לעילוי נשמת של החייל אילן משה כהן ז"ל En recuerdo de Ilan Moshe Cohen z"l
Donar Mapa bíblico
Es

Geneologies: Seir, Edom, and Amalek

  Towards the end of Parashat Vayishlach (36:20-30), the Torah presents a brief list of the families of Se'ir, who lived in the region that was ultimately captured and settled by Esav, where he established the kingdom of Edom.  Today we will look at several approaches that have been taken in explaining the purpose behind this section.

 

            Rashi (36:24) explains that this record is presented for the purpose of identifying Timna, a member of the ruling family of Se'ir (36:22), who was earlier introduced as the pilegesh (concubine) of Esav's son Elifaz.  Despite Timna's royal stature, she was given as a pilegesh to Elifaz.  This demonstrates how highly the people Se'ir valued the family of Avraham, as a family from the ruling class was prepared to have their daughter become a pilegesh to Avraham's great-grandson, rather than become a noblewoman among the people of Se'ir.  The Torah presented this genealogy for the purpose of demonstrating the respect and fame Avraham had earned in this region even several generations after his death.

 

            Ibn Ezra (36:20) suggests that since the Torah would later forbid instigating hostilities against the nation of Edom (Devarim 2:1-8), it was necessary to distinguish between the peoples of Se'ir and Edom.  After Esav's conquest of the territory of Se'ir, one might mistake the people of Se'ir for Edomites.  The Torah therefore carefully delineated the families of Se'ir so that Benei Yisrael would be able to differentiate between the Edomites, with whom they were forbidden to instigate warfare, and the people of Se'ir.  A similar explanation is cited in the work Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala in the name of the Vilna Gaon.

            In a slightly different vein, the Rambam (Guide for the Perplexed 3:50) explained the purpose of this section in light of the command to annihilate the nation of Amalek (Devarim 25:19), which was founded by a grandson of Esav (36:12).  Esav became connected with the people of Se'ir through marriage, and Esav's children became the dominant influence in the area to the point where the entire population assumed the title "Amalekites."  The Torah therefore made a point of presenting the genealogy of Esav and Se'ir, so that Se'irites who were not members of the Amalekite clan would be spared Benei Yisrael's vengeance against the Amalekites.

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov's Blessing for Esav

 We read in Parashat Vayishlach of the warm reunion between Yaakov and Esav, during which Esav declines the lavish gifts that Yaakov had previously sent him.  Yaakov, however, insistently asks that Esav accept his gift.  He implores, "Please take my blessing that has been brought to you, for God has been gracious to me, and I have everything" (33:11).

 

            Why does Yaakov refer to his gift as birkhati, "my blessing"?  In what sense does the term berakha denote a gift?

 

            Rashi explains that the word berakha often refers to a greeting that people extend upon meeting one another.  For example, a bit later in Sefer Bereishit (47:10) we read in the context of Yaakov's meeting with Pharaoh, "Va-yevarekh Yaakov et Pharaoh."  By extension, the term berakha is occasionally used in reference to a gift presented on the occasion of meeting another person.  Such was the gift that Yaakov presented to his brother, on the occasion of their reunion after so many years, and hence he refers to this gift with the term birkhati.

 

            The Ramban explains differently, claiming that gifts are referred to as berakha because "he sends from that with which God has blessed him."  Since a person gives as a gift that which he has received as a "blessing" from the Almighty, the term berakha is occasionally used to denote a gift.

 

            Rav Simcha Bunim Sofer (son of the Ketav Sofer), in his Sha'arei Simcha, suggests a slightly different approach (though which clearly has roots in the Ramban's explanation), associating Yaakov's use of the term berakha with his subsequent remark: "for God has been gracious to me, and I have everything."  Yaakov seeks to persuade Esav to accept his gift on the basis of his having "everything," the fact that he has been given far more than his basic necessities.  The righteous look upon their wealth as a berakha, a blessing from God, who has granted them more than what they require for their basic sustenance.  Yaakov intentionally refers to his gift as berakha so as to emphasize the point that he has already been given more than he needs, that the cattle and sheep he sent Esav were but a berakha, luxury items that Yaakov possessed beyond his basic needs of life.

