Genesis · Chapter 47

Joseph came and told Pharaoh and said: My father and my brothers, and their flocks and their cattle and all that belongs to them, have come from the land of Canaan, and behold, they are in the land of Goshen.

"In the land of Goshen" — this is the general statement; "in the land of Raamses" — this is the specific. The ayin [of Raamses] is quiescent [in this verse]. In my view, "Raamses" with the ayin vowelized with a patach (Exod. 1:11) is not the place where Israel dwelt, for it was one of Pharaoh's store cities.

אבי ואחי.…באו, "my father, my brothers, etc., have arrived. Joseph meant: "in accordance with your instructions." והנם בארץ גשו, "and here they are in the province of Goshen." "Just as you have said when you said: "I will give you the best part of the country (45,18)." As far as cattle is concerned the province of Goshen was the best part of Egypt. We find, however, that when the brothers enjoyed an audience with Pharaoh that they did not refer to what Joseph had told them about Pharaoh's promise; rather they pleaded that inasmuch as they had a lot of cattle they would appreciate it if they were allowed to settle in Goshen as it provided grazing land for their cattle.

And from some of his brothers he took five men and presented them before Pharaoh.

ומקצה אחיו SOME OF HIS BRETHREN — Some of the inferior ones amongst them as to strength — of those who did not look robust. For should Pharaoh find them to be robust men he might press them for military service. The weaker brethren were as follows: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar and Benjamin, and it was they whose names Moses did not repeat when he blessed them. But the names of the strong ones he mentioned twice: (Deuteronomy 33:7) “And this is for Judah... hear, Eternal, the voice of Judah”; (Deuteronomy 33:20) “And of Gad he said, Blessed he lie that extendeth Gad”; (Deuteronomy 33:25) “And of Naphtali he said, Naphtali...” (Deuteronomy 33:22). “And of Dan he said Dan...”, and in like manner he repeated the names of Zebulun (Deuteronomy 33:18) and of Asher (Deuteronomy 33:24). This is the version of Genesis Rabbah 95:4 which is a Palestinian Agada. But in our Babylonian Talmud we find that those whose names Moses mentioned twice were the weaker of the brethren and it was these whom he (Joseph) brought before Pharaoh. But six are enumerated above as having their names mentioned twice and he brought only five before Pharaoh. The explanation is that it is true that Judah’s name is mentioned twice, but it is mentioned twice not because he was one of the weaker brethren, but there is another reason for this, as is stated in Bava Kamma 92a. In the Baraitha of Siphre on וזאת הברכה we have the same version as in our Babylonian Talmud.

ומקצה אחיו לקח, in order that Pharaoh would understand through conversing with them that their vocation was that they were shepherds, raisers of flocks and cattle.

ומקצה אחיו לקח, “he took from his stronger brothers.” The word קצה is derived from קצין, officer, strong man, as for instance in Isaiah 41,9 ומקצות הארץ קראתיך, “and I called unto you from the corners of the earth.”

Pharaoh said to his brothers: What is your occupation? And they said to Pharaoh: Your servants are shepherds of flocks, both we and our fathers.

רעה צאן עבדיך, “your servants are shepherds.” When the Torah has the letter ה at the end of the word רעה instead of the customary letter י for the plural ending, this can be explained because the letters אהו'י are interchangeable.

And they said to Pharaoh: We have come to sojourn in the land, for there is no pasture for the flocks that belong to your servants, for the famine is severe in the land of Canaan. And now, let your servants dwell in the land of Goshen.

TO SOJOURN IN THE LAND ARE WE COME; FOR THERE IS NO PASTURE FOR THY SERVANTS’ FLOCKS. I wonder about this reason which they told to Pharaoh, for there was also no pasture in Egypt; the famine was as severe in the land of Egypt as it was in the land of Canaan, or even more so, for it was against Egypt that the main decree was directed. Perhaps they said that in the land of Canaan, due to the severity of the famine, people were eating the grass of the field and were not leaving any sustenance for the cattle. However, in the land of Egypt where there is corn, people subsist on that, and thus in Egypt there is a little pasture left. It is possible that in the land of Egypt there was a little pasture in the reedgrass on account of the rivers and the ponds.

לגור בארץ באנו, “we came here for only a temporary stay, sojourn;” At that time they did not entertain the idea of becoming permanent residents of Egypt. (Pessikta Zutrata) כי אין מרעה “for there is no grazing land;” they emphasised this aspect so that Pharaoh should not think that they had come to sponge on Joseph. They asked permission to stay in Goshen, עתה for now, until the Lord in His wisdom, will end the famine so that we can return to the land of Canaan.

כי אין מרעה לצאן, “for these is no grazing land for the flocks.” Due to the severity of the famine in the land of Canaan the grazing land normally used for the animals to feed on had turned into meagre grass and even that was reserved for human consumption.

כי אין מרעה לצאן אשר לעבדיך, “for there is no grazing land for the flocks and herds of your servants.” Nachmanides writes that he is puzzled by this reason given by the brothers for having come to Egypt. After all, there was no grazing land in Egypt either during the famine, and both man and beast survived only from stored surplus of prior years. Possibly, the most intense famine raged in the land of Canaan, and the people there were reduced to eating grass, so that there was really nothing left for the beasts to feed on. Seeing that people received regular food rations in Egypt they had not needed to deny their beasts the grass in the fields. Alternately, there would be some grass around the many ponds in Egypt and in the Nile delta near the banks of the tributaries of the Nile river.

Pharaoh said to Joseph, saying: Your father and your brothers have come to you.

THY FATHER AND THY BRETHREN ARE COME UNTO THEE. This introduction is as if to say: “Now I have heard that your father and your brothers have come, and the land of Egypt is before you.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Your father and your brothers have come to you because they have heard of your glory, and it is upon you that they have cast their burden. See that you treat them well for it is your responsibility and it is within your power.”

ויאמר פרעה אל יוסף לאמור, Pharaoh said to tell Joseph, etc. What is meant here by the word לאמור? Besides, what did Pharaoh mean when he said: "your father has arrived?" This was not news! We must refer back to where Pharaoh had instructed Joseph in 45,17 - 18 to command his brothers to take their father and "come to me." These instructions could have either one of two meanings. 1) Joseph should speak to the brothers conveying instructions from Pharaoh. 2) Joseph should speak to them as if he were acting on his own authority. This latter interpretation is more likely to be the correct one. We base this on 45,19 where Joseph is told "you have been commanded, etc." If the instructions for the migration of Joseph's family had all originated with Pharaoh why would Joseph have to refer to permission he obtained from Pharaoh? One obtains permission after making a request for it. You will note that Joseph had spoken to the brothers about their migration in 46,31 when he was about to speak to Pharaoh about their arrival. The fact that he described the brothers as having "come to me" as opposed to having come to Pharaoh, seems evidence that they did not come in response to Pharaoh's invitation. In our verse, however, he did not describe the brothers as having "come to me," but simply as "having arrived." This implied that their arrival was at the behest of Pharaoh. He now wanted Pharaoh to make good on his promise. In response Pharaoh said in verse 6: "your father and your brothers have come to you." Pharaoh meant to correct any impression Joseph might have had that what he had said in 45,17 -18 should have been construed as an invitation from himself for the brothers to settle there. All Pharaoh had meant was that Joseph had his permission to extend an invitaion to them in Pharaoh's name to settle in the best part of Egypt. There are subtle differences between a migration as the result of Pharaoh's direct invitation and one which resulted from an invitation by Joseph which had Pharaoh's approval. On the one hand, it appears that Pharaoh was now anxious to relieve himself of any responsibility towards Joseph's brothers and clan. When a king grants a certain person an elevated status, this is normally considered a permanent gift. Had the brothers' migration been at the direct invitation of Pharaoh their status in the land of Goshen would have been permanent and irrevocable. Pharaoh was concerned lest his invitation would be perceived as that kind of gift. He preferred to have the brothers believe that the land of Goshen was allocated to them by the authority of Joseph. It was valid as long as Joseph was ruler in the land. Just as Joseph's position was not a hereditary one, so the brothers' tenure in Goshen would not be a hereditary one. Both Joseph's position and the brothers' stay in Goshen continued to depend on Pharaoh's pleasure. Pharaoh wanted to make sure that Joseph or the brothers should not think that he, Pharaoh, needed them in order to strengthen his hold on the throne of Egypt. There is, however, also a positive aspect of what Pharaoh had said now. Why would Joseph have to appeal to Pharaoh now as if he himself did not wield any authority in the country? Had not Pharaoh given Joseph blanket authority at the time he had appointed him as the absolute ruler over his kingdom? When Pharaoh now said to Joseph that his brothers had come to him, he merely reiterated that Joseph did not need to ask any kind of permission. Joseph's authority included the area concerning which he had now asked Pharaoh's permission. We find something analogous in Yuma 4 where Rabbi Mussiah son of Rabbi Menassiah teaches that there is scriptural proof for the assumption that when one reveals information received by a second person even when one had not been sworn to secrecy, this is forbidden unless specific permission has been granted. When G'd spoke to Moses in Leviticus 1,1, He added that Moses should communicate His words by adding the word לאמור. Accordingly, Pharaoh had to tell Joseph to extend the invitation in his name. Although this diminishes the value of Pharaoh's invitation slightly, it is not materially different from what Pharaoh had said in chapter 45. We may also see some additional significance in the word אליך in verse five. The reason Pharaoh did command the brothers to migrate to Egypt was only in order to demonstrate that Joseph had never been a slave and had been born into a very respectable family. While it was true that on the face of it this had been demonstrated at the time when Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, he had not yet freed himself completely from the suspicion that the "brothers" were a group of bachelors with whom Joseph had made a deal that they should claim to be his family. We find that Bereshit Rabbah 100,9 refers to such a possibility in connection with Genesis 50,21 where Joseph is described as: "he consoled them and put their minds at ease." The Midrash describes that Joseph put his brothers' minds at ease by telling them that if he were to take any punitive action against them now the Egyptians would question his claim that they were his family and would argue that at the time that he, Joseph, identified them as his brothers this had been a charade, and that they had only been a group of young men whom he had paid to misrepresent themselves. When Pharaoh said to Joseph "your brothers have come to you," he meant that the brothers' presence in Egypt would buttress Joseph's claim concerning his ancestry.

אביך ואחיך באו אליך, “your father and your brothers have come to join you.” This may be an introductory remark by Pharaoh before offering the brothers and their father the hospitality of the land of Egypt. [otherwise it is banal, as the facts were well known. Ed.] Alternately, it is an introductory remark to “your brothers have come to convince themselves with their own eyes of your rise to greatness in this land. They are now planning to look to you for sustenance.” Pharaoh then proceeds to instruct Joseph to indeed treat his brothers with largesse.

The land of Egypt is before you; settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land. Let them dwell in the land of Goshen. And if you know that there are capable men among them, appoint them as chiefs over the livestock that are mine.

אנשי חיל MEN OF ACTIVITY — skilled in their occupation of tending sheep. על אשר לי OVER THAT WHICH IS MINE — over my sheep.

"Officers over my livestock" — that is, over horse and mule.

במיטב הארץ…ישבו בארץ גשן, "they shall dwell in the land of Goshen in the best part of the country." Pharaoh was careful not to say only: "in the best part of the land," seeing that Joseph had indicated that he preferred that the brothers should live in the province of Goshen. If Pharaoh were not to confirm this specifically, Joseph might think that he did not want them to reside in Goshen. If, on the other hand, he were to say only that the brothers should reside in Goshen without adding the words "in the best part of the land," Joseph might feel that Pharaoh only assigned the inferior part of the province of Goshen to them. To avoid any misunderstanding, Pharaoh spelled out that the brothers should reside in the best part of the land of Goshen. Verse eleven then confirms that this is indeed what happened, that the land around Ramses was considered the best part of Goshen. It is also possible to understand the whole verse as a choice offered by Pharaoh. The brothers were welcome to reside in the best part of the land of Egypt; if, however, for whatever reason they preferred to settle in the province of Goshen, this too was acceptable to Pharaoh.

במיטב הארץ הושב את אביך, “in the most fertile part of the land settle your father!;” seeing that he is aged and is only looking for peace and quiet and clean air, let him dwell in that part of the land; as far as your brothers are concerned, let them settle in the region of Goshen which has excellent grazing land. Our author continues with: “Do not tell me that the cantillation mark etnachta under the words: ואת אחיך clearly contradicts this interpretation.” This is not the only time that an etnachta, divisive cantillation mark, does not override the plain meaning of the verse. To mention just one: Judges 5,18 זבולון עם חרף נפשו למות ונפתל על מרומי שדה; “Zevulun is a people that mocketh at death; Naftaly on the open heights.” The etnachta under the word Naftaly in that verse is not meant to be divisive. Devorah surely lauded both those tribes as partners. אנשי חיל, “able and astute people.” According to Rashi, Joseph described his brothers as not only intelligent but as loyal and trustworthy. Examples of the use of that word in that sense are: Proverbs 31,10: אשת חיל מי ימצא, “who is fortunate enough to find a truly wise woman?” Clearly Solomon did not speak about a woman who prepared for battle as a soldier! [Except in modern day Israel, where do women serve in the army in battle formations? Ed.] ושמתם שרי מקנה, “you will appoint them as being in charge of livestock.” (Pharaoh speaking to Joseph concerning his brothers) The livestock that Pharaoh was most interested in were camels, mules and horses. If we needed proof that this interpretation is correct, it can be found in Chronicles I 28,1: ויקהל דוד את כל שרי ישראל ושר כל הרכוש ומקנה, “David assembled all the chieftains of Israel as well as the chieftains in charge of inert possessions, and the chieftains in charge of livestock, etc.; immediately before this verse, the previous chapter speaks of camels and sheasses (27,30) and the officers in charge of them. An alternate exegesis: Seeing that the areas in which defenseless sheep, goats and cows graze in the desert, an area where there are wild animals and robbers, the shepherds looking after them must be strong, able and capable of defending them.

ושמתם שרי מקנה על אשר לי, “appoint them as the ministers in charge of all my livestock.” Ibn Ezra understands the term מקנה here as animals such as horses, the type of animals owned by Royalty. Pharaoh, personally, did not own flocks of sheep, etc.

Joseph brought Jacob his father and stood him before Pharaoh, and Jacob blessed Pharaoh.

ויברך יעקב AND JACOB BLESSED — this was the greeting of peace, as is usual in the case of all who are granted an interview with kings at long intervals; saluer in old French.

AND JACOB BLESSED PHARAOH. This refers to a salutation, as is customary for all who are granted an occasional interview with kings. Thus the language of Rashi. But this does not appear to be so, for it is not royal protocol for a person to greet the king, and the Rabbis have similarly said: “May a servant greet the king?” Instead, it refers to a real blessing which Jacob bestowed upon Pharaoh, for it is customary for aged and pious people who come before kings to bless them with wealth, possessions, honor, and the advancement of their kingdom, even as Scripture says, Let my lord king David live forever. Upon his taking leave of Pharaoh, Jacob again blessed him here. in order to take permission to leave. Our Rabbis have said that he blessed him that the Nile might rise at his approach.

ויעמידהו לפני פרעה, and he presented him before Pharaoh. The reason the Torah chose the word "ויעמידהו" may be that Joseph placed Jacob in the place where he himself would normally stand when he had an audience with Pharaoh. This may have been an elevated spot only lower than Pharaoh's throne [compare 41,40 where Pharaoh reserved only his throne as beyond Joseph's authority]. It may also mean that he placed Jacob immediately opposite Pharaoh so that his father could bless Pharaoh. We have a tradition that Pharaoh was of extremely small stature so that unless Jacob was directly opposite him he could not have known that the person he faced was Pharaoh (compare Moed Katan 18).

ויברך יעקב את פרעה, “Yaakov blessed Pharaoh.” He wished him wealth and success in his position as ruler of a great Empire. This was the customary blessing conferred by elders and pious people who were granted an audience by a king. We find an example of this in Kings I 1,31 where Bat Sheva, David’s wife, blesses him in a similar vein, saying: “may my lord King live forever.” The Torah mentions Yaakov blessing Pharaoh again before he took his leave. Our sages (Tanchuma Nasso 26) say that the blessing consisted of a wish that the river Nile would rise again and irrigate the fields of Egypt.

Pharaoh said to Jacob: How many are the days of the years of your life?

כמה ימי שני חחייך?, Pharaoh was utterly amazed at Yaakov’s age as the Egyptians did not know of any life-prolonging ingredients and people of Yaakov’s age simply did not exist in Egypt.

?כמה ימי שני חייך, “how old are you?” Pharaoh was under the impression that Yaakov was extremely old, as he bore the marks of his sorrow filled life marked on his facial features. Yaakov replied: “do not be surprised that I look so old, the experiences that I have undergone during my life thus far have left their mark on me.” A Midrash quote G-d as responding to Yaakov describing his life as a series of harsh experiences by pointing out that no one before had been protected from as many dangers facing him as had Yaakov. According to these Midrash, the reason why Yaakov lived 33 years less than his father and 28 years less than his grandfather was onaccount of his not having appreciated all that G-d had done for him. The number 33 is arrived at by counting the number of words in verse 8 of our chapter commencing from the word: ויאמר up to and including the word: מגוריהם in verse 9.

כמה ימי שני חייך, “how old are you?” Yaakov appeared to Pharaoh as considerably older than anyone he had seen in Egypt. When Yaakov replied he was careful not to equate the years he had been on earth as “life.” He said: “the days of my sojourn on earth, etc.” This is typical of the righteous. They consider themselves as merely transients in this world. Having established how he related to the experience of living within a body here on earth, he did say: “the days of my life are fewer and have been marked by sorrow.” He used the word “life” in contrast to his fathers who had not experienced such sorrows and who could therefore describe their days of life on earth as “life.” In order for Pharaoh to understand that the term “life” applied to his fathers was merely relative, Yaakov reverted again to describing even the lives of his fathers as “the days of their sojourn.”

“How many are the days of the years of your life?” Since Pharaoh had been told that when Jacob arrived, the Nile rose to his feet [as a blessing], Pharaoh was very happy about this and thought that as long as Jacob lived, the Nile would always rise to his feet and water the face of the earth. However, when he saw Jacob and noticed that he was thin, weak, and gaunt as is typical of the elderly, Pharaoh thought that he must be extremely old and would die today or tomorrow. If so, what was there for the Egyptians to be happy about, since upon his death the Nile would return to its previous state? Therefore, he asked him how many are the days of your life? Jacob responded that the days of my sojourning are few and difficult. He specifically used the term sojourning [megurei] to indicate that his gaunt and thin appearance was not due to advanced age, but rather due to fear [magor] and terror from all sides, for what I feared has come upon me. Many bundled troubles were in my pack, all of them were upon me throughout the span of 130 years. My days have been few and difficult, and I have not reached the years of my fathers’ lives. I still hope to reach the time period [lifespan] of my father who lived 180 years. Although they too had fear from all around them, nevertheless they lived long lives — this is why he used the term sojourning [megureihem] in reference to his fathers as well.

