Bereshit 48:8 (Va-yehi) – Yaakov and his grandchildren: Who are you?

Bereshit 48:1 records that when Yaakov was dying, Yosef and his grandchildren, Efrayim and Menashe, went to visit Yaakov, but when Yaakov saw his grandchildren, 48:8, he asked, "who are they?" This question is surprising. While Yaakov had not been told that Efrayim and Menashe had accompanied Yosef, still how come he did not recognize his grandchildren after having presumably seen them many times during the 17 years he was in Egypt? Could it be that they had very rarely visited their grandfather, and hence Yaakov did not recognize them?  While this is definitely possible, we will review other possibilities to explain why Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren.

One approach to understanding Yaakov's question is that Yaakov did not recognize Efrayim and Menashe since he had poor vision, as recorded in 48:10. Ibn Ezra and Rashbam (on 48:8) suggest that due to his poor vision he saw their figures but not clearly enough to identify them. Yet, later on when Yaakov placed his hands on their heads he was able to identify them, 48:19. Radak (on 48:8) suggests that Yaakov could not identify Efrayim and Menashe since they were initially standing far away from him (nearsightedness?), while later they were close to him and then he could recognize them. However, this approach is difficult since the Torah tells us that Yaakov had poor vision after Yaakov asked his question, “who are they?” which implies that Yaakov’s lack of recognition of his grandchildren was not due to his poor eyesight. 

A second approach is that Yaakov knew who they were but the question was part of a formal process of establishing their identity. Yehuda Keel (2003, on 48:8) quotes R. Samuel ben Hophni Gaon (d. 1013) that maybe the question was an opening to a conversation or a confirmation, though it is not clear what was the need for an opening to a conversation or a confirmation. 

Sarna (1989, p. 326) follows this approach and the idea that Yaakov was adopting Efrayim and Menashe. He suggests that the question "who are they" was “the second stage of the legal adoptive process, namely the establishment of the true identity of the candidates for adoption by formal interrogation of the natural father.” Sarna refers to this act as the second stage since Yaakov had already began the “adoption” process (48:5,6) before he asked the question “who are they?” Yet, one would have thought that if the question was to establish the identity of the people being adopted, then this question would have been asked at the beginning of the process and not in the second stage. However, maybe one can argue that the official adoption did not begin until 48:10. Another problem with Sarna’s approach is that Yaakov began the “adoption” process without knowing that Efrayim and Menashe were present in the room since he did not call for Efrayim and Menashe to come to him. It appears that Yaakov did not think they had to be present when they were being adopted. This suggests that there was no need to establish their identity through this question, but rather Yaakov was able to adopt them without them being present and it was sufficient for Yaakov to refer to them as Yosef’s sons, as he did in 48:5. 

Samuel Dresner (1994, p. 140) suggests a third approach that Yaakov did not recognize his grandchildren since he had just mentioned Rahel, which caused him to focus on his memories for her and be unaware of the people around him. This makes sense since Yaakov’s question concerning his grandchildren, 48:8, occurs immediately after Yaakov referred to Rahel, 48:7. Yet, why did he not notice Menashe and Efrayim before he spoke about Rahel? One must explain not only why Yaakov did not recognize them but also why he did not ask who they were immediately when they entered the room.

Following the Radak, it appears that Yaakov could only see at very short distances, and then Yaakov did not immediately see Efrayim and Menashe, even as vague forms, when they entered his room because they were standing at a distance beyond his field of vision and only Yosef had approached Yaakov when all three entered the room. 

Afterwards, when they heard that Yaakov was treating them as his natural sons Reuven and Shimon and that they would be included in the inheritance with their uncles, 48:5,6, they moved closer to Yaakov. At this point, he was not able to identify them not because of his poor vision, but because when they moved closer to him, most likely they bowed down to him to show their appreciation for equating them to their uncles, and hence Yaakov only saw the back of their heads. Following Dresner, Yaakov did not see their faces when they bowed since he was not concentrating on what was going on around him because at that moment he was thinking about Rahel. Furthermore, he had no reason to think that they were in the room since he had not been told that they had come with Yosef and he had not called for them. Yaakov saw two people bowing down to him, but he could not identify his grandchildren by just seeing the back of their heads, and hence he asked Yosef who are these people?

Bibliography:

Dresner, Samuel, 1994, Rachel, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 46:8-27 (Va-yiggash) – The seventy descendants of Yaakov: Who is to be counted?

Bereshit 46:8-27 records a list of people in Yaakov’s family, which shows us the growth of Yaakov’s family. However, the genealogical list raises several questions.

One, 46:15 records that Lea had 33 descendants, and while there are 33 men listed as children or grandchildren of Lea, two of them, Er and Onan are dead, 46:12, which brings the list to 31. 46:15 refers to the daughters of Yaakov as well, which means that Dina could be included in the list, but adding Dina only brings the list to 32, who are the 33?

There are two standard answers to this difficulty. Rashi and Radak (on 46:15) quote the Talmud (Baba Batra 123b) that Yokheved, Moshe’s mother, was born upon the entry of the family to Egypt, and her birth would give 33 descendants to Lea. The problem with this approach is that the number of descendants is based on the list of names, and she is not mentioned in the list.

Ibn Ezra (on 46:27) strongly doubts that Yokheved was born during the trip, and he argues that Yaakov should be counted as the 33rd member of Lea’s group. However, this is also problematic since 46:15 refers to the 33 descendants of Lea as the Yaakov’s sons and daughters which excludes Yaakov from being part of the list.

A second question in the list of Lea’s descendants is that by two of Yehuda's grandchildren, Hetzron and Hamul, 46:12 records that “they will be” instead of stating their names as occurs for all the other people in the list.

A third question is that there is a chronological problem with the listing of Hetzron and Hamul. Their father was Peretz, and his parents were Yehuda and Tamar. The story of Yehuda and Tamar is recorded in chapter 38, which is recorded after Yosef was sold to Egypt. We know that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Yosef until the family went to Egypt: Yosef was at least 17 (37:2) when he was sold to Egypt, he was 30 when he became the effective ruler of Egypt (41:46), and there were seven good years and two bad years until the family were reunited, 45:6. This means that all the events of chapter 38, the births of Er, Onan, their marriages to Tamar, the birth of Peretz, and the births of Hetzron and Hamul had to occur in those 22 years.

It seems impossible for there to have been enough time within the 22 years for Hetzron and Hamul to have been born. Ibn Ezra (on 38:1) argues that the story of Yehuda and Tamar occurred before the sale of Yosef, and the Torah does not follow the chronological order of events. This is a common approach of Ibn Ezra, but then one must explain why the story of Yehuda and Tamar was inserted in the midst of the story of Yosef. Cassuto (1973, p. 33) points out that Ibn Ezra cannot be correct since 38:1 records that the events of chapter 38 occurred at the time of the sale of Yosef.

Cassuto (1973, pp. 34-40) argues that the wording of 46:15, “they will be” means that Hetzron and Hamul were not born before the descent into Egypt. Cassuto argues that Hetzron and Hamul were born many years later after the family came to Egypt. Yet if they were not alive at the time of the descent into Egypt why are they mentioned in the list of chapter 46? Cassuto notes that a theme of the story of Yehuda and Tamar is that of yibbum, that a dead brother’s name will not be forgotten, Devarim 25:6, and thus the two sons of Yehuda, Er and Onan died, who died had to be replaced. They were not replaced by the births of Peretz and his brother Zeveh, 38:27-30, since they were also sons of Yehuda. Instead Hetzron and Hamul, Yehuda’s grandchildren were considered as “the replacements” for Er and Onan. Thus, Cassuto argues that even though Hetzron and Hamul were not alive during the family’s descent into Egypt, they are included in the list since they were destined to be born once Er and Onan died. Thus, 46:15 records that “they will be,” since they had yet been born. (Note this is similar to Binyamin being considered as having been born in Paddan Aram, when he really was born in Israel, 35:26.) Similarly, if the idea of yibbum is to remember the dead brothers, then Er and Onan are also mentioned to keep their memory alive, and they are to be counted in the list of 33. However, if one counts Dinah, as implied by 46:15, then there seems to be 34 descendants of Lea and not 33. We have gone from the problem of missing one descendent for Lea to having one “extra” descendant of Lea.

