AND THE CHILDREN THAT WERE BORN TO YOU AFTER THEM. “If you beget any more children, they will not be numbered among my sons, but they will rather be included among the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh. Nor shall they have a name amongst the tribes as far as inheritance in the Land of Israel is concerned.” Now even though the Land of Israel was divided according to the number of persons, as it is written, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance,¹⁵ and each person received an equal share except for the first-born, who received a double share,¹⁶ nevertheless only these sons were designated as “tribes.” This is the language of Rashi. Now this is not correct, for if so,¹⁷ then Jacob’s granting of the birthright to Joseph was just nominal, its only effect being that Joseph’s sons would be called “tribes,” whereas the verse states, in their inheritance.¹⁸ This indicates that the two sons of Joseph were to be given the extra right of the firstborn in the matter of inheritance. In the Gemara,¹⁹ the Sages have said: “I have likened Ephraim and Menasheh to Reuben and Simeon with respect to the matter of inheritance, but not with respect to other matters,”²⁰ even though they did not constitute an actual majority of the entire population. In that case Ephraim and Menasheh are considered part of the tribe of Joseph. as is stated in Tractate Horayoth.¹⁹ Our Rabbis have mentioned in many places²¹ that Joseph was the first-born as far as inheritance was concerned, and that he received a double share in the Land, as is the rule of every first-born,¹⁶ but not that his being first-born consisted merely of his sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi [Rashi] would have it. From this we further learn that the Land was not divided among all the tribes of Israel according to their populations for if so, what was the significance of this primogeniture with respect to inheritance? If we would say it meant that each and every individual offspring of Joseph was given double that of each person of all other tribes, this is not mentioned at all in Scripture, and we do not find Jacob giving the birthright to Joseph except by what he said here, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me,,²² and based upon this, Scripture states, His [Reuben’s] birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel.²³ If so, then Ephraim and Menasheh were fully considered as two tribes, and it was this which constituted Joseph’s birthright, and the words of the Sages indeed corroborate this everywhere. Thus the matter is not at all as the Rabbi²⁴ stated it. Instead, the Land of Israel was divided according to tribes. They made twelve equal parts of it, with Simeon, the least populous of the tribes, taking a share equal to that of Judah, the most populous of the tribes, and thus, Ephraim and Menasheh took exactly the same amount of land as Reuben and Simeon. This is the conclusion of the Gemara in the chapter, Yesh Nochalin.²⁵ (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. Scripture also states, Ye shall divide the land for inheritance according to the twelve tribes of Israel, Joseph receiving two portions.²⁶ So too does Onkelos say,²⁷ “Two tribes shall come forth from his sons. They shall receive chulka ve’achsanta (portion and inheritance),” which means that they shall be equal to the other tribes with respect to inheritance received. Now chulka (portion) refers to the extra share of the first-born, and achsanta (inheritance) refers to ordinary inheritance. In the verse stating, To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance,²⁸ Scripture refers to the paternal families mentioned there in the chapter.²⁹, Verses 8-50. Scripture is stating that the tribe divides its share of the land among the paternal families that left Egypt by giving a larger portion to a more populous family and a smaller portion to a less populous family, with the dead becoming heirs of the living, as is explained in the Sifre³⁰ and is mentioned by Rashi in the Parshah of Pinchas.³¹ Thus the general principle with respect to Joseph was that he was the first-born as regards inheritance, and if, as mentioned in the Gemara,²⁵ (“There are some that inherit,”) the eighth chapter of that tractate, deals with all problems of personal inheritance, as well as with the whole range of problems connected with the original division of the Land by Joshua. the land was divided according to the number of tribes, they gave the children of Joseph portions equal to those of Reuben and Simeon. And even if we were to say that the land was divided according to the number of persons, as is apparent from the verse,³², etc. (Numbers 26:54.) then we would say that they gave them double portions commensurate with their numbers — an ordinary share as large as all the other people, and a second portion for the birthright. In that case, the meaning of Jacob’s words, As Reuben and Simeon shall they be to me,²² is that they should receive as many shares as twice their number of people. But that Joseph should be as the other tribes with respect to inheritance, with the birthright consisting of his two sons being called “tribes,” as the Rabbi³³ stated, this is impossible under any circumstance.

