And it came to pass after these things, that one said to Joseph: "Behold, your father is sick." And he took with him his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.
verse value 3734
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 68 letters. The shortest word is "behold" (הִנֵּ֥ה, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·Ephraim" (וְאֶת־אֶפְרָֽיִם, 8 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "is·ill" (חֹלֶ֑ה). 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "and·it·was" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "these" (root אלה, 301x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'is·ill', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 6 words.
Onkelos
After these events, it was told to Joseph: your father is ill. He took his two sons with him, Manasseh and Ephraim.
Rashi
ויאמר ליוסף literally, HE SAID TO JOSEPH — “he” means one of the messengers: it is an elliptical phrase. Some say, that Ephraim was regularly with Jacob for study and when Jacob became ill in the land of Goshen Ephraim went to his father in Egypt and reported it to him (Tanchuma 1:12:6). ויקח את שני בניו עמו AND HE TOOK HIS TWO SONS WITH HIM — so that Jacob would bless them before his death.
Ibn Ezra
"And he said" — the one who said it [said it] to Joseph. Similarly: "whom she bore to Levi in Egypt" (Numbers 26:59).
Or HaChaim
48.1. שני בניו עמו, את מנשה ואת אפרים, together with his two sons Menashe and Ephrayim. Why did the Torah have to give us the names of Joseph's two sons when we already know their names as well as the fact that he had only two sons? Alternatively, the Torah could have simply written: "Menashe and Ephrayim," and I would have known that these names referred to his two sons? Besides, why did the Torah have to insert the word עמו, with him, in the middle of the verse? Why did the Torah have to use the word את twice in this verse? Perhaps the Torah describes Joseph's desire that each of his children be the recipients of separate blessings in addition to the blessings that would devolve upon them in their capacity as his children. This is why it says separately: את שני בניו עמו. Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us that Joseph's children deserved a blessing on two accounts; a) because of their respective virtues, b) because they were Joseph's children. The words בניו עמו refer to the latter, the words את מנשה ואת אפרים refer to their individual merits. The word עמו is interposed to prevent us from thinking that the Torah only wanted to inform us about the identity of these two sons.
Chizkuni
ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, “it was after these events, etc;” ever since the universe had been created it had never happened that someone after having sneezed recovered from his illness. He would have died immediately, regardless of where he had been when he sneezed. Yaakov asked G-d to change this, so that he would be able to make his last will and testament before dying. G-d answered his prayer. This is the reason why this paragraph commenced with the words: ‘”It was after these words,“ after G-d had consented to give Yaakov enough time to prepare for his departure from earth. Not only this, but all the kings of the earth became very agitated, when they heard that Yaakov had died only after having made all these arrangements about his forthcoming demise. Ever since that time, not only Jews, but believing people everywhere, pronounce a benediction when they hear someone sneeze. G-d had transformed what used to be a signal of death to continued life, (compare Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer, (earliest kabbalistic text) chapter 52.
And one told Jacob, and said: "Behold, your son Joseph comes to you." And Israel strengthened himself, and sat upon the bed.
verse value 2393
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 51 letters. The shortest word is "came" (בָּ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·strengthened·himself" (וַיִּתְחַזֵּק֙, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·strengthened·himself" (וַיִּתְחַזֵּק֙), "on·the·bed" (עַל־הַמִּטָּֽה). 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "your·son" (root בן, 248x in Genesis); "to·you" (root אל, 242x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·you', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיַּגֵּ֣ד [and·reported] (23) + לְיַעֲקֹ֔ב [to·Jacob] (212) + וַיֹּ֕אמֶר [and·said] (257) + הִנֵּ֛ה [behold] (60) + בִּנְךָ֥ [your·son] (72) + יוֹסֵ֖ף [Joseph] (156) + בָּ֣א [came] (3) + אֵלֶ֑יךָ [to·you] (61) + וַיִּתְחַזֵּק֙ [and·strengthened·himself] (531) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל [Israel] (541) + וַיֵּ֖שֶׁב [and·sat] (318) + עַל־הַמִּטָּֽה [on·the·bed] (159) = 2393.
Onkelos
Jacob was told: your son Joseph has come to you. Israel gathered his strength and sat up on the bed.
Rashi
ויגד literally, AND HE TOLD — “he” means the messenger whoever it was — TO JACOB. It does not state plainly who told it; there are many such elliptical verses ויתחזק ישראל AND ISRAEL STRENGTHENED HIMSELF — he said, “Although he is my son, he is a king, and I will do honour to him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Bo 6). From this we may infer that we must show honour to a person of royal rank (Cf. Menachot 98a). Similarly, Moses showed honour to the king when he said, (Exodus 11:8) “And all these, thy servants, shall come down to me” (which was only a polite way of saying. “Thou, thyself, wilt be forced to come down to me”); so, too, did Elijah: (1 Kings 18:46) “and he girded up his loins [and ran before Ahab] etc.” (Midrash Tanchuma, Bo 7)
Ibn Ezra
"And it was told" — the one who told it [told it] to Jacob. Alternatively, the one who spoke [said it] to Joseph; or he was a messenger from Jacob.
Sforno
וישב על המטה. He did this in order to pay his respects to the presence of “Royalty” in his house to the extent that he was able to under, the circumstances, considering that he was bedridden. We observe the opposite mode of behaviour described when Mordechai did not make the slightest move indicating deference for Haman in Esther 5,9 “he neither rose nor even moved from where he was seated.”
Chizkuni
ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel recovered his strength.” He decided to look upon himself as if healthy, seeing that the gifts bestowed by someone close to death, as long as he is able to stand, are considered in Jewish law as having been bestowed by a person healthy in body and mind. Israel was very anxious for the blessings he was about to bestow as being viewed as the blessing of a person completely healthy. Such a person’s gifts are irrevocable in law whereas presents by a person who is on the verge of death but later recovers are considered to be revoked.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel summoned his strength.” Reflecting on this exertion by Yaakov, our sages asked themselves why he subjected himself to the obvious pain of sitting up in bed? They say that Yaakov reasoned that if a mere general were to send him some clothing would he not go out of his way to show honor to such a general? How could he shame his own son by showing him less honor?
Tur HaArokh
ויתחזק ישראל, “Israel strengthened himself;” in order that the blessing he would bestow would be that of a healthy human being.
and said to me: Behold, I will make you fruitful, and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples; and will give this land to your seed after you for an everlasting possession.
verse value 5711
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 70 letters. The shortest word is "to·me" (אֵלַ֗י, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·will·make·you·numerous" (וְהִרְבִּיתִ֔ךָ, 7 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "will·make·you·fertile" (מַפְרְךָ֙), "and·will·make·you·numerous" (וְהִרְבִּיתִ֔ךָ). The root נתן appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "the·land" (root ארץ, 305x in Genesis); "to·me" (root אל, 242x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'people', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 7 words.
Onkelos
He said to me: I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make you into an assembly of tribes; and I will give this land to your children after you as an eternal inheritance.
Rashi
ונתתיך לקהל עמים AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE AN ASSEMBLY OF PEOPLES — He announced to me that there were yet to issue from me an assembly of peoples (i.e. at least two more tribes). Now, it is true that He then said to me, (Genesis 35:11) “A nation and an assembly of nations [shall be of thee]”, but when He said “a nation” He intended it to refer to Benjamin who was not yet born, and this promise of “a nation” has been fulfilled by the birth of Benjamin, and for that reason I do not mention it now. “An assembly of nations [shall be of thee]”, however, presupposes that two more would descend from me besides Benjamin. Consequently, since no other son besides Benjamin was born to me, He was really telling me that one of my tribes (i.e. the tribe formed by one of my sons) would be divided so as to constitute at least two tribes, thus giving that son more importance, and that privilege I confer upon you (Genesis Rabbah 82:4; Pesikta Rabbati 3).
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "Behold, I will make you fruitful" — in the view of the Gaon, who said: Hashem said to me, "Behold, I will make you fruitful," yet no son had been born to me, for Rachel had died; now I understood that it was on account of your sons, who were born to you, that He said "Behold, I will make you fruitful." But this interpretation has neither taste nor scent, for what difference is there between the sons of Joseph and the sons of Reuben? Furthermore, Benjamin was born to him after this prophecy. What seems correct to me is this: he said, Hashem told me that the land of Canaan would be an eternal possession for my descendants, and I now give you, as an inheritance in that land, the birthright — that Ephraim and Manasseh shall each take their portion in the land just as Reuben and Simeon take theirs, they being the eldest of my sons; and those whom you beget after Ephraim and Manasseh shall be called by the name of their aforementioned brothers, inheriting with them in their portion. As for the interpreter who says that "your offspring" refers to the sons of Machir who were born upon Joseph's knees, his words do not seem right to me — for what would be the meaning of "they shall be called by the name of their brothers"? And if one were to argue that we find no other sons of Joseph, that too is no argument, for it is possible that there were, and since they inherited together with their brothers, Scripture did not mention them; there are many such cases.
Sforno
ונתתיך לקהל עמים ונתתי את הארץ, at the time Yaakov received this promise all his sons with the exception of Binyamin had already been born, and G’d had already said to me when I left on the way to Charan (in the dream of the ladder) “the land which you lie on I shall give to you and to your descendants.” (28,13) If so, it had been G’d’s intention at that time already to give me a “community of nations, i.e. separate tribes. Seeing that you and your children are my descendants and it is unreasonable to assume that G’d had had only you personally in mind when speaking of קהל עמים, a community of nations, it is clear to me that I have the right to designate both these sons of yours as being part of this concept קהל, i.e. that each of them will become a founding father of one of these tribes which constitute this community of nations.
Or HaChaim
הנני מפרך והרבך, "I am fructifying and multiplying you, etc." The repetition of these expressions, i.e. both "multiply and fructify," alludes to G'd's promise to Jacob in 35,11 that he would be fruitful and would multiply. At the time he had interpreted that promise to mean that two more sons (at least) would be born to him. In the meantime he had found out that only one more son, i.e. Benjamin was born to him.
Chizkuni
ונמתין לקהל עמים, “and I will make you into a community of nations.” Even though G-d had used the plural mode, only Binyamin had been born for him after that. This being so, Yaakov said: “I must transfer the unfulfilled part of that blessing as belonging to one of my sons and I hereby designate you (Joseph)”. Ephrayim and Menashe, each being one of the 12 tribes of Israel, are viewed as representing fulfillment of that part of G-d’s blessing.
Kli Yakar
“And He said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, etc.’” Why did Jacob change the language [from the original divine promise]? For there it was said (Genesis 35:11), And God said to him, “I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply, a nation and a congregation of nations shall come from you.” Here, instead of “be fruitful and multiply” [pereh urveh], he says I will make you fruitful and multiply you [mafrekha vehirbiticha]. Surely this change is significant. The explanation is that the phrase be fruitful and multiply implies a command to Jacob to engage in procreation, through which a nation and congregation of nations would emerge from him. However, here this interpretation cannot be correct, as no son was born to him after this prophecy, and Rachel was already pregnant with Benjamin. The nation refers to Benjamin, and the congregation of nations refers to how one tribe would later split into two. None of this depends on Jacob’s actions through procreation. Therefore, instead of saying “be fruitful and multiply” [as a command], he says I will make you fruitful and multiply you, indicating that this is not a command for him to engage in procreation, but rather that the Holy One, Blessed be He, would make those already born fruitful and multiply them. One might argue that this blessing refers only to the multiplication of those already born, not to the splitting of one tribe into two. However, if that were the case, why use the language of be fruitful and multiply which is to mean I will make you fruitful? He could have just said “I will multiply you.” Rather, by saying I will make you fruitful, with the expression, “be fruitful,” it suggests that the tribe that would split into two would be similar in all their characteristics, as if you [Jacob] had birthed them yourself. In other words, they would be called by your name as if you had birthed them, as it is written, And now, your two sons… they are mine. From this, Jacob learned that the statement be fruitful and multiply was not a command directed at him to engage in procreation, through which he would become a nation and a congregation of nations. For from that prophecy onwards, no son was born to him through his engagement in procreation. Rather, this verse must certainly be a blessing and gift to Jacob to make those already born fruitful and numerous. Therefore, he said that its interpretation is I will make you fruitful and numerous, and the interpretation is not simply a blessing to make his offspring fruitful. For if that were the case, why didn’t He explicitly say to him I will make you fruitful and numerous? Rather, certainly the matter depends on me [Jacob], that this multiplication is as if I had given birth to them. And what is the practical significance of them being considered as if I had given birth to them? Certainly, it is regarding them being called by My name, for each one to be a tribe in its own right. And this is a gift, not an obligation. Therefore, Jacob said I will make you into a congregation of peoples, even though this exact language was not said there [in the original blessing], nevertheless all of this can be understood from there. And the reason why he called Joseph [specifically] a congregation more than the other tribes is because the term “congregation” [kahal] indicates that many people are gathered in one place. And in a place where there is a large gathering, the evil eye is especially prevalent; therefore, people typically refrain from gathering. However, the tribe of Joseph is an exception, as gathering does not harm them because the evil eye has no effect on them, as [the Sages] learned (Berachot 20a) from the verse Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful son above the eye (Genesis 49:22) — read it as “those who transcend the eye.” And Abarbanel explained that he [Jacob] made a sign from the words Behold, I will make you fruitful [mafricha] regarding Ephraim, that he too would become a leader, because Manasseh, being the firstborn, was already the head of a tribe by default, and there was no need to seek a sign except for Ephraim. He also brought a sign for this from the incident that Rachel was buried on the road to Ephrat, as “Ephrat” alludes to the name Ephraim. And a sign is meaningful, such that Ephraim too would become the head of a tribe.
Tur HaArokh
ויאמר אליו הנני מפרך והרבתיך וכו', “He said to him: here I am about to fructify you and to multiply you, etc.” Rashi explains that Yaakov reminded Joseph that at the time when G’d had said to him that he would be the founder of nations and communities of nations (35,11), he had only had 11 sons, so that part of the blessing had not yet been fulfilled. He therefore directed that the as yet unfulfilled part of that blessing should be applied to Joseph and his sons. This is also the reason why he mentioned Rachel’s death at this juncture. Seeing that the missing part of the blessing could not have applied to any further children whom Rachel would have, it must apply to existing children, and he chose to channel this blessing to Joseph and his children. It is also possible that seeing he had allocated to the two sons of Joseph territory in the land of Israel on the same basis as that of Reuven and Shimon, i.e. as that of his actual sons, he mentioned that he had received the authority to make such allocations from G’d Himself.
And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you into Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, even as Reuben and Simeon, shall be mine.
verse value 3963
Insights
Verse structure: 15 words, 76 letters. The shortest word is "to·you" (לְךָ֜, 2 letters) and the longest is "your·two·sons" (שְׁנֵֽי־בָנֶ֩יךָ֩, 7 letters). 7 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "your·two·sons" (שְׁנֵֽי־בָנֶ֩יךָ֩), "who·were·born" (הַנּוֹלָדִ֨ים), "before·I·came" (עַד־בֹּאִ֥י). 13 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "shall·be·mine" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "in·the·land" (root ארץ, 305x in Genesis); "to·you" (root אל, 242x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'they·are·mine', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 5 words.
Onkelos
And now, your two sons who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt — they are mine. Ephraim and Manasseh shall be before me as Reuben and Simeon.
Rashi
הנולדים לך עד באי אליך literally, WHO WERE BORN TO THEE... UNTIL I CAME TO THEE, i.e. before I came to thee. It signifies as much as: WHO WERE BORN from the time when you left me UNTIL THE TIME WHEN I CAME TO YOU. לי הם THEY SHALL BE MINE — they shall be counted amongst my other sons, to receive a portion in the Land each for himself (i.e. each to have his own territory exactly as each of my other sons has). לי הם THEY SHALL BE MINE — they shall be counted amongst my other sons, to receive a portion in the Land each for himself (i.e. each to have his own territory exactly as each of my other sons has).
Sforno
ועתה שני בניך הנולדים לך... לי הם, G’d gave me only these two sons of yours together with you. Yaakov had confirmed his meaning when he said that just as he had not expected to see Joseph again he had also not expected to live to see two of his sons. (verse 11)
Or HaChaim
ועתה שני בניך, "And now, your two sons, etc." As a result of this insight, ועתה, Jacob realised in retrospect that G'd had referred to two sons that were to be born to Joseph and that it was these that were destined to become גוי וקהל גוים as per that promise in 35,11. What G'd had meant was that Joseph's sons were to rank equally with Reuben and Shimon amongst Jacob's offspring.
