Bereshit 48:5,7 (Va-yehi) - Yaakov, Yosef, Efrayim, Menashe and Rahel (The structure of chapter 48)

Berehit 48 begins by recording that Yosef brought his two sons, Efrayim and Menashe to see Yaakov on Yaakov's deathbed, 48:1. Yaakov then recalled a prophecy that G-d had told him, 48:3,4, and then Yaakov said that Menashe and Efrayim would be his, like Reuven and Shimon, 48:5,6.

What was Yaakov telling Yosef? Was Yaakov telling Yosef that Yosef was to be considered his firstborn son? This is a rather backhanded way of making such a designation, as Yaakov could have said directly that Yosef would receive a double portion instead of "claiming" Efrayim and Menashe. Also, what does it mean that Yaakov "claimed" Efrayim and Menashe to be his? Was Yaakov giving Efrayim and Menashe a greater inheritance in the land of Israel than his other grandchildren? Did he have the power to distribute the land of Israel amongst his children and grandchildren?

Yaakov then recalled Rahel's death and burial, 48:7, and he went on to bless Efrayim and Menashe, 48:8-20. The chapter ends by Yaakov giving Yosef a gift, 48:21,22. Why did Yaakov recall Rahel's death and burial and why did he mention it in the middle of his blessings to Efrayim and Menashe, 48:5,6, 8-20?

One approach (see R. Saadiah Gaon on 48:7) to answering these questions is that Yaakov was adopting Efrayim and Menashe in 48:5, and then Yaakov mentioned Rahel's death to explain why he was adopting them. According to this approach, in 35:11, Yaakov was promised to have more children, but since Rahel died he was unable to have more children. Hence, here in 48:3,4, first Yaakov referred to the prophecy of 35:11, then he adopted Efrayim and Menashe to fulfill the promise of having more children, 48:5,6 and then he stated that Rahel died, 48:7.

Ibn Ezra (on 48:4) completely rejects this adoption approach. He notes that with this idea there is nothing special of Yosef's children, as Yaakov could have just as well adopted Reuven's grandchildren. Also, could adopting Efrayim and Menashe really be the fulfillment of the prophecy of 35:11 since previously they were his grandchildren? In addition, if Yaakov really felt the need to adopt his grandchildren, why did he wait until the end of this life? Or, if he felt that he had to fulfill G-d's prophecy of 35:11, why did Rahel's death stop him from having other children? If Yaakov's other wives were too old to have children, then he could have married a younger wife. Also, why did Yaakov refer to Rahel's burial in 48:7, if the whole importance of the verse according to R. Saadiah Gaon is that she died but not where she was buried? Furthermore, if Yaakov was trying to explain his action of adopting Efrayim and Menashe he should have mentioned Rahel's death in conjunction with his reference to G-d's prophecy in 48:3,4 and not after he adopted the children. Another problem is that 48:6 uses the word, their brothers, and is apparently in reference to the relationship between Efrayim and Menashe and other possible sons of Yosef, but if Yaakov really adopted Efrayim and Menashe, then they would not be brothers with Yosef's other sons. Finally, Yaakov supposedly adopted them in 48:5,6 but he did not even know that they were in the room with him! Yaakov was only told that Yosef came to see him, 48:2, and when he first saw Efrayim and Menashe, 48:8, he asked who are they? If he really had wanted to adopt his grandchildren he should have checked that they were next to him. I doubt this adoption approach, and the simple explanation of 35:11 is that G-d was promising that Yaakov would have many descendents but not that he personally was to have more children.

A second approach to explaining 48:5 is that Yaakov was attempting to educate Efrayim, Menashe and Yosef about the importance of the land of Israel. (I first heard this idea from David Silber in a lecture, and subsequently read similar ideas in articles by Mordechai Berger, 1989, and David Henshke, 1998.) With this approach, in 48;3,4,Yaakov recalled G-d's promise of 35:11,12 to stress that G-d gave the land of Israel to Yaakov and his descendants. Thus, Yaakov added the words achuzzat olam in 48:4, that the land would be an everlasting possession when he recalled G-d's prophecy, though this phrase was not mentioned in 35:12, see N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 537. In 48:5, Yaakov was claiming that Efrayim and Menashe were his as a way to increase their connection to the land of Israel. This "claim" was not to adopt them but to confer on them special inheritance rights within the land of Israel. Yaakov was not giving them more land since the land was to be divided equally according to the population, (see Rashi on 48:6, and Bemidbar 26:52-56), but he stated that their land would be called under their names, which would give them a connection to the land of Israel. Yaakov then reminded Yosef of his mother's burial plot in order that Yosef would feel a greater connection with the land of Israel.

This approach is nice, but if Yaakov was trying to educate Efrayim and Menashe, then one would think that Yaakov would have made sure that they were present when he gave them their special inheritance rights in the land of Israel. However, again from Yaakov's question in 48:8, "Who are they?" we see that when Yaakov stated the verses 48:5,6, he thought he was speaking only to Yosef. Also, when Yaakov "claimed" Efrayim and Menashe, he made a distinction between those children who were born before he came to Egypt and those who came afterwards, 48:5. Why should there be this distinction if the goal was to increase the ties of the next generation with the land of Israel? Why not give all the children of Yosef special inheritance rights in the land of Israel? Finally, why did Yaakov wait until his final breaths to try to educate Efrayim, Menashe and Yosef about the land of Israel? Did he think the lesson would be more effective on his death bed?

