Bereshit 49:16-18 – Yaakov’s blessing to Dan

בראשית מט:טז-יח - דן ידין עמו, כאחד שבטי ישראל. יהי דן נחש עלי דרך שפיפן עלי ארח, הנשך עקבי סוס ויפל רכבו אחור. לישועתך קויתי ה'. 

Of Yaakov’s twelve sons, there are five sons who we know something about them from the book of Bereshit: Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehuda and Yosef. With regard to all of these sons, in chapter 49, Yaakov gives them a blessing or says something about them that consists of more than one verse. With regard to the remaining seven “silent” sons, whom we know nothing at all about them from the book of Bereshit, Dan received the longest blessing from Yaakov, three verses, 49:16-18. Why did Dan receive a lengthy blessing?

Dan also does not seem to receive his blessing in the “correct” order of the children of Yaakov. Firstly, Dan’s blessing is not recorded in conjunction with Naftali his “full” brother (both are the sons of Bilha), whose blessing is recorded in 49:21. Secondly, it would have been expected that Yaakov’s blessings to the sons of Zilpa, Gad and Asher, would have been mentioned after the sons of Lea, since Zilpa was Lea’s “maidservant,” 29:24, but instead Yaakov’s blessing to Dan is interposed between his blessings to the sons of Leah and the sons of Zilpa.

In order to suggest answers to these questions, we will start by trying to understand the last verse of the blessing to Dan, 49:18, which records, "I wait for your deliverance, G-d." What is the meaning of the verse? The word "I" indicates that Yaakov is the one waiting, but who is the "your deliverance" referring to? Who was being saved by G-d? How does this verse relate to the blessing for Dan?

Rashi, following the Midrash (see Kasher, 1992, Torah Shelemah 49:249), explains that the verse is referring to Shimshon, who was from the tribe of Dan and who prayed to G-d to help him defeat the Philistines, (Judges 16:28). With this approach, the words "your deliverance" in 49:18 refer to G-d hearing Shimshon's prayers.

Rashbam (on 49:16) rejects the idea that Yaakov was prophesying regarding Shimshon, but he follows the idea that 49:18 refers to the tribe of Dan. He suggests that since Dan was in the rear of the camp when the people were in the desert (Bemidbar 10:25), it always had to fight other nations, and hence Yaakov was praying for the deliverance of the tribe. Yet, the Torah never mentions any battle by the tribe of Dan, but maybe according to the Rashbam, this was due to Yaakov's prayer.

On the other hand, some commentators argue that 49:18 is an introduction to the blessing for Gad, which is recorded in the following verse, 49:19. R. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, 49:254) quotes a Midrash that when Yaakov saw that Shimshon died, he realized that the redemption was not going to come from Dan, so he said that he was waiting for the true redemption which would be heralded by Elijah who the Midrash states was from Gad.

Luzzatto (on 49:18, translation in English in Leibowitz, 1976, p. 552) also follows the idea that 49:18 is an introduction to the blessing by Gad. Luzzatto explains:

When Yaakov came to bless Gad he was prompted, as in the case of Dan to employ a pun and exploit the association of the word Gad with its etymological meaning of luck. But he immediately thought better of it, emphasizing, on the contrast that it was proper to trust in G-d alone and not in the stars. He therefore proclaimed, "I wait for your deliverance, G-d," and not in that of fortune. And then he immediately bethought himself of another association of the word gad in the sense of troop (in 49:19).

With this approach, the waiting for deliverance mentioned in 49:18 is not referring to any specific event, but a general statement that Yaakov waits for G-d and does not depend on luck. The verse could then introduce the blessing to Gad in which Yaakov suggested a new meaning to the name Gad.

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 548-555) rejects Luzzatto’s explanation, but she does not give a reason only stating that "it sounds forced." Instead, she suggests that if 49:18 refers to the blessing by Gad, then maybe Yaakov was invoking G-d's help for Gad when they would live on the Jordanian side of the Jordan River. I doubt this idea and all attempts to relate this verse to future events since the verse does not seem to be a type of prophecy.

A third approach to understanding 49:18 is that the verse is independent of the statements/ blessings to Dan and Gad. Bekhor Shor (49:18, also see second explanation in Hizkuni on 49:18) writes that the verse means that Yaakov was stating his belief that G-d would deliver the people. Does the Bekhor Shor mean that Yaakov was praying that G-d would save the people from the exile in Egypt? Luzzatto (on 49:18) quotes from Solomon Dubno (1738-1813) that Yaakov was praying to G-d for the strength to finish the blessings before he died, but Luzzatto does not like this idea since living for just a few more minutes would not be considered as being saved by G-d.

