Vayishlach
Some of the the midrashic aspects seem like a screenplay for a MarvelComics movie
Image: Esav reconciling with Yakov, Rubens painting
Embedded Files
2024
What's the correct Jewish Way to rescue kidnapped Jews?
The case of Dinah in this week's portion:
Synopsis: Shchem kidnaps Dinah the daughter of Yakov and takes her; she is FORCIBLY "MARRIED" TO HIM (ie raped). (Just like Avimelech and Pharaoh wanted to do to Dina’s mother Rivka and her grandmother Sarah.) Later, Schchem offers much to Dina’s brothers in return for her hand in marriage; they react by killing all the males of the town - or all those of one group (as we explain). And they do it via treachery/trickery.
.
Preface: It's easy to be judgemental of her brothers' use of deception and violence in rescuing her - killing all the males of the city - BUT HERE IS MY ATTEMPT AT JUSTIFYING what they did:
[Note that there are certain parallels to the great rescue of Jewish hostages (Operation Entebbe, a truly amazing episode) where Israel used deception and violence to overpower the terrorists, killing many of them along with commandos of the local army, in order to rescue innocent Jewish hostages.]
Introduction: Rescuing Dinah in Entebbe:
We need to focus on these facts:
The Torah unequivocally states that Schem kidnapped and raped Dinah.
Though he eventually fell in love with her and perhaps made her love him, she was a captive and this is a vulnerable situation.
Shchem at no point offered to return Dinah! He ‘asked for her hand in marriage’ after he raped her, and had her as a captive in his palace, and clearly had no intention of taking no for an answer.
Chamor, the father, the leader, did not apologize or offer to free Dinah.
Dinah was a captive the whole time without the option of release, being forced to be with her captor on a continual basis - daily rape.
Since Schem fell in love with Dinah he perhaps wished for her to want to remain with him, not only as a captive, and wanted her to feel that she had her family’s blessing; he therefore didn’t prefer the option of killing them and alienating her. So he offered to give a large dowry and made an "arrangement", offering the children of Israel: “We will marry your women and you can marry ours”!
It’s not at all clear that Shchem was even giving them a choice, whether they could withhold their other women from his people.
The UN would say this was a generous offer but:
1. the children of Yakov should become assimilated into the larger culture, losing their national identity;
2. the Jewish women were to be for the taking by Shchem's men, who perhaps would take the other Jewish women as he had, forcibly.
Just as his deal regarding Dinah did not include the option of simply returning her to her family and letting them depart in peace, perhaps this entire “pact” was an edict of forced assimilation of the children of Yakov into their people. If he was offering his women in return for the Jewish women, this implied there were others of his men who wanted what his son had taken.
So to summarize: As with many other accounts in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes, and then one realizes these points:
Shchem ‘asked for her hand in marriage’ only after he raped her, and without any intention of taking no for an answer. Leaving her there meant she would undergo daily rape. She was taken by force, she was held by force, and there was no way to rescue her from the clutches of Shchem other than by force - when a man violent enough to kidnap and rape does not offer to return the victim, a violent rescue is necessary. When the brothers present their plan to Schem they say “and if not we’ll take Dinah and leave” but of course this is just face-saving bargaining talk, it was clear that had they been able to they would already have taken her back. It’s clear that Schem had no intention of taking no for an answer.
Was it ethical to use trickery? Answer: Being that it was a family against a city, they were heavily outnumbered, and so they had to use a stratagem in order to succeed. What they chose to do was cruel but necessary in order to free Dinah.
BUT QUESTIONS REMAIN:
Yakov’s sons (according to the simple reading it was not just Shimon and Levi) tricked the males of Shchem - seeing that they would not be able to obtain Dinah’s release, they pretended to accept the offer of assimilation into the Shchem culture but that their condition was circumcision. And they stipulated that it would not be enough that Shchem himself circumcize, but that he must be from a people who are circumcised, so that all his people must follow suit., and then Shimon and Levi (Dina's full brothers) killed them all while they were in pain from the operation.
i. Was it morally proper to use circumcision as a tactic in this way?
ii. Why did the sons of Yakov involve all the males and not just Shchem?
iii. Was it morally proper to kill them all?
..............
CIRCUMSTANCES OF CIRCUMCISION: A NOVEL DEFENSE OF YAKOV’S SONS
My interpretation: Chamor was a crafty leader: in order that other men among his people not be jealous of him, he was telling them that just as he took a beautiful Jewish woman, he would make available to them all the other Jewish women. Shchem made an announcement in front of all his people, ‘welcoming’ the Jews into their midst, but made it clear that he was offering all the Jewish women to his men. In return he said, the Jewish men would have access to the local women and I think it is obvious that no women on either side were consulted in any of this!
So the implication is that the men of the city weren’t circumcising themselves for their leader to be able to have Dinah, but in order for them themselves to be able to have access to the new women in their midst. All they had to do was circumcise themselves. In my opinion, the men of a culture led by a kidnapping rapist wouldn’t eagerly undertake a painful operation just to welcome some strangers into their midst or to allow the leader to marry someone, but rather would doso only if they themselves had intention to take a Jewish woman.
And even if there was social pressure generated by the ruler to circumcise themselves, if they did not intend to marry a Jewish woman, no one would ever know whether or not they were circumcised, so why bother doing it! So the deal motivated only those intending to take Jewish women for themselves. And it was precisely these men that Dina’s brothers needed to identify and neutralize, since they would be most motivated to help their leader defend against DIna's brothers on their intended rescue-raid. My assumption is that the ones who didn't want to take part in this did not bother to circumcise, and therefore were not among those incapacitated, and therefore were not killed.
Summary: Shchem knew that he needed his people’s help to defend him in case Dinah’s family would try to rescue her. By promising the Jewish women to the men, he bought their allegiance and their support in case of attack: now it was not anymore simply a matter of the men rallying to defend their leader from the ramifications of his escapade, but rather now there was to be a prize for all of them.
The brothers, planning their rescue, wanted to immobilize the men who were most likely to resist the rescue, and it was clearly those men who were planning to avail themselves of the Jewish women who would be most likely to resist the rescue, or to pursue the Jews when they fled to safety with Dinah in their hands, and so they came up with this stratagem. And indeed it worked - those men who intended to take Jewish women circumcised themselves, and these men were incapacitated by the circumcision.
The full vs half-brothers: There might have been differences in strategy by the brothers who were full brothers (having not only the same father but also the same mother as Dinah) and those who were only half brothers. The intent of the half brothers may have been merely to incapacitate the men of the city so that they wouldn’t interfere with the rescue, however Dinah’s full-brothers Shimon and Levi went further, deciding that the males who had circumcised themselves were likely the culprits in arrnaging the capture of Dinah and deserved death, and in any case they were the ones who were indicating by their actions that they would defend Schchem against Dinah's rescue and so were more dangerous. And so they decided to take no chances and kill all those who had circumcised themselves.
Who deserved to be killed in order to rescue Dinah? As has been pointed out by commentators, the passage “the city which polluted their sister” [34:27] can have the implication that the city as a whole was guilty of the pollution of Dinah, in other words that there was more than one man involved in the rape. And, in fact the relevant passage also implies that all the men of Shchem circumcised themselves. Either way, whoever circumcized themselves marked themselves as supporting their leader's vicious action and plan.
...........
The Entebbe example: One of the greatest modern hostage-rescue operations was negatively interpreted by enemies of the Jews - one can similalry interpret the rescue of Dinah, or choose to find the justifications.
Some African nations submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israel's "act of aggression":
... the representative of Uganda transmitted the text of a message dated 4 July from the President of the Republic of Uganda, drawing attention to a most serious incident which had occurred at Entcbbe international airport on the night of 3/4 July. The President stated that at 2120 GMT, three Zionist Israeli transport planes had landed by surprise and without any authorization from the Ugandan Government at Entebbe international airport ..... the invasion of Uganda by Israeli commandos carried out at 1 a.m. on that day and had decided to request the Security Council to meet urgently to consider that wanton act of aggression against a Member State of the United Nations.
................
How the wording may hint at relevant aspects:
“The sons of Yakov answered Shchem in deceit (‘mirmah’)”. This sounds unethical, but the Torah may be hinting at justification of their action: the word for ‘they answered’ = “vaya’anu” is parallel to “vaya’aneha” = “and (Shchem) tormented her (Dinah)”.
Note however that the word ‘mirmah’ (deceit) haunts Yakov: as his father Isaac said to his brother Esav regarding his taking of the blessings: “Your brother came in deceit (mirmah)”. And Yakov was angered at the actions of his children who “answered in deceit”.
Further Indication that they were justified:
i. [34:30] Yakov chides the two brothers, worrying that the nations will retaliate. But he does not claim that their deed was unjustified. [ie he was not necessarily critical of the ethics, but rather he was afraid of the possible revenge by neighboring peoples for the actions of his children against Shchem, justified though it may have been, just as he feared Esav’s revenge for his own act of deceit, justified though it was. Both were unfortunate extreme actions, necessary and therefore justified, but it would have been better had the whole situation been somehow preventable.]
ii. When the brothers reply “will Dinah be treated as a whore” [34:31] Yakov has no reply. Presumably, they are saying that there was no other way to actually rescue their sister.
ii. Indeed God provides protection for them from the nations [ 35:5], which seems to imply divine acceptance of their deed.
Conclusion:
As with the incidents between the Patriarchs and Lavan, and with Avimelech and Pharaoh and the matriarchs, a casual reading of the story makes it seem that the Patriarchs and their family are in the wrong. After all, in our case here Shchem’s offer of very high dowry and fraternity among the two peoples sounds quite sincere and generous, and peace-loving.
These are difficult stories, and need to be studied in depth. As with many other accounts in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes and throughout the narrative remember we are dealing with a kidnapper/rapist. One can have various opinions - the above is my attempt to portray it in as positive a light as possible.
Though we always hope and pray that such situaitons will never arise, that there never will be the need for such stratagems and actions, nevertheless unfortunately sometimes they ar enecessary......
May we be blessed to see the release of all captives and the eradication of all those intent on destroying us.
2024
The Yaakov-Yisrael helix and the weird middle-of-the night outdoor wrestling match
It is fascinating to see the parallels between two very important events in the life of yaakov - his birth, and the all-night struggle with the 'man'. In a deep sense the parallels show us that both are the same story, ie part of the same event, but worked out first at the physical plane and then later at a spiritual level, like a helix coming full-circle but higher up.
Seeing this relation between the events then helps us understand the meaning of the weird wrestling match.
The key is to understand who was "the man" wrestling with Yaakov
There are several clues:There are three sections in the complete saga: Before wrestling, the wrestling, and after the match is over, and understanding the placement of this wrestling story, what is being told to us by having it sandwiched between the two others is the key.
Before wrestling with the 'man' in middle of the night, Yakov is frightened for the life of his family and himself, praying to God that he be spared Esav's intention to kill him. He prepares an offering for Esav, to mollify him, and sends it off ahead to be receid by Esav before the meeting with Yakov. Then in middle of the night is the wrestling event, until morning. Afterwards Yakov continues on the way and meets Esav, who is mollified, and greeets him warmly. Tradition tells us that this odd interpolation of the wrestling match between two stories about Esav is because the middle story is also about Esav! How so? Who is "the man" who wrestles with Yaakov?
Note how in the story itself there are indeed indications of the identity of the 'man':
a. The 'man' touches Yaakov on the thigh and as a result Yaakov limps afterwards for a while. So obviously the 'man' is far more physically powerful than Yaakov, and obviously by touching him a few times in various places he could disable Yaakov entirely and easily win the fight, no need for a struggle, certainly not all night. So it is clear that the 'struggle' was NOT really a typical physical one, and the 'man' is actually a spiritual entity.
b. The 'man' gives him a new name, and the name means "you successfully struggled with higher-level powers" ie the 'man' was a representative of these higher-level powers. And indeed God ratifies the new name, meaning that later on when we read of God referring to him as Yisrael, we as readers understand that it was truly some spiritual entity, like an 'angel'.
What entity was it? The story of the struggle is between two other related stories: the account of Yaakov preparing for the meeting with Esav, and the account of what occurred the next day when the two meet. The struggle - sandwiched between these other two stories - takes place at night, therefore presumeably the night in between the events of those two stories of the preparations before the meeting, and the actual meeting. It is striking that the preparation story is one of tenseness, fear, impending doom, whereas the meeting is pleasant, brotherly. Now that we know that the struggle was with an angel we can understand that what caused the transition from Esav seeking to kill Yaakov to him being so family-warm was the event related in between, the wrestling match. Somehow the wrestling with the angel changed the situation profoundly, transforming the fraught meeting with Esav to a warm one.
Why would the struggle with the angel have this effect?
Tradition tells us this 'man' in the all-night struggle, whose result affected Esav, is not a generic 'angel' but rather is the heavenly representation of the root-power of the Esav-nation ('saro shel esav') 'the cosmic-root of Esav', and the struggle was in a spiritual plane.
The parallel of two struggles: The initial physical level of this strange event was the struggle between Yaakov and Esav in the womb, also a rather surreal event. It culminates in the birth-clutching of Esav's heel and as we see in Yaakov's life later on, is a struggle to get the firstborn status, in order to get the firstborn's blessing (all prefigured in God's message to Rivka). And later Yaakov 'purchases' the birthright from Esav. However one cannot earn the birthright and its blessings by physical struggle in the womb or at birth, nor by purchase, nor by trickery - it is via the higher-level struggle with the higher-level root of Esav whereby Yaakov earns the spiritual blessing legitimately, through a night-long spiritual struggle with the higher level forces. And it is via this higher-level struggle that he earns his higher-level name, Yisrael
Yaakov asks the 'man' for a blessing and gets a name! The physical actions are the same in both events: just as he earned his original name by holding on to his brother, he earns this new powerful name by holding on to the ‘man’ = angel = 'heavenly root minister of Esau" in his all-night struggle; he does not let the minister of Esav-power go, just like he held the heel of the earthly Esav as he was being born after the struggle in the womb, thereby earning his original name. In both cases he gets a name as a result of his wanting to get the blessing. In both cases he earns a name via 'struggle', but later it is at a higher spiritual level. And since Yaakov wins in the encounter, he is safe when meeting the earthly Esav the next day.
The spiritual helix: A helix is a circle completed at a higher level, and in a personal life a helix is therefore returning to the same point, completing a cycle, but in a higher sense. Yaakov starts out with the child-level purely-physical struggle with Esav, to get the blessing, and gets the name Yaakov as a result; much later he engages in the true spiritual higher level struggle with the higher-level Esav, asks for a blessing and gets the name Yisrael as a result - amazingly we can see that it is the same event, just taking place at a higher spiritual level, thus completing the helix.
May we all be able to see in life's seemingly-mundane struggles as a prefiguring of a spiritual ascent to a higher level!
The Deep meaning of names: Based on the above parallel we can perhaps attain an insight about the two names involved, Yaakov and Yisrael:
a. The name Abram was changed by God to Abraham, and Sarai was changed by God to Sarah, both having the letter 'heh' added, which is letter representing God.
b. God gave the name Isaac = Yitschak, and so it needed no change.
c. Eventually Ya’akov earned a new name on his own merit - the angel gives it to him, and this is ratified later directly by God. However, it is almost to be expected that his name would be changed with the addition of a 'heh', as with Avraham and Sarah. Why did he get an entirely new name 'Yisrael' instead of something like "Yhakov' or "yakovah"?
The answer we offer here is that in fact Yaakov and Ysrael are the same name, ie the name Yaakov is in a certain sense simply the earlier version of the name 'Yisrael'! Both names are given due to the struggle, and if that is the same but at higher level then the new name is same, but at a higher level. yaakov is the name signifying the beginning of the saga, and yisrael is the 'same' name, the name into which the name 'yaakov' is transformed when the struggle reaches a successful conclusion
May we too be blessed to grow spiritually through our struggles, and to fulfil the potential of our names, our roots.
..
Three examples of Yaakov re thoughts affect the physical plane:
1) ladder dream causes the stones under the head which is dremaing to unite. This is parshas Vayetze, happens right after leaving home, B'er Sheva.
2) intention during procreation has effect: re switch of Rachel/Leah by Lavan causing Yosef to be born as Reuven, and it is demonstrated via the sheep with the Luz stick; this is parshas Vayetze, happens long after leaving, while working in Lavan territory.
3) Saro shel esav struggle has effect on his thigh afterwards, and it changes Esav to become pacified, and turns Yakov into Yisrael. Parshas Vayishlach, when Yakov left Lavan and is on the way back home to Yitschak.
The below vort is re 3), but also mentions 1). The other one (2) is left to its own vort, see vayetze.
The mystical approach to interpreting the Yakov/Saro shel Esav struggle:
Every action below (in the physical realm) is a shadow of a process in the upper (ie spiritual) realm, so there is a sort of dual-level to our reality - the earthly physical plane, the universe we are familiar with, was created as a means for us to be able to cause higher-level changes for the good. And we were designed, in tune with the design of the universe, as a combination of physical and spiritual beings to be able to cause spiritual-level changes by acting in the physical plane! And then those changes then have an effect 'below', in the earthly plane (see Ramchal (Luzatto) Derech Hashem "The Way of God")
Yaakov's inner journey during the struggle (which is not described in the chumash) caused a change in his spiritual root-status, he became Yisrael. By the time Esav sees him the next day, both he and Yakov have been transformed. Esav encounters not Yaakov, who he had resolved to kill, but rather in his place Yisrael, an entirely different level of being, and indeed Esav himself is different.
Yaakov's special segulah (power): Now we can better understand Yakov's earlier ladder-dream, where he sees a ladder with foot on the earth and top is in heaven, with angels going up and then down. Not as would be expected, angels coming down to Earth from Heaven and then going back up but the reverse, ie a process starting on the earth and going up and then down! This symbolizes exactly the idea we outlined earlier of the dual-level of Heaven/Earth, and it means that Yakov had a special power to affect the higher level from down below. All this is also hinted at in the midrash telling us that under Yaakov's head as he was dreaming, the many stones joined to be one - a physical effect of the upper-level prophetic event in his head, on the most material of substance, stones. And similarly the 'struggle with the man' - while alive in his body on the earth he is engaged in a spiritual struggle that is described in the most physical manner, wrestling - where the outcome of his spiritual efforts affects the earthly-level, in this case it transforms the flesh-and-blood Esav!
Conclusion: When we see a miraculous turn of events in the purely-physical plane, like the transformation of Esav, we should understand that the cause should not be sought in earthly-level events, but rather it can be the earthly-level reflection of spiritual-level events brought about by earthly-spiritual activity!
May we be blessed to be motivated to continue our moral struggles, strengthened by knowing there is a cosmic effect to our free-willed difficult decisions to give up the easy path and do the right thing. Every time we 'win in this type of struggle inside ourselves, we raise the spiritual elvel of theunverse! And that then has an effect on the physical universe, even if we don't see it, or don't realize that it was the result our effort!
.....
Deleted: Clearly there is a connection between the two events and the names given as a result of these events. For example, we can see and the new name as explained in the Torah means "you struggled with human (Esav) and later with Elo(h)kim (the cosmic level of Esav), and so you earned it".
And so in fact 'Yisrael' is in this sense the same name as 'Yaakov', but more fitting than the name 'Yahakov' or "Yakovah", it is the same name but at a higher spiritual level, thus completing the name-helix.*
[Said another way: The holding onto Esav which led to Yakov's receiving that seemingly-pedestrian or profane name, is a physical struggle prefiguring the middle-of-the-night physical/spiritual struggle (next week's parsha) when he holds onto the 'man', the heavenly-realm Esav-power, which led to his receiving his 'higher-level' name, Yisrael. So he has a physical struggle with Esav when being born, holding him, in order to get the blessing, and is given the name Yakov as a result, and later he does the same to the angel/man/minister of esav, holding him and not letting his go until he receives a blessing, which turns out to be a new name, Yisrael. ...That struggle in which he fulfils 'ya'akov' is successful in the way the birth-struggle could not be, and as a result of this success he is named "yisrael' = struggled with man and higher powers and prevailed', so.]
.....
3) Even the name Yaakov is holy
Yakov: Not a 'heel' - a 'helix'!
a) The deeper meanings associated to the name Ya'akov
How could holy Rivka and Yitschak allow their son to have such a derogatory name - heel?!
[Jacob, the ancestor of the Jewish People , was given what seems to be a derogatory name based on the word "akev/heel"- presumably by his father; the name means 'will heel' = 'Ya-akov' after he emerges in birth holding Esav's heel ("akev Esav").
Actually, the Torah doesn't say explicitly who called him this name, so it almost seems as though it was NOT them. So perhaps it was the birth-nurses and others in the household? But if so, why would Holy Yitschak and Rivka call him by that name?]
The question: Ya’akov was born holding the heel of his first-born twin brother Esav as Esav was emerging before him from the womb they shared; as a result he was given the name Ya’akov (the Torah tells us that the name is based on the root word ‘akev’ = heel, because he ‘held the heel of his twin brother’ as he was being born.)
It’s odd that the great Patriarch Yakov would be named with a negative connotation; indeed the name is used pejoratively by his brother Esav later on ("ויעקבני זה פעמיים" "twice he heeled me [outmaneuvered/cheated me]").
Esav even refers to this name and its meaning later on, regarding the selling of the birthright for porridge incident and the taking of the blessings, when he says "Yes, he 'heeled' me twice".
How can it be that Holy Forefather Isaac could give his son such a name?
What was Isaac thinking to give such a name to his son, the progenitor of the Jewish people?!
Jacob, the ancestor of the Jewish People , after he emerges in birth holding Esav's heel ("akev Esav") was given what seems to be a derogatory name based on the word "akev/heel"- the name means 'will heel' = 'Ya-akov'.
Esav even refers to this name and its meaning later on, regarding the selling of the birthright for porridge incident and the taking of the blessings, when he says "Yes, he 'heeled' me twice". How can it be that Holy Forefather Isaac could give his son such a name?
And why would his parents allow those watching the birth to give the name rather than giving it themselves. Indeed all the Patriarchs had names given by God: Abram was changed by God to Abraham, and Sarai was changed by God to Sarah. Isaac was given the name by God, and Yakov had the name Yisrael (Israel) added later by God (at first via an angel), similalrly for Yishmael. [Caveat/Note: Though given by God the name Isaac = Yitschak = “will laugh” could almost sound pejorative, coming as it does in relation to Abraham’s laughter upon hearing from God that he would father a child. However since God does not chastise him for this laughter we can see the reference to it in his name as a positive matter.]
Summarizing the question: how is it that Yitschak, who was aware that names were so potent (after all God had intervened to change the names of his parents, and had decreed his own name) gives Yakov a name in such a cavalier manner rather than a carefully thought out name; and why give him a name with such seemingly pejorative connotations?
Towards an answer: On the one hand of course this act of holding the heel symbolized the struggle of Esav and Yakov in the womb that the Torah tells us of, and their subsequent struggle throughout life, and is therefore very appropriate.
However, did Yitschak realize this?! It would seem that Rivka did not tell Yitschak (Isaac) of the prophecy she received regarding the two sons, and so he presumably did not know of this cosmic struggle being enacted through his sons (at the level of simple text: he certainly did not act in accordance with the prophecy, to give the blessing to the younger son, Ya’akov) and so perhaps Yitschak could not necessarily see the cosmic significance of the heel-holding!
If so, why give such a name to his son, or allow such a name to be attached to him? [Actually, does anyone actually call him that? Was it perhaps only others rather thanhis parents wo used tha tname? Yakov uses the name Esav in talking to Yitschak, but is Yakov's name used anywhere?! But the Torah refers to him that way, so presumably that's how his parents referred to him.
[If it was only the Torah referrinf to him in this way, we could say it is because it is a reflection of the "prophecy".]
Isaac knew that his own name was based on the laugh of his father (and perhaps mother as well), and this name was given by God, and so he realized that this laughter was obviously therefore a deep and powerful augury of his life, and not an insignificant incident; perhaps he concluded that the holding of the heel was similarly significant and named his son based on this, or allowed his son;s name to be this.
There are however several hints in the text to a higher-level meaning to the name Ya’akov, which are definitely not pejorative, and would make the name very appropriate-sounding to Yitschak.
Indeed, the name Ya'akov is in the future tense and so can be interpreted not just as Esav did, regarding future interactions with him, but rather as a prophecy regarding the later struggle with the 'man', the higher-level Esav.
