meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt/Tanakh/Commentary/Or HaChaim/Torah/Or HaChaim on Genesis/English/merged.txt"}
text: Or HaChaim on Genesis
  אור החיים על בראשית
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
  -
  -Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology
  -
  -Yalkut, Sifsei Chachomim Chumash, Metsudah Publications, 2009
  -
  -Sefaria Community Translation
  -
  
  Or HaChaim on Genesis
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  With the help of the Creator of light, I will elucidate the explanation of the Torah, to unite His awesome name; Who made me from the beginning and advised and called upon me first, to work pleasantly first; I will begin to explain the Book of 'In the Beginning' (Genesis): 
  The heavens have open and I saw the vision of God, Creator of the ends of the earth, and I reflected upon that which I have been allowed to reflect upon in the unfolding of holy words; and my remark is from the East of (before) the Torah. His saying, "In the beginning of," [bears a] structure which is relational, as you would say 'the beginning of a thing, but here what ['the beginning of'] refers to is missing (beginning of what?). And who is like our God, who knows the thing (word), is the origin of the thing (word) not from Him?
  He said it at the beginning of the order of the creation of the heavens; and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained that the word [<i>shamayim</i> (heavens)] is composed of two things <i>esh</i> (fire) and <i>mayim</i> (water); and from this, God forbid, it gives a hand to the sinners to say that [given that] this is the beginning of the creation, but [yet], God forbid, the Creator did not create the fire and water, since the verse itself informs us that the beginning of the creation was the heavens, and if the waters were created [and not pre-existing], it should have started with their creation. And the Sages, of blessed memory, (Chagigah) preempted these two observations and explained that the structure of the verse is as follows: In the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was chaos, etc. - not that the heavens and earth was the beginning of the creations. But the words [of the Sages], of blessed memory's, were not enough to remove the [possibility of] error; since according to their words, why did scripture not inform us later of the creation of water and fire, and dirt and wind. And even though the verse (9) states, "and the waters gathered, etc. and the dry land appeared," it is not understood [from this] that it was created; and more justified is the understanding that it was pre-existing, but that [God] decreed upon it to be revealed when the water gathered.
  There is what to be exact about, in that the verse wrote, "<i>et hashamayim ve'et haarets</i>" ("the heavens and the earth," which are both preceded by the Hebrew preposition, <i>et</i> which can either proceed a direct object or mean 'with,' and so, is often seen as indicating additional meaning); and what did the verse come to add with the two times it says <i>et</i>? 
  In fact, the intention of the verse is as follows; but first, 'I will rise with the sun' upon that which is placed in front of us from the greatness of the Creator - how great are his works! - since the Master, may He be blessed, can speak a word without it being understood by the creations. As they, of blessed memory, said (Mekhilta, Yitro) to explain the verse (Exodus 20:1), "And God spoke all of these words etc.," and this is what they said, "words that the mouth cannot speak;" and it [is a reference to] Him saying all of the ten commandments in one word, and [that] one word did not precede the other. ...
  And with this, we will come to the explanation: and it is that the Master, may His name be exalted, created everything - all that He created in the world; places and all that exists, and the skies and the earth - in one word. And this is what it states, "<i>Bereishit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et haarets</i>" ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"), and is exact to use the word <i>et</i> twice; to include all that is found in the world. And since the creations are numerous, as beyond the ten things that are recognizable and visible to everyone's eye - as were counted by the Sages, of blessed memory (Chagigah 12a), and this is what they said, "and ten things were created on the first day: heavens and earth, light, darkness, chaos and void, etc. water, wind" - besides these things, there are other creations that are hidden and absorbed by the powers of the foundational elements; some of them are recognized by way of dissection, some of the them by way of composition, some of them through the changing of time, some of them through the power of hyle, and [they] are too many to count. For this reason, the Creator grouped them into two large and enormous parts: in the havens and in the earth. And these are the two inclusions that were included in His saying "<i>et hashamayim ve'et haarets</i>," and in one proclamation did He, may He be exalted, create everything. And you will find that they, of blessed memory, said (Rosh Hashanah 32a), "[The word] 'In the beginning' [counts as a] proclamation [of creation], since with it were completed the ten proclamations with which the world was created (as there are only nine obvious proclamations of creation and this would be the tenth one)." Everything was created in the first of all [the proclamations] but it was not yet arranged, and all of the creations were there but they lacked order; and the Holy One, blessed be He, ordered them, each thing in its day: on the first day, He set up and separated the light from the darkness and the darkness acquired its place and the light acquired its place; and on the second day, etc. 
  And the trustworthy 'witness' to our explanation is that which the verse states (Genesis 2:3), "since upon it God rested from all of the work that He had created to make;" as this verse lacks understanding; and according to what we have explained, it comes 'like a precious chain,' as "since upon it He rested from all of the work that He had created" [refers to what He did] on the day of creation; "to make," [means] to refine, on the six days; like it states (Exodus 31:17), "since on six days, the Lord made, etc.," the explanation [of "made"] is refined; since the [actual] creation was created in one proclamation on the first day, except that everything was lacking refinement. To what is this thing similar? To someone who wants to build a palace and first prepares stones and wood and dirt and all of the building materials and afterwards builds the home; so [too] the Creator, may He be blessed, created all of the needs of the world with one proclamation, and He prepared it, and everything was laying piled up in a mixture; and afterwards, He started to organize each thing in its place and did His, may He be exalted, work. 
  And you will find that when He wanted to create the heavens, He said (verse 6), "let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters," [meaning] He set its place; but it was already created in the first proclamation. And so [too] with the earth (verse 9) "and the dry land appeared."
  And [regarding] the fire, the refinement of which, God didn't mention at all, you should know that God did not reveal its source - like the revealing of the heavens and the earth and the water - because its source is strong; and from it, there [would be] destruction to the world if it had been found like the water and the earth; and the world would not be able to exist. For this [reason], the Holy One, blessed be He, left it in its place - where it was created by the first proclamation - absorbed  in the flints; until man needed it and took out from them an amount [of fire] sufficient for him, as they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 11), "therefore we make the blessing of 'who has created the lights of the fire' at the end of Shabbat." And by this, God also revealed the nature of the [primordial] mixture - that the sources and elements were mixed up at the time of their creation, before God set each one up, according to its station. For if [the concealment of fire in other objects] did not exist, man's mind would not be able to fathom the knowledge of how different substances could be mixed up; and all the more so, dirt and fire. 
  And it is true that the Creator could have included the ordering [of the various creations] in the first proclamation, but for many reason did He [not] do this; and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, revealed one of them, when they stated (Avot 5), "and is it not that He could have created [everything] in one proclamation, but He wanted to take payment [from sinners for a world created with ten statements rather than only one] etc. and to give payment to the righteous etc." 
  And let it not be difficult in your eyes, that they, of blessed memory, stated (Ibid.), "In ten proclamations was the world created" [and used the] word 'created;' since at the end of the day, anytime that [something] is missing refinement, it as if [it is not created]. For example, if the earth [did not emerge], there would be no place for the creations; and likewise with the other creations that were mixed up, like the light and the darkness. If so, all that is not refined is as if it is not created; for this reason [the various refinements reflected by the nine other proclamations] are also referred to as creation.
  And let it not be difficult in your eyes, [as to] why the Torah wrote the main [narrative] of creation in this way, and did not explicitly write [that] God created the water and the dirt, and the fire and the wind, so that [by not doing the latter] 'the empty man would not be made wise.' 
  Know [that the answer is] that the Torah makes known and informs [us of] every hidden thing, and God wanted to make known 'the strength of his actions to his people' and make known to us the order of the creation and its manner, and that He - the Power, the Mighty, who is girded in strength - created everything that is and everything that exists, in one statement; and He wanted to make known to his close ones 'the strength of his deeds,' and did not prevent Himself from this good because of erring fools. 
  And there is also another reason which obligates the thing to be according to the discussed order, and it is that if the verse had [gone according] to the order desired by the silly ones, and that is that it would state that He created land and He created water, etc., it would have sounded as if He created them each, on its own; and according to the truth, it is not like that. And didn't you know that God has no desire for 'the speaker of lies and it cannot be established in front of His eyes.' And how could the 'beginning of His words,' God forbid, begin with words that are not correct? For this [reason], He spoke truth[fully about] the manner of the creation; as 'straight are the paths of God and the righteous will walk upon them' to thank and magnify the Creator, may He be blessed, and they will say to God, 'how awesome are your deeds.' 
  And He was exact to state 'In the beginning' and not to state 'At first' [in order to] 'tell the strength of His deeds to His people;' and that is, that according to what we wrote above - that He created everything with one statement - through that, we can deduce that One who can speak several statements all in one statement, also in one statement does not need to have one letter precede another. And from this, [we see] that when God said the word <i>shamayim</i>, He did not say the <i>shin</i> before the <i>mem</i> and not the first <i>mem</i> before the second <i>mem</i>; and also the letters of every single word, He did not have the beginning of the word precede its end; and also with each and every letter, He did not have its beginning [sound] precede its end. 
  And after God made known all of this to us, [we understand that] these are the things that God made known to us with the word, 'In the beginning,' the meaning [of which] is [that] everything is the beginning, since there was no later part of the creation, but [rather] everything was the beginning; and understand [this]. 
  And the reason that the Master chose to create [the world] in this way [is that] - besides the reason that we stated, that He wanted to make known part of His, may He be blessed, great deeds - you will also find that when He, may He be blessed, speaks with strengths, which is the aspect that relates to the name <i>Elohim</i>, it is [appropriate] for the words to be spoken in this way (all together). And you will find that they, of blessed memory hinted to this (Makkot 24a) in their pleasant words, and this is what they said, "'I am' (the first commandment) and 'There shall not be' (the second commandment) were heard from the Strength;" [with this] they intended to say, in their sweet language, that the words that were heard in this aspect [of strength] - which is <i>Elohim</i>, which relates to strength - will speak like these words, many words together. And not specifically 'I am' and 'There shall not be,' but rather all of the Ten Commandments, [were spoken this way] as they have have stated in their words in another place (Mekhilta, Yitro); and behold, the creation from the creation story was created with the name <i>Elohim</i> for many reasons, and as a result He spoke in His way, may He be blessed, (according to this attribute) great and awesome words as we have written. 
  And in the way of midrashic (homiletic) interpretation, the word, 'In the beginning' is explained in the way of what the verse states (Psalms 33:6), "By the word of God, were the heavens made and by the breath of His mouth, all the hosts." And you should know that, may the name of our God be elevated, He did not create the angels until the second day in order that those in error should not err [and think] that they helped Him in the creation of the world. And as to the [Sages'] words (Bereishit Rabbah 1:3), of blessed memory, we need to elucidate how is it possible to say that the angels were created later; is it not that according to what the verse stated, "and by the breath of His mouth, all the hosts," that hosts of the sky were created from the breath that came from the mouth of the Highest, (as if it were possible [to say this]); if so, perforce, according to our [very] senses, the angels were created before the heavens and the earth; since the breath came out before the word [of God], and since the heavens and the earth were created from the word, behold the breath - from which the angels were created - already preceded it. And for this reason, the verse states, "In the beginning, created etc.;" the explanation [of which] is that God had the later - which is the speech - precede the breath; [which is] the opposite of what is known to us about the nature of speech. And he created the heavens first and reversed the order and made speech first to breath; for the reason stated in their words, of blessed memory (Ibid.), and that is that [people] should not say that the angels helped and stretched out the heavens with Him, etc. And the verse informs us that the Master, blessed be He, does not take His lessons from the creations, as the creations are not able to reverse the order implanted within them from the time of the creation; which is not the case with the Creator, blessed be He, [who] can speak in the manner that He wants. And for this reason, you will find that the verse was precise in stating, "By the word of God, were the heavens made," which has the creation of the heavens - which were created from the word - precede, and afterwards, it stated "and by the breath of His mouth, all its hosts." 
  And from here, the structure of the explanation of the word, "In the beginning" is as follows: given that there are two things [involved] in speech, breath and speech itself, and from each of them did God create a new creation and I [would] not know which one of the two was first, whether the breath or the speech; for this [reason], it states that first was the act of the heavens and the earth; and from the derivation of the matter, you know that the speech was first to the breath that came from the mouth of the Highest.
  We must still understand the difference between the two verses; in this verse, it only says the name <i>Elohim</i> (God) and in another verse, it says (Genesis 2:4), "on the day the Lord, God, made the heavens and the earth," [thereby] mentioning two names. And [we] also [need to understand why] here 'heavens' precedes 'earth' and there, 'earth' precedes 'heavens.' 
  And it appears that these two questions answer each other. And this is according to the way that they, of blessed memory, explained (Sotah 31a) about two verses that are written about the reward of the righteous: one verse states (Exodus 20:6), "and does kindness to thousands" and another verse states (Deuteronomy 7:9), "to His loved ones and to those who keep His commandments, for a thousand generations." And they, of blessed memory, said that that which one verse stated "to thousands" is referring to "His loved ones" only, and does not also refer to "those who keep His commandments" - who are those that do it out of fear - because it is mentioned that they will be a thousand generations in another verse. Also the verse that states, "to His loved ones and to those who keep His commandments, for a thousand generations;" refers only to "those that keep His commandments" - which is adjacent to it - [when] it states, "for a thousand generations," and not to the word, "His loved ones," which precedes ["those who keep His commandments"]; since behold, their reward is with them in another verse, which is the one [that states] "for thousands." ...
  We will also explain these two verses in this way: "In the beginning, <i>Elohim</i> (God) created the heavens;" this name of <i>Elohim</i> - the meaning of which is this attribute of [strict] justice - without the combination of the name of mercy (the Lord), this is only going on what is connected to the heavens, and does not refer to its stating [in the same verse], "the earth;" since He created the earth with the combination of the name of mercy; and [the Torah relied on a different verse [to convey this information]; and that was its stating, "on the day the Lord, God made... the earth;" since the world of people is not able to exist with exact justice, without the combination of mercy, given that they are physical, as  is known; and its stating "and the heavens" does not go together with the earth, in this aspect of combination; and the way of its functions, are they not [already] written in the section on creation? And through this are both precise observations resolved, 'like a precious chain.' And as to the matter of knowing which came first, behold we have written above that all of the creation was created together, in His, may He be blessed, strength.  ...
  And let it not be difficult to you, what type of justice does God mete out to the 'children of power,' who dwell in the skies [the supernal angels], that justify using the name <i>Elohim</i> for them; do you not find that they, of blessed memory, stated (Chagigah 15a) in the story of Metatron, that they judged him in front of Elisha and struck him  with sixty bolts of fire, and also Eliyahu, etc. (Bava Metzia 85b) and how many judgments are there of the ministers above! And even thought they do not have an [evil] impulse, nonetheless, mistakes are found among them; since sometimes they do not understand the truth and err. And go and learn from the story of the angel, Metatron and Eliyahu, since they erred; and so it happens that they err and God punishes them, even on unwitting sin, which He does not prosecute for the dwellers of the earth, and with this is confirmed what  we wrote [above] and this is true. 
  And even if we have found that the Rabbis, of blessed memory, (Bereishit Rabbah 1) noticed these two [differences] in the verses and answered that the reason that in one verse the heavens is first and in one the earth is first is that it intends to [tell us] that both came out as one [together], and the reason that in one place it states <i>Elohim</i> (God) and in another place it combines it with the name of mercy (the Lord), [about this] they stated (Bereishit Rabbah 12:15) that in the beginning, it went up in His thought to create [the world] with the name <i>Elohim</i> and [when] He saw that the world would not be able to exist [that way], He combined, etc; 
  [nonetheless,] you should know that permission is given to explain the meaning of the verses by the ways of investigation and logic, even if the first [scholars of the Mishnaic period] came before us and made a different sense of it, since there are 'seventy faces to the Torah.' And we are not warned not to deviate from the words of the first ones, except with explanations that would result in a change in the law. And for this [reason], you will find that the Amoraim (scholars of the Talmudic period who came later) do not have the power to disagree with Tannaim (scholars of the Mishnaic period) concerning the 'statutes of God,' but concerning the sense and meaning of the verses, we have found that they explain [it] in a different way in several places. 
  [Yet] I looked again at [a] reasoned investigation of the verses [and found] that our words would also allow for the words of those that came before us, peace be upon them. But first, let us reason to [understand] how it is justified to [attribute to] the Master, may He be blessed, a beginning and end to His thought - that at first, He thought [to create the world] with justice and [then] went back to combine [it with mercy] - since the Master, may He be blessed, 'is not prevented from plotting' because of [too] little time; and in less than the wink of an eye, He knows everything, and plans correctly at first glance, as if it were possible [to say this about Him], may He be blessed and may His name be blessed. ...
  Hence, know that the intent of [what is meant by] the combination of mercy bears two [possibilities]: the first is that sometimes God is merciful to whom He wants to be merciful to, without bringing him to justice, since this is the attribute of mercy - to excuse and to forgive - and the name,  <i>Elohim</i> also [can be explained in this way, that it is applied] to someone whom He does not want to excuse, He brings to justice, and according to this, there will be a person who is not brought to justice; and the second way is that God never yields to any person in the world, and the whole world is judged - there is no escape, and you should know that they, of blessed memory, said (Bava Kamma 50a) and these are their words, "whoever says that the Holy One, blessed be He, is a yielder, [that person's] intestines will be yielded," but [rather] the earth will stand in judgment and no man will escape from justice. 
  And behold according to this, we have chosen the second way, and from here, [we see] that the way of the creation, according to their words, may their memory be a blessing, is as follows:  at first, He created with the attribute of  <i>Elohim</i> - which relates to justice - and this was the plan, that all should stand in justice, except that He saw that the world cannot [survive with] such justice, so He combined the trait of mercy with it, the explanation [of which] is not that He went back on his original thought, God forbid, but [rather] that He made judgment [operate] in a merciful fashion, as you would say 'that He not pay back a person all at once, and that He not give the person his punishment right away and immediately, without giving it time.' And a person never gets what he doesn't deserve in justice, and that is what they, of blessed memory, said (Yerushalmi, Shekalim 5:1), "He is patient, but collects what is His." 
  It comes out that you say that He did not go back from His [original] thought, since we didn't find that it was the first thought of God not to administer justice in this way, [meaning] that it be meted out with mercy. And, according to this, it is necessary for the verse to be stated in this order; since had the verse stated, "In the beginning, the Lord, God, created," there would have been reason to say that there is justice, and also that there is not  justice [when there is] mercy, since God did not decide to institute justice only. But since He stated God (<i>Elohim</i>) by itself, behold, [it shows] that He decided that there is nothing that exists without justice. And even if the verse afterwards states, "the Lord, God," it will truthfully be explained as we have explained it; that justice will exist regardless but that it will be exacted mercifully. And the verse relied upon us, that we would be forced to understand it in this manner, [so] that it become something known and held in our hands that the knowledge of God is not something that reverses itself, as if it were possible. 
  And after we have explained the intention of our Rabbis, of blessed memory,  there is a basis for our words even in their words: since this attribute of combination that God set up for the dwellers of the earth, to be slow of anger and to collect [His due] a little at a time; He did not administer [His justice] like this except with us but not with the higher ones, that dwell in the heavens; but [rather, with them,] He pays back the guilt of the guilty right away and immediately. Also regret and confession and repentance, as well as the claim of error is not effective for them. And go and learn form the story that is brought down in the Talmud (Chagigah 15a) about the four that went into the orchard, in which an angel who was sitting with permission of the King, may His name be exalted, may He be blessed, was punished for not getting up in front of [Rabbi] Elisha in order that [the latter] not make a mistake in his thinking. And this is [only] an error for the angel, and he was also not warned about it; and the Judge would not judge His people Israel like this, as is known from the statutes of His Torah, let it be exalted. 
  There is another hint in having the heavens precede the earth: to show that the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like the way of flesh and blood. The way of flesh and blood is [to] build the house first and then the attic on top of it, but the Holy One, blessed be He, had the attic precede and afterwards [built] the house, to show that the heavens are suspended and standing by His word, may He be blessed. 
  And by way of hint, the Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4) [that by the] word <i>bereishit</i> (In the beginning), He, may He be blessed, intended to say, [that He created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called <i>reishit</i>; and the explanation of the [letter] <i>bet</i> (which is the first letter in <i>bereishit</i>) is that it is a <i>bet</i> [that indicates] causation. And from this [is implied that] anyone who merits [to know the] Torah, merits the whole world and anyone who does not merit [to know the] Torah should not benefit from this world - even for him to set foot on it - unless he provides assistance to those who toil in [the study of] Torah. And they also said (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) [that He created the world] for the sake of Israel, which is called <i>reishit</i>, as it is written [about Israel] (Jeremiah 2:3), "<i>reishit tevuato</i>" ("the first of His produce"). And this statement does not contradict the first, since the very reason that Israel is called, first is from the angle that they accepted the Torah; and though this were they separated from the [other] nations for fame and praise. And they also said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4), [that He created the world] for the sake of Avraham and (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) for the sake of Ya'akov; and it all follows the first reason [for creating the world], 'because Avraham listened to my voice, etc.' They also said (Shabbat 36b) [that He created the world] for the sake of [the] awe [of God], which is called <i>reishit</i>, as it is written (Psalms 111:10), "<i>reishit chocmah, yirat</i>, etc." ("the beginning of wisdom is the awe of God, etc."); since it too is a fundamental principle of the Torah, since if there is no wisdom, there is no awe, and if there is no awe of God, there is no Torah, for [awe of God] is a beautiful storehouse for the Torah. 
  <i>Bereishit</i> is also explained by way of [the Bible's] stating (Proverbs 8:30), "and I was a nursling (<i>amon</i>) with Him," and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 1:1); "Don't read it as <i>amon</i> (nursling), but as <i>uman</i> (artist);" and this is exactly what the verse is hinting at in the beginning of God's word: informing [us about] the creation of the world, it informed [us about] that with which He created it and stated that He created it with the Torah, since it is the artist. (This does not contradict the first explanation, since the Torah prepares the world to walk on straight paths.) And according to this, the level of its 'owners' is magnified, since they merit everything; and for this, it is correct that they should be called 'builders;' and this is what they, of blessed memory, said (Shabbat 114a), that Torah scholars are called builders, since what is in their mouths and in their hearts is the builder. And this is [the sense] of what it stated (Jeremiah 33:25), "and were it not for my covenant etc, the law of the heavens and the earth I would not have set." 
  The [letter] <i>bet</i> of <i>bereishit</i> [can] also be explained by way of [that which] they, of blessed memory, said (Tikunei HaZohar 5b), that there are two types of awe of God: the first is fear of punishment; and the second is awe [before] His loftiness and this is a more inner and loftier awe than the first [one]. And this is what the letter <i>bet</i> that is first (<i>bet reishit</i>) hints: since God established two types of awe for the survival of the world, and he hinted to the manner of them both; the first one was hinted by the word, <i>Elohim</i>, since it is the fear of judgment when He rises to [establish] justice; and the second one was hinted by its stating, "the heavens and the earth" - and that is by way of its stating (Psalms 8:4), "When I look at your heavens, etc," and they, of blessed memory, said [about this] (Zohar 1:1) that the awe of [His] loftiness enters the heart of an intelligent person when he meditatively glances at the work of the heavens and the earth, [and then proclaims,] 'how great are Your deeds, Lord,' [and] his soul becomes enthused and he is inawed by His greatness, may His name be blessed. 
  [Alternatively,] the two types of awe are hinted to [in the following way: one, in its stating "the heavens" here, is hinting to the awe of [His] loftiness, by way of its stating "When I look at your heavens, etc;" and the second awe, by stating "and the earth," which is the fear of punishment; and it is negatively attributed to the earth, since it is not from the angle of [His] loftiness, but rather from the angle of [man's] fear from the children of the world, by way of its stating (Job 20:27), "and the earth will rise against him." 
  <i>Bereishit</i> also hints, by way of [the Bible's] stating (Isaiah 33:6), "the awe of the Lord is His treasure;" the intention [of which] is that one who has the awe of God, [for him] it is a treasure for the hope of hearts, which is the clinging of His light, may He be blessed, to the soul of man, by way of its stating (Deuteronomy 4:4), "And you who cling, etc." And anyone who has the fear of Heaven is an abode for [His] Presence, as it states it (Psalms 78:60), "a tent which dwelt with Man." And it is hinted by the word, <i>Bereishit</i>,  in the following way: the explanation of <i>bet</i> [which can also be read as <i>bayit</i> (house)] is that a house of repose for God is awe - which is hinted to by the word <i>reishit</i> - "God created" and set up His work. 
  <i>Bereishit</i> is also explained by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Vayikra Rabbah 35:6), "And the book and the sword came down entwined, etc."  and this is what it is saying, "<i>Bereishit</i> created <i>Elohim</i>," the meaning [of which] is that with the <i>reishit</i> - which is the Torah - He created <i>Elohim</i>, the meaning [of which] is [strict] justice, which hints to the sword. 
  It is also explained by way of that which the verse states (I Kings 18:39), "The Lord is God;" and the intention [of this] is that even if the name <i>Elohim</i> relates to [strict] justice, nonetheless it is [indicative of] mercy. And all of the names of the Holy One, blessed be He, intend, for the good, together to do good and to do kindness; but from the angle of the acts of the backward ones, judgment came out to chastise whoever is fitting to be chastised. And besides this, the attribute of the name, <i>Elohim</i>, is also to do good. And this is what it is saying, "In the beginning, created <i>Elohim</i>," since the name <i>Elohim</i>, did good and created the world to have grace and mercy and to do good to those that dwell in the heavens and the earth and there is no greater mercy than this. And this is what the verse states (Genesis 27:28), "And <i>Elohim</i> will give to you;" behold, that also the name <i>Elohim</i> does good to the good by way of a free gift; but evildoers cause <i>Elohim</i> to give them chastisement. And in the anticipated future, so will it be, [that] the Lord (the name associated with mercy) shall be one and His name shall be one. 
  The word, <i>Bereishit</i>, is also explained by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Zohar, Introduction 2) that at the time of the creation of the world, the letters entered in front of the Creator; [the letter], <i>tav</i> entered and said in front of Him, "Master of the World, is it Your will to create the world [by beginning the Torah] with me, etc." and to all of [the letters], God answered that He did not want [to create the world/begin the Torah] with them, for the reason stated in their words for each and every one; until [the letter] <i>bet</i> entered and He accepted it and created the world with it, as it is written, <i>Bereishit</i> [which begins with <i>bet</i>; the letter] <i>alef</i> [which had not yet entered] was silent. [And] the Holy one, blessed be He, said to it, "<i>Alef</i>, why are you quiet, etc?" He said to it, "You will be the head of all the letters." Up to here [are the words of the Zohar]. Behold from the words of God [here], it appears that <i>alef</i> has [more of] a virtue than the letter <i>bet</i>. And from here [it follows] that had the letters gone up in front of Him properly, <i>alef</i> would have merited to have the world created with it. And lest [one ask], why didn't the <i>alef</i> go first, and [instead] He left it until the end, know that they, of blessed memory, said (Tikunei HaZohar, Introduction) that when the letters are in the proper order - in the following way: <i>alef bet gimmel</i> etc. - they are hinting to the attribute of mercy; and when they are backwards - in the following way: <i>tav shin reish</i> etc. - they are indicating the attribute of justice. And this is a sign for you [to remember this]: the month of Tishrei - [which] has the letters in backwards order, <i>tav shin reish</i> - is the great time of judgment, except that God, from the angle of His great mercy combined [with these letters] one letter from [His] name of mercy - and that is the <i>yod</i> - to bring mercy into the judgment (Zohar, Introduction 16a). And after this has been made known to us, we will explain [<i>Bereishit</i>] as <i>bet reishit</i> (bet is first); [that] you should know the reason that <i>bet</i> precedes <i>alef</i> is that the creation was with the attribute of <i>Elohim</i> (justice), and since it is thus, the letters went up in backwards order as is [the] rule, and for this reason <i>bet</i> precedes <i>alef</i> and acquired its place. 
  In its stating <i>Bereishit</i>, it also wants [to teach], by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Zohar Chadash, Bereishit 2) that a thousand hidden worlds did God create; and they, of blessed memory, called them (Edra Zuta, Ha'azinu 288a) 'worlds of embarrassment;' and they are hinted to in the verse (Song of Songs 8:12), "there is a thousand to you, Shlomo." And from here, the verse began with <i>bet</i>, since <i>alef</i> had already acquired its place, since with it were created a thousand (<i>elef</i> which is spelled that same way as <i>alef</i>) worlds, according to its name, <i>alef</i>. And He started with <i>bet</i> to create this world, given that [its numerical value] is also the sum of the creation which is two, heavens and earth. And also for this reason, it did not state, "At first," since you would understand that this is the [absolute] beginning, and that is not the case; since He already created the 'beautiful worlds,' but regarding this detail of the heavens and the earth, it is stating its beginning.   
  The word, In the beginning (<i>Bereishit</i>), also hints, by way of the [Sages], may they be blessed, saying (Zohar 1:155a) that God created four worlds and they ascribed to them the names, Emanation, Creation, Formation and Action; and they are hinted to in the verse (Isaiah 43:7), "All that is called by My name and I have created for My honor, I have formed him and made him." And this is what is hinted here when it states, "In the beginning," [which] is the world of honor which is Emanation and it is called 'the beginning of all;' "created" [which] is the world of Creation; "<i>Elohim</i>" [which] hints to the world of Formation, since there are judgments there; "the heavens and the earth" [which] is the world of Action, since that is the heavens and the earth, as it is stated in their pleasant words.  
  It is also hinted, by way of [that which] they, of blessed memory, said (Pesachim 54a) that the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom (purgatory) were created before the world was created, since they are the reward and punishment for the Torah and the commandments, and this is hinted to in its saying <i>bet</i> (which has a numerical value of two) <i>reishit</i> (which is indicative of awe), since God created two things that were designated for awe, which were reward and punishment, [meaning] the Garden of Eden and Gehinnom: (Chagigah 15a) [If] one merits and fears from God, he takes his portion and the portion of his fellow in the Garden of Eden; [if] he does not merit [to do this], he takes his portion and the portion of his fellow in Gehinnom. And perhaps it is hinted that both of them were created together and that both of them are called <i>reishit</i>; since if one preceded the other, <i>reishit</i> would only refer to one [of them; instead], you have learned that they were created together in one statement. 
  It is also hinted that - since there are two worlds, this world and the next world, and man can acquire 'the good and life' by his involvement in Torah and good deeds - here the verse informs us that the reward for the [observance of] the Torah and the commandments will not be given to the righteous ones in this world, until [God] has [already] prepared a goodly storehouse, which is the essential [reward] to the spiritual side [of man]; and afterwards, if there is a surplus, he [is rewarded] in this world; since God will choose to first prepare for man a payment that is eternal. And this is what is hinted when it states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens;" which [signifies] the world of souls, and afterward "and the earth," which [signifies] the lowly world, if some of the good [coming to] him remains. Hence, you have learned that [reward] is not given to the righteous ones in this world until after they have merited their portion of light 'in the light of life.' 
  It is also hinted, according to what the Rabbis, of blessed memory, argued (Rosh Hashanah 10b): one says that the world was created in Tishrei and one says that the world was created in Nissan. And it appears to me that 'these and those are the words of the living God,' since you should know that they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4) that in the beginning God thought to create the world, and afterwards, God took His thought and put into action. And according to this, we can say that He thought [to create it] in Nissan and put it into action in Tishrei or the opposite, and the word, 'create,' refers to both of [these things]; whether what came into His thought, may He be blessed, is called a creation, whether when it went into action; and with this, the words of [both] of our Rabbis can exist together. And this is what is hinted by the  <i>bet</i> (which has a numerical value of two) in the word <i>Bereishit</i> (In the beginning); since there were two beginnings, one in thought and one in action; only that we don't know if He thought in Nissan and acted in Tishrei or the opposite. 
  It also wanted [to teach], by way of the [Sages], may their memory be blessed, saying (Berakhot 6b), "Whoever has awe of the Heavens, his words will be heard;" and the reason [for this] is that the one who fears God will speak from the depths of his soul, and since that is the case, the soul of the listener will recognize [that] and accept the rebuking chastisement; but if the words came from the body, there is no resonance for the soul to listen to them, as the rabbis, of blessed memory, have hinted about what the verse stated (Deuteronomy 6:6), "And these words shall be etc. upon your heart" [and] then "and you shall review them with your children," which are the students. And this is what it said, "<i>Bereishit</i>," which is awe - as they, of blessed memory, have said - "God created the heavens," the explanation [of which] is that one should have awe of the Heavens, [and] then they will listen to his voice and 'he will teach knowledge to people' and that is what it states, "and the earth." 
  It also wanted [to teach] that, since there since God commanded many [observances] of awe in the world - awe of father and mother, as it is written (Leviticus 19:3), "A man, his mother and his father shall fear;" also from the king and the sages, also to fear people, that they should not be suspicious of him - one might say that the commandment of awe is the same in all the places that it is found, and it will come out from this that he will sometimes discount, God forbid, the commandments of God because of the honor of  the king or the honor of his father or something like that; therefore, it hints here that the words of God are first, such that he puts the awe of "the Heavens" before anything [else] and afterwards "the earth," which are the individuals whom he is obligated to fear. And this is what the verse states (Numbers 32:22), "and you shall be clear before God" first; and afterwards, "and from Israel." And from here, [we see] that there is no place to observe any commandment of awe unless one does not transgress any commandment of the commandments of God. 
  It is also hinted that, through the Torah, God created two levels for man: either he be on the level of the heavens; and that is by way of it stating (Psalms 82:6), "I have said, 'you are powers'" (meaning, like angels); or if he does not keep [the Torah], his level sinks down to the earth. And this is [what it means] when it states, "<i>Bereishit</i>," the explanation [of which] is that through <i>reishit</i> [meaning, the Torah], "God created" these <i>bet</i> (two) preparations, "the heavens, etc." 
  The whole section also hints to the creation of man - who is the main goal of the creation - in the following way: In the beginning, when God created man, He created him from the source of spirituality, which is hinted by the word, heavens, and from the source of physicality, which is hinted by the word, earth. And you will find that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, hinted [to this by explaining] (Sanhedrin 91b), what the verse stated (Psalms 50:4), "He called to the heavens above" to be the spirit [and] "and upon the earth" to be the body, which is built from the earth. And His will in this, may He be blessed, is that through the actions of man, he will have the power to transform matter, which is the body, until it is considered to be form. 
  And behold, you will find (Shabbat 152b) that the righteous ones do not return to the dust, given that they purify their matter, until it becomes spiritual; as was written by Rabbi Y. Aramah, of blessed memory, and these are his words, "and it is the power of the perfect ones to change matter into form." And this is why they, of blessed memory, said (Berakhot 18a) that the righteous ones are called living even in their death, since the material side has become spiritual, which relates to life; and that the evil ones are called dead even in their lifetimes, from the angle that even the spirituality in them becomes material and [like] earth, which relates to the lifeless objects which are [therefore] dead. 
  And it hints to these two characteristics when it states "the heavens and the earth," in the following way:  if they merit [it], behold, they raise up the material part of themselves which is hinted by "the earth" and they connect it and it becomes one entity with the "heavens." And if they do not merit [it], they transform the part of spirituality within them to the trait of "earth" and the form becomes matter. And this is what it is stating, "and the earth." 
  And its stating, "and the earth was chaos and void" here is hinting to what occurred in the times that the physical side overpowers which is the 'earth' and [the person] is emptied out of spirituality; as it is translated [by Onkelos into Aramaic], "desolate and empty;"  "and darkness," which is the evil impulse that is called in their holy words (Zohar, Bereishit 63), [that which] darkens the face of the creatures; "was upon the depths" and it called the body, the depths, being that it is like [a pit] that constantly swallows [things up], and from the angle of the evil impulse [connected to it] that is darkness; "and the spirit of God" given into it "was hovering upon the waters," because the spirit 'did not find a place to rest the sole of its foot,' since the impulse drove it away and lifted it up from its resting place, and the darkness, which is the evil impulse, dwelt there and the [human] soul remains "hovering over the waters," that are the 'waters of iniquity,' which are the powers of impurity. 
  And in the Holy One's seeing, blessed be He, [that it was] like this, "And God said, 'let there be light;'" [meaning that He] sends man help against his impulse; and this is [that] when he reaches his fourteenth year, a holy and pure soul, from His holy chamber of Divine holy spirits, appears upon him. Or [light] hints to the Torah, since it is the pleasant light, and is called light, as it is written (Proverbs 6:23), "and the Torah is a light;" and the intention [of the two explanations] is one, since the aspect of the holy souls is the aspect of the light of the Torah, and a man of soul (<i>ba'al nefesh</i>) is a man of Torah. And that is what it states, "And God said, 'let there be light;'" which is the soul - the light of which is great, being that it is hewed from beneath His throne of glory, may He be blessed, [and] is 'a portion of God from above' - God sends it to shine on man, that he not wallow in the mud of the evil impulse; or also according to what we have said - that it is the Torah that shines on the soul of man; and then, "and there was light, and God saw the light" that He gave within man, "that it was good;" that through it, man will walk on the 'good and straight' path. 
  And you should not think that given that the soul is within man, or through involvement in Torah, with this he is still from the machinations of the impulse that brings him to sin and he [can] turn and walk [away from it]; because were it so, there would be no [room for] reward and punishment here. To this, it says that darkness is still in the world, but through [the light], man is helped to wage war with it, and to separate it from him, that it not fell him through its plots; and he will recognize that the aspect of doing evil is evil; and this is what it says, "and God separated between the light," which is the soul "and between the darkness," which is the evil impulse; and [about] this, the verse states (Ecclesiastes 10:2), "The heart of a wise man is to his right," which is the place of light, the place of the soul, "and the heart of a fool is to his left," which is the place of the evil impulse; "And He called light, day, and darkness, He called night;" and for this David prayed (Psalms 91:5), that He should save him from the fear of the 'nights.' 
  And its stating, "and there was, etc. one day" is because it is impossible to recognize the light of the soul except from the darkness of the evil impulse; since were it not so, [people] would not be different than the ministering angels, and there would not be [the possibility] of reward and punishment here; and for that reason, it states, "one day."
  And it also intends to say "one day," by way of the [Sages], of blessed memory, saying (Avodah Zarah 35b) on the verse (Song of Songs 1:3), "therefore the maidens (<i>alamot</i>) have loved you," [that it is referring] to death (<i>al mavet</i>), the explanation [of which] is that even the 'bad' angel is forced to answer 'amen.' And for this reason, it states, "and it was evening and it was morning, one day," the explanation [of which] is that the attribute of evening and the attribute of morning, all of them, are in agreement for the good of the righteous one.  
  Or it is hinting that, through the help of the soul, the evening time - when 'his sun sets' to return to the upper world - is like the time of morning - the time when it came to the world; that the soul returns as brilliantly as the day it came, and this is by way of the [Sages], of blessed memory, saying (Shabbat 152b) [on the verse] (Ecclesiastes 13:7), "And the spirit returns to God who gave it;" and these are their words, "give it to Him like He gave it to you;" and in this the day of its coming and the day of its leaving will be equally like one.  
  The verse also intended to inform [us] that at the beginning of the creation, God set up His acts to be equal, [meaning] the heavens and the earth. And even though the heavens are the higher ones, nonetheless, the earth was in the category of purity. And go and learn [about] its virtue and merit; since man was created from it, 'dirt from the earth' and his form is like an 'angel of God;' and you will [also] find that God chose to dwell on earth with the creations, and He prepared a house [there] for his residence - as if it were possible [to say this] - and it is an obvious thing that the abode of God is perfect and 'holy is said about it.' And you will find that before man sinned, God was found among the lower [creatures] in the same way as he was found among the higher [creatures], and this is what it states, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" in one category, in cleanliness and purity, and this is [like] the statement of the prophet (Isaiah 61:1), "So said the Lord, 'the heavens are my chair and the earth is my footstool,'" and they, of blessed memory, said (Chagigah 14a) that it is an ottoman. Behold, you have learned that is in the category of being fit for the abode of God; except that through the acts of the lower beings, "and the earth was chaos and void" and [it] became thick and its light became darkened from the angle of the acts of the evildoers. "And God said, 'let there be light'" which is the Torah, then the earth went back to how it was at the beginning, to brighten its light, and God resided on earth with His people and His inheritance, and that is what it states, "and there was light."
  The verse can also be explained in this way; as it is well know that we have found that the Holy One, blessed be He, has chosen to dwell in the mist and [yet] prefers to live among us. And we have also found about Him (Taanit 5a) that He - as if it were possible - swore that he would not enter the 'heavenly Jerusalem' until He enters the earthly Jerusalem; behold this means that he prefers the earthly to the heavenly. Also, when we discern the reason for the creation of the entire world, we would know that the lower ones, which are His people and His inheritance, are the essence [of creation]. 
  And according to this, the verse intended to give the order of creation in the format of 'not only [x which is of less importance] but also [y which is of more importance]' ('<i>lo zo, af zo</i>') in the way of preference [in the following way]: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and" he also created another creation that was more beloved to Him and more elevated and that is "the earth;" since - just the opposite - the heavens are dependent upon it, and all of this is by means of the Children of Israel, His holy people; since the existence of all the worlds - even the upper worlds - is dependent upon them, as is known to the experts of the chambers of true wisdom. 
  And in this way, its stating "and the earth was chaos and void" becomes explained: Here it is hinting about the times of the Jewish exiles, which is the reason for the prevention of His, may He be blessed, dwelling on earth. One (the first) exile is the exile of Egypt; they remained in it for four hundred and thirty years, like the numerical count [(<i>gematria</i>) of] chaos (<i>tohu</i>) - which is four hundred and eleven - and void (<i>vebohu</i>) - which is nineteen - behold four hundred and thirty. And the meaning of "and void" also hints to the exile after it, and that is the Babylonian exile: The Babylonian exile is called 'void' because the translation of void [according to Onkelos] is 'empty' and it is written in Jeremiah 51:34 about the Babylonian exile, "he has eaten me, he has crushed me, Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylonia, he has placed me like an empty vessel." And its stating, "and darkness was upon the depths" hints to the bitter exile that we are in, stuck in the depths, that has had no end for us for one thousand seven hundred and seventy one years. And [as if] the length of the exile [were] not enough, but also [do we suffer its] darkness, which hints to two things: the first is the subjugation of the nations [over the Jews] and the heavy yolk of taxes, to the point that darkness darkens their form, this one subjugates, and that one crushes - happy is the one who has not seen [this], and especially in our [home,] Morocco; and the second is concerning the evil impulse which has darkened the world - and as a result of our sins, there has been an increase in those that breach [the standards] of His people, Israel, and have permitted to themselves bad language and false oaths and evil gossip and theft and prevent themselves from repenting to return [from their ways]. And a person should not say, in seeing such a downfall for Israel for the entire time, that - God forbid, hope is lost for the 'children;' that is not so, but rather "And God said, 'let there be light,'" that is the light of the amazing future redemption. ...
  And its stating, "and there was light," is by way of their saying in the Tikunei Hazohar 21, [that it means] "there was a secret," since the numerical value of light is [the equivalent] of secret. The intention [of this] is that God, may His name be elevated, decreed that this light of the king messiah not be revealed in the world and that it be a hidden secret with Him, as they say (there), "to My heart, I revealed, from the heart to the mouth, He did not reveal." And its stating, "And God saw the light that it was good," refers back to the light, in of itself, "that it was good" - 'happy is the eye that saw it' - and also refers back to what it hinted, that he will make it in [the form of] a hidden secret, [and also about that it is saying, "that it was good;" since so should it be - as they, of blessed memory, have said (Yoma 9) - for several reasons. And [about] its stating, "the spirit of God, etc.," they have said in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 2:4), "this is the spirit of the messiah." "Hovering upon the face of the waters," there is no [other meaning to] waters besides Torah, by way of their saying, in the Zohar, Hashamatot 1:13, that Israel will not be redeemed except through the merit of the Torah, that is compared to water.
  And behold, it is known that, because of our many sins, many sparks of light have been submerged in the husks and also much mixed multitude has infiltrated into holiness, as they have said in the holy book of Tikunei Hazohar 6, "mixed bad in good and good in bad." And for this [reason], He needs - as if it were possible - to separate the good from the bad and the light form the darkness that have gotten mixed up. And behold it is known that the life force of the husk is only from its feeding from holiness and without that, it has no life. And so, when God separates the light, which is the holiness, and the evil remains separated and has no source of life from which to feed, it is automatically annulled. And this is what it is stating (Zechariah 13:2), "and the spirit of impurity will I remove from the earth;" since it is similar to the cutting of a tree from the place of its sustenance, and its root from which it nurses, that it [then] dries up and no longer prospers; and nothing will remain besides the good light. And this is what [it meant when] it stated, "And God called the light, day;" the explanation of "and he called" (<i>vayikra</i>)" is [that it] is an expression of glory (<i>yakar</i>) and greatness, as the virtue of holiness is only recognizable with the felling of the husk, that is called darkness. And the verse informs [us] that on that day, that is known in front of Him above, God will call to the light in glory and greatness; and that will be on the day that is known to God, that on it God will be one. 
  And its stating, "and the darkness, he called night;" is an expression of an incident which is not pure; and for this reason, the verse does not rely on the word, "and he called" that it stated at the beginning [of the verse, and repeated it again specifically for darkness] - since there is no more glory and honor to darkness, but rather its incidence will only be in the night. And this is the secret of its stating (Deuteronomy 23:11), "an incident of the night." But when the night will pass, which is the time of the exile, as the verse states (Isaiah 21:11), "The burden of Dumah etc.; watchman, what will be of the night;" since the exile is similar to the night. And then at the dawn, there will no longer be darkness nor night, but [rather], "and there was evening and there was morning, one day;" since the aspect of evil is removed and is not; 'and the night will shine like the day,' 'and the light of the moon will be light the light of the sun.' And this is [why] it states, "one day;" and it is that the verse hints to its stating (Zechariah 14:9), "on that day the Lord will be one and His name will be one."  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  And God said, "let there be a firmament, etc.": The explanation [of firmament] is the firmament that God created on the first day; as I have explained on the verse [starting with] "In the beginning," that everything was created together with one statement, but that the work of each thing was not [yet] refined according to its  character. Now God said that it should acquire its place in the waters and that this thing would serve to separate between the waters and the waters. And see [my commentary] to the verse after this one. 
  
  Verse 7
  
  And God made the firmament: This verse should not have been stated; since the verse before this already stated, "And God said, etc." and it should have finished by stating, "and it was so." And I also saw that it was not justified to state "and it was so" after it stated, "And God made." Rather, after stating, "And God said," [such a phrase] would tell us that He said and it was. 
  And it appears that three tasks were done with the firmament: The first was the creation of its substance's existence in reality, and this is what was created on the first day in the first proclamation. 
  And the second is that that God said to it that it should make a firmament, the explanation [of which] is that it should stretch out and make a partition and God measured the [appropriate] size of its stretching, so that it would suffice to separate between the waters and the waters; and that is what is stated in the verse before this. 
  And the third is that, since the heavens are spherical and slanted, we cannot say that the firmament would be different than all [the rest of] the heavens, and in the statement that states, "let there be a firmament," He only said said that it should stretch out, but the order of its setup - whether it be stretched out like a straight partition or one slanted on its ends or whether it inclines to one of the four corners of the world - this is not understood from the statement of God, when He said, Let there be a firmament. For this reason, He went back and stated, "And He made;" the explanation [of which] is that he adjusted the order of its arrangement according to the order of the adjustment of the heavens, which are like an upside down bowl facing down and their back is upwards, for reasons that are known to the Creator of the world. And He went back and stated, "and He separated, etc." since the order of its formation to which the Creator set it up is the opposite of the adjacent statement, that "He separated between, etc," since an [object] arranged like this does not block out between these two waters. For this reason, it states that even if He made it in this arrangement, nonetheless, "and He separated between, etc." And about these two (the second and third) items, the verse stated, "And He made," [meaning] that he fixed it according to the order that was correct in His eyes, and that He created in it an invention that would be able [to accomplish His plan] even with this arrangement. 
  And He was precise in stating, "which were above, etc." to say that even though it was made in this arrangement, it separated [also] between the waters above it, a reality that would [normally] not be able to exist in the world. And after all this, He stated, "and it was so," [which] goes back on verse 1 and 2; since when He told it to spread, so was it, and when He told it to be a separation - even if its setup does not allow for it to separate in this manner, according to nature, as mentioned - "and it was so." Or it is possible that the reason it delayed stating, "and it was so" until the [end of the] verse [of] "And He made," was that He did not want to state, "and it was so," until He completed the act in all the details of [its] creation. 
  And after I wrote all this, I found that an explicit verse of the Bible testifies to our explanation, since it is written (Isaiah 42:5), "So said etc., Creator of the heavens and who unfolded them;" behold it mentioned two things, the creation by itself and the unfolding by itself. And this is what I explained about the first and second [tasks], since in the first day was the creation and in the second day was the unfolding, and within [that] was the unfolding and its manner, which are the two things that we hinted to. 
  And I saw the statement of our Rabbis, of blessed memory, in Bereishit Rabbah 4:6, and this is what they said, "'And God made the firmament;' this is one of the verses [about] which Ben Zoma shook the world, [asking] is it not that the heavens were made in one statement by the word of God?" And [yet] according to our approach, 'and the earth was quieted' from its shaking; and perhaps  that which Ben Zoma shook the world was before he resolved the verses, but after the resolution of the verses, 'the earth was quieted' [and] calm. 
  Or one could say in the following way, according to what we have explained on the verse, "And God said, 'let the waters gather, etc.," that  there are two [types of] water, one male and one female; and according to this, from the perspective that all the waters were mixed in the way that the light and darkness were mixed, 'a bit here and a bit there,' as they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 3), "'And God separated between the light, etc.,' so too with the higher (<i>elyonim</i>) waters" - the explanation [of which] is  the better (<i>meulim</i>) waters, and these are the male - "mixed with the lower waters" - lower in their status; and so God now said that the firmament should make two separations: the first one that it separate one from the other - according to what the Holy One, blessed be He, implanted in it, that it should separate one form the other; and the second one that these [waters] should always be divided by it, [such] that it would split between the two of them; and according to this, its stating, "let there be a firmament within the waters" here refers to  the separation that separates between the two waters. And that is why it states "within the waters," since all of the waters were mixed. And afterwards, God arranged the firmament that it should be able to split the two of them perpetually; and that is the second separation, and about both of them the verse stated, "and it was so."  
  
  Verse 8
  
  And He called: Here the verse informs us these are the [same heavens] that were mentioned in the verse, “In the beginning etc.” And [the reason] that the first verse ascribes the name, 'heavens' to them is to say that there is [here] a creation that will be called heavens in the future; but really God did not call it this name until the second day. 
  And according to the words of our rabbis, who said (Bereishit Rabbah 4:7) that the understanding of <i>shamayim</i> (heavens) is <i>sa mayim</i> (support the waters), the intention of [this] verse is according to the following way: “And God called to the heavens and said” to it, support the waters, so that there will be [space] to [make] room for the creatures, so that the creatures will be between the heavens and the earth; and without this, there [was] no place for the dwellers of the earth, until He called upon the heavens to support the waters that were laying upon [the earth]. And he told the lower waters to gather to one place on the third day and the dry land appeared with this, [such that] there was [now] a place for the dwellers of the earth. And this is not a contradiction to the words of our Rabbis, that say that the upper waters are held up miraculously; since even if it is the case that the heavens support them, nonetheless with regards to the set up nature of the skies and their order, they felt that they were supported by a miracle, as we have written on the verse, “And he made.” 
  
  Verse 9
  
  And God said, "let gather:" It needs to be known whether these waters are the waters of the depths and [so] when He said, "let the waters be gathered to one place," behold no other waters remained - and this is the opposite of what the verse states (Exodus 20:4), "and in the waters below the earth;" and if [these] waters were others besides the [ones of] the depths, it needs to be known how these waters were different from the waters of the depths, that the verse should refer to them alone. Also, [this would be difficult to say, since] we did not see that the statement specifies to say, "let the 'x' waters gather," but rather just "let the waters gather;" all the waters of the world are [thereby] implied. Also [it needs to be known] why the appearance of the earth is dependent on the gathering of the waters. And also we need to be precise [and understand the use of] the word,  appear, since it should have said and 'the dry land be' [substituting 'be' for 'appear'].  
  And regarding what I explained on the verse, "In the beginning," that all was created with one statement - except that it was mixed up until God set up each thing on its day; and according to that, from the words of God in this [section] we know that the dry land extended in the water over the expanse of the earth and there was water above and below it; and the firmament divided the waters above the dry land and it lifted half of them with its wings, as it is stated, "let the firmament be within" - and [the] unqualified [use of] within implies [in] the middle - and the remaining half covered the dry land. And it is to those waters that God said, "let the waters gather to one place;" which is the waters of the oceans. And the dry land appeared from the place that it was at the time of its creation - as it acquired its place [to be] there, except it was covered and He [now] decreed about it, that it should appear. 
  And maybe the word appear could include that it wasn't visible in the color of the dry lands and its color was like that of the water and there was no [clear] distinction between its border and the border of the sea. And also within the understanding of 'appear' (<i>teraeh</i>) is that it was [now] fitting (<i>reouiah</i>) to what the dry lands need to be fit for, for the needs of the world. ...
  And it also wanted [to teach] by stating, "and appear," that all the time that the waters are below and above the earth, the natural state of the earth is not preserved, since the water will change its [state]. And go and learn from what Maimonides wrote at the beginning of the Laws of Character Traits (Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 4:5) that water transforms the core element of dirt to water; for this [reason], He said, "let the waters gather, etc." and with this "and the dry land appear;" and the explanation [of this] is that it will stay in its [state] to put in motion the reason for its creation. And really its creation already [happened] on the first day in the first statement as explained above. We also end up saying [according to this] that not all of the waters of the world were gathered into the oceans and there are [waters in the] depths below the earth. 
  And it is possible that there is no gap between the waters that were gathered and the [waters of the] depths - and [it is] about that portion that has no earth [covering it], that they, of blessed memory, said (Chagigah 12a) that God said to the land, "Enough" that it should not extend from one end [of the world] to the other end - and the waters remained connected to the lower waters. 
  After I wrote all that is written [above], a midrash from Pirkei Rebbe Eliezer 5 came to my hands and this is what it says, "On the third day, the earth was flat like a valley and the waters covered over the face of the whole earth and when the words, "let the waters gather, etc." went out from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, the mountains and hills separated over the face of the whole earth and the innards of the earth arose and the waters rolled [back] and gathered, etc." Behold [from here, we see that] when the Holy One, blessed be He said, "let the waters gather," the land was already in existence and these are [in agreement with] our words. And [this is so] even if, according to the words of this [midrash], it appears that it explains [the phrase] "and the earth appear (<i>teraeh</i>)," [that its] explanation is that the dry land will be sand [as a] border for the sea, [so that] when the waters fear (<i>yireh</i>) the dry land, they acquire their [permanent] place - by way of its stating (Jeremiah 5, 22), "that I have placed the sand as a border for the sea," and made the fear of the dry land upon the sea - and [so] the explanation of <i>teraeh</i> (appear) is from the word <i>yirah</i> (fear), and that is what it states, "Do you not fear me?, etc., that I have placed the sand as a border for the sea;" and this is different than our explanation, [since] this is the way of <i>derash</i> (homily) and our way is the way of <i>peshat</i> (straightforward understanding) and the Scripture intends [it] all. 
  And Nachmanides, of blessed memory, explained it's stating "and the dry land appear;" that the dirt was mixed with water and God decreed that they should separate one from the other, [so] that the dirt will harden and become dry land. So far [his explanation]. And [the] explanation of [Nachmanides], of blessed memory, needs a guarantor; also the simple meaning of the verse doesn't say this. Also, according to [the] words of [Nachmanides], of blessed memory, there was no need for the waters to gather to one place, but rather that He should say to the dry land that it should appear according to the arrangement mentioned in the words of [Nachmainides] - that the dirt should separate from the water and float up, and that the waters should stay in their place. And it is also implied from the verse that all of the waters that were under the firmament which were adjacent to the earth were gathered to one place; and that is not what is implied according to the words of the master; and also the word, 'appear,' is not exact according to [the]  approach of [Nachmanides], of blessed memory. And the correct [understanding] in my eyes is as I have explained: that the land was stretched out within the waters and [there was] water above and water below it; and the Ordainer ordained that the water above the land have the firmament be placed within it and carry up the higher waters on its wings; and the part remaining under the firmament would not remain under all of the firmament equally, but rather, gathered to one place, and this is what it says, "and the waters under the heavens gather to one place" and through this, "and the dry land appear" [is understood] according to its simple meaning. 
  And it appears that it can be said that the aspect of all the waters upon the earth - whether the upper one that are above the firmament [or whether] the ones that were gathered to one place - they are in the aspect of 'male waters.' And so, you will find that the germination of seeds is from the waters of the ocean, which are the gathered waters, as they, of blessed memory, said (Taanit 9a) that the rains come form the water of the oceans; and after God brings rain from them, corresponding [waters] come up from the depths, and that is like they, of blessed memory, have said (Taanit 25b), no drop comes down from above for which (two or three) corresponding drops do not come up from below. And the seeds do not grow from the rain waters and not from the waters of the depths [individually], since a male by itself or a female by itself will not give birth. And behold for you their words, of blessed memory, that they said (Pirkei Derabi Eliezer 25) that there are two waters, one male and one female and this is what they wrote [on the verse (Genesis 7:19)], "'and the waters grew very strong;' when the male waters joined with the female waters, they grew exceedingly." 
  
  Verse 10
  
  And God called the dry land earth: And it is the one mentioned in the first verse, "In the beginning, etc." And its stating the word, "called" can be explained in two ways: either it is an expression of calling a name or it is an expression of yelling; He yelled at it that it should no longer spread out, as they, of blessed memory, said (Chagigah 12a), "He said to his world, 'enough!'" And when it listened and no longer spread out, He called it earth, as they, of blessed memory, stated (Bereishit Rabbah 5:8), as a result of being reconciled (<i>nitratsit</i>), it was called earth (<i>erets</i>). 
  And its stating, "He called seas," this is not the depths, which is spoken of in verse 2, since 'the depths' is said about the waters more generally; and the water under the earth as well as the gathered waters were all in the aspect of depths, [during the time] before the earth appeared, since they were all equally mixed with the waters that today are below the earth. 
  And its stating, "and God saw that it was good," refers also to the gathering of waters, since with it is there life and existence in the world; since the rains in the world are from it, as they, of blessed memory, say (Taanit 9b).
  
  Verse 11
  
  And God said, "let the grass be put forth, etc.": The rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Chullin 60a) that even if the Creator said "according to its specie" only to the trees, the grasses brought up an a fortiori argument (<i>kal vechomer</i>), etc. [that they too should spring forth according to their own specie]. And [this] is difficult, since in the order of the verse, God had His words to the grasses precede [those to the trees]; and, if so, why did they delay from coming out immediately [and] exactly adjacent to the statement of God, until [after] God finished saying to bring forth trees, from which they raised the a fortiori argument? And according to what I have explained on the verse, "In the beginning" - that in every place that He speaks of a matter of strength with the name <i>Elohim</i>, He speaks the whole statement in one word; if so - there was no precedence [of the words] to the grasses before the tree.  
  
  Verse 12
  
  And the earth brought forth, etc.: Since Scripture stated "and it was so," the whole [rest of] this verse was not needed, but rather the reason [for it] is to make us understand two novel things, one with the grasses and one with trees. The one with the grasses is that they made an a fortiori argument (<i>kal vechomer</i>) and came out according to their specie. And we need to know for what reason the verse needed to inform us that they didn't come out mixed up. And maybe it comes to inform us that we should not graft grasses one onto another, as Ravina asks in Tractate Chullin 60b, and these are their words, "If he grafts grasses one onto another, according to Rabbi Chaninah ben Papa, what is [the law]? Since it is not written about them, [the Divine decree of] 'according to their species' etc. or maybe since God agreed with them, it is similar to it being written, 'according to their species?' It stands [and is not resolved]"  And Rashi explains (<i>s.v.</i> to Rabbi Chaninah) and these are his words, "who said that, from their own volition did they come out according to their species, and they weren't commanded about it." It is implied from his words, that the Talmud's [default] position is that it is likely that they were [also] commanded about this; and even if it is not mentioned explicitly adjacent to the grasses, when the verse states, "to its specie" at the end, it refers back to the trees and the grasses. And behold, according to the words of Rabbi Chaninah bar Papa, that God did not say, "according to their species" except to the trees, and [that] the grasses made an a fortiori argument, the verse, when it goes back to say "and the earth brought forth," comes to let us hear that the grasses made an a fortiori argument. And according to the Talmud's [default] position - if it weren't for the words of Rabbi Chaninah bar Papa - that its stating, "according to its specie" [in the previous verse] refers back also to the grasses, it appears that it comes to let us hear that the grasses understood the words of the verse correctly - [meaning] that what it stated, "according to its specie" [in the previous verse] is stated also about the grasses; and this was not understood to us from the first verse [before this one]. And even if it stated in the first verse "and it was so," nonetheless, it is not clear if its stating "according to its specie" refers back to everything mentioned in the verse. And the second verse comes and determines that its stating "according to its specie" refers back to everything mentioned in the verse. And from here you learn that in every place where God speaks in the order of the words that are spoken in this matter, that the understanding of his words is like that which the grasses did. 
  And the verse let us know that in the actions of the tree, the earth did not fulfill the proclamation of the Creator, since He said to it, "fruit-tree;" that the taste of the tree itself should have a taste like the taste of the fruit, and it brought out a "tree that makes fruit," and the tree was not like [the fruit]. 
  And about this I [wonder], how can the earth rebel against the 'Rider of the earth?' And especially since it is has no evil instinct; as the Sages (Berakhot 61a) did not prove that it has an evil instinct, but rather only animals [are shown to an evil instinct], since they kick, etc. and we have explained this in its place (in the book, Chafets Hashem): from the angle that [an animal] requires the impetus of the impulse to mate, the Holy One, blessed be He, made for it an impulse that heats [it up]; but [regarding] the earth, we have not found that it has an evil impulse to incite it to rebel [and] transgress against the mouth of God. 
  Also to be investigated is that we do not find mentioned in the creation, that God said that the earth should bring forth fruitless trees for the use of their wood; and we see that this type of tree has grown [to the point that] there is no end to them in the world and they have outnumbered the fruit trees. To this, it is possible to say that before the curse of the earth - which God cursed - all the trees produced fruit; but after God cursed the earth, its strength was reduced, and not all of the trees would produce fruit, but rather 'thorns and brambles.' 
  In fact, the explanation of [these] things is that the earth was exacting about the wisdom of God with which He founded it, as it is written (Proverbs 3:19), "with wisdom did He found the earth." It was exact about the proclamation of God to it, that it should bring forth "a fruit tree, that makes fruit," [since] it can [be understood] in two different ways: the first is that the taste of the tree be like the taste of the fruit, hence the intention would be that the tree should be fruit and also make fruit. But from its stating, "that makes fruit," [the earth] explained it in a different way; that the intention would be in the following manner; 'the fruit tree' would be one thing and 'that makes fruit' would be another thing, the explanation [of which is] a tree that makes fruit that are different than the [tree] and they are two separate [things]; and the reason it did not state, "<i>and</i> that  makes fruit" with a [conjunctive letter] <i>vav</i>, is so as not be understood that the tree itself be a fruit, as well as making fruit. There are also two ways of understanding fruit tree: the first is that the tree itself is a fruit; and the second is that it is fitting to make fruit but does not [actually] make fruit. And due to its great alacrity, the ground attempted to be wise and put out three [different] types [of tree] that can be understood from the words of God: the first are trees that make fruit and the taste of its tree is not like the taste of its fruit; the second are [trees] that make fruit and the taste of its tree is like the taste of its fruit, and that is the tree of knowledge of good and evil, about which they, of blessed memory, said (Bereishit Rabbah 15:7) that the taste of its tree was like the taste of its fruit; and the third is a tree that is similar to a fruit tree, and these are the fruitless trees. And behold, [the earth] responded with alacrity to do everything that [could be] understood [from the words of the verse]. And that is [why] the verse states, "And the earth brought forth grasses, etc. <i>and</i> a tree that makes fruit;" it was exact to state "and a tree" with  the addition of a [conjunctive letter] <i>vav</i> for no [apparent] reason, which is how the adjacent verse [about the] words of God is expressed [without the <i>vav</i>] and did not [find a] need to state, "and a tree" with  the addition of a <i>vav</i>. The verse intended to say that besides the other trees that it brought forth, it also brought forth another tree that makes fruit, and [with this] it included the fruit-tree, as they, of blessed memory said, that the taste of the tree of knowledge was like the taste of its fruit.  And it is possible that it also included trees that do not make fruit that exist in the world, if we will say that they [existed] before the curse of the ground. And I will explain in its place, with the help of Heaven, the reason that God cursed the ground, according to the opinion that it was because it deviated [from His command].
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  And God said, "let there be luminaries:" The reason for it saying, "let there be," in the singular form, about two [luminaries] is to hint with this that [only] one of them would shine during the day, and for this reason it did not use the plural form. And through God speaking in this way, it allowed for the thing that happened to result in the moon getting reduced - as they, of blessed memory, stated (Chullin 60b) -  since if God had said at the beginning of His words, "let [them] be," the matter would have stood like that [with their size being equal] perforce, because the word of Our God stands forever. 
  It also appears, in its making a point of stating, "to separate between the day and between the night," [to be saying that] if the luminaries were equal and one of them serves during the day and one serves during the night, in what way could night be distinguishable from day, since night 'shines like the day?' 
  Indeed, the verse [also] wants [to teach] that - given that He preceded on the first day to create the light and you will find that it states [the word] light five times in the first section; and the Rabbis, of blessed memory, hinted (Bereishit Rabbah 3:6) that five lights were created and God separated them for His inheritance in the future, for the righteous ones, and then - now on the fourth day, He emanated from the lights a portion sufficient for the world and suspended it in the firmament of the skies; and that is [why] it states, let there be luminaries (<i>meohrot, </i> which can also be understood as 'from the lights'), the explanation of which is that it be one portion from the lights that were created on the first day. And He embedded that they should not be fixed but should rotate, such that through their rotation, night and day be distinguishable, and this He did as a sign for the recognition of the holy days, as it states it, "for signs and for appointed times etc. And when the luminary was emanated, two [different] parts were emanated and both of them were created to serve the purposes of day. And this is why you will find (Chullin 60b) that the moon claimed that it it impossible for two kings to use one crown, the explanation [of the 'one crown'] is at one time, and this is how it is brought in the words of our Rabbis; because if the boundary of the moon had been the night and that of the sun, the day, there is not [here] one crown for both of them, but [rather] each one has a boundary of its own. And so you will find that it states, "and they will be for luminaries in the firmament of the skies to shine on the earth," without [mention] of the setting of a time.
  
  Verse 15
  
  And they will be for luminaries: The meaning of the verse is to tell that God commanded the light of the luminaries to break through the heavens and also to illuminate the earth; the explanation [of which] is that the luminaries should illuminate the entire expanse of the heavens and that their lights should also reach down until the earth. Also, it means [to teach] that God set them up, such that the strength of their light is in the heavens, and from that light that spreads out in the heavens, the earth is illuminated; as the earth does not have the power to withstand the strength of the light of the luminaries. And that is why it is exact to say, "to the luminaries in the firmament of the skies," the explanation [of which] is that they illuminate there; and its stating, "to illuminate on the earth," the explanation [of which] is that from the clear light of the skies is the earth illuminated. 
  And according to [the] words of [the Sages] (Chagigah 12:), of blessed memory, that the luminaries are in the second firmament, the luminaries only break through the [first] sky and the second sky shines upon the earth. And what they, of blessed memory, stated (Yoma 28b), "A cloudy day is full of sun," is not a contradiction to our words; since, in any case, even if the place of the sun spreads the power of the sun to its sides, there is a difference between [that] and the place that the sun is fixed, where it is more powerful. And a cloudy day goes back and  spreads the power of the sun that remains directed at the earth - according to what [the earth] can endure - and, because of the clouds, spreads it at the top of the skies,  and that is [what is meant by] "it is full of sun."
  
  Verse 16
  
  And God made, etc.: And the reason that it did not suffice with that which it said earlier, "and it was so" upon all that is stated, is because the [act] here is a new act. Since, after the moon was reduced - as it is stated in their words (Chullin 60b) - God refined and fixed a new act [of creation]; since He fixed the rule of the moon by night - as it does not have rulership during the day in front of the light of the sun - and had the stars accompany it. And this is not in contradiction to that which God stated in the beginning of his words, since he already hinted to the end of [His] word at its beginning, as I [showed] by being precise, in its stating, "let there be" (in the singular to show that only one luminary would be great). And even if we explained it in a different way, [the text] supports two explanations.
  
  Verse 17
  
  And He placed them: It did not suffice to say "and it was so," since it wanted to inform us that God gave this thing as a free present, to shine upon the world, as they, of blessed memory, have stated in the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 6:5); see there. And the intention with this is that they informed [us] that [the luminaries] do not shine upon the [inhabitants of the] world because they are deserving of light; for if so, all the time that the luminaries would see that the inhabitants of the earth were corrupting their ways, they would refrain [from giving] their light. Also by way of another reason, they would want to refrain [from giving] their light, as they have stated in the Midrash (Introduction to Eicah Rabbati) that Moshe, our teacher, of blessed memory, said to the sun during the destruction of the Temple, why did you not darken your light when the enemy entered the Temple, etc. For this [reason], God said that they are placed to shine upon the earth, and from now [on], they are not in their own control and are required in their actions to shine upon the earth and no reason can prevent [it].  And through this, they enlightened our eyes, [regarding] why the verse repeated to say "and to rule over the day" a second time - was it not already stated, "the great luminary for the rulership of the day, etc.?" And our Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 6:9) that the verse is hinting to the righteous - see their words there - but according to the simple understanding,  there is no reason to repeat and state [it]. And according to our approach, there is a need to repeat it and state it, [since] it states, "and He placed" [which can also be understood as "and He gave"], since 'they, they are given, they are given;' [meaning that] from now, behold, they are not in their own control and the obligation of others is upon them; for this [reason], it goes back and states that their rulership stands in its place, except that specifically concerning this aspect of brightening [the earth] only, it is not in their hands to deviate, but concerning the other [aspects of] rulership that were designated for them over the day and over the night, [about these] they are [still] the rulers. 
  And the reason it repeats and again states, "and to separate," is that here He commanded them not to enter [past] the border of [the other] and each one is commanded not to trespass the border of the other, so that with this, day and night will be recognizable.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  And God said, "let swarm, etc.": The explanation [of which] is that creatures should exist from the waters. And this thing is not constant, but [rather only] at the time of the proclamation of the creation, and those creatures that the waters swarmed stood forever - like the animal species which the earth brought forth [and] which it did not not bring forth except at the time of the proclamation [of their creation] and they stood forever - according to the commandment of God to them, that they should swarm and be fruitful and multiply. And its stating, "swarms of living souls;" these are the fish. And it used the expression, swarm, to distinguish between it and between [that] which flies, since [the fish] have no power except immediately adjacent to the earth, and [that] which flies, flies over the earth and does not need to be adjacent to it; and it is also [able to] climb up to the heavens, as it states, "upon the face of the firmament." And without this proclamation, the birds would not climb up to the heavens. 
  And its stating, "the firmament of the skies," the explanation [of which] is the firmament, that is called the skies. And there is no difficulty about [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory, who stated (Bereishit Rabbah 6:6), and these are their words, "Where are the sun and the moon? In the second firmament, as it is stated, 'And God placed them in the firmament of the skies.'...It is an explicit verse and the men of the Great Assembly have explained it (Nehemiah 9:6), 'You have made the skies and the skies of the skies and all of their hosts;' where are their hosts? In the second firmament;" [that one should ask,] according to [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory, what will they answer about this verse, "and let birds fly on the face of the skies of the firmament." 
  And it appears that according to the vowels, this verse becomes different than the verse of "And He placed them, etc;" since here, there is a <i>kamats</i> under the [letter] <i>reish</i> of <i>rakia</i> (firmament) and there, there is a <i>shva</i> under the [letter] <i>reish</i> of <i>rakia</i>. And behold, when it states, <i>rakia</i> with a  <i>shva</i>, it is saying that is relational, [and] the explanation [of it] is the firmament of the skies, and when it states, <i>rakia</i> with a <i>kamats</i>, it is not relational to [the word,] skies, [and] its explanation is, 'the firmament and it is called the skies;' and with this, it is not difficult; and understand [it].
  
  Verse 21
  
  And God created, etc.: The explanation is that God added power to the two parts of creation that were created from the water. And that which it repeated to say, "and all the living souls, etc." and that the waters did not suffice to bring them out - which we did not find with what was done by the ground in the bringing forth of grasses and herbs, [whereby] the proclamation of God was sufficient for it - you should know that neither a grower nor a creator can create more that what is in the potential of its [own] growth, since how can a person give what he doesn't have; and behold, the water and the dirt lack living spirit, and from where would they have spirit to give to those they create. And even though the earth and the waters have a very fine life force, even if they give from it, they would not [be able] to give more than what is in them, and this would be insufficient for the fish and the birds; so therefore, their power was not enough and God had to create a living spirit and this is [what is meant] when it states, "And He created, etc. all the souls, etc." And if in His command to the waters, He said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls," the explanation is [that] the swarms be set up to receive living souls. Since you need to know that life force [requires] a setup and that is the intermediary between it and between matter, and the ability to create [such a set up] exists in the waters, since, as we have said, they have a fine spiritual power. 
  And in the great sea monsters, God made a change in their creation - as we have said - and He didn't state in [a more] general [fashion], "And He created the souls of the sea monsters and all the souls, etc.;" by which the verse revealed that they are different from everything [else] in the waters; since besides that God implanted a soul within them, also in the power of their creation itself, God created an extra power within them; since there is no power within the waters to make it, as we have said. And this is the amazing fish, it is the leviathan, and its matters are explained in [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory (Bava Batra 74b). And the reason it did not state about this creation, "and it was so," is that there is no place for it, since it is not needed to say "and it was so" except when only the proclamation of God is stated; [there] the Torah tells "and it was so," since He [had] said, "let there be;" which is not the case when it states, "And He created" - proclamation is included in it, execution is included in it. 
  
  Verse 22
  
  And He blessed: The reason that God needed to bless that which swarmed from the waters - which He did not do with the creations that came out of the earth - and that, even among those that were born of the water themselves, He brought jealousy by not blessing the swarms of birds; it appears that this must come from an unavoidable reason, [and it] is according to that which I have explained, that that which God commanded the waters to swarm (with creatures) was only for that time and not for afterwards. [Hence,] for the survival of the specie, He commanded that they be fruitful and multiply, since, [had He] not [done] this, the specie would have ended. And given that according to nature, the reproductive facility of the creations that God created, [comes from] the element of fire; as the nature of cold - it is just the opposite - it destroys the reproductive facility. And go and learn form natural science; also from [the] words of [the Sages], of blessed memory, (Shabbat 156b) that God said to Avraham, "what is your thinking [about this], that Saturn lies etc., as it is written (Isaiah 41:2), 'who called righteousness to His feet'" (the Hebrew word, <i>tsedek</i> means both Saturn and righteousness); look there at their words. And according to this, fish do not have the composition that is set in nature for creatures to reproduce and so, therefore God went back with His glorious proclamation and blessed them. "Saying" the explanation [of which] is that the intention of the blessing with which He blessed them is to say that they would be able to reproduce, and that the coldness of the water would not prevent them [from doing so]; and that they would not need to go out of the water to become warmed by the earth, like the chickens (Beitzah 7a) that are [sometimes] fertilized by the ground, but rather they would give off their fruit in the water. 
  And this is [why] it states, "and fill the waters, in the seas;" [as] it is difficult, why is is it needed to state "in the seas" and not suffice with stating, "and fill the waters;" but rather the intention is that within the seas, there will they swarm, and that is the blessing of the Blesser, may He be blessed. And it finishes [by] stating, "and the birds will multiply in the earth," since it will increase in the way of all the earth and [this] is correct.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  And God said, etc.: This too was only for that time, as we explained with the creation of the swarms of the waters. And the reason that He did not need to say to them to be fruitful [is that] He implanted in them the ability to reproduce, and they would reproduce on their own. But He did command them not to interbreed, one specie with a different specie; and this is what it states, "according to its specie."
  
  Verse 25
  
  And God made: The explanation is the creation of the life-giving soul, in the way that we explained it with the swarms of the water. And Rashi explained it in a different manner, 'and these and those are the words of the living God.'
  
  Verse 26
  
  And God said, "let us make man, etc.": The intention of this is that God did not create man like the creation of the swarms of the waters and the swarms of the earth, [meaning] that He spoke to the waters and they brought forth the swarms and he spoke to the earth and it put forth [creatures], but rather He, the Creator said that He would make man. 
  And He said, "let us make," since He is the source of humility; for this reason, He spoke in the plural form, since this is how a humble individual speaks. And He did not get concerned with giving room for error [that there are other powers besides God which helped in the creation of man], since He preceded [it] by stating, "And God said," [which is in the] singular: the Lord, He is God, He, Himself in His glory - as if it were possible - molded the dirt and blew the spirit of life into it. Its stating "let us make" in the plural form also wants [to teach] that the attributes of God are many; the thirteen attributes of mercy and the name, Elohim, which is the attribute of judgment, agreed together to create man. 
  And [about] its stating, "in our image, in our likeness," it is possible that the intention is to say that there should be a side of mercy and a side of judgment in [man], to implement the ways of judgment and the ways of mercy in what they set up; and understand [it]. And that is the secret in its stating (Genesis 2:7), "And the Lord, God formed, etc." And its stating, "and let them have dominion" is in agreement with our explanation: given that the creation resembles the Creator with respect to the attributes of mercy and judgment, it follows logically that [man] should rule [over] the creations, since he has the attribute of mercy for that which it is fitting and for those that require it, and the [capability] to kill those that are guilty in judgment. And He made him govern everything; and even if it does not mention governance over the waters, it is hinted by its stating, "over the fish of the sea" - behold, it mentions the sea among those governed. 
  And by way of hinting, its using the expression of descent (<i>yeridah</i>) [through the word <i>vayirdu</i> (let them have dominion)] hints by way of what they, of blessed memory, informed us  (Zohar, Shemot 94b) that through the actions of man, he descends in his elevation, from the level of man to the level of fish to the level of birds to the level of animals to the level of swarming creatures. According to the severity of the sin, man goes down from the level of his elevation until he descends lower and lower - may God save us - and this is what is hinted here at the time of the creation: the different levels of descent by which he will receive his punishment and also, through which, He will return to his roots. And it began speaking [about] the descent of the soul of man to the level of the fish, since the descent that is designated for the high souls when they sin is that their souls should be reincarnated as fish. And for this reason, the verse attributed to them [that their death be by way of] gathering in their place, as they do not have to suffer the pain of slaughtering with the sword, but rather their being gathered permits them [to be eaten] (Chullin 27b). And afterwards, a descent that is lower than it, and that is the reincarnation of the soul as a bird, and this requires greater pain than fish, and God, may He be blessed, commanded it to be half slaughtered, like that which we learned (Ibid.), [the requirement to render it permissible to eat is the cutting of] the majority of one [of either the esophagus or the trachea] with birds. And afterwards, it stated the descent into animals, which is an aspect that is worse than it, and the pain of which is great, like that which we learned (Ibid.), [the requirement to render it permissible to eat is the cutting of] the majority of two (of both the esophagus and the trachea) with animals. And afterwards, it stated the descent into the inanimate and plants, and that is its stating, "and over all the earth:" the word, the earth, speaks about the inanimate and the word, over all, hints within it to the plants. And all of these descents of souls are those that have the hope of returning to their previous [state], since from the inanimate it goes up to the plant and from the plant it enters the dumb animal and from the dumb animal, it goes up to the animal that speaks (the human being). And there is a descent that is lower, and it is an end that has no hope after it, and it is the descent to the level of 'disgusting and crawling animals,' such that it has lost its hope; and this is the level of the evildoers that exchange their faith - the sinners of Israel that have acted unusually.  
  
  Verse 27
  
  And God created man in His/his image: The explanation of "in his image" is that which is perceivable in man, and the intention is that He created his form and also his image, and afterwards, it states, "in the image of God;" by which it informs us that the image that He created him with is the image of God. 
  It also wants to tell [us] that He created man with two images: the first is the image that is recognizable in all men, and even in men that are empty of holiness, 'that they are not from the Children of Israel' - about them it states, "in his image," the explanation [of which] is [the image] of the creature; and the second is the level of the happy ones, the people of Israel, the inheritance of My field - corresponding to those, it states, "in the image of God" He created him. Behold, it comes to teach us that there are two images among the creations; the image that is recognizable [that he is a man] and the image of God, [which is] spiritual and hidden; and understand [this].
  
  Verse 28
  
  And He blessed them: The explanation is that He will not destroy the human specie. And he said, etc.: [by which] He commanded him to be fruitful and multiply; [such that] even if He blessed them that the human specie should continue, they should [still] not slack off from being fruitful and multiplying as a result of this. And I have seen faulty opinions among the creatures, from the children of our people, [that posit] that when there are three or four brothers, one or two of them should make efforts to be fruitful and multiply; and they say that this is [sufficient] for the perpetuation of the specie. And also with one man, when he has [already] perpetuated the specie, this logic comes [to suggest] that he should not put forth more efforts to be fruitful and multiply. For this [reason], God stated [at the beginning of His word, the pure commandment of God and stated, "be fruitful and multiply" and He did not make a limit to the commandment, and [that they are commanded] even if He blessed them that the human specie should not be destroyed from the world; and He finished and stated, "and fill the world." And it stated, "and conquer it" adjacent to "and fill" to say that by way of filling the earth, it will be conquered in front of them; as man does not govern over a deserted place, since from the angle of its desolation, it fills up with man's antagonists. It also wanted [to teach] by stating, "and He blessed them," that they would have the facility to reproduce and afterwards, He commanded them about the matter. 
  
  Verse 29
  
  And God said to them, "behold I have given you, etc.": The structure of the verse is in the following way: Given that He already stated, "and fill the earth and conquer it and have dominion, etc,." by which He made man master and governor over all the creation, now He came to state the benefit of the giving, which is the eating; and with this He permitted them to eat from the plants. And from the derivation of the matter, you know that that which [God] gave them the fish of the sea and the birds of the skies and the animals is only to rule over them, not to eat them; since He specified one of the ruled [creatures] that it should be for eating, not all of them. 
  And all of the trees that have fruit of the tree: Here it negates [the inclusion] of the tree of knowledge, since it is not in this category of only making fruit, but [rather] it, itself, is fruit. And the structure of the verse is in the following way: "and all of the trees," but not all of the trees are included: [only] those "that have fruit of the tree," but not one that is fruit itself - which is the tree of knowledge, that he was commanded about afterwards explicitly. Or it is saying that even the tree of knowledge was included [in the permission to eat] and even though we find that he was commanded about [not eating] it, they, of blessed memory, have already stated (Bereishit Rabbah 21:7) that if [Adam] had waited until the eve of Shabbat, he would have sanctified with wine [of that fruit] - so far [their words]; and from their words, you learn that [this] prohibition was not [to be] forbidden forever.
  
  Verse 30
  
  And to all of the animals of the land, etc.: The verse placed "the animals of the earth adjacent to that which was stated proximately, "it shall be for you to eat, etc.," as it appears that He gives the food of people to animals in equal measure. And  it finishes by stating, "to eat" a second time next to "green herbs" because it appears that the eating of the animals is only from the herbs of the field. The intention is that the only [thing] that God created for the animals and birds to eat was the herbs of the field. And lest you say, if there are no green herbs [available], then the animals will die, the verse comes to teach, "for you and for all of the animals of the earth to eat, etc." It comes out that we are saying that man will live from the fruit of the earth and from the fruit of the tree, and the animals and the birds from the herbs and vegetables, and if there is no sustenance from those, behold, their sustenance will come from the food of people. And there is a hint to this in its stating (Deuteronomy 11:15), "and I will give herbs in your field for your animal," and through this, "and you will eat and be satiated;" but without this, you will lack satiation, since the animals and the birds will eat it, since their food will be your food. 
  
  Verse 31
  
  And God saw, etc.: The explanation is that through the creation of man, it could be seen that His entire creation was good; since if there is no man, what is the purpose of all the refinement and of all the creation and the plants of the ground; because the distinction of good is not recognized without the medium of man, as it is to him that good is recognized and distinguished, and he will thank the Bestower of good. And behold: That which it was not exact to state [this] on the [other] days, about which it stated, "it was good," is because [now] we find man that corrupted his actions and performed bad actions; for this reason it [now] was exact to state, "and behold," since what [existed] then, from the angle of the creations of God was very good; and afterwards, it was man that sought many calculations - from the angle of his having the choice in his hand to do evil or to do good - and negated the good and brought out with his actions the aspect of evil; but from the angle of God's creation, He only created that which was good. 
  And God created, etc: Here it hints that at the time of the creation of man, God looked at the righteous ones (Bereisht Rabbah 14:1) and that is what [is meant] by its stating, "and He saw, etc. and behold, good," which are the righteous ones. And in that He also saw the evil ones, He also made a solution for them, and that is what [is meant] by its stating, "very." And they, of blessed memory, have stated (Bereishit Rabbah 9:1), "very" - this is [referring] to the angel of death, through which the creatures that lean away from the path of reason are fixed.  And for this [reason], corresponding to the aspect of the righteous ones, it stated, "and behold, it was good," the explanation [of which] is that behold they are the aspect of good, without any need for death; and corresponding to the those that lean to their crookedness, they too are in the aspect of good, through the auspices of "very." 
  Also hinted to here is the reason for the creation - according to that which we know that the essence of everything is man, and that because of him and for him did God create all of His creations; and from there comes the question, "why man?" And for this [reason], it stated "and behold, it was very good," the explanation [of which] is that even if the aspect of man's soul is from the aspect of good, nonetheless, God created him to rise up in levels of good more than he [already] is, and that is what [it means when] it states, "very:" through the actions of man, his soul becomes elevated from one level to another. 'Happy is the human that does this.' 
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויכלו השמים והארץ. Heaven and earth were completed. We are not sure what this verse is meant to teach us. It appears that we must understand it in the context of the saying of our sages that G'd is the מקומו של עולם, G'd is the place of His universe (and not vice versa). We also find statements to the effect that G'd fills the universe, such as Isaiah 6,3: "The whole earth if full of His glory." G'd's light surrounds the entire globe and it fills the globe itself. We need to understand why G'd has arranged things in this manner. I have heard from Torah scholars (who were my teachers) that the reason G'd made the earth spherical is to enable its various parts to endure with equal ease. The rabbis meant that of all the desires, urges and feelings of love in the universe nothing matches in intensity the urge of the spirit which has recognised the light of G'd and its desire to cleave to G'd's light. Every living soul which has been fortunate enough to recognise even a small amount of that light longs to behold visions of the pleasantness that is G'd. Know that G'd has endowed each category of His creatures with a two-tiered intelligence. One tier is the power to perceive, the other tier is the power to analyse. Human beings, i.e. creatures who are endowed with the power of speech, as well as all lower forms of life or even the inert part of nature, all received a degree of intelligence commensurate with their status in the universe which enables them to recognise their Creator. By means of this intelligence we know that the globe continues to exist without faltering. G'd has revealed some of this secret to those who revere Him and by means of these explanations these facts became translated to our senses [as opposed to merely abstract intelligence. Ed.] The force holding up the globe is G'd's beautiful and all-embracing light which surrounds the globe in equal measure. Every section of the revolving earth derives additional strength from the power of the fiery urge that burns within it urging it to cling to the manifestations of G'd's spirit. This is why the globe remains in its position in the universe. [I have abbreviated the author's treatise on what he terms spiritual motivations for keeping "earth on track." I have no way of knowing if the author was familiar with Newton's theories about centrifugal forces, gravitation, etc. Even assuming that he had heard of them, the chances are he would have preferred to account for these movements as having been inspired at least also by spiritual considerations rather than as being merely laws of physics. According to the author the reason for the Torah telling us something at this stage which seemed obvious is to explain the fact that spherical earth which is not propped up by a visible force could remain in place throughout the millenia. We are dealing then with gravitation, etc. as a spiritual force. Ed.]
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויכל אלוקים ביום השביעי. G'd completed on the seventh day. The plain meaning of the verse is to tell us that G'd did not engage in creational activities that the Torah has not mentioned after that date. The term כלה, completed, includes anything that had been in G'd's mind to do. It also means that G'd did not only desist from work on that Sabbath, but that He did not resume activity on the following six days.
  We must pay close attention to the apparently superfluous words אשר עשה, "which He had done." We must also explore the meaning of the words ביום השביעי, "on the seventh day," which suggest that G'd did perform work on the seventh day but that "He completed it on that day." This was not so, but He had completed all His work already on the sixth day. Our sages already felt the need to correct the impression that G'd had still performed creational work on the seventh day. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, quoted by Rashi and <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 10,9, says that human beings who do not know time accurately commence their Sabbath a few minutes early in order not to desecrate it. G'd who is aware of precisely when the Sabbath starts, can afford to do His work until the last second. Even allowing for Rabbi Shimon's comment, the word ביום in that verse is not adequately explained. This word creates the impression that G'd ceased work on the seventh day. Actually, according to our sages the word ביום is justified. 
  They claim that until the Sabbath the world was trembling and shaking until the advent of the Sabbath. On the seventh day G'd gave the earth מנוחה, tranquillity (compare Rashi's second comment on our verse). On the Sabbath G'd created the "soul" of the world, and that is the deeper meaning of the words וביום השביעי שבת וינפש, and on the seventh day He rested and retreated to His Essence. Although our sages have interpreted the word וינפש as a lament about the withdrawal of the additional soul G'd grants to the Jewish people on each Sabbath (<i>Beytzah</i> 17) this is merely homiletics. They base that on the unusual construction וינפש (passive or reflexive) instead of merely, ונפש (ordinary intransitive). The plain meaning is undoubtedly that שבת וינפש, because He rested on the Sabbath and with it the soul arrived. This means that all creatures were granted an abundance of vitality, something they had lacked previously.
  We find a similar idea in the <i>Zohar-Tazria</i> (page 13 Sullam edition) as to why the rite of circumcision cannot be performed before the eighth day, and why an animal is not fit to serve as a sacrifice until the eighth day of its life. In either case one has to wait until at least one Sabbath has passed so that each has attained a נפש, a soul full of vitality. Our verse then describes G'd as putting the finishing touch to His creation by bringing on the Sabbath, not by creating on the Sabbath. The reason the Torah repeats once more מכל מלאכתו אשר עשה, from all His work which He had done, is to emphasise that this work had been done previously, i.e. before the onset of the Sabbath. The word ויכל therefore refers to activity carried out previously. All that had been lacking was something that would give permanence to this universe of ours. The seventh day, i.e. the Sabbath, completed the cycle that provides this permanence. We are therefore entitled to view the Sabbath as one of the seven days of creation. The proof that we are correct may be the very fact that we do not find the usual: "it was evening it was morning the seventh day," meaning there was no בריאה on that day.
  וישבות ביום השביעי. He rested on the seventh day. Here too we must ask for the reason the Torah wrote these lines as they seem to contain the same message as the words immediately prior to them. 
  Perhaps we have to explain these words in connection with <i>Pessachim</i> 54 according to which there were phenomena which were created at dusk on Friday afternoon but which could not be completed before the arrival of the Sabbath. According to our sages some of these phenomena became destructive agents in the universe as a result. This is an amazig statement in view of the tradition that G'd is able to create whole worlds in the time it takes to blink an eyelid! How can one suggest that the Creator ran out of time and was unable to complete His work?! We have explained already at the beginning of the פרשה that G'd created every part of the universe simultaneously. The words מכל מלאכתו suggest that G'd did not complete even such work as was already in progress.
  What our sages had in mind when they told us about these phenomena and the time they were created is that G'd wanted us to know something about the importance of the Sabbath and the way it is to be observed. Halachah distinguishes between the rules of what is allowed on Friday afternoon close to the Sabbath and what is not. If work has been under way and it awaits only completion there are certain categories of work which may be completed under such circumstances, especially if they are performed in honour of the Sabbath or if financial loss is suffered if one does not complete the work before the Sabbath. If such work has not even been commenced it may not be undertaken until after the Sabbath. In the example in <i>Pessachim</i> the sages taught us that G'd desisted from completing even work He had already begun while it was still the sixth day. This in spite of the fact that non-completion would result in grievous loss to the universe, a loss which was beyond retrieving. This is what the word וישבות alludes to after we had already heard ויכל, that G'd completed creating. Not only did G'd not undertake something new, He did not even complete something that was in the process of coming into being. The reason this word is repeated is also to tell us that it was not G'd's inability to complete an undertaking on time. One of the reasons G'd's activities on each day during the days of creation are always followed by the statement "it was evening, it was morning, etc.," is to mark the contrast with the Sabbath concerning which no such statement is recorded.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויברך אלוקים את יום השביעי. G'd blessed the seventh day. We need to know the exact nature of this blessing which the Torah does not spell out in this instance. Our sages (<i>Mechilta</i> Exodus 20,3) suggested that the blessing was the fact that while the Jewish people were in the desert an extra portion of manna descended on Fridays and they did not have to pick it up on the Sabbath. Such allusions are, of course, not the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the verse has nothing to do with isolated events two and half millenia in the future. 
  The fact is that this present world can function only on the basis of an adequate supply of life-sustaining food and drink. All man's physical needs are attained only through toil and a great deal of effort on his part. Such activities are of a very mundane nature. Inasmuch as G'd wanted to sanctify the Sabbath, He first bestowed a blessing on that day so that it should not be devoid of anything. Although the amenities of this "lower" world are not normally attained through asceticism, withdrawal into the four walls of the Torah academy, etc., but through preocccupation with the profane and the mundane, G'd provided His blessing so that not only would there be no lack of the physical comforts but an abundance. This abundance is expressed by the halachah requiring us to have two whole loaves of bread when reciting the benediction over the Sabbath meal, to eat at least three meals on that day, and to enjoy delicacies not eaten on the days of the week. One might have expected the blessing to be of a purely spiritual nature. By not mentioning a spiritual kind of blessing, the Torah alludes to the Sabbath having been endowed by G'd with blessings of a physical nature. This is also what the <i>Zohar</i> meant when it speaks about the abundance of all the six days of creation being channelled into the Sabbath.
  כי בו שבת, for on it He rested, etc. Here too we must explore exactly what the Torah had in mind. We fall back on what we wrote earlier, that the world had lacked the ingredients which assured it of permanence until the Sabbath came into existence. Assuming that this was so, we must ask what had enabled the world to continue up until the Sabbath? Since the world obviously was able to carry on without the נפש it received on the Sabbath, why would its continued existence have been endangered only then?
  We find that G'd has revealed the answer to this question in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20,11) where the Torah writes: כי ששת ימים עשה השם את השמים ואת הארץ This means that at the time G'd created the universe He invested it with only enough power to endure six days for reasons known only to Himself and some kabbalists. G'd created one day which would be able to invest the world with staying power for another six days. If G'd had not created the Sabbath, the Tohu Vavohu preceding those six days would have returned and G'd would have had to start the process of creation ex nihilo all over again. Due to the infusion of the "soul" of the Sabbath the universe was placed on a more permanent basis, enabled to renew its batteries, so to speak. The words ובו שבת, mean that by means of this special day, the Sabbath, He was able to rest from all His work. The work referred to is that which only G'd could perform namely to create ex nihilo, something out of nothing. Had it not been for the Sabbath and its נפש, G'd would have had to repeat the process of בריאה, creation. The word עשה refers only to תיקון, improvement, repair. G'd rested from both aspects of creative activity.
  When viewed in this light we can understand the statement of our sages that by reciting the benediction over wine on the Sabbath one becomes a partner to G'd in His creation of the universe (<i>Shabbat</i> 119). At first glance these words appear very forced. Who has ever heard of man becoming a retroactive partner in G'd's handiwork, something that He had long since completed? Besides, the act of reciting this paragraph from the Torah does not appear to be such a world-shaking effort that it would qualify us to become G'd's "partners!" What is the source of the statement in the Talmud? If the sages meant that the reward for reciting Kiddush is so great, should it not be awarded in public such as longevity, wealth, and physical prowess being granted to Sabbath-observers?
  When we keep in mind my explanation thus far, it will be seen that the Talmud's statement is indeed most appropriate. In view of the fact that the Sabbath provides a secure existence for the six days following it after which another Sabbath repeats the same function, it follows that the very existence of the Sabbath equates with the existence of the universe. Unless there are people who observe the Sabbath there is no Sabbath, i.e. its existence has lost its meaning. Our rabbis have legislated that when one's life is in danger unless one desecrates a law of the Sabbath, one should desecrate a single Sabbath in order to remain alive and observe many subsequent Sabbaths. Assuming that there were no other Sabbath-observers at the time, what good would it do for the person whose life was in to skip the one Sabbath? The world would disintegrate before he would have a chance to observe another Sabbath! It follows that only Sabbath-observers keep the universe going. Therefore the Sabbath-observers have become G'd's "partners" by ensuring that G'd's universe survives for another six days. Observing the Sabbath means to preserve its holiness according to all its laws and customs. Ever since the creation of man the world did not lack at least one person who observed the Sabbath. Adam did so, his son Sheth, and many righteous people after him. Whenever one righteous person died, G'd had already arranged for another righteous person to be born. This chain of individual Sabbath-observers continued through Methusela, Noach, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., until the Jewish people introduced collective Sabbath-observance. According to our sages, The Israelites observed the Sabbath even while in exile in Egypt (<i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,32). The word בהבראם, when they were created, is the reminder that whatever the earth or the waters produced was possible only due to the act of creation G'd performed on the day they were created themselves.
  When we wrote earlier (2,1) that the spherical world is kept in balance and thus in existence due to the desire of the respective creatures to cleave to the light which surrounds this sphere provided by the Creator, this does not contradict what we have written. Were it not for the Sabbath, no creature would have had sufficient intelligence and desire to want to cleave to the Creator. On that day they were provided with the potential to produce what they produced subsequently.
  
  Verse 4
  
  2.4. אלה תולדות השמים והארץ. These are the developments of the heavens and the earth. Our sages have already explained this verse homiletically. However, the plain meaning of the verse is not known.
  It appears to me that the key lies in the fact that G'd had previously instructed the creatures i.e. heaven and earth respectively to also produce "offspring." The waters had been told to divide, to produce fish, etc, whereas the earth had been instructed to produce vegetation, mammals, etc. The Torah reiterates that what earth and heaven produce daily are only derivatives, תולדות, that there is nothing original about these phenomena so that we should not err and believe that both the waters and the earth possessed independent creative powers. Such an error would lead to heretic thoughts.
  The reason that the Torah mentions only heaven and earth in this connection and not the waters is simply because the waters are part of שמים.
  The word בהבראם may also be understood as בהם בראם, G'd created all these תולדות by employing heaven and earth as His agents.
  
  Verse 5
  
   וכל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ. None of the plants of the fields existed as yet. This stresses again that until the Creator irrigated the earth by bringing on rain, none of the vegetation produced by earth was able to function, to grow. The verse also tells us that the living creatures on earth were G'd's creation as indicated by 2,19, that "G'd formed all the beasts of the field." Earth's contribution was to provide the golem-like body pending G'd's infusing these bodies with a breath of life. The same applied to the swarms of "living" creatures produced by the waters as well as the birds. Our sages have already stated that the birds are the result of co-operation by water and earth, i.e. swamps (<i>Eyruvin</i> 28). This is why the Torah described the birds as עוף השמים, birds of the heavens, in 2,19, although the directive had been issued to the waters in 1,20.
  Why did the Torah mention here that there was as yet no human being on earth who would work the land, and why is there a second report about the creation of man in the next verse, i.e. וייצר השם אלוקים את האדם? If the Torah only wanted to inform us that the raw material man is made of was the dust of the earth, it could have done so in 1,27 where man's creation by G'd is reported instead of repeating the whole story about man being created.
  I believe the answer lies in what our sages alluded to when they described אדם הראשון, original man, as the חלת העולם, earth's gift to G'd, i.e. a concept parallel to the priest's share of the dough (<i>Eyruvin</i> 18). Our sages therefore believed that just as the principle of donating the first of the dough to the priest in his capacity of G'd's representative on earth is a duty, creation itself is morally bound to "donate" to its Creator something similiar. We find the following passage in the tractate חלה 2,5: "If someone sets aside the quantity of חלה that he is obliged to set aside in the form of flour (instead of as part of the dough), it (this quantity of flour) is not considered sacred." In 3,1 of the same tractate we are told that until the dough (of wheat) has developed so that the meal and the water form one body, a non-priest may still eat of it on an ad hoc basis, even if חלה has not yet been set aside from it. If one eats from such dough subsequently (knowingly) one is guilty of the death penalty. The descent of rain on the vegetation of the earth is akin to the mixing (kneading) of a dough from which to make bread. This is why consumption of the proceeds of grain i.e. bread or cake, is prohibited until חלה has been set aside. It is equivalent to what the <i>Mishnah Challah</i> 3,1 called גלגול העיסה. Earth was unable to produce viable vegetation without G'd contributing the rain. It follows that it is prohibited to eat or otherwise enjoy any of earth's fruit until an appropriate gift to G'd has been set aside. The creation of man [from raw material made of all parts of the earth Ed.] was that gift, i.e. that חלה. Prior to man's creation the earth was טבל, untithed produce, forbidden, out of bounds to man. This is what our verse wanted to convey. Although earth produced the plants on the third day, G'd had not provided the rain at that time, not until immediately before He formed the human being. Creation of man, i.e. the חלה of the universe, enabled all the creatures to enjoy it henceforth. The Torah mentions that the entire surface of the earth was irrigated because if G'd had irrigated only parts of the earth, such an incomplete "dough" would not have freed the remainder from the requirement to contribute further amounts of חלה.
  It is important to realise that G'd took "dust from the earth" to create man, as opposed to soil from גן עדן. This point is repeated again <i>in</i> 3,24 when Adam is expelled from גן עדן "to till the soil he had been taken from." There was no need to give חלה from any of the trees of גן עדן seeing it was totally holy already. This is why the Torah says (2,8) "G'd had planted a garden in Eden already previously (מקדם)," i.e. prior to the creation of man. He had prepared this holy region for Adam who was holy, being the חלה of the universe.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויטע השם אלוקים. The Lord G'd planted. The reason the Torah interrupts the sequence of G'd's planting all kinds of trees in that garden (verses 8 and 9 respectively) by mentioning that G'd placed Adam in גן עדן, is to make it clear that גן עדן had been created specifically in Adam's honour, in order to place him there. After having given us this information the Torah continues and tells us that G'd made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, that these trees looked attractive and were good as food, that G'd made rivers and the function of those rivers which emanated from גן עדן. The Torah then resumes its narrative about man in verse 15, telling us that G'd placed Adam there and assigned a function to him. The Torah repeats that G'd placed man in גן עדן only to confirm that the first time this was mentioned it was only to tell us that G'd had planted גן עדן in man's honour. Had this fact been mentioned only once we would have thought that G'd intended this garden also for other creatures, such as His angels, and that man was placed there temporarily. We would have thought that after man's expulsion, the garden would have remained as be a home for other creatures and for holy spirits. The Torah therefore is at pains to make us understand that the garden was planted exclusively for man's sake and awaits man's return at a suitable time in the future and that no other creature inhabits it in the meantime.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויקח השם אלוקים….לעבדה ולשמרה. G'd took man…to work it and to guard it. The plain meaning of the verse appears to be that the garden was in need of someone to work it and to guard it, whereas the truth is that this was not the case. Why would it need a guard? Who was there to steal from it? Also, if the garden needed someone to work it, who has done this chore during the almost 6000 years that the garden has been unattended? What exactly was the nature of the work which had to be performed?
  Know therefore that the entire description of the גן עדן is to serve as an example of a spiritual environment. The Torah wanted to illustrate that just as a physical environment such as earth requires a) toil, planting, irrigation, etc. in order to produce man's food supply, and b) protection against harmful substances that damage the plants, the same applies to an environment described as גן עדן. Nowadays גן עדן is the "soil," i.e. the environment for disembodied souls, seeing the bodies have been expelled. Even as such it requires both work and protection against negative influences. The specific work required in גן עדן consists of Torah study. The Torah demonstrates the validity of such illustrative figures of speech when Moses described his speech in Deut. 32,2 in these words: "May my discourse come down as the rain, my speech distil as the dew, like showers on young growth and like droplets on the grass." The "young growth" is a simile for the positive commandments. The author cites a number of examples where G'd is described as "planting" man's good deeds. The protective activity the Torah describes as לשמרה, refers to the observance of the negative commandments. Non-observance of the negative commandments of the Torah is apt to destroy the fabric of the spiritual environment represented by גן עדן. Our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 2 already tell us that sin, i.e. transgression of a negative commandment, extinguishes מצות though it does not extinguish the Torah. This latter statement does not mean that it is not within the power of such a sin to harm Torah at all, it only means that a single עבירה cannot accomplish that. Sustained sinful activity could certainly undermine the Torah absolutely.
  At any rate the use of such terms as "to work it and to protect it" in connection with גן עדן is perfectly justified. At the time when G'd placed Adam in גן עדן, Adam was able to see how his positive actions contributed to the well-being of the garden. Once he had been expelled he was denied the ability to see the results of his activities. His spiritual part, however, was not denied the chance to accumulate good deeds and to eventually "see" the results in the Hereafter.
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויצו השם אלוקים על האדם. The Lord G'd commanded Adam. The Torah added the word לאמור, to say, and repeated the word for "to eat," by saying אכול תאכל. The Torah also repeated that violating the command would result in death by saying: i.e. מות תמות, instead of merely תמות. The reason is 1) that Adam should command Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge either; b) that the penalty would apply to her just as much as to Adam himself (who had heard the commandment from G'd directly). The repetition of these words also constitutes both a warning and a spelling out of the penalty, something that halachah demands when capital punishment is involved.
  
