Комментарий к Берешит 49:22

בן פרת means a graceful son. It is an expression used in Aramaic: אפרין נמטיה “Let us treat gracefully (literally, let us make a triumphal procession for) R. Simeon”, and may be found at the end of Bava Metzia 119a.

‘BEIN PORATH YOSEPH.’ A graceful son. It is an expression used in Aramaic: “Apiryon namtai (Let us gracefully treat) Rabbi Shimon.”²¹¹Baba Metzia 119a. Bein porath alei ayin. His gracefulness attracts the eye that sees him. This is the language of Rashi.
Now it is farfetched to base the interpretation of the word porath upon this Aramaic expression, for such expressions in the Talmud — be they Greek, Persian, or other languages — have no kinship with the Sacred Language. Moreover, each example found of this word is only an expression of blessing and praise, not grace, and the letter nun [in the word apiryon] is a root letter.²¹²Whereas the Hebrew porath has no nun. How then can Rashi explain the word porath as being similar to apiryon in which the nun is a root letter? It is so mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah:²¹³60:13. “And they blessed Rebekah.²¹⁴Above, 24:60. They were depressed and mean. They were m’pharnin (blessing) only with their mouth.”
It appears to me that the meaning of porath is as in the expression, “Purna belongs to the orphans,”²¹⁵Kethuboth 54a. where purna means the improvement in the value [of the orphans’ portion of the dowry which] belongs to the orphans. The Rabbis further called the kethubah (the written marriage-contract) purna, saying, “A woman collects the purna from them,”²¹⁶Ibid., 67a. meaning the kethubah which constitutes the benefit from her father’s house. They similarly said that “mohar²¹⁷Exodus 22:16. (dowry) means pranun.”²¹⁸It is so rendered there in Targum Jonathan.
But bein porath in the present verse is to be interpreted either as Onkelos has it as being an expression of fruitfulness and abundance, or as the grammarians²¹⁹Rabbi Yonah and Rabbi Yehudah, mentioned by R’dak in his Book of Roots, under the root banah. — who derived the word porath from the phrase, And its branches (‘p’orothav’) became long²²⁰Ezekiel 31:5. — would have it. They further said that the word bein is similar in meaning to “a plant” or “branch”, and they bring a similar verse as proof: And of the stock which Thy right hand hath planted, and the branch (‘bein’) that Thou madest strong for Thyself.²²¹Psalms 80:16. Thus the purport of the verse is as if Jacob had said: “Joseph is a planting containing many branches.”
In my opinion, the word bein is to be understood in its ordinary sense, namely, “son,” with the verse stating that Joseph is a son who is similar to a many branched tree, planted beside a spring whose waters fail not, and whose branches in turn gave forth offspring, [i.e., other boughs]. [On account of their heaviness] these tread upon the sky-high walls.²²²For lacking such support they would break under the weight of their abundant fruit. He called the boughs which come forth from the branches as banoth (daughters), for they are “the daughters” of the great branches. This is stylistic elegance for the expression, bein porath. The word bein, accordingly, is not in the conjunctive mode to the word porath, but instead is like: The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon;²²³Ezekiel 31:3. Naphtali is a hind sent forth;²²⁴Above, Verse 21. Benjamin is a wolf.²²⁵Further, Verse 27. It is for this reason that it is vowelled with a tzeirei — [bein] — for if its interpretation were “a plant of boughs,”²²⁶As “the grammarians,” whose interpretation was discussed previously, would have it. See text above. According to their interpretation, since the two words bein porath are in the constructive mode (“a plant of…”), the word should have been ben and not bein, as is the rule. the word bein should have been vowelled with a segol, [thus rendering it ben rather than bein]. The reason he uses the term bein (son) is to show affection, just as: From the prey, my son, thou art gone up.²²⁷Above, Verse 9.
In general it is proper to interpret Joseph’s blessing as alluding to the two tribes which came from him, and this could be based upon the words porath (branches) and banoth (boughs). However, since he mentioned Levi, and the tribes of Israel number only twelve, he did not treat them as two separate tribes in his blessing, but he does allude to them. Moses our teacher, likewise, in his blessing, compared Joseph to the bullock and the wild-ox, and mentioned “the horns”²²⁸Deuteronomy 33:17. in connection with him as each one constitutes a distinct body from which two horns branch out. There, however, because Moses our teacher did not mention Simeon by name, he explicitly said, And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Menasheh.²²⁸Deuteronomy 33:17.

בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין, the first half of this verse is not to be understood until we have read the second half. The only reason it is written in this manner is in order to help us identify immediately who is the subject in our verse. We have a similar verse in Exodus 15,6 where in the first half of the verse G’d’s attribute of employing His right hand is extolled before we are tolled how this is manifest, i.e. by the manner in which He destroyed the enemy. A very familiar similar construction occurs in Psalms 93,3 a psalm we recite each Friday night, when the psalmist speaks of נשאו נהרות ה' נשאו נהרות קולם, and only afterwards we are told that the rivers raise their voices in response toכי הנה אויביך ה', כי הנה אויביך יאבדו. The verse means: ”The river raise ther “voices” (sounds), O Lord, the oceans sound their thunder and their pounding.” All of this is in response to verse 10 in the previous psalm where G’d’s enemies are described as perishing.” In fact the psalmist in 94,3 asks almost despairingly: “how long are the wicked going to be allowed to carry on successfully before the Just can rejoice when they observe their downfall?” Here too, the words בן פורת יוסף describe an attribute, referring to the tall and handsome person Joseph, before telling us that all the maidens of Egypt were craning their necks to catch a glimpse of him, each one trying to admire his features, trying to do so from a suitable vantage point. He, whose exterior had appealed to the wife of Potiphar at the time, now became a household word in Egypt so that all the women allowed out of their houses tried to catch a glimpse of him. [I paraphrased the author’s words in this paragraph. Ed.] Joseph’s handsome appearance had already inflamed the libido of Potiphar’s wife,