Vayechi: HaMelech HaGoel Oti

An interesting discussion about hamalach hagoel oti, in Shadal, that bears mentioning. The pesukim, in Bereishit 48, read:

טו וַיְבָרֶךְ אֶת-יוֹסֵף, וַיֹּאמַר: הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר הִתְהַלְּכוּ אֲבֹתַי לְפָנָיו, אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק--הָאֱלֹהִים הָרֹעֶה אֹתִי, מֵעוֹדִי עַד-הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה.	15 And he blessed Joseph, and said: 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God who hath been my shepherd all my life long unto this day,
טז הַמַּלְאָךְ הַגֹּאֵל אֹתִי מִכָּל-רָע, יְבָרֵךְ אֶת-הַנְּעָרִים, וְיִקָּרֵא בָהֶם שְׁמִי, וְשֵׁם אֲבֹתַי אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק; וְיִדְגּוּ לָרֹב, בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ.	16 the angel who hath redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named in them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.'

Any time you have some active angel, doing something independent like blessing, there might some theological problems. I believe it was Gra who says not to say Barchuni Leshalom in Shalom Aleichem, because it appears to be a prayer to an angel. So what to make of pasuk 16?

On this, Shadal writes (my translation, with my commentary in {}, interspersed):

המלאך הגואל וגו' : מלאך הרגיל להשתלח אלי בצרתי ( רש"י ), הזכיר תחילה האל השולח ואח"כ הזכיר השליח, ואמר שהוא יברך בשליחות שולחו, ובאמרו המלאך כבר הודיע שאינו פועל ברצון עצמו, אלא ברצון שולחו, והנה איננו מתפלל אל המלאך, אלא כאומר יהי רצון מלפני האל לשלוח מלאכו לברך את הנערים ; וכל זה רמז רש"י בקוצר לשונו.

"the angel who hath redeemed me, etc.": The angel who is accustomed to be sent to me in times of trouble (so, Rashi). He first mentions {in pasuk 15} the God who sends and afterwards mentions the agent, and says that he {the angel} will bless acting in the agency of his Sender; and when the angel speaks, he already makes known that he is not acting of his own will, but rather of the Will of his Sender. And behold, he {=Yaakov, in pasuk 16} is not praying to the angel, but rather is like one who says "May it be the Will before God to send His angel to bless the lads." And all of this is hinted at by Rashi in his short language.

{Note that Rashi states, in very abbreviated language:
the angel who redeemed me The angel who was usually sent to me in my distress, as the matter is stated: “And an angel of God said to me in a dream, ‘Jacob!…I am the God of Bethel’ ” (Gen. 31:11-13). - [after Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel]

but Shadal is expanding, and also explaining what is bothering Rashi. Also perhaps all that motivated Rashi is explaining where in the past an angel redeemed him, or rather, why the neutral, "present"-tense, connoting continuous action. That is, Rashi's motivations might not be theological at all.}

והשומרונים הגיהו : המלך הגואל.

And the Samaritans emend it to: The King Who Redeems.

{But we should not pay heed to that, because the Samaritan Torah often engages in exactly this stuff, harmonizing left and right and smoothing over irregularities that, it turns out, should not be smoothed over. Here, lectio difficilior is in play, and the emendation is quite likely motivated by theological concerns.}

ואני מתחילה הייתי מפרש האלהים אשר מלאכו הוא הגואל אותי מכל רע (כמו עיניכם הרואות, למעלה מ"ה י"ב ) כטעם הוא ישלח מלאכו אתך והצליח דרכך ( למעלה כ"ד מ' ) והוא כמו עם אשר תמצא את אלהיך ( בראשית ל"א ל"ב ) שענינו אשר עמו תמצא, ועיין שם

And I initially would explain: The God, whose angel was the one who redeemed me from all harm. (Just like "Your eyes have seen, earlier on Bereishit 45:12)

{That pasuk reads:

יב וְהִנֵּה עֵינֵיכֶם רֹאוֹת, וְעֵינֵי אָחִי בִנְיָמִין: כִּי-פִי, הַמְדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם.

12 And, behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you.

Shadal thus appears to be saying that we can separate the actor from the action, just like Binyamin is after ro'ot. So too, Hashem blesses, and the sending of the angel is a clarifying interjection.
}

In the sense of "He will send forth his angel and make your way succeed" (earlier, Bereishit 24:40). And it is like Bereishit 31:32:

לב עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת-אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לֹא יִחְיֶה--נֶגֶד אַחֵינוּ הַכֶּר-לְךָ מָה עִמָּדִי, וְקַח-לָךְ; וְלֹא-יָדַע יַעֲקֹב, כִּי רָחֵל גְּנָבָתַם.