  Another meaning of the repetition of the words מות תמות may be simply to give notice to Adam that should he eat from that tree he would cause his own mortality as well as the mortality of all those who would be descended from him in the future. This is, of course, what happened, and as a result we are all mortal until the day in the future when the pollution of the original serpent will have dissipated completely and G'd will banish death from earth (Isaiah 25,8).
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאמר השם אלוקים לא טוב. The Lord G'd said: "It is not good for man to be alone, etc." This is difficult since G'd had mentioned already on the day He created man that the species had been created male and female (1,27). Another problem in the text is the expression אעשה, "I shall make for him a helpmate." The Torah then immediately proceeds to describe that the mammals and the birds were formed, i.e. ויצר השם אלוקים (2,19). This gives the impression that G'd intended one of these animals to be man's helpmate. Such a thought is not only extremely strange, but if true it would also result in one of those animals being deprived of its own mate! Besides, why did G'd have to put Adam to sleep and to remove part of his body? Could He not have formed woman as dust from the earth as He had formed man himself, especially since He formed Eve on the very same day He formed Adam (5,2) זכר ונקבה בראם? Our sages have given many homiletical explanations in answer to these questions, but they have not provided us with פשט, straightforward answers that justify the text as it stands. 
  We may have to fall back on the opinions expressed in <i>Berachot</i> 61 that originally man was created with two faces in one body. The Talmud there offers two opinions as to what was removed from Adam, a tail or a face, respectively. This is a reasonable explanation because it justifies G'd's blessing or command to Adam to be fruitful and to multiply (1,28) at a time when woman had not yet been reported as a separate entity. 
  It is in keeping with G'd's propensity for preparing everything good ahead of time, and providing many more opportunities for man to do good than evil. However, we must ask why He separated the two bodies enabling Eve to fall victim to the temptation by the serpent? This leads us to examine the cause of Adam's (Eve) sin, what happened to him and all of mankind as a result. We have found that woman became the cause of all that the world lost because the serpent prevailed over her in a match of wits. This occurred because Adam was not at her side at the time of Eve's encounter with the serpent. He was asleep as a result of having had marital relations with his wife (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 19,3). Another version in the <i>Midrash</i> there suggests that G'd had taken him on a tour of the earth. As a result the serpent encountered Eve on her own and succeeded in seducing her. If the Torah had reported man's creation and the subsequent separation of Eve's body sequentially, without interposing Adam's experiences on earth in the interval, many people would have argued that what happened was all G'd's fault. They would have said that if G'd had not separated her body from that of her husband, thereby making a drastic change in what He had created originally, the serpent would never have had a chance to seduce Eve. In order to forestall such an argument the Torah tells us first the reason that G'd separated Eve's body from Adam's, i.e. in answer to Adam's own request. His observations of how the animals lived, male and female as separate bodies, had made him desirous of a similar arrangement. G'd had only the best of intentions, as usual. This is also the reason the Torah told us already at the outset that man was equipped to procreate from the moment he was created. Being one and the same body obviously had some of the same disadvantages as being a Siamese twin. G'd therefore decided it would be better for man's helpmate to be כנגדו, an appropriate complement, rather than the other half of his body. In this way she could be a help to him at all times instead of being a hindrance on occasion. Eve's being a separate body was not dictated by Adam's need to procreate. Seeing that the separation of her body served only to please Adam we must ask why none of the other creatures could have been trained to perform that task for Adam while leaving Eve in the state she had been created. The Torah therefore describes in verses 19 and 20 that Adam did indeed search for a suitable helpmate amongst all the other creatures but did not find one that was acceptable to him. Naming the animals, i.e. identifying their essence, was part of that search for a suitable helpmate. Eve's existence as a separate body from Adam had therefore become mandatory from Adam's point of view. It is totally incorrect to blame G'd for subsequent developments, such as Eve finding herself temporarily alone, facing an evil influence whose existence she had been quite unaware of. The Torah's report about both Adam's and Eve's innocence, i.e. their lack of shame at being nude, are all facts the Torah supplies to enable us to better understand the causes that led to the sin. Human relationships are based on people facing each other, i.e. כנגדו. The Torah describes Adam's profound joy when he finally beheld the partner who up until then had been hidden from him, i.e. had faced backwards. From G'd's point of view the original arrangement was perfectly acceptable, He had not created an imperfect human species. Any change was entirely in response to Adam's frame of mind, to accomodate him. Our sages have supplied us with numerous reasons why G'd did not create an entirely new human being to serve as Adam's helpmate. When Solomon told us in Kohelet (4,9) טובים השנים מן האחד, that two are better than one, that they can help each other, this has nothing to do with G'd having created man's form in such a way that he could have impregnated the wife which was part of him but facing backwards.
  Perhaps the objective reason G'd had created the human species as a pair in a single body was to distinguish between the functions of the bodies of the animals and the functions of the human body. Animals mate indiscriminately, i.e. a male will mate with any female available to him, the act of mating being merely a response to biological urges. The fact that the Torah on occasion stresses the זכר ונקבה element when mentioning animals as pairs such as when they entered Noach's ark, does not mean that they have exclusive partners. The average animal does not recognise a female of its species as specifically "his" female. This is not the way G'd wanted man to relate to the subject of mating. It would have been impossible for Adam to describe his wife as בשר מבשרי, flesh of my own, were it not for the fact that Eve had been part of his own body previously. The whole idea that man's זווג is arranged in heaven would have been impossible to understand but for the fact that the female of the species is considered man's "other half." This consideration may also be the reason that when the Torah legislated forbidden sexual relations (Leviticus 18) the subject is always the male. It is forbidden to engage in sexual intercourse with certain women as they could not possibly be your missing "half."
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויהיו שניהם ערומים האדם ואשתו ולא יתבששו. Man and his wife were both nude and did not experience a feeling of shame. Before the sin the upper "face" and the lower "face" were equally holy. The element of evil which attached itself to man after the sin concentrates on the lower part of his body. This is the reason that the holy covenant between man and G'd, i.e. circumcision, has to be performed on his sexual organ. The foreskin, ערלה, is the symbol of what kabbalists call the קליפה, the shell or peel which makes penetration to the holy essence difficult. This is why G'd commanded its removal. Inasmuch as all adulterers are victims of the sexual urges burning within them, G'd ordered that this part of man, the source of these abominations, be hidden from view, be covered. Our sages have added the prohibition not to touch that part of one's body (unnecessarily). אורח חיים ,ב,א even tells us to avoid having to look at these parts of our body when we get up and get dressed. The Talmud <i>Shabbat</i> 108 coined the phrase יד לאמה תיקצץ, that the hand which touches the male organ deserves to be cut off. This is because the touch of the hand on the male organ causes sexual arousal, or אש זרה in the language of our sages, something that was not the case before the sin. Henceforth man would expose himself to the danger of that alien fire consuming him if he touched those parts. Let us look for a moment at what Abraham commanded Eliezer before he sent him on the mission to find a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,2). He instructed his servant: שים נא ידך תחת ירכי, "place your hand under my thigh." At first glance the instruction for Eliezer to place his hand on Abraham's male organ seems incompatible with what we have just explained. Our sages explain that Abraham was not comparable to his peers in this respect. The touch of a hand on this part of his body did not cause arousal. The act of circumcision he had performed on himself on that organ at an advanced age had made him far more resistant to the evil urge than others. His whole body could be considered as almost pure. The same applies to our verse, that prior to the sin the body was not subject to this אש זרה, the burning passion of sexual arousal. Another meaning is based on the use of the future tense by the Torah. We would have expected ולא נתביישו, "they were not ashamed," instead of "they will not be ashamed." The Torah teaches us then that notwithstanding the fact that Adam and Eve were both nude they had no reason to become ashamed as a result. The Torah mentioned this so that we would know who caused the subsequent division between man's upper and lower body respectively.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   והנחש היה ערום. The serpent was sly. First we must understand why the Torah told us that the serpent was so sly. 
  I have also tried to find what precise slyness the serpent demonstrated in this episode and have only been able to find elements of רשעות, wickedness. 
  The matter becomes clearer, however, when one examines what the serpent intended to achieve with the words אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, "even though G'd said not to eat from any of the trees of the garden." Since we know that these words were totally untrue, we would have considered the serpent as feeble-minded. The Torah therefore has to preface the account by pointing out that these words were carefully calculated, that the serpent was exceedingly sly. Any creature which is not exceedingly sly would most certainly not have succeeded in seducing a G'd-fearing woman such as Eve.
  The serpent concentrated on three subjects and by combining them achieved its purpose.
  1) The serpent told Eve that by not eating from the tree of knowledge she would remain for all intents and purposes as if she had not eaten either from any of the other trees. The serpent indicated that the fruits of the other trees were totally inferior when compared to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The word אף was to indicate that Eve was to view the situation as if G'd had also forbidden all the other trees. The serpent's intent was to heighten Eve's desire to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The more its virtues were extolled, the more intense the curiosity to test that statement. At the same time the serpent hoped to diminish Eve's interest in the other trees. It is characteristic of the workings of the evil urge to exaggerate one's expectations of the forbidden and to denigrate the value of that which is permitted.
  2) The serpent pretended to teach Eve a halachah, thus creating the impression that it was very knowledgeable and on G'd's wavelength. It told Eve that G'd had first planted the tree of knowledge and had then used its shoots to plant all the other trees in the garden. This was part of the seduction. Once the original tree is out of bounds the other trees are automatically forbidden inasmuch as they are "earthed" branches of the original tree (compare <i>Orlah</i> chapter 1,5 where it is taught that such a branch is considered as a new plant for the purpose of calculating the three years of the ערלה prohibition). The serpent's argument therefore was that though G'd had specifically prohibited only the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the fruit of the other trees were out of bounds by reason of the laws governing "earthed" branches. [The author supplies additional halachic sources, which I do not feel are relevant. Ed.] At any rate the meaning of אף כי אמר אלוקים would have to be translated as though G'd said: "if you accept that commandment" you must automatically also accept its extension as far as the other trees are concerned because the three years required until the new trees are considered as no longer drawing on the original tree have not yet expired.
  3) The word אף referred to the fact that G'd had not commanded Eve anything directly, He had only commanded her husband. The serpent said that it was a witness to the fact that G'd had indeed forbidden the eating of the fruit of any of the trees. The serpent had two things in mind by making that statement. A) If Eve were to believe it, the serpent could then point to the illogical nature of such a prohibition which would deny man everything to be found in the garden. The way for rebellion against G'd would then have been paved. B) To provoke a confrontation with Adam who had told Eve that G'd had only forbidden the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The serpent wanted that Adam's testimony be considered as having been refuted. We find an interesting statement by the school of Shammai in <i>Ediyot</i> 4,11. When two pairs of witnesses testify against an individual, the first pair claiming he had made a vow comprising two periods of abstention from wine, etc, whereas the other pair testfied that the vow involved five such periods, the school of Shammai considers this as an example of conflicting testimony. As a result the individual would not be held liable for anything on the basis of this testimony. The school of Hillel holds that inasmuch as both pairs of witnesses are agreed concerning at least two periods of נזירות, abstention from wine, etc., the person testified against is guilty if he failed to honour that part of his vow. A similar disagreement is discussed in the Talmud <i>Sanhedrin</i> except that there only one pair of witnesses testified, one of them testifying to a vow concerning two periods, the other claiming that the vow comprised five periods. The serpent reasoned that since there were only two witnesses, i.e. Adam and the serpent, Adam having testified to a single tree being forbidden whereas the serpent testified that all trees were forbidden the halachah should be based on the school of Shammai, i.e. the testimony was void, and as a result Eve could not be held culpable for eating from the tree of knowledge. After having written this down, I found that the author of <i>Tikkuney HaZohar</i> section 59 agrees with me. The author states that the serpent violated the commandment not to testify falsely by saying that G'd had forbidden all the fruit of all the trees in the garden. It is characteristic of Satan to plant lies in the minds of people, thus creating false images and beliefs in their hearts. Sometimes Satan convinces man that the sin he is planning is inevitable so that he might as well not feel badly about committing it. This is the slyest way of all to seduce people into committing a sin.
  The reason that G'd created such a seducer in this world seeing He has our best interests at heart is to increase the reward we will qualify for if we made a successful effort to resist all forms of temptation.
  ויאמר אל האשה, he said to Eve, etc. The serpent spoke in the kind of hissing that is characteristic of its species. The Torah does not mean to give the impression that the serpent was able to speak like humans do. Prior to the sin, man was able to comprehend the language of the animals, even the conversation carried on by the inert parts of nature. Every creature G'd created was equipped with a means of expressing itself to enable it to praise its Creator. Our sages base this on Proverbs 16,6: כל פעל השם למענהו, "G'd has made everything for His sake." Some of our sages have composed books in which they translate the songs of the animals and birds. Some of our greatest scholars were able to to understand the various sounds made by the animals, especially a man such as Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. If the latter was able to understand the parables of the foxes (compare <i>Sukkah</i> 25), Adam, who was a direct creation of G'd, was certainly able to.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותאמר האשה. Eve said, etc. Eve answered the serpent very intelligently, addressing all the three points which we described the serpent as having made. Concerning the first argument that all the trees were forbidden, Eve said that this was not so, that only the tree in the centre of the garden was prohibited. Concerning the argument that all the other trees were really earthed branches of the tree of knowledge she argued that this was quite irrelevant. It might have been relevant if G'd had not specifically permitted the fruit of all the other trees. There was therefore absolutely no sense in denying oneself something G'd had specifically permitted. She refused to accept the testimony of the serpent because it contradicted the testimony of her own husband. She argued along the lines of the school of Hillel, i.e. the common denominator between what the serpent had declared as out of bounds and what her husband had declared as out of bounds was only the tree of knowledge. Therefore, that tree and its fruit was forbidden; the other trees were permitted since no valid testimony existed that would deny them to her.
  As to the argument that the tree was so far superior to all the other trees etc., Eve said she thought differently. The tree was inferior; G'd had forbidden it because eating from it would bring on death, the clearest proof that it was inferior to the other trees. Eve told the serpent that all of G'd's commandments were intended for man's benefit, not in order to cause him harm or damage. All the many fruit trees in the garden were proof that G'd had laboured to present man with a beautiful and enjoyable universe. As far as the forbidden tree of knowledge was concerned, G'd had only forbidden its harmful part, i.e. its fruit. Eve argued correctly. This is the meaning of her words: "from the trees of the garden we may eat. She claimed that this was proof that G'd has our best interests at heart. She reasoned that this in turn proved that G'd was concerned to protect man against harmful influences. Eve added that G'd said: "do not touch it," although G'd is not on record as having said this. She considered the prohibition to touch the tree a logical extension of G'd's concern that His creatures should not come to any harm. It is also possible that at the time Adam had told her not to eat from that tree he had added the warning not to touch it as an additional safeguard because he realised that its fruit contained a deadly poison.
  She told the serpent further that even if it were true that the tree of knowledge was the most superior of all the trees, the fact remained that G'd had said not to eat from it on pain of death. How could one ignore such a warning?! Perhaps she added that the tree was not to be touched for fear that some oil on the outside of the fruit would serve as nutrient for her skin if it came into contact with it. Such bodily contact might be just as forbidden as oiling one's skin is prohibited on the Day of Atonement as part of denying oneself food and drink (based on <i>Pessachim</i> 21). Eve tried to point out that the advantages the tree seemed to offer were outweighed by its disadvantages. As a result the tree was actually the most inferior of all the trees in the garden. 
  At this point Eve completely rejected the serpent's attempt to convince her to eat from the fruit of that tree. She decided that it was her and her husband's duty to keep their distance from that tree.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויאמר הנחש…לא מות תמותון. The serpent said: "You will most certainly not die." The reason the serpent repeated the reference to death was to counter Eve's fears that the tree itself was lethal, or that even if it were not harmful at all, G'd would punish them with death for disobeyimg Him. The serpent claimed that neither natural nor judicial death would result from contact with the tree or its fruit. Assuming that the serpent was right, this in turn raises the question of why G'd had forbidden the fruit of that tree? The serpent had to make such a prohibition sound plausible. This is why it continued that G'd was aware that as soon as man ate from that tree he would become a real competitor to G'd, i.e. knowing what is good and what is harmful. This argument was pure blasphemy. The only reason that the wicked serpent was able to employ such an argument was that its creation had preceded that of man. The serpent was able to use its senior status in the history of creation to claim that it was privy to matters that Adam and Eve could not have been privy to. He also argued that the reason he (the serpent) had been denied entry to גן עדן was that entry had been permitted only to those who were not privy to the secret of the tree of knowledge and what it represented. It claimed that by preventing the serpent from entering the garden G'd had wanted to preserve the secret of the power that tree would impart to those who ate from it. According to the serpent, once Eve would eat from that tree she would no longer be afraid of G'd, and G'd would no longer exercise any control over her. The use of such an argument was idolatrous. According to our halachah idolatry is punishable even when it is merely an intellectual conviction (<i>Berachot</i> 12).
  According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 19,3 there is another reason that the serpent used the expression מות תמות. The serpent pushed Eve against the tree and "proved" that touching the tree was not lethal- as Eve had claimed. It argued that just as touching the tree had not resulted in death, neither would eating from its fruit. We must examine this so-called "proof." If we accept that Eve had convinced herself that contact with the tree would have fatal consequences because of its very nature, the fact that her contact with the tree had proved harmless should have convinced her of the tree's harmlessness. There was therefore no reason to be afraid to eat from it. Alternatively, if Eve's fear of touching the tree were based on her belief that G'd had outlawed both eating from the tree and touching it, she now had "proof" that this was not so because nothing had happened to her after she had touched the tree. We do not consider this in the nature of any "proof," seeing that G'd's punishment did not have to be meted out immediately. We therefore prefer the explanation we offered previously that the serpent wanted to "prove" to Eve that the tree itself was quite harmless.
  If you were to ask why G'd would have created a tree that was poisonous at all, the answer is -as in many such instances- that the greater the physical and spiritual effort to overcome such potential impediments to our faith, the greater the reward which is stored up in heaven for such acts of faith, a reward to be consumed by us in the Hereafter. This concept is phrased in <i>Avot</i> 5,26: לפום צערא אגרא, as "the reward is commensurate with the effort expended." Had G'd imposed strict limits on the power of the seducer to entice us, overcoming him would not have amounted to much. The <i>Zohar</i> illustrates this principle by the example of a father who wanted to test his son's moral fibre and who instructed a beautiful harlot to use all her wiles to seduce him. At the same time he had instructed the son to keep his distance from the harlot in question.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ. Eve saw that the tree was good. The first problem is how could one judge what is good to eat by merely looking at it? Another question is why the Torah describes a feeling of the mouth before describing the effect on the eye? The verse should have read: "she saw that the tree was a beautiful sight and that it was good as food," in that order. Furthermore, whence did Eve know that the tree was apt to add to her perceptive powers, i.e. להשכיל? If the Torah merely intended to tell us that the serpents's description of the tree had been accurate, why describe the woman as seeing something that she did not see? Also why did the Torah add two superfluous words הוא, and העץ a second time? If the repetition of the word is justified, why did the Torah not also write the word העץ after the word תאוה?
  The verse describes the way in which Eve was snared, and how she eventually became willing to listen to her seducer. When you examine Eve's earlier words, you will find that she said: "and from the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, G'd' said "do not eat." She had expressed her conviction that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden, that the trunk, the branches, etc., were permitted. She may have arrived at that conviction for one of two reasons. 1) Adam had commanded her in those very words. 2) Though Adam had mentioned only the tree without specifying its fruit, etc., she reasoned that there would have been no point in forbidding something that anyways was not food, such as the trunk, the branches, and the leaves. We have pointed out earlier that whereas the other trees did not taste similar to their fruit, the tree of knowledge was the exception, its trunk, etc. being just as edible as its fruit. We must therefore assume that Eve had already tasted the tree itself, not having considered it as forbidden. She also applied the prohibition to touch it as applicable only to its fruit, not to the trunk, etc. At any rate, Eve had already experienced the taste of the tree's trunk and nothing had happened. Alternatively, she may have discounted the prohibition to touch the tree knowing that this was not a direct command from G'd Himself and would not lead to death. 
  Having tasted from the tree itself, and having experienced that its nature was different from all the other trees, she decided to take a closer look at the fruit of that tree. It was then that she discovered that the fruit exerted a powerful visual attraction; the word הוא refers back to the word פרי, fruit. It could not refer to the word העץ, the tree, as this would be unnecessary. It would have sufficed to say וכי תאוה לעינים, if it were merely a reference to the tree. The word העץ is needed in the sequence ונחמד העץ לעינים because the subject matter had changed from the fruit to the tree. The knowledge of the nature of the tree had been based on her sense of taste, whereas her perception of the nature of the fruit was based only on her sense of sight. The Torah explains that Eve's purpose in eating of the fruit was to broaden her powers of perception. At this point Eve believed that the serpent had spoken truthfully when it claimed that as a result of eating from the fruit of that tree she would gain greater insights, and that G'd had forbidden the fruit only in order to prevent her from gaining the insight which would make her equal to G'd. The Torah emphasises that "she took from its fruit," as she had already tasted the trunk. We have now completed answering the various questions we raised about this verse. Eve gave to her husband from this fruit out of her love for him; she wanted him to share her new insights so that he too would become G'd-like.
  I have seen it said in defence of Eve that her sin was not so serious as she could not imagine that G'd had created a being whose sole purpose it was to test man's love for G'd by having Satan masquerade within it to try and mislead man. If such a thought had even occurred to Eve she would never have engaged in a dialogue with the serpent. She would have acted just like the righteous nowadays who do not listen to or engage in disputes with tempters however slick-tongued they may be in making something sinful look desirable. The righteous of our time are not so naive; this is why they can withstand the wiles of Satan. Poor innocent Eve did not have their advantage and that is why she fell victim to the seductive tactics of the serpent (Satan). She had furthermore been mislead by the taste of the tree itself, something she thought of as permitted. She also did not possess as analytical a mind as that of a man, else she would have been able to resist the lure to eat from the fruit of that tree. Had she not first erred in believing that the tree itself was pemitted to eat from, she never would have considered eating from the fruit as well.
  Another reason that may have accounted for Eve falling an easy victim to Satan's lure was that she considered it to have been a mistake to accept the prohibition not to eat from the tree. When she accepted the commandment she had not thought that it would be so difficult to observe. Originally the tree had not appeared to her as sufficiently desirable to pose a threat to her obedience to G'd's command. We find a parallel to such considerations when we consider how many covenants G'd concluded with the Jewish people to ensure that they would not go back on their commitment to observe the Torah. G'd did not consider it sufficient to just give the commandments to the Jewish people without creating a legal device to make the commitment irrevocable. Our sages (<i>Shabbat</i> 85 based on Exodus 19,17) tell us that at Mount Sinai G'd had threatened to kill the Jewish people unless they embraced the Torah. He subsequently reinforced the validity of their acceptance by making them swear an oath. Our rabbis go so far as to describe the renewed acceptance by the Jewish people of the Torah at the time of Mordechai as the only free acceptance of G'd's laws, describing the original acceptance as having occcurred under conditions of duress and therefore legally not valid (<i>Shabbat</i> 88). Inasmuch as Eve had not been sworn to observe the commandment not to eat from the tree she was not really obligated to do so. Even though she had orally accepted the commandment and such acceptance is comparable to the uttering of a vow, it is in the category of a vow erroneously entered into, something that can be annulled retroactively (compare <i>Nedarim</i> 66). The exact text in the Talmud is as follows: If someone undertakes not to drink wine because the wine is bad for his digestion, and he is informed that aged wine is good for his digestion, his vow is annulled and he may drink any kind of wine. We face a similar situation here. When Eve had accepted G'd's commandment prior to having become conscious of the powerful attraction exerted on her by this tree she had been quite sincere. However, once she noticed the powerful pull which the fruit of that tree exerted on her she regretted having undertaken to honour the commandment not to eat from it.
  We therefore have two causes that helped to mislead Eve. The reason she may have thought that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden was because her husband had not given her precise instructions. Had her husband told her that G'd had said: "You may eat from all the trees of the garden, but from the tree of knowledge in the centre of the garden you must not eat," she would never have considered the trunk as permissible, and the fact that neither eating from it nor touching it had resulted in any harm to her would not have served as a verification of the serpent's argument. Eve's not having been aware of the attractive nature of the tree was also Adam's fault. He had not told her that G'd had described the tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He had only told her not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, without a reference to its special nature. Had Eve been aware that the tree was of such special significance the serpent could not have tricked her, and she herself would have been unable to invoke her lack of knowledge as a reason to revoke her acceptance of G'd's command not to eat from it. 
  None of the causes of the sin can be attributed to G'd, all were due to man's inadequacy, i.e. both Adam's and Eve's.
  For all we know, Adam may not have been aware that the trunk of the tree of knowledge was edible. He had only tasted the other trees and found invariably that their trunks were not edible. He did not realise that the earth had conformed with G'd's instructions to the letter when it produced the tree of knowledge. The manner in which the Torah describes Eve's realisation of the tree's properties suggests that she did not have an inkling previously that this tree had such special features.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ותפקחנה עיני שניהם. The eyes of both of them were opened. We have explained on 2,25 that sin caused man to become aware of his nudity, and that the awareness in turn results in a feeling of shame. This is what this verse is all about. Each of them was ashamed, one of the other. The use of the words ותפקחנה עיני…reflects the teaching of our sages that "one does not commit a sin unless one's mental eyes had first been blinded." Isaiah 42, 18 speaks about והעורים הביטו לראות, "blind ones, look up and see!" Surely the prophet must have referred to the wicked whose mental eyes had been blinded. Once the temporary mental blindness caused by the decision to sin had passed and the seducer had departed, they became aware of their nudity. Satan is also referred to as personifying darkness, someone who blinds people's eyes. The nudity referred to here is not merely lack of ordinary clothing, but the removal of an aura of holiness which had served them thus far in lieu of clothing in the accepted sense of the word. It is characteristic of a wicked person that after he has committed an abominable act he becomes aware that what he did was an abomination.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וישמעו את קול השם They heard the voice of G'd. The reason the Torah describes the direction G'd's voice took, i.e. לרוח היום, was to enable them to find a place to "hide" from G'd. In this instance G'd's voice travelled westwards, parallel to the sun, whereas Adam and Eve were in the centre of the garden.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר לו איכה? He said to him: "Where are you?" The meaning is: Why do you hide yourself and do not appear before Me? Adam replied that he was afraid because he considered himself naked, and as it is forbidden to stand naked in front of a Torah scroll it certainly is unseemly to appear before G'd in such a state. According to our exegesis, he meant they had become aware of their reduced stature. Their sin had made them aware of the loss of their aura of holiness, hence their nakedness. They could not have referred to actual nudity as the Torah already reported that they sewed together fig-leaves to serve as clothing.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויאמר מי הגיד לך כי עירום אתה, He said: "Who has told you that you are naked?" G'd meant: "what is different now? You stood before Me previously without feeling naked?" The new knowledge you display cannot have originated within you. It must have been provided by an external source. G'd therefore wanted to know: "Who has told you?" According to our exegesis that the feeling was generated internally, i.e. a result of the sin and the loss of the aura of holiness, we must understand the question as merely rhetorical. G'd did not want to shame man too much, therefore He Himself supplied the answer that Adam might have eaten from the forbidden tree, and the act of eating revealed this knowledge to him. 
  By the reference to the tree as opposed to the fruit, the verse once more stresses that the trunk too was forbidden.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתת עמדי. Adam said: "The woman You put with me." The manner of Adam's reply was so unseemly that one would not expect him to use it vis-a-vis the least important human being, certainly not when addressing the King of Kings. Besides, when Adam said: "she gave me from the tree, and I ate," why did he add the unnecessary words "from the tree?" We would all have understood that he referred to said tree without his repeating this. Eve did not bother to say that it was the tree she ate from.
  Apparently Adam did not know exactly what happened except that Eve had placed something before him and he had eaten without examining it. He had not felt the need to ask her what it was she had placed before him seeing that the whole earth was his to enjoy. He added "which You put with me" in justification for not having enquired where the fruit had come from. It was as if he had said to G'd that since G'd had supplied the woman, he, Adam, had no reason to be suspicious about her motives. After all, nothing evil originates in Heaven! Our sages have said: אין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה, "once something (a slaughtered animal) has arrived on the altar (having passed several stages of inspection on the way) there is no need to again check its suitability as a sacrifice." Adam argued that if the חזקה, the presumption of fitness of such an animal, is acceptable, then surely a woman supplied by G'd Himself need not be examined for blemishes.
  When Adam said: "from the tree," he referred to a tree planted within the garden seeing all those trees had been planted by G'd Himself (2,8-9). When Adam spoke of "the tree," he did not refer to the tree of knowledge which G'd had referred to. He described his situation before he had eaten from the fruit Eve gave him. At that time he thought the fruit was from any of a number of trees. It was only after he had tasted the fruit that he became aware that this fruit must have been from the tree of knowledge. Adam's argument then was not nearly as outrageous as it appears at first glance. Although one might even argue that Adam said he ate merely from the tree and not from its fruit, and that eating from the tree had not been forbidden, such an argument is not tenable for a number of reasons.
  As a result, Adam was merely a שוגג, an unintentional sinner. One might go further and claim that he was an innocent victim and thus not guilty at all. This would explain why G'd' did not curse Adam but only the earth. The truth is, however, that Adam acted carelessly in not accurately repeating G'd's command to Eve. He had mentioned only the fruit of the tree to Eve, not the prohibition of the tree itself. This inaccuracy paved the way for all the subsequent events.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמר השם אלוקים אל האשה. The Lord G'd said to the woman. The only reason G'd asked Eve what she had done was to give her an opportunity to confess her sin against G'd. The confession would act as the cure for her newly contracted sickness. When she said that the serpent had seduced her this was both a confession and an explanation that her sin had not been intentional. I have explained earlier that Eve had been under the impression that it was permitted to eat from the trunk of the tree. She had also not realised that the serpent was a seducer. She confessed her error to her Creator.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויאמר השם אלוקים אל הנחש. The Lord G'd said to the serpent. The serpent had caused three kinds of harm by its words. 1) It caused the withdrawal of the glory of G'd's light which had hovered over Adam and Eve as we explained previously. This is the real meaning of the כתנות אור, the garments of light. [this spelling is reported to have been found in the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir. Ed.]. 2) It resulted in Adam and Eve both becoming mortal, losing their immortality in this world. This was the punishment G'd had threatened would result from eating of the tree of knowledge. 3) The serpent caused even man's limited life on this earth to be of an inferior quality, outside the confines of גן עדן. 
  G'd therefore punished the serpent separately concerning each one of these losses it had caused man. 1) G'd cursed the serpent because it deprived man of his blessing, i.e. the presence of G'd's glorious light. 2) G'd deprived the serpent of the legs it used to walk on because the serpent had deprived man of eternal life on earth. Prior to the sin the serpent possessed the kind of stature that enabled it to share all the advantages of the world with Adam. It would have been an honoured houseguest at Adam's all its life. As a result of its sin, co-existence of man and the serpent in this world became almost impossible. 3) The serpent was condemned to eat dust for having deprived Adam and Eve of the enjoyment of life in גן עדן. Our sages explain this to mean that the serpent does not enjoy any of its food, just as one does not enjoy eating dust (<i>Yuma</i> 75). G'd's words: כי עשית זאת, "because you have done this," which introduces the serpent's punishment, are a reminder that the serpent's words were considered its deeds.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה. And l shall place hatred between you and the woman. G'd applied the principle of גואל הדם, a relative avenging a killing who is permitted to kill the slayer without trial. This is so because the serpent's deed brought death to all of Eve's descendants. The nature of the revenge matches what the serpent had done. Humans will strike at the head of the serpents, seeing that the original serpent had initiated man's downfall and the head is the beginning of life, it is the area which is smitten by the angel of death. Whenever it attacks man, the serpent will aim at the heel because man in the end trailed, i.e. followed the advice of the serpent when sinning. The word "heel" may also simply be an allusion to the serpent's having lost its legs, being forced to move on its belly.
  You may well ask how could the Torah in the same breath as allowing man to avenge himself on the serpent permit it to attack man's heel? What kind of penalty is it for the serpent to be allowed to continue harassing man? The answer is simply that the serpent could have retorted that no one forced Eve to listen to its advice. Our sages (<i>Kidushin</i> 42) have formulated this by asking rhetorically: "When the instructions of the teacher conflict with those of the disciple, whose instructions is one to follow?" If Eve had followed this simple piece of logic there would not have been any unfortunate developments as a result of the serpent's argument. The serpent therefore felt aggrieved that Eve's lack of logic had caused it permanent harm. There is an allusion as to how long this condition of enmity between man and the serpent will continue. As long as man, i.e. Israel, is ראש, deserving of the title "head" by performing G'd's commandments, it will prevail over the tempter called serpent and smash it. On the other hand, when Israel ignores G'd's commandments, the serpent will bite it because Israel has itself become like a heel instead of like a head.
  
  Verse 16
  
   אל האשה אמר. He (G'd) had said to the woman. G'd intended to make it clear that Eve would suffer three curses as retribution for the three features of the tree of knowledge she had wanted to enjoy. She had seen that the tree a) was good as food; b) a temptation for the eyes; and c) desirable to make one perceptive. G'd decreed that instead of enjoying the fruit of the tree she would suffer pains when producing her own fruit, i.e. her children. Regarding the temptation for her eyes Eve wanted to enjoy, G'd decreed that she would henceforth pine for her husband as a passive partner, her husband deciding if and when to indulge her desire. Her husband would always derive satisfaction from the mating process without a guarantee that her desire would be satisfied during union with her husband. Finally, instead of satisfying her desire to be G'd-like, she would be dominated not only by G'd but also by her husband.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ולאדם אמר. And G'd had said to Adam. We need to understand why G'd mentioned Adam's "listening to the voice of his wife;" It would have sufficed to say: "because you ate from the tree, etc.;" Besides, why did the Torah add the word "to the voice?" Could the Torah not simply have said "because you listened to your wife, etc.?" Having in mind that we explained that Adam had not been aware at the time he ate that the fruit he ate was from the tree of knowledge, it would not have been appropriate for the Torah to simply say: "because you ate from the tree, etc." since in fact he did not eat from the tree knowingly but inadvertently. The Torah therefore had to spell out that Adam's sin was accepting the words of his wife without checking them. As a result of his failure to investigate his wife's words more closely, he "ate from the tree." The reason the Torah refers to the "voice" of Adam's wife is to alert us to the fact that Adam was satisfied that it was his wife talking; he did not bother to analyse what she was saying. When she told him: "take and eat," this is what he did. He did not ask where the fruit came from. The Torah alludes once more to Adam's error in not giving Eve precise instructions when it says: "from the tree which I told you not to eat from." Adam had only told Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree. The lack of adequate information at the time Adam relayed G'd's command to Eve was a major cause of the tragedy.
  The reason G'd cursed both the earth and Eve but not Adam is due to the earth's failure on the third day of creation to produce trees exactly as G'd had commanded. Had the earth produced only trees whose trunk were edible, or only trees whose trunks were not edible, Eve could not have made the error she made. It was only because the tree of knowledge was different in this respect that made Adam's failure to warn her not to eat from this tree result in tragic consequences. G'd therefore cursed the earth as the cause of all that had happened. Since G'd expelled Adam from the garden and made him toil the unresponsive earth, Adam was punished for having accepted his wife's urgings without checking. He had greedily indulged his desire, and as a result he would forever more remain in a state of sadness that he could not earn his livelihood without hard work. He would now eat grass of the field in lieu of the fruit of the trees of the garden for which he did not have to toil. In future when he would have to labour to secure his food supply he would know exactly where it came from.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   עד שובך אל האדמה, Until you will return to the soil, etc. The Torah gives two reasons why man would have to die. It would not have sufficed to explain the need for man to die, i.e. return to the folds of the earth merely because that had been his origin. After all, he had originated from earth before the sin and was not bound to return to it. Since man is made of dust, i.e. earth, he is part of it, or rather, he has made himself part of it through his sin. Had he not sinned, the holiness acquired by triumphing over temptation would have guaranteed that he did not have to return to his lowly origin. His body would have become so refined that it no longer would have been considered as part of the earth. Now, even the part of Adam that was spiritual had been severely tainted through his sin. G'd explained to Adam that although it is normal for things to return to their origin; he, Adam, had forfeited his opportunity to defy that norm through non-observance of G'd's commandment.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויקרא אדם שם אשתו חוה. Adam called the name of his wife <i>Chavah.</i> We must understand why Adam had not named his wife immediately after he met her, before any of the happenings described by the Torah.
  Know therefore that G'd had already given the woman a name reflecting her distinction when He named both the man and the woman ADAM. We know from Ezekiel 34,31 that the name ADAM is a great distinction. The prophet proclaims: אדם אתם, "you are Adam" (referring to Israel). Our sages (<i>Yevamot</i> 61) have stated about Israel: "you have been called ADAM, whereas the Gentiles have not been called ADAM." There was therefore no reason for Adam to have named Eve previously. Now that his wife had been seduced by the serpent she had suffered a spiritual decline and no longer qualified for the name ADAM. In fact it is generally accepted that when a person violates G'd's law knowingly he forfeits his original name. This is what Solomon (Proverbs 10,7) meant when he said: ושם רשעים ירקב, that the "name" i.e. the original name of the wicked, will rot. Adam now had to give his wife a name which reflected her function in life, namely that she became the "mother" of all human beings. True, Adam had sinned too, but his sin had been unintentional as already pointed out. He did not forfeit his name on that account.
  As a matter of fact Adam too experienced a diminution of status as expressed by his name. The Torah here calls him suddenly האדם, three or four times instead of אדם as previously. You must appreciate that the category of person called האדם is inferior to the one called אדם without the letter ה. <i>Sifri</i> 143 quotes Rabbi Yirmiyah on Leviticus 18,5: אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, that האדם should perform these commandments in order to live by them, as including Gentiles. This is so because whenever the letter ה before the word אדם does not signify a definite article it refers to the human species as such. [I have condensed the proof presented by the author. Ed.] Although Adam declined in spiritual stature and forfeited the full extent of his name, this was a temporary phenomenon. The Torah again accords him his full name when it describes that he became the father of Sheth (4,25). He regained his stature having only sinned inadvertently.
  There is another reason for the name חוה. First we must understand why "life" is attributed to Eve and not to Adam. After all, Adam was the "father" of all human beings! Besides, if the reason we have given for Adam calling חוה is that she is the "mother" of all human beings, he should have called her חיה, not חוה! Her name was to reflect two new developments. 1) She had listened to the urgings of the seducer. Adam called her by the name of the seducer, the word חוה being the same as חויא the aramaic for serpent. This is the reason given in the <i>Zohar</i>. The second new development was that she was condemned to bear children in pain. She alone deserved to be called "mother" of all human beings because it was only she who had to endure pain in connection with procreation. The Torah did not want to spell out the other reason, seeing that it is already alluded to in the name חוה.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויאמר השם אלוקים, The Lord G'd said: "Here man has become like one of Us, etc." We need to understand why G'd had not commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life before He forbade them to eat from the tree of knowledge. Had they eaten from it first they would have lived forever! 
  Another peculiarity in our verse is the word היה. G'd was afraid that Adam might live forever, not that he had already achieved that status. The word therefore should have been עוד לא היה, or something to that effect. Furthermore, why would the ability to distinguish between good and evil elevate man to the status of G'd? How can we justify the expression ממנו, "like one of Us?" This would give the impression that there are physical beings in the heavens!
  In view of the fact that G'd had warned man not to eat from the tree of knowledge He was not worried about his eating from the tree of life. He did not think man would be motivated to do so either of his own volition or as a result of seduction by the serpent. The seducer only urges man to taste what is forbidden; Satan never urges you to do what is perfectly permissible. Man on his own had no desire to eat from that tree in order to secure permanent life, something that was his birthright anyways. It was only after he had forfeited his birthright that he would seek to find an alternative for what he had lost. If G'd had forbidden the tree of life immediately, the serpent might have succeeded to entice even Adam himself into eating from it. Therefore G'd was wise in not including the tree of life in the prohibition immediately. After having eaten from the tree of knowledge with its fateful consequences, Adam's priorities had changed, and G'd now had to be concerned lest man eat from that tree in order to neutralize the mortality that had been decreed on him. 
  The meaning of the word היה then is: "up until now man was alone unto himself," i.e. he was immortal," however, now that he has lost his immortality, he might want to eat from the tree of life. The word אחד ממנו, would refer to the uniqueness of man on earth. He alone of all the creatures on earth was immortal. The knowledge man acquired due to having eaten from the tree of knowledge might prompt him to want to eat from the tree of life to recapture the uniqueness of his former stature of ruling over the creatures of earth. I have found a proof for my interpretation of the word ממנו in Onkelos. Onkelos translates the word as מניה, "from him," i.e. כאחד ממנו, "like the only one of its kind"
  There is another way to solve the problems we have raised. On the day G'd commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge He gave two commandments. G'd actually allowed for the possibility that Adam would violate His command by saying: "should you eat from it, your only way to rehabilitate yourself will be through death, through mortality of the body." In halachah we would consider the second commandment, i.e. the need to die as a לאו הניתק לעשה, a negative commandment tied to a positive commandment. The positive commandment is viewed as the תיקון, reparation of the negative commandment that has been violated. We have mentioned earlier that had it not been for the sin, Adam would have become so refined that he would have been considered as at home in the world of the permanent beings, just as the prophet Elijah who departed this world, body intact. It was only due to the sin that Adam's body forfeited the chance to rise with him to such lofty heights. Once deprived of the opportunity to refine his body in the manner described, the very act of separation of the soul from the body becomes the symbol of the inability to achieve the elevation of the body to eternal life. Under such circumstances man would not eat from the tree of life of his own accord. He would be afraid that as a result of eating from it he would forever forfeit potential rehabilitation should he violate the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Only death could afford him that chance, and once he had eaten from the tree of life he would not die. The matter was different, however, once he had eaten from the tree of knowledge without having eaten as yet from the tree of life. If he had eaten deliberately from the tree of knowledge, man would certainly be careful not to eat from the tree of life as that would condemn him eternally to a physical existence only. However, as we explained, man's sin had been inadvertent, meaning that he thought he was not bound to die in order to rehabilitate himself. If so, there was no powerful incentive for him to stay clear of the tree of life. Actually, Adam erred; even though his sin was inadvertent it could only be completely atoned for through death of his body at some stage. The principal reason that G'd had commanded man not to eat from the tree of knowledge was to prevent knowledge of evil becoming an integral part of his perceptions. His perceptions were meant to concentrate only on what is good. This is what Solomon meant (Kohelet 7,29) when he said that ישר עשה האלוקים את האדם, that "G'd made man perfectly upright." Evil did not figure as part of man's imagination and fantasies. All of this changed after he ate from the tree of knowledge. The fact that man felt naked and ashamed is proof that his fantasies now included things that were evil. Once man had undergone such a drastic change and the purpose of the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge had been irreversibly thwarted, he would no longer consider not eating from the tree of life as his insurance should he need to recapture his original status. He had already lost that status irretrievably. With the incentive not to eat from the tree of life gone, G'd had to forbid man to eat from that tree. In view of the fact that man had ignored a previous command, G'd deemed it safer to place the tree of life out of Adam's reach by expelling him from the garden.
  Having said all this we can now understand a difficult passage in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 21,6. Commenting on the words: "and now, lest he reach out and take also from the tree of life and eat thereof and live forever," Rabbi Aba bar Kahane says that the word ועתה, "and now" in this verse teaches that G'd encouraged Adam to repent. This word is used by the Torah to introduce the process of repentance. For instance, we have Deut. 10 where Moses described the sin of the golden calf and his endeavours to obtain forgiveness for the Jewish people. Verse 12 there commences with the words: ועתה ישראל, and goes on to describe what it is that G'd asks of the Jewish people so that they can rehabilitate themselves. The expression פן, always means "not or no." G'd said: "lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and and eat of it and live forever." Thus far Rabbi Aba bar Kahane. This <i>Midrash</i> is extremely puzzling. How could G'd justify encouraging man to do repentance by saying to him "NO!?" Why did G'd only start to worry that Adam would eat from the tree of life after He had said to him "No?" It appears as if G'd would not have been concerned about Adam living forever if he had done תשובה! This cannot be since man had already become mortal on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge!
  Actually, keeping in mind our exegesis, the words of Rabbi Ada bar Kahane make sense. G'd wanted Adam to realise that he had sinned by eating from the tree of knowledge. He did this by telling him to repent. Adam answered this invitation to do תשובה by saying that he had not sinned in a manner that required him to repent. He argued that he had been unaware of committing a sin when he ate from the tree. When G'd heard that Adam thought that an inadvertently committed sin does not require repentance, He began to worry that now there was no impediment to Adam eating from the tree of life. This is why G'd had to expel him from the garden to prevent this from happening. Later on Adam did repent and spent 130 years immersing himself in the waters of the river גיחון to atone for his sin [compare <i>Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer</i> 20. Ed.].
  Although G'd had said that Adam would die "on the day" he would eat from the tree of knowledge, the word "day" could have one of two connotations. It could mean a period of 24 hours, i.e. a day in human terms, or it could refer to a day in G'd's terms, i.e. 1000 years. If it is the latter, the meaning of the warning was that Adam would die before he reached the age of 1000 years. The respective connotation of the word depends on the severity of the sin and the feeling the sinner had at the time he committed the sin. If the sinner intended to anger G'd at the time he sinned, the meaning of the word "day" would be the minimum. The sinner would have to die before that period of 24 hours expired. If, however, the sin was not committed intentionally and the sinner had made it plain that he had not intended to sin, he would be given the maximum period possible, i.e. he would live up to but not including 1000 years.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותלד את קין. She gave birth to Cain. According to our sages Cain represented the spirit of impurity and evil whereas Abel represented good. Abel's soul is supposed to have been reincarnated in the body of Moses (compare <i>Zohar</i> 1,54 on this passage). Abel suffered multiple injuries at the hands of Cain because Cain did not know where to inflict a lethal injury. The pains suffered by Abel in the process removed any vestige of evil that may have been in him so that when Moses was born he was totally good. This is what Eve hinted at when she said: קניתי איש את השם. She meant that the perfection of a man such as Moses who could commune freely with G'd, was due only to the sufferings undergone by his ancestor Abel.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותוסף ללדת את אחיו, She continued to give birth to his brother. The reason the Torah adds the words "his brother," something quite unnecessary, as well as the repeated use of the word את, has been explained by our sages. They said that in the struggle between Cain and Abel, the latter was first victorious, Cain lying on the ground. Abel then pitied him and moved away. Cain exploited this pity of his brother Abel to attack him and kill him (<i>Tanchuma Bereshit</i> 9). The words את אחיו are a hint that Abel acted in a brotherly fashion towards Cain. By placing the word את in front of the word הבל, the Torah alluded to the lack of brotherliness with which Cain related to Abel. Another reason for the word את both times before the name Cain and the name Abel is to indicate that twin sisters were born together with these brothers (<i>Yevamot</i> 62).
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישע ה׳ אל הבל, G'd turned to Abel. The reason the Torah does not first report that G'd did not turn to Cain and his offering, seeing he is reported as having been the first one to bring an offering, is to underline the gulf that existed already between G'd and Cain. Abel's offering caused G'd pleasure and still G'd did not turn to Cain's offering as a result of being in a favourable frame of mind.
  The reason the Torah repeats the word אל twice in the sequence אל הבל ואל מנחתו is, to make it clear that G'd displayed favour to the person bringing the offering and to the offering itself. The reverse was true of Cain and his offering.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויחר לקין מאד, Cain was very angry. The emotion חרון אף indicates that a person feels superior, whereas the expression נפילת אפים indicates that one feels inferior. Cain felt angry at the superiority achieved by his younger brother. He felt inferior towards his brother thinking that the superior quality of his brother's offering was the cause that his own offering had not been accepted. He believed that this was the reason he had suffered a loss of image in the eyes of G'd.
  Alternatively, when Cain saw that G'd did not accept his own offering he felt angry at the Creator's disdain for His creatures, His not taking any interest in them. This is a very negative character trait. We find an example of such emotions in Isaiah 8,21 where anger is described as leading to blasphemy when someone feels that G'd does not look after him. After Cain found that he had been wrong, that G'd did accept his brother's offering, his anger against G'd turned to anger against G'd's favourite, against his brother Abel.
  The author quotes a saying by our sages that when someone allows his anger to possess him his soul withdraws. He interprets this statement as referring to the divine image, צלם, that is reflected on man's face. [I have not been able to find such a statement. Ed.] Although Cain's specific acts of wickedness prior to his murdering his brother have not been spelled out by the Torah it is clear from his subsequent actions that he was evil.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  -14. ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו. Cain spoke softly to his brother Abel. The addition of the word "his brother" indicates that Cain spoke in a friendly manner. Cain had made it plain previously that he was jealous of Abel. He did not want Abel to think that he also hated him on account of that. Therefore he stressed the brotherhood they had in common so as not to put Abel on guard against him. He deceived his brother into thinking that he did not harbour hatred in his heart. Verse 8 should really have been two verses, the first half concluding after the word אחיו. The Torah wrote it as one in order to make us understand why Abel was not on his guard.
  ויהי בהיותם בשדה. It was when they were both in the field. We need to know why the Torah wanted us to know that what follows occurred in the field. Besides, why did the Torah have to mention that "Cain arose?" It would have sufficed to simply state that Cain killed Abel! Furthermore, why did G'd have to ask Cain where his brother Abel was? Why was Cain foolish enough to tell the One who knows everything that he did not know where his brother was? After all, who would be aware of G'd's supervising everything that occurs on earth if not the people with whom G'd had communicated directly such as Adam, Eve, Cain, etc.? Why did Cain add the gratuitous and provocative remark: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Why did G'd have to mention (verse 10) that Abel's blood cried out to Him "from the earth?" Besides, what was the nature of that outcry? Why did G'd curse the earth in addition to the murderer? What harm did it do for the earth to have swallowed Abel's blood? The alternative would have been for the dogs to lick it up. Did earth not act very properly by covering up the blood of the dead? G'd's words almost defy our understanding.
  Cain was jealous of Abel because he thought that Abel's existence was the cause that he himself had been degraded. He thought that his own shortcomings had come to light only by comparing him to his brother. Once his brother would be out of the way G'd would have to turn to him seeing there was no one else to turn to. This is why he planned to kill Abel. He realised that the stench of Abel's decaying body would rise heavenwards. Inasmuch as man had been forbidden to murder, Cain sought a way of killing Abel without laying a hand on him. We have heard that Cain was a man of the earth; he was familiar with how the earth functioned. Our sages (compare <i>Nedarim</i> 39) say that earth has limbs just like a human being, i.e. the equivalent of hands, feet, etc. Cain knew which part of the earth served as its mouth, its eyes, etc. As a result of this familiarity with the earth he found a way to kill Abel with guile without actually laying a hand on him. The Torah describes that while Cain and Abel walked in the field Cain found a suitable spot to carry out his evil plan. The word ויקם is not part of the act of murder. It means he simply stood over him in a spot where the earth would swallow him. The earth actually did the killing. While the Torah does not spell out the exact nature of Abel's death in our verse, it does so in verse 11.
  When G'd asked Cain where his brother was, He did so to find out if Cain was aware of his sin. When Cain answered that he did not know Abel's whereabouts, G'd told him that he should have made it his business to know. To this Cain replied: "Have You made me his keeper?" He did not confess his evil deed. He either thought that G'd would not punish him for an indirect act, a cause, or he thought that G'd did not exercise this kind of supervision over man. When G'd persisted by asking: "What did you do?" He informed Cain that his wicked deed was the cause that the earth had swallowed Abel. The words: "the voice of your brother Abel's blood cries out to me from the earth," mean that Abel thought it was the earth that killed him, not Cain. This is why he complained to G'd. G'd cursed Cain even more severely than the earth because he was the cause of what the earth had done. Henceforth the earth was no longer permitted to open its mouth (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 37). Isaiah 24,16 describes the songs of the earth as originating in its "wings," i.e. its periphery. Had the earth not been forbidden to open its mouth, no doubt its songs would have originated from its mouth. When the earth was to swallow all the Egyptians who had drowned, it was worried about opening its mouth until G'd gave it special permission as alluded to in Exodus 15,12: "You inclined Your right hand and the earth swallowed them." Perhaps this is the problem the sages referred to when they claimed that Cain killed Abel with a stone. As a result Abel suffered many injuries which would account for the Torah writing דמי אחיך צועקים instead of דם אחיך צועק, i.e. the plural for the word blood. Death would not have been due to any single injury as in the case of someone who is slain by the sword. We already explained that the fact that Abel suffered multiple injuries cleansed him of any sins he might have committed prior to his death.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם. This is why he who murders Cain will be avenged sevenfold (or after seven generations). The reason the Torah wrote לכן, therefore, is to show that Cain knew full well that if G'd would not protect him, anyone who encountered him (Cain the murderer) would kill him. G'd placed a sign on Cain's forehead as a sign of pity because Cain had finally shown awareness of G'd's השגחה, supervision of the fate of every individual. This "sign" was the same as the tradition that by merely looking at a צדיק one can tell that he is a G'd-fearing person (compare Exodus 12,13: "this blood will be a sign for you." This means that the מצוה you have performed in preparing the paschal lamb will be accounted as a sign.) Such "signs" act as protection for the righteous against a variety of dangers.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   זה ספר תולדות אדם. This is the book (record) of Adam's descendants. The Torah uses the word ספר to allude to a story, סיפור. Which story is meant? Why does the Torah give the impression that the דמות אלוקים, the likeness of G'd that man was created in, existed only on the day he was created? Besides, seeing that the Torah had already mentioned this distinction of man when it first reported his creation, why did the Torah repeat it here once more? Why did the Torah repeat once more that man was created male and female? Why did the Torah repeat the words ביום הבראם, "on the day they were created," at the end of the verse?
  The Torah wished to demonstrate that all of G'd's ways are designed to ensure that life continues. When the Torah recorded some history for both obvious and hidden reasons, it became necessary to mention the death of Adam and his descendants. G'd began the report by stressing that as far as He was concerned none of this tragedy needed to have happened. People should not accuse G'd as having toyed with creating living beings only in order to destroy them whenever He felt like it. After all, why would G'd bother to create at all if not for the benefit of His creatures? This being the case, why would He destroy the very finest of His products? G'd therefore wanted to go on record that if the descendants of Adam were mostly doomed it was because of their תולדות their own developments, i.e. their own inadequacies, not G'd's. The word תולדות then predominantly refers to man's deeds. Rashi has already told us in connection with Genesis 6,9: אלה תולדות נח, נח, that the principal descendants of the righteous are their good deeds. In our verse the Torah stresses the reverse. When G'd created man He created him in G'd's likeness. His תולדות, developments, however, all tended to run counter to G'd's will. Ever since the day he was created man developed away from G'd's likeness. David expressed this more eloquently when he paraphrased G'd as saying (Psalms 82,6-7) "I had taken you for divine beings…but you shall die as humans." 
  The reason the Torah repeats that man was created both male and female is to make it clear that though Eve became a separate person only subsequently, the דמות אלוקים, the likeness of G'd, applied to her just as much as it did to Adam. At the same time the Torah wanted to stress an essential difference between G'd and man. Whereas G'd does not procreate, man and woman, though G'd-like in some respects, were meant to procreate. The Torah continues to repeat that G'd had blessed mankind and called their combined name ADAM, to show that He had equipped man with all the advantages possible. Having repeated all this information, the Torah then reports the lifespan of Adam and subseqent generations. Their deaths were due to their own actions.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויולד בדמותו כצלמו. He reproduced in his likeness and in his form. The Torah stressed this positive development, seeing that neither Cain nor Abel represented ideal offspring, both of them dying either almost immediately or their offspring during the deluge. During the 130 years between the birth of Cain and Abel and that of Sheth most of the pollutant Eve absorbed from the serpent had been expelled making it easier for a promising human being to emerge from her womb. We have a tradition that the third son is the most saintly, a tradition that proved itself with both Levi and Moses. It probably originated with the birth of Sheth.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויהיו כל ימי אדם. The total lifespan of Adam comprised, etc. There is a reason why the Torah describes the lifespan of Adam in general as well as in specific terms i.e. כל ימי אשר חי. We have to remember that the lifespan of every human being is determined prior to his birth. This rule did not apply to Adam when he was created as he would have lived forever had he not sinned.. The line ויהיו כל ימי אדם  אשר חי tells us that his lifespan was determined only while he was already alive. When the Torah does employ the words ויהיו כל ימי פלוני this means that all the people mentioned lived out the full lifespan allocated to them at birth. The Torah did not intend to teach us arithmetic by giving us totals when it had already given us the number of years the respective person lived before fathering a son and the years he lived subsequently.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמר השם לא ידון רוחי. G'd said: "My spirit will not abide in man permanently." This verse needs someone to explain it. Our sages have given numerous explanations to it without explaining the plain meaning of the verse. It appears that the Torah wishes to tell us that a change occurred in G'd's dealing with man. During the lifetime of Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, G'd personally had rebuked man for any misdemeanour. When man's deeds became increasingly repulsive to G'd, He decided not to deal with them on such an intimate basis. 
  The word רוחי in our verse therefore means "My Presence." Man had forfeited the privilege of proximity to G'd's Presence. G'd's Presence withdrew from man in direct proportion to his deeds. As long as G'd had confronted man directly whenever He had reason to rebuke them they were on the spiritual level of prophets. When man began to profane himself (meaning of החל in 6,1), he no longer enjoyed that status. In the course of time outstanding individuals, צדיקים, appeared on earth. These individuals succeeded in restoring a closer relationship between man and G'd. After the destruction of the Temple there were no more prophets; the most that remained were individuals who possessed a degree of what our sages describe as רוח הקודש, a measure of holy spirit. Ever since Israel's eyes closed, we no longer have even ריח הקודש, a holy fragrance, not to mention רוח הקודש. The absence of this line of direct communication from G'd is the greatest misfortune for those of us who thirst for at least a fragrance of the holiness of our Father in heaven in order to revive our spirits. The curse we speak about originated with the generation of the deluge. G'd supplies the reason for this in our verse. בשר בשגם הוא, man added to his abominations by adding the sin of בשר, adultery to his other sins. G'd hates sexual permissiveness more than anything else. As a result G'd resented having to communicate directly with such people.
  The characteristic of the righteous is that they refine the body to give it spiritual content. The characteristic of the wicked is that they do the reverse. They degrade the spirit making it the tool of the body. This leads to the destruction of the universe. G'd referred to this when He said: "My spirit will not find satisfaction in them forever more," not even in the world of eternity. This is because they have turned even their spirit into a tool of the flesh. The Talmud (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 108) states that the people who were destroyed by the deluge do not enjoy a life in the Hereafter.
  Another way of understanding our verse is based on the use of the term רוחי. Whereas G'd frequently cancels an evil decree due to considerations of His attribute of Mercy, in this case G'd announced that the decree was irrevocable. Normally, G'd applies the attribute of Mercy because He keeps in mind that man is a mixture of flesh and spirit. In this particular case G'd gave notice בשגם הוא בשר, that the decree was final although man is also flesh.
  Still another meaning addresses G'd's practice of paying the reward or punishment in the Hereafter, the righteous receiving his share in that world and the wicked descending to Gehinom. In this case, G'd gave notice to the wicked that they would not be judged after death but that since they had tainted their spirit as much as their flesh their spirit would also undergo the afflictions normally reserved only for the flesh. The 120 years G'd speaks about is the period needed to allow the righteous of that generation such as Methuselah to live out their allotted lifespan in full. The <i>Zohar</i> on Genesis 7,22 explained: "all that had a soul of living spirit in its nostrils, of all that were on dry land died," as a reference to the righteous who died on dry land, before the onset of the deluge.
  Another message contained in our verse is that henceforth G'd would never again apply the attribute of Mercy exclusively. The verse is introduced with G'd speaking in His capacity of the attribute of Mercy, ויאמר השם. It switches immediately to tell us that His spirit, i.e. that of mercy would not anymore abide in this world completely. G'd attributed part of the corruption in His world to His having exercised too much mercy. He had allowed man to indulge his greed too much. From now on G'd reserved more of His mercy for the Hereafter. As a result of this change of emphasis, even such a righteous man as our patriarch Jacob was not allowed to enjoy the benefits of this world in tranquillity. As soon as Jacob set out to so so, he experienced all the trouble with his favourite son Joseph (compare Rashi on Genesis 37,2).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וירא השם כי רבת רעת האדם, G'd saw that man's wickedness on earth kept increasing. G'd regretted that He had made man on earth. Why was the evil man did connected to "the earth?" The wording of the Torah gives the impression that man perpetrated evil deeds on the body of the earth, whereas their wickedness consisted primarily of violence and sexual perversions as per 6,11-12. While it is justified to describe the theft of land as violence and evil perpetrated on the earth, this is a mere technicality, a minor detail. Why did the Torah not simply say: "G'd regretted having made man," instead of saying that "G'd regretted having made man on earth?" This leads us to believe that if only G'd had made man elsewhere He would not now have had reason to regret it. Surely this is not what the Torah meant to tell us!
  How do we understand G'd's "regretting" anything? Did not Bileam describe G'd (Numbers 23,19) as not ever regretting anything! Besides, what is the point of describing G'd as "saddened?" If this feeling had to be mentioned at all, it should have been mentioned after G'd had carried out His revenge on all the rebellious human beings and had wiped them out. The Torah addresses itself to the four elements man is composed of, fire, air, water and dust. These elements differ in importance and value, the lowliest one being dust seeing it is murky, opaque. The next higher category is water, followed by fire, followed by air or spirit which is the highest ranking of these elements. Although all creatures contain all four elements, different elements predominate in different creatures. The fish are made mostly of water, the birds mostly of air; this is why they can fly and hardly need to rest on earth. The salamander is a creature in which the element of fire predominates. Man is the only creature in which the lowest of the element, dust, predominates. The Torah reported G'd as having fashioned man "dust from the earth" (2,7). This accounts for man's primary habitat being earth. Man cannot live permanently either in the air, the water, or in fire. G'd had numerous reasons for arranging things in this way, one of them being the concept of מדרגות וסולם, that the universe consists of different levels and a ladder. In order for man to rise from one level to another it is important that the ladder which is the means for that spiritual ascent be firmly planted on earth. 
  When G'd observed that man's wickedness kept increasing, He realised that the fact that man was based on the lowest of the four elements was one of the causes. Also, his habitat was on earth which consists largely of the element of dust. This is the meaning of G'd saying that He saw that man's wickedness on earth had increased greatly. This is why G'd "regretted" not having made man primarily of a more refined element. The Torah prefaced G'd's "regret" by stating that man's thoughts were only concerned with evil all day long, and He attributed this to the fact that man was not made predominantly of one of the more refined elements. G'd's "sadness" refers to the impediments that man's raw material posed to his attaining the objectives His Creator had planned for him. This is why the Torah did not say ויתעצב בלבו, but ויתעצב אל לבו. The word אל alludes to the ambitions G'd had harboured for man when He created him  G'd did not want to change the ambitions He had entertained for man for reasons best known to Him; this is why He did not redesign man from one of the other three elements but rather allowed almost the whole species to perish in order to persevere with His original plan. Man's corruption did cause a severe setback to G'd's hopes and timetable. While it is perfectly true that the term "He regretted" is not appropriate for the Creator who has foreseen everything, the Torah is entitled to use the term because of the twin attribute of Mercy and Justice that G'd manifests. When man acts in accordance with the wishes of His Creator the attribute of Justice agrees to G'd giving predominance to His attribute of Mercy. When man rebels, the reverse is the case. Our verse describes that the attribute of Mercy preferred that man had never been made instead of agreeing that man should now be judged by the attribute of Justice. G'd was "saddened" as this was not sufficient reason to consider the whole universe as a failure, a wasted effort.
  We may also understand the passage in connection with what Maimonides wrote in chapter 5 of his הלכות תשובה. "G'd and His knowledge are one and the same [not like man whose perceptive powers are outside his essence. Ed.]. We are unable to understand this properly, just as we lack comprehension of how G'd can know every detail of the future without such knowledge robbing man of his freedom of decision. All we know as a certainty is that G'd does not interfere with man's free choice. The ראב"ד, with characteristic lack of deference, adds that Maimonides is incorrect, that G'd's perceptions are similar to someone foretelling the future by means of a horoscope. Maimonides is surely closer to the truth as G'd's perceptions cannot be compared to man's. Who would dare suggest that G'd obtains knowledge from outside sources, through trial and error and all the other methods used by us to define the character of what we see, hear, or touch. G'd is able to deny, i.e. totally ignore and remain unaffected by knowledge He had previously acquired. It is this the רמב"ם had in mind when he wrote that man cannot comprehend the manner in which G'd perceives. When Bileam declared (Numbers 23,21) that G'd had not seen any iniquity in Jacob, he referred to exactly this ability of G'd to totally ignore something that He knew was going to occur in the future.
  We can therefore say that at the time G'd created man He totally excluded from His conscious mind all and any sins that man would ever commit. He did so for two reasons. 1) G'd is good and does not dwell on evil. This reason does not suffice, however, because G'd needs to know what will happen and what will be the ultimate outcome of what happens now. 2) G'd excludes such future events from His consciousness so that the wicked cannot claim they had been programmed by G'd due to His omniscience, and that therefore they are not culpable for their evil deeds. The wicked believe in what we call "self-fulfilling prophecies," and they consider G'd's foreknowledge as belonging to that category. This concept is part of the verse (1,31): "G'd looked at all He had done and here it was very good." G'd "saw" i.e. foresaw, only what was good, i.e. the deeds of the righteous. Of course you will ask: "if so how could G'd punish someone for a deed that He had not seen?" The Torah tells us that at at this point in time G'd chose to look at the deeds of the wicked; what He saw caused Him to regret that He had for so long ignored these deeds in order that His knowledge would not become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויאמר השם אמחה את האדם. G'd said: I will wipe out man. G'd had to repeat here once more that He "regretted" having made man so that we would understand that G'd's regret expressed in the previous verse was not because of man's deeds, but concerned man's creation <i>per se.</i> Had G'd wanted to wipe out mankind only because of their deeds, anyone who had not committed a serious sin would not have been affected by the decree to wipe out man. This would comprise all the people under twenty years of age. If the decree was due to G'd's regret at having made man at all, everybody would be included in the decree. In view of the fact that the Torah tells us through the repeated use of the word נחמתי that every human being was included in the decree, the Torah had to continue immediately and tell us that there was one single exception, namely Noach. The Torah tells us that Noach "found favour in the eyes of G'd," i.e. not on account of his deeds. Once G'd had decided that He "regretted" having made man Noach's good deeds would have had no impact on his fate. He needed an act of grace by G'd to save him. The fact that G'd granted Noach grace does not mean that he did not deserve to survive based on his good deeds. There are certain categories of מצות, good deeds, which secure a person grace in the eyes of G'd. G'd has deliberately refrained from telling us which מצות fall into that category because otherwise everybody would merely concentrate on performing those commandments.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אלה תולדת נח, Theses are the generations of Noach. When the Torah uses the term "these," it usually intends to exclude something, i.e. "these generations and not any others." In this instance there was no need for the Torah to use the term "these," as we already know that all the generations were doomed. For this reason the sages understand the word to teach us that the principal "generations," i.e. descendants of a person, are man's good deeds. They therefore read the verse as if there were no comma between the words נח, נח to indicate that Noach's descendants were his good deeds (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 30,6). The <i>Midrash</i> was careful to say that the "principal" descendants of the righteous are their good deeds; naturally they also have other descendants. When the good deeds of Noach are described by the word אלה, this is only in contrast with those of the word תולדת at the beginning of chapter 5.
  Another meaning of the sequence נח נח, is illustrated in an imaginary conversation between Moses and Noach reported in <i>Devarim Rabbah</i> 11,3. In that conversation Noach claimed to have been greater than Moses because he was saved during the deluge. Moses retorted that Noach had not been able to save anyone other than himself, whereas he had saved his generation after the sin of the golden calf. The word אלה accordingly describes the limited value of Noach's good deeds. They sufficed only to save himself. The additional word בדורתיו further underlines that Noach did not succeed to make penitents out of his peers. His sons who were considered as his "branches" are therefore included in the name Noach. The Torah accords Noach a compliment which it did not accord to righteous people who had lived before his time. Noach's righteous predecessors all had other righteous people to model themselves after, something that did not apply to Noach. He grew up surrounded only by wicked people. The word אלה therefore also has a positive connotation in that it sets Noach's pious conduct apart from all those who had preceded him.
  There is another message contained in this verse which is commented upon in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 25,2. The Midrash discusses whether Noach's name was in itself blissful, or whether in view of Noach's righteous way of life the blessings he conferred on earth were subsequently reflected in his name. Here is some of the discussion: "When G'd created Adam He invested him with a full range of authority. The cow obeyed the ploughman, the furrow co-operated with the plough. As soon as Adam sinned, the cow no longer responded to its owner, nor did the earth respond to the plough. This situation continued until the time of Noach. Once Noach appeared on earth the situation changed in man's favour. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish added that until Noach the waters would flood the earth, something that stopped during Noach's time. At any rate, the name Noach is repeated in our verse to indicate the beneficial effect his existence had on the well being of his peers. The repetition of the word תולדת and the use of the word איש are an allusion to the fact that Noach was איש האדמה, an outstanding farmer (as is stated explicitly after the deluge (9,20). Our sages (<i>Tanchuma Bereshit</i> 11) find Noach's successful impact on farming alluded to in 5,29 where his father Lemech predicts that his son Noach will provide relief for עצבון ידינו, "the painful labour of our hands." The fact that Noach was born without a foreskin gave rise to these hopes. Apparently Noach invented a usable plough. The word צדיק hints that the righteous is the foundation of the universe, that without a righteous person the universe would forfeit its reason for existence. But for Noach the earth would have perished at the time of the deluge. The word חמים should be understood in the same vein as the Talmud <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 10 explains it. The Talmud understands the word צדיק as a reference to Noach's deeds, whereas the word תמים is a reference to Noach's lifestyle, his attitudes [as opposed to understanding the word as an adjective describing his righteousness. Ed.] All of this is additional praise for Noach who was able to perfect his personality in the face of such wicked contemporaries. Noach did far more than could have been expected of him. Our sages call such conduct לפנים משורת הדין. According to Samuel II, 22,27 G'd acts loyally with the loyal, whereas He uses wile in dealing with the perverse. According to this yardstick Noach would have been free to do likewise, but he chose to be more considerate than required by law. When the Torah describes Noach's perfection as בדורותיו this means that his goodness was recognised even by the people of his time. The plural in the expression בדורותיו reminds us that the average person's lifespan involves three generations. He lives during part of his father's generation, his contemporaries, and during part of his children's generation. Noach was unique during all these three generations; the only righteous member of a former generation that he shared time on earth with was his grandfather Methuselah. When the Torah tells us את האלוקים התהלך נח, that Noach walked with G'd, this means that even vis a vis G'd Noach's conduct was very constructive. Our sages tell us in connection with Noach's offering after the deluge (8,21) וירח השם את ריח הניחוח, that Noach's name is alluded to in the word ניחוח. The reason the Torah repeats the name Noach at the beginning is to refer to this second dimension of Noach's beneficial effect on mankind, when G'd decided not to bring another deluge ever, due to Noach's gratitude. The reason the Torah uses the verb הלך when describing Noach's conduct vis-a-vis G'd is because G'd describes a desirable conduct by man in those terms in Deut. 28,9. When the Torah here employs the reflexive התהלך, this merely emphasises that Noach kept walking with G'd. He provided pleasure to His Creator all the time, something which found its ultimate expression in his sacrifice after the deluge.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויולד נח שלשה בנים. Noach fathered three sons. Why did the Torah have to repeat here that Noach fathered three sons when we have been told this already in 5,32? The mention of the number "three" seems quite superfluous in view of the fact that the Torah tells us the name of each son. Surely we can count up to three! Why did Noach's name have to be repeated? No one else is the subject here! The word בנים, sons, also seems superfluous. All the Torah had to write was: "Noach fathered Shem, Cham, and Yephet." Why did the Torah add the word את in front of each of the names?
  In view of our explanation that the Torah considered Noach's good deeds his principal descendants, and that it was on that account that Noach had found favour in the eyes of G'd, our verse is necessary. Had the Torah failed to repeat the information contained in 5,32, we would not have considered his three sons as a positive accomplishment on Noach's part. The Torah does not report anything positive or negative about these sons. We would have thought these three sons as unfit either on account of their own poor characters or because Noach had not fathered them in order to fulfil G'd's commandment. The Torah therefore lists the birth of these three sons immediately after the list of Noach's good deeds so as to include them in that list. I have found in the <i>Midrash</i> that Noach foresaw that his sons would anger G'd and as a result he decided there was no point in siring children during the first five hundred years of his life. At that point G'd commanded Noach to marry and to have children. He had children in order to keep alive the human species. I believe that this Midrash interpreted the words את האלוקים התהלך נח to mean that Noach thought he was approaching death; therefore he sired children before it was too late. Another meaning of these words could be that Noach realised he would soon be judged by the attribute of Justice for failing to have sired children. This is why he hastened to get married and to sire children to rectify his sin of omission. Another reason for Noach's tardiness in marrying and raising a family (according to several <i>Midrashim</i>) is that G'd commanded Noach to build the ark when he was 480 years old. The deluge would occur in another 120 years. In those days children were not held accountable for their sins until they were one hundred years old. Noach wanted to insure that when the deluge came his children deserved to be saved because they had not reached the age when G'd held them responsible for their deeds. Hence he waited until he was 500 years old before he sired any children (Compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 26,2 based on Isaiah 65,20). Accordingly, Noach's eldest son would be under 100 years old at the beginning of the deluge.
  The reason Noach's name is mentioned once more a) is to demonstrate again that he brought a new-found מנוחה rest or satisfaction to life on earth, b) to remind us that were it not for their father, these sons would not have been saved. Surely there were many youngsters below the age of one hundred at the time the deluge started and none of those were spared. I refer the reader to my comment on the words: "I have seen you to be a righteous person in this generation (7,1)." The three times את which appeared at first glance as superfluous refer to the wives of Noach's sons who were also saved only on account of Noach. If the sons of Noach per se did not warrant saving, why did G'd consider it necessary to repeat the report of the three sons that were born to Noach prior to the deluge?
  We have to fall back on <i>Sanhedrin</i> 69 where the Talmud proves that the list of Noach's sons presented by the Torah is not according to their seniority but is based on the sons' relative intelligence. Shem is mentioned first as he was the most intelligent. If this were not so he could not have been described as one hundred years old when he sired Arpachshad two years after the deluge (11,10). If the Torah had not mentioned the extra word בנים, but had merely given their names, we would have concluded that the list of their names was according to the order of their births.
  
  Verse 11
  
   ותשחת הארץ. The earth had become corrupt. This entire verse is superfluous in view of 6,5. If the Torah only wanted to spell out details of man's sins, this too had been spelled out in greater detail in the previous passage. If the Torah wanted to add the element of violence perpetrated by man on earth, that is all that needed mentioning here. Besides, why did the Torah switch to the use of the name אלוקים, the attribute of Justice, whereas in 6,5 G'd's attribute of Mercy is used? What do the words לפני האלוקים in our verse add to our understanding? Why does the Torah repeat once more in 6,12 that "G'd saw, etc.?" The Torah certainly did not need to tell us that G'd had become aware of man's sins, as we all know that He is aware of all this?
  We must understand the passage along the lines of the <i>Mishnah Avot</i> 4,11 that when a person violates a single commandment he acquires one accuser for himself. The "accuser" is to be understood as a destructive power (angel). This destructive power is not unleashed until the Supreme Judge of the whole universe has given a verdict concerning the person guilty of a misdemeanour. This is the deeper meaning of every time the Torah speaks about a sinner "carrying his guilt" (Leviticus 5,17 et al). Once G'd has pronounced judgment, He unleashes these accumulated destructive forces. When the prophet Jeremiah 2,19 says: תיסרך רעתך, "your wickedness will discipline you," he refers to these destructive forces which our sins have created and which G'd unleashes after having judged us. We have to appreciate that although G'd holds the accuser in check so that he cannot yet harm us, this applies only as long as our sins are relatively few or minor. If our sins keep accumulating, they exert pressure on the Heavenly Court so that the perpetrator of the sin may find himself the victim of some of these accusers even before final judgment has been decreed upon him. When the Torah speaks of "the earth had become corrupted before G'd," this means that before G'd had completed judging everyone individually, the collective total of the destructive powers created by man's sins was such that the destructive forces already dominated the earth. The reason the Torah speaks about הארץ is to tell us that the corruption had penetrated earth itself.
  The Torah said in the previous verse: "the earth had become full of this corruption in the form of violence." Why did the Torah reverse this sequence? It should first have stated what G'd saw, and afterwards the extent of the corruption. As it is, the Torah tells us of the effect before telling us of the cause! The inverted method of reporting is to emphasise that even after the earth had already become full of corruption, all of which is subsumed under the heading "violence," man added further abominations to those already perpetrated. Although it is G'd's virtue to forgive or suspend punishment (נושא עון) until the time He sits in judgment, the sins of this generation were such that G'd could no longer practice this virtue. It was somewhat similar to when Cain had said to G'd that he found his penalty too hard to bear. He had used the term גדול עוני מנשוא, "is my guilt too great to forgive (4,13)?" Alternatively, the words ותשחת הארץ refer to the actual deeds, which caused the earth to become full of destructive agents all of which are described as חמס. G'd informed Noach (6,13) of this when He told him that קץ כל בשר בא לפני, that "the end for all flesh is approaching." According to the <i>Zohar</i> this means that the destructive forces created by man's sins which are called קץ have appeared before G'd demanding the speedy destruction of the perpetrators of all this evil. The Torah tells us for how long G'd restrained the attribute of Justice. This is why we have repeated references to G'd's awareness of man's wickedness ever since 6,5. When the Torah here finally uses the word אלוקים to describe G'd, it is to give notice that the attribute of Mercy itself had turned into one demanding that justice be done.
  ותמלא הארץ חמס. The earth was filled with violence. There is a <i>Midrash</i> which illustrates the violence perpetrated by describing how people each helped themselves to a lupine out of a bowl that was set on the table. The Rabbis could not understand why the example mentioned shows that mankind was exterminated for a robbery involving such a minute amount. According to halachah theft of an amount worth less than a פרוטה, a certain small coin, is not subject to prosecution! I believe that the <i>Midrash</i> wanted to demonstrate that not only were the people of that generation guilty of violating all the seven Noachide commandments, but of something additional. They were sophisticated enough to engage in the kind of theft that was not subject to prosecution because the stolen goods came into their possession indirectly. According to Maimonides chapter nine of <i>Hilchot Melachim</i> even merely withholding wages from a labourer was subject to the death penalty in those days. Nonetheless the people of that generation were astute enough to borrow, i.e. to secure themselves credit and to draw on these credits in amounts of less than the value of the coin mentioned. This did not make them subject to prosecution if they failed to repay the credits. According to others it did not constitute robbery as long as the object was given to them willingly by its owner. Here in our verse the Torah may have alluded to all these kinds of robbery.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמר אלוקים קץ כל בשר, G'd said: "The end of all flesh, etc." If we accept the sages' interpretation that the "violence" mentioned here comprised such sins as bloodshed, incest, and idolatry, we can understand the harshness of the retribution. If however, the word חמס refers to robbery with violence (compare Rashi based on <i>Sanhedrin</i> 108), why would the victims of the robbery suffer the same fate as the perpetrators of the crime?
  Although one might answer that everybody indulged in robbery, each one according to what he thought he could get away with, our sages (<i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 23,9) have explained the matter differently when they said that in any society in which sexual licentiousness abounds retribution will strike both the wicked and the good people. Therefore we must understand our verse as saying that though the decree to destroy mankind was sealed because of the prevalence of robbery with violence, the fact that amongst all the sins there were many instances of sexual licentiousness and promiscuity resulted in the retribution including also those who were innocent of robbery. You may ask that all these people could have saved themselves from Divine retribution by each one forgiving the other? As a result of this G'd would not have sealed the evil decree! Perhaps G'd did not want to reveal the effectiveness of mutual forgiveness to anyone but Noach. Noach in turn was not able to reveal this secret to his contemporaries seeing that unless G'd tells a person to communicate revelations made to him to others, such revelations are confidential communications from G'd. One of the reasons G'd did not want this secret revealed to Noach's contemporaries may have been that they all remained guilty of having committed robbery. The sin of robbery cannot be atoned for by simply offering the sinner your forgiveness without making restitution. Although the <i>Midrash</i> mentioned types of robbery which are not subject to prosecution, these types of robbery were not the only ones perpetrated by the people of Noach's time. The people of that generation indulged in every form of robbery. Whenever they confronted someone stronger than themselves they resorted to the kind of trickery described by the <i>Midrash.</i> Otherwise they had no qualms about simply grabbing what they fancied.
  The reason G'd explained to Noach exactly what sins prompted Him to decree destruction of the species was to motivate him to build the ark so that all living creatures could be preserved until after the deluge.
  Next we must explain what prompted Noach not to ask G'd to have mercy on the people of his time (as did Abraham when G'd told him He would destroy Sodom). It appears that Abraham learned from Noach not to bother to ask that G'd spare a city when there were fewer than ten good people in it. Unless he had learned this from Noach, who told Abraham that it would be futile to pray for the survival of a city which contained fewer than ten righteous people?
  Noach became convinced from what G'd told him that any prayer of his would be futile, that the fate of these people had been sealed beyond reprieve. All of this is contained in the words: "the end of all flesh has come before Me, here I am about to destroy them." When G'd told Abraham (Genesis 18,20-21) about the sinful nature of the people of Sodom He did not use such kind of language at all. On the contrary, He told Abraham that He was going to examine if what had come to His attention was indeed so, etc. While it is true that in the case of Sodom G'd carried out His decree as soon as He had <i>confirmed</i> the true state of affairs, G'd wanted to demonstrate to Abraham that He does not exercise His power arbitrarily. We have explained in that connection that G'd spoke to Abraham in a manner that invited him to pray on behalf of the doomed cities. Something similar occurred during the episode of the golden calf when G'd proclaimed His intent to wipe out the Jewish people in such a way that Moses saw an opening for his prayer. None of these openings were provided for Noach.
  One cannot argue that if G'd did not want Noach to pray for his contemporaries, He did not have to tell Noach what He was going to do and why. G'd needed to tell Noach in order that the latter build the ark. This commandment alone convinced Noach that it would be useless to pray on behalf of the people. Abraham concluded from the fact that Noach and his family were not enough to save the earth from the deluge that fewer than ten good people could not save a town from destruction.
  
  Verse 14
  
   עשה לך תבת עצי גפר. Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood. In order to understand this verse fully we must refer to Ezekiel 14,14 where the prophet speaks of three men, i.e. Noach, Daniel, and Job who managed to save their own lives due to their personal piety. The prophet there claims that G'd had told him that even if all these three pious men were alive in Jerusalem at that time they could not save the city from disaster though they personally would be saved. The reason all three of these pious men are mentioned is to teach us that even two of them together would not suffice to save themselves at that time in Jerusalem. Some of the earlier commentators wondered that in view of the many pious people who perished during the destruction of the Temple (compare Psalms 79,2 "they have left Your servants' corpses etc."), how was it that if three pious people could have saved themselves that the far more numerous number of pious people who died during the destruction of the city did not manage to save themselves? One of the answers given is that each pious person may have been scattered amongst many sinners, whereas if three pious persons had stuck together they would certainly have been saved by their merits. This may have been the reason that Noach could only be saved after building the ark, i.e. providing a separate environment for himself. As long as he had been surrounded by his compatriots without a מחיצה, dividing wall, he would have been swept away together with them. If Noach had had a few more pious people with him, he and they would have been saved without the need to construct their own environment. Under such circumstances the verse in Psalms 94,15 עד צדק ישוב משפט, that under certain circumstances righteousness could have reversed judgment, would have been applicable. From the fact that Noach was required to build an ark we learn that his sons did not match him in piety. Had they done so, Noach would not have needed to construct the ark but would have been saved in his own habitat. We need to reconcile this with the words of our sages which I have quoted earlier, and according to which Abraham learned from Noach that it was futile to pray for a city with fewer than ten righteous people to be saved. If Noach was the only righteous man in his generation what could Abraham have learned from this? We must therefore assume that though Noach's sons were righteous they were not perfectly righteous people such as their father. When Abraham prayed about righteous people being able to save a town he meant perfectly righteous people, not those whose good deeds barely outweighed their sins. This is the reason that Ezekiel listed the names of outstandingly righteous men such as Noach, Daniel, and Job. He did not refer to three average type צדיקים. We learn from Ezekiel that once the destructive agents have been given permission by G'd to carry out their function, who and under what circumstances someone can restrain them.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואני הנני מביא את המבול. As far as I am concerned, here I shall bring on a deluge. It is difficult to justify the extra word ואני. Rashi explains it to mean: "I am prepared to concur with those angels who have considered man as not worth preserving." According to my own approach it simply means that the stage had been reached for G'd to give permission to the destructive agents which had readied themselves to carry out their design. Although the verse specifies only rain, the <i>Zohar</i> has elaborated on the meaning of the word מבול which would not have been needed had the Torah referred only to rain. This word alludes to the deadly power of the angel of death.
  
  Verse 18
  
   והקימותי את בריתי. I shall fulfil My covenant. Why did G'd not first tell Noach to enter the ark seeing that his survival depended on that? Our sages (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 31,12) say that the covenant in question was merely that Noach's peers would not kill him when he would enter the ark. In that event it is quite appropriate that the Torah first mentioned G'd as maintaining His covenant with Noach.
  An additional meaning maybe that G'd was afraid that Noach would not consider his salvation as a permanent one. He might feel that what was about to occur now might occur again some generations later if mankind did not improve. G'd therefore already hinted to him what He would spell out in more detail after Noach's thanks-giving offering in 8,21. In the meantime Noach had to enter the ark to escape the destruction that would kill all flesh.
  G'd may also have wanted to reassure Noach prior to his entering the ark that He would not abandon him during the time it took to sit out the deluge in the ark. Noach should not worry that the ark itself would prove a death trap. This assurance helped Noach as we know from 8,1 where the Torah mentions that G'd remembered Noach during all that time. After this G'd commanded Noach to enter the ark under the protection of this covenant. Although the covenant is not mentioned again in connection with 7,1, G'd relied on His previous assurance to Noach in this regard. The covenant is alluded to again in 8,1 where G'd is reported as "remembering" all those in the ark. Even though Rashi understands G'd as "remembering" Noach's good deeds and the animals refraining from mating while in the ark, this is homiletics and not the plain meaning of the verse.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   מהעוף למינהו. From the birds according to their kind. It is peculiar that the birds are mentioned before the mammals in this list. If the list is in order of their respective importance, the mammals should have been mentioned first; if the list is in an ascending order the crawling creatures should have been mentioned first. Why does the Torah use this peculiar order? Perhaps the birds enjoy a certain distinction over the mammals because they multiply so profusely. It is interesting that only the "pure" birds multiply so profusely; the 24 categories of "impure" birds which are not fit for consumption by Jews do not multiply as profusely. We have a tradition (<i>Chulin</i> 63?) according to which 120 varieties of birds were found on the Temple Mount, all of which are sub-categories of the איה, the falcon. At any rate these birds are greatly outnumbered by the "pure" birds. The Torah lists only ten categories of mammals which may be consumed by Jews. Presumably this is the reason the Torah commanded Noach to have the birds enter the ark ahead of the mammals. The difference in the description of the birds as למינהו, and the mammals as למינה, indicates that there were more categories and sub-categories of birds (compare Rashi). The Torah lists the respective categories of creatures, i.e. birds, mammals, and crawling creatures according to their relative mobility.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויאמד…בא אל התיבה. G'd said…."enter the ark!." Why did G'd have to repeat here that He had seen that Noach was a righteous man in his generation? G'd may have feared that Noach would misinterpret the command to enter the ark together with all his immediate family. He might have thought a) that every family member would be saved due to his or her individual merit; in that case the Torah should not have addressed the command to build the ark to Noach in the singular; b) he might have thought that his wife, children, and their respective wives were being saved because they had not yet reached the age of accountability. If Noach had thought this he might have been tempted to invite all those of his friends who were young enough to share the ark with him in order to survive. Even if he had not done so on his own initiative, he might have wondered why all these youngsters were doomed to perish.
  G'd told Noach once more that He had found only him as a righteous person at that time in order to lay to rest any of the other ideas Noach might have had on the subject. He now understood that any youngster who did not have a righteous father was caught in the sins of his father who was punished to die without issue.
  The statement of our sages that Jewish minors have a share in the world to come, whereas Gentile minors do not (<i>Kohelet Rabbah</i> 4,1 and <i>Avot de Rabbi Nathan</i> 36,1), may be based on our verse. In Noach's generation everyone was considered an idolator and it was reasonable to assume that the children would take after their fathers. Noach, on the other hand, took a more optimistic view of the possible development of the minors. G'd therefore had to tell him that he could not save any youngsters barrring his own.
  
  Verse 2
  
   מכל הבהמה הטהורה תקח לך שבעה. "Take with you for yourself seven (pairs) each of the pure mammals." The expression תקח לך has a dual meaning. 1) He should make the effort to secure these animals as his eventual "payment" [expression of his gratitude to G'd for being saved. Ed.]. The words "for your own self" are therefore justified. If not for this verse we might have asked who had given Noach permission to simply kill these animals? After all, Noach had been commanded to keep the species alive, not to slaughter them! Noach would have reasoned that inasmuch as these categories of beasts are urgently needed for man G'd had commanded to take 7 pairs instead of just a single pair. G'd therefore had to indicate to Noach that the greater number was for his own good, not for the general good. Had Noach simply wanted to slaughter these animals and to eat their meat this too would have been in order.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויעש נח ככל אשר צוהו השם. Noach did in accordance with all that G'd commanded him. Rashi comments that this refers to his entering the ark. If that were the meaning there was no need for the Torah's comment as the Torah spells this out in 7,7 as well as 7,13. 
  I believe that the Torah meant tell us that Noach did indeed take seven pairs each from all the respective categories of pure mammals and pure birds, although the report in 7,8-7,9 does not mention that seven pairs came to the ark of their own accord.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   שנים שנים באו אל נח. They came to Noach in pairs. The Torah points out that these animals came of their own volition; Noach did not have to search for them or catch them. One of the reasons the Torah does not mention seven pairs of pure animals here is that only the number of animals that came to the ark to maintain their species are mentioned here. G'd guided them to the ark and Noach admitted them. The additional animals that served as תשלום, payment, Noach had to provide himself. You find this confirmed in verse 15 when the animals that came to the ark are specifically described as being only pairs.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   וימח את כל היקום. He dissolved all life. Not only did all living creatures of the earth (dry land) die, as pointed out in verse 21, but their remains dissolved completely due to the heat of the waters. No trace of them was left. This verse also enables us to understand the comment of Rabbi Ami in <i>Eyruvin</i> 18 on Psalms 139,5: אחור וקדם צרתני, ותשת עלי כפכה, "You have made me before and behind; You lay Your hand upon me." Rabbi Ami understood this to mean that Adam was created at the end of the whole process of creation whereas the word קדם refers to "prior to the curse." Rabbi Ami meant that man disintegrated before the curse, i.e. before all the animals' bodies dissolved. He referred to man dying ahead of the animals during the deluge. Who needed Rabbi Ami to tell us something that the Torah has already spelled out in 7,23? Actually, when you look at verse 21 you notice that the death of the creatures is reported in the reverse order, i.e. first the animals, then the human beings. According to our interpretation there is no contradiction here. Whereas verse 21 discusses the timing of the deaths, verse 23 discusses the dissolution of the remains of the dead creatures. Man's remains dissolved first though he had died last.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויזכר אלוקים את נח. G'd remembered Noach. The reason the Torah was not content to mention that G'd remembered Noach but added that He remembered all the beasts that were in the ark with him may have been that the animals by themselves already warranted that G'd should remember them.
  Another reason is that the Torah includes in that statement that G'd considered all the hard and menial work Noach was subjected to in looking after all the animals under his care. G'd had pity on Noach. The Torah wanted to emphasise that G'd's major concern was Noach and not the animals.
  ויעבד אלוקים רוח על הארץ וישבו המים. G'd made a wind pass over the earth and the waters subsided. The Torah here wishes to tell us that G'd had commanded the waters to become tumultuous just as He had commanded the waters during the six days of creation to swarm with fish, etc. Here G'd commanded the waters to conduct themselves with their full power; as a result of that the remains of the creatures which had died disintegrated completely. Had it not been for this fact there would have been no point in verse 24 telling us that the waters swelled on earth for 150 days. After all, the remains of all creatures had already disintegrated previously. Until G'd remembered Noach (our verse) the waters had no reason to act differently than the instructions they had received from G'd.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויסכדו מעינות תהום. The wells of the deep closed up. The Torah here hints that the waters beneath the earth had risen in proportion to the rain descending from the heavens. These two phenomena go hand in hand. Our verse alludes to this fact by mentioning the withdrawal of the waters beneath the earth as occurring simultaneously with the cessation of the rain from the heavens. We have pointed out previously that these two types of waters complement each other, enabling growth to occur (<i>Taanit</i> 28).
  
  Verse 3
  
   וישובו המים מעל הארץ. The waters retreated from the earth's surface. The waters which had flooded the earth kept retreating towards the oceans. They decreased naturally, starting 150 days after the onset of the deluge.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   והמים הלוך וחסור. The waters kept ebbing away. Part of the water retreated whereas part still flooded the earth until the tenth month.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום. It was at the end of a period of forty days. How did Noach know when the time had come to safely open the window? Was he not scared the surrounding waters would flood the ark? Perhaps G'd had told him that the deluge would not last longer than twelve months and he had prepared a food supply to last for that period of time.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וישלח את העורב. He sent away the raven. Why did Noach sent away the raven? If it was to examine if the waters had receded sufficiently, why does the Torah not mention this? If the Torah assumed that we could figure this out for ourseleves, why did the Torah mention the reason for Noach sending out the dove? What exactly is the meaning of: "it went to and fro until the water on the earth dried out?" If the meaning is that the raven could not find a place to rest outside the ark and that therefore it kept re-entering the ark and leaving anew, why was there a need to send out a dove altogether? Did not the raven's behaviour indicate that the waters had not yet eased sufficiently? What exactly does the Torah mean by the words עד יבשת המים? Furthermore, did Noach not have sufficient information once he sent out the dove? Why does the Torah not mention that Noach extended his hand to bring the raven back, just as it does in connection with the dove in verse 9?
  The entire verse must be understood in light of the aggadah (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 108) that the raven mated while in the ark and that Noach knew about it. This is why he expelled the raven from the ark as soon as he opened its window. This is why the Torah does not mention that the raven was despatched in order to examine the extent to which the waters had receded. The raven was forced to remain outside the ark though it tried to return to it. This situation continued until the waters on the earth had dried out. When Noach wanted to know how far the waters had receded he sent out the dove. He had not been able to find this out from the raven which he had expelled. The dove was willing to undertake the mission of relaying information to Noach. Initially, the dove reported that it had not been able to find a place to rest. As soon as Noach heard this he took the dove back into the ark with him. The detailed wording of verse 9 suggests that Noach made a special place in the ark for the dove. Later on Noach sent out the same dove a second time.
  Our sages derived another lesson from the wording of this verse when they stated (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 108) that the raven used an ironclad argument when it accused both G'd and Noach of hating it. It said: "G'd hates me because only a single pair of my species has been allowed into the ark whereas the "pure" birds are represented by seven pairs. You hate me because you endangered me instead of one of the birds of which there are seven pairs." The raven went on to suspect Noach of personal motives in sending it on a mission so that Noach could have relations with its mate. Noach was very angry, telling the raven that since he refrained from having inter-course with is own wife in the ark he most certainly would not dream of mating with a species that was forbidden to him. According to this aggadah the raven refused to undertake the mission Noach wanted to assign to it for fear of its species becoming extinct should anything happen to it outside the ark. As a result, Noach had to send the dove on the mission originally planned for the raven. The raven's very fear and constant circling of the ark told Noach that the waters were still covering most of the earth. What Noach did not know was whether the water level on earth was already substantially lower. He sent out the dove to find out this information.
  The deeper meaning of the aggadah depicting the raven's confrontation with Noach can be understood in terms of Psalms 69,27: "For they persecute those whom You have struck." Normally, those who have been persecuted can expect to encounter mercy and pity. The people who persecute Jews in exile heap more suffering on those already in unfortunate circumstances. This was basically the raven's argument against Noach when it said: "is it not enough that Your Master hates me, must you hate me also?" The raven continued: "if you are not motivated by hatred of me, do you have designs on my mate and wish me out of the way?" The raven implied that precisely because Noach was not allowed to have sexual relations with his wife in the ark, he might have reasoned that he could have relations with other species. There is no reason to question why the raven's mate should be different from any other female animal. The raven's argument applied to all female animals, but seeing the others remained under their mates' supervision Noach would not be able to carry out such a design unseen. Only the female raven would be unprotected during its mate's absence from the ark.
  The raven may also have extrapolated from the very fact that it had been guilty of mating in the ark. It reasoned that the fact that Noach had seen this take place had aroused his instincts. Our sages have always claimed that watching something arouses one's greed and lust to possess the object one has watched. This is why the sages have been so careful to forbid looking at parts of the body. Noach was angry at the raven for having referred to G'd only as Noach's "Master," not it's own. This is why he called the raven "wicked." Concerning the suspicion that Noach had designs on the raven's mate, Noach retorted that seeing he had been able to restrain himself from sleeping with his own wife, something which was only a simple prohibition, he could certainly restrain himself from sleeping with the raven's mate, something that involved violating two prohibitions.
  Another reason that prompted Noach to call the raven "wicked" in that aggadah is that Noach applied the principle כל הפוסל במומו פוסל, that "when someone accuses others of moral shortcomings, he usually accuses the outsider of a moral defect that he himself is guilty of" (<i>Kidushin</i> 70). Noach told the raven it could never have suspected him of what it did unless it was guilty of such misdemeanours itself. The reason the Talmud describes the raven's argument as ניצחת, ironclad, is that Noach could not answer why he had picked for this mission a bird of which there was only a single pair.
  Another reason why Noach called the raven wicked could be that seeing it had impregnated its mate already, the species would not die out even if some accident were to befall the male raven on its mission. Its very wickedness therefore had made the raven the only expendable bird.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   וישלח ידו ויקחה ויבא אותה אל התבה. He extended his hand, took her (the dove) and brought her to him into the ark. The verse tells us that the dove was exhausted from its mission, not having found a place to land. Noach was worried that the dove did not have strength enough to enter the ark on her own and would fall into the water and drown.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   צא מן התבה אתה ואשתך. Leave the ark, you and your wife, etc. The wording was intended to permit Noach what had been forbidden to him while he was in the ark, namely normal relations with his wife. G'd also commanded all the other species to resume multiplying. G'd made this resumption of sexual relations dependent on Noach and the other species having left the ark. Even though the deluge was over, normalcy returned only after they all left the ark. All of this is indicated again by the report in the next verse that the males and the females exited from the ark separately. There was no point in telling us this except to teach us that the ark was not a home, but only a refuge.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
   ויאמר השם אל לבו לא אוסיף עוד לקלל G'd said to His heart: "I will not continue to curse, etc." Why does G'd use the words לא אוסיף twice in the same verse? Rashi claims that the repetition makes the statement equivalent to an oath. He bases himself on <i>Shavuot</i> 36. This poses a problem, seeing that the sages do not really say this. This is the text of the Talmud: Rabbi Eliezer said the word לא is a term used as an oath; the word הן is also a term used as an oath; Rabbi Eliezer quotes some verse as proof. Rava corrects his statement by saying that only when these words are used twice do they constitute an oath. Rava quotes Genesis 9,11 ולא יכרת כל בשר עוד ממי המבול ולא יהיה עוד מבול, all flesh will not again be annihilated by the waters of the deluge, nor will there ever be another flood, as proof for his rule. The fact that Rava quotes this verse and not 8,21 shows that he means two separate verses or statements are needed. The single verse in 8,21 does not constitute an oath according to the Talmud.
  The Talmud is quite correct in not using the repeated words לא אוסיף as an oath where G'd is reported as saying this "to His heart." In that verse the words לא אוסיף were applied to two different undertakings by G'd. He promised not to curse the earth, and He promised not to curse all the living creatures. It would not be proper to speak of a repetition then. What G'd undertook in this verse was not to punish the earth again on account of man's deeds as He had done when Adam sinned and when Cain sinned. Not even a part of the earth would henceforth be cursed on account of man's actions or inactions. In addition G'd expressed His satisfaction with Noach's sacrifice and promised not to smite whole categories of creatures even when this did not involve destroying their habitat. It is clear then that there is no oath here since G'd did not repeat anything. That is why Rava in the Talmud uses the verse in 9,11 as an example of an oath. We will explain that verse in detail in its proper place. Perhaps Rashi had a different version of the Talmud as suggested by the commentary of the רא׳ש on that folio.
  We still need to supply a reason why the verse once mentions the curse before the word עוד, i.e. לא אוסיף לקלל עוד, whereas in the second half of the verse the sequence is ולא אוסיף עוד להכות, the word עוד already appearing before the predicate of the sentence. The reason is that a curse directed at the earth already has a past history, i.e. earth has been cursed before and the effects of that curse still existed. When G'd curses living creatures there is no noticeable effect of any previous curse as any living creatures that had been cursed or smitten prior to the present curse were already dead and as if they had never existed. Our verse incorporates this nuance. It reminds us that the earth was still suffering from the effect of previous curses.
  כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from its youth. This statement is best understood as similar to the Talmud <i>Baba Kama</i> 39. The Talmud discusses an incidence in which a bull trained to perform in an arena has gored someone. Such an animal is not subject to the death penalty as it only did what it was expected to do. The reason cited in that <i>Mishnah</i> is that the Torah uses the future tense יגח in Exodus 21,28 when providing the death penalty for oxen which gore a human being. Animals which have been trained to do just that are not culpable for doing what comes naturally. Similarly, man, equipped as he is with an evil instinct from birth, is not culpable until he has learned to distinguish right from wrong. This rule applies to minors not being subject to the judiciary process. They are, however, punishable by G'd for not having heeded His call. In that respect man is not like the bull we mentioned. Man's advantage over the beasts is his knowledge of good and evil. He is charged with despising evil and choosing what is good. The fact that man was born with the יצר הרע only, acts like an extenuating circumstance protecting him against G'd's anger.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   כל רמש אשר הוא חי, Any moving thing which is alive, etc. We need to understand why meat had not been permitted as food to Adam whereas now G'd permitted Noach to enjoy a meat diet. There may have been three reasons why Noach was permitted to eat meat. 1) His care for the animals during a whole year in the ark kept the whole species alive. 2) He expended a great deal of tender care on these animals. It is with regard to this that the Psalmist 128,2 says: יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך. "When you eat what you have laboured for with your hands, you will be happy and well off." 3) G'd was in a favourable frame of mind having promised not to destroy all flesh. Hence He permitted Noach to eat of the fruit of his labours.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   פרו ורבו. Be fruitful and multiply! It was necessary to repeat this because when the Torah permitted resumption of marital relations when Noach and his wife left the ark (8,16), He gave permission to multiply. In this instance G'd commanded man to be fruitful and to multiply. Why did the Torah have to repeat this formula both in 9,1 and here in 9,7? Presumably in 9,1 the Torah introduced this commandment as a desirable action on man's part, a מצוה, whereas here it is repeated as a חובה, an absolute duty. Not only is performance of this commandment subject to reward, non-performance is subject to punishment.
  The letter ו at the beginning of the verse ואתם is a strong hint in that direction. G'd said to Noach that inasmuch as He had sworn never again to destroy all flesh, man too must perform something in recognition of G'd's oath, i.e. to be fruitful and to multiply. We can now understand the statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 41 that if someone takes hold of his member and ejaculates, this is tantamount to his bringing a deluge on the world. Our sages considered such action a breach of the mutual oath between G'd and man. When man deliberately destroys his semen he is in violation of that oath.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   והקימותי את בריתי אתכם. And I will keep My covenant with you. We need to understand why the Torah repeated the promise that all flesh would not be destroyed again and that there would not be another deluge. If, as Rava had said in <i>Shavuot</i> 36, the reason is to give this assurance the status of an oath, our sages used both this and the second half of the verse, ולא יהיה המים for that purpose. They ignored 8,21 in that context. I have explained all that in connection with 8,21.
  Perhaps we need to understand this verse in light of what the Talmud says in <i>Sotah</i> 11. The Talmud there questions why the Torah used the singular when speaking of the Jewish nation in Exodus 1,10. Why did the Torah say הבה נתחכמה לו, "let us outsmart it," instead of הבה נתחכמה להם, "let us outsmart them." Rabbi Chamah says there that the pronoun לו refers to the saviour of the Jewish people, i.e. to G'd. The Egyptians wanted to kill the Jewish babies by drowning because G'd had sworn not to bring another deluge. The Egyptians were aware that G'd makes the punishment fit the crime and that therefore G'd's retribution would have to be by water. They were confident they could escape G'd's wrath because He had sworn not to bring on another deluge. They did not realise that G'd had only promised not to flood the whole earth at one time; G'd remained free to flood parts of the earth at any time. Besides, G'd's promise extended to the waters not "descending" upon man; if man decided to walk into the waters, as did the Egyptians in Exodus 14,27, this was not part of the oath at all. Thus far the Talmud in <i>Sotah.</i> According to the first statement in the verse לא יכרת כל בשר עוד ממי המבול, G'd undertook not to bring on a flood which would engulf everybody; He was free to kill part of mankind by means of a flood; according to the second half of the verse G'd undertook not to destroy the earth itself even if He were forced to bring on a partial flood. The second half of the verse is a promise to earth, not to man. It would not have sufficed to write merely: "there will not be another deluge." This is why the Torah adds: "all flesh will not again be cut off by the waters of a deluge." According to this explanation the repeated "לא" mentioned in our verse, which, according to Rava in <i>Shavuot</i> constitutes an oath, are the words לא יכרת and לא יהיה; it does not matter that the two "לא" are followed by different verbs (יכרת or יהיה), as long as the oath applies to the same facts, i.e. no total deluge. 
  [At this point the author engages in a lengthy dialectic about the statements in the Talmud concerning this and other matters where an all-inclusive statement is followed by a more restrictive one. As the matter is of interest to advanced students of the Talmud only, I have omitted it. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Summing up the discussion of the Talmud the lesson is this. We must not worry as much about the exact parameters of G'd's oath, and whether destruction of earth by fire is included in the oath or not. What matters is that G'd reassured His creatures that the effort to procreate was not futile. Never again would a species or its habitat the earth, be subject to total annihilation. If G'd's oath would refer only to using water as the agent to destroy earth or mankind, the whole oath would not be worth very much. This is one reason why the Talmud quotes Bileam as convincing Pharaoh that G'd's oath also included destruction of mankind or earth by fire.
  The exact wording of G'd's oath concerned Abraham very deeply when he prayed about the possible salvation of Sodom.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי כל הארץ שפה אחת. The whole earth had a single language. We must give some thought to the intent of the generation that built the Tower. What exactly did they mean to achieve by means of a city and a tower? If all they had in mind was to give expression to some aspect of heresy, how was that expressed by their building plans? If indeed their heresy was of a serious nature, their punishment, i.e. scattering them over the globe, seems an inadequate punishment. How would that punishment cure them of their heresy? The words ועתה לא יבצר מהם כל אשר יזמו לעשות, "Must not everything they are planning to do be withheld from them now?," are difficult. This line poses severe problems for a believer. Why did they say: "we will build a city for ourselves?" Who else was there to build a city for? Besides, did not G'd want mankind to construct a civilised universe? Surely He did not want a bunch of cave-dwellers?
  If we accept the view of the sages that G'd intended one third of the earth to be under cultivation and civilisation, one third desert, and one third water, if you were to line up all the cities side by side even now several thousand years later, they would not cover one hundredth of a third of the available land mass! Most of the earth would remain desert, or at least uninhabited! It seems therefore that the roads linking one town or village to another are all considered as part of the "built up" areas that are to form approximately one third of the earth's surface. When the Torah reports that the people spoke one language and דברים אחדים, were of one mind about all important issues, the meaning is that they literally congregated together without spreading out at all. To prevent becoming scattered they built a single city. They built the tower as a landmark so that if anyone of them strayed too far from home he would be able to orient himself by seeing the tower from a distance. The "name" the Torah speaks of is the "name" of the tower, i.e. its visibility from afar, its significance. It was this very reluctance to comply with G'd's intention to populate various parts of the earth which annoyed G'd. Had they not been endowed with free choice, they never could have defied G'd's plan for an evenly populated earth in this manner. G'd therefore had to resort to some stratagem to frustrate their plan without interfering with their basic freedom of choice. G'd achieved this by confusing their uniform language. Henceforth people who had a language in common would tend to congregate together, and as a result of a common language they would choose to live together. This could only be accomplished through their migrating from what used to be a central location, or what we are fond of calling "the cradle of civilisation." G'd's whole purpose was to fill the earth with people. The sin of wanting to remain together in one location was almost as serious as outright heresy, being מקצץ הנטיעות. While it is true that there are numerous mystical angles to this episode, and our sages elaborate on many of them, none of these explanations represent the plain meaning of the text.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ותהי שרי עקרה אין לה ולד. Sarai remained barren, she had no child. Why did the Torah have to add "she had no child?" Our sages (<i>Yevamot</i> 64) comment that she had no womb. The Talmud there elaborates that both Abraham and Sarah were congenital טומטמאים, people with undeveloped genitals. The Talmud bases this on Isaiah 51,1: "Look to the rock you were hewn from, to the quarry you were dug from. Look back to Abraham your father and to Sarah who brought you forth." Rashi comments there that "hewn from" and "dug from" refer to G'd having supplied male and female genitals to Abraham and Sarah (after they were adults). The Talmud also states there that when someone marries a woman and lives with her for ten years and she bears no children during that time, he should divorce her and pay her כתובה, her marriage settlement. This is based on Genesis 16,3 where Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to have children with after she had failed to bear children after ten years in the land of Israel. The Talmud questions why we do not rather take Isaac as an example. He lived with Rebeccah for at least twenty years and did not take another wife but prayed and as a result had children from Rebeccah. The Talmud answers that actually the reason the Torah mentions the number of years Abraham lived in the land of Israel before he married Hagar was to enable us to compute Ishmael's age in comparison to Isaac's. This also enables us to calculate Jacob's age during different periods of his life. Tossaphot comment that actually Isaac too waited only for ten years before he prayed, seeing that Rebeccah was three years old when he married her and her normal child-bearing years did not commence until after Isaac was married to her for ten years. Tossaphot concludes that a) not all <i>Midrashim</i> agree on the subject; b) in those days girls were able to bear children at a much younger age than nowadays. They also say that even assuming that Abraham had been born without visible genitals, by the time he married he had obviously developed in this respect. However, we must accept the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah who holds that once a טומטום, such a person is unable to sire children even after his genitals have become visible. Of course, one must assume that Sarai's genitals too, had become visible by the time Abraham married her. [there is no good reason that Abraham a) would have married while suffering such a crucial physical blemish; b) that Sarah would have been given in marriage to anyone while she was similarly afflicted. Ed.] Even according to the view that once the genitals of a טומטום have become visible he is no longer totally sterile, it is unlikely that such people will be capable of siring or bearing children. The Torah therefore adds the words אין לה ולד in the case of Sarah to tell us that though she was no longer a טומטום, her condition had not changed materially, and she still did not conceive.
  Furthermore, Rabbi Yehudah is of the opinion that the rule that a טומטום remains sterile even after his genitals become visible, applies only to the male. A female is quite likely to conceive once her genitals have been laid bare. According to this view our verse means that a) first Sarah was barren, i.e. her inability to conceive was not due to her genitals not being visible, a defect suffered by her husband but not by her. In her case it was simple barrenness that prevented her from giving birth. The Torah had to add the words אין לה ולד, to teach us that this was not due to a visible deformity.
  According to the view that she did not have a womb, we must understand the verse as follows: It turned out she was barren due to an invisible deformity, i.e. the lack of a womb. This deformity only came to light after her genitals had become visible, i.e. after her visible deformity had been cured. The expression ותהי is not appropriate except for a new development, not for a condition which existed already, [many commentators do not share that view of the meaning of ותהי. Ed.] The words אין לה ולד therefore are meant to draw attention to her not having a womb to carry an embryo in.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויקח תרח את אברם בנו. Terach took his son Abram, etc. We must understand this verse as an extension of a popular proverb quoted by <i>Baba Metzia</i> 75, that if someone experiences bad luck in one location and he does not move to another location he only has himself to blame if his bad luck continues. When Terach realised that his son Abram did not beget children in Ur Casdim he left in the direction of the land of Canaan to see if his luck would improve. The Torah shows us that Abraham was so important in the eyes of the other members of his father's household that they all joined in the migration in order to stay close to him. This is why the Torah adds the words ויצאו אתם, "they emigrated with them (Abraham and Sarah)."
  
