Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

IN THE END OF DAYS. These are the days of the Messiah, for Jacob alludes to him in his words, even as he said, Until Shiloh come, and his be the obedience of peoples. Now our Rabbis have said that Jacob wished to reveal the end of Israel’s exile, but the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) departed from him. Thus in the opinion of all scholars, the end of days is a reference to the days of the Messiah.

REUBEN MY FIRSTBORN THOU ART.. Ramban will transpose the order of the words for the purpose of deriving the meaning of the verse. The sequence of this verse is, “Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the first-fruits of my strength, the excellence of majesty, and the excellence of power,” and its purport is as follows: “You are the first-born of my might and the first-fruits of my strength when I was the excellence of majesty (se’eith) and position” — the expression being similar to that found in the verses: Shall not his excellency (‘se’eitho’) make you afraid? When he raiseth himself up (‘mise’eitho’) the mighty are afraid,, 41:17. ‘mise’eitho’ meaning ascendancy and power — “and when I was at the height of strength (oz) for war” — the expression being similar to that found in the verses: And He will give strength (‘oz’) unto His king; And the strength (‘ve’izuz’) of battle.

UNSTABLE (‘PACHAZ’) AS WATER, YOU HAVE NOT THE EXCELLENCY. Pachaz is a noun, derived from the expression, Vain and reckless (‘upachazim’) fellows, meaning “hasty and impulsive people.” Our Rabbis have made steady use of this word: “I was looking at my image in the water and my evil inclination rose (pachaz) within me,” that is “my evil inclination leaped upon me” They said further: “It is their recklessness (apichzeihu) which they are revealing,” meaning their impulsiveness. “A reckless (p’chizah) people, who spoke before listening, you still retain your recklessness (‘b’pachzuteich’),” meaning “hasty and impulsive.” It is possible that this word pachaz is a permutation of the word chipazon (hurry). and kesev, both of which mean “lamb,” and other similar words. Jacob was thus saying: “Since you burst forth as water, you shall no longer excel for thou wentest up to thy father’s place of repose in thy haste and impulsiveness. Then didst thou profane them, (places of repose), which is in the plural form. Hence Ramban writes otham (them). when your recklessness ascended my couch like the rising and gushing water.” This is similar to the Scriptural description of water: Now, therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, mighty and many, even the king of Assyria and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks; and he shall sweep through Judah, overflowing as he passeth through. Our Rabbis have said: “Then didst thou profane He Who hovered over my couch, meaning the Shechinah” that used to abide above my [Jacob’s] couch. Yet the verse says, Forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled his father’s couch,. Ramban proceeds to answer that Scripture modifies the expression out of respect for the Divine Presence. thus clearly stating that it was the couch which was defiled! But perhaps [out of respect for the Divine Presence, Scripture] modifies the expression there. But if [we accept the explanation that Scripture modifies the expression], it is possible that the word alah (going up) refers to [Jacob, thus saying, “then didst thou profane my couch upon which I used to go up],” just as in the verse, Nor go up into the bed that is spread for me. Thus Jacob’s intent is to say: “Then thou didst defile me;” He spoke in the third person, “he” went up. only as a matter of respect. Similarly, the verse, Forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, is a Scriptural modification, meaning “forasmuch as he [Reuben] defiled the one who goes up upon his father’s couch.” From the literal meaning of this verse it would appear as I have explained it in Seder Vayishlach, i.e., that it was Reuben’s intention to disqualify Bilhah from his father so that she should no longer give birth to children, thus lessening his share as the firstborn. It was for this reason that Jacob said to him that it was reckless and impulsive to think that he would gain thereby, whereas he had no profit from it but only loss.

