Комментарий к Берешит 50:32

וישק לו, he kissed him. The emphasis in this verse is on the word לו. Joseph kissed "him;" had Jacob been dead it would have been forbidden to kiss him seeing that the corpse exudes ritual impurity, and that impurity rises up to heaven and would harm the person who does the kissing. Inasmuch as Jacob had not died, however, Joseph was able to kiss him; Jacob simply appeared to be in a coma.

ויפול יוסף, not only he but also his brothers, of course. Seeing that he was the most highly placed of the brothers the Torah mentions him. If he allowed himself this display of emotion, his brothers surely did no less.

Eigentlich: er fiel; es drückt die heftige Gemütsbewegung aus, wo man mehr willenlos fällt. Er fiel auf das Angesicht seines Vaters und weinte sich satt, und als er sich satt geweint hatte, gab er ihm den Kuss des Abschiedes.

לחנט את אביו TO EMBALM HIS FATHER — Embalming is a matter of using a mixture of aromatic spices.

לחנוט, we explain this word as being part of the verse’s context, i.e. to embalm. Menachem, on the other hand, comparing it to Song of Songs 2,13 where the word means “was in blossom,” uses a different approach.

ויחנטו הרופאים את ישראל. The physicians embalmed Israel. Joseph initiated this procedure because of the honour due to his father. All men of stature were embalmed, especially those connected with royalty. Alternatively, Joseph arranged for the embalming in order that people should not say that Jacob had not died or that he had died but that his body did not putrify and they would idolise him as a result. Besides, if that were to happen he would never secure permission to bury his father in the land of Canaan. Had Joseph not ordered embalming, Jacob's "body" would not have putrified. It is interesting to read the story in Baba Metzia 84 concerning the body of Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai which had lain in an attic for years without signs of decay.

To embalm. Yoseif was concerned lest his father’s body begin to decompose during the unusually long mourning period that preceded his interment; see v. 3. According to the Sages Hashem criticized him for this, saying, “Do you think that I am unable to preserve my righteous ones?” It was on account of this that Yoseif died before all his brothers.

לחנט, a procedure of embalming the remains of the deceased so the body would not become putrid.

ויחנטו הרופאים, “the physicians embalmed.” The technique of embalming consisted of perfuming the body with a variety of spices, similar to what is written concerning King Assa of Yehudah in Chronicles II 16,14: “he was laid in a resting place which was filled with spices of all kinds, expertly blended.” This took place after the body had been washed. The wording ויחנטו which is transitive, indicates that the physicians ordered others who had expertise in that science to perform this task whereas they themselves did not touch Yaakov’s body.

חנט, es ist dunkel, weshalb חנט einbalsamieren heißt. Man könnte glauben, es sei mit ענד, einwickeln, verwandt, weil Mumien ganz mit Binden umwunden sind. Es ist jedoch wahrscheinlich dies Umwinden nicht das Wesen der Prozedur. הנט bezeichnet sonst ein gewisses Entwicklungsstadium der Fruchtbäume: חנטה פגיה (Hohel. 2, 13). Im Talmud bedeutet הניטה jenen Moment, wo die Früchte bereits das Stadium erreicht haben, in welchem sie insofern מעשר-pflichtig werden, dass אכילת קבע von ihnen אסור ist. חניטה ist identisch mit עונת המעשרות. Es wird dieser Moment im Jeruschalmi. dahin erläutert, wenn die Frucht so reif ist, dass sie oder ihr Kern, eingesäet, wachsen würde, wo sich also bereits die wesentlichsten Stoffe in wesentlichster Beschaffenheit in ihr gesammelt, sie also bereits mit den aromatischen Stoffen, die der Frucht den Wohlgeschmack verleihen, durchdrungen ist. Nun ist ja Einbalsamieren nichts als ein Ausfüllen und Durchdringen des von seinen Weichteilen entleerten Körpers mit aromatischen Stoffen, und dürften vielleicht in dieser Weise die Bedeutungen zusammenhängen.

ויחנטו הרופאים, “the physicians embalmed, etc.” they made his bodily remains stench-proof, emptied his bowels, stomach, etc.; afterwards they inserted various spices into the orifices of his body so that it would not decompose. We have a similar expression in Song of Songs 2,13: התאנה חנטה פגיה, “the fruit of the fig tree were sweetened.”

It is also possible that ever since the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai rid themselves of the residual pollution by the original serpent, the bodies of the righteous of our nation no longer putrified after their deaths (Shabbat 146). Accordingly, even the mould within their entrails simply dried out and turned to dust without leaving behind any offensive odour seeing it is only the pollution associated with the original serpent which causes the food within the entrails to become putrid. Although it is said of Jacob that he did not die, the mould inside his entrails which remained within his body was apt to turn putrid. Joseph was concerned about that aspect and that is why he had his father's body embalmed.

Einen eigentümlichen Gegensatz bildet die in dem Einbalsamieren sich aussprechende Anschauung zu der jüdischen. Solche Gegensätze, wo sie sich finden, sind vor allem derjenigen Richtung gegenüber zu betonen, die, die Göttlichkeit der Thora leugnend, das ganze "Mosestum" aus dem in der Schule ägyptischer Priesterweisheit gereiften "Genius des Moses" erwachsen lassen möchten. Welch ein diametraler Gegensatz tritt hier zu Tage! Dem Ägypter wurde der Körper einbalsamiert, damit er in seiner Individualität bliebe. Die Seele aber blieb nicht in ihrer persönlichen Individualität, sondern wanderte von Leib zu Leib — selbst Tierleiber hindurch — in mannigfachster Metamorphose. Dem Juden bleibt die Seele, der Körper wandert; er hat, sobald die Seele in den Kreis der Ihrigen heimgegangen, mit dem Individuum nichts mehr zu tun. Vielmehr ist es מצוה, ihn sofort in möglichst nahe Berührung mit der auflösenden Erde zu bringen. Er wird wieder Erde und mag dann alle möglichen Wandlungen irdischer Körper durchmachen. Der Ägypter glaubt an Seelenwanderung und sucht den Körper vor möglicher Wandlung zu schützen. Der Jude glaubt an eine ewige persönliche Existenz der Seele und gibt den Körper der irdischen Wandlung hin. Möglich hat darum gerade Jakob in Mizrajim es so bedeutsam hervorgehoben: אני נאסף אל עמי קברו אותי וגו׳, wie oben bemerkt. Vielleicht hat eben der Mangel des Glaubens an eine bleibende Individualität der Seele in Ägypten sowohl das Einbalsamieren der Leichen, als auch die kolossalen Bauten der für Totenwohnungen bestimmten Pyramiden erzeugt. Da man die Seelen wandelnd glaubte, wollte man wenigstens die Leiber festhalten. Jüdisch war also das Einbalsamieren nicht, und Josef mag selbst hier nur der ägyptischen Sitte Rechnung getragen haben, die eine Unterlassung als Mangel an Pietät ausgelegt haben würde. Vielleicht hatte Jakob auch deshalb Josef schwören lassen, ihn nicht in Ägypten zu begraben, damit man nicht, wie die Weisen bemerken, eine ע״ז aus seinem Leibe mache; denn im Grunde war ja das ägyptische Aufbewahren der Mumien nichts anderes. Die Ärzte balsamierten "Jisrael": "ständesgemäß!" Einem echtjüdischen Begräbnis kann man gottlob nicht ansehen, ob ein Reicher oder Armer zur Erde bestattet wird, wohl aber, ob er נפטר בשם טוב, oder schon בחייו קרוי מת gewesen.

It is also possible that Joseph was unaware of these secrets when he ordered his father to be embalmed.

וימלאו לו [AND FORTY DAYS] WERE FULFILLED — They (the physicians) completed the days of embalming until forty days were completed for him.

ויבכו אותו מצרים, not only out of respect for Joseph and because of his decree of public mourning, but also because he was revered for his name Yisrael and what this name stood for. He deserved the same respect as royalty.

שבעים יום . Forty days were spent embalming his body and thirty days of weeping for the absence of this man henceforth. We find that both Moses and Aaron were mourned for 30 days (Numbers 20,29 and Deuteronomy 34 8) The difference was that Moses and Aaron were mourned after they had been buried, whereas Yaakov was mourned prior to his interment. This was permissible as the embalming procedure was equated with a kind of burial. During all these days the Egyptians wept out of respect for the feelings of Joseph. According to a view quoted by Rashi, the Egyptians also mourned him, being aware that this man had been able to arrest the famine five years before it had run its predetermined course. This concludes the manuscripts available of the Redak’s commentary on the Torah. We are all impoverished when reflecting on much has been lost of his commentary.

שבעים יום, “for seventy days.” Forty days embalming followed by thirty days of mourning.

They completed the days of his embalming until forty days. Rashi is answering the question: [Why does it say וימלאו?] The term מלוי (completion) applies only to a predetermined number, such as: “I will fill (אמלא) the number of your days” (Shemos 23:26), meaning the number of days apportioned to you. Similarly (25:24): “When her days of pregnancy were completed (וימלאו),” meaning the number of days apportioned for her pregnancy. There are many [other examples of this] in Scripture. But here, there was no predetermined number, so Rashi needed to add: “They completed the days of his embalming.” Their period for embalming was for a predetermined number of forty days, as Rashi goes on to say. Rashi says השלימו instead of וימלאו, to teach that this מילוי denotes “completion,” rather than denoting “full” which is the opposite of empty. (Re’m)

Im jüdischen Kreise beginnt die Trauer erst nach סתימת הגולל, nachdem die vorliegende Gottespflicht an der Leiche vollzogen ist. Allein da, wo das Begräbnis eigentlich gar nichts zu bedeuten hat, da für einbalsamirte Leichen es völlig gleichgilt, ob sie über der Erde oder in der Erde verharren, mochte auch schon die Trauer vor dem Begräbnis beginnen. Bemerken aber dürfen wir, dass Jakob von dem ägyptischen Volke beweint wurde.

