** אבי ואחי..…באו, "my father, my brothers, etc., have arrived.** Joseph meant: "in accordance with your instructions." והנם בארץ גשו, "and here they are in the province of Goshen." "Just as you have said when you said: "I will give you the best part of the country (45,18)." As far as cattle is concerned the province of Goshen was the best part of Egypt. We find, however, that when the brothers enjoyed an audience with Pharaoh that they did not refer to what Joseph had told them about Pharaoh's promise; rather they pleaded that inasmuch as they had a lot of cattle they would appreciate it if they were allowed to settle in Goshen as it provided grazing land for their cattle.

ויאמר פרעה אל יוסף לאמור, Pharaoh said to tell Joseph, etc. What is meant here by the word לאמור? Besides, what did Pharaoh mean when he said: "your father has arrived?" This was not news!

We must refer back to where Pharaoh had instructed Joseph in 45,17 - 18 to command his brothers to take their father and "come to me." These instructions could have either one of two meanings. 1) Joseph should speak to the brothers conveying instructions from Pharaoh. 2) Joseph should speak to them as if he were acting on his own authority. This latter interpretation is more likely to be the correct one. We base this on 45,19 where Joseph is told "you have been commanded, etc." If the instructions for the migration of Joseph's family had all originated with Pharaoh why would Joseph have to refer to permission he obtained from Pharaoh? One obtains permission after making a request for it. You will note that Joseph had spoken to the brothers about their migration in 46,31 when he was about to speak to Pharaoh about their arrival. The fact that he described the brothers as having "come to me" as opposed to having come to Pharaoh, seems evidence that they did not come in response to Pharaoh's invitation. In our verse, however, he did not describe the brothers as having "come to me," but simply as "having arrived." This implied that their arrival was at the behest of Pharaoh. He now wanted Pharaoh to make good on his promise. In response Pharaoh said in verse 6: "your father and your brothers have come to you." Pharaoh meant to correct any impression Joseph might have had that what he had said in 45,17 -18 should have been construed as an invitation from himself for the brothers to settle there. All Pharaoh had meant was that Joseph had his permission to extend an invitaion to them in Pharaoh's name to settle in the best part of Egypt.

There are subtle differences between a migration as the result of Pharaoh's direct invitation and one which resulted from an invitation by Joseph which had Pharaoh's approval. On the one hand, it appears that Pharaoh was now anxious to relieve himself of any responsibility towards Joseph's brothers and clan. When a king grants a certain person an elevated status, this is normally considered a permanent gift. Had the brothers' migration been at the direct invitation of Pharaoh their status in the land of Goshen would have been permanent and irrevocable. Pharaoh was concerned lest his invitation would be perceived as that kind of gift. He preferred to have the brothers believe that the land of Goshen was allocated to them by the authority of Joseph. It was valid as long as Joseph was ruler in the land. Just as Joseph's position was not a hereditary one, so the brothers' tenure in Goshen would not be a hereditary one. Both Joseph's position and the brothers' stay in Goshen continued to depend on Pharaoh's pleasure. Pharaoh wanted to make sure that Joseph or the brothers should not think that he, Pharaoh, needed them in order to strengthen his hold on the throne of Egypt.

There is, however, also a positive aspect of what Pharaoh had said now. Why would Joseph have to appeal to Pharaoh now as if he himself did not wield any authority in the country? Had not Pharaoh given Joseph blanket authority at the time he had appointed him as the absolute ruler over his kingdom? When Pharaoh now said to Joseph that his brothers had come to him, he merely reiterated that Joseph did not need to ask any kind of permission. Joseph's authority included the area concerning which he had now asked Pharaoh's permission. We find something analogous in Yuma 4 where Rabbi Mussiah son of Rabbi Menassiah teaches that there is scriptural proof for the assumption that when one reveals information received by a second person even when one had not been sworn to secrecy, this is forbidden unless specific permission has been granted. When G'd spoke to Moses in Leviticus 1,1, He added that Moses should communicate His words by adding the word לאמור. Accordingly, Pharaoh had to tell Joseph to extend the invitation in his name. Although this diminishes the value of Pharaoh's invitation slightly, it is not materially different from what Pharaoh had said in chapter 45.

We may also see some additional significance in the word אליך in verse five. The reason Pharaoh did command the brothers to migrate to Egypt was only in order to demonstrate that Joseph had never been a slave and had been born into a very respectable family. While it was true that on the face of it this had been demonstrated at the time when Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, he had not yet freed himself completely from the suspicion that the "brothers" were a group of bachelors with whom Joseph had made a deal that they should claim to be his family. We find that Bereshit Rabbah 100,9 refers to such a possibility in connection with Genesis 50,21 where Joseph is described as: "he consoled them and put their minds at ease." The Midrash describes that Joseph put his brothers' minds at ease by telling them that if he were to take any punitive action against them now the Egyptians would question his claim that they were his family and would argue that at the time that he, Joseph, identified them as his brothers this had been a charade, and that they had only been a group of young men whom he had paid to misrepresent themselves. When Pharaoh said to Joseph "your brothers have come to you," he meant that the brothers' presence in Egypt would buttress Joseph's claim concerning his ancestry.

