Vayeshev

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/224.html

Answers to Vayishlach

We're going to try a new format.  Go to this link for answers

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AXy0g6CxMo62ZGdkM2JzcXZfMTZoZ2JxemRzcw&hl=en

(We had [some problems the chart should be reversed)

Parsha Vayishlach

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

Answers for vayetze (the chart didnt fully come out)

Parashat VaYetze 5728
Alef 
   Commentator        What type of kiss?         What did the kiss connote?     Moving the rock

Ibn Ezra	The preposition “ל” indicates that the kiss was placed on the hand, the shoulder or the neck, (as opposed to upon the mouth.)	The kiss was in accordance with local custom.	Does not discuss this aspect of the story.
RaDaK	There is nothing to indicate that it was not a “regular” kiss, i.e., on the mouth.	Rachel was flattered by Yaakov’ exertions on her behalf and therefore allowed herself to be kissed.	Rachel inspired his feat of strength.
Rabbeinu Bechaye	An argument from silence, similar to RaDaK	Yaakov was moved by the thought of his mother, who is alluded to whenever the phrase “אחי אמו” is mentioned.(See R. Hirsch cited in the Alon HaDeracha, 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, where a similar idea is discussed.)	His love for his mother Rivka inspired his feat of strength.
R. Yosef Ibn Kaspi	It is unclear from the text where the kiss was placed. The commentator would prefer to assume that it was somewhere other than upon Rachel’s mouth. However, it is possible that it was such a kiss. In light of the things that King David did, who eventually is Forgiven by HaShem,  it pales in comparison.	The commentator does not address the significance of Yaakov’s action.	Does not discuss this aspect of the story
R. Aharon Ibn Alrabi	The same as RaDak and Rabbeinu Bechaye above.	Yaakov was moved by the emotion of love, clouding his better judgment, and leading him  to act in a forward manner towards Rachel.	Rachel’s beauty inspired Yaakov’s feat of strength.
Mincha Belula	The kiss was placed on her hands or clothing.	The fact that Yaakov saw fit to explain himself afterwards, indicates that he initially gave in to his emotions, and then was embarrassed by what he had done.	His infatuation with Rachel inspired Yaakov’s feat of strength.
HaKetav VeHaKabbala	A metaphorical “kiss”, i.e., a connection was established between Yaakov and Rachel, which did not at this point have any physical manifestation.		Does not discuss this aspect of the story

(Methodological comment: When confronted with an array of commentaries, in order to be able to compare and contrast them, constructing a chart with relevant information makes the process easier and clearer.)

1. HaKetav VeHaKabbala defuses the entire controversy by asserting that an actual kiss never took place. The next level of apologetics (Ibn Ezra, Mincha Belula and possibly Ibn Kaspi) suggest that the kiss was a matter of etiquette and constituted a greeting rather than an act of intimacy and immodesty. A more literal approach is possibly adopted by RaDaK, Rabbeinu Bechaye and R. Aharon Ibn Alrabi (by not commenting or modifying the text, it seems that they take it literally) as well as Ibn Kaspi (the latter straddles the fence to some extent), who could all be understood as assuming that Yaakov openly kissed Rachel on the mouth.
2. Ibn Ezra offers a grammatical rule, the significance of the preposition “ל”, to make the determination of what sort of kiss is being described in the text. Furthermore, he posits that the order of the verses are not necessarily to be understood as chronological, but rather as employing the past perfect to explain why Yaakov kissed Rachel without even identifying himself as her relative. By reversing the sequence of verses 11 and 12, Yaakov first tells Rachel who he is before kissing her, creating a context whereby the kiss was an expression of familial closeness rather than immodesty. When Ibn Ezra states that there are many like this instance, he is referring to other stories wherein one can understand that events that are listed as later, actually occurred earlier. A well-known instance is found with respect to the two accounts of Eliezer’s selecting Rivka as Yitzchak’s wife. In Beraishit 24:22 the servant gives Rivka jewelry before he determines in v. 23 that she is of the desired family. In v. 47, the sequence is reversed. One way to reconcile the two versions is to assume that the earlier one should be understood in light of the later one, i.e., that he had already asked her who she was, prior to giving her the jewelry.
3. Ibn Kaspi suggests that while Yaakov might have acted inappropriately with respect to kissing Rachel, a much more egregious incident was King David’s affair with BatSheva. If God eventually Foregave David, forgiving  Yaakov’s impropriety should not be impossible. (The logic is not ironclad, since according to the rule that HaShem Judges the righteous כחוט השערה, it is possible that there were different standards for David as opposed to Yaakov. Perhaps Ibn Kaspi is just trying to deflect the conversation to matters that he considers of far greater consequence.)
4. Ibn Ezra—the “ל” following the verb נשק.

