Vayishlach Answers

VaYishlach 5727

Alef.

      Preparations for meeting with Eisav.

Beraishit 32

a. Reconnaissance; offer of tribute (bribe?)   4-6

b. Informed that Eisav is advancing with an armed force. 7

c. Divides his entourage and possessions into two groups in preparation for a murderous attack. 8-9

d. Prayer. 10-13

e. Sends a series of tributes to Eisav in the hope that Eisav will stand down from any violent intentions. 14-22

f. Transfers encampment to other side of the Ford of the Yabbok (probably for strategic purposes). 23-4

g. Requests blessing from mysterious assailant. 25-33

Beraishit 33

h. Divides up his family members even further. 1-2

i. Bows in an obsequious manner. 3

j. Insistence that Eisav take the tribute. 10-12

k. Declines to be accompanied/protected by Eisav. 13

l. Promises to come to Eisav’s base in Se’ir, (but never does.) 14

m. Declines offer of Eisav leaving men for protection. 15 

Preparations for meeting with Tzofnat Pa’aneach:

Beraishit 43

a. Take tribute to Egypt. 11

b. Take double the money, to cover not only new food but also to repay that which was found in their sacks upon their return from Egypt. 12

c. Take Binyamin as Tzofnat Pa’aneach requested. 13

d. Prayer. 14 

Both lists include sending gifts and prayer. While in Tzofnat Pa’aneach’s case there is only an implied threat of physical harm—the initial incarceration of all of the brothers followed by the retention of Shimon as hostage, concerning Eisav, in light of his threat many years before to kill Yaakov, there is real concern of a vengeance-driven massacre, resulting in trying to minimize the effects of such an attack.  

Beit.

1. א. The difficulty with the verse is why Lavan should be interested in how Yaakov has spent the years during which the brothers have been separated.

     ב.  The Peshat deals with Yaakov’s social status during this time. The Derash is a comment on his religious and moral status.

      ג.  One could answer Maskil LeDavid’s question by positing that Yaakov interprets Yitzchak’s blessing to him as referring to personal social status. Eisav is clearly has been a general, leader of men, whereas Yaakov has been a sojourner in a foreign land, a status that is inferior to that of his brother. Consequently, no advantage had been conferred upon him despite his obtaining the blessing meant for Eisav.

      ד. The answer to Imrei Shefer is found in the RaShI on 27:40:

רש"י בראשית פרק כז פסוק מ

והיה כאשר תריד - לשון צער, כמו (תהלים נה ג) אריד בשיחי, כלומר כשיעברו ישראל את התורה, ויהיה לך פתחון פה להצטער על הברכות שנטל, ופרקת עלו וגו':

The Midrash suggests that Yaakov had maintained the moral and spiritual standards that entitled him to a superior status over Eisav.

2.   In the two examples offered by R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, once the relationship has been established by the first word, i.e., “my master”, “your servant”, there is nothing additional being added by the mention of the name. Yaakov is assuming a subservient role to Eisav, and that is all that matters in this situation. This is in contrast to the first examples that appear in the question, e.g., “your brother, Eisav”, where the name has a particular connotation that is the opposite, i.e., an evil-doer, of what “brotherhood” usually connotes.

3.   א. RaShI may be wondering why Yaakov is so insecure in light of the promises that HaShem Makes at the beginning of Parashat Vayetze (28:15): And, behold, I am with thee, and will Keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will Bring thee back into this land; for I will not Leave thee, until I have Done that which I have Spoken to thee of.

       ב.  RaShI understands the “מ” as a contraction of “משום”, i.e., because of, due to.