במיטב הארץ…ישבו בארץ גשן, "they shall dwell in the land of Goshen in the best part of the country." Pharaoh was careful not to say only: "in the best part of the land," seeing that Joseph had indicated that he preferred that the brothers should live in the province of Goshen. If Pharaoh were not to confirm this specifically, Joseph might think that he did not want them to reside in Goshen. If, on the other hand, he were to say only that the brothers should reside in Goshen without adding the words "in the best part of the land," Joseph might feel that Pharaoh only assigned the inferior part of the province of Goshen to them. To avoid any misunderstanding, Pharaoh spelled out that the brothers should reside in the best part of the land of Goshen. Verse eleven then confirms that this is indeed what happened, that the land around Ramses was considered the best part of Goshen.

It is also possible to understand the whole verse as a choice offered by Pharaoh. The brothers were welcome to reside in the best part of the land of Egypt; if, however, for whatever reason they preferred to settle in the province of Goshen, this too was acceptable to Pharaoh.

ויעמידהו לפני פרעה, and he presented him before Pharaoh. The reason the Torah chose the word "ויעמידהו" may be that Joseph placed Jacob in the place where he himself would normally stand when he had an audience with Pharaoh. This may have been an elevated spot only lower than Pharaoh's throne [compare 41,40 where Pharaoh reserved only his throne as beyond Joseph's authority].

It may also mean that he placed Jacob immediately opposite Pharaoh so that his father could bless Pharaoh.

We have a tradition that Pharaoh was of extremely small stature so that unless Jacob was directly opposite him he could not have known that the person he faced was Pharaoh (compare Moed Katan 18).

ולחם אין…כי כבד הרעב מאד, there was no bread…because the famine was very severe, etc. The Torah informs us of the psychology of hunger. During a famine people have a tendency to eat inordinate amounts of food thus causing their reserves of food to be depleted prematurely. The author describes a personal experience of famine in the country he lived in where a person ate ten times the amount of food he would eat normally and still felt hungry.

וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף, Joseph collected all the silver (money), etc. The reason the Torah uses the expression לקט, gleaned, for the manner in which Joseph collected the money, is to tell us that after Joseph had collected there was absolutely no money left anywhere.

ולמה נמות….כי אפס כסף, "why should we die …for there is no more money?" The people complained that Joseph had proved unwilling to accept any payment other than money in return for grain. They argued that they were not destitute, they could pay him with other chattels; why should they die merely because they could not pay cash? This is why Joseph replied that he was willing to accept their cattle in payment only "if indeed there is no more money." Joseph's reason for all this was to impoverish the Egyptians so that his brothers would not be in an economically inferior position vis-a-vis the Egyptians. Joseph was very clever not to accept any payment other than money as long as there was cash around. As long as the Egyptians still had their livestock they would have to provide fodder for their animals; presumably one effect of the famine was the absence of grazing land. The Egyptians therefore had to feed their livestock with barley. This in turn led to the money supply becoming completely exhausted within a year. As a result of Joseph's strategy the brothers who arrived during the second year of the famine were wealthy compared to the average Egyptian at that time.

The Egyptians may also have meant to convey to Joseph that they did have money but that they had no cash flow at that time. They were unable to collect their receivables. This was not something unusual as many people invested their money in enterprises in foreign countries, sending money on ships which were meant to import goods. Their argument therefore was: "why should we die since we have the necessary liquid assets and are only unable temporarily to collect that money?" Accordingly, Joseph told them that if they really did have money in the form of receivables he was willing to accept their livestock as payment for food in the meantime. The livestock served as collateral for the cash the Egyptians would owe him. As soon as they would collect their receivables he expected them to turn over the money to him.

לא נכחד מאדוני, "we will not hide the fact from my lord, etc." The expression "we will not hide" presents a difficulty. What was the point of speaking of hiding something which was bound to be revealed if indeed it existed? On the other hand, if they were to claim that their livestock and money had not been exhausted they had to deliver it! Why would they say that they would not conceal the existence of money or livestock? Besides, what is the meaning of the words כי אם? Furthermore, they had told Joseph already at the end of the previous year that their money supply was exhausted? Why did the Egytians say to Joseph: "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir?"

Perhaps what the Egyptians meant was: "we really have no more money, we are not hiding it, the money is truly exhausted." They did not want Joseph to suspect them of pretending to be destitute, asking for a handout. They added that as far as the livestock was concerned there was not even a need to tell Joseph they had none left, seeing Joseph had bought it all and it could not be hidden even if they tried. As a result the only thing they had left were their very bodies.

According to the alternative meaning of the words אפס כסף, that their cash receivables were not collectible at that time, the verse does not need any explanation at all. They told Joseph that when they argued previously that they had receivables but that those could not be collected at that time, that had been a lie, and they would not deny that they had lied in order to get Joseph to accept their livestock in payment for the grain. The fact was that at this time all their assets other than their bodies had been exhausted. This is the reason that whereas the first time around the Torah speaks about אפס כסף, i.e an absence of money, they now spoke about תם הכסף, that the money had been completely exhausted.

When they said: ומקנה הבהמה אל אדוני, "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir," they referred to the livestock they had pledged in lieu of the cash they had not had available at the time they made their recent grain purchases. As of now, this livestock belonged to Joseph absolutely. This is why they added the word אדוני.

הן קניתי אתבם היום. "Look, I have bought you today, etc." The reason Joseph added the word היום, and the fact that it does not appear after the report that Joseph had bought their land, is to tell us that the method of acquisition was that each individual was acquired by the method known in Jewish law as משיכה, i.e. drawing the object being purchased a short distance towards the purchaser, as customary when one purchases slaves (Kidushin 22). Joseph did this en masse by transferring whole populations from city to city. Since one cannot acquire land by moving it, the word היום was interposed between these different kinds of purchases Joseph made.

