed that his father had crossed his hands. ויאמר יוסף אל אביו לא כן אבי, it is not correct to translate this line as: “you are not doing the correct thing.” If that were what Joseph had had in mind he would not have spoken so dismissively, but would have asked his father why he was doing this.What Joseph said to his father must be understood as follows: “the sons have not been positioned by me in the order in which you think, by my not paying attention who should be on your right, i.e. the eldest on your right, etc., but I have made sure that my firstborn is already on your right and his brother on your left. There is therefore no need for you to bend your arms, etc.”

וירא, it is possible that Yaakov made this comment even before he began the formal blessing, or that after he commenced blessing them that this was the first part of the blessing.

וירע בעיניו, “Joseph was displeased by his father having placed his right hand on Ephrayim;” perhaps Joseph loved Menashe better seeing that he was his eldest son, and that it bothered him that his father appeared to ignore this point. Perhaps he only thought that Yaakov had done what he did mistakenly; and as soon as he heard that his father had done so intentionally he was reconciled to the holy spirit which guided his father’s hands.

He lifted it from his son’s head... Rashi needed to explain this because הרמה means removing, but ויתמוך means supporting, [and they are opposites].

וירע בעיניו, “it displeased him (Joseph).” I heard from Rabbi Levi Yitzchok that the reason that Joseph was displeased was that he thought that he, Joseph, was a fool not to have known in which order to position his sons for the blessing, whereas he had done so correctly.

לא כן אבי, I did not do as you thought but placed my firstborn on your right and the younger one on your left. Yaakov replied that he was aware of this (verse 19) because “I know that you are a wise man and would see to it that your sons had been placed in the manner in which you intended them to receive their blessings. However, I plan to bless the younger one who is on your right with my right hand and I withdrew my left hand from his head in order to be able to do this.” להסיר אותה מעל ראש אפרים, and to transfer it (my left hand) to על ראש מנשה, to the head of Menashe. Whenever the verb הסר appears it is written in a sort of abbreviated syntax, the predicate which is supposed to follow it or precede it being omitted. Some examples are: Judges 4,18 סורה אלי אל תירא, the meaning being סורה משם לפנות אלי, “turn away from there in order to turn towards me.” A similar example of this is found in Genesis 19,3 ויסורו אליו, where the precedingמשם לבא, “from there in order to come” is omitted and the reader has to fill it in by understanding the context .

כי זה הבכור. שים נא ידך על ראשו. Once he would place his hand on the head of Menashe, Joseph felt sure that his father’s mind would follow the direction of his hand. This has been illustrated in Numbers 27,23 when Moses placed his hands on Joshua when appointing him as his successor. [if the physical contact would not be of significance, why would Moses have bothered? Ed.] The right hand is presumed to be stronger than the left, hence a blessing conveyed by means of the right hand would be a stronger, more comprehensive blessing.

ויאמר יוסף..לא כן אבי, Joseph said to his father: "not so my father, etc." We need to understand why Joseph did not simply say: "this one is the firstborn," instead of the preamble "not so my father."

לא כן, “not so,” some people claim that Joseph certainly did not say to his father outright that he had not acted correctly, but that the words meant that he, Joseph, had been mistaken when he had thought that his father had erred. Nonetheless, Joseph told his father that he preferred for him to place his right hand on the firstborn Menashe.

לא כן אבי, “not so my father!” He meant: “they are not lined up in the order that you thought they were lined up.”

Joseph entertained two possible doubts. 1) Inasmuch as Joseph and his sons were facing Jacob, and it was customary for Joseph to have his firstborn on his right and the younger one on his left, they would appear in the reverse position when viewed from Jacob's vantage point. Jacob may therefore have reasoned that in order to place his right hand on the older one of the two he had to cross his hands. 2) On the other hand, Joseph reasoned that it was possible that his father crossed his hands in order to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim, deliberately, thus giving him preference over Menashe. In view of this Joseph first told his father that if he had assumed that Joseph had placed the boys as he usually did, i.e. Menashe on his right, לא כן אבי, i.e. he did not do so this time. If, on the other hand, Jacob had deliberately placed his right hand on the head of Ephrayim, Joseph registered his protest by saying: "place your right hand on him for he is the firstborn." He wanted to know why his father denied his firstborn what he thought he was entitled to.