  Verse 32
  
   ויהיו ימי תרח חמש שנים ומאתים שנה. Terach lived to be 205 years. The reason the decription of Terach's age differs from the description of the other people listed in this chapter, i.e. "all the days of so and so were, etc." is twofold. It can either mean that Terach lived longer than the years originally allocated to him, or it can mean that he did not live all the years that had originally been allocated to him. Here the absence of the words "all the days of his life" most likely mean that he lived longer than the years originally allocated to him. He accumulated merit because of his extraordinary concern for the welfare of his son Abraham. One proof may be seen when we compare Terach's lifespan with that of his father Nachor. The latter had only lived for a total of 148 years (11,24-25). Terach lived 57 years longer than his father. Our sages (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 65,12) have said that when a man approaches to within 5 years (either side) of the age at which his parents died he should begin to be concerned about his own death approaching. 
  Inasmuch as Terach lived many years longer than his father, the Torah reports his death in conjunction with his migration to Charan to indicate which merit added the extra years to his life. Had the Torah merely stated the usual "ויהיו כל ימי תרח, all the years of Terach were, etc., we would have assumed that G'd had originally allocated to him a lifespan of 205 years although this would have been quite wrong. There is also support from the text for the view that Terach lived fewer years than had been allocated to him originally. The Torah reports that he set out on his way to Canaan. However, the Torah also reports that he died in Charan which is on the way. Terach had failed to make good on his vow to move to Canaan and settled in Charan. G'd shortened Terach's lifespan because he did not make good on his vow.
  I have had an inspiration which enables me to explain why Abraham left his father in Charan though the latter had migrated for his sake all the way from Ur Casdim. When Abraham moved to Canaan Terach was 143 years old. He was 68 years old when Abraham was born and Abraham was 75 when he moved to the land of Canaan. [I presume that verse 26 which describes Terach as 70 years old when his three sons were born must refer to his age when the youngest was born. Ed.] It seems difficult to understand that Abraham abandoned his father for so many (62) years, even though G'd had told him לך לך.
  I believe the answer is simply that Abraham had good reason to expect that his father would die soon after his departure for Canaan, seeing that he was within 5 years of the age at which his grandfather Nachor had died. G'd may even have given Abraham a subtle hint when He told him לך לך, go on "your acccount." The words "on your account," were to indicate that even if Abraham's father were to live additional years he had only Abraham's merit to thank for those years. Abraham therefore did not have to blame himself for "abandoning" his aged father.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אל אברם, G'd said to Abram, etc. There are two reasons for the most unusual phenomenon of G'd speaking to Abraham without having first appeared to him in some kind of vision. 1) Abraham's constant endeavour to get to know his Creator, something no one had ever done before him. According to our tradition Abraham already recognised his Creator at the age of five without having received any guidance from a teacher. G'd therefore did not have to prove His existence to Abraham by appearing to him in a vision. He could take it for granted that Abraham was aware of who was speaking to him.
  2) During the ten generations since Noach that preceded Abraham not a single human being had recognised his G'd so that G'd had found him worthy to speak to. G'd therefore decided to test Abraham before speaking to him. He did this by demanding of Abraham that he leave his home, etc. Only after he had successfully passed that test did G'd decide to reveal Himself to Abraham in a vision as we find in 12,7. G'd did not relate in this manner to later generations because those generations had already absorbed a measure of faith in G'd through the example of their patriarch Abraham. They were born into an environment of some sanctity, an advantage not enjoyed by Abraham. As a result, G'd was able to commence His communications with such people by granting them a vision before He spoke to them. In Psalms 45,11 the Psalmist refers to Abraham's experience when he says: "Take heed, lass, and note, incline your ear; forget your people and your father's house." Our sages declared that the first half of that verse שמעי, listen, applied to our patriarch Abraham, i.e. when G'd spoke to him in 12,1. The second half of the verse where the Psalmist speaks about דאי, i.e. a visual experience, refers to 12,7 when G'd is reported to have appeared to Abraham in a vision. The sound and the vision did not occur simultaneously. To signify this the Psalmist did not say שמעי וראי בת, but placed the word בת in the middle. The best proof for the correctness of our view is the comparison with Moses' experience at the burning bush (Exodus 3,2-4) when a visual phenomenon preceded G'd speaking to him.
  לך לך מארצך. "Go forth for yourself from your country." Why did G'd tell Abraham to leave his birthplace after He had already told him to leave his country? Surely, leaving one's country includes leaving one's birthplace?
  The Torah lists the departures according to the pain of leave-taking involved. It is less painful to leave one's country than to leave one's birthplace, and it is even more painful to leave one's family. Abraham is commanded to leave in an ascending order of the nostalgia involved. He complied with the most difficult part of the test by leaving his parental home. The manner in which the Torah describes the process indicates that Abraham received an additional reward for each stage. We have a similar description of the gradually increasing difficulty of complying with G'd's command when G'd told Abraham to take: "your son, your only one, the one you love," as an introduction to the עקדה in Genesis 21,2.
  It is also possible that whereas Abraham's departure from Ur Casdim had included a migration of his whole family, now G'd demanded that he leave his family behind. Abraham did not understand this correctly; this is why he took Lot with him. Alternatively, Abraham did understand that he was not supposed to take Lot with him, but the latter was so attached to him that he insisted on coming along on his own. When the Torah says in 12,5 that he did "take" Lot with him, the meaning is merely that he did not push him away until he found a suitable pretext as he did not want to shame his nephew. As soon as Abraham found a minor pretext to separate from Lot, such as when the shepherds of Lot and those of Abraham began to feud, he used that incident as an excuse to separate from Lot (13,8). It sounds quite uncharacteristic for Abraham, the model of making people welcome in his environment, to push someone away with both hands by saying: "if you want to go to the right, I will move to the left; if you want to move to the left, I will move to the right." The fact that G'd had not communicated with Abraham for a while until immediately after he separated from Lot (13,14), indicates that G'd had been waiting for the moment when Lot would finally separate from him. Only then did G'd show Abraham the extent of the land that would eventually belong to his descendants. G'd delayed fulfilling the last part of the promise contained in our verse until Abraham had rid himself of Lot.
  An additional meaning of the instruction to Abraham to "go for yourself," is not so much that he was to be alone but that he was to benefit spiritually by this migration. Although man's success in this world does not depend on the amount of effort he invests in his material progress as we know from Psalms 75,7: "for what lifts a man comes not from the east or the west or the wilderness of hills;" our sages say that every time the word הרים, mountains appears in the Bible it means mountains except in this instance. In Psalms 75,7 the word describes a spiritual uplift. This comment of our sages notwithstanding, the fact that a change of one's physical environment brings in its wake an improvement in one's fortune is not to be ignored. This was why G'd commanded Abraham specifically to leave his country. Our sages (<i>Chulin</i> 95) say that there are three things, which do not actually constitute forbidden superstition even if one does pay attention to them. However, such attention borders on superstition. They are: בית, תינוק, ואשה. [If the enterprise one undertakes after building himself a house, after a baby is born to one, or after one has married, turns out well, it may be taken as a good omen. If not, it may be a sign that one should not persevere with that particular endeavour. Rabbi Eleazar adds that one should not be influenced by such failure unless it occurred three times in succession. Ed.] <i>Baba Metzia</i> 75 also said that if one experiences bad luck in one place without moving to another place one has oneself to blame if one's fortunes do not improve.
  וממולדתך, and from your birthplace. The lesson here is that living in a place endangered by lions is preferable to living in a place surrounded by sinners, though the latter appeared secure.
  אל הארץ אשר אראך, to the land which I will show you. G'd did not tell Abraham if he was meant to set out on his journey immediately or if he should wait till He would specify the exact location He wanted Abraham to move to. This ambiguity was part of the test to which G'd subjected Abraham. G'd also hinted that He would show Abraham the whole of the land of Israel by broadening his field of vision, etc, as we know from 13,14: "lift your eyes from where you are and look northward, southward, eastward, and westward."
  G'd also hinted that Abraham should move to ארץ ישראל, a land suitable for the Presence of G'd to become manifest, and for people who are worthy to experience such a manifestation. The <i>Sifri</i> on Numbers 35,34 states that (full) manifestation of G'd's presence depends on the Jewish people being in the land of Israel. Accordingly, the meaning of the word אראך is both: "I will show it (the land) to you," and: "I will show you to it (the land)." One will not achieve its full potential without the other.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ואעשך לגוי גדול. I shall make a great nation out of you. Since G'd had given Abraham a threefold commandment, He now promised that fulfilment of these three steps would result in three benefits to Abraham. 1) The promise that Abraham would become a great nation was the reward for leaving his country. 2) The promise to bless Abraham and make him a great name was a reward for his leaving his birthplace. 3) The promise that Abraham himself would become a source of blessing was a reward for his leaving his father's home. These three promises were compensations for things people normally enjoy when they are in familiar surroundings. 1) They have many friends and acquaintances. 2) They enjoy a degree of honour and respect within their family. 3) Inasmuch as they are part of a family their economic needs are taken care of should they fall on hard times. When a person emigrates to a totally strange country, he knows that he gives up the mental and economic stability that he took for granted in his home.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ואברכה מברכך, I shall bless those who bless you. This additional blessing was to compensate Abraham for G'd's failure to tell him the destination he was headed for. After all, G'd did not even tell Abraham which country to head for! It was a tremendous test for Abraham to just leave his home, etc., without having the slightest idea where he was to make his new home. The fact that Abraham did not query G'd in his mind or by prayer is considered as extremely praiseworthy. As a result of this blind faith in G'd, Abraham encountered success wherever he went. His spiritual stature grew constantly.
  We are entitled to ask why the wording of the Torah is different in respect to those who bless Abraham from that to those who curse him. In the former case G'd mentions that He will bless such people even before they have actually blessed Abraham. In the case of people who curse Abraham, G'd is not described as cursing such people until after they have actually cursed him. If G'd were to curse the potential curser prior to his cursing Abraham, that person would never become aware of the reason G'd cursed him. On the other hand, G'd does not cause any harm by blessing those who intended to bless Abraham already in anticipation of their good deed.
  It is also noteworthy that the Torah speaks about the people who will bless Abraham in the plural, whereas the reference to anyone who might curse Abraham is phrased in the singular.
  Perhaps this is best explained in connection with what the rabbis said to the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai in <i>Moed Katan</i> 9. They wished him: תזרע ולא תחצד, "may you sow and not harvest," and a few more such strange sounding wishes. The Talmud describes how Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai explained to his son that though these wishes sounded like curses they were actually blessings. The reference to sowing and not harvesting was a blessing i.e. that he should father children but not have to bury them. It is not the actual phraseology that matters but the intent. G'd told Abraham that there are some people who clothe their curses in words that sound like blessings. He told him that He would also bless the individual who blessed Abraham in such an unusual manner as did the rabbis who blessed the son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The word מקללך applies both to what preceded it and to what follows it. Accordingly there are two kinds of people who might curse Abraham; the ones who dress up the curse to sound like a blessing, and the ones who curse outright. The first category is alluded to when you read the word ומקללך as if it belonged to the word מברכיך which preceded it. The other kind of curser is the one who curses without provocation and without hypocrisy. When the Torah says of G'd אאר, this refers to both categories of people cursing Abraham.
  An alternate way of explaining this is based on the statement in <i>Taanit</i> 20: "better the curse of an Achiyah Hashiloni (a prophet, compare Kings I 14,15) than the blessing conferred upon the Jewish people by Bileam." The former used words of a curse to give the Jewish people an incentive to overcome the curse, the latter praised them excessively, hoping to lull them into a kind of spiritual nirvana that would make them easy prey for the evil urge. Concerning the person who bestows the kind of Achiyah Hashiloni's curse on Abraham, G'd says that He will bless a person who curses with such good intentions, whereas concerning the one who does the reverse, G'd will curse him though he couched his curse in words which seemed to convey a blessing.
  ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, and all the families of the world will receive a blessing thanks to you. This is the difference between people who bless you and those that are indifferent to you, neither blessing Abraham not cursing him. G'd will bless directly anyone who blesses Abraham; the ones who do not bless Abraham will receive only an indirect blessing, i.e. via Abraham.
  
  Verse 4
  
   וילך אברם, Abram went, etc. In view of verse 5 which describes Abraham's journey in detail, this entire verse seems superfluous. 
  The Torah wants to show Abraham's love for G'd. He set out immediately without waiting for G'd to elaborate on His original instructions. The letter כ at the beginning of the word כאשר, describes the time, i.e. how Abraham acted immediately G'd finished speaking to him, how he left his father and his birthplace without further ado. The Torah adds that though Lot was so closely attached to Abraham that he insisted on accompanying Abraham, he did not do so for the same reason, i.e. a divine command. Abraham had tried to leave Lot behind in an elegant way but had not succeeded. [Had Lot joined Abraham as a religious gesture, the Torah would have described this by writing עמו instead of אתו. Ed.]
  The Torah writes the verse for yet another reason. Inasmuch as G'd had promised Abraham a number of rewards if he would fulfil His command, the average reader might assume that Abraham was primarily motivated by the promises G'd had made to him. The Torah wants us to know that the reason Abraham left his home and his father was because G'd had said so to him, not because of any secondary considerations such as the promise of becoming a man of great prominence. The Torah chose the words כאשר דבר, as G'd had told him firmly, not כאשר אמר, which would have corresponded to the opening statement of our פרשה where it said: ויאמר השם. When G'd uses the word דבר, this always implies that it is not easy to comply with G'd's command; when G'd uses the word אמר the implication is that it is relatively easy to comply.
  Another message we are to derive from this verse is that though Abraham did not yet know which country G'd wanted him to go to, he had already set out without using the excuse of waiting for further instructions before leaving his home. In verse 5 the Torah lists all those who accompanied Abraham to show that the test did not consist of who went with him but it consisted of Abraham not knowing where he was supposed to head for.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויעבר אברם בארץ. Abram traversed the land. The Torah informs us that Abraham kept moving from one location to another without any of the local inhabitants challenging him. This in spite of the fact that the Canaanites ruled in the land at the time.
  The verse also hints that Abraham behaved like an itinerant traveller, not pretending to be a man of stature. This characteristic of Abraham came to the fore later when others refer to him as אברם העברי, Abram the transient. The reason that the Torah mentions the presence of the Caaanite in the land only in this verse, and not in verse 5 where we would have expected it, is to indicate exactly when the land of Israel passed into the hands of the Canaanites (having previously belonged to the descendants of Shem). The fact that the expression ארצה כנען is used already in verse 5 means only that the Torah refers to the name the country would be known by subsequently.
  Possibly the word כנען which has a numerical value of 190 is an allusion to Abraham and Sarah being 100 and 90 years old respectively when Isaac was born. The idea that this land would eventually be transferred to the Israelites therefore is already part of its very name. The latter became potential owners once Isaac was born.
  Another lesson from the mention of the Canaanite "then being in the land," is that the Torah reminds us that Canaan was a slave, having been cursed by Noach who decreed that he should be עבד עבדים, "a slave to slaves (Genesis 9,25)." Slaves do not possess property rights. The Canaanite taking over the land from the Semites eventually opened the way for the Israelites to dispossess, them. The Semites, who had come by the land legally, would have presented G'd with a legal problem He had to solve before He could have disposessed them. Our sages have said that inasmuch as Abraham was a Semite, expelling the Canaanites and having the Israelites take over the land was only a return of the land to its rightful owners. Accordingly, the Torah phrases its description of the Canaanite presence in the land in such a way that the world understands that such a presence was never legal (compare Rashi and <i>Nedarim</i> 32).
  Another reason the Torah mentions the presence of the Canaanites as conquerors in the land is to contrast this with G'd's promise to give the land to Abraham's descendants. Had the Torah not informed us of the fact that the descendants of Shem already lost most or all of the land to the Canaanites, we would not have considered G'd's promise as something special, seeing that Abraham was a descendant of Shem and as such already had a legal claim on that country.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וירא ה׳ אל אברם. G'd appeared to Abram. The Torah wishes to compliment Abraham on his great love for his Creator. G'd appeared to Abraham and promised him not only children but that his descendants would inherit the land he was on. Abraham considered the mere fact that G'd appeared to him as sufficient reason to build an altar for G'd. The feeling that G'd had deemed him worthy to appear to him was so overpowering that Abraham considered the promise of children and of the land as secondary. This is why the Torah stresses that he built the altar "to the G'd who appeared to him." This is what David said in Psalms 16,11: "In Your presence is perfect joy." Perhaps we find an echo of these sentiments when Ben Azzai declined to marry, saying that he was so in love with Torah that he could not do justice to the demands made upon him by marriage ( <i>Yevamot</i> 63).
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויעתק משם ההרה. He moved on from there to the hills. Seeing that the word ויעתק is transitive, the object seems to be missing in this verse. Rashi says that the object is Abraham's tent. This seems inadequate. Perhaps we have an allusion here that Abraham moved a rock [simile for G'd] from the place where G'd had appeared to him. This would correspond to something the sages said in <i>Berachot</i> 5 about the verse in Job 18,4: "Will earth's order be disrupted for your sake? Will a Rock be dislodged from His place?" The lesson here would be that whenever Israel moves from a place it has offered prayers to G'd, G'd moves with Israel. This concept was introduced by Abraham and Israel draws on Abraham's merit to this day in this respect.
  The message in this verse may also be that whenever Abraham put up his tent henceforth, he first dismantled the altar he had built and rebuilt it at the site he would erect his tent.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויהי כאשר הקריב לבא מצרימה, It happened as he came closer to Egypt, etc. Our sages (<i>Baba Batra</i> 16) use this verse to demonstrate how chaste Abraham was, that he had not even seen Sarah's beauty up until now. We need to understand why Abraham spoke to Sarah about her beauty. 
  If it was merely because he planned to have her describe him as her brother instead of as her husband, this would not diminish the danger they found themselves in. Sarah would be in danger of being killed if she resisted rape, or else would have to submit voluntarily to someone who fancied her. Abraham wanted to forestall Sarah's argument that he should never have brought her to Egypt in the first place and have endangered them both. While it is true that righteous people have to place their trust in G'd, this rule applies when one does not deliberately place oneself in a dangerous situation. No one has the right to make his survival depend on a miracle. We know this from the prophet Samuel who took along an animal to sacrifice when he set out to anoint David as king. He did this even though G'd Himself told him to go on that mission. When he remonstrated with G'd that the mission could be fatal for him if Saul would hear about it, G'd Himself told Samuel to camouflage it (Samuel I 16,1-5). Abraham therefore told Sarah that had he but known earlier how beautiful she was he would indeed not have undertaken such a dangerous journey. He would have taken her elsewhere. Now that they had already come close to Egypt he had found out more about the Egyptians' lack of sexual mores and the fact that they had ugly faces (or were black-skinned). He therefore had reason to fear for his life if he were to be known as Sarah's husband. He examined Sarah's beauty critically in order to understand the degree of danger that this could pose for him. Abraham did not describe Sarah as merely יפת מראה; he described her as אשה יפת מראה. There is a subtle difference here. He realised that her beauty was unique. Her beauty was bound to arouse the carnal instincts of the Egyptians. 
  We must not question how Abraham could take a chance and take Sarah to the land of the Philistines after his experience in Egypt. Whereas the Egyptians had ugly faces, this did not apply to the Philistines. Sarah's beauty therefore did not represent such a contrast to what the Philistines were used to. This is why Abraham never ordered Sarah herself to say that he was her brother. He contented himself with describing Sarah as his sister (20,2).
  
  Verse 12
  
   והיה כי יראו אותך המצרים, It will be that as soon as the Egyptians will set eyes on you, etc. Abraham explained the reason he was going to engage in deception before he asked Sarah to lie. He wanted Sarah to speak about her brother Abraham not merely in response to questions about their status. He wanted her to make it plain even before they entered the land of Egypt that they were travelling together as brother and sister. In the event that Sarah would object to telling lies when none had as yet been called for, he told her that if they merely awaited developments it would be too late. The Egyptians would automatically assume that Abraham was Sarah's husband and they would get rid of him. They would not even bother to ask about her status.
  
  Verse 13
  
   למען ייטב לי בעבורך. In order that I will receive benefit on your account. Abraham explained why he asked Sarah to describe him as her brother and not as some more distant relative or a total stranger. If Abraham's status were anything less than Sarah's brother the Egyptians would not have any interest in securing his goodwill. Abraham may have had yet another motivation for insisting that Sarah describe their relationship to each other instead of he himself. His own words would not convince the Egyptians as they might construe them as a stratagem to be wooed with gifts. The plain reason is no doubt that he was afraid that if he were to say he was her brother and she would say nothing, sooner or later Sarah might make a comment which would reveal that there was a husband-wife relationship between her and Abraham. When Abraham added that וחיתה נפשי, that his soul would remain alive due to the stratagem of Sarah describing him as her brother, he did not have in mind his mere physical survival. If that had been his intention he would have said ואחיה, "so that I will survive." The word וחיתה נפשי is an allusion to Sarah's remaining spiritually uncontaminated. We have a tradition (Proverbs 13,25) that צדיק אוכל לשובע נפשו, that the reason a righteous person consumes physical food is not to indulge his senses but to satisfy the needs of his soul to carry on his task in life. Abraham was motivated by similar considerations.
  The reason Abraham appears to repeat himself when he said 1) בעבורך, and 2) בגללך, is that he hoped he would exprience physical wellbeing as well as spiritual wellbeing due to Sarah's describing herself as his sister. Our sages (<i>Berachot</i> 31) explain Samuel I 1,11 אם ראה תראה בעני אמתך, to mean that if ראה, G'd would see Channah (pay attention to her prayer) and would grant her a child, all well and good; if not תראה, she would place herself in a compromising situation which would force her husband to treat her as a סוטה, a woman suspected of marital infidelity. Once she would drink the waters prescribed for such a woman (Numbers 5,24) her innocence would be established and G'd would have to grant her a child as per verse 28 in that chapter. Abraham hoped that as a result of Sarah's chastity under circumstances resembling the compromising situation a סוטה finds herself in, he and she would have a child thus assuring Abraham of his future, וחיתה נפשי, "my soul will live on." There are numerous instances where our sages have explained the word בגלל as having metaphysical significance, such as in Deuteronomy 15,10 where G'd promises that blessings will devolve upon people already if they merely promise to do charity, דבר (<i>Tossephta Peah</i> 4). The letter ו in וחיתה also has a special significance. Abraham did not mean that the fact that his soul would remain alive would be part of the benefit he would experience through Sarah's lie. Whereas the survival of his body would be an extension of ייטב לי, the direct benefit he would derive from Sarah's lie, the spiritual dimension, i.e. the survival of his soul would be an independent benefit, something that he would achieve later on when Sarah would be alone in the palace of Avimelech, the king of the Philistines. On that occasion he did not face expulsion from the land of the Philistines on account of having been found out as a liar (20,15). It is even possible that the fact that Sarah twice found herself in the position of a סוטה, a woman unjustly suspected of marital infidelity, once in the palace of Pharaoh, and then again in the palace of Avimelech, resulted in her ability to conceive and bear a child. Rabbi Yitzchok, (a teacher of Rashi?) suggests that when the Torah appears to repeat itself in Numbers 5,28, i.e. "if the woman has not become defiled and has remained pure," this refers to her neither having been unfaithful with the man with whom she is suspected to have been unfaithful now, nor with any other man. In such a case she will be unharmed by the waters she has drunk and able to retain seed. Accordingly, Sarah became pregnant and bore Isaac to prove that she had been faithful to her husband each time she found herself in the situation of a סוטה. The expression חיתה נפשי would refer to Abraham having children due to the chaste conduct of Sarah.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   וינגע ה׳ את פרעה. G'd brought plagues on Pharaoh. The word וינגע is related to נגע, touched. When Pharaoh was about to touch Sarah, G'd revealed to him that she was married to Abraham.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויקרא פרעה לאברם. Pharaoh called in Abram. Why does the Torah quote Pharaoh as saying למה, why, twice in succession? Perhaps he wanted to give expressions to two levels of his astonishment at Abraham's conduct. First he accused Abraham of entrapping him by withholding the information that Sarah was married, a fact which could cause Pharaoh to commit a sin. Secondly, Pharaoh could not understand that Abraham had not only withheld relevant information but had deliberately misinformed him when he described Sarah as his sister.
  One reason why Pharaoh and Avimelech reacted differently to Abraham's deception may have to do with the ugliness of the Egyptians. Pharaoh expelled Abraham (12,20), whereas Avimelech put the whole country at his disposal (20,15). Pharaoh could not be sure that some other member of his people would not rape Sarah even after he had released her since Sarah's beauty was in such contrast to that of his own people and his people were steeped in sexual permissiveness. Avimelech had no such concerns. This is why he asked Abraham: "what did you see, etc?" He meant "why did you have reason to be worried?" Pharaoh understood very well that Abraham would never feel safe once the people knew Sarah was his wife. He had to be given safe conduct out of the country. The Torah tells us of the hypocrisy of Pharaoh by adding his second question. Pharaoh was entitled to the first question. He could claim that Abraham should have told him at least privately that Sarah was his wife. He claimed to have been insulted by Abraham's lie since he would have provided Abraham with security once he knew that he was Sarah's husband. Abraham had made it plain by his lie that he even suspected Pharaoh himself of being unable to restrain his lust. He wanted Abraham to believe that either a) he would have provided him with a security escort, or b) he would have sent him out of the country immediately. We might well ask why every husband who comes to a foreign country has to identify his entourage and point out to the king who is his wife. 
  Pharaoh asked why Abraham told a lie though normally there had not been a need for him to say anything regarding this woman. Nonetheless Sarah's extraordinary beauty should have prompted him to come forward and tell the truth in order to ensure his and her safety. The moment Abraham misrepresented the facts, he only had himself to blame if Pharaoh decided to take Sarah for himself. Abraham could not answer Pharaoh without insulting him further by telling him that he placed no trust in his assurances, that he thought Pharaoh perfectly capable of doing what he did even had he known that Sarah was married to him. Pharaoh may well have got the hint; this may be why he hastened to expel Abraham and entourage from Egypt.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   אל נא תהי מריבה, Let no quarrel develop between me and you. Abraham told Lot that what had started as an argument between their respective shepherds was bound to lead to a quarrel between the two of them even though Lot claimed that he would never allow this to happen. After all, he respected his uncle too highly as the senior member of the family. The substance of the shepherds' arguments concerned the fact that Lot allowed his shepherds to graze on privately owned land, counting on G'd's promise that the land would belong to Abraham's family in the future. Seeing that Abraham had no children and was genetically unable to father children, Lot viewed himself as Abraham's heir. Abraham alluded to this by the superfluous comment that they were brothers.
  Another reason Abraham referred to their being brothers may be understood in light of our sages' comment on Psalms 50,20 [I have not found that commentary. Ed.]. The Psalmist describes a brother who lives with another brother as maligning him. Applied to our context this means that Abraham was afraid that if the local inhabitants would take Lot to court for stealing from them, his own reputation as the elder brother (uncle) would become tarnished. He could not allow this to happen.
  Abraham may also have hinted to Lot that the very fact that their principals were brothers made Lot's shepherds take that relationship for granted. Familiarity breeds contempt; had the two not been related, Lot's shepherds would have given Abraham the respect due him as an elder and as a person whom G'd had obviously favoured.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   וה׳ אמר אל אברם. G'd said to Abram. The form of address is unusual. We would have expected ויאמר השם "now G'd said to Abraham, etc." The reason for the form of address chosen by the Torah maybe that the Torah wanted to give us a hint that G'd had already waited a long time to tell Abraham what He now told him, but that as long as the wicked Lot was part of his entourage He could not do so. G'd now fulfilled the second part of what He had said to Abraham in 12,1 i.e. אל הארץ אשר אראך.
  וראה מן המקום, "and look from the place, etc." G'd had to emphasise the word מן המקום to alert us to the miracle that He expanded Abraham's sense of vision so that he could see the entire land of Israel from the place he stood on. He did not even have to turn around to look in the different directions.
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי את כל הארץ, For the entire land, etc. We are all familiar with the limitations of our eyesight. We can see for a certain distance, no more. We are also familiar with the so-called קפיצת הדרך, telescoping a distance of earth under one into a very small distance such as was experienced by Eliezer on his way to Charan, and Jacob on his way to Charan. In this instance G'd brought the various borders of the land of Israel closer to Abraham so that he could see them all with his normal eyesight. Abraham took possession of the land symbolically because all of it was within his view. Normally speaking, there is no more absolute sign of possession than to move a rock from its location. Here G'd moved the entire land from its location to bring it within the sight of Abraham's eyes.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   קום התהלך בארץ. "Arise, and walk through the land." The Talmud <i>Baba Batra</i> 100 discusses how one acquires title to land. [The context of the discussion is whether the fact that people used someone's private property as a shortcut entitles them to continue to do so even if the property in question changed hands. Ed.] Rabbi Eliezer, basing himself on our verse, claims that merely traversing the land assures one of one's rights to the area one has traversed; the other rabbis hold that one has to go through the regular legal procedure for acquiring title. The rabbis say that our verse is not to be taken as a general rule, but that an exception was made in the case of Abraham who was especially beloved of G'd. G'd intended to facilitate Abraham's descendants taking possession of the land when the time came. According to these rabbis, Abraham's title to the land stems from verse 15 where G'd had promised it to Abraham. The reason G'd rolled the land up so as to bring it close to Abraham was in order that the act of moving it would demonstrate ownership by the person on whose behalf it was moved.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי בימי אמרפל, It was during the reign of Amrafel, etc. The reason the Torah introduces this chapter here is to show that these four kingdoms were the super-powers during that period. Once we have been informed of the exploits of these kings, Abraham's victory when he rescued Lot can be seen in its proper perspective.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויקחו את לוט, They took Lot, etc. The reason the Torah adds that Lot was Abraham's nephew and that he lived in Sodom, something we have known for a long time, is to tell us that these kings were very well aware of who Lot was. This did not deter them from taking Lot captive. The Torah stresses that these kings deliberately ignored the fact that they were provoking a man of international repute when they took his nephew into captivity. None of this would have happened to Lot had he not chosen to live in Sodom. The matter can be compared to Israel capturing a substantial part of Moab though G'd had forbidden Israel to provoke war with Moab or to attack it (Deut. 2,9). Once the Emorite king Sichon had defeated Moab in war, the lands captured by Sichon were no longer considered as Moabite territory, and Israel took possession of them. Here too, once Lot had chosen to throw in his lot with the Sodomites he was no longer considered as part of Abraham's entourage, and was not entitled to the protection Abraham could have afforded him. This also explains why Abraham did not try to secure Lot's release by peaceful means. He knew that the 4 kings knew very well whom they had taken prisoner. If Lot's relationship with Abraham had not stopped them, there was no point for Abraham to warn those kings before attacking them. Lot's capture was a hostile act against Abraham. 
  Should you argue that the four kings had merely reacted against the insubordination of the five kings associated with the king of Sodom, and that Lot was their legitimate booty, as per the comparison we have drawn with Sichon and the Moabites, this is not an accurate comparison after all. That comparison was valid when there existed neither a state of peace nor a state of war between two parties. Abraham and the four kings were at peace, and the four kings should have warned Lot to leave Sodom before making war just as did King Saul with the Kenites before he attacked the Amalekites (Samuel I 15,6).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   וגם את לוט ואת רכושו השיב, and he also restored Lot and his possessions. Although the whole exercise was designed only to rescue Lot, the Torah first reports Abraham's spectacular military accomplishments and how he restored their property to the five kings. The reason Abraham restored the women and children to the kings of Sodom was in recognition of the fact that they had treated Lot with respect and honour.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, And Malki Tzedek the king of Salem, etc. Our sages (<i>Midrash Aggadah</i>) claim that Malki Tzedek was identical with Noach's son Shem. The reason that the Torah interrupts the report of Lot's rescue by reporting Malki Tzedek's arrival is to contrast his behaviour with that of the king of Sodom. Whereas Malki Tzedek came with gifts and a blessing though Abraham had done nothing for him, the king of Sodom came empty-handed although he owed Abraham a great debt of gratitude for having saved both his life and his kingdom. The Torah merely shows the difference between the behaviour of the wicked and that of the just.
  Another way of looking at this episode is based on our sages who credited Abraham with not only observing the commandments which would later on be legislated in the Torah ( <i>Yuma</i> 28), but even observing Rabbinic ordinances such as עירובי תבשילין. In view of Abraham's personal piety the king of Sodom was well aware that he would not eat food or drink wine presented to him by an idolator. In order to save himself such an embarassment the king chose Malki Tzedek to be the messenger who would present this gift to Abraham. [You will note that it does not say that Abraham partook of either bread or wine contrary to his custom when he prepared a meal for Avimelech, for instance. Ed.] According to all this the Torah teaches us here that Abraham would not even eat foods which are forbidden only by Rabbinic injunction.
  The Torah also wants to teach us how it was that the king of Sodom offered the loot of the war (property previously owned by the four kings) to Abraham instead of demanding both the prisoners and the property. The king of Sodom had observed that Abraham tithed the loot to Malki Tzedek in the latter's capacity as G'd's priest. He understood that one does not tithe matters which do not belong to one. Inasmuch as Abraham apparently considered the loot as his own, the king of Sodom did not give away anything when he made the apparently generous offer for Abraham to keep the loot.
  והוא כהן לאל עליון, and he was a priest of the Supreme G'd. The emphasis on the word הוא indicates that only he was a priest, not his descendants. The priesthood was conferred upon Abraham as we know from Psalms 110,4: אתה בהן לעולם, "You are a priest forever." The Psalmist refers to the blessing conferred upon Abraham by Malki Tzedek. I will still explain that Malki Tzedek conferred the priesthood upon Abraham willingly.
  The words "of the Supreme G'd," are necessary as there were many priests of many deities. Our sages (<i>Nedarim</i> 32) claim that Malki Tzedek lost his priesthood because he blessed Abraham before he blessed G'd. Accordingly we would have to understand the words: "and he was a priest" to mean that his priesthood was something of the past. He forfeited it by slighting G'd. The fact that the Torah did not report the unfortunate wording of Malki Tzedek's blessing until after hinting that he had already forfeited the priesthood is irrelevant because the Torah was not written till after the event.
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויברכהו ויאמר. He blessed him and said, etc. We need to understand whether the blessing which the Torah mentions here, i.e. ברוך אבדם, is the gist of the blessing. If that were so, why did the Torah have to introduce it with the words ויברכהו, "he blessed him?" I believe that the words ברוך אברם allude to an additional blessing. Were this not so, the expression ויברכהו should have been followed by the word לאמר.
  We must understand the matter as follows. First Malki Tzedek bestowed a blessing on Abraham which pertained to his personal wellbeing such as that his enemies should not be able to harm him, etc. Next he blessed him wishing him spiritual development a blessing directed to G'd who should allow Abraham to be His true servant. By being successful as a servant of the Lord, G'd Himself would be perceived by man as the owner of not only the heavens but also of the earth. He wished him that through him his descendants would acquire eternal life so that heaven and earth would endure forever. Our sages (compare <i>Zohar</i> 1,89) have expressed all this when they said that but for Abraham, G'd would not really have a true possession in either heaven or earth.
  Even the closing words of Malki Tzedeks' blessing, i.e. אשר מגן צריך בידך which ostensibly seems to be a blessing conferred by G'd on Abraham, are a blessing conferred upon G'd. G'd considers Himself blessed through the existence of a human being such as Abraham.
  
  Verse 20
  
   וברוך אל עליון, "And blessed the Supreme G'd, etc." As already mentioned our sages say that Malki Tzedek was punished for putting G'd second in his list of blessings. He lost his priesthood because of this error. We must try and understand what prompted Malki Tzedek to commit such an error. Perhaps he thought that inasmuch as Abraham had come to recognise G'd without parental or anyone else's guidance, he deserved to receive a blessing first and foremost. Afterwards he blessed the Lord who had found pleasure in a human being such as Abraham. Malki Tzedek may have wanted to teach us that G'd only truly enjoys human beings who have first made it their business to please Him. He expressed this thought by saying: "Blessed Abraham to the Supreme G'd because he made himself be fit to be a servant of the Lord. As a result he is blessed by the Supreme G'd who has committed your enemies into your hands." [according to this Malki Tzedek's error consisted in using chronology as a guideline for the order in which he formulated his blessing. Ed.] Despite the good intention of Malki Tzedek, this was an improper way of blessing. The servant never takes precedence over his Master.
  
  Verse 21
  
   תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך. "Give me the persons and take the loot for yourself." We need to understand what was the point of the king of Sodom's offer for Abraham to "take" the loot, seeing that Abraham had possession of it. He himself had captured it, including all the people who had been kept prisoner. How could the king say on the one hand: "give me the persons," and "take yourself the loot," when Abraham possessed both at the time? What did the king offer? Was he not in fact merely asking for something instead of offering something? Why did he make it seem like a trade off?
  Perhaps we can best understand all this in light of what the Talmud teaches in <i>Baba Kama</i> 116. A caravan of travellers is attacked by robbers. One of the travellers succeeds in saving the belongings of all the travellers; he is considered as having done so on behalf of all the travellers; each one picks up his original belongings. If the person who undertook the risk of saving all these belongings had declared that he risked his life only in order that the spoils should be his in the event that he would succeed, then he may keep all the chattels he has saved. Rav Ashi elaborates that this is so when the other travellers could have saved their chattels had they only tried hard enough. Rashi explains there that if none of the other travellers offered any comment when the one who set out to recover the goods announced that he would do so but on his own account, they are all considered as having renounced their hope of recovering their belongings. As a result they cannot reclaim their belongings. The king of Sodom did not consider himself as having abandoned hope of escaping his situation. He argued that had it not been for Abraham's intervention, he could have recovered his belongings himself. 
  As a result, the fact that Abraham had not intervened with the intention of sharing the spoils with the prisoners had no legal basis. After all, the king of Sodom had not overheard Abraham's declaration that he acted on his own behalf. How could he therefore be accused of having remained silent at the crucial moment? This is why he claimed that the spoils should be shared between Abraham and himself. Evidently, the king thought very highly of himself and his abilities. This is why the Torah describes him as: ויצא מלך סדום, "the king of Sodom came forth," he gave himself airs. According to the <i>Midrash</i> he compared his own experience when he fell into the clay pits (14,10) and was saved, with Abraham's having been saved from the furnace of Nimrod. The fact was, of course, that the situation of the king of Sodom who had already fought and lost, was entirely diferent from the situation described in the Talmud by Rav Ashi. When Rav Ashi said that the person rescuing the caravan's property has to declare beforehand that he does so on the understanding that if successful the property will be his, this is only in a situation where the other travellers are able to assist. Since the king of Sodom had certainly not been in a position to assist Abraham, his claim was totally spurious. Rambam and Rosh both rule like this. 
  When Abraham gave the balance of the loot to the king of Sodom after first having tithed it, this was a generous gesture; it did not imply that Abraham accepted any part of the king's argument.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויאמר אברם אל מלך סדום. Abram said to the king of Sodom. The only reason Abraham raised his hand during his declaration was to make it plain to the king of Sodom that he would not bargain further about any of this.
  The reason the Torah writes the word אם twice, when it would have sufficed to write simply אם אקח מחוט ועד שרוך נעל is, that Abraham referred both to what was in the past and to anything that might occur in the future. Although he was entitled to a תרומה, some gift, in his capacity of being a priest, he waived his rights in this respect unconditionally
  He also wanted to make it plain that the tithe he had removed from the loot was not a percentage he had taken for himself. Although he was in a position to waive his own claims, he had no right to waive what belonged to G'd or to His representative. This is why he had removed the tithe from the loot before waiving his own claim to the remainder.
  
  Verse 23
  
  ולא תאמר אני העשרתי את אברם, "so that you will not be able to claim credit for enriching me." Why would it have occurred to anyone to give credit to the king of Sodom for enriching Abraham? Was it not obvious that the Lord Himself had protected Abraham all the way? 
  Abraham wanted it clearly understood that the whole loot was legally his, the king had in no way given up one iota of something that was legally his, even if Abraham had consented to share the loot. Abraham chose his words carefully when he said: "you shall not say 'I have made Abraham rich.'" If there had been even a semblance of truth to what the king of Sodom had suggested, Abraham would have had to say: "I do not want to become enriched by you." The very most the king would have been able to do was to claim that he had given up something of his own; such a claim would not have been legal anyways.
  
  Verse 24
  
   הם יקחו חלקם. "They shall take their share." Again Abraham wanted to make it clear that the share of his allies did not depend on the generosity of the king. They would take their share by right. Abraham did not want that the king of Sodom should make even a spurious statement as it would diminish Abraham's reputation even if untrue.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמר אברם…מה תתן לי? Abram said:…"what are You able to give me?" How could Abraham begin by saying: "You have not given me, etc.," when he had received G'd's promise that he would father children? Surely he did not doubt G'd's words? Why did Abraham say: הן לי לא נתתה, instead of: הן לא נתתה לי? [why did he stress the word לי?] What did Abraham have in mind when he said to G'd that בן ביתי יורש אותי, that "a member of my household will inherit me?" Seeing that he had no seed of his own, what difference did it make to him if a member of his household or someone else would inherit him?
  Abraham remembered that the promise of seed he had received was phrased thus: "your seed will be as the dust of the earth" (13,16). When people are compared to the dust of the earth such a comparison normally applies to poor and insignificant people, i.e. "as the dust"; it implies that such people do not possess a holy soul, that they are closer to animals than to angels. When Abraham stressed the לי aspect of his future descendants, he referred to the fact that G'd had not promised him children or grandchildren of any stature. This is why G'd told him "to count the stars." The stars were meant to be symbols. G'd wanted Abraham to know that his descendants would all be important in their own right. They would be righteous people who could overcome the stars, i.e. their fates would not be subject to zodiac constellations, to מזל. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 69,5 explains the simile of the "dust of the earth" to mean that just as dust cannot prosper without water, so Jacob's (Abraham's) descendants would not prosper without Torah which is for the spirit what water if for the body. The <i>Midrash</i> there lists other qualities of dust which make it seem as something valuable and important. Examination of various <i>Midrashim</i> on the subject of עפר, dust, shows that we never find dust treated as something valuable until after Abraham's descendants were compared to stars for the first time. This is the reason that the quotation from the <i>Midrash</i> we have cited was from פרשת ויצא and not from here. At any rate, Abraham was concerned about the comparison of his descendants to dust in G'd's first promise.
  The expression בן ביתי can be understood in one of two ways. 1) Abraham said to G'd that If He only intended to give him the kind of descendants that are comparable to lowly dust, he would prefer that a member of his present household would become his heir. He referred to his trusted disciple Eliezer. Such a one would be more suited than an unworthy biological descendant. A typical example would be a grandson such as Esau.
  2) Not only was Abraham distressed at not having been promised worthy descendants, he was even more distressed that a בן בית such as Lot viewed himself as his heir. I have found an ancient commentary which understands Abraham as preferring to die intestate to having unworthy children.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה. He believed G'd who considered this as a merit for him. We can understand this as similar to the laws concerning vows. The Talmud (<i>Rosh Hashanah</i> 6) says that when one makes a promise to give charity to a sacred cause it is considered as binding or as effective as if one had already actually handed over the object of a vow to an ordinary person. Abraham qualified for a reward by merely expressing his belief in G'd's promise. You may well ask what practical benefit Abraham received by this reward seeing that neither Ishmael nor Isaac had been born as yet? This is why the Torah says that "he considered it an act of righteousness," i.e. also Abraham treated G'd's promise to him as if it had already been fulfilled.
  Furthermore, seeing that G'd cannot influence whether man is G'd fearing or not, i.e. "all is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven" (<i>Berachot</i> 33), Abraham could have had doubts about G'd's promise as to the quality of his offspring. The Torah therefore gives Abraham credit for not worrying how G'd could guarantee his children would be worthy. Another way of looking at Abraham's act of faith is based on the tradition (<i>Pessikta Zutra Lech Lecha</i> 15,5) that the world will not lack a minimum of 30 (or 36) righteous men by whose merit it continues to exist. This tradition is based on the numerical value of the word יהיה in the previous verse. Since G'd needs these 30 צדיקים, it stands to reason that He does influence these men to be pious. If so, they can certainly not claim their righteousness as their own merit as would otherwise be the case. (Compare Deut. 6,28 וצדקה תהיה לנו that performance of the commandments will be accounted as a merit for us). Abraham may have been rewarded then for not making an issue of this, although some or all of these men may have been unduly influenced to live the lives of צדיקים.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמר לאברם, He said to Abram, etc. Why did G'd say ידע תדע, instead of simply תדע, know! Why did the Torah stress the word גר in גר יהיה זרעך, instead of the more customary זרעך יהיה גר? The Torah does not usually mention what happens before having stated to whom it is going to happen! Why does the Torah not make it clear when and to whom the various stages of being a stranger, being enslaved, and being afflicted apply? Will Abraham's descendants experience all these stages of unpleasantness for the whole of the 400 years, or will some experience some of the afflictions and others only being strangers such as history has taught us?
  I believe the Torah repeated the words ידע תדע for three separate reasons. 1) Our sages said: "our forefathers descended to Egypt on account of a relatively minor sin, i.e. Abraham having asked: 'How will I know that I will inherit'" (Genesis 15,8)? G'd answered him; ידוע, "know! that because you asked, תדע you should be aware that your descendants will first be strangers, etc." 2) Seeing that G'd's response to Abraham's question contained both a pleasant and an unpleasent message, i.e. enslavement and subsequent redemption, G'd told Abraham that just as surely as there would first be enslavement, this would be followed by redemption. 3) Our sages (<i>Berachot</i> 18) commented on Deut. 34,4: זאת הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאברהם, ליצחק וליעקב לאמד לזרעך אתננה, that G'd told Moses לאמר, to tell the patriarchs that He had fulfilled the oath He had sworn to all of them regarding the land of Israel. In view of this the repeated use of the expression ידע תדע refers to both the present and the eventual status of that land.
  The reason that the word גר is stressed by being placed ahead of what is going to happen, is to inform us that the status of being an alien commenced already at this time. Abraham's life from here on in was part of the decree. Abraham should not think that his descendants' history would parallel his own experience to the extent that they would be aliens only part of these 400 years. Abraham was not to misunderstand the meaning of the words כי גר יהיה זרעך as applying only at some time in the future. That period would commence the day he would have descendants, i.e. with the birth of Isaac. This was also a pleasant aspect of the decree in that all the years Isaac and Jacob lived either in the land of Canaan or at Laban's were counted as part of the 400 years.
  Should you argue that this could have been expressed equally well by use of the normal syntax כי זרעך גר יהיה, know that G'd wisely phrased it differently in order to reveal that He had not decreed slavery and oppression for all of Abraham's descendants. G'd wanted that Abraham should have the satisfaction of knowing that some of his descendants would only have to suffer being aliens, nothing worse. It is as if G'd had said to Abraham: "you will have a share in your descendants," i.e. they will only suffer being strangers without suffering anything worse. Had G'd used the word זרעך first, this would have created the wrong impression. By inserting the word יהיה between the words גר and זרעך the Torah makes clear that some of Abraham's descendants would experience only גרות. The descendants referred to were Isaac, Jacob, and all of Jacob's sons. As a result what sounded like 400 years of enslavement and oppression actually was reduced to 210 years, the years remaining before the Exodus after the last of Joseph's brothers had died. Even the tribe of Levi who, according to our sages never performed slave labour, did not completely escape the aspects of enslavement and oppression seeing that its babies too were subject to drowning. Moses' own experience when his basket stood in the bulrushes at the banks of the Nile, is the best proof for the anxieties suffered by even the most prominent families of the Levites.
  
  Verse 14
  
   וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי, "I will also judge the nation for whom they perform slave labour." What justification is there for the word "also" in this verse? The last subject the Torah spoke about was enslavement and oppression. How can the retribution be linked to the former by the word וגם, "and also?" Besides, as we are all aware that G'd is the judge, why does G'd have to say דן אנכי, "I will judge?" Who else could possibly judge? Why does the Torah write את הגוי instead of merely הגוי, "the nation?" Why does the Torah not mention the conclusion of the Jewish people's exile experience at the end of verse 13 by adding: "after that they will depart with great possessions," and then add the part about G'd's retribution to the Egyptians in verse 14? Why was the part about the retribution inserted in the middle of the sequence? The last question is probably best answered by recalling that events actually happened in precisely the order the Torah describes. First the Jews were enslaved and oppressed, then G'd smote the Egyptians with the ten plagues; finally the Jews left Egypt having "borrowed" all of the Egyptians' gold and silver.
  An equally valid explanation of the sequence of the verse will become clear when we keep in mind what our sages had to say on Exodus 13,18. We read there that וחמושים עלו בני ישראל מארץ מצרים. According to the <i>Mechilta</i> the meaning is that only one out of five Israelites left Egypt, the remainder having died in Egypt during the plague of darkness so as not to afford the Egyptians the satisfaction to observe that they had not been worthy of redemption. The judgments that verse 14 speaks about then would be G'd judging the Israelites who did not merit to participate in the Exodus. The verse also alludes to the opportunity the Israelites had to examine where the Egyptians kept their valuables during the days of darkness, and to subsequently demand to borrow those. The expression וגם is used to demonstrate that G'd kept the promise made to Abraham here. This was recorded in Exodus 12,35-36. The word וגם means that G'd referred to something in addition to the decree of enslavement, namely that the redemption would be accompanied by a windfall of silver and gold, a compensation for some of the suffering to be endured. The word את refers to the death of 80% of the Israelites, whereas the word אנכי refers to the fact that this was something only G'd himself would know about; the Egyptians would not have any idea that some Jews died during the plague of darkness. 
  The question arises why G'd punished the Egyptians altogether when they had actually carried out the decree G'd had announced long previously.
  Maimonides already answered this in his ספר המדע, explaining that G'd had never appointed a specific nation to carry out His decree. Whenever Gentile nations abuse Jews and this appears to be a fulfilment of a divine decree, none of the Gentiles had ever been specifically charged to be G'd's agents in the matter. Nachmanides and Rabbi Avraham ben David both take issue with Maimonides on this. They feel that inasmuch as those Gentiles had carried out G'd's wishes they had actually performed a מצוה. Nachmanides explains that the reason that G'd punished those nations was that they carried out the commandment with excessive enthusiasm. They demonstrated that they were intent on inflicting maximum discomfort on the Jews rather than to carry out G'd's will by what they did. When we keep this in mind, the word וגם refers to the excessive zeal displayed by the nations who persecute us which is the reason that G'd judges them. The word את then means that while G'd is busy punishing the Gentiles, He punishes the Jews who deserve it at one and the same time.
  The Gentile nations persecute us because we separated ourselves from them by rejecting their religion. Had the Jewish people worshiped the lamb (Egyptian deity) in Egypt, the chances are the Egyptians would not have seen in us a foreign element and they would not have persecuted us. The same holds true throughout our history. Our persecution by the nations (at least from their point of view) has always been due to our refusal to accept their religious yardsticks, and to our describing ourselves as G'd's chosen people. The Gentile nations never viewed themselves as performing G'd's decree to punish us for our sins. There is therefore no question that they deserve retribution for what they did to us on their own initiative. G'd decreed that we be punished because we did not observe all of His commandments, whereas they persecuted us for not disregarding all of His commandments. This is what the prophet Zecharyah 1,15 had in mind when he quoted G'd as saying: אני קצפתי מעט והמה עזרו לרעה, "I was angry a little (because of a few sins Israel committed), and they overdid the punishment." In fact the Gentile nations contributed to our transgressing more of G'd's commandments because they maltreated us so much. 
  G'd goes on record here that He knows the true motivations of our oppressors and that is why He will punish the Egyptians. The Torah continues by linking Israel's redemption to the degree of abuse they would experience at the hands of the Egyptians by saying: ואחרי כן יצאו, "and as a result of this (exaggerated maltreatment) they will depart with great belongings;" Israel's redemption would be due in large measure to the excessive cruelty of its oppressors rather than to its accumulated merits. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 104 tells about the delegation the Egyptians sent to Alexander the Great demanding that the Jews return the silver and gold they had taken with them from Egypt at the time of the Exodus. Israel's representative countered by demanding back-pay with interest for several hundred years of slave labour by over a half a million of its people for over 200 years.
  Our verse also contains a hint that when the Israelites went down to Egypt G'd's presence accompanied them (<i>Megillah</i> 29). Psalms 91,15: "I will be with him (Israel) in distress," is also proof that the שכינה accompanies the Jewish people into exile. Another indication that our verse speaks about the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt is Exodus 24,10 where the nobles of Israel had a vision of a sapphire brick underneath the throne of G'd. This is an allusion to G'd having been present when the Israelites were engaged in brick-making in Egypt.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום. As for you yourself, you will join your forefathers in peace. Why did the Torah interrupt the promises made to Abraham's descendants with a promise to Abraham personally? Even though G'd wanted to reassure Abraham that he personally would not experience the part of the decree connected with enslavement and oppression, this could have been stated after G'd had concluded telling him which generation would experience the redemption! The meaning would have been clear since the promise was adjoining the promise that Israel would experience redemption! Besides, why did the Torah have to repeat itself, stressing: a) "in peace," and b) "in a ripe old age?" Would it not have sufficed to promise Abraham that he would die in a ripe old age before the enslavement of his descendants would commence? The promise of death in a ripe old age would have implied that Ishmael would become a penitent, as pointed out by <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 38,12.
  Righteous people, and especially our patriarchs, were always concerned with losing part of the reward they had stored up for use in the Hereafter through some act of kindness G'd would perform for them in this world. According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 44,4 Abraham worried that he might have caused the death of an innocent person in his war against the four kings and that as a result he had forfeited some of his eternal reward. G'd therefore reassured him by saying in 15,1: "Do not worry, your reward will be great." In view of the concern that Abraham displayed then it is reasonable to assume that he was similarly worried whether the eventual redemption from Egypt would not use up too many merits if it were accompanied by extraneous perks such as the רכוש גדול, acquisition of material wealth that would accompany it. What troubled Abraham was that clearly G'd would have to perform miracles in order to free his enslaved descendants when the time came. G'd wanted to put his mind at rest immediately; this is why He interrupted the prediction of what was going to happen by promising Abraham that his peace of mind would not be disturbed. The promise of שלום, refers to Abraham's peace of mind in the Hereafter, whereas the שיבה טובה, ripe old age, refers to his concerns about life on earth.
  
  Verse 16
  
   ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, "And the fourth generation will return here, etc." We must examine why the extent of the sins of the Emorite has a bearing on the timing of Israel's return to its homeland. Rashi and Nachmanides disagree on what the words "the fourth generation" refer to. Rashi understands them as a reference to the fourth generation from Yehudah (who descended to Egypt). His son was Peretz, his grandson was Chetzron; great grandson Caleb returned to the land of Israel. Nachmanides rejects Rashi's explanation preferring to understand the words as referring to a fourth generation of Emorites. He bases himself on G'd waiting up to four generations before visiting the sins of the fathers on their descendants (Exodus 34,7). Even if we accept the words of Nachmanides, why did G'd mention this fact to Abraham? Besides, it appears that no provision was made for the possible penitence of the Emorite, which, according to Nachmanides, would have delayed a return of the Jewish people to their homeland still further? Furthermore, assuming that Nachmanides is correct, why did G'd mention the sin of the Emorite altogether once He had told Abraham that the Jewish people would return to their homeland in the fourth generation?
  Actually, G'd told Abraham of two possible timetables according to which the return of his descendants to the land of Canaan could occur. One is the end of the exile in Egypt and the oppression there. This would occur when the combination of the years of being a stranger, being enslaved, and finally being oppressed (עינוי), would total 400 years. At that point G'd's decree would have been completed and He could lead the Jewish people forth from Egypt on the very day that those years came to an end. The second time factor which would enable the Jewish people to return to their homeland would be determined by the measure of guilt the Emorites had accumulated by that time. This would occur in the fourth generation, a generation later than the Exodus. For the purpose of this calculation the generation of Caleb is considered the third generation inasmuch as Caleb left Egypt as an adult. Even though Caleb personally entered the Holy Land (Numbers 14,30), the entry of a single Jew certainly does not constitute the return of a people to their homeland. When the Torah speaks about a generation it refers to the majority of the members of that generation. Caleb's sons constituted part of the fourth generation, as did all those who had not attained the age of 20 prior to the Exodus. The four generations are not to be counted as commencing with Yehudah, as does Rashi. If we were to count in Rashi's fashion i.e. from the time G'd's decree became effective, there is no reason why Isaac himself should not be considered as a generation either, seeing that the 400 years commenced with his birth. If, on the other hand, we are to count the generations as commencing with the first Jew who descended to Egypt, the count should commence with Jacob. If we did this, Caleb himself would already be the fifth generation. It is clear then that the count was meant to commence with the period the Israelites experienced enslavement. <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,5 states that as long as any of Joseph's brothers was alive none of the Israelites were enslaved. The calculation of the fourth generation the Torah speaks about here therefore commences with Yehudah's sons Peretz and Chetzron.
  The fact that the Torah uses the plural when speaking about the return of the Jewish people is a hint that the Torah speaks about people who have been forcibly prevented from returning up until that time. They would return after four generations have been completed. The first generation of Israelites who were forcibly prevented from returning to the land of Canaan were the children of Joseph and his brothers.
  We now need to understand why the guilt of the Emorite plays any role in all this when the Torah elsewhere told us in Numbers 14 that the sin of the spies and the generation who believed the ten spies was the cause that re-entry to the land of Israel was delayed by an additional generation. The 400 years G'd had decreed were completed at the time the Jewish people asked that the spies be sent out. Had they not done so, they would have entered the land of Israel at the end of the 400 years G'd speaks about in our פרשה. This would have coincided with the 3rd generation of the Jews who had experienced servitude. The additional generation was due to the sin of the spies. Assuming this tragic delay had not occurred, how could G'd have squared entry of the Jewish people to the land of Canaan with the measure of guilt of the Emorites the Torah speaks about here?
  We must understand the Torah in terms of how the Talmud <i>Berachot 7</i> explains Chabakuk 1,13: למה תביט בוגדים, תחריש בבלע רשע צדיק ממנו, "Why do You countenance treachery, and stand by idly when the one in the wrong devours the one in the right?" The Talmud says that while it is possible that the wicked triumphs over someone relatively more righteous than he, he will never triumph over someone truly righteous. This means that the wicked are not totally devoid of merits, and we find on occasion that by using their merit they can overcome someone else who is generally more pious than they (while on this earth). The reason is that the wicked at that time can point at the imperfections of the person who thinks of himself as righteous. When the wicked is absolutely wicked however, it is not only permissible to destroy him but whichever righteous person does so first deserves credit. One need not be a totally righteous person in order to be entitled to wipe out such a wicked person.
  At the time of the Exodus as well as at the time when they despatched the spies about 15 months later, the Israelites were on the level of perfectly righteous people. Although they had sinned during the episode of the golden calf, they had been punished for that sin and had regained their status as צדיקים גמורים, as perfectly righteous people. The "echo" of that sin was not strong enough to deprive them of that title especially vis-a-vis the Emorites. In <i>Sanhedrin</i> 110 Rabbi Eliezer describes the people at that time as pious, quoting Psalms 50,5: "bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice" as his support. After the episode with the spies, Israel lost this status. From that moment on their moral superiority over the Emorites was marginal. As long as they had been considered חסידים their merit was enough to overcome the Emorites immediately. If the Emorites had refused to vacate the land in order to allow Israel to return there, they could have easily overcome them in battle. Now they had to wait until the Emorites accumulated a further measure of sin before their own moral superiority would suffice to overcome the Emorites in their homeland. Proof of our contention is found in Numbers 14,44 when the Israelites had realised that they had sinned grievously in fearing the Canaanites, and volunteered to fight them. Moses warned them against such an enterprise. They insisted and were defeated. Had they been considered as righteous they certainly would not have been defeated. All of this is an elaboration of what the prophet Chabakuk spoke about.
  The point is underscored by Moses in Deut. 9.5, where Moses credits Israel's conquest of the land of the Canaanites not to their piety but to the wickedness of the inhabitants of that land at that time. Moses meant that the measure of their sins had become full by that time. Moses told the Israelites at that time that though they were not totally righteous, their merit was sufficient to overcome the complete lack of it in their opponents. He emphasised this lack of righteousness by the Israelites three times! However, the Emorites had absolutely no merits left that they could have used to help them triumph against Israel's various moral shortcomings.
  We now understand the need for mentioning the "fourth generation" in G'd's promise in our verse. G'd stated that the latest possible date for Israel taking over its inheritance would be at the end of four generations since the onset of slavery. By that time the Emorites would not have any merit left they could use to deny Israel their return to the land of their forefathers. This part of the prophecy would become relevant only if Israel did not maintain sufficient moral superiority over the Canaanites, if they did not qualify for the appellation צדיק גמור.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ביום ההוא כרת ה׳ את אברם ברית. On that day G'd made a covenant with Abram. The reason that G'd used the past tense in referring to the gift of the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants is that He had already made Abraham take possession of it, as we explained on 13,15. Abraham's children would henceforth own the land in their capacity as his heirs.
  In view of this clear-cut promise of the Bible that the descendants of Abraham were to inherit the land of the ten nations mentioned, how could Jewish heretics delude themselves by denying that there is hope for us in the future, seeing that G'd's promise had already been fulfilled and we have forfeited it due to our sins?. [I believe the author refers to converts who accept the Christian theologians' views of Jewish history. Ed.] In view of the fact that we never possessed the land of all of these ten nations, the promise of the covenant has clearly not been fulfilled as yet. Up until now Israel only occupied the land belonging to seven of the ten nations listed here. We did not even possess all the land of those seven nations. How then can one understand the people of little faith [the author calls them the dried up bones describing the revelation in Ezekiel 37. Ed.] who have given up on our glorious messianic future? G'd treated us according to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that punishment must fit the crime. Seeing that we were supposed to be G'd's servants but rebelled in that we failed to observe many of His commandments, He caused those who were supposed to be our servants to rebel against us. This does not mean that G'd does not have the power to fulfil His covenant in full at the appropriate time.
  The reason that the Torah first lists the nations whose territory we never captured, i.e. the Keyni, the Knizi and the Kadmoni, is that they are only different names for the Ammonites, the Moabites and the Edomites. When the time arrives when we will experience realisation of G'd's promise concerning those three nations, we will also again recapture the lands of the other seven nations listed here at the end. The Torah mentions those three first in order to teach us that the essential element of G'd's promise is that we will dispossess those three nations. The author sees an allusion of the future in Abraham's defeat of the four kings listed in 14,1. Three of them symbolise the Ammonites, Moabites and the Edomites. The last one (of those four), "Tidal king of גוים," represents the other seven nations. [The author seems to feel that the word גוים does not describe the name of a specific nation. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ותאמר שדי אל אברם חמסי עליך. Sarai said to Abram: "The wrong done me boomerangs on you." Why does the Torah present Sarah's complaint as if it were directed at Abraham when clearly she was angry at Hagar as she spelled out when she said that she had been downgraded in Hagar's eyes? If, on the other hand, she really targeted Hagar with her complaint, she did not seem to address the right target. After all, it was Sarah who had been slighted, her honour had been impugned not Avraham's.  Furthermore, we must understand Avraham's reply. He appeared to have accepted Sarah's complaint when he said: "do what you will with Hagar!" If Avraham had not felt that he had a share of guilt in what happened he should have denied wrongdoing and not simply told Sarah what she could do.
  In order to understand what transpired we must refer to <i>Bereshit Rabbah 45,1</i> where it is explained that the status of the servant Hagar was one which obligated Avraham to look after her economic needs, whereas he was not entitled to sell her. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains there that in return for supplying Hagar's needs, Avraham was entitled to consume (use, or own) the produce of her hands. This meant that wile Hagar was a bodily slave of Sarah, the proceeds of her labour belonged to Avraham. There is an argument in <i>Ketuvot</i> 79 whether the children born by women of such status belong to the mistress or to the husband. Those who hold that the infant belongs to the mistress base themselves on the principle that only one generation of "labour" belongs to the husband; when such "labours" have produced dividends in the form of children or animals, they certainly do not belong to the husband of the woman owning the slave. We have also learned in the name of Rav Ashi in <i>Gittin 39</i> that when a male slave has married a free woman in the presence of his master, the master must free him. The Talmud explains that this is so when the master has arranged the marriage. The commentators there are at pains to explain that the master had presumably freed the male salve in question first, as it is unlikely that he would use force to marry somebody forbidden to him in Jewish law. The same ruling applies when the woman was the slave and the husband was a free man. In that case the master has to free the woman (first). Concerning this ruling the <i>Maharik</i> writes in <i>Yoreh Deah</i> item 246 in laws dealing with slaves, that if a master engages in sexual intercourse with his slave intending to marry her, this is equivalent to setting her free. If his intention was purely; carnal, however, this has no legal consequences, i.e. she is not freed. There is a disagreement between Rav Alfassi and Maimonides concerning the result of a master sleeping with his slave without declaring any intention either way. According to Rav Alfassi on <i>Yevamot</i> 82. such an encounter also brings in its wake the freeing of the slave, whereas Maimonides disagrees in chapter 9 of the laws about slaves. After having explained all this, we can now return to the issue at hand.
  When Sarah noticed that Hagar exploited her pregnancy to belittle her she became angry at the very idea that a slave should belittle her mistress. There is every reason to believe that Abraham could not have been unaware of Hagar's conduct. Our verse need not be understood as if Sarah had only now brought this to her husband's attention. Our verse reflects Sarah's anger that her husband had not reacted sooner to the slights she experienced at the hands of Hagar. When Abraham slept with Hagar in order to establish a man-wife relationship, Hagar in effect had become a free woman legally, as we have demonstrated from the rulings quoted. When Hagar assumed haughty airs it was because she no longer viewed herself as a slave. Sarah blamed her husband for enabling Hagar to have attained the status of a free person. She did not express anger at Hagar, seeing that Hagar was correct in no longer viewing herself as subservient to Sarah.
  Sarah now challenged Hagar's new found legal status. She did this by emphasising that it was she who had initiated the union between Hagar and Abraham, not Abraham. She had given Hagar to Abraham inasmuch as she could dispose of the activities of her slave Hagar. Why would the Torah repeat ("I have given my slave to your bosom") something we knew already, except to stress the conditions under which Hagar had been given to Abraham? According to what we have explained earlier Abraham had no claim to the fruit of Hagar's womb. Any child of Hagar's would belong to Sarah, her mistress. Hagar had never been Abraham's slave so that he could have freed her. Hagar could only have been freed if her mistress had not given her to Abraham as a slave, or even specifically as a wife and we would fall back on the argument that Abraham would not consort with a harlot and that therefore even if he had not promised freedom to Hagar it was implied by his sleeping with her. All of this would apply only if Hagar had at that time been Abraham's slave, not when she was Sarah's slave. Sarah claimed that she had been very careful at the time she suggested that Abraham sleep with Hagar. She said (verse 2): "please sleep with my slave." She had given Abraham notice that Hagar would remain her slave also after he had slept with her. Had Sarah not had such an intention, she would simply have said to Abraham: "sleep with Hagar!"
  I have found an explanation of the words: "she (Sarah) gave her to her husband to become his wife." <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 45,3 states that the words "to Abraham as a wife" were meant as "to him exclusively, not to anyone else." Our sages also deal with the extraneous word אישה, "her husband," in verse three. Did we not know that Abraham was Sarah's husband? They say the word is an exclusion, i.e. Sarah insisted that in spite of Hagar sleeping with Abraham, he would remain a husband only to her! These words make excellent sense in the context of our approach to the whole episode. The Torah had to add this word so that we would understand that Hagar's status as a slave did not change as a result of her sleeping with Abraham. Abraham could neither release Hagar to someone else nor even free her.
  Hearing Sarah's words, Abraham concurred with her. This can be understood on two levels. 1) Abraham had never intended that Hagar's status should change as a result of the new arrangements; nonetheless he did not consider himself as a קדש, male prostitute, when he slept with her. 2) Originally, Abraham thought that Hagar became free as a result of his sleeping with her as a legal arrangement. He had not paid attention to the finer nuances of Sarah's words when she offered, or pressed, Hagar on him as a sleeping partner. Had he understood Sarah correctly he might not have agreed to sleep with Hagar at all, worrying that his sleeping with her would stamp him as a קדש, male prostitute. This may well be the reason why during the fourteen years that elapsed between the birth of Ishmael and that of Isaac we never hear that Abraham slept with Hagar again.
  The simplest approach to the whole problem is, of course, that as the Torah had not been given as yet, the various halachic wrinkles we have discussed did not enter the picture. The fact that Abraham and Sarah already observed the Torah's commandments of their own free will did not mean that on occasion, and in order to help fulfil some prophecy, they would not transgress laws temporarily. [Did not Jacob marry two sisters during their lifetime? Ed.] Maimonides already stated in chapter nine of <i>Yesodey Torah in Sefer Hamada</i> that when a properly accredited prophet asks the Jews to violate one of the 613 commandments on a temporary basis that one should obey him. He cites the example of the prophet Elijah who rebuilt a private altar at a time when such altars were prohibited (Kings 1 18). Seeing that Sarah was a greater prophetess than he (<i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1, based on Genesis 21,12), Abraham complied with her suggestion. It was necessary for matters to develop in this manner so that the residue of the original serpent's poison, some of which was still lodged within Abraham, could be expelled with the sperm which impregnated Hagar. When Abraham would eventually father Isaac, this would be from sperm that was no longer contaminated by the זוהמה, spiritual poison, of the original serpent. Had Hagar become a free woman, not only would she not have absorbed the entire spiritual contamination that was still lodged within Abraham, but the fact that Isaac would have been born with some of it could have caused untold harm to the future of the Jewish people. Sarah insisted that Hagar remain a slave because of such considerations. How else could we explain that Sarah would allow Abraham to make a קדש, male prostitute, of himself by sleeping with her slave? The reason she invited G'd to judge between them was because only G'd knew her true motives.
  As soon as Sarah heard that Abraham did not doubt her pure motives and that he did not say anything when she not only treated Hagar as a slave, but more demonstratively than previously, Hagar took the hint and fled that household. Hagar did not accept the decision that reduced her again to the status of a slave. She had never heard the condition Sarah made at the time she gave her to Abraham to cohabit with. When the angel called to Hagar (16,8), he addressed her as שפחת שרה, "the slave-woman of Sarah," to make it clear that she had not been entitled to leave Sarah and Abraham's household in what she thought of as her new status as a free woman. Hagar immediately accepted the angel's rebuke by saying "I flee from my mistress Sarah."
  We must explore the legal status of Hagar's son Ishmael. Is he (and his offspring) subservient to us inasmuch as he was the son of a Jewish owned slave? There is a <i>Beraitha in Torat Kohanim</i> 87 on פרשת בהר on the subject: Whence do we know that if a Jewish male fathered a son with a Gentile slave that this son is a slave of his? The words אשר יהיו לך מאת הגוים אשר סביבותיכם in Leviticus 25,44 are considered as the source of this ruling. This verse only ruled out slaves who lived in the land of Canaan at the time the Jewish people conquered that land. The words "who will be yours" were quite unnecessary. Normally, the Torah would have used an expression such as "whom you will purchase," or something similar. For this reason the author of the Beraitha understands the words as referring to as yet unborn children of a Gentile slave sired by a Jewish male. The law that remaining Canaanites had to be killed applied only to those who were already alive and in the land of Canaan at the time the Torah was given (Deut. 20,17). As a result of this ruling it emerges that Ishmael and all his offspring are truly slaves of the Jewsih people (legally speaking). There is no need to enter into the discussion we have described on page 149. Regardless of whether we view ourselves as Sarah's or as Abraham's heirs, Ishmael and offspring are included in our inheritance. Abraham inherited Sarah upon her death. He made Isaac his sole heir. G'd renewed the covenant with us the Jewish people to give us the lands He promised to Abraham. That land includes all the parts inhabited by Edom as well as the part of Esau shared with Ishmael's offspring.
  The most convincing proof that we are correct is found in Genesis 21,13 where G'd promises that the son of the slave-woman (Hagar) will develop into a nation. It is important to note that the Torah does not refer to Ishmael as Abraham's son but as Hagar's son. Thus the Torah emphasises that Ishmael remains a slave, seeing that he is the son of a slave. If you wanted to see further proof of this look at the way the Torah describes the sons of Zilpah i.e. Leah's slave-woman, and the sons of Bilhah, i.e. Rachel's slave-woman. You will observe that when the Torah described those women giving birth (Genesis 30,5) that the sons are attributed to Jacob, not to their respective mothers. This means that because Jacob slept with them in order to establish a legal bond they became free women. In the reports of the births of all the four sons of Zilpah and Bilhah the Torah was careful to emphasise this point, (compare 30,7; 30,10; 30,12) In our case the Torah empahasises the difference in status between Ishmael and Isaac once more when we read: "for through Isaac your seed will be known" (Genesis 21,12) i.e. not through Ishmael. 
  There was no need to promise to give us the lands of Ishmael since a slave does not own land and whatever land he lived on belonged to the Jewish people, his owner.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ולא יקרא שמך עוד אברם, your name will no longer be Abram, but Abraham. Bereshit Rabbah 44,10 already stated that when Abram cited that he had seen in his horoscope that he would not father any children, G'd agreed with him and told him that he was correct, that as Abram he would not father children but that as Abraham he would. The same would apply to Sarai as compared to Sarah. This <i>Midrash</i> is very difficult since the Torah reports Abram as siring Ishmael, not Abraham! 
  Besides, why did the Midrash mention that Sarai did not bear children when Abraham had never even raised the problem of Sarai not having children? 
  We must conclude therefore that Abraham already knew at that time or at least surmised that any meaningful seed of his could only be conceived through Sarah because (presumably) whatever he had foreseen in his horoscope applied to himself in conjunction with his wife. G'd confirmed this when He told him that his seed would be known through Isaac. This is why the <i>Midrash</i> included the name Sarah when describing a prophecy primarily directed at Abraham. Abraham realised that the need for Ishmael to be his son was to rid his sperm of any residual contamination of the original serpent. Fathering Ishmael then was not fathering in the true sense of the word.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאמר אברהם…לו ישמעאל יחיה לפניך. Abraham said…. "if only Ishmael will live (a righteous life) before You." Abraham prayed that Ishmael should enjoy divine assistance to live as a righteous person. The term "to live before You" is the source for the righteous being called "alive" in our rabbinic literature. Abraham "borrowed" a phrase from Deut. 4,11 where the Torah describes the fact that the Jewish people were "alive" at that time as due to their having cleaved to G'd. Abraham saw the need to pray for this as he had observed negative character tendencies in Ishmael (who was still a minor). Had Ishmael been truly wicked at that time, Abraham, though prejudiced as his father, would have been aware of such wickedness, just as any other righteous person could perceive such things. We have explained in connection with 15,2-3 that Abraham had worried about a son of his not being worthy because G'd described his seeds as comparable to dust. At this point Abraham prayed that Ishmael would turn out to be worthy.
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויאמר אלוקים אבל שדה אשתך יולדת לך בן. G'd said: "But your wife Sarah will bear a son for you." Why did G'd add the word "but?" 
  G'd may have wanted to explain to Abraham that if the gift of a son was something intended only for Abraham, it would suffice to grant his prayer and assist Ishmael to become worthy. However, there was another person to be considered, his wife Sarah. Inasmuch as Sarah was destined to bear a son, he, Abraham, had no right to waive the gift of a son by Sarah in order for Ishmael to grow up worthy of his father. The Torah was very particular using the word לך, "for you," in connection with the son Sarah would bear. She would bear this son in answer to her prayer.
  It is also possible that the Torah here hinted at G'd's displeasure that Abraham was satisfied with Ishmael, someone who contained residual poisonous material from the original serpent. Had it not been for Abraham's prayer regarding the future of Ishmael, his son Isaac might not have originated in what kabbalists know as the סטרא דנוקבא, an emanation on the left and female side of the emanations. Had Isaac originated in the other side of the emanations he might never have fathered an Esau. This matter had ramifications at the time of the עקדה, when Isaac received the soul who would bear children for him, i.e. the moment at which Rebeccah his life-partner was born.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ולישמעאל שמעתיך, "Concerning (your prayer for) Ishmael, I have listened to you, etc." Inasmuch as the only reason Abraham had prayed for Ishmael was because he was at that time his only son, and he had not prayed for him again after Sarah had born Isaac, G'd listened to his prayer. We can understand this according to the principle postulated in <i>Makkot</i> 11 that even the conditional curse of a Torah scholar comes true. We have another principle that a blessing is much stronger than a curse, i.e. has far wider ramifications. G'd told Abraham that Ishmael would eventually become a בעל תשובה since Abraham had prayed for Ishmael to develop into a G'd-fearing person. This is the meaning of G'd's words: "Here I have blessed him." G'd used the past tense to hint that when He promised that Abraham would die in a ripe old age, He had already made provisions for Ishmael's conduct not to cloud Abraham's departure from this earth.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויקח אברהם את ישמעאל בנו. Abraham took his son Ishmael, etc. Inasmuch as Ishmael had attained maturity, (he was 13 years of age) Abraham had "to take him," i.e. convince him, not merely order him to submit. The same applied to all the other members of his household who were no longer minors. Abraham was anxious that G'd's commandment to become circumcised would be accepted willingly.
  כאשר דבר אתו אלוקים, as G'd had told him to. We need to know why the Torah added these last few words. After all, anyone who reads the passage is aware that this is exactly what Abraham did. Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that the efforts Abraham made to have all the people concerned be circumcised willingly was what G'd had told him to do.
  Possibly, the Torah testified to the fact that Abraham complied with G'd's instructions immediately, without any delay. The Torah credited Abraham with the manner in which he related to any of G'd's demands upon him.
  <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 27 understands the repetition of המול ימול in 17,13 to mean that he who circumcises others must himself first have been circumcised. Perhaps this is what is meant by the words: "as He commanded him to do," i.e. Abraham circumcised himself first before he circumcised anyone else. If we accept this explanation we do no longer have to search for a reason why the Torah did not specifically mention that Abraham circumcised himself. There were two reasons why it is assumed that Abraham was the first to circumcise himself. 1) It was his nature to comply with any commandment of G'd immediately. Besides, how could he have persuaded others to do something he himself appeared to be afraid of doing? 2) In order for his circumcision of the members of his household to be halachically valid, he himself had to be circumcised first.
  When the Torah told us in verse 24 that Abraham was circumcised, this concerned only the time element. The Torah wanted us to know that just as Ishmael allowed imself to be circumcised at 13 years of age, so Abraham was 99 years of age. [The letter ו in the word ואברהם in that verse was necessary because it interrupts the story of Ishmael's circumcision. The Torah wanted to mention Abraham's circumcision before that of Ishmael; this is why it had to insert verse 24. Ed.]
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וידא אליו ה׳. G'd appeared to him. Why is Abraham, the subject of the vision, mentioned before G'd? The normal construction would have been וירא השם אליו. In the previous visions Abraham received, G'd is always referred to first (compare 12,7 and 17,1). 
  Why does the Torah not mention the nature of this vision, the subject matter discussed, etc.? Our sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 86 say that G'd simply paid Abraham a visit, seeing the latter was still recovering from the effects of the circumcision. While this is a nice explanation, there is not a hint of this in the text.
  I believe that the message to Abraham was that henceforth G'd's presence would rest on him on a permanent basis [that he enjoyed a measure of the Holy Spirit. Ed.] In kabbalistic terms, Abraham had now become a "carrier of the שכינה." <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 47,6 describes all the patriarchs in those terms. The present form of address indicates that G'd's presence became felt by Abraham. Had the Torah used the usual wording we could not have become aware that G'd distinguishes between revelation itself, and the One who reveals Himself. It is because of this that Abraham's future visions are never again introduced by the word וירא. We find only: "G'd spoke to Abraham." This is a reminder he already wore the "crown" indicating that G'd's presence was upon him.
  The term "He appeared to him" also alludes to the letter י of G'd's name becoming visible on Abraham's flesh as mentioned in <i>Tanchuma 96 and Zohar</i> 1,95: "when the holy רשימא rests on someone this means that G'd's presence rests on someone."
  The message is also that now that Abraham was circumcised he was able to absorb a vision of G'd in His superior light. Not all visions are of the same calibre. Once Abraham was circumcised he became privy to a prophetic vision in the full sense of that word. He was able to absorb the full name of G'd, i.e. the tetragram. We would not have understood this if the Torah had written: וירא ה׳ אל אברהם.
  An additional meaning of the verse and the way it is phrased is that G'd appeared to Abraham for Abraham's sake. The Torah here alludes to something discussed in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 86. Rabbi Chama son of Chanina stated that this vision occurred on the third day after the circumcision. G'd came and enquired after Abraham's wellbeing. How did Rabbi Chama know that it was the third day? If we were to deduce this from Genesis 34,25, where we are told that the third day after the people of Shechem had circumsised themselves was a day they experienced additional pains, this cannot be, because we have a definitive statement in <i>Shabbat</i> 134 that the first and second day after the circumcision are more dangerous to the patient! True, the Talmud there distinguishes between the pain and the relative healing process experienced by adults (pain lasts longer, healing occurs more slowly), compared to that experienced by minors. However, such a distinction applies only to the third day, not to the first two days. On the first two days everyone experiences the most pain.
  Besides, do not use the fact that Shimon and Levi did not attack the people of Shechem until the third day after their circumcision as an argument. These sons of Jacob were not concerned with the pain of the people of Shechem but with their physical weakness, their relative inability to offer resistance. The third day is definitely the day such patients feel weakest. Regarding the danger of infection from the wound and danger to life, etc., the first two days are far more dangerous than the third day. Why should we assume then that G'd did not come and visit Abraham on the first or second day after the circumcision? I have found an interesting comment in the <i>Tur Yore Deah</i> item 335 in which he quotes this folio in the Talmud without mentioning that it was on the third day. According to that version the simple message of Rabbi Chama is that G'd came to pay a visit to the sick. [The discussion in <i>Shabbat</i> 134 concerns washing a baby with hot water on the third day after the circumcision if the third day is on the Sabbath; permission to do this indicates that on that day the baby's life is in danger. Ed.]
  According to the opinion of <i>Ran</i> that the first and the third days are the most dangerous to the patient, whereas the second day is not sufficiently dangerous to desecrate the Sabbath, we can understand the matter better. When you do not feel in danger, G'd applies the general rule of not visiting the sick during the first three hours of the morning. On the first day one also does not visit the sick as we know from <i>Nedarim</i> 40. When Rava was sick, he told his household not to tell anyone on the first day about his being sick in order not to influence his horoscope negatively. Rashi explains this to mean "that one should not talk about the sick person." [As long as the matter is not public knowledge an immediate cure may result without the debits and merits of the sick person being reviewed in heaven because of people talking about him. Ed.] However Rava did want the fact that he was sick publicised from the second day on, so that all those who hated him should rejoice over his being sick. This would help diminish his debits [in the accounts kept in the celestial ledger. Ed.]. Rabbi Chama did not think G'd visited on the first day, as such a visit would certainly not have gone unnoticed, and as a result tongues would have been set wagging. <i>Yerushalmi Peah</i> third chapter states that the relatives of a sick person may visit him immediately; this is because such visits do not contribute to the sickness of the patient becoming public knowledge. There is certainly no doubt that G'd Himself must be viewed as a very close relative of the sick person. However, a visit by G'd would most certainly attract attention. According to the opinion that there is no difference in the degree of danger on either of the respective three days, this would leave the question of why Rabbi Chama had to mention the third day as the day G'd visited Abraham. We may have to assume that these people had the version of the <i>Tur</i> which did not mention the third day at all.
  
  Verse 2
  
   וישא עיניו וידא. When he raised his eyes he saw, etc. Why did the Torah add the word והנה?" Besides, why did the Torah add that the three men נצבים, "were standing?" This is no more than normal! What does the addition of that word add to our understanding? Furthermore, what is the meaning of the word עליו, "upon him?" The meaning of that word cannot be that they were merely close to Abraham! If that were the case, why did Abraham have to run towards them? Another difficulty in the paragraph is the repetition of the word וירא! Why does the Torah portray Abraham as bowing down to these men before he knew who they were, i.e. angels and not Arabs?
  We must understand the report of the Torah in terms of what transpired later, i.e. that the men were indeed angels who appeared in human garb in order to partake of Abraham's hospitality for reasons known to us. The words וירא והנה simply mean that Abraham saw that they were apparently men, something which later on proved to have been an error on his part. He had judged the outward appearance. Had the Torah not added the word והנה, the report would have been a lie.
  The word נצבים means that Abraham, who was by now familiar with celestial messengers, realised that these "men" had been sent to him for a specific purpose, for his sake. One of them, for instance, had been charged with the task of healing him. A second one had been sent to inform him that by that time in the following year Sarah would have a son. The third one, whose task appeared to be the destruction of Sodom, nevertheless had detoured in order to afford Abraham an oppportunity to intercede on behalf of the people of Sodom before G'd would carry out His judgment on that city. In other words, his whole presence there was "עליו, on account of him (Abraham)."
  The expression אנשים נצבים may allude to the human posture these angels assumed. The word עליו means "on his account," i.e. for his sake, so that he could perform the מצוה of hospitality. Abraham realised that they were angels because the bearing of an angel cannot be disguised. We know this already from the wife of Manoach (Judges 13,2). If that lady realised that she faced an angel, someone of Abraham's stature would certainly be aware of the presence of an angel. After all, Abraham had already encountered angels previously. The word וירא a second time merely confirmed Abraham's original impression seeing that he had been healed and was able to run towards them. An angel has long-distance vision and inasmuch as the cure he performs is of a spiritual nature, he does not need to be physically close to the patient. As soon as Abraham felt cured, he bowed down to the angel in gratitude to G'd.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמר, אדני, אם נא מצאתי חן, He said: "my lords, if I have found favour, etc." We need to know why Abraham did not speak to all three of them at the same time. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 48,10 mentions that Abraham said to the leader, Michael, that "a little water should be taken, etc." This is merely a homiletical explanation. How would Michael know that Abraham's invitation was addressed to all three of them when Abraham spoke to Michael in the singular?
  The reason Abraham addressed only Michael was that he felt that the other two were going to come to him even without a specific invitation, seeing that G'd had despatched them with messages for him. One was meant to cure him, the other to inform him of the impending birth of Isaac. The same did not apply to the third angel Gabriel, whose function it was to destroy Sodom. He had no task to perform in Abraham's home. This is why Abraham appealed to him not to depart until he had partaken of his hospitality. Gabriel consented.
  
  Verse 4
  
   יקח נא מעט מים. "Let a little water be brought." Perhaps the reason Abraham spoke about a "little" water was to indicate that it was not much of an effort to procure it. He certainly was not miserly. Apparently, he did not want to depart from his custom to ask guests to wash their feet to remove the dust that most of them worshipped (Baba Metzia 86). [The author felt the need to justify the custom seeing Abraham was already aware that his guests were angels and not given to worship the dust. Abraham may not have wanted his servants to realise that his guests were angels. Ed.]
  Abraham may have hinted to the angels that the water he spoke about was a reference to the Torah. Torah is multi-faceted; it speaks to us as פשט, plain meaning of the words, and it also contains messages on a far deeper level. Abraham faced heavenly beings in human guise, i.e. G'd had made a body for them through solidifying something normally ethereal. When an angel assumes human form his "body" is compared to the "foot". This is a concept familiar to students of the Kabbalah (<i>Zohar</i> 1,58). Abraham hinted to the angels that they should take a little of the plain meaning of the Torah i.e. "water," seeing that they were presently in human form. They could then rest under the "the Tree," i.e. hyperbole for Torah which is known as עץ החיים. He referred to it as העץ, though it had not previously featured in our story. He also told them to take פת לחם, a reference to the inner meanings of Torah, something he alluded to when speaking about their לבכם, inner organs. He invited the angels to enjoy the inner aspects of Torah. [This is not so strange-sounding, seeing angels had never been given the Torah. Ed.] The reason he did not merely say פת but פת לחם, was a hint that this bread had inner properties, i.e. its numerical value being 78, or three times the numerical value (26) of the four-lettered Holy Name. This was an allusion to eternal life, i.e. past, present and future.
  
  Verse 5
  
   כי על כן עברתם על עבדכם, "for this is why you have come by your servant." These words were intended to silence the argument that once Abraham had recognised that his visitors were angels he should not have offered to give them human food. Although we explained that Abraham alluded to the spiritual nourishment the angels were to enjoy, this did not mean that we are to ignore the plain meaning of the verse. Terrestrial food also contains spiritually valuable ingredients as we know from Proverbs 13,25: "the righteous man eats to satisfy his soul." Abraham said to the angels that the reason they appeared in the guise of human beings was in order for them to partake of his food seeing that the spiritual content of that food also assumed the forms of the terrestrial world. The angels responded saying כן, yes, that Abraham was quite correct. They added that he should proceed as he had intended, i.e. to let them enjoy the spiritual content of the food.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמרו אליו איה שדה אשתך, They said: "Where is your wife Sarah?" The angels wanted that Abraham should realise that the message they had to deliver was primarily for Sarah; this is why they enquired about her whereabouts. Abraham indicated that she was within the tent ready to listen to what they had to say to her.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמר שוב אשוב אליך, He said: "I will certainly come back to you, etc." The angel used the singular, indicating that each one of them had his own task. In view of this why did all three angels ask about Sarah's whereabouts? Perhaps they simply wanted to enquire from her husband about Sarah's wellbeing. According to the rules of etiquette then, all three angels enquired.
  שוב אשוב. "I will certainly return." The reason the angel repeated the words שוב אשוב and added the word והנה, may be better understood on the basis of a tradition that when Isaac was born he suffered from a congenital defect; he was sterile. It was only after agreeing to be the sacrifice at the עקדה, that he was cured of that defect. The angel hinted that he would have to return twice כעת חיה, at a time when he would "give life," in order that Sarah's son would be a true son, able to procreate. The words והנה בן לשרה indicate that Sarah's son emanated from the left side of the emanations, the female, weaker side. The word והנה emphasises this origin of Isaac in Sarah's domain. Only when the angel would return once more would the male component, i.e. Abraham's input, become dominant within Isaac. This occurred in Genesis 22,11 where the Torah reports that an angel called out to Abraham not to harm Isaac. The angel therefore had two tasks to perform, 1) to announce that there would be an Isaac, 2) that he would possess a soul that could procreate. The reason that G'd had to do this was related to Abraham's prayer on behalf of Ishmael in 17,19. I have written about that subject at the time.
  Another meaning of the words ולשרה בן, that Sarah would by then have a son, is to tell us that a son i.e. male issue, is dependent on the female element being predominant whereas daughters are the result of a preponderant male element during marital union. We know this from <i>Nidah</i> 31 based on Leviticus 12,2. The angel prophesied that the physical union of Abraham and Sarah which would result in her impregnation would correspond to the rules laid down, or hinted at, in Leviticus 12,2. [compare <i>Midrash Hagadol</i> in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak that the sex of the embryo is determined in accordance with whose orgasm occurs first. If the male completes his orgasm first, the result is a daughter, if the female is first, the result is a son. Ed.] Scripture alludes to who was first by the way the birth is described. Chronicles I 4 18, states: "and his wife, the Jewess, gave birth to Yered, etc." [Every other issue mentioned in that chapter is described in terms of the husband fathering instead of as the wife giving birth. Ed.] In Genesis 22,24 the repetition of "and his concubine whose name was Re-umah, etc.," is another example of the principle we described. The words "whose name was" were quite unnecessary otherwise. Accordingly, the angels attributed the forthcoming son to the predominance of the female, i.e. Sarah's input.
  ושרה שומעת, and Sarah was listening. On the one hand the verse indicates that what Sarah heard was a message intended for her by a heavenly messenger, the messenger himself standing behind her. Nonetheless I have seen a <i>Midrash</i> according to which the angel was disciplined for not addressing Sarah directly with the message, preferring to deliver it to Abraham. Angels are punished for inadvertently committed disobedience or minor deviations from the instructions they receive.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמר השם אל אברהם למה זה צחקה שרה? G'd said to Abraham: "why did Sarah laugh," etc? The word זה needs explaining. Furthermore, why did G'd say לאמר, "to say?" In fact most of the verse is superfluous; all the Torah had to write was: "Why did she laugh?"
  We must consider that the Torah reported Abraham as laughing at a similar message in 17,17 when G'd promised him children. We do not find that G'd reacted to Abraham's laughter in that instance. The ordinary reader would want to know why Abraham could laugh at the same kind of message and not arouse G'd's anger whereas when Sarah did the same, it evoked criticism from G'd. Onkelos was aware of this when he used different words to describe Abraham's and Sarah's laughter respectively (חדי for Abraham's laughter, and חיכה to describe Sarah's laughter in our verse here). Why did G'd react differently to the same word, צחק when used by two different people?
  Actually G'd's very reaction includes a hint of why He took exception to Sarah's laughter whereas He had not reacted at the time to Abraham's laughter. A close examination of the text will reveal that Abraham had reacted with (derisive) laughter at the time he received the message. Sarah, on the other hand, did not laugh until she had menstruated again, a clear sign that her youth had returned. She herself referred to her rejuvenation. This proves that she did not believe G'd's promise until after she experienced proof on her own body. It was this that G'd objected to. When G'd said: למה זה צחקה שרה, He emphasised to Abraham that this laughter of Sarah was objectionable, whereas Abraham's at the time had not bothered Him. By her comment after the event that she now realised she would indeed bear a child, האף אמנם אלד, ואני זקנתי, that now she was convinced she would bear a child despite her husband's age, Sarah showed that up until that time she had not believed G'd capable of arranging this.
  ואני זקנתי, and I am old! Why did G'd quote Sarah as saying something she had not said? While we are aware of our sages' statement in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 87 that we learn from this verse that a lie is acceptable when it serves to preserve domestic peace between man and wife, why would we have to learn this from an untrue utterance of G'd? In view of our explanation of G'd's reaction to the finer nuances of Sarah's laughter we see that G'd had indeed spoken the truth concerning what Sarah had said. Until Sarah had menstruated she had thought of herself as too old to conceive and bear a child (hence derisive laughter). After she had menstruated, her laughter was no longer one of derision or disbelief but one of joy. She was doubly grateful to G'd that although Abraham had not yet demonstrated signs of rejuvenation, he surely would do so now.
  
