AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, *The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk;*⁷⁵ and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac.⁷⁶ Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal.⁷⁷, 12:7. And what need was there to explain it further? However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁸ When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac⁷⁹ in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran.⁸⁰ Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said⁸¹ that Noachides⁸², also Note 222 in Seder Bereshith. did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar.⁸³ But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded:⁸⁴ “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah,⁷⁸ i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.”⁸⁵ I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah:⁸⁶. “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹ Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹ And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering,⁸⁷ and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.”⁸⁸ Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him],⁸⁹ as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.⁹⁰ It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night⁹¹ with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father,⁹² for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, *I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar;*⁹³ it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again.⁹⁴ Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again,⁹⁴ [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down⁹⁵ as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see⁹⁶ as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night,⁹¹ thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. Similarly he said⁹⁷ that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard⁹⁸ as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying⁹⁹ as “I will surely accept his complaint.” But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained¹⁰⁰ with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”?¹⁰¹ And that which the Rabbi has said¹⁰² that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: *And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai;*¹⁰³ *Hear the voice of my supplications;*¹⁰⁴ *Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear;*¹⁰⁵ And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁰⁶ And so also, leiv shomei’ah¹⁰⁷ (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction,¹⁰⁸ [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people,¹⁰⁹ [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel,¹¹⁰, 2:25. [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous¹¹¹ (Habakkuk 1:13). However, Rambam mentions that he found three passages which contradict his theory. One is the verse, And the Eternal saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, (above, 6:5), and the other two are mentioned in the following note. In these three cases which are connected with wrong and violence, Onkelos should have expressed “seeing” in the form of “being manifest before the Eternal,” and yet he translated them literally! Rambam then concludes that our version of Onkelos is inaccurate in those three cases! It is this conclusion of Rambam with which Ramban takes issue in the text before us. in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw],¹⁰¹ and two other verses,¹¹², (above, 6:12). And the Eternal saw that Leah was hated, (above, 29:31). which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory. With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him,¹¹³ as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned.¹¹⁴ But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, *The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee?*¹¹⁵ This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative¹¹⁶ and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand,¹¹⁷ as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did,¹¹⁷ yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d.¹¹⁸, 31:18. The Rabbi’s answer¹¹⁹ that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them,¹²⁰ in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand¹²¹ as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: *Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy;*¹²², Verse 6. *Thy strong hand;*¹²³ *By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm;*¹²⁴, 4:34. *And My hand take hold on judgment;*¹²⁵, 32:41. The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it.¹²⁶, 11:12. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him],¹²⁷ as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream.¹²⁸, but translated it literally, is that the narrative begins with a statement that it was in a vision of the night. Ramban questions this thesis, for in the story of the ladder, which is also introduced as a dream, Onkelos avoided possible indications of corporeality, and accordingly he paraphrased the verses. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee,¹²⁹ as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth,¹³⁰ [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee,¹³¹, 3:12. as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night,¹³² And G-d came to Laban in a dream,¹³³, 31:24. as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream,¹³⁴ and yet Jonathan ben Uziel¹³⁵. translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night,¹³⁴ one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream,¹³⁶ is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest.¹³⁷ And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal,¹³⁸ as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses¹³⁹ as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you,¹⁴⁰ and Between G-d and every living creature,¹⁴¹, Verse 16. were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch¹⁴², 31:49. as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness¹⁴³, Verse 50. as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d,¹⁴⁴, 21:23. is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah]. Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said¹⁴⁵ that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand,¹⁴⁶ as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock.¹⁴⁷ And concerning that which the Rabbi has said¹⁴⁸ that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation,¹⁴⁹ as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down,¹⁵⁰ “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.”¹⁵¹, 3:2. Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said¹⁴⁸ that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face,¹⁵² as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here¹⁴⁸ and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not,¹⁵³ as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee,¹⁵⁴, 32:34. and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken,¹⁵⁵, 33:17. Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us,¹⁵⁶, 34:9. and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.”¹⁵⁷ He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face,¹⁵⁸, 33:20. “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,]¹⁵⁹ Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,¹⁶⁰ which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted,¹⁶¹ then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle,¹⁶² and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala¹⁶³. known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention¹⁶⁴ this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying,¹⁶⁵, 20:1. [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke¹⁶⁶ unto your whole assembly.¹⁶⁷, Verse 19. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶⁸ “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.”¹⁶⁹ Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.],¹⁷⁰ and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],”¹²⁹ because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him.¹⁷¹ The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses.¹³¹, 3:12. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.

