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

Yaakov's Retrospective

Exegetical Approaches

This topic is still being developed and updated

Justifying 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 GaonBereshit 48:4,7About 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.
• "וְנָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְזַרְעֲךָ" – Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Radak² instead suggest that Yaakov was simply pointing out that once the land was promised to him, he could apportion it however he desired.³

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 Ephraim:

• 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.⁴
• 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.⁵ 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 double portion.⁶
• 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.⁷

• Unrelated – Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, and Radak all assert that Yaakov's comment is related to Yaakov's earlier discussion with Yosef regarding his burial⁸ rather than to this conversation regarding Yosef's sons.⁹  As Yaakov requested that Yosef take pains to bury him in the Machpelah Cave, he apologized and explained to Yosef why he had not done the same for Yosef's mother, Rachel.

Choice of Ephraim and Menashe

• Prophecy – R. Shemuel b. Chofni Gaon and Seforno¹⁰ suggest that Yaakov chose to give Yosef a double portion through Ephraim and Menashe since he understood Hashem's prophecy to refer specifically to them. 
• Love – Others,¹¹ though, assume that this was a result of Yaakov's love for Rachel (and Yosef, by extension).
• New first-born – Alternatively, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Kaspi and Ralbag assert that the choice was a consequence of Reuven's rejection.  After Reuven's actions with Bilhah, Yaakov moved the birthright from the firstborn of his rist wife to the firstborn of his second wife, Rachel.

Relationship between recollections – According to most of the commentators all three points mentioned by Yaakov (the prophecy, the promise to Menashe and Ephraim, and Rachel's burial) are all connected, together explaining Yaakov's right to make Menashe and Ephraim into tribes. According to Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, and Radak, on the other hand, only the first two points related to this goal.

Comparison to original prophecy

• Rashi and Ralbag¹² note that the original prophecy mentioned both a "גּוֹי" and "וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם", whereas here Yaakov only mentions the latter. They explain that the word "גּוֹי" referred to Binyamin, who had been born shortly after the prophecy, and was thus not relevant to Yaakov's current speech.¹³
• 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, Ibn Ezra, 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,¹⁴ while Seforno understands Yaakov's words to refer to Yosef's grandchildren.  Either way, Yaakov is simply pointing out that no matter who else descended from Yosef, he was 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.¹⁵ Rashi, thus, suggests that Yosef was bequeathed the honor of double tribal status rather than any actual territorial 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.¹⁶

Ephraim over Menashe – This approach might see in Yaakov's preference of Ephraim over Menashe a reflection of Yaakov's similar preference for Yosef over Reuven.  In all his blessings, Yaakov is not motivated merely by first born status.

"וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל אַחֶיךָ"

• Portion – Most of these commentators understand the word "שְׁכֶם" to mean a portion, and view these words as a summary of Yaakov's promise to Yosef, that he was to become two tribes rather than one.
• The city Shechem – Rashi, instead connects this back to Yaakov's original conversation regarding burial, suggesting that Yaakov promised Yosef the city of Shechem as a burial place for himself, in return for his oath to bury Yaakov.¹⁷ Tzeror HaMor also understands the verse to refer to a special gift to Yosef, above and beyond the extra portions of Menashe and Ephraim. He suggests that Yosef merited Shechem since he married Asenat who, according to the Midrash, was Dinah's daughter.¹⁸

Preventing Yosef's Family's Assimilation

Yaakov's words to Yosef were meant to prevent him and his children from being absorbed into Egyptian society and motivate him to return to the Land of Israel.

Sources:R. Z. Weitman¹⁹

Vision at Beit El – Yaakov mentions Hashem's prophecy, "הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ... וְנָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת לְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם", to remind Yosef that his destiny lay in Israel, and not in Egypt. The words form a contrast to the narrator's earlier statement, "וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד", perhaps to highlight that there was a real need for this reminder.

Choice of Ephraim and Menashe – R. Weitman suggests that Yaakov gave Yosef a double portion of the land to further motivate him to return to Israel.  This was neither a display of preference or love, nor a  reward for merit, but rather a bribe, to ensure that Yosef had reason to leave Egypt.

Mention of Rachel's burial – Mention of Rachel's burial site was similarly aimed at giving Yosef a reason to view Israel as his home.²⁰

Relationship between recollections – According to this approach, all three points made by Yaakov shared one purpose, to reconnect Yosef to the Land of Israel.

Did Yosef assimilate? This approach assumes that Yosef and his family had begun to assimilate into Egyptian society, weakening their ties to Israel.²¹  Though no verses say this explicitly, such a reality would not be surprising.  In the many years he had lived in Egypt on his own, it would have been difficult for Yosef not to have acculturated, especially given that he was married to the daughter of a priest and working for the royal palace. Moreover, being second in command of Egypt, Yosef had no reason to return to Canaan and the the life of a shepherd, and it was likely that his responsibilities would not have enabled him to do so regardless.

Did the family know in advance that they were to stay in Egypt? R. Weitman suggests that Hashem's words to Yaakov in Bereshit 46 were not meant to hint to the upcoming enslavement and that the path was open for Yaakov and sons to return to canaan after the years of famine.  It was their decision (due to Egyptian comforts or simple inertia), not Hashem's command, that led to their prolonged stay.

"וּמוֹלַדְתְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹלַדְתָּ אַחֲרֵיהֶם" - Did Yosef have other children? This approach might assume that Yosef did have other children who are not named in the text.  Yaakov, though, sufficed with granting Yosef only one extra tribe as an incentive to return.

What was gained by getting two tribes? This position might maintain, as does Ralbag above, that Yaakov (mistakenly) assumed that giving Yosef an additional tribe would provide his descendants with extra territory.

