Bereshit 35:8 (Va-yishlach)– Rivka's loyal nurse

Bereshit 35:8 records, “Now Devora, Rivka’s nurse, died. She was buried below Bet-El, beneath the oak; they called its name: Allon Bakhut/ Oak of Weeping,” (Fox 1995 translation). This verse raises several questions.

One question is who is Devora? When Rivka left Haran to marry Yitzhak, 24:59 records that a nurse accompanied Rivka on the journey, but then the Torah does not specify her name. Could this be the same person? Yaakov was approximately 91 year old at this time, and we know that Yitzhak and Rivka were married for twenty years before Yaakov was born, but we do not know how old Rivka was when she married nor how old her nurse was. According to the Midrash, Rivka was three when she got married, which is quite difficult, but even accepting this figure, the nurse who accompanied Rivka from Haran would have been 130 years old.

The patriarchs and Yishmael lived to more than 130, but was their life spans unique or did everybody live such long lives? Clearly, it is simpler to understand that they were exceptions since even today people do not live such long lives, but still maybe Devora was also one of the exceptions. Ramban (end of comments on 35:8) writes that it is possible that this was a different nurse than the one who accompanied Rivka from Haran. Yet, this would still not solve the age problem, since the woman still had to have been alive and been able to nurse when Rivka was born. Thus, probably Devora was the same woman who accompanied Rivka when she came to Haran and she lived a long life. However, why did the Torah did not refer to her as Devora initially? Maybe, this was not to remove the focus from Rivka who was then the new bride.

A second question is what was Devora doing with Yaakov and his entourage? One possibility (see Rashi, Bekhor Shor) is that when Rivka told Yaakov to go to Haran, she said that she would send for Yaakov, 27:45. Accordingly, maybe during the twenty years that Yaakov stayed in Haran, Rivka had sent Devora as a messenger to Yaakov. However, the Torah does not record that Yaakov received any messages from Rivka, and his return home is not connected to any such message, see 31:1-17. Did Yaakov receive the message and ignore it? (It is possible to understand Rashi that Devora was only now going on the mission, but then Rivka would have been alive at this time. Silbermann and Rosenbaum, 1934, p. 170, explicitly write in their translation of Rashi that she died on the return journey.) Instead it is more likely, that Devora heard that Yaakov had returned to the land of Israel, and then she went to greet him, see comments of Yehuda Keel, 2000, p.483.

Why would Devora have gone to visit Yaakov and not Yitzhak and Rivka? We now that Yitzhak was alive, 35:27, but maybe he was too sick or maybe he was still upset about Yaakov fooling him, that he preferred to wait for Yaakov. With regard to Rivka, the Torah does not state whether she was alive or not at this point. Bereshit Rabbah (81:5, quoted by Rashi on 35:8) writes that at this time (but not apparently from Devora) Yaakov learned that Rivka died. Ramban and Hoffmann (on 35:8) note that as 35:27 only records that Yaakov returned to Yitzhak, which implies that Rivka had died. My guess is also that Rivka was dead since Devora would not have abandoned Rivka even for a short while, and hence if she went to visit Yaakov, it must be that Rivka had died.

A third difficulty with 35:8 is why is Devora’s death recorded in the Torah? Rivka’s death is not recorded, why should her nurse’s death be recorded? Furthermore, this mention of her death is smack in the middle of Yaakov building an altar, and G-d blessing him. It seems that she died in this interval, but this record of her death interrupts the flow from the building of the altar to G-d’s blessings. Several answers have been suggested to this question.

Rashbam writes that her death was mentioned since it led to the naming of a place, Allon Bakhut, and the Torah specifies all the places that Yaakov stopped at on his return trip home. Yet, this place was just a tree, and still could not this naming have been recorded after G-d made the promises to Yaakov in order not to interrupt the narrative?

Ramban based on the Midrash (above), writes that Devora’s death also refers to Rivka’s death, and then G-d spoke to Yaakov to comfort him. If I understand this idea correctly, it implies that G-d would not have made the promises recorded in 35:9-12 had not Yaakov been upset about the death of his mother, but this is very difficult to accept since these promises were the confirmation of Yaakov’s dream, 28:13-15, and of Yaakov’s victory over Esav.