...
Note that yisrael can also be interpreted as future tense! and so it can refer to all his descendants, named 'bnei yisrael'...
Since as we saw, really Yakov and Yisrael are the same name, therefore Yaakov is actually a very holy name as well.
....
b) Hints suggested by anagram
But Names Will Never Harm Me: Further clues that Ya’akov Was No Heel
But Names Will Never Harm Me: Further clues that Ya’akov Was No Heel
Parallels: Connecting:
Parallels: Connecting:
1. the aftermath of the akeda of Yitschak;
2. the birth of Yaakov & Esav;
3 the aftermath of the taking of the blessing by Yaakov instead of Esav
The seminal moment in Isaac’s life and probably Abraham’s as well is when Abraham brings Isaac to sacrifice, and right before and rigth afterwards there are two possible hints to the future Yaakov who will be born from Yitschak as the first of the promised progeny:
i) At the beginning of the akeda we have the words: “and (he) cleaved (the wood)” which are one word in Hebrew: “vayevaka”, ויבקע which are exactly the Hebrew letters forming the one Hebrew word “and Ya’akov”! [vayevaka = ve’Ya’akov] ie the name yaakov יעקב is an anagram of ויבקע . Thus instead of the orinigial reading: “[And Abraham took.].. Isaac his son; and (he) cleaved [the wood] "ואת יצחק בנו ויבקע” we'll read it as a hint to: “And Abraham took (ie was ready to sacrifice)... Isaac his son; and Ya’akov” [ie “ve’et Yitschak bno, vayevaka" --> “ve’et Yitschak bno ve’Ya’akov”]. In other words, sacrificing Isaac meant sacrificing his entire line, beginning with the not-yet-born first one, Ya’akov. So for us readers, if we encounter the name Yaakov as part of the akeda, it resonates positively in our ears, and is a name with deep positive intent rather than a derogatory name.
ii) Another clue is that right after the akedah (sacrifice), when the ram was substituted, God tells Abraham (via an angel) "All nations will be blessed via your descendants since (ekev) you listened to my voice" Gen 22:18
ויקרא מלאך ה'... ולא חשכת את בנך... ארבה את זרעך..
והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ עקב אשר שמעת בקלי
you will have many generations, and all the nations will be blessed via your seed, since ('ekev') you did not withhold your son (Isaac)” etc.
Who is the first of this promised chain? Isaac’s son Yakov. And the first word of the above key passage is“since”=“ekev”, with the same letters as “heel” from which Ya’akov’s name was taken ( ie EKEV and AKEV are spelled completely identically in the Torah.
We will also assume that Abraham told this great message from God to his son Yitschak given that he was right there and played a central role in the event bringing about the prophecy (or perhaps Isaac also heard this prophecy as well), so these words right after this turning point in his life, including the word "ekev', would be ringing in his ears, and to Isaac, the word EKEV must have had tremendous significance, especially as applied to his descendants. And later on when he saw his son emerge holding the heel of his brother, and those nearby remarked on it, he word EKEV may have echoed in his head., and it may well have had deep significance, and giving a name based on the powerful words of God's message about this fulfilment of God's promise of continued progeny to his father Abraham engraved in his heart mind and soul, it seemed portentous rather than derogatory. So to us the name Ya’akov can refer not simply to the ‘heel’ event at his birth, but in its hidden symbolism represents the great sacrifice that Yitschak was willing to make, a sacrifice which would have denied him his promised existence, and so that name carried a very heavy positive energy for him throughout his life.
iii) Furthermore, Isaac himself later hears this word in a divine message directed at him, not to Avraham. He was distinguished from his father Abraham and son Yaakov in that God explicitly requests that he not leave the Land (despite hardship there), and in the context of that request/command by God to Isaac, God ratifies the promise of the Land to his descendants, and again uses the term 'ekev': "since (ekev) Abraham listened to my voice" 25:5 עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקלי וישמר משמרתי מצותי חקותי ותורתי , and so the Promise to Abraham and his descendants including of course Isaac, given due to 'the binding of Isaac', is again tied to the word 'ekev', and this time it is said directly to Isaac, perhaps thereby divinely post-facto ratifying the use of the name "Yaakov' for his son..
iv) Rivka beseeches her son Yaakov to follow her command and make sure to receive the blessings, and when he points out that he cannopt cheat his father and maybe the blessing will turn onto a curse if the deception is found out,Rivka says:
ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בני, אך שמע בקלי ולך קח לי בראשית כז יג "Alai kilelascha bni, akh shma be-koli.."'
"On me will be your curse, just harken to my voice and go bring...".
"On me will be your curse, just harken to my voice and go bring...".
However this is very odd: Can someone accept reponsibiliy for someone else's wrong act? And if A tells B to go steal something, can B be innocent just because A asked him to do it and accepted the guilt? No!
However this is very odd: Can someone accept reponsibiliy for someone else's wrong act? And if A tells B to go steal something, can B be innocent just because A asked him to do it and accepted the guilt? No!
However Rivka adds something very significant - that the brocho is from God (Yitzchok hadn't said this to Esav).
However Rivka adds something very significant - that the brocho is from God (Yitzchok hadn't said this to Esav).
By this statement Rivka means that
By this statement Rivka means that
1) therefore it should go to him, it is important, and
1) therefore it should go to him, it is important, and
2) since God told her that it goes to Yakov, she can say 'I take the responsiblity', as opposed to telling him to do somethign wrong, here she is telling him "this is God's command, and I take reponsibility if I misinterpreted what God wanted".
2) since God told her that it goes to Yakov, she can say 'I take the responsiblity', as opposed to telling him to do somethign wrong, here she is telling him "this is God's command, and I take reponsibility if I misinterpreted what God wanted".
3) God includes in the Torah a hint about this higher-level intention: either hinting to us the reader who sees a larger picture via the various parts, or hinting to Yitzchak via utilizing these key words - either Rivka knew of the prophecy to Abraham and later to Isaac with the key-words עקב אשר שמעת בקלי, and עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקלי or she or Isaac had related it to Yaakov in explanation of the hidden inner meaning of his name, and so the words she uses to beseech her son Yaakov to follow her command and make sure to receive the blessings are very loaded:
Alai kilelascha bni = ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בני, אך שמע בקלי ולך קח לי
Alai kilelascha bni = ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בני, אך שמע בקלי ולך קח לי
ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בני, אך שמע בקלי ולך קח לי בראשית כז יג
ותאמר לו אמו עלי קללתך בני, אך שמע בקלי ולך קח לי בראשית כז יג
= le Yaakov!
...
Appendic:
We understand why yakov struggles in the womb, and perhaps it is because Rivka is meant to notice it and ask God.
We understand the later struggle when Yaakov is an adult, with 'theman' (saro shel esav = the higher-level root-angel esav).
But why does yaakov emerge holding esav's heel?
The Torah states: "And behold, twins!". We can imagine the scenario: let's think of what might have been going through Rivka's mind, and Yitzchak's mind, separately, based on their own experiences and knowledge, and for Yaakov himself.
The Torah states: "And behold, twins!". We can imagine the scenario: let's think of what might have been going through Rivka's mind, and Yitzchak's mind, separately, based on their own experiences and knowledge, and for Yaakov himself.
A) For Yaakov: here are later implication for Yaakov himself when he grows up and learns of the crcumstances of his bith and the origin of his name:Partly it is to ensure that Yaakv will have a name that always reminds him ofhis role in the cosmic struggle with Esav.
B) For Rivka: Rivka sees Yakov come out holding Esav and immediately understands that this is a verification that when she asked her question "to God" about the tumult in her belly (as we spoke of regarding last week's Torah portion), the response she received as an answer, was indeed prophecy:
B) For Rivka: Rivka sees Yakov come out holding Esav and immediately understands that this is a verification that when she asked her question "to God" about the tumult in her belly (as we spoke of regarding last week's Torah portion), the response she received as an answer, was indeed prophecy:
1) there ARE twins!
2) And even moreso, when she saw that the second son was clutching the heel of the first she realized they had indeed been struggiling in the womb as to who would emerge first.
So all this was a sign that the message she had received - which Yitschak had not been privy to - was indeed from God, and thus realized that it will indeed be her mission to make sure of the fulfillment of God's message - that this younger one will get the blessing.
So Rivka understands that calling him by this name is actually a hidden augury of his future, and is part of God's plan - especially as we can see that he is called not "held the heel" but rather in the future tense "he will heel".
Rivka is a real proactive hero in recognizing that it was not just information but a mission, how she would be able to affec tthe future, not just know what it would be, and she executed her divinely-appointed task despite the great sacrifice involved.
...
[Note: Question: "Ve’hinei": Does this imply they were surprised that it was twins?: If so, this is a hint that Rivka didn’t tell anyone. And if she had doubts about the reality of the prophecy, this dispelled them. Or is it a reference to the prophecy speaking to the reader, or is it about Rivka's reaction, ie affirmation.?]
...
And what might Yitschak have been thinking?!
C) For Yitschok: if it is true that he did not know of the prophecy of twins and struggle what might Yitschak have been thinking?
C) For Yitschok: if it is true that he did not know of the prophecy of twins and struggle what might Yitschak have been thinking?
1. He knows that his name "He will laugh" sounded odd as well, and could have been seen as a disparagement, however he knows that it was a special name, and so to with yaakov. Yitschak knew about his own name:
though it followed from circumstances involving Sarah's laugh (and then Abraham's) the name Yitschak was given at God's command,
"Yitschak"is in the future tense ie it is a reference to a future event, "he WILL laugh" not "he DID laugh" so it is prophetic.
it is about HIM, that HE will laugh, not that others laughed. Not "tzachaku" = they laughed, nor "yitzcheku" = they will laugh, but rather Yitschak = HE WILL laugh,
Given this background to his own name, perhaps when Yitzchak hears those standing by at the birth of his son give this odd name, he would recognize that it was a portent of something deep - especially as it did not reference a past event but rather a future one, as was the case with his own name! (yaakov = "he WILL 'heel'", as opposed to "he DID heel" as with Yitschak = he WILL laugh not they) DID laugh).And he may have understood the reference to 'ekev asher' as we pointed out earlier...
An illegitimately-seized blessing does not carry metaphysical benefit. On the one hand as we saw Rivka was being instructed by God to ensure that the younger would inherit the older, so the blessing was meant to go to Yaakov, however from the point of view of Yitschak it was illigitametly-taken.
Maybe therefore it was imporant that Yitschok sees the struggle at the birth of the twins - with the stress on 'ekev' - and remembers "ekev asher" etc, and realizes there is more to the story, so that years later after giving the brochos (blessings) to Yaa'kov when thinking he was Esav, Yitschok suddenly realizes the meaning of the 'ekev' aspect, and says 'gam boruch yiheh' (indeed he will be blessed). That is, the brith with one holding the heel of the other was so that much later, after fact of the deceit in taking the blessing, Yitschok would accept the result (the blessing going to yaakov instead of to Esav) and would ratify it - thus enabling the divine metaphysical power of the brocho to have its intended power.
.....
MESH
if it is true that he did not know of the prophecy of twins and struggle? 1. He knows that his name "He will laugh" sounded odd as well, and could have been seen as a disparagement, however he knows that it was a special name, and so to with yaakov. Yitschak knew about his own name:
though it followed from circumstances involving Sarah's laugh (and then Abraham's) the name Yitschak was given at God's command,
"Yitschak"is in the future tense ie it is a reference to a future event, "he WILL laugh" not "he DID laugh" so it is prophetic.
it is about HIM, that HE will laugh, not that others laughed. Not "tzachaku" = they laughed, nor "yitzcheku" = they will laugh, but rather Yitschak = HE WILL laugh,
Given this background to his own name, perhaps when Yitzchak hears those standing by at the birth of his son give this odd name, he would recognize that it was a portent of something deep - especially as it did not reference a past event but rather a future one, as was the case with his own name! (yaakov = "he WILL 'heel'", as opposed to "he DID heel" as with Yitschak = he WILL laugh not they) DID laugh).And he may have understood the reference to 'ekev asher' as we pointed out earlier...
If you prefer reading (or printing) a file rather than a webpage, see the embedded MSWord file, and the GoogleDoc embedded at the end of this page.
If you prefer reading (or printing) a file rather than a webpage, see the embedded MSWord file, and the GoogleDoc embedded at the end of this page.
Recommendation: first scroll thought the webpage, opening the "accordions", in order to see the graphics - which are NOT included in the file version.
Note: The articles on this page are invisible.
Note: The articles on this page are invisible.
Until you click on their heading (......and the accordion opens).
Or on the little 'downward arrowhead' to the right. (You can click again to close the 'accordion'.)
Summary of this week's news:
Summary of this week's news:
Yakov is again homeless, sleeping outdoors after an escape.
This time instead of the ladder-dream, he has a night-long wrestling match. And he gets a new name, as befits a champion. We'll see how this (wrestling and new name) form a helix above his birth.
Are Jews really that cheap? If you're mugged, should you hand over your wallet or fight? Why did he bother? Hidden in the text we'll see implications of deeper currents from ancient to more recent times, which shed light on the astonishing rabbinic statement that "Yakov went back to fetch small containers".
A daughter is kidnapped & raped by a sly prince. What would be the appropriate response? We'll see the logic underlying her brothers' choice of extreme violence.
We are introduced in the previous parsha,this one and the next to the four classic ways the Jewish People meet destruction.
And let's not forget the first ushpizin in a succah.... not Yakov, but rather his sheep, and hundreds of years before the Jewish People were wandering in the desert!? What's this about?!
Last part of the parsha:
Rachel dies: last week we read of Yakov's words, this week we see the Karmic tragic effect, and next week we see the tragic ramificaitons - without the protection of Rachel, Joseph is defenselss against his brothers.
Yakov returns to Isaac, but his mother Rivka is presumably dead (as is his beloved wife Rachel);
Then his father Isaac dies; Isaac is buried by both his twin sons (Yakov & Esav).
The four classic modes of Jewish destruction are presaged in these parshos
The four classic modes of Jewish destruction are presaged in these parshos
1. It is crucial to note that Shchem did not include the option of simply returning Dinah to her family and letting them depart in peace. Nor was he aplogetic for what he had done. And there was surely no reason to suppose that he - or his people - would not take other Jewish women as they saw fit. So the offer by the people of Schchem to the children of Israel: “We will marry your women and you can marry ours” was not necessarily generous: basically it was a message that the children of Yakov had no choice but to become assimilated into the larger culture, losing their national identity. It’s not at all clear that Shchem was even giving them a choice, whether they could withhold their other women from his people, whether they could refuse to intermarry; it is certainly a likelihood that this entire “pact” was effectively an edict of forced assimilation [55].
2. Yakov had just narrowly escaped the encounter with Lavan's attempt at spiritual annihilation;
3. Yakov faces the possible threat of Esav's attempt at physical annihilation.
4. Next week we see the fourth way: the story of the brothers and yosef is classic "causeless hatred"(sin'as chinam)! Selling their brother as a slave to Egypt eventually led to their descendants being slaves in Egypt, and perhaps having the Bney Yisrael disappear entirely.
Summary: These few parshos are introducing us to the 4 main ways the Jewish people meet destruction, and possibly also to the attempts of our forefathers to create positive enrgies to help fend these danger soff in the future, or conversely, the events whose echoes followed the Jewish People down the generations:
internally by their own hands ie via sinas chinam (Sale of Yosef, and the 2nd Temple period);
voluntarily or otherwise via intermarriage (Shchem & throughout history including nowadays);
externally physically by being killed (eg Esav & Purim * Hitler);
by being spiritually overwhelmed/extinguished whether by purely external or also aided by internal forces (eg Lovon & Greek culture and religion [Chanukah]).
You call this a strategy? 'Min HaBa Biyado'!?
Fight fire with fire... and also with waterYou call this a strategy? 'Min HaBa Biyado'!?
When Yakov hears that Esav is coming towards him with many men, he is terrified, and makes all sorts of preparations, and also sends a gift to Esav. And the composition of this important gift? [32:14] “he took that which was at hand” “Vayikach min haba biyado”. For a man so terrified of an encounter, sending a gift to the one he fears, and considering how much care he took in general preparation for the meeting, Yakov’s off-handedness is exceedingly strange: why would he be so careless; and why does the Torah use this paticular expression?
32:14 "Vayikach min haba biyado": he took that which was "at hand".
"ויקח מן הבא בידו מנחה לעשיו אחיו" (בראשית לב, טו)
It’s a strange expression; it’s also strange that Yakov would do this; and strange that the Torah bothers to tell us this detail.
Answers:
1. An Off-Handed Compliment: Esav 's power was concentrated/twisted in Amalek, whose power was chance randomness, and perhaps ego (Haman). Bney Yisroel's power is free choice, which is beyond randomness (like Esav's descendant Haman's 'casting lots') and beyond determinism (eg Astrology) .
Yaakov defeated Esav by lowering his own ego and using flattery, subservience, and a 'random' aspect ot the gift.
2. The defining moment in the naming of Yakov was “VeYado ochezet be’akev achiv” “and his hand was holding the heel of Esav”. So we can see that “That which his hand held” was Esav! Therefore to metaphysically prepare for the encounter with Esav he took “that which was at hand”!
(Can one use this idiomatic expression literally in this sense!?) (Perhaps this is also similar to a lottery, where one allows ‘the hand of God’ to choose.)3. Also: the word for 'hands" ie "yadav" appear many times regarding Esav, Yado bakol veyad kol bo". And in the deception re his hands being hairy. etc. So Yakov uses the "hands" aspect again by taking "what is at hand".
4. see below re that he took a 'se'ir', which was the animal used in the mincha he brought to his father to get the blessings.
5. Note: . Saro shel Esav came unexpectedly at night, this is like power of 'randomness', but Yakov made sure to change the timing of the encounter by first ferrying his family over, this made the stage his own choosing.
……………………
"kavanot Yaakov beminchato le'esav". המנחה ששלח יעקב לעשיו
"kavanot Yaakov beminchato le'esav". המנחה ששלח יעקב לעשיו
"ויקח מן הבא בידו מנחה לעשיו אחיו" (בראשית לב, טו)
אפשר לפרש "מן הבא בידו" - ממה שהזדמן לו במקרה, בלי לתכנן.
עניינו של עמלק, נכדו של עשיו, הוא המקרה, כמו שמפרש רש"י על "אשר קרך בדרך" (דברים כה, יח). גם מכירת הבכורה היתה כאילו במקרה. אפשר שבגלל זה שלח יעקב מנחה אל עשיו אחיו "מן הבא בידו", במקרה, כדי להלחם נגד עשיו לפי מידתו.
עוד אפשר לפרש ש"מן הבא בידו" רומז לכך שאחז בידו בעקב עשיו (שעל כך נקרא "יעקב") - עקב עשיו "בא בידו", וזהו סגולתו של יעקב נגד עשיו.
Kol zeh merumaz gam bapsukim: see the bolded words "yadav" etc:
.....וְיָדוֹ אֹחֶזֶת בַּעֲקֵב עֵשָׂו
טז עֹרֹת ....הִלְבִּישָׁה עַל-יָדָיו... יז וַתִּתֵּן אֶת-הַמַּטְעַמִּים וְאֶת-הַלֶּחֶם, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂתָה, בְּיַד, יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ....... וַיֹּאמֶר יִצְחָק אֶל-בְּנוֹ, מַה-זֶּה מִהַרְתָּ לִמְצֹא בְּנִי; וַיֹּאמֶר, כִּי הִקְרָה ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְפָנָי..... וַיְמֻשֵּׁהוּ; וַיֹּאמֶר, הַקֹּל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב, וְהַיָּדַיִם, יְדֵי עֵשָׂו. כג וְלֹא הִכִּירוֹ--כִּי-הָיוּ יָדָיו כִּידֵי עֵשָׂו אָחִיו, שְׂעִרֹת; וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ.
קָטֹנְתִּי מִכֹּל הַחֲסָדִים, וּמִכָּל-הָאֱמֶת, אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ, אֶת-עַבְדֶּךָ: כִּי בְמַקְלִי, עָבַרְתִּי אֶת-הַיַּרְדֵּן הַזֶּה, וְעַתָּה הָיִיתִי, לִשְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת. יב הַצִּילֵנִי נָא מִיַּד אָחִי, מִיַּד עֵשָׂו: כִּי-יָרֵא אָנֹכִי, אֹתוֹ--פֶּן-יָבוֹא וְהִכַּנִי, אֵם עַל-בָּנִים. יג וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ, הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב עִמָּךְ; וְשַׂמְתִּי אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ כְּחוֹל הַיָּם, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִסָּפֵר מֵרֹב. יד וַיָּלֶן שָׁם, בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא; וַיִּקַּח מִן-הַבָּא בְיָדוֹ, מִנְחָה--לְעֵשָׂו אָחִיו. טו עִזִּים מָאתַיִם, וּתְיָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים, רְחֵלִים מָאתַיִם, וְאֵילִים עֶשְׂרִים. טז גְּמַלִּים מֵינִיקוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם, שְׁלֹשִׁים; פָּרוֹת אַרְבָּעִים, וּפָרִים עֲשָׂרָה, אֲתֹנֹת עֶשְׂרִים, וַעְיָרִם עֲשָׂרָה. יז וַיִּniתֵּן, בְּיַד-עֲבָדָיו,
5. "Sgulat hamincha...": the choice of animals included the one used to deceive:
לֶךְ-נָא, אֶל-הַצֹּאן, וְקַח-לִי מִשָּׁם שְׁנֵי גְּדָיֵי עִזִּים, טֹבִים; וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אֹתָם מַטְעַמִּים לְאָבִיךָ, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָהֵב
.. וְאֵת, עֹרֹת גְּדָיֵי הָעִזִּים, הִלְבִּישָׁה, עַל-יָדָיו
וַיִּקַּח מִן-הַבָּא בְיָדוֹ, מִנְחָה--לְעֵשָׂו אָחִיו. טו עִזִּים מָאתַיִם...
However, it was 'camouflaged' by the presence of all the others, making into a random-seeming arrangement.
....
the first pasuk is all versions of "tzoin"...but why the camels and donkeys..?to make it 'random' seeming? וַיִּקַּח מִן-הַבָּא בְיָדוֹ, מִנְחָה--לְעֵשָׂו אָחִיו. טו עִזִּים מָאתַיִם, וּתְיָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים, רְחֵלִים מָאתַיִם, וְאֵילִים עֶשְׂרִים. טז גְּמַלִּים מֵינִיקוֹת וּבְנֵיהֶם, שְׁלֹשִׁים; פָּרוֹת אַרְבָּעִים, וּפָרִים עֲשָׂרָה, אֲתֹנֹת עֶשְׂרִים, וַעְיָרִם עֲשָׂרָה...........
עֵדֶר עֵדֶר, לְבַדּוֹ
Not a heel, a helix!🧬
Not a heel, a helix!🧬
Was the name "Yaakov" derogatory? Was it really from "heel-grabbing"? And what does that heel-grabbing really mean anyway?
Is YOUR name Yisrael or Yaakov? If so, you should read this:Was the name "Yaakov" derogatory? Was it really from "heel-grabbing"? And what does that heel-grabbing really mean anyway?
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny
What Yakov does with the 'man' is the same as what he had done at bith with his brother! The exact same story, so the two names Yaakov and yisrael are really different versions of the same name! See further below for more details ont he parallels.
Yakov completes in his night-struggle, emerging into day holding onto the 'man', the task he grappled with at birth, when he emerged into the light of the external world holding the heel of Esav. Both are odd stores - a baby cannot do that, nor could the 'man' really be one. And for Yaakov, a physical fight to get out first was not the way to achieve the mission of getting the blessing of the firstborn, but it was the prefiguring, the practice, that which was recapitulated in the night-struggle when his status was ratified - his new name meaning that he had struggled with humans (Esav) and with 'God' (the 'man-angel-agent of Esav) and prevailed.
The early in-the-womb struggle and holding on to a heel as he was being born was not successful, he is not born first, but he later achieves the goal in a different way, spiritually, in the ma'avak (struggle), but it is the same way, a wrestling. So maybe it was necessary for him to do what he did as his first act in the world so that he could achieve it for real later on in the right context, right time. [As we are taught Torah in the womb only to have it taken from us, but that initial taste lasts for our lifetime, guiding us... see eg Rabbi Tatz's "Living Inspired" re teachings of R. Moshe Shapiro and others.]
