Bereshit chapter 36 - The rise and fall of Esav

Bereshit chapter 36 records the descendants of Esav. The chapter records two elleh toledot sections about Esav, and this phrase is the literary marker for the structure of the book of Berehsit, see our discussion, “Introduction: The structure of the book of Bereshit.” The first elleh toledot section concerns Esav himself, 36:1-8, and the second elleh toledot section records Esav’s descendants, 36:9-43.

Why is chapter 36 included in the Torah? Why does one need to know who was Esav’s descendants?

Radak (on 36:19) explains that the list of descendants is either to show respect for Yitzhak or for the Jewish people to know who was a descendant of Esav in order that they would not live in their land.

Abravanel suggests two other answers. One, the chapter is to tell us of the incestuous practices of Esav’s descendants, and two, the chapter is to show that the blessings that Esav received from Yitzhak, 27:39,40, were realized.

We will try to develop another possibility. We will start with a review of the chapter.

Chapter 36 can be divided into five units. The first unit is 36:1-8, which records the activities of Esav in the land of Canaan, and that he left Canaan to live in Mount Se’ir. This same process occurred with Lot, 13:5-13. Similarly, Lot's descendants received land on the east bank of the Jordan River, the land of Moav and Ammon. Devarim 2:5 records that G-d promised the land of Se’ir to Esav and Devarim 2:9,19 records that G-d promised the land of Moav and Ammon to Lot as an inheritance. Thus, just as the Torah records Lot’s departure from the land and the sordid story of his children (19:30-38), so too the Torah records Esav's departure from the land and his children. 

The second unit in chapter 36 is 36:9-19, which records that the children and/ or grandchildren of Esav became chieftains or heads of families in the land of Mount Se’ir (Rashi on 36:15).  The children of Esav had already been mentioned in the first unit, as they had been born in the land of Canaan, but as 36:9 starts a toledot section, then the genealogical information is repeated. (For similar occurrences, see 4:26-5:3, 5:32-6:10, 11:26,27 and 25:19.)

The second unit of chapter 36 is similar to the list of sons of Yishmael, as in both cases, their children become leaders of families that were like tribes, 25:16 and 36:15-19. In both cases, the lists seem to be a fulfillment of prophecies from G-d, by Yishmael, 21:13,18 and by Esav, 25:23, that nations would derive from them. In addition, these sections are also similar to 19:30-38 which record the births of Lot’s children/ grandchildren, Moav and Ammon. Both Lot and Yishmael, like Esav, were potential participants in the covenantal process, and hence just as the Torah records the descendants of Lot and Yishmael, the Torah records the descendants of Esav. In all three cases, the family member who did not remain in the covenantal process, Lot, Yishmael and Esav, were not completely disregarded, as the Torah records their descendants. Hence, the second unit of chapter 36 is significant. We are left to explain the significance of the last three units of chapter 36.

The third unit is 36:20-30, which records the chieftains or families of the sons of Se’ir the Horite, who lived in the land of Se’ir before Esav. The fourth unit is 36:31-39, and records the kings of Edom. The fifth unit, 36:40-43, records another list of families or chieftains of Esav, some of whose names correspond to the list of the second unit and some who are new.

Robert Sacks (1990) suggests a fascinating way to understand chapter 36. He notes that there are numerous textual problems with the chapter, which he calls “the most artless chapter in Bereshit and perhaps in the whole Bible.” Just a few examples: Ana is apparently a woman based on 36:2 but 36:20 seems to refer to Ana as a man. Korah is initially just a member of the Oholivama branch of Esav’s family, 36:14, but then he appears as a chieftain in both Oholivama’s and Elifaz’s branch of Esav’ family, 36:16,18. 36:20,21 record that one family has two brothers, Dishon and Dishan, but then in 36:26, Dishon seems to become Dishan. While the commentators give reasons for each anomaly, Sacks suggests that the text records the history of Esav as if it had been preserved by Esav’s children, and this is why there are so many “mistakes” in the list since Esav’s children did not keep careful records. Why would the Torah deliberately allow mistakes in the text? Sacks answers that this demonstrates the “artless character of Esav himself.”

Sacks points out a difference between the list of descendants of Esav and Yishmael. With regards to Yishmael we only have a list of his sons but not his later descendants, while for Esav his later descendants are also recorded. Sacks explains (throughout his commentary on Bereshit) that the family of Avraham was starting a New Way, which was a life based on the covenant, and this covenant is based on laws and tradition. A crucial part of a life based on laws and tradition is keeping records and thus people who were part of the New Way had to keep records. Yishmael was not part of the New Way since he was referred to as a wild ass, 16:12, and Sacks writes “the way of a wild ass is not a way that keeps records. But Esav as a strange mixture between the New Way and the wild ass does keep records. However, they tend to get scrambled a bit.”

There is also a genetic difference between Yishmael and Esav. By Yishmael only his father, Avraham, was part of the covenant with G-d, while Esav was Yitzhak and Rivka’s son, and Avraham and Sara’s grandson. Accordingly, Esav was entitled to have his history recorded, and the last three units of chapter 36 record the history of the rise and fall of Esav.

The third unit of chapter 36, 36:20-30, records the people who lived in Mount Se’ir before Esav became in control of the land. This unit then describes the rise of Esav, that he took control of the land of Mount Se’ir, see Devarim 2:22. Seforno (on 36:20) notes that this list shows that the initial inhabitants of Se’ir were men of great renown, and still Esav was able to gain control of the land from them. Furthermore, Ramban (on 36:31, also see Radak on 36:24) writes that that the list of the leaders of Seir shows the fulfillment of Yitzhak's blessing that Esav would succeed in battle, 27:40.

Afterwards, the fourth unit of chapter 36, 36:31-39, records the kings of Edom and even one of their successful battles with Moav, 36:35. This unit shows the peak of the power of the nation Edom that Esav founded. However, as we discussed on 25:23, "Did all the aspects of the oracle told to Rivka occur?" it is curious that neither Esav nor his sons are listed as one of the kings of Edom. This implies that while Esav was the great figure whose land was named after him, in the end, he was subservient to other kings. This list might then be the (partial?) fulfillment of the oracle to Rivka that the "elder would serve a younger," which was fulfilled when Esav served these other kings of Edom.

Within this fourth unit, 36:39 records that the eighth and last king of Edom was Hadar and the verse even records the name of his wife, Mehetabel, and her father/ mother and grandfather/ grandmother(?). This reference to Hadar’s wife is unique in this list and even more surprising is the reference to Mehetabel’s ancestry.

The Bekhor Shor (on 36:29) and the Baal HaTurim (on 36:39, and I thank my son Dror for pointing this out) suggest that Mehetabel is mentioned since she was the reason that Hadar became king. Furthermore, Sarna (1989, p. 253) suggests that Mehetabel’s mother and grandmother are mentioned since this indicated that Mehetabel has a “very distinguished ancestry.”