ידעתי בני ידעתי I KNOW IT, MY SON, I KNOW that he is the first-born.

ואולם, “but, however.”

וימאן אביו ויאמר, His father refused, saying, etc. The reason the Torah uses the word "he refused," is to indicate that Joseph had taken hold of his father's hand to try and place it on Menashe's head.

יהיה לעם, will become so numerous until people will refer to his descendants as “a nation.”

וגם הוא יגדל ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו, “he too will become great; however, his younger brother will become even greater than he.” Yaakov used both the adjectives “great” and “small” in connection with Joseph’s sons. We have encountered this description of relative “smallness” already in connection with the sun and the moon on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1,16) where both luminaries have first been described as “great;” subsequently the Torah distinguishes the relative greatness of one of he luminaries, the sun, by describing it as “great” when compared to the lesser luminary the moon. The “greatness” of Ephrayim which Yaakov referred to was that Joshua would be descended from that tribe. Joshua was so great that he could arrest the orbit of both sun and moon as we know from Joshua 10,12. In response to Joshua’s instruction for the sun and the moon to “stand still,” the Book of Joshua informs us in Joshua 10,13 that they did indeed interrupted their respective orbits until Joshua had taken his revenge of the Canaanites. In that verse the prophet reports that this miracle was recorded in a book called ספר הישר, and our sages in Avodah Zarah 25 have revealed to us that the ספר הישר is none other than the Book of Genesis, a Book describing the outstanding feats of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. They are the ones who are called ישרים, “the upright ones.” Joshua was a product of these people and the prophet testifies that G’d was with Joshua and that his fame spread throughout the globe (Joshua 6,27).

That he is the firstborn. Rashi needed to explain this so we will not think it means, “I know that he too will become a people.” I.e., that Yoseif knew Menasheh will become a people but he thought Yaakov did not know — and Yaakov said he also knows Menasheh will be great and will become a people. And [Rashi knows it does not mean this because] the verse does not say so. Yoseif said only, “For this one is the firstborn.” Thus Rashi explains: “I know,” as you do, “that he is the firstborn.” And I also know something you do not: “He too will become a people; he too will become great.”

גוים לעם, vergl. oben גוי וקהל גוים und . — וזרעו יהי׳ מלא הגוים buchstäblich hieße es: sein Same soll die Fülle der Völker werden, die Völker sollen von seinen Nachkommen voll werden, wie מלא כל הארץ כבודו. Das hieße denn: Efrajims Nachkommen sollen unter alle Völker zerstreut werden; es wäre dies aber dann eine קללה und kein Segen. Deshalb Raschi: von dem Ruhme seiner Kinder werden die Völker voll werden. Das steht aber nicht im Text. Wir finden מלא in der Bedeutung von Rüsten, z. 8.: ויהוא מלא ידו בקשת (Kön. II. 9, 24) ואיש יגע בו ימלא ברזל וחנית (Sam. 11. 23,7). Rüsten ist ja: den Mangel an Kraft und Geschicklichkeit künstlich "ersetzen", "ergänzen", מַלֵא. Damit wäre denn Efrajim charakteristisch gezeichnet. Efrajims Nachkommen werden die Rüstung der Stämme Israels nach außen werden. Darum auch גוים, nicht עמים. Wie Josef selbst zuerst von der Jakobsfamilie getrennt, und so bedeutsam in den Kreis eines nichtjüdischen Staates eintrat, freilich aber auch als solcher den jüdischen Gotteshauch — ,ה" — treu bewahrte — עדות ביהוסף שמו בצאתו על ארץ מצרים — so hatte ja auch Efrajim später zuerst den Charakter eines nichtjüdischen Staates, freilich dann in trauriger Entfremdung, angenommen. Eine Entfremdung, die aber, so wenig wie bei seinem Ahn, mit dieser Trennung notwendig gegeben war. Es ist daher wohl möglich, dass es also heiße: "Seine Nachkommen sollen als eine von außen respektierte Macht eine Lücke in der äußeren Erscheinung der übrigen Stämme ausfüllen, sollen eine kräftigende Rüstung der übrigen Stämme nach außen werden; nächst Juda war Efrajim jedenfalls der tapferste Stamm. Vielleicht auch blickt זרעו zunächst auf Josua hin, der ja ganz eigentlich das Rüstzeug der Stämme genannt werden kann. —