...
Not a heel, a helix!🧬
Not a heel, a helix!🧬
A spiral combines a climb with a circle. It symbolizes completing a circle but ending up at a higher level. The Torah has various such examples, this is one: Yaakov starts his life in the womb and then at birth with a struggle which culminates in the higher-level night-struggle, after which he has earned the name corresponding to Yaakov at that level. (Both Yakov and Yisrael are equally high, but their names represent different points in their progression .)
..................
Note: From the wording of the passages we can see that Yakov after the wrestling is a different man, there's no mention of his fear as there was before,he is in charge, manipulating esav with flattery, not afraid as he was before it - when he sees the 400 armed men with esav there's no fear at all mentioned.
...........
Note: Why does torah use ‘ish’ for struggle w/ yakov? should say hashem or mal’ach etc, at least somewhere in story, or at end when it is clear that y realizes is malach.: maybe since all is machazeh if is hashem or maach, here I unappropriate because he had a physical effect, so it is a manifestation of hashem which is qualitatilvely different than a machazeh, and that is ‘ish’, which is more physical.
Also, hashem is ‘ish’ milchomoh’ and so either this word is appropriate re a struggle, especially wiht a being such as sar shel esav, and re the war esav was preparing, or perhaps it adds a question, how come H' is called Ish!
....
More detail, and review:
Yaakov
1) held Man/Angel physically, preventing him from going and
2) wrested a bracha from him.
These are the two archetypical actions of Yakov to Esav:
1. holding Esav’s foot, preventing him from emerging into the world;
2. wresting a bracha away from Esav;
These are also the two reasons for his name Ya'akov = future tense, he will "heel": Esav says “vaya’akveni” zeh pa’amayim”, he did this three times, first at birth and then buying the primogeniture (first born rights) and then taking the bracha), so it is fitting that Yakov does this to the man.
That is also why the bracha he gets is a change of name: he has now completed the Yakov stage of holding/wresting a bracha, and now he has ‘wresteld with God and man and succeeded” that is his new name, Yisrael, and so he can now move to the next stage of his life. And indeed, we see that he pretty much disappears from the stage after this, and instead Yosef takes center stage.
....
The haftorah of Vayishlach (according to some minhagim), is Hoshea 11-12.
In 12:4 the navi seems to make the comparison I made between the two events leading to Yakov/Yisrael's two names:
בַּבֶּטֶן, עָקַב אֶת-אָחִיו; וּבְאוֹנוֹ, שָׂרָה אֶת-אֱלֹהִים.
(but not necessarily the idea that the inner meaning of the name is therefore the same.)
(meforshim point out that both events were not natural, as an ubar to have the strength to hold onto the heel from within the womb, and to struggle with and defeat a malach.)
[Note that the name Sarah is there.]
..
Note that the first words in the next pasuk seem to be hinting at the reading of Yisrael as "yassar el" : וַיָּשַׂר אֶל-מַלְאָךְ
…
בָּכָה וַיִּתְחַנֶּן-לוֹ seems to be talking about the "ish" but of course the same was true of Esav crying to Yitschak, begging for a brocho.
…
Seems to be source for the mida keneged mida interpretations of the events in Yakov's life after taking the brocho: pasuk gimmel:
וְרִיב לַָה, עִם-יְהוּדָה]; וְלִפְקֹד עַל-יַעֲקֹב כִּדְרָכָיו, כְּמַעֲלָלָיו יָשִׁיב לוֹ].
And even pasuk aleph: וּבְמִרְמָה בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל;
......
Although the name yaakov is from akev, but it is not pejorative, it is possibly from several sources:
The words: “and (he) cleaved (the wood)” are one word in Hebrew: “vayevaka”, which are exactly the Hebrew letters forming the one Hebrew word “and Ya’akov”! [vayevaka → ve’Ya’akov] "ואת יצחק בנו ויבקע Thus we can read: “And Abraham took... Isaac his son; and (he) cleaved [the wood]”as: “And Abraham took (ie was ready to sacrifice)... Isaac his son; and Ya’akov” [“ve’et Yitschak bno, vayevaka→ “ve’et Yitschak bno ve’Ya’akov”]. Sacrificing Isaac meant sacrificing his entire line, beginning with Ya’akov.
Afterwards God tells Abraham (via an angel): “since you did not withhold your son (Isaac)” you will have many generations etc. Who is the first of this promised chain? Isaac’s son Yakov. What is the first word of the above key passage? The word “since”: “ekev”, with the same letters as “heel” from which Ya’akov’s name was taken.; so the hidden reference means: “you did not withhold your son (Isaac) and Ya’akov”
"ויקרא מלאך ה'... ולא חשכת את בנך... ארבה את זרעך... "."
יח וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ, עֵקֶב, אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקֹלִי.
Hints in the Passages
Hints in the Passages
The psukim there hint of THREE other aspects related to the yaakov/esav story:
1. the ascendancy of Avraha'm descendants (from 'be yitschak yikarie lecha zara' we get both y and esav, so it is potential for conflict), over their enemies, which is reminiscent of 'rav yaavod tsa'ir'.
2.And saying Sha'ar oivov, its (other?/gate) enemies is hint at se'ier (same spelling as Shaar) when reading the passage as: "and you will inherit se'ir" 17
יז כִּי-בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ, וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת-זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְכַחוֹל, אֲשֶׁר עַל-שְׂפַת הַיָּם; וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַראֹיְבָיו. 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;
3. Rivka said to yakov "shma bekoli" and here it is "ekev asher shamata lekoli": וְרִבְקָה, אָמְרָה, אֶל-יַעֲקֹב בְּנָהּ, לֵאמֹר: הִנֵּה שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶת-אָבִיךָ, מְדַבֵּר אֶל-עֵשָׂו אָחִיךָ לֵאמֹר. ז הָבִיאָה לִּי צַיִד וַעֲשֵׂה-לִי מַטְעַמִּים, וְאֹכֵלָה; וַאֲבָרֶכְכָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, לִפְנֵי מוֹתִי. ח וְעַתָּה בְנִי, שְׁמַע בְּקֹלִי--לַאֲשֶׁר אֲנִי, מְצַוָּה אֹתָךְ
So we have ekev = yaakov, shaar = seir = esav, and
וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ, אֵת שַׁעַר אֹיְבָיו. וְהִתְבָּרְכוּ בְזַרְעֲךָ, כֹּל גּוֹיֵי הָאָרֶץ = 'rav yaavod tsa'ir'
....
....
Why did Yitschak allow the pejorative-sounding name Yaakov to be given to his son?
Introductroy-level treatment, for beginners:Ya’akov was born holding the heel of his first-born twin brother Esav as Esav was emerging before him from the womb they shared; as a result he was given the name Ya’akov (the Torah tells us that the name is based on the root word ‘akev’ = heel, because he ‘held the heel of his twin brother’ as he was being born.) It’s odd that the great Patriarch Yakov would be named for this incident at his birth with its negative connotation; and the name itself ‘heel’ is surprising, and indeed is used pejoratively by his brother Esav later on ("ויעקבני זה פעמיים"). What was Isaac thinking to give such a name to his son?!Why did Yitschak allow the pejorative-sounding name Yaakov to be given to his son?
All three Patriarchs had names given by God: Abram was changed by God to Abraham, Isaac was given the name by God, and Yakov had the name Yisrael (Israel) added by God (at first via an angel). The same for Sarah and Yishmael.
However, though given by God the name Isaac = Yitschak = “will laugh” could almost sound pejorative, coming as it does in relation to Abraham’s laughter upon hearing from God that he would father a child. However since God does not chastise him for this laughter we can see the reference to it in his name as a positive matter.
How is it that Yitschak, who was aware that names were so potent (after all God had intervened to change the names of his parents, and had decreed his own name) gives Yakov a name in such a cavalier manner rather than a carefully thought out name; and why give him a name with such seemingly pejorative connotations?
[See Rabbi Tatz's explanation of the deep meaning of "laughter" (which continues here).]On the one hand of course this act of holding the heel symbolized the struggle of Esav and Yakov in the womb that the Torah tells us of, and their subsequent struggle throughout life, and is therefore very appropriate.
However as Rivka did not tell Yitschak (Isaac) of the prophecy she received regarding the two sons, Yakov presumably did not know of this cosmic struggle being enacted through his sons (at the level of simple text: he certainly did not act in accordance with the prophecy, to give the blessing to the younger brother, Ya’akov) and so perhaps Ya’akov could not necessarily see the cosmic significance of the heel-holding.
If so, why give such a name to his son?
Isaac knew that his own name was based on the laugh of his father (and perhaps mother as well), and this name was given by God, and so he realized that this laughter was obviously therefore a deep and powerful augury of his life, and not an insignificant incident; perhaps he concluded that the holding of the heel was similarly significant and named his son based on this.
Ya’akov Was No Heel!
There are two hints in the text to a higher-level meaning to the name Ya’akov:
The seminal moment in Isaac’s life and probably Abraham’s as well is when Abraham brings Isaac to sacrifice:
When Isaac saw his son emerging holding on the heel of his brother, he knew there was significance to this; he gives the name Ya’akov refering not simply to the ‘heel’ event at his birth, but in its hidden symbolism represents the great sacrifice that his grandfather and father were willing to make, a sacrifice which would have denied him his promised existence, and so that name carried a very heavy positive energy for him throughout his life.
Eventually Ya’akiv earned a new name on his own merit, Israel, the name by which are called the future generations of Jewish People – the generations promised to Abraham and willingly sacrificed, and so we are Bnei Yisrael, Children of Israel, meant to live in the Land of Israel.
Just as he earned his original name by holding on to his brother, he earns this new powerful name by holding on to the ‘man’ = angel in his all night struggle (and ends up injured in the thigh), not letting him go: clearly there is a connection....
Yaakov's sheep were so frum they only slept in the succah?!
frummer than Yakov who slept in the house!Al tikra ushpizin elah "u sheeps in"(SEE ALSO: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/biblethemes/succos-the-place)Yaakov's sheep were so frum they only slept in the succah?!
Part I: What succos is about.
Part II: Yaakov's role in it.
Part I
A: Jewish holidays are not a memorial of an event, but rather recurring energy, with opportunity to reconnect to the orginal energy infused into that day or event or theme.
B. What was the original energy of succos? The anan ('cloud of glory' = physical-seeming manifestation of God's presence, which accompanied and protected the Jews in the desert. Note: a 'cloud' is the word for the least-substantial possible entity that is nevertheless perceived as physical). Succos is not about God building huts, which isno big deal and not mentioned in the chumash at all.
C. The reason for the original energy is that Bney Yisroel didn't want to leave the midbar because there would be no more anan, so God gave us a week of closeness with the anan as compensation (and shimini atzeret as reward after that).
D. However we have to be willing to leave the comfort of the house, and build the succah, and eat & live there in order to be able to feel it the most ("lechtech acharai bamidbar, beeretz lo zeru'a").
In Dvorim/Deuteronomy 8, Moshe addresses the people before they are to enter the Land of Israel. He reminds them of the miracles in the desert (shoes etc), so it is an oblique reference to succos which is meant to remind us of all that, and then we are told "Pen...batim tovim tivneh lecha.."
יא הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ, פֶּן-תִּשְׁכַּח אֶת-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתָיו וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם. יב פֶּן-תֹּאכַל, וְשָׂבָעְתָּ; וּבָתִּים טֹבִים תִּבְנֶה, וְיָשָׁבְתָּ. יג וּבְקָרְךָ וְצֹאנְךָ יִרְבְּיֻן
"lest you forget God when you build nice houses",so we can interpret this too as about the meaning of succos. (See below for a longer quote from the Torah.)
The attitude we are to be infused with during succos is of leaving the comfort-zone, literally going outside the house, and it is an energy meant to carry us through the year (to be aware all year, thankful, and not materialistic and not to think "kochi veotzem yodi" keeps us safe & protected.).
Part II) Yaakov:
Just as Lot ate & served matza, and chazal relate this to pesach (see my writing on this), we can see from our parsha's story, according to chazal, that Yaakov prepare denergy for his descendants going into the desert, and leaving it to enter Eretz Yisrael. Avraham was promised that his descendants would be in a strange land and then leave and would inherit the Land, and so he didnt just listen passively he worked to create energy-assistance for them, and the story of Lot and the matxos is related to that. And Yaakov was promised the same and also did the same as his grandfather had done, as we'll see below.
i. Rav Tzodek HaCohen says that to understand the deep meaning of a word in chumash, look at the first mention of that word (Reb Shlomo called it: "the headquarters")
ii. The first mention of the word 'succos' is after Yakov's wrestling, and after Esav left, but before Yaakov continued on into Eretz Yisrael, to Schchem (story of Dina etc). Yaakov built a house and a shed (a "succa") for the sheep. This was East of the Jordan River. He called the place 'succos': וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת
iii) There are two important aspects to note:
a: Yakov built a house, which is very unusual for him, the man who "dwells in tents". In fact he dwelt in tents only when he was lucky, much of the time he dwelt in fields! b: he names the place not "bayit"(house/home) but "succos". Why name aplace after the sheep-sheds instead of after your new home, which was after all such an innovation for Yaakov?
So how is the holiday of succos related to Yaakov avinu's sheep-huts?!
iv) Note that the passage may be refering to this in a hidden way: the words "al ken" mean "and therefore" which is absurd, since we would not say "Yakov built a home and a hut for the sheep, and therefore called the place "sheep-hut"! But in fact it may be that when the Torah uses "al ken" it actually means the opposite in most cases, ie 'nevertheless" rather than "therefore"! (As per R S R Hirsch; see my article on this). Either way, the pasuk is calling attention to the fact that despite having built a house as well, Yakov called the name of the place "hut" - not "house" or "home" or "house & hut" (like eg "bayit vegan").
ANSWER: Yakov is building the energy needed by Bney Yisrael when they leave Egypt AND when they are ready to enter Eretz Yisrael 40 years later, from the East, exactly where Yaakov built "succos".
Explanation: Yakov was not into permanent dwelling, he was "yoshev ohalim", and slept outdoors for years watching the sheep and on the way etc. And had just now become 'yisroel' after a night outdoors. And this exemplifies the non-materialism needed to stay in Eretz Yisrael "pen tivneh batim tovim" etc, and that's why Bnei Yisrael needed to enter EY from there. And they entered the desert from a place with that name because that was the beginning of living outdoors for 40 years (as it turned out) and they needed the strength of that energy of the place, though it was in the west and yakov's succos was in the east. And it was the beginning of needing the anan on a constant basis. So maybe that's what it means that they were in 'succos' as the first place in the desert.
And re "Batim tovim": Yaakov who now has a large flock of sheep and a nice house as in the passages above, but who remebers and is grateful for all the protection God gave him in his years of wandering, build a sheep-shed for the sheep and names the place for it, not for the house.
[This 'outdoors' attitude is exemplified by Yaakov avinu who slept outside various times:
a. When running away, he slept with a few rocks to protect him, and as pillow. He trusted in H' to protect him, and the joining of the stones into one was a sign that H' indeed wsa active there (and H's promise was to watch over him on the journey, similar to the role of the anan in the midbar, and joining of the rocks into one was a phsical manifestation of the spiritual aspect, like seeing H's presence as an anan was, to his descendants B"Y in the midbar).
b. When tending lovon's flocks of sheep: As we are told: הָיִיתִי בַיּוֹם אֲכָלַנִי חֹרֶב וְקֶרַח בַּלָּיְלָה וַתִּדַּד שְׁנָתִי מֵעֵינָי. In other words(I wrote this to search google:) יעקב ישן בחוץ בשדה כשׁהוא שמר על צאן לבן, So again, by sleeping outdoors Yaakov exemplifies the attitude H (via MR) wants us to inculcate during succos by being outdoors.
H' brought B"Y to a place with the same name right after leaving Egypt!
וַיִּסְעוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵרַעְמְסֵס וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּסֻכֹּת " That was outside EY to the West, and Yaakov avinu's succos was outside EY to the East.
By bringing them to a place named succos right after leaving Egypt,perhaps this was H's message, reminding them of the place where Yaakov build the succah, and indeed H protected the BY throughout the desert 40 yrs, and so when BY were ready to enter EY, they were to remember all this, and that's why they entered EY from exactly the place succos that Yaakov had built for this pueprose, and this was meant as the message of the building of the succah ( and the anan was partly therefore in in Yaakov's zchus, partly the other ro'im and that's why they are the Ushpizin).
........................
Appendix: quote from Deuteronomy
Appendix: quote from Deuteronomy
All the commandment which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers. 2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the LORD thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that He might afflict thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep His commandments, or no. 3 And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every thing that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. 4 Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell, these forty years. 5 And thou shalt consider in thy heart, that, as a man chasteneth his son, so the LORD thy God chasteneth thee. 6 And thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, and to fear Him. 7 For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths, springing forth in valleys and hills; 8 a land of wheat and barley, and vines and fig-trees and pomegranates; a land of olive-trees and honey; 9 a land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass. 10 And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the LORD thy God for the good land which He hath given thee.
11 Beware lest thou forget the LORD thy God, in not keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command thee this day; 12 lest when thou hast eaten and art satisfied, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; 13 and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; 14 then thy heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; 15 who led thee through the great and dreadful wilderness, wherein were serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions, and thirsty ground where was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;
16 who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that He might afflict thee, and that He might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; 17 and thou say in thy heart: 'My power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth.' 18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God, for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore unto thy fathers, as it is this day. {P}19 And it shall be, if thou shalt forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I forewarn you this day that ye shall surely perish. 20 As the nations that the LORD maketh to perish before you, so shall ye perish; because ye would not hearken unto the voice of the LORD your God. {P}11 Beware lest thou forget the LORD thy God, in not keeping His commandments, and His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command thee this day; 12 lest when thou hast eaten and art satisfied, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; 13 and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; 14 then thy heart be lifted up, and thou forget the LORD thy God, who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; 15 who led thee through the great and dreadful wilderness, wherein were serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions, and thirsty ground where was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint;
Appendix
Appendix
Next level should be the question of why Y deliberately builds succos at this point? Why now? And why not return to EY, ie Shchem, why wait a while (a few years?) in succos?
Maybe the reason Y built the succos and named it that was to prepare the energy as soon as it was possible - it was immediately after he got the name Yisrael from the "ish" (before getting it from H?), and so he was now able to prepare energy for the future Bney Yisrael?
Maybe he had to send Esav away bec Esav interefered, he is a different energy, either materialistic, or Esav is "ish sadeh"., ie outdoors but in a different sense. Or maybe Y wanted to make sure his descendants captured the energy of outdoors, not leave it all to Esav, so after leaving Esav, with the name Yisrael, he builds succos, so that his descendants will have that energy?!
Y gains the name Yisrael outdoors, very much outdside!, and wrestles it away from Esav, so now Yisrael has the potential for outdoors energy, and just as he is about to enter EY but makes preparation for a few years, for his descendants who will also be some years (40) on the way and will enter EY right there, from the East. So there is succos as they leave Egypt and succos as they enter.
...
Interesting that BY had to go around Esav when entering EY....
..
Maybe a connection in the words "VaYichun" re Yaakov and "VaYachanu" re BY?:טז וַיָּשָׁב בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עֵשָׂו לְדַרְכּוֹ שֵׂעִירָה. יז וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה, וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת; וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת, עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם-הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת. {ס} יח וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב שָׁלֵם עִיר שְׁכֶם, אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, בְּבֹאוֹ, מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם; וַיִּחַן, אֶת-פְּנֵי הָעִיר. יט וַיִּקֶן אֶת-חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר נָטָה-שָׁם אָהֳלוֹ, מִיַּד בְּנֵי-חֲמוֹר, אֲבִי שְׁכֶם--בְּמֵאָה, קְשִׂיטָה. כ וַיַּצֶּב-שָׁם, מִזְבֵּחַ; וַיִּקְרָא-לוֹ--אֵל, אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
.....
Appendix: The actual location of the place called "Succos"
Appendix: The actual location of the place called "Succos"
Interesting that the place where Yakov built succos for the sheep is one of the hottest places in the world:
"On 20 August 2010, it recorded a scorching temperature of 51.1C, the new official highest temperature in the history of Jordan.[8] "
So maybe it is known as being very hot and that's why the sheep needed protection?
.........
Yabok = Zarka river, East of the Jordan, running further East, north of Amman.
Succot = Deir Alla (Arabic: دير علا) : Almost on the Jordan, but East of it, directly East of Shchem. It was on the way from Maavar Yabok to Shchem. Medrash says Yakov lived there a few years, and send Esav gifts continuously, but when he kleft to Schchem, which was in EY, he felt unthreatened by Esav, Rashi says maybe bec it was in EY (or bec their father Yitschak was still alivve, in EY)
It was the site of an ancient Near Eastern town in Balqa Governorate, Jordan, thought to be the biblical Pethor.[2] The town was a sanctuary and metal-working centre, ringed by smelting furnaces built against the exterior of the city walls,[3]whose successive rebuildings, dated by ceramics from the Late Bronze Age, sixteenth century BCE, to the fifth century BCE, accumulated as a tell based on a low natural hill. The hopeful identification of the site as the Biblical Sukkot is not confirmed by any inscription at the site. However, in Jerusalem Talmud ZeraimShevi'it 9:2, Sukkot is referred as Tar'ellah' hence maybe deformed later into Deir Alla.[4]
...
Ignore this: more sources re "succos" etc
וכיון שנסעו מרעמסס דהיינו בתוך ארץ מצרים, כיסם הקב"ה בשבעת ענני כבוד, והיו מסובבין עליהם כסוכה, כדכתיב: "כי על כל כבוד חופה" (ישעיהו ד, ה), וכן הוא אומר: "כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל בהוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים" (ויקרא כג, מג). ואותו היום שנסעו מרעמסס הלכו תק"כ מיל, לקיים מה שנאמר: "ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים" (שמות יט, ד), וכתיב: "יפרוש כנפיו יקחהו ישאהו על אברתו" (דברים לב, יא), וכיון שחנו לאותו המקום ראו שהיו מסתוככין בענני כבוד, ולכך קראו שם המקום סוכות, דכתיב: "ויסעו מסוכות ויחנו באיתם" (במדבר לג, ו), מה איתם מקום, דכתיב: "במדבר איתם" (שם שם ח), אף סוכות מקום. ואפילו תימא ר' אליעזר דאמר סוכות ממש עשו להם במקום חנייתם לסוף תק"כ מיל, דכתיב: "הושבתי את בני ישראל" (ויקרא כג, מג), כדרך מלכים היושבים בסוכות, ולא כדרך עבדים שבורחין בהחבא, ואפילו הכי על שם סוכות שעשו להם קראו שם המקום סוכות. ודומה לדבר: "ויעקב נסע סוכותה" (בראשית לג, יז). הרי יש לך שני מקומות ששמן סוכות, אחד בין רעמסס ובין איתם, ואחד בארץ ישראל.
מה פשר המעבר המהיר מרעמסס לסוכות, והישיבה בסוכות דוקא?
הרב צדוק הכהן מלובלין (פרי צדיק, ה, סוכות אות יג, עמ' קכב) מסביר שהם עשו שם סוכות כהלכתם, מאחר וביציאת מצרים הם זכו להארה רוחנית גבוהה, אלא שהיא היתה מוגבלת לפי שעה, ומיד נכסה מהם מפני שעדין לא היו בשלים ומתוקנים לקבל את השפע והארה העליונה, כמו שנאמר "ואת ערום ועריה" שלא היה בידם רק שתי מצוות – מילה ופסח. מלבד זאת, גם היה טענה כלפיהם מה נשתנו אילו מאילו, הללו עובדי עבודה זרה והללו עובדי עבודה זרה. ולכן:
אז הוצרך להופיע עליהם האור מקיף ממקום גבוה מאד נעלה, גם להגן ולדחות מהם החיצונים שהיה מוצאם מקליפת שבעים אומות שעוד לא זכו לכבוש אותם והיה האויר מלא מטומאת ארץ העמים, כי עוד לא היה מקדושת ארץ ישראל, וגם התורה עוד לא ניתן להם, וע"י שהופיע עליהם מהאור המקיף הגדול, ניצלו. ...וזה "למען ידעו דורתיכם כי בסוכות הושבתי את בני ישראל בהוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים" - שנזכה מעין בחינת הדעת של אז בהתקשרות בשורש.
