Genesis · Chapter 49

And Jacob called his sons and said: Gather together, and I will tell you what will befall you at the end of days.

ואגידה לכם THAT I MAY TELL YOU — He wished to reveal to them the end of Israel’s exile but the Shechinah departed from him and he began to speak of other things (Genesis Rabbah 98:2).

IN THE END OF DAYS. These are the days of the Messiah, for Jacob alludes to him in his words, even as he said, Until Shiloh come, and his be the obedience of peoples. here. Now our Rabbis have said that Jacob wished to reveal the end of Israel’s exile, but the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) departed from him. Thus in the opinion of all scholars, the end of days is a reference to the days of the Messiah.

"That which shall befall you" — the prophet spoke of the future. Those who say these are blessings are mistaken, for though they found at the end "and he blessed them," where is the blessing of Reuben, Simeon, and Levi? Rather, by way of prophecy he said: "And this is what their father spoke to them." Afterward he blessed them, but Scripture did not record the blessings.

באחרית הימים, at the end of the period allocated to life on earth as we know it. Yaakov speaks of the arrival of the Messiah which will signify the end of the existence of the nations that oppose G’d and the Kingdom of G’d on earth. At that time the measure of sin that these nations accumulate will be full to overflowing, so that G’d will feel at liberty to bring about the appropriate retribution. [the concept is as old as Avraham, to whom G’d explained that realisation of his offspring disinheriting the Canaanites will have to await the time when the measure of sin of these people will be full. (Genesis 15,16). Ed.] Our author, drawing on various prophecies of the Books of Prophets to support his interpretation of באחרית הימים, “the end of days,” quotes Jeremiah 46,28: “for I will make an end to all the nations among which I have banished you; but I will not make an end of you!” He also quotes Bileam’s prophecy in Numbers 24,14 detailed in verse 17, in which he prophesies the doom befalling all the nations pre-eminent in his time and describes Israel as triumphant at that time. He adds that his prophecy is not one the fulfillment of which is imminent, but that much time will elapse before it will be realised. Similar prophecies are not only found in Michah 4,1 but even in our chapter when blessing Yehudah in verse 10, Yaakov speaks of the time frame he has in mind as the one when Shiloh will arrive, the one to whom nations will pay homage.

אשר יקרא אתכם, “what is going to happen to you;” here Yaakov intends to foretell the future; these were not meant to be blessings, as we do not find that he blessed Reuven, Shimon, and Levi. When the Torah writes in verse 28 of this chapter: וזאת אשר דבר להם אביהם, “and this is what their father had said to them,” (followed by “their father blessed them”) we have to understand that verse as follows: “this was what he foretold them.” The details of his blessing were not spelled out by the Torah. באחרית הימים, seeing that Yaakov did not say: ימים, “years,” but הימים, “the years,” it is clear that he spoke of years that we have already heard about. He referred to the 400 years which G-d had already revealed to his grandfather Avraham as the period his descendants would be strangers, and part of this time even slaves, in a country not their own.

ויקרא יעקב אל בניו, “Yaakov called in his sons.” According to a Midrash, Yaakov commenced his blessing from the point where Yitzchak had concluded blessing his son as it is written: “Yitzchak called Yaakov and blessed him” (Genesis 28,1). Moses in turn commenced his blessing (Deut. 33,1) from the point where Yaakov had left off. David in turn, at the commencement of the Book of Psalms, began with the words with which Moses had left off, i.e. אשרי האיש, “happy the man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked.” Moses had concluded (Deut. 33,29) his blessings of the Jewish people with the words: “happy Israel, who can compare to you?” Referring to this David said in Psalms 119,100 “I have gained more understanding than my elders.” באחרית הימים, “in the End of Days.” The time Yaakov referred to is the messianic age. It was quite appropriate that he should tell his sons matters dealing with the redemption from Egypt rather than matters dealing with the redemption in a distant future. How could he have preferred to concentrate on matters far distant instead of revealing some of what was relatively close at hand? We surmise that perhaps he had already given his sons allusions of the redemption from Egypt when he told them in 48,21 “and the Lord will be with you and He will bring you back to the land of your fathers.” After all, had it not been for the incident with the spies the redemption at the time of the Exodus would have resulted in Israel immediately taking possession of the land of Canaan. Seeing that he had alluded to the Exodus in the previous verse, it was quite normal that at this point Yaakov would want to reveal something about a final redemption. After all, both redemptions have this in common that the Jewish people would emerge from a very terrible exile. Besides, we have it on the authority of our prophets that the final redemption will parallel the redemption from Egypt in many respects. The principal difference will be that the final redemption will result in mankind acquiring a far greater knowledge of G’d and His attributes. When you examine Yaakov’s introduction you will note that he was going to concentrate on two assemblies i.e. he said האספו והקבצו, “assemble yourselves,” and in the next verse “gather yourselves.” The first expression האספו referred to the exiled people of the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Yehudah respectively, just as mentioned in Isaiah 11,12 “and assemble the banished of Israel and gather the dispersed of Yehudah.” Isaiah 56,8 also speaks of G’d “gathering in the dispersed of Israel.” This indicates that there will be two redemptions after Isaiah’s time. It most likely refers to the redemption of the ten tribes in a separate redemption after the tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin have been redeemed first. The only time all of the tribes were redeemed simultaneously was at the Exodus from Egypt. The next time this will happen would be the final redemption. This is why the prophet (Isaiah 11,11) says “in that day My Lord will again apply His hand to acquire the other part of His people who have been left over.” Seeing that at the redemption from Babylon only 42. Israelites were redeemed the prophecy could not apply to that redemption. This is why the verse in Isaiah refers to a “second” redemption.

Gather yourselves and I will tell you… And afterward he mentions the language of assembling: Assemble and listen… According to our Sages (see Pesachim 56a), Jacob wished to reveal the End of Days but it was concealed from him. Now, the term “gathering” [asifah] applies to one who stands outside in an exposed place and is gathered into the house to a private place, as in you shall gather him into your house (Deuteronomy 22:2) and no one takes me into his house (Judges 19:18), and many similar instances. However, the term “assembling” [kibbutz] indicates scattered people coming together in one place, even if it’s an exposed location where many pass through. Similarly, at first Jacob wished to reveal the secret of the End of Days, and it is not appropriate to reveal secret matters in public lest someone unworthy hear, for the secret of the Lord is for those who fear Him specifically. Therefore, he said gather yourselves [he’asfu] and I will tell you what will befall you in the End of Days, but immediately he sensed that the End was concealed from him. Thus, he changed from the language of “gathering” and said assemble [hikavtzu], sons of Jacob to hear matters that contained no secrets and could be spoken of publicly. He mentioned “listen” twice because to some he was speaking words of rebuke and reproof, as to Reuben, Simeon, and Levi — regarding this he said listen, sons of Jacob. To others he was telling future events — regarding this he said listen to Israel your father, for the telling of future events depends on Divine Spirit, which is associated with the name Israel, as this is a spiritual name. This is a precious interpretation.

אשר יקרא אתכם באחרית הימים, “what will happen to you in the latter days.” At this point Yaakov wanted to reveal to his sons details about the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people, but this vision was withheld from him by G’d, so that he had to make do with allusions to earlier events, although he managed to insert hints of what was to happen still later. The words עד כי יבא שילה, are proof of this.

Gather together and hear, O sons of Jacob, and receive instruction from Israel your father.

ושמעו אל ישראל אביכם, preserve the teachings Israel taught throughout his life. When you do that you will be entitled to call yourselves בני ישראל, “The Children of Israel.” He, on the other hand, will be proud to call himself “your father.” It means that you as well as I have contended successfully when facing challenges set for you by G’d and by man. As a result, you will not forfeit the good G’d has in store for you.

הקבצו ושמעו, “assemble and listen!” Yaakov refers to both of his names when addressing his children. He speaks of “Yaakov” when referring to his בנים, children, as at the time when his sons were still children he had not yet been given the name “Yisrael.” When he refers to himself as simply “your father,” he uses his name “Yisrael.” It is also possible to understand the words אביכם ישראל as a reference to “your Heavenly father O Israel.” In that event Yaakov introduces his blessings by exhorting his sons to remain loyal to G’d, who is known in Rabbinic terms as ישראל סבא, “grandfather (of) Israel.” This would account for the repetition of the names Yaakov and Yisrael respectively in these two verses. I have found some support for this theory in Bereshit Rabbah (Vilna edition under the heading שיטה חדשה לברכת יעקב),”on the first of Yaakov’s blessings.” The Midrash says that what occurred at this stage in Yaakov’s life may be compared to the following parable. A king had a trusted servant and was in the habit of leaving everything in that servant’s care. When the servant was about to die he called in his sons in order to make free men out of them, and to tell them where they could find the documents proving that they were free men. When the servant suddenly noted that the King was observing what he was about to do, he did an about-turn by asking his sons to serve the King all their lives just as he himself had served him all his life. Yaakov experienced something similar. First he wanted to reveal to his sons the end of their exile, when and how they would be redeemed. When he noted that G’d looked at the matter he was going to do with disfavour, he switched gears and exhorted his sons to remain loyal to G‘d throughout their lives just as he had been i.e. האלו-הים אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו, “the Lord before Whom my fathers have walked.” G’d had expressed concern that whereas Yaakov had called upon his sons, he had not called upon Him. This is what the prophet (Isaiah 43,22) referred to when he said: “upon Me you did not call O Yaakov!” When Yaakov heard this he prostrated himself at the head of the bed and whispered “blessed be the name of His exalted Majesty forever more.”

Reuben, you are my firstborn, my strength, and the beginning of my might. You were worthy to receive three portions: the birthright, the priesthood, and the kingship.

וראשית אוני THE BEGINNING OF MY VIGOR — That is the first drop [of semen], as he had not experienced a seminal emission from all of his days [until that time] (Genesis Rabbah 98:4). אוני means MY VIGOR, as (Hosea 12:9) “I have gained me (און) strength”; (Isaiah 40:26) “by the greatness of His (אונים) might”; (Isaiah 5:29) “and to him that hath no (אונים) might Ho increaseth strength”. יתר שאת SUPERIORITY IN DIGNITY — Since you were the first-born it was proper that you should be superior to your brothers by being endowed with the priesthood. This term שאת “lifting up” alludes to the נשיאות כפים the raising of the hands when the priests pronounce the benediction (cf. Onkelos). ויתר עז SUPERIORITY IN POWER — meaning in royal rank, as is meant by עז in (1 Samuel 2:10) “And he will give strength (עז) unto His king”. And what caused you to lose all these?

REUBEN MY FIRSTBORN THOU ART. Ramban will transpose the order of the words for the purpose of deriving the meaning of the verse. The sequence of this verse is, “Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the first-fruits of my strength, the excellence of majesty, and the excellence of power,” and its purport is as follows: “You are the first-born of my might and the first-fruits of my strength when I was the excellence of majesty (se’eith) and position” — the expression being similar to that found in the verses: Shall not his excellency (‘se’eitho’) make you afraid? When he raiseth himself up (‘mise’eitho’) the mighty are afraid, ‘mise’eitho’ meaning ascendancy and power — “and when I was at the height of strength (oz) for war” — the expression being similar to that found in the verses: And He will give strength (‘oz’) unto His king; And the strength (‘ve’izuz’) of battle.

"Reuben, my firstborn, you are my strength" — in you my power was first made manifest. The firstborn is called "the beginning of strength" (אוֹן); similarly, "the firstfruits of his strength" (Ps. 78:51). "Exceeding in dignity" — you were worthy of pre-eminence over all, to be exalted. "And exceeding in power" — this is a doubling of meaning, as is the way of all prophecy; and the meaning of עֹז is "mighty."

יתר שאת ויתר עז, פחז כמים אל תותר; you are as unstable as water; you will therefore not enjoy an advantage over your brothers, the advantage which would have consisted of יתר שאת, enhanced social position and the entitlement to the firstborn’s extra share in the inheritance as well as the status of priesthood. Even though you are biologically, ראשית אוני, and as such would have been entitled to privileges involving an extra share in my inheritance, (based on Deuteronomy 21,17) as well as יתר עז enhanced political clout by supplying the kings of the Jewish nation from your tribe, you have forfeited all this by having displayed character weakness. (compare Chronicles II 21,3 where the claim to the throne by Yehoram was based on his being the firstborn).

ראובן בכרי אתה, "Reuben, you are my firstborn, etc.," What news did Jacob convey to us with this statement? What did Jacob mean when he described Reuben as "my strength and the first of my vigor?" Although Bereshit Rabbah 98,4 mentions that Jacob meant to say that whereas he had not emitted a drop of semen until he married at 84 years of age, Reuben had not been able to contain himself, we still need to know why Jacob mentioned this at this time. Furthermore, why did he appear to repeat himself by describing Reuben as 1) "my strength," and 2) "the first of my vigor?" Another difficulty in this verse is the expression יתר שאת ויתר עז. Whereas the Midrash we have just referred to understands the word שאת as a reference to the Priesthood whereas the word עז is a reference to Royalty, we need to know why Jacob did not mention that as a firstborn Reuben was entitled to two portions in the inheritance seeing that he did dwell on details of the birthright. Onkelos does refer to this by saying that Jacob meant that Reuben should have been entitled to three shares of the inheritance. Another enigmatic statement in this verse (4) is the expression פחז כמים אל־תותר, "unstable as water, you have lost your advantage;" Rashi comments that Reuben lost his advantage as a firstborn because of his instability, the instability being that he defiled Jacob's bed in the incident with Bilhah (35,22). This still does not tell us why Jacob could not have merely said אל תותר, without describing Reuben as פחז כמים. After all, Reuben's instability was only an additional way of describing his sin. All we needed to know to justify that Reuben was deprived of his privileges as the firstborn was the fact that he had committed a sin against his father. Why did Jacob phrase Reuben's sin in the plural, i.e. "your father's beds?" Why did Jacob create the impression that Reuben had committed two wrongs when he said: אז חללת, "at that time you defiled," as if Reuben had also defiled his bed at a different time? It gives the impression that the defilement Jacob speaks about did not occur at the time Reuben mounted his father's bed. If that is so we are entitled to know what precisely Jacob is talking about. On the other hand, if mounting his father's bed was defiling it he should have said so in unmistakable terms. Before commencing to explain these verses we need to understand why Jacob did not honour the Torah's commandment of not showing preference (in terms of inheritance) to the firstborn son of the wife he loved when the true firstborn was the son of the wife he hated (Deut. 21,16)? Jacob treated Joseph the firstborn son of his beloved wife Rachel, as entitled to the privileges that are accorded to the son of the wife he hated when the latter had been born earlier. The question also arises whether the patriarchs were obligated to accept the norms of the Torah, seeing that the Torah did not become the law of Israel until the revelation at Mount Sinai. After all, we find that Jacob married two sisters while both were alive, something that contravenes Torah law. Abraham too did not perform circumcision on himself until he was advanced in years whereas Torah law stipulates circumcision on the eighth day or as soon as possible thereafter. We can find numerous other instances of the patriarchs not acting in accordance with Torah law. In view of the two examples we have quoted about the patriarchs not complying with what became Torah law thereafter, the whole question of why Jacob treated Joseph as his firstborn seems irrelevant. I have found that Nachmanides (Genesis 26,5) explains that the reason Jacob did marry two sisters while both were alive was that he was not in the Holy Land at the time. His words do not sound convincing. Who told Jacob that Torah legislation applied only within the boundaries of ארץ ישראל? The fact is that the commandments which the patriarchs did not observe apply equally in ארץ ישראל and outside it. I believe that the patriarchs received the Torah from Shem who in turn had received it from Noach; Noach had received it from Chanoch who had received it from Adam himself. Adam, of course, had received the Torah from G'd. This is based on Job 28,27: "Then He saw and told, etc.,…and He said to Adam." Zohar 1,199 attributes the revelation of Torah laws to Adam as the basis of G'd instructing him how to work and preserve the גן עדן. I have explained this in connection with Genesis 2,15. At that time Adam (and the patriarchs subsequently) were only commanded seven laws on pain of death. These laws are the ones commonly known as the Noachide laws, those applicable to mankind as a whole. All the other commandments which G'd revealed to Adam had only one purpose, namely to enable man to accumulate reward if he observed them. If he failed to observe those laws he was not liable to punishment. This situation continued until G'd revealed Himself to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. The patriarchs made a point of observing all these commandments as an expression of their love for G'd. This is what G'd had told Isaac in Genesis 26,5. Yuma 28 states that Abraham not only observed all the commandments of the Torah but even such Rabbinic ordinances as Eyruv Tavshilim. No doubt Abraham instructed his children in these matters as he wanted them to qualify for the reward in store for those who observed all these commandments. Whenever the patriarchs observed that by not observing one of these commandments they would achieve something important immediately, they decided to opt for the immediate benefit. This is what happened when Jacob decided to marry Rachel in addition to Leah. He wanted to have children by Rachel, i.e. that at least some of the tribes should be her offspring. Jacob was especially entitled to do so since he was a prophet and acted in accordance with instructions received from G'd directly. We can understand this better when comparing what Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of his Hilchot Yesodey Torah. He states that if a properly accredited prophet instructs the Jewish people to violate one of the Torah's commandments on a temporary basis, he is to be obeyed. Maimonides quotes the incident when Elijah rebuilt a private altar and sacrificed on it on Mount Carmel as a case in point. The same applied to Jacob's having married two sisters. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,8, an angel exploited Yehudah's desire to have sexual intercourse by guiding him to Tamar, thereby ensuring that the kings who would come out of him had a matriarch who was both of suitable ancestry and of high moral calibre. At any rate, there are instances when it was obviously preferable not to apply the strictures that would become anchored in law at a later time in Jewish history. According to what we have said so far we must assume that the fact that Jacob used Reuben's misdeameanour to deprive him of the privileges which come with the birthright was quite legal, halachically speaking. Alternatively, Jacob had received instructions from G'd directly concerning this. We have all of this spelled out in Chronicles I 5,1 where the fact that Reuben was deprived of his birthright because he had mounted his father's bed is stated clearly, although it also states that though Ephrayim and Menashe became the new firstborns, they did not replace Reuben as the titular first-born. It is still not clear why the birthright was not given to Yehudah instead of to Joseph or any of the other older brothers. The Zohar on Vayishlach page 176 explains this. "At the time when Jacob slept with Leah (the first night of his marriage), he thought only about Rachel all the time since he was under the impression that he was sleeping with and impregnating Rachel. Restoring the birthright to Joseph was no more than an example of Jacob's original intention being fulfilled." Whereas this explained why Jacob gave the birthright to Joseph once he took it away from Reuben, why did the Torah have to mention that Reuben had defiled Jacob's bed? The birthright would have belonged to Joseph anyways. [I confess I have great difficulty with this Zohar because Leah was not impregnated on the first night of her marriage; when Reuben was conceived, eventually, Jacob was well aware that he was sleeping with Leah. If he had pined after Rachel knowing that he was sleeping with Leah this would have been most inappropriate. Ed.] In order to answer our problem we must remember that all the manifestations of spirituality in the world are divided into three categories. One category of spirituality is sacred, holy. A second category is secular; the third category of spirituality is evil. Each one of these categories produces "offsprings" corresponding to its nature. The category of holy spirituality produces offspring which is good, provides eternal bliss, and it strives for abstract intelligence, etc. The category of secular spirituality is characterised by its interest in the consumption of that which is aestethically pleasing, and that which provides enjoyment for the senses. The third category of spirituality is characterised by its interest in idolising every abomination. Its adherents commit every sin in the book. They steal, cheat, deceive, and consume mostly forbidden foods. They engage in illicit sex and indulge only in gratifying their lust, etc. These three categories between them comprise every human being, the good ones, the secular oriented ones, and the evil ones. Inasmuch as the Jewish people belong to the holy category of spirituality, G'd has commanded them not to taste i.e. absorb things which characterise evil, be it in the form of food or drink, speech or thought, or even perceptions that are of a visual, aural or of an olfactory nature. Prohibited foods (i.e. the sense of taste) comprise such things as eating living tissue, eating unclean animals, eating reptiles and insects or diseased animals, or even animals which died a natural death. Forbidden drink includes the consumption of wine designated for idolatrous purposes, wine made from grapes of vines which are less than four years old, etc. Forbidden speech includes lying, slander, coarse language, character assassination, etc. Forbidden thoughts include the study of idolatry with a view to practicing it, fantasies of an erotic nature, considering oneself superior to others, pride, etc. Forbidden use of one's vision include examining a woman's physical beauty, as elaborated on in the Zohar Kedoshim page 83. Forbidden sounds include listening to women sing, etc. Forbidden smells and fragrances include forbidden smells such as the incense offered in pagan rites. In all these matters there are secular as well as sacred elements. G'd decreed that it was mandatory to observe the sacred elements whereas it was permitted to take advantage of the secular elements. Whenever a person associates himself with one of either of these elements by making use of them, his soul forms some kind of attachment with the root underlying such element be it positive or negative. Seeing that this is so even a pure soul is subject to some degree of contamination when its owner gets involved in one of the secular elements. As a result, such a person (body as well as soul) will experience a process of afflictions either in this world or by the soul alone in the Hereafter to cleanse him of that contamination. This is the mystical dimension of the "laundry" mentioned in Shabbat 152 where the soiled souls are described as being handed over to the "washer" after death before they can take their seat at the king's table. During the period the "clothes" are being washed their owners are incarcerated. You should appreciate that once a forbidden category of spirituality has made contact with a person, that person's soul in turn develops a yearning for that particular category of the forbidden. The attraction between them is mutual. When a soul (personality) has become infected with the impurity represented by adultery, such a soul will begin to develop a yearning for this kind of impurity. The same holds true of all other categories of the forbidden. A person's desire to partake of evil increases in direct proportion to the quantity of evil he has absorbed and the frequency with which he has done so. On the other hand, a person's path to saintliness is similarly accelerated in proportion to the efforts he makes to distance himself from evil and to embrace only what is sacred and holy. The rule one must remember is that there is nothing in this world which does not contain elements of either negative or positive spirituality. Our only yardstick for knowing what contains negative spirituality is that which is forbidden by the Torah. In his volume Sefer Hayashar chapter 9, Rabbeynu Tam writes that when examining a number of personalities (נפש) as to their inherent tendencies, one will find that some people have absolutely no inclinations to commit adultery whereas others have. The difference is accounted for by the owners of these respective personalities having absorbed negative spirituality. Once a sufficient amount of such evil has been absorbed it is almost impossible for that personality to hate evil sufficiently for that hatred to be of assistance in combating evil tendencies. This is the mystical dimension of what we are taught in Sukkah 52 that man possesses a relatively small organ (male organ) whose demands grow in proportion to the freedom one grants it to satisfy its desire and which becomes progressively more satiated in proportion to the frequency with which it is denied its desire. There are people who display a strong tendency towards evil, a tendency which intensifies as they grow up, whereas others can control their evil urges with ease and are able to repent and find their way back to innocence with relative ease. Such tendencies are the result of the composition of their respective life-force at the time of conception. The holy thoughts and aspirations of the parents at the time of marital intercourse determine to a large degree the natural tendencies which we will observe in their offspring. If a parent concentrated on physical gratification at the time he engaged in procreation, he cannot be surprised if he transmitted tendencies of the desire to fulfil himself sexually to his offspring. If at the time the father indulged in marital relations with his wife he fantasized about some other woman's body, he cannot be surprised if his offspring develops adulterous or promiscuous tendencies. [This concept is not dissimilar to present-day theories about the genetic material injected into the sperm determining the quality of the body. In this case we speak about "moral" genetical material. Ed.] We have an interesting story about this in the Eyn Yaakov on Berachot 10. King Chiskiyah had failed to marry having seen with his mental eye that his offspring would not be worthy. He fell sick, and Isaiah told him to make his last will and testament as he was going to die. When he challenged the prophet why death at such an early age had been decreed upon him the prophet accused him of failing to fulfil the first commandment of the Torah, to procreate. He did not accept Chiskiyah's reason for not marrying and told him that the worthiness of his children was G'd's concern, whereas his only concern should have been to keep G'd's commandment. In the course of the conversation Chiskiyah suggested to Isaiah that he should give him his daughter in marriage and that perhaps their combined merits would suffice to produce worthy children. After refusing initially, Isaiah agreed in the end. The result was that Chiskiyah produced two idol-worshipping sons Menashe and Ravshakeh. Menashe and Ravshakeh may have been born with idolatrous tendencies due to thoughts which their father had entertained at the time he begat them. If one observes a person who has always conducted himself in the most pious manner commit an obvious sin, one must assume that he was not aware that he committed such a sin. Our argument that the various manifestations of spirituality we encounter contain both positive and negative elements is best proven by the tree of knowledge. The fact that G'd planted that tree within גן עדן is proof that it contained positive elements. G'd's garden is certainly not a place in which He had planted evil incarnate. Bereshit Rabbah 21, claims that if only Adam had waited till nightfall before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge he could have used the juice to proclaim the sanctification of the Sabbath with it. [I have not found this in the section of the Midrash quoted. I presume this is based on the prohibition applying only "on the day you eat from it," as opposed to "the night you eat from it," etc. Ed.] This is in accordance with the view expressed in Sanhedrin 70 that the tree of knowledge was the grapevine. In view of all the above you are bound to ask how it was possible that sainted patriarchs such as Abraham and Isaac could have fathered such sons as Ishmael and Esau respectively? The answer is that they carried within themselves residual evil bequeathed to them by their forefather Terach who was an idol worshiper. When Abraham was born he contained elements of such tendencies. Abraham was able to suppress and isolate such tendencies by dint of his character; the residue of such suppressed tendencies resurfaced in Ishmael, however. Nonetheless Abraham was not yet totally free from the residual evil tendencies bequeathed to him by his father so that even Isaac was born with them. Isaac, in turn, suppressed them and isolated them by means of his enthusiastic pursuit of holiness. He was so successful in this regard that our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 63,8 state that Esau had to be born first so that by absorbing the residue of negative spiritual input remaining from earlier ancestors, Jacob could emerge free from such taint. Let us now examine what happened when Jacob married. Since he was born without negative spiritual residue, why did he produce a Reuben who demonstrated some negative traits? This could only have been due to Jacob's thoughts at the time he conceived Reuben not having been perfect. Jacob's purity of thought and his deed were not perfectly matched at that moment. Our sages in Nedarim 20 list nine categories of children who are spiritually defective from the time of their conception; one of these categories is the child of a man who has two wives and who at the time of marital relations believed that he was in bed with his other wife. Although Jacob's situation was different in that he had every reason to believe that he was in bed with Rachel, the objective fact was that he did not have the correct thoughts at the time. This is proven by the fact that Reuben later became guilty of a misdemeanour involving his father's bed, something that not one of the other eleven sons of Jacob ever became guilty of. Even Joseph who was exposed to sexual harassment of a very intense nature did not succumb. While it is true that the Talmud in Shabbat 55 states that if someone accuses Reuben of having committed a transgression such a person is in error, this referred merely to the legal aspect of the matter, not to its moral implications. As to Yehudah sleeping with Tamar- something which suggests something less than 100% chaste behaviour by a son of Jacob- there are two answers. 1) First of all, he had no idea that she was his daughter-in-law; 2) the fact that an angel arranged things in such a way that he was actually acting under some kind of duress as explained by our sages in Makkot 23 on Genesis 38,26. The word ממני in that verse is understood by our sages as referring to a heavenly voice which claimed that the whole incident had been engineered by heaven. Since we do not have an allusion to such heavenly intervention in the case of Reuben, we are entitled to blame him for his act. I have seen a comment by the outstanding scholar Rabbi Yehudah Rosenis in his volume Parshat D'rachim in which he comes to the defence of Reuben claiming that the status of Bilhah was that of a woman who had been seduced by his father Jacob, something he derives from her description as "his father's concubine." This means that Bilhah had never been betrothed to Jacob; l cannot agree with this. I am convinced that Jacob acquired Bilhah by betrothing her to him in the traditional manner as l have explained at the appropriate place (Genesis 30,3). As to the term "concubine" used by the Torah in 35,22, perhaps that was what Reuben thought. He was in error, however, and that may have accounted for his conduct. Alternatively, the Torah hinted at the reason that Reuben disturbed his father's bed. He argued that not only had Jacob down-graded his mother Leah during Rachel's lifetime, the fact that he slept primarily in Bilhah's tent now that Rachel was dead was an even greater insult to his mother. Her place had now been usurped by a mere concubine. The facts of the matter are that Bilhah had always been a proper wife of Jacob; this is why the Torah describes Reuben's action as equivalent to having slept with one of Jacob's wives. Having said all this we understand the words of the Zohar according to which the cause of the problem was that Jacob had thought of fathering his firstborn son Joseph at the time he was sleeping with Leah. This is precisely what Ezra had in mind when he described Reuben's losing his birthright in the Book of Chronicles I 5,1. Had Jacob been thinking of Leah at the time he slept with her, Reuben would never have been capable of the deed ascribed to him. We are now able to explain the various verses beautifully. When Jacob was about to deprive Reuben of his birthright he was poignantly aware that if one of his sons had displayed such a moral weakness he had to look for the source of that weakness in something he himself had been guilty of. The cause was, as we explained, that the father had bequeathed to his son some spiritual values be they positive or negative. Inasmuch as Reuben's sin consisted of a sexual aberration, Jacob was anxious to distance himself from the accusation that he was a contributory cause to Reuben's behaviour. He was afraid that in his heart Reuben would accuse his father of being the cause that he was capable of such a mistake. This is why he said first: "Reuben you are my firstborn." People who are guilty of adulterous behaviour fall into 3 categories. 1) They commit adultery and as a result father children who are morally inferior. 2) They commit adultery but do not cause their partner to become pregnant. Such intercourse can again be subdivided into several categories such as intercourse with a married woman which fortuitously does not result in that woman becoming pregnant. Alternatively, the adulterous male engages in intercourse with another male, or he ejaculates outside his female partner. Finally, he might commit the "act" only in an erotic dream at night, accidentally. 3) A person arouses himself by means of erotic thoughts. All of the afore-mentioned are degrees of actions which are abhorrent to G'd. Jacob referred to all three alternatives by saying to Reuben: "my firstborn," "my strength," "my vigor." When he said בכודי אתה, "you are my firstborn," he meant that he had not fathered any child prior to Reuben. Neither had he slept with a woman without benefit of betrothal and marriage certificate as this also would not have been appropriate. He then continued to say כחי, "my strength," meaning that he had not emitted sperm previous to that occasion. When he continued: ראשית אוני, "the first of my strength," he meant that he had never done anything that could be subsumed under any of the headings of adulterous behaviour we have listed. When Jacob said כחי וראשית אוני, he also hinted that Reuben was the result of the first drop of semen he had ever ejaculated. This is an indication that Jacob had not slept with a virgin, as a virgin could not have become pregnant from her first intercourse. Instead, Jacob had removed the hymen with his finger in order not to let a single drop of his semen go to waste deliberately. This was a further indication that his physical passion did not dominate him and that he did what he did as a sacred duty only. As a result, Reuben had absolutely no reason to blame Jacob's past conduct for any of his own shortcomings. Jacob told Reuben all this not in order to boast about his piety and self-control but in order to be sure that Reuben did not suspect him of being implicated in any way in his having defiled his father's bed. Jacob added the words יתר שאת ויתר עז as an allusion to the double portion of his father's inheritance that the firstborn is entitled to. Jacob had referred to this when he said: "you are my firstborn." On the other hand, there are other distinctions such as the priesthood and royalty which are not necessarily tied to being the firstborn. There are occasions when such honours are bestowed on people who are not firstborn. Reuben had also forfeited the chance to receive such honours. Jacob may also have been telling Reuben that the honours of priesthood and Royalty which he would have been entitled to more than any other firstborn and which far outweighed other hereditary advantages of the firstborn he had also forfeited by his behaviour. Up until this point Jacob dealt with the fact that he himself had not been at fault in the matter. From this point on Jacob proceeds to list the reasons that Reuben forfeited the privileges which come with being a firstborn. He deals with the distinctions Reuben has forfeited as well as with the roots of the mistake he committed.

וראשית אוני, “and the first product of my virility.” Even though we have a tradition that a woman never conceives as a result of the first time she has engaged in sexual intercourse, it is possible to achieve such conception by means of what is called: מעיכה, “squeezing,” in the Talmud tractate Yevamot, folio 34.[It is quite difficult to accept this interpretation as the Torah makes plain that Leah did not get pregnant from the first time she slept with Yaakov, seeing that in Genesis 29,31 it states clearly that G-d helped her get pregnant when He observed that Yaakov “hated” her. Clearly this was not before the first night. Ed.] כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת, “my might and first fruit of my virility, exceeding in rank;” Yaakov refers to what Reuven would have been entitled to, i.e. an extra share in the inheritance as a result of being the first born... The word אוני refers to financial strength. As in Hoseah 12,9: מצאתי און לי, “I have become rich!” The meaning of the word שאת is as in לשאת, “bearing,” self assured posture.

ראובן בכורי אתה, “Reuven you are my first-born.” As a first-born Reuven was entitled to three advantages over his younger brothers. He was entitled to all the privileges normally accruing to the first-born; he was entitled to be the family priest; and he was entitled to a position of authority including Royalty if and when his family would develop into a nation. He lost all three parts of what would have accrued to him by reason of his being the biological first-born due to his sin. He lost the ordinary privileges of being a first-born as Yaakov gave those privileges to Joseph. He lost the priesthood to Levi, and he lost his status as potential king of the Jewish people to Yehudah. This is the deeper meaning of Yaakov saying (verse 4) “water-like, impetuously-you cannot be foremost.” The expression פחז is used in that sense by our sages in Shabbat 88 where they quote a Gentile referring to the Israelites saying to G’d at Mount Sinai: “we shall do and we shall hear,“ ”you are still an impetuous nation referring with your mouth to matters your ears have not heard yet.” Yaakov referred to the priesthood when he said יתר שאת, “foremost in rank.” Yaakov referred to the eventual status of Royalty when he said יתר עז, “foremost in power.” The expression עז denoting such power is found in Samuel I 2,10 ויתן עז למלכו as well as in Psalms 99,4 ועז מלך משפט אהב, “Mighty king who loves justice.”

“Reuben, you are my firstborn, etc.” The Targum translates that you were meant to receive three portions: the birthright, the priesthood, and kingship. [The Targum] seeks to explain Reuben, you are my firstborn — you were worthy of the birthright because you are my strength and the first of my might. You were worthy of the priesthood, which is superior dignity, as the Temple service was originally performed by the firstborns. And you were worthy of kingship — superior power. However, unstable as water, you shall not excel, because a king establishes the land through justice, and every judge must be deliberate in matters of judgment. But you were hasty like water in all your matters, and pachaz [unstable] refers to hastiness. Therefore, you are not worthy to receive the advantage of kingship. And because you mounted your father’s bed, you are therefore not worthy of the priesthood, because the priesthood’s purpose is to cause the Divine Presence to dwell in the Temple, which is called “my heavenly Father’s bed,” as Rashi explains on the verse Behold, Solomon’s bed and on the verse he shall lie between my breasts (Song of Songs 1:13, 3:7). As our Sages said (Sanhedrin 7a), When our love was strong, we could lie on the edge of a sword… But you caused the removal of the Divine Presence through the incident with Bilhah, therefore you are not worthy of the priesthood. The word mishkavei [beds] is used in plural form because there will be three Temples in the future, in addition to the Tabernacle. “Then you defiled my bed that went up.” At that time, you also defiled my bed [lit. “my couch”], meaning my marital bed, so that I would not have any more children with her [Bilhah]. You did this out of greed for wealth, so that you would have a larger portion of the inheritance. This is also how Ramban explained it. Therefore, I am penalizing you regarding wealth by removing your right of the firstborn to take a double portion, and it will [instead] go to Joseph, who had a generous eye, who sustained his father and his brothers, as it is written When he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph (1 Chronicles 5:1). Superior in rank and superior in power. The commentators raised a difficulty that according to the plain meaning of the passage, Jacob did not bless Reuben at all, yet the verse states each according to his blessing he blessed them. I say that Jacob blessed him similar to Moses’s blessings, as it is said May Reuben live and not die, and may his population be counted (Deuteronomy 33:6). The Abarbanel explained that since Reuben was obligated to go at the forefront of the army into battle, and typically those who die in battle are the ones in front, therefore he blessed him May Reuben live and not die. It appears to me that he blessed him regarding strength and might, that he should be mighty in the land and give strength and power to the people, because those who go at the front of the army need to be mighty, and every mighty person is called a man of life, of many accomplishments, as opposed to the weak who is considered like dead. Therefore it says May Reuben live. And regarding what is said and may his population be counted, it seems to explain that victory over enemies through natural means depends on two things: either through having many people, or through having men of strength and might, and both together are good. Since Reuben caused Jacob to lose the Divine Presence, it is likely that his punishment would be measure for measure — that in his battles the Divine Presence would depart from him and he would need to wage wars through natural means. Therefore, he needed these two blessings: that his men should be mighty [regarding this it says May Reuben live and not die], and that they should also be numerous to the point of requiring counting, because a small nation is called “few in number” as their number is known to many, but a large nation needs to be counted. Regarding this it says may his population be counted, as the phrase may his population be indicates that they will be numerous and require counting. Thus Jacob blessed him with these two blessings and gave him “rank” and “power.” The “rank” refers to the numbers, which is essentially the blessing of may his population be counted and the “power” refers to strength and might, which is alluded to in the blessing May Reuben live and not die. And the matter of the counting is better explained according to Rashi’s interpretation of let his men be counted, meaning that he would be counted among the other tribes. And from the fact that it says his men, it implies that it speaks of many men who would be counted among Israel when all of Israel would be counted for whatever purpose. And Jacob said, “Behold, I give you the ‘elevation’ and ‘strength,’” for the ‘elevation’ refers to counting, as it is written When you elevate [take a census of] the head, Elevate the head, and similarly in every place the counting is mentioned in terms of ‘elevation.’ And Jacob said, “Although by law you were worthy of extra elevation and strength” — meaning that you should have had an advantage over all the tribes twofold, double in matters of elevation and strength, for it would have been fitting that your counted men should be twice as many as the others, and similarly ‘extra strength’ — it would have been appropriate to give you might and power more than all the tribes, to take a double portion in elevation and strength. However, because you were unstable like water in the sin with Bilhah, therefore you shall not have excess to have advantage over your brothers in elevation and strength. Nevertheless, I still give you the basic elevation and strength as a gift, because by law, the sin should have caused you to have no elevation and strength at all — you shouldn’t have even been equal to your brothers. Still, I give you my peaceful blessing that you shall have elevation and strength equal to your brothers, but you shall not have excess to take more than your brothers because of the sin that affects you. And we can interpret the matter of elevation to mean that he would be counted in the counting of the other tribes, as Rashi explained on The sons of Jacob were 12 (Genesis 35:23) and similarly in the verse let his men be counted, and it is all explained in the same way.

ראובן בכורי אתה, “Reuven you are my firstborn, etc.” Yaakov meant to imply that due to his being the biologically first born, he should normally have been accorded a preferential rank, as is customary for firstborns, such as being the family’s priest, as well as its leader in secular matters. However, on account of the unfortunate incident in Genesis 35,22, he had disqualified himself for such preferential treatment. When he demonstrated an inability to control his biological urges, something Yaakov compares to the unstoppable tendency of water to flow downhill, he proved unfit for the task normally allotted to firstborns in those days. An alternate explanation of the line בכורי אתה כחי וראשית אוני יתר שאת, is: “you were my firstborn as long as you were reminiscent of the first product of my virility. At that time you possessed the advantage known as יתר שאת, the word meaning the same as in Job 13,11 הלא שאתו תבעת אתכם, “will not his height terrify you, etc?” The expression ויתר עוז refers to superior physical power, such as is useful in battle. You possessed this advantage only as long as you fulfilled the function of the firstborn. Since this task has been transferred to Joseph, you no longer possess it, as elaborated on by Rashi. You forfeited your advantages.

Because you acted with presumption — behold, you are as water — but you did not profit. An additional portion you shall not receive. For you ascended the bed of your father; you then desecrated it. To my couch you ascended.

פחז כמים The impetuosity and the precipitance with which you so hastily showed your wrath, just like water that rushes headlong in its course — therefore אל תותר THOU SHALT NOT BE SUPERIOR— you will not receive all these many prerogatives that were proper to you. And what was this impetuosity which you displayed? כי עלית משכבי אביך, אז חללת BECAUSE THOU WENTEST UP TO THY FATHER S PLACE OF REPOSE; THEN PROFANEDST THOU Him Who hovered over my couch — the Name of the Shechina that used to abide above my couch (Shabbat 55b and Rashi there). פַּחַז is a noun (a segolate noun like נַחַל) and has its accent therefore on the first syllable, and the entire word (both syllables) is punctuated with Patach, for were it the past tense of a verb, half of it (the first syllable) would have been punctuated with Kametz and the other half with Patach, and its accent would have been on the last syllable. יצועי denotes a couch, because it is spread (root יצע) with mattresses and sheets; it occurs in this sense frequently in Scripture: (Psalms 132:3) “Nor go up into the bed that is spread for me (ערש יצועי)”; (Psalms 63:7) “When I remember thee upon my (יצועי) couch”.