Chizkuni
ועתה, שני בניך וגו, “and now, as far as your two sons are concerned, etc.;” according to the Talmud in Baba Batra 123, the reason why Yaakov appointed both of Joseph’s sons as becoming founders of the twelve tribes, something he did not promise to any of his other sons, was because Joseph had sustained the whole family during the years of famine. Further more, Joseph had been the firstborn of Rachel who had been his principal wife, as opposed to the respective firstborn sons of Zilpah and Bilhah. Another explanation: Yaakov felt that this was one way he could honour the memory of Rachel versus the concubines by increasing the heritage of the sons of Rachel. Reuven had already forfeited his original claim to extra rights of the firstborn, having been guilty of a major indiscretion.
Rabbeinu Bahya
כראובן ושמעון יהיו לי, “they will be for me just like Reuven and Shimon.” This verse shows that Yaakov transferred the birthright to Joseph. As to the verse in Chronicles I 5,1 “Reuven the first-born of Israel, but when he defiled his father’s bed his birthright was given to he sons of Joseph son of Israel but he is not to be reckoned as the first-born in genealogy.” Rashi holds that the transfer of the birthright did not include transfer of the right to inherit an extra portion of his father’s estate, but that only the honour due to the first-born was taken away from Reuven. Nachmanides rejects Rashi’s approach arguing that it is impossible to say that Joseph was given only part of the birthright, i.e. that he would be two of the twelve tribes without inheriting accordingly in the land of Israel. He quotes 49,22 as proof that Joseph became two tribes and uses the plural in the words יקראו בנחלתם, “they will be called such in their respective inheritances” as proof that Joseph’s birthright included the extra share of the inheritance. This is also in accordance with the translation of Onkelos who renders the words בנות צעדה עלי שור in 49,22 as תרין שבטין יפקון מבנוהי יקבלון חול'קא ואחסנתא as “two tribes from my sons will receive חולקא and אחסנתא” (different categories of land shares respectively).
Tur HaArokh
אפרים ומנשה כראובן ושמעון יהיה לי,” Ephrayim and Menashe will be to me just as Reuven and Shimon.” It appears from Rashi’s commentary that the division of the land in the days of Joshua was not based on the actual claimants, the sons of Yaakov still being alive at the time, but it was based on a principle known as גלגול, re-incarnation. It did not matter therefore, that Yaakov appeared to have compared the younger son Ephrayim, to Yaakov’s eldest, Reuven. Ephrayim and Menashe were to be “tribes” in name only, they did not replace the concept of “the tribe of Joseph.” [the cut off point for being included in the original family of Yaakov was the date of their arrival in the land of Egypt. Seeing that both Ephrayim and Menashe had been born prior to Yaakov’s arrival, even though they had been born on the contaminated soil of Egypt, enabled Yaakov to confer the status on them that he is about to bestow. Ed.] Nachmanides questions the words על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם, “they will be included under the names of their brothers in their inheritance,” claiming that these very words indicate that the “name” is of the essence, not as Rashi suggests that they were “tribes” in name only. Besides, Nachmanides holds that the land division under Joshua was not based on the original Israelites who had left Egypt being considered as having been resurrected, and the size of the land holdings being based on the size of their families at that time, but that each tribe received the same size of territory in the Land of Israel, although the parcels were not of equal quality as farmland, etc. When the Torah had instructed that the more numerous tribes should receive larger portions of land, whereas the less numerous ones would receive a smaller share, (Numbers 26,4) this referred to the basic family units within the tribe, not to the tribes themselves. These family units were based on the state of affairs of the families when they left Egypt. [if, due to the sin of the spies and the death decreed on that whole generation, taking possession of the land had not been postponed by 40 years, a whole generation, there would not have been a problem in understanding the instructions of the Torah. Ed.] It is therefore quite easy to understand that the tribal portions allocated to Ephrayim and Menashe by Yoshua equaled those of Reuven and Shimon.]
And your issue, that you father after them, shall be yours; they shall be called after the name of their brothers in their inheritance.
verse value 3148
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 47 letters. The shortest word is "to·you" (לְךָ֣, 2 letters) and the longest is "whom·you·begot" (אֲשֶׁר־הוֹלַ֥דְתָּ, 8 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·your·progeny" (וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ֛), "whom·you·begot" (אֲשֶׁר־הוֹלַ֥דְתָּ), "their·brothers" (אֲחֵיהֶ֛ם). The root ילד appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "shall·be" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "and·your·progeny" (root ילד, 193x in Genesis); "name" (root שם, 180x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 5 words. Full calculation: וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ֛ [and·your·progeny] (506) + אֲשֶׁר־הוֹלַ֥דְתָּ [whom·you·begot] (946) + אַחֲרֵיהֶ֖ם [after·them] (264) + לְךָ֣ [to·you] (50) + יִהְי֑וּ [shall·be] (31) + עַ֣ל [by] (100) + שֵׁ֧ם [name] (340) + אֲחֵיהֶ֛ם [their·brothers] (64) + יִקָּרְא֖וּ [shall·be·called] (317) + בְּנַחֲלָתָֽם [in·their·inheritance] (530) = 3148.
Onkelos
Children that you beget after them shall be yours; they shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance.
Rashi
Although the Land was divided according to the number of heads — as it is written, (Numbers 26:54) “To the more numerous thou shalt give a larger inheritance” — and each person had an equal share except those who were first-born sons (and these received a double share), yet only these of Joseph’s sons bore the name of “tribe” when it became a matter of casting lots for the partition of the land according to the number of the tribes (cf. Numbers 26:55), and of appointing princes to the various tribes and of assigning banners to each of them.
Ramban
AND THE CHILDREN THAT WERE BORN TO YOU AFTER THEM. “If you beget any more children, they will not be numbered among my sons, but they will rather be included among the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh. Nor shall they have a name amongst the tribes as far as inheritance in the Land of Israel is concerned.” Now even though the Land of Israel was divided according to the number of persons, as it is written, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and each person received an equal share except for the first-born, who received a double share, nevertheless only these sons were designated as “tribes.” This is the language of Rashi. Now this is not correct, for if so, then Jacob’s granting of the birthright to Joseph was just nominal, its only effect being that Joseph’s sons would be called “tribes,” whereas the verse states, in their inheritance. ’ This indicates that the two sons of Joseph were to be given the extra right of the firstborn in the matter of inheritance. In the Gemara, the Sages have said: “I have likened Ephraim and Menasheh to Reuben and Simeon with respect to the matter of inheritance, but not with respect to other matters,” In that case Ephraim and Menasheh are considered part of the tribe of Joseph. as is stated in Tractate Horayoth. Our Rabbis have mentioned in many places that Joseph was the first-born as far as inheritance was concerned, and that he received a double share in the Land, as is the rule of every first-born, but not that his being first-born consisted merely of his sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi [Rashi] would have it. From this we further learn that the Land was not divided among all the tribes of Israel according to their populations for if so, what was the significance of this primogeniture with respect to inheritance? If we would say it meant that each and every individual offspring of Joseph was given double that of each person of all other tribes, this is not mentioned at all in Scripture, and we do not find Jacob giving the birthright to Joseph except by what he said here, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me, here. and based upon this, Scripture states, His [Reuben’s] birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel. If so, then Ephraim and Menasheh were fully considered as two tribes, and it was this which constituted Joseph’s birthright, and the words of the Sages indeed corroborate this everywhere. Thus the matter is not at all as the Rabbi Rashi’s premise that the Land was divided according to population is disputed by Ramban. Since, according to Ramban, each tribe received an equal portion, he proceeds to differ with Rashi and says that Joseph received twice as much land as any other tribe since Ephraim and Menasheh were considered separate tribes. stated it. Instead, the Land of Israel was divided according to tribes. They made twelve equal parts of it, with Simeon, the least populous of the tribes, taking a share equal to that of Judah, the most populous of the tribes, and thus, Ephraim and Menasheh took exactly the same amount of land as Reuben and Simeon. This is the conclusion of the Gemara in the chapter, Yesh Nochalin. Yesh Nochalin (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. Scripture also states, Ye shall divide the land for inheritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel, Joseph receiving two portions. So too does Onkelos say, Further, 49:22. “Two tribes shall come forth from his sons. They shall receive chulka ve’achsanta (portion and inheritance),” which means that they shall be equal to the other tribes with respect to inheritance received. Now chulka (portion) refers to the extra share of the first-born, and achsanta (inheritance) refers to ordinary inheritance. In the verse stating, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance, This verse, which seems to indicate that the Land was divided according to population, as Rashi taught, is explained by Ramban as referring to the internal division within each tribe. Scripture refers to the paternal families mentioned there in the chapter. Scripture is stating that the tribe divides its share of the land among the paternal families that left Egypt by giving a larger portion to a more populous family and a smaller portion to a less populous family, with the dead becoming heirs of the living, as is explained in the Sifre See also Ramban on Numbers 26:54. and is mentioned by Rashi in the Parshah of Pinchas. Thus the general principle with respect to Joseph was that he was the first-born as regards inheritance, and if, as mentioned in the Gemara, Yesh Nochalin (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. the land was divided according to the number of tribes, they gave the children of Joseph portions equal to those of Reuben and Simeon. And even if we were to say that the land was divided according to the number of persons, as is apparent from the verse, (Numbers 26:54.) then we would say that they gave them double portions commensurate with their numbers — an ordinary share as large as all the other people, and a second portion for the birthright. In that case, the meaning of Jacob’s words, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me, here. is that they should receive as many shares as twice their number of people. But that Joseph should be as the other tribes with respect to inheritance, with the birthright consisting of his two sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi In his commentary to Numbers 26:54, Ramban further discusses this problem at great length. stated, this is impossible under any circumstance.
Sforno
ומולדתך אשר הולדת אחריהם, your grandchildren, who are truly called מולדתך, seeing that this expression includes children and grandchildren, לך יהיו, they will be known as part of בית יוסף, the house of Joseph, bearing your name. And their blessing will be part of your blessing, not separate blessings.על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם, everyone of Menashe’s sons will also incorporate the name of his father Menashe, as will the sons of his brother, who will also incorporate the name of their father Ephrayim as part of their individual names. They were to inherit part of the land of Israel together with Yaakov’s other sons. (2) THEY SHALL BE YOURS. They will be called "Bet Yosef" and will be blessed in the blessing to you. (3) THEY WILL BE CONSIDERED WITH THEIR BROTHERS IN THEIR INHERITANCE. Each of Menashe's sons will be considered like his brothers, under the name of Menashe, to inherit their inheritance with them, and similarly, each of Efraim's sons will be considered like his brothers, under the name of Efraim, to inherit Efraim's inheritance with them.
Or HaChaim
ומולדתך אשר הולדת אחריהם, "and any sons you beget after them, etc." This means that Joseph and his sons Menashe and Ephrayim would not be counted as three tribes but only as two. Accordingly, whenever the tribes are enumerated we do not find a tribe referred to as "the tribe of Joseph," but as the tribes Ephrayim and Menashe, respectively. The fact that Jacob excluded mention of Joseph whenever the tribes would be mentioned or enumerated deserves our closer attention. Why would it bother Jacob that including Levi there would be 14 tribes if Joseph were to be mentioned separately? After all it appears from G'd's promise in 35,11 that Jacob was to produce two more tribes, not just one more tribe? Where do we have an indication that the name Joseph as a tribe would be eliminated or superseded? Besides, who told Jacob that the two additional children G'd promised him in 35,11 were to be the two sons of Joseph rather than two sons of another one of his children? Was it not more likely for Jacob to assume that the two additional children G'd had in mind were Peretz and Zerach, the children of the union of Yehudah and Tamar, truly superior children as we know from the fact that dynasties were descended from them? Perhaps Jacob thought G'd that must have referred to Joseph's children as He had already alluded to the role of Yehudah's children when He had told him that kings would be descended from him in the same verse i.e. ומלכים מחלציך יצאו. However, why do we have to assume that these words referred to the sons of Yehudah rather than that the גוי וקהל גוים themselves would be the kings? Besides, there was always the possibility that G'd had referred to the sons of another one of Jacob's sons. The plain meaning of the prophecy in 35,11 that "nations and a community of nations" would emanate from Jacob surely must have been that they would emanate from Jacob directly, not from his sons. The Zohar section 1 item 180 claims that the נפש of Jacob and Joseph were closely intertwined and that we have proof of this in Psalms 77,16 where the sons of Jacob and Joseph are almost equated by the use of a conjunctive letter ו by the psalmist to show how close these two were to one another. Kabbalists describe that letter ו as מלוי הוי׳ו, i.e. that the מלוי is equivalent to the word itself. [In other words, Joseph equals Jacob because the psalmist joined his name to Jacob by means of this letter ו. Ed.] In this way Joseph became a "founding father" (patriarch) of tribes. Once we accept this, it was easy for Jacob to realise that of all his sons only his son Joseph was endowed with the ability to be a founding father of the tribes. When G'd had told Jacob that he would beget still more sons, this promise could therefore just as easily have been meant to apply to Joseph having these sons. As a result, Jacob had no reason at all to consider that prophecy as applicable to any of his other sons. This is why Jacob was quite precise when he said: שני בניך…לי הם, "your two sons…are really mine, just as Reuben and Shimon are mine." He wanted Joseph to understand that he did not look at his sons as his grandsons but as his real sons. It followed that Joseph could no more be part of the tribes than Jacob himself could be part of the tribes.
Chizkuni
ומולדך אשר הולדת אחריהם, “and any sons that you will beget after them, etc.” sons of Ephrayim and Menashe that will be born while you are alive, will be considered as yours, founders of tribal families. They will rank on a par with the sons of Yehudah and Asher. על שם אחיהם, “their names will be subcategories of their fathers’ (who are part of the original twelve brothers) ancestral shares (when it comes to the distribution of the land of Israel)”. The formulation על, here, is similar to: Leviticus 25,31, על שדה הארץ יחשב, “they shall be classed as open country.” This is also reflected in what the Torah writes in 50,23: 'וירא יוסף לאפרים בני שלשים וגו, “and Joseph lived to see the third generation, i.e. children and grandchildren of Ephrayim.” What the Torah tells us there is that although neither of them had been born in the land of Canaan, seeing they had been born during the lifetime of their father or grandfather who had been born in the Holy Land, they were included in the founding families, בתי אבות, of their respective tribes. Other such grandchildren were considered founding families of their respective tribes as they were born in the Holy Land. For instance: grandchildren of Asher, through Briyah. (46,17). According to the Talmud referred to earlier (Baba Batra, 123), it is not clear precisely according to which criteria the distribution of parcels of land during Joshua’s time proceeded.)
Tur HaArokh
אשר הולדת אחריהם, “whom you have sired after them;” according to the past tense used here, it is quite possible that Joseph had begotten more children after Menashe and Ephrayim. The reason why the Torah had not spelled this out is because they would inherit with their brothers, not separately. The fact that this is the likely explanation is supported by the fact that Yaakov continued at length with: “and now, your two sons who have been born before I came down to Egypt, etc.” This appears to support the theory that Joseph had indeed had other children, and that these were born to him after the famine had ceased. Alternately, the words אשר הולדת could be understood to mean אשר תוליד, “whom you will beget;” we have numerous examples of a past tense being used where we would have expected a future tense. The fact that we do not hear about other children does not prove that there were none. At any rate, Yaakov may have told Joseph what the status of such children would be in the event they would yet be born for him.
And as for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died to me in the land of Canaan in the way, when there was still some way to come to Ephrath; and I buried her there in the way to Ephrath—the same is Beth-lehem."
verse value 5535
Insights
Verse structure: 20 words, 77 letters. The shortest word is "there" (שָּׁם֙, 2 letters) and the longest is "a·stretch·of·land" (כִּבְרַת־אֶ֖רֶץ, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 226: on·the·way, on·the·road. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "when·I·came" (בְּבֹאִ֣י), "a·stretch·of·land" (כִּבְרַת־אֶ֖רֶץ), "to·come" (לָבֹ֣א). The root בוא appears 2 times in this verse. 17 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "in·the·land·of" (root ארץ, 305x in Genesis); "when·I·came" (root בוא, 213x in Genesis); "there" (root שם, 180x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Ephrath', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 7 words.
Onkelos
As for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died upon me in the land of Canaan on the way, while there was still a stretch of land to go before entering Ephrath, and I buried her there on the road to Ephrath — that is Bethlehem.
