Vayetze Answers

VaYetze 5727

Alef.

1. There isn’t necessarily a contradiction between these commentators. Sephorno claims that these names had been used previously. Eliyahu ben Amozeg states that the fact that the names were Hebrew rather than Aramaic shows how much Yaakov valued the Hebrew language despite his having been away from Canaan for twenty years. The names could have been in Hebrew, and used by ancestors in Canaan in the past.

2.  A proof to Sephorno’s contention that these names had been previously used by earlier generations is his citing of Beraishit 26:34 where one of Eisav’s wives was named Yehudit, a female equivalent of Yehuda.

Beit.

1. R. Yaakov b’r Shlomo ben Chaviv asks about the apparent anachronism in the Talmud where Reuven’s name is explained as Leah’s calling attention to the fact that whereas Eisav hated Yaakov for supplanting him as the Bechor, Reuven did not harbor similar feelings towards Yosef, although the same thing takes place. Since Yosef had not as yet been born, why should Leah have been naming her son in light of something that was not as yet even possible? Consequently, the commentator feels that the reason for Leah’s naming her first son Reuven that appears in the Bible, i.e., HaShem has Seen my affliction, should suffice.

     It could be said as R. Yaakov states in passing that via picking this name, she was prophesying without realizing it. Even if there is a conscious reason for why a name is given by a parent to a child, the origin for the idea could come from without, even implanted by HaShem. An example of such a phenomenon is the naming of Yishmael:

בראשית פרק טז

(יא) וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ מַלְאַךְ יְקֹוָק הִנָּךְ הָרָה וְיֹלַדְתְּ בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ יִשְׁמָעֵאל כִּי שָׁמַע יְקֹוָק אֶל עָנְיֵךְ:

(טו) וַתֵּלֶד הָגָר לְאַבְרָם בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָם שֶׁם בְּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה הָגָר יִשְׁמָעֵאל:

     When the angel originally stated that Hagar’s child would be called Yishmael, Avraham was not present. Yet when the child is born, the text states that it is Avraham that gives Yishmael his name, a name that had been previously established by the Divine.

2.  Iyun Yaakov asks with regard to the Derasha in Berachot 7b, why when demonstrating how Eisav hated Yaakov regarding the latter’s supplanting him for the Bechora, the verse reflecting how Eisav felt about Yaakov is mentioned before the verse in which he notes that Yaakov’s name is appropriate because it suggests how he has taken advantage of Eisav a number of times—“hitching a ride” upon being born, “buying” the Bechora for a bowl of lentils, masquerading at Eisav in order to obtain Eisav’s blessing—although in the Tora the order of these verses is reversed.

     Perhaps the order of verses that were mentioned in the Talmud was reversed because the point of emphasis was how Eisav felt about his sibling, the reason why this was so was of less significance. Furthermore, when comparing Reuven to Eisav, the comparison focuses upon the attitude of the two men to their competitor-sibling, the reasons for why they might have felt resentment were not the same, e.g., Yosef had not done anything to Reuven twice; Yosef’s name did not suggest anything about replacing Reuven.

3.  Anaf Yosef challenges the Gemora’s Derasha with respect to the contention that Eisav hated Yaakov because of  both the taking of the Bechora as well as dishonestly obtaining the blessing. Yet the verse which describes how Eisav feels towards Yaakov is only about the blessing.

     One could say that since both Rivka and Yaakov were under the impression that Yitzchak’s intention to give Eisav a blessing before he died was due to his viewing Eisav as the first-born, the two were intrinsically connected. (However the fact that Yitzchak gives Yaakov yet another blessing before he leaves for Padan Aram (Beraishit 28:1-4) demonstrates that even if Yitzchak thought that Eisav was the Bechor and had a particular blessing in mind for him, the special blessing that originated with Avraham was never meant for Eisav, whether he was technically the Bechor or not.

Gimel.

1. The question that the commentators are addressing is why now that Leah has given birth to a third child does she expect Yaakov to be any more attentive to her than he was previously?

2.  RaShI: Assuming that Yaakov was aware of the total number of women with whom he would have children as well as the number of tribes he would found, Leah’s having a third son entitles her to be finally considered a full-fledged contributor to the formation of the Jewish people.

