The Mystical Power of Intentions: 

A: HOW LAVAN'S ACTIONS ALMOST DESTROYED THE NEWLY-EMERGING JEWISH NATION:

B: YAKOV’S MAGIC GENE-ALTERING STICKS: YES, INTENTIONS HAVE EFFECT

C: Yosef fulfils his potential:

..........................

A: HOW LAVAN'S ACTIONS ALMOST DESTROYED THE NEWLY-EMERGING JEWISH NATION:

Why did the brothers sell Yosef? Jealousy etc. Why were they jealous? because he was greater than them.

The metaphysical chain of events leading to the sale of Yosef/Joseph: Why were the brothers so sure that he ought to be cast out? Because metaphysically, Yosef had been meant to be the first-born (bechor) and be the king of the 12 Tribes and ancestor of moshiach, but Lavan exchanged Leah for Rachel and so instead Reuven was firstborn (Yosef was Rachel's firstborn).

So Yosef had the attributes of kingship, leadership, but due to Lavan's machinations ended up not being the first-born. Instead, Reuven, who as a result of the mismatch did NOT have leadership capabilities inherent, and was not meant to be leader, emerged as the first-born. Yosef's actions, and the way he was preferred, and the special dreams, would have befit the eldest, but it was out of place in the youngest, and eldest was not equipped to deal with the ramifications. This messed up the future of the Jewish People in ways that would be felt far in the future, partially resolved by Joseph but still echoing today, and to be fully resolved fully only in messianic times.

So when we see patterns in contemporary history (or in our own lives) which seem full of turmoil and bitterness (like the sale of Joseph at the time), we can take solace in knowing that this is the working-out towards a higher-level of some impediment at the earliest times....our generation's contribution towards the reaching of the ultimate goal...

More explanation about the ancestral struggles:

• Yakov and Rachel were fated to be married and have Joseph, and for him to be the first born. Joseph was meant to have great spiritual potential as a result of this; and his being the first-born would have forestalled all power struggles. Instead Yakov was with Leah first and Yosef was not the first-born, and strife ensued.

• It was crucial that the thoughts of both parents be attuned at the moment of conception. Yakov thought he was with Rachel and his intentions were directing his energies to the creation of Joseph, but he didn't realize that he was with Leah instead, and so the child that resulted - Reuven - was spiritually impaired, and this caused his actions to be less than perfect (he didn’t save Joseph, and his actions regarding Bilha).

• Though as it turned out Reuven was first-born, it was still Joseph who was preordained to be the leader, and this was the root of the struggles between the brothers. (Their struggle was like those of the previous generations: between the first-born Yishmael and his younger brother Yitschak [first-born of Sarah], and between the first-born Esav and his younger twin brother Yakov, and perhaps between Lavan and Yakov, since Avraham was not Terach's eldest.)

Thus, Lavan's tricking of Yakov had great ramifications for the future history of the children of Israel, and in a metaphysical sense was perhaps a result of Yakov’s tricking of his father Yitschak. [All are echoes of the snake tricking Eve into tricking Adam.]

[And this is why the Passover hagadah quotes the Tradition that ('Lavan bikesh laakor es hakol') 'Lavan wanted to entirely uproot theJewish people and their destiny'; Lavan almost succeeded in causing the tribes to grow up under his influence (if not for Yakov's escape), and by messing up Yosef's role which led to the Jewish People becoming slaves in Egypt and descending spiritually as a result ('mitzrayim' & "mem tet shaarei tum'ah").]

More about the implications of intention: God created the universe by thought and words, and created humans in the divine image, as a vessel housing "the breath of God". As such, the intentions and word sof humans can have great effect. Though even animals reproduce, humans can produce souls or the housing for a new soul – this ability is part of what it means to be in the divine image. Since this is an act of creation, a harnessing of divine forces, according tot Traditional teachings the intention at the time of procreation is an important factor in determining the spiritual potential of the offspring.

Just as which sperm makes it through to the egg will determine the physical characteristics of the child – any given male can produce very differently-capable sperm cells in one fertilization opportunity, so too the mutual connection, and emotional and spiritual state at the time helps set the spiritual genetics.

...................

All this helps understand the odd story of Yakov and the spotted sheep, as explained below:

B: YAKOV’S MAGIC GENE-ALTERING STICKS: YES, INTENTIONS HAVE EFFECT

As we are told later on in the story, Yakov is cheated repeatedly by Lavan (31:7, 15, 38-42). When Lavan asks what payment he wants (30:28) Yakov responds that he wants only certain colored sheep (read the story, it’s very strange). He then uses a magic stick colored with his chosen color, and places it near the sheep when they conceive, and the sheep come out this color! So Lavan switches his chosen color, and again Yakov succeeds by changing the color of the stick!

What is this strange story about the sheep!? [The Biblical “Dolly”*: * The first modern successful experiment on mammalian genetic alteration was on a sheep, which was given the name "Dolly".]

Why did Yakov do this!? (Answer: see below)

* INTENTIONS DURING PROCREATION HAVE AN EFFECT

I heard the following from my grandfather:

After Yosef was finally born - almost the last instead of the first - it was finally time that Yakov take his family out before Lavan destroyed them all completely. Yaakov was very upset that his intention that night with Leah - thinking he was with Rachel had effect - messed up the child born from that (Reuven, who was not supposed to be bechor!). So Yaakov told Lavan he was going to leave because he was upset about the deception and could now see its long-term effects. Lavan told Yakov that since he was given Rachel in the end, the deception had no negative long-term effect. Yakov countered that the negative effect was in the mystical mismatch of intention that he had when with Leah, thinking it was Rachel, and this affected Reuven and Joseph negatively. Lavan countered that procreation was a physical act and intention had no effect. So Yakov via the stick-trick showed him that even what the sheep think of when conceiving has a physical effect (!), how much more crucial are human thoughts/intentions.

Yakov's proof via the Luz stick (casuing the sheep who viewed it to have different physical coloration etc) had the effect of also demonstrating to Rachel and Leah the negative influence of Lovon, so they support Yakov in his decision to leave (or support the malach(angel)'s command to leave etc); Yaakov didn't ask them whether to leave of course he had to and the malach said to, rather he consulted wheter to leave with notice to Lavan or secetly, and Rachel and Leah like all the great Matriarchs intuited what had to be done.

Note that if Rachel had lived, the sale of Joseph could not have occured.... Yakov's unintended curse re the stolen 'trafim' caused her death but it was as a result of Lavan...Lavan achieved his goal of derailing the arrival of mashiach but only temporarily, and at the cost of his daughter's death....].

.

C: Yosef fulfils his potential:

.

Yosef's destiny was to reverse the damage caused by his grandfather Lavan when Leah was substituted for Rachel, which itself was karmic payback, the price Yaakov had to pay for switching himself for Esav to get the blessing from his father Yitschak. Even though this was done at God's behest, in the directive to RIvka "the older will serve the younger", nevertheless Biblical heroes were such because they were willing to pay the price to keep the divine plan on track.

HOW JOSEPH'S SELF-SACRIFICE EVENTUALLY OVERCAME LAVAN'S PLOT:

As we'll see in a few weeks, Yosef succeeded: with tremendous strength of character he rose to the occasion and enabled his brothers to do teshuva (return) ie both repenting and fixing what they broke, thus placing Yehuda on the path to be the ancestor of kings and moshiach and thereby inter alia as an act of great self-sacrifice Yosef gave up his own future kingship (ie passing the line of moshiach to Yehuda). And this itself was Yosef's teshuva for bringing his father bad tales about his brothers.

.