footnotes: ⁷⁵ Further 48:15. ⁷⁶ Above, 32:10. ⁷⁷ Ibid. ⁷⁸ 94:5. ⁷⁹ Above, 31:53. ⁸⁰ See Ramban above, 28:17. ⁸¹ Zebachim 116a. ⁸² See Note 148 in Seder Vayishlach ⁸³ Above 8:20. ⁸⁴ Torath Kohanim Vayikra 16:1. ⁷⁸ 94:5. ⁸⁵ The case refers to a procession of a Rabbi and his pupils on the road. Since the pupils travel in advance of the Rabbi, a person coming from the opposite direction would first meet the pupils and then the Rabbi. Similarly, Isaac is the pupil and Abraham is the Rabbi. Hence Jacob offered sacrifices to the G-d of his father Isaac. ⁸⁶ Sefer Habahir, 135. See Note 42 in Seder Bereshith ⁷⁹ Above, 31:53. ⁷⁹ Above, 31:53. ⁸⁷ I Kings 18:38. ⁸⁸ Deuteronomy 4:24. ⁸⁹ The words in the brackets are from the Commentary of Lvush to the Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes these words of Ramban. ⁹⁰ Micah 7:20. ⁹¹ Verse 2 here. ⁹² Verse 3 here. ⁹³ Above, 31:13. ⁹⁴ Verse 4 here. ⁹⁴ Verse 4 here. ⁹⁵ Exodus 19:20. ⁹⁶ Above, 18:21. ⁹¹ Verse 2 here. ⁹⁷ Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. ⁹⁸ Above, 29:33. ⁹⁹ Exodus 22:22. ¹⁰⁰ Moreh Nebuchim I, 65. ¹⁰¹ Above, 6:5. ¹⁰² Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. ¹⁰³ Above 16:2. ¹⁰⁴ Psalms 28:2. ¹⁰⁵ Isaiah 1:15. ¹⁰⁶ Deuteronomy 28:1. ¹⁰⁷ I Kings 3:9. ¹⁰⁸ Above, 29:32. ¹⁰⁹ Exodus 3:7. ¹¹⁰ Ibid. ¹¹¹ Ramban refers here to Chapter 48 of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim mentioned above, in which Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) sets forth the theory that Onkelos always renders “seeing” literally except where it is connected with wrong, injury or violence, in which cases he expresses it as “It was manifest before the Eternal.” Onkelos is thus consistent with the prophetic phrase, Thou canst not look on iniquity ¹⁰¹ Above, 6:5. ¹¹² And G-d saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt ¹¹³ Exodus 34:6. ¹¹⁴ Moreh Nebuchim I, 21. ¹¹⁵ Deuteronomy 31:3. In our version of Onkelos, the text reads, “His word will go over.” Ramban’s objection is thus removed. ¹¹⁶ As opposed to “the visions of the night.” See the beginning of the section where Ramban explains this distinction which Rambam makes. ¹¹⁷ Exodus 14:31. ¹¹⁷ Exodus 14:31. ¹¹⁸ Ibid. ¹¹⁹ Moreh Nebuchim I, 66. ¹²⁰ Deuteronomy 33:2. ¹²¹ Exodus 15:12. ¹²² Ibid. ¹²³ Deuteronomy 3:24. ¹²⁴ Ibid. ¹²⁵ Ibid. ¹²⁶ Ibid. ¹²⁷ Above, 28:12-13. ¹²⁸ Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon’s thesis is that the reason Onkelos did not paraphrase the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt ¹²⁹ Above, 28:15. ¹³⁰ Exodus 4:12. ¹³¹ Ibid. ¹³² Above, 20:3. ¹³³ Ibid. ¹³⁴ I Kings 3:5. ¹³⁵ See Note 152 in Seder Noach ¹³⁴ I Kings 3:5. ¹³⁶ Above, 41:22. ¹³⁷ Daniel 2:31. ¹³⁸ Exodus 16:8. ¹³⁹ Numbers 21:5. ¹⁴⁰ Above, 9:12. ¹⁴¹ Ibid. ¹⁴² Ibid. ¹⁴³ Ibid. ¹⁴⁴ Ibid. ¹⁴⁵ Moreh Nebuchim I, 28. ¹⁴⁶ Zechariah 14:4. ¹⁴⁷ Exodus 17:6. ¹⁴⁸ Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. ¹⁴⁹ Numbers 16:19. ¹⁵⁰ Exodus 19:20. ¹⁵¹ Onkelos, ibid. ¹⁴⁸ Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. ¹⁵² Above, 32:31. ¹⁴⁸ Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. ¹⁵³ Exodus 33:15. ¹⁵⁴ Ibid. ¹⁵⁵ Ibid. ¹⁵⁶ Ibid. ¹⁵⁷ We thus see that even here, where it is clear from the context that the verse refers to G-d and not an angel, Onkelos does not hesitate to translate “going” literally. ¹⁵⁸ Ibid. ¹⁵⁹ Ezekiel 3:12. ¹⁶⁰ Exodus 33:18. ¹⁶¹ Moreh Nebuchim I, 54 and 64. ¹⁶² Exodus 40:35. Moreh Nebuchim I, 64. ¹⁶³ See Note 56 in Introduction to Sefer Bereshith ¹⁶⁴ See Ramban on Exodus 20:19. ¹⁶⁵ Ibid. ¹⁶⁶ Deuteronomy 5:4. ¹⁶⁷ Ibid. ¹⁶⁸ Mechilta Shirah 3. See also Megillah 29a. ¹⁶⁹ Jeremiah 49:38. ¹⁷⁰ Verse 3 here. ¹²⁹ Above, 28:15. ¹⁷¹ 28:13. Since the Tetragrammaton (“the Eternal”) represents the attribute of mercy, had Onkelos literally translated Verse 15, “and, behold, I am with thee,” it would have indicated that this attribute would follow Jacob into exile since at the outset of this matter in Verse 13, Scripture uses the Tetragrammaton. Hence Onkelos translated Verse 15 as, ‘and My word will be in thy help,’ which is a reference to the attribute of judgment. (Bei’ur Ha’lvush to Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes the words of Ramban.) ¹³¹ Ibid.