Herbert Rand (1989/90) makes the interesting suggestion that Yaakov was praying for his deliverance for tricking his father, that these words in 49:18 were "to relieve his soul of guilt and to pray for forgiveness before he died." Rand suggests that he made this prayer at this point since in the blessing for Dan, Yaakov had referred to the heel of horses, 49:17, which would remind him of his name, heel (ekev, see 25:26), and also Yaakov had referred to Dan as a judge in 49:16.

Rand's insight suggests a new interpretation of 49:17. In in the first part of 49:17, Yaakov seems to refer to Dan as a snake, but this is a very troubling association as 3:14 records that the snake is the most cursed animal. Why would a father refer to his son as a snake? (Note Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 49:17 relate the second to a snake in the verse to the curse of the snake in the garden of Eden.)

Maybe in 49:17, Yaakov was referring to himself as a snake. The word dan in the beginning of 49:17 should then be understood as being to judge and not to the person Dan. The idea being that Yaakov was feeling guilty for his actions to Esav and Yitzhak and he was saying that he should be judged as a snake. Furthermore, the two reference to snakes in 49:17 could be because twice Yaakov did not act in the most exemplary manner to Esav, first when he sold him the nezid adashim instead of giving it to him, 25:29-34 and then when he went to Yitzhak to receive the blessing intended for Esav, 27:18-30.

In the second half of 49:17, Yaakov refers to the snake biting at the heels of a horse, and the horse could be Esav. If the first half of 49:17 is referring to Yaakov’s actions by the selling of the nezid adashim and stealing the blessing intended for Esav, then the biting at the heels in the second half of 49:17 could refer to Yaakov grabbing at Esav’s heal at birth, 25:26, which was the beginning of their fight. The reference to the snake biting in 49:17 also recalls the curse to the snake in the Garden of Eden who was cursed to bite at the heels of people, 3:15.

The last line in 49:17 refers to the rider on the horse falling. The rider could be Yitzhak who trembled greatly after he realized that Yaakov had tricked him, 27:33. Yaakov was fighting with Esav, and this led him to wrong his father. This would be similar to the actions of the snake in 49:17 who bit the horse and caused the rider to be harmed. This understanding of 49:17 then leads into 49:18 that Yaakov prayed for his salvation for his actions to Yitzhak and Esav.

One could vary this approach to 49:17, while still maintaining that Yaakov was referring to events in his lifetime. Maybe, Yaakov was trying to take the blame for deceiving Yitzhak from Rivka. Rivka had convinced Yaakov to act in a deceitful manner, 27:5-13, just like the snake convinced Havva to eat from the tree of knowledge, 3:1-5. However, in 49:17, Yaakov was saying that he was the snake, that he was the one who tricked Yitzhak, he “bit” into the horse, Esav, and hence he should be blamed and not his mother. With this idea, again in 49:18, Yaakov was praying to G-d for forgiveness.

According to these ideas, both 49:17 and 49:18 are not referring to Dan but to Yaakov. Dan’s blessing is then 49:16, one verse, just like most of his brothers. What does 49:16 mean?

Most people understand that 49:16 means that Dan was to be a judge of all the people, which could give him a very important role in the nation, something which is not evident in the book of Bereshit. On the other hand, Altar (2004, p. 287, and in a lecture on the Internet, he said that he heard this idea from Amos Funkenstein) notes that the first half of 49:16 could be understood as meaning that the people will judge Dan, as the word Dan would be the object of the word judging and not the subject. This reading requires one to pause after the word Dan in 49:16, and would be similar to the two possible readings of 25:23, the oracle to Rivka. This explanation accords with the second half of 49:16 that the people would judge Dan as one of the tribes of the nation. Yaakov’s blessing to Dan would then be that the tribe of Dan would not disappear, and the fear that this would happen was because Dan was the only son of Yaakov who had only one son, 46:23. This perilous state of the tribe of Dan could also be why Yaakov moved Dan “up” in the order of the blessings to give him and his tribe more prominence. It is possible that this change in order was one of the reasons that Dan would become a leader of his set of tribes in the desert, Bemidbar 2:31.