 

            People by nature tend to never feel content with what they possess.  Few people are capable of honestly declaring, as Yaakov did, "yesh li kol" – "I have everything" – or of acknowledging that everything they have is a berakha – a "blessing" beyond what they need.  In fact, in this very exchange, Esav declines Yaakov's gift by claiming, "Yesh li rav" – "I have much."  Esav acknowledges that he has "much," whereas Yaakov recognizes that he possesses "everything."  We are to train ourselves to look upon what we have with the perspective of Yaakov, and feel grateful for the "blessings" that God has bestowed upon us, and acknowledge the fact that He has truly given us "everything."

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov Out of Sequence: Beit El, Hebron, Shechem?

            This week we have been discussing the possibility suggested by Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, in his internet shiurim (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm), that the narrative in Parashat Vayishlach is presented out of chronological sequence.  Rabbi Leibtag suggested that the events recorded in the section 35:9-35:29, namely, Yaakov's prophecy at Beit-El, the birth of Binyamin/death of Rachel, and Yaakov's long-awaited return to his parents in Chevron, occurred before the story of Dina and Shekhem, which the Torah records earlier (chapter 34).  If we accept the sequence of events as they are told in the Torah, we must struggle to explain why Yaakov did not immediately proceed to Beit-El to fulfill his vow, and then to Chevron to reunite with his parents, upon returning from Padan Aram.  Rabbi Leibtag therefore raised the possibility that events are not recorded chronologically, and that Yaakov in fact went to Beit-El and then to Chevron before settling outside Shekhem.

            Yesterday, we mentioned a number of sources indicating that Rachel was pregnant with Binyamin already as Yaakov made his way from Padan Aram to Canaan, which would seemingly support the contention that Binyamin's birth occurred before the incident of Dina and Shekhem.  Today, we will see a number of sources which seem to explicitly indicate that Yaakov traveled to Beit-El before the story of Dina and Shekhem.

            The Gemara in Masekhet Megila (17a) asserts that Yaakov reunited with his father in Chevron two years after his departure from Lavan.  Along his return from Padan Aram, the Gemara claims, he spent eighteen months in Sukkot (see Bereishit 33:16), and another six months in Beit-El. Rashi, commenting on this Gemara, explains, "He spent six months in Beit-El when he left Shekhem…"  Meaning, the six month-period to which the Gemara refers occurred after the story of Dina and Shekhem, and the Gemara held a tradition that when Yaakov traveled to Beit-El after the story of Dina (35:1), he lived there for six months.

Elsewhere, however, Rashi writes that Yaakov lived for a period in Beit-El before the incident of Shekhem.  In his commentary to Avot (5:21), Rashi cites the Midrashic tradition that Levi was thirteen years of age when he and his brother Shimon killed the male population of Shekhem.  To support this tradition, Rashi comments that "when you take into account the two years Yaakov spent in Beit-El," it indeed emerges that Levi was thirteen years old at the time of his attack on Shekhem.  Yaakov left Padan Aram thirteen years after his marriage to Leah, and, according to Seder Olam (chapter 2), Leah delivered each of her children after just seventh months of pregnancy.  Levi, Leah's third son, was thus born just about two years after her marriage to Yaakov, and hence Levi was eleven years of age when Yaakov left Padan Aram.  After the two years that "Yaakov spent in Beit-El," Levi was thirteen years of age, and it was at that point, Rashi claims, that Shimon and Levi killed the people of Shekhem.

            Rashi thus clearly held that Yaakov spent time in Beit-El before settling near Shekhem, as Rabbi Leibtag contended.