Rashi
'ואני בבאי מפדן וגו AND AS FOR ME, WHEN I CAME FROM PADAN etc. — “And although I trouble you to take me for burial into the land of Canaan and I did not do this for your mother (i.e., I did not take the trouble to bury her in a place other than that in which she died, which was by the road-side) which I might easily have done since she died quite close to Bethlehem”. כברת ארץ is a measure of land equal to 2000 cubits which is the extent of a Sabbath day’s journey. This is according to the statement of R. Moses the Expositor. — “Do not imagine that it was the rains which prevented me from bringing her to Hebron for burial. It was the dry season when the ground is riddled and full of holes like a sieve (כברה). ואקברה שם AND I BURIED HER THERE and did not carry her even the short distance to Bethlehem to bring her into a city. I know that in your heart you feel some resentment against me. Know, however, that I buried her there by the command of God”. And the future proved that God had commanded him to do this in order that she might help her children when Nebuzaradan would take them into captivity. For when they were passing along that road Rachel came forth from her grave and stood by her tomb weeping and beseeching mercy for them, as it is said, (Jeremiah 31:15) “A voice is heard in Rama, [the sound of weeping … Rachel weeping for her children]”, and the Holy One, blessed be He, replied to her (v. 16) “There is a reward for thy work, says the Lord etc. (v. 17) for thy children will return to their own border”. Onkelos translated it (כברת ארץ) by כרוב ארעא which is a full measure of one day’s ploughing. I am of opinion that they had a definite measure which they called “one full furrow”; old French cordié. So we say, (Bava Metzia 107a) “He ploughs (כריב) and ploughs again”, and (Yoma 43b) “as much earth as a fox carries on its feet from a ploughed field (בי כרבא).”
Ramban
AND I BURIED HER THERE. In Rashi’s commentary it is written, “And I did not transport her for burial even to Bethlehem to bring her into the Land.”Now I do not know the meaning thereof. Was Rachel buried outside of the Land? Forbid it! She died within the Land, and she was buried there, just as it says here in the parshah: Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan. And there in the narrative of her death it is still more clearly written, And Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan — the same is Beth-el, and it is further stated, And they journeyed from Beth-el and there was still some way to come to Ephrath, and Rachel died on the way between Beth-el and Bethlehem Ephratha in the Land of Israel. AND I BURIED HER THERE. “Now I know that there is some resentment in your heart against me [for not having brought her into the city]. But you should know that I buried her there by the word of G-d, that she might help her children when Nebuzaradan would exile them,” for when they passed along that road, Rachel came forth from her grave and stood by her tomb beseeching mercy for them, as it is said, A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, and the Holy One, blessed by He, answered her, Thy work shall be rewarded … and the children shall return to their own border. This is the language of Rashi. Now in any case there should be some allusion in Scripture to this interpretation which is stated in this Agadah. Perhaps this is alluded to in the expression of the verse, She died by me … in the way … And I buried her in the way, (Bachya. See my Hebrew commentary on Ramban, p. 261.) that is to say, “She died on the road which her children would pass, and I buried her there for her advantage.” She did not die on the road, but in Ramah, a city in the land of Benjamin, and there she was buried. [Thus, according to the Midrash, Scripture is implying that] she died on the road which her children were destined to pass in the future, as Scripture does not fully explain future events but only alludes to them in a general manner. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is likewise understood that Jacob spoke to Joseph in an apologetic vein so that when he discerned his father’s wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, Joseph should not be angered about his failure to bury his mother there just as he buried Leah there. It was for this reason that Jacob told him that she died in the land of Canaan, and she was not buried outside of the Land in the manner in which an Egyptian burial would befall Jacob. Furthermore, she died on the road suddenly, and he could not bury her in the cave of Machpelah for how could he leave his children and his flocks on the road and hurry with her body to the cave of Machpelah? And where could he find doctors and medicines to embalm her? This is the meaning of the word alai (by me) [in the verse, Rachel died by me]. Even though the cave of Machpelah is but a half-day’s distance from the place of her death, Jacob was heavily laden with much cattle and family, and he would not arrive there for many days. Thus he did indeed spend many days on that road until he came to his father. Our Sages have further taught: “The bier of a woman may never be set down, out of respect.”Now it is my opinion that these are but words of apology as Joseph already knew that Rachel died on the road and was buried in the Land, and that honor was paid to her when she died. But the reason Jacob did not transport Rachel to the cave of Machpelah was so that he should not bury two sisters there, See also Ramban above, pp. 330-2. for he would be embarassed before his ancestors. Now Leah was the one he married first, and thus her marriage was permissible, while he married Rachel out of his love for her and because of the vow he made to her. Hence her burial place could not be in the cave of Machpelah. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 262.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "As for me, when I came from Paddan" — Rachel died suddenly, and I was unable to bring her to burial in the cave as I buried Leah. He says this to Joseph, as if to say: do not be aggrieved that I ask of you what I did not do for the honor of your mother.
Sforno
ואני, maybe you think that when G’d said to me: “I will make you into a community of nations,” that He meant that I myself would become the father of more sons but that I was denied those on account of some sin, this cannot be because בבואי מפדן, when I came away from Padan Aram, when G’d appeared to me, מתה עלי רחל, as the sages say (Sanhedrin 22) a woman’s death is felt first and foremost by her husband; [hence the justification for Yaakov saying עלי, “for me,” i.e. the loss was mine. Ed.] בדרך בעוד כברת ארץ לבא אפרתה, immediately after G’d finished speaking to me before I had even arrived at Beyt Lechem, ואקברה שם בדרך אפרת, and I had to bury her there on the route to Efrat; I was so overcome by grief at the time that I did not even have the strength to transport her remains to the burial grounds in Beyt Lechem. There is no doubt that ever since her death my heart was so full of grief that my libido had completely ceased to be active and I would not have been able to sire more children and to thereby become dirtied by sin, even if I had felt the desire to do so. [The author describes the act of procreation as “sinful,” meaning that even among the most pious, the act of ejaculating is itself accompanied by some impure thought, a degree of physical gratification. Ed.].
Or HaChaim
ואני בבאי מפדן מתה עלי רחל, "As for me, when I was coming from Padan Rachel died on me, etc." This verse seems to lack any connection to what preceded it. We do not even know what purpose this information is supposed to serve at this point. It is true that Rashi based on Midrash Lekach Tov explains that Jacob wanted to explain to Joseph why he had imposed upon him the difficult and tedious task of burying him in the land of Canaan while he himself had not buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah which was much closer to the site of her death than Egypt from Machpelah. If that had been the Torah's purpose in writing this then it should have appeared in conjunction with 47,30 rather than here. Besides, what did Jacob mean when he said עלי, "she died on me?" Actually, having told Joseph that G'd had told him that he would have more children himself, Jacob now explained to Joseph that it was his own fault that this did not happen as Rachel had died prematurely because of his negligence by delaying to honour the vow he had made after the dream of the ladder. This is the meaning of מתה עלי, "she died on my account." The words ואני בבאי refer to the promised additional children not being physical issue of Jacob but that Joseph's children were the incarnation of that promise. Vayikra Rabbah 37,1 tells us that if someone makes a vow and is tardy in keeping it he is punished by having to bury his wife. Jacob's saying ואני בבאי מפדן מתה עלי רחל is quoted as the source for this statement. Alternatively, Jacob may have referred to his rash curse of "anyone who has stolen Laban's teraphim shall not live" which he made without knowing that Rachel had been the thief. In either event, had Rachel remained alive Jacob himself would have sired the additional sons G'd had promised to him in 35,11. It is also possible that Jacob intended to placate Joseph for having been instrumental in hastening his mother's death. He told him that the reason he considered Joseph's two sons as if they were equal to Reuben and Shimon was in expiation for having caused Rachel's death at the time. He added that although he buried Rachel בעוד כברת ארץ, "a tract of land away, (and had not buried her in the cave of Machpelah)," he asked Joseph to go to the trouble of burying him there.
Chizkuni
ואני בבואי מפדן ארם, “as far as I a am concerned, when I came from Padan Aram, etc.” (Yaakov, who insists on being buried in the cave of Machpelah, owes Joseph an explanation for why he did not bury Joseph’s mother Rachel there, when he was much closer).“Rachel died on me suddenly at a time when I did not yet possess undisputed entitlement to that burial ground, since your uncle Esau had not yet ceded it to me by leaving the Land of Canaan with his whole family, so that an attempt to do so would have involved me in a confrontation with Esau, and it would have been most unseemly for your mother remaining unburied at that time. When I buried my wife Leah in the cave of Machpelah, Esau had already vacated the land of Canaan.” ואקברה שם, “I buried her there,” (where she had died) I knew that the piece of land where I buried her would in the future be still part of the ancestral heritage of Binyamin, and it would be fitting for her to have her last resting place in soil that would be part of her children’s heritage. We find an interesting verse in Samuel 10,2, where Samuel has just crowned the first Jewish King, Shaul, a descendant of Rachel from the tribe of Binyamin, and says to the newly crowned King: “when you leave me this day, you will meet two men near the tomb of Rachel in the territory of Binyamin, at a place called Zeltzah;” Yaakov, added that if he had buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah, which is in the territory of Yehudah, a son of Leah, this would not have been appropriate, seeing that she and Leah had been rivals during their lifetime. An alternate exegesis of this paragraph, quotes Yaakov as follows: “the reason that I have buried your mother where I did, at the time, was that seeing that she had died in childbirth and having to transport her any distance would most likely have resulted in her blood becoming putrid after having soiled her shroud. Seeing that I wanted to at least bury her in the holy soil of the land of Israel, I buried her where I did, just inside that land.”(Compare Rashi’s commentary on this verse, according to whom Rachel’s tomb was outside the Holy Land.)
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואני בבואי מפדן, “as to my own situation, when I was on the way from Padan, etc.,” seeing that Yaakov was about to request from Joseph that he bury him in the cave of Machpelah he first had to apologise to him for not having brought Joseph’s mother Rachel to be buried there; this is why he said: “Rachel died on me on the journey in the land of Canaan.” He emphasised that Rachel too had been buried in the Holy Land and not outside its boundaries. The fact that she was not buried in the cave of Machpelah was due only to her sudden and unexpected death which did not afford Yaakov an opportunity to carry her all the way to Chevron seeing he had so many children and cattle with him. Had he buried her there she would have started to decompose on the journey to that cave which would have taken several days at least. According to our best estimates today such a journey should not have taken longer than half a day. This is why he emphasised that although she died “on the way,” she was not buried on the way, but on a hill, a distinctive place. ואקברה שם בדרך אפרת, “and I buried her there on the way to Efrat.” The words “I buried her there” would have sufficed. Why did he add the words: “on the way to Efrat?” We have already seen told that Rachel died only a tract of land away from Efrat, another name for Bethlehem. Yaakov hinted what our sages told us in Bereshit Rabbah 82,10 that Yaakov buried Rachel where he did as he foresaw that in the future Jews going into exile would pass her grave and she would offer prayers on their behalf. This is what the prophet (Jeremiah 31,15) referred to when he wrote: “Thus said the Lord: ‘a voice is heard in Ramah- wailing bitter weeping- Rachel weeping for her children.’” All of these details Yaakov revealed now so that Joseph would not become angry at what might appear an unreasonable request by his father who himself had not shown such concern about Joseph’s mother. This is what Nachmanides wrote on our verse.
Tur HaArokh
ואקברה שם, “and I was forced to bury her there.” Nachmanides questioned what Rashi explains here, i.e. that Yaakov apologized to Joseph that he had not even been able to transport the remains of Rachel the short distance to Beyt Lechem so that she would be buried on holy soil. Nachmanides feels that the text does not only not support this, but supports the very reverse, that Rachel, though not buried in a cemetery, was indeed buried within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael. Why else would Yaakov have said that Rachel had died suddenly, “in the land of Canaan?” Yaakov’s apology concerned the fact that he had not buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah in Chevron, not that he had buried her outside the boundaries of the Holy Land. He emphasizes that although he had not been able to bury her in Machpelah, at least he had been able to bury her inside the Holy Land. He had not been able to abandon his entire family and carry the remains of Rachel all the way to the cave of Machpelah. He himself was likely to be buried outside of the Holy Land unless he could arrange before his death to have his remains transferred, as he was about to request from Joseph. If, at the time of Rachel’s death he would have moved his entire camp with him to the cave of Machpelah, a journey which takes a half a day for a single traveler would have consumed many days and would have been a great indignity for the remains of Rachel as he had no means to embalm her and to prevent her body from decomposing in the interval. Joseph had been fully aware of the circumstances of his mother’s death, as well as the fact that Yaakov could not have buried the remains of two sisters both of whom had been his wife, in the cave of Machpelah. The reason why he buried Leah in that cave was that he had, after all, married her first. Rachel died in “Ramah,” hence רמת רחל,” part of the territory of Binyamin after the distribution of the land by Joshua. Our sages who explain all this allegorically, say that Rachel had to die when she entered the Holy Land, in order that Yaakov not become guilty of being married to two sisters both of whom were alive, something that the Torah had forbidden. Yaakov received instructions from on high to bury Rachel where he did, so that her spirit, in due course, could petition G’d when her “children,” would be taken into captivity by the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan. Some commen-tators say that Yaakov explained to Joseph that the reason he had buried his mother on the way to Efrat was that this was within the tribal territory of one of her sons, whereas had she been buried in Machpelah, she would not have been interred in soil belonging to her offspring. Burying her in earth that would belong to the descendants of Leah would not have been something compatible with her dignity.
And Israel beheld Joseph's sons, and said: "Who are these?"
verse value 1720 — מִי־אֵֽלֶּה = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 6 words, 28 letters. Notable word values: "who·are·these" (מִי־אֵֽלֶּה) = 86, equal to Elohim. Verse gematria: 1720 is divisible by 86, the value of Elohim. The shortest word is "and·saw" (וַיַּ֥רְא, 4 letters) and the longest is "Israel" (יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל, 5 letters). 5 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "who·are·these" (root אלה, 301x in Genesis); "sons·of" (root בן, 248x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Joseph', dividing the verse into phrases of 4 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיַּ֥רְא [and·saw] (217) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל [Israel] (541) + אֶת־בְּנֵ֣י [sons·of] (463) + יוֹסֵ֑ף [Joseph] (156) + וַיֹּ֖אמֶר [and·said] (257) + מִי־אֵֽלֶּה [who·are·these] (86) = 1720.
Onkelos
Israel saw the sons of Joseph and said: Who are these?
Rashi
וירא ישראל את בני יוסף AND ISRAEL SAW JOSEPH’S SONS — he wished to bless them but the Divine Presence departed from him because he saw that from Ephraim would be born the wicked kings Jeroboam and Ahab, and from Manasseh Jehu and his sous (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6). ויאמר מי אלה AND HE SAID “WHO ARE THESE?” — Whence come these who are unfitted for blessing?
Ibn Ezra
After it says "And Israel saw the sons of Joseph" — how can it say "he could not see" (Genesis 48:10)? Rather, the meaning is that he could not see well enough to recognize them clearly.
Sforno
וירא ישראל את בני יוסף, he recognised them as human beings, but did not recognise them for who they were.
Or HaChaim
וירא ישראל את בני יוסף, Israel saw the sons of Joseph, etc. It is difficult to understand how Jacob failed to recognise grand-sons whom he had tutored for the last 17 years on a regular and frequent basis. Tanchuma on our portion explains that Jacob saw with his mental eye that in the future some evil people would come out of Menashe. This is homiletics, of course. We need to be able to explain the plain meaning of the verse also, and this is why the Torah reveals here that Jacob's eyesight had begun to fail him so that he could not see clearly and recognise people. Hence, although Jacob was aware that in addition to Joseph with whom he was speaking two other human beings were standing in front of him, he had recognised Joseph because he had been told in verse 2 that Joseph had come to visit him. He did not recognise Joseph's sons, however, and this is why he asked who they were. It is also possible that Jacob wanted to arouse feelings of love in the heart of the children's father before he commenced to bless them. In such circumstances the effectiveness of the blessing is enhanced. By asking מי אלה, Jacob was sure he would elicit the response of a proud father, someone who loved his children.
Chizkuni
ויאמר, ״מי אלה?״, he said: “who are these?” According to the plain meaning of the text, Yaakov’s eyesight had been dimmed so that he could not recognise their facial features; This is why the Torah added that his failing eyesight was due to old age, (verse 10) If you were to counter that the Torah had described Yaakov just before as “seeing the sons of Joseph,” (verse 8) this was not sufficient to be able to identify them individually. He had no trouble indentifying Joseph as he recognised him by his voice.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וירא ישראל את בני יוסף “Yisrael saw the sons of Joseph, etc.” The word “he saw” in this verse is to be understood as a vision; he did not see them physically. We have already been told כי לא יכול לראות, “for he was unable to see.” (verse 10) מי אלה, “who are these? How can they qualify for a blessing?” He foresaw at that moment that Jerobam, a future descendant of Ephrayim, would erect two golden calves of whom it was said: “these are your gods O Israel” (Exodus 32,8). He also foresaw that Yehu and his sons would be descendants of Menashe. To this question Joseph replied: בני הם אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, “they are my sons whom G’d has given me here.” Joseph mentioned the name of the Lord who had performed miracles for him and had raised him to the position of king so that he had been given this woman as a wife by Pharaoh. This wife had born these children for him. Targum Yonatan explains the word בזה to mean that he showed his father his marriage certificate, כתובה.