32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he shall not live; before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee.'--For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.--

with the words עִם אֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָא אֶת-אֱלֹהֶיךָ, whose implication is "the one with whom you find," and see there.

וידגו : מן דג, וזה כי הדגים משרצים לרוב מאד ; ודעת קוצעיוס כי מן דגה נגזר שם דגן.

"and let them grow":
From "fish," and this is because the fish swarm into a large multitude. And the opinion of Cotsius (??) is that "grain" {dagan} is from daga.

ור"ש דובנא פירש האלהים הנזכר ישלח המלאך הגואל, וזה רחוק ;

And Rabbi S. Dubno explained: "The God" who is mentioned should send the redeeming angel, and this is farfetched.

ור' עובדיה ספורנו פירש האלהים דרך קריאה : אתה האלהים, שאתה הוא שהתהלכו אבותי לפניו, (עיין פירושי לישעיה א' ד') אתה האלהים, הרועה אותי וגו' אתה הואל נא שהמלאך הגואל יברך את הנערים ; וזה פירוש נחמד ונעים, ועדיין קשה לי מה צורך שיהיה המלאך הוא המברך ולמה לא שאל שיברכם האל ? והוא ר"ע ספורנו תירץ ואמר "אם אינם ראוים לברכתך בלתי אמצעי" וזה הבל, כי כל ישראל מאז מקדם אומרים זה לזה יברכך ה' וכל ישראל מבקשים מהאל שיברכם ומעולם לא מצאנו הברכה מיוחסת למלאך.

And Rabbi Ovadia Seforno explains haElokim as a way of calling {Evocative?}: "You are God, for You are He before whom my fathers traveled" (see my explanation to Yeshaya 1:4:

ד הוֹי גּוֹי חֹטֵא, עַם כֶּבֶד עָו‍ֹן--זֶרַע מְרֵעִים, בָּנִים מַשְׁחִיתִים; עָזְבוּ אֶת-ה, נִאֲצוּ אֶת-קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל--נָזֹרוּ אָחוֹר.

4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly; they have forsaken the LORD, they have contemned the Holy One of Israel, they are turned away backward.

)

"You are God, who has been my shepherd, etc."
"You will now (/please) put forth that the redeeming angel bless the land."
{Shadal now says:} This is a dear and sweet explanation, but it is still difficult to me, what is the reason that the angel specifically be the one who blesses, and how come he did not ask that God bless them?
And he, Rabbi Ovadia Seforno, answered and said, "If you are not fit to be blessed except via an intermediary." And this is nonsense, for all of Israel from then, early on, said one to another "may Hashem bless you," and all of Israel requested of God that He bless them. And we never find the blessing ascribed to an angel.

ואדוני אבי ז"ל היה דבר זה קשה בעיניו עד מאד, והוא נדחק לפרש שיהיה המלאך לא המברך, אלא המקבל הברכה, ואמר כי יעקב כינה את יוסף בכינוי המלאך הגואל אותי מכל רע, ושיעור הכתובים האלה כך הוא : האלהים אשר וגו' הוא יברך את המלאך הזה (יוסף) עם הנערים.

And my Master, my father, z"l, this matter was extremely troubling in his eyes, and he was pressed to explain that the mal`ach was not the one blessing, but rather the one receiving the blessing, and he said that Yaakov nicknamed Yosef with the nickname, "the malach {agent} who redeemed me from all ill." And the intent of these verses are as follows: The God who, etc., he should bless this agent (Yosef) together with the lads.

ודח"א ז"ל אומר כי הכוונה על המלאך הנאבק עמו ( ל"ב כ"ג ) ובירכו וקרא שמו ישראל, והנה יעקב מתפלל שאותו המלאך שבירך אותו יברך גם אותם וייקראו גם הם בני ישראל, וכמו שהיה, שהיו אפרים ומנשה שני שבטים

And (???) says that the intent is to the angel who wrestled with him (in Bereishit 32:23), and blessed him and called his name Israel. And behold, Yaakov prayed {to Hashem} that that same angel who blessed him should also bless them, and should call them as well "the children of Israel," as it was, and that Ephraim and Menashe should be two tribes.

It is all quite interesting. I am not sure I would discount the somewhat troubling position that it is allowed to request blessings from an angel, as Yaakov did earlier. The question returns to whether the peshat of the Biblical narrative defines acceptable belief, or whether we view the Biblical narrative through the lens of established theology, which would in turn restrict the available peshat interpretations.

Regardless, a fascinating presentation, with all sorts of interesting parses.