Ephraim over Menashe

"וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל אַחֶיךָ" – R. Weitman suggests that Yaakov repeats his promise of a double portion as further encouragement to Yosef.

Choosing of Ephraim

Yaakov's recollections were all aimed at demonstrating Ephraim's preferential status.

Vision at Beit El –

Yaakov recalls Hashem's prophecy "וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי הִנְנִי מַפְרְךָ וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ" because the word "מַפְרְךָ" allude to the special status that would be given to Ephraim, whose name shares that root.²² 

Choice of Ephraim and Menashe

• Abarbanel points out that the giving of a double portion to Yosef was in effect a gift to Ephraim only.  Menashe, as the first born, would have been a head of a tribe regardless, so nothing new was being given to him. 
• Maasei Hashem adds that knowing that Ephraim was the more important of the two grandchildren, he wanted to ensure that Menashe (as firstborn) did not inherit all from his father, leaving Ephraim with nothing.  Thus, instead of simply granting Yosef one large,  double-sized inheritance which would all be called after himself, he divided this double portion between the two grandchildren, thus ensuring Ephraim a portion of his own..

Mention of Rachel's burial

• Ephraim to memorialize Rachel – Abarbanel suggests that the emphasis on burying Rachel "בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְרָת" was a further hint and proof that Ephraim was meant to be  a tribe of his own.  The word "אֶפְרָת" recalls "אפרים" and his elevation to the status of tribe was meant to honor and memorialize Rachel. 
• Burial in Ephraim's portion – Maasei Hashem, instead, suggests that when Rachel died Yaakov prophesied that Ephraim was to inherit that area, and thus he purposefully buried Rachel there.  He adds that the city was originally called Beit Lechem and the name only changed to Efrat later, after Ephraim.²³

What was gained by getting two tribes? According to Maasei Hashem, having two distinct tribes ensured that Ephraim would get one and not be subsumed under Yosef= Menashe.

The blessing: "וְיִקָּרֵא בָהֶם שְׁמִי" – Ibn Ezra suggests that Yaakov is hinting to the fact that in the future all of Israel is to be called Ephraim.

"וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת אֶפְרַיִם לִפְנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה" – Abarbanel points out that this does not simply mean that Yaakov mentioned Ephraim's name first, but that in placing his right hand on his head and in saying his name before that of his brother, Yaakov actively made Ephraim greater and more important.²⁴

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 Ephraim due to the shared root, while the word "וְהִרְבִּיתִךָ" hinted to the future conquests of Menashe's descendants who say "וְהִרְבִּיתָ אֶת גְּבוּלִי" (Divrei HaYamim I 4:10).

² 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 Ephraim and Menashe.

³ 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.

⁴ 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 Ephraim 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.

⁵ 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. See also R. Chanan Schlesinger's article, "עלי היו כולנה"  where he develops this approach.

⁶ 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.

⁷ According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, the comment is tangential.  Once Yaakov was discussing the future inheritance of Menashe and Ephraim, he explained to Yosef that this was the reason that he had decided to bury Rachel there, rather than in the Cave of Machpelah.  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.

⁸ See Bereshit 47:28-31.

⁹ 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 Chapter 48 in the midst of his blessings to Yosef.

¹⁰ Both are drawing on Bereshit Rabbah as mentioned above.

¹¹ See Ralbag, Tzeror HaMor, Or HaChayyim and R. Hirsch.

¹² They are following Bereshit Rabbah.

¹³ Bereshit Rabbah similarly 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.

¹⁴ The verse says "אֲשֶׁר הוֹלַדְתָּ" but means "אשר תוליד". Ralbag asserts that this is just one example of many where a past tense actually connotes the future.

¹⁵ Either way, he would end up with the same amount of inheritances.

¹⁶ He adds that in getting two lotteries, there was less of a chance that the entire tribe would get a bad portion.

¹⁷ Rashi thus reads both this verse and the reference to Rachel as being connected to the original conversation in chapter 47, making a consistent connection between the two discussions.

¹⁸ Dinah had been promised the city in Shechem's dowry, and it thus was to go to her descendants.

¹⁹ See his article, "ויחי יעקב - בארץ מצרים" (Parashat Vayechi, 5773).

²⁰ R. Weitman suggests that Yaakov's insistence that he buried in Israel is similarly motivated.  He wants all his descendant to recognize that Israel is the destination they should all aspire to.

²¹ Most commentators do not single out Yosef but Keli Yekar and the Netziv both point to the verse, "וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן וַיֵּאָחֲזוּ בָהּ וַיִּפְרוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ מְאֹד" as evidence of a gradual process whereby all the tribes slowly integrated themselves into Egyptian society.  For other opinions and others who similarly suggest that the nation assimilated over the years in Egypt, see Religious Identity in Egypt.

²² Both Or HaChayyim and Abarbanel point this out, though neither reads the chapter as a whole to be speaking mainly about Ephraim.

²³ If this were true, though, one would have expected the verse to say "בית לחם היא אפרת" (rather than "אֶפְרָת הִוא בֵּית לָחֶם") with the old name place mentioned first and the new one second.  In most places in Tanakh where there is a clarification of a place name, the second name is the later one.  See, for example, Bereshit 35:6,  "וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב לוּזָה אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן הִוא בֵּית אֵל " in light of Bereshit 28:19: "וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא בֵּית אֵל וְאוּלָם לוּז שֵׁם הָעִיר לָרִאשֹׁנָה".

²⁴ Abarbanel suggests that symbolic acts can concretize the future.  As evidence, he points to the actions of prophets such as Elisha (see Melakhim 13:15-19) who similarly do or command an action as a sign of what will be.