     Mincha Belula: Practically speaking, Yaakov will not have to literally “give me a hand” to take care of the three children that I have bore to him, since I cannot manage alone.

     Sephorno: Having a third child establishes my status as a fertile woman who can conceive children.

Daled.

Beraishit 30:20

And Leah said: 'God hath endowed me with a good dowry; now will my husband dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons.' And she called his name Zebulun.

1.  HaRechasim LaBika is bothered by the superfluity of the root זבד, i.e., if the verb form זבדני is used at the beginning of the verse, why does זבד have to be used yet again?

     One could respond that the verb זבדני simply suggests that one has been given something, but no value judgment is being offered regarding the nature of that which one has been endowed. זבד טובmakes clear the desirability and appreciation of the recipient for what has been given.

2.  The three questions that RaShI might be answering via his comment are:

   a. With which one of his wives had Yaakov been living most of the time until this point? (By Leah stating that from this point going forward, she expects Yaakov to be with her, this suggests that until this time he has not been. And therefore we understand how irksome it was for Leah and her children that upon Rachel’s death, Yaakov moves in with Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaiden, rather than Leah.)

b. Why at this particular point in time does Leah expect Yaakov to move in permanently with her rather than with Rachel or one of the handmaidens? (By serving as the mother of the majority of Yaakov’s sons, Leah thinks that she has earned the right to be considered the primary wife.)

c. By Leah being part of the general encampment, it could be said that Yaakov does dwell with her. Obviously, however, this was not satisfactory to Leah, who felt that it was publicly humiliating for her when Yaakov chooses to make his main residence in Rachel’s tent. Leah was not satisfied with having the majority of Yaakov’s children; she also wanted the majority of Yaakov’s attention and physical presence.

Heh.

1.א. The problem is the apparent inconsistency in Targum Onkelos concerning how he translates the verb ראה with respect to HaShem. If it were a problem of avoiding anthropomorphism as much as possible, then it should always be translated in a non-literal manner.

         RaMBaM: Since “seeing” in TaNaCh connotes not only sensory perception, but also intellectual contemplation, the word should never be considered a form of anthropomorphism vis-à-vis HaShem. Consequently, RaMBaM wonders why Onkelos did not simply translate the term simply in every case that it is associated with HaShem. (An answer is given in the Alon HaDeracha, to the effect that whenever the “seeing” is associated with something untoward or sinful, then a more indirect language is used with respect to HaShem.)

        יא"ר: If a human being can actually “see” something, then “seeing” will also be attributed to HaShem. It is only when human beings are incapable of “seeing” what is being discussed, e.g., some internal thought or feeling, that a language of “revealed before HaShem” will appear in Onkelos.

         ShaDaL: In addition to mentioning the position articulated by יא"ר, ShaDaL also mentions the possibility that if the anthropomorphism would bring discredit to HaShem, then Onkelos will diverge from a literal translation, which would not be the case if the anthropomorphism brings credit to HaShem.

ב. The usage of “seeing” in 29:31 is an internal thing. Hatred is an emotion that resides within a person, albeit there could be manifestations in outward actions. But such actions are sometimes ambiguous and cannot be always relied upon to conclude that a certain emotion is extent. The usage of “seeing” in 29:32 appears to relate to actual acts of affliction, something that is not only readily apparent to the human eye, but also something regrettable and negative. Consequently with respect to HaShem, a more indirect language is utilized.

2.  In 29:35 and 30:20, the connotation of the term הפעם is “this time” as opposed to previous times. Leading to the Targum הדא זמנא.

         In Shemot 9:27, when Pharoah says, “I have sinned this time”, it is not the first time that he has sinned, since he has refused to let the Jews leave Egypt previously. Consequently there could not be the stark contrast between this time and previous times that are implied by 29:35 and 30:20.

  In 9:17, Pharoah is requesting that his sin be forgiven this time, once again, the sins for which he should be forgiven have begun a good time before, with his refusal of Moshe’s first and subsequent requests that the Jews be freed.

  In Shemot 18:32, Avraham has been bargaining with HaShem regarding the fate of the inhabitants of Sodom and Amora for a while, and therefore this is not the first time that he is making a request.