  Verse 14
  
   למועד אשוב, I will return at the appointed time, etc. The reason that the angel repeated the promise was that Abraham should not think that because G'd had objected to Sarah's laughter G'd would take back His promise. This is why he said when exactly the promise would come true.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ותכחש שרה, Sarah denied, saying, etc. The reason the Torah reports Sarah as saying לאמור, as well as that she was afraid, is to show that Sarah was so righteous that she did not utter an outright lie saying: "I did not laugh." She merely said something, i.e. לאמור, from which one could deduce that she meant to deny that she had laughed. As to the reason why she was not truthful, the Torah adds that this was because she was afraid. The Torah affords us an insight into the psychology of a trusted servant who is reprimanded by his master after having inadvertently committed an offense. When said servant reflects on the enormity of his mistake by contrasting it with the exalted stature of his master, he denies his mistake. This very denial is equivalent to an admission but said servant lacks the moral courage to say so. It was Abraham who challenged Sarah by saying: "No, but you did laugh." He wanted her to make a confession of having laughed. Abraham was aware that what G'd wanted in such a situation was a specific confession. Our prophets have always urged us to confess, as per Proverbs 28,13: "he who confesses and abandons sin will find mercy."
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   והשם אמר המכסה אני מאברהם את אשר אני עשה G'd had said: "Should I conceal from Abraham what I am about to do?" G'd chose the word המכסה deliberately. Abraham noted that the third angel had a mission which had so far not been revealed to him, in contrast with the missions of the other two angels which had become manifest to him already. One had come to heal him and the other to tell Sarah about her impending motherhood. Moreover, when the angels departed from him, Abraham noticed that two of them walked in the direction of Sodom. Abraham accompanied those two angels to see them off. He realised that these angels still had a mission to perform on earth, something which had been concealed from him. Abraham would become aware of those angels' mission after the event. G'd was concerned lest he would feel badly in retrospect if He would not now take him into His confidence. Our sages (<i>Tanchuma</i> item 5 on our portion) state that the reason G'd decided to take Abraham into His confidence was because Abraham entertained doubts about the justice of G'd having brought on the deluge. He found it impossible to believe that there had not been at least ten or twenty righteous people at that time. In his opinion G'd should have suspended judgment on their account. The words אשר אני עושה then mean: "as I am used to do," i.e. I do not destroy a nation unless there are no righteous people left.
  G'd had another reason to reveal to Abraham what He had in mind for Sodom, seeing it had been Abraham who had saved the people of those cities at the risk of his own life when he rescued Lot. Inasmuch as Abraham thought that these people were safe, G'd thought He owed it to Abraham to inform him about His plans for them. He did not have to spell out what it was that He would conceal from Abraham as this is self-evident.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ואברהם היו יהיה לגוי גדול. "For Abraham is going to be a great nation." Therefore I have to inform him that contrary to what he had thought, righteous people can save both themselves and the towns in which they live. This is the meaning of the last words in our verse, ונברכו בו כל גויי הארץ. The word בו refers back to the words "a great nation."
  One may ask: "of what use is this promise to the nation that will follow Abraham?" G'd answers: "For I am aware that he will instruct his descendants, etc." G'd knew that Abraham would endeavour to teach his children to be good and to do good and to inform them about the ways of the Lord.
  למען הביא ה׳ על אברהם, in order that G'd would be able to fulfil for Abraham, etc. G'd announced here that the essential part of His fondness was not for Abraham's descendants but His fondness of Abraham personally. G'd's planning focused on how to ensure that He could fulfil all the promises He had made to Abraham concerning his descendants. Unless Abraham's descendants observed the paths of G'd this could not be guaranteed.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמר ה׳ זעקת פדום ועמורה, כי רבה G'd said: "the outcry about Sodom and Gomorrha is indeed great, etc.;" the reason for the word כי, as well as the additional word חטאתם, plus the description כבדה מאד, require analysis. We must remember that in that era all the nations angered G'd by their conduct all the time. The wickedness of the Sodomites, however, was in a class by itself. This is indicated by the words כי רבה, "for it is great;" this explains why G'd seemed to mind the conduct of those cities more than that of any others. The additional word וחטאתם alludes to the fact that their wickedness included not only the metaphysical, i.e. idolatry, but also moral-ethical wickedness in their relations with fellow human beings. <i>Sanhedrin</i> 109 lists examples of the latter, describing how they tortured a young girl to death for having given bread to a stranger, something illegal in that town. The Torah itself alludes to their attempts to have homosexual relations with the angels who visited Lot in the guise of human beings.
  G'd also wanted to cool Abraham's enthusiasm for saving such a wicked people. This is why He told him that their sins were both numerous and of a severe nature. Originally their sins were "merely" numerous i.e. רבה; meanwhile they had become "severe," כבדה, also. When Abraham rescued the Sodomites from the four kings their sins had not yet been that severe.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ארדה נא ואראה, "I will descend and have a look Myself, etc." We need to understand why G'd had "to descend." Is not the whole world like a grain of mustard in size compared to G'd so that the term "descend" loses its meaning when applied to G'd? The word הכצעקתה, "if as its outcry," also needs clarification. Does G'd have doubts about the accuracy of His own knowledge? Rashi says that the word teaches that a terrestrial court must not judge capital crimes except on the basis of eye-witnesses. If that is so, could we not have learned this already from Genesis 11,5 when G'd is described as descending prior to judging the generation which had built the Tower? Rashi himself made the same comment there as here!
  G'd informed Abraham of the sequence in which he employs kindness and mercy with His creatures. Fairness would require that punishment takes into consideration the relative stature of the person who has been sinned against and that of the sinner. When a human being transgresses any commandment of his Creator, the Supreme Being, he and all his entourage deserves to be destroyed because of the stature of the One whom he sinned against. If G'd proceeds simply on the basis of the enormity of the crime because of the stature of the מתביש, the one who has been slighted, the outcome of such proceedings is a foregone conclusion. If, on the other hand, G'd considers the relative insignificance of the מביש, the human being who committed the crime, and He bases the judgment on arguments presented by both litigants, things might appear in a different light. In such a case even the people of the generation of the deluge might not have been found guilty of extinction. This is why G'd explains here to Abraham ארדה נא, "I will descend, i.e. I will not judge on the basis of My superior stature." I will keep in mind the inadequacies of the sinners themselves. We find something of this nature in Isaiah 43,26 where G'd offers: נשפטה יחד, "let Us judge on an equal basis," keeping in mind the inadequacies of the creatures. G'd says: "If, after making full allowance for the inadequacies of any creature and ignoring My superior stature, the defendant still emerges as guilty, כלה, there is no escape for him. If not, I will know if they deserve to be judged by this or any other yardstick. G'd does not literally descend to earth to gain knowledge He did not have, but G'd lowers His profile in order to give the defendant an additional chance to downgrade his sin.
  Another meaning of these words could be that though at the time G'd heard the outcry of the victims of the Sodomites and their guilt was then beyond doubt, He wanted to ascertain if their situation had remained the same and they continued their wicked lifestyle. The word ארדה נא then would indicate an immediate examination if these people had continued as before. If they intended to perform more such heinous acts their destruction would be imminent. This is why the angels spoke about destroying the cities in the present tense, i.e. משחיתים אנחנו (19,13). Until the attempt to sodomize Lot's guests, G'd used only the future tense about the fate of Sodom. Perhaps we may view the function of the angels in part as similar to that of the messengers of the court who warn a rebellious wife of the loss of her כתובה, the financial settlement she receives in the event her husband dies or divorces her without cause. We learn from <i>Ketuvot</i> 63 that public warnings were issued four weeks in a row before action was taken in such a case. The proclamation was designed to induce the wife to change her ways. The same may have been the case here. When the Torah describes the journey of the angels (18,22) as ויפנו משם, "they turned from there," the reference may have been to the heavenly tribunal where the decree had been issued. This may explain the two successive statements ארדה נא and ויפנו משם.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויגש אברהם. Abraham approached, etc. When G'd had mentioned כלה, He meant that all the people in Sodom were doomed by the attribute of Justice; should it be G'd's intention to save the individual good people by allowing them to escape as happened to Lot, Abraham argued that perhaps there would be a substantial number of such people, i.e. fifty. The words האף תספה, "Will You also wipe out, etc?" mean "will You still wipe out the wicked despite the presence of so many innocent people?" The presence of the fifty should protect the entire population against mass destruction. When Abraham referred to the fifty good people as בקרבה, in the midst of the city, he implied that they should not be made to move in order to be saved. G'd would do better to remove the guilty and destroy them elsewhere. He used the expression חלילה לך, "it would be a profanation of Your name," when he referred to the remote possibility that the innocent actually share the fate of the guilty; concerning his second request that the presence of the righteous should serve as an umbrella for the guilty, he realised that this would be an act of kindness, not justice.
  When Abraham said והיה כצדיק כרשע, that the righteous would wind up just like the wicked, he indicated that if G'd applied the same yardstick to all creatures alike, the righteous would be deprived of every incentive to be righteous.
  The second time Abraham used the expression חלילה לך, he referred to the second alternative of saving the wicked because of the presence of a substantial number of righteous people in their midst. Abraham did not want G'd to destroy the wicked under such circumstances. Another meaning of this plea could be that Abraham reminded G'd that He had sworn after the deluge not to bring on mass destruction on mankind by invoking the ultimate rigor of the attribute of Justice (compare our comments on Genesis 9,11).
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויאמר ה׳ אם אמצא…ונשאחי לכל המקום. G'd said: "If I find fifty ….inside the town, I will forgive the whole place on their account." G'd answered only Abraham's last request. It goes without saying that He would not kill the innocent. We know that G'd saved Lot who was not righteous because he was a relative of Abraham.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   אולי יחסרון, Perhaps there will be five short?" Abraham implied that inasmuch as G'd was righteous He would make up the tenth in each of the five towns which had only nine righteous men in their own right. The assumption underlying all this is that at least a quorum of ten is needed in each town for those ten good men to provide protection for their town.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויוסף עוד לדבר אליו. Abraham continued to speak to Him (G'd). This is a continuation of the prayer that G'd Himself should act as the one making up the requisite quorum. The expression ויוסף…אליו means that Abraham continued in the same vein adding that G'd's making up the quorum would apply even if not all the towns would could be saved by that method.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויאמר אל נא יחר לה׳ He said "Let my Lord not become angry." The reason that Abraham was concerned about G'd becoming angry this time was because he tried to add his own merit to make up the quorum of ten in one of the towns in case this was all that was lacking, whereas G'd would make up the quorum in the other towns. Abraham used the word נא again because he introduced a new element, i.e. use of his own merit as a protective factor. [The author may have deduced the principle that Abraham injected his own merit here because of the absence of the word אליו when he speaks to G'd. I believe the novelty of the author's approach is that he believed that throughout the dialogue reported by the Torah Abraham did not abandon the attempt to save all five cities. Ed.]
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויאמר הנה נא הואלתי לדבר. He said: "Here I have already dared to speak." Abraham pleads here that G'd's merit should protect twenty of the thirty righteous men whereas his own merit should suffice to protect the people in a third location by complementing the quorum of ten. Seeing that Abraham did not introduce a new element this time, he did not worry about G'd becoming angry at his being presumptuous. The emphasis on אל ה was to underline that he did not try to expand what he considered his own merit. [I believe that in order to understand the author one must assume that the twenty mentioned in the verse do not need additional protection. All that Abraham worried about was the three towns which did not have ten good people each to protect them. Ed.]
  
  Verse 32
  
   אל נא יחר…אך הפעם. "Do not become angry if I speak only this one more time." Here Abraham again introduces his own merit as adequate to complement the quorum of twenty people (2 towns); this is why he worries about angering G'd. In this instance he was presumptuous enough to equate the protective power of his own merit with that of his Master. This is reflected in his avoidance of the words: "to my Lord;" he merely said: "I will speak," meaning a plea relying on his own merit. He added the word אך to indicate that he would not plead again if by chance the tenth one should be missing even in the remaining town.
  
  Verse 33
  
   וילך ה׳ כאשר כלה לדבר. When G'd completed speaking with Abraham He left. The Torah reports that G'd did not even give Abraham a chance to plead further on behalf of a lesser number of righteous people. After all, Abraham said that he had used his final plea. Although the <i>Zohar</i> 1,82 suggests that the righteous is the foundation of the earth, i.e. that a single righteous person could save the rest of the world, this may apply only to an outstanding צדיק. Perhaps if Abraham had lived in Sodom, his presence could have sufficed to save the town.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויבאו…בערב. They arrived in the evening. The reason for this whole story of the angels being hosted by Lot was to afford Lot the opportunity to justify his being saved. Although <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 50,11 attributes Lot's escape to Abraham's merit, we still need to find some redeeming feature in Lot's conduct to understand the efforts made by G'd to save him. Had the angels arrived at Sodom in daylight Lot would have lacked the moral courage to offer them hospitality even by devious means.
  וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם. Lot saw and rose to meet them. This means that Lot recognised that these people were of the type familiar to him as ministering angels of the Lord when he still travelled with Abraham. Because Lot realised this he was prepared to take risks for their sake against the inhabitants of his town. He told them to wash their feet, a custom he had learned from the way Abraham conducted himself with his guests. The Torah reports the details to show the difference between Abraham and Lot. Abraham commenced with his guests washing their feet, Lot suggested they sleep first. Lot did not mind if people who were idolators entered his home without first removing the traces of idolatry, something that Abraham was very particular about.
  
  Verse 2
  
   והשכמתם והלכתם לדרככם, "and rise early and be on your way." Lot hinted to the angels that they had to hide from the local population because he was afraid that something like what happened might indeed occur, i.e. that his guests would be molested.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויעש להם משתה. He prepared a feast for them. The correct meaning of the verse is that while Lot prepared a meal for them the angels ate only matzot. This was because Lot did not observe the commandments of the Torah as did Abraham. At Abraham's home the angels had no compunction about eating meat. The angels either knew that Lot had tithed the flour he used for baking the matzot, or they reasoned that in the absence of priests to give the tithe (תרומה) to, they assumed that function themselves and ate the part which could be considered <i>terumah</i> whereas they did not eat the regular matzah. According to our sages (<i>Midrash Hagadol</i>), the date was the 16th of Nissan and Lot had baked matzah in anticipation of the eventual Passover holiday some 400 years hence.
  
  Verse 4
  
   טרם ישכבו, Before they went to sleep. The Torah is careful not to write: "after they had eaten, etc." From this we learn that something transpired between Lot and the angels after the time they completed the meal and before their retiring for the night. Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 50,5 mention that when questioned about the townspeople by the angels Lot said that whereas all over the world there are both good and wicked people in a town, in Sodom the people were mostly wicked. We have previously explained why the angels did not immediately destroy the town when they heard this. Besides, according to the <i>Midrash</i>, Lot asked them to spare the city and they accepted his plea. It was only after they were about to add further sins (verse 5) to their already full register that the angels told Lot to save himself and his relatives (verse 12) prior to their destroying the city. There was an additional reason why the angels did not immediately destroy the town. They waited till morning, a period when the attribute of Mercy is in the ascendancy; at that time they would succeed in saving Lot. They could not have done this during the night. Our sages add that since the Sodomites worshipped both sun and moon they were smitten at a time when the moon is full (middle of the month) and the sun shone, to show that neither force protected them.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה. "For we are about to destroy this place." Although only one of them had been entrusted with that task, the angels used the plural seeing that they were both together. Otherwise the other angel would have appeared as if he was only an assistant.
  Possibly, whenever the Torah speaks of the (avenging) angel Gabriel it is understood that the reference is not only to him personally, but includes his army. Alternatively, since Gabriel was not free to act until the angel Raphael had secured Lot's escape their activities were dependent on one another.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויחזיקו האנשים בידו. The men took hold of his hand. Although only one of them was charged with saving Lot, the other one could not proceed with his task pending Lot's rescue. Perhaps we should see in Raphael the principal agent of Lot's rescue; in that case the fact that Gabriel assisted (by taking Lot by his hand) is not viewed as his performing an additional task. This is especially so because Gabriel helped Lot only in order to be able to carry out his assignment of destroying the city (seeing he did not have permission to do so while Lot was within its borders).
  
  Verse 17
  
   אל תביט אחריך, "do not look behind you!" The reason for this is simple. We believe that by looking at a person's face one (a צדיק) can detect whether he is good or evil. If Lot were to turn his face towards the city his sins would be reflected on his face and there would be no way he could have been spared.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   הנה העיד הזאת קרובה, "This town is nearby, etc." The verse is difficult. If the inhabitants of that town were guilty, what difference did it make that it was close by? Moreover, how could the angel say: "I have granted your wish?" Since when was it up to him? If the town was innocent, who had given the angel permission to destroy it even if Lot had not pleaded on its behalf?
  We must view the situation in light of the Talmud <i>Shabbat</i> 10 that Tzoar was only 51 years old, whereas the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were founded 52 years previously. Lot knew this and reasoned that Tzoar's measure of guilt was not full as yet. We also have a principle (<i>Baba Kama</i> 60) that once permission has been granted to the destructive angel to execute G'd's judgment, it does not really matter whether the measure of guilt is full. However, the angel Gabriel was then in a position to exercise some discretion. Lot was aware of this and appealed to Gabriel's discretionary powers. Lot left Tzoar as soon as possible because he was afraid that the time limit for the angel's discretionary power would elapse.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויאמר אבוהם אל שרה. Abraham said about Sarah, etc. This time Abraham did not ask Sarah to be the first to announce that she was Abraham's sister as he had done when they travelled to Egypt. Then he had been motivated by the ugliness of the Egyptians and the contrast with Sarah's white skin which aroused the lust of the Egyptians. The people in Geror did not look different from Abraham and Sarah. Also, their general sexual mores were superior to that of the Egyptians. Avimelech himself felt justified in challenging Abraham's deception if it were based on such suspicions. Pharaoh had not dared to ask such a question. This is also the reason that Avimelech agreed that Abraham reside in his country, something the King of Egypt could not afford to do.
  
  Verse 3
  
   הנך מת על האשה אשר לקחת. "Here you are going to die on account of the woman you have taken." The meaning is "after I reveal to you that she is married you will be guilty of death." Had G'd not informed Avimelech of Sarah's true status as a married woman, he would not have been guilty of death even if he had slept with her. Any Gentile who sleeps with a woman whom he has reason to believe to be single is innocent of adultery. Maimonides explains this in <i>Hilchot Melachim</i> 9,5.
  The verse may also be understood as telling Avimelech that he was guilty of death having taken Sarah while aware that she was married. However, it is more likely that at the time Avimelech had not known this.
  
  Verse 4
  
   ואבימלך לא קרב אליה. Avimelech had not been intimate with her. According to Maimonides <i>Hilchot Melachim</i> 9,7 a Gentile who engages in sexual inercourse with someone else's wife is only guilty of death if the act was performed in the normative manner. If such a Gentile indulges in intercourse with a Jewish woman however, he is guilty of death regardless of the manner in which the sexual act is performed. The Torah indicates that Avimelech was aware of this distinction and that he refrained from touching Sarah because he was afraid she might be married to Abraham the Jew.
  הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג "Are You killing nations even when they are righteous?" Why did Avimelech use the word גוי when he spoke about himself? Why did he say גם צדיק, "also the righteous?" The term תהרוג seems inappropriate seeing G'd gave him the option to return Sarah to Abraham untouched.
  The matter will become clear in conjunction with <i>Berachot</i> 64 on Kings I 22,17: "they will each return to his house in peace." The prophet Michayu uses the word בשלום instead of לשלום. The former is used when one speaks of the dead. Even though only king Achav died in that battle, the euphemism for death is applied to the entire nation. This teaches that when the king is in distress the whole nation is considered as being in distress. Here too Avimelech's statement reflects the same sentiment. His own problem becomes a national problem. By the same token Avimelech felt that if he personally was righteous this reflected on his entire people; it follows that if G'd were to kill him for a crime he had not committed, G'd would, in effect, kill a whole nation that was innocent. Moreover, he was afraid that G'd would kill him for having taken Sarah even without having slept with her. He added that even if he had slept with her while unaware that she was married, he would not have to face the death penalty, seeing Abraham himself had described her as "my sister."
  Alternatively, Avimelech thought that G'd had accused him of taking Sarah knowing she was married. He denied this vehemently.
  
  Verse 5
  
   בתם לבבי ובנקיון כפי "I acted with innocence and integrity." Avimelech said these words in the event Sarah was married, but not to Abraham. He claimed that if that were so what would Abraham have gained by declaring that she was his sister? This exonerated him from the death penalty, i.e. בתם לבבי. When he added בנקיון כפי, he pleaded that he was not guilty of the death penalty for robbery either, though we have a ruling both in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 57 and in Maimonides (the chapter quoted above) that a Gentile who commits robbery is guilty of the death penalty. It does not matter that the robbery is an act of kidnapping as distinct from stealing. The Talmud deduces this when it discusses the status of a prisoner of war who is considered as the victim of robbery or stealing. Accordingly, from the moment Avimelech took Sarah against her will he became guilty of the death penalty. Avimelech claimed that he thought both Abraham and Sarah were pleased at his taking Sarah for a wife. After all, he was the king and it meant social climbing for them both.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויאמר אליו האלוקים. G'd said to him (Avimelech). He agreed that Avimelech had not yet become guilty of death considering he had been convinced that Sarah was not married. As to his integrity, however, this was another matter. Whereas he might not have literally "robbed" Sarah [i.e. she did not belong to Abraham. Ed.], nonetheless he had employed the authority of being the king which is a kind of violence. At the very least "his hands were not clean in the matter."
  ואחשוך גם אנכי אותך, "I too saved you from sinning." G'd made it plain that when He said that Avimelech was going to die, He meant that if he did not restore Sarah to Abraham but would sleep with her. He had told him of Sarah's status now and thus given him a chance to save himself from sinning.
  מחטוא לי, from committing a sin against Me. Although Avimelech would not have been guilty of death had he slept with Sarah before becoming aware of her status as a married woman, nonetheless he would have sinned against G'd inasmuch as G'd was especially fond of both Abraham and Sarah and any offence against them would have been an offence against G'd Himself. This is why G'd added the word לי, "against Me."
  על כן לא נתתיך, "this is why I did not give you a chance, etc." Because of the special circumstances involved, I prevented you from sleeping with her; had you known she was married you would by now have been guilty of death. G'd judges the Gentiles even for a sin that has been planned but not yet carried out merely due to circumstances beyond the control of the sinner. According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 52,13 that an angel pushed Avimelech away when he tried to sleep with Sarah, the words: "I did not allow you to sin against me" make perfect sense.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ועתה השב אשת האיש בי נביא הוא. "Now restore the wife to the man for he is a prophet!" Until now Avimelech did not know who Sarah was married to. By mentioning that her husband was a prophet it became clear to Avimelech that it must be Abraham seeing he was the only prophet in that age. 
  Another reason that G'd mentioned that Abraham was a prophet was to reassure Avimelech that Sarah's husband would know he had not defiled her because he had prophetic powers.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר לו מה עשית? He said to him: "What did you do to me?" What did Avimelech mean by the word: עשית? What did Abraham do? If Avimelech referred to the evil deed, i.e. the lie, he should have prefaced his remarks by referring to the sin! Perhaps the very absence of the initial מה חטאתי לך at the beginning of his complaint is the key here. It means that the words מה עשית לנו mean: "what did you do ever do for us, and how did we repay you with ingratitude that you saw fit to treat us with such suspicions!" Avimelech hinted that there is no greater evil one can do to someone than to repay kindness with evil. Abraham's conduct had almost resulted in Avimelech's death! The entire verse is to be viewed as a rebuke.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמר אבימלך. Avimelech said. Seeing that the previous verse had been a rebuke only, he now switched to a question. This is why the sentence had to begin once more with the words: "Avimelech said," though Abraham had not yet responded to the accusation. Avimelech now conceded that he did not consider Abraham capable of wanting to harm him intentionally.
  
  Verse 11
  
   בי אמרתי…אין יראת אלוקים במקום הזה. "For I said (to myself) that there is no fear of the Lord in this place." This is the answer to the question: "what did you see?" Abraham prefaced his answer with the word רק, "only." He wanted to forestall Avimelech saying to him that if he, Abraham, considered the men as lacking in basic fear of the Lord, why did he worry more about their murdering him and then taking his wife? He should have worried more about the latter! Abraham said: רק, i.e. "I reasoned that they would try and minimise their culpability. As long as I would be alive every man sleeping with my wife would commit a capital offence every time, and would accordingly face many punishments. If they killed me first, they would only be guilty of murder once, whereas they would not become culpable for sleeping with my widow. If a number of them would conspire to kill me, each one causing a single injury not in itself fatal, they would claim that they were not even guilty of murder." Abraham said that this was why he decided to describe Sarah as his sister.
  
  Verse 12
  
   וגם אמנה אחותי היא, "Moreover, she is in fact my sister." Here Abraham accuses Avimelech by exonerating himself also from the accusation of having lied. He implied that he never said that Sarah was not his wife! He had not deliberately misled G'd-fearing people. He had said that Sarah was his sister which did not preclude her from also being his wife. It was up to the Philistines to ascertain that she was not his wife if they were really G'd-fearing people. Perhaps Avimelech gave Abraham generous gifts because he accepted Abraham's rebuke. He may have wanted to demonstrate to one and all that Abraham had not lied. Righteous people are wont to worry that one should not even think they had done something improper.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויהי כאשר התעו אותי אלוקים, "Ever since G'd caused me to wander, etc." Now Abraham explained the background to his behaviour from the start. It had been based on the premise that there was lack of fear of the Lord in the place. He explained that his conduct was not directed specifically against the people of Geror. He had made it a general rule in his wanderings to suspect people of lack of fear of the Lord. The Philistines had not done anything to cause him to exempt them from such a doubt.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   כי עצור עצר ה׳ בעד כל רחם. For G'd had blocked all body orifices. This was so that people should not be able to say that Sarah had become pregnant by Avimelech. Avimelech was impotent during that period. The Torah also wanted to demonstrate that Abraham's prayer was effective to make the formerly barren fertile again. We also learn from this that if someone prays for someone else to be healed in an area that he himself needs healing, his own needs will be attended to by G'd first. This is why the next verse tells us about Sarah having become pregnant. While it is true that G'd had already promised this previously, if a certain sequence in scripture is not applicable to the subject under immediate discussion, it may be applied to another subject as will be discussed shortly.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וה׳ פקד את שרה כאשר אמר. G'd remembered Sarah as He had said. The Torah tells us that this would have occurred even if Abraham had not prayed on behalf of Avimelech as we stated already. We should not think that G'd needed a prayer to prompt Him to keep His promise.
  There was, however, a connection between Abraham's prayer on behalf of Avimelech and G'd "remembering" His promise to give Sarah a son. G'd provided Abraham with an opportunity to perform a מצוה which in turn would trigger His removing Sarah's sterility. This is the deeper meaning of the additional words כאשר אמר. Whenever G'd wants to do someone a favour, He provides him with an opportunity to perform a good deed in response to which G'd can translate His intention into practice. The reason that G'd did not make Pharaoh and his household sterile at the time Sarah was kidnapped by Pharaoh was so that Abraham could pray for them because there had not yet been a promise to Sarah whose fulfilment could have been triggered by Abraham's prayer.
  ויעש…כאשר דבר, and G'd did for Sarah as He had foretold. The reason that the Torah repeats "He did" is explained in <i>Tanchuma</i> on our verse. When the angel had announced the impending birth by saying "כעת חיה," he had made an incision on the wall to mark the exact time of day the baby would be born, i.e. when the sun would hit that line. The Torah here confirms that the birth took place exactly as predicted.
  The verse also reports something we have explained on 18,10 and again on 17,19, namely that the son Sarah bore originated in the female (negative) side of the emanations. This in turn was the reason Isaac needed to submit to the binding on the altar, something that resulted in Sarah's death. The word דבר always refers to speech containing some harsh element. The Torah therefore uses it when it wants us to note that the birth of Isaac was not something that was perfect. He had to undergo a process of refinement as a result of which he could become holy. When the Torah says ויעש ה׳ לשרה כאשר דבר, this really means that "G'd did to Sarah as He had foretold." Isaac was born in response to Sarah's prayer, not in response to Abraham's.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותהר ותלד שרה לאברהם בן. Sarah became pregnant and bore a son for Abraham. The Torah needed to mention the pregnancy because we had learned that Sarah did not have a womb. This shows that G'd performed an additional miracle for her (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 53,5). The reason the Torah underlines לאברהם is to make it clear that only this son is to be viewed as an extension of Abraham, not Ishmael, as we read later in 21,12. Even though the Torah described Hagar as bearing a son "for Abraham" (16,15), the fact is that at that time Abraham was still called Abram. Once his name was changed, Abraham was no longer to be referred to by his original name. This means inter alia that Ishmael was not a son of Abraham. Perhaps the statement in <i>Berachot</i> 13 that someone who calls Abraham Abram is guilty of violating a positive commandment is precisely for that reason. Our sages do not want Ishmael characterised as a son of Abraham. Such considerations did not apply to Jacob whose name was changed to Israel as he could comfortably identify with all his sons. I have written some more about this subject on 35,10.
  לזקוניו. In his old age. The Torah adds this word and does not content itself with the more appropriate לזקנתו, because, as I wrote earlier, there was an element of the divine soul missing in Isaac at the time he was born. Isaac had only been equipped with a soul which originated in the female emanations. The repetition of the words denoting birth in verses 2 and 3, are an allusion to the eventual birth of another soul during another stage of Abraham's old age. [לזקוניו, literally: "in his old ages." Ed.] In order for someone in this world to receive something, such as an additional dimension to his soul, it is essential that the one from whom the something new is imparted has prepared himself suitably prior to imparting it. This is a concept that kabbalists are familiar with. If Isaac had possessed only the "female" soul at the time of the עקדה, the fact that he himself was ready to receive an additional soul would not have sufficed. The Torah wrote here ותלד…לזקוניו, to indicate she gave birth "twice." When Abraham offered his son on the altar this was his preparation for the "second" birth of Isaac.
  A simpler explanation of the plural לזקוניו, would see in that word the old age of both Isaac's father and mother respectively. This would reflect Sarah's having spoken about both אחרי בלותי…ואדני זקן (18,12).
  
  Verse 3
  
   בנו הנולד לו, His son who had been born to him. Inasmuch as Abraham had another son, Ishmael, the Torah records here that Abraham stressed that this was the son who was fit to bear his name and who would fulfil the aspirations he had for him. No such comment is recorded at the time Ishmael was born. The Torah's addition אשר ילדה לו שרה, whom Sarah bore for him, is an allusion to the fact that both had constantly prayed. Abraham had asked that all his descendants should be issue of his righteous wife Sarah, whereas Sarah had also prayed to be the mother of all of Abraham's children. The word שרה refers to her prayer, whereas the words אשר ילדה לו, refer to Abraham's prayer.
  Another reason for this nuance is that the name יצחק, i.e. joy, reflects the fact that an old woman had given a son to an old man. Sarah spelled this out in greater detail in verse 6.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   על אודות בנו. On account of his son. Abraham was afraid that the expulsion would result in Ishmael pursuing unwholesome activities because he felt rejected. He had to be concerned about this since Ishmael was his son after all.
  Another meaning of this expression is that Abraham resented Sarah's describing Ishmael as merely "the son of this slave-woman." G'd now interfered by telling him that Sarah was entirely justified. When G'd pointedly referred to Ishmael as הנער, the lad, and not as "your son," He made it plain that only Isaac would be considered an extension of Abraham. G'd added: "also the son of this slave-woman," when He referred to Ishmael as having a major role in history. When the Torah describes Abraham as complying with Sarah's i.e. G'd's request, he no longer refers to Ishmael as "his son," but only as "the child."
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   על שכמה ואת הילד. On her shoulder together with the child. Abraham put Ishmael also on Hagar's shoulder because the latter refused to leave his father's house. As a result Abraham tied him up as one ties up a child, put him on Hagar's shoulder and expelled her.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויאמר אברהם אנכי אשבע. Abraham said: "I will swear." Abraham implied that he could counter Avimelech's arguments but had decided instead to swear as Avimelech requested.
  In consideration of Abraham's intention to rebuke Avimelech (verse 25), he thought that if he did this immediately Avimelech would interpret Abraham's attitude as a denial of the favours the king claimed to have done for him. He decided therefore to state first of all that he was willing to swear the oath in question.
  Another way of looking at the verse is that Abraham accepted the oath only for himself, i.e. אנכי; he was not prepared to commit his son or grandson as had been requested by Avimelech.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויאמר אבימלך…וגם אנכי, Avimelech said: "Also I have not heard, etc." The words: "also I," need clarification; so do the words: "who has done it." All Avimelech needed to say was "I did not know."
  Apparently, Avimelech had been aware that someone had robbed Abraham of his wells but he did not know the identity of the robbers. Abraham therefore told Avimelech that he should have made it his business to find out who the culprits were. To this argument Avimelech replied that Abraham himself was also at fault because he had not informed him previously. He, Avimelech, had waited for Abraham's complaint; he would have taken action as soon as he would have received an official complaint from Abraham. Seeing Abraham had not informed him, he had remained unaware. This is the meaning of: "also I did not hear until this day." He meant that he made no effort to inform himself of the situation and was apprised of it only today when Abraham spoke up.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי אחר הדברים האלה. It was after these events. The events referred to are Abraham's various adventures, the tortuous route to becoming Isaac's father at an advanced age. In the meantime Isaac had grown up since we find Abraham described as "living in the land of the Philistines for many years," and Isaac was born during the first year of Abraham's stay there. The test assumed much greater impact in view of the repeated promises G'd had made to Abraham concerning Isaac and his future. To be told at this stage to offer Isaac as a sacrifice and not to hesitate or challenge G'd's command or even ask for an explanation, was a tremendous act of obedience. Isaac too deserves great credit for submitting. Another reason that the Torah wrote "after these events" is, that only now could G'd refer to Isaac as Abraham's only son. As long as Ishmael had not yet been expelled by Abraham the description "your only son" would not have been appropriate.
  והאלוקים נסה את אברהם. G'd tested Abraham. The Torah adds the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלוקים to remind us that this was not Abraham's only test, only the most recent and most difficult one.
  ויאמר אליו אברהם. He said to him: "Abraham." This introductory call by G'd was to prepare Abraham that G'd would ask him to do something difficult. Abraham understood this; this is why he said "I am ready (for whatever You are going to tell me to do)."
  
  Verse 2
  
   קח נא את בנך. "Please take your son, etc." G'd meant for Abraham to proceed immediately and not to ask for time before carrying out the command, such as happened with the daughter of Yiftach (Judges 11,37) who had asked to be given two months before becoming her father's sacrifice to G'd. 
  <i>Tanchuma</i> 22 on our verse describes Abraham as spending the whole night asking Sarah to permit him to take Isaac with him to teach him Torah.
  Our verse also contains a hint that seeing that Isaac had not previously been tested, Abraham should broach the matter to him in a manner that would secure Isaac's willingness. Abraham should convince Isaac that by agreeing to serve as an offering to G'd he would achieve great moral stature.
  את בנך את יחידך, "your son, your only one, the one you love, Isaac." Here the Torah alludes to three levels of love that G'd demands of each Jew, i.e. to love G'd with all his heart, all his soul, and all his financial resources (Deut. 6,5). The word בנך alludes to the heart; nothing is closer to a man's heart than the love for his children. Concerning love with one's soul, the Torah mentions יחידך; when a person has no children he is alone and considered as dead. Love with one's soul is therefore love with the only thing one has left to love with. The words אשר אהבת refer to one's possessions; G'd meant that Abraham loved Isaac more than all his other possessions. G'd's test consisted of Abraham demonstrating that though he loved Isaac from all these perspectives he was yet willing to give him up to G'd in the form of a total offering.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וישכם אברהם בבוקר. Abraham arose early in the morning. Abraham acted in line with what we know from Leviticus 7,38, that sacrifices may be brought only by day. Our sages also said (<i>Zevachim</i> 98) that one must not bring an offering at night. Abraham therefore set out at an hour that was suitable for bringing an offering. He did not know how far he had to travel and he wanted to have enough time left to offer the sacrifice once he would be at the right place. In view of G'd having addressed Abraham by day, perhaps he should not have waited until the following day; it is possible that he received the instructions in the late afternoon or that Isaac was not at home at the time. By reporting that Abraham rose early, the Torah explains that the day's delay was not due to any negligence on Abraham's part.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה, ויגד. After these events Abraham was told, etc.. The reason that the Torah recorded this whole paragraph as well as the words "after the events," something totally unrelated to what the Torah spoke about previously, is to tell us that now Rebeccah, Isaac's soul-mate, had been born. We have already explained why Rebeccah was born only at that point in time. Isaac, whose soul had originated in the female emanations, had not acquired a soul from the male emanations until after the עקדה, the binding on the altar. ובתואל ילד את רבקה, Bethuel fathered Rebeccah. This is the principal line of the whole paragraph. Why did the Torah have to bother to list all the other descendants of Nachor including those from his concubines? The Torah reminds us that ever since the spiritual poison of the original serpent permeated Adam, purity could no longer exist in isolation. The birth of even the most perfect human being is invariably accompanied by the birth of impure people who lie in wait for the pure. By telling us of the other descendants of Nachor, the Torah indirectly extols the virtue of Rebeccah, mother of all that is holy, who, despite the environment she grew up in, shone forth with her many virtues.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהיו חיי שרה, The life of Sarah was 127 years, etc. Why did the Torah use the term ויהיו to describe Sarah's life when everyone else's life is described by the word ויחי?
  <i>Midrash Hagadol 23,2</i> claims that the reason Sarah died was that she was unable to make peace with the fact that Isaac was spared at the last moment. She thought he refused to be the sacrifice. The expression ויהי or ויהיו always alludes to some painful experience, whereas the expression ויחי does not. The Torah wanted to allude to the grief which caused Sarah's death.
  Another reason why the Torah phrases Sarah's lifetime in this unusual manner may be based on Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 32 where Sarah's death at that time is described as due to the fact that Satan informed her of Isaac's imminent death. The word ויהיו then reflects a "new existence, הויה, "i.e. although she had been allocated a certain number of years at birth, the trauma caused by Satan's information cut short her years. The reason the Torah speaks about חיי שרה, is to remind us that whereas the righteous give life to their days (such as Sarah), the reverse is the case with the wicked.
  The Torah adds the word שני חיי שרה, the years of Sarah's life, to allude to the fact that she "completed" the years of the life allotted to her, but that the immediate cause of her death was the information brought her by Satan. As to my second explanation that she "lost" a number of years of the life that had been intended for her, you need to understand the kindness that G'd does with the righteous. When such a righteous person dies "prematurely," for reasons such as in Sarah's case, G'd does not deduct from the sum total of their achievements what such a person would have achieved had he not died before his allotted time. The Torah therefore tells us that Sarah received full credit for all she would have accomplished had she lived out her remaining years (Tanchuma פרשת כי תשא 3).
  The Torah also alludes to the almost one hundred years that Sarah suffered either the anguish of childlessness or the animosity which developed between Ishmael and the son she finally bore at the age of ninety. We know from Rachel, (Genesis 30,1) that a woman's feeling of being unfulfilled when she has no children can cause her to consider her life as not worth living. The years in which Sarah "really lived," therefore, were only the last twenty seven years of her life during which she was able to enjoy Isaac's development in undisturbed tranquillity
  
  Verse 2
  
   ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע. Sarah died at Kiryat Arba. We must not misunderstand that Kiryat Arba was the cause of her death. The reason the town was mentioned and was so named is to tell us that it was built on the four basic elements. Death normally implies a departure from, or disintegration of, the four basic elements that a body is composed of. When the Torah adds that "Kiryat Arba" is also known as חברון, this is an allusion to the word חבור, something that is joined together. The message is that when the righteous "die," this is not to be viewed as a process of disintegration. The righteous are still called "alive" even when they have ceased to function in regular bodies on this earth. The story in <i>Shabbat</i> 152 about how the grave of Rabbi Achai bar Yoshiah was disturbed by diggers on a property of Rav Nachman and how Rabbi Achai reacted illustrates this concept. What all this means is that while the righteous are alive in this world, the four basic material elements that every human being is composed of become transformed into something spiritual and attach themselves to their souls by means of the good deeds that such persons perform during their sojourn on earth. Maimonides illustrates this somewhat in the fourth chapter of <i>Hilchot Yesodey Torah</i> where he describes that one element is capable of becoming transformed into another element which was similar to it, i.e. earth can be transformed into water. When man cleaves to G'd all his elements become transformed into the element fire which forms the basis of the soul. Kabbalists are familiar with this.
  The Torah adds the (apparently superfluous words) "in the land of Canaan." This is an allusion to the fact that this present world is called ארץ כנען, a simile for the evil urge, Satan. This is so because the existence of Satan is the incentive for us to overcome him and to attain holiness and sanctity (<i>Zohar</i> 1,80).
  לספוד לשרה ולבכותה, to mourn Sarah and to weep for her. To mourn her departure from the world, and to weep for her on account of the personal loss he had sustained. One can also understand it in the reverse sense, i.e. he mourned the absence of her righteous presence, and he wept because she had tasted death and her sun had set (her benign influence on the people surrounding her).
  
  Verse 3
  
   מעל פני מתו, From before his dead one. It is assumed that the "dead one" was aware of what went on around her as long as the lid had not been put on the casket or equivalent (compare <i>Shabbat</i> 152). This also teaches that the dead is to lie on his back (<i>Baba Batra</i> 74).
  וידבר אל בני חת לאמור. He spoke to the Hittites, to say. The word לאמור is to counteract the impression that Abraham asked for something gratis when he said: תנו לי, "give me permanent possession, etc!" Abraham would not be satisfied with just any gift the Hittites were willing to give him, but this was only an introduction to negotiations leading to the acquisition of the cave of Machpelah.
  Furthermore, the Torah wanted to explain why Abraham needed to speak to the Hittites, when the land in question belonged to one man only, and the whole transaction should have been simple and uncomplicated. A cave, unlike a field, could not be worked like a field, was not useful to its owner to build on, etc.; therefore normal proof of ownership might be difficult to establish by his heirs in the future. This is why Abraham wanted everybody present as witnesses. The purchase would be fully valid and would not ever be contested after all these preconditions had been met.
  Abraham also wanted to refute any suggestion that he wanted something for nothing. By saying לאמור, he indicated that he would negotiate (establish a price) for this acquisiton.
  
  Verse 4
  
   גר ותושב אנכי. "I am a stranger and resident. Abraham's description of his legal status is based on Maimonides <i>Hilchot Zechiyah U-matanah</i> 3,11: Whereas one must not give a gift to an idolator, one may either give a gift or sell to a resident stranger (גר תושב) because the Torah writes: "the resident stranger let live by your side" (Leviticus 25,35). We need to appreciate that our holy Torah applies reason, and especially so in our conduct on this earth. Just as we Jews are commanded to deal with resident strangers in a humane manner, so reason dictates that people all over the earth should conduct themselves with one another in a like manner. It is a universal obligation to enable resident strangers to live undisturbed and to be able to receive gifts. It is this principle Abraham alluded to when he said: גר ותושב אנכי תנו לי, "since I am a resident stranger, give me, etc." He made a point of using the word גר, alien, not just תושב, resident, in order to emphasise that though he was an alien, the fact that he resided amongst them entitled him to what he requested. There is a spiritual dimension to Abraham describing himself as an alien. He did not consider it seemly for a human being to describe himself as a "resident" on this earth, seeing that he looked forward to a permanent status in another, higher life.
  ואקברה מתי מלפני, "so I may bury my dead one from before me." Abraham meant that he wanted to bury Sarah without delay. Furthermore, Abraham knew already that he would have to pay Efron a substantial price for a field not worth a fraction of the asking price, because it contained something he wanted. At the same time, he realised that once the local people would hear of the price he was prepared to pay they would conclude there must be a hidden treasure beneath that field that they did not know about. In order to forestall such speculations by the local population he emphasised already at this stage that he was only concerned with burying Sarah forthwith i.e. מלפני, and that because of the urgency of the matter he could not afford to haggle over the price. Under such circumstances, it did not matter how much he would have to pay, the locals would not mind and would not suspect him of ulterior motives.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויענו בני חת…&lt;underline&gt;לאמור לו&lt;/underline&gt;. The Hittites answered, …&lt;underline&gt;to say to him.&lt;/underline&gt; This means they appointed a single spokesman to speak on their behalf.
  It also means that they were not unanimous in their approach to the matter of the sale. As a result they delegated someone to "speak to him" i.e. without making an immediate and final commitment. The eventual outcome already indicates that it was their original intention to exact a very substantial price.
  
  Verse 6
  
   שמענו אדוני, "listen to us my lord;" they meant: "please listen to our suggestion to select the best of our burial grounds and go ahead and bury your dead one. You do not have to ask permission from any individual to give you his plot without a fair equivalent." The reason for all this is that "not one of us would refuse you even the plot he had selected for his own burial." They said so in order to expedite Sarah's burial.
  The expression אדני simply means "my lord," and does not represent a name of G'd.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויקם…וישתחו… He arose and bowed down. Abraham explained to them that the reality was the exact opposite of what the Hittites thought. He did not consider himself as a prince amongst them; on the contrary, he considered them as deserving more honour than himself.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וידבר… אם יש את נפשכם. He said: "If it be your desire, etc." This may be understood similarly to what we are taught in <i>Baba Batra</i> 36: Members of the exilarch's household were not permitted to keep land merely as a result of having occupied it although no protest had been registered as the true owners were afraid to do so. The latter were advised to retain their documents proving their title to those lands. On the other hand, landowners were not in the habit of immediately protesting when rich people squatted on their land as they hoped the improvements made by the illegal squatters would eventually benefit them when they reclaimed their property.
  When the Hittites addressed Abraham as "a prince of G'd," claiming that not one of them would deny Abraham his own burial plot, they could have alluded to either of two scenarios. 1) They described him as a great and powerful individual who was able to impose his will on the local population. They indicated that Abraham was aware that no one would dare protest what he set out to do. Just because he was a man of such calibre the usual practice of acquiring land by occupying it and no one protesting did not apply to him. As soon as they would feel powerful enough they would feel free to remove the body Abraham had buried on that land. What they conveyed was that their approval was only due to Abraham representing superior force. 2) A second way of interpreting the Hittites' response is as follows: Inasmuch as you are "a prince of G'd," you need not fear that we look upon you as a person who throws his weight around such as in the example quoted from the Talmud. Whereas the people in the household of the exilarch were suspected of robbery, no such motive would ever be attributed to Abraham. Abraham's righteousness was beyond question. Perhaps they used the word שמענו, "listen to us," in order to underline that they considered Abraham beyond reproof. Hearing this, Abraham responded: "if you truly wish me to bury my dead, etc." please act as brokers between me and Efron. Had it not been for the latter words of Abraham we would have been forced to conclude that the Hittites' offer was something based on duress.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויתן לי את מערת המכפלה, So that he may give me the cave of Machpelah. Abraham made a point of describing the transaction as a gift though perfectly aware that money would be changing hands, as indicated by the words "for full monetary value." Abraham was astute enough to purchase the cave in such a way that any future complaint was out of the question. He was also careful to add the words: "in your midst." The <i>Zohar</i> 1,128 points out that Efron never saw anything in that cave except darkness and calamity. This being so, Efron could have claimed later that in view of his having been unaware of the true value of the cave, his consent to sell it was based on a false premise, and he could have reversed the sale. This in spite of the rule that there is no validity to a claim of land having been over or underpriced at the time of sale. Abraham still worried about an idea expressed in the Jerusalem Talmud (compare <i>Tossaphot Kidushin</i> 42) that if the undercharge was 50% or more the sale is reversible although it is not reversible when the amount of the undercharge was between 15% and 50%.
  There was also the concern that landowners of the adjoining property could claim that the land should have been sold to them in preference to an outsider, something known in Jewish law as דין המצר. Another consideration of Abraham was that after the transfer of the cave someone might present a lien dated prior to the transaction which would require him to give up his claim. For all these reasons Abraham used both the expression of "gift" and "sale" when referring to the way he wanted to acquire the cave. This would protect his claim also under the heading of what is known in Jewish law as דין חליפין, i.e. acquisition by means of a symbolic transfer. Under this heading there is no such law as אונאה, reversal of the sale due to unfair pricing. This דין חליפין applies to transactions involving either real estate or chattels whereas such acquisition by a symbol representing the ultimate object does not apply to money, i.e. coins. Hence Abraham's reference to receiving the land as a gift. Our sages in <i>Bechorot</i> 50 phrased it thus: Rabbi Chaninah stated that every time the word "כסף" i.e. silver or money appears in the Torah, the meaning is "סלעים", 25 silver coins of a standard denomination; the exception is the use of the word "shekel" in connection with the transaction involving Abraham and Efron. In that instance the meaning is קנטרין, a coin weighing four times the usual weight of the "shekel." This is the meaning of the Torah (Genesis 23,15) defining the "shekel" as being "four hundred shekel acceptable at any merchant." The fact that Efron arbitrarily changed the usual definition of the value of the "shekel," made the transaction unassailable in the future seeing he himself had set the terms of the sale. Concerning Abraham's fear that the דין מצר might be invoked by a neighbour in the future, Abraham ensured the presence and consent of all the local populace who would jointly act as his broker in the transaction. This would preclude any claim at a later date. It also demonstrated that there was no outstanding lien against the property as any such lienholder should have spoken up at that time, seeing he was present.
  Abraham used the term אחוזת קבר, "a burial plot held in perpetuity," leaving Efron the option to use the remainder of the field if he so chose. Had Abraham not used the term אחוזה, Efron could have denied him access to Sarah's grave once he had buried her there.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   לא אדוני, "No my lord." The word "no" means that Abraham could not merely acquire the cave but had to buy the field it was situated on. Efron indicated that the reason he had decided to give the whole field to Abraham was that once it served as a cemetry it could not longer serve its original purpose. He implied all this by using the word שמעני, "listen to me carefully."
  והמערה אשר בו, "as well as the cave situated on it." He meant that already at the very beginning of the discussions when the local people had indicated their willingness to relinquish their own burial plots in favour of Abraham, he, Efron had decided that the cave and the field were a single unit. The reason he repeated the fact that the transaction took place in full view of all the people was to make plain that no דין מצר could be invoked by anyone in the future.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   וידבר אל עפרון, "He said to Efron, etc." The use of the word אך indicated Abraham's desire to proceed with a minimum of further discussion.
  נתתי כסף השדה, "I have given the money for the field." Even if Efron had decided to give him the field as a gift, Abraham begged Efron to accept the money from him. If so, Abraham would accept the field as a gift.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  ואחרי כן…ויקם השדה. Afterwards the field stood as burial plot, etc. We need to understand why the Torah had to write the words: "afterwards," something that is obvious. What could be more natural than Abraham burying Sarah at the end of these negotiations? Besides, why did the Torah repeat the words: ויקם השדה, something we read already in verse 17? 
  The Torah wanted to confirm that the transaction complied with all and every legal form of acquisition. The words "afterwards" mean that once Abraham had weighed the money for Efron the latter had foregone all claim to that property in perpetuity. Maimonides explains it thus in chapter one of <i>Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah:</i> "A Gentile loses his right to formerly owned property the moment he accepts the money as compensation for it. A Jew, on the other hand, does not acquire title to his new property until he has a written document. Once this has occurred the property in question is like land in the desert which anyone can stake a claim to." In other words, once the Gentile has accepted the money he loses all former claims. Had Abraham buried Sarah before giving the money to Efron, the fact that he gave the money to Efron afterwards would not have made a full acquisition, seeing that the act of possession expressed by his burying Sarah would not have been performed on land owned by him at the time. 
  We need to examine if the act of חזקה, i.e. using the land for one's own purpose, is actually legally valid when the act of such חזקה is performed on land previously owned by a Gentile. In chapter two of the above-mentioned tractate of Maimonides, he writes as follows: "In the case of formerly ownerless property, or property formerly owned by a proselyte, the fact that the squatter (Jewish) has eaten the proceeds of such land for a number of years does not constitute an act of acquisition of either tree or the land itself until such time as the squatter has performed an act on the body of the land itself. What kind of activity would qualify in such an event? In the case of a Jew having taken over the house of a proselyte or an abandoned house, if he whitewashed it or added a moulding about 60 centimeters high this would constitute a valid act of acquisition. If he took earth from high ground and transferred it to fill lower ground in the same piece of land this would be considered as an improvement of the earth and would qualify as an act of acquisition." It is clear therefore that if the squatter merely shifted some earth without specific intent to effect an improvement on that soil- even though he thereby levelled the ground,- this would not be enough to qualify under the heading of קנין, acquisition. <i>Maggid Mishneh</i> (a commentator on Maimonides) writes that if the squatter spread mats on the ground in order to be able to sit on it in comfort and to enjoy this, this would count as a valid act of קנין, acquisition. An alternative cited by the above commentator suggests that even spreading the mats merely in order to improve the appearance of the ground in question suffices. Rabbi <i>lbn Migosh</i> concurs with the latter example. Thus far the quotation from <i>Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah.</i> Granted that according to the first example cited by the <i>Maggid Mishneh</i> anyone who benefits from an act performed on the land he squats on performs a valid act of חזקה, Abraham benefited by having buried Sarah on that land and thereby performed an act of acquisition; however, according to the opinion of Rabbi <i>lbn Migosh</i> that an actual improvement of the land has to take place, Sarah's burial would not have constituted such an improvement. How then did Abraham acquire that land (even though Efron had forfeited it)?
  Perhaps the superstructure erected around the grave, and especially the sepulchral chambers dug within the earth which was customary at the time, constituted such an improvement in the field under discussion. These sepulchral chambers were probably white-washed with lime to prevent the earth around them from crumbling. Now we can understand the reason the Torah repeated the words ויקם השדה. It means that after Abraham had buried Sarah the acquisition of that field by Abraham became complete.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ואברהם זקן, And Abraham was old, etc. Inasmuch as Abraham felt that he had aged and also in view of the fact that G'd had greatly blessed him, he worried that the servant who was in charge of all this wealth while his master was visibly aging would develop notions of marrying his daughter to Isaac. Eliezer might want to secure Abraham's wealth for himself through the marriage of his daughter to Abraham's son. This is the reason Abraham made Eliezer swear an oath concerning the fact that his son was not to marry someone of Canaanite descent. Eliezer would thus get the message that his daughter was not suitable marriage material for a son of Abraham who was blessed whereas the Canaanites were cursed (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 59,9).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אשר אנכי יושב בקרבו, "among whom I dwell." Abraham countered Eliezer's assumption that inasmuch as the very proximity of Abraham causes one to be included in the blessing G'd promised to Abraham this did not mean that one's basic status of being cursed (as a result of Noach's curse) had been revoked. Abraham also wanted to dispel the notion that his presence and his status among such people as Aner, Eshkol and Mamre would become endangered if he did not take a wife for Isaac from their families.
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   כי אל ארצי ואל מולדתי תלך, "rather you shall go to my country and to my birthplace, etc." This was part of the oath also; Eliezer was to secure a wife for Isaac in Abraham's birthplace. This is why Eliezer is described as immediately taking the camels, etc.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ונקית משבועתי זאת, "and you will be relieved of this oath of mine." This means that Eliezer will be relieved of the duty to take a wife for Isaac from Abraham's birthplace; the oath not to take a wife for Isaac from the local Canaanites would remain in force, however, seeing it was something under his control.
  רק את בני לא תשב שמה; "only do not bring my son back there." Abraham did not make Eliezer take an oath concerning this part of his instructions. This was only an answer to Eliezer's question how to act if the bride to be refused to come to the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 9
  
   וישבע לו על הדבר. He swore to him concerning the matter. An absolute oath concerning a Canaanite girl, and a conditional oath concerning the need to find the girl in Abraham's birthplace should the girl refuse to move to the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 10
  
   עשרה גמלים, Ten camels, etc. One reason that Eliezer took ten camels was that relative to Abraham's wealth this was equivalent to an ordinary person taking one single camel loaded with gifts.
  Another reason is that the number ten simply means "many," as we find in Samuel I 1,8, where Elkanan asks Channah if he was not worth more to her than "ten sons?" The meaning there is clearly not the number ten, but "ten" as indicative of a large number.
  The reason the Torah adds that the camels belonged to his master (something we would have assumed even without it being mentioned) is that these camels were specially trained to answer Abraham's specific needs. They were capable of carrying especially heavy loads.
  The Torah adds: וכל טוב אדוניו, "and all the good things of his master," to tell us that Eliezer took the choicest of all the precious possessions of Abraham. This was in order to persuade the girl in the event that she would initially refuse to move away from her parental home. Seeing that her husband-to-be possessed such wealth might change her mind. The word בידו means the same as שבידו, something that was under Eliezer's control (inasmuch as he was in charge of all of Abraham's possessions).
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר: ה׳ הקרה נא, He said: "G'd! please make it happen, etc." Eliezer was certain that his master's prayer that G'd would send His angel ahead of Eliezer to facilitate his mission would be fulfilled. He added a prayer expressing the hope that he would be found worthy to be the instrument through which Abraham's prayer would be fulfilled. It happens on occasion that the prayer of the original petitioner goes unanswered due to the unworthiness of the petitioner's messenger.
  The reason Eliezer had to proceed in this order was that he feared Abraham's family might deceive him and try to palm off one of their maidservants on him, claiming that she was their family. He therefore stipulated that the girl to be regarded as suitable for Isaac should proceed to do more than he asked of her by also offering to water his camels. This would be characteristic of a girl who was related to Abraham. In fact Rebeccah described herself immediately as a daughter of Bethuel (verse 24).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   טרם כלה לדנר, Before he had finished speaking, etc. This means that Eliezer was still addressing G'd when Rebeccah materialised. He realised immediately that she was slated to become Isaac's wife.
  רבקה יוצאת, Rebeccah was coming out. G'd timed her appearance to coincide exactly with Eliezer's prayer so that he would not meet another girl by mistake while Rebeccah, who had been born to Bethuel, was the intended mate for Isaac. I have explained this in connection with 22,20 where the Torah mentions that Abraham had received word of her birth.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   הגמיאיני נא מעט מים, "let me please sip a little water, etc." Eliezer actually asked for less than he had originally stipulated, seeing he meant to ask her "to incline her jug in order to let him drink (extensively)." Not only did he only ask to take a sip, but he stressed that he wanted only a little water. He also failed to ask her to incline her jug in order to give him to drink. Our sages (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 60,5) explain that Eliezer saw that the waters rose towards Rebeccah. This is when he realised that she was not a Canaanite girl and that she was destined for Isaac. He became afraid that he might forfeit an opportunity by insisting on the conditions he had made in his prayer, and proceeded to ask for the minimum possible. He wanted to make it easy for the girl to meet his request.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ותאמר שתה אדוני, She said: "drink my lord, etc." Instead of letting Eliezer merely sip a little water, the girl offered that he drink freely, as much as he wanted. She did not want him to have to use his hand to drink out of, but she lowered the jug to make it more convenient for him. The word ותשקהו, means that not only did Eliezer not have to lift the jug to his lips but she placed it so that he did not even have to tilt it. She brought the jug to the level of his mouth.
  Rebeccah purposely did not add the words: "I will also water your camels" immediately. Had she added the words immediately, before Eliezer had finished drinking, the latter might have cut short his own drinking knowing that Rebeccah would still have to go to the trouble of watering the camels. As long as she had not offered this, Eliezer had no reason to entertain such considerations.
  
  Verse 19
  
   ותכל להשקותו, When she completed giving him to drink, etc. Seeing that the Torah does not describe Eliezer as having finished drinking, it is clear the Torah wants us to know that she kept bringing him water until he stopped drinking.
  It is also possible that Rebeccah judged when Eliezer should stop drinking, seeing that weary travellers who have gone without water for a long time are not the best judges of when they may be drinking more than is good for their health.
  We may view the matter also in light of what the Talmud teaches in <i>Berachot</i> 40, based on Deuteronomy 11,15 that one must feed one's animals before eating oneself. This ruling applies only when there is no danger to the life of the person involved. If his life is in danger, concern for his own health takes precedence over the wellbeing of his animals. When Rebeccah heard Eliezer ask for some water she concluded that she faced a man whose need for water was immediate. This is why she said to him: "drink!" As soon as she had given him sufficient water to ensure he was not in danger of dehydrating she suggested giving water to his camels, the ones which normally should have been looked after first. This is why the Torah phrases Rebeccah's action in such a way that we understand that as soon as was practicable she turned her attention to the camels, giving them to drink. She added that she would continue until the camels had finished drinking, meaning that in the case of the camels she was not going to rely on her personal judgment of when the animals had had enough to drink. She kept drawing water for the camels until they stopped drinking.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   והאיש משתאה לה מחריש, And the man was amazed at her, remaining silent, etc. The Torah explains here that though Eliezer had no longer any reason to await Rebeccah's completing her task of watering the camels seeing she had already done much more than he had stipulated in his prayer, he kept his peace. One of the reasons he waited before enquiring from her about who she was may have been that he wanted to test whether she would indeed complete the onerous task of drawing water for all the ten camels as she had promised to do, or if she would tire in the process and carry out less than she had promised. As soon as she completed watering all the camels he gave her the jewelry intended for Isaac's bride.
  
  Verse 22
  
   על ידיה, on her hands. This means that the bracelets fitted her as if made to fit her specific measurements. Eliezer placed this jewelry on Rebeccah's hands as a sign of acknowledging G'd's personal guidance in his mission thus far.
  
  Verse 23
  
   בת מי את, הגידי, "Whose daughter are you? Tell me, etc." The Torah lumps both these questions together to show that Eliezer did not entertain any doubts that the girl must belong to Abraham's family. Had he entertained such doubts he could not have enquired immediately about the chance of lodging in her parents' home until he had clarified who her parents were. He merely wanted to know her father's name. He added his enquiry about staying at her parents' overnight to emphasise that this had nothing to do with her father's name, that he was convinced G'd had guided him to the right family.
  
  Verse 24
  
   בת בתואל..אשר ילדה לנחור. The daughter of Bethuel whom Milkah bore for Nachor. Rebeccah emphasised that she was not the daughter or granddaughter of a concubine, but of the ranking wife.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   ולרבקה אח ושמו לבן, Rebeccah had a brother called Laban. Our sages observe that whenever the Bible mentions righteous people, their name precedes them, whereas the reverse is the case when the Bible mentions wicked people (<i>Esther Rabbah</i> 6,3). Examples are Ruth 2,1; 1,2. Samuel I 25,3. It is puzzling then that Laban is introduced here in the manner of the righteous. In order to understand this we must pay attention to the verse describing Laban as running. Our sages in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> 109 state that as soon as Laban saw the nose-ring on Rebeccah he became greedy for money. This does not throw any light on our problem. The Torah should have written: "As soon as he saw the nose-ring, etc., Laban ran," instead of mentioning the fact that Laban saw the nose-ring after he had already commenced to run towards Eliezer. Besides, why did the Torah repeat the words: "to the man outside at the well" in verse 29 and then again in verse 30?
  The fact is that Laban was sincerely concerned about his sister's innocence, suspecting that the gifts to her of the jewelry by a total stranger could have been the beginning of an immoral relationship between them. The Torah here describes Laban as if he were a righteous person because it acknowledges his concern for his sister's chastity.
  When the Torah states: "it was when he saw," this shows that Laban reacted first to what he saw and subsequently to what he heard. As long as he had not yet heard what transpired between the two he put an ugly intepretation on the manner in which he thought his sister had obtained the jewelry, suspecting Eliezer of seducing Rebeccah. Laban nevertheless continued on his way to meet Eliezer and to offer him hospitality.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויבא אל האיש והנה עומד על הגמלים, he came to the man who was still standing by the camels. What do the words: "he was still standing, etc." teach us? According to <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> 109, Eliezer interpreted Laban's running as an hostile act and he invoked the holy name of G'd as a result of which the camels stood over the well in the air. This is why the Torah describes the camels as "הגמלים על העין." Eliezer himself stood on top of the camels. He called out to Laban from an elevated position whereupon Laban addressed him with the words: "come in blessed one of the Lord!" If nothing unusual had occurred Laban would have reversed the wording of his invitation saying: "Why should you remain outside, come in blessed one of the Lord!"
  Another reason why Eliezer is reported as remaining standing by the camels maybe that the Torah wants us to know that the mere fact that Rebeccah had indicated that there was lots of room in her father's home for Eliezer to spend the night together with his entourage was not enough reason for him to follow her to her home.
  The wording of Laban's invitiation, prefaced by his description of Eliezer as a man blessed by the Lord, indicates that Laban did not invite him wholeheartedly but merely to save him the disgrace of having to remain outdoors, i.e. למה תעמוד בחוץ? Even when the wicked perform an act of graciousness such an act reflects a degree of their basic reluctance to do good.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
  
  
  Verse 44
  
  
  
  Verse 45
  
   אני טרם אכלה לדבר אל לבי, "I had not yet finished speaking (praying)." Eliezer said this so no one should think that Rebeccah's actions had been prompted by what she had overheard Eliezer saying.
  
  Verse 46
  
  
  
  Verse 47
  
   ואשאל אותה…ואשים הנזם על אפה. "I asked her….and put the ring on her nose." He changed the sequence of events in his report so that Laban and his father in their craftiness should not be able to claim these trinkets as belonging to Bethuel since Rebeccah had obtained them as reward for services rendered. If, however, Rebeccah had obtained the jewelry only after she had identified herself as the daughter of Bethuel, it was clear that they were meant to effect the betrothal between her and Isaac, her father not being able to claim them as belonging to him.
  
  Verse 48
  
  
  
  Verse 49
  
  
  
  Verse 50
  
  
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
  
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
  
  
  Verse 57
  
  
  
  Verse 58
  
  
  
  Verse 59
  
  
  
  Verse 60
  
   את היי לאלפי רבבה. "May you become thousands and myriads." The reason Laban stressed the word "you" was that he was aware that Isaac would continue the Abrahamitic tradition and found great nations. Although this fact itself was anathema to wicked people such as Laban, they preferred that Rebeccah would be the founding mother than any other wife Isaac might marry. We must accept the psychological fact that the wicked hate the righteous even if the latter are their own flesh and blood.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ולבני הפילגשים, And to the sons of the concubines, etc. The Torah does not mention that Abraham bequeathed any gifts to Ishmael when he expelled him. We have explained on Genesis 17,5 that Ishmael was himself a slave and as such anything that would be given to him would automatically not be his but his master Isaac's who was the rightful heir of Abraham and Sarah.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואלה תולדת, And these are the developments, etc. Why did the Torah mention the birth of Isaac instead of the birth of his children at this point? Why did the Torah need to tell us here that Abraham fathered Isaac?
  The intent of the Torah may be understood thus. "And these are Isaac's developments," refers to events that are mentioned later on in this פרשה. Seeing the Torah will speak about the sons of Isaac, and Isaac himself was not originally capable of siring children since his own existence had been rooted in the "left" side of the emanations [until the fact that he submitted to the binding on the altar resulted in his "graduating" to the status of someone born under the aegis of the "right" side of the emanations (kabbalistic concept) compare 22,2 Ed.], the reader might have asked how Isaac could sire children at all? The Torah therefore hints in this way that the fact that Abraham had fathered Isaac enabled him to bestow upon Isaac the ability to beget children.
  Alternately, the Torah may refer to <i>Yevamot</i> 64, where we learn that when two righteous people offer a prayer simultaneously, if one of them is also the son of a righteous person G'd will listen to his prayer first. This is why the Torah described G'd as listening to Isaac's prayer in 25,22. Accordingly, the words: אברהם הוליד את יצחק means that Abraham's righteousness was a factor in G'd enabling Isaac to have children.
  A further meaning may be connected to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 63,2 which explains Isaiah 29,22, where the prophet describes the as yet unborn Jacob as having redeemed Abraham, i.e. saved him from Nimrod's furnace. Had it not been for Jacob's merit Abraham might not have survived that experience. Our verse then would hint that it was only the combined merit of Jacob and Isaac that enabled Abraham to live long enough to beget Isaac.
  The wording of our verse contains an additional meaning of the word תולדת, "developments, offspring, generations." The true "offspring" of the righteous are their good deeds. The various trials Isaac underwent during his life are not specifically described as such by the Torah, although it was he who offered his life to G'd on the altar at Moriah. There are even commentators (such as <i>lbn Ezra</i> 22,4) who claim that Isaac submitted only against his will. In order to prevent us from arriving at such a conclusion the Torah describes Isaac once more as a true offspring of Abraham, someone who was in no way inferior to his father in his love for and obedience to G'd. This is stressed both by the word בן אברהם and the conjunctive letter ו before the word אלה. Isaac continued to accumulate meritorious deeds just as Abraham had done before him.
  The Torah may also simply hint that Isaac had only one son who followed in the footsteps of Abraham, i.e. "and these are the generations of Isaac, the one who was a true son of Abraham."
  Still another meaning may be gleaned from the wording "Abraham begat Isaac." Whereas Isaac did indeed match Abraham in good deeds, he could not receive the same credit since he had his father as an example and could model himself accordingly. Abraham was unique. He was "self-made," did not have a father who served as his role model. This was the reason that the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 41,8) quotes G'd as describing Abraham as "the one who loved Him." Abraham had had to initiate this love towards his Creator without the Creator having served as a guiding light for him first.
  Another reason that Isaac is described as the son of Abraham here once again is to teach us that a צדיק who is himself the son of a צדיק is in class by himself, not to be compared to a צדיק who is the son of a רשע. Even though <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 38,12 states that Abraham's father Terach became a penitent before he died, he had been wicked for most of his life. The activities of a sinful father cast a pall over the spiritual light spread by the son. When looked at from that vantage point Isaac was better prepared for a pious life than his father. All this is included in the wording ואלה תולדת יצחק בך אברהם.
  Isaac did not experience all the painful experiences that Abraham endured. The Torah explains the reason why by writing that he was the son of Abraham. He was the first beneficiary of his father Abraham's great and cumulative merit. If Abraham experienced far more turbulence in his life this was because it could not be said of him that a great man fathered him.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויהי יצחק בן ארבעים שנה, When Isaac was forty years old, etc. The reason the Torah reports the age at which Isaac married, something that we were not told concerning Abraham, is in order to to explain why Isaac married so late. The words בקחתו את רבקה, explain that he had to wait that long in order to marry this particular girl. The words: "לו לאשה" "for him as a wife," spell out that only this woman could have fulfilled the role of becoming Isaac's wife. Prior to Rebeccah's birth no בת זוג, suitable potential wife, had existed for Isaac. We have explained in the last פרשה that Rebeccah was very young, having only been born when Isaac lay bound on the altar (at the age of 37) and thus became capable of fathering issue. Under the circumstances no criticism can be levelled at Isaac for not getting married earlier. Rebeccah was only three years old when Isaac married her.
  בת בתואל הארמי…אחות לבן, the daughter of Bethuel from Aram,..sister of Laban. The Torah does not repeat this information in order to remind us who Rebeccah was but in order to defend Rebeccah against possible accusations. Inasmuch as the Torah tells us in the next verse that G'd responded to Isaac's prayer (though both of them prayed simultaneously), someone might have concluded that Rebeccah did not merit that her prayer should be answered by G'd; the Torah explains therefore that the only reason G'd did not respond to her prayer at the time was the fact that her father was the wicked Bethuel. Repeating the information that this Bethuel was an ארמי, is an allusion to the other way of spelling these letters, i.e. רמאי, swindler. The Torah deliberately did not mention the town Bethuel lived in in order to have a chance to allude to the fact that the man was a swindler.
  The reason that the Torah again mentions that Rebeccah was a sister of Laban, something we already knew from the encounter of Eliezer and Laban at the well, is in order explain why such a fine woman gave birth to the wicked Esau. Having both a father who was a swindler and a brother who was a master swindler in her background, the marvel was Rebeccah's innocence, not the fact that one of her sons might turn out to be wicked. <i>Baba Batra</i> 110 already remarks that most sons turn out to have a character resembling that of their mother's brothers. The Torah attests that Rebeccah herself was an absolutely righteous woman when Isaac her husband is described as praying in the presence of his wife. Should you ask why Isaac did not examine Rebeccah's brother's character before he decided to marry her, we have already answered that she was the only woman who was his בת זוג, divinely appointed to become his wife. Had this not been so Isaac would never have married the sister of a wicked person such as Laban.
  The words אחות לבן also allude to the reason that Rebeccah was barren for so many years. According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 60,13 this was in order that her fertility could not be credited to the blessings bestowed upon her by her brother Laban in 24,60. The Torah therefore alludes to the cause of barrenness before mentioning the fact that she could not conceive. It was because she was Laban's sister that she needed to wait to conceive until her husband's prayer.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויעתר לו, "He responded to his entreaty." The reason that the Torah does not mention the customary "Isaac knew his wife" (as in Genesis 4,1, or Samuel I 1,19) prior to reporting her pregnancy may have been that they prayed within three days of having had marital relations. Their prayer was that the semen should not go to waste (compare <i>Berachot</i> 60 on the subject of semen turning unfit for conception).
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויתרצצו הבנים בקרבה, The children were quarrelling inside her, etc. Both the expression ויתרצצו, "they quarrelled" and the words למה זה אנכי, "why am I therefore" need examination. Rashi explains that "if the pain involved in giving birth is so intense, why did I bother to pray to become pregnant?" It is difficult to reconcile our image of the pious and righteous Rebeccah with Rashi's comment, i.e. that she did not think the pain worth her while in order to become a mother. Also, if that had been her real concern, how did G'd's response alleviate her problem? Our rabbis have offered many and various explanations none of which are acceptable as the plain meaning of the verse. The plain meaning of the word ויתרצצו is based on the root רצץ, to crush. Since there were two fetuses in her womb she felt as if her womb was being crushed. She was afraid that she could not complete her pregnancy and would have a miscarriage as a result. Her question then was rhetorical, i.e. "what good was my becoming pregnant if this pregnancy will not be completed successfully?" The words: "she went to ask G'd," mean that she prayed to G'd to let her complete her pregnancy without mishap. She felt that the miracle of her becoming pregnant after all these years surely should not be wasted by her not giving birth to a healthy child.
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויאמר ה׳ לה, G'd said to her, etc. Although this verse has been explained by many there is still no truly satisfactory answer. G'd responded to her fear that she would miscarry by explaining to her that there was nothing medically wrong in her womb but that she was carrying two instead of merely one fetus. Whereas normally, when a mother expects twins, the two fetuses get along inside the womb (compare Song of Songs 7,4), in Rebeccah's case they did not. Hence her feeling of being crushed. She did not merely carry twins but each one was destined to become a nation with very different characteristics from one another. Not only would each one be a king in his own right, but these respective nations would endure for thousands of years. All of this would not have resulted in her having a feeling of being crushed were it not for the fact that these twins did not conform to the usual pattern of twins. When G'd explained that ממעיך יפרדו, "they will be totally separate already while still inside of you," this meant that they would not only be separate inside of Rebeccah but their being separate would continue after they were born. At any rate, G'd reassured Rebeccah that there was nothing wrong with her womb.
  ולאום מלאום יאמץ, "and one nation will be stronger than the other, etc." This means that there is an additional factor preventing these two peoples from dwelling together in harmony; each one will derive its strength from the other (the defeat of the other). We find an example of this concept in a statement in <i>Megillah</i> 6 that the city of Tzor attained its true prominence only through the fall of Jerusalem. Seeing that each nation therefore anxiously awaits the downfall of the other, there is no hope that they will live together in brotherly harmony.
  ורב יעבד צעיר, "and the senior one will serve the younger." None of the many commentaries on this expression seem to do justice to the words. Our approach will solve the problem. Not only will one of these two nations attain its respective grandeur at the expense of the other, but the nation which is defeated will wind up in servitude to the respective victor. The victor will not content himself with having vanquished his antagonist and deprived him of his assets, but he will oppress him to boot. This will further inhibit any chance of reconciliation and will increase the degree of mutual hatred. This is what the Talmud (<i>Ketuvot</i> 72) had in mind when it stated that a human being and a snake cannot live together in cramped quarters. The words do not mean that Esau and Jacob respectively will live in such a dependence on each other; the meaning is that whoever will be the senior one of these two nations during different periods of history will relate to the other as a tyrannical overlord.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויקרא שמו יעקב. He called his name Jacob. The Torah refers to G'd, not to Isaac. Proof is that had Isaac been the subject in our verse, the Torah would not have continued : "and Isaac was sixty years, etc," but would have written: "and he was sixty years, etc."
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויאהב יצחק את עשו, And Isaac loved Esau. According to the <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> Esau snared the love of his father by misrepresenting his true character such as enquiring about the correct manner of tithing salt. He did not bother to engage in such trickery except when dealing with his father. This was because he was not concerned about the performance of good deeds but only wanted to ensure his father would have no reason to curse him. He also hoped to obtain blessings. His mother could not dispense either, therefore he made no effort to camouflage his true self when in his mother's presence. This is why we find later on (27,41) that Esau waited for the death of his father before killing Jacob, whereas he did not wait for his mother to die before committing murder. The reason Rebeccah did not inform Isaac of Esau's wickedness may have been that Esau was careful never to put on such a charade in her presence so as not to give his mother an excuse to challenge Isaac's love for him. According to Onkelos who renders the words כי ציד בפיו as ארי מצידה הוי אכיל, "that Isaac ate from the game Esau hunted," we must ask why this reason did not also cause Rebeccah to love Esau, for surely they took most of their meals together or at least Esau did not discriminate against her? Perhaps the reason is that in accordance with the commentary of the <i>Maharik on Even Ha-ezer</i> 70,1 Isaac was under an obligation to feed his wife a meat diet. When a wife comes from a family who is used to such a diet the husband must keep her in the style she was accustomed to. Bethuel was a wealthy and influential man in his town, and no doubt Rebeccah had been used to a high standard of living prior to her marriage. She would not therefore be particularly grateful for the venison, considering it merely as her due.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויזד יעקב נזיד. Jacob cooked food. Perhaps the reason Jacob did this was that he had observed how effective Esau's providing his father with delicious meals had been in cementing Isaac's love for him. He therefore tried to emulate his brother.
  
  Verse 30
  
   על כן קרא שמו אדום, this is why he named him Edom (the red one). Esau called the dish "Edom" not because he called something that was already of a reddish colour "red," but inasmuch as his lifestyle flirted with death and this food was bound to give him an additional lease on life, he called it by his own name. Esau was quite well versed in the significance of names as he himself said in 27,36: "has he (Jacob) not rightly been called יעקב, i.e. "crooked?"
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויאמר יעקב מכרה כיום, Jacob said: "Sell as of this day, etc." The word "as of today," needs amplification. There are aspects to the birthright which do not become effective until after the death of the father, and as such they are legally considered as דבר שלא בא לעולם, something the eventual existence of which is still subject to doubt. The claim to such things cannot legally be established on an "if and when" basis. Jacob added the words "as of this day" in order to make the sale legal at this time. This is in accordance with <i>Baba Metzia</i> 16 and <i>Choshen Mishpat</i> 211,2. When someone who is poor and does not have what to eat goes hunting and offers the proceeds of his hunt for sale adding that such sale be effective "today," the sale is valid. The reason for this is that the poor man desperately needs the proceeds from such a sale. The Geonim write that the word "today" is not critical to the effectiveness of such a sale. Even if the sale was to be effective the day after it would still be valid. The decisive criterion is the critical need for the proceeds of the sale. The only reason the Talmud mentions the word "today" is to exclude dates such as "after thirty days or longer." As long as the time stipulated for the sale to take effect is within one day so that the seller can assure his survival during this space of time he has met the important criterion. When Jacob said "כיום," he did not mean "today" but "in accordance with the rule applying to sales that take effect within a day. He saw Esau was very tired and weak and providing this food for him at that time was a matter of survival. Had Esau not been in a temporarily desperate situation the sale would not have been legal.
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויאמר השעבה לי. He said: "swear it to me on an oath." The reason that Jacob requested an oath from Esau was because the whole institution of the birthright contains many intangibles, such as the honour and dignity conferred on the firstborn. Jacob was particularly interested in the privilege of performing duties in the Temple, something which was the duty of the firstborn at that time. We are conversant with the rule that a person cannot transfer the right to intangibles either by sale or by gift (<i>Maimonides Hilchot Mechirah</i> chapter 22). This is why Jacob insisted on making such acquisition by means of an oath. <i>Yoreh Deah</i> 239 rules that both tangibles and intangibles may be acquired by means of an oath.
  Jacob used the words "swear it to me." Actually the oath is not sufficient to acquire an intangible which does not even exist yet such as becoming heir to one's father if the latter dies before the heir. The reason is that the purchaser cannot truly have convinced himself that he will ever obtain what he has purchased (<i>Baba Metzia</i> 16). If, however, the purchaser was absolutely certain in his mind, the object has indeed been acquired and the oath is quite irrelevant. This is why Jacob had to add the words כיום, as I have explained already. In the meantime I have found a book of the <i>Rivash</i> in which he writes as follows in the course of item number 328. "You have written that you have seen that the son of the <i>Rosh</i> wrote in the name of his father that if someone tried to acquire a "future" by means of an oath such an acquisition is legally valid. He proves the thesis from the sale of the birthright from Esau to Jacob and the fact that the latter insisted on an oath. Since we have neither the signature of the <i>Rosh</i> or his son Rabbi Yaakov to confirm such a theory, it is not admissible to place such theories in the mouths of great men [in order to lend them weight Ed.] seeing that the theory has absolutely no merit. The "so-called" proof from our story is no proof at all seeing that all this occurred before the Torah was given to the Jewish people. It is quite possible that in those days people did not distinguish between selling "futures" and selling "actuals." The oath then would merely have served to reinforce the sale, to protect oneself against the seller changing his mind at a later date. Esau was, after all, a man of violence." Thus far the <i>Rivash.</i> This is exactly in agreement with what we have written, the only difference being that the <i>Rivash</i> did not see fit to provide a reason why Jacob insisted on an oath.
  The reason Jacob said: "swear an oath on it to me," instead of merely "swear an oath on it," is so that it would be understood that the sale was for the benefit of Jacob (not for someone else). The oath had to be acceptable to Jacob else Esau could have annulled it in his heart. The essential element of an oath is the heart, i.e. what a person has in mind at the time of the oath (compare Rabbi Akiva in <i>Torat Kohanim</i> 12). Rabbi Akiva insists that at the time an oath is sworn the person undertaking it must have no reservations about the declaration he makes on oath. When Jacob said "swear it to me," he meant: "make your oath correspond to my will."
  Another reason Jacob was careful to add the word לי "to me," was that only he was able to acquire the birthright. Inasmuch as the benefits of the birthright include such intangibles as the duty to perform sacrificial service in the sanctuary, this was something that devolved from Isaac to his son. This privilege could not be sold to anyone who was not a son of Isaac. The dignity of the office of the priesthood (in those days equivalent to the birthright) could also not be transferred to an outsider.
  וימכור את בכרתו, He sold his birthright, etc. The Torah here had to state the validity of the sale a) because of the reasons we have explained, b) because Esau acted under some kind of duress, c) that Esau sold something for a mere fraction of its real worth. In his commentary on <i>Choshen Mishpat</i> item 227, the <i>Maharik</i> writes as follows: "if someone sold something due to pressing need even at a price significantly below its accepted market value, he cannot retract because he was aware of what he was doing and forgave the difference in value to the purchaser." In view of this ruling the fact that Esau sold the valuable birthright for a single swallow of Jacob's potage did not invalidate the sale. Esau had described his state of exhaustion as: "here I am about to die;" there is no greater emergency than a person selling something in order to save his life. We know from Job 2,4 that a person will give up all that he has for his life. Had Esau not been in such a state, Jacob could not have acquired the birthright from him. When Solomon said in Proverbs 5,22 that the wicked will be entrapped by their iniquities, he had Esau in mind. According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 63,14 Esau had committed a number of sins on that fateful day and this was the reason that he forfeited the birthright which was transferred to someone more deserving than he.
  
  Verse 34
  
   ויקם וילך ויבז עשו את הבכורה, Esau arose, went on his way and despised the birthright. The Torah stresses that Esau's despising the birthright was a conscious act. Had the Torah written: "He arose, he went and he despised the birthright," we could have thought that he merely did so unconsciously. The Torah added the word "Esau" here once more to tell us that Esau deliberately showed disdain for the birthright. Even if Esau had not desperately needed to trade something to obtain some of Jacob's potage he would have sold the birthright cheaply at any time if Jacob had asked him to.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   שכון בארץ אשר אמר אליך. "Dwell in the land I shall tell you to." This was a general directive to accept G'd's instructions where he was to take up residence even if it conflicted with his own wishes. G'd told him this in order to be able to reward him for obeying. G'd had done something similar when He told Abraham in 12,1 that he was to go to a place G'd would designate (in the future). Five verses later on G'd specified the land, i.e. "the land of Canaan," something He could have done immediately were it not for the fact that He wanted Abraham to accumulate merit for obeying His directive.
  
  Verse 3
  
   כי לך ולזרעך אתן, "for I shall give to you and to your descendants, etc." The land of the Philistines was included in the this gift of the land. Nachmanides also understands our verse in that sense. He writes that the reason G'd said "to you" i.e. not only to Isaac's descendants, may have accounted for the phenomenal success Isaac experienced when he planted in the land of the Philistines (26,12). G'd also intended to tell Isaac that he would be farming successfully there. [after all, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were shepherds not tillers of the soil. Ed.] Perhaps it was because Abraham at the time had failed to establish himself on the soil of the land of the Philistines that G'd told Isaac that he would stake a better claim to that land by ploughing and sowing it. This is why G'd was specific in speaking about כל הארצות האל, "all of these lands."
  G'd also wanted to assure Isaac that Ishmael would not share in any of the promises made by Him to Abraham. This is why G'd stressed the word לך, "to you." G'd added the word ולזרעך, "and to your seed," to exclude children of Isaac who would not qualify as his seed in the spiritual sense of the word. This is similar to G'd having told Abraham (21,12) "through Isaac will your seed be known." <i>Nedarim</i> 31 derives from that wording that not all of Isaac's seed would be worthy.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   שמע אברהם בקולי, "Abraham hearkened to My voice." He successfully passed all the tests I subjected him to; וישמור משמרתי, he was careful not to transgress anything l had commanded him even unintentionally, through momentary carelessness. וחוקותי, these are the commandments that appear to be without logical foundations. תורתי, "he studied My commandments in order not to forget them," just as Moses commanded Israel in Deut. 4,9.
  
  Verse 6
  
   וישב יצחק בגרר. Isaac settled in Gerar. He observed G'd's directive and cancelled his previous plans.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   מצחק את רבקה אשתו. making sport with his wife Rebeccah. He indulged in the kind of affectionate behaviour customary between man and his wife. If we are to accept the interpretation of <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 64,5 that Avimelech observed Isaac making love to his wife, we must assume that this took place under circumstances when marital intercourse is permitted even during the day, such as for therapeutic purposes (compare Maimonides <i>Hilchot Deyot</i> 40, or the example quoted in <i>Ketuvot</i> 65 about the widow of Abbaye who inadvertently caused Rava to become aroused so that he had to go home in the middle of the day in order to have marital relations with his wife). The righteous endeavour not even to commit the semblance of an unbecoming act.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   מות יומת, will be executed. The repetition of the word מות refers to death by human tribunal as well as by heavenly forces. The reason Avimelech used the word "whoever touches," was to warn his subjects that even conduct for which Gentiles normally are not punishable by death would become capital offences in this instance (compare what we have written on Genesis 20,4).
  
  Verse 12
  
   מאה שערים, ויברכהו. one hundred fold; G'd blessed him. Since we have a general rule that anything that is measured does not qualify for a blessing, the Torah here informs us that G'd blessed Isaac's harvest even though the amount of his harvest had been measured. The Torah also wanted to tell us that despite the phenomenal success of Isaac as a farmer during a famine he did not suffer the effects of an evil eye of anyone who was jealous of his success.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   וכל הבארות, and all the wells, etc. The reason we are told this in connection with Isaac's outstanding success is to remind us that the wicked cannot stand to see the righteous successful. They are jealous. The Torah adds that the first Jew Abraham already had the same experience during his lifetime. The Torah therefore makes a point of saying: סתמום וימלאום עפר, they sealed them and covered them with dust, instead of merely reporting that they filled the wells with earth. Apparently after Abraham's death the Philistines placed rocks on the sites where Abraham had found water. This was why Isaac even had to dig up these wells anew.
  
  Verse 16
  
   כי עצמת ממנו, "for you have become more powerful than we." Even the wealth and authority of the king paled into insignificance compared to the reputation of Isaac. There is no greater humiliation for a king than to be ranked lower than some other resident in his domain.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ויחן בנחל גרר. He camped in the valley of Gerar and dwelled there. Isaac did not want to abandon living in the land of the Philistines since G'd had specifically instructed him to make his residence there (verse 3). Even though the wadi that Isaac now moved to may not have been exactly part of G'd's original commandment to "sojourn in this country etc.," he was, after all, forced by circumstances to leave the capital of Avimelech's country. Perhaps the whole episode may be considered as a test of Isaac's faith in G'd, who, though telling him: "I shall give the land to you and to your descendants," did not allow him to remain for long in that part of the land even as a private citizen. G'd wanted to see if Isaac would question His ways just as He had tested Abraham in a similar fashion.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   אל תירא כי אתך אנכי, "do not be afraid for I am with you, etc." Seeing that Isaac had experienced the humiliation of expulsion at the hands of Avimelech and did not know where to turn next, he might have felt abandoned by G'd. This is why G'd reassured him, telling him not to be afraid.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  [Dear reader, you will note that the author distances himself from the commentary of the <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> on the following verse, calling it merely homiletical, and proceeds to substitute his own. I leave it to you to decide which approach seems more far-fetched. I have followed my practice of printing this commentary in smaller print than usual in such cases Ed.] ואבימלך הלך אליו מגרר, and Avimelech went to him from Gerar, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us where Avimelech came from? We know he lived in Gerar! Aware of this difficulty, <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 64,9 mentions that the word מגרר is to be understood here as מגורר, that the king experienced strange growths on his body which he attributed to his treatment of Isaac. Of course, this is an homiletical explanation only.. Besides, why did he have to take his general Phichol and Achuza along? If these people were merely part of the Royal entourage, the Torah did not have to bother mentioning it.
  The intent of the Torah is to explain why Avimelech suddenly needed Isaac as an ally and flattered him though he should have been secure in the knowledge of the covenant Abraham had made with him (21,23). The validity of that covenant extended for three generations into the future. Nachmanides attempts to answer this problem claiming that Avimelech was simply afraid that Isaac would not honour a covenant made by his father seeing that Avimelech on his part had violated the agreement by expelling Isaac. I have not seen anywhere that part of the agreement between Abraham and Avimelech included the right of Abraham or his descendants to reside in the land of the Philistines. There was therefore no breach of the agreement when Avimelech asked Isaac to leave Gerar, and the problem we have raised remains unanswered. 
  We have learned in <i>Nedarim</i> 65 that if someone has denied himself (by a vow) the benefit of anything owned by a second party such a vow can be annulled only in the presence of the other affected party. The Talmud understood the words of the Torah in which Moses agreed to stay with Yitro as a vow not to return to Pharaoh in Egypt. When G'd told Moses to return to Egypt the Torah says: "G'd said to Moses in Midian 'go return to Egypt" (Exodus 4,19). There too the words "in Midian" appear superfluous at first glance, except for the fact that G'd told Moses that seeing he had made his vow in Midian that was the place he had to annul it. Concerning the rule that the annulment has to take place where the vow was made originally, we find the following glossary in <i>Haga-ot Maimoniyot</i> chapter six of <i>Hilchot Shevuot: Ri</i> states that this ruling applies in that form only as a desirable (לחתחילה) form of annulment. If, however, the vow was revoked by the person who made it in the absence of the person affected by it, such an annulment is valid. Even the rule that it is desirable that the person who was the subject of the vow be present at the annulment applies only when the person who denied himself any benefits of that party had originally been the recipient of a favour by that party, such as Moses to whom Yitro had given his daughter, or King Zedekiah who had been set free by King Nebuchdnezzar. When no such benefit had been received by the person who has made the vow there is no need for the subject of the annulment to be present at all, as we know from <i>Sotah</i> 36. Thus far the quote from <i>Haga-ot Maimoniyot.</i> From the above it is clear that the person who uttered the oath denying himself benefits from a second party can proceed to have this oath annulled without bothering about the presence of the second party involved. The question of whether Abraham had obtained benefits from Avimelech prior to having sworn an oath to him is therefore irrelevant. As a matter of record, Abraham received absolutely no benefit from Avimelech. The gifts that Avimelech gave him were only in expiation for the humiliation he had caused Sarah. The report in the Torah shows clearly that Abraham departed from Gerar immediately after that episode and settled in Beer Sheva. Abraham did not accept Avimelech's gifts in order to remain in Gerar but moved to Beer Sheva where Isaac also lived after his expulsion from Gerar. I have found a statement recorded in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 54,2 on Genesis 21,23 where Avimelech refers to the kindness he showed Abraham and requests a kindness in return. The "kindness" was Avimelech's offer to Abraham to reside in the land of the Philistines, an offer which Abraham declined. The request to conclude a treaty was meant to be Abraham's quid pro quo for that offer. When the Torah quotes Avimelech as having performed acts of kindness towards Abraham, the Torah reports Avimelech's own version, not an historical fact. Isaac, on the other hand, did remain in the land of the Philistines, prospering greatly during his sojourn there. When the Torah reports Avimelech as going to Isaac from Gerar this means "on account of the legal situation deriving from Isaac's stay in Gerar." Abraham had not accepted Avimelech's offer at the time, and could therefore annul his oath without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech. The fact that Isaac did accept Avimelech's offer, made it impossible for him to annul Abraham's covenant without the presence (agreement) of Avimelech.
  We may assume that Abraham did not agree with the approach of the <i>Ri</i> when Avimelech made Abraham swear the covenant but agreed with the approach of Maimonides. The latter writes in <i>Hilchot Shevuot</i> chapter 6 that whoever makes his fellow man render an oath cannot annul such an undertaking unless the other party is present even though he had not received any benefit from the party requesting the oath. Maimonides does agree, however, that if this provision was ignored the annulment is still valid precisely because the party who swore never received any benefit from his opposite number. Later halachic authorities such as the <i>Raa'vad, Rashba</i> and others feel that such an annulment is not valid even ipso facto, i.e. בדיעבד. Avimelech wanted to cover all his bases and therefore went to Isaac and took with him Phichol and Achuzat to lend added strength to the agreement to be forged, as we shall explain.
  ואחוזת מרעהו ופיבול, וגו׳. And Achuzat and Phichol, etc. We need to know why Avimelech had to take these two people with him, something he had not done when he made a covenant with Abraham.
  We may understand this with the help of a comment by <i>Ran</i> in <i>Nedarim</i> 65. He expresses doubt as to the ruling about the affected party having to be present when the vow is revoked unless the vow was designed originally to be of benefit to the party becoming its subject. [King Zedekiah (Chronicles II 36,13 as interpreted by the Talmud <i>Nedarim</i> 65), had vowed not to reveal the fact that he had observed king Nebuchadnezzar eat a raw hare. Had this fact become common knowledge, Nebuchadnezzar's image would have suffered amongst his subjects. Zedekiah therefore should not have had his vow annulled without the presence (consent) of Nebuchadnezzar, seeing such annulment was to his detriment. Ed.] <i>Ran</i> quotes unnamed sources who hold that the whole rule of requiring the consent (presence) of the second party is valid only if the second party would suffer embarassment if the party who made the vow originally now wants to annul it. Other authorities hold, however, that the reason for the rule is to ensure that the second party does not inadvertently commit a sin by not being aware that the vow had been annulled. According to the latter view, when the vow had not conferred a benefit upon the second party, it suffices to inform the second party, his presence or consent is not required. According to the former view the affected party's presence (consent) would be required as a condition for such annulment to become valid.
  Avimelech may have been astute enough to try and prevent Isaac from annulling his (or his father's) vow by converting the covenant made with Abraham (in private) into a covenant made in public. We have learned in <i>Gittin</i> 46 that according to the view of Rabbi Yehudah a vow made in public can never be annulled. On folio 36 the Talmud quotes the opinion of Amemar that even according to the view that vows made in public are subject to annulment this is so only when the vow was not made with the consent of the people present at the time such vow was made. <i>Tossaphot</i> explain that Amemar does not necessarily disagree with the view of Rabbi Yehudah that publicly made vows are not subject to annulment. It emerges from the opinion expressed by Rav Yoseph in <i>Pessachim</i> 107 that the discussion is resolved in favour of the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah, whereas at the end of the discussion the other rabbis rule in favour of the opinion expressed by the <i>Rabbanan.</i> Later authorities, i.e. the Geonim, again rule in favour of Rabbi Yehudah. At any rate, Avimelech took along an entourage, i.e. Achuzat and others in order to make the vow they wanted Isaac to undertake qualify as an oath made in public and therefore not subject to annulment at any future time. Our rabbis in <i>Gittin</i> disagree on how many people must be present in order for such a vow to be considered "public." Rabbi Nachman holds that the presence of three people suffices, whereas Rabbi Yitzchok holds that there has to be a quorum of ten people. After perusing what our sages have written on this subject in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 64,2 concerning the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו, I found that Rabbi Yehudah defines the meaning as simply the name of the person, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah understands it as a procession of wellwishers. Perhaps the disagreement mentioned in that <i>Midrash</i> is parallel to the disagreement whether three or ten people are required in order to qualify a vow as having been made in public. At any rate we may view Avimelech as having made sure that sufficient people were present to make Isaac's vow irrevocable.
  Perhaps Avimelech was so astute that he wanted to ensure that the presence of his army commander Phichol, who represented all the military, would make the vow one that had been made על דעת רבים, "with the consent of many," not merely "in the presence of many."
  The same two rabbis who disagreed in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 64,9 on the meaning of ואחוזת מרעהו also disagree on the meaning of the word פיכל. Rabbi Yehudah considers the word as merely his name, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah sees in it a description of his function, i.e. that פי כל, he was the authority to whom all the soldiers owed obeisance. The argument between the two rabbis may have the same root, i.e. whether in order to make a vow into a public vow one requires the presence of three or ten people respectively. The plain meaning of the Torah seems to be that three people suffice; this is why if we accept the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah, Avimelech took two people along for the ceremony. According to the view that a quorum of ten is required to make the vow a public oath we would have to interpret the verse according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah in which case Avimelech took along quite a number of people, i.e. a minimum of ten. At the same time Avimelech may have wanted the oath to qualify as approved by a quorum of at least ten people, as we described earlier.
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויאמר אליהם יצחק, Issac said to them, etc. We have to understand why Isaac spoke to the king and his entourage in such a hostile manner. It seems incompatible with our image of Isaac. Besides, seeing that in the end he did make a covenant with them, what was the point of the hostile attitude Isaac displayed initially? Furthermore, once Isaac had told Avimelech and company that they hated him, why did he spell out how this hatred had expressed itself, i.e. by his being expelled from Gerar? If the latter sentence was meant to prove the Philistines' hatred of him, he should have said כישלחתם אותי, when you expelled me instead of ותשלחוני מאתכם, suggesting that they let him go unmolested?
  We must understand Isaac's words as reflecting his awareness that the only reason Avimelech displayed any interest in making an agreement with Isaac was his concern that possibly his own inheritance would be in jeopardy due to G'd's promise to Abraham of the whole land of Canaan. Abraham had already reassured Avimelech about those concerns and Isaac his son would certainly not be able to annul a promise made by his father. There was therefore no reason for Avimelech to approach Isaac in this matter. Isaac reasoned as Maimonides rules that vows undertaken with the consent of the other party cannot be revoked except with that party's consent. Since Abraham had not done so during his lifetime it was too late for Isaac to make any changes, anyways (based on Job 37,18). Under the circumstances Avimelech had no need of Isaac at all. When Isaac said: "why did you come?" this is not to be understood as a hostile statement, but as pointing out that there was no need for them to come all the way in order to request what they were about to ask. Seeing this was so, he could only assume that they had come for his sake, presumably in order to lure him back to Gerar. He alluded to this by using the word אלי, to me. This was hard to believe, however, in view of past hostility shown him. He added the word ואתם, and you, referring to Avimelech and his ministers personally; he meant that it was not just the population at large which had displayed hatred towards him. By using the word ותשלחוני, Isaac meant that their hatred of him was based on jealousy. It is a well known fact that hatred may evaporate unless it is caused by jealousy. Hatred based on jealousy will not abate until the cause (Isaac) of the jealousy has disappeared. Isaac challenged Avimelech that their hatred of him would not disappear as it was based on jealousy.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויאמרו ראו ראינו וג׳. "We have seen very clearly, etc." Why did Avimelech and company repeat: "we have seen, seen?" There are also other nuances in their remarks which we need to analyse.
  Basically, Avimelech and company responded to Isaac's questions by saying that they really intended to respond to all Isaac had said. As to the covenant concluded between Abraham and Avimelech they said: "we have seen,seen." They claimed that there were two reasons why they could not rely on Abraham's vow. One was, as we stated, that Abraham's vow was made in private, the other that Abraham had not been a beneficiary of Avimelech and thus was at liberty to annul his vow even without Avimelech's presence or consent. Furthermore, they said that they did realise that only when they renewed said covenant with Isaac would he consider his father's vow as binding and ironclad. Avimelech added that when he concluded his covenant with Abraham he had not been careful to do it in such a way that it would remain irrevocable.
  Should Isaac be angered that Avimelech had not bothered to secure similar guarantees from his brother Ishmael who was, after all, Abraham's elder son, they explained this by saying they had observed that it ws Isaac who was both personally powerful and obviously enjoyed G'd's blessing and support. Although Isaac had pointed out that the fact they had expelled him was a sign of their hatred for him, they had convinced themselves that if he was worthy of G'd's blessing there was no cause to hate him.
  Concerning Isaac's complaint that they had not been honest with him and that it was an effrontery therefore to ask him for favours, ראו ראינו, they felt intellectually that the permanent validity of the covenant with Abraham would be guaranteed only if they renewed it at this time. I shall forthwith explain how we can read all this out of their carefully chosen words.
  ונאמר תהי נא אלה בינינו, we said: "let there be an oath between us, etc." The word ונאמר is past tense. They now began to explain the reason they had expelled Isaac from Gerar; as long as Isaac remained with them in Gerar it was legally impossible for the oath they had in mind to become irrevocable. We learn in <i>Nedarim</i> 27 that it is permissible to revoke certain vows without the need to appear before a tribunal. Examples are vows which were made under pressure from people who are reputed to commit murder in order to enrich themselves, or when facing robbers intent merely on confiscating one's property, or when facing tax collectors who exceed their authority. The school of Hillel taught that even when such vows were phrased as an oath, no legal mechanism is required to revoke them (when the danger is over). Concerning the above <i>Mishnah, Maha'rik</i> writes in <i>Yore De-ah</i> 232, that "anyone who swears an oath or makes a vow under duresss, such oath or vow is not legally binding." It suffices to annul such vows or oaths in one's heart; Joseph, however, did not annul his vow concerning his promise to Pharaoh not to reveal that the latter did not understand the Hebrew language, nor did Zedekiah annul his promise to Nebuchadnezzar in his heart. This ruling is valid even if the person who made the vow had been compensated in some form for the vow he was about to make. Avimelech and his company were afraid that Isaac might invoke this ruling to free himself of any vow if such an undertaking were to be made while he was in Avimelech's territory, i.e. under his rule, and therefore under some kind of duress. Therefore they came to a place over which Avimelech had no authority so that any undertaking by Isaac would be completely voluntary and therefore binding upon him. This is also clear from the writings of Nachmanides on the subject. The words תהי נא were meant to emphasise that the covenant to be undertaken now was to be different from the one previous in that it would remain valid, i.e. תהי. When they claimed at the time they expelled Isaac that he had become too powerful, this had only been a pretext to make him leave; their true reason had been to create a situation in which Isaac's oath would be binding upon him. They may also have used that pretext so that Isaac could not try to dissuade them by telling them that their fears that he would not honour his commitment were unfounded. There were some other considerations which I will come back to later.
  בינותינו בינינו ובינך, "between us, i.e. between us and you." The reason they added the apparently unnecessary word בינותינו was to reinforce the existing agreement concluded with Abraham, and to add a new covenant with Isaac. They wanted to examine whether Isaac considered the agreement with Abraham as valid for him. Perhaps Avimelech was afraid that G'd would renew His promise to give the land of Palestine to Isaac and the latter would give part of his inheritance to Esau. Avimelech did not consider Esau as the seed of Abraham seeing that G'd had specificaly said to Abraham that כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע, that only part of Isaac's seed would be considered Abraham's seed (21,12). Should Isaac then decide to give the land of the Philistines to Esau, he, Avimelech, would not have a legal leg to stand on in a dispute with Isaac, seeing that the covenant with Abraham which covered Abraham's descendants down to his great-grandchildren would not have been breached thereby. Esau would argue that his inheritance was due to a promise made by G'd to his father Isaac, not through a promise made by G'd to Abraham who had delayed it from becoming effective for four generations. These were the considerations which prompted Avimelech to make Isaac swear a separate oath. According to Rashi the word בינותינו alluded to the validity of the agreement for several generations.
  This word may also allude to the fact that Avimelech wanted the undertaking to be a public one. The repetition of the word בינינו was meant to emphasise the mutual agreement that prevailed at the time of the new covenant and which would make any future attempt to revoke it subject to mutual agreement.
  