המהלך הגדול שהיה ביציאת מצרים, הריכוז הגדול למקום אחד לרעמסס ומשם לסוכות בהנהגתו של משה רבנו, יהיה גם לעתיד לבא. כך נאמר במדרש תהלים (בובר) מזמור קז, ד:
.........
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/975
לפי הזוהר יש קשר ישיר בין יעקב אבינו לחג הסוכות. התורה אומרת בבראשית פרק לג:
"וַיָּשָׁב בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא עֵשָׂו לְדַרְכּוֹ שֵׂעִירָה. וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת"
הזוהר דורש את סמיכות הנושאים, שילוח עשיו שעירה וסוכות, כסמיכותו של יום הכיפורים, בו שולח השעיר לעזאזל, לכניסתו של עם ישראל לסוכה. לאחר שיעקב, איש הרוח, השתחרר מהשפעתו של עשיו, איש החומר והכוח, יכול הוא להסתופף בצל האמת והאמונה בסוכה. היא האנטי תיזה של הכוחנות, האלימות והרשעה. אין בה כמעט שום דבר פיזי אלא בעיקר הלכה ואמונה.
בעצם יש בסוכה מסר כפול: מצד אחד הסוכה מציינת את הניידות את הארעיות. לכשתמצי לומר את הגלות. סוכת עראי. מאידך, תשבו כעין תדורו, שבעה ימים עושה אדם את ישיבתו בסוכה קבע ואת ביתו ארעי.
...
Malbim: see full quote below: , לו לעצמו בנה בית קבוע שישב שם ויעבוד את ה', אבל למקנהו וקנינו עשה רק סכות ארעי, כי העסק במקנה וקנין היה אצלו טפל וארעי,
...
Connection of the anan (and the amud esh?) and the place "succos"
יז וַיְהִי, בְּשַׁלַּח פַּרְעֹה אֶת-הָעָם, וְלֹא-נָחָם אֱלֹהִים דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, כִּי קָרוֹב הוּא: כִּי אָמַר אֱלֹהִים, פֶּן-יִנָּחֵם הָעָם בִּרְאֹתָם מִלְחָמָה--וְשָׁבוּ מִצְרָיְמָה. יח וַיַּסֵּב אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָעָם דֶּרֶךְ הַמִּדְבָּר, יַם-סוּף; וַחֲמֻשִׁים עָלוּ בְנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. יט וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת-עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף, עִמּוֹ: כִּי הַשְׁבֵּעַ הִשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶתְכֶם, וְהַעֲלִיתֶם אֶת-עַצְמֹתַי מִזֶּה אִתְּכֶם.
כוַיִּסְעוּ, מִסֻּכֹּת; וַיַּחֲנוּ בְאֵתָם, בִּקְצֵה הַמִּדְבָּר. כא וַיהוָה הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן, לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ, וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ, לְהָאִיר לָהֶם--לָלֶכֶת, יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה. כב לֹא-יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן, יוֹמָם, וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ, לָיְלָה--לִפְנֵי, הָעָם. {פ
......
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/maamar.asp?id=141
ראה כי יעקב בנה כאן בית על מנת לציין ולהזכיר את שייכותו גם לאזור זה. אמנם הוא בדרכו לכוון עבר הירדן המערבי אך יש לו זיקה גם לאזור המזרחי. ציון ראשון לקשר זה נזכר בהסכם בין לבן ליעקב, שם יעקב מרים מצבה ועושה גל אבנים עליו אוכלים יעקב ולבן. שם נוצרת הכרה של לבן בנקודת גבול בין לבן ליעקב: "עד הגל הזה ועדה המצבה אם אני לא אעבור אליך את הגל הזה ואם אתה לא תעבר אלי את הגל הזה ואת המצבה הזאת לרעה".
יעקב בחזרתו מבית לבן קובע סדרת מעשים המסמנים את הקשר שלו לארץ-ישראל הן בצידו המזרחי של הירדן והן בצידו המערבי: בעבר הירדן המזרחי הוא שם את המצבה ואת גל האבנים בהר הגלעד, ובונה את הבית בסוכות, בעבר הירדן המערבי-בשכם הוא רוכש את חלקת האדמה ובבית אל הוא מניח מצבה ובונה מזבח. עם זאת, למרות בניית בית הקבע הוא קורא למקום סוכות, אולי כי אין הוא בונה בית קבע במקום והשהות במקום היא ארעית.
הבית היה אם כן מעשה סמלי של תקיעת יתד ומעשי אבות סימן לבנים.
.....
"ויבן לו בית" - (מגילה יז) שהה שם י"ח חדש קיץ וחורף וקיץ סכות קיץ בית חורף סכות קיץ
"ויבן לו בית" - יתכן כי היה המקום מקום אין שם עיר והוצרך לבנות לו בית ולעשות סוכות או ויבן לו בית שבנה לו בית גדול ובו מגדל עז להשגב מפני עשו
(יז) "ויעקב נסע סכתה". הנה צורך הספור הזה בארו חז"ל, שעשו א"ל נחלק שנינו העה"ז והעה"ב, ר"ל שאם היה יעקב משתתף אז עם עשו והולך לשעיר, היו שניהם גוי אחד, והיה המסובב מזה שהיה חולק עמו הכל בשוה, ויעקב שהיה עתיד להנהגה אחרת נשמט ממנו בהשגחת ה', עד שכל הדברים שעברו בין יעקב ועשו, הם מאורעות שעתידים לעבור בין בניהם בדורות הבאים, שבני יעקב יכנעו אל עשו כמו שנכנע אביהם לפניו, וכי יתרפס ברצי כסף כמו שעשה עשו, ומגמת עשו יהיה שילך עם יעקב בשוה, ולא יהיה כן רק עשו יעבור בראש ויתפוס ממשלה קודם, עד יעלו מושיעים בהר ציון וכו', וגם רצה עכ"פ בהפך שאנשי עשו ישתתפו עם יעקב, כמו שהיה בימי הורדוס, שהכניס את האדומים במילה וטבילה, וגם זה לא נתקיים כי שבו אח"כ לסורן באופן שיעקב נבדל מעשו, "ויבן לו בית ולמקנהו עשה סכות", לו לעצמו בנה בית קבוע שישב שם ויעבוד את ה', אבל למקנהו וקנינו עשה רק סכות ארעי, כי העסק במקנה וקנין היה אצלו טפל וארעי, כסוכה שהיא דירת עראי:
מדוע היה צורך לבנות בית?[הסתר]
רמב"ן[הסתר]
ויבן לו בית. יתכן כי היה המקום מקום אין שם עיר, והוצרך לבנות לו בית ולעשות סוכות. או ויבן לו בית, שבנה לו בית גדול ובו מגדל עז להשגב מפני עשו:
כמה זמן שהה יעקב במקום זה?[הסתר]
רש"י[הסתר]
ויבן לו בית. (מגילה יז) שהה שם י"ח חדש קיץ וחורף וקיץ סכות קיץ. בית חורף. סכות קיץ:
מדוע בניית סוכות מהווה סיבה לקרוא למקום בשם זה?[הסתר]
אור החיים[הסתר]
נסע סכותה. פי' וטעם קריאת שמה סכותה בשביל שלמקנהו עשה סוכות על כן וגו' ולא אמר לסוכות שאז תבין שקודם בא יעקב היתה נקראת סוכות ולא כן הוא, ואם תאמר וכי בשביל שעשה שם יעקב סוכה יקרא למקום כן, אולי כי עשה דבר חדש בחמלתו על המקנה מה שלא עשה כן אדם קודם שיכין סוכה לבהמות ולשינוי חדש קרא המקום עליו:
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/קטגוריה:בראשית_לג_יז
Jun 23, 2009 - ויעקב נסע סכתה ויבן לו בית ולמקנהו עשה סכת על כן קרא שם המקום סכות (ראו פסוק זה בהקשרו במהדורת הכתיב של הפרק) * * * וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן ...
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/מ%22ג_בראשית_לג_יז
Jun 10, 2008 - כתיב: ויעקב נסע סכתה ויבן לו בית ולמקנהו עשה סכת על כן קרא שם המקום סכות. מנוקד: וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל ...
www.daat.ac.il/daat/maamar.asp?id=141
במהלך חזרתו של יעקב מחרן הוא מתעכב בעבר הירדן המזרחי ובונה בית במקום ששמו סוכות. ... ובכל זאת יעקב בנהבית, כפי שנאמר: "ויעקב נסע סכתה ויבן לו בית ולמקנהו עשה סכת על ...
https://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/975
"ויברח יעקב שדה ארם מפני עשיו אחיו" ואף שם לא ישב במנוחה כי אם נאלץ להתמודד עם נכליו ... וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל כֵּן קָרָא ...
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/סכות_(עבר_הירדן)
"וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם ... בספר יהושע נזכרת העיר כאחת מערי שבט גד שבבקעת הירדן המזרחית: "וּבָעֵמֶק בֵּית ...
https://pesukim.org/וְיַעֲקֹב-נָסַע-סֻכֹּתָה-וַיִּבֶן-לו/
ויעקב נסע סכתה, ויבן לו בית, ויבא יעקב שלם עיר שכם, תמונה Nomadic Lass. "ויעקב נסע סכתה", מלמד שהקריביעקב שבעים פרים לע' אומות, לאחר שנאבק עם עם המלאך בנחל יבק, ...
https://www.etzion.org.il/he/סוכות-ויבן-לו-בית-ולמקנהו-עשה-סוכות
"וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת, וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת. וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב שָׁלֵם עִיר שְׁכֶם אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בְּבֹאוֹ ...
https://www.toraland.org.il/מאמרים/במעגל.../האושפיזין-ויעקב-נסע-סוכותה/
אחרי המפגש של יעקב אבינו עם עשו: ויעקב נסע סכתה, ויבן לו בית, ולמקנהו עשה סכת, על כן קרא שם המקום סכות. ויבא יעקב שלם עיר שכם אשר בארץ כנען בבאו מפדן ארם ויחן את פני ...
https://www.mayim.org.il/?holiday=סוכות-במקרא
יעקב אבינו – החזרה לארץ כנען. וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל־כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם־הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת (בראשית פרק לג יז). בראשית רבה ...
https://books.google.co.il/books?id=e0hOAQAAMAAJ - Translate this page
1831
... (יז יעקב אבער רייזטע נאך סכרת, בויעטע זיך אין הויס , אונד זיינעם פיהע מאכטעערהיטטען, ... שעירה: " ויעקב נסע סכתה ויבן לו בית ולמקנהו עשה סכרת רש"י עד אשר אבא וגו' סרקיב לו ...
Facing Up to Challenges, taking responsibility, but not at the expense of family
Facing Up to Challenges, taking responsibility, but not at the expense of family
Prelude to the next article, re "small containers".
INTRODUCTORY: “Yakov was ‘left alone’ and a ‘man’ wrestled with him all night”: After sending the gift to Esav Yakov (went to sleep and then woke up and) crossed his family over the river: this seems to the commentaries to be an indication that he intended to flee, and not encounter Esav.
That he was ‘left alone’ implies that he was not on the same side of the river as they were, which implies that he went back across the river. But it says clearly that he took his belongings, so why did he return?
The Talmud tells us “he forgot small containers”. There is much speculation as to what these were.
Then Yakov ‘wrestles’ with a ‘man’ all night. The ‘man’ is obviously an angel, as evidenced by the story: he gives Yakov a new name, and afterwards (32:31) Yakov says “I saw God face to face”.
[32:23 Yakov slept; then he got up and crossed his family over the Yabok river, and took his things. Then Yakov was ‘left alone’ and a ‘man’ wrestled with him all night.]
Sumary: The implication of [32:22-23] is that Yakov first slept, and then he woke up in the middle of the night and it was only then that he crossed his family and his effects over the Yabok river, and then returned to the original side.
Perhaps one can offer a very different explanation:
Perhaps one can offer a very different explanation:
Why did Yakov cross his family over the river? And then why return alone!?
All along we’ve been told of encounters Yakov had with God in dreams at night, and then right after he crosses his family over the river he has an encounter with an angel. Perhaps while Yakov slept he had a vision, and understood that he had to encounter the angel in a unique struggle; he wanted to do so without endangering his family and so he awoke and crossed his family over the river and then returned IN ORDER TO ENCOUNTER THE ANGEL!
More explanation: Yakov created a truce to suspend the upcoming struggle, in order to take his family to safety - they wer enot part of the fight, especially as Esav would inherit them if he won.
Perhaps Yakov sensed that there was a physical danger not just metaphysical, as indeed happened re his thigh injury.
Like Yakov’s first dream encounter where he wakes up in realization of the vision, here too while Yakov slept he had a vision from God, woke and understood that he had to encounter the man/angel in a unique fateful and dangerous struggle.
Just as we are told earlier that he wished to protect some of his possessions from Esav by splitting them, and later he protected his family by splitting them, Yakov wished to distance his family during the upcoming struggle whose outcome was uncertain.
Conclusion: Thus he awoke and crossed his family over the river and returned, so he was NOT fleeing to avoid the conflict, on the contrary.
[Is the river significant? There was a river nearby, perhaps they stopped there because it is a source of water, and fish, and washing, camped there for the night, so Yakov then took the to the other side, across the river to protect them, and then returned alone back to the original side to continue the struggle with a river protecting his family.Why would a river protect?Is it like "ever hanahar", this was their family, ivrim. esav also.]
.......………….…………………....
Chanukah🕎in this week's parsha!
Chanukah🕎in this week's parsha!
Note: This is also on the page: https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/biblethemes/chanukah
see also https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/biblethemes/shaboschanukah
WARNING: Only read the article below re the 'pachim ktanim' ("small containers") if you love medrash, never quite understood this, are into a bit of chasidus/mystical stuff, and have an appreciation for the cleverness of sophisticated conspiracy theories.....
And now which sceptic can resist seeing what this is about :)!
So click below at your own risk (like the T of K).As always in the Middle East, it's all about the oil!
As always in the Middle East, it's all about the oil!
OliveOyl vs Brutus through the ages
In this speculative piece, we'll meet Homer (Simson!?), Noach, Malkitzedek, Champion Wrestling & Antiochus.
In this speculative piece, we'll meet Homer (Simson!?), Noach, Malkitzedek, Champion Wrestling & Antiochus.
(ok, maybe popeye also)
Above: Not a dove :
The Olive wreath also known as kotinos [katonti?] was the prize for the winner at the ancient Olympic Games. It was a branch of the wild olive tree[2] that grew at Olympia.
RITUAL: The branches of the sacred wild-olive tree near the temple of Zeus were cut by a boy whose parents were both alive with a pair of golden scissors. Then he took them to the temple of Hera and placed them on a gold-ivory table. The judges of the Olympic Games would then make from them wreaths to crown the winners of the Games.
Topic: The centrality of olives (leaves & oil) in Greek/Roman mythology, ceremony & ritual.
Topic: The centrality of olives (leaves & oil) in Greek/Roman mythology, ceremony & ritual.
From various internet sources
Owl standing on a 'pach katan" an amphora (container for fluid), all surrounded by a wreath of olive leaves.
Greek silver tetradrachm from Athens, ca. 200-150 BCE.Roman Emperors wore Laurel Wreaths: a symbol of triumph.
worn as a chaplet around the head, or as a garland around the neck.The symbol of the laurel wreath traces back to Greek mythology. Apollo is represented wearing a laurel wreath on his head, and wreaths made of a wild olive-tree were awarded to victors in athletic competitions, including the ancient Olympics.
All the above was in preparation for the article immediately below (and now you know the reason for the color scheme of this section.)
Was Yakov so cheap?
Was Yakov so cheap?
What's the story with the "small containers"?!
What's the story with the "small containers"?!
The English article below is an elaboration and extension of the following ideas (Hebrew):
Some sources
פך שמן קטן אחד שהיה חתום בחותמו של הכהן הגדול נמצא בבית המקדש אותו טמאו היוונים ולזכר נס זה אנו חוגגים את חג החנוכה. פרשנים רבים חִברו בין פך שמן זה ובין הפכים הקטנים שיעקב חזר לעבר השני של נחל יבוק כדי להביאם:
לפי מסורת שבעל-פה, הסביר רבי מאיר הורוביץ מדז'יקוב ה"אמרי נעם" [ מועדים על חנוכה, עמודים 100-130] שענף הזית שהביאה היונה לנֹח, הפך לשמן זית זך. השמן נמסר לבנו הבכור של נח - שֵׁם. לפי המסורת שֵׁם הוא מלכיצדק – הכהן לאל עליון שנתן לאברהם פך שמן כמתנה. אברהם הוריש את פך השמן ליצחק שהעביר אותו ליעקב אותו יצק על האבן אשר שם מצבה אחרי החלום על ה"סולם מוצב ארצה וראשו מגיע השמימה" (בראשית כ"ח,12) - וחזר הכד ונתמלא. הוא שמר על השמן הזה וכאשר חזר לארץ ישראל עם נשותיו וילדיו במעבר נחל יבוק שב לצד השני כדי לקחת את פך השמן. יעקב חשב שלא ראוי שיישאר השמן שעבר מדור לדור בעבר הירדן המזרחי, אלא רצה שיהיה אתו וימשיך לעבור מדור לדור.
בשובו הלך לבית – אל, שם השתמש בפך השמן - יצק וקידש את המקום והקריב קרבן ל-ה'. פך השמן הגיע ללוי ולעמרם, אביו של משה רבינו. אחר כך לאהרן הכהן ולשרשרת של כהנים הגדולים של בית המקדש. בשמן זה נמשחו המשכן וכליו והמזבח וכן המלכים ועוד. רוח נבואה הביאה את יעקב להטמין את פך השמן במקום שבו עתיד לקום המקדש, כדי שבבוא היום ימצאו אותו החשמונאים. שֶמֶן המנורה עתיד לשוב ולהאיר את העולם עם בוא המשיח.
החיד"א – הרב חיים יוסף דוד אזולאי פירש באופן דומה. הוא כתב בקשר לפכים בספרו "דברים אחדים" (דרוש ל"ב לשבת חנוכה):
"ועוד כתב הרב "ברכת שמואל" (רבי ברוך בער לייבוביץ, ראש ישיבת קמניץ) משֵם הרב "שפתי כהן" על התורה (רבי מרדכי הכהן): אותו שמן שיצק יעקב על האבן אשר שם מראשותיו נתגלה לו אותו הפך, וראה יעקב כל הניסים שנעשו בפך זה, שנמשחו בו כלי המקדש ומשכן, ובו נמשחו כל מלכים... ופשוט בעיני, שגם אותו הפך נתגלה לבני חשמונאי שהיה חתום בחותמו של כהן גדול והוא
..
(יש היגיון וטעם בחיבור בין פך השמן לפכים הקטנים שכן משמעות המילה פַּךְ היא כד קטן, כלי קטן לנוזלים וברבים פכים. מי שכותב פח – טעות בידו.)
לאחר שהעביר יעקב את אשתו וילדיו לעבר הירדן המערבי - לארץ כנען, עבר שוב לצד השני של מעבר יבוק כדי למצוא את הכד שלו וחפצים אחרים שנשארו שם. כתוב "ויוותר יעקב לבדו" (בראשית ל"ב,25) אך אסור לאדם לצאת יחידי בלילה ככתוב "המהלך בדרך יחידי הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו". לכן יש פירוש: "אל תקרֵי (תקרא) "לְבַדּוֹ" אלא "לְכַדּוֹ". (אך גם אם נאמר הכוונה היא שיעקב הלך כדי להביא את הכד שלו, הרי שהוא היה לבדו – וסיכן עצמו במסירות נפש. התנהגות זו מורה על חשיבות הפכים הקטנים עבורו.)
רש"י פירש (לפי הכתוב בחולין דף צ"א, עמוד א'): "שכח פכים קטנים וחזר עליהן". "פַּכִּים קטנים" – הם חפצים בעלי ערך מועט.
שאלה למחשבה: מה החשיבות ב"פכים קטנים" שבגינם שב יעקב לבדו לעבר הירדן המזרחי והשאיר את בני משפחתו לבדם?
...אהרון הכהן…ובו הדליקו ח' ימים לצרכם
......
......
הרב דוד הרצברג ז"ל כתב:
לפי מסורת שבעל-פה, מסביר ה"אמרי נעם" [1] , שענף הזית שהביאה היונה לנח, הפך לשמן זית זך. השמן נמסר לבנו הבכור של נח, שֵׁם. לפי המסורת שֵׁם הוא מלכיצדק – הכהן לאל עליון שנתן לאברהם כד שמן כמנחה. אברהם הוריש את כד השמן ליצחק שהעביר אותו ליעקב. לפי המקורות, יעקב שכח כדים קטנים בזמן חציית נהר היבוק ושב לאחוריו להביא אותם ("ויותר יעקב" - שכח פכים קטנים וחזר עליהם, חולין צא). באחד הכדים היה השמן מתיבת נח. רוח נבואה הביאה את יעקב להטמין את כד השמן במקום שבו עתיד לקום המקדש, כדי שבבוא היום ימצאו אותו החשמונאים. שמן המנורה, אם כן, מקושר ליונה – סמל השלום והוא עתיד לשוב ולהאיר את העולם עם בוא המשיח [2].
אם כן, "אמרי נעם" רואה בשמן המנורה שמן עתיק, ששרד שנים רבות ומקורו באבות הרוחניים של העם היהודי.
...
...
. רש"י בראשית פרק לב פסוק כה- ויותר יעקב - שכח פכים קטנים וחזר עליהם.
ג. תלמוד בבלי מסכת חולין דף צא עמוד א: ויותר יעקב לבדו - אמר רבי אלעזר: שנשתייר על פכין קטנים, מכאן לצדיקים שחביב עליהם ממונם יותר מגופם וכל כך למה, לפי שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל.
...
AR: שייר. לועזית: retention 1. בביטוח: סכום ההתחייבות שמשאיר אצלו מבטח מכל סיכון שנטל.
..
GoogleTranslation:
This miracle we celebrate Chanukah. Many commentators linked this jug of oil to the small jugs that Jacob returned to the other side of Nahal Yavuk to bring them:
According to oral tradition, Rabbi Meir Horowitz of Dzhikov explained the "Emery Noam" [Deadlines for Chanukah, pages 100-130] that the olive branch brought by the dove to Noah became a virgin olive oil. The oil was delivered to Noah - Shem's eldest son. According to tradition, there is Melchizedek - the priest of the Supreme God who gave Abraham pitcher oil as a gift. Abraham bequeathed the oil jug to Isaac who passed it on to Jacob after ratifying the blessing and sending him to Lavan. Yakov poured it on the stone which, after the dream, was placed on the "ladder set to earth and his head comes to heaven" (Genesis 18:12). He kept this oil and when he returned to the Land of Israel with his wives and children on the river crossing, he returned to the other side to take the oil jug, and Jacob did not think that the oil he had passed from generation to generation in the East Jordan, but wanted him to go with him and continue from generation to generation.
On his return, he went to Bethel, where he used the oil can - poured and consecrated the place and made an offering to G-d. The oil can reached Levi and Amram, Moshe Rabbeinu's father. Then Aaron the Priest and a chain of the high priests of the Temple. In this oil the tabernacle and its vessels and the altar, as well as the kings and more, were anointed. A prophetic spirit led Jacob to put the oil jar in the place where the temple was to be erected, so that when the day came, the Hasmoneans would find it.
Hejah - Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai interpreted similarly. He wrote about jugs in his book "Some Things" (required for Shabbat Hanukkah):
"And another rabbi wrote" Brachat Shmuel "(Rabbi Baruch Ber Leibowitz, head of the Kamnitz Yeshiva) from the name of Rabbi" Sheftei Cohen "on the Torah (Rabbi Mordechai HaCohen): the same oil that Yaakov poured on the stone which his head revealed to him, and Yaakov saw all the miracles Made in this mouth, in which the vessels of the Temple and the tabernacle were anointed, in which all the kings were anointed ... and simply to me, which also became revealed to the Hasmonean son who was sealed with the seal of a high priest and he
..
