A person must honor his father more than ... his grandfather... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it not say, “To the God of his fathers”? Or, “To the God of Avraham,” who was the main one to spread knowledge of Hashem’s Presence? Whereas Yitzchok received [this knowledge] from Avraham.

He promised him that he will be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Rashi deduces this because it is written, “I will bring you up,” implying to Eretz Yisrael, which is higher than all the other lands.

Asher’s daughter, Serach and Leivi’s daughter, Yocheved. You might ask: Why does Scripture write “his daughters” in the plural form? He had only Dinah! We cannot answer that this is in accordance with R. Yehudah who said that a twin sister was born with each of Yaakov’s sons, and the sons married them [i.e., each married another’s twin]. This cannot be, for the twin sisters died before coming to Egypt, as Rashi explains on v. 26. Neither can we answer that it is in accordance with R. Nechemiah who said that the wives of Yaakov’s sons were [born of fathers from other nations and mothers who were] Canaanites, and Scripture calls them Yaakov’s “daughters” because people call their sons-in-law “son” and their daughters-in-law “daughter.” Rashi cited these two conflicting opinions on the verse, “All his sons and all his daughters rose to console him” (37:35). Accordingly, [also here] “his daughters” will mean his daughters-in-law. But this cannot be, for Scripture is counting Yaakov’s own offspring here [as it says in v. 26]. It seems the answer is: When Scripture treats the genealogy of many people, it speaks in plural even for one person. [Examples are:] “The sons of Don were Chushim” (v. 23), and, “The sons of Palu were Eliav” (Bamidbar 26:8). Although [it might infer that] “his daughters” means Dinah alone, we still would prefer to include [other descendants] where possible, rather than relying on stretched explanations. Thus Rashi explains [“his granddaughters” as] Serach and Yocheved, [even though Yocheved is not expressly mentioned in this section]. And so it seems from Bava Basra 143b. We need not ask then on the contrary: [If this is true, then] on the verse, “They rose to console him” (37:35), why did R. Yehudah say they were twins, and R. Nechemiah say they were daughters-in-law? Perhaps it was only Dinah! For [the answer is:] It is different there, because it is written, “Allhis daughters.” Alternatively, it is different in this case, because here it is treating the genealogy of many people, as mentioned above. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Concerning that particular time Scripture refers to them as “those who are coming”... Rashi is answering the question: Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the Torah for us, and in his days they had already come. If so, it should say, “Who came”! Thus Rashi explains [as he does].

The son of Deenah who was violated by a Canaanite... Rashi is answering the question: According to the view that the wives [of Yaakov’s sons] were Canaanites [see entry on v. 7], all of their children should have been called children of Canaanite women. Why is Shaul singled out? And according to the view that a twin sister was born with each son, and they married them [see entry on v. 7], why mention “A Canaanite woman,” at all? Rashi’s answer addresses both views.

We must assume that they died... Because otherwise, why were they not counted among the other children? Thus it says, “Not counting the wives [of Yaakov’s sons],” to convey that they had died, and these wives [mentioned here] were of foreign origin and did not come out of Yaakov’s loins. Scripture itself explains this. (Maharshal)

Eisov had six souls... As it is written in 36:6: “Eisov took his wives... and all the souls of his household.” There must be an error in the text of Rashi, because Eisov had only five souls, yet Rashi, who cites the Midrash that says six. This requires further investigation.

To prepare a house of study... I.e., since it is written להורת without a second *vav,*it contains the letters [of the word] תורה.

He himself harnessed the horses to the chariot. Otherwise, it should say: “He rode in his chariot.”

Yoseif appeared to his father. [Rashi knows this] because we cannot say Yaakov appeared to Yoseif, since Yaakov did not go to appear to Yoseif. Rather, [Yaakov went] to see him and to live in Egypt. But Yoseif went toward his father to appear before him. (Maharshal)

He does not place upon him accusations which are in excess of his sins... Rashi is explaining the verse he cited: כי לא על איש ישים עוד. I.e., when Hashem punishes the wicked, He does not punish them more than they sinned. “He does not place upon him [accusations which are in excess of his sins].”

Our Sages explained that this was because he was reading the “Shema.” Some ask: Perhaps he was standing in prayer? It seems [the answer is:] Our Rabbis of blessed memory said in Berachos 27a that we may not pass in front of someone standing in prayer, so as not to interfere with his concentration. Surely, Yoseif would not fall on Yaakov’s neck lest he disturb his concentration. But with the Shema, we need to concentrate mainly in the first verse, which where we accept upon ourselves the Kingship of Heaven. And Yoseif fell on Yaakov’s neck after Yaakov had read the first verse. You might ask: Why was Yoseif, too, not reading the Shema? The answer is: Yoseif was involved with the mitzvah of honoring his father. Someone involved in the performance of a mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah. Another answer: Yoseif exempted himself by reading the first verse [alone], since he was busy and occupied, as it says in the Gemara in Berachos 13b that [the single verse of] Shema Yisrael was the Shema of R. Yehudah Hanasi, because he was busy with teaching the disciples.

The plain meaning is as Onkelos explains it. I.e., the verse does not mean what it sounds like, that Yaakov wished to die now that he merited seeing Yoseif’s face. On the contrary, after having merited to see him, Yaakov should pray to live and enjoy being with his son [to make up for] the days of their suffering.

And I will also tell him: “The men are shepherds, etc.” Rashi means: we should not think that “The men are shepherds etc.” is a new statement, and Yoseif said it to his brothers, not to Pharaoh. If so, “the men” would refer to different men, [not his brothers]. Thus Rashi explains: And I will also tell Pharaoh this matter, that “the men are shepherds etc.”

Because they are deities to them. The Egyptians know that shepherds know all about sheep, since they are always with them. Shepherds therefore know that sheep have nothing [divine about them], so the Egyptians hate all shepherds. Alternatively, when Scripture says כי תועבת מצרים כל רעי צאן, the word תועבה means idolatry. In other words, the Egyptians greatly respected shepherds and considered them as if they were deities. Therefore, Pharaoh will settle them in the best of the land.