AND HE SAID, JACOB, JACOB. After G-d had told him, Thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name,¹⁷² it would be proper that He call him by this glorious name, and so he is indeed mentioned three times in this section.¹⁷³ However, He called him Jacob in order to hint that now he will not contend with G-d and men and prevail, [as the name Israel indicates],¹⁷⁴ but he will be in a house of bondage until He will also bring him up again, since the exile now begins with him. This is the meaning of the verse, And these are the names of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons,¹⁷⁵ for they would come there with the appellation, “children of Israel,” since the children would multiply and increase there and their name and glory would extend. However, he is “Jacob” when descending thereto. The reason why Scripture mentions Er and Onan¹⁷⁶ together with the children of Israel who came into Egypt,¹⁷⁵ [although they had already died, as clearly stated in Verse 12]; is due to a secret which can be known from the words we have already written.¹⁷⁷ The learned student [of the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand this, as well as the meaning of the entire Verse [12]. Scripture likewise mentioned them among those numbered¹⁷⁸ in the desert: The sons of Judah: Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Judah after their families were, etc.¹⁷⁹ And there, in the book of Chronicles, Scripture enumerates them in another count: The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan and Shelah; which were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess…And Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Perez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.¹⁸⁰

footnotes: ¹⁷² Above, 35:10. ¹⁷³ In Verses 1, 2 and 5. ¹⁷⁴ Above, 32:29. ¹⁷⁵ Verse 8 here. ¹⁷⁶ Verse 12 here. ¹⁷⁵ Verse 8 here. ¹⁷⁷ See Ramban above, 38:8. ¹⁷⁸ The intent of the Hebrew text may also be that Scripture likewise mentions them “in the book of Numbers,” thus giving this sentence the same format as Ramban’s next sentence, “And in the book of Chronicles….” ¹⁷⁹ Numbers 26:19-20. ¹⁸⁰ I Chronicles 2:3-4. This is difficult to understand. Since two of his sons died prior to the birth of the youngest two, how does Scripture conclude that they totalled five? Thus there is here also an allusion to that which was referred to above.