UNSTABLE (‘PACHAZ’) AS WATER, YOU HAVE NOT THE EXCELLENCY. Pachaz is a noun, derived from the expression, Vain and reckless (‘upachazim’) fellows, meaning “hasty and impulsive people.” Our Rabbis have made steady use of this word: “I was looking at my image in the water and my evil inclination rose (pachaz) within me,” that is “my evil inclination leaped upon me” They said further: “It is their recklessness (apichzeihu) which they are revealing,” See Note 63 in my Hebrew commentary, p. 265. meaning their impulsiveness. “A reckless (p’chizah) people, who spoke before listening, you still retain your recklessness (‘b’pachzuteich’),” meaning “hasty and impulsive.” It is possible that this word pachaz is a permutation of the word chipazon (hurry). Jacob was thus saying: “Since you burst forth as water, you shall no longer excel for thou wentest up to thy father’s place of repose in thy haste and impulsiveness. Then didst thou profane them, Hence Ramban writes otham (them). when your recklessness ascended my couch like the rising and gushing water.” This is similar to the Scriptural description of water: Now, therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, mighty and many, even the king of Assyria and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks; and he shall sweep through Judah, overflowing as he passeth through. Our Rabbis have said: It is found here in Rashi in the form mentioned by Ramban. “Then didst thou profane He Who hovered over my couch, meaning the Shechinah” that used to abide above my [Jacob’s] couch. Yet the verse says, Forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled his father’s couch, This clearly shows that it was “the couch” which was defiled and not, as the comment of Rashi would have it, the Shechina. Ramban proceeds to answer that Scripture modifies the expression out of respect for the Divine Presence. thus clearly stating that it was the couch which was defiled! But perhaps [out of respect for the Divine Presence, Scripture] modifies the expression there. But if [we accept the explanation that Scripture modifies the expression], it is possible that the word alah (going up) refers to [Jacob, thus saying, “then didst thou profane my couch upon which I used to go up],” just as in the verse, Nor go up into the bed that is spread for me. Thus Jacob’s intent is to say: “Then thou didst defile me;” He spoke in the third person only as a matter of respect. Similarly, the verse, Forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, is a Scriptural modification, meaning “forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled the one who goes up e., Jacob. His name though is not mentioned directly, as a matter of respect. upon his father’s couch.”From the literal meaning of this verse it would appear as I have explained it in Seder Vayishlach, i.e., that it was Reuben’s intention to disqualify Bilhah from his father so that she should no longer give birth to children, thus lessening his share as the firstborn. It was for this reason that Jacob said to him that it was reckless and impulsive to think that he would gain thereby, whereas he had no profit from it but only loss.

"Unstable" — because you were unstable (פָּחַז) as water, "you shall not have pre-eminence" (אַל תּוֹתַר). The word תּוֹתַר should properly be vocalized with a shuruk on the vav. Others say: you alone were as poured-out water and retained nothing. But in my view the word אַל is found only in the context of a command; and though one finds "and in the path of the way she does not die" (Prov. 12:28), which is not a command — the meaning there is: do not seek pre-eminence, even if unstable as water. The form of תּוֹתַר follows the pattern of "remember the battle, do not add" (Job 40:32). The Gaon said: even something as empty as water — no pre-eminence shall be yours; and פָּחַז derives from "empty and wanton men" (Judg. 9:4). But פּוֹחֲזִים is not a transposition. "Then you defiled" — from the day you defiled my couch, it is as though it were taken away from me, as if he said "depart from me." You also find the word עָלָה in the sense of severing, as in: "Do not take me away in the midst of my days" (Ps. 102:25). This passage is made explicit in Chronicles: "Because he defiled his father's couch" (1 Chr. 5:1). It states there that Judah was the prince and the birthright went to Joseph. Some interpret "not to be reckoned in the genealogy for the birthright" (ibid.) as meaning that Reuben would still stand first in the count.

אז חללת יצועי עלה, at that time you defiled your father’s dignity. Alternatively, Yaakov may have referred to Reuven’s act being a desecration of G’d’s honour. As an appropriate punishment, Reuven’s own status, which had been one of special honour, would be diminished accordingly.

פחז במים, "Hasty, like water, etc." Jacob accused Reuben of acting with haste, not trying to control his emotions and urges, failing to vanquish the spark of evil which was rooted within him. As a result of that failure he would be deprived of the three distinctions we have described i.e. birthright, priesthood and royalty. When Jacob added אל תותר, he hinted that although Reuben had displayed haste in doing something which held no advantage for him, he had not displayed the same haste when it came to doing something useful, i.e. repenting his mistake. Our sages in Baba Kama 92 say that it was Yehudah who triggered Reuben's eventual repentance. Although Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 states that G'd complimented Reuben on being the first human being who had repented [without having been accused by anyone as yet, Ed.], Reuben had not uttered a confession of his sin until he had heard about Yehudah doing this during Tamar's trial. Perhaps Reuben's tardiness in confessing his mistake was the reason that royalty was conferred on the descendants of Yehudah instead. It was Yehudah's reward for being the cause that triggered the final stage in Reuben's repentance. Reuben may have lost the priesthood to the descendants of Levi as a result of later developments as mentioned in Deut. 33,8 לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה, "Be with Your faithful one whom You tested at Massah" (when that tribe did not complain). Regardless of when Levi qualified for the priesthood, Reuben forfeited his claim to it already during Jacob's time. The words אל תותר mean that Reuben was deprived of all his erstwhile advantages over his brothers. Jacob transferred one of his former distinctions to Joseph, a second one to Yehudah, and he left the third one pending until G'd eventually accorded it to part of the tribe of Levi. Jacob said כי עלית to explain how it was possible that a son of his could commit such an act. He hinted that at the time (the wedding night) his thoughts had been confused as he had been under the impression that he had married and was sleeping with Rachel. In other words, he had actually slept in two beds, physically he had shared Leah's bed, whereas mentally he had considered himself in bed with Rachel. This is the reason Jacob spoke about Reuben having mounted משכבי אביך, the beds (pl) of your father. This was the original cause of Reuben eventually becoming guilty of his misdemeanour. When Jacob added the word אז, then, he indicated that the true defilement took place then; the first time Reuben desecrated his father's bed was at the time he was conceived in the wrong womb, Leah's instead of Rachel's. Jacob's משכבים were desecrated at that time, whereas Reuben personally had defiled Jacob's יצוע when he mounted the bed in Bilhah's tent.

כי עלית, “when you mounted;” “you desecrated Him Who is present even when I have intimate relations with my wife.” Yaakov accuses Reuven that as of the day when he invaded his privacy, he no longer had marital relations with Bilhah. Furthermore, when you desecrated my couch, you desecrated yourself and removed the sanctity of the kingship and the first-born status from yourself. Thus Jacob transferred the first-born status to Joseph. There are commentators who explained that Jacob said all of this to his other sons so that they should not wonder why he spoke so harshly to Reuven who had sinned gravely. The word עלה occurs in the sense of “departing, withdrawing its presence,” also in Psalms 102,25: על תעלני בחצי ימי, “do not take me away in the midst of my days.”

כי עלית משכבי אביך, “because you mounted the couch of your father.” Yaakov revealed here that when the Torah wrote of Reuven that he “slept with Bilhah” (Genesis 38,22) that that verse is not to be taken literally, but that all he did was to disarrange the sheets on his father’s couch, compare Shabbat 55 where it is made clear that Yaakov criticised Reuven only for mounting the bed. This in itself was an act of desecration. According to the Talmud the words אז חללת... אביך must be understood as “then you desecrated your father (in heaven) whose Presence was associated with my bed.” Proof of the validity of this interpretation is the fact that Yaakov spoke of משכבי אביך, “your father’s beds (pl).” On the same folio of the Talmud our sages also said that this means that Reuven desecrated two couches, two sheets, that of his father, and that of the Divine Presence. The authors of that interpretation were forced to say this as they were of the opinion that the Divine Presence, שכינה, was ever present in Yaakov’s vicinity. G’d was never out of Yaakov’s thoughts. We have an interesting nuance in Genesis 30,16 where the Torah speaks of Yaakov sleeping with Leah on a night which was not originally her turn [in return for her giving Reuven’s dudaim to Rachel. Ed.]. The Torah does not write וישכב עמה בלילה ההוא, “he slept with her on that night,” but it writes: וישכב עמה בלילה הוא, “He (G’d) slept with her at night.” This is proof that the Divine Presence was present even on Yaakov’s couch. Leah’s conceiving on that night may well have been helped by that Divine Presence. She may have been aware of this when she called the son born to her as a result יששכר. This episode also teaches that anyone who honours his father also honours G’d vicariouly. Conversely, anyone who dishonours his father dishonours G’d at the same time. All of this corresponds to what our sages (Kidushin 30) taught that every human being is the result of input by three partners, i.e. his father, his mother, and G’d (who provides the soul). As a result, G’d accounts it as a meritorious deed when someone honours his father and mother, seeing that by honouring His partners such people honour G’d Himself. By doing this they treat G’d as if He were present in the company of his parents. Another Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 157) states that the words אז חללת יצועי עלה, reflect Yaakov saying to his son Reuven: “your sin will not be fully expiated until the presence on earth of the one of whom the Torah writes (Exodus 19,3) ומשה עלה אל האלו-הים, ‘and Moses ascended to G’d.’” When Moses came to Mount Eyval (Deut. 27,20) and appointed the tribe of Reuven as the first one (amongst the ones who would utter the curses) we find that the paragraph contains the words: “cursed anyone who sleeps with the wife of his father.” This is proof that by that time Reuven’s misdemeanor had finally been totally expiated. You should also know that the very name Reuven is an allusion to the attribute of Justice and how it operates in our terrestrial world. I have dealt with the subject of the mystical dimension of the names of the twelve sons of Yaakov in Genesis 29, 32-34.

אז חללת יצועי עלה, “then you desecrated Him Who abode on my bed.” According to our sages, Yaakov referred to Reuven having desecrated the Presence of the Divinity, which was ever present near his father’s bed. Another explanation: your פחז, i.e. “your haste,” which was comparable to the ease with which water gushed forth from a spring, caused you to forfeit your advantage, for in your haste to ascend my couch you desecrated it thereby. Ibn Ezra understands the word עלה here as meaning “disappeared, withdrew,” as if the Torah had written עלה מעלי, “distanced himself from me.” He quotes David in Psalms 102,25 אל תעלני בחצי ימי, “do not let me die when only half my allotted lifespan is over.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi views the paragraph as a blessing (just as the others) each of the sons receiving a blessing compatible with his personality. He includes the wish that just as he is willing to forgive Reuven for his indiscretion, so may the Lord also forgive him this sin. As a result you will be able to display the natural advantages common to a firstborn. The word שאת appears in the context of forgiveness, (Genesis 4,7 with Kayin). Yaakov described Reuven’s inability to control his libido as comparable to water gushing forth. The episode was understood by Yaakov to have been a momentary failure of reason controlling natural urges, resulting in his couch being desecrated. The word עלה belongs to the words פחז כמים instead of being part of חללת יצועי.

Simeon and Levi are brothers — mighty men; in the land of their sojourning they wrought a mighty deed.

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). כלי חמס INSTRUMENTS OF VIOLENCE (חמס may mean something that has been usurped from another) — This business of murdering is חמס, not rightly theirs; it is part of the blessing conferred upon Esau; it is his business and you have usurped (חמסתם) it from him (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). מכרתיהם denotes weapons. In the Greek language the word for a sword is μάχαιρα (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Another interpretation of מכרתיהם is: (taking מכרתיהם as מגרתיהם their sojournings with an interchange of כ and ג) in the land of their sojournings they got into the habit of using weapons of violence, מכרתיהם being of the same root as (Ezekiel 16:3) “Thine habitation (מכרתיך) and thy nativity [is in the land of the Canaanite].” This is how Onkelos renders it.

SIMEON AND LEVI ARE BRETHREN. Jacob is saying that they possess the attribute of kinship for their hearts were inflamed concerning their sister. -26. He is thus stating in their defense that they acted as they did out of their brotherly zeal, thus suggesting [that were it not for this extenuating circumstance], they would have been deserving of great punishment and their sin would have been unforgivable since what they did to the people of Shechem was an act of violence. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that he is saying that Simeon and Levi are real brothers, uniting in fraternity and brotherhood in counsel and deed. Now I have already explained that Jacob was angry with Simeon and Levi for having committed violence when they killed the people of the city of Shechem, for they It was Shechem who violated Dinah, and the people were not in a position to protest his action. had not sinned against them at all. They even made a covenant with them and they were circumcised, thus being enabled to return to G-d and become included within the people of the household of Abraham, part of the souls that they had gotten in Haran. A reference to the proselytes whom Abraham and Sarah had brought “beneath the sheltering wings of the Shechina” (Rashi, ibid.) Jacob was additionally angry with them lest people say that the matter was done at his suggestion, thus creating a profaning of G-d’s Name, as people will say that the prophet has committed violence and plunder. This is the intent of the verse, Let my soul not come into their council— here. this is an excuse for he was not in their council when they answered the people of Shechem with subtlety, and he was not united in their assembly when they came upon the people of the city and killed them. It was for this reason that he cursed their anger and wrath. here. And so did Onkelos translate: “My soul was not in their council when they assembled to strike, etc.” INSTRUMENTS OF VIOLENCE ‘M’CHEIROTHEIHEM.’ According to Onkelos and all commentators, the meaning of the verse is as if it were written: instruments of violence ‘m’garotheihem’ (in their sojournings). This is similar to the verses: Thy sojourning (‘m’chorothayich’) and thy nativity, There too m’chorothayich is as if it were written m’gorothayich. into the land of their sojourn (‘m’churatham’). Thus the commentators said that the meaning of the verse is that they did violence in the land of their sojourn. Now if so, the approximate sense of the verse is as follows: “They had instruments of violence in the land of their sojournings,” it being referred to as “the land of their sojournings” since they lived there afterwards. How then could Jacob refer to the event as having taken place in the land of their sojourning? Ramban answers that this is a reference to the future. But in my opinion Jacob is saying that “the instruments of violence are their dwelling places,” i.e., the essence of their lives, even as the expression, the days of my pilgrimage (‘m’gurai’). He is thus saying that the very instruments of violence are their dwelling places for they live and sustain themselves by them. A similar expression is found in the verse: The desert yieldeth them bread for their children. The word “yieldeth” is not in the Hebrew text. Ramban interprets the meaning of the verse as follows: “The desert is to him bread for his children,” for there he has the opportunity to rob and plunder. Similarly, the verse here says that the sword is their livelihood. Ramban’s interpretation of the above verse in the book of Job is also found in his commentary to that book. See Kitvei Haramban, I, p. 80. And it is on account of this that their father divided them in Jacob here. so that they should not unite and scattered them in Israel so that they should not assemble. This was indeed so, for Simeon’s inheritance in the Land was contained in the inheritance of the children of Judah, as it is written, And their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah, with the cities of Simeon set apart from one another throughout the entire tribe of Judah. And Levi’s inheritance consisted of the Cities of Refuge, which were scattered through all Israel.

"Simeon and Levi are brothers" — on account of the incident of Shechem. מְכֵרֹתֵיהֶם — some say it derives from "the expression of their faces" (Isa. 3:9), but that is grammatically unsound. Others say it means their acquisitions, as in "you shall purchase from them" (Deut. 2:6) — but כָּרָה there means only digging. Still others say it derives from the root of selling, meaning they sold themselves, as in "a people that scorned its life to the death" (Judg. 5:18). In my view the correct derivation is from "your birth" (מְכֻרֹתַיִךְ) (Ezek. 16:3), with a missing bet, as in "found in the house of Hashem" (2 Kgs. 16:8) and "which I commanded [the dwelling]" (1 Sam. 2:29). The meaning is: on account of the violence they committed — for after they brought the men of Shechem into a covenant, they slew them treacherously. [Alternative reading:] "Simeon and Levi are brothers" — and in the land of their origin they committed violence not by my counsel. For —

Brothers. Because of your brotherhood you should have received the kingship after Reuvein lost it, but a king, who is charged with establishing justice, cannot be a violent person. כלי חמס מכרותיהם, people who make use of weaponry in their day to day activities are not suitable material for wielding political and military power. Hence neither one of them will be accorded the status taken away from Reuven. (compare Proverbs 29,4 where Solomon describes a king’s primary characteristic as being במשפט יעמד ארץ, “seeing to it that the rule of law and justice prevails on earth.”) Shimon and Levi had disqualified themselves from claiming such a distinction.

שמעון ולוי אחים, Shimon and Levi are brothers, etc. Jacob stressed the fact that Shimon and Levi were brothers as their similarity was natural, they shared many attitudes, something that is not always the case between brothers. It is also possible that Jacob referred to their joint action in Shechem as well as their plan to dispose of Joseph at the time, when he described their brotherliness. Jacob may have meant that these two between them shared the element of fire in an exaggerated manner. Our sages in Yuma 22 describe that Saul committed one sin which cost him the kingdom whereas David committed two serious sins without forfeiting his kingdom. The reason for this was that Saul was even-tempered by nature whereas David was impetuous by nature as we know from Samuel I 16,12 where the prophet describes David as אדמוני, red cheeked, i.e. hot-blooded. When G'd judges people He makes allowances for their natural tendencies, their genetic mix. Although someone who contains a greater than average share of the element of fire will be most enthusiastic in his service of G'd as a result (as we know from the tribe of Levi), this enthusiasm does not act as a barrier against his committing errors on occasion. Such errors also reflect his genetic composition. The fact that a person such as Saul was of an even temperament usually acted as a barrier against his falling victim to the lures of the evil urge. When Jacob described Shimon and Levi as אחים the word is derived from חם, heat. Jacob cursed their anger because when it erupted it was apt to prove unusually destructive. Anger is rooted in the element fire. Once such anger is kindled it results in excess heat and that is why Jacob compared their anger to כלי חמס מכרותיהם, the use of weapons to commit violence. By stressing the word מכרותיהם, (from the root הכר, something one is conscious of), Jacob indicated that Shimon and Levi's tendencies to commit acts of violence were not something they had inherited from their father, something deeply rooted in their subconscious, but when such sentiments surfaced they became very conscious of them as such. The cause of their excesses was the extra amount of fire in the basic composition of their respective bodies. This genetic imbalance was responsible for such deeds as their act of violence against Joseph. The word מכרותיהם also contains the root מכר, sale. Jacob referred to the sale of Joseph as an act of violence perpetrated by these two brothers, seeing that Joseph had not been guilty. Although all the brothers had participated in that sale, closer examination of what happened will show you that these two brothers were the instigators of all that violence. They were the ones who said to each other in 37,19: "let us see what will become of his dreams when we will set out to kill him, etc." (compare Bereshit Rabbah 99,6).

שמעון ולוי אחים, “Shimon and Levi are full brothers.” This point is recorded by Yaakov to inform us that these two were always of the same mind, as opposed to the other brothers. However, while generally speaking, this is laudable, it could become dangerous when their wrath is aroused. כלי חמס מכרותיהם, “their weapons are lawlessness.” (JPS) Their very close relationship is a dangerous weapon. The word מכרה is familiar to us from Kings II 12,6, where the expression: איש מאת מכרו, means: “each from his buddy.”

שמעון ולוי אחים, “Shimon and Levi are brothers, etc.” Who did not know that these two were brothers? According to the plain meaning of the verse Yaakov wanted to state that when these two brothers attacked the people of Shechem they were both of one mind that only violence was the solution to the problem of releasing Dinah which confronted them. When Yaakov uses the term מכרותיהם, the meaning is similar to סעודותיהם, that which is “their meal,” i.e. what provides them with סעד, support, sustenance. The word מכרה is related to כרה, i.e. a meal (compare Kings II 6,23). What Yaakov meant was that these brothers use the tools of violence to live and sustain themselves. Yaakov implied that when the brothers Shimon and Levi killed the male inhabitants of Shechem they killed people who personally had not done any harm to them, but on the contrary, had made a covenant with them. Yaakov therefore felt the need to apologise and to make clear that he had not been a party to their scheme. This is why he stressed בסודם אל תבא נפשי, ”may my soul not enter their conspiracy.” A Midrashic approach to this verse (Bereshit Rabbah 99,7) “Shimon and Levi are brothers when it comes to taking revenge for the rape of Dinah, but when it came to their behaviour vis-a-vis Joseph they certainly did not act as brothers.” By using the word מכרותיהם, Yaakov alluded to the sale of Joseph i.e. מכירה. We should remember that the four brothers Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehudah were the senior brothers. Seeing that the Torah reported that both Reuven and Yehudah considered the sale of Joseph as inappropriate (compare 37,22 and 37,26), this leaves Shimon and Levi as the ones who must have suggested that Joseph be sold. This explains why when the brothers went to Egypt, Joseph detained only Shimon. כלי חמס מכרותיהם, “instruments of violence are their stock-in-trade.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 99,7 the arms in their hands are used to perpetrate acts of violence and have been stolen from Esau. The Midrash bases himself on Ovadiah 10, “for the outrage to your brother Jacob, disgrace shall engulf you.” [— The abuse of Yitzchak’s blessing to Esau “you will survive by your sword.” Yaakov had not attacked Esau. Ed.] A kabbalistic approach: please refer to 29,32 where I have explained the mystical dimension of these words.

Simeon and Levi are brothers. They were both like brothers born for trouble. He [Jacob] began with their praise, as it is said (34:25) Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brothers took. Rashi explains that because they risked themselves for her, they were called “Dinah’s brothers.” This was indeed praiseworthy that they put themselves in harm’s way for their sister. However, they did not act properly when they plundered the entire city, for this was an instrument of violence, and vengeance does not depend on this. And regarding how they secretly conspired together and gathered against the entire city, he [Jacob] said Let my soul not enter their counsel, and let my honor not be included in their assembly. For in their anger they killed a man — this is the reason why he began with praise, to say that they wore jealousy for their sister’s sake and killed them all as one man. And in their will they uprooted an ox — this refers to the city wall, as per the Targum’s translation. This is the reason why he ends with criticism, saying instruments of violence are their weapons, because this matter did not depend on anger or revenge, but rather from their own arbitrary will they uprooted the wall to destroy the entire city and rob all that belonged to them.

כלי חמס מכרותיהם, “their occupation with weaponry is stolen.” Onkelos understands the word מכרותיהם as similar to מגורותיהם, “places where they sojourned,” meaning that both Shimon and Levi had (stolen?) weapons from their uncle Esau and they used them to perpetrate acts of violence in the land they sojourned in. Other commentators feel that the expression כלי חמס defines their lifestyle, i.e. wherever they sojourned they used strong-arm methods to get their way and to secure their livelihood. Still other commentators understand the word מכרותיהם as derived from מכירה, “sale,” Yaakov saying that these two brothers had figuratively speaking “sold themselves” to the use of violence, similar to Judges 5,18 עם חרף נפשם למות, “a people that mocked death.”

In their secret counsel my soul took no part; in their assembly I did not descend from my honor. For in their anger they committed slaughter, and in their willfulness they tore down the wall of the enemy.

בסדם אל תבא נפשי O MY SOUL, COME NOT THOU INTO THEIR SECRET DELIBERATION (סוד may have the sense of plot) — this has reference to the story of Zimri, (Numbers 25:6-15) when the tribe of Simeon assembled and brought the Midianitish woman before Moses, saying, “Is this woman forbidden or permitted to be taken as a wife? If you say she is forbidden, who made the daughter of Jethro permissible to you in marriage” (See Sanhedrin 82b) — let not my name be mentioned in connection with that event! Indeed, it is said (Numbers 25:14) “Zimri, the son of Zalu, a prince of a father’s house among the Simeonites” — but Scripture does not state “a son of Jacob”. בקהלם UNTO THEIR ASSEMBLY — when Korah of the tribe of Levi will assemble the entire congregation against Moses and Aaron — אל תחד כבודי MY GLORY BE NOT THOU UNITED — let my name not be associated there with them! (Genesis Rabbah 98:5) And so it was, for it is said (Numbers 16:1) “Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath. the son of Levi” — but it does not say “the son of Jacob”. In Chronicles, however, (1 Chronicles 6:22,23), where the genealogy of Korah is traced in connection with the “Duchan” (properly, the platform — the place on which the Levites were stationed for the service of song in the Temple) it is said, “the son of Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, the son of Israel (Genesis Rabbah 98:5). אל תחד כבדי MY GLORY BE NOT THOU UNITED — כבוד is masculine and therefore you must needs explain the phrase as though he were addressing himself to “the glory” saying, “thou, my glory, be not united with them!” תחד is exactly the same grammatical form (2nd masc. sing. and not 3rd fem. sing.) as (Isaiah 14:20) “Thou shall not be united (אל תחד) with them in burial” כי באפם הרגו איש FOR IN THEIR WRATH THEY SLEW A MAN — This refers to Hamor and the people of Shechem, and they are spoken of as איש “one” man because they were all regarded as of no more account than one man when it was a matter of attacking them. It likewise states in the history of Gideon, (Judges 6:16) “And thou shalt smite the Midianites as one man”, and similarly concerning Egypt, (Exodus 15:1) “The horse (singular) and its rider (singular) hath he thrown into the sea” (i.e. the whole army as though it consisted of but one horse and its rider). This is a Midrashic interpretation (Genesis Rabbah 99:6). The plain meaning of the use of the singular form is: a group of men is called “a man” having in mind each one separately, so that the meaning is: they slew every man with whom they were angry. Similar is (Ezekiel 19:3) “and he learned to catch the prey, he devoured (אדם) a man” (which is the same as בני אדם “men”) וברצונם עקרו שור AND IN THEIR SELFWILL THEY LAMED AN OX — they desired to exterminate Joseph who is called שור, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 33:17) “His firstling bullock (שורו) (Joseph), majesty is his”. עקרו means in old French essarter. It has the same meaning as in (Joshua 11:6) “Thou shalt hamstring (תעקר) their horses”.

FOR IN THEIR ANGER THEY SLEW A MAN AND IN THEIR SELF-WILL THEY DISABLED AN OX (‘SHOR’). The meaning of this is that they committed violence in their wrath in that they were angry at Shechem, and it was to satisfy their own desire and not because of the guilt or sins of the slain. Now Onkelos says that the word shor (ox) should be understood as shur (wall) with a shuruk, Thus the word should be understood as shur (wall) rather than shor (ox). The Torah-script has no vowel signs, and for the sake of interpretation, a difficult word may sometimes be interpreted as if it were vowelled differently than the traditional reading. as in the verse, Daughters treaded on the wall (‘shur’). here. Thus Onkelos translated the word shor in the present verse as “the wall of the enemy,” similar in expression to the verse: Mine eye also hath gazed on them that lie in wait for me (‘b’shuroi’). Ramban is thus suggesting that the enemy lies in wait for me behind his fortified walls. The meaning of the verse is thus: “and they uprooted a city surrounded with a wall, slaying their children and women after having killed the men of the city.” The word ikru (disabled) would then be similar in use to the verse, Ekron shall be rooted up (‘tei’akeir’). Others have explained that the ox, which is the largest of cattle, is an allusion to Hamor and his son Shechem, the prince of the country, just as in the verses: His firstling bull, majesty is his; Ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria. Similarly do the verses surname the great princes “rams” Eilei Moab is generally translated, “the mighty men of Moab,” but literally it means “the rams of Moab.” and “he-goats.” Atudei eretz is generally translated, “the chief ones of the earth,” but literally it means “the he-goats of the earth.”The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the verse is to be understood in its usual sense as stating that in their anger they killed each man of whom they were wrathful; and in their self-will, after their anger had been calmed by the slaying of the men, they uprooted all oxen, this being an allusion to their cattle and their possessions, including everything that was in the home and everything in the field. Now Jacob mentioned this in order to state that he had no part in all these secret deliberations of theirs, even in the removal of the cattle and possessions, or any aspect of the spoiling and plundering of the people of the city of Shechem. The word ikru [in the expression, ikru shor], has the same meaning as in the verse: Thou shalt hemstring (‘te’akeir’) their horses. But the expression and purport is all one.

"In their council let my soul not come" — Rav Aaron said that the meaning of "let my soul not come" (אַל תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי) is like "the sun goes down" (Eccl. 1:5), meaning: I would not want to be outside their counsel. But this inverts the meaning of the text — for what sense is there in the phrase "weapons of violence"? Did he not say to both of them: "You have troubled me" (Gen. 34:30)? In truth, Jacob and his household were placed in great danger on their account; had it not been for the terror of God upon the surrounding peoples, they would have gathered to destroy everything. And so he interpreted "cursed be their anger" (v. 7) and "in their will they uprooted a wall — accursed!" for their anger was fierce. These are cold interpretations of "In their council let my soul not come." Rabbi Moses HaKohen z"l said that כְּבוֹדִי ("my glory") is the same as נַפְשִׁי ("my soul"), and many such parallels exist in the book of Psalms. He interpreted well, for the meaning is doubled after the prophetic manner — as in "Ask your father" (Deut. 32:7) and "How shall I curse" (Num. 23:8). Thus: "in their council" parallels "in their assembly," "come" parallels "be united" (תֵּחַד), and "my soul" parallels "my glory." But Rabbi Judah ben Balam the Spaniard said Rabbi Moses erred, for the glory of the soul is the body — like a necklace around the neck — as in "Who satisfies with good your body" (Ps. 103:5). His proof: "Let my glory dwell in the dust, Selah" (Ps. 7:6). I say that Rabbi Judah erred, for Scripture says: "So that my glory may sing to You" (Ps. 30:13); and "Therefore my heart rejoiced and my glory was glad; even my flesh" (Ps. 16:9) — where "flesh" refers to the body. As for "my glory in the dust" — that is figurative, meaning the soul is brought down as low as dust. And here is my reliable proof: "My soul cleaves to the dust" (Ps. 119:25). The word תֵּחַד derives from יַחַד. According to Rabbi Moses HaKohen the grammarian z"l, the quiescent letter replaces the alef of אֶחָד; he similarly explained "the land should not be desolate" (תֵּשָׁם) (Gen. 47:19). The sense of "in their council" is like "while they took counsel together against me" (Ps. 31:14) — since their weapons are violence, let my soul not come into their council. "They slew men" — אִישׁ is a generic term, as in "ox and donkey" (Gen. 32:6), alluding to the inhabitants of the city of Shechem. "Wall" (שׁוּר) — a fortified wall, as in "strides over the wall" (v. 22). I have already explained in my work Moznayim that the holam and the shuruk interchange. "They houghed" (עִקְּרוּ) — as in "you shall hough their horses" (Josh. 11:6). This shows that Shechem was a great city, for it was surrounded by a wall. [Alternative reading:] Into their council and into their assembly my soul and my glory did not come. This was the blessing he blessed them with — for our father Jacob did not come to curse his sons but only to bless them; therefore he said —

בסודם אל תבא נפשי, "My soul, do not come to their counsel." We need to understand what precisely Jacob had in mind. Our sages in Sanhedrin 109 say that Jacob referred to the affair with Zimri in which the tribe of Shimon disgraced itself, and to the uprising of Korach which was a taint on the tribe of Levi. They also state that the words באפם הרגו איש "in their anger they slew a man," refer to Chamor and the men of Shechem, whereas the words וברצונם עקרו שור, "and it was their wish to uproot an ox," refer to their violence against Joseph (compare Targum Yerushalmi). These comments are all homiletical. One of the difficulties with this explanation is why Jacob would list events that were far in the future ahead of events which had already taken place, such as the violence against Joseph and Chamor? How could the word כי be used in this verse when it does not relate to anything which preceded it? Besides, why would Jacob also associate Levi with the affair in which Zimri would disgrace himself by sleeping with a Midianite princess? Why did Jacob choose the expression ברצונם, "when it pleased them," to describe Shimon and Levi's planned violence against Joseph? The plain meaning of the verse is that the entire verse speaks about the incident with Joseph. When Jacob refers to בסודם, "their secret," he meant that he did not want to be associated with these two brothers from the moment they began to hate Joseph, although they concealed their hatred for a while. When Jacob spoke about אל תבא נפשי, this was his way of disassociating himself from any guilt concerning the behaviour of Shimon and Levi. Just as he had not transmitted spiritually corrupt genes to Reuben, so he had not burdened Shimon and Levi with spiritually defective genes when he fathered either one of them. Any evil concocted by these two brothers did not originate with him. Jacob also wanted to state that he would not be punished for anything these two brothers had done because of his preferential treatment of Joseph being an underlying cause of the brothers' jealousy and hatred of him. When Jacob added: ובקהלם אל תחד כבודי, "my honour do not join their congregation," he referred to the moment when Shimon and Levi hatched the plot to kill Joseph (37,20). He did not want these two sons to be known as "the sons of Jacob" as of that moment. Jacob considered such a designation of these two as an affront to his honour. Tanchuma in Parshat Vayeshev understands the word כבוד as a reference to the presence of the שכינה which had departed from Jacob the moment Joseph had become lost. The word כי in בי באפם הרגו איש, is the justification for Jacob not wanting his name associated with these two brothers. He referred to their having killed a man although we know in retrospect that this did not happen. Jacob considered the brothers' willingness to kill Joseph and to throw him into a pit full of reptiles as equivalent to exposing Joseph to many kinds of deaths. וברצונם עקרו שור, "and they uprooted an ox at their pleasure." Jacob added that even after their anger had already evaporated, after they had thrown Joseph into the pit and Yehudah spoke words of appeasement to them, they continued to act evilly. The Talmud Sotah 36 states that Joseph should have been the progenitor of 12 tribes. His encounter with the wife of Potiphar whose temptations he withstood only with the greatest amount of willpower caused him to forfeit the privilege of founding the other ten tribes. Had it not been for Shimon and Levi who had wanted to uproot Joseph's future, none of this would have happened.

בקהלם, “in their counsel,” (may my soul not take part) there is no prefix letter ו here as we find in the word וברצונם, “and when they are well disposed;” Yaakov shuns being associated with their plans under any circumstances. עקרו שור, “they uprooted an ox;” according to the Targum Yerushalmi, this is an allusion to their having sold Joseph. Joseph had elsewhere been compared to an ox, as opposed to his brother Yehudah, who had been likened to a lion. (Deuteronomy chapter 33) An alternate exegesis: according to Onkelos, the word שור here symbolises a חומה, wall, this was accomplished by exchanging the vowel cholem for the vowel shuruk. The wall referred to would be that around the city of Sh’chem.

בסודם, “to their counsel,” a reference to the deceitful answer they gave to Shechem and Chamor in the matter of Dinah’s rape and how to compensate for this. ובקהלם, “and in their congregation, etc.” a reference to the plot to kill the male inhabitants of Shechem. כי באפם הרגו איש, “for in their anger they killed a man.” A reference to the inhabitants of Shechem. וברצונם עקרו שור, “and it was their wish to uproot an ox.” Onkelos translates the word שור as סנאה, “the hated one.” It is similar to the word שור in Genesis 49,22 where it means “wall.” After they had killed the inhabitants of Shechem they climbed its protective wall. An alternate explanation understands שור as an allusion to חמור, Chamor and Schechem, the leaders of the town of Shechem. The ox is considered the largest of the domesticated animals, as we know of the description פרות הבשן, Amos 4,1, where the prophet describes the people oppressing the poor in such terms. It is also possible that the word איש describes all the people killed in Shechem, and that after having killed the males they plundered their belongings, and that Yaakov describes that with the words עקרו שור, “they uprooted all their belongings, their valuables.”

Cursed is their anger, for it is fierce, and their wrath, for it is harsh. I will divide them within Jacob and scatter them throughout Israel.

ארור אפם כי עז CURSED BE TIIEIR WRATH, FOR IT IS POWERFUL — Even when he was reproving them he did not curse them but their anger. That is what Balaam said: (Numbers 23:8) “How can I curse them since אל hath not cursed them?” (Genesis Rabbah 99:6) אחלקם ביעקב I WILL DIVIDE THEM IN JACOB — I shall separate them from each other inasmuch as Levi shall not be numbered among the tribes (cf. Numbers 26:62) and thus they (Simeon and Levi) will be divided (cf. Genesis Rabbah 98:5). Another interpretation is: both of these tribes will be dispersed in Israel, and this happened, for you will find that the very poor — the Scribes and elementary teachers — were all of the tribe of Simeon, and this was so in order that this tribe should be dispersed, since such poor people must wander from city to city to eke out a livelihood. As for the tribe of Levi, He made them travel round from one threshing floor to another to collect their heave offerings and tithes; thus He caused them also to be “scattered” but in a more respectable manner (Genesis Rabbah 99:6).

"Cursed be their anger for it is fierce" — by way of prophecy or by way of prayer, that their anger be diminished and it will be good for them — for a curse is the opposite of a blessing: as a blessing adds, a curse subtracts. "And their wrath" — the meaning is doubled; similarly: "I will divide them … and scatter them." The sense is that these ones are deserving of being separated and not united together. And so we find: the lot of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the sons of Judah, and he was thus under another's authority. Moreover, his cities were not contiguous with one another but were scattered amid the portion of Judah. So too Levi, who had forty-eight cities scattered among the tribes. [Alternative reading:] "Cursed be their anger for it is fierce and their wrath for it is harsh" — behold, he cursed the anger and the wrath that it might be removed from them. "I will divide them in Jacob" — their inheritance will not be distinct like that of the other tribes. And so it was: Simeon's entire inheritance was within Judah's portion and under Judah's hand. Levi likewise has no portion and inheritance, only what the tribes gave him. Therefore: Moses did not mention Simeon by name in his blessing, for his heart was troubled on account of Zimri; and when he blessed Judah, Simeon was included, since they dwelled together. Nor did he bless Levi directly — he spoke only of the priests, placing Aaron as representative of the entire tribe: "Your Thummim and Your Urim belong to Your pious man" (Deut. 33:8) — this refers to Aaron. "Who says of his father and his mother: I have not seen him" (Deut. 33:9) — as though they had not seen them; "and his brethren" — as though he did not recognize them; "and his sons" — as though he did not know them, for "he shall not go out of the sanctuary" (Lev. 21:12) on account of all these. "For they kept Your word" — as You commanded them: "He shall not come near any dead person" (Lev. 21:11). "And they guarded Your covenant" — the covenant of the priesthood and the sacrifices; only: "they shall put incense before You" (Deut. 33:10) and burnt offerings upon "Your altar." Thus all of Moses' blessing was spoken of the priests.

ארור אפם, may their level of anger be reduced, restricted. Yaakov wanted to achieve this by making it harder for them to earn their livelihood, so that they would be fully occupied doing that and caring for their families. They would have to spend their energies by traveling far and wide to secure their livelihood. However, the status of priesthood would remain the domain of the firstborn as it had been before Reuven became guilty of his indiscretion. This status was changed only after the sin of the golden calf when it was transferred en masse to the Levites (some of them). Compare Deuteronomy 10 8, בעת ההיא וגו'.

ארור אפם כי עז, "cursed be their anger for it is very strong, etc." Jacob only cursed their excess anger. This is why he added: כי עז. Every person needs to harbour a certain amount of hatred otherwise he could not receive a reward in the Hereafter for having controlled his anger and made it subservient to his duty to serve the Lord. Jacob realised that he had to find a way to "cool" this anger which was liable to flare up from time to time. Inasmuch as both brothers suffered from an excess amount of fire in their genetic mix, Jacob hoped that by separating them from one another he could forestall future outbursts or at least make such outbursts of anger less harmful. This is why he added: "I will separate them within Yaakov, etc."

ארור אפם, “cursed be their anger;” this is not a curse, but a blessing. How so? Yaakov wishes them that whatever they will plan in anger should not succeed, so that they will learn the lesson not to act out of anger. An alternate exegesis of these words: Yaakov exclaims: “how disgraceful and despicable is their anger!” אחלקם ביעקב, “I will separate them between the tribes of Yaakov and disperse them.” We find that indeed the ancestral share of Shimon became an enclave within the ancestral portion of Yehudah. Levi’s share was divided into 48 cities between the twelve tribes.

אחלקם ביעקב¸ ”I will disperse them within Yaakov,” so that they will not be able to conspire together. Yaakov added ואפיצם בישראל, ”and I will scatter them in Israel.” He wanted to make it difficult for the members of these tribes to all assemble in one place simultaneously. History proves that Yaakov’s intention was carried out. The territory of the tribe of Shimon was an enclave within the territory allocated to Yehudah (compare Joshua 19,1), and the Levites were assigned 48 separate towns throughout the territories of the various tribes. The dispersal of the Levites was to prove especially beneficial as it helped fulfill Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33,10 that the Levites were to disseminate Torah knowledge throughout the land of Israel. You will note that Yaakov did not dispense a blessing to either Reuven, Shimon, or Levi, but instead accused them of faults. He accused Reuven of the indiscretion involving the tent of Bilhah, and he accused Shimon and Levi of their high-handed handling of the males of Shechem. He did see fit to dispense a blessing to all the other sons however.