            The Midrash Lekach Tov, commenting on the story of Shekhem (34:25), likewise calculates the age of Shimon and Levi at the time of their assault on Shekhem, and claims that Levi was eleven when the family left the home of Lavan.  The story of Shekhem, the Midrash claims, occurred after the period of "two years when he [Yaakov] was offering sacrifices in Beit-El."  Like Rashi, the Midrash Lekach Tov held that Yaakov first proceeded to Beit-El upon returning from Canaan, before settling near Shekhem, and he spent two years "offering sacrifices."  Apparently, there was a Midrashic tradition that disputed the chronology espoused by the Gemara in Megila, according to which Yaakov spent eighteen months in Sukkot and then six months in Beit-El after the incident in Shekhem.  This tradition, which Rashi appears to have adopted in his commentary to Avot, and was accepted by the author of the Midrash Lekach Tov, held that the Torah's narrative does not follow chronological sequence, and Yaakov's pilgrimage to Beit-El occurred before he settled near Shekhem.  Immediately upon returning to Canaan, Yaakov proceeded to Beit-El and spent two years offering sacrifices in fulfillment of his vow.  Only thereafter did he settle near the city of Shekhem.

            We should note, however, one important difference between the position reflected in these sources and Rabbi Leibtag's theory.  According to Rashi in Avot and the Midrash Lekach Tov, Yaakov spent two years in Beit-El and then settled near Shekhem before reuniting with his father in Chevron.  Rabbi Leibtag suggested that Yaakov proceeded to Beit-El to fulfill his vow, and then continued southward to Chevron to see his parents.  He remained there for several years, and then moved with his family to Shekhem, at which point Shimon and Levi were in their late teens.  These sources provide a basis for the contention that Yaakov first visited Beit-El before settling near Shekhem, but not for the theory that he reunited with his parents before moving to Shekhem.

Volver al capítulo

Chronology and Tithing Yaakov's Sons

  In our previous two editions of S.A.L.T., we have discussed the theory posited by Rabbi Menachem Leibtag (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm) concerning the sequence of events recorded in Parashat Vayishlach.  Rabbi Leibtag contended that although the Torah records Yaakov's experiences in Shekhem before his journey to Beit-El, the death of Rachel, and Yaakov's reunion with his father in Chevron, in truth, the story of Shekhem occurred later.  Yaakov first traveled to Beit-El, in fulfillment of the vow he had declared when he left Canaan some twenty years earlier.  He then proceeded towards Chevron to reunite with his father, and Rachel passed away along the way as she delivered her second son, Binyamin.  Only some time later did he return to the area of Shekhem to permanently settle there, and it was then that Dina was abducted.

 

            At least one Midrashic tradition, which is recorded in a number of sources, appears to lend support to Rabbi Leibtag's contention.  Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel (to 32:25) and Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 37) tell that the angel, who assaulted Yaakov before he crossed the Yabok River, demanded that Yaakov donate one-tenth of his sons to God.  The angel reminded Yaakov of his promise to donate to God one-tenth of everything God gives him during his sojourn in Aram, and, the angel notes, Yaakov had since begotten twelve sons.  Yaakov "tithed" his children by first excluding the four firstborn sons, who were already consecrated by virtue of being firstborns, and then began counting from Shimon, according to age: Shimon, Levi, Yissakhar, Zevulun, Naftali, Asher, Binyamin, and then back to Shimon and Levi.  Levi was thus the "tenth" son, and the tribe of Levi was designated for the service of God.