ויאמר פרעה כמה ימי שני חייך?, “Pharaoh said to Yaakov: ‘how old are you?’” It is puzzling why Pharaoh suddenly displays such interest in Yaakov’s age. At the same time, it is puzzling why Yaakov, instead of simply telling Pharaoh his age, prefaces his answer with a description of the quality of his life before revealing the quantitative aspect of it. Yaakov meant to explain to Pharaoh that if, contrary to norm, he appeared far older than his actual years this was due to the many trials and tribulations he had experienced in his years on earth. When Yaakov had arrived in Egypt and his sons had described themselves as coming לגור בארץ, to sojourn for a while, this created the impression that Yaakov expected to be around on this planet for quite some time yet. Pharaoh was therefore almost bound to ask him how old he was already, seeing that he had such plans for the future. Yaakov reassured him, that as of this day he was far younger in terms of years, than had been either his father or his grandfather at the time of their respective deaths. The fact that Yaakov really intended to return to Canaan after the famine would have passed had really thrown Pharaoh for a loop. According to the Midrash, G’d reacted angrily when He heard that after having been saved by Him miraculously a number of times during his life, Yaakov had the nerve to complain about the quality of his life on earth up until then in the presence of Pharaoh. As a result, Yaakov’s lifespan was reduced by 33 years when compared to the 180 years his father Yitzchok had lived. The number 33 corresponds to the number of words in our verse.

Jacob said to Pharaoh: The days of the years of my sojourning are one hundred and thirty years. Few and difficult have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not attained the days of the years of the lives of my fathers in the days of their sojourning.

שני מגורי — means the days of my being a stranger. All my days I have been a stranger in other peoples’ lands. ולא השיגו AND THEY HAVE NOT ATTAINED so far as happiness is concerned.

FEW AND EVIL HAVE BEEN THE DAYS OF THE YEARS OF MY LIFE. I know no reason for this comment by our aged patriarch. Is it ethical for a person to complain to the king? And what sense is there in saying, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers? He may yet possibly attain them and live even longer than they did! It appears to me that our father Jacob had turned gray, and he appeared very old. Pharaoh wondered about his age, for most people of his time did not live very long as the lifespan of mankind had already been shortened. He therefore asked him, “How many are the days of the years of thy life, here. as I have not seen a man as aged as you in my entire kingdom?” Then Jacob answered that he was one hundred and thirty years of age, and that he should not wonder at the years he had lived for they are few when compared with the lifespans of his fathers who had lived longer. However, on account of their having been hard years of toil and groaning, he had turned gray and he appeared extremely old.

מעט ורעים היו ימי שני חיי, concerning your question how many years I am old, I must confess that actually I am relatively young in years, and I have certainly not benefited from any life-extending drugs or herbs, on the contrary, I have experienced enough troubles to hasten my old age and my death. Years during which a person is beset with major problems do not even count as “years of his life.” But if you want to know how many years I have been sojourning on this planet, I am 130 years old. ולא השיגו ימי שני חיי אבותי, even though my parents and grandparents were also “aliens” in the land where they spent their lives or most of their lives, they enjoyed ימי חיים, a relatively sorrow-free existence. My own life is in no way a repetition of their experiences.

Jacob blessed Pharaoh and went out from before Pharaoh.

ויברך יעקב AND JACOB BLESSED [PHARAOH] — i.e. he gave him the salutation of peace as is usual for all who take their leave of princes — they salute them and depart. A Midrash however understands this more literally and asks, “What was the blessing with which he blessed him? That the waters of the Nile might rise at his approach Because Egypt does not drink (is not irrigated by) rain-water, but the waters of the Nile rise and irrigate it. And from the time when Jacob blessed him and henceforth, whenever Pharaoh came to the Nile it rose at his coming, overflowed its banks and watered the land. Thus it is stated in Tanchuma Yashan 4:2:26 to נשא.

ויברך יעקב את פרעה, ”Yaakov blessed Pharaoh.” Rashi understands this “blessing” as extending greetings. Nachmanides writes that it does not appear reasonable to him that a commoner is in the habit of enquiring after the good health, etc., of a reigning monarch. It is assumed that a king enjoys such, as a matter of course. We are told in Shabbat 89 there are no servants who offer this type of greeting to their masters, their masters being presumed to enjoy amenities denied to people of a lower social stratum. [when Moses arrived at the seat of G’d’s throne, he supposedly found G’d preoccupied with decorating the letters of the Torah with crowns. When he remained silent, dumbfounded, G’d asked him whether in his part of the universe it was not customary to extend greetings? Moses replied with the above quotation. Ed.] Nachmanides therefore concludes that Yaakov extended a real (literal) blessing to Pharaoh. It was customary for aged people to do so, as the very fact that they attained old age was perceived as proof that they themselves were blessed, and that therefore a blessing by them was of special value. Yaakov’s first blessing was in respect of earthly possessions, including good health, whereas his blessing before leaving the presence of Pharaoh was the promise that the waters of the Nile would once again overflow their banks and irrigate the farmland of Egypt.

Joseph settled his father and his brothers and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.

רעמסס RAMESES — This is part the land of Goshen.

AND JOSEPH SETTLED HIS FATHER AND HIS BRETHREN AND GAVE THEM A POSSESSION, etc. The meaning thereof is that he settled them in the choicest land and with the possession which he gave them since he did not want them to be as strangers in the land. Thus he bought them houses and gave them an inheritance of fields and vineyards. This he did with the permission of Pharaoh because they had said, “To sojourn in the land are we come, here. not to live, and when the famine will pass we will return to our land.” But Pharaoh said to Joseph, Settle thy father, here. meaning that he settle them in the manner of citizens of the land who reside in the land of Goshen.

ויושב יוסף את אביו ואת אחיו ויתן להם אחוזה, “Joseph settled his father and his brothers in the land of Egypt, and he allocated to them freehold property, property that could be transferred to their children upon their death.” He did not want them to have the status of aliens, tourists, transients, etc. He gave them vineyards, houses and fields, all with Pharaoh’s permission, seeing they themselves had only asked permission to be resident aliens for a while. Pharaoh had told Joseph to make full citizens of them.

And Joseph provided his father and his brothers and all his father's household with food, according to the needs of the little ones.

לפי הטף ACCORDING TO THEIR LITTLE ONES — according to the requirements of all their household.

לחם לפי הטף. Even though Joseph was in a position to allocate generous rations to the members of his family, he did not show them any preference and treated them on the basis of need, each family according to the number of souls. Our sages have stated that at a time when the general population suffers shortage even those who have ample are to limit themselves.

ויכלכל יוסף את אביו, “Joseph sustained his father;” Yaakov had become dependent on Joseph’s economic support, as according to what we read in verse 13, the amount of grain available in Egypt during those years for the general population was just enough for bread for each individual. לפי הטף, “the rations Joseph handed out were not based on the price of bread, but on the number of children each family head had to support.”

There was no food in all the land, for the famine was very severe, and the people of the land of Egypt and the people of the land of Canaan were exhausted from before the famine.

ולחם אין בכל הארץ AND THERE WAS NO BREAD IN ALL THE LAND — Scripture reverts now to the original subject, viz, to the account of the beginning of the years of famine. ותלה AND FAINTED — This is the same as ותלאה, it means to be wearied, as the Targum renders it. Another example of the root is (Proverbs 26:18) “Like one fatigued who casteth fire-brands”.

"ותֵלַהּ" — it follows the pattern of "ותתע" (Gen. 21:14); "כמתלהלה" (Prov. 26:18) is like "כמתעתע" (Gen. 27:12). Its meaning is: like a man who does not know what he should do.

ולחם אין…כי כבד הרעב מאד, there was no bread…because the famine was very severe, etc. The Torah informs us of the psychology of hunger. During a famine people have a tendency to eat inordinate amounts of food thus causing their reserves of food to be depleted prematurely. The author describes a personal experience of famine in the country he lived in where a person ate ten times the amount of food he would eat normally and still felt hungry.

Joseph gathered all the silver that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan in exchange for the grain that they were buying, and Joseph brought the silver to the house of Pharaoh.

בשבר אשר הם שוברים FOR THE CORN WHICH THEY BOUGHT — they gave him the money.

AND JOSEPH GATHERED UP ALL THE MONEY, etc. Scripture relates this and goes on to complete the subject in this entire section in order to make known Joseph’s excellence in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and that he was a faithful man in that he brought all money into Pharaoh’s house and did not accumulate for himself treasures of money and secret hiding places for wealth in the land of Egypt, or send it to the land of Canaan. Instead, he gave all money to the king who trusted him and purchased the land for him, and even the bodies of the Egyptians. Through this endeavor, he found grace even in the eyes of the people, for it is G-d Who causes those who fear Him to prosper.

ויבא יוסף את הכסף ביתה פרעה, because he did not permit himself to recompense himself on his own accord without being given his compensation by Pharaoh.

וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף, Joseph collected all the silver (money), etc. The reason the Torah uses the expression לקט, gleaned, for the manner in which Joseph collected the money, is to tell us that after Joseph had collected there was absolutely no money left anywhere.

וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף הנמצא, “Joseph collected all the money which could be found, etc.” When the verse continues with: “Joseph brought the money he had collected to the palace of Pharaoh,” the letter ה is to tell us that he brought all of it to Pharaoh’s palace. All the acquisitions Joseph made from the people he channeled to Pharaoh. He did not pocket any of it for himself. Although he took from the people their most precious possessions he remained popular with them. This was clearly something that G’d had arranged. The plain meaning of all these verses is that the money mentioned (verse 18) is money which Joseph collected over a period of five years and brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. It is not reasonable to suppose that the population of Egypt ran out of money and cattle within a single year or two. The Egyptians had hoarded their money and it had lasted them for five years although under non-famine conditions they would have been less frugal and would have used it up much sooner. The Torah records only that after five years when their money had run out, the people turned to Joseph. Joseph agreed to hand out food in return for their cattle and, when at the end of the sixth year, they had no more cattle left either, he had to warn them to be very frugal in their eating habits.

וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף, “Joseph collected all the money,” the Torah reports some of Joseph’s astuteness as a ruler, as well as his fairness and faithfulness in that whatever he collected he handed over to Pharaoh’s treasury. He did not amass a private fortune of his own.

When the silver from the land of Egypt and from the land of Canaan was exhausted, all the Egyptians came to Joseph saying: Give us food — why should we die before you, for the silver is gone?

אפס — Render this as the Targum does: שלים IS AT AN END.

AND WHEN THE MONEY WAS ALL SPENT IN THE LAND OF EGYPT, AND IN THE LAND OF CANAAN, ALL THE EGYPTIANS CAME UNTO JOSEPH, etc. Scripture mentions that the money in the land of Canaan had been exhausted because when the Egyptians came before Joseph they reminded him of this, for they said: “Since the money is also exhausted in the land of Canaan, and since they will no longer come to buy food, why should we die in thy presence? For the money is at an end, and you will cause our death in vain, for the food will remain in your hand, and no man shall buy it.”

"ויתֹּם" — it belongs to the class of doubled-root verbs [פעלי הכפל], like "וידֹּם השמש" (Josh. 10:13).

ולמה נמות….כי אפס כסף, "why should we die …for there is no more money?" The people complained that Joseph had proved unwilling to accept any payment other than money in return for grain. They argued that they were not destitute, they could pay him with other chattels; why should they die merely because they could not pay cash? This is why Joseph replied that he was willing to accept their cattle in payment only "if indeed there is no more money." Joseph's reason for all this was to impoverish the Egyptians so that his brothers would not be in an economically inferior position vis-a-vis the Egyptians. Joseph was very clever not to accept any payment other than money as long as there was cash around. As long as the Egyptians still had their livestock they would have to provide fodder for their animals; presumably one effect of the famine was the absence of grazing land. The Egyptians therefore had to feed their livestock with barley. This in turn led to the money supply becoming completely exhausted within a year. As a result of Joseph's strategy the brothers who arrived during the second year of the famine were wealthy compared to the average Egyptian at that time. The Egyptians may also have meant to convey to Joseph that they did have money but that they had no cash flow at that time. They were unable to collect their receivables. This was not something unusual as many people invested their money in enterprises in foreign countries, sending money on ships which were meant to import goods. Their argument therefore was: "why should we die since we have the necessary liquid assets and are only unable temporarily to collect that money?" Accordingly, Joseph told them that if they really did have money in the form of receivables he was willing to accept their livestock as payment for food in the meantime. The livestock served as collateral for the cash the Egyptians would owe him. As soon as they would collect their receivables he expected them to turn over the money to him.

ויתום הכסף מארץ מצרים, “Egypt completely ran out of money,” money stopped circulating as there was too little of it both in Egypt and in the land of Canaan. The reason why the Torah had to mention that money had also run out in the land of Canaan was that the Egyptians said to Joseph: “seeing that there is no point in your waiting for more buyers from the land of Canaan, as they have no money with which to buy, you might as well introduce a new bartering system in Egypt. If you keep waiting for customers and we die in the meantime, you will be left with tons of supplies and no one who will buy it from you. The disappearance of money from circulation occurred gradually, beginning with the poor running out of cash first. The words ויתם הכסף describe a state when even the wealthy people had no more ready cash. According to the Midrash Joseph had been equipped with a degree of prophecy so much so that he knew how much money every person still possessed. He used this knowledge to charge higher prices to the rich and lower prices to the poor, in order to preserve a certain degree of equality amongst the population when it came to obtaining the necessities of life.

Joseph said: Bring your livestock, and I will give you food in exchange for your livestock, if the silver is gone.

"הבו" — the heh ought by right to be vocal, vowelized with a patach and a chataf. "Aphas keseph" ('the money is gone') — this is a past-tense verb form, as in "for he was afraid to dwell in Zoar" (Gen. 19:30).

They brought their livestock to Joseph, and Joseph gave them food in exchange for the horses, the livestock of the flocks, the livestock of the cattle, and the donkeys; and he sustained them with food in exchange for all their livestock during that year.

וינהלם — is the same as וינהגם AND HE GUIDED, LED THEM. Similar in meaning are (Isaiah 51:18) “There is none (מנהל) to lead her”, and (Psalms 23) “he guideth me (ינהלני) beside the still waters.”

וינהלם בלחם, he guided them slowly, as in Isaiah 40,11 עלות ינהל. He handed out food a little at a time. It was to be eaten but one should not stuff oneself on it. This is the proper way to conduct oneself during periods of famine. There is a saying that if one starves oneself a little during periods of famine he avoids dying an unnatural death Physicians confirm the reverse of this when they said that if someone overeats after starving for a period, he contracts a potentially fatal illness. בשנה ההיא, after they money had run out, the sixth year of the famine.

That year came to an end, and they came to him in the second year and said to him: We will not conceal from my lord that the silver is gone and the herds of livestock have gone to my lord; nothing remains before my lord but our bodies and our land.

בשנה השנית IN THE SECOND YEAR — of the famine. 'כי אם תם הכסף וגו is the same as כי אשר תם הכסף and the meaning is: but (כי) it is a fact that (אשר) the money and the herds of cattle are exhausted, and everything has now come into my lord's hands. בלתי אם גויתנו is the same as [NOTHING REMAINS] IF IT BE NOT OUR BODIES.

THEY CAME UNTO HIM IN THE SECOND YEAR. I.e., the second year of the years of the famine. Now although Joseph had said, And there are yet five years when there will be no plowing and sowing, as soon as Jacob came to Egypt a blessing came with his arrival, and they began to sow and the famine came to an end. And thus we read in the Tosephta of Tractate Sotah 0:9. Tosephta means “addition.” This is a collection of Tannaitic teachings compiled by Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshayah soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. Thus the language of Rashi. And it is similarly mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah:11. “Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina said that the famine lasted for two years, for when our father Jacob went down to Egypt the famine ceased. When did it return? In the days of Ezekiel, etc.” But if so, then Joseph’s words regarding his interpretation of [Pharaoh’s dream which predicted the seven years of famine] were not fulfilled, and would thus cause people to doubt his wisdom! Perhaps we shall say that the famine continued in the land of Canaan as Joseph had said, but in Egypt our father Jacob went down to the river in the presence of Pharaoh and all of Egypt, whereupon all his people saw that the waters in the Nile rose as he approached it, and thus they knew that G-d’s blessing was due to the prophet’s arrival. In that case, the verse stating, And Joseph sustained his father, and his brethren, and all his father’s household, with bread, according to the want of their little children, here. applies to the remainder of the seven years and for as long as his father lived, ” for even after his father’s death, Joseph said, I will sustain you and your little ones. Yet, with all this, I wonder: for if so, then Pharaoh’s dream was not true since it only revealed the decree to him but not what would ultimately become of those seven years! Now I have seen there in the Tosephta of Tractate Sotah:9. Tosephta means “addition.” This is a collection of Tannaitic teachings compiled by Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Oshayah soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. “Rabbi Yosei said that as soon as our father Jacob died, the famine reverted to its former condition, etc.” We have further been taught in the Sifre: “And Jacob blessed Pharaoh. here. How did he bless him? [His blessing was] that the years of famine should cease. Nevertheless they were completed after Jacob’s death, as it is said, Now therefore fear ye not; I will sustain you. Now just as ‘sustaining’ mentioned above And there I will sustain thee, for there are yet five years of famine. by Scripture refers to years of famine, so also ‘sustaining’ mentioned here refers to years of famine. Rabbi Shimon says, ‘It is not a sanctification of G-d’s Name for the words of the righteous to be effective as long as they live, and then to be removed after their death.’ Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon said, ‘I accept the opinion of Rabbi Yosei rather than that of my father, for it is indeed a sanctification of G-d’s Name for there to be a blessing in the world for the period that the righteous are in the world, and for the blessing to remove from the world when they leave.’” Thus far the text of the Tosephta. Thus the remaining five years of the famine were completed. The opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra is that these two years, [recounted in Verses 14-20, during which the Egyptians gave their money and cattle to Joseph in exchange for food], occurred after Jacob had come to Egypt, [and since there were two years of famine before he came to Egypt, this accounts for four of the seven years of famine]. And Ibn Ezra wrote as follows: “We find in homiletic texts of the Rabbis that the famine was removed by the merit of Jacob. It is also possible that there were three more years of famine, but that they were not as severe as the first four years which had passed.” But Ibn Ezra’s words are not at all correct. The account of the dream and its interpretation make all seven years alike, and, had it been as he said, Scripture would have mentioned the different nature of these three last years. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan during a period of five years, and he brought it to Pharaoh, for how is it possible for the money and cattle to be exhausted in one year? Rather, the money sufficed them for the entire five years, as is the usual way of the world. Now since nothing was initiated, and no change of any kind occurred during all these years, Scripture relates nothing about them except, And Joseph gathered up all the money, etc. here. When the money was exhausted, Scripture relates that they came to Joseph — this was in the sixth year of the famine — and he gave them bread in exchange for their cattle. He fed them with bread only to the extent of sustaining them, but not to satiety. And when that year was ended, here. in which he had vowed to them that he would feed them with bread in exchange for their cattle—which was the sixth year—they came unto him the second year, [i.e., the year following the sixth year of famine being discussed], and they told him that he should purchase them and their land for the bread which he will feed them during that seventh year, and since the land will then belong to Pharaoh, he should give them seed so that the land will not be desolate, for they knew that when the seven years of famine will be completed, they will have planting and reaping. The verse stating, And Joseph sustained his father…with bread, according to the want of their little ones, here. thus means that he furnished them with bread sufficient for their needs during the famine, as the expression, according to the want of their little ones, indicates.