Maybe there are two other reasons for mentioning Mehetabel and her ancestry. One, 36:39 is towards the end of the list of descendants of Esav, and the list began by mentioning the wives of Esav, 36:2. With regard to one of the wives of Esav, Oholibamah, the Torah also refers to her double ancestry just like by Mehetabel. Thus, the reference to Mehetabel could be a literary technique to match the conclusion of the list with the beginning of the list. (This might have been useful for people who knew the Torah by memory.)

A second possibility is that since Hadar was the last king in the list if one wanted to find out what happened afterwards, then it is helpful to have more information about the family. Thus, Hadar's wife Mehetabel and her ancestry are mentioned.

To return to the structure of chapter 36, the fifth unit, 36:40-43, records the fall of the family of Esav. During this period presumably some families had died out and other families became prominent.  These new prominent families are the new names mentioned in this unit. Yet, these new prominent families were no longer kings. As noted by Rashi (on 36:40) after there were no longer kings of the nation of Edom, the family of Esav reverted back to smaller disjointed families, unit five of the chapter, which indicated their loss of power. 

We can summarize the significance of each unit of chapter 36. The first unit, as by Lot, shows why Esav was not part of the covenant since he left the land of Israel. The second unit, as by Yishmael, shows that G-d’s prophecy in 25:23 that nations would develop from Esav  was fulfilled. The third and fourth units show the rise of Esav, while the fifth unit shows the decline of Esav.  These last three units give the general history of Esav’s family, which Esav as a son of Yitzhak and Rivka and a grandson of Avraham and Sara was entitled to have recorded.

Bibliography:

Sacks, Robert, 1990, A commentary on the book of Genesis, Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.

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

Bereshit 34:25-35:5 - The brothers of Dina go amok

Bereshit 34:2 records that Shekhem took (raped?) Dina, Yaakov’s daughter. Afterwards, he decided that he loved Dina, and his father Hamor made a deal with Dina’s brothers (also Yaakov?) that they would agree to the marriage if the all the men in the town of Shekhem would circumcise themselves, which they did, 34:3-24. 34:25-28 then record that on the third day after the men of Shekhem circumcised themselves, Shimon and Levi massacred the male population of the town and Yaakov’s sons pillaged the town. Note, as I discuss on 34:1-35:5, "How old was Dina when Shekhem wanted to marry her?" I believe that Yosef and probably also Yehuda were not living with the family at this time, and hence they were not involved in the plunder of the town.

A side point: 34:29 adds that as part of this plunder of the town, the sons of Yaakov took many captives from the town, but we never hear of these captive again. Could this mean that Yaakov forced his children to let the captives go?

How can one understand this massacre and plunder? 34:7 records that Shekhem the son of Hamor had done a nevelah be-Yisrael, a deplorable act, by having sex with Dina. Thus, the Torah condemned his action whether it was technically rape or not, but did he and the men of Shekhem deserve to die and the city be plundered especially after they had made a deal with the sons of Yaakov to circumcise themselves (34:18-24)? Many answers have been suggested to understand the behavior of Shimon, Levi and the other sons of Yaakov.

One: Rambam (Laws of Kings 9:14) writes that the people of Shekhem were guilty of not following the seven laws of Noah, and thus they deserved to die. Their guilt was that Shekhem the son of Hamor had kidnapped Dina (34:26, see below argument by Sternberg) and the people did not act as judges to punish him.

Two: Ibn Kaspi (1278-1340, quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 387) argues that 34:27, which records “they (Yaakov’s sons) looted the city which defiled their sister,” implies that all the population of Shekhem were guilty of raping Dina. He writes, “This ends any moral objection since the Lawgiver Himself testifies they all had a hand in the crime.” Furthermore, the fact that the rapist had the same name as the town, Shekhem, also highlights the guilt of the town. Yet, at most the people of Shekhem were accomplices to the rape and kidnapping, did they deserve to die after they agreed to circumcise themselves? Also, the penalty for rape in the Torah is for the rapist to marry the victim, Devarim 22:28,29, which is what Shekhem offered to do, 34:12. It is interesting that this phrase, “which defiled their sister” in 34:27 is stated in reference to the plunder of the city but not in reference to the massacre. This might imply that the plunder of the town was justified since the people of the town were accomplices in some way to Shekhem’s (the son of Hamor) deplorable act but the defilement of Dina did not justify the killing of the men of Shekhem.

Three: The Gur Aryeh (on 34:13, Maharal of Prague, see also Ramban on 34:13) criticizes the Rambam’s approach since the people of Shekhem could not have been responsible for not judging their leader when presumably they were in no position to have done so. He suggests that the episode should be viewed as a war between the people of Shekhem and the brothers of Yaakov, and once there is a war, then the entire population of the town, even those who were not directly involved in the rape were responsible since they were part of the town. This idea might explain why Yaakov’s sons decided to plunder the town, but this war seems to be one-sided since the people of Shekhem thought they made a treaty with Yaakov and his family.

Four: Meir Sternberg (1985, p. 445) notes “that mass slaughter does not balance against rape according to conventional normative scales,” but the goal of the narrative is to make the punishment fit the crime.

One argument for this idea is that 34:26 records that after Shimon and Levi massacred the town, they took back Dina. Sternberg claims that this shows that Dina had also been kidnapped, and by placing this information after the massacre, we see that the people of Shekhem “largely brought down that violence on themselves by seeking to impose their will on Jacob’s family” (p. 468). Yet, as pointed out by Fewell and Gunn (1991) all 34:26 states is that Dina was staying in Shekhem’s house, but we cannot know conclusively that she was detained, as maybe she agreed to stay with him. Or, maybe after the people of Shekhem circumcised themselves, then she went to live with Shekhem following the deal that the brothers of Yaakov made with Shekhem and Hamor.

Sternberg's second argument is from the last verse of chapter 34, 34:31, which records that after Yaakov accused Shimon and Levi of endangering the family, Shimon and Levi defended their actions by claiming “should our sister be treated like a whore?” Sternberg argues that Shimon and Levi acted out of idealism to defend their sister’s honor, and as they are given the last word “- and what a last word!-” (p. 475), this shows that the Torah believes that their action to redress the wrong done to their sister was justified. Yet, how does this idealism accord with their plunder of the city?  Also, as I argue below, they do not have the last word since the last word is Yaakov’s statement in 35:3.