 

            Oddly enough, these Midrashim include Binyamin among the sons of Yaakov, despite the fact that Binyamin is born only later, along Yaakov's route to Chevron.  Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer mentions that Rachel was pregnant at the time with Binyamin, and he was therefore included with his brothers for the purpose of "tithing" Yaakov's sons.  Of course, if Rachel had already conceived with Binyamin as Yaakov and his family made their way back to Canaan, the birth of Binyamin must have transpired shortly thereafter.  This seems possible only if we accept Rabbi Leibtag's theory, that Yaakov's journey to Chevron, along which Rachel passed away as she delivered Binyamin, took place earlier, before Yaakov's settlement in Shekhem.  (It should be noted that these sources would presumably disagree with the Gemara's comment in Masekhet Megila 17a that Yaakov spent a year and a half in Sukkot before his arrival in Shekhem.  Surprisingly, however, Targum Yonatan on 33:17 comments that Yaakov spent one year in Sukkot, which is very difficult to explain if Rachel had been pregnant with Binyamin beforehand.)

            Furthermore, the Zohar (vol. 1, p.158b) comments that Yaakov fled from Lavan's home when Rachel conceived with Binyamin.  This, too, seemingly compels us to conclude that Binyamin's birth occurred within the first nine months of Yaakov's return to Canaan, which seems difficult to accept if Yaakov first settled in Shekhem before embarking on the journey during which Binyamin was born.

 

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov's Travels: Shechem After Beit El

          Yesterday, we discussed the question as to why Yaakov, upon returning to Canaan, first settles in Shekhem, before proceeding to Beit-El, where he had promised to establish a beit Elokim, and before reuniting with his father in Chevron.  As we saw, Rabbi Menachem Leibtag, in his internet shiurim (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm), suggested that in truth, Yaakov settled in Shekhem only after erecting a monument in Beit-El and visiting his father in Chevron, and the Torah's presentation of the sequence of events does not follow chronological order.

            Among the advantages of this bold theory is that it results in Shimon and Levi being at an older age at the time when they took up arms against the male population of Shekhem.  Let us try calculating how old Shimon and Levi were upon Yaakov's return to Canaan.  Recall from Parashat Vayetze that Yaakov worked a total of twenty years for Lavan before returning to Canaan (31:41), and he married Leah after the first seven years (see 29:20-25).  Thus, even if we should assume that Leah conceived with her oldest son immediately, and bore Shimon and Levi – her second and third children – very soon thereafter, Shimon and Levi could have been no older than eleven or twelve, or so, when Yaakov left Lavan's home thirteen years after his marriage to Leah.  According to Chazal (Megila 17a), Yaakov spent a year and a half in Sukkot (see 33:17) before crossing into Eretz Yisrael, and thus Shimon and Levi were approximately thirteen years of age when Yaakov returned to his homeland.

 

It seems difficult to imagine, Rabbi Leibtag contended, that two boys of this age would be capable of waging the kind of battle in Shekhem that Shimon and Levi waged to avenge their sister's rape.  If, however, we claim that the incident of Shekhem occurred several years later, after Yaakov journeyed to Beit-El and then to Chevron, Shimon and Levi are in their late teens or so at the time of their assault on Shekhem, an age that far better suits such a bold and violent measure.

 

What more, this theory also helps explain Shekhem's attraction to Dina.  Dina was Leah's seventh child (see 30:21), and the Torah records a gap between the births of Leah's fourth and subsequent children (see 29:35).  Thus, Dina could have been born no earlier than the eighth year or so of Leah's marriage to Yaakov, or five years before Yaakov's return to Canaan.  If Yaakov settled in Shekhem just one or two years after leaving Padan Aram, it would be hard to explain Shekhem's lustful desire for Dina, who was all of seven years of age, at most.  Once we explain that Yaakov spent several years in Beit-El and Chevron before settling in Shekhem, Dina becomes a young teenager at the time when she "went to see the daughters of the land" and fatefully caught Shekhem's attention.

