4 And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock,
And we also know that the Nobel Prize is given to people out standing in their field.
Anyhoo, there is a gemara in Berachos, 8b, based in part on this pasuk:
תניא אמר ר"ע בשלשה דברים אוהב אני את המדיים כשחותכין את הבשר אין חותכין אלא על גבי השולחן כשנושקין אין נושקין אלא על גב היד וכשיועצין אין יועצין אלא בשדה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מאי קראה (בראשית לא, ד) וישלח יעקב ויקרא לרחל וללאה השדה אל צאנו:
It has been taught: R. Akiba says: For three things I like the Medes: When they cut meat, they cut it only on the table; when they kiss, they kiss only the hand; and when they hold counsel, they do so only in the field. R. Adda b. Ahabah says: Which verse [may be quoted in support of the last]? And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock.11
Rashi comments, on the daf:
אלא בשדה - דאמרי אינשי אזנים לכותל:
"[They do so] only in the field: For as the expression goes, the walls have ears."
Torah Temimah cites this gemara and Rashi. He writes:
"And apparently, there is to comment from the proof [in the gemara] from Yaakov. For behold, there it to say that therefore he called them to the field, since he was unable to go from there, for he would then be abandoning his work. And we need to say that he was able to wait until evening, the time that he returned to his house, but perforce, he deliberately called them to the field, since it is good to hold counsel in the field."
An interesting and persuasive idea.
I don't know that support in this case must be such a compelling support, though. Rabbi Akiva was speaking in admiration, based on his own sensibilities. And separate from this, R' Ada bar Ahava found a Scriptural support, which I would read as a remez, to this idea. Such an allusion does not, IMHO, need to disallow any other plausible and parallel causes. But this is just MHO, and one may feel free to argue whether this support is a mere asmachta or something more.
And even if one could say that this would be abandoning his work, one need not say this. At this stage, he was already somewhat wealthy. He could have taken in the flocks or handed them over to his eldest son, or a servant. Recall that Yaakov tells Esav in Vayishlach:
5 And he commanded them, saying: 'Thus shall ye say unto my lord Esau: Thus saith thy servant Jacob: I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed until now.
6 And I have oxen, and asses and flocks, and men-servants and maid-servants; and I have sent to tell my lord, that I may find favour in thy sight.'
(These servant might have been the ones Yaakov sent to Esav.) Surely he could have handed over the flocks to a man-servant. Maybe he would not want to. But all this is hypothetical, and just as Torah Temimah could presume that Yaakov would not want to abandon his work in the day -- which causes the problem -- one could hypothesize all sorts of resolutions, where he would be willing to leave even by day. His resolution is just one of many, and one need not assume that any of this was going through the mind of Rav Ada bar Ahava.
However, we see this idea raised by Torah Temimah, the idea of Yaakov's dedication, and of no bittul melacha in the perek itself, when Yaakov speaks to Rachel and Leah:
40 Thus I was: in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from mine eyes.
Also, since he is talking about the sheep, and the changing of wages, and the angel's reference to sheep, then it is more meaningful to do it in the presence of the various spotted, speckled, etc., sheep.
8 If he said thus: The speckled shall be thy wages; then all the flock bore speckled; and if he said thus: The streaked shall be thy wages; then bore all the flock streaked.
However, Rav Ada bar Ahava could point to another salient feature of this story, that this was done without Lavan's knowledge:
Summary: I would say not. While slightly awkward, the sentence parses as it stands, and makes perfect sense. Yosef Daas suggests a radical reinterpretation based on manuscript evidence, that על יד means immediately, and Rashi is making two separate points, but I don't find this suggestion compelling.
Post: The law of the hammer is popularly phrased as ""if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Even when other approaches may be more effective, one is tempted to use that hammer.
The first Rashi on Vayeitzei reads:
10. And Jacob left Beer sheba, and he went to Haran.
And Jacob left: Because, it was due to the fact that the daughters of Canaan were displeasing in the eyes of his father Isaac, that Esau went to Ishmael, Scripture interrupted the account dealing with Jacob and it is written (above verse 6): “When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed [Jacob], etc.” And as soon as Scripture finished [the account of Esau’s marriage], it returned to the previous topic.
