THAT WHICH SHALL BEFALL YOU. Prophecies foretelling that which shall befall you in the future. Those who base themselves on Scripture’s closing remark, and this is that their father spoke unto them and blessed them (v. 28), and conclude that they (Jacob’s words) are blessings, err.¹ (v. 28), it implies that what precedes are blessings. For if it were so, where are the blessings of Reuben, Simeon and Levi?² The way to understand and this is that their father spoke unto them and blessed them is as follows: and this (v. 3-27) is what their father spoke unto them by way of prophecy after which he blessed them. Scripture omits the blessings.

footnotes: ¹ Since Scripture concludes with and this is that their father spoke unto them and blessed them ² These three sons were castigated, not blessed.

REUBEN, THOU ART MY FIRST-BORN, MY MIGHT, AND THE FIRST-FRUITS OF MY STRENGTH. My might was first seen in thee. The first-born is called the first of one’s strength. We find an identical expression in And smote all the first-born in Egypt, The first-fruits of their strength in the tents of Ham (Ps. 78:51).

THE EXCELLENCY OF DIGNITY. You were suited by virtue of being first-born for the advantage of being exalted above all your brothers.³ (the excellency of dignity) as the advantage (yeter) of rank (se’et) and interprets accordingly. It should be noted that se’et comes from the root nun, sin, alef, meaning raised up or exalted.

footnotes: ³ I.E. translates yeter se’et

AND THE EXCELLENCY OF POWER. This means the same as The excellency of dignity. It is prophetic style to repeat the same idea in different words.⁴ The meaning of oz is power.

footnotes: ⁴ I.E. translates our line: The advantage of rank / the advantage of power. The first in rank has dominion over those below him, hence power is parallel to rank and the advantage of power means the same as the advantage of rank. Modem scholars refer to this as synonymous parallelism. The latter is a feature of Biblical poetry.

UNSTABLE. Because you acted unstably as water does.

HAVE NOT THOU THE EXCELLENCY. (Some say) that al totar (have not thou the excellency) means, you will not have the advantage.⁵ However, if this were the case then our text should have read al tutar rather than al totar; i.e., the vav of totar should have been vocalized with a shuruk.⁶ is vocalized with a cholam. If al totar means you will not have the advantage then totar is a passive, i.e., a hofal, and should be written tutar and not totar which is a hifil and a causative. Cf. Filwarg. Others say that our clause should be interpreted thus: you acted unstably as water that is poured out of a vessel and you gained nothing thereby (al totar).⁷ is not irregularly vocalized. Al totar is a hifil imperfect with the meaning of a perfect It literally means you will not gain. Here it means you did not gain anything; that is, you gained nothing by acting rashly. For an alternate interpretation see Krinsky. However, I disagree with this interpretation. The term al is always used in Scripture as an imperative.⁸ cannot be translated as you gained nothing because al is an imperative meaning don’t This comment also negates the first interpretation quoted by I.E. since there, too, al is not used as an imperative (Filwarg). The latter fact is not negated by the fact that we find al used once in a non-imperative sense in In the way of righteousness is life, And in the pathway thereof there is no (al) death (Prov. 12:28).⁹ does not disprove his contention that al is always used as an imperative. The correct translation of our clause is: do not seek any advantage (al totar) even one as insignificant as water.¹⁰ means do not seek any advantage. This comment presents a problem. I.E. reads, “even one as insignificant as water (afilu pachaz ka-mayim).” This reading is extremely difficult since up to now I.E. explains pachaz ka-mayim as referring to Reuben’s action, not to Reuben’s punishment. Filwarg suggests deleting these words. Krinsky and Cherez emend afilu to attah (you). Weiser suggests that this comment has been misplaced and that its proper place is after Saadiah’s comment. In this case I.E. amplifies Saadiah’s explanation that pachaz means something insignificant. However, it appears that I.E. anticipated Saadiah’s interpretation of pachaz ka-mayim. Accordingly the vav of totar is properly vocalized with a cholam, and it follows the paradigm of tosaf (more) in Think upon the battle, thou wilt do so no more (al tosaf) (Job 40:32).¹¹ is a hifil and follows the paradigm of tosaf which is also a hifil. Since tosaf is a hifil the text should have read tosef. But as the word comes at the end of a verse the tzere changes to a pattach. Similarly totar should have been written toter but as it concludes a segment of a poetical line the tzere changes to a pattach. Cf. Rashi on Job 40:32 (Cherez). Thus totar is similar to tosaf. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon explains our line as follows: you will not have any advantage over your brothers even one as insignificant as water. According to Saadiah pachaz (unstable) comes from the same root as pochazim (light, insignificant) in vain and light (pochazim) fellows (Judges 9:4), and the root of the word pachaz does not have to be inverted. ¹² (unstable) comes from the root chet, peh, zayin (chafaz) which means to hurry. However, the root of pachaz is obviously peh, chet, zayin. By interpreting pachaz to mean unstable we are saying that we must invert the root chet, peh, zayin into peh, chet, zayin. However, according to Saadiah pachaz has its own root, peh, chet, zayin, and means light, insignificant.

footnotes: ⁵ According to this interpretation our line reads: Unstable as water / you will not have the advantage; i.e., because you acted unstably as water does, you will not have the advantage of rank and power. ⁶ Totar ⁷ The advantage of this interpretation is that totar ⁸ The point is al totar ⁹ I.E.’s point is that one irregular usage of al ¹⁰ In other words al totar ¹¹ Totar ¹² As it must be if we interpret the word to mean unstable. Pachaz

THEN DEFILEDST THOU IT. From the day that thou defiled my couch, my conjugal couch was removed.¹³, Jacob ceased cohabiting with his wives after Reuben defiled his couch. His reason was: Rachel was dead, Bilhah defiled, and he was angry at Leah because of what her son did and therefore slept neither with her nor her handmaiden Zilpah. “My couch went up” thus means, my conjugal bed ceased to function. Filwarg suggests that the reference may be only to Bilhah. Yetzu’i alah (he went up to my couch) is to be interpreted as if written yetzu’i alah me’alai (my conjugal couch went up from me). Furthermore, the word alah (went up) at times has the meaning of cut off,¹⁴ means my couch was cut off or destroyed. as in O my God, take me not away (al ta’aleni) in the midst of my days (Ps. 102:25). Our chapter is clearly explained in Chronicles where we read, Reuben (was) the first-born of Israel…but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, and he was not to be reckoned in the genealogy as first-born (I Chron. 5:1). Chronicles then tells us that Joseph received the birthright and Judah the kingship (Ibid. v. 2). Some explain that and he was not to be reckoned in the genealogy as first-born means that the listing of the order of the twelve sons would start with Reuben.¹⁵ refers to Joseph, not to Reuben.

footnotes: ¹³ The part of the verse under discussion reads: Then defiledst thou / my couch went up. I.E. reads “my couch went up” as if written, my couch went up from me. He interprets it to mean, my couch was taken away from me. According to I.E., in Chapter 7 of his Yesod Mora ¹⁴ In this case yetzu’i alah ¹⁵ In other words, and he was not to be reckoned in the genealogy as first born

SIMEON AND LEVI ARE BRETHREN. He referred to them as brethren because of what they did to the city of Shechem.¹⁶ (Gen. 34:25). Simeon and Levi were thus brothers in council with regard to the destruction of Shechem (Weiser).

footnotes: ¹⁶ The point is all twelve sons were brethren, Why, then, does Jacob single out Simeon and Levi as brethren? Scripture tells us that at Shechem two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi…took each man his sword, and came upon the city unawares, and slew all the males

