After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants... Re’m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write first ואלה תולדות יעקב..., and then וישב יעקב..., which is the same format that it writes about Eisov. First Eisov’s descendants are enumerated (36:1) and then it tells where they had settled. Rashi answers: “After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants...” In other words, Scripture’s purpose is not to enumerate Yaakov’s descendants [as it did with Eisov], but only to explain the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants; and how they settled. [Thus, this section connects to the previous one as regards to settling,] as also the section about Eisov explained his settlement and that of his descendants. For it is written (36:8), “Eisov settled in Mount Seir,” explaining his settlement. Then it describes his descendants, “These are the descendants of Eisov...” and the descendants of his wives. Then it explains the settling of his sons (vs. 40-43), “These are the names of the chiefs of Eisov, each with their families, according to their places... These are the chiefs of Edom according to their places of residence.” Thus for Yaakov, too, Scripture tells about his settlements and that of his descendants, as it is written וישב יעקב..., which means, “Yaakov settled...” Then it is written אלה תולדות יעקב..., meaning: these are the settlements of the descendants of Yaakov, too, like [Scripture explained regarding] the descendants of Eisov. For at this point the Torah begins to recount what happened to them until they came there [to settle the Land]. It begins with “Yoseif at the age of 17,” then his being sold to Egypt and their enslavement there, then the Exodus — this and that happened to them until they came to settle the Land.

This is the history of the children of Yaakov... This comment of Rashi relates to what he said before, that our verse is explaining the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants. Here, Rashi is answering the question: Where does Scripture explain the settlements of Yaakov’s descendants? It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה..., [seemingly a different topic]! Thus Rashi explains that אלה תולדות... is about the chain of events leading to the eventual settlement of Yaakov’s descendants, who are the Tribes: Yoseif was seventeen, etc, and because of Yoseif they came to Egypt, after which they left and came to Eretz Yisrael. [Question:] אלה תולדות יצחק... (25:19) is similar, in that it begins with אלה תולדות and then tells the events before their births. Why did Rashi not ask the same question there? The answer is: Rashi’s question here is mainly because it begins with the settlements of Yaakov and then Scripture writes אלה תולדות יעקב, but the order should have been reversed!

These are their settlements, and occurrences... Re’m explains that Rashi adds, “And occurrences,” because the Torah recounts the actual settlements of only two and a half tribes among Yaakov’s descendants.

The Midrash however explains: Scripture identifies Yaakov’s children as Yoseif... Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] the Torah is indeed explaining the descendants of Yaakov, not their settlements. It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף to convey that all Yaakov’s descendants are called after Yoseif. This is because Yaakov worked the first seven years due to his love for Rochel, to beget a son from her. But then Lavan deceived him and gave him Leah, from whom he begat sons. When Rochel saw that she had no sons, she gave him her maidservant Bilhah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. Then Leah gave him her maidservant Zilpah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. And then Rochel gave birth to Yoseif. As soon as Yoseif was born, Yaakov told Lavan that he wished to return to the place of his fathers. Thus we see that all Yaakov’s descendants were due to Yoseif who was born from Rochel.

Yaakov’s entire purpose in working for Lavan was only for the sake of Rochel. You might ask: Binyomin also came from Rochel, so why is [only] Yoseif mentioned? The answer is as I explained before: Yaakov worked mainly for Yoseif, as it says (30:25), “When Rochel had given birth to Yoseif, Yaakov said to Lavan, ‘Send me on my way...’”

Yoseif’s זיו איקונין resembled his. Why did Rashi not use the term קלסתר פנים, as he did on 25:19, regarding Yitzchok [who resembled Avraham? The answer is:] Rashi learns Yoseif’s resemblance to Yaakov from the word זְקֻנִים, as Rashi explains on 37:3. And זְקֻנִים is an abbreviation for זיו אקונין.

Also, everything that happened to Yaakov happened to Yoseif... [According to the above Midrash,] the verse is saying, so to speak: “These descendants” about which everyone can testify that they are “of Yaakov,” they are [none other than] “Yoseif,” [for only Yoseif’s facial features resembled Yaakov’s.] This is similar to Rashi’s explanation on (25:19) ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, [where everyone testified that Yitzchok looked like Avraham]. Alternatively, the reason why everyone knew Yoseif was Yaakov’s son was that the events which happened to Yaakov happened only to Yoseif, [and a son’s fate generally resembles that of his father].