A third approach to understanding 48:5,6 is that possibly there was still some tension between Yaakov and Yosef due to Yosef's absence from the home for 22 years. Maybe in his last days, Yaakov was trying to resolve an issue that he had with Yosef concerning Yosef's children. With regard to all of his other grandchildren, Yaakov had been with them when they were born and grown up, but Yaakov was not with Efrayim and Menashe when they were born and during their early years. Thus, maybe Yosef thought that Yaakov had less of a connection with them than his other grandchildren, and this could be why Yosef brought them with him when he went to see Yaakov. Yaakov, not knowing that Efrayim and Menashe were with Yosef, said that Efrayim and Menashe were his, which was his way of telling Yosef that he loved them equally to his own children, and to show that this was not an empty statement, he stated that they would have special inheritance rights, that their land would be called under their name. Yaakov did not have to make this declaration to Efrayim and Menashe since the issue was between Yaakov and Yosef. With this approach, 48:3,4, the recollection of G-d's promise to Yaakov of land was an introduction to 48:5,6.

Why then did Yaakov refer to Rahel's death in 48:7? One possibility is that Yaakov had just intended to give the blessing of 48:5,6 and then he wanted to give Yosef a gift of land in the land of Canaan, 48:21,22. 48:7 was then a lead in to 48:21,22 and it was not connected with the verses 48:8-20. Maybe 48:7 was lead in to 48:21,22 since the gift of land was to be Yosef's burial plot, and then Yaakov was explaining that just like your mother had a unique burial site so too you will have a unique burial site. Or, following the education approach, Yaakov mentioned Rahel's burial plot to increase Yosef's connection to the land of Israel through his mother. Or, following the idea that Yaakov was trying to as heal any grudges before he died, Yaakov was telling Yosef not to be mad at him for not burying Rahel in the family plot in the cave of Makhpela, see comments of Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Hizkuni and Radak, all on 48:7. 

With this latter idea, 48:7, is connected to 48:5,6, and not to 48:21,22. In any event, after Yaakov re-called Rahel's burial plot, he realized that his grandchildren were in the room with, 48:8. Yaakov then "ad-libbed" by giving Efrayim and Menashe another blessing. Thus, chapter 48 should have been 48:1-7,21,22 and the intervening verses, 48:8-20, were added on the spot by Yaakov after he found out that Yosef had brought Efrayim and Menashe to him.

Bibliography:

Berger, Mordechai, 1989, On the blessings to Efrayim and Menashe, Rinat Yitzhak, pp. 100-105.

Henshke, David, 1998, "What is the connection between the burial of Rahel and Yaakov's testament?" in Me-perot ha-ilan al parashat ha-shavuat, edited by Yehoshua Sharwtz and David Algabish, Tel Aviv: University Bar Ilan Press, pp. 146,147.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Ma'oz Tzur

After we light the Hanukkah candles, and say the piyyut ha-nerot ha-lalu, “these lights,” the custom is to sing Ma’oz Tzur. This custom was initially just amongst the Ashkenazim, but I have been told that recently (in the last hundred years?) Sefardim also sing the song. This song is thought to have originated in Germany in the thirteenth century by a poet named Mordechai since this name is the acrostic from the first letters in the first five stanzas of the song. In addition, the tune for Ma’oz Tzur is thought to be from a German folk song (Millgram, 1978, pp. 319, 618, see also Levinsky, 1956, vol. 5, p. 182).

The first stanza of Ma'oz Tzur is an introduction to the song, the next four stanzas record historical events where G-d saved the Jewish people, and the sixth and last stanza is a prayer for the future redemption. This last stanza has several versions, and is deleted altogether in some versions (see for example in Hertz, 1952, p. 952).

Why is the last stanza deleted in some versions? A possible answer is that the stanza has a call for vengeance, but Yom Tov Levinsky (1956, vol. 5, pp. 180-182) notes that there are other prayers (for example, Av ha-Rachamim) that also have calls for vengeance but these have not been altered or removed. Levinsky claims that the problem with the sixth stanza is the last line of the stanza, dehei admon be-zel zalmon, which he claims refers to Fredrick Barbarossa, a German King who was a redhead (admon) and one of the leaders of the Third Crusade, 12th century. According to Levinsky, the problem with the line is that it called for Fredrick Barbarossa to be vanquished.

Ismar Schorsch (1988) completely rejects this possibility. He notes that the stanza is not cited until the seventeenth century long after the time of Fredrick Barbarossa. Instead, he claims that the stanza is referring to the time after the Reformation, that the Jews were hoping that this would signal the end of Christianity. And, since Christianity was identified with Edom, the last of the four empires that would rule before the Messiah, the stanza is a prayer for the coming of the Messiah. He interprets the line dehei admon be-zel zalmon, as a prayer to vanquish Christianity (admon = Edom, and zalmon = zelem, the cross). Furthermore, he notes that the final verse mentions seven shepherds, which refers to seven biblical figures (Micah 5:4 and Succah 52b) who would accompany the messiah.