Bibliography:

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

Rand, Herbert, 1989/90, The testament of Jacob: An analysis of Gen. 49:18, Jewish Bible Quarterly, 18:2, pp. 101-106.

Bereshit 45:5-8, 50:20 (Va-yiggash, Va-yehi) – The pawn

After Yosef revealed himself to his brothers, Bereshit 45:5-8 records that he told his brothers, "And now, do not be pained and do not be incensed with yourselves that you sold me down here, because for sustenance G-d has sent me before you…. And G-d has sent me before you to make you a remnant on earth and to preserve life, for you to be a great surviving group," (Alter, 2004, p. 261, translation). Seventeen years later, Yosef told his brothers almost the identical message, 50:20. These statements are ironic since Yosef meant that his brothers were pawns in G-d’s plan, but really he was the pawn in G-d’s plan for the Jewish people to end up in Egypt as foretold in the prophecy to Avram by the covenant of the pieces, Bereshit 15:13.

Yosef's rise to power was only one of the many inexplicable events that led to the fulfillment of the prophecy of 15:13. Others are that Lavan switched his daughters on Yaakov (see our discussion on 29:18-30, "The switch," Yaakov overtly favored Yosef (see our discussion on 37:2-14,"Parenting," the Midyanites happened to find Yosef in the pit, and the Yishmaelites happened to be going to Egypt at that time (see our discussion above on 37:25-34, 42:21, "Who sold Yosef?" All these events led Yaakov to agree to go to Egypt to see Yosef (Bereshit 45:28) even though he knew of the prophecy that Avram's descendants would suffer in a foreign land. 

The story of Yosef is the longest story in the Torah where there is no direct intervention by G-d either through miracles, communication from G-d or malakhim, and all the inexplicable events (even the dreams) could be understood in a human level. Yet, the string of so many inexplicable events and the fact that we know they are fulfilling the prophecy to Avram means that Yosef's story illustrates G-d's intervention in the story. Thus, N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 394, 395) notes that the story of Yosef shows the "two levels on which actions are conducted:" The human, and "the hidden workings of Providence."

Even more important is that the story of Yosef shows how G-d intervenes in the world. The switching of Rahel and Lea occurred approximately 45 years before Yaakov and the family went to Egypt, and the sale of Yosef was 22 years before the family came to Egypt. Yosef even had to wait two years for the cupbearer to inform Pharaoh about his dream interpreting abilities. We see that G-d intervenes in the world in a very indirect way that can only be understood at best after many years. Perhaps this indirect and hidden method is to ensure that people still have free will to follow G-d or not.

My impression is that while G-d can intervene in the world, G-d usually does not intervene in the world, as instead the world functions according to the laws of nature. Furthermore, from the story of Yosef we see that even when G-d intervenes in the world, it is in a very indirect manner that is not self-evident. Accordingly, one should not expect G-d to do miracles that are manifest to all.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company

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

Highlights of parashat Va-yehi

This parasha focuses on the last days and death of Yaakov.  We have six discussions on this parahsa:

We have two discussions on Yaakov's blessings to his grandsons, Menahse and Efrayim.  One discusses the structure of chapter 48, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2010/12/bereshit-487-va-yehi-structure-of.html and one attempts to explain how Yaakov did not recognize his grandsons,  http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/12/bereshit-488-va-yehi-who-are-you.html

The third discussion is on Yaakov's funeral,http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/bereshit-507-13-state-funeral.html

The fourth discussion examines whether the brothers and Yosef were truly reconciled in the end, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/bereshit-5015-21-va-yehi-happy-ending.html

The fifth discussion argues that Yaakov knew that the brothers had caused Yosef to be sold to Egypt, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/bereshit-501415-did-yaakov-find-out.html

The sixth discussion  explains that Yosef was the fourth generation referred to in the prophecy of Bereshit 15:16, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/bereshit-502425-representative.html

Bereshit 50:15-21 - Yosef and his brothers: A happy ending?

Does the story of Yosef and his brothers have a happy ending? From a historical perspective the answer is no because the story led to the children of Yaakov being enslaved in Egypt. However, just within the book of Bereshit, is the family one big happy family by the end of the story? This question depends on whether the brothers and Yosef were truly reconciled in the end.

After Yosef identified himself to his brothers, he cried upon them and kissed them, 45:14,15. Do these actions indicate a full reconciliation? Most likely no since only Yosef and Binyamin cried, and all we learn is that the brothers were able to speak to Yosef, which does not imply that there was a reconciliation.

