The trup on va'ani

On the Mahpach Yahoo leining group, Rabbi Rich Wolpoe called attention to a dispute as the the correct trup on Bereishit 48:22. The trup most of us have (including Shadal) {Update: As Mississipi Fred MacDowell pointed out to me, this Chumash was published after the death of Moreinu veRabbenu HaRav Shmuel David Luzzato, and so does not necessarily reflect his views on the particular trup} is as follows:

Note the gershayim on the word va`ani. But apparently R' Wolf Heidenheim has a revii on that word. Is there a distinction is parsing between the two? Absolutely. The Gershayim would split the phrase ending with tevir, while a revii is on equal footing as the tevit, and would split the phrase ending with tipcha. That is, up to the etnachta is:

 וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל-אַחֶיךָ

We would split at the tipcha first, it would seem. This would yield:
 וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד || עַל-אַחֶיךָ

Now examining that split-off first phrase, we have a tevir alone which can split. And so we would split at that point, yielding
 וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ || שְׁכֶם אַחַד

Finally, the gershayim would work to split the first portion of it, giving
 וַאֲנִי || נָתַתִּי לְךָ

In contrast, with a revii in place, the word va`ani gets split off much earlier. Ideal would have been to have had a zakef on the first word, such that it would be absolutely the first thing split off. But here we have:

וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד עַל-אַחֶיךָ

Once again, the tipcha kicks in first. Therefore, it yields

וַאֲנִי נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד || עַל-אַחֶיךָ

Then, we have a tevir and a revii, both on equal footing. In order to have both split a clause ending in tipcha, the trup mark which occurs earlier in the pasuk must take effect first. Therefore, we split at:

וַאֲנִי || נָתַתִּי לְךָ שְׁכֶם אַחַד

Finally, on what is left, the tevir kicks in, and so the final split is:

 נָתַתִּי לְךָ || שְׁכֶם אַחַד

This is thus a very different parse. And while I can see the benefit of Wolf Heidenheim's revii parse, I don't know the provenance of this trup pattern. Also, if syntactically, va`ani is not first split off, but rather the various prepositional phrases from the end of the clause, then it makes sense that this pattern would continue until the end. But we should examine just how often the gershayim parse actually occurs.

The picture of the parse with gershayim -- that is, as we have it -- looks like this:

And the picture of the parse would there have been a revia would have been:

On Rav Kanievsky's Ruach HaKodesh - a mezuza story

This from a little which back:

Life In Israel on Rav Kaneivsky's Ruach Hakodesh, repeating this story:

The story making waves is that there was an avreich in Bnei Brak married for 10 years who had not been blessed with children. 

The avreich went to Rav Kanievsky regularly for a bracha. Rav Kanievsky would give him his usual "Bracha V'Hatzlacha" and then added, cryptically, that he should check what needs to be checked.

The avreich never understood what he was meant to check, but never had the courage to ask for an explanation.

Finally, the avreich got the courage to ask what needs to be checked and what he should be doing. Rav Kanievsky said what do we check? check the mezuzos.

The avreich sent all the mezuzos in his house to be checked. they all came back fine except for one. The mezuza from the door to the bedroom was passul because the words "v'shinantam l'vanecha" (you should teach your children) ran together with no space between the words.

and makes a good point:

Note that you cannot just go to a gadol and expect everything to be solved. the guy didn't understand what Rav Kanievsky was telling him, didn't ask for an explanation, and didn't get his problem resolved. Going to a gadol isn't enough - you gotta get the picture straight, you have to understand what he tells you to do.

I dislike these mezuzah stories, because of the seeming implicit assumption that Hashem makes people suffer because of a sofer's error, and punishes the hapless people who chanced upon that mezuzah in a way which is a word-play on the mezuzah's error. The reason that it is Hashem's greatness that He punishes midah kenegged middah is that people can then identify the error and correct it, rather than that He is clever at wordplay and sadistically punishes people for a typo in a mezuzah.

There is a plausible halachic idea to check one's mezuzah at specific intervals, but this is because the writing might degrade in certain environments and become pasul, not because of fear that the sofer made some initial error which, rather than bringing Divine protection, would bring ironic Divine wrath.

Also, this story brought to mind the midrash about Ashmedai. When Ashmedai was captured by Benayahu ben Yehoyada and was being brought in chains to Shlomo Hamalech, he had a series of reactions to things he encountered. One was that when he saw a diviner speaking about a treasure in a far-off-land, he laughed. Later, he explained why:

Solomon then questioned him about his strange conduct on the journey. Ashmedai answered that he judged persons and things according to their real character and not according to their appearance in the eyes of human beings. He cried when he saw the wedding company, because he knew the bridegroom had not a month to live; and he laughed at him who wanted shoes to last seven years, because the man would not own them for seven days; also at the magician who pretended to disclose secrets, because he did not know that under his very feet lay a buried treasure.

How does this mezuzah story inform us about Rav Chaim Kanievsky's ruach hakodesh? If he really knew that it was the fault of the mezuzot, why bother with the blessing? Why say to check out what needs to be checked, implying that perhaps there was something wrong, rather than saying outright that there was a mezuzah at fault. But more than that -- and this is the parallel to Ashmedai I noticed-- if Rav Kanievsky really knew via ruach hakodesh that the problem was a faulty mezuzah, how did he not see the problem which lay under his very feet, that the person he was speaking to had no clue what he was talking about?! The lack of knowledge of X should tell us about lack of ruach hakodesh powers, just as it did about the magician who pretended to disclose secrets.

That something was discovered that could be interpreted to refer to their particular situation does not really impress me. Why not? Because the idea that one should check one's mezuzot is standard fare. Indeed, that is likely why Rav Kanievsky didn't realize that the guy had no clue what he meant, and why he thought "check what needs to be checked" should be obvious. Many a kabbalist or Rebbe will tell you to check your mezuzot -- and they tell this to people who have problems.

