THAT ONE SAID TO JOSEPH. Someone said to Joseph.¹ (and he said) is omitted. Whom she bore to Levi in Egypt (Num. 26:59) is similar.²

footnotes: ¹ The subject of va-yomer ² Scripture similarly omits the subject. The translation of Num. 26:59 is a literal one.

AND ONE TOLD JACOB. Someone told Jacob.³ (and he told) is omitted. Or it may refer to the one who said to Joseph, Behold, thy father is sick. On the other hand, he may have been a messenger sent by Jacob.⁴ refers to a messenger sent by Jacob to Joseph requesting that he come to see him. This messenger came back and he told Jacob…Behold, thy son Joseph cometh unto thee.

footnotes: ³ The subject of va-yagged ⁴ And he told

[BEHOLD, I WILL MAKE THEE FRUITFUL.] According to Saadiah Gaon Jacob told Joseph: God appeared to me and told me, Behold I will make thee fruitful. However, following this promise I had no other children, and Rachel died. I now know that the Divine promise of Behold, I will make thee fruitful was said concerning your children.⁵ (v. 5). This interpretation is totally unpalatable. What difference is there between Joseph’s children and Reuben’s children?⁶ could apply to both? Furthermore, Benjamin was born after this prophetic vision.⁷, is recorded in Gen. 35:9-16. Benjamin’s birth follows immediately in verse 18. Hence it may refer to him. I believe that Jacob told Joseph the following: “God appeared to me and told me that the land of Canaan will be an everlasting possession for my children. I now give you a first born’s share⁸ in this land. Therefore let Ephraim and Manasseh share in the land in the same manner as Reuben and Simeon, my two eldest sons (v. 5). However, any children that will be born to you in addition to Ephraim and Manasseh⁹. I.E. explains holadta (literally, you begat) as an imperfect, you will beget. shall be called after the name of their just noted brothers, namely, they will receive their inheritance among them (v. 6).¹⁰ I take issue with the one who interprets And thy issue, that thou begettest after them (v. 6) as referring to the children of Machir the son of Manasseh who were born upon Joseph’s knees (Gen. 50:23). If his interpretation is correct, why does Scripture say, they shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance (v. 6)?¹¹ And what if one argues, but we do not find that Joseph had any other children after Manasseh and Ephraim?¹², then it must be true. If we cannot apply it to Joseph’s sons other than Manasseh and Ephraim, since he had no others, then the Bible must be referring to grandchildren. It is not convincing. It is quite possible that Joseph had additional children but they are not mentioned because they received their inheritance among their brothers.¹³ There are many other such instances in Scripture.¹⁴

footnotes: ⁵ Hence Ephraim and Manasseh…shall be mine ⁶ How did Jacob know the promise referred to Joseph’s children and not to Reuben’s children when both are his descendants and the Divine promise, Behold, I will make thee fruitful ⁷ The vision in which God told Jacob, Behold, I will make thee fruitful ⁸ Since the land was given to me, I may pass it on as I see fit. ⁹ Viz., And thy issue, that thou begettest after them ¹⁰ They will be included in the Ephraimites and Manassites. ¹¹ Machir’s children received Machir’s share in the land. Hence Scripture should have stated “after the name of their father” in their inheritance. ¹² If Scripture tells us, and thy issue, that thou begettest after them ¹³ Since they were included in the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, there was no reason to mention them. ¹⁴ Where names were left out because they had no significance.

[AND AS FOR ME, WHEN I CAME FROM PADDAN.] Rachel died suddenly and I was not able to transport her to the cave of Machpelah and inter her there, as I did with Leah. Jacob told this to Joseph so that he would not be angry with him for requesting that he do for him what he didn’t do for his mother.

[AND ISRAEL BEHELD JOSEPH’S SONS.] After stating in our verse, And Israel beheld Joseph’s sons, how could Scripture go on to say, Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see (v. 10)? The answer is, so that he could not see means he was not able to see clearly and recognize their faces.

