Heritage versus Inheritence

And then I will bring you unto the Land, which I have lifted up my hand to give it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and I will give it to you as a heritage (morasha), I am God.                                                       Exodus 6:8

The word morasha appears only one other time in the Torah: “Moses commanded us a law, an inheritance (morasha) of the congregation of Jacob.” [Deuteronomy 33:4]

Ignoring the different English translation of the word in the two verses, it is not surprising that both the Torah and the Land are referred to as morasha.

          My father noted that there is a distinction between morasha (heritage) and yerusha (inheritance): whereas inheritance (yerusha) is received automatically without effort on the heir’s part, heritage (morasha) requires the recipient to exert himself to acquire it. Just as Torah cannot be achieved without the investment of time and intellectual effort, the Land, though promised to the Children of Israel, will be truly acquired only by the investment of time and energy to settle and develop the Land. It is incumbent upon us to busy ourselves with settling and developing the Land.

Connecting Past Present and Future

And God spoke to Moses, and said to him: I am the Lord and I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as “God Almighty,” but My name haShem I did not make known to them.             Exodus 6:2-3

          It should be noted that neither the Jewish Publication Society translation nor that of Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch translates the holy four letter name of God, which is the ineffable name, never pronounced as it is written.

          Our Sages teach us that the Tetragrammaton implies God’s eternity. Indeed, the Name contains the letters which spell the Hebrew words haya (“was”), hoveh (“is”) and yihiyeh (“will be”), encompassing past present and future. However, while the three words collectively contain all four letters of the Name, none of the three does individually.     My father commented that this teaches us that God’s name can be complete only when we unite past present and future.

          One of the great medieval Jewish poets wrote:

The past is gone The future yet to be The present a mere eye blink

(I regret my inability to render a poetic translation of the Hebrew.)

          Time has meaning only when the fleeting present is used to connect the past and future.

Rabbi Akiva taught “eternity” (haNetzaḥ) [II Chronicles 29:11] refers to Jerusalem.                            Babylonian Talmud, Brachot 58a

          Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveichik explained that the definition of eternity is the convergence of all time, the simultaneous existence of past, present and future. Rabbi Akiva has taught us that the Jewish past present and future are destined to meet specifically in Jerusalem.

          Returning to my father’s point, we can add that when all of time converges in Jerusalem, God’s name will be completed.  

Appreciating the Nile

          Rashi, quoting our Sages, comments that it was Aaron, not Moses who struck the River Nile, because the Nile had saved the infant Moses. Hence, for Moses to have struck the River would have been a failure to appreciate what the River had done for him. It would have been a lack of hakarat haTov (“recognition of the good”, appreciation of what has been done for him). For the same reason, it was Aaron who brought the frogs out of the Nile (8:1). As well with the third plague, it was Aaron, not Moses, who was instructed to hit the soil of Egypt to bring out the lice. Rashi again comments that it would have been ungrateful of Moses to hit the soil of Egypt which had protected him when he killed the Egyptian and buried the body in the sand.

          Of course, both the River Nile and the land of Egypt are inanimate objects, which cannot feel being struck. Personifying the Nile and the soil, if they are to be struck, it makes not a whit of difference to them whether they are struck by Moses or by Aaron.

          Moses’ refraining from striking the River and the soil was for his own benefit, not for the benefit of the Nile nor the land of Egypt. It would be morally wrong, hence a sin against himself, for Moses to ignore the fact that he had been saved both by the Nile and by the land. Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe explains that the Torah teaches the important lesson that hakarat haTov extends beyond man’s relation with his Creator and beyond his relationship with fellow man. Hakarat haTov is obligatory in man’s relation to himself as well.

The Logic of Moses' Argument

And Moses spoke before the Lord, saying: “Behold the Children of Israel have not listened to me, how then shall Pharaoh hear me, and I am of uncircumcised lips?”                                                           Exodus 6:12

Da’at Zekanim of the Tosafists question the logic of Moses’ argument, since the Children of Israel did not listen to Moses “for impatience of spirit and for cruel bondage,” factors which certainly would not apply to Pharaoh. [6:9]

Moses’ argument is that if the Children of Israel, who are to be redeemed, do not listen to God’s message which he delivers, how can he expect Pharaoh to listen? If the redeemed are not ready for their redemption, certainly the oppressor will not be ready to release them.

When Moses adds: “I am of uncircumcised lips,” perhaps his intention is “How can I answer Pharaoh if he tells me the Israelites are not ready to be redeemed?”