Let us say you have 100 people with problems. Now, those people have several mezuzot in their houses. And some will have been initially pasul, and others will degrade. The halachic reason to check is that in certain locations, mezuzot will degrade. But people do not check their mezuzas until they have a problem and some Rebbe or Kabbalist tells them to, for mystical / superstitious reasons. So it stands to reason that many of these people will have pasul mezuzos, even if it is totally unrelated to their problem. And it also stands to reason that among a population of 100 people with no problems that they would see a Rebbe for, a similar percentage will have problems with their mezuzot.

Now, to make up some numbers, of the 100 people with problems who were told by a Rebbe to check their mezuzot:

80% will find no problem, and will go on to seek the next magical cure, putting this advice out of their mind.
19% will find a pesul in one of their mezuzot, though not one which can be kvetched to relate to their particular situation. This will make for the "weak" mezuzah miracle story.
1% will find a pesul in one of their mezuzot, in a way that can be kvetched to relate to their particular situation. This story will be inspirational, make waves, be blogged about at the various blogs.

Combine this with regression towards the mean, and you can even associate miracle cures with these wonders!

Finally, I would add that I might have interpreted Rav Kanievsky's cryptic suggestion in a different, more practical manner. If his problem was fertility, then perhaps he should not try to only solve it by repeatedly bugging a Rebbe for a bracha. He should also "check what needs to be checked." That is, do hishtadlus by seeking the help of a fertility expert, who could check out if there is any medical impediment. What is his sperm count? Should he be wearing boxers? What is the time of ovulation, and do they need to take special measures because of niddah issues which are preventing conception? One should not only rely on the blessing, but should check what needs to be checked.

I wonder if Rav Kanievsky's suggestion functions as a sort of ink-blot test. If you were told to check what needs to be checked, how would you interpret it?

For how long does Binyamin consume his prey?

Summary: A Chizkuni on Vaychi, where he parses a pasuk apparently against its trup, past the etnachta, as baboker yochal ad la'erev. With the same justification he offered in last week's parsha.

Post: Biblical poetry often enough behaves strangely, and Yaakov's blessings, or predictions, to his children is Biblical poetry. In the beginning of shishi of Vaychi, we see the following address to Binyamin {Bereishit 49}:

כז  בִּנְיָמִין זְאֵב יִטְרָף, בַּבֹּקֶר יֹאכַל עַד; וְלָעֶרֶב, יְחַלֵּק שָׁלָל.

27 Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth; in the morning he devoureth the prey, and at even he divideth the spoil.'

As we see in the image above, the etnachta is on the word ad, stopping the phrase right there. And the vav of vela'erev indicates the beginning of a new idea. But what does the 'ad of yochal ad mean?

Rashi finds a match for ad as spoil, in an Aramaic cognate as well as in a pasuk in Hebrew.

in the morning he will devour plunder: Heb. עַד, an expression of plunder and spoil, translated into Aramaic as עִדָאָה. There is another example of its use in Hebrew:“Then plunder and booty (עַד שָׁלָל) were divided” (Isa. 33:23). He (Jacob) is referring to Saul, who arose at the beginning of the“morning (other editions: עַד is the blossoming) and sunrise” of Israel. — [From Esther Rabbah 10:13]		בבקר יאכל עד: לשון ביזה ושלל, המתורגם (במדבר לא יב) עדאה. ועוד יש לו דומה בלשון עברית (ישעיה לג כג) אז חולק עד שלל מרבה, ועל שאול הוא אומר שעמד בתחלת פריחתן וזריחתן של ישראל:
and in the evening he will divide the spoil: Even when the sun will set for Israel through Nebuchadnezzar, who will exile them to Babylon, he (Benjamin) will divide the spoil. Mordecai and Esther, who were of [the tribe of] Benjamin, will divide the spoils of Haman, as it is said: “Behold, the house of Haman I have given to Esther” (Esther 8:7) (Esther Rabbah 10:13). Onkelos, however, rendered it as regarding the “spoils” of the priests, i.e., the holy things of the Temple, [namely the priests’ share of the sacrifices].		ולערב יחלק שלל: אף משתשקע שמשן של ישראל על ידי נבוכדנצר שיגלם לבבל, יחלק שלל. מרדכי ואסתר שהם מבנימין יחלקו את שלל המן, שנאמר (אסתר ח ז) הנה בית המן נתתי לאסתר. ואונקלוס תרגם על שלל הכהנים בקדשי המקדש:

This is quite nice, as it provides us with the Biblical parallelism we expect, by matching up with shalal. And if the language is arcane, so be it. We should expect such arcane words in Biblical poetry.

Ibn Ezra, as well, declares that the word ad means shalal. Thus,

Interesting Posts and Articles #243

It has been a while since I have put up one of my roundup posts ("interesting posts and articles"), not because nothing interesting has happened, but because I've been busy. I'll try to put together a mix.

1. The Jewish Worker notes the Satmar Rebbe's instruction -- for his own followers -- that
   
   

    that children should not be sent for music lessons. He also prohibited any kinds of videos at public events such as dinners.
   

   and besides wondering about the why, wonders what the impact will be for Satmar kids for whom music is a lifeline.
   
   
   
2. So some Gedolim banned the chareidi Web. What is the impact?
   
   Well, Etrog closed down in deference to the Gedolim, though 30 people were put out of work.
   
