But there is a reason for this... Which is: the entire forty years the Israelites were in the wilderness, Yehudah’s bones rattled in his coffin, [and Moshe prayed for him]. Rashi cites this on Devarim 33:7.

Experts in their occupation of tending sheep. Rashi is saying that here, חיל does not mean piety or wealth.

Over my sheep. It is written (v. 3) רועי צאן עבדיך. Since they said to Pharaoh they were רועי צאן only, [thus Rashi knows that] the word מקנה in this verse refers to צאן (sheep).

What blessing did he give him? That the Nile rise as he approached it... This explanation is from Midrash Tanchuma, as Rashi mentions at the end [i.e., older versions of Rashi mentioned Tanchuma as the source]. Accordingly, “Yaakov blessed” means he gave him an actual blessing. But according to the first explanation, it was not an actual blessing. It rather meant: “Those who take leave of royalty, bless them [as a matter of formality]and take their leave.” Therefore, Rashi is asking [according to the Midrash: “What blessing did he give him?” Alternatively, even according to the first explanation that maintains that those who take leave of royalty offer a blessing, but that too is an actual blessing, regarding this [Rashi asks:] “What blessing did he give him?”

According to the needs of all the members of the household. Meaning: children scatter bread unnecessarily, and it says that Yoseif provided even for the needs of the children, i.e., he provided more than they really needed. [Thus Rashi knows that] he surely provided for the needs of the members of the household.

Returns to the beginning of the account... I.e., to the first year. [Rashi knows this] because the famine ceased when Yaakov came to Egypt, as Rashi soon explains [see v. 19]. Perforce, our verse goes back to before Yaakov came to Egypt.

Similar to this is: כמתלהלה**who shoots firebrands.**I.e., the ה of כמתלהלה is in place of א, as the letters א–ה–ו–י are interchangeable.

They gave him the money. Rashi is saying that we should not think שבר means selling, because if it did, the verse should have written בשבר אשר הוא שובר, referring to Yoseif, who sold to them. Since it is written בשבר אשר הם שוברים, it refers to the people who purchased from Yoseif.

That the money and livestock are used up... Rashi writes אשר in place of [Scripture’s word] אם. This is because אם [generally] conveys “if,” but here it does not mean that. Rashi adds, “And everything has come into my master’s hand,” because the verse seemingly says that the money was used up by Yoseif. [But now] it conveys: “We did not spend any of our money on anything else; all has come into our master’s hand.”

The same as: if not for our bodies. [Rashi knows this] because בלתי cannot mean “except for” and it cannot mean “not,” because then the word אם (“if”) will not fit in. [I.e., it would read as: “except for if our bodies,” or: “not if our bodies.”] Thus Rashi explains that בלתי indeed means “not.” However, the verse’s wording must be inverted: אם לא גויתינו, i.e., אם בלתי גויתינו. Accordingly, it means: “except for our bodies.”

To sow in the ground. [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise it should say, “Give us bread,” or, “Give us foodstuff.”

They began to sow and the famine ended... You might ask: If so, would people not say that Yoseif is a fraud? For he had interpreted [Pharaoh’s dream] that there would be a seven-year famine! The answer is: The famine ended only in Egypt, not in other lands. And when they observed the Nile rising to meet Pharaoh they knew it was on account of Yaakov’s blessing.

Bought for him. Rashi is explaining that it does not mean under his rulership, as that was so even beforehand. 21

Yoseif transferred them from city to city... [Rashi says this] so we will not think that it was Pharaoh who is mentioned just before, [who did this. That is not so,] because Yoseif was the buyer, the one who transferred them, and the giver of seed.

He did this to all the cities that were in the kingdom of Egypt... Rashi says this so we will not think that Yoseif only switched [people] from one end to another end, but he did not switch [people living] in the middle of the country. Therefore he says, “All the cities...”

Whenever the word כהן is used it refers to a servant of a deity... Wherever it says כהן alone, without explaining the association to what he is a כהן, it assumedly means he is the servant of a deity. This is surely so when it states כהן to Hashem, or כהן to an idol. But with כהן מדין and כהן און, where it mentions the name of the country or city, it means he is their governor or leader. That is why Onkelos translates it here as כומריא (priests), but translates כהן און and כהן מדין as רבא דאון and רבא דמדין. (רבא means leader.)

