Answers to Vezot Habracha

VeZot HaBeracha  5728

Alef.

1.   Even though the verse begins" "ולזבולן, when the object shifts to his brother, the text states, "ויששכר", without repeating the preposition “ל”, suggesting that when you speak about one, you are speaking about the other as well, as a result of some sort of partnership between them.

2.    The classical interpretation of the relationship between Yisachar and Zevulun, as reflected for example in RaShI’s commentary, is that whereas Zvulun engaged in business in order to accumulate capital, Yisachar dedicated himself to the study of Tora. Then each would benefit from the other, i.e., by Zevulun’s supporting his brother, he would indirectly get credit for studying Tora, and Yisachar, by exempting Zevulun from spending significant time in Tora study, was enabling him and getting indirect credit for being engaged with the general world.

   Abrabanel understands the Moshe’s blessings to the two brothers as  reminding and hoping them that even though each will be engaged in a very different activity, they should not be guilty of thinking that “the grass is greener on the other side” but rather should each be deeply satisfied with his own individual lot in life.

Beit.

1.    When Yaakov was blessing his sons, everything was in the future, and the actual tendencies of not only the individual, but also his offspring, were not at all as yet in evidence. However, by the time of Moshe’s blessings to the tribes that had descended from each of their original ancestors, patterns of behavior were clear, retroactively lending credence to Yaakov’s prophetic pronouncements at the end of Beraishit.

2.    In Beraishit, both Zevulun and Yisachar are given separate verses. Furthermore, Yisachar has two verses in contrast to Zevulun’s single verse. If anything, one could say that they are not to be compared at all, or if they are to be compared, then Yisachar to whom is devoted two verses, is more significant than his brother. However, in Devarim, both are in the same verse, and the birth order is reversed, i.e., Yisachar is listed before Zevulun (see Parashat VaYetze), leading to the conclusion that Zevulun is being preferred.

3.    In the original comment, RaShI simply describes the relationship between the two brothers, but he does not account for the word “Semach” which is the essence of the blessing. Consequently, RaShI adds two more comments explaining how the “Semach” will be translated into actuality, i.e., that not only will there be a symbiotic relationship between the two tribes, but that each of them respectively will rejoice, since they will be successful  in their particular pursuits, one in the business world, the other in the world of Tora.

Gimel.

1.    “Amim”:  Siphre: the nations of the world

               Megilla 6a: the tribes of Israel.

2.    “Har”: Siphre: Har HaBayit, Yerushalayim

               Megilla 6a: the mountains where Zevulun and Yisachar live.

3.    RaShI interprets Zevulun’s complaint not so much the type of land that he was allotted, but rather the “Mazal” (fate, planet, ???) that he was given to supervise what will happen to his tribe.

4.    In order to answer the two questions posed by the Mizrachi, i.e., why would Yisachar call the rest of the Jewish people to Har HaBayit; why should Har HaBayit be mentioned within the context of the blessings of Yisachar and Zevulun, one can call upon I Divrei HaYamim 12:33. The Biblical reference describes Yisachar as serving as the resource of “knowing times”, i.e., they will determine when Rosh Chodesh takes place, and in turn the various Yamim Tovim. If Yisachar will be determining the Jewish calendar, which will include when everyone will have to go on the pilgrimage festivals to Yerushalayim, they will be calling the rest of the Jews to respond.

5.    Even though the juxtaposition between the end of v. 18 (Yisachar in their tents) and the beginning of v. 19 (they shall call the people to the mountain) suggests the particular contribution of Yisachar re the Jewish calendar, when the end of v. 19 is taken into consideration (such the abundance of the seas, the treasures hidden in the sand) it would appear to relate to the types of commerce in which Zevulun will engage.

6.    The literal context of Shoftim 5:18 is that Devora is praising the tribes of Yisachar and Zevulun for having volunteered to participate in the Canaanite wars that ultimately proved victorious for the Jewish side, despite the unwillingness of a number of other tribes to similarly do so. The Gemora interprets the verse that the Y. and Z. were sorely irked regarding the quality and location of the land which was apportioned to them in comparison to what other tribes received.

7.    Even if RaShI posits that we are talking about Y. and Z. when the text states “they will suck the abundance of the seas”, (in contrast to the Gemora, which implies that it is the other nations  who will do so by first coming to Y. and Z. to purchase the sea creatures and glass that they have to offer, and then proceeding to Yerushalayim where they eventually convert), nevertheless, what is the nature of that “Shefa” (abundance)? Either Y. and Z. are being described as benefiting spiritually since they will not have to engage in all-consuming agriculture, but rather as middlemen in selling animals and glass, thereby allowing them more time for spiritual pursuits, or simply that the trade in Chilazon, Tunina and white glass will prove so lucrative that they will become materially wealthy, without stating what they will do with that wealth. The practical difference between these two interpretations is the degree to which we assume that not only Y. but also Z. engaged in Tora study. According to the first interpretation, they did so on a level comparable to that of Y.; according to the second both tribes made money, but perhaps only Y. utilized their wealth to finance a life of Tora study.

8.    The Gemora attributes to Y. and Z. the fear that their fellow Jewish tribesmen might attempt to cheat them by taking their natural resources without compensating them. Perhaps RaShI felt that such an instance of “Chosheid B’Kesheirim” was unflattering to Y. and Z. and therefore sought out alternative interpretations.

Daled.

1.    Ibn Ezra cites Daniel to illustrate the use of two words consecutively that mean the same thing. “Admat Afar” in his view parallels “U’Sefunai Temunai”.

2.    If Ibn Ezra was making the point that the “Sin” of “Sefunai” should be understood as equivalent to a “Tzadi”, then the additional proof text that he brings from Daniel, should also illustrate such a phenomenon.

3.    If both Y. and Z. became wealthy, why is only Z. described as burying and thereby protecting their wealth as opposed to Y. about whom no such action is stated?