פרשה: ויחי · עלייה: שישי (יסוד)

בנימין זאב יטרוף, "Benjamin is a wolf that devours its prey, etc." Jacob referred to King Saul who acted like a wolf. It is the nature of the wolf not to remain at the site where he tears its prey. Saul was in a hurry when he failed to wait for the time Samuel had said he should wait (Samuel I 13,8). This became the reason that Saul only ate on the morning (the early part of his reign) and he did not serve out his term.

When Jacob spoke about ובערב, he referred to the evening of Saul's reign (Samuel I 18,7) when Saul was described as having killed thousands whereas David was credited with having killed tens of thousands. It is also possible that Jacob referred to the division of David's kingdom, which the Talmud Yuma 22 attributes to David having believed Tzivah's accusation against Mefiboshet and disinheriting him partially without checking out the story (Samuel II 19,30). According to the Talmud a heavenly voice proclaimed at that time that Rechavam and Yerovam would divide David's kingdom. This was the beginning of the setting of the sun for Israel (loss of grandeur), because of its sins.

כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר, All of these comprise the twelve tribes of Israel. How exactly is the number twelve made up? Is Levi included? If so, the Torah did not include Joseph as more than one tribe, though Jacob had said to him (48,5): "Ephrayim and Menashe shall be to me like Reuben and Shimon." If Levi is not included in the number twelve, as we find for instance when the Israelites were being counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers when the flags and positions around the Tabernacle were assigned, why was Levi denied his father's blessing? If the reason was that Jacob criticised him and only those who had received blessings were included in the count, why were Reuben and Shimon included seeing they too had been criticised?

Perhaps Ephrayim and Menashe were not counted as two separate tribes until after the Exodus from Egypt, whereas here the Torah counts Joseph. I believe this is a rather forced explanation. I prefer to think that the words איש אשר כברכתו ברך אותם, "he blessed them each according to his special blessing," contains the answer to our problem. We note that Jacob included Shimon and Levi in a single blessing. Hence we have Joseph as two tribes and Shimon and Levi as one tribe together making up the number twelve.

אשר דבר אליהם אביהם ויברך אותם, what their father told them when he blessed them. Although we note that Jacob bestowed no blessing on either Reuben, Shimon or Levi, the Torah makes the point that the very harsh comments Jacob made to these three sons were their blessings. This is why the Torah employs the expression דבר, an expression reserved for harsh words or a harsh tone. The Torah adds ויברך אותם, he blessed them, to make certain we do not misunderstand. When we look at the way Jacob censured Reuben, we are reminded of the Sifri in Behaalotcha according to which the privileges of the firstborn will be restored to them in the future. Inasmuch as Jacob called Reuben his firstborn this was an encouragement for all the firstborn to look forward to the future when they would again be allowed to function as priests. It was on account of that future that Jacob was so intent to acquire the birthright from Esau at the time. The idea that there would come a time when Esau would perform the service in the Holy Temple was anathema to Jacob. This does not mean that in the future these privileges will be denied to the Levites. At the time envisaged both the firstborn and the Levites will share equally in those functions that were performed by the Levites when the Temple was standing. Jacob also blessed Simon and Levi when he cursed their anger. His blessing consisted in that he cursed their excess amount of anger. By reducing their natural tendency to anger he bestowed a veritable blessing upon them. The fact that he decreed that when the land of Canaan would be distributed they should be split up and scattered throughout the land was also a blessing as it would help to blunt any harmful results whenever they would have occasion to display their anger.

אשר כברכתו according to his blessing, etc. Each person received a blessing in keeping with his individual personality and achievements. You must not forget that different souls possess different potentials. Some souls are able to rise to the level of being priests, others to the level of being kings, etc. Still others have the potential to achieve greatness in Torah knowledge, or temporal successes such as wealth, or personal heroism. Jacob endeavoured to match his blessings to what he perceived to be the nature of each of his sons' special attributes.

ברך אותם, he blessed them. The Torah uses the word אותם them, (plural) to stress that each and every blessing to each individual son was also meant to be beneficial to the brothers as a whole. When Jacob predicted that Yehudah's hand would be on the neck of his enemies, this automatically meant that Yehudah's brothers would also benefit from his military prowess, etc.

ויצו אותם, He commanded them, etc. Seeing that Jacob had earlier called in Joseph to instruct him concerning where and when he was to be buried, he now made sure that the brothers should not think that all this was exclusively Joseph's duty and not theirs. He did not have to make the brothers take an oath, however, for reasons which I have explained in my commentary on 47,30.

שמה קברו את יצחק, there they buried Isaac, etc. Inasmuch as the cave of Machpelah used to belong to Efron the Hittite before Abraham had bought it, the Torah says here: "there they buried Abraham and Sarah." This means that the original owners did no longer use that cave to bury their own dead but that it had become the burial ground for Abraham's heirs, Isaac and Ishmael. When the Torah continues that "there they buried Isaac and Rebeccah," this is a reminder that the cave had become the property of Isaac's heirs Jacob and Esau, excluding Ishmael and his family. When Jacob added that he had buried Leah there, he wanted to exclude Esau's right to be buried there. Sotah 13 quotes Genesis 50,5 which has Joseph telling Pharaoh that Jacob had spoken about the grave he had dug for himself in the land of Canaan as proof for denying Esau a share in that cave.