In the following verse we read: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, and gave them a charge to the Children of Israel, and to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to bring the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.” Moses and Aaron must first teach the Israelites the value of freedom and then they will be able to fulfill their charge to Pharaoh as well.

Land of Sojourning

And I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their sojourning (megurei), wherein they sojourned.                                                    Exodus 6:4      

Ours is the fourth and final verse of the Torah which refers to the Land of Canaan as the “land of sojourning.”

            Ba’al haTanya (the first Lubavitcher Rebbi [1745–1812]) notes that the word “megurei” allows three possible interpretations:

1.      dwelling place;

2.  fear [as in Psalms 31:14 and other verses]; or

3.      the feeling of being a stranger.

The verse’s addition of “the land of Canaan” rules out the latter explanations.  The Land of Israel is the only place in the world where a Jew has the right to feel himself at home and not as a stranger, and it is only within this Land that he can truly feel secure [provided he observes God’s mitzvot] [Leviticus 25:18]. The condition for negating the alternate meanings of “megurei” is Jews dwelling in the Land, in spirit, as well as in body.

The Four Redemptions

Therefore, say to the Children of Israel: I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments; and I will take you to Me as a people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you into the Land concerning which I have raised My hand to give it to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage (morasha): I am the Lord.                                                           Exodus 6:6-8

These verses present the “four languages of redemption” (or “four redemptions,” according to the Jerusalem Talmud [Pesaḥim 10:1]), which are the basis of the four cups of wine used at the seder. My father explained that these are four stages towards the ultimate redemption. It is first incumbent to understand that slavery constitutes a burden which should not be tolerated. The dream of the slave, that his master not be too harsh with him is unacceptable, for slavery, by definition is an evil. Once the people understand the evil of slavery, God will deliver them from their bondage, taking them to physical freedom. However, physical freedom is insufficient, and the next stage is complete redemption, implying an internal feeling of freedom as well. This, in turn, leads to “and I will take you to Me as a people.” Once Israel accepts the “yoke of heaven,” their freedom will be completed, as our Sages taught: none is free, save he who busies himself with Torah.

Some question why the phrase “and you shall know that I am the Lord your God” is not considered one of redemptions. Perhaps the reason is that the four redemptions are dependent upon God’s actions, while “you shall know” is dependent upon the Children of Israel, who have the free choice to acknowledge God’s mastery or not.

“And I will bring you into the Land” is also not included in the four redemptions, because it is not permanent, since Israel was exiled from its Land. However, with the ultimate redemption, Israel’s return to its Land will be permanent, as by the fifth cup of wine, the “cup of Elijah, who will be the harbinger of the final redemption.

Feeling the Suffering

For I too have heard the cries of the Children of Israel ... and I remember My covenant.

                                                            Exodus 6:5

          “I too have heard.” The use of the word “too” implies that others, besides the Almighty “have heard.”

          My father suggested that the implication refers to the Israelites, who “heard” the suffering of their fellow Israelites. Because an Israelite was not totally caught up in his own suffering, but felt the pain of the suffering of his brethren as well, the feeling of community inclined God to hear the cries of the Children of Israel.

          The verse seemingly implies that if not for the cries of the Children of Israel, God would not have remembered His covenant. Apparently, Rashi was sensitive to this point and therefore explains: “Since I must fulfill My covenant, therefore I have heard ...”

My father explained that indeed, were the Israelites to remain silent and not cry out to God, because they accepted their status as slaves, they would have been unworthy of salvation. Because realization of the inherent evil of being enslaved is the necessary first step towards salvation and freedom, the sine qua non of Israel’s redemption was their recognition that slavery constitutes suffering. Thus, the four “languages” of redemption (or in the version of the Jerusalem Talmud, the “four redemptions”), begin with “I will take you out of the sufferings of Egypt.” [Exodus 6:6]

A Tale of Two Daughters of Pharaoh

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Hagar was the daughter of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh saw the deeds done on behalf of Sarah in his palace, he gave his daughter to Sarah, saying: “Better that my daughter be a handmaiden in her home and not a matron in any other home.                     Breishit Rabba 45

            Rabbi Shimon’s comment suggests a comparison with another daughter of Pharaoh, who saved the infant Moses and raised him as her son. [Exodus 2:5ff]

            Interestingly, in each of the chapters, Hagar and her son Ishmael in the desert [Genesis 21:14ff] and Pharaoh’s daughter saving Moses, the boy is referred to both as a “child” (yeled) and as a “lad” (na’ar). Further, the words “yeled” and “na’ar” appear seven times in each chapter. It is not by chance, rather it is as if the Torah wants us to compare and contrast the two chapters.

