Bereshit 42:36 records that after Yaakov saw the money that his sons had inadvertently brought back from Egypt, he said, “Yosef is not, Shimon is not, and you will take Binyamin – upon me has all this come.” Reuven then volunteered to kill his two sons if he did not return Binyamin, 42:37, and then Yosef stated that he would not send Binyamin with his other sons, “for his brother (Yosef) is dead, and he alone is left,” 42:38.
This last verse is surprising. In 42:36 Yaakov referred to Yosef and Shimon in an equivalent manner, which means that he thought Yosef was alive since he knew that Shimon was alive, while in 42:38 Yaakov appears to have stated that Yosef was dead. Also, why does Yaakov refer to Binyamin as being “the only one left?” Alter (2004, p. 245) writes: "The extravagant insensitivity of Yaakov’s paternal favoritism continues to be breathtaking. He speaks of Binyamin as ‘my son’ almost as though the ones he is addressing were not his sons. This unconscious disavowal of the ten sons is sharpened when Yaakov says ‘he alone remains’ failing to add ‘from his mother.’
In order to understand 42:38, we need to attempt to understand Yaakov’s psyche with regard to Yosef, and this relates to two questions. One, did Yaakov think that Yosef was dead and two, did Yaakov think the brothers were responsible for Yosef’s fate?
With regard to the first question, N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 476-482) notes that 43:14 records that Yaakov told his sons that he prayed that G-d would help them free “your brother another, and Binyamin,” and Rashi explains that the phrase “your brother” refers to Shimon and the word “another” refers to Yosef. Thus, she writes that this word “reveals Yaakov’s state of mind, aware that his son had been torn by wild beasts yet refusing to accept it, reflecting his hope in his despair, his fortifying himself in his prayers to make an oblique allusion to what he dared not make public reference to.” While this inference from 43:14 is not clear-cut since the phrase can be translated as “your other brother” (see Fox, 1995, p. 206) and the point is that Yaakov was trying to impress on his sons that Binyamin was also their brother, I agree that Yaakov always hoped that Yosef was alive for three reasons.
One, when a child is missing, all parents hope the child is alive as long as the body is not produced. For instance, The New York Times reported (December 22, 2008, In Rhode Island, an old mobster lets go of a long-kept secret, by Dan Barry) that a person named Mr. Scanlon has been missing since 1978, and was believed to have been dead even though his body was never found. After 30 years, a Mr. Pari admitted to killing Mr. Scanlon and he revealed where Mr. Scanlon’s body was buried before he died. A police officer said that even though 30 years have passed the Scanlon family had always hoped that Mr. Scanlon was not dead.
Two, 37:11 records that Yaakov shamor (remembered) Yosef's dreams, which means that Yaakov thought that they would be actualized, see Rashbam on 37:11.
Three, 44:28 records that when Yehuda was speaking to Yosef he quoted Yaakov as saying that, "For sure he (Yosef) is torn, torn to pieces. And, I have not seen him again thus far," (Fox 1995 translation). The end of the verse implies that Yaakov did not believe that Yosef was dead since if Yosef had been torn to pieces, then of course he would not have seen him again. Instead, Yaakov still had hope of seeing Yosef, but he had not yet seen him again, see our discussion below on 45:3,"The end of the game."
With this idea, Yaakov's initial re-action to seeing the blood drenched coat (37:33,34) caused him to think that Yosef was dead but over time he began to hope and really believe that Yosef was alive. One would then assume that Yaakov did look for Yosef, although this is not recorded in the Torah, but the trail went cold, possibly since he did not begin to search right away.
With regard to the question as to whether Yaakov thought that the brothers were responsible for Yosef’s fate there is no definitive answer. Yaakov knew that they hated Yosef, and he must surely have been disappointed in their actions after they returned. They returned home without Yosef, but with Yosef’s garment, and all they said was, 37:32, “do you recognize the garment?” Did they say that after they found the garment that they investigated to find out about Yosef? Even if they did not have CSI then, they still could have found out some information. However, there is no record of them reporting anything to their father. Yaakov also knew that they were capable of killing as they did in Shekhem and he knew from his own experience with his brother, Esav, that a person can want to kill his brother. Yet, he did not know if his children would be capable of killing their brother and as a father he would want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe his suspicion of them is why he did not initially believe them when they told him that Yosef was alive, 45:26.
Most likely, Yaakov lived with these two questions, hoping that Yosef was alive and trying to convince himself that his sons were innocent of whatever happened to Yosef. Thus, in 42:36, Yaakov did not state that Yosef was dead only that he was not with them similar to Shimon. However, Reuven’s words in 42:37 jarred these hopes. Reuven said that he would kill his two sons which is not only foolish (see Rashi), but extremely callous. How can a father even think of possibly killing his children? Yaakov realized that if Reuven was willing to kill his sons, then he also would have been willing to kill his brother. This shattered his main basis for believing that his sons were innocent. Thus, in response, Yaakov disowned his other sons since at that moment he perceived them as murders, 42:38. Furthermore, he stated that Yosef was dead since if they were murderers then Yosef was dead. Finally, if Yaakov thought that his sons killed Yosef, then he would not agree to send Binyamin with them to Egypt.
Accordingly, there was nothing for the brothers to say to Yaakov, and the conversation ends. The conversation only resumed with the passage of time and the worsening of the famine, and it is Yaakov who begins the conversation, 43:1,2. Furthermore, the hope that Yosef was alive was probably re-kindled in Yaakov, and maybe 43:14 was a reference to Yosef as argued by Rashi and N. Leibowitz.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Hello. The goal of this blog is to enhance our understanding of the Torah and the practice of Judaism. The discussions in the blog are a portion of a more extensive commentary on the Torah, which I will be happy to send to you. You can contact me at ajayschein@gmail.com. Please feel free to send comments. Also, if you want to receive an email with a link to the new posts, send me a request, and I will add you to the email group. Best wishes, Andrew Schein
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Bereshit 43:23-34- The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: Know thy opponent
There are at least five strange statements or events when Yosef's brothers return to Egypt the second time.
One, when the brothers returned to Egypt they offered to return the silver that they found in their sacks from their first trip to Egypt. Yosef’s steward told them they could keep the money since “Your G-d, the G-d of your fathers placed a treasure in your packs,” 43:23. This is a very evasive response since the steward seems to be acknowledging that he knew about the silver but he denies that he placed it in their sacks. Luzzatto (on 43:23) quotes a student of his that this statement was bizarre since it implied that the steward knew something of their family.
Two, the brothers were invited to eat with the ruler of Egypt and Yosef seated them according to their age, 43:33, which could not have been fortuitous since all except for Binyamin were born within a few years of each other. The fact that this was quite amazing is that the end of 43:33 records that the brothers were amazed that Yosef was able to discern their ages. The Torah does not explain how Yosef knew the brother’s ages, it also never refers to this incident again. Why is it recorded in the Torah? Later, Yosef will tell the brothers don’t you know that I have special powers, 44:15, which could be referring to his ability to know their ages. Yet, from this case we know that Yosef had no special powers, as he had set up Binyamin, and then here too we see that Yosef, if he was a stranger, had no way of knowing the ages of the brothers.
Three, after Yosef met Binyamin, he said, “May G-d show you favor, my son!” 43:29, and then he proceeded to give Binyamin more portions of food than the other brothers, 43:34. While it always must have seemed odd to the brothers that this ruler of Egypt wanted them to bring Binyamin to Egypt, how could they explain Yosef’s apparent partiality towards Binyamin? Also, the term “my son” is completely out of place since Binyamin was clearly not Yosef's son, and this term must have aroused the brother's suspicion why a stranger would call their brother my son. In Hebrew, the term my son, beni, is the exact same sound of the beginning of Binyamin's name, and then the use of this term, beni, could be because Yosef was hinting to his brothers that he knew Binyamin's name.
Four, Yosef asked about Yaakov’s wellbeing, 43:27, and later told them “go in peace to your father,” 44:17. Why should Yaakov’s wellbeing have been a concern for an Egyptian ruler?
Five, it must have been strange to the brothers to learn that Yosef could not eat with the Egyptians, 43:32, which would inform them that Yosef was not an Egyptian.
An explanation for all these actions is that Yosef was trying to hint to the brothers his true identity, see Pava (1993). First, as we discuss on 37:25-34, 42:21, “Who sold Yosef?” the brothers knew that Yosef had been sold to traders going to Egypt and had not died when they threw him into the pit. Thus, they knew that it was not impossible for Yosef to be the ruler of Egypt.
While the brothers did not initially recognize Yosef, 42:8, they associated being thrown into jail with their actions towards Yosef, 42:21,22, and Yosef heard them making this association, 42:23.
Afterwards when they returned to Canaan, the most natural thing would have been for them to have investigated who was this person who had accused them of being spies and imprisoned Shimon. It would not have taken much effort for them to have learned that the ruler of Egypt had once been a slave and had interpreted dreams to win his freedom. This story was so incredible that surely it become public knowledge. This information in conjunction with their knowledge of Yosef’s dreams must have raised the possibility in their minds that Yosef was their Egyptian adversary. The strange events upon their return to Egypt would have reinforced their suspicion that it truly was Yosef. Furthermore, when they were drinking together, 43:34, they had more time to look carefully at Yosef in an informal setting, and recognize Yosef.
Even though they thought he was Yosef, they could not confront Yosef since there was the possibility that Yosef would have been upset with them for ending the charade, as even when Yosef identified himself, they were scared of him, 45:3. Accordingly, the brothers had to play Yosef’s game until Yosef chose to reveal himself.
Why did Yosef give all these hints to his brothers while not openly telling them he was Yosef? Yosef wanted the brothers to know who they bowed down to, and he might have thought that if the brother did not who he was, then their bowing would not have been a fulfillment of the dreams. However, if he openly revealed himself to his brothers, then they might not have bowed down to him.
One, when the brothers returned to Egypt they offered to return the silver that they found in their sacks from their first trip to Egypt. Yosef’s steward told them they could keep the money since “Your G-d, the G-d of your fathers placed a treasure in your packs,” 43:23. This is a very evasive response since the steward seems to be acknowledging that he knew about the silver but he denies that he placed it in their sacks. Luzzatto (on 43:23) quotes a student of his that this statement was bizarre since it implied that the steward knew something of their family.
Two, the brothers were invited to eat with the ruler of Egypt and Yosef seated them according to their age, 43:33, which could not have been fortuitous since all except for Binyamin were born within a few years of each other. The fact that this was quite amazing is that the end of 43:33 records that the brothers were amazed that Yosef was able to discern their ages. The Torah does not explain how Yosef knew the brother’s ages, it also never refers to this incident again. Why is it recorded in the Torah? Later, Yosef will tell the brothers don’t you know that I have special powers, 44:15, which could be referring to his ability to know their ages. Yet, from this case we know that Yosef had no special powers, as he had set up Binyamin, and then here too we see that Yosef, if he was a stranger, had no way of knowing the ages of the brothers.