footnotes: ¹⁵ Numbers 26:54. ¹⁶ Deuteronomy 21:17. ¹⁷ If, as Rashi says, Joseph’s designation as firstborn meant only that Joseph’s two sons shall be counted as separate tribes, but not that they shall receive a double share in the Land, then it follows that, etc. ¹⁸ At the end of the verse before us: And the children that were born to you after shall be counted to you; they shall be called after the name of their brethren ‘in their inheritance.’ ¹⁹ Horayoth 6b. ²⁰ As, for example, the case of a Sin-offering which is brought by the great Sanhedrin for an erroneous decision, followed by most of the tribes ¹⁹ Horayoth 6b. ²¹ Baba Bathra 123a. ¹⁶ Deuteronomy 21:17. ²² Verse 5 here. ²³ I Chronicles 5:1. ²⁴ Rashi. Rashi’s premise that the Land was divided according to population is disputed by Ramban. Since, according to Ramban, each tribe received an equal portion, he proceeds to differ with Rashi and says that Joseph received twice as much land as any other tribe since Ephraim and Menasheh were considered separate tribes. ²⁵ Baba Bathra 121b. Yesh Nochalin ²⁶ Ezekiel 47:13. ²⁷ In translating the blessing bestowed upon Joseph by Jacob. Further, 49:22. ²⁸ Numbers 26:54. This verse, which seems to indicate that the Land was divided according to population, as Rashi taught, is explained by Ramban as referring to the internal division within each tribe. ²⁹ Ibid. ³⁰ Sifre Pinchas 132. See also Ramban on Numbers 26:54. ³¹ Rashi, ibid. ²⁵ Baba Bathra 121b. Yesh Nochalin ³² To the more thou shalt give the more inheritance ²² Verse 5 here. ³³ Rashi. In his commentary to Numbers 26:54, Ramban further discusses this problem at great length.

AND I BURIED HER THERE. In Rashi’s commentary it is written, “And I did not transport her for burial even to Bethlehem to bring her into the Land.” Now I do not know the meaning thereof. Was Rachel buried outside of the Land? Forbid it! She died within the Land, and she was buried there, just as it says here in the parshah: Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan.³⁴ And there in the narrative of her death it is still more clearly written, And Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan — the same is Beth-el,³⁵ and it is further stated, And they journeyed from Beth-el and there was still some way to come to Ephrath,³⁶, Verse 16. and Rachel died on the way between Beth-el and Bethlehem Ephratha in the Land of Israel.

footnotes: ³⁴ In the verse before us. ³⁵ Above, 35:6. ³⁶ Ibid.

AND I BURIED HER THERE. “Now I know that there is some resentment in your heart against me [for not having brought her into the city]. But you should know that I buried her there by the word of G-d, that she might help her children when Nebuzaradan³⁷ would exile them,” for when they passed along that road, Rachel came forth from her grave and stood by her tomb beseeching mercy for them, as it is said, A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children,³⁸ and the Holy One, blessed by He, answered her, Thy work shall be rewarded … and the children shall return to their own border.³⁹, Verses 16-17. This is the language of Rashi. Now in any case there should be some allusion in Scripture to this interpretation which is stated in this Agadah. Perhaps this is alluded to in the expression of the verse, She died by me … in the way … And I buried her in the way,⁴⁰ (in the way) is unnecessary except as an allusion to “the way” which Rachel’s children were destined to use when they went into captivity. (Bachya. See my Hebrew commentary on Ramban, p. 261.) that is to say, “She died on the road which her children would pass, and I buried her there for her advantage.” She did not die on the road, but in Ramah,⁴¹ a city in the land of Benjamin, and there she was buried. [Thus, according to the Midrash, Scripture is implying that] she died on the road which her children were destined to pass in the future, as Scripture does not fully explain future events but only alludes to them in a general manner. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is likewise understood that Jacob spoke to Joseph in an apologetic vein so that when he discerned his father’s wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, Joseph should not be angered about his failure to bury his mother there just as he buried Leah there. It was for this reason that Jacob told him that she died in the land of Canaan, and she was not buried outside of the Land in the manner in which an Egyptian burial would befall Jacob. Furthermore, she died on the road suddenly, and he could not bury her in the cave of Machpelah for how could he leave his children and his flocks on the road and hurry with her body to the cave of Machpelah? And where could he find doctors and medicines to embalm her? This is the meaning of the word alai (by me) [in the verse, Rachel died by me]. Even though the cave of Machpelah is but a half-day’s distance from the place of her death, Jacob was heavily laden with much cattle and family, and he would not arrive there for many days. Thus he did indeed spend many days on that road until he came to his father. Our Sages have further taught:⁴² “The bier of a woman may never be set down, out of respect.” Now it is my opinion that these are but words of apology as Joseph already knew that Rachel died on the road and was buried in the Land, and that honor was paid to her when she died. But the reason Jacob did not transport Rachel to the cave of Machpelah was so that he should not bury two sisters there,⁴³ for he would be embarassed before his ancestors. Now Leah was the one he married first, and thus her marriage was permissible, while he married Rachel out of his love for her and because of the vow he made to her.⁴⁴