**Another Midrashic exposition: “[Yaakov] settled.” Yaakov was seeking to be settled in tranquility...**Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written ויחי יעקב בארץ..., [rather than וישב יעקב בארץ...]?

The righteous seek to be settled in tranquility, God says... In all places where Rashi explains that [ישב implies there was a lacking,] it is because it is written lacking [the vav of יושב]. Such as והוא ישב פתח האהל (18:1), and ולוט ישב (19:1). But here there is no reason to interpret it as, “Seek to be settled in tranquility,” [since וַיֵשֶב is not a lacking form of יוֹשֵב]. Thus, it should literally mean “settled.” [If so, why does Rashi interpret as he does?] The answer is: [This interpretation is needed] because it is written afterwards, אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, which has no connection with וישב יעקב. Alternatively, because it should have said אלה תולדות יעקב ראובן.... This forced Rashi to explain that אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף is the cause which prevented the fulfillment of Yaakov’s intention [to be settled in tranquility]. And קפץ עליו רגזו means the controversy and fighting [surrounding Yoseif]. The meaning of רגזו is similar to אל תרגזו בדרך (45:24), which Onkelos translates as אל תתנצון (do not quarrel). (Nachalas Yaakov)

He did things that were childish... Otherwise, why does it say, “And the lad”?

Meaning that he associated with the sons of Bilhah... “With the sons of Bilhah” cannot be [a continuation of] the same point, that he did childish things with the sons of Bilhah. Would he not act the same way when he was not with them? Perforce, [it means, and in addition, he associated with them]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Any wrong that he would see in his brothers, the sons of Leah. Rashi deduces this because it is not written ויוצא יוסף דבתם, as it is written about the Spies (Bamidbar 13:32), ויוציאו דבת הארץ. Perforce, the reason it is written here ויבא יוסף את דבתם is because Yoseif said what was true. I.e., he reported the events to his father according to how he saw and heard them, and he did not say things he did not see. However, with regard to the Spies it is written ויוציאו, “they brought out,” meaning they brought out [i.e., fabricated] falsehoods from within themselves.

In his brothers, the sons of Leah. [Question:] In the verse it is written just, “With his brothers.” [How does Rashi know it means the sons of Leah?] The answer is: Yoseif was close with the sons of the handmaidens. If he considered them evil, how could he be close with them? Furthermore, since he was their friend, the evil that he reported surely was not about them.

And that they are suspect in illicit relationships ... Question: How could the sons of Yaakov have been suspect of doing these things? And if they were suspect, why then was Yoseif punished on account of this? The answer is: They surely were not suspect of doing these things; Yoseif erred. And he was punished because he should have looked further into the matter before suspecting them. He thought they ate limbs of living animals because they ate from a properly slaughtered animal that was still convulsing. But the meat was permitted since it was after shechitah. Or, he saw them eating a ben pekoa [an animal found alive in the womb of its mother that had been properly slaughtered]. It is permitted [to eat it,] due to the shechitah of its mother. And even if it [develops into] a big bull it does not require to be ritually slaughtered. [It only needs to be slaughtered] because it appears to be forbidden. Yoseif however, considered it as being the limb of a living animal because it nonetheless requires to be ritually slaughtered, due to appearance. They demeaned the sons of the handmaidens by calling the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah “sons of handmaidens.” Although this was true, and even Scripture refers to them so, Yoseif thought it implied that their sons were non-Jewish slaves. But he erred, because their sons were not non-Jewish slaves, for Bilhah and Zilpah were freed women who assisted Rochel and Leah. Regarding illicit relationships: a man may not use another man’s wife to serve him (Kiddushin 70a), and Yoseif saw them using the services or doing business with a married woman, so he suspected them. But he erred, because a man is forbidden to use the services of a married for intimate purpose only, such as washing his face, hands and feet, or making his bed. But, non-intimate matters or doing business with her are permitted. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yoseif suspected them of all three things? The answer is: Rashi himself answers this by saying, “Yoseif was, in, turn, smitten by these three...” Another answer: There is a connection between דבתם רעה written here, and v. 33 חיה רעה אכלתהו (“A wild beast devoured him”). Just like there it involved a limb from a living creature, since a wild beast devours its prey alive, so too here it involved a limb from a living creature. [The matter regarding non-Jewish] slaves is derived from what it is written about a handmaiden in Shemos 21:8: אם רעה בעיני אדוניה. Just like רעה there involves slavery, so too here it involves slavery. [The matter regarding] illicit relationships is derived from what it is written in 39:9 regarding Yoseif: ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת (“How can I do such a great evil”). Just like רעה there refers to illicit relationships, so too here it refers to illicit relationships.