THEIR KINSHIP. Some say that the word mekherotehem (their kinship) is similar in meaning to ha-karat (the show of) in The show of (ha-karat) their countenance doth witness against them (Is. 3:9).¹⁷ However, this interpretation is grammatically impossible.¹⁸ and ha-karat come from different roots (Weiser). Others say that mekherotehem is to be rendered their possessions¹⁹ and is to be compared to the word tikhru (ye shall buy) in and ye shall also buy (tikhru) water of them for money (Deut. 2:6). However, this, too, is incorrect for the word tikhru means to dig.²⁰ Others say that mekherotehem is related to the word mekhirah (sale) and the meaning of mekherotehem is they sold themselves,²¹ as in a people that jeoparded (cheref) their lives unto the death (Jud. 5:18).²² I believe that mekherotehem comes from the same root as mekhorotayich (thine origin) (Ezek. 16:3).²³ While the prepositional bet is missing from mekherotehem,²⁴ means in their land wherein they dwelt, Scripture should have read bi-mekherotehem. we find the same with the word bet (house) in that was found in the house of (bet)²⁵ rather than bet. We thus see that Scripture occasionally omits the prepositional bet. the Lord (II Kings 16:8) and with the word ma’on (habitation) in which I have commanded in My habitation (ma’on) (I Sam. 2:29).²⁶ rather than ma’on. See above note. Our text refers to the violence which Simeon and Levi committed in the land of their origin by deceitfully slaying the entire city of Shechem after making a covenant with them.²⁷ should thus be rendered: they employed weapons of violence in the land of their origin.

footnotes: ¹⁷ That is, one can tell by looking at them that they employ weapons of violence (Weiser). ¹⁸ Mekherotehem ¹⁹ Our text is thus to be rendered: weapons of violence are their possessions. ²⁰ Deut. 2:6 is thus to be rendered: ye shall dig water of them for money; that is, pay them so that they will give you permission to dig for water (Cherez). ²¹ That is, they sold themselves to weapons of destruction. ²² Cf. Kimchi in Jud. 5:18. Although different verbs are employed in our verse and in Jud. 5:18, the idea is the same. For an alternate interpretation see Krinsky. ²³ It means in the land of their origin. ²⁴ If mekherotehem ²⁵ Scripture should have read be-vet ²⁶ Scripture should have read be-ma’on ²⁷ Cf. Gen. 34. Weapons of violence their kinship

LET MY SOUL NOT COME INTO THEIR COUNCIL. Rabbi Aaron²⁸ explained the word tavo (come) in Let my soul not come (tavo) as having the meaning of set like the meaning of ba (goeth down, to set) in and the sun goeth down (ba) (Eccles. 1:5).²⁹ means to come. In Eccles. 1:5 the word ba means sets, i.e., when the sun goes down (sets) it is no longer in the sky. Similarly the word tavo, which comes from the same root, here means will set. Let my soul not set from their council means let my soul always be in their council. He interpreted let my soul not come into their council as meaning, I do not want to be outside of their council. However, Rabbi Aaron’s interpretation inverts the meaning of the verse.³⁰ to mean let my soul not set from their council. The verse means I do not want my soul to be in their council. Thus Rabbi Aaron’s interpretation is precisely the opposite of what the verse actually says. If Jacob praised Simeon and Levi, why did he mention weapons of violence? Furthermore, Jacob told his sons, Ye have troubled me, to make me odious unto the inhabitants of the land (Gen. 34:30).³¹ The truth of the matter is that Simeon and Levi placed Jacob and his household in great jeopardy by their actions in Shechem. Indeed, were it not for the terror of God that was upon the cities that were round about them (Gen. 35:5), they would have surrounded Jacob and his family and exterminated them all. He (Rabbi Aaron) similarly explained³²) and may they multiply in Israel (va-afitzem bi’yisra’el) (Filwarg). Cursed be their anger (v. 7) as meaning and in their self will they uprooted a cursed wall,³³ (they houghed oxen) as they uprooted a wall. for their anger was fierce. The above explanations are unpalatable.³⁴ Let my soul not come into their council.³⁵ Rabbi Moses Ha-Kohen³⁶ says that kevodi (my glory) is synonymous with nafshi (my soul). He notes that we find the two often used synonymously in the book of Psalms. Rabbi Moses’ interpretation is correct since our text repeats itself in different words,³⁷, in the second kevodi. However, both mean one and the same. as is the style of prophetic statements. We thus find, Ask thy father, and he will declare unto thee, Thine elders, and they will tell thee (Deut. 32:7), and (in Num. 23:8) How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? And how shall I execrate, whom the Lord hath not execrated? Thus into their council means the same as unto their assembly, come (tavoh) the same as be united (techad), and nafshi the same as kevodi. However, Rabbi Judah ben Balam the Spaniard³⁸, p. 940). says that Rabbi Moses erred. He maintains that kavod (glory) refers to the body because the body is the glory (kavod) of the soul in the same way that a necklace is the ornament to the neck,³⁹ as we find in the verse Who satisfieth thy body (edyekh) with good things (Ps. 103:5).⁴⁰ ordinarily means your ornament. J.P.S. translates it as thine old age. Rabbi Judah Balam interprets edyekh as referring to the body. However, I.E. in Psalms interprets edyekh as referring to the soul. Rabbi Judah offers as a proof text,⁴¹ refers to the body. Yea, let him lay my glory (kevodi) in the dust. Selah. (Ps. 7:6).⁴² However, I say that Rabbi Judah errs, for we find Scripture saying, So that my glory (kevodi) may sing praise to Thee (Ps. 30:13),⁴³) may sing praise to thee. We thus see that kavod refers to the soul. Rabbi Judah might retort that Ps. 30:13 should be interpreted: so that my body may sing praise to thee, or all that have a human form (kavod) may sing praise to thee. and Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory (kevodi) rejoiceth; My flesh (i.e., my body) also dwelleth in safety (Ps. 16:9).⁴⁴ must refer to the soul for otherwise body is mentioned twice in our verse. I.E. in Psalms interprets my heart as referring to man’s intelligence, my glory (kevodi) to man’s soul, and my flesh to the body. As to the proof which Rabbi Judah offered from Yea, let him lay my glory in the dust, it is figurative. What the verse means is that my soul will be lowered as low as possible, i.e., to the dust. Positive proof that my interpretation is correct comes from My soul (nafshi) cleaveth unto the dust (Ps. 119:25).⁴⁵

footnotes: ²⁸ Gaon of the school of Pumbedita. The great Hai Gaon was among his students. ²⁹ The word ba ³⁰ Rabbi Aaron interpreted Let my soul not come in to their council ³¹ We thus see that Jacob was angry at what his sons did to the inhabitants of Shechem and on his deathbed would not praise them for this act. ³² That is, in a positive manner, not that Jacob castigated his sons but praised them for slaying the inhabitants of Shechem and destroying its wall. Rabbi Aaron interprets verses 6-7 as follows: Let my soul not set from their council, from their assembly let my glory not be excluded; For in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they uprooted a cursed wall; For their anger was fierce, and their wrath it was cruel. Rabbi Aaron interprets verse 8 as follows: I will give them a good portion in Jacob (achallekem be-ya’akov ³³ Rabbi Aaron renders ikkeru shor ³⁴ Literally, cold, i.e., unpalatable as cold food (Krinsky). ³⁵ I reject them. I.E. takes Jacob’s words and gives them a new twist. ³⁶ Rabbi Moses ben Samuel Gikatilla, an 11th century Bible commentator. See I.E. on Gen. 1:26 and the notes thereto. ³⁷ The point is that the second half of the line repeats what the first half said but in different words. In the first half it uses nafshi ³⁸ Bible commentator and grammarian who lived in the 10th and 11th centuries. “His commentaries (in Arabic) on most of the Bible are remarkable for their philosophical method and use of comparison with Arabic.” (Cecil Roth, Standard Jewish Encyclopedia ³⁹ The body is inferior to the soul, yet it is considered the soul’s glory in the same way that a necklace, although certainly less important than the neck, is nevertheless called the ornament of the neck (Cherez). ⁴⁰ The Hebrew edyekh ⁴¹ That kavod ⁴² Which proves that glory cannot refer to the soul for it is impossible to lay the soul in the dust. ⁴³ I.E. interprets this verse in his commentaries on Psalms as follows: So that all that have a soul (kavod ⁴⁴ Kavod ⁴⁵ This verse certainly must be taken figuratively. Similarly, Ps. 119:25.