  Verse 29
  
   אם תעשה עמנו, "if you will do with us, etc." They were careful to include in the wording of the covenant that it was in recognition of favours they had done to Isaac, whereas they referred to the eventuality that Isaac might reciprocate by doing harm to them. This is the reason that the whole verse is worded so unusually, as if it had been interrupted in the middle. The words "if you will do evil with us" should by rights have been part of the previous verse, providing the rationale for Avimelech seeking this agreement.
  When you keep in mind what we have said, it becomes clear that the words are in their proper place, however. Avimelech and company stressed that just as they had not done any harm to Isaac in the past they now expected him to swear that he in turn would not do something that would harm them in the future. Isaac could not be expected to understand what they meant by the טוב, the good they had done for him, until they explained that the very fact that they let him depart whole in body and assets was in itself an act of kindness. Kings, i.e. governments, sometimes pass legislation to extend financial aid to some of their subjects. They do so for one of two reasons. 1) If the day would come when the government is in need of financial aid they would have wealthy citizens to call upon to provide loans to the government. 2) In order to enhance the economic standing of their countries. A country which contains many wealthy people thereby adds to the glory of its rulers. As a result one could have argued that any favours Avimelech had done for Isaac were not of an altruistic nature but were designed to enhance the king's personal reputation as a ruler over a successful country. Avimelech denied such an interpretation of his motives by saying: "just as we never harmed you," meaning that there were no selfish motives in that part of the טוב they had done for Isaac. The very fact they had let Isaac depart with all his assets intact [and had not imposed an emigration tax Ed.] had made Avimelech's country poorer. According to their reasoning this proved that every kindness they had shown Isaac had been genuine, not self-interest. All of this was alluded to in the words ראו ראינו.
  [At this point the author quotes a line he saw in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> according to which Avimelech's words are proof that the Philistines did not do Isaac any true favours. He finds this difficult and deals with it. Since I have not found such a line in my edition of <i>Bereshit Rabbah,</i> I have omitted this paragraph. Ed.]
  אתה עתה ברוך ה', "you are now the one who is blessed by the Lord." They had come to this realisation when they saw that Isaac continued to prosper in spite of having been expelled from their midst. Seeing that Isaac had not been deprived of any of the favours they used to bestow on him as a result of their having expelled him, he had no reason not to render the oath they requested from him as a quid pro quo.
  The author argues that in spite of the definition of the <i>Rivash</i> that what constitutes an oath which is rendered as a quid pro quo is the favour which is rendered at the time of the oath, the same holds true if the oath was sworn in recognition of favours received previously.
  Avimelech also wanted to explain with this statement why they did not invite Isaac to return to Gerar. Seeing that after leaving Gerar Isaac had prospered even more than while he had been there, there was no point to invite him to come back there. Previously it could have been argued that he was the beneficiary of the help of G'd extended by means of intermediaries such as the local government in Gerar, i.e. Avimelech himself. Now that he lived in no-man's land it was clear that his success was due entirely to G'd's direct help. 
  Avimelech also wanted to deny the argument that they had caused Isaac's good fortune to be interrupted by their expulsion; this could not have been the case seeing that G'd had been its author. The fact that he was still better off today than when he resided amongst them was the proof; עתה ברוך ה', "now that they had already done all that was in their power with the means at their disposal, it was clear that he was blessed by the Lord" since he had found the real source of such blessing. All these arguments were designed to elicit an oath the legality of which would be unassailable under any circumstances. There is a discussion in <i>Gittin</i> 46 why the Jewish people did not make war against the Gibeonites when they found out that the latter had tricked them into a promise to treat them as allies instead of as Canaanites (Joshua 9,18). Rabbi Yehudah holds that since the oath was sworn by the leaders of the Jewish people, Israel could not take action denying the validity of that oath. The other rabbis disagree, claiming that the Israelites' undertaking was never valid as it had been based on the Gibeonites' declaration that they were a people who lived far from the land of Canaan. Clearly, Rabbi Yehudah was concerned with the image of Jewish leaders who by defaulting on an undertaking denigrate the reputation of G'd whom they represent. Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah's point is not that the oath was valid, but that the Gentiles must not be allowed to say that Jewish leaders were guilty of perjury. We must remember that Rabbi Yehudah's point is not a legal one, i.e. a Mosaic law, but an act of piety that Jewish leaders have to impose upon themselves. Besides, even according to Rabbi Yehudah, such a consideration is in place only when the oath was as public as that of the Jewish people to the Gibeonites. Oaths between a relatively small group of people such as Isaac and Avimelech's entourage would certainly not fall under that heading.
  Furthermore, an additional reason why the other rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Yehudah is that the Gentiles are well aware of the mechanics and the conditions when oaths are subject to annulment. This being so, the question of חלול השם, public desecration of G'd's name which troubled Rabbi Yehudah did not even arise.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי כי זקן יצחק, It came about when Isaac was old, etc. The reason that the Torah prefaces the paragraph by reporting that Isaac's eyesight failed him was to explain that Jacob took the blessings at a time when he was not afraid that his father would recognise him. The reason the paragraph is introduced with the word ויהי, which always introduces a painful episode, is to remind us that the subterfuge Jacob had to employ had many fateful consequences for the history of the Jewish people.
  את עשו, Esau. The reason the Torah does not say ויקרא אל עשו, that Isaac called out to Esau, is that the latter was not present. Isaac merely called out Esau's name.
  בנו הגדול, his older son. The Torah may have given as the reason that Isaac called first on Esau the fact that he was the firstborn; this would presuppose that Isaac did not know about the sale of the birthright. Alternatively, Isaac may have ignored the fact of the sale of the birthright and have based himself on Esau's being the elder, biologically speaking. The reason that Isaac wanted to give the wicked Esau a blessing was that he hoped to effect a change in Esau's character on account of the blessings he would bestow on him. In view of the statement in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 80,1 that Dinah's rape was a punishment for Jacob who had hidden her from Esau's view at the moment of reconciliation, thus preventing Esau from marrying her, we may assume that had Rebeccah and Jacob not interfered with Isaac's intention Esau might indeed have become a penitent as a result of receiving such a blessing.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ורבקה שומעת, and Rebeccah was listening, etc. The Torah tells us that Rebeccah was a prophetess who always listened to Isaac's words even though she did not speak up in his presence. The. Torah alludes to this by saying ורבקב שומעת בדבר יצחק, "Rebeccah was listening whenever Isaac spoke." Normally we would have expected the Torah to write: ותשמע רבקה, "Rebeccah happened to overhear." The present tense employed here by the Torah here is most unusual. Maybe Isaac spoke to Esau in a whisper and that is why he believed that Jacob was really Esau; Isaac thought that Jacob could not have have heard of Isaac's instructions to Esau. Although Isaac's eyesight had begun to fail him, he called Esau to help him with something confidentially. Both Isaac's call and Esau's response, "I am ready" may be an allusion to the conspirational nature of the conversation.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ורבקה אמרה אל יעקב, And Rebeccah said to Jacob, etc. The reason that the Torah introduces the verse with the conjunctive letter ו is to tell us that Rebeccah agreed with the Holy Spirit which had conveyed this conversation between Isaac and Esau to her.
  לאמר, הנה שמעתי. to say, "here I have heard," etc. She wanted to make sure that Jacob realised that she had only just become aware of what had transpired between Isaac and Esau and that she could not be accused of having allowed too much time to elapse to take countermeasures. Jacob had enough time to carry out his mother's instructions.
  אחיך לאמר, "your brother, saying." She did not mean that Esau was a true brother of Jacob in character; she used the word "your brother" to indicate that just as Isaac plotted with Esau, she now did the same thing with Jacob.
  She also used the word לאמר to protect herself since she had not quoted Isaac's words to Jacob verbatim. She meant that she had told Jacob the gist of Isaac's words to Esau.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ועתה בני שמע בקולי, "and now my son, listen to me and obey my instructions!" "hasten to bring me two young kids at once."
  שמע בקולי. "listen to my voice!" Although there is some deception involved in what I will instruct you, you still have to obey me apart from your duty to honour father and mother which is a positive commandment. Rebeccah stressed the fact that she was a prophetess and the Torah commands us to obey the prophets' instructions (Deut. 18,15). We have already explained (in connection with Genesis 16,5) that when a prophet asks you to disobey one of G'd's laws temporarily he is to be obeyed.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   עלי קללתך בני, "may your curse be on me my son!" The reason that she added the word "my son," although she had been talking to him all the time was that she referred only to what Jacob had said last. We have a rule in <i>Makkot</i> 11 that the curse of a Torah scholar, even if uttered only conditionally, is effective. Had Rebeccah not added the word "my son," we would have thought that she referred to Jacob's being cursed by Isaac when he found out he had been tricked.
  In order to understand Rebeccah's special love for Jacob the following considerations may help. Rebeccah generally was looked upon askance because she had given birth to the wicked Esau. We find in nature that parts of a whole display an affinity for other parts of the same whole. Rebeccah testified that this rule did not apply in her case, that her deeds proved that she had no affinity for Esau. Her womb was indeed blessed, and the good part (Jacob) represented that which was normal, hence her love for Jacob. The Torah teaches us this by repeatedly describing Jacob as Rebeccah's son even in instances where these additional words are otherwise quite superfluous (compare verses 6,8,11,13,15,17,42). All of this is to underline that Jacob's righteousness was a direct outgrowth of his righteous mother. The fact that she had given birth also to an Esau was not a reflection on his mother's personality.
  Kabbalists, of course, are aware that there are mystical dimensions which account for the emergence of Esau as a potentially wicked person, whereas it was Rebeccah's union with Isaac which was the cause of any pollutant disturbing her holiness. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is quoted in the Zohar (Sullam edition <i>Chayey Sarah</i> 251) as explaining that the reason the Torah describes Isaac as loving his wife Rebeccah, something that is natural and does not require special mention, is that the love of the male for the female is rooted in the "left" side of the emanations. in Isaac's case it was the fire of the גבורה, his predominant characteristic which stems from the "left side" of the emanations.. If the holiness of the two was tainted in any way this was due more to Isaac than to Rebeccah. Jacob's physical perfection is compared to that of Adam's before the sin, as we know from <i>Baba Metzia</i> 84. He did not therefore inherit any pollutant from his mother. Students of the Kabbalah will understand all this. [I have elaborated on the author's text to make it more intelligible for the non-kabbalist. Ed.] When we wrote earlier (25,20) that the reason that Esau was wicked was because Rebeccah had a wicked brother called Laban, this did not influence Rebeccah's character.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ותלבש את יעקב בנה הקטן, she dressed Jacob her younger son. This means she adapted these clothes to fit her smaller son though they were tailored to fit the measurements of her bigger son Esau.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אנכי עשו בכרך. "I am Esau your firstborn." Jacob meant that seeing he had purchased the birthright from Esau, he was now the legal Esau. He added: עשיתי כאשר דברת אלי, "I have done in accordance with what you have said to me," meaning that the reason you told Esau to hunt game, etc., was because you assumed that he was your firstborn.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ולא הכירו כי היו ידיו כידי עשו, he did not recognise him since his hands were like those of Esau. Isaac rejected the doubt created by Jacob's voice since a person can change his voice or the listener may mistake a voice for that of someone else, whereas he cannot change the hairs on his hands, a very distinctive mark of identification.
  ויברכהו, he blessed him. Before Isaac touched Jacob and established that he was Esau nothing had contradicted his impression that it was Jacob's voice he heard and that therefore he was faced by a swindler. Isaac had begun to think along the lines Jacob had been afraid of, i.e. that the swindler deserved to be cursed. Even though Isaac had not yet thought that far, he did begin to hate the person who he thought was trying to swindle him. The Talmud reports in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 84 that when the righteous are looking at someone with displeasure this brings a curse in its wake. [Rabbi Yochanan's displeaure at Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish's remarks resulted in the latter dying. Ed.] The Torah reports Isaac as blessing Jacob as a result of feeling his hands to teach us that he reversed his erstwhile intentions.
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויאמר אתה זה בני עשו He said: "you are indeed my son Esau" Isaac justified his bestowing the blessing. This verse is not a question. Jacob's reaction was a confirmation that Isaac was correct, of course.
  There is another meaning to the words אתה זה. Inasmuch as Isaac had thought up to that moment that the voice indicated that Jacob stood before him, he now pointed at the body of the person before him saying: "you are Esau" seeing the hands had convinced him. When he articulated the blessings he concentrated on the person opposite him without regard to that person's name. This actually made Jacob the true recipient of the blessings, even though Isaac had made mention of Esau. At the time of the actual blessing Isaac concentrated exclusively on the person in front of him.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   ויברכהו ויאמר ראה He blessed him saying: <i>"re-ey."</i> This word does not mean "see!" as usual, but is connected to the word ראוי, suitable, worthy. Isaac meant that it was fitting that the fragrance of his son should reflect the fragrance of the fields which themselves enjoyed G'd's blessings.
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויתן לך אלוקים מטל השמים, "May the Lord give you of the dew of the heavens, etc." The resason this verse commences with the conjunctive letter ו is because it continues the theme begun in verse 27, i.e. ויברכהו, "He blessed him." Those blessings had not been detailed because the Torah merely told us that just as the key to blessings had first been entrusted to Abraham and subsequently by Abraham to Isaac, Isaac now handed this key to Jacob. (based on <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 39,11). Accordingly the word ויברכהו means that Isaac transferred this key to blessings to Jacob.
  It is also possible that Isaac divided the blessings into both spiritual and material ones. The spiritual blessings are referred to by the word ויברכהו, whereas the material blessings are introduced by verse 28. The letter ו then introduces the material blessings as something additional to the spiritual blessings Isaac had already bestowed upon Jacob.
  Aternately, the mention of the word האלוקים, the attribute of Justice, is to show that whereas up to then Isaac had invoked only the attribute of Mercy, he now also invoked the attribute of Justice, asking it to agree to the blessing he bestowed on his son.
  
  Verse 29
  
   יעבדוך עמים וגו׳. "Nations will serve you, etc." This might mean that the king would not impose on the people the taxes due him. We find that even when the second Jewish commonwealth was still a satellite of the Persians, their leaders, i.e. their Torah scholars were exempt from taxes as we know from Ezra, 7,24. When verse 40 continues "and you will serve your brother," this refers to a descendant of Esau when the latter had become king.
  הוה גביר לאחיך. "Be your brother's superior;" This refers to Esau personally, i.e. that Esau himself will never become Jacob's servant, as opposed to some of his descendants to whom the words וישתחוו לך בני אמך, "your mother's sons will bow down to you" will apply.
  Another meaning contained in the blessing may be that as long as Jacob will exercise his dominion over Esau by serving the Lord in holiness, the blessing would remain in effect; were he not to do so, one brother could never become a servant to another brother. Should Jacob (or his descendants) fail to serve the Lord, Esau would assume dominion over him. This is why we find that even a relatively mild dereliction of duty towards G'd by the kingdom of Yehudah led to Edom recovering politically (Kings II 8,22).
  אררך ארור ומברכיך ברוך. "Those who curse you will be cursed and those who bless you will be blessed." Those who plan to curse you in the future will already be cursed now so as to make their curse ineffective, whereas those who plan to bless you will already be blessed now so as to make their blessing effective.
  The reason the Torah employs the plural when referring to those who will bless, whereas the word "will be blessed" is in the singular, (and similarly when referring to the cursers and the cursed) is to tell us that not all those who curse will be cursed, such as in the case of Achiyah Hashiloni and people like him (Kings I 11,29). The same applies in reverse to people such as Bileam who blessed the Jewish people. He was not blessed as a result because his intention was not honourable.
  The reason the Torah adds the conjunctive letter ו before the word ומברכיך is to allude to the type of person who curses and is yet within the category of people deserving blessings since he uses the wording of a curse in order to bestow a blessing. We find an example of this in <i>Moed Katan</i> 9 where the Rabbis couched their blessing for Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, in words which sounded like a curse. We are therefore able to read the verse as if the three words ארריך ארור ומברכיך belonged together.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויהי כאשר כלה, As soon as he had finished, etc. The reason for the apparently superfluous word ויהי which always introduces something of a painful nature, is that the Torah testifies that Isaac completed his blessing prematurely; instead of giving Jacob the entire blessing he was capable of bestowing as he did for Esau afterwards, he did not do so now. Had Isaac truly completed giving Jacob all the blessings he was capable of bestowing, Esau would have gone out empty-handed.
  ויהי אך יצא יצא יעקב, Jacob had barely left his father's presence, etc. The extra words: ויהי, אך, יצא are all meant to draw our attention to the fact that Jacob would not have left yet except that he noticed that Esau was arriving (as pointed out at the end of the verse). This caused Jacob to make a hasty exit. The Torah hints at the embarassment Jacob felt at leaving the presence of his father as if he were a thief beating a hasty retreat. Our sages in <i>Midrash Rabbah</i> pursue a different approach.
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ויחרד יצחק. Isaac trembled. Isaac experienced contradictory feelings; he trembled because he had been tricked. At the same time he was aware that he had blessed Jacob by saying that anyone cursing him should himself be cursed. When he understood that the person upon whom he had bestowed the blessing was his son Jacob he blessed him because he realised that the fragrance that emanated from Jacob's clothing indicated his moral superiority over Esau. This prompted Isaac to confirm his blessing. He may also have been afraid to bring a curse upon himself if he were to revoke the blessing.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   ויאמר הכי קרא שמו יעקב, He said: "Was he not named Jacob (the crooked one)?" Esau was amazed having believed that Jacob's name referred to only a single act of subterfuge whereas he now found himself fooled by Jacob for a second time. Had Jacob's name been עקבות or something similar, Esau would not have been so surprised.
  Esau may also have meant that the name יעקב alluded to frequent use of subterfuge. So far he considered himself as having become Jacob's victim twice.
  
  Verse 37
  
   ויען יצחק, Isaac replied. Actually Isaac still had the chance to bless Esau. Having realised in the meantime that Esau deserved a curse rather than a blessing, that he was in fact an enemy of his brother Jacob, Isaac was afraid to bless Esau because he would thereby neutralise the blessing to Jacob that those who curse him would themselves be cursed. The Torah therefore mentions the expression ויען יצחק twice to tell us that he did not tell Esau the true reason why he could not bless him outright.
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
   ויען יצחק אביו. Isaac his father replied. The words "his father" explain why Isaac decided to give Esau a blessing after all. In the final analysis his fatherly feelings were stirred by Esau's outburst.
  
  Verse 40
  
   ואת אחיך…והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עלו. "And your brother…but when you will grieve, you will be able to shake off his yoke." There are many explanations on this verse. It is possible to say that all the blessings of Esau are applicable only as long as Esau is content to serve his brother but not when Esau would try and shake off the yoke of serving his brother. The word תריד may also be derived from the root רדה. It would then mean that once Esau was persecuted and subjugated by Jacob he would begin to shake off Jacob's yoke; at a still later stage the prophecy of "the house of Jacob becoming fire and the house of Esau turning to straw" would be fulfilled (compare Ovadiah 1,18). The reason that the word והיה which signifies a happy occurrence is used may lend support to this interpretation. Esau's destruction would cause joy both in heaven and on earth.
  Alternately, the meaning could be that even when Esau dominates the rest of the world, his dominion will not extend over Jacob (the Jewish people) except inasmuch as he will not be dominated by Jacob. He himself will not dominate Jacob. There would be a stand-off between Israel and Edom.
  
  Verse 41
  
   יקרבו ימי אבל אבי, "the days of mourning for my father are not far off." Esau referred to the time after his father's funeral when the days of mourning commence. He was afraid to murder Jacob before his father would be buried since the dead are reputed to be aware of what goes on as long as the grave or coffin has not been sealed (<i>Shabbat</i> 152).
  
  Verse 42
  
   עשו בנו הגדול, her elder son Esau. The reason she used the word הגדול "the bigger one," instead of הבכיר, "the older one", was because she was describing Esau's relative prowess compared to the physically smaller Jacob.
  מתנחם לך, consoles himself concerning you. The thought of killing you acts as consolation for him regarding what you have done to him. By killing you he means to restore to himself both the birthright and the blessing.
  
  Verse 43
  
   ועתה בני, "and now my son, etc." This has to be understood in the same vein as the statement by our sages that one should be a penitent a day before one's death (<i>Avot</i> 2,10). Rebeccah reminded Jacob that no one is assured of his life for even a single day. As a result one must always be penitent. This is why she chose the expression "now." קום ברח, "arise and flee!" She urged Jacob to flee at once although Esau had indicated he would not murder Jacob until after his father's death. Rebeccah was afraid that Isaac might die at any time, thus enabling Esau to try and carry out his evil intention.
  ברח לך אל לבן. "Flee to Laban." Laban would stand up against Esau if the latter were to pursue Jacob in order to kill him.
  
  Verse 44
  
   עד אשר תשוב חמת אחיך. "until such time as your brother's anger subsides." Anger has a habit of cooling with the passage of time. The reason that Rebeccah continued to belabour the same point in verse 45 was that she knew that the mere passage of time would not be enough to bring about the desired cooling off of Esau's anger. Until such time as Esau would not become furious when others mentioned what had happened there was no knowing if it would be safe for Jacob to return home.
  ושלחתי ולקחתיך, "I will send and fetch you." She did not want Jacob to risk returning under any circumstances until she would send for him.
  
  Verse 45
  
   גם שניכם יום אחד. "both of you on the same day." Rebeccah said to Jacob: "even assuming that Esau would die in an act of self defense by you or an act of revenge by a relative of yours this would not give me any satisfaction at all." Rebeccah's concern was only for the life of Jacob; she did not care about Esau at all.
  
  Verse 46
  
   קצתי בחיי. "I am fed up with my life." She did not want to reveal the true reason for her state of mind because it is forbidden to tell tales. This is why she gave Isaac a different reason for wanting Jacob sent away. When she had revealed Esau's intention to Jacob this was not tale-bearing but was fulfilment of the commandment in the second half of the verse dealing with tale bearing, "do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow man is being shed" (Leviticus 19,16).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   וישלח יצחק, Isaac sent away, etc. Why is Laban described as Rebeccah's brother, something we have known for a long time? Why is Rebeccah described here once more as both Jacob's and Esau's mother?
  Actually, the Torah found it necessary to explain why Isaac would send a pious son to a person such as Laban, seeing the latter was known to be wicked. True, Abraham had despatched Eliezer to take a wife for Isaac from the house of Bethuel; however, Bethuel was not a well known רשע, an evil person such as Laban. Besides, Abraham had never told Eliezer in so many words to go to the house of Bethuel whereas he had named Laban specifically as Jacob's destination. He instructed him to marry a daughter of the wicked Laban. By repeating that Laban was after all a brother of the pious Rebeccah the Torah alerts us to the probability that one or both of Laban's daughters could be just as pious as Rebeccah who stemmed from the house of Bethuel. One must not assume that the children and grandchildren of a wicked father or grandfather will automatically turn out to be of evil character. The Torah hints at this by reminding us that even Rebeccah was the mother of both a pious person such as Jacob and an evil person such as Esau.
  You have to appreciate that in the period under discussion [prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai in which all the holy souls participated Ed.] the holy souls had not yet been separated from the regions in which they were imprisoned. Seeing that Abraham's family was recognised as a region where holiness had found a foothold, both he and Sarah being the first proselytes, anyone who would subsequently convert to Judaism would be called either Abraham if a male or Sarah if a female. It is a fact that holy members of a holy species look for other members of the same species. Abraham was still incomplete in this regard as neither he nor his son Isaac had as yet produced female offspring, i.e. holy female souls. Perhaps this is even the reason that we are told in Genesis 25,19: "Abraham begat Isaac," to remind us that he had succeeded only in producing a holy male soul. This situation still existed when Isaac sent out Jacob to secure a wife. The holy female souls had not yet been separated from their place of imprisonment. Isaac therefore had to send Jacob to search for his lost mate, i.e. the girl in whose body such a holy soul was imprisoned.
  It was only during subsequent generations that Jews were no longer forced to roam the world to find their mates amongst the Gentiles. If nonetheless some "sparks" of holiness (holy souls in captivity) still exist amongst the Gentiles they will eventually convert and then be recognised as holy souls returning to their home (the Jewish people).
  This raises the question of Abraham's insistence that Isaac not marry someone of Canaanite descent. Isaac also instructed Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> explains this prohibition to marry girls of Canaanite descent as being due to that tribe being cursed whereas Abraham's seed was blessed. Actually the words of the <i>Midrash</i> are somewhat obscure. In light of what we have written Abraham may have meant that Canaan [Noach's grandson] had been denied holy female souls amongst his seed as a result of Noach's curse. Hence there was no chance of finding the girl who possessed a holy soul amongst that tribe. This is the deeper meaning of Noach's curse, i.e. that Canaan would be denied access to holiness.
  Whereas it is a fact that even nowadays we still experience conversions to Judaism amongst the Gentiles, it is remarkable that we have no record of members of the Canaanites ever converting to Judaism as did some Romans and other nationals, for instance. This proves our theory. This may also have been the real reason that the Torah commanded the Jewish people not to allow a single Canaanite soul to survive [in the campaign to capture the land of Israel] as we know from Deuteronomy 20,16. The Torah may have stressed the word "soul" in that verse to indicate that none of these people had a holy soul worth preserving. This was the difference between the Canaanites and nations such as Ammon and Moab.
  Since G'd has revealed all this to us we must try and understand what purpose our subjugation by Canaanite tribes served (compare Judges 4,2), seeing that the purpose of exile is to extract the sparks of holiness that are scattered amongst the Gentiles, and there are no such "sparks" amongst the Canaanites. Our sages have told us in <i>Pessachim</i> 119 that "our forefathers did not depart from Egypt until they had turned Egypt into a trap that did not contain any bait and into a deep pool of water devoid of fish." The scriptural proof cited is Exodus 12,36: "they emptied Egypt." The <i>Ari zal</i> in his שער הגלגולים explains that it was necessary to empty Egypt of any such stray holy souls to make a return by the Jewish people in the future pointless.  In view of all this, what purpose could subjugation of the Jewish people by the Canaanites have served if there was not even a chance to save some stray holy soul through all our suffering?
  We find in לקוטי תורה פרשת מקץ that there are two different "sparks" of holy souls which are imprisoned in the קליפה. One is the type of soul which is freed through being "born," i.e. through entering a human body at birth. Examples of such souls are: Abraham, Sarah, Rebeccah, Rachel, as well as the soul of Rabbi Chaninah ben Tradyon which emanated from Shechem's having slept with Jacob's daughter Dinah. Ruth the Moabite and Naamon the Ammonite are also examples of such souls. The other type of holy soul imprisoned in the קליפה is one that is firmly attached to its קליפה and is not capable of exiting from its source unless its קליפה causes anguish to Israel. When that happens the holy soul trapped within the קליפה is released and able to return to its origin. Now we understand why there is a purpose to Israel being subjected to exile at the hands of such people [representatives of such קליפות Ed.]. The prophet Ovadiah said concerning such an exile: "This sickening exile for the children of Israel under the Canaanites as far as Tzorfat (Ovadiah 1,20)." This verse which uses the term החל must then be understood similarly to Daniel 8,27: נהייתי ונחליתי, "I was broken up and I was sick." Such an exile achieves its objective in a manner different from all other exiles of the Jewish people. When Ovadiah speaks of כנענים instead of בכנענים when describing that exile, as well as describing Canaan in the plural instead of in the singular as is the case with other nations where Israel was exiled, this may be a veiled reference to the "sparks" of holiness still hidden within the קליפה of Canaan which are known as כנענים. In short, Ovadiah describes the purpose of that exile as being the chance of "rescuing" holy souls that were still identified with כנענים prior to the ultimate redemption, thus enabling those souls to participate in that redemption.
  
  Verse 6
  
   וירא עשו כי ברך יצחק את יעקב, Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, etc. This verse does not seem to tell us anything new. If it were meant to tell us that this was the reason Esau took an additional non-Canaanite wife, verse eight would have sufficed for that purpose.
  We must therefore look for some meaning beyond the mere words of the verse. Esau was aware of Jacob's' departure and of its nature, i.e. that he thereby fulfilled both a commandment by his father and mother and the commandment to look for a wife. Knowing that Isaac had blessed Jacob to complete his undertaking successfully, Esau did not bother to pursue Jacob, realising that under such circumstances he would not succeed. Although Esau is reputed to have sent his eldest son Eliphaz to catch up with Jacob and to kill him (according to Rashi on Genesis 29,11), it is possible that he merely wanted to test his ability to vanquish Jacob on his journey. This scenario may have been re-enacted when the descendants of Esau (Amalek) attacked the Israelites after the latter had crossed the sea of reeds. Esau considered his son's ability to pursue Jacob successfully as greater than his own ability to do so.
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   וירא עשו כי רעות בנות כנען, Esau realised that the Canaanite daughters were displeasing in the eyes of his father. The Torah tells us here that Esau's only concern was the effect his Canaanite wives had on his father's sensibilities. The fact that these women were evil by nature did not bother him. His soul did not despise them. Subsequent events teach that the fact that Isaac disapproved of these women did not produce any results other than that Esau did not marry still more Canaanite girls. He did not consider divorcing these wives. Perhaps Esau's only concern was that his father's blessing would not be applicable to children born to him by his Canaanite wives, and that is why married a daughter of Ishmael to insure that his father's blessing would remain effective for his descendants.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויצא יעקב. Jacob departed. The reason that the Torah did not content itself with reporting Jacob's setting out for Padan Aram (28,5) and repeats his departure at this point is to allude to the encounters he had on the way. This, of course, raises the question why the Torah had first reported Jacob as already on the way to Padan Aram. This is especially curious in view of the encounter Jacob had on the way occurring before he even came close to Charan. Why did the Torah report events in a chronologically inverted manner? Besides, why did the Torah speak about חרנה instead of about Jacob being on the way לחרן? While it is true as we learn from <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 68,8 that any word which requires a letter ל as a prefix may instead have the letter ה as a suffix, the Torah surely does not employ these variations arbitrarily!
  The Torah intended to relate all that happened to Jacob from the time he left his home. The Torah reports that initially all Jacob did was depart, i.e. ויצא. This did not involve any travelling on his part. The person who walked i.e. וילך, was someone called חרנה. This "Charanah" set out from his home to come and welcome Jacob.
  It also possible that the Torah meant to convey to us that Esau's anger חרונו, departed from him the moment Jacob departed from Beer Sheva. This is expressed by the words: וילך חרנה.
  According to the tradition quoted by our sages that Esau sent his son Eliphaz after Jacob, the words וילך חרנה may allude to Eliphaz hurrying after Jacob full of anger, i.e. בחרון. Perhaps the next verse in which Jacob is described as encountering a certain site, ויפגע במקום, is a hint that Jacob felt endangered and took refuge in prayer.
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויפגע במקום. He encountered the site. The plain meaning of the verse is that Jacob arrived at an inhabited place. This is why the Torah concludes the paragraph by telling us that the town where Jacob found himself spending the night had previously been named Luz. The site had been a town then, and Jacob spent the night there.
  The reason the Torah mentioned that the sun had set is simply that Jacob would have continued on his way in order to get closer to his eventual destination had it not been for the fact that nightfall required him to make camp. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 68,9 explains that the definite article under the letter ב in the word במקום is an allusion to the site being Mount Moriah, the mountain destined for prayer and the eventual site of the Holy Temple. They base this on Genesis 22,4 where Abraham is reported as having recognised that site as the place where he was to offer up his son Isaac as a total offering to G'd. This is, of course, a homiletical approach. We naturally accept the words of our sages as absolutely true insights and they do not contradict our own explanation at all. Rashi has already explained that Mount Moriah had been transplanted for the occasion so that Jacob could offer up his prayer at that holy site.
  וישכב במקום ההוא. He lay down on that site. The Torah reports that Jacob dreamed and wants us to know that it is not the lying down that inspired the dream but במקום ההוא, the nature of the site.
  The wording also alludes to what we are told in <i>Chullin</i> 91, that the earth under Jacob folded up, i.e. that Jacob lay down on that whole strip of earth from Moriah to Luz. This is what G'd referred to in verse 13.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויחלום והנה סולם, And he dreamed that there was a ladder, etc. Inasmuch as many dreams contain matter without significance, the Torah added the word והנה to indicate that in this dream every detail appeared to Jacob as especially vivid and significant. He had total recall of everything he dreamed and referred to each detail later on. This is why the word והנה is repeated before every segment of the dream. The Torah thereby characterises the dream as a prophetic revelation.
  
  Verse 13
  
   והנה ה׳ נצב עליו. And here G'd was standing upon it. The word עליו also refers to Jacob, i.e. that he perceived G'd as standing above him. This is in line with what <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 82,6 tells us that the patriarchs were the carriers of G'd's presence. Inasmuch as Jacob was the fourth "leg" of that מרכבה [perceived here as a chair G'd is transported on, Ed.] G'd leaned more heavily on Jacob than on the other three "legs." The singular עליו is justified then.
  אלוקי אברהם אביך, "the G'd of your father Abraham." The reason the Torah added the superfluous word "your father," as well as the reason why Abraham is described as Jacob's father without the addition of Isaac was intended to emphasise that Esau had no share in the heritage of Abraham. The Torah here made Jacob the sole heir of Abraham. This heritage did not come to Jacob via his father Isaac but directly from his grandfather Abraham. I have already explained in chapter 16,21 that there was never a question of Ishmael sharing in Abraham's inheritance since Ishmael was legally a slave and as such could not inherit anything from anybody. Ishmael was pointedly described as "the son of this slavewoman" not as Abraham's son (21,13). Esau was precluded from claiming any part of Abraham's inheritance.
  While it is true that the fact that a son is a heretic does not disqualify him from inheriting his father's estate (<i>Kidushin</i> 18), in this instance the gifts and blessings bestowed upon Abraham by G'd were given him with the express understanding that they be handed down to Jacob afterwards as we know from Genesis 21,12 that his seed would be known only through Isaac (<i>Nedarim</i> 31). Although the expression זרע does not imply that such seed must be morally fit in order to qualify for that description and therefore for the right to inherit, the fact that all the blessings of Abraham were transferred to Jacob excludes Esau as an heir. It is true that in connection with people who offer their children to the idol Moloch we find in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 64 that the term זרעו is used by the Torah, and that it includes children who have not turned out properly. The fact remains that usually the word זרע refers to children who follow in the footsteps of their fathers. When the Talmud <i>Kidushin</i> 18 quotes Deut. 2,5 as proof that Esau did inherit, this is in connection with Esau's children receiving an inheritance from their father; it does not mean that Esau himself was qualified to inherit from his grandfather Abraham.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ונברכו בך כל משפחות האדמה, "and through you all the families of the earth will experience blessings." We find that this blessing was fulfilled when Jacob was in Aram. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 70 records that until Jacob's arrival there the people suffered from a shortage of water. As soon as Jacob arrived those people were blessed with an abundance of water. Similarly we find that the famine stopped as soon as Jacob arrived in Egypt i.e. the Nile overflowed its banks again to irrigate the fields.
  The reason the Torah added the word ובזרעך, was that Jacob's descendants too were to confer blessings on the whole of mankind. As long as the Temple stood the seventy nations of the world enjoyed G'd's blessings because the Israelites offered sacrifices on the festival of Sukkot on their behalf (<i>Sukkah</i> 55). Even while the Jewish people are in exile the continued existence of the other nations is due to the Jewish people as we know from Song of Songs 1,5: "when my mother's children were angry at me they appointed me keeper of the vineyards (of the idols)." [The "mother" is mother earth in this context. Ed.]
  If we look for allusions we can find that the whole paragraph alludes to man as a species. <i>Zohar</i> 1,147 understands the words ויצא יעקב as describing the soul when it first departs from the higher world and takes up residence within a body. This body is called יעקב on account of the evil urge which constantly tags along, at our heels, so to speak.
  The words מבאר שבע, from "the well of the oath," is a reference to the source the souls come from which is known as "the well of living waters." The word שבע refers to the oath G'd makes every soul swear when it departs from heaven that it will not violate Torah laws while inside a human being (compare <i>Niddah</i> 30). 
  The words וילך חרנה are an allusion to the statement of our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 91 that the evil urge enters man from the moment he leaves his mother's womb. This is based on Genesis 4,7 that "sin crouches at the entrance" 
  The words ויפגע במקום are a reminder that man has to invoke G'd's help through prayer, G'd being the מקומו של עולם, the site of the universe.
  When the Torah continued וילן שם כי בא השמש, this is a reminder that man has to conduct himself properly all his life until he dies, i.e. "until his sun sets." This is why our sages said in <i>Avot</i> 2,4: "do not be certain of your righteousness until the day you die." 
  The Torah continues: "He took from the stones of that site;" this is analogous to the statement by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in <i>Berachot</i> 5 that a person should constantly strive to provoke his good urge i.e. criticise himself by struggling against the evil urge. Should he fail to overcome his evil urge he should busy himself with Torah study as suggested by David in Psalms 4,5. When the Torah refers to מאבני המקום, that Jacob took from the stones of that site, this refers to the בנינו של עולם the building blocks by means of which the world is built, i.e. Torah. These words may also relate to the stones used to kill the evil urge and its representatives. This is what the Talmud means in <i>Sotah</i> 21 when we are told that Torah saves one from the evil urge not only when one is actively engaged in its study but even when one is temporarily not busy with Torah.
  The Torah goes on: וישם מראשותיו, "he placed these stones under his head," to allude to the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that when one fails to vanquish the evil urge one should resort to reciting the קריאת שמע which is recited at night, seeing David speaks of על משכבכם, on your bed, in Psalms 4,5. 
  The words וישכב במקום ההוא he lay down in that place, allude to the final statement on the subject by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that if one fails to overcome one's evil urge one should think of the day when one is going to die. This is why the Torah preferred to use the word וישכב to the word ויישן, he slept, since that word implies a lying down from which one may not get up again. Having employed all those means to try and overcome one's evil urge one may be confident of success.
  After all this, the Torah shows that Jacob had become worthy of having a prophetic revelation in a dream. It is worth while to study the dreams of Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach which are recorded in the <i>Zohar</i> 1,139 and in the <i>Zohar Chadash</i> לך לך section 25.
  The ladder is the mystical aspect of the human soul, something that is not entirely uprooted from the body at the time he is asleep. Part of that soul remains in the body. When the Torah speaks of the ladder being rooted in the ground with its head in the heavens, it refers to these two parts of the soul. The proof of all this is that when man sleeps he subsequently awakens by moving his sleeping body; if the entire soul had previously departed from him he would not be able to experience these motions of his body. The picture drawn for us by the Torah therefore is that of a sleeping person who is not detached from either heaven or earth but remains in contact with both. During his sleeep the evil urge is not able to act as a barrier between man and G'd seeing that part of man's soul is in direct contact with heaven. 
  The מלאכים עולים ויורדים, the angels described as ascending and descending in Jacob's dream are an allusion to the good deeds which man attempts to perform in this world and which enable his soul to transmit light of a supernatural dimension to the source his soul emanates from. These are called מיין נוקבים, "feminine waters" in the <i>Zohar</i> 1,18. Another name for these lights is מלאכי אלוקים, "angels of G'd." In <i>Avot</i> 4,11 Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov calls the products of each good deed פרקליט, advocate. When these advocates rise heavenwards they in turn activate "masculine waters" to descend. [The concept is that just as there is an interaction between the waters in the heavens and those beneath on earth or below, without which nature cannot function and produce vegetation, there is a parallel process of a spiritual nature. In our <i>Midrashim</i> this interaction is compared to the sexual intercourse between man and woman which results in conception. Ed.] The Torah refers to that impact on what descends on man's soul in the words ויורדים בו, "they descend upon him."
  The Torah continues והנה ה׳ נצב עליו to tell us that after such an interchange of spiritual forces man becomes capable of prophetic insights. This means that G'd will no longer speak to such a person only in a dream but that he will experience a divine revelation. Jacob's experience during that night then made every Jew in the future a potential vehicle for prophecy, for divine revelation. This is also mentioned by Maimonides who states in chapter 5 of his <i>Hilchot Teshuvah</i> that in principle not a single Israelite is unable to become a vessel for prophecy.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   וייקץ יעקב, Jacob awoke, etc. What did Jacob mean by the word אכן in this verse? It appears to mean that something concealed had been revealed to him. Why would he then express surprise at having been unaware of such knowledge, i.e. ואנכי לא ידעתי? Did he have to be aware of everything that is hidden?
  Perhaps we may explain this by referring to <i>Chulin</i> 91 where the words "for the sun had set" are interpreted to mean that Jacob personally experienced an unusually early sunset on that day. This was designed to force him to spend the night at that site. What Jacob meant then was that at the time when the early sunset occurred he had not understood its meaning. He did so now only with the help of the dream he had dreamt.
  When Jacob said: יש השם במקום הזה, that G'd is in this place, he meant that G'd is present at this site all the time, in contrast to other sites. This is why G'd wanted him to spend the night there in order to communicate with him there. Jacob apologised for not having prepared himself for a divine revelation; had he been aware of the significance of that site he would surely have done so. Prophecy requires the recipient to first prepare himself mentally. Perhaps if Jacob had prepared himself to become the recipient of a message from G'd he might have prophesied while awake instead of while dreaming. This may have been what he bemoaned in this verse. Rashi explains simply that Jacob meant that if he had known the holy nature of that site he would not have allowed himself to go to sleep there. If that were the only meaning of Jacob's words we could say to him (Rashi) that Jacob then would not have experienced all the promises G'd made to him during his dream. We therefore need to include what I have just written in order to explain the verse satisfactorily.
  
  Verse 17
  
  "Shaken, he said..." He felt that his heart was moved to fear on its own, and gave a reason for this when he said "this is none other than the abode of God." He was careful to use the Divine name Elohim, because this is the source of fear, as it is written "...and God (Elohim) made it so that they fear Him." (Kohelet 3:14) It is known that the name Elohim strikes fear in the heart of man.
  When Yaakov said "this is the gate..." he meant that the place aligned with it above is the gate of heaven. This is why he used the word 'this' (zeh) twice.
  He also intended to explain the lofty status of the place by saying that this is the House of God, a physical place preceded by the knowledge that God had chosen a place to cause His name to dwell. He said 'this is that place!' He proved further that this was the chosen place when he said 'this is the gate of heaven.' Yaakov said this because he saw angels rising and descending, and he already knew that the sacred place below was aligned with the gate of heaven:
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   וידור יעקב נדר לאמור. Jacob made a vow saying. The word לאמר is to remind us that unless a vow has been verbalised it is not valid. Mere good intentions do not rate as a vow.
  אם יהיה אלוקים עמדי, "If the Lord will be with me, etc." The word אם in this case is not to be understood as something conditional but is similar to the אם כפר יושת עליו in Exodus 21,30, or the אם in Exodus 22,24: אם כסף תלוה את עמי. In both those instances the meaning is "when," i.e. something that will definitely occur (compare <i>Baba Kama 4,5 and Mechilta on Parshat Yitro</i>)
  Jacob also included the attribute of Justice in his vow. So far G'd had spoken to him only in His capacity as Hashem, the attribute of Mercy. He undertook to tithe his acquisitions provided that also the attribute of Justice would prove to be with him. This is why he chose the expression אלוקים and not השם when formulating his vow.
  
  Verse 21
  
   והיה ה׳ לי לאלוקים. "Then Hashem will be my Lord." This sounds, G'd forbid, as if until now Hashem had not been Jacob's G'd. Rashi explains that Jacob meant that G'd would not find any of his children as morally unfit. I do not know where such a thought is alluded to in Jacob's words. [actually Rashi quotes a Sifri in Parshat Va-Etchanan section 31. Ed.] Besides such a promise, i.e. that his children would be morally fit, is at best a conditional promise [seeing that the matter lies within the will-power of the children, Ed.]. When would the stone then be able to serve as a monument for this encounter Jacob experienced during his dream? The proper explanation of what Jacob said is that he was prepared to conduct himself in such a way that G'd would consent to associate His name with him even during his lifetime. He had previously done this with Abraham after the latter's death and with Isaac only after he had become blind and therefore beyond the reach of the evil urge (compare verse 13). The words לי לאלוקים are clear evidence of Jacob's intention. This was a tremendous undertaking by Jacob. You will find in Genesis 33,20 that G'd reminded him of that undertaking and that Jacob then fulfilled this vow by erecting a monument in G'd's honour.
  
  Verse 22
  
   והאבן הזאת, and concerning this stone, etc. According to <i>Zohar</i> 1,72 the stone in question is the אבן שתיה, the stone G'd used as the foundation of the Holy Temple and which He had buried in the interval in the depths of the abyss at the "navel" of the earth. According to <i>Tanchuma</i> Parshat Terumah, Jacob prepared the shittim wood for the Tabernacle in the desert at this time. Perhaps this is what G'd referred to in Exodus 25,8 when He said: "They shall make for Me a Sanctuary;" G'd referred to this wood from which the Israelites were to construct this Sanctuary. When the Torah there continued: "and I shall dwell amongst them," G'd may have referred to preparations made by Jacob for both the Tabernacle and the Holy Temple.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישא יעקב רגליו. Jacob raised his feet. The Torah chooses this form of expression to tell us that at this time Jacob was poor and all he could raise [elevate to the status of tithes as promised in his vow, Ed.] were his feet. In the future he would tithe all his produce twice, i.e. give a total of 20% in order to fulfil the words עשר אעשרנו. The second tithe would not merely be 10% of what remained after the first tithe had been given (compare <i>Ketuvot</i> 50).
  An additional meaning of the Torah's description of Jacob "raising his feet" is that he did not actually have to walk the entire distance to Charan but that the land came toward him. This is the reason the Torah did not say אל ארץ בני קדם, "to the land of the easterners, but ארצה בני קדם."
  The reason the Torah describes these people as בני קדם, easterners, instead of referring to their city, i.e. Charan, is to tell us that only the district came towards him. Jacob himself walked to Charan in order to find there his Rachel and in order for him to obtain from her all the information she furnished him as described in <i>Megillah</i> 13.
  
  Verse 2
  
   והאגן גדולה על פי הבאר, And the stone on top of the well was a massive one. If the Torah had not written the letter ה in front of the word אבן, the impression created would have been that there simply was a heavy stone on top of the well. As it is the Torah emphasises the exceptional heaviness of that stone. This teaches us that unless Jacob had had divine assistance he could not have moved that stone. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 70,12 understands the word ויגל as describing the ease with which Jacob rolled the stone off the well.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ?ויאמר להם השלום לו He said to them: "Is he well?" The reason that the shepherds did not say שלום לו, "he is well," which would have answered Jacob's question, is that Jacob's question contained two elements. 1) Is he well physically and economically? and 2) were the shepherds on good terms (at peace) with Laban. By saying merely שלום, the shepherds replied to both of Jacob's enquiries with a single word. When they added that Laban's daughter Rachel was approaching they answered a question Jacob had not asked. They may have done so in order that Jacob should not engage them in any more questions. He could ask Rachel about anything else he wanted to know.
  They may also have wanted to underline the good relations they had with Laban by pointing out that Laban was not afraid to send a young girl to the well with them. This is in contrast with Yitro, who was not at peace with the local shepherds; the Torah had reported that his seven grown up daughters watered the sheep and even their number did not protect them from being abused by the local shepherds.
  The one word reply שלום may have had yet another connotation. They meant that regarding Laban's physical wellbeing and his relations with them, those were peaceful. In order for Jacob not to gain the impression that Laban was well to do, they added that he employed his young daughter Rachel as shepherdess, a sign that he could not afford hired help. Moreover, they indicated that Laban's flocks could be managed by a single girl; his possessions could not therefore have amounted to much. They were careful not to utter a lie which would have been revealed as such anyway. Alternatively, they were afraid that Laban might complain to them why they had described him as wealthy. Solomon refers to such considerations in Proverbs 27,14 when he suggests that if someone praises someone else's wealth it is in order that not he but the wealthy person should have the honour of hosting the questioner.
  Yet another meaning that the shepherds could have had in mind by their brief reply was that Laban was a miser with his money and cheapened himself by letting his precious daughter tend his flock. Jacob was thereby invited to form an opinion of the man and his deeds.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויאמר הן עוד היום גדול, He said: "The day is still long, etc." The reason that Jacob presumed to judge their actions was that he was concerned with unnecessary suffering of the animals (compare <i>Baba Metzia</i> 32). He also wanted to find out if the reason they delayed watering the flocks was because this was not the proper time and that the town was far off and these animals were used to be kept in the town overnight. This interested him because it would help him determine the distance he had travelled. He learned from the shepherds' answer that what they did was not related to the distance from Charan.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   עודנו מדבר עמם, While he was still talking to them, etc. According to the text this is incorrect. The Torah should have written that the shepherds were still talking to him. Perhaps the reason the Torah phrased it thus is that the whole story is meant to tell us what happened to Jacob, not what happened with the shepherds.
  On the other hand, the Torah may have meant to tell us that Rachel arrived while Jacob was engaged in speaking to the shepherds before the shepherds had replied to him at all. The Torah did not want to interrupt the sequence of the conversation and that is why the shepherds' reply was recorded first.
  עם הצאן אשר לאביה, with her father's flocks. The Torah means to tell us that Rachel tended all her father's flocks. This proves the truth of Jacob's statement in 30,30 that prior to his arrival Laban possessed only meagre possessions. 
  On the other hand the Torah may imply that Rachel was so competent a shepherdess that Laban did not need anyone in addition to her to tend his sheep. This idea is suggested by the Torah's comment כי רעה היא, for she was a shepherdess.
  Another reason why the Torah emphasised Rachel's being a רעה may have been that Laban, who was a pastmaster at employing charms, was convinced that Rachel possessed such charms and that employing her would ensure his future prosperity. Had he not been aware of that quality in his daughter he would not have demeaned himself by sending her out with the flocks.
  The Torah may want to teach us yet another lesson in this verse. It describes Rachel as באה, arriving, carefully avoiding that she had left, יצאה, from somewhere before she could arrive. This was testimony to Rachel's chasteness. She did not leave her father's house for frivolous purposes. The words כי רעה היא may also be translated as "although she was a shepherdess." In that case the Torah would tell us that Laban did not prosper until Jacob arrived; all his flocks could be managed by his young daughter although she was very skilled at her trade.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל, It was when Jacob saw Rachel, etc. The reason that the Torah repeats three times that Laban was the brother of Jacob's mother is to emphasise that everything Jacob did was only because Laban was his mother's brother and he tried to honour his mother by carrying out her instructions. Another reason for the Torah to repeat this information was so that bystanders who observed Jacob- a recently arrived total stranger- doing Rachel such a great favour (removal of the stone on the well) would know that he was motivated only by family considerations. This is why Jacob spelled out his reasons and as soon as he laid eyes on Rachel he mentioned that she was the daughter of Laban who was his mother's brother. This is also why he displayed concern about the flocks of his uncle. When he kissed Rachel he did not repeat this statement since he had already made plain that Rachel was his cousin. Besides, the very fact that he started crying was explanation enough that he had come face to face with a relative.
  When the Torah repeats that "Jacob watered the flocks of Laban," the message may be that he did this only because Laban was his mother's brother. Otherwise, -in line with what we learn in <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 67- there was no call to do favours to the Gentiles, seeing that we know from Proverbs 14,34: "(even) the kindness done for us by the Gentile nations are a form of sin."
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויגד יעקב לרחל כי כי אחי אביה הוא, Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, etc. This means that Jacob told Rachel that his relationship to her was based on two elements. 1) There was a biological relationship, i.e. he was a blood relative of her father; 2) there was a spiritual relationship between them inasmuch as he was a son of Rebeccah who was known far and wide for her righteousness. Righteous people are considered as all related to one another.
  He may have hinted at something we learned in <i>Megillah</i> 13 where we are told that Rachel told Jacob that her father was a swindler. Jacob told Rachel that he could match her father since he was of the same family. Having said so Jacob became afraid that Rachel would form a bad impression of his character; he therefore added that he was the son of Rebeccah who had employed wiles only in order to help justice and righteousness to prevail. This is the deeper meaning of Kohelet 7,12 that "(applied) wisdom preserves the lives of its possessors." He would never employ trickery for nefarious purposes something that would result in the destruction of its perpetrators.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויהי כשמוע לבן, And as soon as Laban heard, etc. The word ויהי, as usual, introduces a negative element. Here too Laban formed evil intentions as soon as he heard about Jacob's arrival. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 70,13 suggests that Laban searched Jacob bodily under the guise of hugging him and kissing him. When the Torah describes that Laban heard that Jacob "was the son of his sister," this means that Rachel had not told her father that he was her father's brother, only that he was the son of Rebeccah. This is why Laban entertained thoughts of tricking him. When the Torah reports that Laban brought Jacob into his house this was also because he thought that maybe Jacob's wealth was following some distance behind him. He wanted to keep Jacob around pending arrival of his possessions.
  ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה. He told Laban all that happened. The word בואו in this verse may refer to Jacob explaining how Eliphaz had pursued him and robbed him of his possessions.
  It is also possible that the reason Jacob told Laban everything- seeing Rachel had told him that her father was a swindler- was in order to convince him that there was no point in trying to swindle him as he had himself gotten the better of Esau by obtaining both the birthright and the blessing. He also told Laban of his having single-handedly moved the stone on top of the well to show that he possessed physical strength. He went on to tell Laban that he had watered his flock to show him that he harboured friendly feelings toward him.
  
  Verse 14
  
   ויאמר לו…אך עצמי ובשרי אתה, He said to him…"after all you are of my bone and flesh, etc." The word אך which is always a diminutive here serves to restrict the identification of Jacob with Laban. 
  On the one hand Laban considered Jacob as his bone (self), on the other hand, he was well aware of the difference between them. Laban represented darkness rather than light. Perhaps he wanted to specify that all they had in common was flesh and bone.
  וישב עמו חודש ימים. He stayed with him for a month. He waited for a whole month, hoping that Jacob's possessions might arrive during that period. When he realised that there was no hope of that he had to decide how to relate to Jacob. Inasmuch as Laban had wanted Jacob to work for him from the moment he set eyes on him, he concealed this from him for a period of thirty days during which time Jacob worked without compensation. After that time he arranged working conditions with him for reasons which I shall explain later. During those thirty days he wanted to see if Jacob would prove to be an asset to him, if he would be successful. As a result of all this he had made a servant of Jacob from the very day he arrived; this is why he used the expression ועבדתני חנם, "you have already served me without compensation." Laban had satified himself during that month that Jacob was very successful in his work.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויאמר לבן..הכי אחי אתה, Laban said: "Because you are my brother, etc." Who had told Laban that Jacob would serve him for free? Assuming that Jacob indeed did not ask for wages, so what? Why should it bother Laban? If Laban did not want to become the beneficiary of gifts, i.e. שונא מתנות יחיה, this is most unlikely as we see Laban enjoy even stolen goods. He must certainly have been willing to accept legitimately acquired gifts willingly!
  Surely we must understand his question as one that was designed to pay Jacob less than his labour was worth. Maimonides writes in <i>Hilchot Shluchin VeShutafim</i> chapters six and eight that when a shepherd has not made an agreement with the owner of the flock before he accepted the position he receives one third of the profit of stationary goods (items that do not need his special daily care) and two thirds of mobile goods such as calves and young asses which need to be fed, etc., by the shepherd. Laban was afraid that Jacob's silence on the subject of wages indicated that he expected to be recompensed according to this rate. He thought Jacob expected to receive one third of the increase of the adult animals and two thirds of any increase in the ones not yet fully developed. Laban would have been quite right to continue to let Jacob work for free if the latter had been the average fool not bothering to make a contract. However, since Jacob had already spelled out to Laban that he was no fool, i.e. that he was just as capable of tricking Laban as the latter was in the habit of tricking others, he told him we have to make an agreement precisely because "you are my brother (in the art of trickery)." He challenged Jacob by saying "surely you do not want me to believe that you will work for me for free?" Laban therefore wanted to clarify at once what conditions Jacob expected him to meet.
  
  Verse 16
  
   וללבן שתי בנות, And Laban had two daughters, etc. The Torah meant to inform us that both daughters were well known, the elder as Leah and the younger as Rachel so that Laban could not pretend afterwards that their names were different. Jacob stipulated that he would serve Laban for his smaller daughter Rachel in order to remove all possible doubt about whom he had in mind. When the Torah described Leah as גדולה, this was not a relative term, but she was tall in her own right not merely by comparison to Rachel, apart from the fact that she may have been a year or two older than her sister. Rachel too was of below average height not only because of her age.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ועיני לאה רכות, Leah's eyes were soft, etc. It is not customary for the Torah to reveal physical blemishes of such righteous people as our matriarchs. Therefore, the meaning of this comment must be to tell the reader that Laban could never have claimed that Rachel was Leah or vice versa because even their eyes were totally different. Leah was not only not as beautiful as her sister Rachel, but she suffered from a blemish, i.e her eyes were not attractive. Since Leah and Rachel were so different from one another in their external appearance Laban had no way of cheating on Jacob by palming off the wrong daughter on him.
  יפת תואר ויפת מראה. Both her face and her body were beautiful. Beauty may expresses itself in two ways. 1) Every individual feature is beautiful by itself; We have examples of this by Solomon in his Song of Songs where he describes the beauty of different parts of the anatomy. 2) There is such a thing as an overall beauty of both the facial features and the body. The Torah describes Rachel as blessed with both these kinds of beauty.
  The expression יפת תואר may also be understood as "objectively beautiful," whereas the expression יפת מראה may refer to the impression Rachel made on those who looked at her.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאהב יעקב את רחל. Jacob loved Rachel. The reason the Torah mentions her name again is to tell us that Jacob did not love Rachel on account of her beauty but on account of the fact that she was the life-partner destined for him.
  Alternatively, we may approach the verse by citing <i>Shabbat</i> 25 where we are told that a Torah scholar should have an outwardly attractive wife so as to minimise temptations by the evil urge. Even though Jacob was on a spiritually far higher level and did not present much of a target for the evil urge, it is prudent to take whatever precautions against the evil urge that are feasible.
  אעבדך שבע שנים, "I shall serve you for seven years, etc." This צדיק had a habit of humbling himself by using the number seven. When he bowed down to Esau later on he is also reported as having done so seven times (Genesis 33,3). This is the mystical connection with Proverbs 24,16: "the righteous will rise even if he falls seven times." Perhaps he wanted to demonstrate that he considered Rachel worth more than the maximum servitude that a Hebrew servant serves with his master (Exodus 21,2).
  ברחל בתך הקטנה, for your smaller daughter Rachel. "For Rachel, and not for Leah; for your daughter and not another girl called Rachel; for the small one, and not someone whose name you have changed. הקטנה, the one who is the small one now and not someone whose name you may change."
  
  Verse 19
  
   ויאמר לבן טוב תתי אותה לך, Laban said: "better that I give her to you, etc." We need to understand what Laban meant by this comparison. Why would he be justified in making such a comparison between Jacob and someone else when no one else had been willing to serve for Rachel? Perhaps Laban simply told a lie making Jacob believe that he had a competitive offer for Rachel by another suitor willing to serve for her. Besides, how could Laban have the nerve to describe letting Jacob marry Rachel as a gift, i.e. תתי? Did not Jacob contract to work for seven years thus paying for her worth? We also need to understand Laban's last words שבה עמדי, "stay with me."
  It is clear from Laban's very words that he intended to trick Jacob by giving him Leah, as he indeed did later on. This is why he engaged in this kind of statement. He meant that it is better that he would give Rachel to him as in such a case Jacob would not be able to argue that he had not received his purchase. After all, we observe Jacob argue later: "Did I not serve for Rachel?" We will explain all of this later. Laban wanted Jacob to understand that he would receive Rachel as an absolute gift. As to the seven years of service Jacob would perform, this was only the justification for giving Rachel to him rather than to another suitor. Laban could have given Rachel to another man who did not perform labour for him, i.e. מתתי אותה לאיש אחר. Laban did not agree that Rachel's worth could be purchased by seven years of labour. 
  When he added: שבה עמדי, he made the eventual marriage to Rachel conditional on Jacob remaining with him all the seven years. Laban was not content to allow Jacob to perform this service for him away from his presence. He also phrased it so cunningly that it could mean that Jacob was to remain with Laban all his life. Acording to <i>Shemot Rabbah</i> 1,33 Yitro made a similar condition when he gave his daughter Tzipporah to Moses. Laban had no need to make Jacob take an oath since the matters he and Laban had discussed could be acquired legally by an exchange of words. Yitro, on the other hand, may have made Moses swear in order to forestall Moses moving away if Tzipporah would be willing to move away with him. The above mentioned thoughts all crossed Laban's mind to be used in the event that he would later on have a disagreement with Jacob. This is why G'd warned him in Genesis 31,24 not to speak to Jacob. Jacob did not pay heed to Laban's intention at this time because Laban spoke to him in terms of endearment. Jacob interpreted Laban's words to mean: "there is certainly no one around who is better suited than you that I would prefer to give my daughter to! All you have to do is to stay around!"
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויעבד יעקב ברחל, Jacob served for Rachel, etc. The reason the Torah mentions ברחל is that Jacob made a public announcement at the time that his service with Laban was for Rachel and that her hand in marriage was the wages Laban had agreed to pay him in return for his service. A major reason he made this public pronouncement was to make it clear that he did not serve for Leah.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויאמר יעקב הבה לי אשתי, Jacob said: "hand me over my wife, etc." The reason that Jacob added the (uncouth sounding) words "so that I can have physical relations with her," something that even an uneducated person would not say, much less a person of Jacob's learning and sensitivity, can be explained by reference to Maimonides in chapter five of his <i>Hilchot Ishut</i>. If someone declares to his bride to-be: "you are betrothed to me in exchange for certain work I shall perform for you and he performs this work, this is not a valid form of betrothal since the compensation the bride receives (the work) is considered as a loan only, and one cannot acquire a bride by means of a loan." This is why Jacob said: הבה, "hand over!" Up until he had completed the work contracted for, Rachel had not even been his betrothed. Jacob was aware that he had not acquired Rachel by means of the value of the work he performed for Laban. As a result he could acquire her only by means of having physical relations with her. He therefore had to ask Laban to make this possible by handing her over, i.e. ואבא אליה.
  There is another way to solve our problem. We know that both Rachel and Leah told Jacob later on that their father considered them as strangers whom he had sold (Genesis 31,15). Concerning the laws of purchase of properties or slaves Maimonides writes in <i>Hilchot Mechirah</i> chapter 7 that if one acquires either slaves or real estate by means of a loan such a purchase is valid even if no money changes hand at the time. When Jacob said to Laban הבה את אשתי he meant that inasmuch as Rachel had already become his wife at the beginning of his servitude because he thought that he had "bought" her (in accordance with Maimonides), there was no need for actual money to change hands. The words הבה לי were not to be understood as the final act in the acquisition of Rachel as a wife, but were to be the prelude to his fulfilling his marital duties with a woman already his wife. He added the words ואבא אליה to preclude any pretense by Laban that Rachel was not yet his legally acquired wife.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויהי בערב, It was in the evening, etc. Laban caused great pain by deceiving such a righteous man as Jacob; the exchange resulted in a dilution of the hold holiness exerted on earth. You are well advised to study what the <i>Zohar סתרי תורה on Parshat Vayetze</i> item 176 has to say on the subject. According to the <i>Zohar</i>, Laban's having switched Leah for Rachel was the cause that the sanctity of the birthright became downgraded. Originally both monarchy and priesthood would have been the share of the firstborn just as the firstborn receives a double portion of the inheritance from his father. When Jacob slept with Leah he intended to impregnate Rachel (since he was not aware of his partner's real identity). This meant that his marital relations with Leah at the time were not totally pure. As a result the sanctity that he could have achieved by this union if his partner had truly been his intended bride, the sanctity he hoped to create, was diluted, was significantly reduced.
  ויקח את לאה, he took Leah. Perhaps Leah did not intend to deceive Jacob but was forced by her father Laban to go through with this charade. It is also possible that Laban managed to persuade her. Unless one of these two reasons is correct the Torah did not need to write "he took," but could have simply written: "he brought his daughter Leah to him."
  ויבא אותה, he brought her. Laban was careful to do this personally; this was part of the deception. He did not allow time for the deception to be discovered. It would have been very unbecoming for the bridegroom to have demanded at that moment that Leah (Rachel) identify herself.
  ויבא אליה. He had marital relations with her. The reason that Jacob did not notice that the woman beside him was not Rachel was that a righteous man of his calibre did not engage in actions that would arouse him before performing the commandment of marital intercourse in order to produce children. There was no one who could match Jacob in this kind of piety. The Torah itself testifies in Genesis 49,3 that he was able to say of himself that Reuben was the product of the first time he emitted semen, i.e. ראשית אוני. Look at our commentary on that verse. He joined Leah without engaging in what is called "foreplay" in our parlance. Even after completing intercourse with Leah Jacob did not recognise her since everything took place in darkness as required by <i>halachah</i> (compare אור החיים 240).
  
  Verse 24
  
   ללאה בתו שפחה. for his daughter Leah as a maidservant. Why did the Torah have to mention that Leah was Laban's daughter? Surely we know this by now! If it was sufficient to write: "Laban gave her her his maidservant Zilpah," why did the Torah have to add "to Leah his daughter" at the end of the same verse? Besides, why did the Torah write שפחה, maidservant, instead of לשפחה, as a maidservant?
  We must explain this by referring to the tradition that Zilpah and Bilhah respectively had been inherited by Rachel and Leah from their mother. This is what the Torah meant by the words "to Leah his daughter a maidservant." The Torah merely points out that the maidservant was Leah's personal property because she had inherited her from her mother. The Torah emphasises בתו, to hint that Leah had acquired this maidservant because she was Laban's daughter and the maidservant had been part of the marriage settlement, כתובה, of her mother; Leah had not purchased the maidservant in some other way. This is also why the Torah needed to write ויתן לבן, that Laban gave. Otherwise Laban's name did not need to be repeated here again as we know of whom the Torah was speaking. The Torah wanted us to know that Laban did not give his daughter a gift in the usual sense of the word.
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויהי בבוקר. When morning came, etc. The reason the Torah uses the word ויהי which always relates to some painful experience is simply that Jacob experienced anguish that Rachel had been denied him.
  והנה הוא לאה, and behold it was Leah! The reason the Torah writes הוא with the letter ו, is best explained by <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 70,12 where the local people are described as singing all night long (in Aramaic) הא ליא, הא ליא. Jacob understood only in the morning what that singing had been all about. This explanation also explains the need for the word הנה satisfactorily.
  מה זאת עשית לי? What is this that you have done to me? We need to understand what exactly Jacob referred to with this complaint. If it referred to the fact that Laban had tricked him, he already mentioned this by saying: "why did you deceive me?" We must therefore search for something else that Jacob complained about.
  Jacob did indeed complain about two matters. 1) That Laban had given him Leah instead of Rachel. 2) That he had done so in such a deceptive manner. Jacob thereby revealed that had Laban forced Leah upon him he, Jacob, would have been less concerned than now that he slept with one woman while believing he slept with another. This deception had far-reaching spiritual consequences, as we already alluded to earlier on verse 23.
  It is also possible that Jacob referred to the humiliation experienced by Leah who now found herself Jacob's wife and had to expect that her husband would hate her instead of love her. Jacob's question "why did you deceive me?" indicates that he had immediately decided not to divorce Leah but to keep her as a wife.
  He also displayed wisdom by the choice of his words, realising that what had been done could not be undone. He realised that it would not have been moral to reverse what had been done but resolved to marry Rachel also. In this manner he hoped that Laban would not now demand an even higher price for Rachel by suggesting that they make a new agreement. He complained to Laban that the latter had seen fit to achieve something by deception which he could have achieved amicably (i.e. that Jacob marry Leah also).
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויאמר לבן לא יעשה כן במקומנו. Laban said: "This is not the way things are done in our place, etc." How could Laban expect now to get away with such an explanation when he and Jacob had entered into a specific agreement that Rachel was to be given to Jacob? Why would local customs override such an agreement?
  Actually, Laban argued that the local inhabitants had protested what he had agreed to. Inasmuch as the inhabitants were the majority and he was only a single individual, he Laban, had to bow to their wishes. This is why he spoke about במקומנו, "in our place."
  He may also have argued that at the time he made the deal with Jacob there had not been a paragraph saying that he would receive Rachel as a wife without also marrying Leah. Their agreement therefore never violated the local custom that the elder daughter be married off first. It had been obvious that Jacob would first receive Leah. As soon as he had completed seven years of labour he would receive Rachel immediately after having married Leah. He, Laban, had taken it for granted that Jacob would first stay with him long enough to conform to the local custom and marry Leah. When Jacob had said: "give me my wife!" Laban had naturally understood that Jacob referred to Leah. After all, the local customs were no secret. Laban rejected the accusation that he had acted with subterfuge. Should Jacob be of the opinion that Laban differentiated between his two daughters, this was not so. He loved both equally and treated them both equally. To prove this, he would not ask a higher price for Rachel than he had been willing to accept for Leah. If Jacob was indeed so enamoured of Rachel that he could not wait another seven years, he would show his understanding by letting him have Rachel in another week, as soon as the wedding festivities in honour of Leah had been concluded, i.e. מלא שבוע זאת, when he had completed a week with this wife.
  In view of Laban's argument we need to understand why the extremely careful Jacob had not even considered the local customs in this matter. Jacob considered that it was Laban's duty to tell him about such customs. If Laban failed to do so it was proof he did not care about the local customs. Therefore, when he asked Laban to hand over his wife he had naturally referred to Rachel. It had been up to Laban to tell him at least at that moment that he could not hand over Rachel as long as Leah was not married, and that it was up to Jacob either to wait till Leah was married or to marry her himself. By failing to do so, Jacob maintained that Laban had lived up to his reputation as a swindler.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   לו לאשה. As a wife for him. The emphasis on the word לו indicates that Rachel was to be the mainstay of Jacob's household, the עקרת הבית, seeing she was his true mate, בת זוגו.
  
  Verse 29
  
   לה לשפחה. as a maidservant for her. The Torah was careful to add the word לה, as I have already explained in connection with verse 24.
  Alternatively, Laban made a condition that Jacob should not have any claim on Bilhah; we find in chapter 22 of Maimonides' <i>Hilchot Ishut</i> that if someone gives a wife a gift with the proviso that her husband should not have any claim on that gift, then the husband is not permitted to enjoy the "fruits" of such a gift (in this case Bilhah's labour, etc,). It is a principle of our sages to follow a line of exegesis which puts Laban in a bad light.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויבא גם אל רחל. He also slept with Rachel. The reason that the word גם, also, appears twice in this verse maybe to indicate that Jacob spent more time with Rachel than with Leah. According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 98,4 Jacob's bed was usually besides that of Rachel. The Torah states not only that Jacob spent more time with Rachel but that he also loved her better than Leah. This was unnatural inasmuch as familiarity usually leads to a lessening of the bonds of love. We know this from Proverbs 25,17 where Solomon advises "visit your neighbour's house sparingly, otherwise he will become fed up with you." On the other hand, we are familiar with the proverb that "absence makes the heart grow fonder." This is what is meant when Proverbs 9,17 describes "stolen waters as especially sweet." In Jacob's relationship with Rachel and Leah respectively, these psychologically sound rules did not apply. All of this is alluded to in the repeated use of the word גם.
  
  Verse 31
  
   וירא ה׳ כי שנואה לאה, G'd saw that Leah was hated, etc. The Torah tells us here that only G'd was aware of the fact that Leah was hated; she herself only felt that she was not beloved as we shall explain by examining her own words presently. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 71,2 sees in the word שנואה merely an allusion that Leah had been slated to become the wife of Esau who was hated (compare Maleachi 1,3 where G'd expressed His hatred for Esau). Accordingly, Leah is here called by the name of the husband originally intended for her. If Leah had not produced children the people would have seen this as proof that she was not meant to be Jacob's wife; this is why G'd opened her womb and granted her children. The Torah goes on to say that Rachel was barren to indicate that it was hoped that by making Leah fruitful Jacob's hatred towards Leah would abate when she could give him children whereas Rachel apparently could not.
  
  Verse 32
  
  ותהר לאה,…ותהר עוד. Leah gave birth,..she gave birth again. I have paid attention to the meaning of the names. Normally, a name which alludes to removal of hatred should have preceded a name alluding to love. Leah seems to have reversed this sequence by proclaiming: "now my husband will love me" after the birth of Reuben, whereas after the birth of Shimon she proclaimed: "G'd heard that I am hated, therefore He has given me this one too." Another strange thing is Leah's conviction when Levi was born that "now my husband will grow attached to me." Was he then not attached to her previously?
  Righteous Leah had shed tears about her fate to become Esau's wife; this is why the Torah mentioned the softness of her eyes. When she now saw that she had become Jacob's wife, she realised that he was not her true בן זוג. When she had a son she attributed this to an act of mercy by G'd who had seen that she was not beloved. The righteous always live according to the imperative of our sages (<i>Avot</i> 1,6) to always interpret everyone else's actions favourably. It therefore did not occur to her that her husband could actually hate her. People who think in that fashion are blessed. When Leah's first son was born she assumed that all she lacked was her husband's love. It was only when her second son was born that she realised retroactively that she had erred; not only had she not been loved but Jacob had actually hated her. When she said: "G'd has heard," she meant that G'd had been aware of something that she herself had not allowed herself to become aware of. When she had her third son she concluded that her previous reasoning that she was not Jacob's intended wife had been wrong too and that she was indeed Jacob's intended wife. She felt that the time had come when her husband would recognise this fact too and that his relationship with her would change for the better.
  Leah also thought of the time after she and Jacob would depart this world when she said ילוה אישי, "my husband will remain attached to me." She was now convinced that their souls would not become separated in the Hereafter as she was his true soul-mate. We have been told by the <i>Zohar Mishpatim</i> section 102 that truly matched pairs will remain together in the Hereafter. She underlined the fact that she had borne Jacob three sons as the number three is indicative of something permanent, enduring.
  She also foresaw in her prophetic mind that Jacob would have four wives. Accordingly, she had fulfilled her destiny by bearing him three sons. When she bore Jacob a fourth son subsequently, she said: "this time I will thank the Lord" because up to now G'd had treated her on the basis of justice, i.e. she had borne one fourth of Jacob's sons. Now that she had borne him four sons she thanked G'd who had done more for her than was required by justice.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותרא רחל כי לא ילדה, Rachel saw that she had not borne children, etc. The Torah adds the word ליעקב, for Jacob, since it was clear that Jacob was not the one who was sterile. The cause therefore had to lie with her. When the Torah describes Rachel as jealous of her sister, this indicates that had Leah not been her sister Rachel would have attributed the fact that she did not conceive to genetic differences between her and another wife of Jacob. She could not account for such genetic differences when her sister was involved, i.e. someone who was genetically similarly equipped (she thought).
  The word ליעקב may have an additional meaning here. Her major concern was the fact that she was unable to bear children for an outstandingly righteous man such as Jacob. Had Jacob not been clearly righteous, she would have attributed his bad luck to a character defect in her husband. Knowing that she herself was righteous she could not understand why the promise contained in Psalms 125,3 that "the scepter of the wicked will not be allotted to the fate of the righteous," would not apply to their union. Had Jacob not been so clearly a pious man she could have attributed their lack of success to a shortcoming in Jacob. As it was this was impossible. Therefore, she was jealous of her sister who had succeeded where she had failed.
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויחר אף יעקב, Jacob became agitated, etc. Jacob's agitation was due to her having uttered a curse, i.e. declaring that she would die. When the righteous utter a curse, even conditionally, this makes an indelible impression. We know from <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 74,9 that Rachel died prematurely because Jacob himself uttered a curse when he decreed death on the thief who stole Laban's Teraphim. This is why the Torah added the word ברחל, i.e. on her account. He was also upset because she demanded children, הבה לי בנים, instead of having asked her husband to pray on her behalf.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ותאמר הנה אמתי, She said: "here is my bondwoman, etc." She was careful to say: "my bondwoman Bilhah," before mentioning that Jacob should sleep with her, instead of saying: "sleep with my bondwoman Bilhah," as Sarai had done at the time (Genesis 16,2). I have explained there that Rachel did not mean for Bilhah to be still called a bondwoman after she had slept with Jacob. She gave Bilhah to Jacob to become a wife to him; any sons of her should be free men. Leah acted similarly when giving her bondwoman Zilpah to sleep with Jacob.
  If we find that even Sarai did use the term "wife" in connection with Hagar (Genesis 16,3), she countermanded such an interpretation by saying that she should be a wife only vis-a-vis Abraham. She was to remain a slave-woman vis-a-vis herself. Compare my commentary there.
  If you were to point out that we find Bilhah described as a bondwoman even after she had slept with Jacob (30,7) and already bore him a second son, this simply means that she used to be Rachel's bondwoman. The Torah there was also interested in pointing out that the matriarchs attributed such righteousness to their husbands and it is certain that the Torah did not need to be afraid that someone would misunderstand having previously outlined what Rachel had in mind (compare what we have written in Genesis 37,2).
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   המעט קחתך את אישי, "Is it not enough that you have taken my husband, etc.?" Leah's words must be understood according to those rabbis who hold that Jacob's bed was permanently in Rachel's tent. She therefore argued that whatever time Jacob spent with Rachel in excess of a fair division was at her expense. When she used the expression ולקחת, "you have taken," she meant that the chances of bearing children were directly related to the frequency with which husband and wife engage in marital relations, as our sages state on several occasions (compare <i>Chulin</i> 11 et al in an indirect proof). The incident with the jasmin is related here as it is considered an aphrodisiac and its fragrance facilitates conception (<i>Zohar</i> 1,157). Leah complained that Rachel wanted the jasmin of her son in addition to almost monopolising Jacob's nights.
  The reason that Jacob did not divide his time equally between his two wives was simply that he had no obligation to sleep with Leah except when the latter had ritually purified herself after her menstruation (based on Exodus 21,10). After all he had not married her on his own initiative, as distinct from Rachel whom he had wanted to wed in the first place.
  לכן ישכב עמך הלילה, "therefore he shall sleep with you tonight." It appears as if this depended exclusively on Rachel's wishes. Therefore she added: "in exchange for the jasmin of your son."
  Alternatively, this can be understood as an oath. There are matters which are acquired only by means of an oath, such as items that are intangible. (the fragrance of the jasmin). Compare my commentary on Genesis 25,33 when Esau sold his birthright.
  
  Verse 16
  
   ותצא לאה, Leah went out, etc.. The reason Leah went to meet Jacob, something that was not considered good manners was that she was afraid Rachel might change her mind. If we accept the view that Rachel swore to her and therefore could not go back on her word we must justify Leah's behaviour as being based on the lack of precision of Rachel's promise. Rachel had not said that Jacob could sleep with Leah on that night. Leah did not want to be put off. By displaying eagerness to sleep with her husband she profited by becoming pregnant.
  Leah may also have walked towards her husband in order not to have to call him to her after Jacob had already entered Rachel's tent. This would have been an embarassment for her sister Rachel. It might have resulted in open jealousy. Leah's virtuous considerations therefore outweighed the unconventional manner of her behaviour. It is clear that G'd appreciated this as He rewarded her by letting her conceive; the Torah wrote: "G'd listened to Leah and she conceived." Look at my commentary on that verse
  שכר שכרתיך, "I have rented you, etc." This means: "I have paid a fee to someone for the pleasure of your company." The repetition of the word שכר indicates that she referred to two things, i.e. that Jacob stay with her for the night and that he should have marital relations with her.
  בלילה הוא, that night. This is simply a reference to the fact that Jacob fully agreed.
  
  Verse 17
  
   וישמע אלוקים, G'd heard, etc. This means that Leah prayed to G'd first.
  It may also mean that G'd had understood the reasons for Leah's behaviour. She was motivated by her love for G'd and her desire to fulfil His commandments. If, in the process, she had committed an error of etiquette, G'd on His part did the same by allocating to her more than the four sons originally intended. The other two sons were in recognition of Leah's pure motives.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויזכר אלוקים את רחל, G'd remembered Rachel, etc. We hear from this verse that although Rachel's plight was on G'd's mind, she also needed to pray in order to conceive and give birth. This is why the Torah added: "G'd heard."
  This verse also informs us that G'd remembers His pious ones even before they cry out to Him. This is why the Torah first mentions the fact that G'd remembered Rachel.
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   הסר משם, "Remove from there, etc." It is evident from Laban's words that Jacob would own only the speckled and spotted sheep and goats as well as the brown ones amongst the sheep; the ankle-striped ones would not be part of his share. From the following verse it appears, however, that Laban also took the ankle-striped ones for himself. Why did he do this?
  It appears that according to the agreement Jacob made he did not want Laban to take the ankle-striped animals. If Laban were to take those Jacob would also have to separate them from the white sheep and he, Jacob, would not be left with white animals which could respond to the stratagem he employed later when the animals were in heat. All his efforts would then have been in vain. It had not occurred to Jacob to deceive Laban in any way whatsoever. He thought that the sight of ankle-striped ones would cause the flocks to become heated and to cause also the speckled and spotted animals to give birth. When you read verse 40 you will find confirmation of what I have said. Crafty Laban was aware of all these implications and took every type, i.e. the עקוד, נקוד וטלוא. In addition he removed every animal that had some white on its pelt. In this way Jacob's potential wages were reduced to almost nothing. This is why Jacob had to resort to the stratagem with the rods; he therefore also took some of the ankle-striped ones for himself. When Laban removed the mother animals he had thereby proved that he considered them as basically Jacob's (the new generation). Proverbs 5,22: "he will be caught in the ropes of his sin" is applicable to what Laban tried to do in this paragraph.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
  
  
  Verse 39
  
  
  
  Verse 40
  
   פני הצאן אל עקוד, the flocks facing the ankle-striped, etc. Perhaps the reason that only the ankle-striped ones are mentioned here is that the sheep would react more rapidly at the sight of that colour pattern than towards the striped or speckled ones.
  וישת לו עדרים, he set aside droves for himself. This was designed so that these flocks should never look at any other varieties than the ones with the skin pattern Jacob had chosen. In this way they would automatically give birth to young ones of that same skin pattern. If that were not so Jacob would have to give to Laban all those young sheep or goats which were not speckled or striped.
  
  Verse 41
  
   והיה בכל יחם הצאן, it would be that every time the flocks were in heat, etc..We must understand why Jacob did all this. Granted that originally when he placed those partially peeled rods he was forced to resort to this stratagem out of a feeling of self-preservation, this was no longer the case after he established his own flocks. His continuing to resort to these stratagems would appear to have resulted in his acquiring more than half the total profit whereas under normal circumstances the shepherd is supposed to take one third of the profits as we have explained on 29,15 on the verse הכי אחי אתה.
  Perhaps the flocks described as המקושרות did not give birth only to ankle-striped lambs etc.; in that event Jacob would not have benefited excessively. He probably did not benefit to the extent of two thirds, the amount permissible when dealing with growing animals. Perhaps Jacob only tried to reimburse himself for what Laban had already robbed him of.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   וירא יעקב…ויאמר ה׳ אל יעקב. Jacob saw, etc….G'd said to Jacob. We need to analyse how these two verses are connected to one another.
  The intent of the verse is to explain the two separate considerations which preceded Jacob's flight from Laban. Unless both considerations had prompted him Jacob would not have departed without informing Laban about this first. Or, he might have waited a few days to see if Laban's attitude towards him would undergo a change for the better. After all, Jacob was a free man, he was not Laban's slave and the latter could not have prevented his departure by legal means. In view of what he heard Laban's sons say Jacob was afraid that Laban would steal all his wealth. Jacob himself said in 31,31 that he had feared that Laban would steal his daughters back from him. Had he not received a prophetic vision to leave he would not have been in a hurry to take such a step. He would have attempted to secure Laban's goodwill. We therefore need both these verses to explain Jacob's behaviour.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויאמר להן ראה אני פני אביכם, He said to them: "I look upon the face of your father, etc." Jacob invited his wives to give him a reasonable sounding explanation for their father's recent hostility topwards him. In the event that his wives would justify their father's attitude by the fact that Jacob had become wealthier than their father, Jacob added "G'd was with me." He told them that his new wealth was a blessing by G'd not the result of competing with their father.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ואביכן התל בי, "and your father deceived me, etc." What precisely was the deception which Laban was guilty of? If it was עברת הדרך, this should be called robbery.
  Perhaps Laban noticed already the first time that it was unusual for most of the flocks to give birth to animals with the skin patterns which he had allocated to Jacob. As a result he tried to be clever and changed the designation of the animals which were to be Jacob's as soon as the animals were in heat, before they actually gave birth. If that is what happened the description of his trick as התול, deception, instead of as robbery would be accurate.
  
  Verse 8
  
   אם כה יאמר, "If he said thus, etc." Although the original condition had been that Jacob should take the spotted and speckled ones, he did not honour his word but agreed to give him only one of these two.
  Another reason is that originally the ankle-striped ones had not been included in the agreement at all. Laban therefore argued that those certainly were not part of Jacob's share. The fact that Laban did not admit the truth can be seen from the fact that he had removed this category of animal, whereas later on he negotiated with him about exchanging them for animals with a different skin pattern. This kind of wheeling and dealing was repeated no fewer than ten times. All the while the original conditions remained legally valid.
  The reason the Torah describes this as in the future, i.e. ואם כה יאמר, instead of אם כה אמר, may be support for my theory that Laban hastened to change the terms of the agreement as soon as the animals were in heat and conceived, but before they actually gave birth again. Clearly Jacob's success was not due to his own machinations but only to G'd's intervention on his behalf.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   העתודים…עקודים, נקודים וברודים. the ankle-striped ones, the spotted ones and the blotch-striped. We need to know what precisely was the category described as ברודים. Unless that category was also part of the original agreement between Laban and Jacob, why did the angel show Jacob that category in his dream?
  I have seen an explanation by Ibn Ezra (30,39) who identifies the ברודים with the טלואים. He does not offer any proof for his contention. Furthermore, from a close look at Jacob citing such examples as: אם כה יאמר עקודים יהיה שכרך, it is clear that Jacob took for himself only either עקודים or נקודים. Why would he have the ewes mounted by categories of rams which were not his share at all?
  The reason therefore appears to be that Laban was not only a swindler but he also had תרפים, charms that supposedly revealed to him many hidden things. <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> describes Laban as consulting these charms which would reveal to him what developed inside the animals' wombs and the appearance of the fetuses [much like what we learn nowadays through the ultrasound examinations Ed.]. In view of this Jacob was stymied every which way through these תרפים. This is why G'd had to interfere on Jacob's behalf. It is important to appreciate that the skin patterns of the animals to be born was determined at the time they were in heat; these skin patterns were not subject to change afterwards except through miraculous intervention by G'd. Such a miracle was one of upsetting natural laws in a very basic manner. G'd does not ligthly engage in the performance of this kind of miracle. We know this from statements of our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 2 and <i>Shabbat</i> 23. G'd therefore acted with particular adroitness so as not to have to upset the laws of nature unduly. He did this by causing three categories of rams to mount the ewes when they were in heat. As a result each of the female animals contained the sperm of three different types of rams, each potentially fertilising the ewes they had mounted and causing them to have its particular skin pattern. This stymied the power of the charms. The charms could not then reveal to Laban which skin pattern would ultimately result at the time these ewes gave birth. Since Laban and Jacob had agreed that the skin pattern of the animals to be born would determine which belonged to Jacob, Laban did not know in advance what skin pattern would emerge. This matter is not as far-fetched as you may think since we know of certain birds that can change colour in order to adapt themselves to their environment so that it helps camouflage them against predators. G'd simply employed a natural process such as the birds employ for themselves and made it operate with these sheep and goats. When the Torah speaks about ברודים, it refers to a kind of טלוא as stated by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. Perhaps this particular variety of טלוא contained more white speckles, similar to white pellets of hail (ברד).
  כי ראיתי את בל אשר לבן עשה לך. "For I have seen all that Laban is doing to you." The angel explained to Jacob the reason G'd performed this miracle, that G'd had observed the evil machinations of Laban and how the latter had employed the idols (תרפים) to help him cheat Jacob. There had been no other way to save Jacob from Laban's trickery except by miracle.
  The angel also hinted to Jacob that the result of all of Laban's machinations were meant for Jacob to retain. This is why the Torah did not write: כל אשר עשה לך, "all that he is doing to you." The verse may be read thus: "all that Laban is doing--is yours." You are not a thief by keeping all these animals that are born with these skin patterns; the G'd who judges fairly has taken from the one and given to the other (the victim).
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   העוד לנו חלק ונחלה, "Do we still have a share or an inheritance in our father's house?" When Rachel and Leah mentioned both חלק and נחלה they referred to two things. They referred to their maternal inheritance seeing that their mother had already died; they also referred to a potential inheritance from their father and concluded that they had no prospect of either. They cited as proof the fact that their father had considered them as strangers already at the time he had sold them. Their father had not considered them as his children for some time already. As a result, even though according to the laws of the Gentiles daughters stand to share in the inheritance, they felt they did not have such a chance.
  When Rachel and Leah added: ויאכל גם אכול את כספנו, "he also consumed our wages," this refers to both the money of the marriage settlement of their mother and the value of the labour Jacob performed for fourteen years in order to marry them.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   אשר הציל, who has saved, etc. They viewed G'd as having saved the money that their father had stolen from them. The expression הצלה is appropriate when used about saving stolen goods from the robber. When the Torah quotes Leah and Rachel as saying לנו, ours, they meant משלנו, "he stole it from us."
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויגנב יעקב את לב לבן הארמי, Jacob deceived Laban the Aramite, etc. It is difficult to justify the expression "fled" which is applied here to a departure without previous good-byes. Perhaps what is meant is that when Jacob gave Laban an accounting about all that he had done, etc., he concealed the fact that he intended to leave him. He presumably asked Laban to dismiss him, thus in effect telling Laban that he had no intention of leaving without a proper ceremony. Had Laban had the slightest notion that Jacob intended to take his family and leave without a send-off, he would have had him watched day and night. The successful flight was possible only because Jacob "stole" Laban's heart. Basically, our verse wanted to explain how it was that Jacob succeeded to depart unnoticed with all his family, herds and flocks.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   דרך שבעת ימים. a distance of seven days. We must examine why the earth did not "fold" under Jacob on this occasion to facilitate his journey (in response to the urging of the angel) as it had done when he was on the way to Charan at the beginning of our פרשה. If the earth even "folded" for Eliezer, Abraham's servant at the time (as we know from <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 59,11), it would certainly have seemed appropriate that the same should happen to the righteous Jacob, especially since he then would have been out of danger of pursuit. Perhaps the failure of the earth to "fold" was a way of G'd telling Jacob that he did not need to flee, that even if Laban were to catch up with him he would not even be able to speak to him offensively or threateningly. Had G'd made the earth "fold" for him, Jacob might have thought that G'd had no other means of putting him out of Laban's reach. If G'd had not spoken to Laban even קפיצת הדרך would not have sufficed to allow Jacob to escape Laban and his sons. The greatness of the miracle was that although Laban possessed freedom of choice he was prevented from exercising it against Jacob.
  The fact that G'd chose not to let the earth "fold" for Jacob on this occasion also became important historically. It led to Rachel being buried in a place where her prayers would intercede on behalf of the Jewish people going into exile, <i>Midrash Hagadol Vayishlach</i> 35,18; according to <i>Sanhedrin</i> 105 Laban is identical with Bileam and Cushan Rishotayim who attacked the Israelites in the time of Othniel. If the Israelites defeated him (Judges 3,10) it may have been because he breached the covenant that Jacob and Laban concluded at Galed. Had the encounter of Laban and Jacob not taken place at that time, there would not have been a breach of an agreement not to attack the descendants of Jacob in their own country.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ועתה הלוך הלכת, "When you left now, etc." Laban said: "since you have previously expressed your longing to see your father again, why did you choose to leave now in such a way that it looked like a flight?" Laban was leading up to what he expected Jacob's defence to be, namely that he was anxious to see his father. If so, he argued, why did you have to steal my תרפים, charms? Surely this makes your entire departure appear like a flight! You must have been afraid that the תרפים would reveal your where-abouts to me!
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויען יעקב, Jacob replied, etc. Jacob said: "I do not deny that I fled. As to the reason why, 'I was afraid you would steal your daughters from me by force. As to your argument that I stole the תרפים so that they could not reveal my whereabouts to you, I swear that whoever has taken them shall not live.'" Jacob committed the fatal error of uttering a curse based on partial information.
  
  Verse 32
  
   לא יחיה, "he shall not live!" Jacob applied the legal yardsticks applicable to all Gentiles, i.e. the death penalty. Should you argue that there was no need to spell out the penalty seeing everybody knew what the penalty for stealing was, Jacob wanted to emphasise that he would not plead that he had received these תרפים as a gift or had simply forgotten to return them.
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   ויחר ליעקב וירב, Jacob then grew angry and argued, etc. The Torah stresses that Jacob's quarrelling was the direct result of his becoming angry. Otherwise he would not have started a quarrel.
  וירב בלבן. He quarrelled with Laban. The meaning of the word בלבן is to show that this argument was considered as a quarrel only in the eyes of Laban. Anyone else would not have considered Jacob's justified argument a quarrel. In <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 74,10 Rabbi Azaryah describes this irritability of the patriarchs as preferable to the humility of subsequent generations of their descendants. He describes Jacob's conduct as conciliatory. Jacob pointed out that it was no more than fair that a son-in-law makes use of his father-in-law's utensils once in a while, etc. The approach by Rabbi Azaryah closely reflects what we have said. Perhaps the Torah also had in mind to tell us that Jacob quarrelled "with Laban," i.e. when the two were not overheard, were in the privacy of his tent. He did not humiliate Laban by complaining to him in public.
  מה פשעי, מה חטאתי, "what intentional or even unintentional sin against you am I guilty of?" Jacob meant that if during the last twenty years Laban ever had occasion to fault him for an intentional or even an unintentional trespass against him, he could understand why Laban was suspicious of him now. Seeing that he had never given Laban any reason to suspect him of wrong-doing why would he do so now? Jacob also alluded to Laban's manner of searching his belongings. The way Laban had examined every last one of Jacob's belongings clearly indicated that he hoped to find not only his Teraphim but other triviae that Jacob might have stolen from him. Laban had used the disappearance of his Teraphim only as a pretext to conduct a thorough search of all of Jacob's belongings. Jacob challenged Laban's right to have done so.
  
  Verse 37
  
   מששת את כל כלי, "you have handled all my utensils." You have examined items that could not be remotely capable of concealing your Teraphim, such as utensils which are much smaller than your Teraphim.
  מה מצאת מכל כלי ביתך, "which, if any of your own utensils did you find?" Did you even find a single utensil that could arouse the doubt that it was one of yours?
  שים כה נגד אחי, "place it here in the presence of my brothers, etc." Jacob referred to his having invited Laban in verse 32 to "identify anything of his that he would find." At that time Jacob had still believed that Laban was only interested in locating his Teraphim. This is why he had given him permission to search. In the meantime he found out that Laban had indeed suspected him of thievery. We have written earlier that villains have a tendency of suspecting others of being guilty of the same crimes they themselves are guilty of. Since Laban was a thief, it was natural for him to think of others as thieves also. Jacob now had reason to believe that Laban would claim as his what was really Jacob's. This is why he demanded that Laban display all such items and then proceed to identify them by describing them in minute detail while not looking at them. He was not willing to accept the opinion of Laban's brothers as corroboration of any of his claims, but wanted his own people to be present.
  
  Verse 38
  
   זה עשרים שנה, וג׳ "These twenty years, etc." The reason Jacob mentioned "twenty years" was that a thief or swindler would be on guard for a relatively short time not to commit any crimes. It is not in the nature of thieves to control their natural inclination for a long period of time. Jacob therefore wanted to show that the fact he had not stolen anything for such a long period should have made it plain that he was not a thief by nature. He underlined this by the word עמך, with you; He meant you have had plenty of opportunity to observe me commit a misdemeanour. When did I ever do so?
  רחליך ועזיך, "your ewes and your she-goats did not miscarry." We have to explore what Jacob meant by citing this detail. If he merely wanted to call attention to his success in managing Laban's flock, this is not the appropriate place for such a comment. He also referred to אילי צאנך, וג׳, "the rams of your flocks, etc." Who would have suspected Jacob of eating those? Moreover, if no one had knowledge of Jacob doing any such thing previously, who would step forward after all these years to testify against him?
  Jacob contrasted his own behaviour with that common amongst other shepherds. They all steal and account for the missing numbers by attributing them to animals miscarrying, whereas in reality they appropriated such lambs for themselves. Jacob now cited the fact that he had never even claimed that any of Laban's ewes or she-goats had miscarried as proof that he could not have stolen any of these animals. He could therefore not be accused of having eaten any of these animals himself. All his success had been due to G'd who had not allowed a single miscarriage to occur in order that Jacob could not be suspected of dishonesty.
  The reason that he mentioned "the rams of your flocks" is to teach us that the Torah considers a male baby lamb already as a ram when it has only just been born. Perhaps Jacob referred to a legal point mentioned by Maimonides <i>Hilchot Gezeylah</i> chapter 2, according to which if someone stole a lamb and it developed into a ram (grew up while in the thief's care) the thief has acquired it [legally speaking, this means primarily that he is responsible for its wellbeing. Ed.], the original owners not being able to reclaim the same animal as compensation. This rule applies even when the owners had not given up hope of retrieving the same animal. Jacob told Laban that even when the circumstances would have been such that he could have legally kept an animal for himself, he did not avail himself of the legality of the matter but acted strictly according to what his conscience dictated to him as being correct moral behaviour. He could have returned lambs to Laban instead of fully grown animals; however he returned fully grown ones if perchance an accident had happened to one of the young animals under his care. He did not even "consume" the difference in value between a lamb and a fully grown ram.
  
  Verse 39
  
   טרפה לא הבאתי אליך, "I did not bring you those torn by wild animals, etc." How does the expression הבאה, bringing, fit the situation of an animal torn by wild beasts? Also, why did he repeat: "They were my loss, you collected from me?"
  Jacob pointed out to Laban that he took compensation from him for something that he was legally liable for as well as for losses for which Jacob was not legally liable at all. He spelled out טרפה as an example of losses due to wolves, and: "I did not bring you," as examples of losses due to attacks by a lion. We find the following statement in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 93: "When a shepherd or trustee abandons the animals under his care by making a trip to the city, and a lion came and trampled an animal to death, or a wolf came and tore an animal, etc." We see that different animals cause death by different methods. A wolf leaves the scene of where he caused harm immediately, whereas the lion kills his prey and remains at that site until he has devoured it. He leaves only the skin and the dung. Similarly, Jacob alluded to these two kinds of predators. He added: אנכי אחטנה, concerning the fence for which he was responsible. Had there been a single wolf, proper fencing in of the animals would have prevented such an attack; therefore the paid keeper is responsible for such damage (<i>Baba Metzia</i> 72). Jacob referred to the other kind of fence, i.e. one that is trampled on by the lion, something for which the shepherd is not responsible. Laban took no notice of these distinctions and insisted on compensation from Jacob regardless of the cause of the damage he suffered. Rashi must been inspired by the Holy Spirit when he gave this explanation. He had the same thing in mind as we have have just elaborated on.
  When Jacob added: גנובתי יום וגנובתי לילה, "regardless of whether it was stolen from me by day or by night," he referred to damage incurred through hostile humans; in either case Jacob paid, whether he was legally responsible or not, such as when it was stolen at night.
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  31.42. לולי אלוקי אבי…היה לי, "Were it not for the fact that my father's G'd the G'd of Abraham helped me, etc." The reason Jacob did not merely say "the G'd of my father Abraham," and chose to repeat the word G'd, was twofold. 1) He meant to say "firstly my father's G'd stood by me because of my father's merits." 2) It was due to the unlimited power of G'd who supervised my fate personally so that I was able to salvage my earnings. When Jacob said: אלוקי אברהם, he meant that it had been Abraham who had spread the fame of that G'd and acquainted mankind with His truth. He demonstrated to the world that G'd judges fairly. Jacob implied that if his father had worshiped a different god such a god could not have saved him.
  Jacob had an additional thought when he spoke about "אלוקי אבי" (in addition to אלוקי אברהם). First he spoke about the "G'd of my father," i.e. the merit of his fathers, which assisted him. In the case of Abraham this was the merit of חסד, Abraham's outstanding virtue (compare Micha 7,20). In the case of his father Isaac it was the virtue of justice referred to by Jacob as פחד יצחק, "the One whom Isaac stood in awe of." Jacob refrained from saying אלוקי יצחק in order to be able to allude to his father's outstanding virtue. We find G'd Himself referring to אלוקי יצחק in Genesis 28,14. Jacob mentioned both attributes to illustrate the fact that G'd had done outstanding kindness for him and had also helped him to obtain justice from Laban. Unless G'd had employed both these attributes Jacob would not have attained all that he had.
  את עניי ואת יגיע כפי, "my misery and my handiwork." Jacob meant that had it not been for the misery he had suffered G'd would have paid him his reward only in the Hereafter even though he was entitled to it here and now. It was only because of the anguish Jacob experienced that G'd paid him his deserts already now and paid him what was due to him for the labour he had performed (compare Deut. 24,15).
  