The Torah also wanted to clarify something else here. We have the principle (Pessachim 88) that when one acquires a slave one automatically acquires everything this slave owned at the same time. There was no need to mention the acquisition of these Egyptians' lands separately. Since it is possible that Joseph did not acquire these Egyptians in the manner one usually acquires slaves, but that they became his (Pharaoh's) slaves only to the extent that they had to continue to farm the lands they had farmed previously and pay a portion of their harvest to Pharaoh, the Torah distinguished between the acquisition of the people on the one hand and that of their lands on the other hand. In practice, these Egyptians became hired hands who were not free to leave their employment. As a result Joseph had to acquire the land separately. This is why the Torah wrote in verse 20 that "Joseph acquired all the lands on behalf of Pharaoh as each of the Egyptians sold his land, etc." This would enable Pharaoh to bring in other labourers to work these fields, whereas he was not able to force the Egyptians who had previously owned those fields to farm them as he did not own those farmers bodily. When Joseph said: "I have acquired you," he meant that he had acquired them as hired hands, as distinct from their lands which he had acquired outright.

חמישית לפרעה, one fifth for Pharaoh, etc. Joseph was astute enough to say that Pharaoh would collect the first 20% of any seed. Even if, as a result, the remaining 80% would be only sufficient for the farmer to plant and to break even, Pharaoh would not agree to collect less than his 20%. On the other hand, the farmers would be at liberty to collect the overage whether there be a lot or a little.

The reason Joseph mentioned separately that it would be "to eat for your children," instead of including the children when he had said that the 80% would be "for you and your households to consume" was, that the portions required by the children would be greater than that of their parents.

והיינו עבדים לפרעה, "and we shall remain slaves to Pharaoh." They were careful to describe themselves as Pharaoh's slaves, not as Joseph's.

They also referred to something I mentioned earlier, that Pharaoh had acquired them only as hired labourers, people obligated to work these particular lands. By saying: והיינו עבדים לפרעה, they offered their bodies to Pharaoh also so that Pharaoh owned them outright from then on. Perhaps this is the reason why the new Pharaoh in Exodus 1,9 described the Jewish people as the "nation, the children of Israel," meaning that he could not in good conscience describe them as his slaves as they had never lost their status as a free people.

וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים, Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah add that the land of Goshen is in the land of Egypt? Do we not know this already? Besides, what is the connection between the Jewish people multiplying and their dwelling in the land of Egypt?

The Torah evidently wishes to remind us of the fulfilment of G'd's prophecy to Jacob in 46,3 that while in Egypt he would develop into a great nation, that the reason he and his family had to descend to Egypt was to liberate the stray holy souls that were entrapped amongst the Egyptians and their pagan practices. This is why the Torah emphasises that Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, a morally thoroughly depraved society. The Torah adds that Israel lived in the land of Goshen to hint that the origin of that word is הגשה, approach, i.e. that all those scattered souls we have previously described were attracted to and collected in Goshen because of the presence there of a branch of sanctity as represented by Jacob/lsrael. The entire paragraph refers to the fledgling nation Israel in the singular to emphasise the unity of purpose that characterised that society at that time. When the Torah adds ויאחזו בה, "they were possessed by it," this refers to their lofty ideal as a developing holy nation. The reason they were extraordinarily fruitful and multiplied was the fact that they were possessed by lofty ideals not because they happened to find themselves on Egyptian soil. The author suggests reading up the comments of the Maha"rik on Exodus 1,6: "Joseph, all his brothers and that entire generation died."

ויחי יעקב, Jacob lived, etc. Although G'd had changed Jacob's name to Israel in 35,10, this is one of numerous instances when the Torah refers to him again as Jacob. I have explained that Jacob's permanent personality (נפש) had not changed as we know from Berachot 7 which interprets Psalms 46,9 where the word שמות, desolation, is re-interpreted to mean also שמות, names. The name Israel was an additional name reflecting spiritual highs that Jacob attained from time to time.

We do need to examine the criteria which cause the Torah to refer to Jacob sometimes as "Jacob" and other times as "Israel." It is a fact that when these names are applied to the Jewish people as a whole, the name Jacob reflects some deficiency in the Jewish nation, whereas the name Israel reflects the fact that the nation lived up to its potential on the occasions when it is described by that name. This principle has been alluded to in the Zohar 210 on Parshat Balak. The reason given there cannot be applied to Jacob the individual, however, inasmuch as he lived a righteous life at all times.

We must remember that Jacob strove to attain a very high degree of sanctity, one which is reflected in his name Israel. Spiritual highs are attainable only when one simultaneously frees oneself of such human concerns as pain, anguish, anger, etc. The kind of sanctity Jacob strove for needed to be based on the attainment of a degree of serenity in his earthly life, something that we nowadays experience only on the Sabbath, a day that G'd has imbued with the quality of מנוחה. He gave us an additional soul in order to appreciate that day to the full, and in order to help us to disregard all the depressing phenomena we have to deal with during the 6 days preceding the Sabbath. The reason we are able to do this is because the מנוחה emanates in the higher spiritual regions. This is why G'd Himself called the Sabbath עונג, delight. Whenever Jacob experienced the kind of spiritual serenity we are meant to experience every Sabbath, he qualified for the name Israel. The Torah therefore informs us about all these occasions by referring to him by his additional name. Whenever Jacob experienced worries, etc., this serenity departed from him similar to the departure of the נשמה יתרה from every Jew at the end of the Sabbath. At such times the Torah reverts to referring to our patriarch as being merely "Jacob."

