“How many are the days of the years of your life?” Since Pharaoh had been told that when Jacob arrived, the Nile rose to his feet [as a blessing], Pharaoh was very happy about this and thought that as long as Jacob lived, the Nile would always rise to his feet and water the face of the earth. However, when he saw Jacob and noticed that he was thin, weak, and gaunt as is typical of the elderly, Pharaoh thought that he must be extremely old and would die today or tomorrow. If so, what was there for the Egyptians to be happy about, since upon his death the Nile would return to its previous state? Therefore, he asked him how many are the days of your life? Jacob responded that the days of my sojourning are few and difficult. He specifically used the term sojourning [megurei] to indicate that his gaunt and thin appearance was not due to advanced age, but rather due to fear [magor] and terror from all sides, for what I feared has come upon me. Many bundled troubles were in my pack, all of them were upon me throughout the span of 130 years. My days have been few and difficult, and I have not reached the years of my fathers’ lives. I still hope to reach the time period [lifespan] of my father who lived 180 years. Although they too had fear from all around them, nevertheless they lived long lives — this is why he used the term sojourning [megureihem] in reference to his fathers as well.

And he transferred the people to cities. Rashi explains that this was to remove shame from his brothers so that people wouldn’t say they were exiles. However, this explanation is difficult to accept, as it seems unlikely that Joseph would disrupt the entire land for such a minor benefit. Furthermore, the term “exile and outcast” only applies to someone who had an inheritance of field and vineyard and was exiled from them. But Jacob was not a permanent resident anywhere, and all the Patriarchs were sojourners, as the state of being foreigners had already begun from Isaac’s birth. We don’t find that the Patriarchs were concerned about this. It is more reasonable to explain all this upheaval based on the verse And you shall love the stranger because you were strangers in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 10:19). For anyone who has never been a stranger does not feel the pain of the stranger and does not have compassion for the stranger’s soul. But one who has himself been a stranger knows the pain of the stranger, and what is hateful to oneself, one should not do to others. Therefore, Joseph transferred the people to cities so that they would all be strangers in a land not their own, so that they would feel the pain of the stranger. It’s possible that this was also Rashi’s intention, as this is the shame he refers to — that they would be reproached by being called exiles, with people saying “If God desired your welfare, why are you exiles?” and thus feeling justified in mistreating them. Therefore, Joseph transferred them to cities so they could respond, “You too have become weak like us” (based on Isaiah 14:10).

Another explanation: The reason why Joseph transferred them [the Egyptians] to cities was because he saw that Jacob and his sons had settled in the land of Goshen and took possession of it as their inheritance and property in the land. There was a concern that in the course of time, a tyrannical king might arise and examine the historical records of each city and its inhabitants, where the ownership of each plot of land was recorded. [If this were to happen,] the Israelites would not be found to have any ancestral rights to their properties, and none of them would be able to claim “this land belonged to my ancestors,” and they might be expelled from it. Therefore, he transferred all of them [the Egyptians] to cities, so that none of them would remain on their ancestral properties, and thus the Israelites would be equal to them, as they would all be living without established claims of ownership.

Here is seed for you: He gave them seed for the five years that were supposed to be years of famine, but the famine ended due to Jacob’s merit (Tosefta Sotah 13). Therefore, he said Here [hey, which is also the letter for the number five] is seed for you, meaning for those five years. The Kabbalists said that from the final letter “heh” of God’s name stems all offspring and everything that bears fruit. In order to make this matter memorable, he commanded them to give a fifth to Pharaoh while four parts would remain for them. There is an additional allusion that all of this was in Jacob’s merit, for just as Jacob did not consume all that was his but rather [kept] four parts and set aside a fifth portion for the Divine, as it is said and of all that You give me, I will surely give a tenth [aser a’aserenu, a double expression] to You (Genesis 28:22) — [meaning] two tithes, and the second tithe is equivalent to the first tithe, which amounts to a fifth — so too, all those who ate by virtue of his merit were required to give this contribution, consuming only four parts while setting aside a fifth. Similarly, at the beginning of the famine, he took a fifth of Egypt’s [produce], taking a fifth portion from everyone, for there God commanded the blessing, as it is written You shall surely tithe [aser te’aser] (Deuteronomy 14:22) — [meaning] two tithes. And in this matter it is permitted to test God, as it is said Test Me, if you will, in this (Malachi 3:10).