Why was the custom of singing Ma'oz Tzur established? Is it just because the song is a nice song? Why do we not sing Ma'oz Tzur on Purim and Pesach, as the song also refers to these times of salvation?

Avigdor Shinan (1999, p. 98) writes that it seems that the song was written due to the persecutions experienced by German Jewry in the 13th century. The idea being that the song would have been relevant to German Jewry in the 13th century, who suffered greatly from persecutions, as the song was (is) a prayer that G-d would save the people as He had in the past. With this reason the song is not specifically related to Hanukkah and to candle lighting on Hanukkah.

Another answer can be derived from Rav Soloveitchik's (2007, pp. 167-171) discussion of some aspects of the Rambam's comments on Hanukkah. The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah, 3:1) begins his discussion of the laws of Hanukkah with a review of the history of Hanukkah and the question is why. The simple answer is that since the events of Hanukkah are not recorded in the Bible, the Rambam does not assume that people know the events of Hanukkah. However, still the question remains why do people need to know the events of Hanukkah?

Rav Soloveitchik notes that the Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:12) writes that the lighting of the candles is "in order to make known the miracle and to offer additional praise and thanksgiving to G-d for the wonders which he has wrought for us." Rav Soloveitchik explains that there are two aspects to lighting the candles on Hanukkah, the technical aspect of physically lighting the candle and the thoughts that are to accompany the lighting of the candles. Based on the Rambam's comments, these thoughts are to thank G-d for the miracles he has done for us. Furthermore in order for one to be truly thankful, one must know what one is thanking G-d for, and hence the Rambam recorded the history of Hanukkah so that people would know what they are to be thankful for when lighting the candles. Rav Soloveitchik notes that the same idea applies to the Haggadah on Pesach. One must thank G-d for taking the Jewish people out of Egypt, and hence one must review the history of the Exodus. Another example is the prayer al ha-nissim that we recite on Purim and Hanukkah. We do not just say that we are thankful but we recite the history of the different holidays in order to know what we are thankful for.

I did not see that Rav Soloveitchik discussed Ma'oz Tzur, but his idea could apply to why the custom of singing this song began. Maybe the author of the song, Mordechai, wrote this song in order that people would understand the significance to lighting the Hanukkah candles that people are to acknowledge and be grateful that G-d saved the Jewish people in the times of the Hasmoneans. This idea that G-d saved the Jewish people is expressed in the prayer al ha-nissim, but that prayer does not refer to the miracle of the oil and is not said when one lights the candles. Similarly, the piyyut ha-nerot ha-lalu refers to G-d doing miracles for the Jewish people, but also does not specify about the miracle of the oil and does not explain that the people were in dire straits prior to the miracles. Ma'oz Tzur specifically mentions both the miracle of the oil and how difficult the situation was for the Jews prior to G-d's help. Thus, maybe the reason why the custom of singing Ma'oz Tzur was adopted was because the song is way of teaching people that when one lights the Hanukkah candles one should be thankful to G-d for saving the Jewish people. (With this logic, the other stanzas not referring to Hanukkah were added to give more examples where G-d saved the Jewish people. Furthermore, as noted by daughter Talia, with this logic there would be no need to recite Ma'oz Tzur on Purim where we read the Megillah or on Pesach where we recite the Haggadah.)

A different possibility is that the Rama (Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 670:2) writes that the custom is to recite zemirot and praises by the meals on Hanukkah and then the meals are considered as being commanded meals, seudat mitzvah. What are these zemirot? Zemirot are songs, but what songs are being referred to? Maybe Ma'oz Tzur, which has a similar form to the zemirot we sing on Shabbat, was written specifically to have a song to sing by the meals on Hanukkah in order to transform a meal on Hanukkah from a regular meal to a seudat mitzvah. With this idea, at some point the song was transferred from being part of the meal to the ceremony by the lighting of the Hanukkah candles. This rationale would also explain why there is no need to recite Ma'oz Tzur on Purim or Pesach since the meals on these holidays are suedot mitzvoth, obligatory meals, which removes the need to add zemirot to the meals.

Bibliography:

Hertz, Joseph H. (1872-1946), 1952, The authorised daily prayer book, revised edition, New York: Bloch Publishing Company.

Levinsky, Yom Tov, 1956, Sefer ha-Moadim, Tel Aviv: Dvir.

Millgram, Abraham, 1971, Jewish Worship, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Schorsch, Ismar, 1998, A Meditation on Maoz Tzur, Judaism, 37:4, pp. 459-464.

Shinan, Avigdor, 1999, Siddur Avi Chai for the house and family, Jerusalem: Yidiyot Ahranot and Sefer Hemed.

Soloveitchik, Joseph, (1903-1993), 2007, Days of Deliverance: Essays on Purim and Hanukkah, edited by Eli D. Clark, Joel B. Wolowelsky and Reuven Ziegler, Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House.