 

Of course, this theory must provide some explanation for why the Torah would arrange the events out of chronological sequence.  Rabbi Leibtag suggests a number of possible reasons, the simplest of which being that the Torah sought to combine Yaakov's experiences in Shekhem into a single narrative.  Before the story of Dina's capture by Shekhem, the Torah tells of Yaakov's purchase of a plot of land outside the city, where he also erected an altar to God (33:19).  Rabbi Leibtag suggested that Yaakov made Shekhem his first stop in Canaan to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather, Avraham, who first stopped in Shekhem when he arrived in Canaan and erected an altar at that site (12:6-7).  Yaakov's purchase of a plot of land was likely an investment made in anticipation of his future, permanent settlement in the area.  The Torah perhaps wished, in the interest of clarity, to combine all of Yaakov's Shekhem-related experiences into a single narrative, and therefore presented the story of Dina immediately following the account of Yaakov's purchase of land outside Shekhem.

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov's Travels: Why Shechem Before Beit El?

   Parashat Vayishlach tells of Yaakov's return to Canaan after twenty years in the service of his uncle and father-in-law, Lavan, in the distant region of Padan Aram.  Upon returning to Canaan, Yaakov had two immediate responsibilities: fulfilling the vow he had made during his flight from Canaan, to establish a beit Elokim ("house of God") at Bet-El (see 28:22), and returning to his father, who had settled in Chevron.  We would therefore have expected Yaakov to travel directly to Beit-El, fulfill his vow, and then proceed southward to Chevron to reunite with his father.

            Surprisingly, however, Yaakov first settles outside the city of Shekhem, where he purchases a lot of territory (33:18-19).  The ensuing story, of the rape of Dina and her brothers' destruction of the city, strongly suggests that Yaakov and his family had established a permanent residence in the area.  The governor of Shekhem, Chamor, in requesting Dina's hand in marriage for his son, extends to Yaakov an offer of business and social relations: "You will marry with us: you will give your daughters to us, and you will take our daughters; you will live with us: the land shall be before you – settle and do commerce with it, and take possession of it" (34:9-10).  Chamor was clearly under the impression that Yaakov and his family had settled near Shekhem as a long-term arrangement.  Had Yaakov settled there for only a brief period, as a way station along his trip to Chevron, it seems hardly likely that Chamor would invite him to become business and marriage partners.  And besides, as mentioned, Yaakov purchased a plot of land, which certainly indicates that he planned on settling there permanently.

            The question thus arises, why did Yaakov settle in Shekhem, before going to Beit-El to fulfill his vow and to Chevron to reunite with his father?

            Rabbi Menachem Leibtag (http://tanach.org/breishit/vayish3.htm) suggests resolving this question by boldly postulating that the Torah's narrative in this parasha does not follow chronological sequence.  The events recorded after the Shekhem narrative, namely, God's prophecy to Yaakov at Bet-El, the birth of Binyamin and Rachel's death, and Yaakov's arrival in Chevron, occurred before the story of Shekhem.  In truth, Yaakov, as we would have expected, proceeded directly to Beit-El, where he erected a monument, and thereafter he journeyed to Chevron, during which time Rachel died.  After reuniting with his father, Yaakov settled with his family outside Shekhem, until God instructed Yaakov to move away from Shekhem and erect an altar in Beit-El.  (Essentially, this theory claims that the section of 35:9-29 belongs chronologically before chapter 34.)

            Rabbi Leibtag draws support for his theory from the opening verse of the section that tells of the prophecy at Beit-El and Rachel's death: "God appeared to Yaakov once again, when he arrived from Padan Aram…" (35:9\).  The Torah describes this event as having occurred "when he arrived from Padan Aram," strongly indicating that it took place shortly, if not immediately, after Yaakov's return to Canaan.  

However, according to the sequence of events as they appear in the Torah, Yaakov had already settled outside Shekhem, where his daughter was raped and his sons' ransacked the city, and he had then traveled with his family to Beit-El.  Why would the Torah date this event as occurring "when he arrived from Padan Aram" if Yaakov had already lived for some time in Canaan?  This verse becomes more easily understood once we claim that this incident occurred earlier, immediately upon Yaakov's arrival in Canaan.  Likewise, shortly before his passing, Yaakov recalls Rachel's death and refers to this tragedy as occurring "when I arrived from Padan" (Bereishit 48:7), reinforcing our suspicion that these events transpired earlier than the point at which they appear in the narrative, soon after Yaakov's return to Canaan.

