Vayetze answers

 VaYetze 5725

Alef.

Beraishit 31:39

(לט) טְרֵפָה לֹא הֵבֵאתִי אֵלֶיךָ אָנֹכִי אֲחַטֶּנָּה מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנָּה גְּנֻבְתִי יוֹם וּגְנֻבְתִי לָיְלָה:

That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bore the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day or stolen by night.

1.  The difficulties in the verse are:

a) If Yaakov made good on lost animals to Lavan, during his first fourteen years of working in order to be allowed to marry Leah and Rachel, what resources did he have to be able to make financial restitution?

b) The term גנבתי seems to somehow attribute the thievery to Yaakov himself. How could this be?

2.  ShaDaL suggests that the passive form of גנבתי, particularly in light of its being written חסר in the sense that instead of using a  Shuruk (וּ), a Kubutz (ֻ) is placed under the Nun, was a change made under the rubric of Tikkun Sofrim so that it not appear to suggest in any way that Yaakov was the perpetrator of the thefts.

3.  The dispute between RaShI and Ben Amozeg is the nature of the “י” at the end of the words “גנבתי”. RaShI says that the “י” is simply superfluous and has not grammatical meaning. Ben Amozeg claims that a victim of a theft can also refer to what was taken as “גנבתי”, i.e., “that which was taken from me”.

4.  “One would have to describe his (ShaDa”L’s) commentary as a forced interpretation.

The proof from Shemot 22:2 demonstrates that  the stolen goods that a thief steals are attributed to him since he was the one who caused that status to be given to them. So too the victim of a theft who had been placed in charge of that which is taken, can have that which is stolen attributed to him, since although he was not the one who actively took the objects, it was his responsibility to prevent their being misappropriated. The responsibility that he bears for what has taken place links him with the stolen property.

(א) אִם בַּמַּחְתֶּרֶת יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְהֻכָּה וָמֵת אֵין לוֹ דָּמִים:

(ב) אִם זָרְחָה הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ עָלָיו דָּמִים לוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם אִם אֵין לוֹ וְנִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ:

Beit.

1. Beraishit Rabba: The shepherd, in this case Yaakov, stole the food that was set aside and therefore due the lions by chasing the lions away from the herd.

Midrash HaChefetz: My need to stay vigilant day and night resulted in my sleep being “stolen” from me.

2. Since the beginning of the verse is referring to “Terifa”, this is a reference to predators attacking prey, terminology that applies to lions, rather than people. (One could say that when one person attacks another individual’s person or property, it is also a case of predator and prey, in the case of animals it is an instinctual relationship whereas between thinking and morally aware human beings, the relationship is willful and not intrinsic, therefore not inherently necessary.)

Gimel.

1. From the typical translation of the verse, “This heap be witness, and the pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm,” it would appear that the marker is a boundary that the two ought not to cross, in the sense of a non-aggression pact that neither one would attack the other by going beyond the marker.
2. Abrabanel adopts a non-traditional approach to the verse because of the negative of the verbs, i.e., “that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap”. In effect the marker is not a boundary, but rather a testimony that should inspire guilt and shame if one of the parties of the agreement fails to hold up his end of the bargain. Abrabanel therefore reads the verse:  “This heap be witness, and the pillar be witness, that IF I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that IF thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm.”
3. Kohelet 5:12 “There is a grievous evil which I have seen under the sun, namely, riches kept by the owner thereof to his hurt.” The simple meaning is that sometimes, when one hoards wealth, it “comes back to bite him” and he would have been better off in spending it and/or giving it away. Abrabanel sees the term “LeRa’ah” as not that the wealth will be harmful, but rather that it is meant to be used when a person finds himself in difficulty. So too in the case of the pact between Yaakov and Lavan, it’s not that attacking one another is bad, but rather not coming to one another’s assistance when it is needed in a terrible time (like the wealth that is needed for terrible times)  that it is bad.

Daled.

31:46 And Jacob said unto his brethren: 'Gather stones'; and they took stones, and made a heap. And they did eat there by the heap.

Ibid. 52 This heap be witness, and the pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar unto me, for harm.

47: 1-3 Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said: 'My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.' And from among his brethren he took five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh. And Pharaoh said unto his brethren: 'What is your occupation?' And they said unto Pharaoh: 'Thy servants are shepherds, both we, and our fathers.'

1. RaMBaN is concerned that Yaakov would not have treated his father-in-law disrespectfully by asking him to gather stones for the pile that would mark their agreement. RaMBaN’s proof from 47:3 would emphasize that although Yosef was present as well, Pharoah directed his inquiry only to the newly arrived brothers, because to ask Yosef what his former profession was would not have been respectful to him.
2. ShaDaL is concerned about the use of both “heap” and “pillar” in the same verse. His creative interpretation maintains that because the participants in the pact come from different cultures and religious traditions, a marker that would be in keeping with each group was created, a “Gal” for the Arameans, and a “Matzeva” for the proto-Jews.

Heh.

Beraishit 31:30 And now that thou art surely gone, because thou sore longest after thy father's house, wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?'

Ibid. 32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, he shall not live; before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee.'--For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.—

Shemot 32:1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him: 'Up, make us a god who shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him.'

Ibid. 20:19 Ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver, or gods of gold, ye shall not make unto you.

----------------------------------------------

Beraishit 35:2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him: 'Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments;

Devarim 12:30 take heed to thyself that thou be not ensnared to follow them, after that they are destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying: 'How used these nations to serve their gods? even so will I do likewise.'

In the two latter cases, the text itself is disparaging these other gods in an objective manner—they are inappropriate for you and you should have nothing to do with them. In the first cases, when Yaakov is speaking with Lavan, he does not wish to insult him—according to ShaDaL in part 4, Yaakov even creates a marker that relates to Lavan’s beliefs even when they are not shared by Yaakov himself! As for the people desiring some sort of object that would represent an object of belief, they saw it as something to revere, even if from the religious point of view it would not be so. And as for the final source, the people would only be tempted to make objects for deification only if they believed in them. They wouldn’t simply make forms that others believed in but they themselves did not.