Yaakov's Retrospective and Yosef's Double Portion/2

Yaakov's Retrospective

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is still being developed and updated

Justify Yosef's Double Portion

Yaakov's review of the past was meant to explain why he had the right to grant Yosef's two children the status of "tribes".

Sources:R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon, R. Saadia Gaon, RashiBereshit 48:4-7,22About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RashbamBereshit 48:5-7,22About R. Shemuel b. Meir, Ibn EzraBereshit 48:4,7,22About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 48:4-7,22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RalbagBereshit 48:4-5,7About R. Levi b. Gershon, Tzeror HaMorBereshit 48About R. Avraham Saba, SefornoBereshit 48:4-7About R. Ovadyah Seforno, Or HaChayyimBereshit 48:4-7About R. Chayyim b. Atar, R S"R Hirsch

Vision at Beit El – Yaakov calls on Hashem's promise in Beit El as proof that Hashem had given him permission to grant Yosef's sons equal status to his own, and to bequeath them rights to the land as he did for each tribe.

• "קְהַל עַמִּים" – According to Rashi, Ralbag, Seforno, and R. Hirsch, drawing on Bereshit Rabbah, Yaakov understood Hashem's words, "וּנְתַתִּיךָ לִקְהַל עַמִּים" to refer to sons that he had not yet born.¹  Since he had no future sons of his own, he recognized that the prophecy must have referred to his grandchildren.²
• "וְנָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְזַרְעֲךָ" – Rashbam, Ibn Ezram,R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, and Radak³  instead suggest that Yaakov was simply pointing out that once the land was promised to him, he could split it however he desired.⁴

Mention of Rachel's Burial – These exegetes disagree about the relevancy of Yaakov's mention of Rachel's burial.

• Intrinsic to the conversation –Most of these sources suggest that this point was intrinsically connected to Yaakov's main discussion regarding Menashe and Efraim:

• Proof that prophecy spoke of grandchildren – According to R. Saadia Gaon, R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon, Ibn Kaspi and Seforno, Yaakov is explaining that Rachel's death (which occurred immediately after the prophecy in Beit El) marked the end of his child bearing.  As such it was clear that Hashem's prophecy could not have been referring to Yaakov's own sons, but must have referred to Yosef's children.⁵
• Reason for choosing Yosef's sons – Tzeror HaMor asserts that Yaakov told Yosef that had it not been for her premature death, Rachel should have born him two more sons.  Since this was not to be, he requests to "adopt" Yosef's two eldest to take their place.⁶ R. Hirsch, instead, notes that Yaakov, in his old age, thinks of the death of his beloved, since it was his love for her which prompted him to give Yosef's son this exalted status.⁷
• Burial site in Yosef's inheritance – According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ralbag, Yaakov mentions burying Rachel at this point since the site of her grave is found within the borders of the future inheritance of his children.⁸

• Irrelevant – Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Radak all assert that Yaakov's comment is related to Yaakov's earlier discussion with Yosef regarding his burial⁹ rather than this conversation regarding Yosef's sons.¹⁰  As Yaakov requested that Yosef take pains to bury him in Mearat HaMachpelah, he apologized and explained to Yosef why he had not done the same for his mother, Rachel.

Choice of Efraim and Menashe – Some of these commentators¹¹ suggest that Yaakov chose to give Yosef a double portion through Efraim and Menashe since he understood Hashem's prophecy to refer to them specifically.  Others,¹² though, assume that this was a result of Yaakov' love for Rachel, and by extension, of Yosef.

Relationship between recollections

Comparison to original prophecy

• Rashi and Ralbag¹³ note that the original prophecy mentioned both a "גּוֹי" and "וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם", whereas here Yaakov only mentions the latter. They explain that the word "גוי" referred to Binyamin, who had been born shortly after the prophecy, and was thus not relevant to Yaakov's current speech.¹⁴
• Most of the other commentators would likely not attribute any significance to the changes, suggesting that Yaakov was simply paraphrasing Hashem's words.

"וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹלַדְתָּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם" - Did Yosef have other children? Rashbam and Radak suggest that it is possible that Yosef had other children who are simply not mentioned since they were not especially significant.  Rashi and Ralbag posit instead that Yaakov was referring to any future sons that Yosef might bear,¹⁵ while Seforno understands Yaakov's words to refer to Yosef's grandchildren.  Either way, Yaakov is simply pointing out that no matter who else descends from Yosef, he is not to merit more tribes.