Three, after Yosef met Binyamin, he said, “May G-d show you favor, my son!” 43:29, and then he proceeded to give Binyamin more portions of food than the other brothers, 43:34. While it always must have seemed odd to the brothers that this ruler of Egypt wanted them to bring Binyamin to Egypt, how could they explain Yosef’s apparent partiality towards Binyamin? Also, the term “my son” is completely out of place since Binyamin was clearly not Yosef's son, and this term must have aroused the brother's suspicion why a stranger would call their brother my son. In Hebrew, the term my son, beni, is the exact same sound of the beginning of Binyamin's name, and then the use of this term, beni, could be because Yosef was hinting to his brothers that he knew Binyamin's name.
Four, Yosef asked about Yaakov’s wellbeing, 43:27, and later told them “go in peace to your father,” 44:17. Why should Yaakov’s wellbeing have been a concern for an Egyptian ruler?
Five, it must have been strange to the brothers to learn that Yosef could not eat with the Egyptians, 43:32, which would inform them that Yosef was not an Egyptian.
An explanation for all these actions is that Yosef was trying to hint to the brothers his true identity, see Pava (1993). First, as we discuss on 37:25-34, 42:21, “Who sold Yosef?” the brothers knew that Yosef had been sold to traders going to Egypt and had not died when they threw him into the pit. Thus, they knew that it was not impossible for Yosef to be the ruler of Egypt.
While the brothers did not initially recognize Yosef, 42:8, they associated being thrown into jail with their actions towards Yosef, 42:21,22, and Yosef heard them making this association, 42:23.
Afterwards when they returned to Canaan, the most natural thing would have been for them to have investigated who was this person who had accused them of being spies and imprisoned Shimon. It would not have taken much effort for them to have learned that the ruler of Egypt had once been a slave and had interpreted dreams to win his freedom. This story was so incredible that surely it become public knowledge. This information in conjunction with their knowledge of Yosef’s dreams must have raised the possibility in their minds that Yosef was their Egyptian adversary. The strange events upon their return to Egypt would have reinforced their suspicion that it truly was Yosef. Furthermore, when they were drinking together, 43:34, they had more time to look carefully at Yosef in an informal setting, and recognize Yosef.
Even though they thought he was Yosef, they could not confront Yosef since there was the possibility that Yosef would have been upset with them for ending the charade, as even when Yosef identified himself, they were scared of him, 45:3. Accordingly, the brothers had to play Yosef’s game until Yosef chose to reveal himself.
Why did Yosef give all these hints to his brothers while not openly telling them he was Yosef? Yosef wanted the brothers to know who they bowed down to, and he might have thought that if the brother did not who he was, then their bowing would not have been a fulfillment of the dreams. However, if he openly revealed himself to his brothers, then they might not have bowed down to him.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Bereshit 34:1-35:7 (Va-yishlach) - How old was Dina when Shekhem wanted to marry her?
Bereshit chapter 34 records the rape of Dina and the subsequent massacre of the people of Shekhem by Shimon and Levi. When did this incident occur? If one follows the chronological order of the Torah, then it occurred when Yaakov was returning from Haran before he returned to his father in Hevron, 35:27. Yet, with this reckoning, Yaakov's children would have been very young at the time.
Yaakov spent twenty years in Haran, 31:38,41, and his children were born starting from his eighth year in Haran. Thus when Yaakov left Haran, Reuven, Yaakov's oldest son, would have been around 12. How long did it take for Yaakov to go from Haran to Shekhem? 33:17,18 record that after Yaakov's encounter with Esav on his return from Haran, he built a house in Sukkot, and then afterwards he went to Shekhem. This implies that he stayed some time in Sukkot. Rashi (on 33:17) based on the Talmud claims he stayed there 18 months, and in total, Rashi (on 28:9) records that it took Yaakov two years to return home. This could be, but it also could have been much less, a few months. Yet, even with Rashi's dating, still Shimon, who was approximately a year young younger than Reuven would have been around 13, and Levi who was approximately two years younger than Reuven would have been around 12 when the incident of Shekhem occurred, see Nazir 29b. Could such youths have killed an entire city? Would Hamor have negotiated with such young lads?
How old was Dina? We do not know when Dina was born. 30:21 records that she was born after Lea's sixth son, Zevulun, but how much afterwards? Ibn Ezra (on 30:21) notes that some claim that she was a twin with Zevulun which means she would have been around six when Yaakov left Haran. However, as we discuss on 30:23, "A bulging family," it is also possible that she was born after the seven years that Yaakov worked for Rahel, but her birth was recorded with the other births. Furthermore, 32:12,23, which do not refer to her, imply that she was born after Yaakov met Esav. In all of these scenarios, she would have been very young at the time when Shekhem the son of Hamor raped and desired to marry her, 34:2,3.
Ibn Ezra (on 33:20) notes the incongruity of the ages, and he explains that Yaakov must have spent a long time in Shekhem. With this understanding, the incident with Dina occurred at the end of this period. Yet, this also seems unlikely since Yaakov would have had to stay many years (maximum 11) in Shekhem. Yaakov was returning home from Haran. Would he have delayed so long to return home? Furthermore, 48:7 informs us that Rahel died when Yaakov was on his way back from Haran, but if he stayed many years in Shekhem, as Ibn Ezra suggests, then her death which is recorded after Yaakov left Shekhem, 35:17-19, could not be considered as being on the way back from Haran.
I think chapter 34 is not recorded in chronological order, and the question is when does the narrative re-start? One possibility is that 35:6 renews the description of Yaakov's return home from Lavan, and the second possibility is that 35:8 renews the journey. A difference between them is whether the building of the altar in 35:7 was on the way home (the first possibility) or after the events in Shekhem (the second possibility). Another related difference between the two possibilities is how many times did Yaakov go to Bet-El. According to the first possibility, three time, once when he ran away from Esav, once after he bought the land in Shekhem, and once after the massacre in Shekhem, while according to the second possibility, twice, once when he ran away from Esav, and once after the massacre in Shekhem
With either possibility, the chronology would be that after meeting Esav, Yaakov bought land in Shekhem, and built an altar, 33:19,20 and then he continued on his journey home, 35:6 or 35:8.
The incident with Shekhem occurred sometime during the twenty two years when Yosef was in Egypt, and all of Yaakov's children were grown-ups. The Torah did not record the incident in its chronological order in order not to interrupt the story of Yosef. (This would be similar to the mention of Yitzhak's death 35:28,29, which we know occurred 12 years after Yosef was sold into slavery, and Terah's death in 11:32 even though it happened 60 years after Avraham came to the land of Israel.) With this understanding, Yosef was not involved in this incident in Shekhem since he was in Egypt and maybe Yehuda was also not there since he had left the family for some period of time, 38:1.
This chronology explains four other anomalies in the text. One, Yaakov is very passive during the incident in Shekhem. 34:5 records that when he heard about the actions of Shekhem the son of Hamor he was silent, and he was not involved in the negotiations at all. Only in the end, when he realized what a disaster took place, did he criticize Shimon and Levi, and even then he let them have the last word. Why was Yaakov so passive? It is true that Yaakov had a passive personality (see our discussion on 25:27 "Yaakov's personality,") but one would have thought that when his daughter was raped this would have caused him to "break out" as he did when Lavan searched his possession. However, if chapter 34 occurred after the sale of Yosef, then Yaakov was depressed and even more passive than his usual self, and hence he was quiet when he heard about the rape.
A second difficulty is that 37:12 records that the brothers went to graze their sheep in Shekhem and this is difficult if chapter 34 had already occurred since 35:5 records that the surrounding towns wanted to revenge the deaths of the people of Shekhem, see Rashbam on 37:13. Why would the brothers go there? The answer is that they were going to their land by Shekhem which Yaakov had bought and the massacre had not yet happened.
A third question is that 35:1 records that G-d told Yaakov to go to Bet El to build an altar. The usual understanding (see Rashi on 35:1) is that G-d was commanding Yaakov to fulfill his vow which he had made when he running away from Esav, 28:10-22. Why did Yaakov need G-d to prompt him to fulfill the vow? Why did Yaakov not fulfill the vow on his own after his successful encounter with Esav?
Many have criticized Yaakov for not fulfilling his vow. Bereshit Rabbah 81:2 records, “Yaakov’s ledger was examined because he delayed the fulfillment of his vow.” Rashi (on 35:1, also see Radak and Hizkuni on 35:1) writes more explicitly, “Because you have delayed to fulfill your vow to sacrifice to me at Bet-El, you have been punished by the troubles with Dina.” Yet, this punishment seems unrelated to the “sin,” since Yaakov sinned but Dina was also punished for Yaakov’s actions. Furthermore, once Yaakov went to Bet-El, G-d confirmed many blessings, 35:9-13, which is incompatible with the idea that Yaakov had sinned.
Abravanel suggests that Yaakov did not sin but that he had a different understanding of the vow. In the vow, Yaakov had stated that the condition of the vow was that he would return to his father’s house, 28:21. Hence, Yaakov thought that the conditions of the vow had not yet been fulfilled since Yaakov had still not returned to Yitzhak, as Yaakov was in Shekhem while Yitzhak was in Hevron, 35:27. Yaakov was intending to fulfill the vow, but only after he saw Yitzhak. G-d did not want Yaakov to wait, and thus G-d prompted Yaakov to fulfill the vow even before he came home. This approach is appealing, but one would have thought that the problem of coming home safely was Yaakov’s fear of Esav, and hence once Yaakov’s encounter with Esav ended safely, then there was no longer an appreciable danger that Yaakov would not return home safely.
With the suggested chronology above, Yaakov did not delay in fulfilling his vow. According to the first possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:6, then after Yaakov went to Shekhem, 33:18-20, he went to Bet-El, where he built an altar 35:6,7. G-d’s command in 35:1 to go to Bet-El was not for Yaakov to fulfill his vow since he had fulfilled the vow when he returned from Haran, but to pray to G-d after the massacre of the people of Shekhem, either for protection after the massacre or as a form of repentance. Note that in 35:1, G-d does not refer to the vow in chapter 28, but only to His appearance to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav. Just like G-d had protected Yaakov from Esav, so too Yaakov needed G-d’s protection from the people who lived around Shekhem, 35:5. With this understanding 35:5 is the end of the incident in Shekhem, and the Torah does not record Yaakov's (third) arrival in Bet-El after the incident in Shekhem.
With the second possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:8, Yaakov also did not delay fulfilling his vow, but he thought that the building of the altar in Shekhem, 33:20 was the fulfillment of his vow in 28:20-22, see our discussion above on 33:18-20, "A detour to Shekhem." The building of the altar in 35:7 was then in response to G-d's command in 35:1.
A fourth question is that 35:1 records that G-d not only told Yaakov to go to Bet-El, but also to live there. This has perplexed the commentators (see Ramban and Seforno on 35:1) since we see that Yaakov continues on from Bet-El to go to Yitzhak in Hevron, 35:8-27. Our chronology provides an answer because Yaakov could have stayed a long time in Bet-El since the travelling in the ensuing narrative from 35:8 onwards is when Yaakov was returning home and is not related to the period after the massacre in Shekhem.
