SALT | Vayishlach 5785

Dedicated in memory of Tsirele bat Moche Eliezer
whose yahrzeit is 11 Kislev, by Family Rueff

MOTZAEI

Parashat Vayishlach begins with Yaakov's reconciliatory initiative towards his brother, Esav.  He dispatches messengers to tell Esav that he now returns and seeks peace. He opens his address to his brother by noting, "Im Lavan garti, va-eichar ad ata" - 'I have lived with Lavan, and I have been delayed until now" (32:5).  Rashi cites the famous comment of Chazal on this verse: "I have lived with Lavan, but I have observed the six hundred and thirteen commandments."  It is commonly understood that Chazal here build on the numerical value of the word "garti" ("I have lived"), which equals 613.  This passage, however, makes no reference to the gematria (system of numerical equivalents for Hebrew letters). Additionally, one may ask what would prompt the Sages to suddenly look for deep, numerical significance to a standard Hebrew word such as "garti."

These two considerations led Rabbi Eliezer David Greenwald, in his "Keren le-David," to adopt a different reading of this Midrash.  He suggests that this passage results from a careful reading of the entire verse: "I have lived with Lavan, and I have been delayed until now."  Why does Yaakov emphasize the length of his stay with Lavan?  It is this question that the Midrash seeks to resolve.  Rav Greenwald explains how the Midrash does this in light of a different Midrashic passage, in Eikha Rabba, commenting on the verse towards the beginning of Megilat Eikha, "Judah was exiled out of poverty…"  The Midrash interprets this clause as restrictive: specifically Am Yisrael went into exile; no other nation ever did.  Historically, of course, this is not the case at all. The Midrash explains, "The nations of the world - even though they go into exile, their exile is not exile, for they eat of their [host nations'] bread and drink of their wine; but Israel - their exile is exile."  Other nations gradually acclimate and become full-fledged citizens of their new country. Though they may be foreigners at first, over the course of time they undergo cultural naturalization to the point where they are indistinguishable from the natives.  Am Yisrael, of course, can never allow itself this luxury. Regardless of the extent to which our nation interacts with the native people of our lands of exile, we will always remain distinct, separate, and apart.  We will not "eat of their bread and drink of their wine." Only we, therefore can truly be said to be in exile.

It is this very point that Yaakov sought to impress upon Esav. "I have lived with Lavan, and I have been delayed until now." In spite of the lengthy period Yaakov spent on foreign soil, amidst foreign values, and dealing with foreign people, he nevertheless remained Yaakov Avinu, he retained his loyalty to his family heritage: "I lived with Lavan, but I observed the 613 commandments."  The household of Lavan, the grueling business lifestyle to which Yaakov was subjected for twenty years, did not fade his identity or commitment.  Indeed, only by retaining our uniquely Jewish identity and unwavering devotion to mitzvot can we hope to overcome "Esav," the enemies who seek our destruction.

SUNDAY

Parashat Vayishlach tells the tragic story of the death of Rachel as she delivers her second child, Binyamin (35:16-19).  The Chumash then tells that Yaakov buried Rachel along the side of the road in Bet Lechem and erected there a monument to her memory.  The verse concludes, "This is the monument of Rachel's burial site to this day."  As we know, a time-honored tradition identifies Kever Rachel (Rachel's Tomb) with the shrine situated in modern-day Bet Lechem (Bethlehem), several miles south of Jerusalem. Many academic scholars, however, have questioned the authenticity of this tradition.  Today we will take a brief look this controversy.

In this parasha, Yaakov and his family move southward from Bet-El, where Yaakov had erected on altar to God, towards Chevron, where he is reunited with his father, Yitzchak (see 35:16 & 27).  This account alone would give us no reason to challenge the traditional identification of Kever Rachel.  The north-south route running along the Judea-Samaria mountain ridge indeed passes from Shekhem (Nabulus) southward to Bet-El, through Jerusalem, south to Bethlehem, continuing through modern-day Gush Etzion (where this dvar Torah is being written) and onto Chevron.  (Today, many people call this route "derekh ha-avot" - the road of the patriarchs).  In fact, the original highway in modern-day Israel connecting Jerusalem to Chevron passed Kever Rachel.  Therefore, the narrative in Parashat Vayishlach poses no difficulty to this tradition.