I shall make a short list of instances where the respective names of Jacob and Israel clearly reflect different frames of mind of Jacob/Israel. In Genesis 35,10 where G'd tells Jacob for the first time that though his name remains Jacob he will henceforth also be entitled to the name Israel, the reason that G'd emphasised that at that time his name was still Jacob is that he had just heard about the death of his mother Rivkah (compare Bereshit Rabbah 82, which understands the words: "He (G'd) blessed him" in 35,9 as the blessing one extends to mourners). This is why the name Jacob continues to appear throughout this paragraph. The time when Rachel died (immediately afterwards according to the report in the Torah) was also a period during which Jacob could not qualify for the additional name Israel. The Torah (35,20) speaks about Jacob erecting a tombstone on the site where Rachel died and was buried. As soon as the thirty days of mourning had passed, we find that G'd called Jacob "Israel" in 35,21 where he is described as continuing his journey towards reunion with his father. When we find Jacob's children referred to as "the sons of Jacob" instead of as "the sons of Israel" in 35,22, this does not contradict what we have written, as the Torah merely wants to inform us that Israel's children were not on the same spiritual level as their father. The fact that Reuben was guilty of a misdemeanour with Israel's concubine at that time, is clear evidence of that. When the reunion between Isaac and his son Jacob is described in 35,27, the reason that Jacob is not called Israel is simply that it would not be good manners for the son to be called by a name which suggests a higher spiritual level than that of his father Isaac. You will find confirmation of this thought in Yalkut Shimoni item 875 on Psalms 116,15 "that the death of His faithful is precious to the Lord," where the author writes: "if Abraham had been alive at that time, how could his son Isaac have exercised any authority?" The same argument applied to all the other patriarchs. The above teaches that while one's illustrious father or teacher is alive, the son or disciple is not allowed to outshine him. This is why the Torah refers to Jacob as Jacob at that time. When we read about Jacob settling in the land of Canaan in 37,1 he is again called Jacob to remind us that during all the years he remained in the land of Canaan his life was full of mental anguish with very brief exceptions. One such exception was his relationship with Joseph before the latter was sold into slavery. This is why the Torah speaks of that relationship as "Israel loved Joseph, etc." The name Israel is used by the Torah only three times from the time Joseph was sold until 45,28 after Jacob had regained a measure of Holy Spirit as stated in 45,27 ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, "their father Jacob's spirit revived." The three instances during the period between the sale of Joseph and Jacob's receiving the news that he was alive and well are 43,6: "Israel said: 'why did you harm me,'etc,"--43,8: "Yehudah said to Israel his father, etc." and 43,11: "Their father Israel said to them, etc." In all those instances Jacob spoke to his sons as a person who exercised his position of authority; this is why the Torah describes him with his full title "Israel." In those instances Jacob/lsrael had to assert his authority when he noticed that his sons did not give due consideration to their father's anguish. By acting as "Israel" he indicated that he would not forgive them if they did not heed his words. As soon as Jacob heard the news about Joseph he is referred to repeatedly as the "Israel" of old. This situation continues until Jacob/lsrael is told that he has to remain in Egypt, i.e. in exile. From then on the Torah called him Israel only at the moment of his reunion with Joseph or when the Torah referred to his sons. During the period Jacob dwelled in Egypt the Torah generally calls him Jacob until shortly before his death. It was important that his sons and family should remember that they had lost not merely a Jacob but an Israel. Besides, as Jacob prepared for death, his mind became filled with other-worldly concerns. It was therefore easy for him to attain the serenity needed to be Israel once more. The Zohar first section, 218 elaborates on the spiritual growth of the human soul shortly before its death in connection with "Israel prostrating himself at the head of the bed" during the period described in the Torah as "the days approached when Israel was to die," (47,29 and 47,31). All of this is the plain meaning of these verses. They do have implications of a more profound and mystical nature, however.

ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים, Jacob lived in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us once more that Jacob was in Egypt? Besides, all the Torah had to write was: 'ויהי ימי יעקב וגו, "Jacob lived to be 147 years old." This information would have allowed us to calculate that he lived in Egypt for the last 17 years seeing that he had told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old when he came to Egypt (47,9). Furthermore, why did the Torah have to repeat שני חייו, the years of his life?

Perhaps all of this is connected to the fact that Jacob's life was never smooth from the moment of his birth when he held on to the heel of his twin brother. His adversary Esau grew up alongside him; thereafter he lived a life of constant tension with his uncle Laban for 20 years. Not much later he experienced the anguish of Dinah's rape to be followed by Joseph's disappearance. For all these reasons the Torah tells us that the only 17 years Jacob lived a relatively serene life were the last 17 years of his life in Egypt. The Torah underlines that these were the only years which Jacob could really be described as having enjoyed by writing ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו, "these years were full of חיים, life." These 17 years were truly ימי יעקב, "Jacob's years."

We have a tradition based on Tana de bey Eliyahu Rabbah chapter 5 that when someone concludes his life on earth in a happy frame of mind his entire life may be considered as having been a happy one. This is also the meaning of Job 8,7: והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאד, "though your beginning was full of pain, your end will be a great achievement." Solomon has expressed a similar thought in Kohelet 7,8 when he said that "a good ending is better than a good beginning." When the Torah speaks of ויחי יעקב, this means that the last 17 happy years which Jacob lived in Egypt made his entire life, i.e. שני חייו appear as years during which he had lived to the full. The Torah chose the word ויהי which always signifies some painful experience to tell us that though there had been many painful experiences in Jacob's life on earth they were all converted to positive experiences in light of his last seventeen years in Egypt.