Five: Leon Kass (2003, p. 481) argues that Shimon and Levi were claiming that “their failure to defend their sister’s honor would be tantamount to regarding her as a harlot," as he notes that Roman law did not recognize rape of a harlot as a punishable crime. Yet, defending their sister’s honor did not necessitate killing the male population of Shekhem. Thus, Kass writes (p. 497) that “fair minded readers of the story are left with nagging questions... The potential – in this case - actual extremism to which proper vengeance can grow troubles us." However, he concludes (p. 498), “we are moved by the suggestion that a community culture that will make war to defend the virtue of its women, against a community that dishonors other people’s women, proves itself- by this very fact of its willingness to fight and die for its daughters and sisters- to be not only more fit to survive and flourish but also superior in justice.” This is at best a relative defense of Yaakov’s sons, and going to war when the people of Shekhem agreed to the deal of Yaakov’s sons to circumcise themselves does not seem to be “superior in justice.”

Six: The sons of Yaakov were acting based on the culture of their times. The best proof for this approach is that, as noted by many, this story has many parallels to the Greek story of the sack of Troy by Agamemnon, which was because Paris, the prince of Troy, took/ abducted Helen, the wife of Agamemnon’s brother Menelaus.

Seven: A completely different approach is that there was no justification for the massacre. S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 523, on 34:25) writes:  "Now the blameworthy part begins, which we need in no wise excuse. Had they killed Shekhem and Hamor, there would be scarcely anything to say against it. But they did not spare the unarmed men who were at their mercy, yea, and went further and looted, altogether made the inhabitants pay for the crime of the landowner. For that there was no justification."

Hertz (1960, pp. 128,129, see also N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 385) also follows this approach and writes, “the sons of Jacob certainly acted in a treacherous and godless manner.” 

This seventh approach vilifies the brothers, and exonerates Yaakov because he criticized Shimon and Levi both here, 34:30, and in his final testament, 49:5-7.

However, in 34:30, Yaakov only gave a practical reason for why Shimon and Levi should not have murdered the men of Shekhem that their actions had endangered the entire family: “You have stirred up trouble for me, making me stink among the land's inhabitants, among the Canaanite and Perizzite, when I am handful of men. If they gather against me and strike me, I shall be destroyed, I and my household,” (Altar, 2004, p. 193, translation).  Why did Yaakov only give a practical reason when he criticized Shimon and Levi and why did he not respond to their declaration in 34:31?

Prior to trying to understand Yaakov’s statement, it should be kept in mind that even if Yaakov was not sufficiently critical of Shimon and Levi this still would not justify their actions. With that proviso, the most reasonable reason why Yaakov gave a practical reason was because he hoped that this reason would make Shimon and Levi and the rest of his sons understand that they were wrong. Maybe, he thought that if he called them murderers, then for sure they would not listen to him. In addition, maybe he thought that Shimon and Levi would try to justify their killing of the town since they might have claimed that if they just killed Shekhem, then the people of the town would have come after them. Thus, Yaakov was pointing out that this logic did not solve their problem since still the neighboring people could come after them and the family. Also, it could be that while Yaakov was directing his fury at Shimon and Levi, the worst culprits, he still wanted to reproach his other sons who also nullified the agreement with the people of Shekhem by plundering the town. Thus, his statement that “you made me stink amongst the land’s inhabitants” included all of his sons who had participated in making and then breaking the deal with Shekhem, Hamor and the people of Shekhem.

Whatever was Yaakov’s logic, his statement seems to have made no impression, as Shimon and Levi responded by claiming that if they had not killed the town, then they would have made their sister Dina into a whore. How did this statement respond to Yaakov’s statement that they had endangered the entire family? Were they claiming that it was more important to protect Dina’s honor than the lives of the entire family? It seems that Shimon and Levi were so fixated on the family's honor that they were unconcerned about the effects of their actions. Were they depending on miracles? Their lack of concern for the consequences of their actions shows that they were acting irrationally.

In addition, the family's honor had not been impinged. Shekhem had agreed to marry Dina and he and the whole town had circumcised themselves to make a deal with Yaakov and his sons (see Luzzatto on 34:31). Accordingly, Dina was not being treated like a whore. While Sternberg and others believe that Shimon and Levi’s justification for murdering the people of Shekhem shows idealism, their declaration in 34:31 indicates that they had become raving lunatics.

The brother’s desire to kill Yosef, 37:20 (except for Reuven), also contradicts the defense of idealism. Not only do we see a consistent pattern of violence (whether the incident in Shekhem was before or after they expressed their desire to kill their brother), but also, here they claimed to be acting for concern for their sister, while there they were trying to kill their brother? Instead, in both cases, they had become enraged (for different reasons) and this caused to murder or express their desire to murder.

Yaakov understood from Shimon and Levi’s response in 34:31 that nothing he could say would make them comprehend the terrible actions that they had done, and then there was no point for him to respond to their ranting. The idea being that when people are screaming irrationally there is nothing a person can do to answer them. (I have seen this behavior in my lifetime.) Instead, Yaakov waited until his death bed when he criticized their actions on moral grounds, 49:5-7.

In addition, it could be that G-d intervened even before Yaakov had a chance to respond, as 35:1 records that G-d spoke to Yaakov, and we have no idea how soon after the conversation between Yaakov and Shimon and Levi this conversation between G-d and Yaakov transpired.

I think most people think that the incident here ended with Shimon and Levi’s statement in 34:31, but the incident did not end until 35:5 which records that the family left the town of Shekhem and went to Bet-El. This misconception that Shimon and Levi had the last word might because there is a parasha petucha after 34:31, and/ or because in the 13th century, Archbishop Stephen Langton decided that 34:31 would be the last verse in the chapter. If one reads the Torah that that incident ended in 35:5, then it is clear that the Torah is not trying to justify the actions of the brothers of Dina.

35:1 records that G-d told Yaakov to go to Bet-El to offer sacrifices to the G-d who appeared to you when you were running away from Esav. While Rashi (on 35:1) claims that this message was a warning to Yaakov that if he did not offer the sacrifices, then he would suffer more, from 35:3 we see that this was not how Yaakov understood the message.

35:3 records that Yaakov told his family that they were to go to Bet-El, and he would offer sacrifices to the G-d who answered him in his troubles, and who was with him in his travels. What is the reference to “his troubles?” Which troubles? Abarbanel (2007, p. 629) suggests two possibilities: One, the time when he had the fight in the middle of the night and meet Esav or two, the incident in Shehkem with Dina. The first possibility is not possible since in 35:3 Yaakov refers to G-d speaking to him in his troubles, and G-d did not speak to Yaakov after Yaakov fought at night and after Yaakov met with Esav. Instead, in 35:3 Yaakov is referring to G-d speaking to him in 35:1 with regard to his troubles with Dina, his sons and the people of Shekhem, which shows that that the conversation in 35:1 was right after Shimon and Levi shouted in 34:31. In addition, the fact that Yaakov referred to G-d answering him means that the conversation in 35:1 was for Yaakov’s benefit that G-d was telling him to go to Bet-El to help Yaakov. Furthermore, the end of the verse connects this going to Bet-El with G-d’s appearance to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav, and just like in that case, the vision at Bet El was to help Yaakov survive, so too in this case the going to Bet El would be to help Yaakov survive.