What more, the verses here emphasizes that Rachel is buried "along the road to Efrat"; the Biblical city of Efrat was clearly situated in the region of Yehuda, near Bet Lechem (see Mikha 5:1; Rut 4:11).

Among the more compelling challenges that have been raised originates from the story told in Sefer Shemuel I (chapter 10).  The prophet Shemuel anoints Shaul as the first king over Israel and, to reinforce Shaul's belief in his appointment, gives Shaul three signs, events that he predicts will happen to him on his way back home.  The first sign predicted that Shaul will meet two men "by Kever Rachel on the Benjaminite border, in Tzeltzach" (Shemuel I 10:2).  Now Shemuel and Shaul speak here in "Har Efrayim" (see 9:4), known today as the Shomron, north of the Binyamin region, itself north of Jerusalem.  Presumably, Shemuel here refers to the border between Binyamin and Efrayim.  Apparently, then, it is here where Rachel was buried, not in modern-day Bet Lechem, which is in the northernmost region of Yehuda, south of Binyamin.

However, already Chazal, in the Tosefta (Sota 11:13), raise this potential challenge to the conventional understanding that Rachel was buried in Bet Lechem, in Judea.  Chazal explain that "Kever Rachel" describes not where Shaul will meet these two men, but rather the current location of these two men. Shemuel informs Shaul that at this point, these two men are near Kever Rachel, in Bethlehem, heading northward. Shaul will travel southward, toward his home in Giva, and will meet them in Tzeltzach, along the Binyaminite border.

Dr. Yoel Elitzur argues that this interpretation of Chazal may very well be read into the peshuto shel mikra (the straightforward reading of the verse).  In each of the three signs Shemuel gives to Shaul, he informs him of the number of people he will meet, some sort of a description of these people, and the location where this meeting will take place.  The second sign will occur in Eilon Tavor, where Shaul will meet three men "ascending to God, to Bet-El" (10:3).  Likewise, the third sign has Shaul meeting a group of prophets "descending from the Bama" in the city of Givat ha-Elokim (10:5-6). In the presentation of the first sign, however, Shemuel gives no description of the two men Shaul will meet. The parallel between the three signs can be complete only if we adopt Chazal's interpretation of "Kever Rachel" as a description not of the location where Shaul will meet the two men, but rather of their current location.  Only "on the Binyaminite border, in Tzeltzach" refers to the site where Shaul will encounter these men.

Thus, these verses in Sefer Shemuel pose no challenge to the common theory as to the location of Kever Rachel.

MONDAY

A well-known passage in the Midrash tells that Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi, the Jewish leader who had established a strong, warm relationship with the Roman government of his time, would study Parashat Vayishlach before setting out to meet with Roman officials.  Evidently, the story of Yaakov's confrontation with Esav somehow taught him basic lessons of how to deal with the Roman government.  This should strike us as somewhat surprising. After all, Yaakov in this parasha exhibits an almost astonishing degree of self-degradation and submission to Esav, sending him enormous gifts and repeatedly referring to him as "my master."  Is this truly the traditional Jewish approach to dealing with our national adversaries? We will soon celebrate the festival of Chanukah, when we commemorate the heroic triumph of the Maccabees in their revolution against the Greek occupation.  Why did Rabbi Yehuda not look to this model of Jewish resistance? Further compounding the issue is a passage in the Pesikta Zuta on this parasha.  Commenting on Yaakov's orders to his messengers to convey his words of appeasement and reconciliation to Esav, the Pesikta says that this order was intended for all time.  Yaakov here instructs his descendants to bow our heads to our oppressors, rather than try to resist them.  Does this mean that the Chashmonaim were wrong to take up arms and overthrow the Greeks?