footnotes: ³⁷ Chief general of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, who destroyed the city of Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and led the people into captivity (II Kings 25:8-21). ³⁸ Jeremiah 31:15. ³⁹ Ibid. ⁴⁰ The second baderech ⁴¹ See Ramban, above, 35:16. ⁴² Moed Katan 27a. ⁴³ For being married concurrently to two sisters was later prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:18). See also Ramban above, pp. 330-2. ⁴⁴ Since he married her while already married to Leah, the wedding to Rachel would have been forbidden according to the Torah’s later prohibition. Hence her burial place could not be in the cave of Machpelah. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 262.

WHOM G-D HATH GIVEN ME HERE. It was really not necessary for Joseph to inform his father that his two sons were born to him in Egypt since when Joseph left him he had no wife and children, and Jacob himself had previously said to him, Thy two sons, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt.⁴⁵ It appears to me that the meaning of the word bazeh (here) is “in this matter concerning which you have spoken,” i.e., “G-d gave them to me before you came to Egypt to me, and they are the ones concerning whom you have said that they are yours.”⁴⁶ A similar use of the word bazeh is found in the verse, In this way (‘u’bazeh’) the maiden came to the king.⁴⁷, Verse 12). Now Joseph said, G-d hath given me, meaning that “G-d had performed miracles for me until the king gave me this wife, and I have these children from her.”

footnotes: ⁴⁵ Verse 5 here. Why then was it necessary for Joseph to tell his father, They are my sons, whom G-d hath given me here? ⁴⁶ See Verse 5 here. ⁴⁷ Esther 2:13. Meaning that she came in this manner specified above. (Ibid.

AND HE BLESSED JOSEPH, AND SAID. The meaning of this verse⁴⁸ is that in order to bless Joseph, out of his love for him, he blessed his sons. Scripture is relating that Joseph had no other children and his entire blessing was inherent in the blessing of these boys. It may be that [the blessing here was directed at Joseph himself, stating that] the other children who will be born to him in the future⁴⁹ shall be called by the name of their brothers and be blessed with their blessing. In my opinion this latter interpretation is correct since the prophet Jacob said, *And the children that were born (‘holad’to’)*⁵⁰ is in the past tense and means “were born to you.” Ramban will explain that Jacob’s words are to be understood as if they were in the future tense: “And the children that will be born to you after them shall be thine.” Joseph thus had other children besides Ephraim and Menasheh, whom Scripture does not record, as they were counted among the tribes of his first sons. after them, shall be thine, and his word would not be in vain.⁵¹ However, Joseph did beget children after that, just as is the opinion of Onkelos, who translated: “And the children that you will beget after them.” And thus, asher holad’to is a past tense replacing a future, just as in the verse, Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite,⁵² (I took) is to be understood as if it were in the future tense. and many additional verses besides. Even in line with the literal interpretation of Scripture it would appear that Joseph had children that he had begotten after his father came to him in Egypt. This is obvious from the fact that Jacob found it necessary to elaborate rather than say, “And now thy sons, Ephraim and Menasheh, who were born to thee, shall be mine as Reuben and Simeon, and the children that will be born shall be thine.” This is the reason why Scripture states, And unto Joseph were born two sons before the year of famine came,⁵³ since after the famine additional children were born to him, but Scripture does not mention them as there is no need for us to know of them [since they were absorbed into the tribes of Ephraim and Menasheh].