(There is logic and reason in connecting the oil jug to the small jugs, since the word "jug" means a small jug, a small tool for liquids and many jugs. Whoever writes tin can make a mistake.)
After Jacob moved his wife and children toward the western Jordan - to the land of Canaan, he moved again to the other side of the Yabuk crossing to find his urn and other objects that remained there. It is written, "And Ya'akov will leave alone" (Genesis 25:25), but one must not go out alone at night as it is written "the walk in an individual way, it is in his soul." Therefore, it means: "Do not go" (read) "but" catch up ". (But even if the intention is to say that Jacob went to get his jug, he was alone - and risked himself with devotion. This behavior indicates the importance of the small jugs for him.)
Rashi interpreted (as it is written in Holin page XVI, page A): "Forget small jugs and repeat them". "Small jugs" - are of little value.
Question for thought: What is the significance of the "small jugs" for which Jacob returned alone to the East Jordan and left his family alone?
... Aharon the Cohen ... where the eight days lit up their needs
..
My Elaboration and extension
Noah sent out a dove which returned with an olive branch.
According to Tradition, Noah made oil from tthe olives and put it into a flask which was passed down the generations. The question is to whom did he entrust it? To his eldest son? Or was there a rivalry about receving it just as there was rivalry about everything else in the chumash?
Who was eldest? His sons are listed as "Shem, Cham and Yafet" but Rashi brings passages indicating that Yafet was oldest!
And we know that according to Tradition, the ancient Greeks were from Yafet. So isn't it interesting that the ancient Greeks considered olive oil very special , a gift from the gods, and had many rituals connected to it, and legends about an original tree from which it was taken [see more sources about this further below]?
Jewish traditions even state that the Tree of Knowledge was an olive tree. And where was THAT during the flood? Maybe it was the only part of the world not flooded and that's why the bird returned with it - Ararat is in the general region of Eden - and Noah understood that this was NOT an indication that the waters had receeded?!
There are two ancient ritual-fruit, processed into higher-level symbolic foods: wine from grapes and oil from olives, and also bread from grain. They are done only by humans, as part of the process of "la'asot", raising everything to a higher level.
The first thing Noah did after the flood was plant a vine and then when it produced fruit he got drunk. Maybe it was related to a ritual of after-the-flood use of wine and oil to renew the world, and the human activitiy of raising the physical to a more purified level.
Maybe the story about Cham (and Cnaan) is about trying to steal the flask from him when he was drunk, and there is a conneciton to the Tree of Knowledge in that sense. And so maybe Shem and Yefet joined up to get it from Noah to keep it from being stolen by Cham. And then Noah reacted when we awoke and heard what had happened, and seems to have preferred Shem, but also gives permission to Yefet to be in Shem's tents!
Chanuka and the oil:
The Greeks are from Yefet and they claimed it too (because of the beauty aspect, and also the Greeks had long used olive oil in their religious ceremonies); and maybe they claimed the har habayit too, יַפְתְּ אֱלֹ-ים לְיֶפֶת, וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי-שֵׁם.
And so the miracle of chanukah was that the Greeks didn't get har habayit, nor the flask of oil from Noacht.And the joy and celebration was when the Jews found it and realized the Greeks hadn't found it; and maybe the oil lasted 8 days because it was that special oil, and in fact it wasn't at all burned (like the sneh), it could have lasted forever, but they didn't need it anymore after 8 days when the new oil was ready and so it went out (or it was used as a ner tamid) and they used the new oil.
So all the 8 days were miraculous because they were all illuminated by the miraculous oil, not that the miracle was that ordinary oil lasted so long (and therefore this is an answer to the famous question of why all 8 days were celebrated).
So maybe Shem received the oil flask but Yefet claimed it and utilizing the blessing permission of Noah "yishkon be'oholei Shem" he came to the bet hamikdash to take it and the miracle of chanukah was that it was not taken, and was found by the Jews after they defeated the Greeks, and THIS is what chanukah is about?
In the Middle East, it was always all about the oil!
In the Middle East, it was always all about the oil!
Esav came back much later, in the guise of the Romans who carried off the essentials from the Bet Hamikdash, and the huge procession carrying the menorah, memorialized forever by the engraving on the arch of Titus - Brutus killed Caesar, did he end up with OliveOyl?
But first: Who among Shem's descendants received it?
But first: Who among Shem's descendants received it?
Shem according to chazal was Malkitzedek (meaning: 'my king, righteousness'); he is described in the chumash as giving a brocho to Avrahm, which is understood Traditionally as passing the mesorah to Avram, recognizing him as the one who stood out from among his (Shem's) descendants, to be tasked now with continuing the chain. So Shem/MalkiTzedek takes out bread and wine as part of the ceremony. What else fits with that? Olive oil! So this can be a hidden reference to the transmission of the olive oil for the mashiach to descend from Avrahm!
Why was this the appropriate criteria for deciding that Avram was the right one? Because he understands that Avram mounted the war due to his awareness of the significance for the geula and moshiach of the rescue of Dovid Hamekh's great grandfather Lot. See the commentary on parshas Lech Lecha [INSERT LINK HERE]. And so he knows Avram will also understand the sginificance of the oil. Indeed, due to the oil, rescuing Malkitzedek was of paramount imortance, along with rescing Lot.
Ma'avak yaakov and (the 'sar' of) esav:
Who does Avraham give the oil to? Sarah makes sure Yishmael is exiled and God tells him that his descent will be counted via Yitschok. In recent history however, Yishmael is firecly attracted to the makom hamikdash (and his strenght was in oil, though of a different type). But then to which of Yitschok's two sons should he pass it on to?
Maybe the oil was originally intended for Esav:
וַיֶּאֱהַב יִצְחָק אֶת-עֵשָׂו, כִּי-צַיִד בְּפִיו
וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב, וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה-זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ
and that's what Yaakov meant to purchase as his bechora, and then that was what the 'ma'avak' was about.
So it would be this oil container holding the olive of noach's 'yona' that is the 'pachim ktanim' that yaakov went back for, ie the prize in the 'ma'avak.
So it would be this oil container holding the olive of noach's 'yona' that is the 'pachim ktanim' that yaakov went back for, ie the prize in the 'ma'avak.
Maybe it was given to Yaakov when he got the brocho (and he was supposed to be the man of tents, but he was in the fields like Esav and later built a house, so maybe Esav could also be oholei shem) and when he returned Esav came with his army to fight for it, but it was arranged that the fight would be a "maavak" at the higher level.
As a descendant of shem, esav had a claim on it (especially from the aspect of it being an artifact of Nature) and that was the reason for the ma'avak.
So Yaakov made a deal with the sar shel Esav - let me go across the river with my family and take them to safety, to get them out of the way of the fight, that is what the pasuk means in the story before it, sending the divided 'machanot',.
That's what the pasuk means in implying that he went to sleep first, and then woke and took his family across - what happened was that the sar of esav came in the intial sleep state and Yaakov wakes and tells the sar shel esav "I'll leave the pachim of oil here, and then I'll come back and we'll have the ma'avak, and whoever wins gets it". This explains why Yaakov comes back - to engage in the ma'avak - he went back not because he forgot the pachim, but beause he needed to be back there to get the pachim, but to get them he had to fight for its ownership. and so that's why chazal talk of him going back for pachim ktanim .
[ADVANCED: See the sources in the photo insert on this page. Perhaps the sar of esav accuses yakov of stealing oil, since he used some to consecrate the monument after the ladder dream, and that is what the struggle was technically about, and Yakov is defening himself from accusations fo gezel and see the reference to the talmudic discussion of "nishtayer" to perhaps explain the terms used re Yakov's reason for going back, ie it wasn't that he 'forgot' them, but rather that there was a dispute due to 'missing/remaining' amount of oil!. And it was a "pikadon". ALso: Yakov claimed that the oil would regenerate, so it wasn't really missing, maybe just as his hip regenerated unaturally quickly, healed lareadybefore meeting Esav, so this meant the oil also was back to full by the time Esav meets him. This was due to Yakov/Yosroel's acceptance of the mitzvah for all geenrations to come, so we have a part in this.
[In some esav countries shchitah is being outlawed, nonkosher meat will problably have the gid in it. Yakov gives esav the excuse of "udfokum hatzon" ie preventing animal suffering etc, and so this is esav's excuse now.]Eventually Yaakov won and became Yisrael, earning the right to have the oil for moshiach, to be used after a long 'night of struggle' through the ages, with much physical wounding in the process, for which Yaakov prepared the way by observing the mitzva of the gid hanasheh as the 'price' or process (ie Yishmael and Esav both had bris, so what distinguished Yaakov? The mitzvah of gid hanasheh.)
[See talmudic sources included in photo below re the discussion of gid hansheh mentioning the pachimktanim and the reason for going back - "shenishtayer" - which is usually understood as meaning "forgotten" as per Rashi, but perhaps one can interpret it as in the way the word is used in the continuation of the gemara discussion. If we say that Yakov had used someof theoil in annointing the matzevah when the stones united under his head, then the Sar of Esav accused him of stealing that amount of oil, since it was a pikadon place din his trust, not to use, so Yakov calls HIM maybe a thief that he is afraid to stay in daylight, all reflections fo the argument with Lovon, as preparation for having tarayag mitzvot to be protected in the encounter with Esav, for which Yaakov then takes the gid hanasheh as PRIZE, not as sign of his defeat! ]
...
...
Given the thematice similarity of
Given the thematice similarity of
the ner tamid;
the chanuka oil which burned 8 days
the sneh;
perhaps Moshe Rabenu received the oil at that event, with his being chosen as the approriate one to receiv eit given his reaction to the sneh ("asurah nah ve'ereh et hamareh hagadol hazeh, lamah lo yiv'ar hasneh!" "Vayar H ki sar lir'ot"!..
..................
..................
http://vitaminim.org/1/index.php/topic,36685.msg123990.html#msg123990
פכים קטנים של יעקב אבינו ופך קטן של חנוכה / עדנה ויג.
« ב- : דצמבר 07, 2018, 12:51:37 PM »
Yavan & Rome (Yefet & Esav)
Yavan & Rome (Yefet & Esav)
Yitschok gives brocho of "shmanei haaretz" to BOTH Yaakov & Esav but in slightly different (reversed) versions. If we interpret this as a reference to the olive oil, then BOTH have a right to it - that's why even though Yaakov had already ratified his giving the brocho to Yaakov ("gam baruch yihyeh") they still had to fight for it.
Rashi there at the brocho to esav and to yaakov:s "shmaniei haaretz" means inheriting a land whose prduce and fields etc are "fat", and Rashi says this is "italia shel yavan"! (There is much discussion about which lands are meant by this etc, see below)
..
'איטליא של יון' - מימי עולם או מימי שלמה המלך / מנשה בן חזקיה ...
forum.otzar.org › viewtopicTranslate this pageNov 27, 2016 - ופירש"י, משמני הארץ וגו' - זו איטליאה של יון. ... לכך פירש"י זו איטליא של יון. ... בעיקר דברי הגמ' בשבת הנ"ל, נראה לדון מכמה פנים, הנה בדברי רש"י בשבת שם איתא,.[PDF]– זו איטליה של יוון '' משמני הארץ '' גאוגרפי - או היבט פלֵ
app.shaanan.ac.il › shnaton › 3.pdfTranslate this pageלכפילות הביטוי. '' משמני הארץ. '' בברכה שנתן יצחק. –. הן. ליעקב והן לעשו . למדרש. ,. שעליו מסתמך רש. י''. '': משמני הארץ. '' זו איטליה של יוון. –. ינ. תן אישוש באמצעות ההיבט ה. פלאו.מתי נוצרה איטליה של יון - פורטל הדף היומי: הודעה בחלון חדש
https://daf-yomi.com › Forums › MessageTranslate this pageשהוא מיצר לישראל והוא (איטליא) של יון במסכת מגילה (דף ו:): ביום שהעמיד ירבעם את העגלים ... וצריך לעיין מדוע כתב רש"י כאן בשעה שהעמיד מנשה צלם בהיכל (אגב זה אחד מן הדברים ...דיוק וחידוש ברש"י (ו) (מגילה ו ע"א-ע"ב) - פורטל הדף היומי
https://daf-yomi.com › DYItemDetailsTranslate this pageרש"י מסביר באיזה זמן נוצר איטליא של יון בשעת החטא של מנשה שהכניס צלם בהיכל, ולכורה דבר זה תמוה מאוד שרש"י ציין זמן זה והלה גמרא ערוכה לנו במסכת שבת דף נ"ו ע"ב בגמ' אמר ...כיצד נוצרה איטליה? - תורה ומדע
toraumada.blogspot.com › Toledot-How-created-ItalyTranslate this pageNov 28, 2016 - רש"י מבאר: "משמני הארץ – זו איטליאה של יָוָן (כז, לט). מקור דברי רש"י הוא במדרש [1]: "משמני הארץ מושבך - זו איטַלִיָאה". ויש גורסים: איטליאה של יָוָן.מ"ג בראשית כז לט – ויקיטקסט
https://he.wikisource.org › wikiTranslate this pageJun 10, 2008 - 1 מקרא; 2 תרגום; 3 רש"י (כל הפרק)(כל הפסוק); 4 רמב"ן (כל הפרק)(כל הפסוק); 5 מלבי"ם (כל הפרק)(כל הפסוק) ... "משמני הארץ וגו'" - זו איטליא"ה של יון (ב"ר) ...רש"י על בראשית כז – ויקיטקסט
https://he.wikisource.org › wiki › רש"י_על_בראשית_כזTranslate this pageOct 8, 2012 - רש"י על בראשית כז .... "הן גביר" - ברכה זו שביעית היא והוא עושה אותה ראשונה אלא אמר לו מה תועלת לך בברכה אם ... "משמני הארץ וגו'" - זו איטליא"ה של יון (ב"ר) ...חנוכת התורה כ״ט
https://www.sefaria.org.il › ... › תנ"ך › מפרשים › חנוכת התורהTranslate this pageברש"י משמני הארץ יהיה מושבך וגו' זו אטליא של יון עד כאן. וקשה מה בעי רש"י ז"ל בזה. ויש לפרש שהיה קשה לרש"י הלא כל ... לכך פירש"י זו איטליא של יון. דהנה איתא במסכת שבת בשעה ...ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים - הערות וביאורים
www.haoros.com › archiveTranslate this pageאיתא במס' מגילה (ו, ב): אמר עולא איטליא של יון זה כרך גדול של רומי, והויא תלת מאה פרסה על ... ולכאורה קשה על רש"י מכו"כ מדרז"ל שמעשה זו קרה בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ...
...
More details:
More details:
Shem was younger than Yafet, see rashi who quotes psukim to show this.
So was there rivalry between them?! Maybe that's why Greeks came for the oil in the bet hamikdash!
Yaft elokim leyefet veyishkon beoholei shem.
Why was Shem given preference? Or is it indeed preference? Or maybe yefet had a different version of this statement, or diff interpretation?!
[why was specifically cnaan cursed?!]
Is there a conneciotn that now the land of cnaan would be given to descendants of shem?
..
yakov and Man were westling for the pach hashemen 'pachim ktanim', Y went to evcuate his family from war zone, left the pachim there in agremeent wiht Man, and returned to fight over who gets it, esav says it is his inheritance, part of the 'sadeh', Y wins and thereby retroactively gets all brochos including harnessing powers of nature (Einstein etc?!).
Chanuka time the Yafet greeks wanted their inheritance from Noach, the oil, it was part of beauty etc, annointing with oil (what role did olive oil play in ancient statues)? Shem was was youngr son not older, see eg rashi, and so the conflict at the time of chanuka was like the earlier struggle between yakov & esav. The Greeks did start science, study of ature, and beauty etc, but didn't tie it to spiritual deelopment. (mayb eis like mafsik belimudo idea)
oil is pressed olives, purified, is task of yisrael but could have been task of esav in diff way, or yafet; oil dripping from head can be decadent, greek style. but if greeks are as they sould have been and jews as they should have been, would not have been conflict. (the syrian greeks were not like Alexander, famous story with cohen gadol. And the jews at the time wer enot up to par.)......
sibling rivalry in breishis has to includ sons of Noah. Theyfought over the oil. Yakov/esav both of shem. Mitzrayim/Canaan are chom but not clea rif they wer epar tof it.
yAfet yishkon beoholei shem, ie in B Hamikdash, Koresh was form Yfet! So the greeks came in bayis sheni, wanted the oil for their form of worship and aesthetics, phil science etc, not morality spirituality?
pLato saw us as only shadows, Torah sees us as divine image, par to fhte cosmc process, what we do here is how the upper relams develop. The shadow manipulate the upper relam.
10 commandments broken bec we didnt have vessels for even first aleph of anochi, and 10 were written in stone but also divine (both sides), but by breaking them, knowing we didnt have the vessels, we now needed 613
vessels, oil, woman and elisha, need vessels thne oil flows, conneciton to yakov.
Yakov goes back for oil.
Yefet comes to B Hamikdash for it.
Yosef in mitzraiyim, and ivri from canaan. Is there an conneciotn to the oil.
What is the oil why so important? Oil is infinite light, flame is light in the worls, we have ot bring the infinite light into the world. At least tha tis how we understand misison, myaybe yefet understands differenlt.
Esav's brocho was “mishmanei haaretz, umital hashamayim?”. (But tal is from bottom up?)
.....
Yosef & Yehuda re chanuka:
The biggest miracle of the oil was that they found it to begin with. Yosef gives brocho to Biyamen )before revealing himself), saying “elokim yocnicho bni” yochnecho = has chen = chanuka. Yosef was thereby revealing the future, the location of the cruz hashemen, would it be in Yehyda or binyanin, so y reveals that it is in binyamin,
When yosef was missing binyamin kept the fire burning (AR: is this a reference to the ner tomid?)
yosef & yehuda were figthing over binyamin = fighting over kodshei kodshim, in whose chelek it would be. Mei Hashiloach: who needs the k kodshim the most, a tzadik or BT?Yosef was tzadik, yehuda was BT, he did techuva. Y said it's for tazadikim, Yehuda said for BT (bec for them, holy is not enough, only holy of holies is enough).
.............
AR ideas re chanukah etc:
· Sneh burned but was not consumed, like chanukah oil.
· tie it to oil of noah, and ner tamid, and mon, and the flame symbolizes that , when light flame one from the other it is not dimished, M"R to yehoshua, Tradition not change the torah even if it is transmitted over thousasds of years.
· zohar on sneh puts it in context of Bil'am vs M"R: Bilaam as great as MR but his power from darakness, MR from light (and he was chesed): and the sneh was to reassure BY that they will not be consumed:
Maybe because bilam was advisor of pharoah when M"R was there? Maybe that is relate to midrash of MR choosing glowing coal, light that burns rather than light that doesnt, deliberately to confuse Bilaam to think he was not dangeorus to the Bilam/Paraoh plan. MR was cas tinto the river bec it is water which is not afraid of fire. And water is from ealrier creation. MR expmelified chesed (maybe idea of flock of sheep, good shepherd?). So sneh is fire is feraful but MR could approach nevertheless, conquered his fear bec he is from water, earlier-creaiton-inspired, so he wasnt made tomeh by the 49 levels of tumah in mtzrayim. And the flood aftermath was to reassure humanity it would continue and oil of yonah was the carrier of the continuity like Tradition, but it was divide dinto different naitons three sons of noah, MR from Shem but Greeks form Yafet, fighting over that oil, bilaam fighting MR and MR gets the light at the sneh, and sheh symbolizes not being consumed by the fire. So we see fire and realize if it doesnt consume the sneh then it means we also can be not consumed by any earthly fire, the oil will last even though it is feeding the menorah-flame, that is ner tamid, ie the traidotn continues, the Jewish people continue after any cataclysm (Flood). And descnedants of Avraham chesed, and Tradition via MR chesed is the idea that the Values are chesed etc, not those of the Yafet Greeks like beauty and truthc(Ahron teaches that Truth is not a value, but rather shalom is). So MR and Ahron are chesed, anovoh & sholom (brisi sholom was to Ahron's descnedant Pinchas), and together thet represent overcoming jealousy.
· sneh = heh on both sides of sin nun = nes.
[From Sh Carlebach video: oil is the secret rozo and flame is outer open light; greeks defiled oil means destroyed our inner light]
...
The Ancient Greeks and Olive Oil
The Ancient Greeks and Olive Oil
Homer claimed in his writings that the ancient olive tree growing in Athens was already 10,000 years old. He also stated that destroying an olive tree was prohibited and any such action would be viewed as capital punishment by the Greek court.
In 775 BC Olympia, Greece, at the site of the ancient Olympic stadium, athletes trained and competed in their respective sports with the winners triumphantly acclaimed and crowned with a wreath made of olive twigs.
The Greeks began olive cultivation in 700 BC. The sacred lamp that was used in ancient Greek culture for lighting dark rooms at night was fueled by olive oil. Aged olive oil was also used in sacred anointing rituals of the church at weddings and at baptisms, a ritual still continued today.
Solon an Athenian reformer and poet, in his economic reforms encouraged the cultivation of olives and prohibited any other produce to be exported.
Since 566 BC, the famous Panathenaic Games were held every four years in Athens, ancient Greece, celebrating the honour of the goddess Athena. During the games, religious festivals, ceremonies, cultural events and competitions were held. For the winners, the prize consisted of an amphora filled with olive oil produced by olives from the sacred olive fields of Attica.
Herodotus wrote in 500 BC, that the growing and exporting of olives and olive oil were so sacred that only virgins and eunuchs were allowed to cultivate olive trees.
The first documented plantings of olive trees predate the discovered Mycenae olive fossils by about 1100 years and are believed to have occurred on the island of Crete by the Minoan civilization.
The ancient Greeks mastered the art of pressing the precious oil from the fruit of the olive tree. Archaeological studies prove that Greece has been producing high quality olive oil for more than 4000 years.
....
Homer, the immortal Greek poet, called olive oil liquid gold
GREEK MYTHOLOGY
According to myth, Poseidon and Athena competed against each other for the Kingdom of Attica. Poseidon, “God of seas”, struck his trident to the ground and a well of salt water was formed granting the Greeks with a means of trade and water which however was non potable. Athena on the other hand a “Goddess of wisdom and justice” gave them the olive tree and with it its many beneficial properties. Poseidon who probably foresaw the outcome was outraged and challenged Athena but Zeus intervened ordering the formation of a divine tribunal of Olympian deities. Cecrops the mythical king sided with the Goddess and on accepting her gifts, Athena became the patron deity of the Athenians who in her honour named the new city after her. Displeased by the outcome the God of seas tried to set fire to the tree using a thunderbolt. To his dismay he realised the next morning that the tree had re-grown.
Chanuka Oil and Pillow Stones
Chanuka Oil and Pillow Stones
Introduction: Yakov runs away from Esav, and 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?
We know that he took several stones to put under his head, and that since 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.
My interpretation of the story: 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.)
Introduction: 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.
My interpretation: 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.
After reading the above:
After reading the above:
some advanced reading re the Talmudic SOURCE re "pachin ktanim":
The context from the discussions in the gmoro to the left can perhaps provide an alternate meaning than the one usually given (eg in Rashi) for the word "נשתייר".
ie it refers to the amount of liquid in the container (a little bit was missing) rather than to to the reason it was left there (that is was forgotten).
[And that the containers were a 'pikadon' held by Yaakov, and the connection to the monument from the stones which united into one etc.]
.....
The Romans (Esav), destroyed/inherited/continued Greek(Yafet) civilization and hegemony.
Titus was so proud of conquering the bet hamikdash that he established this arch. Why was he particularly proud of capturing the menorah?! (partly because it was a symbol on Jewish coins of the time, but why was THAT so?)