ויבכו אותו מצרים, We find numerous words in the Torah where the prefix ב is missing. This is one of these words, and the phrase means: “Yaakov’s death was mourned with weeping in Egypt.”

ויבכו אתו מצרים שבעים יום AND THE EGYPTIANS WEPT FOR HIM THREESCORE AND TEN DAYS — viz., forty days during the period of embalming and thirty more days for mourning. They wept for him during so long a period because a blessing had come to them on his arrival in Egypt for the famine then ceased and the waters of the Nile again increased (Midrash Tanchuma, Nasso 26).

Forty days of the embalming period and thirty for mourning... [Rashi explains] that the seventy days of mourning are not in addition to the forty days mentioned here.

שבעים יום “for seventy days.” 40 of these days were spent embalming him, and the remaining thirty were official mourning. We also find that both Moses and Aaron were mourned for thirty days. Compare Numbers 20,20 and Deuteronomy, 34,8. A different interpretation of the “seventy days;” each of the direct descendants of Yaakov who had come to Egypt with him mourned him for one day each.

Because a blessing had come to them on account of him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did they weep? It could not have been to honor Yoseif, because a person cannot weep at will.

וידבר יוסף אל בית פרעה, he used intermediaries as a mourner in garments of mourning is not allowed to appear so before the King

אל בית פרעה לאמור, to the household of Pharaoh to tell him, etc. This means that Joseph wanted the members of Pharaoh's household to tell the king not only the facts, but also the manner in which Joseph had related these facts. Joseph had pleaded with Pharaoh's advisers hoping that they in turn would assist him to have his wish approved. Alternatively, the Torah merely mentions the fact that Joseph asked the members of Pharaoh's household to speak to him because we learned in Yuma 4 that unless one gives express permission to relate something one has been told (even if not in confidence), it is forbidden to do so. We know this from when G'd Himself gave permission to relate what He had said (Leviticus 1,1).

דברו נא באזני פרעה, “please tell Pharaoh the following:” the reason why Joseph did not tell this to Pharaoh personally, was that it was forbidden to appear in the King’s palace dressed in mourner’s garb.

ויעברו ימי בכיתו, “when the days of weeping for him passed.” This verse teaches that one must not spend more than thirty days mourning for the loss of even the greatest leaders of Israel. We certainly did not have a greater leader than Moses and he too was mourned for thirty days, no more (Deut. 34,8). There is a tradition that the sages at the time of the death of Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nassi first wanted to observe a whole year of mourning until they found these verses and deduced that this would be excessive and disrespectful to both Yaakov and Moses (compare Ketuvot 103).

(4-7) Es ist eigentümlich, dass Josef bei seiner mächtigen Stellung, die ihn dem Pharao so nahe sein ließ, in so indirekter Weise die Bewilligung seines Gesuches anstrebte. Es scheint, Josef müsse der Bewilligung seines Gesuches nicht so sicher gewesen sein, und habe deshalb diese indirekte Weise vorgezogen. Ein durch einen dritten gegebener und erhaltener Abschlag lässt sich beiderseits leichter ignorieren. Es mochte dies mit der vorhandenen Antipathie gegen Ausländer zusammenhängen, der es wohl sehr unliebsam gewesen sein mag, einen Ausländer an der Spitze des Staates zu wissen, und noch dazu aus Kanaan! Josefs Herkunft musste durch dieses Begräbnis des Vaters in Kanaan wieder sehr frisch ins Bewusstsein treten.

דברו נא באזני פרעה, “please intercede on my behalf with Pharaoh;” seeing that some nineteen years earlier Pharaoh had decreed that no one in Egypt could undertake anything new until it had been approved by Joseph, Pharaoh would not look kindly at the prolonged absence from Egypt of his general manager on whom he depended so much. (Compare Genesis 41,44). Moreover, Pharaoh might be afraid that Joseph would not even return to Egypt at all. Seeing that he was familiar with all the military and political secrets of Egypt, he would be a potentially dangerous adversary.

אם נא מצאתי חן, "If I may have found favour, etc." In this instance the word נא means both "please" and a reference to a specific time frame. Joseph meant that if Pharaoh really wanted to show his affection for Joseph, the time was right then when Pharaoh did not want anything from Joseph in return.

"וידבר - "אם נא מצאתי eine Zusammenstellung, die den vollendeten Staatsmann in dem Verkehr mit Pharaos Hofleuten bezeichnet. וידבר drückt die Entschiedenheit des Tones, אם נא וגו׳ die Höflichkeit der Form aus. Die Form der Rede, in der ein hoher Staatsmann spricht, ist außerordentlich höflich, in dem Tone liegt das ganze Bewusstsein seiner Stellung. Ahnlich bei Abraham in seiner Bitte an die Söhne Chets. Gemessen im Tone, höflich in der Form. Er wusste, dass sie es ihm nicht abschlagen würden, im Gegenteil, sehr erfreut sein dürften, einem so mächtigen Staatsmann einen Gefallen tun zu können.

דברו נא, "please tell, etc." The meaning is "immediately." Joseph did not want to be tardy in fulfilling the oath he had sworn to his father.

באזני פרעה לאמור, "in Pharaoh's hearing, saying, etc." The reason that the word לאמור appears here again was that Joseph wanted these advisers of Pharaoh to volunteer such an appeal, not merely to be Joseph's messengers.

אשר כריתי לי means according to its plain sense “[the grave] which I have digged” just as (Exodus 21:33) “If a man shall dig (יכרה)”. There is a Midrashic explanation (Sotah 13a) which fits in with a meaning of the word כריתי, viz., אשר כריתי means אשר קניתי “which I have bought”. For R. Akiba said, “when I went to the coast-towns I heard them use for what we term מכירה “trading” the term כירה (Rosh Hashanah 26a). Another Midrashic explanation takes כריתי to be connected with כרי a piled up heap of grain, for Jacob had taken all the silver and gold which he had brought from the house of Laban and made a pile of it and said to Esau, “Take this for your share in the cave” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).

ואשובה. He (Pharaoh) should not worry that I would leave his country permanently.

השביעני לאמור, "has made me swear by saying, etc." Our sages in Sotah 36 have explained that Joseph used the word לאמור to forestall Pharaoh suggesting that Joseph have his oath voided. Joseph threatened that if this were possible, he would also have his oath not to reveal that Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew voided at the same time. The plain meaning is simply that inasmuch as Joseph described only the content of the oath, not its actual wording, he had to use the word לאמור.

Related to כרי דגור... כרי is Hebrew, and דגור is Aramaic.

A more homiletical approach would be this. Joseph wanted to head off Pharaoh's question why he had not consulted with him before swearing an oath which he could not keep without obtaining Pharaoh's consent. Joseph explained that there had not been time for such consultations as the oath had been sworn close to the time of Jacob's death. He indicated this by quoting his father as saying: "here I am about to die" (48,21). We have already discussed this in connection with 47,29.

כאשר השביעך ACCORDING AS HE ADJURED THEE — For except for that oath I would not permit you to do so. He did not dare, however, to say to Joseph, “Break the oath”, lest he might retort, “Then, I, too, may break the oath I made you that I will never reveal that secret about the Sacred Tongue, viz., that I possess a knowledge of it in addition to the seventy languages which you also understand but of which you have no knowledge at all — as it is related in Treatise Sotah 36b.

Not to reveal about the Hebrew Language... Question: If so, how was Yoseif allowed to speak to his brothers in Hebrew? Rashi explained [that Yoseif spoke to them in Hebrew] on, “I speak to you with my own mouth” (45:12). The answer is: Pharaoh stipulated with Yoseif not to speak Hebrew specifically to the Egyptians. When Yoseif spoke to his brothers, no one else was with him in the house, and it did not become known that he spoke to them. (Re’m) The Nachalas Yaakov writes: The real question is that everything Yoseif’s interpreter spoke [to the brothers] was in Hebrew, and many Egyptians were present. Furthermore, Re’m contradicts himself, because he wrote on 45:12 that many Egyptians knew Hebrew [since it was the language of the neighboring land of Canaan]. If so, what use was it for Yoseif to swear not to speak in Hebrew, when many Egyptians were speaking it [even though Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew]? See his elaboration there.

ויעלו אתו, voluntarily, not because Joseph had so commanded.

ויעל יוסף לקבור את אביו, “Joseph went up in order to bury his father.” We find that nine groups of people traveled to Canaan to bury Yaakov and to eulogise him. These nine categories of people are hinted at in the text as follows:
1) Joseph went up to bury his father (verse 7).
2) All the servants of Pharaoh went up with him, i.e. the ministers;
3) the elders of Pharaoh’s palace.
4) The elders of the land of Egypt;
5) the whole household of Joseph, (verse 8) his wife and her servant maids and the children.
6) Joseph’s brothers;
7) his father’s household;
8) a military escort (verse 9) traveling in chariots.
9) A cavalry escort.