35:1 also provides some hints as to where Yaakov lived when Yosef was in Egypt. Yaakov was living in Hevron when Yosef was sold to Egypt, 37:14. It is possible that afterwards the family stayed in Hevron, and would periodically return to Shekhem to the plot of land that Yaakov bought. With this possibility, it was during one of these visits years later that the incident recorded in chapter 34 occurred, and then in 35:1 G-d was telling Yaakov to go to Bet-El and stay there until he was ready to return to Hevron. A different possibility is that after Yosef disappeared, Yaakov moved to Shekhem either to look for Yosef or just because he needed to get away. After the incident with Shekhem, Yaakov realized that he was in great danger, 34:30, so G-d told him to go Bet-El and live there. With this understanding, it is possible that Yaakov lived in Bet-El until he went to Egypt.
To conclude, I believe that 34:1-35:5 or 34:1-35:7 are recorded out of chronological order, and the events recorded in the intervening section occurred when Yosef was in Egypt. Accordingly, when Yaakov returned from Haran, he went to Shekhem for a very short period, 33:18-20, and then he continued going south to Hevron to see his father.
Yaakov spent twenty years in Haran, 31:38,41, and his children were born starting from his eighth year in Haran. Thus when Yaakov left Haran, Reuven, Yaakov's oldest son, would have been around 12. How long did it take for Yaakov to go from Haran to Shekhem? 33:17,18 record that after Yaakov's encounter with Esav on his return from Haran, he built a house in Sukkot, and then afterwards he went to Shekhem. This implies that he stayed some time in Sukkot. Rashi (on 33:17) based on the Talmud claims he stayed there 18 months, and in total, Rashi (on 28:9) records that it took Yaakov two years to return home. This could be, but it also could have been much less, a few months. Yet, even with Rashi's dating, still Shimon, who was approximately a year young younger than Reuven would have been around 13, and Levi who was approximately two years younger than Reuven would have been around 12 when the incident of Shekhem occurred, see Nazir 29b. Could such youths have killed an entire city? Would Hamor have negotiated with such young lads?
How old was Dina? We do not know when Dina was born. 30:21 records that she was born after Lea's sixth son, Zevulun, but how much afterwards? Ibn Ezra (on 30:21) notes that some claim that she was a twin with Zevulun which means she would have been around six when Yaakov left Haran. However, as we discuss on 30:23, "A bulging family," it is also possible that she was born after the seven years that Yaakov worked for Rahel, but her birth was recorded with the other births. Furthermore, 32:12,23, which do not refer to her, imply that she was born after Yaakov met Esav. In all of these scenarios, she would have been very young at the time when Shekhem the son of Hamor raped and desired to marry her, 34:2,3.
Ibn Ezra (on 33:20) notes the incongruity of the ages, and he explains that Yaakov must have spent a long time in Shekhem. With this understanding, the incident with Dina occurred at the end of this period. Yet, this also seems unlikely since Yaakov would have had to stay many years (maximum 11) in Shekhem. Yaakov was returning home from Haran. Would he have delayed so long to return home? Furthermore, 48:7 informs us that Rahel died when Yaakov was on his way back from Haran, but if he stayed many years in Shekhem, as Ibn Ezra suggests, then her death which is recorded after Yaakov left Shekhem, 35:17-19, could not be considered as being on the way back from Haran.
I think chapter 34 is not recorded in chronological order, and the question is when does the narrative re-start? One possibility is that 35:6 renews the description of Yaakov's return home from Lavan, and the second possibility is that 35:8 renews the journey. A difference between them is whether the building of the altar in 35:7 was on the way home (the first possibility) or after the events in Shekhem (the second possibility). Another related difference between the two possibilities is how many times did Yaakov go to Bet-El. According to the first possibility, three time, once when he ran away from Esav, once after he bought the land in Shekhem, and once after the massacre in Shekhem, while according to the second possibility, twice, once when he ran away from Esav, and once after the massacre in Shekhem
With either possibility, the chronology would be that after meeting Esav, Yaakov bought land in Shekhem, and built an altar, 33:19,20 and then he continued on his journey home, 35:6 or 35:8.
The incident with Shekhem occurred sometime during the twenty two years when Yosef was in Egypt, and all of Yaakov's children were grown-ups. The Torah did not record the incident in its chronological order in order not to interrupt the story of Yosef. (This would be similar to the mention of Yitzhak's death 35:28,29, which we know occurred 12 years after Yosef was sold into slavery, and Terah's death in 11:32 even though it happened 60 years after Avraham came to the land of Israel.) With this understanding, Yosef was not involved in this incident in Shekhem since he was in Egypt and maybe Yehuda was also not there since he had left the family for some period of time, 38:1.
This chronology explains four other anomalies in the text. One, Yaakov is very passive during the incident in Shekhem. 34:5 records that when he heard about the actions of Shekhem the son of Hamor he was silent, and he was not involved in the negotiations at all. Only in the end, when he realized what a disaster took place, did he criticize Shimon and Levi, and even then he let them have the last word. Why was Yaakov so passive? It is true that Yaakov had a passive personality (see our discussion on 25:27 "Yaakov's personality,") but one would have thought that when his daughter was raped this would have caused him to "break out" as he did when Lavan searched his possession. However, if chapter 34 occurred after the sale of Yosef, then Yaakov was depressed and even more passive than his usual self, and hence he was quiet when he heard about the rape.
A second difficulty is that 37:12 records that the brothers went to graze their sheep in Shekhem and this is difficult if chapter 34 had already occurred since 35:5 records that the surrounding towns wanted to revenge the deaths of the people of Shekhem, see Rashbam on 37:13. Why would the brothers go there? The answer is that they were going to their land by Shekhem which Yaakov had bought and the massacre had not yet happened.
A third question is that 35:1 records that G-d told Yaakov to go to Bet El to build an altar. The usual understanding (see Rashi on 35:1) is that G-d was commanding Yaakov to fulfill his vow which he had made when he running away from Esav, 28:10-22. Why did Yaakov need G-d to prompt him to fulfill the vow? Why did Yaakov not fulfill the vow on his own after his successful encounter with Esav?
Many have criticized Yaakov for not fulfilling his vow. Bereshit Rabbah 81:2 records, “Yaakov’s ledger was examined because he delayed the fulfillment of his vow.” Rashi (on 35:1, also see Radak and Hizkuni on 35:1) writes more explicitly, “Because you have delayed to fulfill your vow to sacrifice to me at Bet-El, you have been punished by the troubles with Dina.” Yet, this punishment seems unrelated to the “sin,” since Yaakov sinned but Dina was also punished for Yaakov’s actions. Furthermore, once Yaakov went to Bet-El, G-d confirmed many blessings, 35:9-13, which is incompatible with the idea that Yaakov had sinned.
Abravanel suggests that Yaakov did not sin but that he had a different understanding of the vow. In the vow, Yaakov had stated that the condition of the vow was that he would return to his father’s house, 28:21. Hence, Yaakov thought that the conditions of the vow had not yet been fulfilled since Yaakov had still not returned to Yitzhak, as Yaakov was in Shekhem while Yitzhak was in Hevron, 35:27. Yaakov was intending to fulfill the vow, but only after he saw Yitzhak. G-d did not want Yaakov to wait, and thus G-d prompted Yaakov to fulfill the vow even before he came home. This approach is appealing, but one would have thought that the problem of coming home safely was Yaakov’s fear of Esav, and hence once Yaakov’s encounter with Esav ended safely, then there was no longer an appreciable danger that Yaakov would not return home safely.
With the suggested chronology above, Yaakov did not delay in fulfilling his vow. According to the first possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:6, then after Yaakov went to Shekhem, 33:18-20, he went to Bet-El, where he built an altar 35:6,7. G-d’s command in 35:1 to go to Bet-El was not for Yaakov to fulfill his vow since he had fulfilled the vow when he returned from Haran, but to pray to G-d after the massacre of the people of Shekhem, either for protection after the massacre or as a form of repentance. Note that in 35:1, G-d does not refer to the vow in chapter 28, but only to His appearance to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav. Just like G-d had protected Yaakov from Esav, so too Yaakov needed G-d’s protection from the people who lived around Shekhem, 35:5. With this understanding 35:5 is the end of the incident in Shekhem, and the Torah does not record Yaakov's (third) arrival in Bet-El after the incident in Shekhem.
With the second possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:8, Yaakov also did not delay fulfilling his vow, but he thought that the building of the altar in Shekhem, 33:20 was the fulfillment of his vow in 28:20-22, see our discussion above on 33:18-20, "A detour to Shekhem." The building of the altar in 35:7 was then in response to G-d's command in 35:1.
A fourth question is that 35:1 records that G-d not only told Yaakov to go to Bet-El, but also to live there. This has perplexed the commentators (see Ramban and Seforno on 35:1) since we see that Yaakov continues on from Bet-El to go to Yitzhak in Hevron, 35:8-27. Our chronology provides an answer because Yaakov could have stayed a long time in Bet-El since the travelling in the ensuing narrative from 35:8 onwards is when Yaakov was returning home and is not related to the period after the massacre in Shekhem.
35:1 also provides some hints as to where Yaakov lived when Yosef was in Egypt. Yaakov was living in Hevron when Yosef was sold to Egypt, 37:14. It is possible that afterwards the family stayed in Hevron, and would periodically return to Shekhem to the plot of land that Yaakov bought. With this possibility, it was during one of these visits years later that the incident recorded in chapter 34 occurred, and then in 35:1 G-d was telling Yaakov to go to Bet-El and stay there until he was ready to return to Hevron. A different possibility is that after Yosef disappeared, Yaakov moved to Shekhem either to look for Yosef or just because he needed to get away. After the incident with Shekhem, Yaakov realized that he was in great danger, 34:30, so G-d told him to go Bet-El and live there. With this understanding, it is possible that Yaakov lived in Bet-El until he went to Egypt.
To conclude, I believe that 34:1-35:5 or 34:1-35:7 are recorded out of chronological order, and the events recorded in the intervening section occurred when Yosef was in Egypt. Accordingly, when Yaakov returned from Haran, he went to Shekhem for a very short period, 33:18-20, and then he continued going south to Hevron to see his father.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Bereshit 37:3 (Va-yeshev) – Yosef a ben zekunim: The anticipated child
Bereshit 37:3 records that Yaakov loved Yosef more than his other sons because Yosef was a ben zekunim. Why did the Torah need to explain why Yaakov loved Yosef? The answer is that the Torah did not want a person to think that Yaakov loved/ favored Yosef since Yosef was the firstborn son of Rahel. Instead, 37:3 records that Yaakov loved/ favored Yosef since he was a ben zekunim, which literally means a son of Yaakov’s old age.
Can Yosef be considered a ben zekunim more than Yaakov’s other sons? It is true that Yosef was born when Yaakov was 91 (see Ibn Ezra on 37:3), but Yaakov had ten other sons who were born just a little before Yosef. Also, Binyamin, who was born at least six years after Yosef, should have been considered Yaakov's "son of his old age" and not Yosef.
Bereshit Rabbah (84:8, see Rashi on 37:3) quotes Rabbi R. Yehuda who said that the phrase ben zekunim means that Yosef's features were like Yaakov, based on the similarity of the word, zekunim, with the phrase ziv ikunim, which means his features. Yet, is this a reason to love one son more than others?