Yisreol/Esav:', Y went to evcuate his familyfrom war zone, left the pachim there in agremeent wiht Man, and returned to fight over who getsit, esav says it is his inheritance, part of the 'sadeh', Y wins and thereby retroactively gets allbrochos including harnessing powers of nature (Einstein etc?!).Chanuka time the Yafet greeks wanted their inheritance from Noach, the oil, it was part ofbeauty etc, annointing with oil (what role did olive oil play in ancient statues)? Shem was was
youngr son not older, see eg rashi, and so the conflict at the time of chanuka was like the earlierstruggle between yakov & esav. The Greeks did start science, study of ature, and beauty etc,but didn't tie it to spiritual deelopment. (mayb eis like mafsik belimudo idea)oil is pressed olives, purified, is task of yisrael but could have been task of esav in diff way, oryafet; oil drippig from head can be decadent, greek style. but if greeks are as they sould havebeen and jews as they should have been, would not have been conflict. (the syrian greeks werenot like Alexander, famous story with cohen gadol. And the jews at the time wer enot up to par.)
youngr son not older, see eg rashi, and so the conflict at the time of chanuka was like the earlierstruggle between yakov & esav. The Greeks did start science, study of ature, and beauty etc,but didn't tie it to spiritual deelopment. (mayb eis like mafsik belimudo idea)oil is pressed olives, purified, is task of yisrael but could have been task of esav in diff way, oryafet; oil drippig from head can be decadent, greek style. but if greeks are as they sould havebeen and jews as they should have been, would not have been conflict. (the syrian greeks werenot like Alexander, famous story with cohen gadol. And the jews at the time wer enot up to par.)
The death of Rachel: מותה של רחל
The death of Rachel: מותה של רחל
Below, in English & Hebrew:
Note: there are more sources in the Hebrew section.קארמה : כוחן של מילים שנאמרות בזעם
רחל בסופו של דבר מרמה את אביה כמו שעשה יעקב! [היא ויעקב עשו זאת מסיבה דתית או קסומה - יעקב לברכה, ורחל להסתיר אליל.]
"מתה עלי רחל" (מח, ז): יעקב אומר שהיא מתה "עלי" - בגללי, משום שאמרתי "עם אשר תמצא את אלהיך לא יחיה"
עם אשר תמצא את אלהיך לא יחיה" (לא, לב) = "עָלַי"
חז"ל (בראשית רבה צג, ו) אומרים שבגלל דברים אלו של יעקב, נגזר על רחל למות (ועלינו ללמוד מזה כמה צריך להיזהר בדיבורנו).
The Sages (Gen. Rabbah 6) say that because of these words of Jacob, Rachel is doomed to die (and we must learn how much to be careful in our speech).
ואולי היה זה עונש ליעקב על הונאת אביו יצחק, שעשה משום שאמרה לו אמו "עלי קללתך בני" (כז, יג), כרומזת שהעונש למעשה זה יהיה "עלי" - דהיינו מות רחל.
(42.36) וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם יַעֲקֹב אֲבִיהֶם, אֹתִי שִׁכַּלְתֶּם: יוֹסֵף אֵינֶנּוּ, וְשִׁמְעוֹן אֵינֶנּוּ, וְאֶת-בִּנְיָמִן תִּקָּחוּ, עָלַי הָיוּ כֻלָּנָה.
ייתכן שכמו שמותה נגזר בגלל מלים, גם העיתוי למותה נקבע בגלל מלים, מילותיה של רחל עצמה: היא אמרה ליעקב "הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי" (ל, א), ובאמת, מיד כשנהייתה אמם של שני "בנים", בזמן הולדת בנימין, בנה השני, היא מתה.
שתי האמירות הללו שגרמו למיתת רחל, נמצאות בהקשר של חרון אף וע"ז (והרי "כל הכועס כאילו עובד ע"ז" - רמב"ם הלכות דעות פ"ב ה"ג): כשרחל דרשה מיעקב "הבה לי בנים", יעקב ענה לה בחרון אף: "ויחר אף יעקב ברחל" (ל, ב), ואמר לה: "התחת אלקים אנכי", כלומר שבקשה זו היא כמו ע"ז, שהרי הוא איננו אלקים. גם אמירת יעקב במעשה התרפים, "עם אשר תמצא את אלהיך לא יחיה", באה בהקשר של עבודה זרה, שהרי רחל גנבה ע"ז מאביה, וגם בהקשר של חרון אף, שהרי רחל אומרת ללבן: "אל יחר בעיני אדני כי לא אוכל לקום" (לא, לה), ואח"כ כתוב: "ויחר ליעקב וירב בלבן" (לא, לו).
גורם אפשרי נוסף למיתת רחל הוא שרחל לא הודתה כראוי על לידת יוסף: היא קראה לו יוסף באמרה: "יוסף ה' לי בן אחר" (ל, כד), כאילו שלידת יוסף לא הספיקה לה. ואכן, נתן לה ה' בן אחר אבל היא מתה כשהוא נולד. וגם על שני הבנים האלו נגזר להיות בסכנה: יוסף נמכר ובנימין כמעט נשאר במצרים. ובמשך שנים רבות, לא היה בנימין "בן אחר" אלא בן יחיד ליעקב, כשיעקב היה במצרים.
Karma & the destructive power of words spoken in anger:
The Tragic Premature Death of the Great and Holy Mother Rachel: The power of words, and Mida Kneged Mida ("karma').
Yakov (Jacob) says: "Whoever took (Lovon/Laban's idols) will die"
The Sages (Gen. Rabbah 93.6) say that because of these words of Jacob
Rachel is doomed to die (and so we all must learn how much to be careful in our words.)
The Mida Kneged Mida effect in the lives of the forefather/mothers:
These great heros took upon themselves the most difficult tasks and tests in order to create the pathways for their descendants through the millenia, and were willing to bear the personal costs of their own failings, and their morally-grey actions taken for good purposes, when engaged in these heoric 'quests':
1. Rachel ends up deceiving her father just as Yakov had done!
2. She and Yakov did it for a religious or magical reason - Yakov for a blessing, and Rachel to conceal an idol.
3. Yakov's 'hypocritical' lack of understanding towards such an act boomerangs, though of course he doesn't know it was Rachel who did it.
So Yakov's part in causing Rachel's demise, as a result of deceiving her father, was a karmic ('mida knegeged mida') consequence of deceiving his father Isaac.
Note also the key word: "Alai" = 'on me'. Yakov did the deception because his mother told him "ALAI" = '" 'on me', will be the curse" (27:13). And indeed the consequence was as Yakov later says, "Alay", namely Rachel's death was "on him".
עם אשר תמצא את אלהיך לא יחיה" (לא, לב)
And note that these letters spell = "עָלַי".
Furthermore: It is possible that just as her death is due to words, the timing of her death may also be determined by Rachel's own words. She told Jacob "Let me have sons, and if not, I will die", and as a karmic result as soon as she had "sons" ie plural, she died.
Both of these statements that caused Rachel's death are in the context of anger : When Rachel demanded from Jacob "give me children or I will die", Jacob answered her angrily, And both are in the context of avodah zara: Lavan's gods, and Yakov's imlpication that Rachel is not asking him as though he is a god, to give her fertility.
Another possible 'contributing factor' of Rachel's early death is not being properly grateful to God for Joseph's birth: She called him 'Joseph' meaning "Let God give me yet another son" as if Joseph's birth was not enough for her. Indeed, God gave her another son, but she died when he was born.
And in fact both of these boys were doomed to be in danger: Joseph was sold and Benjamin almost stayed in Egypt. And for many years, Benjamin was in fact effectively not "another son" in Rachel's words but rather an only son when Joseph was in Egypt.
All this is meant to teach us the power of worrds spoken in anger, or in a lack of sufficient gratitude, and therefore conversely - as Traditiona tells us in comparing the power of the negative to that of the positive - how much greater is the power of positive words, to create and sustain lives and worlds.
May we be blessed at fraught times of great emotion to remember this and take the decision at that moment - a very difficult challenge indeed! - do our best to focus on minimizing the negative and maximizing the positive.
Rescuing Dinah in Entebbe
Dinah was taken captive by Shchem, and forcibly "married" to him.: Justifying her Brothers' actions in rescuing her
Dinah was taken captive by Shchem, and forcibly "married" to him.: Justifying her Brothers' actions in rescuing her
Parallels to the great Israeli rescue of Jewish hostages in Entebbe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe (see this if you aren't familiar with this amazing episode)
The Torah unequivocally states that Schem kidnapped and raped Dinah. Though he eventually fell in love with her and perhaps made her love him, Shchem at no point offered to return Dinah! And Chamor, the father, the leader, did not apologize or offer to free Dinah.
.Since Schem fell in love with Dinah he perhaps wished for her to want to remain with him, not only as a captive, and wanted her to feel that she had her family’s blessing; he therefore didn’t prefer the option of killing them and alienating her. So he offered to give a large dowry and arrange intermarriages, trading his men for the Jewish women.
The offer by the people of Schchem to the children of Israel: “We will marry your women and you can marry ours” was not necessarily generous: basically it was a message that the children of Yakov should become assimilated into the larger culture, losing their national identity, and the jewish women were to be for the taking by Shchem's men, perhaps as he did it, forcibly.
The main point:
The main point:
Shchem at no point offered to return Dinah!
Shchem at no point offered to return Dinah!
He only offered to give a large dowry (bascially forcibly 'buying' her) and arrange intermarriages, trading his men for the Jewish women (!).
He only offered to give a large dowry (bascially forcibly 'buying' her) and arrange intermarriages, trading his men for the Jewish women (!).
...
Review of the crucial points:
Shchem - son of Chamor , the ruler - kidnapped and raped Dinah.
He did not offer to return her to her family although this was clearly what the family wanted.
Chamor, the father, did not apologize or offer to free Dinah, he only offered money and then offered a ‘deal’: assimilation of the family.
Shchem ‘asked for her hand in marriage’ after he raped her, and without any intention of taking no for an answer.
Dinah was a captive the whole time without the option of release, being forced to be with her captor on a continual basis - daily rape.
She was taken by force, and there was no way to rescue her from the clutches of Shchem other than by force - so when a man violent enough to kidnap and rape does not offer to return the victim, a violent rescue is necessary.
Conclusion: As with many other accounts in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes, and then one realizes this point, that never in all the negotiations does Shchem mention the possibility of returning Dinah to her family. Also: being that it was a family against a city, they were heavily outnumbered, and so they had to use a stratagem in order to succeed. What they chose to do was cruel but necessary.
But questions remain:
But questions remain:
Yakov’s sons [56] tricked the males of Shchem into circumcising themselves - according to the simple reading it was not just Shimon and Levi - and then Shimon and Levi killed them all while they were in pain from the operation.
Was it morally proper to kill them all?
Was it morally proper to use circumcision as a tactic in this way?
Why did the sons of Yakov involve all the males and not just Shchem?
..............
..............
Circumstances of Circumcision: A Novel Defense of Yakov’s Sons
Circumstances of Circumcision: A Novel Defense of Yakov’s Sons
Answer: The children of Yakov, seeing that they would not be able to obtain Dinah’s release, pretended to make a deal for their assimilation into the Shchem culture – their condition was circumcision. And they stipulated that it would not be enough that Shchem himself circumcize, but that he must be from a people who are circumcised, so that all his people must follow suit. So, Shchem made an announcement in front of all his people, ‘welcoming’ the Jews into their midst, but made it clear that he was offering all the Jewish women to his men. In return he said, the Jewish men would have access to the local women. (Were any women consulted in any of this?!!)
My interpretation: Chamor was a crafty leader: in order that other men among his people not be jealous of him, he was telling them that just as he took a beautiful Jewish woman, he would make available to them all the other Jewish women. And I think they weren’t circumcising themselves for him to be able to have Dinah, but in order for them to be able to have access to the new women in their midst. All they had to do was circumcise themselves. In my opinion, the men of a culture led by a kidnapping rapist wouldn’t eagerly undertake a painful operation just to welcome some strangers into their midst or to allow the leader to mary someone, but only if they themselves had intention to take a Jewish woman.
And even if there was social pressure to circumcise themselves, if they did not intend to marry a Jewish woman no one would ever know whether or not they were circumcised, so why bother doing it. Most likely it was not the agreement per se but the promise of the resulting availability of these newly-arrived women which motivated them. And an essential point is that this motivated only those intending to take Jewish women for themselves. And it was precisely these men that Dina’s brothers needed to identify and neutralize. My assumption is that the ones who didn't want to take part in this did not bother to circumcise, and therefore were not among those incapacitated.
Summary: Shchem knew that he needed his people’s help to defend him in case Dinah’s family would try to rescue her. By promising the Jewish women to the men, he bought their allegiance and their support in case of attack: now it was not anymore simply a matter of the men rallying to defend their leader from the ramifications of his escapade, but rather now there was to be a prize for all of them.
The brothers, planning their rescue, wanted to immobilize the men who were most likely to resist, and it was clearly those men who were planning to avail themselves of the Jewish women who would be most likely to resist the rescue, or to pursue the Jews when they fled to safety with Dinah in their hands, and so they came up with this stratagem, knowing that only those men who intended to take Jewish women were likely to go to the length of circumcising themselves, and these men would be incapacitated by the circumcision.
There might have been differences in strategy by the brothers who were full brothers (having not only the same father but also the same mother as Dinah) and those who were only half brothers. The intent of the half brothers may have been merely to incapacitate them so that they wouldn’t interfere with the rescue, however Shimon and Levi went further.
Dinah’s full-brothers (having not only the same father but also the same mother as Dinah) decided that the males who had circumcised themselves were likely the culprits and deserved death, and in any case they were the ones who were indicating by their actions that they would want the Jewish women, and so were more dangerous.
And so they decided to take no chances and kill all those who had circumcised themselves.
Who deserved to be killed in order to rescue Dinah? As has been pointed out by commentators, the passage “the city which polluted their sister” [34:27] can have the implication that the city as a whole was guilty of the pollution of Dinah, in other words that there was more than one man involved in the rape. And, in fact the relevant passage also implies that all the men of Shchem circumcised themselves. Either way, whoever circumcized themselves marked themselves as supporting their leaders vicious action and plan.
...........
One of the greatest modern hostage-rescue operations was negatively interpreted by enemies of the Jews - one can similalry interpret the rescue of Dinah, or choose to find the justifications
Some African nations submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israel's "act of aggression":
... the representative of Uganda transmitted the text of a message dated 4 July from the President of the Republic of Uganda, drawing attention to a most serious incident which had occurred at Entcbbe international airport on the night of 3/4 July. The President stated that at 2120 GMT, three Zionist Israeli transport planes had landed by surprise and without any authorization from the Ugandan Government at Entebbe international airport and approached the old airport building. where the hostages and the crew of the French airbus which had been hijacked in flight between Tel Aviv and Paris were being held by Palestinian commandos. The Israeli invaders had attacked the hijackers. killing seven of them and some of the hostages. and had destroyed a number of Ugandan aircraft which were parked nearby as well as other equipment. By a letter dated 6 July (S/12126), the Assistant Executive Secretary of the Organization of African Unity (OAD) to the United Nations transmitted the text of a telegram addressed to the President of the Security Council by the Prime Minister of Mauritius. the current Chairman of OAU. The telegram stated that on 4 July, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of OAU in Mauritius had received information concerning the invasion of Uganda by Israeli commandos carried out at 1 a.m. on that day and had decided to request the Security Council to meet urgently to consider that wanton act of aggression against a Member State of the United Nations. https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/32/2(SUPP)................
More detail: Further explanation
More detail: Further explanation
The offer by the people of Schchem to the children of Israel: “We will marry your women and you can marry ours” was not necessarily generous: basically it was a message that the children of Yakov should become assimilated into the larger culture, losing their national identity. It’s not at all clear that Shchem was even giving them a choice, whether they could withhold their other women from his people, whether they could refuse to intermarry. Just as his deal regarding Dinah did not include the option of simply returning her to her family and letting them depart in peace, perhaps this entire “pact” was an edict of forced assimilation[55] of the children of Yakov into their people. This was an even more dangerous proposal.
“The sons of Yakov answered Shchem in deceit (‘mirmah’)”. This sounds unethical, but the Torah may be hinting at justification of their action: the word for ‘they answered’ = “vaya’anu” is parallel to “vaya’aneha” = “and (Shchem) tormented her (Dinah)”.
The word ‘mirmah’ (deceit) haunts Yakov: as his father Isaac said to his brother Esav regarding his taking of the blessings: “Your brother came in deceit”
Yakov was angered at the actions of his children who “answered in deceit”: he was afraid of the possible revenge by neighboring peoples for the actions of his children against Shchem, justified though it may have been, just as he feared Esav’s revenge for his own act of deceit, justified though it was. Both were unfortunate extreme actions, necessary and therefore justified, but it would have been better had the whole situation been somehow preventable.
..
Further Indication that they were justified
[34:30]Yakov chides the two brothers, worrying that the nations will retaliate. But he does not claim that their deed was unjustified. And when the brothers reply “will Dinah be treated as a whore” [34:31] Yakov has no reply. Presumably, they are saying that there was no other way to actually rescue their sister. And indeed God provides protection for them from the nations [ 35:5], which seems to imply divine acceptance of their deed.
These are difficult stories, and need to be studied in depth, and one can have various opinions, the above is my attempt to portray it in as positive a light as possible, but we hope and pray that such situaitons will never arise, never be the need for such stratagems and actions.
....…………………
Again, Hypocrisy
Again, Hypocrisy
Shchem kidnaps Dinah the daughter of Yakov and takes her. Just like Avimelech and Pharaoh wanted to do to the matriarchs, Dina’s mother Rivka and her grandmother Sarah. It happens every generation.
Later, Schchem offers much to Dina’s brothers in return for her hand in marriage; they react by killing the whole town. And they do it via treachery/trickery. Again, as with the incidents between the Patriarchs and Lavan, Avimelech and Pharaoh, a casual reading of the story makes it seem that the Patriarchs and their family are in the wrong. After all, Shchem’s offer of very high dowry and fraternity among the two peoples sounds quite sincere and generous, and peace-loving.
.......
The children of Yakov, seeing that they would not be able to obtain Dinah’s release, pretended to make a deal for their assimilation into the Shchem culture – their condition was circumcision. So, Shchem made an announcement
All they had to do was circumcise themselves. However, why would a man do this to himself? In a culture led by a kidnapping rapist would the men eagerly undertake a painful operation just to welcome some strangers into their midst? Not very likely. And even if there was social pressure to circumcise themselves, if they did not intend to marry a Jewish woman no one would ever know whether or not they were circumcised, so why bother doing it. ......And that is exactly what the sons of Yakov figured.
Dinah and Shchem: Justification of the Actions of the Brothers
Dinah and Shchem: Justification of the Actions of the Brothers
Shchem kidnaps Dinah the daughter of Yakov and takes her. (Just like Avimelech and Pharaoh wanted to do to Dina’s mother Rivka and her grandmother Sarah.) Later, Schchem offers much to Dina’s brothers in return for her hand in marriage; they react by killing the whole town. And they do it via treachery/trickery. Again, as with the incidents between the Patriarchs and Lavan, Avimelech and Pharaoh, a casual reading of the story makes it seem that the Patriarchs and their family are in the wrong. After all, Shchem’s offer of very high dowry and fraternity among the two peoples sounds quite sincere and generous, and peace-loving.
When the brothers present their plan to Schem they say “and if not we’ll take Dinah and leave” but of course this is just face-saving bargaining talk, it was clear that had they been able to they would already have taken her back. It’s clear that Schem had no intention of taking no for an answer.
As with many other accounts in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes and throughout the narrative remember we are dealing with a kidnapper/rapist and never in all the negotiations does Shchem mention the possibility of returning Dinah to her family. When a man violent enough to kidnap and rape, and so brazen as not to even apologize does not offer to return the victim, a violent rescue is necessary.
There was no way to rescue Dinah from the clutches of Shchem other than by force. And, being that it was a family against a city, they were heavily outnumbered, and so they had to use a stratagem in order to succeed. Cruel but necessary.
Forced Assimilation?
. It’s not at all clear that Shchem was even giving them a choice, whether they could withhold their other women from his people, whether they could refuse to intermarry. Just as he took Dinah without asking, and raped her, and his deal regarding Dinah did not include the option of simply returning her to her family and letting them depart in peace, perhaps this entire “pact” was an edict of forced assimilation[53].
...
Cleaving: With a Cleaver?
Cleaving: With a Cleaver?
It’s interesting that the Torah uses the same phrase regarding Shchem’s attachment to Dinah as it does for the intended attachment of man and woman in the Garden of Eden account: “therefore shall man cleave unto his wife”[54]; here we are told “and Shchem’s psyche (life-force) cleaved unto Dinah”. Nowhere else in the Torah is a man said to be connected to a woman in this way. And given the circumstances this is quite ironic and provocative.
Why take the wives and children?
Why take the wives and children?
Firstly economic reasons, in those days a widow with children, or perhaps any widow was in dange rof starvation. And this seems to have bene the way of warfare in those days. Also, this was a reaction to the plan of the people of the city: “we’ll take their women, they’ll take our women”, so this was an ironic twist, they were killed and lost their women. Furthermore: By circumcising themselves the men were indicating desire to acquire Jewish wives, perhaps in addition to their existing local wives; this terminated their full emotional right to their wives.
Shchem kidnaps Dinah the daughter of Yakov and takes her; she is FORCIBLY "MARRIED" TO HIM (ie raped). (Just like Avimelech and Pharaoh wanted to do to Dina’s mother Rivka and her grandmother Sarah.) Later, Schchem offers much to Dina’s brothers in return for her hand in marriage; they react by killing the whole town. And they do it via treachery/trickery.
.
IT'S EASY TO SEE NEGATIVELY her brothers' use of deception and violence in rescuing her - killing all the males of the city - BUT HERE IS MY ATTEMPT AT JUSTIFYING what they did:
[Note that there are certain parallels to the great Israeli rescue of Jewish hostages in Entebbe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Entebbe (see this if you aren't familiar with this amazing episode), where Israel used deception and violence to overpower the terrorists, killing many of them along with commandos of the local army, in order to rescue innocent Jewish hostages.]
Rescuing Dinah in Entebbe: We need to focus on these facts:
The Torah unequivocally states that Schem kidnapped and raped Dinah.
Though he eventually fell in love with her and perhaps made her love him, she was a captive and this is a vulnerable situation.
Shchem at no point offered to return Dinah! He ‘asked for her hand in marriage’ after he raped her, and had her as a captive in his palace, and clearly had no intention of taking no for an answer.
Chamor, the father, the leader, did not apologize or offer to free Dinah.
Dinah was a captive the whole time without the option of release, being forced to be with her captor on a continual basis - daily rape.
Since Schem fell in love with Dinah he perhaps wished for her to want to remain with him, not only as a captive, and wanted her to feel that she had her family’s blessing; he therefore didn’t prefer the option of killing them and alienating her. So he offered to give a large dowry and made an "arrangement", offering the children of Israel: “We will marry your women and you can marry ours”! This was not necessarily generous: basically it was a message that the children of Yakov should become assimilated into the larger culture, losing their national identity, and the jewish women were to be for the taking by Shchem's men. And perhaps they would take the other Jewish women as he had, forcibly.
The offer by the people of Schchem to the children of Israel: “We will marry your women and you can marry ours” was not necessarily generous: basically it was a message that the children of Yakov should become assimilated into the larger culture, losing their national identity. It’s not at all clear that Shchem was even giving them a choice, whether they could withhold their other women from his people, whether they could refuse to intermarry. Just as his deal regarding Dinah did not include the option of simply returning her to her family and letting them depart in peace, perhaps this entire “pact” was an edict of forced assimilation[55] of the children of Yakov into their people. This was an even more dangerous proposal.
So to summarize: As with many other accounts in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes, and then one realizes these points:
Shchem ‘asked for her hand in marriage’ after he raped her, and without any intention of taking no for an answer.
Dinah was a captive the whole time without the option of release, being forced to be with her captor on a continual basis - daily rape.
She was taken by force, and there was no way to rescue her from the clutches of Shchem other than by force .
Conclusion:
1) When a man violent enough to kidnap and rape does not offer to return the victim, a violent rescue is necessary.
2) Being that it was a family against a city, they were heavily outnumbered, and so they had to use a stratagem in order to succeed. What they chose to do was cruel but necessary in order to free Dinah.
BUT QUESTIONS REMAIN:
Yakov’s sons [56] tricked the males of Shchem into circumcising themselves - according to the simple reading it was not just Shimon and Levi - and then Shimon and Levi killed them all while they were in pain from the operation.
i. Was it morally proper to kill them all?
ii. Was it morally proper to use circumcision as a tactic in this way?
iii. Why did the sons of Yakov involve all the males and not just Shchem?
..............