מקנה השדה והמערה אשר בו, The purchase of the field and the cave which is in it, etc. After Jacob had alluded to the acquisition of the cave as something that was his exclusively, he repeated a particular detail which could possibly form the basis of a claim by the Hittites in the future. This was the law known in the Talmud as בר מצרא, that when a field is up for sale a person owning an adjoining field enjoys a privileged status as a potential buyer. This status is so strong that such a neighbour can force a deal which had been concluded already to be reversed in his favour.

Even though this law applies only when said field has been purchased by a Jew- as explained in Baba Metzia 108,- and the reason is that the Jewish purchaser can argue that his neighbour should be happy that he no longer has a Gentile as a neighbour, the reason given is not true. Were it true, the Gentiles could argue the same in reverse and use this law as a pretext to dispossess their Jewish neighbours, in this case the sons of Jacob.

The consideration of the law of בר מצרא is strong enough to override the fact that three generations of Jews had already been buried in that cave. Their argument would be the one described in Maimonides Hilchot Shecheynim chapter 13 that regardless of whether the new owner had dug a hole or built a superstructure on such ground, when the law of בר מצרא is invoked the neighbour who is now being dispossessed must be compensated for any expenses he had incurred while in possession of that field. On the other hand, if the interim owner had caused damage, he has to compensate the neighbour to whom this field should have been sold in the first place.

Jacob therefore made a point of reiterating מקנה השדה, the purchase of the field within which the cave is situated, from the sons of Chet, to make it quite clear that no such considerations as בר מצרא applied. The author refers the reader to what he wrote on this subject in connection with Genesis 23,9.

The reason that the Torah did not mention this detail at the time Abraham purchased the field from Efron is that a purchase from the Hittites is not in the same category as a purchase from Efron the individual from whom Abraham had purchased the field. The only possible connection the בני חת still had with that field was the fact that some of their properties may have been adjoining Abraham's. Inasmuch as any eventual protest by them would not be raised till a later stage, the Torah also reported Jacob's answer to such possible protest only at this time.

ויכל יעקב לצוות, Jacob finished commanding his sons, etc. This verse teaches that Jacob was an exception to the rule proclaimed by Solomon in Kohelet 8,8 that on the day someone dies he is no longer master over his spirit. Jacob was in full control of all his senses when he made all these arrangements. Only after having concluded all he wanted to say, ויאסוף דגליו, he gathered his feet into the bed, etc. Here is the source of the statement in Taanit 5 that "our father Jacob did not die." If death had taken possession of him, he would not have retained control long enough to be able to put his feet back into his bed. Midrash on Kohelet 8,8 explains that on the day of death a man cannot say to the angel of death: "wait for me until I have concluded my business and then I will come."

וישק לו, he kissed him. The emphasis in this verse is on the word לו. Joseph kissed "him;" had Jacob been dead it would have been forbidden to kiss him seeing that the corpse exudes ritual impurity, and that impurity rises up to heaven and would harm the person who does the kissing. Inasmuch as Jacob had not died, however, Joseph was able to kiss him; Jacob simply appeared to be in a coma.

ויחנטו הרופאים את ישראל. The physicians embalmed Israel. Joseph initiated this procedure because of the honour due to his father. All men of stature were embalmed, especially those connected with royalty. Alternatively, Joseph arranged for the embalming in order that people should not say that Jacob had not died or that he had died but that his body did not putrify and they would idolise him as a result. Besides, if that were to happen he would never secure permission to bury his father in the land of Canaan. Had Joseph not ordered embalming, Jacob's "body" would not have putrified. It is interesting to read the story in Baba Metzia 84 concerning the body of Rabbi Eleazar son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai which had lain in an attic for years without signs of decay.

It is also possible that ever since the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai rid themselves of the residual pollution by the original serpent, the bodies of the righteous of our nation no longer putrified after their deaths (Shabbat 146). Accordingly, even the mould within their entrails simply dried out and turned to dust without leaving behind any offensive odour seeing it is only the pollution associated with the original serpent which causes the food within the entrails to become putrid. Although it is said of Jacob that he did not die, the mould inside his entrails which remained within his body was apt to turn putrid. Joseph was concerned about that aspect and that is why he had his father's body embalmed.

It is also possible that Joseph was unaware of these secrets when he ordered his father to be embalmed.

אל בית פרעה לאמור, to the household of Pharaoh to tell him, etc. This means that Joseph wanted the members of Pharaoh's household to tell the king not only the facts, but also the manner in which Joseph had related these facts. Joseph had pleaded with Pharaoh's advisers hoping that they in turn would assist him to have his wish approved. Alternatively, the Torah merely mentions the fact that Joseph asked the members of Pharaoh's household to speak to him because we learned in Yuma 4 that unless one gives express permission to relate something one has been told (even if not in confidence), it is forbidden to do so. We know this from when G'd Himself gave permission to relate what He had said (Leviticus 1,1).

