ויזבח זבחים, “meat-offerings of thanksgiving.” For having arrived at Beer Sheva with all his family without mishap. Alternately, these offerings were because he set out once more to leave the Holy Land and he was not certain that G’d approved of what he was doing. He used the offerings hoping to receive guidance from the Almighty. As we shall see, he received such approval, plus the assurance that in Egypt his descendants would develop into a numerous nation, but that he himself would be buried in the grave of his father and grandfather in the Holy Land.

ויאמר יעקב, “Yaakov said, etc.” even though G’d had told him that in the future he would no longer be called Yaakov but Israel, this change of name was not the same as that of Avram’s name being changed to Avraham. Avraham had undergone a name change in honour of changing his religion, becoming circumcised and simultaneously becoming JEWISH. This was not the case with Yaakov who had been born Jewish. While it would have been inappropriate to continue to refer to Avraham by his former name, in fact it would have been insulting, this consideration did not apply to the name Yaakov. Furthermore, if Yisrael had never again been called Yaakov, people would have thought that the stigma attached to the name Yaakov, i.e. the crooked one, had been justified at the time he had been known as such. Nachmanides writes that the reason the Torah reverted to calling him Yaakov at this stage, was to hint that once in Egypt, his task would no longer be to contend with the heavenly representatives of the spiritually negative forces, such as the angel representing Esau in heaven. From now on he would be basically in the house of slavery, as effective from now the years of exile G’d had predicted at the covenant of the pieces to Avraham had begun. This condition would continue until G’d would redeem the Jewish people from there and lead them to the Holy Land. If, nonetheless, the Torah in verse 5 begins to list the names of בני ישראל, “the children of Israel,” and not as we might have expected “the children of Yaakov,” even though it was these who traveled to their exile, it was to assure them that paradoxically, the Jewish people’s developing into a numerically strong nation was a process that would take place in the very land where they would be cruelly suppressed and tormented. Verse 5 was a look into the future, whereas our verse deals with the present, i.e. a period when Yaakov, their patriarch, would in a manner of speaking become a symbol and would inspire them by what he had already accomplished on earth, not by what he still had to accomplish. [Here I have sermonized a little, expanding on Nachmanides. Ed.]

אנכי אעלך גם עלה, “I will also be the One Who will bring you up.” The verb עלה has been repeated here alluding to the statement of our sages that יעקב לא מת, that “Yaakov never died.” Some commentators understand the word אעלך as parallel to אל תעלני בחצי ימי, Psalms 102,25, where it means that David prays that he should not be allowed to die, -i.e. to ascend to the heavenly regions of after life- while he had lived only part of his allotted span on earth. [David wanted to experience the triumph of G’d on earth before leaving the earthly domain. Ed.] G’d told him that he would die while Joseph would survive him, and that is the meaning of “Joseph will place his hand on your eyes,” in our verse. Still another interpretation understands the word אעלך as referring to Yaakov’s soul whom G’d, personally, will accompany to the celestial regions, while his son Joseph, would perform the earthly rites connected with the passing of his father from life on earth.

וישאו בני ישראל את יעקב אביהם, “The children of Israel carried their father.” This was the occasion when they repaid him for the time at the Yabbok when he had carried all of them across the river. (Genesis 32,25)

ובנות בניו, “and the daughters of his sons.” According to Rashi the “daughters” mentioned here are Serach, daughter of Asher, and Yocheved, daughter of Levi. Nachmanides writes that the expression בנותיו presents a difficulty, seeing that according to Scripture, Yaakov had only one daughter, Dinah. Why then would the Torah speak about בנותיו, “his daughters” (pl.)? We must remember that it is the style of the Torah to treat subjects (such as offspring, children) in the plural mode, as for instance ובני דן חושים, “Dan’s sons were Chushim.” (verse 23) He had only that one son, and no daughters. Or, for instance, ובני פלוא אליאב, “and the sons of Phallu were Eliav.” There is therefore no reason to wonder why the subject of “daughters” should be treated differently. The same applies to the plural mode used for granddaughters, the only one being named in the text being Serach. Yocheved was not mentioned directly, although the Torah speaks about 70 souls of Yaakov’s descendants arriving in Egypt, whereas only 69 (including Joseph and his two sons) have been named. Some commentators explain the plural mode as references to daughters-in-law. Many people refer to their daughters-in-law as “daughter.”