בשנה השנית, the second year after the money had run out. This was the seventh year of the famine. לא נכחד מאדוני, that we still possess some livestock, כי אם תם הכסף ומקנה הבהמה.

לא נכחד מאדוני, "we will not hide the fact from my lord, etc." The expression "we will not hide" presents a difficulty. What was the point of speaking of hiding something which was bound to be revealed if indeed it existed? On the other hand, if they were to claim that their livestock and money had not been exhausted they had to deliver it! Why would they say that they would not conceal the existence of money or livestock? Besides, what is the meaning of the words כי אם? Furthermore, they had told Joseph already at the end of the previous year that their money supply was exhausted? Why did the Egytians say to Joseph: "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir?" Perhaps what the Egyptians meant was: "we really have no more money, we are not hiding it, the money is truly exhausted." They did not want Joseph to suspect them of pretending to be destitute, asking for a handout. They added that as far as the livestock was concerned there was not even a need to tell Joseph they had none left, seeing Joseph had bought it all and it could not be hidden even if they tried. As a result the only thing they had left were their very bodies. According to the alternative meaning of the words אפס כסף, that their cash receivables were not collectible at that time, the verse does not need any explanation at all. They told Joseph that when they argued previously that they had receivables but that those could not be collected at that time, that had been a lie, and they would not deny that they had lied in order to get Joseph to accept their livestock in payment for the grain. The fact was that at this time all their assets other than their bodies had been exhausted. This is the reason that whereas the first time around the Torah speaks about אפס כסף, i.e an absence of money, they now spoke about תם הכסף, that the money had been completely exhausted. When they said: ומקנה הבהמה אל אדוני, "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir," they referred to the livestock they had pledged in lieu of the cash they had not had available at the time they made their recent grain purchases. As of now, this livestock belonged to Joseph absolutely. This is why they added the word אדוני.

בשנה השנית, “during the second year;” according to the plain meaning of the text, this refers to the second year after Yaakov had arrived in Egypt, which was the fourth year of the famine. The food which had been stored up during the seven years of plenty plus the financial savings of the population had sufficed to see them through the first three years. In the fourth year the people tendered their livestock for food, and in the fifth year they tendered their land holdings. In the sixth year they agreed to become slaves of Pharaoh in return for receiving rations from Joseph’s stores. In the seventh year, Joseph gave them seed to plant and they planted it, collecting a harvest in the eight’s year, and the famine was over. לא נכחד, “we cannot hide, etc.” i.e. “we have nothing left that we could hide instead of offering it to you.”

ותתם השנה ההיא, “when that year came to a close, etc.” This is the year during which they had received food in exchange for their cattle. ויבואו אליו בשנה השנית, “they came to him in the second year.” This was the second year after their money had run out, i.e. the seventh year of the famine. At this point the people asked Joseph to acquire them as well as their soil in exchange for the food he would give them. Subsequently Pharaoh would have to provide the seed for planting to prevent the land from becoming wasteland. This explains the continuation of the verse: למה נמות לעיניך... קנה אותנו ואת אדמתנו בלחם ונחיה אנחנו ואדמותנו עבדים לפרעה, “Why should we die before your eyes? Acquire us and our land for bread; and we and our land will become serfs for Pharaoh.” According to the plain meaning of the text this was an offer to buy both their bodies and their lands. According to Bereshit Rabbah that there were actually only a total of two years of famine seeing that Yaakov’s blessing that the Nile should rise again had stopped the famine in its tracks, we would have to understand verse 18 “that the people came to Joseph at the beginning of the ‘second’ year” as referring to the second year of the famine. If you were to say that this would result in the Egyptians suspecting Joseph of not having correctly interpreted Pharaoh’s dream, we would have to assume that the remaining five years of famine occurred immediately after the death of Yaakov. Another possibility is that seeing Joseph had not predicted that the seven years of famine would occur consecutively, there was no question of Joseph’s competence as an interpreter of dreams would be questioned. Rabbi Yoseph in Tossephta Sotah 10,9 points out that the famine resumed after Yaakov’s death and that Joseph’s promise to provide for his brothers (50,21 made after his father had died) was precisely because the famine had resumed at that time. Just as Joseph had used the expression וכלכלתי אתכם, “I will provide for you” in 45,11 at a time when the famine was in full force, so the same expression used in chapter 50 also reflects that the famine was again in full force. Rabbi Shimon did not feel that such an explanation would reflect credit on G’d as it creates the impression that blessings by the righteous are valid only during their own lifetime. His son Rabbi Eleazar nevertheless said that he preferred Rabbi Yoseph’s interpretation to that of his father.

ויבואו אליו בשנה השנית, “They came to him in the second year, etc.” according to Rashi the verse speaks about the second year of the famine, even though Joseph had spoken about another 5 years of crop failures, (45,11) However, as soon as Yaakov arrived in Egypt, a miracle happened and the blessings returned as a result of his presence. Nachmanides writes that although Joseph’s prediction of seven consecutive years of famine did not come true, no one used this as an excuse to call Joseph a liar or a false prophet. The reason was that they noted that the famine continued in the surrounding countries, so that it was clear to them that special circumstances had arisen when Yaakov went down to the Nile and suddenly the waters of the Nile rose to welcome him. Pharaoh himself had witnessed this phenomenon. He showed it to his servants and they realized that Yaakov’s blessing had been effective. We must therefore understand Joseph’s pledge to support his brothers economically as being meant for the normal years to follow, a pledge which was to be valid for at least as long as his father would remain alive. In fact, Joseph continued to support his brothers financially even after his father’s death (50,51) Even considering all this, if all this is true, then Pharaoh’s dream had not been interpreted correctly seeing that Pharaoh had not really been shown the decree nor how it could be changed. There is an interesting Tossephta in Sotah according to which Rabbi Yossi said that as soon as Yaakov died, the famine resumed in Egypt. There is also a statement in the Sifri according to which Yaakov’s blessing to Pharaoh consisted in the promise that the famine would cease forthwith. Nonetheless, seeing seven years of famine had been decreed in the dream, these did in fact occur, at intervals, after Yaakov’s death. Rabbi Shimon protested such an interpretation, saying that it does not confer glory on either G’d or His righteous people on earth if the promise (blessing) of a צדיק remains effective only during his own lifetime. In response to this Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Shimon (ben Yochai) said that he prefers the interpretation of Rabbi Yossi to that of his own father, as it is a greater sanctification of G’d when people observe that as long as a tzaddik walks the earth there is visible blessing on earth thanks to his merit. The very fact that the blessings on earth we due to the presence of Tzaddikim at that time, becomes manifest when these blessings cease as soon as the Tzaddik leaves this earth. The fact is that there are 5 more mentions of famine in Egypt scattered throughout the Bible; these five years of famine completed those predicted by Joseph but interrupted by the blessing of his father Yaakov when he went to see Pharaoh. [by the way, the clue Yaakov had found in Pharaoh’s dream that gave him the opening for this blessing was that the parched ears of corn symbolizing the years of famine, did not grow on a single stalk, whereas the good ears of corn all grew on a single stalk, suggesting that the good years would be consecutive. Ed.] Ibn Ezra claims that here we are speaking about the first 2 years of the famine after Yaakov’s arrival in Egypt. We find support for this in the Midrash, which states that the famine ended thanks to the merit of Yaakov. It is also possible that the division was four years of famine at once, and three years at a later date, but of far less severity. Nachmanides writes that he finds these interpretations as unsatisfactory, for if that had been so the Torah herself would have referred to some of these events explicitly. At any rate, the meaning of the text read straightforwardly is that Joseph collected all the available money during five years of the famine, but seeing that during those five years no new elements developed, the Torah did not refer to those years individually, but treated them as if they had been a single year. When a new development occurred, i.e. the people for the first time confronting Joseph, the Torah resumes the thread of the narrative. What is related now actually occurred during the sixth year of the famine. At that time Joseph handed out grain and took cattle and beasts of burden as payment for this. When the people came back again in the following year, the second of the last two years, he acquired their land on behalf of Pharaoh and made sharecroppers out of all of them. When he began to hand out seed for sowing it became clear that this had been the last year of the famine.

Why should we die before your eyes, both we and our land? Acquire us and our land in exchange for food, and we and our land will be servants to Pharaoh. Give seed grain so that we may live and not die, and the land will not be desolate.

ותן זרע GIVE US SEED — to sow in the ground. Although Joseph had said (Genesis 45:6) “And there are yet five years when there will be no plowing and sowing”, as soon as Jacob came to Egypt a blessing came with his arrival: they began to sow and the famine came to an end. Thus do we read in the Tosefta of Sotah (Tosefta Sotah 10:3). לא תשם means it shall not be desolate. The Targum renders it by לא תבור shall not be uncultivated, which has the same meaning as (Mishnah Peah 2:1) שדה בור an uncultivated field — one which is not ploughed.

BUY US AND OUR LAND. Now they said to him that he should also purchase their bodies as servants for Pharaoh, and thus did Joseph say, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land. here. However, Scripture records, And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, here. but it does not say that he bought their bodies, only the land. The reason for it is that the Egyptians told Joseph that he should purchase them as servants to perform the king’s business as he pleases. But Joseph wanted to buy only the land, and he made a condition with them that they work on it forever, thus becoming Pharaoh’s family tenants. Afterwards he said to them, “Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh, here. not as servants as you told me, but you will belong to him with the land. Now it is proper that the king, who is now lord of the land, take four parts of the harvest and that you take the remaining fifth, but I will deal kindly with you in that you will take the portion due to the owner of the land, and Pharaoh will take the portion due the tenant. However, you will be sold to him in that you will not be able to leave the fields.” This is the meaning of that which they vowed to him, And the land will not be desolate here. meaning that it will never be desolate. For this reason they said to Joseph, “We have found favor in the sight of my lord, here. for you have been lenient with us by permitting us to take four parts of the harvest so that we may use them to live, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants, here. as we have vowed, in that we will work the ground in accordance with his will.”Vayechi.

Do not wonder that the text uses the language of death with respect to the land, for the opposite is found: "and You give life to them all" (Neh. 9:6). "תשם" — it derives from the root of "והבמות תישמנה" (Ezek. 6:6), and its pattern is like "תדע". We find in the midrash that the famine was lifted on account of Jacob's merit. It is possible that the famine [continued for] three [more] years, but they were not like the four that had already passed.

למה נמות לעיניך?, even assuming that both the money and the livestock had completely been exhausted, it is not be fair to let us die because we have no means to pay.

גם אדמתינו, “also our land holdings.” The words מיתה, “death,” and חי, “live,“ are here used when speaking of inanimate objects, such as land. Our author points out that such usage of the Hebrew language. He cites as examples: Nechemyah 9,6: ואתה מחיה את כולם, “and You keep them all alive.” If G-d’s creatures do not plough the earth and grow things for themselves, they will not stay alive. In other words, they will be no better than dead. [Manna will not fall from heaven. Being given life is not an end in itself, but only a means to staying alive. Ed.] אנחנו ואדמתנו עבדים לפרעה, “both we and our soil will be slaves to Pharaoh.” We will be his slaves, and the soil will he will hand over to us is to be taxed from its yield.

קנה אותנו ואת אדמתינו בלחם, “acquire us together with our land in return for bread!” They asked Joseph to also acquire their bodies as slave labour, and this is confirmed when Joseph told them in verse 23 that he had indeed acquired both their soil and their bodies on Pharaoh’s behalf. Seeing that this has all been spelled out by the Torah in unmistakable language, what do the words in verse 20: “Joseph acquired all the soil of Egypt on Pharaoh’s behalf,” add to the information we have already received? In fact that verse seems to contradict what we read in both verse 19 and 23 in that it speaks only of soil and not bodies having been sold. The reason for the insertion of this verse was to show that although the Egyptians were willing and eager to even sell their bodies, Joseph did not acquire their bodies,- as he considered the personal freedom of the body of a human being as of paramount importance- but he established a system of share-cropping, the former landowners being legally obligated to work the lands in question on behalf of Pharaoh, but sharing in the success or failure of the annual crops to the extent of 80%. When he did say to them in verse 23 “here I have acquired you,“ he refers to the entitlement to their labour, not to their bodies being owned, and subject to resale to other human beings, (as was the custom in the United States until1866) Moreover, Joseph’s concern for “human rights” was such that instead of allocating to Pharaoh 80% of the fruits of their labour he allocated only 20% to Pharaoh, the remainder belonging to the farmer who had worked the land. The expression קניתי “I have acquired you,” is justified as the farmers were not allowed to leave the land or offer their labour to someone else. והאדמה לא תשם, “and the land will not become waste.” Neglect of the land now would result in the land becoming permanently unable to grow crops. In light of this it is not surprising that the farmers said to Joseph (verse 25): “you have kept us alive; let us find favour in your eyes and we will gladly be slaves to Pharaoh.”

Joseph acquired all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for the Egyptians sold each man his field, for the famine was severe upon them, and the land became Pharaoh's.

ותהי הארץ לפרעה SO THE LAND BECAME PHARAOH’S — possessed by him.

As for the people, he transferred them from city to city, from the ends of the border of Egypt to its far end.

ואת העם העביר AND AS FOR THE PEOPLE HE CAUSED THEM TO PASS — Joseph caused them to pass from one city to another city that they might be reminded that they now had no claim to the land. He settled the people of one city in another. There was no need for Scripture to state this except for the purpose of telling you something to Joseph’s credit — that he intended thereby to remove a reproach from his brothers because, since the Egyptians were themselves strangers in the various cities where they then dwelt, they could not call them (Joseph’s brethren) strangers (Chullin 60b). 'מקצה גבול מצרים וגו means thus did he to all the cities of the realm of Egypt FROM ONE EXTREMITY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF EGYPT EVEN TO THE OTHER EXTREMITY THEREOF).

"And as for the people, he removed them" — he relocated each one from his place. Some say that the verse speaks of the city-dwellers of Egypt, whom he transferred from the countryside to the cities, in order to work the land.

העביר אותו לערים, he transferred them so that they should encourage him to keep the grain safe.

ואת העם העביר אותו, “as far as the people were concerned, Joseph transferred them wholesale (to new locations).” Joseph transferred the people to new locations so that they would no longer be attached to their soil, since he had bought it. This would prevent them from returning to their land after some time and claim that this is what they had inherited from their fathers. Once they were settled in the new location on soil which had never been theirs, they could not make such a claim since everyone lived on land that had once belonged to somebody else.

And he transferred the people to cities. Rashi explains that this was to remove shame from his brothers so that people wouldn’t say they were exiles. However, this explanation is difficult to accept, as it seems unlikely that Joseph would disrupt the entire land for such a minor benefit. Furthermore, the term “exile and outcast” only applies to someone who had an inheritance of field and vineyard and was exiled from them. But Jacob was not a permanent resident anywhere, and all the Patriarchs were sojourners, as the state of being foreigners had already begun from Isaac’s birth. We don’t find that the Patriarchs were concerned about this. It is more reasonable to explain all this upheaval based on the verse And you shall love the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 10:19). For anyone who has never been a stranger does not feel the pain of the stranger and does not have compassion for the stranger’s soul. But one who has himself been a stranger knows the pain of the stranger, and what is hateful to oneself, one should not do to others. Therefore, Joseph transferred the people to cities so that they would all be strangers in a land not their own, so that they would feel the pain of the stranger. It’s possible that this was also Rashi’s intention, as this is the shame he refers to — that they would be reproached by being called exiles, with people saying “If God desired your welfare, why are you exiles?” and thus feeling justified in mistreating them. Therefore, Joseph transferred them to cities so they could respond, “You too have become weak like us” (based on Isaiah 14:10). Another explanation: The reason why Joseph transferred them [the Egyptians] to cities was because he saw that Jacob and his sons had settled in the land of Goshen and took possession of it as their inheritance and property in the land. There was a concern that in the course of time, a tyrannical king might arise and examine the historical records of each city and its inhabitants, where the ownership of each plot of land was recorded. [If this were to happen,] the Israelites would not be found to have any ancestral rights to their properties, and none of them would be able to claim “this land belonged to my ancestors,” and they might be expelled from it. Therefore, he transferred all of them [the Egyptians] to cities, so that none of them would remain on their ancestral properties, and thus the Israelites would be equal to them, as they would all be living without established claims of ownership.

Only the land of the priests he did not acquire, for the priests had an allotment from Pharaoh, and they ate their allotment that Pharaoh gave them; therefore they did not sell their land.

הכהנים mean THE PRIESTS. The term כהן always means one who ministers to Deity except in those cases where it denotes one of high rank, e.g. (Exodus 2:16) “Jethro the chief of (כהן) Midian” and (Genesis 41:45) “the chief of (כהן) On”). חק לכהנים [FOR] THE PRIESTS HAD A PORTION — an assigned portion of a definite quantity of bread daily.

רק אדמת הכהנים, “only the soil belonging to the priests (Joseph did not transfer to Pharaoh).” The priests are the like the ministers, as the כהן מדין the priest of Midyan. Joseph did not transfer to Pharaoh so they would not have any reason to start a rebellion against Pharaoh. A different reason given for Joseph’s preferential treatment of the priests is as we explained already, that the priests had suggested a method by which to test if Joseph or the wife of Potiphar had spoken the truth, as a result of which, Joseph instead of being hanged had only been put in;jail.

רק אדמת הכהנים, “only the land-holdings of the priests, etc.” Some commentators believe that Joseph favoured the priests because his former master Potiphar was now a priest in the monastery of On. Other commentators attribute Joseph’s showing preference to the priests to the tradition that it had been the priests who had to sit in judgment deciding if the accusation of Potiphar’s wife that Joseph had attempted to rape her was true or not had ruled in Joseph’s favour basing themselves on the manner in which his garments had been torn. Had the tears occurred in the frontal part of the garments this would have been incriminating. The fact that the tears were in the rear indicated to them that Joseph had fled from her and not vice versa. You need not consider the statement in our verse that there was a special law for the priests as contradicting the tradition we just quoted, seeing that this very law had been introduced by Joseph. Some commentators do not understand the word כהנים as referring to a religious order, but as a description of the local aristocracy, whom Joseph exempted from these new laws restricting land ownership to a numerically insignificant number of people.