May we all be blessed to make sure - most importantly - to do the right thing and fulfil our hidden potantial, but also to work on our mindset, and 'mindfulness', to concentrate and be sure that we have the right intentions, in order to add merit and long-lastingness to the positive energies thus created!

Our power over events, as beings in the image of God

How our reactions to events affect the unfolding of the further pattern of events

relating: Current events, Chanukah upcoming, and Yaakov in this week's parshah

The heroism of certain idividuals on Oct7 - those who understood that in the vaccum, the absence of the State, the Army, the government, it wasincumbent on THEM to take action, and they borrowed weapons and cars and went into the furnace (drove down to the South of Israel and engaged the terorrists in fire-fights) to protect the Jewish people. And as a whole, people responded with a gut-reaction of unity. And then hundreds of thousands of dedictated people putting on uniform to be fighters. The individual heros of that day, and then the nation's reaction ofuntiy and mobilizing with high moivation to put themselves on the line, succeeed in turning around the antimiracle of a long list of simultanous impossible-to-understand failures & lapses, into a miracle of successes. It is as though the 7th could have been the beginning of what would have been a historically-terrible extended disaster for the Jewish People, but was directed to a more positive hisrocal path; it started with an extreme desecration of God's name when the world looked in wonder at how easy it was to slaughter Jews, but a year later has turned into the same world looking in wonder at how this tiny nation has prevailed in ways totally unexpected.

The same with chanukah, it was a small group who exercised their free will, and made the hard choice, to standod up physically against the onslaught of Greek warriors in a military-cultural crusade to obliterate our religion......

The ability to exercise free will is an essential aspect of what it means to be created in God's image.

Without true free will an entity is only a passive actor carrying out the dictates of cause-effect. Our unique power over events is proportional to our exercise of our free will, and that power is greatest in those with the highest degree of self-development, like the prophets. 

A prophetic encounter like Yakov's dream is a divine-human interaction, and its actual effect depends on the resulting choices of the prophet.​ God speaks to prophet, but the way those words actuate in our reality strongly depend on how the prophets understands what was said, why, and what is expected of them, as well as the degree of their faith.

The miracle of the oil on chanukah was considered by Tradtiion to be obscure, witnessed by only a few, and which achieved nothing major since religious law allowe them to use the exisitng contaminated oil or waituntil pure oil wa produced.An answer given to this ocnundrum is that the military campaign seemed miraculous in defeating an emprire, but a is usual it was possible to explain away usign rationalargu,ents.The tiny miracle served to indicate that the entirety of the process had indeed been miraculous.

Similalrly with Jacob awakening from the dream and seeing the many stones united under his head....

....

And this inconsequential miracle - where under the head hosting the prophetic dream, a number of stones joined together - was similalry not important on its own but rather as an indication of the fact that indeed his dream was prophetic. Also, the angels ascending and descending is indicative of effects on Earth affecting the heavens and then those affecting the Earthly realm in a manner impossible otherwise.

And so the stones joining under his head during the cream indicated how the events inside one's mind - 'dreams' - could influence even the most material substance in the physical universe.

....

So we will be interested in analyzing the reaction of Ya'akov to his dream-prophecy in this week's portion, and how this influenced future unfoldings.

..

The Midah kneged Midah (divine karmic) effect of Yakov’s words.

After the mystical ladder-dream Yakov reacts with a speech or vow. One translation would be: [28:20-21]:

“If God will be with me,

and watch me on the way

and will give me bread and clothing

and I will return in peace to my father’s house,

then God will be my God

and this monument will be the house of God.”

a. Many Traditional commentators point out that here Yakov makes what sounds like a conditional vow, and it is remarkable that after such a profound mystical experience he implies his connection to God depends on what God does for him, or on whether what was promised is indeed delivered!

b. However, Ramban writes in his commentary that the wording may not necessarily imply conditionality: the word translated as “If” above is “im” in hebrew, and it is used in a non-conditional sense by God (28:15) in the very dream Yakov is responding to! See in the below the parallel of "אִם-עָשִׂיתִי" & "אִם-יִהְיֶה"

:כִּי, לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ, עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם-עָשִׂיתִי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ. "I will not leave you until ("im") I have done that which I told you"

טז וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב, מִשְּׁנָתוֹ....וַיִּדַּר יַעֲקֹב, נֶדֶר לֵאמֹר: אִם-יִהְיֶה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי ..."im" God will be with me"

So, perhaps Yakov means his "im" in a similar sense, ie not a word implying non-conditionaity,l especially as it is about the exact same issue, the fulfillment of the words.

c. Some see it as not a set of conditions but rather simply listing the promises.

d. Other commentators says Jacob viewed the promises as being conditional, ie dependent on his continuing to deserve them, and feared that in fact he would not in the end act in ways to deserve the fulfilment of the dream-promises. Indeed he later states as much in prayer to God when preparing to meet Esav, and so his vow is conditioning it all on HIMSELF [on his meriting the promise, based on his own future actions - whether they will be up to the expected level - not conditional on God keeping the promise since he believed totally in God and that God of course would keep a promise. ]

.

However it may be, it is interesting to see what might be a type of divinely-orchestrated 'karma', ie mida-k'neged mida, as a result of this sentiment, and these words - assuming this interpretation we can see that Yakov is haunted throughout his life by echoes of the words in his (seemingly conditional) vow.

Ya'akov's life-tragedy is the disappearance and presumed death of his son Joseph and the words of the vow mirror these events, so that what he asked for was in fact ironically and tragically linked to the sale of Yosef:

* “If God will be with me”: Tradition points out that there is no communication between God and Jacob all the years that Joseph was unaccounted for and this was due to Jacob's lower level of ability to receive divine conneciton as a result of his sorrow at the loss of Joseph, so that during this time effectively God "leaves him" in the sense that he is not capable of receiving the divine presence.

* “and watch me on the way”: however as it turns out, Joseph (and then Benjamin) disappears “on the way”.

* “will give me bread”: The brothers famously sit down to eat bread after selling him. And later on there is a famine and therefore no bread, and Yakov is convinced to send his children to Egypt for bread, where their trouble begins

* “will give me ….. clothing”: However the brothers smear Joseph’s clothing with blood to make it look as though he was killed by an animal, and bring this ‘evidence’ to Yakov.

* “and I will return in peace to my father’s house”: Eventually instead it is Joseph who must be “returned in peace to his father’s house”.

.

The basis for this 'karmic' interpretation is the Traditional understanding that the actions, words & intentions of our forefathers/mothers were archetypical, and set up spiritual channels for their descendants for all generations (the Torah does not tell us of every event in their lives, but rather recounts those events which have this special significance) and so the events in the stories are of direct relevance to our lives, but also to THEIRS.

There are probably various ways to interpret the parallels and the links between the words and future events which we pointed out above: eg perhaps God's promise was also meant to assure Yaakov that even these bad results in the future would be better than he thought (eg Yosef was alive and well and ended up saving all their lives from starvation). ie

Nevertheless, the parallels we pointed out may imply that there would be 'karmic echos' in later events, which seems to imply a cosmic reaction to the implications of this loaded phraseology, perhaps relating to the residual doubt in Yaakov's mind alluded to in some Traditional sources. Perhaps Yaakov should not have thought that it was conditioned on his actions in the sense that he could fail his mission and not deserve the promised assistance, ie that he should have had more confidence in himself given that God was promising him all this...and this confidence would be meant to strengthen his resolve. On the other hand, this was the first recorded prophetic encounter Yakov has, and perhaps it is too new for him to have this confidence.