ויצא יעקב: על ידי שבשביל שרעות בנות כנען בעיני יצחק אביו הלך עשו אל ישמעאל, הפסיק הענין בפרשתו של יעקב וכתיב (לעיל כח ו) וירא עשו כי ברך וגו', ומשגמר חזר לענין הראשון:
The phrasing of על ידי שבשביל ש seems duplicate and awkward, and this prompts many meforshei Rashi to analyze what Rashi is doing. In fact, it is not duplicate and only slightly awkward. The בשביל ש introduces the causal statement of: because the daughters of Canaan were displeasing in Yitzchak's eyes, Esav went to Yishmael. And the על ידי ש introduces the causal statement of: because of Esav's action, Scripture interrupted the account dealing with Yaakov. Thus, this ויצא יעקב is a return to the previous topic. This straightforward reading of Rashi is also more or less what Gur Aryeh says. This Rashi does not cry out "darshen me". See what other meforshei Rashi say. (I haven't yet, but it seems to be a topic of conversation.)
Yosef Daas, by R' Yosef ben Yissachar Miklish of Prague, a dayan of the Beit Din of Prague, 1580-1654), printed in Prague in 1609, is a wonderful supercommentary on Rashi that considers manuscript evidence. Here, he writes:
"I found a correction in Rashi, that the yud is erased from the word ידי, and one must then say על יד. And its meaning is this: That it is difficult to Rashi za'l why he [Yaakov] did not go immediately [מיד] after Rivka's command. And upon this Rashi explains that the meaning of the word ויצא is על יד. That is to say, immediately [מיד] after the command. And if so, why does it interrupt with וירא עשו, etc.? Upon this he explains "שבשביל". I have found this. And one who wishes to lose the find, he has permission to do so, and no one will either prevent or compel him."
My preference would be to lose this metziah. Even if the word ידי is missing the final yud, על יד would still mean 'because', rather than immediately. We should not take Rashi away from his plain meaning, which makes perfect sense as it stands.
Summary: After all, the imahos kept the entire Torah, including gezeiros derabbanan, while they were living in Lavan's house of idolatry.
Post: Rav Chaim Kanievsky makes the following comment in Taama deKra on parashat Vayeitzei:
Rav Chaim Kanievsky
במגילה י״ג א׳ כי מטא ליליא אמרה השתא
מיכספא אחתאי מסרה לה סימנים. וצ״ל שלבן
הודיע ללאה ז׳ ימים קודם שיכניסוה תחת רחל
והיא בדקה וטבלה דאל״כ איך בא עלי׳ יעקב
הא קי״ל תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה להמתין
ז׳ נקיים.
In Megillah 13a:
"What was the modesty displayed by Rachel? — As it is written: "And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother". Now was he her father's brother? Was he not the son of her father's sister? What it means is this: He said to her, Will you marry me? She replied, Yes, but my father is a trickster, and he will outwit you. He replied, I am his brother in trickery. She said to him, Is it permitted to the righteous to indulge in trickery? He replied. Yes: with the pure thou dost show thyself pure and with the crooked thou dost show thyself subtle. He said to her, What is his trickery? She replied: I have a sister older than I am , and he will not let me marry before her. So he gave her certain tokens. When night came, she said to herself, Now my sister will be put to shame. So she handed over the tokens to her. So it is written, "And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah."
Rav Kanievsky cites this gemara, or a small portion of it, at least: "When night came, she said to herself, Now my sister will be put to shame. So she handed over the tokens to her." Then, he adds:
"And one must say that Lavan informed Leah seven days before he sent her in place of Rachel, and she checked herself [that she was not a niddah] and immersed, for if not so, how did Yaakov have intercourse with her, when we establish that if a woman was set to get married and acquiesced, she needs to wait seven days."
I would say that on a peshat level in this midrash, it is certainly plausible that Leah was informed by Lavan of his plan more than seven days in advance. Or at the least, it was obvious to her. After all, Rachel intuited what her father, a trickster, would do, and so informed Yaakov about it. Leah was also Lavan's daughter, and would logically be able to intuit his actions just as well.