  Verse 43
  
   ויען לבן, Laban replied, etc. The word ויען is meant as the answer to Jacob's challenge to display and identify items Laban considered that Jacob had stolen from him. He said that he did not want to embarass his sons and daughters and would not conduct legal proceedings. His own children could testify to Jacob's trickery; however he did not think it seemly to involve his children in testifying against their husbands and father.
  He also hinted that the challenge of identifying household goods by mentioning specific details placed him at a disadvantage versus Jacob; the latter would certainly be far more familiar with them and be able to identify any special marks seeing the users were his own daughters who by virtue of using them knew more about them than he, Laban did.
  As to Jacob's charging that the manner of the search was demeaning, all that he Laban had done was examine things which were possessions of his own daughters, i.e. he felt at home in the tents of his daughters. Jacob had no reason to get upset about this.
  ולבנותי מה אעשה לאלה, "As to my daughters, what can I do to these?" The word לאלה appears to have no meaning. Perhaps it refers to the words: "all that you behold?" The verse then would mean this: "Since they are my daughters, what can I do to these possessions seeing they are also their children's?" Or, Laban may have meant that though my daughters describe themselves as strangers today, the fact is that I still consider them as my daughters. "What can I do about the way they feel?" We would have to read the words לאלה היום, as belonging together; "today they are called "these" in view of the actions they have committed against me although nominally they are still my daughters."
  לבניהם אשר ילדו, to their sons whom they bore. He made a point of saying: "whom they bore," in order not to identify the children with their mother. He only called them their sons since they were biologically their mothers' children. He hoped that they did not share their mothers' character traits. Although the Torah puts these words in the mouth of the wicked Laban, the Torah teaches us something of legal significance at the same time. This is the lesson that in Jewish law the term "family" is determined by the father and not by the mother. We find a similar lesson that the Torah teaches by using Laban as an illustration when the latter espoused the principle of אין מערבים שמחה בשמחה, that one does not celebrate two joyful events simultaneoulsy. Laban had used this rule when he delayed Jacob's and Rachel's wedding by a week so that Leah could have a full week of wedding celebrations with her husband (compare Jerusalem Talmud <i>Moed Katan</i> chapter 1).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויפגעו בו מלאכי אלוקים, G'd's angels met him. We need to understand the meaning of "they met him." We also need to examine what new insight Jacob contributed by calling the angels' encampment "a camp of G'd." What exactly is the meaning of the word מחנים? <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 74,17 offers a variety of explanations all of which are homiletical.
  The plain meaning of the verse is that G'd sent Jacob angels in the guise of human beings to gain the confidence of Esau and to find out his intentions concerning him, as we observe in the course of what develops. How did Jacob know that he had been met by angels? The arrival of these people (angels) was not in the manner of ordinary human beings who are seen approaching before they arrive and set up camp. These angels materialised suddenly as if out of nowhere, as if they had sprouted up in front of him. The word ויפגעו alludes to the first sudden and unexpected encounter Jacob had with these beings. This is why he described their encampment as a camp of G'd the moment he set eyes on them. He called the place where this occurred מחנים, i.e. two camps. One camp consisted of Jacob's own people who had prepared with him for war against Esau, the second one was the camp of these angels who had assumed the appearance of human beings. They usually do so whenever they are despatched by G'd to assist someone who is dear to G'd, such as Jacob the choicest of the patriarchs.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   וישלח, He sent, etc. Why did the Torah say: לפניו, ahead of him, a word which appears to be superfluous? The word אחיו also needs justification. Who did not know that Esau was Jacob's brother? Even the words ארצה שעיר שדה אדום, "to the land of Se-ir the field of Edom," need an explanation. What difference would it make to the angels where Esau was located? Furthermore, why did the Torah use the expression ארצה instead of לארץ? Although <i>Yevamot</i> 13 states that wherever the letter ל is required at the beginning it can be substituted for by the letter ה at the end, this does not explain when the Torah chooses one method rather than another.
  The verse wants to justify the expression "he sent angels." Why did Jacob employ heavenly beings without a pressing need? He could have accomplished the same thing by employing human messengers! The Torah says לפניו, to tell us that since Jacob had already met with these angels and they had obviously come to help him, he was permitted to use them as messengers for a task that human messengers might prove inadequate for. Jacob reasoned that seeing that these messengers would meet an important man such as Esau, he might not consider messengers of a lower order as appropriate to his stature (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 75). Esau might not have responded to any other messengers at all. It is also possible that Esau would immediately pounce on Jacob's human messengers as the eagle does when he swoops out of the skies, thus not giving him any warning before attacking him. For all these reasons Jacob was justified in employing celestial beings to act as his messengers. Perhaps he also hoped that when Esau became aware that he, Jacob, had celestial beings do his bidding he would desist from his planned attack on Jacob altogether. The <i>Midrash</i> we quoted above refers to those angels as being garbed in "fiery garments, riding horses of fire, etc."
  The reason the Torah mentions the word "his brother," is to emphasize that Jacob despatched the messengers in a spirit of brotherliness and that he accorded Esau the honour due to an older brother. He was afraid of engaging Esau in warfare in case the latter should invoke his father's merits.
  Another approach is also possible. The Torah emphasizes: אל עשו in order to tell us that on the one hand Esau hated him; on the other hand, the Torah wrote אל אחיו, to tell us that he did not hate him, that he was his brother. The messengers should be guided in their approach to Esau according to the frame of mind they would find him in. Since only celestial beings could divine Esau's frame of mind with any certainty, Jacob had to send celestial messengers to accomplish this task.
  Still another possibility is that Jacob's strategy was to send messengers to Esau before Esau had a chance to hear about his approach from another source. This is in line with the various <i>Midrashim</i> in which Jacob is criticised severely for not letting sleeping dogs lie, for demeaning himself by repeating so many times "your servant Jacob," etc. He chose to send angels who would not have to exert themselves by excessive travel. To the angels the whole universe appeared no greater than four cubits do to us mortal human beings. When the Torah reports that Jacob sent messengers ahead of him to Esau, the word לפניו, before him, is an allusion that the angels were still literally in his presence although they performed their mission to Esau who was quite a distance away. The reason that the Torah wrote ארצה שעיר instead of לארץ שעיר, is to emphasize that the angels did not actually have to go anywhere. All they had to do was to face in a different direction. The reason that the field is called "Edom" is that they would arrive at Esau's, i.e. the field of Edom, before the latter had a chance to even to get under way towards Jacob.
  This verse may also be understood as alluding to three different historical periods during each of which Esau's conduct would be different. One period finds Jacob and Esau in a brotherly relationship. This is alluded to by the words: "to Esau his brother." This period would extend until the destruction of the Holy Temple. Even though there were times prior to that when the Edomites were subjugated by Israel, such periods were relatively brief. During a different period in history, after the destruction of the Holy Temple until the end of the present era (before the advent of the Messiah), Esau would occupy a lofty position on earth and Israel would not even be considered by it as of any importance at all. This is the period which is alluded to here by the words ארצה שעיר, with the vowel <i>patach</i> under the letter א. This vowel underlines the superior position of Esau. The third period is the one we are hoping for when Edom will become an inheritance (for the Jewish people). This period is alluded to by the words שדה אדום, i.e. that Edom will be ploughed over as predicted by the prophet.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויצו אותם לאמור, He instructed them to say, etc. We must first understand the reason for the word לאמור, seeing that Jacob had already said to these messengers: "thus you shall say." Perhaps Jacob meant that they should tell Esau that they had been instructed to say precisely the words they were about to say. Otherwise, Esau might form the impression that the messengers related to him with deference and called him "his master," being aware that he was the senior brother and that it was only common courtesy to address him in that fashion, but that Jacob himself had never uttered the word אדון in relation to his brother. Jacob wanted to be sure that Esau realised that he himself had addressed him as אדון, master. He did so in order to remove any vestige of hatred and jealousy Esau might still, harbour against him in his heart. Were this not the true reason it is difficult to understand why Jacob should refer to Esau as his master even while Esau was not present. We must conclude therefore that Jacob used this term of flattery in order to avoid a possible war between himself and Esau.
  עם לבן גרתי, "I have sojourned with Laban, etc." What precisely did Jacob tell Esau in this speech that Esau had not known? Perhaps it is the custom between brothers who are on good terms with one another to exchange details about their experiences in life. Jacob may have done so in order to show that he considered himself on good terms with Esau.
  In addition Jacob may have acted very cleverly by implying that there was no point in Esau behaving in a hostile manner, that Laban had already tried this for many years and it had not benefited him at all. The words: עם לבן גרתי were a veiled reference to the wickedness of that man. If he, Jacob, after so many years in the house of that man returned now as a wealthy man with a large family this was proof that it paid to be on good terms with a man such as he. He added: ואחר עד עתה, I delayed my return until now, meaning that all of his wealth had not been acquired in a short period of time but that his success had been ongoing. When he added that he had acquired a substantial amount of wealth, he intimated that his wealth notwithstanding he described himself as junior, as "a servant" to his older brother. His words were designed to melt even a heart of stone.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וישבו המלאכים, The messengers returned, etc. The meaning is that they brought back a reply and said "we have come to your brother, to Esau, etc." i.e. he presented himself as your brother, whereas in actual fact he has remained Esau. "He is also coming to meet you," i.e. as a brother, but since he has taken four hundred armed men with him this is proof of his evil intentions against you.
  The words "we have come to your brother" may also mean that although he has met us with a happy face i.e. displaying brotherliness, we displayed anger ourselves seeing that he has remained Esau true to form. This is what the <i>Midrash</i> we have quoted meant when it described the messengers as appearing garbed in fiery garments riding on fiery horses. The reason the messengers did not bring back a definitive evaluation was because outwardly Esau displayed brotherliness whereas in his heart he was still the same old Esau, hating Jacob.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויירא יעקב, Jacob was afraid, etc. He prepared himself to either kill or be killed. He was very afraid of being killed; he was pained by the possible need to kill Easu in self-defence. This is why the verse mentions מאד, very much, in connection with this fear.
  Inasmuch as the angels had warned him of Esau's duplicity, that he would pretend to be brotherly, Jacob was afraid not to prepare himself for war in the event Esau planned to kill him while he was unarmed. On the other hand "it distressed him" that the very fact that their encounter would be an armed one might precipitate a war which Esau had not really intended until he saw Jacob armed. His hatred would be rekindled only because he presumed that Jacob confronted him in a fighting stance when he looked at his weapons. As a result of such considerations Jacob divided his camp; the first camp would display friendliness whereas the second camp would be armed and ready for battle.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר אם יבא עשו, He said: "If Esau were to come to the one camp, etc." In the event Esau would come upon the first camp and defeat it, the second camp which he had prepared for battle would help even the first camp not to be annihilated since as soon as Esau's hostile intentions were obvious the second camp would engage him. Jacob did all this in order to save G'd the trouble of performing a miracle.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   קטונתי מכל החסדים, "I am not worthy of all the kindnesses, etc." Jacob first mentioned חסדים, kindness, and then אמת, divine assistance, which he felt he had qualified for. Actually, Jacob should have mentioned the אמת before mentioning the חסדים, something he was not even entitled to. He mentioned the חסדים first because they are something that it is impossible for man to repay to G'd. He called it אמת because man is incapable of requiting these acts of kindness. We know this from Job 35,7: אם צדקת מה תתן לו, "even assuming that you were righteous, what can you possibly give to Him?" This is why services rendered for the dead are called חסד של אמת, seeing that the dead cannot repay us (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 96,5).
  Jacob also wanted to mention separately two kinds of favours that G'd had done for him. The first was the kindness that He displayed for him by providing Jacob with an abundance of material wealth. The second was the fact that G'd had enabled Jacob to hold on to his gains and that G'd did not allow Laban to steal them from him forcibly and thereby displayed His truth. You must appreciate that there are occasions when G'd does show a person kindness whereas that person is subsequently deprived of his gains by outsiders exercising their free will. G'd in turn compensates the person who has suffered such a robbery. In such instances the person in question has experienced partial comfort only. He would have felt much better if he had not been robbed of what G'd had granted him in the first place. He will never forget that he had once become the victim of a robbery. He will imagine that if he had not been robbed he would now be still better off, not realising that G'd had only compensated him for what he had been robbed of. Secondly, the fact that G'd did not interfere with the robber will continue to bother such a person. He would have felt completely at ease had G'd restored to him the very goods the robber had taken. Jacob had experienced this latter kind of personal supervision by G'd as we know from 31,9, where Jacob described how G'd had saved his cattle from Laban and restored them to him. When Jacob spoke about "all of G'd's truth," this is the kind of interference by G'd which he had in mind.
  
  Verse 12
  
   הצילני נא, "Save me please!" He used the word נא, a combined form of "please" and "now." He pleaded with G'd not to allow Esau to cause him any losses instead of letting him recoup his losses later on.
  מיד אחי, מיד עשו, from my brother's hand, from Esau's hand. Rashi understands the word אחי as a plea that Esau should not treat him like a brother but rather as befitted the wicked Esau. According to this explanation Jacob should only have said מיד אחי עשו, and we would have understood the Torah's meaning from the otherwise superfluous "my brother," seeing that Esau was his only brother.
  I believe therefore that the correct meaning is that Jacob prayed and addressed himself to the fact that there were two facets to Esau's character. On the one hand Esau was a son of Isaac and Isaac's merits would assist him. On the other hand, he was a person in his own right, a very powerful person at that; it would require great strength to be saved from attack by such a person. Jacob therefore prayed to G'd that Isaac's merit should not now assist him; this is what he meant by "save me please from the hands of my brother," i.e. although he is my brother. Concerning Esau's being a powerful adversary in his own right, Jacob prayed "please save me from Esau!"
  Jacob also had in mind that if Esau were to use the fact that he was his brother as a trick to attack him after feigning brotherliness, G'd should save him from such machinations. He also needed G'd's help, however, if Esau proclaimed his hostility openly.
  Jacob also drew G'd's attention to the enormity of Esau's crime if he were to try and murder his own brother, מיד אחי; surely the mere thought of committing such a heinous crime should provide sufficient excuse for G'd to humble Esau; on the other hand, Esau's wickedness (without considering the fact that in this case he set out to murder a brother) was sufficient to warrant G'd's intervention on behalf of Jacob.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   עזים מאחים, two hundred goats, etc. I have heard from my grandfather of blessed memory that Jacob intended that the total number of animals he sent as a gift to Esau should correspond to the numeriacl value of the letters in the word שעיר (580). Therefore he sent a total of 440 sheep and goats, thirty camels plus a young one each, i.e. a total of 60 camels. Add to this the forty cows and ten bulls, the twenty she-asses and ten donkeys, and you have a total of 580. The word שעיר symbolises Esau's power; the animals Jacob sent him as a gift were supposed to neutralise that power.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויצו את הראשון לאמור, He instructed the first one (messenger) to say, etc. The apparently superfluous word לאמו was that even if Esau were not to phrase his enquiry in exactly the words Jacob assumed he would, he would no doubt use words to that effect.
  Jacob may also have used the word לאמור to tell his messengers to use exactly this formula even if they would not be asked directly by Esau but by some intermediary. He added the word ושאלך, "and if he will ask you," to indicate that such a question might be addressed to the messenger second hand, not by Esau himself.
  
  Verse 19
  
   ואמרת לעבדך ליעקב, you will say: "to your servant, to Jacob." This means that the appropriate answer to the question: "who do you belong to?" would be: "to your servant Jacob;" the appropriate reply to the question: "where are you headed for?" is "to bring a gift which has been despatched." The appropriate answer to the question: "who is the gift for?" is "for my lord, for Esau."
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ואמרתם גם הנה עבדך יעקב אחרנו, you will say: "your servant Jacob is also following behind us." The messengers explained why Jacob neither preceded nor accompanied them. The reason was simply that Jacob wanted to appease Esau's anger so that the latter would receive him in a good frame of mind.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   לא אשלחך, "I will not let you depart, etc." When the angel said to Jacob that he had struggled with a celestial being and had prevailed, he meant that he now could not depart without Jacob's permission. When Jacob said: "unless you bless me," he meant that he would assure him that the injury he caused to Jacob's hip-joint would not be permanent. It is also possible that the mere fact that Jacob now realised he had wrestled with an angel prompted him to ask for a blessing from that angel.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   הגידה נא שמך, "please tell me your name!" Although Jacob was aware that angels do not have fixed names, he asked him what this particular angel's name was at this particular time.
  למה זה תשאל לשמי, "Why do you ask after my name?" Whereas it made sense that the angel asked Jacob's name seeing he intended to change it to Israel, or at least, to inform him of that impending change. Jacob's asking the angel for his name did not have such a purpose, however. The angel therefore wanted to know the reason for Jacob's enquiry. The angel may also simply have hinted that there was no point in asking him his present name as it was apt to be changed as soon as he had accomplished his present mission. He would only have to ask him again for his name on a future occasion.
  
  Verse 31
  
   פנים אל פנים, face to face. Jacob's amazement was not due to the fact that he had had an encounter with an angel; he had previously encountered angels. What amazed him was that he had been in a confrontation with an angel. The word פנים אל פנים is a term used in warfare as we know from Kings II 14,8.
  
  Verse 32
  
   כאשר עבר את פנואל, as he passed Pnu-el. Perhaps Jacob was the only one who called that place Pni-el instead of Pnu-el. We find the name Pnue-el also in Judges 8.
  
  Verse 33
  
   על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה. This is why the children of Israel do not eat the disjointed sinew, etc. This sinew was dislocated from its holy origin and became subject to dominance by the קליפה ["external forces" in the scheme of the emanations, Ed.]. G'd forbade anything which has thus become defiled wherever it appears. There is a mystical element in this. This sinew does not have a taste, an allusion to its originating in the "external forces." The reason is that it had been uprooted from a holier source.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויאמר עשו יש לי רב אחי, Esau said: "I have plenty my brother." Why did Esau have to add the word "my brother" at this point? After all, who else was Esau speaking to? Besides, he should have used the word as an address at the beginning of the sentence, not as an afterthought.
  Actually, Esau meant to tell Jacob that if his intention in sending him the gift was to simply let him enjoy the animals, he had plenty himself and was in no need of them. If, on the other hand, Jacob gave him the gift in order to benefit thereby personally as he had already indicated when he said: "in order to find favour in my master's eyes," אחי יהי לך, "keep it my brother." He indicated that if he was favourably disposed towards Jacob it was because he was his brother not because of the gift. His own brotherliness could only be proved if he insisted that Jacob take back the gift. Otherwise his brotherliness would be interpreted by others as self-interest.
  אל נא, אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך. "No please; if I have found favour in your eyes, etc." Why did Jacob repeat the word נא, please, in this verse?
  The verse should be understood thus. Jacob agreed with Esau that his brotherliness would indeed be recognised better if he did not accept the gift. Such an argument was valid only if it had been made before Esau had already received the gift. Now that Esau had received the gift, it would be most inappropriate to return it; The first אל נא refers to Esau returning the gift. Jacob pleaded with Esau that if he indeed wanted to demonstrate his brotherliness he should do so by keeping the gift. He underlined his argument by saying: ולקחת, "and you have already accepted it." Jacob went on to say כי על כן וג׳, "the nature of this gift is not in order that you should demonstrate brotherliness but rather you should accept what is befitting when one visits high ranking individuals. One does not appear before such individuals empty-handed." Therefore, Jacob said, you can only demonstrate your goodwill towards me by keeping the gift; should you fail to do so you would shame me.
  Should you be concerned that the size of the gift is such that it would impoverish me, rest assured I have all that I need; G'd has endowed me very generously. Jacob may even have hinted that he had not noticed any diminution in the size of his flocks even after he had sent the gift to Esau.
  When Jacob used the expression יש לי כל "l have all that I need" in describing his economic status, he may have referred to sanctity which is also described by the word כל. There are several blessings in which Israel is compared to the sand of the sea. The meaning of the hyperbole is that just as the sand closes above any hole you make in it when you remove some of it, so Israel will be blessed by not feeling the removal of something from it as a loss, seeing that no visible void be will be left. Jacob described his economic wealth in similar terms when he explained to Esau that he had "everything." The deeper meaning of this concept is evident in Kings I 17,14 when Elijah the prophet assures the woman in the name of G'd that כד הקמח לא כלתה„ "that the jar of flour will not give out until the day that G'd will again let rain fall in the land of Israel." Examine how I explained 33,18: ויבא יעקב שלם עיר שכם. This blessing is one that all the patriarchs enjoyed in varying degrees; this is why we find the Torah using the expressions בכל, מכל or כל respectively in connection with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (compare <i>Baba Batra</i> 47).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   למה זה, אמצא חן בעיניך, "Why do this? Let me find favour in my master's eyes." Jacob preferred an ongoing good relationship with Esau rather than to become the beneficiary of a one-time exaggerated display of Esau's loving concern for him and his family. Jacob hinted at the future when he said אמצא חן, "let me find favour in the future."
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   נסע סכותה, He journeyed towards Sukkot. The reason this place was called סוכות was because there Jacob built pens and shelters for his herds and cattle. The Torah purposely does not say לסוכות, "to Sukkot" because this would have led us to believe that this place had already been known by the name סוכות. You may well ask why the Torah bothered to mention the fact that Jacob called the name of the place where he built shelters for his animals סוכות. Perhaps the reason is that Jacob was the first human being who expended so much time, energy, and money in order to assure his animals a degree of comfort both in summer and in winter.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויבא יעקב שלם, Jacob arrived intact. We need to examine the meaning of the word שלם in this context. The Talmud <i>Shabbat</i> 33 provides several homiletical explanations. We also have to know why the Torah has to mention the place where Jacob came from, i.e. Padan Aram. We all know that Jacob had been in Padan Aram. Rashi comments: כאדם האומר לחבירו יצא פלוני מבין שיני אריות ובא שלם, "it is just like a person who reports that someone had escaped from between the teeth of lions without suffering any harm." The problem with this commentary is that the Torah told us something we knew from previous accounts.
  We feel that שלם means what we said earlier that Jacob's possessions were the same as when he set out from Padan Aram. G'd replenished the gift he had given to Esau so that he did not experience any loss. This then was the meaning of the blessing כל which Jacob had in mind when he described himself as having "כל."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ותצא דנה בת לאה, Dinah, Leah's daughter went out, etc. The reason that the Torah emphasises that Dinah was Leah's daughter (something that we are well aware of) is in order to facilitate understanding of the causes underlying Dinah's excursion into town. There were three reasons for this. 1) Dinah was Leah's daughter. Had she been Rachel's daughter she would never have made such an unchaperoned excursion. Her mother Leah had "gone out" to meet her husband (30,15), something that was uncharacteristic of Jewish women. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 80,1 claims that at the time Leah adorned herself with all her jewelry. Her daughter copied her mother, giving the impression that she was a harlot. 2) A second cause for Dinah's excursion was the fact that as an only daughter she had no female playmates; she went in search of suitable company. Inasmuch as she was a daughter of Jacob she had already acquired the reputation of being a distinguished person, something that provoked Shechem as we shall explain later. 3) לראות בבנות הארץ, "she went to take a look at the daughters of the land." According to <i>Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer</i> chapter 38 Shechem had brought the girls of the neighbourhood to play music around the tent of Jacob. This then was a third reason for Dinah venturing outside. From all the above you may surmise that unless Shechem had already been aware of the existence of Dinah, a daughter of the famous Jacob, even before she left her house he would not have committed the rape.
  
  Verse 2
  
   נשיא הארץ, the prince of the land, etc. Shechem's position in the community was the reason that no one came to Dinah's assistance when she cried for help against being raped.
  וישכב אותה ויעניה. He slept with her by forcing her. We must understand the sequence of how the Torah reports what happened [not "he forced her and slept with her," Ed.] in light of a statement in <i>Horiyot</i> 10 where the encounter between Yael and Siserah is described. The Talmud says that when the wicked derive physical pleasure this is a source of pain for the righteous. The Torah therefore tells us that although Shechem slept with Dinah in a perfectly natural way, not subjecting her to painful perversions, Dinah felt tortured instead of enjoying the experience. Her distaste of Shechem is obvious; this is why Shechem had to expend so much effort by "speaking to her heart."
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   עד בואם, until they came home. Jacob sent a message to them asking them to return home.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויעצבו…כי נבלה עשה בישראל. They were distressed… because he had committed a disgraceful act against Israel, etc. The Torah uses two expressions, 1) "they were angry," and 2) "they were distressed" to indicate that Shechem had been guilty of two wrongs. It would have been shameful for the family of Jacob even if Shechem had married Dinah, seeing that they would not give their sister to an "unclean" person. However, that would have been merely distressing. The fact that Shechem had raped their sister, something that was repugnant even to the local inhabitants, i.e. וכן לא יעשה, aroused their anger. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 80,6 states that the Gentiles had accepted sexual restrictions upon themselves after the deluge. This included rape.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וידבר חמור אתם לאמור, Chamor spoke to them, saying, etc. Perhaps the word לאמור here means that he was willing to pay damages due to the father of a virgin who has been raped or seduced. He may also have been willing to marry her if her father and brothers were willing. This is why he continued: "give her to him as a wife."
  On the other hand, maybe Chamor wanted to disclaim any responsibility to pay damages in accordance with <i>Ketuvot</i> 41 that when the rapist comes forward admitting "I have raped, or I have seduced the daughter of so and so", he is not required to pay the damages mentioned in the Torah. We have a rule that self-confessed sinners are free from financial penalties. The words לאמור שכם בני could be understood as "seeing that my son has freely admitted his guilt he is not subject to the penalty imposed on rapists." We should not understand this verse as testimony by the father that his son had committed a felony because under Noachide laws a father may testify against his son (<i>Maimonides Hilchot Melachim</i> chapter 9).
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויענו בני יעקב, The sons of Jacob replied, etc. We have to understand exactly what wisdom Onkelos attributes to Jacob's sons when he translates the word במרמה as "with wisdom" instead of as "with guile." At first glance it appears that the sons of Jacob simply meant to deceive Chamor and Shechem. Besides, what is meant by וידברו אשר טמא את דינה?
  Actually, the cleverness of the sons when they answered Chamor במרמה consisted in that they answered him in such a way that their proposal seemed extremely plausible. Shechem and Chamor did not feel that they needed to be on guard against reprisals. The brothers lulled Chamor into a false sense of security by the very fact that they threatened to take some action if their proposal was not accepted; they thus made him believe that if the town accepted the proposal of mass circumcision the whole chapter of the rape would be closed. The word וידברו, a term describing harsh words, indicates that the brothers first harped on the fact that their sister had been sullied. By doing so they ensured that Chamor and Shechem could not accuse them of giving conflicting signals, i.e. suggesting intermarriage while at the same time condemning the people of Shechem for their immoral behaviour.
  They then continued speaking in a friendly tone, saying לא נוכל, "we cannot intermarry, etc.," suggesting that they would like to but could not under existing conditions, i.e. while the males of Shechem remained uncircumcised. When they described the condition of the local inhabitants as אשר יש לו ערלה, they meant that whereas the local people were not required to circumcise themselves, it was not enough for Chamor or Chamor and Shechem alone to perform circumcision on themselves. In fact, even if they were to circumcise themselves as a voluntary act they would still be regarded by Jews as ערלים, seeing they did not fulfil a commandment by removing their foreskin.
  They would consider intermarriage with the people of Shechem and the merging of the two clans only on condition that the entire male population of Shechem would be circumcised. They emphasised this in order to forestall an offer by Chamor and Shechem to circumcise only themselves and their future male offspring. The brother's entire purpose was to facilitate killing the people of Shechem with a minimum of resistance on the part of the latter. They worded their conditions so that they would not be suspected of merely tricking the people of Shechem.
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   ונתנו את בנותינו לכם, "and then we will give our daughters to you, etc." Here the brothers displayed great astuteness. As a rule, swindlers prefer to be very vague when describing the conditions under which they enter into commitments; not only that, but they usually leave the other party many loopholes in order to lure that party into entering into the desired contract. The sons of Jacob reversed this procedure in order to remove any doubt from the people of Shechem that they were being tricked. They offered their daughters in marriage without reservations and explained that as a result they themselves would marry the local girls. All of this was designed to convince Chamor and his people that their intentions were honourable.
  
  Verse 17
  
   ואם לא תשמעו, "If you are not agreeable, etc." This was also a clever move. They did not threaten retaliatory action for the rape of their sister but only told Chamor that in that case they would take their sister and leave the region. They made it clear that they did feel insulted and that therefore they could not consider remaining in a region where rape went unopposed. On the other hand, if the people were to circumcise themselves en masse this would show a change of heart on their part towards the laws of sexual purity. It was the brothers' astuteness that caused Chamor to tell his people that the family of Jacob were sincere (verse 21).
  The brothers also intended to speed up a decision by Chamor and Shechem personally when they held out the prospect of "we will take our daughter and leave." Perhaps Chamor thought that as soon as Dinah would be removed from the region the brothers would prepare to take their revenge.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   שלמים הם אתנו, "they are at peace with us." They do not harbour hatred against us that we should have to be afraid they are out to trick us.
  When the Torah quotes Chamor and Shechem as saying: "we will take their daughters for ourselves," this was a clever ploy by Chamor and Shechem who wanted to make their own people believe them that Jacob's sons harboured no enmity because they considered the local people superior, so much so that they looked forward to intermarry with them.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   ויהרגו כל זכר. They killed every male. Why did they kill people who had not actively committed a sin? Why did they not first kill the truly guilty, i.e. Shechem?
  Actually, the sons of Jacob did not intend to kill anyone except the guilty party; however, all the inhabitants formed a human barrier to protect their king and prince. As a result the sons of Jacob were forced to kill the townspeole under the heading of killing a רודף, a pursuer, someone who endangers the life of the avenger. When the Torah states that they killed all the males this means that they succeeded in killing Chamor and his son only after killing the other males in the town. Had they not done so they could not have executed someone who was guilty of death.
  Another reason they killed all the males in the city was that they had all been accessories to the crime by keeping Dinah captive after the rape. This was tantamount to kidnapping. According to the Noachidic law the penalty for kidnapping is death. Gentiles are not guilty of the death penalty for sleeping with an unmarried girl.
  You will note that the Torah (or the brothers) describes all the people of having "defiled their sister" (34,26). This shows that they all shared equally in the guilt of kidnapping. The reason the Torah does not speak about these people having "stolen" their sister is that the principal sin they were guilty of was that it was the kind of robbery which could not be made good. [If you kidnap a virgin and you give back a woman who has been defiled by sexual intercourse out of wedlock this is not a proper restoration. Ed.] The Torah makes it plain by using the term "they had defiled," that if the sin had not been one that could not be reversed the brothers would not have killed all the males in the town. While it is certainly true that the people of Shechem were not the only ones in the world guilty of such crimes, and Noachides who have committed robbery are all guilty of the death penalty, the brothers could certainly not be expected to play executioners in all such instances. They lacked the power to do so. Jacob himself alluded to this when he accused Shimon and Levi as "distressing" him, especially in view of the fact that his family was "numerically weak" (verse 30).
  Another reason why the Torah speaks of "who had defiled" is to justify the brothers looting the belongings of the inhabitants of Shechem. Their property served as דמי בושת, compensation for the humiliation Dinah had suffered at the hands of these people. The amount of such compensation is determined in accordance with the relative stature of the victim as well as the perpetrator of the crime. In this instance both Shechem and Dinah were of very elevated stature so that the compensation due was of the highest category. The entire possessions of the townspeople may not have sufficed to provide adequate compensation for the shame Dinah had suffered. She was a person who was unique in the whole world. When I mentioned earlier that a self-confessed sinner is free from financial penalties, this does not apply to the money paid as compensation for shaming someone (<i>Ketuvot</i> 41).
  In his <i>Hilchot Melachim</i> chapter 9,14, Maimonides explains that the reason all the inhabitants of Shechem were guilty of death was that they had failed to establish a judiciary which would deal with the robbery committed by Shechem. Whence does Maimonides know that the common people had to judge their king or crown prince? Is it not a fact that even amongst the Israelites individuals do not have to testify against the King, and one does not sit in judgment of him (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 16)? Accordingly, we are forced to conclude that the guilt of the people of Shechem consisted in their being active accessories to the crime. They may even have advised Shechem how to successfully rape Dinah. Nachmanides refutes Maimonides' argument claiming that the Noachides were not commanded to establish a permanent judiciary but to settle matters that come up for litigation. He claims that the death of the people of Shechem was primarily for the sin of idolatry which all of them had been guilty of for a long time. His words require proof, and they do not account for the brothers looting the town.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   בני יעקב באו על החללים, The sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the city. This means that all of Jacob's sons participated in the looting. They were entitled to do so as they had all suffered humiliation by the rape of their sister. Each one was entitled to take his share. Maimonides has written in <i>Hilchot Na-arah Betulah</i> chapter 2 that the court gives due consideration to the respective stature in society of both the rapist and the victim before it decides the amount of money to award to the victim's father and to her family. Dinah's brothers were all included in what Maimonides described as the victim's "family." This is why they all assembled there to determine their respective shares of the compensation due them. When they determined that the combined wealth of the townspeople was not adequate, they simply carted off all their belongings on behalf of their father to whom all this belonged. Although we have a rule that if someone is executed for a crime we do not exact financial penalties in addition, this rule does not apply to Gentiles (compare <i>Tossaphot Eyruvin</i> 62).
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  Yaakov said. Yaakov had thought that they intended to rescue Deenah with their subterfuge and perhaps to kill Shechem as well, not to slaughter the entire city.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויאמרו הכזונה יעשה את אחותינו, They said: "Should we have let him treat our sister like a harlot?" We need to understand how such a reply could have had any bearing on Jacob's concern for the survival of his family in a possible confrontation with the other Emorites in the region? After all, Jewish law provides that if the surrender of a specific individual is demanded by enemy forces as a condition to save the lives of the remaining prisoners, then such an individual must be surrendered (Jerusalem Talmud <i>Terumah</i> chapter eight) in order to save the lives of all the people who this individual is part of. There is no requirement for all the people to become martyrs even if the alternative is the commission of a serious crime of ערוה, incest or other sexual crime. Seeing that this is so before such a sin has been committed, it is all the more so after the crime has already been committed and cannot be reversed!
  Perhaps the brothers merely wanted to calm the fears of their father saying that a confrontation with the Emorites would be a real danger only if they had killed the people of Shechem without an adequate reason. Under the circumstances, when kidnapping and rape had been committed, they did not think the other Emorites would raise much of a fuss. Legally speaking, of course, Shechem had not been guilty of harlotry seeing Dinah had been unattached at the time. Categories of sexual intercourse forbidden to the Gentiles include only homosexuality, adultery, bestiality, and intercourse with the sister of the same mother.
  It is also possible that the brothers considered their action as one that would serve notice on the Emorites not to take liberties with their family. Having seen what happened to an individual who used violence against a member of Jacob's family, the Emorites would take this to heart and be forewarned of the consequences of such deeds in the future.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   קום עלה בית אל, "Arise and proceed to Bet El, and settle there." The reason G'd said that Jacob should settle there though Bet El is in the land of the Canaanites is to reassure Jacob that he had nothing to fear from the local population.
  
  The meaning could also be that G'd told Jacob to settle in Bet El in preference to his present location near Shechem. He should not settle anywhere until he had built an altar at the site he had experienced the vision of the ladder.
  
  Verse 2
  
   הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, "Remove the foreign gods!" Seeing that Jacob was about to leave the present location he was afraid that perhaps someone would take along trinkets which had served the people of Shechem as idols. Since Jacob's entourage did not include idol worshippers of the local population there had not been anyone who could neutralise these gods before they had come into the tents of Jacob's camp. Once that happened there is no way a Jew can neutralise these gods except by destroying them completely. 
  <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 43 teaches that when one forces a Gentile to renounce his idol or even that belonging to a friend of his, such renunciation is legally valid. Once the idol has become the possession of a Jew, the only way it can be neutralised is by utterly destroying it. The Talmud distinguishes between adult Gentiles and children, however. The reason Jacob or the brothers did not force the surviving women of Shechem to neutralise these gods may have been that those women were halachically in the same category as children, i.e. that their actions had no validity in law. It is also possible that the sons of Jacob had simply not been careful to differentiate between different kinds of the loot. When they examined it at home it was already too late to do anything about neutralising these objects and making them usable for a Jew. Some of these idols may even have been hidden within other larger vessels which the sons of Jacob had captured. Another possibility is that the gods which had been neutralised in time somehow became mixed with others which had not. 
  Jacob instructed the members of his household to purify themselves because contact with idols defiles a person. Maimonides writes in <i>Hilchot Avot Ha-Tumah</i> chapter six that any אב הטומאה, source of serious impurity, which confers impurity through touch or through carrying same, not only confers impurity on any person who touches same but also on anyone touching or carrying objects that have been in touch with the person who is אב הטומאה. Accordingly, Jacob was quite right when he instructed his people to purify themselves and their clothing even if not they personally, but only their clothing had been in contact with the idolatrous trinket. Jacob was also very precise in referring to שמלותיכם, your garments. He meant that the garments worn by the people of Shechem at the time they were slain had to be purified also. 
  You may ask that there should have been no need to change clothing seeing that clothing could have become defiled only through direct contact with the idolatrous object, an אב הטומאה, and even if these garments had been in direct contact with the idolatrous object they could not have conferred impurity on a human being seeing they themselves were not primary sources of impurity. When we read in Psalms 106,28: ויאכלו מזבחי מתים, "they ate sacrifices offered to the dead," the word "dead" is understood to be a reference to idolatry. Idolatry and the dead are equated halachically for the purpose of the transference of impurity. <i>Chulin</i> 3 states that the sword of a slain person is of the same degree of impurity as the person who has been slain with it. [normally it would be of a lesser degree, seeing it is not the original source of that impurity, Ed.] According to Maimonides <i>Hilchot Tum-at met</i> chapter chapter 5 the example of "sword" is applicable to any of the objects that were attached to the slain person at the time he died, including his garments. According to the foregoing the garments of the people of Shechem then were capable of transferring impurity to human beings just as the sword which kills a person.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויסעו, ויהי חתת אלוקים על הערים, They departed; the fear of the Lord was on the cities in their region. Perhaps the Torah informs us here of the surprising fact that although the departure of Jacob's family from Shechem must have been perceived by the local inhabitants as a flight, they were so overcome with the fear of the Lord that they did not pursue them. Alternatively: although by the time the local inhabitants became aware of it, Jacob's family had long gone and thereby escaped their determination to attack them, they were so afraid of the Lord that they decided not to give chase.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויקראו למקום א־ל בית אל, He named the place El Bet El. Although Jacob had already named this place Bet El when he fled from Esau, he repeated naming the place El Bet El; he meant that G'd specifically associated His name with that site. The reason he thought so was that G'd had revealed Himself to him there. The reason he returned to this place was that G'd had meanwhile fulfilled the promise He made to Jacob at the time of his flight from Esau. The site had therefore assumed an even higher degree of sanctity in Jacob's eyes.
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   לא יקרא שמך יעקב כי אם ישראל, "You will not be called Jacob but Israel, etc." We need to understand the difference between when G'd renamed Abram and when he renamed Jacob. <i>Berachot</i> 13 states that anyone who calls Abraham Abram nowadays violates a positive commandment, whereas it is permissible to refer to Jacob as either Jacob or Israel. Although our rabbis in the Talmud there point out that the Torah itself refers to Israel as Jacob after G'd renamed him, in view of the fact that we ignore the words לא יקרא when it comes to Jacob, why should the same rule not apply to Abraham and we should have the choice of calling him by either name? 
  Perhaps the very fact that G'd limited the good news when He renamed Jacob by saying: "your name is Jacob," made this change of name qualitatively different from that of Abraham at the time. There had been no need for G'd to repeat "your name is Jacob." Who did not know this? Surely what G'd meant by this was that Jacob's permanent name would remain Jacob, but that on some occasions he would be referred to by an additional name, i.e. Israel. Why would it bother G'd that we should not refer to Abraham's original name? I believe there is a very good reason. We have to remember that names describe the nature of its bearers' souls, their essence. The Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 7 illustrates this point. Jacob's essence then is described by the name Jacob. Whenever he enjoyed a large measure of Holy Spirit he was referred to as "Israel." There is certainly no reason why Jacob should be deprived of his original name on account of an occasional infusion of רוח הקודש. It was quite different in the case of Abraham who retained all the letters of his original name in his expanded name also. This is why G'd commanded to call him only by his new and expanded name Abraham. By doing so one did not deny his original name at all. Perhaps Chronicles I,1 26 refers to this when it states: "Abram is Abraham." When the Torah said: "your name shall not be called, etc," the meaning is that it should not be called exclusively Jacob but also Israel. This is exactly parallel to Genesis 17,5 where Abraham's name was changed.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   לאברהם וליצחק, to Abraham and Isaac. Check on what we have written on Genesis 26,3 that the promise G'd made to Isaac concerning inheriting the land of Israel contained an additional dimension to the promise made to Abraham. G'd promised this additional dimension also to Jacob.
  אתן את הארץ. "I shall give the land." Why did the Torah have to mention the word "the land" once more instead of simply saying "it," as the Torah did at the beginning of this verse? Perhaps the Torah wanted to tell us that G'd would give this land to Jacob in order that he personally should possess it, not merely his descendants. Had the Torah merely written לך אתננה ולזרעך, we would have understood that Jacob could only make the claim to the land over to his children as an inheritance. This is why the Torah speaks of two separate gifts here, one to him and one to his descendants. This had not been the case when G'd promised the land to either Abraham or Isaac.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויקרא יעקב….בית אל. Jacob called… it Bet El. This is difficult. We had been told this previously; even the additional word "El" had already been mentioned in verse 4. Perhaps the Torah means that at this time Jacob enlarged the area which he had previously named Bet El. Perhaps this is alluded to in the otherwise superfluous words "the name of the place that G'd spoke to him." He clearly referred to the difference between having experienced a dream with a divine message many years ago, and the present revelation where G'd appears to have addressed Jacob when he was awake.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   אל תיראי כי גם זה לך בן. "Do not fear, for this one too is a son for you." What exactly was Rachel's fear which the midwife tried to alleviate? Assuming that Rachel was afraid to die, how did the midwife's words relieve Rachel's fears by saying "this one too is a son for you?" We also have to analyse the midwife's use of the word גם, "also."
  In order to understand this we must refer to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 82,8 that whereas a twin sister was born with all the other sons of Jacob, Benjamin's birth was accompanied by the birth of two twin sisters. This is why the midwife told Rachel that she should not be afraid to die but that her special difficulties were due to her giving birth to triplets, something that had not been the case when she gave birth to Joseph. The word גם was a reference to the births which would accompany the birth of Benjamin.
  She may also have hinted at the statement we find in <i>Niddah</i> 31 that if a mother experiences difficulties when giving birth to a male child this does not threaten her life, whereas if she experiences similar difficulties when giving birth to a female child this does endanger her life. This is why the midwife reassured Rachel saying that the baby about to be born was definitely a boy.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   בני לאה, בכור יעקב ראובן the sons of Leah Jacob's firstborn Reuben. The reason that the Torah had to repeat here that Reuben was Jacob's firstborn was in order that we should not think that Reuben's misconduct with Bilhah had disqualified him from being the firstborn. This also proves that when the Torah described Reuben as having slept with Bilhah this was not meant literally. When the number of Jacob's sons is described as 12, this too is proof that Reuben had not committed an act by which he forfeited being included in that count. Inasmuch as Reuben represented the first drop of semen Jacob ever ejaculated, the idea that he could have been guilty of such a horrendous crime as actually sleeping with one of his father's wives is quite impossible. This is why the Torah emphasises בכור יעקב, he was Jacob's firstborn.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויהיו ימי יצחק מאת שנה ושמונים שנה, Isaac lived to be one hundred and eighty years old. The reason that the Torah does not add אשר חי, "which he lived," as it did when reporting Abraham's death or Jacob's death or even Joseph's death, may have been that from the day of his birth until the time he was bound on the altar no wife had been assigned to Isaac; our sages in <i>Kohelet Rabbah</i> section 9 state that anyone who lives without a wife is not really considered as "living." On the other hand, our sages also say that as a result of the עקדה Isaac began to lose his eyesight (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 65,10). A person who is deprived of his eyesight cannot be described as truly "alive." 
  Alternatively: since he did not bring חיים with him on his way to the עקדה, the Torah did not see fit to mention the word חיים in his connection.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   הוא אדום, who is identical with Edom, etc. This statement is repeated three times in this paragraph. Seeing that G'd has sworn to destroy Edom the Torah had to tell us that Esau is identical with Edom. The Torah also mentioned the town where Esau lived in verse 8; according to Talmudic practice when a statement is not needed in the context in which it is written it may be applied to another context; in this instance the Torah means the town Esau lived in. In verse 19 the Torah also mentions the sons of Esau once more, identifying them with Edom to tell us that all of Esau's descendants will go up in flames at the time when the prophet's assurance (Ovadiah 18) that "Israel will become a flame and Esau the straw to be consumed" will materialise. The reason they are all included is that the Torah has described them all as Edom. All of this is hinted at in Jerusalem Talmud <i>Nedarim</i> 3,5 which describes that in the future Esau will wrap himself in a <i>Talit</i> and occupy a seat amongst the righteous. G'd, however, will remove him from there. Please read what I have written in this connection on verse 31.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   אלה בני שעיר החודי, These are the sons of Se-ir the Chorite, etc. The reason the Torah writes this whole detailed chapter is only to tell us how generously G'd endowed the wicked Esau on account of the merit of his father and grandfather. Our sages in <i>Shabbat</i> 85 also explain this in the following words of Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov: "The word Chori means that 'freed' the Chorim [the former inhabitants of Se-ir] of their possessions. In other words, the Torah speaks of G'd handing over their lands to the sons of Esau. We have an interesting statement in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 99 saying that Timna who was prince Lotan's sister, the most highly placed woman in that land, became the concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau because all her efforts to intermarry with either Abraham, Isaac or Jacob were to no avail. Rather than remain a princess in her own right she chose to become a slave in the house of Esau. When her attempt to belong to the Jewish people became frustrated she became the maternal grandmother of Amalek instead.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   אלה בני אצר, These are the sons of Ezer, etc. This verse may be understood homiletically. <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> on Proverbs 2, asks rhetorically why the Jewish people are frequently poor. G'd answered because He wanted to ensure that they would have enduring riches in the Hereafter (Proverbs 8,21). If someone wants to assure himself of such an enduring inheritance he must be willing to endure poverty or some other problems in this world. The word אצר in this verse is equivalent to אוצר, treasure. People desirous of accumulating treasures in the world to come must be prepared to suffer afflictions in this world, i.e. בלהן, זעון ועקן. Such afflictions will ultimately prove to be blessings.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   ואלה המלכים אשר מלכו בארץ אדום, And these are the names of the kings who ruled in the land of Edom, etc,. The Torah enumerated all who intermarried with Edom or supplied kings to Edom to tell us that ultimately they too would be destroyed when Edom would fall. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 83 explains that because Bazrah provided a king for Edom (verse 33), it too would ultimately share the fate of Esau because it had helped Edom to its feet again when it had already been close to annihilation. Isaiah 34,6 refers to that time when G'd is described as killing many in Bazrah, linking it with the slaughter that would take place in Edom. The same applies to the other cities mentioned in our chapter.
  This chapter also alludes to the ultimate redemption of the Jews which will be a long time arriving; this is why G'd listed the number of kings who would rule over Edom who in turn preceded the kings of Israel. The author expresses the hope that just as after the destruction of the Temple we experienced a series of kings who ruled over Edom, this in turn would be followed by a series of kings ruling Israel until such time as the final redemption (6000 years) would materialise (based on the assumption that the period of ימות המשיח is the seventh millenium; compare one view in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 99).
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. Jacob settled down in the land where his father sojourned, the land of Canaan. At first glance the entire verse seems superfluous seeing we have read in 35,27 that Jacob returned to Kiryat Arba the town where his father and grandfather had lived. As long as Jacob did not leave that town again, why did the fact that Jacob had settled there have to be repeated? Besides, why did the Torah have to say both: a) in the land his father sojourned, and b) the land of Canaan? If the Torah only wanted to pinpoint the place all that was necessary was the word "in Chevron." We already know that both Abraham and Isaac had lived there.
  However, since the Torah told us in the preceding paragraph that Jacob's brother Esau inherited the land of Se-ir thanks to the merit of his fathers, the Torah also had to tell us what Jacob's heritage was. The entire verse is an acknowledgment of Jacob's goodness. Although he had noted that his brother had inherited the land of Har Se-ir (see my commentary on 35,12), he, Jacob did not do so but was content to continue on the basis of his fathers who had merely considered themselves as sojourning on that land, i.e. he still viewed it as ארץ כנען.
  Another possibility is that it is called here the land of Canaan which had been given to Jacob by G'd as an inheritance although he personally conducted himself there as if he were only an alien until the trouble with Joseph happened. This is one of the meanings of: "These are the developments of Jacob, Joseph." It means that effectively, the history of the development of the Jews as a people began with the sale of Joseph, the subsequent descent into Egypt, how G'd redeemed them from there and kept His promise and how they eventually inherited the land of Caanan.
  
  Verse 2
  
   אלה תולדות, These are the developments, etc. Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 12,3 say that wherever a paragraph commences with the word אלה this represents a contrast to and criticism of what has been reported previously. On the other hand, when a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, it suggests a continuation of what preceded it. Here the word אלה is intended to criticise or disqualify what Esau had done. If that was indeed the intent of the Torah it is unnecessary seeing that Esau himself was unfit; anything he did would be improper anyway.
  We also need to analyse the meaning of תלדת יעקב יוסף. What happened to the other tribes? Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 84,6 claim that Joseph was the principal descendant of Jacob. Others say that it reflects the similarities Jacob and Joseph experienced in their respective fates. Both were already born without a foreskin, etc. Of course, this is all homiletics.
  I believe that the plain meaning of the verse is what the other sages say, namely that Jacob wanted to enjoy peace and quiet in this world; as a result he suffered the upsetting experience with Joseph, literally, קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף. Joseph's sale, etc, is all blamed on Jacob's desire to enjoy peace and serenity on this earth. We therefore must understand the verse thus: "Jacob wanted to settle down; the consequence of Jacob's settling down was Joseph (his sale, etc)." The Torah teaches us the basic lesson that man brings upon himself whatever befalls him. Harm does not originate with G'd who is the source of all that is good by definition; Jacob was no exception to this rule.
  Our verse also wants to inform us that in spite of all the various trials such as the life and death struggle with Esau, his oppression by Laban, etc., which Jacob had experienced up until that point in his life, these were all as nothing compared to what he would still have to endure through the sale of Joseph, etc. This is why the Torah commences the paragraph with the word אלה. This word is meant to put his previous problems into a new perspective.
  Another meaning of these words is explained in <i>Sotah</i> 36 where we are told that Joseph was actually meant to become the father of twelve tribes; he lost that opportunity on account of his involvement with the wife of Potiphar, when, according to the <i>Midrash,</i> he was able to resist the lures of that lady only by ejaculating semen through his ten fingertips instead of through the regular channel for such an acitivity. As a result he became the founder of only two tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe. The defective spelling of the word תלדת, minimum plural two, hints at the above mentioned aggadah. The word אלה "cancelled" the previous intention to make Joseph founder of twelve tribes.
  Still another meaning that we can find in this verse is based on Psalms 77,16 בני יעקב ויוסף סלה. "The sons of Jacob and Joseph, selah." <i>Sanhedrin</i> 19 explains that the reason that the sons of Jacob and Joseph are lumped together here is that Joseph provided the brothers and their families with food during the famine. Whenever someone assumes the burden of feeding someone else he is entitled to be called by that someone's name. This is alluded to in the sequence of the words תלדת יעקב יוסף, "the descendants of Jacob were possible only by the grace of Joseph." These words could also be translated as "the descendants of Jacob and Joseph." We have several examples of this in the Bible, such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון. The meaning is ראובן ושמעון. Here too we must mentally add a conjunctive letter ו before the name יוסף. The Torah provides the rationale why the whole family is included in the name Joseph, i.e. he was the whole family's provider.
  בן שבע עשרה שנה. seventeen years old. The reason the Torah had to tell us Joseph's age was because we know from <i>Berachot</i> 55 that if a person had a good dream he should wait up to twenty two years for it to become true. Had we not been informed here that Joseph was seventeen at the time he had these dreams we would not have known that rule.
  The Torah also alludes to another lesson mentioned in <i>Kidushin</i> 29. Rabbi Chisdah there describes himself as superior to his friends because he married at sixteen. The evil urge is not as strong in a person who is sixteen as it is in a person who is seventeen years of age. By telling us Joseph's age when the sale occurred we know that his evil urge was very active within him at that time. This may have accounted for his provocative conduct towards his brothers and the fact that he engaged in tale-bearing.
  היה דעה את אחיו בצאן, he used to tend the flocks with his brothers. The wording seems unusual. We would have expected: היה רעה הצאן את אחיו. Besides, why did the Torah add the words: "he was a lad," when we are told his age in the same breath? <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 84,7 explains this by saying that Joseph indulged in childish activities. If that were true why would he do so only with the children of Bilhah? Rashi explains that he felt at home in the environment of Bilhah who had been the handmaid of his mother. This is even more far-fetched; why did the Torah mention נשי אביו, "his father's wives? We must also know what precisely the רבתם רעה, the evil reports about the brothers which Joseph brought to his father consisted of? The Torah is not intended to complicate an issue by speaking in riddles but to help us understand it! We believe therefore that the Torah wanted us to know that this is what happened. 
  The words היה רעה את אחיו בצאן refer to the sheep the brothers were accused of eating. The words והוא נער refer to Joseph's earlier childhood during which he had spent much time with the sons of Bilhah. The reason the Torah mentions נשי אביו is to tell us that Joseph did not discriminate against the sons of the handmaidens but related to their mothers as "his father's wives." This is especially mentioned as only Joseph treated Bilhah and Zilpah as wives of Jacob in the full sense of the word. According to the <i>Midrash</i> there Joseph suspected his brothers of eating parts of the sheep while the animal was still alive. The Torah disproved this suspicion later when it reported that the brothers even slaughtered an animal, which they were presumably not going to eat, before they dipped Joseph's tunic in its blood. [I suppose the author feels that the word רעה, tending, could also be read as רעה, evil, to account for this allusion to Joseph's suspicions of his brothers. Ed.] Joseph's suspecting his brothers of immoral behaviour may have stemmed from their viewing the handmaidens as merely slaves and their belittling the sons of the handmaidens. When Joseph observed how the brothers belittled their half-brothers this may have caused him to begin to belittle the sons of Leah instead. The author discusses the halachic aspects of the issue of someone who sleeps with a handmaid, concluding that at any rate someone of the stature of Jacob would certainly do so only in order to raise the woman in question to a higher status, and the children would automatically be free men.
  The problem with all the above speculations in the <i>Midrash</i> is why, if four of the brothers were treated as inferior, all of them voted against Joseph and agreed to sell him? Perhaps it was because Joseph had included them in the suspicions about their eating habits which he had related to his father. Alternatively, these four brothers exploited that opportunity to gain favour with the sons of Leah although they themselves harboured no ill feelings against Joseph.
  
  Verse 3
  
   וישראל אהב את יוסף, Israel loved Joseph, etc. The Torah reported this here in order to provide the rationale for the brothers' hatred of their younger, i.e. their "little" brother Joseph. The reason the verse begins with the conjunctive letter ו in front of ישראל is to inform us that if the tale-bearing would have been the only problem, the brothers could have coped with that; they would have argued with Joseph and convinced him that his suspicions were unfounded. It was the additional element of their father displaying distinct favoritism which poisoned the atmosphere between Joseph and his brothers. Not only did Jacob love Joseph better than all his other sons combined, but he even made a public display of this. Once this hatred of Joseph had become a factor in their mutual relations nothing could correct the situation. There was no longer any point in the brothers speaking peacefully, i.e. trying to make peace with the tale-bearer, seeing he was so clearly their father's favorite.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויחלום יוסף חלום. Joseph had a dream. Why did Joseph add to his brothers' hatred of him by telling them of his grandiose dreams? Furthermore, knowing as he did that the brothers hated him fiercely, why did he accept his father's mission (verse 14) and venture "into the lion's den?" (According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,11 even Jacob could not understand Joseph's preparedness to accept his mission) Perhaps Joseph went to tell his brothers that they were wrong in ascribing his dreams to his ambitions, but that for some resaon G'd planned to elevate him to a high position and that Jacob's agreeing to send him on this mission was a sign that all of this had been approved by G'd. He may have hoped to assuage their hatred of him by accepting the misssion.
  On the other hand, he may have warned them that the time would come when they would have need of him, and that they might do better to suppress their hatred of him pending further developments; otherwise they would expose themselves to retaliation on his part when the time came. He was convinced that the brothers would accept what seemed to them a heavenly decree.
  There is yet another possibility. Joseph actually hoped to draw his brothers' hearts nearer to him. We have a saying <i>Berachot</i> 55 that כל החלומות הולכים אחר הפה, that "all dreams follow the mouth." [What the interpreter sees in the dream determines its true meaning. The reader is referred to an excellent analysis of this statement by Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in chapter 29 of his <i>Akeydat Yitzchak,</i> see my translation page 247, second edition. Ed.] The rabbis also say that one should enquire from someone who is well disposed towards him when searching for the meaning of one's dream (<i>Rosh</i> on that paragraph). Joseph hoped that by telling the brothers of his dreams they would themselves find an acceptable and plausible explanation which would put their minds at ease. At least they would realise that Joseph had no ambition to become king over them. Why else would he be silly enough to provoke their hatred by telling them about his dreams? All of this might have worked if the existing hatred had not already closed the brothers' minds to any conciliatory gestures.
  ויחלום יוסף Joseph dreamed. The Torah reports that Joseph only dreamed so that we should not think that he hallucinated making himself believe he had dreamed when in fact he entertained thoughts of lording it over his brothers. The reason that in verse 9 the Torah repeats again that Joseph dreamed is also to emphasise that it was a nocturnal vision, that he had not made up the story he told his brothers.
  ויגד לאחיו. He told his brothers. It was a good dream. The brothers were tough as nails and did not even want to know what he had dreamed; this is why he had to say: "please listen to the dream I have dreamed." I am sure that the Torah does not here refer to a dream the content of which has not been mentioned, nor to a dream which did not come true. If the latter, why mention the existence of such a dream? If to tell us that the brothers hated him even more, this too has already been adequately explained. We must therefore assume that these words refer to the dream Joseph revealed only after having insisted that the brothers listen to his dream.
  
  Verse 6
  
   שמעו נא החלום, please listen to the dream, etc. He had to add the word נא, please, because at first they had refused to listen.
  Alternatively, in accordance with <i>Berachot</i> 56, dreams should preferably be interpreted on the day following (the same day) the night they have been dreamt. This is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath if one has had a bad dream. Joseph therefore insisted that the brothers hear him out at once. Any delay might result in the dream not being fulfilled. He may also have wanted to prove to them that he had not told any of his friends about this dream expecting them to give him a positive interpretation, but had instead come to his brothers first. Had he first told his friends of his dream the brothers would not have believed that he wanted to convince them that he wanted to be on good terms with them. According to <i>Berachot</i> 55 Rabbi Banah once told his dream to 24 different interpreters and received 24 different interpretations, each one of which proved correct. It is possible that this was so because none contradicted any of the other interpretations. When contradictory interpretations are received the more recent interpretation cannot cancel out a previous one. Joseph may have wanted to convince the brothers of his תמימות, his sincerity, by offering them a chance to come up with a negative interpretation of his dream which his friends could not later on nullify. He did this by urging them to listen to his dream immediately.
  החלום הזה, "this dream." The use of the definitive article ה in front of the word חלום indicates that he had already told them that he had had a dream without revealing any details about it. Now he repeated: "please listen to the dream which I have dreamed."
  
  Verse 7
  
   והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, "Here we were tying sheaves, etc." Why is the word והנה repeated three times in this verse? You should appreciate that if a dream is to be perceived as a prophetic vision, it is essential that it be as clear and distinct as bright daylight. The person dreaming it should have the feeling that he actually experiences what he sees in the dream as if it were reality. When these conditions are met, he may consider the dream as a prophetic revelation. Dreams that young people dream are often blurred or contain unlikely and exaggerated occurrences. When Joseph told his dream to the brothers he repeated the word והנה three times to demonstrate that each part of the dream had been crystal clear, and that at the time he had thought that the events shown him in the dream were actually happening. This is why he thought that the dream foretold the future in some way.
  In the dream G'd showed him the bundles. These bundles represented bundles of מצות which all of the brothers would perform jointly; his own bundle stood more upright than the others as an allusion to his experience with the wife of Potiphar whose advances he had to resist. The fact that his bundle remained standing upright indicated that he would become a ruler in Egypt. All the bundles of the brothers would be relatively downgraded before the merit of Joseph because in the final analysis he provided for all of them and kept them alive during the famine. Joseph hoped that by foretelling them about this their attitude towards him would change for the better.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמרו לו אחיו, His brothers said to him, etc. We need to understand why both the word מלך and the word משל are repeated here. This dream could have been interpreted in two ways. 1) It could presage that Joseph would become an actual physical ruler i.e. מלך; 2) it could presage merely ממשלה. The interpretation that Joseph would become an actual ruler was an interpretation that allowed for some doubt, whereas the interpretation that he would become a משל, a highly placed administrator, seemed absolutely certain. This is why they answered him in accordance with either of these possibilities. Concerning the possibility of his becoming an actual ruler they asked: המלך תמלך עלינו? "Are you really considering the possibility of becoming king over us?" Concerning the definite prediction that he would become a highly placed administrator, they asked אם משל תמשל בנו, "are you going to be administrator over us? Onkelos has referred to this distinction when he rendered the first המלך as את מדמי "do you imagine, etc?" whereas he renders the word אם משל as את סביר, do you think, etc?" The brothers repeated the words because they were amazed at two aspects of the interpretation. 1) Do you think you will become king at all? 2) Do you think your authority as king will also extend over us? The reason for their incredulity was the fact that they had a tradition that Yehudah would become king over all of them. How could Joseph's vision uproot such a tradition?
  Another reason these words are repeated is that they accused Joseph of dreaming at night what he had been day-dreaming about by day. They said: "It is only because you have a desire to rule over us that you are able to have such dreams even at night!" This would correspond to Daniel 2,29: רעיוניך על משכבך סלקו "your thoughts (of the day) returned to you while you were on your bed (at night)."
  ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אוחו, They hated him even more, etc. Since we explained that the dream under discussion is only one, we need to understand why the Torah mentions that the reason the brothers hated Joseph even more was because of "his dreams" (pl). This is accounted for by the various details in the dream. Each time Joseph had said והנה, the brothers understood this as a separate dream.
  ועל דבריו. and because of his talk. Because he told them the contents of his dream. It was bad enough that he had such dreams; talking about them made it even worse.
  Another reason maybe the one we already mentioned. The brothers felt that Joseph's dreams reflected his aspirations during daytime.
  
  It is also possible that the meaning of the expression ועל דבריו is that whereas he spoke to them as if he were soliciting their friendship and brotherliness, in his heart he strove all the time to become a ruler over them.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויגער בו אביו, His father rebuked him, etc. He did so in order to remove the brothers' hatred towards him. He contradicted the interpretation of the dream by questioning how his father and mother could possibly bow down to Joseph? He implied that the sons of Jacob would not attain greatness through the Gentiles rather than through their father. Since the idea that his father would bow down to him was ludicrous, the brothers had no cause to worry. Jacob personally did not discount the dream, however.
  
  Verse 11
  
   ויקנאו בו אחיו, His brothers were jealous of him. When the brothers had heard this second dream they backtracked from accusing Joseph of wanting to be a ruler over all of them; they agreed that Joseph could not have aspired to rule over his own father. The very fact that he had such a dream, however, indicated that he had received a message from heaven. They were jealous of Joseph having received that communication.
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   לכה ואשלחך אליהם, "come let me send you to them;" The word לכה implied that Joseph should go visit his brothers. In the event he had qualms, however, Jacob added that he would make him a שליח של מצוה, a messenger on a divine mission, i..e fulfilling the commandment of obeying his father. This would protect him against harm (compare <i>Pessachim</i> 8).
  
  Verse 14
  
   לך נא ראה, "Please go and have a look, etc." Now Jacob spelled out the details of the commandment Joseph was to fulfil including bringing back a report to his father. This would make him his father's messenger both on the outward journey and on the return journey. If the bringing back of the report became a separate commandment this would act as protection for Joseph even according to the view in the Talmud that such messengers are enjoying divine protection only until they reach their destination. Jacob made sure that Joseph had two destinations. Joseph could now rest assured that he would return safely.
  Jacob believed that despite the fact that the brothers hated Joseph and it was therefore not unlikely that he would be in danger, the מצוה he performed by obeying his father would protect him. He based himself on the following discussion in <i>Pesachim</i> 8. We are taught in a Baraita: When there is a hole in a wall dividing the property of a Jew from that of a Gentile, one needs to search for possible <i>chametz</i> as far as one's arm can reach. Plymo says that one does not have to endanger oneself in order to locate such <i>chametz.</i> The Talmud counters that Rabbi Eleazar has said that when one is engaged in the performance of a מצוה one is not liable to suffer harm. So why should considerations of danger prevent someone from searching for <i>chametz?</i> The Talmud answers that the rule of Rabbi Eleazar holds true only where danger is not likely to be encountered. The other rabbis who disagree with Plymo hold that the two situations are not alike. When danger is apparent, such as certain hornets having their lairs inside the holes of a wall, one endangers one's life frivolously by putting in one's arm searching for <i>chametz.</i> When the danger consists of the Gentile possibly accusing the Jew of engaging in sorcery because he performs an act such as looking for <i>chametz,</i> something that seems non-sensical to the Gentile this is no reason to desist and to rely on miracles instead. The Talmud cites the incident of Samuel enquiring of G'd how he could endanger himself carying out his command to anoint David when there was a price on David's head? G'd told him to pretend to go to Hebron to slaughter an animal for G'd (Samuel I 16,2). Samuel was in very real danger, as the chances that king Saul would hear about his trip to Hebron were close to 100% and he would be very suspect. Such danger could not be compared with that of searching for <i>chametz</i> in a wall and the Gentile neighbour jumping to the wrong conclusion. Joseph's brothers had never been suspected of planning to actually harm him physically. Plymo might also not have considered Joseph's danger at the hands of his brothers as real enough for him not to rely on Rabbi Eleazar's dictum that the performance of the מצוה would act as his shield.
  In view of the above you may well ask how it was that Joseph wound up being sold as a slave, etc.? The answer is that when Rabbi Eleazar said that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, people on a מצוה mission would not come to harm, he meant permanent harm. Joseph wound up as the ruler of Egypt as a result of having been sent to his brothers. The fact that he experienced degradation on the way was merely a preparation for his eventual elevation.
  There is another aspect to all this. When Jacob despatched Joseph he was very careful to refer to the location where the brothers were supposed to be tending the sheep. He asked: "are not your brothers tending the flocks at Shechem?" He had therefore made it plain that Joseph was supposed to go to Shechem. When Joseph went to Shechem and failed to find the brothers his mission was completed. If he decided nonetheless to go to Dothan to locate them there he was no longer his father's messenger. This is why he was no longer protected by performing a commandment of his father. Jacob was convinced that no harm would befall Joseph at Shechem. Joseph thought that his father had mentioned Shechem only as a likely place where he would find his brothers but that his mission was not restricted to Shechem.
  ויבא שכמה, He arrived at Shechem. The place to which his father had sent him; however, he did not find his brothers. He searched for them, something the Torah did not need to spell out as otherwise the first words in the next verse, i.e. "A man found him," would not make sense. By now Joseph was lost.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   הגידה נא לי, "PLease tell me!" How did Joseph know that the stranger knew where his brothers were to be found? He did not ask the man if he knew; he only asked him to reveal his knowledge! Perhaps Joseph concluded from the word לאמור which the stranger used that he had some information that was useful for Joseph. Since there was no one else around, why would the stranger have used the word לאמור, to say, before asking "what do you seek?"
  
  Verse 17
  
   נסעו מזה, כי שמעתי אומרים, "They have moved away from here, for I have heard them say, etc." Why did the stranger have to preface his information by saying: "they have moved away from here?" It would have sufficed for him to say: "I have heard them say: 'let us go to Dothan!'" Rashi explains that the words mean that the brothers had abandoned the path of brotherliness (and devised legal schemes to kill him). If so, why was Joseph not worried enough to turn around and to return to his father's home? What greater degree of danger could there be? In fact, was Joseph not guilty of almost committing suicide by continuing to search for his brothers? 
  Perhaps Joseph did not understand the warning properly. Our sages who had the benefit of hindsight were able to interpret the words of the "man" as a warning. Joseph who was not blessed with such hindsight had no reason to see a dire warning in these harmless sounding words. He merely understood that his brothers had not only left Shechem but the whole district. The reason the "man" added "I have heard the brothers say: 'let us go to Dothan,' was to explain what he meant by "they have moved from here.'" He could not say with certainty that the brothers had actually arrived at Dothan. He only had knowledge of their intention. It did not occur to Joseph that the man with whom he talked was an angel; therefore he did not try to read any more into the man's words than appeared obvious. When the Torah writes: "Joseph went after his brothers and he found them in Dothan," this is in order then. Had Joseph understood the veiled warning of the "man," the Torah should have written: "Joseph followed his brothers to Dothan and found them." Joseph searched for his brothers seeing that the man had not been precise about their present location. As a result of his search, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. Our sages' interpretation of what occurred is perfectly in order, i.e. that the Torah reveals that the angel who spoke to Joseph had given him a veiled warning. 
  Proof that Joseph had not understood this is that the Torah reports Joseph as searching for his brothers. He was under the impression that they still considered him their brother.
  The question we must all ask is that if the angel remained deliberately so vague that Joseph did not understand his warning, why did he direct him to a location which was so fraught with danger for Joseph? Perhaps, after having become aware that Joseph's intention was to find brotherliness, i.e. את אחי אנכי מבקש, the angel wanted to increase the merit Joseph would accumulate by persisting in such a worthwhile endeavour. For all we know this is how Joseph acquired the merit necessary to qualify ultimately as the ruler of Egypt and the provider for his family.
  
  Verse 18
  
  "And they saw him afar off" It is necessary to know, when saying "and before" (Gen. 37:18), whether it applies to what was before it, as follows: 'And they saw him afar off before he came near to them' or if it [namely, the word "before"] is the beginning of what comes afterwards, as follows: 'Before he came near to them they conspired regarding him...' Both interpretations are difficult: if it applies to what was before it, it should have said 'before he came near' [not AND before he came near], and if it is the beginning of what comes afterwards, it should have said 'and before...they conspired' [not AND they conspired]. Maybe the addition of the vav was meant to increase distance, meaning that you shouldn't say that the distance implies that he [Joseph] has not yet approached them [his brothers], rather "and before he came near to them" means they saw him at an exaggerated distance.
  We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them; "and before he came near..." means that this seeing was also "before..." and if it hadn't said "And before" with a vav it would have implied the reading of distance above [namely that they saw Joseph at a great physical distance], therefore the vav was added, to show that the matter was different [namely that the distance was emotional]. One could also offer a different explanation of the text, but it appears that this is the best reading.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
   ועתה לכו ונהרגהו, "Come now let us kill him!" They planned to kill him before he had a chance to actually reach them; they went towards him. This is why the Torah emphasises the word ועתה. They were so upset emotionally that they could not even contain their anger until he would reach them. What the brothers did is best described in <i>Baba Kama</i> 26 where the Talmud rules that when ten people kill one person simultaneously they cannot be held responsible by a human court. The brothers' main concern was to escape a trial by a human court.
  ונשליכהו באחד הבורות, "and let us throw him into one of the pits." When the brothers mentioned how they would explain Joseph's disappearance, i.e. ואמרנו, they meant that as a rule anyone found in one of these pits would be consumed by a variety of rodents which abound in them. They would then be telling the truth when they described him as having fallen victim to wild beasts. By not saying the rodents had killed him they would refrain from uttering an outright lie.
  Naturally, we must explore by whose authority the brothers imagined that they were entitled to kill a human being, and such a righteous human being at that? Even allowing for the fact that the manner in which they planned to kill Joseph would not have made them liable to a human tribunal, how did they expect to escape retribution at the hands of G'd?
  Perhaps the brothers applied to Joseph the laws pertaining to עד זומם, someone who testifies to a crime he did not really see and who thereby intended to have the accused convicted of the death penalty. In such a situation the Torah demands that the עד זומם himself will be executed by the same death penalty he intended for his victim. Joseph had accused his brothers of eating אבר מן החי, tissue from a living animal. A fitting penalty would be for Joseph himself to be consumed by wild animals before he was dead. Joseph had also claimed that the brothers engaged in sex with partners forbidden to them. All these accusations, if true, carry the death penalty when committed by Gentiles. Moreover, a Gentile may be convicted by the testimony of a single witness without corroboration and without the victim having been warned of the consequences of his behaviour. Even next of kin may testify against the accused (Maimonides <i>Hilchot Melachim</i> chapter 9). Accordingly, the brothers applied to Joseph the law of an עד זומם thus exonerating themselves in the eyes of heaven. However, if so, they would not be considered innocent before a human tribunal because they had no הזמה, evidence of an alibi placing the witness Joseph in a different location at the time that he claimed that the brothers had committed the crimes he had accused them of. This is why they had to resort to the ruse of ganging up on him simultaneously. No human court could then prove that either one of them had administered a lethal blow. They felt quite at ease vis-a-vis heaven, being convinced that Joseph wanted to kill them. All of these considerations helped G'd carry out what He had planned without interfering with the freedom of will of the brothers or of Joseph. Perhaps the brothers even alluded to the fact that they would eventually repent what they were about to do and this is why they said ועתה, i.e. "for now this is what we are going to do." <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 21,6 claims that whenever the expression ועתה is used it refers to repentance.
  ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, "and we shall see what becomes of his dreams." They were at pains to prove that his dreams contained false information, or that the dreams were merely reflections of what he had been thinking by day. If they would kill him now this would prove that the dreams only reflected Joseph's own aspirations.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויצילהו מידם. "He saved him from harm at their hands. This action was applauded by the Torah as man is a free creature possessing freedom of choice and able to kill people who are not guilty or have not been convicted, as distinct from wild beasts which do not kill humans unless the latter are guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The words ויצילהו מידם mean that he saved them from the evil consequences of carrying out their freedom of choice to kill. By doing what he did Reuben nullified the brothers' statement: "we shall see what happens to his dreams."
  לא נכנו נפש. "Let us not kill him." What Reuben meant was "let us not kill him outright ourselves but only cause his death indirectly." When he said later: "do not shed blood, throw him into the pit," this was his argument to his brothers. He only pretended to agree that Joseph's death should be caused because he could think of no other way of saving Joseph's life and restoring him to his father. He was quite certain in his own mind that no wild beast would harm Joseph, or any other of Jacob's sons for that matter. He himself would also not allow Joseph to remain in the pit long enough to die of hunger. Proof of Reubens' intention is that the Torah reports that he returned to the pit shortly after the brothers had sold Joseph in his absence. He had planned to take Joseph out of the pit.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, They stripped Joseph of his tunic, etc. According to the plain meaning of the verse the word כתנתו refers to his shirt, whereas the additional words את כתנת הפסים refer to his outer garment, the one his father had made for him. In order to understand the verse thoroughly we have to know why the Torah did not write ואת כתנת הפסים, "and the striped coat."
  The Torah wanted us to understand that the brothers did not want to strip Joseph naked. Their main concern was to remove the striped coat which had aroused their jealousy. The Torah tells us that when they began to strip the striped coat off him they were so angry at him that they inadvertently also removed his shirt at the same time. The Torah describes that Joseph was left naked by writing ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, "they stripped him naked by unintentionally removing his shirt with his striped coat."
  The Torah adds אשר עליו, "which he wore on top," to further underline that the striped coat was an outer garment. In spite of this, in their frenzy they removed all his garments.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויעברו אנשים מדינים, Midianites were passing, etc. Why did the Torah mention the passing by of Midianites when the sale was conducted with the Ishmaelites as is clearly stated at the end of this verse? Verse 25 also makes it clear that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites.
  Furthermore, we read in verse 36 that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, etc. This appears to prove that the brothers had sold Joseph to the Midianites, something which contradicts what we have been told previously. To confuse the issue still further, we are told in 39,1 that Joseph was brought down to Egypt where Potiphar purchased him from the Ishmaelites. Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 84,22 account for all this by saying that Joseph was sold several times over. This does not seem to solve all the difficulties in the text, however.
  The correct interpretation is that the Torah first mentions the appearance of a caravan of Ishmaelites (verse 25) and Yehudah's suggestion that they should sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. When the brothers became aware that the Ishmaelites in that caravan dealt only in spices, etc., and that they would not consider slave trading, G'd arranged for מדנים סוחרים, Midianite merchants to pass by. The Torah adds the word "merchants" to tell us that the brothers recognised that these men were less discriminating in the kind of merchandise they dealt in. The brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites using the Midianites as middlemen. The Ishmaelites would have refused to buy a human being (who presumably had been a free man) from the brothers directly. Inasmuch as the deal involved both the Midianites and the Ishmaelites, the Midianites received part of the profit. The Ishmaelites who had financed the sale, paid out the cash at that time. 
  The Torah was able to say "the Midianites had sold him to Egypt (37,36)" since they received part of the profit of the transaction. Inasmuch as they and not the Ishmaelites knew Joseph's true value as a slave, they conducted the sale to Potiphar.Meanwhile Joseph's body, i.e. his person remained in the care of the Ishmaelites so that when Potiphar acquired him he did so from the hands of the Ishmaelites (39,1). The Torah emphasises מיד הישמעלים, to make certain that we understand that Joseph was in the physical possession of the Ishmaelites who handed him over to Potiphar. All the various verses make perfect sense when looked at in this vein. Perhaps the author of the <i>Midrash</i> mentioned מכירות הרבה, many sales, because the different stages involved in Joseph's sale appeared to him as if he was being sold many times over.
  וימכרו את יוסף. They sold Joseph. It is possible that after the brothers had humiliated Joseph by stripping him naked and tossing him into the pit that their anger abated partially and they were willing to accept Yehudah's suggestion. They may have thought that their declared objective to frustrate realisation of Joseph's dreams would be achieved if he were to be sold into slavery. Once he had become a slave there were no known ways in which Joseph could rise to a higher status, much less to that of king. This is what Psalms 105,17 had in mind when the Psalmist stated: כי לעבד נמכר יוסף, "Joseph had been sold into slavery."
  
  Verse 29
  
   וישב ראובן אל הבור, Reuben returned to the pit, etc. What was Reuben's argument when he complained to the brothers ואני אנה אני בא, "where shall I go?" Would Joseph not have been lost even if his own suggestion to throw him into a pit had been carried out? After all, the Torah itself testified that Reuben had never told his brothers that he intended to save Joseph and to restore him to his father! When Yehudah said to the other brothers: "what profit is there in killing our brother, etc," does this not prove that Joseph's remaining in the pit was meant to result in his death? How then could Reuben complain to his brothers?
  Actually, Reuben argued that inasmuch as he was the oldest, his father would charge him with leading the search for the missing Joseph from one end of the earth to the other. If Joseph had remained in the pit, he would have brought Joseph's remains to his father and explained to him that wild beasts had killed him. This would have been the end of his involvement. Now he could not do this. This is why he said: "where shall I go?" As a result the brothers hit on the idea of slaughtering a male goat and dipping Joseph's tunic in its blood, etc. By returning the tattered and blood-soaked remains of Joseph's striped coat they made it unnecessary for Reuben to start a search for Joseph.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   טרוף טורף יוסף, "Joseph has been torn to shreds!" Jacob meant that Joseph had endured a twofold tearing (this is why Jacob said טרף twice). 1) A wild beast had torn him and killed him. 2) That animal had dragged him to its lair; as a result of this even a search for his remains was futile and he, Jacob, could not even bury his body. Were it not for this interpretation why did Jacob not organise a search for Joseph's remains? The brothers were clever enough to stress: "this we have found, examine please, etc." They made it plain to Jacob that they had not even found any bones.
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
   ויקומו כל בניו…לנחמו, "All his sons arose in order to comfort him, etc." The Torah is silent about the nature of these words of comfort that were offered to Jacob.
  Perhaps the Torah wishes to stress that the comfort was not expressed in words but in the demonstration of how many sons and daughters Jacob had left. They had first observed their father rend his garments, wear sackcloth and carry on mourning for an inordinately long period. This would have been appropriate if Jacob had lost an only son, or even one of relatively few children. Since Jacob had many children, he should have remembered what he had left instead of only harping on what he had lost. His children brought this to Jacob's attention without uttering a word by surrounding him with their combined presence. This was supposed to provide some comfort. Jacob, however, refused to accept comfort, saying that the reason he would mourn Joseph until his own death was that Joseph was one of a kind and there was no substitute for him. The <i>Zohar</i> (volume 1, page 180) goes into greater detail about the mutual affinity of the souls of Jacob and Joseph, etc.
  The Torah also hints that Jacob did not view his inability to console himself as a sign that Joseph was not dead though we have a rule that one is unable to console oneself when the person mourned is not actually dead. The reason Jacob could not accept comfort was that he viewed himself as condemned to descend to שאול, to purgatory, because of a tradition (compare Rashi quoting a <i>Tanchuma</i> on ויגש) he had that as long as none of his children would die during his lifetime he could rest assured that he himself would not descend to purgatory.
  ויבך אותו, He wept for him. When Jacob explained why he could not respond to manifestations of condolences he had to start weeping again. The Torah stresses the word אביו, his father, in order to make a distinction between himself and all his children. The only person who broke out weeping when Joseph's name was mentioned was his father. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 84,21 considers the word אביו, his father, as a reference to Isaac, Jacob's father.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  38.1. וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, Yehudah descended and turned from his brothers, etc. Our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 13 say that the brothers demoted him. Ibn Ezra says that anyone who comes from the northern part of the world to the South is considered as "descending." What he said is correct; it does not apply here, however, because then the Torah need not have added: "from his brothers." This clearly indicates that Yehudah's descent, i.e. demotion, was caused by his brothers. It also says: ויט עד איש, "he turned to a certain person, etc." Our sages are quite correct when they interpret the word וירד as a moral descent and the words ויט, etc., are integral to the verse.
  
  Verse 2
  
   בת איש כנעני. the daughter of a Canaanite. The word "Canaanite" means a trader. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the word Canaanite is to be understood in the usual way, i.e. a local inhabitant of the Canaanite tribes. I maintain that it is impossible to imagine that any of the sons of Jacob would intermarry with the Canaanites, something which their forefathers had so strenuously opposed, as pointed out specifically in <i>Pessachim</i> 50. The Torah was careful to say "the daughter of a Canaanite man," meaning that she herself was not a Canaanite woman. This is only possible if her father was a merchant, not an actual Canaanite. Had she been a Canaanite, Yehudah would have been guilty of a great misdemeanour by marrying her. If this had indeed been the case the Torah would have indicated it by writing "he married a Canaanite woman whose father was called Shua," or something similar. It would not even have required an additional word to inform us of that fact. The Torah should not have let us surmise that Yehudah married a Canaanite woman but should have spelled it out clearly.
  ויקחיה, he married her, etc. He performed all the necessary legal requirements for marriage.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי ראתה כי גדל שלה, for she saw that Shelah had reached marriageable age. What is the meaning of the word והיא in our verse? Why did it not suffice for the Torah to say ולא נתנה לו לאשה? "and she had not been given as a wife to him" without the additional word והיא? Perhaps the verse wishes to inform us of two things. 1) She saw that Shelah had grown up and it was plain to see that Yehudah had not kept his promise when he asked Tamar to wait until such time as Shelah would grow up. 2) She saw through רוח הקודש, divine inspiration, that she was not destined to become Shelah's wife. This is why she could take up a position at Petach Eynayim and successfully seduce Yehudah. The long term results of Tamar's conduct speak for themselves. She deserved every possible credit.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
   הוציאוה והשרף, "take her out and let her be burned!" The reason for this is that it is the prescribed penalty for adultery amongst the Gentiles as we know from <i>Avodah Zarah</i> 36. It is clear from there that even if the sin did not involve a sexual union forbidden by Biblical law either to Israelites or to Gentiles, the tribunal headed by Noach's son Shem appears to have legislated that a woman who was destined for her brother-in-law was liable to death if she had relations with someone else. As soon as Yehudah realised that he had been her partner, he knew she was free from that decree as it applied only to Gentiles amongst Gentiles, not to partners in a levirate union. Since a father-in-law was not culpable for sleeping with his Noachide daughter-in-law, no crime had been committed seeing Tamar was Jewish. <i>Sotah</i> 10 understands the words ולא יסף עוד לדעתה to mean that Yehudah did not discontinue being intimate with Tamar. This proves that their relationship had not been sinful, i.e. that the father of the deceased could legally perform the rite of the levirate marriage with his daughter-in-law.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   צדקה ממני, "she is more righteous than I." As we have already mentioned the death penalty which had first been decreed upon Tamar was a man-made ordinance applicable to certain sexual offences by the Gentiles. Inasmuch as it was revealed that Tamar's partner had been Yehudah this made her more righteous than Yehudah. Tamar had known all along that she was permitted to sleep with Yehudah, whereas Yehudah, who had not known who she was at the time, had merely been fortunate that she had not been forbidden to him under existing regulations. The verse also means that Tamar had not only been righteous in the manner in which she conducted her defence, but had also been righteous in her conduct. Legally speaking, the episode is comparable to someone who intends to eat forbidden fat but who is fortunate enough to have exchanged the forbidden fat for some which is permitted.
  Should you question that at the time Yehudah was intimate with Tamar he thought that she was a Gentile; why then did he violate what he knew to be the local ordinance? Our rabbis have answered in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 85,8 that G'd on occasion directs the steps of a man and corrects what was an evil intent in order that the end result should correspond to His plans. [This seems to mean that though Yehudah would have slept with any harlot at that moment when he felt a sexual urge, G'd directed that the woman he did in fact sleep with was ritually pure and permissible. Ed.] The <i>Midrash</i> rationalises this by referring to the line of kings that were to emanate from Yehudah. We suggest that the reader turn to our commentary on Genesis 49,9 גור אריה.
  כי על כן לא נתתיה לשלה, "since I did not give her to Shelah, etc." Yehudah explained Tamar's behaviour as due to her having lost hope that she would become Shelah's wife. Hence there was no more זיקה, bond of marital attachment between her and Shelah.
  Alternatively, Yehudah simply assumed the blame for having caused Tamar's behaviour seeing he had not given her to Shelah. The words צדקה ממני then should be translated: "she is righteous in her deeds; I was the cause of what she did."
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   על ידו שני לאמור, a scarlet thread on his hand, as though to say, etc. The midwife had a sudden flash of Holy Spirit and did something without being aware of its true significance. By tying Shani scarlet thread around his hand she indicated that the baby was Sheyni the one born second, though it had left the womb first. The Torah adds the word לאמור, "meaning to say" that this one emerged first. Although the midwife said so the truth was the reverse. The red thread was to prove יש אם למסורת, that there is a distinct significance to the spelling of a text as well as to the accepted way of reading a text.
  
  Verse 29
  
   מה פרצת עליך פרץ, "how did you burst your way out?" Inasmuch as the hand of the first one indicated that he was about to emerge from the womb before his brother why did you push your way out past him thus blocking his becoming the first-born? The word מה, which normally means "what," must be understood here similarly to Psalms 104,24: מה רבו מעשיך, "how great are Your works, etc.?" When the Torah continues עליך פרץ, this explains the nature of this bursting forth. Normally, when twins are born, the one which emerges first is from the sperm that entered the womb last, the earlier sperm being blocked by the sperm injected later. In this instance the baby born first was formed from the sperm that had entered Tamar's womb first. This is why the kingdom rightfully belonged to Peretz, seeing he had been both conceived first and born first.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ויהי בבית אדוניו, He stayed in the house of his master, etc. The Torah described how G'd arranged for a variety of promotions Joseph experienced while in the service of Potiphar. At the beginning Joseph performed menial labour outside the home of Potiphar. When he did so successfully he was promoted to work inside the home. He then became a guard in the home. Eventually, he performed all his duties only indoors, i,e. בבית אדוניו. Still later he became Potiphar's personal valet, i.e. וישרת אותו. This made Joseph's life comfortable. Still later Potiphar appointed Joseph as the general manager over his entire household, i.e. ויעזוב כל אשר לו ביד יוסף. Eventually, Potiphar left every initiative to Joseph, not even bothering to ask him to account for what he was doing.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   באשר את אשתו, "inasmuch as you are his wife." Joseph meant that Potiphar had not placed his wife out of bounds to Joseph in so many words; the matter was understood because of her status.
  ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה, "how could I possibly commit such a great evil?" By doing so I would lose everything I have achieved.
  Furthermore, I would create an unbridegable gap to the holy roots of my soul seeing that adultery is forbidden to Gentiles as well as to Jews. This is what Joseph meant when he said "I would sin against G'd."
  Furthermore, by mentioning that he would commit a sin vis-a-vis G'd Joseph already countered Mrs Potiphar's argument that her husband did not need to know about their liaison and that therefore Joseph did not stand to lose anything. Joseph attributed his present status to the help of G'd. He would certainly forfeit G'd's help if he became guilty of adultery.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ותתפשהו בבגדו, She grabbed hold of his garment, etc. The Torah reveals Mrs Potiphar's intention when she grabbed Joseph's garment by stating לאמור. This word needs to be translated here: "as if to say." She did not say a word. Her actions spoke louder than any words.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   ותקרא לאנשי ביתה, she called the members of her household, etc. She was well aware that her husband put great faith in Joseph's righteousness and might not believe her accusation against him. Therefore she called the members of her household asking them, i.e. לאמור to tell her husband what had happened (according to her version). The members of her household who were jealous of Joseph who had risen above them would be happy to testify against him, saying: "look what happened as a result of your bringing this Hebrew man into the house." When she said לצחק בנו, "to make sport of us," she used the word us deliberately to indicate that they had all suffered from Joseph's elevated status, especially since Joseph was an alien.
  It is also possible that when Mrs Potiphar said ראו, look! that she invited the members of the household to testify only to what they had seen; the Torah describes this as לאמור ראו, "say what you have seen." She included her husband in her accusation in the event he would find excuses for Joseph's alleged behaviour.
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
   ותדבר אליו..לאמור, She spoke to him…saying. The word לאמור here is meant as a reference to the testimony which the members of the household would be willing to supply. Potiphar's anger was not so much directed at Joseph but at the fact that his wife was able to reinforce her accusations by calling the members of the household as witnesses. This is why the Torah writes: "when his master heard the words of his wife which she spoke to him לאמור כדברים האלה." The Torah did not need to write more than: "when his master heard the words of his wife." We are meant to realise that Potiphar only became angry after לאמור, i.e. that there were independent witnesses supporting his wife's tale.
  לאמור כדברים האלה, to corroborate such words. Potiphar did not believe his wife. Since the accuser was his own wife, however, he had to make some gesture otherwise his wife would have been publicly discredited. This is why Potiphar did not discipline Joseph nor had him executed, the normal penalty for a slave who dared to aspire to the wife of his master.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויהי ה׳ את יוסף. G'd was with Joseph. The meaning of this verse is that when a human being enjoys divine protection people around him are also influenced by the fact that such a person enjoys G'd's help. It was natural then that Joseph should find favour in the eyes of those who came into contact with him. G'd had to especially influence the warden of the prison to take a liking to Joseph as a righteous person [and therefore innocent, the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Ed.]
  
  Verse 22
  
   הוא היה עושה, which he was doing. Onkelos translates: על מימריה הוה מתעבד, that what was done inside the jail was done at Joseph's instructions. If that was so, why does the Torah not say so outright, i.e. ועל פיו היו עושים? Perhaps the Torah wanted to hint that though Joseph enjoyed great authority within the jail, he did not use it to make the other inmates feel as if he dictated to them. He did not claim any special privileges for himself either. All this was evidence of his good character.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   והנם זועפים, and they were distressed. According to our sages in <i>Berachot</i> 55 the reason that both of them were distressed was that they both dreamt the meaning of the other's dream. The chief butler was distressed having seen in his dream what was going to happen to his companion the chief baker. Whereas the chief baker had seen in his dream that the chief butler would be reinstated he had nonetheless prepared himself for adversity and could not bring himself to have peace of mind.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וישאל את סריסי פרעה, He enquired from Pharaoh's ministers, etc. Why did the Torah have to add the words: "who were with him in jail?" Also, why did the Torah add: "in the house of his master?"
  Perhaps the Torah provided us with the reason why Joseph enquired from the two ministers as to why they seemed so distressed. It was certainly unbecoming for people of inferior standing to enquire into the state of mind of their superiors. The Torah says: "Joseph enquired from Pharaoh's ministers," i.e. although Joseph was only a slave whereas they were ministers of the king he still decided to ask them. The reason was that as of then they were both in jail, normal distinctions between their standing in society did not apply. He may also have thought that their distress had something to do with him personally. The reason the Torah underlined: "in the house of his master," is that Joseph wondered if the distress of the ministers was directed against Joseph's superior, the chief warden. Joseph who was a loyal servant wanted to know if he could perhaps do a service to his master by finding out the reason for the ministers' distress. 
  Joseph added: היום, "this day," meaning that he did not refer to their general distress about being in jail which is something they had reason to be distressed about already yesterday and the day before, but about their special distress on that day.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויאמרו אליו…ופותר אין אתו, "and there is no one to interpret it." They meant that there was no one to interpret it at all, as distinct from Pharaoh's dream (41,8) when a variety of interpretations were offered, none of which satisfied Pharaoh.
  הלא לאלוקים פתרונים, "don't interpretations belong to G'd?" This was Joseph's way of saying that although he offered his services as an interpreter they should not think that he claimed to boast about his ability, but that G'd had many interpreters at His disposal; he, Joseph, was only one of them. He invited them to tell him their dreams.
  When Joseph referred to "interpretations" in the plural, he alluded to a story from the Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 55 according to which there were twenty four regular dream-interpreters in Jerusalem. All of them interpreted the dream of Rabbi Banah, each one offering a different interpretation. All their interpretations happened to come true. This is what Joseph had in mind when he said: "G'd has interpretations." Joseph meant that a dream is capable of many different interpretations all of which are correct.
  Joseph had two reasons for saying נא, please, when inviting the ministers to tell him their dreams. 1) An interpretation can only claim to be accurate when it is given on the day after the night the dream has occurred, and this is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath after having had a bad dream; on the other hand, if one delayed fasting, one may not fast on the Sabbath on account of that dream. Joseph's use of the word נא, meant that he urged the ministers to tell him their dreams at once before the interpretations would become useless to them.
  The second reason Joseph said נא, is also related to a statement in the Talmud on the next folio. We are told there that most dreams follow the mouth, i.e. the interpreter [I have explained this on page 301. Ed.]. This is why Joseph was anxious that they should tell their dreams to him rather than to someone else in order that his interpretation would be fulfilled. He said: ספרו נא, "please tell now!" Although we have mentioned that there were twenty four interpreters in Jersualem each one of whom was able to give a different yet true interpretation to the same dream, I maintain that this was so only because none of the twenty four interpretations contradicted one another. If, for instance, the first interpreter would say that the prisoner would be released whereas the second interpreter would say that the prisoner would remain in jail until dead, only the first interpretation would be fulfilled. Joseph urged them to make him the first interpreter of their dreams for their sakes.
  
  Verse 9
  
   בחלומי, "in my dream." Since he had dreamt the interpretation of his companion's dream, he now emphasised what he had seen in his own dream, i.e. the dream he had dreamt concerning himself.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   כי אם זכרתני, "if you would only remember me, etc." Perhaps Joseph made his favourable interpretation conditional on the chief of the butlers remembering him. The reason that Joseph placed his hopes in the chief butler was that the Jewish people have been compared to a vine, as has been pointed out in <i>Chulin</i> 92. והנה גפן לפני, "there was a vine in front of me;" Joseph reasoned that if the dream only concerned matters related to the chief butler, all that needed to be shown in the dream was that the chief butler held Pharaoh's cup in his hand. He reasoned that the additional information referred to himself in jail; when the Torah goes on to describe how that vine was blooming, Joseph took this as a sign that the vine would prosper; he took the word נצה to mean that his rise would be progressively higher. This is why when he explained the dream to the chief butler he added that it was important that the chief butler remember Joseph during better times.
  In due course Joseph was proven right, for ultimately the chief butler did recall him and this started Joseph's dramatic rise to power. The reason Joseph was punished was because he imagined that his own advancement would depend on the goodwill of the chief butler. While G'd did use the chief butler as His instrument in advancing Joseph's fortune, the chief butler did not act voluntarily. He was prompted by fear to recall his days in jail (41,12). Joseph had to be taught the lesson not to rely on man.
  
  Verse 15
  
   כי גנוב גנבת, "for I have been kidnapped, etc." The reason the word גנבתי is repeated here is that Joseph endured a double kidnapping. His body was kidnapped, and the people who bought him were fooled because they thought they had bought a slave, whereas in fact they paid for a free man. As a result the people who had paid for Joseph did not really own him. Perhaps Joseph wanted to explode the myth that no slave could ever rule nor wear royal robes in Egypt by explaining that this did not apply to him seeing he had never been a slave (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 89,7). Since Joseph realised that the chief butler's dream indicated that he, Joseph, would rise to greatness, he was insistent that the chief butler be aware that he had been born free, that his present status as a slave was due only to his having been kidnapped from his homeland. 
  Joseph added גם פה, that even while in Egypt he was innocent of the charges that had landed him in jail. He explained that the so-called evidence of sperm on the gown of his accuser had been refuted by the clergy (compare Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel on 39,14). This is why Joseph later on treated the Egyptian clergy with extreme leniency during the years of famine (47,22). Had it not been for the clergy's objectivity at the time, Joseph did not need to make any concessions to them as Pharaoh had authorised him על פיך ישק כל עמי, that Joseph's authority extended over the entire nation (41,40).
  
  Verse 16
  
   וירא שר האופים כי טוב פתר, When the chief of the bakers saw that Joseph had interpreted well, etc. Since he himself had dreamt the interpretation of the dream of the chief butler he was in a position to evaluate Joseph's interpretation. The same could not be said of the chief butler as the latter did not know whether Joseph's interpretation would prove correct until it would be fulfilled.
  The words טוב פתר could also mean that Joseph had given a favourable interpretation to the dream of the chief butler. Thus encouraged, the chief of the bakers told Joseph his own dream hoping that Joseph would have a favourable interpretation for him also. His hope was based on the prophecy of Jewish exile that the dream contained. He saw the nations of the world who are compared to vultures consume the Jewish people (compare Targum Yonathan on Genesis 15,11). Israel, on the other hand, is compared to bread as we know from Psalms 14,4: אוכלי עמי אכלו לחם, "who devour My people as they devour bread." When the chief of the bakers spoke about carrying the baskets על ראשי, on my head, he hinted that Israel would be on top of all the nations. You will note that in the description of Pharaoh's activities in the dream of the chief butler, he is not described as drinking the wine, i.e. consuming the Jewish people. He only held the wine in his hand, an expression of paying homage to its worth. Contrast this with the fact that in the dream of the chief of the bakers, Pharaoh, i.e. the vultures, are reported as consuming part of the Jewish people.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   זה פתרונו, "this is its meaning." This expression is a necessary formula if the statement of "most of the dreams go after the mouth" which we referred to earlier is to become true. Once the mind has been tuned in to a certain "wavelength," something that is facilitated by the listener having been told "this is its interpretation," the words of the interpretation will superimpose themselves on the dream, i.e. its message. We shall have more to say about this when discussing Pharaoh's dream.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ולא זכר שר המשקים את יוסף, and the chief butler did not remember Joseph, etc. This means that although he had not yet forgotten him, he did not remember him either. At the beginning he simply did not recall Joseph's name, something that Joseph had asked him to remember.
  This verse also informs us that the chief butler subsequently forgot Joseph completely, he erased the incident from his heart. The Torah indicates that once one has decided not to remember something or somebody such a memory can be blocked out completely. Unless the chief butler had made a conscious effort to blot Joseph from his mind he would have remembered the incident from time to time. Perhaps the Torah wrote וישכחהו, he forgot him, in order to hint that this was a deliberate act of forgetting. Alternatively, as long as G'd did not remember Joseph's condition there was no point in the chief butler remembering him either. It could also be that the word וישכחהו means that only he forgot Joseph whereas G'd most certainly did not forget him.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ויהי מקץ שנתים ימים, It happened at the end of two years, etc. The reason the Torah introduces this paragraph with the word ויהי, a word indicating an unhappy event, is that as of now the exile of the Jewish people begins to unravel. Even though this exile had been decreed almost two hundred years previously, it had not been decreed anywhere that this exile had to be in Egypt. Moreover, the exile turned out to be more cruel than necessary in order to satisfy G'd's decree as we know from <i>Tossaphot on Shabbat</i> 10 and as the ראב׳ד has written in a glossary on Maimonides's <i>Hilchot Teshuvah</i> chapter six. He explains that the Egyptians behaved in an abnormally cruel manner as indicated by Genesis 15,13.
  An additional reason for introducing this paragraph with the word ויהי is that G'd announced that there would be a famine and G'd always shares the pain He inflicts on His world (compare <i>Megillah</i> 10 on Exodus 14,20).
  The word ויהי also reflects the mental anguish Joseph endured during the two years after the chief butler was released from jail. Originally, it had been intended that Joseph should be released at that time (<i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 89,2). He had to endure two additional years in jail because he had put his trust in a human being. The <i>Midrash</i> there understands the words ויהי מקץ as indicating an end to darkness. קץ is also a word which describes the evil urge, i.e. קץ כל בשר. Accordingly, the Torah uses this word to allude to the reason that Joseph had to stay in jail another two years. These two years during which Joseph experienced mental anguish are counted as part of the Jewish people's exile experience because the chief butler had neglected to remember Joseph favourably. The reason that not one but two additional years were decreed was because Joseph said both כי אם זכרתני and והזכרתני. He wanted to be remembered and to be mentioned favourably.
  The wording מקץ שנתים also means that it was on the second anniversary of the day the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had their dreams. When Joseph's fortunes took a turn for the better this was to be related directly to the dreams, showing that the dream had correctly forecast what would happen.
  ופרעה חולם, and Pharaoh had a dream. Inasmuch as the Torah here begins with the introduction of a new episode, we would have expected either the word חלם, or ויחלום, he dreamt, not חולם, he was dreaming. The latter word would only be appropriate if the Torah told us about the continuation of something that we knew had begun previously. Actually, the Torah uses this present tense in this case to show that Pharaoh's dream was a direct continuation of events which had begun when the chief butler and the chief of the bakers had had their dreams. The Torah wanted to show us that even though the chief butler did not want to help Joseph get out of jail, G'd had other means at His disposal to help Joseph get out of jail. It is therefore best to imagine the last verse of the previous chapter and the first verse in this chapter as being continuous, thus: "since the chief butler did not remember Joseph and forgot him Pharaoh had a dream at the end of two years." This eventually forced the chief butler to speak up and mention Joseph as a successful interpreter of dreams.
  It is also possible that during the two years Pharaoh repeatedly kept dreaming the same dream without recalling it in the morning. Now that two years had elapsed he suddenly had a vivid recollection of this dream.
  The words "and Pharaoh was dreaming" may also have been intended to tell us that even Pharaoh personally felt during his dream that he was dreaming. The reason he felt that way was that the events that occurred during the dream were so totally unlikely. The Torah wishes to teach us a lesson here about how to determine if a dream has meaning as a message to the person who dreams it. When a person feels during his dream that he must explore the meaning of what has appeared to him in the dream, this is a clear sign that the dream cannot be dismissed as being of no consequence but that it presages something that will occur in the future.
  
  Verse 2
  
   מן היאור עולות, from the river there were rising, etc. The Torah should have written: עולות שבע פרות מן היאור, "seven cows were rising from the river." Why was the river mentioned first? Perhaps the Torah wanted us to appreciate that the existence of those cows was entirely due to the river, as if the river itself had produced them. To this end the Torah first had to mention who it was that created these cows. What the river produced became of secondary importance. Had the Torah employed the normal syntax we would have thought that the cows crossed the river and rose on the far bank but not that they were a product of the river itself. This very fact also made Pharaoh aware that it could only be a dream. In real life rivers do not produce cows. The reason he was given such a vision was to alert Joseph to the fact that two separate products emanated from the river, i.e. the years of plenty and the years of famine. The river was the key to the ability of the cows to rise or not to rise.
  
  Verse 3
  
   עולות אחריהן מן היאור, rising behind them from the river. This description corresponds to what we explained on the previous verse, that the cows' existence was due to the river. Although in this instance the river is not mentioned first, i.e. מן היאור עולות, the word אחריהן, behind them, makes it plain that both categories of cows had an identical origin.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   וייקץ פרעה והנה חלום, Pharaoh awoke and it had been a dream. It is possible that when Pharaoh dreamed the section about the ears of corn he had not noticed during the dream that he was only dreaming. He may have thought that he was awake due to the extreme clarity with which he saw that scene. After he got up from his sleep, however, he realised in retrospect that he had been dreaming. This is why the Torah had to add: "Pharaoh awoke."
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואין פותר אותם לפרעה. And no one could give a satisfactory explanation for them to Pharaoh. The reason the Torah speaks of "them" is that they were in fact two dreams. Even though the Torah insists that the dream was one, writing את חלומו, when it came to describing the interpretation the Torah speaks of אותם, meaning there was no interpretation for the two dreams.
  The Torah added the apparently unnecessary words לפרעה. The Torah therefore may use the word פרעה as the name of the kingdom, as opposed to it being his personal name. This maybe the reason that when the chief butler addressed Pharaoh, he said: "Pharaoh was angry, etc." It would be most inappropriate for the chief butler to address his king by using his personal name. It is clear therefore that it refers to the kingdom itself. The king was identified with the state. Our view has been confirmed by Rashi on Psalms 34,1. We can now understand why Pharaoh was unwilling to accept the interpretations offered to him by his advisors. Inasmuch as the dream addressed itself to Pharaoh the head of state and not Pharaoh the individual, any interpretations which did not take this fact into consideration did not satisfy him. He felt sure that the dream contained a message of importance for his people. According to one view expressed in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 89 their interpretation was not acceptable "to him;" this interpretation overlooks the fact that the word לו, "to him, does not appear in the text" [I have not found this statement in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 89, Ed.].
  
  Verse 9
  
   וידבר שר המשקים את פרעה, The chief butler said to Pharaoh saying, etc. The reason the Torah had to add the word לאמור as well as the word את פרעה instead of אל פרעה, maybe that the chief butler did not address the King personally but his advisers. He asked the king's advisers to relay his words to the king. This is the reason that his entire speech is in the third person.
  Another reason he said לאמור את חטאי "to relate my sins," maybe the following. He wanted Pharaoh to be sure not to understand his words as a complaint for having been wrongfully incarcerated, but rather stressed his own insignificance. This is why he emphasised that he had indeed committed a sin. The chief butler added the word היום, "today," to explain that the reason he had come forward now was that there was an overriding need for the information he had to impart. Had this not been the case he certainly would not have brought up his own incongruous past. The reason the chief butler spoke about his sins in the plural, i.e. את חטאי, was that he wanted to convey the impression that although he had committed only one sin, this fact weighed as heavily on him as if he had committed several sins. Perhaps he simply considered that his tardiness in coming forward was an additional sin.
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   ופותר אין אותו "and no one can interpret it." This means that there were numerous interpreters but none that he considered satisfactory to him. He did not consider the interpretations to be appropriate to his dream.
  ואני שמעתי עליך, "and I have heard concerning you, etc." Here too the word לאמור needs explaining. Besides, why did Pharaoh have to say תשמע "you will hear the dream?" Isn't it obvious that Joseph could not be expected to interpret a dream he had not been told yet?"
  Actually, the Torah described that Pharaoh was very clever, trying to commit Joseph to interpret the dream by not giving him any excuses not to do so. He told him that he had been told that Joseph himself had described himself as an interpreter of dreams. Now he either had to interpret Pharaoh's dream or admit that he was a swindler and had interpreted dreams incorrectly. When Pharaoh said to Joseph: "I have heard it said about you that you listen to a dream and interpret it," he meant that this was what Joseph himself had claimed. Pharaoh was partially correct; Joseph had indeed invited the chief butler and the chief of the bakers to "tell" him their dreams so that he could interpret them (40,7). It may be assumed that the chief butler reported the events to Pharaoh faithfully. It is also possible that Pharaoh surmised that his senior ministers would not have volunteered to tell a Hebrew slave their dreams unless they had been invited to do so. Now Joseph had to interpret Pharaoh's dream in order to justify his reputation.
  