And Israel dwelled in the land of Goshen, etc. This entire verse speaks of the guilt of the Children of Israel, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, had decreed upon them your descendants will be strangers [in a foreign land], yet they sought to become permanent settlers in the very place where they were destined to be temporary residents. This is similar to what the Sages interpreted regarding Jacob: And Jacob settled — Jacob sought to dwell in tranquility, [and as a result] the turmoil of Joseph jumped upon him, etc. The verse criticizes them for this settling, as they sought permanent possession in a land that was not theirs. This was not what they had originally said to Pharaoh: to sojourn in the land we have come, which teaches that initially they had not descended to permanently settle there but rather to temporarily dwell as temporary residents. But now they went back on their words, and they became so deeply entrenched there that they did not want to leave Egypt, to the point where the Holy One, Blessed be He, had to take them out with a strong hand, and those who did not want to leave died during the three days of darkness.

And it says “they were fruitful and multiplied greatly,” and adjacent to it is And Jacob lived. This juxtaposition hints at what our Sages said (Taanit 5b) that “Jacob did not die.” The Talmud questions: “Did they then embalm him for nothing?” and resolves this by expounding a verse: Do not fear, Jacob… and your descendants will return from the land of captivity — comparing him to his descendants: just as his descendants are alive. People raise a difficulty here that this doesn’t actually answer the question about why they embalmed him. The explanation is as follows: Anyone who leaves behind children is considered as if they haven’t died, because an offspring is like an extension of its mother and “like the leg of its father” — a portion of the father is included in the son. When the son is alive, the portion of his father that is contained within him is also alive. This applies specifically to Jacob, whose “bed was complete” [all his children were righteous], as it is written that anyone who raises a righteous son is considered as if they haven’t died. This applies specifically to a righteous son, but a wicked son, who is considered as if dead even while alive — both helper and helped shall fall (Isaiah 31:3) — such a son does not bring merit to his father. Therefore, they specifically said that “Jacob did not die,” even though they embalmed him, nevertheless when his descendants are alive, the portion of him [within them] is also alive. This concept is hinted at in this juxtaposition: because “they were fruitful and multiplied greatly” and his descendants were alive, therefore Jacob lived — for he too was alive.

“And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt, etc.” Why is this portion [parsha] “closed” [written without the usual spacing]? Rather, since Jacob passed away, the [Egyptian] bondage began. Another explanation is that he [Jacob] sought to reveal the End [of Days] and it was concealed from him. Another explanation is that all the troubles of the world were concealed from him. This is the version in Genesis Rabbah (96:1). Apparently, there is no scriptural support for all these interpretations, and they all seem like prophetic statements. What appears to me regarding this matter is that we find here a “closure” that is not [even] like the usual closed portions in the Torah, which have at least some space [between them] in the measure of a closed portion, but here there is no space at all. Certainly, Ezra the Scribe’s intention was to connect the verse And Jacob lived to the verse before it: And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen, and they had possessions therein, and were fruitful, and multiplied exceedingly [followed by] And Jacob lived, etc. — as if it were all one verse. Therefore, these three interpretations differ in the exegetical meaning [of this connecting of these verses].

According to the first interpretation that teaches that once Jacob passed away the enslavement began, the connection between these two verses can be understood in the following way: Initially it states And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen, using the language of ‘dwelling’ to indicate that they had a dwelling of tranquility and rest. And they took possession indicates that they also had property ownership in the land, and they were fruitful and multiplied greatly. All of this was during the time of And Jacob lived, because during his lifetime, Jacob’s merit stood for them, enabling them to merit all these things. This implies that upon his death, his merit ceased and everything ceased — they no longer had a peaceful dwelling due to the enslavement, and certainly they had no property ownership in the land for they were slaves. Similarly, they were not permitted to be fruitful and multiply, as [the Egyptians] sought to diminish them through affliction, saying lest they multiply. According to this interpretation, Jacob’s death was the cause of the enslavement.

We can say the opposite of this — that the beginning of the bondage [in Egypt] was the cause of his death, for the Holy One, Blessed be He, shortened his years so that he did not reach the years of his forefathers, in order that he would not witness the enslavement of his children, as the time had come for they shall serve them and they shall afflict them (Genesis 15:13). Therefore it says and the days of Israel drew near to die, and our Sages of blessed memory said (Bereishit Rabbah 96:4) that anyone about whom the term “drawing near” [to death] is used did not reach the years of his forefathers. And in this way, the textual proximity is also explained, just as in the first approach. And the number 17 years that it mentions is to tell us that the selling of Joseph, who was 17 years old [when sold], caused them to dwell in peace in Egypt for only 17 years.