            In the coming days we will be"H discuss this theory further.

Volver al capítulo

The Haftara of Vayishlach: Edom, Thieves and Vintagers

 

            The haftara for Parashat Vayishlach, the book of Ovadya, foretells the eventual downfall of the kingdom of Edom, and lists a number of crimes for which this kingdom was deserving of such a fate.

            Towards the beginning of this prophecy, Ovadya rhetorically asks, "Even if thieves came upon you, nighttime marauders – how were you destroyed?  Wouldn't they steal only what they needed?  And even if vintagers came to you, wouldn't they leave gleanings?" (1:5).  The prophet expresses his astonishment over the complete ruin of what was once a powerful and prosperous empire.  Even when plunderers ransack a city, they don't leave it empty; they take only that for which they could conceivably have some need.  And when vintagers clean a vineyard of its grapes, they leave behind the undesirable produce.  The Edomite kingdom, however, as the prophet foresees, would be left in utter ruin, which nothing remaining.  Ovadya expresses this bewilderment after describing the kingdom's hubris and arrogant sense of security (verse 3).  History would prove that Edom is not only vulnerable, but also headed towards extraordinary devastation.

            Rav Mendel Hirsch, in his commentary to the haftarot, draws an insightful distinction between the two analogies drawn by the prophet in the aforementioned verse – thieves, and vintagers.  The first analogy involves people who have no legal right to the property they seize, who lawlessly and forcefully capture the desired goods.  The harvesters, by contrast, are of course invited into the vineyard, summoned for the very purpose of removing the produce.

  Accordingly, Rav Hirsch suggests, the prophet here speaks of two groups of enemies that would visit destruction upon the Edomite empire.  First, the kingdom would fall prey to the "nighttime marauders," people with no prior association with Edom and thus no justification at all for launching their assault.  Additionally, however, Edom would be overrun by "vintagers," nations that it had "invited" into its kingdom through the wrongs it committed against them.  After many years of enduring the cruelty of Edomite oppression, these peoples are perhaps justified in raiding the kingdom to "harvest" its "produce."  Yet, even they are not justified in seizing the "gleanings," in clearing the country out completely. 

 Even in a justified war, there are basic limits on the extent of damage that may be inflicted upon the enemy.  And so even the "vintagers," those who perhaps have a legitimate right to invade Edom, should know to at least leave behind "gleanings."  However, in retribution for Edom's own ruthless and unrestrained oppression of other peoples, it, too, will one day lose even its "gleanings," and will suffer the same humiliation and destitution that it had visited upon others over the course of its history.

Volver al capítulo

Rav Hirsch on Yaakov's Dread

      Parashat Vayishlach begins by telling of Yaakov's discovery that his brother, Esav, was approaching with an army of four hundred men.  Yaakov's response is characterized by fear and dread, and he instantly divides his family and belongings, offers an impassioned plea to God for assistance, and sends his brother expensive gifts accompanied by a message of submission and appeasement.

 

            Yaakov's apprehension about this anticipated confrontation with his brother seems to contrast sharply with the manner in which he had approached his conflict with his uncle and father-in-law, Lavan.  Towards the end of Parashat Vayetze (31:36-55), we read of Yaakov's harsh exchange with Lavan, who responded by agreeing to a peaceful settlement.  There Yaakov speaks with confidence, conviction and poise, as he forcefully presents his claims and grievances against his wily, conniving father-in-law.  In his message to Esav, by contrast, Yaakov speaks with almost self-deprecating submission, repeatedly referring to himself as Esav's servant and to Esav as his master.