The following verse, 35:2, records that Yaakov told his family to remove all of their foreign gods, to purify themselves and to change their clothing. These foreign gods are quite a shock, and most commentators (see Rashi on 35:2) claim that these gods were part of the booty that Yaakov’s children took from Shekhem. This could be true, but it could be that they had these idols from before. The purifying and changing the clothing is similar to the preparations of the Jewish people before the Decalogue, Shemot 19:10, but there the people were to me-kadesh themselves, while here the family was to purify themselves. Also, there the people were to wash the clothing while here the people were to change their clothing. What was the need for this change of clothing here? Was it due to their worship of idolatry or because they needed to atone for their terrible actions by Shekhem?

The next verse 35:3 records that Yaakov told the family that they were to go to Bet El, which could be an explanation for why they had to get rid of their foreign gods or it could be that the removal of the foreign gods was independent of the family going to Bet El. In any event, in this verse, Yaakov first begins by stating that everybody was to go to Bet El, but then he states that only he would offer a sacrifice there. We see again that the going to Bet-El and offering a sacrifice was for Yaakov’s benefit, and should not be thought of as a reward for the terrible actions by Yaakov’s sons since they would not participate at all in the sacrifice. Furthermore, in 35:3 Yaakov stresses (four times) how G-d saved him. Yaakov is trying to make clear that G-d’s saving of the family now by telling them to go to Bet-El was because G-d was saving him and should not be interpreted as G-d acting to save his sons. This statement by Yaakov is the last word in the incident of Dina. Alas, the apologetic readers who defend Shimon and Levi seem to ignore 35:3.

The following verse, 35:4, is that the family gave to Yaakov all of the foreign gods, even their earrings, and Yaakov buried these items by Shekhem. This is the first action of the family since the conversation between Yaakov and Shimon and Levi, and everybody bowed to Yaakov’s authority. One curiosity about this verse is the reference to the earrings. It must be that the earrings had idolatrous figures within them, as otherwise why would Yaakov have to bury them (see Luzzatto on 35:4).

Why did the Torah have to mention the earrings? Once the Torah recorded that Yaakov’s family gave him all of their foreign gods, why is there a need to specify that they even gave him their earrings? The answer is that the verse does not only state that they gave him their earrings but also that they took the earrings from their ears. This reminds us of the Jewish people by the making of the golden calf, who also took off their earrings from their ears to make the golden calf, Shemot 32:2,3. This taking of the earrings from their ears by Yaakov’s family shows that even if the foreign gods were from the booty from Shekhem, they had not just taken the idols but that they had adopted them by attaching them to their ears. Even without this reference to the idolatry of the people by the sin of the golden calf, these earrings show that Yaakov’s family worshiped idolatry in some sense.

The following verse, 35:5, the last verse in the incident with Dina and Shekhem, records that in the aftermath of the massacre, G-d stopped the people who lived around Shekhem from attacking Yaakov and his family. Thus, Yaakov’s fear that he expressed in 34:30 did not happen, but could Yaakov have known that G-d would do a miracle to save him and his family? 

Could one understand that G-d did a miracle to support Shimon and Levi and the brothers of Dina? We already saw from 35:1,3 that the going to Bet-El was for Yaakov and hence G-d’s protection of the family when they went to Bet-El was because of Yaakov, and the members of Yaakov’s family were incidentally protected.  Can one claim that Shimon and Levi worthy of G-d doing a miracle for them? The information from 35:2,4 that Yaakov family had idols precludes this possibility. Specifically, the extra information about the earrings in 35:4 indicates that Shimon and Levi and the brothers were not righteous people who acted in Shekhem out of religiosity and who were worthy of G-d doing miracles for them, but idol worshippers who killed and robbed like regular people sometimes do. G-d would not intervene to save people who worshipped idols but G-d intervened to save Yaakov.

Another proof (if needed) that the Torah disapproved of the murder of the men of Shekhem by Shimon and Levi is that afterwards, in the entire Yosef story, Levi is not mentioned at all, and Shimon is only mentioned incidentally when Yosef locked him up to force his brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt, 42:24. Yaakov referred to Shimon being locked up, 42:36, but he made no effort to free Shimon. Their silence and anonymity are in contrast to chapter 34 where Shimon and Levi stand out amongst the brothers, and suggest that after what they did to the men of Shekhem they were sidelined in the family and lost any power, prestige they might have had. This would mean that the Torah gave Yaakov the last word, and their fall in the family can be the reason why the incident is recorded altogether since it serves as the background for the rise of Yehuda in the family.

Bibliography:

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

Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn, 1991, "Tipping the balance: Sternberg's reader and the rape of Dinah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 110:2, Summer 1991, pp. 193-211.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

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

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

Sternberg, Meir, 1985, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Bereshit 33:1-16 (Va-yishlach) - My brother, my enemy?

Bereshit 33:1-5 records that Yaakov and Esav hugged, kissed and cried when they met after not having seen each other for 20 years. Prior to the meeting, Yaakov was very scared of Esav, 32:8, but Esav was apparently extremely gracious.

Bereshit Rabbah 78:9 quotes two views as to whether Esav was really being friendly during this encounter. R. Shimon b. Eliezer states that Esav kissed Yaakov with all his heart, while R. Yannai claims that Esav really attempted to bite Yaakov. The idea that Esav attempted to bite Yaakov is far from the simple sense of the text, but was Esav, who initially wanted to kill Yaakov, 27:41, genuinely gracious to Yaakov? Why did Esav not attack Yaakov when they met?

One possibility is that Esav was truly a good person. Mark Twain followed this idea and wrote (1869, p. 22) "of Esav's sublime generosity to his brother who had wronged him."

Benno Jacob (1974, p. 226) suggests that Esav did not attack Yaakov due the wound that Yaakov received from fighting the night before. According to this idea, Esav took pity on Yaakov after he saw that Yaakov was wounded. Yet, if Esav had been waiting twenty years to take revenge, it is doubtful that seeing Yaakov wounded would have stopped him from attacking Yaakov.