Tur HaArokh
ויאמר מי אלה, He said: “who are these?” According to the plain meaning of the text, Yaakov’s eyesight was failing to the extent that he no longer recognised his grandchildren, especially those who did not live in Goshen.
And Joseph said to his father: "They are my sons, whom God has given me here." And he said: "Bring them, I pray you, to me, and I will bless them."
verse value 2477 — אֱלֹהִ֖ים = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 55 letters. Notable word values: "God" (אֱלֹהִ֖ים) = 86, equal to Elohim. The shortest word is "they" (הֵ֔ם, 2 letters) and the longest is "whom·gave·me" (אֲשֶׁר־נָֽתַן־לִ֥י, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 257: and·said, and·said. 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "whom·gave·me" (אֲשֶׁר־נָֽתַן־לִ֥י), "bring·them·please" (קָֽחֶם־נָ֥א), "that·I·may·bless·them" (וַאֲבָרְכֵֽם). The root אמר appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "God" (root אלה, 301x in Genesis); "my·sons" (root בן, 248x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'this', dividing the verse into phrases of 8 and 4 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר [and·said] (257) + יוֹסֵף֙ [Joseph] (156) + אֶל־אָבִ֔יו [to·his·father] (50) + בָּנַ֣י [my·sons] (62) + הֵ֔ם [they] (45) + אֲשֶׁר־נָֽתַן־לִ֥י [whom·gave·me] (1041) + אֱלֹהִ֖ים [God] (86) + בָּזֶ֑ה [this] (14) + וַיֹּאמַ֕ר [and·said] (257) + קָֽחֶם־נָ֥א [bring·them·please] (199) + אֵלַ֖י [to·me] (41) + וַאֲבָרְכֵֽם [that·I·may·bless·them] (269) = 2477.
Onkelos
Joseph said to his father: They are my sons, whom Hashem gave me here. He said: Bring them close to me now, and I will bless them.
Rashi
בָּזֶה IN THIS PLACE (literally, by this, or by means of this) — He showed him the contract of betrothal and the contract of marriage (evidence that their mother had adopted the faith of Israel, and that his and her offspring were of their faith) and Joseph prayed to God about the matter and the Holy Spirit again rested upon him (Jacob) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6). ויאמר קחם נא אלי ואברכם AND HE SAID, BRING THEM, I PRAY THEE, UNTO ME, AND I WILL BLESS THEM — It is to this that the text alludes, (Hosea 11:3) “And I, תרגלתי לאפרים taking them (קחם) upon his arms”, meaning, I made My Spirit once again a familiar thing (תרגלתי) in Jacob for Ephraim’s sake until he took them (him and Manasseh) upon his arms (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).
Ramban
WHOM G-D HATH GIVEN ME HERE. It was really not necessary for Joseph to inform his father that his two sons were born to him in Egypt since when Joseph left him he had no wife and children, and Jacob himself had previously said to him, Thy two sons, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt. here. Why then was it necessary for Joseph to tell his father, They are my sons, whom G-d hath given me here? It appears to me that the meaning of the word bazeh (here) is “in this matter concerning which you have spoken,” i.e., “G-d gave them to me before you came to Egypt to me, and they are the ones concerning whom you have said that they are yours.” A similar use of the word bazeh is found in the verse, In this way (‘u’bazeh’) the maiden came to the king. Meaning that she came in this manner specified above. (Ibid., Verse 12). Now Joseph said, G-d hath given me, meaning that “G-d had performed miracles for me until the king gave me this wife, and I have these children from her.”
Sforno
בני הם אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה. My sons, but not my grandsons. These are the sons G’d granted me while I was here, alone, without any member of my family. as you said when you spoke about “those whom you had before I came to Egypt.” They are the ones of whom you said: “לי הם,” “they are mine.”
Or HaChaim
אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, "whom G'd has granted me here." Righteous people do not let an opportunity go by without acknowledging that anything they have received was a gift of G'd. We find an example of Jacob having done the same in Genesis 33,5. The reason Joseph added the words בזה, "in this place," was that he was grateful that even while he was in exile G'd had shown him favour. Moreover, we have learned in Sotah 36 that Joseph had been meant to beget twelve tribes but that the fact that he almost succumbed to the temptation of sleeping with the wife of Potiphar resulted in his begetting only two of the twelve tribes. The word ב־זה is an allusion to this. The letter =2 ב, whereas the numerical value of the word זה is 12. The word therefore alerts us to the tradition that he had only two children instead of twelve. Joseph added the word אלוקים, which describes G'd as the judge of our actions. Joseph acknowledged the fairness of G'd's decision by ascribing the number of children he had been granted to אלוקים.
Chizkuni
אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, “whom G-d has given me in this land.” They were born to me before you came down to Egypt so that you should include them in the list of the twelve tribes. This is why Yaakov responded by telling Joseph that as far as he was concerned Joseph’s sons Ephrayim and Menashe would be just like Reuven and Shimon for him (Verse 5). Joseph explains that this is why he brought them with him.
Kli Yakar
“These are my sons whom God has given me here.” He used the word here because Jacob had asked Who are these [implying] that they were not worthy of blessing, for he [Jacob] said [in his mind] “from whose womb did these come forth” — meaning that their descendants would say these are your gods regarding the golden calf that Jeroboam would make. Joseph responded They are my sons — meaning that nevertheless they are my sons and from my side they are worthy of blessing. And as for the fact that Ahab and Jeroboam would descend from them — this is because God gave them to me here in Egypt and their mother was an Egyptian, the daughter of Poti-phera priest of On, meaning a priest of idolatry. Therefore, in the future such children who worship idolatry would come from her. But from my side, they are worthy of blessing, for if not, why did God bless Isaac, even though Esau and Jacob came from him, [which was] because Rebecca was the daughter of Bethuel the Aramean? Rather, certainly the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not concern Himself with the corrupted seed and blessed him for the sake of the holy seed that was worthy of blessing. So too should you bless them, for from my side they are worthy of blessing, for “as he is there [at present],” they are all seed blessed by God. “And he said: ‘Bring them to me, please.’” [The Torah] uses the language to me to indicate that it is appropriate to learn from me, for it was because of me that my father was blessed, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, was not concerned about Esau. In other words, [let] those who are being blessed be like me; therefore, bring them to me. With the word na [please], he indicated the present time, similar to Behold, now I know (Genesis 12:11), where its meaning is “now.” This means: I am blessing them according to their current state, for now they are all righteous, and I will not be concerned about the future. And he blessed them on that day, saying — according to how they were on that day, and he was not concerned about what would come from their descendants in the future, for a person is judged only according to their present actions. Another explanation: He used the word to me to say that they are related to me, for the father’s family is primary, while the mother’s family is not considered [primary] family.
Tur HaArokh
בני אשר נתן לי אלוקים בדה, “they are my sons whom the Lord gave me here.” There had been no need for Joseph to tell his father that these children had been born in Egypt, for Yaakov was not only aware of this but had already referred to them in verse 5 as the two sons who had been born for him in Egypt. The whole point Joseph was making was that these were the sons who had been given to him by G’d even before his father had come to Egypt. Yaakov had said that he considered them as his own sons, (not only as his grandchildren)
Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near to him; and he kissed them, and embraced them.
verse value 3149
Insights
Verse structure: 14 words, 55 letters. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֥א, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·the·eyes·of" (וְעֵינֵ֤י, 5 letters). Words sharing gematria 75: to·them, to·them. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "were·heavy" (כָּבְד֣וּ), "with·age" (מִזֹּ֔קֶן), "is·able" (יוּכַ֖ל). The root הם appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·him" (root אל, 242x in Genesis); "to·see" (root ראה, 140x in Genesis); "not" (root לא, 127x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'to·see', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 7 words. Full calculation: וְעֵינֵ֤י [and·the·eyes·of] (146) + יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ [Israel] (541) + כָּבְד֣וּ [were·heavy] (32) + מִזֹּ֔קֶן [with·age] (197) + לֹ֥א [not] (31) + יוּכַ֖ל [is·able] (66) + לִרְא֑וֹת [to·see] (637) + וַיַּגֵּ֤שׁ [and·brought·near] (319) + אֹתָם֙ [them] (441) + אֵלָ֔יו [to·him] (47) + וַיִּשַּׁ֥ק [and·kissed] (416) + לָהֶ֖ם [to·them] (75) + וַיְחַבֵּ֥ק [and·embraced] (126) + לָהֶֽם [to·them] (75) = 3149.
Onkelos
Now the eyes of Israel were heavy with age; he was unable to see. He brought them close to him, and he kissed them and embraced them.
Sforno
לא יוכל לראות, he could not see clearly. In order for a blessing to take hold it is necessary for the one bestowing the blessing to see the party whom he blesses at the time the blessing is pronounced. [the same is true of a curse, this is why Balak took Bileam to a vantage point from which he could see the people of Israel whom he had been hired to curse, clearly. (Numbers 23,13). G’d also took Moses to a point from which he could see the land of Israel clearly so that he could bless the land. Something similar occurred in Kings II 2,24 where Elisha turned around to face the lads mocking his baldness before he cursed them. וישק להם ויחבק להם, the physical contact was designed to make Yaakov more attached to them so that his blessing would be correspondingly more effective.
Or HaChaim
ועיני ישראל כבדו מזקן, Israel's eyes were heavy with old age, etc. Why did the Torah choose this point to inform us of Jacob's failing eyesight? What does it have to do with his proceeding to embrace and kiss Joseph's children? Besides, why did the Torah have to describe these kisses as להם instead of אותם? Perhaps one of these details will help us understand the other detail. Jacob embraced the children in the wrong places and kissed them in the wrong places due to his failing eyesight. If that were true the expression להם instead of אותם is quite understandable.
Tur HaArokh
וישק להם ויחבק להם, “he kissed and embraced them.” Man is not blessed with the presence of the Divine (spirit) unless he is in a state of joy, happiness. This is why being kissed and embraced by his father enabled the blessing to take hold on Joseph and his sons.
And Israel said to Joseph: "I had not thought to see your face; and, lo, God has let me see your seed also."
verse value 3447 — אֱלֹהִ֖ים = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 54 letters. Notable word values: "God" (אֱלֹהִ֖ים) = 86, equal to Elohim. The shortest word is "not" (לֹ֣א, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·Joseph" (אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף, 6 letters). 1 word in this verse appears nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "I·had·expected" (פִלָּ֑לְתִּי). The root ראה appears 2 times in this verse. 11 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "God" (root אלה, 301x in Genesis); "to·Joseph" (root יוסף, 156x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'I·had·expected', dividing the verse into phrases of 7 and 6 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר [and·said] (257) + יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ [Israel] (541) + אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף [to·Joseph] (187) + רְאֹ֥ה [to·see] (206) + פָנֶ֖יךָ [your·face] (160) + לֹ֣א [not] (31) + פִלָּ֑לְתִּי [I·had·expected] (550) + וְהִנֵּ֨ה [and·behold] (66) + הֶרְאָ֥ה [has·shown] (211) + אֹתִ֛י [me] (411) + אֱלֹהִ֖ים [God] (86) + גַּ֥ם [even] (43) + אֶת־זַרְעֶֽךָ [your·seed] (698) = 3447.
Onkelos
Israel said to Joseph: I had not expected to see your face, and now Hashem has shown me even your children.
Rashi
לא פללתי I HAD NOT CONTEMPLATED — I had never dared to cherish the thought that I would again see your face. פללתי is an expression for thinking, like the noun in (Isaiah 16:3) “Give counsel, carry out the thought (פלילה)”.
Sforno
גם את זרעך, the ones to whom the description קהל עמים applied. (verse 4) Yaakov continued (perhaps not audibly); this is when He said to me that He blessed me, i.e. Yaakov had repeated this blessing by G’d in his conversation to Joseph without being that specific. [I had to paraphrase this to make the author intelligible. Ed.] As a result of that blessing which I received, my blessing to you now will be effective, so that by blessing his sons he also blessed Joseph at the same time.
Chizkuni
לא פללתי, an expression describing prayer as a request from G-d. We find this word in this sense also in Psalms 106,30, where it quotes Pinchas as having prayed. Yaakov says that he had not even prayed to see Joseph again, as it would have been inappropriate seeing that he thought he had seen evidence that Joseph had been the victim of a wild beast. (Genesis 37,33) An alternate explanation: whenever this word occurs it refers to making a judgment, i.e. arriving at a definitive conclusion. Yaakov would have been saying that he had never even entertained real hope to see Joseph again. (Rash’bam)
Tur HaArokh
לא פללתי, “I had not dared to expect.” I had not even entertained such a thought in my heart. The word is derived from פלילים, criminal judgments.
And Joseph brought them out from between his knees; and he fell down on his face to the earth.
verse value 2251
Insights
Verse structure: 8 words, 35 letters. The shortest word is "them" (אֹתָ֖ם, 3 letters) and the longest is "and·bowed·down" (וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "his·knees" (בִּרְכָּ֑יו), "with·his·face" (לְאַפָּ֖יו). 8 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·ground" (root ארץ, 305x in Genesis); "Joseph" (root יוסף, 156x in Genesis); "from" (root עם, 87x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'his·knees', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 3 words. Full calculation: וַיּוֹצֵ֥א [and·brought·out] (113) + יוֹסֵ֛ף [Joseph] (156) + אֹתָ֖ם [them] (441) + מֵעִ֣ם [from] (150) + בִּרְכָּ֑יו [his·knees] (238) + וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ [and·bowed·down] (730) + לְאַפָּ֖יו [with·his·face] (127) + אָֽרְצָה [to·the·ground] (296) = 2251.
Onkelos
Joseph brought them out from before him, and he bowed with his face to the ground.
Rashi
ויוצא יוסף אתם AND JOSEPH BROUGHT THEM OUT — After he (Jacob) had kissed them, Joseph brought them out from between his knees in order to place them one at the right and the other on the left in order that Jacob might thus lay his hands upon them and bless them וישתחו לאפיו AND HE PROSTRATED HIMSELF BEFORE HIS FACE — after he had stepped backwards from before his father.
Ibn Ezra
"And Joseph brought them out from beside his knees" — this is stated out of order; it should have come later. The meaning of "from beside his knees" is that Jacob was sitting on the bed. The meaning of "I had not thought" (פִּלַּלְתִּי) — I did not reckon in my heart; it is derived from the same root as "judges" (פְּלִילִים, Deuteronomy 32:31).
And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near to him.
verse value 5126
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 69 letters. The shortest word is "and·took" (וַיִּקַּ֣ח, 4 letters) and the longest is "the·two·of·them" (אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם֒, 7 letters). Words sharing gematria 541: Israel, Israel. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "the·two·of·them" (אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם֒), "in·his·right·hand" (בִּֽימִינוֹ֙), "and·Manasseh" (וְאֶת־מְנַשֶּׁ֥ה). The root אל appears 3 times in this verse. 7 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "to·the·left·of" (root אל, 242x in Genesis); "Joseph" (root יוסף, 156x in Genesis); "and·took" (root לקח, 142x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Israel', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 2 words. Full calculation: וַיִּקַּ֣ח [and·took] (124) + יוֹסֵף֮ [Joseph] (156) + אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם֒ [the·two·of·them] (806) + אֶת־אֶפְרַ֤יִם [Ephraim] (732) + בִּֽימִינוֹ֙ [in·his·right·hand] (118) + מִשְּׂמֹ֣אל [to·the·left·of] (411) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל [Israel] (541) + וְאֶת־מְנַשֶּׁ֥ה [and·Manasseh] (802) + בִשְׂמֹאל֖וֹ [in·his·left·hand] (379) + מִימִ֣ין [to·the·right·of] (150) + יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל [Israel] (541) + וַיַּגֵּ֖שׁ [and·approached] (319) + אֵלָֽיו [to·him] (47) = 5126.
Onkelos
Joseph took them both — Ephraim at his right, which was Israel's left, and Manasseh at his left, which was Israel's right — and brought them close to him.
Rashi
את אפרים בימינו משמאל ישראל EPHRAIM ON HIS RIGHT HAND TOWARDS ISRAEL’S LEFT — If one is moving towards another person his right hand is opposite the other’s left. Now since he (Manasseh) was the first-born he was marked out for the blessing and should have been placed at Jacob’s right hand.
Ibn Ezra
"And Joseph took" — he had already taken them. I have shown you many such instances of this usage.