We need to consider why the Torah enumerates the years of Jacob's life in a different manner from the way it enumerated the lives of Abraham and the other patriarchs. When the Torah told us about the number of years Abraham lived, it commenced with the larger unit first, i.e. 100 years plus seventy years plus five years (compare Genesis 25,7). We find the same thing in Genesis 35,28 when Isaac's life is described; the same also is the case when the Torah described the number of years Sarah lived (Genesis 23,1). Perhaps the reason that the Torah reversed this in Jacob's case is to drive home the point that Jacob's last 17 good years were the key to his whole life.

Perhaps the Torah actually wanted to pinpoint 47 years of Jacob's life as the ones during which he experienced what we are in the habit of calling happiness. This is based on the interpretation of the verse in Genesis 37,3 that וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו. According to the Zohar both Jacob's love for Rachel his true mate and Joseph is lumped together in this verse as indicated by the extra word את. As long as Joseph had not been born Jacob dressed in sackcloth [a figure of speech denoting he had not yet begun to experience what he perceived to be his true destiny. Ed.] When computing the number of years Jacob was married to Rachel and the 17 years prior to Joseph's disappearance, one must consider that some of these years overlapped as Rachel was alive until the birth of Benjamin 6 years after the birth of Joseph. Jacob was married to Rachel for 13 years during his stay at Laban. He experienced 11 years in the company of Joseph before the latter was sold making a total of 24 years. When you add to this the 17 years he lived in Egypt you get a total of 41 years of happiness in Jacob's adult life. When you add the first 6 years of Jacob's childhood, years that are not yet clouded by the various problems we experience in life, we have a total of 47 years of Jacob's life during which he could be considered as having lived a "normal" life. The Torah may have wanted to draw our attention to this fact and therefore it mentions these 47 years before mentioning the numerically bigger number, i.e. the 100 years.

According to this approach we have to justify the word ויהי as a hint by the Torah that Jacob did not exploit all the good years of life on earth he could have enjoyed because he had caused Rachel's premature death when he uttered the oath that anyone who had stolen Laban's Teraphim should not live (31,32). Bereshit Rabbah 74,9 writes that the reason Jacob did not attain the age of his father Isaac (180), was that he lost 33 years of his life, a number corresponding to the numerical value of the word יחיה when he had said in 31,32 that the person who stole Laban's teraphim לא יחיה, should not live.

We are now left with the task of explaining why the Torah reports on the total of Jacob's years long before he was actually about to die, and before he had called in his sons to give them his last blessing. Perhaps the Torah wanted Jacob (and us) to become aware that he did not have the life expectancy of his father or his grandfather. This may have prompted him to call in his son Joseph order to make him swear that he would bury him in the land of Canaan. The patriarchs were all prophets and Jacob may well have been aware that he had forfeited 33 years of his life by his premature curse. As a result of this foreknowledge he called upon his son Joseph to visit him at that time in order to discuss burial arrangements.

If we look for some kind of allusion in the fact that Jacob enjoyed precisely 17 years in Egypt at the expense of his son Joseph who had become the provider of the family, it maybe that this number of years corresponded to the number of years Jacob himself had provided for Joseph before the latter had been sold into slavery by his brothers. It is also interesting that the number 17 is equal to the numerical value of the word טוב, good. Perhaps the Torah hints that Jacob experienced a repayment of the good he had done for Joseph while the latter grew up, when his son now repaid him with an equal number of years.

ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, Israel's time to die approached, etc. I have already explained whence Jacob knew that his death was close. Nachmanides writes that he knew this from a loss of vital signs in his body; I do not think that we can accept his theory for we know of many people who continue to live for many years after their old age sets in and they begin to feel weak.

Jacob may also have had an indication that his death was close at hand because the Zohar section 1,217 states that thirty days prior to one's death a person's צלם, divine image, is removed from him. The Zohar claims that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai observed this phenomenon with Rabbi Yitzchak. Although such knowledge is withheld from ordinary people, righteous people do become aware of it as they are aware of most spiritual matters. Another indication that this may have been so is the syntax of the verse "the days for Israel to die approached;" since when do we describe days as "approaching?"

We can understand the meaning of this verse by accepting what the sainted Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (Ari zal ) wrote in his book Kohelet Yaakov. He writes as follows: "You know that the souls have been divided up into numerous "sparks" of sanctity. These are destined to inhabit human beings on their various appearances on earth. The length of time a person lives on earth is directly related to how many of these sparks of sanctity -also known as tzelem -inhabit his body. Every day such a person performs G'd's commandments the condition of one of these "sparks" is enhanced, thus strengtheneing such a persons צלם. Every day that such a person does not perform G'd's commandments his צלם suffers damage because one of these sparks has been damaged. Thus far Rabbi Luria.

This introduction is immensely valuable for those who want to examine matters connected with these phenomena in detail. By means of this paragraph in Rabbi Luna's book we can understand what the Talmud Berachot 57 meant when it states that sleep is equivalent to 1/60th of death. It means that every day one of these sparks escapes the body when a person goes to sleep. Such a loss of the spark is not clearly noticed by the soul as something absolute, however; the "spark" is merely detached from the main body of the soul and becomes intertwined with the lower form of the soul known as נפש, life-force. It is an act of kindness by G'd that every "spark" which acquired a merit on a particular day through the performance of a מצוה by the person whom it inhabits is further removed from loss of vitality in spite of the fact that said person may commit sins subsequently thereby producing defective "sparks." Moreover, when the errant person repents his sin G'd enables such sparks to be restored to their original level of vitality. All of this is part of the various ways in which G'd demonstrates His kindness towards us.

