Click for PDF
For translation to Spanish and Português
This week’s parsha provides us with a wealth of emotional moments. Yeudah’s famous speech (Genesis 44:18-34), Yoseph’s revelation to his brothers (45:1-13), the renewed meeting with Beinyamin (verse 14), Yoseph’s weeping over his brothers (15), the meeting between Yaakov and Yoseph (46:29-30), and more. Amidst all these emotions, one moment stands out in stark contrast: the moment when Yoseph’s brothers tell their father, Yaakov, that his beloved son Yoseph is alive. Yaakov’s reaction is interesting, not only because of its drama, but also because of the great difficulty the commentators have in agreeing on exactly what happened there.
Let’s start with the verses: “And they went up out of Egypt, and came into the land of Canaan to Yaakov their father. And they told him, saying, ‘Yoseph is still alive, and he is ruler over all the land of Egypt!’ And his heart Yaphog, for he did not believe them. And they spoke to him all the words of Yoseph which he had said to them, and he saw the wagons which Yoseph had sent to carry him, and the spirit of Yaakov their father revived” (Genesis 45:25-27).
According to my simple understanding, the brothers reach Yaakov, tell him the good news, something happens to his heart because he doesn’t believe them, they tell him what Yoseph said, he sees the wagons, and then everything’s fine (yes, my interpretive and rhetorical abilities sometimes amaze even me).
From here on, we’ll try to examine each commentary in terms of two questions: What happened, and why?
According to Onkelos, it was not Yaakov’s heart that fainted, but the words that were said to him, and the spirit of Yaakov did not revive, but rather Shechinah rested upon him. Onkelos does not explain why these things happened, and the Aramaic “pigan” as a substitute for “vayaphag” didn’t really clarify what action happened with those words, so we’ll move on to the next commentator.
I’m having a bit of trouble understanding Rashi’s commentary. In explaining “vayaphag libo” (his heart fainted), he says: “His heart changed and turned away from believing; his heart did not turn to the words.” In other words, “vayaphag” means “changed” or “turned away,” or a combination of both. He also brings three proofs in an order I don’t understand: from Mishnaic language “mephigin ta’aman” (they lose their flavor), like “me’ayin hapugot” (Lamentations 3:49), and “vericho lo namar” (Jeremiah 48:11), translated as “verichaya lo phag” (its scent did not fade). His first proof is from rabbinic language, then from Lamentations (why isn’t this the first?), and finally from the targum on Jeremiah, in a word that definitely needs translation—because in my opinion, most people trying to translate “vericho lo namar” would send us to the zoo to see the Namer (leopard), while here the targum offers a different interpretation for the verse “Can the Kushi change his skin, or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23).
Later, Rashi explains “vatechi ruach Yaakov” (the spirit of Jacob revived) as “the Shechinah rested upon him, which had departed from him,” like Onkelos.
As for the question of why—i.e., what changed from the first time Yaakov’s sons told their father the news to the second time—Rashi answers that Yoseph sent them a sign. Before Yaakov sent Yoseph to check on his brothers’ welfare last time they met, they were studying the laws of eglah arufah (the decapitated heifer), and now Yoseph sent wagons (agalot). In summary of his approach: The brothers tell him. Yaakov doesn’t believe. He recognizes the sign Yoseph sent. And Shechinah returns to him.
Ibn Ezra answers only our first question. According to him, “his heart stood still and was silent, like ‘vayamat libo’ (his heart died, 1 Samuel 25:37).” But when he saw the wagons, “vatechi libo” (his heart revived). In other words, the meaning of “vayaphag” is “stood still and silent,” which is the opposite of “vatechi,” and “ruach” is synonymous with “his heart.” Well, I’m not sure it’s literally opposites, but Ibn Ezra contrasts “vayaphag” with “vatechi,” laying the linguistic foundation for the psychological interpretations that follow. Ibn Ezra himself does not claim Yaakov actually died, but suggests it’s a figure of speech, like “I’m dying of exhaustion.”
Ramban adopts Ibn Ezra’s approach that the information Yaakov received was too much for him, and his heart stopped beating. He even takes it a step further, claiming it’s not a metaphor but a physical reality. According to him, our Yaakov Avinu fainted because he could not contain the immense, sudden joy that flooded him upon hearing the news that his beloved son was still alive.
How, then, does Ramban deal with the words “for he did not believe them”? The way to revive such a person is by gradually accustoming him to the joyful news. Yaakov’s sons repeated the information so it would take root in their father’s soul. They had to repeat it many times because he did not believe them, but when they finally succeeded, “the spirit of Yaakov their father revived.” The reason Yaakov’s heart stopped at the news was that he didn’t believe them (Lo Heemin Lahem). The treatment was training (Leamen) him until he believed (Heemin).
But the intuitive interpretation—mine, and also the one my son gave—I found in Radak. Radak (like Menachem Ibn Janach, and others) interprets “vayaphag” as meaning weakness, but the reason is “because they reminded him of it.” According to Radak, after more than twenty years since Yoseph’s disappearance, Yaakov had repressed thoughts about it. When the brothers come to him with the news, all the old emotions return and strike once again at the traumatic Yakov. He is unable to believe; feelings overwhelm him and bring him to the brink of depression. Only the unexpected wagons succeed in pulling him out of the trauma and restoring his vitality.
There are many other interpretations—linguistic ones, such as Rabbi Abraham son of the Rambam, who claims “vayaphag” = depression, or psychological ones like the author of Paneach Raza, who explains that Yaakov’s difficulty was in going down to Egypt—but I can’t discuss them all. For my part, I enjoyed what we learned, and especially the interpretations that addressed the human psyche.
For comments: doviholtz@gmail.com