ושאול בן הכנעני, “as well as Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite.” Ibn Ezra explains this puzzling statement by saying that this grandson of Yaakov was the only one born by a Canaanite mother, as none of his other sons married girls of Canaanite parentage. Rashi explains the phenomenon as an allusion to this Sha-ul being a son of Dinah who had been raped by the Canaanite Shechem. If so, we are confronted with another difficulty, i.e. how could Shimon marry a sister by his own mother? According to a Midrash [I have not found such a version. Ed.] the problem is resolved as it is presumed that Dinah’s fetus grew predominantly in Rachel’s womb. [The Torah reports Leah only as having “given birth” to Dinah, not as having been pregnant with her. (Genesis 30,21)]

וסרח אחותם, “and their sister Serach.” Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah did not use the customary “and Search, his daughter,” as for instance “and Dinah his daughter,” but defined her as someone’s “sister,” that this is proof that Serach had not been sired by Asher at all, but had been born to his wife. This view is also held by Onkelos in his translation of our verse, where he adds the word: “his wife.” I fail to understand the validity of such a commentary as how could she then have been included in what were specifically described in verse 5 of our chapter as “the names of the descendants (biological) who made up the Children of Israel who arrived in Egypt?” The end of the chapter repeats “all the people who were biologically related to Yaakov’s offspring, etc.” We can only explain all this by again referring to the style of the Torah when narrating such details, i.e. that daughters are lumped together with their brothers when the Torah relates family relationships. Another prominent example of the style of the Torah in this regard is the line:ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Lotan had a sister named Timna.” The Torah does not describe Timna’s father as having a daughter by that name. Rashi writes that according to the view of the sage that the brothers all married half sisters who were born as twins with their male counterparts, that now, at the time when the family moved to Egypt, they were not enumerated in the list of seventy descendants as they had all died before this point in time. Nachmanides writes that we do not need to fall back on such an unlikely scenario as the brothers all having married half sisters by the father who had died before they could have reached the age of 40 or so, but that the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) who claims that Yaakov’s sons married their “sisters” who had been born as twins of their brothers, is that their names had not needed to be listed, except with the words מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons,” adequately covered the subject. If the sons of Yaakov had indeed married Canaanite women, why would the Torah in Genesis 37,33 mention these women as Yaakov’s daughters? Unless they had been biologically related to Yaakov, such as being twin daughters, there would have been no point in referring to them in this entire chapter. Their names were not mentioned in this chapter just as they had not been mentioned at the time they had been born. The main purpose of the Torah listing the incredibly small number of people who came to Egypt with Yaakov, i.e. 70, was to show that these formed the nucleus of a great nation which developed into millions, counting wives and children who were minors, by the time they left Egypt 210 years later. It was in order to alert us to this miraculous population explosion of the Jewish people while they were on Egyptian soil. Man and wife are considered as one unit, as only as a pair can they sire offspring.

אלה בני זלפה, “These are the sons of Zilpah;” Although it is the Torah’s style to list the names of the children of Yaakov’s principal wives, Leah and Rachel, together, as was done in Parshat Vayishlach, and as occurred when they received their respective blessings in Parshat Vayechi, here when the main consideration is numbers, the Torah listed Zilpah’s offspring before that of Rachel as the latter produced only 14 of the 70, whereas Ziplpah produced 16. Since she had been mentioned as part of the שפחות, handmaids, the Torah adds the title נשי יעקב, “Yaakov’s wives” in order to accord them the honour they deserve.

כל הנפש לבית יעקב, “all the persons who were part of the house of Yaakov;” when you count them individually you will find that there are only 69 and not 70. Some commentators claim that Dinah had a son by Shechem, and that while he is included in the total 70, he is not included as an individual having a name. Other commentators claim that the lineכל נפש בניו ובנותיו עם יעקב 33, indicate that Yaakov himself is included in the count of 70 seeing that it first says ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה, “these are the Israelites who arrived in Egypt.” When the Torah enumerated the 66 יוצאי ירך יעקב, the persons that emerged from Yaakov’s loins, he himself is obviously not included as he could not have been his own offspring. (verse 26) Some commentators are not at all perturbed by the round number 70 being used although there were only 69, seeing that there are numerous examples throughout the Bible in which round numbers are used, although when you examine them in detail you will find that they are just that, “rounded off” numbers. Personally, I do not know what all the fuss is about. Why could these commentators not have been satisfied with the solution provided for us by our sages in earlier periods that Yocheved was conceived in the land of Canaan but not born until the family was just at the border of Egypt, בין החומות, between the walled fortifications, as they phrase it. [at this point the author voices sharp rebuke at Ibn Ezra saying that Nachmanides already refuted all that he said on the subject. Ed.]