Elhanan Samet (2002, p. 96-100) follows the idea that Yaakov fought with Esav's guardian angel the previous night, and claims that when the angel lost to Yaakov, the angel changed Esav's attitude towards Yaakov. I cannot accept this idea since I believe that Esav fought with Yaakov and not any guardian angel, see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"

Another possibility (see for example, Sarna, 1989, p. 229) is that Esav chose not to attack Yaakov since Yaakov was submissive to Esav. Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, 33:3, which showed that he accepted that Esav was the dominant brother. This idea is made more explicit when after Esav initially refused to accept Yaakov's gifts, Yaakov referred to the gifts as his blessing, 33:11. Also, when Yaakov's children bowed down to Esav, 33:6,7, this was a fulfillment of the blessing that was intended for Esav that Yaakov received from Yitzhak, that the sons of your mother will bow down to you, 27:29. As noted by many commentators (see for example, Sacks, 2009a, p. 226), Yaakov was giving back the blessings to Esav that he had falsely received from Yitzhak, 27:28,29.  With this idea, the reason why Esav wanted to kill Yaakov was because Yaakov had stolen the blessing, but now that Yaakov was making amends, there was no reason for Esav to try to kill him. (Note, Yaakov was not giving back the second blessing he received from Yitzhak, 28:3,4, which was the crucial blessing, see our discussion on 28:3,4 "Endogamy.") 

While I agree that Yaakov was trying to give the blessings back, I think that Esav did not attack Yaakov since he had just attacked him the night before and failed. Why did he not attack Yaakov in the morning with his four hundred men? The answer is that Esav wanted to kill Yaakov personally without it being public knowledge, so I think his generosity to Yaakov was contrived.

Whether Esav was truly a good soul or whether he still harbored hatred of Yaakov can be discerned from their conversation after Esav agreed to accept Yaakov's gifts. Esav then offered Yaakov that they should travel together, 33:12. Yaakov tried to decline the offer by claiming that his children and animals needed to walk slowly, while if Esav was with him, he would be end up being forced to walk quickly. However, Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, ostensibly to see Esav, 33:13,14.

It is not clear if Yaakov was being truthful in his response to Esav. It could be that he was lying since he was scared that Esav would attack him again if they traveled together, and he was just trying to politely get out of the offer to travel together. Furthermore, as Esav knew that Yaakov knew that he was the assailant the previous night (again see our discussion on 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?"), he would have understood that Yaakov had no intention of ever going to Seir. (In modern times, The Economist, 2011a, pp. 108, 109, writes "Chinese circumlocution is often a form of polite opacity. Chinese people don't like being too direct in turning down invitations or (as many journalists find) requests for interviews. So they will frequently reply that something is bu fang (not convenient). This does not mean reapply in a few weeks' time. It means they don't want to do it, ever.)

Or, it could be that Yaakov wanted to travel alone, possibly due to his wound from the fight in the previous night or for some other personal reason, and he did not want to bring up his wounds from the fight or the personal reasons, so he mentioned the children and the animals. With this possibility, it could be that he did intend to go to Seir, and that he went to Seir but this visit is not recorded. With this possibility, Yaakov had not initially been intending to go to Seir, but Yaakov made this offer in response to Esav's offer to travel together.

Regardless of what Yaakov meant or how Esav understood Yaakov's answer, Esav responded to Yaakov's concern about the children and animals, that Esav would leave some of his 400 men to help Yaakov travel, 33:15. Yaakov refused this offer without giving a reason. Maybe again Yaakov was worried about Esav attacking him or again he just wanted to travel alone. 

Esav made no response after Yaakov declined his offer of aid, and instead 33:16 records that he went back home. The Netziv (on 33:16) notes the difference between the parting between Yaakov and Esav and the parting between Yaakov and Lavan. Yaakov and Lavan ate together, stayed together at night and in the morning Lavan kissed and blessed Yaakov and his family, 32:54, 33:1. None of this occurred by Yaakov and Esav. Their encounter started very dramatically, but then it ended quickly with no sign of love and brotherliness. The Netziv deduces that Esav left in anger, and he explains that this anger is why Yaakov never went to Seir. The idea being that when Yaakov said that he would go to Seir, he meant it, but he just wanted to travel alone at his own pace. However, when Yaakov saw that Esav left in a hurry, he realized that his brother still hated him and it would be dangerous to go to Seir, and only then he decided not to go to Seir.

This refusal by Yaakov to accept Esav's assistance is another example of the flipping of the blessings of Yitzhak, only now by the blessing that Esav received. After Yaakov tricked Yitzhak, Esav begged Yitzhak for a blessing, 27:34, and then Yitzhak blessed Esav that while Yaakov would be the dominant brother, still Esav would be able to break off from his yoke, 27:40. Now, this blessing was being fulfilled in the opposite manner. Yaakov had bowed down to Esav, but Yaakov was breaking from Esav's yoke by wanting to travel by himself without Esav and Esav's men.

In any event, we can return to the question was Esav truly a good person? One could claim yes, that Esav forgave Yaakov for stealing the blessings, he was offering Yaakov to travel together and to help Yaakov, and he only got angry when he perceived that Yaakov was lying to him. However, since I think that Esav attacked Yaakov in the middle of the night to kill him (see our discussion on Bereshit 32:25-31, "Who fought with Yaakov?") his graciousness upon meeting Yaakov was false, and his anger when Yaakov rebuffed his offer to travel together indicated his true feelings towards Yaakov. Esav should have known that Yaakov would be wary of traveling with him and/ or under escort of his men, and if Esav had really changed or was a good soul, then when Yaakov rebuffed him, he should have accepted Yaakov's reluctance and just said something like "ok, we will be expecting you" and then left in a pleasant manner (good wishes/ mutual blessings/ handshakes/ kisses/ hugs). However, his leaving in a huff indicates that Esav was not a sublime fellow, but at most was temporarily touched by Yaakov bowing down to him.

Bibliography:

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.

Sacks, Jonathan, 2009, Covenant and Conversation: Genesis: The Book of Beginnings, Jerusalem: Maggid Books.

Samet, Elhanan, 2002, Studies in the Weekly Parsha, Hebrew, Jerusalem: Hemed.

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

Twain, Mark, (1869, first edition), 1966, The Innocents Abroad, New York: The New American Library.

Bereshit 35:27-29 - The end of the toledot section of Yitzhak: The homecoming

Bereshit 35:29 records the death of Yitzhak and this verse ends the toledot section that began in 25:19, “these are the toledot of Yitzhak.” The main character in this section, except for chapters 26 and 34, was not Yitzhak but Yaakov. Yaakov is alive and plays an important role for almost the entire continuation of the book of Bereshit (his death is recorded in 49:33), but except for chapters 48,49, Yosef and Yehuda are the main characters and not Yaakov. Thus 37:2 starts a new toledot section, “these are the toledot of Yaakov,” which signals the beginning of the story of Yosef.