Needless to say, this is a very broad topic on which many books can be and presumably have been written.  We cite here one interesting viewpoint on the matter, presented by Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda.  He claims that the distinction lies in the nature of the oppression suffered by Am Yisrael.  When the enemy seeks to destroy the Jewish religion, as did the Greeks, then we must indeed resist with whatever means at our disposable.  The Romans, however, made no attempt to destroy the Jewish religion per se; they sought simply to extend their power and dominance and control the Jewish people, to deny them their independence.  In such a situation, Rav Ginsburg claims, Yaakov instructs us to seek the path of reconciliation should such a possibility exist, even if this means capitulating to foreign rule.

Off this backdrop, Rav Ginsburg suggests a novel explanation of an otherwise perplexing Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (28b).  The Gemara tells that the students of Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakai came to visit him on his deathbed, just prior to his passing. Seeing that his end was approaching, he issued two orders: that the utensils susceptible to tum'a (ritual impurity) be removed from the building before he dies, so that they do not contract tum'a, and, secondly, a chair be prepared for King Chizkiyahu, who would come there as Rabban Yochanan's soul departed.  What does it mean that King Chizkiyahu came to Rabban Yochanan's deathbed?

Rav Ginsburg explains that Rabban Yochanan, as we know, made a famous, historic treaty with the Roman emperor Vespasian before the destruction of the Temple.  He agreed to surrender the besieged city of Jerusalem, accepting Roman rule, in exchange for the yeshiva in Yavneh.  Rabban Yochanan followed the instructions of Yaakov Avinu, as conveyed through the Pesikta, to accept foreign rule so long as it does not attempt to destroy the Jewish faith.  That Vespasian accepted these terms testifies to the fact that he had no interest in bringing an end to Torah scholarship, but rather exert his control over the land. However, Rabban Yochanan faced fierce opposition from within the Jewish community for his "pacifist" stance. Many Jews felt that they should fight and resist the Romans rather than pursue a diplomatic settlement.  Rabban Yochanan's opponents pointed to a historical precedent to support their position: the story of Chizkiyahu. During Chizkiyahu's reign, the Assyrian army, led by Sancheiriv, besieged the city of the Jerusalem and hardly any hope for the city's survival remained.  A movement, led by the royal scribe Shevna, strongly advocated surrendering, but the king firmly resisted the pressure and held out.  (See Sanhedrin 26b.)  Ultimately, Sancheiriv's army was miraculously destroyed in a divine plague.

Before his death, Rabban Yochanan felt compelled to once and for all defend his position and refute the proof drawn by his opponents from Chizkiyahu.  He claimed that the two situations are not analogous to one another.  The Assyrian assault was not intended only for the sake of power and dominion; it featured a distinctly religious element, as well. As we read in Sefer Melakhim II (chapter 18), Sancheiriv dispatched his official, Ravshakeh, to deliver a strong message of intimidation to Chizkiyahu and his constituents.  In this message, Ravshakeh declared that God has unquestionably sided with his empire and has abandoned the Jewish people.  Given the religious nature of the conflict, Chizkiyahu felt, correctly so, that they cannot surrender.  Rabban Yochanan therefore told his students that Chizkiyahu was coming to his bedside, to affirm the correctness of Rabban Yochanan's position, and to once and for all vindicate his controversial but heroic decision to surrender the capital city to the Romans in exchange for the yeshiva of Yavneh.

TUESDAY

Yaakov's confrontation with Esav in Parashat Vayishlach is often viewed as symbolic not only of Am Yisrael's encounter with its enemies (as discussed yesterday), but also, in a more homiletical sense, of a Jew's struggle against his internal foe - his yetzer ha-ra, or evil inclination, in whatever form it assumes.  "Darshanim" have drawn insights from this parasha as to the methods by which one can and should deal and, hopefully, overcome man's tendency to sin.