For each year. I.e., not the first year alone. Re’m asks: Why did Rashi not make this comment at the beginning of the verse, “When it produces”? then it would apply to everything written afterward. The answer is: Here, [Rashi’s comment] is proven true. For Yoseif already said, “Here is seed, plant the soil.” Why does it say here, “For seed for your fields”? Perforce, because the statute of giving a fifth to Pharaoh applied for each year, thus he ordered them here to sow [each year] so that the fifth not become lessened. But if the statute was only for the first year, why was Yoseif concerned whether they sow [each year] or not? Perforce, it must have been for each year. (Nachalas Yaakov)

As food for your man servants and maid servants that are in your homes. [Rashi knows Scripture is referring to this] because later it is specifically written לטפכם, referring to small children.

That you may do for us as you have said. [Rashi is explaining:] this is not the beginning of a [new] point, that they were now asking to find favor in his eyes. [Rashi knows it cannot mean this] because otherwise it would not be understandable.

Paying him this tax annually... [Rashi is explaining:] it does not mean that they themselves will belong to him as slaves, for it is written before (v. 20), “Yoseif bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh...” [But it does not say he bought the people]. (Re’m)

And where? In the Land of Goshen... [Rashi explains this] so we will not think they lived in two lands: Egypt and Goshen. (Gur Aryeh)

Why is this portion completely closed... I.e., we have a tradition from Ezra the Scribe that Parshas Vayechi begins a new section and is not in the same parshah with the preceding verse וישב ישראל. Yet, a “closed” parshah usually has [a blank space in front of it] the measure of nine letters, while here it is completely closed with no space.

And hearts of Israel were “closed” because of the hardships of the bondage for they began... I.e., they were not yet in actual bondage, but had the “hardship” of bondage. Pharaoh requested them to [voluntarily] serve him, as it says in Sotah 11b that בפרך (Shemos 1:13) means בפה רך, “with a soft mouth.” In the beginning, the Egyptians enslaved them with a soft mouth.

An alternate explanation: Because he wished to reveal the End... You might ask: According to the first explanation, it should be “closed” [not here but] in the verse where it is written that Yaakov died (49:33). And according to the alternate explanation, it should be “closed” in the verse, “Gather around and I will tell you... the end of days” (49:1). The answer is: In the middle of the parshahit would not be noticeable that it is “closed,” since it is usually “closed” there, so we would not know [that we should make] these expositions. And here Scripture enumerates Yaakov’s years, so it is considered the place where he died. And [this as well answers the explanation of] “reveal the End”: Yaakov assumedly would not reveal the End until close to his death, and here is the place of his death, as Rashi explains. Therefore, [the basis for Rashi’s interpretations] is evident. Maharshal writes that there is a question on the first explanation: This parshah does not mention the bondage. Why then was Parshas**Shemos not “closed”? Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation. And there is a question on the alternate explanation: Why is it not “closed” at the section of (49:1), “Yaakov called for his sons... gather around and I will tell you...”? Therefore Rashi brings also the first explanation.

Everyone of whom it is said that his “days drew near”... Rashi is answering the questions: Why does it say “days” in the plural form, [rather than saying, “The day of Yisrael’s death drew near”]? And why does it speak of the days, implying that the days drew near? It should say, “Yisrael drew near to die.” Thus Rashi explains that the days themselves indeed “drew near.” They shortened and drew near [rather than expanding to the age of his fathers].

And take an oath. Rashi is explaining that we should not think the placing of the hand is the oath itself. He knows this because it is written regarding Avraham (24:2): “Place your hand under my thigh,” after which it says, “I will have you swear by Adonoy.” Since Avraham did it this way, [to place the hand under the thigh while swearing,] so did Yaakov. (Re’m)

Is considered true kindness for one does not anticipate... Rashi does not mean that it is true kindness only when it is done with the dead. Rather, whenever kindness is done without the anticipation of remuneration, even if the recipient of the kindness is alive, it is considered “kind and truthful.” For Eliezer said that Lavan and Besuel should [“do kindly and truthfully” (49:22) and] give him Rivkah freely, anticipating no remuneration — not from him, as he promised them no gifts of silver and gold, and certainly not from Avraham, since he was far away. You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain before, regarding Eliezer, that this is considered true kindness? The answer is: Yaakov in fact remunerated Yoseif for swearing to take him to Eretz Yisrael. He said (48:22), “I have given you one share more,” as Rashi explains ad loc. That is why Rashi explains the point here [and not regarding Eliezer]. It is to say that even so, at the time Yaakov asked Yoseif to bury him in Eretz Yisrael, he neither promised to give him anything, nor did he have in mind to give him one share more. And that is why it says here, “kindly and truthfully.”