BE UNITED. Techad (be united) is related to the word yachad (united).⁴⁶. However, according to Rabbi Moses Ha-Kohen, the grammarian of blessed memory, the tzere beneath the tav of techad takes the place of the alef of echad.⁴⁷. He similarly explains the word tesham (be desolate) in and that the land be not desolate (tesham) (Gen. 47:19).⁴⁸ is alef, shin, mem and the tav is vocalized with a tzere to make up for the dropped alef. I.E. holds that it comes from the root yod, shin, mem. Cf. I.E.’s comments on Gen. 47:19.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Its root is yod, chet, dalet ⁴⁷ That is, its root is alef, chet, dalet ⁴⁸ Rabbi Moses Ha-Kohen says that the root of tesham

[INTO THEIR COUNCIL.] Be-sodam (into their council) is analogous to be-hivvasedam (while they took council) in while they took council (be-hivvasedam) together against me (Ps. 31:14).⁴⁹ (Krinsky) and mean secret council. The meaning of our verse is: since Simeon and Levi’s weapons are ones of violence (v. 5), Let my soul not come into their council.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ Both words come from the root samekh, vav, dalet

THEY SLEW MEN. Scripture employs the term ish (man) generically as it does shor (ox) and chamor (ass) for oxen and asses (Gen. 32:6). They slew men alludes to the inhabitants of the city of Shechem.

OXEN. Shor (oxen) is to be rendered as wall. We similarly read, Its branches run over the wall (shur) (v. 22). I have already explained in my work Moznayim that the cholam and shuruk interchange.⁵⁰ and verse 22 shur presents no problem.

footnotes: ⁵⁰ Therefore the fact that our verse reads shor

[HOUGHED.] Ikkeru (houghed) is similar to the word te’akker (hough) in thou shalt hough (te’akker) their horses (Josh. 11:6).⁵¹ is to be translated, they uprooted a wall. This verse shows that Shechem was a large city since it had a wall.

footnotes: ⁵¹ According to I.E. ikkeru shor

CURSED BE THEIR ANGER, FOR IT WAS FIERCE. Jacob either prophesied or offered a prayer that Simeon and Levi’s anger would (or should) diminish and that this would be for their very own good. For curse is the opposite of bless, and as a blessing means an increase, so a curse means a diminution.⁵² means may their anger be diminished or their anger will be diminished.

footnotes: ⁵² Thus Cursed be their anger

AND THEIR WRATH. A repetition in different words of their anger. The same is true with I will divide them and And scatter them. The meaning of I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel is, Simeon and Levi deserve to be separated and disunited. And so it was. For we find that the lot of the tribe of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the tribe of Judah.⁵³ Simeon was thus under Judah’s dominion. Furthermore, its cities were discontiguous and scattered throughout the boundary of Judah.⁵⁴ Similarly the forty-eight cities of the tribe of Levi were scattered among the other tribes.

footnotes: ⁵³ Cf. Josh. 19:1. ⁵⁴ In addition to having their inheritance within the tribe of Judah, their cities were also scattered within Judah’s boundaries (Weiser).

JUDAH. Thou art as thy name,⁵⁵ and thy brethren shall so praise thee.⁵⁶ When thy brothers shall see that Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies; Thy father’s sons shall bow down before thee as to a king. This prophecy came to pass.

footnotes: ⁵⁵ That is, thy name Judah means praise. ⁵⁶ The verse literally reads: Judah thou, thy brethren shall praise thee. I.E interprets thus: Judah thou art as thy name and thy brethren shall so praise thee.

JUDAH IS A LION’S WHELP. Jacob compared Judah to a small lion’s whelp, to a type of whelp that grows into a lion.⁵⁷ (whelp) can be applied to any young animal. I.E. points out that gur (whelp) aryeh (lion) means a gur that grows up to be a lion, that is, a gur of the lion family (Cherez). The comparative caf (meaning like) has been omitted,⁵⁸). as it is in When a wild ass’s colt (ayir pere) is born a man (Job. 11:12).⁵⁹ should have been placed before ayir pere (a wild ass’s colt). We thus see that Scripture occasionally omits the comparative caf. However, it should be supplied by the reader.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ The Hebrew reads, gur aryeh. Gur ⁵⁸ Scripture reads: Judah is a lion’s whelp. It should have read: Judah is as a lion’s whelp (ke-gur ⁵⁹ There, too, a caf

FROM THE PREY, MY SON, THOU ART GONE UP. My son, you appear to me as a lion’s whelp when thou art gone up from the prey. From the prey means after tearing a prey apart.⁶⁰ This is its plain meaning. For us to interpret it as referring to the saving of Joseph,⁶¹ (Gen. 37:26). Scripture should have written he’elita (thou brought up)⁶². rather than alita (thou art come up) which is an intransitive verb. The rest of the verse⁶³, etc. (Cherez). According to Krinsky and Weiser: the next verse, which reads, The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, is proof that our verse deals with Judah’s ability as a warrior and not with his saving Joseph. I.E. literally reads: “The following verse is proof.” Filwarg suggests that the word “following” is a scribal error. is proof that the first part of the verse deals with Judah’s tearing of a prey and not with Judah’s saving of Joseph from being a prey. Observe the verse And she brought up (va-ta’al) one of her whelps (Ezek. 19:3).⁶⁴. Cf. Kimchi on Ezek. 19:3. Also see Cherez.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ According to Weiser. ⁶¹ That it means: from the prey you brought up (saved) my son (Joseph). So Cherez. Judah saved Joseph by saying, What profit is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood ⁶² The hifil ⁶³ Which reads, He stooped down, he couched as a lion ⁶⁴ And you will see that when Scripture wants to say brought up, it employs the hifil va-ta’al

[HE STOOPED DOWN, HE COUCHED AS A LION.] After a lion tears its prey it sits on its knees and couches in security and no other passing animal⁶⁵ will cause it to get up and flee.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ The lion is not afraid of any other species of animal.

THE SCEPTRE SHALL NOT DEPART FROM JUDAH. The sceptre of greatness shall not depart from Judah until David, who inaugurated the Kingdom of Judah, comes.⁶⁶ The last part of the latter quote literally reads, until Shiloh cometh. I.E. interprets shiloh as referring to David, hence his interpretation: the scepter shall not depart from Judah…until David comes. Later in his commentary I.E. explains why Shiloh refers to David. And so it was. Observe that in Israel’s march toward the promised land, the standard of the tribe of Judah set forth in the first (Num. 10:14).⁶⁷ God also said, Judah shall go up first (Jud. 1:1, 2).⁶⁸ (Jud. 1:1, 2). I.E. reads, “Judah shall go up first.” Either I.E. quoted from memory and erred or he amplified the Biblical verse. According to Krinsky the reference is to Jud. 20:18. There we read, with regard to the war against Benjamin, that Israel asked of the Lord, “Who shall go up to fight Benjamin first?” Scripture tells us, And the Lord said: Judah first. According to Krinsky, I.E. combined Jud. 1:2 and 2:18.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ The verse reads, The scepter shall not depart from Judah…as long as men come to Shiloh ⁶⁷ We thus see that the tribe of Judah was pre-eminent. ⁶⁸ After the death of Joshua,…the children of Israel asked of the Lord saying: Who shall go up for us to fight against the Canaanites, to fight against them? And the Lord said: Judah shall go up

[NOR THE RULER’S STAFF.] A scribe (mechokek) who will write (she-yachok) in a book.⁶⁹ (ruler’s staff) as scribe. The root chet, kof, kof means to inscribe. Cf. Is. 30:8, And inscribe (chukkah) it in a book. Thus mechokek is an inscriber, i.e., a scribe.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ I.E. renders mechokek

[FROM BETWEEN HIS FEET.] Scribes sit at the feet of the ruler.⁷⁰

footnotes: ⁷⁰ According to Cohen.