Keeping in mind the Ari zal's statement, we can understand why the complaint against G'd for having shortened man's lifespan after the deluge from around nine hundred years to less than one hundred years nowadays is not justified. Let us use the following parable to illustrate what occurred. A king distributed gems which had been mined in a quarry to various craftsmen in order to fashion from these gems intricate golden jewelry. He urged the various craftsmen to use all their skills to produce superior work and to complete it at a certain date. Different craftsmen were given different amounts of gems in accordance with the king's estimate of their ability to complete the task within the time allotted. When the time arrived for these craftsmen to present the result of their labours to the king, the king found to his dismay that not only had most of them not performed work of acceptable standards, but some of them had actually ruined many of the gems in the process. The king grew angry and killed these craftsmen. He showed the children of these craftsmen what happened to their parents and why, and he urged them not to repeat the mistakes of their parents. When the king handed the new generation of craftsmen gemstones to fashion into jewelry, he allocated to each one only approximately one tenth of the amount of gems he had allocated to the craftsmen of the previous generation. He believed that by making the task less demanding the craftsmen would have a better chance to perform excellent workmanship.

The souls G'd allocated to people are the gemstones referred to in the parable. This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 49,24: משם רועה אבן ישראל, that by means of the instruments placed at our disposal by G'd, i.e. the Torah and the commandments, we have been given the insights to conduct our lives in such a manner that the sparks making up the soul can be strengthened. The Zohar, part one section 82 describes that the condition of the soul is improved in proportion to the performance of good deeds and abstention from sins by the personality it inhabits. This is equivalent to the intricate jewelry described in our parable.

Originally, G'd assigned great tasks to the antediluvian generations and at the same time equipped them with commensurately greater souls, each one of which consisted of many "sparks." He assigned a single day to each "spark." This is alluded to in Exodus 16,4 when the Torah speaks about people collecting the manna on a daily basis, i.e. דבר יום ביומו. The word יום may be understood as ענף, a branch or sprout of each soul. G'd granted each human being a certain number of days, i.e. He allocated to them approximately 300.000 such gemstones as mentioned in the parable. After the failure which resulted in the deluge, all of this was restructured in order to help us achieve what is expected of us in a lifespan averaging seventy years.

We have benefited by this change in G'd's allocation of a shorter lifespan in additional ways. For instance, we observe that the process of aging results in people becoming progressively more frail, a process which even includes scholars (of secular disciplines). Infirmity in old age results in a person not being able to carry out fully the tasks allocated to him for each day he lives. While it is true -as our sages say at the end of tractate Kinim -that Torah scholars who have attained old age retain clear minds, the sages were careful with their wording. They stated that the minds of non-scholars decline progressively to such an extent that their minds gradually cease to function properly. It is clear that inasmuch as parts of the soul gradually disappear, the remaining parts of the soul are not up to the task of performing as if they were still whole. The same thing happens to the body so that gradually both body and mind deteriorate to the level of that of a minor.

With the help of Rabbi Luria's analysis we can also better understand Bereshit Rabbah 62,2 in which the difference between dying as a young man or dying at a ripe old age is described. Rabbi Yehudah explained: "when this light (soul) is extinguished by a natural process it is beneficial both for the light and the wick. If, however, it is extinguished by an unnatural process this is harmful both for the light and its wick." The Midrash compared the death of an aged person to the gradual extinction of a light. As the light gradually loses power, so the aged person's vital systems (נפש) decline progressively until finally he dies by appearing like a person who is merely asleep and who does not feel what is happening to him when his last remaining vestige of life leaves him.

Rabbi Luria's comparison also helps us understand Psalms 104,29: תוסף רוחם יגועון, "when you take away their breath they perish." The meaning of this statement had not been clear. Besides, one would have expected David to say: תוסף ברוחם. With the help of Rabbi Luria's introduction the meaning of the verse becomes crystal clear. When the end of man's life approaches and G'd gathers in all the remaining parts of the soul which used to commute to heaven nightly only to return to their bodies by morning, G'd will then collect the soul itself (not just the "sparks"). We have already explained elsewhere that the departure of the soul from the body at night is not something absolute; the soul continues to illuminate the body below with its "light;" we have proof of this in the well known phenomenon that when one awakens a sleeping person (in the middle of the night) the part of the soul which had ascended heavenwards is immediately perceived as present in the body of the person who has been awakened.

Having read what Rabbi Luria had to say on the subject of the soul we now appreciate that when the Torah described Jacob's life as drawing to its close by saying: "the days of Jacob's death approached," the meaning is the same as that in Psalms 104,29 except that here the Torah uses the expression למות instead of יגועון. The various parts of Jacob's soul which used to ascend nightly were now about to be gathered together for a final journey to heaven. Jacob felt that this process was taking place and this is why he called for Joseph to come and see him.

ויקרא לבנו ליוסף. "He called for his son, for Joseph." The reason Jacob only called upon Joseph is simple. Only Joseph possessed the power to carry out Jacob's wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah. We do need to understand, however, why the Torah felt the need to add that Joseph was "his son;" do we not know this? Was there another person called Joseph so that we might have erred as to whom Jacob called? Furthermore, why did the Torah not merely write לבנו יוסף, instead of adding the letter ל by writing לבנו ליוסף?