ויעל לקראת אביו גושנה, he went up to meet his father, to the province of Goshen. Some commentators say that the Goshen mentioned here is the same as that mentioned in the Book of Joshua 10,41, [that Goshen is described as near Givon], and that seeing that the land of Israel is located at higher altitudes than all other countries according to our sages, the Torah describes Joseph as traveling “up,” i.e. uphill. [why would Yaakov’s journey then have been described as a descent, seeing that one look at the map would convince us that as his last stop was Beer Sheva, he too would have had to continue from there uphill. Ed.] We do not consider this explanation of the word ויעל as appropriate at all. The province of Goshen was situated within Egypt proper, though at a higher level than the Nile delta which was practically at sea level for many kilometers starting with the capital. As to the apparently contradictory line in 46,31 where Joseph, leaving his father, speaks about “going up to Pharaoh etc,” has to be understood in terms of his stepping into his chariot, just as getting out of a chariot is described as “descending” from it, so entering it again as described as “ascending” into it. It is also possible that the correct interpretation of these terms עליה and ירידה respectively, is that Joseph said: “I will go to Egypt, (capital) and ascend to the palace of Pharaoh, which was built on a hill, overlooking the surrounding area, and inform him, etc.” It is even possible, though unlikely, that the land of Egypt proper was on a higher plateau than the province of Goshen, which was closest to the Mediterranean sea, in which case the word ויעל in our verse would refer to Joseph ascending his chariot before beginning his journey.

וירא אליו, “he appeared to him;” according to Rashi, Joseph appeared to his father and fell around his neck and wept still, are to be contrasted with Yaakov’s reaction; he did not fall around Joseph’s neck and did not kiss his son until he had finished reciting the prayer קריאת שמע. Nachmanides writes that he does not know why the expression וירא “he appeared,” has been chosen by the Torah to describe this meeting, seeing that it is quite obvious that when two people meet so closely that they embrace each other, as here, that they appear to one another. Furthermore, Joseph’s whole behaviour does not seem appropriate. He should have first prostrated himself and have kissed his father’s hands. Furthermore, the word עוד does not mean a surfeit of something, but something in addition to what had already been there before. Seeing that Joseph had not fallen around Yaakov’s neck before, the word עוד in this connection is hard to understand. The correct meaning of the phrase is that Yaakov’s eyes were heavy from old age, which made it difficult for him to recognize Joseph, or that seeing that Joseph had been in a rush to welcome his father he had been wearing royal attire and some sort of headgear totally unfamiliar to Yaakov, so that even if he would have recognized him in ordinary garments, he did not associate the figure approaching him in Royal Splendour as being his son. Therefore, when upon Joseph approaching real close and Yaakov finally recognizing him, i.e. “he appeared to him,” he fell around his neck and, in addition to this, wept while doing so. He had been weeping over the loss of Joseph for many years, only this time he wept from joy. Joseph, on the other hand, although he had been told that his father was well, when he saw him, he received a shock so that he began to weep in spite of the reunion. It is a moot point who of the two wept more and longer.

והאנשים רועי צאן, “and the men are shepherds by vocation.” He did not mean to say that the brothers themselves were shepherds, but that they were experts in sheep and cattle raising as their vast wealth consisted primarily of flocks and herds, while their servants did the actual minding of the beasts.

כי תועבת מצרים כל רועה צאן, “for every cattle and sheep raiser was pursuing a career despised by the Egyptians.” He would keep them apart from the Egyptians as they were anathema to them. Some commentators, on the contrary, consider that the Egyptians especially esteemed cattle men and men raising sheep as it would not make sense that Joseph should present his brothers before Pharaoh in a manner which would make him despise them. The reason that Pharaoh assigned the province of Goshen for them to dwell in was precisely because he considered them a very valuable asset to the Egyptian economy so that they deserved to live in the economically most prosperous part of the country. The word תועבה, abomination, does not refer to the brothers’ vocation, but to the deities whom the Egyptians worshipped.