אם נא מצאתי חן, "If I may have found favour, etc." In this instance the word נא means both "please" and a reference to a specific time frame. Joseph meant that if Pharaoh really wanted to show his affection for Joseph, the time was right then when Pharaoh did not want anything from Joseph in return.

דברו נא, "please tell, etc." The meaning is "immediately." Joseph did not want to be tardy in fulfilling the oath he had sworn to his father.

באזני פרעה לאמור, "in Pharaoh's hearing, saying, etc." The reason that the word לאמור appears here again was that Joseph wanted these advisers of Pharaoh to volunteer such an appeal, not merely to be Joseph's messengers.

השביעני לאמור, "has made me swear by saying, etc." Our sages in Sotah 36 have explained that Joseph used the word לאמור to forestall Pharaoh suggesting that Joseph have his oath voided. Joseph threatened that if this were possible, he would also have his oath not to reveal that Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew voided at the same time. The plain meaning is simply that inasmuch as Joseph described only the content of the oath, not its actual wording, he had to use the word לאמור.

A more homiletical approach would be this. Joseph wanted to head off Pharaoh's question why he had not consulted with him before swearing an oath which he could not keep without obtaining Pharaoh's consent. Joseph explained that there had not been time for such consultations as the oath had been sworn close to the time of Jacob's death. He indicated this by quoting his father as saying: "here I am about to die" (48,21). We have already discussed this in connection with 47,29.

וכל העולים אתו, and all those who had gone up with him, etc. The Torah tells us that not a single person who had been part of the funeral cortege failed to return to Egypt. The reason was that they had all gone only in order to perform the מצוה of burying Joseph's father. None of them returned before he had completed participating in that deed. The Torah also wants to inform us that because they were all שלוחי מצוה, charged with the performance of a good deed, none of them encountered any mishap either while going or while returning (compare Pessachim 8).

Alternatively, the Torah may be telling us something entirely different. When the Torah speaks separately of Joseph and all those who buried his father as returning to Egypt, and then repeats the words: "after he had buried his father," it may differentiate between those who waited with their return until after the burial and between those who used the opportunity to conduct whatever business they had in Canaan by joining the funeral cortege. The former all returned safe and sound without mishap because they were engaged in a מצוה. The people who were motivated by their personal concerns were not included in the statement that everybody returned without fail.

לו ישטמנו יוסף, "perhaps Joseph will hate us, etc." In this instance the word לו means "perhaps," though there is no other such instance in the Torah where the word לו is used in that sense. We need to understand why the Torah uses the word לו here in a sense which is the opposite of its regular meaning. Although it is quite impossible to mistake the meaning of this word in our context, why did the Torah not use such words as פן, or אולי if the intention was to describe the brothers as saying "perhaps?"

It seems that the Torah has the brothers express a subconscious desire for Joseph to pay them back for all they had done to him. If Joseph were to do that now and the brothers would experience a similar agony to that which they had subjected him to, they would no longer have to worry about paying for their sin against him at the end of the exile. Yalkut Mishley 929 describes that the 10 martyrs executed by Hadrian were in retribution for the failure to punish the brothers who had sold Joseph at the time. Shabbat 10 attributes the exile in Egypt to the coloured coat Jacob had made for Joseph and which resulted in the jealousy of his brothers.

ויצוו אל יוסף, they ordered emissaries to tell Joseph, etc. We again have to explore the meaning of the word לאמור in this context. If it means that the emissary were to speak to Joseph, the Torah should have added the words אל יוסף. Perhaps the brothers did not want the emissary to tell Joseph that the brothers had sent them but to tell him that he himself had overheard their father command the brothers to tell him of this conversation at the appropriate time. This would account for the word לאמור being used twice in this verse.

כי התחת אלוקים אני, "Am I then in G'd's place?" Joseph meant: "if you are guilty it is up to G'd to punish you; it is not up to me to revenge myself or to hold a grudge against you." Joseph may not have told the brothers that he had forgiven them because under Noachide law the matter did not depend on his forgiveness at all. Under Noachide law, once a person has committed the sin of kidnapping or robbery, he is guilty of the death penalty. The fact that the victim forgave the criminal is irrelevant to the penalty. Joseph added that he had to interpret the brothers' actions in a manner which reflected credit upon them.

ואתם חשבתם עלי רעה, והאלוקים חשבה לטובה, "what you had planned as harm for me, G'd planned it for good, etc." The whole matter is comparable to that of a person who plans to give his friend a poisoned drink in order to kill him, but who mistakenly pours him a cup of wine. Legally speaking, such a person is not guilty before a human tribunal. Similarly, the brothers were not guilty before Joseph though they were guilty before a Heavenly Tribunal. It is possible that the forgiveness of the victim even to a Jewish criminal would not free the criminal from the death penalty if the deed had been committed under circumstances warranting such a verdict.