SIMEON AND LEVI ARE BRETHREN. Jacob is saying that they possess the attribute of kinship for their hearts were inflamed concerning their sister., 34:25-26. He is thus stating in their defense that they acted as they did out of their brotherly zeal, thus suggesting [that were it not for this extenuating circumstance], they would have been deserving of great punishment and their sin would have been unforgivable since what they did to the people of Shechem was an act of violence. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that he is saying that Simeon and Levi are real brothers, uniting in fraternity and brotherhood in counsel and deed. Now I have already explained, 34:13. that Jacob was angry with Simeon and Levi for having committed violence when they killed the people of the city of Shechem, for they had not sinned against them at all. They even made a covenant with them and they were circumcised, thus being enabled to return to G-d and become included within the people of the household of Abraham, part of the souls that they had gotten in Haran.” (Rashi, ibid.) Jacob was additionally angry with them lest people say that the matter was done at his suggestion, thus creating a profaning of G-d’s Name, as people will say that the prophet has committed violence and plunder. This is the intent of the verse, Let my soul not come into their council— this is an excuse for he was not in their council when they answered the people of Shechem with subtlety, and he was not united in their assembly when they came upon the people of the city and killed them. It was for this reason that he cursed their anger and wrath. And so did Onkelos translate: “My soul was not in their council when they assembled to strike, etc.” INSTRUMENTS OF VIOLENCE ‘M’CHEIROTHEIHEM.’ According to Onkelos and all commentators, the meaning of the verse is as if it were written: instruments of violence ‘m’garotheihem’ (in their sojournings). This is similar to the verses: Thy sojourning (‘m’chorothayich’) and thy nativity, is as if it were written m’gorothayich. into the land of their sojourn (‘m’churatham’)., 29:14. Thus the commentators said that the meaning of the verse is that they did violence in the land of their sojourn. Now if so, the approximate sense of the verse is as follows: “They had instruments of violence in the land of their sojournings,” it being referred to as “the land of their sojournings” since they lived there afterwards. But in my opinion Jacob is saying that “the instruments of violence are their dwelling places,” i.e., the essence of their lives, even as the expression, the days of my pilgrimage (‘m’gurai’). He is thus saying that the very instruments of violence are their dwelling places for they live and sustain themselves by them. A similar expression is found in the verse: The desert yieldeth them bread for their children. And it is on account of this that their father divided them in Jacob so that they should not unite and scattered them in Israel so that they should not assemble. This was indeed so, for Simeon’s inheritance in the Land was contained in the inheritance of the children of Judah, as it is written, And their inheritance was in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Judah, with the cities of Simeon set apart from one another throughout the entire tribe of Judah. And Levi’s inheritance consisted of the Cities of Refuge, which were scattered through all Israel.

FOR IN THEIR ANGER THEY SLEW A MAN AND IN THEIR SELF-WILL THEY DISABLED AN OX (‘SHOR’). The meaning of this is that they committed violence in their wrath in that they were angry at Shechem, and it was to satisfy their own desire and not because of the guilt or sins of the slain. Now Onkelos says that the word shor (ox) should be understood as shur (wall) with a shuruk,. Thus the word should be understood as shur (wall) rather than shor (ox). The Torah-script has no vowel signs, and for the sake of interpretation, a difficult word may sometimes be interpreted as if it were vowelled differently than the traditional reading. as in the verse, Daughters treaded on the wall (‘shur’). Thus Onkelos translated the word shor in the present verse as “the wall of the enemy,” similar in expression to the verse: Mine eye also hath gazed on them that lie in wait for me (‘b’shuroi’). The meaning of the verse is thus: “and they uprooted a city surrounded with a wall, slaying their children and women after having killed the men of the city.” The word ikru (disabled) would then be similar in use to the verse, Ekron shall be rooted up (‘tei’akeir’). Others have explained that the ox, which is the largest of cattle, is an allusion to Hamor and his son Shechem, the prince of the country, just as in the verses: His firstling bull, majesty is his; Ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain of Samaria. Similarly do the verses surname the great princes “rams” is generally translated, “the mighty men of Moab,” but literally it means “the rams of Moab.” and “he-goats.” is generally translated, “the chief ones of the earth,” but literally it means “the he-goats of the earth.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the verse is to be understood in its usual sense as stating that in their anger they killed each man of whom they were wrathful; and in their self-will, after their anger had been calmed by the slaying of the men, they uprooted all oxen, this being an allusion to their cattle and their possessions, including everything that was in the home and everything in the field. Now Jacob mentioned this in order to state that he had no part in all these secret deliberations of theirs, even in the removal of the cattle and possessions, or any aspect of the spoiling and plundering of the people of the city of Shechem. The word ikru [in the expression, ikru shor], has the same meaning as in the verse: Thou shalt hemstring (‘te’akeir’) their horses. But the expression and purport is all one.