“Cursed be their anger for it is fierce.” We find in every place that the term “azut” [fierceness/brazenness] refers to the face, and the term “kashiut” [hardness/stubbornness] refers to the neck, which is on the opposite side of the face. When he cursed them, he only cursed the fierceness of their anger and the stubbornness of their necks, saying cursed be their anger — and when is this? When it is fierce. And their wrath refers to the other side of their anger, meaning their faces, and from the other side is the neck, and regarding this other side, meaning the neck, he said for it is harsh. Jacob said that if these two qualities of brazenness of face and stiffness of neck remain attached to these two tribes, who could stand before them, and they would also be at the height of evil. Therefore, I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel — meaning, the major portion of the trait of brazenness of face and stiffness of neck that exists naturally in these two brothers, I will divide and scatter throughout Israel, so that each person will receive just a small piece of the beam [a metaphorical expression meaning a small portion]. In other words, when it spreads throughout all of Israel, each person will receive only a small portion. This is the same idea as when Moses called all of Israel “a stiff-necked people,” as it is said for it is a stiff-necked people (Exodus 34:9). And our Sages (Beitzah 25b) said that “Israel is the most brazen among the nations” etc., because they received the natural tendency toward brazenness and stiffness of neck from Simeon and Levi, as Jacob divided these traits among all his children. Another interpretation: Even though brazenness and stubbornness are negative traits, nevertheless they have a positive aspect, as our Sages said (Avot 5:25), “Be bold as a leopard… to carry out the will of your Father in Heaven.” Similarly, stubbornness is actually good for Israel, enabling them to stand firm in their faith and not turn away to listen to the voice of strangers. This is what Jacob meant when he said for their anger was fierce — and their wrath, meaning the other side of their anger, was cruel. This is certainly a negative trait, so what should be done with them to transform them for good? I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel. That is to say, I will divide and scatter their brazenness and stubbornness among those who perform the deeds of Jacob and Israel, meaning to transform their actions for good as mentioned. And whereas Jacob combined them, Moses separated them, because Jacob had already said I will divide them, therefore Moses was not permitted to unite them. Nevertheless, he blessed them somewhat similar to Jacob’s blessing, saying Bless, O Lord, his resources. Onkelos interpreted this as referring to possessions, since Levi had no portion or inheritance except for the gifts due to him. This is what Jacob meant by I will divide them in Jacob — meaning I will divide him among all of Jacob, for they will take their portion from all of Israel. And even though because instruments of violence are their weapons — meaning they robbed the wealth of the entire city — justice would dictate punishing them by making them all poor, nevertheless I will divide them in Jacob to receive their priestly gifts, and the tribe of Simeon I will scatter in Israel to be scribes and teachers. This is why Moses alluded to Simeon’s blessing within Judah’s blessing, because from Judah also came those who wielded the scribe’s staff, as it is written and a staff from between his feet — where staff means scribe.

אחלקם ביעקב, “I will separate them within Yaakov;” this happened indeed. The ancestral portion of the tribe of Shimon was completely enclosed by the territory of the tribe of Yehudah, whereas the ancestral portion of the tribe of Levi did not exist as such at all, but there were 48 cities allocated to that tribe which had been chosen by G’d to be the spiritual mentors of the people, and whose cities also served as alternate cities of refuge for people who had killed human beings through carelessness. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains that Shimon and Levi who had demonstrated brotherly love by their jealously avenging the honour of their sister Dinah, employing weapons of war in their pursuit of the perpetrators, were now blessed by Yaakov. He said that when they used such weapons, which are normally cursed weapons, in their rightful anger, as a result of venting their anger in a noble cause, they would henceforth be deprived of such emotions that normally are considered as negative virtues. The word ארור, describes a deficiency, lack of virtue. By distributing them among the various tribes, Yaakov hoped to infuse rightful anger when the occasion would arise also in the hearts of the other tribes. Some commentators hold that Yaakov even wished to share some of this rightful anger and apparently unbridled behaviour demonstrated by these two sons of his, and they understand the word תבוא in אל תבא נפשי in the same sense as Leviticus 22,7 ובא השמש וטהר, where it means that as soon as the sun sets the priest in question is purified, that he too wishes to be purified by having a share in the righteous anger displayed by Shimon and Levi on the occasion in question. I do not believe that such an explanation is tenable, for if it were, how will these scholars explain the words ובקהלם אל אל תחד כבודי, “may my honour not be considered as at one with theirs?”

Judah, you gave thanks and were not ashamed; therefore your brothers shall give thanks to you. Your hand shall prevail over your enemies; your foes shall be scattered, turning their backs before you; and the sons of your father shall come forward to inquire of your welfare.

יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך THOU JUDAH, THY BRETHREN SHALL PRAISE THEE — Because he rebuked the first three tribes in harsh terms Judah began to move away that he (Jacob) should not censure him for the incident with Tamar; Jacob therefore recalled him with words that would soothe him: Judah, you are not like these! — you your brethren may indeed praise (Genesis Rabbah 99:5). ידך בערף איביך THY HAND IS ON THE NECK OF THINE ENEMIES — a prophecy fulfilled in the days of David, a descendant of Judah, who said (2 Samuel 22:41) “Thou hast also made mine enemies turn their back unto me” (Genesis Rabbah 99:8). (The Hebrew may signify, “Thou hast given me my enemies’ necks”) בני אביך THY FATHER’S CHILDREN — Because they were born of different wives he did not say “thy mother’s children” as Isaac said (Genesis Rabbah 99:8). (He meant: all thy brothers will bow down to thee. Had he said “thy mother’s children”, he would have included only Judah’s brothers who were born of the same mother as himself.)

"Judah, you" — as your name, so shall your brothers praise you; and when they see that your hand is on the neck of your enemies, the sons of your father will bow down to you as to a king. And so we find —

יהודה אתה, “you are the one who is fit to fill the position of royalty. The reason is that you are not stained with fatal flaws which would disqualify you from becoming king. יודוך אחיך, your brothers will accept you as king as they admit that you are fit to rule. ידך בעורף אויביך, so that they will flee from you so that you do not destroy them. We find a similar construction in Exodus 23,27 ונתתי את כל אויביך אליך עורף, “I will make all your enemies turn their backs on you.” וישתחוו לך בני אביך; you will rule over all your brothers (fellow tribes), but not over all the other nations.

יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, "Yehudah- as to you, your brothers will praise you, etc." Why did Jacob have to add the word אתה when he addressed Yehudah? Apparently the word was meant to exclude someone else. Besides, why did Jacob not say: וידך, "and your hand, etc," instead of simply: ידך, "your hand?" The same applies to the missing conjunctive letter ו in front of ישתחוו לך. It appears that Jacob's intention was to assure Yehudah that contrary to the blessings for the other brothers which were predictions for the distant future after Israel would take possession of the land of Canaan, Yehudah himself would already experience the esteem of his brothers. We have confirmation of this in Chronicles I 5,2 where we read: "for Yehudah became more powerful than his brothers and a leader came from him." At the appropriate time, Yehudah's hand would be at the neck of his enemies. At that time his brothers would prostrate themselves before him and he would become their king. This prophecy was fulfilled during the reign of Saul when David won great victories and the Jewish people crowned him king.

יהודה אתה יודוו אחיך, as to Yehudah, “your brothers will acknowledge you (as leader);” we have a play on words here, using Yehudah’s name as synonymous with the owner’s position amongst this brothers. The word יודרך, is equivalent to ישבחוך ויכבדוך, “they will praise you and honour you.” This will happen when they see you subduing your enemies, i.e. ידך בעורף אויביך, ”your hand will be around the neck of your enemies.” When this happens, they will prostrate themselves before you.

יודוך אחיך, “your brothers will acknowledge you.” According to the plain meaning of the text this is a reference to the Israelites eventually acclaiming David, a descendant of Yehudah as their king. ישתחוו לך בני אביך, “the sons of your father will prostrate themselves before you.” He did not say: “the sons of your mother.” There was no need for him to say that Leah’s sons would acknowledge Yehudah as their leader. The point Yaakov made was that even the sons of his other wives would also acknowledge him as their leader. Yaakov referred to Yehudah (verse 9) as גור אריה instead of as אריה, a fully grown lion. He added the word גור seeing Yehudah had still been a child (less than 20 years old when the brothers first deferred to him). He called him אריה on account of his physical power which [paralleled that of the lion, the king of the beasts. He is also called גבור, to reflect Proverbs 30,30 “the lion is the mightiest of the beasts and recoils before none.” Yehudah is described in similar terms in Chronicles I 5,2.

Judah, your brothers shall acknowledge you: Since you are Judah who admitted in the incident with Tamar, as indicated by the name Judah, therefore measure for measure, your brothers shall acknowledge you — they will acknowledge your kingship and not be ashamed, just as you acknowledged and were not ashamed to admit the truth. Similarly, your brothers will not be ashamed as they will acknowledge the truth that kingship befits only you. For we find when David was crowned, it is written, All the tribes of Israel said… “We are your flesh and bone… you were the one who led Israel out and brought them in, etc.” (Second Samuel 5:1). Look to the right and see that in three cases their blessings reflect their names: Judah, Gad, and Dan. Judah from your brothers shall acknowledge [yoducha] you, Dan from he shall judge [yadin] his people, Gad from raiders [gedud] shall raid him. All three were compared to a lion: Judah is a lion cub, Moses said Dan is a lion cub, and to Gad he said Blessed is He who enlarges Gad, he dwells like a lion. This is because all three fought the wars of God. Similarly, Judah’s hand is on the neck of his enemies and Dan shall judge his people — which Ramban interprets as “he will avenge his people,” and regarding Gad it says he tears off arm and crown. All three are alluded to in the verse he will strike the heel — the initials of strike [yagod] spell Judah, Gad, Dan, as “yagod” means cutting, like cut down the tree (Daniel 4:11). For all three would cut down enemies not through human might but through divine help. Just as God fights only with His name, as it is written The Lord is a man of war, the Lord is His name (Exodus 15:3), so too these three do not fight with weapons. As Rabbeinu Bachya explained, in Judah’s passage you find all the letters of the alphabet except for zayin [which means weapon] to indicate that their warfare is not with weapons but with God’s name. These three fought with their names, for when the nations heard their names and what their names signified, dread and fear immediately fell upon them. For the name Judah indicates that all will acknowledge Him as deserving of elevation, Dan will judge and avenge his people, and Gad implies cutting down. This is why it says that since you are Judah, your brothers will acknowledge you, and your name will cause your hand to be on the neck of your enemies. A lion cub is Judah. Although he was compared to a lion whose nature is to tear apart prey, nevertheless, [regarding the phrase] from prey [teref], my son, you have arisen — you did not participate in tearing apart [taraf toref] Joseph, but rather you arose and withdrew from your brothers. As it is stated, And Judah went down from his brothers (Genesis 38:1). This means he withdrew from them because he did not want to be with them in their group. Alternatively, you have arisen is an expression of elevation — because of [avoiding] prey, my son, in which you had no part, you rose to this elevated status. “The scepter shall not depart from Judah.” There are many different interpretations regarding the explanation of this verse, and the student should choose the interpretation of the Abarbanel, as he has collected all the different opinions and everything that most commentators have discussed about it. Therefore, I have withheld myself from recording their mention, as the account would become too lengthy.

יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, “as far as you, Yehudah are concerned, your brothers will have to admit to you, etc.” They will acknowledge you as already foretold in your very name, for they will realize that your hand will vanquish the neck of your enemies thereby saving them.

A ruler shall he be at the beginning, and at the end a king shall be exalted from the house of Judah. For from a death sentence, my son, you saved your life. He shall rest and dwell in strength like a lion and like a lioness, and there is no kingdom that can stir him.

גור אריה A YOUNG LION — He prophesied this with reference to David who, when he began his military career, was but as a whelp — as it states, (2 Samuel 5:2) “when Saul was king over us it was thou that didst lead out and bring in Israel” — but who later on became as a lion when they made him king over themselves. That is what Onkelos means by translating it “A ruler he shall he בשרויא” — at the beginning מטרף FROM THE PREY (literally, tearing) — From the deed of which I suspected you when I said (Genesis 37:33) “Joseph is torn in pieces, an evil beast hath devoured him” — and by that Judah was meant who was likened to a lion — בני עלית THOU WENTEST UP, O MY SON — from that murderous deed you withdrew saying, (Genesis. 5:26) “what profit is it if we slay our brother”, and similarly did he act when Tamar was condemned to death, for he said “She is righteous: mine is the blame” (cf. Rashi on Genesis 38:26), therefore as a reward כרע רבץ HE STOOPED DOWN, HE CROUCHED etc. — as we are told of the days of Solomon (1 Kings 5:5) “[Israel dwelt safely] every man under his vine etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 99:8).

"A lion's cub" — he compared him to the cub of a lion, that is small yet belongs to the lion's species, and will grow up. There is no comparative כ ("like") here, just as in "and a wild ass" (Job 11:12). "From the prey, my son, you have gone up" — you resembled me, my son, like a lion's cub when you ascended from the prey. The preposition מִן in מִטֶּרֶף indicates source. This is the plain sense. But if we were to interpret it as referring to Joseph, one would expect "העלית" instead of "עלית," since עָלִיתָ is an intransitive verb. The following verse attests to this. Note also: "and one of her cubs was raised up" (Ezek. 19:3). The meaning of "he crouches, he lies down as a lion" — for it is the nature of a lion, after it has seized prey, to settle on its haunches and lie down. Even if every kind of animal were to pass by, it would not rise before them to flee.

גור אריה יהודה, although Yehudah is not a fully grown lion, i.e. not enjoying the trappings of royalty, possessing a land, etc, he is at least comparable to a lion cub, preeminent among his brothers. In the future he will rule as king in the full meaning of the word. All this, in spite of the fact that מטרף בני עלית, you were spared by my son Joseph who did not kill you in his wrath although he hated you. This is the meaning of the words כרע רבץ כאריה, seeing that at that time he was like a crouching lion, one in repose, i.e. not representing a threat to anyone This is why Joseph did not issue you orders to kill you. וכלביא מי יקימנו, once Yehudah will attain the position of king, he will be like such a lion who on occasion will lie down languidly just like a lion, a time when no one can frighten him into rising because he has become afraid of the enemy.

גור אריה יהודה, "Yehudah is a lioncub." The Zohar section 1, page 237 explains that initially Yehudah would be like a cub, גור, whereas later on he would be a fully grown lion, אריה. If this was so, why did Jacob have to tell us that there was a time when Yehudah was still only a cub? Besides, what did Jacob mean when he said: מטרף בני עלית "you removed yourself from my son, from the kill?" According to our sages the word בני may be read both as belonging to what was mentioned before as well as to what follows, i.e. "you my son have arisen." Accordingly, Yehudah had distanced himself from what the brothers had done when Jacob had exclaimed: "my son has been torn to shreds." It is difficult to reconcile this with the facts. Why would Jacob have assumed suddenly that Yehudah had no share in the brothers' plot to deceive him and to make him believe that Joseph had become the victim of wild animals? On the contrary, is it not more likely to believe that Jacob had never suspected any of his sons to have laid a hand on Joseph? We must view the statement of our sages as דברי קבלה, as reflecting insights to which we are not privy. The words כרע רבץ מי יקימנו, also present a difficulty. Not only do these words not make sense as part of the blessing, but why did Jacob suddenly switch to indirect speech when up until now he had addressed Yehudah directly? In order to understand these verses a short introduction will enable us to gain a deeper insight into the ways of the Torah. We perceive Adam as a tree from which all the holy souls that would ever enter the world were suspended. When Adam sinned, evil assumed a limited rule in our world and captured many of these holy souls. According to our Kabbalists it has been the task of the Jewish people to rescue as many of these holy souls who are kept prisoners within the קליפה (forces of negative spirituality), using the holy Torah and G'd's commandments all of which G'd has implanted in our midst as our weaponry. On occasion, even a close personal attachment such as the rape of a person containing a holy Jewish soul and the impure soul of a Gentile may result in a new life of a positive kind. Shechem's deep-seated attachment to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob whom he had raped may be an example of such a phenomenon (Genesis 34,33). According to Kohelet Yaakov, Dinah infused Shechem with part of her holy soul, something which eventually resulted in the emergence and liberation of the soul of Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon. This is alluded to in the word רחבת in רחבת ידים (Genesis 34,21) the letters of which are an acronym of the respective first letters in the name דבי חנינה בן תרדיון. On other occasions a soul which was taken captive at the time Adam sinned may emerge of its own accord at the time when the forces in charge of the קליפה decide to swamp earth with many new lives (souls). Such formerly captive holy souls who have initiated their own conversion to Judaism will often make every effort to pursue the path of goodness. This explains the phenomenon that converts very often become more meticulous in their observance of Jewish law than natural-born Jews. Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite are part of the phenomenon we have just described. Their souls had become captive due to the acts of incest committed by their ancestor when Lot's daughters slept with their father. When their "captor" i.e. the force or angel in charge of releasing impure souls into the world, released a quantity of such souls, hoping to contaminate the earth with still more negative spirituality, two of the souls originally held captive escaped and turned out to become Ruth and Naamah. The fact that Ruth became the ancestor of David whereas Naamah became the wife Rechavam indicate the sins of their ancestor who slept with his daughters. Lot's older daughter who had the effrontery to call the name of her son i.e. מואב, i.e. "from my father," had committed a greater offence than her younger sister who called the child of that union בן עמי. The fact that Ruth was descended from Moab whereas Naamah was descended from Ammon reflects the phenomenon that the greater the spiritual morass that one has emerged from the greater the effort at one's spiritual rehabilitation. This is why David and a whole dynasty of kings is descended from Ruth, whereas Naamah the offspring of Lot's younger daughter is comparativeley less illustrious (compare Baba Kama 38 where the Talmud even attributes G'd's command to treat Ammon more mildly than Moab to the minor difference between the acts committed by Lot's two daughters). It is important to remember that if a person of lesser stature than Lot had perpetrated these acts he would not have had the good fortune that in the cause of centuries at least two good people came out of him. [I have some problem with the whole premise; according to the seven Noachidic laws it was perfectly permissible for a father to sleep with his daughter, all the more so since Lot was not even aware of it. Ed.] Just as there are different levels of righteousness amongst the observant Jews, i.e. goodness is a relative term, so there are different degrees amongst the people whose souls originate in the pool at the disposal of the forces of the קליפה. Amongst the many kings and leaders of Gentile society, all of whose souls originate in the pool of souls provided by the forces of the קליפה, some are models of virtue whereas others are models of debauchery, perfidy, and cruelty. This is the mystical dimension of what we are taught in Sotah 49 that בעקבות משיחה חוצפה יסגא, that "in the days preceding the arrival of the Messiah, effrontery will become prevalent." The sages meant that as the number of holy souls amongst the pool of souls controlled by the forces of the קליפה becomes more and more depleted, the tempering influence exercised on the whole pool of spiritually negative souls by the holy souls held captive will cease. This accounts for the fact that in days of old the souls that found their way back to the realm of holy souls produced spiritual giants such as Abraham, Sarah, Ruth and the like. Even in later generations converts such as Shemayah and Avtalyon are examples of souls who became spiritual giants amongst our people. Onkelos is another such example. Present day converts, however, are the souls who had already been greatly impoverished during their prolonged stay as captives amongst the pool of spiritually deficient souls, a pool which had been more and more depleted of such souls as the one of Abraham, Sarah, etc. The Talmud describes the period preceding the arrival of the Messiah by using the term עקבות, heels. This is an allusion to the pool of the impure souls which by that time will contain only relatively insignificant souls from the pool of holy souls that the forces of the קליפה had captured when Adam sinned. These souls are described as no more than "heels," the lower extremity of the human body, i.e. a relatively derogatory term. We can find confirmation of that thought in the Zohar 1, page 258. With the help of this introduction we can begin to understand the advice given by G'd to Yehudah when He sent His angel and almost forced him to have intercourse with the woman whom he considered a harlot (as described in Bereshit Rabbah 85,8). On the one hand, according to Torah law, it was not appropriate for Yehudah to have sexual relations with his daughter-in-law. [I have chosen this expression because Noachide law, which Yehudah was subject to, permits relations between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law. Ed.] Inasmuch as Yehudah was unaware of that woman's identity at the time, he did not know that he committed a forbidden act. Moreover, he acted under heavenly compulsion. The combination of all these factors enabled him to release the souls of Peretz and Zerach who were part of the souls captured by the forces of evil at the time Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. We know that these two souls contained within them great spiritual potential since great people are descended from them. The "captor" of such souls, i.e. the forces of the קליפה, can be presumed to have guarded them especially carefully so that they should not escape from his clutches. No wonder then that a great individual of the calibre of royalty such as Yehudah was needed to become the instrument of their release from that captivity. Unless such a soul had been accused of the morally depraved sin of incest (the appearance of it) it might never have been able to escape its original environment amongst the spiritually inferior pool of souls. This is what the Torah had in mind when it states, using indirect speech, i.e. G'd is speaking: גור אריה יהודה. This means that prior to Yehudah's union with Tamar he had only been a cub. This was also hinted at when his father had said to him previously: אתה יודוך אחיך, up until now you only merited that your brothers deferred to you by dint of some personal stature you possessed; this stature did not yet have historic significance. Yehudah acquired significance as a historic personality only as a result of his divinely induced union with Tamar. If you want proof of this, just search our records and see which great personalities other than Peretz and Zerach are descended from him. Once Yehudah had united with Tamar he qualified for the title אריה, a fully grown lion. Jacob then went on to explain the underlying cause of Yehudah's spiritual rise. It was מטרף בני עלית, "you my son were able to tear yourself away from the prey" i.e. from the pool of captive holy souls that had been snatched by the forces of the קליפה as the result of Adam's sin. Your divinely induced union with Tamar enabled some of these souls to become free once more and join the pool of holy souls. The sons you have acquired for yourself as a result of this union enable you to establish an everlasting dynasty. When the Torah continued with כרע רבץ, this is a reference to the prey which proved to be the source of Yehudah's spiritual ascent, something G'd had referred to when He told Cain in Genesis 4,7: "sin crouches at its door;" Yehudah had not had a prior opportunity to rescue the precious souls of Peretz and Zerach. When the Torah continues calling Yehudah both אריה and לביא, this is a hint that these souls were guarded within the קליפה by a power comparable to a לביא, so that only an אריה, a fully grown lion, had the power to rescue them. Yehudah was that "lion" of a holy soul who could perform such a deed successfully. As of that time the sceptre would not depart from Yehudah, i.e. he had laid the foundation for an enduring dynasty. We are still looking forward daily to the resumption of the monarchy by a descendant of Yehudah (the Messiah).

מטרף בני עלית, “you removed yourself from the temptation to treat my son as your prey.” According to Rashi here; “you did not consider that killing my son Joseph would be an achievement.” Yaakov admits that he had once suspected him of having killed Joseph. In the Talmud Sanhedrin 6 and 7, the expression בצע used by Yehudah when persuading his brothers not to kill Joseph (37,26) is not understood as Yaakov praising Yehudah for not killing; rather it is a compliment to him for admitting to have been wrong when he accused his daughterinlaw Tamar of harlotry when it had been he who had sought out an assignation with someone whom he thought of as a harlot. He had cancelled the decree to execute her and the two fetuses she was carrying, thereby publicly shaming himself. (Genesis 38,26)

מטרף בני עלית, “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself.” Yaakov referred to his suspicion that it had been Yehudah who had “torn Joseph like a wild beast” (37,33). Yaakov refers to Yehudah’s having had second thoughts when he had said: “what advantage is there in killing our brother?” He mentioned that “the scepter shall not depart from Yehudah until the arrival of Shiloh.” This was an allusion to the redemption from the exile in Egypt which was relatively close at hand (in terms of Jewish history). Yaakov did not feel that he could fail to allude to this redemption in view of the fact that this particular exile was about to commence as soon as he had died. How could he fail at least to allude to the first redeemer of Israel, the one who would be from the tribe of Levi, while he did allude to the eventual redeemer? He therefore alluded to the first and last redeemer by the same word, the numerical value of the word שילה being the same as the numerical value of the name משה, i.e. 345. The immediate meaning of the verse is that up until the arrival of the first redeemer, i.e. Moses, the leadership of the Jewish people will be in the hands of Yehudah. At that time the leadership of the Jewish people would revert to the tribe of Levi. Moses’ position of “king” is stressed in Deut. 33,5 ויהי בישורון מלך, “he became King in Yeshurun.” Concerning the appointment of Moses as de facto king of Israel Yaakov said here כי לו יקהת עמים, “for to him an assembly of people will congregate.” Deut. 33,5 phrases this as בהתאסף ראשי עם, “when the heads of the people would assemble around him.” The fact that the people of Israel are referred to as עמים, “nations (pl), is not unique but occurs also in Deut. 33,3. In other words, the paragraph containing the blessing of Yehudah contains also references to the first redemption the Jewish people would experience. In commenting on the plain meaning of the text of this verse, Nachmanides writes as follows: “the words ‘the scepter will not depart from Yehudah’ mean that Yaakov granted Yehudah the status of Royalty and blessed him by saying that he would not be deprived of that status by any of the other tribes. He assured him that as long as the Israel would be a kingdom, its king would be from the tribe of Yehudah The meaning of the blessing, however, was not that Israel would always be a kingdom and would always be ruled over by a king. After all we have an explicit verse in Deut. 28,36 that under certain conditions “G’d will lead you as well as your king whom you will set up over yourself to a nation you never knew, etc.” Moreover, it is an undeniable fact that nowadays we do not have a king nor princes.” It follows that Yaakov’s promise applied only to the periods in history when the whole Jewish people would be ruled over by a single king. If, temporarily, the Jewish people would be deprived of the conditions which call for it to be ruled by a king, in due course when the proper conditions return, the kingship would again be accorded to a member of the tribe of Yehudah.” This is why David said (Chronicles I 28,4) “The Lord G’d of Israel chose me of all my father’s house to be king over Israel forever. For he chose Yehudah to be ruler, and of the family of Yehudah, my father’s house; and of my father’s sons He preferred to make me king over all Israel;” We also have a verse in Chronicles II 13,5: “surely you know that the Lord G’d of Israel gave David kingship over Israel forever- to him and his sons- by a covenant of salt.” Seeing that by rights the kingship of Israel was granted only to descendants of the tribe of Yehudah, any kings from another tribe who occupied that throne were punished and could not perpetuate their dynasties. Even King Saul, the first king over Israel, was killed in battle and his sons died a violent death. The Hasmoneans (from the tribe of Levi) who claimed the throne of the Jewish people were all punished and died violent deaths as they had disregarded this cardinal rule established by Yaakov. The Hasmoneans wound up by becoming slaves to slaves (to the extent that any of them survived at all). He who took the crown by force was punished by having it taken away from him by force. Our sages in Baba Batra 3 go so far as to say that anyone claiming to be a descendant of the Hasmonean Kings is an impostor and is in fact a slave (who has falsified his genealogy). This is what Hoseah 8,4 had in mind when he said: “they appointed kings without My permission, and they made officers but not of My choice.” Apart from the fact that slaves or their descendants must not become Kings over Jews, the tribe of Levi and in particular the priests were prohibited from ascending the temporal throne. We have an explicit verse in Numbers 18,7 telling the Levites and the Priests to dedicate themselves exclusively to their tasks in tending to the altar and what is beyond the curtain. Seeing that the Hasmoneans who appointed themselves kings neglected to observe this commandment they became liable to such terrible punishment. The Jerusalem Talmud Horiot 3,2 specifically rules that priests must not be anointed as kings. Rabbi Yehudah there explains the linkage between Deut 17,20 “so that he and his descendants may reign long in the midst of Israel,” with the following verse (18,1) “the levitical priests, the whole tribe of Levi, shall have no territorial portion with Israel,” as clear evidence that the spiritual leadership of the Jewish people and its temporal leadership, i.e. the kingship, are to be separate. Ibn Ezra explains the words “the scepter shall not depart from Yehudah” as an indication that the kingship of Yehudah would not commence until David was crowned king. Accordingly, the word לא יסור must be translated: “he will not attain;” in other words: none of the descendants of Yehudah will attain a position of which it can be said that a “lawgiver has emerged from between his feet until Shiloh.” The word יסור does appear in that sense in Exodus 3,3 אסורה נא ואראה, as well as in Ruth 4,1 סורה שבה פה. In both instances the word expresses a desire to attain either information or it is an instruction to do something. עד כי יבא שילה, “until the coming of Shiloh.” According to the plain meaning of the text “until the destruction of Shiloh;” [the word יבא in the sense of “the sun is setting, i.e. its light is failing. Ed.] We also have a specific verse indicating that the reign of the house of David did not commence until after the destruction of Shiloh. In Psalms 78,67-70. Asaph says: ‘“He rejected the clan of Joseph; He did not choose the tribe of Ephrayim. He did choose the tribe of Yehudah, Mount Zion, which He loved. He built His Sanctuary like the heavens, like the earth that He established forever. He chose David, His servant, and took him from the sheepfolds.” Historically speaking, after the destruction of Shiloh (in which Eli presided as High Priest) the prophet Samuel anointed David as King (while Saul was still on the throne). It is also possible to explain this entire paragraph in which Yaakov blesses Yehudah without reading anything between the lines. Yaakov alluded to two redeemers, both in the distant future. The first one is David, son of Yishai. The second one is David reincarnated as the Messiah. I believe the very fact that the Torah devotes three separate verses to Yehudah’s blessing before mentioning the excellence of the territory Yehudah would inherit in the land of Israel (verses 11-12) supports this line of interpretation. In each of the three verses 8-10 Yehudah is mentioned by name; (something most unusual, something that does not occur in connection with any of the other sons). The reason that the name of Yehudah appears on three separate occasions in his blessing is that the blessing refers to three distinct periods of Jewish history. The Torah refers to Yehudah, son of Yaakov. Then it refers to King David. Finally, it refers to King Messiah. The first verse in which Yaakov says that his brothers will acknowledge Yehudah refers to his biological son Yehudah. In that verse Yaakov blesses his son by granting him גבורה, both spiritual and physical strength, the ability to lead his brothers in warfare as well as the authority needed to be a leader. To make certain we understand this, Yaakov addressed Yehudah by saying to him: אתה, “you.”. The second verse, where Yaakov speaks of Yehudah as גור אריה, a lion cub, he refers to King David. The reason he calls him “Yehudah” in that verse is because David is descended from Yehudah. He refers to him as גור, “a cub,’ i.e. not fully matured, as at the time when Samuel anointed David, Saul was still the effective King over Israel. David qualified for the description אריה, “lion” only after Saul had died. The words מטרף בני עלית “you arose from the prey my son,” is a reference to David having been saved from Saul’s persecution of him The words כרע רבץ כאריה, “he crouched and lay down like a lion,” refer to the time of Solomon, David’s son, when each and every Israelite is described as securely resting “under his grapevine and under his fig tree” (Kings I 5,5). Finally, the third verse, in which Yaakov says לא יסור שבט מיהודה, “the scepter will not depart from Yehudah,” is a reference to Israel’s final redeemer the King Messiah. This is why Yaakov said עד כי יבא שילה, “until ‘Shiloh’ arrives, i.e. a “son” of David [descendent, reincarnate]. The reason Yaakov described the final redeemer as “Shiloh” instead of as a son (descendant) of Yehudah is that he wanted to make sure we understand that this final redeemer would be a human being in the full sense of the word, i.e. born משלית אשה, “by woman including her afterbirth.” [Clearly the author wants to dispel the Christian concept of the Messiah being the “son of God.” Ed.] The letter ה at the end of the word שילה is a reference to the last letter in G’d’s Ineffable Name י-ה-ו-ה, a certain attribute of G’d. We have discussed this on numerous occasions. This “letter” is also known in kabbalistic jargon as בתו של אברהם, “the ‘daughter’ of Avraham,” the one married to King Solomon, the one who represents the foremost attribute of the Messiah. Concerning this attribute the prophet uses five separate expressions in Isaiah 11,2-3: “The spirit of the Lord shall alight upon him: a spirit of wisdom and insight; a spirit of counsel and valour; a spirit of devotion and reverence for the Lord. He shall sense the truth by his reverence for the Lord.” In his time “the land shall be filled with knowledge of the Lord as waters covers the sea” (verse 9). The meaning of our verse then is: “once Shiloh=the Messiah has arrived, the kingship will never again depart from this descendent of Yehudah.” According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, the word שילה is a composition of the words שי לו, “at that time people will bring gifts to him” (the Messiah). According to Onkelos the meaning of the word שילה is שהמלכות שלו, “the kingdom belongs to him.” In this connection my own teacher Rabbi Shlomoh Adret explained that the word עד in this instance means the same as לעד, “forever.” This is to teach that the word עד does not belong to the expression כי יבא שילה. This explains why Onkelos translated it as “forever.” Onkelos translated the word כי יבא שילה as דייתא משיחא, “when the redeemer arrives.” Anyone who translates the sequence as “until the Messiah arrives” is in error. The whole message is that once the Messiah arrives the kingship will not depart anymore from Yehudah forever. We find confirmation of this theme in Daniel 2,44: “In the days of these kingdoms the G’d of heaven will establish a kingdom that will never be harmed nor will its sovereignty be left to another people; it will crumble and consume all these kingdoms and it will stand forever.” Seeing that the Christians have used this very verse to prove their theory that the Messiah (in the form of Jesus) has already arrived by interpreting our verse that the rule of Yehudah would last only until the advent of the Messiah, my teacher responded to them that, on the contrary, Yaakov stated and Daniel predicted that the kingship of Yehudah once it commences will endure forever Seeing this is not the case in our time, this is proof that the Messiah has not come until now. You should realise that when Yaakov said עד כי יבא שילה, the first redeemer as well as the last redeemer are both included. [By the “last” redeemer, the author refers to the period of the resurrection. Ed.] Both will be descendants of Yehudah and both will tend the flock of G’d in the Holy land. This is what the Talmud (Sanhedrin 91) had in mind when it discusses the fact that in Exodus 15,1 the Torah reports Moses and the Jewish people as אז ישיר instead of as אז שר “then he will sing,” instead of as “then he sang.” This wording is considered as proof that the resurrection is a Biblical Promise. Devarim Rabbah at the end of the third section uses Exodus 34,1 where G’d tells Moses to carve the second sets of tablets himself, the ones which G’d in turn will inscribe with the Ten Commandments. G’d said to Moses: “by your life, seeing you went to such lengths to secure a second set of tablets for the Jewish people in this life, when the time comes and I will send the prophet Elijah in advance of the Messiah, you too will reappear on earth.” What proof do we have that the opinion cited by the Midrash is correct? We read in Nachum 1,3: “He (G’d) travels in בסופה, whirlwind, and storm.” This is a reference to Moses of whom it is said ותשם אותו בסוף, “she (his mother) placed him in the סוף. Of Elijah we are told that ויעל אליהו בסערה השמים, “Elijah ascended to heaven in a storm” (Kings II 2,11). We have other allusions and predictions concerning the same matter such as Micah 7,15 who predicts that G’d will perform miracles in those days which parallel or excel those He performed during the time of the Exodus. The prophet quotes G’d as saying to him אראנו נפלאות, “I will show him miracles.” We would have expected G’d to say: “I will show you miracles.” This can only mean that G’d will display miracles to him who has once before experienced such miracles. This is the reason that as soon as Yaakov had concluded with his blessing for Yehudah, he added אסרי לגפן עירה ולשרקה בני אתונו, “he will tie his donkey to the vine and his donkey’s foal to the vine branch.” The similes refer to the excellence of the land of Israel, its produce and its fruit. A Midrashic approach based on (Bereshit Rabbah 99,8) The words יודוך אחיך, “your brothers will acknowledge you,” are designed to put Yehudah’s mind at rest. When Yehudah had heard his father chastise all three of his older brothers he had become afraid that his father would level criticism at him also.for his having slept with Tamar. Instead, his father used the word יודוך as a reminder of Yehudah owning up to his making his daughter-in-law Tamar pregnant. This confession of his would cause his brothers to acknowledge him as their leader. He would be their king both in the terrestrial world and in the world to come. In this terrestrial world 30 kings descended from Yehudah ascended the throne. We know this from Ruth 4,18 “these are the descendants of Peretz, etc.” When you count the number of Kings starting with David through Yehoyachin you will find a total of 20 kings. The Temple was destroyed during the reign of Tzidkiyahu. David was the tenth generation from Peretz son of Yehudah. David will also be pre-eminent in the world to come as we know from Ezekiel 37,25 “and My servant David will be their prince forever.” מטרף בני עלית. These words are understood by the Midrash as referring to four people whom Yehudah saved personally, i.e. Joseph, Tamar, Peretz and Zerach. G’d saved four more people, all of them descendants of Yehudah, i.e. Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah. Thus far Bereshit Rabbah. The Midrash tells us that G’d saved Daniel from the pit of lions as a reward for Yehudah having saved Joseph from the pit. He saved the three righteous men Chanayah, Mishael and Azaryah from a fiery death at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace (Daniel 3,25) because Yehudah their ancestor had saved Tamar and the twins Peretz and Zerach inside her womb from death by burning. The Midrash refers to further repercussions in the distant future due to Yehudah’s conduct, citing the fact that the first Temple was built by Solomon a descendant of Yehudah whereas the second Temple was built by Zerubabel, also a descendant of Yehudah. (compare Chagai 2,23), Zecharyah 4,9 and Zecharyah 4,7) The third Temple which we hope will be built soon will be erected by the King Messiah, also of David’s i.e. Yehudah’s descent. We base this on Isaiah 11,10. A kabbalistic approach to the words יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, sees in the name Yehudah the beginning of an expanded awareness of a mystical connection between this world of matter and the celestial world of the spirit. The word יוודך אחיך suggests that he will be the one who transmits greater awareness of these connections to the other brothers. If Yehudah mastered the attribute of גבורה it was due to his ability to acknowledge his own mistakes. The letters in his very name are indicative of this. We find something similar in Genesis 29, 34-35 where Leah acknowledged with thanks that she had given birth to more children for Yaakov than she was entitled to on the basis of each of Yaakov’s wives bearing him three sons. Leah expressed her feelings in naming her fourth son יהודה. [The ethical lesson to be learned from all this is that gratitude, i.e. acknowledging that G’d does more for us than we are entitled to, leads to a deeper understanding of the mystical bonds that hold the terrestrial world and the celestial world together. Ed.]

מטרף בני עלית, “you my son, removed yourself from the prey.” The reason the simile of טרף, prey, is used by Yaakov, is that it is appropriate for someone described as אריה, lion. You got up and removed yourself from treating Joseph as “prey.” The word טרף here is to be understood as a transitive verb. Some commentators understand the word as an intransitive verb, so that the words מטרף בני עלית would be an allusion to David (re-incarnate of Yehudah) standing by the lion that had become his prey. He had succeeded in killing a lion and a bear, which gave him the courage to engage in battle against Goliath. (compare Samuel I 17,34) David’s victory over Goliath was the foundation of his subsequent greatness. כרע רבץ כאריה, “He will kneel and crouch like a lion.” It is the nature of a lion that after having secured its prey it kneels and crouches, stretching out and not leaving that spot even if danger appears to threaten it. Here too, Yaakov alludes to David, who after securing prey, did not flee the site out of fear of a counter attack (avengers). Some commentators see in the words מטרף בני עלית, a description of how the Jewish people after vanquishing their enemies will arise, and assume a posture of fearlessness, unconcern. [as opposed to Yaakov who, after Shimon and Levi killed the male inhabitants of Shechem, worried about retribution by the surrounding Emorites. Ed.]

The holder of dominion shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor the scribe from his descendants, forever — until the Messiah comes, to whom the kingship belongs, and the peoples shall obey him.