In any case, it is not that we would find fault with Yakov who was so much greater spiritually - I am sure that I would not merit having that prophetic dream in the first place, and I imagine I would have responded in less optimal a way than Jacob, so this is hardly criticism offered be me, but rather we are attempting to determine whether the Torah is teaching us something profound via Yakov's story - he was one of the very g sreates piritual giants of the Jewish People, and his actions blazed a path for his future descendants, and his greatest wish would be for God to enable us via the Torah to learn from what occurred to him.

...

In general, the interpretive path above is based on these assumed algorithmic 'rules':

a. It’s important when reading the Torah to pay attention to connections made between the stories: they are indications of deep undercurrents and of repeating patterns in the history of our ancestors and therefore in our own collective history and private lives.

b. The connections are often made via an uncommon word which appears in both stories.

c. Undercurrents are highlighted by repeated usage of a particular word or phrase in a story

.

Conclusion: If the above is correct​ (that when the Creator interacts with being​s created in the divine 'image', the way that the message 'actuates' is dependent on the resulting words, attitude and actions of the recipient of the communication.) it is ​potentially empowering - all of us are vessels for the divine image, ​and God interacts with us on a constant basis at various levels whether we are aware of it or not, we would not continue to exist for an instant longer if God did not directly actively want for us to exist, and the Biblical accounts such as this one about Ya'akov is meant to teach us also about ourselves, and ​I believe that though we are not prophets, not at the level of the great patriarchs/matriarchs, nevertheless our words and intentions can have great​er effect​ than sometimes is realized.

May we merit to be able to open ourselves to maximally receive the divine blessing flowing towards us, and to be able to guard our words & intentions​, and to guide our actions, so that their cosmic effect is always for the good...

....

2023: The karmic effect of Yakov’s words

 (due to their seeming implication of lack of perfect faith)

A prophetic encounter like Yakov's dream is a divine-human interaction. 

There is a special power when the Creator interacts in this way with the being God created in the divine 'image'; as we'll see in the example below, there is a potential packed into the encounter which achieves full expression in a manner which is dependent of the free will choices of the prophet involved. (This is especially so since the ability to exercise free will is an essential aspect of what it means to be created in God's image).

After the mystical ladder-dream Yakov says: [28:20-21]:

“If God will be with me, 

and watch me on the way 

and will give me bread and clothing 

and I will return in peace to my father’s house,

 then God will be my God 

and this monument will be the house of God.” 

a. Many Traditional commentators point out that here Yakov makes what sounds like a conditional vow, and it is remarkeble that after such a profound mystical experience he implies his connection to God depends on what God does for him, or on whether what was promised is indeed delivered! 

:כִּי, לֹא אֶעֱזָבְךָ, עַד אֲשֶׁר אִם-עָשִׂיתִי, אֵת אֲשֶׁר-דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ.

 טז וַיִּיקַץ יַעֲקֹב, מִשְּׁנָתוֹ....וַיִּדַּר יַעֲקֹב, נֶדֶר לֵאמֹר: אִם-יִהְיֶה אֱלֹהִים עִמָּדִי So, perhaps Yakov means it in a similar non-conditional sense. 

c. Some see it as not a set of conditions but rather simply listing the promises.

d. Other commentators says Jacob viewed the promises as being conditional on his continuing to deserve them, and feared that in fact he would not in the end act in ways to deserve the fulfilment of the dream-promises. Indeed he later states as much in prayer to God when preparing to meet Esav, and so his vow is conditioning it all on HIMSELF [on his meriting the promise, based on his own future actions - whether they will be up to the expected level - not conditional on God keeping the promise since he believed totally in God and that God of course would keep a promise. ]

• “If God will be with me”: Tradition points out that there is no communication between God and Jacob all the years that Joseph was unaccounted for and this was due to Jacob's lower level of ability to receive divine conneciton as a result of his sorrow at the loss of Joseph, so that during this time effectively God "leaves him" in the sense that he is not capable of receiving the divine presence.

• “and watch me on the way”: however as it turns out, Joseph (and then Benjamin) disappears “on the way”.

• “will give me bread”: The brothers famously sit down to eat bread after selling him. And later on there is a famine and therefore no bread, and Yakov is convinced to send his children to Egypt for bread, where their trouble begins

• “will give me ….. clothing”: However the brothers smear Joseph’s clothing with blood to make it look as though he was killed by an animal, and bring this ‘evidence’ to Yakov. 

• “and I will return in peace to my father’s house”: Eventually instead it is Joseph who must be “returned in peace to his father’s house”.

The basis for this 'karmic' interpretation is the Traditional understanding that the actions, words & intentions of our forefathers/mothers were archetypical, and set up spiritual channels for their descendants for all generations, and so the events in the stories are of direct relevance to our lives. (The Torah does not tell us of every event in their lives, but rather recounts those events which have this special significance.)

There are probably various ways to interpret these parallels and the links between the word sand future events: eg perhaps God's promise was also meant to assure Yaakov that even these bad results in the future would be better than he thought (eg Yosef was alive and well and ended up saving all their lives from starvation).

Nevertheless, the parallels we pointed out may imply that there would be 'karmic echos' in later events, which seems to imply a cosmic reaction to the implications of this loaded phraseology, perhaps relating to the residual doubt in Yaakov's mind alluded to in some Traditional sources. 

Perhaps Yaakov should have had more confidence in himself given that God was promising him all this...and this confidence would be meant to strengthen his resolve. On the other hand, this was the first recorded prophetic encounter Yakov has, and perhaps it is too new for him to have this confidence. 

In any case, it is not that we would find fault with Yakov who was so much greater spiritually - I am sure that I would not merit having that prophetic dream in the first place, and I imagine I would have responded in less optimal a way than Jacob, so this is hardly criticism offered be me, but rather we are attempting to determine whether the Torah is teaching us something profound via Yakov's story - he was one of the very greatest spiritual giants of the Jewish People, and his actions blazed a path for his future descendants, and his greatest wish would be for God to enable us via the Torah to learn from what occurred to him.

In general, our path is based on these assumed algorithmic 'rules':

• It’s important when reading the Torah to pay attention to connections made between the stories: they are indications of deep undercurrents and of repeating patterns in the history of our ancestors and therefore in our own collective history and private lives. 

• The connections are often made via an uncommon word which appears in both stories.

• Undercurrents are highlighted by repeated usage of a particular word or phrase in a story

If the above is correct, it is empowering, we are vessels for the divine image, and our words and intentions can have great effect - may we merit to be able to open ourselves to maximally receive the divine blessing flowing towards us, and to be able to guard our words & intentions so that their cosmic effect is always for the good.

See orach chayim hakadosh on vayechi  yakov on death bed, referring to Reuven re first time with Leah yakov thought was Rachel

......

See Ohr Hachayim below re Zohar, and editor's comment: "I confess I have great difficulty with this Zohar because Leah was not impregnated on the first night of her marriage; when Reuben was conceived, eventually, Jacob was well aware that he was sleeping with Leah. If he had pined after Rachel knowing that he was sleeping with Leah this would have been most inappropriate. "

AR: Reading the psukim it may seem as though years elapsed and during that itme Leah was 'hated' relative to Rochel, and was barren, so that by the itme Reuven was born it was much later, so the impregnaiton happened when Yaakov already knew it was Leah. But it is possible to inteprret it differently: I think Yaakov on his deathbed is saying Reuven was from his first seed, ie it WAS from that night. (ANd it is not at all clear tha this children even knew of the story exactly, and found out only at deathbed or only when the Torah was written and given to his descendants!) The names of the children reveal alot about all this but not necessarily all, and indeed Yaakov perhaps gives a different version of the origin of Reuvan's name = Reshis Oni!