THE SCEPTRE SHALL NOT DEPART FROM JUDAH. Its purport is not that the sceptre of royalty shall never depart from Judah, for it is written, The Eternal will bring thee, and thy king whom thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers, with the result that the people and their king will be in exile, devoid of royalty and nobility, and for a long time there has not been a king in Israel! The prophet Jacob did not assure Israel that they would not enter captivity under any circumstances because Judah would rule over them. Instead, the purport of the verse before us is that the sceptre shall not depart from Judah to any of his brothers, for the king of Israel, who will rule over them, will be from the tribe of Judah, and none of his brothers will rule over him. The same meaning applies to the expression, there shall not depart a lawgiver from between his feet, which means that every lawgiver in Israel who carries the king’s signet shall be from Judah. It is he who will rule and command in all Israel, and he will have the seal of royalty until the coming of his son, who [will have] the obedience of all people, to do with all as he pleases, this being a reference to the Messiah. “The sceptre” is thus an allusion to David, who was the first king to have the sceptre of royalty, and “Shiloh”, “until Shiloh come, and his be the obedience of peoples.” is his son, who will have the obedience of the peoples. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s assertion that “Shiloh” is a reference to David is impossible for Judah never possessed a royal sceptre prior to David. And even though the tribe of Judah was honored and marched first in the desert, the word sheivet (sceptre) applies only to a king or prince, as it is written: A sceptre (‘sheivet’) of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom; the sceptre of the rulers; a sceptre to rule. Now this verse before us alludes to the fact that Jacob made the tribe of Judah king over his brothers and bequeathed to Judah sovereignty over Israel. This is what David said: And the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, chose me out of all the house of my father to be king over Israel forever; for He has chosen Judah to be prince, and in the house of Judah, the house of my father, and among the sons of my father He took pleasure in me to make me king over all Israel. Jacob said, It shall not depart, in order to allude to the fact that another tribe will rule over Israel, but once the sceptre of royalty comes to Judah it will not depart from him to another tribe. This is the intent of the verse, For the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, to him and to his sons. The reason for Saul [being appointed the first king over Israel] was that the request for royalty at that time was distasteful to the Holy One, blessed be He. He did not wish to appoint a king over them from the tribe to whom royalty belonged and from whom it was never to depart. He therefore granted them a temporary royalty. It is this which Scripture alludes to when it says, I give thee a king in Mine anger, and take him away in My wrath. Having given him unwillingly, He therefore removed him in His wrath, as he and his children were killed and his royal line was interrupted. The reason for all this was that at this time Samuel was judge and prophet who was fighting their battles according to the word of G-d, saving them in times of trouble, and it was improper for them to request a king during his lifetime, even as Samuel said to them, And the Eternal your G-d is your king,, 12:12. and Scripture further states, They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them., 8:7. It was for this reason that He did not grant them permanent royalty. The verse stating, Thou hast done foolishly; thou hast not kept the commandment of the Eternal thy G-d, which He commanded thee; for now would the Eternal have established thy kingdom upon Israel forever,, 13:13. This verse clearly indicates that had Saul not sinned, his kingdom would have endured forever, which seems contrary to Ramban’s above thesis. Ramban’s answer is stated in the text. means that had not Saul sinned, his descendants would have had sovereignty over some part of Israel, but not over all. This is the meaning of [the expression], upon Israel, [rather than “upon all Israel].” Perhaps Saul would have reigned over the tribes that were descended from his mother, namely, Benjamin, Ephraim and Menasheh, as Judah and Ephraim were considered as two nations in Israel. Or again, Saul might have been king, subject to the king of Judah. In my opinion, the kings from other tribes, who ruled over Israel after David, went against the wish of their father Jacob by diverting the inheritance of Judah to another tribe. Now they relied on the word of Achiyah the Shilonite, the prophet who anointed Jeroboam, who said, And I will for this afflict the seed of David, but not forever. But when [the ten tribes of] Israel continued to crown kings one after another of the rest of the tribes, and they did not revert to the kingdom of Judah, they transgressed the testament of the ancestor, and they were accordingly punished, just as Hosea said, They have set up kings, but not from Me. This was also the reason for the punishment of the Hasmoneans, who reigned during the Second Temple. They were saints of the Most High, without whom the learning of Torah and the observance of Commandments would have been forgotten in Israel, and despite this, they suffered such great punishment. The four sons of the old Hasmonean Matithyahu, saintly men who ruled one after another, in spite of all their prowess and success, fell by the sword of their enemies. And ultimately the punishment reached the stage where our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: “He who says, ‘I come from the house of the Hasmoneans,’ is a slave,” as they were all destroyed on account of this sin. Now although among the children of Shimon, there was cause for punishment on account of the Sadducees, all the children of the righteous Matithyahu the Hasmonean were deposed for this only: they ruled even though they were not of the seed of Judah and of the house of David, and thus they completely removed “the sceptre” and “the lawgiver” from Judah. And their punishment was measure for measure, as the Holy One, blessed be He, caused their slaves to rule over them, and it is they who destroyed them. It is also possible that, [in addition to the Hasmoneans having sinned for assuming royalty when they were not of the tribe of Judah], they sinned in ruling on account of their being priests, who have been commanded: Guard your priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar, and to within the veil; and ye shall serve; I give you the priesthood as a service of gift. Thus it was not for them to rule, but only to perform the Service of G-d. In Tractate Horayoth of the Jerusalem Talmud I have seen the following text: “We do not anoint priests as kings. Rabbi Yehudah Anturya said that this is on account of the verse, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba said [that Scripture states concerning the king], To the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel. Now what is written afterwards? The priests the Levites … shall have no portion.”, 18:1. Thus taeching by juxtaposition that the priests are not to act as kings. Thus the Sages have taught here that kings are not to be anointed from among the priests, the sons of Aaron. Now at first the above text explains that this is out of respect for the tribe of Judah since sovereignty is not to depart from that tribe. Therefore, even if Israel, out of temporary necessity, raises a king over itself from the other tribes, he is not to be anointed so that the glory of royalty should not be upon him. Instead, such kings are to be merely as judges or officers. The reason for mentioning “priests” [when the same stricture applies to all tribes other than Judah] is that even though the priests as such are suited for anointment, we are not to anoint them as kings, and the moreso the rest of the tribes. It is as the Rabbis said in the Gemara: we are to anoint only the kings of the house of David. And Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Abba, [who in the above text from the Jerusalem Talmud based the law upon a verse in the book of Deuteronomy], explained that anointing priests as kings is forbidden by a law of the Torah, which says that the priests the Levites, even all the tribe of Levi, shall have no portion nor inheritance in royalty. This comment is a matter which is fitting and proper. AND UNTO HIM SHALL BE AN ASSEMBLAGE (‘YIKHATH’) OF PEOPLES. Yikhath amim means an assemblage of peoples, as it is said with reference to the Messiah, Unto him shall the nations seek. Of similar meaning is the verse, The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth ‘likhath eim,’ meaning “the gathering of wrinkles in his mother’s face due to her old age.” In the Talmud we find a similar expression: “They gathered assemblies (d’makhu k’hiatha) in the streets of Nehardea.” It could also have said here in the verse, kehiyath amim, instead of yikhath amim. This is the language of Rashi. Now it does not appear to me to be correct to explain, as Rashi does, likhath eim to mean the gathering of wrinkles in the mother’s face. And the expression, makhu k’hiatha, is nothing but a phrase to express disputes and questions, suggesting that the matter was disputed with many questions and interrogations, for in the language of the Sages, one who finds difficulty with a certain point of law is referred to as kohah. Such an example is found in the Midrash Chazit: (Seest thou a man.…)” The Midrash quoted here is in 3:13. “They all handle the sword, as they all study the Law with minds sharpened as a sword, so that if any problem comes before them, the law should not be moot (kohah) to them.” There are many other similar examples of the usage of this word there in the Midrash Chazit. This is also the origin of the expression in the Gemara: “Rabbi Yehoshua kihah and declared it to be clean,” meaning that he asked many questions and refuted all arguments of those who held it to be unclean until he was compelled to pronounce it to be clean. In many old texts in the Gemara Baba Metzia we also find the saying: “He who d’kohi on coins is called a malevolent soul,” meaning that he who is strict and causes difficulty in accepting a coin from another [on the grounds that it is slightly worn shows himself to be stingy in his dealings]. Grammarians. have said concerning yikhath that its root is yakah, thus explaining it in the sense of obedience and acceptance of a command. Hence yikhath amim would mean that the peoples would listen to him and do whatever he commands them to do; and despiseth ‘likhath eim’ means “despising accepting her command.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the word yikhath is similar in expression to the verse, He that eateth the sour grapes his teeth ‘tikhenah’ (shall be set on edge), and its root is kahah, with the letter yud in the word yikhath being similar to the yud in the word yitzhar. The purport of all words having the root kahah is weakness and collapse. The verse before us is thus stating that the rod of the oppressor will not be removed from Judah until his son, who will bring about the meakness of the peoples and their collapse, will come, as he will weaken them all by sword. Similarly, the verse, If the iron be ‘keihah,’ means “if the iron be dull and unable to cut” — similar to [the expression] in the language of the Sages, sakin she’amda, (a knife which has become dull) “or has been partly broken and contains notches.” Again I found a similar use of the word kohah there in Midrash Chazit, [with reference to the period of the Exodus when Israel was to eat of the Passover-offering]: “The Holy One, blessed be He, directed at them a most pleasant odor from the Garden of Eden, and their souls were koheh, to eat. They said to Moses: ‘Our master Moses, give us something to eat.’ He answered them: ‘So did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to me: There shall no alien eat thereof.’ So the Israelites arose and separated the aliens from among them. Now their souls were koheh to eat, etc.” The purport of the word koheh here is that their souls were weakened and their bodies overcome on account of their desire to eat of the Passover-offering to which there had been attached this good odor from the Garden of Eden. In a similar vein are the expressions mentioned above: “The Law should not be kohah to them,” (Seest thou a man.…)” The Midrash quoted here is in 3:13. meaning “faint and deficient in their hand”; the expression, makhu k’hiatha, means that they were asking questions which induce a weakening of the soul from the great pressure and concentration. It may be that it is an expression of disproof and smashing refutation, such as, “Parich Rav Acha.” They similarly use the expression [in connection with the question of the wicked son in the Passover Hagaddah]: “You too hakheih his teeth,” meaning “break them or weaken them by your words,” for with respect to the flesh you can only use the term “weaken” but not “break” although the intent of weakening and breaking is alike, and the word kehiyah includes both.