By suffering the pain of rolling through underground tunnels. Also, so that the Egyptians not make a deity of me... Rashi needed these three explanations because: If it was only on account of lice, Yaakov should have requested that they make an iron coffin. Therefore Rashi explained, “rolling through underground tunnels.” And if because of these two reasons alone, why did Yaakov trouble Yoseif that he be brought to Eretz Yisrael immediately? He could have told them to take his bones along when they leave Egypt, as Yoseif said [to do for himself] in 50:25. Thus Rashi gives the [third] reason, “That the Egyptians not make a deity of me.” And there is a question: If the only reason is that the Egyptians might “make a deity of me,” why did he say to take him to Eretz Yisrael, rather than to cast him in the Nile? Thus Rashi also offers the reason of “rolling through underground tunnels.” And if it was for these two reasons alone, he should have had them swear just as Yoseif told his brothers to swear, [that they will take him along when they leave Egypt]. Thus Rashi also offers the reason of “its soil will become lice.” (Maharshal)

This letter ו connects this with the beginning of the previous verse... Rashi explains right afterward that ושכבתי means dying. Accordingly, Yaakov should first have said he will die, and then say, “Please do not bury me in Egypt.” Thus Rashi explains, “This letter ו connects ...”

Put me to rest with my fathers in the cave... According to which it would mean actual burial. Rashi explains ושכבתי to mean השכיבני because ושכבתי implies putting oneself down to rest, whereas burial is done by others. Thus he also adds “in the cave,” since [in this explanation] ושכבתי עם אבותי means actual burial. Accordingly, the verse means: “Put me to rest [i.e., bury me] with my fathers in the cave.”

Carry me from Egypt and bury me in their grave... Rashi is saying that there are two contradictions. 1.It should It should have written first, “Carry me out of Egypt,” and then, “I will lie,” since he must first be carried and only then buried. 2.“I will lie” is apparently repetitive because it is written afterward, “Bury me in their grave.”

“And Dovid lay with his fathers” and afterwards: “And he was buried...” Perforce, the וישכב of Dovid means death. For if it meant burial, it would indicate that they buried him with his fathers, i.e., in Beis Lechem where Dovid’s fathers lived. But then it is written, “He was buried in the City of Dovid,” implying Tzion, which is the City of Dovid. Thus it must be that שכיבה means death.

When it is the time of the fox, bow to him. I found it written that for one month in the year the fox is king of the animals. About that month it was said, “When it is the time of the fox.” (Kitzur Mizrachi)

He turned toward the Divine Presence... You might ask: Did not Rashi just say, “When it is the time of the fox, bow to him,” implying that he bowed to Yoseif? The answer is: If he bowed only for Yoseif, why was it specifically, “At the head of the bed”? And if he bowed only for the Shechinah, Scripture should have written, “Yisrael prostrated himself to Hashem,” or, “...to Elokim.” Perforce, he bowed on account of both of them, the Divine Presence and Yoseif.

It is from here that they derived that the Shechinah**is above the headrest of a sick person...**Although Yaakov was not sick [then], he had weakened and was as if sick. Otherwise, why did he request [regarding] his burial place?

For his bed was perfect and none of the offspring was wicked... We cannot say that [the bowing was] only to the Shechinah, because then it should say, “To the head of the bed.” Perforce, he bowed also to Yoseif. But it is a forced explanation of the verse to say that he bowed to Yoseif, yet turned toward the Divine Presence. Therefore Rashi brings “another interpretation... for his bed was perfect...” But this cannot be the only explanation, because if so, why does it say, “At the head of”? [It should just say, “At the bed].” Therefore, Rashi brings the first explanations [as well]. (Maharshal)