Bereshit Rabbah also quotes R. Nehemiah that the phrase ben zekunim means a son of wisdom, based on the association of old age and wisdom, see Talmud Kiddushin 32b. Kugel (1997, p. 248, also see Radak) quotes other commentators, including Targum Onqelos, Philo and Josephus, who follow this approach and explain that Yaakov loved Yosef because Yosef was wise.
Ramban (on 37:3) suggests that there was a custom that when a person was old one son was chosen to care for the father, and this was Yosef. According to this idea, the phrase ben zekunim means the son who served his father in his old age. Luzzatto argues that this cannot be correct since 37:2 records that Yosef was a shepherd with his brothers. Sarna (1989, p. 368) writes that from 21:2,7, 24:36 and 44:20, we see that all these explanations cannot be correct since in all the other verses the phrase means a child of one's old age.
Other commentators attempt to explain how Yosef could be considered Yaakov's child of old age. Rashbam (on 37:3) suggests that Yosef was considered Yaakov's son of his old age instead of Binyamin because before Binyamin was born Yaakov had already developed his favoritism to Yosef based on the fact that at that time Yosef was his youngest child. Hizkuni writes that Yosef could not fully love Binyamin since Rahel died when Binyamin was born, so Yaakov loved Yosef more than Binyamin.
My guess is that we must attempt to understand the significance of a child who is born to parents who are old. If a person has a child every year from the time he is twenty until he is 100, would he love the younger children more than the older children? Most likely, no. Or, if a person has no children until he is 70, and then has one child a year for 20 years, would he love the youngest child more than the oldest? Again, most likely, no. If the parent would favor one child it would be the oldest of the twenty children since the person waited for that child for many years while the other children did not involve any unusual anticipation. The significance of the child is not the age of the parent when the child was born, but as to how long the parent waited or longed to have the child. Thus, the idea of a child of one's old age is a child that a person had been anticipating for a long time.
Yosef was the child that Yosef had been waiting for his whole life. When Yosef was born, Yaakov was willing to return home to face Esav, 30:25, even though he did not know anything about his special talents. Instead, he knew that if he died, Yosef would continue the family legacy. Apparently, Yaakov was not sure that his other sons, who were the sons of either Lea of the handmaidens, would be the ones to continue the family heritage. Thus, his anticipation was for Rahel to have a son, and once Yosef was born, then he would not have had any special anticipation for the birth of Binyamin. Thus, only Yosef was the anticipated child, and this is the meaning of the phrase ben zekunim in 37:3.
Bibliography:
Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was,
Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Bereshit 37:9,10 - Yosef’s dream of the stars, the moon and the sun
בראשית לז:ט,י - ויחלום חלום אחר ויספר אתו לאחיו, ויאמר הנה חלמתי חלום עוד והנה השמש והירח ואחד עשר כוכבים משתחוים לי. ויספר אל אביו ואל אחיו ויגער בו אביו ויאמר לו מה החלום הזה אשר חלמת הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה?
Bereshit 37:9 records Yosef's dream of 11 stars, the moon and the sun. Dreams are very important in the story of Yosef and usually we rely on Yosef to interpret the dreams. However, by his dreams, he does not interpret them publicly. The brothers interpret the dream of the sheaves, 37:8, and Yaakov interprets the dream of the stars, moon and sun, 37:10. Is this because they were equally as talented as Yosef in understanding dreams or that the dreams of Yosef had a more obvious interpretation? One element that is missing in the interpretation of the dreams of the sheaves and stars that is important by the other dreams is the timing of the fulfillment of the dream, which might have made the interpretation easier.Yaakov interpretation of the dream was that the sun referred to himself, the moon to Rahel, and the stars to the brothers, 37:10. As Rashi (on 37:10) points out this interpretation meant the dream could never come true since Rahel was dead. Also, this dream could not have occurred before Rahel died since there were 11 stars, which would include Binyamin. Thus, Yaakov was trying to show that the dreams could not come true, which would stop Yosef from bragging and the brothers from being upset, see Rashi and Radak on 37:10. Yet, if this was the basis for Yaakov’s interpretation and then his interpretation was not necessarily the real interpretation of the dream.
Rashi and Ibn Ezra (on 37:10) explain that really the moon refers to Bilha, who possibly raised Yosef after Rahel’s death. Ramban (on 37:10) disagrees since he claims that Bilha was dead by the time the family went down to Egypt which meant that she never could have bowed down to Yosef and also that Yosef would not have cared about Bilha bowing down to him. Ramban explains that the moon refers to the household of Yaakov. I think this is also difficult since the moon should symbolize just one person, and also the brothers would have been within the household of Yaakov.
I think that the dream had to be possible at the time it occurred or else there should not have been a moon in the dream. More likely, the sun referred to Yitzhak and the moon to Yaakov, as the bowing of Yitzhak to Yosef would have been highly significant. It is not recorded in the Torah that this dream came true, but at the time when it occurred it was possible since Yitzhak was alive then, approximately 168.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Dreidels (sevivonim)
One popular custom on Hanukkah is to spin the dreidel, (in Hebrew sevivon). It has been claimed that this custom goes back to the time of the Maccabees that it was a decoy to fool the Greeks that the people pretended to play with the dreidel if the Greeks caught them learning Torah. This claim is quite unbelievable since all the evidence points to the dreidel being from the Middle Ages, where the game was very popular in many Western European countries.
Sidney Hoenig (1976, pp. 264, 265) notes that the world dreidel is from the German dreihen, which means to spin. Furthermore, the sides of the dreidel have four letters, gimmel, nun, shin and heh, and all of these derive from the letters on the spinning tops in Germany. While many are taught that these letters symbolize nes gadol hayah shem, a great miracle happened there, really the letters correspond to the rules of the game. The rules of playing dreidel is that if the dreidel lands on a gimmel, then one gets all of the pot, and in German this was symbolized by a G for the word gantz (all). If the dreidel lands on a heh, then one gets half of the pot, and this is from the letter H which in German stood for the word halb. The letter nun is from the letter N the first letter in the German word, nisht, which signifies that a person gets nothing if the dreidel lands on a nun. Finally, if the dreidel lands on the letter shin, then one has to put money into the pot, as the shin comes from the letter S, which was the beginning of the German word shtel, put.
This gambling source has been almost completely forgotten, and hence in Israel, most of the dreidels have the letter peh instead of the letter heh to declare that the miracle happened po, here in Israel.
Accordingly, there is no religious significance to playing dreidel on Hanukkah, and instead it is an example of how we copied a non-Jewish gambling game.
The dreidel might also be the source of the custom on Hanukkah of giving Hanukkah gelt (money). Hoenig (1976, p. 268) writes that this custom probably originated in the seventeenth century. He writes that the custom is to give the money to the poor, and he suggests that "maybe it is a carryover from the admonition in the Book of Esther of giving gifts to the poor." Yet, he also notes that the giving of Hanukah gelt became popular since it provided children with money for playing dreidel. Probably this is the true source of the custom, as my understanding is that the Hanukkah gelt goes to the children and not necessarily to the poor.
Bibliography:
Hoenig, Sidney, 1976, A Hanukkah Anthology, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Sidney Hoenig (1976, pp. 264, 265) notes that the world dreidel is from the German dreihen, which means to spin. Furthermore, the sides of the dreidel have four letters, gimmel, nun, shin and heh, and all of these derive from the letters on the spinning tops in Germany. While many are taught that these letters symbolize nes gadol hayah shem, a great miracle happened there, really the letters correspond to the rules of the game. The rules of playing dreidel is that if the dreidel lands on a gimmel, then one gets all of the pot, and in German this was symbolized by a G for the word gantz (all). If the dreidel lands on a heh, then one gets half of the pot, and this is from the letter H which in German stood for the word halb. The letter nun is from the letter N the first letter in the German word, nisht, which signifies that a person gets nothing if the dreidel lands on a nun. Finally, if the dreidel lands on the letter shin, then one has to put money into the pot, as the shin comes from the letter S, which was the beginning of the German word shtel, put.
This gambling source has been almost completely forgotten, and hence in Israel, most of the dreidels have the letter peh instead of the letter heh to declare that the miracle happened po, here in Israel.
Accordingly, there is no religious significance to playing dreidel on Hanukkah, and instead it is an example of how we copied a non-Jewish gambling game.
The dreidel might also be the source of the custom on Hanukkah of giving Hanukkah gelt (money). Hoenig (1976, p. 268) writes that this custom probably originated in the seventeenth century. He writes that the custom is to give the money to the poor, and he suggests that "maybe it is a carryover from the admonition in the Book of Esther of giving gifts to the poor." Yet, he also notes that the giving of Hanukah gelt became popular since it provided children with money for playing dreidel. Probably this is the true source of the custom, as my understanding is that the Hanukkah gelt goes to the children and not necessarily to the poor.
Bibliography:
Hoenig, Sidney, 1976, A Hanukkah Anthology, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Times for lighting Hanukkah candles
The Talmud (Shabbat, 21b) records that one is to light Hanukkah candles from sunset until the time when people stop returning from the market. This statement has led to several arguments concerning the proper time to light the candles and the last time one can light the candles.
The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:5) writes that one is to light the candles at sunset, but if one did not manage to light at sunset then one can light until people finish returning from the market which is around a half hour after sunset. (This time limit of a half an hour comes from the Rif, 1013-1103.) This is the simple reading of the Talmud.
On the other hand, due to Rabbenu Tam’s new definition of when is sunset and ben ha-shemashot (see Arukh Hashulchan 672:4), the Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim, 672) writes that one lights at the end of the sunset, which is usually understood to be when the stars come out, tsetz ha-cochavim, see Mishnah Berurah 672:1. According to Rabbenu Tam’s definitions of sunset and ben ha-shemashot, this would be 72 minutes after sunset. The Shulchan Arukh (672:1) follows the Tur and not the Rambam.
However, by lighting Shabbat candles, the Tur (261) seems to follow the Rambam’s definition of sunset, which is when the sun goes sunder the horizon. The Arukh Hashulchan notes (261:8,672:4) that the common practice in his times is to follow the Rambam’s definition of sunset by lighting Shabbat candles by or prior to sunset but to follow the Tur’s opinion with regard to Hanukkah candles to light when the stars come out. My impression is that in the 21st century this is still the common practice, but most people do not wait 72 minutes after sunset to light Hanukkah candles but rather around twenty minutes after sunset. Why did the Tur follow Rabbenu Tam’s definition of sunset by Hanukkah candles?
Maybe (see Bach, 1561-1640, Poland, on the Tur 672) the Tur’s opinion to light the candles when the stars come out is because this is when the candles will be most visible since by sunset there is still a lot of sunlight. The Rambam would then have to argue that either it is sufficiently dark by sunset to see the lights and/ or that people did not return from the market after the stars come out because it was too dark. According to this latter possibility, one could not light when the stars come out even if it made the lights more visible since there were no people outside to see the lights, and hence one could only light at sunset and the period following sunset.