footnotes: ⁴⁸ The verse begins by stating that Jacob blessed Joseph, and the blessing that follows refers only to his sons. Ramban is attempting to resolve this difficulty. ⁴⁹ Verse 6 here. ⁵⁰ Holad’to ⁵¹ As it would be if we interpret the verse literally as referring to the past for Joseph did not as yet have any children other than Ephraim and Menasheh. ⁵² Verse 22 here. Here again, lakachti ⁵³ Above, 41:50.

THE G-D, BEFORE WHOM MY FATHERS, ABRAHAM AND ISAAC, DID WALK, THE G-D WHO HATH BEEN MY SHEPHERD ALL MY LIFE LONG UNTO THIS DAY. The prophet⁵⁴ (G-d) in this blessing: The G-d before Whom … the G-d who hath been my shepherd. calls upon the G-d of his fathers Who [has] the greatness and the power and Who did great and tremendous things for them, and [after that he refers to Him in a synonymous way and] he calls upon the true G-d, Who had been his shepherd all his life. It is possible that the word haro’eh (shepherd) — in the phrase, Who hath been my shepherd — is derived from the word rei’ah (friend), as in the verse, Thine own friend (‘rei’acha’), and thy father’s friend, forsake not,⁵⁵ for in that attribute there is peace and friendship. Do not find difficulty with the expression, all my life unto this day, in connection with that which we have written on the verse, And he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his father Isaac,⁵⁶ for from his very inception He did indeed lead him in the true path, but His attribute of truth was not brought to bear upon him completely until he returned to the land of his ancestors as he was outside of the Land, and also because he was constrained to conduct himself in a crafty manner towards Laban, and that was not the path of truth.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Jacob. Ramban is here explaining the double use of Elokim ⁵⁵ Proverbs 27:10. ⁵⁶ Above, 46:1. The difficulty is that the verse here indicates that the attribute of peace was forever directing Jacob’s life, while in the verse above (46:1) Ramban explained that this attribute did not come into his life until that time. (Tziyoni. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 263.)

AND LET MY NAME BE CALLED ON THEM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that it means that all Israel be called by the name Ephraim,⁵⁷ (Jeremiah 31:19), the reference there being to all Israel. just as they are called “the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” This is not correct for Scripture uses the word bahem (on them), [thus referring to both Ephraim and Menasheh], and they were not called by the name of Menasheh. But perhaps this is because they were called the house of Joseph.⁵⁸. The correct interpretation though is that their race and their name will exist forever, and the name of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will forever be upon them.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ As in the verse: Is Ephraim a darling son unto me? ⁵⁸ Zechariah 10:6. And I will help the house of Joseph

IT DISPLEASED HIM. Perhaps Joseph loved Menasheh more on account of his being the first-born. Hence it displeased him. The correct interpretation in my opinion is that he thought that his father had made a mistake concerning them, and if his blessing will be without true knowledge it will never be fulfilled upon them as it will not have been done with the proper Ruach Hakodesh (holy spirit). But when his father told him, I know it, my son, I know it,⁵⁹ he was reconciled.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Verse 19 here.

AND HE BLESSED THEM THAT DAY. The meaning of that day is that since Joseph had urged him to give Menasheh precedence, the verse declares that Jacob did not wish to remove his right hand from Ephraim’s head to that of Menasheh. Moreover, he expressly reiterated on that occasion, in Joseph’s presence, when he blessed them by saying, As Ephraim and Menasheh. And he put Ephraim before Menasheh in all his blessings.

BY THEE SHALL ISRAEL BLESS. Jacob addressed this to Joseph. It means that the nation of Israel will bless with your children and say to those being blessed, God make thee as Ephraim and Menasheh.