Even so, this is just a bit over the top. It is fine as midrashic fan-fiction. That is, if he does not really believe it, but in order to come up with something creative, he adopts certain axioms, such as that the Avos could not violate any Torah or Rabbinic law. And then, based on the constraints imposed by those axioms, one constructs an elaborate piece of artistry.
Given the reaction to the "yeshiva guy tells over a vort"
, the sefer Chaim Be'emunasam, and certain aspects of the chareidi world and its leadership, I wonder if he possibly means this in earnest.
The reasons it is utterly ridiculous, if one were to take it seriously, and entirely within the Avos-kept-the-entire-Torah framework, include:
while Yaakov may have kept the entire Torah, Leah surely did not, at this stage in her life. Why would she count shiva nekiyim?!
Leah was tricking Yaakov at the time, which makes the simultaneous guarding against this issur slightly less plausible.
The same way Yaakov was able to marry two sisters outside Eretz Yisrael, he would have been able to overcome any issue of dam chimud.
Perhaps the motivator is that a tzaddik cannot have any aveira come to his hand without his knowledge, a Talmudic principle we see elsewhere. Still, this suggestion is too farfetched.
While on the topic of dam chimud, I'll weigh in that I think that there is no such thing. That is, that Chazal did not hold that dam chimud would make a woman ritually impure the same as dam niddah. Let us perform a quick survey of the sources, and see how this was produced, by the setama degemara.
In Niddah 66a, we seem to have the primary source for the issur of dam chimud:
רבינא איעסק ליה לבריה בי רב חנינא א"ל סבר ליה מר למכתב כתובה לארבעה יום א"ל אין כי מטא לארבעה נטר עד ארבעה אחרינא איעכב שבעה יומי בתר ההוא יומא א"ל מאי האי א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דרבא דאמר רבא תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב שבעה נקיים א"ל אימר דאמר רבא בגדולה דקחזיא דמא אבל בקטנה דלא חזיא דמא מי אמר א"ל בפירוש אמר רבא ל"ש גדולה לא שנא קטנה גדולה טעמא מאי משום דמחמדא קטנה נמי מחמדא
Rabina was engaged in preparations for the marriage of his son at R. Hanina's.48 'Does the Master', the latter said to him, 'intend writing the kethubah four days hence?' 'Yes', the other replied; but when the fourth day arrived he waited for another four days and thus caused a delay of seven days after the day in question.49 'Why', the first asked, 'all this delay?'50 'Does not the Master', the other replied, 'hold the opinion of Raba, Raba having ruled: If a woman had an offer of marriage and she accepted she must allow seven clean days to pass?' 'It is possible', the first suggested, that Raba spoke only of one of mature age who is likely to discharge menstrual blood,51 but did he speak of a minor who is unlikely to discharge menstrual blood?' 'Raba', the other replied, 'has explicitly stated: There is no difference between one of mature age and a minor. For what is the reason why one of mature age is subject to the restriction? Because her passions are excited;52 well, those of a minor also are excited.
I would argue that everything until the very last statement is authentically part of the exchange of these Amoraim. But then, at the very end, the setama degemara chimes in to explain just why a minor and a mature woman are subject to the restriction.
However, I would suggest that the true reason to wait seven days is in case she was a niddah. She might not reveal this, since she would not want to lose out on the marriage, or delay the marriage. Therefore, in general, they took it out of everyone's hands, and decreed it. And once they decreed it, they did so as a lo plug, both for mature women, and for minors who would be unlikely to have had a blood flow.
We see elsewhere that Chazal did not worry about dam chimud. Perhaps this was at odds with the position of Rava, since Rav preceded Rava, but it could also be that they did not hold such blood to be impure at all. Thus, in Yevamos 37b:
But, surely, this could not be [the accepted ruling], for Rab, whenever he happened to visit Dardeshir,9 used to announce, 'Who would be mine10 for the day'! So also R, Nahman, whenever he happened to visit Shekunzib,11 used to announce, 'Who would be mines for the day'!12 — The Rabbis came under a special category since they are well known.13
But did not Raba say: A woman who had an offer of marriage and accepted must allow a period of seven ritually clean days to pass!14 — The Rabbis sent their representatives and these presented the announcements to the women.15 And if you prefer I might say: The Rabbis only had them16 in their private rooms;17 for the Master said, 'He who has bread in his basket cannot be compared to him who has no bread in his basket'.18
Thus, Rav and Rav Nachman took women for the night when they traveled abroad.