HIS EYES ARE ‘CHACHLILI’ (FROM WINE). The Commentators say that the word chachlili denotes redness, and it means that his eyes will become red from drinking much wine. Of similar meaning is the verse, Who hath ‘chachliluth’ (redness) of the eyes? Now it appears to me that this is a case of a word whose letters are transposed,, it should be understood as if it were written: kaf, cheth, lamed, suggesting the act of painting, as will be explained further. it being derived from the expression, Thou didst paint (‘kachalt’) thine eyes. The lamed is doubled — [chachlili] — as is customary in many places, and it denotes the process of painting eyes which is known and frequently mentioned in the words of our Rabbis. In Arabic also its name is “al kachul.” The verse is thus stating that Judah’s eyes are colored with wine for just as others paint them with puch (eye-paint), which is the Arabic “al kachul,” so does he paint them with wine, and just as others whiten their teeth with ointments, so does he whiten them with milk, the comparison indicating the abundance of wine and milk in Judah’s land, just as Onkelos mentioned. Similar in meaning is the verse, Who hath ‘chachliluth’ of eyes, [the letters in the word chachliluth are to be transposed to read] kachliluth (paint), with the verse stating that the drunkard has his eyes painted by wine and he cannot hide his drunken state. It is possible that the verse is stating, “Who has coloring of eyes?” meaning “who needs to paint his eyes always? They that tarry long at the wine, since the wine dims their eyes, causing them to tear, and be consumed away in their sockets, thus making it necessary for him to have his eyes constantly painted.” Scripture, in the book of Proverbs, is thus speaking of the disgrace of wine and the external evils of contentions and wounds which befall he who drinks it in abundance, while in his house there will always be the cry of “Woe” and “Alas.” It then also mentions this specific harm which affects his body, namely, the dimming of his vision, and many other sicknesses. This is a correct interpretation and elucidation of the subject.