“They slaughtered a goat” when he was sold, and they did not eat it while it was alive. I.e., the Torah had no need to write that they slaughtered it, since they did not eat it. Perforce, it comes to tell us that even though they did not intend to eat it, they nonetheless slaughtered it [because they were meticulous about shechitah].

Because he was born to him in his old age... You might ask: Was not Binyamin born in an older age than Yoseif? The answer is: all of Yaakov’s sons were born one right after another, as they were all born within six years — except for Binyamin, whose birth was separated [from Yoseif’s birth] by a long period of time. People had thought that Yaakov would not beget another son from Rochel, so they called Yoseif “son of old age.” And out of habit they continued to do so even after Binyamin was born.

Onkelos translates it: “He was a wise son to him.” [Rashi cites Onkelos] because there is a question on the first explanation: What difference does it make [to us] whether Yoseif was born to Yaakov in his old age or his youth? Thus Rashi says, “Onkelos translates it...” But a question still remains: It should have said בן זקנותו. Why does it say בן זקונים? Perforce, it comes to say: “His facial features (זיו איקונים)...” (Maharshal)

A Midrashic explanation is for his misfortunes ... [Rashi cites this] because there is a question on the first explanation: For what purpose does Scripture say that Yaakov made him a כתונת פסים? Perhaps to teach, [as it says in Shabbos 10b,] that a person should not treat one son differently than the others, since Yoseif’s brothers were jealous of him because his coat was worth two sela’im more. But this is not the simple meaning of the verse, as it is not written, “His brothers sawthat he made him a כתונת פסים.” Rather, they were jealous of him due to his dreams and words (v. 8). Therefore Rashi cites the Midrashic explanation. (Maharshal)

That he was sold to Potiphar, traders... I.e., פסים is the abbreviation for פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים. According to this explanation, the [prefix] ו is lacking from the word סוחרים in (37:28): וַיַּrַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים. It should be understood as וסוחרים (and merchants), [for otherwise it would mean, “Midianite merchants,” and one group would be missing]. Although Scripture omits Yoseif’s sale to the merchants, it also omits his sale to the Midianites, [which surely took place, as they sold him to Potiphar — see v. 36. This understanding of סוחרים fits the verse well,] because otherwise, why is the word סוחרים even needed?

To stand steadfastly straight. Rashi is explaining the difference between קמה and נצבה, which seem repetitive because they mean the same. Therefore he explains that קמה means momentarily arising from a lying position, and וגם נצבה means staying that way, remaining steadfastly straight. (R. Meir Stern)

After he had told it to his brothers he retold it to his father in their presence. You might ask: Why did Yoseif not tell the first dream to his father? The answer is: Yoseif knew that most dreams follow their verbal interpretation, and his brothers interpreted it for the good, so he did not want to tell it to his father. But his brothers did not interpret his second dream for him, as they realized he was telling them his dreams so they will make a good interpretation. Thus he had to tell it to his father so he will interpret it for him. His father did so, and rebuked him so that his brothers would not hate him. (Maharshal)

Because he was bringing hatred upon himself. I.e., Yoseif was bringing hatred upon himself. That is why Yaakov rebuked him — not because Yaakov did not want the dream to come true. For it is written in the next verse, “His father kept the matter in mind.” [See Rashi there.]

But he did not know that these things were referring to Bilhah who had raised him like his mother. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yaakov did not know this? Perhaps Yaakov knew, but he questioned [the dream] for the reason Rashi had given before: that Yoseif should not bring hatred onto himself. Re’m asks [the question this way]: Regarding the explanation of “These things were referring to Bilhah,” Rashi says that Yaakov did not know. But had he known, he would not have said, “Has your mother not already died?” lest his sons realize [that his comment was just a trick]. Yet, regarding the explanation of “No dream is without meaningless things,” why did Yaakov not fear that his sons, too, might know this rule and thus say that his comment was just a trick? Maharshal answers: [In the first explanation,] had Yaakov known that these things were referring to Bilhah, his sons surely would have known too, because this is a matter grasped through reasoning. Saying, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” would not make them ignore the matter. But [in the second explanation,] it then says, “His father kept the matter in mind,” because Yaakov had an oral tradition that no dream is without meaningless things. His sons however, did not know this tradition.