   The Chareidim website followed suit, to comply with the words of the Gedolim. This despite the fact that the Gedolim are being manipulated in this by Askanim with an agenda who are trying to take revenge against them:
   
   
   
   וודאי יהיו בין הגולשים כאלו שיתקוממו על המהלך, יראו בו כניעה ל”גחמות של עסקנים”, ל”יצר נקמה של ראש עיר חרדי שהושפל” או ל”קומבינאטורים שמונעים מאינטרסים אפלים”. חלק מהטענות צודקות. ואכן, בידינו חומרים שעלולים לגרום לכמה “עסקנים” לרדת למחתרת לעולם, אך אנו נמנעים מלפרסמם
   
   
   This is difficult to believe. I suppose they are willing to follow the Gedolim like a Sanhedrin, but if they truly believe that the Gedolim are not in possession of full knowledge of the facts in order to put forth a ban, then indeed it is not the Gedolim who are saying this but the Askanim. Haman has somehow gotten a hold of Achashverosh's ring. Who says they need to listen to Haman? Unless the point is social, that they cannot be seen by their constituents as defying the Gedolim.
   
   Quite likely related to all this, Rafi G. of Life In Israel notes that Chareidim is being hypocritical, by not shutting down their phone-based interface, and are indeed updating in that venue. If you want to see this website for yourself, you can go to http://wap.haredim.co.il/. However, first you will need to install this Firefox addon, of a WML browser. This only gets to the front page, though, I think.
   
   And what about BeChadrei Charedim? The known frum people in control quit, leaving it in control of a secular Jewish fellow, who then hired frum anonymous editors to manage the site. And so it is still up and running.
   
   All in all, a rather successful ban!
   
   {Update: Now Life In Israel reports that Yated is upset that a secular Jew is running BeChadrei Charedim, and cites it as evidence for the necessity of the ban. But, as he notes, they are responsible for this precise situation!}
   
   
   
3. According to this article in Web MD, swine flu is less severe than was feared:
   
   

   H1N1 swine flu won't be as severe as was feared, but the pandemic is nothing to sneeze at, new predictions suggest.
   

   When the fall/winter wave of H1N1 swine flu is over, it will have been no more severe than an average flu season, predict Harvard researcher Marc Lipsitch, DPhil, and colleagues from the U.K. Medical Research Council and the CDC.
   

   "The good news is that ... the severity of the H1N1 flu may be less than initially feared," Lipsitch says in a news release.
   

   but with some asterisks. See inside.
   
   
   
4. I was annoyed by an anti-blogging screed in the Five Towns Jewish Times, and was going to post something about it. Didn't have time. But I see that DovBear discussed it, and made several of the points I was going to make. (I don't know that he would be too pleased with my blog, however. But I was thinking of Rabbi Gil Student as a doer and not just a blogger, among several others.)
   
   
5. Hirhurim with a defense / explanation of Rabbi Riskin's Jesus comments. Here is the video under discussion:
   
   
   
   
6. The latest Haveil Havalim, hosted by I'll call Baila.
   
   
7. Here on parshablog, prepare this week's parasha, Vaychi, with Vaychi sources. And see my roundup of previous parshablog posts on this parsha.

Surely you're choking!

In Shabbat 67a:

כי האי תנא תני תנא בפרק אמוראי קמיה דר' חייא בר אבין א"ל כולהו אית בהו משום דרכי האמורי לבר מהני מי שיש לו עצם בגרונו מביא מאותו המין ומניח ליה על קדקדו ולימא הכי חד חד נחית בלע בלע נחית חד חד אין בו משום דרכי האמורי לאדרא לימא הכי ננעצתא כמחט ננעלתא כתריס שייא שייא

or in Soncino's translation:

A tanna recited the chapter of Amorite practices before R. Hiyya b. Abin. Said he to him: All these are forbidden as Amorite practices, save the following: If one has a bone in his throat, he may bring of that kind, place it on his head, and say thus: 'One by one go down, swallow, go down one by one': this is not considered the ways of the Amorite. For a fish bone he should say thus: 'Thou art stuck in like a pin, thou art locked up as [within] a cuirass; go down, go down.'

The chapter of Amorite practices are the superstitious practices forbidden as such in the 7th and 8th perek of Tosefta Shabbos. And it is not really clear to me why this should not be a superstitious practice. It is quite possible it is because it works, and so it is not superstitious but rather real. (Compare to the dispute regarding the treatment for a bite from a rabid dog.) And what is means that it works is either that Rabbi Chiya bar Avin believed in it, such that it wasn't superstitious, or that they tried it out and it actually worked. Or, for example, one could posit that this is a special incantation created by Chazal using forces of good, and so is not superstitious. Or that it was based on some system which works, or in which they believed, such that it was not classified as superstitious. Or finally, that Rabbi Chiya bar Avin had some (superstitious) teacher who taught to do this, and so of course it could not be superstitious.

Regardless, I would not personally do this, for I feel that it is superstitious, even if it is not technically darkei Emori.

Avakesh has a post about this incantation, where a doctor (!) proscribes this for a rav, and some questions and answers with Rav Belsky. In terms of the latter:

Additional Note 2: We asked HaRav Yisroel Belsky, Shlita, some questions
regarding use of the Lachash.
Q. Would it work with any food upon which one is choking--and not only on a
bone, as seems to be evident from the previous story which involved a vegetable?
A. Yes. It works with any food.

Q: If one did not have more of that food--could he place something else on the
head? Yes, he could place the empty plate from which the food came.

Q: Did the person choking have to recite the Lachash—or could it be another?
It could be someone else close by. In fact, Rav Belsky related that he was at a
small seudah at which one of the participants began to choke, and he (Rav
Belsky) immediately put an empty plate on the choking person’s skull, and said
the Lachash. The food immediately dislodged with no pain. This was, of course,
the talk of the balance of the seudah--a miracle in front of their eyes!
Incredibly, about a year later, Rav Belsky attended a similar seudah with the
same attendees--and someone began choking again. Rav Belsky once again took
action with the Lachash, and the food dislodged, although the person choking
this time experienced discomfort afterwards for about ten seconds. After this
life-saving event, the people only seemed to discuss that this time there was
pain for several second afterwards... They were already used to the miracle
from last year!