The Torah may have wanted to explain the strange phenomenon of a commoner summoning the king instead of asking the king for an audience at his palace in the capital. We know that the halachah considers the dignity of a king as taking precedence over the dignity of one's teacher. The Talmud Kidushin 33 discusses the problem of how a father has to conduct himself vis-a-vis his son when the latter is his rabbi. Is the son who is also a rabbi obligated to rise in the presence of his father? Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi there opines that he himself does not need to rise in the presence of his son since he was greater than his son in Torah learning; since, however the son occupied a position of great prominence (he was the son-in-law of the prince (נשיא) he made a practice of rising in the presence of his son. I have already elaborated on this subject in my book Rishon Letzion (glossaries on the Yore De-ah 240, subsection 7). In any event, it is clear from the discussion in the Talmud that the honour due to the temporal power takes precedence over that due to one's father even if the son was not the temporal authority itself but only closely related to it. In view of this, how could Jacob arrogate to himself the right to summon Joseph to his home? In order to answer this question the Torah provides us with two answers. 1) Inasmuch as Joseph was his son, and 2) inasmuch as he was Joseph. One of these two reasons by itself would not have sufficed to give Jacob the right to summon Joseph. Had Joseph not been Jacob's son, the fact that Joseph loved him would not have been an adequate reason for Jacob to ignore etiquette and summon the king to his side. However, since Joseph did not only love Jacob as such but he was also his father and mentor and Joseph was a dutiful son, Jacob was able to ask him to come to him. The Torah writes לבנו, to stress that Joseph was known for his extraordinary devotion to his father. This is why his father knew that he would not stand on ceremony and would ignore etiquette. This in spite of the halachic ruling based on Kidushin 32 that when a king is willing to forego the honour due him he is not allowed to do so. The ruling in the Talmud applies only to a Jewish king who rules over Israel. A king of the type of Joseph is permitted to waive the honour due him if he feels the occasion demands it.

אם נא מצאתי חן, "If I have found favour in your eyes, etc." The word נא means both "please" and "now" in this instance. Jacob used the word in the sense of "now" to make Joseph realise that he knew he had already previously found favour in his son's eyes, why else would he have provided for him for the past 17 years. However, he now asked for an additional favour. This is why he said: "please." Had he not said "please," it might have sounded as if he had not been grateful for the sustenance Joseph had provided thus far.

Alternatively, Jacob indicated that although Joseph would no longer have to provide for him seeing he was about to die, there was another matter concerning which he needed Joseph's favour.

We may also read a more subtle meaning into this request. All the favours Joseph had done for Jacob in the past could have been interpreted in either of two ways. 1) Joseph did so because Jacob had found favour in his eyes and not because he expected any favours from his father in return. This was normal between a father and a son who were extremely fond of each other. 2) Joseph had done what he did merely because it was his duty as a son to look after his aging father something that is customary also amongst the Gentiles. It would simply have been a disgrace for a man in Joseph's position to make his family a charge on outsiders. Inasmuch as the motivation of Joseph's conduct up to this point had been subject to some doubt, the request Jacob was about to make from him now was one by means of which Joseph could demonstrate that he had done everything only because he loved his father not because he was performing a filial duty. If Joseph were to accede to his request he would prove that all he had done in the past had also been motivated solely by love for his father. Inasmuch as what Jacob asked Joseph to do now was something he was not obligated to do, if he were to decline to do so it would reflect on the motivations behind the favours he had done for his father up to now. This is also why Jacob spoke about מצאתי, "I have found," instead of אמצא "I will find."

שים נא ידך, "please place your hand, etc." In this instance the word נא may mean "please," or it may mean "now" in the sense of "after due consideration." Jacob added a second request to the one he had already indicated he was about to make that he be buried in the land of Canaan, namely that Joseph reinforce his promise by swearing an oath. The word also meant that Jacob was not content to wait until his death was imminent for Joseph to make this undertaking. He wanted the undertaking to be made on that very day. The fact that the next paragraph begins with the words: "it was after these events," makes it quite plain that the conversation the Torah reports here took place some considerable time before Jacob took ill (48,1) and Joseph was told about it by a third party (48,2). Jacob also wanted Joseph to render this oath immediately, before he had an opportunity to register a מודעה, a statement that the oath his father requested from him was to be considered as something he had committed himself to only under duress and should therefore not be binding upon him. Midrash Tanchuma even says that Jacob told Joseph that unless he swore an oath to him concerning this burial, he would die from mere worry that he would not be buried in the cave of Machpelah. If that was so, Joseph had additional reason to register a מודעה. Jacob therefore had to pre-empt such a possibility by insisting on an immediate and therefore irrevocable oath. All this is implied by the words: שים נא ידך, "put your hand now, etc."

ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, "and do me a true favour!" The Torah added the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשית to indicate that the request for the oath had preceded the actual request to bury him in the land of Canaan.