DAN SHALL JUDGE ‘YADIN’ HIS PEOPLE. This has the same meaning as in the verse, For the Eternal ‘yadin’ His people, which Onkelos translates as, “For the Eternal will judge the judgment of His people,” just as in the expressions: Be thou my judge, O G-d, and plead my cause against an ungodly nation; The cause of the widow. (plead for the widow), which means rivu riv almanah (plead the plea of the widow). Here, likewise, the sense of the verse is: “Dan will judge the judgment of his people.” (T’chelet Mordechai. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 270, Note 39.) The verse is thus stating that Dan will avenge the cause of his people, all the tribes of Israel, as one. And the purport of it is as follows: The Philistines wronged all Israel many times. In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath they began their oppression of Israel, and in the days of Jephthah it is written, And He gave them over into the hand of the Philistines,, 10:7. and after the days of Abdon the son of Hillel,, 12:13. it is also written, And the Eternal delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years., 13:1. There was none among the Judges who subdued them or had any victory at all over them. Now although it is written concerning Shamgar, And he smote the Philistines six hundred men with an ox-goad, this was not “vengeance,” relatively speaking, as it was not a great slaughter. This is why it is written concerning Samson, And he shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines, and he avenged the cause of Israel from them for he slew many people and killed all the lords of the Philistines., 16:27 and 30. Scripture mentions yadin (he will judge), since this avenger was a judge, not a king. It is possible that this interpretation coincides with the opinion of Onkelos, who translated: “In his days his people will be delivered.” as meaning “will avenge.” See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 270. It is possible that the expression, as one of the tribes of Israel, means “as the outstanding one of the tribes,” namely, Judah, concerning whom it is said, Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies, thus implying that this one also will be victorious over his enemies and subdue them.

SH’PHIPHON (SERPENT). is the name of a snake which bites at the heel, with the second root-letter. being doubled. is shapha which means “hissing while biting,” except that the letter pei is here doubled. In the Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Terumoth the Rabbis said, “It is a small kind of serpent, its name is sh’phiphon, and it is as thin as a hair,” with the earth being permitted to crack before it. Samson is compared to a snake because Samson did not wage war against his enemies as did the other judges and kings. Rather he alone went out against them, just as the viper which leaves his hole to attack travellers on the road, or the small species of serpent of which the traveller is not at all aware. THAT BITETH THE HORSE’s HEEL.. This alludes to the two pillars upon which the house of Dagan, the Philistine god, rested, whereas the three thousand people who were upon its roof, Verse 27. are “the rider that falleth backward,” for when the snake bites the horse’s heels, the horse lifts its head and his forefeet, causing the rider to fall backward.