      Rabbeinu Bechaye—the implications of the repeated use of the phrase “אחי אמו”.

      R. Aharon Ibn Alrabi and Mincha Belula—the difference between “ויגל” and “ויגלל”.

      HaKetav VeHaKabbala—the non-literal usage of נשק.

Beit 1.  According to RaShBaM, Yaakov’s words to Lavan dealt exclusively with the fact that both of his parents, Yitzchak and Rivka, had sent him to his uncle, without mentioning his problems with Eisav (RaShI, Chizkuni, Sephorno) or the Blessing he received from his father (Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni). RaShBaM, the Pashtan par excellence, understands the verse following 29:13, i.e., v. 14 as the determinant of what Yaakov’s words contained.

בראשית פרק כט

(יג) ויהי כשמע לבן את שמע יעקב בן אחתו וירץ לקראתו ויחבק לו וינשק לו ויביאהו אל ביתו ויספר ללבן את כל הדברים האלה:

(יד) ויאמר לו לבן אך עצמי ובשרי אתה וישב עמו חדש ימים:

For Lavan to respond that Yaakov was his flesh and blood would appear to define what Yaakov initially said to him, i.e., that he was a close relative and this is the reason that Yaakov has come to Lavan in the first place.

2. According to RaShI, the definition of what Yaakov had said to Lavan was a function of what Yaakov thought that Lavan wished to hear (as opposed to RaShBaM’s approach which is based upon the following verse.) Since Yaakov knew that he had to convince Lavan to accept him, and he probably was aware of the Eliezer incident whereby the servant had brought great riches when searching for a proper match for Yitzchak, Yaakov’s immediate problem was defusing Lavan’s heightened expectations of receiving more wealth from his sister’s family.

Gimel 1. RaShI: "אך" = “All that I am going to do for you begrudgingly in light of the fact”

      RaDaK:     “    = “What I must absolutely do for you in light of the fact”

2.   Tehillim 73:1 “I must begrudgingly admit that God is Good for Israel.”

            Yeshayahu 63:8 “I must begrudgingly Admit that they are My People.”

3. As RaShI further down the Gilayon on VaYikra 23:27 states, “אך” is a limiting word, i.e., it contracts and narrows the meaning of the sentence or phrase to which it is attached. Consequently in the case of Lavan, he wishes to limit what he is prepared to do for Yaakov, and only that much since Yaakov is flesh and blood. Were he not, then Lavan would have offered him nothing.

      In the case of the negotiation between Avraham and Ephron, Avraham is essentially  saying that if only Ephron would listen to him and narrow the price of the Ma’ara to what  Avraham defines it to be.

4. It seems to me that in all of these cases there is consistency in terms of limiting the otherwise broader implications of what was stated, whether it is which blood is permitted to be spilled (animal but not human) or which people will be granted atonement on Yom HaKippurim (penitents, as opposed to non-penitents.)
5. The NeTzIV keys on the word “עמו” as opposed to Lavan’s saying בביתו or אצלו. The implication then becomes if Yaakov wants Lavan to protect him from Lavan, he must do something on behalf of Lavan, i.e., shepherd his flocks. This will put Lavan in debt to him and better guarantee his protection should Lavan come after him.