CIRCUMSTANCES OF CIRCUMCISION: A NOVEL DEFENSE OF YAKOV’S SONS
Answer: The children of Yakov, seeing that they would not be able to obtain Dinah’s release, pretended to make a deal for their assimilation into the Shchem culture – their condition was circumcision. And they stipulated that it would not be enough that Shchem himself circumcize, but that he must be from a people who are circumcised, so that all his people must follow suit. So, Shchem made an announcement in front of all his people, ‘welcoming’ the Jews into their midst, but made it clear that he was offering all the Jewish women to his men. In return he said, the Jewish men would have access to the local women. (And I think it is obvious that no women were consulted in any of this!)
My interpretation: Chamor was a crafty leader: in order that other men among his people not be jealous of him, he was telling them that just as he took a beautiful Jewish woman, he would make available to them all the other Jewish women. And I think they weren’t circumcising themselves for him to be able to have Dinah, but in order for them to be able to have access to the new women in their midst. All they had to do was circumcise themselves. In my opinion, the men of a culture led by a kidnapping rapist wouldn’t eagerly undertake a painful operation just to welcome some strangers into their midst or to allow the leader to mary someone, but rather would doso only if they themselves had intention to take a Jewish woman.
And even if there was social pressure generated by the ruler to circumcise themselves, if they did not intend to marry a Jewish woman no one would ever know whether or not they were circumcised, so why bother doing it. Most likely what motivated them to circumsize was not the agreement per se but the promise of the resulting availability of these newly-arrived women. And an essential point is that this motivated only those intending to take Jewish women for themselves. And it was precisely these men that Dina’s brothers needed to identify and neutralize, since they would be most motivated to help their leader defend against DIna;s brothers on their intended rescue-raid. My assumption is that the ones who didn't want to take part in this did not bother to circumcise, and therefore were not among those incapacitated, and therefore were not killed.
Summary: Shchem knew that he needed his people’s help to defend him in case Dinah’s family would try to rescue her. By promising the Jewish women to the men, he bought their allegiance and their support in case of attack: now it was not anymore simply a matter of the men rallying to defend their leader from the ramifications of his escapade, but rather now there was to be a prize for all of them.
The brothers, planning their rescue, wanted to immobilize the men who were most likely to resist, and it was clearly those men who were planning to avail themselves of the Jewish women who would be most likely to resist the rescue, or to pursue the Jews when they fled to safety with Dinah in their hands, and so they came up with this stratagem, knowing that only those men who intended to take Jewish women were likely to go to the length of circumcising themselves, and these men would be incapacitated by the circumcision.
The full vs half-brothers: There might have been differences in strategy by the brothers who were full brothers (having not only the same father but also the same mother as Dinah) and those who were only half brothers. The intent of the half brothers may have been merely to incapacitate them so that they wouldn’t interfere with the rescue, however Shimon and Levi went further.
Dinah’s full-brothers decided that the males who had circumcised themselves were likely the culprits and deserved death, and in any case they were the ones who were indicating by their actions that they would want the Jewish women, and so were more dangerous. And so they decided to take no chances and kill all those who had circumcised themselves.
Who deserved to be killed in order to rescue Dinah? As has been pointed out by commentators, the passage “the city which polluted their sister” [34:27] can have the implication that the city as a whole was guilty of the pollution of Dinah, in other words that there was more than one man involved in the rape. And, in fact the relevant passage also implies that all the men of Shchem circumcised themselves. Either way, whoever circumcized themselves marked themselves as supporting their leaders vicious action and plan.
...........
The Entebbe example: One of the greatest modern hostage-rescue operations was negatively interpreted by enemies of the Jews - one can similalry interpret the rescue of Dinah, or choose to find the justifications
Some African nations submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israel's "act of aggression":
... the representative of Uganda transmitted the text of a message dated 4 July from the President of the Republic of Uganda, drawing attention to a most serious incident which had occurred at Entcbbe international airport on the night of 3/4 July. The President stated that at 2120 GMT, three Zionist Israeli transport planes had landed by surprise and without any authorization from the Ugandan Government at Entebbe international airport ..... the invasion of Uganda by Israeli commandos carried out at 1 a.m. on that day and had decided to request the Security Council to meet urgently to consider that wanton act of aggression against a Member State of the United Nations.
................
Deceit:
“The sons of Yakov answered Shchem in deceit (‘mirmah’)”. This sounds unethical, but the Torah may be hinting at justification of their action: the word for ‘they answered’ = “vaya’anu” is parallel to “vaya’aneha” = “and (Shchem) tormented her (Dinah)”.
Note however that the word ‘mirmah’ (deceit) haunts Yakov: as his father Isaac said to his brother Esav regarding his taking of the blessings: “Your brother came in deceit”. Yakov was angered at the actions of his children who “answered in deceit”.
Further Indication that they were justified:
i. [34:30]Yakov chides the two brothers, worrying that the nations will retaliate. But he does not claim that their deed was unjustified. [ie he was notnecessarily critical of the ethics, but rather he was afraid of the possible revenge by neighboring peoples for the actions of his children against Shchem, justified though it may have been, just as he feared Esav’s revenge for his own act of deceit, justified though it was. Both were unfortunate extreme actions, necessary and therefore justified, but it would have been better had the whole situation been somehow preventable.]
ii. When the brothers reply “will Dinah be treated as a whore” [34:31] Yakov has no reply. Presumably, they are saying that there was no other way to actually rescue their sister.
ii. Indeed God provides protection for them from the nations [ 35:5], which seems to imply divine acceptance of their deed.
Conclusion:
As with the incidents between the Patriarchs and Lavan, Avimelech and Pharaoh, a casual reading of the story makes it seem that the Patriarchs and their family are in the wrong. After all, Shchem’s offer of very high dowry and fraternity among the two peoples sounds quite sincere and generous, and peace-loving.
When the brothers present their plan to Schem they say “and if not we’ll take Dinah and leave” but of course this is just face-saving bargaining talk, it was clear that had they been able to they would already have taken her back. It’s clear that Schem had no intention of taking no for an answer.
These are difficult stories, and need to be studied in depth. As with many other accounts in the Torah, one must read it with careful eyes and throughout the narrative remember we are dealing with a kidnapper/rapist. One can have various opinions - the above is my attempt to portray it in as positive a light as possible.
Though we always hope and pray that such situaitons will never arise, that there never will be the need for such stratagems and actions, nevertheless unfortunately......
May we be blessed to see the release of all captives and the eradication of all those intent on destroying us.
I’m Not Hen-Pecked, and My Wife Lets Me Say That:
I’m Not Hen-Pecked, and My Wife Lets Me Say That:
parallel between Sarah and Rachel/Leah
Lavan cheated Yakov and Yakov planned to leave; God appeared to him and told him to go. He tells his wives Rachel and Leah what happened, starting with a recounting of all the cheating tricks their father Lavan pulled on him. His two wives say (31:16): “Whatever God told you, that is what you should do”.
Could it be that Yakov intended not to follow God’s command to leave?! Why would his wives think his words imply that? If God told him to leave did he first need anyone’s permission or advice?
Answer: Rachel and Leah are echoing to Yakov God’s words to his grandfather: when Abraham was questioning whether to follow Sarah’s request to exile Hagar and Yishmael, God said to Abraham: (21:12) “Whatever Sarah says, listen to her voice”. And RIvka was the one who decided the brocho would go to him, Yaakov, not to Esav as Yitschok had preferred. So Rachel & Leah are the ones to decide what to do, and indeed they determine that: “Whatever God told you, that is what you should do”.
[Abraham did not want to cause strife in the family by exiling them, but God intervened to tell him to follow his wife’s decision and have them leave, basically affirming that it is a tough decision, but justified; here Yakov did not want to cause strife in the family by leaving Lavan, and doing so against the wishes of his wives, Lavan’s daughters, and so he apprised them of what had transpired. And he didn;t want to now cause enmity between the two fmailies, as he had been forced to do re Esav. So he turns to them, and they were then intervening to strengthen Yakov in following God’s decision that they leave, affirming that it was a tough but just move, speaking to Yakov in words which echoed those spoken to his grandfather Abraham. ...]
"An elephant and his wife"
"An elephant and his wife"
walk into an ark....the bartender said "there's going to be a flood"
Are You a Man or are You a ……?
Are You a Man or are You a ……?
Surprisingly – even shockingly - the Torah employs the same words for very different levels of beings:
Interchanging Man and Angel (“mal’ach”): Yakov’s human emissaries are called ‘mal’achim’ which generally means angels – indeed the word is used in that context immediately beforehand. On the other hand the being with whom Yakov ‘wrestled’ is clearly an angel yet is referred to as ‘ish’, ‘a man’ [and the same for Abraham’s visitors]. Why does torah use ‘ish’ for struggle w/ yakov? should say hashem or mal’ach etc, at least somewhere in story, or at end when it is clear that yakov realizes it is a malach.
[Maybe since all is machazeh if is hashem or malach, here is inappropriate because he had a physical effect, so it is a manifestation of hashem which is qualitatilvely different than a machazeh, and that is ‘ish’, which is more physical. Also (suggested by R Simon Jacobson in response to this vort and my question re why ish) hashem ‘ish’ milchomoh’ and I’d add so is appropriate re struggle and re war esav was preparing.]
Man and Animal: Ish VeIshto: “man and wife”: is used for animals in the story of Noach!
Mal’ach hashem: “angel of God”: used for God.(in the story re Yakov (?) mal’ach starts talking and Hashem continues….)
Man and God: “Elohim” (generally meaning “God”) is used for humans in two contexts: “bnei elohim” literally “the sons of Elohim” but meaning “important people” or etc; Also God says to Moses that he will be to Ahron “like God” (‘ata tihyeh lo laylohim’) or “like a leader” in that he will tell Ahron what to say.
God and Man: H' is referref to in 'az yashir' as ‘ish’ milchomoh’. Of course it is a 'poem', but nevertheless it is eye-opening.
God and Angel: Mal’ach hashem: “angel of God”: the mal’ach starts talking and God continues.
Read the below article only if you like real drash & always liked the sound of "Im Lavan (I always even wore a) gartle": as well as the sound of "gnuvti yom ugnuvti laylah".
"Yakov's rejection of Lavan Syncretic religion"
"Yakov's rejection of Lavan Syncretic religion"
See the Hebrew sources for this in the Hebrew version below.
The rabbis comment that Jacob's statement is a reference to his adherence to the commandments while staying with Lavan - that Lavan wanted Jacob to fail, to make him keep fewer than 613 Mitzvot.
In light of this, perhaps we can understand why Lovon blamed Jacob for "stealing his gods" - he wanted to weaken Yaakov's claim of immunity from Esav by showing that Jacob didn't keep 613 by virtue of the fact that he stole! (Yaakov responds to the allegation against him by saying "I was stolen from night and day" 'gnuvti yom ugnuvti layla' - [AR: Which happened first?]
Perhaps he wantedin this way to convince Yaakov that he was in danger form Esav and shouldn;t leave the safety of Lavan's protection.
Perhaps this was why Yaakov was so angry at the accusation, and by saying "whoever stole your idols" he is saying "I affirm that indeed the protection will not include anyone who stole, they indeed not have protection from Esav"!
Maybe later on he sensed something indeed lacking from the protection, and that's why he was so frightened of the encounter with Esav, and based on this "instinct'', when he was arrangign the convoy he felt he needed to place Rachel last, in the most protected spot!
........
I would like to suggest that the Traditional statement "taryag mitzvot shamarti" can be interpreted also in the opposite sense, ie not that Lavan wanted to have Yakov keep fewer mitzvot, but rather that he actually wanted to cause Jacob to not keep 613 by keeping more!
Yakov is saying he resisted Lavan's attempt to add his beliefs onto the Jewish ones - other religions have done that, with the result being what Jews consider to be 'idolatrous for Jews' though not forbidden for others.
The Torah quotes the name that Lavan used "yegar sahadusa", the Aramaic translation of the name Yaakov gave to the place, so we know Lavan spoke Aramaic and it was important for him to distinguish it from the language yaakov spoke, Hebrew .Yakov stresses "im lavan garti" as opposed to the Aramaic version "Im Lavan Darti" which would be 614! תהלים פד, פסוק יא)"כִּי טוֹב יוֹם בַּחֲצֵרֶיךָ מֵאָלֶף בָּחַרְתִּי הִסְתּוֹפֵף בְּבֵית אֱלֹהַי מִדּוּר בְּאָהֳלֵי רֶשַׁע
After all, Lavan believed in God, as God had told him in a dream and warned him, but at the same time, he also believed in other Gods, as he says in the same breath: "Why did you steal my God" , and so Lavan would not tell his grandchildren to ignore the commandments of God, but simply add his extra beliefs. This would have spoiled the Jacob family if they had stayed . Apparently, Lavan implored them to hear To his god, too, not as a substitute, but as an addition {that does not contradict "you will have no other god" (like the Christian faith, who believe in co-operation).)
To that end, Jacob hinted that he kept 613 Mitzvot. Another hint of this is found in the words of Yitzchak to Esau (Genesis 26: 1) that if Jacob keeps the Torah Esau could not hurt him. And so Jacob tells the angels to tell Esau he had kept 613, so Esau would know he could not kill him.
From this you can also understand the verse (Deuteronomy 26: 5), which according to the Sages (in the Passover Haggadah) means that Lavan tried to destroy Jacob.
And note: one less than 613 is ברית Brit! That is, add this mitzvah and it equals 613 mitzvot! (Why Brit? Maybe it has to do with "Gid HaNesheh", another mitzvah in the same area. So Jacob tells Esav that now, after the fight, having added the new mitzvah of gid hanasheh, there is exactly 613!
(ie Jacob needed another mitzvah to protect him? (And maybe that should have included a part of the body near the btit? (it mentions the hip) (Maybe related to Abraham sending Eliezer to find Rebecca for Isaac "Put your hand under my hip").
Note that Rachel dies after hiding the idol in the body area where a baby is being delivered, and she dies due to birth, so the effect of Lovon's idolatry plus Jacob's words was deadly there.
...
Note re above: one less than 613 is תרי"ב, ie ברית Brit! ie add this mitzva one and one has all 613 mitzvot! (Why brit re yaakov? maybe also relates to being struck on yerech, gid hanasheh is extra mitzva, making it taryag....so Yaakov is telling esav that now after the ma'avak there is exactly taryag!
Maybe Yakov needed an extra mitzva to protect him? (And maybe it had to involve a body-part near the brit?) (any coneciotn to 'sim na yadcha tachas yerechi' re avraham to find rivka for yitschak?).
Lavan: Maye he was accusing Yakov of gneva "lamah ganavta et eloha" in order to show that Yakov did NOT keep Taryag! (also a response to the claim against him 'gnuvti yom gnuvti layla' - AR: which is first?
Note that Rachel dies after hiding the trafim in the region of the body where a baby comes through, and she dies from the effect of a birth , so the effect of the avodah zara of lavan plus Yakov's words was deadly there.
עם לבן גרתי ותרי"ד לא שמרתי
עם לבן גרתי ותרי"ד לא שמרתי
הקפדת יעקב על תרי"ג מצוות בבית לבן
הקפדת יעקב על תרי"ג מצוות בבית לבן
1. הצהרתו של יעקב היא התייחסות לדבקותו במצוות בעת שהותו אצל לבן - כלומר למרות הלחץ של לבן שרצה שיעקב ייכשל, לגרום לו לשמור על פחות מ -613 מצוות.
לאור זאת, אולי נוכל להבין מדוע לבן האשים את יעקב ב"גניבת אלוהיו "- הוא רצה להחליש את טענתו של יעקב לחסינות מפני עשו בכך שהוא מראה שיעקב לא שמר על 613 בגלל שהוא גנב!
(יעקב מגיב לטענה נגדו אולי בשם "gonev mehaganav patur.]אולי לבן רצה בדרך זו לשכנע את יעקב שהוא בסכנה (מעשו) וצריך להישאר איתו (לבן).
אולי רצון זו להחליש את טענתו של יעקב לחסינות מפני עשו הוא הסיבה שיעקב כל כך כעס על ההאשמה - ובאומר "מי שגנב את האלילים שלך ימות" הוא אומר "אני מאשר שאכן כל מי שגנב אכן לא יזכה להגנה 'טריג' מפני עשו"!
אולי בהמשך הוא חש במשהו שחסר באמת מההגנה, וזו הסיבה שהוא נבהל כל כך מהמפגש עם עשו, ומבוסס על "האינסטינקט" הזה, כשהוא סידר את השיירה, הוא הרגיש שהוא צריך למקם את רחל אחרונה, המקום המוגן ביותר!
כו וַיֹּאמֶר לָבָן, לְיַעֲקֹב, מֶה עָשִׂיתָ, וַתִּגְנֹב אֶת-לְבָבִי; וַתְּנַהֵג, אֶת-בְּנֹתַי, כִּשְׁבֻיוֹת, חָרֶב. כז לָמָּה נַחְבֵּאתָ לִבְרֹחַ, וַתִּגְנֹב אֹתִי; ... יֶשׁ-לְאֵל יָדִי, לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמָּכֶם רָע; וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבִיכֶם אֶמֶשׁ אָמַר אֵלַי לֵאמֹר, הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ מִדַּבֵּר עִם-יַעֲקֹב--מִטּוֹב עַד-רָע. ל וְעַתָּה הָלֹךְ הָלַכְתָּ, כִּי-נִכְסֹף נִכְסַפְתָּה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ; לָמָּה גָנַבְתָּ, אֶת-אֱלֹהָי.
........
הקפדת יעקב על תרי"ג מצוות בבית לבן
"עם לבן גרתי" (בראשית לב, ה)
,רש"י מפרש שיעקב התכוון לאמר, "ותרי"ג מצוות שמרתי ולא למדתי ממעשיו הרעים".
.בפשטות הכוונה היא שלבן רצה להכשיל את יעקב, לגרום לו לשמור פחות מתרי"ג מצות.
אולי לבן האשים את יעקב בכך שהוא "גנב את אלוהיו" כדי להראות שג'ייקוב לא שמר613, הוא גנב! וַיִּגְנֹב יַעֲקֹב, אֶת-לֵב לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי--עַל-בְּלִי הִגִּיד לוֹ, כִּי בֹרֵחַ הוּא.
לבן מראה ליעקוב שהוא לבן מקיים את מצוותיו של אלוהים, אלוהים הופיע בפניו אתמול בלילה ולבן מקיים דבריו, לעומת יעקב שהפר את מצוותיו בגניבה!2. אבל אפשר לפרש להיפך, שהוא דווקא רצה לגרום ליעקב "להוסיף" על תרי"ג!
[אפשר לפרש את האמירה המסורתית "תריג מצוות שמרתי" גם במובן ההפוך, כלומר לא שלבן רצה שיעקב ישמור פחות מצוות, אלא שהוא בעצם רצה לגרום ליעקב לא לקיים 613 על ידי שמירה על יותר!]הרי לבן האמין בה', כפי שמספר שה' הופיע אליו בחלום והזהיר אותו: "אלקי אביכם אמש אמר אלי לאמר השמר לך מדבר עם יעקב מטוב עד רע" (לא, כט). אבל באותו זמן, הוא האמין גם באלהים אחרים, כפי שהוא אומר באותה נשימה: "למה גנבת את אלהי" (לא, ל). האמונה השיתופית הזו היא ע"ז. לבן האמין בה' וכך לא היה אומר לנכדיו להתעלם ממצוות האל, אלא פשוט להוסיף את אמונותיו הנוספות. אם כן, לבן היה עלול לקלקל את משפחת יעקב אילו היה נשארים בבית לבן. כנראה, לבן הפציר בהם לשמוע גם לאלוהיו, לא כתחליף, אלא כתוספת {שאינה נוגדת את "לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים" (כמו אמונת הנוצרים, שמאמינים בשיתוף)}. כלומר, הוא רצה שישמרו יותר מתרי"ג מצוות: תרי"ג מה', ועוד מאלהיו.
לדבר זה רמז יעקב באמרו שהוא שמר תרי"ג מצוות, ולא תרי"ד, בזמן שהותו עם לבן. עוד רמז לכך נמצא בדברי יצחק לעשיו (בראשית כז, מ): "ואת אחיך תעבד, והיה כאשר תריד ופרקת עולו מעל צוארך". יצחק רומז לעשיו שאם יעקב יוסיף מצוה אחת לתרי"ג, וישמור תרי"ד כפי שרצה לבן, יוכל עשיו לפגוע בו. ולכן אומר יעקב למלאכים שיגידו לעשיו "עם לבן גרתי ותרי"ג מצוות שמרתי", שלא הגיע לתרי"ד, כדי שעשיו ידע שלא יוכל להרוג אותו.
בזה אפשר להבין גם את הפסוק "ארמי אובד אבי" (דברים כו, ה), שלפי חז"ל (בהגדה של פסח) פירושו שלבן ניסה לאבד את יעקב. לפי הנ"ל, הכוונה היא שלבן רצה לאבד אותו ע"י שיוסיפו לעבוד ע"ז בשיתוף, ואז יוכל עשו לפגוע בו, ח"ו.
והערה: אחד פחות מ- 613 הוא תרי"ב, כלומר ברית! כלומר הוסף מצווה זו וזה שווה ל 613 מצוות! (מדוע ברית? אולי זה קשור גם ל"גיד הנשה", מצווה נוספת, מה שהופך אותה לתריג. ... אז יעקב אומר ל Esav שעכשיו אחרי המאבק יש בדיוק תרי"ג!
(אולי יעקב היה זקוק למצווה נוספת שתגן עליו? (ואולי זה היה צריך לכלול חלק בגוף ליד הברית?) ( :אברהם למצוא רבקה ליצחק "שים ידך ...ירך ").
אולי לבן האשים את יעקב בגניבה "לאמה גנבת אלוהי" כדי להראות שיעקב לא שמר תריג! (גם תגובה לטענה נגדו "נגנבתי מלילה ויום" 'gnuvti yom ugnuvti layla' - [AR: מה ראשון?]
דר = גר ארמית עברית: "עם לבן גרתי" -- >"עם לבן דרתי": התורה מצטטת את השם שלבן השתמש ב"יגר סהדוסה ", התרגום הארמי של השם שיעקב נתן למקום, כך שאנו יודעים שלבן דיבר ארמית והיה חשוב לו להבדיל אותו מהשפה שיעקב דיבר, עברית.
יעקב מדגיש את עם לבן גרתי" לעומת הגרסה הארמית "עם לבן דרתי" שתהיה 614!
במילים אחרות, יעקב אומר שהוא התנגד למאמץ של לבאן להוסיף את אמונותיו על היהדות - דתות אחרות עשו זאת, והתוצאה היא מה שהיהודים רואים כ"עבודה זרה ליהודים "אם כי לא אסורים על אחרים.
היכן מופיעה מילה זו בתנ"ך?
תהלים פד, פסוק יא)"כִּי טוֹב יוֹם בַּחֲצֵרֶיךָ מֵאָלֶף בָּחַרְתִּי הִסְתּוֹפֵף בְּבֵית אֱלֹהַי מִדּוּר בְּאָהֳלֵי רֶשַׁע
...
שים לב שרחל נפטרת לאחר שהסתירה את הע"ז באזור הגופה בה עובר תינוק, והיא נפטרת מהשפעת לידה, כך שההשפעה של הע"ז של לבן בתוספת דבריו של יעקב הייתה קטלנית שם.
..
Lavan: וְלֹא-הִגַּדְתָּ לִּי, וָאֲשַׁלֵּחֲךָ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְשִׁרִים בְּתֹף וּבְכִנּוֹר. כח וְלֹא נְטַשְׁתַּנִי, לְנַשֵּׁק לְבָנַי וְלִבְנֹתָי; עַתָּה, הִסְכַּלְתָּ עֲשׂוֹ. []Remez to Esav?!] כ
....
Yakov needed tarayag mitzvot to be protected in the encounter with Esav, for which Yaakov then takes the new mitzvah of gid hanasheh as PRIZE, not as sign of his defeat! It is due to his new status of Yisrael, operating at a high level, that he is able to have this mitzvah, and this protects him in the encounter with Esav a few hours later.
Yakov needed tarayag mitzvot to be protected in the encounter with Esav, for which Yaakov then takes the new mitzvah of gid hanasheh as PRIZE, not as sign of his defeat! It is due to his new status of Yisrael, operating at a high level, that he is able to have this mitzvah, and this protects him in the encounter with Esav a few hours later.