I HOPE FOR THY AID, O ETERNAL. Among all the judges of Israel there was none who fell into the hands of his enemies except Samson, who is this “snake” [referred to in Jacob’s prophecy], just as it is written, Then the Eternal was with the judge, and saved them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge,, 2:18. and Samson was the last of the judges since his successor Samuel was a prophet and he did not conduct war on the people’s behalf, and in his days the kings [Saul and David] reigned. Now when the prophet Jacob saw that the deliverance which was to come through Samson ceased [when he died together with the Philistines], he said, “I hope for Thy aid, O Eternal, not for the aid of ‘the snake’ or ‘the serpent,’ for it is by Thee that I will be helped, not by a judge, as Thy salvation is ‘an everlasting salvation.’”

‘GAD G’DUD Y’GUDENU.’ Rashi, in accordance with Onkelos, explained it as follows: A troop will troop out of him, and that troop will troop back upon its footsteps, meaning it will return in its own track back to its territory in peace [and not one of them will be missing]. The correct interpretation [appears to be that the word y’gudenu here] is as in the verse: When he cometh up against the people that he invadeth (‘y’gudenu’). The verse is thus stating that a troop will always assail Gad, that he will have many wars, with enemy troops spreading out over his land, and that he will follow the enemy in his track and be victorious over him and pursue him, returning on the heel of those who shame them. Jacob thus praised the Gadites for their valor and for their victory over all those who enter into battle against them. This is similar to the blessing which Moses our teacher gave them, as it is said, Blessed be He that enlargeth Gad; he dwelleth as a lioness. Since Gad inherited a very wide and large land which was across the Jordan, bands from Ammon and Moab, his evil neighbors, would always descend upon him, claiming the land and invading it. Yet Gad lurked like a lioness over its prey, fearing not their noise, nor showing any dismay at their shouting. This fitting interpretation I learned from the Jerusalem Talmud, where in Tractate Sotah they say: “Gad g’dud y’gudenu, a troop will come trooping upon him, but he shall troop upon it;” that is to say, bands will come to gather wealth and assail him, but he shall troop upon them and bring his troops into their land. Perhaps the prophet Jacob was alluding to the war of Jephthah the Gileadite against the children of Ammon, as the children of Gad inherited all the cities of Gilead, and half of the land of the children of Ammon. The children of Ammon were always warring against the men of Gilead, and Jephthah scarcely passed over them and he smote them and their cities [with] a very great slaughter. This event was indeed a great miracle, and so the prophet Jacob mentioned it, even as he mentioned the matter of Samson.

NAPHTALI IS A HIND SENT FORTH. It was a custom among the rulers of countries to send hinds to one another, and this was the manner in which it was done: Hinds which were born in the territory of the king of the north country would be raised in the palaces of the king of the south country. They would attach a written message to its horns, and it would run speedily and return to its original habitat, and in this way the king of the north country would be apprised of the news. This is the meaning of the phrase, He giveth goodly words, meaning that he is a dispatched hind sent who bears good tidings. This practice is known, and it is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, in Tractate Shevi’ith: “They said, ‘If they go they will return, and if you wish to prove it, bring deer and send them to a land far away, and in the end they will return.’ He did so. He brought deer and covered their horns with silver and sent them to Africa, and at the end of thirteen years they returned to their place.” That is, they freed them after thirteen years, and they returned at once. The analogy is that Naphtali is satisfied with favor, and full with all good things, and from him tidings will come forth to all Israel that his land has produced fruits abundantly, even as our Rabbis have mentioned concerning the fruits of Gennesareth.