SHILOH. Some interpret Shiloh as Onkelos does. They say that it means “his.”⁷¹ (literally, until shiloh cometh) as until the Messiah, to whom is the kingdom (shiloh meaning shelo, his) cometh. I.E. says that it is possible to so interpret the verse but to apply it to David rather than to the Messiah (Filwarg). Others say that Shiloh comes from the same root as u-ve-shilyatah (and against her afterbirth) (Deut. 28:57).⁷² means the afterbirth, or placenta and, by extension, the child which was in the placenta. The meaning of ad ki yavo shiloh thus is: until the child comes, the reference being until David from the house of Judah comes (Filwarg). Krinsky and Weiser apply it to the Messiah. Filwarg’s interpretation seems to be correct in view of the fact that I.E. explicitly states that this verse applies to David. Others connect it to the Rabbinic term shalil (embryo).⁷³ There is also a commentator who says that shiloh refers to the city Shilo. He would explain yavo to mean goeth down, as in and the sun goeth down (ba) (Eccles. 1:5).⁷⁴ means until Shilo goeth down (is destroyed). Or he would maintain that our verse is abridged and should read as if written ad ki yavo ketz shilo (until the end of Shiloh comes).⁷⁵ For it is written, And he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh (Ps. 78:60), and then, He chose David also His servant (Ps. 78:70). The latter interpretation is also not implausible. It is also possible that Shiloh means his son, with the heh taking the place of the vav,⁷⁶ means his son, then the word should end in a vav rather than in a heh, as the vav with a cholem suffixed to a noun is the sign of the pronoun his. I.E. here accepts the interpretation that shiloh means his son. However, he connects it to the words tashleh rather than to shelil or shilyah as was done above (Filwarg). as in the word oholoh (his tent) (Gen. 9:21), and that the word shiloh comes from the same root as tashleh (give birth) in lo tashleh oti (don’t cause me to give birth) (II Kings 4:28).⁷⁷

footnotes: ⁷¹ Onkelos renders ad ki yavo shiloh ⁷² That is, it means a child. Shilyah ⁷³ The interpretation being the same as in the note above. ⁷⁴ See note 29. And ad ki yavo shilo ⁷⁵ Cohen. That is, Judah’s pre-eminence will continue throughout the period of Shiloh and when that is destroyed, it will be superseded by the royal line of David. ⁷⁶ If shiloh ⁷⁷ Don’t pray to God that I should give birth (Weiser, Cherez).

[OBEDIENCE.] The word yikkehat (obedience of) is similar to the word li-kehat in to obey (li-kehat) his mother (Prov. 30:17).⁷⁸ meaning obedience. The yod of yikkehat is a third person imperfect prefix.⁷⁹ prefixed to a verb is the sign of the third person future. The meaning of ve-lo yikkehat ammim is that nations shall obey him. Jacob’s prophecy came true, for we find that many nations were subservient to David and his son Solomon. Our phrase (v. 10) does not mean that the sceptre shall depart from Judah when David comes.⁸⁰ Our verse may be compared to someone saying, so and so will not lack bread until the time that he will have many vineyards and fields. For I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of, viz., returning you to the land of Canaan (Gen. 28:15), is identical.⁸¹

footnotes: ⁷⁸ They both come from the root kof, heh, tov ⁷⁹ A yod ⁸⁰ According to I.E. our verse reads: the scepter shall not depart from Judah…until his son (David) comes. This implies that when David comes, the scepter shall depart from Judah. ⁸¹ Krinsky, Weiser.

BINDING. The yod of oseri (binding) is superfluous.⁸². It is similar to the superflous yods of ha-yoshevi (that are enthroned) (Ps. 123:1)⁸³. and le-susati (to a steed) (Cant. 1:9)⁸⁴. both of which are superfluous.

footnotes: ⁸² The usual form is oser ⁸³ The usual form is ha-yoshev ⁸⁴ The usual form is le-susah

HIS FOAL. Iroh (his foal) is similar to ayarim (ass colts) in on thirty ass colts (ayarim) (Jud. 10:4).⁸⁵ and it means a young and vigorous male ass. The heh of iroh is in place of a vav as is indicated by the keri (Krinsky).

footnotes: ⁸⁵ The singular is ayir

The yod of beni (colt) in beni atono (his ass’s colt) is superfluous.⁸⁶ is a variation of ben atono. Beni thus does not mean my son. The meaning of our verse then is: Binding his foal unto the vine and binding his ass’s colt unto the choice vine, for the word binding is to be read as if written twice.⁸⁷ and to his ass’s colt. This translation follows Vat. Ebr. 38 which reads, “ve-yehi perusho oseri la-gefen…ki…, and its meaning is: Binding his foal…because oseri is to be read as if written twice.” The printed text reads, “o yehiyeh pirusho ki…or its meaning is because oseri is to be read as if written twice.” This reading is impossible. It implies that according to the first interpretation (that the yod of oseri is superfluous) oseri does not apply to the second part of the verse. However, according to the first interpretation oseri also refers to the second part of the verse as well, for how else can we interpret And his ass’s colt unto the choice vine, except by: And binding his ass’s colt unto the choice vine. Both Filwarg and Cherez note that I.E.’s comment as written in the printed text is incomprehensible. They suggest their own emendation. However, the reading in Vat. Ebr. 38 eliminates most of the difficulties. The reading in the printed texts probably arose because a scribe omitted Binding his foal, etc., and a latter scribe changed ve-yehiyeh to o yehiyeh in an attempt to make sense out of the remaining fragment. However, he failed to do so.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Beni atono ⁸⁷ The text has “binding” once. I.E. notes that it applies both to his foal

UNTO THE CHOICE VINE. Scripture repeats the same idea in different words, for sorekah (vine) means the same as gefen, and ayir (foal) the same as aton.

Similarly, And his vesture in the blood of grapes.⁸⁸. Some say that suto (his vesture) is the word kesuto (his vesture) with the kaf missing.⁸⁹ comes from the root caf, samekh, heh which gives us the noun kesut (a covering, a vesture) (Cherez). However, I believe that sutoh comes from the same root as masveh (veil) (Ex. 34:33).⁹⁰ is samekh, vav, heh. Both opinions agree that sutoh means a vesture. They differ only in explaining the word’s origin. The meaning of our verse is that his vineyards will produce so many grapes that Judah will bind⁹¹ as in Vat. Ebr. 38. his foal to the vine and he will not care if the animal eats of the grapes; and he will have so much wine that he will wash his garments in wine rather than in water. Scripture terms wine the blood of grapes because wine is red.⁹². The Bible speaks figuratively here, as it does in And it shall come to pass in that day, That the mountains shall drop down sweet wine, And the hills shall flow with milk (Joel 4:18). The land will produce so much wine that Judah will be called “red eyes” because of the great amount of wine that he will drink. ⁹³ He will be so called because the eyes of one who drinks much wine look red.⁹⁴. Similarly Judah’s teeth will be white from the large amount of milk that he will drink.⁹⁵. 38. The printed texts have “from eating milk.” But milk is drunk not eaten. The verse literally reads: and his teeth white from milk. I.E. interprets accordingly.

footnotes: ⁸⁸ Which means the same as his garments in wine ⁸⁹ Thus sutoh ⁹⁰ In this case the root of sutoh ⁹¹ Reading ye’esor ⁹² Cf. Prov. 23:31, Look not thou upon the wine when it is red ⁹³ The verse literally reads: red eyes from wine. I.E. interprets accordingly. ⁹⁴ Cf. Prov. 23:29, 30, Who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine ⁹⁵ So Vat. Ebr

AND HIS TEETH WHITE. U-leven (white) is an adjective modifying shinnayim (teeth).⁹⁶ means white teeth not whiteness of teeth; hence he points out that u-leven is an adjective (Filwarg). Shinnayim is in the dual form because the teeth are arranged in two sets.⁹⁷ (ears), yadayim (hands). However, there is more than one tooth in the mouth. Hence the plural of shen (tooth) should not be in the dual form. I.E. thus explains that shinayyim is in the dual form because teeth come in two sets, an upper and a lower. Saadiah Gaon, of blessed memory, explains His eyes shall based with wine to mean that his eyes shall be redder than wine. He similarly explains And his teeth white with milk to mean that his teeth shall be whiter than milk.⁹⁸ (with wine), and me-chalav (with milk). The mem can have the meaning more than. Thus mi-yayin can mean more than wine, and me-chalav, more than milk. Others say that And his teeth white with milk means that he will not eat an unclean thing and will not follow what his eyes see.⁹⁹ The latter is a ridiculous homily.¹⁰⁰

footnotes: ⁹⁶ I.E.’s point is that u-leven shinnayim ⁹⁷ The dual form is usually limited to nouns that come in pairs, i.e., oznayim ⁹⁸ The Hebrew reads mi-yayin ⁹⁹ According to Krinsky the reference is to an oath that Judah took to be especially scrupulous in what he would eat and what he would look upon (women). Judah considered certain permitted foods as “unclean” and abstained from them. Judah took his oath of superpiety after the incident of Tamar (Gen. 39) as a form of penance and to ensure that henceforth he would act more saintly. ¹⁰⁰ It implies that the other brothers were not as saintly as Judah in that they did not take the same oath that Judah did (Krinsky). Or this interpretation is extremely far fetched because there is no allusion to it in the text.