Chizkuni
ויקח יוסף, “Joseph had already taken.” [Contrary to the past tense mode with the vav hahippuch. Ed] This verse ought to be understood as following verse 9.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויקח יוסף את שניהם, “Joseph took both of them, etc.” He presented them to his father in the proper order, Menashe the older one on his father’s right, and Ephrayim the younger one on his father’s left. Yaakov realised that this was the order in which Joseph would place his sons before him. This is why he crossed his arms in order to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim on the left hand on the head of Menashe. He possessed sufficient divine inspiration to foresee that historically Ephrayim would be of greater significance than his senior brother Menashe. This is why he said of Menashe (verse 19) “he too will become a nation, however his younger brother will be greater than he.” According to Rabbeinu Chananel, Yaakov did not actually cross his arms but he placed his hands one on top of the other. What the Rabbi meant was that Yaakov did not rearrange the position of the boys but the position of his hands. This does not seem right. We do not need Rabbeinu Chananel to tell us this as the Torah had already made it plain that the lads remained in their respective positions but that Yaakov crossed his hands! The correct interpretation of Rabbeinu Chananel appears to be that the words שכל את ידיו, “he rearranged his hands” mean that relative to Joseph he rearranged his hands. When the Torah said: “he placed his right hand on the head of Ephrayim,” the meaning is that he rearranged the boys and placed them so that Ephrayim was opposite his right hand, etc. He also rearranged the position of Menashe so that he stood opposite Yaakov’s left hand. He did not rearrange his own hands at all. All he did was to rearrange the position of the boys. This is the correct meaning of the words שכל את ידיו, i.e. he rearranged them differently from the way Joseph had arranged them. The blessing took effect as a result of Yaakov placing his hands firmly on the heads of the lads. We find something similar in Numbers 27,23 where Moses placed his hands on Joshua and proceeded to bless him, making him his successor. The act of placing one’s hands on the person one blesses is designed to facilitate the transfer of the holy spirit possessed by the one conferring the blessing to the recipient of said blessing. When the sages of old ordained someone they also literally placed their hands on the head of the person so ordained. In the case of the priests blessing the people this was physically impossible. Instead the priest spread his hands heavenwards in a gesture commanding G’d’s blessing on all those present. This is the deeper meaning of the words שכל את ידיו, the word שכל being derived from שכל, חכמה, “intelligence, wisdom.” The ten fingers are to be the instrument which draws down blessings from its celestial source. כי מנשה הבכור, “although Menashe was the first-born.” Yaakov ignored this biological phenomenon as the younger of Joseph’s sons displayed signs of spiritual superiority. The use of the word כי in the sense of “although” is not unique. We find it being used in the same sense in Psalms 41,5 רפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך, “heal me although I have sinned against You.” Another example of the use of the word כי in the sense of ”although” is found in our daily prayer: “forgive us our Father although we have sinned.” It would certainly not be logical to translate the words סלח לנו אבינו כי חטאנו, “forgive us our Father for we have sinned.”
And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the first-born.
verse value 6672 — וְה֣וּא = 18 (chai)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 77 letters. Notable word values: "and·he" (וְה֣וּא) = 18, chai, 'life'. The shortest word is "that" (כִּ֥י, 2 letters) and the longest is "and·his·left·hand" (וְאֶת־שְׂמֹאל֖וֹ, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 601: upon·the·head·of, upon·the·head·of. 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "his·right·hand" (אֶת־יְמִינ֜וֹ), "the·younger" (הַצָּעִ֔יר), "and·his·left·hand" (וְאֶת־שְׂמֹאל֖וֹ). The root ראש appears 2 times in this verse. 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "that" (root כי, 167x in Genesis); "and·he" (root הוא, 133x in Genesis); "his·hands" (root יד, 88x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'Manasseh', dividing the verse into phrases of 11 and 5 words.
Onkelos
Israel stretched out his right hand and placed it on the head of Ephraim, though he was the younger, and his left hand on the head of Manasseh. He guided his hands with wisdom, for Manasseh was the firstborn.
Rashi
שכל את ידיו PLACING HIS HANDS DESIGNEDLY — Understand this as the Targum renders it: אחכמינון he put wisdom into them (viz., into his hands), meaning designedly and wisely he moved his hands for this purpose, intelligently and with full knowledge, for he knew that Manasseh was the first-born and yet he did not place his right hand upon him.
Ibn Ezra
"He guided his hands deliberately" (שִׂכֵּל אֶת יָדָיו) — as though his hands themselves understood what he wished to do. "For Manasseh was the firstborn" — meaning: although Manasseh is the firstborn. Similarly: "for they are a stiff-necked people" (Exodus 34:9), and there are many such cases.
Sforno
שיכל את ידיא, he was quite clear, relying on his sense of touch, without being able to see exactly where his hands came to rest.
Or HaChaim
שכל את ידיו כי כי מנשה הבכור, he placed his hands deliberately, keeping in mind that Menashe was the firstborn. Many feel that the word כי may best be understood as "although." I think that we have to understand the verse in conjunction with the previous statement that Jacob's eyesight was failing. As a result he could not recognise which of the two grandchildren was the older one. When it came to the blessing he used his wits to compensate for his eyesight and reasoned that surely Joseph had placed the sons in such a position that the elder one would be blessed by his right hand and the younger one by his placing his left hand on him. He reversed his hands because he wanted to place his right hand on the head of the younger son Ephrayim.
Chizkuni
וישת על ראש אפרים, “he placed it (his right hand) on the head of Ephrayim.” He did so with the intent of including them in the 12 tribes. We find a similar expression when Moses placed his hands on Joshua appointing him as his successor (Numbers 27,23). שכל את ידיו, “Yaakov placed his hands by using his intelligence, i.e. sechel. One could have thought that instead of crossing his hands, Yaakov should have asked that the sons of Joseph switch their position in front of their grandfather, but that is precisely what Yaakov did not want them to do. He did not want to embarrass Menashe by relegating him to his left side, seeing that after all he was Joseph’s firstborn, and he deserved to be treated with respect on account of this. The only reason he had not placed his right hand on the head of Menashe, was that he had seen through his holy spirit that his younger brother would historically be of greater importance than the first born. It occurs frequently that the word “כי,” means “although;” for instance: Psalms 41,5: כי חטאתי לך, “although I have sinned against You.” Or, Psalms 25,11: כי רב הוא, “although it is great.” Or, Exodus 13,17: כי קרוב הוא, “although it is nearby.” The author states that he could have quoted many more examples.
Kli Yakar
He crossed his hands, for Menashe was the firstborn. Some ask why Joseph remained silent until after [Jacob] blessed them, and only then supported his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head — why didn’t he do this before they were blessed? Perhaps it was because Joseph thought that the left [hand] was more important than the right, since the heart, which is the source of intelligence, is situated on the left side, while the liver, which is the source of physical desires, is on the right. Joseph thought that since Menashe was the firstborn, he wanted to bless him with intellectual blessings, to grant him knowledge and wisdom in greater measure, while he wanted to bless Ephraim with physical blessings. But after [Jacob] gave one blessing to both of them, Joseph then saw that this was not the intended approach and his father had not meant this. Perhaps he thought his father had confused the firstborn with the younger one, or didn’t know who was standing on the right and who on the left. Therefore, it displeased him, and he said to his father, ‘Not so, my father.’ Some raise a difficulty: Did [Joseph] not see that his father crossed his hands intentionally? Surely [Jacob] knew what he was doing, so why was it displeasing in Joseph’s eyes? He should have asked his father why he crossed his hands. It appears that Joseph thought that Jacob assumed Joseph had taken the firstborn [Manasseh] in his right hand and Ephraim in his left hand, and thus the firstborn would have been opposite Jacob’s left hand. Therefore, [Joseph thought] Jacob crossed his hands so that the firstborn would be on Jacob’s right. This is why it was displeasing in his eyes, because in truth Joseph had taken Ephraim in his right hand.
And he blessed Joseph, and said: "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day,
verse value 4225
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 77 letters. Verse gematria: 4225 = 65². The shortest word is "which" (אֲשֶׁר֩, 3 letters) and the longest is "Joseph" (אֶת־יוֹסֵ֖ף, 6 letters). Words sharing gematria 91: the·God, the·God. 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "walked" (הִתְהַלְּכ֨וּ), "from·my·being" (מֵעוֹדִ֖י). The root אלה appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "which" (root אשר, 313x in Genesis); "the·God" (root אלה, 301x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·said', dividing the verse into phrases of 3 and 13 words.
Onkelos
He blessed Joseph and said: Hashem, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac served — Hashem who has sustained me from my existence until this day —
Ramban
AND HE BLESSED JOSEPH, AND SAID. The meaning of this verse Ramban is attempting to resolve this difficulty. is that in order to bless Joseph, out of his love for him, he blessed his sons. Scripture is relating that Joseph had no other children and his entire blessing was inherent in the blessing of these boys. It may be that [the blessing here was directed at Joseph himself, stating that] the other children who will be born to him in the future here. shall be called by the name of their brothers and be blessed with their blessing. In my opinion this latter interpretation is correct since the prophet Jacob said, And the children that were born (‘holad’to’) ” Ramban will explain that Jacob’s words are to be understood as if they were in the future tense: “And the children that will be born to you after them shall be thine.” Joseph thus had other children besides Ephraim and Menasheh, whom Scripture does not record, as they were counted among the tribes of his first sons. after them, shall be thine, and his word would not be in vain. However, Joseph did beget children after that, just as is the opinion of Onkelos, who translated: “And the children that you will beget after them.” And thus, asher holad’to is a past tense replacing a future, just as in the verse, Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite, here. Here again, lakachti (I took) is to be understood as if it were in the future tense. and many additional verses besides. Even in line with the literal interpretation of Scripture it would appear that Joseph had children that he had begotten after his father came to him in Egypt. This is obvious from the fact that Jacob found it necessary to elaborate rather than say, “And now thy sons, Ephraim and Menasheh, who were born to thee, shall be mine as Reuben and Simeon, and the children that will be born shall be thine.” This is the reason why Scripture states, And unto Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came, since after the famine additional children were born to him, but Scripture does not mention them as there is no need for us to know of them [since they were absorbed into the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh]. THE G-D, BEFORE WHOM MY FATHERS, ABRAHAM AND ISAAC, DID WALK, THE G-D WHO HATH BEEN MY SHEPHERD ALL MY LIFE LONG UNTO THIS DAY. The prophet Ramban is here explaining the double use of Elokim (G-d) in this blessing: The G-d before Whom … the G-d who hath been my shepherd. calls upon the G-d of his fathers Who [has] the greatness and the power and Who did great and tremendous things for them, and [after that he refers to Him in a synonymous way and] he calls upon the true G-d, Who had been his shepherd all his life. It is possible that the word haro’eh (shepherd) — in the phrase, Who hath been my shepherd — is derived from the word rei’ah (friend), as in the verse, Thine own friend (‘rei’acha’), and thy father’s friend, forsake not, for in that attribute there is peace and friendship. Do not find difficulty with the expression, all my life unto this day, in connection with that which we have written on the verse, And he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his father Isaac, The difficulty is that the verse here indicates that the attribute of peace was forever directing Jacob’s life, while in the verse above (46:1) Ramban explained that this attribute did not come into his life until that time. (Tziyoni. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 263.) for from his very inception He did indeed lead him in the true path, but His attribute of truth was not brought to bear upon him completely until he returned to the land of his ancestors as he was outside of the Land, and also because he was constrained to conduct himself in a crafty manner towards Laban, and that was not the path of truth.
Sforno
He blessed Yoseif. Scripture does not relate the contents of this blessing. And said. After he blessed Yoseif. The God. You, O Elokim before whom my fathers walked, do this in their merit האלוקים הרועה אותי, the same G’d Who has acted as my own shepherd, i.e. “You Who have shown me so much love.”
Or HaChaim
ויברך את יוסף, He blessed Joseph. We do not find a blessing addressed to Joseph here. Nachmanides says that by blessing Joseph's sons Jacob actually blessed Joseph. This does not really appeal to me as it does not explain why Jacob did not say some words which would apply to Joseph individually. I believe that the very word ויברך was Jacob's way of telling Joseph that he would remain blessed henceforth. The wording may also be explained in terms of Bereshit Rabbah 39,11 that Abraham received the keys to blessings. Isaac received those keys after Abraham had died and he handed them to Jacob before he sent the latter to get himself a wife. At this point Jacob bequeathed these keys to his son Joseph. This is the meaning of the words ויברך את יוסף. ויאמר האלוקים אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו, He said: "the G'd before Whom my forefathers walked, etc." Jacob recited the virtues of his forefathers before commencing his blessing much as we do when we commence the central prayer the עמידה, where we first introduce ourselves to G'd as descendants of worthy people. Jacob did not spell out the specific merits of his fathers, but when he spoke about himself he added that his own conduct had been similar to that of the sheep which walks in front of the shepherd who looks after it. Only after this introduction did Jacob commence his blessing with the words: המלאך הגואל.
Chizkuni
ויברך את יוסף, “he blessed Joseph.” A blessing given to the sons is automatically also a blessing for their father. (Rash’bam)
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויברך את יוסף ויאמר, “He blessed Joseph, saying:” In commencing with Joseph’s blessing Yaakov blessed him only by conferring his blessing on Joseph’s sons. From what appears to be a simplistic point of view, i.e. a reading of the text without reading between the lines, the message of the Torah is that the true blessing a person can experience is that his sons (children) are being blessed. The vicarious aspect of the blessing is its most powerful aspect. (The Torah only had to write: “he blessed them,” instead of bothering to write ”He blessed Joseph and said; etc.”) A kabbalistic approach sees in this blessing an allusion to all ten emanations. The words אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו ה-אלו-הים embody the attributes חסד וגבורה, the outstanding qualities of Avraham and Yitzchak seeing that it is such an unusual way of phrasing the blessing. We would have expected Yaakov to say ה-אלו-הים אשר הלכו לפניו אברהם ויצחק. The fact that Yaakov added the words אבותי are a reference to the names of the attributes of G’d which had been revealed to Yaakov. A few words later he adds: ה-אלו-הים הרועה אותי; the word רועה is derived from ריע, companion. Yaakov referred to the attribute of G’d which had become manifest to him throughout the vicissitudes of his trouble-filled life. His שלום וריעות, “peace and serenity,” had been achieved only by means of that attribute of G’d. Psalms 80,2 alludes to this when the psalmist says: רועה ישראל האזינה, נוהג כצאן יוסף, “Give ear, O shepherd of Israel who leads Joseph like a flock!” He concludes his blessing with the words המלאך הגואל... בקרב הארץ, “the angel who redeems me... may they proliferate like the fish within the land.” The word בקרב, is analogous to כי שמי בקרבו, “for My name is present within him (Exodus 23,21).” Had Yaakov begun his prayer with the words המלאך הגואל, this would have sounded heretical, as if he had prayed to the angel. Seeing that he commenced his prayer with the words ה-אלו-הים, there cannot be a suspicion that he addressed the angel as the one who should fulfill his prayer. A careful analysis of the wording used by Yaakov in verses 15-17 will demonstrate that this blessing is essentially the same as the one he extended to Joseph in verses 22-26. In the latter blessing Yaakov spoke of מידי אביר יעקב, “from the hands of the mighty One of Yaakov,” as being the source which רעה אבן ישראל, “shepherded the stone of Yisrael.” The words ידי are a reference to the two hands supporting the throne of Solomon, the attributes גדולה and גבורה respectively; these attributes were earlier referred to by the words אברהם ויצחק; the expression אביר יעקב which refers to תפארת ישראל, the attribute which combines the attributes of Avraham and Yitzchak respectively, is called אביר יעקב, in verse 24. Proof that the Torah speaks of a unique attribute of Yaakov is the fact that you do not find the expression אביר אברהם or אביר יצחק anywhere in the Torah. In our prayers we call upon this attribute when we say עננו אביר יעקב “answer us O mighty One of Yaakov” in the Selichot during the days preceding Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This attribute occurs only in connection with either יעקב or ישראל. In verse 24 it appears in both forms as אביר יעקב and as רועה אבן ישראל The overall meaning of verse 24 is that the source of Yaakov’s spiritual strength also known as תפארת ישראל is אבן ישראל, another name for כנסת ישראל, the “spiritual concept of the people of Israel.” There is therefore no reason to be surprised that the Torah (Yaakov) describes the blessing of Joseph’s sons as the blessing of Joseph. Blessing the “fruit,” i.e. the product, is the most effective way of blessing the tree, the source.
Kli Yakar
“The God before whom my fathers walked.” He [Jacob] did not want to include himself by saying “The God before whom I and my fathers walked,” because he did not want to consider himself completely righteous. For one who is not completely righteous should not say “before Him” but rather “with Him,” as such a person needs support, like Noah, about whom it is said Noah walked with God (Genesis 6:9). He mentioned “God” twice, and the third time he mentioned “the angel.” This is because the first two references are only appropriate for God alone. Walking “before God” refers to service, as Onkelos translates it “whom my fathers served before Him,” and similarly, God who has been my shepherd refers to sustenance, as this is one of the four keys that were not given to a messenger. Those who interpret hints [numerical values] said that me’odi [מעודי — since my youth] equals 130 in gematria, referring to those 130 years that God sustained him before he came to Egypt. Until this day — the word hazeh [הזה — this] equals 17 in gematria, referring to the 17 years he lived in Egypt. This means that even though it appeared that Joseph was sustaining him for those 17 years, nevertheless, he attributed those years to the same source as the 130 years, just as those were certainly from God, so too these 17 years. However, regarding protection from all evil, which is done through a messenger, he said the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, because God always commands His angels to guard him in all his ways.