       ג.   The alternate RashI that Nechana cites:

רש"י בראשית פרק טו פסוק א

(א) אחר הדברים האלה - כל מקום שנאמר אחר סמוך, אחרי מופלג. אחר שנעשה לו נס זה שהרג את המלכים והיה דואג ואומר שמא קבלתי שכר על כל צדקותי, לכך אמר לו המקום אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך מן העונש שלא תענש על כל אותן נפשות שהרגת, ומה שאתה דואג על קבול שכרך, שכרך הרבה מאד:

The similarity in both sources presumes that when things go particularly well, merits that possibly might be needed at some future point have now been exhausted, rendering the individual particularly vulnerable to new dangers lying ahead.

ד.  The reference in Yirmiyahu 18 is the following:

(verses 9-10) And at one instant I may Speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to Build and to Plant it; but if it do evil in My Sight, that it hearken not to My Voice, then I Repent of the good, wherewith I Said I would Benefit it. 

It would appear that this is the biblical paradigm of “שמא יגרום החטא”.

Gimel.

1. RaShI: Peshat—Yaakov associated the Name of HaShem with the altar (as opposed to directly naming the altar) in order to remember the miracle that was performed on his behalf.

Derash: HaShem Referred to Yaakov as “Keil”. (Becomes a type of “mutual admiration society”, i.e., the same term with which Yaakov refers to God, God Uses in terms of referring to Yaakov. This is parallel to the concept in Berachot 6a whereby not only do the Jewish people wear Tefillin within which are Parashiot that praise HaShem, HaShem Wears Tefillin within which are inscribed praises of the Jewish people.)

     RaShBaM: The altar was directly named with a reference to God, just as people are given names in which God’s Name is contained, e.g., Eliezer, Imanel.

Ibn Ezra: The altar was directly named with a reference to God, in recognition of the Divine Help that Yaakov received.

2.  The Aggadeta in Megilla 18a, that RaShI quotes as a second interpretation, understands the verse as connoting that HaShem Called Yaakov by the term “Keil”.

3.  Tosafot at first presents the alternative “Peshat” interpretation, i.e., Yaakov called the altar by HaShem’s Name as did Moshe and Gidon. He explains that the Talmud did not follow such a course since in the case in Beraishit 33, there is no clear-cut miracle or conceptual pursuit of peace that would readily explain why Yaakov should refer to the altar in this manner.

תורה תמימה הערות בראשית פרק לג הערה יז

יז) מפרש קל מלשון תוקף וחיזוק, וכמו אילי הארץ (יחזקאל י"ז), וע' יבמות כ"א א', וכן מפרש הלשון ויקרא לו קל אלקי ישראל, כמו ויקרא לו אלקי ישראל - קל, והיינו שקרא אלקותו עליו והשרה עליו שכינתו, ועיין בנמוקי רמב"ן. אך אינו מבואר בכלל מה קשה לו ויקרא לו יעקב מבעי ליה, הא כמו כן כתובים כל הפעלים שבפסוק זה בלא שם הכנוי יעקב, ויחן, ויקן, ויצב, וכולם מוסבים על השם יעקב שבתחלת הפסוק, וא"כ גם בפעל ויקרא כן הוא, ובאמת כן דרוש להיות ע"פ חקי הלשון, והרבה מאד לשונות כאלה במקרא, וכמו בפ' תולדות, ויאכל וישת ויקם וילך ויבז עשו, מוסבים כל הפעלים אל שם עשו. ולכן נראה דקצור לשון בגמרא כאן, והכונה כמו שהיה אומר, דאי ס"ד למזבח קרא יעקב קל, א"כ ויקרא לו קל אלקי יעקב מבעי ליה. והבאור הוא, דלא הו"ל ליעקב לקרוא עצמו בשם ישראל [אלקי ישראל], שהרי עדיין לא נצטוה מהקב"ה על שנוי השם יעקב לישראל, ונצטוה על זה לאחר מעשה זו, כמבואר לקמן בפרשה (ל"ה י'), ומה שאמר לו המלאך למעלה לא יקרא עוד שמך יעקב וכו', לא הייה זה צווי רק הודעה לצווי הבא, שכן יהיה, ומדקרא קל אלקי ישראל מוכח דהפירוש הוא שהקב"ה קראו ליעקב קל, ושיעור הפסוק ויקרא לו [ליעקב], קל, ומי קראו - אלקי ישראל. ולא קשה איך קראו הפסוק כאן להקב"ה בשם אלקי ישראל אחרי דעדיין לא נקרא יעקב כן, יען דהכתוב כתב ע"ש העתיד, וכמו על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל את גיד הנשה. ועיין במ"ר דרשה אחרת בפסוק זה, ונבארה אי"ה בר"פ תבא בפסוק הגדתי היום לה' אלקיך, יעו"ש:

