“It is appropriate, for that person rises up who is hastening to Christ. Faith precedes devotion. First Jacob rose up; later he sacrificed. The man who has searched out the knowledge of God offers a good sacrifice. Now "at night in a vision God spoke to Israel, saying, 'Jacob, Jacob.' He said, 'What is it?' God said, 'I am the God of your fathers, do not fear, go down into Egypt; for there I will make you into a great people, and I will lead you forever.' "”

“On hearing this, let us learn in whatever we do, whether embarking on some project or beginning a journey, first of all to offer a sacrifice to the Lord in prayer and, by calling on his help to address the matter in hand, thus also imitate these good people's godliness. "He offered a sacrifice to the God of his father, Isaac," the text says, for you to learn that Jacob followed in his father's footsteps and thus demonstrated the reverence for divine things that Isaac had. Because he took the initiative in showing his own right attitude in thanksgiving, at once he felt the influence of grace from on high. I mean, because he had in view the length of the journey and kept in mind his advanced age, Jacob was afraid that death might come upon him before the meeting and rob him of the sight of his son; so he offered prayers to God to grant him life enough to enable him to enjoy this final satisfaction.”

“The suffix ה replaces the prefix ל locale (Yevamot 13b). לאלהי אביו יצחק TO THE GOD OF HIS FATHER, ISAAC — The duty of honouring one’s father is more imperative than that of honouring one’s grandfather (Genesis Rabbah 94:5); therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac and not with that of Abraham.”

“AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk; and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac. Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal., 12:7. And what need was there to explain it further? However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah: When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran. Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said that Noachides, also Note 222 in Seder Bereshith. did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar. But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded: “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah, i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.” I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah:. “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac. And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering, and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.” Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him], as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old. It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar; it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again, [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night, thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon. Similarly he said that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying as “I will surely accept his complaint.” But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”? And that which the Rabbi has said that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai; Hear the voice of my supplications; Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d. And so also, leiv shomei’ah (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction, [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people, [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel,, 2:25. [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous (Habakkuk 1:13). However, Rambam mentions that he found three passages which contradict his theory. One is the verse, And the Eternal saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, (above, 6:5), and the other two are mentioned in the following note. In these three cases which are connected with wrong and violence, Onkelos should have expressed “seeing” in the form of “being manifest before the Eternal,” and yet he translated them literally! Rambam then concludes that our version of Onkelos is inaccurate in those three cases! It is this conclusion of Rambam with which Ramban takes issue in the text before us. in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw], and two other verses,, (above, 6:12). And the Eternal saw that Leah was hated, (above, 29:31). which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory. With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him, as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned. But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee? This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand, as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did, yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d., 31:18. The Rabbi’s answer that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them, in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy;, Verse 6. Thy strong hand; By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm;, 4:34. And My hand take hold on judgment;, 32:41. The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it., 11:12. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him], as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream., but translated it literally, is that the narrative begins with a statement that it was in a vision of the night. Ramban questions this thesis, for in the story of the ladder, which is also introduced as a dream, Onkelos avoided possible indications of corporeality, and accordingly he paraphrased the verses. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee, as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth, [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee,, 3:12. as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night, And G-d came to Laban in a dream,, 31:24. as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream, and yet Jonathan ben Uziel. translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night, one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream, is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest. And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal, as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you, and Between G-d and every living creature,, Verse 16. were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch, 31:49. as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness, Verse 50. as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d,, 21:23. is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah]. Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand, as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock. And concerning that which the Rabbi has said that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation, as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down, “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.”, 3:2. Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face, as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not, as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee,, 32:34. and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken,, 33:17. Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us,, 34:9. and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.” He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face,, 33:20. “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,] Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory, which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted, then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle, and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala. known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying,, 20:1. [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke unto your whole assembly., Verse 19. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said: “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.” Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.], and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],” because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses., 3:12. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.”