AND HIS SONS’ DAUGHTERS. These were Serah, the daughter of Asher, and Jochebed, the daughter of Levi. This is the language of Rashi. But what will Rashi include in the term, his daughters, [which is also plural, although Jacob only had one daughter, Dinah]? Rather, it is the way of Scripture, when mentioning the genealogy of many people, to refer to an individual in the plural form, as for example, *And the sons of Dan: Hushim;*¹⁸¹ And the sons of Palu: Eliab.¹⁸² The same is true here: “daughters” refer to Dinah. “His sons’ daughters” refers to Serah the daughter of Asher, but Jochebed [Moses’ mother] is not mentioned by Scripture [as being among the persons who went down to Egypt], as it is said, All the souls were threescore and six.¹⁸³ She is, however, hinted at, according to the opinion of our Rabbis.¹⁸⁴

footnotes: ¹⁸¹ Verse 23 here. ¹⁸² Numbers 26:8. ¹⁸³ Verse 26 here. ¹⁸⁴ Baba Bathra 123a. See also Ramban, on Verse 15.

THIRTY AND THREE. But in the above enumeration you will find only thirty-two. However, the one whose name is omitted is Jochebed who was born as they entered the border city, as it is said, Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bore to Levi in Egypt.¹⁸⁵ She was born in Egypt, but she was not conceived in Egypt. This is the principle of our Rabbis.¹⁸⁴ But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra replied, saying that “this is surprising. For if so, why did Scripture not mention the wonder that befell her, for she gave birth to Moses when she was one hundred and thirty years old?¹⁸⁶ And why did it mention the case of Sarah who gave birth when she was ninety years old? This distress was not yet sufficient for us so that the poets came and composed liturgic poems for the day of Simchath Torah,¹⁸⁷ wherein they state, ‘Jochebed, my mother, will be comforted after me,’ [implying that Jochebed survived her son], and thus she was two hundred and fifty years old at the death of Moses!¹⁸⁸ Is the proof of the poets for this longevity of Jochebed because Ahijah the Shilonite¹⁸⁹ lived a life of great duration?¹⁹⁰ [If so, this is not a proof, for his longevity is but] an Agadic tradition or the opinion of a single authority.”¹⁹¹ These are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. Now lest he be wise in his own eyes¹⁹² in contradicting the words of our Rabbis, I must answer him and say that in any case, there is in the matter of Jochebed a great wonder of the hidden miracles¹⁹³ which constitute the foundation of the Torah. Jochebed was Levi’s actual daughter, and not merely his offspring, as it is written, Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bore to Levi,¹⁸⁵ and it is furthermore written, And Amram took himself Jochebed his father’s sister for a wife.¹⁹⁴ [Thus Amram, Levi’s grandson, married Jochebed, Levi’s daughter.] Now if we would say that Levi begot Jochebed in his younger years, just as he begot all his sons, this would place her birth soon after his descent into Egypt, and she would have been very old at the time of Moses’ birth,¹⁸⁶ at or near the age stated by our Rabbis.¹⁹⁵ And if we would say that he begot her after he resided in Egypt for many years — say, for a period of fifty-seven years — then Levi would have been one hundred years old at Jochebed’s birth, for when he went down to Egypt he was forty-three years¹⁹⁶ of age. In that case, there were two great wonders! [Levi, at the time he begot Jochebed], was as old as Abraham, concerning whom Scripture mentions, *Shall a child be born to him who is a hundred years old?*¹⁹⁷ and it is further written, And my lord is old also,¹⁹⁸, 18:12. while Jochebed would still have been an elderly woman of seventy-three when Moses was born! And should we further postpone Jochebed’s birth to the end of Levi’s days, the wonder of his begetting a child will be greater than that of Abraham! But I will tell you a true principle, clearly indicated in the Torah. Scripture mentions miracles performed through a prophet and which he previously prophesied, or performed by an angel who is revealed in the course of a Divine mission, but those effected naturally in order to help the righteous or destroy the wicked are not mentioned in the Torah or in the books of the prophets. May this be “hot gold poured into the mouth”¹⁹⁹ of this wise man who refuted the words of our Rabbis in the matter of Phinehas²⁰⁰ and similar matters in many places. Why should Scripture mention hidden miracles when all the foundations of the Torah are hidden miracles. In the entire scope of the Torah there are only miracles, and no nature or custom. All assurances of the Torah are in the form of signs and wonders, as it is not natural that he who has connection with one of the forbidden degrees of marriage or he who eats forbidden fat suffers excision or death.²⁰¹ Nor is it by nature that the heavens become as iron²⁰² because we have sowed our fields in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, all the assurances of the Torah concerning those blessings [which will result from our observance of the law], and all the good fortune of the righteous ones because of their righteousness, as well as all the prayers of our king David [in the book of Psalms] and all our prayers, all are founded upon miracles and wonders, except that there is no heralded change in the nature of the world, as I have already mentioned,¹⁹³ and I will yet explain it further,²⁰³, Verse 11. with the help of G-d. I will give you faithful testimony to that which I have said. We know that from the time Israel came into the Land until the birth of our lord David, about three hundred and seventy years elapsed.