זקני בית פרעה sind die höchsten Chargen am Hofe. זקני ארץ מצרים die höchsten Chargen in der Regierung.

זקני ביתו וכל זקני ארץ מצרים, seeing that Yaakov had been considered one of the wise men even in the eyes of the Egyptian intellectual elite. (compare Psalms 105,22 וזקניו יחכם”and to teach his elders wisdom.”)

ויעל עמו; Joseph took with him, as well as chariots riders, etc.; a similar construction as in Genesis 8,20 where the Torah reported that Noach ויעל עולות, offered burnt offerings, i.e, the word ויעל is in the transitive mode hiphil.

גם רכב גם פרשים. In the eyes of the military Yaakov had been considered an able general so that they paid him this last honour

ויעל עמו גם רכב גם פרשים, “also chariots and horsemen went up with him (Joseph).” This was a security escort aimed at Esau and his sons. Joseph was well aware of the wickedness of Esau and his family. Already Flavius Josephus recorded in his history of the Jewish people (chapter 2) that Tzefo, (Genesis 36,11) a son of Eliphaz, oldest son of Esau began a quarrel regarding Yaakov’s right to be buried at Machpelah. This quarrel erupted into open warfare with Joseph and his troops emerging victorious. He captured this Tzefo and brought him to Egypt where he and other supporters of his remained incarcerated until Joseph died. When Joseph died, this Tzefo escaped from prison and migrated to Campagne, ruling over certain Roman tribes until eventually he ruled over all of Greece and Italy. He became the first king in Rome and built the first temple there. This is why the Torah reported here that apart from all the entourage who traveled all the way to Canaan to bestow honour on Yaakov there was a also a sizable military contingent whose purpose was defensive.

ויעל עמו, “and there he took up with him (To Canaan) with him, etc;” The word ויעל in this verse may be understood just as the same word in ויעל עולות, in Genesis8,20, i.e. as a transitive form of the verb, “he caused the sacrifices to ascend.” (Rash’bam)

ויהי המחנה כבד מאד, “it was a very imposing camp.” Perhaps the Torah also alludes to a parallel camp in the celestial regions, angels that came to guard Yaakov in death just as they had stood watch over him in life. They were the angels previously mentioned in Genesis 32,3 where they had been called “the camp of G’d.” This may be why the Torah described this entourage as כבד מאד, (in two separate words) so that the first letters in the line ויהי המחנה כבד מאד yield both the number 26 (numerical value of י-ה-ו-ה ) using the letter ו from ויהי, and the letter כ from כבד as well as the letter ה from המחנה and the letter מ from מאד to allude to the name of G’d amounting to 45 (when you write the letters in the Ineffable Name as words, i.e. יוד-הא-ואו הא.)

גרן האטד THE THRESHING FLOOR OF ATAD — It was so called because it was surrounded by a hedge of (אטדין) thorns (not because thorns were threshed there) Our Rabbis explained that it was so called in consequence of an incident that occurred there — that all the kings of Canaan and the princes of Ishmael came to wage war against them, but as soon as they saw Joseph’s crown hanging over Jacob’s coffin they all rose and hung their crowns on it and thus wreathed it with crowns like a threshing floor that is surrounded with a hedge of thorns (Sotah 13a).

ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים, “he observed a seven days’ mourning period for his father.” According to Ibn Ezra this took effect as soon as they had buried Yaakov in Machpelah, in accordance with the tradition handed down by our sages. Some commentators believe that Joseph first returned to Egypt from the threshing ground of Atad, for when all the kings of the region had assembled there and had expressed fear that the Egyptians would use their presence as a pretext to invade and annex their lands, the elders of Egypt reassured them explaining that Joseph would return to Egypt immediately after the burial. (compare in part Sotah 13).

גרן האטד, “Goren ha-Atad.” “The threshing floor of thorns.” This obviously does not make any sense as no one requires a threshing floor for threshing thorns. We must assume that the place was called such, just as we find that there was a place called גורן כידון, “the threshing ground of a spear” (Chronicles I 13,9). This too does not make sense in terms of the purpose of that threshing floor. Perhaps that threshing floor was surrounded by a large number of spears seeing that David said to Goliath: “you are confronting me with the sword, the spear, and the lance” (Samuel I 17,45).

ויספדו שם מספד גדול וכבד מאד. There are 9 different kinds of eulogy. They are:מספד, נהי, צעקה,היליל, נידה, מרזח, קינים, הגה, והי. All these expressions are documented in Scripture. The expression מספד (as here) occurs in Kings I 13,30 ויספדו עליו הוא אחי, “they lamented over it, saying: “alas” my brother.” The word נהי meaning eulogy, appears in Jeremiah 9,18, whereas the expressions צעקה and היליל meaning different types of eulogy occur in Ezekiel 21,14. The expression נידה occurs in Jeremiah 48,17 also meaning eulogy. The word מרזח is used in this sense in Jeremiah 16,5, whereas קינים occurs in that sense Ezekiel 2,6. When the Torah here uses the expression מספד גדול, a great mourning, the meaning is that the various types of eulogies to which we have referred were all used on that occasion. Basically, the Torah teaches that nine different groups of people all participated in the funeral cortege for Yaakov and each made its particular contribution to eulogising and demonstrating their appreciation of the contribution this man had made to mankind, not only to his family. A eulogy is a register of the positive contributions made by the deceased during his lifetime. An example of such a eulogy are the words spoken about King Sha-ul and his son Yonathan by King David: in Samuel II 1,23: הנאהבים והנעימים בחייהם ובמותם לא נפרדו, “who were beloved and pleasant and even in death refused to be parted from Him.” A properly composed eulogy contains elements describing the personal relationship between the survivor and the deceased such as David saying of Yonathan in that same chapter: צר לי עליך אחי יהונתן, “my brother Yonathan you were most dear to me, your love was more wonderful to me, more than the love of women.” King David also taught us something about a eulogy even for people who not always saw eye to eye with the one eulogising him, i.e Avner, at one time almost David’s arch enemy. Nonetheless, in Samuel II 3,33 David proclaims: “Should Avner have died the death of a churl? Your hands were not bound, your feet were not put in fetters; but you fell as one falls before treacherous men!” These examples teach that when eulogising one has to list the good people did, their contributions to life generally, emphasising that with the death of the deceased the survivors have been deprived of those values the deceased stood for. The prophet Ezekiel was even instructed by G’d to eulogise the city of Tzor (Tyre), (Ezekiel 27,2-3) although the major part of that eulogy bemoaned the abuse made by those people of the gifts and luxuries they had enjoyed thanks to G’d’s largesse. The exploits of these people are extolled in spite of their not finding favour in the eyes of the Lord. In verse 27 of that eulogy the fact that all these people, G’d’s creatures, were swept away in the prime of their lives is bemoaned. [The prophet Ezekiel did not say “good riddance.” Ed.] In Moed Katan the Talmud elaborates on the eulogy over the passing of Rabbi Pedot, the speaker commencing with describing the very day on which the sage died as a day which is difficult for the entire Jewish people, as difficult as the day when the sun set on the land of Egypt. This was a reference to Amos 8,9 “Shall not the earth shake for this, and all that dwell in it mourn? Shall it not all rise like the Nile, etc., etc.? I will make the sun set at noon, I will darken the earth on a sunny day, I will turn your festivals into mourning, and all your songs into dirges.” The demise of the power of Egypt was, of course, no reason for the Jewish people to mourn, but it was a reason for all the nations who considered Egypt as their patron to do so. There is sort of a formula of how the president of the Sanhedrin has to be eulogised, [to ensure one is not guilty of being remiss in eulogising him sufficiently, a grave sin. Ed.] Part of the formula contains the words: “the finest spices have been buried in the earth (where they cannot give off their fragrance) a man who knew all about the most intricate parts of Torah law such as the various skin eczemas, etc. and ritual impurities connected with oholot, a man able to remove any doubts which bothered Torah scholars of lesser stature. Someone able to explain all manner of hidden depths contained in the Torah.” The mourner continued to liken the deceased to the most outstanding judges in Israel such as Othniel. [The above is an example of a eulogy worthy of the name. Ed.]

ספד. מספד dürfte verwandt sein mit :זבד ein zugemessenes Teil, צבט bei Ruth: ebenfalls zumessen, zuteilen, ebenso שות ,שבט ,שפת ,שפט ,שפד, Grundbedeutung: jemandem etwas ihm Gebührendes zuteilen, oder etwas in die gebührende Stelle setzen. Demgemäß ספר: jemandem nun, nachdem er von uns geschieden, diejenige Stellung in unserer Erinnerung geben, die ihm gebührt. Vor dem הספר kann niemand von einem Menschen sagen, welche Stellung er in der Erinnerung werde einzunehmen haben, er kann sich noch in allerletzter Zeit zum Guten oder Bösen ändern; nur im הספר kann er die bleibende Einreihung in das Register der Menschen bekommen.

ויעש לאביו אבל שבעת ימים, “he observed a seven day mourning period for his father.” Some commentators claim that the chieftains of Esau as well as the prince of the Yishmaelites and the sons or grandsons of Keturah assembled at that location to honour the memory of Yaakov. This was a new mourning. It was the custom that when a relative of the deceased arrived from afar to participate in the funeral, a new additional rite of mourning is observed and they weep anew over their loss.