“AND HE SAID, JACOB, JACOB. After G-d had told him, Thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, it would be proper that He call him by this glorious name, and so he is indeed mentioned three times in this section. However, He called him Jacob in order to hint that now he will not contend with G-d and men and prevail, [as the name Israel indicates], but he will be in a house of bondage until He will also bring him up again, since the exile now begins with him. This is the meaning of the verse, And these are the names of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, Jacob and his sons, for they would come there with the appellation, “children of Israel,” since the children would multiply and increase there and their name and glory would extend. However, he is “Jacob” when descending thereto. The reason why Scripture mentions Er and Onan together with the children of Israel who came into Egypt, [although they had already died, as clearly stated in Verse 12]; is due to a secret which can be known from the words we have already written. The learned student [of the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand this, as well as the meaning of the entire Verse [12]. Scripture likewise mentioned them among those numbered in the desert: The sons of Judah: Er and Onan; and Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan. And the sons of Judah after their families were, etc. And there, in the book of Chronicles, Scripture enumerates them in another count: The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan and Shelah; which were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess…And Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Perez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.”

“It appears fitting indeed after these things, to contemplate and look into what God says to Israel himself through the vision and how he sends him to Egypt strengthening and encouraging him as if he were setting out to some struggles. For he says, "Fear not to descend into Egypt." This is to say, you shall contend "against principalities and powers and against the rulers of this world of this darkness"—which is figuratively called Egypt—fear not, be not afraid. But if also you wish to know the reason that you ought not fear, hear my promise: "For I will make a great nation of you there, and I will go down with you into Egypt, and I will recall you from there in the end." He therefore with whom God shall go down into the struggles is not afraid "to go down into Egypt." He is not afraid to approach the struggles of this world and the battles with resisting demons. For hear the apostle Paul saying, "I have labored more," he says, "than all those, yet not I, but the grace of God with me." But also when dissension had been stirred up against him in Jerusalem, and he performed a most brilliant struggle for the word and preaching of the Lord, the Lord stood by him and said the same things that now are said to Israel. "Fear not, Paul," Scripture says, "for as you have testified of me in Jerusalem, so must you bear witness also at Rome."”

“But I think a still greater mystery lies hidden in this passage. For this statement disturbs me: "I will make a great nation of you, and I will go down with you into Egypt, and I will recall you from there in the end." Who is it who is made "into a great nation" in Egypt and is recalled "in the end"? To the extent that it pertains to that Jacob of whom one supposes it to be said, it will not appear true. For he was not recalled from Egypt "in the end," since he died in Egypt. But it will be absurd if someone says Jacob was recalled by God in that his body was carried back. But if it is accepted, it will not be true that "God is not the God of the dead but of the living." It is not proper, therefore, that these words be understood of a dead body but that they apply to the living and vigorous.Let us consider therefore whether there may be depicted in this statement a figure of the Lord who descends into this world and is made "into a great nation," that is, the church of the Gentiles, and after all things were completed, returned to the Father. Or, whether it is a figure of "the first-formed man" who descends to the struggles of this world after he was cast out of the delights of paradise. The struggle with the serpent was set before him when it is said, "You shall watch for his head, and he shall watch for your heel," and again, when it is said to the woman, "I will put enmity between you and him, and between your seed and his seed." Nevertheless God does not desert those placed in this struggle but is always with them. He is pleased with Abel; he reproaches Cain; he is present with Enoch, when he is invoked. He commands Noah to construct an ark of salvation in the flood; he leads Abraham "from the house of his father" and "from his kinsmen"; he blesses Isaac and Jacob; he leads the sons of Israel out of Egypt. He writes the law of the letter through Moses. He completes what was lacking through the prophets. This is what it means to be with them in Egypt. But regarding the statement "I will recall you from there in the end," I think this means, as we said above, that at the end of the ages his only-begotten Son descended even into the nether regions for the salvation of the world and recalled "the first-formed man" from there. For what he said to the thief, "This day you shall be with me in paradise," understand not to have been said to him alone but also to all the saints for whom he had descended into the nether regions. In this man, therefore, more truly than in Jacob the words "I will recall you from there in the end" will be fulfilled.”