In other words, Rochel was given at the end of sheva brochos not 7 years, Yaakov had to work an additional 7 years but he had Rachel right away. And H saw from the reaction of Yaakov in that first morning that Leah was 'hated', so H opened her womb to the seed emitted earlier in the night.

....

ועדיין אין הדבר מספיק כי למה לא ניתנה אלא ליוסף ולא ליהודה או לשאר אחים הגדולים, ובס' הזוהר פ' וישלח דף קע"ו כתב טעם הדבר וז"ל בשעתא דעאל לגבה דלאה כל ההוא ליליא רעותיה ולביה הוה ברחל דחשיב דרחל איהי וכו' אהדר עובדא לאתריה וכו' בכורתיה אהדרת ליוסף וכו' ע"כ. הנה טעם זה מספיק לנטילת בכורה מראובן ותעמוד ביוסף כי הוא כפי האמת שעלה במחשבה ראשונה בביאה ראשונה כשהטיל זרעו יעקב חשב באמו.

It is still not clear why the birthright was not given to Yehudah instead of to Joseph or any of the other older brothers. The Zohar on Vayishlach page 176 explains this. "At the time when Jacob slept with Leah (the first night of his marriage), he thought only about Rachel all the time since he was under the impression that he was sleeping with and impregnating Rachel. Restoring the birthright to Joseph was no more than an example of Jacob's original intention being fulfilled."

..

אלא קשה למה הוצרך הכתוב לומר ובחללו יצועי אביו וגו' הלא אפילו אם לא היה ראובן מחלל יצועי אביו הבכורה ליוסף נוגעת כנזכר. וליישב הענין דבר ידוע היא כי כל רוחניות שבעולם מתחלק לג' בחינות, אחד קדושה, ואחד חול, ואחד חלק רע, וכל אחת מהשלשה תוציא ענפיה והתאוה לבחינתה. חלק הקדושה יפריח ענפי הטוב והאושר הנצחי ותתאוה למושכלות, חלק החול יתאוה לאכול הערב לפה והנחמד לעין ויבנה בתי אבנים ועפר ויכונן מלבושים והכנות נדמים, חלק הרע יתאוה לכל תיעוב ויעשה כל אשר שנא ה' ויבחר לגזול ולרמות ולשקר ולאכול חלק הטמא נבילות וטריפות שקצים וכו' ויערב לנפשו לחבק בשר טמא נדה גויה אשת איש וזכר המרוחקים מבחינת הקדושה, ומג' אלה ישנו כל הווה וכל נמצא בין מחלקי הטוב והטהרה בין בחלקי הממוצע והוא שאנו קוראים חול בין בחלקי הרע והטומאה.

Whereas this explained why Jacob gave the birthright to Joseph once he took it away from Reuben, why did the Torah have to mention that Reuben had defiled Jacob's bed? The birthright would have belonged to Joseph anyways.  In order to answer our problem we must remember that all the manifestations of spirituality in the world are divided into three categories. One category of spirituality is sacred, holy. A second category is secular; the third category of spirituality is evil. Each one of these categories produces "offsprings" corresponding to its nature. The category of holy spirituality produces offspring which is good, provides eternal bliss, and it strives for abstract intelligence, etc. The category of secular spirituality is characterised by its interest in the consumption of that which is aestethically pleasing, and that which provides enjoyment for the senses. The third category of spirituality is characterised by its interest in idolising every abomination. Its adherents commit every sin in the book. They steal, cheat, deceive, and consume mostly forbidden foods. They engage in illicit sex and indulge only in gratifying their lust, etc. These three categories between them comprise every human being, the good ones, the secular oriented ones, and the evil ones.

..

Jacob said כי עלית to explain how it was possible that a son of his could commit such an act. He hinted that at the time (the wedding night) his thoughts had been confused as he had been under the impression that he had married and was sleeping with Rachel. In other words, he had actually slept in two beds, physically he had shared Leah's bed, whereas mentally he had considered himself in bed with Rachel. This is the reason Jacob spoke about Reuben having mounted משכבי אביך, the beds (pl) of your father. This was the original cause of Reuben eventually becoming guilty of his misdemeanour. When Jacob added the word אז, then, he indicated that the true defilement took place then; the first time Reuben desecrated his father's bed was at the time he was conceived in the wrong womb, Leah's instead of Rachel's. Jacob's משכבים were desecrated at that time, whereas Reuben personally had defiled Jacob's יצוע when he mounted the bed in Bilhah's tent.

...

AR: Interesting to add to the whole idea, that even the substituting of Leah for Rachel  was not just returibution for Yaakov substituting for Esav, but itself was an inyan of not giving the younger before the older. 

And then that itself caused a problem of mixing up for the bechorah, so it is a real inner-chain of cause effect midah kneked midah both consicousnlly (on the part of Lavan) and divinely-enacted.

...

...

ZOHAR

https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%96%D7%94%D7%A8_%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%A7_%D7%90_%D7%A7%D7%A2%D7%95_%D7%91

translation to Hebrew: https://www.toratemetfreeware.com/online/f_01776_part_8.html#HtmpReportNum0021_L2

א חֲזֵי, כַּמָּה גָרִים עוֹבָדָא דְבַר נָשׁ, דְּהָא כָּל מַאי (מאן) דְאִיהוּ עָבִיד, כֹּלָּא אִתְרְשִׁים וְקָיְימָא קַמֵּי דְקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא. דְּהָא יַעֲקֹב בְּשַׁעְתָּא דְעָאל לְגַבָּהּ דְלֵאָה, כָּל הַהוּא לֵילְיָא רְעוּתֵיהּ וְלִבֵּיהּ הֲוָה בְּרָחֵל, דְּחָשִׁיב דְּרָחֵל אִיהִי. וּמֵהַהוּא שִׁמּוּשָׁא וְטִפָּה קַדְמָאָה וּמֵהַהוּא רְעוּתָא אִתְעֲבָרַת לֵאָה וְאוּקְמוּהָ. דְּהָא אִלְמָלֵא דְיַעֲקֹב לָא יָדַע לָא יִסְתַּלִּיק רְאוּבֵן בְּחוּשְׁבָּנָא. וְעַל דָּא לָא אִסְתַּלַּק בִּשְׁמָא יְדִיעָא אֶלָּא שְׁמֵיהּ סְתָם רְאוּבֵן

HEBREW translation:

בֹּא רְאֵה כַּמָּה גוֹרֵם מַעֲשֵׂה אָדָם, שֶׁהֲרֵי כָּל מִי [מה] שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה, נִרְשָׁם וְעוֹמֵד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי יַעֲקֹב, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְלֵאָה, כָּל אוֹתוֹ הַלַּיְלָה הָיָה רְצוֹנוֹ וְלִבּוֹ בְּרָחֵל, שֶׁחָשַׁב שֶׁהִיא רָחֵל, וּמֵאוֹתוֹ שִׁמּוּשׁ וְטִפָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמֵאוֹתוֹ רָצוֹן הִתְעַבְּרָה לֵאָה, וּבֵאֲרוּהוּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִלְמָלֵא שֶׁיַּעֲקֹב לֹא יָדַע, לֹא יַעֲלֶה רְאוּבֵן בַּחֶשְׁבּוֹן. וְעַל זֶה לֹא הִתְעַלָּה בְּשֵׁם יָדוּעַ, אֶלָּא שְׁמוֹ סְתָם רְאוּבֵן.

..