Chazal, cited by Rashi (32:9), emphasize the three tactics Yaakov employs in preparation for his reunion with Esav: prayer, appeasement, and military strategy.  Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin sees within this program implemented by Yaakov an indication as to how the Torah recommends dealing with one's yetzer ha-ra.  The first element is "appeasement," surrendering is some small measure to the evil inclination.  In various contexts, Chazal frown upon excessive self-denial and asceticism.  Some sources criticize a nazir for abstaining from wine, and in certain situations one who accepts a voluntary fast is considered a sinner.  Yaakov's gift of appeasement to Esav, Rav Zevin suggests, represents the necessary "appeasement" to our own instincts, our allowing ourselves - on a limited scale - to indulge, live normal, happy lives, and enjoy the pleasures of the world.  In this way, we assuage the yetzer ha-ra and help ensure that it does not overpower us.  Indeed, Chazal comment that one who does not work for a living will ultimately resort to theft.  If we surrender to the basic human desire for money by earning a living honestly and respectably, we can avoid yielding to the pressures to acquire money criminally.

However, this method is not appropriate in every circumstance.  In many situations, the yetzer ha-ra must be confronted with "military means," with force, resistance, and firm opposition.  Certain situations of religious challenge do not allow for reasonable compromise; outright opposition to our internal impulses is required. This is symbolized by Yaakov Avinu's military preparations for his meeting with Esav.

Finally, one must pray to God for assistance.  We cannot endure this battle alone; we must invoke divine compassion and ask for His help.

Though Rav Zevin does not elaborate on the specific meaning of prayer in the context, perhaps the prayer to which he refers relates to the ability to identify the proper response to one's yetzer ha-ra in a given situation.  Some circumstances warrant "appeasement," while other demand "war."  How are to know which method to implement in a given situation?  How do we know when capitulation to one's yetzer ha-ra oversteps the line and brings on an extended  process of moral and spiritual deterioration?  For this we turn to God and ask for the insight and "sixth sense" necessary to answer these questions.  Only with His help and our sincere effort can we determine the proper and most effective means to defeat "Esav" in all its various manifestations.

WEDNESDAY

We read in Parashat Vayishlach of the abduction and rape of Yaakov's daughter, Dina, by Shekhem, the prince of the city bearing his name (chapter 34).  Shekhem desires Dina's hand in marriage, and goes with his father, Chamor to meet with Yaakov and his sons and discuss his proposal.  In the end, Yaakov's sons pretend to agree to the match on condition that the males of Shekhem undergo circumcision.  Shekhem and his city accept the condition, and Shimon and Levi, two of Dina's brothers, capitalize on the physical weakness of the city' population and wipe out its population.

An enigmatic passage in the Midrash Tanchuma (7) records part of the conversation between Shekhem and Dina's family which is not written in the Torah.  In an effort to persuade them to go through with the idea, Shekhem points to the fact that he is a "nasi," a prince (as indicated in the verse - 34:2), just as Dina's great-grandfather, Avraham, had earned this title of "nasi" (see 23:5).  The family, however, does not accept this argument: "He [Avraham] was not called a nasi, but was rather called an ox, as it says, 'Avraham ran to the cattle [to prepare a meal for his guests - 18:7]… but you are a donkey ['chamor,' a play on the name of Shekhem's father, Chamor], and one may not plow with an ox and donkey together [as stated in Devarim 22:10]."

What does this Midrash mean?  How does Avraham resemble an ox, and in what sense, besides having been born to a man named "Chamor," is Shekhem likened to a donkey?  And why can't this "ox" join with this "donkey"?

The Ketav Sofer answers by closely examining a well-known verse towards the beginning of Sefer Yeshayahu (from the famous haftara for Shabbat Chazon): "An ox knows its owner, and a donkey - the trough of its master; Israel has not known, My nation has not understood."  The prophet here declares that Benei Yisrael's loyalty to God fell short of even that of oxen and donkeys to their masters. However, the Ketav Sofer detects a subtle difference between the images of the ox and donkey in this verse.  The ox knows its owner; the donkey knows only the trough of its owner.  The ox exhibits obedience and devotion to its owner at all times.  The donkey, by contrast, is loyal only with respect to its "trough," the food it receives from the owner.  It obeys its master only out of an expectation to receive food and drink in exchange.