MOREOVER I HAVE GIVEN TO THEE ONE PORTION ABOVE THY BRETHREN. After he had blessed Joseph’s children and made them two tribes, he returned to Joseph and said to him: “Behold, I die; but G-d will be with you⁶⁰ in exile in order to save you from all trouble, and you will increase and multiply exceedingly, and He will bring you back to the land of your fathers to inherit it. I have already given you the one portion in my power to bestow — namely, the portion of the birthright — to be yours above that of your brothers, right from the day that I took it out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.” All this is a conciliation to Joseph and a manifestation of his love for him, for he informed him that he gave him the birthright, meaning that his sons will henceforth be blessed by becoming two tribes, also in the banners which were assigned in the desert,⁶¹ and in the dedication of the Tabernacle by the princes of the tribes.⁶², Chapter 7. He also gave him his portion in the inheritance which he would acquire when the children of Israel will conquer the Land by sword and bow and war. Jacob thus told him: “I have done for you all the good which I was able to do for you as long as it was in my power to do it.” Jacob’s right in the Land was but one portion for he had no right to divest any of his sons of his inheritance. Only the birthright was his to give to whomever he pleased, and it was to Joseph that he gave it.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Verse 21 here. ⁶¹ See Numbers, Chapter 2. ⁶² Ibid.

OUT OF THE HAND OF THE AMORITE. The meaning of this is that Israel first took the Land from the hand of the Amorite. Sichon and Og were two Amorite kings, and the first great war in the conquest of the Land took place between the children of Joseph and the Amorites. This was the war of Joshua⁶³ with the Amorites, and it was in the course of the war with them that the great miracle took place, as it is written, Then spoke Joshua to the Eternal in the day when the Eternal delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, etc.⁶⁴ And it was out of the hand of the Amorites that the children of Joseph took their portion and inheritance in the Land, as it is written, And the children of Machir the son of Menasheh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorites that were there.⁶⁵ The children of Ephraim likewise inherited in the territory of the Amorites, as it is written, But the Amorites were resolved to dwell in Har-cheres, in Ayalon, and in Shaalbin; yet the hand of the house of Joseph prevailed, so that they became tributary.⁶⁶

footnotes: ⁶³ Joshua belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, Joseph’s son. See Numbers 13:8, and 16. ⁶⁴ Joshua 10:12. ⁶⁵ Numbers 32:39. ⁶⁶ Judges 1:35.

WITH MY SWORD AND WITH MY BOW. The meaning thereof is that the Land was captured by them only through the sword and bow. This alludes to that which Scripture states, There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon; they took all in battle. For it was of the Eternal to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that they might be utterly destroyed.⁶⁷ He attributes the sword and bow to himself⁶⁸. for it was his merit which waged war for them and fought on their behalf, not they themselves, even as the verse states it, For not by their own sword did they get the land in possession, neither did their own arm save them, but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countenance, because Thou wast favorable unto them.⁶⁹ This is a reference to the merit of the patriarchs, for by way of the truth,⁷⁰ Thy right hand [is a reference to the merit of] Abraham, Thine arm to that of Isaac, and the light of Thy countenance to that of Jacob. It further appears reasonable to me that Jacob did as the prophets later on were wont to do. He inclined his hand with a sword towards the land of the Amorites and cast arrows there to symbolize that the land would be captured by his children, even as Elisha did: And he laid his hands upon the king’s hands, and Elisha said, Shoot; and he shot.⁷¹ Now even though Scripture does not relate it here, it is alluded to in this verse. It is possible that this is the meaning of Jacob’s saying, lakachti (I took),⁷² for from that moment on the Land was taken for his sons.

footnotes: ⁶⁷ Joshua 11:19-20. ⁶⁸ Saying, with ‘my’ sword and with ‘my’ bow ⁶⁹ Psalms 44:4. ⁷⁰ The teaching of the Cabala. ⁷¹ II Kings 13:16-17. ⁷² This explains the use of the past tense “I took,” although the land was not actually captured until the time of Joshua.