“Our God himself also exhorts that people with his own prophecy and promises them advancement in the faith, the fruit of his gift, for he says to them, "Joseph shall put his hand on your eyes." It was not that the holy patriarch was troubled as to who should close his eyes, although in the clear understanding of it a natural love is also being expressed. For we often desire to embrace those whom we love. How much more, when we are about to depart from this body, do we take delight in the last touch of our beloved children and find consolation in such a provision for our journey. Yet in a mystical sense we may take it to mean that afterward the Jewish people are going to know their God. For this is a mystery, that the true Joseph places his hands over the eyes of another, so that he who before did not see may now see. Come to the Gospel, read how the blind man was healed, when Jesus put his hand on him and took away his blindness. Indeed, Christ does not put his hand on those who are going to die but on those who are going to live or, if on those who are going to die, rightly so, because we first die in order that we may live again. For we cannot see God unless we die to sin previously.”

“See how whatever the good man longed for the Lord promises him, and in fact much more. That is to say, in his generosity he exceeds our requests out of fidelity to his characteristic love. "Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt," he says. Because Jacob dreaded the length of the journey, accordingly he says, "Have no regard for the weakness of your old age—I will make you into a great nation there. I will accompany you and make everything easy for you." Notice the considerateness of the expression: "I will go down with you to Egypt." What could be more blessed than to have God as traveling companion? Then he spoke the consoling thought that the old man had particular need of: "Joseph's hands will close your eyes in death." That dearly beloved son of yours will personally prepare your body for burial, and his hands will close your eyes in death.So, quite happy and free from all concern, Jacob took to the road. Consider at this point, I ask you, with what cheerfulness the good man makes the journey, being so reassured by God's promise.”

“אשר רכשו בארץ כנען WHICH THEY HAD GOTTEN IN THE LAND OF CANAAN — But all that he had gotten in Padan-aram he gave to Esau in payment for his share in the Cave of Machpelah. He said, “The possessions I obtained outside the land are of no value to me”. It is to this that the words refer (Genesis 50:5) “[Bury me in my burying-place] which כריתי” I obtained for myself by means of a כרי. He placed before him (Esau) piles of gold and silver like a heap (כרי) of corn and said to him, “Take these in exchange for your share in the Cave of Machpelah” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 6).”

“AND HIS SONS’ DAUGHTERS. These were Serah, the daughter of Asher, and Jochebed, the daughter of Levi. This is the language of Rashi. But what will Rashi include in the term, his daughters, [which is also plural, although Jacob only had one daughter, Dinah]? Rather, it is the way of Scripture, when mentioning the genealogy of many people, to refer to an individual in the plural form, as for example, And the sons of Dan: Hushim; And the sons of Palu: Eliab. The same is true here: “daughters” refer to Dinah. “His sons’ daughters” refers to Serah the daughter of Asher, but Jochebed [Moses’ mother] is not mentioned by Scripture [as being among the persons who went down to Egypt], as it is said, All the souls were threescore and six. She is, however, hinted at, according to the opinion of our Rabbis.”

“בן הכנענית THE SON OF THE CANAANITISH WOMAN — means the son of Dinah, who had been associated with a Canaanite (Shechem). When they (her brothers) had killed Shechem, Dinah refused to leave the city until Simeon swore to her that he would marry her and regard the child she was about to bear as his own (cf. Genesis Rabbah 80:11).”

“אלה בני לאה ואת דינה בתו THESE ARE THE SONS OF LEAH WITH HIS DAUGHTER DINAH. — Scripture associates the men with the name of Leah and the women with that of Jacob for the reason given the Talmud (Niddah 31a). שלשים ושלש THIRTY THREE — But in the enumeration above you will find only thirty-two. The one whose name is omitted is Jochebed who was born “between the walls” just as they entered the border city, as it is said (Numbers 26:59) “Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bore to Levi in Egypt — she was born in Egypt, but she was not conceived in Egypt (Bava Batra 123).”