There are some interesting parallels between Yaakov and Odysseus, the Greek hero. Gary Rendsburg (1984, also see C.H. Gordon, 1955) writes “the entire Jacob cycle, moreover, parallels the Odyssey, Sinuhe, and Gilgamesh where the protagonist must leave home and then happily returns.” He uses the parallelism between Yaakov and the Odyssey to explain 35:2, which records that Yaakov told his family, “Purify (wash) yourself, change your garments.” He argues that chapter 35 is the homecoming of Yaakov and when in ancient literature there was a homecoming, there was always a washing and changing of clothing prior to returning home. Thus, 35:2 records a washing prior to the homecoming of Yaakov. This last point is not clear since he notes (footnote #8) that it is possible that the washing in 35:2 was for cultic reasons and not simple cleaning before coming home. The cultic reason seems more likely since the washing was a while before Yaakov returned home to his father and seems to be directly related to G-d’s command to offer sacrifices at Bet-El, 35:1. Yet, one could argue that the homecoming was to Bet-El, where Yaakov had his dream when he left home, 28:19. In addition to this possible connection between Yaakov and Odysseus, other parallels between Yaakov and Odysseus can be found.

The first parallel between Yaakov and Odysseus is their personality that both were renowned for their cleverness. Homer continually refers to Odysseus as the wise or sagacious hero and Odysseus used tricks to explicate himself from difficult situations. Yaakov also used his intellect and tricks to overcome his difficulties with Esav and Lavan. Yaakov tricked his father, 27:35, and then was tricked by Lavan, 29:23-25. Afterwards, he became wealthy by using his acumen by raising animals, 30:28-43.  He then escaped from Lavan since Lavan was about to impoverish him, 31:42.  When Yaakov returned home, he showed his sagacity by giving Esav gifts and calling Esav his lord. This allowed Esav to think that he was the superior brother, which ended the conflict peacefully. Furthermore, when Esav offered to journey with Yaakov, Yaakov realized he might be walking into a trap, so he politely but determinedly refused to go, 33:12-16, see our discussion on 33:1-16, "My brother, my enemy?"

A second parallel between Yaakov and Odysseus is the structure of the stories here of Yaakov and the Odyssey. The Odyssey is usually divided into three sections. The first four books of the story record the troubles in Odysseus’s home that due to his absence there were many suitors for his wife. The next eight books record Odysseus travels on the way home from the battle at Troy. The final twelve books record the homecoming of Odysseus that he killed all the suitors and returned to his wife, son and father.

Chapters 25-33 follow the same structure though without all the gory killings and fantastic creatures. In chapters 25 and 27, there is trouble at home that Yaakov was not beloved by his father, and the parallel suitor here is Esav who was Yitzhak’s favorite. Chapters 28-31 record all the adventures of Yaakov when he was away from home. Coincidentally, both Yaakov and Odysseus were away from home for 20 years. While Rendsburg argued that chapter 35 should be thought of as the homecoming of Yaakov when Yaakov returns to his father, I would expand the homecoming to begin from chapters 32, as chapters 32 and 33 record that Yaakov returned to Israel and faced his brother. My understanding is that in the middle of the night Yaakov fought Esav (see our discussion on 32:25-31, 33:10, "Who fought with Yaakov?) which would parallel Odysseus fighting the suitors of his wife. But even if one follows the usual interpretation that Yaakov fought an angel, still in the end due to Yaakov, Esav left Yitzhak’s home, 36:9.

The third parallel is from James Joyce, who re-created the Odyssey in his book Ulysses. Daniel Boorstin (1992, p. 704) notes that Joyce chose Odysseus as his model since he was the most complete man in literature. Joyce writes “Odysseus is the son of Laertes, but he is father to Telemachus, husband to Penelope, lover of Calypso, companion in arms to the Greek warriors around Troy and King of Ithaca. He was subjected to many trials but with wisdom and courage came through them all.”

Could not Yaakov also be considered a complete man? Yaakov might even be more of a complete person than Odysseus if one looks at his relationships with his family members, father, mother, brother, uncle, four wives and children. For example, Yaakov is the only person, who the Torah records a conversation between the person and his mother, 27:6-13. Furthermore, Yaakov's relationship with Rahel is undoubtedly the most romantic relationship recorded in the Torah.

Joyce also notes that Odysseus did not want fight in Troy, but once he agreed he showed his heroism. This also occurred by Yaakov who did not want to fight Esav. He tried sending gifts to appease Esav, 32:14-21, but when he was attacked in the middle of the night, he showed his heroism by fighting even though he was wounded, and even insisted on getting a blessing, 32:26,27.

One difference between Yaakov and Odysseus is that Yaakov was only a leader of the family and not of many people, but by the time the family went down to Egypt, the clan consisted of 70 men. Also, in the end, Yaakov kept the family together, while Odysseus lost all his men by the time he returned home.

Erich Auerbach (1953, p. 17) notes another difference between Yaakov and Odysseus and other Greek figures, that in the stories of Homer the people do not age, while figures in Tanakh change with time. Auerbach notes that “Odysseus on his return is exactly the same as when left Ithaca two decades earlier. But, what a road what a fate, lies between the Jacob who cheated his father out of his blessings, and the old man whose favorite son has been torn to pieces by a wild beast.” Yet, if we “stop” the story of Yaakov when he returned to the land of Israel after twenty years, then he too does not yet seem to have aged. (This non-aging would exclude the story of Dinah, see our discussion above, 34:1-35:7, “How old was Dina when Shekhem wanted to marry her?” where I argue that this incident is recorded out of chronological order.) Note, Auerbach (pp. 7-12, partially quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, pp. 196-199) in his comparison of the Akedah with Homer has noted many other differences in style between Tanakh and the stories ascribed to Homer.

If one has accepted these comparisons between Yaakov and Odysseus, the question becomes is there any significance to the parallels? A possible answer is maybe both texts are trying to portray a real genuine hero that people can look up to. The hero is a person, who is not perfect. Thus, we see all the family relationships of the hero, the complete man of Joyce. The similar structures show the difficulties faced by the hero and how they were surmounted. The heroes are smart and show their greatness by conquering many challenges in their lifetime. They do not choose to fight, but if necessary, they are willing and able.

The depiction of Yaakov as a hero is not unique in the Torah. It also occurs by Avraham and Moshe. Avraham also overcame numerous tests, (Mishnah, Pirkei Avot 5:4 states that there were 10 tests) but Avraham was a different type of hero than Yaakov. Yaakov was a fighter who used his wisdom and strength to succeed while by Avraham the tests involved his faith in G-d. As for Moshe, some scholars have argued that the events of his birth followed the pattern of other heroes in literature, see our discussion on Shemot 2:2-6, "Moshe, a foundling?" Moshe was also a different type of hero from Yaakov and Avraham as he demonstrated great leadership abilities by guiding the people out of Egypt to the border of the Promised Land.

Bibliography:

Auerbach, Erich, 1953, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Boorstin, Daniel J., 1992, The Creators, New York: Random House.

Gordon, Cyrus, H., 1955, Homer and the Bible, Hebrew Union College Annual, 26, pp. 43-108.