Bereshit Rabbah 96,5 teaches that any favour performed for a person after his death is considered a "true favour." This is very difficult to understand as we observe Jacob promising Joseph an extra share in the land of Israel at the time the land would be distributed when he said: "I am giving you one portion more than your brothers which I took from the Emorites with my sword and my bow (48,22)." Rashi even explains that Jacob said: "because you have the bother to organise my burial, etc, I assign to you an extra share in the land of Israel, namely שכם." The fact that Jacob said נתתי, "I have given," indicates that he did so at the time when he had made Joseph swear the oath which he had categorised as חסד ואמת in 47,29 at the time Joseph accepted the task to bury his father. We may have to conclude that Jacob meant to reward Joseph already at that time for accepting the task to organise the funeral procession all the way to the land of Canaan and not for the burial in the cave of Machpelah itself. Even if this were correct, Jacob should not have added the word "ואמת."

On the other hand, Jacob may have intended that Joseph should arrange matters in such a way that the fact that his father had awarded him an extra piece of territory should not be perceived by him as a payment for such a deed. This could be achieved by one of two means. 1) He asked Joseph not to bury him in a town filled with abominations, i.e. אל נא תקברני במצרים; 2) Joseph should transfer his earthly remains to the Holy Land. The חסד, kindness, Joseph was to perform was not to bury his father in Egypt; the normal sequence of death and burial is that one dies first and then one is buried. It is significant that Jacob first spoke about where he did not want to be buried, and only afterwards mentioned a word associated with dying when he said: "I wish to lie with my fathers." This indicates clearly that the oath Jacob made Joseph swear referred to where he was going to be buried, not to where he was not to be buried. Joseph would not receive a reward for either of these two requests so that what he did could be described as a true kindness. The extra town Jacob allocated to Joseph's (his tribe's) heritage in the land of Israel was only in respect of the effort and expense involved in transporting the remains of his father to the land of Canaan.

The verse may also be understood along the following lines: When Jacob said: ועשית, he meant that what Joseph had already done for him in the past was a חסד של אמת, a true kindness for which he had not and would not receive compensation. There was, however, another kindness Jacob would now ask of him for which he would receive the city of Shechem as a reward. We would then have to understand the letter ו in front of the word ועשית as referring also to what Joseph would do in the future. Once Joseph undertook to carry out his father's wish in return for compensation any oath he swore that he would do so could not be construed as an oath sworn under duress. There would be no legal way Joseph could become free from that oath except by carrying out its provisions (compare Rav Nissim on Nedarim 65). Although the text does not have Jacob mention the gift of Shechem at this point, the Torah does give a broad hint that Jacob had promised Shechem to Joseph already prior to 48,22 when the Torah makes mention of it. Jacob is not reported as saying that he would give that city to Joseph in the future, but the Torah reports him as saying: "I have already given you one portion more than to your brothers." The gift had been bestowed on Joseph at the time Jacob asked Joseph to render an oath concerning Jacob's burial arrangements in 47,30-31. We have explained the legal details about revocable and irrevocable oaths in connection with Isaac and Avimelech; see our commentary on Genesis 26,26. We must also remember Sotah 36 where it is stated that eventually Joseph had to threaten Pharaoh that he would consider himself free of his undertaking not to reveal that Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew unless the latter would let him honour his oath to his father to bury him in the land of Canaan. Joseph's argument there does not imply that he was legally able to renege on the oath to his father, he only used that argument to put the oath to his father on the same legal basis as that which he had rendered to Pharaoh, seeing that in both instances he had received compensation for rendering the oath.

אל נא תקברני במצרים, "please do not bury me in Egypt." The meaning of the words אל נא in this case refers to a time-frame. Jacob did not even want to be interred in Egypt temporarily. He wanted that his remains be transferred to the land of Canaan immediately. This is why he added ושכבתי עם אבותי, "I wish to lie with my fathers," adding ונשאתני "and you will transport me, etc." I have already explained the reason that Jacob had first said "do not bury me, etc." and only afterwards: "I wish to lie with my fathers, etc." on 47,29: "perform a favour for me." The Zohar Vayeshev 182 explains that Jacob and Joseph were so much part of the same category of souls and that this is why Jacob was afraid that when the time came for him to die, Joseph would not want to be separated from him until he himself would die. Although the Talmud Taanit 4 claims that Jacob did not die and remained alive, Jacob wanted to be sure that Joseph did not misunderstand this and that he realised that his father would "die." When that occurred he would be separated from Joseph and would want to join his fathers. This is why he had to issue all these instructions.

ויאמר אנכי אעשה כדבריך. He said: "l will do in accordance with your instructions." Why did Joseph have to announce that he was going to do all this? All he had to do was to place his hand where his father had asked and make the promise and that would be his reply to his father's request. This is what Eliezer did when Abraham made him swear an oath concerning his selecting a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,9).

Actually, the Torah mentions Joseph's declaration as proof that he said he did not need to swear an oath, that his promise was sufficient.

Alternatively, he meant that he was legally obligated to comply with his father's request either by dint of being his father's son or by dint of his father's request being that of a man about to die (compare Choshen Mishpat 252,2). Joseph added the word כדברך to demonstrate that he would fulfil the request quite independent of any oath he would swear.

ויאמר השבעה לי, He said: "swear it to me, etc." Jacob felt that he needed to request an oath for the second time, that Joseph's promise was insufficient. He may have meant simply that he wanted Joseph to humour him and to phrase his promise in the form of an oath, or he may have said so without revealing his true motivation at all but making it clear that he had some reason he did not want to reveal. The reason, of course, was to give Joseph ammunition in case someone would try to prevent him from doing what he had promised. Events proved Jacob correct when Pharaoh wanted to prevent Jacob's body being moved out of the country as we have learned from Sotah 34.

Jacob may have intended to emphasise only the word לי, "to me," meaning that Joseph should not make any mental reservations when he made this promise to his father.