לא יסור שבט מיהודה THE SCEPTRE SHALL NOT DEPART FROM JUDAH — Even after the house of David ceases to reign. For this refers to the Chiefs of the Exile in Babylon who ruled over the people with the rod (שבט) having been appointed by the government (Sanhedrin 5a; Horayot 11b). ומחוקק מבין רגליו AND THE LAWGIVER FROM BETWEEN HIS FEET — This refers to the scholars of the Torah: the Princes of the Land of Israel (as Hillel and his descendants who were Heads of Schools only and had no political power) (Sanhedrin 5a; Horayot 11b). עד כי יבא שילה means until the King Messiah will come, whose will be the kingdom (Genesis Rabbah 99:8). Thus too does Onkelos render it. A Midrashic interpretation is: שילה is the same as שי לו, a present unto him, as it is said, (Psalms 76:12) “Let them bring (שי) presents unto him that is to be feared.” ולו יקהת עמים means AND UNTO HIM [SHALL BE] AN ASSEMBLAGE OF PEOPLES. יקהת is a noun from the root יקה and is not a verbal form although it has the appearance of one, for the י is one of the root-letters as it is in the word יפעתך (Ezekiel 21:20) “thy brightness” from root יפע, only that it is sometimes omitted. There are many root-letters that are subject to this rule and are known as עיקר נופל (root-letters that may be omitted) as, for example, the נ of נוגף and of נושך and the א of אחותי in (Job 13:17) ואחותי באזניכם (where the root is חוה) “and let my declaration be in your ears”, and the אבחת of א in the phrase (Ezekiel 21:20) אבחת חרב “the point of the sword”, or the א in אסוך in the phrase (2 Kings 4:2) (אסוך שמן) (root סוך) “a pot of oil”. So, too, here, ויקהת a noun (from a root יָקַה to assemble, as שמחה the construct of which is שמחת from שמח) — an assembly of nations. And so it is actually said with reference to the Messiah, (Isaiah 11:10) “Unto him shall the nations seek”. Of similar meaning is the word יקהת in (Proverbs 30:17) “the eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth ליקהת אם i.e. despiseth “the gathering of wrinkles in the mother’s face” (due to old age). In the Talmud we find a similar meaning of the root.יקה: “they sat and gathered assemblies (ומקהו אקהתא) in the streets of Nehardea” (Tr. Yevamot 110b). It could have also said קהיית instead of יקהת.

THE SCEPTRE SHALL NOT DEPART FROM JUDAH. Its purport is not that the sceptre of royalty shall never depart from Judah, for it is written, The Eternal will bring thee, and thy king whom thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers, with the result that the people and their king will be in exile, devoid of royalty and nobility, and for a long time there has not been a king in Israel! The prophet Jacob did not assure Israel that they would not enter captivity under any circumstances because Judah would rule over them. Instead, the purport of the verse before us is that the sceptre shall not depart from Judah to any of his brothers, for the king of Israel, who will rule over them, will be from the tribe of Judah, and none of his brothers will rule over him. The same meaning applies to the expression, there shall not depart a lawgiver from between his feet, which means that every lawgiver in Israel who carries the king’s signet shall be from Judah. It is he who will rule and command in all Israel, and he will have the seal of royalty until the coming of his son, who [will have] the obedience of all people, to do with all as he pleases, this being a reference to the Messiah. “The sceptre” is thus an allusion to David, who was the first king to have the sceptre of royalty, and “Shiloh” ” is his son, who will have the obedience of the peoples. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s assertion that “Shiloh” is a reference to David is impossible for Judah never possessed a royal sceptre prior to David. And even though the tribe of Judah was honored and marched first in the desert, the word sheivet (sceptre) applies only to a king or prince, as it is written: A sceptre (‘sheivet’) of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom; the sceptre of the rulers; a sceptre to rule. Now this verse before us alludes to the fact that Jacob made the tribe of Judah king over his brothers and bequeathed to Judah sovereignty over Israel. This is what David said: And the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever; for He has chosen Judah to be prince, and in the house of Judah, the house of my father, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel. Jacob said, It shall not depart, in order to allude to the fact that another tribe will rule over Israel, but once the sceptre of royalty comes to Judah it will not depart from him to another tribe. This is the intent of the verse, For the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, to him and to his sons. The reason for Saul [being appointed the first king over Israel] was that the request for royalty at that time was distasteful to the Holy One, blessed be He. Ramban will explain why the people’s request for a king was unpleasing to G-d “at that time.” He did not wish to appoint a king over them from the tribe to whom royalty belonged and from whom it was never to depart. He therefore granted them a temporary royalty. It is this which Scripture alludes to when it says, I give thee a king in Mine anger, and take him away in My wrath. Having given him unwillingly, He therefore removed him in His wrath, as he and his children were killed and his royal line was interrupted. The reason for all this was that at this time Samuel was judge and prophet who was fighting their battles according to the word of G-d, saving them in times of trouble, and it was improper for them to request a king during his lifetime, even as Samuel said to them, And the Eternal your G-d is your king, and Scripture further states, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them. It was for this reason that He did not grant them permanent royalty. The verse stating, Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the commandment of the Eternal thy G-d, which He commanded thee; for now would the Eternal have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever, This verse clearly indicates that had Saul not sinned, his kingdom would have endured forever, which seems contrary to Ramban’s above thesis. Ramban’s answer is stated in the text. means that had not Saul sinned, his descendants would have had sovereignty over some part of Israel, but not over all. This is the meaning of [the expression], upon Israel, [rather than “upon all Israel].” Perhaps Saul would have reigned over the tribes that were descended from his mother, Joseph and Benjamin were her sons, and the tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim and Menasheh were her descendants. namely, Benjamin, Ephraim and Menasheh, as Judah and Ephraim were considered as two nations in Israel. Or again, Saul might have been king, subject to the king of Judah. In my opinion, the kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Jacob by diverting the inheritance of Judah to another tribe. Now they relied on the word of Achiyah the Shilonite, the prophet who anointed But see Horayoth 11 b, where it is stated that kings of Israel were anointed although not with the Oil of Anointment prepared by Moses. Jeroboam, who said, And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever. But when [the ten tribes of] Israel continued to crown kings one after another of the rest of the tribes, and they did not revert to the kingdom of Judah, they transgressed the testament of the ancestor, and they were accordingly punished, just as Hosea said, They have set up kings, but not from Me. This was also the reason for the punishment of the Hasmoneans, who reigned during the Second Temple. They were saints of the Most High, without whom the learning of Torah and the observance of Commandments would have been forgotten in Israel, and despite this, they suffered such great punishment. The four sons of the old Hasmonean Matithyahu, saintly men who ruled one after another, in spite of all their prowess and success, fell by the sword of their enemies. And ultimately the punishment reached the stage where our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: “He who says, ‘I come from the house of the Hasmoneans,’ is a slave,” as they were all destroyed on account of this sin. By assuming the crown of royalty, they transgressed the command of Jacob, who said as long as royalty exists in Israel it should not be removed from the tribe of Judah. All this is elucidated by Ramban further in the text. Now although among the children of Shimon, there was cause for punishment on account of the Sadducees, See Kiddushin 66a. all the children of the righteous Matithyahu the Hasmonean were deposed for this only: they ruled even though they were not of the seed of Judah and of the house of David, and thus they completely removed “the sceptre” and “the lawgiver” from Judah. And their punishment was measure for measure, as the Holy One, blessed be He, caused their slaves to rule over them, and it is they who destroyed them. It is also possible that, [in addition to the Hasmoneans having sinned for assuming royalty when they were not of the tribe of Judah], they sinned in ruling on account of their being priests, who have been commanded: Guard your priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, and to within the veil; and ye shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift. Thus it was not for them to rule, but only to perform the Service of G-d. In Tractate Horayoth of the Jerusalem Talmud 3:2. I have seen the following text: “We do not anoint priests as kings. Rabbi Yehudah Anturya said that this is on account of the verse, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba said [that Scripture states concerning the king], To the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel. Now what is written afterwards? The priests the Levites … shall have no portion.” Thus taeching by juxtaposition that the priests are not to act as kings. Thus the Sages have taught here that kings are not to be anointed from among the priests, the sons of Aaron. Now at first the above text explains that this is out of respect for the tribe of Judah since sovereignty is not to depart from that tribe. Therefore, even if Israel, out of temporary necessity, raises a king over itself from the other tribes, he is not to be anointed so that the glory of royalty should not be upon him. Instead, such kings are to be merely as judges or officers. The reason for mentioning “priests” [when the same stricture applies to all tribes other than Judah] is that even though the priests as such are suited for anointment, we are not to anoint them as kings, and the moreso the rest of the tribes. It is as the Rabbis said in the Gemara: The principle is mentioned there, but Ramban’s quote follows the text of Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Melachim I, 10). we are to anoint only the kings of the house of David. And Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba, [who in the above text from the Jerusalem Talmud based the law upon a verse in the book of Deuteronomy], explained that anointing priests as kings is forbidden by a law of the Torah, which says that the priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance in royalty. This comment is a matter which is fitting and proper. AND UNTO HIM SHALL BE AN ASSEMBLAGE (‘YIKHATH’) OF PEOPLES. Yikhath amim means an assemblage of peoples, as it is said with reference to the Messiah, Unto him shall the nations seek. Of similar meaning is the verse, The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth ‘likhath eim,’ meaning “the gathering of wrinkles in his mother’s face due to her old age.” In the Talmud Nehardea was a town in Babylonia, renowned as the seat of the academy founded by Shmuel. His colleague Rav was head of the academy in Sura. we find a similar expression: “They gathered assemblies (d’makhu k’hiatha) in the streets of Nehardea.” It could also have said here in the verse, kehiyath amim, instead of yikhath amim. This is the language of Rashi. Now it does not appear to me to be correct to explain, as Rashi does, likhath eim to mean the gathering of wrinkles in the mother’s face. And the expression, makhu k’hiatha, is nothing but a phrase to express disputes and questions, suggesting that the matter was disputed with many questions and interrogations, for in the language of the Sages, one who finds difficulty with a certain point of law is referred to as kohah. Such an example is found in the Midrash Chazit: The name Midrash Chazit is derived from the first word of the opening of this Midrash. It begins with the verse in Proverbs 22:29: “Chazita (Seest thou a man.…)” The Midrash quoted here is in 3:13. “They all handle the sword, as they all study the Law with minds sharpened as a sword, so that if any problem comes before them, the law should not be moot (kohah) to them.” There are many other similar examples of the usage of this word there in the Midrash Chazit. This is also the origin of the expression in the Gemara: See also Tosafoth Yebamoth 110b. “Rabbi Yehoshua kihah and declared it to be clean,” meaning that he asked many questions and refuted all arguments of those who held it to be unclean until he was compelled to pronounce it to be clean. In many old texts in the Gemara Baba Metzia16152b. we also find the saying: “He who d’kohi on coins is called a malevolent soul,” meaning that he who is strict and causes difficulty in accepting a coin from another [on the grounds that it is slightly worn shows himself to be stingy in his dealings]. Grammarians have said concerning yikhath that its root is yakah, thus explaining it in the sense of obedience and acceptance of a command. Hence yikhath amim would mean that the peoples would listen to him and do whatever he commands them to do; and despiseth ‘likhath eim’ means “despising accepting her command.”The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the word yikhath is similar in expression to the verse, He that eateth the sour grapes his teeth ‘tikhenah’ (shall be set on edge), and its root is kahah, with the letter yud in the word yikhath being similar to the yud in the word yitzhar. The purport of all words having the root kahah is weakness and collapse. The verse before us is thus stating that the rod of the oppressor will not be removed from Judah until his son, who will bring about the meakness of the peoples and their collapse, will come, as he will weaken them all by sword. Similarly, the verse, If the iron be ‘keihah,’ means “if the iron be dull and unable to cut” — similar to [the expression] in the language of the Sages, sakin she’amda, Literally, “a knife which has stood.” (a knife which has become dull) “or has been partly broken and contains notches.”Again I found a similar use of the word kohah there in Midrash Chazit,1661:57. See Note 158 for derivation of the name Midrash Chazit. [with reference to the period of the Exodus when Israel was to eat of the Passover-offering]: “The Holy One, blessed be He, directed at them a most pleasant odor from the Garden of Eden, and their souls were koheh, to eat. They said to Moses: ‘Our master Moses, give us something to eat.’ He answered them: ‘So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to me: There shall no alien eat thereof.’ So the Israelites arose and separated the aliens from among them. Now their souls were koheh to eat, etc.” The purport of the word koheh here is that their souls were weakened and their bodies overcome on account of their desire to eat of the Passover-offering to which there had been attached this good odor from the Garden of Eden. In a similar vein are the expressions mentioned above: “The Law should not be kohah to them,” The name Midrash Chazit is derived from the first word of the opening of this Midrash. It begins with the verse in Proverbs 22:29: “Chazita (Seest thou a man.…)” The Midrash quoted here is in 3:13. meaning “faint and deficient in their hand”; the expression, makhu k’hiatha, Nehardea was a town in Babylonia, renowned as the seat of the academy founded by Shmuel. His colleague Rav was head of the academy in Sura. means that they were asking questions which induce a weakening of the soul from the great pressure and concentration. It may be that it is an expression of disproof and smashing refutation, such as, “Parich Rav Acha.” “Rav Acha objected” Ramban is suggesting that it means: “Rav Acha asked a crushing question.” They similarly use the expression [in connection with the question of the wicked son in the Passover Hagaddah]: “You too hakheih his teeth,” meaning “break them or weaken them by your words,” for with respect to the flesh you can only use the term “weaken” but not “break” although the intent of weakening and breaking is alike, and the word kehiyah includes both.

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah" — the scepter of greatness shall not depart from Judah until David came, who marks the beginning of the kingdom of Judah. And so it was — observe that the standard of Judah set out in the lead (Num. 10:14). Hashem also said: "Judah shall go up first" (Judg. 1:2). The meaning of מְחֹקֵק is a scribe who inscribes (יָחֹק) in a book. The sense of "from between his feet" is that it was the custom of every scribe to sit at the feet of the commander. "Shiloh" — some interpret it as the Aramaic Targum does, meaning "his" (שָׁלוּ). Others say it derives from שִׁלְיָה ("afterbirth") (Deut. 28:57). Some derive it from the rabbinic word שָׁלִיל ("fetus"). Some interpret it as referring to the city of Shiloh, and read יָבֹא as in "the sun goes" (Lev. 22:7) — or: "until the end of Shiloh comes"; for so it is written: "He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh" (Ps. 78:60), and afterward "He chose David His servant" (ibid. v. 70). This too is not implausible. Or שִׁילֹה may mean "his son," the heh replacing the vav, as in "in the midst of her tent" (Gen. 9:21), from the root of "do not give birth to me" (2 Kgs. 4:28) — meaning "do not give birth." The word יִקְּהַת follows the form of "the teaching of a mother" (Prov. 30:17), with the yod serving as a future prefix; its meaning is that nations will be gathered to his obedience. And so many peoples were under the hand of David and his son Solomon. The sense of "until Shiloh comes" is not that the scepter will depart when Shiloh comes, but rather, as in: "Such a one shall lack no bread until the time when he will have fields and many vineyards"; and similarly: "For I will not leave you until I have done what I have spoken to you" (Gen. 28:15), meaning I will return him to the land.

לא יסור שבט מיהודה, once he will have attained the formal position of king, as hinted at by the words וכלביא מי יקימנו in the previous verse, the scepter symbolising his rule will not move to any other tribal leader, unlike that of King Sha-ul, who, although crowned with G’d’s approval, was deprived of founding a dynasty by G’d Who had rejected him on account of his disobedience (a promise by the prophet Nathan to David who had also sinned, compare Samuel II 7,15). When the kingdom of Yehudah headed by a monarch of Davidic origin did collapse and was destroyed by the Babylonians, this did not contradict what Yaakov had predicted here that the scepter would not pass to others from the tribe of Yehudah. Yaakov spoke only about a period during which the state and the kingdom would continue to exist, prophesying that as long as that condition existed the rule would not be transferred to anyone belonging to another tribe. He had not addressed the possibility of Jewish statehood being lost altogether. ומחוקק מבין רגליו, that his descendants would sit on the throne as judges, and that other members of his tribe would be among those who would be scribes for the judges as was the custom. עד כי יבא שילה, the word שילה is a composite of the root שול meaning שולים, boundaries, margins. The other part of the word is based on the root שלה, the root of the word שלום. Shalom, commonly understood as “peace,” means “the end of the road,” after whatever wrangling in order to achieve an objective has been successfully concluded. Yaakov is saying that until the advent of שילה, i.e. the second part of that word, Yehudah’s pre-eminence will be marginal, narrowly bounded. Once the Messiah will arrive, however, ולו יקהת עמים, nations will subordinate themselves to him displaying their weakness. The meaning of the word קהה as weakness is supported by Kohelet 10,10 אם קהה הברזל, “if the axe is blunt, etc.” A blunt blade is a weak blade. The survivors of the wars preceding the arrival of the Messiah will have been weakened sufficiently, heeding the instructions of the Messiah as predicted by Bileam in Numbers 24,17.

לא יסור שבט מיהודה, “the rod (mace) will never leave Yehudah;” once the crown will be placed on a member of the tribe of Yehudah (King David), it will never be placed on the head of someone belonging to another tribe; (as opposed to the first King of Israel, Shaul, who had been unable to establish a dynasty.) ומחוקק מבין רגליו, “nor will scribes be absent from sitting at his feet.” In those days it was the custom for the royal scribes to sit at the feet of the ruler. עד כי יבא שילה, “until the arrival of Shiloh, when the kingdom will be split, and Jerovam will be appointed to rule over ten of the twelve tribes. Yaakov refers to the people after the death of Solomon assembling to appoint Jerovam and to dissent from Rechavam, Solomon’s son and successor. [There is no verse in the Bible stating that this occurred at Shiloh;] perhaps our author understands “shiloh” as a reference to the prophet Achiyah Hashiloni, who had first informed Jerovam that he would become king over the ten tribes in Kings I 11,29, and who resided in Shiloh, as we know from Kings 14,2. Ed.] An alternate explanation: Yaakov simply referred to Achiyah the prophet who stemmed from Shiloh, and who told Jerovam who was at the time fleeing from the wrath of King Solomon that he would become King over ten tribes, but at the same time warning him not to interfere with the Kingdom of Yehudah, a remnant of David’s empire. (Kings I 11,2931.) ולו יקהת עמים, “and to whom the gathered nations will belong.” The ten tribes will congregate at Shiloh to crown Jerovam as their head. This has all been spelled out in Kings I 12,1. The crowning took place at Sh’chem, but Shiloh and Sh’chem were practically next door (about 10 k.m.) to one another. Compare Joshua 24,1, and immediately after that Joshua 24,26 where Joshua is reported as recording all this “at the Temple of the Lord,” (which was at Shiloh) without any mention of Joshua having had to move to there to do this. This comment is mentioned here only as a reply to heretics who insist that Shiloh cannot be the name of a town, as a town is always feminine in Hebrew, so that the masculine יבא, “he will come,” would be inappropriate. Essentially, Yaakov describes the greatness of Yehudah as lasting from when David ascended the throne until his grandson Rechavam forfeited most of his kingdom. Seeing that Yaakov did not want to spell out the decline of Yehudah, he worded it in a manner that lets us draw these conclusions ourselves.

לא יסור שבט מיהודה, “The rod will never leave Yehudah, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra this means that even before having been crowned king officially, already when Israel would be in the desert, the army group featuring the tribe of Yehudah will march at the head of the people. עד כי יבא שילה, “until Shiloh emerges,” a reference to David who will be the first king establishing a dynasty; the מחוקק mentioned in our verse refers to the scribe recording the king’s edicts. The expression מבין רגליו, is a description of how the scribe holds the book in which he writes between his legs, seeing that he sits at the feet of the ruler whose decrees he records for publication and for posterity. The word שילה means “his son,” based on the word ובשליתה יוצאת מבין רגליה ובבניה אשר תלד in Deuteronomy 28,57, which means “the afterbirth which issues from between her legs and the babies she bears.” Nachmanides queries this commentary which is attributed to Ibn Ezra, saying that Yaakov could not have referred to David, claiming that the word שבט, “scepter” cannot be used except in conjunction with a crowned head. He supports this with several quotes from Scripture, stating that until David’s advent to the throne, no one from the tribe of Yehudah had possessed such a symbol of authority. The promise of the scepter of Royalty not departing from Yehudah, is not meant to suggest that it will never depart from Yehudah, i.e. the dynasty of David. It could not mean that as the Torah has stated specifically in Deuteronomy 28.36 that יולך ה' אותך ואת מלכך אשר תקים עליך אל גוי אשר לא ידעת, “that the Lord will lead you and the king you appointed over yourself into exile to a nation whom you have never heard of.” In other words, not only the people but also their (former) king will experience exile in a foreign land. Clearly, when in exile, they will not have a king of their own ruling over them, whether Davidic or otherwise. What Yaakov meant was that as long as there would be kings in an independent state of Israel, such a king would be from the tribe of Yehudah through his illustrious scion David. Jerusalem would not be ruled by a king from some other tribe. עד כי יבא שילה. A reference to David’s son (offspring), i.e. the Messiah. ולו יקהת עמים, “to whom the gathered nations will belong.” The Messiah will rule over all of them. We have here a clear statement that Yaakov “crowned” Yehudah as authority over the other brothers, assuring him of eventual rule over the entire Jewish nation. This raises the question of why Sha-ul who was from the tribe of Binyamin was appointed king over Israel at all? We must remember that in G’d’s and Samuel’s eyes, the very demand for a king at a time when the judge and Seer Samuel led the Jewish people successfully in war and peace, was anathema to G’d. Samuel, i.e. G’d, therefore did not want at that time to appoint a king from the tribe of Yehudah, the very tribe who once it supplied a king would at the same time have founded that king’s dynasty, as predicted by Yaakov here. Even if Sha-ul had not sinned by failing to completely wipe out Amalek, his dynasty would have extended only over his own tribe, not over the whole people of Israel. He might possibly also have ruled over the tribe of Ephrayim. The Kings who ruled over the ten tribes all did not do so with G’d’s approval, i.e. they violated Yaakov’s last will and testament by doing so, and even the Hasmoneans who were otherwise fully traditional and meticulously observant but arrogated the mantle of Royalty to themselves, were punished by their family being completely wiped out, as stated by our sages. Their sin was that they made the scepter depart from the rightful claimants, a scion from the house of David. As a symbol of all this, only kings descended from David had ever been anointed with the oil of anointing described in Exodus 29,7 and elsewhere. Rash’bam explains the words לא יסור שבט מיהודה to mean that the position of authority accorded by his brothers to Yehudah will not be usurped until Yerovam and ten tribes secede from the Davidic dynasty at Shechem, (very close to Shiloh, compare Kings I chapter 12) Shiloh and Shechem are names used interchangeably This becomes clear in Joshua 24,1 and the whole paragraph following. Joshua’s referring to the people standing in the presence of the Lord, i.e. near the Tabernacle which was in Shiloh, makes all this very plausible. Yet another explanation of the words לא יסור שבט, understands the following words עד כי יבא שילה, as a description of the “sun” represented by Shiloh, the presence of the Shechinah, i.e. the Tabernacle, at that time. Only then would the kingdom (and dynasty) of David the scion of Yehudah truly begin to assert itself as we know from Psalms 78,60 ויטוש משכן שילו, אהל שכן באדם, “He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent He had set among men.” Yet another approach to our verse understands the words to mean that Yehudah’s authority and preferential status as first among the princes and leader in the battle formations of the Jewish army will last until Joshuah will erect the central Tabernacle at Shiloh [for the first time in a permanent location, Ed.] From then on, all the people will congregate around that Tabernacle in equal measure so that Yehudah will no longer need to be “first” in the sense of providing inspiration for the remainder of the nation. עד כי יבא שילה, the words עד כי are to be understood in a sense similar to Genesis 28,15 כי לא אעזבך עד אשר אם עשיתי את אשר דברתי לך, ”and I will not abandon you until I have carried out all that I have said to you.” The meaning of that line is not that after G’d had fulfilled the promise made to Yaakov in the dream of the ladder He would abandon him, but that after that stage had been reached Yaakov would be able to manage on his own. Similarly, after Shiloh, Yehudah, i.e. its scion David, would proceed to grow in importance and following without overt intervention by G’d. ולו יקהת עמים, “and nations will flock around him.” According to Rashi the word יקהת refers to an assembly of people. Other commentators understand the word as referring to people subordinating themselves. Still another view understands the word as describing people disciplining themselves and willingly accepting commands. Yaakov predicts that other nations will accept the rule of Yehudah upon themselves without challenging any of it.

Israel shall surround his city; the people shall build his Temple; the righteous shall encircle him on all sides; and those who occupy themselves with Torah shall be with him in study. His garments shall be of fine purple; his raiment, row upon row, dyed crimson and multicolored.

אסרי לגפן עירה BINDING UNTO THE VINE HIS FOAL — He (Jacob) prophesied of the land of Judah that it would run with wine like a fountain: the vines will be so productive that a man of Judah will bind to a vine one foal and he will fully load it with the grapes of only one vine, and from the produce of only one branch he would load one ass’s colt. שרקה means a long branch; corière in old French כבס ביין HE WASHED IN WINE — all these phrases indicate abundance of wine. סותה denotes a kind of vesture, but there is no other example of the word in Scripture. אסרי is the same as אוסר (i.e. the yod is redundant). Similar forms are: (Psalms 113:7) “who raiseth (מקימי instead of מקים) the poor out of the dust”, (Psalms 5:1) “that art enthroned” (היושבי instead of היושב) in the heavens”. In the same way is בני אתנו (instead of בן אתנו) to be explained. Onkelos translates v.11 as having reference to King Messiah: גפן “the vine” symbolizes “Israel” (cf. Psalms 80:9): “Thou didst pluck up a vine out of Egypt”); עירה (taken as עיר city with the ה suffix instead of ו, like סותה instead of סותו in thin verse) means Jerusalem; שורקה alludes to Israel as the prophet exclaims (Jeremiah 2:21) “Yet, I had planted thee a noble vine (שורק)". בני אתנו Onkelos translates by: they will build His Temple (איתנו), connecting this word with the expression שער האיתן “The gate of the entrance” of the Temple mentioned in the book of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40:15). He further renders it in another manner, namely: גפן the vine represents the righteous; בני אתנו he paraphrases by: who occupy themselves with the Torah by teaching it” — with an allusion to the idea expressed in (Judges 5:10) “Ye that ride on white asses (אתונות)” (cf. Eruvin 54b, where this is referred to the scholars who ride from city to city and from district to district to teach the Law, thus making the explanation of the Torah shining-white as is the light at noon-day; cf. also the Targum on this verse). The words כבס ביין he renders by “their garments will be of fine purple” — resembling wine in colour. The word צבעונין “coloured garments” in the Targum is the rendering of סותה — for a woman attires herself in these to entice men to take notice of her (so that the word denotes a garment that attracts notice to its wearer, being a noun formed from the root סות, to entice or allure). Our Rabbis, too, explained this word (סותה) in the Talmud (Ketubot 111b) in the sense of allurement — the allurement of intoxication: they say, “And as for the wine in question, perhaps you will say that it cannot intoxicate — remember that Scripture says of it סותה “its allurement” (i.e. it has an allurement so that people drink more and more of it).

"Binding" (אֹסְרִי) — the yod is a suffix, as in "O You who dwells" (Ps. 123:1); "to my mare" (Song 1:9). "His foal" (עִירֹה) — as in "thirty foals" (Judg. 10:4). The yod of בְּנִי אֲתֹנוֹ is also a suffix — or alternatively, אֹסְרִי governs two objects: itself and another with it. "And to the choice vine" (וְלַשֹּׂרֵקָה) — this is a doubling, for the vine is like the grapevine and the foal is like the she-donkey as well. "And in the blood of grapes he washed his garment" (סוּתֹה) — some say this is like כְּסוּתוֹ ("his garment"), with the kaf omitted. In my view the correct reading is that it derives from מַסְוֶה ("covering"). The meaning is that his vineyards will yield so abundantly that he can tie a foal to the vine without concern if the animal eats the grapes; and in place of water he will wash his garments in wine. It is compared to blood because the wine is red. This is figurative, as in "the mountains will drip with new wine" (Joel 4:18).

אוסרי לגפן עירה, this is one of the things that help us recognise the Redeemer when he comes. 1) he will manifest himself as Messiah by a foal borne by a she-ass. (Zecharyah 9,9) The reason this indicates that he is the Messiah is that he does not arrive on a horse, an animal which is ready for battle, for war. The final battle involving the nations of the world will already have been fought and won by G’d at the time he will manifest himself. He will commence his reign when peace already prevails. 2) the fact that he will tie his ass to a גפן, a vine, will be a symbol that he is destined to rule over the Jewish people, the people who have been compared to a grape vine as stated in Chulin 92. The prophet Isaiah 5,7 also referred to the Jewish people as G’d’s vineyard. ולשרקה בני אתונו, this is a reference to a third symbol by which the Messiah will be identified, that not only will he tie his ass to a vine but to a sorekah, a choice vine. The wine from such vine illuminates the eyes of the Just of their respective generations, something that cannot be said of an ordinary vine. כבס ביין לבושו, the fourth sign identifying the Messiah is that he will be able to launder his garments in blood. He will have to do this as he will find many people who have been slain in the war preceding his coming, and he will assist in their burial. (compare Isaiah 63,2 מדוע אדום ללבושך “why are your garments so red?”) Another allusion to this is found in Psalms 110,6 ידין בגויים מלא גווית, “he works judgment on the nations piling up bodies.”

אסרי לגפן עירה, "He ties his ass to a vine, etc." There are numerous explanations of this verse; their common denominator is that they are all of a homiletical nature. Perhaps the verse is again speaking about the arrival of the Messiah who has been mentioned at the end of the last verse, i.e. עד כי יבא שילה. Jacob had described that period as one when all the nations of the world will seek out the Messiah. This verse would then describe the Messiah as tying his donkey to the vine, i.e. Israel. Israel has been compared to the vine in Psalms 80,9: "You plucked up a vine from Egypt, You expelled nations and planted it." The "donkey" in this verse refers to the Gentile nations. We have several instances in the Bible in which the Gentile nations are compared to donkeys. The first such instance is in Genesis 22,5 where Abraham compares the Gentiles to the donkey (according to Kidushin 68). We also have a very clear such comparison in Ezekiel 23,20 where the prophet compares Israel's promiscuity with Gentiles as a lust for the flesh of donkeys. When Jacob proceeds to speak of the שרקה an especially long vine, as a branch to which the Messiah will tie his she-ass's colt, he makes a fine distinction between the male and female souls that originate in the domain of the קליפה. He calls the male, עיר, whereas he calls the female אתון. When speaking of Israel as a whole, i.e. גפן he describes the Messiah as tying the male Gentiles to the whole vine, whereas when speaking of the female Gentiles he speaks of the Messiah tying them to a single branch of that vine. Not that much restraining power is needed to control the females. Alternatively, our verse speaks of two different periods of well known redemptions. The first is the redemption from Egypt, whereas the second refers to the ultimate redemption in the days of the Messiah who is descended from David. Concerning he first redemption, Jacob said: אסרי לגפן עירה, he ties his donkey to a vine, similar to the verse in Psalms 80,9 a period when G'd humbled a single nation before the Jews, i.e. the Egyptians. Concerning the redemption in the future, Jacob speaks of the שרקה, the whistle, in the sense that the prophet Zachariah did in Zachariah 10,8: אשרקה להם ואקבצם כי פדית, "I will whistle to them and gather them, for I will redeem them." Jacob speaks of בני אתונו, i.e. the plural, since at that time Israel will be redeemed from many different nations. At the time of the Exodus, the redemption comprised the defeat of Egypt and the Canaanites, i.e. seven of the Canaanite nations. The remainder of the seventy nations were not humbled before Israel at that time. When the final redemption will occur all the other nations too will be humbled before Israel. These are the בני אתונו, the offspring of the original עירה. Perhaps Jacob referred to a concept which we know from the Zohar Pinchas page 231, that in the domain of the סטרא אחרא, the realm of the spiritually negative manifestations of the ten emanations, the power of female is actually stronger than that of the male. The male just takes the "left-overs" of the female and is therefore known as the יותרת הכבד. [We find two expressions involving the כבד in Leviticus 9,10 where the Torah speaks of: ואת היותרת מן הכבד, "the addition coming out of the כבד," and in Leviticus 3,15 where same is described as: ואת היותרת על הכבד, "the addition which is on the כבד." According to the Zohar the word כבד does not merely mean liver but is a hyperbole for the male with whom Lilith consorts. The spiritually negative forces in this world are sometimes referred to as Samael sometimes as the serpent. Samael is the male part of that team, Lilith, is the female. When adultery is committed, the female partner is released from the כבד, i.e. מן הכבד. Having once been released it assumes a dominance over its former partner so that it will qualify for the description על הכבד, "on top of the כבד." It follows that in the scheme of the powers of evil described by the Zohar, the female is viewed as stronger than the male. Ed.] Jacob described that in his dreams he found it relatively easy to battle the male forces i.e. Samael, whereas he found it much more exhausting to battle the female forces i.e. Lilith. Even when he finally won a victory against those forces, such a victory was not absolute and his dominance could not be compared to his dominance over the parallel male forces of Satan. In view of Jacob's personal experiences in battling the forces of Satan he referred to the שרקה as the female of these forces and said: At the time when G'd will whistle, i.e. announce the coming of the final redemption and will gather in the children of the she-ass, i.e. the forces which emanate from the female of the קליפה, He will also "tie them up," i.e. subdue them, before Israel. Do not be concerned at the fact that we divide this verse by applying part to the time of Moses and part to the time of the redemption at the time of the Messiah; you, my reader, are surely familiar with the words of the Zohar section 2, page 120, that Moses is viewed as the redeemer who redeemed our forefathers and as the redeemer who will lead their children back to the land of their ancestors as is written in Kohelet 1,9: "מה שהיה הוא שיהיה. The first letters of the first three words of that line form the acronym משה. Solomon alludes to the fact that he who has been a redeemer in the past will again be a redeemer in the future. Do not counter by saying that the redeemer of the future will be from the tribe of Yehudah and will either be descended from king David or will be king David himself reincarnate (compare Sanhedrin 98 based on Ezekiel 37,24: "and My servant David will be king over them"). In view of all these prophecies how could we say that the redeemer of the future will come from the tribe of Levi? You must realise that the soul of Moses was composed of all twelve tribes of Israel, all the 600.000 being "branches" of it. David's soul therefore was also a branch of Moses' soul. This is also why you find that while in the desert Moses performed the duties of both king, priest, Levite, prophet, scholar and military hero. He was only able to perform all these functions because his soul comprised all branches of holiness. When the redeemer will appear in the future, it will be revealed that Moses was the root of all monarchy in Israel and that David will be perceived as שילה (numerical value of =345 משה). כבס ביין לבושו, "he will launder his garments in wine, etc." In order to understand these words we must recall a statement in the Zohar Chadash on Parshat Bereshit that in order to be redeemed from the fourth of the four exiles Israel experiences we must possess the redeeming merit of Torah study and Torah knowledge. In the absence of such merit the redemption may be long delayed. Jacob alluded to this when he said כבס ביין לבושו. The specific strength of the king who will be the Messiah is his preoccupation with Torah. The Torah knowledge is symbolised by his wearing purple robes (colour of wine). If at the appointed time, G'd forbid, the Jewish people will not be able to provide such a purple mantle for their redeemer because they are devoid of Torah knowledge, then the redemption will be characterised by the advent of a cruel king, someone like Haman, and the "blood of grapes," i.e. real Jewish blood, instead of blood commuted into the wine of Torah learning, will flow in order that G'd will be able to keep to His schedule for the redemption (compare Sanhedrin 97). The "sparks" of sanctity remaining amongst the Jews may then be released only through very painful afflictions. In other words, Jacob warns that redemption can come about by means of a dignified mode of life, one that includes Torah study, or, G'd forbid, by means of a demeaning way of life and the resultant loss of dignity. The reason Jacob chose the simile of grapes is that in order to produce wine from grapes they have to be pressed, i.e. they have to be "tortured" to release the best that is within them. The reason that Jacob speaks only about דם ענבים, blood from the grapes, and not from a branch of the vine or a whole cluster of grapes for instance, is to console us that even if the redemption will become possible only by means of additional afflictions it will not cause a major dismemberment of the Jewish people. Just as the grapes are a minor part of the whole vine, so the garment of the Messiah described here is not כסות, something large enough to serve as a total garment, but a diminutive סותה, a mini-garment. There would not ever be sufficient blood from the grapes to enable a whole garment to be drenched in it, as opposed to a redemption which occurs as a result of the people's Torah's study, the merit of which would suffice to dye the whole mantle of the Messiah purple.

סותה, a variant of the word: מסוה, “veil, or mask.”

אוסרי לגפן עירה, “he will tie his donkey to a grapevine.” Yaakov predicted that the territory of Yehudah would produce wine in abundance, that wine would flow there just like a fountain. The meter of the verse is: “a man from Yehudah would tie his donkey to one vine and would completely load it with the grapes from that single vine. Similarly, a she-ass would be loaded fully with the produce from a single choice vine. When Yaakov continued with: “he laundered his garments in wine,” he also alluded to the abundance of wine in his land. According to Onkelos our verse speaks of Jerusalem and Israel respectively. The words אוסרי לגפן refer to the people of Israel, the word עירה to Jerusalem. The word שורקה again refers to Israel as we find Jeremiah saying in Jeremiah 2,21: “I have planted it (Israel) as a choice vine.” The words:בני אתונו are rendered by Onkelos as עמא יבנון היכלה, “the people who will build the Sanctuary.” Clearly, Onkelos understands the word בני as related to בנין, “building.” He understands the word אתון as based on Zecharyah 9,9: “riding on a male donkey the son of a she-ass.” The prophet thus describes the arrival of the Messiah.

אסרי לגפן עירה, “he will tie his ass to a vine.” Seeing that grapes will be in such abundant supply he will not worry that by tying his ass to a vine the ass would be tempted to eat the grapes. סותה, “his garment.” The letter כ at the beginning of this word has been omitted. Alternatively, the word is derived from מסוה, the cloth Moses wrapped around his forehead so as not to frighten the people by the rays of light his face emitted upon his return from the mountain. (Exodus 34,33)

His mountains shall redden with his vineyards; his vats shall overflow with wine; his valleys shall whiten with grain and with flocks.

חכלילי [HIS EYES] ARE RED — חכלילי denotes redness, as the Targum renders it: they shall become red. Similar is (Proverbs 23:29) “who hath redness (חכלילות) of eyes?” Redness of eyes is associated with wine because that is what usually happens to those who drink much wine — their eyes become red. מחלב [AND THE WHITENESS OF HIS TEETH IS] FROM MILK— because of abundance of milk, for there will be in his land good pasture for herds of flock. The verse is therefore to be explained as follows: There will be redness of eyes because of abundance of wine and there will be whiteness of teeth because of abundance of milk (the ם of מיין and מחלב is not the מ comparativum: “His eyes shall be redder than wine etc.”). According to the Targum עינים means mountains which are called thus because from thence as a point of observation one can see afar off (i.e. it translates by “the mountains are red with wine”). He (Onkelos) further translates the verse in a different way, taking עינים in the sense of fountains and continuous flow of the wine-press. The word נעווהי which Onkelos uses signifies his wine-presses. It is an Aramaic word that occurs in (Avodah Zarah 74b): “as for a tank (נעוא), cleanse it with hot water”. (The translation of the Targum is therefore: “His vats will stream with wine”.) The words יחורון בקעתה his valleys (the places wore mountains are, as it wore, cloven, בקע) are the Targum of [לבן] שנים, taking the second word in the sense of שני הסלעים rocky crags (cf. Samuel 14:4 and Rashi on פי החירות Exodus 14:2 — where פִי = שִׁנַּיִם — and the reference there to the valley between the rocks).

HIS EYES ARE ‘CHACHLILI’ (FROM WINE). The Commentators say that the word chachlili denotes redness, and it means that his eyes will become red from drinking much wine. Of similar meaning is the verse, Who hath ‘chachliluth’ (redness) of the eyes? Now it appears to me that this is a case of a word whose letters are transposed, it being derived from the expression, Thou didst paint (‘kachalt’) thine eyes. The lamed is doubled — [chachlili] — as is customary in many places, and it denotes the process of painting eyes which is known and frequently mentioned in the words of our Rabbis. In Arabic also its name is “al kachul.” The verse is thus stating that Judah’s eyes are colored with wine for just as others paint them with puch (eye-paint), which is the Arabic “al kachul,” so does he paint them with wine, and just as others whiten their teeth with ointments, so does he whiten them with milk, the comparison indicating the abundance of wine and milk in Judah’s land, just as Onkelos mentioned.“His mountains will be red with his vineyards, and his wine-presses will drip with wine” (Onkelos). Similar in meaning is the verse, Who hath ‘chachliluth’ of eyes, [the letters in the word chachliluth are to be transposed to read] kachliluth (paint), with the verse stating that the drunkard has his eyes painted by wine and he cannot hide his drunken state. It is possible that the verse is stating, “Who has coloring of eyes?” meaning “who needs to paint his eyes always? They that tarry long at the wine, since the wine dims their eyes, causing them to tear, and be consumed away in their sockets, thus making it necessary for him to have his eyes constantly painted.” Scripture, in the book of Proverbs, is thus speaking of the disgrace of wine and the external evils of contentions and wounds which befall he who drinks it in abundance, while in his house there will always be the cry of “Woe” and “Alas.” It then also mentions this specific harm which affects his body, namely, the dimming of his vision, and many other sicknesses. This is a correct interpretation and elucidation of the subject.