The setama degemara protests about dam chimud,and answers that either they were told in advance -- a farfetched suggestion, when compared with the off-the-cuff nature of the proclamation 'who would be mine for the day!' or that they did not actually sleep with these women. Pashut peshat is that they did sleep with these women, and that there was no concern for dam chimud, either because they did not fear that this would happen, or because dam chimud does not render impure.
Finally, we have the expertise of Rav Chisda, discussed also in this parshablog post as it pertains to the authenticity of the Zohar. The gemara in Niddah 20b:
עולא אקלע לפומבדיתא אייתו לקמיה דמא ולא חזא אמר ומה רבי אלעזר דמרא דארעא דישראל הוה כי מקלע לאתרא דר' יהודה לא חזי דמא אנא אחזי ואמאי קרו ליה מרא דארעא דישראל דההיא אתתא דאייתא דמא לקמיה דרבי אלעזר הוה יתיב רבי אמי קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא בתר דנפקה אטפל לה רבי אמי א"ל בעלי היה בדרך וחמדתיו קרי עליה (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו
אפרא הורמיז אמיה דשבור מלכא שדרה דמא לקמיה דרבא הוה יתיב רב עובדיה קמיה ארחיה אמר לה האי דם חימוד הוא אמרה ליה לבריה תא חזי כמה חכימי יהודאי א"ל דלמא כסומא בארובה הדר שדרה ליה שתין מיני דמא וכולהו אמרינהו ההוא בתרא דם כנים הוה ולא ידע אסתייע מילתא ושדר לה סריקותא דמקטלא כלמי אמרה יהודאי בתווני דלבא יתביתו
'Ulla once visited Pumbeditha3 and when some blood was brought to him for examination he refused to see it. If, he said, R. Eleazar who was the supreme authority in the Land of Israel4 refused to see blood whenever he visited the place of R. Judah, should I see it?5 And why was he described as the supreme authority in the Land of Israel? — Because a woman once brought some blood before R. Eleazar when R. Ammi sat in his presence. Having smelt it he6 told her, 'This is blood of lust'.7 After she went out R. Ammi joined her and she told him, 'My husband was away on a journey but I felt an intense longing for him'. Thereupon he8 applied to him6 the text, The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him.9
Ifra Hormiz,10 the mother of King Shapur, once sent some blood to Raba when R. Obadiah was sitting in his presence. Having smelt it he said to him, 'This is blood of lust'.7 'Come and see', she remarked to her11 son, 'how wise the Jews are'. 'It is quite possible', he replied, 'that he12 hit upon it like a blind man on a window'. Thereupon she sent to him12 sixty different kinds of blood and he identified them all but the last one which was lice blood with which he was not acquainted. Luckily,13 however, he sent her14 a comb that exterminates lice. 'O, you Jews', she exclaimed, you seem to live in the inner chamber of one's heart'.15
From the context, I would say that the reason it is important to distinguish between dam niddah and dam chimmud is that one renders the woman ritually impure and the other does not. It is of a different character, which an expert may sense by smelling. And this was why it was important to distinguish bein dam ledam.
Is וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ malei or chaser, according to Radak, against the masorah (and Torah codes)? On Noach, but relevant to a reading in parashat Vayeitzei as well. Michlal Yofi says it is chaser here in Noach and in Vayeitzei, which happens to be against our Masoretic text. Minchas Shai explains that he is wrong, and how he is wrong. He misinterpreted Radak. But then I show (I think) that Radak indeed explicitly says this, and so Minchas Shai is incorrect. Further, the Samaritan text is (perhaps surprisingly) chaser, and there are many Jewish texts that are chaser. And perhaps R' Meir Abulafia, while at odds with Radak, is recording a krei and ketiv distinction. Naturally, this has repercussions of possibly invalidating all modern sifrei Torah, as well as many Torah codes. .