Tur HaArokh
ויברך את יוסף, “He blessed Joseph.” Although, literally speaking, as we can see, he blessed Joseph’s sons, when the sons are blessed this is a great blessing for their father. Seeing that Joseph had only these two sons, Yaakov invested all his blessings in these two sons, thereby blessing all of Joseph. Even if Joseph were to have more children in the future, their blessings would be derived through the blessing now given to Ephrayim and Menashe.
the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named in them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth."
verse value 4710
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 73 letters. The shortest word is "me" (אֹתִ֜י, 3 letters) and the longest is "lads" (אֶת־הַנְּעָרִים֒, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 232: may·he·bless, into·a·multitude. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "the·Angel" (הַמַּלְאָךְ֩), "who·redeemed" (הַגֹּאֵ֨ל), "from·all·harm" (מִכׇּל־רָ֗ע). The root שם appears 2 times in this verse. 15 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "the·land" (root ארץ, 305x in Genesis); "my·fathers" (root אב, 196x in Genesis); "my·name" (root שם, 180x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·Isaac', dividing the verse into phrases of 13 and 4 words.
Onkelos
the angel who redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the young men. May my name be called upon them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac, and may they multiply like fish of the sea, increasing greatly among the children of men upon the earth.
Rashi
המלאך הגאל אתי THE ANGEL REDEEMING ME — The angel who was usually sent to me in my trouble, as it is said, (Genesis 31:11) “And the angel of God said unto me in the dream: Jacob etc. … (Genesis 31:13), I am the God of Beth-el.” יברך את הנערים SHALL BLESS THE LADS — viz, Manasseh and Ephraim. וידגו AND LET THEM INCREASE — like fishes (דגים) which are fruitful and which multiply and which the evil eye cannot effect (Berakhot 20a).
Ramban
AND LET MY NAME BE CALLED ON THEM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that it means that all Israel be called by the name Ephraim, just as they are called “the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”This is not correct for Scripture uses the word bahem (on them), [thus referring to both Ephraim and Menasheh], and they were not called by the name of Menasheh. But perhaps this is because they were called the house of Joseph. And I will help the house of Joseph. The correct interpretation though is that their race and their name will exist forever, and the name of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will forever be upon them.
Ibn Ezra
The meaning of "the angel who has redeemed me" — you will find the explanation in the portion of "These are the names" (i.e., Exodus). "Let my name be called upon them" — for all Israel will be called "Ephraim," and also "Joseph." Scripture also says: "Rachel weeping for her children" (Jeremiah 31:14), because she was the primary object of his intention. Therefore Scripture says: "the sons of Rachel, the wife of Jacob" (Genesis 46:19); and when Rachel gave birth, Jacob immediately said to Laban: "Send me away" (Genesis 30:25). He also gave Joseph the birthright, for he was the foremost of his intention. And since Reuben was not worthy of the birthright, it went to Joseph, who was the firstborn of the womb — not to Dan and Gad, who are the sons of the handmaids. The right hand is more honored than the left and is the stronger.
Sforno
המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע יברך, the letter ה introducing the word המלאך is not a definitive article, identifying a specific angel [seeing that we had not previously heard about him; Ed] but acts as an appeal, instruction to such angel(s) who in the past on different occasions had been Yaakov’s guardian angels(s). Yaakov appeals to his own guardian angels to bless the children if their own merit does not suffice for the guardian angels assigned to them to do the job. ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי אברהם ויצחק. Although we know that Avraham and Yitzchok were both Yaakov’s fathers, he meant to make plain that he did not appeal to the god of Terach or Nachor who were similarly his “fathers” in the sense of being his ancestors. It is an axiom throughout Scripture that the righteous are never linked to those of their ancestors who were wicked, i.e. idolaters. The same is true in reverse as our sages say in Sanhedrin 52, (but not found there) קרינן לרשיעא אפילו בר צדיקא רשיעא בר רשיעא, “a wicked person, even if he is the son of a righteous person is still called a wicked person son of a wicked person.” This principle is invoked in order to save the righteous father the embarrassment of being associated with his son who has turned from the path of righteousness. When the ancestry of such a wicked person requires to be mentioned, one prefers to link him to another wicked person in his lineage. This is why Yaakov prayed for the lads that they should remain G’d fearing and prepared to serve Him. If they were to do this they would qualify to be described as offspring of Avraham and Yitzchok. This principle is known as יחד לבבי ליראה את ה', “let my heart be undivided in reverence for Your name.” (Psalms 86,11)
Or HaChaim
המלאך הגואל אותי, "The angel who redeems me, etc." Jacob referred to any word of G'd which He issues to or on behalf of those those who love Him as מלאך. This is analogous to Psalms 29,7: "The voice of G'd kindles flames of fire." Jacob expressed the hope that G'd's word would always come to the assistance of Joseph's sons and bless them. ויקרא בהם שמי, "and may my name be called upon them, etc." Jacob wished that Joseph's sons should reflect the spiritual level of the patriarchs. While it is quite impossible for any Jew to completely sever the connection with all three of the patriarchs, Jacob blessed Ephrayim and Menashe in that they would never fail to reflect the spiritual values of even one of the patriarchs. Jacob may also have expressed the hope that the reputations of the patriarchs would be enhanced by the conduct of Joseph's sons in the future. We find such an idea in Proverbs 23,24: "the father of the righteous will rejoice greatly;" we also have a similar statement in Proverbs 17,6: "Grandchildren are the crown of their elders." All of this is predicated on the grandchildren following in the footsteps of their illustrious forebears. Jacob also hinted that mentioning the names of Ephrayim and Menashe would have as positive an effect in the ears of G'd as has mentioning the names of the patriarchs themselves. This sentiment is expressed in Jeremiah 31,19 when the prophet exclaims that every time G'd merely hears the name of Ephrayim mentioned He recalls him with feelings of mercy and has pity on his plight. וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, "and they will multiply on earth just like fish." Jacob's considerations may have been similar to the blessings G'd bestowed on the fish in Genesis 1,22.1 explained there that a special blessing for the fish was called for due to their habitat being less suited for successful and enduring procreation than the conditions prevailing on dry land. G'd therefore increased the fish's natural reproductive powers to counter the negative conditions prevailing in their habitat. Jacob too accorded Joseph's sons greater powers of reproduction when he blessed them by comparing their fruitfulness to that of fish. Inasmuch as Ephrayim and Menashe did not reside in regions which are hostile to human reproduction, Jacob's blessing was even stronger than G'd's blessing for the fish. Jacob deliberately chose to say בקרב, "in the midst of the earth," instead of merely saying "on earth." This was a hint that at some time in the future Joseph's descendants would "hide" within the earth as we know from Sotah 36 where Joshua is reported as having advised the members of that tribe to hide in the forests (to prevent attracting envy and jealousy due to their being numerous). This need arose only because Jacob's blessing had been fulfilled and they had multiplied at a faster rate than the other tribes. Berachot 55 sees in Jacob's phraseology a hint that the descendants of Joseph would be immune to the evil eye just as the fish are immune to the evil eye. The fish enjoy that status only thanks to their remaining under the surface of the water and therefore not visible. Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph that they would enjoy this immunity even while visible on earth, i.e. בקרב הארץ.
Chizkuni
המלאך הגואל אותי, “the angel who redeems me;” in verse 15 Yaakov had commenced the blessing by referring to G-d by His name of “האלוהים,” whereas in this verse he has switched to an angel as the source of the blessing. How are we to account for this? The two verses have to be understood as follows: “The G-d before Whom I and my forefathers have walked by means of His angel who protected me against all harm; may He arrange for that same angel also to protect the lads who are your sons.”
Kli Yakar
And may my name and the names of my fathers be declared upon them. [This means] that everything that is indicated by my name and the names of my fathers should be called upon them. For the name “Israel” refers to because you have striven with God and men, so too they should be righteous rulers in the fear of God. And “Jacob” refers to the great reward stored away for the righteous [eikev = “in the end,” referring to reward], for their beginnings are always small but their end becomes very great. And “Abraham” refers to being the father of many nations, so too they shall be the head of all nations. And “Isaac,” which translates [in Aramaic] as “rejoicing,” so too there should always be joy in their dwellings. “And they shall multiply abundantly in the midst of the earth.” He [the text] should have said “in the earth” — what is meant by in the midst of the earth? It seems appropriate to explain this according to what our Sages said (Sotah 11b): that the Egyptians would plow over them [the Israelites], but a miracle occurred and they were swallowed into the ground, etc., and afterwards they would emerge and return to their homes in groups, etc. According to this interpretation, they were literally being fruitful and multiplying “in the midst of the earth,” for this miracle of being swallowed into the ground did not happen without purpose. Certainly, it was so that the evil eye of the Egyptians would not affect them. Therefore, they were covered in the ground like fish that are covered by water. And because they were literally in the midst of the earth, they multiplied like fish, for the evil eye had no power over them. Regarding this it is said, “and the land was filled with them.” He specifically gave the blessing of multiplication to Joseph, because his name indicates addition and multiplication, as it is written May God add [yosef] to me another son (Genesis 30:24), and as it is written May He increase [yosef] you a thousandfold (Deuteronomy 1:11). This blessing was particularly fitting for Ephraim, because of the meaning of his name For God has made me fruitful [hifrani]. Therefore, Jacob placed his right hand on Ephraim’s head, believing that his name would assist him in receiving this blessing. Joseph thought that it would be more appropriate to attribute the blessing of multiplication to the firstborn son, since he receives a double portion in inheritance, and therefore the blessing of multiplication would be more fitting for him. Jacob responded I know, my son, I know. He mentioned I know twice, corresponding to the double portion of the firstborn. And he said he too will become great, and he too will become a nation, mentioning “too” twice, hinting at the double portion, as if saying “I know about the double portion of the firstborn, which from this perspective would make it appropriate to give him a greater share in the blessing of multiplication, to combine these aspects together.” Nevertheless, his younger brother will become greater than him, because the Holy One, Blessed be He, particularly chooses the smaller ones, and any person who has an aspect of smallness, the Holy One, Blessed be He, elevates them even more to make them into thousands of myriads, as it is written Not because you were more numerous than all the peoples did God desire you… for you were the smallest (Deuteronomy 7:7). And it is written The smallest shall become a thousand, and the youngest a mighty nation (Isaiah 60:22). This happened to all of Abraham’s descendants: Ishmael was Abraham’s firstborn — Ishmael was rejected and Isaac was chosen; Esau was Isaac’s firstborn — Esau was rejected and Jacob was chosen; Reuben was Jacob’s firstborn — Reuben was rejected and Joseph was chosen; Manasseh was Joseph’s firstborn — Ephraim was particularly chosen. This allusion is surely significant, and the wise will understand.
Tur HaArokh
המלאך הגואל אותי, “the angel that has redeemed me, etc. Some commentators understand this as a reference to G’d Who had shepherded Yaakov by means of an angel, seeing that no angel has independent powers such as attributed to him by Yaakov here. There is little doubt that the words המלאך and האלוקים which are used interchangeably (here 15 and 16) refer to the same Divine manifestation, but when viewed by the immediate recipient of the miraculous providence of G’d, appear as a more immediate Divine providence than when viewed by bystanders, who did not experience this on their own bodies. [my wording, but I trust the author’s meaning. Ed.] ויקרא בהם שמי ושם אבותי, “and may my name and the name of my forefathers be declared upon them.” Ibn Ezra explains that Yaakov wishes that the Jewish people be known as “the children of Ephrayim,” just as they are known as “the children of Avraham Yitzchok and Yisrael.” Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that the verse addresses itself to both Ephrayim and Menashe, even though Ephrayim may have been mentioned ahead of his senior brother. History shows that although traditionally, the Jewish people have been referred to as “Ephrayim,” by some prophets, Menashe has never been used as an alternative for “the seed of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yisrael.” Perhaps what Yaakov meant was that the Jewish people appear collectively as “the house of Joseph” in a number of prophecies by our prophets. The plain meaning of the blessing appears to be that just as the descendants of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yisrael are blessed and assured of eternal continuity, so Yaakov wishes that the same may apply to the seed of both Ephrayim and Menashe, individually, as tribes.
And when Joseph saw that his father was laying his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head.
verse value 5826
Insights
Verse structure: 17 words, 84 letters. The shortest word is "it" (אֹתָ֛הּ, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·head·of·Ephraim" (רֹאשׁ־אֶפְרַ֖יִם, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 601: upon·the·head·of, upon·the·head·of. 6 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "that·was·placing" (כִּי־יָשִׁ֨ית), "his·right·hand" (יַד־יְמִינ֛וֹ), "and·took·hold·of" (וַיִּתְמֹ֣ךְ). The root ראש appears 3 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "his·father" (root אב, 196x in Genesis); "Joseph" (root יוסף, 156x in Genesis); "and·saw" (root ראה, 140x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'in·his·eyes', dividing the verse into phrases of 9 and 8 words.
Onkelos
Joseph saw that his father had placed his right hand on the head of Ephraim, and it was displeasing in his eyes. He supported his father's hand to move it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh.
Rashi
ויתמך יד אביו; HE HELD UP HIS FATHER’S HAND — He lifted it up from his son’s head and upheld it in his hand to remove it etc.
Ramban
IT DISPLEASED HIM. Perhaps Joseph loved Menasheh more on account of his being the first-born. Hence it displeased him. The correct interpretation in my opinion is that he thought that his father had made a mistake concerning them, and if his blessing will be without true knowledge it will never be fulfilled upon them as it will not have been done with the proper Ruach Hakodesh (holy spirit). But when his father told him, I know it, my son, I know it, here. he was reconciled.
Tur HaArokh
וירע בעיניו, “Joseph was displeased by his father having placed his right hand on Ephrayim;” perhaps Joseph loved Menashe better seeing that he was his eldest son, and that it bothered him that his father appeared to ignore this point. Perhaps he only thought that Yaakov had done what he did mistakenly; and as soon as he heard that his father had done so intentionally he was reconciled to the holy spirit which guided his father’s hands.
Rashbam
כי ישית, before he had started blessing them (Verse 7) Joseph had noticed that his father had crossed his hands. ויאמר יוסף אל אביו לא כן אבי, it is not correct to translate this line as: “you are not doing the correct thing.” If that were what Joseph had had in mind he would not have spoken so dismissively, but would have asked his father why he was doing this. What Joseph said to his father must be understood as follows: “the sons have not been positioned by me in the order in which you think, by my not paying attention who should be on your right, i.e. the eldest on your right, etc., but I have made sure that my firstborn is already on your right and his brother on your left. There is therefore no need for you to bend your arms, etc.”
Daat Zkenim
וירע בעיניו, “it displeased him (Joseph).” I heard from Rabbi Levi Yitzchok that the reason that Joseph was displeased was that he thought that he, Joseph, was a fool not to have known in which order to position his sons for the blessing, whereas he had done so correctly.
And Joseph said to his father: "Not so, my father, for this is the first-born; put your right hand upon his head."
verse value 1933 — אָבִ֑י = 13 (echad/ahavah)
Insights
Verse structure: 10 words, 44 letters. Notable word values: "my·father" (אָבִ֑י) = 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). The shortest word is "my·father" (אָבִ֑י, 3 letters) and the longest is "to·his·father" (אֶל־אָבִ֖יו, 6 letters). 3 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "not·so" (לֹא־כֵ֣ן), "your·right·hand" (יְמִינְךָ֖), "on·his·head" (עַל־רֹאשֽׁוֹ). The root אב appears 2 times in this verse. 9 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "to·his·father" (root אב, 196x in Genesis); "Joseph" (root יוסף, 156x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'my·father', dividing the verse into phrases of 5 and 5 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֧אמֶר [and·said] (257) + יוֹסֵ֛ף [Joseph] (156) + אֶל־אָבִ֖יו [to·his·father] (50) + לֹא־כֵ֣ן [not·so] (101) + אָבִ֑י [my·father] (13) + כִּי־זֶ֣ה [because·this] (42) + הַבְּכֹ֔ר [the·first-born] (227) + שִׂ֥ים [put] (350) + יְמִינְךָ֖ [your·right·hand] (130) + עַל־רֹאשֽׁוֹ [on·his·head] (607) = 1933.
Onkelos
Joseph said to his father: Not so, father, for this one is the firstborn — place your right hand on his head.