However, our Sages learned from here that no dream is without meaningless things... Rashi is explaining why Yaakov questioned [the dream] and said, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” Did he not know that no dream is without meaningless things? Perforce, [he said it] “To make his sons ignore...”

But Yaakov intended to make his sons ignore... I.e., our Sages hold that “your mother” must mean Yoseif’s true mother. However, “No dream is without meaningless things.”

There are dots on the word את indicating that they went only to “pasture” themselves. Rashi means that if there were no dots on את, it would be connected to צאן, and mean “to pasture the sheep.” But now that it has dots, it is as if the את was not written at all. Consequently, לרעות is not connected to the next word, and means: “They went to pasture.” I.e., to pasture themselves. And צאן אביהם בשכם is a separate statement. But if את was completely omitted from the verse, it would not prove the point. Surely we could still say it means “to pasture themselves,” but it would be more logical to say that the words are connected, and form one statement. Thus, although the את would be omitted, we would say it is an abbreviated verse. But now that את is written, and it has dots, it is considered as erased. This indicates that the words are not connected; they are rather two statements. Otherwise, why does it have dots?

A term indicating humility and readiness. You might ask: Why did Rashi not give this explanation on (22:11) אברהם אברהם ויאמר הנני, and on (Shemos 3:4) משה משה ויאמר הנני? The answer is: Here, הנני cannot be a way of answering [when called], as Yaakov was already speaking with him. For it is written, “Yisrael said to Yoseif, ‘Are your brothers not pasturing...’”

But, is not Chevron on a mountain... Re’m writes: It seems that this verse was not [Chazal’s] proof that Chevron was on a mountain. Although it is written, “Went up,” this could be because Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands, as Rashi explains on, “Hurry, go up to my father” (45:9). Rather, Re’mexplains, the proof is that Chevron was designated as a burial place. People designate only rocky areas for burial, as it says in Kesubos 112a, and rocky areas are on mountains. An alternate explanation: It is written, “They went up and scouted the land...” (Bamidbar 13:21), and then is written (v. 22), “They went up into the southern part, and came to Chevron.” Why is it written “they went up” twice? Scripture should simply have written, “They went up into the southern part, and scouted the land... and came to Chevron.” Perforce, “they went up” is repeated because it refers to Chevron, which is on a mountain. So it seems to me.

A place with a predisposition to misfortunes... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should simply say, “And he came there,” since it is already written, “Pasturing in Shechem.” Perforce, [the name is repeated to imply,] “the notorious Shechem”. [Alternatively, Rashi knows this because] it should simply say, “He sent him from the depths of Chevron, and a man found him...” Perforce, [Shechem is mentioned to imply, “the notorious Shechem”]. (Maharshal)

This refers to Gavriel... Yoseif did not say to the man, “Do you know my brothers, and where they are pasturing?” Rather, he said [straight away], “Tell me please, where are they pasturing?” This shows it was an angel, [who assumedly knows]. And since Scripture refers to him as איש, this shows it was specifically Gavriel. [Furthermore,] if it was not an angel, why did the Torah recount the whole story of Yoseif going astray? What does it matter if he went straight there, or strayed? Perforce, it was an angel sent by Hashem to bring him to his brothers, in order to fulfill His decree. For Yoseif otherwise would have turned back from Shechem, as he could not find them. (Gur Aryeh)

They have removed themselves from brotherhood. Rashi is answering the question: How does the angel’s reply pertain to Yoseif’s inquiry? Yoseif only requested to be told where they were, while the angel replied, “They have traveled from here.” Furthermore, Yoseif already knew they traveled from there, since he did not find them there. Thus Rashi explains, “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” I.e., they want to kill you — do not go there. [You might ask:] how does Rashi know it means [specifically] this? The answer is: זה in gematria is twelve. Thus, it means they have moved away from twelve. I.e., they do not want there to be twelve [brothers], rather they want to kill you, and there will be only eleven. Alternatively, Rashi’s proof is that it says, “From this.” In other words, they have moved away “from this” which you say, “I am looking for my brothers.” They, however, have removed themselves from brotherhood.

To seek lawful pretexts concerning you... Rashi is answering the question: The angel said to him נסעו מזה, meaning: “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” If so, what is the meaning of, “Because (כי) I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Doson’”? The word כי always comes to give a reason. What reason is given here? Thus Rashi explains: lawful pretexts concerning how to kill you.