Seventeen years later, when the family returns to Egypt from Canaan after burying Yaakov, there is a strange conversation between Yosef and the brothers. 50:15-18 records that the brothers were worried that Yosef would take revenge on them after Yaakov died so they sent a messenger to Yosef offering to be his slaves. This offer is identical to Yehuda's offer to Yosef when Yosef trapped Binyamin with the goblet seventeen years earlier, 44:16.

Yosef responded by crying (50:17), presumably because he realized that after all these years the brothers still feared him, and then he stated “Do not fear, am I in G-d’s place?” 50:19. This phrase "Am I in G-d's place" was the same language used by Yaakov when he had his fight with Rahel, 30:2. N. Leibowitz (1976, p. 560) argues that this same phrase has a different meaning when used by Yaakov and Yosef. She claims that when Yaakov said “Am I in G-d’s place?” he was shirking responsibility, but when Yosef said the same words, he was "abasing himself to save his brother’s feelings." I think the phrase should be understood in a similar fashion in both cases. Yaakov was saying he did not have the power to give Rahel children, and similarly, Yosef was saying that he did not have the power to punish his brothers. With this understanding, this response implies that Yosef thought that the brothers had been wrong and that G-d should punish them.

Afterwards, Yosef stated that “you (the brothers) planned evil against me,” (50:20) and this recollection also insinuates that he did not completely forgive them. If the past was really forgotten, then Yosef should not have mentioned this phrase.

Yosef then stated that everything was okay since G-d worked out that everything was for the best because Yosef saved many people. Yosef then declared that he would sustain them (the brothers), and the Torah records that he comforted them and spoke to their hearts, 50:20,21. Do these verses indicate that the brothers achieved a true reconciliation with Yosef? Thomas Mann in his remarkable work, "Joseph and his Brothers," seems to say yes. He ends his re-telling of the story (1999, p.1207), "Thus he (Yosef) spoke to them and they laughed and wept together and stretched out their hands as he stood among them and touched him, and he too caressed them with his hands."

I have my doubts. Yosef's statement that it all worked out for the best since he was able to keep many people alive, le-hachayyot am rav, 50:20, is very similar to what he said seventeen years earlier when he identified himself to the brothers, le-hachayyot lachem le-phleta gedola, 45:5-8. If the brothers were still scared of Yosef seventeen years after the first time that Yosef expressed this idea, then it is unlikely that a repetition of the same idea would lead to a reconciliation. The Torah does not record any response from the brothers, and the most that can be derived from 50:21 is that Yosef reassured the brothers that they should not be sacred of him.

Did Yosef and the brothers reconcile after this conversation? The only conversation between them that is recorded afterwards is that Yosef asked the brothers to take his bones back to the land of Israel, and the brothers swore that they would honor his request, 50:24,25. Is this considered a reconciliation? The fact that Yosef made the brothers swear is not necessarily a sign that they were not reconciled since Yaakov also made Yosef swear to bury him in the land of Israel, 47:30,31. Yet, agreeing to a dying man's request is not a sign of reconciliation.

 
If Yosef and the brothers were not reconciled in the seventeen years after Yosef identified himself, then there is no reason to think that the situation improved afterwards. According, my inclination is that the brothers were not truly reconciled, and then the story of Yosef and his brothers does not have a happy ending.

Bibliography:

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

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.

Bereshit 48:8 (Va-yehi) – Yaakov and his grandchildren: Who are you?

Bereshit 48:1 records that when Yaakov was dying, Yosef and his grandchildren, Efrayim and Menashe, went to visit Yaakov, but when Yaakov saw his grandchildren, 48:8, he asked, "who are they?" This question is surprising. While Yaakov had not been told that Efrayim and Menashe had accompanied Yosef, still how come he did not recognize his grandchildren after having presumably seen them many times during the 17 years he was in Egypt? Could it be that they had very rarely visited their grandfather, and hence Yaakov did not recognize them?  While this is definitely possible, we will review other possibilities to explain why Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren.

One approach to understanding Yaakov's question is that Yaakov did not recognize Efrayim and Menashe since he had poor vision, as recorded in 48:10. Ibn Ezra and Rashbam (on 48:8) suggest that due to his poor vision he saw their figures but not clearly enough to identify them. Yet, later on when Yaakov placed his hands on their heads he was able to identify them, 48:19. Radak (on 48:8) suggests that Yaakov could not identify Efrayim and Menashe since they were initially standing far away from him (nearsightedness?), while later they were close to him and then he could recognize them. However, this approach is difficult since the Torah tells us that Yaakov had poor vision after Yaakov asked his question, “who are they?” which implies that Yaakov’s lack of recognition of his grandchildren was not due to his poor eyesight. 