A fourth question concerning the list is that within the sons of Shimon, 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman. Why only for Shaul are we told of his mother? Rashi (based on Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) explains that Shaul was the daughter of Dina and Shekhem, and Shimon married her and raised Shaul as his son. Yet, this is difficult not only since Shimon would have married his sister, but also 46:10 records that Shaul was the son of a Canaanite woman and Dina was not a Canaanite. Thus Bereshit Rabbah 80:11 quotes opinions that Dina was considered as a Canaanite woman since she acted in their manner or because she was buried in Canaan. These answers are difficult.

Ibn Ezra (on 46:10) explains that only Shimon took a Canaanite wife as the other sons of Yaakov married women from Egypt, Aram, and other surrounding areas. However, 38:2 records that Yehuda also married a Canaanite woman.

The Talmud (Pesachim 50a) argues that after Avraham did not allow Yitzhak to marry a Canaanite and similarly Yitzhak for Yaakov, then Yehuda would not have married a Canaanite wife. Thus, the Talmud explains that Canaan in 38:2 refers to a trader. However, R. Nehemiah (Bereshit Rabbah 84:21) states that the sons of Yaakov did marry Canaanite women and this is the simple explanation of the 38:2 and 46:10 (see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on 38:2).

I understand that the treaty between Yaakov and Lavan, 51:44-54, broke the bonds between the two sides of Terah’s family, and then there would have been no reason why Canaanite women were any worse than women from other nationalities. Yet, if the sons of Yaakov married Canaanite women, why is Shaul signaled out as being the son of a Canaanite woman?

My guess is that Shaul was adopted by Shimon, as implied in Rashi’s explanation. Maybe, Shimon married Shaul’s mother, and Shaul was a son from a previous marriage. Shaul grew up in Shimon’s household, but he was not a biological descendent of Yaakov. If this is true, then he was also not a descendant of Lea, and he should be removed from the list of her descendants. This leaves us with 33 descendants for Lea counting Er, Onan, Hetzron and Hamul, and Dina, but not Shaul.

46:27 records that there were 70 people in the house of Yaakov when the family went to Egypt. This 70 is derived from 33 descendants of Lea (46:15) plus 16 descendants from Zilpa (46:18) plus 14 descendants from Rahel (46:22) plus 7 descendants from Bilha (46:25). Yet, according to my reckoning, the 70 cannot simply be the addition of the four groups since I counted Er and Onan within the descendants of Lea, but they were dead when the family went to Egypt. The answer is that 46:27 refers to the house of Yaakov and not to his progeny. Thus, I would add Yaakov and Shaul as they were both part of Yaakov’s household, but they were not descendants of Yaakov. Note, Efrayim and Menashe, Yosef’ sons, are included in the list of 70 even though they lived their whole lives in Egypt since they were associated with the family. 46:27 presents the number of people associated with the family when the family went into Egypt while 46:26 lists how many members of the family actually made the trip to Egypt.

46:26 records that there were 66 descendants of Yaakov who came to Egypt with him. If one starts from 70 then one has to exclude four people from the list. Rashi explains that the 66 excludes Yosef, Menashe and Efrayim, who were already in Egypt and Yokheved who was born upon their entry into Egypt. It seems clear from 46:27 that Menashe and Efrayim should be excluded from the 66, but I think Yosef is part of the 66 since he also went down to Egypt. Yosef went to Egypt before the rest of the family, but their traveling to Egypt was due to him, and thus he was part of the family’s descent into Egypt. Also, as mentioned above, I do not think that Yokheved was ever part of my original list. I would subtract Yaakov and Shaul from the list of 70 since they were not descendants of Yaakov and 46:26 refers to Yaakov’s descendants. Thus, my list of 66 is 31 from Lea, excluding Er, Onan, and Shaul but including Dina, 16 from Zilpa, 12 from Rahel excluding Menashe and Efrayim and 7 from Bilha.

The list of 70 is referred to twice again in the Torah. Shemot 1:5 refers to the progeny of Yaakov as being 70. This 70 is not the same 70 in Bereshit 26:47 since Bereshit 26:47 refers to the house of Yaakov and not necessarily to his descendants. The reference to Yaakov’s progeny in Shemot 1:5 means that Er and Onan must be counted since they were his progeny even if they died before the family came to Egypt. Thus, Shemot 1:5 is not referring to the people who came to Egypt since this criterion is not mentioned in the verse. (Shemot 1:1, which refers to the descent into Egypt, only refers to the sons of Yaakov, as indicated in verses 1:2-4.) I would count the 70 of Shemot 1:5 as consisting of 33 from Lea, including Er, Onan, Hetzron, Hamul and Dina but not Shaul, 16 from Zilpa, 14 from Rahel and 7 from Bilha.

The second reference to the 70 people is in Devarim 10:22, which records that Moshe told the generation of the desert that with 70 people their forefathers went to Egypt. This verse refers to the descent into Egypt but not to the progeny of Yaakov. I would understand this verse as similar to 46:27, that there were 70 people associated with the family or forefathers, when the family or forefathers went down into Egypt. This excludes Er and Onan, but includes Yaakov, Shaul, Efrayim and Menashe.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Bereshit 44:1-12 (Mikketz) – The middle of the game between Yosef and his brothers: The Trap

Bereshit 44:1 records that Yosef told his steward to fill the amtahot, packs, of the brothers with food and silver when they were leaving him a second time to go back to the land of Israel. Yosef also told the steward that he should put in a silver goblet in addition to the silver in the amtahat of Binyamin, 44:2. After the brothers left the city where Yosef was situated, the steward chased down the brothers, and accused them of stealing the goblet, 44:4-12. Why did the steward not accuse them of stealing the silver that he also planted in their packs? Why did he put the silver in their packs if it was not part of the set-up? Surely, the silver was discovered when they opened their packs to search for the goblet, but the Torah makes no mention of the silver, why?

The Ramban and Seforno (on 44:1) suggest that the silver was placed in the packs with the knowledge of the brothers to compensate them for their previous troubles. The Ramban adds that even if it was not placed in the packs with the brother's knowledge, still the brothers could have claimed it was a "treasure" that they got from G-d just as the steward had explained the previous appearance of money in their packs, 43:22. However, the brothers could not have been able to make this claim by the silver goblet, and hence they were only accused of stealing the goblet.

Alter (2004, p. 253) suggests that the placing of the silver was "to make the brothers feel they were trapped in a network of uncanny circumstances they could neither control nor explain… The steward, however, was exclusively focused on the retrieval of the silver goblet, and so did not even deign to mention the weights of silver in the bags, as though their appearance there were a matter of course, whatever consternation it might have caused the brothers." With this idea, the steward also found the "stolen silver" but the Torah did not mention this finding.

Maybe there were two other reasons for the silver. One, had they returned home without Binyamin as Yosef intended, 44:10,17, then Yosef wanted them to return to Yaakov with the silver since this would again be re-creating the sale, that they were returning home short one brother but with money, see our discussion on 42:25,27,35, “A double dose of fear." This might have been Yosef's test of Yaakov to see if he would come to Egypt to try to free Binyamin, see our discussion on 42:9, "The beginning of the game between Yosef and his brothers." Thus, the silver was found, but the steward did not mention it since it was desired for the brothers to have the silver.

A second possibility is that the steward put the silver in the amtahot as plan B. Yosef was trying to trap the brothers, but the plan could have gone awry if Binyamin and the brothers realized the goblet was in their amtahot, and either attempted to return it or to dispose of it. Thus, when the steward filled the amtahot of the brothers with grain, he also put silver in their amtahot, as a back-up plan. The steward did not need to use plan B, the silver, since when he opened the amtahat of Binyamin he found the goblet, and hence the silver is not mentioned in 44:12.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Bereshit Chapter 38 (Va-yeshev) – Tamar: A heroine

Bereshit chapter 38 records the relations between Tamar and Yehuda. As pointed out by Cassuto (1973, pp. 30,31), Alter (1981, pp. 3-11) and Wildavsky (1993, pp.32-41), the language in 38:25,26 (ha-ker) is identical with the language in 37:32,33 and this shows the link between chapters 37 and 38.

Tamer acts as a prostitute to have sexual relations with Yehuda, 38:15-18, but she is the heroine of episode. While usually it is not heroic to be a prostitute, in this case, Tamar had been wronged by Yehuda. Yehuda had lied to her when he told her to wait until Shela was older, 38:11, and the Torah specifically records that she only acted as a prostitute when it was self-evident that Yehuda had no intention of keeping his word. To correct Yehuda’s injustice to her, she risked her life, and in the end he admitted that she was righteous, 38:26. A person who risks his or her life to correct an injustice is a hero, and thus Tamar was a heroine. One might argue that while Yehuda did condemn her to die, maybe she did not know that she was risking her life when she acted. I admit that while she might not have known for sure that she would be condemned to die, there is no way that she could have excluded the possibility that she would die from her actions.