A different possibility is that the Tur believes that people are still returning from the market even after the stars come out, and then the argument could be about the life style of the people in the time of the Talmud, when did they return from the market, after sunset or after the stars come out? Or, maybe, in the times of the Talmud people returned from the market after sunset and not when the stars came out (like the Rambam), but by the (end of the?) Middle Ages, people went out later in the dark than in the times of the Talmud. Accordingly, the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh would say to light when the stars come out because then the lights would be more visible, and people were still in the streets.
The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:5) writes that one cannot light Hanukkah candles after people are no longer walking in the streets, which is assumed to be a half hour after sunset. This again is the simple reading of the Talmud Shabbat 21b.
The Rambam’s opinion was not accepted in Medieval France. Tosafot (Shabbat 21b, Deei) quotes R. Yosef Poras (Troyes, France, 12th century) that while one should light immediately at night (apparently he means when the stars come out) if one did not, then one lights later out of doubt. Tosafot continues and quotes the Ri (France, 1120-1200) that nowadays one does not have be concerned what time at night one lights since one lights inside for the people in the house and not for the people returning from the market. The Meiri (Provence, 1249-1306, on Shabbat 21b) writes that according to this latter opinion, the “giants of France” allowed the people to light until daybreak, and the practice of the yeshiva students of France was to light after they finished learning.
The Tur (672) attempts to compromise between the opinions of the Ri and the Rambam. He first writes that we do not follow the Rambam and then one can light the whole night. However, he ends by writing that one should be careful not to delay lighting the candles in order that people who are passing by can see the lights. Similarly, the Rama (16th century, Poland, 672:2) first writes that since today people light inside one does not have to be careful when one lights but then he quotes the Maharil (1365-1427, Germany) that still one should try to light at the right time.
R. Yosef Caro (1488-1575, 672:1,2) in the Shulchan Arukh also seems to compromise between the two positions. He first writes that ideally one should light at the end of sunset (when the stars go out), but if one did not light then, then one can light until a half hour after the stars go out. This is the Rambam’s position according to Rabbenu Tam’s definition of when is sunset, but then R. Yosef Caro adds that one can light the whole night, which is the Ri’s opinion.
The Magen Avraham (1637-1683, Poland, 672:6) notes that the Shulchan Arukh did not mention whether one lights with a blessing if one lights after the half hour period. However, he notes that in the Bet Yosef, R, Yosef Caro writes that the Rambam’s opinion is not completed rejected, and hence one would only light after the half hour period based on doubt what is the correct opinion. This implies that according to R. Yosef Caro if one lit after the half hour period then one should not say a blessing on the lighting. The Magen Avraham then conditions the saying of the blessings as to whether there are people awake in the house when one lights. If yes, then one would say the blessings even though one is lighting after the half hour period, but if nobody is awake, then Magen Avraham writes that one should not say the blessings if one lights after the half hour period.
This opinion of the Magen Avraham is quoted by the Mishnah Berurah (1907, 672:11) and the Arukh Hashulchan (672:7), but is difficult. The Mishnah Berurah in the Shaar Tzion (672:17) quotes the Chemed Moshe (R. Gedaliah Moshe b. Tzvi Hirsch) that the Magen Avraham’s opinion implies that if a person lives alone and lights in the house, then he/ she would not recite the blessings, but this is not the accepted practice. Thus, the Chemed Moshe writes that even if everybody in the home is asleep and cannot be woken, still one lights and says the blessings, and the Mishnah Berurah in the Shaar Tzion concludes that one can follow either opinion to say the blessings or not.
It seems to me that the Magen Avraham is contradicting the Rama, as the Rama writes that one does not have to worry about the times, which means that one recites the blessings, and in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh he makes no mention of a need for somebody in the family to be awake. Thus, following the Rama and Chemed Moshe, I would think that if one returns home late from work and everybody is sleeping in the house, then one should light and say the blessings.
In addition, in modern times with the advent of electricity it could be argued that the time period of returning from the market has changed. Today, people are in the streets until late at night (10 PM? 11PM?), and then maybe this period would still be considered within the proper time frame even for the Rambam. If this is true, then if one lights late at night and everybody is asleep in the house but some people still pass in the street, then one should be able to light and say the blessings according to all opinions. Yet, if this change in the definition of when people return from the market is correct, then might create a stringency that the candles should need to burn for the longer time period and not just for a half hour.
A new question in the 21st century, is what if a person lives by him or herself, or other people in the house are sleeping but the person can send a live video of the candles burning. Would this be enough that even the Magen Avraham would agree that the person could light with a blessing? If this is true, then what if the video is sent with a delay? How long a delay?
The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:5) writes that one is to light the candles at sunset, but if one did not manage to light at sunset then one can light until people finish returning from the market which is around a half hour after sunset. (This time limit of a half an hour comes from the Rif, 1013-1103.) This is the simple reading of the Talmud.
On the other hand, due to Rabbenu Tam’s new definition of when is sunset and ben ha-shemashot (see Arukh Hashulchan 672:4), the Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim, 672) writes that one lights at the end of the sunset, which is usually understood to be when the stars come out, tsetz ha-cochavim, see Mishnah Berurah 672:1. According to Rabbenu Tam’s definitions of sunset and ben ha-shemashot, this would be 72 minutes after sunset. The Shulchan Arukh (672:1) follows the Tur and not the Rambam.
However, by lighting Shabbat candles, the Tur (261) seems to follow the Rambam’s definition of sunset, which is when the sun goes sunder the horizon. The Arukh Hashulchan notes (261:8,672:4) that the common practice in his times is to follow the Rambam’s definition of sunset by lighting Shabbat candles by or prior to sunset but to follow the Tur’s opinion with regard to Hanukkah candles to light when the stars come out. My impression is that in the 21st century this is still the common practice, but most people do not wait 72 minutes after sunset to light Hanukkah candles but rather around twenty minutes after sunset. Why did the Tur follow Rabbenu Tam’s definition of sunset by Hanukkah candles?
Maybe (see Bach, 1561-1640, Poland, on the Tur 672) the Tur’s opinion to light the candles when the stars come out is because this is when the candles will be most visible since by sunset there is still a lot of sunlight. The Rambam would then have to argue that either it is sufficiently dark by sunset to see the lights and/ or that people did not return from the market after the stars come out because it was too dark. According to this latter possibility, one could not light when the stars come out even if it made the lights more visible since there were no people outside to see the lights, and hence one could only light at sunset and the period following sunset.
A different possibility is that the Tur believes that people are still returning from the market even after the stars come out, and then the argument could be about the life style of the people in the time of the Talmud, when did they return from the market, after sunset or after the stars come out? Or, maybe, in the times of the Talmud people returned from the market after sunset and not when the stars came out (like the Rambam), but by the (end of the?) Middle Ages, people went out later in the dark than in the times of the Talmud. Accordingly, the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh would say to light when the stars come out because then the lights would be more visible, and people were still in the streets.
A different but related questions is what is the latest time a person can light Hanukkah candles at night?
The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:5) writes that one cannot light Hanukkah candles after people are no longer walking in the streets, which is assumed to be a half hour after sunset. This again is the simple reading of the Talmud Shabbat 21b.
The Rambam’s opinion was not accepted in Medieval France. Tosafot (Shabbat 21b, Deei) quotes R. Yosef Poras (Troyes, France, 12th century) that while one should light immediately at night (apparently he means when the stars come out) if one did not, then one lights later out of doubt. Tosafot continues and quotes the Ri (France, 1120-1200) that nowadays one does not have be concerned what time at night one lights since one lights inside for the people in the house and not for the people returning from the market. The Meiri (Provence, 1249-1306, on Shabbat 21b) writes that according to this latter opinion, the “giants of France” allowed the people to light until daybreak, and the practice of the yeshiva students of France was to light after they finished learning.
The Tur (672) attempts to compromise between the opinions of the Ri and the Rambam. He first writes that we do not follow the Rambam and then one can light the whole night. However, he ends by writing that one should be careful not to delay lighting the candles in order that people who are passing by can see the lights. Similarly, the Rama (16th century, Poland, 672:2) first writes that since today people light inside one does not have to be careful when one lights but then he quotes the Maharil (1365-1427, Germany) that still one should try to light at the right time.
R. Yosef Caro (1488-1575, 672:1,2) in the Shulchan Arukh also seems to compromise between the two positions. He first writes that ideally one should light at the end of sunset (when the stars go out), but if one did not light then, then one can light until a half hour after the stars go out. This is the Rambam’s position according to Rabbenu Tam’s definition of when is sunset, but then R. Yosef Caro adds that one can light the whole night, which is the Ri’s opinion.
The Magen Avraham (1637-1683, Poland, 672:6) notes that the Shulchan Arukh did not mention whether one lights with a blessing if one lights after the half hour period. However, he notes that in the Bet Yosef, R, Yosef Caro writes that the Rambam’s opinion is not completed rejected, and hence one would only light after the half hour period based on doubt what is the correct opinion. This implies that according to R. Yosef Caro if one lit after the half hour period then one should not say a blessing on the lighting. The Magen Avraham then conditions the saying of the blessings as to whether there are people awake in the house when one lights. If yes, then one would say the blessings even though one is lighting after the half hour period, but if nobody is awake, then Magen Avraham writes that one should not say the blessings if one lights after the half hour period.
This opinion of the Magen Avraham is quoted by the Mishnah Berurah (1907, 672:11) and the Arukh Hashulchan (672:7), but is difficult. The Mishnah Berurah in the Shaar Tzion (672:17) quotes the Chemed Moshe (R. Gedaliah Moshe b. Tzvi Hirsch) that the Magen Avraham’s opinion implies that if a person lives alone and lights in the house, then he/ she would not recite the blessings, but this is not the accepted practice. Thus, the Chemed Moshe writes that even if everybody in the home is asleep and cannot be woken, still one lights and says the blessings, and the Mishnah Berurah in the Shaar Tzion concludes that one can follow either opinion to say the blessings or not.
It seems to me that the Magen Avraham is contradicting the Rama, as the Rama writes that one does not have to worry about the times, which means that one recites the blessings, and in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh he makes no mention of a need for somebody in the family to be awake. Thus, following the Rama and Chemed Moshe, I would think that if one returns home late from work and everybody is sleeping in the house, then one should light and say the blessings.
In addition, in modern times with the advent of electricity it could be argued that the time period of returning from the market has changed. Today, people are in the streets until late at night (10 PM? 11PM?), and then maybe this period would still be considered within the proper time frame even for the Rambam. If this is true, then if one lights late at night and everybody is asleep in the house but some people still pass in the street, then one should be able to light and say the blessings according to all opinions. Yet, if this change in the definition of when people return from the market is correct, then might create a stringency that the candles should need to burn for the longer time period and not just for a half hour.
A new question in the 21st century, is what if a person lives by him or herself, or other people in the house are sleeping but the person can send a live video of the candles burning. Would this be enough that even the Magen Avraham would agree that the person could light with a blessing? If this is true, then what if the video is sent with a delay? How long a delay?
How many lights to light on each night of Hanukkah?
The Talmud (Shabbat 21b) records that the basic obligation to light Hanukkah candles is to light one candle each night. The Talmud adds that a better approach is to light per the number of people in the house, and that an even better approach is to change the number of candles each night. Within this third possibility, there is an argument between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel and we follow Bet Hillel to start with one candle and to add a candle each night.