Joseph said to the people: Behold, I have acquired you and your land today for Pharaoh. Here is seed grain for you, and you shall sow the land.

הא means the same as הנה “behold”, as (Ezekiel 16:43) “I also lo, (הא) will recompense thy way upon thine head”.

I have today purchased you. Since he had purchased both them and their lands he was required to feed them and supply them with seed, but all the produce would belong to him. הא לכם זרע וזרעתם, here is seed for you, work.

הן קניתי אתבם היום. "Look, I have bought you today, etc." The reason Joseph added the word היום, and the fact that it does not appear after the report that Joseph had bought their land, is to tell us that the method of acquisition was that each individual was acquired by the method known in Jewish law as משיכה, i.e. drawing the object being purchased a short distance towards the purchaser, as customary when one purchases slaves (Kidushin 22). Joseph did this en masse by transferring whole populations from city to city. Since one cannot acquire land by moving it, the word היום was interposed between these different kinds of purchases Joseph made. The Torah also wanted to clarify something else here. We have the principle (Pessachim 88) that when one acquires a slave one automatically acquires everything this slave owned at the same time. There was no need to mention the acquisition of these Egyptians' lands separately. Since it is possible that Joseph did not acquire these Egyptians in the manner one usually acquires slaves, but that they became his (Pharaoh's) slaves only to the extent that they had to continue to farm the lands they had farmed previously and pay a portion of their harvest to Pharaoh, the Torah distinguished between the acquisition of the people on the one hand and that of their lands on the other hand. In practice, these Egyptians became hired hands who were not free to leave their employment. As a result Joseph had to acquire the land separately. This is why the Torah wrote in verse 20 that "Joseph acquired all the lands on behalf of Pharaoh as each of the Egyptians sold his land, etc." This would enable Pharaoh to bring in other labourers to work these fields, whereas he was not able to force the Egyptians who had previously owned those fields to farm them as he did not own those farmers bodily. When Joseph said: "I have acquired you," he meant that he had acquired them as hired hands, as distinct from their lands which he had acquired outright.

Here is seed for you: He gave them seed for the five years that were supposed to be years of famine, but the famine ended due to Jacob’s merit (Tosefta Sotah 13). Therefore, he said Here [hey, which is also the letter for the number five] is seed for you, meaning for those five years. The Kabbalists said that from the final letter “heh” of God’s name stems all offspring and everything that bears fruit. In order to make this matter memorable, he commanded them to give a fifth to Pharaoh while four parts would remain for them. There is an additional allusion that all of this was in Jacob’s merit, for just as Jacob did not consume all that was his but rather [kept] four parts and set aside a fifth portion for the Divine, as it is said and of all that You give me, I will surely give a tenth [aser a’aserenu, a double expression] to You (Genesis 28:22) — [meaning] two tithes, and the second tithe is equivalent to the first tithe, which amounts to a fifth — so too, all those who ate by virtue of his merit were required to give this contribution, consuming only four parts while setting aside a fifth. Similarly, at the beginning of the famine, he took a fifth of Egypt’s [produce], taking a fifth portion from everyone, for there God commanded the blessing, as it is written You shall surely tithe [aser te’aser] (Deuteronomy 14:22) — [meaning] two tithes. And in this matter it is permitted to test God, as it is said Test Me, if you will, in this (Malachi 3:10).

And it shall be at the bringing in of the harvest that you shall give one-fifth to Pharaoh, and four portions shall be yours for seed grain for the field and for your food and for the people of your households and for food for your little ones.

לזרע השדה FOR SEED OF THE FIELD — for sowing every year), ולאשר בבתיכם AND FOR THEM OF YOUR HOUSEHOLDS — means and as food for the servants and maidservants that are in your houses, טפכם means your young children.

את האדמה, which is his, והיה בתבואות When it come to the crops, which are his, ונתתם חמישית לפרעה, you will hand over one fifth to Pharaoh, for this is what you have to pay him in return for what he has done for you. וארבע הידות יהיה לכם לזרע השדה, including the seed which he has to provide for you as any other owner of a field. ולאכלכם, and for you to eat, something he is also obligated to provide for his slaves. Considering that he will keep his part of the bargain, he is entitled to keep the remaining fifth for himself.

חמישית לפרעה, one fifth for Pharaoh, etc. Joseph was astute enough to say that Pharaoh would collect the first 20% of any seed. Even if, as a result, the remaining 80% would be only sufficient for the farmer to plant and to break even, Pharaoh would not agree to collect less than his 20%. On the other hand, the farmers would be at liberty to collect the overage whether there be a lot or a little. The reason Joseph mentioned separately that it would be "to eat for your children," instead of including the children when he had said that the 80% would be "for you and your households to consume" was, that the portions required by the children would be greater than that of their parents.

ונתתם חמישית לפרעה, “and you will hand over 20% of the harvest to Pharaoh as his share. The harvest was divided into five equal portions. 1) to serve as seed; 2) to provide food for the grower; 3) to provide for his slaves and maidservants; 4) to provide for his young children; and 5) to go to Pharaoh as a tax.

וארבע הידות יהיה לכם, “and the other four fifths will be yours.” One quarter of the crop was intended to provide seed for next year’s crop; another quarter was intended for consumption by the farmer and his wife, yet another quarter for the farmer’s resident helpers other than his immediate family, and one quarter for use by the children.

They said: You have kept us alive. May we find favor in the eyes of my lord, and we will be servants to Pharaoh.

נמצא חן LET US FIND FAVOUR — [IN THE EYES OF MY LORD] in that you should do for us as you have said. והיינו עבדים לפרעה AND WE SHALL BE PHARAOH’S SERVANTS, paying him this tax annually.

והיינו עבדים לפרעה, "and we shall remain slaves to Pharaoh." They were careful to describe themselves as Pharaoh's slaves, not as Joseph's. They also referred to something I mentioned earlier, that Pharaoh had acquired them only as hired labourers, people obligated to work these particular lands. By saying: והיינו עבדים לפרעה, they offered their bodies to Pharaoh also so that Pharaoh owned them outright from then on. Perhaps this is the reason why the new Pharaoh in Exodus 1,9 described the Jewish people as the "nation, the children of Israel," meaning that he could not in good conscience describe them as his slaves as they had never lost their status as a free people.

החייתנו... והיינו עבדים לפרעה, “you have saved our lives, and we have becoming willing slaves of Pharaoh.” The emphasis on the unnecessary word לפרעה was a blunt hint to Joseph that whereas they were willing to become Pharaoh’s slaves, they would not have been willing to become Joseph’s slaves.

Joseph made it a decree until this day over the land of Egypt, that they should give one-fifth to Pharaoh. Only the land of the priests alone did not become Pharaoh's.

לחק AS A STATUTE — without repeal.

"The priests" — these are as the Aramaic Targum explains them.

וישם אותה יוסף לחק, Joseph anchored this arrangement in a law after he had convinced the people that this did not represent a new hardship for them.

Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen; they acquired holdings in it and increased and multiplied greatly.

וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים AND ISRAEL ABODE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT — and where in the land of Egypt? בארץ גשן IN THE LAND OF GOSHEN which is a part of the land Egypt. ויאחזו בה means THEY ACQUIRED POSSESSIONS.

"And they took possession of it" — meaning they acquired property there. [End of parashat Vayigash.]

וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים, Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah add that the land of Goshen is in the land of Egypt? Do we not know this already? Besides, what is the connection between the Jewish people multiplying and their dwelling in the land of Egypt? The Torah evidently wishes to remind us of the fulfilment of G'd's prophecy to Jacob in 46,3 that while in Egypt he would develop into a great nation, that the reason he and his family had to descend to Egypt was to liberate the stray holy souls that were entrapped amongst the Egyptians and their pagan practices. This is why the Torah emphasises that Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, a morally thoroughly depraved society. The Torah adds that Israel lived in the land of Goshen to hint that the origin of that word is הגשה, approach, i.e. that all those scattered souls we have previously described were attracted to and collected in Goshen because of the presence there of a branch of sanctity as represented by Jacob/lsrael. The entire paragraph refers to the fledgling nation Israel in the singular to emphasise the unity of purpose that characterised that society at that time. When the Torah adds ויאחזו בה, "they were possessed by it," this refers to their lofty ideal as a developing holy nation. The reason they were extraordinarily fruitful and multiplied was the fact that they were possessed by lofty ideals not because they happened to find themselves on Egyptian soil. The author suggests reading up the comments of the Maha"rik on Exodus 1,6: "Joseph, all his brothers and that entire generation died."

ויאחזו בה, “they became totally attached to it.” They acquired land that served as the ancestral heritage. ויפרו וירבו. “they became fruitful and they multiplied.” Thus G-d’s promise to the Yaakov in Genesis 46,3, became fulfilled.

וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים בארץ גושן, “Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the province of Goshen.” The city Goshen is close to the capital of Egypt. Seeing that his twelve sons were all prominent people in their own right, each one of them capable of dealing with kings on a basis of equality, Yaakov did not want to reside in Egypt proper to forestall his sons becoming politically involved in Egyptian matters of state. Yaakov was well aware that this was the time when the exile of his descendants began. He wanted to minimize this exile to the greatest extent possible and this is why he preferred the status of “וישב", he “settled down,” to the status claimed by those of his sons who had been introduced to Pharaoh and who had claimed the status as resident strangers, i.e. לגור בארץ באנו, “we have only come here as temporary residents” (47,4). It had been the sons’ intention to return to the land of Canaan as soon as the famine ended. ויאחזו בה, “they acquired property in it.” The word ויאחזו suggests the acquisition of permanent, hereditary property; their intention was never fulfilled, however. The correct wording of the verse should have been ויאחזו בניו בה, “his sons acquired landed property there.” In fact, what happened was the very reverse. The passive form of the word ויאחזו describes that instead of becoming masters of that soil they became enslaved to it. The word is reminiscent of something taking root. Seeing that their father had already “taken root” in that land as the Torah described him as “settling,” there was no need for the Torah to mention that his offspring branched out like roots. If the Torah describes what happened with Yaakov’s sons as something in its own right, it indicates that there was some dramatic change in the spiritual direction of future generations of Yaakov’s sons. The righteous are described as active, as setting the tone for something. Examples are Isaiah 27,6: “In days to come Yaakov shall strike root.” The psalmist in Psalms 80,10 speaks of “it took deep root and filled the land.” The reason that in this paragraph the Torah wrote: “these are the names of the Israelites who came to Egypt,” is an indication that only that generation was still “master” of its destiny. Later generations became “possessed” by the land instead of actively possessing it. We have numerous instances in the Bible of the wicked not striking root. Examples: Ezekiel 31,3 (speaking about Sancheriv). The prophet extols the height to which his kingdom had risen comparing it to a lofty cedar but carefully omitting mention of any roots. Daniel 4,8 describes Nebuchadnezzar and his rise to power in similar terms. The lesson is that the wicked, though apparently flourishing greatly at one time or another, are devoid of roots and therefore prone to sudden collapse. There is an exception to this in Daniel 4,12 where a root is mentioned in connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (“however its major roots leave in the ground”); the angel mentioned this only to show Nebuchadnezzar that the kingdom would be restored to him. It has no bearing on the fact that the wicked are depicted as devoid of roots. This idea is spelled out in Isaiah 40,24: “their roots will dry out and the storm beats them off like straw.” The righteous by contrast is depicted as having solid roots which will not deteriorate. This is what Solomon alluded to when he said (Proverbs 12,3) “but the root of the righteous cannot be shaken loose.”

And Israel dwelled in the land of Goshen, etc. This entire verse speaks of the guilt of the Children of Israel, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, had decreed upon them your descendants will be strangers [in a foreign land], yet they sought to become permanent settlers in the very place where they were destined to be temporary residents. This is similar to what the Sages interpreted regarding Jacob: And Jacob settled — Jacob sought to dwell in tranquility, [and as a result] the turmoil of Joseph jumped upon him, etc. The verse criticizes them for this settling, as they sought permanent possession in a land that was not theirs. This was not what they had originally said to Pharaoh: to sojourn in the land we have come, which teaches that initially they had not descended to permanently settle there but rather to temporarily dwell as temporary residents. But now they went back on their words, and they became so deeply entrenched there that they did not want to leave Egypt, to the point where the Holy One, Blessed be He, had to take them out with a strong hand, and those who did not want to leave died during the three days of darkness. And it says “they were fruitful and multiplied greatly,” and adjacent to it is And Jacob lived. This juxtaposition hints at what our Sages said (Taanit 5b) that “Jacob did not die.” The Talmud questions: “Did they then embalm him for nothing?” and resolves this by expounding a verse: Do not fear, Jacob… and your descendants will return from the land of captivity — comparing him to his descendants: just as his descendants are alive. People raise a difficulty here that this doesn’t actually answer the question about why they embalmed him. The explanation is as follows: Anyone who leaves behind children is considered as if they haven’t died, because an offspring is like an extension of its mother and “like the leg of its father” — a portion of the father is included in the son. When the son is alive, the portion of his father that is contained within him is also alive. This applies specifically to Jacob, whose “bed was complete” [all his children were righteous], as it is written that anyone who raises a righteous son is considered as if they haven’t died. This applies specifically to a righteous son, but a wicked son, who is considered as if dead even while alive — both helper and helped shall fall (Isaiah 31:3) — such a son does not bring merit to his father. Therefore, they specifically said that “Jacob did not die,” even though they embalmed him, nevertheless when his descendants are alive, the portion of him [within them] is also alive. This concept is hinted at in this juxtaposition: because “they were fruitful and multiplied greatly” and his descendants were alive, therefore Jacob lived — for he too was alive.

Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years, and the days of Jacob, the years of his life, were one hundred and forty-seven years.

ויחי יעקב AND JACOB LIVED — Why is this section (Sidra) totally closed? Because, comprising as it does an account of the death of Jacob, as soon as our father Jacob departed this life the hearts and eyes of Israel were closed (their eyes became dim and their hearts troubled) because of the misery of the bondage which they then began to impose upon them. Another reason is: because he (Jacob) wished to reveal to his sons the date of the End of Days (i.e. when Israel’s exile would finally end; cf. Rashi on Genesis 49:1), but the vision was closed (concealed) from him (Genesis Rabbah 96:1).

AND JACOB LIVED IN THE LAND OF EGYPT SEVENTEEN YEARS. I have already mentioned that Jacob’s descent into Egypt alludes to our present exile at the hand of the “fourth beast,” See Daniel 7:7, also Note 8 in Seder Vayeitzei. which represents Rome. [There are many parallels,] for it was Jacob’s sons themselves who, by the sale of their brother Joseph, caused their going down there. Jacob, moreover, went there on account of the famine, thinking to find relief with his son in the house of his son’s friend, for Pharaoh loved Joseph and considered him as a son. It was their hope to ascend from there as soon as the famine would cease in the land of Canaan, just as they said, To sojourn in the land we have come, for thy servants have no pasture for their flocks, for the famine is heavy in the land of Canaan. But then they did not come up, but instead the exile prolonged itself upon Jacob and he died there, and his bones ascended from there accompanied by all the elders and courtiers of Pharaoh, who instituted severe lamentation for him. Our relationship with our brothers Rome and Edom is similar. We ourselves have caused our falling into their clutches, as they See Abodah Zarah 8b. made a covenant with the Romans, and Agrippa, the last king during the Second Temple, fled to them for help. It was due to famine that Jerusalem was captured by the Romans, and the exile has exceedingly prolonged itself over us, with its end, unlike the other exiles, There was also a terminus known for the Egyptian Exile, (above 15:13). being unknown. We are in it as the dead, who say, “Our bones are dried up, we are completely cut off.” But in the end they will bring us from all the nations as an offering to the Eternal, and they will be in deep sorrow as they will behold our glory, and we will see the vengeance of the Eternal. May He raise us, that we may live in His presence.

