He wished to reveal the End... [How does Rashi know this? The answer is:] Since Scripture uses two expressions, “gather around” and “come together,” it hints to the End. For it is written (Yeshayah 66:12), “He will gather the scattered ones of Yehudah.” And it is written (Tzephaniah 3:19), “He will gather the lost one,” which hints to the last exile. Anoher answer: Since it is written, “In latter days,” which is superfluous, [perforce] it hints to the End of Days which will be in latter days.

He had never had a nocturnal emission. [Rashi knows this] because אוני is redundant, for it is already written כחי, and אוני and כחי have the same meaning as Rashi explains. [Question:] A woman cannot conceive from her first act of relations. [So how could Reuvein the son of Leah, have been conceived from Yaakov’s first drop? The answer is:] Perhaps Leah had been deflowered by a piece of wood. Re’m answers: She had deflowered herself with her finger. There are other answers; see there. Nachalas Yaakov writes: If not for what they wrote, I would explain that Leah did not actually conceive from the first drop. Rather, all of Yaakov’s drops were for [the purpose of conceiving] Reuvein, as Yaakov never had a nocturnal emission due to improper thoughts. See what he says there.

The Name... [Rashi knows this] because “profaned” refers to Hashem. “To profane” can be said regarding Hashem, as in the expression חילול השם. But “To profane” cannot be said about a bed, and he who explains it so is mistaken.

Their hatred was not so complete... Rashi did not give the reason of “They would not have spoken before their older brothers” because Yoseif had told Yaakov that [the older brothers] were calling the handmaids’ sons “slaves.” Thus Yoseif slandered the handmaids’ sons, and they would have had a justification [to speak before their older brothers,] since Yoseif called them “slaves.” Thus Rashi gives a stronger reason, [that their hatred was not so complete]. (Maharshal)

Yissachar and Zevulun would not have spoken before their older brothers... You might ask: How did Shimon and Leivi speak before Reuvein? Maharshal answers: Reuvein was not there at the time, as he had gone to attend to his father [see Rashi, 37:29].

Another explanation of מכרותיהם**: in the land of their sojournings (מגורתם)...**[Rashi knows this] because the כ of מכרותיהם is interchangeable with a ג, since they are among the group of letters of ג–י–כ–ק [that are interchangeable].

Who permitted you to marry Yisro’s daughter? You might ask: Why was Moshe in fact permitted to marry a Midianite woman? The answer is: Tzipporah was a proselyte. Another answer: Moshe married her before the Torah was given.

When the lineage of Korach is recorded concerning the “platform,” it is said... It seems Rashi cites this so we will not ask: How does Rashi know that the verse means this? Perhaps the Torah omitted Yaakov from the episodes of Zimri and Korach because it is Scripture’s way to trace lineage back to the Twelve Tribes, but not further. Therefore Rashi cites this verse where the lineage is traced back to Yaakov. If so, why in [Parshas] Korach did the lineage go back only to Leivi? The verses seem to conflict. Perforce, it is because Yaakov had requested that he not be mentioned in the lineage there. This seems to be an answer to *Re’m,*who asked the question: why is Yaakov’s name mentioned in Divrei Hayamim contrary to the manner in which it is mentioned in Scripture? Re’m also asks: Nowhere is Yaakov’s name mentioned in Scripture in connection with Zimri. If so, why did we not say that Scripture fails to say זמרי בן סלוא נשיא בית אב לשמעוני בן יעקב simply because heads of families are traced back to the Twelve Tribes, not further? It seems the answer is: We see that the reason Korach’s lineage is not traced back to Yaakov is due to Yaakov’s prayer, as I wrote, for otherwise the verses would conflict. If so, with Zimri too it was due to Yaakov’s prayer. For the verse mentions the two together: “My soul will not enter their secret council (Zimri), [let my honor not be identified with their assembly (Korach)].”

The word כבוד is masculine... [Rashi is saying] that the conjugation for the masculine second person is the same as for the feminine third person, as it is here. Therefore תחד could be either feminine third person or masculine second person.

They wished to exterminate Yoseif... [Rashi is explaining: The verse does] not mean they actually exterminated him, for Yoseif ruled. Rather, they are so called because their intent was to exterminate him, as in (Devarim 26:5): “The Aramaean who destroyed my forefather,” [referring to Lavan who sought to destroy Yaakov, but did not actually destroy him].

This is what Bilam meant ... “How can I curse one whom God has not cursed?” “One” refers to Yaakov, as Rashi explains in Bamidbar 23:8.