²⁰⁴ These years are to be divided among four generations: Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse [David’s father],²⁰⁵ each one being allotted ninety-three years. Thus when they begot children they were all approximately as old as Abraham was when he begot Isaac. Furthermore, each one begot his son in the year of his death, a most unusual thing, since in their era the general span of life was not a hundred years. And if one of them begot his son in his younger years, as is usual, the others would have had to be much older than Abraham, and thus the wonder concerning them would be exceedingly great since people in the generation of Abraham lived long, and in the days of David the average lifespan was reduced to a half. And perhaps these four generations lived longer than their contemporaries for it is possible that Salmon was already advanced in years when he entered the Land of Israel. It is for this reason that the masters of Tradition, who are the true Sages, have attributed longevity to Obed,²⁰⁶ this being a covert miracle which was done to the ancestor of the kingdom [of the house of David], the son of the righteous one [Ruth], who had come to take refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence.²⁰⁷ The Sages similarly mention longevity in connection with Obed’s mother, Ruth.²⁰⁸ Now I have already explained¹⁹⁷ that the wonder in the case of Abraham was not as the above-mentioned Sage [Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra] and other masters of the Scriptures have thought.²⁰⁹ Abraham begot Isaac seventy-five years before his death, prior to the completion of two-thirds of his lifespan, and in all generations, old age does not affect people until three quarters of their lives have passed, just as the doctors have considered the divisions of life to be: childhood, youth, manhood, and old age. In these generations, when the lifespan is about seventy years, doctors do not consider a person aged until after sixty. Moreover, Abraham begot many children²¹⁰ forty years after the birth of Isaac, and the wonder is thus manifoldly miraculous! And should we say that G-d caused Abraham to revert to his youthful days, it may be asked why Scripture does not mention this great wonder when it was an open and known miracle which is contrary to nature. Moreover, it is known that in this present generation some men beget children until they are full seventy or eighty years old and more, depending upon the extent to which they retain their natural vitality. Women also have no specific time [for ceasing to conceive], as long as they have their period they can give birth. However, the wonder in the case of Abraham and Sarah, as I explained there,¹⁹⁷ was due to the fact that they had not begotten children in their younger years, and now together they begot a child. In the case of Sarah there was an additional wonder, i.e., that the manner of women²¹¹, 18:11. had ceased with her, and after this happens, women no longer give birth. Now if Jochebed lived as many years as her father Levi had,²¹² and if her vitality remained with her until near her old age, as is the way of women, it would be no wonder if she gave birth at the time set forth by our Rabbis, [namely, at one hundred and thirty years of age]. It is because G-d wanted to redeem Israel though the brothers [Moses and Aaron], and since the time of the redemption had not yet come, He delayed their birth many years until their mother was old. Nothing is too difficult for the Eternal.²¹³ Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi] wrote:²¹⁴ “According to the view that a twin-sister was born with each of Jacob’s sons, we must say that they died before Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt because they are not enumerated here.” There is no necessity for this conclusion, for the Rabbis have said:²¹⁵ “Rabbi Yehudah says that Jacob’s sons married their sisters.” These twin-sisters were thus the wives of Jacob’s sons, concerning whom Scripture says, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives.²¹⁴ In fact, Rabbi Yehudah arrived at this opinion on the basis of this verse, since if it refers to Canaanitish women what reason is there for Scripture to say, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, after it had already said, *that came out of his loins?*²¹⁴ It is only because his sons’ wives were also of those “that came out of his loins” that Scripture refers to them. It does not, however, divulge them here, just as it did not mention them explicitly when they were born together with Jacob’s sons. Furthermore, Scripture mentions here only those who begot children and increased in Egypt, in order to make known the great miracle which was performed in the mighty increase which they effected in Egypt, for at this juncture, they numbered seventy souls. Thus their wives were not counted because a man and his wife are one.