Daled. 1. Previously, in v. 16 the Narrator had used the terms הגדולה; הקטנה and in v. 18 Yaakov had used the term הקטנה. Yet in v. 26, when Lavan is defending himself from Yaakov’s accusations, he uses the language הצעירה;הבכירה. The commentator therefore wishes to account for the apparent inconsistency.

The usage of the passive voice “יעשה” suggests that there is a precedent where this has been done previously, or is being done in other locations. Lavan is therefore making a direct reference to Yaakov’s taking Eisav’s Blessing despite the fact that the latter was the actual Bechor.

The two additional examples do not suggest that in some places these things are done and in others they are not. Adultery and rape are things that never should be done anywhere, being covered by the Seven Noachide Commandments.

בראשית פרק כ

(ט) ויקרא אבימלך לאברהם ויאמר לו מה עשית לנו ומה חטאתי לך כי הבאת עלי ועל ממלכתי חטאה גדלה מעשים אשר לא יעשו עשית עמדי:

בראשית פרק לד פסוק ז

ובני יעקב באו מן השדה כשמעם ויתעצבו האנשים ויחר להם מאד כי נבלה עשה בישראל לשכב את בת יעקב וכן לא יעשה:

      2. “It’s all well and good that your parents sent you to me. However, while you are here in Charan, you will have to abide by the local customs and practices regardless of what is done where your family currently resides. If there the younger can precede the first born, that does not mean that you can assume that the same applies here as well.”

פרשת ויצא

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/9.html

Answers to Toldot

Alef 1 a. The typical interpretation of the word “ממנו” in 26:16 is “than us”, i.e., you are more powerful than we are. This makes us uncomfortable. Ordinarily the sojourner is in a subservient position; however your wealth places you above us. The Midrash inserts a sense of resentment on the part of the Gerarites, i.e., you have taken what rightfully belongs to us and turned it into your personal wealth. Your possessions originate “ממנו”, from us, and therefore we are jealous, resentful, or even accusing you of purloining our possessions from us.

RaShI on 38:26, with respect to Yehuda’s declaration that vis-à-vis himself, Tamar was more righteous, first offers a basic interpretation for “ממני”, explaining that one should divide the two words, “צדקה” and “ממני” resulting in the following: “She is righteous. The pregnancy is due to me.” RaShI then quotes a Midrashic approach, interpreting “ממני” as referring to ה' in the sense that all that took place was “Bashert” because kings were to come through the lines of Yehuda and Tamar. For this reason the entire matter was orchestrated and originated “ממני” from Me.

            b. In Beraishit 31:1, Lavan’s sons are hardly subtle in their claim that Yaakov’s wealth really comes and therefore belongs to their father. When it comes to animal husbandry, it can always be claimed that without the original animals, the herds and flocks could never have been produced. If the original animals once belonged to someone else, they can always claim that the entire herd is theirs.

With respect to the claim against Yitzchak, the text does not state that he started out with herds, but rather with only seeds (Beraishit 26:12). Because of Yitzchak’s astounding return “מאה שערים” he was able to parlay his crops into other commodities, including herds (Ibid., 14). I suppose that the Gerrarites could nevertheless say that those seeds grew on ground that belonged to them, and that is why the proceeds really should be theirs.

Yaakov’s herds are “seeded” with individuals from Lavan’s possessions (Ibid., 30:32.) However, Lavan gave these animals to Yaakov as partial payment for additional years of labor to prevent him from returning with his entire family to Canaan Ibid., 30:31.) Since the first animals were given to Yaakov by Lavan, it hardly can be legally claimed that the progeny of these animals belonged to Lavan and his family.

            c.