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

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.

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.   

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.

Bereshit 34:1-35:7 (Va-yishlach) - How old was Dina when Shekhem wanted to marry her?

Bereshit chapter 34 records the rape of Dina and the subsequent massacre of the people of Shekhem by Shimon and Levi. When did this incident occur? If one follows the chronological order of the Torah, then it occurred when Yaakov was returning from Haran before he returned to his father in Hevron, 35:27. Yet, with this reckoning, Yaakov's children would have been very young at the time.

Yaakov spent twenty years in Haran, 31:38,41, and his children were born starting from his eighth year in Haran. Thus when Yaakov left Haran, Reuven, Yaakov's oldest son, would have been around 12. How long did it take for Yaakov to go from Haran to Shekhem? 33:17,18 record that after Yaakov's encounter with Esav on his return from Haran, he built a house in Sukkot, and then afterwards he went to Shekhem. This implies that he stayed some time in Sukkot. Rashi (on 33:17) based on the Talmud claims he stayed there 18 months, and in total, Rashi (on 28:9) records that it took Yaakov two years to return home. This could be, but it also could have been much less, a few months. Yet, even with Rashi's dating, still Shimon, who was approximately a year young younger than Reuven would have been around 13, and Levi who was approximately two years younger than Reuven would have been around 12 when the incident of Shekhem occurred, see Nazir 29b. Could such youths have killed an entire city? Would Hamor have negotiated with such young lads?

How old was Dina? We do not know when Dina was born. 30:21 records that she was born after Lea's sixth son, Zevulun, but how much afterwards? Ibn Ezra (on 30:21) notes that some claim that she was a twin with Zevulun which means she would have been around six when Yaakov left Haran. However, as we discuss on 30:23, "A bulging family," it is also possible that she was born after the seven years that Yaakov worked for Rahel, but her birth was recorded with the other births. Furthermore, 32:12,23, which do not refer to her, imply that she was born after Yaakov met Esav. In all of these scenarios, she would have been very young at the time when Shekhem the son of Hamor raped and desired to marry her, 34:2,3.

Ibn Ezra (on 33:20) notes the incongruity of the ages, and he explains that Yaakov must have spent a long time in Shekhem. With this understanding, the incident with Dina occurred at the end of this period. Yet, this also seems unlikely since Yaakov would have had to stay many years (maximum 11) in Shekhem. Yaakov was returning home from Haran. Would he have delayed so long to return home? Furthermore, 48:7 informs us that Rahel died when Yaakov was on his way back from Haran, but if he stayed many years in Shekhem, as Ibn Ezra suggests, then her death which is recorded after Yaakov left Shekhem, 35:17-19, could not be considered as being on the way back from Haran.

I think chapter 34 is not recorded in chronological order, and the question is when does the narrative re-start? One possibility is that 35:6 renews the description of Yaakov's return home from Lavan, and the second possibility is that 35:8 renews the journey. A difference between them is whether the building of the altar in 35:7 was on the way home (the first possibility) or after the events in Shekhem (the second possibility). Another related difference between the two possibilities is how many times did Yaakov go to Bet-El. According to the first possibility, three time, once when he ran away from Esav, once after he bought the land in Shekhem, and once after the massacre in Shekhem, while according to the second possibility, twice, once when he ran away from Esav, and once after the massacre in Shekhem

With either possibility, the chronology would be that after meeting Esav, Yaakov bought land in Shekhem, and built an altar, 33:19,20 and then he continued on his journey home, 35:6 or 35:8.

The incident with Shekhem occurred sometime during the twenty two years when Yosef was in Egypt, and all of Yaakov's children were grown-ups. The Torah did not record the incident in its chronological order in order not to interrupt the story of Yosef. (This would be similar to the mention of Yitzhak's death 35:28,29, which we know occurred 12 years after Yosef was sold into slavery, and Terah's death in 11:32 even though it happened 60 years after Avraham came to the land of Israel.) With this understanding, Yosef was not involved in this incident in Shekhem since he was in Egypt and maybe Yehuda was also not there since he had left the family for some period of time, 38:1.

This chronology explains four other anomalies in the text. One, Yaakov is very passive during the incident in Shekhem. 34:5 records that when he heard about the actions of Shekhem the son of Hamor he was silent, and he was not involved in the negotiations at all. Only in the end, when he realized what a disaster took place, did he criticize Shimon and Levi, and even then he let them have the last word. Why was Yaakov so passive? It is true that Yaakov had a passive personality (see our discussion on 25:27 "Yaakov's personality,") but one would have thought that when his daughter was raped this would have caused him to "break out" as he did when Lavan searched his possession. However, if chapter 34 occurred after the sale of Yosef, then Yaakov was depressed and even more passive than his usual self, and hence he was quiet when he heard about the rape. 

A second difficulty is that 37:12 records that the brothers went to graze their sheep in Shekhem and this is difficult if chapter 34 had already occurred since 35:5 records that the surrounding towns wanted to revenge the deaths of the people of Shekhem, see Rashbam on 37:13. Why would the brothers go there? The answer is that they were going to their land by Shekhem which Yaakov had bought and the massacre had not yet happened.

A third question is that 35:1 records that G-d told Yaakov to go to Bet El to build an altar. The usual understanding (see Rashi on 35:1) is that G-d was commanding Yaakov to fulfill his vow which he had made when he running away from Esav, 28:10-22. Why did Yaakov need G-d to prompt him to fulfill the vow? Why did Yaakov not fulfill the vow on his own after his successful encounter with Esav?

Many have criticized Yaakov for not fulfilling his vow. Bereshit Rabbah 81:2 records, “Yaakov’s ledger was examined because he delayed the fulfillment of his vow.” Rashi (on 35:1, also see Radak and Hizkuni on 35:1) writes more explicitly, “Because you have delayed to fulfill your vow to sacrifice to me at Bet-El, you have been punished by the troubles with Dina.” Yet, this punishment seems unrelated to the “sin,” since Yaakov sinned but Dina was also punished for Yaakov’s actions. Furthermore, once Yaakov went to Bet-El, G-d confirmed many blessings, 35:9-13, which is incompatible with the idea that Yaakov had sinned.

Abravanel suggests that Yaakov did not sin but that he had a different understanding of the vow. In the vow, Yaakov had stated that the condition of the vow was that he would return to his father’s house, 28:21. Hence, Yaakov thought that the conditions of the vow had not yet been fulfilled since Yaakov had still not returned to Yitzhak, as Yaakov was in Shekhem while Yitzhak was in Hevron, 35:27. Yaakov was intending to fulfill the vow, but only after he saw Yitzhak. G-d did not want Yaakov to wait, and thus G-d prompted Yaakov to fulfill the vow even before he came home. This approach is appealing, but one would have thought that the problem of coming home safely was Yaakov’s fear of Esav, and hence once Yaakov’s encounter with Esav ended safely, then there was no longer an appreciable danger that Yaakov would not return home safely.