A second approach is that Yaakov knew who they were but the question was part of a formal process of establishing their identity. Yehuda Keel (2003, on 48:8) quotes R. Samuel ben Hophni Gaon (d. 1013) that maybe the question was an opening to a conversation or a confirmation, though it is not clear what was the need for an opening to a conversation or a confirmation. 

Sarna (1989, p. 326) follows this approach and the idea that Yaakov was adopting Efrayim and Menashe. He suggests that the question "who are they" was “the second stage of the legal adoptive process, namely the establishment of the true identity of the candidates for adoption by formal interrogation of the natural father.” Sarna refers to this act as the second stage since Yaakov had already began the “adoption” process (48:5,6) before he asked the question “who are they?” Yet, one would have thought that if the question was to establish the identity of the people being adopted, then this question would have been asked at the beginning of the process and not in the second stage. However, maybe one can argue that the official adoption did not begin until 48:10. Another problem with Sarna’s approach is that Yaakov began the “adoption” process without knowing that Efrayim and Menashe were present in the room since he did not call for Efrayim and Menashe to come to him. It appears that Yaakov did not think they had to be present when they were being adopted. This suggests that there was no need to establish their identity through this question, but rather Yaakov was able to adopt them without them being present and it was sufficient for Yaakov to refer to them as Yosef’s sons, as he did in 48:5. 

Samuel Dresner (1994, p. 140) suggests a third approach that Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren since he had just mentioned Rahel, which caused him to focus on his memories for her and be unaware of the people around him. This makes sense since Yaakov’s question concerning his grandchildren, 48:8, occurs immediately after Yaakov referred to Rahel, 48:7. Yet, why did he not notice Menashe and Efrayim before he spoke about Rahel? One must explain not only why Yaakov did not recognize them but also why he did not ask who they were immediately when they entered the room.

Following the Radak, it appears that Yaakov could only see at very short distances, and then Yaakov did not immediately see Efrayim and Menashe, even as vague forms, when they entered his room because they were standing at a distance beyond his field of vision and only Yosef had approached Yaakov when all three entered the room. 

Afterwards, when they heard that Yaakov was treating them as his natural sons Reuven and Shimon and that they would be included in the inheritance with their uncles, 48:5,6, they moved closer to Yaakov. At this point, he was not able to identify them not because of his poor vision, but because when they moved closer to him, most likely they bowed down to him to show their appreciation for equating them to their uncles, and hence Yaakov only saw the back of their heads. Following Dresner, Yaakov did not see their faces when they bowed since he was not concentrating on what was going on around him because at that moment he was thinking about Rahel. Furthermore, he had no reason to think that they were in the room since he had not been told that they had come with Yosef and he had not called for them. Yaakov saw two people bowing down to him, but he could not identify his grandchildren by just seeing the back of their heads, and hence he asked Yosef who are these people?

Bibliography:

Dresner, Samuel, 1994, Rachel, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 50:7-11 – A state funeral for Yaakov

Bereshit 50:7-9 record that Yaakov’s family, except for his (young?) grandchildren, accompanied by Egyptian dignitaries and soldiers, carried Yaakov’s body from Egypt to Israel. Before this entourage reached the land of Israel, they stopped at a place called Goren he-Atad, where a public funeral was held, 50:10. This funeral made such an impression that it was noticed by the Canaanites, and the name of the place was called Avel Mitzrayim, 50:11.

This large public funeral is unique in the book of Bereshit. For example, when Avraham or Yitzhak died, the Torah just states that their sons buried them, and there is no mention of any public funeral, 25:9, 36:29. Furthermore, while it could very well be that the reason why the Egyptian dignitaries participated in Yaakov’s funeral was because of Yosef (Luzzatto on 50:3), it is striking that by Yosef’s burial in Egypt, which is recorded just 16 verses after Yaakov’s funeral, though it occurred 54 years later, there is no mention of honors at all. Why did the Torah record Yaakov’s public funeral?