footnotes: ¹⁸⁵ Numbers 26:59. ¹⁸⁴ Baba Bathra 123a. See also Ramban, next Verse. ¹⁸⁶ Israel stayed in Egypt two hundred and ten years. Since Moses was eighty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, he was thus born one hundred and thirty years after they entered Egypt. ¹⁸⁷ Literally, “Rejoicing of the Law.” On this festival day, which marks the last day of the festival of Succoth, the concluding chapter of the life of Moses is read in the Synagogue. The joyous celebrations on this day are due to the annual completion of the reading of the Torah, as well as to the fact that it is commenced anew. ¹⁸⁸ Her age when Moses was born added to Moses’ life span of one hundred and twenty totals two hundred and fifty. ¹⁸⁹ I Kings 11:29. ¹⁹⁰ According to an Agadic tradition, Ahijah the Shilonite was among those who went out of Egypt, and lived to the days of Jeroboam I, king of Israel, a period of about four hundred and fifty years. (Baba Bathra 121b.) On the basis of this tradition, the poets claimed that since longevity was possible for Ahijah, it was possible also for Jochebed, Moses’ mother. ¹⁹¹ The source for Ahijah’s longevity is the Seder Olam, Chapter 1. This book is a chronicle of Biblical times, composed by Rabbi Yosei ben Chalaphtah, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba. ¹⁹² Proverbs 26:5. ¹⁹³ See Ramban, above, 17:1. ¹⁸⁵ Numbers 26:59. ¹⁹⁴ Exodus 6:20. ¹⁸⁶ Israel stayed in Egypt two hundred and ten years. Since Moses was eighty years old when he stood before Pharaoh, he was thus born one hundred and thirty years after they entered Egypt. ¹⁹⁵ In that case the wonder would have been only on the part of Jochebed. ¹⁹⁶ Jacob married Leah when he was eighty-four years old. (Bereshith Rabbah 68:5). When Levi, her third son, was born, Jacob was thus eighty-seven. When he stood before Pharaoh, Jacob said that he was one hundred and thirty years old (47:9). Thus Levi was forty-three at that time. ¹⁹⁷ Above, 17:17. ¹⁹⁸ Ibid. ¹⁹⁹ Sanhedrin 92b. ²⁰⁰ In his Commentary to Numbers 25:12, Ibn Ezra brushes aside the tradition that Phinehas is identical with Elijah. ²⁰¹ Ramban here refers to death by heavenly punishment. See, for example, Leviticus 20:17. ²⁰² Leviticus 26:19. ¹⁹³ See Ramban, above, 17:1. ²⁰³ Ibid. ²⁰⁴ From the Exodus to the building of the Temple, four hundred and eighty years elapsed (I Kings 6:1). Deduct the forty years spent in the desert and the seventy years of David’s lifespan, and the remainder is three hundred and seventy. ²⁰⁵ Ruth 4: 21-22. ²⁰⁶ Bereshith Rabbah 96:4: “The Sages have said, Obed lived more than four hundred years.” ²⁰⁷ See Ruth 2:12. ²⁰⁸ In Baba Bathra 91 b, it is stated that Ruth was still alive in the days of Solomon. ¹⁹⁷ Above, 17:17. ²⁰⁹ That the wonder was due to Abraham’s advanced age. ²¹⁰ Above, 25: 1-2. ¹⁹⁷ Above, 17:17. ²¹¹ Ibid. ²¹² One hundred and thirty-seven years (Exodus 6:16). ²¹³ See above, 18:14. ²¹⁴ Verse 26 here. ²¹⁵ Bereshith Rabbah 84:19. See also Ramban, above, 38:2. ²¹⁴ Verse 26 here. ²¹⁴ Verse 26 here.