‘BEIN PORATH YOSEPH.’ A graceful son. It is an expression used in Aramaic: “Apiryon namtai (Let us gracefully treat) Rabbi Shimon.” Bein porath alei ayin. His gracefulness attracts the eye that sees him. This is the language of Rashi. Now it is farfetched to base the interpretation of the word porath upon this Aramaic expression, for such expressions in the Talmud — be they Greek, Persian, or other languages — have no kinship with the Sacred Language. Moreover, each example found of this word is only an expression of blessing and praise, not grace, and the letter nun [in the word apiryon] is a root letter. has no nun. How then can Rashi explain the word porath as being similar to apiryon in which the nun is a root letter? It is so mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah: “And they blessed Rebekah. They were depressed and mean. They were m’pharnin (blessing) only with their mouth.” It appears to me that the meaning of porath is as in the expression, “Purna belongs to the orphans,” where purna means the improvement in the value [of the orphans’ portion of the dowry which] belongs to the orphans. The Rabbis further called the kethubah (the written marriage-contract) purna, saying, “A woman collects the purna from them,”, 67a. meaning the kethubah which constitutes the benefit from her father’s house. They similarly said that “mohar (dowry) means pranun.” But bein porath in the present verse is to be interpreted either as Onkelos has it as being an expression of fruitfulness and abundance, or as the grammarians. — who derived the word porath from the phrase, And its branches (‘p’orothav’) became long — would have it. They further said that the word bein is similar in meaning to “a plant” or “branch”, and they bring a similar verse as proof: And of the stock which Thy right hand hath planted, and the branch (‘bein’) that Thou madest strong for Thyself. Thus the purport of the verse is as if Jacob had said: “Joseph is a planting containing many branches.” In my opinion, the word bein is to be understood in its ordinary sense, namely, “son,” with the verse stating that Joseph is a son who is similar to a many branched tree, planted beside a spring whose waters fail not, and whose branches in turn gave forth offspring, [i.e., other boughs]. [On account of their heaviness] these tread upon the sky-high walls. He called the boughs which come forth from the branches as banoth (daughters), for they are “the daughters” of the great branches. This is stylistic elegance for the expression, bein porath. The word bein, accordingly, is not in the conjunctive mode to the word porath, but instead is like: The Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon; Naphtali is a hind sent forth; Benjamin is a wolf. It is for this reason that it is vowelled with a tzeirei — [bein] — for if its interpretation were “a plant of boughs,” are in the constructive mode (“a plant of…”), the word should have been ben and not bein, as is the rule. the word bein should have been vowelled with a segol, [thus rendering it ben rather than bein]. The reason he uses the term bein (son) is to show affection, just as: From the prey, my son, thou art gone up. In general it is proper to interpret Joseph’s blessing as alluding to the two tribes which came from him, and this could be based upon the words porath (branches) and banoth (boughs). However, since he mentioned Levi, and the tribes of Israel number only twelve, he did not treat them as two separate tribes in his blessing, but he does allude to them. Moses our teacher, likewise, in his blessing, compared Joseph to the bullock and the wild-ox, and mentioned “the horns” in connection with him as each one constitutes a distinct body from which two horns branch out. There, however, because Moses our teacher did not mention Simeon by name, he explicitly said, And they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Menasheh.

BY THE HANDS OF THE MIGHTY ONE OF JACOB. This befell him from the Holy One, blessed be He, Who is the Mighty One of Jacob. And from there [from his position as viceroy], he became worthy to be the feeder of the foundation stone of Israel, that is, the source of the tribes of Israel. The word “even” (stone) has the same meaning here as the word “even” in the expression, the chief stone, [where it means high position]. This is the language of Rashi. “From the G-d of thy father did this befall you, and He will help you. [And with the Almighty, i.e.,] and your heart was with the Holy One, blessed be He, when you did not hearken to the words of your mistress, and He will bless you.” This is also the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the letter mem in the expression, mei’e-il avicha (‘from’ the G-d of thy father), is also to apply to the expression, ve’eith Sha-dai, [as if it read, umei’eith Sha-dai (and ‘from’ the Almighty)], and He will bless thee.…

BURY ME ‘EL AVOTHAI.’ With my fathers. This is the language of Rashi. However, Rashi did not explain the expression el hame’arah as meaning ‘with’ the cave. in the second expression could not mean “with,” which confronts us with the difficulty of having the same word assume different meanings in the same verse. Ramban will suggest various ways of resolving this difficulty. It is possible that the expression of this verse is concise [and should be understood as if it said], “Bury me and carry me to my fathers to the cave,” for so Jacob said, And thou shalt carry me out from Egypt, and it further says, And his sons carried him. It is possible that the word el serves here to indicate many meanings: Bury me ‘with’ my fathers, just as in the verse, And thou shalt not take a woman ‘el’ her sister, meaning “with her sister.” El hame’arah means “in the cave,” just as in the verses: ‘Ve’el’ (And in) the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee; Behold, he hath hidden himself ‘el’ (among) the baggage. Of similar usage is the expression, And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife ‘el’ (in) the cave. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning of the expression, Bury me (bury me) is in the plural form. with my fathers, is that the brothers should go with Joseph. Now Jacob really did not need to do that. However, he now commanded all of them to bury him in the cave, just as he had sworn Joseph, because he feared that Pharaoh might not give Joseph permission to leave the land lest he remain in his land [Canaan]. Do you not see that it was necessary for Joseph to plead with the house of Pharaoh that they should request Pharaoh to let him go, and he answered, Go up, and bury thy father, as he made thee swear,, Verse 6. as he agreed to it only on account of the oath!