Jacob at first enumerated the tribes¹⁰¹. in the order of their birth. However, he listed Zebulun before Issachar because Issachar’s inheritance fell between Zebulun and Dan.¹⁰²

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ Jacob in prophesying about his children first prophesied about the sons of Leah, then about the sons of the handmaids, and finally concerning the sons of Rachel. In prophesying about the sons of Leah, Jacob followed the order of their birth. However, in prophesying concerning the sons of the handmaidens he did not follow the order of their birth. That is what I.E. means by Jacob at first listed the tribes in order of their birth ¹⁰² Hence Issachar is listed between Zebulun and Dan. Cf. Josh. 19.

AT THE SHORE OF THE SEA. This, too, is proof that Jacob prophesied.¹⁰³ The meaning of le-chof (at the shore) is, at the border of. It comes from the same root as chofef (covereth) in He covereth (chofef) him all the day (Deut. 33:12). The border of the sea is called chof because it “covers” the boats as boats cannot be anchored in places that are open to the wind.¹⁰⁴) protects or covers (chofef) the ships. Weiser suggests that what I.E. means by border is an inlet where the ships are anchored for protection.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ This verse is obviously a prophecy that Zebulun would inherit a portion which borders on the sea shore in the land of Israel. This supports I.E.’s contention that Jacob’s final words to his children recorded in Chap. 49 are prophesies. Cf. I.E.’s comments on verse 1. ¹⁰⁴ Thus the border or shore (chof

AND HIS FLANK SHALL BE UPON ZIDON. His flank shall extend to Zidon.¹⁰⁵

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ His border shall extend to Zidon (Weiser)

ISSACHAR IS A LARGE-BONED ASS. Jacob compared Issachar to an ass whose bones are heavy.¹⁰⁶ Chamor (ass) is in the construct with garem (bones).¹⁰⁷ thus means an ass (chamor) of heavy bones (garem), rather than a heavy-boned ass. I.E.’s point is that garem is not an adjective modifying chamor (Filwarg, Weiser). Due to the heaviness of his bones, he is wont to couch.¹⁰⁸

footnotes: ¹⁰⁶ That is, strong (Krinsky). ¹⁰⁷ Chamor garem ¹⁰⁸ According to Filwarg. The point is that this type of beast carries heavy loads and therefore often couches down to rest when burdened. It should be noted that I.E. is vague and that Weiser, Cherez and Krinsky offer other interpretations.

BETWEEN THE SHEEPFOLDS. Ben ha-mishpatayim (between the sheepfolds) means between the arranged rows.¹⁰⁹ It is possible that mishpatayim comes from the same root as tishpot (arrange) in Lord, Thou wilt arrange (tishpot) peace for us (Is. 26:12).

footnotes: ¹⁰⁹ I.E. does not tell us what he means by “arranged rows.” The reference may be to the burdens borne by the ass which are arranged in two rows, one on the right side of the animal and one on the left (Krinsky), or to the rows of the sheep-folds (Weiser).

FOR HE SAW A RESTING-PLACE THAT IT WAS GOOD. When Issachar saw that his land and resting-place were pleasant, he, as an ass, bowed his shoulder to bear any and all burdens and became as a servant that pays levies. Scripture says this concerning Issachar because this tribe did not consist of warriors and its men did not want to leave their homes to go to war. Moses similarly said concerning Issachar, Rejoice…Issachar, in thy tents (Deut. 33:18). The levy mentioned in our verse may refer to Issachar’s payment of a money levy to the king in Israel in lieu of furnishing soldiers for his army, or it may refer to a payment of money to foreign nations that they should not attack them.¹¹⁰. 38 reads, “or to foreign nations who attacked them.” The point is that the tribe of Issachar were as servants (mas oved) because they paid a levy either to the king of Israel or to foreign nations.

footnotes: ¹¹⁰ Vat. Ebr

DAN SHALL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE. Jacob hinted that Dan, although born of a handmaid, would have a standard just as the tribes born of the wives did.¹¹¹ Dan was thus a ruler over all the other tribes that were descended from the handmaids.¹¹², i.e., he shall be a ruler over the tribes descended from the handmaids.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ For the standards see Num. 2. The four tribes with standards were: Reuben, Judah, Ephraim and Dan. The first three were descended from Jacob’s wives, Dan was the son of Bilhah, Rachael’s handmaid. ¹¹² This explains Dan shall judge his people

[A SERPENT.] Jacob compared Dan in his strength to a serpent.¹¹³ It is also possible that shefifon (a horned snake) comes from the same root as yeshufekha (they shall bruise thy) in they shall bruise thy (yeshufekha) head (Gen. 3:15).¹¹⁴ means a snake. It is so called because it bruises (Krinsky). According to this interpretation shefifon ale orach (a horned snake in the path) means the same as nachash ale derech (a serpent in the way).

footnotes: ¹¹³ Scripture says that Dan shall be a serpent in the way. I.E. points out that Jacob compared Dan to a serpent only with regard to his ability to harm his enemies. ¹¹⁴ Hence shefifon

[I WAIT FOR THY SALVATION, O LORD.] When the serpent bites the horse’s heel, it is afraid that the rider will smash its head with his sword. Hence the prophet prayed, I wait for Thy salvation, O Lord.¹¹⁵), he is not out of danger. The rider can still kill him. Hence Jacob prayed that God be with Dan so that when he struck his enemy he would escape safely. The “thy” of Thy salvation refers to Dan.¹¹⁶ of li-shu’atekha (for thy salvation) does not refer to God but to Dan. I.E. interprets thus because he believes our verse to be a prayer to God on behalf of Dan. The meaning of our verse is: I trust to God for thy salvation. It is also possible that Scripture employs a noun (salvation) in place of an infinitive.¹¹⁷ (for thy salvation) as if written le-hoshi’akha. The latter is a verb, the former a noun. Our verse should thus be rendered: I trust that God will save thee. Thy salvation in We will shout for joy in thy salvation (Ps. 20:6) is similar.¹¹⁸ does not refer to God. The aforementioned is the case whether the “thy” of thy salvation (Ps. 20:6) refers to King David or to the anointed, his son.¹¹⁹ suffixed to yeshu’ah (salvation or victory) does not refer to God. The same holds true in our verse (Filwarg, Cherez). Vat. Ebr. 38 reads, “Thy salvation (thy victory) is similar in that “thy” refers either to David or to the anointed his son.” Rabbi Samuel Ha-Nagid says that the word va-yomer has been omitted from our clause and it should be read as if written: and he will say (va-yomer), I wait for Thy salvation, O Lord.¹²⁰ is Dan, i.e., Dan after biting the horse’s heel will say, I wait for Thy salvation, O Lord (Filwarg). According to this interpretation “thy” in Thy salvation refers to God. Rabbi Isaac¹²¹ explains our verse as follows: when the prophet Jacob prophetically saw his son Dan in the form of a serpent, he was overtaken by fright and exclaimed, “Save me, O Lord.”¹²². According to this interpretation also, “thy” in Thy salvation refers to God. The reason for Jacob’s fright was explained by I.E. at the beginning of his comment.

footnotes: ¹¹⁵ When the serpent strikes (that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider falleth backward ¹¹⁶ The caf ¹¹⁷ I.E. interprets li-shu’atekha ¹¹⁸ Here, too, the “thy” in thy salvation ¹¹⁹ The Messiah (Cherez). Any of the Judean kings descended from David (Weiser). The point is that the caf ¹²⁰ The subject of va-yomer ¹²¹ According to Weiser, the reference is to Rabbi Isaac, one of the early Gaonim of Sura. ¹²² “Save me, O Lord” is a paraphrase of, I wait for Thy salvation, O Lord

GAD. Jacob prophesied that a troop (an army) would attack Gad but that he would ultimately be victorious.¹²³, heel meaning in the end. Cf. I.E.’s comments on Gen. 3:15.