Similar to אתו**, with him, meaning toward him.**Rashi is answering the question: How does אוֹתוֹ fit with ויתנכלו? The verb ויתנכלו is reflexive, and means: “They became filled with conspiracies,” thus it does not connect with אוֹתוֹ. If Scripture had written וַיְנַכְלו, [a transitive verb,] אוֹתוֹ would fit. But with ויתנכלו, the fitting word is אליו. Thus Rashi explains that אוֹתוֹ is similar to אִתּוֹ. Rashi is saying that if we follow how it is written [rather than how it is pronounced,] we would read it אִתּוֹ, since it is written missing a ו. Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because אוֹתָנו sometimes means אִתָנו. Thus, אוֹתוֹ can mean אִתּוֹ. And אִתּוֹ means עמו. And Rashi says, “עמו, meaning אליו,” because Onkelos translates אליו as עמו; see Rashi on 24:7. Consequently, it is as if the verse said אליו. (Re’m) The Maharshal explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו, rather than simply ויתנכלו להמיתו? Perforce, אוֹתוֹ is like אִתּוֹ, “with him.” Thus it means, “They were plotting with him,” i.e., also Yoseif had in mind that they should kill him. And lest we think it means that he and they had in mind to kill someone else, Rashi says that אותו also implies אליו, “toward him” — toward Yoseif. He and they had in mind to kill Yoseif. There is also a varying text of Rashi.

A blow to the soul, which refers to killing. Otherwise, how does נכנו — the object of which is Yoseif — connect to the following word נפש? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is as if it said מכת נפש, [which is an adverbial phrase modifying נכנו]. (R. Meir Stern)

The Divine Spirit testifies concerning Reuvein. Rashi is answering the question: How could Reuvein himself have said they should throw Yoseif in the pit so he may bring him back to his father? If they knew this, they would not let Reuvein rescue him! Furthermore, if these were Reuvein’s words, it should say, “Mypurpose is to rescue.” Why does it say, “Hispurpose was to rescue”? Re’m comments: I do not understand why Rashi needed to write this. It is selfevident that these are not Reuvein’s words.

He thought: “I am the firstborn and the oldest of them all... You might ask: How does Rashi know this is why Reuvein wanted to save him? Perhaps he was very pious and did not want to kill? The answer is: In Parshas**Vayechi, among the blessings with which Yaakov blessed his sons, it is written that he blessed Yehudah, who said: “What will we gain if we kill our brother... come let us sell him...” Yet, why did Yaakov not bless Reuvein, who wanted to totally rescue Yoseif and bring him back to his father? Whereas Yehudah suggested to sell him! Perforce, Reuven’s intent was not for the sake of Heaven, but so people should not put the blame on him, saying: “You are the firstborn...” (Maharshal)

This is an additional one that his father gave him in excess of what was given to the brothers. Re’m explains that it is all one garment. He was wearing only one כתונת, which was of פסים, and the verse reads as follows: “They stripped him of his כתונת.” Which כתונת? “The פסים כתונת that he had on.” It cannot mean that he wore two כתונות, one top of the other, because only the garment touching the skin is called כתונת. But Maharshal writes: It seems to me not so. Rather, he had on two כתונות, one on top of the other. The first was on his skin, so that sweat should not ruin the כתונת of פסים. They stripped off both garments at once by grasping the bottom one and removing both. That is why it says אשר עליו (“that was on it”), referring to the other garment on which the פסים כתונת was on top of. The reason they grasped the bottom one was to show him that they were not doing this because his father gave him an additional כתונת of פסים. Rather, it was because of his bad reports and his dreams [that he told his father].

No water in it but there were **snakes and scorpions in it.**Rashi deduces [that it had snakes and scorpions] because it is written, “The pit was empty.” If sticks and stones or the like were in it, this would not be called empty. But with snakes and scorpions, the pit could well be called empty, as they crawl into the holes and cracks, so the pit looks like it is empty although they are there. [Alternatively], it is derived from a *gezeirah shavah.*In Devarim 8:15 it is written: “Snake, serpent, and scorpion... there was no water.” Just as there, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions, so too here, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions. But it seems to me that “there was no water” cannot teach us that sticks and stones were there, because what difference would that make? Perforce, it comes to tell us that other dangers were there, and they threw him in nevertheless. (R. Meir Stern) We need not ask: If there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, how was Reuven going to rescue him? The snakes and scorpions would kill him! For the answer is: The brothers did not know about this. They thought the pit did not contain even snakes and scorpions. Otherwise, how could they want to sell him after seeing the miracle Hashem performed for him, that he was not harmed or killed? (Re’m)

What profit? as Onkelos translates it. I.e., we should not explain בצע as “theft.”