I remember hearing a talk a while back by Rav Belsky. He is very machmir about things being darkei Emori, and coming from pagan or superstitious roots. Such that, for example, he condemns homeopathy for coming from Eastern religions, and therefore declares it forbidden. (From what I think is greater exposure to this, I think that he had been misinformed about this.) But then, immediately after declaring a whole range of alternative treatments forbidden, he gave the same two stories as above. I have a sneaking suspicion that, given the advance in the understanding of medicine, while it might not have been darkei Emori for Chazal, it might absolutely be darkei Emori when modern Jews, including Rav Belsky, perform it!

And perhaps the seforim hakedoshim have these extensions, to non-bones, to empty plates, and to other people saying it. But otherwise (and perhaps even if), it strikes me that this is overreach past the strict letter of the law which R' Chiyya bar Avin permitted. And that this is the feature creep which happens in superstitious practices which just work, rather than which work based on some existing system which we happen to understand.

Yet we have instances in which it dislodged! How can I deny the efficacy of this lachash?

Well, I have two answers. One is that, when people are choking, they try clearing their throat. And for some number of people, it will work. At the same time, if someone tries to perform this trick, then they will interpret the cleared throat as a result of their own efforts at incantation.

The second is that, as a rationalist and amateur linguist, I can readily explain just how this would work. Because of the placebo effect, the person doing this or having this performed on him will think it will work, and may relax a bit. Perhaps this would aid in getting the bone or foodstuff unstuck.

Furthermore, by holding the same food over his head, he stretches his pipes in a certain way. Then, consider the "incantation": חד חד נחית בלע בלע נחית חד חד . We don't necessarily realize it, because we Ashkenazim pronounce our chets like chafs and our ayins like alephs (or rather, like nothing at all). But ayin and chet, as the Amoraim pronounced them, are actually gutturals. And every single one of the words in this incantation has on of these difficult gutturals in it. Combine it with the other phonemes, and you are giving yourself quite a linguistic workout. Do this when you have a stuck bone in your throat, and it certainly makes sense that you could dislodge a bone!

Of course, as Rav Belsky practices it, he puts an empty plate on someone else's head, and he pronounces the incantation himself. My rational explanation would not account for the efficacy of that. But that admittedly doesn't bother me all that much.

Vayechi sources

by aliyah
rishon (Bereshit 47:28)
sheni (48:10)
shelishi (48:17)
revii (49:1)
chamishi (49:19)
shishi (49:27)
shevii (50:21), maftir (50:23)
haftara (I Kings 2:1) with Ralbag and Malbim

by perek
perek 48 ; perek 49 ; perek 50

meforshim on Vaychi
Judaica Press Rashi in English
Chizkuni
Shadal (and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Rabbenu Bachya, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew, English)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan -- not until Shmos
Toldos Yitzchak Acharon, repeated from R' Yonasan Eibeshitz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar (and here)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim -- nothing until Shemot
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol
Rabbenu Yonah -- not until Bo
Rashbam
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Mipninei Harambam
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Yitro
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz
Radak
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you change to only black and white, select only the portion which is text, it is eminently readable on paper.
Ralbag (pg 74)
Chizkuni (44)
Baal HaTurim (16)
Rabbenu Bachya (70)
Abarbanel (120)
Shach (52)
Paneach Raza (32)
Bereishit Rabba with commentary of Rashi and Rabbi Avraham ben Asher (pg 184)
Yalkut Reuveni (pg 70)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (64)

rashi
rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 47)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (71, JNUL)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 7, JNUL)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 51)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al -- nothing until Shmos
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Meam Loez -- laazei Rashi
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 47)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 47)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (pg 17, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here) -- nothing until Shemot
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger on Targum Onkelos
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)

midrash
Midrash Rabba at Daat (47)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (47)
Bereishit Rabba, with commentaries
Bereishit Rabba with Yefei Toar
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Sefer HaYashar

haftara (I Kings 2:1 - 2:12)
In a separate Mikraos Gedolos (Rashi, Radak, Ralbag, Minchat Shai, Targum, Metzudat Tzion)
In a chumash, with Ralbag and Malbim
Rashis in English
Daat
Haftarah in the Gutnick edition
Sefer Melachim with Ralbag and Radak (JNUL, pg 7, left side)
Abarbanel (pg 197)
Kli Yakar (pg 373)
Ibn Janach
Ibn Caspi
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (pg 30)

When the fast of Asarah b'Teves (10th of Tevet) ends in Kew Gardens Hills, 2009

Of course, check your own local times at the sites given. What is given here is for Zip code 11367, in New York.

The Etz Chaim bulletin gives an end time of 4:59 PM.

According to Chabad,

Shkiah (sunset)	4:34 pm
Fast Ends	5:05 pm
Tzeit Hakochovim (nightfall)	5:11 pm

According to MyZmanim.com,

Fast Ends

R' Tukaccinsky
The fast ends no later than the emergence of ג' כוכבים בינונים at -		5:09 PM
R' Moshe Feinstein
One who finds fasting difficult may eat at -		5:13 PM
One who does not find fasting difficult should wait until the time for מוצאי שבת at -		5:21 PM

?מהיכא תיתי

posts so far for parshat Vayigash

2009

1. The Gra's famous peshat on Vayigash -- The Vilna Gaon has a famous devar Torah interpreting the opening trup on Vayigash. Considering the idea of it, and whether it is compelling.
   
   
2. Vayigash sources -- more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftorah, clustered into categories such as masorah and supercommentators of Rashi. Plus links to an online Mikraos Gedolos, by perek and aliyah.
   
   
3. How many are the days of your life, as question or exclamation? There is a dispute whether kama is a question or exclamation. Ibn Caspi has a nice exchange with an elderly man about this, and also tries to claim that this is what the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah meant when they placed a gaaya {=zakef gadol} on the word. I investigate.
   