The trup on בְּיוֹם מָחָר supports Rashi -- Shadal sides with Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, that Yaakov's righteousness would testify for him in the future, when Lavan comes to inspect. But he says that this correct peshat is at odds with the trup. I consider this. .
Shadal repents of his skepticism of ancient science -- And asserts that the koach hadimyon actually did work to cause the birth of spotted and speckled sheep. Still, he offers a peshat for those who disbelieve in that scientific belief. I offer a multivalent compromise, and consider how one can kvetch almost any scientific theory into the Biblical text (Dr. Feliks' theory as one example). .
Vayeitzei sources -- expanded. For instance, more meforshei Rashi, more midrashic, and more masoretic texts. .
When did the angel speak to Yaakov in a dream? It is entirely normal to discover new details along the way. But the Samaritans falsify their Torah text by retrojecting the entire dream so as to be explicit, in the proper place. .
Why did Yaakov prefer Rachel? Because she was the more attractive of the two sisters. Theavos were also human, after all. But see the reaction of two rishonim, and consider. .
Vayeitzei sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraos Gedolos, as well as over 100 meforshim on the parsha and aliyah, grouped into categories such as masorah, rashi supercommentators, and so on. .
Once again, how is Vayeitzei setumah? I discuss how Minchas Shai and Or Torah harmonize the conflicting traditions in a way that makes our present texts entirely accurate -- that by Vayeitzei rather than Vaychi, it is talking about a lack of internal gap rather than initial gap. But then I point out that in Codex Hilleli (contrary toMinchas Shai), it *does* seem to mention a lack of initial gap as a primary possibility; and Ibn Caspi and Chizkuni also assume a lack of initial gap ; and perhaps also Aharon ben Yosef. . For earlier posts on the matter, scroll down and see my description of posts from previous years. .
Is there a gap before Vayelech Reuven? I think I agree that there should not be. But if it were present, it would cause us to reject the interpretation of vayeitzei as setuma as merely lacking internal gaps, rather than an initial gap. .
The meaning of Yaakov's dream -- what various meforshim believe it is. Perhaps it is literal, with no "significance". Or perhaps there is a philosophical pnimiyus. Another approach is to attempt to determine what these symbols meant in the Ancient Near East. .
Moral lessons from parshas Vayeitzei -- from Ralbag. We could learn kibbud av vaEm, zerizus, and not putting oneself in danger. This gives us insight into how Ralbag interpreted the narrative, as well. Though I could take issue with some of his interpretations. . And moremoral lessons from Ralbag -- and my reaction. .
How many stones did Yaakov put about his head? Was it one, or many? And how not just Ibn Ezra, but the vast majority of meforshim, part ways with Chazal here, and reject the midrashic interpretation on the peshat level. .
Why did Yaakov weep, pt i -- I analyze Rashi's two answers for Yaakov's weeping, as contrasted with that of Ibn Ezra. Rashi suggests that it was because he saw that Rachel wouldn't be buried with him, and secondly that he came without money, in contrast to Eliezer who came laden with wealth. Maharshal harmonizes the two reasons, so that Rashi can intend to say both simultaneously, but I explain why I think this harmonization is extremely farfetched. Finally, I give my own suggestion as to Rashi's motivations in bringing down these two midrashim from Bereishit Rabba. .
Are Bet El and Luz the same place? Despite the pasuk at the start of Vayeitzei that Luz was the original name of Bet El, a pasuk in sefer Yehoshua suggests otherwise, for the border went from Bet El to Luz! How can we resolve this? Shadal, Malbim and Radak attack this problem, and solve it by interpreting the pasuk in Yehoshua in different ways.
Did Rachel Really Cover Herself With Sheep, Historically? And does this obligate us nowadays in anything? Rabbi Falk taking a rather late midrash at face value, rather than assuming that there are values being read into the Biblical narrative by the midrashist. .
Vayeitzei sources -- links by aliyah and perek to an online Mikraot Gedolot. .