[I HAD NOT THOUGHT.] Pillalti (I thought) means, my mind never judged that I would ever see you. It comes from the same root as pelilim (judges) (Deut. 32:31).¹⁷.

footnotes: ¹⁷ Its root is peh, lamed, lamed

AND JOSEPH BROUGHT THEM OUT FROM BETWEEN HIS KNEES. This verse should have followed And he blessed them that day, etc. (v. 20).¹⁵

footnotes: ¹⁵ So Krinsky, Weiser and Cherez. The point being that Manesseh and Ephraim were between Joseph’s knees until the conclusion of the blessing. Hence our verse should have followed verse 20. However, the problem remains, why is this verse misplaced? Filwarg interprets I.E. as saying that Scripture first summarizes what transpired during the blessing and then goes into detail, that is, Scripture in verses 9-12 tells us that Joseph brought his children to Jacob and that Jacob placed them between his knees, kissed them and blessed them and that Joseph took them from between his knees, and bowed in gratitude before his father for blessing his children. Then in verses 13-20 the Bible tells us exactly what transpired during the blessing.

[FROM BETWEEN HIS KNEES.] Jacob sat on the edge of the bed.¹⁶

footnotes: ¹⁶ Jacob sat on the edge of the bed with his feet on the ground and Manasseh and Ephraim were between his knees (Cherez).

AND JOSEPH TOOK THEM BOTH. Its meaning is: And Joseph had taken them both.¹⁸ (took) is a pluperfect that means had taken. In verse 9 we are told that Jacob told Joseph, Bring them (your sons), I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them. Verse 10, while stating that Jacob kissed them, does not state that Joseph brought them to his father. This is stated in verse 13. Filwarg in keeping with his interpretation of I.E., viz., that verses 9-12 summarize what happened and verses 13-20 tell in detail what occurred, interprets as follows: Scripture is about to relate the details of the blessing. It begins by telling that Joseph had brought his children to his father in the following manner, Ephraim in his right hand and Manasseh in his left hand. I have already noted many other such instances.¹⁹

footnotes: ¹⁸ In other words va-yikkach ¹⁹ Of the pluperfect in Scripture. See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 1:9.

GUIDING HIS HANDS WITTINGLY. His hands, as it were, understood what he wanted to do.²⁰, which literally means, he imparted wisdom to his hands. Hence his hands “understood” his intentions.

footnotes: ²⁰ The verse reads: sikkel et yadov

FOR MANASSEH WAS THE FIRST-BORN. Even though (ki) Manasseh was the first-born.²¹ (for) is to be rendered even though, i.e., Jacob placed his left hand upon Manasseh’s head even though Manasseh was the first born. The word ki in O Lord, let the Lord…go in the midst of us, even though (ki) it is a stiff-necked people (Ex. 34:9) is similar. There are many similar instances.²² has the meaning of even though.

footnotes: ²¹ In other words, ki ²² Where the word ki

[THE ANGEL WHO HATH REDEEMED ME.] The meaning of this will be found in the Torah portion Ve-eleh shemot (Ex. 23:20).

AND LET MY NAME BE NAMED IN THEM. All of Israel will be called Ephraim²³ means that all of Israel will be called Ephraim. Nachmanides objects. He argues that if this were the interpretation they would also be called by the name of Manasseh since the text reads, in them. and Joseph.²⁴ Scripture also states, A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children; she refuseth to be comforted for her children, Because they are not (Jer. 31:15),²⁵ because Jacob considered Rachel to be his true mate.²⁶, the main one of his thoughts. Rachel was the one Jacob originally wanted to marry and the one whom he loved. It was only due to circumstances that he married Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah. Hence Scripture says, The sons of Rachel Jacob’s wife (Gen. 46:19).²⁷ is an appellation not used with reference to any of Jacob’s other wives. Similarly, as soon as Rachel bore a son, Jacob said to Laban, Send me away, that I may go unto mine own place, and to my country (Gen. 30:25). He also gave the birthright to Joseph because he was the first born of his true mate. When Reuben showed himself unfit for the birthright he transferred it to Joseph who was Rachel’s first born, rather than to Dan or Gad because they were sons of the handmaidens.²⁸ [17. HIS RIGHT HAND.] The right hand is more honored and is stronger than the left.²⁹