גם הוא יהיה לעם וגם הוא יגדל HE ALSO SHALL BECOME A PEOPLE, AND HE ALSO SHALL BE GREAT, for of him will be born Gideon through whom the Holy One, blessed be He, will perform a miracle (See Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).

וגם הוא יגדל, he will also develop into becoming very numerous. However his younger brother will become even more numerous. At the Exodus from Egyptian the arms-bearing males of the tribe of Ephrayim were 45.500 (Numbers 1,33-35 as opposed to only 32.200 members of the tribe of Menashe. Interestingly, when numbering the males over 20 who entered the Holy Land, the members of the tribe of Menashe outnumbered those of Ephrayim by 52.700 to 32.500. (Numbers 26,34-36.) If we keep this in mind we may have to redefine the meaning of the word יגדל when used by Yaakov not as referring to numerical strength, but as referring to the great men produced by each of these tribes and the relative importance of these men. We know that Moses’ successor, Joshua, was from the tribe of Ephrayim. He was a great saviour, and conquered the land of Canaan enabling the promise of G’d to the patriarchs to finally become realised. The tribe of Ephrayim also provided the first king of the 10 tribes who had split away from Solomon’s son Rechavam after the death of Solomon. Furthermore, throughout the history of the Jewish people until the destruction of the first Temple the political rivalry between Ephrayim and Yehudah is well documented, whereas hardly ever is Menashe mentioned as playing a major part in this. When the prophet Isaiah prophesied an idyllic future, he described this as being characterised by the end of the rivalry between Ephrayim and Yehudah. (Isaiah 11,13). Still, it is possible to also understand the word יגדל ממנו as referring to numerical strength, as except in the single instance we mentioned before Ephrayim always outnumbered Menashe. We must also take into consideration the words וזרעו יהיה מלא הגויים, “and his seed will become plentiful enough to form nations.” The unique phenomenon of the members of Ephrayim being inferior in numbers at the time the Israelites entered the Holy Land may possibly be accounted for by the tradition that 30 years prior to the Exodus the tribe of Ephrayim rebelled, left Egypt and marched to the land of the Philistines on the way to the land of Canaan. According to that report they lost 200.000 of their number in a battle at Gat. [the reason why I do not think this relevant is that if so, there should have been fewer member of the tribe of Ephrayim at the time of the Exodus, instead of 40 years later when near entering the Holy Land. Ed.]

The whole world will be filled when his reputation and name will spread... Rashi is answering the question: “His descendants will fill the nations” — does this not imply his descendants will be scattered throughout the world? And this is not [greatness] but a curse! Thus Rashi explains, “His reputation.” The verse is as if saying, “The name of his descendants will be throughout the world,” by means of [making] the moon and sun [stand still] which is seen throughout the world.

The reason Jacob repeated: "I know my son, I know, etc." is that Jacob wanted to answer both of Joseph's doubts as we have already explained. To Joseph's remark "not so my father," Jacob replied that he was well aware that Joseph had already placed the children in such a position that he, Jacob, did not have to cross his hands in order to put his right hand on the head of Menashe. By adding the word בני, my son, Jacob hinted that he had given Joseph credit for placing the boys in the position which he considered as appropriate. Concerning Joseph's specific concern that the firstborn be accorded the privileges due him, Jacob also said: "I know;" he assured Joseph that Menashe too would attain greatness. Joseph should not think that Jacob considered his firstborn as unworthy or inferior. If he had nonetheless decided to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim this was in view of Ephrayim's descendants outranking Menashe's descendants at some time in the future. Ephrayim was destined to become מלא הגוים, meaning that at that time he would occupy a higher position though at the moment Menashe fulfilled his role of the firstborn perfectly. Tanchuma elaborates that Joshua would be descended from Ephrayim whereas Gideon would be descended from Menashe, both leaders of the Jewish people during their respective lifetimes. Both had already been destined for their respective roles in life; Jacob only gave recognition to this by the manner in which he placed his hands when blessing both these children.

