Parshat Vayeishev

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/72.html

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. 

Slight change in plans for VaYishlach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/292.html

Parshat Vayishlach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/155.html

Answer to Vayetze

VaYetze 5731
Alef.

1. א. In 28:7, the Tora states that Yaakov went to Padan Aram. But in 28:10 we are told that he is now just leaving Be’er Sheva. RaShI states that the reason why the Tora has to flashback at this point is because the story of Yaakov had been interrupted by the account of Eisav marrying additional wives. Once this tangent was completed, the story of Yaakov is resumed and even though 28:7 suggests that he already had reached his destination, 28:10 ff. is filling in details of an event that took place while he was on his journey prior to arriving at his destination.

ב.

רש"י בראשית פרק לט פסוק א

(א) ויוסף הורד - חוזר לענין ראשון, אלא שהפסיק בו כדי לסמוך ירידתו של יהודה למכירתו של יוסף לומר לך שבשבילו הורידוהו מגדולתו. ועוד, כדי לסמוך מעשה אשתו של פוטיפר למעשה תמר, לומר לך מה זו לשם שמים אף זו לשם שמים, שראתה באצטרולוגין שלה שעתידה להעמיד בנים ממנו ואינה יודעת אם ממנה אם מבתה:

רש"י שמות פרק ו פסוק כט

(כט) וידבר ה' - הוא הדבור עצמו האמור למעלה (פסוק יא) בא דבר אל פרעה מלך מצרים, אלא מתוך שהפסיק הענין כדי ליחסם, חזר הענין עליו להתחיל בו:

רש"י שמות פרק ו פסוק ל

(ל) ויאמר משה לפני ה' - היא האמירה שאמר למעלה (פסוק יב) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי, ושנה הכתוב כאן כיון שהפסיק הענין, וכך היא השיטה כאדם האומר נחזור על הראשונות:

רש"י שמואל א פרק לא פסוק א

(א) ופלשתים נלחמים בישראל - כאדם האומר נחזור לענין ראשון:

Each time a story line in interrupted, when it is resumed, there is overlap with the previous story to reposition the reader so that he can pick up the theme that had been begun previously.

ג. Since in 28:1, Yitzchak had specifically said to Yaakov that he didn’t want his son to marry someone from the Canaanites, when Eisav became aware of this, he determined to do something about it, i.e., go to Yishmael to marry one of his daughters. RaShI is citing why the story of Yaakov is interrupted, i.e., because of an element in this story, Eisav responded in his own way to his father’s pronouncement. This suggests that although the Tora had earlier stated (26:35) that Yitzchak and Rivka were unhappy with Eisav’s original choices for wives, Eisav had been oblivious to their displeasure. That either means that the parents concealed their opinion from Eisav, or he had been oblivious to their feelings. It is interesting that RaShI comments that the reason why Eisav had gotten married at age forty (26:34) was in order to emulate (mislead?—in light of RaShI on 25:27, 28) at least his father, he had not considered that certain women may have been more acceptable to his parents than others. This only becomes apparent to him when he overhears his father’s instructions to Yaakov, instructions that were given on the initiative of Rivka, whose intention was not that Yaakov find someone to marry, but rather that he remove himself from the household in order to be spared the wrath of his brother as a result of his obtaining the blessing meant for Eisav (27:43, 46).

2. א. In this case, rather than comparing 28:10 with the earlier 28:7, RaShI is analyzing the contents of 28:10 in terms of itself, i.e., the first half of the verse seems to be irrelevant, and the only piece of information that seems to be significant is the destination of his journey, rather than his point of origin. If the assumption that the Tora prefers not to waste words would be applied to this verse, unless a rationale for the first part of the verse can be established, it would seem that it is superfluous.

ב.

רות פרק א

(ז) ותצא מן המקום אשר היתה שמה ושתי כלתיה עמה ותלכנה בדרך לשוב אל ארץ יהודה:

The fact that RaShI interchanges the two sources, i.e., in Ruth, Beraishit is the parallel proof and in Beraishit, Ruth is the parallel proof, does not suggest that one is more obvious than the other, but rather that these are two examples of the same turn of phrase, stressing that a journey does not only consist of reaching the destination, but also the effect of leaving the starting point. While this is obvious from the perspective of the traveler him/herself, the reverberations that it has regarding the two locations involved, i.e., the change in the starting point now that this individual is no longer there, and the change in the end point once the traveler has taken up residence in the new location, is less apparent, precipitating RaShI’s comment.

3. א. The apparent symbolism is that the inanimate rocks are “desirous” (an example of the literary conceit of “personification”)¹ of being associated as directly as possible with the righteous Yaakov and therefore are struggling with one another to be the one rock that lies directly beneath his head.

ב.