Malachim as Angels or Human -- first in Vayera, what of the malachim who met with Avraham and Lot? And then in Vayeitzei and Vayishlach -- what of the malachim in Yaakov's dream, the ones he encountered at Machanayim, and the ones he sent to Esav? .
And as a followup, the Ben Ish Chai's statement that Rachel wore a veil, based on a paseik. But it is not a paseik! It is a munach legarmeih. But besides this, it seems that this reflected normative practice in the time and place of Ben Ish Chai. So Ben Ish Chai took his normative practice (that is, of his time and place) and attributed it in a midrash to Rachel. We should not then take it from the midrash and apply it to ourselves, to establish our normative practice. Update: Looking back now, I think I possibly made a silly mistake. The cited dvar might just be saying הפסק, a division, for which any dividing trup, including munach legarmeih, would work. The rest of it still stands.
2007
Where did Yaakov sleep? And from where the motivation to make this the makom hamikdash as opposed to Bet El? .
Did Yaakov Promise a Temple at Bet El? Related to the above, and the troubling idea of him doing so, given the eventual alternate Temple at Bet El. And in Vayishlach, Shadal develops the idea that the eventual construction of the Temple at Bet El provides an early date for the Torah's authorship. .
Is Lifting the Stone off the Well a Superhuman Feat? Two possibilities on a peshat level, and I am not certain which one works better on a peshat level -- the one minimizing the superhuman feat or the one which works better with the theme of the text. I prefer the latter. .
Is Vayechi unique in being introduced with no gap? There are a bunch of posts here on parshablog on the issue of that gap in Vayechi. But is there similarly no gap by Vayeitzei? We will have to clarify, perhaps in other posts in 2008. .
Was Lavan Right To Move The Sheep? Speculation about Lavan and Yaakov's arrangement, specifically which sheep were to belong to Yaakov, and reasons for moving the sheep far away. .
Helping Giant Pandas Conceive -- using panda pornography. How Yaakov did a similar thing, and how we can understand וַיֵּחַמְנָה and וַיֶּחֱמוּ as "went into heat." .
How Old Was Rachel? A video, and text, post. 14 years old. And the influences on this midrash, and the theme of this midrash of being fated, and made for each other. And how this fits in with the 3 year old Rivkah.
Cross-listed to Vayishlach. I discuss the possibility that Dinah was not the only girl, but was named because of the Incident With Dinah a bit later. But then scientifically, the possibility that the Avot in general did not have girls because, apparently, the longer before one has a child, the less likely one is to have a girl.
I take on Anchor Bible smoothing emendation of the text, discussing whether קרא is passive ("he was called"), past tense third person singular ("he," meaning Yaakov or "He" meaning Hashem), or a final possibility that it is really קראה. Speiser in Anchor Bible chose a local optimum, emending it to "she," based on Samaritan and LXX. I show that firstly, this is a harmonizing emendation, to Samaritan and LXX which go for harmonizations are not necessarily evidence of another textual tradition; that actually no emendation of the unvocalized Masoretic text is necessary to get at "she"; and finally, that the emendation only finds a local optimum, and if we want to emend the text, we should emend the other קראה to match this קרא, as passive, based on a global usage.
and how the Egyptians, just like Yaakov, used stone pillows. However, from what I've seen since this post, though I cannot find the reference, it seems that there were actually real pillows they put on these headrests. Just that those pillows decayed into nothing, such that eventually they found a few, but until then, people thought the Egyptians actually used stone pillows. If so, a prime example about how absence of evidence is not equal to evidence of absence.
An Interesting Midrash In Targum Yonatan on Bereishit 28:12; about the two angels who went to Sodom in parshat Vayera. Yaakov now sees them ascend to Heaven. Does this bolster the two angels accompanying Hashem reading? See the post inside.
An alternative to the Rav's explanation of Targum Yonatan on Bereishit 32:3 (2002); in which I take issue with a devar Torah, which appears to be based on a mistranslation of Targum Yonatan's words belishan bet kudsha, such that he thinks that the name of the place machanayim has connection to the Bet HaMikdash, while in truth belishan bet kudsha means "in Hebrew," as is used elsewhere in Targum where Binyamin is given a Hebrew name.