Until he will be called חַכְלִילִי עֵינַיִם ("red-eyed") from the abundance of wine he drinks, for that redness appears in the eyes of those made drunk by wine. "And his teeth white from milk" — from his abundance of milk-food. "Whiter than milk" (וּלְבֶן שִׁנַּיִם) — an adjective. They are called שִׁנַּיִם ("teeth") on account of the rows of teeth, since they come in two rows. The Gaon z"l said: his eyes are more reddened (חַכְלִילִי) than wine, and likewise they are more white than milk. Others say that "whiter than milk" means he will not eat any impure thing and will not follow after his eyes. But this is a confused homiletical interpretation.

חכלילי עינים מיין, the fifth of the identifying marks of the Messiah will be the onset of an unusually long period of economic progress, plentiful harvests, etc. This has also been predicted in Psalms 72,16 “let abundant grain be in the land to the tops of the mountains, let his crops thrive like the forest of Lebanon.” Our sages have paraphrased this in Shabbat 30 when they described the affluence in messianic days by crediting the soil of Israel with producing ready to eat rolls and garments made of the finest wool.

חכלילי עינים מיין, "He will be red-eyed from wine, etc." This is best understood as similar to Psalms 68,7: "He sets the prisoners free, safe and sound," as explained in Bamidbar Rabbah 4 that the Israelites were redeemed by G'd בכושרות, the word being divided into בכי, weeping and שירות, songs. The Egyptians did the crying, the Israelites the singing. חכלילי עינים, "red-eyed;" the colour red is reminiscent of judgments, everything connected with redness is an allusion to the power of judgment which involves the blood of one party versus the blood of his adversary. The reason Jacob said: מיין, from wine, is a reminder that judgment originates in wine, [had Adam not eaten from the tree of knowledge, i.e. the vine, judgment in the sense of retribution would have had no place on earth. Ed.]

חכלילי עינים מיין, “Red-eyed from wine,” This too is a hyperbole relating to the abundance of wine to be found in the tribal territory of Yehudah. Yaakov said that every person in the territory of Yehudah would have red-looking eyes due to the abundance of wine. The word חכלילי is really spelled backwards. Its meaning is as if it had been spelled כחלילי. The idea is that the people would actually have blue eyes, i.e. כחול, [women always used a blue tint to enhance the appearance of their eyes. According to the Talmud they used פוך, antimony, as eye-shadow to achieve this effect. Ed.] Just as women throughout the rest of the country colour their eyes blue so the eyes of the women of Yehudah would be coloured red from the abundance of wine. White teeth would be white by contrast due to the abundance of milk in the valley and the abundance of milk yielding flocks of sheep. According to Bereshit Rabbah 99,8 the word חכלילי is a composition of the three words חיך לי לי, i.e. when the palate, חיך, has tasted the wine of the land of Yehudah its owners will request refills of this beverage by saying לי, לי “more for me, more for me.” Onkelos believes that the mountains on the land of Yehudah are reddish looking due to the vineyards which cover them. This is why he described them was עינים, “eyes,” organs which are on top of the body. Mountains on earth are similar to the eyes in the body. He describes the valleys as white-looking due to the abundance of sheep and the milk they yield. The word שינים when used by the Targum here is related to שיני סלעים, the “teeth of rocks.” If you will examine this paragraph carefully you will find that it contains all the letters of the alphabet except the letter ז. The message is that the Kingdom of Israel as represented by Yehudah does not base its military victories on its arms, כלי זיין, as do the other nations whose inheritance is the power of the sword. The Jewish people did not conquer the land of Canaan because of superior arms or superior military skills of its soldiers. Its entire success or failure is due to the system of reward and punishment by which G’d operates in this world and specifically in the land of Israel. This is all symbolised by the fact that Yehudah’s name contains all the four letters of the Ineffable Name. When the Israelites act in accordance with G’d’s laws they will always be able to perform deeds of valour (compare Numbers 24,18). Their Kingdom will progressively become stronger and more secure and its inhabitants will not need to resort to force of arms at all. All of this is hinted at in the absence of the latter ז during the lengthy blessing given to Yehudah. There is also a moral message in the addition of the letter ד to the letters of the Ineffable Name in the name יהודה. The letter ד, meaning “four,” is reminiscent of the fourth day of creation, the day the sun was placed in orbit. Yehudah was also the fourth of Yaakov’s sons symbolising the fact that the fourth son was to shine forth just like the sun which was placed in orbit on the fourth day. The fact that the Kingdom of Yehudah is compared to the sun is already reflected in the words of the psalmist (Psalm 89,37) “his throne is as the sun before Me.” Alternatively, seeing that that the specific attribute of Yehudah has been described by Moses as זאת (Deut. 33,6), he has been crowned with the letter ז, already, so that there was no need for Yaakov to include this letter in Yehudah’s blessing here. Yaakov had already alluded to this when he said to Yehudah: “your hand will be on your enemies’ nape” (49,8). This was an allusion to the bow which is described as Yehudah’s weapon [The word קשת in this connection refers to the original קשת, the rainbow, which was the sign of G’d’s covenant with man (Genesis 9,12)]. This is the mystical significance of Samuel II 1,18 (where David eulogises King Saul) “He ordered the members of the people of Yehudah to be taught (the song of) the bow. It is recorded in the Book of Yashar.” We needed the verse in Deut. 33,6 to explain the meaning of the verse in Samuel. When Moses continued in Deut, 33,6 ידיו רב לו “his hands fight for him,” this helps round out the meaning of Yehudah’s blessings. We may also find an additional reason why the letter ז is the only letter of the alphabet missing in Yehudah’s blessing here. The reason is that Yehudah was the seventh of the “patriarchs” counting from Avraham, Yitzchak, Yaakov, Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah.” Accordingly, Yehudah corresponds to the number “seven,” i.e. the seventh day, the Sabbath. This is also why the word יודוך, “they will acknowledge you” appears in connection with Yehudah seeing that the psalmist also uses that word in connection with the Sabbath when he says (Psalm 92,2) טוב להודות לה', “it is appropriate to acknowledge the Lord on the Sabbath).” The words מטרף בני עלית also assume a new significance in that context, meaning that on the Sabbath it is appropriate to desist from the struggle to gain a livelihood, something comparable to the animal devouring its prey. Yaakov’s words parallel those of the Torah that on the Sabbath one must refrain from any manner of work, even the kind of work which helps one to stay alive in this world. When Yaakov continued: “when he crouched and lies down like a lion, or even like a lion cub, who dares to rouse him,” this also parallels what the Torah commands the Jewish people to do on the Sabbath, i.e. שבו איש תחתיו, “let every man remain in his place” (Exodus 16,29). The words ומחוקק מבין רגליו, are an allusion to the commandment to circumcise Jewish males on the eight’s day after birth. The performance of this commandment on time (unless there is danger to the baby’s life) overrides even the prohibition to perform work on the Sabbath. [the male organ which is situated בין רגליו, between the baby’s legs, is exempt from the commandment not to perform any work on the Sabbath. Ed.] Yaakov continued with אוסרי לגפן עירה ולשורקה בני אתונו, to alert us to the fact that the work prohibition on the Sabbath also includes one’s beasts as we know from Exodus 23,12: “in order that your that your ox and your donkey rest, etc.” The words כבס ביין לבושו, are an allusion to the requirement to sanctify the Sabbath by reciting a benediction over a cup of wine. When Yaakov added the word חכלילי עינים מיין, this may be a reference to the statements of our sages Berachot 43 that he who makes big steps (on the Sabbath) impairs his eyesight by doing so to the extent of 0.2%. By drinking a cup of wine on Friday night one can counteract the damage one has inflicted on his eyesight by taking big steps.

הכלילי עינים מיין, “red-eyed from wine;” due to the large quantities of wine he consumes his eyes will reflect the redness of that wine. Similarly, the amounts of milk consumed will be reflected in the whiteness of his teeth. Other commentators understand the word שנים as referring to the crags of a rock, suggesting that milk will be flowing from between crags in the rocks. Still other commentators interpret the word חכלילי as a comparative mode, meaning that the eyes will be even redder than wine, and the teeth even whiter than milk. Nachmanides says that the meaning is exactly the reverse, i.e. citing Ezekiel 23,40 כחלת עיניך, “you daubed your eyes.” The letter ל was repeated here, something not unusual. The message Yaakov conveys is that whereas normally women daub their eyes with a bluish coloured cosmetic, Yehudah will employ reddish looking cosmetic for that purpose. Similarly, whereas others whiten their teeth by applying cosmetics, Yehudah will use milk instead. The entire verse is a euphemism for the abundance of both wine and milk that Yehudah will experience in his territory. The wine will drip from his eyes like tears, so that envious youngsters will have to use cosmetics constantly in order to compete.

Zebulun shall dwell on the shore of the seas; he shall subdue ports with his ships, and he shall eat of the bounty of the sea; and his border shall extend to Sidon.

לחוף ימים TOWARDS THE COASTS OF THE SEAS — (לחוף is the same as על חוף): by the shore of the seas will be his land. הוף means “border” as Onkelos has it; old French marche; English border. [והוא לחוף אניות] means he will constantly be at the haven of ships — the port — whither the ships bring merchandise. For Zebulun was engaged in business and provided food for the tribe of Issachar whilst these engaged in the study of the Torah. It is to this that Moses alludes, (Deuteronomy 33:18) “Rejoice Zebulun in thy going out. and Issachar in thy tents”, — Zebulun goes forth to trade and Issachar studies the Torah in the tents (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 11; cf. Rashi on Genesis ישב אהלים 25:27) וירכתו על צידן AND HIS BORDER SHALL BE UNTO ZIDON — the end of his territory will extend close up to Zidon. ירכתו means his end, as (Exodus 26:22) ולירכתי המשכן “and for the ends of the Tabernacle”.

He mentioned the tribes first in order of their birth, except that he placed Zebulun before Issachar, because Issachar's inheritance falls between Zebulun's and Dan's. "To the shore of the sea" (לְחוֹף יַמִּים) — this too is a sign that this is the way of prophecy. The meaning of חוֹף is a harbor. It derives from "He hovers over him all the day" (Deut. 33:12), for ships cannot moor in an exposed place open to the wind. "And his flank toward Sidon" — meaning his flank will extend as far as Sidon.

Zevulun will settle. See Rashi. Zevulun’s blessing precedes that of Yissachar both here and Devarim (33:18) because Torah study is impossible unless someone provides the scholars with their basic needs. For the same reason the study is accredited to scholar and supporter alike. והוא לחוף אניות, he will travel beyond the borders of his own land with ships carrying and bringing all kinds of wares. Part of these rare wares are the chalazon, the worm needed to provide the blue colour for the tzitzit, fragrances needed for the daily incense offerings. Many of these, as well as the silicon from which to make glass, were found on his shores and he would export such items. Deuteronomy 33,19 describes the members of the tribe of Zevulun as harvesting the bounty of the sea and the hidden hoards of the sand.”

זבולון לחוף ימים ישכון, “Zevulun (his territory) will border on the ocean.” The sons of Yaakov are listed here in the order of their births. The only exception is that Zevulun although younger, is mentioned ahead of his brother Yissachar. The reason is that the territory of Yissachar was located between that of Dan and that of Zevulun. An alternate explanation: the reason why Zevulun here appears before his senior brother Yissachar was because Yaakov foresaw that in the future it would be thanks to the financial support of that tribe, that the Tribe of Yissachar could devote themselves to intensive Torah study. על צידון, “as far as the city of Tzidon.” This city was an international trading center, as is known from Isaiah 23,2: דומו יושבי אי, סחר צידון, “moan you dwellers of the coastland, you traders of Tzidon, once thronged by seafarers over many waters.” This is also why some hundreds of years later, Moses blessed that tribe by saying: שמח זבולון בצאתך ויששכר באהלך, “rejoice Zevulun when you set out, and you, Yissachar, in your tents.” Moses referred to Zevulun setting out on ocean voyages for trading purposes. The word: על, before the word: צידון, means “close by.” Another example of that word being used in this sense is in Exodus 40,3: וסכות על הארון, “you will make the Dividing curtain screen it.”

זבולון לחוף ימים ישכון, “Zevulun will reside along the coast of the seas, etc.” The order in which the names of the tribes are listed here corresponds to the order of their births The first six sons being blessed are the sons of Leah; they are followed by the list of the four sons born to the servant-maids, i.e. Dan, Gad, Asher and Naftali. They are followed by the sons of Rachel, Joseph and Binyamin. Actually, according to this principle, Issachar should have received his blessing before Zevulun, seeing that he was senior to him. However, Yaakov blessed Zevulun first as he foresaw that Issachar’s Torah study was due to Zevulun who provided for him so that Issachar did not have to worry about making a living. When we look at the order in which Moses blessed the tribes prior to his own death, we find that he too blessed Zevulun ahead of Issachar (Deut. 33 18). The meaning of the words לחוף ימים ישכון is that seeing that his territory will be alongside the sea he will be near the sea constantly and will engage in maritime pursuits. His commercial activities will provide for his brother Issachar also, enabling him to pursue his Torah studies without financial worry. Zevulun’s share in the merit of Issachar’s Torah will be so great that we apply to it the verse in Kohelet 7,12: “to be in the צל of wisdom is to be also in the צל of money.” Normally, we would translate the word צל as “shadow.” In this instance we have to consider the word as derived from אצילות, “nobility,” something transcendent,” an emanation. The meaning would be that the emanation “wisdom” can be maintained by means of the nobility of the money. Using money to enable Torah to be studied ennobles the money itself, makes into something of transcendental significance, something of enduring value. It is important to understand that the very name Zevulun alludes to what is called the קו האמצאי, the “middle line,” i.e. the line that forms the connection between the terrestrial and celestial world. This is why he is described as residing (being at home) לחוף הימים, at the beach of the seas. The word ימים appears in Genesis 1,10 ולמקוה המים קרא ימים, “and the accumulation of water he called seas, or oceans.” The word חוף is connected to חופה, the wedding canopy. Zevulun is viewed as the groom who emerges from his wedding canopy when he engages in commerce to supply his brother Issachar with the necessary funds to study Torah. No wonder then that he enjoys precedence over his older brother.

Zebulun shall dwell at the seashore, etc. Since Zebulun was engaged in commerce and provided sustenance for Issachar who was engaged in Torah study, and thus Moses said Rejoice, Zebulun, in your going forth, for money has no completeness except through spending, and the spending of it is better than its accumulation, but [regarding] Issachar in your tents — because the acquisition of money does not stick to a person like the acquisition of Torah, which remains constantly in one’s tent and does not depend on spending, for even if the acquisition remains in one’s tent, it has completeness. Similarly, this verse comes to reveal the deficiency inherent in those who engage in the pursuit of wealth. Besides having no rest all their days, they have another deficiency, which is the dispersion of the soul, for they, their homes, and their merchandise are scattered and separated from each other. Their home dwelling will be in one place, while they themselves will be on the road or on a ship in the heart of the sea, and their merchandise in a third location. Thus their soul is scattered, for their thoughts are on their house in the east, their thoughts on their merchandise in the west, and their thoughts about themselves between these two boundaries. This is what is meant by Zebulun shall dwell at the seashore — for there is his house, but he himself will not dwell in his house, rather he will be at the harbor of ships, for all his days he will be on a ship in the heart of the sea. And its rear border [literally, its thigh] refers to his merchandise and wealth, which is called the substance which is at their feet that sustains them, like a thigh that supports and sustains a person, [reaches] to Sidon — for that is a place of commerce, as it is said The merchants of Sidon, who cross the sea, have filled you (Isaiah 23:2). Regarding this, one sage said that may God save him from the dispersion of the soul, for one’s thoughts are scattered in many places. And he mentioned the opposite regarding Issachar, as will be explained shortly.

זבולון, Zevulun is the only one of Yaakov’s sons not mentioned in order of his seniority vis-à-vis his brothers. His name was mentioned ahead of its proper place in order for the name of his brother Yissachar to appear in between his name and that of Dan. The reason is that his ancestral heritage was situated between that of Dan and Yissachar. והוא לחוף אניות, “and he will border seas.” There are many locations in the sea itself which do not qualify as anyone’s heritage.

Issachar is rich in possessions, and his inheritance lies between the borders.

יששכר חמר גרם means ISSACHAR IS A BONY ASS — he bears the yoke of the Torah (i.e. obligations) like a strong ass upon which may be placed a heavy load (Genesis Rabbah 99:9). רבץ בין המשפתים CROUCHING BETWEEN THE FOLDS — Like an ass that travels day and night and has no permanent stable of its own, so that when it wishes to rest it croucheth down between the borders — i.e. at the bounds of the cities whither it is earring merchandise.

"A bony donkey" (חֲמֹר גָּרֶם) — he compared him to a donkey with thick bones. Note that חֲמוֹר is in the construct state, which is why it reads רֹבֵץ ("crouching"). "Between the saddlebags" (בֵּין הַמִּשְׁפְּתַיִם) — between the burdens. It is possible that this derives from "Hashem will ordain peace for us" (Isa. 26:12).

יששכר חמור, not ready to fight a war. This corresponds to the saying of the sages in Avodah Zarah 17 אי ספרא לא סייפא, “if your vocation is books, it cannot be skill with a sword.” גרם. A donkey with strong bones. And, due to his strength, רובץ בין המשפמים when he lies down to rest, he does so between two שפיתות, open type of containers able to contain the loads that he will carry. These are placed on either side of him. [the word seems to describe a recessed setting such as on a stove which has holes into which the pots are lowered to be surrounded by the fire underneath. Ed.] The unique nature of this kind of stove is that the pots are not capable of being moved or removed from it until the cooking or boiling is complete and the fire has gone out. Yaakov describes a simile in which Issachar, i.e. the donkey can hold out until he has completed the job assigned to him. The whole verse is a parable symbolising how Issachar accepts the yoke of the Torah and studies Torah with all the energy at his command. He does this in addition to shouldering the burden of derech eretz, i.e. doing justice to the more mundane demands made upon everybody living on this planet.

יששכר חמור גרם, "Issachar is a bony donkey, etc." We learn in Nidah 31 that the meaning of the verse is that G'd had a hand in the conception of Issachar having guided Jacob's donkey to the tent of Leah on that night (Genesis 30,16). Just as Jacob had not remained in his regular abode that night, so Issachar, the son who had been conceived during that night, would be "crouching between boundaries." Inasmuch as Issachar is the model of a person who devotes his life to Torah study, Jacob alluded to the phenomenon that Yeshivah students have a habit of moving from place to place. Every action which is not proper produces consequences which reflect that impropriety. Leah's action appeared too forward for the conduct associated with the traditional way of life of Jewish women, even though her intention was wholly honourable. In spite of the discomfort associated with the lifestyle of the Yeshivah student, he does not let this diminish the effort he lovingly devotes to Torah study. וירא מנוחה כי טוב, "He observed that repose is good, etc." The reference is to the repose experienced in the Hereafter. The words כי טוב, refer to what happens after a person considers that all the pleasures available for the body in this world, such as eating fine food and drinking good wine, are all sensations which are devoid of an inherent value. They are meaningful only because the body, an empty vessel, needs to be filled up with food and drink as the Creator has decreed that it is incapable of existing without input of food and drink. As a result, once the body has absorbed enough food an drink, the very food and drink which provided these pleasurable sensations become revolting. This fact demonstrates that food and drink are not in themselves something desirable. Solomon makes that point in Proverbs 23,8 when he said: "once you have eaten your bread, you will vomit it;" he meant that when you have consumed all the bread of this world, the time will come when you vomit it as it will become repugnant for you to fill your mouth with it. The same applies to all the other pleasures this world has to offer, things which man is attracted to by his eyes. Once he examines these phenomena more thoroughly he will realise that they are only make believe, that they lack substance, and eventually he will develop a distaste for everything connected with the human body and its attractions. He will conclude that the real good can be found only in the Hereafter, the world which is all spirit. Jacob blessed Issachar by saying that he has realised that true repose is only in those regions. Issachar correctly evaluates the repose in the Hereafter as well as the relative pleasantness on earth, i.e. והארץ כי נעמה. When Jacob added ויט שכמו לסבול, "he bent his shoulder to bear (a burden)", this is a reference to the pain which is part of our earthly existence; ויהי למס עובד, "he turned himself into someone who serves the Lord as a form of paying tribute." Another meaning of these last words may be that in return for becoming a willing servant of the Lord, the rest of the population is obligated to pay מס some kind of tax to assure the Torah scholar of his livelihood. In the case of Issachar that would be Zevulun who was a seafarer putting much of his wealth at the disposal of Issachar. (compare previous verse).

רובץ בין המשפתים, “crouching between boundaries.” His territory was hemmed in on both sides between his tribal brothers as spelled out in Joshua 19,10-23.

יששכר חמור גרם, “Issachar is a strong-boned donkey.” According to the plain meaning of the text he is like a donkey whose proportion of bones far overshadows the amount of its flesh. People who engage in constant study of Torah will not be found to amass much flesh. The people of the tribe of Issachar are burdened down by the weight of their Torah study as the donkey is burdened down with physical loads. רובץ בין המשפטים, “he lies down between the sheepfolds.” Donkeys work both by day and by night and even when they lie down briefly, they lie down between the boundaries of the towns instead of in their own stables at the home of their owners.

Issachar is a strong-boned donkey, lying between the boundaries. Like this donkey where it and its burden are tied together inseparably, so too the acquisition of Torah clings to him and is not separated from him. This is unlike Zebulun’s possessions, for since he and his home and possessions are separate, he is consequently always in motion, either to his home or to his possessions, as they are mostly apart from him. But Issachar’s burden is always the burden of God’s word, and he lies between the boundaries, meaning between two borders. For all physical successes surround him, as it is written Length of days is in her right hand, and in her left hand are riches and honor (Proverbs 3:16). And wherever he goes or stands, he is always between two boundaries, for they grow with him and follow in his footsteps. This is not the case with one who simply engages in commerce, as these two boundaries are not attached to him. For sometimes he goes to dangerous places which opposes the lengthening of his days and his strength is diminished on the way, and sometimes he becomes distant from his wealth as his honor will not descend with him. Thus, he is usually not between the boundaries. But one who engages in Torah and lies beneath the burden of God’s word is always between the boundaries, as mentioned. “And he saw that rest was good.” For the acquisition of Torah does not depend on movement like the acquisition of wealth, which usually requires bringing one’s sustenance from afar. Rather, the acquisition of Torah depends on the toil of the soul and the rest of the body. This is why the Torah was given on Shabbat, a day of rest. And the land that it was pleasant — for the Land of Israel has an atmosphere that makes one wise. And he bent his shoulder to bear — to bear the yoke of Torah. Even though the acquisition of Torah takes precedence in excellence over ordinary commerce, as its commerce is better than all commerce, nevertheless Zebulun was mentioned before Issachar because if there is no flour, there is no Torah. If one does not eat and drink, how will their limbs be strong and healthy enough to labor in God’s Torah? Therefore, Zebulun, who brings his bread from afar, was mentioned first so that Issachar could be a dweller of tents [studying Torah]. And Issachar also gives from his portion in Torah to Zebulun who pays him tribute — literally becoming a working tributary, and this is what is meant by and became a servant under tribute.

רובץ בין המשפתים, “crouching between boundaries.” Some commentators equate the word משפתים with “loads,” i.e. משואות, that the ass crouches with loads that it is carrying on either side of it. The ass is not allowed the luxury to lie down and rest, but has to snatch brief moments during which to renew its strength while crouching. The intensity with which the members of the tribe studied Torah was compared by Yaakov to this simile.

And he saw his portion that it was good, and the land that it was fruitful; and he shall subdue the cities of the nations and drive out their inhabitants, and those who remain among them shall be his servants and pay tribute.

וירא מנחה כי טוב AND HE SAW THAT REPOSE WAS GOOD — He chose (ראה) as his portion a land that was blessed and well-fitted to produce fruits (cf. Onkelos; so that he need not engage overmuch in business. ויט שכמו לסבול AND HE INCLINED THE SHOULDER TO RECEIVE THE BURDEN namely the burden of tracking the Torah. ויהי AND BECAME unto all Israel his brethren. למס עובד A SERVANT UNTO TRIBUTE — deciding for them points of Law and the rules with regard to the fixing of leap-years, as it is said (1 Chronicles 12:32) “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred” — two hundred heads of the Sanhedrin he provided — “and all their brethren were at their commandment” (Genesis Rabbah 99:10). ויט שכמו AND HE INCLINED HIS SHOULDER — he lowered his shoulder; similar are, (2 Samuel 22:10) “He bowed (ויט) the heavens” and (Psalms 78:1) “Incline (הטו) your ear”. Onkelos, however, explains it differently: HE BOWED HIS SHOULDER to wage wars and to conquer new districts — for he (Issachar) dwelt on the marches — AND the enemy BECAME subject to him AS A SERVANT TO PAY TRIBUTE.

"And he saw a resting-place" — when he saw that his land and his place of rest were pleasant, he bent his shoulder to bear every burden as a donkey bears it, and became like a subject paying tribute. This is the characterization of Issachar: they were not warriors and did not wish to go out to battle and leave their place. So too Moses said: "And Issachar, in your tents" (Deut. 33:18). They would pay tribute to the king of Israel not to be sent to war, or to foreign peoples not to come and fight against them.

וירא מנוחה כי טוב, by pursuing his twin objectives he found true מנוחה, i.e. a kind of being at peace with oneself knowing one has done what is expected of one. The prophet Jeremiah 6,16 describes such a state of mind as ומצאו מרגוע לנפשותיכם, “find tranquility for yourselves.” [He advised people of his time to travel ancient paths, i.e. the path of Torah as it used to be practiced. Ed.] ואת הארץ כי נעמה he found that the land he inhabited provided his livelihood without strenuous effort on the part of its inhabitants. ויט שכמו לסבול, he accepted two kinds of burdens, the yoke of Torah and the yoke of public service. This reflects what our sages have said in Moed Katan 6 that young Torah scholars have to accept the burdens of their entire town upon themselves. ויהי למס עובד, the general population which carries out the day-to-day mundane tasks involved in a civilised existence will be at the disposal of Issachar who is busy with Torah study instead. The word מס refers to the ordinary working man doing the chores of Issachar being viewed as the tax being paid on behalf of Issachar, seeing that he himself cannot be taxed on non-earned income. In halachah, (Yumah 72) this is described as the ordinary citizen having to perform public service duties from which the Torah scholars are excused.

וירא מנוחה כי טוב, “he realised that reposing is good;” [Compared to the stormy seas that his brother Zevulun had constantly to contend with? Ed.] Our author sees in this expression a parallel to Proverbs 23,31, אל תרא יין כי יתאדם, which he translates as “do not praise wine though it is red,” i.e. it has hidden features which are far less appealing. Yissachar is conscious of the advantages of residing peacefully on his land, as opposed to his brother Zevulun, who, though in search of great riches, faces many stormy seas and potential pirates before bringing home his spoils. Moses reflects the same thoughts when blessing the two tribes in his parting address to the nation, saying: “rejoice Zevulun at the beginning of your quest, but you, Yissachar באהלך, are content in your tent.” ויט שכמו לסבול, “he (Yissachar) willingly bent his shoulder to become a tributepayer.” (agricultural work is deemed the same as paying a tax). The words bracketed refer to the farmer having to fork over a tenth of his hard worked for harvest to the Royal treasury. (Compare Samuel I 8,14-15, where the prophet warns the people that they will have to pay taxes to the king that they so dearly wish to be ruled by.) An alternate exegesis on the line: ויט שכמו לסבול: Yissachar puts up with any of his brethren that pass through his territory on the way elsewhere. This is an exceptional virtue. The result of his tolerance of these inconveniences turns him into a tax paying servant.

וירא מנוחה כי טוב, “He saw that tranquility was good;” Issachar realised that warfare and military activity was far inferior to Torah study, a quiet way of life. Torah study can flourish only when the body is physically as inactive as possible as the mental strain of studying drains the body of its strength. Torah study engages the opposite energies of the pursuit of vocations involving activity of one’s physique. The latter engage the body fully while leaving one’s mental faculties relatively uninvolved. The former makes great demands on one’s mental faculties while leaving the body relatively at rest. It is quite impossible for true Torah study to be successfully carried on by someone whose body has been worn out by physical labour or even by mental anguish and the like. This is one of the reasons that our sages included the request השיבה שופטנו כבראשונה ויועצינו כבתחילה, “restore to us our judges as in former times and our advisors as originally,” in our daily prayers. They added the words והסר ממנו יגון ואנחה, “and remove from us sorrow and anxiety,” as these factors are so inhibiting to anyone who wants to dedicate himself to Torah study. The purpose of this prayer is not that G’d should give us advisors to show us how to escape the burden of taxation, etc. This was not what the prophet Isaiah 1,26 had in mind when he promised that: “I will restore to you your judges as of old and your erstwhile advisors.” The prophet first and foremost had in mind the kind of advisors who had been able to calculate the occurrence of the new moon and other astronomical dates with precision. The judges who were able to do this were the ones who sat in the offices adjoining the Holy Temple. Once these types of judges will be restored to us the entire people would be able to upgrade the level of their Torah study. At that time the prophet’s promise that “the whole earth would possess a knowledge of G’d as the waters which cover the seas” (Isaiah 11,9) would be fulfilled. This is why the sages followed the request to restore these judges to us with the request to remove sorrow and sighing. They hinted that it would be impossible to pursue intensive Torah studies until the requisite conditions had been met with the help of G’d. These conditions include absence of sorrow and physical rest for the body. This benediction was suitably arranged by our sages as the next step following our return to the Holy Land i.e. תקע בשופר גדול לחרותנו, “sound the great horn heralding our freedom!” כי טוב, “that it was good.” The word “good” in this connection is similar to כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, “for I have given you a good instruction.” ואת הארץ, “and the earth.” This word is related to ומארצו יצאו in Ezekiel 36,20 meaning (according to Targum) “and it will emerge from religious discourse, from Torah study.” The words כי נעמה are a reminder of the verse דרכיה דרכי נועם, that “the ways of Torah are the paths of pleasantness” (Proverbs 3,17). ויט שכמו לסבול, “yet he bent his shoulder to bear.” The burden he bears is that of Torah study. We have another example of this kind of wording in Samuel II 22,10 ויט שמים וירד, “He bent the sky and came down.” Subjecting spiritually gigantic concepts to one’s understanding results in one’s back being bent. An additional meaning included in this may be that “by humbling oneself, i.e. bending down, Torah knowledge may be acquired.” Our sages stated that it behooves a Torah scholar to walk with a stoop. ויהי למס עובד, “he became an indentured labourer.” He was subservient to all of Israel, dispensing religious rulings, pointing out errors in Torah-observance made by the people. This is expressed more clearly in Chronicles I 12,33 where the tribe of Issachar (respectively its representatives at the crowning of King David) is described as “of the Issacharites, men who knew how to interpret the signs of the times, to determine how Israel should act; their heads consisted of 200 men and all their kinsmen acted according to their instructions.” Bereshit Rabbah 99,11 on our verse writes: “the words ‘Issachar is a sturdy donkey,’ allude to when Yaakov returned from the field in the evening, and Leah heard the sound of his donkey which was lowing, she immediately went out towards him telling him that she had made a deal according to which he would spend this night in her tent The Torah reports that as a result of that night with Leah, Issachar was conceived. In other words, the donkey גרם, was the indirect cause, of her bearing Issachar. A kabbalistic approach to the same verse: Kabbalists concentrate on the word רובץ in that verse comparing it to Deut. 22,6 והאם רובצת “while the mother (bird) is sitting (on her eggs)”. This is another allusion to the emanation בינה, associated with Issachar. We just quoted a verse from Chronicles in which Issachar is represented as the most insightful tribe (the one possessing בינה). This would account for the fact that Yaakov associated מנוחה with Issachar as without this quality no deep insights are possible.

ויט שכמו לסבול, “so he inclined its shoulder to bear the burden.” The burden referred to is the task of teaching the Israelites the Torah. At the same time for the Israelites on their part, the tribe of Yissachar became a tax burden, מס עובד, as they had to look after these Torah teachers financially while coming to Yissachar’s territory to study Torah. Some commentators understand the words ויהי למס עובד as meaning that these Torah teachers were relieved of the duty of actively doing army duty during wars, paying a tax instead, so as not to appear as freeloaders. Alternatively, it describes a tendency by these members of Yissachar of paying off potential invaders rather than to engage in physical confrontation with them.

From the house of Dan a man shall be chosen and arise; in his days his people shall be delivered, and in his time the tribes of Israel shall rest together.

דן ידין עמו means DAN WILL TAKE VENGEANCE FOR HIS PEOPLE from the Philistines, the phrase having the same meaning as in (Deuteronomy 32:30) “For the Lord will avenge (ידין) his people”. כאחד שבטי ישראל means ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL WILL BE AT ONE with him and he will take vengeance for all of them. This prophecy alludes to Samson (Genesis Rabbah 99:11). One might also explain כאחד שבטי ישראל thus: “[Dan will take vengeance for his people as did] the most distinguished tribe (המיוחד) among the tribes of Israel” — alluding to David who was of the tribe of Judah (Genesis Rabbah 99:11).

DAN SHALL JUDGE ‘YADIN’ HIS PEOPLE. This has the same meaning as in the verse, For the Eternal ‘yadin’ His people, which Onkelos translates as, “For the Eternal will judge the judgment of His people,” ” just as in the expressions: Be thou my judge, O G-d, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation; The cause of the widow. The reference should rather be to Verse 17 there: rivu almanah (plead for the widow), which means rivu riv almanah (plead the plea of the widow). Here, likewise, the sense of the verse is: “Dan will judge the judgment of his people.” (T’chelet Mordechai. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 270, Note 39.) The verse is thus stating that Dan will avenge the cause of his people, all the tribes of Israel, as one. And who are “his people?” All “the tribes of Israel.” And how will that help affect them? “As one,” that is, as one whole nation, for when, at the time of Samson’s death, the Philistines’ temple collapsed, all the lords of the Philistines (Judges 16:27) died, and thus all “the tribes of Israel as one” were delivered from their hands. And the purport of it is as follows: The Philistines wronged all Israel many times. In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath they began their oppression of Israel, and in the days of Jephthah it is written, And He gave them over into the hand of the Philistines, and after the days of Abdon the son of Hillel, it is also written, And the Eternal delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years. There was none among the Judges who subdued them or had any victory at all over them. Now although it is written concerning Shamgar, And he smote the Philistines six hundred men with an ox-goad, this was not “vengeance,” relatively speaking, as it was not a great slaughter. This is why it is written concerning Samson, And he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and he avenged the cause of Israel from them for he slew many people and killed all the lords of the Philistines., 16:27 and 30. Scripture mentions yadin (he will judge), since this avenger was a judge, not a king. It is possible that this interpretation coincides with the opinion of Onkelos, who translated: “In his days his people will be delivered.” ” See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 270. It is possible that the expression, as one of the tribes of Israel, means “as the outstanding one of the tribes,” namely, Judah, concerning whom it is said, Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies, thus implying that this one also will be victorious over his enemies and subdue them.

"Dan shall judge his people" — an allusion that he would be a banner-bearer, as one of the sons of the primary wives. And so he was — like a commander over all the people of the concubines.

דן ידין עמו, "Dan will judge his people, etc.". Jacob may have wanted to exonerate Samson who had disgraced himself as a leader by consorting with Delilah. Perhaps Jacob considered Samson's end when he asked G'd to die together with the Philistines (Judges 16,30) he was about to kill as a redeeming conclusion of his life; this is why he compared him כאחד שבטי ישראל, like the unique personalities each of the tribes produced at one time or another.

דן ידין עמו, “Dan will judge his people.” This tribe had always marched in the rear of the camp in the days of Moses as well as of Joshua as testified to in Joshua 6,9: והמאסף הולך אחרי הארון, “and the rearguard walked behind the Holy Ark.” It was this tribe’s task to ward off any attacks from the rear. They had been assigned this task as they were considered exceptionally brave. The word ידין, may therefore best be translated as: “he will avenge.” Compare Deuteronomy 32,36: כי ידין ה' עמו, “for the Lord will avenge His people.”

דן ידין עמו, “Dan will judge his people.” This is a reference to Samson the judge who was a member of the tribe of Dan. The reason Yaakov said ידין “he will judge,” is because Samson was only a judge and not a king. כאחד שבטי ישראל, “uniting the tribes of Israel.” The word כאחד is to be understood as כמיוחד, “like the unique one amongst the tribes,” like Yehudah of whom it is said that his hands were at the nape of his enemies. The judge Samson from the tribe of Dan would display similar strength when vanquishing his enemies. Bereshit Rabbah 99,11 understands the word כאחד as describing the judge from the tribe of Dan as having something in common with the “unique One,” i.e. with G’d. Just as G’d has no need of anyone, so Samson would be a one-man army not relying on anyone else to help him. Of G’d it is said (Isaiah 63,3) “I trod out a vintage alone; of the peoples no one was with Me. I trod them down in My anger, trampled them in My range.” Samson’s dealings with the Philistines who had aroused his justified anger could be described in similar terms. (Compare Judges 15,16: “with the jawbone of an ass I killed one thousand men.”)

Dan will judge his people like one of the tribes of Israel. This teaches that although in the arrangement of the flags [of the tribes in the desert], Judah traveled first and Dan last, nevertheless he [Dan] will be equal to him, as he will judge his people like the most distinguished of the tribes of Israel, which is Judah. For Samson judged Israel in his generation just as David did in his generation. And just as it is said about the Messianic King who will come from Judah that with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked (Isaiah 11:4), so too Dan will be a serpent on the road, for every serpent kills with the breath of its mouth. From the phrase will judge his people we learn that it refers to the wicked among Israel, whom he will judge and eliminate like thorns from the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts. Therefore, it was necessary for Judah to travel first and Dan last, because Judah is compared to a lion whose main strength is in its tail. Thus, when Judah went before the camp of Israel with his back toward the people, it was as if his tail faced the camp of Israel, suggesting that through it, he will judge his people to break arrogant arms. Dan is compared to a snake whose strength is only in its mouth, therefore it is appropriate that he travel last with his mouth facing the camp of Israel, for through it he will judge his people. Since every judge has many who rise up against him, therefore it is said do not fear any man, for I await Your salvation, O Lord, and God stands in the divine assembly (Psalms 82:1) to save them from violent men. Some say that Dan did not show favoritism to his tribe but rather judged like one of the tribes of Israel, like the other tribes, for those close to him and those distant were equal in his eyes. And regarding what we find, that Moses compared Dan to a lion cub while Jacob compared him to a snake, this alludes to the fact that every judge faces battles both from the front and from behind. There are those who are brazen to his face, saying to him “I will add more judges over you,” as it is written your troubles, your burdens, and your quarrels (Deuteronomy 1:12). And there are those who complain about him behind his back but not to his face. Therefore, he needs to be powerful and strong of spirit to fight both from the front and from behind, and he should not take to heart all the things that people say, whether to his face or behind his back. Rather, he should be like both the lion and the snake — one whose strength is in its front [the lion] and one whose strength is in its rear [the snake], and this is a correct allusion.

דן ידין עמו, “Dan will avenge his people.” The word ידין is understood here as “taking up the quarrel on someone’s behalf.” כאחד, “similar to the “one,” i.e. the tribe of Yehudah who normally played the role of saviour of his people. The meaning could also be that Shimshon, from the tribe of Dan, would be the only judge who would rule over the entire people, something that otherwise would be the prerogative of the tribe of Yehudah. Yaakov likened Shimshon the Danite to a snake, as just like a snake he acted on his own, without the support of an army. He acted aggressively just as certain types of snakes who attack unsuspecting travelers without warning.

The man who shall be chosen and arise from the house of Dan — dread of him shall fall upon the nations, and his blow shall be mighty against the Philistines. Like a serpent of the heights he shall lie in wait upon the road, and like a viper he shall lurk on the path; he shall slay the warriors of the Philistine camp — horsemen together with foot soldiers; he shall uproot horses and chariots and fling their riders backward.

שפיפן is another name for a נחש. I am of opinion that it is thus called because it hisses (נושף) when biting. Similarly we have, (Genesis 3:15) “and thou shalt bite (תשיפנו) at their heel” (cf. Rashi thereon). הנשך עקבי סוס THAT BITETH THE HORSE’S HEELS — this is the manner of the serpent. Scripture compares him to a serpent that bites the horse’s heels ויפל רכבו אחור THAT HIS RIDER FALLETH BACKWARD without it (the serpent) having touched him at all. We find the analogy to this in the case of Samson with reference to whom this prophecy was made (Judges 16:29): “And Samson took fast hold of the two middle pillars etc.” — and those on the roof died though not directly attacked. Onkelos translates נחש by כחיוי חורמן, like the serpent “Churman”, which is the name of a kind of serpent the bite of which is incurable. It is the serpent which in Hebrew is called צפעוני. It is called a חורמן because it destroys (חרם) everything. The word וכפיתנא in the Targum means “and like a פתן” (like an asp). יכמון in the Targum means יארוב “he lies in wait”.