R. Zevin (1956, p. 165) notes that this double possibility of doing more than the basic requirement is unique in Jewish law. For example, we do not have that a law that a person can read six chapters of Megillat Esther, and better to read eight chapters and even better to read ten chapters. Why did Chazal institute a three level possibility of fulfilling the law of lighting candles on Hanukkah? Maybe Chazal was concerned how much money it would cost people to light Hanukkah candles. Accordingly, they set the minimum amount was just one light/ candle, and then if people had more money, then they could light more lights/ candles.
There is an interesting argument amongst the medieval commentators as to the relationship between the three approaches mentioned in the Talmud. The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:2) understands that the third approach builds upon the second approach, and hence the preferred method of lighting candles is to light based on the number of people in the house times the number of nights. This would seem to be the simple reading of the Talmud.
However, Tosafot (Ve-Hamehadrin on the Talmud) quotes the Ri that the Rambam’s opinion is confusing since a person looking at the candles will not know which day of Hanukkah it is from the number of candles. For example, a family of four on the fourth night lights 16 candles according to the Rambam, but a person looking at the candles, might think that it was the second night of Hanukkah and there were eight people in the family, or that it was the eighth night of Hanukkah and there were two people in the family. Thus, the Ri maintained that a family should light just based on the number of nights and not based on the number of people in the house. Maybe according to the Rambam it was not important if people outside could figure out the number of nights from the candles as long as the people who did the lighting knew what was correct night.
According to the Ri, there is no connection between the second and third approaches in the Talmud. The third approach builds upon the basic obligation of one candle, and apparently it is preferred to add more lights based on the number of nights (the third approach) than based on the number of people in the house (the second approach).
Which is the accepted opinion? The Rambam (12th century, Laws of Hanukkah 4:3) notes that his opinion is not the accepted opinion since the practice amongst Sefardim was to light just based on the number of nights and not family members. The Maggid Mishnah (14th century, Spain) in his comments on the Rambam, writes that this was the custom in his time as well. The Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim, 671) writes that one lights according to the number of nights as argued by the Ri, and that even if there are many people in the house one should not light more candles. The Bet Yosef (1488-1575) in his comments on the Tur writes that the practice is to light according to the number of nights, and he quotes this opinion in the Shulchan Arukh (671:2).
We see that in the Middle Ages, amongst Sefardim the accepted opinion was the Ri’s and not the Rambam’s, and this has remained until today. (The Taz notes that this is unusual, though not unique, see Zevin, 1956, p. 166 footnote 15.) Furthermore, the fact that the Tur, who was well aware of Ashkenazi practice, did not mention that Ashkenazim lit according to the number of people and nights, implies that in the Middle Ages the Ashkenazim also accepted the Ri’s opinion.
Ashkenazi practice changed apparently around the time of the Rama (16th century, Poland, 671:2) who wrote that the common practice amongst Ashkenazim was for everybody in the house to light and this was in addition to lighting extra candles each night. Why did Ashkenazim change their custom? Maybe it was due to Ashkenazim lighting the Hanukkah candles inside. The Rama in his comments on the Tur, the Darkei Moshe, quotes, maybe the Maharal of Prague (1520-1609), that since people light indoors they can light more candles than the number of nights for two reasons. One, within the house everybody knows the number of people so they can determine which night of Hanukkah is by looking at the candles, and two when lighting in the house everybody can light in a different area. The Rama in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh quotes this second rationale, but my own experience is that families light in the same place even when lighting inside. Another possible reason for the change in the custom is maybe the Rama felt that Ashkenazi Jewry was sufficiently wealthy and/ or that the price of candles had decreased which could allow people to light more candles. Also, by lighting candles on Friday night, the Rama (Orah Chayyim 263:1) added the number of candles to be lit, which could be for the same reason.
In the printed Shulchan Arukh, by the Rama’s ruling, in parenthesis it is written that the Rama is following the Rambam, but, as noted by the Arukh Hashulchan (19th century, 671:9,15), this is not true. According to the Rambam, the number of people includes the wife, but I think the common practice among Ashkenazim was/is (?) that the wife does not light (see Mishnah Berurah 671:9), though I know families where the wide does light separately. In addition, while the Rama follows the Rambam with regard to the number of candles or lights to be put on the Hanukiyah, according to the Rambam only the head of household lit all the candles, while according to the Rama, each person in the family lights. (The Arukh Hashulchan even quotes an opinion that it is a bracha le-vatalah when more than one person in a household lights and says a blessing.)
Accordingly, the common Ashkenazi practice today of having many people light in one house, which follows the Rama, is a variation on the Rambam’s opinion. From the perspective of the family, the family is basically following the Rambam’s opinion since in total the number of candles lit in the house approximately equals the number of people times the number of nights (not counting the wife, if she does not light). However, from the individual perspective, the person is following the Ri’s opinion to light one more candle for each night, though according to the Ri only one person in the family should light.
To summarize, if a person lives by him or herself, and adds one candle per night, then he/ she is fulfilling both the Rambam’s and the Ri’s opinion. With regard to a couple, if only one person lights and adds one candle each night, then they are following the Ri and not the Rambam since according to the Rambam they need to light two times the number of nights. With regard to a family of four, where the husband and children light, then they are following neither the Rambam (who said that one person should light 16 candles) nor the Ri (who said that one person should light four candles), and they should light in different areas. If they light in the same place, then they are relying on the Maharal’s logic, that the people in the house who know how many people lit candles will know what day of Hanukkah it is.
Bibliography:
Zevin, Shlomo Yosef (1890-1978), 1944, first edition, 1956, seventh edition, Ha-Mo'adim ba- Halakhah, Jerusalem.
R. Zevin (1956, p. 165) notes that this double possibility of doing more than the basic requirement is unique in Jewish law. For example, we do not have that a law that a person can read six chapters of Megillat Esther, and better to read eight chapters and even better to read ten chapters. Why did Chazal institute a three level possibility of fulfilling the law of lighting candles on Hanukkah? Maybe Chazal was concerned how much money it would cost people to light Hanukkah candles. Accordingly, they set the minimum amount was just one light/ candle, and then if people had more money, then they could light more lights/ candles.
There is an interesting argument amongst the medieval commentators as to the relationship between the three approaches mentioned in the Talmud. The Rambam (Laws of Hanukkah 4:2) understands that the third approach builds upon the second approach, and hence the preferred method of lighting candles is to light based on the number of people in the house times the number of nights. This would seem to be the simple reading of the Talmud.
However, Tosafot (Ve-Hamehadrin on the Talmud) quotes the Ri that the Rambam’s opinion is confusing since a person looking at the candles will not know which day of Hanukkah it is from the number of candles. For example, a family of four on the fourth night lights 16 candles according to the Rambam, but a person looking at the candles, might think that it was the second night of Hanukkah and there were eight people in the family, or that it was the eighth night of Hanukkah and there were two people in the family. Thus, the Ri maintained that a family should light just based on the number of nights and not based on the number of people in the house. Maybe according to the Rambam it was not important if people outside could figure out the number of nights from the candles as long as the people who did the lighting knew what was correct night.
According to the Ri, there is no connection between the second and third approaches in the Talmud. The third approach builds upon the basic obligation of one candle, and apparently it is preferred to add more lights based on the number of nights (the third approach) than based on the number of people in the house (the second approach).
Which is the accepted opinion? The Rambam (12th century, Laws of Hanukkah 4:3) notes that his opinion is not the accepted opinion since the practice amongst Sefardim was to light just based on the number of nights and not family members. The Maggid Mishnah (14th century, Spain) in his comments on the Rambam, writes that this was the custom in his time as well. The Tur (1275-1340, Orah Chayyim, 671) writes that one lights according to the number of nights as argued by the Ri, and that even if there are many people in the house one should not light more candles. The Bet Yosef (1488-1575) in his comments on the Tur writes that the practice is to light according to the number of nights, and he quotes this opinion in the Shulchan Arukh (671:2).
We see that in the Middle Ages, amongst Sefardim the accepted opinion was the Ri’s and not the Rambam’s, and this has remained until today. (The Taz notes that this is unusual, though not unique, see Zevin, 1956, p. 166 footnote 15.) Furthermore, the fact that the Tur, who was well aware of Ashkenazi practice, did not mention that Ashkenazim lit according to the number of people and nights, implies that in the Middle Ages the Ashkenazim also accepted the Ri’s opinion.
Ashkenazi practice changed apparently around the time of the Rama (16th century, Poland, 671:2) who wrote that the common practice amongst Ashkenazim was for everybody in the house to light and this was in addition to lighting extra candles each night. Why did Ashkenazim change their custom? Maybe it was due to Ashkenazim lighting the Hanukkah candles inside. The Rama in his comments on the Tur, the Darkei Moshe, quotes, maybe the Maharal of Prague (1520-1609), that since people light indoors they can light more candles than the number of nights for two reasons. One, within the house everybody knows the number of people so they can determine which night of Hanukkah is by looking at the candles, and two when lighting in the house everybody can light in a different area. The Rama in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh quotes this second rationale, but my own experience is that families light in the same place even when lighting inside. Another possible reason for the change in the custom is maybe the Rama felt that Ashkenazi Jewry was sufficiently wealthy and/ or that the price of candles had decreased which could allow people to light more candles. Also, by lighting candles on Friday night, the Rama (Orah Chayyim 263:1) added the number of candles to be lit, which could be for the same reason.
In the printed Shulchan Arukh, by the Rama’s ruling, in parenthesis it is written that the Rama is following the Rambam, but, as noted by the Arukh Hashulchan (19th century, 671:9,15), this is not true. According to the Rambam, the number of people includes the wife, but I think the common practice among Ashkenazim was/is (?) that the wife does not light (see Mishnah Berurah 671:9), though I know families where the wide does light separately. In addition, while the Rama follows the Rambam with regard to the number of candles or lights to be put on the Hanukiyah, according to the Rambam only the head of household lit all the candles, while according to the Rama, each person in the family lights. (The Arukh Hashulchan even quotes an opinion that it is a bracha le-vatalah when more than one person in a household lights and says a blessing.)
Accordingly, the common Ashkenazi practice today of having many people light in one house, which follows the Rama, is a variation on the Rambam’s opinion. From the perspective of the family, the family is basically following the Rambam’s opinion since in total the number of candles lit in the house approximately equals the number of people times the number of nights (not counting the wife, if she does not light). However, from the individual perspective, the person is following the Ri’s opinion to light one more candle for each night, though according to the Ri only one person in the family should light.
To summarize, if a person lives by him or herself, and adds one candle per night, then he/ she is fulfilling both the Rambam’s and the Ri’s opinion. With regard to a couple, if only one person lights and adds one candle each night, then they are following the Ri and not the Rambam since according to the Rambam they need to light two times the number of nights. With regard to a family of four, where the husband and children light, then they are following neither the Rambam (who said that one person should light 16 candles) nor the Ri (who said that one person should light four candles), and they should light in different areas. If they light in the same place, then they are relying on the Maharal’s logic, that the people in the house who know how many people lit candles will know what day of Hanukkah it is.