There they eulogized. The Egyptians mourned his passing bitterly because with his arrival the famine abated and with his death it returned.

וירא יושב הארץ הכנעני, as if the Torah had written וירא הכנעני יושב הארץ, “the Canaanite inhabitants of the land realised, etc.”

Also ein Grenzort des kanaanitischen Landes verewigte mit seinem Namen die Anerkennung, die ein jüdischer Stammvater in der Fremde gefunden hatte.

וירא יושב הארץ הכנעני, “the inhabitants of the land of the Canaanite tribes “saw;” the reference is to the Emorites under Sichon and to the ones under Og. They also called themselves “Canaanites.” Rashi explains thus in the Book of Numbers and in the Book of Judges and on several occasions.

אשר בעבר הירדן, “whose habitat is on the East Bank of the river Jordan.” These Kings had seen the mourning being observed at the threshing ground of Atad (verse 10) which was located on Canaanite land on the East Bank. Just as the inhabitants of the land of Canaan proper called that region “East Bank,” in the days of Joshua who settled the Israelites on the West Bank, so the people residing on the East Bank called the area across the Jordan “West Bank. We have proof of this in Numbers 32,19: כי לא ננחל אתם מעבר לירדן והלאה כי באה נחלתנו מעבר לירדן מזרחה, “for we will not inherit with them on the other side of the Jordan because our inheritance has fallen to us on this side of the Jordan eastwards.”

כאשר צום AS HE COMMANDED THEM — What was it that he had commanded them? This you can gather from the next verse,

ויעשו בניו לו כן כאשר צום, ”his sons did for him exactly in accordance with his instructions.” Rashi understands the emphasis in our verse as being the word בניו “his sons,” i.e. that his grandsons were not to be pallbearers. Some of these grandsons had been mothered by Canaanite women, and Yaakov did not want to be carried by them. If so, it seems hard to understand that Yaakov, while alive and much younger, had not forbidden his sons to marry such women, seeing that Avraham and Yitzchok had both been very concerned about this. Not only this, but Rashi himself on Genesis 38,2 where Yehudah’s marriage to the daughter of a “Canaanite” man by the name of Shua is reported, goes out of his way to explain that the word “Canaanite” in that verse is not an ethnic description but means: “a trader.” It is possible that among Yaakov’s grandchildren there were at least some who had been born to Canaanite mothers, such as “Sha-ul son of the Canaanite” in Genesis (adoptee of Shimon?) As to Rashi explaining that Ephrayim and Menashe acted as pallbearers in lieu of Levi and Joseph, although they too were grandsons of Yaakov, this is no problem, Yaakov having explicitly described both Ephrayim and Menashe as being just like Reuven and Shimon (his sons) in every respect. (Genesis 48,5)

כאשר צום, “as he had commanded them.” Yaakov had told his sons (compare Tanchuma Bamidbar 12) “be careful with my bier and do not allow any of the Canaanites to touch it. You should carry my bier according to the following procedure: ‘Yehudah, Issachar and Zevulun to the east; Reuven, Shimon and Gad from the south; Ephrayim, Menashe and Binyamin from the west; Dan, Asher and Naftali from the north.” Joseph was not to carry the bier as he was a king. Levi was not to carry the bier as in the future he was slated to carry G’d’s Holy Ark, and it is not fitting that anyone who carries the Ark of G’d should carry the ark of a dead person. Yaakov added that if his sons were to abide by his instructions G’d would reward them with flags in the desert. This is what our sages (Rashi on verse 13) referred to when they said that this is why the Torah reports: “his sons carried him;” his grandsons did not participate in that task.

So weit gingen die Ägypter mit, sie gingen nicht mit hinüber in das Land Kanaan. Daher, und auch wohl um das Land der Philister zu umgehen, der Umweg bis zum Jordan. Von dort nahmen die Kinder allein die Leiche und bestatteten sie nach des Vaters Anordnung. Die ganze Begleitung wartete jenseits des Jordans, an der Grenze, bis nach vollendetem Begräbnis und begleitete dann Josef und die Brüder wieder nach Hause.

כאשר צום, “as he had commanded them;” to do during his funeral.

וישאו אותו בניו AND HIS SONS BORE HIM — His sons and not his grandsons. For thus, indeed, he had commanded them: “My bier shall not be borne by an Egyptian, nor by one of your sons because they are children of Canaanite women, but you alone shall bear it He likewise assigned them their positions, namely, three on the east-side and an equal number on the other three sides of the bier. In the same order in which later on the camps marched through the wilderness bearing their several banners they were arranged here. But the 12 tribes that formed these four divisions did not include Levi or Joseph, for Jacob had said, “Levi shall not carry my bier because he is destined to carry the holy Ark; Joseph shall not carry it because he is a king, but Manasseh and Ephraim shall take their places”. And, it is to this that Scripture refers when it says, (Numbers 2:2) “every man [shall pitch] by his own banner according to the signs” — meaning according to the sign (i.e. indication of position) which their father individually gave them with regard to carrying his bier (Midrash Tanchuma, Bamidbar 12).

וישאו אותו בניו, “His sons carried him, etc;” only his sons, not any of his grandsons as they had Canaanite mothers. We have read in the Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 50, “are we to assume that Yehudah’s wife (Genesis 38,2) was really a Canaanite, in spite of the fact that Avraham had gone to great length to insure that Eliezer would not select a Canaanite wife for his son Yitzchok? (Genesis 24,3 Yitzchok) Yitzchok had similarly instructed his son Yaakov. The answer given by the Talmud is that the word Canaanite also means: “trader,” and that the Torah told us in Genesis 38,2 that Yehudah’s wife was the daughter of a well known trader, named Shua. If you were to counter how this can be squared with the opinion expressed on Genesis 37,35 where we read about Yaakov’s “sons and daughters all trying to comfort Yaakov over the disappearance and presumed death of Joseph,” that all of Yaakov’s sons had twin girls born with them, so why did Yehudah not marry one of them or a granddaughter of Yaakov? We must assume that all of these twin daughters died prematurely so that the sons of Yaakov had no other option but to marry Canaanite girls. To the additional question why they could not at least have married the children of Shimon of whom we know that he had a son by a Canaanite woman (Genesis 46,10)? B‘reshit Rabbah 80,10 suggests that Shaul borne to Shimon was actually a son of Sh’chem who had raped Dinah; one opinion offered is that Shimon buried that offspring in the land of Canaan before the brothers descended to Egypt and that this is why he is referred to as son of a Canaanite. Getting back to the question why the grandsons of Yaakov were not part of the pall bearers, of the grandfather; Joseph did not wish to do anything that could arouse jealousies among them, some being biologically qualified others not; seeing that no one would be jealous of Ephrayim and Menashe who were princes, he did not object to their being pall bearers. (They would also be founding fathers of tribes in the future) Moreover, Rashi says that Levi was not among the pall bearers, as he would be carrying the Holy Ark. More questions are raised as to how Moses could carry the coffin of Joseph at the Exodus, seeing that he too was a Levite. A suggestion is offered that Joseph’s coffin, similar to the Holy Ark, did not actually need pall bearers as it carried itself, similar to the Holy Ark which is described as carrying its bearers. (based on a verse in Psalms 80,2: כצאן יוסף יושב הכרובים, (Compare more about this in Moshav z’keynim)

הוא ואחיו וכל העלים אתו HE AND HIS BRETHREN AND ALL THAT WENT UP WITH HIM — here, speaking of their return to Egypt, it mentions his brothers before the Egyptians who went with him whereas when speaking of their journey to Canaan to bury their father it mentions the Egyptians before his brothers, as it is said, (Genesis 50:7) “and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh …” and afterwards it states (Genesis 50:8) “and all the house of Joseph and his brothers”. But the explanation is: because they (the Egyptians) saw how much respect the kings of Canaan paid to Jacob by hanging their crowns on his coffin they now treated them (the sons) with much respect and gave them precedence on the return journey (Sotah 13a).

וכל העולים אתו, and all those who had gone up with him, etc. The Torah tells us that not a single person who had been part of the funeral cortege failed to return to Egypt. The reason was that they had all gone only in order to perform the מצוה of burying Joseph's father. None of them returned before he had completed participating in that deed. The Torah also wants to inform us that because they were all שלוחי מצוה, charged with the performance of a good deed, none of them encountered any mishap either while going or while returning (compare Pessachim 8).

וכל העולים אתו, “and all those who had been going up with him.” This verse contains an allusion to the fierce fighting which preceded Yaakov’s burial in the cave of Machpelah. This is why it was necessary for the Torah to report that all of Joseph’s family returned to Egypt in peace. Not a single person who had engaged in honoring Yaakov by traveling to Canaan to bury him came to any harm. When the brothers had fought against Shechem and had subsequently been engaged in a battle with the Emorites they also did not sustain any casualties. To make this point, the Torah had written (Genesis 35,6) “Yaakov came to Luz which is in the land of Canaan,...he and all those with him.” The addition of these words at the end of the verse were also meant to hint that the family had not sustained any casualties.

Yoseif … and all those. On the way to the burial the mourners are mentioned last (v. 8), whereas on the way back they are mentioned first. This is still the custom — on the way to the cemetery the mourners follow the others and on the way back they precede them.