ויחי יעקב, Jacob lived, etc. Although G'd had changed Jacob's name to Israel in 35,10, this is one of numerous instances when the Torah refers to him again as Jacob. I have explained that Jacob's permanent personality (נפש) had not changed as we know from Berachot 7 which interprets Psalms 46,9 where the word שמות, desolation, is re-interpreted to mean also שמות, names. The name Israel was an additional name reflecting spiritual highs that Jacob attained from time to time. We do need to examine the criteria which cause the Torah to refer to Jacob sometimes as "Jacob" and other times as "Israel." It is a fact that when these names are applied to the Jewish people as a whole, the name Jacob reflects some deficiency in the Jewish nation, whereas the name Israel reflects the fact that the nation lived up to its potential on the occasions when it is described by that name. This principle has been alluded to in the Zohar 210 on Parshat Balak. The reason given there cannot be applied to Jacob the individual, however, inasmuch as he lived a righteous life at all times. We must remember that Jacob strove to attain a very high degree of sanctity, one which is reflected in his name Israel. Spiritual highs are attainable only when one simultaneously frees oneself of such human concerns as pain, anguish, anger, etc. The kind of sanctity Jacob strove for needed to be based on the attainment of a degree of serenity in his earthly life, something that we nowadays experience only on the Sabbath, a day that G'd has imbued with the quality of מנוחה. He gave us an additional soul in order to appreciate that day to the full, and in order to help us to disregard all the depressing phenomena we have to deal with during the 6 days preceding the Sabbath. The reason we are able to do this is because the מנוחה emanates in the higher spiritual regions. This is why G'd Himself called the Sabbath עונג, delight. Whenever Jacob experienced the kind of spiritual serenity we are meant to experience every Sabbath, he qualified for the name Israel. The Torah therefore informs us about all these occasions by referring to him by his additional name. Whenever Jacob experienced worries, etc., this serenity departed from him similar to the departure of the נשמה יתרה from every Jew at the end of the Sabbath. At such times the Torah reverts to referring to our patriarch as being merely "Jacob." I shall make a short list of instances where the respective names of Jacob and Israel clearly reflect different frames of mind of Jacob/Israel. In Genesis 35,10 where G'd tells Jacob for the first time that though his name remains Jacob he will henceforth also be entitled to the name Israel, the reason that G'd emphasised that at that time his name was still Jacob is that he had just heard about the death of his mother Rivkah (compare Bereshit Rabbah 82, which understands the words: "He (G'd) blessed him" in 35,9 as the blessing one extends to mourners). This is why the name Jacob continues to appear throughout this paragraph. The time when Rachel died (immediately afterwards according to the report in the Torah) was also a period during which Jacob could not qualify for the additional name Israel. The Torah (35,20) speaks about Jacob erecting a tombstone on the site where Rachel died and was buried. As soon as the thirty days of mourning had passed, we find that G'd called Jacob "Israel" in 35,21 where he is described as continuing his journey towards reunion with his father. When we find Jacob's children referred to as "the sons of Jacob" instead of as "the sons of Israel" in 35,22, this does not contradict what we have written, as the Torah merely wants to inform us that Israel's children were not on the same spiritual level as their father. The fact that Reuben was guilty of a misdemeanour with Israel's concubine at that time, is clear evidence of that. When the reunion between Isaac and his son Jacob is described in 35,27, the reason that Jacob is not called Israel is simply that it would not be good manners for the son to be called by a name which suggests a higher spiritual level than that of his father Isaac. You will find confirmation of this thought in Yalkut Shimoni item 875 on Psalms 116,15 "that the death of His faithful is precious to the Lord," where the author writes: "if Abraham had been alive at that time, how could his son Isaac have exercised any authority?" The same argument applied to all the other patriarchs. The above teaches that while one's illustrious father or teacher is alive, the son or disciple is not allowed to outshine him. This is why the Torah refers to Jacob as Jacob at that time. When we read about Jacob settling in the land of Canaan in 37,1 he is again called Jacob to remind us that during all the years he remained in the land of Canaan his life was full of mental anguish with very brief exceptions. One such exception was his relationship with Joseph before the latter was sold into slavery. This is why the Torah speaks of that relationship as "Israel loved Joseph, etc." The name Israel is used by the Torah only three times from the time Joseph was sold until 45,28 after Jacob had regained a measure of Holy Spirit as stated in 45,27 ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, "their father Jacob's spirit revived." The three instances during the period between the sale of Joseph and Jacob's receiving the news that he was alive and well are 43,6: "Israel said: 'why did you harm me,'etc,"—43,8: "Yehudah said to Israel his father, etc." and 43,11: "Their father Israel said to them, etc." In all those instances Jacob spoke to his sons as a person who exercised his position of authority; this is why the Torah describes him with his full title "Israel." In those instances Jacob/lsrael had to assert his authority when he noticed that his sons did not give due consideration to their father's anguish. By acting as "Israel" he indicated that he would not forgive them if they did not heed his words. As soon as Jacob heard the news about Joseph he is referred to repeatedly as the "Israel" of old. This situation continues until Jacob/lsrael is told that he has to remain in Egypt, i.e. in exile. From then on the Torah called him Israel only at the moment of his reunion with Joseph or when the Torah referred to his sons. During the period Jacob dwelled in Egypt the Torah generally calls him Jacob until shortly before his death. It was important that his sons and family should remember that they had lost not merely a Jacob but an Israel. Besides, as Jacob prepared for death, his mind became filled with other-worldly concerns. It was therefore easy for him to attain the serenity needed to be Israel once more. The Zohar first section, 218 elaborates on the spiritual growth of the human soul shortly before its death in connection with "Israel prostrating himself at the head of the bed" during the period described in the Torah as "the days approached when Israel was to die," (47,29 and 47,31). All of this is the plain meaning of these verses. They do have implications of a more profound and mystical nature, however. ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים, Jacob lived in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us once more that Jacob was in Egypt? Besides, all the Torah had to write was: 'ויהי ימי יעקב וגו, "Jacob lived to be 147 years old." This information would have allowed us to calculate that he lived in Egypt for the last 17 years seeing that he had told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old when he came to Egypt (47,9). Furthermore, why did the Torah have to repeat שני חייו, the years of his life? Perhaps all of this is connected to the fact that Jacob's life was never smooth from the moment of his birth when he held on to the heel of his twin brother. His adversary Esau grew up alongside him; thereafter he lived a life of constant tension with his uncle Laban for 20 years. Not much later he experienced the anguish of Dinah's rape to be followed by Joseph's disappearance. For all these reasons the Torah tells us that the only 17 years Jacob lived a relatively serene life were the last 17 years of his life in Egypt. The Torah underlines that these were the only years which Jacob could really be described as having enjoyed by writing ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו, "these years were full of חיים, life." These 17 years were truly ימי יעקב, "Jacob's years." We have a tradition based on Tana de bey Eliyahu Rabbah chapter 5 that when someone concludes his life on earth in a happy frame of mind his entire life may be considered as having been a happy one. This is also the meaning of Job 8,7: והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאד, "though your beginning was full of pain, your end will be a great achievement." Solomon has expressed a similar thought in Kohelet 7,8 when he said that "a good ending is better than a good beginning." When the Torah speaks of ויחי יעקב, this means that the last 17 happy years which Jacob lived in Egypt made his entire life, i.e. שני חייו appear as years during which he had lived to the full. The Torah chose the word ויהי which always signifies some painful experience to tell us that though there had been many painful experiences in Jacob's life on earth they were all converted to positive experiences in light of his last seventeen years in Egypt. We need to consider why the Torah enumerates the years of Jacob's life in a different manner from the way it enumerated the lives of Abraham and the other patriarchs. When the Torah told us about the number of years Abraham lived, it commenced with the larger unit first, i.e. 100 years plus seventy years plus five years (compare Genesis 25,7). We find the same thing in Genesis 35,28 when Isaac's life is described; the same also is the case when the Torah described the number of years Sarah lived (Genesis 23,1). Perhaps the reason that the Torah reversed this in Jacob's case is to drive home the point that Jacob's last 17 good years were the key to his whole life. Perhaps the Torah actually wanted to pinpoint 47 years of Jacob's life as the ones during which he experienced what we are in the habit of calling happiness. This is based on the interpretation of the verse in Genesis 37,3 that וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו. According to the Zohar both Jacob's love for Rachel his true mate and Joseph is lumped together in this verse as indicated by the extra word את. As long as Joseph had not been born Jacob dressed in sackcloth [a figure of speech denoting he had not yet begun to experience what he perceived to be his true destiny. Ed.] When computing the number of years Jacob was married to Rachel and the 17 years prior to Joseph's disappearance, one must consider that some of these years overlapped as Rachel was alive until the birth of Benjamin 6 years after the birth of Joseph. Jacob was married to Rachel for 13 years during his stay at Laban. He experienced 11 years in the company of Joseph before the latter was sold making a total of 24 years. When you add to this the 17 years he lived in Egypt you get a total of 41 years of happiness in Jacob's adult life. When you add the first 6 years of Jacob's childhood, years that are not yet clouded by the various problems we experience in life, we have a total of 47 years of Jacob's life during which he could be considered as having lived a "normal" life. The Torah may have wanted to draw our attention to this fact and therefore it mentions these 47 years before mentioning the numerically bigger number, i.e. the 100 years. According to this approach we have to justify the word ויהי as a hint by the Torah that Jacob did not exploit all the good years of life on earth he could have enjoyed because he had caused Rachel's premature death when he uttered the oath that anyone who had stolen Laban's Teraphim should not live (31,32). Bereshit Rabbah 74,9 writes that the reason Jacob did not attain the age of his father Isaac (180), was that he lost 33 years of his life, a number corresponding to the numerical value of the word יחיה when he had said in 31,32 that the person who stole Laban's teraphim לא יחיה, should not live. We are now left with the task of explaining why the Torah reports on the total of Jacob's years long before he was actually about to die, and before he had called in his sons to give them his last blessing. Perhaps the Torah wanted Jacob (and us) to become aware that he did not have the life expectancy of his father or his grandfather. This may have prompted him to call in his son Joseph order to make him swear that he would bury him in the land of Canaan. The patriarchs were all prophets and Jacob may well have been aware that he had forfeited 33 years of his life by his premature curse. As a result of this foreknowledge he called upon his son Joseph to visit him at that time in order to discuss burial arrangements. If we look for some kind of allusion in the fact that Jacob enjoyed precisely 17 years in Egypt at the expense of his son Joseph who had become the provider of the family, it maybe that this number of years corresponded to the number of years Jacob himself had provided for Joseph before the latter had been sold into slavery by his brothers. It is also interesting that the number 17 is equal to the numerical value of the word טוב, good. Perhaps the Torah hints that Jacob experienced a repayment of the good he had done for Joseph while the latter grew up, when his son now repaid him with an equal number of years.

ויחי יעקב, “Yaakov lived;” according to Rashi, the reason why this portion has not been separated from the preceding portion by as much as the space of a single letter, is because with the death of Yaakov the “eyes and the heart” of his descendants were as if closed to the spiritual mission they were to bring to the world, as they were being enslaved. You might well ask that seeing that Joseph his son ruled in Egypt for another 54 years during which all of his descendants enjoyed complete freedom, how is that possible? The answer is that this was not quite so. [His family had become culturally too dependent on Egypt. Ed.] When Jacob died, slavery started very, very slowly without anyone taking notice. Another interpretation for the omission of even a minimum amount of blank space in the Torah before the commencement of this portion is that the subject dealt with here was inextricably interwoven with what preceded it, i.e. the Torah’s description of the years during which Yaakov lived thus far. ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים, “Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt;” all the years of Yaakov until he settled in Egypt could not truly be described as חיים, “life,” seeing that they were all clouded by different kinds of anguish. It was only during his last seventeen years in Egypt that his mind was at rest and not beset by serious worries of one kind or another. In fact, this whole verse has been inserted in the Torah as a compliment to Joseph who was the cause of Yaakov’s last seventeen years being happy years. During those 17 years he repaid his father who had sustained him for the first seventeen years of his life, by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. He had been seventeen years old when he had been sold.

באורח צדקה חיים ודרך נתיבה אל מות. “The road of righteousness (charity) leads to life, by way of its path there is no death” (Proverbs 12,28). In this verse Solomon wishes to extol the virtue of charity in the wake of which much reward may be expected; in fact, the performance of that good deed may add years to one’s life (compare Psalms 19,12). The practice of charity is a panacea for both body and soul. It is capable of overcoming what is in store for people based on the mazzal they have been born under. We have proof of this in Samuel I 26,10 where David speaks of: “or his time will come and he will die.” What he meant was that the person’s day of death will approach sooner than had been originally scheduled. Death may sometimes occur sooner than originally scheduled, such as in the case of David of whom we read in Kings I 2,1 “David’s days approached to die.” On the other hand, there are instances when years are added to the life of a person who had been born under horoscopic influences which presaged a much shorter life for him. The best known example of this was the King Chiskiyah who, though he had been told by the prophet Isaiah to make his last will and testament, was granted an additional 15 years in response to his prayer (Isaiah 38,4-8). Conversely, we find that the life span of a person may be shortened from what had originally been decreed for him as we find in the case of King Yehoram son of Achazyah who was punished for his idolatry. We find in Kings II 1,16 that Elijah told him: “because you sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zevuv the god of Ekron — as if there were no G’d in Israel whose word you could seek — assuredly you shall not rise from the bed which you are lying on but you shall die.” This is what prompted Solomon to say that charity is such a powerful virtue that it can overcome even decrees of death. Its power is equal to that of “being fruitful and multiplying.” The word חיים in the sequence בארח צדקה חיים means that an additional life span may be granted in recognition of the charity one practices. The word מות, “death,” in the second half of our verse refers to shortening someone’s life expectancy as retribution for some sin committed. We are told in Baba Batra 11 that a certain righteous individual Binyamin, who was in charge of the distribution of public charity once had a certain woman approach him during a year of famine. The woman said to him: “please support me!” He answered her that there were no funds left in the kuppah. Thereupon she said to him: “if you do not provide me with food, a woman and her seven children will surely die.” He then gave her of his own money. Some time later, this very Binyamin fell sick and was on the point of death. At that point the angels said to G’d: “did You not say that anyone who keeps alive even a single Jew is considered as if he had kept a whole world alive? Did not this Binyamin save the lives of a woman and her seven children? Why does he have to die so young?” Thereupon the decree ordering his death was torn up and he had 22 years added to his life span. The words ודרך נתיבה אל מות mean that because a person is performing constant acts of charity he may be certain that he does not die prematurely. Translated literally: “there is no death on its path.” This idea is expressed also by Proverbs 10,2 צדקה תציל ממות, “charity saves from death.” This means that the person who practices charity does not die before his appointed time thanks to his acts of charity. Seeing that on occasion acts of charity are the reason why someone’s life span is extended beyond what was originally decreed, it is only logical that such acts protect the person performing them against dying prematurely. The subject matter of charity, how to practice it, and in what amount to practice it is quite complicated; the fundamental ingredient of doing charity is that one gives to someone else something which belongs to one. There are many ways of doing this. A minimal performance of the commandment would be giving a small alms to a Gentile. The next higher level of charity would be giving a similar amount to a Jewish person from another town who is in need. A still higher level of charity is giving this amount to a needy Jew from your own city. This is based on Exodus 22,24 “the poor person who lives amongst you.” A poor person residing in your house takes precedence in his claim on your charity over someone who lives out of town. A poor person who is also a next of kin takes precedence over another poor person of your hometown. The relevant verse in Isaiah 58,7 states: “do not ignore your own kin.” A still higher level of charity is to provide one’s children with a livelihood. Our sages (Ketuvot 50) applied to this Psalms 106,3 “Happy are those who do right at all times.” They argued that it is not possible to do right at all times as most people do not become called upon to perform acts of charity all the time. The only way they can fulfill what the psalmist talks about is by providing for their children while they are minors. The next higher level of performing charity is looking after one’s aged parents financially. By doing this one also fulfills the commandment to honour father and mother. This is the finest way of doing charity. When one does this one may be in line for living to a ripe old age oneself. This is why the Torah wrote in connection with this commandment (Exodus 20,12) “in order that you may experience long life on the earth that the Lord your G’d is assigning to you.” This is precisely what Solomon termed בארך צדקה חיים, that the path to life is righteousness. G’d repays measure for measure. If children keep their parents alive longer by ensuring that they can enjoy their old age, G’d in turn will recompense the children in a similar manner. We see a perfect example of this principle in the relationship between Yaakov and Joseph. Yaakov had provided for Joseph during the first 17 years of his life; in our Parshah we are told that Joseph repaid his father by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. This is why the Torah (Genesis 47,28) was at pains to write: “Yaakov lived in Egypt for 17 years.” [Had the Torah not wanted to make this point it could simply have written that Yaakov lived for a total of 147 years. We know that he was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh. Ed.] ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו שבע שנים וארבעים ומאת שנה “the years of Yaakov’s life were one hundred and forty-seven years.” This Parshah is “closed,” i.e. we do not have the customary separation of words, lines or letters between the last portion and this one. There are two reasons for this. 1) The exile was about to start and the hearts of the Israelites became “closed” due to the progressively increasing difficulties in their daily lives. 2) Yaakov wanted to compensate for their feeling that a deterioration in their lives was about to take place by revealing to them the glorious future in store for them after the redemption. However, he was unable to do so. In other words, Yaakov’s channels of communication with the celestial regions had become “closed.” He had announced that he would reveal to them “what will befall you in the end of days” (49,1). When reading what follows it becomes clear that this is not what Yaakov announced. The “end of days” Yaakov had in mind was the exile in which we find ourselves now, not the exile in Egypt or Babylon. Seeing that Yaakov was the third of the patriarchs it is reasonable that his life should have foreshadowed experiences of the Jewish people during their third exile, i.e. our exile. At any rate, G’d would not let him reveal these matters and even Daniel (Daniel 12,9) states that these matters remained sealed secrets until the end of that exile. Our sages felt that Daniel had known about these developments and that is why the angel had to tell him to obscure the matter (Daniel 12,4). Isaiah said something similar in Isaiah 9,6 where we read: לםרבה המשרה ולשלום אין קץ. The final letter ם in the middle of the word לםרבה where we should have had a regular “open” letter מ, is a warning that whatever the areas in which Israel excels, these will not be in evidence during their exiles. The prophet seems to be saying that even attempts to hasten the redemption through Torah-study, through establishing G’d’s authority on earth, etc., will not affect G’d’s timetable. It is interesting that we find exactly the reverse phenomenon in the Book of Ezra (Nechemyah 2,13) where an open letter מ appears at the end of a word, i.e. בחומות ירושלים אשר המ פרוצים, “the walls of Jerusalem which are broken down.” A Midrash comments on this verse that this is an allusion that whereas when the walls of Jerusalem which are now “open,” i.e. broken down, were still “closed,” i.e. intact, such as during the period of the Temple, G’d’s authority which had been “closed”, i.e. not in evidence during that period, will re-emerge and reassert itself as a result of the Jewish people learning their lesson during a harsh exile. Just as the two letters מ in the verses we have quoted from Isaiah and Nechemyah respectively contain allusions to matters hidden from us, so the unusual absence of a division between the two portions Vayigash and Vayechi also contain allusions to matters hidden from us, i.e. hidden from Yaakov. There is a Midrash according to which Yaakov saw that the names of his twelve sons [the future tribes of Israel. Ed.] contained between them all the letters of the alphabet except the letters ח and ט. He concluded that this was a hint that none of these sons were guilty of a sin (chet.) This prompted him to reveal to them what he knew about the period preceding the final redemption. When he re-examined the letters in the names of the sons and realized that the letters ק and צ also did not appear in the names of any of them, he reconsidered and decided that his sons were not fit to have this information revealed to them. He therefore desisted, and this is why this portion is “closed.” שבע עשרה שנה. “seventeen years.” This is something we already knew from when Yaakov had told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old. If the Torah enumerates the total number of years Yaakov lived in this verse this is another reason to see allusions in these numbers, in this information. We know that the Torah does not contain a single superfluous sentence, word, or even letter. In this verse the Torah alludes to the number of years Yaakov lived or did not live as an example of how G’d deals with us on the basis of מדה כנגד מדה, measure for measure.