Bibliography:
Zevin, Shlomo Yosef (1890-1978), 1944, first edition, 1956, seventh edition, Ha-Mo'adim ba- Halakhah, Jerusalem.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Bereshit 32:29 (Va-yishlach)- The name Yisrael
Bereshit 32:29 records that the assailant in the fight with Yaakov changed Yaakov's name to Yisrael, based on the idea that "you (Yaakov) fought with Elokim and men and have prevailed." What does the name Yisrael mean?
The name seems to have something do to with fighting since the second and third letters in the name Yisrael (in Hebrew), "sr" are the same letters in the word for fighting in the explanation of the name. Furthermore, the last two letters of the name Yisrael, "el" refers to G-d, so there must be some connection with G-d.
The Radak (on 32:29) explains that the reference to Elokim in the explanation of the name is to the angel that Yaakov was fighting, and then the name Yisrael could mean to fight with G-d. This explanation is difficult for three reasons. One, as we discussed on 32:25-31, 33:10, "Who fought with Yaakov?" the assailant was Esav, and then Yaakov did not fight with G-d or an angel. (One could answer this question by claiming that Esav referred to fighting with an angel since as part of his deception he wanted to give Yaakov the impression that Yaakov was fighting with an angel.) Two, the name indicates chutzpah that a person is fighting with G-d. (One could partially answer this question by following Onkelos that the name Yisrael means that Yaakov had become mighty before G-d and not to fighting with G-d.) Three, as pointed by Altar (2004, p. 181) in names that ends with "el," usually G-d is the subject and not the object. For example, the name Yishmael, 16:11, means G-d hears or G-d will hear.
A second possibility is that the name Yisrael means, "G-d fights," see Fox, 1995, p. 155. Yet, what then is the connection of this name to the fight between Esav and Yaakov? Also, if the name is G-d fights, then one would expect G-d to win, while here Yaakov wins and not Elokim. One could claim that the term Elokim in the explanation of the name does not refer to G-d, but then there is even less connection to the incident here.
The more likely possibility is that name Yisrael means "G-d rules" or "G-d will rule." (Fox, 1995, p. 155 quotes this explanation from Buber, and Alter 1004, p. 181, follows this idea.) The idea being that fighting and ruling are related terms since usually the rulers of an area are people willing to fight, and the term sar in Hebrew means a ruler, as for example in Shemot 2:14. What then is the connection of the name Yisrael with this episode? Before suggesting an answer, we need to explain the explanation of the name, that "you fought with Elokim and people and prevailed."
A similar verse to 32:29 is 30:8 by Rahel's naming of Naftali (see Andersen, 1969, p. 200) raises an analogous question. In 30:8, Rahel said "I struggled with G-d (Elokim), struggled with my sister and I have prevailed." Both verses refer to struggling or fighting with G-d and other people and a person prevailing in the struggle. J.P. Fokkelman (1991, pp. 132-141) has also noted that Yaakov's fight with Esav is parallel to Rahel's fight with Lea, that both were the younger sibling fighting the older sibling. In 32:29 it is Yaakov who prevailed over Esav, while in 30:8 it is Rahel who believed that she prevailed over Lea. Yet, what can it mean in 30:8 that Rahel struggled with G-d? Rahel had a fight with Yaakov not with G-d, 30:1.
The phrase "Elokim and people" in 32:29 and by 30:8 means the natural order. Rahel was saying that she fought with the natural order, meaning she fought that the younger sister should prevail over the older sister. Similarly, Esav was saying that Yaakov fought with the natural order that the older brother should not dominate the younger brother, see our discussion on 25:29-34, "Code red".
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Andersen, Francis, 1969, Note on Genesis 30:8, Journal of Biblical Literature, 88:2, June 1969, p. 200.
Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
The name seems to have something do to with fighting since the second and third letters in the name Yisrael (in Hebrew), "sr" are the same letters in the word for fighting in the explanation of the name. Furthermore, the last two letters of the name Yisrael, "el" refers to G-d, so there must be some connection with G-d.
The Radak (on 32:29) explains that the reference to Elokim in the explanation of the name is to the angel that Yaakov was fighting, and then the name Yisrael could mean to fight with G-d. This explanation is difficult for three reasons. One, as we discussed on 32:25-31, 33:10, "Who fought with Yaakov?" the assailant was Esav, and then Yaakov did not fight with G-d or an angel. (One could answer this question by claiming that Esav referred to fighting with an angel since as part of his deception he wanted to give Yaakov the impression that Yaakov was fighting with an angel.) Two, the name indicates chutzpah that a person is fighting with G-d. (One could partially answer this question by following Onkelos that the name Yisrael means that Yaakov had become mighty before G-d and not to fighting with G-d.) Three, as pointed by Altar (2004, p. 181) in names that ends with "el," usually G-d is the subject and not the object. For example, the name Yishmael, 16:11, means G-d hears or G-d will hear.
A second possibility is that the name Yisrael means, "G-d fights," see Fox, 1995, p. 155. Yet, what then is the connection of this name to the fight between Esav and Yaakov? Also, if the name is G-d fights, then one would expect G-d to win, while here Yaakov wins and not Elokim. One could claim that the term Elokim in the explanation of the name does not refer to G-d, but then there is even less connection to the incident here.
The more likely possibility is that name Yisrael means "G-d rules" or "G-d will rule." (Fox, 1995, p. 155 quotes this explanation from Buber, and Alter 1004, p. 181, follows this idea.) The idea being that fighting and ruling are related terms since usually the rulers of an area are people willing to fight, and the term sar in Hebrew means a ruler, as for example in Shemot 2:14. What then is the connection of the name Yisrael with this episode? Before suggesting an answer, we need to explain the explanation of the name, that "you fought with Elokim and people and prevailed."
A similar verse to 32:29 is 30:8 by Rahel's naming of Naftali (see Andersen, 1969, p. 200) raises an analogous question. In 30:8, Rahel said "I struggled with G-d (Elokim), struggled with my sister and I have prevailed." Both verses refer to struggling or fighting with G-d and other people and a person prevailing in the struggle. J.P. Fokkelman (1991, pp. 132-141) has also noted that Yaakov's fight with Esav is parallel to Rahel's fight with Lea, that both were the younger sibling fighting the older sibling. In 32:29 it is Yaakov who prevailed over Esav, while in 30:8 it is Rahel who believed that she prevailed over Lea. Yet, what can it mean in 30:8 that Rahel struggled with G-d? Rahel had a fight with Yaakov not with G-d, 30:1.
The phrase "Elokim and people" in 32:29 and by 30:8 means the natural order. Rahel was saying that she fought with the natural order, meaning she fought that the younger sister should prevail over the older sister. Similarly, Esav was saying that Yaakov fought with the natural order that the older brother should not dominate the younger brother, see our discussion on 25:29-34, "Code red".
Accordingly, in the explanation of the name Esav was acknowledging Yaakov's victory over the natural order, that the younger brother was stronger than the older brother, but the name Yisrael was to bring Yaakov down to negate his victory. Esav wanted Yisrael to know that really G-d rules so he gave him the new name of Yisrael.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Andersen, Francis, 1969, Note on Genesis 30:8, Journal of Biblical Literature, 88:2, June 1969, p. 200.
Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Bereshit 32:25-31 (Va-yishlach) - Who fought with Yaakov?
Bereshit 32:25 records that on the night before Yaakov met Esav, Yaakov wrestled with a mysterious assailant, 32:25,36. The assailant asked Yaakov to let him leave as the dawn was breaking, and Yaakov agreed after the assailant changed his name to Yisrael and blessed him, 32:27-30. Who was the assailant? It is very unlikely that it was a stranger trying to rob or murder Yaakov because we would not expect such an event to be recorded in the Torah. Furthermore, if it was a stranger, then it was very coincidental that Yaakov happened to have been attacked the night before he was to meet Esav. Also, why would a stranger want to change Yaakov’s name? It must be that the assailant was not a stranger, but who?
Rashi (on 32:25) quotes R. Hama ben R. Hanina (Bereshit Rabbah 77:3) that the assailant was the guardian angel of Esav, and apparently he wanted to kill Yaakov. Rashi (on 32:27) quotes from the Talmud (Hullin 91b and Bereshit Rabbah 78:2) that the angel had to leave at daybreak since he had to sing G-d's praises at daytime. While I believe this is the most popular explanation for the identity of the assailant, it is a difficult approach. First, it is odd that Yaakov would be able to defeat an angel in battle. (A popular answer to this question is that the fight was really a dream, see Rambam, Moreh 2:42, but this answer is difficult since the Torah never states that the fight was a dream and 32:32 records that Yaakov was wounded from the fight.) Second, it is even odder that an angel had the free will to attack and wound Yaakov, but had to be singing the praises of G-d at daybreak. How do we know that all angels have to sing praises to G-d in the morning? It is very coincidental that the angel just happened to have to sing praises to G-d that morning. Thirdly, how do we know that guardian angels exist and that each person has one? Fourth, 32:25 specifically states that the assailant was a person, and the Torah never refers to the assailant as an angel.
A variation of the angel approach is that the assailant was not Esav’s guardian angel, but a different angel sent by G-d. There are several versions to this approach. The Rashbam (on 32:25, quoted by Hizkuni on 32:25) suggests that Yaakov was really trying to run away that night in order not to meet Esav, so the angel was to stop Yaakov from running away. N. Leibowitz (1976, p. 367) rejects this approach because it implies that Yaakov lost the struggle with the angel since he was unable to run away, but Yaakov was victorious in the battle. Radak (on 32:26), who is equivocal if the fight occurred or was a dream, suggests that in either event Yaakov's limping was because Yaakov was being punished for calling Esav his master, and for not showing enough trust in G-d. This also seems difficult since again according to this idea the angel was successful and Yaakov was being duly punished, while the text seems to indicate that Yaakov prevailed over the angel.
I believe that Yaakov fought with Esav. (I first made this argument in Schein, 1989, and afterwards, Jack Miles, 1995, made a similar argument.) In 32:25, the Torah records that the assailant was a man, and the most logical person was Esav. We know that Esav was in the area with Yaakov since he met Yaakov the following morning and that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov, 27:41. This fight at night was the conclusion of the fighting between the brothers that had begun in utero, 25:22. Kass (2003, p. 456) notes, “the struggle reminds us of the struggle in the darkness within Rivka’s womb (for example, the tenacious hold of Yaakov) and Yaakov’s renaming here appears to be a second birth.” Eric Sommers (personal correspondence) notes the parallelism between the fighting in the womb and here, as there Yaakov failed to hold back Esav, while here Yaakov succeeded in holding back Esav.
For Esav, this fight was personal and it had to be Esav, and Esav alone who fought with Yaakov. Esav attacked Yaakov at night because he thought he could surprise Yaakov, and if he succeeded, nobody would know that he was the murderer. (See our discussion on 27:41, "An alibi?") However, Yaakov was strong (see 29:10) and was able to hold off Esav's attacks. Thus, Esav hit Yaakov “below the belt,” but even that did not help him, 32:26. When Esav grasped that he could not overpower/ kill Yaakov, then he had a problem since Yaakov would recognize him in the daylight and he was supposed to officially meet Yaakov in the morning. (Yaakov did not recognize Esav because it was dark and it had been 20 years since he had been home.) Thus when the dawn was breaking, Esav asked Yaakov to release him, 32:27. However, Yaakov would not agree until Esav blessed him, 32:27. Possibly, Yaakov asked for a blessing to indicate that he had prevailed in the fight or maybe Yaakov wanted a blessing to portend to his success the following day with Esav. (Is this request for a blessing similar to Yaakov's request for Esav to swear by the selling of the soup for the birthright, 25:33?)