This was the message Yaakov and his family sought to convey to Shekhem.  Their family's nobility differed drastically from his.  Avraham, the family patriarch, was a leader in the sense of giving.  His nobility involved running to the stables to fetch choice beef for guests.  He represented true devotion, always seeing where he can give without interest in what he can receive.  Shekhem, however, the "son of Chamor," was interested only in the "trough," he led in the sense of receiving honor, glory, and luxury. Such a match can never work; Yaakov's family could not agree to a union between the giver and taker, between a nobility characterized by generosity and a nobility characterized by selfishness and greed.

THURSDAY

Towards the beginning of Parashat Vayishlach, we read of the enormous gifts Yaakov sends ahead to Esav in an effort to appease his vengeful brother before their reunion.  Besides sending these gifts, Yaakov also issues very specific instructions to the messengers as to what they should tell Esav.  He opens his charge to them by saying, "When Esav my brother meets and asks you, 'Whose are you, where are you going, and whose are these before you?'"  Yaakov then tells his servants what to tell his brother.

Today we will discuss a grammatical issue relevant to this verse, one which Rashi addresses in his commentary.  We suggest that you have the Hebrew text of this verse as well as of Rashi''s commentary on this verse open before you as you read, and that you look up the two verses Rashi cites in the original Hebrew.  Due to the technical, grammatical nature of today's discussion, a familiarity with the original Hebrew is of particular importance.

Yaakov foresees Esav asking two questions beginning with the word "le-mi," literally, "to whom": "le-mi ata" - whose are you; "le-mi eileh lefanekha" - whose are these before you.  Esav will first ask who the messengers are, meaning, who dispatched them, and, secondly, for whom the lavish gifts are intended.  Generally speaking, "le-mi" would translate as "to whom."  Here, however, the word is used to mean "of whom," or "whose." Rashi indeed makes this point, but his comments give rise to considerable confusion: "Le-mi ata - whose are you… le-mi eileh lefanekha - and these [animals] before you, whose are they, to whom is this gift sent?  The letter 'lamed' serves in the beginning of a word in place of 'shel' [the possessive form, in this instance 'whose'], such as 'and everything you see is mine [li hu - Bereishit 31:43],' and 'The earth and all that it holds is the Lord's [l'Hashem - Tehillim 24:1] - 'shel Hashem' ['Hashem's,' as opposed to 'to Hashem']."  Rashi's comments appear inherently self-contradictory.  He translates both instances of "le-mi" in this verse to mean, "whose," as opposed to "to whom," and then proceeds to cite other examples of this usage of the "lamed" prefix. However, in translating the clause, "le-mi eileh lefanekha" (the second "le-mi" in the verse), Rashi writes, "and these [animals] before you, whose are they, to whom is this gift sent."  He translates this clause to mean both "whose" as well as "to whom."  Why does Rashi add "to whom is this gift sent" if he goes through such trouble to emphasize that "le-mi" in this verse means "whose" and not "to whom"?

This question was raised and addressed by Rav Yaakov Shaul Weinfeld, in his Mishnat Yaakov (20^th century).  He writes that he found in earlier editions of Rashi's commentary two significant differences from our editions that resolve this difficulty and bring an entirely new meaning to his comments on this verse.  First and foremost, the earlier editions omit the clause, "whose are they" in Rashi's comments to the question "le-mi eileh lefanekha." Meaning, Rashi translates the second "le-mi" not as "whose," as he does the first "le-mi," but rather as "to whom."  Secondly, Rab Weinfeld notes, in the earlier additions, Rashi writes "the letter 'lamed' serves at the beginning of a word in place of 'shel' IN SEVERAL PLACES."  Rashi here seeks to demonstrate not simply that the "lamed" prefix can denote the possessive "shel," but that at times it means "shel" while at other times it means "to." After all, according to these editions, Rashi translates the two instances of "le-mi" in this verse to have two different meanings - the first means "whose" while the second means "to whom."  He therefore seeks to demonstrate that indeed the "lamed" prefix at times means "shel" while elsewhere denotes "to."