Sarna (1989, p. 241, see also Kass, 2003, p. 502) connects her death with the purging of the family’s idolatry, 35:4, and suggests that her death signals that all of the family’s connection with Mesopotamia were “finally and decisively severed.” This could be, but my understanding is that the family’s connection with Haran ended with Yaakov and Lavan’s treaty, 31:44-55.

Gary Rendsburg (1984, pp.364,5) suggests that this information concerning Devora is to teach us about Rivka’s fate from deceiving Yitzhak. As noted by N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 322,323) Yaakov seems to have been punished for his deception of Yitzhak when Lavan switched Rahel and Lea, but was Rivka also punished? Rendsburg answers that her punishment was that she never saw Yaakov again after he went to Haran, and this is the implication of our verse.

I like Rendsberg’s idea, and it can be further developed. While the verse reminds us about Rivka, still if the point of the verse is just that Rivka died before Yaakov returned, then there was no need to mention Devora’s death. Devora herself must have had some relevance to the narrative, and my guess is that after Yaakov went to Haran, she was the only person left who was friendly with Rivka.

What was Rivka’s life like when Yaakov left home? The simplest assumption is that Yitzhak learned about her role in Yaakov's deceit, and this knowledge must have strained their relationship. In addition, Rivka was far from her blood relatives, living in a foreign land, her favorite son gone, and her other son probably also not too fond of her. She must have been very lonely, and her only friend would have been the nurse that she knew from her native land, Devora. Thus, the reference to Devora is to teach us about Rivka’s sad life after Yaakov left, and this was her punishment, in addition to the fact that she died without seeing Yaakov again, for her involvement in deceiving Yitzhak.

A second point about Devora’s death concerns Yaakov. As mentioned above, it seems that Rivka had died some time before Yaakov returned home, and then Devora stayed with Yitzhak. However, once she heard that Yaakov returned, she set out, even with her advanced age, to see Yaakov. It is possible that this trip caused her to die, but she made it to Yaakov and then Yaakov learned that his mother had died and/ or of her sad life after she left. Thus, in between the time that he built the altar and he received the blessings from G-d he learned these tidings concerning his mother. This news would clearly sadden Yaakov as we see from the name of the tree, the oak of weeping. The timing of this information was also part of his punishment for deceiving Yitzhak. Yaakov was about to receive the blessings that confirmed his victory over Esav, but he could not enjoy the moment since he was sad about the news of his mother and her loyal nurse. Thus, Devora’s death signals one more sad aspect to Yaakov’s life, see 47:9.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books

Kass, Leon, 2003, The Beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

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

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

Rendsburg, Gary, 1984, A note on Genesis XXXV, Vetus Testamentum, 34:3, pp. 361-365.

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

Silbermann, A. M. and M. Rosenbaum, 1985, initial publication 1934, Chumash with Rashi’s commentary, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd, successors to Shapiro Valentine & Co.

Barukh she-petarani - A strange blessing

Bereshit 25:27 records that Esav and Yaakov grew up and developed differently, Esav became a hunter, a man of the fields, while Yaakov stayed at home in the tents. Commenting on this verse, the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 63:10) quotes R. Pinhas in the name of R. Levi, "that for 13 years, both Esav and Yaakov went to school and came home. After that age, one (Yaakov) went to the house of study and the other (Esav) to idolatrous shrines." The Midrash continues and quotes R. Eleazar (b. R. Shimon?) who said "A man is responsible for his son until the age of 13; thereafter he must say, barukh she-petarani me-onsho shel zeh – blessed is He who has now freed me from the responsibility of this boy."

While Bereshit Rabbah is one of the earliest Midrashim, (400-500 CE, see Encyclopedia Judaica, 1971, 11:1511) this blessing, barukh she-petarani, is not mentioned in the Talmud or by the Geonim. The blessing is mentioned in the 11th century by R. Yehuda b. Barukh (student of Rabbenu Gershom, source in Gilat, 2002, pp. 60-73). Two centuries later in the 13th century, R. Shimon ben Tzaddok (Germany, Tashbetz 90, student of Maharam Rutenberg) and Hizkuni (Provence, comments on 25:27) quote the Midrash. In the following century, the Maharil (1365-1421, Germany, quoted by Rama, Darkei Moshe, Orah Chayyim 225) quotes the Mordechai (Y. Gilat, above, notes that this comment this is not found in our editions of the Mordecahi) to say the blessings.