“THIRTY AND THREE. But in the above enumeration you will find only thirty-two. However, the one whose name is omitted is Jochebed who was born as they entered the border city, as it is said, Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bore to Levi in Egypt. She was born in Egypt, but she was not conceived in Egypt. This is the principle of our Rabbis. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra replied, saying that “this is surprising. For if so, why did Scripture not mention the wonder that befell her, for she gave birth to Moses when she was one hundred and thirty years old? And why did it mention the case of Sarah who gave birth when she was ninety years old? This distress was not yet sufficient for us so that the poets came and composed liturgic poems for the day of Simchath Torah, wherein they state, ‘Jochebed, my mother, will be comforted after me,’ [implying that Jochebed survived her son], and thus she was two hundred and fifty years old at the death of Moses! Is the proof of the poets for this longevity of Jochebed because Ahijah the Shilonite lived a life of great duration? [If so, this is not a proof, for his longevity is but] an Agadic tradition or the opinion of a single authority.” These are the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra. Now lest he be wise in his own eyes in contradicting the words of our Rabbis, I must answer him and say that in any case, there is in the matter of Jochebed a great wonder of the hidden miracles which constitute the foundation of the Torah. Jochebed was Levi’s actual daughter, and not merely his offspring, as it is written, Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, whom [her mother] bore to Levi, and it is furthermore written, And Amram took himself Jochebed his father’s sister for a wife. [Thus Amram, Levi’s grandson, married Jochebed, Levi’s daughter.] Now if we would say that Levi begot Jochebed in his younger years, just as he begot all his sons, this would place her birth soon after his descent into Egypt, and she would have been very old at the time of Moses’ birth, at or near the age stated by our Rabbis. And if we would say that he begot her after he resided in Egypt for many years — say, for a period of fifty-seven years — then Levi would have been one hundred years old at Jochebed’s birth, for when he went down to Egypt he was forty-three years of age. In that case, there were two great wonders! [Levi, at the time he begot Jochebed], was as old as Abraham, concerning whom Scripture mentions, Shall a child be born to him who is a hundred years old? and it is further written, And my lord is old also,, 18:12. while Jochebed would still have been an elderly woman of seventy-three when Moses was born! And should we further postpone Jochebed’s birth to the end of Levi’s days, the wonder of his begetting a child will be greater than that of Abraham! But I will tell you a true principle, clearly indicated in the Torah. Scripture mentions miracles performed through a prophet and which he previously prophesied, or performed by an angel who is revealed in the course of a Divine mission, but those effected naturally in order to help the righteous or destroy the wicked are not mentioned in the Torah or in the books of the prophets. May this be “hot gold poured into the mouth” of this wise man who refuted the words of our Rabbis in the matter of Phinehas and similar matters in many places. Why should Scripture mention hidden miracles when all the foundations of the Torah are hidden miracles. In the entire scope of the Torah there are only miracles, and no nature or custom. All assurances of the Torah are in the form of signs and wonders, as it is not natural that he who has connection with one of the forbidden degrees of marriage or he who eats forbidden fat suffers excision or death. Nor is it by nature that the heavens become as iron because we have sowed our fields in the Sabbatical year. Similarly, all the assurances of the Torah concerning those blessings [which will result from our observance of the law], and all the good fortune of the righteous ones because of their righteousness, as well as all the prayers of our king David [in the book of Psalms] and all our prayers, all are founded upon miracles and wonders, except that there is no heralded change in the nature of the world, as I have already mentioned, and I will yet explain it further,, Verse 11. with the help of G-d. I will give you faithful testimony to that which I have said. We know that from the time Israel came into the Land until the birth of our lord David, about three hundred and seventy years elapsed. These years are to be divided among four generations: Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse [David’s father], each one being allotted ninety-three years. Thus when they begot children they were all approximately as old as Abraham was when he begot Isaac. Furthermore, each one begot his son in the year of his death, a most unusual thing, since in their era the general span of life was not a hundred years. And if one of them begot his son in his younger years, as is usual, the others would have had to be much older than Abraham, and thus the wonder concerning them would be exceedingly great since people in the generation of Abraham lived long, and in the days of David the average lifespan was reduced to a half. And perhaps these four generations lived longer than their contemporaries for it is possible that Salmon was already advanced in years when he entered the Land of Israel. It is for this reason that the masters of Tradition, who are the true Sages, have attributed longevity to Obed, this being a covert miracle which was done to the ancestor of the kingdom [of the house of David], the son of the righteous one [Ruth], who had come to take refuge under the wings of the Divine Presence. The Sages similarly mention longevity in connection with Obed’s mother, Ruth. Now I have already explained that the wonder in the case of Abraham was not as the above-mentioned Sage [Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra] and other masters of the Scriptures have thought. Abraham begot Isaac seventy-five years before his death, prior to the completion of two-thirds of his lifespan, and in all generations, old age does not affect people until three quarters of their lives have passed, just as the doctors have considered the divisions of life to be: childhood, youth, manhood, and old age. In these generations, when the lifespan is about seventy years, doctors do not consider a person aged until after sixty. Moreover, Abraham begot many children forty years after the birth of Isaac, and the wonder is thus manifoldly miraculous! And should we say that G-d caused Abraham to revert to his youthful days, it may be asked why Scripture does not mention this great wonder when it was an open and known miracle which is contrary to nature. Moreover, it is known that in this present generation some men beget children until they are full seventy or eighty years old and more, depending upon the extent to which they retain their natural vitality. Women also have no specific time [for ceasing to conceive], as long as they have their period they can give birth. However, the wonder in the case of Abraham and Sarah, as I explained there, was due to the fact that they had not begotten children in their younger years, and now together they begot a child. In the case of Sarah there was an additional wonder, i.e., that the manner of women, 18:11. had ceased with her, and after this happens, women no longer give birth. Now if Jochebed lived as many years as her father Levi had, and if her vitality remained with her until near her old age, as is the way of women, it would be no wonder if she gave birth at the time set forth by our Rabbis, [namely, at one hundred and thirty years of age]. It is because G-d wanted to redeem Israel though the brothers [Moses and Aaron], and since the time of the redemption had not yet come, He delayed their birth many years until their mother was old. Nothing is too difficult for the Eternal. Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi] wrote: “According to the view that a twin-sister was born with each of Jacob’s sons, we must say that they died before Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt because they are not enumerated here.” There is no necessity for this conclusion, for the Rabbis have said: “Rabbi Yehudah says that Jacob’s sons married their sisters.” These twin-sisters were thus the wives of Jacob’s sons, concerning whom Scripture says, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives. In fact, Rabbi Yehudah arrived at this opinion on the basis of this verse, since if it refers to Canaanitish women what reason is there for Scripture to say, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, after it had already said, that came out of his loins? It is only because his sons’ wives were also of those “that came out of his loins” that Scripture refers to them. It does not, however, divulge them here, just as it did not mention them explicitly when they were born together with Jacob’s sons. Furthermore, Scripture mentions here only those who begot children and increased in Egypt, in order to make known the great miracle which was performed in the mighty increase which they effected in Egypt, for at this juncture, they numbered seventy souls. Thus their wives were not counted because a man and his wife are one.”

