Parshat Vayishlach Answers

VaYishlach 5722
Alef.

1.  In 32:7, Yaakov is described as dividing his encampment, including “the people who were with him,” and the sheep and the cattle and camels. Yet in 33:1-2 we are told how he divided up his wives and children. This latter verse clarifies the phrase in 32:7 that the immediate family was not necessarily included in the original division of the camp. 32:22 would also seem to support such a position since he crosses his entire family over the wadi, not individual groupings of his wives and children.

2.  Either a) 33:1-2 is to be understood as the past perfect, i.e., Yaakov had already divided up his wives and  children, or b) he initially divided everyone, including his immediate family, but then reunited everyone so that they would face the menace of Eisav together, once he had been given assurance by means of the vision of the struggle with the “man” that he would prove victorious. Yet 33:1-2 suggests that he loses some of his nerve and again divides his family up.

3.  32:8  “Divided”; 33:1 “Divided once again.”

4. The problem that MaLBIM deals with appears to be the same as what R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM was discussing.

5.  Whereas R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM felt that Yaakov was reassured by the vision involving the “man” struggling with him, MaLBIM understands that while the vision may have been a foreshadowing of Yaakov’s emerging victorious, the injury to his thigh, the area associated with conceiving children, might have suggested that some of his children will be harmed during the confrontation. Consequently, Yaakov reorganized his encampment in order to anticipate such a development.

Beit.

RaDaK: Perhaps Eisav’s anger will flag once he takes it out on some people, allowing those in the rear to survive.

Ibn Ezra: Those at the rear will be in the best position to flee should Eisav begin to murder the individuals with whom he will first contact.

R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM: It would be improper to suggest that Yaakov would be sanguine if any of his children would be killed. Consequently, it was merely a matter of honor and status, that the family members would be arranged in ascending order towards the back.

Gimel.

1.  The word “Achronim” is used twice, not only for the literally last group (Rachel and Yosef) but also for the next-to-last group (Leah and her children) which brings into question the first of these words. If “Achronim” is literally the last, then how can those who are the middle group be referred to in the same way?

2.  See Alon HaDeracha regarding the third question, where R. Azarya min HaAdumim is being quoted.

3.  תוספות יום טוב מסכת דמאי פרק ז משנה ג

...וזכיתי אני להביא עד שני ועל פי שניהם יקום דבר דכתיב בפרשת שמות "ושמעו לקול האות האחרון" וחוזר ונותן עוד אות שלישי...

In Shemot 4:8, during HaShem’s Demonstrating to Moshe the signs that he is to use to convince first the Jews and then Pharoah that he in fact was HaShem’s Messenger to take the Jews out of Egypt, the second of the signs (hand affected by Tzora’at) is referred to as “HaAcharon” even though another sign was Shown subsequently, i.e., water turning into blood.

Daled.

1.   Midrash HaGadol approved of Yaakov’s behavior and therefore understands that Yaakov’s offspring are rewarded with all sorts of benefits.

      Aggadat Esther criticizes Yaakov and contrasts his behavior vis-à-vis Eisav with that of Mordechai with Haman.

2.   בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשת וישלח פרשה עח סימן ח

"וישתחו ארצה שבע פעמים", למה שבע? על שם (משלי כד) "כי שבע יפול צדיק וקם".

      The standard explanation is that HaShem will not Allow the Tzaddik to fall more than seven times. Beraishit Rabba assumes that had Yaakov not bowed down (“fallen”) then he would have been judged according to the Attribute of Justice, not a pleasant prospect, and it was only because he bowed down was the Attribute of Justice transformed into the Attribute of Mercy, thereby not viewing the bowing down as a weakness or failure, but rather a positive spiritual quality.

Heh.

   While Eisav is recorded previously as having cried when he realized that Yaakov had taken his blessing (27:38), Yaakov is not described as crying. Even when he is reunited with his long-lost son Yosef (46:29) only one of the participants in that first meeting cried, and from the syntax of the verse, the clearly defined subject is Yosef rather than Yaakov, who, according to the Rabbinic tradition recorded by RaShI, was reciting the Shema. Consequently, if we have no source for Yaakov being a cry-er, it is surprising that he also cries upon meeting Eisav, and therefore Emek Davar feels compelled to provide a rationale for his crying at this point.

Vav.

1.  In 33:5, the first half of the verse describes Eisav seeing Yaakov’s wives and children, yet when he asks about their identity, Yaakov mentions only his children and not his wives.

2.  From the examples of the Avot and Emahot that preceded Yaakov and Eisav, it would appear that no one had more than two wives—Avraham married Sara and Hagar; Yitzchak married Rikva. Consequently, even if Eisav marries more than two—and he could contend that he married the third woman only because he discovered that his first two wives were not pleasing to Yitzchak and Rivka—what brought Yaakov to marry four? (Yaakov could also explain that his initial intention was only to marry Rachel, and possibly her hand maiden, with his marrying Leah and her handmaiden occurring only due to Lavan’s perfidy.)

Zayin.

   In verse 10, the gift that Yaakov wanted Eisav to accept was referred to as “Minchati,” leading one to conclude that “Birchati” in v. 11 is referring to something else.

   Furthermore, it is also possible that Yaakov felt that he had already received Divine Blessings, “Yesh Li Kol,” a fulfillment not so much of the first blessing that he received from Yitzchak that was meant for Eisav, but rather as a result of the second blessing given to him by Yitzchak prior to Yaakov’s leaving for Padan Aram (28:3,4), a blessing confirmed by God during his dream regarding the Ladder (28:13-5), and ratified by Him in 31:3. Consequently Yaakov might have felt that he literally did not “need” the blessing that he had obtained via deceit and could “restore” it to its rightful owner.