  Verse 16
  
   ויען יוסף את פרעה לאמור, Joseph answered Pharaoh, saying, etc. The word "לאמור" here refers to Pharaoh's claim that Joseph claimed he only had to hear a dream and he already had its interpretation ready. בלעדי, "this does not depend on me." Joseph corrects the impression Pharaoh entertained about him. He explains that G'd knows the interpretations of dreams and informs certain human beings of this. The same had taken place when Joseph had told the chief butler and the chief of the bakers that the interpretations were G'd's, not his. He had invited those men to tell him their dreams in the hope that an interpretation could be found. He had never claimed an exclusive on that knowledge. This is also why he added: אלוקים יענה, "G'd may provide the answer." He added the word שלום in order to warn Pharaoh not to take offence if perchance the interpretation would not be to his liking and would presage something unpleasant. He should not accuse Joseph on the basis of "the dreams follow the interpretation chosen by the mouth" (of the interpreter). Even if he were to come up with an interpretation that forecast trouble, he was only G'd's mouthpiece, the source was G'd.
  Joseph may also have had something quite different in mind when he said: "may G'd answer the peace of Pharaoh." He emphasised that in contrast with ordinary interpreters who are able to bend the meaning of the dream according to their choice, he, Joseph, could not do so. He could only relate the objective meaning of what Pharaoh had seen in his dream. [<i>Berachot</i> 56 lists a variety of dreams and how the interpretation which seemed to contradict the impression left on the dreamer came true, thus proving that much depends on the person who interprets the dream. Ed.]
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   את האלוקים עושה הראה לפרעה. "G'd has informed Pharaoh of what He is about to do." <i>Berachot</i> 55 mentions that there are three matters concerning which G'd Himself makes public annoucements; abundance of crops, famine, and a good leader. The Torah informs us that G'd had informed Pharaoh in his dream concerning all these three matters. There would be a period of abundance of agricultural products; there would come a famine; Pharaoh was given a chance to appoint a leader who could head off the impact of the famine. Even though Joseph did not mention who that person should be, the fact that G'd had withheld the interpretation of the dream from all other potential candidates for such leadership and had brought Joseph to Pharaoh's attention through the chief butler who had told him what happened to him, made Joseph a natural choice for this appointment. When the Torah says: הגיד לפרעה, this means that G'd gave Pharaoh the means to make the necessary provisions. Joseph himself spelled this out for Pharaoh in verse 33.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   יהיו שבע שני הרעב, "there will be seven years of famine." The reason that Joseph did not describe the seven years of plenty as such in verse twenty six was simply that even during the present period food was plentiful in Egypt. The great plenty that would characterise the next seven years was not such a contrast to the existing conditions. The only thing that was different was that the adjective גדול could be applied to those years of שבע (verse 29). Joseph stressed only what would be radically different from the present.
  Inasmuch as the increased harvests during the coming seven years were merely designed to offset the lack of harvests during the seven years following, Joseph did not describe those years at once. The major message of the dream was the eventual famine.
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
   הנה שבע שנים באות שבע גדול, "There are seven years coming of great plenty, etc." Joseph stressed that these plentiful harvests would be experienced "in the whole land of Egypt," and again mentioned בארץ מצרים, in the land of Egypt in the following verse, whereas he could have simply that בארץ, "on earth." He wanted to make it clear that whereas the plenty would be found only in the land of Egypt, the subsequent famine would be world wide. This is why he said וכלה הרעב את הארץ, "the famine will destroy the earth," when he described the effect of the famine. We find confirmation of all this (41,56) where the Torah describes the famine as extending all over the earth. When describing the effect of the years of plenty, however, the Torah merely speaks of "the seven years of plenty in the land of Egypt came to an end (41,53)." This shows clearly that the abundant harvests occurred only in Egypt itself. Were it not so the words "in the land of Egypt" would be misleading. Joseph realised all this by the appearance of the cows. When the lean cows were described as so exceptionally thin and poorly, this could not have been so if the whole earth had experienced abundance in the years preceding the famine. Egypt could then have imported food which the other countries had accumulated during the years of plenty. It was therefore clear to Joseph that the famine would be world wide whereas the plentiful years would be restricted to the land of Egypt.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
   ועל השנות, "concerning the repetition, etc." Joseph alluded to two things. 1) the actual repetition; 2) the minor changes in the second half of the dream, i.e. the fact that the second part did not feature cows. Had both parts of the dream featured cows, Pharaoh might have thought that the impression made upon him by the first dream had caused him to lie down a second time. The reason for the way in which Pharaoh had dreamt the dream was that G'd wanted to show him that all this would begin to happen almost immediately. Pharaoh was not to think that the very change of venue, i.e. ears of corn instead of cows, indicated that the dream was meaningless as a vision of the future.
  וממהר האלוקים לעשותו, "and G'd will carry this out promptly." Joseph deduced this from the two parts of the dream both being dreamt during the same night instead of during consecutive nights.
  
  Verse 33
  
   ועתה ירא פרעה איש נבון וחכם, "Now let Pharaoh see to an understanding and wise man, etc." The reason that Joseph made himself the king's adviser when he had only been asked to interpret the dream was that Joseph wanted to tell Pharaoh why G'd had revealed all the information of what He was about to do. The only reason for this was to encourage Pharaoh to appoint the appropriate officials to deal with the future. Furthermore, the manner in which the lean cows had devoured the fat cows without leaving a trace was clear evidence that during the lean years survival would depend on the produce of the years of plenty. Joseph therefore told Pharaoh to make the appropriate provisions.
  איש נבון וחכם. "An understanding and wise man." The man should know how to store agricultural produce so that it would not rot. The word חכם, wise, referred to someone who was an engineer, could deal with numbers, etc. The reason Joseph first mentioned the qualification נבון was because it was most important to preserve the harvests in good condition.
  
  Verse 34
  
   יעשה פרעה פקידים, "let Pharaoh appoint trustworthy officials, etc." Joseph realised that the reason the dream was needed was to ensure that the Egyptians would make prudent use of the years of plenty. Had they not been made aware that the years of plenty would be followed by years of famine, they would become careless with the storage of food after the first year of abundance. Not only would they not build silos, they might even decide to plant less in order to maintain the prices. As a result they would not bother to plough. When they would see another year of bumper crops their negligent attitude would only be further reinforced. This is why G'd explained in Pharaoh's dream that the surplus during the coming seven years was only meant to compensate in advance for the absence of crops during the following seven years. This is why Joseph felt compelled to advise Pharaoh. He wanted Pharaoh to involve as many people as possible in the task of storing and preserving food.
  When Joseph spoke about וחמש, he meant that Pharaoh should imbue these officials with a sense of urgency when they would assume their tasks. It could also mean that Pharaoh should impose a harvest tax of twenty percent which would serve as the national grain reserve. This was an innovation, seeing that normally the farmer only has to tithe ten percent of his grain harvest to the king (compare Samuel I 8,15). Pharaoh would do the people a kindness with this tax; he would not touch the grain during the years of plenty, thus not competing with the farmers who were marketing their own grain. I shall explain the procedure in my commentary on the verses following.
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
   לשבע שני הרעב, "for the seven years of famine." First of all Egypt would provide a reserve for itself; as a secondary consideration they would serve as the pool other countries i.e. הארץ could draw on. Joseph added the consideration that the rest of the earth should not starve to death.
  
  Verse 37
  
  
  
  Verse 38
  
   הנמצא כזה איש, "Can we find a man such as this one etc.?" The reason that Pharaoh did not say הנמצא איש אשר "can we find a man who, etc.," is because he would then have created the impression that there were people with Holy Spirit only that they did not possess it in the degree that Joseph did. Pharaoh wanted to make it plain that he did not think anyone else possessed the Holy Spirit.
  
  Verse 39
  
   אין נבון, "There is no one as understanding, etc." "There is no one else as qualified to carry out the measures suggested as you yourself, seeing that you have been granted the Holy Spirit."
  
  Verse 40
  
  
  
  Verse 41
  
  
  
  Verse 42
  
  
  
  Verse 43
  
   "אברך, ונתון אותו על כל ארץ מצרים "On your knees!" and he has been appointed in charge of the whole land of Egypt. These two separate announcements were proclaimed in advance of the parade in which Joseph rode in a state coach. He was granted royalty-like status.
  
  Verse 44
  
   אני פרעה, ובלעדיך לא ירים איש את ידו "I am Pharaoh; without your permission no one shall even raise his hand, etc." "The kingdom belongs to me." We already mentioned that the name "Pharaoh" referred to the kingdom. Apart from this, no one was to raise his hand without Joseph's permission; the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of ובלעדיך indicates that Joseph's exalted position included this extraordinary authority.
  
  Verse 45
  
  
  
  Verse 46
  
   ויעבור בכל ארץ מצרים, he traversed the whole land of Egypt. This was in order to familiarise himself with all the fields, to gather information about where to establish silos, etc.
  
  Verse 47
  
  
  
  Verse 48
  
   ויקבץ את כל אכל, He collected all the food, etc. According to the commentary on verse 34 that the word וחמש meant setting aside a tax of 20% the words "all the food" refer to the king's share. According to the alternative commentary that the word וחמש means lending a sense of urgency to the measures to be taken, the verse may be explained literally; Joseph collected the entire excess of that year's harvest over average years' harvests. He bought up all the excess. The farmers offered it for sale seeing they had no use for it.
  
  Verse 49
  
   עד כי חדל לספור, until he stopped counting. They stopped counting the accumulated amount of agricultural surplus because the people delivering the surplus for storage had not bothered to count it. Even though the Torah speaks about one fifth of the harvest being taxed, the farmers merely divided the harvest into five approximately equal piles, and delivered one pile to Joseph's silos. They did not bother to count the total amount they had harvested, however. Joseph's officials did not count, not having been told the amount the farmers claimed to have delivered.
  
  Verse 50
  
   וליוסף יולד שני בנים, Two sons were born to Joseph, etc. The Torah includes this with what has been recorded before about Joseph's remarkable achievements during these seven years. The names Joseph gave his sons are proof that he was well pleased that G'd had let him forget his previous problems and had also made him fruitful. The word "fruitful" includes both having children, amassing wealth and being honoured.
  בטרם תבוא שנת הרעב, before the year of famine arrived. <i>Taanit</i> 11 derives from here that it is forbidden to maintain marital relations during a famine. We can conclude from the fact that the Talmud uses the example of Joseph [the words "before the arrival of the year of famine"] to deduce this ruling, that it is applicable only to people who have not yet fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful. Joseph had already fulfilled that commandment, ergo he could not have marital relations during the famine. Had he not had children yet, the fact that there was a famine would not have represented a halachic hindrance to his having normal marital relations during that period.
  Keeping this in mind, the question raised by <i>Tossaphot</i> in the Talmud about how Yocheved could have been born during the descent of Jacob's family to Egypt, seeing the famine was in full swing at the time, becomes moot. <i>Tossaphot</i> is at pains to explain that the rule was not a legal one but only a pious practice. This appears unacceptable seeing the whole rule is based on scripture. Besides, the Torah testifies to Levi's piety in Deut. 33,8, suggesting that of all the sons of Jacob he was the most pious. Even though the statement in Deuteronomy refers to the descendants of Levi, i.e. the branches, it is most certainly applicable also to the root, i.e. to Levi himself. Inasmuch as Levi did not yet have a daughter at the time, he was at liberty (compare <i>Yevamot</i> 61 and <i>Even Ha-Ezer</i> 1) to indulge in normal conjugal relations with his wife.
  Moreover, the prohibition of conjugal relations applies only when the Jewish people experience the pain of a famine. Famine amongst the Gentiles has no bearing on Jewish family life. Inasmuch as Jacob was known to have a sufficient supply of food (compare <i>Taanit</i> 10) and he only sent his sons to Egypt for appearances' sake (so as not to arouse the envy of his neighbours) as we know from Rashi on Genesis 42,1 למה תתראו, Levi had acted one hundred percent within accepted Jewish norms. While it is true that there is a statement in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 91, that Jacob's family did not even have any barley left, that statement refers to the second year of the famine. During the first year they certainly had enough grain left and Levi had every right to sleep with his wife. They did not have to refrain from conjugal relations on account of Joseph. Joseph was only an individual and the rule applies only to when a community is in economic straits. It is possible that Joseph refrained from conjugal relations with his wife during the famine because he knew that his family in the land of Canaan was suffering from the famine (the first year before they came to him).
  
  Verse 51
  
  
  
  Verse 52
  
  
  
  Verse 53
  
  
  
  Verse 54
  
   ותחילנה …כאשר אמר יוסף. The famine began just as Joseph had said. It was necessary for the Torah to repeat "as Joseph had said;" Joseph's interpretation of Pharaoh's dream was proven true especially after the seven years of plenty were followed by the famine. Had the famine not commenced at that time, people would have said that the seven years of plenty had nothing to do with Joseph's forecast.
  Another reason for the Torah telling us the events in this manner maybe that the Torah emphasised a different aspect of Joseph's forecast. After seven years of abundant surplus it is most unusual to feel the onset of a famine immediately. The Torah therefore tells us "as Joseph had said," i.e. that the years of plenty would be completely forgotten, that people would eat but not be satisfied during the years of famine. This lack of satisfaction with the food one ate became evident already at the beginning of the first year of the famine.
  
  Verse 55
  
  
  
  Verse 56
  
   ויפתח יוסף את כל אשר בהם, Joseph opened all (the granaries) in which grain was stored. The reason that Joseph immediately opened all the silos instead of only the ones which were immediately needed was to see which ones contained grain that was capable of indefinite storage and which needed to be sold first in order that it should not deteriorate.
  Another reason why Joseph opened all the silos simultaneously was that he had arranged for the silos to be close to the various population centres. Had he opened only one silo at a time the people would have had to travel long distances to receive their rations. As it was, Joseph made sure the people knew that there was a supply of food close by. This made the famine a great deal easier to bear. Our rabbis have described this psychological fact by coining the phrase אינו דומה מי שיש לו פס בסלו למי שאין לו. "One cannot compare a person who has bread in his basket to someone whose basket is empty."
  Joseph may also have wanted the population to see for themselves the huge grain reserves he had accumulated so that they would not become concerned that his supply would be inadequate. In spite of all these confidence building measures taken by Joseph the Torah testifies that the famine grew severe almost at once.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   ונחיה ולא נמות. "so that we shall live and not die." The reason that Jacob repeated "so that we shall not die," was that negligence would be a capital sin for which an accounting would have to be given even in the Hereafter. On the other hand, if they made appropriate efforts to secure a supply of food, their lives in this world as well as in the Hereafter would be assured.
  The verse might also be read thus: ונחיה, "so that we may live comfortably," ולא נמות "or at least not die." It would all depend on the amount they were able to buy in Egypt.
  
  Verse 3
  
   אחי יוסף, Joseph's brothers. The reason they are described as Joseph's brothers instead of as Jacob's sons is that at that time they were determined to perform the brotherly act of redeeming him out of slavery.
  עשרה, ten. During famine, more than during any other time, people are extremely miserly and malevolent; they are apt to commit robbery and even murder to secure a piece of bread. This is why all the brothers went down to Egypt. If attacked, they could help one another. They also wanted to take Benjamin with them, but their father demurred. This is why the Torah makes a point of saying: "he did not send Benjamin." Had it not been for Jacob's concern that an accident would befall Benjamin he would have sent him along.
  Besides, it appears that Joseph was selling a fixed amount of grain to each purchaser. He had two objectives in mind, an obvious one and a secret one. The obvious objective was to prevent speculating in grain if someone were to purchase an amount larger than for his own needs. Joseph's method was of benefit both to him and to the purchasers. By refusing to sell large quantities at one time, Joseph could take advantage of any rise in price when it occurred. The customers benefited by what he did since Joseph did not raise prices unreasonably. Joseph's secret objective was to force each of the brothers to make a trip to Egypt to provision himself as he only sold rations for one family at a time.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויבאו בני ישראל…כי היה רעב, The children of Israel arrived…for there was a famine in the land of Canaan. The fact that there was a famine had to be repeated. This is to explain why the Torah first wrote בתוך הבאים. You should not ask where these הבאים have been mentioned previously so that the Torah could describe the brothers as "being amongst them." Once we are told that there was a famine in Canaan it becomes obvious that many other people from Canaan must have been going to Egypt to buy grain there.
  The Torah also wanted to indicate that the brothers devised a clever scheme to disguise themselves "among the other travellers." They created the impression that they were in Egypt for the same purpose as all the other travellers from Canaan, whereas in reality they were searching for Joseph. In other words: the brothers' disguise was to appear as shoppers for grain. This ought to have been an easy way to camouflage their real purpose because of the famine in the land of Canaan.
  
  Verse 6
  
   הוא השליט על הארץ הוא המשביר לכל עם הארץ, he was the ruler of the land; he was the one who sold to all the people of the land. Even though Joseph was the ruler, and it is not usual for the ruler to personally conduct the grain sales, especially when this involved so much effort, he did so himself in order to encounter his brothers eventually.
  
  Verse 7
  
   וירא יוסף את אחיו, Joseph saw his brothers, etc. When he saw them he felt as their brother and displayed friendliness towards them. It was only from the brothers' side that he appeared as a stranger. The Torah emphasises that he acted like this because the brothers did not recognise him. Joseph could speak to them sternly without the brothers taking offence as brothers. After all, he was a stranger to them. Joseph's whole purpose was to devise a scheme whereby also Benjamin would come to Egypt. He also wanted to test them to see how they felt now about what had transpired between them many years ago. He then became aware that they were sorry for what they had done to him and considered themselves as having committed a sin against him.
  
  Verse 8
  
   ויכר יוסף את אחיו. Joseph recognised his brothers. Joseph had no trouble recognising his brothers since they all wore beards when he left them. Although it is normal for acquaintances who have not seen each other for a long time to recognise one another, i.e. that as soon as one person recognises the second person, he in turn suddenly is able to recognise the first person also, this was not the case here. Normally the heart communicates secrets as we know from Proverbs 27,19 "man's heart will be reflected by his counterpart;" the Torah reveals that in this instance this phenomenon did not work. The reason was that Joseph's exalted position stifled any glimmer of recognition there might have been on the part of the brothers.
  
  Verse 9
  
   ויזכור יוסף את החלומות, Joseph remembered the dreams, etc. Inasmuch as he had really dreamt what he claimed to have dreamt and they had accused him of telling lies because he wanted to become superior to them, he now intended to let them atone for their sin by in turn accusing them of something they had not been guilty of. He accused them of coming to spy.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמרו אליו לא אדוני, They said to him: "No sir, etc." They said; 1) There is no reason to suspect us of spying even if we had come without a specific purpose. [I believe the author derives this from the tone-sign <i>tipcha</i> under the word באו; we would have expected the tone-sign <i>mercha</i> Ed.] 2) "In fact your servants have come to purchase food." They presented the purpose of their presence to buy food as the most natural explanantion for their journey to Egypt.
  
  Verse 11
  
   כלנו בני איש אחד, "we are all the sons of one man." There is no reason to suspect us of being spies. Spies are always from different branches of a community. Moses sent out spies from all the twelve tribes; even the two spies Joshua despatched were not sons of the same man. It is in the nature of things that spies should be representative of the people on whose behalf they spy. It would not make sense to appoint ten members of the same family as spies. They added: כנים אנחנו, "we are honest men," meaning that after we have identified ourselves it should be obvious that we are honest. Spies would never identify themselves voluntarily.
  לא היו עבריך מרגלים, "your servants have never been spies." They chose the past tense to indicate that they had not even been spies before they had been identified. Naturally, now, that they were known, they could not be spies even if they wanted to.
  
  Verse 12
  
   ויאמר אליהם לא. He said to them: "NO!" "Your words are not convincing since your actions contradict what you have said. You have demonstrated by your actions that you were searching for weak points in the land. I know this because you have each entered the country by a different border point (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 91,6). The only reason for this is that you wanted to spy.
  
  Verse 13
  
   ויאמרו שנים עשר עבדיך אחים, They said: "Your servants are twelve brothers, etc." They explained that they had split up in order to locate the missing brother. They added that the youngest brother remained at home with his father. They volunteered this information as it was something that could be proved and would help establish their credibility.
  
  Verse 14
  
   הוא אשר דברתי, "This is precisely what I have said (you came to spy)." Joseph meant: "I do not retract a single word from what I have said before." The word לאמור here means "I continue to say what I have said all along."
  It is also possible that Joseph meant: "When I accused you of spying this is exactly what I had in mind. You came to look for something you had lost. You yourselves have only confirmed it. The <i>Midrash</i> there describes the discussion about what the brothers were going to do if they located their brother and the owner would refuse to release him The word לאמור is an allusion to what the brothers had said they would do in such an event.
  
  Verse 15
  
   בזאת תבחנו, "You will be tested as follows:" Joseph expressed readiness to put their words to the test by the yardstick they themselves had provided, although this was not sufficient proof for their claim that they had come to Egypt to obtain the release of their brother.
  Alternatively, Joseph meant that if their younger brother would confirm that all his brothers had come to Egypt to locate and free their lost brother, he, Joseph, would believe all they had said.
  
  Verse 16
  
   שלחו מכם אחד, "Despatch one of you, etc." They did not do this as they were concerned that their father would worry needlessly about the fate of all the remaining brothers. 
  Furthermore, they were convinced that if only one brother would arrive back in the land of Canaan their father would never allow Benjamin to travel. We only need to look at the strenuous efforts Yehudah had to make to obtain permission for Benjamin to travel even though all the brothers except Shimon had returned home. If all the brothers were in jail in Egypt there would be no chance at all of Jacob allowing the last of the brothers to risk his life also.
  It may also be that the brothers did not even consider being separated. The only reason that they eventually agreed to leave Shimon behind was that Joseph had made this a test of how they could establish their credibility. I shall explain this in greater detail in my commentary on verse 19.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   אם כנים אתם, "If you are really honest, etc." This verse may be understood with the help of our sages in <i>Yerushalmi Terumot</i> chapter 8. We read there as follows: "If a group of people travel together and they encounter Gentiles who demand that one of them be handed over to be killed, the alternative being that they would all be killed, it is forbidden to hand over anyone belonging to the group. The whole group must face death rather than make the decision whom to hand over. If, however, the person to be handed over had been named by the killers, the others may save their lives by handing over that person." When Joseph said: "if you are honest, etc.," he meant that the brothers knew full well if they were telling the truth; אחיכם אחד, your one brother will be imprisoned. There was no death threat to the brothers, hence they were allowed to choose whom to hand over for incarceration. Joseph implied that if, on the other hand, they were dishonest, i.e. spies, (which made all of them guilty of the death penalty) then, of course, they would not be allowed to hand over one of their number who had not been specified. Handing over their brother would then be tantamount to killing him. This would also be illegal as they would all have to be prepared to die. The brothers were agreeable, thus indicating that they had spoken truthfully all along. We may presume that the brothers themselves elected that Shimon be imprisoned; Joseph did not single him out.
  It is also possible that the brothers had agreed between themselves to leave one of their number behind as a guarantee but before they could agree on who it should be Joseph decided to keep Shimon as he considered Shimon and Levi together as very dangerous.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויאמנו דבריכם. "And your words will be verified." This means that if the brothers did not agree it would prove their guilt and that that was the reason they did not dare leave one brother behind. Moreover, it would be forbidden to hand over an unnamed individual if there was a likelihood he was guilty of the death penalty. Another possible meaning of these words is simply that by bringing Benjamin down to Egypt Joseph would make sure their families would not die of starvation. The brothers referred to this when they told their father in verse 34 that Joseph had offered ואת הארץ תסחרו, "you may travel freely in the land."
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויאמרו….אבל אשמים אנחנו, They said:…"but we are guilty (of something else)." The word אבל, "but" does not appear to have any meaning here. Onkelos translates it as "truthfully;" I do not agree with this translation either. There was no need for the brothers to say: "truthfully," as if they had so far not spoken truthfully. Besides, why did the brothers have to add: "when we saw his anguish, etc,? All they had to say was that they were guilty of having sold their brother into slavery. This was the essence of their guilt.
  Perhaps they still considered that Joseph had been guilty of the death penalty and if they had only sold him they had actually performed an act of kindness. As to the grief they had caused their father at the time, they were certain that at the present time G'd would not heap further grief upon their father as a result of their having sold Joseph at that time. The only thing they did feel guilty of was not displaying a sense of compassion when they saw Joseph's anguish when he pleaded for his life and they proved cruel. It is not becoming for people who consider themselves as righteous to conduct themselves in such a heartless manner.
  It is also possible that when the brothers saw that they were all being jailed, they began to think which one of them was the cause of the disaster that had befallen them. The common denominator up to that point had been the fact that they had sold Joseph. Since Reuben had been innocent of that crime, not having been present when both the suggestion and the implementation of selling Joseph had been made, they had to search for something that both they and Reuben were guilty of. They concluded therefore that it must have been their heartlessness. Reuben too had not responded to Joseph's pleas as he had suggested that the brothers throw him in the pit instead of killing him outright. No doubt Joseph had pleaded with all the brothers not to do that to him. In fact, slow death in the pit was a more frightening prospect to Joseph than a relatively swift death. The words על כן באה אלינו are an acknowledgement that they all, Reuben included, were guilty of a lack of compassion. Presumably, the brothers must have said these things as soon as they were being led to prison, whereas the Torah reports them as if they had been said after they had all been in prison for three days. Why does the Torah make it appear as if the brothers had only come to this realisation after three days in prison? Presumably, the Torah did not want to diminish the impact Joseph's words and deeds are to make upon the reader. Any diversion would detract us from the clever way Joseph set about creating the scenario he had planned.
  Besides, if we were to assume that the brothers acknowledged their guilt only after they had themselves agreed that Shimon would remain in prison as the hostage, why did it take them so long to acknowledge that Shimon had been more guilty than they?
  Perhaps up to the time when Joseph had said that one of their number had to remain in prison as hostage, they had not related their present experience to the sale of Joseph at all. They had thought that inasmuch as man is a free agent that whatever had happened to them was in retribution for freely committed wrongs. They had not considered what they had done to Joseph as a wrong at all. When Joseph pointedly said: "one of your brothers has to stay here," they suddenly realised that their situation was connected to what they had done to another one of their brothers. The words ויעשו כן then mean that they singled out Shimon. They suddenly realised that the painful experience they now underwent of leaving one of their brothers with a stranger was tit for tat for having abandoned Joseph to a fate with strangers at the time of the sale. I have frequently alluded to the fact that guilt somehow creates situations in which the retribution experienced reminds one of the nature of one's sin. David has mentioned this in Psalms 62,13: כי אתה תשלם לאיש כמעשהו, "for You repay each man according to his deeds." The brothers saying אבל may therefore be understood thus: "If our present experience had been even slightly different we would not have realised why we are now being punished; but the very fact that our punishment corresponds to the nature of our sin convinces us of our guilt. Now we are absolutely certain that we are guilty of lack of compassion."
  The very fact that it was Shimon who was being detained convinced them; after all, according to <i>Tanchuma Parshat Vayechi,</i> it had been Shimon who had made the suggestion to kill Joseph; he and Levi were the subject of 37,19 "one said to his brother." Shimon the elder said to his brother Levi the younger. They had been a team already when they wiped out the men in the city of Shechem.
  
  Verse 22
  
   ויען ראובן אתם. Reuben answered them. How can the term "he answered" be justified in this context? Who had asked him anything? The repeated use of the word לאמור and the words וגם דמו also require justification.
  Reuben reacted to the brothers having said that they were being punished for not having displayed compassion when Joseph pleaded with them, something in which they had included him also. Reuben retorted that he did not consider himself included in that sin as he had warned: "do not commit a sin against the boy!" Even though at that time he had only warned them not to lay a hand upon Joseph and to throw him into the pit, his intention had been as if he had said: "do not commit a sin." The Torah itself exonerated Reuben independently by revealing Reuben's intention to restore Joseph to his father.
  You could ask what reason Reuben gave for the brothers to believe that this had been his intention, when on the contrary, selling Joseph at the time was more merciful than to let him die a slow death in the pit and therefore Reuben had no reason to complain? 
  The fact is that Reuben's principal complaint against the brothers was that he told them not to lay a hand upon Joseph. "Selling him into slavery was certainly laying a hand upon him!" Reuben's argument was certainly valid; moreover, by selling Joseph to other human beings the brothers had made his fate dependent on people with a free will who could act arbitrarily. Reuben's intention had been not to allow Joseph's fate to be in the hands of people who could make arbitrary decisions. Selling Joseph did not reduce the danger to Joseph's life or wellbeing any more than throwing him into the pit. We only need to read the <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 86,3 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph to commit acts of sodomy with him. G'd Himself made Potiphar impotent to protect Joseph against such abuse. When Reuben had advised throwing Joseph into the pit he felt that if Joseph was not guilty nothing would happen to him. He had been most concerned to remove Joseph from the hands of people who could arbitrarily decide his fate. That is why he accused them ולא שמעתם, "you did not listen." He meant: "you did not understand my intention. 
  When you think that you are being punished only for your cruelty and not for the deed itself, you are quite wrong. Also his blood is being demanded, i.e. you are also guilty of either killing him or putting his life in jeopardy." According to Reuben this was why they now had to face the charge of spying, a charge that was punishable by death. Reuben resented being considered a partner of that part of the brothers' crime. He was not willing to share their responsibility seeing he had not taken part in the sale. As of that moment Reuben only agreed to remain with them, but not to share their guilt. At the end of the examination it would become clear who was legally guilty and who was innocent. Our interpretation of the words אבל אשמים אנחנו as referring to the brothers waking up to their guilt only after Shimon alone was being held prisoner is completely compatible with everything else we have written.
  
  Verse 23
  
   והם לא ידעו…כי המליץ בינותם. They did not realise this….for the interpreter was between them. The brothers who had observed the interpreter all the time, assumed that Joseph did not understand Hebrew. 
  Alternatively, they could not speak freely being afraid that the interpreter would overhear them.
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויקה מאתם את שמעון, He took Shimon from them. The brothers had singled out Shimon, or Shimon had volunteered to be the hostage as I have explained on verse 19.
  
  Verse 25
  
   ולהשיב כספיהם, and to give back their money. The reason that this verse does not employ the syntax that is commensurate with the first half, i.e. וימלאו, or למלאות…ולהשיב, could be that the person who filled the sacks was unaware of the fact that someone else had returned the money. The person who put back the money was Joseph's most trusted servant. It is also possible that Joseph ordered that the filling of the brothers' sacks with grain was to be done publicly, whereas the return of their money was to be accomplished secretly after the sacks had already been filled with grain. The reason Joseph did not give both instructions simultaneously was so as not to arouse the envy of the person entrusted with filling the sacks with grain.
  
  Verse 26
  
   וישאו…וילכו, They loaded…and went on their way. The Torah mentions this to show that they did not linger after their sacks had been filled. Unless the Torah wanted to make this point, the whole verse is unnecessary. We would all have assumed that the brothers carried their supplies with them.
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
  
  
  Verse 34
  
  
  
  Verse 35
  
  
  
  Verse 36
  
  
  
  Verse 37
  
   לאמור את שני בני תמית, saying: "you may kill my two sons, etc." The reason the Torah inserts the expression לאמור at this point is that Reuben was not willing to utter such a sentence outright, seeing that even a conditional curse by a wise man may have fatal consequences (<i>Makkot</i> 11). He phrased his offer in such a way that the meaning was unmistakable though he did not actually speak about killing his sons.
  The reason he said ואת שני is that he referred to two of his four sons. 
  The word תמית is to be understood as "you may punish." We find a similar punishment being inflicetd upon Aaron, when G'd killed two of his four sons as an expression of His anger at Aaron's share in the sin of the golden calf. Compare ובאהרון התאנף Deut. 9,20. <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 7,1 makes this point. Reuben made it clear that he did not want to risk losing more than two of his sons if he failed to honour his guarantee of Benjamin's safe return. His reason was that if he risked more he would nullify the merit of having fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful. He therefore risked only something that would not impair his standing in the Hereafter. Yehudah understood Reuben very well; this is why he undertook to risk even his life in the Hereafter in order to secure Jacob's consent to take Benjamin to Egypt and to secure their lives in the present world first (compare 43,9).
  תנה אותו על ידי, "Put him in my charge, etc." Perhaps Reuben's knowledge that he had no share in the guilt of selling Joseph gave him confidence that both he and Joseph would return unharmed. He alluded to the fact that only he was able to have such confidence seeing the other brothers bore the guilt of having sold Joseph, by twice emphasising "entrust him to my hands," and "I will return him,"
  
  Verse 38
  
   כי אחיו מת והוא לבדו נשאר, "for his brother is dead, and he alone remains, etc. Jacob felt the need to explain how he evaluated the certain loss of Shimon who was presently a hostage in an Egyptian jail- if Benjamin were not to go to Egypt, compared to the possible loss of Benjamin if the latter were to go to Egypt. Jacob explained that if he were to lose Benjamin he would not have a son of Rachel left at all. If he were to lose Shimon, however, he would at least have other sons of Leah left to him. Besides, Jacob described an accident which would happen to Benjamin as practically certain; this is why he spoke about וקרהו אסון in the past tense instead of יקראהו אסון, something in the future. He added the words בדרך אשר תלכו בו, "on the journey you will undertake." He hinted that what happened to Joseph happened to him although he travelled on a route which he was familiar with and had travelled many times without encountering anything dangerous. Jacob was afraid that something similar could happen to the brothers even on a route they considered safe.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
   כאשר כלו לאכול, when they had finished eating, etc. Perhaps the Torah mentions this fact to indicate that they had just enough grain left to last them for a journey to and from Egypt. The reason the Torah describes the supply as if it had already come to an end is that now there was a need to bring more grain. It could also be that the Torah considered the food consumed by the brothers while journeying back and forth as part of the supply that Jacob had stored in anticipation of the famine as we have learned in <i>Taanit</i> 10 based on the words למה תתראו in 42,1. This is the reason why the Torah emphasises that what had been eaten up was the "grain they had brought from Egypt" as distinct from their total store.
  
  Verse 3
  
   ויאמר אליו יהודה לאמור, Yehudah said to him, saying, etc. The word לאמור here seems to mean that Yehudah made a variety of suggestions to Jacob all of which were in the nature of a reply to Jacob's arguments against sending Benjamin to Egypt. The most important of these was the reference to the Egyptian ruler's warning that the brothers would not be able to see him (and buy grain) unless they had their younger brother with them. The Torah implies that the brothers did not resort to another reply, namely that they would take Benjamin with them regardless of whether Jacob approved or not. The word לאמור then means they waited for Jacob's word, i.e. permission.
  Alternatively, one could read the words העד…לאמור together. It would mean that Joseph had not only warned them but had done so in the presence of witnesses in order to make his threat more potent. Yehudah may also have challenged Jacob to give him another answer if he had one. After all they also had to consider the very real danger to Shimon who was being held as a hostage in a spy case. How did Jacob suggest that the brothers clear themselves of the suspicion of being spies?
  לא תראו פני "you will not see me." Yehudah thereby denied Jacob's claims that he had adequate proofs to convince any king or royal adviser that the brothers could not be considered spies, and that this would suffice to neutralise Joseph's accusation against them. Yehudah told his father that Joseph had made it plain that the brothers would not even be able to present their case unless Benjamin appeared at their side. How then could they buy grain if they could not even secure an audience with the ruler who was in charge of the grain sales? Yehudah repeated the words העד העיד to convince his father that Benjamin's presence in Egypt was the key to any success of their trip.
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ונחיה ולא נמות, "so that we may live and not die." In order that we may live a life without anguish, or so that we may at least not die even if we have to live with anguish.
  Alternatively, the words ולא נמות were intended to tell his father that he could not claim that by not travelling to Egypt they would only find themselves deprived of life's comforts; rather, it would positively cause the death of their families. They would not even live a life of deprivations.
  Alternatively, Yehudah meant that if they would not now travel to Egypt with Benjamin they would eventually be called to answer for this in the Hereafter and would be guilty of not having made every effort to stay alive in this world.
  גם אנחנו, גם אתה, גם טפנו, "both we, and you, and our children." Yehudah referred to all the people whose lives depended on this trip in addition to Benjamin. If they did not travel with Benjamin, all of them including Benjamin were liable to die of starvation. All of this because of the possible danger to Benjamin in Egypt. It simply was not fair that they all should be condemned to death because of what might happen to Benjamin.
  The reason that Yehudah included Jacob's own survival last when he said גם אתה, was in line with the ruling that preservation of one's own life takes precedence even over saving one's father's life ( <i>Yoreh Dey-ah</i> 251). Or, the brothers used the exegetical rule of לא זו אף זו, "not only this but even this," i.e. the most important factor of the argument is presented last. They accorded their father the compliment of presenting preservation of his life as even more important than preservation of their own lives. 
  According to this principle they mentioned their children last, as those represented the future and as such deserved the highest priority in their considerations (compare David rating Absalom's life as more important than his own even while Absalom sought to kill his father (Samuel II 19,1).
  
  Verse 9
  
   אנכי אערבנו…וחטאתי לך כל הימים "I will remain liable to you forever." The reason Yehudah said "forever" is explained by our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 91,10. The Hereafter is called "כל הימים," as it lasts forever.
  Rav Yehudah in <i>Makkot</i> 11 teaches the rule that if someone is excommunicated, even conditionally, [i.e. he has been warned he would be put in ban if he did not conform to certain rules of conduct, Ed.] the conditional ban is not considered as having been lifted unless a collegium of laymen or judges has released such a person from such a conditional excommunication. The Talmud cites Yehudah's statement "if I do not bring him back to you" as proof. We have a tradition quoted by Rabbi Shemuel bar Nachmeni in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the reason Yehudah and Reuben are linked in Moses' blessing in Deuteronomy 33,6 "may Reuben live and not die" followed by the statement "וזאת ליהודה," is that during all the forty years the Jewish people travelled through the desert with the coffin of Yehudah, the bones in his coffin still kept turning over. If you were to say that perhaps Yehudah's fault had been that he had not spelled out what would happen if he fulfilled his guarantee as did the tribe of Gad and Reuben in Numbers 32,29-30 [something known as תנאי כפול in halachah, Ed.], the fact remains that he did deliver on his promise, so why should he be guilty of anything? 
  
  
  
  
  
  According to <i>Tossaphot</i> the whole rule that one needs a release from a conditional excommunication applies only when the person who makes the undertaking is able to carry it out, and no part of the execution depends on someone else's goodwill. In the case of Yehudah, he had no control over what Joseph would or would not do. As a result the conditional excommunication that Yehudah was prepared to endure never became effective legally.
  It is no more than reasonable that when someone makes an undertaking to endure excommunication in the event that he will not fulfil his undertaking (such as that of Yehudah, who was unable to know if he would be able to make good on it), he would require that such an undertaking be cancelled by the appropriate religious authority. It does not matter whether one phrased such an undertaking as a תנאי כפול, spelling out the alternative, or not. The very fact that one ties one's fate to something over which one has no control is frivolous. Yehudah's bones rattling in his coffin is quite plausible then, seeing he did not have his undertaking voided by his father or some other religious authority.
  [I have condensed the author's treatment of this problem considerably. A reader who will peruse it in the original will see why. Ed.]
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   שלום לכם, אל תיראו, "all is well with you, do not fear." Joseph's adjutant volunteered this statement without having consulted with his master first. According to <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> on this verse Joseph's adjutant was his son Menashe, and we have an example here of the power of the son exceeding that of his father. Menashe was certain that his father would concur with his remarks. The reason Menashe added: "do not fear" was because he could see fear expressed on the brothers' faces. The Torah confirms this (verse 18) when it wrote: וייראו האנשים, "The men were afraid."
  נתן לכם מטמון. "He has given you a treasure." He meant that some person has hidden his money in your sacks and G'd has given it to you seeing the original owners have given up hope of retrieving it, and Gentiles are not required to make public announcements when they find something valuable. He led Shimon out to them in order to lift their spirits by proving his positive attitude towards them.
  
  Verse 24
  
   ויבא האיש את האנשים ביתה יוסף. The man (adjutant) brought the men into Joseph's home. Why has the Torah repeated the fact that the brothers were brought to the home of Joseph? We have already been told about this in verse 18? Apparently they were interrupted before they entered Joseph's home when they stopped in front of the house. The reason was that the brothers first wanted to explain that they had found their money in their bags when they had arrived back in Canaan. They wanted to know why they were being brought to Joseph's home. They were not sure whether this bode them good or ill. After Shimon had been released they realised that they were to be made welcome. This is why the Torah had to repeat the fact that they were brought to Joseph's palace, i.e. as guests not as prisoners.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויביאו לו את המנחה, They brought him the gift, etc. They had prepared this gift in a room which was especially set aside for such gifts, whereas they themselves proceeded to a different room, a room exclusively Joseph's. The Torah tells us that the brothers had entered a room in which Joseph was present in order to present their gift.
  
  Verse 27
  
   וישאל להם לשלום. He asked them how they were, etc. Joseph first enquired how the brothers were before he enquired after their father's wellbeing. One first greets the people present before enquiring after those who are not present.
  השלום אביכם הזקן, is your aged father well? How could Joseph enquire after the wellbeing of the brothers' father before he had even ascertained that Jacob was still alive as he did at the end of the verse? If the enquiry after their father's wellbeing meant if he was still alive , why did Joseph ask about this twice? The brothers' reply is difficult also. They too first answered that their father was well and then added that he was alive. What news did they add by confirming that their father was still alive?
  Perhaps Joseph wanted to know if Jacob's wellbeing had been affected by his aging or whether he was as spry as ever. Perhaps this is why he added the word עודנו, i.e. is he as well as when you came here the last time? This is why Joseph was clever in asking first about their father's welfare before asking if he was still alive. The question then was not whether Jacob was actually alive, but whether he was as alive as the last time. An aging father could have been described as being well even if his mental and physical alertness had declined somewhat with age.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  אמתחת הקטון מלא את אמתחות האנשים אכל…ואת גביעי תשים בפי. "Fill up the pouches of these men with food and place my goblet in the pouch of the youngest." We need to understand Joseph's motivations in all this. We can hardly assume that he wanted to cause his brothers anguish after he had invited them to his palace and had wined and dined them. Perhaps Joseph had three separate motivations. 1) He wanted that they should be able to atone for having stolen him at the time. By accusing them of theft they would feel the embarassment a thief feels when he has been found out. Once they experienced this feeling they could atone for the sale of Joseph. 2) He wanted to find out if the brothers would risk their lives for the freedom of Benjamin. This would enable him to gauge the degree of brotherliness they felt towards Benjamin. This in turn would enable Joseph to forgive them their sin against him. 3) He sent them a signal that there was somebody in the viceroy's palace who was thoroughly familiar with their past history. He had already made them curious about this on the previous day when he had seated them according to their respective ages at lunch (43,33).
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   הלא זה אשר ישחה אדוני בו "Is this not (the goblet) which my master drinks out of?" There was no need to mention that the speaker was the man who had deposited the goblet in the pouch of Benjamin. Neither was there a need to inform the reader that he spoke about the goblet. He merely wanted to explain why the theft of this goblet had been discovered immediately. The reason was that Joseph drank from that goblet all the time. The adjutant added that his master used this goblet to divine the future. It was clear then that the reason the brothers stole that goblet was to deprive Joseph of the knowledge the goblet could provide. The adjutant had no reason to suspect anyone else of the theft of this goblet. He repeated the word נחש ינחש both in the past and in the future to support his suspicion by reminding the brothers that they had already observed his master use the goblet to reveal the past. He had divined at that time already that the brothers would steal the goblet.
  הרעוחם אשר עשיתם "What you have done is bad!" Why did the adjutant add these words after having already accused the brothers of repaying good with evil? Is there anything worse than repaying good with evil?
  Perhaps the adjutant wanted to demolish the good image of themselves the brothers had created when they brought back the money they had found in their bags after arriving home in Canaan. After all, the adjutant was the very person whom they had told that they had found that money and had brought it back with them. As a result, logic should convince him that the brothers had already established their honesty beyond doubt. In fact the brothers were going to use that argument presently. The words: "you have done something bad," were designed to demolish their argument even before they could present it. Henceforth the adjutant would not allow his suspicions against them to be influenced by invoking their past actions. The brothers having returned the money had been motivated by something other than their honesty.
  The adjutant may even have hinted that the fact that the brothers had brought back the money had been a clever ruse to establish their credibility as honest and upright people, all the while providing a smokescreen for the theft of other more precious objects. The goblet was merely one such object.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
   למה ידבר אדוני כדברים האלה, "Sir, why do you say such things?" The brothers not only objected to what the adjutant had accused them of directly but even to what he had implied, i.e. כדברים האלה, "words similar to these!" Whereas up to that point they were going to use the argument that they had proven their honesty by returning the money, they now had to add something more. This is why they introduced their argument with the words הן כסף, וגו. They agreed that a thief might indeed act in the manner suggested by the adjutant, i.e. establish his credentials by a spurious act such as claiming to return money which he had never stolen in the first place. However, no person who had legally acquired what he had found and had discovered this only after having travelled a long distance as had the brothers, would go to so much trouble merely in order to establish such a point. Besides, they had long ago disposed of the actual money they had discovered. It was totally unbecoming to suspect them of having returned the money for any ulterior motive. Only meticulously honest people would do what they had done. As to the adjutant's argument that the goblet was so valuable because of its properties connected with sorcery, this was meaningless to them. It might be of value to the adjutant's master, but as far as they were concerned the goblet was a mere silver trinket, not worth more than hundreds like it. After all, they were not sorcerers; what good would possession of this goblet be to them?
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
   אשר ימצא אתו מעבדיך ומת, "whichever of your servants it will be found with shall die, etc." Gentiles are subject to the death penalty for theft (<i>Sanhedrin</i> 54); the brothers offered themselves as slaves in addition
  
  Verse 10
  
   ויאמר גם עתה בדבריכם כן הוא, He said: "also now I accept your words, etc." What does the word גם contribute to the legal aspects of what was taking place? Besides, what did the adjutant mean when he said: "it is as your words?" It appears that he did not accept their words; the brothers had decreed death on the thief whereas the adjutant had decreed only slavery!
  Perhaps the adjutant replied to the argument that they had proven their honesty by returning money they had found and were legally entitled to keep. The adjutant admitted that those who had previously returned to Canaan had indeed proven that they should not be accused of theft. Neither Shimon nor Benjamin had proven this, however.. Shimon had been in jail and Benjamin had not been in Egypt previously. The adjutant therefore reduced his suspicion from a collective one to one addressed to either Shimon or Benjamin. As to the death penalty, he was going to keep the thief as a slave until such time as it would please his master to execute him.
  Alternatively, the adjutant argued that the brothers were quite wrong legally. The death penalty is administered only to thieves who have been convicted by the testimony of witnesses who have observed the thief commit the crime. In this instance even the discovery of the stolen object would only be circumstantial evidence. The thief would therefore be guilty by reason of the local legal system, not by G'd's decree.
  ואתם תהיו נקיים, "whereas [the rest of you] will be innocent." You retain your presumption of innocence; the fact that the goblet will be found amongst one of you does not make you an accessory unless there was evidence that you were aware of the theft and had condoned it.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
   הלא ידעתם כי נחש ינחש איש אשר כמוני, "Did you not know that a man such as I is able to divine things?" With this comment Joseph wanted to answer the brothers' accusation that he had framed them, since how could he have known that they had committed the theft unless they had themselves confessed to it? Joseph headed off such an accusation by saying that someone like himself practiced sorcery.
  The reason the Torah has Joseph describe the sorcery as being performed not "by myself," but by someone "in a high position such as I" was, that not just he but anyone who occupied high office was presumed to be able to divine things like that. The brothers should have taken this into consideration before stealing anything.
  
  Verse 16
  
   מה נאמר מה נדבר, "What can we say, how can we speak?" The expression אמירה refers to mild talk, whereas the expression דבור refers to aggressive, tough talk. When the brothers added: מה נצתדק, "how can we justify ourselves?," they referred to their defence in a court of law. They considered that all these trumped up charges were retribution by G'd. The time apparently had come to pay for their guilt. Inasmuch as they were all guilty vis-a-vis G'd, they offered themselves as slaves.
  It is also possible that when the brothers spoke of "how can we justify ourselves?," they referred to the disastrous discovery of the goblet in Benjamin's pouch. This fact had destroyed their collective defence that they had already proven their honesty by having returned the money they had found in their bags upon their return to Canaan; alas, Benjamin had not been with them at the time.
  גם אנחנו, both we, etc. The word גם may be understood as הגם, i.e. "even though the goblet has not been found in our pouches." Inasmuch as the sin the brothers had been guilty of did not include Benjamin at all, seeing he had been far too young to participate in the sale of Joseph, they said: "as well as the one in whose pouch the goblet has been found;" they attributed Benjamin's having been found with the goblet in his pouch as a misfortune that had befallen Benjamin only because he had travelled with sinners such as they. We find a similar use of two apparently not only unrelated but completely contradictory phenomena when the Talmud in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 93 compares "two dried out trees and one moist one," saying that when the dry trees go up in flames even the green tree is burnt up together with them.
  Alternatively, the brothers shifted gears by no longer speaking about the person in whose pouch the goblet was found as being guilty of death, but גם אנחנו "we too" i.e. Benjamin was to be subject to the same penalty they had declared themselves as guilty of in verse 9, namely slavery. They justified this by citing the fact that there were no witnesses to the actual theft. Benjamin was able to plead that he did not know who placed the goblet in his pouch.
  
  Verse 17
  
   חלילה לי מעשות זאת, "It would be a disgrace if I were to do such a thing." Joseph meant that even if it were true that G'd was using this opportunity to punish the brothers for some other sin, he was neither authorised nor competent to administer such retribution. He was only authorised to deal with guilt which was obvious to him. He was entitled to judge the person in whose possession the goblet had been found. The brothers were free to go home, however. Joseph thought that by allowing them all to go and by keeping only Benjamin as a slave he had appeased Yehudah. He felt certain that Yehudah had accepted the verdict. How was he to know that Yehudah would immediately begin to lambast him as is evident in the following verses. According to our view Yehudah reasoned with Joseph as long as he felt that they were all being punished for something they had done in the past. When he realised that innocent Benjamin was being singled out for punishment whereas they, the guilty ones, were allowed to go free, he realised that he did not confront divine judgment in the person of Joseph, but that Joseph was a capricious ruler who had framed Benjamin for reasons of his own. There was therefore no cause for the brothers to submit to what they had previously considered as divine retribution.
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויגש אליו יהודה, Yehudah approached him (Joseph), etc. Why does the Torah have to mention that "Yehudah approached," seeing he had been standing close to Joseph during the previous part of the discussion? The word אליו also does not seem necessary. Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 93,6 explained that the word ויגש refers to Yehudah girding himself for war. This is a homiletical commentary. We are concerned with the plain meaning of the verse. Why did Yehudah say בי אדוני, "please my lord" at this point? If these words were intended to put Joseph into a more conciliatory frame of mind he should have said these words when he said ואל יחר לאדוני, "let my lord not become angry." Furthermore, what need was there for the words "in the ears of my lord?" We also need to understand what Yehudah meant when he said: "you are just like Pharaoh?"
  It is an accepted fact amongst kings that the most highly placed ministers and advisers are seated in front of the king, and when someone comes to present a request to the king he does not present his case while standing between the advisers and the king, but must stand outside the circle of advisers. The circle of advisers separates the petitioner from the king who presides on the throne. Up until this point Yehudah had stood outside the circle. The word ויגש indicates that at this point Yehudah moved forward to within the area separating the advisers from the king himself. He did so in order that the advisers should not be able to hear what he was about to tell Joseph.
  The <i>Maharam Elshakar</i> in his responsum number 93 comments on the difference between the word אליו and the word לו, both of which mean "to him."
  Yehudah entreated the ruler (Joseph) to speak with him privately; this is the meaning of the words: "please my lord let your servant speak in the hearing of my lord." He also pleaded with Joseph not to become angry immediately; this is why he added: "and let not my lord become angry." He implied that though it is customary for great men to become angry at each other, there is no cause for a highly placed person such as Joseph to waste his energy by becoming angry at a lowly servant such as himself. This was the reason Yehudah emphasised that he was Joseph's servant. The reason that Yehudah said: "for you are just like Pharaoh" is explained in <i>A vodah Zarah</i> 10 in a story involving a certain Ketiah bar Shalum. A certain Roman Emperor disliked the Jews and consulted his advisers what he should do about them. He asked whether if one has a painful fibroid in one's foot one should cut it off and be at ease or whether one should allow it to remain and suffer pain? The advice of all the other ministers was that the Emperor should have the fibroid removed. Ketiah- also one of the officers of the Emperor- said to him: "first of all you cannot get rid of all the Jews, quoting a verse in Zachariah 2,10. Secondly, if you do this your empire will henceforth be known as one that kills its own subjects." The king replied that Ketiah's advice was sound but that there was a law which stipulated that anyone who obstructed the wishes of the emperor must be thrown into the furnace. He had Ketiah executed. As soon as Ketiah was burned to death a heavenly voice was heard proclaiming that Ketiah had acquired his life in the Hereafter in the time it had taken for him to suggest the Jews be saved. Yehudah was careful not to create a situation which would make his words boomerang on himself as had the words of Ketiah. This is why he wanted no one to hear what he had to say to Joseph.
  The words: "for you are just like Pharaoh" may also be understood in a sense similar to Proverbs 21,1: "the king's heart is in the Lord's hands." This means that the king is privileged to receive divine assistance before pronouncing judgment. If Yehudah were to speak publicly, his advisers would pressure Joseph not to follow his heart's inclination so that ultimately he would not decide according to the will of heaven. By speaking in this way Yehudah indicated to Joseph that he considered him a fair ruler, and that his closest advisers were the ones who were in danger of committing a travesty of justice.
  A homiletical approach to the words ויגש אליו may be similar to what Solomon tells us in Proverbs 27,19: "as face to face is reflected in water, so man's heart will be reflected by his counter-part." Yehudah endeavoured to turn Joseph's heart towards himself. Yehudah had to make a special effort in this regard as there is a natural dislike between idol worhippers and the servants of the one and only G'd as we know from Psalms 125,3. In this instance, keeping in mind his immediate concern, Yehudah had to overcome his natural dislike for people who worshipped idols.
  The word may simply reflect the fact that now that Yehudah was convinced that what had happened was at the initiative of Joseph and not that of G'd, he "approached" the whole subject differently.
  Still another possibility is that the word indicates that Yehudah had Joseph's interest at heart. He presented himself as far more useful to Joseph as a slave than his youngest brother Benjamin.
  The word אליו may have been inserted in order to deflect an accusation against Yehudah who had previously offered that all the brothers including Benjamin would be slaves to Joseph whereas now he wanted Benjamin released. How could he dare reverse himself? The Torah therefore explains that the word אליו refers to Joseph who wanted to keep only Benjamin.
  Yehudah said: "please my lord" for three reasons. 1) He had to explain to Joseph why he alone kept speaking. This was especially so seeing Joseph had already demonstrated that he knew that Reuben was the oldest brother when he had seated the brothers according to their age (43,33). Joseph was liable to interrupt him at any moment demanding to know why Reuben was not acting as the spokesman. Yehudah therefore wanted to explain this before Joseph could become angry. He explained that Benjamin's detention concerned him most because of the guarantee he had given to his father. 2) He used a stratagem designed to free Benjamin by claiming that he himself had stolen the goblet but had hidden it in Benjamin's pouch, deflecting any suspicion from himself in the event that the goblet would be found. It was only proper then that he and not Benjamin should pay the penalty. Now the situation was that Benjamin denied being a thief whereas Yehudah confessed. 3) The word בי may be an allusion by the Torah to the present time when Joseph was the ruler; ultimately, however, authority would pass to Yehudah, i.e. the kingdom of David who was a descendant of Yehudah.
  By using these words, the Torah may also have alluded to the fact that had it not been for Yehudah's advice to sell Joseph, the latter would not now be in a position of authority at all; the words בי אדוני then would have to be translated as: "it is only through me that you are my lord."
  
  Verse 19
  
   אדוני שאל…היש לכם אב או אח, "My lord asked….'do you have a father (alive) or a brother?'" Yehudah wanted to remind Joseph that they had brought Benjamin to Egypt only because of Joseph's insistence. If he were not to be seen with them upon their return their father would die from anguish. He reminded Joseph that when someone is asked questions about family details and the questioner is a king, it is impossible not to answer truthfully. In addition, Joseph had made the appearance of Benjamin in Egypt a test of the brothers' denial to be spies.
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
   ותאמר אל עבדיך הורדוהו, "you instructed your servants "bring him down!" Yehudah reminded Joseph that he had not accepted their assurances or examined their truthfulness by any other available means except his insistence to bring Benjamin to Egypt. When they told their father about this condition their father did not agree to let Benjamin travel until they had exhausted their food supply.
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
   אך טרוף טורף, "he must surely have been rippped apart." By quoting his father as using the diminutive אך, Yehudah may have hinted that their father had assumed that Joseph had been only injured by wild animals and that he was neither a slave nor a prisoner. When he had added: "and I have not seen him again until now," he indicated that Joseph was still alive but that Jacob had not seen him again since that time.
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
  
  
  Verse 32
  
  
  
  Verse 33
  
   ישב נא עבדך, "may your servant stay, etc." Although Yehudah had undertaken to bring back Benjamin personally, (43,9) he now relied on the dictum that a messenger appointed by a person can discharge that person's obligation as well as the person who has appointed the messenger (<i>Berachot</i> 34).
  
  Verse 34
  
   איך אעלה אל אבי והנער איננו אתי, "for how could I go up and face my father when the lad is not with me?" Yehudah meant that even if he were not guilty of failing to honour his guarantee, how could he look at the anguish of his father. Perhaps he meant to explain why they had all offered themselves as slaves to Joseph already previously. They could not bear to return to Canaan and face their father without Benjamin.
  Yehudah may also have used the argument used by the woman from Tekoah in Samuel II 14,2-20. This woman had been employed by Yoav to bring about a reconciliation between David and his son Absalom. Absalom had been exiled for killing his half-brother Amnon after the latter had raped his sister Tamar. David was very unhappy about all this, and Yoav aimed to resolve the problem. The woman from Tekoah presented a ficticious case and asked for David's judgment. The judgment involved bringing to justice the remaining son of that woman who reportedly had slain her other son. Yehudah argued that once he would return to his father without Benjamin having explained that he was quite innocent in the matter, his father, having already lost his favourite son, would certainly not bereave himself a second time by consigning Yehudah to exile; this is the reason Yehudah presented a second argument, i.e. that his father would die from heartbreak.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   ולא יכול יוסף להתאפק, Joseph could no longer contain himself, etc. He could not wait until all those present would leave of their own accord, but he called out loudly that everyone other than the brothers be removed from his presence immediately. The Torah adds the words ולא עמד איש אתו, that no one remained with him, to underline the speed with which his servants left his presence.
  בהתודע יוסף, when Joseph revealed himself. The letter ב before התודע means "on account of" (his revealing himself). In order for the brothers to accept Joseph's claim that he was their brother, the matter of his sale had to be aired. Joseph wanted to spare his brothers the embarassment of becoming known as people who had sold their brother, hence he had to clear everyone out of the room. When the Torah mentions immediately afterwards that Joseph wept loudly when he revealed himself and all of Egypt heard about it, this is a clear indication that Joseph was not concerned that he could be overheard. He was only concerned that his brothers' part in all this should not be overheard.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו גשו נא אלי, Joseph said to his brothers: "please come closer to me." The reason he asked them to come close was so that when he would mention the fact that they had sold him he could whisper. Only after they had come closer did he say: "I am your brother Joseph whom you sold, etc." Joseph was careful to say all this in a whisper although he had sent everybody outside. He was familiar with the proverb that walls have ears.
  אני יוסף אחיכם, "I am your brother Joseph." The reason he repeated the fact that he was Joseph a second time was that he felt there were two reasons why the brothers had not yet responded to him. 1) They were afraid of him and could not answer him just as a thief cannot answer when he is found out suddenly. 2) They simply did not believe him when he claimed to be Joseph. He said: "I am Joseph your brother, does my father still live, etc.?" in order to dispel their fear of him. He stressed the word your brother in that sentence. In the next sentence, after he had formed the impression that they did not believe him, he stressed the words your brother whom you have sold, indicating that even at the time they had sold him he had not ceased feeling like a brother towards them. He added the words "whom you have sold to Egypt" as proof that it was he, Joseph, for not even a prophet could have knowledge of that fact except he himself (compare <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> 142).
  
  Verse 5
  
   ועתה אל תעצבו, "and now do not be sad, etc." We must first understand what Joseph meant when he said: "and now;" what did he want to exclude? Why did he tell the brothers neither to be sad nor to be angry? Besides, psychologically speaking, the feeling of sadness is the opposite of the feeling of anger. A sad person is humble whereas an angry person is arrogant, selfrighteous. Why would Joseph ask the brothers to be neither?
  We must assume that Joseph meant that he was well aware that at present the brothers were saddened by the fact that they had sold him as they had indicated at the time they said to each other: "but we are guilty, etc." We also know from <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 91,3 that the brothers were prepared to pay a very substantial ransom to buy Joseph's freedom when they found him in Egypt. Taking this into consideration Joseph told the brothers: "do not be sad now seeing that you have located the subject of your search." He hinted that he was aware that they felt positive towards him and had been sincerely saddened by what they had done to him.
  He added that they should not become angry at themselves for having set in motion all the developments which had led to this reunion. He supported his argument by saying that actually what the brothers had done had resulted in their now being able to rely on him to see them through the famine, and not become impoverished, etc.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
   ועתה, לא אתם שלחתם אותי הנה, "Now, you did not send me here, etc." Joseph explained why he told the brothers not to worry that he still hated them for what they had done to him and how cruelly they had treated him. He implied that it was true that at the time he certainly had not understood why they could have harboured so much resentment against him; he had had reason to hate them for that; ועתה, now, things had become clear.
  Having reflected on all that had transpired since the brothers had sold him, Joseph had realised that it had been part of an overall design orchestrated by G'd. The brothers had merely been G'd's agents, though they did not realise it at the time. It would not be appropriate for him to continue to feel hatred towards them.
  Perhaps this consideration enabled the brothers to face their father who would now have to become aware that it was the brothers who had caused him to mourn the loss of Joseph all these years. In view of the outcome, the brothers did not even need to feel shame when they faced their father. It is quite unlikely that once Jacob had become aware that Joseph was the ruler in Egypt that he should not have made every effort to find out how Joseph came to be in Egypt and what happened to cause his striped coat to become blood-drenched at the time. The only argument that would reconcile Jacob and his sons with what had happened was that it had become evident that G'd's plan had been executed step by step. There was no point in second-guessing why and how G'd had brought all this about. Our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 86,1 have already said that Jacob had originally been meant to descend to Egypt in chains, but that the sale of Joseph enabled him to arrive in Egypt in style, i.e. riding in Pharaoh's chariot.
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  ויבך עליהם, He cried over them, etc. After the brothers observed Joseph crying over them they were able to respond to him and they said to him whatever was on their minds. After all, everything that Joseph had said to them up to that point might have been designed only to alleviate the brothers' feeling ashamed of their conduct. It was only after he kissed them and wept over the years they had been separate that the brothers recognised Joseph's truly good character and that he was a true brother that they were able to speak to him naturally. Whereas Joseph's original burst of weeping could have been attributed to his reunion with Benjamin, the latest burst of weeping definitely concerned his reunion with all of them.
  
  Verse 16
  
   והקול נשמע בית פרעה, the report reached Pharaoh's palace, etc. Inasmuch as the Torah (verse 2) had already reported Joseph as crying out aloud, the Torah now had to report that the reason for Joseph's strange behaviour had become clear. Pharaoh and his servants now realised that a great reunion had taken place.
  וייטב בעיני פרעה ובעיני עבדיו, and both Pharaoh and his servants were pleased about this. Whereas up until now they had felt embarassed that a former slave ruled over them, the brothers' arrival made it clear that Joseph had never been a slave.
  
  Verse 17
  
   זאת עשו, "Do this, etc." Whereas you do not require permission for most of what you are about to do, you do need Pharaoh's permission to take the wagons for transporting your families. When the Torah describes Pharaoh as telling Joseph to present the wagons to be used as something Pharaoh had "commanded, etc." this is only a figure of speech for a courteous invitation by Pharaoh that the brothers' families should avail themselves of these facilities on their journey to Egypt.
  The command עשו may also express something stronger than permission; Pharaoh had realised that what had been happening was Divinely decreed, that over and beyond the fact that Pharaoh was pleased to assist the migration of Jacob's family, he saw in all this a decree by G'd.
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   ולאביו שלח כזאת, To his father he sent the following: The reason the Torah added the word זאת instead of merely enumerating the list of provisions and gifts which appear in this verse is to tell us that what is described as מטוב מצרים, Egypt's best [produce], something which the Torah had not identified, referred to the quality of the various items listed. The verse therefore says: "Of all the items listed forthwith Joseph sent his father of the best quality available in Egypt." Our sages in <i>Megillah</i> 16 describe the words מטוב מצרים as referring to wine which had been aged for a long time. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 94,2 identifies טוב מצרים as some kind of special white beans, a medication with anti-depression properties. If that were so, the verse should have written בזאת, instead of זאת and has to be understood as if the word עשרה חמורים had a conjunctive letter ו at the beginning.
  ועשר אתונות נושאות בר, as well as ten she-asses carrying grain and bread, etc. The reason the Torah repeats the word לאביו, for his father, a second time is to tell us that it was not a separate consignment. The Torah meant that apart from the load carried by these she-asses, i.e. the grain and the bread, there were special delicacies for Jacob only. Joseph instructed his brothers that these items were meant only for his father.
  
  Verse 24
  
   וישלח את אחיו, He sent off his brothers, etc. This means that Joseph sent everybody home, including Benjamin. Benjamin's testimony would convince Jacob most of all; this is why Joseph had already stressed previously (45,12) that Benjamin was a witness that he was Joseph. Now that Yehudah had fulfilled the conditions of his guarantee it is clear that if his bones rattled in his coffin during the years Israel travelled in the desert this was only because he failed to have his vow annulled, as pointed out in <i>Megillah</i> 11.
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
   ויגדו לו לאמור. They told him, saying, etc.. The word ויגדו indicates the difficulty the brothers had telling their father what had transpired in Egypt. What was good news for their father involved a confession of the evil the brothers had perpetrated and how they had caused their father unnecessary anguish. It is also possible that the use of the word ויגדו [especially the missing letter י ] alluded to the ensuing exile of the Jewish people and the hard times their descendants would experience there eventually. We do indeed find that Jacob was afraid to travel to Egypt until reassured by G'd in a dream (46,3).
  The reason the Torah uses the expression לאמור is to tell us that the brothers were astute in the manner they conveyed the good news to their father. It is well known that sudden good news may shock a person and cause cardiac arrest. The brothers therefore led up to what they had to say in stages; first they mentioned that they were the bearers of good tidings, ויגדו לו לאמור; after Jacob had been thus prepared they told him that Joseph was still alive. At that point this news was not liable to endanger Jacob's life. 
  It is also possible that we should read the verse thus: ויגדו לו לאמר עוד, "they told him saying: furthermore," etc. They said: "Not only have we all returned safely but we still have more to say." Once they had conditioned Jacob's mind they informed him that Joseph was still alive. Having said this they added a little later that Joseph had achieved a position of great stature in Egypt.
  I have been troubled by the fact that Joseph did not communicate with his father during all these years. Did he not realise that his father must have been in terrible anguish concerning what had happened to him? While it is true that as long as Joseph was a slave he may not have been able to communicate with his father, nonetheless during the nine years since his appointment as viceroy surely he could have done so? Why did he not at least write his father a letter to temper his father's pain and to stop him from mourning him? Not only this, why did he not at least send a message to his father during the year of famine when there was a constant stream of travellers between Egypt and Canaan? Who had given Joseph permission not to tell his father that he was alive after the brothers arrived in Egypt the first time?
  Whereas we can understand why Jacob had to suffer twenty two years in order that G'd's plan could be executed, this is all well and good from G'd's point of view. Since Joseph was not aware of G'd's plans, who gave him the right to let his father suffer longer than necessary?
  We have good reason to believe that Joseph had perfectly good reasons for preferring not to communicate with his father until he did. No doubt he would have liked to communicate with his father ever since he came to Egypt until he was appointed as viceroy.
  Even assuming that an opportunity had presented itself prior to his sudden and dramatic promotion, he was afraid that as soon as his brothers would hear about his whereabouts they would try and murder him so that he could not testify against them. The brothers would therefore have a vested interest in disposing of Joseph if they heard that he was still alive somewhere.
  It is also possible that as soon as Jacob would receive such a communication he would curse the brothers for what they had done to Joseph; as a result the brothers would die and he would indirectly be responsible for their deaths.
  Once Joseph had been released from prison and become viceroy he no longer had to fear for his life if a letter from him would be intercepted or the brothers would attempt to kill him to prevent their father from learning the truth. On the other hand, he considered a statement by our sages in <i>Baba Metzia</i> 59 that it is preferable to be burned in a fiery oven than to cause a fellow human being to go pale with shame. Joseph was concerned for his brothers' dignity as human beings, something they would lose if their father would find out at that point what the brothers had done to his favourite child. He decided therefore that the anguish of one man, i.e. his father, was preferable to discrediting his brothers.
  Besides, Joseph may well have felt that the brothers still wanted him out of this world and would confer how to bring this about. When <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 91 described the brothers as taking a great deal of money to Egypt in order to ransom Joseph, this merely means that they hoped to succeed in order to demonstrate that they were sorry for what they had done. Only then would they no longer feel threatened by him and plan to dispose of him. 
  Joseph, of course, was unaware that the brothers had undergone a change of heart until he had personally tested them in the presence of Benjamin. Only after that experience did Joseph realise that he was no longer in danger from his brothers. Until all the pieces of the puzzle came together at the time Joseph decided to reveal himself to his brothers it would have been premature to risk identifying himself. Until Joseph was able to put the brothers at ease by attributing all that had happened to G'd's planning, he would have been risking his life by revealing himself. You will recall that Yehudah had resorted to a confrontational stance when he found out that Joseph had included innocent Reuben in his treatment of the brothers. <i>Tanchuma</i> item 5 on our <i>Parshah</i> even reports the brothers as planning to kill Joseph [not in his capacity as Joseph, of course, but in his capacity of a ruler who had framed Benjamin, Ed.], and that it had taken an angel to save Joseph from their hands. Considering all the foregoing Joseph can hardly be faulted for allowing events to run their course without informing his father prematurely.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   אל תירא…כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם "Do not be afraid…for I will make you into a great nation there." What precisely was Jacob afraid of when he set out to go to Egypt? If it was the fear of ushering in exile for his family, how did G'd's assurance alleviate that fear? If, on the other hand, G'd meant to console him that there would be no exile there, history teaches that Jacob's family became enslaved and suffered persecution and hard labour in Egypt! Besides, how did the announcement that Jacob would become a great nation while in Egypt console him over what he was afraid of? Why could he not develop into a great nation in any other place but Egypt? Furthermore, why did G'd add the letter ל and said לגוי גדול אשימך, instead of merely בי גוי גדול אשימך?
  Clearly, the Torah refers to the prediction/decree at the covenant between the pieces when G'd told Abraham (Genesis 15,13) that exile had already been decreed. No doubt Abraham had informed his son and grandson of this decree. When Jacob saw that food was for sale in Egypt, he immediately associated this with the fact that his descendants would endure exile there. He was afraid that this exile would commence the moment he arrived in Egypt.. He was also worried that he would be buried there, in a land which was totally impure. G'd therefore appeared to him in a dream describing Himself as the G'd of his father; He meant that just as the exile had not commenced during Isaac's life and Isaac had not experienced persecution, so it would not commence during Jacob's lifetime either. Concerning Jacob's intention to return to the land of Canaan as soon as the famine was over, G'd told Jacob that he would develop into a great nation in Egypt; in other words, G'd had a good reason why Jacob would not return to the land of Canaan soon. G'd alluded to this by saying כי לגוי גדול אשימך שם, i.e. in order for this to be accomplished you have to stay there for some considerable time.
  In order to understand the whole concept I must preface by quoting a tradition we have in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues (recorded in <i>Likutey Torah, Miketz).</i> The purpose of the various exiles is to isolate segments of sanctity which are scattered Within various branches of the קליפה, the "peel" surrounding the kernel which is all sanctity. Inasmuch as Egypt was full of abominations [manifestations of such a קליפה, Ed.] and impurity had its "headquarters" in that country, it was no more than natural that many such segments of sanctity were scattered throughout that country. In fact the amounts of such scattered segments of sanctity are usually proportionate to the amount of impurity and defilement that abound in a certain area or environment. The phenomenon we have just described originated as soon as Adam sinned. It has been Israel's task to "rescue" all those splinters of sanctity and to make them part of a whole. Our sages (quoted in <i>Likutey Torah</i> on <i>Parshat Vayeshev)</i> have said that the nation that left Egypt and experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai was previously captive within this קליפה called Egypt. It is to such a nation that Moses said in Deut. 4,8: "who is a great nation possessing such righteous statutes, etc." G'd told Jacob that the purpose of Israel spending time in exile in Egypt was to enable it to develop into this great nation. "The great nation" [all the fragments of sanctity, Ed.] at that time was "lost" amongst all the Egyptians and it had to be isolated and then led out from there. Unless Jacob descended to Egypt at this time, there would be no hope of accomplishing this. It was because Jacob represented sanctity in a powerful and concentrated form that he could become the "magnet" which would attract the various scattered segments of sanctity that still abounded in Egypt in an ineffectual form. This is the meaning of the statement in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 79,1 that Jacob did not depart from this world until he had seen 600.000 descendants. These 600.000 were the ones who endured persecution there and were ultimately refined in what our sages are fond of calling the "iron crucible" which welded the Jewish people into a nation and enabled them to leave Egypt after having been refined. Jacob understood then that is was necessary for him to settle in Egypt for the rest of his life and he was no longer filled with dismay at that prospect, especially so since G'd assured him that he personally, would not experience oppression and persecution. As to Jacob's final concern, that he would not want to be buried amidst the impurities that Egypt was full of, G'd assured him that He would see to it that Jacob would be buried in the land of Israel.
  
  Verse 4
  
   אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה, "I personally will go down to Egypt with you, etc." This verse teaches that the Divine Presence (שכינה) descended to Egypt with Jacob; this seems difficult in view of the statement by <i>Mechilta</i> on Exodus 9,29 that Moses had to go out of town to offer up a prayer due to the preponderance of impurity within the town.
  Perhaps what G'd had in mind when He told Jacob that He would descend with him to Egypt was that whenever he or the Jewish people would experience problems, G'd would share their suffering (compare Psalms 91,15 "I am with him in distress"). אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה, the word מצרימה, may be derived from the word מצר, "a narrow, confined area." G'd hinted that whenever Jacob (the Jewish people) would find themselves hemmed in, He would share their misery. G'd demonstrated this to Moses when He appeared to him out of the burning bush, certainly not a dwelling fit for G'd. G'd's message was that as long as the Jewish people are in distress in Egypt, He Himself would reside in such locations as the lowly thornbush. The שכינה never descended to the part of Egypt which was full of impurity. There are numerous instances (such as in <i>Megillah</i> 29) where the descent of the שכינה to Egypt is understood to mean that G'd shared the exile experience of the Jewish people with them. When Israel (Jacob) is described as prostrating himself at the head of the bed in Genesis 47,31, <i>Tanchuma</i> understands this as Jacob bowing down to the presence of the שכינה. [Evidently the presence of the שכינה was felt in Egypt then. Ed.] Moreover, <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 94,9 understands that the שכינה made up the number 70 in the list of descendants coming down to Egypt with Jacob, seeing that you will find only 69 names listed there. All of this proves that the שכינה did descend to Egypt (though not to areas infested with impurity).
  You have to realise that the manifestation of G'd's Presence (שכינה) occurs in a variety of forms and degrees. We are taught in <i>Avot</i> 3,6 that when ten people sit together and are preoccupied with Torah, the שכינה rests amongst them. The rabbis in the <i>Mishnah</i> there are at pains to prove from scriptural quotations that even a single individual studying Torah is accompanied by the שכינה. On the other hand, we find that the שכינה did not descend from heaven to take up residence amongst the Jewish people until the latter had established the Tabernacle (compare Exodus 40,35) and had made numerous preparations to qualify for hosting the שכינה. How is it possible that no such preparations appear to be required for an individual who studies Torah and qualifies for G'd's Presence as stated in <i>Avot?</i> Clearly, when one speaks of the presence of the שכינה one must distinguish between different levels of such a Divine Presence. The amount of enlightenment one experiences depends on the level of Divine Presence one is privileged to experience. If we were to describe such different levels of a Divine Presence, we could categorise the revelation at Mount Sinai as the highest level of such a Divine Presence. The next lower level may be the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. A slightly lesser level of G'd's Presence may be experienced by the "average" prophet at the time he receives a message from G'd. Progressively lower levels of such a Divine Presence may be found in synagogues or houses of study. A group of ten people discussing matters related to Torah-study may qualify for an even lesser degree of such a Divine Presence, etc. When we keep this in mind we can better understand the statement of our sages that the Divine Presence, i.e. the enlightenment provided to a prophet never descended to certain levels. As a result, Moses had to leave the city in order to qualify for the degree of Divine Presence that could respond to his prayer. The degree of Divine Presence found amongst a group of people studying Torah is of a lower level, however, and it was that level of the שכינה which descended to Egypt with Jacob and remained there until the Exodus.
  While it may sound presumptuous to differentiate between different degrees of Divine light, this is true as long as we speak of G'd Himself. Light which radiates from G'd, however, is subject to different "filters" in order to ensure that the recipient receives the amount which is beneficial to him and does not harm him through over-exposure. The same principle applies even to different souls, all of which may be perceived as parts of G'd's "light" emanating from G'd's throne of glory.
  The considerations we have just mentioned may also explain why G'd referred to Himself twice as אנכי when telling Jacob that He would descend with him to Egypt and would go up with him again when Jacob would be buried. G'd meant that the level of שכינה that would accompany him on his return would be a higher level than that which accompanied him at the time he journeyed to Egypt. It was the latter level of אנכי which the Jewish people experienced at Mount Sinai, and it is that level of אנכי which is experienced at the end of the forty nine years of the Jubilee cycle. This is the mystical dimension of the fact that the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in the Torah a total of forty nine times.
  The repetition by G'd of the word ואנכי may also be an allusion that the redemption when it would occur would be orchestrated by G'd personally, not merely by one of His agents (compare Deut. 6,21 and Exodus 13,16).
  The reason G'd repeated the words אעלך גם עלה, "I will also bring you up from there" is, that G'd will 1) see to it that Jacob will be buried in Canaan; 2) that the Jewish people will be led out of exile by G'd. G'd added the word גם, also, as an allusion that both the regular Jewish people will be redeemed as well as the lost souls which had been captive amongst all the impurity in that country and about which we have written earlier. All of them would ascend to the land of Israel.
  It is also possible that the word גם refers to the spirituality which descended to Egypt with Jacob. It will be redeemed. The <i>Zohar</i> quotes proof for that from the words יצאו כל צבאות השם מארץ מצרים "all of G'd's hosts went out of Egypt" ( Exodus 12,41).
  ויוסף ישית ידו על עיניך, "and Joseph will place his hand over your eyes." This was an assurance to Jacob that Joseph would not die during his lifetime. It was welcome news to Jacob as he had prophesied that he would descend to the grave of his son Joseph (37,36). G'd wanted Jacob to know that he had erred in that forecast.
  The other part of this message was that Jacob would not return to the land of Canaan alive. In fact this statement may be construed as G'd prohibiting Jacob from returning to Canaan as this would frustrate G'd's promise that Joseph would be present at his death. Since Joseph was not allowed to leave Egypt G'd would not be able to keep His promise to Jacob unless he lived out his life in Egypt.
  
  Verse 5
  
  
  
  Verse 6
  
   ויקחו את מקניהם, They took their cattle, etc. This ought to have been reported in verse one when we are told about Jacob's whole family setting out on their journey to Egypt. Perhaps the brothers originally intended only to accompany their father and to see Joseph. Only after Jacob's dream did it become clear to them that G'd approved of their migration to Egypt until such time as it would please Him that they should return to their ancestral homeland (as I explained on verse 4). This is why they agreed only at this point to take their mobile possessions with them. The Torah also alludes to the fact that though the brothers may well have been aware that their journey would lead to their families' eventual exile in Egypt they did not rebel against what appeared to be G'd's decree.
  
  Verse 7
  
   בניו ובני בניו אתו, his sons and grandchildren with him, etc. Since we have been told in the previous verse that Jacob arrived in Egypt with all his descendants, why did the Torah have to tell us that he took his children and grandchildren with him? 
  Why did the Torah interrupt the report by the word אתו at the end of verse six and again mentioned אתו between listing male and female offspring respectively in verse seven? The report could have been considerably condensed without omitting any of the details.
  The Torah tries to tell us that there were ideological differences between the sons of Jacob. Some agreed willingly to migrate to Egypt and to accept the burden of G'd's decree that their children would become slaves in Egypt. Others strove to delay as long as possible the descent to the land which would be known as the "iron crucible" of the Jewish people. The Torah tries to describe who was who by mentioning separately בניו ובני בניו אתו on the one hand, meaning that those did not have to be persuaded to undertake the journey with Jacob. On the other hand, when the verse continues to speak separately about Jacob bringing with him "his daughters, granddaughters and all his descendants," these are the people who did not go down to Egypt voluntarily.
  In this connection it is important to pay attention to the statement in Shemot Rabbah 1,5 that as long as any of the people who descended with Jacob at the time remained alive the Jews lived in Egypt as totally free people. This is based on the Torah telling us in Exodus 1,6 that "Joseph and all that generation died." The words "and all that generation" refer to those who came to Egypt from Canaan. Perhaps the Torah teaches us that the people who had accepted G'd's decree willingly were spared realisation of that decree during their own lifetime. Perhaps the best proof of this is the fact that Yocheved and Serach, daughter of Asher, who both arrived in Egypt with the family of Jacob did experience the enslavement. The reason was that they were not around when a decision had to be made to descend to Egypt. They were still in their mother's wombs (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 94,9). It is worth- while to peruse what the <i>Zohar on Vayakhel 198</i> has to say on the subject. He quotes Psalms 146,5 "hail to him who has the G'd of Jacob for his help, because his hope was in the Lord."
  
  Verse 8
  
   ואלה שמות בני ישראל, "And these are the names of Israel's children, etc." The numbers listed here deserve to be analysed; we need to understand why the verse had to repeat again "Jacob and his sons;" besides, what does that statement have to do with "Jacob's firstborn Reuben?" Why does the Torah mention in verse 15 that Leah's descendants numbered 33 when the list of names shows only 32? 
  Although we have already quoted the <i>Midrash</i> according to which Yocheved was born "between the walls," i.e. at the time Jacob and his family entered Egypt, there is no proof or even hint of this in the Torah. There is no unanimity on that subject amongst our sages seeing that we have the view that the שכינה should be considered as making up the missing number between 69 and 70. If Yocheved were indeed to be included in the count we would then have a total of 71 instead of seventy. Proof of the accuracy of the statement of our sages is found in verse 27 where the Torah mentions that the total number of persons arriving in Egypt was 70. Why would the שכינה be considered as making up the missing number 33 in verse eight, instead of applying equally to the whole family, i.e. accounting for the difference between 69 and 70? Moreover, if Yocheved made up the number 33 in verse 8, then the number mentioned in verse 27 ought to have been 67 instead of 66. This would comprise 33 of Leah, 16 of Zilpah, 11 of Rachel -excluding Joseph and his two sons who were already in Egypt,- plus 7 of Bilhah. Why does the Torah appear to contradict itself by writing: "all the persons were 66," when in fact there were 67? 
  Besides, why were Joseph and his sons included in the count in verse 27 when we are told about a total number of 70?
  The plain meaning of these verses is undoubtedly that the Torah informs us about two sets of numbers. One count refers to Jacob plus his family, the other to Jacob's descendants by themselves. When Jacob and his children are added up together we have the number 70. When the numbers exclude Jacob we have a total of 69.
  The Torah is quite accurate by explaining that in the first count Jacob is specifically included in verse 8 where the Torah emphasised יעקב ובניו, Jacob and his sons. While the Torah reports on a count which included Jacob himself, the report in verse 8 which arrives at a total of 33 persons for Jacob and the family of Leah is absolutely correct (not including Yocheved). We may even speculate that the word כל was intended to make it clear that Jacob himself is part of that number. The fact that the Torah does not use the word כל when listing the total of Zilpah's family reinforces our belief that the word כל in verse eight refers to Jacob. While it is true that the Torah does use the word כל when listing Rachel's family (verse 22), the reason is that the Torah there wanted to include Joseph's sons who are needed to make up the total listed there and who were in Egypt already. As to the word כל in verse 25 where Bilhah's family is enumerated, the Torah wanted to emphasise by use of that term that altogether they comprised only seven persons.
  It is interesting to observe that the expression "birth" in one form or another appears in connection with the families of Zilpah, Rachel and Bilhah, whereas this expression does not occur in connection with Leah's family. According to our interpretation we can account for this by the fact that not all the persons listed in connection with Leah's family were born to her or to her offspring. Had the Torah mentioned ותלד לאה as it does when describing Bilhah's family, for instance, then the number 33 would have to puzzle us seeing that she was responsible for the birth of only 32 children at that stage. The number 33 therefore is arrived at only by including Jacob himself. 
  When the Torah gives us the number 66 in verse twenty six, this is exclusive of Jacob himself, something which is emphasised by the words: "the offspring of Jacob." When the Torah speaks about a total of 70 persons in verse 27, Jacob is included in what the Torah describes as לבית יעקב, Jacob's family.
  The Torah even went to the length of changing its syntax in order to make certain we understand its meaning. In verse 25 we read about כל הנפש הבאה לבית יעקב, whereas in verse 27 we read about כל הנפש לבית יעקב הבאה; the difference is clear. In verse 25 the arrival of the family is mentioned before the name Jacob, i.e. it excludes him. In verse 27 the name Jacob appears prior to the statement that the family arrived in Egypt. This means that Jacob himself is included in the count.
  We do not wish to contradict our sages who have said that Yocheved was born between the walls separating Egypt from Canaan. Perhaps the Torah alludes to her birth with the words כל נפש…ובנותיו. Inasmuch as apart from Dinah we do not know of any other daughters in Leah's family, the Torah's use of the plural "his daughters" cannot be justified unless there was at least one additional daughter who arrived in Egypt. This would be Yocheved. The Torah did not include Yocheved in the names of the people who journeyed to Egypt with Jacob since we have already explained that Jacob himself was the one who made up the number 33. There could be an additional reason why Yocheved was not included in the count. Seeing that she was only born when the family arrived in Egypt she would not be a viable human being until thirty days had elapsed. Up until that time she was still in the category of a נפל, an aborted embryo. Do not be bothered by the fact that our explanation appears to contradict that of our sages. We have explained to you repeatedly that whenever the exegesis of our sages does not imply halachic consequences scholars of established reputations are allowed to disagree. Concerning such instances we read in Song of Songs 5,16: חכו ממתקים וכלו מחמדים, "the words of his palate are sweet and He is all delight."
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
   ובני יהודה ער ואונן. And the sons of Yehudah, Er and Onan, etc. Why were people who had died already listed as part of the family which travelled to Egypt? Besides, why did the Torah repeat here again that these sons of Yehudah had died in the land of Caanan, something that we are all familiar with? Furthermore, why does the Torah write: ויהיו בני פרץ חצרון וחמול, instead of the customary ובני פרץ חצרון וחמול? We find all the other grand-children introduced as: ובני…וגו. Perhaps it is all connected with the concept of the levirate marriage. יבום is aimed at re-establishing a presence on earth for the brother who died without leaving children. In our instance Yehudah performed this commandment instead of his son Shelah. It was Yehudah's duty to bring Er and Onan's offspring to Egypt. The Torah tells us by means of an unusual syntax that Yehudah performed this duty by bringing Chetzron and Chamul (his grandchildren) to Egypt. These two were to be considered the replacements of Er and Onan respectively. [If I understand the author correctly, he argues that because Yehudah belonged to a generation prior to that of Shelah the surviving brother of Er and Onan who should have performed the levirate marriage, only the second generation, i.e. Peretz's children, were the reincarnates of Er and Onan. Had Shelah himself performed the rites of יבום, his first two children would have been considered as the reincarnates of Er and Onan. Ed.] All this is hinted at by the word ויהיו.
  Looking at the plain meaning of the verse, the Torah may have explained here that the only reason that Er and Onan committed the sins that caused G'd to kill them was that they lived in the land of Canaan, a country in which sexual perversity had taken root. They had been corrupted by their environment. Apart from this one sin they were not basically bad. G'd killed them so that one should not copy their example, much as the Torah warns the Jewish people not to copy the sexual perversions practiced both in Egypt and the land of Canaan in Leviticus 18,3.
  The expression ויהיו tells us that these two were a phenomenon by itself (הויה), unlike any observed elsewhere. Were this not so they could hardly be the members of the family from which the Messiah will devolve, someone who will serve as a shining example of morality to all of mankind.
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
  
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
  
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
  
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
  
  
  Verse 28
  
  
  
  Verse 29
  
  
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויאמר …אמותה הפעם, He said:.."now I can die, etc." The reason Jacob said "now" is that he had expressed fears of dying on a previous occasion when he heard about Joseph's disappearance.
  Another part of this verse which needs analysis is why Jacob added the words כי עודך חי, "that you are still alive." If Joseph had not been alive how could Jacob have expressed his joy at seeing him? Besides, why did Jacob not make this statement when the brothers had told him that Joseph was still alive in 45,26?
  Actually Jacob had now reassured himself about something that the brothers could not have told him at the time. He had been satisfied that Joseph was alive, well and powerful; he had not yet been certain that in view of all the experiences Joseph had undergone both as a slave and subsequently as a powerful ruler, that he had been able to preserve his righteousness. Jacob himself had experienced a loss of the presence of Holy Spirit at the time he had mistakenly exclaimed that Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast. He naturally was afraid that Joseph too had been cut off from such Holy Spirit seeing he had lived in close contact with people who represented the קליפה, the personification of impurity. It is a well known fact that the righteous prefer the disappearance of a son to such a son embarassing them by abandoning his spiritual heritage. It was only when he set eyes on Joseph that he realised that Joseph had not changed. We have numerous examples in the Bible of righteous people being able to tell by merely looking at the faces of people that such people were upright and righteous. This is why Jacob was able to say אחרי ראותי את פניך, "after having seen your face." Jacob was now able to accept death without regret whenever it would occur. <i>Berachot</i> 18 mentions that the righteous are called חיים, alive, during their lifetime. Jacob expressed this thought when he called Joseph as "still alive" after having set eyes on him.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
    אבי ואחי..…באו, "my father, my brothers, etc., have arrived. Joseph meant: "in accordance with your instructions." והנם בארץ גשו, "and here they are in the province of Goshen." "Just as you have said when you said: "I will give you the best part of the country (45,18)." As far as cattle is concerned the province of Goshen was the best part of Egypt. We find, however, that when the brothers enjoyed an audience with Pharaoh that they did not refer to what Joseph had told them about Pharaoh's promise; rather they pleaded that inasmuch as they had a lot of cattle they would appreciate it if they were allowed to settle in Goshen as it provided grazing land for their cattle.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  
  
  Verse 5
  
   ויאמר פרעה אל יוסף לאמור, Pharaoh said to tell Joseph, etc. What is meant here by the word לאמור? Besides, what did Pharaoh mean when he said: "your father has arrived?" This was not news!
  We must refer back to where Pharaoh had instructed Joseph in 45,17 - 18 to command his brothers to take their father and "come to me." These instructions could have either one of two meanings. 1) Joseph should speak to the brothers conveying instructions from Pharaoh. 2) Joseph should speak to them as if he were acting on his own authority. This latter interpretation is more likely to be the correct one. We base this on 45,19 where Joseph is told "you have been commanded, etc." If the instructions for the migration of Joseph's family had all originated with Pharaoh why would Joseph have to refer to permission he obtained from Pharaoh? One obtains permission after making a request for it. You will note that Joseph had spoken to the brothers about their migration in 46,31 when he was about to speak to Pharaoh about their arrival. The fact that he described the brothers as having "come to me" as opposed to having come to Pharaoh, seems evidence that they did not come in response to Pharaoh's invitation. In our verse, however, he did not describe the brothers as having "come to me," but simply as "having arrived." This implied that their arrival was at the behest of Pharaoh. He now wanted Pharaoh to make good on his promise. In response Pharaoh said in verse 6: "your father and your brothers have come to you." Pharaoh meant to correct any impression Joseph might have had that what he had said in 45,17 -18 should have been construed as an invitation from himself for the brothers to settle there. All Pharaoh had meant was that Joseph had his permission to extend an invitaion to them in Pharaoh's name to settle in the best part of Egypt.
  There are subtle differences between a migration as the result of Pharaoh's direct invitation and one which resulted from an invitation by Joseph which had Pharaoh's approval. On the one hand, it appears that Pharaoh was now anxious to relieve himself of any responsibility towards Joseph's brothers and clan. When a king grants a certain person an elevated status, this is normally considered a permanent gift. Had the brothers' migration been at the direct invitation of Pharaoh their status in the land of Goshen would have been permanent and irrevocable. Pharaoh was concerned lest his invitation would be perceived as that kind of gift. He preferred to have the brothers believe that the land of Goshen was allocated to them by the authority of Joseph. It was valid as long as Joseph was ruler in the land. Just as Joseph's position was not a hereditary one, so the brothers' tenure in Goshen would not be a hereditary one. Both Joseph's position and the brothers' stay in Goshen continued to depend on Pharaoh's pleasure. Pharaoh wanted to make sure that Joseph or the brothers should not think that he, Pharaoh, needed them in order to strengthen his hold on the throne of Egypt.
  There is, however, also a positive aspect of what Pharaoh had said now. Why would Joseph have to appeal to Pharaoh now as if he himself did not wield any authority in the country? Had not Pharaoh given Joseph blanket authority at the time he had appointed him as the absolute ruler over his kingdom? When Pharaoh now said to Joseph that his brothers had come to him, he merely reiterated that Joseph did not need to ask any kind of permission. Joseph's authority included the area concerning which he had now asked Pharaoh's permission. We find something analogous in <i>Yuma</i> 4 where Rabbi Mussiah son of Rabbi Menassiah teaches that there is scriptural proof for the assumption that when one reveals information received by a second person even when one had not been sworn to secrecy, this is forbidden unless specific permission has been granted. When G'd spoke to Moses in Leviticus 1,1, He added that Moses should communicate His words by adding the word לאמור. Accordingly, Pharaoh had to tell Joseph to extend the invitation in his name. Although this diminishes the value of Pharaoh's invitation slightly, it is not materially different from what Pharaoh had said in chapter 45.
  We may also see some additional significance in the word אליך in verse five. The reason Pharaoh did command the brothers to migrate to Egypt was only in order to demonstrate that Joseph had never been a slave and had been born into a very respectable family. While it was true that on the face of it this had been demonstrated at the time when Joseph revealed himself to his brothers, he had not yet freed himself completely from the suspicion that the "brothers" were a group of bachelors with whom Joseph had made a deal that they should claim to be his family. We find that <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 100,9 refers to such a possibility in connection with Genesis 50,21 where Joseph is described as: "he consoled them and put their minds at ease." The <i>Midrash</i> describes that Joseph put his brothers' minds at ease by telling them that if he were to take any punitive action against them now the Egyptians would question his claim that they were his family and would argue that at the time that he, Joseph, identified them as his brothers this had been a charade, and that they had only been a group of young men whom he had paid to misrepresent themselves. When Pharaoh said to Joseph "your brothers have come to you," he meant that the brothers' presence in Egypt would buttress Joseph's claim concerning his ancestry.
  
  Verse 6
  
   במיטב הארץ…ישבו בארץ גשן, "they shall dwell in the land of Goshen in the best part of the country." Pharaoh was careful not to say only: "in the best part of the land," seeing that Joseph had indicated that he preferred that the brothers should live in the province of Goshen. If Pharaoh were not to confirm this specifically, Joseph might think that he did not want them to reside in Goshen. If, on the other hand, he were to say only that the brothers should reside in Goshen without adding the words "in the best part of the land," Joseph might feel that Pharaoh only assigned the inferior part of the province of Goshen to them. To avoid any misunderstanding, Pharaoh spelled out that the brothers should reside in the best part of the land of Goshen. Verse eleven then confirms that this is indeed what happened, that the land around Ramses was considered the best part of Goshen.
  It is also possible to understand the whole verse as a choice offered by Pharaoh. The brothers were welcome to reside in the best part of the land of Egypt; if, however, for whatever reason they preferred to settle in the province of Goshen, this too was acceptable to Pharaoh.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ויעמידהו לפני פרעה, and he presented him before Pharaoh. The reason the Torah chose the word "ויעמידהו" may be that Joseph placed Jacob in the place where he himself would normally stand when he had an audience with Pharaoh. This may have been an elevated spot only lower than Pharaoh's throne [compare 41,40 where Pharaoh reserved only his throne as beyond Joseph's authority].
  It may also mean that he placed Jacob immediately opposite Pharaoh so that his father could bless Pharaoh.
  We have a tradition that Pharaoh was of extremely small stature so that unless Jacob was directly opposite him he could not have known that the person he faced was Pharaoh (compare <i>Moed Katan</i> 18).
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
   ולחם אין…כי כבד הרעב מאד, there was no bread…because the famine was very severe, etc. The Torah informs us of the psychology of hunger. During a famine people have a tendency to eat inordinate amounts of food thus causing their reserves of food to be depleted prematurely. The author describes a personal experience of famine in the country he lived in where a person ate ten times the amount of food he would eat normally and still felt hungry.
  
  Verse 14
  
   וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף, Joseph collected all the silver (money), etc. The reason the Torah uses the expression לקט, gleaned, for the manner in which Joseph collected the money, is to tell us that after Joseph had collected there was absolutely no money left anywhere.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ולמה נמות….כי אפס כסף, "why should we die …for there is no more money?" The people complained that Joseph had proved unwilling to accept any payment other than money in return for grain. They argued that they were not destitute, they could pay him with other chattels; why should they die merely because they could not pay cash? This is why Joseph replied that he was willing to accept their cattle in payment only "if indeed there is no more money." Joseph's reason for all this was to impoverish the Egyptians so that his brothers would not be in an economically inferior position vis-a-vis the Egyptians. Joseph was very clever not to accept any payment other than money as long as there was cash around. As long as the Egyptians still had their livestock they would have to provide fodder for their animals; presumably one effect of the famine was the absence of grazing land. The Egyptians therefore had to feed their livestock with barley. This in turn led to the money supply becoming completely exhausted within a year. As a result of Joseph's strategy the brothers who arrived during the second year of the famine were wealthy compared to the average Egyptian at that time.
  The Egyptians may also have meant to convey to Joseph that they did have money but that they had no cash flow at that time. They were unable to collect their receivables. This was not something unusual as many people invested their money in enterprises in foreign countries, sending money on ships which were meant to import goods. Their argument therefore was: "why should we die since we have the necessary liquid assets and are only unable temporarily to collect that money?" Accordingly, Joseph told them that if they really did have money in the form of receivables he was willing to accept their livestock as payment for food in the meantime. The livestock served as collateral for the cash the Egyptians would owe him. As soon as they would collect their receivables he expected them to turn over the money to him.
  
  Verse 16
  
  
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   לא נכחד מאדוני, "we will not hide the fact from my lord, etc." The expression "we will not hide" presents a difficulty. What was the point of speaking of hiding something which was bound to be revealed if indeed it existed? On the other hand, if they were to claim that their livestock and money had not been exhausted they had to deliver it! Why would they say that they would not conceal the existence of money or livestock? Besides, what is the meaning of the words כי אם? Furthermore, they had told Joseph already at the end of the previous year that their money supply was exhausted? Why did the Egytians say to Joseph: "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir?"
  Perhaps what the Egyptians meant was: "we really have no more money, we are not hiding it, the money is truly exhausted." They did not want Joseph to suspect them of pretending to be destitute, asking for a handout. They added that as far as the livestock was concerned there was not even a need to tell Joseph they had none left, seeing Joseph had bought it all and it could not be hidden even if they tried. As a result the only thing they had left were their very bodies.
  According to the alternative meaning of the words אפס כסף, that their cash receivables were not collectible at that time, the verse does not need any explanation at all. They told Joseph that when they argued previously that they had receivables but that those could not be collected at that time, that had been a lie, and they would not deny that they had lied in order to get Joseph to accept their livestock in payment for the grain. The fact was that at this time all their assets other than their bodies had been exhausted. This is the reason that whereas the first time around the Torah speaks about אפס כסף, i.e an absence of money, they now spoke about תם הכסף, that the money had been completely exhausted.
  When they said: ומקנה הבהמה אל אדוני, "and the livestock is all gone to you, sir," they referred to the livestock they had pledged in lieu of the cash they had not had available at the time they made their recent grain purchases. As of now, this livestock belonged to Joseph absolutely. This is why they added the word אדוני.
  
  Verse 19
  
  
  
  Verse 20
  
  
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
  
  
  Verse 23
  
   הן קניתי אתבם היום. "Look, I have bought you today, etc." The reason Joseph added the word היום, and the fact that it does not appear after the report that Joseph had bought their land, is to tell us that the method of acquisition was that each individual was acquired by the method known in Jewish law as משיכה, i.e. drawing the object being purchased a short distance towards the purchaser, as customary when one purchases slaves (<i>Kidushin</i> 22). Joseph did this en masse by transferring whole populations from city to city. Since one cannot acquire land by moving it, the word היום was interposed between these different kinds of purchases Joseph made.
  The Torah also wanted to clarify something else here. We have the principle (<i>Pessachim</i> 88) that when one acquires a slave one automatically acquires everything this slave owned at the same time. There was no need to mention the acquisition of these Egyptians' lands separately. Since it is possible that Joseph did not acquire these Egyptians in the manner one usually acquires slaves, but that they became his (Pharaoh's) slaves only to the extent that they had to continue to farm the lands they had farmed previously and pay a portion of their harvest to Pharaoh, the Torah distinguished between the acquisition of the people on the one hand and that of their lands on the other hand. In practice, these Egyptians became hired hands who were not free to leave their employment. As a result Joseph had to acquire the land separately. This is why the Torah wrote in verse 20 that "Joseph acquired all the lands on behalf of Pharaoh as each of the Egyptians sold his land, etc." This would enable Pharaoh to bring in other labourers to work these fields, whereas he was not able to force the Egyptians who had previously owned those fields to farm them as he did not own those farmers bodily. When Joseph said: "I have acquired you," he meant that he had acquired them as hired hands, as distinct from their lands which he had acquired outright.
  
  Verse 24
  
   חמישית לפרעה, one fifth for Pharaoh, etc. Joseph was astute enough to say that Pharaoh would collect the first 20% of any seed. Even if, as a result, the remaining 80% would be only sufficient for the farmer to plant and to break even, Pharaoh would not agree to collect less than his 20%. On the other hand, the farmers would be at liberty to collect the overage whether there be a lot or a little.
  The reason Joseph mentioned separately that it would be "to eat for your children," instead of including the children when he had said that the 80% would be "for you and your households to consume" was, that the portions required by the children would be greater than that of their parents.
  
  Verse 25
  
   והיינו עבדים לפרעה, "and we shall remain slaves to Pharaoh." They were careful to describe themselves as Pharaoh's slaves, not as Joseph's.
  They also referred to something I mentioned earlier, that Pharaoh had acquired them only as hired labourers, people obligated to work these particular lands. By saying: והיינו עבדים לפרעה, they offered their bodies to Pharaoh also so that Pharaoh owned them outright from then on. Perhaps this is the reason why the new Pharaoh in Exodus 1,9 described the Jewish people as the "nation, the children of Israel," meaning that he could not in good conscience describe them as his slaves as they had never lost their status as a free people.
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   וישב ישראל בארץ מצרים, Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah add that the land of Goshen is in the land of Egypt? Do we not know this already? Besides, what is the connection between the Jewish people multiplying and their dwelling in the land of Egypt?
  The Torah evidently wishes to remind us of the fulfilment of G'd's prophecy to Jacob in 46,3 that while in Egypt he would develop into a great nation, that the reason he and his family had to descend to Egypt was to liberate the stray holy souls that were entrapped amongst the Egyptians and their pagan practices. This is why the Torah emphasises that Israel dwelled in the land of Egypt, a morally thoroughly depraved society. The Torah adds that Israel lived in the land of Goshen to hint that the origin of that word is הגשה, approach, i.e. that all those scattered souls we have previously described were attracted to and collected in Goshen because of the presence there of a branch of sanctity as represented by Jacob/lsrael. The entire paragraph refers to the fledgling nation Israel in the singular to emphasise the unity of purpose that characterised that society at that time. When the Torah adds ויאחזו בה, "they were possessed by it," this refers to their lofty ideal as a developing holy nation. The reason they were extraordinarily fruitful and multiplied was the fact that they were possessed by lofty ideals not because they happened to find themselves on Egyptian soil. The author suggests reading up the comments of the <i>Maha"rik</i> on Exodus 1,6: "Joseph, all his brothers and that entire generation died."
  