 

            Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in a brief but trenchant passage in his commentary, attributes Yaakov's different approaches to his two nemeses to the different circumstances surrounding these conflicts:

 

And how different is Jacob's attitude to Esau to what it was to Laban.  We can recognize what strength the consciousness of innocence gives, and what an oppressive feeling even an appearance of guilt awakens.  Twenty years endurance of a fight against wrong which you innocently have to bear do not have such a depressing effect as one minute's feeling towards somebody whom we know feels hurt by us, and who may not see the motive which, though it may not justify our action, can at least excuse it.

 

According to Rav Hirsch, Yaakov's forceful, confident words to Lavan were spoken from the unquestionable moral high-ground.  Both he and Lavan knew without doubt that he – Yaakov – was the innocent victim of twenty years of devious schemes and machinations.  In a sense, Rav Hirsch asserts, fighting such a battle is far easier than the conflict Yaakov now confronts after taking leave of Lavan – his conflict with his vengeful brother.  Yaakov knows full well that he bears – in Rav Hirsch's words – at least "an appearance of guilt."

  Even assuming that his "theft" of Esav's blessing was justified in light of Yitzchak's mistaken image of Esav, as is traditionally explained, there is still some legitimate basis for Esav's resentful feelings towards his brother.  Yaakov could not feel the same confidence in his conflict with Esav as he did when confronting Lavan because of the degree of guilt – be it perceived or actual – that he bore with regard to his strained relationship with his brother.  This uneasiness yielded, in Rav Hirsch's words, a "depressing effect" that undermined Yaakov's conviction and resolve, and resulted in the fear and apprehension described towards the beginning of this parasha.

Volver al capítulo

Yaakov's Struggle: Escape or Triumph

  The Torah in Parashat Vayishlach tells the mysterious story of Yaakov's nighttime wrestle with an assailant as he makes his way towards Canaan, where he would reunite with his brother Esav.  By the end of the narrative it becomes clear that Yaakov's assailant is angelic, rather than human, as Yaakov demands from him a blessing and he renames Yaakov "Yisrael," a name-change that is confirmed by God later in the parasha (35:10).

The Rashbam advances a particularly novel and unconventional reading of this incident, claiming that God dispatched the angel in order to prevent Yaakov from escaping from Esav.  According to the Rashbam, Yaakov's nighttime crossing of the Yabok stream, which took place just prior to the assault (32:23), was intended as a secret escape route.  The Rashbam refers us in this context to the verses in Sefer Shemuel II (17:21-24), which tell of King David crossing the Jordan River during the night to escape from the rebel forces led by his son Avshalom.  Nighttime river-crossings thus appear to be associated with escape routes, and the Rashbam claims that here, too, Yaakov attempted to avoid his confrontation with Esav by escaping.  

God, however, who had promised to protect Yaakov and return him safely to Canaan, wanted to ensure that Yaakov would reunite with Esav and emerge safely from this confrontation, which would confirm the truth of the divine promise.  He therefore sent an angel to delay Yaakov until dawn, at which point Yaakov would be no longer able to make an inconspicuous escape.  For this reason, once morning arrived the angel wished to take leave of Yaakov ("shalecheni ki ala ha-shachar" – 32:27); now that Yaakov could no longer escape along a secret route under the protection of the nighttime darkness, the angel's mission has been accomplished.

This approach of the Rashbam seems difficult to accept for a number of reasons, primarily, perhaps, because of its implications with regard to the name "Yisrael."  The angel confers this title upon Yaakov because "sarita im elohim ve-im anashim va-tukhal' – "you have struggled against angels and men and have prevailed" (32:29) – presumably referring to Yaakov's triumph over the angel.  According to the Rashbam's understanding of this episode, however, it is doubtful whether this triumph should be seen in a favorable light.  