4. RaMBaN and Heidenheim understand Onkelos’ interpretation of the prepositional pronoun “לו” as connoting either “בו” or “עליו”, whereby rather than calling the altar a name, the altar was a prop by/through which to address HaShem.

5.  The Ta’amim do not indicate that the phrase “קל אלקי ישראל” is a continuation of "ויקרא לו", but rather a phrase that describes the content of the “call” of"ויקרא".

כ וַיַּצֶּב־שָׁ֖ם מִזְבֵּ֑חַ וַיִּ֨קְרָא־ל֔וֹ אֵ֖-ל אֱלֹהֵ֥-י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

   From the Ta’amim in the following verses wherein Leah names her children, one sees that the Trop clearly indicates that the names are continuations of the verb “to call”:

לב וַתַּ֤הַר לֵאָה֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֔ן וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ רְאוּבֵ֑ן כִּ֣י אָֽמְרָ֗ה כִּֽי־רָאָ֤ה ה' בְּעָנְיִ֔י כִּ֥י עַתָּ֖ה יֶֽאֱהָבַ֥נִי אִישִֽׁי׃ לג וַתַּ֣הַר עוֹד֮ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּן֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר כִּֽי־שָׁמַ֤ע ה' כִּֽי־שְׂנוּאָ֣ה אָנֹ֔כִי וַיִּתֶּן־לִ֖י גַּם־אֶת־זֶ֑ה וַתִּקְרָ֥א שְׁמ֖וֹ שִׁמְעֽוֹן׃ לד וַתַּ֣הַר עוֹד֮ וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּן֒ וַתֹּ֗אמֶר עַתָּ֤ה הַפַּ֨עַם֙ יִלָּוֶ֤ה אִישִׁי֙ אֵלַ֔י כִּֽי־יָלַ֥דְתִּי ל֖וֹ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה בָנִ֑ים עַל־כֵּ֥ן קָרָֽא־שְׁמ֖וֹ לֵוִֽי׃ לה וַתַּ֨הַר ע֜וֹד וַתֵּ֣לֶד בֵּ֗ן וַתֹּ֨אמֶר֙ הַפַּ֨עַם֙ אוֹדֶ֣ה אֶת־ה' עַל־כֵּ֛ן קָֽרְאָ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ יְהוּדָ֑ה וַֽתַּעֲמֹ֖ד מִלֶּֽדֶת׃

6.  R. Saadia Gaon is quoted by Ibn Ezra as interpreting the verse in question that “Elokei Yisrael” was called “Keil” by Yaakov.

ירמיהו פרק כג פסוק ו

בְּיָמָיו תִּוָּשַׁע יְהוּדָה, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח, וְזֶה שְּׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִקְרְאוֹ יְקֹוָק צִדְקֵנוּ: ס

   The Gaon would similarly interpret this verse in Yirmiyahu that the Navi called HaShem by the Name “Tzidkeinu.”

   Ibn Ezra would invoke the Ta’amim as negating such an interpretation since the term “Keil” is separated by the Trop from “VaYikra Lo”.

7. If “Elokei Yisrael”  is a more specific term than “Keil”, then why isn’t the name of the altar simply “Elokei Yisrael”? Ibn Ezra answers that the addition of “Keil” serves as a descriptive term, in this case that “Elokei Yisrael” is strong and mighty since that is the connotation of “Keil”.