Tamar did not act impetuously but deliberately. When she bargained with Yehuda over the payment, she insisted on the particular items that could prove her innocence, 38:17. When she was sentenced to die, it appears that she calmly showed the items that proved her innocence. She must have known that Yehuda would have seized this opportunity to remove her from being a possible wife to Shela. Thus, she must have known when she acted that there was a risk that she would be killed. Yet, was being a prostitute the only way that Tamar could have rectified Yehuda’s injustice towards her? To answer this question, we have to understand what was the injustice Tamar was fighting. Was it just that Yehuda lied to her?

Why did Tamar act as a prostitute? 38:14 records that she acted since Shela did not marry her, and this implies that she acted as a prostitute to get married. The logic is that due to yibbum she was destined for Shela, which meant that she could not marry anybody else, but Yehuda was refusing to give her to Shela. Accordingly, the injustice of Yehuda was that he was forcing her to be an “old maid.” In fact, Rashi (based on Sotah 10b) explains that 38:26 which records that “Yehuda did not know her again” means that in the end Yehuda and Tamar married. However, Tamar could not have known that this would happen, and Rashi quotes a second opinion, which accords better with the text, that he never married her.

The chapter ends with the birth of her children and this is the conclusion of the story. G. W. Coats (1972) argues that this ending suggests that the reason Tamar acted as a prostitute was to have a child. According to this idea the injustice of Yehuda was that he was denying her the opportunity to have children. Once she had children the yibbum was fulfilled. Usually, marriage is needed to fulfill the law, but here due to Tamar’s actions the law was fulfilled without marriage. Thus, the desire to marry Shela was to have children, but once she had children she did not have to marry.

Why would Tamar be so desperate to have a child? Rashi (on 38:14) writes that she specifically wanted to have children with Yehuda apparently because she knew that Yehuda’s children were destined for greatness (Bereshit Rabbah 85:10). While this did occur, it is unclear how she could have known about Yehuda’s future descendants.

A second possibility is that she wanted to fulfill the law of yibbum, which seems to have existed prior to the Torah. However, this is unlikely since why should Tamar be so concerned about fulfilling this law, especially as it was not her fault that yibbum had not occurred.

A third possibility is that emotionally she needed to have a child. This appears to have occurred to Rahel when she told Yaakov “give me children or else I will die,” 30:1.

A fourth possibility is that children were important for economic reasons. Niditch (1979) argues that in those days a widow could not inherit her husband’s property, and being without children left her in a limbo. Once she was married she did not belong to her father’s home, and yet without children she did not belong to her dead husband’s home. According to this, the law of yibbum was to enable the widow to be part of the dead husband’s family. Thus, the injustice of Yehuda was that by not allowing Shela to marry Tamar, he put Tamar in a hopeless situation and her legal right to join the family was disregarded. When Tamar had children, she became part of Yehuda’s family entitled to financial support.

While all this makes sense, how could Tamer have known that she was going to conceive from this onetime event? I cannot believe that she intended to repeat this exercise until she got pregnant. I think there is another possibility. Yehuda did not want Shela to marry Tamar since he was worried that she was the cause of the other brothers’ deaths (Rashi on 38:11). (Is this called a black widow? See Shulchan Arukh, Even Ha-Ezer 9.) The reader knows Yehuda’s sons died because of their sins unrelated to Tamar but Yehuda did not know this. In essence he was accusing her of murder and this was the injustice to Tamar. Not only must this have been offensive but she also was being penalized by not being able to marry, to do yibbum or have children with all the resulting consequences discussed above. Yet, how did Yehuda think that Tamar had killed his sons? This we cannot know for sure, but we know that there was no evidence against Tamar. Maybe it is possible that he thought that his sons died because they had sexual relations with her. Did Tamar protest against his accusation? The text records nothing, but maybe her protests were left out. Even if she was silent maybe she thought it was hopeless to argue. How could Tamar disprove Yehuda? The only way was what she did, and Yehuda’s survival would be her proof. With this idea she did not have to become pregnant, but she was waiting until enough time elapsed that Yehuda could not refute her innocence. According to this idea, her intention would have been to prove her innocence which would have enabled her to marry Shela to fulfill the law of yibbum. In the end, Yehuda admitted that she was righteous, which meant that she was not a murderer. Also, as she became pregnant the yibbum was effectively accomplished, and it was not necessary to marry Shela.

What is the significance of this episode? In the beginning of the story of Yosef, Yehuda attempted to convince the brothers to sell Yosef, 37:26. (As we discuss on 37:25-30, "Who sold Yosef" the brothers did not sell Yosef.) However, in the end, Yehuda offered to go to jail instead of Binyamin, and his great speech caused Yosef to reveal himself to the brothers, 44:18-34. What caused this transformation of Yehuda?

James Ackerman (1982) points out some parallels between Yehuda’s offer and his episode with Tamar, chapter 38. The simplest parallel is that Yehuda left a personal pledge with Tamar, 38:17 while here Yehuda gave Yaakov a personal pledge to return Binyamin to Yaakov, 43:9. This correspondence suggests that it was Tamar’s actions that transformed Yehuda.

When Tamer challenged Yehuda to identify his personal items that he had left with her, 38:25, she taught Yehuda that one must act responsibly. Yehuda demonstrated his newfound sense of responsibility when he offered take responsibility for Binyamin when going to Egypt, 43:2-10, and when he offered to go to prison instead of Binyamin, 44:16-34.

Bibliography:

Ackerman, James, 1982, Joseph, Judah, and Jacob, in Literary Interpretations of the Bible, vol. 2, edited by Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis with James Ackerman, Nashville: Abingdon Press, pp. 85-111.

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1973, Biblical and Oriental Studies, vol. 1, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Coats, George. W. 1972, "Widow's rights: A crux in the structure of Genesis 38," Catholic Bible Quarterly, 34, pp. 461-466.

Niditch, Susan, 1979, The wronged woman righted: An analysis of Genesis 38, Harvard Theological Review, 72(1), pp.143-149.

Wildavsky, Aaron, 1993, Assimilation versus separation: Joseph the administrator and the politics of religion in biblical Israel, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Bereshit 32:8 (Va-yishlach) - The two camps of Yaakov

Bereshit 32:8 records that Yaakov divided the people with him into two camps. Yet, the Torah does not record what the division of the family into two camps. Who was in which camp? It is also unclear whether Yaakov ever split his camp into two.

After Yaakov sent the gifts to Esav, Yaakov took his entire family over the Yabbok River, 32:23. Rambam (on 32:23) seems to claim that this was the splitting of the camp and the text was written out of chronological order. Yet, everybody was taken over the river, so we do not see any split in the family.

Abravanel (2007, p. 604) makes the interesting suggestions that the division was all of Yaakov’s family in one camp and Yaakov’s wealth with his servants in the other camp. The idea was that Yaakov put his “wealth” camp on the side of the river that he thought that Esav would approach first, and he hoped that Esav would have been content to get his wealth. However, Esav ended up approaching the camp with the family, and only after this episode ended did Yaakov rejoin his “wealth” camp. While this suggestion is interesting, we never read of the “wealth” camp in the Torah. Also, it seems unlikely that Esav was after Yaakov’s wealth since even if Esav got Yaakov’s wealth he would have continued to track down Yaakov.

My guess is that the split was all of Yaakov’s family and possessions (except for the gifts to Esav) in one camp and Yaakov by himself in the second camp. First, Yaakov sent ahead his second set of messengers with large number of animals, who were to meet Esav before Yaakov would meet Esav, 32:14-22, 33:9. Then, Yaakov crossed his family over to the northern side of the river to move them further away from Esav, who was coming from the south, 32:23,24. After crossing his family, Yaakov crossed back to the southern side of the river to be the second camp all by himself, with his messengers far ahead of him, and his family on the opposite of the river, 32:25. 32:8 should be understood that Yaakov revealed to the family that he was going to separate from them, but he waited to actually do the split until the nighttime.