As Professor Nechama Leibowitz noted, it emerges according to the Rashbam's approach that Yaakov's "victory over the angel implies that his weakness, his wish to flee from the Lord, his natural physical fears triumphed over his faith and trust."  In the Rashbam's view, Yaakov's confrontation with the angel was necessitated as a result of his unjustified fear of his brother; this is hardly one of the great, heroic moments in Yaakov's life.  It seems very difficult to imagine that the name by which his progeny is forever known – Yisrael – serves to commemorate a moment of spiritual weakness, an event in which Yaakov failed to display the confidence and trust in God's promise that we would expect from our great patriarch.

For this and other reasons, Professor Leibowitz expresses her strong preference for the traditional reading of this verse, as Rashi cites from the Midrash, that Yaakov's assailant was Esav's representative angel, and this incident alludes to the fact that Yaakov and his descendants will always emerge triumphant from their harsh confrontations against the hostile enemies that rise against them.

Volver al capítulo

Why was Beit El not Chosen?

   We read in Parashat Vayishlach that God revealed Himself to Yaakov in Beit-El upon his return from Charan, just as He had spoke to him there as he fled from Canaan (35:9).  The Torah writes that upon concluding this second prophecy, "God ascended from him, at that place where He spoke with him" (35:13).  Rashi comments on this verse, "I do not know what this teaches."  Rashi saw no reason why the Torah would emphasize that God left Yaakov "at that place where He spoke with him."  (See Ramban, Radak and Keli Yakar.)

            Rav Moshe Leib Shachor, in his Avnei Shoham, suggests a possible explanation for this emphasis, claiming that the Torah wished to "downplay" the significance of Beit-El as a site of divine revelation.  The Torah anticipated that this location, where God had twice appeared to Yaakov at critical junctures in his life, to either promise him protection or predict the emergence of dynasties from his progeny, might one day be looked upon as a shine of sorts.  Indeed, when Yerovam ben Nevat led the cessation of the ten northern tribes and established the Kingdom of Israel, he designated Beit-El as one of the new kingdom's religious centers.  

Conceivably, the Avnei Shoham speculates, Yerovam succeeded in drawing attention to Beit-El by pointing to its rich prophetic history, as the site where God had appeared to Yaakov.  The Torah perhaps sought to dispel this misconception of Beit-El as a holy city comparable with Jerusalem, and therefore emphasized that God left Yaakov at that site.  Meaning, once the prophecy concluded, God's presence departed and Beit-El returned to what it had been previously, without obtaining an eternal status as a holy city.

            Why, in fact, did Beit-El not earn a special status, given the prophetic revelations that Yaakov experienced there?

            It might be suggested that Jerusalem, rather than Beit-El, was selected as the permanent "holy site" of Am Yisrael because of the theme of sacrifice which it embodies.  As the Rambam famously writes in Hilkhot Beit Ha-bechira (2:2), the site of the Mikdash in Jerusalem had been designated many centuries earlier as a site for sacrificial offerings. Adam, Kayin, Hevel and Noach all offered sacrifices at this site, and of course it is there where Avraham bound his son Yitzchak upon the altar preparing to offer him as a sacrifice.  And at this site King David offered sacrifices to bring an end to the plague that ravaged the country. 

 Significantly, the site chosen as the eternal "holy place" is the site that represents this theme of sacrifice, of giving of oneself for the Almighty, rather than Beit-El – the place where God promised to bless and protect Yaakov.  We must focus our attention on our responsibilities to God, our obligation to serve Him to the very best of our ability, rather than on that which God promises to do for us.  It is for this reason, perhaps, that tradition has elevated the status of Jerusalem while downplaying that of Beit-El – because our concern must be, first and foremost, how to best serve the Almighty, rather than how the Almighty can best serve us.

Volver al capítulo

Pages

x

Lee el Tanaj cómodamente. ¡Instala nuestra App en tu pantalla de inicio!

📲 Instala nuestra App

Toca el botón de Compartir (el icono de un cuadrado con una flecha hacia arriba) en la barra de Safari, desliza hacia abajo y selecciona 'Agregar a la pantalla de inicio'.