וְעִם כָּל דָּא אַהֲדַר עוֹבָדָא לְאַתְרֵיהּ, כְּמָה דְהַהוּא רְעוּתָא קַדְמָאָה אִתְעֲבִידַת בְּרָחֵל, הַהוּא רְעוּתָא אִתְהַדָּרַת בָּהּ. דְּהָא בְּכוֹרָתֵיהּ אַהֲדָרַת לְיוֹסֵף בּוּכְרָא דְרָחֵל, אֲתַר דִּרְעוּתָא הֲוַת 

בְּרָחֵל וְכֹלָּא סָלִיק בְּאַתְרֵיהּ. בְּגִין דְּכָל עוֹבָדוֹי דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא כֻּלְּהוּ קְשׁוֹט וּזְכוּ

Hebrew:.

וְעִם כָּל זֶה חָזַר מַעֲשָׂיו לִמְקוֹמוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאוֹתוֹ רָצוֹן רִאשׁוֹן נַעֲשָׂה בְּרָחֵל, אוֹתוֹ רָצוֹן חָזַר בָּהּ, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּכוֹרָתוֹ חָזְרָה לְיוֹסֵף בְּכוֹר רָחֵל, מָקוֹם שֶׁהָרָצוֹן הָיָה בְּרָחֵל, וְהַכֹּל עוֹלֶה לִמְקוֹמוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁכָּל מַעֲשֵׂי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֱמֶת וּזְכוּת.

Even justified necessary negative actions have negative consequences

Echoes of his deception of his father Isaac

Besides the issues due to his actions towards Esav which we'll see below, Yakov is also haunted throughout his life by the deception of Yitschok, even though the act was justified by God and commanded by his mother. Later we will see how Yakov - who deceived his father regarding his brother, even wearing his clothing - is deceived by his sons regarding the fate of their brother Yosef, even using his clothing to do so. And even Esav's descendant much later on in the time of Mordechai and Esther have a certian revenge (the word "tze'akah" reveals this conneciton).

Again all this is an indication that our damaging actions, however justified, have many ramifications & achoes, and the true hero will accept these as part of their life-task of fixing the deeper levels of the world-mechanism.

Karma in Yakov's relation with Esav & Lovon

Every action has an effect: whether God's punishment of "mida kneged mida" or the non-punishment level we are exploring here. 

Had Yakov and Rivka managed things differently [not that I could have] perhaps Esav need not have become an enemy. The same regarding Avraham, Sarah and Yishmael. When things came to the point they did, there was no other option but to follow the course they took, but it would have perhaps been better to have tried not to get to that point.

Where Were the Shaddchanim?!

Perhaps had Yakov and Rachel worked to find an appropriate shidduch for Leah during the seven years of their engagement this demeaning event and its grave consequences of rivalry and jealousy would not have happened. 

Was Yakov insensitive in not seeing Leah’s misery in not being betrothed through seven long years? No: the Torah tells us that to him the seven years passed like days. 29: 20 “And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her.”The reason the chumash tells us this fact is not to make it so romantic but to indicate the REASON Yakov didn't help find a shidach for Leah during those 7 years - because to him they passed so quickly.

However, even though he was justifiably blinded to her pain, nevertheless this self-absorption had consequences for him - that he was with Leah instead of Rachel that first night - a mismatch between action and intention which (see below) reverberated throughout jewish history. 

If Yakov behaved properly, why was he haunted so by his actions?

In any given situation there is an optimal mode of conduct, but it is our responsibility not only to do what is right given the situation, but also to make the given situation the best possible. If as a result of non-perfect behavior the situation is far from optimal, then even correct deeds may have negative ramifications. By accepting the consequences we become partners in fixing creation, as stated at the end of the creation account "asher bara elokim laasot" (which according to Tradition means: "as God created - [in order for us] to do").

The relationship between Yakov, Rivka, Yakov and Esav was clearly not optimal. The same for the situation between Yakov, Rachel and Leah.  It may or may not be that Yakov could have done more – not that I claim I could have done more in the same situation, but perhaps he was so great that more was expected of him, or perhaps he accepted the mission of being held to that standard. Even if he could not possible have done more, events were divinely arranged to constantly remind him not to feel too comfortable with his previous actions, however justified; and as stated above, bearing the consequences is a necessary part of the "fixing". 

If harsh action is necessary and justified, we must do it, and not be deterred by the harsh necessities or false humility or misplaced compassion; but we must execute our responsibilities not with smug self-satisfaction, but rather with sensitivity even to the enemy we must hurt. [As a somewhat analogy: Even a murderer who is hung, must have their body released by nightfall - even they are in the image of God.] And we must also always be willing to question whether somehow perhaps additional sensitivity could also change the situation, and thereby also change the necessary actions. If we find we cannot bring ourselves to add that level of sensitivity, then this is OUR failing, not a justified response. But none of this should deter us form what must be done.

Applying to our lives

Since the same is true for other such stories and parallels in the chumash, a possible message of which is that if we pay attention to certain things happening in our lives, it may be that with a trained eye we'll discern an echo of something we had done earlier.

...........

What is the mechanism underlying Chazal's point that when the Torah implies a conneciton between events when the same or similar words are used by the Torah in the different stories? There are various possibilities: eg:

• Yakov intentionally used the same words as Esav had used; 

• God put that phrase into Yakov's mouth when Yo\akov was supplicating God ie the action was Y's free;l-chosen intent, however the specific words which came out were a reminder to jolt him.

• God used these words deliberately in the chumash but it is not exactly the words Yakov used; ie God told Moses to put those words in the torah as part of the record of the event, as a means of teaching us of the karma effect. Maybe this aspect was never known by Yakov himself (unless by prophecy) since he of course died long before Moses wrote at God's dictation the story of Yakov's life which we see in the chumash!

...

A question we will be interested in at various points in this commentary is: What was the reaction of those hearing these stories after Sinai, when they realized these connecitons? Were they already known? Which details of the stories were revealed in the Torah which were NOT known to the descendants of the protagonists (eg re the sale of Yosef), or even unknown to the protagonists themselves at the time and now known to their descendants in the desert?

[Yaakov didn't ask them whether to leave of course he had to and the malach said to, rather he consulted wheter to leave with notice to Lavan or secetly, and Rachel and Leah like all the great Matriarchs intuited what had to be done.

Note that if Rachel had lived, the sale of Joseph could not have occured.... Yakov's unintended curse re the stolen 'trafim', and her own ratification of it via the statement "give me children for if not I am dead" hastened her death, to be at childbirth, but it all was as a result of Lavan...Lavan achieved his goal of derailing the arrival of mashiach but only temporarily, and at the cost of his daughter's death....].

1. Four Mystical Experiences: Closing Circles  

The events - and the words used to describe them - related at the very beginning of the portion (ie from 28:10) and very end are almost identical, containing the same keywords, and almost in reverse order.

Seeing the parallels may help the reader of the portion to more clearly arrange the events retold in it in their mind.

The protagonists of the stories are Yakov, Esav and Lavan.  They are archetypes of those making history throughout the ages: 

1. Yakov: the good person doing what must be done and coming off not smelling so sweet;

2. Esav:The rough guy with good PR;

3. Lavan: the opportunist who first sees which way the wind blows before acting.

The keywords and the archetypical actions and situations the stories refer to are: 

• running away from (in fear), and going towards (for reconciliation); 

• nightfall and daybreak; 

• sleeping, dreams, waking; 

• angels, and being afraid, 

• vows and treaties,

• invoking the names of ancestors;

• naming places. 