“And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt, etc.” Why is this portion [parsha] “closed” [written without the usual spacing]? Rather, since Jacob passed away, the [Egyptian] bondage began. Another explanation is that he [Jacob] sought to reveal the End [of Days] and it was concealed from him. Another explanation is that all the troubles of the world were concealed from him. This is the version in Genesis Rabbah (96:1). Apparently, there is no scriptural support for all these interpretations, and they all seem like prophetic statements. What appears to me regarding this matter is that we find here a “closure” that is not [even] like the usual closed portions in the Torah, which have at least some space [between them] in the measure of a closed portion, but here there is no space at all. Certainly, Ezra the Scribe’s intention was to connect the verse And Jacob lived to the verse before it: And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen, and they had possessions therein, and were fruitful, and multiplied exceedingly [followed by] And Jacob lived, etc. — as if it were all one verse. Therefore, these three interpretations differ in the exegetical meaning [of this connecting of these verses]. According to the first interpretation that teaches that once Jacob passed away the enslavement began, the connection between these two verses can be understood in the following way: Initially it states And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen, using the language of ‘dwelling’ to indicate that they had a dwelling of tranquility and rest. And they took possession indicates that they also had property ownership in the land, and they were fruitful and multiplied greatly. All of this was during the time of And Jacob lived, because during his lifetime, Jacob’s merit stood for them, enabling them to merit all these things. This implies that upon his death, his merit ceased and everything ceased — they no longer had a peaceful dwelling due to the enslavement, and certainly they had no property ownership in the land for they were slaves. Similarly, they were not permitted to be fruitful and multiply, as [the Egyptians] sought to diminish them through affliction, saying lest they multiply. According to this interpretation, Jacob’s death was the cause of the enslavement. We can say the opposite of this — that the beginning of the bondage [in Egypt] was the cause of his death, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, shortened his years so that he did not reach the years of his forefathers, in order that he would not witness the enslavement of his children, as the time had come for they shall serve them and they shall afflict them (Genesis 15:13). Therefore it says and the days of Israel drew near to die, and our Sages of blessed memory said (Bereishit Rabbah 96:4) that anyone about whom the term “drawing near” [to death] is used did not reach the years of his forefathers. And in this way, the textual proximity is also explained, just as in the first approach. And the number 17 years that it mentions is to tell us that the selling of Joseph, who was 17 years old [when sold], caused them to dwell in peace in Egypt for only 17 years. And according to the third interpretation that explains: Since all the troubles of the world were sealed off from him, the verse is saying that even though all his days were filled with trouble and living as a stranger, as it is written the days of my sojourning are 130 years, few and difficult, nevertheless, due to the greatness of the tranquility he had during those 17 years — when he saw his children dwelling in peace, and they took possession of the land and were fruitful and multiplied — all the previous troubles that had passed over him were forgotten and were as if they had never been. Therefore it says And the days of Jacob, the years of his life, were 147 years, because those 130 years were not considered part of his life days due to the magnitude of his troubles. And now, retroactively, they were all counted as his life years, and this is because all the troubles that had passed were sealed off from him, as if he had lived pleasant and sweet life throughout all his years, for indeed Joseph was actually alive. Therefore, And Jacob lived is connected to the previous verse. And the reason Rashi omitted this interpretation is because it appeared to him to be essentially the same as the first interpretation, as is clear to one who understands with a little contemplation. However, regarding the second interpretation that suggests [Jacob] sought to reveal the End [of Days] and the Divine Presence departed from him, [this interpretation] comes to explain what is meant by “And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt 17 years” — what is this verse teaching us? Did we not already know that he was in Egypt for 17 years? After all, when he came before Pharaoh, he said The days of my sojourning are 130 years. If so, why was it necessary to say that he lived in Egypt for 17 years? Furthermore, why wasn’t this language used for Abraham and Isaac or the Matriarchs? Rather, this certainly comes to indicate that the Divine Presence departed from him. This is because it states above and the spirit of Jacob their father was revived, which means the Divine Presence rested upon him, as evidenced by the phrase spirit of Jacob. One might have thought that the Holy Spirit remained with him continuously until the day of his death. Therefore, the verse teaches us And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt — meaning that when he came to Egypt, Jacob lived, but not the spirit of Jacob, as the Divine Presence departed from him immediately. This happened because he said I can die this time, after seeing your face [Joseph]. Consequently, he was immediately prepared to give his final instructions before death, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, was concerned that He might reveal the End [of Days]. Therefore, the Divine Presence departed from him. However, we still don’t know the reason why the Divine Presence departed from him. Therefore, this portion is “closed” [written without the usual paragraph break] and is connected to the verse And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen. This is because it is known that great harm would come from knowing the End [of Days], as the earlier generations, knowing that the redemption would not come in their days, would not seek the presence of God to pray for redemption and transformation. And so explained in the Akeidah, regarding the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 157:49) which states that when Jacob sought to reveal the End [of Days], the Holy One Blessed be He said But you have not called upon Me, O Jacob (Isaiah 43:22). This means that you were not concerned for My honor, because from this knowledge would follow this damage: that the earlier generations would not call upon Me nor seek My presence, and would seek to settle [in exile] as those who despair of redemption. Therefore, God concealed and sealed the final End so that in each and every generation they would seek the presence of God and David their king, and would constantly await the time of His salvation. As in our sins, this trait is found among us even in times when the End is not known. Nevertheless, many are the common people who settle in the lands of the nations and build for themselves elaborate and important houses of stone — permanent structures. Because of this, they never seek God’s presence wholeheartedly to bring them to their land, and therefore the Holy One Blessed be He leaves them there. And to this settling refers the verse And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen — it speaks of Israel’s guilt, for they sought to be settlers and to have a possession in a land not their own. This damage came to them because the end of the Egyptian exile was known to them. Therefore, the early generations who knew with certainty that the redemption would not occur in their days sought permanent settlement and possession in the land of Egypt. This is why the verse And Jacob lived follows this verse, to indicate that this damage that extended to those generations — due to their end being known — caused And Jacob lived, but not the spirit of Jacob, for only Jacob alone was alive so that he would not reveal the final End and this damage would not spread to [future] generations.

ויחי יעקב, “Yaakov lived (peacefully), etc.” The descent of Yaakov to Egypt is meant to be reminiscent of the third exile of the Jewish people, the exile under Roman domination, as the sons of Yaakov had brought about their exile in Egypt themselves through having sold their brother Joseph to Egypt. Yaakov descended there under the impression that he would be saved there due to his beloved son occupying such an illustrious position in a country that was not severely damaged by the famine. The brothers themselves had declared that they had only come to Egypt for a brief stay, expecting to return to Canaan as soon as the famine had come to an end. In the event, this is not how things worked out, the exile in Egypt dragged on for one reason or another, and even Yaakov himself was only brought back to the land of Israel after he died, and even that only because Joseph told Pharaoh that his father had made him swear not to bury his remains in Egypt. While it is true that he was buried with great honour and the elite of Egypt participated in his funeral, his death put an end to any chance of the brothers returning even if they had wanted to. Something very similar happened during the later years of the Hasmonean reign when two brothers vied for the position of King, and the one who did not succeed by his own strength, called in the Romans to support him politically and militarily. They did, but they never left the country again after King Agrippas took refuge with them. Eventually, due to famine in Jerusalem after years of siege, the defenders of Jerusalem were captured and until this day we are enduring this ”Roman” exile. In contrast to previous exiles, we have no idea when this exile will come to an end. Who knows how far off is the day when the tables will be turned and we will go up to Jerusalem and offer offerings of thanksgiving, and all the nations will witness the redemption of the Jewish people. Rashi explains that the reason why this portion has not been separated from the previous portion by even the space of a single letter, is to allude to the fact that as soon as Yaakov had closed his eyes for the last time, the ability of the Jewish people to look into the future with any sense of confidence and assurance had vanished. This remained true although, according to tradition, the Egyptians did not commence any repressive measures against the Jewish tribe until after the last one of the brothers had died. The enslavement commenced immediately after the death of the last surviving brother Another approach to the peculiar lack of the separation of the previous portion in the Torah from this one, is that before the Torah had commenced with the chronology of the years of the life of Yaakov who was 130 years old when he came to Egypt, now the Torah relates that he had 17 years left to live out his life while in Egypt, and the Torah did not want to interrupt its chronology. [Joseph spent the first 17 years of his life under the care of his father, whereas his father spent the last 17 years of his life under the care of Joseph. Ed.]

The days of Israel drew near to die, and he called for his son Joseph and said to him: If now I have found favor in your eyes, place your hand now under my thigh and deal with me in kindness and truth — do not bury me now in Egypt.

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות AND WHEN THE DAYS OF ISRAEL S DEATH APPROACHED — Everyone of whom it is stated that his days drew near to die did not attain to the age of his fathers (Genesis Rabbah 76:3). Some editions add: Isaac lived 180 years, whereas Jacob lived only 147. Similarly it is said in the case of David, “his days drew near” and he lived 70 years, whereas his father reached the age of eighty. ויקרא לבנו ליוסף AND HE CALLED HIS SON JOSEPH — he called that one who had the power in his hands to do what he was about to ask (Genesis Rabbah 96:3). שים נא ידך PUT, I PRAY THEE, THY HAND — and take an oath. חסד ואמת MERCY AND TRUTH — The mercy shown to the dead is “mercy of truth” (true, disinterested kindness) since one cannot hope for any reward (Genesis Rabbah 96:5). אל נא תקברני במצרים BURY ME NOT, I PRAY THEE, IN EGYPT — Because its soil will ultimately become lice which would swarm beneath my body. Further, those who die outside the Land of Israel will not live again at the Resurrection except after the pain caused by the body rolling through underground-passages until it reaches the Holy Land) And another reason is that the Egyptians should not make me (my corpse or my tomb) the object of idolatrous worship (Genesis Rabbah 76:3).

AND WHEN THE DAYS OF ISRAEL DREW NEAR TO DIE. This means when the time for Israel’s death approached, which was during the last year of his life, he called his son Joseph. The purport of it is that he felt exhaustion and undue weakness in himself, but he was not sick. Rather, he knew that he would not live much longer, and therefore he called his son Joseph. Now after Joseph returned to Egypt [from visiting with his father who lived in Goshen, Jacob] became ill, whereupon Joseph was informed, and he came before him with his two sons so that he [Jacob] would bless them. In a similar sense is the verse, Now the days of David drew near that he should die, There too the sense of the verse is that this occurred some time before David’s death. and there it says, I go the way of all the earth, [which clearly indicates that the meaning of the first verse is] that David knew in his heart that his end was approaching.

[Parashat Vayechi.] "Place now your hand" — this is explained in the account of Eliezer. "Also kindness and truth."

אל נא תקברני במצרים, even temporarily, in a coffin, as was done with Joseph (50,26). Yaakov reasoned that if he allowed himself to be interred even temporarily, Joseph would never be allowed to take his remains to the land of Canaan at a later date. They would argue that the honour done to him and burial in the soil of Egypt was adequate as it had been for the most outstanding kings. [we must understand the preoccupation the Egyptians had with the cult of death and what they presumed to be their afterlife. The whole culture of that people revolved around burial, hence the pyramids. Ed.]

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, Israel's time to die approached, etc. I have already explained whence Jacob knew that his death was close. Nachmanides writes that he knew this from a loss of vital signs in his body; I do not think that we can accept his theory for we know of many people who continue to live for many years after their old age sets in and they begin to feel weak. Jacob may also have had an indication that his death was close at hand because the Zohar section 1,217 states that thirty days prior to one's death a person's צלם, divine image, is removed from him. The Zohar claims that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai observed this phenomenon with Rabbi Yitzchak. Although such knowledge is withheld from ordinary people, righteous people do become aware of it as they are aware of most spiritual matters. Another indication that this may have been so is the syntax of the verse "the days for Israel to die approached;" since when do we describe days as "approaching?" We can understand the meaning of this verse by accepting what the sainted Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (Ari zal) wrote in his book Kohelet Yaakov. He writes as follows: "You know that the souls have been divided up into numerous "sparks" of sanctity. These are destined to inhabit human beings on their various appearances on earth. The length of time a person lives on earth is directly related to how many of these sparks of sanctity -also known as tzelem -inhabit his body. Every day such a person performs G'd's commandments the condition of one of these "sparks" is enhanced, thus strengtheneing such a persons צלם. Every day that such a person does not perform G'd's commandments his צלם suffers damage because one of these sparks has been damaged. Thus far Rabbi Luria. This introduction is immensely valuable for those who want to examine matters connected with these phenomena in detail. By means of this paragraph in Rabbi Luna's book we can understand what the Talmud Berachot 57 meant when it states that sleep is equivalent to 1/60th of death. It means that every day one of these sparks escapes the body when a person goes to sleep. Such a loss of the spark is not clearly noticed by the soul as something absolute, however; the "spark" is merely detached from the main body of the soul and becomes intertwined with the lower form of the soul known as נפש, life-force. It is an act of kindness by G'd that every "spark" which acquired a merit on a particular day through the performance of a מצוה by the person whom it inhabits is further removed from loss of vitality in spite of the fact that said person may commit sins subsequently thereby producing defective "sparks." Moreover, when the errant person repents his sin G'd enables such sparks to be restored to their original level of vitality. All of this is part of the various ways in which G'd demonstrates His kindness towards us. Keeping in mind the Ari zal's statement, we can understand why the complaint against G'd for having shortened man's lifespan after the deluge from around nine hundred years to less than one hundred years nowadays is not justified. Let us use the following parable to illustrate what occurred. A king distributed gems which had been mined in a quarry to various craftsmen in order to fashion from these gems intricate golden jewelry. He urged the various craftsmen to use all their skills to produce superior work and to complete it at a certain date. Different craftsmen were given different amounts of gems in accordance with the king's estimate of their ability to complete the task within the time allotted. When the time arrived for these craftsmen to present the result of their labours to the king, the king found to his dismay that not only had most of them not performed work of acceptable standards, but some of them had actually ruined many of the gems in the process. The king grew angry and killed these craftsmen. He showed the children of these craftsmen what happened to their parents and why, and he urged them not to repeat the mistakes of their parents. When the king handed the new generation of craftsmen gemstones to fashion into jewelry, he allocated to each one only approximately one tenth of the amount of gems he had allocated to the craftsmen of the previous generation. He believed that by making the task less demanding the craftsmen would have a better chance to perform excellent workmanship. The souls G'd allocated to people are the gemstones referred to in the parable. This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 49,24: משם רועה אבן ישראל, that by means of the instruments placed at our disposal by G'd, i.e. the Torah and the commandments, we have been given the insights to conduct our lives in such a manner that the sparks making up the soul can be strengthened. The Zohar, part one section 82 describes that the condition of the soul is improved in proportion to the performance of good deeds and abstention from sins by the personality it inhabits. This is equivalent to the intricate jewelry described in our parable. Originally, G'd assigned great tasks to the antediluvian generations and at the same time equipped them with commensurately greater souls, each one of which consisted of many "sparks." He assigned a single day to each "spark." This is alluded to in Exodus 16,4 when the Torah speaks about people collecting the manna on a daily basis, i.e. דבר יום ביומו. The word יום may be understood as ענף, a branch or sprout of each soul. G'd granted each human being a certain number of days, i.e. He allocated to them approximately 300.000 such gemstones as mentioned in the parable. After the failure which resulted in the deluge, all of this was restructured in order to help us achieve what is expected of us in a lifespan averaging seventy years. We have benefited by this change in G'd's allocation of a shorter lifespan in additional ways. For instance, we observe that the process of aging results in people becoming progressively more frail, a process which even includes scholars (of secular disciplines). Infirmity in old age results in a person not being able to carry out fully the tasks allocated to him for each day he lives. While it is true -as our sages say at the end of tractate Kinim -that Torah scholars who have attained old age retain clear minds, the sages were careful with their wording. They stated that the minds of non-scholars decline progressively to such an extent that their minds gradually cease to function properly. It is clear that inasmuch as parts of the soul gradually disappear, the remaining parts of the soul are not up to the task of performing as if they were still whole. The same thing happens to the body so that gradually both body and mind deteriorate to the level of that of a minor. With the help of Rabbi Luria's analysis we can also better understand Bereshit Rabbah 62,2 in which the difference between dying as a young man or dying at a ripe old age is described. Rabbi Yehudah explained: "when this light (soul) is extinguished by a natural process it is beneficial both for the light and the wick. If, however, it is extinguished by an unnatural process this is harmful both for the light and its wick." The Midrash compared the death of an aged person to the gradual extinction of a light. As the light gradually loses power, so the aged person's vital systems (נפש) decline progressively until finally he dies by appearing like a person who is merely asleep and who does not feel what is happening to him when his last remaining vestige of life leaves him. Rabbi Luria's comparison also helps us understand Psalms 104,29: תוסף רוחם יגועון, "when you take away their breath they perish." The meaning of this statement had not been clear. Besides, one would have expected David to say: תוסף ברוחם. With the help of Rabbi Luria's introduction the meaning of the verse becomes crystal clear. When the end of man's life approaches and G'd gathers in all the remaining parts of the soul which used to commute to heaven nightly only to return to their bodies by morning, G'd will then collect the soul itself (not just the "sparks"). We have already explained elsewhere that the departure of the soul from the body at night is not something absolute; the soul continues to illuminate the body below with its "light;" we have proof of this in the well known phenomenon that when one awakens a sleeping person (in the middle of the night) the part of the soul which had ascended heavenwards is immediately perceived as present in the body of the person who has been awakened. Having read what Rabbi Luria had to say on the subject of the soul we now appreciate that when the Torah described Jacob's life as drawing to its close by saying: "the days of Jacob's death approached," the meaning is the same as that in Psalms 104,29 except that here the Torah uses the expression למות instead of יגועון. The various parts of Jacob's soul which used to ascend nightly were now about to be gathered together for a final journey to heaven. Jacob felt that this process was taking place and this is why he called for Joseph to come and see him. ויקרא לבנו ליוסף. "He called for his son, for Joseph." The reason Jacob only called upon Joseph is simple. Only Joseph possessed the power to carry out Jacob's wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah. We do need to understand, however, why the Torah felt the need to add that Joseph was "his son;" do we not know this? Was there another person called Joseph so that we might have erred as to whom Jacob called? Furthermore, why did the Torah not merely write לבנו יוסף, instead of adding the letter ל by writing לבנו ליוסף? The Torah may have wanted to explain the strange phenomenon of a commoner summoning the king instead of asking the king for an audience at his palace in the capital. We know that the halachah considers the dignity of a king as taking precedence over the dignity of one's teacher. The Talmud Kidushin 33 discusses the problem of how a father has to conduct himself vis-a-vis his son when the latter is his rabbi. Is the son who is also a rabbi obligated to rise in the presence of his father? Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi there opines that he himself does not need to rise in the presence of his son since he was greater than his son in Torah learning; since, however the son occupied a position of great prominence (he was the son-in-law of the prince (נשיא) he made a practice of rising in the presence of his son. I have already elaborated on this subject in my book Rishon Letzion (glossaries on the Yore De-ah 240, subsection 7). In any event, it is clear from the discussion in the Talmud that the honour due to the temporal power takes precedence over that due to one's father even if the son was not the temporal authority itself but only closely related to it. In view of this, how could Jacob arrogate to himself the right to summon Joseph to his home? In order to answer this question the Torah provides us with two answers. 1) Inasmuch as Joseph was his son, and 2) inasmuch as he was Joseph. One of these two reasons by itself would not have sufficed to give Jacob the right to summon Joseph. Had Joseph not been Jacob's son, the fact that Joseph loved him would not have been an adequate reason for Jacob to ignore etiquette and summon the king to his side. However, since Joseph did not only love Jacob as such but he was also his father and mentor and Joseph was a dutiful son, Jacob was able to ask him to come to him. The Torah writes לבנו, to stress that Joseph was known for his extraordinary devotion to his father. This is why his father knew that he would not stand on ceremony and would ignore etiquette. This in spite of the halachic ruling based on Kidushin 32 that when a king is willing to forego the honour due him he is not allowed to do so. The ruling in the Talmud applies only to a Jewish king who rules over Israel. A king of the type of Joseph is permitted to waive the honour due him if he feels the occasion demands it. אם נא מצאתי חן, "If I have found favour in your eyes, etc." The word נא means both "please" and "now" in this instance. Jacob used the word in the sense of "now" to make Joseph realise that he knew he had already previously found favour in his son's eyes, why else would he have provided for him for the past 17 years. However, he now asked for an additional favour. This is why he said: "please." Had he not said "please," it might have sounded as if he had not been grateful for the sustenance Joseph had provided thus far. Alternatively, Jacob indicated that although Joseph would no longer have to provide for him seeing he was about to die, there was another matter concerning which he needed Joseph's favour. We may also read a more subtle meaning into this request. All the favours Joseph had done for Jacob in the past could have been interpreted in either of two ways. 1) Joseph did so because Jacob had found favour in his eyes and not because he expected any favours from his father in return. This was normal between a father and a son who were extremely fond of each other. 2) Joseph had done what he did merely because it was his duty as a son to look after his aging father something that is customary also amongst the Gentiles. It would simply have been a disgrace for a man in Joseph's position to make his family a charge on outsiders. Inasmuch as the motivation of Joseph's conduct up to this point had been subject to some doubt, the request Jacob was about to make from him now was one by means of which Joseph could demonstrate that he had done everything only because he loved his father not because he was performing a filial duty. If Joseph were to accede to his request he would prove that all he had done in the past had also been motivated solely by love for his father. Inasmuch as what Jacob asked Joseph to do now was something he was not obligated to do, if he were to decline to do so it would reflect on the motivations behind the favours he had done for his father up to now. This is also why Jacob spoke about מצאתי, "I have found," instead of אמצא "I will find." שים נא ידך, "please place your hand, etc." In this instance the word נא may mean "please," or it may mean "now" in the sense of "after due consideration." Jacob added a second request to the one he had already indicated he was about to make that he be buried in the land of Canaan, namely that Joseph reinforce his promise by swearing an oath. The word also meant that Jacob was not content to wait until his death was imminent for Joseph to make this undertaking. He wanted the undertaking to be made on that very day. The fact that the next paragraph begins with the words: "it was after these events," makes it quite plain that the conversation the Torah reports here took place some considerable time before Jacob took ill (48,1) and Joseph was told about it by a third party (48,2). Jacob also wanted Joseph to render this oath immediately, before he had an opportunity to register a מודעה, a statement that the oath his father requested from him was to be considered as something he had committed himself to only under duress and should therefore not be binding upon him. Midrash Tanchuma even says that Jacob told Joseph that unless he swore an oath to him concerning this burial, he would die from mere worry that he would not be buried in the cave of Machpelah. If that was so, Joseph had additional reason to register a מודעה. Jacob therefore had to pre-empt such a possibility by insisting on an immediate and therefore irrevocable oath. All this is implied by the words: שים נא ידך, "put your hand now, etc." ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, "and do me a true favour!" The Torah added the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשית to indicate that the request for the oath had preceded the actual request to bury him in the land of Canaan. Bereshit Rabbah 96,5 teaches that any favour performed for a person after his death is considered a "true favour." This is very difficult to understand as we observe Jacob promising Joseph an extra share in the land of Israel at the time the land would be distributed when he said: "I am giving you one portion more than your brothers which I took from the Emorites with my sword and my bow (48,22)." Rashi even explains that Jacob said: "because you have the bother to organise my burial, etc, I assign to you an extra share in the land of Israel, namely שכם." The fact that Jacob said נתתי, "I have given," indicates that he did so at the time when he had made Joseph swear the oath which he had categorised as חסד ואמת in 47,29 at the time Joseph accepted the task to bury his father. We may have to conclude that Jacob meant to reward Joseph already at that time for accepting the task to organise the funeral procession all the way to the land of Canaan and not for the burial in the cave of Machpelah itself. Even if this were correct, Jacob should not have added the word "ואמת." On the other hand, Jacob may have intended that Joseph should arrange matters in such a way that the fact that his father had awarded him an extra piece of territory should not be perceived by him as a payment for such a deed. This could be achieved by one of two means. 1) He asked Joseph not to bury him in a town filled with abominations, i.e. אל נא תקברני במצרים; 2) Joseph should transfer his earthly remains to the Holy Land. The חסד, kindness, Joseph was to perform was not to bury his father in Egypt; the normal sequence of death and burial is that one dies first and then one is buried. It is significant that Jacob first spoke about where he did not want to be buried, and only afterwards mentioned a word associated with dying when he said: "I wish to lie with my fathers." This indicates clearly that the oath Jacob made Joseph swear referred to where he was going to be buried, not to where he was not to be buried. Joseph would not receive a reward for either of these two requests so that what he did could be described as a true kindness. The extra town Jacob allocated to Joseph's (his tribe's) heritage in the land of Israel was only in respect of the effort and expense involved in transporting the remains of his father to the land of Canaan. The verse may also be understood along the following lines: When Jacob said: ועשית, he meant that what Joseph had already done for him in the past was a חסד של אמת, a true kindness for which he had not and would not receive compensation. There was, however, another kindness Jacob would now ask of him for which he would receive the city of Shechem as a reward. We would then have to understand the letter ו in front of the word ועשית as referring also to what Joseph would do in the future. Once Joseph undertook to carry out his father's wish in return for compensation any oath he swore that he would do so could not be construed as an oath sworn under duress. There would be no legal way Joseph could become free from that oath except by carrying out its provisions (compare Rav Nissim on Nedarim 65). Although the text does not have Jacob mention the gift of Shechem at this point, the Torah does give a broad hint that Jacob had promised Shechem to Joseph already prior to 48,22 when the Torah makes mention of it. Jacob is not reported as saying that he would give that city to Joseph in the future, but the Torah reports him as saying: "I have already given you one portion more than to your brothers." The gift had been bestowed on Joseph at the time Jacob asked Joseph to render an oath concerning Jacob's burial arrangements in 47,30-31. We have explained the legal details about revocable and irrevocable oaths in connection with Isaac and Avimelech; see our commentary on Genesis 26,26. We must also remember Sotah 36 where it is stated that eventually Joseph had to threaten Pharaoh that he would consider himself free of his undertaking not to reveal that Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew unless the latter would let him honour his oath to his father to bury him in the land of Canaan. Joseph's argument there does not imply that he was legally able to renege on the oath to his father, he only used that argument to put the oath to his father on the same legal basis as that which he had rendered to Pharaoh, seeing that in both instances he had received compensation for rendering the oath. אל נא תקברני במצרים, "please do not bury me in Egypt." The meaning of the words אל נא in this case refers to a time-frame. Jacob did not even want to be interred in Egypt temporarily. He wanted that his remains be transferred to the land of Canaan immediately. This is why he added ושכבתי עם אבותי, "I wish to lie with my fathers," adding ונשאתני "and you will transport me, etc." I have already explained the reason that Jacob had first said "do not bury me, etc." and only afterwards: "I wish to lie with my fathers, etc." on 47,29: "perform a favour for me." The Zohar Vayeshev 182 explains that Jacob and Joseph were so much part of the same category of souls and that this is why Jacob was afraid that when the time came for him to die, Joseph would not want to be separated from him until he himself would die. Although the Talmud Taanit 4 claims that Jacob did not die and remained alive, Jacob wanted to be sure that Joseph did not misunderstand this and that he realised that his father would "die." When that occurred he would be separated from Joseph and would want to join his fathers. This is why he had to issue all these instructions.