            Hagar and her son were sent away from the home of Abraham and wandered in the wilderness of Beer Sheba, and when they had drunk all their water, and death by thirst seemed imminent, Hagar’s reaction was:

When the water in the skin was used up, she cast the boy under one of the bushes. She walked away, and sat down facing him, about a bowshot away. She said, “Let me not see the boy die.” She sat a good way off, and she wept in a loud voice.          Genesis 21:15-16 

            Other than crying, Hagar did nothing. (Rashi [21:16] comments that as Ishmael’s apparent death came closer, Hagar moved further away from her son.) Beyond this, Hagar’s reaction was egocentric. Rather than doing whatever she could to encourage and help her son, rather than hugging him in what seemingly were his last minutes of life, Hagar declared “Let me not see the boy die.” Hagar placed herself, rather than her son, in the center.

            Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch notes the vast difference between Hagar’s approach and that of a Jewish mother:

A Jewish mother would not have forsaken her child, even if all she could would be to try to pacify him, even if it were only to soothe him for the millionth part of a second.

            Rabbi Menashe Klein stresses Hagar’s inaction, commenting that she should have searched for water for her son. Hagar perhaps even had the right to expect that miraculously someone would show up with water, since she had already seen an angel when she ran away the first time [Genesis 16:7ff] and had herself experienced a miracle. In any event, she should have sought some way of keeping her son alive, especially knowing that the angel had promised, in God’s name: “I will grant you many descendants. They will be so many that they will be uncountable.”

            In contrast to Hagar, Bitya, daughter of Pharaoh (our Sages [Shemot Rabba 1:26] taught that this was her name) saw an infant, son of the people against whom her father had decreed “'Every boy who is born must be cast into the Nile” [Exodus 1:22] and reacted with compassion [ibid. 2:6].

            Our Sages relate the words of Bitya’s servants who accompanied her to the banks of the Nile:

When (the servants) saw that she wished to rescue Moses, they said to her, “'Mistress, it is the custom of the world that when a human king makes a decree, though everybody else does not obey it, at least his children and the members of his household obey it; but you  transgress your father's decree!” Gabriel came and beat them to the ground.                                                                           Babylonian Talmud, Sota 12b

            Bitya, an Egyptian princess, did not think of herself nor of her personal status, rather acted out of compassion to save an infant who not only was not of her own nation, but from the nation against whom her father had issued his dastardly decree. Bitya chose to defy her father’s decree and do what she considered to be morally correct. (We may note that some of our Sages understand that Bitya herself fetched Moses’ ark. In contrast to Hagar, who cast her son under the bushes in order to distance herself from him, Bitya extended her arm to bring the infant close to her.)

            Our Sages have great praise for Bitya, teaching that she converted to Judaism and was among the few mortals who entered the Garden of Eden alive. [Midrash Mishlei] Pirkei d’Rebbi Eliezer [chapter 48] teaches that Bitya merited clinging to the wings of the Shechina and that she is called “the daughter of God.” (the translation of her name)

            Considering her lofty soul, it would have been surprising had Bitya not converted to Judaism. Indeed, Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, who taught that Hagar was pharaoh’s daughter, taught as well that Bitya went down to the river [Exodus 2:5] to purify herself from the idols of her father’s palace, that is to immerse herself for the sake of conversion.

            The bottom line is that despite the fact that Hagar was privileged to live in the home of our father Abraham, she maintained her Egyptian mentality, while Bitya, who grew up in Pharaoh’s palace was able to overcome her “Egyptianness.”

Holy Ground

God said: “Do not come any closer. Remove your shoes from your feet, for the place upon which your are standing is holy ground.”      Exodus 3:5

            It is to be noted that the “Mountain of God,” Mount Horeb/Sinai is not considered holy, to the point where there is no certainty as to its location.

            Alshikh comments that God’s instruction “remove your shoes” is intended to convey to Moses that he is about to have a prophetic experience, which can take place only on holy ground.