Esav responded by asking Yaakov his name and then giving him a new name, Yisrael, 32:28,29. Why did Esav give Yaakov a new name? Yaakov had asked for a blessing, which Esav gave in 32:30, but why did Esav feel a need to also give Yaakov a new name? The answer is that when Esav heard that Yaakov had stolen the blessings, he said, "This is why he was called Yaakov since he twice tricked me," 27:36. Esav had connected the name Yaakov with the theft of the blessings and he did not want to give a blessing to Yaakov. Hence, he changed Yaakov’s name to Yisrael, and his blessing was then to Yisrael and not to Yaakov. In addition, the name was meant as a lesson to Yaakov, see our discussion on 32:29 (and 30:8), "The name Yisrael."
Yaakov was amazed by this new name and he asked the assailant for his name, 32:30. Esav refused to tell Yaakov his name in order to keep his identity a secret, but then he blessed Yaakov, as Yaakov had demanded in 32:27, and apparently Yaakov let him go, 32:30.
With the change of name, Esav's explanation of the new name, "you strove with Elokim and people, and prevailed," 32:29, and the blessing, Esav was indicating that he agreed that Yaakov was the brother who was to be blessed. Rabbi Carmy, one of my professors in YU, noted that based on this approach there is parallelism between the giving of the blessings and Esav's agreement to the blessings. When Yitzhak gave the blessings, he did not know that Yaakov was receiving the blessings, while when Yaakov attained Esav's blessing, Yaakov did not know who was giving him the blessing.
Yaakov, who knew that the change of name had special meaning and that the end of the name Yisrael included G-d's name, "el", concluded that his assailant had been a divine being. Thus, he named the place of the encounter, Peniel, for “I have seen G-d, face to face, and survived," 32:31. Yaakov's assessment of the assailant accords with his previous experiences that G-d had appeared to him in the middle of the night, 28:13 and 31:11.
The following day, Yaakov met Esav officially, and he said "For I have seen your face, as one sees the face of G-d, and you have been gracious to me," 33:10. Sarna (1989, p. 230) notes that this verse seems to refer back to the incident in the previous night since Yaakov again refers to seeing G-d’s face as he claimed to have done the previous night, 32:31. What is the connection? Rashi, (on 33:10) based on Bereshit Rabbah 77:3, explains that Yaakov was saying that seeing Esav’s face was equivalent to seeing the face of Esav's guardian angel. Yet, how would Esav know that Yaakov was talking about his guardian angel? Did Esav know that his guardian angel fought with Yaakov? Do guardian angels look like the person they are guarding?
A simpler idea is that when Yaakov met Esav in the morning he realized that he had fought with Esav the previous night. Yaakov was saying I saw your face but I thought that I had seen the face of G-d. Yaakov continued and said "you were gracious to me" meaning that Yaakov was recalling how Esav had agreed to bless Yaakov. Furthermore, once Yaakov realized that the change of name had come from Esav, then while he still thought it was significant that Esav said it, see 33:20, he would naturally wonder if he should use a name from his brother, so G-d later would re-affirm the change of name, 35:10.
In conclusion, I believe that Yaakov fought with Esav. Yaakov thought that he was fighting with a divine being after he heard the change of name to Yisrael, but on the following day when he met Esav he realized that Esav had been his opponent.
Bibliography:
Kass, Leon, 2003, The Beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Miles, Jack, 1995, God: A Biography, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Schein, Andrew, 1989, Who fought with Yaakov? Rinat Yitzhak, pp. 89-92.
Rashi (on 32:25) quotes R. Hama ben R. Hanina (Bereshit Rabbah 77:3) that the assailant was the guardian angel of Esav, and apparently he wanted to kill Yaakov. Rashi (on 32:27) quotes from the Talmud (Hullin 91b and Bereshit Rabbah 78:2) that the angel had to leave at daybreak since he had to sing G-d's praises at daytime. While I believe this is the most popular explanation for the identity of the assailant, it is a difficult approach. First, it is odd that Yaakov would be able to defeat an angel in battle. (A popular answer to this question is that the fight was really a dream, see Rambam, Moreh 2:42, but this answer is difficult since the Torah never states that the fight was a dream and 32:32 records that Yaakov was wounded from the fight.) Second, it is even odder that an angel had the free will to attack and wound Yaakov, but had to be singing the praises of G-d at daybreak. How do we know that all angels have to sing praises to G-d in the morning? It is very coincidental that the angel just happened to have to sing praises to G-d that morning. Thirdly, how do we know that guardian angels exist and that each person has one? Fourth, 32:25 specifically states that the assailant was a person, and the Torah never refers to the assailant as an angel.
A variation of the angel approach is that the assailant was not Esav’s guardian angel, but a different angel sent by G-d. There are several versions to this approach. The Rashbam (on 32:25, quoted by Hizkuni on 32:25) suggests that Yaakov was really trying to run away that night in order not to meet Esav, so the angel was to stop Yaakov from running away. N. Leibowitz (1976, p. 367) rejects this approach because it implies that Yaakov lost the struggle with the angel since he was unable to run away, but Yaakov was victorious in the battle. Radak (on 32:26), who is equivocal if the fight occurred or was a dream, suggests that in either event Yaakov's limping was because Yaakov was being punished for calling Esav his master, and for not showing enough trust in G-d. This also seems difficult since again according to this idea the angel was successful and Yaakov was being duly punished, while the text seems to indicate that Yaakov prevailed over the angel.
I believe that Yaakov fought with Esav. (I first made this argument in Schein, 1989, and afterwards, Jack Miles, 1995, made a similar argument.) In 32:25, the Torah records that the assailant was a man, and the most logical person was Esav. We know that Esav was in the area with Yaakov since he met Yaakov the following morning and that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov, 27:41. This fight at night was the conclusion of the fighting between the brothers that had begun in utero, 25:22. Kass (2003, p. 456) notes, “the struggle reminds us of the struggle in the darkness within Rivka’s womb (for example, the tenacious hold of Yaakov) and Yaakov’s renaming here appears to be a second birth.” Eric Sommers (personal correspondence) notes the parallelism between the fighting in the womb and here, as there Yaakov failed to hold back Esav, while here Yaakov succeeded in holding back Esav.
For Esav, this fight was personal and it had to be Esav, and Esav alone who fought with Yaakov. Esav attacked Yaakov at night because he thought he could surprise Yaakov, and if he succeeded, nobody would know that he was the murderer. (See our discussion on 27:41, "An alibi?") However, Yaakov was strong (see 29:10) and was able to hold off Esav's attacks. Thus, Esav hit Yaakov “below the belt,” but even that did not help him, 32:26. When Esav grasped that he could not overpower/ kill Yaakov, then he had a problem since Yaakov would recognize him in the daylight and he was supposed to officially meet Yaakov in the morning. (Yaakov did not recognize Esav because it was dark and it had been 20 years since he had been home.) Thus when the dawn was breaking, Esav asked Yaakov to release him, 32:27. However, Yaakov would not agree until Esav blessed him, 32:27. Possibly, Yaakov asked for a blessing to indicate that he had prevailed in the fight or maybe Yaakov wanted a blessing to portend to his success the following day with Esav. (Is this request for a blessing similar to Yaakov's request for Esav to swear by the selling of the soup for the birthright, 25:33?)
Esav responded by asking Yaakov his name and then giving him a new name, Yisrael, 32:28,29. Why did Esav give Yaakov a new name? Yaakov had asked for a blessing, which Esav gave in 32:30, but why did Esav feel a need to also give Yaakov a new name? The answer is that when Esav heard that Yaakov had stolen the blessings, he said, "This is why he was called Yaakov since he twice tricked me," 27:36. Esav had connected the name Yaakov with the theft of the blessings and he did not want to give a blessing to Yaakov. Hence, he changed Yaakov’s name to Yisrael, and his blessing was then to Yisrael and not to Yaakov. In addition, the name was meant as a lesson to Yaakov, see our discussion on 32:29 (and 30:8), "The name Yisrael."
Yaakov was amazed by this new name and he asked the assailant for his name, 32:30. Esav refused to tell Yaakov his name in order to keep his identity a secret, but then he blessed Yaakov, as Yaakov had demanded in 32:27, and apparently Yaakov let him go, 32:30.
With the change of name, Esav's explanation of the new name, "you strove with Elokim and people, and prevailed," 32:29, and the blessing, Esav was indicating that he agreed that Yaakov was the brother who was to be blessed. Rabbi Carmy, one of my professors in YU, noted that based on this approach there is parallelism between the giving of the blessings and Esav's agreement to the blessings. When Yitzhak gave the blessings, he did not know that Yaakov was receiving the blessings, while when Yaakov attained Esav's blessing, Yaakov did not know who was giving him the blessing.
Yaakov, who knew that the change of name had special meaning and that the end of the name Yisrael included G-d's name, "el", concluded that his assailant had been a divine being. Thus, he named the place of the encounter, Peniel, for “I have seen G-d, face to face, and survived," 32:31. Yaakov's assessment of the assailant accords with his previous experiences that G-d had appeared to him in the middle of the night, 28:13 and 31:11.
The following day, Yaakov met Esav officially, and he said "For I have seen your face, as one sees the face of G-d, and you have been gracious to me," 33:10. Sarna (1989, p. 230) notes that this verse seems to refer back to the incident in the previous night since Yaakov again refers to seeing G-d’s face as he claimed to have done the previous night, 32:31. What is the connection? Rashi, (on 33:10) based on Bereshit Rabbah 77:3, explains that Yaakov was saying that seeing Esav’s face was equivalent to seeing the face of Esav's guardian angel. Yet, how would Esav know that Yaakov was talking about his guardian angel? Did Esav know that his guardian angel fought with Yaakov? Do guardian angels look like the person they are guarding?
A simpler idea is that when Yaakov met Esav in the morning he realized that he had fought with Esav the previous night. Yaakov was saying I saw your face but I thought that I had seen the face of G-d. Yaakov continued and said "you were gracious to me" meaning that Yaakov was recalling how Esav had agreed to bless Yaakov. Furthermore, once Yaakov realized that the change of name had come from Esav, then while he still thought it was significant that Esav said it, see 33:20, he would naturally wonder if he should use a name from his brother, so G-d later would re-affirm the change of name, 35:10.
In conclusion, I believe that Yaakov fought with Esav. Yaakov thought that he was fighting with a divine being after he heard the change of name to Yisrael, but on the following day when he met Esav he realized that Esav had been his opponent.
Kass, Leon, 2003, The Beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Miles, Jack, 1995, God: A Biography, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Inc.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
Schein, Andrew, 1989, Who fought with Yaakov? Rinat Yitzhak, pp. 89-92.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)