The idea of this split was that Yaakov would face Esav by himself in the morning since the fight was a personal fight between the brothers. Yaakov hoped that even if he lost, Esav would have been satisfied with defeating him, and would then leave his family alone. To a great extent this plan worked since I believe that Esav fought with Yaakov in the middle of the night when Yaakov was alone, see our discussion on 32:25-31, 33:10 "Who fought with Yaakov?" At the end of the fight, regardless of who was the assailant, Yaakov was victorious so he knew that he no longer had to split his family (see Netziv on 32:8 and 33:1). Furthermore, the fight left Yaakov injured, 32:32, so in the morning his family re-crossed the river, and joined Yaakov to meet Esav on the southern side of the river.

This split answers another question. 32:25 records that Yaakov was alone. Why should he have been alone? Rashi (on 32:24, quoting from the Talmud Hullin 91a) explains that after he crossed his family, he went back to look for some small jars. Silbermann and Rosenbaum (1934, p. 159, note 2) explain that as 32:24 recorded that Yaakov had already taken all that was his across the river, there could only be some small relatively unimportant items left. This idea is incredible. Yaakov was worried that he might die in the morning, and his concern is to find small jars? Why did his sons not help him with the final small items? The simpler explanation is that the split of the camps was Yaakov by himself in one camp and the remainder of the family in the other camp. Yaakov wanted to be alone since this was how he wanted to meet Esav.

Berreshit 28:15-22 – Yaakov's vow after waking up from his great dream: On the run

Bereshit 28:15 record that when Yaakov was running away from Esav, he had a dream in the middle of the night in which G-d promised to watch over him and ensure that he would return safely to the land of Israel. 28:20-22 then records that Yaakov made a vow that if G-d would protect him and if he would return safely home, then he would make a “house of G-d.” Yaakov’s vow is surprising since it repeats some aspects of G-d’s promise in the dream. Why did Yaakov make this vow after he had already been promised the conditions of the vow?

Bereshit Rabbah 70:4 quotes two approaches to understanding the vow from R. Aibu and R. Jonathan. One opinion maintains that the narrative is recorded out of order, that really Yaakov made the vow before he heard the dream, while the other opinion suggests that Yaakov was worried that he would sin and then he would not be worthy of receiving the promises of the dream.

Abravanel proposes a third answer that because the promises were conveyed in a dream, Yaakov was not sure if the promises were a real prophecy or a regular dream that had no meaning. Thus, the conditions of the vow were to learn that the promises were a prophecy and not a dream.

There are two proofs for Abravanel’s approach. One, J.P. Fokkelman (1991, pp. 66,67) points out that in the morning Yaakov was attempting to recreate the dream. Yaakov built a masseva, pillar, 28:18, and not an altar, since in the dream the sullam was depicted as being musav towards the land, 28:12. Furthermore, Yaakov poured oil on the top of the masseva since in the dream the top of the sullam reached the heavens. These attempts to recreate the dream were to actualize it that it was not just a dream.

A second proof is that Yaakov really had two reactions to the dream. 28:16,17 record that Yaakov woke up immediately from this powerful dream and he stated that he was in a place of G-d. Afterwards, 28:18 records that he got up in the morning, built the pillar and made the vow. It seems that the dream startled Yaakov. He woke up in the middle of night immediately after hearing/ seeing the dream, and then he was sure that the dream was a true prophecy. However as it was nighttime, there was nothing for him to do, so he probably stayed awake for a while thinking about the dream. After several hours, he began to doze off, and then in the morning when he woke up a second time, he was no longer sure whether the dream was a true prophecy or just a regular dream. 

A possible reason why Yaakov was in doubt concerning the prophecy is because he doubted whether he was really worthy of receiving his father’s blessings. After he tricked his father and had to run away, he might have thought that really Esav was to be the chosen brother. The last element of the conditions of the vow was that G-d would be his G-d, 28:21. Yaakov was in doubt whether G-d accepted him, and hence the fulfillment of the conditions of the vow would tell Yaakov that he was truly the chosen brother and that G-d had accepted him.

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2007, Commentary on Bereshit, Jerusalem: Horev.

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

Bereshit 29:18-30 (Va-yetse) – Yaakov's marriages : The switch

Bereshit 29:18-30 records that Yaakov agreed to work seven years for Rahel, but on the night of the wedding Lavan switched Rahel and Lea and Yaakov ended up initially marrying Lea. How did this occur? To answer this question, we need to speculate as to the reasons for the actions of the four participants, Lavan, Lea, Rahel and Yaakov.

Why did Lavan not keep his deal with Yaakov? In 29:26, Lavan claimed that the younger daughter could not be married before the older daughter. It is difficult to accept this argument at face value since Lavan had initially agreed that Yaakov would Rahel. Maybe he thought that Lea would have gotten married in the seven years so there would have been no problem with Yaakov marrying Rahel. However, if this was really the custom Yaakov should have known about it as he had lived in the area for seven years, and certainly Rahel would have know of the custom. However, maybe Yaakov knew the custom but he thought that his deal with Lavan nullified the custom. Yet, then Yaakov should have made this claim when Lavan told him of the custom of the area.

Another possibility is that Lavan was punishing Yaakov for stealing the blessings from his older brother. Many have noted (see Nehama Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 323,324) that Lavan's reference to older and younger, echoes Yaakov's conflict with Esav. Yet, why should Lavan care that Yaakov tricked Esav? Maybe, he thought that Yaakov was a whippersnapper he needed to be taught a lesson. It is also possible that Lavan realized that Yaakov was a good worker and he wanted to get Yaakov to work for another 7 years. However, he could not have known that Yaakov would have agreed to work more years. Yaakov could have demanded Rahel and left.

The most likely explanation is that Lavan was afraid that Lea would never marry. (James Kugel, 1997, p. 221, quotes this idea in the name of Ephraem, a 4th century commentator of Syriac Christianity.) The idea here would be that Lea was not attractive and Lavan just wanted her to be married without any concern whether she would be happy in the marriage. According to this idea, Lavan's reference to the younger and older was just to stop Yaakov from complaining since Yaakov could not complain of being tricked once he had tricked his father.

Why did Lea participate in tricking Yaakov? She had to be a willing participant, but she must have guessed that this would not endear herself to Yaakov. Also, she was hurting her sister? Maybe that was the point, she was jealous of her sister and acted to spite her sister. Maybe she just wanted to be married and she also thought this was her only chance to be married. Maybe her father forced her to go to Yaakov’s tent and then she was too embarrassed to tell Yaakov. More likely, she really loved Yaakov and even though he did not love her, she thought that with time she would win Yaakov’s love.

Did Rahel agree to be switched? Rashi (on 29:25) quotes Megillah 13b that Rahel and Yaakov had arraigned special signs and that Rahel gave these signs to Lea in order that Lea would not be embarrassed. This would mean that in the end she agreed to the switch. Maybe she also thought that Lea could not marry and she wanted to help her. Yet, this is unlikely, if she really loved Yaakov. My guess is that Lavan had her locked up and she was physically unable to contact Yaakov. (James Kugel, 1997, p. 219, quotes this as the opinion of the Testament of Issachar 1:10-13.)

Why was Yaakov fooled? It clearly was dark which meant that he could not see Lea, but still how could he not have recognized the different voices? Torah Temimah (on 29:25, footnote #4) writes that that Rahel and Lea were exactly the same including their voices except for their eyes. This is a strong assumption, as even sisters who do not look alike can have similar voices. Yet, one would still have to say that Lea’s mannerism, behavior and even what she said would not have tipped off Yaakov.

Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 1:300-301, 2006) writes that Yaakov had been drinking at the party that Lavan made because certainly Lavan would have encouraged him to drink. Yet, this does not accord with Yaakov's character, and it is unlikely that would have allowed himself to get drunk. 

Bekhor Shor suggests that maybe he did not speak too much with Rahel during the seven years, but this seems unlikely. Bekhor Shor, Hizkuni and Radak also speculate that maybe Yaakov and Lea did not speak during the night because of modesty. Yet, on the wedding night, they would not speak at all? 

Nosson Scherman (1993, p. 151) quotes Rav Aharon Kotler that Yaakov had “his spiritual antenna” which told him that he was with the partner who was destined for him and that is why he detected nothing wrong. This cannot mean that he knew it was Lea since 29:25 records that Yaakov was surprised in the morning, va-hene, see Rashbam (on 29:27). Does it mean that due to his spirituality he was oblivious to what was happening? This also does not accord with Yaakov’s character. In addition, if he realized that this was what was meant to be, why was Yaakov upset that he was tricked, he should have thanked Lavan!