THERE THEY BURIED ISAAC AND REBEKAH. The reason for saying this rather than saying, “I buried,” was that Esau was with him at the burial of their father, and he did not wish to mention him now. Furthermore, [he did not mention Esau’s name] as he would have been forced to extend the account, saying, “there we buried Isaac, and there they buried his wife Rebekah,” since Jacob was not present at the burial of his mother. Now in his testament, Jacob mentioned the cave and those who were buried in it to his children on account of the eminence of the place so that they make a zealous effort to bury him there. Which Abraham bought with the field… for a possession of a burying-place. He said this in order to let it be known that Abraham commanded that that place be their burial ground as an everlasting possession. However, further on, when it says, And they buried him in the cave of the field of Machpelah, which Abraham bought with the field for a burying-place, the intent of the verse is to allude that the intention of the righteous one [Abraham] was completed with Jacob’s being buried there as he had bought it for the three of them, and no other person was to be buried there. It is for this reason that Joseph did not command that they bury him in the cave with his fathers. Now I have seen in the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai 19. See also Midrash Hagadol, ed. Shechter, end of Vayechi 25, and Notes. — The Mechilta is a Midrash on the Book of Exodus, the standard Mechilta is that of Rabbi Yishmael. Ramban here refers to another Mechilta, namely, that of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. That is why he specifies it by name. that Joseph said to them: “And when you bring me up to the land of Canaan bury me anywhere you wish. I have received a tradition that I will not be buried with my fathers for no one is permitted there for burial except the three patriarchs and the three matriarchs, as it is said, There they buried Abraham, etc., and it further says, In my burying-place which I digged for me, as he [Jacob] terminated [the group of people who are to be buried there].” It is possible that by saying, And there I buried Leah, Jacob hinted to them that he had already taken possession of the cave. This he said with respect to Esau, lest he and his children protest his [Jacob’s] being buried there by claiming that the cave is his as he was the firstborn and he is deserving of being buried with his ancestors. Now even though Esau had already left for another country, his sons might transport him from there, just as Jacob’s sons carried him. Jacob longed to be buried with his sacred ancestors and to be united with them in burial, and if Esau were to be buried there, Jacob could not be buried there for one burial-place does not serve two families. This is also the purport of his words, In my burying-place which I digged for me, meaning that he had already dug the grave in order to take possession of it. This is also the reason that it says, And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen, as Joseph knew the presumptuousness of Esau and his sons. This is actually what occurred. We find in the Book of Chronicles of Joseph ben Gorion and in other books of ancient history that Zepho the son of Eliphaz the son of Esau came and quarrelled with the children of Jacob concerning this burial, with the result that they waged war. But the power of Joseph prevailed, and they captured him together with his choice army, and they brought them to Egypt. There, Zepho remained in prison all the days of Joseph, but upon his death he escaped from there and went to the land of Compagna [in Italy] and there he ruled over the Caetheans in Rome, and ultimately was crowned [ruler] over the land of Italy. It was he who first reigned over Rome, and it was he who built the first and largest palace ever built in Rome. Our Rabbis also mentioned this matter of the quarrel with Esau at the cave. The verse which states here, And Joseph returned into Egypt, he and his brethren, and all that went up with him to bury his father, after he had buried his father, alludes to the fact that not one of them died in the war or on the way, as the merit of the prophet Jacob and the merit of Joseph stood by those who went up with him. Joseph did not command that he be carried and buried now in the Land as his father had commanded, for the house of Pharaoh would not permit it since he was a source of honor to them. Furthermore, if his brothers and his father’s house were to accompany him, the people of the Land would rob and steal whatever they had, and it would not be respectful behavior for others to transport him there. AND JOSEPH SAID TO HIS BRETHREN, I DIE. All of his brothers were still alive for they all survived him, as you see in the case of Levi. And Joseph made the children of Israel swear. Upon seeing that his brothers were old, he made their children and all his father’s household swear that they too would command their children’s children [to take up his bones with them] at the moment of redemption, as they all knew of the impending exile.

AND HE EXPIRED, AND WAS GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE. But the word “death” is not mentioned in his case. Our Rabbis therefore said, “Jacob, our father, did not die.” This is the language of Rashi. Now according to this opinion of our Rabbis, the difficulty arises: Now Jacob applied the term “death” to himself, as it is written, Behold, I die, but G-d shall be with you! Now perhaps he did not know it himself, or it may be that he did not wish to pay honor to himself. Similarly, with respect to the verse, And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead, we must say that to them he was dead, or it may be that they did not at all know of this. Now the purport of this Midrash [which states that “Jacob, our father, did not die],” is that the souls of the righteous are bound in the bind of life with the Eternal, and his soul covereth him all the day, “wearing a scarlet garment” so that she not be stripped naked, as Jacob’s [soul was privileged to do continually], or which she dons at certain occasions [as do the souls of lesser righteous individuals]. This matter will be understood in the light of what is told in Tractate Shabbath and Tractate Kethuboth.. Thus concludes the book Bereshith, containing the story of the accounts of the patriarchs. It tells of what has occurred and of new things that will occur even before they spring up in the hearts of people. And to the Creator of all beginnings, Him that rideth the skies, Many praises and myriads of thanksgivings. By Him actions and causes are weighed; He uncovereth deep things and lofty opinions, And brings the thoughts to light. It is He Who leadeth me in the path of righteousness, In the midst of the path of justice, Who vouchsafest benefits unto the undeserving.”