Charakteristisch sehen wir hier wiederum den Erstgeborenen gegen den Jüngeren zurückgesetzt. Von Kain und Hebel an bis weit hinab erscheint diese Zurücksetzung der בכורים. Hebel war der Gottgefälligere, Kain verworfen. So war auch unter Noas Söhnen Schem vielleicht nicht der älteste. Unter Abrahams Söhnen weicht Ismael dem Jizchak, unter Jizchaks Esaw dem Jakob, unter Jakobs Söhnen Reuben dem Josef, unter Josefs Menasche dem Efrajim, und die eigentlich leitende Herrschaft kommt an Juda. Auch Moses war der Jüngere, David der jüngste der Geschwister. Ja, die בכורות im ganzen Volke verloren ihre Würde. In diesem ganzen erkennt man eines: während einerseits der Erstgeborene der Bevorzugte, der anerkannte Vertreter der Familie bleibt und als solcher פי שנים erhält und damit angedeutet ist, dass eigentlich Geist und Macht Hand in Hand gehen sollten, so ist doch die Weltgeschichte nichts als Kampf der materiellen Macht gegen den göttlichen Geist. Das Ziel ist, wie es Ribka verkündet worden: רב יעכר צעיר, der Starke wird des Schwachen Diener. Vor diesem Ziele aber steht die geistige Potenz der nationalen Macht geschieden gegenüber: הקול כאשר תריך .קול יעקב והידים ידי עשו, ward dem Esau gesagt, erst dann wirst du ihm ebenbürtig zur Seite stehen, wenn du dich freiwillig selbst unterordnest. Bis dahin meint das materiell Gewaltige zu herrschen, wird aber stets beherrscht. Es sind dies die zwei Kronen, die, nach Secharja 6, einst im משיה vereinigt sein werden, der כהן על כסאו, , "Priester auf seinem Throne" sein und die friedliche Vereinigung beider verwi- lichen wird: ועצת שלום תהיה בין שניהם; bis dahin bleiben die Kronen nur לזכרון בהיכל ד׳, ist ihre Vereinigung nur ein im Heiligtum bewahrtes Ideal, wird fort und fort in der jüdischen Geschichte gelehrt, dass eigentlich die materielle Macht Hand in Hand mit dem Geiste gehen solle, die Wirklichkeit aber dem noch nicht entspricht. Die einerseits materiell bevorzugte Erstgeburt tritt anderseits zurück, und dieser zeitliche Widerspruch zwischen ihrer Bestimmung und der Wirklichkeit scheint selbst im Gesetze durch פדיון בכור vergegenwärtigt.

ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו BUT TRULY HIS YOUNGER BROTHER SHALL BE GREATER THAN HE — for of him will be born Joshua who will make Israel inherit the land of Canaan and will instruct them in the Torah (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).

יהיה מלא הגויים, until his descendants are numerous enough when they go into exile to fill countries belonging to, or having belonged to other nations with their numbers alone. [possibly a reference to the population transfer mentioned in Kings II after the Assyrians conquered the Northern Kingdom. and replaced the exiled Jews there with other nationals. (Kings II chapter 17) Ed.]

Alternatively, Jacob meant that he was thoroughly familiar with Joseph's arguments; when Joseph had hinted that the birthright should determine on whose hand Jacob was to place his right hand, Joseph was wrong, it was not the order of birth which determined matters like this. By adding the word בני, Jacob hinted that Joseph himself had foreseen future developments in his dreams. Similarly, Jacob could not now act in defiance of G'd who had shown him in a vision that the younger son would outshine his older brother.