My guess is that Yaakov was worried that with the marriage he would have to return to face Esav. Fokkelman (1991, p.128) notes the same words used in 27:44 and 29:20 "a few days," teaches us that Yaakov was expected to return home after he had married Rahel and worked the seven years. Yaakov's fear of returning to face Esav is why he initially agreed to work for seven years, and why after the switch he agreed to work another seven years. These years delayed him from having to return to face his brother. Thus, Yaakov had very mixed emotions that night. He was getting married, but the marriage meant that he was to return home. Accordingly, he was pondering his future, uninterested in small talk, and certainly Lea would not have spoken on her own. Possibly he had doubts as to the identity of his wife, but due to his mixed emotions he was absorbed in his own problems and did not bother to investigate. This would make this situation parallel with Yitzhak who had doubts whether he was really blessing Esav but continued nevertheless. Maybe Lavan knew that Yaakov was worried about returning to face Esav, and this gave him the confidence to pull his ruse.

Bibliography:

Fokkelman, J.P. 1991, Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis, second Edition, JSOT Press.

Josephus, Flavius, 2006, Jewish Antiquities, London: Wordsworth Editions.

Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Scherman, Nosson, 1993, Art Scroll/ Stone Edition Chumash, Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications.

Bereshit 27:1-4 – Yitzhak's fear of imminent death prior to wanting to bless Esav?

Bereshit 27:1-4 records that Yitzhak told Esav that he wanted to bless him before he died. This fear of death is a little surprising since we know that Yitzhak lived at least another 20 years, as Yaakov saw Yitzhak after he had been away from home for 20 years, 35:27. Of course, there is no reason to believe that Yitzhak knew that he would live 20 more years, as who knows when they are going to die? Yet, was there a specific reason that led Yitzhak to fear his imminent death? 

Rashi (on 27:2) quotes from the Midrash that Yitzhak was 123 and thus he was within five years of his mother's death. (Rashi's calculation is based on the Midrash that Yaakov studied at the school of Ever for 14 years after he left home, see his comments on 25:17.) 

Radak (on 27:1) suggests that it was the onset of blindness that caused Yitzhak to fear that he would die shortly. 

Maybe, there is another possibility. If Yaakov did not study at the school of Ever, then Yitzhak was 137 at the time of the blessing. Immediately after the blessings, Yaakov left for Paddan-aram, 27:43, and Yaakov was 77 when he came to Paddan-aram (47:9, 45:11, 41:46, 30:25: 130-9-30-14=77). We also know that Yitzhak was 60 when Yaakov was born, 25:26, which means that Yitzhak was 137 when he wanted to bless Esav. This age was significant since this was the age when Yitzhak's older half-brother Yishmael died, 25:17. Thus, when Yitzhak was 137, he feared that his death was imminent. 

Bereshit 27:41– Esav creating an alibi to enable him to kill Yaakov

Bereshit 27:41 records that Esav said in his heart that he would only kill Yaakov after Yitzhak died. I understand that the phrase “speaking to the heart” means talking out loud to one’s self since otherwise how could Rivka have known that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov. Yet, why did Rivka send away Yaakov immediately, 27:43, if Esav only threatened to kill Yaakov after Yitzhak died? What was the great urgency?

Esav had a problem since he wanted both to kill Yaakov and to get the blessings. However, if he killed Yaakov when Yitzhak was alive then there was a good probability that Yitzhak would not be willing to bless him. But, he was not willing to wait for Yitzhak to die to take his revenge on Yaakov, and hence he decided to set up an alibi that would exonerate him from being a suspect if Yaakov had an "untimely" death. The alibi was that he started the rumor that he was only going to take revenge after Yitzhak died, and then he could kill Yaakov without being a suspect. Rivka realized that Esav really intended to kill Yaakov at his first chance without waiting for Yitzhak to die, and hence she immediately sent Yaakov away to her family to protect him from Esav.

Bereshit 28:3,4 (Toledot) – Yitzhak's second blessing to Yaakov: Endogamy

בראשית כח: ג,ד "וקל שקי יברך אתך ויפרך וירבך והיית לקהל עמים. ויתן לך את ברכת אברהם לך ולזרעך אתך לרשתך את ארץ מגריך אשר נתן אלקים לאברהם."

Bereshit 28:3,4 record that Yitzhak blessed Yaakov a second time when sending Yaakov away to Haran to marry. Why did Yitzhak bless Yaakov twice? Why was first blessing not sufficient? Why did he not combine the blessings, and give both at the same time? Also, Yitzhak seems to have been angry with Yaakov for fooling him, as he told Esav that Yaakov deceived him, 27:34, so why would Yitzhak give Yaakov a second blessing? Finally, after Esav learned that Yaakov had received the blessing that he was supposed to receive he asked Yitzhak for another blessing, and Yitzhak said that he had no other blessing to give, 27:34-37. Why did Yitzhak not give Esav, the second blessing that he gave to Yaakov?

One approach is that the second blessing was to confirm the first blessing. For example, Sarna (1989, p. 195) writes, “by this act (the second blessing), Yitzhak confirms Yaakov’s title to the birthright independently of the deception.” Similarly, Robert Alter (2004, p. 147) argues, “Yitzhak, whatever misgivings he may have about Yaakov’s act of deception, knows that his younger son has irrevocably received the blessing, and he has no choice but to reiterate it at the moment of parting.” Yet, the second blessing appears to be completely different than the first blessing. The first blessing relates to which brother would be dominant, while the second blessings relates to the blessing of Avraham. How could the second blessing confirm the first blessing if it is not related to the first blessing?

Cassuto (1990, p. 208) suggest a second approach. This approach minimizes the significance of the second blessing. Cassuto writes that the second blessing was specific to the trip that Yaakov was about to embark on. Yaakov was going to find a wife, so Yitzhak gave him a blessing that he would have children, and as Yaakov was leaving the land of Israel, Yitzhak blessed him that he would return to the land. However, the second blessing seems to be more than just good wishes before the trip, as Yitzhak blessed Yaakov that he should receive the blessing that G-d gave to Avraham.

A third approach is that the two blessings were independent from each other. The first blessing was a material blessing, and the second blessing was a spiritual blessing. With this approach, Yitzhak intended to give the first blessing to Esav, while the second blessing was for Yaakov, see Hirsch 1989, p. 444, Luzzatto on 27:1, Netziv introduction to chapter 27 and on 27:19, and N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 275-279.  Accordingly, even after Yaakov received the first (material) blessing he also had to receive the second (spiritual) blessing.  

This approach makes Yitzhak’s desire to give Esav the blessing in chapter 27 more understandable, but makes Rivka and Yaakov's actions even more problematic as now they tricked Yitzhak to get a material blessing. Moreover, I think this approach is based on a selective reading of the first blessing. While the first part of the first blessing refers to material possessions, 27:28, the second part of the first blessing, 27:29, refers to which brother would be dominant. In addition, when Esav asked Yitzhak for another blessing, 27:37, Yitzhak responded that once Yaakov had become the dominant brother there was nothing else he could give to him, and all Yitzhak could do was to try and limit Yaakov's dominance, 27:40. We see that the point of the blessings was would be the dominant brother. If the blessing that was mistakenly given to Yaakov in chapter 27 was only a material blessing, then there was no reason why Yitzhak could not have still blessed Esav with material success. The material success of one brother did not have to preclude the material success of the other brother.

In addition, this approach to split the blessings of chapter 27 and 28 into material and spiritual blessings also assumes the incorrigibility of Esav that he could not possibly get the spiritual blessing. Instead, one might wonder why Yaakov should deserve to receive the spiritual blessing after he deceived his father.

In order to understand the relationship between the blessings of chapters 27 and 28, we have to determine what was the point of the fight between Yaakov and Esav? Their fight began in utero, 25:22, continued with the sale of the soup, 25:29-34, with the first blessing in chapter 27, and only ended with their encounter when Yaakov returned from Haran, 32:22-33:17. What was the point of this conflict? Did it have cosmic implications or was it just a personal feud? Was it related to the question who would be part of the covenant or was it just another example of two brothers who did not get along? If the fight was about the covenant, then the blessings of chapters 27 and 28 are connected, but if the fight was a personal feud, then the two blessings are independent of each other, that either brother could have received either blessing or even that both brothers could have received the second blessing.

The conflict between the brothers focused on who would be the firstborn, the dominant brother, and there is no mention that they were fighting about the covenant. It seems that some people assume that only the firstborn son would be a part of the covenant, but both brothers could have been included in the covenant, as occurs by Yaakov’s children. Furthermore, just as Yaakov’s children fought due to sibling rivalry, so too the fight between Yaakov and Esav was a personal fight between brothers.