“THESE ARE THE SONS OF ZILPAH, etc. 19. THE SONS OF RACHEL JACOB’s WIFE, etc. It is customary for Scripture to first enumerate the sons of the mistresses together, just as it said in the Seder Vayishlach Yaakov and in the Seder V’eileh Shmoth bnei Yisrael, or else to enumerate them according to the order of their birth, the firstborn according to his birthright and the youngest according to his youth, as Scripture did when they were blessed by Jacob in the Seder Vayechi Yaakov. and in Shmoth, or according to their age, as it did in Vayechi. Ramban is attempting to explain why they are mentioned here after Zilpah’s children. Here, however, because Scripture’s purpose was to enumerate their numbers and to state that with seventy souls they went down to Egypt, it gave precedence to those who were more numerous. This was why Scripture mentioned Rachel among the concubines, and hence it was necessary to mention her with respect, saying, Jacob’s wife, as I have mentioned above.”

“(Chapter XLVI, Verse 26 and following) Therefore all the souls that entered Egypt with Jacob, and those that came out of his thighs, apart from the wives of Jacob's sons, were sixty-six souls; and the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were nine souls. Therefore all the souls that entered Egypt with Jacob were seventy-five. It is without doubt that except for Joseph and his sons, sixty-six souls that came out of Jacob's thighs entered Egypt. For thus also, gradually through each calculated number, it is proven, and it is found in the Hebrew volumes. But what we read in the Septuagint: And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were nine souls: let us know that in Hebrew, instead of nine, there are two. For Ephraim and Manasseh were born to him before Jacob entered Egypt, and before the time of famine. They were born of Aseneth, the daughter of Potiphera, in Egypt. But also that which we read above: And the sons of Manasseh became, whom the Syrian concubine gave birth to him, Machir, and Machir gave birth to Gilead; and the sons of Ephraim, the brother of Manasseh, Suthalaam, and Thaam; and the sons of Suthalaam, Edem, it is added: indeed, what we read afterwards is described as if it had happened by anticipation. For at that time when Jacob entered Egypt, Ephraim and Manasseh were not old enough to be able to have children. From this it is evident that all the souls who entered Egypt from the loins of Jacob were seventy, but afterwards sixty-six entered, and they found (Al. gave birth to) three souls in Egypt, namely Joseph with his two sons, and the seventieth was Jacob himself. In order that we do not seem to speak against the authority of Scripture, even the Seventy Interpreters translated in Deuteronomy (X, 22) that Jacob (also called Israel) entered Egypt with seventy souls. Therefore, if anyone opposes our opinion, they will make Scripture contradict itself. For the Seventy Interpreters themselves, who said that seventy-five souls, including Joseph and his descendants, entered Egypt through πρόληψις, only mentioned in Deuteronomy that seventy entered (some say 'entered'). But if the opposite is opposed to us, how is it said in the Acts of the Apostles (VII) , in the sermon of Stephen to the people, that seventy-five souls entered Egypt; the explanation is easy. For Saint Luke, who is the author of the history itself, should not have written anything contrary to that Scripture, which had already been made known to the Gentiles, when he published the volume of the Acts of the Apostles. And certainly, at that time, the authority of the Seventy Interpreters was considered greater than that of Luke, who was unknown, and despised, and not held in high esteem by the nations. However, it is generally observed that wherever the holy Apostles or Apostolic men speak to the peoples, they often make use of testimonies that had already been spread among the nations: although many report that Luke the Evangelist, as a proselyte, was ignorant of the Hebrew letters.”

“כל הנפש הבאה ליעקב EVERY SOUL THAT WAS COMING WITH JACOB — every soul that left Canaan to go to Egypt The word הבאה, here, is not a perfect tense, but a participle with a relative present sense — just as (Ester 2:4) “In the evening she (באה) was coming” and (Genesis 29:7) “and, behold, Rachel his daughter is coming (באה)” and therefore the accent is on the last syllable, on the א, because when they left, coming from the land of Canaan, they were only sixty-six. But at the second mention of this word (Genesis 46:27) — “every soul of the house of Jacob, which came (הבאה) into Egypt were seventy” — it is a perfect tense and therefore it is accented on the last but one syllable, on the ב. The reason is, that when they came there, they were seventy, for they found Joseph and his two sons there, and Jochebed was added to their number “between the walls”. According to the view of the Rabbi (i. e. R. Jehudah, cf. Genesis Rabbah 84) who stated that with each of Jacob’s sons a twin-sister was born, we must say that these died before they (Jacob and his family) went down to Egypt, because they are not enumerated here. In Vayikra Rabbah 4:6 I found the following: When he left Canaan (cf. Genesis 36:6) Esau’s family consisted of only six (himself and his five sons), and Scripture calls them “the souls of his house” (in the plural) and this is because they worshipped many gods (each serving a different god and having as it were, a different soul or religious feeling). But the family of Jacob when he came to Egypt consisted of seventy and Scripture calls them “soul”, in the singular, because they all served One God.”