What was gained by getting two tribes? Since the land was divided per capita, it would seem irrelevant whether Yosef received one or two portions.¹⁶ Rashi, thus, suggests that Yosef was bequeathed the honor of tribal status rather than any actual teritorail gain. Ralbag instead asserts that Yaakov did not know how the land was to be divided in the future, and erroneously assumed that in giving a double portion to Yosef, he would receive more.

Efraim over Menashe

" וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל אַחֶיךָ"

Prevent Yosef's Family's Assimilation

Explain the Choice of Efraim

¹ R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon and Or HaChayyim explain similarly, but suggest that Yaakov understood this from the dual language of "הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ". [See also R. Saadia Gaon as paraphrased by R. Avraham b. HaRambam.] The doubling meant that there were to be two more tribes. 
R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon suggests that the word "מַפְרְךָ" alluded to Efraim due to the shared root, while the word "וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ" hinted to the future conquests of Menashe's descendents who say "וְהִרְבִּיתָ אֶת גְּבוּלִי" (Divrei HaYamim I 4:10).

²

³ See Tzeror HaMor who similarly suggests that Yaakov realized that he had enough land also for grandchildren, but combines this with the above approach that the plural of "קְהַל עַמִּים" hinted that two portions should go to Efraim and Menashe.

⁴ They would likely agree with Radak that Hashem's promise of a "congregation of nations" referred not to any specific grandsons, but to Yaakov's sons as a whole and all the progeny that were to descend from them.

⁵ Ibn Ezra questions how this proves anything about Yosef's sons specifically, pointing out that the prophecy could just as easily have referred to Reuven's children (or any grandchildren of Yaakov).  R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon, though, claims that the words "הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ" contain a specific allusion to Efraim and Menashe (see above note). 
Alternatively, the commentators could suggest, like Ralbag or Tzeror HaMor, that the prophecy was indeed ambiguous, granting general permission to include more children as tribes, and it was Yaakov on his own who decided that it should refer to Yosef's children.  Ibn Kaspi goes in this direction at the end of his comments, suggesting that due both to his love for Rachel and Reuven's fall from grace, Yaakov decided to give Yosef rather than Reuven, the double portion due to the firstborn.

⁶ See Or HaChayyim similarly, who posits that Yaakov laments that it was his fault that Rachel died prematurely (due either to not keeping his oath or to his curse regarding the stolen idols), and that had she not she would have born more children.  Thus, Yaakov wants the extra tribes to come from her progeny specifically. 
He also raises the possibility that Yaakov is trying to make up to Yosef for the early death of his mother.  Feeling responsible, he tries to make amends by giving Yosef something else.  If this were the case, though, Binyamin should also have deserved some compensation.

⁷ See also Ralbag who explains similarly.  R. Hirsch claims that Yaakov feared that since Rachel was not buried with the other patriarchs/matriarchs, she could easily be forgotten by the future nation.  Moreover, only two tribes were to descend from her, no more than from Yaakov's lesser wives.  Yaakov, thus, decided to bequeath two more tribes from her line specifically, to keep her memory alive and honored.

⁸ According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the comment is tangential.  Once Yaakov was discussing the future inheritance of Menashe and Efraim, he explained to Yosef that this was the reason that he had decided to bury Rachel there, rather than in Mearat HaMachpelah.  Ralbag, instead, asserts that Yaakov was actively encouraging Yosef to have his descendants aim to conquer that area specifically since it contained his mother's grave.

⁹ See Bereshit 47:28-31.

¹⁰ Many question this position due to the placement of the comment.  A simple reading of the verses suggests that Yaakov and Yosef had two distinct conversations that took place at different places, with different audiences, and revolved around different issues. If this comment of Yaakov constitutes an apology regarding Rachel's burial it belongs in chapter 47, during the conversation that related to his burial request, not in chpater 48 in the midst of his blessings to Yosef.

¹¹ See Bereshit Rabbah, R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon and Seforno as mentioned above.

¹² See Ralbag, Tzeror HaMor, Or HaChayyim and R. Hirsch.  Ralbag adds that once Reuven was rejected because of his actions with Bilhah, Yaakov moved the birthright to the firstborn of his second wife, Rachel.  [Ibn Kaspi explains similarly.]

¹³ They are following Bereshit Rabbah.

¹⁴ Bereshit Rabbah similalrly suggests that the extra words "וּמְלָכִים מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ" referred to the kings that descended from Binyamin specifically (Shaul and Ishboshet).  As such, that promise was also irrelevant to the current conversation.

¹⁵ The verse says "אֲשֶׁר הוֹלַדְתָּ" but means "אשר תוליד". Ralbag asserts that hthis is just one example of many where a past tense actually connotes the future.

¹⁶ Either way, he would end up with the same amount of inheritances.