Why did Yaacov (Jacob) and sons go to live in Egypt rather than stay in Canaan ?

“And Israel (Jacob) and all that he had journeyed and he came to Be’er Sheva.  And he offered Zevachim to the G-d of his father Isaac” (Bereishit 46:1)

Why is Yitzchak/Isaac included whilst Avraham/Abraham is not mentioned? Rashi, the premier Torah commentator, explains that this verse shows that a person has to honour their parents more than their grandparents.   Therefore, this verse only mentions Yitzchak.

Radak (Rabbi David Kimche) takes a different view.  He writes that Yitzchak is mentioned as Yitzchak also wanted to leave the land of Israel during a famine but was instructed by G-d not to do so.  On hearing this news, Isaac offered zevachim, sacrifices, to G-d from an altar in Be’er Sheva (although this does not appear to be explicit in the text). 

Therefore, Yaacov who from the context of these verses still appears ambivalent about whether he should leave Israel to live in Egypt – read the verses carefully – decided to offer zevachim as his father did, as part of his attempt to work out what to do.  In the very next verse, G-d appears to Yaacov in a dream and in the subsequent verses tells him not to fear going to Egypt as he will become a great nation there. 

This not only allows Yaacov to go to live in Egypt, as making a great nation is unlikely to happen during a brief stay but also assures him that his leaving Israel is part of the historical process of the Jewish people, fulfilling the promise made to Avraham in chapter 15 of Bereishit, even if it means that Yaacov and sons temporarily vacate their land.

Interestingly, this is the first time in the Torah that a ‘Zevach’ sacrifice is explicitly offered, as opposed to a ‘Olah’ sacrifice, although Rashbam, Rashi’s grandson, writes in tandem with Radak (above) that Isaac also offered a Zevach…in Be’er Sheva (see Rashbam to our verse and also Bereishit 26:25). 

Rabbi Menachem Liebtag, a leading contemporary Tanach/Bible scholar suggests that the offering of a Zevach marks a seminal historical event.  This appears even more appropriate in light of Radak’s remarks.

These are a few suggestions to answer our opening question.