   
4. Is the trup on veEt Achecha dispositive? Ibn Caspi and Chizkuni each read a pasuk in Vayish differently, Ibn Caspi with the division indicated by trup and Chizkuni against. Except that Chizkuni explains why the trup isn't really against him.
   
   
5. Ralbag on Yocheved's birth -- All about Ralbag asserting that on a peshat level, the 70 includes Yaakov, and that of course Yocheved wasn't actually born just as they entered, though there is a deep meaning to that midrash. This can help us understand the approach of this and other Rishonim towards midrash, "arguing" withmidrash, and whether miracles must be explicit.
   
   
6. A patach in la`ish, according to Chizkuni -- A brief discussion of a troubling Chizkuni, about the nikkud under a certain letter. And the inclination to emend Chizkuni to make everything all right, which we should reject. This might relate to the idea of lectio difficilior, the "rule" that the more difficult word is more likely original.
   
   
7. The deeper meaning of Yocheved's birth between the walls -- In an earlier post, I discussed Ralbag's position -- the midrash that Yocheved was the 70th, and was born between the walls, was al derech derash, but was not intended historically or literally. I would like to explore what deep meaning this midrash might contain, in terms of Yocheved as the 70th, orChushim ben Dan, or Serach bat Asher, or Yaakov himself, or Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
   
   
8. The Torah of Rabbi Meir -- What are we to make of the midrashic reference to the variants found in the Torah of Rabbi Meir? In Vayigash, it is uven Dan Chushim. Are these commentaries in a separate book? Explanations written on the side of the sefer Torah? A variant reading? Deliberate variants to accord with midrash, or with what seems to be good peshat. It is unclear. But it is still something to consider. In the end, I side with the idea that it was a variant text to our accepted Masoretic text, and that our Masoretic text is preferable.

2008

1. Did Yosef actually ask about their father and brother, as Yehuda claimed? Just as it interested me last year, it interested me this year. (And I forgot I addressed it last year.) Here, with some new sources addressing it (e.g. Chizkuni), and an expansion on some of the ideas.
   
   
2. Some great Chizkunis on Vayigash. Such as why Yosef had the brothers sent off to Goshen; a reparsing of the pasuk as to where Yaakov and the brothers went; and whether one can argue on an etnachta, and so on. Check it out, and the comment section.
   
   
3. Anshei Chayil: Warriors or Capable Men? And a contradiction in Rashi, says me.
   
   
4. The trup on "rav", and why Shadal correctly changes the tevir to a zakef gadol.
   
   
5. 70 souls? But there are only 69?! It could be Yaakov; it could be Yocheved; or else it could be that it really was only 69, but the Torah keeps the nice round number.
   
   
6. Ramses vs. Raamses -- the same place? different?
   
   
7. Vayigash sources -- links to a Mikraos Gedolos, and many meforshim on the parsha and haftara. Very useful for preparing the sidra.
   
   
8. From Jan 2009, with a Miketz crossover - Why in the world did Yosef compel the Egyptians to circumcise themselves? I try to figure it out based on the context and meaning of the original midrash, which Rashi has seen. To quote myself, "The idea behind it, at least as spoken out here, is that Yosef's intention was somehow to be mekarev the Egyptians to his religion."
   

2007

1. Have you a father or a brother? But where did Yosef ask this question? In 2008, I address this as well, from other sources, and some of the same, but from a slightly different perspective.
   
   
2. The trup and nikkud on bevechi -- and how one appears at odds with the other, and Shadal's suggestion.
   
   
3. From Vayechi: How big a gap between Vayigash and Vayechi (see pt i, ii, iii).
   

2006

1. When Was Yosef Sold? We consider the possibility that it was before Rachel's death, and attempt to harness evidence in that direction. There is some evidence the other way (the account of, and the place of Rachel's death), but this is perhaps resolvable.
   
   
2. The Ambiguity of וְעָזַב אֶת-אָבִיו וָמֵת -- Ibn Ezra wonders why this is not one of Issi ben Yehuda's five ambiguously parsed pesukim. Vamet can either corefer with Yaakov or with Binyamin. We compare with Issi ben Yehuda's five, and show how they are ambiguities of parsing rather than coindexation. Avi Ezer, a supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, wonders (and resolves) how Ibn Ezra could be so chutzpadik to challenge Chazal in this way. And I give my answer as well.
   
   Finally, Rashi decides in favor of a coreference to Binyamin. We give several reasons for this, as well as several reasons for a coreference with Yaakov.
   
   
3. Issi Ben Yehuda's Five (And Rav Chisda's One) As Disambiguated by Trup -- As a followup to the aforementioned post. Issi ben Yehuda gives five examples of ambiguous parsings of pesukim. Rav Chisda has an additional one. As we know, trup serves as syntactic markup and may well disambiguate each of these examples. In each case, what does the trup tell us? How does Rashi disambiguate in each case? Also, from a certain Rashi, it would seem that if we decide in the end that a narrative happened in a specific way, or that halacha is a certain way, we should emend the trup we read in shul to accord with that reading!

Dec 2004

1. Jewish Might  -- Rather than polite, humble and supplicative, some midrashim cast Yehuda's response (and that of his brothers) as a display of Jewish might. Yehuda's speech is understood in three different strains: appeasement, prayer, and threat of war, much as is Yaakov's approach to Esav. I go into a bit of detail on this.
   
   
2. The Three Approaches -- Continuing the idea mentioned above, Chazal show how each of these three approaches are meanings of the word "vayigash" throughout Tanach.
   
   
3. Yehuda's Threat -- of leprosy and death. And the specific textual prompts. "Speak a word in my lord's ear" implies a hidden message. Leprosy is derived from "you are as Pharaoh." The parallels drawn to Yaakov's curse and Shimon and Levi's destruction of Shechem might find purchase in אֲדֹנִי שָׁאַל, אֶת-עֲבָדָיו לֵאמֹר: הֲיֵשׁ-לָכֶם אָב, אוֹ-אָח.