[Note: The below comparison has all four side by side on a sufficiently-wide screen.]

Note: Ya’akov’s three mystical experiences seem to be associated with fear, awe, danger/struggle, while Lavan’s reaction is - as we see later on – petulance & posturing.

Analysis

These are all deep stories with hidden meanings. I don’t know whether the parallels between these four sections (and perhaps various others which may also be similar) are drawn elsewhere [perhaps one you readers can let me know], but certainly the events in these sections are dealt with in depth by many commentaries and by the Kabbalah. 

I have heard that not only are there reincarnations, but that groups of people who engaged in some struggle are reincarnated in the same historical period in order to settle the matter, and can go through similar struggles in various eras until it is resolved. Also, that each one of us contains elements of all the archetype ancestors and so we all participate in these struggles in some way.

A type of example is the fraternal struggles between the first siblings, Kain and Hevel (able), and then between Yitschak and Yishmael and then Yakov and Esav and Yosef and his brothers, reaching some resolution with Yosef's conciliatory attitude to his brothers, and peaking with his two sons Efraim and Menasheh, and concluding in perfection with the relationship of Moses and Ahron. But of course we all go through this struggle in some way as well.

...

TOC

* Four Mystical Experiences: Closing Circles

(Introductory) Summary: Family Politics

*  Unexpected Reward

Yakov’s Vow (introductory: Summary)

* Yakov’s Karma

Angry Words Kill (Introductory)

*   The Ramifications of the Naming of Yosef

* The Re-enactment of the Stolen Idol Scenario, and its Redemption

* Yakov’s special connection with stones: AR:

Sachar (Introductory)

*   A Parallel: Anochi   (AR) 

...

Advanced:

Kissing Cousins?! 

In a somewhat seemingly risqué encounter, Yaakov sees Rachel at the well, comes over, and kisses her.   There are many explanation for this (see eg http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v35/mj_v35i80.html#CABM and thread) and generally it is seen as a crucial encounter in the spiritual relam. [Also, tears, water, wells etc, carry much deep meaning and symbolism.]

Tthe chumash has extremely interesting/insightful sometimes non-PC stories and does not try to hide matters so if there is no clear indication of a kiss then probably there was not one - on the other hand I do not think that one should assume that Yakov did not kiss her. 

The Torah contains many plays on words and here the juxtaposition of words enables an interesting reading: 

• “Vayashk es tzon Lovon” = Yakov waterd Lovon’s  sheep, 

• “vayishak (exactly the same letters)... rochel.”

so one can read the pasuk as:

 “Yakov watered the sheep from the well and "watered" rochel with his tears”. 

[Note also that rochel means lamb!]

Advanced

2. Hints at the ascendancy of Yakov over Esav

The name Ya'akov is from 'akev', but it is not pejorative, it is from "'ekev asher..."

יח  וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ, עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי 

And so the name hints at his ascendancy.

יז  כִּי-בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ, וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְכַחוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עַל-שְׂפַת הַיָּם; וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו.

"17 that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" where the word "gate" = shaar" is spelled in the same way as the name of Esav, and the animal "sa'ir", see below.

We mentioned the parallel between Yaakov's deception of his father Yitschak, and the shvatim's deception of their father Yaakov - Yaakov is deceived by his children as he deceived his own father. The deception involves a brother being cheated by sibling(s), deception using clothing made from a Se'ir, making it seem it is from a certain son (and also involves food). 

.

• The psukim there hint of two other aspects related to the yaakov/esav story: the ascendancy of Avraham's descendants (from 'be yitschak yikarie lecha zara' we get both yakov and esav, so it is potential for conflict), over their enemies, which is reminiscent of 'rav yaavod tsa'ir'.

• And saying Sha'ar oivov, its (other?/gate) enemies is hint at se'ier.

• So we have ekev = yaakov, shaar = seir = esav, and

וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו.

  וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ

 =   'rav yaavod tsa'ir'

............................

TEXT: ז לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים ..  לא ויקחו, את-כתונת יוסף; וישחטו שעיר עיזים, ויטבלו את-הכותונת בדם.  לב וישלחו את-כתונת הפסים, ויביאו אל-אביהם, ויאמרו, זאת מצאנו:  הכר-נא, הכתונת בנך היא--אם-לא.  לג ויכירה ויאמר כתונת בני, חיה רעה אכלתהו; 

 אמר יעקוב, אל-רבקה אימו: הן עשיו אחי איש שעיר, ואנוכי איש חלק

  ויבוא אל-אביו, ויאמר אבי; ויאמר הנני, מי אתה בני.  יט האתה זה בני עשיו, אם-לא.   כג ולא הכירו--כי-היו ידיו 

 כידי עשיו אחיו, שעירות

 ויקחו, את-כתונת יוסף; וישחטו שעיר עיזים, ויטבלו את-הכותונת בדם. לב וישלחו את-כתונת הפסים, ויביאו אל-אביהם, ויאמרו, זאת מצאנו: -הכר-נא, הכתונת בנך היא אם-לא-ויכירה ויאמר כתונת בני .

..................................................................

There is simethuing hidden in the name Esav, and his other names: Commentators remark on the assymetry: yaakov's name is clearly implied from his act of grabbing Esav's heel, but Esav's name doesn't seem to follow from what is said about him - instead we would have expected his name to be Edom or Se'ir,both of which are indeed mentioned in that context later.

  וַיֵּצֵא הָרִאשׁוֹן אַדְמוֹנִי, כֻּלּוֹ כְּאַדֶּרֶת שֵׂעָר; וַיִּקְרְאוּ שְׁמוֹ,עֵשָׂו.

 כו  וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן יָצָא אָחִיו, וְיָדוֹ אֹחֶזֶת בַּעֲקֵב עֵשָׂו, וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ,יַעֲקֹב

..

וישלח יעקב מלאכים לפניו, אל-עשו אחיו, ארצה שעיר, שדה אדום.   

 ויאמר יעקוב, אל-רבקה אימו: הן עשיו אחי איש שעיר, ואנוכי איש חלק

וישב עשו בהר שעיר, עשו הוא אדום. ט ואלה תלדות עשו, אבי אדום, בהר, שעיר.

......

Advanced

The Tribes, and their Names

Reuven

​

in vayechi on Yaakov's deathbed he says Reuven is "reshis oni", ​maybe this is a hint that​ there's a deepr meaning to the name Reuven, not as Leah  gave (https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0129.htm), but rather leaving out the v, Rueven = 'Reshis oni.​ראובן בכורי אתה  מודיע יעקב לראובן  כחי וראשית אוני

Just as Yaakov as a name has deeper meaing as I pointed out.

The Yissachar Zevulun Story

 Introductory-level Summary: skip if you are very familiar with the story: 

 Family Politics: Yakov loves Rachel, but not Leah. Leah wishes to have children to compensate and to make Yakov love her too. Eventually she has four sons and is somewhat comforted. Then she stops giving birth (30:9). Once she realizes that she can’t have more children, she gives Yakov her handmaid as an additional wife who then bears him more sons; as was customary Leah considers the sons to her credit and as a result feels more secure in the affection that Yakov will have for her, with the names of her children reflecting this change. 

However we can see that later she returned to feeling ignored by her husband. Leah’s oldest son gives her special flowers, and Rachel sees them and wants some. Leah says “you took my husband and now you want to take my flowers!?”. Presumably Yakov stopped spending as much time with her once she stopped giving birth, and spends time with Rachel even though Rachel doesn’t give birth at all. As a result of this outburst, Rachel tells Leah “You can have Yakov tonight” in return for the flowers. Leah tells Yakov “Come to me, for I have given the payment for you.” As a result of that night, Leah conceives and gives birth to a boy.  