And we will conceal his death. Rashi is answering the questions: He was not a wild animal or a bird, [whose blood there is a mitzvah to cover. Why does it say, “Cover up his blood”?] Furthermore, they threw him into a pit. What blood was there to be covered?

Yaakov’s sons [pulled] Yoseif from the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites... Rashi deduces this from what is written, “They pulled Yoseif up from the pit and sold Yoseif.” If it was the Midianites [who did all this], how could they sell him? He did not yet belong to them! And if [you suggest that] the Midianites pulled him out of the pit without the brothers’ knowledge and sold him, why is it written later (45:4), “I am Yoseif your brother, whom you sold into Egypt”? They never sold him! And why would the brothers say, “Come let us sell him to the Yishmaelites,” if they never sold him? Perforce, “they pulled” refers to Yaakov’s sons who sold him to the Yishmaelites, and the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites. We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites? Perhaps they sold him to the מדנים [written without the intermediate yud, see v. 36], which is a different nation — as it is written (25:2), “Medan, Midian...” [The answer is:] If so, why does the verse mention, “Midianite merchants passed by”? They must be mentioned in connection with Yoseif’s sale, that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites to the מדנים, and the מדנים to Potiphar. So it seems to me. Re’m asks: The verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites” (39:1). [But did not the Yishmaelites already sell him to the Midianites?] It appears that the answer is: Although he was sold several times, the Midianites had not yet paid. Because of this, he still belonged to the Yishmaelites, as the Midianites received [from their sale of Yoseif] only the profit, i.e., the amount that exceeded what they owed the Yishmaelites.

**He was not present when he was sold, for his day had arrived to go and attend to his father. [**You might ask:] What forced Rashi to say this? Perhaps he went to take care of business. And the same [question can be asked] according to the alternate explanation, that “he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fasting.” The answer is: If he had gone for mundane business, how was he allowed to leave? He knew his brothers wanted to kill Yoseif. Why did he not fear they would kill Yoseif when he left? Perforce, he went for a mitzvah, as his day had arrived, etc. There is a question [on the first explanation]: Why does it say he “returned” (וישב)? It should say he “came.” Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation, [according to which וישב is] an expression of repentance (תשובה). And the second explanation is insufficient on its own, as he should have waited for another day [to do repentance], because of [the danger to] Yoseif. Thus Rashi explains that “his day had arrived...” and he could not delay. (Maharshal)

Another explanation: He was occupied with his sack-cloth... Rashi deduces this because it is written here, “Reuvein returned to the pit,” and it says, “Mordechai returned to the king’s gate wearing sack-cloth” (Esther 6:12). Just as “returned” over there refers to sack-cloth and fasting, so too here. Reuvein must have done his repentance secretly, and thus he was absent at the time of Yoseif’s sale. Otherwise it would contradict Rashi’s explanation of וזאת ליהודה (Devarim 33:7), that Yehudah’s confession over the incident with Tamar was what influenced Reuvein to confess and repent over the incident with Bilhah. Therefore it must be that Reuvein first repented secretly and later he did so publicly.

Where can I flee from my father’s grief? [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, would the boy not being there cause a lack of space for Reuvein, leaving him nowhere to flee? Perforce, it means: since the boy is not there, I must flee from my father’s grief, and where can I flee?

Is this. It is an abbreviated verse. For without [adding] “is this,” it is not understandable.

It is his destiny that Potiphar’s wife would provoke him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “Yoseif has been torn to pieces,” [omitting “evil beast had devoured him”]. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: How would Yaakov know that a wild animal tore him up? Perhaps bandits attacked him.