SH’PHIPHON (SERPENT) here: Dan shall be a serpent by the way, a ‘sh’phiphon’ on the path, that biteth the horse in the heels, so that his rider falleth backward. is the name of a snake which bites at the heel, with the second root-letter being doubled. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Terumoth 8:3. the Rabbis said, “It is a small kind of serpent, its name is sh’phiphon, and it is as thin as a hair,” with the earth being permitted to crack before it. Samson is compared to a snake because Samson did not wage war against his enemies as did the other judges and kings. Rather he alone went out against them, just as the viper which leaves his hole to attack travellers on the road, or the small species of serpent of which the traveller is not at all aware. THAT BITETH THE HORSE’s HEEL. here: Dan shall be a serpent by the way, a ‘sh’phiphon’ on the path, that biteth the horse in the heels, so that his rider falleth backward. This alludes to the two pillars upon which the house of Dagan, the Philistine god, rested, whereas the three thousand people who were upon its roof are “the rider that falleth backward,” for when the snake bites the horse’s heels, the horse lifts its head and his forefeet, causing the rider to fall backward.

He compared him in the greatness of his strength to a serpent. It is also possible that the meaning of שְׁפִיפֹן derives from "he shall bruise your head" (Gen. 3:15); and the meaning is a doubling.

יהי דן נחש, a reference to a poisonous snake, one commonly called tzifoni, in Biblical literature. Arab physicians usually call such venomous snakes chorman. The name for such snakes implies that a single snake can kill numerous people at once, using both its stare, and it voice (hiss) which is heard and seen by many people. It is a fitting comparison to Shimshon who, all on his own, killed many people almost simultaneously. שפיפון, name of a slim snake; our sages use this when wanting to illustrate something extremely thin, “as the width of a hair.” Physicians claim that these types of snakes hide in the trees, their sting being felt as if one had been shot by an arrow. Shimshon’s mode of operation, an individual lying in wait, in ambush, is compared by Yaakov to this snake.

יהי דן נחש, “may Dan be like a snake lying in ambush on the way” to kill potential attackers of the gentile nations; his bravery will use the most unlikely weapons, such as when Samson used a jawbone to kill 1000 Philistines (Judges 15,16.) שפיפון, “a viper;” closely related to the expression: in Genesis 3,15: הוא ישופך ראש, “man will crush the serpent’s head;” (in response to the serpent attacking his heel)ויפול רכבו אחור, “so that its rider will fall off backwards.”

יהי דן, “Dan will be, etc.” There are several reasons why Yaakov in his blessing compares Dan to a serpent, a snake. The first one is that Samson, unlike others before or after him, did not command armies in his battles against the enemy of his people. He acted totally alone, just like a snake which attacks from an ambush, coming out of its lair. Secondly, just like a snake receives some mysterious whisper which causes it to act aggressively, so Samson would respond to the whisperings of Delilah. This is the deeper meaning of Judges 16, 16-17: “Finally, after she had nagged him and pressed him constantly, he was wearied to death and he confided everything to her. He said to her: ‘no razor has ever touched my head; for I have been a Nazirite to G’d since I was in my mother’s womb. If my hair were cut, my strength would leave me and I should become as an ordinary man.’” Furthermore, just as a snake is also known as שרף due to its venom which burns, so Samson burned down the fields of the Philistines when the corn in them was close to being harvested. (Compare Judges 15,5). Also, just as the snake attacks man in his heel, at is lowest point, seeing the first serpent had been condemned to crawl on its belly, and G’d had told it that the way it would attack man would be by biting man’s heel (Genesis 3,14), so Samson is described as נוקב עקבי סוס “attacking the heel of a horse,” i.e. bringing down the pillars of the temple of the Philistines (compare Judges 16,29). He killed 3,000 Philistines who were sitting on the roof of that temple (Judges 16,27). The reason Samson’s exploits are described here as causing “the rider to fall backwards,” is that when a snake bites the heel of a horse, the horse rears upwards with its front legs throwing its rider backwards. Just as the snake kills without the use of a sword, so Samson killed without conventional arms as mentioned in Judges 16, 30: “those who were slain by him (when he made the pillars of their temple collapse) outnumbered those whom he had killed while he was alive.” Bereshit Rabbah 99,11 relates that just as a serpent is vengeful so Samson was vengeful. This is based on Judges 16,28: “O, Lord give me strength once more to take revenge of the Philistines, if only for one of my two eyes.” Thus far the Midrash. Know that in order to fully understand this Midrash we must remember that the very name Dan and what Yaakov predicts here reflects what is only hinted at in the name Reuven. This is the deeper meaning of “Dan will judge his people.” [The author had explained on Genesis 29,32 that the name Reuven was employed by Leah as an acknowledgment by her of the attribute of Justice which is concentrated in the final letter of the Ineffable Name. Yaakov had, of course, accepted that the names the mothers gave to his sons had been divinely inspired. Ed.] שפיפון עלי ארח, “a viper by the path.” The smallest variety of snakes was called שפיפון. According to Sotah 10, Samson was lame on both feet, something derived from Bileam (Numbers 22,8) of whom the Torah reported that his she-ass squeezed one of his feet against a wall after which the Torah reports him as וילך שפי, “he walked with a limp”(Numbers 23,3). Seeing the word שפי implies limping on one foot, שפיפון implies being lame on both feet.

ויפול רוכבו אחור, “and its rider falls backwards.” When the snake bites the heel of the horse, it rears up with its head, throwing off its rider in the process.

For your salvation I hope, O Hashem.

'לישועתך קויתי ה I HOPE FOR THY AID, O ETERNAL — He prophesied that the Philistines would put out his (Samson’s) eyes, and that he would have to say (Judges 16:28) “Remember me, I pray Thee, and strengthen me, I pray Thee, only this once etc.”

I HOPE FOR THY AID, O ETERNAL. Among all the judges of Israel there was none who fell into the hands of his enemies except Samson, who is this “snake” [referred to in Jacob’s prophecy], just as it is written, Then the Eternal was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge, and Samson was the last of the judges since his successor Samuel was a prophet and he did not conduct war on the people’s behalf, and in his days the kings [Saul and David] reigned. Now when the prophet Jacob saw that the deliverance which was to come through Samson ceased [when he died together with the Philistines], he said, “I hope for Thy aid, O Eternal, not for the aid of ‘the snake’ or ‘the serpent,’ for it is by Thee that I will be helped, not by a judge, as Thy salvation is ‘an everlasting salvation.’”

"For Your salvation I wait, Hashem" — because he bites the horse's heel, he fears the rider of the horse, lest the rider slash his head with a sword; therefore the prophet said: "For Your salvation I wait, Hashem" — and the kaf is addressed to Dan. The meaning is: "I have waited for Hashem to be your salvation"; or the noun stands in place of the verbal noun, meaning "to save you." Similarly, "we will rejoice in Your salvation" (Ps. 20:6) — whether the kaf addresses David, or his son the Messiah. The Nagid said that the word וַיֹּאמֶר ("and he said") is missing, and one should read: "And he said: For Your salvation I wait, Hashem." R. Isaac said: when the prophet saw his son Dan appearing in the form of a serpent in his prophetic vision, Jacob immediately became afraid and said: "Save me, Hashem!"

לישועתך קויתי ה, “I have always hoped for Your salvation, Hashem” Yaakov addresses the tribe of Dan when saying this; in other words: Yaakov prayed that Dan will be successful in his defense of the Jewish people. An alternate explanation: “I have hoped to G-d that your (Dan’s) efforts at saving his people will succeed.” (as predicted by the angel who told the wife on Manoach of the forthcoming birth of Samson, and that he would be the first to save the people from the Philistines. (Judges 13,5)

לישועתך קיויתי ה, “For Your salvation I do long, O Lord!” According to Nachmanides this verse is a prayer by Yaakov to G’d (not part of a blessing). This prayer came to Yaakov spontaneously when he foresaw that in spite of Samson’s deeds of valour it was not he who would be Israel’s redeemer. Yaakov’s blessing for Dan concluded with the words ויפל רוכבו אחור. It is however possible to explain this verse as a prayer offered by Samson. Yaakov foresaw the death of this judge of Israel and how G’d had responded to his final prayer (Judges 16,28). Samson was content to die together with his enemies as long as G’d would help him to revenge himself on them as he himself said in Judges 16,30. Know that experts in names and their meanings derive from this verse a name which by itself is designed to be a defense against one’s enemies. We find that it is written (Judges 16,30) concerning Samson who was able to kill so many of his adversaries: ויט בכח, “he pulled with (his) might,” though we would have expected the prophet Samuel to write: ויט בכחו, “he pulled with his might.” The implication is that the word בכח refers to G’d’s strength. Samson “co-opted” G’d’s strength to that of his own in order to bring about this impressive result, i.e. that 3,000 Philistines died as a result of his uprooting two pillars of the temple. The name of G’d which emerges from this verse is to be read in an unusual order. [The author refers to the custom of reading the words 'לישועתך קיויתי ה in three different sequences. He bases this on the fact that the mystique of the כח which assisted Samson lay in the re-arrangement of these three words in different permutations, קיויתי ה' לישועתך, לישועתך ה' קיויתי as well as ה' לישועתך קיויתי. When a prayer containing these words is offered in that manner it is liable to be effective. Ed.] By reversing the words, the enemy “falls ”backwards,” so to speak.

לישועתך קויתי ה', “I hope for Your salvation, Hashem.” The attacker, having bitten the victim’s heel, is afraid of the sword of the horse’s rider, and therefore implores G’d to save him from retribution. Another explanation of why Yaakov added this line at this point; is that he foresaw that Shimshon would eventually be at the mercy of the Philistines. He prayed on his behalf while blessing his tribe Dan. Another reason for the insertion of this line at this point could be that although the prophet Samuel in the Book of Samuel describes G’d as being supportive of the respective judges in their time, Yaakov foresaw that history would prove that Shimshon would be the exception. He therefore prayed that he would be proven wrong, and that G’d would remain at his side. The fact is that Shimshon would be the last of a string of judges, Samuel, his successor as the leader of the people fulfilling primarily a role as the “Seer.” In fact, before the death of Samuel the Jewish nation would for the first time be ruled by a King (Sha-ul), someone specifically crowned for the position and meant to be the founder of a dynasty, a ruler by merit of his ancestry. Some commentators feel that when Yaakov foresaw his descendant Dan as embodying the character of a serpent, he became so frightened by this image that he spontaneously protested by crying out: “may the Lord help me!” Rash’bam explains the exclamation as pertaining not just to Shimshon but to the entire tribe of Dan, whose task in the desert was to be the rearguard of the Israelites’ army, the tribe most exposed to attack from the rear. He, Rash’bam, does not like to apply this outcry to Shimshon, as Yaakov did not prophesy his eventual defeat and capture.[a very nice interpretation, but not found in our editions of the Rash’bam. Ed.]

From the house of Gad — an armed host shall cross the Jordan before their brothers into battle, and with great possessions they shall return to their land.

גד גדוד יגודנו GAD, AN ASSAILING TROOP SHALL ASSAIL HIM — all the words in this verse which have, the letters גד are connected in meaning with the word גדוד and so also did Menachem ben Seruk classify them. Should you say, however, that גדוד has always two ד’s and these words have only one, the answer is: The word גדוד is a noun and therefore requires two ד’s, for it is the way of a biliteral root to have the second letter doubled when used as a noun; the root proper, however, consists only of two letters. Thus it says, (Proverbs 26:2) כצפור לנוד “the wandering sparrow”, (לנוד a verb, infinitive) of the same derivation as נדודים in (Job 7:4) “I am full of גדודים wanderings” (a noun); (Judges 5:27) ‘‘there he fell down (שדוד) dead”, a noun in meaning, which is of the same derivation as the verb in (Psalms 41:6) “that wasteth (ישוד) at moon-day”. So, also, יגודנו, יגוד and גדוד have the same derivation. When, also, one uses such biliteral roots in the future tense Kal, it (the second letter) is not doubled. For example: יגוד he will troop, ינוד he will wander, ירום he will be high, ישוד he will devastate, ישוב he will come back. When, however, such a root is used in a reflexive sense (Hithpael) or in a causative-transitive sense the second letter is doubled Examples are: יתעודד, יתרומם, יתבולל, יתגודד. Examples of the causative-transitive sense are: (Psalms 146:9) “He strengtheneth (יעודד) the fatherless and the widow”; (Isaiah 49:5) “To bring Jacob back (לשובב) to Him”; (Isaiah 48:12) “The restorer (משובב) of paths”. The form יגודנו which is used here has not the force that others will make him do something (i.e. it has not this causative-transitive sense with the direct accusative suffix נוּ) but it means “a troop will troop out from him”, exactly the same as (Jeremiah 10:20) בני יצאוני which means “my children have gone forth from me”, (as we might say “have left me”). (Cf. Rashi on Genesis דברו לשלום 37:4, and on תמלאמו Exodus 15:9.). גד גדוד יגודנו accordingly means, “troops will troop out of him” signifying that they (the Gadites) will cross the Jordan with their brethren, all armed, and remain with them until the land will have been conquered. והוא יגד עקב means all his troops will return in their own tracks back to their territory which they will receive on the other side of the Jordan and not one of them will be missing. עקב This means: By the same roads and paths upon which they had traveled shall they return. The word עקב has the same meaning as in (Psalms 128:20) “And thy foot-steps (עקבותיך) were not known”; (Song of Songs 1:8) “by the footsteps (עקבות) of the flock”. In old French traces; English, tracks.

‘GAD G’DUD Y’GUDENU.’ Rashi, in accordance with Onkelos, explained it as follows: A troop will troop out of him, and that troop will troop back upon its footsteps, meaning it will return in its own track back to its territory in peace [and not one of them will be missing]. When they will return to their land on the east side of the Jordan not one of them will be missing. The correct interpretation [appears to be that the word y’gudenu here] is as in the verse: When he cometh up against the people that he invadeth (‘y’gudenu’). Thus, “the troop” mentioned in the prophecy of Jacob is not a friendly troop, as Rashi and Onkelos would have it, but the enemy, as explained further. The verse is thus stating that a troop will always assail Gad, that he will have many wars, with enemy troops spreading out over his land, and that he will follow the enemy in his track and be victorious over him and pursue him, returning on the heel of those who shame them. Jacob thus praised the Gadites for their valor and for their victory over all those who enter into battle against them. This is similar to the blessing which Moses our teacher gave them, as it is said, Blessed be He that enlargeth Gad; he dwelleth as a lioness. Since Gad inherited a very wide and large land which was across the Jordan, bands from Ammon and Moab, his evil neighbors, would always descend upon him, claiming the land and invading it. Yet Gad lurked like a lioness over its prey, fearing not their noise, nor showing any dismay at their shouting. This fitting interpretation I learned from the Jerusalem Talmud, where in Tractate Sotah 8:10. they say: “Gad g’dud y’gudenu, a troop will come trooping upon him, but he shall troop upon it;” that is to say, bands will come to gather wealth and assail him, but he shall troop upon them and bring his troops into their land. Perhaps the prophet Jacob was alluding to the war of Jephthah the Gileadite against the children of Ammon, as the children of Gad inherited all the cities of Gilead, and half of the land of the children of Ammon. The children of Ammon were always warring against the men of Gilead, and Jephthah scarcely passed over them and he smote them and their cities [with] a very great slaughter. This event was indeed a great miracle, and so the prophet Jacob mentioned it, even as he mentioned the matter of Samson.

"Gad" — he prophesied that a raiding band would come upon him, but he would defeat it in the end. "Will raid him" (יְגוּדֶנּוּ) — as in "the people that he raids" (Hab. 3:16). Also יָגוּד is a doubled-root verb (פְּעָלֵי כֶּפֶל), with a shuruk in place of the holam, as in "let him shout and rejoice" (Prov. 29:6). But we do not know today all the afflictions that befell our ancestors.

גד גדוד יגודנו, after having said that Dan fights like a snake felling horse and rider, Yaakov now contrasts Gad’s mode of operation with that of Dan by saying that the Gadites act in groups. Moses also repeats this theme in Deut. 33,20 when he said וטרף זרועו קדקוד, “he tore off arm and scalp.” והוא יגוד עקב, when he fells horse and rider he will cut off their heels. This is because they will try to flee from his pursuit. Compare Exodus 23,27 ונתתי את כל אויביך אליך עורף, “I will make all your enemies flee from before you.”

גד גדוד יגודנו, "Gad, a troop shall troop upon him, etc." Jacob links his blessing to his name, interpreting his name as meaning "a troop, a camp," as well as גדיה. The author refers the reader to the Sefer Ha-aruch which describes the word גד also as meaning "to draw," "to lead," and "to surround." Accordingly, the meaning is that Gad will surround his enemies. When Jacob continued: והוא יגוד עקב, this means that he will utterly destroy them to the heel, i.e. the lowest extremity. Gad will surround the entire camp of Israel and fight on their behalf. עקב may also refer to the fact that he would help them to receive their reward, their inheritance, [all this is a reference to when the two and a half tribes led by Gad undertook to form the vanguard in the conquest of the land of Canaan in Numbers 32,32. Ed.]

גד גדוד יגודנו, “Gad’s soldiers will troop after the armies of Israel when they go out to war (to conquer their ancestral heritage) during the battles under Joshua; they will be in the forefront as we know from Deuteronomy 3,18, where Moses commanded them to march as the vanguard of the Israelite army. והוא יגד, “he shall raid at the heels of their enemies.” (When returning from battle) (They will not only be the vanguard at the beginning of the battle, but also the mopping up operation at the tail end of the battle.) Another exegesis for the line: והוא יגוד עקב: this tribe will always be in pursuit of enemies remaining, thus finding himself at the heel of their enemies. Compare: 49,8: ידך בעורף אויביך, “your hand will be around the neck of your enemies (Yehudah)”

גד גדוד יגודנו, “Gad will recruit a regiment.” Yaakov praised Gad’s prowess, predicting that he would be involved in many military encounters and that troops would flock to his banner. והוא יגד עקב, “and he will retreat on its heel.” Yaakov meant that ultimately, after having helped his brethren to conquer the land from the Canaanites, its soldiers would return to their families on the East Bank of the Jordan. An alternative meaning is that Gad would vanquish the forces opposing him only in the end. We would then have to understand the word יגד as related to the Aramaic גדו אילנא in Daniel 4,11: “chop down the tree.” Actually, Moses explained this verse when he said in his own blessing of the tribe of Gad (Deut: 33,20) “blessed the One Who broadens Gad; he dwells like a lion tearing off arm and even head.” When Yaakov realized that in spite of Samson’s deeds of valour he was not to be Israel’s redeemer, Yaakov now expressed the hope that Gad would produce the redeemer. The word עקב refers to the tribe that “follows” that of Dan in the sequence of his blessings. He based it on Maleachi 3,23: “Here I will send you Elijah the prophet,” etc. The prophet Elijah reputedly is from Gad. Thus far Bereshit Rabbah 71,9. [The prophet Elijah was a resident of Gilead, in the territory of Gad. This does not mean that he was not also a כהן, a priest. Ed.]

“Gad gadud yegudenu” — Many troops will come against him for war, and at the beginning of the battle he will strike them a mighty blow, as it is written and tears the arm with the crown of the head (Deuteronomy 33:20). For “skin for skin” — when one is struck with a sword, the person being struck raises their arm to protect their head. Therefore, the warrior first tears the arm and cuts it in two until the sword reaches the crown of the head. And Jacob speaks of the end of the battle when his enemies will turn their backs and flee, and behold the heel of the one fleeing is close to the pursuer, especially when he falls and stumbles in his fall, and then he will cut off and sever their heels. This is what it means when it says and he shall raid [yagud] their heel, for the word yagud means cutting, as in the phrase “cut down the tree” [godu ilana].

גד גדוד יגודנו, “Gad will experience having to face troops from time to time;” seeing that the territory of this tribe will be on the east bank of the river Jordan, and hence more exposed to hostile forces, military exercises will be a common experience in this tribe’s history. והוא יגד עקב, “and he will troop back in their tracks.” Another way of saying that the Gadites will cut down their enemies while the latter are retreating. The Talmud uses this expression for cutting down trees. Alternately, Yaakov referred to the military courage of the members of this tribe who would wage battle both at the head of the army as well as at its rear.

Of Asher — his land is good, and he shall supply the delicacies of kings.

מאשר שמנה לחמו OUT OF ASHER COMETH HIS FAT BREAD —The food that will come from the territory of Asher will be fat, for there will be numerous olive-trees in his territory so that it will flow with oil like a fountain. Moses blessed him in a like manner: (Deuteronomy 33:24) “and he will dip his foot in oil”. So we learn in the Treatise of Menachot 85b: once the people of Laodicia were in need of oil. Their agent was able to obtain the very large quantity they required only at a city in Asher, having failed at Jerusalem and other cities.

"From Asher" (מֵאָשֵׁר) — some say the mem is a prefix. In my view, the correct reading is that from the land of Asher bread and oil shall come. Here לֶחֶם ("bread") is feminine. Similarly, בַּיִת ("house"), מָקוֹם ("place"), יָד ("hand"), אֵשׁ ("fire"), עַיִן ("eye"), רוּחַ ("spirit"), אֶרֶץ ("land"), אָרוֹן ("ark"), and עַם ("people") — all are feminine. The meaning of "royal delicacies" is well known. So too Moses said: "And let him dip his foot in oil" (Deut. 33:24).

מאשר שמנה לחמו, "Asher's food will be rich, etc." Perhaps the emphasis is on the letter מ preceding the name אשר, and Jacob meant that Asher would be a "self-made" individual, i.e. tribe, producing all his wealth from within himself, either through his efforts or through his merit.

מאשר, שמנה לחמו, as to Asher: “the food (Gad) he will produce will be richer than that of Asher.” Seeing that Yaakov had not blessed Gad with material blessings, when turning to Asher by saying that its food would be richer than that of Asher, since the soil of its ancestral portion is excellent grazing land. והוא יתן מעדני מלך, “and he will provide royal delicacies.” Yaakov does not imply that the land that Asher resides on will be inferior; but he says that Gad too will provide royal delicacies seeing that its soil is better than Asher’s. An alternate exegesis: the richest food in the land will originate from the soil of the tribe of Asher. It will be even richer that that provided by the tribe of Gad, which was well known for its quality. Cooking oil used to be provided primarily from the olive trees on the territory of Asher. This is also reflected in Moses’ blessings in Deuteronomy 33,24: ברוך מבנים אשר, “the Jewish people will bless Asher thanking him for providing such abundant and high quality oil.” והוא יתן מעדני מלך, “and he will provide the king with taxes in the form of oil.” It was this oil that was used to anoint Jewish kings from the tribe of Yedudah. [As this was not necessary after David had been crowned, and his dynasty was inherited automatically by his successors who did not need to be anointed, this editor does not understand this interpretation, as the quantity of oil required was minute and used only a single time. Ed.] According the Talmud in Menachot 86, and the commentary there by Rash’bam, the function of that oil was to act as a body hair remover and as a skin lotion.

מאשר שמנה לחמו, “From Asher — his bread will have richness.” His food will contain much fat seeing that olives grow in his territory in abundance. He will extract the oil from these olives. Moses alludes to the same thing in his blessing of Asher in Deut. 33,24: “he will dip his feet in oil.” Actually we would have expected Yaakov to address Asher directly, saying: “Asher’s bread will be fat.” Perhaps the letter מ at the beginning of the word אשר was intended to allude to the super-abundance of that oil. There would be so much oil that Asher would even export it to other countries, i.e. “from Asher.”

“From Asher his bread is rich.” Since Asher was responsible for supplying oil to the Temple for meal offerings and other Temple needs, and it is known that all abundance and plenty comes to the world through the Temple, therefore it says that from Asher comes the rich bread of Israel — rich [shemeinah] corresponding to “oil [shemen].” And he will provide royal delicacies, for he will give to the Temple, and the Temple will give to the whole world, to king and commoner alike. Alternatively, it prophesies that Asher would be charitable, and therefore all would praise him — sons and daughters — as it is written for daughters have called me fortunate (Genesis 30:13), and Moses said Most blessed of sons is Asher (Deuteronomy 33:24). And he will give to the poor rich bread and royal delicacies, not from inferior quality, like that person who fed the poor fattened poultry [referring to a story in Ketubot 67b], and as it is written Did I eat my morsel alone (Job 31:17) — meaning that even my own portion of fine bread designated for me, I did not eat alone.

מאשר שמנה לחמו, “the food emanating from the territory of Asher will be rich in fats.” The letter מ at the beginning of the word מאשר is an addition, (not absolutely necessary) Alternately, it was used to make plain that the territory of Asher is meant, and not the people of the tribe. Yet another possibility is that this letter מ refers back to the blessing of Gad, as if to say that seeing that Gad will be preoccupied fighting wars and would therefore not have sufficient time to plant his crops and to harvest them, his brother tribe Asher would compensate him and provide him with royal delicacies.

Naphtali — upon a good land his lot shall be cast, and his inheritance shall be fruitful. They shall give thanks and offer blessings for it.

אילה שלחה is symbolical of the valley of Gennesareth which ripens its fruits very quickly, just as a hind runs rapidly (Genesis Rabbah 99:12). אילה שלחה means A HIND LET LOOSE that it may run where it pleases. הנותן אמרי שפר Understand this as the Targum does: They (the people of Naphtali) will give thanks to and will praise God for them (for the fruits). Another explanation of the verse is: He prophesied about the war with Sisera, with regard to which Scripture says, (Judges 4:6) “and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali etc.” — and they marched thither most rapidly. There, too, is the expression שלח used: (v.15) “into the valley they rushed (שלח) at his feet”. הנתן אמרי שפר HE GIVETH SAYINGS OF PLEASANTNESS — Due to them (to the ten thousand men of Naphtali) Deborah and Barak sang the song of praise (Judges ch. 5). Our Teachers explained the verse as an allusion to what happened on the day when Jacob was buried, when Esau claimed the cave of Machpelah. They were compelled to delay the burial whilst Naphtali ran rapidly back to Egypt and brought the title-deed of the cave etc. as is related in Treatise Sotah 13a. The words in the Targum יתרמי עדביה mean “his lot shall fall”, so that the second half of the verse would mean according to the Targum, “he will give thanks for his lot with pleasing words and with praise”.

NAPHTALI IS A HIND SENT FORTH. It was a custom among the rulers of countries to send hinds to one another, and this was the manner in which it was done: Hinds which were born in the territory of the king of the north country would be raised in the palaces of the king of the south country. They would attach a written message to its horns, and it would run speedily and return to its original habitat, and in this way the king of the north country would be apprised of the news. This is the meaning of the phrase, He giveth goodly words, meaning that he is a dispatched hind sent who bears good tidings. This practice is known, and it is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, in Tractate Shevi’ith:2. “They said, ” The story told there is about Diocletian, the emperor who oppressed the people of a certain city with heavy taxes. When the people threatened to leave the place the officers said to Diocletian: “If they go they will return, for it is in the nature of people to return to their birthplace. And if you wish to prove it, etc.” ‘If they go they will return, and if you wish to prove it, bring deer and send them to a land far away, and in the end they will return.’ He did so. He brought deer and covered their horns with silver and sent them to Africa, and at the end of thirteen years they returned to their place.” That is, they freed them after thirteen years, and they returned at once. The analogy is that Naphtali is satisfied with favor, and full with all good things, and from him tidings will come forth to all Israel that his land has produced fruits abundantly, even as our Rabbis have mentioned concerning the fruits of Gennesareth. The fruits of Genessar (a district around the Sea of Kinnereth) were considered more nourishing than bread, so that if one eats them together with bread he recites the Benediction over the fruits, as they are the main food.

"Naphtali is a deer let loose" — in the manner of a gift; and the recipient of the gift gives beautiful words. Others say that "deer" (אַיָּלָה) alludes to Deborah, and "he gives beautiful words" alludes to the Song of Barak together with her. He mentioned Naphtali because of his inheritance.

נפתלי אילה שלוחה, “Naftaly is like a free running doe,” Members of that tribe being fast long distance runners, used to be dispatched to inform the civilian population of whether a battle had been won [or lost, so that they would be prepared for what would follow. Ed.] This is the meaning of the words following: הנותן אמרי שפר, “bearer of good news.” Compare Judges 5,18 ונפתלי על מאומי שדה, “Naftaly running swiftly across the open heights.”There is an opinion according to which the word: אילה does not refer to a doe, but means: “the plain,” as in Genesis 14 6; yet another opinion relates the word to אילן as in אילי הצדק in Isaiah 61,3: “oaks of righteousness.” The word שלוחה is best rendered as נטועה, “planted.” An example of this use of the word is found in Isaiah 16,8: שלוחותיה נטשו עברו ים, “their shoots spread and crossed the sea.” אמרי שפר, “words of praise.” This is an allusion to branches, ענפים, as in שנים, שלושה גרגרים בראש אמיר, “two or three berries on the topmost branch.” (Isaiah 17,6). The meaning of the verse then is: “the highest plains of his land will be planted with branches that bear beautiful fruit.”

נפתלי אילת שלוחה, “Naftali is a hind let loose.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yaakov describes Naftali as exceedingly fleet-footed. His services are used to convey happy tidings. According to Tanchuma Vayechi 13 the words refer to the valley of Ginosaur, situated in its territory which produced excellent and early ripening fruit. This speed is compared to the speed of a hind. הנותן אמרי שפר. “delivering beautiful sayings.” The people of Naftali used to honour the kings with gifts of their fruit and in the event the Kings had any complaints against them they had the facility to respond and disarm these complaints with pleasant words. Another approach to this verse based on Bereshit Rabbah 95,22 and cited in Sotah 13: Naftali sprinted to Egypt when Esau made difficulties about burying Yaakov in the cave of Machpelah. He brought back the document proving Yaakov’s ownership. He did not return however until Chushim, son of Dan, had killed Esau who held up the burial. A kabbalistic approach: the word אילה שלוחה is an allusion to the concept of צדיק, the truly righteous. The word is reminiscent of a messenger, שליח, the word אילת, is an allusion to the כנסת ישראל also known as אילת השחר. Naftali brings the prayers of the Jewish people to the throne of G’d with his exceptional speed. We have support for this from Shemot Rabbah 21,4 where we are told that a certain angel awaits the prayers of the Jewish people and weaves all of them into a crown to be placed on the head of G’d. This is based on Proverbs 10,6: “blessings rest on the head of the righteous.” The “righteous” par excellence is G’d, of course.

“Naphtali is a swift doe.” Some say [the name] Naphtali [means] “sweetness to me” [nofet li], because his lips dripped sweetness when delivering good tidings to Israel. Others interpret it regarding his fruits which ripen quickly, and he delivers beautiful sayings refers to the recitation of the first-fruits blessing or the blessing over fruits. In my opinion, it seems likely to say that beautiful sayings refers to the Torah, and therefore [the verse] compares him to a doe, as concluded in tractate Eruvin (54b): A loving doe — why are the words of Torah compared to a doe? To tell you that just as a doe has a narrow womb and remains beloved to her mate every time as if it were the first time, so too the words of Torah remain beloved to those who study them every time as if it were the first time. Perhaps this is why they interpreted [Naphtali as] “sweetness to me,” because the words of Torah are sweeter than honey and honeycomb. The meaning is that he was called Naphtali because the words of Torah were as sweet as honeycomb to his mouth. Therefore, he merited to be like a doe who remains beloved to her mate every time as if it were the first time, and he delivers beautiful sayings — meaning that even Torah teachings that have become old in his mouth remain beautiful sayings, for the word shefer [beauty] indicates something new that maintains its beauty and splendor.

נפתלי אילה שלוחה, “Naftali’s territory will be as productive as a free-running doe. It was a custom among kings to send one another does as gifts, seeing that the does raised in the Northern kingdom would be looked after in the Royal Palace of the Kings in the south who would tie messages to their horns after which they would return to their habitat. [they were used as fast mail couriers. Ed.] The meaning of the words אמרי שפר, is that Yaakov wishes that they be bearers of good tidings. Yaakov hints that there would be ample reason to send good tidings from the territory of Naftali.

A son who shall increase — Joseph, a son who shall be blessed — like a vine planted beside springs of water; two tribes shall go forth from his sons and receive a portion and an inheritance.

בן פרת means a graceful son. It is an expression used in Aramaic: אפרין נמטיה “Let us treat gracefully (literally, let us make a triumphal procession for) R. Simeon”, and may be found at the end of Bava Metzia 119a. בן פרת עלי עין means his gracefulness attacks the eye that looks at him. בנות צעדה עלי שור DAUGHTERS TREAD ON THE WALL — The daughters of Egypt used to climb up to gaze at his beauty בנות is plural — many daughters, whilst צעדה is singular, but the words should be translated thus: many daughters climbed, each of them to any place from which she could best obtain a glimpse of him. עלי שור means for the purpose of looking at him, similar to (Numbers 24:17) I behold him (אשורנו) but not nigh”. There are many Midrashic explanations but this inclines nearest to the literal sense of the verse פרת — The ת in this word is added for elegance of style (i.e. it is not a sign of the feminine), as the ת in דברת which is instead of דבר in (Ecclesiastes 3:18) “It is because of (על דברת) the sons of men”. שור is an infinitive the same as לשור, to look. עלי שור consequently means in order to look (i.e. עלי, a poetical form of על, means “for the purpose of”). The translation of Onkelos of בנות צעדה עלי שור is: two tribes will come out of his sons etc., and according to this Scripture writes בנות (though one would expect בנים) with reference to the women of Manasseh — the daughters of Zelophehad — who received a portion of land on both sides of the Jordan (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 9). And in accordance with this paraphrase the Targum translated the preceding words בן פרת by ברי דיסגי יוסף, Joseph is a son who shall increase and become, two tribes connecting פרת with the expression [פריה [ורביה “fruitfulness and increase”. There are Midrashim (Genesis Rabbah 78:9) that fit in with the text: When Esau came to meet Jacob all the other matriarchs walked in front of their children to prostrate themselves but of Rachel it states (33:7) “[and afterwards] came Joseph near and Rachel (i.e. Joseph before Rachel) and they bowed down”. Joseph said, “This wicked man has a haughty look (is bold and impudent) he may set his fancy upon my mother”. He therefore stepped in front of her, drawing himself up to his full height, in order to hide her from Esau’s eyes. It was in reference to this that his father when blessing him called him a בן פורת, a son who grew in size: You, Joseph, stretched yourself to a great height to protect your mother against Esau’s glance, therefore you deserved to become great. (This has reference to the distinguished position he attained in Egypt.). In accordance with this Midrash the words בנות צעדה עלי שור mean they climbed up to get a good view of you when you went forth in the procession as Viceroy over Egypt. They (the Rabbis) gave a further interpretation of it, taking עלי עין as עוּלֵי עין,“raised above the eye”, in the sense that the Evil Eye would have no effect on his children (Berakhot 20a). So, too, when he blessed Manasseh and Ephraim he blessed them, praying that they should become as fishes on which the Evil Eye has no effect.

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

"A fruitful bough, Joseph" (בֶּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף) — בֵּן here means "a branch" (סָעִיף), and it is feminine; similarly: "and over the branch you made strong for yourself" (Ps. 80:16). The grammatical form of פֹּרָת is a feminine active participle (פוֹעֶלֶת). For the verb-form is found in two ways, as in אֹיְבֶיהָ (Jer. 12:7) and also אֹיַבְתִּי (Mic. 7:8). So too פּוֹרָה and פֹּרָת, from the root of פְּרִיָּה ("fruitfulness"). Some interpret it from the root of "and it spread out branches" (Ezek. 17:6). He mentions "a fruitful bough" twice, after the manner of the speakers of the holy tongue: "For behold, Your enemies, Hashem, for behold, Your enemies" (Ps. 92:10) — meaning time after time, continually. On the second interpretation, the tav replaces the heh, like the tav of "return to the prince" (Ezek. 46:17). The meaning of "daughters strode over the wall" — that Joseph was like a fruitful bough, and made daughters, each one of them striding over a fortified wall. The meaning is that they were greatly exalted over the fortified walls. "Daughters strode" — after the manner of "dead flies" (Eccl. 10:1).

בן פורת יוסף, Joseph is considered the product of a proliferating grapevine. It spreads its protective shade for the benefit of many. In Psalms 80,11 we are told of this function of the grapevine in the words כסו הרים צלה, “the mountains were covered by its shade.” The simile means that Yaakov and his family lived under the protective cover of Joseph, i.e. in his shade. The word פורת derivative of פוריה, fruitful, implies the proximity of a spring, a well of water. בנות, branches. The grapevine brings forth many branches. צעדה עלי שור, describing how these branches even grow beyond the wall surrounding the orchard. Alternatively, what is meant is that the branches extend beyond the fence surrounding the well. Prior to its prolific growth it could not be seen from the far side of the wall. People living on that side of the wall did not even have an idea that something was growing there. Once the branches had topped the wall, its presence suddenly became noticeable and provoked reactions on the other side. The other side of the parable, are, of course, Yaakov on the one hand, and Joseph and his sons, who had developed in Egypt without their father even being aware that they were alive. Suddenly, what had been hidden from him for 22 years had become revealed. This is what he meant when he said on meeting him: ראה פניך לא פללתי והנה הראה אותי אלוקים גם את זרעך, I did not even expect ever to see your face again, and now G’d has shown me not only you but also your offspring. (48,11)

בן פורת יוסף, בן פורת עלי עין, "Joseph is a fruiful son, fruitful to the eye, etc." The reason Jacob repeated the word פורת, fruitful, may have to do with Joseph's fertility being twofold We have already explained (Sotah 36) that Joseph had originally been intended to father twelve tribes; the second reason was that he resisted the temptation to sleep with Potiphar's wife, i.e. עלי עין, he overcame the temptation to follow his eyes, proved superior to visual allure. Jacob continued with בנות צעדה. According to Tanchuma the wife of Potiphar called all the wives of the Egyptian elite and had Joseph perform personal valet services for them. Being surrounded by all these ladies was equivalent to this אצעדה, bracelet, Jacob describes here. עלי שור, the point of the exercise was to ogle Joseph. The Torah testifies that in spite of all this Joseph refrained from looking at all these provocative women. Seeing that Joseph did not make improper use of his eyesight he and his descendants in turn were rewarded by remaining immune to the evil eye.

בן פורת יוסף, also a variant of the word ענפים, “branches.” Joseph is viewed as the son whose branches grow profusely as if planted along abundant waters. עלי עין, “by a fountain; it is the custom of poetry in the Holy Tongue to engage in such (apparent) repetitions of similar sounding words. Examples are Psalms 93,3 נשאו נהרות ה', נשאו נהרות קולם, “the oceans sound, o Lord; the oceans; sound their thunder.” Or, Judges 5,3: אנכי לה', אנכי 1“;אשירה will sing; I will sing to the Lord;” (Victory hymn by Devorah). There are many more such examples in the Bible. בנות, the branches growing out of the trunks of trees. Yaakov is saying that they grow beyond the highest points of the walls surrounding them, i.e. צעדה עי שור, “girls stepped up to the wall” (to get a glimpse of him). צעדה, plural form of the feminine mode of the verb צעדו in the parallel masculine version. Another example of a similar construction can be found in Isaiah 59,12: וחטאתינו ענתה בנו, “and our sins testify against us;” or in Exodus 17,12: ויהי ידיו אמונה, “His hands remained steady.” A third such example would be in Exodus 9,31: והפשתה והשעורה נוכתה, “but the flax and the barley had been struck” (by the hail.) The parable here deals with Joseph increasing more so than his brothers, seeing that both his sons became recognised as fully fledged tribes. The sons of Joseph are quoted as saying to Joshua: “And I have become a numerous people as the Lord has blessed me that much” (Joshua 17,14.)

בן פורת יוסף, “Joseph is a charming son.” According to the plain meaning the word בן in this context means “a plant producing many offshoots.” Compare Psalms 80,16 בן אמצתה לך, “the stem You have adopted as Your own.” It would refer here to the fact that Joseph produced two tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe. This would also account for the fact that the word בן appears twice in this verse. The term בן פורת compares to Moses referring to Joseph in his blessing of him in Deut. 33,17 as both שור and ראם, two different animals. Moses there continues by speaking respectively of the myriads of Ephrayim and the “thousands” of the Menashites. The reason Yaakov begins by extolling Joseph before even naming him, something not the case in the blessings of any of the other sons, is probably due to the fact that he was forced to refer to Joseph by name twice, seeing he was to become two tribes. The first בן פורת refers to Menashe, Joseph’s senior son, the second בן פורת to Ephrayim. Seeing that Ephrayim was the more promising of the two Yaakov added the words עלי עין, “appealing to the eye.” Nachmanides understands the words בן פורת as related to a statement by our sages in Baba Metzia119 אפריון נמטייה לרבי שמעון, “an accolade is due to Rabbi Shimon.” The word also occurs in a similar sense in Ketuvot 54, "פורנא ליתמי". בנות צעדה עלי שור “each of the girls climbed the walls.” The girls of the most eminent families of Egypt climbed the walls in order to catch a glimpse of Joseph. Joseph, however, did not look at even one of them. This is why Yaakov added immediately: “but his bow was firmly emplaced,” i.e. he did not allow himself to get aroused by any of these alluring girls. A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 99,11: the words בן פרות = בן פורת, meaning that Joseph attained his outstanding greatness due to two sets of cows which Pharaoh had dreamt about. The words עלי עין should be understood as if the Torah had written: עולי עין, "rising above the eye". The verse is a reference to Joseph’s descendants which were not subject to the damaging influence of the evil eye. According to a kabbalistic interpretation the words בן פורת are an allusion to the glory of Israel, the word פרת, being a derivative of תפארת. The words עלי עין, refer to the origin of the river Euphrates, i.e. פרת, which is one of the four rivers originating in גן עדן, in Paradise. Joseph gets his vital input directly from גן עדן. Seeing that the emanations נצח and הוד respectively appear left and right of the emanation תפארת in our usual diagrams, it is logical that he, Joseph, would produce two tribes instead of merely one. This is why Yaakov continued with בנות צעדה עלי שור which Onkelos translates as “two tribes will emerge from him.” This is what caused Moses to speak of both שור and ראם, in his blessing of the tribe of Joseph (Deut, 33,17) the former representing the emanation נצח, the latter the emanation הוד.