ויקרא לבנו ליוסף, “he called for his son, for Joseph.” He did so, seeing that G-d had told him while he was on his way to Egypt that Joseph would be present when the time came for him to die, and that he would close his eyes for the last time. (46,4) Another reason was that the only reason why Yaakov had undertaken the journey down to Egypt had been in order to be near Joseph. It would therefore be appropriate that Joseph would accompany him on his ascent to the Holy Land to be buried with his ancestors. שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “please put your hand beneath my hip.” This method of swearing an oath was the equivalent of what a handshake is in our days. ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, “and perform for me an act of kindness and truth.” Wherever we find the expression חסד ואמת, it refers to giving someone more than he is entitled to expect, or asking him to do something beyond what he is entitled to demand. One such example is found in Samuel II 15,20: שוב והשב את אחיך עמך חסד ואמת, “go back and take your kinsmen with you and perform an act of loyalty and kindness (with them).” [David was in dire straits and staying with him was likely to result in the death of Ittai and his men. He was not obligated to remain faithful to David. Ed] Yaakov reminds Joseph that while it is his duty to bury his father, he is not entitled to demand of him to bring him to burial in the cave of Machpelah. He therefore pleads with him not to bury him in Egypt.

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, “The time approached for Israel to die.” How did Yaakov know that his death was approaching? He realised that his strength was ebbing and this is why he wanted to make his last will in the presence of Joseph; however, at this stage he had not yet been taken ill. Later on, when he was taken ill (48,1) Joseph was informed of this. We find something similar before King David died. Kings I 2,1 speaks about “the time for David to die approached;” he himself said of himself: “I am going the way of all the earth” before giving his final instructions to his son Solomon. The plain meaning of why the Torah suddenly calls Yaakov by his alternate name Yisrael again instead of writing “the time approached for Yaakov to die,” (which would have been the natural sequence to the line: “Yaakov lived in the land of Egypt for seventeen years”) is that ever since he had been given the additional name the Torah uses both names interchangeably. Throughout our portion the names Yaakov and Yisrael are used intermittently. [The name “Yaakov” appears six times, whereas the name “Yisrael” appears thirteen times. Ed.] From a more rational/scientific point of view we may detect a distinct pattern in the Torah sometimes choosing to refer to Yaakov by his original name and sometimes by his additional name. The name Yaakov applies to the physical part of Yaakov’s personality, matters connected to his terrestrial existence, whereas the name Yisrael refers to spiritual aspects of his personality, matters connected to his eternal existence in celestial regions. When Yaakov had first been given the name “Yaakov” the Torah stated that this reflected his holding on to the heel of his brother Esau (Genesis 25,26). We find the name Yisrael first used in connection with Yaakov having successfully contended with the celestial force representing his brother Esau (Genesis 32,29). It is therefore clear that the additional name Yisrael was intended principally to reflect Yaakov’s spiritual accomplishments. Seeing that it is impossible for a human being while part of a body to divest himself totally of bodily needs and concerns, we can appreciate what our sages said that contrary to the name Avraham which replaced the name Avram, the name Yisrael did not replace the name Yaakov. It reflected the fact that this Yaakov had attained an additional dimension in his personality development (compare Berachot 13). The name Yaakov henceforth became subordinate to that of Yisrael. The use of these names teaches amongst other matters that if someone makes his spiritual dimension subordinate to his physical, terrestrial concerns this “kills” him, leads to his death sooner or later. This is what David had in mind when he said in Psalms 22,30: “all those who in full vigor shall eat and prostrate themselves, all those at death’s door whose spirit lag, shall bend the knee before Him.” David refers to people who make a point of first tasting all the pleasures of terrestrial life before prostrating themselves before G’d as having their priorities reversed. As a result, such people experience death in a very real sense of the word. In the verse we just quoted the word יכרעו, “they will bend the knee” does not refer to something similar to השתחוה, “prostrating” oneself (before G’d). Rather, it is similar to Psalms 20,9. In that psalm it is used as meaning falling down and not rising up again. This is the punishment for having had one’s priorities mixed up. When the people mentioned in Psalm 22 finally decide to “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” i.e. to also make an obeisance to G’d as an afterthought, it is too late. They had not lifted a finger to secure their share in eternity while there was time. Upon closer examination you will find that when the Torah employs the name Yaakov to describe our patriarch it refers to his terrestrial concerns, concerns which are indispensable for any human being, whereas when it switches by calling him Yisrael it refers to his spiritual concerns, matters which are largely abstract. This is what the prophet (Isaiah 43,1) had in mind when he said: ”who created you O Yaakov, who formed you O Yisrael?” In connection with the name Yaakov, the prophet only mentioned the word בריאה, a primitive kind of creation, whereas in connection with spiritual parts of man the prophet speaks of a more sophisticated product, one that has undergone יצירה, an advanced stage of formation. You will note that at the revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,3) G’d says to Moses: “so shall you say to the house of Yaakov and relate to the children of Yisrael.” The name Yaakov referred to the women, the word Yisrael to the men. [Perhaps the fact that Adam had described Eve as “bones of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” but not as “spirit of my spirit” (Genesis 2,23), is the reason that woman symbolizes primarily the physical part of the human being. Ed.] Isaiah 43, 22 had something similar in mind when he wrote: “But you have not worshipped Me, O Yaakov, that you should be weary of me O Israel.” He meant that while you Yaakov were concerned with your terrestrial matters you did not really worship Me (even if you paid lip-service). As to worshipping Me as “Yisrael,” you indicated that it was too wearisome for you. When our Parshah commences by referring to Yaakov’s existence on earth by calling him Yaakov (twice in 47,28), this is in keeping with what we have explained. In 47,29 however, when the Torah commences to speak of “death” of the body, it switches to using the name “Yisrael” seeing that the death of a righteous person is but the necessary preamble to his taking his place in eternal life in the celestial spheres. Whenever preparations for death are described, including the very mention of the bed on which Yaakov lay sick, the Torah describes him as Yisrael. As soon as the Torah finishes describing his preparations for the life in the hereafter by blessing Joseph and his brothers, it reverts to the use of the name Yaakov. The Torah never describes Yaakov as having died. Only Yisrael is described as having died. The embalmers are described as embalming Yisrael (50,1). As soon as Yaakov had made the physical preparations for death, i.e. “he gathered in his feet to the bed,” the Torah calls him Yisrael again. As of that moment he had entered eternal life. When we find in 49,1 that the Torah refers to Yaakov suddenly again as Yaakov, the reason is that at that moment G’d withheld from him the visions of the redemption and what precedes it which he had intended to reveal to his sons. In other words, at that moment he had become primarily physical, his spiritual dimension having temporarily become subordinate. There is another instance where we could question why the Torah suddenly reverts to the use of the name Yaakov. This is in 48,3 where he explains to Joseph where and when he had his first communication from G’d, i.e. at Luz. The reason that the Torah calls him Yaakov at that point in our chapter is because he referred to a time in his life prior to his having the name Yisrael added to his regular name. in other words, we detect the following pattern. When the Torah indicates that Yaakov had not yet established mutual communication with G’d he is called Yaakov. When, even after he had established such communication, this channel of communication had been interrupted, he is also called Yaakov instead of Yisrael. A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Vayechi 1: the words “the days of Yisrael’s death were approaching” reflect what we have read in Chronicles I 29,15: “for we are sojourners with You, mere transients like our fathers; our days on earth are like a shadow, with nothing in prospect.” If at least the shadow would be that of a wall or a tree, i.e. an enduring shadow; but our days are only like the passing shadow of a bird which flies over us. This is what the psalmist had in mind when he wrote concerning man (Psalms 144,4): “Man is like a breath; his days like that of a passing shadow.” As soon as the bird flies over, his shadow departs with it. When David said in Chronicles that “there is no prospect,” he meant that there is no prospect of escaping physical death. Everybody knew and verbalised the fact that he would die. Avraham phrased it by saying (Genesis 15,2) “I am going to die without a child.” [Had he not known that he would die, having no child to replace him would not have bothered him. Ed.] Yitzchak had called in his son Esau in order to bless him “before I die” (Genesis 27,4). Yaakov referred to his impending death by saying “I want to be buried with my fathers” (Genesis 47,30). Seeing that he said these words close to his death, it is clear he spoke about the need to die, i.e. “when the days of Yisrael to die drew near.” When Yaakov was close to death he began to belittle himself in the presence of Joseph by saying: “if I please find favour in your eyes.” You find a similar phenomenon happening with David where the prophet describes the last days of his life as “the days for David to die drew near,” whereas nowhere else did the prophet refer to him as merely David instead of as “King David.” All of this proves that on or about the time of a man’s death he loses whatever control he used to possess over his spirit as mentioned in Kohelet 8,8: “No man has authority over the lifebreath- to hold back the lifebreath;” there is no authority over the day of death.” ויקרא לבנו ליוסף, “he called in his son Joseph.” He did not call upon his firstborn son Reuven or upon Yehudah who represented Royalty but upon Joseph who had the authority to carry out his request. אל נא תקברני במצרים, “do not bury me in Egypt.” Actually, Yaakov requested two things from Joseph. 1) not to be buried in Egypt. 2) to be buried in the land of Israel. He did not want to be buried in Egypt in order that the Egyptians should not deify him after his death. He was afraid that just as the people worshiping idols are punished so are the objects of their worship. We know this from Exodus 12,12 “and G’d punished all the idols of the Egyptians.” He asked to be buried in the land of Israel just as all the patriarchs expressed a desire to be buried in the Holy Land. This is because the nature of the land helps those buried there to obtain atonement for their sins. Isaiah speaks of this when he said: “It shall be inhabited by folk whose sin has been forgiven.” We also have a verse in Deut. 32,43 stating the same. The Torah writes of the Holy Land: “its land will atone for its people.” Eretz Yisrael is the gateway to heaven, the place whence all the prayers of the Jewish people ascend to heaven. This is the reason all the sages wished themselves to die in that land when their time to die came. There is a tradition that certain highly spiritual people enter heaven from there without the need for their souls to take painful spiritual detours. We also have a tradition that the people who died in the land of Israel will be amongst the first to be revived at the time of the resurrection. People buried in other lands will experience pain at the time of the resurrection as they will have to travel underground after bursting out of their graves until they arrive in the land of Israel (based on an interpretation of Ezekiel 36,14).

