Tanach · Rishonim on Tanach · Ibn Ezra · Torah

Ibn Ezra on Genesis 49:4/אבן עזרא על בראשית מ״ט:ד׳

אפחז, בעבור שפחזת כמים:

1UNSTABLE. Because you acted unstably as water does.

באל תותר. לא יהיה לך יתרון, והיה ראוי להיות אַל תּוּתַר בשורק הוי"ו, ואחרים אמרו רק אתה פחזת כמים הנשפכים ולא הותרת כלום רק על דעתי שלא תמצא מלת אל רק במקום צווי, ואעפ"י שנמצא ודרך נתיבה אל-מות (משלי יב כח) ואיננו צווי, ופי' אל תבקש יתרון אפילו פחז כמים, ויהיה משקל תותר זכור מלחמה אל תוסף (איוב מ לב), והגאון אמר אפילו דבר רק כמים לא יהיה לך יתרון, ופחז מגזרת אנשים רקים ופוחזים (שופ' ט ד), ואין פוחזים הפוך:

2HAVE NOT THOU THE EXCELLENCY. (Some say) that al totar (have not thou the excellency) means, you will not have the advantage.⁵ However, if this were the case then our text should have read al tutar rather than al totar; i.e., the vav of totar should have been vocalized with a shuruk.⁶ is vocalized with a cholam. If al totar means you will not have the advantage then totar is a passive, i.e., a hofal, and should be written tutar and not totar which is a hifil and a causative. Cf. Filwarg. Others say that our clause should be interpreted thus: you acted unstably as water that is poured out of a vessel and you gained nothing thereby (al totar).⁷ is not irregularly vocalized. Al totar is a hifil imperfect with the meaning of a perfect It literally means you will not gain. Here it means you did not gain anything; that is, you gained nothing by acting rashly. For an alternate interpretation see Krinsky. However, I disagree with this interpretation. The term al is always used in Scripture as an imperative.⁸ cannot be translated as you gained nothing because al is an imperative meaning don’t This comment also negates the first interpretation quoted by I.E. since there, too, al is not used as an imperative (Filwarg). The latter fact is not negated by the fact that we find al used once in a non-imperative sense in In the way of righteousness is life, And in the pathway thereof there is no (al) death (Prov. 12:28).⁹ does not disprove his contention that al is always used as an imperative. The correct translation of our clause is: do not seek any advantage (al totar) even one as insignificant as water.¹⁰ means do not seek any advantage. This comment presents a problem. I.E. reads, “even one as insignificant as water (afilu pachaz ka-mayim).” This reading is extremely difficult since up to now I.E. explains pachaz ka-mayim as referring to Reuben’s action, not to Reuben’s punishment. Filwarg suggests deleting these words. Krinsky and Cherez emend afilu to attah (you). Weiser suggests that this comment has been misplaced and that its proper place is after Saadiah’s comment. In this case I.E. amplifies Saadiah’s explanation that pachaz means something insignificant. However, it appears that I.E. anticipated Saadiah’s interpretation of pachaz ka-mayim. Accordingly the vav of totar is properly vocalized with a cholam, and it follows the paradigm of tosaf (more) in Think upon the battle, thou wilt do so no more (al tosaf) (Job 40:32).¹¹ is a hifil and follows the paradigm of tosaf which is also a hifil. Since tosaf is a hifil the text should have read tosef. But as the word comes at the end of a verse the tzere changes to a pattach. Similarly totar should have been written toter but as it concludes a segment of a poetical line the tzere changes to a pattach. Cf. Rashi on Job 40:32 (Cherez). Thus totar is similar to tosaf. Rabbi Saadiah Gaon explains our line as follows: you will not have any advantage over your brothers even one as insignificant as water. According to Saadiah pachaz (unstable) comes from the same root as pochazim (light, insignificant) in vain and light (pochazim) fellows (Judges 9:4), and the root of the word pachaz does not have to be inverted. ¹² (unstable) comes from the root chet, peh, zayin (chafaz) which means to hurry. However, the root of pachaz is obviously peh, chet, zayin. By interpreting pachaz to mean unstable we are saying that we must invert the root chet, peh, zayin into peh, chet, zayin. However, according to Saadiah pachaz has its own root, peh, chet, zayin, and means light, insignificant.

גאז חללת. מיום שחללת נסתלק יצועי, כאלו אמר עלה מעלי, גם תמצא מלת "עלה" כרת, כמו אומר "אלי אל תעלני בחצי ימי" (תהלים קב כה), וזאת הפרשה מפורשת בדברי הימים (דה"א ה' א) ובחללו יצועי אביו, ואמר על יהודה שהוא הנגיד והבכורה ליוסף, וי"מ ולא להתייחש לבכורה, שיהא תחלת המספר מראובן:

3THEN DEFILEDST THOU IT. From the day that thou defiled my couch, my conjugal couch was removed.¹³, Jacob ceased cohabiting with his wives after Reuben defiled his couch. His reason was: Rachel was dead, Bilhah defiled, and he was angry at Leah because of what her son did and therefore slept neither with her nor her handmaiden Zilpah. “My couch went up” thus means, my conjugal bed ceased to function. Filwarg suggests that the reference may be only to Bilhah. Yetzu’i alah (he went up to my couch) is to be interpreted as if written yetzu’i alah me’alai (my conjugal couch went up from me). Furthermore, the word alah (went up) at times has the meaning of cut off,¹⁴ means my couch was cut off or destroyed. as in O my God, take me not away (al ta’aleni) in the midst of my days (Ps. 102:25). Our chapter is clearly explained in Chronicles where we read, Reuben (was) the first-born of Israel…but, forasmuch as he defiled his father’s couch, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel, and he was not to be reckoned in the genealogy as first-born (I Chron. 5:1). Chronicles then tells us that Joseph received the birthright and Judah the kingship (Ibid. v. 2). Some explain that and he was not to be reckoned in the genealogy as first-born means that the listing of the order of the twelve sons would start with Reuben.¹⁵ refers to Joseph, not to Reuben.