“Therefore seventy-five souls go down into Egypt, just as it is written, and this in the mystical sense is the number of forgiveness. For after such great hardness, after such great sins, they would be considered unworthy unless there were granted them the forgiveness of sins. Judah—that is, the confession of sin—goes to meet Joseph. The people of the Jews that is to come sends him ahead as a forerunner of itself. So also the true Joseph, that is, "the witness and interpreter of the Godhead," comes to meet those who before were in the possession of unbelief, because now their confession precedes them. For Christ is the interpreter of the Godhead, because "no one has at any time seen God, except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he has revealed him." It is he who in the last times will receive the people of the Jews, by then in an advanced age and grown weary, and do so, not according to its merits but according to the election of his grace; and he will put his hand on its eyes to take away its blindness. And so he postponed its healing, so that the people who earlier did not think it should be believed might be the last to believe and might lose the prerogative of earlier election. On this account also the apostle says, "that a partial blindness has befallen Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles should enter, and thus all Israel should be saved." And thus it is that the deeds of the patriarchs are symbols of events to come. Indeed, Jacob himself speaks to this effect to his sons: "Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you the things that shall befall you in the last days. Gather yourselves together, and hear Israel your father."”

“Why did sacred Scripture indicate the number to us precisely? So that we might be in a position to know how God's prediction took effect that said, "I will make you into a great nation there." You see, from those seventy-five persons the people of Israel grew into six hundred thousand. You notice how it was not idly or to no purpose that it taught us the number of those that went down to Egypt, but for us to know from how few that great number came and not to lose confidence in God's promises. I mean, when you consider that after the death of Jacob and Joseph the king of the Egyptians went to such lengths to reduce their numbers and prevent them from growing, be amazed and overcome at God's providence and the fact that his wishes can never fail, no matter how many people try their utmost.”

“Therefore Jacob went down to Egypt together with seventy-five people, and his son Joseph came to meet him. After seeing him Jacob said, "I see you, son, now I can die willingly." When Simeon, that venerable old man, called a father because of his age and not because he could father children, saw Christ because of whom he was still kept in this world as in Egypt, even though he was extremely old, said, "Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation." David's Psalm 75, which coincides with the number of the people, proclaims, "God is known in Judea, and his name is great in Israel." Since Israel means "he who sees God," it is necessary that every person enlightened by grace, Jew or Greek, is freed from the slavery of Egypt, even though Pharaoh, that is, the devil, oppresses him with a heavy yoke.”

“(v. 28) But Judah was sent ahead of him to Joseph, to meet him in the city of Heroum in the land of Ramesse. In Hebrew, there is no city called Heroum, nor a land called Ramesse, but only Gesen. Some Jews assert that Gesen is now called Thebaid. And what follows afterwards: He gave them the best land in Egypt, in Ramesse, which they believe to be the village called Arsenoites in ancient times.”

“להורת לפניו TO DIRECT HIM — Render this as the Targum does: to prepare a place for him and to show him how he should settle in it. לפניו BEFORE HIM — means before he should arrive there. A Midrashic comment is: להורת לפניו (in the sense of, “that there might be teaching before him”) — to establish for him a House of Study from which Teaching (הוראה or תורה) might go forth (Genesis Rabbah 95:3).”

“This is what I said at the outset, that in many cases an excess of joy causes the tears to flow. "He fell on his neck," the text says, and not simply "wept" but "wept a flood of tears." You see, immediately there came to his mind what he himself had suffered, what his father had endured on his account. Joseph thought of the great length of time that had elapsed in the meantime and the fact that, contrary to all expectation, he saw his father, and his father set eyes on his son. So he shed a flood of tears, revealing his exceeding joy and, at the same time, thanking the Lord for what had happened.”

“ויאסר יוסף מרכבתו AND JOSEPH MADE READY (literally, bound, harnessed) HIS CHARIOT — He himself harnessed the horses to the chariot being eager to show honour to his father (Genesis Rabbah 95:8; Mechilta to בשלח). וירא אליו AND HE APPEARED BEFORE HIM — Joseph appeared before his father. ויבך על צואריו עוד AND WEPT ON HIS NECK A GOOD WHILE — The phrase ויבך עוד signifies weeping copiously. So, too, עוד has the same meaning in (Job 34:23) “For He doth not place upon a man עוד” — which means something more than is proper: God does not place on him accusations additional to his sins (the sins he has really committed) Here, also, he wept greatly and continuously — more than is usual. Jacob, however, did not fall upon Joseph’s neck nor did he kiss him. Our Rabbis say: the reason was that he was reciting the Shema (renewing his allegiance to God immediately on settling in a new land).”