  Verse 28
  
   ויחי יעקב, Jacob lived, etc. Although G'd had changed Jacob's name to Israel in 35,10, this is one of numerous instances when the Torah refers to him again as Jacob. I have explained that Jacob's permanent personality (נפש) had not changed as we know from <i>Berachot</i> 7 which interprets Psalms 46,9 where the word שמות, desolation, is re-interpreted to mean also שמות, names. The name Israel was an additional name reflecting spiritual highs that Jacob attained from time to time.
  We do need to examine the criteria which cause the Torah to refer to Jacob sometimes as "Jacob" and other times as "Israel." It is a fact that when these names are applied to the Jewish people as a whole, the name Jacob reflects some deficiency in the Jewish nation, whereas the name Israel reflects the fact that the nation lived up to its potential on the occasions when it is described by that name. This principle has been alluded to in the <i>Zohar</i> 210 on <i>Parshat Balak.</i> The reason given there cannot be applied to Jacob the individual, however, inasmuch as he lived a righteous life at all times.
  We must remember that Jacob strove to attain a very high degree of sanctity, one which is reflected in his name Israel. Spiritual highs are attainable only when one simultaneously frees oneself of such human concerns as pain, anguish, anger, etc. The kind of sanctity Jacob strove for needed to be based on the attainment of a degree of serenity in his earthly life, something that we nowadays experience only on the Sabbath, a day that G'd has imbued with the quality of מנוחה. He gave us an additional soul in order to appreciate that day to the full, and in order to help us to disregard all the depressing phenomena we have to deal with during the 6 days preceding the Sabbath. The reason we are able to do this is because the מנוחה emanates in the higher spiritual regions. This is why G'd Himself called the Sabbath עונג, delight. Whenever Jacob experienced the kind of spiritual serenity we are meant to experience every Sabbath, he qualified for the name Israel. The Torah therefore informs us about all these occasions by referring to him by his additional name. Whenever Jacob experienced worries, etc., this serenity departed from him similar to the departure of the נשמה יתרה from every Jew at the end of the Sabbath. At such times the Torah reverts to referring to our patriarch as being merely "Jacob."
  I shall make a short list of instances where the respective names of Jacob and Israel clearly reflect different frames of mind of Jacob/Israel. In Genesis 35,10 where G'd tells Jacob for the first time that though his name remains Jacob he will henceforth also be entitled to the name Israel, the reason that G'd emphasised that at that time his name was still Jacob is that he had just heard about the death of his mother Rivkah (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 82, which understands the words: "He (G'd) blessed him" in 35,9 as the blessing one extends to mourners). This is why the name Jacob continues to appear throughout this paragraph. The time when Rachel died (immediately afterwards according to the report in the Torah) was also a period during which Jacob could not qualify for the additional name Israel. The Torah (35,20) speaks about Jacob erecting a tombstone on the site where Rachel died and was buried. As soon as the thirty days of mourning had passed, we find that G'd called Jacob "Israel" in 35,21 where he is described as continuing his journey towards reunion with his father. When we find Jacob's children referred to as "the sons of Jacob" instead of as "the sons of Israel" in 35,22, this does not contradict what we have written, as the Torah merely wants to inform us that Israel's children were not on the same spiritual level as their father. The fact that Reuben was guilty of a misdemeanour with Israel's concubine at that time, is clear evidence of that. When the reunion between Isaac and his son Jacob is described in 35,27, the reason that Jacob is not called Israel is simply that it would not be good manners for the son to be called by a name which suggests a higher spiritual level than that of his father Isaac. You will find confirmation of this thought in <i>Yalkut Shimoni</i> item 875 on Psalms 116,15 "that the death of His faithful is precious to the Lord," where the author writes: "if Abraham had been alive at that time, how could his son Isaac have exercised any authority?" The same argument applied to all the other patriarchs. The above teaches that while one's illustrious father or teacher is alive, the son or disciple is not allowed to outshine him. This is why the Torah refers to Jacob as Jacob at that time. When we read about Jacob settling in the land of Canaan in 37,1 he is again called Jacob to remind us that during all the years he remained in the land of Canaan his life was full of mental anguish with very brief exceptions. One such exception was his relationship with Joseph before the latter was sold into slavery. This is why the Torah speaks of that relationship as "Israel loved Joseph, etc." The name Israel is used by the Torah only three times from the time Joseph was sold until 45,28 after Jacob had regained a measure of Holy Spirit as stated in 45,27 ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, "their father Jacob's spirit revived." The three instances during the period between the sale of Joseph and Jacob's receiving the news that he was alive and well are 43,6: "Israel said: 'why did you harm me,'etc,"--43,8: "Yehudah said to Israel his father, etc." and 43,11: "Their father Israel said to them, etc." In all those instances Jacob spoke to his sons as a person who exercised his position of authority; this is why the Torah describes him with his full title "Israel." In those instances Jacob/lsrael had to assert his authority when he noticed that his sons did not give due consideration to their father's anguish. By acting as "Israel" he indicated that he would not forgive them if they did not heed his words. As soon as Jacob heard the news about Joseph he is referred to repeatedly as the "Israel" of old. This situation continues until Jacob/lsrael is told that he has to remain in Egypt, i.e. in exile. From then on the Torah called him Israel only at the moment of his reunion with Joseph or when the Torah referred to his sons. During the period Jacob dwelled in Egypt the Torah generally calls him Jacob until shortly before his death. It was important that his sons and family should remember that they had lost not merely a Jacob but an Israel. Besides, as Jacob prepared for death, his mind became filled with other-worldly concerns. It was therefore easy for him to attain the serenity needed to be Israel once more. The <i>Zohar</i> first section, 218 elaborates on the spiritual growth of the human soul shortly before its death in connection with "Israel prostrating himself at the head of the bed" during the period described in the Torah as "the days approached when Israel was to die," (47,29 and 47,31). All of this is the plain meaning of these verses. They do have implications of a more profound and mystical nature, however.
  ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים, Jacob lived in the land of Egypt, etc. Why did the Torah have to tell us once more that Jacob was in Egypt? Besides, all the Torah had to write was: 'ויהי ימי יעקב וגו, "Jacob lived to be 147 years old." This information would have allowed us to calculate that he lived in Egypt for the last 17 years seeing that he had told Pharaoh that he was 130 years old when he came to Egypt (47,9). Furthermore, why did the Torah have to repeat שני חייו, the years of his life?
  Perhaps all of this is connected to the fact that Jacob's life was never smooth from the moment of his birth when he held on to the heel of his twin brother. His adversary Esau grew up alongside him; thereafter he lived a life of constant tension with his uncle Laban for 20 years. Not much later he experienced the anguish of Dinah's rape to be followed by Joseph's disappearance. For all these reasons the Torah tells us that the only 17 years Jacob lived a relatively serene life were the last 17 years of his life in Egypt. The Torah underlines that these were the only years which Jacob could really be described as having enjoyed by writing ויהי ימי יעקב שני חייו, "these years were full of חיים, life." These 17 years were truly ימי יעקב, "Jacob's years."
  We have a tradition based on <i>Tana de bey Eliyahu Rabbah</i> chapter 5 that when someone concludes his life on earth in a happy frame of mind his entire life may be considered as having been a happy one. This is also the meaning of Job 8,7: והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאד, "though your beginning was full of pain, your end will be a great achievement." Solomon has expressed a similar thought in Kohelet 7,8 when he said that "a good ending is better than a good beginning." When the Torah speaks of ויחי יעקב, this means that the last 17 happy years which Jacob lived in Egypt made his entire life, i.e. שני חייו appear as years during which he had lived to the full. The Torah chose the word ויהי which always signifies some painful experience to tell us that though there had been many painful experiences in Jacob's life on earth they were all converted to positive experiences in light of his last seventeen years in Egypt.
  We need to consider why the Torah enumerates the years of Jacob's life in a different manner from the way it enumerated the lives of Abraham and the other patriarchs. When the Torah told us about the number of years Abraham lived, it commenced with the larger unit first, i.e. 100 years plus seventy years plus five years (compare Genesis 25,7). We find the same thing in Genesis 35,28 when Isaac's life is described; the same also is the case when the Torah described the number of years Sarah lived (Genesis 23,1). Perhaps the reason that the Torah reversed this in Jacob's case is to drive home the point that Jacob's last 17 good years were the key to his whole life.
  Perhaps the Torah actually wanted to pinpoint 47 years of Jacob's life as the ones during which he experienced what we are in the habit of calling happiness. This is based on the interpretation of the verse in Genesis 37,3 that וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו. According to the <i>Zohar</i> both Jacob's love for Rachel his true mate and Joseph is lumped together in this verse as indicated by the extra word את. As long as Joseph had not been born Jacob dressed in sackcloth [a figure of speech denoting he had not yet begun to experience what he perceived to be his true destiny. Ed.] When computing the number of years Jacob was married to Rachel and the 17 years prior to Joseph's disappearance, one must consider that some of these years overlapped as Rachel was alive until the birth of Benjamin 6 years after the birth of Joseph. Jacob was married to Rachel for 13 years during his stay at Laban. He experienced 11 years in the company of Joseph before the latter was sold making a total of 24 years. When you add to this the 17 years he lived in Egypt you get a total of 41 years of happiness in Jacob's adult life. When you add the first 6 years of Jacob's childhood, years that are not yet clouded by the various problems we experience in life, we have a total of 47 years of Jacob's life during which he could be considered as having lived a "normal" life. The Torah may have wanted to draw our attention to this fact and therefore it mentions these 47 years before mentioning the numerically bigger number, i.e. the 100 years.
  According to this approach we have to justify the word ויהי as a hint by the Torah that Jacob did not exploit all the good years of life on earth he could have enjoyed because he had caused Rachel's premature death when he uttered the oath that anyone who had stolen Laban's Teraphim should not live (31,32). <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 74,9 writes that the reason Jacob did not attain the age of his father Isaac (180), was that he lost 33 years of his life, a number corresponding to the numerical value of the word יחיה when he had said in 31,32 that the person who stole Laban's teraphim לא יחיה, should not live.
  We are now left with the task of explaining why the Torah reports on the total of Jacob's years long before he was actually about to die, and before he had called in his sons to give them his last blessing. Perhaps the Torah wanted Jacob (and us) to become aware that he did not have the life expectancy of his father or his grandfather. This may have prompted him to call in his son Joseph order to make him swear that he would bury him in the land of Canaan. The patriarchs were all prophets and Jacob may well have been aware that he had forfeited 33 years of his life by his premature curse. As a result of this foreknowledge he called upon his son Joseph to visit him at that time in order to discuss burial arrangements. 
  If we look for some kind of allusion in the fact that Jacob enjoyed precisely 17 years in Egypt at the expense of his son Joseph who had become the provider of the family, it maybe that this number of years corresponded to the number of years Jacob himself had provided for Joseph before the latter had been sold into slavery by his brothers. It is also interesting that the number 17 is equal to the numerical value of the word טוב, good. Perhaps the Torah hints that Jacob experienced a repayment of the good he had done for Joseph while the latter grew up, when his son now repaid him with an equal number of years.
  
  Verse 29
  
   ויקרבו ימי ישראל למות, Israel's time to die approached, etc. I have already explained whence Jacob knew that his death was close. Nachmanides writes that he knew this from a loss of vital signs in his body; I do not think that we can accept his theory for we know of many people who continue to live for many years after their old age sets in and they begin to feel weak.
  Jacob may also have had an indication that his death was close at hand because the <i>Zohar</i> section 1,217 states that thirty days prior to one's death a person's צלם, divine image, is removed from him. The <i>Zohar</i> claims that Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai observed this phenomenon with Rabbi Yitzchak. Although such knowledge is withheld from ordinary people, righteous people do become aware of it as they are aware of most spiritual matters. Another indication that this may have been so is the syntax of the verse "the days for Israel to die approached;" since when do we describe days as "approaching?"
  We can understand the meaning of this verse by accepting what the sainted Rabbi Yitzchak Luria (<i>Ari zal</i> ) wrote in his book Kohelet Yaakov. He writes as follows: "You know that the souls have been divided up into numerous "sparks" of sanctity. These are destined to inhabit human beings on their various appearances on earth. The length of time a person lives on earth is directly related to how many of these sparks of sanctity -also known as <i>tzelem</i> -inhabit his body. Every day such a person performs G'd's commandments the condition of one of these "sparks" is enhanced, thus strengtheneing such a persons צלם. Every day that such a person does not perform G'd's commandments his צלם suffers damage because one of these sparks has been damaged. Thus far Rabbi Luria.
  This introduction is immensely valuable for those who want to examine matters connected with these phenomena in detail. By means of this paragraph in Rabbi Luna's book we can understand what the Talmud <i>Berachot</i> 57 meant when it states that sleep is equivalent to 1/60th of death. It means that every day one of these sparks escapes the body when a person goes to sleep. Such a loss of the spark is not clearly noticed by the soul as something absolute, however; the "spark" is merely detached from the main body of the soul and becomes intertwined with the lower form of the soul known as נפש, life-force. It is an act of kindness by G'd that every "spark" which acquired a merit on a particular day through the performance of a מצוה by the person whom it inhabits is further removed from loss of vitality in spite of the fact that said person may commit sins subsequently thereby producing defective "sparks." Moreover, when the errant person repents his sin G'd enables such sparks to be restored to their original level of vitality. All of this is part of the various ways in which G'd demonstrates His kindness towards us.
  Keeping in mind the <i>Ari zal's</i> statement, we can understand why the complaint against G'd for having shortened man's lifespan after the deluge from around nine hundred years to less than one hundred years nowadays is not justified. Let us use the following parable to illustrate what occurred. A king distributed gems which had been mined in a quarry to various craftsmen in order to fashion from these gems intricate golden jewelry. He urged the various craftsmen to use all their skills to produce superior work and to complete it at a certain date. Different craftsmen were given different amounts of gems in accordance with the king's estimate of their ability to complete the task within the time allotted. When the time arrived for these craftsmen to present the result of their labours to the king, the king found to his dismay that not only had most of them not performed work of acceptable standards, but some of them had actually ruined many of the gems in the process. The king grew angry and killed these craftsmen. He showed the children of these craftsmen what happened to their parents and why, and he urged them not to repeat the mistakes of their parents. When the king handed the new generation of craftsmen gemstones to fashion into jewelry, he allocated to each one only approximately one tenth of the amount of gems he had allocated to the craftsmen of the previous generation. He believed that by making the task less demanding the craftsmen would have a better chance to perform excellent workmanship. 
  The souls G'd allocated to people are the gemstones referred to in the parable. This is the mystical dimension of Genesis 49,24: משם רועה אבן ישראל, that by means of the instruments placed at our disposal by G'd, i.e. the Torah and the commandments, we have been given the insights to conduct our lives in such a manner that the sparks making up the soul can be strengthened. The <i>Zohar,</i> part one section 82 describes that the condition of the soul is improved in proportion to the performance of good deeds and abstention from sins by the personality it inhabits. This is equivalent to the intricate jewelry described in our parable.
  Originally, G'd assigned great tasks to the antediluvian generations and at the same time equipped them with commensurately greater souls, each one of which consisted of many "sparks." He assigned a single day to each "spark." This is alluded to in Exodus 16,4 when the Torah speaks about people collecting the manna on a daily basis, i.e. דבר יום ביומו. The word יום may be understood as ענף, a branch or sprout of each soul. G'd granted each human being a certain number of days, i.e. He allocated to them approximately 300.000 such gemstones as mentioned in the parable. After the failure which resulted in the deluge, all of this was restructured in order to help us achieve what is expected of us in a lifespan averaging seventy years.
  We have benefited by this change in G'd's allocation of a shorter lifespan in additional ways. For instance, we observe that the process of aging results in people becoming progressively more frail, a process which even includes scholars (of secular disciplines). Infirmity in old age results in a person not being able to carry out fully the tasks allocated to him for each day he lives. While it is true -as our sages say at the end of tractate <i>Kinim</i> -that Torah scholars who have attained old age retain clear minds, the sages were careful with their wording. They stated that the minds of non-scholars decline progressively to such an extent that their minds gradually cease to function properly. It is clear that inasmuch as parts of the soul gradually disappear, the remaining parts of the soul are not up to the task of performing as if they were still whole. The same thing happens to the body so that gradually both body and mind deteriorate to the level of that of a minor.
  With the help of Rabbi Luria's analysis we can also better understand <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 62,2 in which the difference between dying as a young man or dying at a ripe old age is described. Rabbi Yehudah explained: "when this light (soul) is extinguished by a natural process it is beneficial both for the light and the wick. If, however, it is extinguished by an unnatural process this is harmful both for the light and its wick." The <i>Midrash</i> compared the death of an aged person to the gradual extinction of a light. As the light gradually loses power, so the aged person's vital systems (נפש) decline progressively until finally he dies by appearing like a person who is merely asleep and who does not feel what is happening to him when his last remaining vestige of life leaves him.
  Rabbi Luria's comparison also helps us understand Psalms 104,29: תוסף רוחם יגועון, "when you take away their breath they perish." The meaning of this statement had not been clear. Besides, one would have expected David to say: תוסף ברוחם. With the help of Rabbi Luria's introduction the meaning of the verse becomes crystal clear. When the end of man's life approaches and G'd gathers in all the remaining parts of the soul which used to commute to heaven nightly only to return to their bodies by morning, G'd will then collect the soul itself (not just the "sparks"). We have already explained elsewhere that the departure of the soul from the body at night is not something absolute; the soul continues to illuminate the body below with its "light;" we have proof of this in the well known phenomenon that when one awakens a sleeping person (in the middle of the night) the part of the soul which had ascended heavenwards is immediately perceived as present in the body of the person who has been awakened.
  Having read what Rabbi Luria had to say on the subject of the soul we now appreciate that when the Torah described Jacob's life as drawing to its close by saying: "the days of Jacob's death approached," the meaning is the same as that in Psalms 104,29 except that here the Torah uses the expression למות instead of יגועון. The various parts of Jacob's soul which used to ascend nightly were now about to be gathered together for a final journey to heaven. Jacob felt that this process was taking place and this is why he called for Joseph to come and see him.
  ויקרא לבנו ליוסף. "He called for his son, for Joseph." The reason Jacob only called upon Joseph is simple. Only Joseph possessed the power to carry out Jacob's wish to be buried in the cave of Machpelah. We do need to understand, however, why the Torah felt the need to add that Joseph was "his son;" do we not know this? Was there another person called Joseph so that we might have erred as to whom Jacob called? Furthermore, why did the Torah not merely write לבנו יוסף, instead of adding the letter ל by writing לבנו ליוסף?
  The Torah may have wanted to explain the strange phenomenon of a commoner summoning the king instead of asking the king for an audience at his palace in the capital. We know that the <i>halachah</i> considers the dignity of a king as taking precedence over the dignity of one's teacher. The Talmud <i>Kidushin</i> 33 discusses the problem of how a father has to conduct himself vis-a-vis his son when the latter is his rabbi. Is the son who is also a rabbi obligated to rise in the presence of his father? Rabbi Yoshua ben Levi there opines that he himself does not need to rise in the presence of his son since he was greater than his son in Torah learning; since, however the son occupied a position of great prominence (he was the son-in-law of the prince (נשיא) he made a practice of rising in the presence of his son. I have already elaborated on this subject in my book <i>Rishon Letzion</i> (glossaries on the <i>Yore De-ah</i> 240, subsection 7). In any event, it is clear from the discussion in the Talmud that the honour due to the temporal power takes precedence over that due to one's father even if the son was not the temporal authority itself but only closely related to it. In view of this, how could Jacob arrogate to himself the right to summon Joseph to his home? In order to answer this question the Torah provides us with two answers. 1) Inasmuch as Joseph was his son, and 2) inasmuch as he was Joseph. One of these two reasons by itself would not have sufficed to give Jacob the right to summon Joseph. Had Joseph not been Jacob's son, the fact that Joseph loved him would not have been an adequate reason for Jacob to ignore etiquette and summon the king to his side. However, since Joseph did not only love Jacob as such but he was also his father and mentor and Joseph was a dutiful son, Jacob was able to ask him to come to him. The Torah writes לבנו, to stress that Joseph was known for his extraordinary devotion to his father. This is why his father knew that he would not stand on ceremony and would ignore etiquette. This in spite of the halachic ruling based on <i>Kidushin</i> 32 that when a king is willing to forego the honour due him he is not allowed to do so. The ruling in the Talmud applies only to a Jewish king who rules over Israel. A king of the type of Joseph is permitted to waive the honour due him if he feels the occasion demands it.
  אם נא מצאתי חן, "If I have found favour in your eyes, etc." The word נא means both "please" and "now" in this instance. Jacob used the word in the sense of "now" to make Joseph realise that he knew he had already previously found favour in his son's eyes, why else would he have provided for him for the past 17 years. However, he now asked for an additional favour. This is why he said: "please." Had he not said "please," it might have sounded as if he had not been grateful for the sustenance Joseph had provided thus far.
  Alternatively, Jacob indicated that although Joseph would no longer have to provide for him seeing he was about to die, there was another matter concerning which he needed Joseph's favour.
  We may also read a more subtle meaning into this request. All the favours Joseph had done for Jacob in the past could have been interpreted in either of two ways. 1) Joseph did so because Jacob had found favour in his eyes and not because he expected any favours from his father in return. This was normal between a father and a son who were extremely fond of each other. 2) Joseph had done what he did merely because it was his duty as a son to look after his aging father something that is customary also amongst the Gentiles. It would simply have been a disgrace for a man in Joseph's position to make his family a charge on outsiders. Inasmuch as the motivation of Joseph's conduct up to this point had been subject to some doubt, the request Jacob was about to make from him now was one by means of which Joseph could demonstrate that he had done everything only because he loved his father not because he was performing a filial duty. If Joseph were to accede to his request he would prove that all he had done in the past had also been motivated solely by love for his father. Inasmuch as what Jacob asked Joseph to do now was something he was not obligated to do, if he were to decline to do so it would reflect on the motivations behind the favours he had done for his father up to now. This is also why Jacob spoke about מצאתי, "I have found," instead of אמצא "I will find."
  שים נא ידך, "please place your hand, etc." In this instance the word נא may mean "please," or it may mean "now" in the sense of "after due consideration." Jacob added a second request to the one he had already indicated he was about to make that he be buried in the land of Canaan, namely that Joseph reinforce his promise by swearing an oath. The word also meant that Jacob was not content to wait until his death was imminent for Joseph to make this undertaking. He wanted the undertaking to be made on that very day. The fact that the next paragraph begins with the words: "it was after these events," makes it quite plain that the conversation the Torah reports here took place some considerable time before Jacob took ill (48,1) and Joseph was told about it by a third party (48,2). Jacob also wanted Joseph to render this oath immediately, before he had an opportunity to register a מודעה, a statement that the oath his father requested from him was to be considered as something he had committed himself to only under duress and should therefore not be binding upon him. <i>Midrash Tanchuma</i> even says that Jacob told Joseph that unless he swore an oath to him concerning this burial, he would die from mere worry that he would not be buried in the cave of Machpelah. If that was so, Joseph had additional reason to register a מודעה. Jacob therefore had to pre-empt such a possibility by insisting on an immediate and therefore irrevocable oath. All this is implied by the words: שים נא ידך, "put your hand now, etc."
  ועשית עמדי חסד ואמת, "and do me a true favour!" The Torah added the conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of the word ועשית to indicate that the request for the oath had preceded the actual request to bury him in the land of Canaan.
  <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 96,5 teaches that any favour performed for a person after his death is considered a "true favour." This is very difficult to understand as we observe Jacob promising Joseph an extra share in the land of Israel at the time the land would be distributed when he said: "I am giving you one portion more than your brothers which I took from the Emorites with my sword and my bow (48,22)." Rashi even explains that Jacob said: "because you have the bother to organise my burial, etc, I assign to you an extra share in the land of Israel, namely שכם." The fact that Jacob said נתתי, "I have given," indicates that he did so at the time when he had made Joseph swear the oath which he had categorised as חסד ואמת in 47,29 at the time Joseph accepted the task to bury his father. We may have to conclude that Jacob meant to reward Joseph already at that time for accepting the task to organise the funeral procession all the way to the land of Canaan and not for the burial in the cave of Machpelah itself. Even if this were correct, Jacob should not have added the word "ואמת."
  On the other hand, Jacob may have intended that Joseph should arrange matters in such a way that the fact that his father had awarded him an extra piece of territory should not be perceived by him as a payment for such a deed. This could be achieved by one of two means. 1) He asked Joseph not to bury him in a town filled with abominations, i.e. אל נא תקברני במצרים; 2) Joseph should transfer his earthly remains to the Holy Land. The חסד, kindness, Joseph was to perform was not to bury his father in Egypt; the normal sequence of death and burial is that one dies first and then one is buried. It is significant that Jacob first spoke about where he did not want to be buried, and only afterwards mentioned a word associated with dying when he said: "I wish to lie with my fathers." This indicates clearly that the oath Jacob made Joseph swear referred to where he was going to be buried, not to where he was not to be buried. Joseph would not receive a reward for either of these two requests so that what he did could be described as a true kindness. The extra town Jacob allocated to Joseph's (his tribe's) heritage in the land of Israel was only in respect of the effort and expense involved in transporting the remains of his father to the land of Canaan.
  The verse may also be understood along the following lines: When Jacob said: ועשית, he meant that what Joseph had already done for him in the past was a חסד של אמת, a true kindness for which he had not and would not receive compensation. There was, however, another kindness Jacob would now ask of him for which he would receive the city of Shechem as a reward. We would then have to understand the letter ו in front of the word ועשית as referring also to what Joseph would do in the future. Once Joseph undertook to carry out his father's wish in return for compensation any oath he swore that he would do so could not be construed as an oath sworn under duress. There would be no legal way Joseph could become free from that oath except by carrying out its provisions (compare Rav Nissim on Nedarim 65). Although the text does not have Jacob mention the gift of Shechem at this point, the Torah does give a broad hint that Jacob had promised Shechem to Joseph already prior to 48,22 when the Torah makes mention of it. Jacob is not reported as saying that he would give that city to Joseph in the future, but the Torah reports him as saying: "I have already given you one portion more than to your brothers." The gift had been bestowed on Joseph at the time Jacob asked Joseph to render an oath concerning Jacob's burial arrangements in 47,30-31. We have explained the legal details about revocable and irrevocable oaths in connection with Isaac and Avimelech; see our commentary on Genesis 26,26. We must also remember <i>Sotah</i> 36 where it is stated that eventually Joseph had to threaten Pharaoh that he would consider himself free of his undertaking not to reveal that Pharaoh did not understand Hebrew unless the latter would let him honour his oath to his father to bury him in the land of Canaan. Joseph's argument there does not imply that he was legally able to renege on the oath to his father, he only used that argument to put the oath to his father on the same legal basis as that which he had rendered to Pharaoh, seeing that in both instances he had received compensation for rendering the oath.
  אל נא תקברני במצרים, "please do not bury me in Egypt." The meaning of the words אל נא in this case refers to a time-frame. Jacob did not even want to be interred in Egypt temporarily. He wanted that his remains be transferred to the land of Canaan immediately. This is why he added ושכבתי עם אבותי, "I wish to lie with my fathers," adding ונשאתני "and you will transport me, etc." I have already explained the reason that Jacob had first said "do not bury me, etc." and only afterwards: "I wish to lie with my fathers, etc." on 47,29: "perform a favour for me." The <i>Zohar</i> Vayeshev 182 explains that Jacob and Joseph were so much part of the same category of souls and that this is why Jacob was afraid that when the time came for him to die, Joseph would not want to be separated from him until he himself would die. Although the Talmud <i>Taanit</i> 4 claims that Jacob did not die and remained alive, Jacob wanted to be sure that Joseph did not misunderstand this and that he realised that his father would "die." When that occurred he would be separated from Joseph and would want to join his fathers. This is why he had to issue all these instructions.
  
  Verse 30
  
   ויאמר אנכי אעשה כדבריך. He said: "l will do in accordance with your instructions." Why did Joseph have to announce that he was going to do all this? All he had to do was to place his hand where his father had asked and make the promise and that would be his reply to his father's request. This is what Eliezer did when Abraham made him swear an oath concerning his selecting a wife for Isaac (Genesis 24,9).
  Actually, the Torah mentions Joseph's declaration as proof that he said he did not need to swear an oath, that his promise was sufficient.
  Alternatively, he meant that he was legally obligated to comply with his father's request either by dint of being his father's son or by dint of his father's request being that of a man about to die (compare <i>Choshen Mishpat</i> 252,2). Joseph added the word כדברך to demonstrate that he would fulfil the request quite independent of any oath he would swear.
  
  Verse 31
  
   ויאמר השבעה לי, He said: "swear it to me, etc." Jacob felt that he needed to request an oath for the second time, that Joseph's promise was insufficient. He may have meant simply that he wanted Joseph to humour him and to phrase his promise in the form of an oath, or he may have said so without revealing his true motivation at all but making it clear that he had some reason he did not want to reveal. The reason, of course, was to give Joseph ammunition in case someone would try to prevent him from doing what he had promised. Events proved Jacob correct when Pharaoh wanted to prevent Jacob's body being moved out of the country as we have learned from <i>Sotah</i> 34.
  Jacob may have intended to emphasise only the word לי, "to me," meaning that Joseph should not make any mental reservations when he made this promise to his father.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  48.1. שני בניו עמו, את מנשה ואת אפרים, together with his two sons Menashe and Ephrayim. Why did the Torah have to give us the names of Joseph's two sons when we already know their names as well as the fact that he had only two sons? Alternatively, the Torah could have simply written: "Menashe and Ephrayim," and I would have known that these names referred to his two sons? Besides, why did the Torah have to insert the word עמו, with him, in the middle of the verse? Why did the Torah have to use the word את twice in this verse?
  Perhaps the Torah describes Joseph's desire that each of his children be the recipients of separate blessings in addition to the blessings that would devolve upon them in their capacity as his children. This is why it says separately: את שני בניו עמו.
  Perhaps the Torah wanted to inform us that Joseph's children deserved a blessing on two accounts; a) because of their respective virtues, b) because they were Joseph's children. The words בניו עמו refer to the latter, the words את מנשה ואת אפרים refer to their individual merits. The word עמו is interposed to prevent us from thinking that the Torah only wanted to inform us about the identity of these two sons.
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
   הנני מפרך והרבך, "I am fructifying and multiplying you, etc." The repetition of these expressions, i.e. both "multiply and fructify," alludes to G'd's promise to Jacob in 35,11 that he would be fruitful and would multiply. At the time he had interpreted that promise to mean that two more sons (at least) would be born to him. In the meantime he had found out that only one more son, i.e. Benjamin was born to him.
  
  Verse 5
  
   ועתה שני בניך, "And now, your two sons, etc." As a result of this insight, ועתה, Jacob realised in retrospect that G'd had referred to two sons that were to be born to Joseph and that it was these that were destined to become גוי וקהל גוים as per that promise in 35,11. What G'd had meant was that Joseph's sons were to rank equally with Reuben and Shimon amongst Jacob's offspring.
  
  Verse 6
  
   ומולדתך אשר הולדת אחריהם, "and any sons you beget after them, etc." This means that Joseph and his sons Menashe and Ephrayim would not be counted as three tribes but only as two. Accordingly, whenever the tribes are enumerated we do not find a tribe referred to as "the tribe of Joseph," but as the tribes Ephrayim and Menashe, respectively.
  The fact that Jacob excluded mention of Joseph whenever the tribes would be mentioned or enumerated deserves our closer attention. Why would it bother Jacob that including Levi there would be 14 tribes if Joseph were to be mentioned separately? After all it appears from G'd's promise in 35,11 that Jacob was to produce two more tribes, not just one more tribe? Where do we have an indication that the name Joseph as a tribe would be eliminated or superseded? Besides, who told Jacob that the two additional children G'd promised him in 35,11 were to be the two sons of Joseph rather than two sons of another one of his children? Was it not more likely for Jacob to assume that the two additional children G'd had in mind were Peretz and Zerach, the children of the union of Yehudah and Tamar, truly superior children as we know from the fact that dynasties were descended from them?
  Perhaps Jacob thought G'd that must have referred to Joseph's children as He had already alluded to the role of Yehudah's children when He had told him that kings would be descended from him in the same verse i.e. ומלכים מחלציך יצאו. However, why do we have to assume that these words referred to the sons of Yehudah rather than that the גוי וקהל גוים themselves would be the kings? Besides, there was always the possibility that G'd had referred to the sons of another one of Jacob's sons.
  The plain meaning of the prophecy in 35,11 that "nations and a community of nations" would emanate from Jacob surely must have been that they would emanate from Jacob directly, not from his sons. The <i>Zohar</i> section 1 item 180 claims that the נפש of Jacob and Joseph were closely intertwined and that we have proof of this in Psalms 77,16 where the sons of Jacob and Joseph are almost equated by the use of a conjunctive letter ו by the psalmist to show how close these two were to one another. Kabbalists describe that letter ו as מלוי הוי׳ו, i.e. that the מלוי is equivalent to the word itself. [In other words, Joseph equals Jacob because the psalmist joined his name to Jacob by means of this letter ו. Ed.] In this way Joseph became a "founding father" (patriarch) of tribes. Once we accept this, it was easy for Jacob to realise that of all his sons only his son Joseph was endowed with the ability to be a founding father of the tribes. When G'd had told Jacob that he would beget still more sons, this promise could therefore just as easily have been meant to apply to Joseph having these sons. As a result, Jacob had no reason at all to consider that prophecy as applicable to any of his other sons.
  This is why Jacob was quite precise when he said: שני בניך…לי הם, "your two sons…are really mine, just as Reuben and Shimon are mine." He wanted Joseph to understand that he did not look at his sons as his grandsons but as his real sons. It followed that Joseph could no more be part of the tribes than Jacob himself could be part of the tribes.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ואני בבאי מפדן מתה עלי רחל, "As for me, when I was coming from Padan Rachel died on me, etc." This verse seems to lack any connection to what preceded it. We do not even know what purpose this information is supposed to serve at this point. It is true that Rashi based on <i>Midrash Lekach Tov</i> explains that Jacob wanted to explain to Joseph why he had imposed upon him the difficult and tedious task of burying him in the land of Canaan while he himself had not buried Rachel in the cave of Machpelah which was much closer to the site of her death than Egypt from Machpelah. If that had been the Torah's purpose in writing this then it should have appeared in conjunction with 47,30 rather than here. Besides, what did Jacob mean when he said עלי, "she died on me?"
  Actually, having told Joseph that G'd had told him that he would have more children himself, Jacob now explained to Joseph that it was his own fault that this did not happen as Rachel had died prematurely because of his negligence by delaying to honour the vow he had made after the dream of the ladder. This is the meaning of מתה עלי, "she died on my account." The words ואני בבאי refer to the promised additional children not being physical issue of Jacob but that Joseph's children were the incarnation of that promise. <i>Vayikra Rabbah</i> 37,1 tells us that if someone makes a vow and is tardy in keeping it he is punished by having to bury his wife. Jacob's saying ואני בבאי מפדן מתה עלי רחל is quoted as the source for this statement. Alternatively, Jacob may have referred to his rash curse of "anyone who has stolen Laban's teraphim shall not live" which he made without knowing that Rachel had been the thief. In either event, had Rachel remained alive Jacob himself would have sired the additional sons G'd had promised to him in 35,11.
  It is also possible that Jacob intended to placate Joseph for having been instrumental in hastening his mother's death. He told him that the reason he considered Joseph's two sons as if they were equal to Reuben and Shimon was in expiation for having caused Rachel's death at the time. He added that although he buried Rachel בעוד כברת ארץ, "a tract of land away, (and had not buried her in the cave of Machpelah)," he asked Joseph to go to the trouble of burying him there.
  
  Verse 8
  
   וירא ישראל את בני יוסף, Israel saw the sons of Joseph, etc. It is difficult to understand how Jacob failed to recognise grand-sons whom he had tutored for the last 17 years on a regular and frequent basis. <i>Tanchuma</i> on our portion explains that Jacob saw with his mental eye that in the future some evil people would come out of Menashe. This is homiletics, of course. We need to be able to explain the plain meaning of the verse also, and this is why the Torah reveals here that Jacob's eyesight had begun to fail him so that he could not see clearly and recognise people. Hence, although Jacob was aware that in addition to Joseph with whom he was speaking two other human beings were standing in front of him, he had recognised Joseph because he had been told in verse 2 that Joseph had come to visit him. He did not recognise Joseph's sons, however, and this is why he asked who they were.
  It is also possible that Jacob wanted to arouse feelings of love in the heart of the children's father before he commenced to bless them. In such circumstances the effectiveness of the blessing is enhanced. By asking מי אלה, Jacob was sure he would elicit the response of a proud father, someone who loved his children.
  
  Verse 9
  
   אשר נתן לי אלוקים בזה, "whom G'd has granted me here." Righteous people do not let an opportunity go by without acknowledging that anything they have received was a gift of G'd. We find an example of Jacob having done the same in Genesis 33,5.
  The reason Joseph added the words בזה, "in this place," was that he was grateful that even while he was in exile G'd had shown him favour. Moreover, we have learned in <i>Sotah</i> 36 that Joseph had been meant to beget twelve tribes but that the fact that he almost succumbed to the temptation of sleeping with the wife of Potiphar resulted in his begetting only two of the twelve tribes. The word ב־זה is an allusion to this. The letter =2ב, whereas the numerical value of the word זה is 12. The word therefore alerts us to the tradition that he had only two children instead of twelve. Joseph added the word אלוקים, which describes G'd as the judge of our actions. Joseph acknowledged the fairness of G'd's decision by ascribing the number of children he had been granted to אלוקים.
  
  Verse 10
  
   ועיני ישראל כבדו מזקן, Israel's eyes were heavy with old age, etc. Why did the Torah choose this point to inform us of Jacob's failing eyesight? What does it have to do with his proceeding to embrace and kiss Joseph's children? Besides, why did the Torah have to describe these kisses as להם instead of אותם? Perhaps one of these details will help us understand the other detail. Jacob embraced the children in the wrong places and kissed them in the wrong places due to his failing eyesight. If that were true the expression להם instead of אותם is quite understandable.
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   שכל את ידיו כי כי מנשה הבכור, he placed his hands deliberately, keeping in mind that Menashe was the firstborn. Many feel that the word כי may best be understood as "although."
  I think that we have to understand the verse in conjunction with the previous statement that Jacob's eyesight was failing. As a result he could not recognise which of the two grandchildren was the older one. When it came to the blessing he used his wits to compensate for his eyesight and reasoned that surely Joseph had placed the sons in such a position that the elder one would be blessed by his right hand and the younger one by his placing his left hand on him. He reversed his hands because he wanted to place his right hand on the head of the younger son Ephrayim.
  
  Verse 15
  
   ויברך את יוסף, He blessed Joseph. We do not find a blessing addressed to Joseph here. Nachmanides says that by blessing Joseph's sons Jacob actually blessed Joseph. This does not really appeal to me as it does not explain why Jacob did not say some words which would apply to Joseph individually. I believe that the very word ויברך was Jacob's way of telling Joseph that he would remain blessed henceforth.
  The wording may also be explained in terms of <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 39,11 that Abraham received the keys to blessings. Isaac received those keys after Abraham had died and he handed them to Jacob before he sent the latter to get himself a wife. At this point Jacob bequeathed these keys to his son Joseph. This is the meaning of the words ויברך את יוסף.
  ויאמר האלוקים אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו, He said: "the G'd before Whom my forefathers walked, etc." Jacob recited the virtues of his forefathers before commencing his blessing much as we do when we commence the central prayer the עמידה, where we first introduce ourselves to G'd as descendants of worthy people. Jacob did not spell out the specific merits of his fathers, but when he spoke about himself he added that his own conduct had been similar to that of the sheep which walks in front of the shepherd who looks after it. Only after this introduction did Jacob commence his blessing with the words: המלאך הגואל.
  
  Verse 16
  
   המלאך הגואל אותי, "The angel who redeems me, etc." Jacob referred to any word of G'd which He issues to or on behalf of those those who love Him as מלאך. This is analogous to Psalms 29,7: "The voice of G'd kindles flames of fire." Jacob expressed the hope that G'd's word would always come to the assistance of Joseph's sons and bless them.
  ויקרא בהם שמי, "and may my name be called upon them, etc." Jacob wished that Joseph's sons should reflect the spiritual level of the patriarchs. While it is quite impossible for any Jew to completely sever the connection with all three of the patriarchs, Jacob blessed Ephrayim and Menashe in that they would never fail to reflect the spiritual values of even one of the patriarchs.
  Jacob may also have expressed the hope that the reputations of the patriarchs would be enhanced by the conduct of Joseph's sons in the future. We find such an idea in Proverbs 23,24: "the father of the righteous will rejoice greatly;" we also have a similar statement in Proverbs 17,6: "Grandchildren are the crown of their elders." All of this is predicated on the grandchildren following in the footsteps of their illustrious forebears.
  Jacob also hinted that mentioning the names of Ephrayim and Menashe would have as positive an effect in the ears of G'd as has mentioning the names of the patriarchs themselves. This sentiment is expressed in Jeremiah 31,19 when the prophet exclaims that every time G'd merely hears the name of Ephrayim mentioned He recalls him with feelings of mercy and has pity on his plight.
  וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ, "and they will multiply on earth just like fish." Jacob's considerations may have been similar to the blessings G'd bestowed on the fish in Genesis 1,22.1 explained there that a special blessing for the fish was called for due to their habitat being less suited for successful and enduring procreation than the conditions prevailing on dry land. G'd therefore increased the fish's natural reproductive powers to counter the negative conditions prevailing in their habitat. Jacob too accorded Joseph's sons greater powers of reproduction when he blessed them by comparing their fruitfulness to that of fish. Inasmuch as Ephrayim and Menashe did not reside in regions which are hostile to human reproduction, Jacob's blessing was even stronger than G'd's blessing for the fish.
  Jacob deliberately chose to say בקרב, "in the midst of the earth," instead of merely saying "on earth." This was a hint that at some time in the future Joseph's descendants would "hide" within the earth as we know from <i>Sotah</i> 36 where Joshua is reported as having advised the members of that tribe to hide in the forests (to prevent attracting envy and jealousy due to their being numerous). This need arose only because Jacob's blessing had been fulfilled and they had multiplied at a faster rate than the other tribes. <i>Berachot</i> 55 sees in Jacob's phraseology a hint that the descendants of Joseph would be immune to the evil eye just as the fish are immune to the evil eye. The fish enjoy that status only thanks to their remaining under the surface of the water and therefore not visible. Jacob blessed the sons of Joseph that they would enjoy this immunity even while visible on earth, i.e. בקרב הארץ.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
   ויאמר יוסף..לא כן אבי, Joseph said to his father: "not so my father, etc." We need to understand why Joseph did not simply say: "this one is the firstborn," instead of the preamble "not so my father."
  Joseph entertained two possible doubts. 1) Inasmuch as Joseph and his sons were facing Jacob, and it was customary for Joseph to have his firstborn on his right and the younger one on his left, they would appear in the reverse position when viewed from Jacob's vantage point. Jacob may therefore have reasoned that in order to place his right hand on the older one of the two he had to cross his hands. 2) On the other hand, Joseph reasoned that it was possible that his father crossed his hands in order to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim, deliberately, thus giving him preference over Menashe. In view of this Joseph first told his father that if he had assumed that Joseph had placed the boys as he usually did, i.e. Menashe on his right, לא כן אבי, i.e. he did not do so this time. If, on the other hand, Jacob had deliberately placed his right hand on the head of Ephrayim, Joseph registered his protest by saying: "place your right hand on him for he is the firstborn." He wanted to know why his father denied his firstborn what he thought he was entitled to.
  
  Verse 19
  
   וימאן אביו ויאמר, His father refused, saying, etc. The reason the Torah uses the word "he refused," is to indicate that Joseph had taken hold of his father's hand to try and place it on Menashe's head.
  The reason Jacob repeated: "I know my son, I know, etc." is that Jacob wanted to answer both of Joseph's doubts as we have already explained. To Joseph's remark "not so my father," Jacob replied that he was well aware that Joseph had already placed the children in such a position that he, Jacob, did not have to cross his hands in order to put his right hand on the head of Menashe. By adding the word בני, my son, Jacob hinted that he had given Joseph credit for placing the boys in the position which he considered as appropriate. Concerning Joseph's specific concern that the firstborn be accorded the privileges due him, Jacob also said: "I know;" he assured Joseph that Menashe too would attain greatness. Joseph should not think that Jacob considered his firstborn as unworthy or inferior. If he had nonetheless decided to place his right hand on the head of Ephrayim this was in view of Ephrayim's descendants outranking Menashe's descendants at some time in the future. Ephrayim was destined to become מלא הגוים, meaning that at that time he would occupy a higher position though at the moment Menashe fulfilled his role of the firstborn perfectly. <i>Tanchuma</i> elaborates that Joshua would be descended from Ephrayim whereas Gideon would be descended from Menashe, both leaders of the Jewish people during their respective lifetimes. Both had already been destined for their respective roles in life; Jacob only gave recognition to this by the manner in which he placed his hands when blessing both these children.
  Alternatively, Jacob meant that he was thoroughly familiar with Joseph's arguments; when Joseph had hinted that the birthright should determine on whose hand Jacob was to place his right hand, Joseph was wrong, it was not the order of birth which determined matters like this. By adding the word בני, Jacob hinted that Joseph himself had foreseen future developments in his dreams. Similarly, Jacob could not now act in defiance of G'd who had shown him in a vision that the younger son would outshine his older brother.
  
  Verse 20
  
   ויברכם ביום ההוא לאמור, He blessed them on that day, saying, etc. The Torah means that Jacob gave the boys such a full measure of blessings that everybody said that the simplest way to bestow blessings on Jewish children in the future would be to mention that they should be as blessed as Ephrayim and Menashe were blessed by Jacob.
  וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה, He placed Ephrayim ahead of Menashe. This is not to be understood literally. The Torah means that by mentioning Ephrayim ahead of Menashe Jacob had in effect given Ephrayim a measure of precedence over Menashe. What true Jewish father would reverse the formula that Jacob had used when he blessed his grandchildren? We still mention Ephrayim the younger of the two ahead of Menashe the firstborn when we bless our children.
  
  Verse 21
  
   ויאמר ישראל אל יוסף הנה אנכי מת, Israel said to Joseph: "I am about to die, etc." When Israel said: "I am about to die," he meant that only he was going to depart, the שכינה was not going to depart from them. Jacob added that G'd would lead the Jewish people back to the land of their ancestors. Jacob underlined that the land had been given by G'd to the patriarchs and not to the generation who would leave Egypt at the time of the Exodus. This being so, he was within his rights when he assigned Shechem to Joseph's descendants since he was the owner. When Jacob said: "and I have given to you one (extra) share, etc.," this is a valid explanation. Even according to the view of Rabbi Nechemyah in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 97,6 that Jacob referred to the city of Shechem conquered by Shimon and Levi, Jacob implied that had it not been for the fact that G'd had given the land to the patriarchs they would not have succeeded.
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
  
  
  Verse 2
  
  
  
  Verse 3
  
   ראובן בכרי אתה, "Reuben, you are my firstborn, etc.," What news did Jacob convey to us with this statement? What did Jacob mean when he described Reuben as "my strength and the first of my vigor?" Although <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 98,4 mentions that Jacob meant to say that whereas he had not emitted a drop of semen until he married at 84 years of age, Reuben had not been able to contain himself, we still need to know why Jacob mentioned this at this time. Furthermore, why did he appear to repeat himself by describing Reuben as 1) "my strength," and 2) "the first of my vigor?" Another difficulty in this verse is the expression יתר שאת ויתר עז. Whereas the <i>Midrash</i> we have just referred to understands the word שאת as a reference to the Priesthood whereas the word עז is a reference to Royalty, we need to know why Jacob did not mention that as a firstborn Reuben was entitled to two portions in the inheritance seeing that he did dwell on details of the birthright. Onkelos does refer to this by saying that Jacob meant that Reuben should have been entitled to three shares of the inheritance. Another enigmatic statement in this verse (4) is the expression פחז כמים אל־תותר, "unstable as water, you have lost your advantage;" Rashi comments that Reuben lost his advantage as a firstborn because of his instability, the instability being that he defiled Jacob's bed in the incident with Bilhah (35,22). This still does not tell us why Jacob could not have merely said אל תותר, without describing Reuben as פחז כמים. After all, Reuben's instability was only an additional way of describing his sin. All we needed to know to justify that Reuben was deprived of his privileges as the firstborn was the fact that he had committed a sin against his father. Why did Jacob phrase Reuben's sin in the plural, i.e. "your father's beds?" Why did Jacob create the impression that Reuben had committed two wrongs when he said: אז חללת, "at that time you defiled," as if Reuben had also defiled his bed at a different time? It gives the impression that the defilement Jacob speaks about did not occur at the time Reuben mounted his father's bed. If that is so we are entitled to know what precisely Jacob is talking about. On the other hand, if mounting his father's bed was defiling it he should have said so in unmistakable terms.
  Before commencing to explain these verses we need to understand why Jacob did not honour the Torah's commandment of not showing preference (in terms of inheritance) to the firstborn son of the wife he loved when the true firstborn was the son of the wife he hated (Deut. 21,16)? Jacob treated Joseph the firstborn son of his beloved wife Rachel, as entitled to the privileges that are accorded to the son of the wife he hated when the latter had been born earlier. The question also arises whether the patriarchs were obligated to accept the norms of the Torah, seeing that the Torah did not become the law of Israel until the revelation at Mount Sinai. After all, we find that Jacob married two sisters while both were alive, something that contravenes Torah law. Abraham too did not perform circumcision on himself until he was advanced in years whereas Torah law stipulates circumcision on the eighth day or as soon as possible thereafter. We can find numerous other instances of the patriarchs not acting in accordance with Torah law. In view of the two examples we have quoted about the patriarchs not complying with what became Torah law thereafter, the whole question of why Jacob treated Joseph as his firstborn seems irrelevant. I have found that Nachmanides (Genesis 26,5) explains that the reason Jacob did marry two sisters while both were alive was that he was not in the Holy Land at the time. His words do not sound convincing. Who told Jacob that Torah legislation applied only within the boundaries of ארץ ישראל? The fact is that the commandments which the patriarchs did not observe apply equally in ארץ ישראל and outside it.
  I believe that the patriarchs received the Torah from Shem who in turn had received it from Noach; Noach had received it from Chanoch who had received it from Adam himself. Adam, of course, had received the Torah from G'd. This is based on Job 28,27: "Then He saw and told, etc.,…and He said to Adam." <i>Zohar</i> 1,199 attributes the revelation of Torah laws to Adam as the basis of G'd instructing him how to work and preserve the גן עדן. I have explained this in connection with Genesis 2,15. At that time Adam (and the patriarchs subsequently) were only commanded seven laws on pain of death. These laws are the ones commonly known as the Noachide laws, those applicable to mankind as a whole. All the other commandments which G'd revealed to Adam had only one purpose, namely to enable man to accumulate reward if he observed them. If he failed to observe those laws he was not liable to punishment. This situation continued until G'd revealed Himself to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.
  The patriarchs made a point of observing all these commandments as an expression of their love for G'd. This is what G'd had told Isaac in Genesis 26,5. <i>Yuma</i> 28 states that Abraham not only observed all the commandments of the Torah but even such Rabbinic ordinances as <i>Eyruv Tavshilim.</i> No doubt Abraham instructed his children in these matters as he wanted them to qualify for the reward in store for those who observed all these commandments. Whenever the patriarchs observed that by not observing one of these commandments they would achieve something important immediately, they decided to opt for the immediate benefit. This is what happened when Jacob decided to marry Rachel in addition to Leah. He wanted to have children by Rachel, i.e. that at least some of the tribes should be her offspring. Jacob was especially entitled to do so since he was a prophet and acted in accordance with instructions received from G'd directly. We can understand this better when comparing what Maimonides wrote in chapter 9 of his <i>Hilchot Yesodey Torah.</i> He states that if a properly accredited prophet instructs the Jewish people to violate one of the Torah's commandments on a temporary basis, he is to be obeyed. Maimonides quotes the incident when Elijah rebuilt a private altar and sacrificed on it on Mount Carmel as a case in point. The same applied to Jacob's having married two sisters. According to <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 85,8, an angel exploited Yehudah's desire to have sexual intercourse by guiding him to Tamar, thereby ensuring that the kings who would come out of him had a matriarch who was both of suitable ancestry and of high moral calibre. At any rate, there are instances when it was obviously preferable not to apply the strictures that would become anchored in law at a later time in Jewish history.
  According to what we have said so far we must assume that the fact that Jacob used Reuben's misdeameanour to deprive him of the privileges which come with the birthright was quite legal, halachically speaking. Alternatively, Jacob had received instructions from G'd directly concerning this. We have all of this spelled out in Chronicles I 5,1 where the fact that Reuben was deprived of his birthright because he had mounted his father's bed is stated clearly, although it also states that though Ephrayim and Menashe became the new firstborns, they did not replace Reuben as the titular first-born. 
  It is still not clear why the birthright was not given to Yehudah instead of to Joseph or any of the other older brothers. The <i>Zohar</i> on Vayishlach page 176 explains this. "At the time when Jacob slept with Leah (the first night of his marriage), he thought only about Rachel all the time since he was under the impression that he was sleeping with and impregnating Rachel. Restoring the birthright to Joseph was no more than an example of Jacob's original intention being fulfilled."
  Whereas this explained why Jacob gave the birthright to Joseph once he took it away from Reuben, why did the Torah have to mention that Reuben had defiled Jacob's bed? The birthright would have belonged to Joseph anyways. [I confess I have great difficulty with this <i>Zohar</i> because Leah was not impregnated on the first night of her marriage; when Reuben was conceived, eventually, Jacob was well aware that he was sleeping with Leah. If he had pined after Rachel knowing that he was sleeping with Leah this would have been most inappropriate. Ed.] In order to answer our problem we must remember that all the manifestations of spirituality in the world are divided into three categories. One category of spirituality is sacred, holy. A second category is secular; the third category of spirituality is evil. Each one of these categories produces "offsprings" corresponding to its nature. The category of holy spirituality produces offspring which is good, provides eternal bliss, and it strives for abstract intelligence, etc. The category of secular spirituality is characterised by its interest in the consumption of that which is aestethically pleasing, and that which provides enjoyment for the senses. The third category of spirituality is characterised by its interest in idolising every abomination. Its adherents commit every sin in the book. They steal, cheat, deceive, and consume mostly forbidden foods. They engage in illicit sex and indulge only in gratifying their lust, etc. These three categories between them comprise every human being, the good ones, the secular oriented ones, and the evil ones.
  Inasmuch as the Jewish people belong to the holy category of spirituality, G'd has commanded them not to taste i.e. absorb things which characterise evil, be it in the form of food or drink, speech or thought, or even perceptions that are of a visual, aural or of an olfactory nature. Prohibited foods (i.e. the sense of taste) comprise such things as eating living tissue, eating unclean animals, eating reptiles and insects or diseased animals, or even animals which died a natural death. Forbidden drink includes the consumption of wine designated for idolatrous purposes, wine made from grapes of vines which are less than four years old, etc. Forbidden speech includes lying, slander, coarse language, character assassination, etc. Forbidden thoughts include the study of idolatry with a view to practicing it, fantasies of an erotic nature, considering oneself superior to others, pride, etc. Forbidden use of one's vision include examining a woman's physical beauty, as elaborated on in the <i>Zohar</i> Kedoshim page 83. Forbidden sounds include listening to women sing, etc. Forbidden smells and fragrances include forbidden smells such as the incense offered in pagan rites. In all these matters there are secular as well as sacred elements. G'd decreed that it was mandatory to observe the sacred elements whereas it was permitted to take advantage of the secular elements. Whenever a person associates himself with one of either of these elements by making use of them, his soul forms some kind of attachment with the root underlying such element be it positive or negative.
  Seeing that this is so even a pure soul is subject to some degree of contamination when its owner gets involved in one of the secular elements. As a result, such a person (body as well as soul) will experience a process of afflictions either in this world or by the soul alone in the Hereafter to cleanse him of that contamination. This is the mystical dimension of the "laundry" mentioned in <i>Shabbat</i> 152 where the soiled souls are described as being handed over to the "washer" after death before they can take their seat at the king's table. During the period the "clothes" are being washed their owners are incarcerated. You should appreciate that once a forbidden category of spirituality has made contact with a person, that person's soul in turn develops a yearning for that particular category of the forbidden. The attraction between them is mutual. When a soul (personality) has become infected with the impurity represented by adultery, such a soul will begin to develop a yearning for this kind of impurity. The same holds true of all other categories of the forbidden. A person's desire to partake of evil increases in direct proportion to the quantity of evil he has absorbed and the frequency with which he has done so. On the other hand, a person's path to saintliness is similarly accelerated in proportion to the efforts he makes to distance himself from evil and to embrace only what is sacred and holy. The rule one must remember is that there is nothing in this world which does not contain elements of either negative or positive spirituality. Our only yardstick for knowing what contains negative spirituality is that which is forbidden by the Torah. In his volume <i>Sefer Hayashar</i> chapter 9, Rabbeynu Tam writes that when examining a number of personalities (נפש) as to their inherent tendencies, one will find that some people have absolutely no inclinations to commit adultery whereas others have. The difference is accounted for by the owners of these respective personalities having absorbed negative spirituality. Once a sufficient amount of such evil has been absorbed it is almost impossible for that personality to hate evil sufficiently for that hatred to be of assistance in combating evil tendencies. This is the mystical dimension of what we are taught in <i>Sukkah</i> 52 that man possesses a relatively small organ (male organ) whose demands grow in proportion to the freedom one grants it to satisfy its desire and which becomes progressively more satiated in proportion to the frequency with which it is denied its desire.
  There are people who display a strong tendency towards evil, a tendency which intensifies as they grow up, whereas others can control their evil urges with ease and are able to repent and find their way back to innocence with relative ease. Such tendencies are the result of the composition of their respective life-force at the time of conception. The holy thoughts and aspirations of the parents at the time of marital intercourse determine to a large degree the natural tendencies which we will observe in their offspring. If a parent concentrated on physical gratification at the time he engaged in procreation, he cannot be surprised if he transmitted tendencies of the desire to fulfil himself sexually to his offspring. If at the time the father indulged in marital relations with his wife he fantasized about some other woman's body, he cannot be surprised if his offspring develops adulterous or promiscuous tendencies. [This concept is not dissimilar to present-day theories about the genetic material injected into the sperm determining the quality of the body. In this case we speak about "moral" genetical material. Ed.] We have an interesting story about this in the <i>Eyn Yaakov</i> on <i>Berachot</i> 10. King Chiskiyah had failed to marry having seen with his mental eye that his offspring would not be worthy. He fell sick, and Isaiah told him to make his last will and testament as he was going to die. When he challenged the prophet why death at such an early age had been decreed upon him the prophet accused him of failing to fulfil the first commandment of the Torah, to procreate. He did not accept Chiskiyah's reason for not marrying and told him that the worthiness of his children was G'd's concern, whereas his only concern should have been to keep G'd's commandment. In the course of the conversation Chiskiyah suggested to Isaiah that he should give him his daughter in marriage and that perhaps their combined merits would suffice to produce worthy children. After refusing initially, Isaiah agreed in the end. The result was that Chiskiyah produced two idol-worshipping sons Menashe and Ravshakeh. Menashe and Ravshakeh may have been born with idolatrous tendencies due to thoughts which their father had entertained at the time he begat them. If one observes a person who has always conducted himself in the most pious manner commit an obvious sin, one must assume that he was not aware that he committed such a sin. Our argument that the various manifestations of spirituality we encounter contain both positive and negative elements is best proven by the tree of knowledge. The fact that G'd planted that tree within גן עדן is proof that it contained positive elements. G'd's garden is certainly not a place in which He had planted evil incarnate. <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 21, claims that if only Adam had waited till nightfall before eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge he could have used the juice to proclaim the sanctification of the Sabbath with it. [I have not found this in the section of the <i>Midrash</i> quoted. I presume this is based on the prohibition applying only "on the day you eat from it," as opposed to "the night you eat from it," etc. Ed.] This is in accordance with the view expressed in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 70 that the tree of knowledge was the grapevine.
  In view of all the above you are bound to ask how it was possible that sainted patriarchs such as Abraham and Isaac could have fathered such sons as Ishmael and Esau respectively? The answer is that they carried within themselves residual evil bequeathed to them by their forefather Terach who was an idol worshiper. When Abraham was born he contained elements of such tendencies. Abraham was able to suppress and isolate such tendencies by dint of his character; the residue of such suppressed tendencies resurfaced in Ishmael, however. Nonetheless Abraham was not yet totally free from the residual evil tendencies bequeathed to him by his father so that even Isaac was born with them. Isaac, in turn, suppressed them and isolated them by means of his enthusiastic pursuit of holiness. He was so successful in this regard that our sages in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 63,8 state that Esau had to be born first so that by absorbing the residue of negative spiritual input remaining from earlier ancestors, Jacob could emerge free from such taint.
  Let us now examine what happened when Jacob married. Since he was born without negative spiritual residue, why did he produce a Reuben who demonstrated some negative traits? This could only have been due to Jacob's thoughts at the time he conceived Reuben not having been perfect. Jacob's purity of thought and his deed were not perfectly matched at that moment. Our sages in <i>Nedarim</i> 20 list nine categories of children who are spiritually defective from the time of their conception; one of these categories is the child of a man who has two wives and who at the time of marital relations believed that he was in bed with his other wife. Although Jacob's situation was different in that he had every reason to believe that he was in bed with Rachel, the objective fact was that he did not have the correct thoughts at the time. This is proven by the fact that Reuben later became guilty of a misdemeanour involving his father's bed, something that not one of the other eleven sons of Jacob ever became guilty of. Even Joseph who was exposed to sexual harassment of a very intense nature did not succumb. While it is true that the Talmud in <i>Shabbat</i> 55 states that if someone accuses Reuben of having committed a transgression such a person is in error, this referred merely to the legal aspect of the matter, not to its moral implications.
  As to Yehudah sleeping with Tamar- something which suggests something less than 100% chaste behaviour by a son of Jacob- there are two answers. 1) First of all, he had no idea that she was his daughter-in-law; 2) the fact that an angel arranged things in such a way that he was actually acting under some kind of duress as explained by our sages in <i>Makkot</i> 23 on Genesis 38,26. The word ממני in that verse is understood by our sages as referring to a heavenly voice which claimed that the whole incident had been engineered by heaven. Since we do not have an allusion to such heavenly intervention in the case of Reuben, we are entitled to blame him for his act.
  I have seen a comment by the outstanding scholar Rabbi Yehudah Rosenis in his volume <i>Parshat D'rachim</i> in which he comes to the defence of Reuben claiming that the status of Bilhah was that of a woman who had been seduced by his father Jacob, something he derives from her description as "his father's concubine." This means that Bilhah had never been betrothed to Jacob; l cannot agree with this. I am convinced that Jacob acquired Bilhah by betrothing her to him in the traditional manner as l have explained at the appropriate place (Genesis 30,3). As to the term "concubine" used by the Torah in 35,22, perhaps that was what Reuben thought. He was in error, however, and that may have accounted for his conduct. Alternatively, the Torah hinted at the reason that Reuben disturbed his father's bed. He argued that not only had Jacob down-graded his mother Leah during Rachel's lifetime, the fact that he slept primarily in Bilhah's tent now that Rachel was dead was an even greater insult to his mother. Her place had now been usurped by a mere concubine. The facts of the matter are that Bilhah had always been a proper wife of Jacob; this is why the Torah describes Reuben's action as equivalent to having slept with one of Jacob's wives.
  Having said all this we understand the words of the <i>Zohar</i> according to which the cause of the problem was that Jacob had thought of fathering his firstborn son Joseph at the time he was sleeping with Leah. This is precisely what Ezra had in mind when he described Reuben's losing his birthright in the Book of Chronicles I 5,1. Had Jacob been thinking of Leah at the time he slept with her, Reuben would never have been capable of the deed ascribed to him.
  We are now able to explain the various verses beautifully. When Jacob was about to deprive Reuben of his birthright he was poignantly aware that if one of his sons had displayed such a moral weakness he had to look for the source of that weakness in something he himself had been guilty of. The cause was, as we explained, that the father had bequeathed to his son some spiritual values be they positive or negative. Inasmuch as Reuben's sin consisted of a sexual aberration, Jacob was anxious to distance himself from the accusation that he was a contributory cause to Reuben's behaviour. He was afraid that in his heart Reuben would accuse his father of being the cause that he was capable of such a mistake. This is why he said first: "Reuben you are my firstborn." People who are guilty of adulterous behaviour fall into 3 categories. 1) They commit adultery and as a result father children who are morally inferior. 2) They commit adultery but do not cause their partner to become pregnant. Such intercourse can again be subdivided into several categories such as intercourse with a married woman which fortuitously does not result in that woman becoming pregnant. Alternatively, the adulterous male engages in intercourse with another male, or he ejaculates outside his female partner. Finally, he might commit the "act" only in an erotic dream at night, accidentally. 3) A person arouses himself by means of erotic thoughts. All of the afore-mentioned are degrees of actions which are abhorrent to G'd. Jacob referred to all three alternatives by saying to Reuben: "my firstborn," "my strength," "my vigor." When he said בכודי אתה, "you are my firstborn," he meant that he had not fathered any child prior to Reuben. Neither had he slept with a woman without benefit of betrothal and marriage certificate as this also would not have been appropriate. He then continued to say כחי, "my strength," meaning that he had not emitted sperm previous to that occasion. When he continued: ראשית אוני, "the first of my strength," he meant that he had never done anything that could be subsumed under any of the headings of adulterous behaviour we have listed.
  When Jacob said כחי וראשית אוני, he also hinted that Reuben was the result of the first drop of semen he had ever ejaculated. This is an indication that Jacob had not slept with a virgin, as a virgin could not have become pregnant from her first intercourse. Instead, Jacob had removed the hymen with his finger in order not to let a single drop of his semen go to waste deliberately. This was a further indication that his physical passion did not dominate him and that he did what he did as a sacred duty only. As a result, Reuben had absolutely no reason to blame Jacob's past conduct for any of his own shortcomings. Jacob told Reuben all this not in order to boast about his piety and self-control but in order to be sure that Reuben did not suspect him of being implicated in any way in his having defiled his father's bed.
  Jacob added the words יתר שאת ויתר עז as an allusion to the double portion of his father's inheritance that the firstborn is entitled to. Jacob had referred to this when he said: "you are my firstborn." On the other hand, there are other distinctions such as the priesthood and royalty which are not necessarily tied to being the firstborn. There are occasions when such honours are bestowed on people who are not firstborn. Reuben had also forfeited the chance to receive such honours.
  Jacob may also have been telling Reuben that the honours of priesthood and Royalty which he would have been entitled to more than any other firstborn and which far outweighed other hereditary advantages of the firstborn he had also forfeited by his behaviour.
  Up until this point Jacob dealt with the fact that he himself had not been at fault in the matter. From this point on Jacob proceeds to list the reasons that Reuben forfeited the privileges which come with being a firstborn. He deals with the distinctions Reuben has forfeited as well as with the roots of the mistake he committed.
  
  Verse 4
  
   פחז במים, "Hasty, like water, etc." Jacob accused Reuben of acting with haste, not trying to control his emotions and urges, failing to vanquish the spark of evil which was rooted within him. As a result of that failure he would be deprived of the three distinctions we have described i.e. birthright, priesthood and royalty.
  When Jacob added אל תותר, he hinted that although Reuben had displayed haste in doing something which held no advantage for him, he had not displayed the same haste when it came to doing something useful, i.e. repenting his mistake. Our sages in <i>Baba Kama</i> 92 say that it was Yehudah who triggered Reuben's eventual repentance. Although <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 84,19 states that G'd complimented Reuben on being the first human being who had repented [without having been accused by anyone as yet, Ed.], Reuben had not uttered a confession of his sin until he had heard about Yehudah doing this during Tamar's trial. Perhaps Reuben's tardiness in confessing his mistake was the reason that royalty was conferred on the descendants of Yehudah instead. It was Yehudah's reward for being the cause that triggered the final stage in Reuben's repentance. Reuben may have lost the priesthood to the descendants of Levi as a result of later developments as mentioned in Deut. 33,8 לאיש חסידך אשר נסיתו במסה, "Be with Your faithful one whom You tested at Massah" (when that tribe did not complain). Regardless of when Levi qualified for the priesthood, Reuben forfeited his claim to it already during Jacob's time. The words אל תותר mean that Reuben was deprived of all his erstwhile advantages over his brothers. Jacob transferred one of his former distinctions to Joseph, a second one to Yehudah, and he left the third one pending until G'd eventually accorded it to part of the tribe of Levi.
  Jacob said כי עלית to explain how it was possible that a son of his could commit such an act. He hinted that at the time (the wedding night) his thoughts had been confused as he had been under the impression that he had married and was sleeping with Rachel. In other words, he had actually slept in two beds, physically he had shared Leah's bed, whereas mentally he had considered himself in bed with Rachel. This is the reason Jacob spoke about Reuben having mounted משכבי אביך, the beds (pl) of your father. This was the original cause of Reuben eventually becoming guilty of his misdemeanour. When Jacob added the word אז, then, he indicated that the true defilement took place then; the first time Reuben desecrated his father's bed was at the time he was conceived in the wrong womb, Leah's instead of Rachel's. Jacob's משכבים were desecrated at that time, whereas Reuben personally had defiled Jacob's יצוע when he mounted the bed in Bilhah's tent.
  
  Verse 5
  
   שמעון ולוי אחים, Shimon and Levi are brothers, etc. Jacob stressed the fact that Shimon and Levi were brothers as their similarity was natural, they shared many attitudes, something that is not always the case between brothers. It is also possible that Jacob referred to their joint action in Shechem as well as their plan to dispose of Joseph at the time, when he described their brotherliness. Jacob may have meant that these two between them shared the element of fire in an exaggerated manner. Our sages in <i>Yuma</i> 22 describe that Saul committed one sin which cost him the kingdom whereas David committed two serious sins without forfeiting his kingdom. The reason for this was that Saul was even-tempered by nature whereas David was impetuous by nature as we know from Samuel I 16,12 where the prophet describes David as אדמוני, red cheeked, i.e. hot-blooded. When G'd judges people He makes allowances for their natural tendencies, their genetic mix. Although someone who contains a greater than average share of the element of fire will be most enthusiastic in his service of G'd as a result (as we know from the tribe of Levi), this enthusiasm does not act as a barrier against his committing errors on occasion. Such errors also reflect his genetic composition. The fact that a person such as Saul was of an even temperament usually acted as a barrier against his falling victim to the lures of the evil urge. When Jacob described Shimon and Levi as אחים the word is derived from חם, heat. Jacob cursed their anger because when it erupted it was apt to prove unusually destructive. Anger is rooted in the element fire.
  Once such anger is kindled it results in excess heat and that is why Jacob compared their anger to כלי חמס מכרותיהם, the use of weapons to commit violence. By stressing the word מכרותיהם, (from the root הכר, something one is conscious of), Jacob indicated that Shimon and Levi's tendencies to commit acts of violence were not something they had inherited from their father, something deeply rooted in their subconscious, but when such sentiments surfaced they became very conscious of them as such. The cause of their excesses was the extra amount of fire in the basic composition of their respective bodies.This genetic imbalance was responsible for such deeds as their act of violence against Joseph.
  The word מכרותיהם also contains the root מכר, sale. Jacob referred to the sale of Joseph as an act of violence perpetrated by these two brothers, seeing that Joseph had not been guilty. Although all the brothers had participated in that sale, closer examination of what happened will show you that these two brothers were the instigators of all that violence. They were the ones who said to each other in 37,19: "let us see what will become of his dreams when we will set out to kill him, etc." (compare <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 99,6).
  
  Verse 6
  
   בסודם אל תבא נפשי, "My soul, do not come to their counsel." We need to understand what precisely Jacob had in mind. Our sages in <i>Sanhedrin</i> 109 say that Jacob referred to the affair with Zimri in which the tribe of Shimon disgraced itself, and to the uprising of Korach which was a taint on the tribe of Levi. They also state that the words באפם הרגו איש "in their anger they slew a man," refer to Chamor and the men of Shechem, whereas the words וברצונם עקרו שור, "and it was their wish to uproot an ox," refer to their violence against Joseph (compare <i>Targum Yerushalmi).</i> These comments are all homiletical. One of the difficulties with this explanation is why Jacob would list events that were far in the future ahead of events which had already taken place, such as the violence against Joseph and Chamor? How could the word כי be used in this verse when it does not relate to anything which preceded it? Besides, why would Jacob also associate Levi with the affair in which Zimri would disgrace himself by sleeping with a Midianite princess? Why did Jacob choose the expression ברצונם, "when it pleased them," to describe Shimon and Levi's planned violence against Joseph?
  The plain meaning of the verse is that the entire verse speaks about the incident with Joseph. When Jacob refers to בסודם, "their secret," he meant that he did not want to be associated with these two brothers from the moment they began to hate Joseph, although they concealed their hatred for a while. When Jacob spoke about אל תבא נפשי, this was his way of disassociating himself from any guilt concerning the behaviour of Shimon and Levi. Just as he had not transmitted spiritually corrupt genes to Reuben, so he had not burdened Shimon and Levi with spiritually defective genes when he fathered either one of them. Any evil concocted by these two brothers did not originate with him.
  Jacob also wanted to state that he would not be punished for anything these two brothers had done because of his preferential treatment of Joseph being an underlying cause of the brothers' jealousy and hatred of him.
  When Jacob added: ובקהלם אל תחד כבודי, "my honour do not join their congregation," he referred to the moment when Shimon and Levi hatched the plot to kill Joseph (37,20). He did not want these two sons to be known as "the sons of Jacob" as of that moment. Jacob considered such a designation of these two as an affront to his honour. <i>Tanchuma</i> in Parshat Vayeshev understands the word כבוד as a reference to the presence of the שכינה which had departed from Jacob the moment Joseph had become lost. The word כי in בי באפם הרגו איש, is the justification for Jacob not wanting his name associated with these two brothers. He referred to their having killed a man although we know in retrospect that this did not happen. Jacob considered the brothers' willingness to kill Joseph and to throw him into a pit full of reptiles as equivalent to exposing Joseph to many kinds of deaths.
  וברצונם עקרו שור, "and they uprooted an ox at their pleasure." Jacob added that even after their anger had already evaporated, after they had thrown Joseph into the pit and Yehudah spoke words of appeasement to them, they continued to act evilly. The Talmud <i>Sotah</i> 56 states that Joseph should have been the progenitor of 12 tribes. His encounter with the wife of Potiphar whose temptations he withstood only with the greatest amount of willpower caused him to forfeit the privilege of founding the other ten tribes. Had it not been for Shimon and Levi who had wanted to uproot Joseph's future, none of this would have happened.
  
  Verse 7
  
   ארור אפם כי עז, "cursed be their anger for it is very strong, etc." Jacob only cursed their excess anger. This is why he added: כי עז. Every person needs to harbour a certain amount of hatred otherwise he could not receive a reward in the Hereafter for having controlled his anger and made it subservient to his duty to serve the Lord. Jacob realised that he had to find a way to "cool" this anger which was liable to flare up from time to time. Inasmuch as both brothers suffered from an excess amount of fire in their genetic mix, Jacob hoped that by separating them from one another he could forestall future outbursts or at least make such outbursts of anger less harmful. This is why he added: "I will separate them within Yaakov, etc."
  
  Verse 8
  
   יהודה אתה יודוך אחיך, "Yehudah- as to you, your brothers will praise you, etc." Why did Jacob have to add the word אתה when he addressed Yehudah? Apparently the word was meant to exclude someone else. Besides, why did Jacob not say: וידך, "and your hand, etc," instead of simply: ידך, "your hand?" The same applies to the missing conjunctive letter ו in front of ישתחוו לך.
  It appears that Jacob's intention was to assure Yehudah that contrary to the blessings for the other brothers which were predictions for the distant future after Israel would take possession of the land of Canaan, Yehudah himself would already experience the esteem of his brothers. We have confirmation of this in Chronicles I 5,2 where we read: "for Yehudah became more powerful than his brothers and a leader came from him." At the appropriate time, Yehudah's hand would be at the neck of his enemies. At that time his brothers would prostrate themselves before him and he would become their king. This prophecy was fulfilled during the reign of Saul when David won great victories and the Jewish people crowned him king.
  
  Verse 9
  
   גור אריה יהודה, "Yehudah is a lioncub." The <i>Zohar</i> section 1, page 237 explains that initially Yehudah would be like a cub, גור, whereas later on he would be a fully grown lion, אריה. If this was so, why did Jacob have to tell us that there was a time when Yehudah was still only a cub? Besides, what did Jacob mean when he said: מטרף בני עלית "you removed yourself from my son, from the kill?" According to our sages the word בני may be read both as belonging to what was mentioned before as well as to what follows, i.e. "you my son have arisen." Accordingly, Yehudah had distanced himself from what the brothers had done when Jacob had exclaimed: "my son has been torn to shreds." It is difficult to reconcile this with the facts. Why would Jacob have assumed suddenly that Yehudah had no share in the brothers' plot to deceive him and to make him believe that Joseph had become the victim of wild animals? On the contrary, is it not more likely to believe that Jacob had never suspected any of his sons to have laid a hand on Joseph? We must view the statement of our sages as דברי קבלה, as reflecting insights to which we are not privy. The words כרע רבץ מי יקימנו, also present a difficulty. Not only do these words not make sense as part of the blessing, but why did Jacob suddenly switch to indirect speech when up until now he had addressed Yehudah directly?
  In order to understand these verses a short introduction will enable us to gain a deeper insight into the ways of the Torah. We perceive Adam as a tree from which all the holy souls that would ever enter the world were suspended. When Adam sinned, evil assumed a limited rule in our world and captured many of these holy souls. According to our Kabbalists it has been the task of the Jewish people to rescue as many of these holy souls who are kept prisoners within the קליפה (forces of negative spirituality), using the holy Torah and G'd's commandments all of which G'd has implanted in our midst as our weaponry. On occasion, even a close personal attachment such as the rape of a person containing a holy Jewish soul and the impure soul of a Gentile may result in a new life of a positive kind. Shechem's deep-seated attachment to Dinah, the daughter of Jacob whom he had raped may be an example of such a phenomenon (Genesis 34,33). According to <i>Kohelet Yaakov,</i> Dinah infused Shechem with part of her holy soul, something which eventually resulted in the emergence and liberation of the soul of Rabbi Chanina ben Tradyon. This is alluded to in the word רחבת in רחבת ידים (Genesis 34,21) the letters of which are an acronym of the respective first letters in the name דבי חנינה בן תרדיון.
  On other occasions a soul which was taken captive at the time Adam sinned may emerge of its own accord at the time when the forces in charge of the קליפה decide to swamp earth with many new lives (souls). Such formerly captive holy souls who have initiated their own conversion to Judaism will often make every effort to pursue the path of goodness. This explains the phenomenon that converts very often become more meticulous in their observance of Jewish law than natural-born Jews. Ruth the Moabite and Naamah the Ammonite are part of the phenomenon we have just described. Their souls had become captive due to the acts of incest committed by their ancestor when Lot's daughters slept with their father. When their "captor" i.e. the force or angel in charge of releasing impure souls into the world, released a quantity of such souls, hoping to contaminate the earth with still more negative spirituality, two of the souls originally held captive escaped and turned out to become Ruth and Naamah. The fact that Ruth became the ancestor of David whereas Naamah became the wife Rechavam indicate the sins of their ancestor who slept with his daughters. Lot's older daughter who had the effrontery to call the name of her son i.e. מואב, i.e. "from my father," had committed a greater offence than her younger sister who called the child of that union בן עמי. The fact that Ruth was descended from Moab whereas Naamah was descended from Ammon reflects the phenomenon that the greater the spiritual morass that one has emerged from the greater the effort at one's spiritual rehabilitation. This is why David and a whole dynasty of kings is descended from Ruth, whereas Naamah the offspring of Lot's younger daughter is comparativeley less illustrious (compare <i>Baba Kama</i> 38 where the Talmud even attributes G'd's command to treat Ammon more mildly than Moab to the minor difference between the acts committed by Lot's two daughters). It is important to remember that if a person of lesser stature than Lot had perpetrated these acts he would not have had the good fortune that in the cause of centuries at least two good people came out of him. [I have some problem with the whole premise; according to the seven Noachidic laws it was perfectly permissible for a father to sleep with his daughter, all the more so since Lot was not even aware of it. Ed.] Just as there are different levels of righteousness amongst the observant Jews, i.e. goodness is a relative term, so there are different degrees amongst the people whose souls originate in the pool at the disposal of the forces of the קליפה. Amongst the many kings and leaders of Gentile society, all of whose souls originate in the pool of souls provided by the forces of the קליפה, some are models of virtue whereas others are models of debauchery, perfidy, and cruelty. This is the mystical dimension of what we are taught in <i>Sotah</i> 49 that בעקבות משיחה חוצפה יסגא, that "in the days preceding the arrival of the Messiah, effrontery will become prevalent." The sages meant that as the number of holy souls amongst the pool of souls controlled by the forces of the קליפה becomes more and more depleted, the tempering influence exercised on the whole pool of spiritually negative souls by the holy souls held captive will cease. This accounts for the fact that in days of old the souls that found their way back to the realm of holy souls produced spiritual giants such as Abraham, Sarah, Ruth and the like. Even in later generations converts such as Shemayah and Avtalyon are examples of souls who became spiritual giants amongst our people. Onkelos is another such example. Present day converts, however, are the souls who had already been greatly impoverished during their prolonged stay as captives amongst the pool of spiritually deficient souls, a pool which had been more and more depleted of such souls as the one of Abraham, Sarah, etc. The Talmud describes the period preceding the arrival of the Messiah by using the term עקבות, heels. This is an allusion to the pool of the impure souls which by that time will contain only relatively insignificant souls from the pool of holy souls that the forces of the קליפה had captured when Adam sinned. These souls are described as no more than "heels," the lower extremity of the human body, i.e. a relatively derogatory term. We can find confirmation of that thought in the <i>Zohar</i> 1, page 258.
  With the help of this introduction we can begin to understand the advice given by G'd to Yehudah when He sent His angel and almost forced him to have intercourse with the woman whom he considered a harlot (as described in <i>Bereshit Rabbah</i> 85,8). On the one hand, according to Torah law, it was not appropriate for Yehudah to have sexual relations with his daughter-in-law. [I have chosen this expression because Noachide law, which Yehudah was subject to, permits relations between a father-in-law and daughter-in-law. Ed.] Inasmuch as Yehudah was unaware of that woman's identity at the time, he did not know that he committed a forbidden act. Moreover, he acted under heavenly compulsion. The combination of all these factors enabled him to release the souls of Peretz and Zerach who were part of the souls captured by the forces of evil at the time Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. We know that these two souls contained within them great spiritual potential since great people are descended from them. The "captor" of such souls, i.e. the forces of the קליפה, can be presumed to have guarded them especially carefully so that they should not escape from his clutches. No wonder then that a great individual of the calibre of royalty such as Yehudah was needed to become the instrument of their release from that captivity. Unless such a soul had been accused of the morally depraved sin of incest (the appearance of it) it might never have been able to escape its original environment amongst the spiritually inferior pool of souls.
  This is what the Torah had in mind when it states, using indirect speech, i.e. G'd is speaking: גור אריה יהודה. This means that prior to Yehudah's union with Tamar he had only been a cub. This was also hinted at when his father had said to him previously: אתה יודוך אחיך, up until now you only merited that your brothers deferred to you by dint of some personal stature you possessed; this stature did not yet have historic significance. Yehudah acquired significance as a historic personality only as a result of his divinely induced union with Tamar. If you want proof of this, just search our records and see which great personalities other than Peretz and Zerach are descended from him. Once Yehudah had united with Tamar he qualified for the title אריה, a fully grown lion. Jacob then went on to explain the underlying cause of Yehudah's spiritual rise. It was מטרף בני עלית, "you my son were able to tear yourself away from the prey" i.e. from the pool of captive holy souls that had been snatched by the forces of the קליפה as the result of Adam's sin. Your divinely induced union with Tamar enabled some of these souls to become free once more and join the pool of holy souls. The sons you have acquired for yourself as a result of this union enable you to establish an everlasting dynasty.
  When the Torah continued with כרע רבץ, this is a reference to the prey which proved to be the source of Yehudah's spiritual ascent, something G'd had referred to when He told Cain in Genesis 4,7: "sin crouches at its door;" Yehudah had not had a prior opportunity to rescue the precious souls of Peretz and Zerach.
  When the Torah continues calling Yehudah both אריה and לביא, this is a hint that these souls were guarded within the קליפה by a power comparable to a לביא, so that only an אריה, a fully grown lion, had the power to rescue them. Yehudah was that "lion" of a holy soul who could perform such a deed successfully. As of that time the sceptre would not depart from Yehudah, i.e. he had laid the foundation for an enduring dynasty. We are still looking forward daily to the resumption of the monarchy by a descendant of Yehudah (the Messiah).
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
   אסרי לגפן עירה, "He ties his ass to a vine, etc." There are numerous explanations of this verse; their common denominator is that they are all of a homiletical nature. Perhaps the verse is again speaking about the arrival of the Messiah who has been mentioned at the end of the last verse, i.e. עד כי יבא שילה. Jacob had described that period as one when all the nations of the world will seek out the Messiah. This verse would then describe the Messiah as tying his donkey to the vine, i.e. Israel. Israel has been compared to the vine in Psalms 80,9: "You plucked up a vine from Egypt, You expelled nations and planted it." The "donkey" in this verse refers to the Gentile nations. We have several instances in the Bible in which the Gentile nations are compared to donkeys. The first such instance is in Genesis 22,5 where Abraham compares the Gentiles to the donkey (according to <i>Kidushin</i> 68). We also have a very clear such comparison in Ezekiel 23,20 where the prophet compares Israel's promiscuity with Gentiles as a lust for the flesh of donkeys. When Jacob proceeds to speak of the שרקה an especially long vine, as a branch to which the Messiah will tie his she-ass's colt, he makes a fine distinction between the male and female souls that originate in the domain of the קליפה. He calls the male, עיר, whereas he calls the female אתון. When speaking of Israel as a whole, i.e. גפן he describes the Messiah as tying the male Gentiles to the whole vine, whereas when speaking of the female Gentiles he speaks of the Messiah tying them to a single branch of that vine. Not that much restraining power is needed to control the females.
  Alternatively, our verse speaks of two different periods of well known redemptions. The first is the redemption from Egypt, whereas the second refers to the ultimate redemption in the days of the Messiah who is descended from David. Concerning he first redemption, Jacob said: אסרי לגפן עירה, he ties his donkey to a vine, similar to the verse in Psalms 80,9 a period when G'd humbled a single nation before the Jews, i.e. the Egyptians. Concerning the redemption in the future, Jacob speaks of the שרקה, the whistle, in the sense that the prophet Zachariah did in Zachariah 10,8: אשרקה להם ואקבצם כי פדית, "I will whistle to them and gather them, for I will redeem them." Jacob speaks of בני אתונו, i.e. the plural, since at that time Israel will be redeemed from many different nations. At the time of the Exodus, the redemption comprised the defeat of Egypt and the Canaanites, i.e. seven of the Canaanite nations. The remainder of the seventy nations were not humbled before Israel at that time. When the final redemption will occur all the other nations too will be humbled before Israel. These are the בני אתונו, the offspring of the original עירה.
  Perhaps Jacob referred to a concept which we know from the <i>Zohar</i> Pinchas page 231, that in the domain of the סטרא אחרא, the realm of the spiritually negative manifestations of the ten emanations, the power of female is actually stronger than that of the male. The male just takes the "left-overs" of the female and is therefore known as the יותרת הכבד. [We find two expressions involving the כבד in Leviticus 9,10 where the Torah speaks of: ואת היותרת מן הכבד, "the addition coming out of the כבד," and in Leviticus 3,15 where same is described as: ואת היותרת על הכבד, "the addition which is on the כבד." According to the <i>Zohar</i> the word כבד does not merely mean liver but is a hyperbole for the male with whom Lilith consorts. The spiritually negative forces in this world are sometimes referred to as Samael sometimes as the serpent. Samael is the male part of that team, Lilith, is the female. When adultery is committed, the female partner is released from the כבד, i.e. מן הכבד. Having once been released it assumes a dominance over its former partner so that it will qualify for the description על הכבד, "on top of the כבד." It follows that in the scheme of the powers of evil described by the <i>Zohar,</i> the female is viewed as stronger than the male. Ed.] Jacob described that in his dreams he found it relatively easy to battle the male forces i.e. Samael, whereas he found it much more exhausting to battle the female forces i.e. Lilith. Even when he finally won a victory against those forces, such a victory was not absolute and his dominance could not be compared to his dominance over the parallel male forces of Satan. In view of Jacob's personal experiences in battling the forces of Satan he referred to the שרקה as the female of these forces and said: At the time when G'd will whistle, i.e. announce the coming of the final redemption and will gather in the children of the she-ass, i.e. the forces which emanate from the female of the קליפה, He will also "tie them up," i.e. subdue them, before Israel.
  Do not be concerned at the fact that we divide this verse by applying part to the time of Moses and part to the time of the redemption at the time of the Messiah; you, my reader, are surely familiar with the words of the <i>Zohar</i> section 2, page 120, that Moses is viewed as the redeemer who redeemed our forefathers and as the redeemer who will lead their children back to the land of their ancestors as is written in Kohelet 1,9: "מה שהיה הוא שיהיה. The first letters of the first three words of that line form the acronym משה. Solomon alludes to the fact that he who has been a redeemer in the past will again be a redeemer in the future. Do not counter by saying that the redeemer of the future will be from the tribe of Yehudah and will either be descended from king David or will be king David himself reincarnate (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 98 based on Ezekiel 37,24: "and My servant David will be king over them"). In view of all these prophecies how could we say that the redeemer of the future will come from the tribe of Levi?
  You must realise that the soul of Moses was composed of all twelve tribes of Israel, all the 600.000 being "branches" of it. David's soul therefore was also a branch of Moses' soul. This is also why you find that while in the desert Moses performed the duties of both king, priest, Levite, prophet, scholar and military hero. He was only able to perform all these functions because his soul comprised all branches of holiness. When the redeemer will appear in the future, it will be revealed that Moses was the root of all monarchy in Israel and that David will be perceived as שילה (numerical value of =345משה).
  כבס ביין לבושו, "he will launder his garments in wine, etc." In order to understand these words we must recall a statement in the <i>Zohar Chadash</i> on Parshat Bereshit that in order to be redeemed from the fourth of the four exiles Israel experiences we must possess the redeeming merit of Torah study and Torah knowledge. In the absence of such merit the redemption may be long delayed. Jacob alluded to this when he said כבס ביין לבושו. The specific strength of the king who will be the Messiah is his preoccupation with Torah. The Torah knowledge is symbolised by his wearing purple robes (colour of wine). 
  If at the appointed time, G'd forbid, the Jewish people will not be able to provide such a purple mantle for their redeemer because they are devoid of Torah knowledge, then the redemption will be characterised by the advent of a cruel king, someone like Haman, and the "blood of grapes," i.e. real Jewish blood, instead of blood commuted into the wine of Torah learning, will flow in order that G'd will be able to keep to His schedule for the redemption (compare <i>Sanhedrin</i> 97). The "sparks" of sanctity remaining amongst the Jews may then be released only through very painful afflictions. In other words, Jacob warns that redemption can come about by means of a dignified mode of life, one that includes Torah study, or, G'd forbid, by means of a demeaning way of life and the resultant loss of dignity. The reason Jacob chose the simile of grapes is that in order to produce wine from grapes they have to be pressed, i.e. they have to be "tortured" to release the best that is within them.
  The reason that Jacob speaks only about דם ענבים, blood from the grapes, and not from a branch of the vine or a whole cluster of grapes for instance, is to console us that even if the redemption will become possible only by means of additional afflictions it will not cause a major dismemberment of the Jewish people. 
  Just as the grapes are a minor part of the whole vine, so the garment of the Messiah described here is not כסות, something large enough to serve as a total garment, but a diminutive סותה, a mini-garment. There would not ever be sufficient blood from the grapes to enable a whole garment to be drenched in it, as opposed to a redemption which occurs as a result of the people's Torah's study, the merit of which would suffice to dye the whole mantle of the Messiah purple.
  
  Verse 12
  
   חכלילי עינים מיין, "He will be red-eyed from wine, etc." This is best understood as similar to Psalms 68,7: "He sets the prisoners free, safe and sound," as explained in <i>Bamidbar Rabbah</i> 4 that the Israelites were redeemed by G'd בכושרות, the word being divided into בכי, weeping and שירות, songs. The Egyptians did the crying, the Israelites the singing. חכלילי עינים, "red-eyed;" the colour red is reminiscent of judgments, everything connected with redness is an allusion to the power of judgment which involves the blood of one party versus the blood of his adversary. The reason Jacob said: מיין, from wine, is a reminder that judgment originates in wine, [had Adam not eaten from the tree of knowledge, i.e. the vine, judgment in the sense of retribution would have had no place on earth. Ed.]
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   יששכר חמור גרם, "Issachar is a bony donkey, etc." We learn in <i>Nidah</i> 31 that the meaning of the verse is that G'd had a hand in the conception of Issachar having guided Jacob's donkey to the tent of Leah on that night (Genesis 30,16). Just as Jacob had not remained in his regular abode that night, so Issachar, the son who had been conceived during that night, would be "crouching between boundaries." Inasmuch as Issachar is the model of a person who devotes his life to Torah study, Jacob alluded to the phenomenon that Yeshivah students have a habit of moving from place to place. Every action which is not proper produces consequences which reflect that impropriety. Leah's action appeared too forward for the conduct associated with the traditional way of life of Jewish women, even though her intention was wholly honourable. In spite of the discomfort associated with the lifestyle of the Yeshivah student, he does not let this diminish the effort he lovingly devotes to Torah study.
  וירא מנוחה כי טוב, "He observed that repose is good, etc." The reference is to the repose experienced in the Hereafter. The words כי טוב, refer to what happens after a person considers that all the pleasures available for the body in this world, such as eating fine food and drinking good wine, are all sensations which are devoid of an inherent value. They are meaningful only because the body, an empty vessel, needs to be filled up with food and drink as the Creator has decreed that it is incapable of existing without input of food and drink. As a result, once the body has absorbed enough food an drink, the very food and drink which provided these pleasurable sensations become revolting. This fact demonstrates that food and drink are not in themselves something desirable. Solomon makes that point in Proverbs 23,8 when he said: "once you have eaten your bread, you will vomit it;" he meant that when you have consumed all the bread of this world, the time will come when you vomit it as it will become repugnant for you to fill your mouth with it. The same applies to all the other pleasures this world has to offer, things which man is attracted to by his eyes. Once he examines these phenomena more thoroughly he will realise that they are only make believe, that they lack substance, and eventually he will develop a distaste for everything connected with the human body and its attractions. He will conclude that the real good can be found only in the Hereafter, the world which is all spirit. Jacob blessed Issachar by saying that he has realised that true repose is only in those regions. Issachar correctly evaluates the repose in the Hereafter as well as the relative pleasantness on earth, i.e. והארץ כי נעמה. 
  When Jacob added ויט שכמו לסבול, "he bent his shoulder to bear (a burden)", this is a reference to the pain which is part of our earthly existence; ויהי למס עובד, "he turned himself into someone who serves the Lord as a form of paying tribute."
  Another meaning of these last words may be that in return for becoming a willing servant of the Lord, the rest of the population is obligated to pay מס some kind of tax to assure the Torah scholar of his livelihood. In the case of Issachar that would be Zevulun who was a seafarer putting much of his wealth at the disposal of Issachar. (compare previous verse).
  
  Verse 15
  
  
  
  Verse 16
  
   דן ידין עמו, "Dan will judge his people, etc.". Jacob may have wanted to exonerate Samson who had disgraced himself as a leader by consorting with Delilah. Perhaps Jacob considered Samson's end when he asked G'd to die together with the Philistines (Judges 16,30) he was about to kill as a redeeming conclusion of his life; this is why he compared him כאחד שבטי ישראל, like the unique personalities each of the tribes produced at one time or another.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   גד גדוד יגודנו, "Gad, a troop shall troop upon him, etc." Jacob links his blessing to his name, interpreting his name as meaning "a troop, a camp," as well as גדיה. The author refers the reader to the <i>Sefer Ha-aruch</i> which describes the word גד also as meaning "to draw," "to lead," and "to surround." Accordingly, the meaning is that Gad will surround his enemies. When Jacob continued: והוא יגוד עקב, this means that he will utterly destroy them to the heel, i.e. the lowest extremity. Gad will surround the entire camp of Israel and fight on their behalf. עקב may also refer to the fact that he would help them to receive their reward, their inheritance, [all this is a reference to when the two and a half tribes led by Gad undertook to form the vanguard in the conquest of the land of Canaan in Numbers 32,32. Ed.]
  
  Verse 20
  
   מאשר שמנה לחמו, "Asher's food will be rich, etc." Perhaps the emphasis is on the letter מ preceding the name אשר, and Jacob meant that Asher would be a "self-made" individual, i.e. tribe, producing all his wealth from within himself, either through his efforts or through his merit.
  
  Verse 21
  
  
  
  Verse 22
  
   בן פורת יוסף, בן פורת עלי עין, "Joseph is a fruiful son, fruitful to the eye, etc." The reason Jacob repeated the word פורת, fruitful, may have to do with Joseph's fertility being twofold We have already explained (<i>Sotah</i> 36) that Joseph had originally been intended to father twelve tribes; the second reason was that he resisted the temptation to sleep with Potiphar's wife, i.e. עלי עין, he overcame the temptation to follow his eyes, proved superior to visual allure.
  Jacob continued with בנות צעדה. According to <i>Tanchuma</i> the wife of Potiphar called all the wives of the Egyptian elite and had Joseph perform personal valet services for them. Being surrounded by all these ladies was equivalent to this אצעדה, bracelet, Jacob describes here. עלי שור, the point of the exercise was to ogle Joseph. The Torah testifies that in spite of all this Joseph refrained from looking at all these provocative women. Seeing that Joseph did not make improper use of his eyesight he and his descendants in turn were rewarded by remaining immune to the evil eye.
  
  Verse 23
  
   וימררהו ורבו וישטמהו בעלי חצים. "They made life bitter for him, they quarrelled, and arrow-tongued men hated him." This is a reference to the time when the brothers first planned to kill Joseph (37,20). It is also possible that Jacob describes what we find in the <i>Sefer Hayashar</i> that the brothers wounded Joseph in many parts of his body before they threw him into the pit. The torture they subjected him to is described by וימררהו. Afterwards, when the brothers took counsel and discussed throwing him into the pit and then to sell him as a slave, they had differences of opinions, i.e. ורבו, they quarrelled.
  The hatred of the "arrow tongued men" are a reference to the wife of Potiphar and her companions all of whom wanted to sleep with Joseph, i.e. they demanded "his arrows." [Our sages often refer to ejaculation of semen as equivalent to the shooting of an arrow. Ed.]
  On the other hand, the word וימררהו may be an allusion to Satan, i.e. the evil urge, who seduces one to commit a sin. This may have been the cause of ויפזו זרעי ידיו, "that his virility was channelled through his hands." The power of the evil urge is illustrated by a story involving the pious Rabbi Amram in <i>Kidushin</i> 81. That story ends with the evil urge escaping from the body of Rabbi Amram in a fiery column after Rabbi Amram had almost succumbed.
  The forces of the קליפה may be termed מרה, bitter. This is perhaps what the Torah wanted to allude to when it described Joseph's life as having been made bitter. When we follow this approach the word ורבו describes the constantly increasing pressure of the evil urge, and the reference to the hatred expressed by the owners of the arrows are to the forces urging man to sin. Their promise to reward him with the pleasures of the flesh are expressions of their hatred for him. They hate every manifestation of holiness. In spite of all these temptations Joseph remained steadfast like a lion and did not "shoot his arrows."
  When Jacob speaks about מידי אביר יעקב, this means that the same G'd who has proven Jacob's Mighty One also saved Joseph from succumbing. 
  Jacob concludes: משם רעה אבן ישראל, a reference to Psalms 118,22 where we are told that "the stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone." This appears to be an allusion to Joseph who had also been rejected at first by his brothers. Joseph's righteousness made him the chief cornerstone also known as the רעה אבן ישראל, the cornerstone who is Israel's shepherd Proverbs 10,25 that "the righteous is an enduring foundation" expresses the same idea.
  
  Verse 24
  
  
  
  Verse 25
  
   מאל אביך ויעזרך, "From the G'd of your father who will continue to help you, etc." Jacob tells Joseph that his accomplishments are due to the G'd of Jacob; he even hints that Joseph drew on his father's merit so that he could have accomplished all that he did. Jacob prays that G'd should continue to help Joseph, ויעזרך. He adds ואת שדי, saying that yet another attribute (dimension) of G'd has assisted Joseph, the attribute that is particularly suited to the soul of Joseph, a mystical dimension familiar to students of the Kabbalah. It was this attribute which blessed and helped Joseph maintain his purity in a foreign land in the house of a pagan dignitary such as Potiphar.
  When Jacob spoke about ויעזרך..ויברכך, he may also have wanted to stress that G'd's help notwithstanding, Joseph deserved credit for his own efforts in resisting this temptation. G'd blessed him as if Joseph had accomplished all this by himself. The author refers to his commentary in this context on Psalms 37,33 where he elaborated on this theme.
  Jacob may also have based his blessing on the well known statement by our sages in <i>Berachot</i> 10 that when someone credits someone else with his own accomplishment, G'd may credit him with it instead, whereas if one claims that one's own merit accounts for one's good fortune, then G'd will teach one that it was only someone else's merit that resulted in that person's blessings. Jacob said that because Joseph credited his father's merit with assisting him at a critical juncture, G'd would credit Joseph himself with having mastered his temptation.
  Jacob may have expressed another message in his blessing of Joseph. <i>Baba Batra</i> 58 teaches that G'd does not perform miracles for people who will not remain righteous. Jacob therefore said that up to that point Joseph enjoyed G'd's blessings מאל אביך, because of his father's merit, whereas from now on ויעזרך G'd would assist him not to succumb to temptation in order to justify the miracles He had already performed for him. [I have not been able to find the source of this statement. Ed.]
  
  Verse 26
  
  
  
  Verse 27
  
   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 <i>Yuma</i> 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.
  
  Verse 28
  
   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 <i>Sifri in Behaalotcha</i> 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.
  
  Verse 29
  
   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.
  
  Verse 30
  
  
  
  Verse 31
  
   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. <i>Sotah</i> 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.
  
  Verse 32
  
   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 <i>Baba Metzia</i> 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 <i>Hilchot Shecheynim</i> 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.
  
  Verse 33
  
   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 <i>Taanit</i> 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. <i>Midrash</i> 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."
  
  
  
  
  
  Verse 1
  
   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.
  
  Verse 2
  
   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 <i>Baba Metzia</i> 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 (<i>Shabbat</i> 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.
  
  Verse 3
  
  
  
  Verse 4
  
  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 <i>Yuma</i> 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.
  
  Verse 5
  
  השביעני לאמור, "has made me swear by saying, etc." Our sages in <i>Sotah</i> 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.
  
  Verse 6
  
  
  
  Verse 7
  
  
  
  Verse 8
  
  
  
  Verse 9
  
  
  
  Verse 10
  
  
  
  Verse 11
  
  
  
  Verse 12
  
  
  
  Verse 13
  
  
  
  Verse 14
  
   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 <i>Pessachim</i> 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.
  
  Verse 15
  
   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. <i>Yalkut Mishley</i> 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. <i>Shabbat</i> 10 attributes the exile in Egypt to the coloured coat Jacob had made for Joseph and which resulted in the jealousy of his brothers.
  
  Verse 16
  
   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.
  
  Verse 17
  
  
  
  Verse 18
  
  
  
  Verse 19
  
   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.
  
  Verse 20
  
   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.