1. Did Avraham call anyone 'My Master' besides Hashem? According to Meshech Chochma, he did not, and so was of the select few to be called an eved Hashem. But it is not so simple, according to Rav Yechezkel Abramsky's son. According to one opinion, Adonay at the start of Vayera is chol. Then, I weigh in with what I think is an even stronger counter-example, עַל-עַבְדְּכֶם.
2. Even at three, Rivkah didn't absorb from her negative environment -- But we may derive from here, notes Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson, that one must be careful in the chinuch of children. I consider how much of this lesson is to be derived from Rashi and how much from the underlying midrashim.
3. Who named Yaakov? Rashi says it was either Hashem or Yaakov. What prompts the midrash, and how could one darshen this even as, contrariwise, one darshens the naming of Yishmael? The Levush HaOrah considers the question, and then I do too.
5. How to understand כַיּוֹם in Yaakov's request to purchase the birthright -- Shadal notes a girsological variation in Onkelos, and then points us to sefer Yud Aleph Resh, Savyonita, and Rashi and Ramban. Ramban discusses the meaning of the strange phrasing in Onkelos, זַבֵּין כְּיוֹם דִּלְהֵין. I present and translate these sources.
6. The Torah Temimah on Esav's Five Sins Torah Temimah -- He explains the derashot in the gem ara in Bava Batra, fixes a broken girsa in a way that turns out to correspond to manuscripts, and explains why Rashi goes to a distant location to explain an Aramaic word, rather than simply looking to Onkelos on our own pasuk. I weigh in on some of this at the end.
7. Is וְהֵבֵאתָ to be pronounced mile'eil or milera? Shadal points to an interesting comment in sefer Yaar, that good manuscripts and Rashi support it being mile'eil, against our present reading.
Ibn Caspi on the Avos keeping the entire Torah -- He endorses the idea, kind-of. In one instance, as a restrained and coded rejection. In another, as a philosophical co-opting of the idea. Also, Chizkuni and my own approach to understanding the pasuk that sparks all this. .
Darshening pesiks in parashat Toledot -- One is indeed a pesik, and one should indeed be darshened. Though I argue on the details. There is a vertical bar after Machalat, and there is a derasha that has Esav's sins forgiven with his marriage. Does this bar indicate the need for distancing oneself from one's past actions? There is a vertical bar after the Shem Hashem in Avimelech's words to Yitzchak. Should this indicate that the wells ceased when Yitzchak left? Read on to find out! .
Was Yaakov Avinu the first Askan? While reading over parashat Toledot, it struck me that, at least on a peshat level, there is ample precedent for what the various askanim are doing. It is simply maaseh avos siman labanim. .
How to spell 'goyim' -- and how I would justify the Masoretic reading. Plus the strange, counter-intuitive vowel pattern provided by the Masorah, and its significance. .
The mercha kfula in parshas Shmini -- How shall we account for it? There is also a mercha kefulah in parashat Toledot, and this post considers all five of them in the Torah. .
Esav the Deceiver, pt i -- I try to address why Yitzchak and Rivkah's displeasure over his choice in wives doesn't prove that Yitzchak was in the know. .
2009
My novel interpretation for the duplication of Betulah and veIsh lo yedaah, which I label ridiculous. Then it turns out that it is not so novel, as Maharal says a very similar thing. I have a post planned about just why I considered my own interpretation silly, which has to do with peshat in derash. {Update: See post #7, about how Rivkah was just big for her age.} .
The three-fold ambiguity of verav yaavod tzair -- syntactic, lexical, and spelling. And how this may be a deliberate ambiguity, such that the text is multivalent. Also, An earlier assertion of multivalence in verav yaavod tzair -- in Radak, alongside Ibn Caspi I mentioned earlier. Plus, some analysis. .
Did Hashem speak directly to Rivkah? For various commentators, it might depend on whether Hashem generally talks to women, as well as what doresh means and what vatelech means. Towards the end, I suggest that Rivkah prayed, and that Hashem responded to her in a direct revelation. .