Accordingly, the blessings of chapter 27 (the one that Yaakov received and the one that Esav received) focused on the personal fight between the brothers, with no implications towards the covenantal process that began with Avraham.

On the other hand, the blessing of chapter 28 is the covenantal blessing, and this was open to both brothers regardless of who was the dominant brother. The only qualification to receive the covenantal blessing was to marry within the family, Terah’s family. The blessing only became relevant when Yaakov said he was going to Haran to marry, and this made him eligible for the blessing even though he had deceived Yitzhak in chapter 27. Yaakov could have left earlier to go to Haran to find a wife, but then this would have meant losing his personal fight with his brother. He only agreed to leave when his life was in danger, and even then only with Rivka’s prompting. With this understanding, Yaakov received the covenantal blessing due to his desire to marry within the family, and not because he sold the soup to Esav or tricked his father.

Esav could have received the covenantal blessings by marrying within the family, but he chose not to. Lavan had two daughters, Leah and Rahel, and hence both Esav and Yaakov could have married with the family of Terah. Yitzhak would have given Esav the covenantal blessing if Esav said he was willing to marry in the family, but Esav married two Hittite wives, 26:34, and then Mahalat, Yishmael’s daughter, 28:9.  These marriages did not disqualify Esav from receiving the blessing of chapter 27, since the question of who was to be the dominant brother was independent of who was to be in the covenant. Yet, the marriages did mean that Yitzhak was unable to give Esav the covenantal blessing of chapter 28.

This approach also explains Rivka’s statement to Yitzhak after she learned that Esav intended to kill Yaakov. Rivka told Yitzhak that Yaakov had to leave to find a wife, and she did not mention the threat to Yaakov’s life, 27:46. Cassuto (1990, p.208) explains that she did want to mention this second reason in order not to upset Yitzhak that Yitzhak should not know that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov. Yet, maybe also if she told Yitzhak that Yaakov was leaving to save himself from Esav, then Yitzhak would not have given the second blessing to Yaakov since the blessing was to the person who would marry within the family, and not to one who was running away to save his life.

Bereshit 24:3,4,7 – Avraham's instructions to his servant to find a wife for Yitzhak: All in the family

Bereshit 24:3,4 record that when Avraham commissioned his servant to find a wife for Yitzhak, Avraham told him go to his (Avraham’s) land and moladeti to find a wife and that Yitzhak could not marry a Canaanite woman. The servant went to Haran where Avraham’s family lived and he chose Rivka, Yitzhak’s cousin. Later, 24:38-41 records that the servant told Rivka's family that Avraham had told him to take a wife from Avraham's family (mishpacha) and from his father's house. Was it Avraham’s intention that Yitzhak’s wife be from his family or was this just a coincidence? Was the servant lying?

The answer to this question depends on how one understands the word moladeti in 24:4 and 24:7. Rashi (on 24:7, also Radak and Ibn Ezra on 24:4) explains that moladeti refers to a person’s birthplace which he explains means Ur Kasdim, as that was where he believes Avraham was born. This implies that in 24:4, Avraham was telling his servant to go both to Haran (Avraham’s land) and to Ur Kasdim (Avraham’s birthplace) to find a wife for Yitzhak. However, once the servant was successful in Haran, he did not have to go onto to Ur Kasdim.

Cassuto (1964, pp. 274,275, see also Ramban and Rashbam on 24:7) argues that the word moladeti means extended family and he explains that Avraham was sending his servant to the land of his family, which was Haran. According to him, 24:4 and 24:7 would mean the land of my kinsman, (a hendiadys), see Sarna 1989, p. 162. Among the proofs that Cassuto brings is that Bereshit 43:7, 48:6 and Megillat Esther 8:6 (also see Vayikra 18:11) show that the word moledet means family and not birthplace. 

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 214-222) argues that Rashi’s interpretation of the word moladeti, birthplace and not family, must be correct based on the behavior of the servant. The servant devised a test to choose a wife, and this test was apparently for all the women of Haran. How could the servant have used such a test, if the wife had to be from Avraham’s family? Accordingly, N. Leibowitz argues that it was a coincidence that Rivka was from Yitzhak’s family, and she reviews several reasons why the women of Haran were more suitable for Yitzhak than the women of Canaan. Yet, if really the servant could have chosen anybody, then the choice of a family member seems too coincidental. Furthermore, Yitzhak later would tell Yaakov to marry from his family (28:2) and if it was just coincidence that Yitzhak married within the family, why was Yaakov told to marry within the family? Finally, 22:20-24 tells us of the birth of Rivka and that this information was told to Avraham. If Avraham was not concerned if Yitzhak married within the family, why did the Torah have to tell us that Avraham learned of Rivka’s birth? (See Seforno on 22:23, I thank David Barrett for this source.)

As I discuss on Bereshit 24:12-61 "All the world's a stage,"  I believe that the test devised by the servant was not a random test. The servant had already chosen Rivka and the test was staged to get the family’s agreement to the match. The servant ran to Rivka, he gave her presents before he asked her name, and he referred to her as Rivka without ever being told her name. The servant’s test was not open to all the women of Haran, and the test is no proof that Avraham was willing for his son to marry anybody from Haran.  Thus, the word moledet means extended family, as argued by Cassuto. The servant was not lying when he recounted Avraham's instructions, but his use of the word mishpacha, did imply a smaller circle of family members than Avraham had told him.   

Why did Avraham want Yitzhak’s wife to be from his family? Yehoshua in his final address to the people reviewed their history and he stated that Terah and Nahor, Avraham’s family, were idol worshippers, Yehoshua 24:2, what made a member of Avraham’s extended family more suitable for Yitzhak than anybody else? My guess is that relatively the people in Avraham’s extended family were less idol worshippers than other people.

There are two proofs for this assertion. One, the whole family of Terah was part of the initial journey from Ur. 11:31 even records that Terah was the initiator of this trip. This journey was not simply a normal migration, but rather the beginning of the mission of Avraham. Therefore, it is likely that the whole family and not just Avraham had some notion of G-d, see our discussion on Devarim 32:10, "Who did G-d find and protect in the desert?"

Secondly, when the servant came to speak to the family, Lavan said, “Come in, O blessed of G-d” (24:31) and after the servant finished speaking, Lavan and Betuel stated “the matter came from G-d” (24:50) both times using the personal name for G-d. Presumably, only one who has some idea of G-d would make such statements. This relative belief in G-d explains why Yitzhak wanted Yaakov to marry within the family. However, over time these religious ideas and feelings started to wane, as evidenced by 31:53, where Lavan distinguished between the G-d of Avraham and the G-d of Nahor. Accordingly, we do not know that any of Yaakov's children went back to the family of Nahor to find wives.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1964, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part two: From Noah to Abraham, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 24:12-61 - Avraham's servant and choice of Rivka to be Yitzhak's wife: All the world's a stage

Bereshit 24:12-61 records the efforts of Avraham's servant (traditionally Eliezer) to find a wife for Yitzhak. He devised a test to choose the wife, that he would say to a maiden, please let me drink from your jar of water, and she was to respond "Drink, and I will also water your camels," 24:14. Immediately after the servant stated this test, Rivka, Yitzhak's cousin, appeared by the well. The servant ran to her and asked to drink water from her jar, 24:15-17. Rivka told him that he should drink and after he drank, she then said she would give water to his camels, 24:19. Rivka provided water to the camels, and the servant then proceeded to get her family's permission for her to marry Yitzhak, 24:28-61. This test of Rivka is quite surprising since it seems to be a very haphazard means for choosing a wife, and R. Yochanon (Ta'anit 4a) states that the servant acted inappropriately.

I believe the most popular understanding of the servant's action is that the request for water was a character test to select a wife for Yitzhak (see for example N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 223-229). The idea being that if Rivka offered to give water to the camels on her own then this showed that she was a kind and considerate person, and this would make her an excellent choice for a wife for Yitzhak. However, this approach is problematic.

First, one act of kindness is not enough proof that a person is a suitable wife. Maybe the test was a fluke. Maybe she was willing to provide water for the camels since she saw the wealth that the servant had brought with him. Would you marry somebody based on their answer to one question?