And according to the third interpretation that explains: Since all the troubles of the world were sealed off from him, the verse is saying that even though all his days were filled with trouble and living as a stranger, as it is written the days of my sojourning are 130 years, few and difficult, nevertheless, due to the greatness of the tranquility he had during those 17 years — when he saw his children dwelling in peace, and they took possession of the land and were fruitful and multiplied — all the previous troubles that had passed over him were forgotten and were as if they had never been. Therefore it says And the days of Jacob, the years of his life, were 147 years, because those 130 years were not considered part of his life days due to the magnitude of his troubles. And now, retroactively, they were all counted as his life years, and this is because all the troubles that had passed were sealed off from him, as if he had lived pleasant and sweet life throughout all his years, for indeed Joseph was actually alive. Therefore, And Jacob lived is connected to the previous verse. And the reason Rashi omitted this interpretation is because it appeared to him to be essentially the same as the first interpretation, as is clear to one who understands with a little contemplation.

However, regarding the second interpretation that suggests [Jacob] sought to reveal the End [of Days] and the Divine Presence departed from him, [this interpretation] comes to explain what is meant by “And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt 17 years” — what is this verse teaching us? Did we not already know that he was in Egypt for 17 years? After all, when he came before Pharaoh, he said The days of my sojourning are 130 years. If so, why was it necessary to say that he lived in Egypt for 17 years? Furthermore, why wasn’t this language used for Abraham and Isaac or the Matriarchs? Rather, this certainly comes to indicate that the Divine Presence departed from him. This is because it states above and the spirit of Jacob their father was revived, which means the Divine Presence rested upon him, as evidenced by the phrase spirit of Jacob. One might have thought that the Holy Spirit remained with him continuously until the day of his death. Therefore, the verse teaches us And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt — meaning that when he came to Egypt, Jacob lived, but not the spirit of Jacob, as the Divine Presence departed from him immediately. This happened because he said I can die this time, after seeing your face [Joseph]. Consequently, he was immediately prepared to give his final instructions before death, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, was concerned that He might reveal the End [of Days]. Therefore, the Divine Presence departed from him. However, we still don’t know the reason why the Divine Presence departed from him. Therefore, this portion is “closed” [written without the usual paragraph break] and is connected to the verse And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen. This is because it is known that great harm would come from knowing the End [of Days], as the earlier generations, knowing that the redemption would not come in their days, would not seek the presence of God to pray for redemption and transformation.

And so explained in the Akeidah, regarding the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 157:49) which states that when Jacob sought to reveal the End [of Days], the Holy One Blessed be He said But you have not called upon Me, O Jacob (Isaiah 43:22). This means that you were not concerned for My honor, because from this knowledge would follow this damage: that the earlier generations would not call upon Me nor seek My presence, and would seek to settle [in exile] as those who despair of redemption. Therefore, God concealed and sealed the final End so that in each and every generation they would seek the presence of God and David their king, and would constantly await the time of His salvation. As in our sins, this trait is found among us even in times when the End is not known. Nevertheless, many are the common people who settle in the lands of the nations and build for themselves elaborate and important houses of stone — permanent structures. Because of this, they never seek God’s presence wholeheartedly to bring them to their land, and therefore the Holy One Blessed be He leaves them there. And to this settling refers the verse And Israel dwelt in the land of Goshen — it speaks of Israel’s guilt, for they sought to be settlers and to have a possession in a land not their own. This damage came to them because the end of the Egyptian exile was known to them. Therefore, the early generations who knew with certainty that the redemption would not occur in their days sought permanent settlement and possession in the land of Egypt. This is why the verse And Jacob lived follows this verse, to indicate that this damage that extended to those generations — due to their end being known — caused And Jacob lived, but not the spirit of Jacob, for only Jacob alone was alive so that he would not reveal the final End and this damage would not spread to [future] generations.

“And the days of Israel drew near to death.” In the Midrash (Tanchuma Beracha 7) they said: The days die but they [the righteous] do not die, because as long as the righteous person is in the world, days of tranquility are found in the world, and upon his death those days of tranquility cease, and their cessation is considered their death. As it is written, as long as Jacob was alive, the [Egyptian] enslavement did not begin. But regarding Jacob himself, our Sages said that he did not die. And although every righteous person is called “living” even after death, nevertheless they specifically chose Jacob, because they interpreted regarding him (Taanit 5b): “He is compared to his offspring — just as his offspring are alive, so too he is alive.” This is because a son contains a portion of his father, and every fetus is considered an extension of its mother and father. When his offspring are alive, it is as if he too is alive — meaning, a part of him [lives on]. This specifically applies to Jacob, whose progeny was complete and all were living, active offspring. However, one who bears a wicked son, who is considered dead even while alive, in such a case the son does not bring merit to the father, for it is sufficient for that which is derived to be like that from which it is derived — and he himself is considered dead while alive, so how can his father’s portion be called alive? This is what they interpreted (Bava Batra 116) on the verse And Hadad heard in Egypt that David lay with his fathers and that Joab had died (1 Kings 11:21) — why does it mention “lying” with David and “death” with Joab? Because David left behind a righteous son like himself, unlike Joab. For this reason, the term “lying” was used with Jacob, while “death” was specifically applied to the days.

