רְעֵ֧ה עַמְּךָ֣ בְשִׁבְטֶ֗ךָ צֹ֚אן נַֽחֲלָתֶ֔ךָ שֹׁכְנִ֣י לְבָדָ֔ד יַ֖עַר בְּת֣וֹךְ כַּרְמֶ֑ל יִרְע֥וּ בָשָׁ֛ן וְגִלְעָ֖ד כִּימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם׃
Apascenta com a tua vara o teu povo, o rebanho da tua herança, que habita a sós no bosque, no meio do Carmelo; apascentem-se em Basã e Gileade, como nos dias antigos.
Chizkuni
לרעות את אחיו את צאן אביהם, “to assist his brothers in tending the flocks of their father.” The reason that there are two dots over the word את in this verse is that the brothers had not gone to the neighbourhood of Sh’chem in order to look after their father’s flocks, but only to look after their own, and to put more mileage between themselves and Joseph. In other words, that word may be considered as if erased. They had not gone to also tend their father’s flocks. We find a similar construction in Michah 7,14: ירעו בשן וגלעד, “the ones which graze in Bashan and Gilead,” where we would have expected the prophet to say: ירעו את בשן ואת גלעד, “They will graze both in Bashan and in Gilead,” [the prophet continues with the words: “as in the olden days,” (when things were better). If you were to interpret the word את in our verse to mean that the brothers had gone to let the flocks graze in a place where there was ample virgin (not privately owned grazing land), or that it means to let their own as well as their fathers’ flocks graze there, there is no possible reason to omit the word את, as we always find it in connection with sheep or cattle grazing.
Rashi
worthless shepherd a shepherd of nought. אֶלִיל, is an expression of אַל, naught; he is not a shepherd. [There is also] (in Job 13:4) “worthless physicians.” רֹעִי The “yud” is superfluous; it is instead of a “he,” as “who abandons the flock”; (Deut. 33:16) who dwells (שׁכְנִי) in the bramble”; and (Micha 7:14) “who dwells alone.”