A second problem, as mentioned by the Radak (on 24:14, see also the Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 37:4), is that maybe the person who passed the test would be a slave and hence not a possible wife for Yitzhak. After Rivka gave the camels water, the servant asked whose daughter are you? Rivka told him that she was daughter of Betuel, 24:22,23 and from this information the servant would have learned that she was not a slave. Yet, this answer was insufficient since there could have been other social problems (married, engaged, going out seriously, etc.), that would have made her ineligible for Yitzhak that could not have been ascertained by just knowing who her father was. For example, 24:16 records, from the perspective of the "narrator" that Rivka was a virgin, as apparently this fact was important for the match, but the servant could not have learned this information from the test.

A third problem is that before the servant asked Rivka about her father, he gave her numerous presents, 24:22. Thus, before he knew that she was not a slave, he already had given her presents, which would have been forgone if she was a slave. In order to answer this problem, Ramban (on 24:22) explains that 24:22 only means that he took the presents out, but he did not give them until she told him that she was the daughter of Betuel. Ibn Ezra (on 24:14) writes that the verses are recorded out of chronological order, as according to him, the events described in 24:22, the giving of the presents, occurred after Rivka answered the servant's question, 24:23,24. These answers are difficult. The simple reading of the Torah is that the servant gave Rivka the presents before she told him who was her father.

A fourth problem is that it is not clear if Rivka's offer of water to the camels was such a generous offer. 24:32 records that water was brought to the men who accompanied the servant to enable them to wash their feet. While it seems obvious that the servant had men with him since he took ten camels (24:10), this is the first time these other men are mentioned. Were these men with the servant when he tested Rivka at the well? If yes, then it is odd that she offered water to the camels and not to the men. More likely, when the servant went to the well the other men stayed behind. The servant would then only have had a few (two?) camels with him when he made the test. If this is true, then Rivka did not have to give water to ten camels, which made the test easier for Rivka since she just had to offer and give water to a few camels.

Finally, there are many coincidences in the story. Of all the possible choices for a wife, it seems quite coincidental that the test would just happen to be done to Rivka, Yitzhak's cousin. Furthermore, 24:15 records that just when the servant finished stating the test, Rivka appeared. If she would have come to the well fifteen minutes later, would Yitzhak have married somebody else?

A second (and I believe the older) approach to understanding the actions of the servant is that this is a case of divination (see comments of Rav in Hullin 95b and Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Laws of Idol Worship, 11:4.) Divination is when a person acts based on some arbitrary sign, and here the sign would have been Rivka's statement in response to the servant's request for water. With this approach it makes sense why the servant gave Rivka the presents before finding out about her background since with divination one is relying on the sign, and no other information is necessary (see Kesef Mishnah on Rambam 11:4).

However, the divination approach is also difficult. 24:21 records that while Rivka was providing water to the camels, the servant wondered whether he would succeed in his mission of finding a wife. What was the doubt if she had already passed the test? Furthermore, by divination the sign must be exact, and Rivka did not exactly pass the test. The test was that she would say "Drink and I will waters the camels too," but she said drink, gave the servant water and only after the servant drank did she offer to water the camels, 24:18,19. She was supposed to immediately respond to the servant with an offer to give water to the camels, and not to wait until after the servant had drunk water. While this lapse might seem nitpicky, by the case of divination, due to the fact that the sign is arbitrary, one must pass the test exactly as stated, and when the servant repeated the incident he changed the order of events that Rivka offered to give the camels water prior to giving the servant water, 24:46.

Both of these approaches are based on the premise that the servant had no idea who Rivka was when he did the test, but the Torah gives many indications that he knew who she was along. One, 24:17 records that he ran to her. Why did he need to run to her and not ask the first girl who came to the well? Clearly, the servant wanted to do the test on Rivka. Two, as mentioned above, 24:22 records that the servant gave her the gifts before asking her about her family and this was because he knew who she was. Three, 24:23, records that when the servant asked Rivka who her father was, he did not wait for her answer, but he also asked if he could stay by her father's house for the night. We see that he desired to talk about the marriage even before she told him of her lineage, and this was because he knew who she was and her lineage. Four, the Torah never records that the servant asked Rivka her name or that he was told her name, but in 24:45, when recounting their meeting, the servant referred to her as Rivka, which again proves that he knew who Rivka was before the test.

I have been asked how could the servant have known who was Rivka? The answer is that the Torah records that he went to the well prior to meeting Rivka, 24:11. At the well he was able to learn who she was, just like Yaakov later learned who was Rahel when he came to the well, 29:4-6. In that case, the Torah specifies that the people at the well pointed out Rahel to Yaakov, while here this information is not recorded, but here there was no need for the Torah to mention this information since afterwards, as I mentioned above, the Torah makes it obvious that the servant knew that he was testing Rivka.

Rivka, Yitzhak's cousin, was always the destined wife since she was from the family of Terah, see 22:20-23 and our discussion on 24:4, "All in the family" (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/11/bereshit-244-hayyei-sara-all-in-family.html). Avraham did not refer to Rivka when he commissioned his servant since if she would not have agreed to come to the land of Israel, then the servant could have chosen other members of the family. Even if one believes that the choice of a wife was really open to all, still a wife from Avraham's family would have been the preferred choice.

However, just knowing the desired wife did not make the mission simple since the servant had to get the family to agree to the match, and he had a problem that the prospective groom, Yitzhak, was not with him. Not only would the family not meet Yitzhak before the wedding, but due to the great distances between Nahor and the land of Israel, it is likely that they would never ever meet Yitzhak or see Rivka again. How could he get the prospective girl and her family to agree to the match without seeing Yitzhak? This apprehension is evident when the servant spoke to Avraham about the mission. He wondered what to do if the woman did not agree to come to the land of Israel, 24:5. The servant did not question whether he would be able to find a wife, but rather whether he would be able to convince her to come back to the land of Israel. Avraham told him that in such a case he would be exonerated from his oath, but it unlikely that the servant was completely reassured.

Accordingly, the servant devised a plan to get the family's permission for the marriage. His plan was that he would stage a test which would make it seem that her selection was destined from G-d. He was relying on the family's belief in divination, and in 30:27 we see that Lavan had this belief even after this incident. With this idea, we can understand the flow of the test.

When the servant reached Nahor, he stopped at the well, 24:11, where he learned who was Rivka. (Did he also learn the information recorded in 24:16?) The servant then prayed to G-d, both as a prayer for assistance and to set the test as a sign for G-d, and stated the test, 24:12-14. The servant timed his declaration of the test with Rivka's appearance at the well, and then just as he finished stating the test, he ran to her, 24:15,17.

The servant asked Rivka for water and she gave him water, and then she offered to give water to the camels, 24:17-20. As mentioned above, the delay in offering water to the camels was a small failure, but this was immaterial because the servant would be able to fix the small discrepancy when he would speak to the family. When Rivka was giving water to the camels, the servant wondered whether he would succeed in his mission (24:21) since the main part of his mission was not to find Rivka, but to convince her family to agree to the match, and this was the next stage of his mission. The servant was wondering whether G-d had decided to help him that his staged test would convince the family. (This reference to G-d might refer to his prayer in 24:11, but more likely refers to Avraham's declaration that G-d would help the servant in 24:7.)

The servant then gave Rivka the presents to get her approval to the match even before she told him that she was Betuel's daughter since he already knew this information, 24:22. He then asked here who was father and could he stay at her family's house, 24:23. Rivka answered that she was Betuel's daughter, she was a descendant of Nahor (the son of Terah), and that he could stay at their house, 24:24,25.

The servant then bowed to G-d, and said, "Blessed be G-d, the G-d of my lord Avraham…" 24:26,27. This prayer marks the completion of the first part of the mission which was to get Rivka's approval to the match. An almost identical phrase occurs in Ruth 2:20, when Naomi is thankful that Ruth had successfully been introduced to Boaz. In both cases, the crucial issue was the ensuing act, here the servant meeting Rivka's family, and there, when Ruth would go to Boaz in night. In both cases, the thanking of G-d was also a prayer for the successful fulfillment of the second and more difficult part of the mission.

Once the servant met the family, he immediately told them about the test without even eating first, 24:33. The servant began his re-counting of their meeting by mentioning that Avraham had been blessed, and that that Avraham had told him to pick a wife from his father's family, 24:34-38. Perry (2007, p. 302) wonders why the servant told Rivka's family this information since if the wife had to be from Avraham's father's family, there was no point to doing the test by the well. Did the servant slip-up? My guess is that this addition was to demonstrate to the family how Rivka was destined to be Yitzhak's wife. Not only was she Avraham's choice, but also when he did the test, which in theory was open to everybody, Rivka was chosen.