footnotes: ¹²³ This is the meaning of But he shall troop upon their heel

SHALL TROOP UPON HIM. Yegudennu (shall troop upon him) is similar to yegudennu (he invadeth) in the people that he invadeth (yegudennu) (Hab. 3:16).¹²⁴ (Gad, a troop shall troop upon him) means, Gad, a troop shall invade or attack him. Yagud (he shall troop), like gedud (a troop), comes from the root gimel, dalet, dalet.¹²⁵ (a troop), yegudennu (shall troop upon him) and yagud (he shall troop) all come from the same double root, gimel, dalet, dalet. That gedud comes from this root is obvious. That yagud and yegudennu (yagud plus the suffix nu) come from this root is not as apparent. Double root letters are vocalized with a cholam and ayin vav roots with a shuruk in the kal imperfect. It thus appears that yagud and yegudennu come from the root gimel, vav, dalet, hence I.E.’s comment. It is vocalized with a shuruk in place of a cholam like the word yarun (doth sing) in But the righteous doth sing (yarun) and rejoice (Prov. 29:6).¹²⁶ comes from the root resh, nun, nun, so it should have been vocalized yaron. We thus see that at times a double root is vocalized as an ayin vav (Cherez). We do not know exactly to what incident Jacob was referring because we don’t know all the tribulations that our ancestors endured.¹²⁷

footnotes: ¹²⁴ Hence Gad gedud yegudennu ¹²⁵ I. E.’s point is that gedud ¹²⁶ Yarun ¹²⁷ Cherez. We do not know when the tribe of Gad was attacked by an invading army.

AS FOR ASHER. Some say that the mem of me-asher (as for Asher) is superfluous.¹²⁸ prefixed to their names (Weiser). Our verse should thus be translated: Asher, his bread shall be fat. However, I believe that what our clause means is: from the land of Asher “fat bread” will come.¹²⁹. 38 which reads lechem shamen. Our texts have lechem va-shemen (bread and oil). However, this reading is incorrect in view of I.E.’s interpretation of shemenah as being an adjective of lechem. See next note. According to this interpretation the mem prefixed to Asher is a preposition meaning from. Bread in our verse is in the feminine.¹³⁰ (his bread shall be fat). Shemenah is a feminine, the masculine being shamen. In other places lechem is in the masculine, i.e., Num. 4:7; I Sam. 9:7. We find the same to be the case with the words house,¹³¹ (house) is masculine in Deut. 22:8 and feminine in II Kings 15:5. place,¹³² (place) is masculine in Gen. 1:9 and feminine in Job 20:9. hand,¹³³ (hand) is masculine in Ezek. 2:9 and feminine in Ex. 14:31. Yad is generally feminine. fire,¹³⁴ (fire) is masculine in Ps. 104:4 and feminine in Num. 16:35. eye,¹³⁵ (eye) is masculine in Prov. 4:25 and feminine in Gen. 3:7. Ayin is generally feminine. wind,¹³⁶ (wind) is masculine in Job 1:19 and feminine in Gen. 1:2. land,¹³⁷ is masculine in Is. 9:18 and feminine in Gen. 1:2. Eretz is generally feminine. chest¹³⁸ (chest) is masculine in Num. 10:33 and feminine in I Sam. 4:17. It is generally masculine. and people.¹³⁹ (people) is masculine in Gen. 11:6 and feminine in Ex. 5:16. Am is usually masculine.

footnotes: ¹²⁸ None of the other tribes have a mem ¹²⁹ Or fat food, following Vat. Ebr ¹³⁰ The text reads, shemenah lachmo ¹³¹ Bayit ¹³² Makom ¹³³ Yad ¹³⁴ Esh ¹³⁵ Ayin ¹³⁶ Ru’ach ¹³⁷ Eretz ¹³⁸ Aron ¹³⁹ Am

[ROYAL DAINTIES.] The meaning of ma’adanne melekh (royal dainties) is known.¹⁴⁰ (and he shall yield royal dainties) is that Asher will provide kings with food for their enjoyment. He will do so because his land is very fertile and produces the choicest foods (Cherez). Moses similarly said concerning Asher, And let him dip his foot in oil (Deut. 33:24).¹⁴¹

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ The meaning of ve-hu yitten ma’adanne melekh ¹⁴¹ Moses similarly said that Asher’s land would be fertile, for the aforementioned is the meaning of Moses’ blessing (Deut. 33:24).

NAPHTALI IS A HIND LET LOOSE. The word sheluchah (let loose) means a gift,¹⁴² (shilluchim) unto his daughter. The meaning of Naphtali is a hind let loose thus is: Naphtali is as beloved and as beautiful as a hind given as a gift (Weiser). Filwarg suggests rendering: Naphtali has a land which is as precious as a hind given as a gift. and the one who receives such a gift responds with goodly words.¹⁴³ cannot refer to ayyalah (hind) which is feminine. Hence it must refer to the one receiving the gift. Others say that hind refers to Deborah and that He giveth goodly words alludes to Barak who joined her in a song to God.¹⁴⁴ Scripture mentions Naphtali¹⁴⁵ (Jud. 4:5). The latter indicates that Deborah was not a Naphtalite. The question arises, “If Deborah was not a Naphtalite why mention her in a prophecy which pertains to Naphtali?” I.E. answers that Barak, the general whom Deborah inspired to lead Israel to victory and who joined her in song to God, came from the tribe of Naphtali. Cf. Jud. 4:6, Barak…out of Kedesh-naphtali. because Barak came from the tribe of Naphtali.¹⁴⁶.

footnotes: ¹⁴² I Kings 9:16, and given it for a portion ¹⁴³ He giveth ¹⁴⁴ Cf. Jud. 5:1. ¹⁴⁵ Scripture tells us that Deborah sat…in the hill country of Ephraim ¹⁴⁶ Filwarg suggests rendering, “Scripture mentions Naphtali because the battle in which Deborah and Barak played a key role took place in the territory of Naphtali.” The literal reading of I.E. is, Scripture mentions Naphtali because of his inheritance

JOSEPH IS A FRUITFUL VINE. Ben means a branch¹⁴⁷ means a son. Metaphorically speaking, the branch is the son of the tree. Hence ben can also mean a branch (Cherez). and it is a feminine noun.¹⁴⁸ is usually masculine. However, porat is feminine. Thus ben in ben porat yosef (Joseph is a fruitful branch) has to be feminine. If ben was masculine our phrase would read ben poreh yosef. Ben in And the branch (ben) that Thou madest strong for Thyself (Ps. 80:16) has a similar meaning. Grammatically speaking porat (fruitful) is a po’elet. A feminine singular participle can come in two paradigms,¹⁴⁹ and po’elet, examples of which are oyevah and oyevet. A more common example would be kotevah and kotevet, or shomerah and shomeret. The translation follows Vat. Ebr. 38. Our texts have oyeveha and oyavti. The latter appears to be a scribal error (Weiser, Krinsky, Cherez). viz., oyevah and oyevet, and similarly porah and porat.¹⁵⁰ is a po’alah and porat is a po’elet. The word porat is related to the word poriyyah (fruitful) (Ps. 128:3). There is a commentator who connects porat to the word porot (branches) in And brought forth branches (porot) (Ezek. 17:6).¹⁵¹ means a plant and porat a branch. According to this interpretation ben porat yosef means Joseph is a plant containing branches (Krinsky). The Bible repeats the phrase ben porot twice in succession, for that is Hebrew style. Compare, For, lo, Thine enemies, O Lord, For, lo, Thine enemies shall perish (Ps. 92:10). The repetition of a phrase indicates permanence. According to the second quoted interpretation¹⁵² is related to porot (in Ezek. 17:6) a tav has been substituted for a heh¹⁵³. If porat means a branch then our verse should have read ben porah, since porah is the singular of porot (branches). Thus porat is a variation of porah. as in the case of the tav of ve-shavat (then it shall return) in then it shall return (ve-shavat) to the prince (Ezek. 46:17).¹⁵⁴ instead of ve-shavat. Thus we see that a tav has been substituted for a heh.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁷ Ben ¹⁴⁸ Ben ¹⁴⁹ The two paradigms being po’alah ¹⁵⁰ Porah ¹⁵¹ In this case ben ¹⁵² That porat ¹⁵³ In the word porat ¹⁵⁴ The verse should have read ve-shavah

