A.
In this week’s parasha, Ya’aqov prepares to meet his estranged and bitterly hostile brother, Esav. He sends out messengers, who reported Esav’s approach at the head of 400 men. As the tension mounts, Ya’aqov prepares a generous gift for his brother, prays for deliverance, and divides his camp into three, in hopes that, in the worst extremity, at least some of his wives and children might escape. In the end, the meeting goes well, and the brothers part, reconciled: וישב ביום ההוא עשו לדרכו שעירה (“And Esav on that day returned on his way to Se’ir;” XXXIII, 16).
Rashi follows the midrash in commenting on this verse: עשו לבדו וד' מאות איש שהלכו עמו נשמטו מאצלו אחד אחד. והיכן פרע להם הקב"ה? בימי דוד, שנ' "כי אם ארבע מאות איש נער אשר רכבו על הגמלים (“Esav [left] alone, and the 400 men who had come with him had abandoned him one by one. And when did the Holy One, Blessed is He, repay them? In the days of David, as it is said, ‘...except four hundred young men who were riding on camels’ [I Samuel XXX, 17]”).
If we turn to the actual midrash being quoted, we find the reason that his men had deserted Esav: אמרו שלא נכוה בגחלתו של יעקב (“They said, 'Let us not be burnt by the hot coal of Ya’aqov;'” ב"ר פע"ח סי' י"ט). The implication is that they sensed something spiritual which they could neither understand nor combat by ordinary military means, and so left the field rather than face it.
This power is mentioned in Leviticus XXVI, 8: ורדפו מכם חמשה מאה ומאה מכם רבבה (“And five of you will pursue one hundred, and one hundred of you ten thousand....”). Rashi ad loc. notes with Torath Kohanim that the first ratio refers to the weaker members of Israel, and the second to the gibborim, the strong. The first ratio breaks down to 1:20; the second ratio to 1:100. Now, consider that Ya’aqov had four wives and eleven sons at this point (Binyamin had not yet been born): They were the weaker ones. 15 x 20 = 300; Ya’aqov himself, fresh from his conflict with the angel, was the gibbor: Hence, 400 men were put to flight.
If this is so, then they had merely acted with prudence to save their lives; what is the debt (implied by the verb פרע “repay”) that the Holy One, Blessed is He, “repaid” in the days of David?
B.
The incident in David’s career to which the midrash and Rashi refer is the battle of Tziqlag. As David wandered about the country, trying to stay out of the way of the increasingly irrational King Sha’ul, his wives found refuge in the town of Tziqlag. At one point, as David arrived in the town with his escort, he found that it had been sacked, burnt to the ground, and all the inhabitants killed or captured. He and his men took off in hot pursuit, and caught up with the Amaleqi perpetrators as they were encamped, carousing and enjoying the spoils of war: ויכם דוד מהנשף ועד הערב למחרתם ולא נמלט מהם איש כי אם ארבע מאות איש נער אשר רכבו על הגמלים וינסו: (“And David struck them from dawn until dusk of the next day and not one of them escaped, except four hundred young men who rode on camels and fled”).
The midrash quotes most of the above verse, beginning with the words ולא נמלט, “and not [one] escaped.” Thus, from the midrash one would seem justified in concluding that the lives of the 400 Âmaleqim had been saved in recompense for the 400 men of Esav’s leaving the scene without a fight. Yet, the sharp-eyed reader will already have noted that Rashi significantly truncates the quotation, beginning with the words כי אם (“except for”) and leaving out the final וינסו (“and they fled”). It seems as though Rashi wishes to focus our attention on the fact that there were 400 of them, and they were riding camels. Why?
C.
If we return to Ya’aqov’s preparations for Esav, we find that he instructed his messengers to tell his brother that whilst staying with Lavan ויהי לי שור וחמור וצאן וגו' (“And I had [acquired] cattle and donkeys and ovicaprids....;” XXXII, 6). Conspicuous by their absence from the list are camels; yet, he certainly also had camels. Rachel, in her desperate and ill-fated attempt to wean Lavan of his idolatrous practices by stealing his idols, hid them in a camel’s cushion (XXXI, 34); indeed, the inventory of animals chosen for Ya’aqov’s gift to Esav included not only cattle, sheep, goats, and donkeys but גמלים מיניקות ובניהם שלשים (“nursing camels and their young, thirty;” XXXII, 16).