Placed here in case you didn't get to read it last week.
Placed here in case you didn't get to read it last week.
Several central themes we'll follow throughout the weeks are "True Heroism & Karma", "Self Transcendance" and "Cosmic struggles: Divine set-ups". For examples, click on those titles in the "Accordions" below:
Cosmic struggles, divine setups
Cosmic struggles, divine setups
Just as in the first parsha God sets up Adam & Eve with irresistible temptation, this week's hero, Yakov, is set up by God.
Yakov is born into an impossible situation of rivalry with his twin brother Esav (as we saw last week: instigated by God, via revelation to Yakov's mother Rivka), and then by having two wives (a situation he did not seek), and also with his father-in-law Lavan.
According to some sources, not only are there reincarnations, but 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, Kayin and Hevel (Cain & Abel), 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.
True heroism
True heroism
A hero acts bravely. However, if a hero could see the personal toll, the negative consequances to themselves, some would be deterred. For example, seeing that their courage in saving some lives by an extreme act of self-scrifice leads to their own life as a quadriplegic, neglected, suffering... or acting as a spy for one's country, at great self sacrifice, being captured and tortured and pretend to go over to the other side, and in order not to reveal secrets one undergoes shame at home for being a traitor when the reverse is true, so that forever one's name is reviled....would a hero seeing what they will have to undergo still have the resolve to act? But that is the price of true heroism - one must be willing to take extreme action and pay the extreme consequences.
Abraham was asked by God to take extreme action, and then was rewarded with a next request to do yet more, and then more. Similarly with Isaac. Jacob realized that his life would be extreme sacrifice, but was willing to take this upon himself.
Below we'll see how his actions - taken with correct intention, led to great 'karmic retribution', the neccesary concomittant to the actions taken to "fix the world", which he was willing to undergo, and to move then to the next challenge and its necessarily personally-disastrous but cosmically-repairing consequences.
Self-Transcendence: The Divine Challenge: Overcoming one's Nature
Self-Transcendence: The Divine Challenge: Overcoming one's Nature
Note: This is also on the page https://sites.google.com/nyu.edu/biblethemes/overcoming-self-the-divine-challenge
A central theme:
A central theme:
Self-transcendence
Self-transcendence
Ya'akov (Jacob) was a hero, one of the great people called to transcend his nature and be the opposite of what he had planned.
Ya'akov (Jacob) was a hero, one of the great people called to transcend his nature and be the opposite of what he had planned.
We are introduced to Yakov as “a simple man, a man of the tent” (to sit in the tent = to study Torah).
However we see his life unfolding in the opposite way - he had to be a liar and cheat all his life: to connive against his brother at the behest of his mother ( who was following God’s message to her to ensure that the blessings would go to him not Esav), and to deal in kind with his cheating father-in-law Lavan.
Such divinely-mandated self-transcendence is a pattern throughout the Torah. For examples relating to the other Biblical figures, click on the "Self-Transcendence" 'collapsible' :
....
How the Great Biblical Heroes transcended themselves:
Abraham (Avraham), Isaac (Yitschak), Jacob (Yakov), Moses (Moshe Rabbenu), Ahron HaCohen. Pinchas (Phineas), Dovid HaMelech (King David)Rather than acting on our instincts or simply repressing them, we can act as higher beings by channeling our instincts towards the good. This is however the lower end of high-level action. At the highest levels we are perhaps challenged to totally overcome our nature for higher purposes.
Avraham’s culture was known for hospitality to travelers; Avraham was the symbol of chesed, not simply waiting for guests to arrive, but actually running out to them to offer water. He was asked therefore to do the complete opposite, to cast his wife Hagar and son Ishmael in to the desert without water, an act that must have humiliated him to all neighboring peoples. He longed for a son and the elder son has a privileged place in that society, and instead he cast him out.
He was given a son to continue his heritage and was expected to kill him. He was campaigning to bring people close to God, away from paganism, and was asked to perform the abomination of child sacrifice. He wanted to be a man of chesed, reaching out to others, and instead he had to wage wars against them. He wanted to be close to God, and was asked for the ultimate self-sacrifice: to do the act (bringing Isaac to be sacrificed) after which there is no record of communication between him and God.
Yitschak: was the brother who was favored over the other, Yishmael, who was cast out, with an eternal enmity of Yishmael’s family to Yitschak as a result, through no fault of Yitschak himself. He wanted nothing better than to enfranchise his own son Esav, to ensure that Esav felt close, and wanted to give him the blessings to strengthen him in his way. Right before being told about his decision to give the blessings to Esav we are told that he was blind - indeed he could see the positive in Esav, and blind himself to the negative, his strength was this blindness, the love for the one who was so different than him. But circumstances arranged by God forced him to cause Esav the ultimate anguish and alienation, and to see his two sons locked in eternal enmity as a result, just as with him and his brother - and was made to recognize and accept that indeed the blessing was meant to go to Yakov not Esav, against all that he had hoped for, and the sibling enmity he had thrust on him as a child was now a legacy for his sons as well.
Yakov was “a simple man, a man of the tent” (to sit in the tent = to study Torah). He had to be a liar and cheat, and as soon as that happened he became a man not of tents but in fields (even more than Esav!) sleeping in the wilds at night (on the way to and from Charan, and for many years while working for Lavan). And after he had to connive against his brother at the behest of his mother, who was following God’s message to her to ensure that the blessings would go to Yakov not Esav), he then had to deal with the cheating Lavan.
Moshe was the most humble of men, and was asked to be a powerful leader. He wanted nothing better than to give honor to his older brother, but was asked, even forced, to assume the role of his brother’s leader and authority. He wanted nothing more than to enter into the Land, towards which he had faithfully led the Jewish People for 40 years, and was denied this, he had to accept dying just before his people would enter.
Ahron wanted to be a man of Truth but found that to bring peace between his fellows he had to lie constantly (see midrash on how he resolved disputes)
Pinchas was a man of peace called to act with violence.
King David perhaps similarly - wanted to be a shepherd composing psalms to God and singing them with his harp, but was chosen by God via the prophet to be a warrior & leader; wanted to build a Temple to God but was not prermitted to due to the blood he had shed - at God's behest!
file vayishlach 2 here is more recent but needs editing, shabbos in a few minutes..
Vayishlach 2 needs editing from my website, BibleThemes.docxVayishlach 2 needs editing from my website, BibleThemes.docxThe rest is not yet edited/translated
The rest is not yet edited/translated
END OF MATERIAL FOR THIS WEEK
END OF MATERIAL FOR THIS WEEK
To tie several stories together: theme is tying heaven & Earth, this is Yakov's special ability (?):
Dream of angels up & down = effect of earthly actions on heavenly realm which then spreads it back down to all of earth/humanity/history.
Wrestling on the ground, in the dirt, is so physical but it was a spiritual act, all night, and then left a physical effect, limp, which was immediately translated into a spiritual act, a mitzva, gid hanasheh, making all his descendants forever tied to this (or maybe Yakov borrowed their energy in this way in order ot 'win; the fight, sustain after the injury, since he didn;t let go even after being 'touched' by 'the man', even though it caused serious enough damage that he limped afterwards.
luz is spiritual energy having physical effect (?)
stones uniting as an effect of what is happening in the head lying on those stones.
his spiritual struggle with Esav being reflected in the wrestling in the womb
his wrestling with the 'ish' sar shel esav which is a physical/spiritual event recapitulating the earlier one in the womb and emergence from it.
more?
Who is "the man" who wrestled with Yaakov?
One can use the parallel (between the birth grabbing-heel episode and the wrestling with the ish) as a justification for chazal;s telling us that it was 'saro shel esav', besides the more obvious fact that the insertion of the story as being during the night between the preparation and the meeting.
MISC
MISC
..........
"Makom" in the context of bet-el, avnei hamakom etc:
ו וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב לוּזָה, אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן--הִוא, בֵּית-אֵל: הוּא, וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-עִמּוֹ. ז וַיִּבֶן שָׁם, מִזְבֵּחַ, וַיִּקְרָא לַמָּקוֹם, אֵל בֵּית-אֵל: כִּי שָׁם, נִגְלוּ אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּבָרְחוֹ, מִפְּנֵי אָחִיו.פ}
ט וַיֵּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶל-יַעֲקֹב עוֹד, בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ, אֹתוֹ יג וַיַּעַל מֵעָלָיו, אֱלֹהִים, בַּמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אִתּוֹ. יד וַיַּצֵּב יַעֲקֹב מַצֵּבָה, בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אִתּוֹ--מַצֶּבֶת אָבֶן; וַיַּסֵּךְ עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶךְ, וַיִּצֹק עָלֶיהָ שָׁמֶן. טו וַיִּקְרָא יַעֲקֹב אֶת-שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אִתּוֹ שָׁם אֱלֹהִים--בֵּית-אֵל.
........
Hal'iteni na -- hatzileni na
Lamah Zeh anochi/lamah zeh tish’al lishmi
Rivka says to Yaakov alay kiloloscho bnii, but later Yakov has so many troubles he says 'alay hayu kulana'.
...
Introductory: Summary of parsha:
∙€€€€€€€€ Yakov:
1. fears the encounter with Esav
2. sends Esav gifts
3. wrestles all night with the ‘man’ (angel) and receives the name Israel;
4. meets Esav.
...
How come there are no yomim tovim set according to these events?! Do we know those dates?
......
Add on: I was intirgued by Y;s daring, his forcing the angel to bless him, and evne engaging in the struggle not just giving up to an angle. It teaches tha tneed chutzpah, and dsomethines need to fight. God is the master of intrigue, setting us up and watching, but sometimes it is the right thing to do to fight, but there are always consequences, eithe rthe hated of Yishmael and Esav to us, ro the linp of Yaakov..
...
Had Rivka been alive when Yitschak died and Esav came to bury him, there might have been trouble, this way he could give respec tot his father and not bump into the mother who manipulated Y to steal the brocho from him. Or maybe he already was cooled off which was the mesage sent to Yakov and enabled his return?
Immediately after the Dina/Shchem incident Devorah and/or her meyneket die, Binyamin is born as Rachel dies, and Yakov is given the name Yisrael by Hashem rather than just by the "ish".
...............
"Bet-El"
Tere are two bet-el accounts here (three all together counting the original naming when Yakov was running away), and twice we are told of a burial under a tree, first of avodah zara and then of Dvorah : א וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל-יַעֲקֹב, קוּם עֲלֵה בֵית-אֵל וְשֶׁב-שָׁם; וַעֲשֵׂה-שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ--לָאֵל הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלֶיךָ, בְּבָרְחֲךָ מִפְּנֵי עֵשָׂו אָחִיךָ. ב וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל-בֵּיתוֹ, וְאֶל כָּל-אֲשֶׁר עִמּוֹ: הָסִרוּ אֶת-אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר, אֲשֶׁר בְּתֹכְכֶם, וְהִטַּהֲרוּ, וְהַחֲלִיפוּ שִׂמְלֹתֵיכֶם. ג וְנָקוּמָה וְנַעֲלֶה, בֵּית-אֵל; וְאֶעֱשֶׂה-שָּׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, לָאֵל הָעֹנֶה אֹתִי בְּיוֹם צָרָתִי, וַיְהִי עִמָּדִי, בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר הָלָכְתִּי. ד וַיִּתְּנוּ אֶל-יַעֲקֹב, אֵת כָּל-אֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדָם, וְאֶת-הַנְּזָמִים, אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם; וַיִּטְמֹן אֹתָם יַעֲקֹב, תַּחַת הָאֵלָה אֲשֶׁר עִם-שְׁכֶם. ה וַיִּסָּעוּ; וַיְהִי חִתַּת אֱלֹהִים, עַל-הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹתֵיהֶם, וְלֹא רָדְפוּ, אַחֲרֵי בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב. ו וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב לוּזָה, אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן--הִוא, בֵּית-אֵל: הוּא, וְכָל-הָעָם אֲשֶׁר-עִמּוֹ. ז וַיִּבֶן שָׁם, מִזְבֵּחַ, וַיִּקְרָא לַמָּקוֹם, אֵל בֵּית-אֵל: כִּי שָׁם, נִגְלוּ אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּבָרְחוֹ, מִפְּנֵי אָחִיו. ח וַתָּמָת דְּבֹרָה מֵינֶקֶת רִבְקָה, וַתִּקָּבֵר מִתַּחַת לְבֵית-אֵל תַּחַת הָאַלּוֹן; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, אַלּוֹן בָּכוּת. {פ}
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. יג וַיַּעַל מֵעָלָיו, אֱלֹהִים, בַּמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אִתּוֹ. יד וַיַּצֵּב יַעֲקֹב מַצֵּבָה, בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אִתּוֹ--מַצֶּבֶת אָבֶן; וַיַּסֵּךְ עָלֶיהָ נֶסֶךְ, וַיִּצֹק עָלֶיהָ שָׁמֶן. טו וַיִּקְרָא יַעֲקֹב אֶת-שֵׁם הַמָּקוֹם, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אִתּוֹ שָׁם אֱלֹהִים--בֵּית-אֵל.
the feminine el is elah, which is the tree they bury the avodah zara!: וַיִּטְמֹן אֹתָם יַעֲקֹב, תַּחַת הָאֵלָה אֲשֶׁר עִם-שְׁכֶם
Maybe there's meaning to the addition of the word "el": Yakov adds it to bet-el so it is doubled! וַיִּקְרָא לַמָּקוֹם, אֵל בֵּית-אֵל: כִּי שָׁם, נִגְלוּ אֵלָיו הָאֱלֹהִים, בְּבָרְחוֹ, מִפְּנֵי אָחִיו.
And maybe it is "El-on" וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, אַלּוֹן בָּכוּת. ?}
And then Hashem adds el to yakov's name by making it Yisra-el, and Hashem says "I am E-sh", ie another 'el' name: 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
.....
Answer to why bet-el is named 3 times, twice here and originally: Each of these two are a separate revelation, a separate type of message, and it is deserving of a separate naming of the place, in ratification of the "im yishmereni hashem" that Yakov said when he was there on the way out (the sulam dream), but re-naming it the way it was named at first (similar to Yitschok naming the wells with the same names as did his father before him [meforshim say that it is like with the name of b'er sheva]). But even moreso: just as Hashem ratifies at bet-el the earlier naming of Yakov by the "ish" as Yisra-el, so too Yakov ratifies the name of the place as "bet-el" [first it is luz then bet-el, then el-bet-el with th enew revelaiton, then back to the 'original name' of 'bet-el'.
...
After all this, just when Yitschak is buried and we may expect the story to switch back to Yakov, it goes basically to Yosef and only much later swings back to Yakov, after Yosef is reunited with him.
..........
The below is taken from email-file "Chumash English material from nyu email" , but I added a third point re Rivka shma bekoli, near the bottom of the insrted material
Vayetze & Vayishlach: 'ekev', yaakov etc; Veyeshev.
New vort: parallel bwetween 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 rest is included as photos to show formatting and most is in text form below
NOW IN TEXT FORM< the above wa just to show the formatting:
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; שר הטבחים
Yosef ends in Sar haTabachim, Yaakov get s the brocho via a meal delicacy
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 .
..........................................
Commentators remark on the assymetry: yaakov's name is clearly implied in the pasuk from his aciton, but esav's name doesn;t seem to follow directly. we would ahve expected Edom or Se'ir,both of which are indeed mentioned 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.
....
Joke: i used to like music by Esav Base
…………
END OF THE INSERTED MATERIAL
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.
......
…
וּבְאוֹנו:The word 'ono' is used for the name of Binyamin - when Rachel is dying in childbirth she uses this word. He was the only one of the shvatim to be born to Yisrael (the name change by God rather than by the 'ish' occurs right before the story of his birth).
Perek 35:
ט וַיֵּרָא אֱ אֶל-יַעֲקֹב עוֹד, בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ, אֹתוֹ. י וַיֹּאמֶר-לוֹ אֱ , שִׁמְךָ יַעֲקֹב: לֹא-יִקָּרֵא שִׁמְךָ עוֹד יַעֲקֹב, כִּי אִם-יִשְׂרָאֵל יִהְיֶה שְׁמֶךָ, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, יִשְׂרָאֵל.... וַיִּסְעוּ מִבֵּית אֵל, וַיְהִי-עוֹד כִּבְרַת-הָאָרֶץ לָבוֹא אֶפְרָתָה; וַתֵּלֶד רָחֵל, וַתְּקַשׁ בְּלִדְתָּהּ. יז וַיְהִי בְהַקְשֹׁתָהּ, בְּלִדְתָּהּ; וַתֹּאמֶר לָהּ הַמְיַלֶּדֶת אַל-תִּירְאִי, כִּי-גַם-זֶה לָךְ בֵּן. יחוַיְהִי בְּצֵאת נַפְשָׁהּ, כִּי מֵתָה, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, בֶּן-אוֹנִי; וְאָבִיו, קָרָא-לוֹ בִנְיָמִין. יט וַתָּמָת, רָחֵל; וַתִּקָּבֵר בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶפְרָתָה, הִוא בֵּית לָחֶם.
Maybe this could help us understand why Yisrael calls him by a variation of the name that Rachel gave וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, בֶּן-אוֹנִי; וְאָבִיו, קָרָא-לוֹ בִנְיָמִין
and maybe why it doesn't mention Yakov/Yisrael, only saying וְאָבִיו.
...
[Efrayim (Efrat), Beit-el, Binyamin, Esav = Edom : themes in both Vayishlach and Hoshea]
Elements in this Parsha which are Preludes to the Next Parsha
Joseph (sic!) and the Preparation for meeting Esav
Yakov’s initial division of his camp (32:9) in preparation for the dreaded meeting with Esav was meant to protect those in the rear. Later, after the wrestling match, he placed the two handmaids and their children in front, then Leah and her children, then Rachel and Joseph (33:2).
It seems as though Yakov was NOT afraid of Esav after wrestling incident, but if nevertheless the placement of Joseph at the rear was to protect him, then Josef would be hated for this especially by those all the way in the front. And to make matters worse in the next parsha we are told that Joseph told tales about them to Yakov.
Esav and Yakov were rivals; all Breishis follows a theme of brotherly jealousy: it was part of the challenge by God to the chosen son to deal with the other son. In preparing to meet his brother Esav, Yakov tries to ease the jealousy through gifts, but in also brings about a jealousy among his own children.
…………………
Why does Rachel die then specifically, right before returning home to Yitschak? Both RIvka and Rachel died! Yakov and Yitschak are reunited but wihtout their wives. Yosef would not have been sold if Rachel was still alive, it was only possible because he did not have his mother to look after his safety. So Rachel had to be dead in order to allow the possibility of mechiras Yosef?
………………………
Miscellaneous
Flower Beds
The literal interpretation of 35:22 is that Reuven sleeps with Bilha, Rachel’s handmaid and his father’s concubine! However according to the traditional commentators, it means that Reuven moved her bed so that his mother Leah’s bed would have preference.
Perhaps this incident is related to the fact that the flowers he picked for his mother Leah were used by her to buy access to Yakov from Rachel. In a sense since these were Reuven’s flowers, he was purchasing access thereby to Yakov’s concubine, or access for his mother, just as the flowers were used.[57]
Do You Know Anyone Whose Grandparents Died Childless?
Prior to the 20th century, people who couldn’t have children due to genetic causes were unlikely to pass those genes on to offspring! So perhaps it’s not so likely for there to be a gene for sterility in the extended Terach family. But the Mothers had fertility problems: Sarah was barren - until God intervened (when she was 90!). And her daughter-in-law Rivka didn’t have children until she and Yitschak prayed for them. Similarly Rivka’s daughter-in-law Rachel didn’t have children for a long time (her sister Leah had children with Yakov during that time so it wasn’t as a result of Yakov’s medical problem); but eventually Leah stopped giving birth too, and only resumed after giving her handmaid to Yakov to have more children.
Sarah displayed great self-sacrifice by giving Hagar to Abram when she couldn’t have children herself; Rachel displayed great self-sacrifice as well in acquiescing to Leah’s competing marriage to Yakov.
We can see that the chain leading to the emergence of the Jewish People could not be left to chance, genetics and self-centeredness, and involved divine intervention and self-sacrifice at virtually each step; but it also involved jealousy and strife.
…………
questions[58]
Note: After Rachel’s death: Vayet Oholo may’hol’oh – spelled with the letters of ‘Leah’.
…………………
“Vayivoser Yakov levado ve’avek ish imo”. “Yakov was left alone, and a man wrestled with im”: This is a self-contradiction: if there was a man wrestling with him, he was not alone!
This perhaps indicates that it was indeed a vision, as Rambam states.
……………………………………….. ……………………
…….
Yakov
It doesn’t say “he took all his things”, rather “he took that which was his”! Referring to ‘taking’ the brocho, which was NOT his…?
………………………………………………………………,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Duda’im: Reuven went
Bilha story: Reuven went.
After Rachel’s death: Vayet Oholo may’hol’oh – spelled with the letters of ‘Leah’.
....
Last part of the parsha:
Last part of the parsha:
Rachel dies: last week we read of Yakov's words, this week we see the Karmic tragic effect, and next week we see the tragic ramificaitons - without the protection of Rachel, Joseph is defenselss against his brothers.
Yakov returns to Isaac, but his mother Rivka is presumably dead (as is his beloved wife Rachel);
Then his father Isaac dies; Isaac is buried by both his twin sons (Yakov & Esav).
PLace in parsha where speaks of other nations, where I don;t have much material
Rivals and Jealousy: the Jews and the Brotherhood of Nations
Joseph was hated because of especial favor by his father, but it was his challenge to deal with this in the appropriate way.Abel was hated by Cain because of special favor by God, but he failed in the challenge of how to deal with it. And our Father favors us the Jews. God knew what would happen with Cain/Abel, and with Ishmael and Isaac, and Esav and Yakov, and also with the Jews and others by favoring one over the other. We are ‘chosen’ (but also ‘firstborn’: “bni bchori Yisroel’) and therefore all nations are jealous of us. Indeed, the non-Jews are the ones more likely to harp on the “chosenness” of the Jews than the Jews do themselves! But we have to deal with it, and hopefully in a manner which sheds light on others: it is part of the challenge God places before us.
PLace in Vayikra re hilchos ishus etc, marriage, divorce, since I don;t have much other stuff:
Who Wants More Than One Mother-in-Law?!
The Patriarchs didn’t willingly marry more than one woman. And polygamy always led to strife.
∙€€€€€€€€ Abraham had two wives, but Hagar was not his choice, she was given to him by his wife Sarah to fulfil Sarah’s need for surrogate children; and the result was tragic conflict between the children of the two wives.
∙€€€€€€€€ Isaac’s shiddach was via his parents and an intermediary, and he succeeded in having only one wife, the right one.
∙€€€€€€€€ Yakov had four: Leah was not his choice, Lavan (with the help of Rachel and Leah) tricked Yakov into marrying her; and, a sa result of this situation there was tragic rivalry between Rachel and Leah, and especially between their children. Furthermore it was only when Rachel and Leah ceased to give birth that they gave Yakov their handmaidens as wives. Even that was perhaps only due to the rivalry between them, and there were indeed complications with the handmaids Bilha and Zilpah and rivalry between the various sets of children.
∙€€€€€€€€ Later in the Bible we read of the rivalry of Pnina and Chana: a loved but childless wive and a wife who bore children. It’s clear from the story that the husband deeply loved the childless wife, and told her she was worth more than many children. So why would he have married the other wife?
AR: The implication is that the childless wife who was loved was the chosen spouse, the other was married simply for children, and perhaps at the behest of the childless wife, as with Sarah, Rochel and Leah.
AR: Although polygamy is permitted according to Torah Law, we can speculate that the Torah does not approve of it, and that it is destructive.
[Not everything that is permitted by the Torah is recommended by the Torah. A famous case relates to the Torah law permitting a man to marry a woman prisoner-of-war because of her beauty: the Rabbis teach that the passages following this present the laws regarding a ‘rebellious son’ because the Torah wants to teach us that this will be the inevitable result of such a marriage.] AR: As far as I know: The Talmud, with its vast amount of recoreded events and stories does not contain references to polygamous marriages among the rabbis.
Report abuse