            Apparently, Alshikh’s intention is to explain how Moses prophesied outside the Holy Land, since “all who have prophesied have done so only within her (the Land) or for her. [Kuzari 2:14] If this assumption is correct, the sanctity of Mount Horeb derived from its connection to the Holy Land, and indeed, the content of the prophecy Moses received at Horeb is:

I have come down to rescue them from the hands of Egypt’s. I will bring them out of that land to a good spacious Land, to a Land flowing milk and honey, the territory of the Canaanites, the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.              Exodus 3:8

            There is a substantive difference between Mount Horeb/Sinai and Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah, the Temple mount, has eternal sanctity, and one may ascend it only in a state of ritual purity and with awe and trepidation.  As far as Mount Sinai is concerned, following the Divine revelation which took place there, the greatest Divine revelation in history, the Israelites were permitted to ascend the mountain with no restrictions whatsoever. Perhaps this distinction derives from the fact that the revelation oat Sinai was for the sake of entering the Land, (based upon Midrash Sifrei, [Parashat Ekev, 43:17] the Torah presented to Israel at Mount Sinai is intended primarily for fulfillment within the Land) while Mount Moriah is actually located within the Land.

            Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik commented that Mount Sinai was sanctified through God’s actions, His Shechina descending upon the mountain, thus when the Shechina left Mount Sinai the mountain’s sanctity ended. However, Mount Moriah was sanctified by man’s actions, when Abraham bound Isaac on the altar he built there. Thus, Mount Moriah’s sanctity is eternal.

The Promise of Redemption

These are the names of the sons of Israel, who came into Egypt with Jacob; every man came with his household.                                                                                             Exodus 1:1

            Rabbi Eliyahu Gutmacher (1796 – 1865), one of the spiritual fathers of religious Zionism, asks why the verse begins with the present tense (the literal translation of the verse is: These are the names of the sons of Israel, who are coming into Egypt with Jacob; every man came with his household) and ends with the past tense. Rabbi Gutmacher notes as well that the prophetic reading which follows the Torah portion (haftara)  commences with the words “He shall cause those who come of Jacob to take root,” parallel to the opening verse of Exodus, employing a verb in the present tense.

            Rabbi Gutmacher posits that when Jacob reached Beer-sheba on his way to Egypt [Genesis 46:1-4] he had three fears in anticipation of his family’s exile:

1. that his descendants may become assimilated and no different than the gentiles of the land;

2. that the Egyptians may annihilate his descendants;

3. that his descendants may chose to reside in Egypt permanently and never return to their own Land.

            When God appeared to Jacob in Beer-sheba [Genesis, ibid. 2-4] He allayed each of Jacob’s fears:

1. concerning the fear of assimilation, God said [46:3]: “Do not be afraid to go to Egypt, for it is there that I will make you into a great nation.” And Israel can be a “great nation” only when it is loyal to God’s will;

2. God’s words [46:4] “I will descend to Egypt with you” implies that with God’s presence accompanying Jacob’s family, they cannot be destroyed by the Egyptians;

3. the Divine promise [ibid.] “and I will also bring you back again” reassured Jacob that his descendants will not remain in Egypt.

            Israel’s exile in  Egypt is the archetype of all of the nation’s exiles until the final redemption, thus the verse employs the present tense “who are coming,” for until God sends the ultimate redeemer, Israel must be considered as “coming to Egypt,” since the nation must deal with its exile  and address the fears which concerned our Father Jacob.

            Since the topic of the haftara is the final redemption, employing the present tense teaches that the redemption from Egypt, Israel’s first redemption, carries with it the promise of the ultimate redemption as well.

The Key to Redemption

He (Pharaoh) announced to his people, 'The Israelites are becoming too numerous and strong for us.                           Exodus 1:9

            Be'er Moshe (Hassidic Master Rabbi Moshe Yeḥiel Epstein (1890 – 1971)) expresses astonishment that Pharaoh feared the Israelites, who no doubt were less numerous than the Egyptians who were the major empire of the time.

            Rather, Be'er Moshe explains, the Children of Israel were united as a single person, as the verse [1:5] "all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls (the singular "soul" appears in the Hebrew both times)." It was the unity of Israel which made it "numerous and strong," for unity is the secret of Israel's strength. (Don Yitzḥak Abravanel [1437 – 1508] commented that "numerous and strong" indicates quality rather than quantity). Based on this elucidation, the continuation of Pharaoh's words [v.10] "and he will join our enemies" (while the English translation is "they," the Hebrew employs the singular) is exact. It is specifically the Israelites' unity which constitutes the (perceived) threat to Egypt.

            Indeed, unity is the key to Israel's redemption, as our Sages [Breishit Rabba 99] taught: when Israel becomes one aguda (“society,” more literally “bundle”)  they prepare themselves for redemption.