שמואל א פרק כו

(ז) ויבא דוד ואבישי אל העם לילה והנה שאול שכב ישן במעגל וחניתו מעוכה בארץ מראשתיו ואבנר והעם שכבים סביבתו סביבתיו: ס

(יא) חלילה לי מיקוק משלח ידי במשיח יקוק ועתה קח נא את החנית אשר מראשתיו ואת צפחת המים ונלכה לנו:

(יב) ויקח דוד את החנית ואת צפחת המים מראשתי שאול וילכו להם ואין ראה ואין יודע ואין מקיץ כי כלם ישנים כי תרדמת יקוק נפלה עליהם:

מלכים א פרק יט

(ו) ויבט והנה מראשתיו עגת רצפים וצפחת מים ויאכל וישת וישב וישכב:

In the instances in Shmuel and Melachim, it appears that “מראשותיו” refers to a large area rather than a single spot, i.e., Shaul’s spear and water container were not directly under his head, but rather in the vicinity of his head; the cake and water container were close to Eliyahu’s head but not underneath it. Consequently, it would make more sense according to the Peshat to say that several stones were taken initially and placed in the vicinity of Yaakov’s head, leading to them “vying” to be the “closest.”

Beit.

1. א. According to R. Shmuel bar Nachman in Midrash Tanchuma:

   The Ladder: The duration of the rule of various empires over the Jewish people.

   The Rungs of the Ladder: The specific number of years that each empire would rule.

   The Angels: The representatives of the various empires (parallel to “Saro Shel Eisav”—   RaShI on Beraishit 32:25; “Saro Shel Mitzrayim”—RaShI on Shemot 14:10)

   Their Ascent: The period during which they will hold sway over the Jews.

   Their Descent: The time when they will lose their power to rule over the Jews.

The Dream as a Whole: A foreshadowing of Jewish history, and a vision meant to reassure Yaakov that no matter which civilization, including Rome whose end of influence was not clearly indicated, i.e., their Angel only went up but did not come down, they all would eventually be reduced to having no power over the Jews.

ב. As long as the Temple has not been rebuilt on Har HaBayit, we are considered to continue to be suffering from the domination of Rome whose Empire was responsible for  destroying the Second Temple.

ג. It would appear that in the Midrash, HaShem is “Standing” over the Ladder, Making sure that even the Angel that has ascended and not yet descended, will not be able to remain on High forever, but will eventually be reduced to the same condition as the other empires that had preceded it.

2. א. The first citation from the Tanchuma depicts the Jewish people as being inevitably subjugated to these various empires and the question is only for how long will such domination last. With respect to the latter two citations from the Midrash, Israel is depicted as not willing to take its place among those climbing the ladder, symbolizing therefore not the domination of Israel, but rather a preeminent place in the world in general, paralleling the influences that these other dynasties had during their respective ascendancies.

ב.  From the simple sense of the text, following the vision of the dream, HaShem Tells Yaakov, (28:15) “Behold I will Be with you and Guard you wherever you go…” According to the principle of “Ma’asei Avot Siman LaBanim” (the events that effect the forefathers serve as precursors for  what will be experienced by their descendents), what God is Assuring Yaakov is that he and his offspring will be protected, not necessarily that they should seek out world domination paralleling the likes of Babylonia and Rome.

ג.  One could respond to Abrabanel that in light of the principle of “Ma’asei Avot…” (see answer ב above), it is more relevant to show this vision to Yaakov than to either Avraham or Yitzchak because with Yaakov’s 13 children, you have the true beginnings of the Jewish people, something that could  be said neither of Avraham’s children that included Yishmael and the offspring of Ketura, nor Yitzchak’s that included Eisav. Consequently, the dream could be operating on two levels: reassurance to Yaakov that he will be protected during his immediate travels and travails, and just as he will be protected, so too will the Jewish people be protected throughout Jewish history. Furthermore, the reason why these dreams are taking place in this particular place is because according to tradition, it is the place of the Holy of Holies where the Temple would eventually be built (see e.g., RaShI on 28:11), the epicenter of Jewish history and which will play such a prominent role in the fate of the people in terms of their autonomy on the one hand, and their occupation and exile on the other, down through the ages.

Parshat vayetze

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1426.html

Parshat Toldot Answers

Toldot 5730
Alef.

1.  RaMBaN states that there is no difference in terms of the wells between the actions of Avraham and Yitzchak. This forces him to focus upon the names of the wells and to see them as forecasting the fates of the three Temples.

2.  Abrabanel understands RaMBaN as instead of concentrating upon deriving lessons from the story per se and seeing the events as meaningful in terms of themselves, he chooses instead to see the text as a foil for making predictions about the future Temples.

3.  The verse at the beginning of the citation from Abrabanel is from Beraishit 26:3 where God Promises Yitzchak that all will be well before Yitzchak travels to Gerar. The verse that appears at the end of the citation, 26:24, takes place after Yitzchak has finally established the well of Rechovot, when there are no more disputes. It makes more sense for the Divine Promise to precede all of the untoward events in Gerar, accounting for why Yitzchak presses forward. Once he has succeeded despite the nefarious efforts of the Gerarites, why is it necessary yet again for HaShem to tell Yitzchak not to be afraid?