“Joseph is a fruitful son, a fruitful son by a spring.” Jacob said that Joseph, from his own nature, is a ben porat [fruitful son] — a term referring to fertility and multiplication, as “Joseph” is a term of increase, like may He increase you a thousandfold. And he said alei ayin [by a spring/upon the eye], because he possesses charm, similar to what is said she found favor in the eyes of all who saw her (Esther 2:15). Therefore, he will be alei ayin — the evil eye has no power over one who finds favor in the eyes of all who behold him. The proof of this is that daughters stepped along the wall to gaze at his beauty, and nevertheless, he was not harmed by the evil eye, even though in places where abundance is present, the evil eye is more prevalent. Nevertheless, Joseph will be ben porat — he will be fruitful and multiply like fish, and still remain “ben porat” with his grace extended over the watching eye so that it cannot harm him. And after he mentioned the damage of the evil eye from all who saw him, from which he was saved, he returned to mention a second similar matter — that his brothers were also jealous of him and cast their eyes upon him, yet he was saved from them as well. This is what is meant by they embittered him, became numerous, and the arrow-masters hated him. The meaning of became numerous [va-yarobu] is similar to “archer” [roveh keshet], for they wanted to kill him with an arrow, as it is said Before he came near to them, they conspired to kill him. This means by arrow, because they considered him a spreader of slander, whose tongue is a sharpened arrow, so they wanted to act measure for measure against him. The arrow-masters hated him — they themselves were masters of arrows, whose tongues were sharpened arrows, for they spread slander about the children of the handmaids by calling them slaves. And Joseph brought their evil reports about the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah to their father. Therefore, his bow remained taut — Joseph’s bow — because it is permitted to speak lashon hara [negative speech] about those who cause discord (Jerusalem Talmud Peah 1:1). According to this: Joseph’s bow shot according to the law, but the brothers deserved to be called masters of arrows and Joseph’s arrows struck them justly. And his arms were made agile — for one who shepherds prostitutes loses wealth, but he did not shepherd prostitutes with Potiphar’s wife, therefore he merited great wealth and merited to become the shepherd of the Stone of Israel.

בן פורת יוסף, “Joseph is a charming son;” all other sons of Yaakov are named before any description of their virtues or otherwise is mentioned. Here we find at least one of Joseph’s attributes preceding the mention of his name. The reason why Joseph was not first mentioned by name was that he was as if still a son living at home, so that he did not need any introduction. בן פורת, Rash’bam comments that we find a similar construction to that in our verse in Psalms 93,3 נשאו נהרות ה' נשאו נהרות קולם, the rivers raise their voice, etc,” and only afterwards are we told in response to what these rivers raised their voice, i.e. in response to כי הנה אוביך ה', etc, “here G’d’s enemies are described as perishing.” A similar construction is found in Moses’ song after the splitting of the sea of reeds, i.e. ימינך ה' בכח ימינך ה' תרעץ אויב, instead of ה' ימינך תרעץ אויב, “Lord You smash the enemy with Your right hand.” (Exodus 15,6) The expression בן פורת parallels the expression in Ezekiel 19,10 פוריה וענפה, where it describes being fruitful. Some commentators view the word פורת as related to פארות as in ותעש פארות, in Ezekiel 17,6 where it means “it brought forth branches.” (Additional verses are quoted to show that this is not so far-fetched). עלי עין, “when it is planted near a spring of water.” בנות צעדה עלי שור, “girls stepped atop the wall.” Here Yaakov compares the leaves sprouting forth from the afore-mentioned branches to the daughters who are offspring of mature women, describing them as the rich fruit of these branches, all having deep roots from which to draw nourishment. They require walls to support them and to ensure them against being trampled and broken, seeing they are so heavy with fruit; hence the mention of עלי שור, “along the wall.” Nachmanides writes that Yaakov mentioned daughters, thereby alluding indirectly to the two tribes Joseph would become. He could not do so directly, seeing that there could not be more than twelve tribes altogether, and he had already blessed Levi. Moses, when he blessed the Israelites at the end of his life, did something similar when instead בנות he employed the simile of שור, ox, and the simile of קרנים, horns, horns, as being projections emanating from the same body, but suggesting through this smile that each is a body in its own right. Seeing that Moses did not extend a blessing to the tribe of Shimon at all, he could name Ephrayim and Menashe separately, without upsetting the total number of twelve tribes. He therefore referred to the “tens of thousands of Ephrayim, and the thousands of Menashe,” describing how fruitful Joseph would become.

And they embittered him and took vengeance against him, and mighty men, masters of strife, oppressed him.

וימררהו ורבו AND THEY EMBITTERED HIM — His brothers dealt bitterly with him; Potiphar and his wife dealt bitterly with him, putting him into the dungeon. וימררהו is the same metaphor as וימררו 'וגו in (Exodus 1:14) “They made their lives bitter (וימררו)” (Genesis Rabbah 98:19). ורבו means his brothers became his adversaries (literally, men of strife). This verb is not a Kal form meaning they strove (with him) for were it so it should have been punctuated וְרָבוּ (from the root ריב), as in (Numbers 20:13) “These are the waters of Meribah, where the children of Israel strove (רָבוּ)”. And even if its meaning were “shooting arrows” (from the root רבה) it would have been punctuated in exactly the same way. It really has a passive force like (Jeremiah 2:12) שֹׁׁמּוּ שמים “Be astonished, O ye heavens” which is as much as הושמו; and likewise (Job 24:24) “They are exalted (רֹמּוּ) for a little while” which has the same meaning as הורמו except that הורמו and הושמו mean they are made to be exalted and astonished by others, whilst שמו and רמו and רבו denote that the actions arise out of the persons themselves: they make themselves to be astonished, they are exalted of their own accord, רבו means they became men of strife. A similar form is (Isaiah 23:2) “Be still (דֹּמּוּ) ye inhabitants of the isle” where דמו has the same meaning as the Nipal of נִדְמוּ, דום. In this sense does Onkelos also translate it: ונקמהו “and they avenged themselves on him”. בעלי חצים THE ARCHERS (literally, men who have arrows) — they were so called because their tongues were as arrows (Genesis Rabbah 98:19) (cf. Psalms 120:4). Onkelos translates it (חצים) by פלגותא taking it to be of the same root as המחצה in (Numbers 31:36) “And the half (המחצה) was” thus he takes בעלי חצים to mean “those who were destined to share with him the inheritance”.

"And they embittered him" — the Nagid said that the meaning is: they set his bitterness as a target, and then the masters of arrows shot at it. Similarly: "Declare against Babylon to the many" (Jer. 50:29). In the sense of וַיְמָרְרוּהוּ: "His archers surrounded him" (Job 16:13), and in the end "he pours out my gall upon the ground" (ibid.). "And they hated him" (וַיִּשְׂטְמֻהוּ) — this is placed earlier in sequence, as if he said: they had already hated him. This is an allusion to his brothers who sold him.

49,23. וישטמוהו בעלי חצים, The expression בעלי חצים means: “the slanderers.” The word חץ, usually meaning “arrow,” is used as a simile for slander in Jeremiah 9,7 חץ שחוט לשונם, “their tongues are like a sharp arrow.” One of these slanderers was the chief of the cup bearers when he referred to Joseph as נער עברי עבד, three words which are each a derogatory term. (41,12). Also some of Pharaoh’s servants are included in the list of those who slandered Joseph. They are reported as commenting with disdain that “Pharaoh has appointed a slave who had been sold for 20 pieces of silver as our ruler.” (Sotah 36).

וימררהו ורבו וישטמהו בעלי חצים. "They made life bitter for him, they quarrelled, and arrow-tongued men hated him." This is a reference to the time when the brothers first planned to kill Joseph (37,20). It is also possible that Jacob describes what we find in the Sefer Hayashar that the brothers wounded Joseph in many parts of his body before they threw him into the pit. The torture they subjected him to is described by וימררהו. Afterwards, when the brothers took counsel and discussed throwing him into the pit and then to sell him as a slave, they had differences of opinions, i.e. ורבו, they quarrelled. The hatred of the "arrow tongued men" are a reference to the wife of Potiphar and her companions all of whom wanted to sleep with Joseph, i.e. they demanded "his arrows." [Our sages often refer to ejaculation of semen as equivalent to the shooting of an arrow. Ed.] On the other hand, the word וימררהו may be an allusion to Satan, i.e. the evil urge, who seduces one to commit a sin. This may have been the cause of ויפזו זרעי ידיו, "that his virility was channelled through his hands." The power of the evil urge is illustrated by a story involving the pious Rabbi Amram in Kidushin 81. That story ends with the evil urge escaping from the body of Rabbi Amram in a fiery column after Rabbi Amram had almost succumbed. The forces of the קליפה may be termed מרה, bitter. This is perhaps what the Torah wanted to allude to when it described Joseph's life as having been made bitter. When we follow this approach the word ורבו describes the constantly increasing pressure of the evil urge, and the reference to the hatred expressed by the owners of the arrows are to the forces urging man to sin. Their promise to reward him with the pleasures of the flesh are expressions of their hatred for him. They hate every manifestation of holiness. In spite of all these temptations Joseph remained steadfast like a lion and did not "shoot his arrows." When Jacob speaks about מידי אביר יעקב, this means that the same G'd who has proven Jacob's Mighty One also saved Joseph from succumbing. Jacob concludes: משם רעה אבן ישראל, a reference to Psalms 118,22 where we are told that "the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone." This appears to be an allusion to Joseph who had also been rejected at first by his brothers. Joseph's righteousness made him the chief cornerstone also known as the רעה אבן ישראל, the cornerstone who is Israel's shepherd Proverbs 10,25 that "the righteous is an enduring foundation" expresses the same idea.

וימררוהו ורבו, “they embittered him and they quarreled. This was the result of the arrow tongued brothers hating him already.

וימררוהו ורובו, “they made life bitter for him and became his adversaries.” Compare Job 16,13 יסבו עליו רביו, “his adversaries ganged up on him with their arrows.” Yaakov employs the brothers’ conduct versus Joseph as similar to that described in the verse we quoted from Job, so that the simile of בעלי חצים, and ותשב באיתן קשתו, that Joseph when he had the opportunity to exact retribution from his brothers when he had many arrows at his disposal, refrained from doing so by keeping his arrows safely tucked in his quiver and his bow inactive, is most appropriate.

Yet his prophecy was fulfilled concerning him, because he upheld the Torah in secret and placed his trust in strength. Therefore gold was placed upon his arms, and he inherited kingship and grew mighty — this came to him from before the Mighty God of Jacob, by whose Word He sustained the fathers and sons, the seed of Israel.

ותשב באיתן קשתו means his power (i.e. his rule as viceroy) was strongly (באיתן) established. קשתו means his power. ויפזו זרעי ידיו — This refers to the placing of the king’s signet-ring on his hand, יפזו being connected in meaning with the expression (1 Kings 10:18) זהב מופז “the finest gold”, so that the translation would be “his hands were made golden”. This happened to him from the hands of (i.e. through the instrumentality of) the Holy One, blessed be He, who is the Mighty One (אביר) of Jacob. From here (from his position as Viceroy) he rose to become the Feeder of the Foundation Stone of the Israelites, i.e. of the Originator of the tribes of Israel (Jacob). The word אבן, stone, has here the same sense as in (Zechariah 4:7) אבן הראשה, “the chief stone”, where it denotes high position. Onkelos also translates it in this manner: His translation of the verse is as follows: ותשב he translates by “and the prophecy returned upon (was fulfilled in) them (the brethren) i.e. the prophecy contained in the dreams which he dreamed regarding them was fulfilled, “because he observed the Law in secret” — this is an addition made by Onkelos, having no words in the Hebrew text to correspond to it. “And he put in “The Might his trust” is the translation of the Hebrew words באיתן קשתו. The following is how the wording of the Targum fits in with the Hebrew text: “His prophecy was fulfilled (וַתָּשָׁב) because the might (איתן) of the Holy One, blessed be He, served him as his bow (קשתו) and trusty weapon; therefore gold was placed on his arms” — the last words being the Targum of לכך] ויפזו זרועי ידיו], taking ויפזו as connected in meaning with פז, fine gold. אבן ישראל Onkelos takes אבן as an abbreviation of אב ובן and therefore renders it by אבהן ובנין the fathers and children meaning Jacob and his sons. And our rabbis expounded, AND HE BROUGHT BACK HIS BOW WITH STRENGTH, as being about the suppressing of his impulse with the wife of his master. And it calls it a bow, because the seed shoots out like an arrow. ויפזו זרעי ידיו AND HIS FOREARMS WERE GILDED (VAYAFOZU) — (is read) like, 'and they were spread' (vayafotsu), since his seed went out from between the fingers of his hands. מידי אביר יעקב FROM THE HANDS OF THE STRENGTH OF JACOB — As an image of the replica of his father was shown to him, etc., as it is found in Sotah 36b.

BY THE HANDS OF THE MIGHTY ONE OF JACOB. This befell him from the Holy One, blessed be He, Who is the Mighty One of Jacob. And from there [from his position as viceroy], he became worthy to be the feeder of the foundation stone of Israel, that is, the source of the tribes of Israel. The word “even” (stone) has the same meaning here as the word “even” in the expression, the chief stone, [where it means high position]. This is the language of Rashi. “From the G-d of thy father did this befall you, and He will help you. [And with the Almighty, i.e.,] and your heart was with the Holy One, blessed be He, when you did not hearken to the words of your mistress, and He will bless you.” This is also the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the letter mem in the expression, mei’e-il avicha (‘from’ the G-d of thy father), is also to apply to the expression, ve’eith Sha-dai, [as if it read, umei’eith Sha-dai (and ‘from’ the Almighty)], and He will bless thee.…

"But his bow remained firm" (וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּאֵיתָן) — in a place where his bow was steadfast. "Were strengthened" (וַיָּפֹזּוּ) — and they were strengthened; the nearest derivation in my view is from the root פ.ז.ז. Some interpret it from פַּז ("fine gold"), but that has no meaning here. The sense is: the masters of arrows hated him and joined together to pour out his bitterness; yet his bow remained strong and they feared him and could not prevail, for his hands were mighty. "By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob, from there" — "the Mighty One of Jacob" (אֲבִיר יַעֲקֹב) alludes to Hashem, who from that power — the Almighty — was the Shepherd and the Rock of Israel. And so it was: "And Joseph sustained" (Gen. 47:12). The meaning of "Mighty One of Jacob" is that He knew His love for Joseph. The meaning of אֶבֶן ("stone/rock") is: the substance of the thing itself. Some say that מִשָּׁם means "from of old" — but we have never found such usage anywhere in Scripture. Others say that "the Rock of Israel" means that his heart turned to stone and he became as a rock, and he returned to shepherd — meaning, to sustain them with food. But this is a far-fetched interpretation.

ותשב באיתן קשתו. The reply to such accusations was given by Pharaoh himself when he challenged his servants with the words: “where else can we find such an individual endowed with the spirit of G’d?” (41,39) As a result, Joseph did not have to use his own ammunition. In other words, he could keep his arrows in his quiver, unused. ויפוזו זרעי ידיו, his arms were immeasurably strengthened when Pharaoh transferred his ring with the Royal seal to him. מידי אביר יעקב, however, the real salvation emanated from the G’d Who had proven Himself by doing the same for Yaakov. It is He Who enables Yaakov’s descendants to survive among the hostile nations, so that in the end only they will survive. The very name “Yaakov” suggests that in the end there will be only he. In the meantime, He is the One Who kept you alive and saved you from the slanderers who took aim at you. משם, from then on the רועה אבן ישראל, He will continue to act as the Shepherd of Israel preserving His people who will endure like אבן, a stone. It does not matter whether this stone is intrinsically precious or not, being a “stone” it will endure. The enduring nature of a stone is best illustrated in Daniel 2,34: “As you watched, a stone was hewn forth without hands and struck the image on its feet of iron and earthenware and crumbled them.” [Daniel telling the king who had forgotten his dream which he had dreamt. The stone in the dream represented Israel, the image, the nations of the world. Ed.] The reason Israel would survive is because they keep their faith with G’d and man. Sanhedrin 104 explains that the reason why Jews, even when defeated, exiled, etc.’ rose to high positions in their host country was because the rulers valued their loyalty.

ותשב באיתן קשתו, “Yet his bow stayed in its original position;” Yaakov illustrates how Joseph restrained himself not taking revenge on his brothers when he had the opportunity to do so. ויפוזו זרועי, “the arms of his hands were ornamented with fine gold by the hands of the Mighty One of Yaakov;” when pulling at the strings of his bow, his arms would display these ornaments. The word: ויפוזו is a synonym for רקוד, “dance;’ According to Rash’bam, it denotes movements by the arms, whereas כרכור describes the parallel movements with one’s legs. An alternate explanation: the words: ותשב באיתן קשתו, mean that he did not respond to his enemies in kind, but restrained himself and, on the contrary, spoke to them in a friendly manner. According to that interpretation, the words ויפוזו זרועי ידיו mean that although being a powerful king and having at his disposal many means of avenging himself for wrongs done to him, he did not display this characteristic. If you were to ask whence he had learned such self control and forbearance, the answer is: from none other than his father Yaakov, אביר יעקב, who served as his model. משם, from this model he also learned to look after the economic needs of the different families of the numerous family of Yisrael. (his cousins and second cousins) אבן, a word related to אב, father, in the sense of family; the letter ן at the end is not an integral part of the word. We have other examples of such apparently unnecessary letters ן in שגעון or רצון, חרון, רעבון, עורן and ערבון. (Based on Rash’bam)

ותשב באיתן קשתו, Joseph’s ability to restrain his natural desire to punish his brothers was due to his attitude towards the One Who had also been the G’d of his father, Who had guided matters in a manner that eventually transformed Joseph to become the shepherd of Israel, i.e. making him the essence of Israel, the true תולדה, “offspring” of his father. Some commentators understand the expression רועה אבן ישראל, as Yaakov describing his reaction when being reunited with Joseph. Whereas his (Israel’s) heart had already been dead like stone, he had been almost literally resurrected and began to live after being reunited with his beloved son Joseph. This was also the meaning of the words ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, “their father Yaakov’s spirit was resurrected.”

The Word of the God of your father shall be your help, and the Almighty shall bless you — blessings that descend from the dew of the heavens above, blessings that flow from the depths of the earth below — the blessing of your father and of your mother.

מאל אביך means FROM THE GOD OF THY FATHER did this happen to you AND HE WILL HELP YOU also in the future (Genesis Rabbah 87:7). ואת שדי means AND WITH THE ALMIGHTY was your heart when you did not hearken to the words of your mistress AND therefore HE WILL BLESS YOU. ברכת שדים ורחם Onkelos renders this by: blessings for father(s) and mother(s) i.e. may the men and the women be blessed in that they may not prove sterile and barren. שדים BREASTS (SHADAYIM) — "He will surely be cast down" (Exodus 19:13), we translate (in Onkelos) as eeshtedaah yishtedi. Also shadayim here is [to be understood that way,] because the seed shoots out like an arrow.

"From the God of your father" — in my view this connects to the preceding verse; the meaning is: this power that was in your hand came from the God of your father, and He will help you. The mem of מֵאֵל governs two objects — itself and another — as in "by God Almighty (בְּאֵל שַׁדַּי), and as for My name Hashem" (Exod. 6:3). The meaning is thus doubled: and from the Almighty — He will bless you. The Gaon interpreted: I ask of the God of your father. It is also possible that "blessings of heaven" is in apposition to "from the God of your father," and the meaning will be clarified by the word תִּהְיֶין. "Blessings of the deep" — as Moses said: "and of the bounty of the earth" (Deut. 33:16). תְּהוֹם ("deep") is feminine, as in "the deep lifted him up" (Ezek. 31:4). The meaning is: rains will descend upon his land from above, and the springs and streams will increase from the deep that crouches beneath the earth. "Blessings of the breasts and the womb" — he compared the breasts to the heavens and the womb to the deep. The meaning is that his children will be many; the opposite of this is: "a miscarrying womb and dry breasts" (Hos. 9:14).

מאל אביך, all of this (assistance) originated from the G’d of your father who had told me that the ascendancy of the Jewish people would manifest itself only after a period of mental suffering and physical debasement. This is what is meant when G’d said to Yaakov in 28,14 והיה זרעך כעפר הארץ, “your seed will be like the dust of the earth,” before he went on to say ופרצת ימה וקדמה, “you will spread out in all directions of the globe.” ויעזרך, so that you will not again descend to the depths. ואת שדי, same as if the Torah had written ומאת א-ל שדי, “from the G’d whose attribute is Shaddai.” Yaakov mentions this attribute specifically as it had been this attribute of G’d which had appeared to him in 35,11 promising that he would develop into a community of nations. Joseph’s greatness would be orchestrated with the help of this attribute of G’d. ויברכך, He, Himself, without intermediary. This would be different from the blessing extended to Ephrayim and Menashe in which Yaakov promised that “the angel,” i.e. the intermediary, who has looked after me would look after these children of Joseph. (48,16). This blessing was also different in character from the blessings of Yitzchok for Esau, and that from Moses for the people crossing into the Holy Land. In all those instances, except in the blessing Moses referred to in Deuteronomy 1,11 which was given by him prior to the sin of the spies, the initiators of the blessing were human beings, i.e. Yitzckok or Moses. G’d would be asked to honour promises made by humans as a blessing. In our situation here, Yaakov commands the blessing to originate with the attribute of G’d known as Shaddai. ברכות שמים מעל, in the sense that the days of your life would be completed as planned before you were born. (compare Exodus 23,27) ברכות תהום רובצת תחת, material blessings, adequate food and money to buy necessities. ברכות שדים ורחם. This is a blessing concerning having healthy and numerous children, in contrast with the expression רחם משכיל ושדים צומקים, “a womb that miscarries and shriveled breasts” (Hosea 9,14)

מאל אביך ויעזרך, "From the G'd of your father who will continue to help you, etc." Jacob tells Joseph that his accomplishments are due to the G'd of Jacob; he even hints that Joseph drew on his father's merit so that he could have accomplished all that he did. Jacob prays that G'd should continue to help Joseph, ויעזרך. He adds ואת שדי, saying that yet another attribute (dimension) of G'd has assisted Joseph, the attribute that is particularly suited to the soul of Joseph, a mystical dimension familiar to students of the Kabbalah. It was this attribute which blessed and helped Joseph maintain his purity in a foreign land in the house of a pagan dignitary such as Potiphar. When Jacob spoke about ויעזרך.ויברכך, he may also have wanted to stress that G'd's help notwithstanding, Joseph deserved credit for his own efforts in resisting this temptation. G'd blessed him as if Joseph had accomplished all this by himself. The author refers to his commentary in this context on Psalms 37,33 where he elaborated on this theme. Jacob may also have based his blessing on the well known statement by our sages in Berachot 10 that when someone credits someone else with his own accomplishment, G'd may credit him with it instead, whereas if one claims that one's own merit accounts for one's good fortune, then G'd will teach one that it was only someone else's merit that resulted in that person's blessings. Jacob said that because Joseph credited his father's merit with assisting him at a critical juncture, G'd would credit Joseph himself with having mastered his temptation. Jacob may have expressed another message in his blessing of Joseph. Baba Batra 58 teaches that G'd does not perform miracles for people who will not remain righteous. Jacob therefore said that up to that point Joseph enjoyed G'd's blessings מאל אביך, because of his father's merit, whereas from now on ויעזרך G'd would assist him not to succumb to temptation in order to justify the miracles He had already performed for him. [I have not been able to find the source of this statement. Ed.]

ברכות שדים ורחם, “the blessings of the breasts and the womb.” Yaakov paraphrases the blessings emanating from a celestial source, i.e. שמים, and emanating from earth, i.e. ארץ. An alternate explanation: the “blessings of the breasts,” are a simile for stilling thirst, whereas “the blessings of the womb,” are that the fetus will not be stillborn. (Based on Rash’bam) In this instance, the breasts appear first before the womb, although they are not needed until after the baby has been born, seeing that a mother begins to feel that she has a supply of milk even before the baby has been born. On the other hand, the prophet Hoseah, in Hoseah 9,14, says: תן להם רחם משכיל ושדים צוצקים, “give to them a womb that miscarries and shriveled breasts, in that order. (When he lambasts his countrymen for their disloyalty to G-d, and prays to G-d not to allow such people to develop normally.)

מאל אביך ויעזרך, “from the G’d of your father, and He will help you.” According to the plain meaning the attribute אל will provide help, i.e. when you are in trouble, whereas G’d’s attribute שדי will be the source of the blessings you will experience. The blessings will include both input from the heavens and input from the תהום, the depth of the earth. ברכות שדים ורחם, “the blessings of breasts and womb.” According to Onkelos this is an allusion to the combined blessings of Joseph’s father and mother. In Exodus 15,4, on the words ירה בים, Onkelos translates this as שדי בימא, “as something ‘flung’ into the sea.” He appears to understand the word שדים as related to an activity by the male, i.e. the ejaculation of sperm which is expelled like an arrow from a bow. A kabbalistic approach: The word אביך is a reference to אביר יעקב, the attribute of G’d which protected Yaakov. It is this same attribute which Yaakov invokes when asking that it also protect Joseph after he had already received the heavenly blessings. The heavenly blessings are alluded to in the word שדים, the earthly ones by the word רחם. In mystical terms, “father and mother” are viewed here as symbols of heaven and earth.

מאל אביך, “From your father Almighty, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the letter מ at the beginning of this verse refers forward to the words ואת שדי in our verse. Yaakov explains that Joseph’s strength of character was assisted by these two attributes of G’d. It is the G’d of his father Who will truly bless him.

The blessings of your father shall be added upon my own blessings, with which my fathers — the great ones of old, who longed for them — were blessed. May all these be upon the head of Joseph, and upon the man who is distinguished among his brothers.

'ברכת אביך גברו וגו THE BLESSING OF THY FATHER HAVE PREVAILED etc. — The blessings which the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed upon me are mighty beyond the blessings wherewith He blessed my progenitors עד תאות גבעות עולם EVEN TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EVERLASTING HILLS — Because my blessings have prevailed, extending to the very ends of the bounds of the everlasting hills, for He gave me a blessing that bursts all bounds, one that has no limits, that reaches even unto the four corners of the world, as it is stated, (Genesis 28:14) “[God said to Jacob] and thou shalt spread abroad to the West and to the East [and to the North and to the South]”, an unqualified promise that was made neither to Abraham nor to Isaac. For to Abraham He said, (Genesis 13:14) “Lift up thine eyes and look northwards etc. … for all the land which thou seest to thee will I give it”, and He showed him only the Land of Israel. To Isaac He said, (Genesis 26:3) “for unto thee and unto thy seed will I give all these lands, and I will establish the oath [which I swore unto Abraham thy father]”. It is to this that Isaiah alludes when he said, (Isaiah 58:14) “And I will feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father” (Shabbat 118b), and he did not say, “with the heritage promised to Abraham”. הורי is from a root meaning to conceive. The singular denotes “my father”, the one who made my mother conceive me. We find a similar use of the verb in (Job 3:3) “A man is causing a woman to conceive (הוֹרָה).” עד תאות means UNTO THE ENDS — The word is connected with the verbs in (Numbers 36:10) “And ye shall mark out the ends (והתאויתם) for the east border”, and (Numbers 5:8) “you shall mark out the ends (תתאו) unto the entrance of Hamath”. תאות means in old French émoulis. Thus (i.e. with these words) did Menachem ben Seruk classify it (תאות). Onkelos translates (תאות (גבעת עולם in the sense of desire (תאוה) and longing and takes גבעת as a figurative expression for “the great ones”, like (1 Samuel 2:8) “the pillars of the earth”, meaning the righteous of the earth — viz., he renders it by “the blessings for which the great ones of the earth longed”, referring to the blessings which his mother so much desired that she forced him to take steps to obtain them תהיין THEY — all — SHALL BE ON THE HEAD OF JOSEPH. נזיר אחיו means what the Targum has: פרישא דאחוהי. i.e. the one who was separated from his brothers. The word נזיר is of a root signifying separation, as in (Leviticus 22:2) “that they separate themselves (וינזרו) from the holy things of the children of Israel”; (Isaiah 1:4) “they have separated themselves from God (נזרו) turning backward”.

"The blessings of your father" — these blessings with which I have blessed you are mighty, and they join together with the blessings of my own parents who blessed me. "My parents" (הוֹרַי) — meaning "those who gave me birth"; similarly: "and she conceived Miriam" (1 Chr. 4:17); "the man who was conceived" (Job 3:3). "The desire" (תַּאֲוַת) derives from the root of "and you shall mark out" (Num. 34:10). The meaning is that the blessings will surpass. "The crown of his brothers" (נְזִיר אֶחָיו) — from the root נֵזֶר ("crown/diadem"); it is in the construct state, as in "a willing heart" (Exod. 35:22).

ברכות אביך, may He also grant you the blessing which has been bestowed on your father when the same G’d promised me that I would spread out in all directions of the globe. (28,14) This meant that my heritage would be boundless. This was only an extension of the original blessing given to Avraham at the beginning of Genesis 12 that ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה ובזרעך, “through you will be blessed all the families of the earth and through your descendants.” This verse is also a promise to the moral elite of the gentiles who in the words of Bileam in Numbers 23,23 will be numbered among the people loyal to G’d and who will receive their reward. Bileam speaks of כעת יאמר ליעקב ולישראל מה פעל ה', (Israel will be told by G’d directly what G’d does, not relying on astrologers and the like) The prophet Yoel 3,5 promises that all those who refer in their conversation to Hashem, will survive the wars preceding the coming of the Messiah, their mention of G’d being considered as proof of their believing in Him. [If I understand the author correctly, he feels that unless the promise given to Avraham at the beginning of Lech Lecha will help those חסידי אומות העולם, the righteous among the gentiles who are deserving, to survive the cataclysmic events preceding the coming of the Messiah, they are of too transient a nature to be taken seriously. Ed.] The distinction of the Jewish people lies in the fact that they do not turn to soothsayers, and all kinds of charlatans, astrologers or palm readers to divine the future. If they want to know something about the future they turn to G’d directly or to a prophet, or they are content to let G’d do what He considers to be right. Hence, by proclaiming the name of the Lord one is presumed to belong to this elite. Verses quoted by the author, such as Isaiah 61,6 as well as Zecharyah 8,23 are an assurance that when the time comes, having been steadfast in one’s loyalty to G’d, one will share in the ultimate salvation. The Jews at that time will finally be recognised as deserving a position of leadership amongst mankind. גברו על ברכות הורי, and the reason that I said ברכות אביך is because they are more powerful than the ones which my parents, הורי, received. עד תאות גבעות עולם for my blessings extend to the end of the globe, both extremes of the sun’s orbit which spans the continents. They are so called as they represent the end of “time”. etc. [there is no point in completing the author’s words as the astronomy since Copernicus is viewed completely differently than during the author’s time, Ed.] תהיינה לראש יוסף, these words are understood as emanating from G’d Who will send His blessings onto the head of Joseph directly, without the services of any intermediary. Moses parallels Yaakov’s syntax when he said in Deuteronomy 33,16 in his blessing to Joseph תאנה לראש יוסף, ורצון שכני סנה. ולקדקד נזיר אחיו, seeing that he had remained pure, resisted temptation, he became crowned with the crown of royalty among his brothers (alternate meaning of נזר). He had proved by his very actions that he was worthy of such distinction, so that he is the recipient of direct blessings from G’d. Also Joseph’s descendants remained on a moral level close to that of his illustrious ancestor, so that the first of the Judges, Moses’ successor, was the leader of the people, being in effect the “king” of his nation. Compare Hoseah 13,1 כדבר אפרים אתת נשא בישראל, “when Ephrayim spoke piety he was exalted in Israel.” [a reference to Joshua’s contradicting the spies’ majority report. Ed.]

נזיר אחיו, “the one who had been separated from his brothers.” Our author understands the word נזיר here as “the prince among his brothers.” He uses Lamentations 4,7, זכו נזיריה משלג, “her elect were purer than snow, ”as the source where the word is used in that context.

ברכות אביך גברו על ברכות הורי, “the blessings of your father have surpassed the blessings of my parents.” According to the plain meaning of the words the word “my parents” refer to Avraham and Yitzchak (not to Yitzchak and Rivkah). Yaakov meant that his blessings were additional to the blessing which had already been bestowed by Avraham and Yitzchak on his offspring. A kabbalistic approach: Yaakov meant that the emanation from which his own blessing would originate is more powerful than the emanation in which Avraham and Yitzchak and also their blessings were at home. Avraham and Yitzchak had primarily represented the emanation חסד and גבורה respectively. Yaakov’s emanation, i.e. the aegis under which he modeled his life was תפארת, harmony, a blending of the two emanations which each formed Avraham’s and Yitzchak’s guiding light. The reason the patriarchs are called הורי, “my parents,” is that they were the principal carriers of the שכינה, the “benevolent Presence of G’d on earth,” as we have explained repeatedly. [The word הורי may be read as without the letter ו, i.e. הרי, “my mountains,” i.e. the ones I look up to. Ed.]. We find that David also refers to the patriarchs as mountains when he said in Palms 121,1 “I will raise my eyes to the mountains.” Midrash Tehillim on these words understands them as David raising his eyes to the spirits of the patriarchs. עד תאות גבעת עולם, “to the utmost bounds of the eternal hills.” Until the emanations will have played their parts in full. At that time G’d and His Name will be One, [there will no longer be a dichotomy between man’s ideals and his realising them. Ed.] The הורי of which Yaakov has spoken will then be identical with גבעות עולם. These “mountains” may then serve as “crowns”. The word גבעות has much in common with מ-גבעות, the headgear (Exodus 28,40) worn by the priests. The welfare of the whole world depends on the priests, and their garments are the זרועות עולם ”the arms of mankind.” Just as warriors wear a medallion on their arms as a charm of good luck, so the priests when the carry out their function suitably adorned, are the medallion of mankind (or at least of the Jewish people). The author quotes more verses showing that the word גבעות is used in that sense and linking the words פתחי עולם and שאו שערים to the same concept.

“Your father’s blessings surpassed the blessings of my parents.” This is similar to [the phrase] the chamber of my conception, because the blessings that I received through my mother were obtained through deception and trickery, and were like a hidden matter because of Esau. However, your father’s blessing — where he took the birthright from the brothers and gave it to you — was an open and publicized giving unto the bounds of the everlasting hills, for in all four directions of the world you can take pride in them. They shall be on the head of Joseph, etc. They shall be like something placed on the head and crown, even though the birthright was [taken from] the one separated from his brothers — meaning, taken and separated from his other older brothers through the blessings. Nevertheless, you can take pride in them like something placed in a high place on the head, visible to all — unlike my parents’ blessings, which I was forced to deny and say they were not fulfilled in me, and had to go into hiding because of my brother Esau.

ולקדקוד נזיר אחיו, “on the head of the one who was separate from his brothers.” The word נזיר here may be understood in the sense of נזר, “crown” i.e. the most superior, of his brothers. Another way of looking at this expression is that seeing that the head is the highest, most valuable of all our organs, by blessing the head one automatically blesses the entire body, i.e. all twelve tribes.

In Benjamin's territory the Shechinah shall dwell, and within his inheritance the Sanctuary shall be built. In the morning and in the evening the priests shall offer sacrifice, and at the time of the evening offering they shall divide the remainder of their portions from the other sacred offerings.

בנימן זאב יטרף means BENJAMIN IS A WOLF THAT TEARETH (i.e. “wolf” is not the object of the sentence but the word אשר must be supplied before יטרף). He prophesied that they (Benjamin’s descendants) will be “rapacious” in the time to come; thus the Benjamites were told (Judges 21:21) “and catch you every man his wife”, as you will find in the story of the concubine of Gibeah. Further he was prophesying concerning Saul (who was of this tribe) who vanquished his enemies on all sides, as it is said (1 Samuel 14:47) “So Saul took the kingdom… and fought on every side… against Moab… and against Edom… and whithersoever he turned himself he put them to the worse”. בבקר יאכל עד IN THE MORNING HE EATETH HIS PREY — עד is an Aramaic word synonymous with the Hebrew words בזה and שלל, prey, which are rendered in the Targum by עדאה; and there is another example of its use in the Hebrew text of the Bible: (Isaiah 33:23) “Then is the prey of great spoil (עד שלל) divided”. He (Jacob) says this (“in the morning eateth his prey”) with reference to Saul who rose as Israel’s champion in the period when Israel began to flourish and shine (i.e. in the morning of his history; indeed some editions have “בקרן”, at the morning-dawn of Israel, instead of פריחתן) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 14). ולערב יחלק שלל AND AT EVEN HE DIVIDETH THE SPOIL— even after the sun of Israel will have set through Nebuchadnezzar who will exile them to Babel, יחלק שלל HE WILL DIVIDE THE SPOIL, viz., Mordecai and Esther who will be of the tribe of Benjamin will divide the spoil of Haman, as it is said, (Ester 3:7) “Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman” (Cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 14). Onkelos translates it as having a reference to the portions which the priests received of the holy sacrifices in the Temple which was situated in the territory of Benjamin.

"Benjamin" — he compared him to a wolf, for he was mighty; and the proof is the men of Gibeah (Judg. 20). עַד — the Aramaic translation renders it as "spoil." Similarly: "then he divides the spoil" (Isa. 33:23); "for the day I rise as a witness" (Zeph. 3:8); "a garment of witnesses" (Isa. 64:5). In the evening he divides the prey — that is, the spoil — among his children. Yeshua said that this alludes to Saul, who defeated Amalek. "In the morning" alludes to the beginning of the kingdom; and "in the evening" to the exile, concerning Mordecai. But this is a homiletical interpretation. The view of the Aramaic translator is well known.

זאב יטרוף, it is the custom of wolves to attack either early in the morning or in the evening, both periods when there is not much light. We find support for this in Chabakuk 1,8. Binyamin’s rise to power also occurred at the dawn of Jewish monarchies in the person of King Sha-ul, and once more near the end of Jewish one man rule under Mordechai. Subsequently, there was never again a true Jewish political independence, and the religious leadership was in the hands of the אנשי כנסת הגדולה, a college of 120 elders.

בנימין זאב יטרוף, "Benjamin is a wolf that devours its prey, etc." Jacob referred to King Saul who acted like a wolf. It is the nature of the wolf not to remain at the site where he tears its prey. Saul was in a hurry when he failed to wait for the time Samuel had said he should wait (Samuel I 13,8). This became the reason that Saul only ate on the morning (the early part of his reign) and he did not serve out his term. When Jacob spoke about ובערב, he referred to the evening of Saul's reign (Samuel I 18,7) when Saul was described as having killed thousands whereas David was credited with having killed tens of thousands. It is also possible that Jacob referred to the division of David's kingdom, which the Talmud Yuma 22 attributes to David having believed Tzivah's accusation against Mefiboshet and disinheriting him partially without checking out the story (Samuel II 19,30). According to the Talmud a heavenly voice proclaimed at that time that Rechavam and Yerovam would divide David's kingdom. This was the beginning of the setting of the sun for Israel (loss of grandeur), because of its sins.

בנימין זאב, “Binyamin is like wolf;” a metaphor implying that the kingdom of Shaul, a descendant of Binyamin, would not endure, just as a wolf does not spend time with his prey. On the other hand, the Kingdom of David is compared to that of a lion, which does spend time with its prey, not being afraid of anyone challenging it. (Compare Torah Shleymah on this verse) זאב יטרף, “a wolf that will attack and kill most domesticated animals.” The wolf consumes in the morning sufficient parts of his prey to last him until evening, after which he distributes the remains to its young. The blessing has been worded as a parable. The letter ו at the beginning of the word: ולערב, is unnecessary; there are many such unnecessary letters in the Torah, and especially when the text is not prose but poetry. There is no point in arguing that from the cantillation mark etnachta under the word עד that it is divisive; I have already explained this in Genesis 47,6 in connection with the words: במיטב הארץ, under the word אחיך where I listed a number of examples that the etnachta is not always a divisive cantillation mark, or rather, that it does not always override the plain meaning of the verse. ולערב יחלק שלל, “and at night he divides the plunder.” I have already mentioned that this is the habit of wolves as per Tzefaniah 3,3: זאבי ערב לא גרמו לבקר, “wolves of the evening; they leave no bone until morning.”