“AND HE APPEARED BEFORE HIM. Joseph appeared before his father. And he wept on his neck a good while. The phrase vayeivk od signifies “weeping copiously.” Jacob, however, did not fall upon the neck of his son Joseph, nor did he kiss him. Our Rabbis said that this was because he was reciting the Shema, (the affirmation of G-d’s Unity). This is the language of Rashi. But [according to this interpretation, which says that it was Joseph who fell on his father’s neck and wept], I know of no reason for the statement, And he appeared before him, since it is understood that Joseph appeared before Jacob since he fell upon his neck. Moreover, it is not respectful for Joseph to fall upon his father’s neck. He should rather bow before him or kiss his hands, as it is written, And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he fell down on his face. And at the present moment, it was more fitting that he bow to him [than at the time referred to in the aforementioned verse]. So also, every term ‘od’ in Scripture indicates an addition to the original but does not imply copiousness. Thus: He doth not set a stated time ‘od’ for a man, which means, “He sets a stated time for a man in accordance with his transgression, and nothing is added.” can refer to a slight increase. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Israel’s eyes were already slightly dim from age, and when Joseph arrived in the carriage of the second in rank, with a mitre on his head as was the custom of the Egyptian kings, his father did not recognize him. His brothers also had not recognized him., 42:8. Therefore Scripture mentioned that when he appeared before his father, who stared at him and finally recognized him, his father fell on his neck and cried again over him, even as he had continually cried over him to this day when he had not seen him after his disappearance, and then Jacob said, Now let me die, since I have seen thy face. It is a known matter as to whose tears are more constant: that of an old father who finds his son alive after having despaired of him and having mourned for him, or that of a grown-up son who reigns. Do not be concerned [lest this interpretation be open to question] because Scripture immediately says, And Israel said, [thus implying that the previous subject is not Israel but Joseph], whereas according to our interpretation Scripture is speaking of Jacob and then mentions his name once again in the following verse. A similar case is found in these verses: And he gathered up all the foods of the seven years, etc., [where Joseph is the subject of the verse, and yet Scripture mentions his name in the succeeding verse], And unto Joseph were born two sons., Verse 50. There are constantly many similar places in the Torah and in the other books of Scripture.”

“אמותה הפעם NOW, I WILL FAIN DIE — It's literal meaning is as the Targum renders it. A Midrashic explanation is (being based upon the literal translation. “I will die this once”): I had thought that I would die two deaths, in this world and also in the world to come, because the Divine Presence departed from me and I therefore thought that God would hold me responsible for your death. Now, since you are alive I will die only once, in this world (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9).”

“AND THE MEN ARE SHEPHERDS, FOR THEY HAVE BEEN KEEPERS OF CATTLE. Joseph told them that they are shepherds but that they do not tend to the cattle of others because even with respect to their own cattle, they have servants and attendants to pasture them. It is only that their wealth consists of cattle. This is the sense of the expression, they have been keepers of cattle, and had wealth, and a very great household by virtue of the great multitude of cattle which they possessed. It was Joseph’s intention to mention them in an honorable way.”

“Joseph went out to meet his father with chariots and with many people. [Joseph] got down [from his horse] and bowed down to his father, and they wept on each other's neck. Then Joseph commanded his brothers to say to Pharaoh, "We and our fathers are keepers of cattle," so that they might dwell in Goshen and thus keep their distance from those who worship sheep and bulls.”

“Note the shrewdness with which Joseph advises them, not idly or to no purpose making these suggestions but anxious to put them in a more secure position and at the same time to ensure their assimilation among the Egyptians. You see, since they loathed and despised those who tended flocks for having no time for Egyptian wisdom, consequently he counsels them to make a pretense of their occupation so that he may plausibly apportion them the most attractive land and cause them to live in considerable prosperity.”

“בעבור תשבו בארץ גשן IN ORDER THAT YE MAY ABIDE IN THE LAND OF GOSHEN — and this is the land that you require, for it is a land of pasture. If you tell him that you are inexperienced in other work he will send you far away from him and settle you there. כי תועבת מצרים כל רעה צאן FOR EVERY SHEPHERD IS AN ABOMINATION TO THE EGYPTIANS — because they (sheep) are regarded by them as deities.”