“And do with me kindness and truth, etc.” There is here a request concerning both truth and kindness. Regarding truth, this refers to something that does not expect reward in return, and regarding kindness, this refers to something that does expect reward in return. For the request he made of him to bury him — this is something that expects reward in return, as it concludes (in Moed Katan 28b) that he who buries will be buried, etc. However, what he asked of him to bury him specifically in the land of Canaan — this is kindness that does not expect reward in return. Another explanation: his request not to be buried in Egypt so that they would not make him into an object of idol worship — this is from the aspect of truth, as he was obligated to do this to remove a stumbling block from the Egyptians. But his request to be buried specifically in the land of Canaan — this is from the aspect of kindness.

Regarding what Rashi explained as three reasons for this matter, it seems appropriate to explain that they are all dependent on each other. The reason that they [the Egyptians] would not make him into an idol, and that lice would not dominate his grave, are essentially one and the same reason. For why would they make him into an idol and what is the difference between this man and other men? Only because they would see that all the earth’s dust had lice except for his grave. Therefore, they would err after him [and worship him]. And if there were lice also on his grave, he would suffer from them. The reason of lice alone is not sufficient, because one could challenge: surely there are many ways for the Blessed One to save him from lice, as our Sages said (Bava Batra 17a) that there were seven people over whom worms had no power, and Jacob was one of them. And if worms had no power over him, then certainly lice would not. Rather, he said that if there were no lice on his grave, they would make him into an idol. But these two reasons alone are not sufficient, for if so, why did he command to specifically bury him in the land of Canaan and not in other lands? It must be because of the suffering of rolling through caves [during the resurrection of the dead]. And the reason of rolling through caves alone is not sufficient, for if so, why did he say do not bury me in Egypt? It would have been enough to say “bury me in their burial place.” Rather, he was saying: “I request of you to bury me in my fathers’ graves, and if some reason or impediment comes to you that you cannot bury me in the land of Canaan, then bury me in whatever land it may be, except for the land of Egypt — do not bury me there at all.” And why all this? Certainly because of the concern of idolatry or lice, as mentioned.

“And he said, swear to me.” Joseph was not suspected in his [Jacob’s] eyes of not fulfilling his father’s commandment. Rather, he made him swear so that he would have a justification before Pharaoh, as Rashi explains on the verse as he made you swear — that if not for the oath, I would not have let you [go], etc. And regarding why the language of to me and to him is used — swear to me and he swore to him — it appears to me that he [Jacob] was afraid that perhaps Pharaoh would tell him [Joseph] to annul his oath. Therefore, he said swear to me, meaning upon my intent, and one who swears upon another’s intent cannot have their oath annulled without that person’s knowledge, as is found in the Tur Yoreh De’ah section 227. Therefore it says to me — upon my intent — and he swore to him.

Another explanation: Since Joseph said I will do according to your words, and it is said [in Midrash Rabbeinu Bachya Vayechi 47:30] that Joseph said “I too will do as you are doing, and I will command my children and my brothers to bury me in the land of Canaan.” And Jacob said “Swear to me that you will do this for me,” because “I am not making you swear that you should also command your children thus.” And if the word li [to me] had not been said, I would have said that he was making him swear regarding all his words, even regarding I will do according to your words.

Another explanation: Jacob wanted to conceal the [matter of the] oath from those present. For when he said to him place your hand under my thigh, he meant “and swear to me.” Joseph replied to him, “I will do as you say without an oath, for I am trustworthy in my word.” [Jacob then] said Swear to me, meaning “to me alone, in secret, so that no person should know of this.” For it would have been embarrassing for Joseph [to have it known] that his father did not trust him and needed to make him take an oath. Therefore it says and he swore to him [meaning] to him alone.

Another explanation: Initially, [Jacob] said to him “Please place your hand beneath my thigh,” because he wanted to make him take an oath with a sacred object. [Joseph] replied I will do as you say without an oath. Jacob thought that Joseph was upset that he had asked him to take such a severe oath, so he said Swear to me without [requiring] holding of a sacred object, and [Joseph] swore to him. This is why it does not say here and he placed his hand beneath his father’s thigh, as it was stated regarding Eliezer, Abraham’s servant.