Zipporah as Precursor of the Exodus

            The Torah’s description of Moses’ descent to Egypt to discharge his prophetic calling of leading God’s people out of their subjugation includes the episode at the inn:

And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, God confronted Moses and wanted to kill him. Zipporah took a stone knife and cut off her son’s foreskin, throwing it down at (Moses’) feet and she said: “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.” So He let him alone. Then she said: “A bridegroom of blood in regard of the circumcision.”                                                                         Exodus 4:24-26

            Yehuda Kiel [Da’at Mikra], in his insightful analysis, notes that this incident served as a tangible indication to Moses of the great danger which awaited him on his mission, and a warning that he must be totally scrupulous in fulfillment of the divine dictate given him.

            As the verses tell us, it was Moses’ wife Zipporah, who saved his life through the blood of circumcision of their son, which presages the liberation of Israel from Egyptian bondage:

They must take the blood and place it on the two doorposts and on the beam above the door of the houses in which they will eat (the sacrifice).                                               Exodus 12:7

            Just as Moses was saved from mortal danger through blood, so too were the Israelites saved when God smote the Egyptians. [ibid. 12:13]

            (While the blood which was put on the Israelites’ doorposts and lintels in Egypt was that of the Paschal lamb, our Sages [Ruth Rabba 16:1] taught that the blood of the Paschal lamb was mixed with the blood of circumcision, making the parallel more exact.)

            We can add that the fact that it was Zipporah who saved Moses’ life also serves as a precursor to the liberation from Egypt, as our Sages taught:

Rabbi Avira expounded: it was in recompense for the righteous women of that generation that our fathers were redeemed from Egypt. [Babylonian Talmud, Sota 11b]

Names and Exodus

The Hebrew name of the second book of the Pentateuch is Shemot, (“names”), taken from the second word of the book, while in English it is known as Exodus, since the major theme of the first part of the book is the exodus from Egypt and its enslavement. Don Yitzḥak Abravanel [1437-1508] notes that our Sages referred to Shemot as “Sefer haGeulah” (the Book of Redemption), a name which parallels “Exodus.”

 There is a connection between the two names, as our Sages taught [Midrash vaYikra Rabba 32]: Israel was redeemed from Egypt because they did not change their names, their language or their garments. The Israelites retained their Hebrew names even in the Egyptian exile. While in Egypt, the Children of Israel retained and maintained their identification as Hebrews. Not only did they not hide the fact that they were Israelites, but they were proud of this fact, and this led to their redemption.

Why is God Fond of Stars?

These are the names of Israel’s sons who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his family…        Exodus 1:1

Though He enumerated them by their names in their lifetimes, He counted them again after their deaths, as an expression of how dear they are to Him, that they are compared to stars, which He brings out and brings in by number and name, as the verse states: “He that brings out their host by number, He calls them all by name.”                                                           Isaiah 40:26

                Rashi [based upon Midrash Shemot Rabba 1:3]

           

Two questions arise:

1] Why is God especially fond of stars?

2] What is the connection between stars and the People of Israel?

            In answering these questions, Rabbi Leib Bakst, Rosh Yeshiva in Detroit [and son-in-law of my saintly teacher, Rabbi Mordechai Rogov] quotes an additional comment of Rashi [Genesis 1:16, based upon the Babylonian Talmud Hullin 60b and Midrash Breishit Rabba 6:4]

God [thus] made the two large lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the smaller light to rule the night. [He also made] the stars.

“The large lights”: they were created of equal size, and the moon was diminished when it complained that it is not possible for two kings to wear a single crown.

“And the stars”: having diminished the moon, God increased its attendant hosts, the stars, to conciliate it.

            Based upon the understanding that stars were created to conciliate the moon, Rabbi Bakst explains that something which was created solely for the purpose of conciliation of others is indeed especially dear to God.

            Our Sages’ comment that God counts Israel as He counts the stars conveys the thought that Israel too was created for the purpose of helping each other and to share their fellow’s burden, and thus Israel is especially dear to God as are the stars. 

Keeping a Secret

… Jacob wished to reveal to his sons the (date of the) end of days, but this was concealed from him. Rashi Genesis 47:28

My father explained the reason Jacob was prevented from revealing the ends of days.

Isaiah [60:22] delivers God’s message “In its time I will hasten it [the time of redemption].” Our Sages [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a] note the apparent contradiction: if it is at the appointed time, it is not being hastened, and explain: “if Israel merits, God will hasten the time of redemption, if not, the redemption will be at the appointed time.”