[ITS BRANCHES RUN OVER THE WALL.] Joseph was as a fruitful vine. He gave birth to branches, each one of which ran over the wall; i.e., the branches were so tall that they ran over fortified walls.¹⁵⁵ (wall) to mean a wall which serves a defensive purpose (Krinsky). Such walls are high and strong. I.E. is saying that the branches grew very high (Cohen) or that the branches were so tall that they needed a mighty wall to support them (Krinsky). Scripture here combines banot (branches) with tza’adah (run)¹⁵⁶ is a noun in the plural, while tza’adah is a verb in the singular. If consistent, the text should read, banot tza’adu. I.E. explains that the combination of plural and singular means each one of the branches will run over the wall. in a manner similar to Dead flies (zevuve) make the ointment of the perfumer fetid (yavish) (Eccles. 10:1). ¹⁵⁷ is in the plural and yavish is in the singular. The meaning of this verse is that each one of the dead flies makes the ointment of the perfumer fetid. Cf. I.E.’s comments on Eccles. 10:1.

footnotes: ¹⁵⁵ I.E. explains shur ¹⁵⁶ Banot ¹⁵⁷ Wherein zevuve

HAVE DEALT BITTERLY WITH HIM. Rabbi Samuel Ha-Nagid explains this verse as meaning: they set his gall for a target (va-yemareruhu)¹⁵⁸ means gall, hence Rabbi Samuel Ha-Nagid’s interpretation. and then the archers shot at him (va-robbu).¹⁵⁹, as in Vat. Ebr. 38. The word rabbim (archers) in Call together the archers (rabbim) against Babylon, All them that bend the bow (Jer. 50:29) is similar to va-robbu in our verse. ¹⁶⁰ means archers. Va-robbu is its verbal form. The root of the word is resh, bet, bet. His archers compass me round about…He poureth out my gall upon the ground (Job 16:13) is similar to our verse.¹⁶¹

footnotes: ¹⁵⁸ Mererah ¹⁵⁹ Reading yaru ¹⁶⁰ We thus see that the word rabbim ¹⁶¹ In that it speaks of the gall as a target for archers (Cherez).

AND HATED HIM. First they hated him and then they set up his gall as a target. We must thus explain va-yistemuhu to mean, and they had hated him.¹⁶² (and hated him) follows va-robbu (and they shot at him).

footnotes: ¹⁶² Va-yistemuhu

Logically, va-yistemuhu should come first, i.e., the sequence should be they hated him, they set his gall as a target, and they shot at thim. Hence va-yistemuhu should be taken as a pluperfect (Weiser). This¹⁶³ alludes to Joseph’s brothers who sold him into slavery.

footnotes: ¹⁶³ The archers who hated and shot at Joseph.

BUT HIS BOW ABODE FIRM. His bow abode in a firm place.¹⁶⁴ literally means in firm, which is short for be-makom etan (in a firm place) (Weiser).

footnotes: ¹⁶⁴ Be-etan

WERE MADE SUPPLE. Va-yafozzu means, and they strengthened themselves. I believe that va-yafozzu comes from the same root as mefazzez (leaping) (II Sam. 6:16).¹⁶⁵ There are those who connect va-yafozzu to the word paz (pure gold).¹⁶⁶ (and the arms of his hand were made supple) to mean, and the arms of his hand were gilded, an allusion to the golden ring Pharaoh gave him. Cf. Rashi. However, their interpretation makes no sense.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁵ One who leaps gathers up strength (Filwarg). One who leaps strengthens (tightens) his girdle (Cherez quoting Kimchi). ¹⁶⁶ They explain va-yafozzu zero’e yadav

The meaning of our text (v. 23 and 24) is that the archers hated Joseph and gathered together to spill his gall. However, his adversaries were afraid of him because his bow and hands were strong. They therefore could not overcome him.

BY THE HANDS OF THE MIGHTY ONE OF JACOB. FROM THENCE. The Mighty One of Jacob alludes to the Lord. From the power that Joseph received from the Mighty One of Jacob he was able to become, and indeed became, “the shepherd of the stone of Israel.”¹⁶⁷ refers to the children of Israel (Cherez). And so it was, for we read, And Joseph sustained his father, and his brethren, and all his father’s household, with bread (Gen. 47:12). Jacob employed the term Mighty One of Jacob for God¹⁶⁸ because God knew of his deep love for Joseph.¹⁶⁹. means: you became the shepherd of the stone (children) of Israel from the power that came to you from the God who knew of my deep love for you.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ The Stone of Israel ¹⁶⁸ Jacob could have employed the term, the Mighty One of Abraham or the Mighty One of Isaac (Krinsky). ¹⁶⁹ Joseph became “the shepherd of Israel” because of Jacob’s merit. God chose Joseph for this great honor and thereby elevated him above all his brothers because the Lord knew Jacob’s love for Joseph. Hence By the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob etc

The meaning of stone is the very thing.¹⁷⁰ represents essence, the very thing. The reference is to Jacob and his family. Cf. Rashi. Some say¹⁷¹ that mi-sham (from thence) should be interpreted from that time. However, we never find the word sham (there) to have this meaning anywhere in Scripture. This commentator also interprets the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel as meaning: the one whose heart died and was as stone,¹⁷² but who revived to feed (ro’eh), i.e., to live by eating. However, this interpretation is farfetched.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁰ Stone ¹⁷¹ The reference is to Rabbi Isaac ibn Giat (Weiser, Cherez). ¹⁷² The reference is to Jacob whose heart died within him when he was told that Joseph was alive (Gen. 45:26,27). In I Sam. 25:37 such an experience is described as the heart turning to stone (Weiser, Cherez). According to Krinsky the reference is to Jacob and his family who would have died (their hearts would have turned to stone) had Joseph not fed them.

EVEN BY THE GOD OF THY FATHER. I believe that this verse is connected to the preceding one.¹⁷³ literally reads, from the God (me’el). This term presents a problem. What came from God? I.E.’s answer is that from God refers to Joseph’s power which is referred to in the previous verse. Its meaning is: the power which you possess came to you from the God of thy father, who shall help thee. The mem of me-el (even by God) is also to be prefixed to ve-et (and by).¹⁷⁴ is to be read as if written u-me-et (and from by). The mem of me-el is like the bet of be-el (as God) (Ex. 6:3) which is also to be prefixed to u-ve-shemi (but by my name).¹⁷⁵ (be-el shaddai) but my name (u-shemi) YHVH I made Me not known to them. According to I.E. we should read the aforementioned as if written: and I appeared…as God Almighty (be-el shaddai) but with My name (u-ve-shemi) YHVH I made Me not known to them. Thus And from the Almighty, who shall bless thee repeats the idea contained in From the God of thy father, who shall help thee. Saadiah Gaon explains the phrase me-el avikha to mean, I will ask of the God of thy fathers.¹⁷⁶. He explained from the God not as connected to the previous verse, but as a new thought; viz., I will ask of the God of thy fathers that he help thee and of the Almighty that he bless thee (Cherez). It is possible that With blessings of heaven above is connected to, From the God of thy father.¹⁷⁷. It similarly rejects the notion that verse 25 is connected to verse 24. It, too, sees in verse 25 a new thought. It explains From the God as relating to the blessings mentioned in the second half of the verse, which shall come to you from the God of thy father. The meaning of our text is explained by They (the blessings) shall be on the head of Joseph, And on the crown of the prince among his brethren (v. 26).¹⁷⁸

footnotes: ¹⁷³ Even by God ¹⁷⁴ That is, ve-et ¹⁷⁵ Our text is thus to be read as if written: From the God of thy father who shall help thee, and from the Almighty who shall bless thee. Ex. 6:3 literally reads: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty ¹⁷⁶ Saadiah, too, was bothered by the term from the God ¹⁷⁷ This interpretation, like the previous one, deals with the problem of verse 25 opening with the words From the God ¹⁷⁸ Verse 26 seems to conclude the blessing started in verse 25. The sequence thus appears to be: From God shall come to you blessings of the heavens above, of the deep that coucheth beneath, blessings of the breasts and womb. The aforementioned blessings shall be added to my mighty blessings and to the blessings of my progenitors and shall be on the head of Joseph and on the crown of the head of the prince among his brethren (Krinsky).

