English translation — עמוד 261

one must say that this itself teaches us,

that the words "and his sons lifted him" require explanation only according to the opinion of R. Nachman; in contrast, according to the opinion of R. Yitzchak, no explanation is needed at all — because the simple meaning is already understood from an earlier Rashi's explanation

(in the portion of Vayeishev).

B.

Learning the Rashi in the portion of Vayeishev, it turns out,

at first glance,

that the advantage in the first explanation "twin sisters were born etc.",

consists in that according to it the word "his daughters" is interpreted <b>literally</b> — his daughters; and the virtue in the second explanation "his daughters — his daughters-in-law" is,

that according to it one need not come to the great novelty that Yaakov had many daughters — a matter that is not mentioned at all in the entire Chumash and Neviim and Ketuvim!

a)

From where is it indeed so simple

(Even before one came to learn the matter of “and all his daughters” and the necessity from this,

as above)

that “with each tribe a twin was born”?

b)

And if it is already so simple,

then Rashi by the words “and all his daughters” should have spoken only about the detail that is new,

that the tribes married the twin sisters

(in order to answer why it says only “and all his daughters”)?

; and furthermore — from Rashi’s language “twin sisters were born etc.” it is proven,

that this is said here as an addition,

a novelty.

Sisters and married themⁿⁿ.

It means therefore: the simple narrative of the story teaches and lets us know the essential matter,

that they had to have sisters whom they married."

(although it is not the exact thing itself)

— not the verse and even also not Rashi mention whom the "sons and daughters" of Adam the first married].

Nevertheless,

When it comes to the verse "and all his daughters" Rashi must say "they were born with twins..

"and they carried them"

(although it is a simple matter as above)

! Even more: he also brings a second explanation "they were Canaanites" — and this is far from the language of the verse "and all his daughters" implies that the tribes married,

specifically with other women

(as below section 6).

6.

From the language of the verse "and all his daughters" it implies that he includes such daughters that if it only said "his daughters" they would not have been included — there were more than one type of daughters.

But the question: what different types are possible in "daughters"?

That which it says "all his sons" is understood — this means that all sons,

also those who sold Yosef,

they came to comfort Yaakov.

Why, however, does the expression "and all" appear by the daughters?

One must therefore say,

that "his daughters" here means also "his daughters-in-law",

and that this means such as are not his daughters

(i.e.

that

that the tribes married Canaanite women,

not with their sisters),

and them the verse hints at and includes in "and all his daughters": two types of daughters — actual daughters and such as are like daughters — his daughters-in-law.

And therefore Rashi teaches in "and all his daughters" two explanations — "Rabbi Yehuda says twin sisters were born etc. and they married them; Rabbi Nechemya says they were Canaanites" — because Rabbi Yehuda,

whose method of study is to focus primarily on the generalities of the topic,

therefore teaches that the tribes married their sisters,

since from the generalities of the sections

(which tell twice — explicitly and at length — that one should seek in another land anything but "daughters of the land")

it is difficult to accept the other possible manner

(that they married Canaanites)

; and Rabbi Nechemya,

since he focuses primarily on the detail,

on the word itself,

teaches "they were Canaanites",

and with this the language of the detailed words "and all his daughters" is precise.

7.

According to the above one will also understand why "and his sons carried him" requires an explanation according to the view of Rabbi Gamliel and not according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda:

Rashi's precision "his sons and not the sons of his sons" is not from the actual word "his sons",

and the meaning of "sons" can include also sons of sons; and as is also understood from what Rashi says here on the spot,

that your maidservants Manasseh and Ephraim carried Jacob's coffin — and they were indeed the sons of Jacob's sons.

Rashi's difficulty is from the fact that the word "his sons" is altogether superfluous: after the verse already enumerated earlier "and his sons did for him as he commanded them" it would have been sufficient to understand that "and they carried him to the land of Canaan etc." it means "his sons"

(even without the word "his sons").

Since however the verse repeats the word "his sons" again,

Rashi is precise,

that this is said for emphasis: specifically his sons — and thereby he intends to exclude "sons of his sons" who are the children of the daughters of Canaan.