בנימין זאב יטרף, “Binyamin is a predatory wolf.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov compares Binyamin to a predatory wolf seeing that in the future the surviving young men of Binyamin would kidnap girls and make them their wives. (Judges 21,21) Rashi there translates the words וחטפתם לכם איש אשתו, “grab yourselves each one his wife-to-be.” A Midrashic approach: Binyamin had ten sons, a number which corresponds to the numerical value of the letters in the word זאב. בבוקר יאכל עד, “in the morning he consumes a foe.” This is a reference to King Saul (of the tribe of Binyamin) the first king of Israel who defeated numerous enemies of Israel ובערב יחלק שלל, “and by evening he would distribute the spoils.” Even after the sun had set over Israel when Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the Temple, i.e. Israel’s fortunes were like an “evening,” Mordechai (Saul’s descendant) still triumphed over Haman when Esther made over Haman’s house to him (Esther 8,7). A kabbalistic approach: Binyamin combined within him the two “great” emanations (attributes) גדולה וגבורה. This is why the Temple, i.e. the home of the שכינה stood on its territory. The שכינה, of course, is representative of all the emanations (all the ten attributes) Binyamin is compared by Yaakov to the altar which consumes a sheep in the morning and in the evening [the daily communal offerings in the Temple]. It is therefore not difficult to accept the simile of his being like a preying wolf, a predatory animal. Seeing he is so representative of all the ten emanations he was granted ten sons to symbolise this. The words יחלק שלל, are reminiscent of Psalms 68,13 ונות בית תחלק שלל, “the soul in the house would share out the spoils.” The soul of the house, is, of course, the שכינה. This is also why Onkelos translates our verse as בארעיה תשרי שכינתא “in his land the Shechinah will dwell.” Having explained that the name of Binyamin (or Yaakov’s definition of his name) corresponds to celestial attributes and reflects either one or several emanations, let me just say that the same holds true for the names of each one of Yaakov’s sons. If you examine the Torah with your eyes open, you will discover that the colour of the gemstones which had these names engraved in them and which formed a part of the High Priest’s breastplate, reflects the respective attribute and emanation of that particular tribe. For instance, Reuven, whose name symbolized the attribute of Justice had his name engraved on a red-coloured gemstone called אודם, whereas the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was engraved was called ישפה to reflect the fact that it was a multi-coloured stone. I will get back to this subject when we discuss Exodus 28,15.

Benjamin is a wolf that will tear; in the morning he will devour prey, and in the evening he will distribute spoils. This requires examination: What is the significance of showing evening and morning, and why is it called spoils in one place and prey in another? And here it says the language of will devour and afterwards will distribute. This is because it is known that anything a person asks for appropriately is given to him with a shining countenance, meaning in the morning, and anything a person asks for inappropriately is given to him in the evening with a darkened countenance, as Rashi explained on the verse When God gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread to satisfy in the morning (Exodus 16:8). Everything that is necessary for a person, meaning what he needs for eating to satisfy his household’s hunger, is given with a shining countenance and his bread will not be lacking forever and eternally. But all the excess that a person asks for beyond what he needs for eating will ultimately be left to others — his wealth will be distributed to others, perhaps to his widow’s husband, and he himself will be deprived and distanced from those excesses that were given to him in the evening. Therefore it says in the morning — referring to that which is given with a shining countenance — this is what he will devour, because only what he needs for eating is given with a shining countenance, and it is given to him forever. Even though prey [ad] is also a term for spoils, nevertheless it uses the word ad [prey/forever] which indicates permanence. And in the evening — what is given with a darkened countenance — this is what will be distributed to others while he is deprived of it, because the term shalal [spoils] has the connotation of removal, like and the iron head shall slip (Deuteronomy 19:5), a language of removal and detachment. And He connected this matter to the blessing Benjamin is a wolf that will tear, to rebuke also the judges of Israel that they should not tear [prey] in war more than necessary, as it is written Her judges are evening wolves, they leave nothing for the morning (Zephaniah 3:3). The prophet accuses them of tearing more than what was necessary, therefore he called them evening wolves, and said they leave nothing for the morning because they did not seek only what was necessary which is given in the morning. And similarly, he accuses Saul, who was from Benjamin, and you did pounce upon the spoils (1 Samuel 15:19) because he did not remember Jacob’s blessing to Benjamin. But regarding Abraham it is said Nothing for me; only what the young men have eaten (Genesis 14:24), he took specifically what they needed to eat and did not distribute to them excessive spoils. And in this, he drew the parable from the wolf who tears [prey] for the need of his food, but sometimes tears and destroys without purpose. And this is a precious interpretation. And in the Ba’al HaTurim he concludes that the initial letters of the blessings of all the tribes add up to 365, corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and the final letters add up to 354, corresponding to the number of days in the lunar year. This is because in this world, all their dominion is similar to the moon — sometimes it is built up and sometimes it is breached. Similarly, sometimes they lack sovereignty. However, in the time when the blossom will bloom and the righteous sprout whose name is Messiah, who preceded the world (Pesachim 54), then it is written his throne shall be as the sun before Me (Psalms 89:37) — for their kingdom will be eternal like the sun. Therefore, the sun is hinted at in the initial letters, alluding to the name of the Messiah who preceded the world. This is the secret of Zerach [Shine] and Peretz [Breach] which they interpreted regarding the sun and moon, and this is the vision of evening and morning that is mentioned here regarding Benjamin.

בנימין זאב יטרף, “Binyamin is a wolf garnering prey.” The kingdom of Sha-ul, the first king of Israel, a descendant of Binyamin, has been compared to that of a wolf. One of the characteristics of a wolf is that it flees from the place where it killed its prey, and does not wait around like a lion. King Sha-ul’s kingdom endured for no more than two and a half years, whereas his successor’s David’s kingdom, endured for 40 years. Yaakov therefore likens his domain to that of a lion, which, after killing its prey does not flee in fear of pursuit.

All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them, and he blessed them — each one according to his blessing he blessed them.

וזאת אשר דבר להם אביהם ויברך אתם AND THIS IS IT THAT THEIR FATHER SPOKE UNTO THEM WHEN (literally, and) HE BLESSED THEM — But were there not some of his sons whom he did not bless but whom, on the contrary, he reproached? But this is the explanation of these words: and this is it that their father spake unto them, viz., all that has been said above in this chapter, whether it be blessing or reproach. You might therefore think that he did not bless Reuben, Simeon and Levi at all — Scripture therefore states, “and he blessed them” (i.e. the 12 tribes alluded to at the beginning of the verse) which implies all of them. (Pesikta Rabbati 7). EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS BLESSING — according to the blessing that was to come in future to each and every one. (Cf. Rashi on Genesis 40:5, איש כפתרון חלמו.) ברך אתם HE BLESSED THEM — It should have said, “every man according to his blessing he blessed him”; why, then does it say “he blessed them”? But since in the blessings he ascribed to Judah personally “the strength of a lion”, to Benjamin “the rapacity of a wolf” and to Naphtali “the swiftness of a hind”, one might think that he did not include all of them in all the blessings, Scripture therefore states “he blessed them” (i.e. each of them personally and all of them together — extending all the personal blessings to each of them) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 16; cf. Rashi on Exodus 1:19).

"Each according to his blessing" — as fit each individual blessing, so he blessed them — on the pattern of "each according to the interpretation of his dream" (Gen. 40:5).

כל אלה שבטי ישראל, the ones Yaakov mentioned here were the true twelve tribes of Israel, the names inscribed on the breastplate of the High Priest as commended to G’d’s special attention. They are also the ones who were mentioned as such at the covenant on Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval. The twelve stones which Moses erected also symbolised these twelve tribes. Again. Joshua erected 12 stones at the Jordan as well as at Gilgal, and Elijah erected 12 stones at the altar. In none of these instances are Ephrayim and Menashe treated as separate tribes. They only figured as separate tribes when it came to the land distribution, seeing that the tribe of Levi did not share in that. ויברך אותם, in addition to blessings bestowed individually rather than collectively, earlier. איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם, he gave an individual blessing to each one in accordance with what he perceived to be the son’s need in view of his eventual destiny. Yehudah needed to have a blessing that his dynasty would endure, etc. Levi needed to be blessed that his function of serving G’d as representative of the people would endure, etc.

כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר, All of these comprise the twelve tribes of Israel. How exactly is the number twelve made up? Is Levi included? If so, the Torah did not include Joseph as more than one tribe, though Jacob had said to him (48,5): "Ephrayim and Menashe shall be to me like Reuben and Shimon." If Levi is not included in the number twelve, as we find for instance when the Israelites were being counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers when the flags and positions around the Tabernacle were assigned, why was Levi denied his father's blessing? If the reason was that Jacob criticised him and only those who had received blessings were included in the count, why were Reuben and Shimon included seeing they too had been criticised? Perhaps Ephrayim and Menashe were not counted as two separate tribes until after the Exodus from Egypt, whereas here the Torah counts Joseph. I believe this is a rather forced explanation. I prefer to think that the words איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם, "he blessed them each according to his special blessing," contains the answer to our problem. We note that Jacob included Shimon and Levi in a single blessing. Hence we have Joseph as two tribes and Shimon and Levi as one tribe together making up the number twelve. אשר דבר אליהם אביהם ויברך אותם, what their father told them when he blessed them. Although we note that Jacob bestowed no blessing on either Reuben, Shimon or Levi, the Torah makes the point that the very harsh comments Jacob made to these three sons were their blessings. This is why the Torah employs the expression דבר, an expression reserved for harsh words or a harsh tone. The Torah adds ויברך אותם, he blessed them, to make certain we do not misunderstand. When we look at the way Jacob censured Reuben, we are reminded of the Sifri in Behaalotcha according to which the privileges of the firstborn will be restored to them in the future. Inasmuch as Jacob called Reuben his firstborn this was an encouragement for all the firstborn to look forward to the future when they would again be allowed to function as priests. It was on account of that future that Jacob was so intent to acquire the birthright from Esau at the time. The idea that there would come a time when Esau would perform the service in the Holy Temple was anathema to Jacob. This does not mean that in the future these privileges will be denied to the Levites. At the time envisaged both the firstborn and the Levites will share equally in those functions that were performed by the Levites when the Temple was standing. Jacob also blessed Simon and Levi when he cursed their anger. His blessing consisted in that he cursed their excess amount of anger. By reducing their natural tendency to anger he bestowed a veritable blessing upon them. The fact that he decreed that when the land of Canaan would be distributed they should be split up and scattered throughout the land was also a blessing as it would help to blunt any harmful results whenever they would have occasion to display their anger. אשר כברכתו according to his blessing, etc. Each person received a blessing in keeping with his individual personality and achievements. You must not forget that different souls possess different potentials. Some souls are able to rise to the level of being priests, others to the level of being kings, etc. Still others have the potential to achieve greatness in Torah knowledge, or temporal successes such as wealth, or personal heroism. Jacob endeavoured to match his blessings to what he perceived to be the nature of each of his sons' special attributes. ברך אותם, he blessed them. The Torah uses the word אותם them, (plural) to stress that each and every blessing to each individual son was also meant to be beneficial to the brothers as a whole. When Jacob predicted that Yehudah's hand would be on the neck of his enemies, this automatically meant that Yehudah's brothers would also benefit from his military prowess, etc.

אשר כברכתו, “in accordance with the individual blessing that each tribe.” will experience in the future.

כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר, “all these are the twelve tribes of Israel.” We would have expected the Torah to write אלה שבטי ישראל. Why did the Torah add the word "כל?" Seeing that Yaakov had severely criticized Reuven, Shimon, and Levi, I might have thought that the fact they were not given a blessing placed them outside the fold. In order to prevent us from making such an assumption the Torah had to add the word כל to show that all of Yaakov’s sons qualified for becoming founders of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rashi). Personally, I believe that this verse is an allusion that all of existence is due only to the merit of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is the true meaning of the words כל אלה, “all of these.” The same expression has been used by the prophet Isaiah to describe the entire universe (Isaiah 26,2) “all of these My hand has created.” This is also what the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 1,4 had in mind when they said that prior to creating the universe G’d planned the creation of the Jewish people. This may be why the number 12 is so prominent in all three parts of the universe. In the “highest” part of the universe, the throne of G’d is “surrounded” by 12 angels just as Solomon’s throne which represented G’d’s throne on earth was guarded by 12 lions which faced each other on the 6 steps leading up to that throne (Kings I 10,20). Jeremiah added that no such throne was ever made for any other Kingdom. The central part of the universe contains 12 horoscopes which symbolize the forces which govern that part of the universe; finally, in our terrestrial part of the universe the twelve tribes of Israel represent the forces without which this part of the universe would cease to exist. This is the deeper meaning of what Solomon meant when he said in Kohelet 7,14 “the one no less than the other was G’d’s doing.” וזאת אשר דבר אליהם אביהם, “and this is what their father spoke to them.” According to the plain meaning these words mean: “this is the blessing Yaakov gave to his sons.” A kabbalistic approach: the word זאת is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the spiritual concept of “the people of Israel.” Of that concept it is written in Song of Songs 7,7: זאת קומתך דמתה לתמר, “such is your stature, likened to the towering palm tree.” the word זאת mening that Israel is G’d’s heave-offering to the world, so to speak. The words וזאת התרומה in Exodus 25,3 are being understood as the covenant. Both the covenant and the Torah itself have been described with the word זאת in Genesis 9,12 and Numbers 19,14 respectively. The Torah had been given by the Unique One, as the Torah said (Exodus 20,1) וידבר אלו-הים. (Compare author’s commentary on that verse). This (the giving of the Torah) is also what the prophet Chabakuk 3,10 alluded to with the words נתן תהום קולו, “loud roars the deep.” We find this attribute in Leviticus 16,3 בזאת יבא אהרן, “equipped with the attribute זאת Aaron may enter the Holy of Holies.” The reason is that “this is the gate which (only) the righteous may enter” (Psalms 118,20). Yaakov had attained this virtue (attribute) called זאת which he employed to bestow the various blessings on his children. Tanchuma Vayechi 16 understands these words as follows: Yaakov told his sons that in the future there would arise a man not unlike him who will give them a blessing commencing with the words with which he had ended his blessing. Tanchuma meant that Yaakov had alluded to זאת as his ultimate achievement. This is why the author of that Midrash emphasises Yaakov speaking of where he “left off,” Moses, however, who had attained a higher level of insight than Yaakov could use the word זאת as a point of departure in his blessings of the Jewish people (Deut. 33,1 וזאת הברכה). Using that word he would ascend and penetrate ever deeper into holy domains. This may also be the reason that Moses alluded to all ten emanations, something which I hope to explain in more detail on Deut. 33,8. איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם, “he blessed each one of them according to the blessing appropriate for him.” This seems peculiar; after all he had already bestowed the blessings on each of his sons! According to the plain meaning the words ויברך אותם apply to the collective blessing. The words איש אשר כברכתו apply to the individualised blessing he gave to each son. Alternatively, the words: “he blessed them,” referred to the blessing for the immediate future. The words: “each according to his appropriate blessing,” referred to individual blessings intended to meet specific requirements of that tribe in the future. A Midrashic approach based on Bereshit Rabbah 99,4: seeing that Yaakov had singled out Yehudah by describing him like a lion, and he had singled out Naftali describing him like a hind, etc., I could have thought that these sons were not part of the collective blessing. The Torah therefore said: “he blessed them (all),” to make certain we understand that all the sons were included in the collective blessing. A kabbalistic approach: the words “he blessed each one of them, etc.” mean that the twelve tribes each represent one of the twelve lifelines from the celestial regions from which heavenly blessings are channeled to the creatures in this terrestrial universe. The number 12 in this respect is found in Psalms 122,4 “for there the tribes make pilgrimage, the tribes of the Lord who are testimony of Israel praising the name of the Lord.” David calls the “tribes” of the celestial regions שבטי ה', referring to them by the same appellation as the 12 tribes of Israel on earth. We have pointed out elsewhere that when these tribes are enumerated in the Torah, each name beginning with a prefix ה, and ending with the suffix י such as in הראובני, השמעוני, this is a clear allusion to the fact that parallel “tribes” exist in the celestial regions. When Yaakov said איש אשר כברכתו, he referred to the fact that each tribe received a blessing appropriate to his corresponding counterpart in heaven.

וזאת אשר דבר להם אבותם, “and this is what their father told them.” This is how he concluded his blessings with the word זאת. Moses in his turn, commenced his blessings with the word זאת, as we know from Deuteronomy.

And he charged them and said to them: I am being gathered to my people. Bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Ephron the Hittite.

נאסף אל עמי [I AM] TO BE GATHERED UNTO MY PEOPLE — The expression נאסף “gathered” is used here because the souls are taken into a place in heaven where they are to be laid by. אסף in the Hebrew language has sometimes the meaning of “bringing something in to a place where it is to be kept” as e.g., (Judges 19:15) “For there was no man that took them into his house (אסף) [to lodge]”; (Deuteronomy 22:2) “then thou shalt bring it home (ואספתו) into thy house”; (Leviticus 23:39) “when you have taken in (באספכם) the fruit of the land” — which means bringing them in to the barn on account of the rain; (Exodus 23:16) “when thou hast taken in (באספך) thy labours”. So, too, the verb אסף used in connection with death always means “bringing in to the place where the souls are to be laid by”. אל אבתי means with my fathers.

BURY ME ‘EL AVOTHAI.’ With my fathers. This is the language of Rashi. However, Rashi did not explain the expression el hame’arah as meaning ‘with’ the cave. Ramban will suggest various ways of resolving this difficulty. It is possible that the expression of this verse is concise [and should be understood as if it said], “Bury me and carry me to my fathers to the cave,” for so Jacob said, And thou shalt carry me out from Egypt, and it further says, And his sons carried him 0:13. It is possible that the word el serves here to indicate many meanings: Bury me ‘with’ my fathers, just as in the verse, And thou shalt not take a woman ‘el’ her sister, meaning “with her sister.” El hame’arah means “in the cave,” just as in the verses: ‘Ve’el’ (And in) the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee; Behold, he hath hidden himself ‘el’ (among) the baggage. Of similar usage is the expression, And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife ‘el’ (in) the cave. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning of the expression, Bury me with my fathers, is that the brothers should go with Joseph. Now Jacob really did not need to do that. However, he now commanded all of them to bury him in the cave, just as he had sworn Joseph, because he feared that Pharaoh might not give Joseph permission to leave the land lest he remain in his land [Canaan]. Do you not see that it was necessary for Joseph to plead with the house of Pharaoh that they should request Pharaoh to let him go, and he answered, Go up, and bury thy father, as he made thee swear, as he agreed to it only on account of the oath!

"And he commanded them" — that all of them should go with Joseph to bury him.

ויצו אותם, He commanded them, etc. Seeing that Jacob had earlier called in Joseph to instruct him concerning where and when he was to be buried, he now made sure that the brothers should not think that all this was exclusively Joseph's duty and not theirs. He did not have to make the brothers take an oath, however, for reasons which I have explained in my commentary on 47,30.

ויצו אותם, “He commanded them;” that they should all accompany Joseph in the funeral cortege all the way to the cave of Machpelah. אל אבותי, same as if it had said: עם אבותי, “with my forefathers.”

ויצו אותם, “He commanded them;” Ibn Ezra understands this command as being the order to follow Joseph in every respect. Nachmanides writes that there had been no need for Yaakov to command his other sons to be obedient to Joseph, but the “command” Yaakov issued to the brothers was to bury him in the cave of Machpelah, as he had commanded Joseph already on a previous occasion. He remained afraid that perhaps Pharaoh would not give Joseph permission to personally leave the country. Yaakov was proven correct, seeing that Pharaoh consented to Joseph leaving only in order to enable him to honour the oath to his father.

In the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which faces Mamre, in the land of Canaan — which Abraham bought from Ephron the Hittite as a burial property.

אשר קנה אברהם, seeing that they had already spent many years in a foreign land, he felt it necessary to remind them that that burial plot was legally theirs. Seeing that already two generations of the patriarchs had been buried there, there was no legal way anyone could now challenge the ownership of this cave.

לאחוזת קבר, “as a burial property.” Yaakov reminds Joseph that there is no legal way to dispute that he is entitled to be buried there.

במערה וגו'... אשר קנה אברהם, “in the cave of Machpelah which Avraham had acquired, etc.” According to Nachmanides the reason why Yaakov recalled the details of the cave and who had been buried inside it, was to add distinction to that site in order to give his sons additional incentive to bury their father in that cave also. He added the words: “which Avraham had acquired as an inalienable ancestral plot,” in order to make them aware that Avraham had already designated this cave as an ancestral burial plot, so that they would have a legal basis for disputing anyone among the Hittites who might challenge their right to bury Yaakov there. The reason why the Torah repeats this once more in 50,13, is to indicate that with the burial of Yaakov in that cave Avraham’s intention at the time he purchased that cave had been carried out completely. He had purchased the cave for three pairs of human beings to be buried inside it, and not more. This is the reason that when the time came, Joseph did not ask the brothers to bury him there also.

במערה, “in the cave;” according to the plain meaning of the word, Yaakov requested to be buried in the cave of Machpelah. [The question is why he had to repeat this, having just requested it in the previous verse. Ed.] If you were to answer that there were many caves and many fields, and he wanted to specify which one he had in mind, and his son might not know which one he referred to, he spelled out the name of the cave and the field, In the event that people would object to his being buried there, Yaakov gave him details of the transaction that had taken place between Avraham, Efron and the townspeople at the time, and he presumably handed him the document that testified to the sale of both the field and the cave at the time. (Genesis 23,16-18) He left out no detail that could be considered pertinent to ensure that there could be no legal impediment that Joseph would have to face.

There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife; there they buried Isaac and Rebecca his wife; and there I buried Leah.

THERE THEY BURIED ISAAC AND REBEKAH. The reason for saying this rather than saying, “I buried,” was that Esau was with him at the burial of their father, and he did not wish to mention him now. Furthermore, [he did not mention Esau’s name] as he would have been forced to extend the account, saying, “there we buried Isaac, and there they buried his wife Rebekah,” since Jacob was not present at the burial of his mother. Now in his testament, Jacob mentioned the cave and those who were buried in it to his children on account of the eminence of the place so that they make a zealous effort to bury him there. Which Abraham bought with the field… for a possession of a burying-place. here. To emphasize his thought on the eminence of the place, Ramban reverts to explain the preceding verse in the same light. He said this in order to let it be known that Abraham commanded that that place be their burial ground as an everlasting possession. However, further on, when it says, And they buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a burying-place, the intent of the verse is to allude that the intention of the righteous one [Abraham] was completed with Jacob’s being buried there as he had bought it for the three of them, and no other person was to be buried there. It is for this reason that Joseph did not command that they bury him in the cave with his fathers. Now I have seen in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai See also Midrash Hagadol, ed. Shechter, end of Vayechi 25, and Notes. — The Mechilta is a Midrash on the Book of Exodus, the standard Mechilta is that of Rabbi Yishmael. Ramban here refers to another Mechilta, namely, that of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. That is why he specifies it by name. that Joseph said to them: “And when you bring me up to the land of Canaan bury me anywhere you wish. I have received a tradition that I will not be buried with my fathers for no one is permitted there for burial except the three patriarchs and the three matriarchs, as it is said, There they buried Abraham, etc., and it further says, In my burying-place which I digged for me, as he [Jacob] terminated [the group of people who are to be buried there].”It is possible that by saying, And there I buried Leah, Jacob hinted to them that he had already taken possession of the cave. This he said with respect to Esau, lest he and his children protest his [Jacob’s] being buried there by claiming that the cave is his as he was the firstborn and he is deserving of being buried with his ancestors. Now even though Esau had already left for another country, his sons might transport him from there, just as Jacob’s sons carried him. Jacob longed to be buried with his sacred ancestors and to be united with them in burial, and if Esau were to be buried there, Jacob could not be buried there for one burial-place does not serve two families. This is also the purport of his words, In my burying-place which I digged for me, meaning that he had already dug the grave in order to take possession of it. This is also the reason that it says, And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen, as Joseph knew the presumptuousness of Esau and his sons. This is actually what occurred. We find in the Book of Chronicles of Joseph ben Gorion This was an anonymous popular Hebrew medieval work containing the ancient history of the Jews. It was based in part upon the work of the historian Josephus. The story related here is told at length in Chapter 2. and in other books of ancient history that Zepho the son of Eliphaz the son of Esau came and quarrelled with the children of Jacob concerning this burial, with the result that they waged war. But the power of Joseph prevailed, and they captured him together with his choice army, and they brought them to Egypt. There, Zepho remained in prison all the days of Joseph, but upon his death he escaped from there and went to the land of Compagna [in Italy] and there he ruled over the Caetheans in Rome, and ultimately was crowned [ruler] over the land of Italy. It was he who first reigned over Rome, and it was he who built the first and largest palace ever built in Rome. Our Rabbis also mentioned this matter of the quarrel with Esau at the cave. The verse which states here, And Joseph returned into Egypt, he and his brethren, and all that went up with him to bury his father, after he had buried his father, It would appear that Ramban wishes to finish his commentary on the entire book of Genesis with the death of Jacob (for reasons made clear further). Hence Ramban explains first the oath of Joseph, although it is not mentioned in Scripture till further on (at the end of Chapter 50), and then he reverts to Verse 33, (of the present Chapter 49), in order to explain the nature of the demise of the patriarch which mirrors as well the life of the hereafter, thus confirming the statement of the Sages: “Jacob our father did not die.” The Commentary thus ends on the high note of the deathlessness of the righteous. alludes to the fact that not one of them died in the war or on the way, as the merit of the prophet Jacob and the merit of Joseph stood by those who went up with him. Joseph did not command that he be carried and buried now in the Land as his father had commanded, for the house of Pharaoh would not permit it since he was a source of honor to them. Furthermore, if his brothers and his father’s house were to accompany him, the people of the Land would rob and steal whatever they had, and it would not be respectful behavior for others to transport him there. AND JOSEPH SAID TO HIS BRETHREN, I DIE. Ramban here attempts to remove this difficulty: Why did Joseph address himself first to his brothers, and then made the children of Israel swear to bring his remains to the land of his ancestors (as stated in the following verse.) All of his brothers were still alive for they all survived him, as you see in the case of Levi. ” And Joseph made the children of Israel swear. Upon seeing that his brothers were old, he made their children and all his father’s household swear that they too would command their children’s children [to take up his bones with them] at the moment of redemption, as they all knew of the impending exile.

שמה קברו את יצחק, there they buried Isaac, etc. Inasmuch as the cave of Machpelah used to belong to Efron the Hittite before Abraham had bought it, the Torah says here: "there they buried Abraham and Sarah." This means that the original owners did no longer use that cave to bury their own dead but that it had become the burial ground for Abraham's heirs, Isaac and Ishmael. When the Torah continues that "there they buried Isaac and Rebeccah," this is a reminder that the cave had become the property of Isaac's heirs Jacob and Esau, excluding Ishmael and his family. When Jacob added that he had buried Leah there, he wanted to exclude Esau's right to be buried there. Sotah 13 quotes Genesis 50,5 which has Joseph telling Pharaoh that Jacob had spoken about the grave he had dug for himself in the land of Canaan as proof for denying Esau a share in that cave.

שמה קברו את יצחק, “this was where they had buried Yitzchok.” The reason why Yaakov phrased it thus, instead of saying: “there I buried Yitzchok,” is that at the time he had to share that duty (honour) with his brother Esau. He had no wish to even mention Esau at this time. Furthermore, he wanted to avoid the fact that his mother Rivkah had also been buried there, but that he had not taken part in her burial at the time. ושמה קברתי את לאה, ”and I also buried Leah there.” Although, no doubt, his sons knew this, he used mention of the fact to establish his right to be buried there as her husband, in the event that anyone would dispute this. There was the chance that Esau, being the firstborn, might claim the right to be buried there with father and grandfather. Seeing that he had not disputed Leah’s right to be buried there, he should not dispute Yaakov’s right either. The reason why he considered it necessary to add (compare 50,5) the words אשר כריתי לי, “which I dug out for myself,” was to reinforce his claim to be buried there. The reason that Joseph took a whole army with him in order to fulfill his oath and to bury his father in the location he had chosen, was precisely because he anticipated that the wicked Esau might use the occasion to dispute Yaakov’s right to burial there. According to our tradition, Esau and his clan did indeed try and prevent Yaakov being buried there. In fact, the Torah does allude to this obliquely when writing in 50,14 that Joseph and his brothers and all those who had participated in this burial returned to Egypt. This was recorded only in order to inform us that during the armed dispute which preceded Yaakov’s burial, his side did not suffer any casualties. Yaakov’s merit was great enough to protect all those participating in his burial.

The purchase of the field and the cave within it was from the sons of the Hittites.

מקנה השדה והמערה אשר בו, The purchase of the field and the cave which is in it, etc. After Jacob had alluded to the acquisition of the cave as something that was his exclusively, he repeated a particular detail which could possibly form the basis of a claim by the Hittites in the future. This was the law known in the Talmud as בר מצרא, that when a field is up for sale a person owning an adjoining field enjoys a privileged status as a potential buyer. This status is so strong that such a neighbour can force a deal which had been concluded already to be reversed in his favour. Even though this law applies only when said field has been purchased by a Jew- as explained in Baba Metzia 108,- and the reason is that the Jewish purchaser can argue that his neighbour should be happy that he no longer has a Gentile as a neighbour, the reason given is not true. Were it true, the Gentiles could argue the same in reverse and use this law as a pretext to dispossess their Jewish neighbours, in this case the sons of Jacob. The consideration of the law of בר מצרא is strong enough to override the fact that three generations of Jews had already been buried in that cave. Their argument would be the one described in Maimonides Hilchot Shecheynim chapter 13 that regardless of whether the new owner had dug a hole or built a superstructure on such ground, when the law of בר מצרא is invoked the neighbour who is now being dispossessed must be compensated for any expenses he had incurred while in possession of that field. On the other hand, if the interim owner had caused damage, he has to compensate the neighbour to whom this field should have been sold in the first place. Jacob therefore made a point of reiterating מקנה השדה, the purchase of the field within which the cave is situated, from the sons of Chet, to make it quite clear that no such considerations as בר מצרא applied. The author refers the reader to what he wrote on this subject in connection with Genesis 23,9. The reason that the Torah did not mention this detail at the time Abraham purchased the field from Efron is that a purchase from the Hittites is not in the same category as a purchase from Efron the individual from whom Abraham had purchased the field. The only possible connection the בני חת still had with that field was the fact that some of their properties may have been adjoining Abraham's. Inasmuch as any eventual protest by them would not be raised till a later stage, the Torah also reported Jacob's answer to such possible protest only at this time.

מאת בני חת, “from the Hittites.” Yaakov repeats this although he had already spelled out that the individual from whom his grandfather purchased this field was Efron the Hittite, as Efron himself was no longer alive to confirm his claim. Seeing that Joseph also had not been present at the time when this transaction had taken place, he went into great detail so that he would know how to answer anyone of Efron’s heirs if he would dare to dispute his father’s claim.

And Jacob finished giving charge to his sons; he gathered his feet onto the bed, expired, and was gathered to his people.

ויאסף רגליו means HE BROUGHT HIS FEET into the bed. (Rashi tells us that ויאסף signifies הכניס, he brought in). ויגוע AND HE EXPIRED — but the word death is not mentioned in his case, and our Teachers therefore said: (Taanit 5b) “Jacob, our father, is not dead”.

AND HE EXPIRED, AND WAS GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE. But the word “death” is not mentioned in his case. Our Rabbis therefore said, “Jacob, our father, did not die.” This is the language of Rashi. Now according to this opinion of our Rabbis, the difficulty arises: Now Jacob applied the term “death” to himself, as it is written, Behold, I die, but G-d shall be with you! Now perhaps he did not know it himself, or it may be that he did not wish to pay honor to himself. Similarly, with respect to the verse, And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead,25750:15. we must say that to them he was dead, or it may be that they did not at all know of this. Now the purport of this Midrash [which states that “Jacob, our father, did not die],” is that the souls of the righteous are bound in the bind of life with the Eternal, and his soul covereth him all the day, “wearing a scarlet garment” so that she not be stripped naked, as Jacob’s [soul was privileged to do continually], or which she dons at certain occasions [as do the souls of lesser righteous individuals]. This matter will be understood in the light of what is told in Tractate Shabbath He was yet alive in the sense which the Rabbis refer to when they say Jacob did not die. and Tractate Kethuboth. Thus concludes the book Bereshith, containing the story of the accounts of the patriarchs. It tells of what has occurred and of new things that will occur even before they spring up in the hearts of people. And to the Creator of all beginnings, Him that rideth the skies, Many praises and myriads of thanksgivings. By Him actions and causes are weighed; He uncovereth deep things and lofty opinions, And brings the thoughts to light. It is He Who leadeth me in the path of righteousness, In the midst of the path of justice, Who vouchsafest benefits unto the undeserving.”

"And he drew his feet into the bed" — for at first he had been sitting on the bed with his feet hanging down, as is the custom in the land of Edom today. The beds of the Ishmaelites are not like this.

ויכל יעקב לצוות, Jacob finished commanding his sons, etc. This verse teaches that Jacob was an exception to the rule proclaimed by Solomon in Kohelet 8,8 that on the day someone dies he is no longer master over his spirit. Jacob was in full control of all his senses when he made all these arrangements. Only after having concluded all he wanted to say, ויאסוף דגליו, he gathered his feet into the bed, etc. Here is the source of the statement in Taanit 5 that "our father Jacob did not die." If death had taken possession of him, he would not have retained control long enough to be able to put his feet back into his bed. Midrash on Kohelet 8,8 explains that on the day of death a man cannot say to the angel of death: "wait for me until I have concluded my business and then I will come."

ויאסוף רגליו אל המטה, “he retracted his feet into the bed.” Originally, he had been sitting on the edge of the bed as mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph his feet having been in contact with the floor.

ויגוע ויאסף אל עמיו,“He expired and was gathered to his people.” The word מיתה is not mentioned in connection with Yaakov. This prompted our sages in Taanit 5 to say: “our patriarch Yaakov never died.” Seeing that we see from the reports of the Torah here that he was treated as if dead, i.e. embalmed, buried, etc., surely this is evidence that he did die! We must therefore understand the statement of our sages who said “he did not die,” to mean that Yaakov’s soul remained hovering over his body due to the degree of holiness he had attained. Whereas other righteous people who did not attain the level of holiness that Yaakov attained are forced to return their souls to celestial regions, and once they have returned there they do not return to earth, Yaakov’s soul was in a constant state of commuting between heaven and earth. Only extremely rarely did great men attain this degree of holiness in their lives, Rabbi Yehudah (the editor of the Mishnah) being one of those select few. it is said of this Rabbi Yehudah in Ketuvot 103 that his soul returned to his former residence on earth every Sabbath eve. It happened on one such Sabbath eve that a neighbour of his widow came to visit her calling to her from the doorway. Her maid said to the neighbour: “Be quiet, the Rabbi is sitting here!” As soon as Rabbi Yehudah (his soul) heard this he decided to stop visiting his former home on earth. He did this so that people should not say that previous scholars whose soul had not been observed as returning to earth had been inferior to him in piety. If this was true of Rabbi Yehudah, how much more so must it have been true of Yaakov who had acquired (almost genetically) three levels of holiness. 1) Yaakov had been equipped with the holiness of Avraham, i.e. he was sired by someone whose body had already been circumcised. 2) He had had the residue of the holiness of his father who had submitted his life to G’d at the Akeydah. 3) He had acquired holiness in his own right becoming the third pillar of the מרכבה, the “chariot” supporting G’d’s Presence on earth when G’d had told him that He would even descend to Egypt with him. The practical demonstration of Yaakov’s personal holiness was the fact that all his children followed in his footsteps and embraced his outlook on life. For all these reasons we find that G’d Himself is referred to as קדוש יעקב, (Isaiah 29,23) “the Holy One of Yaakov”, and we do not find such an expression "Holy One of Abraham" or Holy One of Yitzchak". A kabbalistic approach to the statement that “Yaakov our patriarch did not die.” Yaakov’s attributes were not of the usual kind, i.e. that every virtue has its negative counterpart. Usually, the more extreme someone is in the practice of a particular virtue the greater the contrast with people practicing the opposite. When we look at scales we find that the more we depress one side, the higher the other side rises. This seems to be a law of nature. In human society there is a similar phenomenon. Extremes of one kind are usually counterbalanced by extremes on the opposite side. In a certain sense life therefore is the opposite of death. Yaakov who pursued the golden mean in his outlook on life and in his conduct, did not need to die as he did not need to “balance the scales.” The same did not apply to Avraham and Yitzchak respectively. The former’s life concentrated almost entirely on involvement on behalf of his peers, whereas the latter’s concentrated almost entirely of perfecting his own personality. As a result of this balance in Yaakov’s life there was no need for him to achieve such a balance of either his body or soul posthumously, as do the souls and bodies of ordinary people. This “body” of Yaakov which remained “alive,” was what is called the “second body,” something very diaphanous, not like the “body” that we normally think of. This “second” body serves as clothing for the soul and is therefore not something merely allegorical. According to tradition such a “second” body clothes the soul either once a week on Sabbath eve to the end of the Sabbath, or from the onset of the Day of Atonement until its end. During the rest of the year this “body” floats around in the atmosphere at the direction of G’d. It becomes visible to those whom G’d has taken a liking to. Yaakov’s “first” body, i.e. the kind of body he had in common with everyone else, was embalmed and buried in normal fashion just as the Torah writes, and as the Rabbi in Sotah called out when he was told of the fact that Yaakov did not die. This Rabbi had referred to the “first” body, whereas his colleague had referred to Yaakov’s “second” body. The first Rabbi then told him that he had not come to his conclusion on his own, but had derived it from the verse (Jeremiah 46,27) “Here I am going to deliver you from far away, your folk from their land of captivity; and Yaakov again shall have calm and quiet, with none to trouble him.” The fact that Jeremiah addresses both Yaakov and his descendants in the same breath indicated to the first Rabbi that Yaakov was still alive. Jeremiah addressed the “second” body of Yaakov which I have mentioned. I believe that this is also what is alluded to in the Midrash Eycha Rabbati 2,9 where the verse in Lamentations 2,3: ”He has ravaged Yaakov like flaming fire, consuming on all sides,” is dealt with. The author says that when disaster struck the Jewish people only Yaakov “felt” it. Similarly, when the redemption comes only Yaakov will “feel” it. This is why the psalmist (Psalms 14,7) says: ”Yaakov will exult, Israel will rejoice.” You are aware that he expression מרגיש, “feeling something, experiencing a sensation,” cannot be used in connection with bodies which have been embalmed and buried. This term could only be applied to this diaphanous “second” body of which we spoke earlier. This is also the way we have to understand the passage in Ketuvot dealing with Rabbi Yehudah’s return to earth every Sabbath eve. The same applies to the passage in Shabbat 152 where Rabbi Acha remonstrated with grave diggers who had disturbed his peace (he had long been dead and buried). If such people’s “second body” survived, how much more so is this plausible in the case of our patriarch Yaakov? This may be the mystical dimension of Proverbs 10,2 וצדקה תציל ממות, “that charity saves one from death.” Clearly, the meaning is not that people who give charity will enjoy eternal physical life in the normal sense here on earth. Rather, they may retain this “second” body as did Yaakov and Rabbi Yehudah. This may also be the meaning of what we recite daily in our prayers that G’d זוכר יצורים ברחמים, “remembers the creatures (human beings) in mercy.” Our sages who composed this line meant that an ongoing existence is due to G’d exercising His attribute of Mercy. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 68,12 explain that even at the early stage of Yaakov’s life when he had the dream (vision) of the ladder (Genesis 28,12), the message of the angels “ascending and descending the ladder” is that they wanted to compare Yaakov’s features with the features of the face engraved under the throne of G’d.

ויגוע ויאסף, “he passed away painlessly and was gathered to join his people.” Our sages use this phraseology to comment that “Yaakov did not die,” seeing that the Torah avoided the word וימת, “he died,” in spite of the fact that he himself had announced that he was going “to die.” (compare 48,21). Possibly, he himself did not know that he would not die in the accepted meaning of the word, or he did not want to make a statement which sounded arrogant, bombastic. We also have the report of the Torah in 50,15 ויראו אחי יוסף כי מת אביהם, “Joseph’s brothers saw that their father had died.” This is no contradiction. As far as the brothers were concerned their father had ”died.” Or, they too, had remained ignorant of what has been revealed to us by our tradition and the allusion in the text, something the brothers did not know as the Torah had not been written and revealed as yet.