We see that at least by the end of the Middle Ages, the custom had developed amongst Ashkenazim to say barukh she-petarani when a boy became 13. This is another example of the connection between the Ashkenazi community in the Middle Ages with the community in Israel in the first millennium since Bereshit Rabbah is a product of the community in Israel. However, the Rambam, the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh do not mention the blessing, and apparently, the Sefardim did not say this blessing in the Middle Ages. (Gilat, source above, quotes one Sefardi Rav, R Yehoshua b. Shuiv, 14th century, that he saw a person say the blessing when his son became 20!)

The Rama (16th century, Poland) quotes this blessing both in the Darkei Moshe and in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh in Orah Chayyim, 225. In the Darkei Moshe he writes that this blessing is difficult since it is not mentioned in the Talmud and by the codifiers, and he rules that one should say the blessing without saying G-d's name, which emasculates the blessing. However, the Gra (1720-1797, comments on Shulchan Arukh, 225, quoted in Mishnah Brurah 225:8) argues with the Rama, and writes that one should say the blessing with G-d's name, as the Maharil did. (My impression is that today most Ashkenazim and Sefardim who now recite the blessing follow the Rama and do not say the blessing with G-d's name, though those people who follow the Gra recite the blessing with G-d's name.)

Why did the Rama change the Ashkenazi custom of saying the blessing with G-d's name? He writes that the reason not to recite the blessing with G-d's name is because it was not mentioned in the Talmud (see Rosh, 1250-1327, on Talmud Kiddushin, 1:41 in reference to a different blessing), but the Rama does not accept this rule. On Orah Chayyim 46:6, the Tur records that Ashkenazim recite the blessing "who give strength to the weary." Commenting on this Tur, R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575) writes in the Bet Yosef that one should not say the blessing since it is not mentioned in the Talmud, and in the Shulchan Arukh (46:6) he writes that though some people say this blessing, it should not be said. However, the Rama in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh writes that the custom of Ashkenazim is to recite the blessing "who give strength to the weary," and as noted by the Mishnah Brurah (46:22) this means to say the blessing with G-d's name, which is the Ashkenazi practice today. We see that that the Rama does not accept the principle that that one should not recite a blessing with G-d's name if the blessing was not mentioned in the Talmud, see comments of Taz 46:7. In addition, we see that the Gra also rejected this principle since he ruled to say the blessing barukh she-petarani with G-d's name. (Another example of a blessing we say with G-d's name that is not mentioned in the Talmud is the blessing by lighting the candles on Shabbat which was introduced by the Geonim. Also, see discussion by the blessing on Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, Shulchan Arukh, Orah Chayyim 422:2 )

A possible difference between the case of the blessing by barukh she-petarani and the blessing "to give strength to the weary," is that the Tur quotes the blessing "to give strength to the weary" but he does not quote the blessing barukh she-petarani. Furthermore, the Rama in the Darkei Moshe says the blessing of barukh she-petarani is not mentioned not just in the Talmud but also not by the codifiers. Is the Rama referring to the Tur when he writes codifiers? Even if yes, this distinction whether the Tur mentions the blessing or not seems quite difficult. Why is the Tur the last person to authorize a new blessing? Furthermore, the Maharil, who was the next great Ashkenazi codifier after the Tur ruled that one is to recite the blessing with G-d's name, and he quotes this from the Mordechai who lived before the Tur. One of the main reasons for the Rama's commentary on the Tur is to add Ashkenazi customs that are not quoted by the Tur and/ or developed after the Tur. Why did the Rama reject the Maharils' ruling to say the blessing with G-d's name?