Another explanation: There will be no poor... There is a question on the first explanation: [“I will divide them” is explained. But] what is the meaning of, “And scatter them throughout Israel?” Thus Rashi brings the second explanation. We need not ask: If the second explanation is for, “And scatter them,” why is it considered another explanation? The first explanation [was only for, “I will divide them,” but] did not explain, “And scatter them.” The answer is: The second explanation goes also on, “I will divide them.” [Accordingly, the verse] means as follows: “I will divide them” from one another. And how will I do this? I will “scatter them.” In other words, “And scatter them” comes to explain, “I will divide them.” (Maharshal)

He allowed his dispersal to be more honorable. “I will divide them throughout Yaakov” refers to Shimon. “Scatter them throughout Yisroel” refers to Leivi. Therefore [referring to Leivi] it is written “Yisroel,” which is a more honorable [as compared to “Yaakov”].

In the days of Dovid... [Rashi knows this] because Yaakov should have blessed Yehudah with, “You shall rule over nations,” or, “You shall be king.” Why did he say, “Your hand will be on the neck...”? To allude to Dovid. (Maharshal)

Likewise, when Tamar was sentenced to die... Rashi is saying that “my son” refers to Yehudah, not to Yoseif. [There are two proofs to support this:] First, Yehudah as well was Yaakov’s son, [so the verse would not say, “You (Yehudah) have risen above plundering my son (Yoseif).”] Second, Yehudah removed himself also from the plundering of Tamar, as Rashi explains. If he removed himself from plundering them both, why would it say [only] “my son,” referring to Yoseif? Perforce, “my son” refers to Yehudah.

From Dovid and on... Rashi is answering the objection: Until Shaul there was no king in Israel! Thus Rashi explains that it means, “From Dovid and on,” and Dovid is from the tribe of Yehudah.

King Moshiach that the kingdom is his. This refers back to the beginning of the verse. It means: “The rod” of rulership “will not depart from Yehudah,” and even during exile they will have a limited authority, continuing “until Shiloh comes,” the one “that the rod is his.” Rashi says “kingdom” instead of “rod”, but it means the same. (Nachalas Yaakov)

A Midrashic interpretation שי לו, a present unto him... The Midrash explains Shiloh as referring to the redeemer, but instead of saying that שילו means שלו (his), it is two words: שי לו — “a present unto him.”

The eye that mocks the father and despises ליקהת אם**the gathering of wrinkles upon her face.**Rashi is citing a proof that יקהת with one י means gathering.

They sat and gathered אקהתא [assemblies] in the streets... They gathered assemblies around themselves, which came to hear their words; see there.

Onkelos explains as referring to the King Moshiach. Accordingly, אוסרי לגפן עירה means: Israel will surround the city of Jerusalem. ולשורקה בני אתונו means: Israel will build the Temple.

From the idea: Those who ride on white donkeys... This verse refers to Torah scholars. צחורות means white. I.e., Torah scholars who wear white garments [are riding on donkeys]. Alternatively, it means they ride on white donkeys from place to place in order to learn Torah.

His land will be by the חוף ימים. [Re’m explains that חוף ימים does not mean “seashore.” It means “border town.” And] since it is written ישכון, implying his dwelling place, this refers to his land — which will be on the border [between Eretz Yisrael and foreign lands]. But he himself will [not be there; he will] be at “a harbor of ships.” I.e., he will spend time [away from his land,] at the port where the ships bring merchandise. Nachalas Yaakov rejected all this and said that the land of Zevulun was at the edge of the sea, the dividing place between Eretz Yisrael and foreign lands; thus all the ships passed through his land. See there.

All the tribes of Israel will be as one with him... I.e., this phrase [should be understood] as if it is backwards. It means: “Dan will avenge his people, all of Israel together (כאחד).” For Shimshon avenged all of Israel together. ידין cannot mean “will judge,” because we do not find anywhere [that Dan judged all of Israel].

It is so named because it hisses... נושף is a sort of whistling. So did Rashi explain before on 3:15.

Moshe, too, blessed him thus... [You might ask: Why does Rashi need this proof?] The answer is: Rashi cites the proof from Moshe Rabbeinu so we will not object: How does Rashi know that here, שמנה means oil? Perhaps it means Asher’s food will be good and rich. Thus he brings a proof from Moshe. For it is evident that Moshe blessed them the same way Yaakov blessed them, and there it is clearly written, “He will dip his foot in oil.”

Due to them, Devorah and Barak sang... Rashi is answering the question: It is written אילה שלוחה, in the feminine form. Why then is it written הנותן, in the masculine form? Therefore Rashi explains, “Devorah and Barak sang...” [and due to Barak, הנותןis in the masculine form].