Dec 2003 - Jan 2004

1. Pesukim That Imply That Binyamin Is Young -- Some neutral. He is called hakaton, but this might mean youngest as opposed to young. But then, the supposedly 22 year old Binyamin is called the naar, or lad. He is also called yeled zekunim katon, which I think is the strongest that he is fairly young.
   
   
2. The trup of the first pasuk -- Contrary to the Vilna Gaon, does not mean that, even on the level of simple translation. Revii does not mean fourth but rather "lie down." And this is not coming to convey some secret message, but is mechanically produced by syntactic rules of division.
   
   
3. Are Reuven's Children Tribbles? -- Accounting for their sudden doubling from 2 to 4, in such a short time span. I suggest the census in Egypt was taken at a later date.
   
   
4. Treatment of הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה a -- And in order to maintain that this census was taken at a later date, in Egypt, I have to explain habbaah mitzrayma as of the generation that came down to Egypt, as opposed to those who left. I show this needs be so, compelled by the fact that Yosef did not physically move to Egypt together with his father, yet is counted there. Rather, it is the census of the generation which moved into Egypt, opposed to the census when the Israelites leave, and indeed is there to show this contrast and the fulfillment of Divine promise.
   
   As a side benefit, a lot of chronology can work out, since there is time for Reuven to have more sons, for Binyamin to grow up and have ten sons, etcetera.
   

The Torah of Rabbi Meir

Summary: What are we to make of the midrashic reference to the variants found in the Torah of Rabbi Meir? In Vayigash, it is uven Dan Chushim. Are these commentaries in a separate book? Explanations written on the side of the sefer Torah? A variant reading? Deliberate variants to accord with midrash, or with what seems to be good peshat. It is unclear. But it is still something to consider. In the end, I side with the idea that it was a variant text to our accepted Masoretic text, and that our Masoretic text is preferable.

Post: In Midrash Rabba on Vayigash, we encounter a reference to the sefer Torah of Rabbi Meir, which had a different text than we have in Chumash. Where we have  וּבְנֵי-דָן חֻשִׁים, he had וּבֶן-דָן חֻשִׁים. Or so it would seem. The midrash in question, discussing the identity of the 70th of those who went down to Egypt:

ויש אומרים:
חושים בן דן השלים עמהן את המנין.

בתורתן של רבי מאיר מצאו כתוב:
ובן דן חושים, הה"ד: (שמואל ב כד)ויבואו הגלעדה ואל ארץ תחתים חדשי וגו'. 
בית ירח, ירח סינים, מדה כנגד מדה. דן נכנס בצלמוניתו אצל אביו, ומתברך בשבעים אלף. ובנימין נכנס בעשרה, ומתברך בארבעים אלף.

What is meant by the Torah of Rabbi Meir? I don't know, but we do find other references to it in Rabbinic literature. Thus,

The deeper meaning of Yocheved's birth between the walls

Summary: In an earlier post, I discussed Ralbag's position -- the midrash that Yocheved was the 70th, and was born between the walls, was al derech derash, but was not intended historically or literally. I would like to explore what deep meaning this midrash might contain, in terms of Yocheved as the 70th, or Chushim ben Dan, or Serach bat Asher, or Yaakov himself, or Hakadosh Baruch Hu.

Post: See summary. I ended that previous post, on Ralbag, with the following statement:

Thus, he makes essentially the same point as Ibn Ezra, that we should expect such a miracle to be stated outright in the Biblical text. Also, by labeling it derech derash, he does not mean that it is of course historically true, but that we can only arrive at it via midrashic methods. Rather, that as a matter of history, it is not true, and further that it was not intended literally. Rather, that there is some deep allegorical meaning -- a pnimius level to the midrash, if you will. I haven't seen Ralbag's explanation of this deeper level, but perhaps I will have opportunity to explore it in a follow-up post. For I certainly agree that some midrashim were intended allegorically.

Before offering up any explanation, I should put forth my extremely strong reservations.

A patach in La`ish, according to Chizkuni

Summary: A brief discussion of a troubling Chizkuni, about the nikkud under a certain letter. And the inclination to emend Chizkuni to make everything all right, which we should reject. This might relate to the idea of lectio difficilior, the "rule" that the more difficult word is more likely original.

Post: In Vayigash, in Bereishit 45:22:

כב  לְכֻלָּם נָתַן לָאִישׁ, חֲלִפוֹת שְׂמָלֹת; וּלְבִנְיָמִן נָתַן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת כֶּסֶף, וְחָמֵשׁ חֲלִפֹת שְׂמָלֹת.

22 To all of them he gave each man changes of raiment; but to Benjamin he gave three hundred shekels of silver, and five changes of raiment.

Chizkuni writes:

לכלם נתן לאיש חליפות שמלות • הלמ״ד בפתח

This is mystifying. Which lamed is he speaking about? For none of the lameds in that pasuk have a patach! I doubt be meant the lamed of lechulam, since a patach there would be the definite article, which grammatically should not exist there. And there should be no patach under the lamed in chalifot, and indeed Chizkuni writes it malei yud to show the chirik is there. It must be under the lamed of la`ish.

Indeed, a patach under the lamed of la`ish makes partial sense. We would want the definite article there, and that would indeed normally be lamed patach + a dagesh in the next letter. However, there is a guttural letter aleph which follows. This should lead to tashlum dagesh, compensatory lengthening of the short vowel patach to become the longer kametz. But perhaps in this instance, the general rule was not followed (just as, IIRC, it isn't followed for the guttural chet). This would be extremely weird, but it within range of acceptable weirdness. And Chizkuni would have seen fit to take note of it.

Under lectio difficilior, if two alternatives are presented, and one makes sense with some apparent "difficulty", it is more likely to be original, because a copyist would "correct" it in one direction but not the other. On the other hand, if kamatz and patach are pronounced more or less the same, it is quite possible that this patach could be a mere scribal error which crept in, and became part of the masorah available to Chizkuni. I would not pass judgement upon this either way.