Because they banned and cursed anyone who would reveal it and they included God with them... Hashem surely was not “forced” [as it were]. But He willingly agreed with the ban for a number of reasons. First, so that [the decree of] “Your descendants will be foreigners in a land not theirs...” (15:13) could be fulfilled. If Yaakov had known that Yoseif was brought to Egypt, he would have given all the money in the world to redeem him! Second, if Yaakov had known [what the brothers did] he would have cursed them that their names be blotted out, and the seed of Yisrael would have perished — whereas Hashem wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. As Rashi proceeds to explain, “Hashem does not wish to reveal it to him,” implying that He was not forced. Had He wished, He could have revealed it, but He agreed with them in order to fulfill the decree, “...They will enslave them and oppress them” (ibid). Third, it says: “He mourned his son for many days” (v. 24), and Rashi explains that it was twenty-two years. Why did Rashi say specifically twenty-two? He must have been answering the question: Why did Hashem put Yaakov in anguish for twenty-two years, and not tell him [that Yoseif was alive]? Perforce, it was for the twenty-two years that Yaakov did not honor his parents. Whereas if Hashem would tell Yaakov, he would repent, nullifying the twentytwo year decree of anguish. But because Hashem wished to punish him for not having honored his parents, He agreed to the brothers’ ban on revealing it. A ban (חרם) is like an oath, and when Hashem takes an oath [over a decree of punishment], repentance cannot nullify it. For it says [about Moshe’s punishment]: “Therefore, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:12). And Rashi there explains: “This was said as an oath... He swore precipitously, so that he should not pray at length about it [to nullify the decree].” Here as well, the ban was like an oath; thus Hashem agreed with them.

Twenty-two years... Maharik writes (ch. 37) that Rashi cited this, although it is not the verse’s simple meaning, in order to explain why Hashem agreed to the ban and did not reveal to Yaakov [that Yoseif was alive]. It was because He had decreed that Yaakov be anguished for twenty-two years. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Yaakov did not fulfill honoring one’s father and mother. You might ask: Why was he punished for this? Yitzchak and Rivkah commanded him to go there and take a wife! Rabbeinu Bechaye answers in Parshas Toldos (28:1): They intended for him to marry Leah and return immediately. But he desired Rochel because of her beauty and said, “I will work for you seven years for Rochel” (29:18). Thus, all the time he spent there was his own choice. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

A twin sister was born with each brother... It means that each brother married his brother’s twin, i.e., his paternal but not maternal sister — since a paternal sister is not considered incest for the sons of Noach.

A person cannot accept consolation for one who is alive but is thought to be dead... The question is asked: Did Yaakov not know that consolation cannot be accepted for a live person thought to be dead? If so, why did he mourn over Yoseif? He would know he was alive! The answer is: Yaakov in fact did not know this because “consolation cannot be accepted for one who is alive but thought to be dead,” is learned from the case of Yaakov himself. Heaven decreed that the dead be forgotten, allowing consolation to be accepted. Yet, Yaakov did not accept consolation. Therefore, we derive that consolation cannot be accepted in such a case, and Yaakov was therefore unaware of this. Maharshal answers: When a person agitates himself, he is unaware that his anguish is excessive because he considers all the anguish as nothing.

The same as על בני... It means, “because of my son.” This is because [in this verse,] אל cannot mean “next to” or “to,” as in, “Avimelech came to him (אליו) from Gerar” (26:26), and as in, “He said to him (אליו): ‘I am Adonoy’” (15:7).

While still in mourning will I be buried and not be consoled all of my life... I.e., this mourning will stay with me until I am buried. But not that I will mourn in the grave, for there is neither mourning nor joy there.

If none of my children die in my lifetime then I am assured not to see Gehinom. She’ol is one of Gehinom’s seven names. The rationale [of the sign] is that a person can be judged to twelve months [at most] in Gehinom. If Yaakov’s twelve sons are all alive, corresponding to the twelve months, Gehinom cannot affect him. (Gur Aryeh)

But he did not mourn, for he knew that he was alive. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written simply, “He wept for him,” as it had written before: “All hissons and daughters rose to console him.” [Why does it say, “Hisfatherwept for him”?] A further question: Why does it say, “He wept,” rather than, “He mourned,” as it said before: “He mourned for his son”? Thus Rashi explains that it refers to Yitzchok, about whom it cannot be said, “He mourned,” for he knew Yoseif was alive. And we need not ask how Yitzchok knew, as Hashem might have revealed it to him to save him anguish; for the ban was only against revealing it to Yaakov.

The slaughterers of the king’s animals. [Rashi knows this] because if Hashem brought balsam and lotus carriers for Yoseif, to spare him the odor of naphta [see Rashi on v. 25], He surely would not bring him to an executioner, who is even more repulsive. Onkelos holds that Potiphar was merely appointed over the executioners, but he himself did not kill. (Gur Aryeh)