BLESSSINGS OF THE DEEP. Moses similarly said, And for the precious things of the earth and the fullness thereof (Deut. 33:13).¹⁷⁹ (Deut. 33:13). In this case I.E. is pointing out that Jacob and Moses’ blessings are identical. The word tehom (the deep) is feminine both in our verse and in Deut. (33:16). It is similarly feminine in The deep (tehom) made it to grow (Ezek. 31:4).¹⁸⁰ (the deep that coucheth). Deut. 33:13 reads, u-mi-tehom rovetzet (and for the deep that coucheth). Rovetzet (coucheth) is feminine, hence tehom (the deep) must be feminine. Ezek. 31:4 reads, tehom romematehu (the deep made it to grow). Since romematehu is feminine, tehom, too, must be feminine. I.E. makes this point because tehom is masculine in Ps. 42:8. Thus we see that tehom is both masculine and feminine. The meaning of With blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that coucheth beneath is that rain will descend from the heavens above upon the land of Joseph and that the deep which coucheth beneath the earth will fill its rivers and springs with an abundance of water.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ So Cherez. The point is that the blessing of the deep means that the land will be well watered and fertile, as Moses blessed the tribe of Joseph with a fertile land. Krinsky suggests that our text is corrupt and that the proof text should read: For the precious things of heaven, for the dew, And for the deep that coucheth beneath ¹⁸⁰ Our verse reads, tehom rovetzet

BLESSINGS OF THE BREASTS, AND OF THE WOMB. Jacob likened the breasts to heaven and the womb to the earth,¹⁸¹. According to I.E. breast and womb are similar to heaven and earth in that they produce life-giving substance and bring forth fruit. Hence they are included in the same verse. its meaning being that Joseph will be blessed with many children.¹⁸² The opposite of this blessing is the curse, Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts (Hos. 9:14).

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ Our verse reads, With blessings of heaven…Blessings of the deep…Blessings of the breasts, and of the womb ¹⁸² For an alternate interpretation see Krinsky and Cherez.

THE BLESSINGS OF THY FATHER. These blessings which I have blessed you with are mighty and are added to the blessing with which my progenitors blessed me.¹⁸³) plus the blessings with which my begetters blessed me (al birkat horai). Cherez explains that I.E. interprets al (beyond) as meaning im (with, plus).

footnotes: ¹⁸³ The point being, may you be blessed with the mighty blessings with which I bless you (birkat avikhah gaveru

[PROGENITORS.] Horai is to be rendered my begetters.¹⁸⁴ is heh, resh, heh which means to be pregnant or to conceive. However, inasmuch as horai is in the plural it must refer to both Jacob’s mother and father. We obviously cannot explain horai as meaning the ones who bore me. Rather it must be interpreted to mean the ones who begot me (Cherez). Va-tahar (and she gave birth to) in and she gave birth to (va-tahar) Miriam (I Chron. 4:17)¹⁸⁵ does not means to conceive or be pregnant with, for Chronicles deals with births and not with pregnancies. Thus va-tahar in I Chron. 4:17 means she gave birth to. and horah (brought forth) in, A man-child is brought forth (horah) (Job 3:3)¹⁸⁶ does not mean to conceive but to bring forth, for its parallel reads ivvaled (I was born). are similar.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁴ The root of horai ¹⁸⁵ Here, too, the root heh, resh, heh ¹⁸⁶ Here, too, the root heh, resh, heh

UNTO THE UTMOST BOUND. Ta’avat (utmost bound of) comes from the same root as ve-hitavvitem (and ye shall mark out your line) (Num. 34:10). The meaning of our verse is: these blessings will be as high as the line marked out by the everlasting hills.

THE PRINCE AMONG HIS BRETHREN. Nezir (prince of) comes from the same root as nezer (crown).¹⁸⁷ (Nazirite).” This reading fits in very well with I.E.’s comparison of nezir to nediv, for nazir has the same vocalization as nadiv, both in the absolute and in the construct. Thus in the absolute we have nazir and nadiv and in the construct nezir and nediv. It is in the construct with echav (his brethren) and is therefore vocalized nezir. Compare, nediv lev (willing-hearted) (Ex. 35:22).

footnotes: ¹⁸⁷ It means crowned, the one who was crowned over his brethren (Krinsky, Weiser and Cherez). Filwarg suggests reading, “From the same root as nazir

BENJAMIN. Jacob compared Benjamin to a wolf because Benjamin was mighty. The men of Gibeah are proof of this.¹⁸⁸

footnotes: ¹⁸⁸ At Gibeah 26,700 Benjamites defeated an army of 400,000 Israelites. Cf. Jud. 20.

THE PREY. Ad (the prey) has the same meaning as the Aramaic word for spoil (ada).¹⁸⁹ as in Vat. Ebr. 38 rather than targum shalal as in the printed manuscripts. Also cf. Kimchi’s commentary on Is. 33:23. Similarly, ad in Then is the prey (ad) of a great spoil divided (Is. 33:23) and in Until the day that I rise up to the prey (ad) (Zeph. 3:8); and iddim (a polluted garment) (Is. 64:5).¹⁹⁰ and ed are similar. I.E. interprets ed (prey) to mean spoil..

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ Reading kemo targum shelal ¹⁹⁰ I.E. on Is. 64:5 notes that a garment taken in spoil is polluted by blood. He points out that iddim

[AND AT EVEN HE DIVIDETH.] At even he divideth among his children the prey that he has taken as spoil. Joshua says¹⁹¹ that our verse alludes to King Saul who defeated the Amalekites.¹⁹² He explains In the morning as alluding to the beginning of Israel’s kingdom¹⁹³. and at even as referring to the period of Israel’s exile with regard to Mordecai. However, this interpretation is the way of the Midrash.¹⁹⁴ 99:3 and Tanchuma 1:14; 2:15. It is hard to understand why I.E. quotes this interpretation in the name of a Karaite when it is found in the Midrash. Onkelos’ interpretation of our verse is well known.¹⁹⁵

footnotes: ¹⁹¹ A Karaite scholar. ¹⁹² Thus Saul is likened to a wolf who takes spoil. Saul defeated the Amalekites and despoiled them. Cf. I Sam. 15. ¹⁹³ At the beginning of Israel’s kingdom Saul, who came from the tribe of Benjamin, despoiled Amalek. In exile, Mordecai the Benjamite despoiled Haman who was an Amalekite. Cf. Es. 8:1,2, On that day did king Ahasuerus give the house of Haman…unto Esther the queen…And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman ¹⁹⁴ Cf. Bereshit Rabbah ¹⁹⁵ Onkelos explains the “spoil” as referring to the portions which the priests received from sacrifices offered in the temple which was erected in the territory of Benjamin.

EVERY ONE ACCORDING TO HIS BLESSING. The blessing which Jacob gave each one of his sons came to pass upon each one. The meaning of every one according to his blessing is similar in meaning to each man according to the interpretation of his dream (Gen. 41:11).¹⁹⁶. (Gen. 41:11).

footnotes: ¹⁹⁶ Joseph’s interpretation of the dreams came true for the butler and the baker, each man according to the interpretation of his dream

AND HE CHARGED THEM. He (Jacob) charged that all should go along with Joseph to bury him.¹⁹⁷ refers to bury me with my fathers. In the text they are not directly connected, hence I.E.’s comment. Krinsky points out that Jacob had made Joseph take an oath to bury him in the cave of Machpelah (Gen. 47:30). He now commanded all of his sons to join Joseph in his burial. Therefore, according to Krinsky, I.E. notes that the charge in our verse was to all of Jacob’s sons.

footnotes: ¹⁹⁷ And he charged them

HE GATHERED UP HIS FEET INTO THE BED. Until then he had been sitting on the bed with his feet dangling over its edge as is contemporarily the custom in Christian communities. The beds in Moslem countries are constructed differently from the beds in Christian countries.¹⁹⁸

footnotes: ¹⁹⁸ I.E. explains that Egyptian beds were the same as the beds used in Christian countries; hence it was possible for Jacob’s feet to dangle from his bed. However, had his bed been like those used in Moslem countries, that is, a bed that lies flat on the ground, this would have been impossible. I.E. makes this point so that readers in Moslem countries could understand how Jacob could be in bed with his feet over its side.