footnotes: ²³ The Bible refers to Israel as Ephraim in Hos. 7:1; 10:6; 11:3; 12:1; and Jer. 31-20. According to I.E. and let my name be named in them ²⁴ The Bible refers to Israel as Joseph in Ps. 80:2; 81:6; and Zech. 10:6. ²⁵ The children of the other matriarchs also went into exile. However, the Bible mentions only Rachel weeping for her children. We thus see that all of Israel is called after Rachel’s children. ²⁶ The Hebrew reads, ikkar machasahvto ²⁷ Jacob’s wife ²⁸ Dan was Bilhah’s first born (Gen. 30:6). Gad was Zilpah’s first born (Gen. 30:11). Jacob thus gave the birthright to Joseph even though Dan and Gad were older than Joseph and were first born. He did this because Joseph was the first born of Rachel and they of handmaidens. ²⁹ According to Weiser.

A MULTITUDE OF NATIONS. Many nations shall descend from him³⁰. Its literal translation is, a fullness of the nations. I.E. points out that melo (fullness) is to be rendered as many, a multitude. Filwarg asks, “Who were the many nations descended from Ephraim?”

footnotes: ³⁰ The verse reads, melo ha-goyim

BY THEE SHALL ISRAEL BLESS. All the Israelites.³¹

footnotes: ³¹ Israel here doesn’t refer to Jacob but to all of Jacob’s descendants (Krinsky).

AND HE SET EPHRAIM BEFORE MANASSEH. In the enunciation of the blessing.³²

footnotes: ³² Viz., “God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh.”

ONE PORTION. Some say that shekhem (portion) alludes to the city of Shechem which was in the portion of the land allotted to Joseph.

With my sword and with my bow refers to God, as in David’s statement, The lord is my rock…My shield and my horn of salvation (Ps. 18:3; II Sam. 22:3).³³ However, I believe that shekhem means a portion and shekhem echad is to be rendered one portion. The word shekhem is related to the words shikhmam (their shoulders) and shekhem (shoulder) in, upon their shoulders (shichmam) (Ex. 12:34), and To serve Him with one consent (shekhem echad) (Zeph. 3:9).³⁴ (shoulder) because the shoulder is a part of the body (Filwarg).

footnotes: ³³ That is, with the help of God, who is my sword and bow. ³⁴ A portion is called a shekhem

ABOVE THY BRETHREN. More than thy brethren.³⁵

footnotes: ³⁵ The reference is to Joseph’s receiving a double portion in the land of Canaan (Filwarg).

[WHICH I TOOK.] Its meaning is: which the Israelites will take with their sword and with their bow.³⁶ (took), a perfect, is to be understood as an imperfect, viz., will take. I.E. later explains why Jacob used a perfect. Jacob singled out the Amorites because there were none among the seven Canaanite nations equal in strength to them. Observe, after the two mighty Amorite kings were slain³⁷ Joshua said (Josh. 7:7), Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast Thou at all brought this people over the Jordan,³⁸ to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites,³⁹ to cause us to perish? Jacob’s statement, Which I took, presents no problems⁴⁰ (took)? because the Patriarchs considered the land as theirs from the moment that God verbally gave it to Abraham.⁴¹ God similarly gave it to Jacob, as we read, The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed (Gen. 28:13).

footnotes: ³⁶ Jacob will conquer the land via his children. I.E. holds that lakachti ³⁷ Sihon and Og. Cf. Num. 21:21ff. ³⁸ After defeating Sihon and Og. ³⁹ We thus see that Joshua referred to all of Canaan as the land of the Amorite. ⁴⁰ If Jacob was speaking of the future, why did he use the perfect lakachti ⁴¹ Once God promised it to the patriarchs they were sure that they would inherit it. Hence it was as good as already taken (Ralbag).