Sforno
כי זה הבכור. שים נא ידך על ראשו. Once he would place his hand on the head of Menashe, Joseph felt sure that his father’s mind would follow the direction of his hand. This has been illustrated in Numbers 27,23 when Moses placed his hands on Joshua when appointing him as his successor. [if the physical contact would not be of significance, why would Moses have bothered? Ed.] The right hand is presumed to be stronger than the left, hence a blessing conveyed by means of the right hand would be a stronger, more comprehensive blessing.
Or HaChaim
ויאמר יוסף.לא כן אבי, Joseph said to his father: "not so my father, etc." We need to understand why Joseph did not simply say: "this one is the firstborn," instead of the preamble "not so my father." Joseph entertained two possible doubts. 1) Inasmuch as Joseph and his sons were facing Jacob, and it was customary for Joseph to have his firstborn on his right and the younger one on his left, they would appear in the reverse position when viewed from Jacob's vantage point. Jacob may therefore have reasoned that in order to place his right hand on the older one of the two he had to cross his hands. 2) On the other hand, Joseph reasoned that it was possible that his father crossed his hands in order to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim, deliberately, thus giving him preference over Menashe. In view of this Joseph first told his father that if he had assumed that Joseph had placed the boys as he usually did, i.e. Menashe on his right, לא כן אבי, i.e. he did not do so this time. If, on the other hand, Jacob had deliberately placed his right hand on the head of Ephrayim, Joseph registered his protest by saying: "place your right hand on him for he is the firstborn." He wanted to know why his father denied his firstborn what he thought he was entitled to.
Chizkuni
לא כן אבי, “not so my father!” He meant: “they are not lined up in the order that you thought they were lined up.”
Tur HaArokh
לא כן, “not so,” some people claim that Joseph certainly did not say to his father outright that he had not acted correctly, but that the words meant that he, Joseph, had been mistaken when he had thought that his father had erred. Nonetheless, Joseph told his father that he preferred for him to place his right hand on the firstborn Menashe.
And his father refused, and said: "I know it, my son, I know it; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; howbeit his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become the fullness of nations."
verse value 2675
Insights
Verse structure: 18 words, 87 letters. The shortest word is "my·son" (בְנִי֙, 3 letters) and the longest is "the·fullness·of·the·nations" (מְלֹֽא־הַגּוֹיִֽם, 8 letters). Words sharing gematria 494: I·know, I·know. 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "shall·become·a·people" (יִֽהְיֶה־לְּעָ֖ם), "and·he·also" (וְגַם־ה֣וּא), "and·his·offspring" (וְזַרְע֖וֹ). The root ידע appears 2 times in this verse. 14 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "shall·become·a·people" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "my·son" (root בן, 248x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'shall·be·great', dividing the verse into phrases of 10 and 8 words.
Onkelos
His father refused and said: I know, my son, I know. He too will become a people, and he too will be great. Yet his younger brother will be greater than he, and his children will be rulers among the peoples.
Rashi
ידעתי בני ידעתי I KNOW IT, MY SON, I KNOW that he is the first-born. גם הוא יהיה לעם וגם הוא יגדל HE ALSO SHALL BECOME A PEOPLE, AND HE ALSO SHALL BE GREAT, for of him will be born Gideon through whom the Holy One, blessed be He, will perform a miracle (See Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6). ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו BUT TRULY HIS YOUNGER BROTHER SHALL BE GREATER THAN HE — for of him will be born Joshua who will make Israel inherit the land of Canaan and will instruct them in the Torah (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6). וזרעו יהיה מלא הגוים AND HIS SEED SHALL BECOME A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS (more lit, shall fill the nations) — the fame and renown of his seed, Joshua, will spread abroad and fill the whole world when he will make the sun stand still upon Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Aijalon (Avodah Zarah 25a).
Ibn Ezra
"A fullness of nations" — many nations shall descend from him.
Or HaChaim
וימאן אביו ויאמר, His father refused, saying, etc. The reason the Torah uses the word "he refused," is to indicate that Joseph had taken hold of his father's hand to try and place it on Menashe's head. The reason Jacob repeated: "I know my son, I know, etc." is that Jacob wanted to answer both of Joseph's doubts as we have already explained. To Joseph's remark "not so my father," Jacob replied that he was well aware that Joseph had already placed the children in such a position that he, Jacob, did not have to cross his hands in order to put his right hand on the head of Menashe. By adding the word בני, my son, Jacob hinted that he had given Joseph credit for placing the boys in the position which he considered as appropriate. Concerning Joseph's specific concern that the firstborn be accorded the privileges due him, Jacob also said: "I know;" he assured Joseph that Menashe too would attain greatness. Joseph should not think that Jacob considered his firstborn as unworthy or inferior. If he had nonetheless decided to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim this was in view of Ephrayim's descendants outranking Menashe's descendants at some time in the future. Ephrayim was destined to become מלא הגוים, meaning that at that time he would occupy a higher position though at the moment Menashe fulfilled his role of the firstborn perfectly. Tanchuma elaborates that Joshua would be descended from Ephrayim whereas Gideon would be descended from Menashe, both leaders of the Jewish people during their respective lifetimes. Both had already been destined for their respective roles in life; Jacob only gave recognition to this by the manner in which he placed his hands when blessing both these children. Alternatively, Jacob meant that he was thoroughly familiar with Joseph's arguments; when Joseph had hinted that the birthright should determine on whose hand Jacob was to place his right hand, Joseph was wrong, it was not the order of birth which determined matters like this. By adding the word בני, Jacob hinted that Joseph himself had foreseen future developments in his dreams. Similarly, Jacob could not now act in defiance of G'd who had shown him in a vision that the younger son would outshine his older brother.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וגם הוא יגדל ואולם אחיו הקטן יגדל ממנו, “he too will become great; however, his younger brother will become even greater than he.” Yaakov used both the adjectives “great” and “small” in connection with Joseph’s sons. We have encountered this description of relative “smallness” already in connection with the sun and the moon on the fourth day of creation (Genesis 1,16) where both luminaries have first been described as “great;” subsequently the Torah distinguishes the relative greatness of one of he luminaries, the sun, by describing it as “great” when compared to the lesser luminary the moon. The “greatness” of Ephrayim which Yaakov referred to was that Joshua would be descended from that tribe. Joshua was so great that he could arrest the orbit of both sun and moon as we know from Joshua 10,12. In response to Joshua’s instruction for the sun and the moon to “stand still,” the Book of Joshua informs us in Joshua 10,13 that they did indeed interrupted their respective orbits until Joshua had taken his revenge of the Canaanites. In that verse the prophet reports that this miracle was recorded in a book called ספר הישר, and our sages in Avodah Zarah 25 have revealed to us that the ספר הישר is none other than the Book of Genesis, a Book describing the outstanding feats of the patriarchs Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. They are the ones who are called ישרים, “the upright ones.” Joshua was a product of these people and the prophet testifies that G’d was with Joshua and that his fame spread throughout the globe (Joshua 6,27).
And he blessed them that day, saying: "By you shall Israel bless, saying: God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh." And he set Ephraim before Manasseh.
verse value 4577 — אֱלֹהִ֔ים = 86 (Elohim)
Insights
Verse structure: 16 words, 74 letters. Notable word values: "God" (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) = 86, equal to Elohim. The shortest word is "in·you" (בְּךָ֗, 2 letters) and the longest is "Ephraim" (אֶת־אֶפְרַ֖יִם, 7 letters). 5 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·blessed·them" (וַיְבָ֨רְכֵ֜ם), "saying" (לֵאמוֹר֒), "make·you" (יְשִֽׂמְךָ֣). The root ברך appears 2 times in this verse. 10 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "saying" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "God" (root אלה, 301x in Genesis); "that" (root הוא, 133x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'and·like·Manasseh', dividing the verse into phrases of 12 and 4 words.
Onkelos
He blessed them on that day, saying: By you shall Israel bless, saying: May Hashem make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh. He placed Ephraim before Manasseh.
Rashi
בך יברך ישראל IN THEE SHALL ISRAEL BLESS — When one wishes to bless his sons he will bless them by reciting the formula with which they were blessed — a man will say to his son, “God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.” וישם את אפרים AND HE PUT EPHRAIM etc. — i.e. in the blessing he bestowed upon them he put Ephraim’s name before that of Manasseh, so giving him precedence over his brother when the Israelites encamped and marched beneath their banners in the wilderness (cf. Numbers 2:18 and Numbers 10:22), and when at the dedication of the altar by the princes of the tribes each brought his gifts (cf. Numbers 7:48 Numbers 7:54). (see Genesis Rabbah 97:5).
Ramban
AND HE BLESSED THEM THAT DAY. The meaning of that day is that since Joseph had urged him to give Menasheh precedence, the verse declares that Jacob did not wish to remove his right hand from Ephraim’s head to that of Menasheh. Moreover, he expressly reiterated on that occasion, in Joseph’s presence, when he blessed them by saying, As Ephraim and Menasheh. And he put Ephraim before Menasheh in all his blessings. BY THEE SHALL ISRAEL BLESS. Jacob addressed this to Joseph. It means that the nation of Israel will bless with your children and say to those being blessed, God make thee as Ephraim and Menasheh.
Ibn Ezra
"By you shall Israel bless" — all the children of Israel. "And he set Ephraim" — in the pronouncing of the blessing.
Or HaChaim
ויברכם ביום ההוא לאמור, He blessed them on that day, saying, etc. The Torah means that Jacob gave the boys such a full measure of blessings that everybody said that the simplest way to bestow blessings on Jewish children in the future would be to mention that they should be as blessed as Ephrayim and Menashe were blessed by Jacob. וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, He placed Ephrayim ahead of Menashe. This is not to be understood literally. The Torah means that by mentioning Ephrayim ahead of Menashe Jacob had in effect given Ephrayim a measure of precedence over Menashe. What true Jewish father would reverse the formula that Jacob had used when he blessed his grandchildren? We still mention Ephrayim the younger of the two ahead of Menashe the firstborn when we bless our children.
Chizkuni
וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, “he positioned (in the blessing) the name of Ephrayim before the name of Menashe.” He had done so already in verse 5, before the sequence of the blessing had become an issue. By making a comparison with Reuven and Shimon in that order, his intention had been unmistakable.
Rabbeinu Bahya
בך יברך ישראל, “By you shall Israel bless:” Yaakov told Joseph that when Israel would bless its children they would hold up Joseph’s children as the models they hoped their own children would emulate. When blessing Jewish boys the father would invoke the names of Ephrayim and Menashe as the models he wished G’d to use when blessing his own children. וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, “he placed Ephrayim ahead of Menashe.” The Torah means that in all the blessings Yaakov bestowed he always mentioned the name of Ephrayim before mentioning the name Menashe. He did so knowing full well that Ephrayim was the younger of the two as he had detected qualities in the character of Ephrayim which were superior to those of Menashe. It is also possible to interpret the words: “ahead of Menashe,” in a literal sense, i.e. Ephrayim stood in front of Menashe. In that event Yaakov would not have referred to Ephrayim’s superiority over Menashe. The words “in front of Menashe” would emphasize Menashe’s superiority, his being used as the term of reference. We find something similar in Genesis 44,14 where Yehudah is mentioned before Joseph and the Torah describes the brothers as prostrating themselves “before Him,” meaning Joseph, of course, seeing he was superior in stature to Yehudah though he was named last. If we accept this interpretation then the lesson in etiquette which Yaakov taught us on that occasion was that the older brother is to be treated respectfully because he is biologically senior. When a person places someone in front of a person of superior rank then this does not mean that the person so placed is superior but the very opposite is the case. This interpretation does not conflict with the fact that Yaakov foresaw a greater future for Ephrayim. On the contrary, precisely because in the future someone may attain a higher rank than his brother this is no excuse not to defer to his older brother when this future has not yet occurred.
Tur HaArokh
ויברכם ביום ההוא, “He blessed them both on that day;” the words “on that day,” are important, seeing that Joseph pressured his father to place his right hand on Menashe and to bless him first. The Torah clearly shows that Yaakov resisted this pressure and did not want to remove his right hand from the head of Ephrayim. Not only that, but when Yaakov eventually pronounced the blessing, he made a point of naming Ephrayim first in his blessing so that when the parents of Jewish children would bless their children in the future they would always mention Ephrayim first when wishing that their children model themselves after these two sons of Joseph. בך יברך ישראל, ”when the Jewish people bless their children they will do so by referring to you, Joseph, to your well turned out children.” They will express the fervent hope that their own children would turn out as successfully.
And Israel said to Joseph: "Behold, I die; but God will be with you, and bring you back to the land of your fathers.
verse value 3427 — וְהָיָ֤ה = 26 (Hashem)
Insights
Verse structure: 13 words, 58 letters. Notable word values: "and·it·shall·be" (וְהָיָ֤ה) = 26, the value of the divine name Hashem. The shortest word is "dying" (מֵ֑ת, 2 letters) and the longest is "to·Joseph" (אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף, 6 letters). 2 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "and·will·bring·back" (וְהֵשִׁ֣יב), "your·ancestors" (אֲבֹתֵיכֶֽם). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "and·said" (root אמר, 604x in Genesis); "and·it·shall·be" (root היה, 313x in Genesis); "to·land" (root ארץ, 305x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'dying', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 7 words. Full calculation: וַיֹּ֤אמֶר [and·said] (257) + יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ [Israel] (541) + אֶל־יוֹסֵ֔ף [to·Joseph] (187) + הִנֵּ֥ה [behold] (60) + אָנֹכִ֖י [I] (81) + מֵ֑ת [dying] (440) + וְהָיָ֤ה [and·it·shall·be] (26) + אֱלֹהִים֙ [God] (86) + עִמָּכֶ֔ם [with·you] (170) + וְהֵשִׁ֣יב [and·will·bring·back] (323) + אֶתְכֶ֔ם [you] (461) + אֶל־אֶ֖רֶץ [to·land] (322) + אֲבֹתֵיכֶֽם [your·ancestors] (473) = 3427.
Onkelos
Israel said to Joseph: I am dying — but the Word of Hashem will be to your aid and will return you to the land of your fathers.
Sforno
הנה אנכי מת, seeing that I make this my last will and testament when I am close to death, this gift is irrevocable. והשיב אתכם אל ארץ אבותיכם, where my gifts will materialise.
Or HaChaim
ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הנה אנכי מת, Israel said to Joseph: "I am about to die, etc." When Israel said: "I am about to die," he meant that only he was going to depart, the שכינה was not going to depart from them. Jacob added that G'd would lead the Jewish people back to the land of their ancestors. Jacob underlined that the land had been given by G'd to the patriarchs and not to the generation who would leave Egypt at the time of the Exodus. This being so, he was within his rights when he assigned Shechem to Joseph's descendants since he was the owner. When Jacob said: "and I have given to you one (extra) share, etc.," this is a valid explanation. Even according to the view of Rabbi Nechemyah in Bereshit Rabbah 97,6 that Jacob referred to the city of Shechem conquered by Shimon and Levi, Jacob implied that had it not been for the fact that G'd had given the land to the patriarchs they would not have succeeded.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף, “Yisrael said to Joseph, etc.” After Yisrael had blessed the lads and appointed each one of them to become a founding father of one of the tribes, he turned his attention back to Joseph and promised him both matters pertaining to the exile as well as matters pertaining to the eventual redemption when G’d would bring the nation back to the land of Canaan.
Moreover I have given to you one portion above your brothers, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow."
verse value 3888 — אַחַ֖ד = 13 (echad/ahavah)
Insights
Verse structure: 12 words, 49 letters. Notable word values: "one" (אַחַ֖ד) = 13, the value of echad ('one') and ahavah ('love'). Verse gematria: 3888 is divisible by 18, the value of chai ('life'). The shortest word is "to·you" (לְךָ֛, 2 letters) and the longest is "above·your·brothers" (עַל־אַחֶ֑יךָ, 6 letters). 4 words in this verse appear nowhere else in Genesis. Unique to this verse in Genesis (hapax): "above·your·brothers" (עַל־אַחֶ֑יךָ), "I·took" (לָקַ֙חְתִּי֙), "with·my·sword" (בְּחַרְבִּ֖י). 12 unique roots are used. Frequent roots: "which" (root אשר, 313x in Genesis); "above·your·brothers" (root אח, 164x in Genesis); "I·gave" (root נתן, 150x in Genesis). The etnachta (major mid-verse pause) falls on 'above·your·brothers', dividing the verse into phrases of 6 and 6 words. Full calculation: וַאֲנִ֞י [and·I] (67) + נָתַ֧תִּֽי [I·gave] (860) + לְךָ֛ [to·you] (50) + שְׁכֶ֥ם [portion] (360) + אַחַ֖ד [one] (13) + עַל־אַחֶ֑יךָ [above·your·brothers] (139) + אֲשֶׁ֤ר [which] (501) + לָקַ֙חְתִּי֙ [I·took] (548) + מִיַּ֣ד [from·the·hand·of] (54) + הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י [the·Amorite] (256) + בְּחַרְבִּ֖י [with·my·sword] (222) + וּבְקַשְׁתִּֽי [and·my·bow] (818) = 3888.