Maybe the Rama's position by the blessing barukh she-petarani is due to the idea expressed by the blessing. The simple understanding of the blessing (see Magen Avraham, 1637-1683, Poland, Orah Chayyim 225:5) is that the blessing signifies that until a boy become 13 the father is responsible for the sins of his son, but after the son becomes 13 the father will not be punished for his son's actions. This is a very strange blessing since it assumes that the son will sin. In addition, the father is saying the blessing as thanks that he will not be punished for his son's sin, as instead his son will be punished. Which father wants his son to be punished? I think most fathers would rather suffer instead of their children suffering. Possibly because of this difficulty, a student of the Rama, R. Mordecahi Jaffe (Levush, 1535-1612) suggests that the blessing means that the son will not be punished for his father's sins. This also is difficult because the son is assuming the father will sin, and then the son should say the blessing. Furthermore, the source of the blessing is from Yitzhak and Esav, and the point of the Midrash is that Yitzhak was no longer responsible for Esav's sins, and not that Esav was no longer responsible for Yitzhak's sins. I have also heard another apologetic explanation for the blessing that the blessing signifies that the father is exempt from teaching his son Torah. This rationale does not accord with the words of the blessing, and is bizarre. Who makes a blessing when one becomes exempt from having to do a mitzvah?

Accordingly, my guess is that the Rama did not like the blessing barukh she-petarani since it expresses the idea that the son is destined to sin and be punished. However, he could not ignore it completely since it was already the established Ashkenazi custom to say the blessing, so he limited the blessing by ruling that one should not say it with G-d's name. Furthermore, he did not want to write that the blessing has a bad connotation since it was the accepted Ashkenazi custom so he based his ruling on the principle that one does not recite a blessing with G-d's name that is not recorded in the Talmud. (Maybe also by the blessing "to give strength to the weary," the Rama stated that it is to be recited with G-d's name since the blessing expresses a nice idea that at night people go to sleep tired from a day's work, but then G-d re-invigorates them when they wake up, see explanation of the blessing by the Tur.)

Another interesting point of the Rama's ruling is the context where he refers to the blessing. Once the blessing is not mentioned in the Tur and the Shulchan Arukh, the Rama was free to record this blessing anywhere he desired. One would have thought that he would have recorded the blessing within the laws of reading the Torah since the blessing is recited when the child has his first aliyah and the Maharil recorded the blessing in the context of the laws of reading the Torah. Instead, the Rama quotes the blessing within Orah Chayyim 225, which records the blessing shehechianu by the passage of time. Maybe with this placement the Rama was trying to transform the blessing barukh she-petarani from its negative connotation to a positive overtone. The blessing of shehechianu marks joyful events, and hence by recording the blessing barukh she-petarani in the context of the shehechianu blessing, the Rama was trying to make the blessing comparable to the shehechianu blessing, that it marks a joyous event. Whether this was the Rama's intention, today it has become a "happy" blessing, associated with the celebration of the bar (and bat?) mitzvah.

Bereshit 25:23 (Toledot) – Did the all the aspects in the oracle told to Rivka occur?

בראשית כה:כג - ויאמר ה' לה "שני גיים בבטנך ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו ולאם מלאם יאמץ ורב יעבד צעיר." 

Bereshit 25:23 records the oracle told to Rivka when she was pregnant about the future of her children, who would be Yaakov and Esav. The oracle consists of one verse in the Torah, and within the verse, there are four elements or parts to the oracle. The first two elements are that there were two nations in Rivka’s womb and that these two nations would separate. While it is not exactly clear what this separation entailed, these statements were actualized with the emergence of the Jewish people and Edom who lived in different areas, and only the Jewish people made a covenant with G-d. The third element of the oracle, uleom muleom yeamtaz, people over people shall prevail (Alter 2004, p. 129, translation) was actualized by the fight between Yaakov and Esav, 32:25-30. The fourth and final line of the oracle is ve-rav yaavod tzair, which refers to Rivka’s eldest son (Esav) and younger son (Yaakov) serving or working. Was this line ever actualized?