Now, we note that as a result of his encounter with G-d at Beyth-El, Ya’aqov vowed: וכל אשר תתן לי עשר אעשרנו לך (“...And [of] everything which You give me I shall surely tithe it to You;” XXVIII, 22; ועיי' ראב"ע על פסוק כ"א), and the mishna tells us: מעשרות סייג לעושר (“tithes are a fence around wealth;” אבות פ"ג מי"ג). Elsewhere, the midrash points out that Ya’aqov’s flocks and herds had increased far more than prudent animal husbandry alone could account for (ב"ר פע"ה סי' ו'), and his voluntary tithing was presumably the reason why. Indeed, the Chizquni, commenting on Ya’aqov’s statement in XXXII,6, suggests that he was specifically alluding to the supernatural rate of increase of the animals mentioned.
But not camels. If we examine the Torah to find those passages which deal with ma’sér behéma and bechoroth (cf. Exodus XII, 29; XIII, 2, 11-15; Leviticus XXVII, 32; Numbers XVIII, 15-18; and Deuteronomy XV, 19-21), we can find every animal in Ya’aqov’s list, but no others; camels are not mentioned.
Next, the Talmud discusses the parameters of gifts or bequests which one makes to another by means of a third party (shaliach), and concludes that if the giver of the gift has no reason to believe that the recipient will not accept it, the recipient acquires ownership as soon as the shaliach sets out to deliver the gift, even if the recipient later protests, either to the shaliach or to his benefactor, מפני שמזכין לאדם שלא בפניו (“because one may benefit a person in abesntia;” עיי' בבא בתרא קל"ז:-קל"ח.). His protest is discounted.
Finally, we note that Esav originally refused Ya’aqov’s gift: יש לי רב אחי יהי לך אשר לך (“I have much; my brother, keep what is yours;” XXXIII, 9) because, as Rashi tells us twice in comments on ibid., 4, Esav’s tender mercies had temporarily been awakened. It was only after Ya’aqov’s assurance, כי חנני אלקים וכי יש לי כל (“...for G-d has been gracious to me and I have all [I need];” ibid., 11) that Esav accepted the gift. But since Ya’aqov had pointed out to him (as we have seen) the supernatural increase of some of his animals, it seems likely that he took only those things in which "G-d had been gracious" to his brother. The list, as we have noted, did not include camels.
D.
Now let us put together what we have learnt.
At the time he sent the gift, Ya’aqov had every reason to believe that Esav would accept, if only because he believed that Esav would want to kill him and appropriate all of his property. Thus, as soon as Ya’aqov’s shaliach left with the gift, Esav owned it.
Nonetheless, after seeing his brother prostrate himself seven times before him, and hearing the respectful manner in which he addressed him, נכמרו רחמיו באותה פעם, as Rashi puts it: “[Esav’s] mercies were kindled on that occasion." His boastful pride would not allow him to accept the gift: יש לי רב -- ואיני צריך (“I have much [more than you] and need nothing;” Sforno ad loc.). Ya'aqov’s assurance of the supernatural origin of his abundance in the end persuaded Esav; his avarice overcame his pride, but only to the extent that he would accept the supernatural component; the camels, he left behnd.
But, as the Talmud establishes, he had already acquired ownership of them. They were no longer Ya’aqov’s camels. What is more, his 400 heirs (as the midrash establishes) had left without any input into the matter. It is concerning this, it seems to me, that Rashi understood the midrash’s question: When did G-d repay them?, and its answer: In the days of David, when the four hundred Amaleqim and their camels should have fallen into David’s hands, and they were allowed to escape with them.
Over the span of ten generations which separated Yehuda ben Ya’aqov from David (Ruth IV, 18-22), it is surely reasonable that 30 camels became four hundred.
We see in this, I think, another lesson in the meticulous observance and righteousness of our Patriarchs, and of how it is that moral and ethical issues are played out in the Divine calculus according to which our universe is run.
No comments:
Post a Comment