Onkelos
As for me, I have given you one portion more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my prayer and my supplication.
Rashi
ואני נתתי לך MOREOVER I HAVE GIVEN TO THEE — Because you will take the trouble to engage in my burial “I” give you an inheritance in which you will be buried. And which was this? Shechem, as it is said, (Joshua 24:32) “And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem”. שכם אחד על אחיך Jacob meant by the word שכם the actual city of Shechem and said: this shall be to you one portion additional to what you will receive together with your brothers. בחרבי ובקשתי WITH MY SWORD AND WITH MY BOW — When Simeon and Levi slew the inhabitants of Shechem all the surrounding nations gathered together to join in battle against them and Jacob girded on his weapons to war against them (cf. Genesis Rabbah 80:10) Another explanation of this verse: שכם אחד ONE PORTION [ABOVE THY BRETHREN] — this refers to the birthright (Genesis Rabbah 97:6): that Joseph’s children should receive two portions when Canaan would be divided amongst the tribes (cf. Deuteronomy 60:17; Joseph therefore was to be regarded as the first-born). The word שכם signifies portion. “For thou wilt make them שכם” i.e. thou wilt place my enemies before me in portions (thou wilt scatter them before me); (Deuteronomy 60:8) “I will divide שכם the portion”; (Hosea 6:9) “on the way they murder שכמה” i.e. each man kills someone as his own portion; (Zephaniah 3:9) “to serve him as though they were all but one portion (שכם)” i.e. to serve him unitedly. אשר לקחתי מיד האמרי WHICH I TOOK OUT OF THE HAND OF THE AMORITE—out of the hand of Esau whose deeds were like those of an Amorite (Genesis Rabbah 97:6). Another interpretation of אמורי in reference to Esau is: he used to ensnare his father by the words (אמרי) of his mouth (cf. Rashi on Genesis 25:7). בחרבי ובקשתי that is, by means of his spiritual weapons: his wisdom and his prayer (“בַּקָשָׁתִי” cf. The Targumim and Bava Batra 123a).
Ramban
MOREOVER I HAVE GIVEN TO THEE ONE PORTION ABOVE THY BRETHREN. After he had blessed Joseph’s children and made them two tribes, he returned to Joseph and said to him: “Behold, I die; but G-d will be with you here. in exile in order to save you from all trouble, and you will increase and multiply exceedingly, and He will bring you back to the land of your fathers to inherit it. I have already given you the one portion in my power to bestow — namely, the portion of the birthright — to be yours above that of your brothers, right from the day that I took it out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.” All this is a conciliation to Joseph and a manifestation of his love for him, for he informed him that he gave him the birthright, meaning that his sons will henceforth be blessed by becoming two tribes, also in the banners which were assigned in the desert, and in the dedication of the Tabernacle by the princes of the tribes. He also gave him his portion in the inheritance which he would acquire when the children of Israel will conquer the Land by sword and bow and war. Jacob thus told him: “I have done for you all the good which I was able to do for you as long as it was in my power to do it.” Jacob’s right in the Land was but one portion for he had no right to divest any of his sons of his inheritance. Only the birthright was his to give to whomever he pleased, and it was to Joseph that he gave it. OUT OF THE HAND OF THE AMORITE. The meaning of this is that Israel first took the Land from the hand of the Amorite. Sichon and Og were two Amorite kings, and the first great war in the conquest of the Land took place between the children of Joseph and the Amorites. This was the war of Joshua See Numbers 13:8, and 16. with the Amorites, and it was in the course of the war with them that the great miracle took place, as it is written, Then spoke Joshua to the Eternal in the day when the Eternal delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, etc. And it was out of the hand of the Amorites that the children of Joseph took their portion and inheritance in the Land, as it is written, And the children of Machir the son of Menasheh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites that were there. The children of Ephraim likewise inherited in the territory of the Amorites, as it is written, But the Amorites were resolved to dwell in Har-cheres, in Ayalon, and in Shaalbin; yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributary. WITH MY SWORD AND WITH MY BOW. The meaning thereof is that the Land was captured by them only through the sword and bow. This alludes to that which Scripture states, There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon; they took all in battle. For it was of the Eternal to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that they might be utterly destroyed. He attributes the sword and bow to himself for it was his merit which waged war for them and fought on their behalf, not they themselves, even as the verse states it, For not by their own sword did they get the land in possession, neither did their own arm save them, but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou wast favorable unto them. This is a reference to the merit of the patriarchs, for by way of the truth, Thy right hand [is a reference to the merit of] Abraham, Thine arm to that of Isaac, and the light of Thy countenance to that of Jacob. It further appears reasonable to me that Jacob did as the prophets later on were wont to do. He inclined his hand with a sword towards the land of the Amorites and cast arrows there to symbolize that the land would be captured by his children, even as Elisha did: And he laid his hands upon the king’s hands, and Elisha said, Shoot; and he shot. Now even though Scripture does not relate it here, it is alluded to in this verse. It is possible that this is the meaning of Jacob’s saying, lakachti (I took), for from that moment on the Land was taken for his sons.
Ibn Ezra
"One portion" (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד) — some say this alludes to the city of Shechem, which also came to belong to the sons of Joseph. The meaning of "with my sword and with my bow" refers to Hashem, as David said: "my shield and the horn of my salvation" (II Samuel 22:3). But what seems correct to me is that שְׁכֶם אֶחָד means "one portion"; it is from the same family of usage as "upon their shoulders" (שִׁכְמָם, Exodus 12:34) and "to serve Him with one accord" (שְׁכֶם אֶחָד, Zephaniah 3:9). "Above your brothers" — in addition to your brothers' share. The meaning of "which I took" is: which Israel shall take with their sword and their bow. He mentions the Amorite because there is none among the seven nations as strong as he; witness that even after the two great Amorite kings were slain, Joshua said (7:7): "to deliver us into the hand of the Amorite." Do not wonder at the word "I took," for once Hashem promised it to Abraham by word, they regard it as already theirs. Similarly it was said to Jacob: "To you I will give it, and to your descendants" (Genesis 28:13).
Sforno
ואני נתתי לך, Yaakov emphasises the word אני in order to explain that he was not violating any of the rules pertaining to the distribution of the land of Canaan to the tribes, seeing such a distribution was not yet something at hand, but was still in the realm of the potential. Seeing that he, Yaakov, had personally conquered the city of Shechem, in spite of this city being part of the land of Canaan, seeing that he had taken it from the “Emorite,” i.e. someone whose deeds were as evil as those of the Emorite, (although the inhabitants had been Hittites), what he was allocating to Joseph now was an actual, a gift bestowed by him now, and had no bearing on any distribution of land conquered by Joshua in the future. Yaakov hints that givers who promise a lot wind up actually not even keeping part of their promises, such as Esau. When Yaakov, at the time, had bought the birthright from Esau, Esau forfeited not only his additional share in the land as a firstborn but wound up without any share in the land of Canaan whatsoever. בחרבי ובקשתי, through my intelligence and insight (חכמה ובינה). Whereas the weapons of warriors are the sword and the bow, the equivalent weapons of the righteous, the scholars, are their wisdom and understanding. This is what Psalms 45,4 has in mind when the author writes: חגור חרבך על ירך גבור. Our sages in Shabbat 63 already commented on this verse that the psalmist does not refer to actual weapons but to the use of words of Torah as being the tools used by the Torah scholar. [The interpretation of this verse as something allegorical, and almost diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the text, is disputed by some scholars in the Talmud there. Ed.]
Chizkuni
שכם אחד, “one portion;” the letter א in the word אחד is vocalised with the vowel patach. (as if it were in the construct mode) אשר לקחתי, “which I have taken;” he meant that he would take this (accept this) in the days of Joshua when the tribes would receive their shares of the Holy Land. In those days all of this would be conquered with the sword and the bow and arrow. The use by Yaakov of the past tense here is parallel to the use of the past tense concerning the money for the purchase price of the cave of Machpelah, when Avraham had said: נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have already given the money for the field, accept it from me.” (Genesis 23,13) Just as Avraham at the time was certain that Efron would finalise the negotiation, so Yaakov was certain that G-d would keep His promises concerning the Israelites receiving their ancestral land in due course. The reason why Yaakov singled out the Emorite and no other Canaanite tribe is that this was by far the strongest of the Canaanite tribes. We find proof of this in Amos 2,9: ואנכי השמדתי את האמורי מפניהם אשר כגובה ארזים גבהו וחסון הוא כאלונים, “yet I destroyed the Emorite before them, whose stature was like that of the cedars amongst the trees and who was as stout as oak trees.”Another interpretation: when Yaakov speaks of “my sword and my bow,” he quotes G-d, just as we have the line said by Moses in Deuteronomy 33,29: בה' מגן עזרך ואשר חרב גאותך, “by G-d your protecting shield, your sword is triumphant.”Rashi here understands our verse as Yaakov referring to the surrounding tribes making a joint effort to avenge the male inhabitants of Sh’chem whom Shimon and Levi had killed, as abstaining from their intention, i.e. “they did not pursue the sons of Yaakov.” (Genesis 35,5)
Rabbeinu Bahya
שכם אחד על אחיך, “one portion more than to your brothers.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yaakov told Joseph that he had already apportioned the one piece of land which was specifically his to apportion to Joseph. This was the portion which according to Jewish law is the extra portion belonging to the first-born. Seeing Yaakov personally had wrested the town of Shechem from the Emorite by fighting when attacked by the Emorite, he was personally entitled to it as spoils of war. This fact enabled him to apportion two parts to the sons of Joseph and to appoint princes from each without depriving any of Joseph’s brothers of their rightful share or even diminishing their shares. The words מיד האמורי, “from the hands of the Emorite,” may be understood as if he had said מיד הכנעני, “from the Canaanite.” The reason Yaakov mentioned the Emorite was because of all the Cannanite tribes the Emorite was the most powerful and the most aggressive. What did Yaakov mean when he described himself as having taken that city בחרבי ובקשתי, ”with my sword and with my bow?” Did he really mean that he personally had been involved in a battle for the town of Shechem? Yaakov meant that when the time would come for the Jewish people to inherit the land of Canaan this would be preceded by physical warfare. Our verse is an allusion to Joshua 11, 19-20 that “there was not a city that had made peace terms with the Israelites; all were taken in battle. For it was the Lord’s doing to stiffen their hearts to give battle to Israel, in order they might be proscribed without quarter and wiped out, as the Lord had commanded to Moses.” [The only exception were the Gibeonites who misrepresented themselves as not being Canaanites and tricked the Israelites into making a covenant with them]. Actually, you would have expected Yaakov to say: בחרב וקשת, “with sword and bow,” instead of “with my sword and my bow.” The reason Yaakov represented the sword and bow he spoke of as being his very own was that he claimed that success of the Israelites in battle was due to his merit. Compare Psalms 44,4: “it was not by their sword that they took the land, their arm did not give them victory, but Your right hand, Your arm, and Your goodwill for You favoured them.” The psalmist attributes the success of the Israelites’ arms to the merit of the patriarchs. The word “Your goodwill” is a reference to Yaakov. The words “Your right hand” are a reference to Avraham, and the words “Your arm” are a reference to Yitzchak. The facial features of Yaakov are engraved on G’d’s throne. Onkelos translates the word בחרבי as בצלותי, “with my prayer,” and the word בקשתי as ובבעותי “with my entreaty.” We could read the word bekashti as bakashati, “my request,” changing only the vowel pattern. From a defensive point of view, prayer and entreaty may be viewed as viable alternatives to sword and bow. It is also possible that the word בחרבי is a veiled reference to Torah, i.e. the merit of having studied Torah. The patriarchs had not only studied but also observed even minutiae of the Torah precepts. They had divined by means of their intellect what G’d would require of the Jewish people when He would give them the Torah in due course. Our sages also interpreted Yaakov’s words when he sent a message to his brother Esau as informing him that he had observed the 613 commandments of the Torah while employed by Lavan. The words he used (Genesis 32,5) to hint at this were עם לבן ג-ר-ת-י, the word גרתי having a numerical value and the same letters as 613. We find that the Torah is compared by our sages to a two-edged sword in the hands of those who study it and practice it in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 1,16 (compare Psalms 149 6). A two edged sword cuts with both edges. The Ten Commandments, i.e. the Tablets, are also described by the Torah as being two-edged, i.e. as having been engraved from either side (Exodus 32,15). Nachmanides writes as follows: It is very likely that Yaakov acted similarly to the prophets. He aimed his sword in the direction of the Emorites and sprayed arrows in that direction so that he land was conquered before him. Elisha did something like this as reported in Kings II 13,16-17. He said to the King of Israel: “grasp the bow!” When the King had grasped the bow, Elisha put his hands over the King’s hands and said to him: “open the window toward the east.” When the King had opened the window Elisha said: “shoot!” and he shot. Then Elisha said: “an arrow of victory for the Lord.” The report goes on suggesting that if only the King had carried out all of Elisha’s instructions his symbolic actions alone would have secured victory over Aram for him. Yaakov referred to his own symbolic actions with sword and bow which had resulted in the Emorites’ defeat. The words אשר לקחתי, “which I captured,” may be a reference to the birthright Yaakov secured for himself from Esau who was the original Emorite, i.e. who acted as did the Emorites. Alternatively, Esau was compared to the Emorites as he also hunted, using his mouth as his weapon in setting traps for his father. When Yaakov said: “I have given it (Shechem) to you,” he meant that seeing he had come by it by his own merit he was entitled to give it to whomever he wanted. A Midrashic interpretation (compare Rashi) does not see in Yaakov’s assertion the right to apportion the birthright he had himself bought from Esau to Joseph, but sees in it a reference to the actual town of Shechem. Yaakov said to Joseph: ”since I put you to the trouble to bury me in the cave of Machpelah, I for my part have assigned the city of Shechem to be the place where you will be buried.” This accounts for Joshua 24,32 writing “and the remains of Joseph whom the children of Israel had taken up from Egypt they buried in Shechem.”
Tur HaArokh
ואני נתתי לך שכם אחד על אחיך, “and I have allocated to you one additional portion in excess of that of your brothers;” this was a reference to the birthright. Joseph became the official firstborn of Yaakov, and that is why his two children each received a share of the holy Land, just as Yaakov’s own sons. According to Rashi, Yaakov referred to the birthright that he had purchased at the time from his brother Esau, as a result of which, he, Yaakov, was entitled to an extra share in the inheritance from his father Yitzchok. I must confess that I do not understand Rashi’s words here. Yaakov did not give Joseph the birthright he had taken away from Esau, but he gave him the birthright he had taken away from Reuven, as is spelled out when he blessed the other sons, and when referring to Reuven, (49,4) that Reuven had desecrated him when he entered his bed-chamber.claiming it as his abode. The birthright had been transferred from Reuven to Joseph as penalty for the act of desecrating his father. Furthermore, how would the fact that Yaakov had personally taken the city of Shechem from the Emorite have any bearing on his deal with Esau that acquired Esau’s birthright for him? He had been forced to justify giving this extra portion of land to Joseph by making reference to the fact that it had not come to be his through inheritance passed on, but through personal acquisition when he had risked his life for it in war. Nachmanides explains the words אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי, in this paragraph as meaning that the words refer to the time when the land of Israel would be conquered by the sword. Yaakov, already now, tells Joseph that his sons, i.e. the tribes of Menashe and Ephrayim, who would be in the forefront, especially Machir ben Menashe, as we know from Numbers 32, 33-42. According to Nachmanides the promise of בקשתי ובחרבי would be fulfilled in the future when the tribe of Menashe would conquer distant parts of the east bank of the Jordan, such as Gilead, etc, as described at the end of Parshat Mattot. The reference to these weapons were only allusions to the fact that actual fighting would have to take place to secure the land of Canaan as the homeland of the Jewish people for all times. חרב and קשת, sword and bow, are presumed to be symbolical references to the battles against Sichon and Og, both kings of the Emorite tribe. These battles were the fiercest of the conquest of the land of Israel, although they were fought for land on the east bank of the river Jordan. Joshua 11,19 himself testified that not a single city in the land of Canaan made a peaceful surrender to the Jewish army in order to emigrate and save their lives. When Yaakov used the expression לקחתי, “I have taken,” he refers to his moral and legal right to engage in that battle against a people who -according to United Nations statutes- had been rightful owners of the land they dwelt on. Yaakov may very well have done what a number of prophets did when they wanted to make similar points regarding the legality of Israelite expansionary wars. They took arms symbolically, and shot them at imaginary targets, to explain to the king that what they had done symbolically, it was up to the king to do in practice.(compare Kings II 13,16-17).
Onkelos
Rashi
Ibn Ezra
Or HaChaim
Chizkuni