Had Jacob revealed the end of days to his sons, they (and their descendants) may have chosen to wait for that day and not attempt to hasten its arrival. It is God’s desire that His people attempt to hasten the end of days. Even worse, some Israelites might think that it is imperative to wait for God’s appointed time and intentionally refrain from the attempt to hasten the end of days. Further, the verse which precedes ours, the final verse of Parashat vaYigash tells us that Israel (plural) took hold in Egypt, implying that they felt at home there, and did not feel the need for redemption. Therefore, Jacob could not reveal the end of days, since the true redemption will come when the Israelites cry out to God for their salvation. Freedom is not to be given to a person or a nation, rather to be earned through appreciation of its value.

When Did Israel's Subjugation Begin?

And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years …                                     Genesis 47:28 Why is this portion completely closed (setuma, minimally separated from the previous Parasha, as opposed to starting on a new line within the Torah scroll)? Because when Jacob died the eyes and hearts of Israel were “closed” from the subjugation which the Egyptians began to impose upon them.                                      Rashi

Some commentaries question Rashi’s comment, noting that Joseph remained viceroy of Egypt after his father’s death, and as well, our Sages’ tradition is that the Egyptian bondage actually began only following the death of Levi, the last of Jacob’s sons to die.

My father explained that the actual subjugation in Egypt indeed began only with the death of Levi, however, the transition from the Israelites’ position as the family of the viceroy to their enslavement was a gradual one, which began with the death of Jacob. Rashi’s point is that the beginning of subjugation was in Jacob’s children’s failure to see the approaching difficulties. As long as Jacob lived, he reminded his descendants that they were in exile in Egypt, and their true homeland is the Land of Israel. However, with the death of the patriarch, the children of Israel lost sight of their own homeland, and began to think of themselves as belonging in Egypt. It was this faulty perception which led to the Israelite’s subjugation.

Perhaps it was the Children of Israel’s failure to appreciate the need for redemption which prevented Jacob from revealing the end to them.

Simon and His Descendant Zimri

Simon and Levi are brothers, weapons of violence are their kinship. Let my soul not come into their council; unto their assembly let my glory not be united; for in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they hewed oxen.      Genesis 49:5-6 “into their council” refers to Zimri [Numbers 25:6-8,14]; “for in their anger they slew men” refers to the residents of Sh’chem [Genesis 34:1-29].                      Breishit Rabba 88-89

Rabbi Yehonatan Eybschutz asserts that Zimri had converted the Midianite woman whom he took, otherwise his claim to Moses: “who permitted the daughter of Jethro to you” [see Rashi Numbers 25:6] would be meaningless. Rabbi Yehonatan supports his position by quoting the historian Yosifon, who states explicitly that the Midianite woman had been converted. Yet Moses and his rabbinical court considered the conversion to be invalid, since it was for the purpose of an intimate relationship, rather than for its own sake.

The residents of Sh’chem as well, were ready to accept conversion only as a means of intermarriage with the daughters of Israel, not for the sake of heaven. Thus, Jacob connected the two events: the fact that Simon and Levi killed the residents of Sh’chem clearly indicates that they considered their conversion to be invalid, therefore the conversion of the Midianite woman by Zimri must be considered invalid as well.

The Land of the Living

When Israel realized that he would soon die, he called for his son Joseph. 'If you really want to do me a kindness,' he said, 'place your hand under my thigh. Act toward me with truth and kindness, and do not bury me in Egypt. ‘Swear to me, said  Jacob.                    Genesis 47:29-31

In the preamble to its discussion of Jacob’s request to be buried in the Holy Land, the Babylonian Talmud [Ketubot 111a] quotes the verse [Ezekiel 26:20]: “… and I will set glory in the land of the living…,” clearly understanding the phrase “land of the living” to refer to the Holy Land.

Our Sages [Avot d’Rebbi Natan 34], based upon this verse, teach:

Ten are called “living”: the Holy One blessed be He; Torah; Israel; the righteous; the Garden of Eden; a tree; the Land of Israel; Jerusalem; acts of kindness; the wise …. The Land of Israel is called living, as it is written “and I will set glory in the land of the living.”

The Land is called "living" because it is the place where the dead will be resurrected. (The Sages present different opinions: the Talmud [Ketubot, ibid.] taught that those buried outside the Land will have their remains "roll" to Israel, and only upon arrival in the Holy Land, will the remains be brought back to life, that is, the Land will be the sole venue for resurrection, while Reish Lakish [late 3^rd century c.e.], quoting Rabbi Elazar haKappar [Midrash Tanhuma vaYetzei 23], takes a more moderate position and states that those buried in the Holy Land will be the first to rise to resurrection in the days of Messiah.) Thus, Jacob insisted that Joseph swear to him that his remains will be buried in the Land.