הוא ואחיו וכל העולים אתו, “he and his brothers and all those accompanying him. When the procession left Egypt the Egyptians were at the head of the procession (verses 7 and 8) It appears that after the Egyptians had witnessed the honour bestowed on the bier carrying Yaakov, many crowned heads participating in paying him tribute, the Egyptians were impressed by this so that on the return journey Joseph and his brothers were given the honour of leading the procession.

Alternatively, the Torah may be telling us something entirely different. When the Torah speaks separately of Joseph and all those who buried his father as returning to Egypt, and then repeats the words: "after he had buried his father," it may differentiate between those who waited with their return until after the burial and between those who used the opportunity to conduct whatever business they had in Canaan by joining the funeral cortege. The former all returned safe and sound without mishap because they were engaged in a מצוה. The people who were motivated by their personal concerns were not included in the statement that everybody returned without fail.

ויראו אחי יוסף כי מת אביהם AND WHEN JOSEPH S BRETHREN SAW THAT THEIR FATHER WAS DEAD — What is the meaning of “and they saw”? They could perceive that he was dead through the conduct of Joseph. Previously they used to dine at Joseph’s table and he used to receive them with open arms out of respect to his father; after Jacob’s death, however, he no longer treated them in a friendly manner (Tanchuma Yashan 2:1:2; Genesis Rabbah 100:8).

לו ישטמנו יוסף, "perhaps Joseph will hate us, etc." In this instance the word לו means "perhaps," though there is no other such instance in the Torah where the word לו is used in that sense. We need to understand why the Torah uses the word לו here in a sense which is the opposite of its regular meaning. Although it is quite impossible to mistake the meaning of this word in our context, why did the Torah not use such words as פן, or אולי if the intention was to describe the brothers as saying "perhaps?"

לו ישטמנו, “supposing Joseph were to turn hostile against us? They hoped that Joseph’s hostility against them would be restricted to his heart and would not manifest itself openly. [this interpretation assumes that the word לו is a wishful expression as it is elsewhere. Ed.]

Out of respect to his father. But once Yaakov died he no longer received them warmly. It says in Bereishis Rabbah: “R. Tanchuma said that Yoseif’s intent was for the sake of Heaven, for he reasoned, ‘In the past, my father would seat me above Yehudah who is the king, and above Reuvein who is the firstborn. Now, it is not right for me to sit above them...’” And he did not wish to sit below them, because it would be disrespectful to the royalty [of Egypt].

So lange Kinder um einen Vater, eine Mutter, leben, so lange finden sie in den Eltern den Halt der Einigung. Selbst unter den besten Kindern können kleine Differenzen sein; so lange aber die Eltern leben, schwindet aus Liebe und Anhänglichkeit zu den Eltern jeder Misston. Nach dem Tode lockert sich das Band, sie treffen sich nicht mehr so oft, werden sich fremder, wenn Vater und Mutter nicht mehr den Mittelpunkt bilden. Nun gar hier ist es etwas ganz Natürliches. Die Brüder "sahen", merkten, dass der Vater nicht mehr da sei. Es braucht ja nur einer dem andern ein Unrecht getan zu haben, so muss dieser andere ganz außerordentlich freundlich sein, wenn der Schuldbewusste nicht glauben soll, er sei ihm unfreundlich. — לו, von לוה: ein Heischesatz, angenommen, dass — wenn es nun doch so wäre, dass —.

ויאמרו לו ישטמנו יוסף, they said: “perhaps Joseph will hate us.” When the brothers had returned from burying their father in Canaan, Joseph passed the pit into which the brothers had thrown him and recited the blessing: “the G-d Who has performed a miracle for me at this place.” When the brothers heard this they became afraid that old animosities might flare up again.

לו ישטמנו means PERHAPS HE WILL HATE US. The word has many different meanings. There are examples of לו used to denote a petition, having the meaning of “Oh that!” as for instance: (Genesis 30:34) “Would (לו) it might be according to thy word”; (Genesis 23:13) “Oh that thou wouldst (לו) only hear me”; (Joshua 7:7) “Would that (לו) we had been content”; (Numbers 14:2) “Would that (לו) we had died”. ,There are examples of לו used in the sense of “if” and “אולי” as, (Deuteronomy 32:29) “If (לו) they were wise [they would understand this]”; (Isaiah 48:18) “If (לוא) thou wouldst hearken to my commandments, [then would thy peace be as a river]”; (2 Samuel 18:12) “If (לו) I would receive [a thousand pieces of silver] in my hands, [yet would I not put forth my hand etc.]”. There is an example of לו used in the sense of “perhaps”, — in our verse — “Perhaps he will hate us”, but there is no other example of its usage in this sense in Scripture. Here it corresponds in sense with the word אולי, “perhaps”, as for example in (Genesis 24:5) “אולי the woman will not be willing to follow me” which means “perhaps she will not etc.” As a matter of fact אולי has all the meanings of לו, for there are examples of אולי denoting a petition as for instance (2 Samuel 16:12) “Perhaps (אולי) the Lord will look upon mine eye”, (where the context shows that this involves a kind of petition that God should do this); (Joshua 14:12) “Perhaps (אולי) the Lord will be with me [and I shall drive them out]”, (involving also a petition that God should do this), where אולי has a similar meaning to לו in (Genesis 30:34) “Would (לו) it might be according to thy word”. Then again the word אולי has the meaning of “if”; for example, (Genesis 18:24) “Perhaps (אולי) there are fifty righteous [wilt Thou destroy etc.]” (which is equivalent to “if there are fifty… wilt thou destroy?”.)

But there is no other example of this in Scripture... Rashi is saying: although there is no other example in Scripture, still we can say that לו means שמא (lest). This is because לו sometimes means אולי, (perhaps), as Rashi proved from Scripture. And אולי sometimes means שמא. If so, לו can mean שמא, since לו and אולי are the same.

It seems that the Torah has the brothers express a subconscious desire for Joseph to pay them back for all they had done to him. If Joseph were to do that now and the brothers would experience a similar agony to that which they had subjected him to, they would no longer have to worry about paying for their sin against him at the end of the exile. Yalkut Mishley 929 describes that the 10 martyrs executed by Hadrian were in retribution for the failure to punish the brothers who had sold Joseph at the time. Shabbat 10 attributes the exile in Egypt to the coloured coat Jacob had made for Joseph and which resulted in the jealousy of his brothers.

Sometimes אולי denotes a wish... Rashi is saying there is another proof that לו and אולי are the same: לו often means בקשה (a wish), and אולי sometimes means בקשה. Thus we can say that לו sometimes means שמא just like אולי sometimes does. [Rashi adds:] “Sometimes אולי has the meaning of ‘if’,” [just like לו does] as Rashi said before. Therefore, לו and אולי are the same.

ויצוו אל יוסף AND THEY COMMANDED SOME TO GO TO JOSEPH — The words ויצוו אל have the same meaning as in (Exodus 6:13) “and He gave them a charge unto (ויצום אל) the children of Israel”, which signifies, “He commanded Moses and Aaron to act as messengers to the children of Israel”, and this verse, too, means they charged the man whom they sent that he should act as their messenger to Joseph to speak to him as follows (the words לומר לו כן correspond to לאמר in the Bible text here). And who was it that they so charged? The sons of Bilhah who had been accustomed to associate with him, as it is said (Genesis 37:12) “When a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah” (Tanchuma Yashan 2:1:2).

ויצוו אל יוסף לאמור, “they entrusted the following message to discreet messengers before they themselves came to Joseph.”

ויצוו אל יוסף, they commanded Yaakov’s servants or outsiders concerning Joseph. We find a similar construction in Exodus 6,13 ויצום אל בני ישראל, where G’d commanded Moses and Aaron to address the Israelites.

ויצוו אל יוסף, they ordered emissaries to tell Joseph, etc. We again have to explore the meaning of the word לאמור in this context. If it means that the emissary were to speak to Joseph, the Torah should have added the words אל יוסף. Perhaps the brothers did not want the emissary to tell Joseph that the brothers had sent them but to tell him that he himself had overheard their father command the brothers to tell him of this conversation at the appropriate time. This would account for the word לאמור being used twice in this verse.

Who was it that they charged [to be messengers]? The sons of Bilhah... [Rashi knows this] because the messenger could not have been an individual who was not their brother. For then Yoseif surely would not believe him, as Yoseif knew that his father did not suspect him of this. But now that they sent one of the brothers to him, to stand in front of him and say, “Father charged me with this message,” Yoseif could not deny its truth. [Another reason the messenger could not have been an individual who was not their brother:] It is not logical that they would divulge to a stranger that they sold their brother. This was a secret and was to their disgrace. It would be more fitting to speak to him themselves. (Gur Aryeh)

ויצוו אל יוסף , “they sent a messenger to deliver an urgent message to Joseph;” why did they not do so during the lifetime of their father? During the lifetime of their father they had thought it best not to resurrect old hatreds, etc. they assumed that the past had been buried. When they had passed the pit into which they had thrown Joseph they observed how Joseph recited the blessing appropriate for people who had been the witness and beneficiaries of Divine miracles. When they saw this, they were afraid that he had not forgiven them for the past.

ויצוו אל יוסף, according to the Jerusalem Targum they instructed the sons of Bilhah to tell Joseph in the name of their father that he had said before being gathered in to tell Joseph etc. etc,.”