ד.	"ברוך תהיה מכל העמים"

דברים ז:יד

"בָּרוּךְ תִּהְיֶה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים"

מדרש דברים רבה ג':

"ברוך תהיה מכל העמים". אמר ר' חייא בר אבא: אין שבחה של מטרונא בשעה שמתקלסת מקרובותיה, אלא בשעה שמתקלסת מצרותיה.

1.

במה שונה המדרש בפירושו את פסוקנו מן הפירוש הרגיל?

                In this verse the simple interpretation of “מכל” is “than all of the nations”, i.e., you will be more blessed than any of the other nations. The Midrash interprets the preposition as “originating from”, i.e., that not only will you be praised by those close to you, but even the nations that are your enemies. They will begrudgingly have to acquiesce to your special spiritual stature.

            d. While the syntax is the same in both cases, the accompanying emotion is hardly so. In Beraishit, according to the Midrash, there is resentment and the implication of  a claim against Yitzchak on the part of Avimelech. The usage of the "מ" in the verse in Tehillim 119:99 appears to suggest an admission of debt and obligation on the part of the possessor of the wisdom to those who were instrumental in his obtaining it.

       2.    While it is true that the Gerrarites did not physically harm Yitzchak and Rivka, for Avimelech to claim that they did only good for them seems hardly credible. After all they were asked to relocate in order to remove a target of the people’s resentment from their midst. Needing to uproot oneself as well as being told that one must move is not very reassuring or the kind of directive that will impress the individuals who are spoken to in this manner that they are being treated well and properly.

In the end, how to evaluate the situation is a function of expectations. The standard of “good treatment” for people who ordinarily do bodily harm to their victims is different from the standard applied to individuals who are notable for offering hospitality and treating guests kindly and with respect. Although from Yitzchak’s perspective, Avimelech was hardly entitled to make the claim that they had been good hosts to Yitzchak’s entourage, Avimelech, perhaps recalling how it had ended badly for other temporary sojourners, feels that Yitzchak has been treated remarkable well.

Beit 1 a.  The verse implies that Yitzchak reached an unprecedented state of blessing and prosperity. Consequently something out of the ordinary has to be mentioned.

           b.  Mules are infertile. Therefore the idea of animals multiplying does not apply to mules. Beracha is usually manifested in doubling the existing number of  entities and for this reason RaShI in Devarim 15:14 explicitly excludes mules from the things that have to be given to a newly freed Eved Ivri, since any mules that the master might own are not subject to the state of “Beracha.” Yet if Yitzchak is depicted as supremely blessed, we will invoke even mules as  a source of blessing, and even if they cannot produce offspring, they at least can contribute to the fertilizer supply. 

         2 a. If jealousy was the cause of the filling in the wells, why is the phrase “ויקנאו אותו פלשתים” mentioned at the end of the previous verse (v. 14) instead of beginning this verse (v. 15)? The implication is that  a different motivation was the reason for this action, and RaShI suggests that it was a security issue, in the sense that foreign invading armies could avail themselves of the water and thereby sustain an attack.

Since Avimelech is later going to claim that the Gerrarites treated Yitzchak well (26:29), it would be a much more difficult claim to make if there had been open enmity. Consequently the bad feelings were covered up with claims of military concerns, thereby preserving to some extent the pretense that relations were still good between them.

           b.  “טמונין” could mean “hidden”. Consequently RaShI wanted to clarify that the Gerrarites sealed the wells, but did not necessarily hide their locations.

        3 a.  If the location’s name contains “גרר” it suggests that it is close to the city. Yet Avimelech had instructed Yitzchak to distance himself from Gerar! Therefore RaShI had to emphasize that despite the name of the place, it was distant from the city.

Gimel      With regard to “Asek” the Tora supplies a reason for the dispute, (v. 20) “לנו המים” the water belongs to us. However in v. 21, no reason is given for the dispute, leading Amek Davar to reflect on the name Sitna, derived from “שטן” to goad, attempt to divert, and suggest that this time no excuse was given, but rather the well was filled out of pure spite.

Parshat Toldot

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/285.html