Yet we find Midrashim [Midrash haGadol Genesis 28:13] which convey an additional specific reason for Jacob’s request:

Since the Holy One blessed be He said to Jacob [Genesis 28:13]: “The land upon which you lie, I will give to you and your descendants,” if you lie in it, it will be yours, and if not, it will not be yours . Rabbi Huna, quoting Rabbi Eliezer says: provided that you are buried within the Land; therefore Jacob was desirous of being buried there.

That is, the Israelites’ right to the Land is dependent upon the burial there of the Forefathers. (This Midrash apparently is the source for the comment of the Gaon of Vilna that zechut avot [the merit of the Fathers] could not be realized unless the Forefathers were buried within the Land.)

Perhaps the intent of the Midrash is that burial within the Land essentially conveys an eternal connection to it, through the belief that it is from the Land that resurrection will take place (or at least begin, as per Reish Lakish). Jacob’s descendants cannot truly merit the Land without an eternal bond to her.

The End of Sibling Rivalry

And he blessed them on that day saying:

With you shall Israel bless saying, may

God make you as Ephraim and Menashe …

                                       Genesis 48:20

          Netziv comments that there were other worthy grandsons of, such as Yehuda and Tamar’s twins Peretz and Zeraḥ. The reason Jacob chose Ephraim and Menashe is the fact that they represent two different spheres of activity. Ephraim was great in Torah, and dealt with Israel’s spiritual needs. Menashe busied himself with the tangible needs of the People. The blessing Israel gives to its children combines the spiritual and the mundane. This, essentially, is the ideal of Torah: imbuing even the most ordinary things with a spiritual dimension. It is for this reason that Jacob chose Ephraim and Menashe over his other worthy grandchildren.

There is an additional explanation of Jacob’s preference for Ephraim and Menashe over his other grandsons. The Book of Genesis is replete with sibling rivalry, from Cain and Abel to Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau through Joseph and his brothers. When Jacob gave Ephraim, the younger brother, prominence over Menashe, Menashe willingly accepted his reduced status. Ephraim and Menashe represent the end to sibling rivalry. Rather, they accept their brotherhood without fighting over status.

          Because Ephraim and Menashe represent the ultimate in brotherly love, upon which the future of Israel is based, Israel chooses to bless its sons "as Ephraim and Menashe."

The Nature of Blessings

One of the main themes of the parasha is Jacob’s blessings, first to his grandsons Ephraim and Menashe, and then to his own sons. The details of Jacob’s blessings teach invaluable lessons as to the true meaning of a blessing.

Against Joseph’s wishes, Jacob insisted on giving primacy to Ephraim, the younger son, over the first-born Menashe:

“That’s not the way it should be done, Father,” said Joseph. “The other one is the first-born. Place your right hand on his head.”

His father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. (The older one) will also become a nation. He too will attain greatness. But his younger brother will become even greater, and his descendants will become full-fledged nations.” [Genesis 48:18-19]

Numerous commentators ask: why did Jacob not bless Menashe that he be the greater brother?

            Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe explains that a blessing cannot change reality; rather the point of a blessing is that one’s potential be realized.

After blessing his grandsons, Jacob called his twelve sons together and gave each of them an individual and personal deathbed blessing because a true blessing cannot be generic, but must be based upon the traits and needs of the recipient. 

Thus, upon completion of Jacob’s blessings, the verse summarizes:

All these are the tribes of Israel, twelve in all, and this is what their father said to them when he blessed them. He gave each one his own special blessing. [49:28]

It is to be noted that the first three sons (Reuven, Shimon and Levi) were not blessed, but reprimanded, yet the verse states that each of Jacob’s sons received a blessing. The Holy Or haHayyim comments that a well – placed reprimand can be the greatest blessing. If Jacob’s rebuke positively influenced his older sons, it was indeed a great blessing.

We can note as well that the verse explicitly states the individual nature of each son’s blessing. Rashi points out that the language of the verse presents an anomaly. The literal translation of the final clause is: “each according to his blessing, he blessed them (otam),” while we would expect the singular (oto). The intent of the verse, explains Rashi, is that each blessing, while geared towards the specific qualities and needs of the recipient, has an impact on all twelve tribes.