וזרעו יהיה מלא הגוים AND HIS SEED SHALL BECOME A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS (more lit, shall fill the nations) — the fame and renown of his seed, Joshua, will spread abroad and fill the whole world when he will make the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Aijalon (Avodah Zarah 25a).

בך יברך ישראל IN THEE SHALL ISRAEL BLESS — When one wishes to bless his sons he will bless them by reciting the formula with which they were blessed — a man will say to his son, “God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.”

AND HE BLESSED THEM THAT DAY. The meaning of that day is that since Joseph had urged him to give Menasheh precedence, the verse declares that Jacob did not wish to remove his right hand from Ephraim’s head to that of Menasheh. Moreover, he expressly reiterated on that occasion, in Joseph’s presence, when he blessed them by saying, As Ephraim and Menasheh. And he put Ephraim before Menasheh in all his blessings.

בך יברך ישראל, each Israelite his respective son.

ויברכם ביום ההוא לאמור, He blessed them on that day, saying, etc. The Torah means that Jacob gave the boys such a full measure of blessings that everybody said that the simplest way to bestow blessings on Jewish children in the future would be to mention that they should be as blessed as Ephrayim and Menashe were blessed by Jacob.

ויברכם. He bestowed an additional blessing on them on the same day, saying: בך יברך ישראל, whenever an Israelite wants to bestow a blessing on his son, he will preface it with the words: ישימך אלוקים כאפרים ומנשה. “May the Lord make you to be like Ephrayim and Menashe.”

ויברכם ביום ההוא, “He blessed them both on that day;” the words “on that day,” are important, seeing that Joseph pressured his father to place his right hand on Menashe and to bless him first. The Torah clearly shows that Yaakov resisted this pressure and did not want to remove his right hand from the head of Ephrayim. Not only that, but when Yaakov eventually pronounced the blessing, he made a point of naming Ephrayim first in his blessing so that when the parents of Jewish children would bless their children in the future they would always mention Ephrayim first when wishing that their children model themselves after these two sons of Joseph.

He will bless them with their blessing and a person will say to his son... Since the term “Yisroel” means the people of Yisroel, which is a plural noun, why does it say ישימך, in the singular form? Thus Rashi adds, “And a person will say to his son...”

ביום ההוא: an jenem Tage ward zuerst ברכה ausgesprochen, die seitdem im Munde aller Kinder segnenden jüdischen Eltern lebt. Daher auch die beiden Worte voll und pathetisch auseinander gezogen: בך יברך וגו׳ .ויבָרֲכם לאמור : deine Kinder sollen so gesegnet werden, dass, wenn Väter in Israel ihre Kinder segnen wollen, sie keinen höheren Segen kennen mögen, als: Gott lasse dich wie Efrajim und Menasche werden.

וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, “thus he placed Ephrayim ahead of Menashe.” When did this blessing and its order become fulfilled, historically? When you look at the consecration rites for the Tabernacle in the desert, in Numbers 7,48, you will find that the prince of Ephrayim presented his offering ahead of the tribe of Menashe, who did so only in verse 54 of that chapter. In this way the statement in Isaiah 44,26, that G–d fulfils the words of his servant, was fulfilled. (B’reshit Rabbah, 97,5)

וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, “he positioned (in the blessing) the name of Ephrayim before the name of Menashe.” He had done so already in verse 5, before the sequence of the blessing had become an issue. By making a comparison with Reuven and Shimon in that order, his intention had been unmistakable.

וישם את אפרים AND HE PUT EPHRAIM etc. — i.e. in the blessing he bestowed upon them he put Ephraim’s name before that of Manasseh, so giving him precedence over his brother when the Israelites encamped and marched beneath their banners in the wilderness (cf. Numbers 2:18 and Numbers 10:22), and when at the dedication of the altar by the princes of the tribes each brought his gifts (cf. Numbers 7:48 Numbers 7:54). (see Genesis Rabbah 97:5).

וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, he did this not physically, but by mentioning Ephrayim’s name in the blessing ahead of the name of Menashe. The expression (verb) שימה, or לשום respectively can be used with words (intangibles) as well as with people and tangible objects. A prominent example of it being applied to intangible concepts is Exodus 21,1 ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, “and these are the laws, judicial concepts, you are to place before them.” Or. In Deuteronomy 4,41 וזאת התורה אשר שם משה, “and this is the Torah which Moses placed, etc.” The reference was not to the Torah scroll, but to what was written in it. Also in Deuteronomy 31,19 the line שימה בפיהם, does not refer to something being placed in the mouth of the people, such as food, but it refers to the words in the written Torah being fed to the people as if food fed through their mouths.

וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, in this blessing too, Yaakov placed more emphasis on the recipient of the blessing being compared to Ephrayim, the younger of Joseph’s sons, by mentioning his name first. Even the choice of words כאפרים וכמנשה instead of כאפרים ומנשה, indicated clearly that Menashe was considered secondary in Yaakov’s blessing. He was considered the adjunct.

בך יברך ישראל, ”when the Jewish people bless their children they will do so by referring to you, Joseph, to your well turned out children.” They will express the fervent hope that their own children would turn out as successfully.

Insofar as his blessing was concerned. Ahead of Menasheh... [Rashi is explaining] that this was not a literal placing; Yaakov did not take Ephraim and put him in front of Menasheh. Rather, it was a placing [in order] of importance, that Ephraim comes first for the banners, etc.

וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, He placed Ephrayim ahead of Menashe. This is not to be understood literally. The Torah means that by mentioning Ephrayim ahead of Menashe Jacob had in effect given Ephrayim a measure of precedence over Menashe. What true Jewish father would reverse the formula that Jacob had used when he blessed his grandchildren? We still mention Ephrayim the younger of the two ahead of Menashe the firstborn when we bless our children.

BY THEE SHALL ISRAEL BLESS. Jacob addressed this to Joseph. It means that the nation of Israel will bless with your children and say to those being blessed, God make thee as Ephraim and Menasheh.

הנה אנכי מת, although I am about to die, I am aware that after my death. והיה אלוקים עמכם והשיב אתכם אל ארץ אבותיכם, G’d will be with you and at the completion of 400 years predicted to Avraham will bring you back to the land of your fathers.

הנה אנכי מת, seeing that I make this my last will and testament when I am close to death, this gift is irrevocable.

ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הנה אנכי מת, Israel said to Joseph: "I am about to die, etc." When Israel said: "I am about to die," he meant that only he was going to depart, the שכינה was not going to depart from them. Jacob added that G'd would lead the Jewish people back to the land of their ancestors. Jacob underlined that the land had been given by G'd to the patriarchs and not to the generation who would leave Egypt at the time of the Exodus. This being so, he was within his rights when he assigned Shechem to Joseph's descendants since he was the owner. When Jacob said: "and I have given to you one (extra) share, etc.," this is a valid explanation. Even according to the view of Rabbi Nechemyah in Bereshit Rabbah 97,6 that Jacob referred to the city of Shechem conquered by Shimon and Levi, Jacob implied that had it not been for the fact that G'd had given the land to the patriarchs they would not have succeeded.

אנכי מת, I am close to dying, therefore I command you that when the time comes and the Lord will bring you back, the word אתכם referring not to “you,” but to “your descendants,” אל ארץ אבותיכם, that you will have an extra share over and above that allocated to your brothers, i.e. the extra share befitting the firstborn. This was the practical meaning of Yaakov having said that Joseph’s sons would be to him as Reuven and Shimon. They would inherit as if they had been biological sons of their grandfather (not merely grandsons) when it came to the division of that land among the tribes.

ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף, “Yisrael said to Joseph, etc.” After Yisrael had blessed the lads and appointed each one of them to become a founding father of one of the tribes, he turned his attention back to Joseph and promised him both matters pertaining to the exile as well as matters pertaining to the eventual redemption when G’d would bring the nation back to the land of Canaan.

והשיב אתכם אל ארץ אבותיכם, where my gifts will materialise.

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.