4.  Instead of explaining that the stories re the wells have to do with the future Temples, or the fact that Yitzchak will succeed with God’s Help despite the obstacles that the Gerarites place in his path, this section of the bible could be explained as an indication of Yitzchak’s personality, i.e., that instead of being discouraged when he is challenged by the indigenous citizenry, he is persistent and presses on until he finds a place that will be free of contention.

Beit.

1.  Akeidat Yitzchak explains “Mimenu” in 26:16 as referring to the fact that despite the Gerarites being in charge of the land, due to Avraham’s cleverness in his business dealings with the indigenous population, he was better off than the rulers. “Than us”

2.   In 31:1, Lavan’s sons claim that all of Yaakov’s wealth really belongs to them. While their claim is based upon the fact that Yaakov worked out a deal with Lavan that speckled and spotted sheep that will be born In the flock  will belong to him, since the parent animals were Lavan’s therefore the descendents could also be considered to be Lavan’s. (This is similar to Lavan’s claim that the mothers and children are his in 31:43, also assuming that since he is the parent, all descendents “belong” to him.) The fallacy in the argument is that an explicit deal was struck between Yaakov and Lavan in 30:31-4.

      Similarly, with respect to Avimelech’s claim according to Akeidat Yitzchak, Yitzchak has benefited from something that the Gerarites assume belongs to them. However, if Yitzchak knows how to engage in business in a more successful manner than the country’s inhabitants, has he necessarily taken something that belongs to “them”? In this case as well, Avimelech had not demanded that Yitzchak and Rivka leave the country (26:16), but simply relocate. They are going to have to support themselves somehow, and it is improper for the Gerarites to suddenly claim that Yitzchak’s success involves possessions that really belong to them.

Gimel.

     Although the Beiur explains that the sense of “Im” with respect to an oath actually connotes a negative clause, i.e., “you must not”, nevertheless the term “Im” is used because it suggests that the outcome is not inevitable, but rather dependent upon the individual’s free choice. While the oath suggests a specific exclusive course of action, nevertheless, you always could do this or do that.  Therefore a word that suggests “if” is closer to the truth with respect to the extent to which one can rely on another’s oath.

Daled.

1.  How can Avimelech claim that nothing was done to Yitzchak? Avraham’s wells had been filled by the Gerarites (26:15) creating hardship upon Yitzchak in terms of irrigating his crops and watering his herds, he was forced to relocate (v. 16) because of the apparent jealousy of the Gerarites due to his success, and the Gerarites filled in the majority of the new wells that Yitzchak dug (v. 18-20).

2.  Beraishit Rabba—we could have done much worse to you. Be happy that you are alive to tell the tale.

   RaMBaN—Your wife and your possessions are still intact.

   Beiur—While the king has done nothing, there is the potential for the citizens once they become violent towards Yitzchak out of jealousy, it might spread and bring down the king as well. This was the reason why Avimelech requested that Yitzchak and his family relocate.

   It seems to me that the Beiur’s interpretation preserves the literal purity of “VeLo Negunacha) (and we did not “touch” you/attack you), when you make a distinction between the king and his people.

3.

בראשית פרק כו

(כט) אם תעשה עמנו רעה כאשר לא נגענוך, וכאשר עשינו עמך רק טוב, ונשלחך בשלום, אתה עתה

ברוך יקוק:

   RaMBaN—if you choose to pay kindness with evil, because you are Blessed by HaShem, we are not presently in a position to be able to defend ourselves. The end of the verse is explaining why the earliest time that they would be able to avenge themselves were Yitzchak to deal with them badly is at some point in the future.

   RaShBaM—Since you are Blessed by HaShem, you are in a position to make the non-aggression pact with us and send us away in peace. The end of the verse is explaining why Yitzchak ought to enter into the non-aggression pact that Avimelech and his general are proposing.

4.  According to RaShBaM, the last two phrases in the verse should be reversed, i.e., since you are Blessed by HaShem, therefore enter into a covenant with us, and then send us away in peace.

5.  It would seem to refer to a similar claim made by Akeidat Yitzchak, cited earlier in question Beit, i.e., that Yitzchak had enriched himself by “stealing” things that rightfully belonged to the Gerarites, with “Chamas” being used in a similar way as in Beraishit 6:11 as interpreted by RaShI.

6.  According to Abrabanel, the phrase “Blessed by HaShem” is not coming to explain why the Gerarites cannot fight Yitzchak at this point (RaMBaN), but rather the explanation for Yitzchak’s success, that not only comes about because God has Assisted Yitzchak, but also because the platform upon which he develops his success is the land of Gerar. And since Yitzchak should be appreciative that his base of operations which resulted in his becoming rich was the land of Gerar, it would only be proper if he would enter into the non-aggression pact that would preserve this land in future years. (Just as Moshe was enjoined from striking the Nile that hid him and the dirt under which he buried the Egyptian as a sign of Hakarat HaTov, Avimelech is making a similar argument to Yitzchak with respect to the land of Gerar.)