THESE ARE THE SONS OF ZILPAH, etc. 19. THE SONS OF RACHEL JACOB’s WIFE, etc. It is customary for Scripture to first enumerate the sons of the mistresses together, just as it said in the Seder Vayishlach Yaakov²¹⁶ and in the Seder V’eileh Shmoth bnei Yisrael,²¹⁷ or else to enumerate them according to the order of their birth, the firstborn according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth,²¹⁸ as Scripture did when they were blessed by Jacob in the Seder Vayechi Yaakov.²¹⁹ and in Shmoth, or according to their age, as it did in Vayechi. Ramban is attempting to explain why they are mentioned here after Zilpah’s children. Here, however, because Scripture’s purpose was to enumerate their numbers and to state that with seventy souls they went down to Egypt, it gave precedence to those who were more numerous. This was why Scripture mentioned Rachel among the concubines, and hence it was necessary to mention her with respect, saying, Jacob’s wife, as I have mentioned above.²²⁰

footnotes: ²¹⁶ Above, 35: 23-26. ²¹⁷ Exodus 1: 2-4. ²¹⁸ Above, 43:33. ²¹⁹ See my Hebrew Commentary (p. 295) where the point is made that Ramban refers only to Joseph and Benjamin. Either Scripture mentions them at first together with the sons of Leah, as it did in Seder Vayishlach ²²⁰ Above, 37:2.

AND HE APPEARED BEFORE HIM. Joseph appeared before his father. And he wept on his neck a good while. The phrase vayeivk od signifies “weeping copiously.” Jacob, however, did not fall upon the neck of his son Joseph, nor did he kiss him. Our Rabbis said that this was because he was reciting the Shema, (the affirmation of G-d’s Unity). This is the language of Rashi. But [according to this interpretation, which says that it was Joseph who fell on his father’s neck and wept], I know of no reason for the statement, And he appeared before him, since it is understood that Joseph appeared before Jacob since he fell upon his neck. Moreover, it is not respectful for Joseph to fall upon his father’s neck. He should rather bow before him or kiss his hands, as it is written, And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he fell down on his face.²²¹ And at the present moment, it was more fitting that he bow to him [than at the time referred to in the aforementioned verse].²²¹ So also, every term ‘od’ in Scripture indicates an addition to the original but does not imply copiousness. Thus: He doth not set a stated time ‘od’ for a man,²²² which means, “He sets a stated time for a man in accordance with his transgression, and nothing is added.”²²³ can refer to a slight increase. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Israel’s eyes were already slightly dim from age,²²⁴ and when Joseph arrived in the carriage of the second in rank,²²⁵ with a mitre on his head as was the custom of the Egyptian kings, his father did not recognize him. His brothers also had not recognized him.²²⁶, 42:8. Therefore Scripture mentioned that when he appeared before his father, who stared at him and finally recognized him, his father fell on his neck and cried again over him, even as he had continually cried over him to this day when he had not seen him after his disappearance, and then Jacob said, Now let me die, since I have seen thy face.²²⁷ It is a known matter as to whose tears are more constant: that of an old father who finds his son alive after having despaired of him and having mourned for him, or that of a grown-up son who reigns. Do not be concerned [lest this interpretation be open to question] because Scripture immediately says, And Israel said,²²⁸ [thus implying that the previous subject is not Israel but Joseph], whereas according to our interpretation Scripture is speaking of Jacob and then mentions his name once again in the following verse. A similar case is found in these verses: And he gathered up all the foods of the seven years, etc.,²²⁹ [where Joseph is the subject of the verse, and yet Scripture mentions his name in the succeeding verse], And unto Joseph were born two sons.²³⁰, Verse 50. There are constantly many similar places in the Torah and in the other books of Scripture.

footnotes: ²²¹ Further, 48:12. ²²¹ Further, 48:12. ²²² Job 34:23. ²²³ We thus see that od ²²⁴ See further, 48:10. ²²⁵ Above, 41:43. ²²⁶ Ibid. ²²⁷ Verse 30 here. ²²⁸ Verse 30 here. ²²⁹ Above, 41:48. ²³⁰ Ibid.

AND THE MEN ARE SHEPHERDS, FOR THEY HAVE BEEN KEEPERS OF CATTLE. Joseph told them that they are shepherds but that they do not tend to the cattle of others because even with respect to their own cattle, they have servants and attendants to pasture them. It is only that their wealth consists of cattle. This is the sense of the expression, they have been keepers of cattle, and had wealth, and a very great household²³¹ by virtue of the great multitude of cattle which they possessed. It was Joseph’s intention to mention them in an honorable way.

footnotes: ²³¹ Job 1:3.