This statement by Chizkuni would be quite perplexing and troubling to others who followed him. He makes a masoretic statement which is not in line with our masorah. Do we say that he had an alternate masorah, or do we assume that not only is our own masorah 100% accurate, but Chizkuni must have had the same masorah?


Well, embedded right after Chizkuni's comment, in the printing I am using, we get the following in square brackets:

ש[אולי צ"ל בקמץ וקאי על לאיש:]ש

That is, it might seem that the patach was in the lamed which has under it (according to us) a sheva. Or in chalifot. But the suggestion of this supercommentator is that perhaps we should emend the text of Chizkuni to read "with a kamatz" rather than with a patach, and that it goes of laIsh.

Perhaps, I say, but if so, and it is all in accordance with the regular rule, would Chizkuni have felt the need to point this out? It makes more sense as an irregularity. Unless, of course, his point was that laIsh had the definite article, even though we would have expected it to not be definite. If so, patach might be shorthand for the definite article, which, indeed would be kamatz in this particular case. I personally doubt it, and think by patach he meant patach, and that sometimes Rishonim have alternate masoretic traditions we do not have. For example, I recently covered an Ibn Caspi which made a great diyuk based on a kamatz rather than the expected patach in the word haOd. See there.

This is what Minchas Shai has to say:

לכלם נתן לאיש• כתב התזקוני הלמ״ד בפתח ולא ידעתי מהו כי בכל
הספרים הלמ״ד בקמץ כמשפט:

That is, he understands which lamed is under discussion, and so searches for a masoretic tradition in accordance with it. For on every page, Minchas Shai takes note of differing traditions in things such as this. But he finds no such tradition, and so doesn't know what to do with this. Rather, in all sefarim he found, it has the kamatz that we would expect according to the general rule.

Is the trup on veEt Achecha dispositive? Ibn Caspi vs. Chizkuni

Summary: Ibn Caspi and Chizkuni each read a pasuk in Vayigash differently, Ibn Caspi with the division indicated by trup and Chizkuni against. Except that Chizkuni explains why the trup isn't really against him.

Post: As I mentioned several times in the past, Ibn Caspi likes to look at trup and nikkud to determine peshat. He is of the opinion that it was encoded by the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah, and that they received their tradition from Moshe Rabbenu. As such, it is dispositive -- you cannot argue against it. In his Vikuach al Chochmas HaKabbalah, meanwhile, Shadal asserts that a great many of the classic meforshim (Rashi, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, etc.), while paying great attention to the ancient commentary of trup and nikkud, do not regard it as Sinaitic and are willing to argue upon it.

There is a dispute between Ibn Caspi and Chizkuni as to how to parse a particular pasuk in parashat Vayigash. Ibn Caspi is in accord with the trup. Chizkuni does not appear to truly be.

That pasuk is Bereishit 47:6:

ו  אֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם, לְפָנֶיךָ הִוא--בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ, הוֹשֵׁב אֶת-אָבִיךָ וְאֶת-אַחֶיךָ:  יֵשְׁבוּ, בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן--וְאִם-יָדַעְתָּ וְיֶשׁ-בָּם אַנְשֵׁי-חַיִל, וְשַׂמְתָּם שָׂרֵי מִקְנֶה עַל-אֲשֶׁר-לִי.

6 the land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and thy brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell. And if thou knowest any able men among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.'

Ralbag on Yocheved's birth

Summary: All about Ralbag asserting that on a peshat level, the 70 includes Yaakov, and that of course Yocheved wasn't actually born just as they entered, though there is a deep meaning to that midrash. This can help us understand the approach of this and other Rishonim towards midrash, "arguing" with midrash, and whether miracles must be explicit.

Post: After telling us that all his descendants (except Yosef et al) were 66, and Yosef and his two sons were three more, the pasuk in Vayigash tells us that 70 people entered Egypt:

כז  וּבְנֵי יוֹסֵף אֲשֶׁר-יֻלַּד-לוֹ בְמִצְרַיִם, נֶפֶשׁ שְׁנָיִם:  כָּל-הַנֶּפֶשׁ לְבֵית-יַעֲקֹב הַבָּאָה מִצְרַיְמָה, שִׁבְעִים.  {ס}

27 And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob, that came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. {S}

yet we only seem to be able to count 69 people. We could readily say that this  refers to Yaakov himself, except it is slightly harder to say this about the pasuk in the beginning of Shmos:

ה  וַיְהִי, כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ יֹצְאֵי יֶרֶךְ-יַעֲקֹב--שִׁבְעִים נָפֶשׁ; וְיוֹסֵף, הָיָה בְמִצְרָיִם.

5 And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls; and Joseph was in Egypt already.

According to Rashi, the 70th is Yocheved, born between the walls:

How many are the days of your life, as question or exclamation?

Summary: There is a dispute whether kama is a question or exclamation. Ibn Caspi has a nice exchange with an elderly man about this, and also tries to claim that this is what the Anshei Knesset HaGedolah meant when they placed a gaaya (=zakef gadol) on the word. I investigate.

Post: When Pharaoh greets Yaakov for the first time, towards the end of Vayigash:

ח  וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה, אֶל-יַעֲקֹב:  כַּמָּה, יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֶּיךָ.

8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob: 'How many are the days of the years of thy life?