אביך צוה THY FATHER DID COMMAND — They altered the facts (they stated something that was false) for the sake of peace, for Jacob had given them no such command because Joseph was not suspect in his sight (Yevamot 65b)).

לאמר אביך צוה, he commanded that we should say what we have to say as something that originated with us and not with him, as he did not think for a moment that you might want to avenge yourselves on us. However, he consented that if we were worried, we could take the initiative and express our concerns to you.

לפני מותו, so closely before his death that we could not speak to you about this at that time.

שא נא לפשע עבדי אלהי אביך NOW, PRAY, FORGIVE THE TRESSPASS OF THE SERVANTS OF THE GOD OF THY FATHER — After having repeated to Joseph the words which his brothers stated had been their fathers message, “forgive thy brothers’ sin” the messengers were to add as a petition of the brothers “Now, pray etc.”, meaning “If you will not forgive them although they are your brothers, forgive them because they are the servants of the God of thy father”, implying though your father be dead, his God still lives and they are his servants.

ויבך יוסף בדברם אליו, “Joseph cried when they spoke to him.” He cried when he realized that they suspected him of harboring hostile thoughts against them. This verse is proof that Joseph had never informed Yaakov that the brothers had sold him, for if Yaakov had been aware of it, he would have ordered Joseph not to hold a grudge against the brothers on that account and to make up with them According to the Midrash, after Joseph’s original meeting with his father in Egypt, Joseph made a point of never again to meet his father without someone else being present so that his brothers would not have reason to suspect him of his telling his father that they had sold him.

Eine große Feinheit zeigt sich in dem, was sie in des Vaters, und was sie in ihrem eigenen Namen sagen lassen. Der Vater spricht von פשע und הטאה in ihrem Benehmen. vפש, verwandt mit צעd, das Vergreifen an einer Person, פשע be sonders: sich an einem anvertrauten Gute vergreifen, schnöder Missbrauch eines mehr oder minder innigen Verhältnisses. Den Vater lassen sie aber auch, entschuldigend, von einer Übereilung, חטאה, sprechen, welches die Annahme voraussetzt, Josef könne vielleicht auch etwas Schuld mit getragen haben. Sie, in ihrem Namen, sprechen nur von פשע, "wir wissen nichts von einer Entschuldigung" : Ferner sagen sie: שא נא לפשע, den Vater aber lassen sie gesagt haben: שא נא פשע. Jakob spricht: Hebe das Verbrechen deiner Brüder fort, denke gar nicht mehr daran, lasse es nicht geschehen sein. Sie aber: Hebe das dem Verbrechen Anwohnende fort, seine Folgen, seinen Einfluss etc. — לפשע, — wir bleiben schuldig, wir vergessen nichts davon, lasse es aber bei dir keine Folgen haben. (So heißt es nicht ואהבת את רעך כמוך, sondern לרעך. Jenes ist wohl bei der Verschiedenartigkeit der Menschenpersönlichkeiten kaum zu fordern. Die Persönlichkeiten der Mitmenschen kann wohl keiner in gleichem Maße lieben. Es können ja Persönlichkeiten geradezu ganz unausstehlich sein. Allein לרעך, dem was deinem Nächsten anwohnt, seinem Glücke, seinem Wohle, seinem Heile, wie unliebenswürdig auch die Person sein mag, sollst du freundlich wie dem eigenen zugetan sein; sollst dich über sein Glück wie über das eigene freuen, sein Glück wie das eigene fördern, über sein Unglück dich wie über das eigene betrüben). Ferner: sie nennen sich nicht אחיך, den Titel haben wir eingebüsst, haben nicht brüderlich an dir gehandelt, aber wir sind noch עברי אלקי אביך, teilen und tragen mit dir dieselbe Aufgabe und Bestimmung, sind Genossen eines und desselben Bundes.

ויבך יוסף, when they mentioned their father and the fact that he had not thought him capable of holding a grudge and acting upon it

ועתה שא נא, “and now, etc;” from this word on, the sons of Bilhah added words of their own.

וילכו גם אחיו AND HIS BRETHREN ALSO WENT in addition to sending their messengers.

וילכו גם אחיו, Joseph’s brothers also followed themselves after having sent ahead the sons of Bilhah. (They did after they saw him weep).

כי התחת אלהים אני FOR AM I INSTEAD OF GOD — Am I perhaps (do you think that I am) in His stead? The ה of התחת expresses a question. Even if I wished to do you harm would I at all be able to do so? For did you not all design evil against me, and you did not succeed because the Holy One, blessed be He, designed it for good. How, then, can I alone, without God’s consent, do evil to you.

התחת אלוקים אני, while it is true that I am a judge, a surrogate of His, charged with the task of carrying out His decrees, and I could punish anyone who was empowered by Him to carry out His decrees. This is analogous to the principle that one court must not annul the rulings of a previous court on the same subject.” (Eduyot 1:5) It is true that you had been charged by G’d to carry out His decrees, but you did not send me here deliberately but G’d. (Genesis 48:8)

כי התחת אלוקים אני, "Am I then in G'd's place?" Joseph meant: "if you are guilty it is up to G'd to punish you; it is not up to me to revenge myself or to hold a grudge against you." Joseph may not have told the brothers that he had forgiven them because under Noachide law the matter did not depend on his forgiveness at all. Under Noachide law, once a person has committed the sin of kidnapping or robbery, he is guilty of the death penalty. The fact that the victim forgave the criminal is irrelevant to the penalty. Joseph added that he had to interpret the brothers' actions in a manner which reflected credit upon them.

התחת אלוקים, “if in lieu of G’d?” Some commentators understand Joseph as remonstrating with his brothers who had prostrated themselves before him as if he were G’d, something most inappropriate, especially when they said: “here we are ready to be your slaves.” [Jews are G’d’ servants, not men’s. Ed.]

אל תיראו כי התחת אלוקים אני, “do not fear! For am I instead of G’d?” He meant that the reason they did not have to be afraid of him was that he himself was a G’d-fearing man. He implied, as explained by Onkelos who uses the word דחלא — “real fear”, that even if he were bent on retaliation this would only backfire as G’d would punish him in turn. The letter ה at the beginning of the word התחת must not be understood as introducing a question but as part of Joseph conception of “fear of the Lord.” If one “fears” the Lord it is because one knows that He returns tit for tat. We have other examples where such letters ה which at first glance appear to introduce a question do not in fact do so. Compare Samuel I 2,27 הנגלה נגליתי אל בית אביך. The translation of these words is clearly not: “did I appear in the house of your father?” Rather these words need to be translated as: “I revealed Myself to your father’s house.” Joseph repeated the words “do not be afraid,” in both verse 19 and 21. The first “fear” he spoke of was the brothers’ fear of him; the second fear he spoke of was the fear of the famine which had started again. This is why he added immediately, (concerning their second fear) “I will provide for you.” (Compare my comments on Genesis 47,14).

Gott mag die Gesinnung, die Absicht richten. Ich, als Mensch, habe ja nur an den Erfolg zu denken, und da bin ich vielmehr euch zu größtem Dank ber- pflichtet.

?כי התחת אלהים אני, the word תחת here must be understood as in Deuteronomy, 1,21: אל תחת, “do not be afraid!” When Joseph realised the fear of the brothers that he would now take revenge on them he was broken hearted, telling them that he was far too G–d fearing, to act in such a manner.

אלוקים חשבה לטובה, you were the unwitting agents of G’d and you are therefore not to blame. G’d had planned that it should all be for the good.

ואתם חשבתם עלי רעה, you had mistakenly considered me as a רודף, someone threatening your very lives. Had you not erred, your actions would have been perfectly justified.

ואתם חשבתם עלי רעה, והאלוקים חשבה לטובה, "what you had planned as harm for me, G'd planned it for good, etc." The whole matter is comparable to that of a person who plans to give his friend a poisoned drink in order to kill him, but who mistakenly pours him a cup of wine. Legally speaking, such a person is not guilty before a human tribunal. Similarly, the brothers were not guilty before Joseph though they were guilty before a Heavenly Tribunal. It is possible that the forgiveness of the victim even to a Jewish criminal would not free the criminal from the death penalty if the deed had been committed under circumstances warranting such a verdict.

Elokim meant it for good. Hashem arranged for them to suspect him and try to harm him in order to bring about this great event, otherwise Yaakov’s righteous sons would never have done such a deed.

אלקים חשבה לטובה, G’d exploited your error for something good.

וידבר אל לבם means HE SPOKE words that found ready entrance INTO THEIR HEART: Before you came down hither people spread rumours about me that I was born a slave; through you it became public that I am a free-man by birth. If I were to kill you what would people say? “He saw a party of fine young men and he prided himself on his relationship with them, saying “These are my brothers”, but afterwards he killed them. Have you ever heard of a man killing his brothers?!” (Genesis Rabbah 100:9) Another interpretation is: He said to them, “Ten lights could not extinguish one light; how, then, can one light extinguish ten lights?” (Megillah 16b).

וינחם אותם וידבר אל לבם, “he comforted them and spoke to their heart.” Rashi has this to say about these words of comfort: Joseph demonstrated to the brothers how his own status had been made more secure by their very existence. As long a they had not come to Egypt he had been suspected of being a slave who by a quirk of fate had risen to power. Ever since the arrival of his brothers such an accusation could not be sustained. If he were to revenge himself on them now these same people would conclude that they had not really been his brothers at all but had been hired by him to play that part in order to legitimise himself as a free man. After all, who would believe that he killed his actual brothers!? Moreover, from a logical point of view, if the ten of them had been unable to extinguish his light, how could he single-handedly hope to extinguish their collective lights?