Maybe, the funeral was a fulfillment of one aspect of the first blessing that Yaakov received from Yitzhak. Yitzhak had blessed Yaakov, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow to you,” 27:29 (JPS translation in Sarna 1989, p. 193). This blessing was to Yaakov personally, “to you,” yet was it ever fulfilled? While Yaakov had extensive fights within the family, with his brother and father-in-law, he had very little contacts with other nations. He had a conversation with Pharaoh when he came to Egypt, 47:7-10. Yet, the conversation does not indicate any homage paid to him by Pharaoh, as Yaakov blessed Pharaoh, and could not be the fulfillment of Yitzhak’s blessing. Again, Yaakov’s lack of apparent interaction with the nations of the word contrasts with Avraham, and even with Yitzhak who made a treaty with the Philistines, 26:26-32.

Yaakov’s funeral is the most significant interaction between Yaakov and other nations that is recorded in the Torah. This funeral shows that Egypt honored Yaakov, and even the Canaanites were impressed that they renamed the place to Avel Mitzrayim. (Bekhor Shor, on 50:10, suggests that representatives from Esav, Yishmael, the children of Keturah, and Aram also joined in the funeral.) Thus, in the funeral, nations honored Yaakov, and the funeral could be the fulfillment of Yitzhak’s blessing. Finally, maybe the fact that the fulfillment of the blessing was “sub-optimal” in that it occurred when Yaakov was dead and not when he was alive was because Yaakov had tricked Yitzhak to receive the blessing.

Bibliography:

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 50:14-17 – Did Yaakov find out?

Bereshit 50:14,15 record that after the sons of Yaakov returned from Yaakov’s burial in the land of Canaan, they were scared that Yosef would take revenge for their behavior to Yosef thirty nine years earlier, 50:14,15. Accordingly, they told Yosef (apparently through a messenger) that Yaakov had told them to tell Yosef not to take revenge on them, 50:17. This verse would seem to imply that Yaakov learned the true reason how Yosef ended up in Egypt. Yet, it is generally assumed (see Yevamot 65b, N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 563-570) that Yosef’s brothers were lying.

Ramban (on 45:27) claims that Yaakov never learned that the brothers sold (or caused Yosef to be sold) into slavery since he claims that neither Yosef nor the brothers would have told Yaakov the truth. He suggests that Yaakov just assumed that Yosef got lost when he went to look for his brothers, and he was kidnapped. He discounts the evidence from 50:17 that Yaakov knew the truth since he points out that if Yaakov was really worried about Yosef taking revenge on the brothers, then Yaakov should have told Yosef in person not to take revenge and not leave such a message with Yosef’s brothers. Sarna (1989, p. 350) and Y. Leibowitz (2003, p. 187) agree with this idea. They argue that if Yaakov had known about the sale, then he would have mentioned it when he gave his “blessings” (chapter 49) to his children. In these “blessings” he criticized Reuven, Shimon and Levi so if he knew about the sale of Yosef, he should also have condemned it. On the other hand, Ibn Ezra (on 49:23, also see Or ha-Chayyim on 49:23) writes that in 49:23, when Yaakov was giving his blessing to Yosef, he hinted to the sale of Yosef by his brothers. Rashi in his comments on 49:5 also assumes that Yaakov knew that at least Shimon and Levi attempted to kill Yosef, also see his comments on 49:9 and 49:23.

It is incredible that Yaakov never learned the truth. Even before Yosef revealed himself, he probably was suspicious of the brothers, as we discussed on 42:36-38, “Hope and suspicion.” I agree that the brothers and Yosef might not have been too anxious to go over all the details with Yaakov, but Yaakov could have put the pieces together without directly asking his children what happened. Would he really have thought that Yosef lost his way and was kidnapped? This possibility does not accord with the fact that the brothers brought back Yosef’s clothing soaked in enough blood that it was immediately assumed that Yosef had been eaten by an animal, 37:31-33. Most likely, kidnappers would have taken Yosef’s coat since it was very fancy, and even if they discarded it how would it have ended up being so soaked in blood that it looked as if an animal had eaten Yosef? Furthermore, it would seem quite a coincidence that the brothers happened to find the coat if Yosef really got lost. Yaakov knew that the children hated Yosef, and, as he was clever, even without too much help he could have figured out the truth. In a personal conversation, Eric Sherby, added that surely Binyamin would have told Yaakov after he had heard Yosef say to the brothers, “I am Yosef who you sold to Egypt,” 45:4.