This could either be a question or an exclamation. Rashi says nothing, which strongly suggests to me that he understands it as a question. Rashbam explicitly makes it a question:

פסוק ט 
מעט ורעים -
לפי שנראה יעקב בעיניו זקן יותר מדאי, ששאל לו: כמה ימי שני חייך?
השיב לו יעקב: מעט הם, אבל רעים הם ולכך אני נראה בעיניך זקן יותר מדאי. 

and Ramban also explicitly makes it a question:

Vayigash sources

by aliyah
rishon (Bereishit 44:18)
sheni (44:31)
shlishi (45:8)
revii (45:19)
chamishi (45:28)
shishi (46:28)
shevii (47:11)
maftir (47:24)
haftara (Yechezkel 37:15-37:28) -- with Malbim and Abarbanel

by perek
perek 45 ; perek 46 ; perek 47

meforshim
Judaica Press Rashis in English and Hebrew
Chizkuni
Shadal (here and here)
Mishtadel
Daat -- with Rashi, Ramban, Seforno, Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Midrash Rabba, Tanchuma+.
Gilyonot Nechama Leibovitz (Hebrew, English)
Tiferes Yehonasan from Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz
Chasdei Yehonasan
Toldos Yizchak Acharon, repeated from Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Even Shleimah -- from Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Ehrenreich
R' Saadia Gaon's Tafsir, Arabic translation of Torah (here and here)
Collected commentary of Saadia Gaon on Torah
Abarbanel
Torah Temimah
Kli Yakar (and here)
Zohar, with English translation
Baal Haturim
Baal Haturim (HaAruch)
Torat Hatur -- nothing until Vaychi
Ibn Janach
Rabbenu Ephraim -- nothing until Shemot
Ibn Caspi
Ralbag
Dubno Maggid
Imrei Shafer, Rav Shlomo Kluger
Ateret Zekeinim
Mei Noach
Arugat HaBosem
Yalkut Perushim LaTorah
R' Yosef Bechor Shor
Meiri
Ibn Gabirol -- not until Vaychi
Rabbenu Yonah -- not until Bo
Rashbam
Seforno
Aderet Eliyahu (Gra)
Kol Eliyahu (Gra)
Mipninei Harambam -- not until Vaychi
Sefer Zikaron of Ritva -- not until Vayigash
Malbim
Chiddushei HaGriz
Radak
Noam Elimelech
Michlal Yofi

The following meforshim at JNUL. I've discovered that if you click on the icon to rotate sideways, zoom to 75%, and print with fit-to-page, it is eminently readable on paper.
Ralbag (pg 72)
Chizkuni (42)
Baal HaTurim (15)
Rabbenu Bachya (66)
Abarbanel (116)
Shach (47)
Paneach Raza (31)
Yalkut Reuveni (68)
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (63)

rashi
Daat, Rashi In Hebrew (perek 44)
Judaica Press Rashi in English and Hebrew
Mizrachi, Mizrachi (71, JNUL)
Gur Aryeh (Maharal of Prague)
Maharsha
Siftei Chachamim
Berliner's Beur on Rashi
Commentary on Rashi by Yosef of Krasnitz
R' Yisrael Isserlin (on Rashi, 6, JNUL)
Two supercommentaries on Rashi, by Chasdai Almosnino and Yaakov Kneizel
Rav Natan ben Shishon Shapira Ashkenazi (16th century), (JNUL, pg 47)
Taz
Levush HaOrah
Mohar`al -- nothing until Shmos
Yeriot Shlomo (Maharshal)
Moda L'Bina (Wolf Heidenheim)
Dikdukei Rashi
Mekorei Rashi (in Mechokekei Yehuda)
Bartenura
Meam Loez -- laazei Rashi
Yosef Daas
Nachalas Yaakov
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Rashi with Sifsei Chachamim

ramban
Daat, Ramban in Hebrew (perek 44)
R' Yitzchak Abohav's on Ramban (standalone and in a Tanach opposite Ramban)
Kesef Mezukak
Kanfei Nesharim
Rabbi Meir Abusaula (student of Rashba)

ibn ezra
Daat, Ibn Ezra in Hebrew (perek 44)
Mechokekei Yehudah (Daat)
Mechokekei Yehudah (HebrewBooks)
Mavaser Ezra
R' Shmuel Motot (on Ibn Ezra, pg 16, JNUL)
Ibn Kaspi's supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, different from his commentary (here and here) -- nothing until Shemot
Mekor Chaim, Ohel Yosef, Motot
Avi Ezer
Tzofnas Paneach
Ezra Lehavin
Also see Mikraos Gedolos above, which has Ibn Ezra with Avi Ezer

targum
Targum Onkelos opposite Torah text
Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Yonatan in English
Shadal's Ohev Ger on Targum Onkelos
Avnei Tzion -- two commentaries on Onkelos
Bei`urei Onkelos
Or Hatargum on Onkelos
Targum Yonatan
Commentary on Targum Yonatan and Targum Yerushalmi
Septuagint (Greek, English)
Origen's Hexapla (JNUL)

masorah
Tanach with masoretic notes on the side
Commentary on the Masorah
Minchas Shai
Or Torah
Taamei Masoret
Masoret HaKeriah
Shiluv Hamasorot
Masoret HaBrit HaGadol
Rama (but based on alphabet, not parsha)

midrash

Midrash Rabba at Daat (44)
Midrash Tanchuma at Daat (44)
Bereishit Rabba, with commentaries
Bereishit Rabba with Yefei Toar
Midrash Tanchuma with commentary of Etz Yosef and Anaf Yosef
Commentary on Midrash Rabba by R' Naftali Hirtz b'R' Menachem
Matat-Kah on Midrash Rabba
Nefesh Yehonasan by Rav Yonasan Eibeshutz
Sefer HaYashar


haftara (Yechezkel 37:15-37:28)
In a separate Mikraot Gedolot -- with Targum, Rashi, Mahari Kara, Radak, Minchat Shai, Metzudat David.
In the chumash, as a haftorah, with Malbim and Abarbanel
Rashi in English, from Judaica Press.
From Daat, Radak, Yalkut Shimon, and Gilyonot Nechama
Haftarah in the Gutnick edition
Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite (at JNUL, pg 86)
Ibn Janach
Ibn Kaspi (missing on second half)
Ahavas Yehonasan