Ten lights cannot extinguish one light... [You might ask: Why did Yoseif compare them to lights? The answer is:] Because the twelve tribes correspond to the twelve stars which illuminate the whole world. Therefore he mentioned to them “ten lights.” I.e., he was saying that despite their plan to kill him, he was saved from them because each tribe is like a constellation in the heavens which cannot be destroyed. And surely he alone is unable to destroy them. But it cannot simply mean that [since ten could not kill him, surely] he cannot kill ten. This would be no proof because Yoseif was a king and could order a thousand people to kill them. (Gur Aryeh)

אנכי אכלכל אתכם ist nicht wohl so zu fassen, als ob Josef seiner Brüder Hauptbesorgnis zunächst auf die materielle Unterstützung bezogen hätte. Eine solche Voraussetzung ist ja auch durch das וינחם אותם וידבר על לכם beseitigt. Vielmehr: Noch einmal, fürchtet nicht, dass mit des Vaters Tod eine Änderung in meiner Gesinnung vorgegangen sei. Vielmehr werdet ihr täglich den Beweis in Händen haben, dass ich der Alte bin und bleibe. — נחם ,וינחם אותם ja Trost und Reue, beides eine völlige Sinnesänderung in der bisherigen Ansicht über etwas. Man hat bisher etwas für Recht gehalten, sich vielleicht gar damit gebrüstet, sieht nun plötzlich, dass es Unrecht sei und man sich dessen zu schämen habe: Reue. So würde auch wahrer Trost nur ein solcher sein, der den von einem schmerzlichen Leid Betroffenen zu der Überzeugung bringt, dass auch dies zum Heile gereiche, nicht wie der "babylonische Trost" spricht: "was kann man dazu tun, man muss sich in das Unabänderliche fügen" (B. K. 38a.), sondern das Bewusstsein belebt: würde man die Verhältnisse so durch- und überschauen, wie Gott sie durchschaut und überschaut, so würde man es nicht ändern, selbst wenn man es vermöchte. So sucht auch Josef sie hier erst zu einer ganz entgegengesetzten Ansicht über die Vergangenheit zu bringen: "Gott hat euch zum Werkzeug meines und so vieler Menschen Glückes gebraucht" etc. und dann: וידבר על לבם nicht nur: אל לבם, sondern: על לבם, so, dass seine Worte und Gründe Macht über ihre Gefühle bekamen. נחמה וידבר על לבם. :wendet sich nicht ans Herz, sondern an den Verstand, und dann (Vgl. 25, 29).

וידבר אל לבם, “he addressed their hearts trying to put them at ease.” According to Rashi, he used logic to convince them of his sincerity, by saying that if ten lamps had not been able to extinguish one lamp, how could he a single (lamp) individual, hope to extinguish ten lamps? He referred to the smoke emanating from the fire in each lamp.

ישב, zumeist das ruhige, anstrngungslose (Gegensatz von יצב), sorglose Wohnen.

על ברכי יוסף [WERE BORN] ON JOSEPH’S KNEES — The meaning is as the Targum gives it: He brought them up upon his knees.

גם בני מכיר, grandchildren. In spite of this, Ephrayim was more fruitful and multiplied more than Menashe as Yaakov had said: “his younger brother will become greater than he.” (48,19)

וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים, “Joseph lived long enough to see three generations of his son Ephrayim.” The true meaning is that whereas Joseph saw three generations from his son Menashe, he saw four generations from his son Ephrayim (Ephrayim plus his great grandson). This is based on the word בני being a possessive of the word שלשים. [However, according to the cantillation, the tipcha under the word בני means it belongs to the word אפרים, Ed.] There is some allusion to this fertility of Ephrayim in Yaakov’s blessing who foresaw greater things for Ephrayim than for Menashe. Concerning the latter Yaakov had said that “he too would develop into a nation,” the implication being that it would take him longer, i.e. more years to do so The word גם in the line גם בני מכיר בן מנשה indicate that Menashe also lived in Joseph’s home; however, seeing that Joseph loved Menashe better than Ephrayim, the Torah mentions the fact that Menashe’s grandchildren were born on Joseph’s knees rather than those of Ephrayim.
The מכיר named here was actually Gilead, son of Machir, son of Menashe. He was the grandfather of Tzelofchod (Numbers 27,1). The Torah wanted to show that Joseph raised righteous people in his own home, people who in turn produced daughters of outstanding caliber such as the daughters of Tzelofchod.

Von Efrajim erlebte er Urenkelkinder, von Menasche Enkelkinder, Efrajim entwickelte sich rascher.

גם בני מכיר בן מנשה, “also the sons of Machir, a son of Menashe;” the word גם is meant to include Ephrayim and his children in what is described in this verse. How are we to understand this in practice? Joseph only saw Ephrayim’s grandchildren, whereas he did live to see Menashe’s great grandchildren. We know this from which of the descendants of Joseph are listed in the portion of Pinchas (Numbers 26,2937) there as founders of בתי אבות, clans, all of whom were born during Joseph’s life time. (Bamidbar Rabbah 14,7)

ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו אנכי מת והאלוקים פקוד יפקוד אתכם, the following verse proves what he had in mind when he commanded his brothers to take along with them his remains to the land of Canaan.

ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו הנה אנכי מת, “Joseph said to his brothers: ‘here I am about to die;’” this indicates that they all survived him.

אנכי מת, nicht mit dem Selbstgefühl der Väter: פקד — .נאסף אל עמי יפקד diese beiden kleinen Worte wurden die Lichtpunkte, die den Nachkommen Jahrhunderte hindurch die Hoffnung auf kommendes Morgenrot wach hielten. פקד, wie schon bemerkt. erwandt mit בגד, jemanden im Geiste mit der ihm entsprechenden Äußerlichkeit bekleiden. Daher: jemanden in ein Amt einsetzen, ihm einen Kreis geben in dem sich seine Persönlichkeit entfalten kann. Das Amt ist sein geistiges Gewand; daher auch umgekehrt Gewand symbolischer Ausdruck für das Amt wird und der כהן מחוסר בגדים nicht in der erforderlichen Erscheinung für die עבודה dasteht. (Gegensatz zu dem deutschen Ausdruck: ein Amt bekleiden). Von Gott in Beziehung zum Menschen gebraucht, wie פקד את שרה, heißt es ja: er bekleidete Sara mit dem ihr entsprechenden Geschicksgewande, gestaltete um Sara das ihr entsprechende Geschick. Einer kinderlosen Frau fehlt das "Gewand", es fehlt ihr das Gebiet, innerhalb dessen sie ihre Tätigkeit entfalten kann. In bezug auf ein Volk — wie hier — heißt es ebenfalls: Eingreifen in die Gänge des Geschickes, um ihm das ihm entsprechende Geschick zu gestalten, sei es zu Freud׳ oder Leid. Hier ward somit dem Jakobshause gesagt: Es wird eine geraume Zeit hingehen, wo Gott nicht יפקוד אתכם, euch nicht bedenken wird, und gewinnen wir hier überhaupt den Begriff des jüdischen Galuth, sowohl der früheren, als der späteren Zeit. Indem sich Gott ein machtloses יעקב-^^ erwählte, ist dessen Galuth kein besonderes Verhängnis, sondern einfache Konsequenz der natürlichen Verhältnisse. Nicht Israels Fall bedarf der besonderen והלכתי עמכם בקרי —) השגחה —) Israels Erhaltung ist ein נס. Sich selbst überlassen sinkt es, und nur wenn es sich den Adlersflügeln der göttlichen Führung hingibt, wird es emporgehalten. Ein בית יעקב als גרים hineingesetzt in die Mitte eines עם לועז, in die Mitte eines so "fremdzüngigen" mit seiner ganzen geistigen Anschauung in so vollendetem Gegensatz zu ihm stehenden Volkes wie Mizrajim, hat das Galuth in seiner herbsten Gestalt als natürliche Folge zu erwarten. In dem יפקד א׳ אתכם waren sie daher vorbereitet auf die Leiden, die da kommen, aber auch auf die Erlösung, die ihnen werden werde.

וישבע יוסף את בני ישראל, “Joseph adjured the Children of Israel.” When he realized that his brothers were advanced in age, he included also their offspring in this oath as none of his surviving brothers might be alive when the Israelites would leave Egypt. Everyone knew of the exile that awaited them in Egypt and that its conditions would be very harsh. The reason that he did not make them swear to transfer his remains to the Land of Canaan immediately after his death, may well have been that he knew that it was beyond their political power to have such an illustrious ruler as Joseph buried in a foreign country.

Er beschwor, nicht die Brüder, sondern "בני ישראל" somit auch die kommenden Geschlechter. Es liegt keine Anmaßung in dieser Verpflichtung, sie hatten ihn ja herabgebracht, es lag eine kleine Sühne darin, er durfte ihnen diese Verpflichtung auferlegen. Zugleich waren die Verpflichtung und die Gebeine, an denen sie in Erfüllung gebracht werden sollte, eine Bürgschaft für die Zuversicht, mit welcher sie der Rückkehr nach Kanaan entgegenharren sollten.

ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו....וישבע יוסף, “Joseph spoke to his brothers and he made them swear an oath;” It is difficult to understand why Joseph repeated the words פקוד יפקוד. We would have expected him to say: “when G–d will remember you and take you out of Egypt, take my remains with you.” This would have been parallel to Yaakov’s last request from his son Joseph.” (Compare Genesis 47,30) We may be correct in assuming that the first time he used the expression פקוד יפקוד, this was meant as a reference to how Yaakov his father had introduced a similar request.

פקוד יפקוד אתכם אלוקים, “when G’d will eventually recall you, etc.” Joseph reminds his brothers that he is merely a mortal human being, whereas G’d, Who is eternal, will in due course remember them and liberate them from their exile. The reason why he chose the expression פקד as characterizing this redemption may be because this expression was used by the Torah when soldiers returned from battle without having incurred any casualties. (Numbers 31,49) The word also lends itself to allusions of a numerical nature, i.e. the original number of years of slavery i.e. 400 would be reduced by the numerical value of the word פקוד i.e. 190, so that in actual fact the stay of the Israelites in Egypt would amount to only 210 years after Yaakov’s arrival there, the number being characterized by the numerical value of the word רדו, the word used by Yaakov when he instructed his sons to go down to Egypt to buy food in the first place. (compare Genesis 42,2)

פקוד יפקוד אלהים, “G–d will most certainly remember you, etc.” The numerical value of the letters in the word פקוד is 190. It was meant as a hint that G–d would shorten the decree according to which the people would have to wait 400 years for their redemption by 190 years. As a result, they would have spent only 210 years in Egypt at the time of the Exodus. The root פקד has been used as meaning “to be absent” (in the passive mode נפקד) in Numbers 31,49 where the officers returning from the punitive campaign against Midian thanked G–d for having returned without having lost a single soldier in that campaign. Our author comments that the word spelled without the letter ו as it appears in our text invalidates the numerical values quoted. [His attempt at resolving this does not sound convincing to this Editor ]

ויישם, as if the Torah had written: ויושם, “he was placed.” We have encountered similar constructions such as in Genesis 9,24 וייקץ נח, where it does not mean “Noach awoke,” but Noach was awoken.” Or, Ezekiel 47,8 the expression המוצאים, where this word is derived from the root יצא and may mean “they were expelled.” (the waters).

ויחנטו אותו ויישם בארון, in the very same casket in which the embalming had taken place. They placed his remains therein and he was never interred in the earth. This is why his casket remained well known throughout the generations. Until “Moses took the bones of Joseph, etc.” (Exodus 13,19)

ויישם בארון, “he was placed in a coffin.” Ibn Ezra draws attention to the vowel kametz under the letter ב which suggests that this coffin was a known entity, drawing the conclusion that Joseph, personally, had prepared his coffin prior to his death.

וימת יוסף בן מאה ועשר שנים “Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten.” According to the Talmud (Sotah 9), Joseph, who had buried his father, received his reward in that someone greater than either he or his father, namely Moses, took care of his earthly remains. Exodus 13,19 relates that Moses took the remains of Joseph. This was not as simple as it seems, and our sages (Tanchuma Beshalach 2) describe how Moses lowered a plate or piece of parchment on which he had written “arise ox” into the river Nile. He called out: “Joseph, Joseph, your brethren are about to be redeemed and your absence is delaying the Presence of G’d from moving with us. If you want to be redeemed and to join our journey, arise! If you fail to arise now, we will be free from the oath you have made us swear to take you along.” All of this had become necessary because the Egyptians had placed Joseph’s body in a metal coffin and had hidden it by lowering it into the river Nile to prevent the Israelites from having access to it. This is the deeper meaning of the final words of the Book of Genesis ויישם בארון במצרים, “he was placed in a coffin in Egypt.”
Moses also received a reward for having performed these rites on Joseph by Someone greater than he when G’d Himself buried him (Deut. 34,6). This teaches us that anyone who engages in the performance of מצות can look forward to great reward. Such a reward may accrue to him many years after he performed the good deed in question. If he did not receive his reward for the מצוה while alive on earth, he may be sure that his deed has been recorded by G’d and he will receive the appropriate reward in the hereafter. These considerations are another reason for encouraging people to perform מצות with eagerness instead of dragging their feet while doing so. However, one must be careful not to perform these מצות in order to become known as a pious individual or in order to reap the benefit in terms of honor received by one’s peers. The performance of מצות should only be designed to confer honor on G’d and His Holy Name. The psalmist (Psalms 131,3) expressed it best when he said: ”O Israel wait for the Lord now and forever.” We also have a verse in Psalms 31,25: “be strong and of good courage, all you who wait for the Lord.” A third verse conveying a similar message is found in Jeremiah 17,7: “Blessed is he who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is in the Lord alone.” Finally, Isaiah 26,4 conveys the same message when he wrote: “Trust in the Lord forever and ever, for in The Lord G’d you have an everlasting Rock.”

ויישם ist eine dunkle Form. Oben bei Laban (Kap.24, 33) ist es קרי und כתיב und glaubten wir darin Labans schwankendes Benehmen gegen Elieser gezeichnet zu sehen. Vielleicht deutet es hier auf die im Jakobshause ungewöhnliche Weise hin, die Josef aber aus den vorangehenden Gründen selbst angeordnet hatte, eine Leiche unbegraben im Sarge zu bewahren. Er ließ sich in einen Sarg im Lande Mizrajim legen, wörtlich: er legte (sich) in einen Sarg. Das בארון במצרים dürfte im Gegensatz zu Jakobs Bestattung zu fassen sein. Sein Vater ließ sich sofort nach dem Tode nach Kanaan bringen. Er beschränkte sich darauf, sich in einem Sarge für die einstige Hinaufbringung bewahren zu lassen.

ויישם בארון, “he was placed in a coffin;” as opposed to being interred; the reason that he was not interred was so that his descendants when the time came could take his remains with them to the Holy Land as they had sworn to him that they or their children would do.

בארון, in the earth. [I presume that the author means “as opposed to a pyramid, etc.” seeing that ultimately his remains would be removed.” Ed.]

ארון ist ein schöner Ausdruck für: Sarg. Es kommt nur noch bei den Gesetzestafeln und (Kön. 11. 12, 10) als Zedakabüchse vor. Beides sind Behälter, in welchen nicht etwas vergraben, sondern für jemanden in Empfang genommen und bewahrt liegen soll, die Heiligungsspenden für das Heiligtum, das Gesetz für Israel. Die Wurzel ארה heißt ja abpflücken, etwas für sich oder andere hinnehmen. Demgemäß ist ארון auch als Sarg ein Behälter, in welchem die von dem Menschen zurückgelassene Hülle .für den Eigner — zeitweilig — aufbewahrt bleibt

The construction of ויישם is similar in meaning to ויושם. We find a similar construction in Exodus 30,32: על בשר אדם לא ייסך, “it must not be rubbed on any person’s flesh (skin).”

חזק

The prefix letter ב in the word: בארון has the vowel kametz under it. This is meant to inform the reader that the coffin had already been prepared for Joseph during his lifetime, i.e. he was placed in the coffin with which he had been familiar. This is the only one of the patriarchs of which temporary burial in a casket has been reported, as the later generations, who had not even been alive when he died, would transport him from Egypt.

That is that the priests were commanded to become impure for the relatives that are mentioned in the Torah. Since, on account of Scripture preventing them from becoming impure, for their glory, yet allowing them to become impure for the relatives, they perhaps would think that the option is theirs - if they want to become impure, they become impure; and if they do not want, they do not become impure. [Hence] He made a decree upon them and made it obligatory upon them. And that is His, may He be exalted and may His name be blessed, saying, "for her he shall defile himself" (Leviticus 21:3) - that is to say, for his sister. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Emor, Section 2:12) is, "'For her he shall defile himself' - it is a commandment. If he does not want to become impure, we force him to become impure. And it happened with Yosef the priest, whose wife died on the eve of Pesach, and he did not wish to become impure for her, that the Sages pushed him and made him do so against his will." And this is actually the commandment of mourning - meaning that any Israelite is obligated to mourn for his relatives: That is, the six dead [relations about which he is] commanded. And to strengthen this obligation, He explained it with a priest, for whom impurity is prohibited - that he must become impure regardless - so that the law of mourning not be uprooted. And it has already been explained that the obligation of mourning is a positive commandment - however only on the first day, whereas the rest is rabbinic. And in the explanation, they said in Moed Katan (Moed Katan 14b), "He does not observe mourning on the festival. If the mourning is from before, the positive commandment of the many pushes off the positive commandment of an individual." Behold it has been made clear to you that the obligation of mourning is a positive commandment - however only on the first day, whereas the rest is rabbinic. And even a priest is obligated to observe mourning on the first day and become impure for his relatives - and understand this. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Berakhot, in Ketuvot and in the Sifra, Parashat Emor. And women are not obligated in this, that one be obligated to become impure for one's relatives. For the one that is prohibited from becoming impure for others besides the relatives is also the one who is commanded to become impure for the relatives. Whereas women of the priestly order, who were not prohibited from becoming impure with a corpse - as will be explained in its place (Sefer HaMitzvot, Negative Commandments 166) - were likewise not commanded to become impure. But they do practice mourning and are permitted to become impure. And know this. (See Parashat Emor; Mishneh Torah, Mourning 1.)