Malbim expands upon Rashi’s point by stating that each blessing is necessary for the collective as well as for the individual.

Yet, Rabbi Wolbe stresses that the order is of crucial significance: the collective cannot be blessed without the individual being blessed first, since only one who has individuality can make a contribution to the collective. 

"With All Your Might" Refers to Jacob

… and Joseph fell on his (Jacob’s) neck and cried…                                    Genesis 46:29

However, Jacob did not fall on Joseph’s neck nor kiss him; our Sages say Jacob was reciting Shema.                                    Rashi                     

Rashi’s source is Derech Eretz Zuta [1:10]:

Forego your will for the will of your friend, as Rachel did for Leah and as David did for Saul. Forego your will and that of your friend for the will of heaven, as we find that Jacob did not kiss Joseph because he was reciting Shema.

Reading the source makes Rashi’s intention perfectly clear: as much as Jacob loved Joseph, as happy as he was to be reunited with his beloved son, Jacob’s first and greatest love was God.

Jacob had already expressed this primary love in connection with his beloved wife Rachel who said to him: “Give me children or else I die,” to which he surprisingly responded in anger. [Genesis 30:1-2] Sforno explains that because Rachel directed her request to Jacob rather than to God, his angry response demonstrated that despite his deep love for her, his love of God exceeded his love of Rachel.

Thus, in connection with each of the two people he loved the most, Jacob stressed that these loves were secondary to his love of God. In these demonstrations of primacy of his love of God, Jacob achieved the complete fulfillment of the mitzva stated in the Shema: 

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might (me’odecha). Deuteronomy 6:5

Aruch haShulḥan [Oraḥ Ḥayyim 1:6], in explaining this mitzva, writes: all that is beloved to you, whether self, family, or anything else, must be null and void compared to your love of God, and suggests that “me’odecha” is derived from the word “me’od” (much)’ translating the verse: “Your love of God must be greater than anything which you love greatly.”

Indeed, Jacob reached this lofty level of loving God. Thus, Midrash Sifrei states that “‘with all your might (me’odecha)’ refers to Jacob.”

Using the Holy Tongue

And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth which speaks to you.                            Genesis 45:12 “That it is my mouth which speaks to you”: in the Holy Tongue.                                         Rashi

            Naḥmanides rejects Rashi’s interpretation, noting that Joseph’s ability to speak Hebrew would not prove that he is indeed Joseph. Rather, suggest Naḥmanides, “That it is my mouth which speaks to you” means: I, who have the power and authority to do so, promise to sustain you here in Egypt.

            My father defended Rashi’s comment, suggesting that “in the Holy Tongue” are the words of Joseph himself. The fact that the viceroy of Egypt refers to Hebrew as the Holy Tongue, not only indicates that he is indeed Joseph, but indicates further that he has remained loyal to the traditions of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, since the Holy Tongue is a vehicle which conveys the culture of the Forefathers.

The Reason for Jacob's Fear

(God) said, “I am the Omnipotent God of your father. Do not be afraid to go to Egypt, for it is there that I will make you into a great nation.”                                                     Genesis 46:3 Only one who is afraid needs to be told “Do not be afraid.”                       Bereishit Rabba 76:1

            Rashi explains that the source of Jacob’s fear was his need to leave the Holy Land.

            Yalkut Shimoni [152] elaborates on Jacob’s fear:

Jacob wondered: how can I leave the Land of my fathers, the Land of my birth and the sojournings of my fathers, the Land in which the Shechina of the Holy One, blessed be He is imbued and go to a defiled land, among the uncircumcised who do not fear Heaven?

The very fact of his being on the verge of leaving the Land which God had promised to him and his descendants engendered fear in Jacob.

            Netziv focuses the point even more:  Jacob’s fear was that in Egypt his family would assimilate into Egyptian culture and abandon their own traditions, while as long as his family remained in their Land, Jacob was confident that they would remain loyal to his tradition and teachings. “Only in the Land of Israel, the place sanctified for the service of sacrifices and more specially suited to the wisdom of Torah than any other land, could the Israelite uniqueness be preserved from generation to generation.”

            In his commentary on Genesis, Netziv follows the approach that “the events of the fathers are signs for the sons,” and this is stressed in his closing comment, quoted above: “from generation to generation.” In our generation as well, the Land of Israel, the natural habitat of the People of Israel and of Judaism (as Maharal of Prague emphasizes), is the place best suited to preserve the Israelite uniqueness.