With the suggested chronology above, Yaakov did not delay in fulfilling his vow. According to the first possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:6, then after Yaakov went to Shekhem, 33:18-20, he went to Bet-El, where he built an altar 35:6,7. G-d’s command in 35:1 to go to Bet-El was not for Yaakov to fulfill his vow since he had fulfilled the vow when he returned from Haran, but to pray to G-d after the massacre of the people of Shekhem, either for protection after the massacre or as a form of repentance. Note that in 35:1, G-d does not refer to the vow in chapter 28, but only to His appearance to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav. Just like G-d had protected Yaakov from Esav, so too Yaakov needed G-d’s protection from the people who lived around Shekhem, 35:5. With this understanding 35:5 is the end of the incident in Shekhem, and the Torah does not record Yaakov's (third) arrival in Bet-El after the incident in Shekhem.

With the second possibility, that the chronological narrative resumes in 35:8, Yaakov also did not delay fulfilling his vow, but he thought that the building of the altar in Shekhem, 33:20 was the fulfillment of his vow in 28:20-22, see our discussion above on 33:18-20, "A detour to Shekhem." The building of the altar in 35:7 was then in response to G-d's command in 35:1.

A fourth question is that 35:1 records that G-d not only told Yaakov to go to Bet-El, but also to live there. This has perplexed the commentators (see Ramban and Seforno on 35:1) since we see that Yaakov continues on from Bet-El to go to Yitzhak in Hevron, 35:8-27. Our chronology provides an answer because Yaakov could have stayed a long time in Bet-El since the travelling in the ensuing narrative from 35:8 onwards is when Yaakov was returning home and is not related to the period after the massacre in Shekhem.

35:1 also provides some hints as to where Yaakov lived when Yosef was in Egypt. Yaakov was living in Hevron when Yosef was sold to Egypt, 37:14. It is possible that afterwards the family stayed in Hevron, and would periodically return to Shekhem to the plot of land that Yaakov bought. With this possibility, it was during one of these visits years later that the incident recorded in chapter 34 occurred, and then in 35:1 G-d was telling Yaakov to go to Bet-El and stay there until he was ready to return to Hevron. A different possibility is that after Yosef disappeared, Yaakov moved to Shekhem either to look for Yosef or just because he needed to get away. After the incident with Shekhem, Yaakov realized that he was in great danger, 34:30, so G-d told him to go Bet-El and live there. With this understanding, it is possible that Yaakov lived in Bet-El until he went to Egypt.

To conclude, I believe that 34:1-35:5 or 34:1-35:7 are recorded out of chronological order, and the events recorded in the intervening section occurred when Yosef was in Egypt. Accordingly, when Yaakov returned from Haran, he went to Shekhem for a very short period, 33:18-20, and then he continued going south to Hevron to see his father.

Bereshit 32:29 (Va-yishlach)- The name Yisrael

Bereshit 32:29 records that the assailant in the fight with Yaakov changed Yaakov's name to Yisrael, based on the idea that "you (Yaakov) fought with Elokim and men and have prevailed." What does the name Yisrael mean?

The name seems to have something do to with fighting since the second and third letters in the name Yisrael (in Hebrew), "sr" are the same letters in the word for fighting in the explanation of the name. Furthermore, the last two letters of the name Yisrael, "el" refers to G-d, so there must be some connection with G-d.

The Radak (on 32:29) explains that the reference to Elokim in the explanation of the name is to the angel that Yaakov was fighting, and then the name Yisrael could mean to fight with G-d. This explanation is difficult for three reasons. One, as we discussed on 32:25-31, 33:10, "Who fought with Yaakov?" the assailant was Esav, and then Yaakov did not fight with G-d or an angel. (One could answer this question by claiming that Esav referred to fighting with an angel since as part of his deception he wanted to give Yaakov the impression that Yaakov was fighting with an angel.) Two, the name indicates chutzpah that a person is fighting with G-d. (One could partially answer this question by following Onkelos that the name Yisrael means that Yaakov had become mighty before G-d and not to fighting with G-d.) Three, as pointed by Altar (2004, p. 181) in names that ends with "el," usually G-d is the subject and not the object. For example, the name Yishmael, 16:11, means G-d hears or G-d will hear.

 
A second possibility is that the name Yisrael means, "G-d fights," see Fox, 1995, p. 155. Yet, what then is the connection of this name to the fight between Esav and Yaakov? Also, if the name is G-d fights, then one would expect G-d to win, while here Yaakov wins and not Elokim. One could claim that the term Elokim in the explanation of the name does not refer to G-d, but then there is even less connection to the incident here.

The more likely possibility is that name Yisrael means "G-d rules" or "G-d will rule." (Fox, 1995, p. 155 quotes this explanation from Buber, and Alter 1004, p. 181, follows this idea.) The idea being that fighting and ruling are related terms since usually the rulers of an area are people willing to fight, and the term sar in Hebrew means a ruler, as for example in Shemot 2:14. What then is the connection of the name Yisrael with this episode? Before suggesting an answer, we need to explain the explanation of the name, that "you fought with Elokim and people and prevailed."

A similar verse to 32:29 is 30:8 by Rahel's naming of Naftali (see Andersen, 1969, p. 200) raises an analogous question. In 30:8, Rahel said "I struggled with G-d (Elokim), struggled with my sister and I have prevailed." Both verses refer to struggling or fighting with G-d and other people and a person prevailing in the struggle. J.P. Fokkelman (1991, pp. 132-141) has also noted that Yaakov's fight with Esav is parallel to Rahel's fight with Lea, that both were the younger sibling fighting the older sibling. In 32:29 it is Yaakov who prevailed over Esav, while in 30:8 it is Rahel who believed that she prevailed over Lea. Yet, what can it mean in 30:8 that Rahel struggled with G-d? Rahel had a fight with Yaakov not with G-d, 30:1.

The phrase "Elokim and people" in 32:29 and by 30:8 means the natural order. Rahel was saying that she fought with the natural order, meaning she fought that the younger sister should prevail over the older sister. Similarly, Esav was saying that Yaakov fought with the natural order that the older brother should not dominate the younger brother, see our discussion on 25:29-34, "Code red". 

Accordingly, in the explanation of the name Esav was acknowledging Yaakov's victory over the natural order, that the younger brother was stronger than the older brother, but the name Yisrael was to bring Yaakov down to negate his victory. Esav wanted Yisrael to know that really G-d rules so he gave him the new name of Yisrael.

Bibliography:

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

Andersen, Francis, 1969, Note on Genesis 30:8, Journal of Biblical Literature, 88:2, June 1969, p. 200.

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

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