This brings us to a third difference between the earlier and common editions of Rashi's commentary.  In our editions, as quoted above, Rashi cites the two verses (one from earlier in Bereishit, and one from Tehillim) and, after citing the second verse - "The earth and all that it holds is the Lord's" - he adds, "shel Hashem" [the Lord's, as opposed to 'to the Lord']."  In the earlier editions, by contrast, the final two words, "shel Hashem," are omitted.  Hence, Rav Weinfeld speculates that Rashi in fact interpreted "l'Hashem" in that verse in Tehillim to mean "to the Lord," and not "the Lord's," thus rendering that verse a precedent for the second instance of "le-mi" in this verse, where the "lamed" prefix means "to."  Accordingly, we should read the verse in Tehillim as follows: "To David, a song TO THE LORD [who owns] the earth and all that it holds."  Thus, the term "l'Hashem" indeed means "to the Lord," rather than "the Lord's."  Rav Weinfeld adds that this will help explain the immediately following verse in Tehillim: " - for He established it on oceans, and set it up on rivers."  Meaning, we should sing to the Lord who owns the earth because He built and fashioned it. According to the common reading of the first verse - "The earth and all it holds is the Lord's," it is difficult to understand why the next verse would explain, "for He established it on oceans."  Therefore, Rav Weinfeld suggests, it stands to reason that Rashi interpreted "l'Hashem" to mean "to the Lord," rather than "the Lord's."

FRIDAY

As we discussed earlier this week, Parashat Vayishlach tells of the untimely death of our matriarch, Rachel, and her roadside burial in Bethlehem.  The Torah tells that Yaakov not only buried her, but erected a monument at her grave site, as well (see 35:20).  The Midrash in Bereishit Rabba (82) cites a dispute (which appears as well in the second chapter of Masekhet Shekalim) as to whether or not it is appropriate to erect monuments at the burial sites of tzadikim.  Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel is quoted as saying, "One does not make nefashot [literally, 'souls,' a euphemism for memorial monuments] for tzadikim - their words are their remembrance.  We learn that Israel was named for Rachel, as it says, 'Is not Efrayim a dear son to Me'."  This passage poses two obvious difficulties.  First, wherein lies the relevance of the fact that Am Yisrael is named for Rachel, as evidenced by the reference to Benei Yisrael as "Efrayim," the name of Rachel's grandson?  How does this relate to the issue of memorial monuments?  Secondly, and perhaps more obviously, how does Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel reconcile his view with Yaakov's having erected a monument for Rachel?

The Yefei To'ar explains that it is precisely this second question that Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel addresses in this passage.  Given that, in his view, monuments should not be erected for tzadikim, the question indeed arises as to how and why Yaakov built such a memorial to Rachel.  Rabban Shimon thus answered, "We learn [from the monument Yaakov builds for Rachel] that Israel was named for Rachel."  The memorial erected for Rachel testifies to the fact that Rachel herself represented all of Kelal Yisrael, and thus the monument Yaakov erects honors not Rachel herself, but rather the entire nation of Israel.

As for the final halakha, the Rambam (Hilkhot Avel 4:4) indeed codifies this ruling of Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel that monuments should not be erected at the grave sites of tzadikim, since "their words are their remembrance" - we remember the righteous by perpetuating their values and teachings, rather than through artificial symbols.  The Shulchan Arukh, by contrast, does not mention this halakha at all.  Rav Menachem Kasher (Torah Sheleima on our verse) notes that the common practice of placing tombstones at the graves of tzadikim does not necessarily conflict with the ruling of Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel (and the Rambam).  The Arukh ha-Shalem defines the term "nefesh" as a "binyan" - a type of small building.  Only such a structure, perhaps, should not be built at the grave site of tzadikim.  Tombstones and monuments, however, are permissible.

***********************************************
Our SALT Archives house decades of divrei Torah. Click here.
More recent SALTs can be found by searching for SALT in our Advanced Search box, along with the parasha name.
***********************************************