“And the days of Israel drew near to death.” In the Midrash (Tanchuma Beracha 7) they said: The days die but they [the righteous] do not die, because as long as the righteous person is in the world, days of tranquility are found in the world, and upon his death those days of tranquility cease, and their cessation is considered their death. As it is written, as long as Jacob was alive, the [Egyptian] enslavement did not begin. But regarding Jacob himself, our Sages said that he did not die. And although every righteous person is called “living” even after death, nevertheless they specifically chose Jacob, because they interpreted regarding him (Taanit 5b): “He is compared to his offspring — just as his offspring are alive, so too he is alive.” This is because a son contains a portion of his father, and every fetus is considered an extension of its mother and father. When his offspring are alive, it is as if he too is alive — meaning, a part of him [lives on]. This specifically applies to Jacob, whose progeny was complete and all were living, active offspring. However, one who bears a wicked son, who is considered dead even while alive, in such a case the son does not bring merit to the father, for it is sufficient for that which is derived to be like that from which it is derived — and he himself is considered dead while alive, so how can his father’s portion be called alive? This is what they interpreted (Bava Batra 116) on the verse And Hadad heard in Egypt that David lay with his fathers and that Joab had died (1 Kings 11:21) — why does it mention “lying” with David and “death” with Joab? Because David left behind a righteous son like himself, unlike Joab. For this reason, the term “lying” was used with Jacob, while “death” was specifically applied to the days. “And do with me kindness and truth, etc.” There is here a request concerning both truth and kindness. Regarding truth, this refers to something that does not expect reward in return, and regarding kindness, this refers to something that does expect reward in return. For the request he made of him to bury him — this is something that expects reward in return, as it concludes (in Moed Katan 28b) that he who buries will be buried, etc. However, what he asked of him to bury him specifically in the land of Canaan — this is kindness that does not expect reward in return. Another explanation: his request not to be buried in Egypt so that they would not make him into an object of idol worship — this is from the aspect of truth, as he was obligated to do this to remove a stumbling block from the Egyptians. But his request to be buried specifically in the land of Canaan — this is from the aspect of kindness. Regarding what Rashi explained as three reasons for this matter, it seems appropriate to explain that they are all dependent on each other. The reason that they [the Egyptians] would not make him into an idol, and that lice would not dominate his grave, are essentially one and the same reason. For why would they make him into an idol and what is the difference between this man and other men? Only because they would see that all the earth’s dust had lice except for his grave. Therefore, they would err after him [and worship him]. And if there were lice also on his grave, he would suffer from them. The reason of lice alone is not sufficient, because one could challenge: surely there are many ways for the Blessed One to save him from lice, as our Sages said (Bava Batra 17a) that there were seven people over whom worms had no power, and Jacob was one of them. And if worms had no power over him, then certainly lice would not. Rather, he said that if there were no lice on his grave, they would make him into an idol. But these two reasons alone are not sufficient, for if so, why did he command to specifically bury him in the land of Canaan and not in other lands? It must be because of the suffering of rolling through caves [during the resurrection of the dead]. And the reason of rolling through caves alone is not sufficient, for if so, why did he say do not bury me in Egypt? It would have been enough to say “bury me in their burial place.” Rather, he was saying: “I request of you to bury me in my fathers’ graves, and if some reason or impediment comes to you that you cannot bury me in the land of Canaan, then bury me in whatever land it may be, except for the land of Egypt — do not bury me there at all.” And why all this? Certainly because of the concern of idolatry or lice, as mentioned.

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, “As Israel’s time to die approached, etc.” These words do not refer to the sickness from which Yaakov died eventually, but they refer to a period when Yaakov began to experience the weakness which is common to people whose strength begins to ebb prior to their death. At a later stage, when Yaakov actually took sick and Joseph was told about it, he rushed to see his father and obtain his last blessing as well as to obtain blessings for his sons. ויאמר.שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, “he said: ‘please place your hand beneath my loins.’” Here the Torah does not continue with reporting that Joseph did as requested, as it had done when Avraham made a similar request to Eliezer when he sent him to look for a wife for Yitzchok. Here the Torah did not want to spell out this detail, preserving the element of delicacy of this procedure. Some commentators, claiming to interpret the plain meaning of the text, say that the request to place his hand under Yaakov’s loins did not refer to an oath, seeing that Yaakov requested the oath at a later stage (verse 31). They say that Yaakov requested Joseph to take over the position known in Talmudic parlance as עובי הקורה, “center post,” i.e. the position of head of the clan with all the attendant responsibilities. ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, “and perform for me a true deed of loving kindness.” Rashi explains that the term “true loving kindness” is always used when the party performing the deed in question entertains no expectation of being rewarded for it in this life. The question raised against this interpretation is that we see that Yaakov immediately recompensed Joseph by giving him the city of Shechem over and above the normal portion allocated to the tribes of Ephrayim and Menashe. The answer given is that we are to read the line as: “you will do with me something which would be a true act of kindness when performed for other מתים, dead people who cannot reciprocate in kind.” However, in my opinion the question is not even in place, as nothing was further from Joseph’s mind than expecting a reward. Yaakov’s giving Shechem to Joseph was entirely free-willed, not in the nature of a reward at all.

I will lie with my fathers, and you shall carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burial place. And he said: I will do according to your word.

ושכבתי עם אבתי BUT I WILL LIE WITH MY FATHERS — This ו of ושכבתי is the connecting link with the beginning of the verse above: Put thy hand beneath my thigh and swear unto me that you will not bury me in Egypt. For I must ultimately lie with my fathers (i.e. die as all my fathers have died) and you shall carry me out of Egypt. One cannot say that “I will lie with my fathers” means “make me lie with my fathers in the cave” (i.e. bury me), for immediately after this it is written “And thou shalt carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burying place”. Further we find that wherever the term “lying with one’s fathers” is used it denotes dying and not burial. For instance, (1 Kings 2:10) “and David lay with his fathers”, and afterwards it states “and he was buried in the city of David”.

"And I will lie with my fathers" — a euphemism for death. Or the meaning may be: do not bury me in Egypt, that I may lie with my fathers — and how shall this be? You shall carry me up from Egypt and bury me in their burial place.

ושכבתי עם אבותי, the matter of “the deceased lying with his fathers,” is the placing the bier with the deceased at the place of the eulogy, surrounded by the mourners and those eulogising him. This is why the same expression is used throughout the Book of Kings, whether describing the burial of kings, the righteous, or the wicked. ונשאתני ממצרים, when you will follow this procedure you will be able to carry me out of Egypt, for when the days of lying in state will have come to an end, people will no longer be in a state of sorrow over my passing, as we know from 50,4 ויעברו ימי בכיתו, and no one will protest if you will transport my remains to another country. אנכי אעשה כדברך, I will do this on my own, making every effort to fulfill your command.

ויאמר אנכי אעשה כדבריך. He said: "l will do in accordance with your instructions." Why did Joseph have to announce that he was going to do all this? All he had to do was to place his hand where his father had asked and make the promise and that would be his reply to his father's request. This is what Eliezer did when Abraham made him swear an oath concerning his selecting a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,9). Actually, the Torah mentions Joseph's declaration as proof that he said he did not need to swear an oath, that his promise was sufficient. Alternatively, he meant that he was legally obligated to comply with his father's request either by dint of being his father's son or by dint of his father's request being that of a man about to die (compare Choshen Mishpat 252,2). Joseph added the word כדברך to demonstrate that he would fulfil the request quite independent of any oath he would swear.

ושכבתי עם אבותי, “I wish to have my last resting place with my forefathers;” he referred to his grave. He realised that this could be done only if Joseph would transport his remains all the way to the cave of Machpelah. An alternate explanation: When using the words ושכבתי עם אבותי, Yaakov referred to being buried in Egypt, temporarily, whereas when adding: אל נא תקברני במצרים, he asked Joseph not to make his permanent grave in Egypt. This corresponds to what we have learned in the Talmud tractate Nazir 64: “if someone is found buried in a normal fashion, (but not in a graveyard) when transferring the corpse to a Jewish graveyard, he should take along a certain amount of the earth surrounding the corpse with it. When applied to Yaakov, this means that some Egyptian soil was taken with his corpse on his way to be deposited also in the cave of Machpelah. The Talmud there defines how much soil, (approx 3 fingers deep of earth). Yaakov too referred to this amount of Egyptian soil, when he said: ונשאתני ממצרים, “and carry me up from Egypt.” כדברך, “as you have said.” The word is spelled without the letter י, i.e. in the singular mode.

ושכבתי עם אבותי ונשאתני ממצרים, “I wish to lie with my fathers and that you carry me up from Egypt.” The first request pertained to his spirit, the second to his body. Yaakov meant that he was convinced that even if his body were to be buried in Egypt his spirit would reside with his fathers and that it would not have to undergo painful גלגולים, metamorphoses, before arriving in its rightful place in the celestial regions. Rabbi Yitzchak claims that this verse teaches us that on the day a person dies he becomes aware of what destination he is headed for, whether he will be assigned to the region reserved for the righteous or the region reserved for the wicked. This is why Yaakov first said: “I will lie with my fathers,” and subsequently he asked Joseph to transport him there. He taught Joseph that even if one were to die on a boat or in a remote inaccessible island, one’s spirit would immediately head for the location assigned to it. We have been told that Rabbi Avohu saw the reward that was in store for him shortly before his death. The sages base this principle on Psalms 31,20: “How abundant is the good that You have in store for those who fear You, that You do in the full view of men for those that take refuge in You.” According to tradition when Rabbi Avohu was shown all the reward which was in store for him he was so overwhelmed that he could not help exclaiming: ‘is all this really in store for Avohu?!’ He immediately wished himself dead and began to recite the above quoted verse from Psalms. וקברתני בקבורתם, “and bury me in their burial vault.” Our sages used this verse to tell us that the righteous ought to arrange that they be buried alongside other righteous people. We have a verse in Kings II 13,21 describing that someone who had been thrown into a grave next to that of the prophet Elisha emerged resurrected through having contacted the remains of the prophet. This is also what the false prophet said before he died when he requested to be buried alongside the true prophet. He had said: “you shall bury me in the grave of the prophet.” According to this interpretation the temporary resurrection of the sinner in question served the purpose of preventing him remaining buried next to the righteous man, the true prophet Elisha. (Compare Sanhedrin 47 on details of this story.) אנכי אעשה כדברך, “I will comply with what you have said.” According to the plain meaning of the text Joseph agreed to honor his father’s request. According to a Midrashic interpretation the words mean “just as you made me swear to bring your bones up to the land of Canaan, so I will make my brothers swear to do the same for my own bones when the time comes.”

אנכי אעשה כדברך, “I shall do as you have said.” I will carry out your instructions. Alternately, the meaning is that Joseph conveyed to his father that he would do what he had asked him to do because he himself would do the same when the time came, and he too would ask his brothers and children to ensure that he would eventually be interred in the Holy Land. Both Yaakov and Joseph made his son/brothers swear, even though Yaakov had already had a direct assurance by G’d before he came to Egypt that He would accompany him back to his grave in the land of Canaan. He also had no reason to doubt Joseph’s sincerity and uprightness. He wanted Joseph to render an oath so that he could use this as an argument before Pharaoh in case the latter would object to the fact that someone who had been able to stop the famine, would not be honoured by the Egyptians by being given a burial and a monument in that land. In the event, Pharaoh did give permission, stressing that it was Joseph’s duty to honour his oath to his father. (50,7)

He said: Swear to me. And he swore to him. Then Israel bowed at the head of the bed.

וישתחו ישראל AND ISRAEL PROSTRATED HIMSELF — The proverb says: Though the lion is king “when the fox has his time, bow to him” (Megillah 16b). על ראש המטה UPON THE BED’S HEAD — He turned towards the Divine Presence (the Shechinah) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 3). They (the Rabbis) inferred from this that the Shechinah is above the pillow of a sick person (Shabbat 12b). Another interpretation of על ראש המטה He bowed himself in thanks FOR HIM WHO WAS THE CHIEF (ראש) OF HIS CHILDREN — in thanks because his children were heart-whole with God, and none of them was wicked, for even Joseph who was a king and moreover had been a captive amongst heathen peoples yet maintained his righteousness (Sifré ואתחנן 31).

SWEAR UNTO ME. AND HE SWORE UNTO HIM. Jacob did not suspect that his righteous and beloved son would disobey his father’s command and renege on the matter which he had promised him by saying, I will do according to thy words. here. But Jacob did so in order to strengthen the matter in the eyes of Pharaoh, as perhaps he might not give Joseph permission to leave him, and he would instead say to him, “Send your brothers and your servants, and they will bring him up there.” It may be that Pharaoh would want the prophet — Rashi quotes Hilchoth Gedoloth in Megillah 14a that Jacob was one of the forty-eight prophets that arose in Israel. to be buried in his country as an honor and privilege to them. It was for this reason that he made him swear for it would not then be proper for him to force Joseph to violate his oath, and Joseph too would feel more obligated to fulfill his father’s wish on account of the oath. Such indeed was the case, as Pharaoh said, Go up, and bury thy father, as he made you swear 0:6.

"And Israel bowed" — he paid honor to the kingship. The correct interpretation in my view is that he gave praise to the Name; and this is not like the prostrations of Abraham, for there it is explicit — "to the sons of Heth."

השבעה לי! This was only a device to enable Joseph to overcome objections by the Egyptians if they would not permit transfer of Yaakov’s remains to another country. וישתחו ישראל, to give thanks to His Creator for enabling him to exact this promise from his son. We find that Eliezer, after hearing that Rivkah’s family agreed that he take Rivkah as a wife for Yitzchok, reacted in the very same fashion in 24,52 וישתחו ארצה לה', “he prostrated himself on the earth to G’d.”

ויאמר השבעה לי, He said: "swear it to me, etc." Jacob felt that he needed to request an oath for the second time, that Joseph's promise was insufficient. He may have meant simply that he wanted Joseph to humour him and to phrase his promise in the form of an oath, or he may have said so without revealing his true motivation at all but making it clear that he had some reason he did not want to reveal. The reason, of course, was to give Joseph ammunition in case someone would try to prevent him from doing what he had promised. Events proved Jacob correct when Pharaoh wanted to prevent Jacob's body being moved out of the country as we have learned from Sotah 34. Jacob may have intended to emphasise only the word לי, "to me," meaning that Joseph should not make any mental reservations when he made this promise to his father.

על ראש המטה, Yaakov gave thanks to Hashem Who had made Joseph’s heart decide to bury his father with his forefathers. This is how Joseph’s dream about the sun bowing down to him, was fulfilled, i.e. he had bowed to the Presence of G-d, not to his son. [The “sun” in the dream, had been Yaakov. Ed.]

השבעה לי, “swear to me!” seeing that Joseph had already agreed to honour his father’s wish in this regard, Yaakov most certainly did not suspect him of reneging on his promise. The purpose of the oath was so that in the event urgent matters of state would claim Joseph’s attention after his father’s death, or in the event that Pharaoh would raise an objection to Yaakov’s remains being taken out of Egypt, Joseph would have something to reinforce his desire to fulfill his father’s last wish. We know that Yaakov was very astute in the matter as in fact Joseph did have to tell Pharaoh that he had had to promise his father on oath that he would not allow him to be buried in Egypt (50,4). According to Nachmanides Pharaoh then instructed Joseph to go to the land of Canaan in order to bury his father there. וישתחו ישראל, “Israel prostrated himself.” Seeing that Joseph had agreed to honour his father by undertaking to fulfill his wishes, Yaakov in turn prostrated himself before him to show that he respected the position Joseph occupied as effective ruler of the country. This is the view of Megillah 16 quoted by Rashi. Concerning similar situations, our sages are on record as saying: “prostrate yourself (even) before a fox when you see that fortune is smiling upon him.” A different approach quoted in Tanchuma Vayechi 3 holds that Yisrael prostrated himself before G’d and thanked Him for the promise Joseph had made him. The reason the Torah defines the exact location where Yisrael prostrated himself-toward the head of the bed- teaches us that G’d’s Presence takes up its position at the head of the bed of a sick person. Regardless of before whom Yisrael prostrated himself, the interesting thing is the mention of the word מטה, “bed,” in our verse. This is to teach us that whereas the “bed” of Avraham and Yitzchak were not “complete,” (i.e. neither Avraham nor Yitzchak had succeeded in raising all their children true to their beliefs) Yisrael was the first of the patriarchs who had succeeded in doing this. The Talmud in Pesachim 56 relates the following concern expressed by Yaakov prior to his death when his prophetic powers suddenly failed him: “Maybe G’d forbid one or more of my children is not really loyal to my teachings as happened to Avraham with Ishmael and as happened to Yitzchak with Esau.” His sons reassured him by reciting the words שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד. Another reason why the word מטה is mentioned here is that the שכינה had come to Egypt with Yaakov. When he is now reported as “gathering in his feet to the bed,” this is a reference of his joining the שכינה which had accompanied him ever since he had gone down to Egypt. The word מטה occurs in that sense also in Song of Songs 3,7 just as the word יאסף appears in Isaiah 58,8 as referring to G’d’s Presence being Israel’s rear guard.

“And he said, swear to me.” Joseph was not suspected in his [Jacob’s] eyes of not fulfilling his father’s commandment. Rather, he made him swear so that he would have a justification before Pharaoh, as Rashi explains on the verse as he made you swear — that if not for the oath, I would not have let you [go], etc. And regarding why the language of to me and to him is used — swear to me and he swore to him — it appears to me that he [Jacob] was afraid that perhaps Pharaoh would tell him [Joseph] to annul his oath. Therefore, he said swear to me, meaning upon my intent, and one who swears upon another’s intent cannot have their oath annulled without that person’s knowledge, as is found in the Tur Yoreh De’ah section 227. Therefore it says to me — upon my intent — and he swore to him. Another explanation: Since Joseph said I will do according to your words, and it is said [in Midrash Rabbeinu Bachya Vayechi 47:30] that Joseph said “I too will do as you are doing, and I will command my children and my brothers to bury me in the land of Canaan.” And Jacob said “Swear to me that you will do this for me,” because “I am not making you swear that you should also command your children thus.” And if the word li [to me] had not been said, I would have said that he was making him swear regarding all his words, even regarding I will do according to your words. Another explanation: Jacob wanted to conceal the [matter of the] oath from those present. For when he said to him place your hand under my thigh, he meant “and swear to me.” Joseph replied to him, “I will do as you say without an oath, for I am trustworthy in my word.” [Jacob then] said Swear to me, meaning “to me alone, in secret, so that no person should know of this.” For it would have been embarrassing for Joseph [to have it known] that his father did not trust him and needed to make him take an oath. Therefore it says and he swore to him [meaning] to him alone. Another explanation: Initially, [Jacob] said to him “Please place your hand beneath my thigh,” because he wanted to make him take an oath with a sacred object. [Joseph] replied I will do as you say without an oath. Jacob thought that Joseph was upset that he had asked him to take such a severe oath, so he said Swear to me without [requiring] holding of a sacred object, and [Joseph] swore to him. This is why it does not say here and he placed his hand beneath his father’s thigh, as it was stated regarding Eliezer, Abraham’s servant.

וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, “Israel prostrated himself at the head of the bed.” According to Rashi the Presence of G’d usually positioned itself near the head of the bed of the sick person. This is difficult according to the view we quoted earlier, that at this point Yaakov was not yet sick, so that we would have to say that at this point Yaakov was sitting on his bed and he prostrated himself as a mark of gratitude to Joseph for having agreed to honour his wish. His gratitude was expressed to G’d Who had given him a son who, in spite of his elevated position, honoured his father’s every wish. It is also possible that he literally prostrated himself before Joseph, thus fulfilling the last detail in Joseph’s dream about the sheaves.