The fact that Yaakov did not explicitly mention the sale of Yosef in his “blessings” is not that surprising. First of all, this would have meant that he had to criticize all of the sons except Binyamin, as even Yosef had behaved inappropriately before he was sold. Furthermore, Yaakov was also partly to blame for the sale since his favoritism was one of the main causes of the animosity between the brothers. Finally, it is very likely that he would not have wanted to bring the subject up again, in order not to re-ignite old fights, see Radak on 49:23.

Even if Yaakov knew what really happened, this does not imply that brothers were telling the truth when they told Yosef that Yaakov had told them to tell Yosef not to take revenge, 50:17. Rashi (on 50:16) argues that Yaakov would never have made such a comment to the brothers since he would not have suspected Yosef of taking revenge. Yet, maybe the brothers were speaking the truth. Maybe Yaakov hoped that the issue of the sale would never come up, but he was worried that the brothers would fight after his death. Thus, he would not have wanted to speak to Yosef about the sale, and he only would have given this message to Yosef’s brothers to tell Yosef in case the question of the sale arose. However, the brothers were so scared of Yosef that they raised the matter of the sale without Yosef mentioning it immediately after Yaakov died.

Bibliography:

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

Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, 2003, Seven years of discourses on the weekly Torah readings, Hemed: Israel.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 15:16 – Yosef: The fourth generation in the prophecy of the covenant of the pieces

Bereshit 15:13-16 records that G-d revealed to Avraham (Avram) a prophecy about the future. G-d told Avraham that his descendants would live in a foreign land for 400 years and that the fourth generation would return to the land. This time period of 400 years seems to be much larger than the time span of four generations. How could his descendants be in a foreign land for 400 years if the fourth generation was to return to the land? 

Probably the most popular approach is that the count of the four generations begins not from Avraham but from when the descendants of Avraham when to live in Egypt. Rashi (15:16) explains that the generations are Yehuda, Peretz, Hetzron, and Calev. One minor problem with this approach is that in the Torah, Calev is the son of Yefunne (Bemidbar 13:6) and not Hetzron. However Divrei Hayyamim I 2:18 states that Calev was Hetzron’s son (though see Divrei Hayyamim 4:15). Possibly due to this difficulty, Ibn Ezra and Radak (both on 15:16) slightly alter the generations to be: Kehat, Amram, Moshe or Aharon, and their children. In addition, the adherents to this explanation argue that the 400 years began with the birth of Yitzhak. Thus, it is argued that there is no connection between the count of the 400 years and the four generations since they start from different times.

This approach is problematic. It is ad hoc since there is no intrinsic reason to start the generations with Yehuda or Kehat. Why not start with Yaakov? Mizrahi (on Rashi's comments) writes that Yaakov was excluded either because when he came to Egypt he was near death or because the count had to begin from the slavery and according to Chazal the slavery did not begin until after Yaakov died. Yet, these answers are difficult. Yaakov lived 17 years in Egypt, and we do not know when the slavery began (by Yosef?). More fundamentally, the four generations should start from Avraham since G-d was addressing Avraham.

Ibn Ezra writes that the count begins when Avraham’s descendants would be foreigners. Presumably Ibn Ezra is connecting the prophecy of the four generations with the prophecy of the 400 years since the prophecy of the 400 years refers to the descendants being foreigners, 15:13. However, the prophecy of the 400 years is mentioned three verses before the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation, 15:16, and there is nothing in 15:16 that implies that the four generations start from when they were foreigners. Furthermore, even with Ibn Ezra’s logic, why is Kehat more of a foreigner than his father Levi? Both were born in Israel, moved to Egypt at the same time, and lived in Egypt for a substantial part of their lives. Not only does the choice of starting the generations from Kehat or Yehuda have no textual support, but also delaying the onset of the count of the generations makes the prophecy of the four generations meaningless. As pointed out by Rashbam, once Avraham knew the prophecy of the 400 years, what difference does it make if there were four or five generations since it would still take 400 years to return?

The second approach (Rashbam, Ramban, and Benno Jacob, 1974) is that four generations refer to the Amorites, and not to the descendants of Avraham. The idea is that in 15:16, G-d was explaining to Avraham that his descendants could not get the land of Israel immediately since “the sin of the Amorites was not complete.” In Shemot 20:5, as part of the Decalogue, G-d told the people that at times the fourth generation is punished for the sins of the first generation, since G-d gives the generations time to repent. Thus, it is argued that here G-d was telling Avraham, that the Amorites had to be given four generations to have the chance to repent, and only afterwards if they did not could Avraham’s descendants receive the land from the Amorites.