Was the kiss on the mouth, or elsewhere? Trying to make sense of Ibn Ezra's assertion that neshika which is "to" someone is on the hand or cheek, while neshika directly is on the lips. I think it is more plausible, and grounded in sevara and dikduk, than some supercommentators give him credit for. .
Was Yitzchak poor? The dispute between Ibn Ezra and Ramban, and my thoughts on some elements of their dispute. .
Rivkah, just big for her age! My analysis of why I considered my suggestion (above) ridiculous, and an analysis of how my methodology in general differs from that of Maharal. I don't see the need to harmonize as much, and if the harmonization introduces surprising details which we would have therefore expected to see explicitly mentioned by Rashi, or the midrash, itself, then I would surmise that this was not the intent of the author of the midrash. .
In Shadal's Vikuach, he discusses how Ibn Ezra's interpretation of kulo kaaderet seiar goes against the trup. .
Cross-listed from Vayikra, Shadal's theory about small letters can help explain the small kuf in katzti bechayai -- it follows the word Yitzchak, which ends with a kuf. See inside. .
Two Whole Goats? Does Yitzchak really have that big an appetite? How are we then to understand the preparation of two goats for Yitzchak's meal, on a peshat level? .
Will that be one placenta or two? Rabbenu Bachya, vs. Ibn Ezra, vs. Rashi, on how many placentas there were, and whether Yaakov and Esav shared a single placenta. If they did, they would have to be identical twins, though I do not think Rabbenu Bachya necessarily realized that. .
Did Yaakov stray after his eyes in falling in love with Rachel, rather than just taking Leah and returning to his parents? I take issue with this explanation by Rabbenu Bachya, on a peshat level, but in the comment section, Rabbi Joshua Maroof (of Vesom Sechel) makes a compelling argument in his favor, on a peshat level, that the Biblical text does not look favorably on Rachel. Perhaps fodder for another post. .
Who or What Was Achuzat? The name of Avimelech's friend, or a group of people. I favor Rashi, even on the level of peshat.
Esav's mantle of hair, and its possible implications, such that it was worn by false prophets, or prophets in general, such that it might fit in with Esav's misleading nature. .
Is Edom equal to Rome and Christiandom? Shadal says no, and that the prophecies about Esav and Yaakov in this week's parsha have already been fulfilled. Plus a very large comment section. And then, in Is Obama a 'Dark Horse' Candidate to be Gog, I touch on this same topic, and discuss it with yaak of Yeranen Yaakov, in the comment section.
A continuation of a post on Chayyei Sarah, in considering whether genealogical sections happened right then or whether some high level ain mukdam in terms of tracts with different purposes (macro and micro zoom levels) is at play here. In terms of Toledot, even though the first pasuk mentions Yitzchak's birth, he was clearly born before.
I consider various motivations as input into the midrashic statement that Yaakov did not lie by making this statement. The obvious religious motivation (making Avot paragons of virtue), philosophical motivations (given philosophical requirements of a navi being absolutely truthful, syntactic motivation, accentual motivation (trup), thematic motivation, motivation of textual parallels, and literary motivation. Thus is not (simply) a case of whitewashing actions of the Avot. Read for more details.
In terms of the parsing of "It is I | Esav is Your Firstborn," I note how Hebrew is a pro-drop language, how including the pronoun is done usually for emphasis, and how this emphasis is read into the midrash.
Discussing the parallelism between Yitzchak's question and Yaakov's answer. After demonstrating the parallelism, I question whether beni in this case means literally "my son" or more generally a kind address to one younger than you. Parallel to Rut, where Boaz calls her biti in a near identical address and response.
or the younger shall serve the older? I think the former is what makes the only sense, on a peshat level, and argue on Rabbi Sacks' interpretation. Also, the meaning of rav and tzair.
That there is always a local, linguistic cause, as well as thematic reasons to choose a specific interpretation. The derash reinforces the message which is already present on the peshat level.
and the midrash linking Yitzchak's blindness to Esav's wife's idolatry. And how the new wife he took was a realization of this -- וַיַּרְא עֵשָׂו, כִּי רָעוֹת בְּנוֹת כְּנָעַן, בְּעֵינֵי, יִצְחָק אָבִיו. Check it out.