Challenge: What would we initially expect the missing words below to be? 

*  Unexpected Reward: As a result of the night with Yakov whose access was purchased by the flowers, Leah – who had stopped giving birth earlier -  conceives and gives birth to a boy. She says: “God gave my pay/reward because I gave ….”

Answer: What did Leah give that earned her this son? The flowers of course! That is how she obtained Yakov for that night. 

There’s another reason we expect to hear her say “because I gave the flowers".

The word sachar or variations of it appear three times in this story:

1. Leah tells Yakov “I paid (“sachor schartich  ך ת שכר שכר”) [the flowers] for the privelege of access to you” ;

2. She names her son who was born as a result of the flower night “Yisachar” יששכר: 

3. In the naming she says: “God gave my reward (payment= schari =(שכרי”.

So it is seemingly obvious that the שכר will refer to the flowers.

For both reasons mentioned above, the Torah is setting us up to expect her to say: “God gave me this son as my payment/reward because I gave my sister Rachel the flowers she wanted”. However, instead Leah specifies something unexpected as the reason for her reward, something not connected to the story being told at that moment: not “because I gave the flowers to Rachel” but “because I gave my handmaid to Yakov”!  

 (This is similar to the technique of the Torah in recounting the naming of Be’ersheva, as discussed in a previous parsha.)

Challenge: *  Why did Leah use this term “payment”?

Answer: At the very beginning of the saga Lavan asks Yakov what he will ask in payment for his work and Yakov answers: “Rachel”. 

הגידה לי את משכרתך. ויאהב יעקב את רחל ויאמר אעבדך שבע שנים ברחל

Leah then makes a point of “paying” Rachel for Yakov’s attention, and telling Yakov “Come to me, for I have given the payment for you (sachor scharticha)”.

Summary

The Hebrew root “sachar” שכר= pay, salary, reward appears in various forms at several junctures in the saga of Yakov, Lavan, Rachel and Leah: 

Lavan to Yakov: what will be your payment = sachar משכרתך ? Yakov answers: “Rachel”.

Leah to Yakov: “I have paid for you sachar schartich ך ת שכר”

Leah names her son who was born as a result of the flower night “YiSachar” יששכר: 

In the naming she says: “God gave my reward (payment= schari =(שכרי”.

Possible important ramification in the Yakov-Esav story: Distinguishing between one’s rights vs the means to actualize these rights

The unselfishness of giving the handmaid to Yakov to bear him more children after she had stopped having children was what gave her the spiritual merit of her body’s overcoming the barrier to birth and having more children herself: Mentioning the flower story makes sense if it is a factor in the birth and subsequent declaration “because I gave the flowers”; if not, why mention it at all? Nevertheless the flowers are revealed as merely the means whereby Leah was able to exercise that right on that given night. 

• As God made clear in his message to Rivka when she was pregnant with her twins, Yakov was the one who deserved the blessings and not Esav. And so Yakov’s giving Esav pottage (and obtaining the actual blessings via bringing food while in disguise) was not to obtain the right to the blessings, this was merely the means for this right to be actualized.

• Leah’s son was born due to a pre-established right, due to having given her handmaid to Yakov; the flowers simply provided the means for this right to be actualized.

* Buying Torah: Yissachar/Zevulun

 Yisachar was born as a result of this “payment” and then Zevulun after him. This may be the root of the special connection between the two: that the Torah of one could be ‘purchased’ by the other as a result of financial support: the reward for the torah study goes to the one paying the scholar.  (We can also perhaps apply the distinction made above about rights/rewards and means to the right/reward.)

ידוע שבשם יששכר יש רמז לכך שאת שכר לימודו אפשר לקנות: יששכר ­ יש שכר.

אולי יש עוד רמז. בשם יששכר יש כפול של האות ש שאיננו בא לידי ביטוי ואות שלא מבטאים אותה הינה נדירה מאוד בלשון הקודש אולי גם זה רמז לדבר המיוחד אצל יששכר שעבורו הוא נודע ­ שאת שכר לימודיו אפשר לקנות.

קשר כזה בין לימוד תורה וכסף הוא מוזר אבל יש פסוק בתהילים (קיט. קסה) שבו יש הקש בין שני אלו "שש אנוכי על אמרתך כמוצא שלל רב" ­ ואולי יש כאן רמז לקשר כזה ביחס ללימודו של יששכר

Confusing geography/history

• • Terach left Ur Kasdim and took Avraham & Lot along to (Canaan but ended up staying in) Choron.

  • Avraham was told by God to leave his birthplace and father's home, but that seemed to be Choron, not Ur Kasdim. 

  • When Eliezer came and found Rivka, Nochor's grandaughter, she was in "Aram Naharayim, the city of Nochor". 

  • When Yakov fled to Choron (Harran), it was to them that he went. So Choron is "Aram Naharayim, the city of Nochor"? Note the similarity of Nochor <--> Choron (they are spelled using the same three letters in Hebrew)

  • If Terach left Nochor behind in going to Choron, why was it later called "the city of Nochor" were Nochor's descendants lived. 

...

• • Terach left Ur Kasdim and took Avraham & Lot along ; why not also take his other son Nochor? Was there an effect of this later on eg Jealousy/rivalry - as we see, Nochor's son Besuel and grandson Lovon seemed somewhat unfriendly or even hostile.

  • Avrohom leaves them and goes to Cna'an - maybe because Choron arrived?

......

• Terach goes to Cna'an but stops over in Choron and stays there.

• Avram is told to leave Choron to go to Cna'an, but he sends Eliezer back there to find a wife (Rifka) for his son Yitschok. (However he makes sure Eliezer doesn't cause Yitschok to live there in Choron).

• Rivka and Yitschok's son Yakov flees Cna'an and goes to the ancestral home in Choron. And then flees from there back to Cna'an. 

...

Advanced readers: skip material marked “introductory"/with an *; proceed directly to material marked *.

..

Note: Since the meanings or messages of these patterns are sometimes obscure, but the existence of the pattern is significant in of itself, I will point out connections I have noticed even if I do not offer an explanation or interpretation for them. 

Other material from that file about this topic 

קולו של יעקב

Is it indeed in Ramban? Did Ramban specify how he knows the voices were similar? If there's no value added in my vort, maybe the words "mefaresh haramban" can be added in the beginning so that I am not claiming anything for my own.

There may eventually be something of my own to add, but I have to think about it:

It's interesting that the later interchange with Yakov is the reverse of the earlier interchange with Esav:

 וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו בְּנִי, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו, הִנֵּנִי : Yitschak speak first, then Esav says hineni

 וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי; וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֶּנִּי, מִי אַתָּה בְּנִי: Yakov speaks first, and Yitschaok says hineni.

In the first instance, when Yitschok called for/to Esav to come, how did he know Esav had actually arrived,  how did he know to say 'בְּנִי'? Maybe he smelled Esav? But later he needed for Esav to be very close in order to smell his clothing, and at first Esav would not necessarily have come so close (but maybe the food-smell masked the smell of his clothing, which was not the case beforehand).

Maybe Yitschok was surprised that his son said 'אָבִי ' as he approached, perhaps this was Yakov's way of coming to him, and that's why he asked 'who are you' and what he meant by 'hakol kol ya'akov'?

Maybe there's part of the exchange which is not recorded?

....