This approach separates the prophecy of the four generations, which refer to the Amorites, with the prophecy of the 400 years, which refers to the Avraham’s descendants. However, this approach is also problematic. 15:16 records that the fourth generation will return, and according to this approach the fourth generation is the Amorites, which means that the prophecy is that the fourth generation of the Amorites would return. However, this prophecy would be insignificant to Avraham. Accordingly, the reference to the return of the fourth generation in the beginning of the verse cannot refer to the Amorites.

A third approach (Sarna, 1989, p. 116) is that word dor refers to 100 years, and then the prophecy of the return of the fourth dor would be 400 years. This could be for two reasons. One if dor means generation, the time from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child, then maybe in those days the time was 100 years, as Yitzhak was born when Avraham was 100. However, from the fact that Sara and Avraham doubted that this was possible (17:18, 18:12, 20:6,7) shows that this was an unusual event even in those days. The second possibility is that dor should be interpreted as life span, which could be considered as 100 years. However, this is also problematic since there is no other source that a life span in those days was considered 100 years.

My thought is that the return of the fourth dor must refer to four generations from Avraham. In fact, Ramban (on 30:9) seems to state that the prophecy refers to the children of Yaakov, who were the fourth generation of Avraham. With this idea there are two possible ways to understand the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation.

One, the prophecy refers to Yosef who returned to the land, Yehoshua 24:32. Accordingly, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation was referring to the return of Yosef and is unrelated to the 400 years that the people would live in Egypt. There are two problems with this idea. One, while Yosef returned to the land of Israel, he was dead and his return was that he was buried in Israel. How can this be considered as returning? Yet, from Bereshit 46:4, we see that G-d promised Yaakov that Yaakov would return to the land of Israel, and we know Yaakov only returned after he had died.  Even if one comes back dead, then that is still considered as having returned, see Rashi on 46:4.

Bereshit 50:25 records that Yosef made the brothers swear to bring him back to Israel, and Shemot 13:19 records that Moshe took Yosef's bones out of Egypt when the people left Egypt. It is clear that this act by Moshe is very important since the Torah goes out of its way to mention it.  The importance is that Yosef, the great-grandchild of Avram (Avraham) is the fourth generation of Avram, and his return to the land of Israel (Yehoshua 24:32) is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Bereshit 15:16. 

What could be the importance of Yosef returning dead? Why should G-d have told Avraham about the return of the fourth generation if it meant Yosef returning when he was dead? My guess is that after Avraham was told that his descendants would be slaves for 400 years, it would be difficult for Avraham to identify with his future descendants, but Avraham could feel a personal connection with his great-grandchild. Even if Yosef returned dead, the fact that he was being carried back by the people who returned to the land, demonstrated the people’s connection with Yosef and through Yosef, the people’s connection to Avraham. Thus, the prophecy of 15:13-16 then consists of two distinct parts: 15:13,14 is the prophecy about the future history of Avraham’s descendants, while 15:15,16 were personal prophecies for Avraham.

The second problem with the return of Yosef as being the fulfillment of the prophecy is that 15:16 uses the plural when referring to the return, which implies that many members of the generation would return and not just one. However, Yosef was the representative of his generation, and his return symbolized the whole generation’s return. Thus, when Yaakov told Yosef that G-d would bring him back to Israel, Yaakov used the plural even though he was only addressing Yosef, 48:21.

The second possibility is that when the Jewish people returned to the land, they did so as the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, etc. Even though the sons of Yaakov were dead, their names lived on and hence the identification of the people was through the great-grandchildren of Avraham. Thus, one could consider the tribe of Yehuda as a continuation of Yehuda himself. It is most remarkable that during the long stay in Egypt, the division of the people remained based on the children of Yaakov. In Tanakh, when there is a reference to the whole nation, it is almost always as benei Yisrael, the children of Yaakov. According to this idea, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation would be that when the people would return they would identify themselves as the fourth generation of Avraham. The significance of this prophecy was again that Avraham would be able to feel a personal connection with these people, as they considered themselves his fourth generation. With this approach there would be no contradiction with the prophecy of 400 years since the prophecy refers to the identity of the people and not to when they would return. Finally, this idea could be combined with the return of Yosef, as Yosef was the only member of the fourth generation who did not have a tribe named after him. Therefore, he had to return by being buried in Israel, while his brothers could return through their tribes.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.