Onkelos translates: “His lot will fall”... Rashi is saying that this is how Onkelos actually translates this verse. According to Onkelos, הנותן אמרי שפר means that Naftali will give thanks with beautiful words for his lot. But when Rashi wrote above, “‘He delivers pleasant sayings,’ as Onkelos translates it,” it means as follows: The first explanation holds that אילה שלוחה refers to the fruits of Ginosar, according to which אמרי שפר means as Onkelos said. [I.e., he will give thanks with beautiful words. But this will be interpreted differently:] the people of Naftali will [give thanks by] reciting the appropriate blessing over the fruits.

Many daughters climbed — each one... Rashi is answering the question: [Why does it say] בנות, implying there were many, and also say צעדה, implying there was but one? Thus Rashi explains, “Many daughters climbed — each one...”

The letter ת is added for stylistic purposes. I.e., it is not the ת of the feminine form, as it is speaking of a masculine subject.

פרת meaning, being fruitful and multiplying... Rashi is answering the question: How did Onkelos know that it should be translated so? Thus Rashi explains, “פרת meaning, being fruitful and multiplying.”

His brothers made him bitter. [Rashi knows it means his brothers] because at the end of the verse it is written בעלי חצים, similar to ותהי המחצה (Bamidbar 31:36), referring to those who are fit to share the inheritance with him, [as Rashi explains].

Potiphar and his wife made him bitter... [Rashi knows] that it cannot refer to his brothers alone. For then it should say, “They quarreled with him and made him bitter” — as it cannot be that they first embittered his life and then became his antagonists. Perforce, it refers also to Potiphar and his wife.

Because he secretly kept the Torah. This is an addition... I.e., Onkelos added [an explanation] to the verse.

Father and son, אבהן ובנין... Rashi is saying that Onkelos translated אבן as “father and son.” And how did Onkelos know it means this? Therefore Rashi explains that “אבן is a contraction of אב ובן.”

So, too, the word שדים here... Rashi is explaining how the word שדים means father.

הריון ... i.e., “The one who made my mother conceive me”... Rashi is explaining how the word הורי means father. ויפוזו זרועי ידיו as ויפוצו... Rashi is saying that ז and צ often interchange, as in זעקת which is like צעקת.

תאות עולם from the same meaning as desire and longing... Accordingly, עד תאות גבעות עולם means as follows: the blessings my father gave me were stronger — better — than the blessings Hashem gave my father. This is so, since the great ones [i.e., “the pillars”] of the earth longed for my blessings. And Rashi then explains who longed for them: it was Yaakov’s mother. (source unknown)

And וגבעות ... for which his mother longed... Rashi is answering the question: Onkelos explained תאות as longing. And before that, it is written ברכות אביך גברו וגו', which Rashi previously explained as, “The blessings that Hashem blessed me surpassed the blessings that He blessed my forebears.” If so, according to Onkelos, how does the phrase following עד תאות גבעות עולם fit in? Therefore Rashi explains, “His mother longed for them.” Rashi is saying that according to Onkelos, תאות גבעות עולם refers to Rivkah, Yaakov’s mother. She desired those blessings and made Yaakov receive them. Therefore she dressed Yaakov in Eisov’s garments that were desired (החמודות), in order that Yaakov should receive the blessings.

He is a wolf, for he preys... [Rashi is saying that] יטרף does not apply to זאב, for [this would not need to be stated since] every wolf preys. Rather, יטרף applies to Binyamin. It is saying that Binyamin is a wolf because he preys like one. But Maharshal explains that [Rashi is answering the objection:] The verse seems to say that Binyamin will prey on the wolf. However, “preying” cannot be said about a person. Thus Rashi explains, “He is a wolf, for he preys.”

“And this is what their father spoke to them”... referring to everything that was said above. [Rashi is saying] that if not for, “And this is what their father spoke to them,” we would think Yaakov altogether regretted what he had said, and took back his reproach. For it says, “He blessed them,” implying they all [received blessings and not reproaches]. Thus Rashi says, “And this is...” to teach that whatever Yaakov had said remained in force, but he then included them all [in the blessings]. (R. Noson)

“He blessed them,” which implies all of them. I did not find this explanation in any Midrash. Furthermore, it seems odd, for where does it state what Yaakov blessed Reuvein, Shimon and Leivi? If it is because he included them all in one blessing, that was learned from ברך אותם [at the end of the verse]. If so, why is ויברך אותם necessary?

Our father Yaakov did not die. The Gemora in Taanis 5b objects, “Did not the doctors embalm Yaakov (Bereishis 50:2)? And does it not say that his sons carried him from Egypt and buried him in Eretz Yisrael (ibid v. 13)? The answer is: It means he did not taste death, i.e., he did not feel the pain of death. Much more has been said on this subject.