The servant then re-told all the narrative from 24:5-27, 24:39-59. The Torah records his recounting of the test at length since this was the crucial part of his mission. In his recounting of the test, the servant corrected Rivka's action as he said that Rivka told him that she would provide water for the camels before she gave him water to drink, 24:46, the exact version of the test, and that he gave her the presents after finding out about her lineage, 24:47.

When the servant ended his recounting of his meeting with Rivka, he demanded an immediate answer from the family whether they would agree to the match, 24:49. This need for an immediate response was because the effect of the supposed divination would start to diminish with time, and the family could begin to question the story.

The servant's plan worked perfectly. Rivka's brother and father, Lavan and Betuel, responded to the servant by stating that since the selection of Rivka was from G-d, they agreed to the match, 24:50,51. Note 24:50 first refers to Lavan and Betuel in the singular to indicate that each on his own believed that the match was from G-d.

This agreement meant that the servant had succeeded in his mission, and he left early the next morning, 24:54-61, before the family would change their mind and/ or learn that the test was staged. My guess is that the servant would have even wanted to leave immediately after he had the agreement, but it was too late at night to start the journey home.

Bibliography:

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Perry, Menachem, 2007, Counter-stories in the Bible: Rebekah and her bridegroom, Abraham's servant, Prooftexts, 27, 2007, pp. 275-323.

Schein, Andrew, 1997, The test of Rebecca, Tradition: A journal of Orthodox Jewish thought, 31:4, pp. 28-33.

Bereshit 22:1 (Va-yera) - Is there a connection between chapters 21 and 22 in the book of Bereshit?

Bereshit 22:1 begins by recording that the akedah occurred “after these things, devarim.” Was this just a technical opening to a new incident or do these words signify that the akedah was related to some previous events? With the latter possibility, the question is to what events?

Rashi (on 22:1) quotes two explanations from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 89b) based on the idea that word things, devarim, here really means speech. One, the akedah was in response to the words of Satan who claimed that Avraham did not offer any animal sacrifices (though he did build altars to G-d, 12:7,8, 13:18, and 15:9,10 was a type of sacrifice). Two, the akedah was in response to Yishmael's taunting of Yitzhak that Yishmael had agreed to be circumcised when he was 13. With this second possibility, Yishmael could only have taunted Yitzhak when he was living with them, and then the akedah would relate to the banishment of Yishmael which was "two stories" before the akedah.

This idea that the akedah relates to the banishment of Yishmael is supported by 21:22 which records that the story of Avraham's treaty with Avimelekh was at the same time as the banishment of Yishmael. Thus, when 22:1 records that the akedah was after these things, it could refer to either event. Furthermore, as pointed out by the Or Hachayyim (on 22:1), the phrase "your only son" which appears three times (in 22:2,12,16) in the akedah refers to Yitzhak as Avraham’s only son, and this could only be stated after Yishmael was banished. 

In addition, it has been noted by many (see for example Sarna, 1989, p. 150) that there are several parallels between the akedah and the banishment of Yishmael in chapter 21. In both cases, a child is saved by divine intervention in critical moments and there is a fortuitous discovery. In both cases there are journeys and in the end a promise of future blessing. Both 21:14 and 22:3 record that Avraham got up in the morning, once to banish Yishmael and once to go to the akedah. By the banishment of Yishmael, Hagar endangered the life of her son, by getting lost in the desert and wasting the food that Avraham had given her, 21:14, while by the akedah Avraham endangered the life of Yitzhak.

The Bekhor Shor (on 22:1) revises the first interpretation recorded by Rashi to make it accord with the simple reading of the Torah. He writes that Satan or anybody could have claimed that Avraham believed in G-d since he had it so good, proof of which is that kings (Avimelekh) wanted to make a treaty with him in chapter 21. The Bekhor Shor notes that this would be similar to the claim against Job, and with this explanation, the phrase "after these things" in 22:1 would refer to the story immediately preceding the akedah, the treaty of Avraham and Avimelekh.

The Rashbam, who was Rashi's grandson and a contemporary of the Bekhor Shor, also relates 22:1 to Avraham's treaty with Avimelekh, but he explains that the connection is that Avraham sinned by making this treaty and hence the akedah was a punishment for Avraham. It appears that the basis for the Rashbam's explanation was his desire to explain why G-d would test Avraham, see Sara Japhet (1994). I doubt the Rashbam's explanation for seven reasons.

One, if making a treaty with Avimelekh was such a terrible sin, why did Yitzhak make another treaty with Avimelekh (26:28-31)? Obviously, Yitzhak thought it was fine to make a treaty with Avimelekh.

Two, the main (the only?) proof for the Rashbam's explanation is that the akedah is recorded after the treaty of Avraham and Avimelekh in 21:22-30, and 22:1 states that the akedah was "after these things." However once 21:22 states that the incident with Avimelekh was contemporaneous with the banishment of Yishmael, 21:9-20, then one could cogently argue, as the Or Hachayyim did, that the phrase "after these things" refers to the banishment of Yishmael.

Three, if one claims that the phrase "after these things" must refer to the immediately preceding event to the phrase, then the treaty with Avimelekh could not be its reference since this was not the immediately preceding event to the akedah. 21:31 records that after Avimelekh left and before the akedah, Avraham planted a tree and gave it some religious connation as he called out to G-d by the tree. This action is quite questionable since Devarim 16:21 records that one is prohibited to plant an asherah, which is a tree that is worshipped, see our discussion on Devarim 16:21,22 "Asherot and matzevot in the Torah." Thus, if the akedah was because Avraham sinned as the Rashbam claims, then maybe it was because he planted this tree.

Even after Avraham planted this tree, and before the akedah, 21:32 records that Avraham lived in the land of the Philistines many days. Was this land part of the land of Israel? If no, then Avraham was living outside the land of Israel, and this could have been a "sin" according to the Rashbam's logic.

Four, it is not clear how Avraham sinned by making the treaty. Was the land of Gerar, Avimelekh's land, part of the land of Israel? 10:19 indicates that the land of Gerar was not part of the land promised to Avraham, see Ralbag on 20:1. Thus, Avraham could have made a treaty with Avimelekh since Avimelekh's land was not yet part of the Promised Land. Furthermore, even if it was, as pointed out by Japhet (1994, pp. 355,356) the treaty was only until Avimelekh's fourth generation, and the promise of land was only beginning from Avraham's fourth generation (15:16) so there was no overlap (one generation?). Instead, it seems that the Rashbam thinks Avraham's sin was that he was being haughty when he made the treaty. Yet, there is no indication in chapter 21 that Avraham was being haughty.

Five, if Avraham really sinned by making the treaty, how did the akedah rectify the sin, as there is nothing in the akedah that relates to the treaty with the Philistines. Even if Yitzhak had been killed, the treaty would still have been in effect since the treaty was with Avraham and not Yitzhak. Possibly it is this problem that forces the Rashbam to imply that Avraham's sin was that he was being haughty, and then the akedah could have lowered his haughtiness. Yet, if this was really the problem, then why in the end did G-d bless Avraham at the end of the akedah, 22:17,18, since this would only further increase his haughtiness?

Six, if the akedah was really a punishment, then there is a much more serious sin than the treaty with Avimelekh. The sin could be that when G-d told Avraham about the impending birth of Yitzhak, Avraham laughed, 17:17. When this information was told to Sara, she also laughed, 18:12. G-d then questioned Avraham why Sara was laughing and G-d stated that there is nothing that beyond G-d's powers, 18:13,14. This shows that the laughing was a sign of a lack of faith, see our discussions on on 22:1, "Why was Avraham tested?" 

In conclusion, I highly doubt the Rashbam's explanation of the phrase "after these things" but I accept his idea that the akedah could have been a punishment, though for a different sin. With regard to the question how to understand the reference to the phrase "after these things" in 22:1, I would follow either the Or Hachayyim's idea that it relates to the banishment of Yishmael since that made Yitzhak, Avraham's only child, which made the test of the akedah even more agonizing. (Could it also be that the act of banishing Yishmael but knowing that everything would work out, helped Avraham accept the idea to kill Yitzhak?) Or, the Netziv's (on 22:1) idea that "these things" refers to all the events in Avraham's life from the first go forth in 12:1 to the second go forth in the akedah 22:2, that all of Avraham's trials and tribulations were a preparation for the ultimate test, the akedah.

Bibliography:

Japhet, Sara, 1994, Rashbam's commentary on Genesis 22: Peshat or Derash," in The Bible in the light of its interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume, edited by Sara Japhet, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, pp. 349-366.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.