The traditional understanding of the fourth element in the oracle is that the phrase means that Esav was destined to serve Yaakov. Based on this understanding, Ibn Ezra (on 25:23 and on 27:40), quotes Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon that the oracle was fulfilled when Esav left the land of Canaan and went to Seir, 36:6. However, Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility since 33:3 records that Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, which suggests that it was Yaakov who was serving Esav. I doubt that this bowing down by Yaakov was that significant since afterwards, Yaakov declined Esav's offer to follow him to Seir, 33:12,13 which shows that Yaakov did not view himself as being subservient to Esav. Note, while this bowing down could have been to show that Yaakov was “giving” Yitzhak’s blessings back to Esav, this would not necessarily mean that he viewed himself as being subservient to Esav. Accordingly, maybe R. Saadiah Gaon is correct since when Esav left the land of Israel this was showing that he was subservient to Yaakov. Yet, one could claim that when Esav was in Seir and Yaakov lived in Canaan, both were living independent of each other and not serving one or the other.

Radak (on 25:23) notes that the fourth aspect of the oracle can be understood in two ways, that Esav will serve Yaakov, or that Yaakov will serve Esav. Furthermore, he claims that both interpretations were fulfilled, but not in the lifetimes of Yaakov and Esav. He suggests that the interpretation that Esav would serve Yaakov was fulfilled when David conquered Edom, Samuel II 8:14, and the interpretation that Yaakov would serve Esav was fulfilled when the Christians ruled over the Jews since Chazal view Rome as being the descendants of Esav and Christianity as being the successor to the Romans. I doubt this historical approach since the oracle should refer to events in the Torah and not afterwards, and in this case, it appears that the oracle relates specifically to Rivka's children.

A third possibility to understanding the fourth element of the oracle is to combine the views of the Radak in the second approach with Ibn Ezra’s view discussed in the first approach. This combination would follow the Radak’s idea that the fourth element of the oracle could be understood to mean that Yaakov would serve Esav, and then one can follow the Ibn Ezra’s idea that when Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, this showed that Yaakov was being subservient to Esav. My problem with this possibility is that as mentioned above, I think Yaakov’s bowing down was a formality and did not indicate that he was subservient to Esav, and my impression is that the correct understanding of the fourth element of the oracle is the traditional approach that Esav would serve Yaakov.

A fourth possibility to understanding the fourth element of the oracle is that the oracle was conditional. Thus, Rav Huna (Bereshit Rabbah 63:7) argues that the oracle was conditional, that if Yaakov was worthy, Esav would serve him, but if he was not worthy then he would serve Esav. This idea would be similar to the prophecy told to Yonah, who told the people of Ninveh, that in forty days the city would be overthrown, Jonah 3:4, and the city was not destroyed. One could vary this idea, that if Yaakov was not worthy, then the prophecy would not occur at all. Accordingly, maybe since Yaakov stole the blessings, then the last element of the oracle was not fulfilled. However, the oracle seems unconditional unlike by Yonah where the point of the prophecy was to be a warning.

A fifth possibility is that maybe the fourth element of the oracle was fulfilled when Esav went to Edom, but Edom was not serving Yaakov by leaving the land of Israel. Devarim 2:22 records that Esav captured the land of Seir, and the land of Seir was called Edom apparently after Esav's other name Edom. Yet, when Bereshit 36:31-39 records a list of kings of Edom, neither Esav nor his sons appear in the land. Esav conquered the land, but he was not king. Instead, somebody else, who surely from Esav's perspective was a “Johnny come lately” became king. Thus, Esav and/ or his descendants had to serve this king, who from his perspective was his junior. Note, 25:23 does not record the words "the younger," implying Yaakov, but "younger," which could be anybody who was younger. This idea could also explain why the Torah records these kings, see our discussion on Chapter 36, “The rise and fall of Esav.”

According to this fifth approach, Rivka understood correctly that the older son, Esav was to do the serving, but she misunderstood who he was to serve. This is very common in literature that the oracle is only understood in the end of the story. Furthermore, maybe she was not given the correct interpretation as a punishment for asking about the future (see Rashi on 25:22) which was an inappropriate question.

I think the last phrase of the oracle is referring specifically to Esav and Yaakov and not to Esav's descendants. Thus, we are left that either the oracle was not completely fulfilled (see Benno Jacob, 174, p. 167) or R. Saadiah Gaon's approach.

Bibliography:

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

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis: Commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.