The enigmatic pasuk about "Edomite kings":

ט וַיֵּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶל-יַעֲקֹב עוֹד, בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ, אֹתוֹ.  י וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ אֱלֹהִים, שִׁמְךָ יַעֲקֹב:  לֹא-יִקָּרֵא שִׁמְךָ עוֹד יַעֲקֹב, כִּי אִם-יִשְׂרָאֵל יִהְיֶה שְׁמֶךָ, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, יִשְׂרָאֵל.  יא וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי אֵל שַׁדַּי, פְּרֵה וּרְבֵה--גּוֹי וּקְהַל גּוֹיִם, יִהְיֶה מִמֶּךָּ; וּמְלָכִים, מֵחֲלָצֶיךָ יֵצֵאוּ.  יב וְאֶת-הָאָרֶץ, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם וּלְיִצְחָק--לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה; וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ, אֶתֵּן אֶת-הָאָרֶץ. ..

And then the next story is the genealogy of Esav: א וְאֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת עֵשָׂו, הוּא אֱדוֹם. ....אֵלֶּה אַלּוּפֵי הַחֹרִי לְאַלֻּפֵיהֶם, בְּאֶרֶץ שֵׂעִיר.  {פ 

לא וְאֵלֶּה, הַמְּלָכִים, אֲשֶׁר מָלְכוּ, בְּאֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם--לִפְנֵי מְלָךְ-מֶלֶךְ, לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

....

Vayeshev

We ended up as slaves in Egypt. How? Why?

I would submit that it was because Yosef was sold by his brothers as a slave to Egypt! 

In other words, when the brothers sold Joseph as a slave to Egypt it initiated a chain of cause-effect which ended up leading to their descendants being slaves in Egypt; though it seemed to all be "natural" cause-effect as detaile din the Biblical story, it was actually metaphysically 'karmic' or a 'boomerang-effect'. As such, it was meant to be noticed and understood by the all as a punishment & warning for the future.

{Even the Egyptians were perhaps meant to understand this - the Pharoahs of all people knew that Joseph was sold to them as a slave, and then later must have realized it was done by his brothers (the interpreter [if it was an Egyptian] certainly heard their discussion, and Pharaoh saw how Joseph treated them initially), so they were thus warned that karmic retribution would follow mistreatment of these people. And indeed, it did - see later how the plagues were direct mida kneged mida karmic retribution and warnings).}

...

DELETE DUP or MESH

………………

Chanuka Oil and Pillow Stones

Yakov runs away from Esav, on the way he stops to go to sleep, putting some stones under his head. He has an awe-inspiring dream, wakes up, and makes the stone into a monument. Basically he says “if the dream promises come true this will be a holy place and this stone will be a monument”. 

·         Why the stress on the stone which was his pillow? 

·         Why the conditional “If”? Why shouldn’t he make a monument?

The relevant passage implies (depends on the translation/interpretation[1]) that he took several stones to put under his head, but it says clearly later on that only one was under his head when he awoke. According to Tradition, God made a miracle and had all the stones join into one.

AR: Yakov could not be sure that the dream was accurate and from God, but the unified stone was a sign that something special had occurred, that it was indeed holy ground, and therefore Yakov gave credence to the dream (appropriately it was the stone under his head while he dreamed which became unified.)

In a similar manner: some people living at the time of the events we commemorate at Hannuka were not sure that the military victory was indeed a divine miracle: then as today, incredible military victories by the Jewish State could be laid at the door of naturalistic causes. We are taught that this was one of the reasons that God made the miracle of the oil: to indicate that the rededication of the Temple had come about via a miracle, that the whole process was one of divine intervention. And so the oil became the great symbol of the holiday, the focus of the commemoration of the miracle of the great military victory,

even though the war was in itself a ‘greater’ miracle.

AR: Similarly: Yakov understands that the miracle of the stone is not in itself consequential but rather was meant to indicate that the dream was a divine event: he therefore stipulates that IF the events foretold in the dream come true, so that it was indeed a message from God, then since the stone – like the oil -indicated that this indeed had been a divine event, it would then become the focus of the commemoration of the ‘greater’ miracle of the dream.

…………

C)       

APPENDIX

Angry Words Kill

D)     Rachel steals her father’s idols. Yakov, not knowing that it was she (just as he didn’t know it was NOT her at the wedding), and thinking that Lavan is totally unjustified in his thorough search of their belongings says [31:32] in anger: “let the thief die”. And so Rachel dies early, in childbirth. This is also of course a terrible tragedy for Yakov who loved her, and whose words kill her.

E)      Rachel says to Yakov re her lack of children: [30:1] “Give me children, because if not I am dead/I will die!” and indeed she dies early.

AR: The irony is that it is just as soon as Rachel has what she requested, that is she has children – plural - that is, as soon as her second child is born, she indeed dies. And even more ironically she dies in childbirth!

F)      Yakov gets angry with her saying “Am I (in place of) God, that I prevented you from having children!?”. AR: Yakov’s statement takes on ironical overtones, since it turns out that although he didn’t prevent her from having children, having children was her undoing since she died in childbirth (and indeed he prevented her from having more children by causing her to die in childbirth).

*   The Ramifications of the Naming of Yosef

Rachel is not satisfied by the blessing of finally giving birth to a child: she says “Let God add to me another son”, and therefore names her son Joseph/“Yosef” = ‘let Him add’! This dissatisfaction has grave consequences: 

G)     AR: The word ‘yosef’ in this context initially appears in the Torah after Eve gave birth to Cain: we are told: “and she additionally (“vatosef”) gave birth to Abel”. The parallel is clear: Cain was intensely jealous of Abel, and killed him, and the brothers were intensely jealous of Yosef, and wanted to kill him. 

H)     AR: Rachel asks for a child “in addition” to the first-born, and gets one, Benjamin. Later however Joseph disappears and Yakov must console himself with Benjamin INSTEAD of Joseph, not in addition to him!

The Biblical “Dolly”[2]: Yakov’s Magic Gene-Altering Sticks:

Yakov is cheated repeatedly by Lavan. Yakov places a magic stick near the sheep when they conceive, and the sheep come out this color! Intentions Have Effect.  I heard the following from my grandfather: Lavan told Yakov that since he was given Rachel in the end, the deception had no negative long-term effect. Yakov countered that the negative effect was in the mystical mismatch of intention that he had when with Leah, thinking it was Rachel, and this affected Reuven and Joseph negatively. Lavan countered that such things could have no effect. So Yakov showed him that even what the sheep think of when conceiving has a physical effect (!) how much more crucial are human thoughts.

The Mystical Power of Correct Intentions During Procreation (Traditional ideas)

I)        Yakov and Rachel were fated to be married and have Joseph, and for him to be the first born. Joseph was meant to have great spiritual potential as a result of this; this would also have forestalled all power struggles. Instead Yakov was with Leah first and Yosef was not the first-born, and his spiritual energy was weakened.

J)       It was crucial that the thoughts of both Yakov and Leah be attuned at the moment of conception. Yakov thought he was with Rachel but he was with Leah instead and so the child that resulted, Reuven, was spiritually impaired, and this caused his actions to be less than perfect (he didn’t save Joseph; his actions regarding Biha). 

K)     Though as it turned out Reuven was first-born, it was still Joseph who was preordained to be the leader, and this was the root of the struggles between the brothers. (Their struggle was like those of the previous generations: between the first-born Yishmael and his younger brother Yitschak [first-born of Sarah], and between the first-born Esav and his younger twin brother Yakov.)

[1] Note that it says “mey’avney hamakom” “from the stones of the place” and “makom” =   “place” is a name of God; the stone became one: God is unity.

[2] The first cloned large mammal.