Who are the "Kehal Amim" to whom Yaakov is referring?
Rashi (according to Harchev Davar): Above, Hashem promised Yaakov that "Goy u'Kehal Goyim Yihyeh Mimeka" (35:11). The word "Kehal" in this verse corresponds to 'Goy' 1 (i.e. Binyamin 2 ); and "Amim" corresponds to 'Kehal Goyim'. 3 No other sons were born after Binyamin! Rather, one of his sons would be divided into two tribes - a privilege that Yaakov now bestowed upon Yosef.
Harchev Davar: Here Rashi explains like Horayos 5b, which learns from here that even one Shevet is called Kahal. In Pesachim (80a) Rashi explains that Yaakov discusses only Yosef; this is like the Yerushalmi, which holds that there is no room to distinguish one Shevet (being called Kahal) from two.
Malbim: Rachel was pregnant with Binyamin at the time; right after they left Luz, he was born and she died.
Ha'amek Davar: These are not literally nations. Rather, it will be a kingdom and inheritance on his name - "u'Melachim me'Chalatzecha Yetze'u" (35:11). Hashem should have said 'Kehal Amim,' but since He said Goy, He said also "Kehal Goyim." Yaakov did not mention "Goy" (which refers to Binyamin) so he said "Kehal Amim."
What are the ramifications of the division of Yosef into two tribes, who would be reckoned like Yaakov's own sons?
Rashi (to 48:5): That they would take two portions in Eretz Yisrael. 1
Ramban and Rashbam: They actually received double portions, like Reuven and Shimon. 2
Rashi (to 48:6): They did not receive extra in Eretz Yisrael, since the land was divided according to the individuals, and not according to the tribes. How are they considered two? Each would have its own Nasi, a separate lot in the lottery to divide Eretz Yisrael, and each would have its own Degel (place in the encampment in the Midbar). (Gur Aryeh - How would this work to the advantage of Efrayim and Menashe in the practical sense? Refer to 48:5:0.3.) But see Ramban's strong objection to this explanation. Riva says that Rashi means like the Rashbam, that each tribe received an equal share; within each Shevet all received equally. (If so, why did Rashi need to find other consequences of being considered two?!) (PF)
Because the land was distributed according to the tribes. See also Ba'al ha'Turim. Also refer to 48:6:1.4:2.
Why does it say both "Mafrecha v'Hirbisicha," and "li'Kehal Amim"?
Ohr ha'Chayim: "Mafrecha v'Hirbisicha" refers to two sons to come. "Kehal Amim" teaches that each will be a Kahal and an Am (nation).
Malbim: Above, it says "Preh u'Reveh, Goy u'Kehal Goyim" (35:11). Preh meant that I would father more sons; and u'Reveh meant grandsons; they would be "Kehal Amim." Preh was not fulfilled; 1 I did not father more after that. Do not say that it was fulfilled via Binyamin. He was already in the womb, and born soon afterwards!
Below (refer to 48:7:1:3), Malbim explains that it was not any sin of Yaakov's that held back the promise from being fulfilled. According to Ohr ha'Chayim, it was fulfilled via Yosef's sons; refer to 48:6:151:1. However, Malbim says that Preh will be via sons, and not grandsons! This requires investigation. (PF). Numerous Mefarshim (to 35:22) say that Reuven's deed held back Yaakov from fathering more sons. Refer to 35:22:2:4; 35:22:3:2 and the note there; 35:22:6:4; 35:22:6:9 and the note there. (CS)
What is the significance that Hashem promised the land "l'Zar'acha Acharecha"?
Malbim (to 48:4-5): Had He promised it 'Lecha ul'Zar'acha Acharecha,' my sons would take it as an inheritance. Had He promised it immediately to my seed, they would acquire it immediately. I would not be able to change anything. However, "l'Zar'acha Acharecha" is like 'I give this field to you, and afterwards to Peloni or to your heirs.' 1 The first recipient does not acquire it as an inheritance; the latter acquire after he dies. I can establish Yosef's sons like my own, based on Hashem's word.
See Bava Basra 137a.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "I shall make you into a 'Kehal Amim' - [Yaakov said to Yosef,] Hashem informed me that another 'Kehal' and 'Amim' would descend from me." Why does Rashi insert the word "and"? Does 'Kehal' refer to one tribe, and 'Amim' to a second tribe?
Gur Aryeh: No; the plural word "Amim" itself teaches that two more tribes would descend from Yaakov. This is evident from the wording in Parshas Vayishlach (35:11). Rashi on our Pasuk inserts the word "and," only so that we do not interpret 'Kehal Amim' to mean an assembly of tribes (i.e. more than two). 1
Gur Aryeh: If so, why doesn't Rashi insert the word "and" in his commentary to 35:11 as well? (I.e., that 'Goy u'Kehal Goyim' means 'Kehal' and 'Goyim!') In that verse, however, the phrase is preceded by the singular word 'Goy,' referring to Binyamin. Clearly then the word 'Goyim' means only two more (Menasheh and Efrayim); had it meant 'an assembly,' it wouldn't have to single out Binyamin first.
